Jesus was Myth

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How could over 500 people in Corinth who had never seen Jesus before believe that they had seen him in one place, at one time? Even if that is plausible, is it probable?

How many cult leaders made people believe some very radical things in the 20th century, including mass suicides?

Paul doesn't say that 500 people in Corinth ever saw Jesus. ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ/epeita ophthe epano pentakoriois adelphois ephapax is a declaration to the Corinthians that the risen Messiah appeared to 500 brothers/brethren, not to the Corinthians. Paul is repeating what he was told. We have plenty of documentation that Emperor Haile Selassie existed, just nothing to substantiate the testimony of his divine presence and miracles. And that was last century.

Is there any evidence in the Gospels that Jesus ever travelled to Corinth?

I doubt he did. You have to understand how cults (the practice of religion) in that time period worked. Everything was localized, the myths didn't really matter, the gods were mocked in comedies, and Socrates was executed for blasphemy. Religion was culture. The Christians were called atheists because at that time the word meant "not to believe/follow the gods". There is all the difference in the world between a religious movement within a larger framework and the cultic incorporation of a larger religious-mythic framework.

I do not think that we can rule out that it is at least plausible that the passage is an interpolation.

Everything is plausible. Maybe Jesus was the messiah of YHWH. I just don't see the evidence. NT specialists are lucky in that while classicists have to try to work with a handful of medieval manuscripts we have so many textual attestations of the NT nobody knows the exact number. So we turn to other techniques to determine whether there is any indication that this line is interpolated. There isn't. It fits within Paul's use of oral material he was taught. It isn't something he or the Corinthians witnessed (except for the inclusion of himself, which is either a lie or an ecstatic state of some sort).

Anyway, you and I both agree that the passage was not actual history.

It wouldn't surprise me if those closest to Jesus and believing in him "saw'" him after he had died, as this is currently a common cultural phenomenon recognized by psychiatrists and psychologists as normal in particular cultures after the passing of a loved one. However, what Paul's motives are I have no idea. And it seems clear that the number 500 was already fixed in the tradition by the time Paul received it, but I have no idea where that came from either.

Even though you said that you are not a professional, you apparently have the equivalent knowledge of many people who have a bachelor's degree in theology.

Thank you, but alas I don't know so much about theology. Philosophy and history I know something of. But my knowledge of theology doesn't extend far beyond the logical arguments put from before Christianity through the scholastics and into the early modern period with Descartes up to WL Craig. And I can't stand the guy so I find it difficult to be objective when it comes to him.

I would enjoy seeing you critique some of N.T. Wright's writings.

I have his three volume set, and they are very useful. The last, unfortunately, isn't just a rather credulous approach to the evidence but a complete renunciation of the historical method. If, for the sake of argument, people like Craig and Wright were correct, and we had no good historical explanation for the origins of Christianity, it doesn't therefore follow that the only alternative is one even less likely than the worst historical argument. Historians rely on evidence and knowledge of what happens in reality. In reality, people (so far as modern scientific research has informed us) don't walk on water, resurrect others, and come back to life. Perhaps they do, but I don't believe it and whether a historian does or not it isn't a historical question but a religious one. One cannot argue that a lack of historical explanation entitles one to claim miracle.

What do you think of William Lane Craig's skills as a theologian?

I try not to. He's a great logician. As a theologian I don't see anything in his work that Kreeft and Lewis didn't cover already and in a superior way.

We already know that he is pretty good at philosophy. Of course, as you know, he has a doctorate degree in both of those fields.

His most well-known work among his colleagues in philosophy as to do with epistemology, and therefore logic. If he stuck with that, I might even like the guy. Instead, he prefers spreading inaccuracies and setting up debates in which he makes the rules so that he can convince people who want to believe that they have a good reason. That kind of intellect is such a waste when it is used just to convince the believers an reinforce the faith of those who start to doubt.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All of them. That's my point. If they believe in the historical Jesus, they aren't really historians. All the real historians dismiss the historical Jesus.

Are you unfamiliar with the no-true-Scotsman argument?

