(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5, rated)
Loading...There are lots of Christian apologists among us today, who defend the Christian faith on rational grounds rather than purely theological, arguing not only that it is not intellectually problematic but that in fact there are “proofs” that it is true. The Greek word “apologia” literally means “defense,” rather than, well, “saying you’re sorry”; it is used not only for religious “defenses” but also to refer to the arguments of a defendant in a court case, most famously for the stunning account of the trial of Socrates written by Plato, and simply called “The Apology.”
I don’t recall ever hearing one of our modern apologists refer to their ancient forebears, but the academic study of ancient Christian apology is very interesting indeed. I took a PhD seminar in my grad program (we started by translating Plato’s Apology. Terrific!) and have been interested in it ever since. Among the most famous ancient apologists are Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, authors very much worth reading and studying.
Few people, however, have ever heard of the very first surviving apologist,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. I always find these lesser known characters the most fadcinating. Curiously, in Stephen King’s novel, The Green Mile, the death row miracle worker, John Coffey, (in many ways a Christ-like figure), cures the hero, prison guard, Paul Edgecombe, who then lives an unusually long life (he’s 104 and still in good health when the novel ends). Even a mouse, which Coffey cures lives for 60 plus years.
Quadratus means square in Latin and was the cognomen or surname of a number of eminent Romans.
To this day, we hear testimonies of Jesus’ miracles in various evangelical Christian churches, which often create a sense of expectation among their congregations to “receive a miracle.” However, there are also accounts of miracles in other religions that don’t receive much attention in the West. I find myself wondering what factors come into play to make these miracles happen. It would be interesting to hear one of these apologists use Quadratus’s argument.
Quadratus said that some of those who were healed and raised by Jesus lived to be over 100 years old?
Is that what was meant by the “everlasting life” phrase? John 3:15
I don’t think it’s what John meant. But maybe Quadratus thought so!
Is it surprising that none of the Gospel writers included similar claims in their gospels? For instance why didn’t Matthew claim to have spoken to the father or grandfather of somebody healed to give the stories of healings credibility? Or did this type of ‘verification’, false or otherwise, not occur?
Good question!
I recognize people lie. Your book Forgeries and Counterforgeries offers compelling examples of deception in the ancient world. But as a general principle in modern legal practice and in my own dealings with others, including ancient figures, I try to extend a presumption of innocence.
That principle (not merely my religious commitments) shapes my methodological approach to evaluating texts.
So rather than assuming Quadratus was correct in a simplistic sense (someone healed around AD 30 could still have been alive around AD 125- highly implausible) I’m also not prepared to label him a liar outright. So, what alternative explanations are available?
Quadratus says healed individuals “survived to our own time.” That statement doesn’t mean they were alive at the moment he was writing, only that they lived into his lifetime. If Quadratus were, say, around sixty in AD 125, he would have been born around AD 65. In that case, he could just as naturally say Peter/Paul “survived to his own time,” meaning they were alive during his early years.
For that reason, I see no compelling grounds to assume he was lying about having lived during the lifetime of people who claimed to have been healed by Jesus.
AOK. I too am firmly committed to “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to testimony etc. I’m also a firm believer in questioning each and every claim to see if it holds up. Most of the time it’s a judgment call. It hinges in a large part in this case on what “our own time” might mean. If he’s trying to prove that the miracle were quite … miraculous, it would seem a rather weaker argument to say, that people Jesus healed lived another 40 years than to say “they are still alive” — since living another 40 years after a near death experience is not in itself particularly miraculous or proof of a miracle. Just my view.
What leads you to conclude that Quadratus’s motive was to highlight the extraordinariness of Jesus’s miracles, rather than to argue that those who were healed were not merely literary figures who disappeared into legend? It could be that his point is that these individuals continued to live on within living memory, remaining accessible to inquiry. In that case, his statement would function to reinforce the idea that, by the early second century, the gospel accounts were understood as rooted in real historical events linked to identifiable persons whose lives extended into the remembered past.
Mainly that we don’t hear of proponents of Christianity addressing charges of historical narratives being literary accounts rather than historical claims. In every instance I can think of, both Christians and their opponents understood they were claims to what actually happened, and the disputes were over whether they did or not.
Could Quadratus be doing something broadly similar to what Papias claims to be doing? Papias seems to place special value on conversations with those who still had living memory of Jesus, treating their testimony as more compelling than written accounts based on secondhand information.
Might Quadratus be appealing to that same kind of evidentiary logic? In other words, could he be suggesting that those whom Jesus raised were still alive within living memory and could have been questioned by people of his own generation thereby reinforcing the credibility of the gospel accounts? On this reading, he wouldn’t be boasting about the extraordinary longevity of the miracles, but emphasizing their verifiability within living memory.
Yup, it could be something like that. Hard to know exactly. It seems pretty much like Paul’s claim that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. Whether he wants you to go ask any of them, or if he’s saying because it seems like it would be possible to do so and that that itself could be (and always has been) taken as evidence that it’s true, either way it’s an effective way to claim “there is incontrivertible evidenc!”
Quadratus does not boast that Jesus’ healings produced extraordinary longevity, as though the miracle consisted in extended lifespan. The force of the claim is not that Jesus granted supernaturally long life, but that these individuals were historically tangible. They were not literary symbols who vanished into myth; they lived on within accessible memory. A girl raised in her youth around AD 30 could plausibly have been alive into the late first century or remembered by those still living in Quadratus’ day.
This is precisely the kind of argument one makes when appealing to public memory, not when constructing legend. Legendary traditions tend to move events into a distant, unverifiable past. Quadratus instead anchors the miracles in recent history, implicitly inviting scrutiny. That rhetorical move makes better sense if the tradition was still connected to identifiable persons and living memory, strengthening the case that the gospel accounts were understood in the early second century as grounded in real historical events.
I wonder if Quadratus is addressing the fact that by his time, Jesus return is taking longer than expected. Maybe the assertion that people healed by Jesus are still alive is meant to show that Jesus words from Matthew 16:28 and the like in the other synoptics, has not failed? (Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom)
Just curious if that seems a plausible motivation for the apology?
Interesting idea!