Conversazioni
Question: I have noticed Clifford Carrington's name mentioned in relation to various theories about the origins of the Christian religion. What role did he have in the development of these theories?
Answer: Cliff Carrington was a private librarian and an autodidact. Due to his circumstances he was forced into a house-bound life of reading. Over the years he delved into ancient literature, the classics and early Christian literature - the anteNicene Fathers - and he developed independent ideas about the origins, the roots, of Christianity. In particular, he came to believe that the Christian mythos - because he thought of it as myth rather than history - was formed, quite deliberately, in the Flavian period. So you will find his name mentioned in connection with the Flavian hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that the Flavian Romans 'invented' - created - the Christian myth. But unfortunately, others have taken his ideas and I think he receives too little credit.
Question: The Flavian period? When was that?
Answer: The Flavian dynasty began after the first Jewish War, namely the 70s of the first century. Carrington came to the conclusion that the Christian mythology, including what we find in the gospels, was formed in that period. And indeed, formed in parallel with the Flavian's own imperial mythology. He sees the change of dynasty, from the Julio-Claudeans and the Flavians, as the impetus for the creation of the Christian religion. Or the rise of early Christianity. Out of the first Jewish War. That is the Carrington theory.
Question: But others stole his work, or took his work?
Answer: No. But he worked quietly from his study in Bendigo Australia and has received little credit. No one 'stole' his work. It would be wrong to say that. But there were others working on the same material at the same time - quite independently, for the most part - and their work attracted a lot more attention. Joseph Atwill, for instance. This was in the late 1990s and the years after that. It must have been in the air. You will find that there were various people, independent of each other, who came to the conclusion that Christianity was, in its roots, essentially Roman, and did not arise naturally out of Judaism. Carrington developed this theory from his own reading. I watched him. I would visit him most days, or every few days, and we would discuss it at length. He read through the whole literature. Made copious notes. Very sharp. That was his conclusion. Around the same time other people - much better at self-promotion than Clifford - reached similar conclusions. I think Cliff Carrington's contribution is largely unsung. He deserves wider recognition for that work.
Question: What do you mean he was forced into a life of reading?
Answer: Through injury. He broke his neck in a motorcycle accident. Before that he was a very active outdoors sort of guy. But he became more or less housebound. He couldn't go out much. So he had to find some way to spend his time - or else he'd go crazy. He suffered lots of pain. He started reading. Soon he began reading the ancient classics, through the Loeb classical library. And then the early Christian literature. So this put him in a unique position. I read that literature too, but I was teaching and had other duties. He could devote all day every day to in-depth reading of that literature. This was with no actual training though. He was self-educated in this field.
Question: What formal education did he receive?
Answer: He was an American, living in Australia. He was born in Jupiter Florida. When I first met him he introduced himself by saying, "Hi, I'm Cliff. I come from Jupiter." And he did. Jupiter Florida. But he grew up without a mother and had a reckless father. I guess Americans call it 'poor white trash'. So when he was sixteen or so he joined the navy. He was trained as a radio technician. That was his only formal education, as far as I know. Beyond that he was self-educated. So I regard him as an auto-didact. A self-taught private librarian. He collected books. And he read them all, cover to cover. Very few people, living busy lives, have that luxury.
Question: How did you come to meet him?
Answer: He lived in my town. Here was a man with a large private library in my field of study. I was introduced to him, early. Maybe late 1980s, I think. Not long after I began studying in Bendigo Australia. Cliff had arrived there much earlier, married a local girl. But then suffered a motorcycle accident and became housebound. It was difficult for him. He was often in pain. So he could be cantankerous and difficult. To deal with him you had to make allowance for the fact that he was in pain and trapped in a small room. But he was very generous with his books, his time, his reading. I certainly owe him a great deal. I mention it, of course, because he died recently. I owe him a great debt.
Question: And you watched as his theory of Christian origins took shape?
