The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

There's nothing in the least surprising that some early texts mention "Christ" rather than Jesus ...

Yes, because references to and deference to 'Christs' preceded references to "Jesus".

Jesus was a newly created entity, like Serapis had been.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, because references to and deference to 'Christs' preceded references to "Jesus".

Jesus was a newly created entity, like Serapis had been.

When had Serapis been created? From what kind of material? By whom? What was the purpose of the creation of Serapis?

Are these the same, in time and character, as the advent of the Christ religion?

As to Christs before Jesus: I have given you one. King Cyrus of Persia in Isaiah 45:1.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yep. Tacitus was a bone fide Roman pagan.

Some of his works were highly regarded; some, like Annals, less so.

Yeah, his crowning achievement and the Pinnacle of Roman historical writing has a dim view.... Among antitheists at least.

 

[Mcreal]

Yeah, his crowning achievement and the Pinnacle of Roman historical writing has a dim view.... Among antitheists at least.

His Histories is highly regarded. As is Agricola

 

[Mcreal]

When had Serapis been created? From what kind of material? By whom? What was the purpose of the creation of Serapis?

Created by Ptolemy Soter I to unite the Greeks and Egyptians after the death of Alexander the Great.

The Egyptians favored a more human gods than the Greeks' gods were.

 

[dejudge]

THOSE two posts line up mighty fine. Mighty fine.

call Tacitus a pagan again. referring to Tacitus as a pagan in a thread about the historical Jesus might not actually be the smartest thing to do, know what I mean?

Say, anybody around here hear that Tacitus is a pagan?

He's bona fide.

Say anybody around here--- hear that Tacitus believed Romulus and Numa were real persons?

Say anybody around here----hear that Tacitus had 'historical' records of Romulus and Numa?

Say anybody around here ---hear that Tacitus history is also mythology?

Hear what Tacitus wrote about the HISTORY of Romulus and Numa in the SAME "Annals"

Tacitus Annals 7---Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day.

Tacitus Annals 12 Still, I think, it is interesting to know accurately the original plan of the precinct, as it was fixed by Romulus.


Tacitus' Annals 3--- Romulus governed us as he pleased; then Numa united our people by religious ties and a constitution of divine origin, to which some additions were made by Tullus and Ancus.

Tacitus' Annals 4---The funeral with its procession of statues was singularly grand. Aeneas, the father of the Julian house, all the Alban kings, Romulus, Rome's founder, then the Sabine nobility, Attus Clausus, and the busts of all the other Claudii were displayed in a long train

Tacitus Annals 6 It is said that Denter Romulius was appointed by Romulus, then Numa Marcius by Tullus Hostilius, and Spurius Lucretius by Tarquinius Superbus.

Tacitus Annals 11---There were now but scanty relics of the Greater Houses of Romulus and of the Lesser Houses of Lucius Brutus

Tacitus' Annals is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus since Tacitus was NOT an eyewitness of an OBSCURE HJ, he also believed Mythology was really history and Tacitus Annals has been conclusively proven to have been manipulated.

Tacitus had NO idea that Romulus and Numa were figures of myth/fiction.

Jesus Christ and Romulus were born of Ghosts and Virgins in Greek/ Roman mythology.

 

[The Big Dog]

Say anybody around here--- hear that Tacitus believed Romulus and Numa were real persons?

Say anybody around here----hear that Tacitus had 'historical' records of Romulus and Numa?

Say anybody around here ---hear that Tacitus history is also mythology?

Hear what Tacitus wrote about the HISTORY of Romulus and Numa in the SAME "Annals"

Tacitus Annals 7---Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day.

Tacitus Annals 12 Still, I think, it is interesting to know accurately the original plan of the precinct, as it was fixed by Romulus.


Tacitus' Annals 3--- Romulus governed us as he pleased; then Numa united our people by religious ties and a constitution of divine origin, to which some additions were made by Tullus and Ancus.

Tacitus' Annals 4---The funeral with its procession of statues was singularly grand. Aeneas, the father of the Julian house, all the Alban kings, Romulus, Rome's founder, then the Sabine nobility, Attus Clausus, and the busts of all the other Claudii were displayed in a long train

Tacitus Annals 6 It is said that Denter Romulius was appointed by Romulus, then Numa Marcius by Tullus Hostilius, and Spurius Lucretius by Tarquinius Superbus.

