Ben C Smith

I have seen on this board much questioning of the reference made to a wise king in a Syriac letter from Mara bar Serapion to his son. A common judgment is that there is no indication that the wise king is Jesus. The following are some representative statements along those lines from this board.

From Extrabiblical References to Jesus:

(On second thought, that line from funinspace may be questioning, not the application to Jesus, but the relevance to historicity. If so, then this one is not in the same class as the others.)

From Opening Statement in HJ Debate:

From Non-Christian Sources for the Historicity of Jesus:

Iasion is correct that the date of the Syriac letter is unknown, though it must postdate 70.

I would like to attempt a prima facie case that the wise king in this letter is indeed Jesus. Note that I am not at this juncture drawing any conclusions from that identification (such as the historicity of Jesus) beyond the identification itself. Nor am I making an argument as to the date of the letter.

On my Mara bar Serapion page I list the following attributes given to the wise king by bar Serapion:

1. He was Jewish.
2. He was wise.
3. He was a king.
4. He enacted new laws (or was a teacher).
5. He was killed by the Jews.
6. The Jewish kingdom fell because of his death.

I submit (and you can get more details, especially the relevant texts, on the web page) that Jesus fits every one of those descriptors. It is important to remember that I do not have to prove that Jesus really was or did all of those things, but rather that he was known to have been or done them, since I am after no more than an identification at this stage.

Keep in mind that I do not know Syriac, so there may be nuances in the original language that I will have missed; I am relying on a pair of the usual internet translations, as well as the one in R. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, and another in G. Theissen, The Historical Jesus.

My question (or challenge) is this: Is there anyone else from antiquity who fits all six of the descriptors listed above? If so, who? And what are the texts that describe him as those things?

Thanks.

Ben.

Julian

Diogenes and I have been working on a future sticky thread regarding all the extra-biblical references to Jesus. We have been woefully slow in creating this but I did write an entry for Mara. Here is what I wrote quite a while ago now:

Mara bar Serapion

While in a Roman prison, Mara bar Serapion from Samosata in Syria wrote a letter to his son studying in Odessa. The letter may contain a reference to Jesus. The relevant section is reproduced here:

What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom1 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 whole2 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.
(Roberts-Donaldson English translation)

There are a number of opinions regarding the dating of the letter. The driving away of the Jews from their kingdom might refer to the events following the destruction of the temple in 70 or the expulsion following the building of Aelia Capitolina in 135. Blinzler dates the letter to 72-74 (pp. 34-38 The Trial of Jesus 2nd German ed.; Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959 and pp. 52-57 Der Prozess Jesu 4th ed.; Regensburg; Pustet, 1969), some date it to the 2nd century while Leon-Dufour dates the letter to ca. 260 (6.1422-23 in H. Denzinger and C. Bannwart Enchiridion Symbolorum Rev. A. Schönmetzer 32ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1963). There is no way to know if Mara bar Serapion is referring to Jesus in the letter, indeed, there are any number of contenders that could be described as a ‘wise king’ which according to R. Brown is not a Christian designation (p. 382 The Death of the Messiah, Vol. I). Considering the era of the other two examples (Pythagoras and Socrates) is is possible that an entirely different king is the person in question. Even if it does refer to a messianic figure of the first century there were certainly no shortage of such figures. All in all, the reference cannot be taken as a reliable reference to a historical Jesus.

Peter Kirby's discussion of the Mara bar Serapion passage can be found here at ECW.

1. Lit., "made captive."
2. For read.

Julian

No, not that he was known to have been/done them but that a non-christian thought that he were/did. Let's take them one at a time:

1. He was Jewish.
Yeah, okay.

2. He was wise.
Probably.

3. He was a king.
Absolutely not. Only a christian would think this and not even all of them. I don't see how you can back this one up but I suspect that you will try.

4. He enacted new laws (or was a teacher).
That he was a teacher, maybe. He certainly didn't enact new laws. He did make proclamations on the Jewish laws, possibly declaring them forfeit (or that they were still in force depending on interpretation), that's not the same as enacting laws. Especially since the christians rejected the OT laws.