Answer: Yes. As it happened, I was teaching Biblical Studies to undergraduates. So I had a natural interest in his reading and the development of his ideas on those topics. We did not always agree, I point out. We often disagreed. But very often he was proven right and I was proven wrong. It was formative for me. Here was a man who had read all the classics, all the early literature. I could go to him and say, "Where does Marcus Aurelius say such-and-such?" or "Where does Clement of Alexandria say such-and-such?" And he would know. This was before computers and word-searches and all of that. He would know. He could put his finger on a passage in a text. And, importantly, he understood the context too. It was enormously valuable to me. And to others too. He provided a great service. But his own work was on Christian origins. He was a deep and very astute reader of Josephus.
Question: It is a very radical theory, yes? It is outside of most Christian scholarship.
Answer: Oh yes. And so it meets natural resistance. Indeed, Christians are likely to find it offensive. And I think Clifford lost friends over it. And of course it has been taken up by anti-religious factions, radical atheists and so on. Which is my problem. I don't care for those ultra-rationalist, anti-Christian types. The radical atheists. Inadvertently, but unavoidably, the Flavian Hypothesis gives ammunition to those people. That was unintended. Carrington was never anti-Christian. He just followed the texts and joined the dots and came to his own conclusions. Others - Joseph Atwill, for instance - have active anti-Christian motivations. There are radical Jews who have anti-Christian motivations. Carrington had no such motivations. And certainly my interest in the Flavian Hypothesis is not based in any animosity to Christianity. It is a radical proposal those, a radical theory, and many people - including mainstream scholars - take great offence at it, or ridicule it.
Question: And yet you think it is basically correct?
Answer: With reservations. I have become convinced, in any case, that the Christian religion - a mythology - had Roman origins and not Jewish origins. And Carrington is no doubt correct to think that the Jewish War and the rise of the Flavian dynasty were decisive events. In other respects I would have to disagree with him. And I also have a very different understanding of what this means. I have a different view of what it means to say that Christianity is a mythology and not a history. But in large measure I am sure that Carrington was on the right track. He was right, for instance, to think that the myth-making phase of the Flavian dynasty offers a parallel to the formation of the Christian mythos. That was valuable work he did.
Question: And so you view Jesus as a mythological figure?
Answer: A mythological figure extracted from history. Such questions bring into question the relationship between myth and history, and it is not by any means a simple matter. I think Cliff Carrington offered a simplistic account of it in many ways. I think it is far more complex than he supposed. But on the basic question, I agree that the figure of Jesus is more myth than history. That is an inherently radical position. Carrington, I have to report, came to that position very reluctantly. But you follow the evidence wherever it takes you. There are people - mythicists - who subscribe to the view that the figure of Jesus is largely or wholly mythic. I think the evidence leads to that conclusion. What, then, are the consequences of that? And how did that mythology take shape? Those are the questions. Along with, how then are we to think of, or rethink, the Christian religion in that case?
Question: And you disagreed with Carrington on those points?
Answer: Yes. In many respects yes. The relation between history and myth is very complex. My framework for understanding it is from Plato's Atlanticus ensemble. Plato's Atlantis myth. Which Plato presents as a detailed factual history. What is the relation of history and myth in Plato's Atlantis story? We see there that already in Plato there is a deep meditation on the relation between myth and history. He offers the Atlantis story as a case study in historical verisimilitude. Then it becomes an active issue in the course of Roman civilization. Roman myth-making and the mythologizing of history needs much more study. Carrington needed to explore that matter much more than he did, I think. He conceived of it merely as propaganda. I think it is much more complex than that.
Question: What do you mean propaganda?
Answer: The Roman Imperium shaping history for its own purposes. And building myths in the same way. There is that, of course. Josephus is itself a work of propaganda. The Romans wanted to write history. They understood the brutal facts of power. The winner writes the history. Of course this is true. But only in the first instance. After that, the history - and the mythology - takes on a life of its own. That is where it becomes most interesting.
Question: And Carrington didn't appreciate that fact?
Answer: No. But also he ran out of road. He became sick. He was never very well, after his accident. He did well to do the work he did. But then his work slowed down considerably over the years, understandably. And other things intervened. The advent of the internet. That completely changed the nature of his library. Suddenly everyone could do global word searches throughout the entire corpus of ancient writing from their laptop. So his skills became marginalized. And being old and sick he never bothered keeping up with it. Given good health and another lifetime I'm sure he would have explored further. In my own case, the University I was working for abruptly closed our department and dismantled our courses and retrenched a whole generation of academics. It was a period of immense disruption. So the work was ruptured. Others took it up.
