I said I would make a precis of my case against authenticity for the Tacitus passage on Christians and Christus. Someone several pages ago (I won’t bother to look up a quote) argued that the lack of any Christian appeal to the Annals passage itself was not significant. Perhaps it isn’t, although if Christian writers could make reference to the extant Testimonium in Josephus (once it appeared in Eusebius, not before), there is no reason not to question why they couldn’t have also encountered Tacitus’ alleged reference to Christians in his Annals and appealed to it. But this silence is overshadowed by the lack of any Christian appeal in another respect, one that is very much significant.

It is not so much that no Christian ever refers to Tacitus’ account of the Neronian pogrom against Christians after the Great Fire, but they never refer to the persecution itself per se, to any accusation that Christians had set the fire or were punished because of it, until the beginning of the 5th century. Nor does any other Roman historian following Tacitus, whether drawing on Tacitus or not.

It hardly needs to be asked whether we should expect such a mention. Christians during the first few centuries were fixated on their own sufferings and martyrdom at the hands of the pagan authorities. Traditions (many of them not based on fact) arose about martyrdom for almost every figure in early Christianity, from Peter and Paul to Ignatius and Polycarp and beyond, and virtually every apostolic figure in the early Christian firmament, reflected in a host of writings throughout the first few centuries. Yet not a single piece of martyrology was written devoted to anyone who was said to have been martyred during the Neronian slaughter. Not even Peter and Paul’s death were cast in that context.

What have Christian writers before the 4th century said about Nero? Tertullian (Apology 5) says something very typical of such references:

…Consult your histories: you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome…”

No description of this “assailing” is given, nor any reason, other than “not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation.” No reference to the fire, or the accusation that Christians had set it. What are the “histories” he refers to? The Latin word is commentarios better translated as “records”, and considering that the comment has been preceded by a reference to some kind of communication to Tiberius about Christ’s divinity (which Tiberius accepted!) and later in the Apology a reference to Roman archives containing an account of the world darkness at the crucifixion, Tertullians “histories/records” may be nothing more than real or imagined Christian forgeries and fantasies.

When he refers in Scorpiace (15) to Nero shedding Christian blood, it is entirely in terms of Peter and Paul and the legends attached to their martyrdom. The same in his De Praescriptione (36), indicating that for Tertullian, all his references to Nero persecuting the Christian sect could well include only the apostles, and perhaps some individuals attached to them.

Eusebius in his History of the Church (II, 25) describes Nero as “monster of depravity” in connection with his murder of his own close relatives. But in regard to Christians, Eusebius quotes the above passage from Tertullian’s Apology without enlarging on Tertullian’s unspecific language. He refers to Nero as “the first of the emperors to be the declared enemy of the worship of Almighty God.” None of this can be securely identified with either the Tacitus account (which Eusebius does not quote) or even with an historical Neronian pogrom on the basis of Christians setting the Fire.

Eusebius, too, describes the martyrdom of Peter and Paul without either mentioning a wider persecution after the Fire or linking the former apostles’ deaths with that event. In fact, like Tertullian, he expands on his remark that Nero was “the first among the principal enemies of God” by recounting in some detail the “slaughter” of Peter and Paul, even quoting other Christian writers about their martyrdom. Earlier in the same book he went into great detail quoting Hegesippus on the legendary murder of James the Just. And yet not a word, not a single detail is spent describing the ghastly gore-fest found in the extant Tacitus.

Melito of Sardis, around 170, wrote (Petition to Antoninus): “Of all the emperors, the only ones ever persuaded by malicious advisers to misrepresent our doctrine were Nero and Domition, who were the source of the unreasonable custom of laying false information against the Christians.” Not a murmur about the Fire, not even a clear statement that any Christians were murdered.

What is going on here? Certainly not that every single Christian commentator would choose to be silent or else refer to a Neronian persecution in such vague terms, never giving a single direct indication that they were aware of such an event. I have suggested that some tradition about a minor event or anti-Christian animosity under Nero (perhaps even relating to the Jews, which was later misunderstood as involving Christians) grew into a later conviction of Nero being a persecutor, but with no information about what that persecution consisted of. Or, it might all have grown out of the traditions of martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Or, it might have grown out of nothing specific.

But there are Christian apocryphal documents which reflect traditions (or simply the writers’ inventive views) which rule out any Neronian persecution as a result of the Great Fire. The Acts of Paul enlarges on legends of Paul’s death under Nero by having the emperor round up other Christians in Rome and condemning them, by reason of their association with Paul, to death by fire. No mention of the Great Fire or any accusation that Christians had set it. If the latter were known, it is hardly likely any Christian would have crafted a story which ignored it and substituted a limited execution of Christians because of their connection with Paul. However, the Acts of Peter is conclusive. Here Nero seeks to kill all those Christians in Rome who were converted by Peter. He was prevented from doing so by a dream in which he was being scourged and told:

“Nero, you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ. Keep your hands from them!” And so Nero, being greatly alarmed because of this vision, kept away from [Peter’s] disciples from the time that Peter departed this life. And thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord, rejoicing and exulting in the Lord.”

No writer (here probably about the beginning of the 3rd century) who knew of a general persecution and killing of Christian brethren in the city of Rome by Nero could possibly have constructed this scene, one which effectively rules out the occurrence of any such persecution.

Now consider the Roman historians. Yes, there is a line in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars in the book on Nero (16.2) which says: “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Every bit as vague and non-committal as Christian commentators on a Neronian persecution, with no reference to any reason, let alone that they had burned down half the city. It’s hard to understand why Suetonius would have been so austere if he were referring to something as dramatic as the Tacitus scene. And why didn’t he draw on Tacitus Annals, so recently written in his own city, to recount that persecution, a practice very common among ancient historians? If he indeed had Christian responsibility for the Fire in mind here, why was that very thing left out in chapter 38 of the same book when he comes to describe the Fire itself, where he treats the legend of Nero’s responsibility for it as factual, and makes no reference to a persecution of Christians?

