Jesus of Nazareth: Historical or Mythical?

[Jeanne dArc]

Granted, the writings of Thallus (much like most texts from ancient history) are lost to time. He is still referenced in a 3rd Century text as referencing the eclipse. That 3rd Century text, as far as I know, is also lost to time which was in itself quoted again by a 9th Century author (if memory serves correctly). Nevertheless, is there a reason to doubt that Thallus didn't write about the eclipse?

Well there isn't per se a reason to doubt he may have written about the eclipse, it's attempting to even remotely link that to Christianity that hits the deadest of ends: because that's a colossal non-sequitur on the part of Africanus' citation.

Many also think it a reference to Jesus, considering the date reference being just a few decades after the time of Jesus (if he did exist)

Why would it be? Neither of the others cited lived anywhere near the 1st Century. Being a Syrian, Serapion would have had knowledge of the Seleucids as his primary source on Judean history: rendering a Syrian "wise king" of the Judeans as far more plausible. (Possibly Antiochus III? The Maccabees blame his assassination on his envoy Hierodorus, but it isn't inconceivable that either Maccabees is wrong, or Serapion was taught a version of events in which he was executed by Judeans instead. Far too little information in the "wise king" mention to say for sure. Jesus is near the bottom of the list of candidates though.)

If Christians are being mentioned then if no directly stated it is still a reference to the person that founded the Christian movement. Also, most scholars think the Chrestus thing is just a mistake on the part of the authors.

It could have been a mistake. I freely admit he could have referred to Christus and Christians instead. But then, that's not much of a reference. If so, Christians had already been around for at least 60-70 years, and at least two of the gospels already existed, if not more. Ergo, it's quite easy to think that Tacitus could simply have been reciting hearsay based on an already-fairly-well-established Christian tradition. There just seem to be too many things to debate about Tacitus for me to take his fleeting sentence as serious evidence of a historical Jesus.

And like Thallus, the writings of Celsus are lost to time but remain in the words of Origen (unlike Thallus, we have Celsus' exact quotes referenced).

True enough. Again, Celsus (assuming Origen didn't make him up as a strawman, which can't be ruled out) seems to have been a polemicist in nature, whose quotes are clearly dependent on the establishment of the gospels and Christianity.

I'm not as confident as you that the source is referring to James the brother of Jesus of Damneus. And while I agree about the dubiousness of the other quote, I'm not quite so confident that there wasn't at least a partial reference initially to Jesus.

Well you're allowed not to be so confident, but the text speaks for itself, haha I mean, it seems peculiar that Josephus would mention this James character as part of a scandal involving the succession of high priests, and the very next high priest after this James, brother of Jesus (who is called Christ) happens to be named Jesus (and Christ incidentally was already used as an epithet of the high priest). Seems a little convenient

And as for whether there was originally a reference to Jesus, I would forward the preceding and subsequent paragraphs in the text as negative evidence: in the former he is discussing the massacre of a huge number of Jews by Pontius Pilate, and in the latter he begins "and then another tragedy befell..."... Now, that next paragraph flows pretty naturally out of a description of a mass murder, but it's quite a bizarre juxtaposition from a cute little digression talking briefly (and uncharacteristically) about this Jesus fellow. Pile onto that the fact that Eusebius (a proud "liar for Christ") is the first person in history to ever be aware of the passage (and it just happens to be much more in line with Eusebian style than Josephus' typical, long-winded and exhaustive style), and there doesn't seem to be much left for there to have once been even a kernel of a Jesus mention there. (Even Ehrman says that the main reason he still thinks there could have been a kernel there is because of the Book XX mention of James; and of course I've already elaborated on the numerous dubious details of that mention.)

And as we've discussed already, I disagree with your opinion that Paul describes a mythical Jesus.

And yet the two passages you cited as contrary evidence I have no difficulty interpreting in a mythicist framework.

Not everyone regards it as pseudepigrapha.

It's actually quite an interesting case for mythicism, whether pseudepigraphic or not. "James" does not call himself a brother of Jesus (contrary to the gospels, and debatably Paul), and doesn't mention anything historical about Jesus. So on top of providing a degree of (possibly pre-Gospel) negative evidence to the oft-cited "James was Jesus' blood sibling" claim, it also falls much better in line with a Pauline celestial Jesus than a historical one. Next

Q, etc!

Find me a copy so I can compare them, and you might have something there...

In study of ancient history, hypotheses are stronger than simple guesses or wishful thinking. It's like scientists always tell creationists, a scientific theory is stronger than guesswork. It's the same thing here. The JEPD hypothesis of the Torah is also just a hypothetical, conjecture. But it fits the evidence, just like the Q/L/M/SQ hypotheses fit the evidence.

It really isn't the same thing here. The hypothesized lost gospel precursors are necessary only in specific models of historicity: not all models require them, and mythicism does not whatsoever. The Wellhausen hypothesis is hypothetical, yes, but is much closer to a theory: in that its basic concepts have proved necessary to the majority of models of Old Testament development (rather like most models of biology require basic concepts like natural selection and cellular mechanics to make any headway). The Q hypothesis and its relatives strike me as not impossible, of course, but they make precious few quantifiable predictions that give them an edge over the alternatives; their nonexistence doesn't present a serious problem to the study of the gospels, as the discrepancies they explain can be explained in other ways. And a hypothesis that doesn't make itself necessary is just barely more impressive than blind speculation.

But they are used as reference material in the study of the historical Jesus.

Quite bizarre, considering they do not speak of Jesus in historical terms. Or are there really historicist scholars who think that Revelation, for goodness' sake, can teach them something about a historical Jesus? (Rhetorical question, haha)

You're free to take it however you like, I'm just sharing the evidence that is available. For most historians it is overwhelming enough to cement the view of an historical Jesus.

