patcleaver

I agree that Historia Augusta is a forgery, but so are all the thousands of ancient religious documents.

Anyone claiming that any part of an ancient document is reliable has the burden of proving that it is reliable and not a fantasy, fiction or forgery or interpolation.

Since thousands of ancient religious documents are fantasies, fictions or forgeries, it would be extraordinary if some of the early Christian documents were reliable.

For arguments sake, assuming that the letter from Emperor Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul in Historia Augusta is reliable, the letter would have been written around 135 CE. The letter says:

At that time, Alexandra was a major city of 150 thousand of people. The vast majority of Alexandrians worshiped the god Serapis. About 1/3 of the Population was Jewish. There was also a significant minority of Samarians - perhaps a few tens of thousands. There were also probably dozens of small mystery cults one of which may have been followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is no reliable evidence that there were any followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Alexandria at that time.

There is no evidence that followers of Jesus of Nazareth were called Christians at that time.

There is little evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was called Christ at the time, Tacitus is not reliable.

If there were a small cult of followers of Jesus of Nazareth, then Emperor Hadrian would not have been aware of them.

It is ridiculous to believe that the Patriarch would worship both Jesus of Nazareth and Serapis when he came to Alexandria.

Hadrian names three groups that he is aware of: "There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer." The only three significant religious groups in Alexandria were worshipers of Serapis, Jews and Samaritans. The three major groups that Hadrian mentions are Jews, Samaritans and Christians, so here Christian must be a reference to worshiper's of Serapis.

It is very unlikely that Hadrian is referring to followers of Jesus of Nazareth - it just does not make any sense to interpret it that way.

It is far more likely that Hadrian is discussing a dispute between two factions of Serapis worshipers. One group calls the pagan deity "Serapis"; and the other faction calls the pagan deity "Christ". The situation is inconvenient for the Patriarch.

Do you have a primary source (something that is not obviously fantasy) that there were any followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Alexandria in 135 CE?

Amaleq13

From which informed, professional historian did you learn this "rule"?

What evidence leads you to this conclusion?

What do you imagine the goal of the interpolator to have been?

Source?

I think your conclusion has crept in as an unstated assumption here (ie circular reasoning). You need to show why it "must" be a reference to Serapis without assuming that there were no followers of Jesus in Alexandria at the time.

The three mentioned above were connected to each other, yes? All people of essentially same religious books? And those of the Jewish faith were rather well known for their monotheistic devotion to The One True God, yes? I would think that to note that even all three forms of the ancient and respected, monotheistic Judaism exhibited the same promiscuous faith, serves to emphasize the claim quite well.

Can you support this claim without assuming your conclusion (ie that there were no Jesus followers in Alexandria c135CE?

That doesn't seem "likely" at all since it essentially ruins the argument. He is clearly criticizing the Egyptians for "faithing around" so pointing to a factional split within a single religion really doesn't serve that purpose. The criticism only works if there are significant differences between faiths

Jeffrey Gibson

What primary source(s) have you used to come to these conclusions? And why should we trust them?

And on what primary sources have you relied to get to your "knowledge" of what is likely and what is unlikely vis a vis Hadrian, let alone that there was faction in Alexandrai who worsehipped a pagan deity called "christ"?


Do we have a primary source that attests to your claim regarding Serapis and the god's worshipers? If we do, how do we know that it is reliable and not a fantasy, fiction or forgery or interpolation?

And may we ask you to spell out the criteria you use in determining what in extant primary sources is "obviously fantasy" and what is not?

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

This is an intriguing bit of deduction, but is it not entirely based on assuming the letter is actually by Hadrian? If the letter is simply part of the 4th century forgery, then it reflects what the forger thinks the situation was two centuries earlier. I'm still trying to decide whether your reasoning could apply in that context.

The more I consider that passage in the Historia Augusta, the more I think it is almost impossible to decide what we can, or cannot, derive from it. (However, I'm still willing to give Roger's interpretation the best possibility.)

By the way, I've tried to find my way into the Realencyclopedie, which a poster above gave us a link to (Clive in post #10), but come up only against a 'member' log-in. But there seems no way to actually sign up, or info about doing so. Has anyone else managed to gain access to the actual text, by any route?

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

You either have to have a personal subscription to the data base or access privileges to a university library that has subscribed to it.

Jeffrey

spamandham

It looks like a subscription to Pauly-Wissowa is available at http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=27761, but it's not cheap! They offer a 30 day trial for institutions.

EarlDoherty

Well, I guess I am going to have to make at least a partial bow to Roger on the matter of his "rubbish" comment. Even the citing itself of Robertson's "Christianity and Mythology" can't be confirmed. The online version of the book only goes up to about p.305, whereas one of those 'disreputable' sources gives the "Osiris reverenced as Chrestos" statement as on p.331. I assume the pages in the onsite text would conform to the original book. Besides, no "Chrestos" can be searched out anywhere in the text.

Thus I'm assuming Robertson made no such statement.

Still have a nagging hesitation on the Serapis business, but that may end up on the compost heap as well.

As for Brill and its Realencyclopedie, almost $1500 a year for access? I think I'll pass. (Maybe we can rely on Jeffrey to look things up for us.)

Earl Doherty

Toto

Both the Amazon preview of Christianity and Mythology (or via: amazon.co.uk)'s table of contents and Google books show pages going well beyong 305, although the indexing of both of these shows some problems.

I was able to read p 331 on Google books, and there is no mention of Chrestus, but there is a description of how the sun god Horos is born of the virgin Isis on the winter solstice in a temple containing the sacred cow and bull.

patcleaver

This has always been the rule in the Law, and in archeology, and for historiography (except for Bible Scholars). Even Bible Scholars are beginning to recognize its necessity.

mountainman

The Historia Augusta is already on the compost heap outside of BC&H in the greater seas of ancient history. No serious ancient historian perceives this source document without its obviously purposefully forged origins in the hands of these "four scriptores" in the age of Constantine or shortly thereafter. Such documents cannot remain dissociated from their fraudulent political historical origins. A fraud is a fraud. Pious or otherwise.



Best wishes,


Pete