JESUS CHRIST AND KING ABGARUS: THEIR CORRESPONDENCE; AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EPISODE

Eusebius` great work , the ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY , written in the first decades of the fourth century AD, makes the first mention of correspondence between Jesus and the King of Edessa.  (Other writers later allude to it.)  Eusebius was a Palestinian philosopher and historian (c 264-340)who became bishop of Caesarea in about 313 AD. The HISTORY, is a record of Christian Church events down to 324. He begins his monumental work  by stating in Book 1, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles....and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church....Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them [notable church figures or writers] whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow, the appropriate passages from ancient writers , we shall endeavour to embody the whole in an historical narrative....the work will only be complete if we begin with the chief and lordliest events of all Christ`s history....”

                At this juncture we need to look at the letter from Abgarus inviting Jesus  to Edessa,(where Abgarus was King),  a city in Mesopotamia , the letter sent or conveyed to Jesus by Ananias,  a footman of the King and  Jesus` reply to this letter. 

“Abgarus, King of Edessa, to Jesus, the good Saviour, who appears at Jerusalem. greeting.

I have been informed concerning you and your cures, which are performed without the use of medicines and herbs. For it is reported that you cause the blind to see, the lame to walk; do both cleanse  lepers and cast out unclean spirits and devils. and restore them to health who have been long diseased; and raisest up the dead; all of which when I heard, I was persuaded of one of these two, viz: either that you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these things, or the son of God. On this account therefore I have written to you , earnestly to desire you would take the trouble of a journey hither, and cure a disease which I am under.  For I hear the Jews ridicule you and intend you mischief. My city is indeed small, but neat, and large enough for us both.”

(There follows now Jesus` answer, delivered to Abgarus by Ananias, in which he declines to visit Edessa.)

“Abgarus ,you are happy,  forasmuch as you have believed on me , whom  ye have not seen.

For it is written concerning me , that those who have seen me should not believe on me, that they who have not seen might believe and live. As to that part of your letter which relates to my giving you   a visit, i must inform you that I must fulfil all the ends of my mission in this country and after that be received up again to him who sent me. But after my ascension I will send one of my disciples who will cure your disease and give life to you and all that are with you.”

The big debate of course relates to the authenticity or otherwise of the correspondence. As far as we understand Jesus never communicated via the written word; always by word of mouth. This does not mean that on this occasion Jesus did NOT reply in writing – only that its genuineness becomes more doubtful. Scholars are indeed divided over this question: belief in the authenticity of the letters -  and disbelief. So strongly held are some views that acceptance into the “canon” is long overdue, while others judge  them apocryphal. If the latter, why were they written at all (a question we shall go into later). Eusebius who first drew attention to the letters,  claiming he had found them in a library at Edessa writes thus (in his Church History, Book 1):

The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all men on account of his wonder-working power, he attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from Judea, who had hope of being cured of their diseases and of all kinds of sufferings. For instance, King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations beyond the Euphrates being afflicted with a terrible disease which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure,  when he heard the name of Jesus  and of his miracles which were attested by all with one accord sent  a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal his disease. But he did not at that time comply with his request, but he deemed him worthy of a personal letter in which he said he would send one of his disciples to cure his disease and at the same time promised salvation to himself and all his house. Not long afterwards his promise was fulfilled. For after his resurrection from the dead and his ascent into heaven, Thomas, one of the twelve apostles , under divine impulse  sent Thaddeus, who was also numbered among the seventy disciples of Christ, to Edessa, as a preacher and evangelist of the teachings of Christ.  And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its fulfilment. You have written evidence of these things take from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner.

There now follows Eusebius` translation of the purported correspondence between Jesus and Abgarus. He appends further detail surrounding the incident by which St Thomas was instrumental in sending Thaddeus , (after the ascension of Jesus) also an apostle, to Abgarus , whom he healed. Concluding this portion of his account, Eusebius writes: I have inserted them (the accounts) here in their proper place , translated from the Syriac literally, and I hope to good purpose.

An interesting point here lies in the Christian belief that the reply letter of Jesus was accompanied by a towel which Jesus had held to his face imprinting it miraculously with an image of his countenance, but there is no mention of this fact/legend in Eusebius` History.

