Julian

All those writings are later than Josephus. In Josephus proper, we only see the term twice. There is no reason why the term could not have gotten popular in the couple of decades after Josephus, after all, we don't really know when and how the term spread into the general population. It just seems awfully suspicious that the word only occurs in those two passages when there was no shortage of Jesus-like (and actual Jesii ) figures in Josephus. My spider sense is tingling.

And I should have given the link for Photius. :thumbs: Thanks, Roger.

Julian

jjramsey

When Tacitus refers to "Christus," he is doing so in the context of Nero's persecution of Christians. That would point to the name "Christus" being in currency around the time of Nero, before Josephus wrote Antiquities.

Julian

I disagree. It merely says that Tacitus knew what it meant in 115. It is extremely unlikely that the term christ or, indeed, christianity was well-known by the general populace in the middle of the first century. Pliny, three years earlier than Tacitus, seems to be confused about exactly what they are although he does seem to know the term. Would he have been so ill-informed if they had been a well-known movement 60 years prior to his letter?

Julian

Ben C Smith

The Tacitean line is quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat (whom, hated for their shameful acts, the crowd were calling Chrestians).

Ben.

Julian

Yes, I understand that. It still doesn't change the fact that it was written in 115. We are seeing a point of view from 115 (and even that is a maybe.) I could easily write "People who met Alexander the Great were seeing that he was 17 feet tall." I wasn't there. Where did I get that info from? Why is it reliabe/unreliable? How likely is it to be true? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Since he was not a contemporary of that particular event we have to raise some questions as to the reliability of the report, just as one should do with all historians who are both biased and weren't present at the events. In this case it sounds like he is reporting something he has heard that is contemporary with when he is writing.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Yes, of course; it sounded for a moment like you were denying Tacitus even made the claim.

Ben.

mens_sana

I think the popularity is exaggerated by the Gospel authors who wrote later, and who were more interested in proclamation than biography. Yes, he was a minor religious figure, so minor that the Romans made no effort to pursue his followers, apparently thinking that cutting off the head of the movement would end it.

Jehanne

I don't disagree with your hypothesis; however, the hypothesis that "Jesus" was the result of epileptic visionaries is also tenable, in my opinion. Clearly, with history, we are dealing with probabilities, some high, some low, and many "in between."

Rick Sumner

I'm not letting you walk this time. Three times this topic has come up. Three times you have stated or implied that saving relics was normative behavior in antiquitous religions. Three times you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence in support of this. I ask, again, for a list of those "other religions," in general, and--of course--near eastern religions roughly contemporary, to provide more specific context.

If nothing else, I'll be able to point people to this next time you offer your comments.

Regards,
Rick Sumner