What counts as a historical Jesus?

[JaysonR]

*shrug*
I just listed it for his consideration.
I don't think that post was all that bad, and he does make some interesting points...at least; to me, that is.

 

[davefoc]

*shrug*
I just listed it for his consideration.
I don't think that post was all that bad, and he does make some interesting points...at least; to me, that is.

Maybe he did. But I saw a lot of chaff with the wheat.

I would like to see this thread move to a discussion of the few bits of evidence that haven't been thoroughly thrashed in the course of this discussion, but speaking just for me, most of the bits of evidence I clung to as support for the HJ have been gradually undermined by the evidence and arguments put forth in this thread and the links.

The notion that Q might be an independent source for the HJ, took a significant hit recently. I just read through some fairly persuasive arguments that it looks like the author of Luke just copied Matthew.

And that comes on the heels of a considerable personal disillusionment over the prospects that the Josephus James the brother of Jesus phrase was authentic.

Still, I'm clinging to my view that it's more probable than not that an HJ existed. I just trust Paul, but as a landlord my propensity for excessive trust has cost me more than a few bucks so maybe I just want to believe the guy.

ETA: Most recently My view that an HJ existed as also taken a bit of an upward bump due to some plausible theorizing by HM and JaysonR in the other current HJ thread. At least they've stopped the downward spiral after the disillusionment over Josephus and Q.

 

[davefoc]

Does anybody have some knowledge about how large amounts of money were moved in first century Roman areas?

I've been wondering, how Paul might have had money to move about. Is the assumption, that almost right away he is being sustained by the religious groups he is making his pitch to?

How would he have carried the money donated to him for Jerusalem over a long period of time? How would he have transported the final haul to Jerusalem? Didn't they have robbers back then? Or maybe he just put it in the bank and did electronic fund transfers?

 

[Aepervius]

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that begins:
This is patent BS. Anybody that starts out a list of evidence for the HJ like this makes it hard for me to take anything else he says seriously.

Yes, that is the usual identical apolegetic BS, which says there are hundred of evidence of JC and only 10 or 20 for a specific emperor, but are actually confused and when you examine the JC evidence , they are all from the same source and thus count at best only as 1 or 2, whereas the emperor has stella, coins, and various type of independent artefact which all are truly independent.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Hebrew activist of some kind, who became more popular after death than in life, to have as much physical evidence of their existence as an Emperor.

I'm not defending that post I cited; though I think nearly everything in 70 pages here was at least summarized in note in that post, which makes it referentially useful to someone asking for material to examine - which was what I offered it in response to.

 

[davefoc]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Hebrew activist of some kind, who became more popular after death than in life, to have as much physical evidence of their existence as an Emperor.

Of course not, almost the only plausible HJ wasn't all that famous in his day. So the lack of archeological evidence is not evidence that some kind of HJ fellow didn't exist. Although, there was a link earlier to an article that made a much better case than I had seen before that if this guy was of much importance at all somebody would have mentioned him. Unfortunately I don't remember the title of the article and right now I'm going to bed.

 

[Acleron]

JaysonR

First thank you for bringing evidence to the discussion.

You make a reasonable case that the Mara letter mentions HJ as both Chrestus and King of the Jews. What I would like to discuss is why this letter exists. Was it common at the time to copy personal letters? Or did someone realise the importance of mentioning these names? If it was the latter we further have to ask when the copying started. If it was close to the time of the original the names wouldn't be remarkable, the letter would implies that the information was common knowledge. If it was later, say at the time of the first known copy, then it was already realised that little evidence of an HJ existed. That leads us into speculating on the motives of whoever copied the letter.

Now the logic (or illogic) of the above is not designed to try and prove the letter is some sort of forgery, merely to show that as evidence, it is not of the highest standard and doesn't change the conclusion that the existence of an HJ is uncertain.

 

[Belz...]

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that begins:
This is patent BS. Anybody that starts out a list of evidence for the HJ like this makes it hard for me to take anything else he says seriously.

Agreed. I was planning on reading that post, but it seems like a waste of time, now.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Hebrew activist of some kind, who became more popular after death than in life, to have as much physical evidence of their existence as an Emperor.

Right, so you agree that to say he's better attested is silly ?

 

[JaysonR]

JaysonR

First thank you for bringing evidence to the discussion.

You make a reasonable case that the Mara letter mentions HJ as both Chrestus and King of the Jews. What I would like to discuss is why this letter exists. Was it common at the time to copy personal letters? Or did someone realise the importance of mentioning these names? If it was the latter we further have to ask when the copying started. If it was close to the time of the original the names wouldn't be remarkable, the letter would implies that the information was common knowledge. If it was later, say at the time of the first known copy, then it was already realised that little evidence of an HJ existed. That leads us into speculating on the motives of whoever copied the letter.

Now the logic (or illogic) of the above is not designed to try and prove the letter is some sort of forgery, merely to show that as evidence, it is not of the highest standard and doesn't change the conclusion that the existence of an HJ is uncertain.

OK, first thing we should remain clear on is that Chrestus comes from Suetonius' Claudius 25 entry, while Wise King comes from the Mara letter; just to be clear.

So in addressing the circumstances of the letter, we're only looking at the latter entry and not the former.

We don't really get to know why it was preserved originally.
All that we get to know about it is that the surviving 6th to 7th c CE manuscript was found in Egypt sitting in tatters in a monastery's library holdings.

The text itself wasn't a religious one; but a philosophical one, if I recall right, there was Aristotle in the same text.

If my memory is serving me well, then it could well be in this text because the philosophical topics involved in the letter were novel to someone assembling philosophical quandaries into a manuscript.