As the commentator below you aptly noted, you have done a remarkable job illustrating this fallacy.

I've never seen that. I'd be as shocked to see you treat a 'mythicist' respectfully as I'd be shocked to see Michael Moore speaking respectfully of Zimmerman

I work primarily in cognitive neuroscience, mathematics, and lately as a research consultant. If you think my life is consumed by a passionate following of people who troll the web for evidence that Craig proved god existed, or that quantum physics means ESP is possible, or that mythicists have shown scholarship they haven't read is totally off, you'd be wrong. I just don't like intellectual dishonesty. However, I don't use my beliefs as a metric for this. When you show my a historian who makes a good argument that addresses the research, then we deal with whether I can respectfully disagree with a mythicist. Until then, your just another person who, upon learning that they have noting to stand on and virtually every historian disagrees with them, still clings to their dogma so much so that they can dismiss these historians based on a criterion: are you a mythicist?

If you call me intellectually dishonest, I'll call you a liar or insane. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my approach to life.

I believe the word I used as integrity, but it doesn't matter. If you believe yourself to be truly intellectually honest and to possess intellectual integrity, your deluding yourself. Given your constant need to reinforce how you've "proven" something when even so-called hard sciences have abandoned that terminology and it exists now largely in mathematics alone, I'd say the latter is more likely.

Well, it's true that I don't think much of many biblical scholars, but I hardly think that's a reason to receive raw scorn.

Perhaps that's because you've hardly thought about this. Have you read non-biblical scholars, and if so whom have you read?

How do you feel about all the parapsychology scholars who insist they have proof that we can communicate with the dead?

I can and have read their research. So I can point to flaws. Several hundreds of my posts have been devoted to showing how scientific studies in the social and behavioral sciences (and neuroscience) are wrong, or that the reports about them were misleading.

How do you feel about people who don't bow to the opinions of parapsychology scholars but rather tend to consider those scholars biased?

If they write them off without having read the research, I'd ask them what their basis was. I do this all the time. I spent the past few years devoting most of my time to physics research to disprove quantum theories of consciousness and while I am still skeptical, I haven't succeeded in showing myself that there are clear indications the theory is wrong. I don't believe it, but it very well might be true. Studies on acupuncture, ESP, telekinesis, etc., are not the same. I have yet to read a single research paper that didn't contain glaring flaws or was missing needed information.

 

[outhouse]

It wouldn't surprise me if those closest to Jesus and believing in him "saw'" him after he had died, as this is currently a common cultural phenomenon recognized by psychiatrists and psychologists as normal in particular cultures after the passing of a loved one

.

What must also be noted is that dreams and visions were viewed as real events to these primitive people. They were also not beyond fiction and artistic freedom.


My dad has been passed a long time, yet I still have vivid dreams and can see him clear as day.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your comment is absurd.

Obviously. That's was my point. But thanks for noticing.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As the commentator below you aptly noted, you have done a remarkable job illustrating this fallacy.

Thanks. Rationality is my forte. Illustrating logical fallacies comes easily to me.

Until then, your just another person who, upon learning that they have noting to stand on and virtually every historian disagrees with them, still clings to their dogma so much so that they can dismiss these historians based on a criterion: are you a mythicist?

If you believe yourself to be truly intellectually honest and to possess intellectual integrity, your deluding yourself.

I'm not willing to descend into this kind of ugliness with you, Legion.

I hope that whatever is bothering you works out for the best.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to LegionOnomaMoi: I am not reasonably certain regarding what happened regarding the passage in question, but I guess that is what ancient history is often about. Thank you for all of your comments. I enjoyed our discussions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

but I guess that is what ancient history is often about.

It is. In fact, it's even what the sciences are often about, and ancient history is far less certain.

Thank you for all of your comments. I enjoyed our discussions.

Thank you, and I did as well. I always appreciate it when I can have a discussion with someone who disagrees with me but is better than I am at doing so without being aggressive and who is can stimulate a productive discussion (again, better than I).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks. Rationality is my forte. Illustrating logical fallacies comes easily to me.

