The Historical Jesus III

[Elagabalus]

A source reference would be nice. The Hadrian letter seems to state that "The patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is compelled by one party to worship Serapis, by the other, Christ." which means that these are two separate beings, since one party supports Serapis, and another party supports Christ.

CraigB, I wouldn't spend too much time on this-he's been asked before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16974&page=0

 

[GDon]

Attributing to posters here some "myther" point of view then debating that is a straw man.

You have it the wrong way around. Some posters are complaining about Ehrman describing Christ Mythicism as a conspiracy theory, as though the book "Christ Conspiracy" didn't exist.

Need I remind you that probably the most popular Christ Myth book is Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy"? The one that claims the Pope is the Grand Master of the Freemasons and who knows that there was no historical Jesus but keeps it hidden? And that the movie "Zeitgeist" has had millions of views and is often referenced by Christ Mythicists?

Who can be surprised that there are whacko "Christ Myth" conspiracy theories and whacko "historical Jesus" conspiracy theories, when there are people who believe even more whacko things like Holocaust denial, Moon Hoax Landings and Obama Birtherism?

Anyone, I won't keep belabouring the point, at least until the next time this is brought up.

 

[Craig B]

CraigB, I wouldn't spend too much time on this-he's been asked before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16974&page=0

Thanks for that.

I think I may have found Mcreal's source for the Hadrian letter. Mcreal, is this right? Is it Robert Mascharan, blog called Christianity Scrutinized? http://robertmascharan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/chrestus-forging-of-g-d.html
Here is his profile and statement of belief.
My blogs: Christianity Scrutinized
About me Gender: Male; Location: India
Introduction: The believe That A Cosmic Jewish Zombie Can Make You Live Forever If You Symbolically Eat His Flesh And Telepathically Tell Him That You Accept Him As Your Master,So He Can Remove An Evil Force From Your Soul That Is Present In Humanity Because A Rib-Women Was Convinced By A Talking Snake To Eat From The Magical Tree. Makes Perfect Sense!!!
Favourite Films: Lord Of the Rings 1-3, Matrix 1-3, Inception, Deja-vu, Batman.

This is what he quotes from the Hadrian letter

Egypt that you have commanded to me , my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of flame. The worshippers of G-d Serapis(here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to G-d Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ ”

Here is Mcreal's version

Egypt that you have commanded to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of flame. The worshippers of G-d Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to G-d Serapis call themselves Bishops of Christ.

I think it's the same source. Three reasons. The "G-d" of course, and also the meaningless "breath of flame". This absurdity would be reconcilable with the other versions if it was "breath of fame". Hadrian is discussing fickle inconstancy, after all. In addition they both have "commanded" where the obviously intended word is "commended".

I think that these are just transcription errors by Robert Mascharan, that Mcreal has innocently replicated, not having compared his text with other versions. Although as they stand they make no sense, and ought to have aroused suspicions and been checked by whoever came across them.

I would be grateful if Mcreal would confirm whether or not this is his source. I don't evaluate it highly, one way or the other. Perhaps Mcreal and Mascharan are drawing independently from an earlier common source. If so, I'd like to know what that might be.

Why Mascharan has written G-d I don't know. He doesn't appear to be an Orthodox Jew. Come to think of it, an Orthodox Jew surely wouldn't trouble to write "G-d" when referring to a pagan divinity like Serapis. Pagan gods don't merit that degree of consideration.

 

[Mcreal]

Thanks for that.

I think I may have found Mcreal's source for the Hadrian letter. Mcreal, is this right? Is it Robert Mascharan, blog called Christianity Scrutinized? http://robertmascharan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/chrestus-forging-of-g-d.html?

Possibly (I can't be sure).

Giles, Rev. John Allen (1877) Hebrew and Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age and Authorship of the Old and New Testaments, Vol. ii. Trübner & Company; p.86.

It is here, too (English) - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Firmus_et_al*.html#8

and here, in Latin http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Firmus_et_al*.html#8

 

[GDon]

Yet 1 Clement which some Christian Scholars date as late as 140 CE has this:

The reason for the later 140 CE date is because there appear to be references to the letter in other writings dated to around 150 CE. I'm not aware that the date derives from anything in the contents.

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes. - 1 Clem 41:2

This would seem to indicate that when 1 Clement was written the Temple system was still operational. But the Temple and its system of sacrifice ended with its destruction in 70 CE. And even if as some suggested the Sadduccees carried on sacrifices in the ruins odds are this ended well before 130 CE...which is still 10 years before the latest date given to 1 Clement.

