EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21978, 13 June 1933, Page 11

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

THE PAGAN STANDPOINT In the Museum lecture room last night Dr R. Lawson, professor of education at Otago University, gave a lecture on “ Early Christianity, from the Pagan Standpoint.” Mr W. J. Morrell occupied the chair. Dr Lawson said that as he approached this subject from the side of classics, he must not be expected to present church history. The general reader was often puzzled to find in history a lop-sided account of early Christianity,—the classical writers seemed silent. As a matter of fact, in the- time just after the Crucifixion there were several authors of note who might have been expected to expound Christianity, or at least to decry it. The passage in Josephus, the Jewish historian, acknowledging Christ was a forgery,—indeed, one had to walk wanly in the writings of that age; for even inscriptions were forged. Pontius Pilate was said to have sent a report of the trial of Christ to the Emperor Tiberius, but this, if ever received, was not extant. Some early Christian -writers asserted that the emperor was so impressed that he wished to have Christ enrolled amongst the gods. Epictetus and Seneca, the former a slave, the latter a gentleman, writing at Rome during St. Paul’s lifetime, had many passages parallel to sopie-in the New Testament, but there was no evidence of copyr ing,—indeed, it was fairly certain that in some cases the pagan sentiment proceded the Christian. A sentence from Epictetus such as “What he would, he does not; and what he would not, that he does,” was obviously close to Paul s The good which I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. Seneca wrote: "Unless the mind be pure and holy it does not admit God," and many more such sentences. It was quite likely he knew St. Paul at Rome. He was also the, brother of Gallic, the Roman proconsul mentioned in the Acts. Educated Rome regarded the East with contempt* as the breeding place of quacks, astrologers, miracle-mongers, and fortunetellers. The serious Roman treated all Eastern thinking with disdain. In the East the advent of some great personage was expected. Judasa was an obscure province, far away; news came thence slowly. The Jews had been very troublesome and were commonly hated. The emperors disliked secret societies; they were possible centres of disorder. The Christians were at first regarded as a Jewish sect, and harassed accordingly. Further, the Christians adopted a militant attitude against the enormities and idolatry of the tune, and in return the world hated them because they were arrayed against its pleasures. Also they were accused of incivism, of acknowledging another king than Cassar, of refusing military service, of prophesying the burning of the world, of infanticide, cannibalism, and incest. When Epictetus spoke in two passages of “ Syrian and “ Galilaeans ” he probably meant Christians. Dr Lawson then read the wellknown passage in which Josephus speaks of “ Jesus, a wise man,” -as the Messiah a passage, unfortunately, which was regarded as spurious. It was not till the turn of the century ‘ that one found, a writer who definitely mentioned Christ. Suetonius spoke of “ one Christus, who stirred up tumults among the Jews —to him Christianity was a pestilent superstition which was treated with the severest punishment. He was writing in 120 A. p. of events which occurred under Nero about 65 a.d. About the same time Tacitus wrote his “Annals,” describing how Nero threw the.blame for the burning of Rome upon the Christians, a class of men hated for their general wickedness . . . they are haters of the human race. They were wrapped in the skins of beasts to be cast to dogs to devour; they were crucified; they were set alight like torches to give light by night as Hero drove through his gardens amid, the throng who had come to see the spectacle.” Tacitus was conscious of the wrong, but to him Christianity was only "a baneful superstition” originated by one Christus who was put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. Carlyle called this “ the most sternly sad and significant passage we know to exist in writing.” Dr Lawson read the famous letter of. Pliny to the emperor in 112 a.d. —the most informative of all the early pagan statements about the new religion. Pliny was a kindly gentleman. Yet he put two deaconesses to the torture in his zeal to find out what truth there was in the charges of informers. He found only “ a debased and immoderate superstition. Trojan’s reply to Pliny was creditable to his sense of justice. In effect he said: " Leave them alone, and take no notice of anonymous charges.” Dr Lawson made many cross references to the Scriptures in explaining this correspondence.' He said there were some important passages embedded in Christian apologists, which were believed to be taken from pagan writers, but of these he. was suspicious. He then went on to deal .with little known references to Galen. Galen was a famous physician and philosopher of the second century. Unfortunately the originals of his works'referring to the Christians were lost, but the Arabic scholars, who held him in high respect, had translated his Greek into Arabic, and this was later turned into Latin. Galen thought poorly of the intelligence of the early Christians, —naturally, as the movement was a proletarian one. But he thought them highly superior to the philosophers in the purity of their lives in justice, and in continence. “These Naz'iraeans,” he said, “have built up their faith on enigmas and miracles.” In tlie time of Galen the writer who after Celsus knew most about the Christians was Lucian. Hia works exhibited in many places a minute knowledge that must have come from personal acquaintance. His graceful play of fancy relieved his ridicule from bitterness; indeed like Pliny earlier in the century be gave the Christians a good certificate of character. It was to be noted that the writers of note did not accuse- the Christiana of the revolting crimes and indecencies charged upon them by the orator Pronto. A review of all the classical references in