Some regard the line in chapter 16 as an interpolation, not least because if it were applied to the Fire, it would be in dramatic contrast to the much milder measures by Nero it is surrounded with, laws concerning state expenditures, the distribution of food, brigandage by chariot drivers and the expulsion of pantomime actors from the city.

The same silence is found in Cassius Dio in the early 3rd century. He, too, in his Roman History (62.16-18) when describing the Great Fire makes no mention of Christians or their persecution and makes Nero responsible for it.

The well-known letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan portrays Pliny as knowing very little about Christians and not knowing what sort of punishment is usually meted out to them. Trajan replies that, while those stubbornly refusing to retract should be punished, a “go easy” policy should be adopted toward rooting out Christians from the populace. Could such sentiments be expressed, if the Neronian precedent portrayed in the Annals was known to either man?

These and other documents (all are discussed at much greater length in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man) cast very strong doubt that the scene recounted in Tacitus was known to anyone, Christian or Roman. How, then, was the idea formed in the first place, probably a couple of centuries later, certainly after Eusebius?

Melito and Tertullian both give evidence of a telling phenomenon: the practice of “blaming the Christians” for all the evils that befall. (See the latter’s Apology 40.) If this was the trend, we could well envision that sooner or later someone would impute to them responsibility for the Great Fire under Nero, perhaps prompted by some tradition of a milder antagonism on Nero’s part for Christians (or Jews). There was undoubtedly an account of the Fire by Tacitus in Annals 15, but did some Roman scribe, following the ‘blame the Christians’ practice, perhaps drawing on an existing popular legend recently developed in Roman society, insert the Christian responsibility into it, later reworked by Christians? Or was the entire thing a Christian insertion, giving expression to the ‘in the air’ accusation against the Christians? It’s not outlandish that Christians would embrace such a rumor as an inspiring piece of Christian martyrology under an infamous emperor, a badge of honor such as Tertullian regards martyrdom, and enshrine it in the histories of a famous historian.

In such a scenario (which would explain certain problematic elements such as the very derogatory language against Christians—not impossible in itself, though, if a Christian interpolator wanted to really convince the reader of authenticity), the entire passage in the Annals collapses. If the Christian involvement in the Fire and the resulting punishment of them must be rejected as almost certainly historically unfounded, the passing line about “Christ” crucified under Pilate cannot stand, and Tacitus must be dismissed as providing any witness to an HJ.

A passage very like the Annals account is first found in Sulpicius Severus, a Christian chronicler at the beginning of the 400s. There is an extensive common language between it and the extant Tacitus, spelling a virtually certain literary connection between them. But he does not cite Tacitus, or even indicate he is drawing from a source, so we cannot be sure who borrowed from whom. And Severus does not include/reproduce the “Christus” element in Tacitus. Several possible scenarios surrounding the Severus connection are possible, but I will not go into those here. They are thoroughly discussed in my book. My point here was to offer the conclusion that the historicity of the Neronian persecution on account of the Fire is highly questionable, virtually to be rejected. And that, in its demolition, carries to destruction the reference to Christ in Tacitus’ Annals.

Incidentally, in my section on Tacitus in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man I also look thoroughly at the question of what we can conclude even if the Annals passage were authentic to Tacitus.

Earl Doherty

MS2 wrote:

angelo wrote:

This argument might work with the highly conservative Christian scholars, but not the rest. And the rest vastly outnumber them.

The numbers fallacy again. Most people on this planet believe in a supreme being/ghost in the sky who looks after them and knows when a sparrow has expired. Does it mean there is a superghost in the sky who knows our every movement?

Doh. No it's not a numbers fallacy. It's an argument about numbers. Earl D was offering an explanation as to why the number of academics supporting him is tiny (1 by his count).

You claim that "the rest vastly outnumber"[/b] highly conservative Christians scholars needs to be substantiated for its veracity.

Please state exactly how many highly conversative Christians scholars there are? And then the vast numbers of the rest.

Do you have any numbers at all?

Now then - about a week ago "kapyong", aka "Iasion" - a committed Myther of long standing - summoned Earl Doherty here; an invitation which has resulted in about 7000+ words of clarification and supporting argument for Doherty's version of the Myther thesis. Doherty said that he wouldn't be replying until he'd posted his apologia in full and, since most of his posts seemed to be aimed at me, I gave him a full opportunity to do just that (despite some yapping from his one-man peanut gallery that I was somehow "beaten" for simply respecting his wishes). I seem to have earned Doherty's particular ire because I posted this summary of why I and most others find Doherty's amateur enthusiast theory unconvincing. In some distinctly odd statements recently, Doherty has claimed that this post was somehow "disrespectful". Given that all I said in that post was that his thesis was flawed and unconvincing and given that I also said that it was also relatively "sober, scholarly and credible" as Myther arguments go, it seems Doherty is a rather prickly and over-defensive sort of character. That also seems to be borne out by the fact he has recently self-published a new book - a whopping 814 page tome that could be subtitled "Horrid Things People have Said About Me Online". It seems it is "disrespectful" to simply disagree with Earl Doherty.

Still, in his short tenure here, Doherty doesn't seem to have convinced anyone much. Which should, if he had the intellectual humility that is essential to a real scholar, be giving him genuine pause. When this topic was first taken up seriously at the old place (RichardDawkins.net - RIP), the majority there were either Mythers or heavily inclined towards Mythicism. Given that RD.net was a forum of atheists with no inclination towards or love for Christianity, this shouldn't be too surprising. But as the discussion went on, with a refocusing of the debate on not what we'd like to be true, but what we as rationalists can say is most likely, the support for Mythicism rapidly fell away. As many veterans of that long debate who are now here on RatSkep openly acknowledge, once they dropped an ideological desire for Christianity to be able to be undermined by the non-existence of Jesus and looked at things objectively, Mythicism simply didn't stack up well against the idea that there was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher called Yeshua/"Jesus" as the kernel of the later stories. Occam's Razor cut down the supposition-laden Myther alternatives with its usual ruthlessness.