The Temple was razed, certainly. But what is the evidence that the Temple system stopped operating in 70 CE? It seems to me if there were still Jews in Jerusalem (which there were up until after the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s CE) the Jews would have continued on with the annual sacrificing even in the absence of the old Temple. Why wouldn't they?

If you have links to show a definite stop to annual sacrifices at Jerusalem at around 70 CE, I'd be very interested in reading it.

 

[Mcreal]

There is reference to Hadrian's letter here

'Vopiscus has inserted the letter in the vita Satumini^ c. 8, and says
that he took it from Phlegon's biography of Hadrian. According to its
superscription, (Had. Aug. Serviano consuli salutem) it is directed to
Servianus when he was consul. Now the fasti (Klein, Fasti cottsulares}
name as consuls : Trebius Sergianus for the year 133 A.n., and'L. Julius
Ursus Servianus Cos. iii. for 134 a.d. The superscription may have been
made later, or the word consuli may have been added. The greatest
difficulty seems to lie in the vfordsji/ium tmum Vertitn ; for the adoption
took place only in 136 A.n. Filius^ however, may be merely another ex-
pression for the favourite of Hadrian, and Verus was most likely already
selected to be his successor. He accompanied the emperor in Egypt.
It is unnecessary for (}rcppo, p. 230, to assume a new journey of Hadrian
to Egypt at the close of his career. From the nemo illic^ Casaubon
concludes that the letter was written after Hadrian's departure from
Egypt ; or that he had at least left Alexandria, as he writes himself.
I take the letter as genuine, even though, as the text shows, some
passages have been interpolated. I object less to Xht/iiium meum than
to the repeated reference to the Christians of Alexandria, which cannot
be Hadrianic.

https://archive.org/stream/emperorhadriana01greggoog/emperorhadriana01greggoog_djvu.txt

This seems to be a scanned document, with subsequent occassion translation of symbols and letters

The title seems to be

The Emperor Hadrian: A [Picture] of the Graeco- Roman World in his Time

By Ferdinand Gregorovius

Translated by Mary E. Robinson

London Macmillan and Co., Limited

New York : The Macmillan Company

1898​

 

[Mcreal]

Marko Rizzi thinks the core of the Hadrian letter to Servianus is reliable -

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...CAMY#v=onepage&q=hadrian to servianus&f=false

 

[Craig B]

Possibly (I can't be sure).

Giles, Rev. John Allen (1877) Hebrew and Christian Records: An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Age and Authorship of the Old and New Testaments, Vol. ii. Trübner & Company; p.86.

It is here, too (English) - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Firmus_et_al*.html#8

That source corresponds not at all to the "Christianity Scrutinized" blog text. On the contrary, it agrees with my favourite versions.

From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.

No "G-d". No "flame". No "commanded"

Thanks very much for the Latin version.

I have written

Why Mascharan has written G-d I don't know. He doesn't appear to be an Orthodox Jew. Come to think of it, an Orthodox Jew surely wouldn't trouble to write "G-d" when referring to a pagan divinity like Serapis. Pagan gods don't merit that degree of consideration.

A reason why someone might have written G-d - a somewhat discreditable reason - has just occurred to my suspicious mind.

It is my contention that Serapis and Christ are regarded by Hadrian as two distinct beings, and that this is the very point of his letter, which derides the fickleness of the Egyptians of all religions for paying tribute to Serapis, even if they technically worship other deities.

But other people are trying, in my view hopelessly, to show that Hadrian means that Serapis and Christ are one and the same. Were this so, Hadrian would have no occasion to complain of the inconstant fickleness of these worshippers, but he does complain about that. So we're dealing with two separate objects of worship, not one.

However, by containing the expression "G-d", a tendentious translation of the Hadrian letter makes Serapis resemble the Abrahamic divinity and therefore may leave the casual reader more open to the false suggestion that these are one and the same. That would be an underhand tactic, if indeed that is the motive for the "G-d" curiosity.

This Hadrian letter is becoming more and more fascinating. Unfortunately I can only find translations, not the original text. I'll keep looking. By the way, I don't think it's really the work of Hadrian. I'm very suspicious of its authenticity.

ETA Since I wrote the last para, Mcreal has kindly sent me a link to the Latin text. My Latin is very bad. If anyone else wants to consult it, that would be good. It's passage 8 in the linked text.

 

[Mcreal]

Your focus on 'G-d' is a red-herring. The presence of 'G-d' is irrelevant.

(Mascharan may be Jewish)

 

[Mcreal]

It is my contention that Serapis and Christ are regarded by Hadrian as two distinct beings, and that this is the very point of his letter, which derides the fickleness of the Egyptians of all religions for paying tribute to Serapis, even if they technically worship other deities.

