yalla

Some time ago I noticed that Melito of Sardis appeared to claim that Christianity was current at the time of Augustus.
"Apology to Emperor marcus Aurelius Antoninus" 61..."for this philosophy current with us...during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus."

So there was a brief discussion of this without a strong conclusion.

Now I have noticed that Tertullian in "Adv. Nat." ch 7 has a very similar statement.
"This name of ours took it's rise in the reign of Augustus".

Ok, what's going on here? That's 2 Christian sources from the late 2c roughly who seem to think that Christianity predates the time of JC by a couple of decades.
It does not seem that they are referring to Judaism.
It does not seem that they are referring only to the birth of JC.
What do you think?

GakuseiDon

In his Apology, Tertullian says:

We date the origin of our religion, as we have mentioned before, from the reign of Tiberius...

But having asserted that our religion is supported by the writings of the Jews, the oldest which exist, though it is generally known, and we fully admit that it dates from a comparatively recent period--no further back indeed than the reign of Tiberius.

Augustus died in 14 CE, so he was probably referring to Christ's birth.

jakejonesiv

I think you are onto something.

Jake Jones

yalla

Jake: "I think you are onto something."

Ta, I think so too, but I'm not sure what exactly.

In "Ad. Nat.'' I do not think that Tertullian is just referring to the birth of JC as occuring during the reign of Augustus. He says "This name of ours took it's rise in the reign of Augustus"
Ok, that could be a reference to the alleged birth of JC.
But he then continues "Under Tiberius it was taught...."
Now what is "IT"?
IT could be the name of JC, and that is not an anachronism compared to the gospels story.
But he continues "..under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned."
And now IT becomes Christianity not just a reference to the birth of JC.
I submit that IT has been Christianity all along, in this single passage.
To substantiate that, IMO, he continues "If that prince was a pious man then the Christians are impious, if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure."
So the subject, at least in this section is Christians/christianity, and the subject has not changed since the opening of this single passage.
So I think he has been writing about Christianity all along.

And that's a problem for the gospel scenario.

Ok elsewhere he may have written something else, but then elsewhere he "left" Christianity did he not?
So Tertullian is not consistent.
And in this section he seems to be at odds with the gospels.

In passing I note that there seems to be a similarity to the thought and structure of the section in Melito. Maybe there is a bit of cross-fertilization going on? Perhaps some editing/scribal confusion?
It just seems really odd to me that this sort of ambiguity is found in 2 writers of the era.

Thoughts?

jakejonesiv

Hi yalla,

OK, you asked for my thoughts, so here goes.

Christianity arose from a combination of multiple sources. It is not suprising that various groups have been identified as pre-Christian.

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History) was certain the Therapeutae of Philo (De Vita Contemplativa) were Christians. These Therapeutae would date to the time of Augustus, perhaps before. (I think the Threrapeutae should be distinquished from the Essenes).

According to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., l. Chapter XXVI, 7, Melito wrote:
7 Again he adds the following: "For our philosophy formerly flourished among the Barbarians; but having sprung up among the nations under thy rule, during the great reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it became to thine empire especially a blessing of auspicious omen. For from that time the power of the Romans has grown in greatness and splendor. To this power thou hast succeeded, as the desired possessor, and such shalt thou continue with thy son, if thou guardest the philosophy which grew up with the empire and which came into existence with Augustus; that philosophy which thy ancestors also honored along with the other religions.

8 And a most convincing proof that our doctrine flourished for the good of an empire happily begun, is this-that there has no evil happened since Augustus' reign, but that, on the contrary, all things have been splendid and glorious, in accordance with the prayers of all.

9 Nero and Domitian, alone, persuaded by certain calumniators, have wished to slander our doctrine, and from them it has come to pass that the falsehood has been handed down, in consequence of an unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations against the Christians.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P2621_1239799

Obviously, Melito was not making any reference to the alleged birth of Christ.
Taken at face value, Melito was writing that some form of Christianity had existed since the time of Augustus, that no persecutions had existed before Nero and Dominitian, and that practice of persucution had been handed down to the time of Melito.