I should hasten to note that this does not mean that the Historicist position is therefore correct; that is not what I'm pointing out. What I am noting is that this forum and its predecessor is made up substantially (with some notable exceptions) of open-minded rationalists who, if they are emotionally committed at all, are actually inclined against anything even close to supporting any aspect of Christianity. A great many of them have moved to be more inclined to support the Historicist position because of clear arguments that indicated this position was more likely. And they could be just as easily swayed the other way, given strong enough arguments. So if any audience is potentially capable of being convinced by Doherty's arguments, it's this one. The fact that Doherty has failed to make an impact on this of all audiences speaks volumes and is something he needs to ponder.

So, on to Doherty's arguments. I must say GDon and Grahbudd have already beaten me to the punch on some of them, particularly the whole fantasy about a separate "sub-lunar fleshly realm" in which, according to Doherty and absolutely no-one else, the ancients believed Mithras slew the bull, Attis was castrated and Jesus was born, lived, was crucified and rose again. Of course Doherty has "answers" to all their objections - these enthusiast theorists always do - but GDon and Grahbudd have already done an excellent job of exposing why Doherty's attempts to prop up this contrived aspect of his thesis are deeply unconvincing.

Before going further, I'd like to tell a personal anecdote which taught me a valuable lesson about how history is analysed. Many years ago, as a callow undergraduate, I studied early Medieval history under the redoubtable Dr Rodney M. Thomson - a skilled Medieval historian and renowned expert in Medieval palaeography and codicology and a man who didn't suffer fools gladly. He was almost as harsh on precocious undergraduates whose enthusiasm outran their still rudimentary skills and, with his bushy black beard, booming voice and rather ferocious eyes, once had his lectures described as "being lectured on the Vikings BY a Viking". When tackling a major mid-year essay, I got it into my head to not simply give an overview and analysis of the established research, as the topic required, but to boldly strike out into new territory and present an original idea. I rather liked my original idea and even had a few things which I thought were evidence to support it. Of course, they did require the reader to reinterpret this evidence by assuming a few things and the whole idea also required a few "maybes" and "what its" and "if you ignore the traditional interpretations and look at it this way instead" statements. But I thought I'd made a good case.

The paper came back with an okay mark (not great), but the paragraphs laying out my original idea had diagonal red lines drawn through them and in the margins next to them, in block capitals, Thomson had written "AN ARGUMENT THAT DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON SUPPOSITIONS IS NO ARGUMENT AT ALL." Ouch. My first taste of Occam's Razor at work and a lesson learned.

And this is directly relevant to Doherty's thesis. Over and over again Doherty asks us to set aside the gospels and look at what Paul says about Jesus through another perspective - Doherty's invented idea of a mythic Jesus who does things in this "sub-lunar fleshly realm". Then he works hard to find a way to ensure anything Paul says can be reinterpreted to make sense in this new light. But even if we leave aside the fact that many of these reinterpretations are strained, based on contrived readings or ad hoc, cobbled together arguments, the main problem is that he is asking us to abandon a context for what Paul says that we know did exist and take up one for which there is no evidence at all. After all, we have later works, which seem to be clearly related to the ideas that Paul expresses (Paul even appears in one of them) and which make it quite clear that this Jesus was a historical figure who lived in the 30s AD. Interpreting what Paul says about Jesus in the light of the context provided by those works makes perfect sense. Doherty works very hard to try to make what Paul says about Jesus in the context of his conjectures also make perfect sense, or any sense at all. So even leaving aside how well or how badly he succeeds, the fact remains that his whole thesis rests on a supposition. This then gets compounded by the fact that quite a few of his reinterpretations of Paul are also substantially suppositions.

The result is a contrived edifice built on contrived foundations and propped up mainly by some very determined wishful thinking and a lot of bluster. Then Doherty can't work out why no-one much has been convinced by this fantasy castle in the air (and has to invoke that old standby of fringe theorists - "the academics are close minded to my brilliance!") That fact is, as my wise old lecturer impressed upon me when I was 19 "AN ARGUMENT THAT DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON SUPPOSITIONS IS NO ARGUMENT AT ALL."

So, let's look again at the passages where Paul is, according to just about everyone on the planet except one Earl Doherty, is referring to a historical, non-mythic Jesus and see how convincing Doherty's reinterpretations really are.

Paul says Jesus was of flesh and blood. He says he was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1 Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1 Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1 Cor. 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had a earthly physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19).

Taking the first of these, Paul says in Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the Law" (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναῖκος γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον). According to the context that we actually have, this is quite clear - he was born a mortal here on earth and born a Torah-observing Jew. After all, the preceding part of the sentence also tells us that he was "sent" by Yahweh (ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς). So Doherty has to ignore that context and contrive a way for Paul to be able to say this if Paul didn't believe in any earthly, mortal, historical Jesus. So the clusters of suppositions kick in. He asks:

What of Revelation 12 which speaks of a woman clothed with the sun who in an entirely heavenly and mythical scene gives birth to the Messiah, is hunted by a dragon and defended by angels, a Messiah who, by the way, is immediately snatched up to heaven to await the End-time, with not the slightest hint of a life on earth?

