Good news, everyone! We survived the 2017 total solar eclipse here in the United States. Despite some people being pretty sure this one fulfills bible prophecy, we’re still here. That total solar eclipses are not unheard of, for the U.S. to get the full brunt of one hasn’t happened in a century. I suppose that’s good enough a reason for some to think this one is special in some sort of cosmic way.
The path of totality ran about a block or two from my house (meaning, that 70 mile swath of totality went from about a block from my house here in west Knoxville all the way to just north of Chattanooga). I ended up viewing from the outdoor patio at the Chipotle’s down the street. It was glorious, and I’d never seen anything like it, the partial eclipse I viewed when I was a kid was no comparison to this.
I mention it because it was the total solar eclipse in 29 c.e. that I mentioned in my previous post that I believe Thallus was most likely describing (recap – who knows? We only have third-hand info 800 years after the fact) the site is awe-inspiring, and anyone inclined to superstition would almost certainly think some act of Godlike wrath was imminent. And even someone not inclined to superstition would be tempted to think something was up. I mean, something blotted out the f**king sun.
All that said, I’d intended this new blog to be a place where I felt free to rant about whatever was on my mind. Sometimes it might be the line at the grocery store, and at others, it might be politics, or religion, maybe even a movie review… Either way, I’d hoped to make this a forum to write longer pieces, more nuanced, and more researched, to really feel out how I think about something.
But I’m in danger of making this a religion-bashing only blog. That’s unfortunate, but also probably accurate. Right now, in my life, I have very little else that I’ve been spending my free time thinking about. After spending 15 years of my life as a very religious soul (well, I’m rounding up – it’s way more complicated than that), I spent the next decade or so blissfully free of all those religious hangups… then the past five has seen it thrust back into my life.
So, I’ve spent quite a bit of time going back over the journey I took out of religion all those years ago. Trying to give belief another go – I can’t, religion is bonkers crazy, moreso than I realized when I left it the first time – and thusly finding myself in the exact same place I’ve been for the past 15 years.
But I found more enjoyment doing this than I had last time. I had a lot of emotional issues leaving the faith the first time. This time it has been more of an academic pursuit. Not to say that my research is of superior quality, but that the emotion I had the first time is gone.
So, all that said, the ancient evidence for Jesus. I think you’ll recall, dear reader (I’m kidding, I know I’m the only one reading this) that last time, in part 1 of the series, I discussed Thallus. Actually, my list looks something like this:
- Thallus – 50’s – 120 c.e
- Mara bar Serapion – early 70’s c.e
- Josephus – early 90’s
- Pliny the Younger – 112 c.e.
- Tacitus – 116 c.e.
- Seutonius – 120 c.e.
So we’re up to part 2 (or II). Yay. Mara bar Serapion. This is another case of shitty evidence, honestly. Well, hang on, I’m getting ahead of myself. Take a breath, Rusty, slow down. Remember the purpose of this is to examine, not judge.
The Claim: That Mara bar Serapion wrote a letter to his son around 73 c.e. (near the time of Mark’s gospel being written)* and mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Mara bar Serapion once wrote a letter to his son. Everything we know about him was contained in this single letter. So a bio of the person isn’t really possible. All it is is an exhortation to his young son to embrace scholarship, as he himself has found solace in philosophy.
The date of the letter is confidently posited as 73 c.e., but it is only one of three possibilities. The historical details we have give equal credence to it being written in the early 160’s c.e., or even later, in the mid-250’s c.e.. The earlier date has been settled on as most likely, but it’s unclear to me why that is the case (it could be some of the language used is more consistent with an earlier date, or there is a contemporaneous historical point he made in his letter than I missed, or an unaware of, that makes the early date more likely – OR – it could be because the fact that we have this letter at all is because someone in relatively early church thought this may be a reference to Jesus – and wanted to date it at the earliest possible realistic date.** I think Richard Carrier (I bring him up again because I’ve read several of his articles, papers, blog posts, interviews, one book of his on the historicity of Jesus, and seen him in more debates than I can possibly count (but I’d guess close to a dozen). He once said something along the lines of being frustrated (when researching early Christianity) because the early Christian church either destroyed or altered almost everything they could get their hands on that might show insight into the life and times of Jesus Christ.
