• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jesus: Truth Or Myth?

Oll_Lewis


on your point 5, from what I have read, there was no such Passover tradition recorded, either among the Romans, or the Jews at this time, or any pother. There is no record at all of this type of practise.

Also, the word Barrabas, was not a name, it was a term, generally for a spiritual leader, not a rabbi, according to the sources I have seen. In Aramiac at the time it would have been applied to someone like John the Baptist who was clearly a holy man though not connected with the Temple.

LD
 
bar joseph bar abbas

Doesn't bar abbas mean son of the father ? Would Jesus Bar Joseph and Bar Abbas mean the same thing? I have read a book about this but can't remember the title......but I see the point
The trial of Jesus would have been illegal wouldn't it, in the middle of the night
I'm no expert and tend to get muddled but also I read somewhere that the Nazarenes were a sect and Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus's day. I tend to think the whole situation was political than we are led to believe......
Barbara
 
Numbers of men

Just a point LD the term used in the Latin versions of the Bible is "cohors" which was translated in the Authorised as "Band". This was an accurate translation for the time when a "band" of armed men would have been about 500 to 1000 men.

The numbers in a "cohors", cohort to us, would have depended on the type of troops: a cavalry cohort would have numbered between 3 and 600; a legionary cohort would have been 540 (80 men to a century, 2 centuries to a maniple, 3 maniples to a cohort) less a few for due to legions being understrength; Auxillia could be refered to as being in cohorts but this was less an indication of numbers than of coherence hence they could number a thousand or more.

A Legion was 10 cohorts plus a century under the command of the primipillus (the senior centurion) although I have seen it put that the primipillus commanded either a maniple or corhort in his own right. Hence the minimum number for a legion was 5480 legionaries, a few cavalry and a lot of auxilliaries.
 
lorddrakul said:
Oll_Lewis


on your point 5, from what I have read, there was no such Passover tradition recorded, either among the Romans, or the Jews at this time, or any pother. There is no record at all of this type of practise.

hmmmm before refuteing the gospels maybe you might try reading them, afterall I would have thought them good sources for an overveiw of the death of jesus. As you may know only one roman historian wrote in great detail about the beginings of the cult of yesua (Joshua or as he is better known by the greek vetion of his name, jesus) his name was Luke. In fact his report was so exhaustive his wrightings form 2 books of the new testament (gospel acording to luke and the acts of the appossles). There are 2 eye-witness accounts that you may be interested in reading these are known as the gospel of mark and the gospel of Jhon. in paticular there are 2 passages in these accounts that refere to this so called "unrecorded" pass over tradition : mark c15v6 and jhon c18v39.

Also, the word Barrabas, was not a name, it was a term, generally for a spiritual leader, not a rabbi, according to the sources I have seen. In Aramiac at the time it would have been applied to someone like John the Baptist who was clearly a holy man though not connected with the Temple.

LD

try reading mark c15v7, Jhon c18v30, luke c23v19. what dose this tell us? why it seams that Jesus barabbas was a well known person who had led a riot in the city and killed a few folk could you mean spiritual leader in the same sense that charles manson was? the Zelots or patriots (thay had started a riot in jurusalem a few months previosly against the romans) were a jewish sect oposed to roman ocupation not nesasarraly linked personaly to the temple.

It is important to remember that the gospels are a good sourse of historical information and not to dismiss them to the point of never reading them just because they are biest towards the christians. Most historical documents are biest towards or against someone.
 
Oll - ALL historical documents are biased but you're right and to be frank there are worse things to read than the Bible.
 
Oll_Lewis,

a couple of points, first of all, the bible is not the sole source for the beginings of christianity. And not even the best place to look to establish the veracity of an account of a Roman practise in response to a Jewish feast. So the fact that there is no record either from Jewish tradition or Roman records to verify the Passover tradition of releasing a prisoner to me seem to point to there being no tradition at all, it smacks of a device used by early church fathers or gospel writers to tie up loose ends in their account.

