Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

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?

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.

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.

I would be thrilled if it were true, but I believe it is a forgery. Several things cast suspicion: the line of custody is insecure, and the inscription is too perfect. They would have never written 'brother of Jesus' in the first century," Robert Eisenman, professor of biblical archaeology at California State University

Rev. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, professor of the New Testament at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, found "no reason to object" to Lemaire's conclusions and called for it to be restored to the Christian church.

"Since it seems very likely that the inscription is authentic, then I find it intolerable that the ossuary should remain in a secret private collection in Israel,"

The two items belong to Israeli collector Oded Golan, who says he bought the ossuary for 200 dollars at an antique shop in Jerusalem's Old City, although he said he has forgotten exactly where.

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.

When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes!

For all these reasons, therefore, one must at least conclude that this text is too problematical to serve as historical evidence for anything. I myself, however, regard it as probable that we have to do here with a later Christian elaboration.

Just as the notion "there is a God" cannot be confirmed by logic or investigation and must simply be a product of "belief" (which is to say, guess)-- the notion "Jesus existed" -- is something that must be arrived at the same way.

Quote:

Just as the notion "there is a God" cannot be confirmed by logic or investigation and must simply be a product of "belief" (which is to say, guess)-- the notion "Jesus existed" -- is something that must be arrived at the same way.

I couldn't disagree more on that statement Frank.

One lends itself to historical and scientific enquiry. The other does not. Although its interesting that the more scientific and mathematical endeavour uncovers about the awesome nature of reality, the more the apparantly separate worlds of physics cosmology and divinity seem to merge.