Question: What evidence do we have that the Romans engaged in myth-making?
Answer: Carrington assembled materials showing how the Flavians, when they came to power, constructed a mythology to justify their authority. It was necessary. The Flavians had no real claim to power. They were army people. The Julio-Claudeans claimed divine descent. The Flavians overthrew the old dynasty and were then in need of a new mythology to justify their authority. This is hardly peculiar to the Romans. But the Romans were very good at it. And the control of literature. We underestimate the extent of the Roman control of literature, just as we underestimate the sophistication of official Roman literature. Clifford was aware of it through the writings of Josephus - official Roman writings - and by extension he understood the Christian corpus as Roman creations. At the centre of them is the Roman propaganda piece - Jesus the Jewish pacifist.
Question: And you accept that?
Answer: It strikes me as a valid possibility even if finally you reject it. It is a remarkable creation, is it not, the Jewish pacifist, in the context? And Carrington was working, too, during the controversies over the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls provide context. And Josephus. Judea was a war zone. Not the pastoral scenes of shepherds and fishermen we find in the gospels. Largely Carrington's intellectual development consisted of restoring an historical context - a real historical context - to the Christian story. And in such a context a character such as Jesus is very unlikely. Certainly, an unreconstructed literal reading of the gospels as historical documents becomes untenable. Carrington worked towards a new historical, contextual understanding slowly but surely. It was an interesting process to watch, as he moved away from normative understandings to finally arrive at his quite radical conclusions. I would visit after work, in the evenings or afternoons, and he would have some new revelation to report - usually from his careful reading of Josephus. It was intellectually very stimulating.
Question: And so you followed him down the rabbit hole?
Answer: For me it was a matter of learning about myth and history and was not primarily about the Christian religion. It was a case study in myth and history. As I say, Clifford was never motivated by anti-Christian sentiment. He was not a radical atheist, or even a humanist, in that sense. But he certainly came to a place where normative understandings of the Christian narrative cannot prevail. My other interest was in the transplantation of eastern, oriental mythologies, into the Roman sphere.
Question: How so?
The rise of the Flavians entailed the penetration of the orient into the Roman world. The Flavians came to power via the wars in Judea and the Near East. The Romans needed to control those regions for several reasons such as trade and so on, but mainly in order to prevent their rivals, the Parthians, from taking control of the eastern Mediterranean and the Nile Valley. While the Julio-Claudean dynasty fell apart back home in Rome the Flavians were leading the Roman army in its campaigns in the East. By this means, eventually, the Flavians came to power and when they did so they brought with them the contacts they had made in the East. This is the wider context. Carrington would also quote Tacitus on this. Tacitus says in the histories that a certain type of eastern superstition, a certain type of eastern story, came into circulation at this time. He writes, "It was only after the rise of the Flavians that we Romans believed in such stories..." Carrington takes this as a signal that from the Flavian period onwards the Roimans were open to eastern stories, eastern mythologies, eastern religion. And of course, Christianity is an oriental cultus. I followed Carrington's work - which was very astute on this matter - because I was especially interested in this orientalising mythology of the Flavians. This is a contextual argument. It is in the context of the rise of the Flavians - the eastern armies - that the oriental cults were likely to have been introduced into the Roman world.
* * *
For the benefit of readers we reproduce below a section of Cliff Carrington's work on the Flavian mythos:
Flavian Synoptics - Oracles for Vespasian
We will examine these oracles and miracles in detail: 1.
Oracle of the Ruler from the East, 2. Mt. Carmel Oracle, 3. Josephus’ Oracle,
4. Shekhinah Leaves the Temple, 5. Temple of Serapis, 6. Egyptian Cures.
As an unknown person of lowly birth, (his father was a
customs supervisor), Vespasian needed some recognition of the validity of his
accession and the rule of his new dynasty. A series of miracles were noted
which seemed to presage his rule. We have three ancient and contemporary
sources for these miracles: Josephus, 37-100, Tacitus, 55-120 and Suetonius,
69-140. All three were in the employ of the Flavian emperors, and for a period,
at the same time. Both Josephus and Tacitus admit their debt first to
Vespasian, then Titus, and finally to Domitian for their careers. Suetonius
shows his debt by the glowing biographies he wrote for the Flavian Dynasty. How
reliable or truthful are their accounts of the Flavian Oracles?
