First of all, it is not surprising that there are no contemporary records as most records did not survive if , in fact, there were any to begin with. Jesus was a local phenomenon during his lifetime and was not the type of person the Roman historians would write about. His importance and miracles were highly exaggerated in the New Testament. Jesus was likely illiterate or semi literate so his followers would have preserved the stories orally. It was an oral society and very few lower class people were literate.

As far as references to Jesus, there is the NT itself which is not history as we know it, but that does not mean it was all made up either. Exaggerating, adding miracles etcto famous people was common even by Greek and Roman authors.It is not surprising that Jesus' followers would do the same. Acts was written within about the 30 years of Jesus. The Gospels were less than a 100 years after his death. That is not a big deal for the time. The closest surviving accounts of Alexander were several hundred years and he was an important figure in his own life. Jesus was not.

There are also two references in Josephus. The first has been tampered with by Christians but a lot of historians believe the basic reference is authentic. The second mentions Jesus in passing. He isn't even the subject. The passage is about the death of his brother James the Just.There is also references by both Pliny and Tacitus which briefly mentions Christ and Christians. Some Jewish writers and others also mention him. The fact that these are not contemporary is a red herring because of the distance in time, the fact that most records didn't survive, that Jesus and his followers lived in and oral society and that Romans did not write about such people.

The Romans who were fighting Christianity never denied Jesus was real and they lived during his time or shortly thereafter. If he was a figment of someone's imagination they would have said so. They were not stupid and this was their best weapon.

Last, the simplest explanation is the most likely. You have either an historical Jesus or you have someone, Paul probably, making him up within a few years of his supposed death, and convincing people in the area where he had supposedly lived and been famous just a few years earlier. That is unlikely. Someone would have noticed. The conspiracy theory is silly and doesn't hold water. If you want to more info, read "Did Jesus Exist? by Ehrman or google the historicity of Jesus and read the extensive and well sourced Wiki article. BTW, contrary to what another poster said, Ehrman 's book was not issued as an ebook alone. There is also a print version and it is not disputed by scholars in the field other than Carrier, Price and Doherty

it's the "prove it isn't true" argument yet again.

Toppint

""There is also references by both Pliny and Tacitus which briefly mentions Christ and Christians.""

Pliny and Tacitius. Oh my. Where do I begin...

Josephus, Pliny1 and Vespasian the emperor were connected as friends. They speak about the Messiah, but Jesus is nowhere in the text. Jesus is inserted in a very random place in his text and these many reasons v indicate it was a later insertion with a purpose and agenda. Prior to writing Josephus couldn’t even put his story together when he spoke of Messiah to Vespasian.
The likely answer is because it wasn’t put together when Josephus and Vespasian met.

THAT was the time frame Paul was allegedly preaching it. Josephus went back to Rome, lived with Vespasian the soon to be emperor and wrote. He should have known about Jesus having lived in Judea, but he did not.

It should have been known throughout the land as common knowledge, but it was not.
Doing later inserts is tricky business. John was later connected to the storyline with Jesus, but during Josephus initial writing it apparently was not or it would have warranted being written together in some manner. Jesus wasn’t written together with John until much later. How much later? After the later inserts?
What is the timeline on when the entire storyline finally came together?

If the entire storyline came together AFTER the inserts then it would explain why the writer inserting didn’t know to put it with John the Baptist or James the brother of Jesus and randomly stuck it somewhere he thought it fit in based on his limited knowledge of the existing storyline created at that time.
In this case it wasn’t a strange place to fit in the Jesus paragraph if it was all made up – it makes sense under these conditions.
Jesus got a paragraph and John got a lot more information because Josephus wasn’t the one writing about Jesus and the storyline wasn’t fabricated or known sufficiently by the later writer who inserted it.


http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants13.html#Vespasian

>>quote: In the spring of 67, Josephus' men were under siege in the town of Jotapata -which controlled the road to Sepphoris- and after some fighting, it became clear that they had to surrender to Vespasian's fifteenth legion. Josephus, The author of the Jewish War, tells a strange story about the fate of the defenders. They hid in a cave, decided to draw lots to choose the man who was to kill the others and himself. We are to believe that it was pure luck or divine interference that enabled Joseph to win this sinister lottery. Instead of committing suicide, he surrendered to the Romans. (Jewish War 3.383-398)
Whatever the truth of this story, Josephus was brought before Vespasian and his son Titus. To Vespasian, he explained about an ambiguous oracle that said that a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth.
[Numbers 24.17-19]
Almost every Jew believed that this prophecy referred to the coming of the Messiah. However, who said that the ruler who was to rise out of Israel was to be a Jew? Why should Vespasian not become king or emperor? Ridiculous though this may seem to a modern reader, Vespasian was impressed. After all, in Gaul and Hispania an insurrection had started against the emperor Nero, and it was clear to any intelligent observer that civil war was bound to break out. Besides, everybody had observed the comet, resembling a sword, that had stood over the country during the preceding months (Jewish War, 6.289; an earlier comet is referred to by Tacitus, Annals, 15.47).>> end quote.



When Titus laid siege to Jerusalem, Josephus served as his translator; he also had to persuade the defenders of Jerusalem to surrender. Stockholm Syndrome indeed!!

The comets in the sky, which lured people again to remember the old Jewish Messianic prophecy, occurred just before 70ce, and this timeline more accurately suggests a Jesus storyline with Josephus and Vespasian, leading later to the Clement1 connection, rather than a story happening on 0ce to mark the birth of Jesus, or even in 33ce to mark the death of Jesus the Messiah. T
he dates and information point to a completely different timeline that doesn’t support an original Jesus, but a Roman created Jesus accounting for the decades of gaps of Jesus information and the massive confusion in spite of the apostles and Jesus alleged God ordained message.

Caesar and Calligula were recorded as having a known interest in taking upon themselves the title of Messiah, therefore if Jesus had been around they would have recorded it based on their interest. Instead, Philo of Egypt goes up against Calligula because Philo did not want a non-Jew to usurp the title of Messiah.

>>>quote: Vespasian (67 CE)
Sources: Cassius Dio, Roman History, 65=66.1.4, 65=66.8.1; Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 3.399-404 and 6.310-315; Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5; Tacitus, Annals, 15.47; Tacitus, Histories, 5.13; Zonaras, Epitome 11.16.
Story: The Roman general Vespasian, who attacked the Jews, may seem an odd candidate for a Messiah, but nonetheless, his coup d'état in 70ce was regarded as the fulfillment of the famous Balaam-prophecy that
a star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter will rise out of Israel. It shall crush the foreheads of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed. (Numbers 24.17-19)
There were two comets. One appeared in late 64 (Tacitus, Annals, 15.47), the other, in 69, is mentioned by Cassius Dio (Roman History, 65=66.1.4). Most people thought that the new ruler would be the liberator of Israel, but Flavius Josephus claims to have found the true meaning of the prophecy.
What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. (Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313)
The Roman authors Suetonius and Tacitus give the same interpretation of the prophecy, probably using the same source, who was not Flavius Josephus. This proves that there was at least one other author who shared Josephus' opinions.
There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome -as afterwards appeared from the event- the people of Judaea took to themselves. (Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5) >>end quote.




