Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The Historical Jesus was not crucified with two insurrectionists in the early 30s CE.
Plank 1
“Violent Opposition to the Romans in the Days of Jesus (or Brian)?”
Bart Ehrman Post
June 30, 2014
Goodman pointed to several pieces of evidence that, taken together, seem to be persuasive that the days of Jesus were not a time of political foment and civil unrest in Judea. First, a Roman historian, Tacitus, writing in the early second century of the period, is quite explicit that nothing much happened in Judea during the reign of the emperor Tiberius (i.e., 14-37 CE). Had there been serious disruptions, Tacitus would have known about it.
Support for the view comes from the fact that the Romans did not keep large numbers of troops in the country. Pilate needed only a cohort of soldiers (ca. 600) for his needs as governor in Caesarea. The serious concentration of troops was up in Syria. If there were constant uprisings, that would not have been the case.
And perhaps most telling of all, the Jewish historian Josephus, who was a participant in the war of 66-70CE as a major leader of the Jewish revolt, and then when captured a translator for the Romans who were seeking a settlement without widespread slaughter, and then a historian of the war when taken back to Rome (his multi-volume work on the Jewish War is our principal source of information) was eager in his account of the war to show that the uprising that led to the disastrous consequences had numerous antecedents from the time the Romans had taken direct control of the land in 6 CE – so, during the years 6-66 CE. But even though he *wanted* to find numerous precedents, he could find only ten incidents, in the entire 60 years, of someone (often just one man with a following) causing any kind of problem for which soldiers had to be used. Most of these ten were pretty small-time.
Goodman concluded that the image we (most of us!) have of Judea in the time of Jesus as a seething pit of desperate Jews eager to rise up in violent insurrection against the Romans is simply unfounded, historically.
This is a significant claim. It means, among other things, that those who want to say that Jesus was a zealot like so many others in his day are quite wrong in thinking that there were “so many others in his day.” Where is the evidence of numerous Jews who were zealous in their passion to rid the land of the Roman oppressors? In fact, during Jesus’ lifetime, it appears to have been a period of relative peace and quiet.
Bart is referring to Martin Goodman. Goodman’s first name was not in the original post.
= = =
Tacitus.
The Annals (Latin: Annales) by Roman historian and senator Tacitus[1] is a history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, the years AD 14–68.
Histories (Latin: Historiae) is a Roman historical chronicle by Tacitus. Written c. 100–110, it covers c. 69–96, a period which includes the Year of Four Emperors following the downfall of Nero, as well as the period between the rise of the Flavian Dynasty under Vespasian and the death of Domitian.
= = =
That Jesus was crucified with two revolutionaries/insurrectionists under the authority of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Emperor Tiberius is not historically accurate.
Therefore, one cannot on the one hand say Tacitus provides external source evidence for a historical Jesus (when he in fact calls the claim a superstition) and on the other hand know Tacitus had no account of a revolution/insurrection occurring in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. The first claim is neutralized by the second fact.
Robert
Here you seem to be assuming that the execution of Jesus could only have been motivated by Pilate (and later Tacitus) thinking Jesus was part of a revolution/insurrection occurring in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. While a few, very few, historians think something like this could have been the case, on a much smaller scale, the great majority of scholars do not agree. Nor did Tacitus say this was the case.
Steefen
The execution of Jesus was only motivated by Pilate?
This does not make sense, Robert. Please think through what you try to communicate.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are saying the execution occurred while Pilate was governor.
That is not an assumption.
Execution occurring under Roman governors is not an assumption.
It is not an assumption that the two other men crucified were insurrectionists/bandits. You have NO credibility saying these are assumptions and that a very few historians disagree that the two other men crucified with the Biblical Jesus were insurrectionists/bandits.
Robert
Thus your argument with this small minority of scholars—
Steefen
You cannot advance from faulty premises to such a conclusion. Your premises are so poorly stated: they are nonsense. Get your biblical facts straight first.