The passing mention of "Wise King" would hardly do anyone really good, as it can't prove Jesus existed.
It's evidence that some fellow writing this letter assumed that Jesus did, and this fellow lived rather early on, but if someone wanted to forge a verification of Jesus' existence; I would imagine they would do a bit of a better job than a citation that requires contextual sympathy and sits collecting dust for a number of centuries piled between pages of philosophical material.


And indeed; I am not offering any material that will solve any doubt that any person may have about Jesus existing or not.
For me, with a few other matters, these two show a reasonable consideration to favor Jesus having existed in simple terms.

 

[JaysonR]

Right, so you agree that to say he's better attested is silly ?

Right; he's not better attested than Emperors.
He's about one for one with Hippocrates.
(that's my take on it, anyway)

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Suetonius does not give names without social context elsewhere.

So what? "Chrestus" presumably reflects what Suetonius has from his sources, over whom he has no control. What he gives us is bounded above by what he has. If he had more elsewhere, then he could give more elsewhere.

As such, we either accept "Chrestus" as the only entry in all sections of Suetonius as a name that does not give us an understanding of the events described, ...

False dichotomy, and nakedly so, easily recognized as such even before I presented a third serious possiblility just above.

The Letter

There is only one "King" who was "murdered" ...

But there was, reputedly, and as you acknowledge, a "Wise King" of the entire Jewish homeland, whose name is synonymous with Jewish wisdom and yet liable to superstitious avoidance.

This king actually did make laws, if he lived at all. According to our sources, he apparently died of natural causes in the course of civil and religious conflict which cost his immediate successor the secession of ten of the twelve tribes, and in crisp order led to the utter dispersal of those ten tribes. If this king lived, then he lived several centuries before the letter was written, like the other two figures mentioned, Socrates and Pythagoras, and would be familiar to Gentiles, just as these other two figures are, since his name is literally a name to conjure with.

It is superfluous, I trust, to say the name. I might even be inhibited from doing so if I believed in the efficacy of the name to influence demons, jinn, or what have you. Meh, demons and jinn don't worry me much. Of course, I can't say what Mara's views about that may have been, since we know bupkis about him.

The king's name, obviously, was Solomon.

We have no figure who perfectly fits the text in hand. Then again, our one and only manuscript witness is what? Sixth Century, do you think? What is the Hamming Distance in Syriac between "murdered" and the closest synonym for "violently opposed"? What is the conceptual distance between murder and hounding an old man to his death? What is the rhetorical distance between the two?

And as you were kind enough to acknowledge, Jesus wasn't literally murdered either, was he?

So, if we go fairly by points of similarity, I will affirmatively guess that the intended reference is to Solomon; 65-35 against the field (Solomon against anybody at all besides Solomon, including Jesus). Perhaps you would take the bet; pity that there is no earthly way to resolve it.

My beliefs are not a reason for you to agree with my identification of the Wise Jewish King, but I hope this post explains my complete lack of interest in pursuing this letter as evidence bearing on a historical Jesus who counts.

 

[IanS]

IanS;

For the timeline of the Mara Letter:
Rather than pollute the thread with redundant text, I'll link to the post where I discussed this matter with Aepervius: Post #2865

Regarding the earliest copy of the letter: it is around the 6th or 7th c CE.
I cannot rule out the possibility of forgery, as I am not equipped to establish that and have to therefore defer to specialists in the field who verify authenticity and trust their findings that the letter is authentic.

If you do not, I cannot fault you for such, but if I doubted the authenticity verification, then I would personally be in debt to use the standard authenticity methods to disprove the authenticity granted to this letter.

I cannot disprove the authenticity validation of this letter, and the only conclusion that I receive on the authenticity of this letter is a generalized stance that there has been no evidence in the text to suggest that the letter is a forgery.

Regarding the dating on Suetonius:
Suetonius' text existed in regular manual copy after copy with a near unbroken stream until the printing press age in the 1500's where it became a regular printed text until it began its English translations in the 1700's.
Suetonius actually has a better track record than most documents from ancient times, and has been used nearly always as the chief text that historians in nearly all ages since have used to account for the majority of Nero's reign.


Regarding Personal Witness:
I cannot claim either of these texts as personal witness accounts; nor did I offer them as material evidence for such an assertion.
To my knowledge, we have no such (non-bias) text or archaeological scratching by anyone who personally witnessed Jesus.

I do not personally see this as a problem, as I regularly involve in readings that are accounts by those who did not have personal witness to the individuals they are writing about.
For example, Suetonius did not personally witness Nero, as Nero was already dead by the time Suetonius was born, and definitely so before Suetonius wrote anything about him.

Other such examples, to use it again, are those such as Hippocrates, Pilate, Herod, pretty much all of the kings of Hatti, or all accounts of the ruling class of Petra.

So this in and of itself is not something that stops us from formulating historical accounts as a standard.
If we did that, then we would have far less to cover on my tests (Hey, wait a moment...I like that idea! I wonder if I can argue that to the professor this fall? )



When I presented these texts, I offered them as evidence of non-favor-bias sources as representation samples of what others outside of the in-favor-followers considered to be the state regarding the existence of Jesus.

Did they assume he existed, or did they assume no such figure existed?
I offered these two pieces of material as evidence that suggests people outside of the in-favor-bias followers held the opinion that such an individual existed.


Can I rule out a conspiracy to create a Jesus by ancient scattered and non-unified followers that accurately fooled the Mediterranean world at large?
No. I cannot rule that possibility out.

I don't see this as very plausible, and I would be interested in a presentation that shows a tangible means by which that could be the case that produced what we see, as that would be a really marvelous entry into anthropological record and a brilliant talent that should not go without award and notice.
I'm not being coy either; I mean that with all earnestness.

I don't personally care if Jesus existed, so if someone can show how it was a grand conspiracy by a mass of dissimilar people that fooled a massive amount of people, being that my bias is social anthropology (and not individual historicity), I would be absolutely thrilled far more with that being the case as it would really show a level of ingeniousness that I feel should be marveled over; and such a case should absolutely be given its due credit in history if it took place.
I mean, that kind of craft and skill (should that be the case) should really not be overlooked and neglected mention.

