It strikes me as odd how freaked out the mythicists become at potential references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus. The time and effort spent on debunking them. But even if you accept them the most you could reasonably glean from these references is that in the second half of the first century there were groups who considered themselves Christian and reverenced a figure they gave Messianic status. We already knew that !
Years ago as part of my postdoc research for On the Historicity of Jesus I published a peer reviewed article in Vigiliae Christianae presenting the case (advanced under peer review by a few other scholars before me) that
the single line about “Christ” in the Annals of Tacitus was never originally there, and only came to be added by a copyist sometime in the fourth century A.D. I there argued the whole persecution passage was originally about an unrelated group of messianic Jews associated with a Jewish Roman agitator named Chrestus. That article is reproduced, complete with added mathematical appendix, in my anthology Hitler Homer Bible Christ.
Recently a response piece was published, also in VC, by Willem J. C. Blom, titled “Why the Testimonium Taciteum Is Authentic: A Response to Carrier” 17.5 (2019). Here is my evaluation of it.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As a first side note, allow me to be immediately skeptical and doubtful of anyone who refers to themselves as an “argumentation specialist.”
Secondly, if you could actually cite books and page numbers, that would be helpful, because I tire of having to play fetch quest with mythicists.
Thirdly, the argument that Carrier presents against the Taciteum Testimonium is largely inconsequential. (1) That Tacitus originally wrote “Chrestian” instead of “Christian” is an irrelevant difference, because the transposition of e and i was exceptionally common (Shandruk). In fact, we have a Phrygian inscription where a Christian author spells it both ways on the exact same stela (Van Voorst 35), and we also have examples of early Christians even joking and punning off of that connection (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 1.41; Tertullian, 1 Apology 3.5). (2) That the Neronian persecution is a fabrication (Shaw) is largely irrelevant as well, because Tacitus could just be writing down the beliefs of the time, not what actually happened. (3) There is no other person whom the title “Christus” and also the death under Pilate could refer to, that we have any documentation of. “Christus” was not a Jewish name and we only have one singular example of a woman being called Chreste (ΧΡΗΣΤΗ) in the literature and inscriptions. (4) It was common for Romans to mistakenly call Jesus “Chresto” or “Chrestus” in their writings, which Lactantius reports (Divine Institutes 4.7.5). (5) Carrier’s attempts to argue that there had been an interpolation and that Chrestus in Suetonius and Christus in Tacitus are the same person but different from Jesus is also just an exercise in futility, because we have, again, no reason to think that Chrestus is not Jesus (Van Voorst 29-39). Carrier’s argumentation and misreading of Suetonius has likewise been noted by Prchlík (97n17). Willem Blom’s recent article does a good job at rebutting Carrier, and Carrier’s only response has been to largely misconstrue and misrepresent Blom, as Carrier has done with the majority of his rivals. There is not a single justifiable or legitimate reason to think anything but that Tacitus is talking about Jesus.
Fourth, yes 1 Clement does not say who killed Paul specifically. However, the fact that it says “leaders” (plural) means that the author of 1 Clement could have included Nero in this. This is not evidence against Neronian persecution. It is, at best, neutral. In case you didn’t notice, but it would take more than one leader in Rome to actually persecute or kill people, unless one is claiming Nero did it by his own hands… which is impossible. So this is not evidence against the Neronian persecution. It simply is not evidence in favor of it either. It is neutral. You cannot go from “this passage talks of leaders, but not specifically Nero” to “this is evidence against Neronian persecution,” because Nero… was a leader. The logic is flawed.
Anyways, that is my evaluation. I think Carrier’s case is poor and unconvincing, and as for Carotta… well, I like to pretend that Carotta’s work does not exist because it is quite frankly embarrassing to read, in my experience.
References:
Lightfoot, J. B. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Prchlík, Ivan. “Auctor Nominis Eius Christus. Tacitus’ knowledge of the origins of Christianity.” Philologica 2 (2017): 95-110.
Shandruk, Walter. “The Interchange of ι and η in Spelling χριστ- in Documentary Papyri,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010): 205-219.
Shaw, Brent D. “The Myth of Neronian Persecution.” Journal of Religious Studies 105 (2015): 73-100.
Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Chris_Hansen
There is no other person whom the title “Christus” and also the death under Pilate could refer to.
Steefen
Why are you saying the death penalty of Jesus Christ is equally as or more historical than the death penalty of the Samaritan Restorer?
Chris_Hansen
As for Carotta… well, I like to pretend that Carotta’s work does not exist because it is quite frankly embarrassing to read, in my experience.
Steefen
I read his book after watching his documentary.
