Arnobius, the 4th Century Christian scholar on the issue.
Why did Jesus – if we assume that he was divine for argument’s sake – come when he did and not earlier? This was a popular critique of Christianity by pagans during the Roman period and it’s a question not only early Christians struggled to answer but Christian apologists right up to the present time also have problems with. Let’s see how the early 4th century Christian writer Arnobius of Sicca tries to defend Jesus’ late arrival to ‘save mankind’.
So why so late? Surely if the matter of the salvation of mankind is entirely reliant on his appearance, Jesus should have shown a lot more urgency in coming to put mankind on the right path. Instead, he came fairly late in human affairs – only two thousand years ago. And obviously for people of the Roman Empire that was very recent indeed – similar to someone being born around the 18th or 19th century for us in the 21st century.
You could also extend this issue to the rest of Jesus’ life in which he seems to show no urgency to spread the ‘good news’ with the gospel accounts of his life being full of inexplicable delays for no good reason. For instance, Jesus wanders around in the wilderness for forty days. Does a divine being need to think about things for so long? Jesus only decides to take up preaching at the relatively advanced age of thirty. Again that doesn’t sound like he had some sort of divine plan much less coming to ‘save mankind’. Or Jesus waiting for three days to resurrect himself again for no apparent reason at all. And of course the ‘second coming’ which again for no good reason is simply being delayed for longer than 2000 years even though Jesus confidently declared in the gospel of Mark (13:30) that he will come back within his followers’ lifetimes. But for now, let’s stick with just the matter of Jesus appearing in Roman times and the related implications.
His book
Arnobius of Sicca tries to answer this question in his polemic against pagans called ‘Adversus Gentes’ or Against the heathen’ where he quite vociferously challenges pagans and pagan religion while defending Christianity. From his writings, Arnobius comes across as a very confident individual attacking those
‘who profess to be worshippers of the deities, and devotees of an antiquated superstition. ‘
By the way in a previous post, I had a look at what the 5th-century historian and theologian Paulus Orosius said on this same issue in his book ‘Seven books of history against the pagans’ (Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII). And if you’d like to check that out, there is a link to that post at the end. These polemics against paganism and apologetics for Christianity weren’t a new phenomenon of course. St. Augustine would write his famous work ‘On the City of God Against the Pagans’ – challenging the speculation by pagans that Christianity was either causing or certainly partly causing the decline of the Roman Empire and the prosperity of Roman society.
This was just after the city had been sacked in 410CE by the Visigothic army under their King Alaric. In his book Augustine first attacks pagan beliefs before in the second half defending Christianity itself. There were various earlier works from the 3rd and 4th centuries as well countering criticism by pagans like Porphyry and Celsus and later critics. Lactantius, for example, in the early 4th century would author his book ‘The Divine Institutes’ to defend Christian theology and to show pagan worship as being entirely futile. And so on.
These kinds of Pagan/Christian interactions, critiques and rebuttals are a valuable insight into the kind of religious debate that was raging at the time of the late Roman period. Unfortunately, very few pagan-authored books critiquing Christianity have survived as they were banned by later Christian Roman Emperors. Only the works of Porphyry, Celsus and the works of the Emperor Julian have survived to the present time in some form or another. So Christian-authored books like Arnobius’ work mentioning precise pagan criticisms, views and issues regarding Christianity are doubly valuable as having preserved some of these debates and dialogues.
Who was Arnobius?
So who was Arnobius and where was he from? Well, we have very little information on the man. He was a well-educated rhetorician and came from Sicca Veneria in what is modern-day Tunisia. Sicca was a largely Christian city by the time of Arnobius and has the Arab name of El Kef now. And this city was pretty close to Carthage – the main metropolis of Roman Africa – around 200km to the southwest. The Christian theologian Jerome mentions that Lactantius was a pupil of Arnobius. Lactantius would later become the tutor for Crispus, the eldest son of Emperor Constantine. So Arnobius it’s fair to say was well thought of and had a reputation.
