Fourth Eclogue of Virgil

[Quid est Veritas?]

In about 42 BC, Virgil the great Roman poet, wrote his fourth Eclogue. This was a bucolic poem about the countryside.

This poem is a prophecy of the birth of a boy-king, attributed to the Sybil of Cumae (a renowned Roman prophetess). This boy will banish fear, cause a new golden age, a new age of Justice. It has lions lying down with lambs. The disappearance of the serpent and poisons, etc.

Cryptically, it ends that his parents have "not smiled", and deemed "not worthy of board or bed".

Traditionally, this was seen as a prophecy of Christ, understandably. By Augustine and Lactantius, throughout the mediaeval period and up to as late as Pope in the 18th century. This is for instance why Virgil was chosen as Dante's guide through Hell and Purgatory in the Divine Comedy.
Its ending attributed to the fact that Christ is to suffer, and had no bed to be born in, nor would find peace in His life.

Now is this Prophecy? Many moderns argue that its supposed Christian and Messianic parts are only artefacts. That we are reading something in here that is not necessarily there. They argue it is about Augustus or a child of Augustus and Scribonia - unlikely as it predates the Principate, and is dedicated to Pollio. Others argue it is a panegyric for a child of Marc Anthony and Octavia, or about one of Pollio's boys, or about the Second Triumvirate, or Virgil's own poetic art.

All of this I find dubious. The Romans believed in prophecy. They accorded great honour to the Sibylline books. Why not take it in its obvious sense? Its Isaiah elements also appear quite stark, to such an extent that some argue Virgil was influenced by eastern Messianism and the book of Isaiah itself. Virgil was a provincial from Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy, today), and while he studied in Rome, it is silly to think that Jewish thought would be known to him. The Jews were a backwater race in the Mediterranean of the time, not as important as they would subsequently become (which is why some moderns dismiss Isaiah as a source for much of the imagery, and assume an independent Western derivation). But the agreement is there, so perhaps they do have a Common Source, just a different one entirely?

No, I think calling this a prophecy of Christ makes quite a lot of sense. It fits the wording very well (although there is a lot of Pagan imagery, but of course Virgil was a Pagan poet), and nicely explains the congruence with Isaiah. It is certainly a far better explanation thereof than the secular ones I have read. The only reason to discount it, I think, is to ignore the idea that prophecy might exist, or that a Roman source is clearly looking to Christ.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Here it is, so that you can make up your own minds and we can discuss it, if anyone wishes to.