OK, well thanks for taking the time to write all the above. And I appreciate you taking a very reasonable and non-confrontational approach to the difference of opinion in this thread. So, well done on that.

However, apart from all that …. I don't want to go back through the various issues on this all over again, because we have been through it all many times now. But I think the bottom line on the above, is that it’s not actually evidence for Jesus. It suffers from being too vague, too late in it‘s dates (eg, as extant readable copies), not actually from any eye-witness, and in fact does not really say anything evidential about Jesus anyway.

Lets try again to cut to the chase, which is something the sceptic side here have been requesting for almost the entire 70+ pages of this thread -

- do you know of any actual objective real evidence that seems to show that Jesus probably existed?

Because so far in this thread, despite Piggy insisting that we all study his continuing history of Jesus in post after post, no genuine verifiable evidence has ever been produced.

The biblical writing (Paul and the gospels etc) could never count as reliable objectively valid evidence, for a whole host of reasons that we have been through many times now.

And the non-biblical writing is, if anything, even less valid in respect of Jesus. Because the authors are only ever writing at a later date merely to make very brief mention of hearsay stories, the only known source for which is the biblical writing itself. So that just takes us back again to the completely unreliable biblical accounts.

 

[IanS]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Hebrew activist of some kind, who became more popular after death than in life, to have as much physical evidence of their existence as an Emperor.

.

Sure. The lack of physical artefacts might be easily explained if Jesus was not very famous (or rich!) in his own lifetime (or at any time throughout the rest of the 1st century, say ... or even 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries? ... still no devotional artefacts?).

But even if it were overwhelmingly unlikely that any such artefacts were ever produced, that does zero to help the case for a real Jesus. It's just yet another example of where, expected or not, there is apparently no such evidence.

 

[IanS]

For me, with a few other matters, these two show a reasonable consideration to favor Jesus having existed in simple terms.

I don't think it even does that, does it? For example - nobody is disputing that people in the 1st century were telling stories of Jesus. People like Josephus and Tacitus are believed to have mentioned him in their original writing thought to date from about 100AD. Lots of people wrote about Christians believing in Jesus.

But unless Mara and Suetonius are claiming personal eye witness evidence of meeting Jesus, then they are apparently just doing what Josephus and Tacitus did, and reporting the common hearsay stories of the time.

 

[annnnoid]

I thought it might be helpful to include the following in its entirety. Partly because it explores in some detail some of the so-called evidence …AND…the evidence that could be described as the methodology utilized (for those who have their heads stuck in a rigidly two-dimensional ‘hard-science’ universe). Partly because it provides an example of how complex the scholarship is relating to such issues (despite his /her obvious expertise…the author on numerous occasions reserves judgment as a consequence of an unfamiliarity with the scholarship on a particular issue). I also include it because the author directly debated the issues with a prominent HJ critic (H.J. Price…whose conclusions the author believes can be effectively countered).

Caution…it is very long….though compared to a thorough documentation of the evidence upon which a positive HJ conclusion is reached (the reason why "no serious historian doubts a historical Jesus.") …it is likely very short. That seems to be part of the issue with scholarship of this kind. Without the ability / skills to actually see the forest, a credible conclusion is impossible. Thus, an appreciation of the dimensions of the scholarship involved is relevant to an appreciation of the conclusions arrived at as a result of it.

The author is / was a JREF member by the name of CJ.23.




OK, actually what is important here is why "no serious historian doubts a historical Jesus." As I can briefly outline that...

First, as an aside, the name was as noted very common. I believe it was the third most common male name in the area at the time. Many Jesus are listed in historical records -- including a number who served as High Priest.

So let's look at the reasons

1. Historiography - Jesus is actually better attested than almost any figure from the 1st century who is not owing to say Emperor status commonly represented in the archaeological record by artifacts. So if we were to repudiate the evidence for Jesus, we would have to repudiate a large number of other historically established figures -history as we know it would vanish! So historians applying normal standards of criteria for evidence in the period overwhelmingly agree on a historical Jesus.

I do however like the idea of a scientific test. This is a historical question... but we can apply statistics to it.

Null Hypothesis:The documentary evidence for Jesus is weaker than one would expect for a public figure of his times.

Design: Test ten figures from the period -- I can make suggestions, but obviously Messianic claimants/rebel leaders from Josephus are closest compatible figures and should be included, as should Honi the Circle Drawer, Paul/Saul, and maybe a few others like say Pontius Pilate, the High Priest of the time, and the Emperor Tiberias. I won't make a list -- I suggest you draw up a long list of public figures, then randomly select ten or 12 to compare Jesus to.

Methodology: Take the figures, and draw up a table of references to them in writers within 100 years of their deaths. Take Jesus as dying in 33AD. Column A is number of references, column B lists the period (based on mean estimate of scholars) that the reference was written from the baseline date of death of the person (or 1 if contemporary). Then test the outcomes to see if JC is particularly poorly attested as is claimed.

Give it a go, and post your results.

So that is point 1 - simply that by the standards historians apply to evidence, there is no argument.

