For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[EGross]

Here's an alternative thought based on some evidence.

According to Roaman writings, an earlier emperor (It could have been Claudius), issued a freedom of religion decree, providing that people of non-pagen faiths don't play missionary. If they do, then the gloves come off (forced armed service, servitude, or jail time, IIRC). The Jews looked at it as "they are stopping us from learning Torah" when in actually they could learn in private, but not to force it on others in the public manner. Some authorities were tougher than others. Some ignored the decree and let them do what they wanted, and some were overly heavy handed. (A famous story of Rabbi Chaninah ben Teradyon who was found teaching in a public area, and was burned to death. His friend, Rabbi Kisma warned him that he should obey the Roman laws, but he didn't. This was around 130CE).

Is it possible that this was a similar experience with the Christians who wanted to "share the gospels", and so, they felt persecuted for what they felt was perfectly valid, but got punished (how hard depended on the officer in charge) for it? And perhaps it was not so much on a mass scale as believed, but that there were isolated cases?

Just some ideas.

[The Grand Nudger]

These days I personally subscribe to the view that Jesus started off as a mythical character who later got made into a historical character.

In the same way that there were myths of dragons long before anyone put fossils and the myths together, in the same way that there were myths of cyclops before anyone pointed to a mastodon skull. We weave tales and then delight in the myriad ways we can relate them to our existence in reality. It's not even remotely surprising or unexpected.

Which came first?

The shaman?
Honi?
Honi the Rainmaker?

Which is historical and which is mythical? In this narrative, very much, imho, like the Christ narrative - the name before "Rainmaker" like the name before "Christ" is inconsequential, you can plug in anything you like, because the narrative of the epitaph existed before the narrative of the noun. Supposing you wholeheartedly swallow the notion of some jesus being foretold in prophecy theres simply no way to argue that the narrative didn't precede the "subject" in any case. It doesn't really matter what angle you approach it form, the story came first.

[Confused Ape]

Here's an alternative thought based on some evidence.

According to Roaman writings, an earlier emperor (It could have been Claudius), issued a freedom of religion decree, providing that people of non-pagen faiths don't play missionary. If they do, then the gloves come off (forced armed service, servitude, or jail time, IIRC). The Jews looked at it as "they are stopping us from learning Torah" when in actually they could learn in private, but not to force it on others in the public manner.

It's all very complicated because Christianity was originally despised but not persecuted because it might have been regarded as a Jewish sect. It appears that Jews were exempt from participating in public religious ceremonies.

Persecution Of Christians In The Roman Empire

Political leaders in the Roman Empire were also public cult leaders. Roman religion revolved around public ceremonies and sacrifices; personal belief was not as central an element as it is in many modern faiths. Thus while the private beliefs of Christians may have been largely immaterial to many Roman elites, this public religious practice was in their estimation critical to the social and political well-being of both the local community and the empire as a whole. Honoring tradition in the right way -- pietas—was key to stability and success.[16] Hence the Romans protected the integrity of cults practiced by communities under their rule, seeing it as inherently correct to honor one's ancestral traditions; for this reason the Romans for a long time tolerated the highly exclusive Jewish sect, even though some Romans despised it.[17] Historian H. H. Ben-Sasson has proposed that the "Crisis under Caligula" (37-41) was the "first open break" between Rome and the Jews.[18]

Things changed.

After the First Jewish–Roman Wars (66-73), Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the Jewish tax. There is debate among historians over whether the Roman government simply saw Christians as a sect of Judaism prior to Nerva's modification of the tax in 96. From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax while Christians did not, providing hard evidence of an official distinction.[19] Part of the Roman disdain for Christianity, then, arose in large part from the sense that it was bad for society.

