The Historical Jesus II

[proudfootz]

I agree, this 'criterion of embarrassment' is problematic.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, holding one's breath can be dangerous!

I don't think # 11 on the list is saying what you seem to imagine it is saying.

Clearly Pilate is portrayed by contemporary historians as ready to put down riots with violence, killing many:

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate05.html

Pilate was also willing to call out soldiers to put an end to hijinks by religious fanatics:

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate07.html

Please do not deprive your brain of needed oxygen any longer!

Cripes, you mean dejudge moved the goalposts further than I ever thought possible? Josephus? Da heck?

Tacitus wrote that people in Rome were following someone who suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate. Dejudge's arguments, while zealously held, have notably failed to contradict this point. In fact, they are so poor that Tacitus as proof of the historicity of the early Christians is fully established in my view.

 

[dejudge]

....The main battlefield of this war was the divinity of Jesus and the relationship of the adherent to the divine in general.

Your statement is a fallacy.

It was the FLESH of Jesus that was questioned--NOT his Divinity.

Please, get familiar with writings of antiquity.

Examine Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ".

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist?

Whence was it derived?

And of what kind was it?

For hundreds of years Christians were at "war" over the Flesh of Christ.

An early Christian cult under Marcion claimed the Son of God had NO Flesh, No Birth, and NO human mother but came directly from heaven to Capernaum in the 15th year of Tiberius.


Examine an Epistle of John.

2 John 1:7 KJV

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The "war" among Christians was about the Flesh of Christ.

It should be obvious that there would be no "war" if there was actual established historical evidence.

As was expected, Tertullian did not use Josephus or Tacitus to prove Jesus did exist in the Flesh.

 

[proudfootz]

Cripes, you mean dejudge moved the goalposts further than I ever thought possible? Josephus? Da heck?

Tacitus wrote that people in Rome were following someone who suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate. Dejudge's arguments, while zealously held, have notably failed to contradict this point. In fact, they are so poor that Tacitus as proof of the historicity of the early Christians is fully established in my view.

You've missed the point that dejudge considers this Tacitus 'reference' to be spurious.

Rather than 'failing to contradict' your assertions of Tacitus as 'proof' of anything about alleged Jesus-worshipers in the 1st century AD, dejudge has made a compelling argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

You've missed the point that dejudge considers this Tacitus 'reference' to be spurious.

Rather than 'failing to contradict' your assertions of Tacitus as 'proof' of anything about alleged Jesus-worshipers in the 1st century AD, dejudge has made a compelling argument.

I have not missed his claim that it is spurious, I simply find his claims completely unproven, and his response strategies (Gish gallop, and moving the goal posts) completely ridiculous.

Not only has dejudge not made a compelling argument, the weakness in his arguments and his deflection strategies make it clear to me the Tacitus is authentic and authoritative.

Other have made cogent points about Tacitus as regards the bigger picture, but dejudge's are laughable.

 

[proudfootz]

I have not missed his claim that it is spurious, I simply find his claims completely unproven, and his response strategies (Gish gallop, and moving the goal posts) completely ridiculous.

Not only has dejudge not made a compelling argument, the weakness in his arguments and his deflection strategies make it clear to me the Tacitus is authentic and authoritative.

Other have made cogent points about Tacitus as regards the bigger picture, but dejudge's are laughable.

You're welcome to your opinion, but even if it were true that dejudge's arguments failed it wouldn't make this passage in Tacitus authentic or dispositive.

That this story is missing from history is a compelling argument that it never happened.

That such a spectacular 'persecution' of Jesus worshipers at the cultural and political capital of the whole civilization would escape the notice of both christians (always ready to whinge about how badly they are treated) and non-christians alike is laughable.

"For the next 300 years, no Christian commentator makes any reference to Nero’s slaughter of the Roman Christians for setting the Great Fire. Not just to Tacitus’ account of such an event, but to the event itself as something known in Christian tradition. That it would not be known is impossible. That it would not be referred to in any connection is almost equally impossible.

Christians in those early centuries were fixated on the fact and history of their martyrdom. A great literature of martyrology was produced in that time, even if a lot of it was fiction or exaggeration. Eusebius (the pre-eminent church historian!) can refer to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul at the hands of Nero, but he fails to include the array of Christian residents of Rome and makes no link of anything to the Great Fire...