2. The logical issues - even the best arguments of the so called "Christ Mythers" are violent violations of Occam's Razor. The fact an exorcist/healer lived, taught, gathered a following and died on the cross is completely unremarkable in this historical context, so there is little reason to doubt it. There are several reasons to believe it likely --

a) The Pauline Evidence - Paul testifies to having met Jesus family (and indeed argued with them). He testifies to the general belief in the Resurrection and Crucifixion. It is true he gives relatively little biographical evidence in his 7 authentic Paulines, but that is exactly what one would expect to find based in the fact apostolic status was conferred on "those who were with him from the start", whereas Paul never met the chap. So his theology is based on revelation and visions, NOT the Jesus the others physcally knew. The arguments of the Council of Jerusalem in Galatians 2 are bitter and not the kind of thing you'd have any logical reason to make up? Paul is incidentally writing within 20-30 years of the crucifixion - and repeatedly asserts he has argued with the brother of the man he regards as Lord and Saviour - odd if he thought he was mythical. I can expand on this at length if anyone is interested.

b) The Gospel accounts are as historical as any other document - sure they are full of passages which are mythic, supernaturalist, etc, etc. So is Herodotus, and most other writers of the period. Even Josephus lists many supernaturally interpreted events, and he is far from keen on miracles. The fact they are written with an apologetic bent in no way invalidates them as historical sources - Josephus was after all writing to establish Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah. So we can not count the Gospels, Paul, etc as any less historical sources than any other contemporary "secular" or pagan writing.

c) The criterion of embrassment is a strong indication that a historical core lies at the heart of the Early Christian accounts. You can look this up easily enough, but clearly there are many passages in the accounts which are an awkward fit to the beliefs they advocated. Jesus asserts his message is to the Jews, not the Gentiles at one point. In another place he is accused of being a glutton and a drunkard - and so forth. It is said the people of his home toiwn rejected him, and tried to stone him, and that his own family thought he was nuts and tried to have him put away. The list goes on and on - and a mythical figure is unlikely to have this "embarassing" material created around them.

d) The incoherence of testimony. A fabrication, or simple linear developm,ent of the Gospel tradition material, would create a far more unified historical and theological picture than the Biblical accounts do -- if you doubt me check the classic by James Dunn, Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, which shows clearly the theological tensions in the first century interpretations of events. This suggest strongly seperate oral traditions and communities teachinsg being used as source material.

e) The high degree of correlation between the Biblical manuscripts and 1st century conditions, with a few minor issues. See the great Jewish historian Geza Vermes works but especially Jesus the Jew and The Changing Face of Jesus, and E.P.Sanders book on the historical Jesus for contetual analysis and hermeutics.

f) The shame of the cross. If Jesus was not earthly crucified, then it was the dumbest claim in the history of advertising. Those hanged upon a tree were rejected by God (see the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament), and crucifixion was a shameful disgusting thing to Romans. The Cross was a major stumbling block to conversion. Why preach an absurdity like this if it was not true?

I could go on, and probbaly will - but let's briefly review the non-religious, not that they are inherently any better than the "religious" sources as I have already noted -- from my original discussion on Richard Dawkin's forum --


* Pliny the Younger, writing in Bithynia c.111AD

Pliny is concerned about how to handle an outbreak of Christianity in his region. He writes to the Emperor Trajan, and the relevant part for our inquiry is

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

This merely shows Christ was worshiped in Asia Minor, and a reference later in the letter says that some has apostatized up to twenty five years before, so the churches were established there by c.85AD, and probably before. I don't think Paul ever got this far north.

You can read the whole letter (and Trajan's response) here and the Early Christian Writings website has a couple of links ot articles on this letter.

Trajan's reponse was
"You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

It seems that Trajan was well aware of Christians, and that some persecution occurred presumably as a threat to the State through their "atheism" as it was usually termed. Beyond establishing that Christ was worshiped as God this comparatively early stage, it leads us no closer to the Historical Jesus, but it seemed as good a point as any to begin!

Let's move on to Suetonius, 115CE

Early Christian Writings is excellent as usual here - so it seems pointless for me to rehash what is said already there.

Suetonius wrote in The Life of Claudius (25.4)
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." he also notes the presence of Christians -
"Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Now Claudius from 41 to 54CE, so is this Chrestus actually Christós, Christ? Did rows in the synagogue (and recall Christianity was still part of Judaism at this point) lead to the expulsion? It seems not unlikely, and agrees with the account in Acts. Traditionally dated to 49CE, this event is probably within twenty years of the crucifixion so very early - but its not certain. the instigation of Chrestus seems to imply someone alive, but if Suetonius who was writing some seventy years later was using a lost source, it would be an easy mistake to make. I think this probably does represent the earliest Christian missions to Rome - and yet again, it brings us no closer to the Historical Jesus...

Nero ruled from 54 to 68CE. As we shall see other references exist tot he Christian community in his reign in Rome.

Tacitus, Annals - c.115AD

15:44


Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It goes without saying that Early Christian Writings is the best place to start your evaluation. The possibility this is a Christian interpolation strikes me as highly unlikely - we have an independent reference to Neronic persecution in Suetonius (see above) and it is very unflattering. However none of the Christian Church Fathers make mention of it . It strikes me as entirely probable. Note Pilate is described as a Procurator, but in fact was a Proconsul, a simple enough error, Tacitus using a contemporary title resulting in this anachronism.

The absolutely central issue here is where Tacitus got his information from. It may well have been a Roman source, as Christian sources are unlikely to express these kinds of feelings, and Tacitus appears to have despised Christians. One can't help feel Tacitus had some early reference from which he worked for the Neronic persecution at least -- the references to public sympathy brought about by the persecution have that feel.

A common claim I often see is that it is odd that none of the Church Fathers mention the Neronic persecution (they do) or Tacitus' mention of it. I may as well address it briefly here before proceeding.

Eusebius cites the Church Father, Tertullian (155-230), Defence 5

"Study your records: there you will find that Nero was the first to persecute this teaching when, after subjugating the entire East, in Rome he especially he treated everyone with savagery. That such a man was author of our chastisement fills us with pride. For anyone who knows him knows him can understand that anything not supremely good would never have been condemned by Nero."

I think that Tertullian is here drawing directly on Tacitus, and his account (cited above) of the Neronic persecution. I may be wrong, but "Study your records" implies that Tertullian was referring to a Roman authority, and Suetonius or Tacitus fit the bill, and Tacitus best.

