DCHindley

Hello,

Periodically, we get a new crop of fresh members. This time around it is the ones ready to vanquish the Mythicists. Unfortunately, this particular forum (BC&H) is supposed to be about Biblical Criticism & History, not whether Mythicism or "Historicism" must be the right way to look at the issue of Jesus' significance. The matter of the significance of Jesus Christ is a theological or philosophical issue, not a critical one.

Mythicists, well meaning as they may be, seem to see the parallels with pagan myth, the characters of which are clearly not real people but anthropomorphisms, as slam dunk proof that Jesus Christ too must be a myth too, and no human. Unfortunately, they cannot seem to show how the Jesus Christ of the NT crystalized out of the soup of myth present in that age, in the time & place it did (mid to late 1st century CE at the earliest).

Historicists often don't seem to realize how sparse the evidence is for their position, but they still simply assume it as "obvious" (not that mythicists also don't think only an idiot cannot see the truth of their position).

But "criticism" (not meant in a bad sense of "being critical") is simply consideration of the historical sources available to us. It is not the sole property of any single faction. The sources, or "historical relics" as historians call them, range from archeological remains, to inscriptions, to works of literature. As much as it annoys mythicists, the holy books of Jews and Christians are in fact relics, just as much as books by Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc. They all have some value in reconstructing the past. The problem is that advocates of all sides read either too much into them or wave them away, as their presuppositions require.

All criticism does is establish, as best as we are able from sources, what things we can agree on. For instance, everyone agrees that Suetonius says (in Latin, Life of Claudius) that "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." What we disagree on is what the significance of "chrestus" is. Is it a proper name for a slave, a (perhaps deliberate) Roman mispronunciation of Christus, or god-forbid a suggestion that the expelled Jews had been under the influence of the drug "Chreston" (look it up at Perseus.org, it's real).

Golly gee, can't we all agree to the basic facts, without emotion coloring the matter. Suetonius, by his statement, did not "conclusively prove that Christians were in Rome at the time of Nero" or "conclusively prove that the early Christians were called "Chrestians," or anything of the sort. He only said that Jews were expelled from Rome by Nero for "constant disturbances at the instigation of chrestus." When you do yer' interpretin', just keep in mind that the word "chrestus" can mean at least three things.

DCH (steam blown off)

DCHindley

Mr Hindley, you ignorant fool!

In fact, there are a number of other statements by Suetonius that may affect how we interpret the previous citation:

Ca. 119-122 CE. Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 36.

He [Tiberius] abolished foreign cults at Rome, particularly the Egyptian and Jewish, forcing all [Roman] citizens who had embraced these superstitious faiths to burn their religious vestments and other accessories.

Jews of military age were removed to unhealthy regions, on the pretext of drafting them into the army; the others of the same race or of similar beliefs were expelled from the city and threatened with slavery if they defied the order.

Tiberius also banished all astrologers except such as asked for his forgiveness and undertook to make no more predictions [about him].

Ca. 119-122 CE. Suetonius, Life of Nero, 16.

[After the great fire of Rome, ca. 62 CE] Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.

Ca. 119-122 CE. Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 4. [Alluding to either Josephus War 6.5.4 or Tacitus Histories, 5.6.13?]

An ancient superstition was current in the East, that out of Judaea at this time would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as the event later proved, referred to a Roman Emperor, but the rebellious Jews, ... read it as referring to themselves ...

Ca. 119-122 CE. Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 5.

In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given the promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.

In the case of Tiberius, he starts with supression of superstitious religions, and as long as he was speaking of superstitions, he mentions the actions against the Jews "of military age." Technically, Jews were exempt from compulsary military service in the Roman army, so this probably means he gave Jews of such age the choice of banishment to an "unhealthy region" or voluntary enlistment in auxiliary forces. Why these "military age" Jews? Was there some fear that Jews might rise up? Tiberious was very suspicious of astrologers who might predict the date of his demise, so this is a kind of premptive strike. The Sibylline Oracles make it clear that oracles predicting the creation of a new empire led by the Jews were known to the pagan population.

Claudius, as already mentions, expells Jews from Rome. Then Nero diverts blame for the fire onto "the Christians, a class of men addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition." And what superstition? That is reserved for his description of Vespasian's rule: "An ancient superstition was current in the East, that out of Judaea at this time would come the rulers of the world."

Who were the "christians" of Nero, then (and notice the little "c")? If those Jews who expected an anointed king, like the 1st century BCE author of the Odes of Solomon, were to have been resident in Rome in the 1st century CE, what might they be called? "Christians?"