To which anyone with a grasp of genre would ask in reply "What relevance has a mystical and allegorical dream vision that no-one except modern fundamentalists takes as a catalogue of actual events, heavenly, 'sub-lunar' or earthly, got to do with anything?" But even if this passage were taken as literally as Doherty (rather oddly) tries to do, exactly where each part of it "happens" is far from clear, but most of it seems to happen on the earth. "The dragon" appears in the sky, though where exactly the "woman" gives birth is not clear. The "child" is then "taken up (ἡρπάσθη) to God and to his throne" (from where?), the "woman" goes to hide in "the wilderness (ἔρημον)" and the angels then fight the "dragon" and he is "hurled to the earth". Where upon he promptly "pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child" and she escapes "to the place prepared for her in the wilderness", all of which happens on the earth.

So the only way Doherty can make this into a mythic, sub-lunar woman giving birth to the Messiah is to wave his sub-lunar realm magic wand and make all the references to "the earth", the place where the child was "taken up to God" from and the "wilderness" and all that happens there into ... references to some kind of sub-lunar fleshly "earth" and "wilderness". So, in other words, he has to assume his own conclusion to make this passage into something that somehow supports that conclusion. Not exactly convincing stuff.

Then Doherty tries this:

You are no doubt aware (or maybe not) that here Paul (and it’s alone in the entire NT corpus) uses the verb “ginomai,” which is anything but the usual verb to describe human birth (that’s “gennao”) but has a broader sense of ‘coming into being, or arising, etc.’ The reason for this remains obscure to any mainstream scholar.

There are several problems here. Firstly, Doherty is wrong that this is the only time Paul uses the verb γίνομαι - he also uses it in Romans 1:3 (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ). Secondly, this usage isn't "obscure" at all. If Paul believed Jesus had a heavenly pre-existence, as he clearly seems to have, then it makes perfect sense that he would use a word which means "to come into (physical) being". Finally, γεννάω is the word that has a broader sense, including "to beget, to impregnate (all those "X begat Y" in the genealogy of Matt 1 are forms of γεννάω), and Paul clearly isn't talking about how Jesus was "begotten" here he's talking about how he was born as a mortal. So this argument fails as well.

“…and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3).” Again, where does this passage say this? Of course, it’s based on the assumption that “of the seed of David kata sarka must mean such a thing, which is anything but secure.

This argument is really the Achilles Heel of Doherty's thesis. He expends much ink trying to convince his reader that a phrase that seems to very clearly state that Jesus was a human descendant of a human Jewish king actually means ... well .. something else. As a friend of mine who read The Jesus Puzzle a few years ago said later "I was pretty open-minded until I got to that bit, but then I thought 'okay, this is crap'." Romans 1:3 reads;

... regarding his Son, who as to the flesh was a descendant of David ...

Or in literal translation from the Greek:

... concerning which Son of him which came into being of descendant of David according to flesh ...

Again, given the context provided by the later writings about who and what people believed Jesus was (as opposed to Doherty's imaginary context constructed out of a tissue of suppositions), this makes sense: a pre-existent being manifested himself physically "'as to the flesh") and came into being (there's that word γενομένου again) as a descendant (σπέρματος - "spermatos": you can't get much more physical than sperm!) of the ancient Jewish king David. It takes some pretty contrived Dohertyite jiggery-pokery to dance around the clear meaning of that one.

Doherty does it by trying to turn the words "according to the flesh" (κατὰ σάρκα) on their heads, which is a tricky business for him, because Paul uses the phrase several times. In Romans 4:1 he describes Abraham as "our forefather according to the flesh" (προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα). Then in Romans 9:3-4 he talks about how "I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to flesh (συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα), the people of Israel." He is clearly talking about his kinsmen and his national ancestor as being related to him by blood ("according to the flesh") using EXACTLY the phrase he uses to describe Jesus' relation to David. Other usages of the same phrase clearly indicate that it indicates things of this world - the world of flesh. In 2Cor 10:2 it's used again (τινας τοὺς λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας) which gets translated variously as "some people who think that we live by the standards of this world", or "(some) think we act from human motives" , or "some people think that we are only guided by human motives". But the meaning from the context is clear - this is a reference to things of this world, the world of "the flesh".

To try to get around the clear sense of this expression with some hopeful hand waving about how "Paul’s language and connections between humans and his heavenly Christ are full of mystical relationships" is only going to be convincing to someone who shares Doherty's wishful thinking. The meaning of this phrase fits how Paul uses it elsewhere and fits the later Christian texts which also talk about Jesus being a descendant of David. Which in turn fits with Jewish Messianic expectation, since they expected a physical, human descendant of the ancient royal house of Israel, not some sub-lunar semi-Greek abstraction in the sky. Doherty wants us to ignore all this interconnected evidence, pretend with him that this sub-lunar Jesus stuff has some basis and then indulge in some pretzel-style twisting of words. Then he seems genuinely surprised when no-one else finds all this hopeful contrivance convincing.

Doherty then tries to dismiss the references Paul makes to Jesus' own preaching (on divorce in 1 Cor. 7:10, on preachers in 1 Cor. 9:14 and on the coming apocalypse in 1 Thess. 4:15) by noting some have claimed these refer to revelations he received personally, not to anything Jesus said on earth. Well, if you look hard enough you can find all kinds of opinions about all kinds of things in this field, and their polar opposites as well. Cherry pick your positions from the myriads out there and you can prop up virtually any idea with some support. Doherty then claims that not only is the idea that these words of Jesus are not from the historical preacher but personal revelations to Paul and " the language of such passages more than suggests this". Except his support for this claim is pretty sparse and, yet again, highly contrived. He notes a later comment in 1 Cor. 7:25 "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgement as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy" From this he deduces that "I have no command from the Lord" somehow has to be interpreted as "I have not received any personal revelation about this", claiming "[t]he first-person phrasing indicates a general category of things Paul is accustomed to possessing for himself, not as part of a wide community knowledge or inheritance from tradition." Doherty never explains why this "first-person phrasing" couldn't also indicate that this is a category of things passed onto him by others. As so often, Doherty assumes his own conclusion and then confidently states that assumption as "proof".