There are other ways to illustrate than to expemplify

I'm not willing to descend into this kind of ugliness with you, Legion.

So you can slime entire fields of scholars, but that's ok because...?

I hope that whatever is bothering you works out for the best.

I doubt it. Because rationality is the subject of research in the field I work in. Studying how, when, and why people make decisions, evaluate more complicated forms of conditionals, form judgments, even perception itself is all central to work in the cognitive sciences and as there is no indication that a significant portion of the population will suddenly change the way their cognitive and perceptual faculties work, or that government bureaucracies will suddenly be capable of structuring educational systems to allow competent teachers to be paid as they should and to be competent, things won't change.

Human cognition isn't designed for logical analysis, critical thinking, and the other cognitive abilities required to effectively:
-evaluate new information relative to a current worldview or framework
-then update beliefs according to a systematic analysis
- integrate the results within a new framework

Analysis, meaning the branch of mathematics of which calculus is the beginning step, involves cognitive skills that are neither innate nor typically acquired easily if at all. Yet it is within analysis that one not only deals with formal languages (classical logic, algebras, integration theories, etc.), but is required to use them to prove, defend, and evaluate arguments. Yet few learn analysis. Fewer still learn the higher level logics that philosophers of logic, epistemology, etc., are acquainted with. And all of those who study these and other areas of logic and reasoning are still capable of completely illogical reasoning. The most brilliant logician of all time was mentally unstable and did not believe medical doctors were competent enough (according to his brother, a medical doctor). He ended up starving to death in 1978.

That's because logic depends upon basis states (premises). Given an optimal procedure for formally updating one's beliefs based on new information (e.g., Bayesian analysis), this means that if someone believes they are being tracked by a super-secret society intent on killing them, the most rational, logical thing to do would be to would involve actions that most people would believe are insane. Why? Because the most rational evaluation possible is always relative to some base beliefs, and the most optimal method for updating one's beliefs based on new information is dependent not only on the basis state, nor even the quality and quantity of new information, but also that which cannot be known: how much information is there which is relevant and which the individual does not know exists.
As it is impossible for you (or anybody) to be aware of what arguments and data that you simply aren't aware of, it is impossible to update your beliefs keeping these in mind. And as it is human nature to think that one is acting rationally or has logically defeated an argument even when they haven't, you have no standard by which you can evaluate your beliefs. This is mathematically possible (to evaluate your beliefs given the information you have, your beliefs about that information, and your final evaluation and integration). But people who are aware of how subjective probabilities are evaluated in branches of computer science, mathematics, cognitive psychology, etc., do not typically declare themselves to be victors in debates because they don't know enough even to realize how tiny their own familiarity with the subject matter is. That's for people like you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As it is impossible for you (or anybody) to be aware of what arguments and data that you simply aren't aware of, it is impossible to update your beliefs keeping these in mind. And as it is human nature to think that one is acting rationally or has logically defeated an argument even when they haven't, you have no standard by which you can evaluate your beliefs. This is mathematically possible (to evaluate your beliefs given the information you have, your beliefs about that information, and your final evaluation and integration). But people who are aware of how subjective probabilities are evaluated in branches of computer science, mathematics, cognitive psychology, etc., do not typically declare themselves to be victors in debates because they don't know enough even to realize how tiny their own familiarity with the subject matter is. That's for people like you.

It's a lot of big words, but I see no explanation within it for why I'm civil in my debates, no matter how abruptly someone disagrees with me... while you turn to serious personal nastiness when challenged.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you may have made a mistake when you decided to pursue academia? That no matter how hard you try, the answers you seek just aren't there but may be more reliably uncovered by a simple examination of self?

Last word to you unless you want more from me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's a lot of big words, but I see no explanation within it for why I'm civil in my debates

You aren't. You've slimed thousands and thousands of scholars, maligning their expertise, their rationality, their competency, even their fields.

Only Jesus historicists behave as you describe above. Jesus mythicists do their homework, are unbiased, and are clearly the best thinkers.