In terms of the time, We know Arnobius lived at the very tail end of the pagan period. He is estimated to have written his book circa 303CE and as you can see from the timeline this was around the same time that the Diocletian persecution of Christians was taking place. In fact, the book seems to be a response to the persecution and a counter-attack against paganism. But he also lived during much of the period of Constantine’s reign and when Christianity finally became established with imperial support so essentially he was a writer of the early Christian Roman period as well. Arnobius is reported to have died around 330CE. And that’s pretty much all we know about the man apart from what he wrote in his work. The only copy of his work ‘Against the heathen’ that now survives is a 9th-century manuscript currently in Paris.
The precursor of Pascal’s wager
Arnobius is known as being the first person we know of to use the flawed reasoning which became known as Pascal’s Wager. Put simply Pascal’s Wager puts forward the idea that the threat or the chance of the Christian Hell and eternal torment being real was too great to ignore or risk and that therefore it was better to believe in Christianity just in case. In other words, belief can legitimately be based on fear of the unknown rather than clear reasoning or genuine conversion.
‘…is it not more rational, of two things uncertain and hanging in doubtful suspense, rather to believe that which carries with it some hopes of the Christian heaven, than that which brings none at all [paganism]? For in the one case [Christianity] there is no danger, if that which is said to be at hand should prove vain and groundless; in the other there is the greatest loss [hell], even the loss of salvation, if, when the time has come, it be shown that there was nothing false in what was declared.’
As the name suggests, this argument was later also put forward by the 17th-century Frenchman Blaise Pascal and was and is still a favourite of many Christian apologists and missionaries up to the present time. Muslims also use Pascal’s wager in their missionary activities to convert people to Islam as well. Islam also has the concept of unlimited torture in a physical hell for non-believers and a paradise for Muslims so Pascal’s wager can easily be used in the cause of Islam as well.
His reason for writing the book
So why did Arnobius write his book? Well even during the time of Diocletian (with the sack of Rome by the Goths still being a hundred years away) there was a widespread feeling that the empire and Roman civilisation and power were in measurable decline. The pagans blamed it on the rise of this new Puritan belief of Christianity, its teachings, alien culture and traditions and the resulting fracturing of the previously tolerant Roman society with Christians openly mocking and contemptuous of Greco-Roman beliefs and traditions and refusing to partake in the time honoured religious customs of the state. The ambition to counter the accusation that Christianity was at fault gave Arnobius the reason to write his book – a lengthy diatribe against the Greco-Roman religion.
He writes…
‘Since I have found some who deem themselves very wise in their opinions, acting as if they were inspired, and announcing with all the authority of an oracle, that from the time when the Christian people began to exist in the world the universe has gone to ruin, that the human race has been visited with ills of many kinds, that even the very gods, abandoning their accustomed charge, in virtue of which they were wont in former days to regard with interest our affairs, have been driven from the regions of earth, – I have resolved, so far as my capacity and my humble power of language will allow, to oppose public prejudice, and to refute calumnious accusations;’
Arnobius on Greek theories on matter being constructed from atoms
Arnobius interestingly also shows some contempt for Plato and other pagan thinkers at some points. Scientific issues like the construction of matter from atoms and molecules for example which the Greek philosophers speculated on he seems to think are ‘perverse convictions’ and not compatible with Christianity. And similarly, he has little time for agnostics and atheists.
‘But perchance someone dares-for this remains for frantic madness to do-to be uncertain, and to express doubt whether that God exists or not; whether He is believed in on the proved truth of reliable evidence, or on the imaginings of empty rumour. For of those who have given themselves to philosophizing, we have heard that some deny the existence of any divine power, that others inquire daily whether there be or not; that others construct the whole fabric of the universe by chance accidents and by random collision, and fashion it by the concourse of atoms of different shapes; with whom we by no means intend to enter at this time on a discussion of such perverse convictions. For those who think wisely say, that to argue against things palpably foolish, is a mark of greater folly.’