He states that when Paul gives his semi-creedal summary of the events of Jesus' death in 1 Cor. 11:23-26 his use of the phrase "For I received from the Lord ... " to introduce his summary and claims "the words plainly make it yet another case of personal revelation and Paul's own product." Except they don't. The phrase is Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (literally "I for received of the Lord ...). Commentators note the use of the preposition ἀπὸ (of, from) rather than the alternative παρα and point out that παρα would mean a direct transmission (ie from Jesus to Paul) while ἀπὸ signifies a more remote transmission, with Jesus as the ultimate but not the immediate source. Doherty counters "unfortunately for this argument, these different usages were not strict". That may be true (and others have debated Doherty on this point), but if the preposition can take that meaning it still weakens the force of Doherty's argument here. After all, Doherty is more than happy to rest his case on single possible readings at various points in his thesis, so it's a bit rich to try to dismiss this reading because it doesn't suit him.

Then we get his dismissal of 1 Cor. 2:8 as a reference to earthly rulers, noting that many read the phrase "the rulers of this age" as referring to demonic powers who hold some sway on earth until Yahweh's kingship comes. Of course the passage can be read that way, but to then decide that these demonic powers "crucified the Lord of glory" in some "sub-lunar fleshly realm" rather than through human instruments on earth requires us to assume his conclusion once again. Apparently, reading these texts with the actual later gospel accounts in mind is not allowed, but reading them with Doherty's otherwise unattested mythic theology in mind is not only allowed but its the only way we're supposed to read them. Which brings us back to the very weird situation where we have to ignore a context for this stuff that we know did exist (we have the later texts) and only pay attention to one which we have to take on faith from Doherty. Bizarre indeed.

Naturally Doherty waves away the physical, historical implications of "he died and was buried" (1 Cor 15:3-4), telling us that Osiris' "death, burial and resuscitation [took place] in what can only be a non-material, non-historical dimension". This is yet another examples of emphatic statements by Doherty that don't stand up to much scrutiny. If Osiris and Isis only did things in "what can only be a non-material, non-historical dimension", it's very strange that people of the time seemed pretty clear that they happened on earth in some remote primordial period. Strabo talks about disputes about precisely where Isis buried Osiris, detailing at least two spots where the locals insist the god was buried and detailing a story about how Isis buried several fake coffins to fool Set/Tryphon, hinting that this could explain the conflicting burial stories. What Strabo seems pretty clear on is that this burial/these burials did not happen in a 'a non-material, non-historical dimension".

Of course, Plutarch was at pains to stress that he didn't believe these things happened on earth and in history, but that these stories should be seen as allegories that indicate universal truths:


Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom,a since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks. Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters .... If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.
(Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, XI)

So what Plutarch is saying is that while others (like the Egyptians Strabo refers to) think these stories " actually happened in the manner in which they are related", on earth complete with tombs and places Isis and Osiris did things, the real way to read them is "allegorically .... [to] interpret the story reverently and philosophically". Allegory doesn't mean these things happened in some "separate sub-lunar fleshy realm" either. It means they didn't actually "happen" at all, even though the philosophical truths they indicate are, for Plutarch, very real despite this.

Finally we get the hoary old Myther nonsense about how "James, the brother of the Lord" actually doesn't refer to "James, the brother of the Lord", the same one referred to in the gospels, In Acts and in Josephus. No, that can't be because that would scupper Doherty's thesis right there. So, right on cue, Doherty conjures up the tired supposition that "brother of the Lord" is actually just a reference to a member of the sect. Which skips around the fact that while Paul does refer to "brothers" and even "brothers IN the Lord", he never uses ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου to refer to any other followers of Jesus, just here and just about James. Once again we're instructed to avert our eyes from the confluence of evidence that Jesus had a brother called James who was a leader of the community in Jerusalem (the gospels, Acts, Josephus) and stay focused on Doherty's latest supposition.

And so it goes on and on and on with Doherty. Yes, he has answers to all the objections raised above. He has answers to all the objections that have ever been raised to this thesis. Since I first came across his stuff on a Yahoo Groups community many years ago I've seen him spill out hundreds of thousands of words, intricately contriving answers to anything and everything anyone has ever thrown at him. And they are always the same - suppositions piled on suppositions, "ignore those pesky gospels and read Paul MY way - assume my conclusion and my conclusion will become clea"r. He's prolific. He's ingenious. He's indefatigable. The only thing he isn't is very convincing.

I have often thought he missed his calling and what he should have been pouring all this creative reworking of things into was fiction writing. But then I noticed he does that too. Not surprising really. Perhaps he should stick to it.

I find it extremely amusing that HJers spend almost all their time trying to refute Doherty when, whether he is right or wrong about "sub-lunar activities", there is STILL NO credible source for the historical Jesus.

The Bible is NOT credible and this includes the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writers did NOT ever claim they SAW the historical Jesus.

The Pauline writers SAW the resurrected MYTH JESUS.

The Pauline writers also RECEIVED information, and his gospel from the resurrected MYTH.

1 Cor. 15.3-8

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day...... he was seen of above five hundred brethren....... After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also....

James SAW the resurrected MYTH, too. The MYTH's brother?

Over 500 people SAW the resurrected MYTH Jesus.

But, the Pauline writer could NOT remember HOW he met Jesus or how Jesus met him.

Just read this. The Pauline writers are COMPLETELY useless as evidence for an historical Jesus.

They simply CANNOT RECALL if Jesus or the Pauline writers themselves were DREAMING or what.

Only Gods knows but what is there to know.

2Co 12:2-3 -

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--

The Pauline writings are a disaster as evidence. "Paul" cannot RECALL.

Where is the external credible evidence for the historical Jesus?

There is ZERO evidence.

The Pauline writers were supposed to be the MAIN WITNESSES for the historical Jesus but they are REALLY the MAIN WITNESSES for the MYTH JESUS.