Absolute nonsense. All the historicist scholars have been easily refuted. None of the mythicist scholars have ever been refuted.

The rigid, ignorant, biased HJ crowd simply waves away my proof and continues to assert that no one can prove the mythical Jesus.

The problem at hand is the inability of some folks to get comfortable with ambiguity.

Really, anyone who is certain of the historical state of Jesus -- one way or the other -- is just unable to think clearly about historicity.

It's particularly curious when I react to a poster's arrogance with my own faux arrogance, only to have the original poster complain that I'm being arrogant.

Perhaps because your faux arrogance is indistinguishable from anything else you say, e.g.

Anyway, I am a mighty debater who has proven all my positions. Everyone else here is full of twaddle -- except insofar as they agree with me, I mean.

It reminds me of a guy walking down the sidewalk, seeing his reflection in a store window and disliking the behavior of that reflection so much that he stands there and lectures the guy in the window about correct behavior.

no matter how abruptly someone disagrees with me.. while you turn to serious personal nastiness when challenged.

Right.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you may have made a mistake when you decided to pursue academia?

I didn't. I had intended on a career in the marines, but had to choose between my fiancé and the military. Before that, I dropped out of high school. I only started college because I needed easier access to sources and because teaching myself Greek was harder than Latin (the alphabet). And my intent was never to pursue a career in academia but in clinical psychology. It was independent study that changed my path, just like it determined my decision to go to college in the first place. I taught myself virtually all the mathematics I use, the programming languages I use, and the languages I am able to read.

I don't pursue academia. I pursue truth. You don't.

That no matter how hard you try, the answers you seek just aren't there but may be more reliably uncovered by a simple examination of self?

I have examined myself over and over again ever since I was first put away at 14. My examination of self was actually published. It's available for free too.

Last word to you unless you want more from me.

If you have something worthwhile, feel free to share. It would be a nice change.

 

[roger1440]

Possibly very few. In his best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity," author, and sociologist Rodney Stark, who has written over 50 books, estimates that in 100 A.D., there were only about 7,530 Christians in the entire world. Conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright has said that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to start a riot in a small village."

Rodney Stark also uses evidence from experts in papyrology, and archaeology, to show that there were very few Christians in the world in the first century A.D.

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, including many miracles "throughout all of Syria" as the New Testament claims, that might partly explain why there were so few Christians in the world in the first century A.D. since people who lived in Jerusalem, and Syria, could easily have checked out claims of miracles for themselves.

If Jesus actually did perform many miracles for three years, I assume that he would have easily become a media sensation, and would have attracted the attention of the governments of Jerusalem, and Syria.

I really don’t think Jesus was sitting under a tree playing a ukulele with a few friends singing Kumbaya. Jesus must have had a large enough following to gain the attention of the Jewish authorities. In all likelihood the Jewish authorities saw Jesus as a potential threat. A threat that needed to be silenced. There was already a lot of tension in Jerusalem during the first century. Israel was under Roman occupation. It would only take one small spark to ignite a fire. The fuel for a riot was already in place. Every Messiah wanna be would be in town that week. Along with pick pockets, revolutionaries, preachers, philosophers and Jews from all walks of life. During the week of Passover the population of Jerusalem would increase by tens of thousands of people. The Roman authorities would bring in extra soldiers to keep the peace. If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he most definitely would have gained the attention of the Jewish and Roman authorities.

“Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:49-50)

Most of what we know about first century Israel comes down to us from the Jewish historian Josephus. He writes that after a Roman soldier exposed himself in the Jewish temple, riots broke out. In the end, over 10,000 Jews were dead. This happen a few years after Jesus was crucified.

