Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[GakuseiDon]

FWIW the equivalent to 9:14-18

And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].
And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him.
Then indeed they will receive their [garments and] thrones and crowns, when He has ascended into the seventh heaven."

in the short [Latin/Slavonic] text reads

And the prince of that world will stretch forth his hand upon the Son of God and will kill Him and hang Him on a tree, and he will kill Him not knowing who He is. And He will descend into hell and will lay it waste, with all the phantoms of hell. And He will seize the prince of death and despoil him, and crush all his powers, and will rise again on the third day; having with him certain of the righteous. And He will send His preachers into the whole world, and will ascend into heaven. Then these will receive their thrones and crowns

while the equivalent of 10:7-14

And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, saying to my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus:
"Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.
And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.
And thou wilt be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament [and the angels also who are in Sheol].
And none of the angels of that world shall know that Thou art with Me of the seven heavens and of their angels.
And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:
For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."
And afterwards from the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place. And Thou wilt not be transformed in each heaven, but in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right hand.
And thereupon the princes and powers of that world will worship Thee."

reads in the Slavonic/Latin

And after that, I heard the voice of the Eternal saying to the Lord [His] Son: 'Go forth and descend from all the heavens and be in the world, and go even to the angel who is in hell; transfiguring thyself into their form. And neither the angels nor the princes of that world shall know thee. And thou shalt judge the prince of that world and his angels, and the rulers of the world, because they have denied me and said, "We are and without us there is no one." Thereafter, thou shalt not transfigure thyself as thou ascendest through the heavens in great glory, and thou wilt sit at my right hand. Then the princes and the virtues and all the angels and all the principalities of the heavens and of earth and of the lower regions will adore thee.'

The problems of non-fulfillment Richard Carrier is emphasizing do seem bound up with the particular text form one is using. The short version does not prophesy an ascension of Jesus with others nor does it refer to a loud voice from God.

Thanks Andrew. The "loud voice from God" was part of what I thought was missing as the action to the stated prediction, but your explanation above shows that it is not even there as a prediction in the shorter Slavonic/Latin versions. Seems that Carrier's point on the "missing" text loses all force. Interesting.

[MrMacSon]

[ . . . ]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.

OK; I might be prepared to be less antagonistic to Carrier's proposal that Tactitus got [at least some of] his info from Pliney-the-Younger, but am unhappy he extrapolates to Jesus.

I'm also concerned he advocates 'gospels' circulating in the 2nd C mention Jesus: there seems to be a lot of assertions that early 'Christian texts', such as 2nd C texts, refer to a 'Christ/us' or 'Chrestos' were referring to the Gospel Jesus-the-Christ.

I would like to see evidence that alleged 2nd C gospels were very similar to the NT Gospels.

from Kapyong's post

""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"

"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."

"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

[MrMacSon]

[ . . . ]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.

OK; I might be prepared to be less antagonistic to Carrier's proposal that Tactitus got [at least some of] his info from Pliney-the-Younger, but am concerned he extrapolates Christ to Jesus.

I'm also concerned he advocates 'gospels' circulating in the 2nd C mention Jesus: there seems to be a lot of assertions that early 'Christian texts', such as 2nd C texts, that refer to a 'Christ/us' or 'Chrestos', were referring to the Gospel Jesus-the-Christ.

I would like to see evidence that alleged 2nd C gospels were very similar to the NT Gospels.

from Kapyong's post

""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"

"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."

"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

[MrMacSon]

I'm also concerned he advocates 'gospels' circulating in the 2nd C mention Jesus: there seems to be a lot of assertions that early 'Christian texts', such as 2nd C texts, that refer to a 'Christ/us' or 'Chrestos', were referring to the Gospel Jesus-the-Christ.

I would like to see evidence that alleged 2nd C gospels were very similar to the NT Gospels.

We have very few original/extant texts from the 2nd or 3rd centuries: how do we know what was in them?

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]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.

OK; I might be prepared to be less antagonistic to Carrier's proposal that Tactitus got [at least some of] his info from Pliney-the-Younger, but am unhappy he extrapolates to Jesus.

I'm also concerned he advocates 'gospels' circulating in the 2nd C mention Jesus: there seems to be a lot of assertions that early 'Christian texts', such as 2nd C texts, refer to a 'Christ/us' or 'Chrestos' were referring to the Gospel Jesus-the-Christ.

I would like to see evidence that alleged 2nd C gospels were very similar to the NT Gospels.

from Kapyong's post

""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"

"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."

"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

Curiously enough, I leaned recently that Theophilus of Antioch, one of our earlier Christian writers, claimed the word Christian had an entirely different meaning:

And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first anointed? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God. — Theophilus, To Autolycus, third book.

The more I learn about first and second century Christianity, the less I know.
Maybe it's coffee-time.

[neilgodfrey]

to hjalti,

But there's no reason why he "should" have used some construction with the genitive specifically.

But that's what he did in case of familial relationship. But you are right in case of non-familial relationship.

In the same way we can say "Diana is the prettiest among the sisters." Isn't it clear that Diana is one of the sisters?

There is no "the" in Ro 8:29 (many brothers).
So, to make your example similar, we have now "Diana is the prettiest among sisters". That's awkward and even bad syntax. "Diana is the prettiest among her sisters" or "Diana is the prettiest of sisters" (here with "sisters" in the genitive case) would be much better.

Cordially, Bernard

The Gospel of John starts with "In beginning" -- there is no article "the". Does that mean the author leaves it open for any beginning to be considered the meaning? I think the context tells us he means what we would express as "in the beginning". Context, context, context.

[MrMacSon]

Curiously enough, I leaned recently that Theophilus of Antioch, one of our earlier Christian writers, claimed the word Christian had an entirely different meaning:

And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God. — Theophilus, To Autolycus, third book.

There were two Greek words for Christ: one meant annointed, as all rulers 2nd C BCE to 1st C AD/CE literally were; and the other meant good or useful.

ie. there were probably lots of people referred to as Christ. I reckon it was likely the term came into more frequent use for preacher-dudes or messiahs.

[The Crow]

Be a while most likely before it hits Kindle. I have about decided to go ahead and order it. The information coming out of it from Kap's post looks like it will be a good read. All though Carrier confirms what I have thought all along about Tacitus and the Annals 15:44.

[pakeha]

Curiously enough, I leaned recently that Theophilus of Antioch, one of our earlier Christian writers, claimed the word Christian had an entirely different meaning:

And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God. — Theophilus, To Autolycus, third book.

There were two Greek words for Christ: one meant annointed, as all rulers 2nd C BCE to 1st C AD/CE literally were; and the other meant good or useful.

ie. there were probably lots of people referred to as Christ. I reckon it was likely the term came into more frequent use for preacher-dudes or messiahs.

Very true.
However, this was written about 180-185 and the author, a Patriarch of Antioch doesn't mention that Christian refers to a follower/whatever of Christ.

[GakuseiDon]

Curiously enough, I leaned recently that Theophilus of Antioch, one of our earlier Christian writers, claimed the word Christian had an entirely different meaning:

And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first anointed? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God. — Theophilus, To Autolycus, third book.

Also, Tertullian in "Ad nationes":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html

• The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness.