Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote:Well now, Tertullian says the name 'Christians' was already in use during the reign of Augustus....... ;)
The english translation might be 'Christians', but what was the original? - Was it 'Chrestian/os'?

To what extent is all or any of Tertulian's writings considered authentic?
I have no Greek - so open to anyone that wants to check the Greek word that has been translated as 'christians' in Tertullian or Melito of Sardis.

However, as things stand right now.....both writers maintain there were christians in the time of Augustus.

What support would they have for their statements? Slavonic Josephus and it's story about an anointed figure born around the 15th year of Herod I (either 25 or 22 b.c.e. - Augustus ruling from 27 b.c.e. to 14 c.e.)Such a figure would be much older at crucifixion than the gLuke story. gJohn would be a better fit with its Jesus figure not yet 50 years old - add in that Acts of Pilate crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius - and the above statements from Tertullian and Melito of Sardis can't easily be negated.

Thus, Christians doing their thing long before the NT places it's Paul figure.......
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

Post by pakeha »

Blesséd be the data-sharers, for lo, their cup shall overflow when they visit Madrid.

Kapyong wrote:Gday,
pakeha wrote: A request for Kapyong!
Could you post up the section on Tacitus from OHJ, please?
Here you go :)


Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

"We can see Josephus is a wash. That leaves only two other authors who wrote before 120 CE that actually mention Jesus (or at least, Christ): Pliny the Younger and Tacitus.97 These authors are particularly significant because they were not only contemporaries but best friends, who frequently cor­responded and exchanged information for writing their histories, and were governing adjacent provinces at the very time Pliny first discovered what Christians preached.98 Pliny tells us that he had no idea what Christians were or believed until he interrogated some of them and discovered it was some sort of base superstition involving the worship of a certain 'Christ' who was something like a God (quasi deo) but he gives no further details about him (not even the name 'Jesus'), and says nothing pertinent to estab­lishing historicity.99

"At best, we might assume these Christians repeated to Pliny mate­rial from the Gospels (at least some of those had been in circulation by then), but as such this is not independent evidence and therefore useless. Pliny's procedure involved no independent fact-checking, and from his behavior and attitude, we can conclude his effort would have been typi­cal, and thus Tacitus is unlikely to have done any better. Pliny had been governor of Bithynia (now northern Turkey) for over a year already before even learning there were any Christians in his province, and before that he held the post of consul (the highest possible office in the entire Roman Empire, short of actually being emperor). He had also been a lawyer in Roman courts for several decades, then served in Rome as praetor (the ancient equivalent of both chief of police and attorney general), and then served as one of Trajan's top legal advisors for several years before he was appointed to govern Bithynia. And yet, he tells us. he had never attended a trial of Christians and knew nothing of what they believed or what crimes they were guilty of. This confirms that his father, Pliny the Elder, never discussed Christians in his account of the Neronian fire—despite having been an eyewitness to those events and devoting an entire volume to that year (though his account is now lost). For if he had, his devoted admirer, nephew and adopted son Pliny the Younger Would surely have read it and thus would not have known 'nothing' about Christians as he reports in his letter to Trajan.

"We can therefore assume Tacitus would have been no better or otherwise informed when he wrote that Nero scapegoated the Christians for burning down the heart of Rome in 64 CE. The present text of Tacitus reads:
Nero found culprits and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those hated for their abominations, whom the people called Chrestians [sic], Christ, the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius, and the most mischievous superstition, cheeked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea. the source of this evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous or shameful flow in from every part of the world and become popular.

Accordingly, arrests were first made of those who confessed; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city as because of the hatred of man­kind. Mockery of every sort was added to their death. . . . [Tacitus here describes their torments] Hence, even for criminals who deserved the most extreme punishments, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it no longer appeared that they were being destroyed for the public good, but rather to glut the cruelty of one man.
"They key line here is 'Christ, the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius'. This is the first-ever reference to a historical Jesus outside the NT, dating to around 116 ce (very near our cut-off date for usable evidence).100

"If the passage is authentic. I elsewhere demonstrate (following the argu­ments of scholars before me who have argued the same) that this line is probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, but followers of the Jew­ish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius (as reported by Suetonius: see §11). The line about Christ being executed by Pilate was added sometime after the mid-fourth century. Before then, no one, Chris­tian or non-Christian, ever heard of this persecution event under Nero, or of any reference to Christians in Tacitus; this event is not mentioned even when second-century Christians told stories of Nero persecuting Christians!101 However, we need not rely on that conclusion for the present analysis, and to demonstrate that I will simply assume for the sake of argu­ment that this passage is entirely authentic as received.