We cannot say that the bible account is irrefutable on its own as first of all, most of the gospels werew written in Greek or Aramiac some 30-60 years after Yeshua's death and went through many revisions and adjustments, not to mention tranlastions, between then and the King James version with which most people are familiar. So, I would say that unless corroborative evidence of this practise is found outside of the bible, then it must be viewed as highly suspect, if not downright false.

LD
 
lorddrakul said:
OK,

The council of Nicea was conveined to put this to rest once and for all, in 325CE. This threw out certain things, like the Gospel of Thomas, and included what we know today as the catholic bible

LD

lorddrakul said:
OK,
from memory, will have to look up some references :)


The council of Nicea was conveined to put this to rest once and for all, in 325CE. This threw out certain things, like the Gospel of Thomas, and included what we know today as the catholic bible.

LD

I think that the Gospel of Thomas was unknown to the Council of Nicea.

On the matter of historical accuracy in the Gospels, there's some accuracy, no doubt, but the Gospel of John is highly suspect: it's the last written of the Gospels and is intended to show the Jews in the worst possible light, which it succeeds in doing. (I could do without the Gospel of John.)

I suppose that if you believe that the death of Jesus causes God to ignore any nastiness you might have been up to, then the historical proof of Jesus' existence is very important to you.

However, belief that the death of Jesus is atonement implies that God requires literal human sacrifice. That religion is not a religion I could be interested in.

Whether Jesus is part-myth, wholly factual, or completely a product of literary invention, I don't care. The ideal of Christ has come alive, somehow. The two great commandments have left Jewish belief and been presented to the world. (In case you've forgotten: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.")

The message of the Gospel isn't about human sacrifice--it is about growing up. Newly-born humans are completely self-centered. As they mature, children learn that there is more to the world than themselves. If they're raised in a law-laden system of spirituality, once they've learned all the laws, they are considered grown up. Christ's gift is pointing out that knowing all the laws is just another stage of growth. Beyond such knowledge, humans are meant to, and are able to, become compassionate beings.

All the best to all of you.


(Hope I didn't offend.)
 
lorddrakul said:
So, I would say that unless corroborative evidence of this practise is found outside of the bible, then it must be viewed as highly suspect, if not downright false.

marks gopel is paticuly interesting in that it was writen within liveing memory of the events ocoring.
The vertion of the bible I use is the Good news bible which I think you'll find was directly translated from the earliest known manuscripts of the origonal language it was origonaly writen in (greek), this makes it a relibale account as is possible to get.
One could note that there are many events that have only been recorded in Roman accounts. for example one of these was the concouring of britain, just because it only featured in roman accounts dose this meen we can assume that the Romans never concoured britain and any other evidence of roman life was just eary britains coppying the roman way of doing things because it was trendy? of course not ! but following your logic the roman account of the settlement of britain is false because there is only Roman sourses to go on.
God forbid you might have to read a bible to find out something that was mentioned by the Roman historian and eary christian Luke you might catch some desese from it or something. :rolleyes:

Seriouly religious books are nothing to be afraid of they don't bite and you are perfectly entitled to read one even if you don't agree with their message. I've read books writen about faiths other than my own and I've never been struck by lightning or burst into flames. it just gives you a better understanding of other peoples veiw points. After all you wouldn't study the history of islam without reading the koran at some, point would you?
 
Oll_Lewis,

I agree completely!!!

One source, when the author's motives are less than clear, is no reason to accept an account as truth.

As you rightly point tou, the conquests of britain can hardly be expected to be an accurate account of resistance of the indigenous population. However, in accounts of topography and flora and fauna, it is almost entirely accurate. So, the conclusion is, and I beleive that this applies to the bible too, that if the author is dealing with something that is clearly serving their purpose, their account alone cannot be held to be, if you'll pardon the pun, gospel. If they dealing with incidentals, then they are often entirely accurate.

