Recently, Prof Samuele Bacchiocchi, a respected scholar of the Seventh Day Adventist church, contacted me by e-mail and attacked me with personal insults after I had supplied him with certain facts and evidence which he could not refute.
I would like to present the details of this disgusting display of character by the professor for the readers of my website to see. I offered him the opportunity to refute my evidence, and to apologise for the insults, but it would appear that he is not going to apologise, and is not able to defend his church's failed position. The Bible says to bring such matters before the church if such a Christian does not repent upon private reproach, and so this is what I do here.
In his response to Dies Domini, the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope John Paul II on the keeping of the Lord's Day, Bacchiocchi claimed:
Moreover ... "The first day of the week, in the writings of the New Testament, is never called 'Day of the Resurrection'. This is a term which made its appearance later." Its usage first appears in the fourth century.
When I discussed this with him, he confirmed not only that he believed this, but that he considered this to mean that the very linking of the 1st/8th day of the week, Sunday, with the concept of the Resurrection of Jesus, was a 4th century phenomenon, and did not exist prior to the 4th century, i.e. the year 300 AD.
In other words, Bacchiocchi claims that no Christians prior to 300 AD linked Sunday, as a day of the week, with the event of the resurrection.
I claim that this is a very poorly researched statement, and can easily be disproven. Here are several quotations from early Christian writers that refute this claim:
Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD: let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week.
- Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.
Here it is clear that Ignatius, long before 300 AD, calls a specific day of the week "resurrection day." How can Bacchiocchi miss this ?
The Epistle of Barnabas, 70-120 AD: Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven.
- The Epistle of Barnabas, section 15, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147
Here we see the author of this epistle (probably not the Barnabas from the Bible, but nonetheless an early Christian writer) linking the 8th day of the week, the day after the Sabbath in the weekly cycle, every week, with the resurrection of Jesus.
Justin Martyr, 150 AD: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead.
- First apology of Justin, Ch 68
Here we see Justin clearly linking the concept of the resurrection to a specific day of the week - not just an Easter Sunday once a year, but clearly a weekly event.
What was Bacchiocchi's response to this evidence against him ?
If there was a rational explanation that Bacchiocchi could supply to show my error, one would expect that he supply it, especially since he was the one who initiated the e-mail discussion by mailing me. On the other hand, when someone is cornered with evidence that he/she cannot cope with or admit to be true, they often become aggressive and unpleasant.
Which is exactly what Bacchiocchi did do. He informed me that I should take up activities on my own intellectual level, and he suggested gardening as an option. He did not do so politely either.
For his e-mail with full headers, click here.
I have nothing against gardening, but since I am a medical doctor, I doubt I am intellectually so far beneath the Almighty Professor that I could not comprehend the quotes I was providing, or any evidence or argument he could provide to show me where I was wrong. I hardly think that his was a Christian response - I expect a Christian response to be to show a fellow Christian where his errors are, not to be silenced and told one is on the intellectual level of a gardener.
I have on several occasions tried to ask the professor for both an apology and for a defence of his claim in the light of this evidence. Not once has Bacchiocchi been courteous or civil, not once has he apologised for his pretty sickening behaviour, and not once has he been able to provide a response to these quotations from the Church Fathers, which I think any reader will agree prove him wrong.
My response is to interpret this from a psychological viewpoint - if you wound an animal and corner it, it will attack you. I think that Bacchiocchi was faced with evidence that destroyed his argument, and he could not respond, and attacked with personal insults instead. He has not yet found the courage to apologise or admit error. This is a natural human charactaristic - never admit your error. I hope that by publishing a truthful account of this matter, the professor might be encouraged to submit an apology and rectify the impression he has created by supplying evidence to refute or explain the evidence I provided. At least it will shed some light on the true nature of Adventist scholarship for the readers of my website, and alert them to the fact that Adventist leaders will say anything, true or false, to make their unscriptural position seem valid.
| Introduction | Sabbath | Soul Sleep | Testimonies |
| Early Church | Ellen White | Catholicism | Debates |