So on the general matter of science, he seems to reject Greek thinking almost consigning it to madness. And similarly so regarding Greek philosophy and science in general.
‘You, you I address, who zealously follow Mercury, Plato, and Pythagoras, and the rest of you who are of one mind, and walk in unity in the same paths of doctrine. Do you dare to laugh at us because we revere and worship the Creator and Lord of the universe, and because we commit and entrust our hopes to Him? What does your Plato say in the Theoetetus, to mention him especially? Does he not exhort the soul to flee froth the earth, and, as much as in it lies, to be continually engaged in thought and meditation about Him?… ‘
‘…What virtues did you follow in the philosophers, that it was more reasonable for you to believe them than for us to believe Christ? Was any one of them ever able by one word, or by a single command, I will not say to restrain, to check the madness of the sea or the fury of the storm; to restore their sight to the blind, or give it to men blind from their birth; to call the dead back to life; to put an end to the sufferings of years; but-and this is much easier -to heal by one rebuke a boil, a scab, or a thorn fixed in the skin?’
So as you can see, Arnobius gives more credence to the alleged miracles of Christianity emphatically rejecting the sound scientific rationale and reasoning of the ancient Greek thinkers.
The modern explanations
So how do modern-day Christian apologists explain this reticence by Jesus to come earlier? Well to their credit most readily admit they don’t know why he didn’t come earlier. Instead, they mostly focus on trying to make the most of when he was born and argue that that particular time seems to be the perfect time for his birth for various reasons. And therefore that was the time that was deliberately chosen by Jesus for his arrival. Why an all-powerful god has to be dependent on earthly events to give his new religion the best chance of survival is not explained.
So the various reasons are as follows and these explanations are very popular and do superficially make sense – from a Christian perspective in any case. But in my opinion. none of them stand up to any sort of great scrutiny.
1) That the Jews were waiting for a Messiah
Arguably the most popular one of course is the Jewish expectation of a messiah and the various obscure prophesies in the Old Testament relating to this. But even if we accept that Jesus’ hands were tied and he was constrained by the biblical scriptures to come when he did to ensure the prophecies proved correct, this still works against the Christian argument. The truth is the Jews by and large rejected Jesus rather than accepting him. And if we assume Jesus was divine then surely he must have known that the Jews would reject him. So descending to earth simply to fulfil some prophecy or their wait for a messiah makes no sense when he knew the outcome would be a negative one. He may as well have come at any other time.
2) That the Roman Empire was necessary and aided the birth of the new religion
Another popular reason given is the expansion of the Roman Empire and the peace that Roman power brought, in other words, Pax Romana.
Pax Romana meant the entire Mediterranean area was open for travel in relative safety so Christian missionaries could easily move around the empire and propagate the new faith. In addition, the Romans built roads which facilitated this travel. They developed the postal system as well which further eased communication within the empire. And these reasons are touted as having greatly helped the new faith.
However, the general idea that the Roman Empire helped Christianity is highly debatable. While these things may have helped to an extent, these were hardly important enough for Jesus to delay his coming for hundreds of years. Other religions and ideas spread easily before the coming of the Romans as the Mediterranean had extremely well-developed maritime trade routes as well as overland routes. The Mediterranean has always been a trading hub from very early times and the Greeks and other people like the Phoenicians travelled widely and traded extensively and settled in various places all along the coast of the Mediterranean well before the Roman period. You could almost count the Mediterranean countries and city-states dotted along the coastline and countries as a single economic unit for many hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
3) That a common language (Greek) the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the Eastern Mediterranean was necessary
Allied to the argument about the Roman Empire was the matter of language, the lingua franca being Greek in the entire eastern half of the empire with Latin as the official language in the west and widely used in the Eastern Mediterranean as well by Jesus’ time. Christian apologists argue that this meant missionaries could not only spread the message much more easily using Roman roads and transport but could preach in Greek or Latin making the propagation of the message much easier and quicker. This they say is also part of the reason Jesus decided to come down during the Roman Empire era.