"If we instead assume the passage has not been tampered with, then where would Tacitus have learned of this? Not likely from government records. His report contains no distinctive information that one would expect from such a source, and Tacitus would not have wasted countless hours of his life hunting through obscure archives just to verify a single embarrassing anecdote the Christians themselves were already admitting to. Moreover, it is very unlikely any such records would have survived in Rome for Tacitus to consult, the capitol's libraries having burned to the ground at least twice in the interim, once under Nero, and again under Titus.102

"It's also unlikely Tacitus learned of this from earlier historians of Nero (such as Pliny the Elder, as discussed in §3), since had they written about Christians we would probably know of this, from their histories having been preserved (precisely because they mentioned Christ) or quoted (by Christians or their critics). Likewise, that Christians appear to have had no knowledge of the Neronian persecution having any connection whatever with the burning of Rome further entails no earlier historian is likely to have made such a connection either (as otherwise such pervasive ignorance even by the Christians themselves is nearly inexplicable). If Tacitus really made such a connection, he was apparently the first, and possibly by mis­take (conflating some other persecution of Christians, or even a Christian legend about a persecution that never really happened, with the burning of Rome; for as we shall see, Suetonius had no knowledge of such a connec­tion, either).

"But we know Tacitus asked Pliny for information to include in his histor­ical books. Thus the fact that Pliny discovered what Christians preached in 110 CE, right when Tacitus was governing an adjoining province and writ­ing his histories, and just a few years before Tacitus completed his Annals before 117 CE, suggests the most likely chain of information was Chris­tians telling Pliny about the Gospels, then Pliny telling Tacitus, and Tacitus then reporting (what would be to him) the most embarrassing details in his Annals. That would explain why his information matches what was already reported in the Gospels by that time and gives no further detail. At the very least, this cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, we cannot verify that the information in Tacitus comes from any source independent of the Gospels. And non-independent evidence carries zero weight.

"So either Tacitus never mentioned Christ or his mention of Christ cannot be shown to be independent testimony. Either way, his information has no effect on the probability of myth or historicity. And neither does the infor­mation recorded by Pliny.

"Indeed, even if we blow past all probability and imagine that some­how Tacitus is paraphrasing or adapting a story from an earlier historian of Nero, Christians could already have been preaching the exoteric myth (some form of proto-Mark, for example) in 64, as an allegory (an extended parable) whose real meaning (it's esoteric meaning, that of a cosmic event) would be explained only to initiates (see Elements 13 and 14). Thus even a mention of Christ being crucified by Pilate at that date, if such a detail was only learned from Christians, would not strongly confirm historicity. And even if Christians hadn't yet gelled this exoteric myth by then, their claims that Jesus was celestially crucified by the 'rulers of this world' during the reign of Pilate could easily be misunderstood by a half-interested Roman audience as crucified by Pilate. Thus, even the 'cosmic crucifixion' of mini­mal mythicism could so easily be misreported in a historicist fashion that our inability to rule that possibility out further complicates third-hand evi­dence such as this.

"And that only compounds the fact that, as I've shown, Tacitus almost certainly had no such Neronian-era source, was most likely just report­ing information relayed to him from Pliny (who in turn learned it from second-century Christian informants), or taking his information directly from Christians himself. If he originally even mentioned Christians at all. This passage therefore has zero effect on the probability of either history or myth.


Notes :

" 97. Pliny. Letters 10.96: and Tacitus. Annals 15.44. See. e.g.. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 23-29 and 39-53: Theissen and Merz. Historical Jesus. pp. 79-83: and R.T. France. The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove. IL: InterVarsity Press. 1986). pp. 2I-23 and 42-43: Howard Clark Kee. Jesus in History: An approach to the Study of the Gospels (New York: Harcourt Brace .lovanovich. 2nd edn. 1970). pp. 45-47: and also Bradley Peper and Mark DelCogliano. 'The Pliny and Trajan Correspondence', in The Historical Jesus in Context (ed. Levine. Allison and Crossan). pp. 366-71. For extensive critical discussion see also Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man. pp. 587-630 and 637-42.