Phlegon of Tralles, c130-160??? EDIT: or possibly much earlier, writing circa 80CE - see links for detailed discussion.


Jerome (the Church Father not me) wrote --
Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies which had been foretold about him beforehand, came to his passion in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, at which time also we find these things written verbatim in other commentaries of the gentiles, that an eclipse of the sun happened, Bithynia was shaken by earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings collapsed, all of which agree with what occurred in the passion of the savior. Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about these things, writing thus in his thirteenth book:

(Phlegon) - "In the fourth year, however, of olympiad 202,* an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea. These things [are according to] the aforementioned man."

The events referred to are from 32CE, a possible date for the Crucifixion and darkening of the sky. Yet in Jerome's translation Jesus is never mentioned! My suspicion is that he was referring to Jesus, and that Jerome was honest here, as that is his implication. However Phlegon was clearly extremely credulous and loved fortean phenomena - see his
wiki entry, so I hesitate to put much emphasis on him. Still he mentioned Jesus and prophecies fulfilled, and was a secular historian. Good technical discussion complete with excellent links and analysis to be found here.

This brings us to Thallus, writing somewhere between 50 and 150CE

The key passage here by being quoted by Julius Africanus in alost work, but quoted by George Syncellus in a 9th century text! Does not inspire confidence does it, but very normal for recovering historical data

Here is the passage from Africanus --

"A most terrible darkness fell over all the world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake, and many places both in Judaea and the rest of the world were thrown down. In the third book of his Histories Thallus dismisses this darkness as a solar eclipse, unreasonably, as it seems to me. For the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on Luna 14, and what happened to the Saviour occurred one day before the Passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place when the moon passes under the sun. The only time when this can happen is in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last day of the old moon, when they are in conjunction. How then could one believe an eclipse took place when the moon was almost in opposition to the sun? So be it. Let what had happened beguile the masses, and let this wonderful sign to the world be considered a solar eclipse through an optical [illusion]. Phlegon records that during the reign of Tiberius Caesar there was a complete solar eclipse at full moon from the sixth to the ninth hour; it is clear that this is the one. But what have eclipses to do with an earthquake, rocks breaking apart, resurrection of the dead, and a universal disturbance of this nature"

There are three good sources for study of this - Wikipedia is succinct and good, but also see Textcavation and for all you atheists out there the excellent atheist scholar Richard Carrier.

I don't aim to make any real judgements myself at this point, just chronicle the key texts, so I'll move on...

OK, moving on --

Lucian, c.150CE?

Lucian is well known to us -see Wikipedia on Lucian

The excellent Textcavation cites various surviving passages from his play The Passing of Peregrinus, where the lead character exploits Christians, but which accords well with what we know of early Christian practices from their own sources --

I'll cite the passages here...
It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, associating with their priests and scribes around Palestine. And how else could it be? In a trice he made them all appear like children, for he was prophet, cult leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself, and he exegeted and clarified some of their books and even composed many himself, and they regarded him as a god and made use of him as a lawgiver and wrote him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he brought this new cult to life.

So the gullible Christians are taken in by this cynical guru! The play sounds rather fun, but there does appear a clear reference to Jesus crucified here as well. Textcavation referenced above tells us more of the story, and shows Lucian was well aware of the generosity and charity of the Early Christians, while scathing as to what he regarded as there gullibility. I'd like to know more about this one if we have any classicists who can tell us anything?

Edict of Caesar

OK, let us quickly look at an unusual source - an inscription! I shall (without permission, but I hope in the context it will be acceptable) cite Richard Carrier's translation as the best I can find --

Edict of Caesar:
It satisfies me that the graves and tombs
[that] whoever, for the cult worship of ancestors,
makes, or [for the cult worship] of children or household members,
that those [graves and tombs] remain unmoved
throughout their existence. And if anyone charges that
anyone has either destroyed them, or in some other
way made off with what was buried in them, or to another
place with knavish malice
took [these things], for the purpose of doing injury to
the buried, or [had] the doorstone or
[other] stones switched, against that
man [who is accused] I order that a trial
occur, just like [a trial] concerning the [cult worship of] gods,
for the cult worship of men.
For it shall be much more necessary
to honor the buried:
[so] let no one at all move them.
Otherwise, that man I
want condemned to death for the charge
of digging through tombs

A condemnation of graverobbing, found at Nazareth (yes that Nazareth) and dating from between 50BCE and 50CE (we don't know which Caesar promulgated it), it is entirely possible it could have been issued as a response to the Christian claims of the Resurrection. I cited Richard Carrier's translation as others may make the translation seem more relevant than it is, and it is entirely possible that it is nothing more than a restatement of an edict against graverobbing already common. I recommend Richard Carrier's essay on the Nazareth inscription from Internet Infidels.

Even if Carrier is wrong, and the edict resulted from the actual claims of the Resurrection of Jesus, and dates from say the period 30 to 50CE, as seems not entirely improbable, it of course in no way stands as actual evidence of the reality of said Resurrection a sis sometimes purported. I think however it deserves to be ranked as possible evidence for a historical Jesus, and find it very interesting. Wikipedia notes it is likely to have originated in Sepphoris and been brought to Nazareth later.

It is certainly interesting...

Mara Bar Serapion 73CE to 200CE

Written in Syriac, and hard to date correctly, this letter is rather interesting. The whole letter can be read here, on Early Christian Writings

The crucial passage however is
What are we to say when the wise are forcibly dragged by the hands of tyrants and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished.

God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die; he lived on in the teaching which he had given. (from textcavation)

the Robertson-Donaldson translation reads for the final sentence
"For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did not die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the wise king, because of the new laws which he enacted."