What other author shared Josephus opinion?
Pliny1, at times Philo, both associates of Rome. Philo was the lead Jew in the cause of Hellenizing / Romanizing the Jews. Pliny1(the elder) was specifically an associate of Emperor Vespasian and Titus, and relative of Clement1, later pope of Rome.
Suetonius and Tacitus both have a relationship to this small hub of men. They were all connected. In this text we can see how this small group of writers point to Vespasian as the fulfillment of the prophecy. Ah, but Vespasian, the Roman Emperor, could not be Messiah as Philo would not stand for such a thing, but the Jesus Messiah concept as offered by Rome certainly did arise out of Vespasian and Josephus interaction. That is the seed and origin of the initial Jesus belief system.
The Messiah belief system was known by Caesar and Calligula, like I mentioned before.

Continued:
>>quote: “The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. (Tacitus, Histories 5.13)
Comment: Josephus' messianology may seem hypocritical, but it is not. In his view, the Zealots had ruined Judaea, and God had sent the Roman general to punish His chosen people as a second Pompey. In the past, God had sent the Jews into exile in Egypt and Babylon; and he had used Philistine, Assyrian and Seleucid armies to punish his chosen people. This punishment could be considered a way to restore the true Israel. To call a foreigner a Messiah was nothing new: the Persian king Cyrus the Great had already been considered the Messiah, as we saw above.>>end quote.


It may not have been new but it was not commonplace at all. Furthermore, the term Messiah is generally known as a Jewish priest who has been anointed.
People often interchange the definition of a deliverer as a messiah.
In the above case of Persian King Cyrus, Daniel of the old testament time considered Cyrus a deliverer, but Cyrus was not an anointed Jewish Priest in the terms that the old testament prophecies about a Jewish Messiah.
The o.t. messiah is known as a Jewish priest regardless of other delivers who do not fit the definition of the Jewish Messiah whom Josephus was conveying to Vespasian.


Many foreigners wanted to be a Messiah, this wasn’t unusual as I noted such people as Caligula the emperor, even Vespasian, but the Jewish community never honored Caligula or Casear as the fulfillment of the jewish Messiah either.
These foreigners were a messiah in their own minds.
This specific role was set apart for a Jew – not a foreigner, as we will soon see. This also explains why the Romans had to create a Jewish Messiah, since no Jew would accept a Roman one.
Vespasian’s Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus was nowhere to be found until Vespasian sent him out into the world via Paul.
The 12 disciples are absent as you research they were sent out but dates and times cannot corroborate Christianity to the disciples preaching in the world. Christianity came about after paul’s preaching long after the disciples were dead. Research it yourself. You cannot link any dates in any locations of the world to the 11 disciples.
The dates are all linked to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Even in India. Jews were located but they weren’t Christians.
The people writing about the ancient Aisan prophecy of Vespasian as Messiah is the writer Tacitus and others, whom are all connected with each other in this small group of writers with an agenda to make Rome into a super power – both political and religious united as one in the same manner that Greece had done before them.
With a few strokes of a pen Tactitus, and a few of these other Roman connected writers I am discussing, made Vespasians dreams come true even though it was a hard fought battle that lasted a few centuries to solidify and with many changes to the original seed of idea.

*Note, also there was NO mention of the Person, Jesus of Nazareth, at this time. We have record that Vespasian heard the Jewish teachings via Josephus and went with it, with Josephus and Pliny1 (possibly Philo if his information isn’t also later inserts) as writers.
There was NO competition for a prior Jesus of Nazareth messiah recorded at any time by any group, Roman or otherwise. They appear to all be later inserts.

Roman writers have had a reputation for later insertions and Tacitus has a reputation for tremendous error in his accounts.
Tacitus was aligned with the group of Pliny2, who was aligned with pliny1 and earlier Vespasian. Pliny 1, the elder, was the uncle of Pliny2, the younger.
Tacitus and Pliny2 were friends and they were all a little group in Rome, writing….writing….and getting Grecian trained writers to write….and write….

This also explains why they wrote a snip about Jesus but didn’t ever convert themselves.
They didn’t have enough information to write, as the storyline had only been a seed at their era and wasn’t fully fleshed out until later, but also they didn’t convert because they made it all up!
Even Clement, the first pope who was Emperor Vespasian’s cousin (haha) converted to Judaism. That’s remarkable since he was pushing along the Jesus agenda. But Clement himself was enamored with Judaism. They were a remarkable little group.

Let’s take a look at Pliny2 the Younger.
Pliny the Younger, or Pliny2 (62-c.115) is dated at the time as Paul, which epistles as you remember were backed by Pope Clement1 of Rome in 95ce (if that is a correct date and not a later interpolation or redaction which Christian writers were notorious for doing - almost as notorious as Mormon writers) It was backed by Clement along with some letters written by Clement1. Pliny the Elder, Pliny1, was Pliny the Younger’s mentor and took care of the younger for much of his youth.
Pliny2 was a public speaker and his writing was known to be more polished than his uncle, Pliny1 the elder. (This was extremely fortunate for them all.)

He was elected to preside over the Centumviral Court. Probably, he was not only elected because he had made a remarkable speech, but also because he had influential friends: the emperor, Titus, Vespasians son, was one of them, who had been a close friend to his uncle and may have felt that he owed something to his friend's adoptive son.
(Remember, Pliny1 the elder, was the same who associated with Josephus, who was associated with emperor Vespasian and Titus.)
Scholars believe Pliny2, the younger, was stationed close to Antioch, Syria. This is an important location as Roman Christian literature declares Antioch to be the hub of the early Christians conversion process of the Jews in the highly Jewish populated Antioch.

Paul was conveniently placed there and the conversions came out of this area; without mentioning what happened to the conversions of the 11 disciples to whom Jesus gave the command to go out and convert the world.
This was an extremely convenient location as the writer and politician had connections not only to the small group in Rome but now also to the missionary conversion process in Antioch, Syria.

Unlike Pliny the elder, the younger became a senator and a more exceptional writer. During this time Domitian, the youngest son of Vespasian, ruled as an Emperor and was a very difficult emperor.
He wanted everyone to share his same morals and this did not meet well with his polytheist and footloose fellow Romans. During this time, emperor Domitian's behavior became more and more erratic and dangerous.
In 95ce, Emperor Domitian ordered the execution of his cousin Flavius Clemens, Clement1 the pope, who had, it was said, sympathized with Judaism even if he didn’t convert. (Clement1 didn’t have to convert to Judaism, he had his own formed hybrid in the Jewish Messiah of Christianity.)
This was the same time Clement1 was dated to have supported Paul’s stories. Did any of them actually know the real story even though the church father records claimed they all knew the correct story and convened with Jesus apostles in Judea?
It certainly doesn’t sound like it.


