Steven DiMattei: Case Against Mythicists

[DCHindley]

... Pliny's "evidence" merely boils down, presumably, to what he learned from "Christians" at the time of Trajan, so it does not form a bridge to the man behind "Jesus Christ."

The scare quotes around "evidence" suggests you don't believe that the Pliny passage is genuine. That's your opinion, and you are free to have one. But I am cautious about waving away evidence that is inconvenient.

What that passage does tells us is that in Pliny's time, in Bithynia, a group that self identified as Christian was worshipping a christ figure "as if a god." "Quasi" means nothing more than that Pliny does not agree with their sentiment. Nothing about an origin in Judea or Galilee, or even a connection with Judaism, or about the atonement, etc.

they [Christians] were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.

What is described here is a meeting of a voluntary association that was not approved by the state. Hence the cessation of the meetings when Pliny had to make an order reminding the population that these were illegal.

Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

Despite any suspicions Pliny may have had that this association had nefarious intent (i.e., was pushing a political agenda by promoting social disorder), at the end of his investigations ...

I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

This is far from proof that "Christians" of NT caliber were active in Bithynia in the early first decade of the 2nd century. It does show that a voluntary association that could be described as a "Christian cult" existed. Perhaps we should not be capitalizing the "C" in Christian wrt this passage.

[ficino]

First, that argument is akin to saying that a reference to Peliades is not a reference to Achilles. As far as I know, there isn't anyone else who was called "Christos/Christus". Second, I have indeed dealt with Tacitus in this very thread. Do reread. Finally, Pliny's evidence provides precisely the affirmation that Christianity very early on in its life worshiped a man "as if" a god. Not Pliny doesn't actually say he's a god, he says that sing to him "quasi deo". It's entirely consistent with the current evidence.

And again you ignore Paul and Christian traditions, neither of which have room for a "heavenly crucifixion". It does look awfully similar to other divinized historical figures. I mean, I hope you don't think Vespasian doesn't exist because he cured someone's blindness with his spit.

Finally: neither Feldman nor Olson are the final word, and no academic dispute ought to be settled by appeals to authority. Otherwise the entire Mythicist debate would be over already.

Chris, I apologize for forgetting that you discussed Tacitus earlier in this thread.

I won't repeat what others have already said about applying Christ/Chrestus in our three authors to Jesus.

I wasn't discussing Christian texts in my previous post, and I'm not a mythicist.

Where did I say that Feldman and Olson are the final word? Their arguments are what count. I understand that Feldman has changed his view over time from a tampered TF to an interpolated TF. At least one member of this board has done the same. Their reasons deserve scrutiny, though perhaps you are already familiar with them and have your reasons for disagreeing.

@DC Hindley, by writing "evidence" I didn't mean that I doubt Pliny's authorship; in that case I would have written "Pliny's". I meant that I don't think we can infer directly from "Christus" to Jesus in that letter w/o auxiliary assumptions.

[Chris Weimer]

As far as I know, there isn't anyone else who was called "Christos/Christus".

1. Many people are called Christos in the Septuagint.
2. Chrestus (frequently conflated with Christus) was a common name, and Suetonius attests to such a person causing a ruckus among the Roman Jews under Claudius.
3. Paul himself says that other leaders were teaching other Christs.

1. As a name or as a translation of the Hebrew משיח?‎
2. The conflation between Christus and Chrestus brings up very interesting connotations, but the fact that there's distinction is significant. Unlike Chrestos (χρηστος, good, useful), the name Christos (for the application of an unguent) wouldn't be very meaningful to non-Jewish Greeks.
3. You misunderstand Paul's arguments. He isn't saying that there are literally other people named Christos, but rather that the teachings in circulation are erroneous. They teach the teachings of Christ that aren't actually Christ's, in Paul's opinion.

[Peter Kirby]

I've offered no arguments for or against historicity.

Well this was a giant waste of time.

[stephan happy huller]

As a name or as a translation of the Hebrew משיח

Translate Shiloh as “the right one”. Aquila, the translation authorised by Rabbinic Judaism, is the most explicit. The Peshitta agrees. Of course this isn't the literal etymological meaning, because that is obscure, but this is what the word was universally taken to mean in the context. Neither does the LXX disagree in translating the word as ΑΠΟΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΣ meaning “the one stored away." Neither does the Rabbinic connection with descent from Judah ultimately differ. Neither does the translation of Targum Onkelos differ when it translate both ways, as the Anointed to whom belongs the kingship. The Palestinian Targum has the Anointed one, the last of his descendants, meaning the last descendant of Judah to hold kingship, because holding complete and everlasting kingship. In this context, the anointing is the anointing of the High Priest, but the High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle, like Moses.

The words Christos and Chrêstos are different in meaning, but can obviously be applied to the same person and imply the same as each other about the status of that person.

[stephan happy huller]

As many people in the world think Judas was crucified on the Cross not Jesus. Basilides and the Nag Hammadi literature say his name was Simon. I think Judas is probably the more likely tradition.

Look at the sign in the Gospel of John. On the basis of what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, that the natural wording in Hebrew would be something that meant literally either “the King, Judah” המלך יהודה or “the King from Judah” המלך מיהודה

The fact that Jesus is not named specifically in these historical sources leaves open other possibilities. Consider also the tradition that Simon Magus effectively claimed to be the resurrected Christ. I am open to the story of the gospel being historical, but since the early heretics divided Jesus and Christ (Irenaeus Adv Haer 1, 2 etc) and claimed Jesus came to announce another (Origen Hom Luc, Acts of Arch etc) and this tradition eventually established early Islamic thought which has an unclear association with Christianity (and which consistently denies Jesus was crucified) there can be no certainty about who this Christ was originally held to be. Judah is a messianic name. Jesus is not.