Only an idiot can't see that, Mr Hindley, you fool and reprobate. I attach the obligatory smilie to avoid approbation, but only under protest! :wave:

Skippy (Dave's evil twin)

maryhelena

Before one can get to any theological significance of JC - one has to decide on historicity or ahistoricity. What possible point is there in any discussion of the gospel story if this issue is sidestepped? Yes, perhaps it's frustrating to see newcomers to the forum wanting to go hell for leather over the pro and anti JC historicity issue. If one has made a decision, either ahistoricist, historicists or neutral on the issue, and one is content with that position, then it can be frustrating to watch others digging through the quagmire of sources. But that's life! I'm afraid the question is not going away.....

Well, here is one ahistorict/mythicist that you have never seen do that - or attempt the impossible re attempting to demonstrate that the JC story developed out of mythology....

Yes, evidence for the gospel JC - stripped from his mythology as a normal man, a carpenter crucified under Pilate, is nowhere to be found. But that does not mean that historical figures, and particularly a historical figure living during the time of Pilate, was not important to the early christian writers in the composing of their JC story. That is the step the historicists have to take - no historical JC does not equate to no historical figure being relevant to the early christians. History was relevant prior to it being interpreted as 'salvation' history in the gospel JC story. Yes, everything needs to be put on the table and considered. That there was no historical gospel JC is not the end but the beginning of a search for early christian origins. The JC issue is a very big issue. It's as big an issue as was that temple in Jerusalem for the Jews. The Jews have survived the destruction of their literal temple - likewise, christianity will survive the downfall of it's historical, literal, claims for the gospel JC. Did not Albert Schweitzer write somewhere: “Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus.” Ideas don't like having to give way to new and better ideas - they cling to the glory days of their youth - but no idea is immune to the relentless striving for intellectual advancement.

maryhelena

So, Jewish messianism, Jewish christians, causing trouble for the Romans! Prior to the fall of the temple in 70 c.e. it's difficult to imagine that Jewish christians would be willing to invite the gentiles to the party! Perhaps it's as well to keep in mind that followers of, or believers in, a christ figure, are not confined, limited to, the gospel JC story. The turn the other cheek gospel JC is not a model for any messianic troublemakers to go looking for a confrontation with the Romans. If it's messianic troublemakers one is looking for - they are not to be found in the JC gospel story. That story is a story of a man of peace who is crucified because of overstepping Jewish theological ideas not engaging in a messianic struggle with the Romans.

The historical messianic christ figure, a figure that was executed, bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded, by Rome, was Antigonus in 37 b.c. If one wants to go searching for christian followers of Antigonus - followers willing to carry the torch for Jewish messianism - then look no further. Antigonus is/was the last Jewish King and High Priest. Such Jewish/Hasmonean christians, followers of their anointed christ figure, would have had the motivation to continue a messianic struggle with Rome. Christians, according to Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, go back to the time of Augustus, 27 b.c. - 14 c.e.

David, the issue is not Jewish christians - Jewish messianism would have been given a shot in the arm with the Roman execution of Antigonus. From then, 37 b.c., until 70 c.e. and even as far as 135 c.e., Jewish messianism would not have given up hope of defeating the Romans and rebuilding their temple. (A hope that I would imagine lies deep within the heart of many Jewish people even to this day...).

The question for gentile christians is when were they invited to the party? When did Jewish messianism become the springboard for christian messianism, ie a christian messianism related to a spiritual, as opposed to an earthly temple. I would suggest that, even though such an invitation might have been considered prior to 70 ce., only after that date would that invitation have been extended. Jewish messianism is not about 'neither Jew nor Greek', that is christian messianism, not Jewish messianism. (A point that Marcion was at pains to make...)


These early references to christians, prior to 70 c.e., are references to Jewish messianism, Jewish christians. As such the messianic motivation is not 'christian' in how we use that term today - to include Jews and Gentiles, ie anybody and everybody in a spiritual brotherhood with a heavenly temple. The job for the early Gentile christians was how to fuse the two, the Jewish messianism and the christian messianism. Marcion being strong-headed enough to call off the whole endeavor....

Vorkosigan

Skippy, lay off DCH. His member is valuable, I mean he's a valuable member, or something, or whatever, of this forum.

Besides you know perfectly well that Suetonius was forged by Eusebius.

Vorkosigan*

*I really am a fictional character

mountainman

Hey Skippy,

Do you see it as relevant in disambiguating two types of historicists - those in the field of "Biblical History" and those in the field of "Ancient History"?

Best wishes


Pete