Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, again epististemologically, by no means as useful as the evidence pointing towards his existence.

Indeed. But that wasn't the point I was making.

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

As a matter of interest- are you a professional historian?

No.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Because you seem to be telling one how to do their job.

Actually, no. Read carefully; Bannasidhe and I are not really contradicting one another in what we say about the discipline of history. Bannasidhe’s point is, essentially, that because the available evidence does not irrefutably prove the existence of Jesus, therefore we cannot say that his existence is an established fact. My point is that the same is true of every claim examined by history, but that the available evidence for the existence of Jesus meets and comfortably exceeds the evidentiary standards expected by historians when assessing claims of this nature. Bannasidhe has never disputed this. In regard to the application of historical method we may be choosing to emphasise different points, but I don’t think there is any fundamental disagreement between me and Bannasidhe.

The point of dispute is whether we can speak of a claim which has been established to the standards expected by the academy as “established”, without further qualification. I’d say that’s a reasonable usage and not misleading. Bannasidhe disagrees. In other words, it’s a question of the meaning and usage of words, which is not something on which historians have any particular claim to authority.

It may be the case that Bannasidhe’s restrictions on the use of the word are shared by all historians and that academic historians never speak of established facts (though Bannasidhe has never claimed this). But even if it were the case, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that people who were not academic historians, and not engaged in an academic historical discourse, were unjustified or unreasonable in speaking of a historical fact as “established”.

Peregrinus

Jernal wrote: »

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. How does the historicity of the actual crucifixion hold up? Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of all humanity.
All of Christianity, to borrow from Kierkegaard, is dependent on whether Jesus died on that cross or not. If He didn't everything changes. Regardless of whether a person known as Jesus existed or not. Though obviously if Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart too.

It's broadly accepted by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was executed under Roman authority, and in that context the claim that the mode of execution was crucifixion is plausible, even likely.

As to the sacrificial and redemptive nature of that death, of course, that's a theological claim rather than historical one, and I think most historians would take the view that the discipline of history has no light to shed on this claim. It would have something to say about when followers of Jesus first began asserting that his death had this quality.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

No.


Actually, no. Read carefully; Bannasidhe and I are not really contradicting one another in what we say about the discipline of history. Bannasidhe’s point is, essentially, that because the available evidence does not irrefutably prove the existence of Jesus, therefore we cannot say that his existence is an established fact. My point is that the same is true of every claim examined by history, but that the available evidence for the existence of Jesus meets and comfortably exceeds the evidentiary standards expected by historians when assessing claims of this nature. Bannasidhe has never disputed this. In regard to the application of historical method we may be choosing to emphasise different points, but I don’t think there is any fundamental disagreement between me and Bannasidhe.

The point of dispute is whether we can speak of a claim which has been established to the standards expected by the academy as “established”, without further qualification. I’d say that’s a reasonable usage and not misleading. Bannasidhe disagrees. In other words, it’s a question of the meaning and usage of words, which is not something on which historians have any particular claim to authority.

It may be the case that Bannasidhe’s restrictions on the use of the word are shared by all historians and that academic historians never speak of established facts (though Bannasidhe has never claimed this). But even if it were the case, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that people who were not academic historians, and not engaged in an academic historical discourse, were unjustified or unreasonable in speaking of a historical fact as “established”.

Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 - that is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available.

The existence of Gráinne Ní Mháille is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available. However I have seen claims that she was born in 1530 and died in 1603 - there is no evidence to support these claims so the period of time we can state she was alive with absolute certainty is between 1576 and 1601 during which time her name appears in a myriad of primary sources.

Because no such evidence is available for the existence of Jesus anyone who claims his existence is an established fact is incorrect - it is, as I have repeatedly said, a more than likely probability but any historian or history student who states it is an established fact will be required to provide evidence to support this - there is no evidence so the claim cannot be supported according to the rules of the discipline of history.

oldrnwisr

Jernal wrote: »

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. How does the historicity of the actual crucifixion hold up? Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of all humanity.
All of Christianity, to borrow from Kierkegaard, is dependent on whether Jesus died on that cross or not. If He didn't everything changes. Regardless of whether a person known as Jesus existed or not. Though obviously if Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart too.

The short answer is it doesn't.

The longer answer is, well... (inhales deeply)

1. The Crucifixion

The first problem with the crucifixion account is the concept of Jesus dying under Roman authority in the first place.

I have previously dealt with this in detail here but the basic premise is that the idea of Jesus being crucified by the Romans leaves too many unanswered questions and creates too many inconsistencies with the other things we know about the society of that era. To summarise briefly:

1. Why would Jesus have been executed by the Romans for blasphemy? The Romans couldn't have given two ****s about blasphemy, particularly blasphemy against YHWH (I mean if it was writing Romanes Eunt Domus that would be a different story).
2. Why didn't the Sanhedrin, having (supposedly) found Jesus guilty of blasphemy not just stone Jesus to death? It was well within their power and blasphemy is a capital crime punishable by stoning under Deuteronomy 21:22-23. In fact the Sanhedrin would have been vacating their responsibilities to the law by handing Jesus over to be crucified since the method was just as important as the act.
3. Why is Joseph of Armathea so eager to get Jesus' body back from the Roman authorities in Mark 15:43? This could be explained by Joseph seeking to fulfill his obligations under Deuteronomy 21 but not when you consider point 2 above. There is a fundamental inconsistency in Joseph's behaviour in the crucifixion narrative.
4. Jesus is ostensibly crucified by the Romans for sedition. Why? Even in the gospels Jesus is portrayed as being a thorn in the side of the Sanhedrin and not Rome. He even publicly states "Render unto Caesar".

Then, of course, there are the problems with the trial itself as outlined in the gospels:

1. The trial would never have been held at night as it would have been contrary to Jewish law.
2. The trial would only have taken place in the Hall of Hewn Stones in the temple and not in the home of a council member.
3. The trial would never have been conducted so close to Passover (Passover eve in the synoptics)
4. Sentences in such trials were pronounced after 24 hours had elapsed and not immediately in the case of Jesus.

Next, we have the traditional depiction of the crucifixion:





However, when we examine the scant archaeoligical evidence we find that this too doesn't fit.


