Jesus Christ and Caesar Augustus

[minichibi]

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?

[George Stegmeir]

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.

[trickster]

Dominic Crossan is a very brilliant theologian and I don't think that is is out to lunch on this. After the faith of Jesus got hijacked by the Emperor Constatine for state purposes of keeping the empire together, the simple faith of jesus and the apostles became open to much interpretation where they had to make up ceremonies for the elaborate roman buildings they inheretied as the state religion. It is quite within that socio-cutlural reality that the notion of giving Jesus title was borrowed from other traditons...christianity hasa long history of borrowing from the roman and other cultures, to the degree that Jesus the Nazarene would not understand or recognize his own church..as a human of his place and time...he - as the Christ obviously - is up to date on our catholicism of today..so i would argue that Crossan could be quite right...

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by George Stegmeir

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.

Actually I don't think that Crossan is too far off here. After all, the central theme of Christianity is that the God of Israel, and not Caesar, is the King of the world. I mean even the word euangelion ('good news') was originally applied to any proclamation by or about the emperor; Christians adopted it to mean a proclamation about or by Jesus. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God."

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by minichibi

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.

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.”

[beehumble]

Originally Posted by minichibi

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?

My answers are:
Where did he take that from? Does it matter?

Does he have a valid point?
What is his point? You didn't state it. Ordinary people claim to be God, that is not new. What is new is that Jesus IS God, and with His advent God came down to us as one of us.

What are the chances he is right?
Chance is probably high, since many have claimed to be God, and in the case of Rome, many were ordered to state the emperor was a god. Again, does it matter? Attribution of these titles to the true God does not preclude those titles having been given to others who came before or after Jesus. Are the titles valid for a Roman emperor? no. Are they valid for Jesus? Yes. This is our faith, our belief.

God bless you.

[minichibi]

*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?

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by minichibi

*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?

I'm not "you all," 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.

Personally I'd caution you against uncritical reading of anything by authors like Crossan or the related Jesus Seminar. The seminar particularly is on the radical far-left fringe of NT scholarship, and even 'liberal' authors question many of their ideas.

P.S. I think it would be better if you sorted out the things you're wonder about first and open threads about each. I might help, and I know others here could too.

[minichibi]

Originally Posted by patrick457

I'm not "you all," and I'm not a fan of most of Crossan's scholarship (and I also disagree with another poster who praised Crossan), 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.

It does not necessarily need to be original and true, but the evidences for it being a borrowed image are overwhelming, I don't believe in coincidences myself. The chances for the Magi have visited Jesus (which can't be supported by any other text) and Caesar Augustus' likeliness and all Caesar Augustus titles is really low, given all the similarities between Caesar Augustus and Jesus' cult. Not to mention all the likeliness between Christian and Pagan rites, with different names.
We all know there were several people who claimed to be a "messiah" that time, that doesn't help when you want to start a gossip...

[minichibi]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Personally I'd caution you against uncritical reading of anything by authors like Crossan or the related Jesus Seminar. The seminar particularly is on the radical far-left fringe of NT scholarship, and even 'liberal' authors question many of their ideas.

That's why I'm posting in this forum, I personally think you are a smart and well informed person, that's why I want to listen to people like you

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by minichibi

It does not necessarily need to be original and true, but the evidences for it being a borrowed image are overwhelming, I don't believe in coincidences myself. The chances for the Magi have visited Jesus (which can't be supported by any other text) and Caesar Augustus' likeliness and all Caesar Augustus titles is really low, given all the similarities between Caesar Augustus and Jesus' cult. Not to mention all the likeliness between Christian and Pagan rites, with different names.
We all know there were several people who claimed to be a "messiah" that time, that doesn't help when you want to start a gossip...

Now for another question. Where do you get this supposed 'cult of Augustus' idea from? This kinda suspiciously rings a bell to me, but I'd just like to confirm.

Besides I don't think you should look only to the Roman imperial cultus. There's also a lot to be found within a Jewish context.

[minichibi]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Now for another question. Where do you get this supposed 'cult of Augustus' idea from?

I red Crossan's books, as well as Suetonius' The Lives of the Caesars, and other german scholars, and backed it up with googled sources, and all sources agreed with each other.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by minichibi

I red Crossan's books, as well as Suetonius' The Lives of the Caesars, and other german scholars, and backed it up with googled sources, and all sources agreed with each other.

Can you give us citations? And just being curious, but have you read other authors besides Crossan? (Biblical studies is really one of those fields where you get ten or more answers to a single question and so reading just one or two authors ain't enough, let me tell ya.)

[minichibi]

Originally Posted by George Stegmeir

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.

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....

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by minichibi

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....

Well there's certainly that census of Quirinius issue which a lot of people attempt to harmonize with Matthew's information that Jesus was born during Herod the Great's reign. But even so I think a lot of modern people are being too hard on Luke: in those days there were no encyclopedias or websites to verify factual data. Look on the bright side: Luke attempted to do the best he could by giving names and dates.