"Overwhelming" seems like a strong word, when it isn't hard to find greater historical attestation of King Arthur than of Jesus: and King Arthur is not nearly so widely accepted as historical. Then again, Jesus has been assumed to be historical for a heck of a long time.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Jeanne dArc

[Jeanne dArc]

Mormonism isn't exactly my strong suit. I just did a bit of extra reading beyond the source. Yes, it seems the Angel Moroni is a resurrected prophet. That prophet, however, died in the 5th or 6th Century AD. He wasn't Moroni Smith, Joseph's brother to whom the whole community knew and respected as a prophet, who then died and resurrected for the whole community to see. Mormonism had to begin with people accepting Joseph Smith's testimony that a 5-6th Century prophet had resurrected and secretly taught him stuff. Paul had the same thing, but the listeners also had the benefit of living contemporaneously with people who would have lived when the real living Jesus would have lived.

Joseph Smith actually had plenty of family and friends who swore to Joseph's accuracy; at least allegedly

And interesting, why didn't any of these people who had that benefit speak up? Even Paul doesn't mention them: odd, since he was one of those alleged contemporaries of Jesus!

I don't think your first paragraph is true. The fact that there are over five hundred people who can attest to having witnessed a resurrected Jesus is evidence these people could corroborate.

And yet Paul is the only source we have for them. Moreover: he states that many of these 500 had since "fallen asleep/away", which suggests that they had deconverted. So clearly even people who allegedly saw Jesus resurrected didn't actually stay with the religion! Which of course I'd personally interpret as people questioning their own beliefs and leaving the cult, but which is pretty peculiar if one assumes Paul is talking about people seeing an alleged historical Jesus here.

And yes, it doesn't say anything about them meeting Jesus pre-mortem, but one would think that if they were to say they witnessed a man who rose from the dead they would have to have known him while he was still alive to corroborate that it is indeed the same person. Otherwise all they have is an appearance of Joey Bloggs, who may or may not be anyone special but I'm being told he rose from the dead and I'll just believe what they say.

Except Paul informs us how people knew Jesus was crucified: the Septuagint. In fact Paul tells us that all information about Jesus can be gleaned exclusively from scripture and special epiphany. It's actually also interesting, because your rebuttal kinda collides with the gospels on that point: when Jesus alleged appeared post-resurection before the masses, it was in Emmaus, a city where he didn't really have a following (until, supposely, that appearance). Ergo, presumably nobody in Emmaus would have recognized him either before or after death. And moreover: not even his closest followers supposely recognized him post mortem until he willed them to. So unless Jesus had the power to make people recognize him though they had never met him, that all seems very incongruous. And of course if Jesus had the superpower to have strangers recognize him automatically, it kinda renders your point about having to have met him in life entirely moot.

[Jeanne dArc]

Thanks for that. As I said to 8bits, Mormonism isn't my forte for knowledge. Turns out Moroni was a resurrected being, from a character out of the 5th or 6th century AD.

No prob

As I said, not historically likely, but not historically impossible. But even if I am wrong about scriptural inerrancy, the general academic consensus is that Luke simply made an error about Quirinius.

I'd like a source on that consensus view about Luke misdating Quirinius: because most mainstream scholars I've read simply dismiss the whole nativity in Luke as hopelessly anachronistic and historically untenable (in more ways than merely Quirinius).

Fair enough, I don't agree with everything Ehrman wrote either, I thought I'd just share how he as an atheist/agnostic saw things.

Fair enough

I shared both my opinion and the academic consensus. The general view is Luke just made a mistake about Quirinius.

Again, I'm not even convinced the historicity consensus is what you think it is on this matter.

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

"Various proposals have been made to resolve the problem - the Gospel text has been mistranslated, the census has been misdated, there were two censuses – but these are rejected by most scholars for reasons set out by Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah (1977, pp.546-555) and in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Chronology".^[15] The evangelists were ignorant on many points about the early life of Jesus, as can be seen in the contradictory accounts of Luke and Matthew (Matthew says that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, returned to their home in Bethlehem, and finally fled again to Galilee; according to Luke they lived in Galilee, went to Bethlehem only because of the census, and returned immediately to Nazareth).^[4] They both place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem because, according to a prophecy in Micah 5:2, the messiah was to come from that town (Matthew quotes Micah, and Luke refers to the birth of the messiah in the "city of David"): "theological needs here create biographical 'facts'."^[4]"

[emphasis mine]

Thanks Jeanne, I'll have a look into that a bit later on, see if I can nut out your reasoning

~ Regards, PA

Okie/dokie

[+Paranoid Android]

"Overwhelming" seems like a strong word, when it isn't hard to find greater historical attestation of King Arthur than of Jesus: and King Arthur is not nearly so widely accepted as historical. Then again, Jesus has been assumed to be historical for a heck of a long time.

I think we may just have to divert and say "I disagree with you, you disagree with me, so let's just shake hands and grab a beer and talk about the footy on the weekend"

Joseph Smith actually had plenty of family and friends who swore to Joseph's accuracy; at least allegedly

And interesting, why didn't any of these people who had that benefit speak up? Even Paul doesn't mention them: odd, since he was one of those alleged contemporaries of Jesus!

Who says they didn't speak up? Those five hundred who saw Jesus could easily be telling every man and their dog "hey, I saw a dead dude the other day, he seemed pretty alive".

And yet Paul is the only source we have for them. Moreover: he states that many of these 500 had since "fallen asleep/away", which suggests that they had deconverted. So clearly even people who allegedly saw Jesus resurrected didn't actually stay with the religion! Which of course I'd personally interpret as people questioning their own beliefs and leaving the cult, but which is pretty peculiar if one assumes Paul is talking about people seeing an alleged historical Jesus here.

???? Interesting interpretation. "Fallen asleep" is also a decent way of saying "they died". Especially considering that Paul seemed to see the return of Jesus and the resurrection of all to be fairly much imminent, falling asleep is a very apt way for him to refer to people who passed away. To be honest, I think that is a far more likely reading of what Paul meant by them falling asleep than them deconverting.