So, as the gospel writers were keen to place Jesus in as good a light as possible, and the Romans too, then the accounts of Pilate, the Passover practise and any number of other details relating the minitsry, arrest and death of Jesus, must be held to be suspect, unless corroborated by other sources.

Let me give an example. When Jesus was at the wedding at Caana, he was asked by his mother to produce wine for the feast, which he duly did, out of water (neat trick). However, in the context of the time, only one person was supposed to have the responsibility or producing the wine for a bridal feast, namely the groom. Why was this extra detail lost? If Jesus was the groom why not mention it. If he was not, why was he asked or even allowed to produce the wine? My source on this is the book by Baigent and Leigh et al, The Messianic Legacy, though I think I saw it somewhere else as well.

Anyway, coming back to my original point, when the author's motives are suspect, corroborative evidence is required before the account can be taken being close to the truth.

LD
 
Holy Rollin'

Here's a piece about the possibility of Christ and his disciples using cannabis and it's derivatives.

The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

I shall refrain from comment.
 
Can I join in?

I do so agree with what Elisheva says - i.e that

(a) Belief in atonement for sin automatically makes for a primitive, savage concept of God ~ not at all what I could believe in.
(I believe in a sort of "Pool of Power" - possibly a supreme impartial force, like electricity.To be accessed and used for Good or Evil depending on the "accessor`s" motivation .)

and
(b) it`s almost as if the BELIEF in Jesus as compassionate Christ "Saviour, Master, Friend" has created a reality that doesn`t equate with the nebulous "historical Jesus". I`ve wondered lately if the beliefs of "the faithful" haven`t in fact created some sort of (supremely good) living Thought Form.

If you DO get round to reading the gospels, Jesus does come over to me as a real person with his own personality, preaching against hypocrisy etc.

By the way, Dennis Potter`s play "Son of Man" is worth a read.("Is it me? Is it? Is it?")

MsT
 
p.younger said:
If you haven't been hit by a thunderbolt by this time tomorrow, I guess you could be right.:eek!!!!:

Gee, wasn't that the point? God (formerly known as "The God of Retribution") got tired of smiting folks left and right and decided to try the patience and forgiveness route. This new modus operandi was aided by the fact that 100% of the sins of believers were henceforth taken on by Jesus, allowing an individual to interface with God unimpeded by their own guilt or God's wrath.

I think the "Jesus as a con artist" theory falls down when you get to the arrest & crucifixion. Surely a joker would have said "Whaddya mean, 'turn him over to the Romans'? Those guys'll crucify me. Really crucify me. Okay, hold on, it was all a joke, see? I hired these guys to pretend that they were lame, or blind... Look, ask Peter. Pete, tell these Sanhedrin guys. Look, it was all a scam to get free food and foot-washing!"

I don't think so.
 
lorddrakul said:
Oll_Lewis,

I agree completely!!!

One source, when the author's motives are less than clear, is no reason to accept an account as truth.

that is why 4 colaborating sources are better you see:D
 
this from the Guardian paper

Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally drenched in this potent mixture... Although most modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin".

Quoting the New Testament, Mr Bennett argues that Jesus anointed his disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the same with other followers. This could have been responsible for healing eye and skin diseases referred to in the Gospels.

"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil... and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.

:eek!!!!: :smokin:
 
I think the "Jesus as a con artist" theory falls down when you get to the arrest & crucifixion. Surely a joker would have said "Whaddya mean, 'turn him over to the Romans'? Those guys'll crucify me. Really crucify me. Okay, hold on, it was all a joke, see? I hired these guys to pretend that they were lame, or blind... Look, ask Peter. Pete, tell these Sanhedrin guys. Look, it was all a scam to get free food and foot-washing!"

Yes but for all we REALLY know about it that could be exactly what happened
 
Well all we REALLY know can only be based on historical evidence. The stories with the best historical evidence are most likely to be true, the ones with the least convincing are more likely to be untrue...
 
reply to lordrakul

Here are the canons which sum up the outcome of all discussed at the Council of Nicea:

Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

which, in addition to the creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

sums up all decided on by that council.

