I was complaining before that there was too much agreeing going on. Now there's too much apologising. People should have better things to do all day than agree and apologise. [Agreed? oops sorry about that]
Fook off.....hows that?
:-)
Tacitus only mentions that such a cult exists, making such a claim. Tacitus definitely does not provide any evidence for the claim. No fragment of Josephus making the claim exists which is not posterior to the claim to that effect made by Eusebius, one of the most scurrilously unreliable "historians" who ever wrongly assumed the title. There is no source for the Josephus claim which is not traceable to a christian source, and by far, the overwhelming majority of such claims are traceable to Eusebius. So, there is no definite information that Josephus in fact recorded the existence of said "Jesus"--and the particularly christian argument that Josephus would have no reason to invent him is specious, as it is in no wise certain that Josephus did in fact write about such an individual.
Setanta wrote:Tacitus only mentions that such a cult exists, making such a claim. Tacitus definitely does not provide any evidence for the claim. No fragment of Josephus making the claim exists which is not posterior to the claim to that effect made by Eusebius, one of the most scurrilously unreliable "historians" who ever wrongly assumed the title. There is no source for the Josephus claim which is not traceable to a christian source, and by far, the overwhelming majority of such claims are traceable to Eusebius. So, there is no definite information that Josephus in fact recorded the existence of said "Jesus"--and the particularly christian argument that Josephus would have no reason to invent him is specious, as it is in no wise certain that Josephus did in fact write about such an individual.
So there were no independent observers (that is to say, people outside of his cult) that recorded the life of Jesus? Interesting.
Eusebius was a "bishop" at about the time that Constantine made Constantinople the new capital of the Roman empire. He may have been alive at the time that Constantine allegedly made christianity the state religion of the empire. But there are several problems with the entire scenario as presented, and saddly, generally accepted, in modern histories.
By tradition, a personality cult of the either the reigning emperor, or the late emperor, had been the state religion since the time of Octavian, known as Caesar Augustus. But Constantine apparently had no interest in such a cult, and had a plan to divide the administrative functions of the empire into two districts, east and west, which would have raised some thorny issues about just who was to be considered "divine." There is no known non-christian record from the early 4th century which deals with the subject. All that can be said with any certainty on the subject is that Constantine lifted the legal penalties on adherence to christianity.
The issue becomes even murkier thereafter. Constantine died in 337, and was succeeded by Constantius II, but had already established an adminstrative structure with two Augustii (read: emperors) and two Caesars (read: heirs apparent), one in the east (Constantinople) and one in the west (Rome, briefly, abandoned for Ravenna, which was more militarily defensible). Contantius II was succeeded by Julian, known to history--thanks to the christians--as Julian the Apostate. It seems hardly likely that Constantine's grandson would have been "pagan" in a state in which christianity was the state religion. We now have only christian sources for the period because Julian died within a few years (and might have been assissinated, likely with poison), and was succeeded by Jovian, a weak-willed puppet of the bishops.
The reason there are few or no "pagan" sources for the period is that the Roman empire in the west began to decay (slavery is the root cause, although many other superficial causes are claimed--but no time for that here), and the empire in the east survived, and even prospered. However, it became a hagiocracy--and the emperors became religious symbols in orthodox christianity. "Unofficial" versions of history were expunged whenever discovered.
Eusebius of Caesarea is known to many christian scholars as the father of christian history. The "pagans" of the third and fourth centuries ceded nothing to the christians in the way of scholarship, and had already begun to question the "Jesus story." They pointed out that references to a rabbi named Yeshuwah (Joshuah in English, Jesu in Greek) were rather coy, given how common the name was, and the prevalence of mysticism in Palestine in the period in question. In short there were any number of rabbis (even if only self-proclaimed) in Palestine 2000 years ago, and more than just a few named Yeshuwah. Even before the time of Eusebius, there had been "interpolations" of the text of the Jewish historian known to us as Josephus. The evidence is from christian sources--within the last few centuries, when agnostic and atheistic skepticism has reared its head once again, christian scholars have been at pains to point out that interpolations of Josephus pre-date Eusebius. In so doing, however, they provide the very evidence to seriously question the account which Eusebius used, and which is the basis of the claim in our times that Josephus records an account of the existance of this "Jesus."
Your statement to the effect: "there were no independent observers (that is to say, people outside the cult) . . ."--is essentially correct. Historians ask first and foremost, cui bono, or "to whom the benefit?" in any historical investigation. When only christian sources claim that Josephus is a source of affirmation of the existance of "Jesus," but no extant fragment of Josephus exists which is not derived from a christian source containing such an affirmation, the entire contention is called into question. Obviously, when dealing with christian historians in such a matter, historians who acknowledge that there have been a great many interpolations of Josephus, the answer to the question cui bono is those historians themselves.