This resulted in -

Once distinguished from Judaism, Christianity was no longer seen as simply a bizarre sect of an old and venerable religion; it was a superstitio (a superstition).[21] Superstition had for the Romans a much more powerful and dangerous connotation than it does for much of the Western world today: to them, this term meant a set of religious practices that were not only different, but corrosive to society, "disturbing a man's mind in such a way that he is really going insans" and causing him to lose humanitas (humanity).[22] The persecution of "superstitious" sects was hardly unheard-of in Roman history: an unnamed foreign cult was persecuted during a drought in 428 BCE, some initiates of the Bacchic cult were executed when deemed out-of-hand in 186 BCE, and measures were taken against the Druids during the early Principate.[23]

Now to Pliny's letter and Tacitus's insult which were supposedly written after AD 96.

Pliny's opinions of Christianity -

But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms.

Tacitus

and a most mischievous superstition , thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

This raises questions when it comes to the above being possible forgeries. I checked for articles about the Roman definition of superstition and found Religion and Superstition For The Romans

According to the Roman orator Cicero, religio relates to the customs and traditions that came from ‘forebears’ and were ‘pertaining to the cultus (worship) of the gods’. In other words, those who ‘diligently’ followed the ancestral customs were known to be religious. The word ‘diligently’ is significant as it relates to the ‘correct’ observance of these rituals.

In contrast, if religio is that which fosters traditional beliefs, superstitio is that which undermines that same traditional wisdom. On Plutarch’s treatise concerning superstition, he records superstitio as the strange and foreign rituals that:

‘distort and pollute their own tongues with absurd titles and foreign invocations, to do shame to, and sin against, the divine and national dignity of religion’

Cicero lived 3 January 106 BC – 7 December 43 BC while Plutarach lived c. 46 – 120 AD. It looks like the Tacitus and Pliny comments are what Romans would have said after AD 96 so any forgers were very careful.

It appears that some Christians belonged to the lunatic fringe. Persecution From 2nd Century to Constantine

Some early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Roman authorities tried hard to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death." According to Droge and Tabor, "in 185 the proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus, was approached by a group of Christians demanding to be executed. The proconsul obliged some of them and then sent the rest away, saying that if they wanted to kill themselves there was plenty of rope available or cliffs they could jump off."[13]

Further Details

This attitude was sufficiently widespread for Church authorities to begin to distinguish sharply "between solicited martyrdom and the more traditional kind that came as a result of persecution".[35] At a Spanish council held at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries the bishops denied the crown of martyrdom to those who died whilst attacking pagan temples. According to Ramsey MacMullen the provocation was just "too blatant". Drake cites this as evidence that Christians resorted to violence, including physical, at all times.[36]

I don't know if the story about the proconsul of Asia is true but I can imagine a Monty Python sketch about it.

[Minimalist]

As I don't know Latin I can't check the untranslated text of the Epistle and see what it actually says for myself. My guess is that some people could have been influenced by what Severus said at the end of his description of Nero's spectacle.

The one thing that is absolutely true is that believers tend to see exactly what they want to see in this stuff. Roberts and Donaldson are 19th century writers and both were holy joes themselves. Scholarship has come a long way since the 1870's!

---

I don't know if the story about the proconsul of Asia is true but I can imagine a Monty Python sketch about it.

IIRC this is another bit that is preserved (only) in Eusebius...and therefore suspect...

But a Ministry of Silly Christians would have been a funny bit.

[Confused Ape]

Scholarship has come a long way since the 1870's!

Not necessarily. This is why I'm trying to figure out if scholars could have hidden agendas no matter which side of an argument they are on.

this is another bit that is preserved (only) in Eusebius...and therefore suspect...

There might be some kind of truth in it because I found more information in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The orthodox were not permitted to seek martyrdom. Tertullian, however, approves the conduct of the Christians of a province of Asia who gave themselves up to the governor, Arrius Antoninus (Ad. Scap., v). Eusebius also relates with approval the incident of three Christians of Cæsarea in Palestine who, in the persecution of Valerian, presented themselves to the judge and were condemned to death (Church History VII.12). But while circumstances might sometimes excuse such a course, it was generally held to be imprudent. St. Gregory of Nazianzus sums up in a sentence the rule to be followed in such cases: it is mere rashness to seek death, but it is cowardly to refuse it (Orat. xlii, 5, 6).