In this work there are five oracles or miracles and another
miraculous event described by two or more of our authors. By a comparison of
these parallels we may gain some insight into their veracity or at least their
method. Josephus was a Jew who liked the Romans. Tacitus was a Roman who
disliked Jews. Suetonius seems to be an easy going Roman who was indifferent to
the Jews. As would be expected, all three were very pro-Roman in general and
respected the Flavians in particular.
For abbreviation we shall use J for Josephus, T for
Tacitus and S for Suetonius. The
miracles are abbreviated; Ruler, Carmel, Josephus’, Shekhinah, Serapis, and Cures.
All three wrote about the Ruler, perhaps sharing a common source, the only source common to
all. Carmel, Serapis and Cures are
common to T and S, but not to J. The Josephus’ is attested by S as well as the expected J. The Shekhinah is recorded by T,
possibly following J, but this has
been denied by some scholars; otherwise they are probably following a source
common to both. So, we have the following correspondences:
Ruler = J, T, S.
Carmel = T, S.
Josephus’ = J, S.
Shekhinah = J, T.
Serapis = T, S.
Cures = T, S.
So, we seem to have a common source for the Ruler, only found in these three early
writers. It would seem that there was an oracle concerning a Ruler from the
East generally in the air and that our writers re-interpreted it to suit the
purposes of their Imperial employer. We can easily account for J not wanting to mention Carmel, as it would detract from his
privileged position as chief prophet for the Flavians. So it is likely he knew
of the oracle but merely declined to share his glory with the ‘God of Carmel’.
The Carmel oracle could have been
made up after the event. However, it is not illogical to imagine a staged
oracular pronouncement to have actually happened while Vespasian was still in
Judea.
The two stories that took place in Egypt seem to have a
separate source common to only T and S. The two stories from Egypt, Serapis and Cures are common material to T
and S of which J seems to be ignorant. J
was supposed to have been in Egypt with Vespasian at the time, the only
eye-witness to the events there. Either these miracles were made up later,
after the visit to Egypt by Vespasian, or J
suppressed these stories, as well, to bolster his own status.
Oracle of the Ruler from the East
Josephus 37-100+
|
Tacitus 55-117
|
Suetonius 69-140
|
War, 6.5.4.
But now, what did most elevate them [the Jews] in
undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was found in their sacred
writings, how, “about that time, one from their country should become
governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to
themselves in particular; and many of their wise men were thereby deceived in
their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of
Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.
Slavonic addition,
Loeb, vol. 2, p. 658
[Some understand that this meant Herod, others the crucified
wonder-worker Jesus, others again Vespasian.]
|
Histories, 5.
13.
The
majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded
to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea
would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy
really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the
selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved
for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth.
Histories, 1.
10.
It may be that mysterious prophecies were already circulating,
and that portents and oracles promised Vespasian and his sons the purple; but
it was only after the rise of the Flavians that we Romans believed in such stories.
|
Life of Vespasian,
4.
An ancient superstition was current in the East, that out
of Judea would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as it later
proved, referred to the two Roman Emperors, Vespasian and his son Titus; but
the rebellious Jews, who read it as referring to themselves, murdered their
Procurator, routed the Governor-general of Syria when he came down to restore
order, and captured an Eagle.
|
Oracle of the Ruler
from the East
All three of our sources mention the Ruler and all state that the oracle was meant to be for Vespasian.
This ‘ancient superstition’ probably was derived from the Hebrew scriptures.
Genesis, Isaiah and Daniel all have vague prophecies about a future Jewish king
who would be a ruler of the ‘nations’. J
has the ambiguous oracle found ‘in their sacred writings’, meaning Jews. In T it is also ‘ancient scriptures’ and by
the context he seems to refer to the Jewish scriptures. While S only has ‘an ancient superstition’,
not giving a source.
In J we have
mention of ‘one’ who would become ‘governor of the habitable world’. With both T and S we have a plurality ‘men’ referring to the father and son team of
Vespasian and Titus. This seems to be more accurate than J’s singular ruler. In general, the more accurate the prophecy the
more likely that it is after the event. Was the original oracle for a standard
single world ruler, and when the un-expected father and son team actually
occurred the oracle made plural?
