The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
You did indeed. You wrote
He theorizes that the passage originally read as follows:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
"Change four words and presto chango you have evidence for Jesus and we KNOW the "Chrestians" was tampered with."
This business of scoring out words and putting others in that you prefer could equally be used to provide evidence for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
In typical fashion you left out the rest of the post which clarified matters:
In fact, the above fits very well with Josephus book 20:8.10:
"Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also."
More over it was stated by Epiphanius in Panarion 29 in the 4th century that "this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but "Natzraya." a term that was applied to all followers of Jesus. He then relates that they were even called Jessaeans for a time.
In fact, Chrestians only appears in one place in the entire Bible as we know it: Acts and there is evidence that Acts was using Josephus's Antiquities as cliff note to flesh out events meaning it could not have been written any earlier then c 94 CE. So the original movement could have been still calling itself Natzraya or Jessaeans clear up to 93 CE.
Raskin makes a good point about the whole Chrestians-Christ thing:
"It seems ridiculous to say that Chrestians (the good ones) came from Christ (the anointed one). It is like saying that the followers of Lenin are called Lenenists or the followers of Stalin are called Stalenists, or the followers of Jefferson are called Jiffersonians or the followers of Woodrow Wilson are called Welsonians. It is not an easy thing to get the letters “i” and “e” mixed up in this way. Nobody refers to the founder of Mormonism as Joseph Smeth when they mean Joseph Smith."
----
As I have pointed out before "Chrestus" better fits the many aspects of Jesus then CHrist does from a Gentile POV:
chraomai: consulting an oracle
chresterion: "the seat of an oracle" and "an offering to, or for, the oracle."
Chrestes: one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer"
chresterios (χρηστήριος): one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"
theochrestos: "God-declared," or one who is declared by god
The idea that chresterios could have been some generic term for the followers of some god and was cooped and altered by Jesus followers into chrestians makes far MORE sense then the whole Christ-Chrestians thing.
It also explains how Marcion could convinced anyone that the God of the Chrestians was NOT the God of the Jews when said God's son used a Jewish title.
Last edited:
@ maximara
I really thought you were joking about the Raskin "amendment"! You really think it reasonable to score out Tiberius and Pilate, and put in Nero and Festus? Because, when talking about Judaea, Josephus refers to Festus? Do you really mean this?
I really thought you were joking about the Raskin "amendment"! You really think it reasonable to score out Tiberius and Pilate, and put in Nero and Festus? Because, when talking about Judaea, Josephus refers to Festus? Do you really mean this?
David Mo
Philosopher
You are greater than Harry Lemon!
Of course I know that Julius Caesar was a real man. I have even read De bello Gallico when I was student. In reality, a copy of a copy of a copy…, you know.
I have taken Julius Caesar as an example of a man with “deified” predecessors. On this point Caesar and Jesus were similar: mythical origins.
This is to say: that it is silly to claim that a man was considered a “ghost” because his predecessors were deified.
Can you deny this? Why?
Yes, and the senators also killed a man that was said a descendant of a goddess.
And the Romans killed a man deified by Yahweh, according the Gospels.
We can conclude that gods (!), and semi-gods and deified men can be killed, according some ancient legends.
And this is irrelevant to the problem of the historical Jesus.
Your litany is absolutely irrelevant for the specific problem of the existence of Jesus.
Jesus never was born of a Ghost; Jesus never spoke with Satan, etc., etc.
Some evangelists claim that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit; the evangelists affirm that Jesus spoke with Satan, etc., etc. And this is irrelevant for the subject of the historical Jesus because many people in Antiquity believed that some men can be born of a God,were be able to speak with devils, etc., etc.
So, the first point about the historical Jesus is not if someone said he was born of a God, that he spoke with Satan, etc., etc., but if the evangelists believe that an extraordinary man did those things. And the answer is yes. The evangelists believe or affirm that an extraordinary man has done these extraordinary things.
