One of the things I have heard a number of times is that the idea of Jesus as the Son of God is simply a response to the Roman Emperor Augustus who was known as the son of god. If the Roman saviour could be a son of god then the Christian Saviour was even more a Son of God. It was part of the ongoing tension between the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of God. There may be some truth in this in that these comparisons would have been meaningful for Christians being oppressed by the Romans.
But even if this came into play later on, it is unlikely that Augustus was the inspiration for Jesus as the Son of God. First we must ask: Why was Augustus called the son of god? Augustus (or Octavian as he was known then) was the great nephew of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar posthumously adopted Octavian as his son. It was in Julius Caesar’s divine status that August was the son of god. But how was Julius Caesar a god? He claimed that he was an descendant of Aeneas. Aeneas was supposedly one of the founders of Rome and a son of the goddess Venus/Aphrodite. So Augustus was a son of god but really hew was the great nephew of a descendant of a son of a goddess.
The New Testament portrays Jesus’ Sonship much differently. Matthew and Luke describe Jesus’ virgin birth and teach that God was directly involved in his conception, thus making Jesus literally to Son of God. John describes Jesus as the pre-existent Word and thus a Son of God in a much greater way than what Augustus was. Mark lacks any description of Jesus pre-ministry but his position as Son of God is there right from the beginning to the end of the Gospel without any mention of his earthly father.
Far from Augustus being the inspiration of Gospel writers’ description of Jesus as the Son of God, the New Testament idea of that concept is much different than the Roman idea. Augustus as a son of god was simply a description of right to rule in line with Julius Caesar’s right to rule. The Gospel writers saw Jesus as actually being the Son of God and even sharing his nature in some way.
4 responses so far ↓
larry jeffery // December 3, 2008 at 11:51 pm |
this seems to be a splitting of hairs. Gods were plentiful in ancient cultures. God and or Gods had earthly mortal children. Virgin birth was not uncommon, sun gods common. The Jesus stories were writen to fulfull profesy and be appealling. Of the 80 or so gospels extant at the time of Nicea 4 were selected to please Constantine and all the others suppressed. Since the only “evidence” of Jesus life are the gospels selected to please the emperor naturally they did what was required to enhance his position.
Stephen Bedard // December 4, 2008 at 11:37 am |
You have been fooled by a number of popular misconceptions. A closer look at the supposed virgin births are not as virgin as people say. Mithras was born from a rock, I guess technically a virgin, but much different from what we see in Jesus. Horus’ supposed virgin birth is the result of a post-mortem sexual encounter between his parents Osiris and Isis. Sun gods may have been common but that has nothing to do with Jesus. The few light images do not make Jesus a sun god. Light is a universal image and is used in all sorts of contexts. You can get some more information on these things in my book http://www.amazon.com/Unmasking-Pagan-Christ-Evangelical-Response/dp/1894667719/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228408155&sr=8-1
I will deal with your concerns about the canon in an actual blog post. This is an interest of mine and part of a book I am writing. Speaking of, could I have your permission to reproduce your comments as an example of the concerns people have?
larry jeffery // December 9, 2008 at 11:08 pm |
All the examples you mention and the many you do not demonstrate the popular culture was aware of the idea of gods being born of virgins it makes sense if you are a god normal birth not needed. Magic is magic.
Stephen Bedard // December 10, 2008 at 9:31 am |
I don’t think you heard me. Horus was the result of sexual intercourse. That is not a virgin birth!