Was the Wise King Jesus? The Textcavation article makes what seems to me a good case that the author was familiar with the gospel of Matthew, and used that as a source. The abolition of the Jewish Kingdom almost certainly refers to the events of 66 to 70CE. Interesting, but little new!

SATOR AREPO - pre-79CE

OK, moving on - to one of the most compelling
mysteries of Early Christianity, the Sator Arepo magic square. Known for centuries to have been used by churchman in the Dark Ages, in the 20th century it was proven to to be authentically Roman, and date back as far as the 300s CE.

For those not familiar with it, it is a word square

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS

Arepo is not a real word, but probably a name, and it makes little sense (so it is not a very good word square!), but it was realized quite quickly that it was some kind of Christian code. In 1924 it was cracked at last, and in context was quite obvious --
Then, in 1924, C. Frank made the startling discovery that the square could be so arranged as to produce the first words of the Lord’s Prayer twice over (except that there was only one N instead of two), plus two A’s and two O’s. Shortly afterwards, Grosser33 came to the independent conclusion that this unique combination could be explained by a cruciform arrangement whereby the N was used twice. The remaining four letters, two A’s and two O’s, would then be disposed thus:

A
P
A
T
E
R
APATERNOSTERO
0
S
T
E
R
0

[edit: I can't get it to line up on the forum,but it should form a Cross through the central 'N'. - j x]

A theory such as this cannot be proved. Its strength lies in its intrinsic probability, plus the fact that the mathematical odds against such a combination occurring by chance are astronomical. Frank was subsequently supported by Jerphanion, who in an exhaustive investiÂÂ*gation of the square’s origin and history added a rider.34 He reported that a correspondent had pointed to the position of the T’s, which are in every case flanked by A and O.



ROT AS

O E A

TENET

A E O

SATOR


The first literary reference to the use of the T as a symbol off the Cross is in an obscure passage in the Epistle of Barnabas
So wrote Fishwick in the 1950s. Then disaster struck the theory: the word square was found not once but twice in Pompeii and Herculanaeum, two cities known to have been destroyed by the explosion of Vesuvius in August 79CE.

The problem? This appeared to be evidence of Christianity in a period when it was considered unlikely to exist in Southern Italy. Furthermore the square requires the Cross to be a symbol of the Christian faith, yet we are more familiar with the Fish in the early church.

Yet in fact modern scholarship now tends to accept there was a Christian presence in Pompeii. The evidence is tenuous - there was clearly a Cross mounted on a wall in one room, from the marks left, and a charcoal inscription was found in the 19th century excavation but accounts disagree and it strikes me as weak evidence at best so I will ignore it for now.

Now as Paul actually makes clear the Cross was to him the centre of the Christian faith, it is not unreasonable to think this symbol of shame was adopted as a Christian symbol very early. The famous donkey headed graffito almost certainly a slur on some early Christian attests to it's antiquity, and the coincidence of the square and the wall mounted cross in these towns suggests that there may well have been a flourishing Christian community here by 79CE. The objection the early Church had no persecution to fear and no need for covert anagrams is rather belied by the passages I have already cited from Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.

We are still no nearer to the historical Jesus, but we may have evidence of the Cross as a central Christian symbol within 50 years of the Crucifixion here. there are of course other theories - Fishwick himself favoured a Jewish explanation, but his theory failed to convince scholars. Nonetheless his essay on the history of the square is excellent.

Were there Christians as early as 79CE? Yep, it likely they had been in Rome for thirty years by then, and Christianity was well established in Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor and probably Egypt and North Africa. It strikes me as probable they were in Pompeii too - which raises a fascinating possibility - might we learn more of them from the finds in the Villa of the Papyri and future excavations on that site?

See here. Even if not, it is the equivalent in classical studies of the Dead Sea scrolls and a fascinating archaeological treasure trove.

A very quick look at Celsus c. 178 CE

When I was an undergrad, I read Origen's Against Celsus (well Contra Celsum) which cites almost all of Celsus' The True Word, and is how we know his arguments. Celsus may well have been a friend of Lucian (see earlier entry) and was a sophisticated critic of Christianity. I think almost everyone here would enjoy the Wikipedia article on him.
Wikipedia wrote:Celsus opens the way for his own attack by restating the arguments leveled at the Christians by the Jews. They are: Jesus was born in adultery and nurtured on the wisdom of Egypt. His assertion of divine dignity is disproved by his poverty and his miserable end. Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness. Celsus indeed says that the Jews are almost as ridiculous as the foes they attack; the latter said the savior from Heaven had come, the former still looked for his coming. However, the Jews have the advantage of being an ancient nation with an ancient faith. The idea of an Incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity. Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dunghill, croaking and squeaking, "For our sakes was the world created."
I have made part of it bold, because I will draw upon it later in my argument: it shows that certain Jewish polemics were known as early as the middle of the second century. Celsus tells us quite a bit about Jesus, and understands a great deal about the development of Christianity -- you can read his and other great early critics of Christianity on Google Books. So why have I not bothered to delineate his material on Jesus?

Apart from certain elements, which I think probably stem from a good knowledge of the Jewish critiques, and rational and moral objections of his own,it seems that Celsus drew heavily from the Synoptic Gospels. Therefore to repeat what he tells us about Jesus may really just be to indirectly cite sources I am explictly avoiding - the Biblical texts. To do so would be at best iintellectual dishonest.

However bear in mind the Jewish polemics - I will return to those shortly. And if you can, do have a look at Celsus' arguments - not the New Atheism, but there is nothing new under the sun, and they are actually rather enjoyable. As you may have gathered I rather like Celsus! Hoffman's 'translation' should be avoided however - critics have stated it is an 'imaginative reconstruction'.

Jewish Critiques

Hi anyone still reading! In my last post I mentioned that Celsus mentions a number of Jewish critiques of Jesus and Christianity. I will begin tonight by discussing them.

