aa5874

So, Christus may have been eaten by dogs. You have failed to show that Christus MUST have been crucified.

andrewcriddle

If one accepts the Gospel account in which Jesus is arrested by the native authorities and reported by them to the colonial governor, then one would probably expect a (summary) trial.

The governor would have wanted to avoid being used by one local group to pursue that group's feuds with other local groups.

Andrew Criddle

FathomFFI

That has been proven so many times now that I propose it wouldn't matter if Christ himself came to you and said it was true.

If you are so gung-ho on not accepting the evidence under any circumstances, do you really think a rational person should bother with you?

Think about how you present yourself to others, for you currently do not present yourself as a rational person.

aa5874

Now, are you rational? You believe Christ can appear to people. You believe in Ghosts.

You have not proven one single thing about Christus of Annals 15.44, except that the word "Christus" is in Annals.

aa5874

Your post has little relevance.

If a person accepts the Gospel account, then he accepts there was a trial by the governor even though the trial may not have occured.

There are persons who do not accept the Gospel account, and want to find out if the Gospel account reflects reality with respect to a charge of blasphemy during the days of Pilate.

In Acts of the Apostles, Stephen was stoned to death without any trial by the Romans or no mention was made of any intervention of a governor, he was put before a council and interrogated by the chief priest and then dragged away and stoned to death.

Acts 7.56-58 The trial of Jesus for blasphemy appears to be a mockery of justice. He is declared "without fault" by the arbiter, yet sentenced to death by a most hideous means.

And based on Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, it would appear that the stoning to death of a person for breaking the law could have been ordered by the sanhedrin.

FathomFFI

Fine. I can live with whatever you choose to believe.

Now, moving along to other more "rational" conversationalists ...

Have a great day.

EarlDoherty

When a poster, especially one rabidly hostile to Jesus mythicism, comes across this sophomorically cocky and pretentious, I always believe that he ought to be taken down a peg.

If “Fathom” (ought this Username to indicate that he has sunk beyond his depth?) had really “studied” the documents he so confidently sounds off on, he would realize that all his “Trypho thinks…” and “Trypho was saying that…” and “Trypho criticizes…” is a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation. It is rather Justin who is doing the thinking and saying and criticizing. Trypho is almost certainly a fictional character invented by Justin. Even if based on someone real, or on a ‘typical’ Jew, Justin has hardly carefully interviewed the latter and is now faithfully reproducing his arguments. Perhaps from a starting point of general criticisms of Christian beliefs voiced by Jews of his day, Justin is formulating Trypho’s specific dialogue based as much on how he, as a Christian, envisioned Jews would argue against the idea that the crucified Jesus was the Messiah. Thus, we can hardly take Trypho’s words in the Dialogue as though they were a reproduction of some recorded statements by some Tryphonic Jew. (Someone else also pointed out the obvious construction of the dialogue in that Trypho, like an obedient puppet, is responding to Justin’s own remarks in order to facilitate the progress of Justin’s argument.)

Based on Trypho’s dialogue such as, “you should acknowledge this Jesus to be a man of mere human origin” and “he was crucified,” Fathom states: “There can be no doubt that he believed Jesus to have existed as a human being.” But it is Justin about whom there can be no doubt that he believed Jesus to have existed as a human being, and Justin is reflecting that in how he styles Trypho’s arguments. It is Justin who is concerned to counter the doubters—whether they be Jewish or pagan—who have problems with turning a crucified man into the Messiah. (Those ‘doubters’, by the way, included the author of Minucius Felix who heaped scorn on those alleged Christians who made such a man into an object of worship.)

Now, there is of course no doubt that Trypho’s arguments must reflect a type (rather than in every detail) of opposition to Christian faith which was current, otherwise Justin would not devote the space he has to them. But do they also, in that passage under consideration, reflect something more, something that could encompass denial of Jesus’ historicity, even if Justin chose to turn such a type of criticism into a setting in which an historical Jesus becomes assumed? I would say so. To use Fathom’s quote:

We need to note that this passage is hardly as straightforward as those others which Fathom points to which plainly assume a crucified man who was regarded as historical whom Christians have turned into the Messiah. As such, it may reflect some Jewish opinion which does not entail that assumption. In fact, to take a page from Fathom’s coloring book, the context in which this passage appears—chapter 8 immediately following Justin’s account of his conversion experience—presents no mention of an historical Jesus whatever. In fact, to judge by that opening account of his conversion, Justin, apparently some two decades earlier (perhaps in the 130s) than the rest of the Dialogue is set, was won over to a philosophical Logos religion with no basis in an historical Gospel Jesus. But that’s a separate issue, which I have addressed elsewhere. (See my website Main Article No. 5: The Second Century Apologists.) My point here is, Trypho makes his remarks following Justin’s presentation of a Christ who seems nothing more than a spiritual Son, knowledge of whom—again to judge by what is actually said—is gained solely through scripture. We might then take Trypho’s words as representing a rejoinder to that presentation, with no implied assumptions based on something which the preceding context has not included.

