Christian responses to imperial propaganda.

[Ulan]

Did you list this from Suetonius (Life of Augustus, 94:3)?

"3 According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury,137 since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family."

It would be nice to have the original from Marathus, but it's lost. Nevertheless, this looks similar to the "Killing of the Innocents" in gMatthew.

[Ben C. Smith]

Did you list this from Suetonius (Life of Augustus, 94:3)?

"3 According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury,137 since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family."

It would be nice to have the original from Marathus, but it's lost. Nevertheless, this looks similar to the "Killing of the Innocents" in gMatthew.

Nice. Thanks.

[DCHindley]

An inscription in Pergamum (IvP II 381), from during the lifetime of Augustus Caesar (also given by Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, page 350):

[Αὐτοκράτ]ορ[α Κ]αίσαρα [θ]εοῦ υἱὸν θεὸν Σεβαστό[ν, πάσης] γῆ[ς] κ̣αὶ θ[α]λάσσης ἐ̣πό̣[π]τ[ην].

[Autocrat, C]aesar, son of [g]od, the god Augustu[s,] ov[er]s[eer of all] la[nd a]nd s[e]a.

I think that the beginning of this inscription, Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα θεοῦ υἱὸν, was simply a Greek version of his official title, Imperator Caesar divi filius, or "Commander Caesar son of the deified one" (per Wikipedia), as the triumvirate had "formally deified Caesar as Divus Iulius in 42 BC, and Caesar Octavian henceforth became Divi filius ("Son of a god")" again, per Wikipedia, as I am no Roman expert.

This then means that he is the son of the divine Julius Caesar, although he is quick to add he is himself "θεὸν Σεβαστόν" or "divine Augustus," to satisfy the provincials' desire to attribute to him divine honors, probably as a benefactor of mankind. This is confirmed by the ending "πάσης γῆς κ̣αὶ θαλάσσης ἐ̣πόπτην" = "watching over all lands and seas" to show that he is concerned for their wellbeing.

If one were to ask me, I'd say that gentile Christians were not placing their divine redeemer in competition with the emperor, but rather borrowing the conventions of the Roman government to describe their own redeemer. Jesus had sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, and thus deserved elevation to divine rank. This came into conflict with the monotheism they borrowed from their Judean predecessors, and in time he became part of God himself, rather than just a divine redeemer sent by God to save mankind.

Jesus in effect went from
1) man who died while trying to do good (perhaps as an anointed leader intent to establish a messianic age, but who tragically died short of achieving his goal),
2) to a man "deified" for the benefits he brought to mankind (when he was regarded as having offered himself as a vicarious sacrifice for mankind's sake, thus turning tragedy into triumph),
3) to a formally appointed divine/angelic redeemer sent by the one God himself (now known by the title "Christ" which has lost its original Judean meaning as a messianic leader),
4) to being an extension of this one God (the decision being reached after Constantine secured his position as the sole ruler of the empire and required the Christians to standardize their views of their founder so it did not compete with Constantine's own role as ruler of the Roman empire).

But that's just me ...

DCH

[DCHindley]

Did you list this from Suetonius (Life of Augustus, 94:3)?

"3 According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury, since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family."

It would be nice to have the original from Marathus, but it's lost. Nevertheless, this looks similar to the "Killing of the Innocents" in gMatthew.

Yes, I see that as a distinct possibility. The story of Herod's massacre of infants in Bethlehem in the Gospel of Matthew has similarities to seems similar to Suetonius' story.

But this decree was never formalized by 'filing in the treasury' so it is basically a rumor that Suetonius heard about but could not confirm by looking at the filings of the Senate in the Treasury.

Nobody had actually exposed their newborn sons, but actively thwarted efforts to file the decree in the treasury to make it official, and certainly no one seemed to have tried to actually enforce the Senate's decree, whether filed or not, by hunting out these sons (which everyone in Rome would know about) and killing them, as Herod is depicted as doing.

So, after consideration, Suetonius' story is not an exact parallel to the Herod infant massacre story.

Again, that's just me ...

