The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Peter Kirby addresses it here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32416#p32416

What does Peter Kirby address? Peter Kirby typically does not address any evidence that which shows Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character.

The copy of Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is completely useless in the HJ argument since there is direct evidence that the passage was altered.

It can also be shown that NO Christian writer of antiquity used Tacitus Annals 15.44 as evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth up to at least the 5th century.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 was manipulated no earlier than the 5th century and AFTER the forgery called the "TF" in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

Tacitus' Annals does not identify any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

It is absurd to assume a single mention of a character called Christus MUST be OBSCURE HJ when the very same HJers argue that there were MANY Messianic claimants in the first century.

 

[maximara]

Not at all. If this is a peculiarity of the Christians, as Pliny seems to be suggesting to Trajan, then the point must be that they worshipped the christ - the Messiah - as a god, in a manner that Jews did not. That Pliny was aware of Jewish ideas means no more than that he had perused his uncle's works, as we know he did.

Worshipping cosmic beings as gods was a common or garden practice. But here we have some bunch worshipping a messiah as a god! Weird. In fact Pliny dismissed the whole thing as "depraved, excessive superstition".

I think that, if anything, Pliny's strictures point to the "Christos" having been in his mind a human being, rather than a supernatural cosmic entity, which explains his indignation at Christians making him an object of worship.

If he had said "they sing hymns to a supernatural being in the sky, as if to a god" that would have been commonplace to the point of absurdity.

I addressed this a while ago:

The Bacchanals were declared illegal in 186 BCE because according to Livy "there was nothing wicked, nothing flagitious, that had not been practiced among them"

Pliny in Natural History 30.4. reported that under Tiberius Druids as well as their diviners and physicians were made illegal.

For all we know the Roman knowledge of Christianity was on par with my grandfather's knowledge of Mormons ('They're like the Amish but they have electricity') - slowly rising to nil.

If a religion repeatedly caused problems (like Bacchanals) or was supposedly performing immortal acts (Druids supposedly practiced human sacrifice) the Romans would outlaw it. Odds are Roman simply dumped Christians into the Messiah follower pile which was clearly in the repeatedly caused problems catagory.

Given the Euhemerism mind set of the day where Zeus, Osiris, and about every deus you can think of were once human beings the idea that the Christ this group of Christians prayed to had one been human was a given. How's that project of showing Zeus was a human being project going?

Also if you really look at Pliny's test to prove someone was not a Christian ("offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods") it would also fail a Jew so either there were no Jews in the Bithynia-Pontus Province or Romans were not making a distinction between Christians and Jews here (for whatever reason)

If the Pontus Philo references is part of the now merged Bithynia-Pontus Province (it could refer instead to to the entire geographic area along the coast) then there had been Jews there. Since Pliny's test would fail Jews as well as Christians either something happened to these Jews or the Romans didn't didn't distinguish between Jews and Christians in this crackdown. QED

 

[maximara]

Peter Kirby addresses it here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32416#p32416

A little later in that thread we get Raphael Lataster's comment:

"Also of interest is that this supposed reference to the death of Jesus is made in Book 15 (covering CE 62-65) rather than in Book 5 (covering CE 29-31). Though Tacitus supposedly claims the death of Christ happened during the reign of Tiberius, he makes no mention of Jesus in the book covering the reign of Tiberius; he only makes this one comment among the books covering the later reign of Nero.

Furthermore, most information from Book 5 and the beginning of Book 6 (covering CE 32-37) is lost.82 The Annals is suspiciously missing information from around 29 CE to 32 CE, a highly relevant timeframe for those that believe (historically or religiously) in Jesus. It is equally suspicious that the only section missing in the space dedicated to Tiberius’ rule happens to coincide with what many Christians would consider to be the most historically noteworthy event(s) to occur during Tiberius’ reign.83 Robert Drews theorizes that the only plausible explanation for this gap is “pious fraud;” that the embarrassment of Tacitus making no mention of Jesus’ crucifixion (or associated events such as the darkness covering the world or the appearances of resurrected saints) led to Christian scribes destroying this portion of the text, and perhaps later fabricating the Book 15 reference.84 Richard Carrier further argues that Tacitus’ later discussion on Christianity (in his coverage of 64 CE) gives historians confidence that this gap cannot be merely explained by the removal of embarrassing claims made about Jesus (with the silence potentially being the most embarrassing point of all), and points to missing (relevant) books by Philo and another suspicious gap in Cassius Dio’s Roman History" 85

pp 85-6. Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies

 

[Craig B]

I addressed this a while ago <snip for irrelevance> ... Since Pliny's test would fail Jews as well as Christians either something happened to these Jews or the Romans didn't didn't distinguish between Jews and Christians in this crackdown. QED

I'm not making any point whatsoever about crackdown. I'm discussing what Pliny tells us the ideas and practices of Christians were. They included worship of a christ as if he was god. That is true whether the Romans cracked down on them or not.