Justin represents him as saying, from a Jewish perspective, that the “Christ” is unknown and may not even have been born or be in existence anywhere; instead, Christians “have invented a Christ for yourselves.” This seems language too broad to merely mean ‘you have turned a real man into the Christ.’ If the words meant the latter, why did they not say so? Regardless of how he handles it or with what understanding, has Justin reflected a different kind of objection current among some Jews, that the Christians have invented their Christ, lock, stock and humanity? That they were saying, since the requirements for a Messiah have not been met in anyone, that Christians have invented their own false Messiah in their declaration of him in the form of a recent human man, which would not necessarily mean that they were accepting such a man as historical? “Invented a Christ for yourselves” in fact conveys the opposite.

Moreover, the phrase “having accepted a groundless report” (literally, foolish or idle rumor or preaching) no doubt refers to traditions or assumed common knowledge about the man in question; or it might refer to whatever Gospels were circulating in Justin’s day, although the term “akoē” relates to things heard, not read. But whether oral or written reports, it could refer to things which the Jews did not regard as authentic, giving them (or us) no basis on which to assume that the “crucified man” of the Christians was historical. Since Trypho is not artificially responding to Justin’s own views of the Gospel Jesus in this passage, we have better reason to think that we could glean some real meaning behind it as to current Jewish attitudes toward those Christian views, including the possibility that they were indeed denying an historical Jesus entirely.

It is true that this issue cannot be resolved. But there is more to the question of the Trypho passage than the average anti-mythicist with his often caustic derision is willing or able to perceive. I would suggest to Fathom that the weight of his closed-mindedness and blatant antagonism (so prevalent among HJ supporters on this board) has indeed dragged him below his depth. Whereas he might find that a true spirit of inquiry in the matter would do wonders to buoy him up again.

(But I won’t hold my breath. We will no doubt get more of the same in response.)

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

The evidence regarding Nero comes from examining the works of other historians, such as Suetonius and Cassius Dio, who's accounts of Nero demonstrated similar characteristics of the man. Suetonius also mentions the persecution of the Christians, as well as accuses Nero of setting Rome on fire; a point which Tacitus alludes to and provides reasonable doubt.

This is one point which makes Tacitus' account credible; despite the fact that he so hated Nero, he offers evidence and an argument against Suetonius that Nero may not have been responsible for firing Rome. It seems to me that if Tacitus wanted to show Nero in the worst light possible, he would be agreeing with the account of Suetonius regarding the fires of Rome. I strongly suspect that Suetonius is one such historian whom Tacitus accused of falsifying some of the history out of, as Tacitus said, "a recent hatred."

If we consider Tacitus' words at the beginning of Annals- in which he said that his purpose was to correctly portray Roman history due to it being somewhat falsified by other historians- as truthful, then I have not yet seen another contemporary Roman historian following Tacitus who confutes his account.

Cassius Dio wrote his account approximately 100 years following Tacitus. His account seems to exclude much of Tacitus' Annals, and leans heavily towards Livy, and perhaps Suetonius. It is also agreed that he was somewhat dependent upon Tacitus, but only to a small extent. Obviously, he used the scholarship of many historians as did Tacitus, but he does not demonstrate any where near the fact-finding attributes which Tacitus demonstrated, and the value of his work does not approach that of Tacitus according to the scholarly consensus.

When we compare the works of Tacitus to other historians of that age, there really isn't much of a comparison at all. Tacitus demonstrates far more fact-finding situations than all the others, is clearly seen cross-referencing his sources, and refers to the Roman registry frequently. He demonstrates alternative views, as with the case of Nero firing Rome, and demonstrates alternative possibilities in numerous situations without always blatantly stating something as fact. He blends an excellent mixture of minor details with the larger significance of events.

In short, Tacitus appears to be far more honest and credible than any other Roman historian of the age.

jules?

Cicero's alledged quote has been sidestepped because i presume you failed to find evidence. as for
both men were Roman citizens and with few exceptions crucifixion was reserved for slaves and revolutionaries so there for the evidence points to 'extreme penalty' simply meaning a severe/public [shameful] execution. Your other quote simple points out that extreme punishment can be taken to mean a savage death. I think you are trying too hard to push square pegs into round holes. For a so-called agnostic you seem a little too desperate. The principle issue in the quote is the nature and belief of early christians, the reason for why the were scapegoated, and whether or not they were known as christians in Neros time or Tacitus'. The four independent proofs of your saviour have been flogged to death over the last 2,000 years and the most anyone could rationally accept is they may contain elements of truth but may also be faked or tampered with.

FathomFFI

We wish you well with that endeavor.

Thank you for your comments. Now, let's see how accurate your comments actually are according to the evidence, as well as scholarly opinion.

Timothy J. Horner, in his book entitled Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialog Reconcidered, comprised a list of 30 scholars who present arguments on both sides of the polemic regarding the historicity of Trypho.

His first presentation comes from the church father Eusebius. Eusebius demonstrates his belief that Trypho historically existed as evidenced in HE 4.18.1-10. He not only believes Trypho existed, but also lists the place it occurred.

John Gager accepts the reality of Trypho without need for further comment.

Mr Horner's work provides the best argument against your "opinion" that Trypho's historicity has by no means been dismissed whatsoever, since he's demonstrated clearly that many of the top scholars in the field are at odds over the subject.

Indeed, what it really comes down to again, is a matter of evidence.

The evidence does not lay with your opinion, but with the fact that a mere 175 years after Justin Martyr penned his Trypho works, we have a historical reference to it from Eusebius, who no doubt demonstrates not only his belief in Trypho's historicity, but also adds a detail of where it occurred, demonstrating a knowledge of it being an actual event.

Good day.