See #1269 and #1278. Because it is necessary to look not only what he said about Jesus directly, but his experience of the environment in which Jesus lived, which he describes to some extent, and there are features in it which correspond to aspects of the gospel Jesus.
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
davefoc
Philosopher
They both refer to James and Peter.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."
(T)he Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Jewish guys pretending to drink blood? Yes, the thought would occur that it's the same characters in both books.
Last edited:
Probably wrongly. It is suggested by some commentators (eg Hyam Maccoby) that the Synoptic account of this gore feast is derived from Paul. John gives a different version.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Meh. I answered the question that was asked. Yes, I would read Mark and Paul, and conclude that the same Jesus was intended in both places. If that happened because Mark copied off of Paul's paper, then plagiarism is the surest sign of agreement about meaning.
If I had been asked about John and Paul, then I would have noted that John lacks both the institution narrative and a distinctive teaching about remarriage. I would still give an affirmative answer, but the argument would be indirect, your choice:
- There are enough points of resemblance between the synoptics and John to think that they intend the same Jesus, and so, if Mark and Paul mean the same guy, then so must John mean the same guy as Paul.
- There are parts of John that seem to me to be commentaries on Paul, and not all of them flattering. This would suggest that the two authors are discussing the same underlying situation, and would lead to an expectation that they would say different things about it.
I see no basis for thinking that John was unaware of the earlier Last Supper narratives. John has Mark's disclosure of the betrayer by dipping in the dish, for example. So, if John didn't include a bread and wine episode, or the instruction to do just that as a personal memorial (part of Paul, but absent from Mark), then that was his literary choice. Maybe his church wasn't one of Paul's, and John's church did foot washing instead.
Who knows? Maybe John was part of some weirdo heretical "No vampires, no cannibals" cult.
Belz...
Fiend God
I wouldn't say it's obvious, but it has been justifiably determined to be a forgery.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Originally Posted by TimCallahan
The Testamentum Flavianum in Josephus' Antiquities is an obvious forgery.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Consider the following:
1) The Testamentum Flavianum (or TF) states that Jesus was the Christ, i.e. Messiah. Yet, Josephus - who, were he the author of the TF, would himself have to be one of the "tribe of Christians" - was a Pharaseic Jew to the end of his days.
2) If the TF, proclaiming Jesus the Christ, isn't followed by any more material on Jesus, except the mention of the execution of his brother, James (if he's the "Jesus" referred to in that passage). If the TF were really from the hand of Josephus, he would have been saying, in effect, "About this time, the Messiah showed up. And now, back to our story."
3) That the entirety of the TF is intrusive material can be seen from the fact that what follows it refers back to the material just before it. Remove the TF and the narrative flows smoothly.
The Testamentum Flavianum in Josephus' Antiquities is an obvious forgery.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Consider the following:
1) The Testamentum Flavianum (or TF) states that Jesus was the Christ, i.e. Messiah. Yet, Josephus - who, were he the author of the TF, would himself have to be one of the "tribe of Christians" - was a Pharaseic Jew to the end of his days.
2) If the TF, proclaiming Jesus the Christ, isn't followed by any more material on Jesus, except the mention of the execution of his brother, James (if he's the "Jesus" referred to in that passage). If the TF were really from the hand of Josephus, he would have been saying, in effect, "About this time, the Messiah showed up. And now, back to our story."
3) That the entirety of the TF is intrusive material can be seen from the fact that what follows it refers back to the material just before it. Remove the TF and the narrative flows smoothly.
Belz...
Fiend God
Sorry. I'm aware that there's some obvious parts of the passage that were altered or added, so I'll give you that one. I was saying that it's not obvious that the whole thing was, considering how long it took for experts to agree on this.
I agree, but I'm not sure I'd call it "obvious", unless you ask experts.
Isn't that just 2b, though ?
Philo is even more problematic because in the 4th century Church Father were claiming Philo not only knew of Christianity but actually met Paul!
