Loading...QUESTION:
I only recently bought Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” and have flipped through it. I was shocked to see in Book 1, Chapter 13, a supposed letter from Jesus to King Agbarus! I knew I had to everything Eusebius wrote with a grain of salt, but after this, it made me realise that a grain won’t be enough. No one actually takes this letter seriously, do they? And if not, how much confidence can we place in his other testimonies of letters and documents that we no longer have access to beyond his book?
RESPONSE:
Yes indeed, this is the famous correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa in Syria (well, famous among scholars of early Christianity at least). I have translated it anew for my book The Other Gospels. Here is what I say there about the letters (the one from Abgar to Jesus, then his response); at the end of the post I give my new translations of the two letters.
******************************************************************************************************
Jesus’ Correspondence with Abgar
The apocryphal correspondence between Jesus and Abgar Uchama (= “the Black”), king of Edessa in eastern Syria (4 BCE – 7 CE and 13-50 CE) is first mentioned in Eusebius (Church History, 1. 13. 5). Eusebius claims to have found the letters in the archives of Edessa and to have translated them literally from their original Syriac into Greek. The first is a short letter from the king, acknowledging Jesus’ miracle working powers and asking him to come to Edessa to heal him of his illness and, at the same time, to escape the animosity of the Jews in his homeland. In his reply, Jesus blesses Abgar for “believing without seeing” (an allusion to John 20:29), but informs the king that he cannot come because he needs to fulfill his mission, that is, by being crucified. After his ascension, however, he will send an apostle to heal the king.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!!
Forgery. John 20:29 is about MYSTIC, esoteric inner ‘seeing’. The author makes a beginner’s mistake treating the passage as outwardly seeing. Remember, in John, ‘Jesus’ speaks this as the RISEN heavenly Christ.
Thanks for answering my question! When I first read the letter in Eusebius, my first thought was that of a secretary for The Beatles, replying to just one of a thousand fan letters: “Thanks Sally. Glad to hear you dig our new song. Thanks for sending us a picture of your pet dog. We one day hope to travel to New Zealand to play in your hometown. Cheers. Paul, John, George and Ringo.” I just had this vision of Jesus’ secretary receiving another fan letter from yet another gentile aristocrat replying with a stock letter “Thanks for believing in me without seeing, as it is written about me… ” etc. LOL
Wow, this is really interesting. It has forgery written all over it… Is it possible to tell if both letters were written by the same author? Considering the fact that most of the letter that was allegedly written by Jesus was obviously copied from scriptures, I can’t imagine it would be easy to find a connection in writing style between the two letters. What is the probability that Eusebius himself was the forger?
Yes, both letters are probably by the same hand, and no, Eusebius himself is almost certainly not the culprit.
It seems odd to me that a forger with a theological agenda would equivocate on whether Jesus was God, or the Son of God. Are there any credible theories on this?
Where to you see the equivocation?
“Having heard all these things about you, I have concluded one of two things: either you are God and do these things having descended from heaven, or you do them as the Son of God.”
Dear Ruler Abgar Uchama: Take a number and have a seat. JC
!!
catching up on my blog reading while recuperating from a bad chest cold and this comment made me laugh out loud and sent me into a coughing fit. My chest hurts now, which sucks, but my face hurts from the laughter, which is great. Laughter being good medicine. Thanks!.
Re:that 1st footnote-does the author really have Jesus saying that the gospel of John was being composed almost in real time? You can’t sensibly have a living character talk about what is written of him in a text with a past tense narration of that character’s death after all.
No, the note is indicating that the author of the letter (written long after John) is alluding to a passage in John.
You mean the footnote was not inserted by Jesus himself?
Very interesting! I think the main thing that I have leaned during the past two yeas is that legends abound. and history is hard to find, especially 2,000-year-old history from a rather superstitious and unscientific culture..