But if the use of Greek as a lingua franca was a big factor in Jesus’ decision to come down when he did, then surely the much better time for him to come would have been during the time of the Tower of Babel when everyone spoke a single language and all mankind was situated in one location. That would have been the very best of times for Christianity to not only appear but propagate as well. After the Tower of Babel incident, god scattered the people all around the world according to Jewish scriptures and created multiple languages to confuse the human race making the job of Jesus and his sidekicks much more difficult.
4) That the decline of paganism heralded the coming of Christianity
Another reason Christian apologists give for Jesus deciding the time was ripe for his descent was the assertion that the people of the time were already giving up on paganism, that paganism was dying and belief in the greco-roman gods was gradually disappearing and therefore the time was just right for the appearance of Jesus and the new religion to fill the spiritual vacuum as it were.
But this argument isn’t born out by the information we have on the period. Historians estimate less than 10% of the population of the empire was Christian by the time of Constantine, more than three hundred years after Christ. And while that is reasonable growth you could hardly say Christianity spread like wildfire. It was only after Constantine championed Christianity and the later Roman Emperors began banning pagan worship on pain of death that the vast bulk of people were coerced into conversion. Even around a hundred years after Constantine, during the time of the fall of Rome to the Goths in 410 CE, we know there was still a substantial proportion of pagans in the empire – enough to propel St. Augustine into writing his work City of God to try and refute the argument that pagans were making that Christianity was largely at fault for the Roman Empire’s misfortunes. Now if the pagans had been a tiny minority by that time then certainly the book would not have been necessary. And secondly, you could argue Christianity spread after the Roman empire crumbled in the West with Northern Europe, Scandinavia and Russia for example being converted by force or persuasion in the coming centuries. Certainly, the lack of roads, the lack of a common language in Northern Europe and the disappearance of the Roman Empire did not affect the progress of Christianity at all. As with today, it was the proselytising momentum that was the important factor.
So these are some of the popular explanations that modern apologists use about Jesus appearing so late in proceedings. I won’t go through all the other popular reasons as that would take time but one of the more colourful explanations I’ve seen for Jesus waiting till the Romans arrived in Judea was to ensure that he would be crucified. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. Hence some apologists argue, the Roman takeover of his homeland and subjugation of the Jews was completely necessary for this divine plan to work. This though makes crucifixion the only means by which mankind’s salvation could take place with no other means of death for Jesus being valid and therefore has obvious flaws.
Arnobius’ explanations
So how does Arnobius tackle the issue? His explanations as mentioned earlier tend to be very different from modern ones being arguments that Christians of the Roman period might have used.
God works in mysterious ways
Arnobius describes the pagan questioning as follows.
‘And why, my, opponent says, did God, the Ruler and Lord of the universe, determine that a Saviour, Christ, should be sent to you from the heights of heaven a few hours ago, as it is said?’
Well to his credit he does try and answer this vexing issue in several ways although none are particularly satisfactory. Firstly he points out that nature itself, and by extension the Christian God that controls it, doesn’t always work quite according to time with adverse events happening as God commands. God can, for example, send winter later than expected or spring can come earlier than it should. In the same fashion, we can get torrential rain at some times when rain is not required and drought a few months later when rain is required. Put simply he is saying there is no rhyme or reason or logic as to how the Christian God decides to unfold events on earth – and that includes sending his son to help us gain salvation.
‘There was then some reason here also that the Saviour of our race came not lately, but today. What, then, you ask, is the reason? We do not deny that we do not know. For it is not within the power of anyone to see the mind of God, or the way in which He has arranged His plans. Man, a blind creature, and not knowing himself even, can in no way learn what should happen, when, or what its nature is: the Father Himself, the Governor and Lord of all, alone knows.’
It’s effectively an early version of the ‘God works in mysterious ways’ explanation – pretty much the stock Christian answer for unexplainable events in later centuries.