Except Paul informs us how people knew Jesus was crucified: the Septuagint. In fact Paul tells us that all information about Jesus can be gleaned exclusively from scripture and special epiphany. It's actually also interesting, because your rebuttal kinda collides with the gospels on that point: when Jesus alleged appeared post-resurection before the masses, it was in Emmaus, a city where he didn't really have a following (until, supposely, that appearance). Ergo, presumably nobody in Emmaus would have recognized him either before or after death. And moreover: not even his closest followers supposely recognized him post mortem until he willed them to. So unless Jesus had the power to make people recognize him though they had never met him, that all seems very incongruous. And of course if Jesus had the superpower to have strangers recognize him automatically, it kinda renders your point about having to have met him in life entirely moot.

Fair point, it is possible that Jesus could simply have the power that people would automatically recognise him. But I think it more likely that the people whom Jesus appeared to would have known him beforehand.

I'd like a source on that consensus view about Luke misdating Quirinius: because most mainstream scholars I've read simply dismiss the whole nativity in Luke as hopelessly anachronistic and historically untenable (in more ways than merely Quirinius).

I first heard about the issue of Quirinius' dating a number of years ago here on UM. It was from a former member here, a guy we all knew as Mako (I hope he's okay, wherever he is) and when he informed me of this I popped off a few emails to historians in Ancient History departments of universities. I got a couple of replies, pointing out that most scholars deem that Luke made a small temporal error. One of the historians I emailed was a Christian (I intentionally wished to get a Christian opinion as well as academic) and he said the same thing, that most historians see it as a small temporal error. It was also he who suggested the "out" for those of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

As for a specific source, I have none at this point. Those emails have long gone from my computer.

Again, I'm not even convinced the historicity consensus is what you think it is on this matter.

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

"Various proposals have been made to resolve the problem - the Gospel text has been mistranslated, the census has been misdated, there were two censuses – but these are rejected by most scholars for reasons set out by Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah (1977, pp.546-555) and in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Chronology".^[15] The evangelists were ignorant on many points about the early life of Jesus, as can be seen in the contradictory accounts of Luke and Matthew (Matthew says that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, returned to their home in Bethlehem, and finally fled again to Galilee; according to Luke they lived in Galilee, went to Bethlehem only because of the census, and returned immediately to Nazareth).^[4] They both place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem because, according to a prophecy in Micah 5:2, the messiah was to come from that town (Matthew quotes Micah, and Luke refers to the birth of the messiah in the "city of David"): "theological needs here create biographical 'facts'."^[4]"

[emphasis mine]

I wasn't talking about the census, I was talking about the birth of Jesus being during the time of Quirinius. Scholars, as far as I've known, just accept this as an error on Luke's part.

Okie/dokie

Thanks for the info, in any case Edited September 2, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Tiggs]

It could have been a mistake. I freely admit he could have referred to Christus and Christians instead. But then, that's not much of a reference. If so, Christians had already been around for at least 60-70 years, and at least two of the gospels already existed, if not more. Ergo, it's quite easy to think that Tacitus could simply have been reciting hearsay based on an already-fairly-well-established Christian tradition. There just seem to be too many things to debate about Tacitus for me to take his fleeting sentence as serious evidence of a historical Jesus.

You might also want to take a look at the provenance for Tacitus' Annals.

[Jeanne dArc]

I think we may just have to divert and say "I disagree with you, you disagree with me, so let's just shake hands and grab a beer and talk about the footy on the weekend"

Possibly so

Who says they didn't speak up? Those five hundred who saw Jesus could easily be telling every man and their dog "hey, I saw a dead dude the other day, he seemed pretty alive".

And yet the "could" stand out there: since there's no actual evidence of that. Yeah, we know there was some sort of Christian tradition predating Paul, but then all Paul mentions is post mortem appearances by Christ: and indeed implies that it would be impossible for anyone to have known him prior to a special revelation. In my interpretation of Paul: a polite way of saying "we were reading the Septuagint, and we suddenly realized that this vague bit in Isaiah is actually telling us about a crucified messianic archangel thing; but y'know, don't worry if others don't see it there: nobody could possibly interpret Isaiah that way unless they've had this revelation about what it really means that we have".

???? Interesting interpretation. "Fallen asleep" is also a decent way of saying "they died". Especially considering that Paul seemed to see the return of Jesus and the resurrection of all to be fairly much imminent, falling asleep is a very apt way for him to refer to people who passed away. To be honest, I think that is a far more likely reading of what Paul meant by them falling asleep than them deconverting.

Quite fair: I concede that is a likely interpretation. Particularly after rereading the Greek.

Fair point, it is possible that Jesus could simply have the power that people would automatically recognise him. But I think it more likely that the people whom Jesus appeared to would have known him beforehand.

Well, Paul didn't meet him while he was alive, and he seemed to have his revelation just fine. Since he compares his own revelation of Christ to the others, I really don't need to assume anyone needed to have seen him pre-resurrection: particularly since Paul himself pretty much denies the possibility of such a thing.

I first heard about the issue of Quirinius' dating a number of years ago here on UM. It was from a former member here, a guy we all knew as Mako (I hope he's okay, wherever he is) and when he informed me of this I popped off a few emails to historians in Ancient History departments of universities. I got a couple of replies, pointing out that most scholars deem that Luke made a small temporal error. One of the historians I emailed was a Christian (I intentionally wished to get a Christian opinion as well as academic) and he said the same thing, that most historians see it as a small temporal error. It was also he who suggested the "out" for those of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

As for a specific source, I have none at this point. Those emails have long gone from my computer.

I wasn't talking about the census, I was talking about the birth of Jesus being during the time of Quirinius. Scholars, as far as I've known, just accept this as an error on Luke's part.

I suppose we've spoken to different scholars then Which is fine. Though it sort of furthers my point that the consensus on the matter of Luke here isn't quite as decided as you initially implied. Some say it's an error by Luke, some say it was made up completely, some say it was Luke's futile effort to reconcile Mark and Matthew. I subscribe to the latter view, as I've said, but I concede the other options are possible. The Herod-Quirinius discrepancy still remains though, unless we assume Luke was so completely clueless about the date of Jesus' birth and the date of Quirinius' census that he mistakenly put them in the same decade (which, considering Josephus was a source for Luke, and Josephus knew the dates both of Herod's death and Quirinius' census, the only date remaining ambiguous and paradoxical is Jesus').