5. He was killed by the Jews.
Only a christian would think this. The Romans crucified him and that's how it was viewed by outsiders (e.g. Tacitus) although with the spreading of the gospels that perception would change. I doubt it would change outside of christian circles, however, until much later. I am certain that the gospels were not common reading among the general public.

6. The Jewish kingdom fell because of his death.
Again, a christian notion. Certainly no Jew, or any non-christian from that area, would ever in their wildest imagination think this. Between the war in 70 and later in 135 there were several large and obvious reasons, none of which would be Jesus.

You would need to show that Mara thought the things you listed not merely that he could have known them, which would be easy and inconclusive. The reference sounds more like Josiah or maybe Solomon to me...

Julian

Ben C Smith

Good correction (known was inappropriate; thought is much better).

No, not necessarily only a Christian. Just someone favorable to Christian claims, and Mara bar Serapion is obviously favorable to this wise king.

Celsus denies that Jesus was really a king, but he not only sees the implications of the genealogies (fabricated as they may be) but also is aware of the gospel claims as to his kingship, particularly those in the infancy narrative in Matthew. What is to prevent Mara bar Serapion (who, unlike Celsus, is favorable to his subject) from taking (one of) the genealogies seriously and thinking that Jesus really was a rightful heir to the throne, clearly the implication of the genealogies in the first place?

On my web page I cited Lucian, a pagan, to the contrary; he calls Jesus a lawgiver. If Lucian, a pagan, can think that Jesus enacted new laws, why not Mara bar Serapion?

Not true. The Jews, for example, took responsibility in the Talmud. And Celsus puts the following on the lips of his fictional Jew (Origen, Against Celsus 2.8):

Why did we treat him, whom we announced beforehand, with dishonor? Was it that we might be chastised more than others?

This is either a Jew asserting responsibility for the dishonorable Jewish treatment of Jesus or a pagan acknowledging that dishonorable Jewish treatment; in neither case is it a Christian.

Not necessarily common, but Celsus, a pagan, certainly read them.

You will have to produce evidence that a pagan favorable to Jesus as some kind of wise man would not possibly think this.

That is an unreasonable demand, given that we have only this one letter. What has to be shown, rather, is that a pagan like Mara could have thought those things.

The passage in Mara bar Serapion says that the Jews killed the wise king. Who ever said that the Jews killed Solomon or Josiah?

This is what I am after, namely alternate candidates.

When bar Serapion gives the wise king as an example, he apparently thinks that the wise king is well enough known to serve as an example. IOW, it is unlikely that he is referring to someone so obscure as to be completely unknown to us. Let us imagine for a moment that only a Christian would believe all six points about Jesus. At least Jesus does indeed fulfill, for a Christian, all six points! What other candidate does that under any worldview?

There is an old joke about two hunters in the woods who suddenly come face to face with a bear. The first hunter says: Well, time to run for it. The second hunter: Run? There is no way we can outrun a bear! The first hunter: I don't have to outrun the bear; I only have to outrun you.

Hypotheses are a bit like that. Granted that we are looking for someone reasonably well known in antiquity who at least some people thought was or did those six things from the bar Serapion letter, my hypothesis is that it is Jesus. If no one can produce a better candidate, then my hypothesis, even with its remaining questions, will look like the winner.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Let me add another layer to the argument that the wise king is supposed to be Jesus.

I admit that a pagan who is sympathetic enough to Christianity to buy into the Christian interpretations of the death of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem could not have been a very common category in antiquity; however, it surely was a possible category, for the apologists were not always after converts; they also wanted just a little bit of respect from their Greek and Roman neighbors, sometimes just enough respect to refrain from executing Christians.