Robert
Jesus’ hypothetical revolutionary movement was large enough to merit notice
Steefen
The Jewish establishment that brought the Biblical Jesus to the attention of Pilate for execution did not think it was hypothetical or too small.
Jesus was clearly speaking against a continuing status quo. The continuing status quo was going to be stopped by Act of his God, hence, a theocratic insurrection–a Jewish insurrection brought on by an apocalyptic prophet, miracle worker.
Robert said
Sorry, but you’re missing my point. I was merely trying to identify the premises of your reasoning and conclusion. Note the opening of my post: “Here you seem to be assuming …”
If people are missing your point, you have to communicate better.
Loeb Classical Library
[Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.]
Hackett Classics
…there was no getting away from the infamous belief that the conflagration had been ordered. Therefore, to dispel the rumor, Nero supplied defendants and inflicted the choicest punishments on those, resented for their outrages, whom the public called Chrestiani.
Steefen
Jesus was not the founder of the Chrestiani.
Second, Robert, what is the pernicious superstition in the above Loeb quote?
Third, in Matthew, Pontius Pilate did not know and accept Jesus as a political Christ. The Biblical Pilate was warned by the high priest that this spiritual Christ, Messiah of David, if his god came through, would upset Rome’s governance in Judea and then Pilate would be in trouble with his Caesar.
Also in Matthew, before Pilate, Jesus was asked, do you think you are the king of the Jews? In your spiritual world, are you the king of the Jews?
Jesus answered, you say so. That was an untruth because Pilate was asking a question.
The Sanhedrin did not know and accept Jesus as a political “Christ”. They asked, are you a pretender Christ/Messiah of David? Jesus answered, You say that BUT (although I am NOT going to agree with that–how can I go from being captured to a David Redivivus) BUT my Son of Man Movement will have a legacy: You WILL see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power coming on the clouds of heaven.
In Mark, Jesus answered, I am the Christ/Messiah/David Redivivus AND my Son of Man Movement will manifest: You will see the Son of Man seated …
Also in Mark, before Pilate, Jesus was asked, do you think you are the king of the Jews? In your spiritual world, are you the king of the Jews?
Jesus answered, You say so. That was an untruth because Pilate was asking a question.
In Luke, Jesus was told, If you are the Christ/Messiah/David Redivivus, tell us. Jesus responded, if I tell you, you would not believe BUT my Son of Man Movement will have a legacy: You WILL see the Son of Man seated …
Also in Luke, before Pilate, Jesus was asked, do you think you are the king of the Jews? In your spiritual world, are you the king of the Jews?
Jesus answered, You say so because the Sanhedrin Assembly brought me here with that as their claim. Pilate said, Jesus is harmless. The high priests and Sanhedrin, said, oh, no, he is inciting people from Galilee to Jerusalem. You better do something before you have a full scale insurrection.
Pilate never concluded the Biblical Jesus was leading an insurrection. Jesus may be saying there would be some Act of his God, but I am not giving him the death penalty for what he thinks his god will do.
Furthermore, Pilate is only on record for giving the death penalty to the Samaritan Restorer (Messiah/Redeemer).
What is the pernicious superstition/excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings?
Answer: Well, we need something supernatural. It would not be that Pilate crucified Jesus because there is nothing supernatural there. The superstition would be what Jesus redirected: I am not going to say I am the Messiah-king but I will say, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of Power.
Now why would Jesus be crucified for saying the Son of Gaius would be seated at the right hand of Power? (Son of Man = Son of Earth; Earth is Gaia, female, and Earth, masculine is Gaius.)
He was not crucified by Pilate. The whole thing is a superstition.
In the gospel of John
Jesus before Annas
Jesus was asked about his doctrine and his disciples, not about whether or not he was a king or a spiritual king.