We made mention of The Edessa archives earlier.  Eusebius makes a direct allusion to the authenticity of the documents in the concluding three sentences of the quote above where he refers to the Syriac archives, where all the transactions of the reign of Abgarus are preserved in the Syriac tongue. There are other mentions however of the epistles,  Ephrem “the Syrian”being one. He was a deacon in Edessa towards the end of the fourth century. He wrote many hymns and much biblical commentary.  He is highly revered as a Doctor of the (Catholic) Church and was influential in religious matters  - as he still is today.  In his writings he relates in very similar terms (to  Eusebius) the incident of the letter correspondence.  There is roughly fifty years between Eusebius` relation of the story and Ephrem`s.

No other mention of the epistles is to be found in first four centuries AD, until Procopius (c. 499-c.565) , makes allusion to Abgarus and Christ, in his history of the Persian war. Procopius was an educated man, a scholarly historian. Like  Ephrem before him, he was a major figure in literary life and a trustworthy source. He wrote several, mainly historical,  works.  Writing therefore in the sixth century , he relates succinctly the main features of the epistle incident, akin to that of Eusebius and Ephrem.     

The legend/story of the epistles is peripherally confirmed by Evagrius, named Scholasticus, (c.537 –c.600) principally known as an ecclesiastical historian, the author of several religious themed books, of which his HISTORY OF THE CHURCH is best known. Basically Evagrius was a lawyer, not a theologian, and a historian of repute.  He was familiar with the writings of notable predecessors and made allusion to them many times in his own work. In his HISTORY he make mention of a picture of Christ`s face impressed on a handkerchief or towel which was sent to King Abgarus  - something we mentioned earlier.  On the analogy that there is no smoke without fire it is possible to mention that the twelth century B yzantine historian, Cedrenus, believed that Christ did write a letter to Abgarus .sealing it with a distinctive seal. (But where he got the evidence to support this statement is unclear).  

Biblical scholarship in general  appears to view the letter/s as apocryphal, but there are scholars who believe the correspondence to be genuine. We do have the testimony of Eusebius, as we have mentioned, who spoke about his discovery of the letters in the archives of Edessa, so the story must have some element of truth – unless we believe that so eminent a man would deliberately try to mislead. It is possible however that Eusebius was given the knowledge, second-hand as it were, by some reputable channel from (or in) Edessa, and already translated from the Syrian and placed where they could be found -  by Eusebius? But he does claim personal involvement in the discovery. Be this as it may, some Churches do regard the correspondence as genuine and therefore scriptural.

There are of course arguments against authenticity, chief of which may be the fact that this correspondence is never mentioned in the Bible (as we have it). Also it has to be admitted that the tenor of the Jesus letter  does not really ring true; i.e. it does not seem  consonant with the behaviour and character of Christ as portrayed in the gospels. Would Christ have postponed any action by promising to send eventually one of his apostles? Did ,as far as we know, Christ ever write anything down?  However the answers to these questions are conjectural – like so many in relation to “the” Bible. Possibly the most contentious aspect of the Jesus letter lies in the  allusion by Christ to his future  “ascension”.  In his lifetime, Christ , as reported by his disciples, i.e. in the Scriptures, never did refer to his forthcoming ascension into heaven (admittedly it was prophesied in the Old Testament).  It seems strange therefore that Christ would speak of his ascension in a letter to a pagan king, and never to his disciples. In mitigation it must be pointed out that the correspondence accepted  as genuine by some scholars,  forms no part of the  sacred canon, as recognised by the main  western Christian Churches, namely the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches.

Of course there is much debate as to what exactly should be in the recognised canon. It is possible to regard the Bible as a compilation of narratives and stories, put together over many years, by many people, according to the prevailing doctrines of the Church/es.  It may be that the correspondence should be accepted as canonical, and therefore form part of “the” Bible. Opinions, as we have indicated, do differ . Naturally, at this juncture, we need to ask ourselves, if the letters are not genuine, why were they penned at all. We do not know who actually wrote them  - (if not Christ and Abgarus) Clearly we must believe Eusebius where he states his discovery, and share in (some) of his credulity. The first thing to be said is that there is nothing actually critical of ,or indeed detrimental  to.  Jesus (or Abgarus) in the correspondence; quite the contrary. The whole tenor of the letters may be construed as  laudatory; that is, obliquely praising Christ and emphasing  his supernatural powers. The letters therefore may have been written by a cleric who wished to advance the Christian faith; and, like many  Bible-related apocryphal documents, it was tendentious or at least had an axe to grind.   