Thanks for the info, in any case

No prob

[Jeanne dArc]

You might also want to take a look at the provenance for Tacitus' Annals.

Yep, fun stuff Just one of a million things making Tacitus rather shaky as a major source.

[Leonardo]

I've clashed with you on this a couple of times, just because the occasional teaching of Jesus is sometimes similar to Hillel, it doesn't mean he was a student of Hillel. For example, Hillel taught "don't do to others what you don't want them doing to you". Jesus says something similar but remarkably different - he says "do to others what you would want others to do to you".

But we've been over this before. What I would like to point out is something I learned relativly recently about the Hillel school while doing a bit of random reading. It's only a Wikipedia entry but it is backed up by other sources. Jesus taught about adultery, saying that divorcing your wife for any reason except marital unfaithfulness makes you an adulterer. Hillel taught that you could divorce for anything, trivial matters included (burn the meal, your wife has displeased you - divorce her if you like).

Considering the vast differences in some of Jesus' teachings, I may say he was familiar with Hillel's teachings (as many people in the 1st Century would be familiar with HIllel's teachings) but he was no student of Hillel's and certainly did not teach from the Hillel school of reasoning.

This may be not really relevant to the thread topic, so I'll only make this single venture down the path, but what you state here does not argue against a historical Jesus as not being a student of Hillel. What Jesus preached against (adultery) was a separate topic to what Hillel said about divorce. Afaik Jesus did not preach against divorce, only that to engage in another relationship after divorce was akin to adultery.

That does not conflict with Hillel preaching that a man could divorce his wife for even petty reasons.

Possibly, depending on how you view the New Testament canon these could be wild elaborations about one dude in the Underground Rebellion. And while it may take more faith to believe he was a miraculous divine man of healing than it would to accept him as a member of the Resistance, it is still considerably less faith than to say he never existed in the first place (yes, I'm intentionally riling people by saying it takes "faith" to not believe there was an historical Jesus).

I agree that either opinion regarding the existence of a historical Jesus requires "faith", and probably more "faith" to believe Jesus did not exist - because we have no reason to suspect the character Paul and others built their Messiah from could not exist.

[eight bits]

Howdy, Tiggs

PA

Paul had the same thing, but the listeners also had the benefit of living contemporaneously with people who would have lived when the real living Jesus would have lived.

We seem to have put aside that communications and transportation were tougher then than today. Regardless, the reasons Paul gives for his farflung Gentile audience to take an interest in Jesus have nothing to do with what Jesus once was, but only what Paul thinks Jesus is now.

Since you mentioned Moroni, what matters crucially is the information Moroni imparted to Smith, verified by signs (Smith supposedly found the plates and had living witnesses to that fact claim). There is no question about Moroni's current status. He's a supernatural being, an angel. So what if he'd never been a natural human being before that?

Had I been an early Gentile adopter of Christianity, I need only believe that Paul saw something of spiritual importance which others also saw and that Paul's successful performance of miracles (Paul's, not Jesus') verifies his opinion that this something came from the Jewish God.

If I believed that, and nothing else, then I would qualify for the promised immortality and flight lessons. If Paul doesn't raise any issue about a natural career for Jesus, then what's the business case for me doing so? I just want to fly soon and never ever die, and to enjoy bacon in the meantime. What's it to me if Paul saw an angel instead of a former natural human being?

Thus any deviation must be considered an act of faith.

No. A scholar's teaching is normatively viewed as what lawyers call "an offer of proof." If what the scholar says isn't challenged, then the statement may well be accepted as if it were itself evidence.

However, if what the scholar says is challenged, then the evidence must be produced, and it is upon that evidence which further inquiry proceeds. What the scholar said about the evidence before it was produced and examined is simply set aside. The statement adds nothing, and can add nothing, to the evidence which it purported to summarize.

Just as the plural of anecdote is not data, the plural of "offer of proof" is not evidence. For many of the same reasons.

The fact that there are over five hundred people who can attest to having witnessed a resurrected Jesus is evidence these people could corroborate.

Speaking of offers of proof, Paul says that these people would back him up. It's not a "fact;" maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I'll never know. I could legitimately challenge Paul's statement, but for the moment I accept Paul's offer of proof.

Accordingly, what these people could corroborate is that they, too, saw something similar to what Paul later saw. That has nothing to do with whether the something was once a human being, or which human being, or how they would know that.

Personally, I don't dispute that Paul saw something and believed that others had, too. I accept his offer of proof because there is nothing in it that bears on the historicity of a natural Jesus. Christianity began when several people interpreted their encounters with the paranormal in concert. I'll buy that.

but one would think that if they were to say they witnessed a man who rose from the dead they would have to have known him while he was still alive to corroborate that it is indeed the same person.

Um, Paul says he witnessed a man who had risen from the dead, and Paul seems not to have known him while he was still alive. Why wouldn't others say that? Isn't that what to corroborate means? You're saying that they would amplify on Paul's testimony. Paul doesn't say that.

[Jeanne dArc]

Since you mentioned Moroni, what matters crucially is the information Moroni imparted to Smith, verified by signs (Smith supposedly found the plates and had living witnesses to that fact claim). There is no question about Moroni's current status. He's a supernatural being, an angel. So what if he'd never been a natural human being before that?

Had I been an early Gentile adopter of Christianity, I need only believe that Paul saw something of spiritual importance which others also saw and that Paul's successful performance of miracles (Paul's, not Jesus') verifies his opinion that this something came from the Jewish God.