One author, (I can’t recall his name and must look for it again) wondered if Domitian suspected a conspiracy. Domitian certainly was rigid in his belief systems.
Why Domitian had his coulsin Clement1 killed is worth investigating to this story. This hub group was not without its drama and challenges.
Domitian was a rogue and I read why he objected to the teachings, but I won’t bother to write them here.

A year later, there certainly was a conspiracy, and Domitian was killed. He was succeeded by Emperor Nerva.
The emperorships were always filled with conspiracies and killings; paranoia reigned supreme. With Domitian dead the Vespasian/Flavian emporers had come to an end. The assassination of the emperor to whom he owed his career did not have consequences for Pliny2, who remained prefect of the military treasury.
If Pliny2 had the reputation of being a collaborator of the paranoid Domitian, he had been able to convince everybody that his reappointment was a guarantee for the continuity of government.
This was typical: many other people involved in the management of the Roman empire, retained their office. This points to suggest that Pliny2 was indeed connected with the similar writings in place during the emperor Vespasian Flavian father/son regime not only through his uncle Pliny1, but through his office as well.

Was Pliny2 a buffer in this storyline to attempt to squash Domitian’s objections?

The connections are rather amazing considering Pliny2 was the prodigy of Pliny1, who was supported by Domitians father.
Was Emperor Domitian the loose link in the Emperor Vespasian/Josephus/Philo/Pliny desire to Romanize the Jews through a Messiah storyline and create a roman church in the process?

Again, the Roman Jewish hybrid religion certainly did happen eventually, but it couldn’t have been an easy task to change a polytheist Rome into a mono-theist country, and it wasn’t an easy task at all, but there were always a group overlapping who kept this particular storyline in play so it didn’t die out by the wayside! Indeed this was Rome’s best option as time proved out. Elaborating on it was incidental to the fact that the original concept of a messiah Jewish born remained the same.

After the original hub died we can see the mid 2nd century fell apart and lost control of the stories.
They popped up as if out of nowhere by writers that had to be squashed by the appointed heirs of the Roman Christ Messiah group. This is when there are differing stories, not in the 33ce era.
Converts/writers popped up and wrote stories. Gnosticism popped up out of Valentinus in this century which was unrelated to anything that actually happened in Judea.


In 99 or 100ce, Pliny2 and his friend, the historian Tacitus, were involved in a lawsuit against a former governor of Africa. Tacitus, a personal friend of Pliny2, receives letters about the eruption of the Vesuvius, which Pliny has witnessed.
This connection points to Tacitus, who I will detail shortly. Pliny2 had been able to survive Domitian's tyranny and must have developed a functional dishonesty. Note: there are also two Tacitus, this earlier one, I will call Tacitus1, and a later man named Tacitus who had a small stint as an emperor.

Incidentally, it is important to note that many scholars and researchers see similarities in the story of the new testament texts with the story of Vesuvius eruption in Pompeii. Since the early writers were often aligned to Greece it would not be out of line for them to make the parallels.
What this above noted letter shows is the connection between Pliny1 and the Vesuvius story parallels in the new testament. Does it point toward Pliny1 as contributing to the storyline? Pliny1 was in Syria and had the Roman connection of Pliny2. This point is worth looking into as the Vesuvius connection story does not escape many researchers notice in the new testament writing.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pliny/pliny_y3.html

Pliny2 travelled to Greece, Smyrna, many of the locations the new testament letters referred to. Interesting to note that there is NO mention of Christian persecutions during this era, which is another item that causes me to consider that this entire story wasn’t well thought out from the beginning, and difficult to reign in. Which explains why there were many stories from the 2nd century.

Pliny2 was given a lot of power, and governed Emperor Trajans province for eighteen months and had extraordinary powers. (add to this remember he was an exceptional writer and had a connection with the original hub of originators of the Jesus Messiah.)
Moreover, never before had the emperor sent a governor to a senatorial province. *remember Emperor Hadrian arrived AFTER emperor Trajan, and Hadrian resumed his interest in the building of the Pantheon to all gods, indicating a polytheist departure from the interest in the Vespasian Emperors or Domitians rigid belief system and a return to the more traditional Roman polytheist system.

WHAT A SETBACK!

At this time Pliny2 specifically makes his notation that Rome did NOT have a religion to call their own. This return to polytheism must have infuriated such an intellectual, not because of the polytheist belief itself, but because it veered away from having a consolidated belief system. Greece had one and Rome did not.

Also to be noted there was no mention of Christian persecution during Hadrians emperor era or 117ce to 138 ce. During which time he re-built the pantheon.
Was Hadrian’s election a snag in the Roman plan for a Roman mono-theist religion? Obviously it was, but it took 2 more centuries to rectify completely. I researched the absence of the name Christians later and cannot find anything that points to a name of Jesus worshippers during 0-33ce era or even into the last part of the 1st era. The term Christus or Chresitans were referred to as a completely different group.

Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions. He prohibited theTorah law and the Hebrew calendar, and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount.
At the former Temple sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of himself. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea or Ancient Israel, he wiped the name off the map. This coincided with the 2nd Jewish-Roman of 132ce featuring Simon Bar Kosiba/Kochka. Remember that Simon was a Jew who protested the Roman use of the fictitious messiah Jesus/Jehushua which was gaining popularity in the 130ce era and which word got back to Judea eventually.
(one must imagine that if word had gotten to Judea in 33ce of Jesus death and life there would have been an objection much earlier. This also points to the idea that Jesus was a later Roman construct and not evident in the 0ce to 33ce era time frame.)

Emperor Hadrian was not fighting against the Christians, which causes me to question if the term had even been coined at that time in the storyline, but Emperor Hadrian was persecuting the Jews NOT the Jesus Christians. One would think by that era the Jewish Messiah Christians would have had since at least 30 ce to become well known, but it wasn’t until this last era that they became known in Judea and fought against.

This would explain why Hadrian didn’t know them and in spite of the idea that they should have been well known in small Judea – they were not. Instead, Hadrian fought against Judea, also to gain land and squash the Jewish uprising.

When Rome razed Jerusalem in the 70ce war, Emperor Vespasian struck a deal with the Rabi Yachonen. Yachonen didn’t want his religion to be annihilated completely. Under strict Roman guard and control Yachanen was allowed to start an academy where everything passed by the Roman sensors.

