Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 06-26-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

2 Corinthians 11:4 "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached. . . "

Who is that "other Jesus?"

....

I have no good answer. Paul's "other Jesus" has always been a puzzle.

I think it is pure rhetoric. Paul looks at how Jesus is preached by his rivals, the so-called superapostles, and says: That is not the Jesus I am preaching. Compare the phrase that's not my Jesus as applied to Mormons by certain evangelicals.

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 06-26-2008, 01:26 PM

A possible origin for the idea that some skeptics thought that Pilate was a mythical figure is this

Quote:

In regard to the significance of Pilate in Tacitus, a remarkable hypothesis has recently been put forward by Andrzej Niemojewski in his work, Gott Jesus im LicJite fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Darstellung der evangelischen A stralstoffe, A stralszenen, und A stralsysteme (1910). According to this, the Pilate of the Christian legend was not originally an historical person ; the whole story of Christ is to be taken in an astral sense, and Pilate represents the constellation of Orion, the javelin-man (pilatus, in Latin), with the arrow or lance-
constellation (Sagitta), which is supposed to be very long in the Greek myth, and appears in the Christian legend under the name of Longinus, and is in the Gospel of John the soldier who pierces the side of Jesus with a spear (longche, in Greek) . In the astral myth, the Christ hanging on the cross, or world-tree (i.e., the Milky Way), is killed by the lance of " Pilatus." Hence, according to Niemojewski, the Christian populace told the legend of a
javelin-man, a certain Pilatus, who was supposed to have been responsible for the death of the Saviour. This wholly sufficed for Tacitus to recognise in him the procurator in the reign of Tiberius, who must have been known to the Roman historian from the books of Josephus " On the Jewish War," which were destined for the imperial house. In point of fact, the procurator
Pontius Pilate plays a part in the gospels so singularly opposed to the account of the historical Pilate, as Josephus describes him, that we can very well suspect a later introduction of an historical personage into the quasi-
historical narrative.

From Witnesses_to_the_historicity_of_Jesus_1912 by the mythicist Arthur Drews.

This is not doubting that there was a historical Pilate but suggesting that the original Christian claim that Christ was killed by Pilate referred to a mythical figure Pilate the javelin-man who was later confused with the historical Pontius Pilate.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon · 06-26-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

A possible origin for the idea that some skeptics thought that Pilate was a mythical figure is this

Quote:

In regard to the significance of Pilate in Tacitus, a remarkable hypothesis has recently been put forward by Andrzej Niemojewski in his work, Gott Jesus im LicJite fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Darstellung der evangelischen A stralstoffe, A stralszenen, und A stralsysteme (1910). According to this, the Pilate of the Christian legend was not originally an historical person ; the whole story of Christ is to be taken in an astral sense, and Pilate represents the constellation of Orion, the javelin-man (pilatus, in Latin), with the arrow or lance-
constellation (Sagitta), which is supposed to be very long in the Greek myth, and appears in the Christian legend under the name of Longinus, and is in the Gospel of John the soldier who pierces the side of Jesus with a spear (longche, in Greek) . In the astral myth, the Christ hanging on the cross, or world-tree (i.e., the Milky Way), is killed by the lance of " Pilatus." Hence, according to Niemojewski, the Christian populace told the legend of a
javelin-man, a certain Pilatus, who was supposed to have been responsible for the death of the Saviour. This wholly sufficed for Tacitus to recognise in him the procurator in the reign of Tiberius, who must have been known to the Roman historian from the books of Josephus " On the Jewish War," which were destined for the imperial house. In point of fact, the procurator
Pontius Pilate plays a part in the gospels so singularly opposed to the account of the historical Pilate, as Josephus describes him, that we can very well suspect a later introduction of an historical personage into the quasi-
historical narrative.

From Witnesses_to_the_historicity_of_Jesus_1912 by the mythicist Arthur Drews.

I think you are right, Andrew. I found more about this idea coming from Drews here:
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readin...2/stella.shtml

"In the Russian circles remained absolutely unnoted the interesting discovery, made in 1961 by the Italian archeologists in Palestine. Excavating the staircase of an ancient theatre of Caesarea of Palestine, the archeologists, leaded by Professor Anthony Frova, found a stone with the letters, hammered out on it...

This discovery is very significant. As many other contemporary discoveries, it refutes all anti-Christian inventions of Prof. Bruno Bauser and Lutheran pastor Arthur Drews, stating that there existed no Jesus Christ, Apostles, Pontius Pilate, no other persons, mentioned in the Gospel, that all of them are only the latest myths. This theory found great success in the God-opposing circles, both in the East and West, and in the Soviet Union even 20 years before the works of pastor Drews were published in multi-million editions."

We still lack a clear-cut statement of Pilate being non-historical, though I suspect it was more along the lines of "there is no hard evidence for his existence (along with that of Jesus and the apostles)" rather than "he definitely never existed".

Toto · 06-26-2008, 02:19 PM

It appears that Drews thought that there was a mythical figure in the gospels, and that Tacitus and others conflated him with the historical Pontius Pilate. The discovery of a relic of the historical Pontius Pilate would not in any way disprove this theory.

andrewcriddle · 06-26-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It appears that Drews thought that there was a mythical figure in the gospels, and that Tacitus and others conflated him with the historical Pontius Pilate. The discovery of a relic of the historical Pontius Pilate would not in any way disprove this theory.