I wouldn't even say miracles were a major point for Paul. Acts' hugely embellished portrayal of Paul certainly places emphasis on miracles (as does the gospel which was probably written by the same author), but Paul himself seems to rest the crux (no pun intended) of his conversion power on being able to convince people that his eisegesis of the Septuagint is correct. I'm still not totally sure if the "revelations" he always talks about are supposed to be literal hallucinations or simply the discovery of one of his Septuagint "Bible codes".

No. A scholar's teaching is normatively viewed as what lawyers call "an offer of proof." If what the scholar says isn't challenged, then the statement may well be accepted as if it were itself evidence.

However, if what the scholar says is challenged, then the evidence must be produced, and it is upon that evidence which further inquiry proceeds. What the scholar said about the evidence before it was produced and examined is simply set aside. The statement adds nothing, and can add nothing, to the evidence which it purported to summarize.

Just as the plural of anecdote is not data, the plural of "offer of proof" is not evidence. For many of the same reasons.

Well said It's so bizarre that I habitually have to remind historicity advocates that the consensus by itself isn't evidence, haha

Um, Paul says he witnessed a man who had risen from the dead, and Paul seems not to have known him while he was still alive. Why wouldn't others say that? Isn't that what to corroborate means? You're saying that they would amplify on Paul's testimony. Paul doesn't say that.

I'm not even totally convinced Paul claims to have seen a man risen from the dead: he seems to have an inordinate proclivity for the phrase "likeness of a man" (as do the authors of Revelation, etc.), which is also strikingly parallel to angels and gods in earlier Jewish texts (even the Septuagint) being described as "men" or "like men". Enoch has angels with flesh and blood (albeit celestial); and certainly Revelation seems to think angels can die. Combine that with all the Old Testament eisegesis these people were so fond of, and getting an archangelic being of some sort being crucified in the sky isn't hard. (Which of course is interesting in the talk of "rulers of the aeon" killing Jesus: since this is a term reserved in early Christian texts for celestial devil-gods who live in the lower spheres of the heavens, of whom Satan is the leader.) Paul seems to indicate that the only reason Jesus ever had flesh ("become of the seed of David") was in order to be able to die and save humanity: his Jesus is an indestructible spirit, and by taking on a coat of flesh was able to trick the demons into killing him as an act of sympathetic magic for Christians.

And yet Paul doesn't talk about anyone ever seeing Jesus in the flesh. He says pretty emphatically that those events can be known only by scriptural eisegesis; presumably because they were meant to happen in the heavens, well beyond the scope of mortal perception.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Jeanne dArc

[Mr Walker]

Yes, I am aware of Nero.

Robbie, I don't think that it is fair to imply that I have an issue with those pesky Christians, because I challenged that According to history Christianity did not happen overnight, as MW claims. it was a very long time, I have no issue with its growth, I have studied this, I devoted a few months with my kids last year who did a huge research paper on the conversion from paganism to medieval Christianity, we did not use wiki or crap sources, I know the sources, I provided mine, this was an honors literature course. In fact, I found it fascinating. I learned a lot about Christianity and Paganism and I have an immense respect for both.

It was not an easy road for Christians and it was a very long journey, yet they persevered.

I did not claim it happened overnight. What i explained was that we can trace the continuity of christianity right back to the decade christ died. Christianity did not begin with Constantine. In one way christianity came of age under constantine. It had spent 300 years growing from its infancy.

There were all sorts of christian groups in the first couple of hundred years but only Catholicism (as it became) really endured. It started small but grew quite quickly due to the appeal of the message, the martyrdom and aggressive preaching of its original preachers. and to the organisational skills of Paul .MY point was that it was big enough to be noticed in official writings in rome by about ad 50-60 and was being taxed as a recognised church by AD 90 That is all within 60 years of christ's death.

[Jeanne dArc]

There were all sorts of christian groups in the first couple of hundred years but only Catholicism (as it became) really endured. It started small but grew quite quickly due to the appeal of the message, the martyrdom and aggressive preaching of its original preachers. and to the organisational skills of Paul .MY point was that it was big enough to be noticed in official writings in rome by about ad 50-60 and was being taxed as a recognised church by AD 90 That is all within 60 years of christ's death.

If Paul is to be taken seriously (and he should), Christianity would appear to predate Jesus' alleged death, and even his alleged teaching (and Paul says not a word of Jesus' alleged teaching anyway, so that's something as well). I personally date the earliest Christians in the first or second decade of the 1st Century CE, maybe even BCE, allowing for at least a decade or two for the cult to exist prior to Paul's conversion (a reasonable allowance based on his letters).

[Mr Walker]

I'm certainly aware of the consensus. I'm not especially persuaded by their models, but I concede the questioning of Jesus' historicity is somewhat fringe. Then again, Moses mythicism was fringe too until not too terribly long ago, so forgive me for taking consensus with a grain of salt on matters like this one

See, but the existence of a cult doesn't necessitate that it's supposed founder was a real person. Paul is our earliest source, and he doesn't once mention a "Judaic preacher" version of Jesus: his is a celestial revelator, which could easily be mythological.

I've seen nothing at all in Paul's letters that demonstrates a historical Jesus. Paul was clearly real, but his Jesus is a revelatory being, as he says emphatically a number of times. It's not at all clear that the notion of an earthly Jesus would ever even have crossed his mind, or any other pre-Gospel Christians either, for that matter.

It depends how much of a consiracy theorist you are/

Again, historians accept that there was a link. Pauls writings speak of meeting the brother of jesus. Paul deliberately separates his version of Christianity given in th revelation, from the preceding jewish version and 'Hellenises' it thus indicating that there WAS an older version which had to be differentiated from.

Some of his writings refer to the ongoing theological struggle between the original jewish christians and the new gentile ones. And basically as the story goes, Saul had been persecuting the early jewish Christians. His moment of revelation on the road to Damascus, was clearly apropos of this religion because he then began supporting it, albeit in his own form.

I suspect this was actually a strategic decison made quite consciously by paul as the persuasive style of his letters indicates. jewish converts had been quite hard to come by once the original disciples/followers of christs life time no longer had christ to follow. and jewish groups had killed most of the original preachers.