I researched the Jewish texts, which incidentally were ordered to be redacted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (which I suspect was because they denounced this Jesus myth, which Simon Bar Kosiba denounced and caused them to be slaughtered) none of the Jewish texts mention anybody who resembles Jesus story or dates. You’ve often referred to Bart Ehrman as the go-to historian to support a man Jesus, but it’s telling that Bart Ehrman steers clear of including the texts in any depth at all. It would undo his position.

So anyway, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, were all buddies, connected to Roman Vespasian, who was connected to Pliny the elder and Josephus, who was the Jew who was raised in Galilee. Vespasian was the man whom Josephus said wanted to be the Messiah when he heard about the concept in the 70ce war whereupon he captured Josephus. V

espasian couldn’t be the messiah, but he got the next best thing, which was Josephus and his group to make one up.
This is also why the Jews had no record of anyone person resembling Jesus but note that character traits came from a mixture of a number of people.

Kinda like Josephs character concoctions eh?

What a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. Sounds lik." Caesar' s Messiah"

And that sonds like the best bona can do in rebuttal

Bwahahahahahahha.,

You prefer to read Bart Ehrman's conspiratorial nonsense.
Now that's some real nonsense right there!
There is actual details pointing to an absence of Jesus and information stating where and how the Jesus messiah arrived.
Also info stating who put it all together and why.
But you like to hold on to your ideas and call everything else a conspiracy.
How odd!
It appears that the only thing for sure is Rome's presentation of Jesus.
You prefer to accept their information which can't be located, and overlook the informataion that is located.
:(



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2014 04:18PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

Ehrman is an actual peer reviewed scholar which is more than I can say for Atwill who is pretty mucn a laughing stock. To each his own.

The christian peers eat Ehrman up, in the same manner which you display. :)
Non-Christian peers throw poor ole Ehrman to the dogs; his omissions and half-baked theories are laughable.
I guess it depends on what peers you read.

Bull. Ehrman's peers disagree with him on some issues as is normal,but not about the existence of Jesus. Of all the peers( people with credentials and advanced degrees in the same field is the definition ) only three of the whole lot disagree. They would be Carrier,Price and Doherty. The others, including Atwill, are neither Biblical scholars or historians and those who are have pretty well crucifies Atwill.

Atwill was educated in philosophy, Greek, Latin and Bible through the Jesuit program.

If a non-christian critiqued Ehrman they can easily see that his point of views are a mess and far from objective. I think he's a terrible example of a historian.
I once put my review of his book up on this site.

If Ehrman's only lure is his degree in history which gives him credence to write such trash, while Atwill's education only causes you to denounce that he isn't specifically a history major, then we have a sad day....which is why people who desperately want there to be a historical Jesus, such as yourself, hold to Bart and aren't capable of seeing through his nonsense.

How about Fransesco Carrotta: Julius was Caesar

He would disagree with Ehrman. Perhaps his creds are worthy enough for you? :)

Carotta studied philosophy in France and linguistics in Germany. In the 1970s he was active as a writer in the cultural-political movements in Frankfurt, Bologna and Rome. In 1980 Carotta headed the Frankfurt-based Casa di Cultura Popolare as director. As executive director and publisher he supported Kore, a Freiburg publisher of feminist books and women's literature. He first published his theories in the late 1980s. In 1999 he presented his theory in the book War Jesus Caesar?. Since then he has continued his research and written several articles. He has participated in documentary films on Caesar and Christ, given academic lectures, and reconstructed Caesar's funeral ceremony in Spain, based on the historical sources. Carotta lives in Kirchzarten near Freiburg


Can you offer any historian, philosophy major, religious sciences major etc, who is not a christian - or a hopeful christian, Hindu or muslim, etc - who will *agree* with Ehrman's reasons to believe in a historical Jesus?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2014 07:45PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

To add to this, I can't imagine why you insist that there aren't any scholars who would contest Ehrman other than 3 you've mentioned.

Bona Dea, please, that is intellectual dishonesty at it's worse!

Here is an example of scholars who would denounce Ehrman's interpretation and support of a historical Jesus:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/89182/

"The archaeological controversy swirling around two Roma-era burial tombs in Jerusalem refuses to die. Indeed, it has become something of an ugly academic slugfest.
In one corner stands the Israeli archaeological establishment represented by the Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Amos Kloner of Bar-Ilan University, backed by various respected archaeologists and scholars.
In the other stands Simcha Jacobovici, the filmmaker and self-styled “Naked Archaeologist,” backed by another group of respected archaeologists and scholars."


The above mentioned christian scholars and archaeologists would vote for Ehrman, for sure. In that way you'd have your support as you've claimed. I've seen the Naked Archaeologist's stuff and he is an embarrassment to Archaeology. However, Christians eat his stuff up, much like their support of Ehrman.

Why you'd decide that no archaeologist scholar would denounce Ehrman is beyond me.

There is no shortage of those denouncing a historical Jesus as presented this far; according to the above paragraph.

Incidentally, back in 2011 I did a 'both sides' check into the above mentioned alleged ossuary boxes and not one non-christian archaeologist supports them as related to Jesus.
Their actual real history is linked to something altogether different and archaeologist scholars have given pointed reasons why it cannot be linked to a Jesus.

This doesn't stop Jacobovici, and his scholarly supporters, from claiming that the bad guys are all out to get them.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2014 08:48PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

I am insisting on it because it is true and please note I said scholars in relevant fields. Geology, philosophy, languages do not make one a Biblical scholar or historian.I have a degree in history and one in Latin. That does not qualify me as an expert in physics or math or psychology or German. You get the idea.

Degree in latin? Ah, that explains that crazy post earlier today where you were discussing the ending to ad nauseum/am. Crazy as in crazy that someone even knew enough to write a post like you did.

And who forced ypu to read it? Another poster brought it up and I thought he might be interested. Geesh.

Sorry, I didnt read that carefully and rwplied in haste

I am insisting on you recognizing archaeologists as valid degrees including more than 3 sad little references that you offer.

philosophy is a valid alternative to a theology teacher.

You'll take the word of a theology teacher, but not a philosophy major?

How about an archaeologist? Is that enough degree for you?

No archaeologists other than christian archaeologists validate christian artificats to support a christian Jesus.
When that fails they link up with a theologian christian with a history link behind his name. As if that helps?

That means Christian theologists or confused christians trying to validate their childhood faith culture add a "history" title behind their name and you claim that's enough to warrant them authorities?



alrighty then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 12:23AM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

First of all, I do my own thinking and research and do not take anyone's word. Second, Bart Ehrman is not a theology teacher. He is a professor of Biblical studies and history and an atheist.Third,philosophy is not the same as religion and being an exert in one does not make you an expert in both. Same for archaeology although it is closely related.AGAIN BEING AN EXPERT IN ONE THING DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT IN SOMETHING ELSE AND BEING A PHILOSOPHER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BIBLICAL TIMES OR ANCIENT HISTORY

Some other point: Many Biblical scholars are atheists. Two of my favorites are Jewish and another is Muslim. The ones who are Christian are extremely liberal. Ehrman is an atheist leaning agnostic who does not believe in Jesus. As far as Atwill,according to Huffington Post he is a computer guy and that certainly does not make him an expert in religion,history or Jesus.I'll take his advice on computer issues,but not history, thank you.

actually no, Ehrman isn't an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic in his wiki bio.