In any case I believe that Jews were explicitly dispensed from Emperor worship because their religion was already ancient and established prior to the foundation of the Imperial regime. On this account Pliny would have left Jews alone. This has, anyway, nothing to do with my point. Christians worshipped a messianic figure. There is no evidence that Pliny thought of this figure as other than human. Pliny was familiar with Judaism, because his uncle had studied the topic, and published a work on it. Jews did not worship a messiah.

ETA See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire#The_diaspora

Julius Caesar formulated a policy of allowing Jews to follow their traditional religious practices, a policy which was followed, and extended, by Augustus, first emperor of Rome, reigned 27 BC - 14 AD. This gave Judaism the status of a religio licita (permitted religion) throughout the Empire.

 

[Mcreal]

There is no evidence that Pliny thought of that figure as human, either.

they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill ...

... I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition ...

... for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also

 

[Craig B]

There is no evidence that Pliny thought of that figure as human, either.

Yes there is. Pliny was familiar with Judaism, through the work of his uncle. He must have known that the "Christos" was not God in the theology of messianic Jews. Yet here he finds a sect that has deified the Christos to the point of singing hymns to him. He presents this to Trajan as excessive and depraved superstition.

 

[maximara]

Yes there is. Pliny was familiar with Judaism, through the work of his uncle. He must have known that the "Christos" was not God in the theology of messianic Jews. Yet here he finds a sect that has deified the Christos to the point of singing hymns to him. He presents this to Trajan as excessive and depraved superstition.

If "Pliny was familiar with Judaism" why does his test for Christians also fail Jews? It seems the easiest way to get rid of a Jew one didn't like would be to denounce him as "Christian" as he would just as unable to "offer prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods"

What about "Christos" being an archangel or these guys preying both God and "Christos" (as something other then a "god")?

"Note that Pliny's hesitant phrase 'as if to a God' (quasi deo) could reflect his response to the exoteric myth (if his Christian informants were simply repeating the Gospels in which Jesus allegorically presented as a historical man) or the esoteric one (Jesus then being confusingly explained to him as a celestial archangel or demigod they pray to, but not exactly to 'God'). It could also be a textual corruption, as there is some external evidence Pliny may have originally written Christo et Deo, 'to Christ and God' or Christo ut Deo 'to Christ as God' See Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man pg 64"

"There can be no question about the reading even though the MSS have et deo..." (Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1885) The Apostolic Fathers pg 57. If the MSS being used for the translation were actually saying "ad canendum Christo et deo" as Lightfoot admitted over 100 years ago then the HJ crowd is (surprise, surprise) forcing the translation of the MSS to say something that it in reality does NOT say.

If Pliny really did write 'to Christ and God' then he could have seen Christos as something SEPARATE from "god" in the Jewish sense as he understood it. But would Pliny have understood Jewish concepts of archangels and guardian angels (which there is evidence Jews may have revered as early as the 1st century BCE) as being on par with the more familiar numen and genius loci of his own pagan beliefs?

These points have been brought out before and you have their ignored them or dismissed them with no reason.

 

[Mcreal]

Yes there is. Pliny was familiar with Judaism, through the work of his uncle. He must have known that the "Christos" was not God in the theology of messianic Jews. Yet here he finds a sect that has deified the Christos to the point of singing hymns to him. He presents this to Trajan as excessive and depraved superstition.

You're 'verbaling' Pliny. You're making a leap of faith.

and you seem Judaic-centric.

 

[Craig B]

If "Pliny was familiar with Judaism" why does his test for Christians also fail Jews? It seems the easiest way to get rid of a Jew one didn't like would be to denounce him as "Christian" as he would just as unable to "offer prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods"

What about "Christos" being an archangel or to both God and "Christos" (as something other then god)?

"Note that Pliny's hesitant phrase 'as if to a God' (quasi deo) could reflect his response to the exoteric myth (if his Christian informants were simply repeating the Gospels in which Jesus allegorically presented as a historical man) or the esoteric one (Jesus then being confusingly explained to him as a celestial archangel or demigod they pray to, but not exactly to 'God'). It could also be a textual corruption, as there is some external evidence Pliny may have originally written Christo et Deo, 'to Christ and God' or Christo ut Deo 'to Christ as God' See Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man pg 64"

You keep ignoring these points already on the table.

