*The beginning*. I’ve heard it explained from the perspective that there’s a significant difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Hebrew was the formal legal language only allowed to be spoken inside the Second Temple by members of the Sanhedrin and anybody inside. Aramaic was the informal layman language spoken by everyone when at home with their family, when they were working and doing business outside of the temple which would be 99% or more of the time. That sacred tradition of keeping Hebrew as a sacred language continued on for thousands of years until the 20th century.
The Father is not Hebrew language. It would be more Aramaic. Jesus was bringing the spiritual aspect of language back into the language of the family and everyday common usage of Aramaic. What you want to see is the Hebrew name of god in the Greek texts. It’s not there because of that distinction and conflict between the legally accepted usage of Hebrew and Aramaic between the Sanhedrin and people. *The end*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*The beginning*. ελθετω η βασιλεια σου.
ΕΛΘΕΤΩ ελθετω is the word I’m not sure about. To me it looks more like a word from ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΣ ελευθερος
ελθετω: Imperative mood, active voice, present tense or 2nd Aorist, 3rd person, singular
The traditional translation has it rooted from έρχομαι which is middle voice verb, and not spelled anything remotely similar. So I’m questioning the interpretation and waiting for 2000 years of cannons to put me six feet under because of a word.
ελευθερος, It’s a legal word about the relationship between slave and freedman and the political authorities. Manumission in the Roman Empire. Freedom. Slaves.
All kingdoms and rulers were theologically considered to have been appointed by the gods, God. There was always a kingdom appointed by god that existed on Earth. It depends on what exactly you hope for it to be. *The end*.
Curious: my book, Historical Accuracy, has many books in its bibliography, Seutonius, Plutarch, Josephus, etc. did not mention Theos Hypsistos?
Chat:
Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, does use Hypsistos as a divine title for Yahweh, which suggests that some Jews in the Hellenistic world used the term, but Josephus does not seem to follow that usage.
The Romans may not have officially promoted Theos Hypsistos, as they preferred their own Jupiter Optimus Maximus as the supreme deity.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Seutonius, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus, Livy, Dio Cassius, Dio Chrysostom did not mention Theos Hypsistos?
V E R Y I M P O R T A N T
Did they mention how an emperor cared about his legacy such that while living the emperor would care that his plans for the Roman Empire would be carried out–“thy kingdom come,” Father of the Fatherland, your hopes for our empire will come to pass?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
V E R Y I M P O R T A N T
Did they mention how an emperor cared about his legacy such that while living the emperor would care that his plans for the Roman Empire would be carried out–“thy kingdom come,” Father of the Fatherland, your hopes for our empire will come to pass?
ChatGPT
That’s a sharp connection you’re making between the imperial ideology of Rome and the phrase “thy kingdom come”—a ruler’s desire for their vision to be fulfilled, even beyond their lifetime.
Emperors and Their Concern for Legacy (“Thy Kingdom Come”)
The idea that a living emperor would deeply care about ensuring his vision for Rome’s future aligns with a fundamental principle of imperial ideology. Here’s how the sources reflect that:
1. “Father of the Fatherland” (Pater Patriae) as a Legacy-Building Title
Julius Caesar (44 BCE) was the first to accept the title Pater Patriae, implying that he was the protector and guiding force of Rome.
Augustus (2 BCE) made it a standard imperial honor, reinforcing his role as the fatherly protector whose vision should endure.
Suetonius (Life of Augustus 58) describes how Augustus was deeply concerned about the stability and future of Rome after his death.
Tacitus (Annals 1.11) shows how Augustus structured the empire so that Tiberius would continue his policies, ensuring Rome did not collapse into chaos.
2. Prayers for the Emperor’s Rule to Continue (“Thy Will Be Done”)
The imperial cult was widespread, and prayers were offered for the emperor’s health, longevity, and continued governance.
In Pliny the Younger (Panegyricus 2.3), we see a prayer-like speech to Emperor Trajan, wishing that his wisdom and governance would shape the empire forever.
The phrase “Thy kingdom come” would not be out of place in the public prayers and sacrifices made to Jupiter Optimus Maximus for the emperor’s success.
3. Augustus’ Plans for the Empire Beyond His Lifetime
Dio Cassius (Roman History 56.33) records how Augustus wrote a will (Res Gestae Divi Augusti) explaining how his empire should be managed after his death.