98. On their being best friends, see evidence summarized in Richard Carrier. Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013 (Amherst. NY: Prometheus. 2014). p. 372 n. 6.

99. For my complete analysis of this passage see Carrier. Not the Impossible Faith. pp. 418-22: see also Knight. Disciples of the Beloved One. pp. 34-36 and 209-12. Note that Pliny's hesitant phrase "as if to a God' (quasi deo) could reflect his response to the exoteric myth (if his Christian informants were simply repeating the Gospels to him. in which Jesus is allegorically presented as a historical man) or the esoteric one (Jesus then being confusingly explained to him as a celestial archangel or demigod whom they pray to. but not exactly equal to "God"). It could also be a textual corruption, as there is some external evidence that Pliny may have originally written Christo et Deo. "to Christ and God", or Christo ut Deo. "to Christ as God". See Doherty. Jesus: Neither God nor Man. p. 640.

100. On dating the text: in Tacitus, Annals 2.61 and 4.4-5. references are made to Trajan's annexation of Parthian territories in 116 CE but not their loss a year or two later.

101. See Richard Carrier. 'The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus. Annals 15.44', Vigiliae christianae 68 (2014), pp. 1-20.

102. The fire of 64 CE is of course being recorded by Tacitus himself (and Cassius Dio. Roman History 62.16-18; also Pliny the Elder. Natural History 17.1.5, who was living in Rome at the time): the fire of 80 CE is reported in Suetonius, Titus 8.3 (and Domitian was tasked with rebuilding the libraries: Suetonius. Domitian 20). Officially published records that we know Tacitus relied upon, like the acts of the Senate, would have survived in libraries elsewhere in the empire, but those would not mention an obscure execution in Judea. However, we must dismiss the argument that Tacitus can't have been citing government records because he gets the office of Pilate wrong, mis-identifying him as a procurator when in fact he was a prefect, because Pilate was both a procurator and a prefect (as most equestrian governors were), and Tacitus had particular rhetorical reasons to prefer mentioning the procuratorial office in a passage like this (it was more embarrassing, and more appalling, to be executed by a mere business manager). See Carrier, Hitler Homer Bible Christ, pp. 103-40. "
User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

Post by pakeha »

The Crow wrote:
Kapyong wrote:Gday,
pakeha wrote: A request for Kapyong!
Could you post up the section on Tacitus from OHJ, please?
Here you go :)[ . . . ]
Well now theres a piece I can agree with him on.....Kap your making it hard for me not to order this book man.
We're on the same page, The Crow. This is looking more and more like a must-have book.
When will it be on Kindle?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier on Pliny and Tacitus

Post by maryhelena »

pakeha wrote: <snip>

We're on the same page, The Crow. This is looking more and more like a must-have book.
When will it be on Kindle?

I’ll announce ebook and audio editions as they come, but expect that to be many months from now. I am negotiating deals for both. But with that and production, I hope to have the ebook edition out by the end of this year, and the audiobook by then or early next year.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5782

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote: However, as things stand right now.....both writers maintain there were christians in the time of Augustus.

What support would they have for their statements? Slavonic Josephus and it's story about an anointed figure born around the 15th year of Herod I (either 25 or 22 b.c.e. - Augustus ruling from 27 b.c.e. to 14 c.e.) Such a figure would be much older at crucifixion than the gLuke story. gJohn would be a better fit with its Jesus figure not yet 50 years old - add in that Acts of Pilate crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius - and the above statements from Tertullian and Melito of Sardis can't easily be negated.

Thus, Christians doing their thing long before the NT places it's Paul figure .....
I think it is highly likely 'Christians' were 'doing-their-thing' before the current proposed time frame ie. P > 0.5

If so, as "Chrestianos" ?

I think if they were, as supported by your dates, that would support the Doherty-Carrier primary mythical celestial-god theory.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote: However, as things stand right now.....both writers maintain there were christians in the time of Augustus.

What support would they have for their statements? Slavonic Josephus and it's story about an anointed figure born around the 15th year of Herod I (either 25 or 22 b.c.e. - Augustus ruling from 27 b.c.e. to 14 c.e.) Such a figure would be much older at crucifixion than the gLuke story. gJohn would be a better fit with its Jesus figure not yet 50 years old - add in that Acts of Pilate crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius - and the above statements from Tertullian and Melito of Sardis can't easily be negated.

