The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[Estro Felino]

I didn't say the accounts were fake. I simply pointed out the fair possibility that Christian scribes might have inserted later additions into the works they were copying.

Tacitus, for example, may very well have referred to Christians, but did he necessarily explain that their name came from "Christ"? Maybe, maybe not. There are plausible arguments on both sides.

It's not a matter of etymology. I was focusing on how he insults Christians. It looks impossible to me that Christian monks, by falsifying a Roman book of historical accounts, deliberately calls Christianity an "execrable superstition", an "atrocity coming from Judaea" etc...

As for Suetonius, there is in fact a problem with understanding his words as referring to Jews incited by Christ: The plain meaning of his statement is that the Jews of Rome were incited by a person they knew, living among them. There are debates to what expulsion Suetonius is referring to, but in any case, per Christian belief and Christian sources, Jesus never set foot in Rome. Was Jesus still alive at the time of this event and living in Rome?
Another plausible possibility is that Suetonius did not misspell the word Christos and really meant someone named Chrestus, a name we have some evidence for.

So, in short, it's not a simple issue.

Ancient Romans were not able to distinguish Jews from Christians (that at first were Jews, mostly).
He says Iudaei because he didn't even know the term Christiani yet.
But it dealt with Jews who migrated to Rome to spread Christianity.
And they were causing unrest.

 

[Estro Felino]

What does this have to do with Dio's paragraph on Bar Kokhba?

Because Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus were all pagans.
So whatever they wrote about Christianity or Judaism...they were impartial, external thirds.

 

[Harel13]

It's not a matter of etymology. I was focusing on how he insults Christians. It looks impossible to me that Christian monks, by falsifying a Roman book of historical accounts, deliberately calls Christianity an "execrable superstition", an "atrocity coming from Judaea" etc...

It most certainly is a matter of etymology. You assume that "Chrestus" = "Jesus Christ" and so assume that he's calling Christians "Jews". But was he? Was he truly referring to Jesus? And even if he was, can we rightly accept that he was speaking about Jesus alive and well, wreaking havoc yet again and in Rome of all places? And quite likely at least a decade after he was supposedly crucified?

Ancient Romans were not able to distinguish Jews from Christians (that at first were Jews, mostly).
He says Iudaei because he didn't even know there tem Christiani yet.
But it dealt with Jews who migrated to Rome to spread Christianity.
And they were causing unrest.

So how likely is it that "Chrestus" = Jesus? Per your argument, he did not know of Christians or the origin of their name and connection to one "Christ". Simply going by your argument, it is more likely that he was either referring to a different man, likely a Jew named Chrestus who incited Roman Jews, or that, even if he did mistake Chrestus for Christos, he would have been referring to a different messianic-type charismatic leader who instigated those events.

Because Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus were all pagans.
So whatever they wrote about Christianity or Judaism...they were impartial, external thirds.

That's great. Now re-read what I wrote. Most of these works were brought down to us by partial parties, i.e., Christian copyists. In fact, we don't even have the complete works of Dio. A significant portion of his work was summarized by Xiphilinus and the rest is lost to us. Xiphilinus was a Christian monk, meaning part of that same partial party.
Again, I actually haven't given my own opinion on the subject. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a straightforward issue.

 

[Estro Felino]

It most certainly is a matter of etymology. You assume that "Chrestus" = "Jesus Christ" and so assume that he's calling Christians "Jews". But was he? Was he truly referring to Jesus? And even if he was, can we rightly accept that he was speaking about Jesus alive and well, wreaking havoc yet again and in Rome of all places? And quite likely at least a decade after he was supposedly crucified?


So how likely is it that "Chrestus" = Jesus? Per your argument, he did not know of Christians or the origin of their name and connection to one "Christ". Simply going by your argument, it is more likely that he was either referring to a different man, likely a Jew named Chrestus who incited Roman Jews, or that, even if he did mistake Chrestus for Christos, he would have been referring to a different messianic-type charismatic leader who instigated those events.


That's great. Now re-read what I wrote. Most of these works were brought down to us by partial parties, i.e., Christian copyists. In fact, we don't even have the complete works of Dio. A significant portion of his work was summarized by Xiphilinus and the rest is lost to us. Xiphilinus was a Christian monk, meaning part of that same partial party.
Again, I actually haven't given my own opinion on the subject. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a straightforward issue.

I respect your vision. But I was speaking of the historical Jesus, here. Not of the Jesus Christians believe in.

Atheist historians admit that there is a very high probability that historical Jesus existed. He was either a Zealot instigating the Jews against the Romans, either directly or indirectly. Maybe he was the spiritual guide of a Zealot group, that replaced John the Baptist, when he was executed. Jesus was crucified for this reason by the Romans.

I was wondering: why do so many people consider the existence of historical Jesus little reliable or even 100% unreliable?

 

[Harel13]

I respect your vision. But I was speaking of the historical Jesus, here. Not of the Jesus Christians believe in.

Atheist historians admit that there is a very high probability that historical Jesus existed. He was either a Zealot instigating the Jews against the Romans, either directly or indirectly. Maybe he was the spiritual guide of a Zealot group, that replaced John the Baptist, when he was executed. Jesus was crucified for this reason by the Romans.

I was wondering: why do so many people consider the existence of historical Jesus little reliable or even 100% unreliable?

Again, going by your position: How would the "Testimonium Flavium" square with Suetonius? According to you, both bear witness to Jesus, whoever he may have been. But the TF refers to his death during the time of Pilate, while Suetonius refers to a debated event, but very likely at least a few years after Pilate was removed from his position as governor of Judea. You see, it is less important who Jesus was historically, for in any case, it is difficult to square up history with these mysterious bits of text. I'm sure that with research, you will be able to find good counter-arguments to the argument I presented, as well as other similar ones. But the fact remains that in the realm of historiographical study, these are not straightforward sources, to say the least.

 

[Estro Felino]

Again, going by your position: How would the "Testimonium Flavium" square with Suetonius? According to you, both bear witness to Jesus, whoever he may have been. But the TF refers to his death during the time of Pilate, while Suetonius refers to a debated event, but very likely at least a few years after Pilate was removed from his position as governor of Judea. You see, it is less important who Jesus was historically, for in any case, it is difficult to square up history with these mysterious bits of text. I'm sure that with research, you will be able to find good counter-arguments to the argument I presented, as well as other similar ones. But the fact remains that in the realm of historiographical study, these are not straightforward sources, to say the least.

Interesting observations.

Nevertheless I think it would be fair, intellectually, if you told me what you really think about historical Jesus.
Whether you believe he really existed and who he was.
Tell me what you really think. Did they make him up?

I am not understanding where you are getting at, honestly.

 

[Harel13]

Did they make him up?

Who?

I am not understanding where you are getting at, honestly.

My point is simple: I think it's important to be more careful when presenting Roman authors as evidence for the existence of Jesus because diving even slightly deeper than the face of things reveals many difficulties. There are those that may have solutions to these issues, but such solutions stem first of all from recognition of the difficulties that arise from said sources.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who?


My point is simple: I think it's important to be more careful when presenting Roman authors as evidence for the existence of Jesus because diving even slightly deeper than the face of things reveals many difficulties. There are those that may have solutions to these issues, but such solutions stem first of all from recognition of the difficulties that arise from said sources.

I had asked you another question, though...which is also the topic of this thread.

How historically reliable do you think Jesus's story is?

 

[Estro Felino]

Who?

Christians.

 

[Harel13]

Christians.

No, nor was that my point. If you concluded that from our interaction, then you missed the point completely.

My own position on Jesus is he was a significantly different person than that portrayed in the NT. He was a sinner who caused other Jews to sin and for this he was put to death. The end. Then Paul and Co. came along and rewrote his story.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, nor was that my point. If you concluded that from our interaction, then you missed the point completely.

My own position on Jesus is he was a significantly different person than that portrayed in the NT. He was a sinner who caused other Jews to sin and for this he was put to death. The end. Then Paul and Co. came along and rewrote his story.

Thank you.
Now I understand your point.
Sorry, I was a bit confused, so I wasn't understanding very clearly.

 

[dybmh]

The paragraph above is peculiar in the extreme since it claims the Gospel presentation of Jesus is fallacious and fabricated and then commences to tell us things about Jesus that are presumed to be true outside the NT account as though whomever wrote the paragraph above has access to some unknown toledot yeshu that has more veracity than the canonical Gospel text?

To be clear. I know nothing of the author, their credentials, sources. And that's the point I was making. Clearly a Christian cannot lift up the Jewish Encyclopedia as source material without completely denying the gospels at the same time.

 

[dybmh]

had decided that he was worthy of death on informal charges

the blasphemy charge was informal.

intersting....

That was not exactly what Jesus said, regardless of the fact that he pointed to his own body when he made the remark referred to.

nice detail...

Hatred, fanaticism, and unscrupulous exaggeration so characterized the words of these perjurers that their testimony fell in its own entanglements. The very best refutation of their false accusations was the Master’s calm and majestic silence.

i disagree, if he could have argued so easily he should have. Imo, that's a problem with this narrative. Not a big problem, but, if he is who you claim he is, the world would benefit from a long earth bound life where he could write his own gospel. How many current problems would have been resolved if only he could have lived long enough to construct something of his own?