I’m not sure if that label is intended to lend him credibility to the skeptic questioner and form a bond of mutual understanding as criteria for his opinions, or if it is the only label he himself can come up with to describe his particular sense of confusion? The label does nothing for me and here’s why.

Many people claim they are agnostic, meaning, they don’t know, but in the end they have either conscious, or more often SUBconscious cultural links that predisposes them to formulate an opinion leading toward cultural allegiance and training, in spite of glaring absence of proof or information that would tip the scale. Many people interchange the word agnostic for confused.

So far, the one verse I read appears that he is wrapped up in the analogies of the corruption of the christian church -- supposing that there was a pure Christian church origin from which to corrupt!!! Of course he has already made that supposition or he wouldn’t be trying to analyze possible corruptions. He has already made his statement based on that phrase. How can he then backtrack and ask questions that might invalidate his analogy that it was ever pure and non-corrupt? I will look at ways in which he backtracks. He has already begun his bending as a pretzel. Already he shows the beginning of going contrary to his agnostic label. He is not agnostic as in “he doesn’t know”! He has an opinion that it was corrupted from something pure, which is likely why he insists that there could have been a man messiah Jesus to corroborate his opinion that it was originally pure and uncorrupt. THAT origin from a man Jesus is what I have yet to see evidence of based on dates, time-lines, incidents, Roman backed texts vs absence of non-Roman backed texts.

…doing a little research on Ehrman I find this excerpt from the below link:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-problem.html#ixzz1r9ISu7cB


A strong evangelical christian Bart Ehrman was concerned about suffering…

>>quote Bart: “……Where millions of children are born with horrible birth defects. And where is God? To say that he (God) eventually will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful thinking.
As it turns out, my various wrestlings with the problem have led me, even as an agnostic, back to the Bible, to see how different biblical authors wrestle with this, the greatest of all human questions. The result is my recent book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer. My contention is that many of the authors of the Bible are wrestling with just this question: why do people (especially the people of God) suffer? The biblical answers are striking at times for their simplicity and power (suffering comes as a punishment from God for sin; suffering is a test of faith; suffering is created by cosmic powers aligned against God and his people; suffering is a huge mystery and we have no right to question why it happens; suffering is redemptive and is the means by which God brings salvation; and so on). Some of these answers are at odds with one another (is it God or his cosmic enemies who are creating havoc on earth?), yet many of them continue to inform religious thinkers today.
My hope in writing the book is certainly not to encourage readers to become agnostic, the path that I took. It is instead to help people think, both about this biggest of all possible questions and about the historically and culturally significant religious responses to it that can be found in the most important book in the history of our civilization.” >>end quote.


I’m not sure if my comments will come off sounding harsh, and I don’t mean them to be, I don’t know how to delicately disagree with him and discover how he is hoodwinking himself that he is agnostic but I will try while pointing out the problem(s) I see in his approach. His last sentence, (which I put in bold italics,) states his belief that the bible is the most important book in the history of our civilization. That explains why he is reluctant to let go of a belief that Jesus didn’t exist in spite of lack of evidence to verify his stance and more evidence to question it altogether ---- WHILE trying to tell the reader that he labels himself agnostic.

The pretzel bending has indeed begun.

If he were to assert that there is no evidence to point to Jesus and therefor no pure origin but the Romans agenda to Romanize Jews, what would become of his beloved “most important book”?
For his book to remain the most important book in history there has to be a possibility that it’s true. Could his book be just as important to the history of civilization if it were not based on truth?

I reviewed his books and saw how he attempts to convince his reader and himself of a historical Jesus in his opinion that there likely was a historical Jesus. Correction, there had to be a historical Jesus for his book to be the most important in the history of civilization.

Would his most important book be just as important if he discovered there was nothing to support it?

Could he discover this if he was truly objective?
In his book he states the criteria for an objective writer and then proceeds to break every one of his own rules!


Almost all of his points, with very few exceptions, support a historical Jesus with zero support. His supports are so flimsy and not actually supported at all. It's quite sad to read.

People like yourself use his agnostic position to claim that he is actual correct or accurate. Of course having a degree also helps you believe, but it doesn't make it any more true.

sorry, that's the way I've reviewed his work.

Very sad stuff, really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 01:10AM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

You can believe the Bible is the most important book for many reasons such as the influence it has had on western civilization. Whether Jesusbexisted is totally irrelevant to that.What is relevant is the people who believebit and the effect it had on them. BTW, I said Ehrman was an atheist leaning agnostic, not an atheist.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I said Ehrman was an
> atheist leaning agnostic, not an atheist.


and bart says in his bio tht he is an agnostic, not an atheist.

:P



bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "You can believe the Bible is the most important book for many reasons such as the influence it has had on western civilization. Whether Jesusbexisted is totally irrelevant to that."

yes I would agree, but Bart's case is different than what you present. Have you read Misquoting Jesus and his bios?
Bart's book on Misquoting Jesus actually defends his stance that there is a Historical Jesus and he does this in a very unscholarly and flimsy fashion.

But then again, he's got a history degree so i guess he can do and say whatever he wants?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 01:40AM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

Is Atwill's work peer reviewed?

Topping for Heretic2

"Someone would have noticed."

Oh, people did notice. Tacitus, for example -- who briefly describes (writing in the early 2nd century) what "christians" of his time believed, then proceeds to call it a "pernicious myth" (sometimes translated as "mischievous superstition").

I'll simply point out to you that your apologetics are *exactly* like the ones the group over at FAIR use; "it could be this, it was likely this, you can't prove it's not, so it's what I say it is."

Which is irrational, dishonest, and more than a little sad.

Why not just be honest? Millions of christians are honest about the situation with the lack of evidence (and evidence showing the bible stories false); Martin Gardner, for example, who says, "I know atheists have all the evidence. I believe because it comforts me." That at least is indeed honest, and brokers no real argument. Your attempt at apologetics isn't honest, and doesn't merit respect.

Please enlighten us as to where Tacitus says Jesus didnt exist.

bona dea unrehisteref Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please enlighten us as to where Tacitus says Jesus
> didnt exist.

So Tacitus saying christian beliefs about 'Christ' are pernicious myths isn't enough? Not that Tacitus, having never been alive when a supposed Jesus would have been, could confirm anything either way...
You claimed somebody would have noticed it was all made up (which contradicts your claim of Jesus being a minor figure that nobody would have noticed by the way) -- I showed you somebody who said it's myth.