It's unlikely that a 4th century Archbishop would have disapproved of something that wasn't going on at all.

Breaking idols was condemned by the Council of Elvira (306), which, in its sixtieth canon, decreed that a Christian put to death for such vandalism would not be enrolled as a martyr.

Looks like things might have been getting a bit out of hand.

But a Ministry of Silly Christians would have been a funny bit.

I can imagine the governor thinking he'd better not oblige the loonies otherwise there'd be queues of Christians from all over the empire. He could have made a fortune charging execution fees, though.

[Minimalist]

It's unlikely that a 4th century Archbishop would have disapproved of something that wasn't going on at all.

As Carrington pointed out, in Eusebius' "history" he notes only 147 martyrs. Hardly the vast blood-letting that later xtians contrived. I doubt there would have been any need for xtians to invent these stories prior to them beginning their own pogroms against heretics and pagans and that came somewhat after Eusebius' time.

Eusebius had another motive.

---

I can imagine the governor thinking he'd better not oblige the loonies

"I shall welease Woger."

[ronedee]

These days I personally subscribe to the view that Jesus started off as a mythical character who later got made into a historical character.

In the same way that there were myths of dragons long before anyone put fossils and the myths together, in the same way that there were myths of cyclops before anyone pointed to a mastodon skull. We weave tales and then delight in the myriad ways we can relate them to our existence in reality. It's not even remotely surprising or unexpected.

Which came first?

The shaman?
Honi?
Honi the Rainmaker?

Which is historical and which is mythical? In this narrative, very much, imho, like the Christ narrative - the name before "Rainmaker" like the name before "Christ" is inconsequential, you can plug in anything you like, because the narrative of the epitaph existed before the narrative of the noun. Supposing you wholeheartedly swallow the notion of some jesus being foretold in prophecy theres simply no way to argue that the narrative didn't precede the "subject" in any case. It doesn't really matter what angle you approach it form, the story came first.

Hey Rhythm, I don't want to get off subject....but as a side note: There are plenty of documented Christian [miracles] to prove that "something" is going on. And if anyone takes some time to really investigate, there are no explainations but Faith by the recipient!

For example the man who received sight in his right mangled eye from Lourdes water! After several exams, doctors simply stated "there is no reason for this man to be able to see from that eye!" And there are exactly 67 well documented unexplained healings! Of course there are tens of thousands reported...but 67 CONFIRMED!

So....what is to explain the "unexplained"? Just chance? Gravity? Alignment of the stars? Demons? Smoke and mirrors? What?

Jesus states very clearly, in most all of His healings that "your faith has healed you".

The basic question here is: "what" is this all about? NOT...who, why or how. None of the other questions really matter [here on the ground].... and to the Faithful? Faith is what matters.

To believe in, and love God is to experience every possibility! Without limits. The big problem is that most are not willing to believe. And there lies the paradox!

Faith means nothing at all unless it is based on something real, and experienced. So, should that word even exist to the non-believers?

[EGross]

Anecdotal evidence is not proof. Unsubstantiated reports are not proof.

Do unexplained things happen? Yes. A neighbor had his tank flip over and crush part of his skull. The doctors said he might not live long, let along lead a normal life. He walks with a limp and got married and has a baby. Was it prayer? Or was it that the body repaired itself without a supernatural power cursing through him? Some people can see a miricle in a falling raindrop. Others see the atmosphere doing what it does best. Now there is a Jewish tradition that every blade of grass has an angle sitting on it shouting "GROW!", and without them there would be no miraculous growth. I hold that grass is doing what it is supposed to do, and when the impediments are removed, they do very well without angels.