The canon of Christian writings was neither discussed nor edited at NIcea. Moreover, earlier canon lists and manuscripts show that the Bible in use before the Council was really the same one in use after it. The great Nicean censorship we keep hearing about never happened. The story is a hoax.
 
Oll_Lewis said:
marks gopel is paticuly interesting in that it was writen within liveing memory of the events ocoring.
The vertion of the bible I use is the Good news bible which I think you'll find was directly translated from the earliest known manuscripts of the origonal language it was origonaly writen in (greek), this makes it a relibale account as is possible to get.

However... The text of Mark reveals that whoever Mark was, he doesn't appear to have been familiar with Jewish law as relating to divorce (as anyone living in Judea at the time would be); he places words in (Galilean) Peter's mouth which cannot be quotes as they reveal a complete ignorance of the geography of Galilea ; he makes no mention of the nativity; he conflates the prophecies of Malachi and Isaiah; and he provides only a terse resurrection narrative. Admittedly, none of this negates Mark, but it does tend to undermine our perception of him as an 'accurate witness'.

Also, while it is true that Mark is widely believed to be the earliest Gospel, there is a certain amount of dissent, with a large minority of Biblical scholars favouring Matthew as the earlier work and seeing Mark as a sort of 'abbreviated copy (with errors)'.
 
I'm interested in hearing more about this Zygon. There's a great deal of info here, but the geographical stuff interests me most. Where can I find these inaccuracies in Mark?
 
Mk. 7:31 has Jesus returning from the region of Tyre to Galilee via Sidon and the region of the Decapolis. Sidon is north of Tyre, and Galilee is south of Tyre, while the Decapolis was south-east of Galilee. Which means that Jesus went north instead of straight south, then looped round to the south-east to enter Galilee. An odd sort of route. Especially given that the archeological evidence indicates that there was no road from Sidon to Galilee at the time, although there was one from Tyre.
 
Thanks, Hospitaller, about Nicea and the Bible; my sources were tainted. But ...

How did the Bible assume it's present form given the mass of writings apparently excluded?
 
Hospitaller,

it would appear as if you were absolutely correct, and corrected I stand.

The Canonical books of scripture were not determined at the council of Nicea in 325 AD, they were infact determined in the Africa Synod, the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), with Aurelius on the Imperial throne.
Source: The Catholic Encyclopaedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm

I have to admit at being somehwat gobsmacked at this, as the source I read has always turned out to be quite good. I shall have to go back and see whether I misunderstood or the author's simply got it wrong.

Thanks for the heads up.

LD
 
reply to zygon

Mk. 7:31 has Jesus returning from the region of Tyre to Galilee via Sidon and the region of the Decapolis. Sidon is north of Tyre, and Galilee is south of Tyre, while the Decapolis was south-east of Galilee. Which means that Jesus went north instead of straight south, then looped round to the south-east to enter Galilee. An odd sort of route. Especially given that the archeological evidence indicates that there was no road from Sidon to Galilee at the time, although there was one from Tyre.
saith Zygon.

So they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. "An odd sort of route", granted, but they were an odd bunch by all accounts.

Also Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos.

As for the lack of archaeological evidence for a road from Sidon to Galilee, is this for want of looking? Have any excavations been carried out to determine this or not?
Over on the "Romans in Ireland" thread, Wowbagger (an archaeology student at Queen's University, Belfast) tells us that

that all that exists in the way of artifacts from Caesars invasion of England are some horse bits

Do you therefore contend that it did not occur? Surely we should have more substantial evidence than this? Well, we have Casesar's writings, but historical textual criticism yields much greater evidence for the writings of "Mark" than for those of "Caesar".
 