Tacitus Annals 11---There were now but scanty relics of the Greater Houses of Romulus and of the Lesser Houses of Lucius Brutus

Tacitus' Annals is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus since Tacitus was NOT an eyewitness of an OBSCURE HJ, he also believed Mythology was really history and Tacitus Annals has been conclusively proven to have been manipulated.

Tacitus had NO idea that Romulus and Numa were figures of myth/fiction.

Jesus Christ and Romulus were born of Ghosts and Virgins in Greek/ Roman mythology.

Newsflash folks, tacitus is not authoritative, at all, he mentioned Romulus.

Game over, greatest historian in the roman world does not pass dejudge's strict standards for not mentioning Christ.

Lolz!

 

[Mcreal]

When had Serapis been created? From what kind of material? By whom? What was the purpose of the creation of Serapis?

Serapis, was either (i) literally created out of Osiris's image, or (ii) co-opted by Ptolemy I Soter; or both. There are various assertions about the true origin of Serapis. The cult of Serapis had it's genesis with Ptolemy Soter.

After the death of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Soter made efforts to integrate Egyptian religion with that of their Hellenic rulers through a deity that should win the reverence alike of both groups. There had been various problems: eg. curses of Egyptian priests against the gods of the previous foreign rulers, such as 'Set', who was lauded by the Hyksos. Alexander the Great had attempted to use Amun for this purpose, but Amun was more prominent in Upper Egypt, and not as popular with those in Lower Egypt, where the Greeks had stronger influence.

The Greeks had little respect for animal-headed figures, so a Greek-style anthropomorphic statue was chosen as the idol, and proclaimed as the equivalent of the highly popular Apis. It was named 'Aser-hapi' (i.e. Osiris-Apis), which became Sarapis/Serapis, and was said to be Osiris in full, rather than just his 'Ka' (life force).

Serapsi ('king of the deep') had supposedly been significant in the Hellenic psyche, through involvement in Alexander's death, and this is said to have contributed to the development of Osiris-Apis as the chief Ptolemaic god.

Apis may have been portrayed as a bull or a sacrificed calf, and variously became Serapis when dead.

The Roman cults of Isis and Serapis gained in popularity late in the 1st century when Vespasian experienced events he attributed to their miraculous agency while he was in Alexandria, where he stayed before returning to Rome as emperor in 70. From the Flavian Dynasty on, Serapis was one of the deities who might appear on imperial coinage with the reigning emperor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis

 

[dejudge]

There's nothing in the least surprising that some early texts mention "Christ" rather than Jesus. To everyone, pagan or Christian, who mentions Jesus, the important thing was the claim that Jesus was "the Christ". In those early days, additionally, Jesus was still an ordinary personal name.

Your statement is known fiction. Jesus Christ was a God or a Spirtual being. See "Against Heresies", the Pauline Corpus and "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

Jesus Christ was God of God and born of a Ghost.

We have no manuscripts about Jesus of the NT from the time of Augustus to Antoninus.

The earliest manuscripts, Papyri 46 and 75 are dated to 175-225 CE.

In those manuscripts Jesus is the Lord from heaven and God's own Son.

The Lord called Jesus has the very same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD called the God of the Jews.

The Lord called Jesus is of the same substance as the Lord called God.

The earliest manuscipts have confirmed that Lord Jesus was a full blown myth God since at least the 2nd -3rd century.

 

[Mcreal]

Newsflash folks, tacitus is not authoritative, at all, he mentioned Romulus.

Game over, greatest historian in the roman world does not pass dejudge's strict standards for not mentioning Christ.

Lolz!

Here's an article blaming Tacitus for the Bar Kokhba revolt -

When Publius Aelius Hadrianus, known to us as Hadrian, took the reigns of power in 117 CE, he inaugurated - at least at first - an atmosphere of tolerance. He even talked of allowing the Jews to rebuilt the Temple, a proposal that was met with virulent opposition from the Hellenists.(2)

Why Hadrian changed his attitude to one of outright hostility toward the Jews remains a puzzle, but historian Paul Johnson in his 'History of the Jews' speculates that he fell under the influence of the Roman historian Tacitus, who was then busy disseminating Greek smears against the Jews.

Tacitus and his circle were part of a group of Roman intellectuals who viewed themselves as inheritors of Greek culture. (Some Roman nobles actually considered themselves the literal descendants of the Greeks, though there is no historical basis for this myth). It was fashionable among this group to take on all the trappings of Greek culture. Hating the Jews as representing the anti-thesis of Hellenism went with the territory. Thus influenced, Hadrian decided to spin around 180 degrees. Instead of letting the Jews rebuild, Hadrian formulated a plan to transform Jerusalem into a pagan city-state on the Greek polis model with a shrine to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish Temple.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/the_bar_kochba_revolt/

 

[dejudge]

Newsflash folks, tacitus is not authoritative, at all, he mentioned Romulus.

