NOTE: This Post ties in with a few other Posts from way back. Jay Raskin is a Sourcerer who believes that the Gospels come from a Set of Source Documents. Jay, in his book Christs and Christianities, argues for a link between Mark and John, specifically at the Tomb Scene. Mark and John Cut and Pasted from a common document and where one leaves off, the other fills in and completes the Scene at the Tomb. I may be arguing soon that the Tomb Scene is a Graft onto the Gospels but that's for another day...PhilosopherJay wrote:Julius Caesar must have said his "I am not King, but Ceasar" line around 44 B.C.E. shortly before his assassination. Enemies of Julius Caesar probably spread the line to show that he considered himself a king in all but name. It appears to me that the text, by putting the words in the mouths of the Herodian Jewish leaders wouild be making some kind of statement about them and perhaps their blind allegiance to Caesar. One would have expected the Jews to says, "We have no king, but God." By substituting Caesar for God, the Jewish leaders are made to ridicule themselves.
If this is a reference to Caesar's saying, and I think it is, we can place it around the time of the trial of Antigonus, who was tried and executed just 8 years after Caesar's statement in 37 B.C.E.
If we take it much later than 37 B.C.E., then the reference to Caesar's famous faux pas would not have made sense. After the name of Caesar started to be used as a title meaning essentially "king," probably in the time of Tiberius, it would not have been funny.
Jay:
Given that Mark and John are related by Source, would you look for a moment at the Cognitive Dissonance in "We have no King but Caesar..."?
There is a momentous statement in John 8 given by "Jews" who are followers of this "Jesus" character:
John 8: 33 (RSV):
[33] They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, `You will be made free'?"
I've argued that this discussion is over a misunderstood Semitic idiom ("You must be born again") but, notice the astonishing statement: "We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one..."
This is simply jaw-dropping misdirection. It is simply beyond belief as a statement from someone who was a Jew. This appears to be an intentional misdirection here that someone is making an assertion that 1., He is from Abraham and 2., He is from a peoples who have never been in bondage AND 3., It's perfectly OK that someone such as Nicodemus may be a Pharisee and a Ruler of the Jews and not know a common Semitic Idiom that goes back 1000 years. Key Disconnect: Nicodemus, for example, was a Ruler of the Jews.
Exodus 2: 23 (RSV):
[23] In the course of those many days the king of Egypt died. And the people of Israel groaned under their bondage, and cried out for help, and their cry under bondage came up to God.
This is similar to "Paul" listing the grievances against the Law in a Duality that may not be transcended when it is very plainly stated that the Law is not a burden. It betrays an authorship from other Conquerors (Hint: Romans).
Deuteronomy 30: 11 - 14 (RSV):
[11] "For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
[12] It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[13] Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[14] But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
Simply amazing.
Aristobulus 2 was given 2 Legions by Julius Caesar to go into Syria and Kick Ass. Aristobulus 2 was a legitimate King and High Priest of Judea, His father, Jannaeus, was an aggressive King who desired to extend the Kingdom to include Greater Israel. The use of "No King but Caesar" MAY have had meaning during JC's reign but it appears unlikely in the time of JC. The Ascension of Caesar as an ascension of someone "Above a Mere King", as you point out with Augustus, comes later.
Now let's move to John.
John 12: 12 - 13 (RSV):
[12] The next day a great crowd who had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.
[13] So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!"
WHAT SOURCE DOES THIS COME FROM? If John and Mark has at least one common source, what source gives this statement? "Something from no later than the time of Tiberius?" For our purposes, note that it is an assertion of a crowd. Now get to the point of "No King but Caesar".
John 19: 12 - 15 (RSV):
[12] Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."
[13] When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gab'batha.
[14] Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!"
[15] 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."
1. The use of the word "Friend" in v. 12 *MAY* be a Technical Term from the Greek Orientation of a Royal Court, in this case indicating that all of the Client Kings are of the Lowest Order "Friends". [[Edit: This also may apply to Pilate's Status in regards to Caesar as well...]] Herod instituted such a change to the Greek Order of "Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm" and "Kinsmen". See also: Revelation where the Tyrants throw their 24 Crowns at Caesar's feet. Note the use of "Friend" => "King".
2. Pilate says to the crowd, "Shall I crucify your king?" "The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." "
This cannot be from the time of Julius Caesar. It MIGHT be from the time of Jannaeus since he was bitterly fighting the Greeks and the Pharisees to the death. JANNAEUS, however, was a KING AND HIGH PRIEST himself and that argues against Janneus. Antigonus MAY have provided the Set Piece and the atmospherics for the tableau presented but that has to happen only if the entirety of the Hasmoneans and the Priesthood and Mishmarot is ignored and that would only have happened if someone not acquainted with Jewish Culture and Language ruled from a distance (Hint: The Romans, again).
That leaves the Death of Herod as the position from which "No King but Caesar" is drawn. With the end of the Hasmoneans, of Jehoiarib, of the House of Eleazar, this makes sense.
The Cognitive Dissonance of the plain statements is striking: Jews who do not know of the Egyptian Bondage. An absolute Duality between God and Man at the Interface of the Law, which is not a burden and does not need someone coming down from Heaven to explain it. Recognition of Kingship by Rome that is taken away as if it never existed. The Time Limit for contrasting competing Kings is indeed limited. By the time of "No King but Caesar", there must be no other Kings to the Bureaucracy and High Priests. That limits it to a time after 4 BCE.
Best to you, Jay,
CW