I suppose conservative Christians would immediately dismiss Jesus’ reply as obviously legend and the content inherently implausible. Yet if such a passage were found in, say, gospel of John, they would immediately say the content is inherently plausible, has a ring of truth, consistent with everything else we know about Jesus, and publish lots of Bible study guides elucidating the wealth of teachings Christians can draw and apply into their own lives from the passage.
Reading this, I remember having read about it before. Am I right in thinking some versions of the story also include references to a portrait of Jesus? That the disciple who went to heal Abgar gave him the portrait, and it too was treated as a relic with magical powers? I seem to remember that the portrait itself was thought to have come into being miraculously, and that legend predated the “Veronica” story.
Hmmm. Good question. Off hand I don’t remember the Abgar legend well enough. That idea of a healing portrait *is* in later Gospels connected with Pilate (where Veronica’s image is taken back to Rome to heal the emperor).
All this discussion about Jesus’ supposed letter-writing and marriage are a derailment of the topic we should be discussing, which as you know I think is James. Why do you avoid it? At least give me some concrete reasons “I think your idea is fundamentally flawed.” I’d appreciate a thread devoted to the place of Judas in the gospel story. All the facts will come out then.
Mainly because I decidedly do not think it is the only thing that’s interesting, or why one should obsess over it!
If you would *listen* for more than a minute and a half, you might know why you should be interested. James is THE key to the entire NT reversal of reality. It’s your blog. Why not a separate thread? Judas WAS James (inverted). Then you could be rid of me.
Eisenman got us 95% of the way there (“Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus”), but he is so far not much better received than I am.
Eisenman himself put it well: “My books *are* long. The case is made in the details.” Too many don’t want to put in the required mental effort.
Coming late here, but for anyone reading past posts, the legend was that Abgar sent a cloth along with his letter and that Jesus used it to wash his face, transferring his image to the cloth. This was the fabled Mandylion, which became one of the talismans of Constantinople sometime in the 6th – 7th century. It is distinct from the Veronica, another acheiropoietos icon, though in the Middle Ages some in the West sometimes confused the two.
Thanks!
I read a Dan Brown-style “thriller” about this in which the “portrait” was the shroud which by way of Templar knights, etc, eventually made its way to Turin. I do not recommend this book as either history or a thrill.
More info about these epistles @ http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob09.htm
Can there be any reference to such writings? Since in John 8 we are all told that Jesus actually is literate and does write.
That was not originally in John; the story of the woman taken in adultery is a later scribal addition.
Dr. Ehrman:
When considering Eusebius, it seems like he’s somehow obtained copies of many “letters” as if he had some sort of ancient Wikipedia at his disposal… my question regards a letter sent from Polycrates to Victor on Paschal controversy. Given his almost laughable dialogue with Jesus and the King, full of cliche’ and impossible conversation: “sorry man, I’m kinda busy fulfilling all things at the moment,” I am wondering if this letter has any historical context and can it be taken as a valid outlook on the traditions of Asia? He gives shoutouts to John, Phillip, and Polycarp and assures that 14 Nissan is the all-our correct day to keep Passover/Eucharist. Was this a valid stance from Polycrates, and say, John, Phillip, and Polycarp? As always, I’d like to thank you for your time, which many in your position don’t consider, overridden by things like football, opera, sleeping in late, and making money..
Are you asking if Polycrates really sent this letter? I assume so (but have never looked into it). Are you asking if it’s historically accurate about anything, e.g., the views of earlier Christians. I doubt it.
Dr. Ehrman:
From my research, like you, I don’t doubt that Polycrates (to Victor) sent some form of letter, but the tangible information from the letter is not an actual letter itself, but what Eusebius recorded the letter said, which seems to be a problem already…There doesn’t seem to be much on Quartodecimens in documented letter/books etc, and I’ve been interested in their beliefs (Asiatic Churches) and how they kept their teachings. We’re they simply keeping a Christian version of the law (new covenant) or were they simply Jewish Christians holding to old traditions with a recycled meaning? Thanks, for the quick respnse.
I don’t think that has to be an either / or. But my sense is that they were gentiles rather than Jews.