Lucretius

I think you have to say that from the Roman point of view IF there was an actual historical character called Jesus ,which I personally have no reason to doubt though I do doubt his divinity ,then he was probably considered to be just one of many local troublemakers ,they faced throughout the Empire over hundreds of years .
Yes there would have been records but probably only brief note about how some "Revolutionary " who had only attracted a gang of 12 hardcore supporters had been executed
As others have already pointed out many written works both of real historic and literary interest just didnt survive, never mind a brief note in some bureaucratic documents.

Chaupoline

The Flavian theory sounds interesting, but why would the Romans target their creation, and why would they go to such lengths to destroy such a weak nation as Israel at the time. Another consideration is why would the Romans create a religious movement that would strip the divinity of the Caesars. It is historical fact that the Romans persecuted the Christian religion. Why would they do this if they created it in the first place?

Jedi Mind Trick

Sounds like a very interesting theory. I want to read more about it. Sounds like I will be buying another book.

Hey along with this, could all the various theories (mythist, evemerist, and now flavianist) about the origins of xianity be catching some light of the truth? I mean is there... To use a religious analogy... Is there an elephant here that the various schools, blindfolded by history, are grasping aspects of?
Some describe it as being like a snake (trunk / mythist), others liken it to a tree (leg / evemerist), others make out a rope (tail / flavian).

Was there an historic person of radical Jewish ideas, whose life the Flavains used as a kernel to which they attached pagan mythical ideas? Ultimate syncretism?

I dunno, maybe it's a stupid question.

Amaleq13

The author of Revelation probably had Jesus use that title in reference to himself for the same reason it was used sarcastically by the author of Isaiah in reference to the king of Babylon (i.e. it was a title kings used to indicate how great they were).

graymouser

Several things to realize. First, the cult of the Caesars was far more about obedience to the Roman Empire than it was about religion in and of itself. Second, Christianity would make sense as a pacifying religion because it preached obedience to world leaders and moved the concept of "kingdom" from politics to eschatology. Thus, it makes sense if the intent was to create a religion to subvert the Jews, who were nationalistic and rebellious.

It is historical fact that the Romans persecuted the Christian religion - in the third century. Widespread persecution before the third century is mostly mythical, or at the very least blown out of proportion. Even the Decian persecution was not horrendous; it was Diocletian who persecuted Christians most harshly at the start of the 4th century, as they had become a major power force (as would be seen, well, when Constantine became Emperor). Perhaps 2000 Christians were martyred in 8 years of persecution. Christians rewrote their history after the fact to be far more dramatic than it really was. In any case, this is not a substantial objection to the Flavian Hypothesis; the serious Christian persecutions only happened when Christianity became a religion with a power base and a number of wealthy adherents.

-Wayne

Toto

Could you list the "exact parallels" and how the 99.99997 percent certainty was calculated?

Toto

The best thing that the Flavian hypothesis has going for it is the endorsement by Dr. Blackhirst, who teaches at a respectable college in Australia. Blackhirst here states that his primary research has been on the medieval Gospel of Barnabas. In the first link, it states that his "spiritual and intellectual affinities are Islamic and Sufic" and his research has led to wider studies in "ancient, medieval and traditional cosmology, alchemy, astrology, sacred geometry and other aspects of esotercism." He is also interested in homeopathy and Green-Left politics.

JohnHud

Chaupoline asks "The Flavian theory sounds interesting, but why would the Romans target their creation, and why would they go to such lengths to destroy such a weak nation as Israel at the time. Another consideration is why would the Romans create a religious movement that would strip the divinity of the Caesars".

The Hebrew people were a major threat to Roman power across the mediterranean (see Black Athena) and the Jewish War devastated the entire economy. The Romans could not fight for long on two fronts. But the point of Atwill's work in Caesar's Messiah (February 2005) is that the Romans did not "strip" tha Caesar's of their fivinity....the gospels are a literary fiction, and because the career of Jesus was based on that of Titus/Vesapasian, by worshipping Jesus the Jews were--unknowingly worshipping Caesar.

JH

JohnHud

The first two of the exact parallels are

Calling disciples at the lake of Galilee; has parallels to the Battle of Lake of Galilee related to being fishers of men

Healing demoniac at Gadara has parallels to Battle near Gadara


The last one is

Sparing John/Death of Simon in John 21; parallels the treatment of the two rebel leaders.

On the probability calculation Atwill applies it only to the 11 events in exactly the same order (and ignores those that are partially in the same order), he also uses 11 factorial (see below) to get the minimum likelihood that one account was based on the other;

The calculation shows that it is over 99.9999% certain that one account was written based upon the other. This calculation takes a conservative approach that assumes that, once used, each of the eleven items could not be used again. The probability is thus calculated as 11 factorial, or 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 .This would equal 1 chance in 39,916,800. Expressed as a percentage, this means that it is 99.999997% certain that one account influenced the other. In other words, the likelihood that these parallel sequences occurred by chance is less than 0.000003%--effectively zero. (The alternative approach would assign truly random possibilities for each of the events, in which case the odds are calculated as eleven to the eleventh power, or one chance in 285,311,670,611, for an even more remote probability of 0.0000000003%.)

Bede

Oh horray. Another case of parrallel mania.

My favourite remains the Lincoln/Kennedy ones. There seem to be over a hundred of these now and they keep coming! Amazing how you can always find parrallels if you look hard enough and keep on finding them. Eventually the message will get through that this means nothing at all except we are good at making false connections.

The probability business was last seen showing how Jesus just had to be the fulfillment of all those OT prophecies. Nice to see the opposition falling for the same fallacy.

You saw it here first - The Flavian hypothesis is utter garbage, it will have not the slightest effect on NT scholarship and it will fade from view pretty soon, to reappear here from time to time as a newbie turns up and asks about it.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason