GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:10 pm Sure, and I'm not saying that Jesus (if he even existed in the first place) was not a revolutionary. Aleph One expressed surprise that Pliny "never hints in the least that these Christians are worshiping (as a god) a would-be Jewish revolutionary". What I'm saying is that, as far as I know, Jesus was never accused of being a would-be Jewish revolutionary by pagans, Jews or Christians. I agree that a case could be made that that was exactly what Jesus was, and people have made that case in more modern times. But no-one made the case back then as far as I know.
Alright, but I'm suggesting that the NT itself makes the case that Jesus was (and was thought to be) a "revolutionary," and by my dating it is more or less earlier than Pliny. It may not use the word "revolutionary" (or "Fourth Philosopher," since that's Josephus' label) to describe him, but it makes no bones about Jesus teaching against "the customs of our fathers" and being a "Messiah"/"Son of Man"/prophet/magician in the vein of Theudas and other Fourth Philosophers, and he suffers and dies for the same goals and with a similar resolve that Josephus says was "well known to a great many." The NT couldn't be more plain about these things, e.g., Mk. 8:31-32, 11:8-10 and 14:61-62:
Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke this message quite frankly ...
Many in the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut from the fields. The ones who went ahead and those who followed were shouting: “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
And the NT says that Jesus was accused of "many things" that presumably pertained to the charge of being "the king of the Jews" (a label he does not deny) in Mk. 15:2-4:
So Pilate questioned him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
And the chief priests began to accuse him of many things.
Then Pilate questioned him again, “Have you no answer? Look how many charges they are bringing against you!”
Don't you suppose that these "many charges" included the accusation that Jesus was a "revolutionary"?
So what I'm saying is that the NT itself provides the evidence you are looking for, given that it presents Jesus as being thought of by Jews and pagans as a "revolutionary" (even if it doesn't use that word) and having the same goals and being arrested and killed like one.
What I think the NT is saying is that Jesus was a different kind of "revolutionary," a different kind of "Fourth Philosopher," with a different approach to accomplishing the same thing that other Fourth Philosophers wanted (that "one from their country should becomes governor of the habitable earth"). But by the time of Pliny, the "revolutionary" nature of Christianity had become more like a Gentile "superstition."