Pagans too need to answer the same question
But he also turns the question around making the same point regarding pagan heroes and gods. He asks why people like Hercules were born when he was. Why Aesculapius developed the art of medicine at the time he did? Or why some of the Greek Gods came to earth at some point in time and not earlier – explaining that people born earlier never had the benefit of knowing these personalities either. So effectively the pagans must answer the same question regarding their heroes and gods. Any explanation they come up with Zeus or Apollo or Hercules walking on Earth at a particular time and not earlier can equally be applied by the Christians to Jesus appearing on Earth when he did as well and not earlier.
Nothing is ever early or late
And then Arnobius goes on to argue that events unfolding as and when they do cannot be seen as right or wrong or early or late and that the sequence itself can’t be seen as incorrect in some way or inactivity or laziness by the Christian god in organising salvation for mankind.
‘You may object and rejoin, Why was the Saviour sent forth so late? In unbounded, eternal ages, we reply, nothing whatever should be spoken of as late. For where there is no end and no beginning, nothing is too soon, nothing too late. For time is perceived from its beginnings and endings, which an unbroken line and endless succession of ages cannot have.’
So all in all in the never-ending stream of time, one thing will always come before something else and everything is relative. If Jesus had been born say a few decades earlier, then he suggests people would be questioning why he wasn’t born even earlier. In the matter of the progress of time, no event can be inherently early or inherently late. God has a reason for everything.
But this is not a satisfactory explanation for the very direct issue of Jesus not coming earlier so that more people could benefit from his presence on Earth. Even if we imagine Jesus coming say five or ten years earlier – never mind a thousand years – that would have meant more people hearing his message and gaining ‘salvation’ before they died. If we accept Arnobius’ explanation that time doesn’t matter, then Jesus might as well have popped up at the very end of time – a million years from now say – and that would have been just as fine as coming during the Roman period which doesn’t make any sense. So the sequence of events – particularly when it comes to the all-important matter of salvation – does matter very much indeed.
That this was the most appropriate time
But Arnobius like modern-day apologists also seems to have given thought to which time would have been the best for Jesus and naturally defaults to 1st century Judea as the very best time and place. But his reasoning is different from modern-day Christians. Earlier humans, he writes, needed a different kind of help being more primitive and less advanced in civilisation. So help with food and shelter was the main concern in those days. However, with the advance of civilisation, the needs of the present generation were quite different from those born a few hundred or a thousand years earlier and with different needs. The spiritual need was the greater help that was needed in the Roman age with a decline in morals, humanity was becoming weaker if anything he argued. And that god foresaw this and had already determined to send Jesus at this particular time.
‘So, then, it may be that Almighty God, the only God, sent forth Christ then indeed, after that the human race, becoming feebler, weaker, began to be such as we are. If that which has been done now could have been done thousands of years ago, the Supreme Ruler would have done it; or if it had been proper, that what has been done now should be accomplished as many thousands after this, nothing compelled God to anticipate the necessary lapse of time. His plans are executed in fixed ways; and that which has been once decided on, can in no wise be changed again.’
Needless to say, the assertion that the human race was getting more feeble and morally corrupt was a gross exaggeration. The Roman Empire had not even reached its peak during Jesus’ time – that would still be two hundred years in the future – and was still gaining strength and organisation. The Roman Empire would decline and fall during the Christian Period rather than the pagan period. And looking further afield, Arnobius could only speculate on the Mediterranean society he lived in so to say the entire human race – Asians, Northern Europeans, Africans and Chinese were all becoming feebler at the same time is just nonsensical. But according to Arnobius, God foresaw humanity getting feebler and that Jesus’ arrival had already been pre-planned in heaven as the best time.
Why is the only true religion so new?