Lorddrakul - I too have read and enjoyed the Messianic Legacy, and found much of it convincing. Having studied the DSS at Uni under one of the original team of translators, much of what is revealed about the tactics and motives of the Catholic contingency ring true. However one mustn't put too much faith (ahem) in their arguments concerning jewish rites and rituals, as they have neither personal background education in this field, nor reliable 'experts' to inform them.

However after some personal research it does seem that the Wedding of Canaan story is most likely to be his own, and that the most likely candidate for his wife would be Mary Magdalen, as a) she was the only female desciple named, b) it appears she may well have written her own account of Jesus' life c) she is mentioned in Thomas as having recieved secret teachings, being favoured over James Peter etc d) Jesus appeared to her and His mother, yet not any of his male disciples til later.

Perhaps this doesn't add up to a whole hill o' beans, but it certainly has a ring of truth about it. It also adds weight to a historical jesus, as Rabbis are expected to marry and procreate just as any other member of Jewish society. In fact it would have been so remarkable for him not to have been married one would have expected this to be mentioned in the Gospels directly, as such unusual behaviour would have been considered of great importance in retrospect.

The fact that the wedding is not reported as Jesus' own smacks of 'cover up', and I favour the thepry tat Paul's misogynism (and potential jealousy of the passing on of jesus' secret teachings to her and not to him) lead him to excise mention of her from his later writings and for later anti-women sentiment to have been encouraged by chuch 'fathers'.

It's interesting to imagine how world history and the Catholic church itself would have developed differently if the magdalen had become the driving force behind the propagation of Christ's message instead of Paul: female popes, no witch trials, no laws of chastity (?), no conquistadors...

Perhaps this is all conjecture however - perhaps when we finally get to see the full DSS translated, (as to this date a large proportion still haven't been released) we may find out what really went on in Jerusalem all tha time ago.
 
Lord_Flashheart said:
that is why 4 colaborating sources are better you see:D
An interesting Freudian slip there. If they were collaborating, then they are writing to support each other's position, and can be discounted en masse, by your own argument. :D

I think you meant 'corroborating'.

That being the case, even a cursory examination of the extant texts of the gospels indicates that Mark and Matthew are copies of the same underlying text, if Matthew isn’t a direct paraphrasing of Mark, which means we have three corroborating sources, not four.

I would favour Mark as the more accurate source, since it is closer to the time of the events, and has a more ‘initiatory’ tone than Mark. Even allowing for these points, as pointed out by another contributor, there are some inaccuracies which would have been known to an eye-witness or someone familiar with rabbinic law.
 
hospitaller said:
So they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. "An odd sort of route", granted, but they were an odd bunch by all accounts.

Also Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis.

:blush: Damascus is north-west of Tyre, and almost south-west of Sidon: if it was a city of the Decapolis, then I've gotten confused over the direction the Decapolis lay from Sidon. The source I drew on failed to make it clear that Galilea lies to the south of the Decapolis (no map), and gave me the mistaken impression that the route was actually much further south, towards Bethel and Jericho, and then up towards Galilee. (Which I doubt you'd disagree would have been a very odd sort of route!)

On the other hand, was there only one 'Decapolis'? Any region with 10 reasonably-sized cities in it might well have been so described: the Decapolis of Judea vs. the Decapolis of Syria, for example. The word only means "10 cities", after all. :hmm:


As for the lack of archaeological evidence for a road from Sidon to Galilee, is this for want of looking? Have any excavations been carried out to determine this or not?


So far as I'm given to understand it, there is more archeology going on in Israel than anywhere else on Earth, even allowing for the restrictions that the troubles over there impose on matters. However, I'm also led to believe that a certain amount of what is being done isn't of the highest quality (even to the extent of results being bought and paid for by Literalists -of various Abrahamic faiths and churches- before shovel ever bites dirt), and that what is of the highest quality is being censored by the Israeli govt. (on the grounds that any findings that run counter to what's written in the Bible might be seen to de-legitimize the existence of the modern Israeli state in a time of "national crisis"). It's a matter of some concern to Israeli archeologists, or so I've read.
 
OK Hospitaller, I do see your point. But now we've got a bump in the road:

Who else would you tout as an early Christian writer that can be taken outside of the context of spreading early Xtian dogma? As far as i understand it Tacitus is one of the few that mentions Christians as a concept, never mind Jesus the Christ. Don't forget that Christ was used as an honorific back then pretty much like "Mr." is used these days. He may have been speaking about the Christian cult we know today, but back then all kinds of cults were springing up, the Essaeans, nazareans, The Elect etc, who would all come under this "christian" umbrella. I read somewhere that worshippers of a Snake-god came under the mantle of christian - makes you think...

So, leaving aside Tacitus we have Josephus. OK: A man who wrote 20 books of history and insight into the Jewish people during the 1st century of the Christian order. he dedicated whole pages to footpads and petty thieves, his chronicle of Herod extended to 40 chapters. And for Jesus we get about a dozen lines praising this "Man who should not be called so", heaping very un-Josephus like hyperbole on his works and miracles. The brevity of the description is the greatest pointer to its dissemblous nature.

Who else were you thinking of??
 
Who else would you tout as an early Christian writer that can be taken outside of the context of spreading early Xtian dogma?

Why would anyone want to write specifically about Christ in the first place apart from spreading Christian belief or denouncing it?

Tacitus mentions Jesus (real name Yeshua, but that's another day's discussion!) in passing and Latinises (is that a real word?) Christ to Christus. His mention:

"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"

fairly well fits in with the description of Jesus, whilst his mention that Nero "falsely charged with the guilt [of burning Rome], and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities", leaves us in no doubt about who is being referred to here, so we cannot leave aside Tacitus.

"The Elect" actually were the Christians - Christians being a derogatory term, and "the elect" being what they called themselves.
Regarding snake-worship, as Tacitus says, Christians were accused of all manner of bizarre and gross forms of worship by the Romans, from worshipping an ass (as were the Jews) to cannibalism.

Josephus' Antiquities mentions Jesus twice: a short reference and a longer one.
One reference (Antiquities 20.9.1) is in his account of the execution of Jesus' brother James, where he is identified as "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James".
The other (Antiquities 18.3.3) is as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Obviously this passage is not entirely genuine as here Josephus categorically calls Jesus "the Christ", whereas in the above cited passage he is "the so-called Christ".
However, scholars hold that some of the passage is genuine as it is in the style of Jospehus. "Now about this time..." being a favourite opener of his. What of the rest of it is genuine? Well if we remove all the references to Jesus as the Christ or as Divine we are left with a neutral description (as we have in elsewhere in Josephus of John the Baptist). We could go through it word by word with reference to the original Greek if you wish...
Some say that the passage must be entirely interpolated as it's not in the context of the surrounding passages. Readers of Josephus, however, and scholars, know Josephus to have been a patchy writer at best. One scholar described him as a writer of "inveterate sloppiness." His work is littered with seemingly out-of-context passages.
So what does Josephus tell us about Jesus?
Well firstly that he had a brother called James, who was an important Christian leader; that Jesus was virtuous and wise; that he had a following amongst Gentiles and Jews; that some saw him as the "Christ"; that he did surprising deeds (he doesn't specify that they were miracles); that he was crucified under Pilate, partly at the prompting of Jewish leaders; that his followers were called "Christians" after him (confirming Tacitus' terminology).
Other non-Christian writers making reference to Jesus or events surrounding his life are not as reliable as Tacitus and Josephus. These include Thallus, Pliny, Lucian, Suetonius, the Mara Bar-Serapion letter. And of course let's not forget the Talmud, the detraction of Jesus in which yields the name for thrash metallers "Pantera"!
 
This may seem like a subtle difference - but it cannot be ignored.

Tacitius mentions Christ - i.e. The Messiah - he does not mention Jesus.