Fourth Eclogue - Publius Vergilius Maro

Muses of Sicily, essay we now
A somewhat loftier task! Not all men love
Coppice or lowly tamarisk: sing we woods,
Woods worthy of a Consul let them be.
Now the last age by Cumae's Sibyl sung
Has come and gone, and the majestic roll
Of circling centuries begins anew:
Justice returns, returns old Saturn's reign,
With a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
Only do thou, at the boy's birth in whom
The iron shall cease, the golden race arise,
Befriend him, chaste Lucina; 'tis thine own
Apollo reigns. And in thy consulate,
This glorious age, O Pollio, shall begin,
And the months enter on their mighty march.
Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain
Of our old wickedness, once done away,
Shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear.
He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father's worth
Reign o'er a world at peace. For thee, O boy,
First shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
Her childish gifts, the gadding ivy-spray
With foxglove and Egyptian bean-flower mixed,
And laughing-eyed acanthus. Of themselves,
Untended, will the she-goats then bring home
Their udders swollen with milk, while flocks afield
Shall of the monstrous lion have no fear.
Thy very cradle shall pour forth for thee
Caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die,
Die shall the treacherous poison-plant, and far
And wide Assyrian spices spring. But soon
As thou hast skill to read of heroes' fame,
And of thy father's deeds, and inly learn
What virtue is, the plain by slow degrees
With waving corn-crops shall to golden grow,
From the wild briar shall hang the blushing grape,
And stubborn oaks sweat honey-dew. Nathless
Yet shall there lurk within of ancient wrong
Some traces, bidding tempt the deep with ships,
Gird towns with walls, with furrows cleave the earth.
Therewith a second Tiphys shall there be,
Her hero-freight a second Argo bear;
New wars too shall arise, and once again
Some great Achilles to some Troy be sent.
Then, when the mellowing years have made thee man,
No more shall mariner sail, nor pine-tree bark
Ply traffic on the sea, but every land
Shall all things bear alike: the glebe no more
Shall feel the harrow's grip, nor vine the hook;
The sturdy ploughman shall loose yoke from steer,
Nor wool with varying colours learn to lie;
But in the meadows shall the ram himself,
Now with soft flush of purple, now with tint
Of yellow saffron, teach his fleece to shine.
While clothed in natural scarlet graze the lambs.
"Such still, such ages weave ye, as ye run,"
Sang to their spindles the consenting Fates
By Destiny's unalterable decree.
Assume thy greatness, for the time draws nigh,
Dear child of gods, great progeny of Jove!
See how it totters- the world's orbed might,
Earth, and wide ocean, and the vault profound,
All, see, enraptured of the coming time!
Ah! might such length of days to me be given,
And breath suffice me to rehearse thy deeds,
Nor Thracian Orpheus should out-sing me then,
Nor Linus, though his mother this, and that
His sire should aid- Orpheus Calliope,
And Linus fair Apollo. Nay, though Pan,
With Arcady for judge, my claim contest,
With Arcady for judge great Pan himself
Should own him foiled, and from the field retire.
Begin to greet thy mother with a smile,
O baby-boy! ten months of weariness
For thee she bore: O baby-boy, begin!
For him, on whom his parents have not smiled,
Gods deem not worthy of their board or bed.

 

[Resha Caner]

I've always been intrigued by indications of God working in societies other than Israel. There are also some historical tidbits from among the Ottomans that indicate God's fingerprints.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I've always been intrigued by indications of God working in societies other than Israel. There are also some historical tidbits from among the Ottomans that indicate God's fingerprints.

Yes, I think it under-represented myself, too. We are often too quick to dismiss similarities.

If you have the time, could you direct me to what amongst the Ottomans you are refering to? Although of course, this is a bit later and post-Incarnation.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I just thought it worthwhile to point out a few things from the poem:

Virgil says "Great progeny of Jove" - the word here is Iovis, a special form of Jupiter. This word is not used of Jupiter, as we normally see him, but often refers to Jupiter conceived as the Summus Deus, the highest God. It is the form for absolute Godhood, which Terentius Varro connected to the 'Divinity of which all the gods are merely representations', in the philosophic proto-monotheism of the Principate.
Interestingly, Iovis comes very close to the Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Latin and Greek transliteration, and Samaritan pronunciation. Eusebius has it as Ievo according to Egyptian Jews, and Samaritans sometimes pronounced it Iova.

Saturn's Age refers to the primordial times before strife, so is the equivalent of saying a 'New Eden'.

We see imagery of wars ceasing after initially being rekindled, that brings to mind a Millenial reign.
Then the obvious of ending fear, destroying the serpent (perhaps the Serpent?), creating a New Race of men, etc.

I think it truly remarkable.

 

[ubicaritas]

In about 42 BC, Virgil the great Roman poet, wrote his fourth Eclogue. This was a bucolic poem about the countryside.

This poem is a prophecy of the birth of a boy-king, attributed to the Sybil of Cumae (a renowned Roman prophetess). This boy will banish fear, cause a new golden age, a new age of Justice. It has lions lying down with lambs. The disappearance of the serpent and poisons, etc.

Cryptically, it ends that his parents have "not smiled", and deemed "not worthy of board or bed".

Traditionally, this was seen as a prophecy of Christ, understandably. By Augustine and Lactantius, throughout the mediaeval period and up to as late as Pope in the 18th century. This is for instance why Virgil was chosen as Dante's guide through Hell and Purgatory in the Divine Comedy.
Its ending attributed to the fact that Christ is to suffer, and had no bed to be born in, nor would find peace in His life.