<and a great deal more at the following link...>

http://vridar.org/2012/04/23/5-earl...se-against-mythicism-a-roman-trio/#more-27589

In fact, there is no reason to think this event ever happened, and very little reason to suppose Tacitus is the author of the passage.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're welcome to your opinion, but even if it were true that dejudge's arguments failed it wouldn't make this passage in Tacitus authentic or dispositive.

That this story is missing from history is a compelling argument that it never happened.

That such a spectacular 'persecution' of Jesus worshipers at the cultural and political capital of the whole civilization would escape the notice of both christians (always ready to whinge about how badly they are treated) and non-christians alike is laughable.

"For the next 300 years, no Christian commentator makes any reference to Nero’s slaughter of the Roman Christians for setting the Great Fire. Not just to Tacitus’ account of such an event, but to the event itself as something known in Christian tradition. That it would not be known is impossible. That it would not be referred to in any connection is almost equally impossible.

Christians in those early centuries were fixated on the fact and history of their martyrdom. A great literature of martyrology was produced in that time, even if a lot of it was fiction or exaggeration. Eusebius (the pre-eminent church historian!) can refer to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul at the hands of Nero, but he fails to include the array of Christian residents of Rome and makes no link of anything to the Great Fire...

<and a great deal more at the following link...>

http://vridar.org/2012/04/23/5-earl...se-against-mythicism-a-roman-trio/#more-27589

In fact, there is no reason to think this event ever happened, and very little reason to suppose Tacitus is the author of the passage.

You appear to be unaware that dejudge is rejecting Tacitus as discussing early Christians at all. A point he has singularly failed to carry, in fact your own link rejects.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is unsustainable.

No supposed non-apologetic contemporary mentioned Jesus of Nazareth the King or High Priest of the Jews.

Only Jewish Kings and High Priests were called Anointed [Christ]

For example, in the Septuagint, David the King was called Christ [Anointed] and was Anointed.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is a figure of Mythology like Romulus, the Myth founder of Rome.

The mythology of the Jesus character is confirmed when it is realized that all the characters directly associated with Jesus have NO known history.

All the so-called disciples and Paul have BLANK sheets of history.

 

[The Big Dog]

The HJ argument is unsustainable.

No supposed non-apologetic contemporary mentioned Jesus of Nazareth the King or High Priest of the Jews.

Only Jewish Kings and High Priests were called Anointed [Christ]

For example, in the Septuagint, David the King was called Christ [Anointed] and was Anointed.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is a figure of Mythology like Romulus, the Myth founder of Rome.

The mythology of the Jesus character is confirmed when it is realized that all the characters directly associated with Jesus have NO known history.

All the so-called disciples and Paul have BLANK sheets of history.

Pilate? Really dejudge?

 

[maximara]

That, and the criterion of embarrassment.

I wouldn't even qualify the criterion of embarrassment as an arrowhead much less an arrow. Carrier explains in his “Bayes’ Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method — Adjunct Materials and Tutorial” (2008) why this argument is garbage.

"Thus everything that seems embarrassing in Mark might be an intentional fabrication meant to convey a lesson."

"What other reasons might Christians have for inventing potentially embarrassing stories? And how do those reasons compare with the theory that they reported embarrassing stories because they were true?"

 

[maximara]

You appear to be unaware that dejudge is rejecting Tacitus as discussing early Christians at all. A point he has singularly failed to carry, in fact your own link rejects.

Actually the page linked to (5. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: A Roman Trio) states:

"But all this may be moot. Once again, Ehrman denigrates mythicists for their alleged practice of simply declaring inconvenient passages as Christian interpolations: they don’t want there to be any references to Jesus, he says, so out they go. But in the case of Tacitus, there is very good reason to do so, and in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man I spend 25 pages presenting an argument in this direction. Ehrman makes not the slightest reference to it, let alone tries to rebut it."

"We might also note that Pliny’s letter to Trajan all but forces us to conclude that neither one of them knew of the great Neronian persecution. Pliny seems almost ignorant about Christians; and finding them virtually innocuous and inquiring what treatment they should be accorded is hardly consonant with their recent history under Nero and the accusation that they had been guilty of burning down half the city of Rome. Nor is Trajan’s advocation of a ‘go easy’ policy on the Christians."

