Is Jesus Christ a Roman citizen?

Jan 2018
283
Netherlands
They are the words of who-ever 'Mark' was, why do people focus on the characters in the Book and not the actual authors.

Who is Mark?
Is Mark a Roman citizen?
Why does he have a Latin praenomen.

These are the important questions.

If people don't know who Mark is, then how are people suppose to know who Jesus is?
In fact, chances are that the name of "Mark" (a companion of the apostle Peter) was later attached to an anonymous text in order to make it seem more authoritative.
 
Last edited:

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
Is anyone aware what was the provision in Roman law at that time for someone who claimed, or claimed by others to have claimed, to be a god? Since Roman emperors considered themselves to be gods, would a god-claim be interpreted as treason and thus qualified for capital punishment?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
They are the words of who-ever 'Mark' was, why do people focus on the characters in the Book and not the actual authors.

Who is Mark?
Is Mark a Roman citizen?
Why does he have a Latin praenomen.

These are the important questions.

If people don't know who Mark is, then how are people suppose to know who Jesus is?
In antiquity it was quite accepted that books were pseudo written or that the author’s “name” or identity was of little concern, as they often did not have an obsession with The “Who,” but rather concerned themselves with the “what.” And in all actuality, for believers, the person who communicates is not important. It is the message. But isn’t this conversation a transgression from the OP? It might make for an interesting thread outside of this one.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,752
Dispargum
If Jesus had claimed to be a god, I doubt it would have gotten him into much trouble, unless he claimed to be the only true god and every other god was a false god. The Romans were pretty tolerant of differing religions. They only insisted they receive the same toleration back. The Christians and Jews were constantly getting into trouble not for having their own religion but for refusing to respect other religions.

Refusing to worship the emperor was later seen as rude and disrespectful. In wartime it could be seen as unpatriotic. That sometimes got Christians and Jews into trouble. It's not much of a stretch to turn unpatriotic into treasonous. There were several persecutions, but I'm unaware of any Christians being 'thrown to the lions' so to speak for a specific charge of treason. During the various persecutions, being a Christian was usually grounds enough to be 'thrown to the lions.' During the last persecution, in the late third century, just before Constantine, Christians were ordered to cease practicing their religion and to turn over their sacred texts for destruction. Christians were sometimes executed for non-compliance with these laws. In ancient times most crimes were punished by death, not just treason.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,752
Dispargum
They are the words of who-ever 'Mark' was, why do people focus on the characters in the Book and not the actual authors.

Who is Mark?
Is Mark a Roman citizen?
Why does he have a Latin praenomen.

These are the important questions.

If people don't know who Mark is, then how are people suppose to know who Jesus is?
It's called "The Gospell of Mark" meaning the story told by Mark. It was understood that Mark probably wasn't the one who had written the story down. Why waste good papyrus on a story that might not be very popular? By waiting until the story had been passed around verbally for many years, the scribes ensured that the story had what moderns would call 'market appeal.'
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
If Jesus had claimed to be a god, I doubt it would have gotten him into much trouble, unless he claimed to be the only true god and every other god was a false god. The Romans were pretty tolerant of differing religions. They only insisted they receive the same toleration back. The Christians and Jews were constantly getting into trouble not for having their own religion but for refusing to respect other religions.
A living, walking god-claimant would most probably be considered as direct usurper of the emperor's privilege.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
It's called "The Gospell of Mark" meaning the story told by Mark. It was understood that Mark probably wasn't the one who had written the story down. Why waste good papyrus on a story that might not be very popular? By waiting until the story had been passed around verbally for many years, the scribes ensured that the story had what moderns would call 'market appeal.'
And in an oral society this would have been a common way to pass things down and likely the preferred way. There have been studies which show that those in an oral society are quite adept at accurately passing down stories. People today often see things through their lenses only and can’t comprehend there are other ways that are just as effective. For the Gospels there was not a need to write things down until the original eyewitnesses to the Resurrection began to pass. Originally, Christians thought Christ would return in their lifetime. When this did not happen, as apostles and eyewitnesses died, and Christianity moved from a Jewish sect to a Greco-Roman , leaders felt compelled to write things down. But again, most could not read. Oral tradition was used to share.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2018
283
Netherlands
Is anyone aware what was the provision in Roman law at that time for someone who claimed, or claimed by others to have claimed, to be a god? Since Roman emperors considered themselves to be gods, would a god-claim be interpreted as treason and thus qualified for capital punishment?
I don't think this was necessarily seen as a problem as long as such claims did not have any political ramifications or pose a threat to state security. The problem with the Christians (and Jews) was that they only recognized their own god to the exclusion of all others, including the gods that gave the Roman state its safety and prosperity, provided that they were given their due honor by its inhabitants.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
I don't think this was necessarily seen as a problem as long as such claims did not have any political ramifications or pose a threat to state security. The problem with the Christians (and Jews) was that they only recognized their own god to the exclusion of all others, including the gods that gave the Roman state its safety and prosperity, provided that they were given their due honor by its inhabitants.
So he actually was engaged in sedition?

But I am curious to know if there was any provision for god-claimants in Roman law.