Let's start by making one thing clear - the Historical Jesus was of course Jewish, and observed the Law, that is based on the Hebrew scriptures. By the time the gospels were written there was a fracture between the Jews, including the Jewish Christians, and other groups who accepting Paul and Peter's teachings had moved away from observance of the Law. The latter group evolved in to our modern Christianity, and this early rupture was responsible for the anti-Semitic polemic within the New Testament, which has dogged Christianity ever since.

So what did the Jews of the time say about Jesus? Unsurprisingly, we seem to have some material.

There is a fascinating and scholarly Wikipedia article on individuals called Yeshu in the Talmud. There are several, and it may be an abbreviation of Yeshua (Jesus) or an acronymn standing for "May his name and memory be obliterated" - a profound curse. Perhaps it is used differently in different occasions? I lack the scholarship to be able to judge the case, but the article is well worth reading. Unfortunately, overly enthusiastic apologists often present this material as definitely about "their" Jesus, but Jesus (Yeshua in fact) was a very common first century Jewish name.

I'm going to start by citing one passage that I think probably is referring to the Jesus under consideration, from the Babylonian Talmud...
wikipedia wrote:In Sanhedrin 43a, the execution of a certain Yeshu for sorcery, and enticing others to apostasy, is mentioned. Because of his connections with the government a town crier was sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one came forth and in the end he was stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.
Here we have the bare bones of the Jesus story
* sorcery - a miracle worker accused of dealing with demons as the gospels tell us
* crier demanding witnesses but no one speaks in his defence - the Barrabas story seems similar
*stoned and hanged on eve of Passover - right date, and the stoned is a problem, but hanged is how crucifixion is described?

It also notes this Yeshu had royal connections, which is not as problematic as it sounds - I'll discuss the case later if i may.

Another passage from later
wikipedia wrote:Sanhedrin 43a also mentions that a certain Yeshu (possibly intended to be the one it mentions earlier) had gathered five disciples Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah who were executed.
This again might fit - but only if it is a late confused account, or if our account in Acts in unreliable. I think this source might well reflect the Jesus of Christianity. I could of course be wrong!

I have read the entire passage in translation (you can find it online) and note that in fact the executed Yeshu was not stoned in the account, though that was the original intention, but 'hanged'.

I can see no strong objection to this being a late 1st century reference to the death of Jesus.

The Babylonian Talmud is a complex subject, and the manuscripts we have are later, but it represents the oral traditions collected by the rabbis in the period from the late first to the middle of the second century? Where I am ignorant, I prefer not to speak, but I hope the link will help you assess the possibility this reflects an authentic tradition of a historical Jesus.

Another reference that is often cited is from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedri n 107.b
The Rabbis taught: The left should always be used to push away, and the right, on the other hand to draw nearer. But one should not do it as Elisha who pushed Gehazi away, nor as R. Joshua ben Perachiah, who pushed away Yeshu with both hands. What was the problem with R. Joshua ben Perachiah? When King Jannai ordered the extermination of the Rabbis, R. Joshua ben Perachiah and Yeshu fled to Alexandria. When it was safe to return, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach sent him a letter:

From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to the Alexandria in Egypt, my sister. My spouse tarries in your midst, and I sit desolate.

Joshua set off at once. During the trip they happened upon an inn in which they treated him with great respect. Joshua commented, "How fair is this inn." Yeshu replied, "But Rabbi, she has unattractive eyes." Joshua replied, "You godless person, do you fill your mind with such things?" Then he had 400 trumpets sounded and anathematized him. Yeshu often came and said to him, "Receive me back." Joshua paid no attention. One day, while Joshua was reciting the Shema, Yeshu came to him, hoping for a reprieve. Joshua made a sign to him with his hand. Yeshu misunderstood, thinking he had been repulsed, so he went away set up a brick and worshipped it. Joshua said to him, "Repent!" Yeshu replied, "I learned this from you: 'Anyone who sins and causes the people to sin, is not allowed the possibility of repentance.'"
taken from Alan Humm's site
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ ... n107b.html

Interesting! Firstly, it is often asserted this Yeshu is Yeshua, or Jesus. Yet Joshua, the other character in the story can equally be translated as Jesus - Jesus is a version of Joshua, or rather they are both translations of the same Hebrew name, which was very common in the 1st century - maybe John, Jon, Johnny are modern parallels in terms of how common they are? So in fact either of the characters could be "Jesus" by our reckoning. Interestingly, it has also been suggested that Yeshu may be an acronym used for those who should not be named, as they are anathema - see this excellent article - yet this practice is probably much later. The passage is dated to events in the reign of King Jannai, so we can place it in Alexander Jannaeus reign (103BCE to 76BCE). I see no reason to believe it refers to the same Jesus as Christianity.

One manuscript adds
The Teacher said: "Yeshu practiced sorcery and corrupted and misled Israel."
I think it entirely possible this tradition is later, and reflects the entirely reasonable hostility felt by the Jewish community to Christian persecution, or possibly is early from the period of contention in the 90s. I lack the necessary scholarship to judge - however it is possible that it reflects an early tradition I expect. No one seems to have denied Jesus practised miracles and in the Gospel accounts as here the issue was the source of his power, not its existence. It's worth noting that healings, exorcisms and miracles were not he exclusive preserve of Gods in the 1st century, but indeed reasonably common claims of people who were definitely mortal, just as such claims are still common today. The miracles in no way proved Jesus' message or divinity to the audience he was addressing, and were not really evidence bearing on that question.

Still, no one seems to have doubted a Jesus was a healer, exorcist and miracle worker (in roughly that order). John's Gospel loses the healing and exorcisms, as if they somehow lessened Jesus which might seem odd to our modern perspective. Anyway, on the tradition of miracle working holy men, here is wikipedia on Honi the Circle Maker. It's well worth reading this as one example of the kind of holy man the historical Jesus may have been.