And "PAUL" is going to BRING over 500 WITNESSES.

They SAW the MYTH. Even James.

MS2 wrote:

EarlDoherty wrote:

My parting shot for today: Byron further said, “Infinitely likelier is that there was a Jewish escatological prophet who was offed by the imperial boss-man and mythologised by Paul of Tarsus (and possibly others), and successors.” Please give me one example in which a human being was mythologized by anyone to the extent that the human being himself was completely lost sight of, never discussed or presented, never placed at an identifiable historical time and place, excluded from the picture of the movement that supposedly was begun by him.

Hmmm. This is an impossible requirement. If the human has been completely lost sight of, then by your definition only the myth is left and there is no way of showing there was an underlying real human. But we do have examples of humans who have been mythologized and therefore partially obscured: Mohammed, Buddha, the saints of the Roman Catholic tradition, Paul himself, possibly King Arthur and Robin Hood.

And of course you say Jesus was 'never discussed or presented, never placed at an identifiable historical time and place, excluded from the picture of the movement that supposedly was begun by him'. But that is precisely where many people disagree with you.

Just right off the top of my head, Gilgamesh comes to mind. He appears on a list of the kings of Sumeria that was discovered but the only information we have about him except a name is obviously mythology. If any trace of it is borrowed from real life and mythologized, we have no way to know as we have no sources outside of the myth except the name.

Of course, one could just argue that a name on a list doesn't prove he existed at all because of the very fact that we have no information about who he really was. So it's a Catch-22.

As you point out though, Jesus is not the only mythical figure that historians say there is evidence he was based on a person but we know almost nothing of that person except some core evidence that he existed.

junjan wrote: I will try to explain again my position -shared by many others-:

There's only two citations by historians of some guy called Jesus (Josephus) or Chrestus (Tacitus) that can be accounted as mentions of "the biblical Jesus". Both citations are jeopardized by either probable hearsay sources and/or posterior interpolation by Christian scribes. Thats everything. If the two citations are in dispute, the only "reference" that we could have about who was the biblical Jesus is indeed the Bible.

My position on the Bible is that being a text made for proselytism purposes, full of mythical/fictional content, hence a non historical work, we can not believe it. Trying to extract from the Bible what it is "true" or "historical" is IMHO useless.

The above post makes a very clear and precise statement which get's right to the heart of the matter.

Is the above post correct in saying that apart from biblical sources, there are only two external written historical sources of "Jesus". And the veracity of both those sources is open to reasonable doubt/criticism?

Is that true? Yes or No?

No it is not. There are only two sources really worth considering, but the veracity of those sources is not in fact in dispute, except in the main from people who have an interest in regarding them as untrustworthy.

But regardless of that, as has been explained time and time again, the fact that the new testament are not works of history is not particularly important in this question, because they are not treated as if they were narrative history by historians. Instead they are treated as evidence of what the Christian communities of the mid first century to the early 2nd century believed. And it is by analysing those beliefs that the most likely basis for the formation of those beliefs can be properly assessed.

This is entirely proper and consistent with what happens with the study of ancient history. Because of the paucity of primary sources, and the equally patchy survival of narrative history, non historical texts are scoured for every hint, clue or reasonable piece they can add to the puzzle. To deny us the opportunity to do this is simply irresponsible, and it is nothing less than history denialism.

Note though that this is a very slanted view that junjan reports, and the reason I would totally deny it "cuts to the heart of the matter". Anyone wishing to claim that a Jesus myth is more likely has to deal with EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCES. The tactic of just scrapping all the sources as unreliable, is both wrong and gets us nowhere towards making a case for a mythical Jesus, it would, if we all lost our minds and accepted it as a valid historical position, leave us in the position of 100% agnosticism towards the question.

What is needed for both claims is a full analysis of the sources. The historical position does this, and presents it's case according to the evidence. Doherty approaches things in the same way, at least he makes a positive claim and attempts to back it up with evidence. But mythers like junjan just wave their hands and say "nothing can be trusted" and then make the ridiculous claim that as a result we must consider it to all be myth!

That is just risible.

Nothing can be trusted, can it? Can a book so full of contradictions and myth be trusted to have even a kernel of truth?

The sources outside of this mish mash of word salads were copied and translated by guess who? Why, Christians of course!

Along comes an Emperor who for reasons only known to himself declares all other religions to be wrong and adopts christianity balls and all as from that time on to be the religion of Rome. Soon after the book burnings start. The gospels are chosen, and we are supposed to accept all this bullshit as having a kernel of history that a man actually lived and founded christianity with no evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

virphen wrote:No it is not. There are only two sources really worth considering, but the veracity of those sources is not in fact in dispute, except in the main from people who have an interest in regarding them as untrustworthy.

What is it about those two historical sources that makes them trustworthy?

angelo wrote:Nothing can be trusted, can it? Can a book so full of contradictions and myth be trusted to have even a kernel of truth?

The sources outside of this mish mash of word salads were copied and translated by guess who? Why, Christians of course!

Along comes an Emperor who for reasons only known to himself declares all other religions to be wrong and adopts christianity balls and all as from that time on to be the religion of Rome. Soon after the book burnings start. The gospels are chosen, and we are supposed to accept all this bullshit as having a kernel of history that a man actually lived and founded christianity with no evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

Same shit, different day Angelo.

1. So what if those sources were copied by Christians. You have to give them credit, it is fucking amazing that Christians would insert references into the works they were copying that are totally undetectable just to help future Christians have evidence to answer an argument against their faith that had never been made in their day. Prescient scribes ftw!!!!

2. I suggest you try reading some history on Constantine, he did no such thing. Constantine instituted tolerance for Christianity, converted, although how heartfelt this was is a question for debate - and his understanding of his new faith seems to be about as poor as your grip on the history here. Sure, the fact that the emperor and his sons were Christians was important in the spreading of Christianity in the early-mid 3rd centuries, but Christianity was not made the official religion until 380, under Theodosius I.