What Tacitus says is that Christianity is superstitious. Presumably he doeant think Jeausnwas a wonderworking god. Surprise. It is a stetch to go from that to Jesus never lived. Please. It is also a real stretch to call mainstream acholars,many of whom are not believers apologists similar to Fair.It is also kind of anti intellectual to reject scholarship in favor of internet blogs by people with no credentials.

bona dea unrwgistwred Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What Tacitus says is that Christianity is
> superstitious. Presumably he doeant think
> Jeausnwas a wonderworking god. Surprise. It is a
> stetch to go from that to Jesus never lived.
> Please. It is also a real stretch to call
> mainstream acholars,many of whom are not believers
> apologists similar to Fair.It is also kind of anti
> intellectual to reject scholarship in favor of
> internet blogs by people with no credentials.

Tacitus never once mentions 'Jesus.' Your presumption is dishonest and unsupportable. And the only person I compared to fair was you, not any reputable scholars.
Finally, pointing out that evidence does not support claims of an actual Jesus is not the same as claiming an actual Jesus didn't exist.
You dishonestly twisted every single point I made -- which is what fair does.

He mentions Christians who worship Chrestus. Perhaps you should actually read the passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius#cite_note-8

Quote from above link: >>“In CE 64, a great fire broke out in Rome, destroying portions of the city and economically devastating the Roman population. Suetonius cast blame on the Emperor Nero himself as the arsonist, claiming he played the lyre and sang the Sack of Ilium during the fires. Tacitus says that Nero attempted to shift the blame to the Chrestiani, usually taken to mean "Christians", setting off the earliest documented Imperial persecution of what was regarded by the Romans at the time as still a Jewish sect and as a superstitio ("superstition," or illegitimate form of religious belief). While Suetonius makes no connection to the Christians in his account of the Great Fire, he mentions Chrestus elsewhere as an example of Nero's harshness, saying that punishments were inflicted on them. In his Life of Claudius, Suetonius says that Jews instigated by Chrestus were expelled from the city for causing disturbances. Suetonius' mentions of Chrestus and Christiani, taken with that of Tacitus, is an important piece of evidence in scholarly discussions of the historicity of Jesus. “ >>end quote.

Another point of interest: Suetonius writes about Chrestus dating it to 64ce but his information text was dated to after 100ce (late 1st century and early 2nd century).

If we are to believe that the Christians were first called Christians in Antioch, and this was supposed to be during Paul’s era of 70ce (and Emperor vespasians/Titus/Dominitian family reign), it would mean that they were already known as Christians and not some other confusing term like Chrestus – or no name at all even though they held one of the most enticing and controversial elements of the Messiahship, or was Chrestus and Chrestians interchangeably used for the same name?

Suetonius confusion about the term Christians causes suspect considering he wrote during the era when Roman Church writing was prolific and one would think it would have been established at that time, based on the alleged beginning of Christianity starting in 33ce and first getting its name in Antioch.

(Remember Emperor Caligula reigned shortly after the Tiberius reign and there we see the fascination of the Messiah even more so. Remember the jews did have a belief in a Messiah/King and the emperors would have known about it as the Jews in Rome made their rituals known among the polytheist community, but in spite of the knowledge of the doctrine of a Jewish Messiah Caligula or Aggripa did not mention anyone named Jesus whom author Jossa claims was the Messiah of the Jews who were persecuted in Rome under Emperor Tiberius.)

As my research continues I discovered (not to my surprise) that Suetonius is very close friends with Pliny the younger. Through Pliny2 Suetonius came into favor with Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. Here we have our connection of the early clergy Roman written coments and writers back to the small group out of Rome…..

The connection with Pliny the younger not only connects him with Pliny1 the elder, but connects him with Pliny the youngers friend, Tacitus1, (Tacitus the elder) – who also wrote about such christian items in that same era and are the only sources of such items. They are all closely connected with the emperors Vespasian, Titus and Josephus (who wrote about the essenes and Jesus with Pliny the Elder.)

It is no wonder there work reflects upon each other’s various opinions and can corroborate with each other to some extent, and it explains why their stories weren’t cohesive. During their era the story wasn’t formulated, back inserts were at various different phases up until the n.t. was actually canonized. The information takes a marked turn in the mid part of the 2nd century, after this small hub of men died and after the Emperor Vlavius dynasty died.

*Later Roman writers would have used these earlier men’s work for their back inserts/interpolation and would have had the green light to use these names since these men were part of the early connection to begin with.

*note, again the same names are connected. They are famous writers backed by Rome during the Vespasian/Flavian emperor reign and again this connects back to Josephus and both Pliny the elder and the younger and Tacitus. They were all associates connected, yet so-called ‘scholarly’ authors use Suetonius and Tacitus as Roman Historians to validate their references thinking that they aren’t considered Christians while leaving out an important hub of association.



No doubt you’ve taken your info from your mentor and guru Bart Ehrman?

:)

I reviewed one of your beloved Bart Ehrmans books, “Misquoting Jesus”.
page 56 Bart writes about the term Christ, >>quote: “One of the first things that strikes the informed reader of Mark’s Gospel is how thoroughly its traditions are rooted in a Jewish worldview. The book begins, as do many other ancient biographies, by naming its subject, “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1:1). Readers living in the Greco-Roman world would not recognize “Christ” as a name; for most of them it was not even a meaningful title. The word comes from the verb “anoint” and typically referred to someone who had just had a rubdown with oil. Christ was (emphasis on the word WAS is Bart’s own emphasis) a title in Jewish circles, however, as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah. Mark, then, is a book about Jesus the messiah.” >>end quote.

I’ve read Bart’s analogy several times and it appears that he is saying the word Christ (Christos?) is not evident in roman terminology for a Christ, but rooted in the Jewish language and therefore proves to Bart that it was of a Jewish worldview – perhaps leading to his support that there was an original Jesus form whence the Jewish word Christ derived and that the Greco-Roman world would have not recognized the word Christos.

My information shows that his belief isn’t accurate, that the word Christus was a title recognized in the Greco-Roman world, but not in the Jewish world, as the word Mashiyach was the Jewish term – originally the other way around to how Bart has it.

The word “mashiyach” was the Jewish word and Greco-Roman writers translated it into a term that was more easily understood by them, combining the classical word Christos and Messias to come up with a unique Christian term for the Jewish word Mashiyach being Christ. Yes, Christ wasn’t a meaningful title, but its root word Christos, was one that was familiar and used to describe groups who believed in a savior/king (I have mentioned examples of such groups in my article).