Chris_Hansen
As for Carotta… well, I like to pretend that Carotta’s work does not exist because it is quite frankly embarrassing to read, in my experience.
Steefen
English is not his native language and he is a linguist. The way he constructs an argument or a book is not the way I would construct an argument or a book or the way you would construct an argument or a book.
The statement that he put forward (in his documentary film and in his book) as a premise he set out to prove is not an argument that fails. Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar are watermarks on the pages of the gospels.
Josephus and Johanan ben Zakkai put forth that Vespasian fulfilled the Star Prophecy, not a Jewish innovator/rebel/bandit. Vespasian is a watermark on the page of the Gospel of Matthew where the Star of Bethlehem story is told.
Emperor Domitian punished an adulteress. In the Book of Revelation, an adulteress is punished. Both accounts have to be read side by side in order to see Domitian as a watermark on that page of the Book of Revelation.
The imperial cults of Rome are present in The New Testament. Christians may be embarrassed that the gospels are inspired by deified leaders of the Roman Empire, but they have to roll up their sleeves and investigate, then accept the facts.
1) My training is in linguistics and writing through my English degree too, but you don’t see me writing a bad book. Also, Carotta did not write the English. He wrote in German. His work was translated by other people who did know English. I’ve also read Carotta in both English and in the German. He is bad in both.
2) His theory is nonsensical and it does fail, which is why it has no relevance to academics.
3) I doubt Matthew used Josephus, and I think Carotta’s case is nonsensical here.
4) Who cares about punishing adultresses? Adultresses are punished all the time in the ancient world. The Book of Revelation focuses on Nero, not Domitian. Having a pathetic parallel about punishing adultresses proves how shallow your position is.
5) Yes the Imperial Cult influenced the NT. That does not validate Carotta’s theory at all, which you would know if you actually knew what you were talking about.
There is a difference between reviewing writing talents and reviewing arguments.
I have been in correspondence with Carotta about his documentary film and his book. His film is about recreating a religious re-enactment of Julius Caesar’s death and funeral, showing how close it resembles the death and crucifixion of Jesus of the gospels.
Matthew does not have to use Josephus about the Star Prophecy. It was not just between Josephus and Vespasian that Vespasian was deemed the fulfillment of the Star Prophecy. This is not Carotta’s case; this is something Josephus did: identify Vespasian as the fulfillment of the Star Prophecy. Of what case are you speaking?
There is a difference between the shallowness of parallel between the historical event of Domitian punishing an adulteress and an adulteress being punished in the Book of Revelation and cataloging the many watermarks of Julius Caesar, the Divine, Augustus Caesar, son of the Divine, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian that are in the New Testament.
There is also a difference between influencing the New Testament and making sure elements of imperial biographies are written into the New Testament.
So, your erroneous comments against Carotta (probably without having seen his documentary film) and your erroneous comments against me (also without having read how I improved Carotta’s presentation in my own book manuscript) are poor in quality.
(Tacit. Ann. 15.44, Suet. Nero 38, Cass. Dio. 62.16-18). Among the important texts there is a brief mention of Suetonius about the punishment of Christians (Suet. Nero 16: afflicti suppliciis Christiani) but without a clear connection to the Great Fire, although Suetonius himself describes this catastrophe elsewhere (Suet. Nero 38.1-3), and the testimony of Tacitus which is, in fact, our only source directly connecting the fire of Rome with the persecutions of the Christians. “Neronian persecution” is also sometimes linked to the mention in the so-called 1st Letter of Clement (1 Clem. 6.1-2) about the martyrdom of Christian women. There is, however, no indication of any connection of this passage with Neronian repression, nor of any specific period of the time that it would have affected. Furthermore, Otto Zwierlein tried to show that the 1 Clement’s Letter, contrary to the most common scholarly opinion, was probably not written at the end of the first century (Zwierlein assigned it to the Hadrian’s reign), and therefore should not be regarded as a testimony to what was happening in the second half of the first century. Brent D. Shaw, on the other hand, convincingly demonstrated that about the causes and the nature of “Neronian persecution” we can say almost nothing, and that the Tacitus’ testimony must be approached with a great caution, since it contains certain anachronisms characteristic of the time in which the historian lived (c. 110–120), and not necessarily of the period described by him (e.g., the use of the term procurator instead of praefectus to describe Pilate’s function; the very name “Christians” in the context of the first half of the first century). The language with which the Titus describes Christians (superstitio rursum, malum, odium humani generis) resembles the terms used by Pliny the Younger, a close friend of Tacitus, in his correspondence with Trajan to describe the Christian cult (Plin. Ep. 96: amentia, superstitio