Game over, greatest historian in the roman world does not pass dejudge's strict standards for not mentioning Christ.

Lolz!

You have nothing to contribute to this thread. All you do is repeat what is written in Tacitus Annals 15.44 when it is useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Tacitus had NO idea what was mythology and what was history.

You had NO idea that Tacitus' Histories 5 CONTRADICTS Annals 15.44.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is forgery which was carried out no earlier than the start of the 5th century or AFTER the writings of Sulpitius Severus' "Sacred History".

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus was UNKNOWN by the Emperor Julian c 362 CE.

Up to c 362 CE there is NO established writing about Jesus and PAUL by any well known writer of antiquity who mentioned events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is a most blatant forgery.

 

[GDon]

Well that is a very silly post, with deliberate personalised overtones at the end (as many of your posts have been).

Your approach to ancient literature is very silly, IanS. I don't expect to change your mind, but it is worth continuing the discussion so that people can see this. If you explained to Carrier and Price how you approach ancient literature -- even Christian ancient literature -- they would laugh.

This is a subject where frankly, sceptics should have no further "truck" with this argument that says historians trust Tacitus as a good source for what it says about Roman history of the time, so hence we should trust it also for what it's author says about Jesus.

It's not about "trust". It is about evaluating what we have. We use Tacitus because we have nothing better. In fact, he does have a good reputation as a historian. But we need to be careful trusting even him, since he was influenced and pressured by the social forces of his time. Important people would worry about how the stories of illustrious ancestors were portrayed in histories, for example. So even Tacitus' contemporary accounts need to be examined critically.

The fact that you use the word "trust" here is telling. You make it sound like the options are "trust" (which credulous HJers do!) and "don't trust" (which is what 'skeptical' mythicists do!) But it isn't "trust". It is "making careful evaluations with what information we have". That what scholars do. Scholars like Ehrman, Carrier and Price.

We are not talking about what Tacitus may have said or not said about anyone else. Forget about all those other historical figures and events. We are not arguing anything either way about any of those things at all. So please stick to the point, which is what Tacitus may or may not ever have written about Jesus.

And what is now found in 11th century and later Christian copies of Tacitus, cannot possibly be anything Tacitus himself could ever have personally known, because he was not even born at the time!

And whether Carrier or Price think it's worth pointing out that such writing is vastly too late to be a credible as reliable source of fact about Jesus (and we are dealing here with what is said to be "fact" about Jesus, not mere possibility or inference etc.), and whether or not they care to make the point that such authors could at best only have posted nothing more than hearsay from unknown never mentioned sources, it is certainly a fact that hearsay like that is not at all reliable.

That is a very silly thing to say. I'm only an amateur when it comes to ancient writings, both pagan and Christian, and I can only read the English translations. But I have read a LOT, both translations of primary sources as well as a lot of scholarly secondary sources. That includes Carrier and Price. And I can tell you that Carrier and Price approach the ancient writings in the same ways as other scholars do, at least when it comes to "copies of copies" and "hearsay".

You've read Carrier's OHJ -- how often does he decide to rule out a source because it is a 'copy of a copy of a copy', for example? Give me the page numbers so that we can see Carrier doing that.

It's a total red-herring, in fact it's a piece of dishonest deceit, for HJ people here (or anywhere) to keep claiming that because historians use Tacitus as a very early source for other historical figures & events of the time ie pre circa 120 AD (events and figures which might very well be cross-checked with, and independently checked against, all sorts of other writing and even against all manner of physical remains etc.), that we must therefore treat such vastly late Christian copyist writing as credible for the absolutely minimal anonymous hearsay that it's original authors may or may not ever have written about any beliefs in Jesus.

That's simply not the point, as I've explained above. You have got it so into your head about scholars "trusting" Tacitus that it is pointless to try to change you on this.

Here is what you should take away: Read what Carrier writes about Tacitus in OHJ. He tries to explain the Christ passage as an interpolation. Does he ever try to explain it as being irrelevant because it is a "copy of a copy of a copy"? No. He treats it as other scholars do: as a piece of evidence that requires analysis. If he regarded the whole thing as hearsay or irrelevant because it is a copy of a copy, why even try to explain that it is an interpolation?