Jesus before Pilate
Are you the king of the Jews? The Jews have come to me. I am not a Jew. Your nation is saying you are claiming to be a king. Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this world. Pilate: Not guilty. I don’t have time for this. Use the Get Out of Jail free Passover event: choose Jesus, Son of the Father or Son of the Father. The Son of the Father was chosen.
Given the historical Pontius Pilate, Pilate would not be goaded into giving someone the death penalty–not historical, therefore a superstition.
Robert
Who do you think Tacitus had in mind when referring to Christus, executed by Pilate?
Steefen
The character of historical fiction we know as the Biblical Jesus Christ, a composite character of historical fiction. That composite character would not have been fully formed until after 70 C.E.
Second,
The punishment of Christians by Nero are generally dated to c. 64 AD.[8] Unlike Tacitus’ reference to the persecution of Christians by Nero, Suetonius does not relate the persecution with the Great Fire of Rome that occurred in 64 AD.
Wikipedia entry for “Suetonius on Christians, Christians under Nero”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You do not have Suetonius providing a supportive attestation.
Third, Tacitus himself does not provide a supportive attestation when he covers the reign of Tiberius.
Fourth, you cannot make sense of the evidence you are putting forth because you cannot define what the superstition is; your evidence is part superstition and part allegation of fact about a Jesus with two years of birth and conception by way of a spirit, a supernatural conception, disqualifying in itself.
Robert
Specific Question: Who do you think Tacitus had in mind when referring to Christus, executed by Pilate?
Steefen
I have already answered that question. You are badgering.
The propaganda of superstition goes: there was a Jesus who was executed by Pilate.
Second, Tacitus possibly saw in the Acta Senatus, (if he researched the claim not made by Suetonius)–Tacitus possibly saw in the Acta Senatus that Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer.
Whomever Pilate executed was Christ?
The execution of the Samaritan Redeemer made an impact on Paul who used him as inspiration for his own non-Samaritan but Jewish Christ.
Tacitus cannot turn Christus into christiani? His grammar was THAT BAD, Robert?
Tacitus is making a compromise by conflating speculators and Christians: chrestiani?
Suetonius 69-122
Tacitus 56-120
Tacitus owes his career to the Flavians, therefore he is in Josephus’ camp. Suetonius born about the time Vespasian became emperor did not flower under emperor Vespasian, but under Trajan. Suetonius was not in the Vespasian-Josephus camp where the Christ propaganda of superstition reached a more finished level of production than it had with Paul.
Google, when did Tacitus write the Annals?
Result/Wikipedia:
It is not known when Tacitus began writing the Annals, but he was well into writing it by AD 116. Modern scholars believe that as a senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus, the Roman senate’s records, thus providing a solid basis for his work. Together the Histories and the Annals amounted to 30 books.
Robert
If Tacitus was in the Josephan camp, which invented the biblical Jesus of Nazareth active in the 20s-30s, why would he claim that this figure crucified by Pilate was part of an odious superstition? Wouldn’t he want to encourage this superstition?
Steefen
Tacitus did encourage the superstition simply by mentioning it BECAUSE he was of the Vespasian/Titus/Josephus court, professionally developed under them. Suetonius was less professionally developed under that court but under the Trajan court.
Robert said
Steefen said
Tacitus did encourage the superstition simply by mentioning it BECAUSE he was of the Vespasian/Titus/Josephus court, professionally developed under them. Suetonius was less professionally developed under that court but under the Trajan court.
Seriously? If Tacitus really wanted to encourage the growth of a Flavia-created Christianity, why would he refer to it as “a class hated for their abominations … and a most mischievous superstition”?
You are saying “encourage the growth.”
I am saying spreading the propaganda of Paul and Josephus.
Someone else is going to have to explain these things to you, if you have anymore questions or comments. Thank you.
Robert said
You said Tacitus encouraged the superstition, but he refered to it as “a class hated for their abominations … and a most mischievous superstition.” Sorry, but that is not encouraging the superstition.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)