Passing of Peregrinus - Historical Criticism

Historical Criticism

Despite being a satirical work several modern critics criticize the veracity of Lucian’s account of Peregrinus’s life. In addition to the bias in his account, some critics argue that Lucian misses several key historical facts about the church that Peregrinus interacted with as well as major events that may have shaped his life.

Stephen Benko criticizes Lucian’s negative portrayal of Peregrinus as being the result of his own narrow opinion that belief in the supernatural was ridiculous. Disputing Lucian’s presentation of Christians as easily fooled simpletons, Benko notes that the Didache warns congregations about travelers who stayed more than two or three days without working. Benko also argues that Lucian’s views on Peregrinus’s attitude toward death may have been influenced by the general public opinion of Christian martyrs and their own attitudes toward death. Lucian’s take on the Christians’ attitudes towards death comes when he writes:

"The poor fools have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.”.

Gilbert Bagani argues that Lucian is wrong about the nature of the charges Peregrinus received as well as his eventual pardon. Bagani points out that Trajan’s orders to Pliny would not have allowed for the Governor to simply pardon a self-professed Christian like Peregrinus who had had charges brought against him on the matter. Instead he proposes that the arrest was made as part of a larger crackdown following the Bar Kochba revolt, and was released when his jailers realized that he was not related to the insurrection. Bagani also argues that Peregrinus’s excommunication may have been based on his refusal to eat pork, rather than his eating sacrificial meat as has been supposed. He bases this on the hypothesis that the Christian sect was heavily Jewish in their origin before the revolt and Peregrinus’s imprisonment, but after the revolt it became more heavily Gentile and accepting of those who consumed pork. Peregrinus’s ties to the earlier congregation would have presented a difficulty in this manner.

C.P. Jones argues that Lucian changed the order of Peregrinus’s gift of land to Parium and his excommunication for satirical purposes. By stating that Peregrinus only gave up his land because he was under the expectation that he could live off of the kindness of other Christians, and then backtracked on the gift when this possibility was taken away, Lucian undermines Peregrinus’s claim to have given up his possessions for a more high-minded purpose.