The CrucifiedM an fromG iv'at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal

The evidence from the sole crucifixion victim that has been unearthed shows that the actual configuration of crucifixions at the time looked something like this:



Furthermore the configuration shown above is one shared by a Greek execution method of the time known as apotympanismos. This was a death mostly reserved for traitors but is one possible origin for the Roman crucifixion.





I'm aware of the current consensus on the issue but I don't find it persuasive. There are too many gaps and inconsistencies with the idea that Jesus was executed by the Romans. It's an idea that appears in the Gospels but not in the earliest NT writings. It reads (as Wibbs pointed out) like something shoehorned in after the fact.



2. The Resurrection


The detail that makes the crucifixion important is the resurrection. Even if we were to accept that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, that still doesn't help to address the claim of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead and thus proved his divinity. However, the historicity of the resurrection is where things really get problematic for Christians.


The first point to note is that there are only four accounts of the resurrection. At best, Paul testifies to the risen Jesus (at best since it's only a claim) but really we only have the gospel accounts. Having said that we only really have one gospel account to go on. We already know that both Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, including the empty tomb narrative. While there is some disagreement over John, I think that the author of John's gospel was at least aware of Mark's gospel, especially given that he tries to correct Mark's mistakes in several places. So really, at the end of the day, what we are really trying to establish is whether Mark's gospel account is reliable.


The first thing that should be noted about Mark's empty tomb narrative is that it doesn't contain a resurrection. The original ending of Mark ends at verse 8, with the other Pentecostal stuff being a later addition.



Now, it is difficult in the absence of evidence to establish or refute the veracity of one particular story in Mark's gospel on its own. If we were to judge the gospel in its entirety by the standards against which such things are measured:


Federal Rules of Evidence


then we would have to conclude that Mark's gospel is unreliable. It is anonymous, biased, filled with inconsistent statements and, even if we were to believe traditional authorship, hearsay.


However, the narrative itself is not so easily discarded IMHO. I think that the empty tomb narrative is probably accurate (i.e. that some women went to the tomb and it was empty) since it remains essentially unchanged in all four versions. It is probably one of the earliest stories which circulated about Jesus and caused the Jesus movement to grow. On a side note, I find that the best explanation for the empty tomb is not resurrection but reburial/disposal by the servants of Joseph of Aramathea who having fulfilled his obligations to the law, had Jesus body disposed of.



In conclusion, I think we can answer the historicity questions thusly:


Was there someone called Jesus? Probably.


Did he die for his teachings? Probably.


Was he crucified by the Romans? Personally, I don't think so.


Did he rise from the dead? No.

Sarky

You're my lord and savior, oldrnwisr.

Red Nissan

Jernal wrote: »

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. .

Christ did not die on the cross, he was killed by Peter who went on to lose the 'church' to the Romans, this is well known by Christians and will not cause Christianity to fall apart.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

You're my lord and savior, oldrnwisr.

Not Rob, Dades, or I? Interesting.

Banned.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Not Rob, Dades, or I? Interesting.

Banned.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 - that is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available.

The existence of Gráinne Ní Mháille is an established fact. There is no probable about it. We can state this with certainty due to the amount of conclusive evidence available. However I have seen claims that she was born in 1530 and died in 1603 - there is no evidence to support these claims so the period of time we can state she was alive with absolute certainty is between 1576 and 1601 during which time her name appears in a myriad of primary sources.

Because no such evidence is available for the existence of Jesus anyone who claims his existence is an established fact is incorrect - it is, as I have repeatedly said, a more than likely probability but any historian or history student who states it is an established fact will be required to provide evidence to support this - there is no evidence so the claim cannot be supported according to the rules of the discipline of history.

But Elizabeth I and Gráinne Ní Mháille are modern figures. We look for, and find, evidence in relation to their existence which we cannot expect, and do not find, in relation to figures from the ancient world. This does not mean that figures from the ancient world are any less likely to have existed, though.

When do we consider a fact to be “established”? When we are satisfied by the evidence pointing to it. “Satisfied” is inherently a subjective standard, not an objective one. And it’s a relative standard; we do not apply a uniform standard to all fact-claims; historians, for example, apply different standards to the fact-claims they investigate than physicists do in their field, or lawyers in theirs. More to the point, historians apply different standards to different fact-claims even within the discipline of history.

So, if somebody says that a particular historical fact-claim is “established”, they are implicitly referring to a subjective standard of satisfaction against which they are measuring the available evidence. It’s reasonable to ask them what that standard is. It’s also reasonable to point out that, however exacting the standard chosen, we can conceive of a higher standard and question whether the fact-claim is established by that standard. (No birth certificate is available for either Elizabeth I or Gráinne Ní Mháille, for example, so if we adopt a standard of satisfaction to establish claims of personal existence which includes a birth certificate, then their existence is not an “established” fact.)

So, any suggestion that a particular historical fact-claim has been “established” can be scrutinised by looking at what standard of satisfaction has been applied to determine satisfaction. The standard is always subjective and always relative, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t make a judgment as to whether it is a reasonable and defensible standard. It is plainly unreasonable to look for a birth certificate for Elizabeth I. Even though we do have a birth certificate for, e.g., Adolf Hitler, anybody who suggested on that account that the existence of Elizabeth I was a less certainly established historical fact that the existence of Adolf Hitler would be met with justified derision. By the (subjective) standards that historians apply to fact-claims about the existence of European monarchs from the early modern era, the existence of Elizabeth I is abundantly established. The fact that we lack some of the evidence that we might require to satisfy us in relation to entirely different fact-claims about the existence of different figures from different eras is irrelevant.

So, if someone claims that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is historically established, it seems to me you can critique that claim in two ways. First, you can say “the evidence you have got doesn’t meet the standard you are applying”. (This is effectively the line people take when they allege, as you occasionally see done, that all our primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth date from hundreds of years after the time he is supposed to have lived.) Or you can say “you’re applying an inappropriately lax standard of satisfaction; the evidence you have is kosher so far as it goes, but it ought not to be enough to satisfy you”.

I’m not seeing any serious attempt in this thread to argue that the standard by which the existence of Jesus is taken to be established is inappropriately lax. I’ve suggested, and no-one has contradicted, that standard being applied is at least as robust as that applied by academic historians of the period to judge whether fact-claims about the existence of individuals are established. Of course, that’s still a subjective standard, but nonetheless is one grounded in professional experience and judgment, and anyone who thinks it is unreasonable to accept and apply that standard at least needs to be able to say why. The fact that academic historians would apply a different standard if Jesus was claimed to have been born in Europe in the sixteenth century, and was claimed to have been a reigning monarch, seems to me completely irrelevant.

smacl

I'm not a historian, but I take the implication from Bannasidhe's previous post that the term established when used by a historian in reference to a past event can be interpreted as meeting a minimum set of very specific and well defined criteria. Meeting these criteria would correspond to a degree of confidence that could correspond to a statistical expression, e.g. there is 67% probability that person A was in place B at time C plus or minus D years. This statistic is useful, as it can be used to weight other statistics. My guess is that the required criteria for an event to be considered established are looser the further back in time you go, but in any case you use the degree of confidence rather than a simple true/false when using the information to establish the veracity of other information.

As I say, not a historian, but dealing with uncertainty is common to all measurement. The way we handle this is by collection of redundant supporting measurements, such that we can improve on the accuracy and confidence of our primary measurement, and state our results. The point of the exercise is to properly isolate and document any subjective data, such that the remaining results are objective, transparent, and reproducible to within the stated tolerances.

Yes history is a wooley subject, and our understandings of events are prone to change as more information is presented, but IMHO good history is about dealing with the totality of the information available and a point in time in such a way that it is as objective as possible, and where it is not, subjective elements are highlighted as such, preferably alongside any stated biases the historian might have.

I’m not seeing any serious attempt in this thread to argue that the standard by which the existence of Jesus is taken to be established is inappropriately lax.

Actually, no one has even stated the standard, possibly because it doesn't exist. Comparing the confidence of historicity of Jesus in relation to other contemporary histories can only really only be done on an event by event basis. My very limited experience suggests that our understanding of many pieces of ancient history are constantly evolving, and as such ancient history is more dynamic than many people might imagine.

The term inappropriately lax could also be replaced with fit for purpose, but what purpose? For me to convert to Christianity for example, they'd want to be stringent in the extreme. To accept that there most probably was a figure very roughly approximating to the Jesus as presented in the bible, they're fine, but then they have no impact on my life whatsoever so it is a very loose standard.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Actually, no one has even stated the standard, possibly because it doesn't exist.

Oh, it exists all right. So far in this thread it has only been articulated as “the standard applied by academic historians of the period”, or similar language, which doesn’t get us very far; what standard(s) do they apply? But they do certainly apply standards, and if you want to know what they are you can ask them. If you ask a historian of the period why he considers Jesus to be a historical character his reply will illuminate the standard of establishment that he uses; he’ll talk about multiple primary independent sources, closeness in time to the event, etc, etc. Equally, if you find a historian who doesn’t accept the historicity of Jesus and ask him why, his reply too will point to the standard of establishment that he is applying, and that he considers not to be met by the evidence.

There is a second line of reasoning in this thread which people appeal to which doesn’t depend on identifying the standard, and it’s this. We know that the historical evidence pointing to the existence of Jesus is considerably stronger than the evidence we have for some other figures of the period - Alexander the Great has been mentioned. We also know that the historicity of Alexander the Great is widely accepted. Whatever standard is being applied, then, we know that if Alexander meets it Jesus also meets it. Given that, even without knowing the precise standard applied, we can conclude that Jesus is accepted as historical.

Unless, of course, someone offers an argument as to why we should apply a much more rigorous standard to claims that Jesus existed than we do to claims that Alexander existed. Which neatly leads in to your second point.

smacl wrote: »

The term inappropriately lax could also be replaced with fit for purpose, but what purpose? For me to convert to Christianity for example, they'd want to be stringent in the extreme. To accept that there most probably was a figure very roughly approximating to the Jesus as presented in the bible, they're fine, but then they have no impact on my life whatsoever so it is a very loose standard.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that, if you are persuaded of the historicity of Jesus, you therefore ought to accept religious or theological claims about Jesus. (Some people have said that this argument has been advanced by others, but nobody has advanced or defended it here.) In my view, that would be completely unarguable. It’s entirely possible that Jesus of Nazareth existed, taught and was executed pretty much as the gospels say, but that he was neither divine nor the redeemer of humanity, that he was not born of a virgin and that he did not rise from the dead. Acceptance of his historicity does not imply acceptance of any of these other claims.

Consequently the fact that people make these claims about his divinity, etc, is not at all a justification for applying extraordinarily exacting standards to the question of his historicity. To do that is to buy completely into the idiocy that his historicity necessarily entails his divinity.

smacl

Given that, even without knowing the precise standard applied, we can conclude that Jesus is accepted as historical.

Accepted by whom, and in what context? As a paragraph in a 1st year secondary school history book, the statement that there was a person in Nazareth called Jesus involved with religion, who was executed by the Romans seems as reasonable as many other paragraphs from the same textbook dealing with ancient history. That the execution was by crucifixion seems less likely, as per oldrnwisr's illuminating post. So we have points of divergence between history and Christian theology, where it could be very easy to confuse the two. I imagine the school text book could include the crucifixion, and maybe even go as far as illustrating it.

My interest in history covers different periods and places entirely, but it typically goes as follows. I take an interest in an event, e.g. the Boxer rebellion. I read one or more pop histories of the event, e.g. Diana Preston's book in this case. I then take a deeper interest and start reading some of the more academic material, e.g. Esherick, and material from different contemporary sources from different points of view (European, Chinese, Japanese). My understanding of the history changes significantly from the time I start to the time I finish. Often this would run contrary to the single paragraph secondary school history book reference.

In terms of this thread, the consensus appears to that there was a religious figure called Jesus executed by the romans, but very little of substance beyond that. By the historicity of Jesus are we talking about the existence of the man, or more events in the Jesus story? If the latter, which events?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Accepted by whom, and in what context? As a paragraph in a 1st year secondary school history book, the statement that there was a person in Nazareth called Jesus involved with religion, who was executed by the Romans seems as reasonable as many other paragraphs from the same textbook dealing with ancient history. That the execution was by crucifixion seems less likely, as per oldrnwisr's illuminating post.