The ‘Slavonic’ addition to J has Herod mentioned as the first contender for the purple. This
might assist us in the dating of the first expectation of a Jewish world ruler.
If Herod had at any time been thought capable of wresting the rule from the
Romans the oracular hope would make sense. The ‘wonder-worker Jesus’ is
probably a later, and clumsy, interpolation which is topped off by the
actuality of Vespasian’s rule.
Both J and S believe, or want us to believe, that
the mis-application of the oracle, by the Jews as meaning themselves, was the
cause of the rebellion and subsequent disastrous war. The mis-application of
oracles was not unusual in the ancient, and modern, world. However, this time
it had consequences for the Jews in that it would change their religion for all
time.
We should particularly note the hedged scepticism of T when he writes about portents and oracles.
The historical works of T himself
contain plenty of portents and oracles, but with a serious reserve. He states
that it was the Flavians who introduced such propaganda, and convinced the
Roman people to believe it by sanction of religious faith. To be divinely
appointed to rule gives an overwhelming sanction to the chosen ruler, Vespasian
in this case.
T was wrong if he
thought, or would have us think, that the Romans had never believed in such
stories before the Flavian dynasty. The ancient Roman histories are full of
justifying prophecies, for the rule of Rome. What T seems to be meaning is that these oracles from the East were,
until then, alien to the Roman religious system.
Now comes the question of priority and sources of each of
the three accounts. Was J first and
the others following him? Was there a common source that they all followed,
which no longer exists? Were the Romans, T
and S, following a source independent
from J? Was the oracle originally for
the Jews and later modified to justify Vespasian’s rule? Was the oracle to do
with the Jews at all; or rather with the larger Eastern kingdom of the
Parthians? Why was it that the Flavians made such use of these Eastern portents
and oracles? Did they need to do so? Did it work? Why?
Mt. Carmel Oracle
Tacitus
|
Suetonius
|
Histories, 2.78.
Between Judea and Syria lies a mountain called Carmel,
which is the name of the local god. Yet traditionally this god boasts neither
image nor temple, only an altar and the reverence of its worshippers. Here Vespasian
had offered sacrifice when he was turning over in his mind his secret
ambitions. The priest Basilides time and again examined the entrails of the
victims. Finally he declared; ‘What ever you are planning, Vespasian - this
is granted to you. You shall have a great mansion, far-flung boundaries and a
host of people.’ This ambiguous statement was immediately pounced upon by
gossip, and was now given great publicity. Indeed ordinary people talked of
little else. Still more lively was the discussion in Vespasian’s immediate
circle, for hope is eloquent.
|
Life of Vespasian,
5.
In Judea, Vespasian consulted the God of Carmel and was
given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or
desired, however lofty his ambitions.
|
Mt. Carmel Oracle
As usual T’s
version of the episode is much longer than that found in S. The oracle by the priest, named only in T, is truly ambiguous in that it appears to be prophesying about a
private affair; the building of an estate and acquisition of servants. This was
then applied to the larger estate; nothing less than that of the Roman
world-empire. Whether at the time, or later, the oracle apparently generated
great enthusiasm for Vespasian. The priest, Basilides is not named in S, but he uses the same name for a
freedman of Vespasian’s who is involved in the Serapis oracle which we shall examine later.
Is S following T in this oracle? While T describes Carmel as the name of the
God and the lack of a temple, or even an image; S ignores these details. Why would an oracle from an insignificant
Syrian mountain have any influence on the Roman populace?
J has no mention
of this incident, he had already given a prophecy to Vespasian before he had
gone near Mt. Carmel. In his history J
goes over to the Romans at the beginning of the Galilean campaign in mid 67,
before Vespasian visited Carmel in the winter of 67 or 68. Since J was in the company of Vespasian at the
time of the Carmel affair, why did he not mention it? J wrote well after the event, like our other two sources, he could
have included the story but did not? Perhaps he wanted to stress his own contribution
to Vespasian’s success?
After the mention of the ‘God of Carmel’ by S, he goes on to mention the prophecy of
J in the next sentence.