In the extract above from Eusebius` HISTORY, we read of St. Thomas  being instrumental in sending St. Thaddeus (otherwise known as St. Jude) to King Abgarus to try to effect a cure for his malady. (Both were disciples of Christ.) Ananias, mentioned earlier, actually bore the reply from Jesus to Abgarus We can learn more of the background to the correspondence by looking at the “Acts of Thaddeus” . These so-called Acts are however judged to be apocryphal, some purporting to be written by Thaddeus, and some about Thaddeus and the letter episode. The fact is that we do not know who the actual authors were. We will consider one of the latter category. The document begins with the relation of the circumstances surrounding the exchange of letters, and gives the text of the correspondence. It continues with mention of the part played by Ananias, and the subsequent healing  and conversion of Abgarus.  The document tells of Thaddeus`s proselytizing in the region of Edessa , healing the sick and casting out unclean spirits. In essence this is my  very truncated version of the “Acts of Thaddeus” (or one of them!) Whoever wrote it clearly wished to eulogise Thaddeus` name, and equally clearly believed the correspondence episode.

It is conceivable that the story as detailed above does ring true to some, as some scholars patently believe. Like many stories or legends related to the Scriptures or Bible, it is possible to  believe that they have some basis in fact, but are themselves extraordinary, and do in many cases strain credulity. Also corroborating evidence may be lacking. Perhaps as often is the case, it all comes down to belief and faith. The story as we have said cannot be located in Scripture but this is not incontrovertible proof that the exchange did not happen . The circumstances themselves are not incredible: it could have happened.  For instance, Christ`s fame as a healer would certainly have been known far and wide in biblical areas. It is quite possible that a king suffering from an incurable illness would try to contact Jesus. Abgarus had heard of the persecution of Christ and his followers, and that is why he offered him his country as a refuge. Jesus reply is on the surface somewhat puzzling; but although he clearly had compassion for the sick man, Christ`s date with destiny was fast approaching = and he could in no wise be diverted, from this, his mission to save souls by his own death on the cross. By promising to send a disciple, Christ was but implementing one of his fundamental aims : to send his closest followers  into the world and evangelise. He had already given the gift of healing to his disciples; now they must begin to exercise it. In addition. Abgarus would have been  esteemed highly in Jesus` eyes because he believed in him and his powers without meeting him.  We recall the words of Christ . reported in John`s Gospel, where he reproofs “doubting” Thomas by saying to him: “Blessed are those  who have not seen and yet have believed”.

Yet many believe that this legend is the product of what might be called historical revisionism and this might be so in the light of advancing Christian belief and doctrine. The letters themselves appear in several languages e.g.Syriac,Greek, Armenian, (It should be mentioned here that six other “letters” to Christ have been disclosed to the world by one Jacob Lorber, an Austrian mystic  which he claimed were vouchsafed to him in a vision or trance. No credence is given them!)

Of course the word of Eusebius is critical in examining this correspondence. To deny the authenticity of the letters is to impugn the integrity of this major figure.  However, it has been alleged that Eusebius himself forged the letters, but no evidence has been forthcoming; it appears inconceivable that this should be the case.  More believable is the position taken by some critics that the correspondence was apocryphal, written  by persons unknown, who for their own ends placed the forged letters where they might be found by researchers: such as Eusebius! We have mentioned this scenario earlier. We have also mentioned earlier some of the barriers to belief in the authenticity of the correspondence. In criticising the validity of the documents it has to be borne in mind that as a historian, Eusebius is of the first rank, his  weakness being perhaps credulity. It does seem as though our particular Abgarus (Abgarus being a family name , like Caesar)  was an unusual pagan King in his sympathy to towards the then nascent Christianity, and genuinely sought affinity and even friendship with the leaders of the religion.  Maybe in this context Christ would reply by letter to this believer.  One of the main stumbling blocks to acceptance of the genuineness of the letters is of course the fact that as far as we know, Christ did not actually pen anything, but again here we are at the mercy of the Scripture writers who might not have given us the whole story.

That the story is viewed with credulity by some scholars is not in doubt. Equally there are sceptics. However it does seem likely that the development of Christianity at that juncture in history needed a boost, and this led to the “discovery” of the correspondence. Subsequently scholars have argued for its inclusion in the accepted “canon” – or exclusion.