I entirely agree that this is what Drews meant.

I was suggesting that it could easily be misunderstood as the claim that Pilate was a myth, ie that there was no historical Pontius Pilate.

Andrew Criddle

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 03:10 PM

The mention of Christ must originate in some documentary source, since it contains no such word as 'dicunt' or 'ferunt,' which would authorize us to suppose that Tacitus is only relating gossip. This is an important point, as it can be shown that Tacitus is normally careful to make the distinction when relying upon oral testimony.

(Note well the opinion of Maurice Goguel (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 43):

"But one fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate." The present writer believes that the most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Cesc · 06-26-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

An over-eager wording as the likely source? I have no doubts he was eager to demonstrate how the Romans killed the Jewish Messiah, and the god of the Christians; all the more why he would check his facts.

When I wrote:

Quote:

But surely you must admit that "the likely source" was perhaps an over-eager wording?

I actually meant 'an over-eager wording' on your part, in relation to your very casual statement in this post.
That perhaps "a likely source" or even "the most likely source" would've been more appropriate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Here's the whole thing below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, 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.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Everything he wrote about Christians in the Annals is above.

Thank you so much :thumbs:

Is all this from "Annals 15" or 15:44 or whats-it-called? And did Tacitus write anything at all about the Christians outside Annals that we know of?

Two things:
1. What are the best translations in your opinion and why?
And shouldn't it properly translate "and the [mischievous superstition]" instead of "and a [mischievous superstition]"?
And concerning punctuation, should it be a comma before it, or a full stop/period?

2. I dont understand why we still use the word "superstition"? Why does that word even appear one single time in this whole thread?
If I understand correctly, it is infact a gross mistranslation (and one which has needlessly helped to further complicate this debate at that), even in the translation above.

Ok, so superstitio does not mean "superstition" as we think of it. Here are two explanations from this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

"[S]uperstitio is an aristocratic term of contempt for forms of religion and piety that Rome’s literate upper classes found excessive, comic, or dangerous."
Freedman, David Noel: The Anchor Bible Dictionary. V.6,p.240.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"Superstitio" is not quite the same as our word superstition, which refers to a single belief. It generally refers to what we would call a cult, or a small, politically impotent religion.

If I wanna try to properly understand the subject matter, I have to first find out exactly what Tacitus meant with "superstitio". Anyone has any suggestions?

Im not qualified to do that, but here are some translations I would propose:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and the mischievous cult, thus checked for the moment, again resurfaced not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and the mischievous dangerous movement, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

Whatta ya say? It might no be precisely what Tacitus meant, but its definately much better and much more correct than "superstition" which only scews the meaning competely, no? I think all these details are very important.

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

On this basis; Tacitus was a Pagan so therefore he could have called any sect christian and therefore a follower of another christ

What other Christ? It's the question that has got spamalot and you stumped.

I answered the question above. You're welcome to offer a counter argument more substantial than simply "nuh uh".

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The problem is which Christian belief system. The word's 'Christ' and 'Christian' were not exclusively used by followers of Jesus. There were multiple Christs and groups known as Christians at the time Tacitus was writing.

I'm with FathomFFI here. While I'm aware that early Christianity was a splintered proposition ("pillars," Ebionites, Gnostics, Docetists, Arians, etc.), I was not aware that any of these groups thought of themselves as other than followers of Christ. I'm also not aware of more than one "Christ." Please refer me to these "multiple Christs" and to the Christians who did not follow some form of Jesus. Just curious.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=251

Why can no one see that Justin is pointing out that followers of Simon Magus were also popularly known as 'Christians'. Do you disagree on that?

The only reading between the lines here is to make the leap from followers of Simon Magus being labeled 'Christians' to Simon Magus being known as 'Christ" to them. Why is that not a valid leap?

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

I'm with FathomFFI here. While I'm aware that early Christianity was a splintered proposition ("pillars," Ebionites, Gnostics, Docetists, Arians, etc.), I was not aware that any of these groups thought of themselves as other than followers of Christ. I'm also not aware of more than one "Christ." Please refer me to these "multiple Christs" and to the Christians who did not follow some form of Jesus. Just curious.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=251

Why can no one see that Justin is pointing out that followers of Simon Magus were also popularly known as 'Christians'. Do you disagree on that?

The only reading between the lines here is to make the leap from followers of Simon Magus being labeled 'Christians' to Simon Magus being known as 'Christ" to them. Why is that not a valid leap?

Why can't you see that Christians followed many different sects? They could still believe in Jesus, but be following the interpretation of Jesus from somebody else.

Paul had his own followers, and so did Peter. But nobody thinks Paul or Peter were the Christ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2008, 02:19 PM	#254
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It appears that Drews thought that there was a mythical figure in the gospels, and that Tacitus and others conflated him with the historical Pontius Pilate. The discovery of a relic of the historical Pontius Pilate would not in any way disprove this theory.

06-26-2008, 03:10 PM	#256
FathomFFI Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 327	The mention of Christ must originate in some documentary source, since it contains no such word as 'dicunt' or 'ferunt,' which would authorize us to suppose that Tacitus is only relating gossip. This is an important point, as it can be shown that Tacitus is normally careful to make the distinction when relying upon oral testimony. (Note well the opinion of Maurice Goguel (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 43): "But one fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate." The present writer believes that the most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. *The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie* evidence for the historicity of Jesus.**

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.