Judaism is very resistant to change du to its cutural exclusivity and other aspects of its nature.. Paul saw an opportunity in the diverse pantheism of the roman empire and he was correct. The new monotheism of a father figure and personal god appealed to many pagans From paul's time onwards Christianity grew rapidly and spread widely as it adopted Hellenistic features but also took on board cultural aspects of many groups. Slowly other groups such as the early jewish christians and gnostic christians lost ground to the rapidly growing church system created by Paul's teachings it took almost 300 years for these other groups to disappear but they really lost the battle when PAUL hellenised the religion and urged conversion of non jews.

OF course you can make a huge assumption that all of this is some fictional reality constructed later on, but there is no valid historical reason to do that. It is main stream academic history taught in universities around the world.

[Tiggs]

Yep, fun stuff Just one of a million things making Tacitus rather shaky as a major source.

I see three main issues with the text.

• The first is the Christians / Chrestians issue. The original text has clearly had the e changed to an I.
  
• The second is Pilate's rank of Procurator, rather than Prefect. You'd think a Roman Historian would be able to nail that one, at least.
  
• The third is the mention of abominations. Christians don't seem particularly abominable to me.
  

Let's also throw into the mix Suetonius talking about the Jews being expelled from Rome during the time of Claudius:

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

Chrestus and Chrestians. Both involved in some trouble with Rome. Some coincidence, no?

Let me suggest an alternative version of the Tacitus Quote:

"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 Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, 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".

By just altering four names, the whole thing changes entirely - and bear in mind that there's already solid evidence that at least one of them has been altered.

Who's Porcius Festus, I hear you ask?

He's a Roman Procurator, sent down to Judea, somewhere around 60 - 62 AD, or so. Here's what Josephus says about him:

Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

So - does it have to be Nero and Porcius Festus? No - but at least Porcius was a procurator, and it does all seem to fit.

(With a massive hat-tip to this blog, who put all the same jigsaw pieces together, long before I did.)

Howdy, Tiggs

Howdy, eight bits. Good to see you again.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Tiggs

[Mr Walker]

His mom was a Christian, that's pretty significant I think.

That is probably correct i was replying to the view that Christianity only grew because rulers forced conversions or, by their conversion, caused others to convert. i agree with you that it grew because it was popular. Constantine believed in it and saw its social strengths. He might have got this from his mother.. My point was that the emperor was just like many other people of his time, and Christianity worked for him so he made it the state religion

. i would still ask the deeper question. WHY did it work for him as an individual and as a ruler of a society? What was it that Constantine saw in it, to cause him to replace the pantheism of the past with it ? (not yet totally but beginning to)

[Mr Walker]

I see three main issues with the text.

• The first is the Christians / Chrestians issue. The original text has clearly had the e changed to an I.
  
• The second is Pilate's rank of Procurator, rather than Prefect. You'd think a Roman Historian would be able to nail that one, at least.
  
• The third is the mention of abominations. Christians don't seem particularly abominable to me.
  

Let's also throw into the mix Suetonius talking about the Jews being expelled from Rome during the time of Claudius:

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

Chrestus and Chrestians. Both involved in some trouble with Rome. Some coincidence, no?

Let me suggest an alternative version of the Tacitus Quote:

"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 Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, 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".

By just altering four names, the whole thing changes entirely - and bear in mind that there's already solid evidence that at least one of them has been altered.

Who's Porcius Festus, I hear you ask?

He's a Roman Procurator, sent down to Judea, somewhere around 60 - 62 AD, or so. Here's what Josephus says about him:

Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

So - does it have to be Nero and Porcius Festus? No - but at least Porcius was a procurator, and it does all seem to fit.

(With a massive hat-tip to this blog, who put all the same jigsaw pieces together, long before I did.)

Howdy, eight bits. Good to see you again.

And your theory is that these people were never connected with the christ we know of but yet morphed and amalgamated within a few years into others who DID claim allegiance to the same christ we refer to? Just what group were the new tax laws of the AD 90s supposed to apply to? Some group which followed someone called chrestus and was a rabble rouser but was NOT the christ we know; Or followers of the same christ we reference.

Oh and both groups just coincidentally happened to be a new variety of jewish worshippers.

We KNOW sociologically and politically why Christians and also jews were persecuted in rome There were tax issues and romans were suspicious of their desire to worship privately rather than in public. But most telling was their claim of exclusivity.

Roman tradition following the early greek model was for a pantheon of gods assigned to various purposes and roles. Instead of just adding another god which would have been quite acceptable the jews and christians claimed theirs was the only god

The christians in particular upset the emperors because of the doctrine that gods laws were more important than the emperors rules but mainly thety were more of a problem because they were so aggressively proselytising.

The exclusivity of the judaic/Christian god was also a direct threat and insult to emperors who seriously considered them selves, and were considered by their citizens, to be divine. Christian and Judaic theology directly challenged this concept but more so Christianity because Christ was seen as the only avatar of god on earth, meaning emperors could not be.

Nero killed a number of very high class roman citizens who implicitly questioned his divinity. He had zero tolerance for a religion which overtly challenged it

Edited September 2, 2015 by Mr Walker

[Jeanne dArc]

It depends how much of a consiracy theorist you are/

Since I don't theorize a conspiracy, 0%?

Again, historians accept that there was a link. Pauls writings speak of meeting the brother of jesus. Paul deliberately separates his version of Christianity given in th revelation, from the preceding jewish version and 'Hellenises' it thus indicating that there WAS an older version which had to be differentiated from.

Paul also speaks of hundreds of other "brothers of the lord": why focus on James? He calls him a brother of the lord clearly to distinguish him in rank from Cephas; as he invariably uses the term "brother" or "brother of the lord" (also "sister") for a particular type of Christian. Probably specifically baptized Christians, I think, but to suggest a literal bioloical sibling here would require a hefty waft of exhaust from the proverbial smoking gun. A major point (one of the major points) of Paul's theology is the adoption of baptized Christians by God, and thus to be spiritual siblings not only of each other, but of God's firstborn son: the Christ. Paul talks about that enough, and he was smart enough, to know that if he were going to single out a literal biological brother of an earthly Jesus, he'd have to elaborate (which, based on his penchant for long-winded elaborations, I have no doubt he'd have done: had he intended to say what you think he did).