I would place bar Serapion in the category of pagan philosopher favorable to Christianity. But to what kind of Christianity was bar Serapion exposed (and favorable)? Let us look at the list of characteristics of the wise king again:

1. He was Jewish.
2. He was wise.
3. He was a king.
4. He enacted new laws (or was a teacher).
5. He was killed by the Jews.
6. The Jewish kingdom fell because of his death.

More than one ancient strain of Christianity had all these elements, but is there a strain of Christianity that emphasized them all? Put another way, is there an ancient Christian text that springs to mind when the above list is read out? There is, I think. The gospel of Matthew.

1. No other gospel beats Matthew when it comes to emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus. I know that Chris Weimer has recently emphasized that Matthew was Christian, but I do not think that he can take away from the emphasis on Judaism in the first canonical gospel. Matthew was Christian, to be sure, but he was Jewish-Christian (I am using the name Matthew here as a symbol for that strand of tradition, not because I think the apostle Matthew actually wrote the book). It is Matthew who underscores, for example, that the mission of the twelve was limited to Israel only (10.5-6).

2. So far as wisdom is concerned, Matthew is on equal footing with Luke, in my judgment, since both share the wisdom sayings from the Q tradition.

However, there is an interesting coincidence involving Matthew and wisdom in the gospel of Thomas, saying 14, where it is precisely the apostle Matthew who calls Jesus a wise philosopher. Interesting.

3. Nobody beats Matthew when it comes to calling Jesus a king. It is Matthew alone who includes the most regal elements in the infancy narrative, having magi from the east come to worship the king of the Jews (chapter 2). It is Matthew alone who uses the term parousia, a word implying a royal entrance, for the coming of the son of man (chapter 24). It is Matthew alone who includes the parable of the sheep and the goats (chapter 25), in which the son of man is a king enthroned.

4. Nobody beats Matthew when it comes to calling Jesus a lawmaker. It is Matthew who most extensively compares Jesus to Moses in the sermon on the mount (Luke has obscured the Mosaic connections somewhat by making it a sermon on a plain).

5. Nobody beats Matthew when it comes to blaming the Jews for the execution of Jesus. Matthew knows as well as anybody that Jesus suffered a Roman form of execution, but it is Matthew alone who has the Roman governor wash his hands of the death of Jesus. And it is Matthew alone who has the Jews collectively accept his blood on their heads from that time on.

6. Nobody beats Matthew when it comes to connecting the fall of Jerusalem with the execution of Jesus. In the parable of the wedding feast, right after the parable of the tenants, Matthew has the offended king destroying a city, a clear reference to 70. Also see Matthew 21.43, unparalleled in Mark and Luke, where Jesus explicitly removes the kingdom of God from the Jews because of their killing of the son in the parable of the tenants. And, again, there is the Jewish fate foretold in Matthew 27.25.

I think it all but certain generally that, if the wise king is Jesus, Mara bar Serapion got his information about the wise king, if not directly from Christians, then at least indirectly through Christian filters. Specifically, I think he got his information through either the gospel of Matthew or Matthean filters, based on the emphases in that tradition. It is very interesting, then, that most scholars think that Matthew was written in Syria, the very province where Mara bar Serapion was sitting in a Roman prison.

If the wise king is not Jesus, it seems quite a coincidence that the wise king sounds most like the kind of Jesus preached in the very area whence Mara bar Serapion wrote.

Of course, all this argumentation can be rendered moot quite easily; all one has to do is produce a better candidate.

Ben.

Julian

You mention this later, as well, so I will just comment on it here. I think your argument is circular:

You think that Mara is favorable towards Christian claims because he speaks this well of Jesus.
You think the quote refers to Jesus because Mara was favorable towards Christians.
Being of the lineage of kings and/or sharing a bloodline with kings does not make one a king. Royalty frequently have many sons yet only one will be called king, namely the one officially invested with the office. It is essentially a job position appointed to someone at a particular time, the other sons may or may not have titles.

