spamandham

There is no evidence of this at all. Even the Gospels do not make such a claim that Jesus was the first Jew executed by Rome. And even though the passion story has him mocked as 'king of the jews', the story does not have him executed for that charge. The charge he was executed for was violating the Sabbath.

...or perhaps they invented that third way after realizing they had been defeated.

This is an insignificant nit. We can not expect to find an exact parallel.

...Nicholas of Smyrna was not historical? The author of the story (the story is told in first person) was not historical?

Fine then. Can you explain why we should take seriously anything the Gospel stories say, or are you simply denying that myths, legends, propaganda, and abject works of fiction (all of which can take the form of 'hero biographies') sometimes involve real historical people involved in events that never happened, or conversely, real events involving people that never existed?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Josephus and Philo are in agreement on Pilate's treatment of Jews. The only odd man out is the Gospels, who depict Pilate as just and unwilling to execute Jesus, but forced into it by an angry mob of wild Jews.

It should be obvious to anyone who has not started by assuming the passion story is historical, what's going on with that.

We are not dealing with the origins of the legend, we are dealing with the final product of the legend.

ynquirer

Well, there is external, independent corroboration for Jesus the historical character in Josephus and Tacitus.

Do you have C14 and/or independent corroboration that both references were forged? I suspect you only have a conspiracy theory, yet no conclusive evidence.

aa5874

There is no person called Jesus in Tacitus Annals 15.44 and the Jesus in AJ 18.3.3 appears to have been a myth, he rose from the dead after three days.

It is naive to think that only one person could have been called Jesus in the 1st century. Josephus mentioned many persons named Jesus.

And, it also naive to think that only one person could have been crucified with the name Jesus over the ten-year period that Pilate was procurator of Judea.

ynquirer

In Mark 15:2 Pilate cross-examines Jesus asking him: “Are you the King of the Jews,” and in 15:9 the Roman governor declares Jesus a convict on the charge. However ridiculous, the charge was political – political charges usually are ridiculous. And it doesn’t matter that Pilate believed the alleged crime to be unimportant. He felt compelled to yield to the Sanhedrin’s pressure and fabricate a political charge to please the local leaders. Politics is paramount in the case from the beginning to the end.

Is there any evidence of previous political victims of the Romans in Judaea to support the claim that Jesus was not the first one?

thentian

In chapter 5 of 'Wars of the Jews', Josephus tells of how Varus crucified 2000 "seditious".

aa5874

If you look at gMark 15.14, you will see that Pilate himself appears not to know what crime Jesus had done to deserve to die. Pilate, it would appear did not charge Jesus with any crime, according to the author gMark.

Mark 15.13-14 And, you cannot fabricate your own history of Jesus by default. It is not logical to assume Jesus was the first person to do anything until it can proven within reason.

I can say Jesus was the last Jew to be charged by Pilate since there is no evidence to show that he was not the last.

ynquirer

Fine. That was shortly after Herod the Great died, at the time the Romans imposed their direct rule. It amounts to some thirty years before Jesus’ death and sixty before the Jewish War.

I don’t think it would considerably diminish the impact of Jesus’ crucifixion on the stance of many Jews during and immediately after the War.

aa5874

What impact would Jesus have on the Jews, when they had him crucified for blasphemy, according to the anonymous authors of the Gospels?

Amaleq13

Upon what passage do you base this claim?

mountainman

Unfortunately that is not the opinion of ancient historians concerning the first century, since they are careful to point out that Josephus is renown for its late interpolations and Tacitus was first "discovered" a little later (try the 15th century).

I dont have to since I am not collecting tithes on the basis of the claim.

The conspiracy card will not hold water in this instance. We are dealing with the Boss. Since when does a military despot require conspiration? The historical jesus has no conclusive evidence in the first three centuries other than the fabrication called Eusebius. If you know the real truth about this, and you feel free about it, go ahead and cite an exception.


Best wishes,


Pete