Now is this Prophecy? Many moderns argue that its supposed Christian and Messianic parts are only artefacts. That we are reading something in here that is not necessarily there. They argue it is about Augustus or a child of Augustus and Scribonia - unlikely as it predates the Principate, and is dedicated to Pollio. Others argue it is a panegyric for a child of Marc Anthony and Octavia, or about one of Pollio's boys, or about the Second Triumvirate, or Virgil's own poetic art.

All of this I find dubious. The Romans believed in prophecy. They accorded great honour to the Sibylline books. Why not take it in its obvious sense? Its Isaiah elements also appear quite stark, to such an extent that some argue Virgil was influenced by eastern Messianism and the book of Isaiah itself. Virgil was a provincial from Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy, today), and while he studied in Rome, it is silly to think that Jewish thought would be known to him. The Jews were a backwater race in the Mediterranean of the time, not as important as they would subsequently become (which is why some moderns dismiss Isaiah as a source for much of the imagery, and assume an independent Western derivation). But the agreement is there, so perhaps they do have a Common Source, just a different one entirely?

No, I think calling this a prophecy of Christ makes quite a lot of sense. It fits the wording very well (although there is a lot of Pagan imagery, but of course Virgil was a Pagan poet), and nicely explains the congruence with Isaiah. It is certainly a far better explanation thereof than the secular ones I have read. The only reason to discount it, I think, is to ignore the idea that prophecy might exist, or that a Roman source is clearly looking to Christ.

Some Persians had similar prophecies in the Zoroastrian religion.

I know some eastern Christians considered the Oracles to be prophetesses, but at best it is/was an opinion held by some and in no way a real doctrine of their churches.

I have sometimes wondered what are we to make of Zoroastrianism, especially the possibility held by many ancient near eastern scholars that Judaism was influenced by it, since the Priestly text was said to have been written in Babylon during the Captivity? And the Priestly text most closely resembles Zoroastrian religion which is focused on ritual and purity/impurity.

Also, the word "Paradise" itself comes from Persian and refers to the primordial garden also found in Zoroastrian religion. And the same is true for the concept of a final restoration and resurrection of the dead. Concepts that only really become significant in Judaism after the exile in Babylon ends, and even then only held by a school of Judaism (the pharisees. The Sadducees were perhaps the more conservative sect that rejected a hierarchy of angels and resurrection, as well as synagogue worship). Ancient Jews, pre-exile, seem to have beliefs about the dead similar to the Assyrians.

I could say more of course but I think it would be best left for "Controversial Theology" (basically, I am inclined towards inclusivism). Pre-Reformation Christianity was not necessarily as exclusive in its religious outlook as is often assumed, especially when one gets away from the Roman system imposed upon the Church and the Emperors' attempts to destroy paganism and philosophical schools.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have sometimes wondered what are we to make of Zoroastrianism, especially the possibility held by many ancient near eastern scholars that Judaism was influenced by it, since the Priestly text was said to have been written in Babylon during the Captivity? And the Priestly text most closely resembles Zoroastrian religion which is focused on ritual and purity/impurity.

This is a problem with a large amount of ancient historical work that I have always objected to. To me it indicates that, in an attempt to be "objective" there is actually a subtle bias against Judeo-Christian history. Of course historians can only work with the sources they have, but the problem becomes that there are subtle assumptions that nothing existed outside those sources, and invalid conclusions are drawn from those assumptions.

Let me give an example. A parent takes his child to Dairy Queen for some ice cream. The child gets some chocolate ice cream and exclaims, "This is good! I've never had this before." The parent then assumes he has introduced the child to ice cream. However, the parent doesn't realize the grandparents had previously taken the child for some ice cream. What did the child mean then? Well, the grandparents gave the child vanilla. It was simply a new flavor that the parent had introduced, not ice cream itself. The parent, working within a limited framework, makes an erroneous conclusion about the child's experiences.

Making conclusions that A influenced B is extremely dicey.

Historians making comments about society X influencing Judaism or Christianity often seem stuck in formalisms. The Christian church didn't formally exist until date xxx A.D., therefore if they show a trait that existed in some other formal institution in xxx B.C., then the earlier must have influenced the later. But it is possible the earlier institution was influenced by an even earlier person from the "bloodline" (so to speak) of Christianity.