This is all unfounded speculation. What if the Christos was an archangel, indeed.

I have shown that Judaism was a permitted religion whose adherents were dispensed from worshipping the Emperor. If a Jew was accused of being a Christian it would have been very simple for him or her to have proved that he was in fact a Jew. The Jewish authorities would have vouched for him. Yes, he or she is one of ours. The Roman Empire had in any case a bureaucracy including a fisc, that noted such things.

After the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the Jewish tax. There is debate among historians over whether the Roman government simply saw Christians as a sect of Judaism prior to Nerva's modification of the tax in 96. From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax while Christians did not, providing hard evidence of an official distinction.

 

[dejudge]

This is all unfounded speculation. What if the Christos was an archangel, indeed.

I have shown that Judaism was a permitted religion whose adherents were dispensed from worshipping the Emperor. If a Jew was accused of being a Christian it would have been very simple for him or her to have proved that he was in fact a Jew. The Jewish authorities would have vouched for him. Yes, he or she is one of ours. The Roman Empire had in any case a bureaucracy including a fisc, that noted such things.

Craig B claims are unfounded speculation. You make stuff up.

Now, Pliny does not refer to Christ as a Jew, a Roman, an Egyptian or as a human being in the Roman Empire.

In the Pliny letter Christ is referred to as a God.

1. Pliny EXECUTED the so-called Christians WITHOUT knowing what they believed.

2. ALL the others CURSED CHRIST and WORSHIPED Trajan and Statues of GODS.

3. The Pliny letter does NOT identify any Jewish person called Jesus of Nazareth.

4. Pliny had to TORTURE some of those who were once Christians to find out the TRUTH.


Pliny letter to Trajan

They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

The Pliny letter is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus as soon as it was claimed that there were MULTIPLE Messianic claimants and MULTIPLE Heretical Christian cults in the 1st century.

The mere mention of the word Christ in the Pliny letter does NOT help the HJ argument at all.

It is clear Craig B is desperate.

How much longer can the bizarre "chameleon" type HJ argument continue?

It is virtually certain that any claims about an HJ by Craig B will be riddled with logical fallacies and baseless speculation.

1. Mark 13:6--- For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

2. Mark 9:38---- And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

The Pliny letter is completely useless for the HJ argument since the word Christ can refer to MANY Persons.

 

[Craig B]

The Pliny letter is completely useless for the HJ argument since the word Christ can refer to MANY Persons.

Many what, dejudge? Ah, persons. Yes I agree. The expression Christ refers to a person, and several have been thus designated including Cyrus King of Persia in Isaiah 45, LXX.

But Pliny would not have expected any of these to be worshipped as a god, and he evidently thought the Christians were nuts.

 

[dejudge]

Many what, dejudge? Ah, persons. Yes I agree. The expression Christ referees to a person, and several have been thus designated including Cyrus King of Persia in Isaiah 45, LXX.

But Pliny would not have expected any of these to be worshipped as a god, and he evidently thought the Christians were nuts.

What a "chameleon" type argument!!!

The Pliny letter does NOT mention Cyrus King of Persia.

You INVENT your OWN expectations.

Pliny TORTURED those who were once Christians because he wanted to FIND out what they BELIEVED.


The Pliny letter states that PLINY EXECUTED the Christians and transferred some to Rome who were Roman citizens. Pliny did NOT know what the so-called Christian believe.

All the others CURSED CHRIST and worshiped Trajan images and the statues of gods.

Pliny letter to Trajan---They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ..

Mark 13:6--- For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Again, the Pliny letter is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus as soon as it was claimed that MANY will come in the name of CHRIST and DECEIVE.

See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Craig B, tell us now who was the REAL CHRIST in the Pliny letter if you have not been deceived??

 

[Mcreal]

.
The word Christ (or Chrestos) can refer to many persons ... and many gods, especially in those multi-sect, expected-messiah times

 

[Craig B]

.
The word Christ (or Chrestos) can refer to many persons ... and many gods, especially in those multi-sect, expected-messiah times

Messiahs are not gods. Christos is a Greek translation of Messiah. I assume that Pliny knew these things. That's why he informed Trajan that this sect did indeed worship a messiah figure as a god. If this was worth noting, it must have been exceptional.

 

[Mcreal]

Messiahs are not gods.

They could be anything. They could be manifestations of dreams as was common in those times.

Christos is a Greek translation of Messiah.

Possibly. Not necessarily. The etymology of Christos and Chrestus both changed over time.