Thus, Christians doing their thing long before the NT places it's Paul figure .....
I think it is highly likely 'Christians' were 'doing-their-thing' before the current proposed time frame ie. P > 0.5

If so, as "Chrestianos" ?

I think if they were, as supported by your dates, that would support the Doherty-Carrier primary mythical celestial-god theory.
There is no logical jump from the gospel figure of Jesus being a literary creation, a mythological or symbolic figure, to that figure being a historicizing of a Pauline celestial god. There are other options - such as Carrier mentions but seeks to rule out - political fiction. ie. that the gospel literary creation had a historical, a political, relevance for it's creators. Theology does not cancel out a historical, a political, component to the gospel Jesus figure. Theology might well be, for some people, the icing on the cake.........but the cake must first be baked....Historical realities must first be identified and accounted for within the literary Jesus figure.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote: .
There is no logical jump from the gospel figure of Jesus being a literary creation, a mythological or symbolic figure, to that figure being a historicizing of a Pauline celestial god.
  • <snip>
Historical realities must first be identified and accounted for within the literary Jesus figure.
I agree.

I think there was, at one stage (say, 120BCE to 250AD/CE), lots of sects each worshiping their own celestial god. I think the sect that eventually came up with the gospel-Jesus narratives was different to the sect that came up the Pauline narratives. I think these initially-separate narratives were redacted & combined to give the NT.

The Pauline texts fit Carrier & Doherty's primary theory.

I propose the Gospel-Jesus probably began as a celestial god, and had a human-form eventially added; for some reason.

Marcionism was based on a two-god proposal - a good new-God v the evil Hebrew-God
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by pakeha »

MrMacSon wrote:[ . . . ]Tacitus's account is information that begs questions: where did he get the information from? what does it mean?

Carrier's speculation he got it from Pliny the Younger seems spurious; disingenuous, even. [ . . . ]
Could you explain why you have this impression?
Mine is quite different and the best way to learn is to explore contrasting opinions.
I thought the Pliny the Younger- Pliny the Elder explanation convincing, but then I'm new at sifting 1st century references.

Maryhelena, thanks for the tip on the e-book publication.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote: .
There is no logical jump from the gospel figure of Jesus being a literary creation, a mythological or symbolic figure, to that figure being a historicizing of a Pauline celestial god.
  • <snip>
Historical realities must first be identified and accounted for within the literary Jesus figure.
I agree.

I think there were lots of sects each worshiping their own celestial god. I think the sect that eventually came up with the gospel-Jesus narratives was different to the sect that came up the Pauline narratives. I think these initially-separate narratives were redacted & combined to give the NT.

The Pauline texts fit Carrier & Doherty's primary theory.
OK

I propose the Gospel-Jesus probably began as a celestial god, and had a human-form eventially added; for some reason.
Not OK. You said you agreed with my statement above re Historical realities must first be identified and accounted for within the literary Jesus figure. But......you have not identified any historical realities with your proposal re the Gospel Jesus....you are still supporting a celestial god historicized - ie the Carrier-Doherty theory.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:
toejam wrote:For me, Tacitus' reference remains on the table. Is it secure? Nope. But can it be as easily dismissed as Carrier seems to imply here. Nope. At the end of the day, it remains the kind of thing we might expect had their been a historical figure: his acknowledgement in the writings of the great historians of the time.
Yes, that's right. Assuming the Tacitus account is genuine, it becomes data in a cumulative case. Whatever one's theory, it needs to account for what Christians were believing around 110 CE.
Tacitus's account is not 'data': data is objective, measured observations, as in numbers. Tacitus's account is not evidence, either: certainly not evidence of or for Jesus of Nazareth.
It is data if part of a cumulative case. (If Carrier's case has already is satisfied by other earlier literature, then it is of course not data for that case. I don't know, not having read his book.)
MrMacSon wrote:Tacitus's account is information that begs questions: where did he get the information from? what does it mean?
Yes, and it would still be of interest even if ahistoricity becomes the norm. People would still be interested in how Christians went from an ahistoricist perspective to a historicist one in the space of around 50 years, between Paul writing to the Romans and Tacitus's account. Tacitus's account would still be data for people's views.
MrMacSon wrote:Carrier's speculation he got it from Pliny the Younger seems spurious; disingenuous, even.
Nothing wrong with specuiation, as long as it is identified as such. I think Carrier makes a reasonable point, based on the relationship between Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Post Reply