“NOW after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle's kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cureanus began the troubles, and the Jews' ruin came on; for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple, (for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make,) one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones and threw them at the soldiers. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented their own relations.” (Josephus, The Wars Of The Jews, Book 2, Chapter 12, Paragraph 1) http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-2.htm

 

[Agnostic75]

I really don’t think Jesus was sitting under a tree playing a ukulele with a few friends singing Kumbaya. Jesus must have had a large enough following to gain the attention of the Jewish authorities. In all likelihood the Jewish authorities saw Jesus as a potential threat. A threat that needed to be silenced. There was already a lot of tension in Jerusalem during the first century. Israel was under Roman occupation. It would only take one small spark to ignite a fire. The fuel for a riot was already in place. Every Messiah wanna be would be in town that week. Along with pick pockets, revolutionaries, preachers, philosophers and Jews from all walks of life. During the week of Passover the population of Jerusalem would increase by tens of thousands of people. The Roman authorities would bring in extra soldiers to keep the peace. If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he most definitely would have gained the attention of the Jewish and Roman authorities.

“Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:49-50)

Well sure, if you call upon the Bible to be its own witness, you can make a good case that there were a good number of Christians during the first century A.D.

Most of what we know about first century Israel comes down to us from the Jewish historian Josephus. He writes that after a Roman soldier exposed himself in the Jewish temple, riots broke out. In the end, over 10,000 Jews were dead. This happen a few years after Jesus was crucified.

“NOW after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle's kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cureanus began the troubles, and the Jews' ruin came on; for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple, (for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make,) one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones and threw them at the soldiers. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented their own relations.” (Josephus, The Wars Of The Jews, Book 2, Chapter 12, Paragraph 1) http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-2.htm

I am sure that Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, who has written over 50 books, and noted conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright, are more familiar with the writings of Josephus than you are, but I am not criticizing you. In Stark's book "The Rise of Christianity," regarding the claim in the book of Acts that 3,000 people got saved after hearing a sermon by Peter, Stark says, and quotes expert Marta Sordi, that in those days, it was typical for writers to use hyperbole, and that the actual number of people was most likely much smaller.

Regarding "till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast [of unleavened bread] became the cause of mourning to the whole nation," surely a few years after Jesus died, there was not an entire nation of Jewish Christians. If 10,000 Jewish Christians were killed a few years after Jesus died, N.T. Wright would not have said that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to mount a riot in a small village." The feast of unleavened bread that Josephus referred to was an ancient Jewish tradition, not a Christian tradition. If 10,000 people were killed, most of them must have been Jews, not Christian Jews.

I believe that it is probable that Jesus only had a relative handful of followers during his life, and that the number of followers that he had was not nearly enough to cause much of a commotion.

Pliny's letter to Trajan in about 113 A.D., reference an article at Internet History Sourcebooks Project, seems to indicate that up until that time, Christians had not been numerous enough to cause much of a commotion.

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, he would have merely been one of a number of supposed miracle workers, many of whom probably had very few followers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well sure, if you call upon the Bible to be its own witness, you can make a good case that there were a good number of Christians during the first century A.D.

You do the same when you reference Trajan and Pliny's letters.

I am sure that Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology,

...has been criticized by biblical scholars for taking social models constructed out of modern social systems and research of modern cultures, movements, social networks, etc., and applying them to a period he isn't familiar with and thus does not understand why they might not apply. And I doubt he's that familiar with Josephus. Typically, sociology doctorates don't learn ancient Greek. On the other hand, N. T. Wright is very familiar with early Christian scholarship and Josephus, among other topics.

Pliny's letter to Trajan in about 113 A.D., reference an article at Internet History Sourcebooks Project, seems to indicate that up until that time, Christians had not been numerous enough to cause much of a commotion.

Tacitus tells us the Emperor Nero knew of the Christians and blamed them for the fire of 64 CE.

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, he would have merely been one of a number of supposed miracle workers, many of whom probably had very few followers.

