RogueBibleScholar

There are a number of Jesuses in Josephus; something like 14 of them. One that makes an intriguing candidate is the one that kept prophesying Jerusalem's downfall; who died during the first phases of the war:

"... there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, 'A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!'" (Wars 6.5.3, compare Mt. 24:27-25:1)

With so many revolutionary Jesus to choose from, however, there is at this point no reason to preclude another one could have been the basis of this account. One possibility as to what to expect, whereas Acts 11:26 has Christians first calld by that name sometime after the martyrdom of Stephan to as late as the early forties, early Christian graffiti in the Catacombs in Rome spell it 'Chrestus' universally through the First Century, not 'Christus', if memory and reports of the catacombs serve - and Seutoneus spells it Chrestus as well. I don't have a source on the catacombs, however. We might hypothesize that Josephus mentioned a wonder-worker Jesus called 'Chrestus', who had drawn many of the Jews and Gentiles over to him, but was executed by the Romans - and was claimed to have appeared alive again on the third day. For that reason, some survive, and are called Chrestians.

Atwill, in Caesar's Messiah, proposes that Jesus was a parody of Titus Caesar, and Christianity was a method to co-opt the enemy god, as a method to win the peace after the victory. If so, back projections of Christian history might be partially or all fictional; with the objective of providing cover to the agents of the Romans.

Minimalist

Yes, Rogue but also consider this from the rest of the story.

A Roman procurator whipping and questioning a Jesus who says nothing of consequence in his own defense and whom the procurator does not think guilty. Wonder where "Mark" got the idea for his so-called "trial?"

andrewcriddle

IIUC there are no 1st century Christian graffiti in the Roman Catacombs; hence the question of whether they said 'Chrestus' or 'Christus' does not arise.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist

An interesting thought here. I ran a search on Google for "first century christian catacombs" Rome. Surprisingly few references (7) and none from scholarly sources.

Perhaps there weren't any?

andrewcriddle

Yes; there appear to be no Roman catacombs, (Christian or otherwise), securely dated to the 1st century.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

Has the Rutgers 2002 study been refuted, Andrew ? IIUC there has also been a newer study of the Utrecht team on the dating of a Jewish catacomb of Via Ostiense in 2005. I have not yet been able to confirm that finding which is said to be even older than the Villa Torlonia necropolis. Anything you might have on this would be much appreciated.

Best,
Jiri

RogueBibleScholar

Andrew,

I read Atwill's report of an inscription in the catacombs, on the part Flavius Dormitilla. I I can find his quote on it, but as to sites which are readily available, there is the following, although unsourced:

Although I cannot yet post links, I get that from an essay entitled "Our Saint - St. Flavia Domitilla" I found on Google. The contention appears to be whether Domitilla was Christian or not. Christian sources generally do have her as Christian, but some Jewish sources have her as having converted to Judaism. It is for this reason that Atwill says she donated the land for the catacombs.

There is also a graffiti showing a man on a cross with a horse head from the First Century which is thought to testify to the existence of Christians at that time. I stumbled across a discussion of a book on the internet some time ago about inscriptions in the Christian catacombs, which said in a footnote that all the inscriptions from the First Century spelled it 'Chrestus'. I do not have a source on this either; but I think if you find a book on inscriptions from the catacombs of sufficient scholarly depth, you will observe the same thing.

Seutoneus calls Jesus "Chrestus", although fairly speaking, it was a fairly common name at the time. Marcion also spells it "Chrestus", and even the Sinaiticus spells it Chrestians, and the Vaticanus spells it similarly. It was only just after the martyrdom of Stephen that the Acts says they were first called Christians (Acts 11:23). Since we have no other ready term for the group (other than more general terms, like "the elect"), 'Chrestians' is the main candidate.

Minimalist,

Yes, this could have been Mark's inspiration. Keep in mind the Catholic tradition that Mark was a Roman who was a freed slave and a priest of Jupiter; but who had heard Peter speaking, and wrote down what he said. Modern form criticism, on the other hand, has elucidated considerable pedimental composition in Mark, such that related stories sandwich other related stories in many layers; and thus a verbal method of composition like this seems unlikely. The tradition that Mark was a Roman, may yet be accurate. Many other biographical details from many sources, in and out of Josephus' works, seem to have accreted to Jesus' biography as it now stands.

I look forward to looking at the Rutgers survey as time permits.

The Rogue Scholar

Minimalist

We know there were Jews in Rome in the first century. Perhaps they obeyed the law?

aa5874

That is not true at all. Please check the records yourself.

Suetonius did NOTwrite the name Jesus and then referred to him as Chrestus.

mountainman

We know via Roman historian Quintilius Varus Florus' Epitome of Roman History (II, 88) that there were 2,000 Jews of the town Emmaus who in the early second century were crucified by Trajan. What did they do wrong? Its a wonder that some apologetic has not claimed these Jewish victims of Roman Imperialism as "christian martyrs". And if this sort of thing was going on in the second century how can we possibly expect the supreme imperial thug Roman fascists to present a faithful history of a jewish messiah in the greek language?