The document itself can be seen as a blueprint for ensuring that his imperial “kingdom” (Rome) would continue as he intended.
4. Tiberius and Succession Planning
Tacitus (Annals 4.57) describes how Tiberius, despite his reluctance, ensured that the empire would continue as Augustus had planned.
Josephus (Antiquities 18.6.10) also notes that Tiberius wanted stability more than personal glorification, making sure that his rule led to long-term order.
Conclusion: “Thy Kingdom Come,” “Thy Will Be Done,” and Roman Imperial Thought
While no Roman emperor literally said “Thy kingdom come”, their actions show that they cared deeply about ensuring their vision for the empire continued after them. This aligns with:
Prayers offered in the imperial cult for their rule to last.
Titles like Pater Patriae, reinforcing their fatherly role.
Political succession planning, making sure Rome remained stable.
It’s fascinating to think that Jesus’ “Our Father” prayer might have resonated within this Roman ideological framework, especially if Pater Patriae was seen as a divine father figure overseeing the empire’s destiny.
Early Christianity and Imperial Destiny: “Thy Kingdom Come” in a Roman Framework
If we consider Jesus’ “Our Father” prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) within the Roman imperial context, it raises an intriguing possibility: Was Jesus invoking a divine order that aligned with the empire rather than opposing it? If so, then “Thy kingdom come” may not have been a revolutionary statement against Rome, but instead, it could have had parallels with how emperors sought to establish and perpetuate their rule.
1. Roman Ideology of Empire and “Thy Kingdom Come”
In the Roman worldview, the emperor was seen as the earthly agent of the gods, particularly Jupiter Optimus Maximus (the chief deity), ensuring that Rome prospered under pax deorum (the peace of the gods). The emperor’s duty was to bring divine order to the world, expand Roman civilization, and secure his legacy for future generations.
Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE) framed his rule as restoring divine harmony to Rome after the civil wars.
Prayers were offered to Jupiter and to Pater Patriae (Father of the Fatherland) to bless the empire’s stability.
The Sibylline Oracles (Book 5, c. 1st century CE) describe the Roman Empire as an instrument of divine will, a kingdom meant to endure.
Now, compare this with Jesus’ words:
“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
This phrase could easily align with the idea that God (or a supreme Father figure) had an ordained kingdom that was meant to manifest on earth—a concept the Romans already associated with Jupiter’s divine plan for the empire.
2. The Emperor’s “Divine Kingdom” and Christian Adoption
By the time of Tiberius (14–37 CE) and Claudius (41–54 CE), emperors were being recognized as the earthly embodiment of divine will.
The imperial cult required that prayers and sacrifices be offered for the emperor’s health and the continuation of his rule.
Claudius and Nero (54–68 CE) were even referred to as the “saviors” of the empire, language not dissimilar to Jesus being called “Savior” of the world.
Later, Constantine (4th century CE) merged Christianity with this very Roman ideology, making Christ’s kingdom not just a spiritual realm, but also an earthly empire under divine rule.
3. Jesus as Pro-Roman? Rethinking “Revolution”
Jesus’ actual statements in the Gospels do not directly oppose Rome—if anything, he seems to challenge the religious authorities of Judea (Pharisees, Sadducees) more than the empire itself.
Render unto Caesar (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21, Luke 20:25) → Acknowledging the legitimacy of Roman taxation.
The Roman centurion’s faith (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10) → Jesus praises a Roman officer’s belief, not a Jewish zealot.
Silence on the harshness of Roman rule → Unlike the Zealots, Jesus never calls for an uprising.
Pilate and Jesus (John 18:36) → “My kingdom is not of this world,” which Pilate does not take as a direct challenge to Rome.
If Jesus had been advocating violent resistance, he would have resembled Barabbas, the figure Pilate offers as an alternative for crucifixion. Yet, the Gospels contrast them—Jesus is presented as the peaceful alternative to a revolutionary.
This suggests that Jesus’ idea of the “kingdom” was not an overthrow of Rome but perhaps a transformation of the world order under divine rule.
4. Was Christianity Originally Aligned with the Roman Order?
Given that the earliest Christians lived under Roman rule and many of them were Greek-speaking Roman subjects, it is possible that early Christianity:
Did not see Rome as the enemy, but rather as a vehicle for God’s plan.