His last sentence is especially confusing… saying that the word Christ wouldn’t be recognized, originating from a word that just meant anointed, but as a Greek equivalent of the Jewish word Messiah. Which is it? It was either not recognized as a messiah, but rather as a simple term for rubbing on oil, or it was recognized as a Messiah whereby they transferred it onto the Roman equivalent for Messiah. Here Bart reminds me of many Christian apologists, and especially the Mormon apologists who want to have it both ways.

This is the kind of confusion Bart plays at in the minds of his impressionable readers who wish to keep their beliefs in tact. The accepting reader will not recognize the confusing contradictions in Barts message but prefer to cling to anything that supports their belief.

The most logical reasoning is that the Romans needed a name to make their own. They had been infatuated by the Jewish Messiah role since Caesar, Calligula, Vespasian, Clement1 etc and they needed a Roman name since they were creating a Roman belief system for Rome with the added perk to assimilate the Jews with concepts that were somewhat familiar for them.
The word Christus was already in use, as was the word Messiah/Mashiyach. They were phrases known to both groups.

The phrase ho Christos was a used title and is not a name but more like a title. Thus, "Jesus Christ", in the Greek text “Iêsous ho Christos”, simply means "Jesus the Anointed [one]". (Sometimes, the Greek n.t. text has a different word order, ho Christos Iêsous, "the Anointed Jesus".)

It seems that non-Jews didn't relate to the word CHRISTOS , considering the letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan about 112 ce and several similar Roman-backed blunders. The latin word Christus however was in play and recognized, but not specifically in the manner which the Jewish messiah was defined. Was the word Christ”o”s in relation to the Jewish Messiah, a word formed as a variation to the word Christ”u”s, to describe this new Jewish Messiah and label him in Greek terms later?

In this case Bart still would NOT be correct in claiming that the specific spelling of the new testament term would not be known to the Greeks of that day. Perhaps if Bart researched more, but he fails to detail the etymology surrounding the term and instead misleads the reader to accept that the Jews knew of the word and the Greeks did not; or that the word was only associated with anointing and not with a God; which Bart then tries to connect to lead the reader to believe it was of Jewish origin. The Judean Jews would not have known this word either, the Hellenized Jewish-Romans created it.

I will further detail the etymology of the term which was used prior to the Roman Jesus era:
The Greek word Messias appears only twice in the Greek Old Testament of the promised prince (Daniel 9:26; Psalm 2:2); yet, when a name was wanted for the promised one –Jesus- who was to be at once King and Savior, this title was used to refer to an annointed king. The Greek text of John 1:41 and 4:25 contains the word Messias. That is a transliterated form of the Hebrew mashiyach, "anointed". That Greek transliteration messias was used for the purpose of explaining the meaning of that Hebrew word. In the Greek text of the New Testament, the phrase ho Christos is a translation of the Hebrew ha-Mashiyach (whence "Messiah") which likewise meant "the Anointed".

Unfortunately, most bible-translators have left christos ("anointed") untranslated, and have instead used that Greek word, in the form "Christ". Only a few bible-versions properly render it as "anointed", or, when it refers to Jesus, as "the Anointed [one]". Bart does not consider that the Romans did not want to use the word Messias, and did not use it further, but instead used the word “Christos” to link the term already known to the Roman-Greeks and make it Christian.

The word Christos was used in link with gods/kings well before the Jesus era. Prior to Jesus one of the gods the Greeks worshipped was "Christos Helios" which means something like, "Christ-The-True-Sun." “Helios” is the Greek God of the sun. Greeks called all of their gods "Christos" from Apollo to Zeus and it did mean "anointed” God. They were familiar with the term Christos in relation to their God and for this reason it would make sense that it was the likely choice for the Roman/Grecian writers to use to bridge the gap between the word Messias, which word the Romans were not familiar with and was too Jewish, and blend it with a word they were familiar with in context with the Jewish King/Savior and thereby Hellenize the Jewish Messiah concept with a Greek word that was already familiar in context with Gods and Kings as being anointed ones.

For Bart to say that the Greeks weren’t familiar with the title Christos, or Christus, is a grave error for a historian of his book-selling caliber. Confusion is the key theme in Bart’s work and it is derived by his lack of detailing names with dates. Of course if he did his house of cards would collapse and again he wants to protect his fragile belief due to fear of ____ (one can easily fill in the blank with almost anything as the religious belief system is built on a foundation of fear and guilt, which is what truly motivates Bart from detailing more deeply.)

Roman emperor Julius Caesar , born 100 bce – 15 March 44 bce, was known to many as the Christos Helios. This shows that the name Christos to refer to annointed king/god was in place and well known – not known in a Jewish/Roman hybrid context as that hadn’t sprung up until the 2nd century. It also wouldn’t have been known as a Judea Jewish Hebrew/Aramaic reference though until the new testament used it to refer to Jesus the Jewish King.

although I arrived at the conclusion that Caligula was a Jesus archetype I can now see how Caligula got his idea from his predecessor Caesar as a Christos Helios, and the similarities of themes and dates that the Jesus storyline would have borrowed from. But of course the Roman backed writers could only borrow from the story ideas, they couldn’t use the exact dates because none of it was real. They had to wait a generation and interpolate a story to a back date, teaching it in countries that were far from Judea, in hope that there were no longer any survivors from 33ce in Judea who could claim that they lived in that era and didn’t know of such a story. Mortality rate was low, life expectancy was low, they got away with it. Their pressure and slaughter sealed the deal and the story has run with acceptance ever since.

Excerpt from Carotta’s book: >>quote: Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.
A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity, appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence.

On the one hand, an actual historical figure missing his cult, on the other, a cult missing its actual historical figure: intriguing mirror images.

Is Jesus Christ really the historical manifestation of Divus Julius? Are the Gospels built on the life of Caesar, just as the first Christian churches were built on the foundations of antique temples?

Corruptions in the copying of texts, misinterpretations in translations—Gallia transposed to Galilaea or Caesar’s murderer, the conspirator (Cassius) Longinus, becoming the centurion Longinus stabbing Jesus on the cross—and the transformation of iconography from Roman to Christian have been traced to their origins: the Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil War, a ‘mis-telling’ of the Life of Caesar—from the Rubicon to his assassination—mutated into the narrative of Jesus: from the Jordan to his crucifixion. >>end quote.



The interesting thing is that my research led me to look at Julius Caesar as the Christos Helios, to determine if the word Christos/Christus was recognized in early Grecco-Roman era as opposed to only in the Jewish culture, which Bart claimed, and to my amazement I discovered that others have also discovered and questioned the road that led back to Rome. I guess when all research and questioning is done the pattern emerges for many of us as there are only so many texts that one can analyze and question; it is inevitable that eventually we all draw similar conclusions.