Some of his writings refer to the ongoing theological struggle between the original jewish christians and the new gentile ones. And basically as the story goes, Saul had been persecuting the early jewish Christians. His moment of revelation on the road to Damascus, was clearly apropos of this religion because he then began supporting it, albeit in his own form.

Yeah, persecuting. As in a long and hostile opposition. Not a very apt term had Christianity been founded just a couple years prior to his conversion. Also: Paul never mentions the Damascus vision, that's from Acts. His own account of his conversion seems much less interesting: he received a "revelation" of Christ within his eisegesis of the Septuagint.

I suspect this was actually a strategic decison made quite consciously by paul as the persuasive style of his letters indicates. jewish converts had been quite hard to come by once the original disciples/followers of christs life time no longer had christ to follow. and jewish groups had killed most of the original preachers.

Odd, because I don't think the data supports the "Jewish converts were hard to come by" thing. Jewish Christians were clearly an enormous part of 1st Century Christianity, if not the vastly dominate party. Which makes a lot of sense, especially post-Paul: Christianity would surely have been rendered quite attractive to many Jews after the temple was destroyed in 70CE, since it was basically just a spiced-up Jewish sect that not only didn't require the temple, but was based on Jewish esoteric concepts that were very widespread already for several centuries prior.

Judaism is very resistant to change du to its cutural exclusivity and other aspects of its nature.. Paul saw an opportunity in the diverse pantheism of the roman empire and he was correct. The new monotheism of a father figure and personal god appealed to many pagans From paul's time onwards Christianity grew rapidly and spread widely as it adopted Hellenistic features but also took on board cultural aspects of many groups. Slowly other groups such as the early jewish christians and gnostic christians lost ground to the rapidly growing church system created by Paul's teachings it took almost 300 years for these other groups to disappear but they really lost the battle when PAUL hellenised the religion and urged conversion of non jews.

Again weird: Hellenistic ideas could easily have been part of Christianity from the get-go, Paul needn't have introduced them. Also: Paul seems to have been quasi-Gnostic himself. Paul's Christianity seems to have fared no better than the Gnostics or Marcionites, etc.: vestiges of it remained in the eventual Catholicism, but Paul harmonizes much better with Nag Hammadi than the Nicene Creed.

OF course you can make a huge assumption that all of this is some fictional reality constructed later on, but there is no valid historical reason to do that. It is main stream academic history taught in universities around the world.

It isn't precisely an assumption: it's not hard to see the sources that were used. And "fiction" implies deliberate falsehood: mythology is what I think it is (hence mythicism, not fictionalism). And I'm aware that it's mainstream history. Duh. That's not what's being contested. It's whether Jesus is historical or mythological that's up for debate, as we're doing haha

[Jeanne dArc]

I see three main issues with the text.

• The first is the Christians / Chrestians issue. The original text has clearly had the e changed to an I.
  

Indeed, quite problematic. Because it definitely casts doubt on what group was meant.

• The second is Pilate's rank of Procurator, rather than Prefect. You'd think a Roman Historian would be able to nail that one, at least.
  

And it just happens to be a mistake echoed in the gospels, which is a little suspicious. I do grant the possibility that since the rank of Prefect was abolished by Tacitus' time, and replaced with Procurator, he simply used an equivalent term that would be better understood by his audience. But the gospels happening to make the same choice is still odd.

• The third is the mention of abominations. Christians don't seem particularly abominable to me.
  

I suppose it does depend on whether that whole "Romans thought Christians were cannibals" thing was exaggerated or not, haha Because yeah, they don't really seem very abominable, unless somehow you heard that they ate flesh and blood (like the Dionysians, who were also accused of cannibalism and spurned at times).

Let's also throw into the mix Suetonius talking about the Jews being expelled from Rome during the time of Claudius:

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

Chrestus and Chrestians. Both involved in some trouble with Rome. Some coincidence, no?

Let me suggest an alternative version of the Tacitus Quote:

"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 Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, 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".

By just altering four names, the whole thing changes entirely - and bear in mind that there's already solid evidence that at least one of them has been altered.

Who's Porcius Festus, I hear you ask?

He's a Roman Procurator, sent down to Judea, somewhere around 60 - 62 AD, or so. Here's what Josephus says about him:

Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

So - does it have to be Nero and Porcius Festus? No - but at least Porcius was a procurator, and it does all seem to fit.

(With a massive hat-tip to this blog, who put all the same jigsaw pieces together, long before I did.)

Interesting stuff, I hadn't actually considered precisely that correlation. I'd kinda been working on the idea that maybe it should be Claudius and either Fadus or Alexander (keeping in line with Suetonius' dating). That is a very intriguing model though, I'll have to consider that an option

[docyabut2]

Proves nothing either way, so not worth the argument. Just remember, especially for the Christian stuff, that there are all sorts of web sites saying all sorts of things.

The characters names of the Bible that were written in stone are a history of real people, Caiaphas was a real person , tombs,ossuaries what could be more real? Jesus must have been a real person to.

[Tiggs]

And your theory is that these people were never connected with the christ we know of but yet morphed and amalgamated within a few years into others who DID claim allegiance to the same christ we refer to?

Nope. That amalgamation would be your theory.

Read the Josephean text: A religious leader was killed by Festus round about 60 AD.

Are you really trying to claim that's your Christ he killed?

Just what group were the new tax laws of the AD 90s supposed to apply to?

The tax - the Fiscus Judaicus - was specifically for the Jewish people as it was a parody of the upkeep they once paid towards their now-destroyed Temple.

Y'know. That place Christians no longer had any use for.

Also - it was initially imposed by Vespasian, who was only emperor to 79 AD.

