Jesus Christ and Caesar Augustus

[patrick457]

John Dominic Crossan was part of the radical ‘Jesus seminar,’ which is a liberal group: denies Jesus as God and do not think the New Testament documents are as valid as extra-biblical sources which makes no sense because in the historical method the primary documents are usually the most trustworthy. Primary document are the most sought after in historical research, John Crossan’s views are against the norm of historical research

Actually I’d even deny them the label ‘liberal’ since they’re so far off into the fringe. IMHO the true ‘liberal’ scholars in the field of historical Jesus and NT research would be people like E.P. ‘Ed’ Sanders (one of my favorites, although I don’t totally subscribe to all his views), Géza Vermes, or Paula Fredriksen. Some ‘middle-of-the-road’ guys would include Fr. Raymond Brown, James Dunn, Craig Blomberg, Luke Timothy Johnson, Maurice Casey, or Fr. John P. Meier, while N.T. ‘Tom’ Wright (another favorite), Joachim Jeremias, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, Edwin Yamauchi or F. F. Bruce are in the ‘conservative’ side of things. (It’s kinda hard to label which ‘side’ one stands on, so I know people will disagree with me on some names here.)

 

[patrick457]

When did the Magi visit “Caesar Augustus”? That never ever happened Closest fact to it happened in AD 66, when King Tiridates I of Armenia paid homage to the Emperor Nero (not Caesar Augustus), but there’s no valid proof as far as I can tell that the Gospel of Matthew was written after 66 AD

Actually I think that might be what the poster was referring to.

 

[farpinho]

Actually I think that might be what the poster was referring to.

Yeah, but these things cannot be linked, because they are two different things. You can’t link these two figures together… Wouldn’t you be suspicious if someone picked up similarities to Christianity with other unrelated events/cults and claimed Christianity was a plagiarism of all pagan cults together just because they have things apparently in common? Isn’t it like mixing oranges, bananas, apples, pineapples all together and making a salad fruit, claiming that the salad fruit was a plagiarism of an orange “salad”?
Not to mention most of these people who claim Christianity was a plagiarism of Mithras/Osiris/Augustus/whatever love to “add up” inexistent similarities to “prove” their point. Whenever you are defending some idea, someone has to stick to valid points, if you make one false claim that is, you lose all your reason and respect…

 

[trickster]

sigh That further lowers down all my chances of believing in something

If Jesus’ “son of God” or “God Himself” titles are really borrowed as a protest against Rome, the Magi were inspired in the Magi that visited Caesar Augustus, what is there left to believe from the NT scriptures?? That Jesus was nothing but an ordinary man whose teachings were corrupted by people opposing the Roman government? That the Early Christianity was nothing but a collective hallucination? I don’t want to believe that, but the probability of it being true is growing for me

I see you all seem to agree with “Croissant” here, and yet your religious views are still marked as “Catholic”… I wonder how, knowing all this, you still keep that faith. How did you get over it?

Hi Minichibi…the fact that the church borrowed traditions and practices to make its point is not unusual…St. Paul himself referred to the 'unknown" god as his starting point in evangelizing the greeks. The church has borrowoed from pagan traditions, european traditions, traditions from cultures she encountered as she spaned the earth and traditions, customs particular to a place and time…all in the service of making our understanding ofthe core concepts of the church teaching all the more resonant. So to acknowledge that the early church borrowed from the roman empire is not to devalue the work and purpose of God as Christ here on earth…I hope you were joking when you said the idea of church borrowing in very human terms does not lower your faith overall…

Trickster
Bruce

 

[trickster]

Of course they did, Luke was certainly not an ignorant (if it was really Luke who wrote the Acts and Luke’s Gospel) Augustus was even mentioned. Plus, there’s also a historical inaccuracy in Luke’s account if you cross Josephus with Luke’s regarding the census. Besides, I’m starting to strongly believe that the reason why “Luke” wrote books for “Theophilus” is linked to this fact…

None of the gospels were written by the apostles and St. Paul did not do his own writing, these were written years after…Mark being the oldest written in the 60’s I think and John (which may have been written by a woman) was written well afte that…each borrowed for the “Q” source and earlier gospels. also many other gospels (i.e. Thomas, Mary Magdelan, etc.) were in existence but ruled outside the canon in 325 at Nicea…

Trickster

 

[TimothyH]

The idea that these Imperial Roman titles were adopted as titles for Christ is ludicrous, to say the least. I doubt seriously that any of the 4 Evangelists were even aware that these terms applied to the Roman Emperor, Just as it is rediculous that either Caesar Augustus, or Tiberius Caesar who were Emperors of Rome during Christ’s lifetime were even aware of his existance.
This revision of history is simply wishful thinking in an attempt to prove a personal political viewpoint.