parva, immodica, supersitionis istius contagio). According to Shaw’s skeptical interpretation the description of the Christians in the Tacitus’ testimony may in fact reflect not the reality of the Neronian period, but a perception of the Christianity by the Roman elite in the first half of the second century. Our main source is therefore anachronistic, and the very connection of the Proto-Christians (or Jews) with the great fire can be seriously questioned. Nero probably sentenced a group of people to death, but it was only later tradition that made them “Christians”, according to Shaw. A more moderate interpretation of the question accepts the historicity of the Neronian repression in Rome, but points out that the very suspicion of the superstitio (strange and foreign kind of religion) and odium humani generis (due to the unusual character of the beliefs and closed nature of the cult) were sufficient reasons to consider Christianity as a potential thread and good candidate for the “scapegoat”, regardless of the pacifistic (or not) tendencies of the group itself. In order to clarify the nature of the (alleged) Neronian persecution it is therefore not necessary to suppose the existence and activity in Rome any Jewish “warrior messianic” movement. (S.Poloczek)
The name Chrestus (“useful”) was a very popular among slaves, but was hardly ever been used by the Jewish people (!). H.J. Leon examined more than 550 names used by Jews in Rome in the 1st century in epigraphic material without finding a single case of using “Chrestus. This may suggest that Suetonius merely misheard the name „Christus” and erroneously believed that the leader of the civic unrest to be alive in Rome at the time. So the passage is most often taken as a reference to a conflict evoked by early Christian preaching. But also this interpretation is not without serious problems. If this is the case, it would have to be seen as an incident, not necessarily the evidence of ongoing instability of the “messianic” Jewish communities in Rome perceived by the authority as a constant or military threat to the social order (S.Poloczek).
Chrestus is Christus ?- (yotacism)
Title of local talent or name of the Lord?
Appeals to authority are not fallacious if the person being appealed to is an actual authority. If I say prof Ehrman believes that Jesus was a historical figure that is not fallacious because Ehrman is an expert in the field and that is his opinion. I simply state a fact. However if I say Prof Ehrman is a NT expert and he believes in ghosts so I do as well, that’s a fallacious argument from authority.
Besides, why so cavalierly dismiss the consensus in the field? Even if they turn out to be wrong (it happens) it is still the opinion of the vast majority of people who know the subject best. So I too am interested in your response to Robert’s question. Please.
Robert said
No, I’m not claiming that Carotta is wrong because no prominent critical scholars have accepted his views. Authority has no role in critical scholarship, ‘though it is certainly prudent to attend to the findings of genuine scholars. I’m merely asking you why you think this is.
I do not want to get into academic politics.
Stephen said
Appeals to authority are not fallacious if the person being appealed to is an actual authority. If I say prof Ehrman believes that Jesus was a historical figure that is not fallacious because Ehrman is an expert in the field and that is his opinion. I simply state a fact. However if I say Prof Ehrman is a NT expert and he believes in ghosts so I do as well, that’s a fallacious argument from authority.Besides, why so cavalierly dismiss the consensus in the field? Even if they turn out to be wrong (it happens) it is still the opinion of the vast majority of people who know the subject best. So I too am interested in your response to Robert’s question. Please.
The Biblical Jesus did not exist.
I do not agree with how Bart presented his answer to the question Did Jesus Exist.
The spiritual realm is factual.
I will not get into academic politics.
Robert said
I wouldn’t blame it on academic politics. Maybe Carotta’s views are not all that credible to those with expertise in the field? There are much easier ways to account for the gospels being written in such a way that the message would be inoffensive and pleasing to Roman society.
Carotta’s views are very credible to those with expertise in the field.
The Romans destroyed the Holy Land for a while and the Temple, there. The traditional worship of the Hebrew God and religious practices for the Hebrew God were interrupted. Second, Carotta is not saying the gospels are simply pro-Roman, inoffensive, and pleasing, he shows the biographies of some of the deified Roman leaders were written into the biographical information for and the good news, and a Revelation about the Son of God, Savior, and Messiah. What theology would fill the gap left by the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, a Hebrew God diminished with the destruction of his Temple, and messianic fighters killed? Answer: an opportunity to graft biographical information of Roman leaders to the biographical information of a Jewish messiah.
The hybrid Jesus (the grafting of Jewish messianism made non-violent and Hellinized Roman leaders) is a character of historical fiction who did not live/exist. Furthermore, after the Biblical Jesus died, he nor a vengeful Hebrew God for the crucifixion of his son brought on the Jewish Revolt and the Jewish Civil War 36-40 years later.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)