[Jeanne dArc]

. i would still ask the deeper question. WHY did it work for him as an individual and as a ruler of a society? What was it that Constantine saw in it, to cause him to replace the pantheism of the past with it ? (not yet totally but beginning to)

For one thing there's the fact that the empire was in considerable decline, and beginning a shift of national religion would allow the state to not only withdraw funding of the lavish Pagan temples, but scrap a lot of them, and channel funds towards the failing infrastructure and economic crisis. For another thing, it's quite conceivable he was simply raised a Christian by his mother, and didn't "come out" until later. Why? Any number of possible reasons: wanting to maintain a certain Roman image; not wanting to publicly associate himself with a cult that was mostly poor people; etc., etc. Who knows? I don't necessarily need to speculate on his motive.

[Jeanne dArc]

The characters names of the Bible that were written in stone are a history of real people, Caiaphas was a real person , tombs,ossuaries what could be more real? Jesus must have been a real person to.

Yeah, Caiaphas was a real person. But one person being real doesn't mean that everyone in a story that uses him as a character must also have been real. Again, Hilter and Hirohito fought Superman: but one of these things is not like the other, haha

[Jeanne dArc]

And your theory is that these people were never connected with the christ we know of but yet morphed and amalgamated within a few years into others who DID claim allegiance to the same christ we refer to?

Not even close

Just what group were the new tax laws of the AD 90s supposed to apply to? Some group which followed someone called chrestus and was a rabble rouser but was NOT the christ we know; Or followers of the same christ we reference.

You mean the amended tax laws under Nerva? They applied to fewer people than the original Fiscus Judaicus Vespasian instituted in the 70s. Where the original law applied to all Judeans and people who merely "lived like Judeans", the amendment of Nerva limited the taxation to practicing orthodox Jews, by which it is likely the Christians escaped taxation because of their alternative religious practices. But if you're suggesting Christians were singled out to be taxed, that's simply historically false. Christians were probably (not definitively) let off the hook from the Fiscus in 97CE, not put on it. And furthermore: Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism officially until the Edict of Milan in February 313CE when it was ratified as a legally distinct religion.

So basically, your point is moot, as your foundational facts are off.

Oh and both groups just coincidentally happened to be a new variety of jewish worshippers.

The Chrestians mentioned by Suetonius, Tacitus, and possibly Josephus are not characterized as a "new variety of Jewish worshippers".

We KNOW sociologically and politically why Christians and also jews were persecuted in rome There were tax issues and romans were suspicious of their desire to worship privately rather than in public. But most telling was their claim of exclusivity.

Roman tradition following the early greek model was for a pantheon of gods assigned to various purposes and roles. Instead of just adding another god which would have been quite acceptable the jews and christians claimed theirs was the only god

The christians in particular upset the emperors because of the doctrine that gods laws were more important than the emperors rules but mainly thety were more of a problem because they were so aggressively proselytising.

Citation?

The exclusivity of the judaic/Christian god was also a direct threat and insult to emperors who seriously considered them selves, and were considered by their citizens, to be divine. Christian and Judaic theology directly challenged this concept but more so Christianity because Christ was seen as the only avatar of god on earth, meaning emperors could not be.

Nero killed a number of very high class roman citizens who implicitly questioned his divinity. He had zero tolerance for a religion which overtly challenged it

While there is some truth here, the same could be said of any religion that did not accept the premise of imperial divinity. The Christians were a very obscure cult in Nero's time, on the order of a slightly preachier Heaven's Gate or something like that. Why would the god-emperor of the world bother getting worked up over a ragtag handful of geographically-scattered unorthodox Jews? I don't recall Victoria getting too terribly upset about fundamentalist terrorists all the way on the other side of her domain, in the Punjab: and they were actually dangerous, the Christians were just kind of annoying. The LDS of the 1st Century.

[Tiggs]

Indeed, quite problematic. Because it definitely casts doubt on what group was meant.

Indeed.

And it just happens to be a mistake echoed in the gospels, which is a little suspicious. I do grant the possibility that since the rank of Prefect was abolished by Tacitus' time, and replaced with Procurator, he simply used an equivalent term that would be better understood by his audience. But the gospels happening to make the same choice is still odd.

Let me get back to you on that one. I think it might not actually be as controversial as I first thought.

I suppose it does depend on whether that whole "Romans thought Christians were cannibals" thing was exaggerated or not, haha Because yeah, they don't really seem very abominable, unless somehow you heard that they ate flesh and blood (like the Dionysians, who were also accused of cannibalism and spurned at times).

Tacitus went on to say "Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race."

Odium generis humani.

Cannibalism? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Interesting stuff, I hadn't actually considered precisely that correlation. I'd kinda been working on the idea that maybe it should be Claudius and either Fadus or Alexander (keeping in line with Suetonius' dating). That is a very intriguing model though, I'll have to consider that an option

May well have been in Claudius' time. He did kick them out, after all, and it certainly sounds as if Chrestus was still alive at that point.

[eight bits]

Jeanne

I wouldn't even say miracles were a major point for Paul.

I was going by 2 Corinthians 12: 12. That sounds to me like "getting your ticket punched." It may not be a major point, but seems like something Paul and his Jerusalem reputed-pillars needed to have done to reach apostolic rank.

I'm not even totally convinced Paul claims to have seen a man risen from the dead: ...

Yes, I understand that you are less willing than I am to concede that point. Even conceding it, though, what PA proposed far exceeds what Paul claimed about the would-have-been testimony of his many, anonymous, untraceable and ever-fewer living "brothers."

and a point arising jointly with you and Tiggs, your

I suppose it does depend on whether that whole "Romans thought Christians were cannibals" thing was exaggerated or not, haha Because yeah, they don't really seem very abominable, unless somehow you heard that they ate flesh and blood (like the Dionysians, who were also accused of cannibalism and spurned at times).

That's what I make of Pliny's reference to "innocent food" in his letter to Trajan. Both knew of the rumor, Pliny has looked into it, and it isn't so, at least not in his jurisdiction.