Christ discussed Caesar with the Chief Priests and Scribes.

They posed this question to him, “Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?” Recognizing their craftiness he said to them, “Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?” They replied, “Caesar’s.” So he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Luke 20:21-25)

Caesar’s picture was on every coin. Pilate was governor, appointed by Caesar. Caesarea Philippi was a major city and Jesus often operated in the vicinity of this city. The city was so named after Caesar Augustus. Jesus even has a coversation with a Roman Centurion, a soldier of the army of Caesar in Luke 9.

There is no way Jesus could not have known about Caesar.

*They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15) *

Everyone knew who Caesar was.

Many of the titles given to Jesus were adopted from Hebrew royalty, so why not Roman royalty? I don’t see what is so rediculous about it.

-Tim-

 

[patrick457]

None of the gospels were written by the apostles and St. Paul did not do his own writing, these were written years after…Mark being the oldest written in the 60’s I think and John (which may have been written by a woman) was written well afte that…each borrowed for the “Q” source and earlier gospels. also many other gospels (i.e. Thomas, Mary Magdelan, etc.) were in existence but ruled outside the canon in 325 at Nicea…

Trickster

1.) Where do you get the whole ‘John’s gospel was written by a woman’ stuff from?
2.) The two-source hypothesis posits that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used that gospel alongside a document known as the Logienquelle (‘Sayings-source’; aka Q), the key element here being the assumption that Matthew and Luke did not know each other’s gospels. While this is the majority opinion nowadays this isn’t the only possible solution to the Synoptic Problem: there’s also the so-called Griesbach-Farmer theory (Matthew wrote first, then Luke, followed by Mark who made use of both - Q does not have a place in this idea) and the more obscure and lesser-known Farrer-Goulder theory (Mark wrote first, then Matthew and Luke who used Mark and each other’s gospels - again, no Q in sight).
3.) The council of Nicaea AFAIK never had anything to do with Scriptural books unlike what Dan Brown may say.

 

[minichibi]

None of the gospels were written by the apostles and St. Paul did not do his own writing, these were written years after…Mark being the oldest written in the 60’s I think and John (which may have been written by a woman) was written well afte that…each borrowed for the “Q” source and earlier gospels. also many other gospels (i.e. Thomas, Mary Magdelan, etc.) were in existence but ruled outside the canon in 325 at Nicea…

Trickster

I can agree with your previous post for the most part of it. However, stating that John’s was written by a woman, and the existence of the “Q” source are highly speculative. I partly agree with Paul’s account for Paul didn’t do ALL of his writings however. If there is a “Q” source, I trust it to be the “real” Matthew Gospel. So what if there are parallel Gospels outside the canon? They are indisputably written within the second century at the earliest.

 

[minichibi]

1.) Where do you get the whole ‘John’s gospel was written by a woman’ stuff from?

I believe because it states it was written by a “beloved” apostle perhaps?

 

[minichibi]

1.) Where do you get the whole ‘John’s gospel was written by a woman’ stuff from?
2.) The two-source hypothesis posits that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used that gospel alongside a document known as the Logienquelle (‘Sayings-source’; aka Q), the key element here being the assumption that Matthew and Luke did not know each other’s gospels. While this is the majority opinion nowadays this isn’t the only possible solution to the Synoptic Problem: there’s also the so-called Griesbach-Farmer theory (Matthew wrote first, then Luke, followed by Mark who made use of both - Q does not have a place in this idea) and the more obscure and lesser-known Farrer-Goulder theory (Mark wrote first, then Matthew and Luke who used Mark and each other’s gospels - again, no Q in sight).
3.) The council of Nicaea AFAIK never had anything to do with Scriptural books unlike what Dan Brown may say.