I assume that Pliny knew these things. That's why he informed Trajan that this sect did indeed worship a messiah figure as a god. If this was worth noting, it must have been exceptional.

Pliny informed Trajan of various aspects -

I have never been present at the examination of the Christians [by others], on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what, and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages [of the accused]? and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men? Whether there be not room for pardon upon repentance?" or whether it may not be an advantage to one that had been a Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? Whether the bare name, without any crimes besides, or the crimes adhering to that name, be to be punished?

In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions.

There have been some of this mad sect whom I took notice of in particular as Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city. After some time, as is usual in such examinations, the crime spread itself and many more cases came before me. A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose

However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately ...

Assuming somewhat narrows potential scenarios.

They could be Christians similar to the ones Pliny's that contemporary Hadrian commented on - worshipers of Serapis, or any other mystery-religion/pagan god.

The sect of Serapis becoming widespread in that part of the Mediterranean -

Conclusion
The Egyptian cults of Serapis and Isis were introduced to Rome at the time of the late Republic but they showed their real strength from the middle of the 1st to the end of the 3rd Century AD. My study shows that these cults were widely expanded within the Roman society, from slaves and freedman to the Roman emperors, and they also played an important role in the religious life of the Roman military and merchant fleets.

Egyptian cults of Isis and Serapis in Roman Fleets. Proceedings of the First International Conference for Young Egyptologists, 2003
.

 

[Mcreal]

From the Serapis article in my previous post -

In the time of the Emperor Caracalla the god Serapis was introduced to the rank of the official gods. He built him a temple at the Roman hill Quirinalis with dedication Serapidi Deo.

In the same time the cult of the Emperor was linked up with Egyptian cults. From the time of Domitian to Trajan various Egyptian gods (Horus, Anubis) can be found with the warrior symbols of the Roman Empire (spear, shield). Isis and Serapis became the protectors of the Emperor from the time of the Emperor Caracalla.

The Roman Emperors Hadrian, Trajan, Commodus, Septimius Severus, and Diocletian were the great admirers of Egyptian culture. They decorated their palaces with Egyptian elements delivered directly from Egypt. The traces of those activities today can be found in Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli and Diocletian Palace in Split.

 

[Craig B]

They could be anything. They could be manifestations of dreams as was common in those times.

Anything could be a dream, common at all times. Pliny knew who Serapis was, and if these people had been worshippers of that God, he would have said so, and thought nothing of it. Did Serapis worshippers refuse to venerate he image of the Emperor? Was the Serapian religion an illicit "superstition"?

 

[dejudge]

Anything could be a dream, common at all times. Pliny knew who Serapis was, and if these people had been worshippers of that God, he would have said so, and thought nothing of it. Did Serapis worshippers refuse to venerate he image of the Emperor? Was the Serapian religion an illicit "superstition"?

Again, all you do is speculate. You have no evidence to prove what you speculate about Pliny.

Craig B tell us who Serapis actually was?

You don't know what you are talking but ask questions that you can't answer.

Did Serapis worshippers refuse to venerate the image of the Emperor?

Was the Serapian religion an illicit "superstition"?

Your HJ was NOT the founder of a new religion.

Your INVENTED OBSCURE JEWISH HJ was NOT Christ.

 

[Craig B]

Again, all you do is speculate. You have no evidence to prove what you speculate about Pliny.

Craig B tell us who Serapis actually was?

You don't know what you are talking but ask questions that you can't answer.

Did Serapis worshippers refuse to venerate the image of the Emperor?

Was the Serapian religion an illicit "superstition"?

Can you answer them? Then you could tell us why you think I'm wrong.

 

[dejudge]

Can you answer them? Then you could tell us why you think I'm wrong.

You have not and cannot answer any questions about YOUR HJ.

Christians of antiquity have ANSWERED the questions about the Nature of THEIR Jesus.

See gMark 6, gMark 9 and gMark 16.

See Matthew 1

See Luke 1

See John 1

See Acts 1

See Galatians 1

See 1 Corinthians 15

See "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

See "The Nicene Creed"

See "The Creed of 381.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Transfiguring Sea water walker, born of a Ghost and God Creator BEFORE he was RAISED from the dead and ascended in a cloud.

Your Jesus is imaginative FICTION.

When did YOUR Jesus die?

Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the Ghost, in the NT NEVER really died immediately after the crucifixion--He was found ALIVE three days AFTER he was crucified and buried.

In the NT, Jesus, God Creator, was ALIVE about 50 days AFTER he survived the crucifixion.

See Acts 1.

If YOUR Jesus died immediately after he was crucified then YOUR Jesus is UNDOCUMENTED or imaginative fiction.