Second point: what was the nature of this extraordinary man, according the evangelists? Two answers: A pre-existent divine entity embodied in a man (John). God adopted a man as his son (Mark).
Conclusion: extreme mythicists are wrong when assert that evangelists (Paul included) believe that Jesus was not a man. Some of them (John) believed that was a divine entity (the Logos) embodied in a man; other believe that he was a deified man.
In consequence: we can differentiate two Jesus’ aspects: as a miracle maker and as a normal preacher. We can discard the first, I hope, and ask ourselves: There is some reason to think that some natural deed attributed to Jesus was really existent?
This is the true question about the historical Jesus and your litanies about miracles and Ghosts are absolutely irrelevant and a lot of... rubbish? ***?.
(Sorry, it seems that I used the wrong word. My English is not too good. Perhaps, "nonsense"? Chose yourself, please).
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
Only Romans crucified in Palestine first century.
If Jesus was invented was not in the second century, but in the pauline communities in the first century. Yes, the second century Christianity was more diversified.
Some different judeo-christian communities can be inferred from the gospels, but we know scarcely nothing about his beliefs. If they were aggressive against the Romans it is easier to suppose that they had a leader and that this leader was killed by the Romans than they had to invent a leader.
An anti-Rome tendency is clear in Revelation, but it has other roots and belongs to the beginnings of the second century. Apocalyptic literature is other thing that gospels and works with previous material.
That is not remotely any kind of answer.
You appear to be completely unaware, or in fact in blatant denial, of the fact that such writing becomes far less reliable as evidence, with the passage of time. And especially if it is known only as very late anonymous copying (not known from any original writer).
Do you know what date is given for the copy that GDon was quoting from?
Your English is amply adequate for the purpose to which you have applied it. "Rubbish" is a good word in this context. "Nonsense" is an equally good word. I choose both words.
Paul has no need to "invent" a messiah. In his letters, the writer ("Paul") says that the messiah was revealed to him in a divine vision and known to him "according to scripture". The letters tell you as plain as the nose on your face that he got his beliefs from the OT (and perhaps also from other writing that he regarded as scripture).
He (Paul) did not need to "invent" it, he believed that he had found the true meaning of the universally believed messiah prophecies which he thought were "hidden so long" in the ancient scriptural writings. In fact, he repeatedly insisted on that.
And we have discussed this at least 20 or 30 times before and shown that there are indeed various passage in the “scriptures" from which Paul might have got the idea, rightly or wrongly, that in prophecy the messiah was "crucified" ... though we have to be very careful about what actual word was really used for "crucify" in either the earliest known extant copy of those letters, i.e. in P46, or more correctly, what word was really used in the supposed much earlier original writing attributed to "Paul", as well as what word was used in whatever part of the ancient scriptures that Paul was referring to as the source of his beliefs.
IOW - there's a huge problem in this subject, whereby there are disputes over which of several translations is possibly correct, and disputes also over what the exact meaning of any of those translations originally was.
But lets be clear and bring a little honesty to all this - Paul did not need to invent a crucifixion. He tells you in unmistakable terms that he believed all these things “according to scripture”.
No! Paul had never known Jesus and there is no suggestion that he was a personal witness of any crucifixion. And he insists that he certainly did not learn anything about Jesus from any man, and that he was never taught any such thing by anyone. Instead he insists that his knowledge of Jesus came to him from ancient scripture. He simply believed that Jesus had been “crucified” (or whatever the original word really was), because he thought that was what was said in the divine scriptures.
Yes Tacitus Histories 5:9 supports it; as does Tertullian's Ad Nationes
Tacitus Histories 5:9
"Under Tiberius all was quiet."
(immediately prior to that, in Hist 5:9, there was reference to an uppity Simon -
and (immediately prior to that, in Hist 5:9, there was reference to an uppity Simon -
"After Herod's death, a certain Simon32 - a freed slave assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision. He, however, was put to death by Quintilius Varus, governor of Syria ..."