You can't get a better illustration of this than the fact that Constantine was the last emperor to be deified - yes, officially declared to be a God by the Roman state. The state declaring people to be a pagan god doesn't tend to happen where Christianity is the state religion, does it mate?

3. When you're waffling on about courts of law, I presume you're meaning a criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"? So fucking what, there are a massive number of historical issues that could never possibly be proven to this standard. I bet you wouldn't be able to prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon to the standards of evidence required by criminal law. The case would founder when the defence lawyer insisted you trot out to Italy and show him where the river even was.

But requiring special standards of evidence for this single historical question is the hallmark of your position, isn't it? As has been pointed out repeatedly, even if we do bend over backwards for this idiocy and say "ok, we can't use Tacitus, we can't use Josephus, and we can't even look at the form of the NT stories" all we're left with is a situation where nothing can be said on the question, bar "we don't know".

What you would still have to do to establish the idea that Jesus was a myth would be to come up with an explanation on how the stories as we have them fit a totally mythical origin better. But you can't do that can you, because you're claiming that we can't even use the bible to consider the matter at all!

What an intellectually bankrupt position.

IanS wrote:

virphen wrote:No it is not. There are only two sources really worth considering, but the veracity of those sources is not in fact in dispute, except in the main from people who have an interest in regarding them as untrustworthy.

What is it about those two historical sources that makes them trustworthy?

In the case of Tacitus, the language and vocabulary of the passage fits perfectly with the rest of his work. It is consistent with an anti-Christian attitude that would be unlikely to be forged by Christians, not least as they had no need to add historical references to Jesus as the whole issue of whether he existed or not simply never came up.

In the case of Josephus one of the references has been clearly tweaked by a later Christian scribe to have Josephus appear to be repeating Christian beliefs as fact. The other is inconsequential. In the case of the altered passage, there exists a version of Josephus translated into Arabic that seems to preserve the text of the original passage before it was altered.

Obviously there needs to be something of an appeal to authority in that I am certainly not competent in Latin or Greek to establish that those passages are consistent with the rest of the works in which they reside. But no such appeal is needed to point out that these passages would be very strange alterations if they are wholly forgeries, as they only have relevance to an issue that was not raised before the 19th century, which as I pointed out above makes these Christian forgers that are posited amazingly prescient!

virphen wrote:Obviously there needs to be something of an appeal to authority in that I am certainly not competent in Latin or Greek to establish that those passages are consistent with the rest of the works in which they reside.

Apart from the fact that argument from qualified authority is not a fallacy when we are forced to rely on expert subject specialism (and this means accepting the peer-reviewed consensus, rather than our own pet "expert"), the fact that such peer-reviewed experts predicted the form that they expected the unaltered "Testimonium" in Josephus and that a Syriac version was discovered substantially the same, means that their expert opinion takes on the status of evidentially supported theory.

It is not "proof" but it is as good an evidence as we could possibly hope to discover that Josephus did mention Jesus, in the manner predicted, and was then altered in one of his mentions only.

virphen wrote:

IanS wrote:

virphen wrote:No it is not. There are only two sources really worth considering, but the veracity of those sources is not in fact in dispute, except in the main from people who have an interest in regarding them as untrustworthy.

What is it about those two historical sources that makes them trustworthy?

In the case of Tacitus, the language and vocabulary of the passage fits perfectly with the rest of his work. It is consistent with an anti-Christian attitude that would be unlikely to be forged by Christians, not least as they had no need to add historical references to Jesus as the whole issue of whether he existed or not simply never came up.

In the case of Josephus one of the references has been clearly tweaked by a later Christian scribe to have Josephus appear to be repeating Christian beliefs as fact. The other is inconsequential. In the case of the altered passage, there exists a version of Josephus translated into Arabic that seems to preserve the text of the original passage before it was altered.

Obviously there needs to be something of an appeal to authority in that I am certainly not competent in Latin or Greek to establish that those passages are consistent with the rest of the works in which they reside. But no such appeal is needed to point out that these passages would be very strange alterations if they are wholly forgeries, as they only have relevance to an issue that was not raised before the 19th century, which as I pointed out above makes these Christian forgers that are posited amazingly prescient!

Is it not the case that both Tacitus and Josephus were writing around 70 years after Jesus is said to have died?

And that since neither Tacitus (c.56AD-117AD) nor Josephus (c.37AD-100AD) actually lived during Jesus’ time on earth (c.5BC-30AD), neither of those authors could be writing first hand accounts of what they themselves knew Jesus to have said or done?

Is it therefore not the case that both Tacitus and Josephus were repeating stories which they had been told about a character named Jesus?

Do we know who gave those accounts to Tacitus & Josephus?

And were those individuals claiming to be the original eye witnesses to the events?

Or were they also repeating accounts which they had overheard from yet more distant sources?

Are there any reliable accounts which claim to be personal eye witness testimony of what Jesus said and did?

virphen wrote: When you're waffling on about courts of law, I presume you're meaning a criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"? So fucking what, there are a massive number of historical issues that could never possibly be proven to this standard. I bet you wouldn't be able to prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon to the standards of evidence required by criminal law. The case would founder when the defence lawyer insisted you trot out to Italy and show him where the river even was.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't the same thing as irrefutable. It's evidence sufficient to make a reasonable person's belief in a fact prevail against doubt. People have been convicted of crimes on far, far less evidence than is available for Caesar's paddling expedition, or the existence of a Nazarene handyman who felt a close relationship to Yahweh.

