Is the Claim that Jesus's Birth was Recorded in Official Roman Census Data Available in Rome Proof of Early Conspiracy

[Secret Alias]

James McGrath says people who speculate that Jesus never existed or that the creation of the historical Jesus was done through forgery and manipulation of literacy sources are "conspiracy theorists." But isn't Justin and Irenaeus's claims about a Roman Census proving Jesus's birth proof that such an ancient abuse of sources tantamount to a conspiracy to that end? Does McGrath believe that such data was actually available in Rome? If not how would he characterize the common claim of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian?

[Giuseppe]

One may make the case that also the introduction of John the Baptist served to the same ''Conspiracy'' goal of the census story: alas a good true witness of the baptism of Jesus! How can't you believe that Jesus was baptized?

[Giuseppe]

The fact that in Mark John doesn't see the Spirit descending on Jesus (but only a mere baptized man), may mean :

1) that Mark was writing in reaction to a previous baptism episode where the Baptist saw the Spirit descending on the baptized man (it was the Baptist's function, afterall, to witness the coming of the Christ on the man Jesus), or...

2) that Mark was removing the embarrassment, from the his point of view, of viewing in a previous narrative another man - John the Baptist - to baptize Jesus as if he was a mere man. So there is the apology for the embarrassment of the baptism in Mark: the Baptizer doesn't see the divine Christ descending on the baptized man.

[Giuseppe]

But clearly the first hypothesis assumes the following sequence of events:

1) a proto-Mark without a John the Baptizer.

2) a reaction againt proto-Mark, where John saw the Christ descending on the Jesus.

3) a counter-reaction by the same author of proto-Mark in the our Mark: John saw a man but not the Spirit of Christ on that man.

[Giuseppe]

This means that in the Earliest Gospel there was only the descending of the spiritual Christ on the man Jesus (no baptism at all).

This is proved by the followig article:

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com ... 0-12341272

There is no credible evidence that Marcion was a docetist. Marcion’s alleged belief that Christ was a phantasm is found in accusations made by Tertullian, but these accusations are a form of reductio ad absurdum and not firsthand information on Marcion’s Christology. There are in fact remnants of data in Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, which point to Marcion’s teaching about the material flesh of Christ, a flesh that suffers and dies on the cross. Tertullian dismisses these artifacts as proof that Marcion was foolishly inconsistent: he taught docetism, but still accepted Christ’s suffering and death. Scholars should no longer accept Tertullian’s caricature uncritically, especially in light of the overwhelming amount of other second and third century sources that are unanimously silent about any docetic thinking in Marcion. Moreover, much of the confusion in modern scholarship is shown to derive from Adolf von Harnack’s equivocating explanations about Marcion’s alleged docetism.

...where I recognize that Secret Alias was right: there was separationism in Marcion, not docetism.

[DCHindley]

James McGrath says people who speculate that Jesus never existed or that the creation of the historical Jesus was done through forgery and manipulation of literacy sources are "conspiracy theorists." But isn't Justin and Irenaeus's claims about a Roman Census proving Jesus's birth proof that such an ancient abuse of sources tantamount to a conspiracy to that end? Does McGrath believe that such data was actually available in Rome? If not how would he characterize the common claim of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian?

Aren't they just claiming that such a record *should* be in the archives, without attempting to actually uncover them? This is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish, a boast. What's more, both seem to have been of the opinion that Pilate was so impressed by Jesus that he sent a report outlining all of Jesus' miracles, and resurrection, earthquakes, all of it, to Tiberius, who in turn recommended that Jesus' divinity be formally recognized, a recommendation that was not passed by the Roman Senate on a technicality. Are we to believe *that too* was available to any lazy ass Roman who wanted to verify Christian claims but did not because they were obstinate like them there Jews? Oh please ...

First of all, the census data would not be forwarded to the Capital except in summary form (i.e., how much was due as well as how much collected). No record of Jesus' birth would have been preserved, and locally, except for maybe 7 years until the next census. The supposed recommendation of Tiberius to have Jesus' divinity recognized is clearly a Christian legend with no basis in fact.

Wasn't this covered in a series of posts at FRDB years ago?

Justin mentions some sort of "Acts" of Pilate in the following places in his Apology:

1:35 And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts (ἄκτων) of Pontius Pilate.

1:48 There are these words: "At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

I am not so sure he is referring to genuine published Acts (spurious or real), which Pilate would write up periodically, in Latin (where they would be called commentarii), to send to Rome for review by Tiberius' chief of staff. Instead, he may have been bluffing: "Go ahead, check Pilate's commentarii if you don't believe Christ was crucified, had his garments gambled for, or healed the lame and blind, just as sacred scripture foretold!" For all we know, Justin may have actually believed this was all on record. If it was true Jesus did these things, as he believed, how could it NOT have been reported to the emperor?

Tertullian seems to be aware of something purporting to be a fabulous report about Jesus by Pilate to Tiberius. So fabulous, in fact that Tiberius is converted to a believer in Christ's divinity, and recommends that the Roman Senate affirm it as well:

Apology 5:1 To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Aurelius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.

Apology 21:1 All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word (what is the Latin word here?) of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

Not to be outdone, Eusebius even gilds Tertullian's lilly, adding even more details to bolster its credibility:

Church History, 2.2. AND when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.

They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.

These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, he writes as follows: "But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree n that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported (αγγελθεντος) to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians."

When Eusebius says "they say" it sounds to me like Eusebius hadn't himself actually seen this miraculous account, but is referring to the "accounts" of Tertullian and Justin.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

Not to be outdone, Eusebius .. gilds Tertullian's lilly, adding even more details to bolster its credibility ...

When Eusebius says "they say" it sounds to me like Eusebius hadn't himself actually seen this miraculous account, but is referring to the "accounts" of Tertullian and Justin.
.

Eusebius's list of the first ten 'bishops of Rome' fits in with these examples ^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ too.

It's all what someone once aptly described as 'Cumulative Elaboration'