Bit of a quibble: my reading of oldernwiser’s post is that, if the evidence persuades us that Jesus was executed by the Romans, then we won’t baulk at the idea that he was crucified. (His crucifixion might not have looked exactly like the conventional artistic representations, but close enough.) But if we think he was executed by the Temple authorities, then we’d think it more likely that he was stoned or, at any rate, not crucified.

smacl wrote: »

So we have points of divergence between history and Christian theology, where it could be very easy to confuse the two. I imagine the school text book could include the crucifixion, and maybe even go as far as illustrating it.

Um. To my mind the question of whether Jesus was crucified or stoned is a historical question. The theological question is whether his death was a perfect sacrifice effecting the redemption of humanity, but I don’t think anyone’s views on that are going to be determined by whether they are persuaded in favour of stoning or crucifixion. In other words, I don’t the historical and the theological is as easily confused as you suggest.

smacl wrote: »

In terms of this thread, the consensus appears to that there was a religious figure called Jesus executed by the romans, but very little of substance beyond that. By the historicity of Jesus are we talking about the existence of the man, or more events in the Jesus story? If the latter, which events?

Well, I suggested earlier that there is a good deal more that is generally accepted as probably historical - his mother was called Mary, he did have a brother called James, he started as a follower of John the Baptist but later established an independent ministry, more likely amicably rather than as a result of a rancorous split but we don’t know that for sure, the teachings attributed to him in the gospels are probably reasonably grounded in teachings he actually delivered. But of course that last generality in particular wraps up a multitude of doubts, arguments, quibbles and uncertainties with respect to a huge range of particular teachings.

You could also make a list of things that are generally not accepted as historically established, or that are regarded as most likely false - birth in Bethlehem and indeed every detail of the nativity stories apart from the name of his mother, a first-cousin relationship with John the Baptist, the flight into Eqypt, all the infancy stories. All of the miracle/sign stories, even those that are capable of a non-supernatural reading, would be in this list. Parts of the Passion story are doubted - oldernwiser points to the trial before the Sanhedrin in particular. And of course the resurrection and the post-resurrection Christophanies are not established. Oldrnwiser suggests that he does accept the empty tomb as historical; I don’t know for sure, but I’d suspect there might be historians who would say that that is not historically established.

The more detail you go into on all this, of course, the more room for doubt and disagreement among historians there will be. For example - Jesus was executed - widely accepted as historical. Jesus was executed by crucifixion - the last detail is doubted by some. Jesus was executed by crucifixion following a trial before the Sanhedrin - now you have rather more doubters putting up their hands. And so forth. The more specific you get, the larger the number of historians who will say “I can’t necessarily accept everything you’ve just mentioned there”.

You can read entire books on this, and depending on the take of the historian who wrote them, they'll offeer you a slightly different perspective on what's accepted, what's doubted, and what is just the subject of suspended judment. If you want to get a picture of consensus views - things that are mostly accepted or mostly rejected, then stick to big-picture questions - was Jesus real? Where did he come from? Why was he noticed? What became of him? But avoid questions like whether James was Jesus' older brother, or his younger.

smacl

Thanks for the response, seems pretty reasonable.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t (believe) the historical and the theological is as easily confused as you suggest.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a widely held view among many Christians that the bible is historically accurate, as evidenced by this post earlier on.

georgieporgy wrote: »

It would seem professional historians can have different opinions on history. Some actually claim that the bible is not a historical document (loaded with contemporary references to Christ), others , both believers and non believers, say it is.

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the physical evidence of Jesus' body.

What many modern theologians take as metaphorical, more lay Christians take as literal. As an atheist who hasn't ever attempted to study the history behind the Christ story, the lines between accepted history and theology / mythology seem rather blurred. Somewhat less so after following this thread to be fair, it could make for an interesting discussion on the Christianity forum.

enfant terrible

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, I think it is important that two important caveats be introduced because of the wider arguments that circulate about Jesus (i.e. divinity, resurrection etc.).
The first is that the conclusions about Jesus' existence reached in this discussion do not add any evidentiary support for other claims about Jesus. I know it seems silly but you'd be surprised how many times Christians use this fact as a buttress for their other claims about Jesus. It happens with god claims too. Some people (e.g. William Lane Craig) seem to think that they can use arguments like Kalam to logically prove the existence of God and therefore the Christian God.
The second caveat is that Jesus is different from the other figures in this discussion. If they didn't really exist then who cares. Their teachings stand on their own merits. Jesus' teachings don't. They are pointless without the existence of Jesus.

I think its better to stick to the topic of the thread.

I came into this thread to learn about the historicity of Jesus and bringing other topics into the discussion just derails the thread.

If people want to talk about "wider arguments that circulate about Jesus" then they should start a thread about it.

Wibbs

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I think that the empty tomb narrative is probably accurate (i.e. that some women went to the tomb and it was empty) since it remains essentially unchanged in all four versions. It is probably one of the earliest stories which circulated about Jesus and caused the Jesus movement to grow.

What I have always found interesting about this account are the witnesses. Women. Women were considered unreliable witnesses in much of the ancient world(you see this most clearly later on in Islam and Sharia law, which borrows wholesale from earlier traditions). I would also reckon the empty tomb account is most likely accurate, simply because if it was added after the fact they would have said the witnesses were men.

Of the crucifixion itself, I find that a harder nut to crack and get my head around. I think oldrnwisr's points brilliantly outline the idea that he wasn't crucified by the romans. That said the idea that he was seems to have legs early enough on. Josephus states he was executed by Pilate. Now Josephus is considered problematic and likely stuff was added later, but the kernel of it seems solid enough.

Tacitus, (who generally seems pretty reliable and an independent source) not long after Josephus states that the leader of these Christians was executed in the reign of Tiberius by their governer Pilate(though doesn't name him directly IIRC). So the crucifixion narrative was strong even among Romans within a century of his supposed death date(though neither mention his resurrection IIRC?). A Roman like Tacitus would well have known they wouldn't be arsed executing someone for blasphemy or other colonial religious stuff, so I wonder what gives there? If he was merely repeating what he had heard from Christians(whom he shows zero sympathy for), he'd still know that Rome didn't get involved in local religious guff.