As for Tacitus, he is known for four works: Cerealis, Germania, The Annals of Imperial Rome, and The History of Imperial Rome. I've read all of them, i've read the last three named on several occassions. The last two works are fragmentary. In no part of the text of either of the last two works does Tacitus assert that such an individual ever existed. Rather, he takes note that the cult exists, and that the adherents thereof contend such an individual existed. Yeshuwah the Rabbi very likely did exist. The entire "Jesus" fairy tale, however, leaves a sulferous stench (historically speaking) in my nostrils.
Leaving aside the proof or lack of proof of the historical existence of Jesus, and incidently the existence of a number of other non Christian personalities connected with the story have been documented, I think it would be more productive to look at the attitude of very early Christians. For them the issue of slavery seems to have been irrelevant. There was a strong "end of time" element in early Christianity. Many, including Paul believed that the second coming was imminent. One's earthly social position was secondary to one state of "purity" and in that case a slave was more likely in a better state than a master
Frank, the documentation is for Caiaphas and Pilate. The James ossuary was known to be a fake, at least among professional archaeologist, from the moment it appeared.
Suppose the Caiaphas or Pilate documentation were real? What of it? The novel Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon makes reference to Hitler, Churchill, Eisenhower, and even to Jack Kennedy. Anyone contending that the characters therein were real, and the proof is in the textual references to people known to have existed would be a candidate for the rubber room.
Interesting Setanta. So none of his enemies, debunkers, or skeptics ever recorded his existance. Thats a pretty damning fact, if true (no pun intended.)
No unquestioned source for any such record of his existance is known to exist, ILZ. With a lifetime devotion to history, i would not care to make any more categorical statement than that. That same devotion leads me to consider any "evidence" as suspect, however, on that same basis.
(Edited to correct the error in referring to IronLionZion--an elementary courtesy.)
Acquiunk wrote:Frank, the documentation is for Caiaphas and Pilate. The James ossuary was known to be a fake, at least among professional archaeologist, from the moment it appeared.
The Bible mentions Rome -- and Ceasar.
Would anyone consider that evidence of anything?
The Bible definitely is a history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people.
It has a theology intertwined.
The fact that some of the history is factual -- is in no way evidence that the theology is anything by mythology.
I should be a pains to note, for honesty's sake, that the Rabbi Yeshuwah may well have existed, as there is more textual evidence for the claim that such a person existed, although no contemporary accounts. As well, the Essene mystics had reached the pinacle of their popular appeal at that time, and Palestine was likely crawling with "street-corner" preachers of that ilk. The problem one has is that history has rarely been written with an eye to describing the life of common folk, before the modern era, and the "Pied Pipers" of their mysticism would not make the late edition, unless they attempted to assassinate someone really important, or otherwise impinged upon the lives of "great men," who are about the only personalities for whom we have records, and many of those records are scant indeed. The matter of Julian "the Apostate" is cautionary--he was a "pagan" in the highest position of authority in exactly that era in which christians made themselves the religious masters of the Roman world. Almost nothing we know of him is reliable as a result--only that he lived, reigned briefly, and died, ostensibly of an illness, in Illyria, when marching to drive the "barbarians" from Italy.
The documented existence of Caiaphas, Pilate. or Herod for that matter, neither proves or disproves the existence of a historical Jesus. But it does place the story in a real historical context. Therefor if it is fake, someone was going to some lengths to make the story plausible. Which poses an equally interesting question, why go to all that trouble?
Setanta wrote:The matter of Julian "the Apostate" is cautionary--he was a "pagan" in the highest position of authority in exactly that era in which christians made themselves the religious masters of the Roman world. Almost nothing we know of him is reliable as a result--only that he lived, reigned briefly, and died, ostensibly of an illness, in Illyria, when marching to drive the "barbarians" from Italy.
And he is, at least as he is portrayed in Gore Vidal's novel about hin, my hero!
One need only consider the extent of the power christians amassed, and the ability to crush the competition, within a few generations of Constantine lifting the debilities against them, to understand why someone would go to all that trouble.
I was unaware that Gore the Bore had written a novel about him. Hmmmm . . . must have been largely constructed from whole cloth, although that does not mean it wouldn't be a good read.
LOL! read it - it is called "Julian".
What a clever title !
That Mr. Vidal, he sure got the shine on him . . .