Some have proposed a Simon-Peter messiah-claimant was a fore-runner to the development of the Jesus narrative)Tertullian Ad Nationes, Chap VII
.
and Lena Einhorn's paper shows similar transposition of events and people from the mid-1st century in Josephus to earlier time-frames in the Gospels - http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf
.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
Thank you.
Oh really! Is that supposed to justify these changes, simply removing Tiberius and adding Nero? Does that not seem ridiculous?
You wrote
He theorizes that the passage originally read as follows:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
Tacitus is here talking about the appearance of a superstition, not a rebellion or mass disorder. It is fantastical simply go "amend" texts in that way, at the suggestion of a person whose website inspires little confidence as a source of accurate knowledge.
Here is the context of Histories 5:9
Antony gave the throne to Herod, and Augustus, after his victory, increased his power. After Herod's death, a certain Simon assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision. He, however, was put to death by Quintilius Varus, governor of Syria; the Jews were repressed; and the kingdom was divided into three parts and given to Herod's sons. Under Tiberius all was quiet. Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they chose rather to resort to arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising ...
There is nothing in that passage that precludes the appearance of a superstition in the days of Tiberius, let alone anything that requires arbitrary falsifications of a different work of Tacitus.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
Nowhere in the Old Testament is suggested the crucifixion of a messiah or prophet . The early christians quoted some equivalences so unlikely that they hint more to an ulterior intent of justification "by scriptures" of an embarrassing crucifixión than a free association drawn from the Bible.
I find a curious thing that the mythicists support the prophetic explanation of the gospels, typical of christian fundamentalism, just because they intend to justify the absurd theory that the evangelists thought that Jesus was not a man (deified). In Spain we say that sometimes los extremos se tocan (extremes meet one another). It fits here.
Last edited:
I think it's time for another count. The last one was a while ago. Here was the result.
This time we have "No! Paul had never known Jesus and there is no suggestion that he was a personal witness of any crucifixion" I'm going to be generous and give you two for that, on grounds of personal knowledge of Jesus AND personal witness of the crucifixion. Also, you've managed to squeeze not one but two disparagements into a single sentence "But lets be clear and bring a little honesty to all this". Imputations both of unclarity and of dishonesty.
I have to say, you're maintaining very consistent standards.
Of course there would have been 'superstitions' under Tiberius - various religions were either starting or growing in the Roman Empire then.
We're not talking about arbitrary falsification of Annals 15.44; we're talking about Christians falsifying it to boost perceptions of historicity of Christianity ie. to boost perceptions it was significant in the 1st century and not another religion based on another Christ or a 'Chrestos'.
Last edited:
I'm referring to the Raskin falsification, replacing Tiberius with Nero and so on. It may be that Tacitus received his information from the Christians, but that doesn't give us the right to mess about with the words that we find on the pages of his works, does it?
If we can do that we can prove the existence of Santa Claus, and show that he was crucified by Alexander Jannaeus too, if we want.
I agree. We have already looked at Psalms 2. That is a plain statement of the power of a Messiah sustained by divine favour. It is completely inconsistent with the idea of a crucified Messiah. The Christians would not have invented that, but once obliged by the facts to confront it, they sought "prophetic" passages that might make sense of it.
Huh?
it's not Raskin's falsification: it's Raskin's proposition that Christians either falsified the text that Tacitus had written; or falsified the whole text.
Again you are just sounding off with absolutely nothing to say and no credible answer.
If anything at all is clear from the copies of letters said to have once been written by "Paul" (though almost half of them are now widely agreed even by the most Christian of bible scholars, to be fakes ... so not merely with "interpolations", but where the whole thing is a bogus fabrication), then what is clear is that "Paul" had never known anyone called Jesus, and he had never seen any such crucifixion. Instead he simply believed all that as divine prophecy from ancient scripture.
Paul did not have to invent it. He says that he believed it was all there hidden in the coded prophecies of ancient messianic scripture.
- Status