But other people are trying, in my view hopelessly, to show that Hadrian means that Serapis and Christ are one and the same. Were this so, Hadrian would have no occasion to complain of the inconstant fickleness of these worshippers, but he does complain about that. So we're dealing with two separate objects of worship, not one.

' ... those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

is a separate statement to

'They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle'

 

[Mcreal]

This Hadrian letter is becoming more and more fascinating. Unfortunately I can only find translations, not the original text. I'll keep looking. By the way, I don't think it's really the work of Hadrian. I'm very suspicious of its authenticity.

I have already posted several people think the passage is reliable -

DH Tscirhner, Bishop Dr J G Lightfoot, Rizzi, Ferdinand Gregorovius, etc.​

I have given a 2nd-3rd century trail for the letter -

Vopiscus has inserted the letter in the vita Saturnini^ c. 8, and says that he took it from Phlegon's biography of Hadrian.​

 

[Craig B]

'There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

is a separate statement to

'They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle'

But it is a continuation of this statement. "The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour."

 

[Craig B]

There is reference to Hadrian's letter here
This seems to be a scanned document, with subsequent occassion translation of symbols and letters

The title seems to be

The Emperor Hadrian: A [Picture] of the Graeco- Roman World in his Time

By Ferdinand Gregorovius

Translated by Mary E. Robinson

London Macmillan and Co., Limited

New York : The Macmillan Company

1898​

I've already quoted, in #1432, the text of the letter from that source. Yes it may be genuine. I'm a bit suspicious though. Not really sure why.

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal
'There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

is a separate statement to

'They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle'

But it is a continuation of this statement. "The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour."

'They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle'

is similar to

"The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour."

but they are a different theme to

'There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

 

[Craig B]

Your focus on 'G-d' is a red-herring. The presence of 'G-d' is irrelevant.

(Mascharan may be Jewish)

What makes you think he is constrained to write "G-d" by Jewish piety?

Why is "G-d" an irrelevant red herring? Surely it is a valuable possible clue to the identity of the source and the motivation or religious affiliation of its author.

 

[Mcreal]

Why is "G-d" an irrelevant red herring? Surely it is a valuable possible clue to the identity of the source and the motivation or religious affiliation of its author.

It is not in the version cited in

'The Lives of Firmus, Saturninus, Proculus and Bonosus'

in Vol. III of Historia Augusta​

in which, incidentally, the letter is actually in a passage about Saturninus.

The preceding section, 7, says

7 Saturninus¹⁷ was a Gaul by birth, one of a nation that is ever most restless and always desirous of creating either an emperor or an empire.¹⁸ 2 To this man, above all the other generals, because it seemed certain that he was truly the greatest, Aurelian had p399given the command of the Eastern frontier, wisely charging him never to visit Egypt.¹⁹ 3 For, as we see, this far-sighted man was well acquainted with the Gallic character and feared that if Saturninus visited this turbulent land he might be drawn by association with the inhabitants to a course toward which he was by nature inclined. 4 For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen,²⁰ boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, even in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quack salvers. 5 Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. 6 But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon,21 which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

8 1 From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus²² the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. 2 There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis ....

 

[Craig B]

'They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle'

is similar to

"The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour."

but they are a different theme to

'There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

In the context of a disparagement of fickle inconstancy on the part of Egyptians, that last sentence unquestionably implies "Those who worship Serapis (do not faithfully do so) but in reality worship Christ; and those who (undeservedly, in view of their fickleness) call themselves bishops of Christ, in fact are devotees of Serapis (and not Christ)."

The later passage about the Patriarch being pulled in different directions by different religious parties imperatively demands the reading I suggest of the words you have cited here.

If any other meaning attached to these words - eg that Christ and Serapis were one and the same - why would Hadrian allude to this as an illustration of Egyptian fickleness and inconstancy? It would make no sense at all.

 

[Craig B]

It is not in the version cited in

'The Lives of Firmus, Saturninus, Proculus and Bonosus'

in Vol. III of Historia Augusta​

in which, incidentally, the letter is actually in a passage about Saturninus.

It's not anywhere that I can find, except in the version you originally cited, whose various oddities I have already referred to. What is the source of that strange text, which in my view, apart from being full of plain howlers, misrepresents the meaning of the statement by Hadrian? Why is a possible clue to that to be dismissed unexamined?

 

[Mcreal]

I think that

"There, those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."​

stands on its own.

 

[Craig B]

I think that

"There, those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."​

stands on its own.

And has nothing to do with the words that immediately follow? To wit

"There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ."

I think it is most improbable that these things have no connection with each other. Vanishingly improbable.