I'll end part 1 here as it is a bit long. In Part 2 I will discuss Josephus and others....

j x

Hegesippus was writing about 170CE, and his work is only preserved in Eusebius. He is given to rather fanciful tales, but even so this is rather interesting...
Hegesippus wrote:There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders8 of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan.
Domitian was son of Vespasian, conqueror of Judea. He was 15 years old at the time of the Jewish Revolt, and 19 at the time of the destruction of the Temple. He did not go to Judea unlike his brother Titus, and I would find it much easier to believe Titus made inquiries of the relatives of Jesus, who as I recall fled to the gentile city of Pella during the Revolt.

Titus was to become Emperor after Vespasian, and Domitian became Emperor in 81CE, dying in 96. Nerva succeeded then, then Trajan in 98CE ruling to 117CE.

Did Domitian persecute the Christians? Unlike the Neronic persecution, modern critics have expressed considerable doubt about this, though the Church Fathers claim it. I suspect what we may be seeing is a garbled tradition that the Christians were at this time distinguished from the Jews in the repression that followed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Great Revolt - however some persecution does seem likely, partly because of Domitian's known tendencies, partly because of the Book of Revelation composed many believe in his reign, though others have placed it as early as Nero, or Vespasian.

Personally I think the Domitian date of Revelation is likely, and hence the persecution, based on the analysis of J Denny Weaver who has very clearly explained the visions in relation to historical events under the previous Roman Emperors. I could be wrong though!

So did Jesus relatives live on till this time? I guess we ought to look at them next. I'll chat about this tomorrow if I have time...

 

[maximara]

This response does not address the reasoning that I outlined; that for this to be a name, it would be an unknown individual that requires contextual explanation as to who this was, since Suetonius does not make any entry in his texts elsewhere of names that do not have marked overt knowledge of who they are unless he also then states a relationship to a known figure in relation for context.

If this was an entry of a name, since it is not an overtly known name, then we should see Suetonius enter it in the same fashion as this: "and married Cornelia, daughter of that Cinna", which refers to Lucius Cornelius Cinna.

If we take Chrestus as a name, then it is not an overtly known individual (unlike all other standalone names in Suetonius' work), and is not given a relationship to any known individual.

Due to the context related to the Jewish community; there then only remains one variation of this entry that would make sense to the entry lacking any of Suetonius' treatment of unknown names; that he assumed this entry was well known.
Since we know Chrestus/Christus Chrestianus/Christianus entries did occur during this time, and because Suetonius considers this to be an obviously identified individual (by not mentioning any reference to another individual for context), and since the context is in regards to an unrest in the Jewish community; it stands reasonable for this to be an entry for the title of Jesus that was well noted to his station in social perception.

I did not cite Nero 16.

Again the flaw is that the majority of the time Chrestus is used to refer to a slave so if Chrestus referred to Jesus then Suetonius would have spelled it out.

The Nero 16 citation shows your premise is flawed in that Suetonius doesn't bother to even explain where the Christians get their name from. In context one gets the impression of 'Oh by the way Nero went after these guys too'

If you look at the Claudius text in context it is presented as 'here is something else Claudius did'. It doesn't help that the actual Latin is a little wonky in terms of how it translates:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit


He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus

Since the Jews constantly make disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome

At the instigation of Chrestus he (Claudius) expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances.

From Rome he (Claudius) expelled the perpetually tumultuating Jews prompted by Chrestus

You will note that the second two translations make Chrestus the one prompting Claudius to expel the disruptive Jews rather then Chrestus being the one causing them to be disruptive.

One sees this in modern German. "I throw my self downstairs a bucket" is a popular example of how backward German sentences can be in English.

 

[Belz...]

I thought it might be helpful to include the following in its entirety.

We already have a link to that dating from a few hours ago, Annnnoid. And we've even discussed it. That's the bit that caught our attention:

Jesus is actually better attested than almost any figure from the 1st century

Better attested by zero people ! Imagine that. Authors mention Christians but there isn't a single passage that isn't thought to be an interpolation about Jesus himself. The rest is gospels written maybe a century after the fact, and Paul, who never met the guy, and maybe didn't meet any witness himself.

"no serious historian doubts a historical Jesus."

I like the "serious" bit in there, which could be replaced by "true" in the same way as "historian" could be replaced by "scottsman".

 

[pakeha]

I thought it might be helpful ...

Thanks for the goodwill, annnoid.
All those points have been chewed over in a number of threads, you know.
In fact, demolishing these points in another thread here was what me start thinking that there was a possibility the Jesus cult was more comparable to the John Frum cargo cult than anything else.

Still, I'm here to learn and I'm open and eager to considering other viewpoints.

 

[llwyd]

Still, I'm here to learn and I'm open and eager to considering other viewpoints.

That's always so nice to hear! I have encountered lots of absolutely bonkers WTC people who say exactly the same: they are ever so open to the experts' arguments, ever so open, but they just don't hold water compared with their own personal plain common sense and wisdom. I say, well, let them crash, obviously, but apart from that, I say go and publish then your findings. I think it's absolutely unlikely that we can resolve this question on an amateur forum - for some strange reason the study of ancient history is considered to be quite a complicated academic discipline which need years of study and various expert skills, and the consensus on the new findings is changed through normal peer review and publication process.

So, we know the current academic consensus - which represents the views of the best experts on these subjects. It will not be changed by unsceptical crankish nicks on a random internet forum. If you think you can change this consensus, go and publish. Otherwise this is just lots of hot air, stupidity, stubborness and crankery. I'm sorry, it's a tough old world, and then we all die, but you really have to go through a peer review process and publish your new findings to have any significance beyond amateur self-importance on this subject. Go and publish.