The thing I find quite fascinating from a social cultural perspective is that Bart Ehrman is a popular million dollar book seller on the best sellers list with many devoted followers of his theories, because he has a history degree; and his errant and confusing opinions about the name Christus are appalling. But someone like Franscesco Carotta, a philosophy major with a career in political writing, who shows the Grecco-Roman use of the term and title Christ/Christus in relation to Caesar, is not well known or approved by the christians. Of course Bart isn’t actually an agnostic who doesn’t know, but it all comes together to cause Christians to support him as correct and true.

Getting back to research into this matter about the Grecco-Roman use of the term Christus/Christos has produced some revealing similarities between Christos and certain pagan names and titles and at this point I would like to research them more:

F.D. Gearly, writing in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 571-572, says, "the word Christos ... was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning 'good'." He also quotes a French theological dictionary which says, "It is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, were used indifferently by the profane and Christian authors of the first two centuries of our era." He continues, "in Greek, 'e' and 'i' were similarly pronounced and often confused, the original spelling of the word should be determined only if we could fix its provenance (origin). ... The problem is further complicated by the fact that the word Christianos is a Latinism ... and was contributed neither by Jews nor by the Christians themselves." He quotes various scholars to support his proposition that the word Christianos was introduced from one of three origins: (a) The Roman police (b) The Roman populace (c) Unspecified pagan provenance (origin)," he then proceeds, "The three occurrences of 'Christian' in the NT suggest that the term was at this time primarily used as a pagan designation. Its infrequent use in the NT indicates not so much lateness of origin as pagan provenance (origin)."

If the Jewish word Christ and Christians wasn’t coined until decades later in Antioch, as the n.t. claims, what were the followers of Jesus called? Certainly not Essenes, as there is no Jewish record of them in Judea (not counting the Jewish record of Josephus and Philo, who are focused on the Romanization of the Jews project .) If they existed they had to be called something, if Stephen and Jesus and other disciples were killed based on that “something” they followed. There is no record of a title given to the Jesus followers, (of course there’s no record of Jesus or his followers either for that matter) or of the word anywhere in any culture other than the Roman clergy writing later dated. T

They couldn’t have been considered Jews because their belief system simply wasn’t Jewish, and the Jewish records weren’t aware of it to record it with any name specifying it. It should have stood out under the circumstances even if a name wasn’t given to it. There was however a record of the basic term in connection with pagan origin prior to that time era and during that time era; which also shows another way in which Christianity stole from pagan terminology prior to that era. Nothing specifically resembled the new Jewish hybrid in spite of using the similar names. This is another way theologians hide behind actual history.

Frequently we read people claiming that they may have been confused by Jews or other sects in that time, but this is an inaccurate conclusion. The new Jewish/Roman hybrid belief system was simply too different from the beliefs that held the terms of Christos and it would have stood out in Judea. Nothing corroborates with it having actually existed in that era but everything points to it being a fabrication of Rome decades and centuries later, when the etymology of the word is known, traced and placed.

While Bart would be correct that the Greeks would have difficulty identifying the new testament specific usage of the word, everyone would have difficulty, but it certainly wasn’t a Aramaic-Hebrew-Jewish word but it appears to have been a Roman-Jewish hybrid word, which again takes me back to question the early Jewish-Roman writers discussing the Romanization of the Jews.

It is correct in saying that most people had difficulty understanding how cults were using the term to apply to their beliefs, and the almost sensational admission as to the confusion and uncertainty between Christos and Chrestos, Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, is well documented and shared and published by other scholars too, as well as by the Early Roman Church Fathers: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lanctantius and others.

Yes the early Greeks wouldn’t have known the n.t. reference, but neither would the Judean Hebrews, nor would the Grecco-Romans, but they did most certainly know the name Christus in reference to an anointed God King Ruler. The Jewish-Hebrew world in Judea, the land of Jesus, did not know the term, they had never heard of the name Jesus as Christ or the greek term Messias, they were familiar with a Jewish term mashiyach meaning Messiah, but not familiar with Jesus or Yeshua of 0 ce to 33ce in relationship with this Messiah title.

**Also important to note that the confusion of these early fathers such as Justyn Martyr is dated to 150ce, not
to 0 ce to 33 ce or even to 70ce.

Who was this Chrestos or Chreston with which Christos became confused with? We have already noted that Chrestos was a common Greek proper name, meaning "good", further, we note in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopaedie, under "Chrestos", that the inscription Chrestos is to be seen on a Mithras relief in the Vatican. We also read in J.M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology, p. 331, that Osiris, the Sun-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. We also read of the heretic Gnostics who used the name Chreistos. As previously mentioned noted Julius Casear as Christus of Helios. The confusion, and syncretism, is further evidenced by the oldest Christian building known, the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mt. Hermon, built in the 3rd century, where the Messiah's title or appellation is spelt Chrestos. Justin Martyr (about 150 C.E.) said that Christians were Chrestoi or "good". Tertullian and Lactantius inform us that "the common people usually called Christ Chrestos". Clement of Alexandria, in the same age, said, "all who believe in Christ are called Chrestoi, that is 'good men.'"
Perhaps the word Christos was easier to convert the pagans with than the word "Messiah", especially because of the anti-semitism that prevailed among the pagans. The syncretism between Christos and Chrestos (the Sun-deity Orsiris), is further elucidated by the fact of emperor Hadrian's report, who wrote, "There are those (in Egypt) who worship Serapis; and devoted to Serapis, are those who call themselves 'Bishops of Christ'." Serapis was another Sun-deity who superseded Osiris in Alexandria.

These are more examples showing that the word Christ was known in Grecco-Roman pre-Jesus days to refer to anointed one/king/leader. Did the Grecco-roman vocabulary have the word Messias prior to Jesus? This would be an interesting question, and if not, when did the word Messias arrive in the Greek vocabulary? Did it coincide with the 2nd and first century church writers?

Those details could add more information as to clarification for or against Jesus Messiah storyline in 30 to 100ce. Certainly these unique people who were crucified by Roman officers and fled Judea must surely have had a name prior. But they did not. Why? Why didn’t Jesus name them in Judea? Something as ordained of God would surely be named by the Savior during his life – and not left to limp blindly along waiting for Rome to name them decades later. My own commentary would tell me that this, along with other information and lack of information, is because they did not exist until the early 2nd century in which time all the stories also rose up with no prior knowledge of a name for these people who followed Jesus during the most amazing preaching and miracles to the masses of Judea.

Oh your dear Bart really did omit and insert didn't he.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 01:46AM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

I have gotten my viewsfromm university level classes and numerous books by scholars such as Paula Frederickson, Amy Jill Levine, Michael Johnson , Michael Grant, Karen Armstrong, John Domic Crossan, Bruce Chilton, Elaine Pagels and many more. My research is not confined to Ehrman. I have a personal library filled with books on history and religion by actual scholars who are affiliated with universities, who have published and have been peer reviewed. Many are not Christian. How many of them have you read?

Yes the concept of messiah existed before Jesus and Christ is simply the Greek translation. So what?