those early years made it clear that Christianity retained its hold because of the constancy and the integrity of multitudes of unknown men and women, the “ignobile vulgus” to whom Christianity brought a vision of the good life for the first time. Educated pagans could not understand why the Christian invitation was issued to the scum of humanity, the outcast, the thief, the harlot, whereas the invitation to the classical mysteries was to “ everyone who has lived justly and well." Social contempt was very stropg at that time. None of the early classical writers understood the spiritual message of Christ —to them it was only a debased superstition. What they wanted was a philosophy. The new way to them was foolishness. If Christianity had first appeared in 1933 under the same circumstances as in the year 1 it would have met a more merciful, but not a more intelligent, reception than it did. Its claims as being in opposition to existing ones would have been derided, and its devotees, being of the proletariat, would have been contemned. No doubt the miraculous circumstances would have been better attested by eye-witnesses and better preserved by the modern press. But it was extremely doubtful if the spiritual conception of, deity and the supreme claim of Christ would have been generally accepted. At the same time, one might be pardoned for asking why Christ took apparently no thought for the preservation of Hia words in permanent form. Why, also, was the Far East completely passed by, and Rome and Athens? Further, it was not surprising that the Romans looked askance at a religion which taught men tef despise this life, which said Tittle or nothing about-the duty of public service, and which encouraged its votaries to win a martyr's crown rather than yield to imperial commands-where their belief was jeopardised. There was no word of patriotism in the New Testament: “We are strangers and pilgrims upon the earth,” said the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nor was there any commendation of intellectual labour. (On the other hand, the spiritual blindness of the Greco-Roman seemed like deliberate, perversity; he did not iinderstand the revelation of the Chrisfian. “ There is," said the lecturer, “as \yell as what I have offered you, the evidence of the New Testament, of the early Christian apologists, and, strongest of all, the existence of Christianity itself. These early martyrs did not give their lives for a myth, .nor did they conceive they were being inducted into some new philosophy of Greek sages or Oriental hierophants. A philosophy to these poor people of the dawp, the proletariat, as we have seen, what a- mockery that would have been! They would have rejected it with derision or sad indifference. What bad philosophy to offer the suffering, the guilty, the down-trodden, the brokenhearted? But a new voice was heard amongst them, a voice having authority and breathing hope, expounding no subtleties, demanding no preliminary training, condescending only to a minimum of dederision or sad indifference. What’ had its Sacrificial demands on its accipients, and invites all who will to follow it to the end. Furthermore, the personage with the voice of authority treads the New Way himself, ’.saying, in effect: ‘To achieve a higher life, renounce this. 5 No wonder they did not understand Him. And no wonder that early pagan writers ' regarded Christians as poor, deluded folk worshipping their ‘ sophist ’ who was crucified in Palestine after teaching them that * all goods were common (to use Lucian’s language), that all men were brothers, and that they would all be immortal. 5 ” , A cordial vote of thanks was accorded to Dr Lawson for his lecture.