There is virtually no person from antiquity who had so much written about them in so short of a time. Emperors, the incredibly wealthy and powerful, and other elite are hardly known to us or are known from a work or two written after the individual has died (often centuries after). Jesus died around ~30-34 CE. The first ancient "biography" of his mission was written about 30 years later. It was quickly followed by two others and finally by a fourth, not to mention a number of other 1st century Christian writings. That amount of writing pointing to one individual in so short of a time is unparalleled. If could be pure chance, but that's a lot of chance. More likely is that Jesus did indeed have a certain charisma or flair or whatever that made people listen and to believe even after his execution he was the messiah. We can't know. What we do know is that most of the names and works we know of do are from quotes and references in other manuscripts, and are nowhere else recorded. Yet we could pretty much reconstruct the entire NT without any of the ~6000-7000 manuscripts (from papyrus scraps to codices) of the NT merely through quotations of the early Christians. In other words, had we only the kind of data we often do for so many works and authors, we'd still have the NT. Instead, we have that and the most attested (in terms of manuscript witnesses) collection of texts from all antiquity. Nothing else comes close. There are multiple reasons for this, many having nothing at all to do with Jesus, but that a peasant Galilean could become the individual unmatched in the amount written about him and our evidence of these writings from all antiquity simply from chance is implausible.

 

[Agnostic75]

On the other hand, N. T. Wright is very familiar with early Christian scholarship and Josephus, among other topics.

Following is an exact quote of N.T. Wright:

"This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

Bearing that in mind, it is no wonder that Pliny's letter to Trajan in the first part of the second century seems to imply that up until that time, there were not enough Christians around to cause much of a commotion.

Tacitus tells us the Emperor Nero knew of the Christians and blamed them for the fire of 64 CE.

Years ago, I read that some sources disagree with the claim that Nero blamed Christians, but even if he did, that does not tell us how many Christians there were in Rome.

Consider the following:

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/world_civ/worldcivreader/world_civ_reader_1/tacitus.html

Tacitus (c. 55 - 117 CE): Nero's persecution of the Christians.

Tacitus was a fierce critic of Nero, and modern scholars have questioned the reliability of his account of this notorious Roman Emperor; but the following passage from his Annals is famous because it is one of the first mentions in a non-Christian source of Christianity. In 64 CE Rome underwent a catastrophic fire, which some believed had been set at the orders of the emperor himself. Tacitus claims that Nero tried to shift the blame to the unpopular Christians, though other sources indicate that their persecution may have been unconnected to the fire. It is not clear exactly why many Romans so detested the new believers, though Christians were often confused with Jews, who were accused of being rebellious (with some reason, since the Jews of Judaea more than once created insurrections against the Roman provincial government) and lazy (since they rested on the Sabbath). Scandalous rumors about obscene Christian rituals circulated at an early date, and we know that they were accused of disloyalty because of their refusal to perform the token ritual acknowledging the divine status of the Emperor, viewed by most citizens as little different from a modern flag salute. If Tacitus shows sympathy for them, it is because he detests Nero more. Whatever their exact cause this early persecution and later ones made a profound impact on the Christian Church, and bequeathed a legacy of colorful tales of martyred saints who were celebrated in story, song, and art for the next two millenia, long after the Church had triumphed over its opponents.

This is an excerpt from Reading About the World, Volume 1, edited by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Azfar Hussain, Richard Law, Michael Myers, Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan and published by Harcourt Brace Custom Books.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/07/nero-didnt-fiddle-while-rome-burned/

.......the story goes that a great fire swept through Rome in 64 AD, and Nero played his fiddle in a villa some miles away, ignoring his duty to the great city. In truth, there was such a fire, though its extent is unknown. According to Tacitus, the fire lasted for six days and decimated Rome, with only four districts untouched (out of a total of fourteen). He goes on to state that ten of the eleven districts that burned were heavily damaged, with three of those completely destroyed. However, oddly, there is very little documented mention of the fire from those who actually lived through it. The only Roman historian during that period who even mentioned it at all was Pliny the Elder, and even he only briefly referenced it in passing.

Had it been as widespread as Tacitus claimed, one would think the likes of Plutarch, Epictetus, or other such famed Roman historians who lived through the fire would have mentioned it. And, indeed, we see that perhaps it wasn’t that great of a fire from the only other documented first hand account of the scope of the disaster - a letter from Seneca the Younger to Paul the Apostle, where he explicitly stated that only four blocks of insulae were burned (a type of apartment building), along with 132 private houses damaged (about 7% of the private houses in the city and .009% of the insulae). Not anywhere close to as widespread as Tacitus later claimed, though Seneca did say the fire lasted six days, as Tacitus stated.