Josephus’ Oracle
Josephus
|
Suetonius
|
War, 3. 8. 9.
"Thou, O Vespasian,
thinkest no more than that thou hast taken Josephus himself captive; but I
come to thee as a messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by
God to thee, I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case? and how it
becomes generals to die. Dost thou send me to Nero? For why? Are Nero's
successors till they come to thee still alive? Thou, O Vespasian, art Caesar
and emperor, thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster, and keep me for
thyself, for thou, O Caesar, are not only lord over me, but over the land and
the sea, and all mankind; and certainly I deserve to be kept in closer
custody than I now am in, in order to be punished, if I rashly affirm any
thing of God."
|
Life of Vespasian,
5.
Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian’s,
Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who
had now put him in fetters, and who would then be emperor. [And they were,
see Josephus’ account in War 4. 10.
3.]
|
Josephus’ Oracle
The prophecy of J
is a rhetorical device. His actual speech would have been rather different one
would imagine, considering the circumstances. His initial resistance to the
Romans should have earned him an early death. He prides himself to think a
Roman general would bother sending a petty war-chief to Rome for execution.
There were no other survivors of the destruction of Jotapata, why should J be excepted? His subsequent actions
for the Romans certainly earned him not only his life but high fortune. He went
from a captured trouble-maker to the emperor’s favourite. How? Not by a mere
prophecy, as J would have us believe.
J goes on from his surrender to being
the Roman’s chief intelligence officer. He not only advised the Romans, he interrogated
the prisoners for information important to the war effort.
Be the later history as it may, J’s prophecy was also reported by S, immediately following the. Carmel
oracle. S mentions J as a ‘distinguished’ Jew, while T ignores him completely. The fetters,
which were later struck off on the orders of both Vespasian and Titus, are
mentioned by name in S, but not in J. In his history J describes how his freedom was granted, but not why? His
importance to the Roman war effort cannot be under-rated. After the war he was
given exceptional rewards of land, goods and even the emperor’s old estate. J gave more to the Romans than a mere
prophecy to earn all of this.
Whatever the role of J
in the Jewish war S found it
expedient to mention J. Did S merely follow J? If so why did he place him immediately after Carmel? We have seen how T mentions Carmel but not J, did T not know of J’s famous prophecy? Why would the word of a defeated rebel carry
any weight with the Romans? What, other than saving his own miserable hide,
motivated J to publicise his
prophecy? Is this just another one of those Flavian ‘stories’ that T so disparages?
Shekhinah Leaves the Temple
Josephus
|
Tacitus
|
War, 6. 5. 3.
Thus there was a star resembling
a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.
...and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar
and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for
half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskilful, but was
so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that
followed immediately upon it... Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass,
and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested
upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm
floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its
own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the
temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of
it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to
shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy
prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men
of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was
dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage
of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the
desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that
feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a
certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account
of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and
were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to
deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of
soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and
surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as
the priests were going by night into the inner court of the temple, as their
custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the
first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that
they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove
hence."
|
Histories, 5.
13.
13.
Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or
solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition
and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in
conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from the clouds lit
up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman
voice was heard to declare that-the gods were leaving it, and in the same
instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a
sinister interpretation upon this.
|
Shekhinah Leaves the
Temple
This passage is not strictly about Vespasian, but it does
contain a contemporary oracular miracle which is reported by both J and T. This will also allow us another check on the different writers,
their style and intent.
These are the portents of the fall of Jerusalem that J and T mention. T agrees with J in the vision of the armies in the
sky; the lightening over the temple; the doors of the temple opening; a great
voice of the gods saying that they were leaving. The star and comet over
Jerusalem are only in J. But it is the
‘gods leaving the temple’ that is the most important portent.
The idea of the god leaving his temple, leading to the
defeat of his people is primordial. The ancient belief of the efficacy of the
god to protect his people was centred on the god’s temple. Most other gods had
images - such as the image of Athena which the Greeks stole to weaken Troy -
but not the Jewish god, he was an invisible presence. Did T get this incident from J,
or did they both follow a common source? Why, in both stories, are the gods
plural when the god of the Jews was singular? What language did the gods use
when they announced that they were leaving the temple? Where did the gods go
to, if not over to the Romans?
