R. G. Price - On the Mythic Jesus

[Minimalist]

There’s a lot of first century events we only know about because of those two. History isn’t perfect. They didn’t have Wikipedia back then. We’re missing the vast majority of ancient texts. There may be a lot more info out there that we just don’t have. Also, Christianity was originally just part of Judaism, and outsiders to it may not have realized how different it was. It took time for Christianity to gain mass and differentiate enough for Rome to notice, which we see in the second half of the first century. We do have evidence of first century persecution of Christians, we have extant writings from several first century Christians, including Clement of Rome. We also have Josephus talking about Christians in the first century, which most skeptics disregard due to textual insertions. I can see why people are skeptical of this, since there were obviously things added to the text, however it seems fairly easy to distinguish the parts of the account of Christ that were added. I think it may even be a majority opinion now among scholars that Josephus does contain a genuine account of Christians in the first century that was parenthetically appended by a scribe. Three ancient historians, a letter from the emperor, and dozens of first century theological writings is about as good as it gets in first century history.

Wiki must be used with caution. Yes, we are missing the vast majority of ancient texts because in the 4th century xtian thugs burned the libraries. That argument is like the definition of “chutzpah” where a man who murders his parents asks for mercy because he is an orphan. However, what evidence do you have for persecution of xtians in the first century? Specifically.

As far as Josephus, it is a forgery...in full. It was recognized as such centuries ago and only recently have desperate xtian scholars attempted to resurrect it for the same reason it was written in the first place....because there are no historical references to “jesus” and when early xtians came to power they were embarrassed by the gap. I guess I need to remind you that 3 ancient historians and a letter from the emperor don’t mention “jesus” at all.

“I don’t think anyone in the Christian community thinks that passage is a reference to Christ actually causing the trouble in person.”

Sorry. There are a lot of nuts out there. Not that I think you are one of them but be careful when you speak in absolutes.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html

“Other secular witnesses to the historical Jesus include Suetonius in his biography of Claudius”

You used the “one letter” argument both ways. I don’t think we have evidence for any group called “Chrestians” or that the Romans automatically appended “ians” on to ever group that followed a specific person. This is a reference to Christian persecution in 64 AD, which makes sense because it corresponds with the great fire and subsequent crackdown.

Hmmm....you edited my comment to delete the part where I said we have no evidence one way or the other. I’ll let that pass.....once.

Suetonius does mention Christians being persecuted in 64 AD, and he does mention the fire.

Now you have crossed into outright falsehood. Suetonius does not mention a date and he does not in any way equate those xtians with the fire.

Pliny is not saying he is unfamiliar with Christians, he is saying he hadn’t yet been to a Christian trial and the fact that he used the term “customary penalties” seems to indicate that there was already precedent for dealing with Christians.

You seem to be straying from the point which was about Tacitus’ alleged comment in Annals. Pliny was a lawyer in Rome...if there were trials in Rome he would have known about them. If there were issues in the East with xtians that Pliny stumbled on it hardly matters to the point which is that neither Pliny nor Trajan seem to have a clue that xtians had tried to burn down Rome. Now, either Tacitus’ writing is authentic...which means that Pliny and Trajan were grossly negligent or worse...stupid. Or, Tacitus’ reference is a much later insertion. Add Suetonius into the mix and we have another historian who makes no reference whatsoever to the fire and the xtians.

That seems about right to me. How else would a critical Roman polytheist say it?

If you take Pliny at his word he was questioning these people and I presume he would have written down what they said. Why did they not simply say that “christ” was their god? Again, I find it a curiosity - nothing more.

Of course not, no one ever really believed the Christians were responsible

Now you are just drifting into apologetics. Why did not xtian writers make even a single reference to this passage? If it was there it would have played right into their hands when they were trying to concoct this vast persecution history which they came up with later. In terms of actual edicts we have only 12 years in which Roman emperors actually went after xtians and the vast bulk of that began in the mid 3'd century. Remember, even when Sulpicius Severus did make reference to Nero’s alleged cruelties he had nothing to say about Tacitus, Pilate or Christ.
Feel free to sweep that under the rug, too.

This is big long debate about the historical validity of Tacitus’s account, but I do believe most historians accept Tacitus.

There's a good reason for debate. (See below*) I hate that “most historians” argument. One wonders how many simply do not wish to get into it as it seems unprofitable. Bart Ehrman uses the most historians argument, too and then proceeds to have no more actual evidence for jesus than anyone else. The easy way out is to accept ancient writings at face value. Do you accept that a quarter of a million Gauls came to the relief of Alesia because Julius Caesar wrote that down? Ancient "histories" are full of such exaggerations.

Once again, Pliny was not at all unfamiliar with Christians,

Now you are cherry-picking. Pliny knows so little about xtians that he had to question them and use torture. He is not only unfamiliar with trials but he knows jack shit about them. This argues against there having been "multitudes" in Rome 50 years earlier. Again, not a hint that they were implicated in the great fire of 64 and Tacitus had not published his history at that time. Yet, Suetonius publishing AFTER Tacitus, never has a word to say about it either. I do understand that believers will cling to any branch they can find but I am trying to look at all the facts and ignore the traditional bullshit which has built up over the years.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Highlight_of_MII.png

The Chrestianos/Christianos argument simply will not go away.

---

(and I've heard no one so far claiming that Muhammud is actually the result of a conspiracy)

We have no historical evidence for Muhammad. In fact, what we have is the same sort of crap that xtians invented to promote their godboy.


Sorry, Zen, I had promised CV to get to his post. I don't have time to go through yours right now.

But, all religions have a starting point. You should consider that.