As to Nero’s reaction to the fire, the first and biggest flaw in the fiddling story is that the fiddle, or violin, didn’t actually exist in Nero’s time. Historians aren’t able to give an exact date for the invention of the violin, but the viol class of instruments to which the violin belongs wasn’t developed until at least the 11th century. Many agree that the violin itself wasn’t being played until around the 16th century. If Nero actually did play a stringed instrument—and there’s no evidence that he did, whether during the burning of Rome or otherwise—it was probably a lyre or cithara.

Okay, so some details can get muddled through history. Did Nero neglect Rome while it burned? Historians argue probably not. Reports do place Nero thirty-five miles away from Rome at the time of the fire, as he was staying in his villa at Antium. However, an account from Tacitus tells us that he returned to Rome immediately when word of the fire reached him in order to begin relief efforts. As the fire raged on, Nero even opened up his own gardens to provide a temporary home for those who were now homeless. He also ordered the construction of emergency accommodation and cut the price of corn, as well as provided food directly, so that people could eat. Besides this, he paid for much of these relief efforts out of his own pocket.

However, Tacitus also tells of the rumour that had spread among the masses: while the flames surged through the city, Nero stood on his private stage and sang about the destruction of Troy in a comparison of the two events. Whether or not the rumour had any evidence to back it up or was just something made up by the unhappy masses, we don’t know, but this and Suetonius’ account are the most likely source of the fiddle story we hear today. Unfortunately for Nero, at least in the context of this story, he did have a reputation for enjoying concerts and participating in music competitions, so the activity itself wasn’t entirely unlikely even if the timing of the act is highly questionable.

While Tacitus claims the singing story was a rumour, Suetonius wrote about it with conviction. However, the story could have been an attempt to further mar Nero’s name. Nero faced problems during his reign from the very start, when it was reported that his own mother poisoned his predecessor, Claudius. He was also blamed for the death of Claudius’ son Brittanicus, who was being urged to take his proper place as Emperor by overthrowing Nero. Numerous other deaths were thought to have been committed by Nero’s hand, including one of his wives and his own mother.

As such, Nero was painted as a man who was difficult for the masses to trust. No one knew how the fire started, and many Romans believed that he had started the fire that burned their city. (It likely started in shops containing flammable goods, and was probably an accident rather than any one person’s intentional act.)

There is virtually no person from antiquity who had so much written about them in so short of a time........Jesus died around 30-34 CE. The first ancient "biography" of his mission was written about 30 years later. It was quickly followed by two others and finally by a fourth, not to mention a number of other 1st century Christian writings. That amount of writing pointing to one individual in so short of a time is unparalleled.

What four biographies are you referring to, and what other 1st century Christian writings?

Unlike you, I have no horse in the Jesus myth race, but I am interested in how many Christians there were in the world in the first century A.D. For now, I will go with Rodney Stark, and his expert sources in papyrology, and archaeology, and N.T. Wright. Your acceptance of the historical Jesus does not depend upon how many Christians there were in the first century A.D. Rodney Stark, and N.T. Wright certainly accept the historical Jesus, and would not consider that a very small number of Christians during the first century A.D. would be an important issue regarding their acceptance of the historical Jesus, but it seems that you do.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is virtually no person from antiquity who had so much written about them in so short of a time. Emperors, the incredibly wealthy and powerful, and other elite are hardly known to us or are known from a work or two written after the individual has died (often centuries after). Jesus died around ~30-34 CE. The first ancient "biography" of his mission was written about 30 years later. It was quickly followed by two others and finally by a fourth, not to mention a number of other 1st century Christian writings. That amount of writing pointing to one individual in so short of a time is unparalleled.

One of the best bits of evidence that Jesus was fictional rather than historical.

 

[steeltoes]

One of the best bits of evidence that Jesus was fictional rather than historical.