Maybe and I beg your indulgence for my indulgence, it went like this; Jesus was crucified, but not for blasphemy as reported later, but rounded up(maybe with others as part of a "clear the decks of local troublemakers" drive) for actual sedition as the Romans saw it and rather than the crucifixion, the whole Jewish trial stuff (and choice between him and Barabas) which as oldrnwisr points out makes no religious or historical sense was tacked on later. If nothing else to get the Roman Christians off the hook.

Plus if he had been tried and stoned to death solely by Jewish authorities that would have played even better for the later Roman church as it would have them completely absolved from any involvement and the overall story arc would have remained pretty much exactly the same(minus the symbol of the cross which came later in popularity anyway).

This makes more sense to me than adding in Roman guilt by having him crucified after the fact.

Peregrinus

All the primary sources on the execution of Jesus, including Josephus and Tacitus, explicitly attribute responsibility to Pilate. If anything, the gospels attempt to water this down, presenting Pilate as having his hand forced by the Temple authorities' manipulation of the mob. I gather that, from what we know more generally of Pilate and his career, this is generally considered an implausible scenario. So the likelihood is that the Romans took more of the initiative than the gospel suggests, and the Temple less.

But of course as you rightly say the Romans would never have executed him for blasphemy. Blasphemy might have helped to explain why the Temple authorities were happy to see him killed, but it wouldn't account for the Roman involvement. The reason the Romans wanted rid of him was almost certainly that he was a troublemaker. Jerusalem was a volatile place with a delicate balance of power negotiated between the Romans and the Temple, and a population deeply alienated from the Romans and even, to some extent, from the Temple authorities. By his challenge to the Temple authorities Jesus was a threat to the pax romana and, somewhat ironically, the Romans were brutal in the way they dealt with such threats.

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

Accepted by whom, and in what context? As a paragraph in a 1st year secondary school history book, the statement that there was a person in Nazareth called Jesus involved with religion, who was executed by the Romans seems as reasonable as many other paragraphs from the same textbook dealing with ancient history.

I wouldn't consider that statement good enough for any history book:

a) we don't have conclusive evidence for the existence of Jesus. Therefore it would have to be qualified with a "probably", "there was likely" or similar.

b) as Oldrnwisr has shown below, there is no evidence at all for crucifixion, and that if Jesus were killed, he would have been killed by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, as blasphemy against YHWH was a Jewish crime not a Roman one.

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I wouldn't consider that statement good enough for any history book

My knowledge of the history surrounding Jesus is poor to say the least, as already mentioned. I was basically taking the summation of what oldnwiser had below, along with speculation as to what's likely to appear on a simplified junior cert curriculum.

Was there someone called Jesus? Probably.

Did he die for his teachings? Probably.

Was he crucified by the Romans? Personally, I don't think so.

My eldest has just started 2nd year, so I'll have a look to see what is actually in the history texts as currently taught as fact in this country. The point I was trying to make was that the boundary between history and theology to me at least appears very blurred, possibly intentionally so by the church. I'm interested to know what is taught as religion and what as history.

Wibbs

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

b) as Oldrnwisr has shown below, there is no evidence at all for crucifixion, and that if Jesus were killed, he would have been killed by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, as blasphemy against YHWH was a Jewish crime not a Roman one.

I'd half disagree with this, or put it another way take Oldrnwisr's bloody valid points and take em in a different direction. For the reasons I gave above.

Basically him being crucified/executed by the Roman governor is about the only repeated detail of his life that's in the earliest non christian(Roman) external sources. The Jewish trial is highly likely to be a later insert. Why? well because any Jewish sources(early Jewish followers) or sources with knowledge of rabinical law would know it to be BS, exactly because of the reasons Oldrnwisr gave.

I've thought of another even earlier example(though Christian). St Paul's letters. He mentions the crucified Jesus more than once. Now before he had his conversion he was a Jew and zealot/fundamentalist one at that and he was in the employ of the "official" Jewish church seeking out and punishing heretics. Of all people he would have known the Jewish religious trial was wrong and wouldn't have played out like that and IIRC he never mentions it. So we have a Jewish guy writing letters to non Jews and Jews alike(Jesus' followers in Palestine, including his brother who would have known the story first hand) stating crucifixion as mode of death. We have Josephus also a Jew BTW(IIRC his da was a rabbi), who then put his lot in with the Roman world(not unlike Paul in some ways), who would also have know the Jewish trial of Jesus would have been impossible and he doesn't mention it either and states Pilate offed him under Roman law. Then we have Tacitus, a Roman, who mentions nada about the trial or Jesus being handed over by the Jews, but he again states that "Chrestus" the leader of the Christians was executed by the Roman governor Pilate. That's three different sources with wildly different backgrounds and beliefs and allegiances stating the same thing.

So if we take the probability that Jesus existed(feck off Ban!:p:D) and take that probability from what historic sources we have, then the only other detail we have is that all such sources agree he was executed by the Roman authorities. The question then is why. Clearly not for blasphemy, our Italian friends couldn't give a damn about that. The only other reason is crimes against the state. Murder, banditry? Unlikely, so given the region and the PITA it was for Rome, sedition, political unrest(borne from religious stuff is possible) etc is the likely reason and one dreamt up by Rome alone. No Jews involved. IMHO the whole Jewish trial is a later(and obvious) add in to take the blame from Rome. Hell we even have the scene with Pilate actually washing his hands of the whole thing. I mean c'mon. It couldn't be more blatant.

oldrnwisr

Wibbs wrote: »

What I have always found interesting about this account are the witnesses. Women. Women were considered unreliable witnesses in much of the ancient world(you see this most clearly later on in Islam and Sharia law, which borrows wholesale from earlier traditions). I would also reckon the empty tomb account is most likely accurate, simply because if it was added after the fact they would have said the witnesses were men.

Of the crucifixion itself, I find that a harder nut to crack and get my head around. I think oldrnwisr's points brilliantly outline the idea that he wasn't crucified by the romans. That said the idea that he was seems to have legs early enough on. Josephus states he was executed by Pilate. Now Josephus is considered problematic and likely stuff was added later, but the kernel of it seems solid enough.