Carrier makes good points on the problems with various criteria that scholars have developed. But he never invalidates a text for the reasons you do. Quite the opposite: he treats them seriously and worthy of analysis. And if you went to Carrier on this, he would agree with me.

 

[IanS]

No but you were indeed the first person to write "might very well be" and then chide me for writing "could." But you know that.

Lets indeed cut the crap, we were discussing Tacitus and his authentic and authoritative discussion of the followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

Just quote the evidence of Tacitus claiming to have known Jesus.

As soon as you can produce evidence of Tacitus or anyone else claiming to have met a human Jesus, then we can start checking to see if their claims hold up.

So no more evasions - just post the evidence of anyone writing to say how they had known Jesus.

 

[IanS]

@ IanS

In #2192 I thought it appropriate to object to your self appointed authority , by writing this. You will notice how I did not object to your making whatever point you liked, as long as you extend the same courtesy to others.
Now, however, you are being both extremely discourteous, and accusing people of bad faith. I see no justification or excuse for expressions of this kind. Again, it is not obvious why the only acceptable evidence is personal acquaintance with Jesus, as has been pointed out to you. But even if you are right in this, your treatment of people who don't share your opinion is entirely unacceptable.

If you have physical evidence of Jesus then just post it (the Turin shroud?).

If you have independent Roman trial records or census records or similar, then just post them please.

If not - just post the evidence of anyone ever claiming to have met Jesus.

 

[Elagabalus]

If you have physical evidence of Jesus then just post it (the Turin shroud?).

If you have independent Roman trial records or census records or similar, then just post them please.

If not - just post the evidence of anyone ever claiming to have met Jesus.

You are not making any points. Your arguments are just looking further unhinged and foolish. Please stop ...

 

[IanS]

I sincerely apologise if I have misrepresented you. I hate it when it is done to me, and I try hard not to do it myself.


Carrier and Price have the same "approach" to early texts as the scholars that IanS (though maybe not you) criticize. The problem I am pointing out is that IanS (though maybe not you) do not seem to see this as a problem when it is done by Carrier and Price. That is a double-standard.

You hate the misrepresentation? Then look at your own blatant misreprentation of me above - you name Price, but I have never mentioned Price or quoted anything from him or used any argument given by Price anywhere in any HJ threads!

And nor have I ever said that I endorse or agree with what you call Carrier's "approach" to what he says he is doing as "history". In fact, in much earlier posts I have made a number of criticisms of Carrier ... and yet here you are constantly claiming that I am endorsing what you call "their approach" ... I am doing no such thing, and in the case of Price I have never said a single word anywhere on the entire internet about anything he has said about Jesus!


But we need to stop all this evasive bickering - instead just post the evidence -

- Just post the evidence of anyone at all ever writing to describe how they met a human Jesus.

Just post that evidence please.

 

[David Mo]

And I can tell you that Carrier and Price approach the ancient writings in the same ways as other scholars do, at least when it comes to "copies of copies" and "hearsay".

You've read Carrier's OHJ -- how often does he decide to rule out a source because it is a 'copy of a copy of a copy', for example? Give me the page numbers so that we can see Carrier doing that.

This is a very good question! I'm awaiting an answer.

 

[maximara]

Hadrian, about his experiences in Egypt in the 2nd century, in a letter to Servianus, 134A.D -

"There, those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis"​

I would like to point out there there seem to be TWO versions of this:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt" cited by Drews 1910 and by C. Dennis McKinsey 2000

Here is the version often cited by Christians (added part bolded)

"There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore."

Note the changes in the unbolded parts. So WHY are there two versions of this bouncing around?

 

[Craig B]

I would like to point out there there seem to be TWO versions of this: <snip versions> Note the changes in the unbolded parts. So WHY are there two versions of this bouncing around?

It is very remarkable that Mcreal should post a reference to the Hadrian letter without noting that his version of it has been challenged, as has his interpretation of its meaning. There was a huge discussion of this a few weeks ago.

Mcreal may have forgotten, but I have not. This post has some comments on the topic, as do a good few others. I found the version Mcreal was using to be full of errors.

 

[IanS]

Right. And there Carrier is definitely wrong. Read Zech 6 for yourself. The Jesus there is NOT a "pre-existent celestial being". That Jesus is a man, who was high-priest of the Temple.


You "could not actually find a direct example of what Carrier was claiming" but "his overall interpretation may well be correct". Based on your first sentence, I would reword your second statement as "so his overall interpretation is probably not correct".

