I know how much you may hate the Jesus Seminar and all their efforts to distrust the NT. The (in)famous John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar in his book “God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now” states that “there was a human being in the first century who was called ‘Divine,’ ‘Son of God,’ ‘God,’ and ‘God from God,’ whose titles were ‘Lord,’ ‘Redeemer,’ ‘Liberator,’ and ‘Saviour of the World.’” “Most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to Caesar Augustus.” Crossan cites the adoption of them by the early Christians to apply to Jesus as denying them of Caesar the Augustus. “They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason.”
My question here is: Where did he take that from? Does he have a valid point? What are the chances he is right? Why/why not?
I think that Crossan, for all his scholarly oddities and faults, has a valid point here. I’ll go back to my earlier reply and start with the terms
euangelion ‘good news’ and
son of God.
As is often noted, the two terms were drenched in meaning in a Roman political context of the time: the
euangelion, for instance, denoted a message predicated on an action accomplished by the ‘divine’ Caesar or a proclamation connected to him.
A contemporary inscription triumphantly proclaims the birth of Augustus Octavian in very lofty, exalted language:
Since providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men,
sending him as a savior both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance surpassed the hopes of all those who received the
good tidings (
euangelion), not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward,
and the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of the good tidings through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna.
When Julius Caesar was formally deified as
divus Iulius ‘divine Julius’ in 42 BC, Octavian henceforth became
divi filius (“son of [a] god”), a title which would prominently be used by the latter as a convenient tool to advance his political position and which would be emblazoned on his coins (like the one below) and that of his successors, thus ensuring its widespread publicity.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ancientfilmCC304/lecture23/images/18octavian.jpg
In the ancient world, politics and religion were intertwined: there was no ‘Separation of Church and State’ as we know it today. This is why in many ancient cultures, heads of state were considered as a mediator between gods and men or even gods (or sons of gods) in their own right. The concept of the ‘
sacred king’ or the ‘priest-king’ was one shared by different peoples. Take a look for example in the ancient Japanese word for ‘politics’,
matsurigoto (政) - it contains the word
matsuri (nowadays meaning ‘festival’ in general, but originally specifically denoting an occasion of religious significance) in it. ‘Politics’ is thus seen as a sacred rite. The same is true with the “kingdom of God:” it reaches the earth as it reaches heaven.
By speaking about the
euangelion of Jesus the ‘son of God’, it seems that the early Christians taps into Jewish tradition where figures such as the beloved righteous and the leaders of the people are ‘sons of God’, ‘anointed’ and chosen by the Lord (cf. Psalm 2:7 “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee”), while at the same time providing a sharp contrast between Caesar the emperor and Jesus the Christ, with an attack against the former: by radically proclaiming God/Jesus as the ‘real deal’, the real King and Savior of the world, they made it clear that the Caesar wasn’t. And that indeed is grounds for
maiestas: a crime of treason against the Roman people, state, and/or the emperor.
Also, in a world and culture where it was virtually impossible to separate religion and politics, ethics and economics, Jesus’ talk of the “kingdom of God” had a far more grittier, edgier political meaning to it. When Jesus said that His kingdom is “not of this world” (a more correct translation of this phrase in modern English is: “not
from this world,” i.e. ‘not the sort of kingdom which springs out from this world’), it did not mean that it is something totally ‘spiritual’, nebulous and other-worldly, something that does not have any connection with the world. The Kingdom is certainly for this world, but it isn’t from it. It isn’t the same as the other kingdoms which originate from the world (such as the kingdom of Caesar), who make their way by injustice and violence and create their own facts from the ground. It is God’s gift for the world, but the world isn’t ready for it yet. Hence, the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of this world actively clash with each other, even today (I warrant). Again, when Jesus and Christians say that God is the Ruler of the earth, it meant that Caesar isn’t. “Thy kingdom come: thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” Unfortunately, this talk is indeed what sent Jesus to His death under the crime of
maiestas as ‘King of the Judaeans’.
Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”
and I’m not a fan of most of Crossan’s scholarship (and thus I disagree with another poster who praised Crossan - even if I think that he has grasped something right in this particular instance), but let me ask you a few questions (I’ll ask more so stay tuned): does everything have to be ‘unique’ or ‘original’ for it to be true? Does it really matter to you that there have been many messianic claimants at the time of Jesus or that the title ‘son of God’ was also applied to other figures besides Him? I think BeeHumble’s post really got through the heart of your original question.
and yes, I read other authors, but I haven’t read anything against the historicity of the NT before, all other books I read were biased to the extent they support biblical claims, that’s why I concentrate in this issue.