Tacitus, (who generally seems pretty reliable and an independent source) not long after Josephus states that the leader of these Christians was executed in the reign of Tiberius by their governer Pilate(though doesn't name him directly IIRC). So the crucifixion narrative was strong even among Romans within a century of his supposed death date(though neither mention his resurrection IIRC?). A Roman like Tacitus would well have known they wouldn't be arsed executing someone for blasphemy or other colonial religious stuff, so I wonder what gives there? If he was merely repeating what he had heard from Christians(whom he shows zero sympathy for), he'd still know that Rome didn't get involved in local religious guff.

Maybe and I beg your indulgence for my indulgence, it went like this; Jesus was crucified, but not for blasphemy as reported later, but rounded up(maybe with others as part of a "clear the decks of local troublemakers" drive) for actual sedition as the Romans saw it and rather than the crucifixion, the whole Jewish trial stuff (and choice between him and Barabas) which as oldrnwisr points out makes no religious or historical sense was tacked on later. If nothing else to get the Roman Christians off the hook.

Plus if he had been tried and stoned to death solely by Jewish authorities that would have played even better for the later Roman church as it would have them completely absolved from any involvement and the overall story arc would have remained pretty much exactly the same(minus the symbol of the cross which came later in popularity anyway).

This makes more sense to me than adding in Roman guilt by having him crucified after the fact.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All the primary sources on the execution of Jesus, including Josephus and Tacitus, explicitly attribute responsibility to Pilate. If anything, the gospels attempt to water this down, presenting Pilate as having his hand forced by the Temple authorities' manipulation of the mob. I gather that, from what we know more generally of Pilate and his career, this is generally considered an implausible scenario. So the likelihood is that the Romans took more of the initiative than the gospel suggests, and the Temple less.

But of course as you rightly say the Romans would never have executed him for blasphemy. Blasphemy might have helped to explain why the Temple authorities were happy to see him killed, but it wouldn't account for the Roman involvement. The reason the Romans wanted rid of him was almost certainly that he was a troublemaker. Jerusalem was a volatile place with a delicate balance of power negotiated between the Romans and the Temple, and a population deeply alienated from the Romans and even, to some extent, from the Temple authorities. By his challenge to the Temple authorities Jesus was a threat to the pax romana and, somewhat ironically, the Romans were brutal in the way they dealt with such threats.

Both of your posts have caused me to have a bit of a rethink about the method of execution so I just wanted to make a little rejoinder.

The first thing is to expand on something I commented on earlier in the thread, namely the weaknesses of the extra-biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus.

Josephus

Josephus' commentary in Antiquities Book 18 presents a number of issues.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

1. Origen, the early Church leader points out in Contra Celsus that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah: "For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,..." which doesn't fit with the highlighted sentence in Josephus.
2. The language used in the passage is far too complimentary to have been written by a Pharasaic Jew like Josephus.
3. The text directly contradicts the gospel version by depicting Pilate as having proactively sought the execution of Jesus rather than having been brought to him by the Sanhedrin.
4. In Book 20, Josephus recalls how Anaus convenes the Sanhedrin to convict James and other Christians and have them stoned to death: "so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."

Tacitus


The reference in Tacitus is much shorter than in Josephus but just as problematic:


"[Christians] derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate"

1. The sentence reads as hearsay, as if Tacitus is merely restating what Christians believe.
2. Tacitus is a Roman historian and would have had access to official Roman records. Had he been using these (which seems reasonable) then he wouldn't have made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect, nor does it explain why he uses a Christian honorific in describing Jesus, something that would not have been found in Roman records.

Tacitus is weak evidence at best and seems just as likely to be a Christian interpolation as it is an original comment.


Now, just as there are three sources from three different backgrounds which point to crucifixion as Wibbs points out here:

Wibbs wrote: »

I've thought of another even earlier example(though Christian). St Paul's letters. He mentions the crucified Jesus more than once. Now before he had his conversion he was a Jew and zealot/fundamentalist one at that and he was in the employ of the "official" Jewish church seeking out and punishing heretics. Of all people he would have known the Jewish religious trial was wrong and wouldn't have played out like that and IIRC he never mentions it. So we have a Jewish guy writing letters to non Jews and Jews alike(Jesus' followers in Palestine, including his brother who would have known the story first hand) stating crucifixion as mode of death. We have Josephus also a Jew BTW(IIRC his da was a rabbi), who then put his lot in with the Roman world(not unlike Paul in some ways), who would also have know the Jewish trial of Jesus would have been impossible and he doesn't mention it either and states Pilate offed him under Roman law. Then we have Tacitus, a Roman, who mentions nada about the trial or Jesus being handed over by the Jews, but he again states that "Chrestus" the leader of the Christians was executed by the Roman governor Pilate. That's three different sources with wildly different backgrounds and beliefs and allegiances stating the same thing.

there are also multiple attestations from different authors within and without the bible supporting the stoning idea:


"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
1 Peter 2:24

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.""
Galatians 3:13

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."
Act 5:30

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree."
Acts 10:39

"When they had carried out all that they had written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb."
Acts 13:29

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says: “Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'"
Sanhedrin 43a




I have to say that the course of this discussion has pushed me into a state of indeterminacy. I can't say for sure what method was actually used other than it probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme. In the end, however Jesus died it seems to have been a very ordinary death.


I'm just left now with two questions:

• What solid evidence is there for the Romans taking notice of Jesus to the point that they would have executed him for sedition? I acknowledge that Peregrinus' point about the Pax Romana may be the best explanation for this scenario but it is not really hinted at in any of the sources.
• If we are to take Josephus as a credible source (and secondarily if we take information from Suetonius and Pliny at face value) then it seems like the Christians of that era were a feisty bunch and not of a mind to back down in the face of a confrontation (e.g. "those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him") That being the case, why would the Romans not just have had the Sanhedrin stone Jesus and be done with it instead of bringing this bunch of disciples on themselves and instigating a mini-rebellion. It would seem that the most stable approach would have been to have Jesus stoned by his own people.

Red Nissan

enfant terrible wrote: »

If people want to talk about "wider arguments that circulate about Jesus" then they should start a thread about it.

To an extent, yes. But, it is usually something in relation to this thread, at what point it becomes another study may impact badly on both threads and the forum in general.

I don't think discussion about a fictitious character in history can have the same dictate as an engineering question, or a propulsion system for a Mars mission.