It demonstrates the highly speculative nature of Carrier's interpretation. I agree, he might be correct. Perhaps Paul looked at those texts and read them exactly as Carrier has read them. But once you start proposing "hey, no direct example of what Carrier is claiming, but he might still be right anyway" then you are doing apologetics, not analysis.


Maybe Paul got his idea of a human Jesus from Zech 6, which has Jesus as a man who was high priest. I may well be right!

Are you happy with that approach? This is what apologists do, I'm afraid.


I agree with Doherty there as well. No-one can say that Carrier is wrong in his interpretation (except on Jesus "the pre-existent celestial being" in Zech 6), because no-one can say that Carrier is right. "Perhaps Carrier was right!" Hardly a ringing endorsement for a ground-breaking new theory.


Roo is a weird duck. I take no responsibility for what he writes about me. (He calls me a "Japanese-Australian" at one point. Just weird.)


Right. Carrier needs Philo to be assuming certain beliefs about Zech 6, things that aren't actually in Zech 6. As I said, the best way to describe this is apologetics, with a large side-salad of exegesis.


Yep. It could be true! Who can say it isn't?


Nope. I think we are done here, and I appreciate your long response.

Well, firstly I do not think you are offering any substantive disagreement with what I have said about Carrier's analysis of Zechariah, which he is tying together with his interpretations from Philo, as well as from Isaiah, and Daniel.

Except perhaps you say that he is wrong to describe this figure as a "pre-existent celestial being". I would have to look into exactly why or how he feels justified in using that description. But that's really a separate issue.

The point that Carrier is making, and the only point I was making, is that he has written a book which has passed what counts in this subject as "peer review", by which afaik that is supposed to mean the book has been checked extensively by independent experts in the field prior to publication, such that anything which the expert review panel disagree with, must either be omitted entirely from the book or else altered to make it acceptable to the reviewers ... at least that is what "peer review" means in the case of scientific research papers, i.e. the reviewers and the Journals editor will not publish the paper unless you omit anything which they as experts cannot agree to as being correct or at least reasonably plausible.

But when you say Zechariah does not say what Carrier says that it said, that appears to be a difference of opinion between yourself and Carrier, but where Carrier can support his analysis by pointing to the fact that his analysis has passed a "peer review" process in this subject ... whereas as far as I know, you are relying upon reading such things as Wikipedia for what you think were the actual words used in the particular copies of Zechariah that are in question here (these are Septuagint translations, afaik).

All I am pointing out is that in this particular argument (you are really arguing with Carrier, not with me), that Carrier's book is to be preferred to a source like Wikipedia, simply because Carrier's analysis is endorsed by peer review.

As to what was actually written in the particular copies of Zechariah that Carrier was referring to, and what the correct translations of the individual words are, neither you or I can possibly know. Because I am not, and afaik you are not, in a position to have read the actual text and personally translated it or had it translated by an independent reliable expert.

How much of such checking and translation was done by Carrier is of course another matter, but as I say - the bottom line on that is that, with this particular book, Carrier can now claim “peer review” to support the credibility of what he says.

And to go back to an original point that you made - I think you were wrong to suggest with your own link (i.e. you brought it up) that Doherty disagreed with what Carrier has written and said re. that passage in Zechariah. At most, what Doherty is saying is that Carrier may be on shaky ground with certain assumptions about what the words in Zechariah actually meant, or what they were being taken to mean when read in conjunction with other texts (such as Isaiah and Daniel) by earlier religious writers like Philo.

But at any rate, the essential “fact” here is that like Philo, Paul may well have believed that “according to scripture” (to quote Paul), Jesus had been foretold as a spiritual scion of Yahweh, prophesised by God (these are “divine” prophecies) to have once been (it was in the unspecified past according to Paul’s writing) the long awaited messiah, who had “according to those scriptures” met a sacrificial death & resurrection of some sort, specifically to prove to the faithful how they too would be raised unto heaven ... and that was really Paul’s “gospel”, i.e. what he preached as his religious belief.

IOW - it’s quite obvious that when Paul writes repeatedly and insistently to say that his Jesus beliefs were known to him "according to scripture", it is obviously likely that he is referring to what he believed was written as divine prophecy in early OT texts such as Zechariah, Isaiah, Daniel and/or others. That’s where he appears to have got the entire idea that the long awaited and universally believed messiah of God, was in fact foretold in “scripture” to be a dying-&-rising son of God named Jesus.