The Priene Calendar Inscrition and the Gospel of Mark’s Incipit (Opening Words)
Teaser: Craig Evans, Bruce Metzger, Robert Guelich, Adela Yarbro Collins
For participating in this thread, please read the linked article
Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription:
from Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel
by Craig A. Evans/Trinity Western University.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Wikipedia
The Priene Calendar Inscription is an inscription in stone recovered at Priene (an ancient Greek city sited in Western Turkey) that uses the term “gospel” in referring to Augustus Caesar.
Text of the Priene Calendar Inscription
‘It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him,” which Asia resolved in Smyrna.’ [7][8]
= = =
Yes, Bart is not mentioned in the Teaser.
Bart has put up a forum post on the Priene Inscription. That post refers to his book, How Jesus became God, Chapter 2, pages 48-49.
This member forum post is primarily about going from Gospel back to the Greco-Roman Gospel of going from the Greco-Roman Gospel to the New Testament Gospel.
= = =
I have mostly been thinking about the gospel of ending the First Jewish-Roman War. The Priene Calendar Inscription’s gospel is the ending of the post-Julius Caesar Civil Wars.
Massey, of course, sees it another way; as yet another example of the original type, i.e. the Repa (or coming prince) finding its expression in the same terms in this text, as it had been since antiquity, and that this office of the Messiah was carried through to the Caesar, and lastly to the Christ.
Please see:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
7. Libations in Honor of Caesar.
Beginning with Augustus libations were to be poured out at every banquet, public and private, in honor of the emperor: (“they ordered all, not only in public but also in private banquets, to pour libations to him”; Dio 51.19.7).
One also thinks of the eating and drinking ceremonies observed by adherents to Mithraism. To these ceremonies Justin Martyr refers, complaining that they are done in imitation of the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Apol. 1.66.3). It is of course entirely possible that Christian observation of the Lord’s Supper was itself viewed as imitation of Mithraic practices.In his final meal with his disciples Jesus shares a cup of wine. Evidently he describes it as his “blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24). In various ways the Matthean and Lucan evangelists make explicit the link between the cup and Jesus’ reference to his blood (cf. Matt 26:27b-28; Luke 22:20b), which in Mark is only implied. Paul’s tradition of the Supper adds the saying, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:25). The cup in remembrance of Jesus may have suggested a parallel to the libations drunk in honor of Caesar.
8. The Emperor’s “Advent” and the Promise of a New World Order.
The anticipated arrival of the emperor was referred to as a parousiva (Latin: adventus). In honor of the Roman emperors “advent coins” were struck,
e.g. a coin struck in 66 C.E. in honor of Nero reads adventus Augusti (“the coming of Augustus”).
An inscription in honor of Hadrian speaks of the “first parousiva of the god Hadrian” (both examples from Deissmann,Light, 371-72). PTebt 48 announces the parousiva of the king to the forum.
This manner of speaking is known to Judaism of late antiquity, as seen in Josephus, who also speaks of the “parousiva of the king” (Ant. 19.8.1 §340; cf. 3 Macc 3:17;T. Abr. 13:4-6).
The advent of the emperor was sometimes thought of as the inauguration of a new era. As already noted above, Virgil spoke of Augustus “who shall again set up the Golden Age” (Aeneid 6.791-793). The emperor could inaugurate a new era because of his link with heaven.
This idea is seen in Alexander the Great, who evidently thought of himself as a mediator between heaven and earth. According to Plutarch, Alexander “believed that he came as a heaven-sent governor [qeovqenaJrmosthv”] to all, and as a mediator [diallakthv”] for the whole world . . . he brought together all people everywhere, uniting and mixing in one great loving-cup, as it were, people’s lives, their characters, their marriages, their very habits of life” (Moralia 329C = De Alex. Fortuna 1.6).
Virgil’s poetry in honor of Augustus reflects similar ideas.
Early Christians spoke of the parousiva of Jesus, at which time judgment would take place (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; but earlier in Paul, cf. 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; and in other writers, cf. Jas 5:7, 8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4; 1 John 2:28). In Mark the word parousiva is not employed, but the expectation of Jesus’ return is emphasized in chap. 13 (esp. vv. 26-27, 33-37) and plays an important part in Jesus’ reply to Caiaphas: “You will see the Son of Man . . . coming with the clouds of heaven” (14:62).
The proclamation of the coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15) would relate to the Roman world as the promise of a new world order. Only the “son of God” could make such a promise and effect such a result.
So let me recap, since Mark’s incipit uses the same word (“gospel”) that appears in the Priene Calendar Inscription in some Graeco-Roman messianic context where the actor is Caesar and the eucharistic blood of the covenant reminds of the pouring libations to Augustus at the beginning of private and public banquets and it’s possible to read the word parousia through the text: “You will see the Son of Man…” even if it is not explicitly used by Mark, we should conclude that Mark has “deliberately echoed an important theme of the Roman Imperial Cult.”
I would countersay that words can be used out of context to make a distance between the original meaning and the new one. Also, they can be used to refer to a common ground in order to convey some meaning. The meaning could be strengthened by analogy, but then the two objects compared would not be the same. The pattern would be the same.
If I say: “I despise her ’cause she’s the giggle at a funeral” I could be pointing to Hozier’s lyrics of the song “Take Me To Church” but maybe I’m just using the phrase to relate something else. People who listen would understand the meaning ’cause they are familiar with the pop song but there’s no correlation between my statements and the song itself.
If the eucharistic theme had to do anything with the libations to Augustus then we have a problem with all the rest of the gospel, since almost every internet mysticist could point out in every passage a correlation to some myth or previous religion.
If the parousia hinted in Mark has something to do with the traditional meaning, for instance, the celebration of the visit of Emperor Nero to Corinth then what to say about the advent of a Jewish messiah?
I have a difficulty here understanding the word “echoed” since every human being starts learning just following his parents. Everything is an echo of something else. Modern writers are often interviewed and almost always the question of their favorite authors and source of inspiration comes up. In that case is possible to know the real echo.
I have the feeling that in this post the word “echo” is just a way to avoid putting the question in these terms: the gospel of Mark and the teachings of Paul are just a complete Graeco-Roman re-write of the James version of Jesus’ life.
Please, clarify.
Steefen said
Augustus Caesar predates the composite character of historical fiction called Jesus.
Jesus is a knock-off of Augustus Caesar, pulling in elements of the Son of the Divine Julius Caesar.
Muchos años después, frente al pelotón de fusilamiento, el coronel Aureliano Buendía había de recordar aquella tarde remota en que su padre lo llevó a conocer el hielo.
Not a hundred years, but how much loneliness.
Steefen said
Augustus Caesar predates the composite character of historical fiction called Jesus.
Jesus is a knock-off of Augustus Caesar, pulling in elements of the Son of the Divine Julius Caesar.
Second, Rome is the empire not Judea.
The good news of a savior at the imperial level trumps the good news at the client-kingdom level, the Judaic savior’s kingdom of God/Righteousness/Heaven. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Matthew 15: 24-26
So, it is giving the Biblical Jesus the benefit of the doubt that he would fulfill the international messiah role of Zechariah’s holy words.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)