sky kunde

is this true or fake? See below:

I've found it here among others one: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu...or/divine.html

Toto

This text is usually attributed to the "Priene Calendar Inscription," not a letter from a proconsul. I don't know of any challenges to its authenticity. Ben Smith has some material on it here.

mountainman

The Roman emperors were traditionally "deified" when dead.
The process involved the creation of small statues, and their
procurement by citizens of the empire for their household
shrine. The reference to "gospel" is also no coincidence,
for this word had a pre-existent meaning in the ancient
world, totally different to today's context.

gstafleu

What was that meaning, and where was it used? I've been wondering if the use of the word "gospel" in English isn't misleading, in the sense that it refers to exactly one thing, while e.g. Paul's "evangelion" could have a more general meaning.

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

euangelion just means "good news."

Craig Evans on Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel is a good resource.

Ben C Smith

I think that a great many of the terms and concepts of early Christianity can be explained as reactions to the emperor cult, especially as manifested in the eastern half of the empire. The gospel, the advent (parousia), the sending of Jesus, his divinity, his saviorship, his lordship, and many other lesser details may easily be explained as a counter of sorts to imperial propaganda.

Craig Evans lists a lot of the parallels in the introduction to his Word Biblical Commentary on the second half of Mark. But the grand don of these kinds of studies is Adolf Deissman; refer to his classic Light from the Ancient East (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Ben.

Gamera

Doesn't this weaken the JM thesis considerably. Augustus, indisputably an historical figure, is called a God and a savior and attributed miraculous blessings, in a contemporary text.

The fact that Jesus has the exact same attributions in the gospels therefore is not evidence detracting from his historicity.

aa5874

It strenghtens the JM thesis. Jesus the Christ, unlike Augustus, cannot be confirmed to be an historic figure. Jesus the Christ cannot be placed in the first century, that is, there is no information from any writer, historian, poet, emperor, doctor, magician, family members or any contemporary person, outside of christian sources, in the 1st century.

Jesus the Christ for all practical purposes is a myth.

There were many persons named Jesus, the one in the bible, Jesus the Christ, has not been confirmed to have been real or existed during the 1st century.

Gamera

You've ignored the issue and merely repeated the JM assumptions.

If Augustus is indisputably an historical figure and is called a God, a saviour and a purveyor of miraculous blessings, than surely the fact that Jesus is also attributed these characteristics cannot support his ahistoricity.

The one follows from the other.

Whether there is other evidence against Jesus' historicity is another matter. The point is, based on this text, attributions of Godhead cannot be one.

Gregg

Your argument assumes that everyone in the ancient world thought alike and believed alike.

But the evidence demonstrates that many of the earliest Christians were Jews. Jews would be much less accommodating to the idea of assigning the Godhead to a human being. IN addition, Greek neo-Platonism argued that the High God could have no contact with the world of matter.

In the wider Roman world, obviously, people did not make these sharp distinctions between the human and the divine. But Jews refused even to acknowledge a standard bearing the image of the Emperor, calling it idolatry.

Furthermore, in every other account we have of people being elevated to godhood (in Augustus' case, they appear to be saying he was pre-existent as a god, and became manifest as a savior), the person is someone who had enormous impact on human history in his lifetime.

How many examples can you give me of virtually unknown, humble rabbis who died young being elevated to the Godhead by Jews? Of Jews elevating any other human being to the Godhead?

I don't agree with aa5874 that the quote above "strengthens" the JM thesis, but it certainly doesn't harm it, either. It's neutral.