Jesus is never proclaimed king so if Mara thought this he either heard it from a Christian (unlikely that that would make him believe what he says unless Mara really was a Christian) or he was familiar with GMatthew, this latter being option unlikely to make him make the claims he does unless he was a christian.
It's possible, sure. Lots of things are possible, I just dont' find them particularly likely. Again, only with gospel knowledge would someone believe that.
Is the Talmud Jesus the same as our Jesus? If you accept that he is, do you also accept that the Talmud is accurate in what it states?
Celsus had a professional interest in such matters, he could be expected to read such material. I am not so sure we can find a plausible reason that Mara did, other than it makes it fit GMatthew. Again, possible, but not very likely...
Anyone who accepted Matthew's outrageous claims was very likely to be Christian. In my mind Mara would have to be a Matthean-style christian to produce his statement and apply it to Jesus, yet there is no other evidence that he was, an unlikely event (the lack of evidence, that is.)
And I don't think that he could, not to that extent without actually being fully christian, yet we see no evidence of that.
That is somewhat out of my area, so I cannot comment any further without some research which is beyond my time allowances at the moment. Maybe it isn't meant to be taken literally. What kings were killed?
I disagree here. It is not enough to simply have the best candidate. It is better, when a good fit cannot be achieved, to simply state 'We don't know,' rather than taking our conclusions beyond the support of the evidence. Certainly, what you propose is possible but I find it exceedingly unlikely. I, myself, would be far more content to simply state my ignorance as to whom Mara was referring.

Julian

Ben C Smith

I think that the wise king is Jesus because Jesus is the only person I can think of who fulfills all six points of the profile, and because he does so in an emphatically Syrian Christian way. I then think that Mara bar Serapion was favorable to Christianity because he is favorable to the wise king.

He is proclaimed king in Matthew and in Christian proclamation.

I would not try to claim that bar Serapion definitely read Matthew, though that is certainly possible. And there was a syncretistic tendency among many in antiquity. He could have accepted some claims without accepting others.

Yes, I think that Mara bar Serapion had gospel knowledge. I am not trying to make him an independent witness to the events of the career of Jesus of Nazareth. My argument is much more modest.

In Sanhedrin 43a, yes, the Talmud Jesus is definitely our Jesus. I do not know of anyone who disputes that. The text calls him Jesus of Nazareth, after all.

You may be thinking of the much more questionable ben Stada and ben Panthera references from the Talmud.

In one aspect, possibly. But my point does not rest on its accuracy. I am quite happy to admit that it is mostly late reaction against the Christian gospel tradition. Rather, my point is that the Jews were not at all ashamed to admit they had caused Jesus of Nazareth to be killed. That is a modern stigma, not an ancient one.

Anyone interested in philosophical matters, especially as passed on by the sages, could be interested in Jesus as the gospels present him (a teacher who, like Socrates, ran afoul of the powers that be and got killed for it).

You state here that the kind of Christianity he would have to embrace would be Matthean. If Mara did not intend Jesus when he wrote of the wise king, how do you explain the close correlations with the Matthean gospel emphases?

Not to be taken literally?

I would agree with you if the person could have been a nobody. But by not naming the wise king Mara bar Serapion apparently thinks the reference is still clear enough. Furthermore, along the lines of what you asked in the last quote, how many people could there have been who were claimed to be king, who were nevertheless executed, and on whose death the destruction of Jerusalem was blamed?

I mean, do you have any candidate who would fit that description?

If Mara bar Serapion had named the wise king, and we were unfamiliar with the name, I could follow you here. But he (by accident, in your judgment) happens to describe the Matthean Jesus to a T. I find that too much of a coincidence to overlook.

We cannot presume that no pagan would ever be sympathetic to Christianity without converting. Rather, the strength of the identification with the Matthean (Syrian) Jesus, along with the dearth of alternate candidates, must be allowed to shed light on pagan sympathies. IOW, starting from a position that neither affirms nor denies that a pagan philosopher could sympathize with the gospel Christ, this identification helps to affirm it. In order to deny it, it seems you have to start with the presupposition that it could never happen.

Ben.