This is where one's perspective on history is important. For me, God is God. He always has been and always will be. We shouldn't limit ourselves to thinking God is a Jew or God is a Christian. That's why things like Virgil intrigue me. God can (and I believe does) speak to everyone. Whether they accept it or not - whether they pervert what he revealed to them - is a different matter.

So, maybe a Semite learned writing from a Sumerian. But it's also possible that a Sumerian learned to write from a Semite - or that a Semite gave a Sumerian ideas that then gave rise to a widespread Sumerian system before Semite's widely adopted writing. The complexity of reality exceeds historical documentation, and the examples of that are legion.

So maybe God spoke to someone who handed on a message that was corrupted into Zoroastrianism, and Zoroastrianism then formalized before Judaism. And then maybe Moses encountered a Zoroastrian ... (or maybe Moses encountered an Egyptian priest who had encountered a Zoroastrian), and he asked God about it, and God clarified the message, leading Moses to keep what was true and discard what was false - the result being that what Moses drew from that experience had a different textural style than what he drew from other experiences ... but to say that Zoroastrianism (as some kind of formal institution) influenced Judaism (as some formal institution) is a much bigger and largely unsubstantiated claim.

Whatever truth it was, it originated with God, not with Zoroastrianism.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you have the time, could you direct me to what amongst the Ottomans you are refering to? Although of course, this is a bit later and post-Incarnation.

I'll look it up when I get home from work.

 

[ubicaritas]

I don't think Moses actually wrote the Torah, despite the traditional claims of authorship. An Israeli team in 2011 used computational linguistics to look at the Hebrew text and they found stylistic differences that largely match Julius Wellhausen's hypothesis several centuries ago. As a control, they jumbled passages from the OT minor prophets and the computer was able to separate them out by source. The only thing the program could not do is state the exact number of sources.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2049105/Computer-program-reveal-wrote-Bible.html

Zoroaster probably lived after Moses, between 1000 - 700 BC. In fact the German historian Karl Jaspers mentions Zoroaster as the first figure of the Axial Age, and Zoroaster's teachings are similar to other religions and philosophies of this age in moving the quest for meaning away from society and into the individual sphere.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think Moses actually wrote the Torah, despite the traditional claims of authorship. An Israeli team in 2011 used computational linguistics to look at the Hebrew text and they found stylistic differences that largely match Julius Wellhausen's hypothesis several centuries ago. As a control, they jumbled passages from the OT minor prophets and the computer was able to separate them out by source. The only thing the program could not do is state the exact number of sources.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2049105/Computer-program-reveal-wrote-Bible.html

Zoroaster probably lived after Moses, between 1000 - 700 BC. In fact the German historian Karl Jaspers mentions Zoroaster as the first figure of the Axial Age, and Zoroaster's teachings are similar to other religions and philosophies of this age in moving the quest for meaning away from society and into the individual sphere.

I might have misplaced Moses and Zoroaster time wise, but your date range is much too narrow. There is no consensus on Zoroaster, making the possible range of dates much wider than what you've quoted, and the possibility that the two figures were near to each other in time much larger.

Regardless, you seem to have missed my point. Textural criticism is frequently stretched way beyond it's ability. But it may be we are too far apart on this to make much of it.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you have the time, could you direct me to what amongst the Ottomans you are refering to? Although of course, this is a bit later and post-Incarnation.

Oddly enough, the reference comes from Colin Imber, who is an expert in the history of Ottoman law: A Note on 'Christian' Preachers in the Ottoman Empire. Studies in Ottoman History and Law. Analecta Isisiana XX (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1996): 153-159.

The article refers to a few different occasions when Islamic religious leaders among the Ottomans suddenly rose up and began preaching from the Qur'an that Jesus was superior to Mohamed, for which they were quickly executed. The article primarily focuses on an event in 1444 in Edirne.