Let us turn our attention to the passage from Tertullian.

"This name [Christians] of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself."
TERTULLIAN, _Ad Nationes_, Chapter 7.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian06.html
cf _Apologeticus_, III.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/m...ranslation.htm

Tertullian states here that the name "Christians" arose in the reign of Augustus. As you have noted yalla, this is not a reference to the alleged birth of Christ, but to persecution of those known by the name of Christian.

In fact, they were not being accused as Christians at all but Chrestians.

'Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness.' Chapter III.

When Tertullian heard the name Chrestians, he intepreted it as Christians. Thus the name that took its rise in the reign of Augustus was likely Chrestians. This explains why the disturbances in the 40's in Rome were attributed to Chrestus (Suetonius, Clau., xxv). There were no Christians yet.

So does that mean the entity originally was known as Jesus Christos or Jesus Chrestos? Due to the use of the nomina sacra, there is no way to tell. However, the nomina sarca was not used for the term "Christians", and the spelling is quite revealing. Justin Martyr (Apolgy 1, chapter4) makes a defense of the name Christian, and it makes no sense if the designation isn't Chrestian (good or excellent). Codex Sinaiticus uses "Chrestian" and Codex Vaticanus uses "Chreistian."

"Chrestus" was a name of the Egyptian Serapis. Hadrian wrote "There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis." Scriptores Historiae Augusti: Quadrigae Tyrannorum--Firmus, Saturninus, Proculus et Bonosus [attributed to Flavius Vopiscus of Syracuse], Chapter 7.6-8.10
http://www.liminalityland.com/historiaaugusta.htm

Jake Jones IV

Roger Pearse

I'm sorry to say that I didn't really follow the reasoning. Why is the idea that the new era of mankind begins with the incarnation impossible?

Isn't this to reverse what Tertullian says? Remember that he knows that (1) Christianity is illegal and Christians abused (2) that pagans mean him and his friends (3) that they often say Chrestian, while meaning him. His point is that they hate what they can't even name correctly. I don't see how we can infer from this that Tertullian could suppose Chrestians to mean someone else.

The context is that Egyptians are frivolous and take nothing seriously:

"illic qui Serapem colunt Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi episcopos dicunt."

"In that place [illic] those that [qui] worship [colunt] Serapis [Serapem], they are [sunt] Christians [Christiani], and [et] they have been devoted [devoti sunt] to Serapis [Serapi] those that [qui] call [dicunt] themselves [se] bishops [episcopos] of Christ [Christi]."

This could mean that the Christians worship Serapis; but it is surely much more likely to mean that Egyptians call themselves things which are radically opposed to each other, and do both. Why otherwise is the question raised? The next sentence -- that in Egypt the Jews, Samaritans and Christians are astrologers -- makes the same point.

I hope that helps!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

This is from one of the more 'creative' parts of that very imaginative work the 'Augustan Histories'.

It is unlikely that it represents anything Hadrian ever wrote.

Given the probable date of the 'Augustan Histories' in the late 4th century CE, it may well be a piece of pagan satire against the new official religion.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

Be careful! That source is for the most part a pagan forgery (with a sense of humor).

Clivedurdle

What about this bit?

A philosophy that came into existence with Augustus or a person?

Aquila Pacis

Please bear in mind that "Augustus" is not a person's name but an attribute and a title which was first offered to Gaius Caesar Divi Filius - also known as Octavian, formerly Octavius - (adopted) son of Gaius Iulius Caesar, Divus Iulius. AFAIK almost every Caesar, every emperor after that carried "Augustus" in his official name.

The Melito text being referred to in the first post probably means only what it means: "that" Augustus is one of Marcus Aurelius' predecessors, not necessarily the "original" Augustus mentioned in the NT.