I’ll save myself a great deal of time by not commenting on that except to say that we have practically nothing from this era in relation to the rise of Christianity. This particular letter didn’t fade into the sands of history only because of that one simple rhetorical question (I sort of like that, because he spoke of living on through his words – good on you, Mara, I read them).
Below is the relevant passage (I added the bold text for emphasis)
“What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence, without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied. For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.”
The excerpt above is part of a longish letter that I found very readable. And somewhat sad. The man longed for death after his captivity and wanted to exhort his son (who was off at school and presumably not imprisoned) to carry on.
So, getting back on topic here – the bold print above talks of the Jews murdering their ‘wise king’ and ‘that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them.’
I want to parse all that out here. But right off the bat, I’ve got a question. Why wasn’t Jesus named? Socrates & Pythagoras were. Seems odd.
Now, I’ve not read too deeply on this, but what I have has given me several possible interpretations to bandy about. I’ve read that the entire work could possibly be a fourth century forgery. I find that provocative, but setting that aside – Why wasn’t Jesus named? It seems weird. My biblical history is a wee bit cobwebby, but I first thought of a few problems with this being a reference Jesus. First, he should have been named. Second, the Jews were not a nation at that time, but a conquered people living under Roman rule, and third, “from that very time” is a weird thing to say, especially since the destruction of Jerusalem was very recent if the early date of the letter is correct. While it would have been 40 years since the crucifixion.
Could it have been a reference to Ahab? Maybe. Although he’s described as evil in 2 Kings (and God commands him killed by Jehu) – the prophet Hosea later received word from God that his wrath will be on Judah for the murder of this king (and will be ending the time of Kings in Judah – I think. I probably need to go read that to be sure). It would fit the timeline better (Socrates and Pythagoras and Ahab weren’t quite contemporaries, but from someone writing half a millennia later, they might as well have been. I like my personal theory. It actually fits. Well, sorta. The whole thing seems weird. Van Voorst (see next paragraph) did not like my personal theory enough to even mention it in his list of possible explanations. I rather liked it. But suppose comparing Ahab to Socrates and Pythagoras is a bit presumptuous on my part. Probably not very likely. It’s like having a list of great scientists and mentioning Newton, Einstein and Bob the Lab Tech as the third on the list.
And of course, if this was written in the 160’s or 250’s then the point is moot (in Robert E Van Voorst’s book, Jesus Outside the New Testament, he, while very favorable to Jesus as a real historical figure overall, does believe that this was an authentic letter written in the 160’s (well, he said second century, but that would necessitate the 160’s for reasons) due to some subtle details in the text (pg 56)). It doesn’t matter who he was referring to. It’s too far removed from the events being described to be used for anything like confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. After pondering it for some time, this is my preferred interpretation as well.
*Edit* After thinking about this some. I decided I should talk about why Van Voorst thinks the second century is a better date. Saying "for reasons" isn't probably that great. So, Van Voorst mentions a 19th century scholar, W Cureton, who mentions two good reasons to date this letter to the 2nd century.
1) "The troubles to which the writer alludes as having befallen himself and his city will apply to those inflicted by the Romans upon the countries about the Tigris and Euphrates which had been excited to rebel against them by Vologeses, in the Parthian war under the command of Lucius Verus, A.D. 162-165."
2) and "More persuasively, the way the author speaks of what happened to the Jewish nation also points to a date sometime after the second Jewish revolt (132-135). Mara says that 'their kingdom was taken away ' and they are 'desolate,' language that could fit the aftermath of either of the first or second revolt. But his observation that 'driven from their own kingdom, [the Jews] are scattered through ever nation' applies particularly to the aftermath of the second revolt."
Van Voorst goes on to give specifics about what Hadrian did in expelling the Jews and making them forbidden to reentering Jerusalem.
*Edit* After thinking about this some. I decided I should talk about why Van Voorst thinks the second century is a better date. Saying "for reasons" isn't probably that great. So, Van Voorst mentions a 19th century scholar, W Cureton, who mentions two good reasons to date this letter to the 2nd century.
1) "The troubles to which the writer alludes as having befallen himself and his city will apply to those inflicted by the Romans upon the countries about the Tigris and Euphrates which had been excited to rebel against them by Vologeses, in the Parthian war under the command of Lucius Verus, A.D. 162-165."