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

An inscription in Pergamum (IvP II 381), from during the lifetime of Augustus Caesar (also given by Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, page 350):

[Αὐτοκράτ]ορ[α Κ]αίσαρα [θ]εοῦ υἱὸν θεὸν Σεβαστό[ν, πάσης] γῆ[ς] κ̣αὶ θ[α]λάσσης ἐ̣πό̣[π]τ[ην].

[Autocrat, C]aesar, son of [g]od, the god Augustu[s,] ov[er]s[eer of all] la[nd a]nd s[e]a.

I think that the beginning of this inscription, Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα θεοῦ υἱὸν, was simply a Greek version of his official title, Imperator Caesar divi filius, or "Commander Caesar son of the deified one" (per Wikipedia), as the triumvirate had "formally deified Caesar as Divus Iulius in 42 BC, and Caesar Octavian henceforth became Divi filius ("Son of a god")" again, per Wikipedia, as I am no Roman expert.

No, you are quite correct. Αὐτοκράτορ is (used as) the Greek equivalent of the Latin imperator.

This then means that he is the son of the divine Julius Caesar, although he is quick to add he is himself "θεὸν Σεβαστόν" or "divine Augustus," to satisfy the provincials' desire to attribute to him divine honors, probably as a benefactor of mankind.

Yes, exactly.

If one were to ask me, I'd say that gentile Christians were not placing their divine redeemer in competition with the emperor, but rather borrowing the conventions of the Roman government to describe their own redeemer. Jesus had sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, and thus deserved elevation to divine rank. This came into conflict with the monotheism they borrowed from their Judean predecessors, and in time he became part of God himself, rather than just a divine redeemer sent by God to save mankind.

I think you are probably correct about the thought process, but suspect you are underestimating the degree of competition implicit in the borrowing.

Jesus in effect went from
1) man who died while trying to do good (perhaps as an anointed leader intent to establish a messianic age, but who tragically died short of achieving his goal),
2) to a man "deified" for the benefits he brought to mankind (when he was regarded as having offered himself as a vicarious sacrifice for mankind's sake, thus turning tragedy into triumph),
3) to a formally appointed divine/angelic redeemer sent by the one God himself (now known by the title "Christ" which has lost its original Judean meaning as a messianic leader),
4) to being an extension of this one God (the decision being reached after Constantine secured his position as the sole ruler of the empire and required the Christians to standardize their views of their founder so it did not compete with Constantine's own role as ruler of the Roman empire).

Do you agree that at least stages 1-3 had already been traversed by the time the Pauline epistles were penned?

[DCHindley]

Jesus in effect went from
1) man who died while trying to do good (perhaps as an anointed leader intent to establish a messianic age, but who tragically died short of achieving his goal),
2) to a man "deified" for the benefits he brought to mankind (when he was regarded as having offered himself as a vicarious sacrifice for mankind's sake, thus turning tragedy into triumph),
3) to a formally appointed divine/angelic redeemer sent by the one God himself (now known by the title "Christ" which has lost its original Judean meaning as a messianic leader),
4) to being an extension of this one God (the decision being reached after Constantine secured his position as the sole ruler of the empire and required the Christians to standardize their views of their founder so it did not compete with Constantine's own role as ruler of the Roman empire).

Do you agree that at least stages 1-3 had already been traversed by the time the Pauline epistles were penned?

Well, as you know, I think the Paulines are multi-layered documents, but whoever added (in my opinion) the Christ theology had probably reached the third step.

Since it was an editor, IMHO, who added this theology, the person(s) who wrote the letters that were amended appear to have known nothing of the editor's Christ cult, much less of any Jesus.

His/their concern seemed to be the practical matter of acceptance of gentiles faithful to the Judean God into the "Judean family," at least in spirit, and thus able to inherit the promised fruitful land along with circumcised/Torah observant Judeans when the day of the LORD came and believers are resurrected. How that will be effected, I don't know, the author(s) do not seem to say.

But again, that's just me ... the weird kid on the block.

DCH

[Ulan]

Did you list this from Suetonius (Life of Augustus, 94:3)?

"3 According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury, since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family."

It would be nice to have the original from Marathus, but it's lost. Nevertheless, this looks similar to the "Killing of the Innocents" in gMatthew.