Please note we know Tacitus and Pliny the Younger wrote to each other so the correspondence makes even less sense if Christians had been portrayed as a bunch of fire setting maniacs.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]We don't need any elaborate strawman arguments about John Frum "nowhere". Whether or not John Frum "nowhere" existed is completely irrelevant to the inquiry in to a character call Jesus of Nazareth in the NT.
[ . . . ]
Perhaps in terms of the NT, you're quite right. However, if we're talking in terms of history, it seems to me the example of John Frum can be useful in understanding how the character Jesus became the subject of a mystery cult

[ . . . ]
So, Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is of no real value in the HJ argument. We don't know if those Christians were followers of Simon Magus, Menander or worshippers of God alone. It is rather absurd to assume that Christians mean only followers of the Jesus story.

I agree with you completely here on the meaning of Christian.

[ . . . ]The only similarity in culture these texts have is their interest in the same story. [ . . . ]

To nit-pick, they all had a Hellenistic overlay and pertained to the Roman Empire.

[ . . . ]It is clear that the authors of the Canonised Gospels used the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus and other events in Roman/Greek Mythology to assemble their Fable of the Son of God regardless of culture.

In a nutshell, that sounds about right.

I'm skeptical there are any 'authentic sayings' of the Jesus figure. [ . . . ]

Where do you think those 'authentic sayings' came from?

Your welcome, and absolutely!
That event is a huge alarm that aids in informing us of just how diverse things were previously, and the amount of effort and the years upon years involved in formalizing the religion in extended battles of debates and factions (not to mention political gambits) further illuminates how any item on that table being debated was clearly not uniformly agreed upon prior to the ideological war's conclusion.

The main battlefield of this war was the divinity of Jesus and the relationship of the adherent to the divine in general. [ . . . ]


Also;
Slight comment on the criterion of embarrassment. [ . . . ] let's take the criterion of embarrassment for a spin on Moses for a moment...
It's embarrassing, considerably, for Moses to have done that incantation in manners counter to their god's command - specifically because it's Moses; the principle voice of their god to the people.

Does this then mean that the incantation is an historical event?
I sure hope that's not our reasoning, as that is incredibly unlikely sequence of events.


The second point is that IF these texts were not written by Hebrew hands, then they were designed after the Diaspora and outside of Judea (which is already likely to begin with), which means that they are PERIOD PIECE literature even IF based on any real individuals.
As such, it would mean that including the Crucifixion would not be embarrassing; it would be hallmarking and iconic. [ . . . ]

Once again, thanks for such a detailed reply and yet again, bookmarked.
Period piece literature. That makes sense.

[ . . . ]"For the next 300 years, no Christian commentator makes any reference to Nero’s slaughter of the Roman Christians for setting the Great Fire. Not just to Tacitus’ account of such an event, but to the event itself as something known in Christian tradition. That it would not be known is impossible. That it would not be referred to in any connection is almost equally impossible.

Christians in those early centuries were fixated on the fact and history of their martyrdom. A great literature of martyrology was produced in that time, even if a lot of it was fiction or exaggeration. Eusebius (the pre-eminent church historian!) can refer to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul at the hands of Nero, but he fails to include the array of Christian residents of Rome and makes no link of anything to the Great Fire...

<and a great deal more at the following link...>

http://vridar.org/2012/04/23/5-earl...se-against-mythicism-a-roman-trio/#more-27589

In fact, there is no reason to think this event ever happened, and very little reason to suppose Tacitus is the author of the passage.

Thanks for the link, proufootz; I'd had it and mislaid it.

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

To nit-pick, they all had a Hellenistic overlay and pertained to the Roman Empire.

I should be more clear when I make those kinds of statements; I was referring to those aspects worth noting which informed their form below that layer, as that layer is extremely large and does not well unify these texts much for even their application of Greek and Latin (the most unifying components of the texts) is quite disparate and serves better at defining their differences than similarities.

Once again, thanks for such a detailed reply and yet again, bookmarked.
Period piece literature. That makes sense.

Welcome as always, and yes, I think the idea of retrospective period piece literature - with no real difference in mind between myths, legends and reality motivating many of the works (Luke appears to be the odd-man-out in researching) - should probably be considered a bit more deeply.