2) and "More persuasively, the way the author speaks of what happened to the Jewish nation also points to a date sometime after the second Jewish revolt (132-135). Mara says that 'their kingdom was taken away ' and they are 'desolate,' language that could fit the aftermath of either of the first or second revolt. But his observation that 'driven from their own kingdom, [the Jews] are scattered through ever nation' applies particularly to the aftermath of the second revolt."
Van Voorst goes on to give specifics about what Hadrian did in expelling the Jews and making them forbidden to reentering Jerusalem.
But I feel it necessary to bring up other possibilities.
There is still the possibility that the whole letter was a forgery as I linked above. After all, if it is genuine (to 73 c.e.), then it’s the oldest piece of Syriac literature ever found. That’s a red flag. Like the James Ossuary box that was discovered several years ago, anyone remember that? After a whole lot of hoopla around it, it’s now widely considered a forgery (Except in the Ossuary box, a case of forgery by a modern traders trying to bilk artifact hunters). My point being, the oldest example of Syriac literature is a letter from a man which would also be the oldest known extra-biblical reference to Jesus… it isn’t impossible, but I’d put a very low probability on it.
Something that came up doing some nominal research, there is a case being made that this letter is a piece of rhetoric and while technically a forgery, it’s meant to teach form. The abstract from the link above states:
“…Since it is a rhetorical exercise, the letter should not be read asstraightforward evidence for the experience of Roman conquest in Syria,nor should it be read as evidence for Christian apologetic practice in earlySyriac literature. Rather, the letter provides scholars with the opportunityto examine the interaction between Greek rhetorical literature and therise of Syriac prose literature in late antiquity”
In all, this could be a reference to Jesus written in the first century. But if it is then there are problems galore to make sense of with the dating, the language, the content, and purpose.
And the bigger issue, if it is a reference to Jesus – then this does not have the sound of a person that had any sort of firsthand knowledge. Instead, it reads like someone reciting something he heard – I have no problem believing that there were people who had a view of Jesus similar to what is portrayed in the gospel of Mark in the second half of the second century, if word of this had reached Mara by then, then he was passing it along to his son in order to make an unrelated point about the unfairness of men.
So, in conclusion – the evidence is problematic. In Carrier’s book, On the Historicity of Jesus (pg 275) he states that this isn’t even worth considering as first century, citing Van Voorst’s analysis that it is 2nd century in origin. This is simply too vague, and too couched in mystery, to be of any sort of grounds for confidence about his historicity– at best, it shows people may have believed that Jesus was a real person a century and a half after his life on earth would have ended. And that’s pretty much it.
And look, I understand it has to be frustrating to someone that sees a letter like this and thinks denying that it’s a near contemporaneous reference to Jesus is crazy. If I’ve missed something on this, I’ll concede my larger point (again, not stated here, but in my previous post I mentioned that I’m unsure if there was a person at the core of the Gospels named Jesus in actual history). All it would take is one obvious contemporaneous reference to him and all this would be moot. Instead we get stuff decades, or centuries, after the fact that we’re supposed to accept. It’s a tough pill to swallow. Especially if I’m being asked to accept the more ridiculous claims of the Gospels.
And this could be that reference that would put the question to rest. Except that it isn’t. It fails all over the place as being reliable in that regard.
*The gospel of Mark was undoubtedly written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., any scholar who disputes this does so on faith-based rationale, not evidence. Even the most fervently believing scholars (that I am aware of, anyway) agree that Mark is the first gospel written. There is a whole a host of reasons I’ll certainly get into in another post at some point down the line.
** I have been stunned, as I’ve spent a bunch of the past few years looking at the dating of ancient (mostly biblical) texts, and found commonly accepted dates, or authors of books, being one person’s wild guess (or hopeful one) and then everyone in scholarship after that just assuming that date is correct. It’s frustrating to me. Honestly. Case in point, this isn’t a dating issue, per se, but the gospel of Mark, which I mentioned in the footnote above, is assigned to Mark, helper/scribe/interpreter/companion of Peter. How do we know he wrote the gospel of Mark? I mean, it’s not like he signed it at the end or anything. It’s because somewhere around 150 c.e., Papias just assigned names to a couple of the Gospels (we don’t know which ones) as Matthew and Mark. Somehow a century or so later Mark settled on the name of the gospel we know call Mark. Even at his time, Papias admitted that it was tradition (i.e., rumor), not actual knowledge that gave us this author. That sort of wishful thinking isn’t something to build one’s faith upon.
Comments
Post a Comment