It is going to have a lot soft edges and posters believing Christianity means the Holy Roman Catholic Church that they grew up with in Ireland, said Church being based on Peter, as Islam is based on Mohamed and both claim Jesus as their inspiration and prime prophet.

smacl

Also, it is not unheard of for boards threads hitting twenty pages to wander some.

enfant terrible

Red Nissan wrote: »

To an extent, yes. But, it is usually something in relation to this thread, at what point it becomes another study may impact badly on both threads and the forum in general.

I don't think discussion about a fictitious character in history can have the same dictate as an engineering question, or a propulsion system for a Mars mission.

It is going to have a lot soft edges and posters believing Christianity means the Holy Roman Catholic Church that they grew up with in Ireland, said Church being based on Peter, as Islam is based on Mohamed and both claim Jesus as their inspiration and prime prophet.

Did anyone in this thread even claim that if Jesus was historical then he also was divine?

I don't think pandering to people who can't stay on topic is the best course of action.

I can settle the side debate now anyway, Jesus being a historical figure does not mean he was the son of God.

Wibbs

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Josephus

I always had a couple of issues with this guy TBH. It smells a lot like additions to the original text goin on. Still I would bet the farm when you take out the "jaysus was deadly" bits you'd end up with something like this;

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man sorcerer who wrought surprising feats. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of highest standing, had condemned him to be crucified. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Tacitus


The reference in Tacitus is much shorter than in Josephus but just as problematic:


"[Christians] derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate"




The sentence reads as hearsay, as if Tacitus is merely restating what Christians believe.

Maybe, though why would he? As you say he was a Roman historian and he wasn't exactly on the side of these crawthumpers.

Tacitus is a Roman historian and would have had access to official Roman records. Had he been using these (which seems reasonable) then he wouldn't have made the mistake of calling Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect

Couple of things; 1) the dating on the stone is up for grabs and is incomplete, so he may have been awarded higher office afterwards, but more 2) He doesn't actually use the word procurator, he uses the word for governor*.

nor does it explain why he uses a Christian honorific in describing Jesus, something that would not have been found in Roman records.

Well not really. In the original he writes Chrestus, not Christus and studies on the earliest versions extant have shown that later Christian types took out the oul proto tippex and substituted an I for the E. As to the title? Let's imagine if Tacitus in his travels ended up writing "Buddhism which originated in India carries the name of it's founder, the Buddha" , would we then conclude that some well traveled saffron hued chap had climbed into the records to add in the honourific, or that Taccy was a closet Ommmmm merchant? The simplest explanation is that he was just describing the origin of the name. It would be interesting to read the original Greek to see if he writes "christ" or "the christ", though in what passes for my bad memory in Greek there's no diff?

there are also multiple attestations from different authors within and without the bible supporting the stoning idea:


"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
1 Peter 2:24

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.""
Galatians 3:13

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."

Hanging/hanging from a tree(rather from wood) are also descriptions of crucifixion(as are being staked/impaled). The biggest problem with the tree bit is the word in the original Greek. Dendra is the Greek word for a tree, however in those passages above they don't use that word, they use the word for "wood" "xulon/xylon". So he was hung not on a tree, but on something made of wood. The Jewish rite after stoning was an actual "cursed" tree.

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree."
Acts 10:39

It states they killed him by hanging him on something made from wood, not a tree and not stoning. That's a bit of an omission. Like saying some bloke executed by electric chair, "They killed him by burial". Why not just state stoning? They happily state stoning for others. James was apparently attacked by a mob thrown off the temple walls and what was left of him was stoned.

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says: “Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'"
Sanhedrin 43a

Well that's a third century talmudic document and might well be described as a tad hostile. And yet... again they say his ultimate fate is hanging not stoning. They also get his name wrong spelling wise, so a bit of a disconnect there. The interesting part for me is the "connected/influential" part. Though likely just a third century "ahh he got away with it, cos of who he knew"

I dunno O, I love the idea of stoning as an alternative end that has legs, but I'm beginning to drift more towards the oul crucifixion TBH. Though like you I reckon it means feck all in the greater scheme of things. That said I'm not so sure I'd agree that his death was "ordinary". I mean stoning or crucifixion are pretty non ordinary ways to shuffle off. Plus his death seems to have been different, because the splinter faith didn't die off with his death like so many others did. Even before Paul gets involved there was a coterie of followers still kicking around that initially he was charged with squishing.

[*]What solid evidence is there for the Romans taking notice of Jesus to the point that they would have executed him for sedition? I acknowledge that Peregrinus' point about the Pax Romana may be the best explanation for this scenario but it is not really hinted at in any of the sources.

Oh IMH there's a large chunk of the puzzle missing. Maybe the Barrabas/Jesus scene hints at it? IE that he was both a "blessed be the peacemakers" and a seditious type. After all we have hints in the official texts. The biggie is in the garden of Gethsemene(sp). The cops who show up to arrest him are resisted by his followers, in particular one bloke who gets the full Van Gogh and gets his ear lopped off for his trouble. At least one of Jesus' disciples was tooled up with swords. Would a passing Roman patrol have taken kindly to this? A Jew and a fringe one at that carrying weapons? Me thinkie not. IIRC one of the first things your Romans did in such territories was to ban personal weapons among the locals. Good sense too.

That being the case, why would the Romans not just have had the Sanhedrin stone Jesus and be done with it instead of bringing this bunch of disciples on themselves and instigating a mini-rebellion. It would seem that the most stable approach would have been to have Jesus stoned by his own people.

Because(and again IIRC the texts mention this too) in a Roman controlled province the local courts lost their ability/right to hand down capital sentences. The ultimate punishment was meted out by Rome. In the texts don't they pack him to Herod's court because of this? Herod could execute people as he was ruling a protectorate, but somewhat autonomous. Like Vichy Palestine. Again I don't buy the whole trial thing. Indeed the Herod bit adds to the daftness as that would have required a journey of a couple of days to get him to Herod. However it does add to my belief that that whole section was a stitch up job on the Jews.