I tried digging further into the sources to get more information, but wasn't able to get anything.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

On Zoroaster:

What one should remember is the paucity of Persian sources. What we know of Zoroaster is cobbled together from the Avesta and especially the Gathas. This was put together under the Sassanids, more than a millenia after his presumed time. So our sources aren't that trustworthy.
The Persians had no conception of 'deep time', so everything before their Great Grandfather's time got thrown together in a sort of mythic 'before'. Ferdowsi has four great epochs, in which real history and frank myth, are mixed willy-nilly. We have Jamshid and Yazd the first man, and then suddendly Alexander and Darius appear. The latter are very mixed up, in that they are now half-brothers, Darius dies in Alexander's arms, and Darius III is the son of Darius I! It is analogous perhaps to Aboriginal Dreamtime, or modern popular ideas of the Middle Ages or Ancient world - where everything from a 1000 years gets mashed together. Look at movies for instance, and you'd see this lack of consistent historic narrative.

So we are stuck on Ancient Greek sources here, to properly date Zoroaster. However, he falls prior to first hand Greek knowledge, so we are in Ninus son of Belus, Semiramis territory; where a mix of legend and presumed real events are awkwardly made to fit with the Greek Narrative from the kings of Sicyon onwards. So dating Zoroaster is extraordinarily difficult, hence there are arguments for very different dates and different levels of what 'Zoroastrianism' entailed at different times.

The Saoshyant idea, the millenial saviour, is a good example. Some argue a late Sassanid date for the doctrine, others an early one. Most agree the Angelology is early, as that can be easily traced to Indo-Aryan roots, but the Saoshyant as a novel idea, might predate Judaism, but might even be later than Christianity for all we know. As @Resha Caner said, one must be careful not to presume too much from the sources. Remember, the Fall of Nineveh has been redated 4 times in a 150 years. Best not be set in stone on these types of things.

 

[ubicaritas]

Zoroastrianism is obviously related to a precursor of Hinduism. I had a Hindu friend years ago that told me there were Hindu sects that believed in something like the resurrection, so I've tended to think there was some kind of axial age sharing of religious concepts ever since.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Zoroastrianism is obviously related to a precursor of Hinduism. I had a Hindu friend years ago that told me there were Hindu sects that believed in something like the resurrection, so I've tended to think there was some kind of axial age sharing of religious concepts ever since.

Yes, that is true. Very early Hinduism, of the Vedic variety, shows strong parallels. But we know that a group of 'Aryans' moved into North India from the Iranian Plateau (which is where Iran comes from, as cognate to Aryan) to form it. There are subtle differences though - Ashuras are demons in India, but Ahuras are gods in Iran; Devas are gods and Daevas demons; Mithra and Mitra; Soma and Rta/Arta, etc.
Vedic Hinduism is thus the cousin of Zoroastrianism by common descent, in the same way that other Indo-European religions are also related (Aesir/Ahuras/Ashuras/Titans; Vanir/Devas/Daevas/Deus/the gods; there is even a Hindu-esque triple division of responsibility in the Old Capitoline triad or mythic European narratives - the Priests/Warriors/Workers castes).
It is closely related to their linguistics too. To presume later sharing of ideas is merely conjecture, as there are few definite connections and common descent from Proto-Indo-European (or later common Indo-Aryan) religion equally plausible.

One must be careful of parallelomania, but there are real connections in places. Krishna is clearly influenced by Greek Pan via the Indo-Greek cities in Northwestern India; as is Mahayana Buddhism, which even uses Greek artistic details to this day (bunches of grapes on Stupas, Temple guardians, depictions of Buddha, etc.).

It is difficult though. Think of Newton and Leibniz independantly deriving Calculus; or Japan and Europe independantly developing Feudal systems. Sometimes what appears obviously related or derived from one another, might not be. This was the mania of Akhenaton's Aten being connected to Judaism; which seems plausible of the Exodus narrative, monotheism and Psalm 104, and Manetho; but has not been demonstratable and looks more and more mostly unlikely.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

On the matter of the subtle bias against the traditional Christian narrative: I wholeheartedly agree.

The fourth Eclogue is an example here, but there are many others.