I'd say that Jesus' mere existence has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Christian evidence is strong. Bias is one factor, not the decider: near-all written sources contain bias of some kind or other. Paul's writings (and even the fakes, if they're dated early enough) establish that there was a complex movement centered around a Jewish holy man, within two decades of the man's death. It was sufficient to involve Gamaliel, a top-man in the Sanhedrin. We have accounts of the movement's internal rifts. Further, we have gospel accounts that try to explain away preexisting traditions so strong that their authors feel unable to remove or refute them. Those traditions are heavy on biographical and geographical detail.

Then there's the Tacitian and Josephian evidence already covered in depth as corroboration. There are also Jewish sources, although these are much in dispute.

Countered by ... what? What alternative hypothesis is so compelling that it better fits the facts? I've yet to see it, much less see a convincing methodology used to reach it.

As long as we're tossing around standards of evidence from jurisprudence I'd say history (particularly ancient history) goes more by the standard "a preponderance of the evidence" in civil trials than it does the "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal trials. There are still perfectly reasonable doubts about the existence of an historical figure at the center of the Christian religion. There would be reasonable doubts about the existence of pretty much anyone purported to have existed 2000 years ago. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence in favor of the supposition that such a person existed.

Byron

The stuff about internal rifts seems compelling to me. If it is all being invented, why the fuck would you invent Paul having a go at the people in Corinth, because they didn't believe in the resurrection? Plus all the other arguments that Paul is having. I suppose it is possible that an incredible ingenious mythology could contain such arguments, as very clever proofs that it wasn't invented! Look, we are all arguing about this shit, therefore its true.

But which is likelier, that, or that Paul did actually tear a strip off people for their incorrect ideas?

I suppose Angelo could argue that Paul himself is an invented figure, a kind of unreliable narrator. Now, there's clever!

Well, I congratulate Tim for finally getting his act together--to some extent. However, he has seasoned what he obviously considers an effective counter-article to myself with so much insult and poisonous comment that it is very difficult to separate out the actual counter-arguments to what I've offered in defense of mythicism. When the speaker is foaming at the mouth, it's rather difficult to accept what is being spoken as something reasoned. That kind of tone and attitude virtually discredits what is being said because it spells a manic hostility which is highly disturbing and suspicious in itself. However, I will do my best, in pieces over a few days.

It's quite obvious that he has not read any of my books, since many of the points he brings up have been counter-answered in both The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, as well as on my website. Much of his counter-argument consists of claiming that I am unconvincing, etc. In the absence of any dealing in any depth (if at all) with the actual points I make in aiming to be convincing (and many do find it so), or explaining why it is unconvincing, we are simply being presented with the well-known Argument from Personal Incredulity, to which we might add the dimension of Argument from Personal Hostility so characteristic of people like Tim.

Anyway, I'll try to get out the first installment of my response tonight or tomorrow.

Earl Doherty

I hope you two are using some form of protection. Multiple forms.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:As long as we're tossing around standards of evidence from jurisprudence I'd say history (particularly ancient history) goes more by the standard "a preponderance of the evidence" in civil trials than it does the "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal trials. There are still perfectly reasonable doubts about the existence of an historical figure at the center of the Christian religion. There would be reasonable doubts about the existence of pretty much anyone purported to have existed 2000 years ago. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence in favor of the supposition that such a person existed.

(Below goes for common law: "civil" courts are non-criminal trials.)

"Reasonable doubt" and "a preponderance of the evidence/balance of probabilities" aren't galaxies apart. You need sufficient evidence to cause someone to reach a belief to get to trial. The question then is how much battering the belief can take and still justify a verdict. In civil courts, you have to think the prima facie case is probable, which is a quantitative approach: "beyond reasonable doubt" is more qualitative, in that your belief can overcome doubts and still convince you. Neither is a science, and if you wanted, you could frame "beyond reasonable doubt" as a form of probability.

Given the totality of the evidence, what'd you think makes a doubt in Jesus' existence reasonable?

nunnington wrote:Byron

The stuff about internal rifts seems compelling to me. If it is all being invented, why the fuck would you invent Paul having a go at the people in Corinth, because they didn't believe in the resurrection? Plus all the other arguments that Paul is having. I suppose it is possible that an incredible ingenious mythology could contain such arguments, as very clever proofs that it wasn't invented! Look, we are all arguing about this shit, therefore its true.

But which is likelier, that, or that Paul did actually tear a strip off people for their incorrect ideas?

I suppose Angelo could argue that Paul himself is an invented figure, a kind of unreliable narrator. Now, there's clever!

Your last line indicates how the mythology approach is one of infinite regress. "Hey, Paul was invented!" So who invented Paul? "Erm ..." And so on. It becomes more fantastical the further back you go.

The existence and nature of internecine feuding are something I too find compelling evidence. They're so specific and, often, mundane, that they don't fit into a mythological framework at all. Paul goes into excruciating detail about how Jesus fits into Mosaic law. He details rifts with contemporaries, in letters to others in what is plainly a preexisting movement. Paul even names Jesus' brother James in Galatians.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

If you were trying to invent a myth, you wouldn't offer up something so immediate, specific and disprovable. Compare this mundane travelogue to elements of the Christian story that are mythical, like the birth myths, or the Resurrection accounts. The birth myths do mention specific places and people, but 70-100 years distant, and they screw up their facts (like having Jesus born at least a decade before the census that supposedly drew him to Bethlehem). The competing Resurrection accounts are either later insertions (as in Mark), or suitably obscure that they're beyond fact-checking.

As I said a few pages back, the underlying motive for the myth, disproving Christianity, doesn't even get its theology right. So why bother?

Byron wrote:

Given the totality of the evidence, what'd you think makes a doubt in Jesus' existence reasonable?

Simply that there's so little evidence and what evidence there is is colored by the passage of time and the hands that it has passed through. There's lots of room for little nagging doubts and uncertainties.

Not that any of this is unusual or particularly damning for the case of a historical jesus. We couldn't really expect better or more evidence under the circumstances. But that's why I think the "a preponderance of the evidence" is a better analogy.