Why does J have
the event at Pentecost? Is there some significance in the timing that T misses? To the Jews Pentecost was a
‘day of reckoning’, where there were judgments, ‘blessings and cursing’. Was
this a symbolic ‘curse’ or rejection of the Jews by God on this festival of
judgment?
Temple of Serapis
Tacitus
|
Suetonius
|
Histories, 4.
82.
This deepened Vespasian's desire to visit the holy house
of Serapis, for he wished to consult the god on matters of state. He had
everyone else excluded from the temple, and went in alone, fixing his mind on
the deity. Happening to glance round, he caught sight of a leading Egyptian
named Basilides standing behind him. Now he knew that this man was detained
by illness far from Alexandria at a place several days' journey distant. He
inquired of the priests whether Basilides had entered the temple that day. He
also inquired of those he met whether he had been seen in the city. Finally
he sent off a party on horse, and ascertained that at the relevant time he
had been eighty miles away. Thereupon he guessed that it was the god whom he
had seen and that the reply to his query lay in the meaning of the name
Basilides. [Greek - Basilides =
King's son]
|
Life of Vespasian,
7.
So Vespasian began a new civil war; having sent troops
ahead to Italy, he crossed into Africa and occupied Alexandria, the key to
Egypt. There he dismissed his servants and entered the Temple of Serapis,
alone, to consult the auspices and discover how long he would last as
emperor. After many propitiatory sacrifices he turned to go, but was granted
a vision of his freedman Basilides handing him the customary branches,
garlands and bread - although Basilides had for a long time been nearly
crippled by rheumatism and was moreover far away. Almost at once dispatches
from Italy brought him news of Vitellus’s defeat at Cremona, and his
assassination at Rome.
|
Temple of Serapis
While in Egypt, consolidating his rule, Vespasian had a few
recorded adventures. Although J was
supposed to be with him in Alexandria he mentions none of these. Perhaps it is J’s reticence about giving credit to any
other oracle but his own? Both T and S give a report on Vespasian’s doings in
Egypt. The visit to the temple of Serapis is the most important incident.
Both T and S record the oracle at the temple of
Serapis; although somewhat differently. This episode gives us a very good
insight into the workings of the Flavian propaganda machine. The account of the
oracle given by both is taken from the life of Alexander the Great. Alexander,
before setting out on his great campaign to the East, consulted the Egyptian
oracle of Ammon at Siwa. There he was greeted by the priest as the ‘Ammon’s
Son’, which Alexander took to mean that he was a son of the god and therefore a
god himself.
Not having the time or inclination for the hazardous journey
to Siwa Vespasian was satisfied with the temple of Serapis and with being
called ‘Basilides’ = ‘King’s Son’ or
Prince. After all he was aspiring to the Principate rather than to the
ill-omened Roman kingship. The Romans detested kings, so their supreme ruler
was the principal man amongst men. Julius Caesar was assassinated because the
Romans merely suspected that he
wished to be declared King!
Although both T
and S were writing about the same
event, and for the same purpose, their stories differ in details. Like Alexander,
Vespasian enters the temple alone, they both agree upon that. But, they do not
agree on who or what Basilides was. In T’s
account he was a ‘leading Egyptian’, while S
has him as Vespasian’s freedman? The Basilides in T is merely described as ‘ill’, whereas in S he is specifically diagnosed as having rheumatism. T says that Basilides was ‘eighty miles
away’, and S that he was ‘far away’.
How is it that T is exact on the
distance where S is vague: and as to
Basilides’ illness it is the reverse, S
is exact and T is Vague? Remember
that T also names the priest at Carmel ‘Basilides’. Is it the same man,
or just a fortuitous coincidence?
It seems, since neither were eye-witnesses to the Egyptian
events, (S was born in the year this
was supposed to have taken place, 69,) that they must have been following a
common source. If so, why are their stories so different? The details in S missing from T centre around political and military events. The battle at
Cremona and Vitellus’ death are mentioned, as they were the vital turning point
in the struggle for the rule of Rome.
But, S does not
tell us that Vespasian must, at the same time, have heard of the death of his
own brother, Sabinus, in the final victorious fighting. He would have also
heard that his other son, Domitian, had survived the battle in which Sabinus
had died. All fortune is mixed, the good with the bad, and vice versa.