[Confused Ape]

As Carrington pointed out, in Eusebius' "history" he notes only 147 martyrs.

Is that Cliff Carrington? I've been hunting around for further information because all he says in Nero's Fire And Christian Persecution? is -

Eusebius was supposed to have written a Martyrology naming all one hundred and forty-six of them he knew about, but, nothing about Nero’s fire and martyrs of it.

I then tried wikipedia for Eusebius - Minor Historical Works

Before he compiled his church history, Eusebius edited a collection of martyrdoms of the earlier period and a biography of Pamphilus. The martyrology has not survived as a whole, but it has been preserved almost completely in parts. It contained:
an epistle of the congregation of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp;
the martyrdom of Pionius;
the martyrdoms of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonike;
the martyrdoms in the congregations of Vienne and Lyon;
the martyrdom of Apollonius.
Of the life of Pamphilus, only a fragment survives. A work on the martyrs of Palestine in the time of Diocletian was composed after 311; numerous fragments are scattered in legendaries, which still need to be collected.

Going by the wiki, the list he edited is not the same as his Palestine list but I haven't tracked down anything else out about the edited list.

I found an article by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould - The Martyrologies

The first to draw up a tolerably full Martyrology was Eusebius the historian, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and he did this at the request of the Emperor Constantine. In this Martyrology he noted all the martyrs of whom he had received an authentic account on the days of their suffering, with the names of the judges who sentenced them, the places where they suffered, and the nature of their sufferings. Eusebius wrote about A.D. 320, but there were collections of the sort already extant, as we may learn from the words of S. Cyprian already quoted, who in his instructions to his clergy ordered them to compile what was practically a Martyrology of the Carthaginian Church.

This sounds like it could be the Martyrs of Palestine. As Eusebius became the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314 he would probably have had access to records. On the other hand, as everything else he's written is supposed to be a fake, maybe he just invented all the names and records.

Hardly the vast blood-letting that later xtians contrived.

I've found Eusebius's Church History and a quick look through the books reveals that Martyrs Of Palestine is just the appendix to Book VIII.

Back to Cliff Carrington. (I was mistaken about him being dead because I misinterpreted something in his section on Gnosis. )

Eusebius, when the Church was triumphant in the 4th century, after the ‘persecutions’ could only find 146 martyrs in the history.

Eusebius was supposed to have written a Martyrology naming all one hundred and forty-six of them he knew about, but, nothing about Nero’s fire and martyrs of it.

Eusebius did write a Martyrology which is included as an appendix in his history but it has nothing to do with Nero and the fire of Rome. If Baring-Gould is right about Martyrologies being drawn up for places other than Palestine it suggests that there were supposed to have been more than just one hundred and forty-six martyrs between the start of Christianity and Eusebius's day. (I haven't gone through the Palestinian list to count the names of the martyrs so I don't know if there are 146 of them.)

Maybe there were no martyrs at all if Christian writers made everything up in their own histories and forged all the references to Christians being killed in everyone else's histories.

PS: If you think the Tacitus passage is gory, stay away from the Martyrs Of Palestine. hock: There's more dead bodies than were given names, though.

Afterwards, in the same city, many rulers of the country churches readily endured terrible sufferings,

Therefore, of all this number, the only ones who were honored with the crown of the holy martyrs were Alphæus and Zacchæus.

[Minimalist]

Eusebius did write a Martyrology which is included as an appendix in his history but it has nothing to do with Nero and the fire of Rome.

But the whole point here is that Tacitus either says...or is made to say...that in 64 AD...less than 30 years after the supposed crucifixion of the godboy, we are supposed to believe that there are "multitudes" of xtians in Rome. But NO first century Roman writers bother to mention this fact? Sorry. Don't buy it.

We know from Pliny's correspondence that he ran across a group which called itself xtians in Asia Minor c 110 AD. From what he describes they sure as shit do not sound like the later proto-orthodox gang which grew into the child-molesting, money-hungry perverts we have today.