 

[dybmh]

It is more the idea that it doesn't matter how much the story is history and how much of it is legend.

I disagree. I think it very much matters which parts and how much.

 

[dybmh]

Anyway ... modern Judaism is not Biblical Judaism, so ... who cares?

Biblical Judaism includes permits and supports what you would describe as Modern Judaism.

 

[Colt]

the blasphemy charge was informal.

intersting....



nice detail...



i disagree, if he could have argued so easily he should have. Imo, that's a problem with this narrative. Not a big problem, but, if he is who you claim he is, the world would benefit from a long earth bound life where he could write his own gospel. How many current problems would have been resolved if only he could have lived long enough to construct something of his own?

Thanks, I like your posts here on RF.

Jesus didn’t need to defend himself. His accusers were on trial, Pilate was on trial! It was intensely obvious that Jesus didn’t do anything wrong! Proud, self righteous people hate Love!

3+ years Jesus taught the Gospel of the kingdom, the Jews were called to receive it! Nothing was hidden from the spiritually perceptive individual.

It wouldn’t have mattered what culture Jesus taught his Liberal Gospel in, he would have clashed with the established order.

140:8.4 Jesus had great difficulty in getting them to understand his personal practice of nonresistance. He absolutely refused to defend himself, and it appeared to the apostles that he would be pleased if they would pursue the same policy. He taught them not to resist evil, not to combat injustice or injury, but he did not teach passive tolerance of wrongdoing. And he made it plain on this afternoon that he approved of the social punishment of evildoers and criminals, and that the civil government must sometimes employ force for the maintenance of social order and in the execution of justice.” UB 1955

Only two influences can modify and uplift the dogmas of natural religion: the pressure of the slowly advancing mores and the periodic illumination of epochal revelation. And it is not strange that progress was slow; in ancient days, to be progressive or inventive meant to be killed as a sorcerer. The cult advances slowly in generation epochs and agelong cycles. But it does move forward. Evolutionary belief in ghosts laid the foundation for a philosophy of revealed religion which will eventually destroy the superstition of its origin.” UB

 

[dybmh]

Thanks, I like your posts here on RF.

Jesus didn’t need to defend himself. His accusers were on trial, Pilate was on trial! It was intensely obvious that Jesus didn’t do anything wrong! Proud, self righteous people hate Love!

3+ years Jesus taught the Gospel of the kingdom, the Jews were called to receive it! Nothing was hidden from the spiritually perceptive individual.

It wouldn’t have mattered what culture Jesus taught his Liberal Gospel in, he would have clashed with the established order.

140:8.4 Jesus had great difficulty in getting them to understand his personal practice of nonresistance. He absolutely refused to defend himself, and it appeared to the apostles that he would be pleased if they would pursue the same policy. He taught them not to resist evil, not to combat injustice or injury, but he did not teach passive tolerance of wrongdoing. And he made it plain on this afternoon that he approved of the social punishment of evildoers and criminals, and that the civil government must sometimes employ force for the maintenance of social order and in the execution of justice.” UB 1955

Only two influences can modify and uplift the dogmas of natural religion: the pressure of the slowly advancing mores and the periodic illumination of epochal revelation. And it is not strange that progress was slow; in ancient days, to be progressive or inventive meant to be killed as a sorcerer. The cult advances slowly in generation epochs and agelong cycles. But it does move forward. Evolutionary belief in ghosts laid the foundation for a philosophy of revealed religion which will eventually destroy the superstition of its origin.” UB

What you're saying makes perfect sense. That one little bit in the UB caused me heart-burn. The tiniest little burp, nothing more. It doesn't make sense to say that his lack of reaction showed how weak and tangled their case was against him. That doesn't add up for me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree. I think it very much matters which parts and how much.

Which is why you are a fundamentalist and I am not.

 

[dybmh]

Which is why you are a fundamentalist and I am not.

I wouldn't describe myself that way. But it doesn't bother me that you see me that way. I do believe the "fundementals" are vitally important. But it really is subjective identifier. The more "progressive" a person is, the lower the benchmark for "fundementalist".

But, did you read my reply and understand what I meant? I said "it matters". That only means I care. The opposite would be ambivialent. That doesn't feel right to me. Does that feel right to you? Ambivalent?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I wouldn't describe myself that way. But it doesn't bother me that you see me that way. I do believe the "fundementals" are vitally important. But it really is subjective identifier. The more "progressive" a person is, the lower the benchmark for "fundementalist".

But, did you read my reply and understand what I meant? I said "it matters". That only means I care. The opposite would be ambivialent. That doesn't feel right to me. Does that feel right to you? Ambivalent?

It doesn't matter if I like it or not. Reality is messy.