eheffa

I'm not convinced that there was a "strong oral tradition". The early 2nd C CE writers claiming to be Christian seem to be unaware of even the most basic of Gospel Jesus details (even the canonical epistles of Paul are devoid of these details.) One would expect that with a strong oral tradition, there would be multiple, possibly embellished or widely disparate accounts but if there was a singular beginning event or life behind it at least some detail. What we find has this embryonic spiritualized flavor in the early phase with a concretized history in the late accounts. This does not sound like a strong oral gospel tradition to me.



True but to make the assertion that there was an historical person of Jesus with the gospel details, one needs some corroborative evidence outside the undated, anonymous evangelistic tracts of the faithful. That the early church was capable of fabrication is beyond dispute but to know what is true from what is forgery or fabrication is very challenging. Pliny's letter has some solid dating. His sources do not reveal a gospel Jesus as part of the Christian apologetic of the day. Maybe that part of the tradition or story wasn't invented yet.

The burden is on those making the assertion.The default assumption of an historical core to the Jesus story is apparently devoid of corroborative evidence.

-evan

Clivedurdle

I thought the Didache and other stuff did not actually use the word Jesus.....

ynquirer

What about Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, where Jesus is mentioned by name? It was written in the 90s of the first century by a leader of the Jewish rebellion in the 60s who would have met a number of people that personally knew of Jesus, i.e. eyewitnesses.

aa5874

The problem I am having with your interpretation is that Pliny stated that the superstition is spreading in the cities, villages and farms, but you are proposing that it was the Roman religious rites that were spreading.

You are suggesting that Pliny had already dealt with and solved the problem of the increased numbers of the christian superstition when he was actually for the first time getting to find out about the rapid increase of the christian superstition.

Pliny's leter is about christians and their rapid growth, not about Romans citizens worshipping Roman gods in temples and sacrificing animals. Pliny would not have much of a problem if people in the cities, villages and farms were starting to worship the Roman gods, but it was the opposite, it was the worshippers of Christ. Pliny had a problem.

eheffa

Josephus' "Testimonium Flavium" is not a credible reference & almost certainly represents a Christian interpolation form the 4th C CE. This question has been beaten to death but cannot be used as incontrovertible evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels.

If you are interested in an exhaustive discussion of this question see:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm

-evan

aa5874

The passages found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 appear to be all forgeries and were most likely written long after 90 CE, possibly the 4th century.

No church writer used AJ 18.3.3 to prove Jesus did exist until Eusebius in the 4th century, and even then Jesus was presented as a creature that was not human. Jesus rose from the dead in AJ 18.3.3, i.e there could NOT have been any eyewitness for such a creature or event.

Tyro

No he does not. Pliny discusses the Christiani, saying that this superstitious group sang hymns and swore oaths. He does not say anywhere in the context of the Christian worship, that they sacrficed any animals or were practicing Jewish rites. What he said was that the Christian superstition was spreading, but that "it seems possible to check and cure it." THEN he says that the temples and rites, long abandoned, were gaining strength, apparently because Pliny has "checked and cured" the spreding of Christianity, by punishing Christians who didn't repent. Pliny concludes "Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded. " i.e. that if the Christians were given the opportunity to repent and go back to the Roman rites, they would not be punished, which would do good for the Roman rites.

aa5874

This is an excerpt of Pliny to Trajan

Tyro

With "he" I ment Clivedurdle. Clivedurdle does not claim that it was the Roman rites that were spreading. see above.

Clivedurdle

The contagion of the christiani stopping sacrificing and attending temples had spread far and wide but was easily curable.

Thank you Tyro.

And btw, I do not think this is my interpretation - I think this is the generally accpted view - aa - you thinking the xiani were sacrificing is mistaken - please explain why the worshippers of the true gods had abandoned sacrificing and why Pliny wanted to stop the xiani sacrificing!