Yes, I see that as a distinct possibility. The story of Herod's massacre of infants in Bethlehem in the Gospel of Matthew has similarities to seems similar to Suetonius' story.

But this decree was never formalized by 'filing in the treasury' so it is basically a rumor that Suetonius heard about but could not confirm by looking at the filings of the Senate in the Treasury.

Nobody had actually exposed their newborn sons, but actively thwarted efforts to file the decree in the treasury to make it official, and certainly no one seemed to have tried to actually enforce the Senate's decree, whether filed or not, by hunting out these sons (which everyone in Rome would know about) and killing them, as Herod is depicted as doing.

So, after consideration, Suetonius' story is not an exact parallel to the Herod infant massacre story.

Again, that's just me ...

DCH

One nitpick here: Suetonius is taking this story from a (now lost) biography of Augustus by Julius Marathus, a freed slave of Augustus. This means that this story is older than gMatthew or even canonical Jesus.

I don't think it matters whether Marathus outright invented the story, which I see as not unlikely, given the nature of all the other stories that were told about the young Augustus. Both stories, the one by Marathus and the one in gMatthew, share one issue: nobody ever heard of them outside of their specific tales. Both need different solutions to do away with this problem, due to the location where they allegedly happened. One chooses the solution that the plot had been foiled, the other uses a location where probably nobody (or very few people) lived at that time (and the actual plot had been foiled, too).

The example fits because this looks like re-used imperial propaganda, and the biography by Marathus wasn't anything but exactly that, imperial propaganda.

[DCHindley]

The example fits because this looks like re-used imperial propaganda, and the biography by Marathus wasn't anything but exactly that, imperial propaganda.

I'll concede that it *could* be an example of imperial propaganda, but I am not convinced that it was exactly that. Maybe it was a kind of rhetorical flourish, something customary to say in a case like these. Myths like this seem to have been expected in the case of royalty (regardless of whether it is a God or a man).

There may have been a thread about all these royal myths (comets at birth, born in humble circumstances, etc., e.g. Cyrus the Great) a year or so back? But we can get too caught up in them, because they can be fabricated for the occasion. Did Astyages *really* kill and cook up his general Harpagus' son and serve it to him unawares as punishment for handing Cyrus over to a humble shepherd rather than have his slain? "Oh Oh this could be related to eating the body of the son of a father." Cue Guiseppe ...

DCH

Edit 7/3/17 4:30pm: Oops! I was not fully awake it seems when I wrote my post. It has been corrected so that Astyages had the son of Harpagus slain and eaten by his own father as punishment for not killing Cyrus as instructed.

[Ben C. Smith]

The example fits because this looks like re-used imperial propaganda, and the biography by Marathus wasn't anything but exactly that, imperial propaganda.

I'll concede that it *could* be an example of imperial propaganda, but I am not convinced that it was exactly that. Maybe it was a kind of rhetorical flourish, something customary to say in a case like these. Myths like this seem to have been expected in the case of royalty (regardless of whether it is a God or a man).

There may have been a thread about all these royal myths (comets at birth, born in humble circumstances, etc., e.g. Cyrus the Great) a year or so back?

Interestingly, Roger David Aus argues in "The Magi at the Birth of Cyrus and the Magi at Jesus' Birth in Matt 2:1-12," an article in his book Barabbas and Esther, that the visit of the Magi is based on the story of Cyrus' birth (and inspired by Tiridates' visit to Nero in 66).

[DCHindley]

There may have been a thread about all these royal myths (comets at birth, born in humble circumstances, etc., e.g. Cyrus the Great) a year or so back?

Interestingly, Roger David Aus argues in The Magi at the Birth of Cyrus and the Magi at Jesus' Birth in Matt 2:1-12, an article in his book Barabbas and Esther, that the visit of the Magi is based on the story of Cyrus' birth (and inspired by Tiridates' visit to Nero in 66).

Now I'm all turned around ...

Was Aus suggesting that the Magi story was *inspired* by Tiradates' visit to Nero in 66 but *based* on the story of Cyrus' birth?

DCH