 

[proudfootz]

Actually the page linked to (5. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: A Roman Trio) states:

"But all this may be moot. Once again, Ehrman denigrates mythicists for their alleged practice of simply declaring inconvenient passages as Christian interpolations: they don’t want there to be any references to Jesus, he says, so out they go. But in the case of Tacitus, there is very good reason to do so, and in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man I spend 25 pages presenting an argument in this direction. Ehrman makes not the slightest reference to it, let alone tries to rebut it."

"We might also note that Pliny’s letter to Trajan all but forces us to conclude that neither one of them knew of the great Neronian persecution. Pliny seems almost ignorant about Christians; and finding them virtually innocuous and inquiring what treatment they should be accorded is hardly consonant with their recent history under Nero and the accusation that they had been guilty of burning down half the city of Rome. Nor is Trajan’s advocation of a ‘go easy’ policy on the Christians."

Please note we know Tacitus and Pliny the Younger wrote to each other so the correspondence makes even less sense if Christians had been portrayed as a bunch of fire setting maniacs.

You'd think it should be obvious that if Tacitus did not write this passage, then he wasn't discussing 'our' messianic cultists or any other kind of messianic fanatic.

It may be some time before the penny drops, if it ever does...

 

[proudfootz]

Where do you think those 'authentic sayings' came from?

Well, in the case of the Sophia of Jesus Christ it comes from an old book of theological musings.

Suppose there really was a 'Q' used by gMatthew and gLuke to give their respective Jesus figures something to say- is there any reason it could not be a similar case of authors re-purposing pre-existing material?

I suspect there may have been a lot of collections of 'wisdom sayings' floating about (like those attributed to Solomon, who - if he existed at all - probably didn't spend a lot of time jotting down his thoughts).

 

[Belz...]

Your statement has no real value and exposes your lack of knowledge.

I see nothing has changed here since I last looked.

 

[dejudge]

[ . . . ]We don't need any elaborate strawman arguments about John Frum "nowhere". Whether or not John Frum "nowhere" existed is completely irrelevant to the inquiry in to a character call Jesus of Nazareth in the NT.
[ . . . ]

Perhaps in terms of the NT, you're quite right. However, if we're talking in terms of history, it seems to me the example of John Frum can be useful in understanding how the character Jesus became the subject of a mystery cult..

If we are talking about history then Roman belief in Mythology in antiquity is extremely useful.

It was the very Romans who worshiped Sons of Gods born of a Virgin that
eventually compelled all in the Roman Empire to worship a Myth character called Jesus, God of God and begotten of the God before all creatures.


John Frum "nowhere" is irrelevant in the history of Greek/Roman mythology.

One must have a fundamental understanding of Greek/Roman Mythology to understand how the mythological Jesus character was accepted by the Romans.

The Myth fables of Romulus the Son of God predated the story of Jesus the Son of God for hundreds of years.

Romulus was the mythological founder of the Roman Empire the Son of a God and a virgin.

It is also claimed that Romulus was conceived AFTER a VIRGIN was impregnated by an Apparition.

Examine Plutarch's Romulus written c 75 CE.

For to Tarchetius, they say, king of Alba, who was a most wicked and cruel man, there appeared in his own house a strange vision, a male figure that rose out of a hearth, and stayed there for many days.

There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer that a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body.

Amazingly, there is NO human father of Jesus in the Entire NT just like Romulus.

We also have the "healing" power of Vespasian the Emperor given to him by the Myth God Serapis.

In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian, the Emperor SPAT in the eyes of the blind and touched the lame and they were INSTANTLY healed which was witnessed by a LARGE crowd of people.

Suetonius' Life of Vespasian

A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel.

3 Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success.

Justin Martyr also admitted the Jesus story was just like Roman/Greek Mythology.


Justin's "First Apology"

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

The Jesus story was fabricated to be compatible with the existing belief of Greek/Roman Mythology.

 

[Belz...]

Sarcasm aside I agree that dejudge does seem to subscribe to the Joseph Wheless way of thinking...which is annoying to say the least.

Please, your statement is a fallacy. I don't even know what Joseph Wheless is!!

 

[Belz...]

The HJ argument is unsustainable.

Your statement is a fallacy.

 

[dejudge]

duplicated