So IMH the most likely narrative is the crucifixion. The torture beforehand that had Mel Gibson feverishly jerking off was also a noted element of the Roman crucifixion. Pretty much all of the texts both inside the nascent faith and beyond say crucifixion, by the first century AD they're even busy having longwinded debates on the shape of the cross involved(which range from a simple stake, to the "official" cross, to the tau) and one of the earliest graffiti taking the piss out of the christians have some guy the artist knows bowing to a donkey suspended on a tau cross. Plus crucifixion was such a shameful end in the Greco Roman world you would have expected them to be only too gung ho to have him die by other means and better yet to be directly killed by non Romans, leaving them well out of it. Even by the time of Islam they considered it so shameful they avoided the whole sorry mess by having an imposter(or Judas, can't recall) magically take Jesus' place on the cross, while Allah beamed him up to heaven.

I love this kinda discussion.





*was having this very debate with a client of mine who is a classical scholar type. Feck wiki he also had some interesting thoughts on Judas and his role and the nature of his betrayal in the original greek. Something about his description is kinda like JC's trusted master at arms, a job in the classical world that entailed officially handing over his master after his masters surrender and this was not a betrayal as such. That the story needed a fallguy and he looked the best bet after the fact. Something like that anyway.

Peregrinus

I have very little to add to what Wibbs has said, but just a couple of thoughts on oldernwiser’s final points:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What solid evidence is there for the Romans taking notice of Jesus to the point that they would have executed him for sedition? I acknowledge that Peregrinus' point about the Pax Romana may be the best explanation for this scenario but it is not really hinted at in any of the sources.

It is, actually. The gospels present the Temple authorities as having their own reasons for wanting rid of Jesus, but when they bring him before Pilate, they don’t offer the reasons the reasons which actuate them, the Temple authorities; as you’d expect they offer reasons which they think will appeal to Pilate. So, it’s “This man said, ‘I am the king of the Jews’” and “we have no king but Caesar!” In other words, they present Jesus to Pilate as a political revolutionary, seeking to displace Roman political authority.

To someone who doesn’t know much about Jesus or what he has been saying, this isn’t completely implausible - there was an active revolutionary movement, the Zealots, who were also enemies of the Temple, so it was entirely credible that the Temple authorities would denounce Zealots to the Romans.

Did Pilate believe the story that Jesus was a Zealot? Hard to say. But he might not have been that bothered; it was enough that Jesus was causing a commotion by his confrontation with the Temple authorities. Even if they weren’t explicitly directed at Roman authorities, riots and commotion were a Bad Thing, since they disrupted trade, pissed off merchants and led to lower tax returns and complaints to Rome about the governor’s failure to maintain order. Plus, even if the riots themselves were not a manifestation of zealotry, they could only give heart and hope and support to the Zealots, who would certainly try to turn them to advantage. And Jerusalem was a volatile place, especially at Passover-time. (Passover does, after all, celebrate the liberation of Israel from political subjugation.) All of that was a sufficient reason for getting rid of Jesus, whether or not he was a Zealot or a politically-inspired revolutionary.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If we are to take Josephus as a credible source (and secondarily if we take information from Suetonius and Pliny at face value) then it seems like the Christians of that era were a feisty bunch and not of a mind to back down in the face of a confrontation (e.g. "those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him") That being the case, why would the Romans not just have had the Sanhedrin stone Jesus and be done with it instead of bringing this bunch of disciples on themselves and instigating a mini-rebellion. It would seem that the most stable approach would have been to have Jesus stoned by his own people.

By the time we get to Suetonius and Pliny, Christians are a feisty bunch, but the available evidence doesn’t suggest that this was so at the time of the execution of Christ - quite the contrary. The story presented by the gospels is of Jesus initially attracting a large following, but that following fairly rapidly falling away, and by the time of these events he has a much-reduced, and somewhat confused, group of followers. And the gospels suggest that his followers completely bottled out when it came to the actual execution - denied Jesus, scattered, fled, went into hiding, etc. Since this must be embarrassing to people like Peter and the Twelve, and since the gospels were written by followers of these men, this doesn’t look like a constructed fiction; it looks more like an embarrassing truth which is already too well-known to be plausibly denied or glossed over when writing the gospels. Josephus, etc, encounter a different bunch of Christians in a different place at a much later time.

Wibbs

Peregrinus wrote: »

By the time we get to Suetonius and Pliny, Christians are a feisty bunch, but the available evidence doesn’t suggest that this was so at the time of the execution of Christ - quite the contrary. The story presented by the gospels is of Jesus initially attracting a large following, but that following fairly rapidly falling away, and by the time of these events he has a much-reduced, and somewhat confused, group of followers. And the gospels suggest that his followers completely bottled out when it came to the actual execution - denied Jesus, scattered, fled, went into hiding, etc. Since this must be embarrassing to people like Peter and the Twelve, and since the gospels were written by followers of these men, this doesn’t look like a constructed fiction; it looks more like an embarrassing truth which is already too well-known to be plausibly denied or glossed over when writing the gospels. Josephus, etc, encounter a different bunch of Christians in a different place at a much later time.

Good point. The story goes by the time of his death all that's left is pretty much his close family. I would say the story rather than suggest they all legged it, makes a big point about this.



Thinking more about the crucifixion v stoning debate and to reduce it down... Many of us would agree the whole trial by the Jewish elders story looks very dodgy. The "rome frees a capital prisoner on a local religious holiday" also looks wrong. So why add it in? If he was condemned and executed by stoning by the locals there would be no later need to. Indeed the story would play out better for a non Jewish audience. However if he was crucified by the Romans for whatever reason, it then does make sense for Roman sympathies to add/tweak what actually happened later.

Thinking more on in Roman controlled province the local courts lost their ability/right to hand down capital sentences... One problem comes up, namely stonings are mentioned in the gospels and elsewhere, Jesus saving the prostitute for example. Other martyrs being stoned too. So how do we explain that? From reading of these stonings they appear to be by the mob, off the cuff extra legal lynchings basically. No "official" trial and judgement involved. Officially the locals couldn't hand down capitol sentences, but if the mob were to smell blood, well what could we have done Claudius? Out of our hands. Fair enough Samuel. Ah sure we have our own mob too. Can get right bloody unruly with it. Fancy a few vinos?

smacl

Wibbs wrote: »

I love this kinda discussion.

Really enjoying myself, as an ignorant bystander who wasn't even aware he had any interest in the subject up until now.

Standard Toaster

smacl wrote: »

Really enjoying myself, as an ignorant bystander who wasn't even aware he had any interest in the subject up until now.

+1