So following on from this question of Jesus being so late in coming to save humanity was the related but arguably more important question of why the newly formed religion of Christianity itself was also so new considering it was so different from Judaism which gave birth to it and could be considered its parent. Why had the ‘true religion’ only suddenly appeared in the last couple of hundred years
‘But our name is new, we are told, and the religion which we follow arose but a few days ago. ‘
Now the Christian claim was that Christianity was not new at all but simply a follow-on from Judaism – a newer version of Judaism if you like – where the only difference was that Christians had accepted Jesus as the messiah while the Jews did not. In this way, Christianity inherited the gravity and respect that the older and more well-established religion had and which a new startup would find difficult to develop.
But it was quite apparent to all – Jews, pagans and Christians alike- that Christianity from its very earliest period was a new and different religion. Christianity had divorced itself from Judaism very quickly and had jettisoned pretty much all the Jewish baggage even though it retained a vestigial link with Judaism by retaining the Jewish scriptures which Jesus himself had studied and read and considered holy. But even these had been relegated to a much lesser status by being labelled as the ‘Old Testament’ which Jews found insulting. Instead, the Christians effectively had a new holy book in the form of the New Testament.
Christians ..
Did not believe in the Mosaic Law
Did not go to the synagogue but had formed their own churches and network
Did not believe in the Jewish scriptures but had the ‘New Testament’
Did not believe in a single indivisible god but a ‘Trinity’
Had their own holy book – the so-called New Testament
Had their own (separate) dogma, customs, traditions and festivals
Ate non-Kosher food
Had their own ‘Holy days’
None of the core beliefs were the same – the all-important Mosaic law was gone. Every festival, custom and tradition that defined Judaism was gone as well and replaced with new Christian beliefs, traditions and holy days. Put simply nobody could mistake a Christian for a Jew and vice versa. Early Christians in any case did not even call themselves Jews anymore. The new religion was effectively a personality cult revolving entirely around the person of Jesus himself and his supposed divinity. So this explanation that Christianity was always there and is simply an evolution of Judaism simply didn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The problem this creates
So what is the problem with that, you might be asking? Well, early Christianity being so different and separate from Judaism suggests an unloving god.
– Why would God have allowed the Jews to remain in error regarding the nature of the ‘Messiah’
– Why did he not make the prophecies regarding a ‘Messiah’ crystal clear to banish all doubt about Jesus
– If Christianity is so radically different from Judaism – why didn’t Jesus come earlier with the ‘truth’
The fatal flaw with a new religion pretending to have all the answers and declaring itself as the only true belief was that the only logical conclusion you could come to was that God did not have the best interests of humanity at heart.
If he did have our interests at heart…
1) He would have corrected the Jews on their understanding of the messiah who was to come well before Jesus was born. Rather than a King who would free them from foreign powers, he would be the son of God himself giving them salvation. There were plenty of prophets who came before Jesus so communication of this message would not have been a problem. From the time of Moses onwards none of the Jewish prophets mentioned anything about a son of god being crucified and that this would be the culmination of the Jewish prophesies. He certainly wouldn’t have allowed an error of such magnitude as the Messiah not being recognised to continue without rectifying it.
2) Secondly and better still he would have given far clearer prophecies of a coming messiah in the first place which would have left no room for doubt at all in anyone’s mind when Jesus was born that he was the Messiah. Mentioning the date, time, exact name of the Messiah, name of parents and location of his birth would have helped to clarify the issue completely instead of the usual vague prophesies seen in the Old Testament.
3) Thirdly if the Jews were so far in error in their traditions and customs which early Christianity rejected then he should have sent Jesus much earlier in any case to clarify the situation for all – not just for Jews but for pagans as well.
He did none of these things and therefore the conclusion has to be the Christian god didn’t have our welfare at heart. But that was patently wrong. Surely God would not deliberately leave humans in error for so long for no reason. The truth must always have been with us, God must have our salvation in mind from the very beginning. So there was a strong case for the old beliefs of paganism or Judaism which had been going for a thousand years or more being the true beliefs and this was what many pagans might have been alluding to as Arnobius pointed out.