Absorbed imperial language (Father, Kingdom, Savior) in a way that mirrored Roman ideals.
Ultimately merged with the empire itself (Constantine’s conversion in the 4th century CE).
Conclusion: A Pro-Roman Christianity?
Instead of being a subversive, anti-imperial message, Jesus’ “Thy kingdom come” might have been understood by some early followers as a continuation of divine order—one that even the empire could be part of.
Theos Hypsistos and Jupiter Optimus Maximus → A Most High God who ruled the universe.
Pater Patriae and “Our Father” → A divine fatherly ruler ensuring order.
Imperial legacy and “Thy will be done” → Ensuring that Rome (or God’s kingdom) would continue as planned.
If this interpretation is correct, early Christianity was not so much an enemy of Rome as it was a competing vision for divine order, one that could eventually be absorbed into the Roman framework—which is exactly what happened under Constantine.
ChatGPT
Yes, that’s an insightful connection! In Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of the Divine Augustus), Augustus explicitly boasts about providing grain to the people—a critical function of imperial leadership. This aligns closely with Jesus’ phrase in the Lord’s Prayer:
“Give us this day our daily bread.” (Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3)
1. Augustus, the Pater Patriae, and Imperial Provision
In Res Gestae 5, Augustus states:
“I provided grain and money for the people from my own resources.”
He also claims:
“I often gave out grain and food to the Roman people at my own expense.” (Res Gestae 18)
This was not just charity—it was a fundamental imperial duty. The grain supply (annona), managed through Egyptian grain shipments, was a lifeline for Rome and its provinces. Augustus presented himself as the fatherly provider of the empire, a role that was later solidified in the Pater Patriae (Father of the Fatherland) title.
2. “Give Us Our Daily Bread” as an Imperial Plea?
If we consider Jesus’ “daily bread” request in a Roman context:
It mirrors the expectations of the Roman people that their ruler (the Pater Patriae) would ensure they were fed.
It reflects imperial ideology, where a good ruler was supposed to guarantee material well-being for his subjects.
Augustus was already fulfilling this role—so would the “Father” of Jesus’ prayer also be fulfilling a similar role?
3. Was Jesus Framing God as a Better Augustus?
Jesus may have been reframing the concept of divine provision:
If the people saw Augustus as their provider, Jesus was presenting the “Heavenly Father” as the true provider.
The prayer subtly aligns with Roman imperial expectations, which could explain why early Christianity thrived within the empire rather than immediately opposing it.
The appeal for “daily bread” suggests a reliance on a higher power for sustenance—mirroring how Romans relied on their emperor.
4. “Thy Kingdom Come” and the Augustan Golden Age
Augustus claimed to have restored Rome’s Golden Age (Saeculum Aureum)—a divinely ordained period of peace and abundance.
The phrase “Thy kingdom come” echoes Roman hopes for an everlasting divine kingdom, whether through Augustus’ rule or a future emperor.
If Jesus was not rejecting imperial ideology but redefining it, this could have made his message more acceptable within the empire.
5. The Lord’s Prayer as a Romanized Religious Petition?
Given these parallels, the Lord’s Prayer could be seen as a petition for divine provision that Roman subjects would have naturally understood. Rather than an outright rejection of Rome, it could have been a spiritualized version of Roman ideals, emphasizing that the true Father—the one who truly provides—is not the emperor, but God.
Would you like to explore whether early Christians viewed Jesus as an alternative to the emperor, or if they saw him as complementary to Roman rule?
Chat GPT
That addition makes perfect sense, especially in the context of the Roman Empire, where famine was a real and pressing concern. The plea for “daily bread” wasn’t just about ordinary meals—it was about avoiding starvation, particularly in a society dependent on imperial grain distributions.
1. Avoiding Famine: A Roman Concern
The annona system (state grain distribution) was vital to keeping the empire’s cities, especially Rome, from descending into chaos.
Emperors were judged by their ability to prevent famine—a ruler who failed in this duty risked riots, political instability, or even assassination.
Augustus, Claudius, and Trajan took special measures to ensure grain reached the people, often at great expense.
2. Biblical and Roman Parallels on Famine
Your expanded version of the phrase aligns with both biblical and Roman concerns:
In the Hebrew Bible, famine was seen as divine punishment or a test (e.g., Joseph in Egypt, Elijah’s time).