Eusebius in his The History of the Church claimed "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs." (Eusebius, The History of the Church, p50,52)
"Epiphanius makes two further statements which are sometimes thought to point to a pre-Christian Jesus. He says that there were Nazarees (or Nasarees) before Christ, and that Philo once wrote a treatise describing the early Christian community in Egypt." (Case, Shirley Jackson (1912) The History of Jesus)
So we are asked to believe that Philo not only met Peter himself but "wrote a treatise describing the early Christian community in Egypt" and yet wrote no word on Jesus himself. Uhhhh, how's that work? More over if there was no reason for Philo to know Jesus why claim such things?
As I pointed out way back in post 783 the word translated as "Christ" in the Testimonium Flavianum is χριστός but there are indications that in the 1st century that was NOT the word for "Anointed one" but for "ointment". (Anointing in Josephus, The Anointed One, Or The Ointment?)
SlackerBabbath
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 209
But that doesn't scan at all well with Tacitus' usual modus operandi. He was known to be a stickler for the facts and used his position as a senator to gain access to official Roman records, which he is known to have based much of his writings upon. He was also known to be harshly anti-Christian, so baring that in mind doesn't it seem unusual to consider him as mixing with the Christian community in order to be in the position to quote them?
Also, notice he doesn't mention the resurrection? If this was something that he had gotten from the Christian community, surely that part, the most important part to a Christian, would also be included in his text, even if he was only pouring scorn over their beliefs?
There's another possibility though.
Do you know what procurator actualy means? It's derived from the Latin verb 'procurare', which simply means 'to take care', so it basicaly just means 'caretaker' or 'the guy who sorts stuff out for us', in other words it could be considered as a general term, while 'prefect' is most definately an actual title and refers to someone with magisterial powers. Tacitus may well have been using the term as a general one rather than as an actual position of rank. Kinda like describing the chief inspector of a police force as an 'officer', which technicaly he is, even if he outranks all the other officers.
Again, given that possibility, can we not at least consider Tacitus as a possible 'supporting' source for the crucifixion event?
Couldn't agree more.
It's probably also useful to add that although many other writers that came after Josephus are clearly familiar with the 'Antiquities of the Jews', Testimonium Flavianum isn't mentioned by any other author, Christian or otherwise, before 300AD (200 years after Josepus' death) which is also pretty strong evidence that the text did not exist before that period.
Last edited:
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Slackerb
Pliny's letter to Trajan is nearly contemporary with the Annals. Pliny mentions that there were investigative trials of Christians earlier in his career and possibly ongoing as he wrote. Tacitus' source, then, could have been what was developed in those trials.
max
As I mentioned when it came up last week (post 1221), Eusebius was aware that he was making an inference that Philo's Egyptian ascetics were Christian. Epiphanius apparently relies on Eusebius or agrees with him, and seems aware that the assertion is inferential. I also discussed what Epiphanius said about his Nasaraeans, whom he took to be Jewish, non-Christian, and that their name meant "rebels," not anything having to do with "Nazareth" at all.
Since then, I have given some further thought to the problem of Eusebius thinking that Philo met with Apostles in Rome. The placement of Peter in Rome during the reign of Claudius apparently reflects a tradition that Peter stayed in Jerusalem for 12 years after the crucifixion. The tradition is in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, and perhaps elsewhere.
The difficulty, then, is getting Philo back to Rome years after his amply documented trip during the reign of Caligula. We have nothing that suggests a second trip, and plenty to suggest otherwise. Philo was elderly and lived far away in a time when long-distance travel was arduous.
However, Eusebius is plainly willing to mix his inferences with ground facts, and his inferences aren't necessarily sharp. In this matter, he apparently thinks Philo must have met somebody in the apostolic group because Philo impresses Eusebius as knowing Christian ways, for example, when describing those ascetics. The actual chain of reasoning is not disclosed to us.
Since Philo didn't write about Christians, there is no mystery that he didn't write about their Christ. Epiphanius plainly believed that some Jews lied about Jesus, so he has plenty of room in which to believe that Philo would write about Christians but keep silent on their Christ.