Egyptian Cures
Tacitus
|
Suetonius
|
Histories, Bk.
4. 81.
Among the lower classes at Alexandria was a blind man whom
everybody knew as such. One day this fellow threw himself at Vespasian's
feet, imploring him with groans to heal his blindness. He had been told to
make this request by Serapis, the favourite god of a nation much addicted to
strange beliefs. He asked that it might please the emperor to anoint his
checks and eyeballs with the water of his mouth. A second petitioner, who
suffered from a withered hand, pleaded his case too, also on the advice of
Serapis: would Caesar tread upon him with the imperial foot?
At first Vespasian laughed at them and refused. When the
two insisted, he hesitated. At one moment he was alarmed by the thought that
he would be accused of vanity if he failed. At the next, the urgent appeals
of the two victims and the flatteries of his entourage made him sanguine of
success. Finally he asked the doctors for an opinion whether blindness and
atrophy of this sort were curable by human means. The doctors were eloquent
on the various possibilities. The blind man's vision was not completely
destroyed, and if certain impediments were removed his sight would return.
The other victim's limb had been dislocated, but could be put right by
correct treatment. Perhaps this was the will of the gods, they added; perhaps
the emperor had been chosen to perform a miracle. Anyhow, if a cure were
effected, the credit would go to the ruler; if it failed, the poor wretches
would have to bear the ridicule.
So Vespasian felt that his destiny gave him the key to
every door and that nothing now defied belief With a smiling expression and
surrounded by an expectant crowd of bystanders, he did what was asked.
Instantly the cripple recovered the use of his hand and the light of day
dawned again upon his blind companion. Both these incidents are still vouched
for by eye-witnesses, though there is now nothing to be gained by lying.
|
Life of Vespasian,
8.
Vespasian, still rather bewildered in his new role as
emperor, felt a certain lack of authority and of what might be called the
divine spark; yet both these attributes were granted him. As he sat on the
Tribunal, two labourers, one blind, the other lame, approached together,
begging to be healed. Apparently the god Serapis had promised them that if
Vespasian would consent to spit in the blind man’s eyes, and touch the lame
man’s leg with his heel, both would be made well. Vespasian had so little
faith in his curative powers that he showed great reluctance in doing as he
was asked; but his friends persuaded him to try them, in the presence of a
large audience, too - and the charm worked.
|
Egyptian Cures
One of the ancient beliefs was that a true king could do
miraculous cures by his spittle or touch. This belief had continued up until
recent times. The test, then, of a true king was his ability to perform cures.
Whether it was by Vespasian’s ‘entourage’, or whoever, a pair of miraculous
cures were stage-managed for Vespasian to perform. Anxious to have every sign
possible to validate his assumption of the Purple Vespasian, although somewhat
reluctantly, healed a blind man and a cripple.
Again T and S differ, especially on the cripple’s
illness. He is lame in the leg according to S,
but T’s cripple has a ‘withered
hand’. Doctors are called in for an opinion, in T’s account, before Vespasian will do anything. The shorter version
of S passes over this. In T Vespasian hesitates before attempting
to perform the miracles, from his fear of being accused of ‘Vanity’. In S he is reluctant from his lack of
self-confidence.
Anyhow, Vespasian cures them both; the blind man with his
spittle and the cripple by his ‘imperial foot’. While S has the miracles to assure a ‘rather bewildered, Vespasian, who
had ‘little faith in his curative powers’: T’s
Vespasian ‘felt that his destiny gave him the key to every door’ and performed
the miracles with a ‘smiling expression’ before the ‘expectant crowd’.
Were the two men hired fakirs who were employed for the
purpose? [The author has witnessed the similar ‘healing’ of ‘crippled’ fakirs
in the Philippines.] Did Vespasian know and approve of the plot? Both historians
have the miracle take place before a large crowd and T insists that there were eye-witnesses to the miracle still living
in his time. That it was stage-managed is pretty certain. We can suppose that
it was something to ‘impress the natives’. Something to that effect must have
happened, as T finishes; “There is
now nothing to be gained by lying.”
* * *
Yours, Harper McAlpine Black