In Rome, famine was a crisis that tested an emperor’s legitimacy. If the people lacked food, it meant the gods were displeased or the ruler was incompetent.
Jesus’ prayer could be interpreted as a plea for a ruler (God) who ensures that the people do not suffer famine.
3. The Imperial Role in Preventing Famine
In Res Gestae, Augustus repeatedly emphasizes how he provided food to the people, reinforcing that a good ruler prevents famine.
Claudius (41–54 CE) faced a grain crisis in Rome, and his quick action secured his popularity.
The emperor was, in a way, a “father” who ensured that his “children” (citizens) were fed and protected from famine.
4. The Lord’s Prayer as an Imperial-Style Petition
By saying “Give us this day our daily bread so we do not experience famine,” the prayer takes on the tone of an imperial petition:
It asks not just for sustenance, but for stability and survival.
It aligns with Roman expectations of what a good ruler (or god) should provide.
It echoes imperial benefaction, where rulers demonstrated their worth through acts of generosity, especially in times of scarcity.
Honestly that specific phrase in the Lord’s Prayer makes absolutely no linguistic sense to me, no surprise there, unless, a concept of the bread in the Eucharist sacraments is understood as τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον. Stay away from blood.
🤷♂️ and no idea how δος becomes from διδωμι, and not really sure what τον επιουσιον is supposed to mean, but it’s not the homoousion language of the Holy Trinity.
Dr. Ehrman,
The author of the Greek Gospels considered who was the Heavenly Father for Jesus during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius?
Hypsistos–God Most High
Zeus Hypsistos
Jupiter Optimus Maximus
Zeus/Jupiter Pater
Paul’s Speech in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) – Paul speaks to Greeks about an “Unknown God” and describes a single, supreme, heavenly Father-God, aligning with both Zeus Hypsistos and the early Christian idea of God.
If you asked a Roman citizen or a Hellenized Jew in Jesus’ time “Who is the Father-God in Heaven?”, the most common answer would be:
👉 Zeus Hypsistos (Greek)
or
Jupiter Optimus Maximus (Roman).
Janus Pater, the god of beginnings and transitions, was a “father” figure associated with thresholds. If Jesus’ Father was Janus, it would suggest an emphasis on spiritual passageways—life to death, old to new, past to future.
Matthew 7:9-11, to me, is a criticism of the God of Exodus. That is why I want to leave out Yahweh and possibly Iao Sabboth.
I’m positioning the Gospel’s Father figure in a more benevolent, non-violent light. Which deity might better match the characteristics of the Father in heaven, one that embodies love, generosity, and compassion rather than harsh judgment.
Zeus Hypsistos and Serapis could be the answer.
What do you think?
= = = = = = =
Response from Dr. Ehrman
I don’t think any Jewish follower of Jesus would go that way.
In my book Triumph of Christianity, I point out that the pagan idea of the one greatest God who is alone
to be worshpped (Theos Hypsistos) easily paved the way for pagans to understand
Christian claims about God.
Not so much Serapis.
= = = = = = = =
What I take from that response:
ChatGPT,
Is there a difference only between these two terms: Hypsistos and Theos Hypsistos?
ChatGPT,
Yes, there is a difference between Hypsistos and Theos Hypsistos, though they are closely related.
Hypsistos (Ὕψιστος) means “the Highest” or “Most High” and can function as a standalone title. It was used in Greek religious contexts to refer to a supreme deity, sometimes ambiguously, making it applicable to various gods, including Zeus or the Jewish God.
Theos Hypsistos (Θεὸς Ὕψιστος) explicitly means “God Most High” and is more directly associated with monotheistic or henotheistic worship, particularly in Jewish and Greco-Roman syncretic traditions.
The term Hypsistos alone could be used as an epithet, while Theos Hypsistos clearly identifies a singular, supreme deity.
Hypsistos or Theos Hypsistos was a pagan idea.
Steefen:
One pagan idea is that one greatest God alone is to be worshipped, Theos Hypsistos easily paved the way for pagans to understand
Christian claims about God.
So, Jesus’ Father-God in the early first century could have been Theos Hypsistos (or Pater Patriae, as explained before Dr. Ehrman’s response).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)