Pliny's letter to Trajan is nearly contemporary with the Annals. Pliny mentions that there were investigative trials of Christians earlier in his career and possibly ongoing as he wrote. Tacitus' source, then, could have been what was developed in those trials.
max
As I mentioned when it came up last week (post 1221), Eusebius was aware that he was making an inference that Philo's Egyptian ascetics were Christian. Epiphanius apparently relies on Eusebius or agrees with him, and seems aware that the assertion is inferential. I also discussed what Epiphanius said about his Nasaraeans, whom he took to be Jewish, non-Christian, and that their name meant "rebels," not anything having to do with "Nazareth" at all.
Since then, I have given some further thought to the problem of Eusebius thinking that Philo met with Apostles in Rome. The placement of Peter in Rome during the reign of Claudius apparently reflects a tradition that Peter stayed in Jerusalem for 12 years after the crucifixion. The tradition is in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, and perhaps elsewhere.
The difficulty, then, is getting Philo back to Rome years after his amply documented trip during the reign of Caligula. We have nothing that suggests a second trip, and plenty to suggest otherwise. Philo was elderly and lived far away in a time when long-distance travel was arduous.
However, Eusebius is plainly willing to mix his inferences with ground facts, and his inferences aren't necessarily sharp. In this matter, he apparently thinks Philo must have met somebody in the apostolic group because Philo impresses Eusebius as knowing Christian ways, for example, when describing those ascetics. The actual chain of reasoning is not disclosed to us.
Since Philo didn't write about Christians, there is no mystery that he didn't write about their Christ. Epiphanius plainly believed that some Jews lied about Jesus, so he has plenty of room in which to believe that Philo would write about Christians but keep silent on their Christ.
Belz...
Fiend God
Not necessarily. He could have read reports of interrogations, for instance.
SlackerBabbath
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 209
'Could have'.... but again, the obvious part that seems to be missing from Tacitus own writing is the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days after being crucified. It was this belief that really made Christianity popular and sparked off Christianity as a religion in it's own right. It essentialy says who Christianity was named after but not why, which, if it was from either a Christian source or from reports of interrogations or legal proceedings against Christians, one really would expect to see.
Remember guys, I'm not asking anyone to consider Tacitus as a definitive source for the definate existence of Jesus as a historical figure, I'm simply asking, if, (with all personal belief put aside for a moment) we can at least consider Tacitus as a possible 'supporting' source for the crucifixion event?
Y'see, I'm seeing opinions here of what could've happened and where Tacitus could've gotten his sources from, but I'm not seeing anything 'definative' here, so surely that still leaves the possibility open that the figure of Jesus Christ may well have been based upon a real person?
Last edited:
The strange thing is if this passage did exist in Annuals (c116) then how could Irenaeus in Demonstration 74 (c180 CE) stated "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him (ie Jesus) to be crucified."
Tacitus clearly states Christ "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius" (ie no later then 37 CE) so why was Irenaeus claiming it happened under Claudius Caesar and Herod the king of the Jews (ie no earlier then 42 CE) when anybody with a brain could point to Tacitus and call Irenaeus on the carpet for this temporal insanity (and then they could going even further as they is a LOT wrong with what Irenaeus is claiming)?
We are left with two possibilities 1) Tacitus had no such passage in c180 or 2) every critic of Christianity ignored the FACT Irenaeus and Tacitus has Jesus being crucified some five years apart. Which do you think is more likely?
I was wondering - I've only read a few books and a few articles about this but when claiming that the historical Jesus existed how much weight is placed on the material that the earlier leaders and churches removed, edited and even suppressed. Is there content in those texts (the few that remain) of anything else we can use to verify a historical Jesus bloke?
I have read that it is known not to have been Tacitus' custom to insult primary sources. I will check commentaries on his Agricola, of which I'm sure that is said. Not only was Tacitus anti-Christian, so was his friend and colleague Pliny, who is also an early source of information regarding Christian origins.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
SlackerBabbath
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 209
To be fair, Claudius was also known as 'Tiberius'. His full title was actualy 'Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus'.
- Status