What Tacitus manages to do is give backing to the existence of a Christian religion - which is basically a religion based around the coming of The Christ.

Judaea around the turn of BC/AD was littered with prophets claiming to be The Christ - who is to say that this specifically refers to Jesus?

I am playing Devils' Advocate slightly here - but the link to Jesus is perhaps more tenous than it at first appears (which, based on your previously displayed knowledge of this era of history, I suspect you are already aware of).
 
Why would anyone want to write specifically about Christ in the first place apart from spreading Christian belief or denouncing it?

Why not? Many of the scholars of the time passed mention about numerous events and penomena (more on those phenomena later) without endorsing or denouncing the evnts. They considered themselves "observers" in the truest sense of the word...

"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"

fairly well fits in with the description of Jesus, whilst his mention that Nero "falsely charged with the guilt [of burning Rome], and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities", leaves us in no doubt about who is being referred to here, so we cannot leave aside Tacitus.


There is much debate in some circles as to whether any of this passage can be seen as the true account. Indeed, as I mentioned previously, some scholars do not attribute this passage to Tacitus at all. There are many reasons for this, but I’ll do my best to cover a few:

The crucifixion of Jesus would have been a non-event for the Imperial Senate. A carpenter from Galilee being executed would have been swamped under the tide of capital punishment the Roman Empire carried out all through its course. That Tacitus located this passage (supposedly sent to Rome in the Acta Pilati - Acts of Pilate), and that it had even been included in the senatorial documents of the time if anything weakens the argument.

Further, Tacitus’ description of what Nero inflicted upon the Christians is by no means accepted wisdom. Nero was hated by the early(ish) Christians, indeed some argue the book of revelations “Great Beast”, whose number is 666 is actually referring to Nero. Something to do with the numerology of his name when passed through some early Christian Cypher. Don’t think it follows the Jewish system of Quabbalistic Aleph Bet numerology, however.

The second question is why would Nero have reserved such vehemence for a particular religious sect. Suetonius states more than once in his “De Vita Caesarum” (lives of the 12 Caesars) that Nero held all religious groups in the utmost contempt. That the Christians were persecuted at all was because of their indifference and lack of allegiance to the Roman state and Emperor. Further, it is postulated that at the time, the Christians would have been seen as one of the many Jewish sects, all but indistinguishable by Rome from the multitude of other sects in existence and dealt with in the same brutal way.

Tacitus’ report of the burnings of Christians in Nero’s gardens for his edification and delight again does not tally with our understanding of Roman custom at that time, to whit: Death by fire was in opposition to the received wisdom of Roman punishment in the time of Nero, namely moderate principles by which the accused were tried by the state. For capital crimes, Crucifixion was the preferred method of the day.

Then we’re on to the mechanics of whether this one account was penned by Tacitus’ hand. Tacitus’ unusual style and construction have been held up as one of the reasons that the account must be genuine. It would be equally valid to state that the more idiosyncratic the script, so the easier it is for a master forger (and that’s what we’d be dealing with – a graphologist of the utmost skill), to replicate and re-write.
Tertullius makes no mention of this passage in all his many treatise on Christianity / Christians, surely if this passage existed at the time he would have seized upon it “like a man drowning”. The same applies to Eusebius, he does not use this text, when his avowed mission was to collate and codify all of the information that existed about the zygotic Christian church of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.
Likewise Clement of Alexandria, again setting himself the task of collating as much information concerning Christianity as he was able - not so much as a mention of this Tacitean passage...

Finally we have the knowledge that Tacitus’ works were originally translated from the Greek by one man, Johannes de Spire at the end of the 15th century. To this day I am not aware of any re-translations using the original script (IIRC it has been “destroyed” somehow – gratefully accept info to the contrary tho).

I'll come onto Josephus later today, sorry i'm doing this at work and bloody clients keep interrupting my train of thought.
Fascinating discussion though...
 
Back
Top