The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

Pliny the Younger was clearly surprised when he saw the pacifism of the Christians of Bitiny. That pacifism was against anything he knew about what Suetonius reported about the Christiani as an evil superstition etc.

Hence Tacitus continued the great error started by Pliny: a confusion of the Suetonian Christiani (Jewish rebels) with the pacifist Christians (adorers of a Jewish archangel).

That confusion could only have the his origin in the use of the title "Christ" by different sects.

Hence, just as Tacitus confused an historicized deity with the founder of a seditious sect, my question is the following:

Could the reverse confusion (this time by "Mark" himself) be happened?

The possibility is that "Mark" (author) confused the legend of a historical Zealot leader with the sacred "oral tradition" of the Lord Jesus Christ himself (not a historical person). In other terms, was "Mark" a kind of "Jewish Tacitus" in this confusion?

Note that this is not the same thing argued by Ben in the his mythicohistorical (hybrid) approach to Christian origins, since in Ben's reconstruction, "Mark" (the euhemerizer of the mythological Christ of Paul) was really a follower of the historical Jesus (the figure behind the Gospels). He merged deliberately the mythical pauline Christ with the historical Jesus of which he was follower.

What I am saying is that the merging of the two figures was the result of a mistake, of an error, of a confusion by both the parts:
  • Pliny and Tacitus confused the two Jesus from one hand...

  • ..."Mark" confused the two Jesus from the other hand.


While Richard Carrier has already proved, in my view, the error by Tacitus (The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44, particularly whereas he concedes the authenticity of the entire Testimonium Taciteum but he claims that Tacitus confused the Suetonian riotous Chrestus with the pacifist Gospel Christ), what has to be still proved is a similar confusion done by "Mark".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

In a more detailed example of the case , the pauline "Mark" did basically three steps in the following sequential order:
  • He heard echoes of the legend about a Jesus ben Saphat

  • He believed that the crucifixion of Jesus ben Saphat was the same crucifixion of the Pauline Christ, insofar only that crucifixion could work (in the his eyes) as a valid theodicy for the War of 70 CE.
  • As collateral effect of this confusion of identities, "Mark" fixed under Pilate what were already legendary stories with a historical nucleus in 70 CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 9:48 am
What I am saying is that the merging of the two figures was the result of a mistake, of an error, of a confusion by both the parts:
  • Pliny and Tacitus confused the two Jesus from one hand...

  • ..."Mark" confused the two Jesus from the other hand.

Even better as explanation of what I am saying,
  • Pliny and Tacitus knew already a seditious Christ and confused him with a pacifist (euhemerized/mythical) Christ.

  • Mark knew already (and adored) a mythical (not still euhemerized) Christ and confused him with a seditious (historical) Christ.
Note the different reactions by both Tacitus and Mark:
  • Tacitus despised the pacifist Christians because Tacitus already hated the seditious Christiani.
  • Mark loved the seditious Jesus Son of Saphat because Mark already adored the Pauline Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

Even Papias confused the seditious saying of the Bar-Kokhba propaganda with a "saying of the Lord Jesus":

https://books.google.it/books?id=GPdkBA ... ba&f=false

So, despite of the warnings against an easy confusion of identities between false Christs and the "true" Christ in Mark 13, even "Mark" was not defended at all against the risk of a such confusion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

And even the Fourth Gospel places the Jesus trial under Claudius because he thought that the high priests mentioned in the previous Gospels were the historical high priests of 60 CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The name Christiani: from a reference to Zealots to a reference to Christ

Post by perseusomega9 »

The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Post Reply