To take the Gospels. Originally, all the 19th century textual critics agreed on a late 2nd century date, for I mean clearly Acts was just borrowing material from Josephus, and Tacitus clearly showed that they didn't know about the first century - they got Pilate's title wrong, they are confused on the rulers around the 4 BC to 6 AD period, etc.
Then the Pilate stone comes to light and early gospel fragments - suddenly Tacitus was wrong and thus the Gospels had real early first century material, confirmed by Josephus rather than borrowing. This is part of why Christ Myth Theory became untenable (and why modern crackpot adherents like Carrier spend so much time trying to discredit the Josephan material in common, even outside the Testamonium Flavium). It clearly shows a subtle bias against the Christian tradition had been at play here, and still often is.

Another example is the Tetragrammaton. In spite of dubious attempts to connect YHWH to Amorite theophoric names (Delitszh and Bottero), or titles of El, or damaged Eblaite inscriptions, the Hebrew derivation from I AM is ignored. While happy to accept such an idea for Khepri of Egypt, of self-existent deity, even to assume Israelite 8th century syncreticism with him, people are unwilling to confirm Biblical and religious material. Even in the teeth of the Shasu of YHW predating other mentions, there is a refusal to countenance YHWH entering Canaan from the south, or not being a Canaanite derivitive. Nor connecting the name Apiru with Hebrews, even cognatically. It would be farcical if not so sad.

Any biblical connection is treated with a ten foot pole, lest hoardes of Biblical literalists descend or Atheists denounce the work done. It leaves many avenues unexplored, unless it somehow runs counter to the Biblical narrative, because then it is fair game again. Look into Belshazzer for another good example. This is also why there is so much visceral opposition to Rohl or Velikovsky, or anyone that dares to question the fairly arbitrary Champollion connection between Shisaq and Shesonq and believing a radical rethink of far ancient timelines is necessary. For the current timeline is deeply flawed (the Greek Dark Age for one), but this is papered over, for heaven forbid some other new narrative might better fit things we safely set aside. (To be fair, Rohl's narrative is also deeply flawed, the truth likely lies between them or elsewhere).

It isn't just Biblical material though, but any traditional Western Narrative. This is why the Trojan War was seen as only a myth, and Schlieman laughed at by Academia - until he dug up Troy and Mycenae. Or Spanish accounts of Meso-American sacrifice thought hyperbole, till we found the mountains of dead.

Never think the history before about the 500's BC is settled. Massive changes have occured before, and perhaps will again in future. I mean, we discovered a major power, the Hittites, heretofore unknown to our historic narrative except for a few odd Scripture references.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I know some eastern Christians considered the Oracles to be prophetesses, but at best it is/was an opinion held by some and in no way a real doctrine of their churches.

Just wanted to add here that there was a strong belief in oracles, throughout the ancient world.
While people like Cicero scoffed at Haruspices, much stock was placed in omens and such.

Rome had the Sibylline books, supposedly sold to King Tarquin, that they consulted in times of strife. This same Sibyl of Cumae, is who Virgil was invoking here.
Now many such books of prophecy and omens circulated later, under this name. Some perhaps even written by Jews or Christians. A similar book, claimed for the Erythraean Sibyl, even has an acrostic for Jesus Christ Saviour (mentioned by Augustine).

This is why both the Sibyl of Cumae and the Erythraean Sibyl, can be found on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - alongside normal prophets like Isaiah, Zechariah and Jeremiah.

 

[Resha Caner]

On the matter of the subtle bias against the traditional Christian narrative: I wholeheartedly agree.

That's a great list, and, as you mentioned, there are many more. I can't stand Richard Carrier, and that anyone even listens to him is IMHO simply evidence of an anxiousness to discredit Christian history.

Would it not appear petty, it would be fun to write a book or essay on such biases.

I did at one time think it would also be fun to write something on Christian elements in non-Christian sources such as Virgil ... or to investigate more recent claims of prophetic vision like Joan of Arc. But I could never get my head wrapped around how I would approach it.

The one I think would be possible would be an intellectual history of Christianity. That is, start with Jesus and trace specific teachings through Polycarp, Irenaeus to Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome all the way through Wycliffe and Hus to Staupitz and Luther, and even into American Lutheranism with people such as Muhlenberg and Walther.