For those who believe in the narratives about Enoch and Melchizedek in the JST (and Book of Moses), both Enoch and Melchizedek were kings who achieved apotheosis (along with their cities), and Moses himself was a leader who ascended to heaven, so there are plenty of precedents within early dispensations that appear to have been conscious of their role as “types” of the Messiah as “King of Kings” and “the mighty God”.

thanks for the response and the various historical data. There you go messing up someone’s worldview with things like facts. You concluded by stating

“My point is that it is possible to read Luke not as an anti-imperial reaction but rather as demonstrating that Jesus was a far better savior and benefactor than ANY human ruler, past or present.”

and I think that is a very fair point and definitely part of luke’s intent if not his main objective. This of course still has the very interesting potential that Luke, being very conscious of terms like soter and euergetes and perhaps even ancient myths, new stars, etc, chose to write his account not as a modern historian would but as a theological/historical statement about Jesus. I dont think this means we can dismiss things as non factual because they dont fit a secular worldview but it certainly adds nuance.

We do, however, have to address the question of why Luke includes the census decree by Augustus for which there is little historical evidence. Is it just a means of getting them to Bethlehem or does it have some additional purpose or meaning? NT Wright. a much more conservative historian that those in the Jesus Seminar, makes the argument that Luke is clearly thinking of Micah 5:2, “But you, Bethlehem of Ephrathah, little among the clans of Judah—from you shall come forth the one who is to rule in Israel” and that if we read it in context we encounter verse 4 with a statement that at leas in his view suggests a contrast between the Kingdom Jesus will set up and those of the gentiles: “He [the coming King] shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of YHWH, in the majesty of the name of YHWH his God; and they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.” But the next verse goes on: “And he shall be the man of peace.”

So while I think it a mistake to turn the gospels into some anti Roman polemic, I still believe that there is a case to be made that while the gospels are not anti-Rome per se, they are pro Kingdom of God (one of Jesus’ favorite terms), and that the description Jesus gives of that kingdom is in radical opposition to the kingdoms of the gentiles (as he calls them). Rome seems to me to be just an easy target or foil with God’s idea of kingdom. As you wrote, “one only needs to read Greek history to see that the procedure of andrapodosis, killing all the men and selling the women and children in to slavery, was so routine that it was almost expected. Imperial powers actually scored a lot of points when they chose NOT to do this.” It seems to me that at least one thing to consider is that the message of the gospels while religious first certainly address very real political issues of first century palestine including things like andrapodosis.

I am certainly getting off the topic of the birth narratives so I apologize.

I am not questioning that the sack of Sepphoris did not happen. The question is did it have a greater impact on people than previous sacks had (one only needs to read Greek history to see that the procedure of andrapodosis, killing all the men and selling the women and children in to slavery, was so routine that it was almost expected. Imperial powers actually scored a lot of points when they chose NOT to do this.

And more to the point, the politics WITHIN Galilee were more complex than most people realize. Hellenized cities like Sepphoris and later Tiberias, were great rivals of each other and largely resented by the Aramaic-speaking peasantry that they exploited. It is not insignificant that the Gospels never mention Jesus’ going to Sepphoris, even though, as you point it out, it was within distant vision of the hill above Nazareth.

In 4bc, Josephus, a Jewish historian (2.68 I believe), tells us that the town of Sepphoris was burnt to the ground and the population enslaved by Rome. This was as a result of a revolt against Rome led by a man named Judas. This was right next door to Nazareth, a few miles. So Im not sure we could say all was quiet, at least around the time of his birth. It would take little imagination to believe that the incident at Sepphoris was part of the collective and cultural memory of the people in Galilee. Again, a citation by a roman historian that things were quiet does not tell me what the people “thought” or perceived Rome as being.

Exactly! The anti-Roman surge was largely a feature of the period after the Herodian restoration (Herod Agrippa I was king over all Judea A.D. 39-44). Galilee, Perea, the northeastern territories were not even part of the province of Judea at that time.

It is an open question what the author of the Gospel of Matthew thought of Rome. Assuming that he was Matthew “the publican,” then as a Galilean he would have mixed views, although most of his experience with Rome would have been mediated through the Herodians (although there would be some bad memories of Pompey’s A.D. 63 invasion, etc.).

But the author of Luke is the exact figure to focus on. Assuming that he was a Greek, possible from Macedonia or Greece but possibly even a Hellenized Syrian, his view of the Roman Empire would not have been as bad as Borg and Crossan lay out. The last “brutal” thing that Greeks had experienced was Sulla in the Mithridatic Wars, early in the Late Republic. Greeks were quickly accomodating themselves to the Roman system, which, to be fair, was a lot more moderate than previous empires had been. In fact, by the Flavian Period (A.D. 69-96) when Luke was probably written, and certainly by the High Empire (A.D. 96-180), many Greek cities, such as Ephesus, were consciously aping Roman customs and manners.

Regarding Hellenistic precedents, Greek ruler cult had a much longer history in the Eastern Mediterranean than the recent Roman imperial cult, started in the East at the time of Augustus but not really up and going until the Flavian period and later. And the Greek terms that Borg and Crossan note, such as soter and euergetes, were already very familiar in the East before they started being applied to Roman emperors. My point is that it is possible to read Luke not as an anti-imperial reaction but rather as demonstrating that Jesus was a far better savior and benefactor than ANY human ruler, past or present.

One should also use the evidence of Acts to judge the gospel. In Acts Rome and the empire are presented pretty positively.

Sorry, last minute Christmas shopping with the children is calling!

you may be right about their terrible impression. After all, God and Empire by Crossan is of course all about the evils of Rome. I figured you would be an appropriate person to ask since you were at least objective and fair when I had greek history whereas my Roman history professor thought Augustus was great.

Let me add this to my question though. Even assuming Crossan and Borg have a post-colonial interpretation, I am curious what the average individual living in Nazareth, Galilee, and even Jerusalem thought of Rome. There is at least some evidence that they had strong feelings about Rome. In other words, maybe Matthew, Luke, etc had terrible impressions of Rome as well. I’ll wait til you get further along but am certainly interested in Hellenistic precedents and perhaps the even more interesting question about what Matthew and Luke were trying to say by referencing such precedents.

As to the Infancy Gospel of James, it was just a flourish associated with some ideas she was exploring with regard to Joseph and his part in the “family” of Jesus.