But your religion precedes ours by many years, and is therefore, you say, truer, because it has been supported by the authority of antiquity.
Arnobius on antiquity is of no importance
On this point, Arnobius seems to brush aside arguments or certainly didn’t seem to understand the point that God would not simply reveal the truth at some arbitrary point. He argued the age of a belief was of no matter and that the truth was the important thing. Therefore Christianity being new was neither here nor there.
‘And of what avail is it that it should precede ours as many years as you please, since it began at a certain time? or what are two thousand years, compared with so many thousands of ages?’
He argued that all religions had to start at some point which in effect invalidates the pagan beliefs as well.
‘But our rites are new; yours are ancient, and of excessive antiquity, we are told. And what help does that give you, or how does it damage our cause and argument? The belief which we hold is new; some day even it, too, will become old: yours is old; but when it arose, it was new and unheard of. The credibility of a religion, however, must not be determined by its age, but by its divinity; and you should consider not when, but what you began to worship. Four hundred years ago, my opponent says, your religion did not exist. And two thousand years ago, I reply, your gods did not exist.’
But while he was right to insist that the age of a religion is of no consequence, the main question remained unanswered – why did God delay such a message for so long on which humanity was dependant for its salvation? The pagans did not insist on having the only true answer but Christianity did and therefore it had the burden of proof. Declaring Christianity as the only true belief and the only one in which the divine being appeared on earth puts the onus on its believers to justify every failing and every delay in the truth being received by humans,
The issue of converts having to reject greco-roman pagan culture and traditions
Another question related to the newness of Christianity itself was the issue of the Greeks and Romans having to effectively reject and jettison much of their age-old culture, customs, traditions and religious festivals for something alien and originating from Judea and Judaism. Surely there was something wrong in this with the wholesale loss of a way of life and the adoption of another way of life that many Greeks looked down on as barbaric since the Jews and Christians had produced none of the great thinkers and scientists that Greek pagan culture had done. Arnobius articulates their feelings about this change and challenges this negativity.
‘For as to that with which you have been in the habit of taunting us, that our religion Christianity is new, and arose a few days ago, almost, and that you could not abandon the ancient faith which you had inherited from your fathers, and pass over to barbarous and foreign rites Christian religion, this is urged wholly without reason.’
Arnobius answered that change is happening in all aspects of life and even in nature so there is nothing inherently wrong in change itself if the message is true. And he gives the example of man himself developing from a primitive lifestyle to a more civilised one and changing from wearing animal skins to clothes or making the move to living in houses instead of primitive huts or caves. Or growing crops instead of just picking acorns and wild fruit to live on. Similarly so with human customs and traditions in every culture constantly change over the ages. Now since the Greeks acknowledged that their way of life had changed over the centuries and saw nothing wrong in this change it would be hypocritical for them to condemn Christians for changing their mode of life and leaving pagan culture for a Christian one.
‘Therefore, when you urge against us that we turn away from the religion of past ages, it is fitting that you should examine why it is done…
… For if it is a fault or crime to change an opinion, and pass from ancient customs to new conditions and desires, this accusation holds against you too, who have so often changed your habits and mode of life, who have gone over to other customs and ceremonies, so that you are condemned by past ages as well as we.’
He goes on to give various examples of Roman and Greek customs developing, becoming popular and then fading away as their society changed while new customs and festivals were adopted. And that Christians were doing the same.
Since, then, yourselves also have followed at one time these customs, at another different laws, and have repudiated and rejected many things on either perceiving your mistakes or seeing something better, what have we done contrary to common sense and the discretion all men have, if we have chosen what is greater and more certain, and have not suffered ourselves to be held back by unreasoning respect for impostures?
Now what he argues is quite true and there is nothing wrong in adopting new ideas of course if they are valid. And it’s quite true that society does gradually change over time as our culture evolves.