True, if Jesus was historical it is certainly not for those reasons. We have some secondary writings written well after the fact but based on known contemporary primary sources that were since lost for some well known people of history, but to suggest that a gospel storyline narration with a total gap of 30 years is some how reliable is gullible, not to mention the fact that the additional gospels were basically plagiarized versions of gMark. The best explanation for additional writings is that a new religion was forming, gMark was met with some success and the additional writings were building on that success.

 

[roger1440]

Well sure, if you call upon the Bible to be its own witness, you can make a good case that there were a good number of Christians during the first century A.D.



I am sure that Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, who has written over 50 books, and noted conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright, are more familiar with the writings of Josephus than you are, but I am not criticizing you. In Stark's book "The Rise of Christianity," regarding the claim in the book of Acts that 3,000 people got saved after hearing a sermon by Peter, Stark says, and quotes expert Marta Sordi, that in those days, it was typical for writers to use hyperbole, and that the actual number of people was most likely much smaller.

Regarding "till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast [of unleavened bread] became the cause of mourning to the whole nation," surely a few years after Jesus died, there was not an entire nation of Jewish Christians. If 10,000 Jewish Christians were killed a few years after Jesus died, N.T. Wright would not have said that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to mount a riot in a small village." The feast of unleavened bread that Josephus referred to was an ancient Jewish tradition, not a Christian tradition. If 10,000 people were killed, most of them must have been Jews, not Christian Jews.

I believe that it is probable that Jesus only had a relative handful of followers during his life, and that the number of followers that he had was not nearly enough to cause much of a commotion.

Pliny's letter to Trajan in about 113 A.D., reference an article at Internet History Sourcebooks Project, seems to indicate that up until that time, Christians had not been numerous enough to cause much of a commotion.

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, he would have merely been one of a number of supposed miracle workers, many of whom probably had very few followers.

I wasn’t implying the 10,000 people that were killed were Jewish Christians. The point I was making is that it doesn’t take a lot of people to start a riot. In this case it only took one person to start a riot, the Roman soldier. From the actions of that Roman soldier, things quickly escalated out of control.

By the first century the Romans had conquered most of the known world. The Americas wasn’t discovered yet. Roman soldiers would have been spread out thinly throughout the entire region. It would have been extremely important to the Romans to stop any upraising or trouble right from the very beginning. The Romans would not have the man power to stop a large upraising; therefore they would have to stop it as soon as the seed was planted. Keep in mind; extra troops do not come in by helicopters. These extra troops would have to walk to the target zone. This could take days, weeks or months.
In order for the Romans to discourage any upraising, they had to put fear in the people’s hearts that they had conquered. This is a common tactic in all conquering armies.

Many years ago I had a coworker who was an elderly man from the Philippines. As a young man he had lived in his country during the Japanese occupation during World War 2. He told me the Japanese had a rule. For every one Japanese soldier that the Philippine people killed the Japanese would kill ten Philippine people. Well it kept the Philippine people in line. My coworker actually saw a Philippine man doused with gasoline and lit on fire. In Jesus’s time the same type of scare tactics would have been used. This is a very effective means to control people.

 

[Muffled]

Some posters here will equate you with creationism and for being a dumb *** for not believing what they know is the truth if they haven't already.

I would not be one to equate him with creationism.

I don't believe that he is a dumb ***.

I do believe that what I know as truth can't be found in the darkness in which I beleive he is treading.

 

[Muffled]

LOL i reckon Joshua is cooler than the garbage u've managed to put together..but thats just me.

God doesn't care about what people think is cool. He selected the name because it means "God saves."

 

[Muffled]

Even the whole "getting killed by the Romans" part doesn't make any sense. Why would the Romans care about killing a man who claimed to be the Jewish messiah? They certainly wouldn't release a murderer in favor of executing a blasphemer against a religion they didn't follow.

I believe the Romans didn't care what they did to the Jews so exeecuting one to keep the peace and satisfy their relgious lackeys wouldn't be a stretch for them.

It was not the claim of Messiah that bothered the Romans becausea they didn't understand the history or the concept but the claim of King put Jesus in opposition to the Roman emperor.