If Matthew and Luke used the same source, the genealogy of Jesus would match and we wouldn’t be debating it today. If Luke knew Matthew, he would borrow his account on the birth of Jesus, but that account diverges. Matthew and Luke have different points that you can see in only one and not in the other, they diverge in lots of aspects. If Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark, we are expected to not see any “contradiction” on Jesus’ crucifixion. I bet all the three wrote independently and didn’t know each other.

 

[minichibi]

Why can’t the “Q” source be the original “Gospel of Matthew” that the Hebrews, Ebonites and forgot who else borrowed and tried to reconstruct their own way?

 

[patrick457]

I believe because it states it was written by a “beloved” apostle perhaps?

Yes, that’s exactly it. Problem is, the disciple is implied to be male, for example in 19:26 “Woman, behold your son.” Also, the masculine noun mathEtEs is used for the disciple: were the disciple a woman I expect that the feminine form mathEtria would have been used.

 

[minichibi]

When did the Magi visit “Caesar Augustus”? That never ever happened Closest fact to it happened in AD 66, when King Tiridates I of Armenia paid homage to the Emperor Nero (not Caesar Augustus), but there’s no valid proof as far as I can tell that the Gospel of Matthew was written after 66 AD

You are right there, I’m wrong. It wasn’t Augustus, but Nero. Sorry.

 

[patrick457]

Why can’t the “Q” source be the original “Gospel of Matthew” that the Hebrews, Ebonites and forgot who else borrowed and tried to reconstruct their own way?

Actually this was the original idea - that the logia (‘oracles’ or ‘sayings’) of Jesus written “in the Hebrew dialect” which Papias attributed to Matthew was the underlying source behind the gospels. This was why Q was known in German as Logienquelle.

 

[minichibi]

Actually this was the original idea - that the logia (‘oracles’ or ‘sayings’) of Jesus written “in the Hebrew dialect” which Papias attributed to Matthew was the underlying source behind the gospels. This was why Q was known in German as Logienquelle.

And you don’t seem to personally like that idea. Why? (Or I’m wrong)

 

[patrick457]

If Matthew and Luke used the same source, the genealogy of Jesus would match and we wouldn’t be debating it today. If Luke knew Matthew, he would borrow his account on the birth of Jesus, but that account diverges. Matthew and Luke have different points that you can see in only one and not in the other, they diverge in lots of aspects. If Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark, we are expected to not see any “contradiction” on Jesus’ crucifixion. I bet all the three wrote independently and didn’t know each other.

I think people really underestimate the evangelists’ skill as writers in their own right. I don’t see why Luke knowing Matthew but deciding he can do better is not possible.

BTW here’s a little something from the Farrer-Goulder perspective.

 

[minichibi]

I think people really underestimate the evangelists’ skill as writers in their own right. I don’t see why Luke knowing Matthew but deciding he can do better is not possible.

BTW here’s a little something from the Farrer-Goulder perspective.

I don’t underestimate them at all. Actually, I am impressed with the amount of research Luke did to write his gospel as best as possible. But, one question that I still have is “what is the Magnificat doing there? Doesn’t it feel out of place?”

 

[patrick457]

And you don’t seem to personally like that idea. Why? (Or I’m wrong)

Au contraire, I do hold the possibility that a Q-like document could have existed - perhaps before the gospels were written - and it could very well have been Matthew’s Hebrew Logia. That being said I’m not a particular fan of the two-source theory per se myself (I’m in the extreme minority in this one and hold to the Farrer theory).

 

[minichibi]

Au contraire, I do hold the possibility that a Q-like document could have existed - perhaps before the gospels were written - and it could very well have been Matthew’s Hebrew Logia. That being said I’m not a particular fan of the two-source theory per se myself (I’m in the extreme minority in this one and hold to the Farrer theory).

I prefer to believe the Evangelists did a lot of research and reached similar conclusions. But that’s just my wish…

 

[patrick457]

I don’t underestimate them at all. Actually, I am impressed with the amount of research Luke did to write his gospel as best as possible. But, one question that I still have is “what is the Magnificat doing there? Doesn’t it feel out of place?”

IMHO in context it is really meant to be a sort of allusion to the OT, specifically to Hannah in 1 Samuel. Luke on the one hand is very much like a Greco-Roman historian, but on the other hand his works are fully grounded upon the Hebrew Scriptures.