The cultural damage caused
But the change asked for from new converts from a pagan culture to a Christian one with an entirely new batch of beliefs and traditions was a substantial jump. A far bigger jump than was ever asked for by other beliefs which were tolerant of culture. Historians point to the period between the 4th and 7th centuries as the time of the single biggest cultural transition in Mediterranean society that had ever taken place and in which much was lost during the change. A century or two after the Christian takeover, what little was left of old Greco-Roman classical culture in the southern and eastern Mediterranean would of course be destroyed by the Arabs and the new and expanding religion of Islam – an aggressively expansionist belief just like Christianity – and arguably more heavily anti-pagan as well. So by the end of the 7th Century, there were no pagan temples left standing anywhere around the Mediterranean apart from the very few that had been converted to churches and people’s way of life was completely changed. So much so that if someone had a Time Machine and went from a 4th-century city to the same city in the 7th century, he would not be able to believe that it was the same people and city. All traces of classical thinking, way of dress, customs and festivals had vanished permanently with the cities full of churches or mosques instead depending on where you were.
As a quick aside and on this issue if you’d like to read more about this massive cultural shift I would highly recommend Catherine Nixey’s book ‘The Darkening Age’ which covers this cultural destruction beginning in Arnobius’ time till the final banning of Paganism during the time of Theodosius and into the 5th century. Another great book on the subject is The Final Pagan Generation by Edward Watts which also covers the rapid and enforced change to a Christian mono-culture.
What’s the fate of people born earlier than Jesus?
So of course the 64000 dollar question that arises out of Jesus being so laid back and coming so late is what happens to people born in earlier ages if one’s salvation depended entirely on believing in Jesus? Do these people get a free pass to the Christian heaven? Or do they get herded into the Christian hell for eternity for the simple crime of being born too early and therefore not believing in Jesus?
‘But if, my opponents say, Christ was sent by God for this end, that He might deliver unhappy souls from ruin and destruction, of what crime were former ages guilty which were cut off in their mortal state before He came? Can you, then, know what has become of these souls of men who lived long ago? whether they, too, have not been aided, provided, and cared for in some way?’
So how does Arnobius tackle this issue? Well to his credit he does put his hands up and acknowledge that he doesn’t know and that it’s impossible to know the answer to this issue. The New Testament in no place tackles this issue either so Arnobius and others could get no guidance on this front. So he very curiously and somewhat surprisingly declares there is no point in discussing the issue at all.
‘Lay aside these cares, and abandon questions to which you can find no answer. The Lord’s compassion has been shown to them, too, and the divine kindness has been extended to all alike; they have been preserved, have been delivered, and have laid aside the lot and condition of mortality. Of what kind, my opponents ask, what, when? If you were free from presumption, arrogance, and conceit, you might have learned long ago from this teacher.’
So he refuses to answer or speculate on this most difficult of questions merely replying they have to rely on God’s kindness and castigating pagans for their arrogance in asking these sort of difficult questions.
But what he didn’t seem to realise by his answer is that he invalidated the whole foundation of Christianity – that only Jesus can save. This is the core doctrine of the religion. If God through his judgment could treat people born before Jesus with kindness and mercy then he can do the same with people born after Jesus as well. And if we can be saved by his kindness this means there was no reason to send Jesus to ‘save’ humanity in the first place, no reason for him to be crucified to take our sins and no need for him to parade before his followers by resurrecting himself as well. This therefore keeps Christians in the same difficult position. Either faith in Jesus is required – in which case people born earlier are either doomed or simply get a free pass into the Christian heaven through their actions and works. Or belief is not required for salvation – in which case there really wasn’t any point in Jesus coming. It’s an impossible situation either way.
Summing up
So as you can see a whole host of differences between early Christian thought and today’s apologists who try to dream up explanations with the benefit of hindsight. The Christian apologists of the early period hardly ever used the reasoning that modern apologists do that the Roman Empire was an essential prerequisite for the arrival of Jesus. And Arnobius certainly doesn’t use Jewish prophesies or their wait for a messiah to explain Jesus popping up so late in time. These ideas are relatively modern.
