Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:Tacitus in 'History of the Jews', Bk V, Ch V, wrote:
"They [the Jews, likely the Hellenized ones] also look on the souls of those that die in battle, or are put to death [as Jesus?] for their crimes, as eternal."
I do not know of any evidence about Jews believing their ones put to death for their crimes would have their soul made eternal.
I think that Tacitus might have thought of Jesus' execution & later beliefs of Jewish Christians, and then generalized when writing the above.

Cordially, Bernard

II Maccabees 11:35. The passage states, “Women received their dead by resurrection. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.” The Jefford Bible Handbook references 1 Kings and 2 Maccabees with regard to this passage. II Maccabees 6:18-7:42 deals with the story of Eleazar who chooses martyrdom over violating Jewish dietary law because, as an old man, he felt that he would be setting a bad example by appearing to give in to King Antiochus’ demands. It also deals with the story of the mother with seven sons who are all subsequently put to death before she herself is martyred. In regard to the virtue of the mother and her belief in the resurrection, verse twenty-three has her state, “Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origins of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forgot yourselves for the sake of his laws.”

Tacitus reports in the Annals (XV, 44), written in the time of Trajan in about AD 110-120, that Nero, in order to still the rumour that he had set Rome on fire, ‘fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin,’ he continues, ‘suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.’8 This testimony can hardly be questioned. What is said of the Christians here does not suggest that it was the result of Christian interpolation.

p. 360

Suetonius, writing in Hadrian’s time, mentions in his Life of Claudius (ch.2.5) that disturbances broke out among the Jews at that time and attributes them to a certain ‘Chrestus’.9 He probably means Christus. The details are not clear. It almost seems as if Suetonius, who can be accused elsewhere of not checking his information as thoroughly as he might, held the view that the man he named had himself been present in Rome and had participated in the disturbances.

Whether these mentions of Christus or Chrestus by Tacitus and Suetonius are authentic or inauthentic is of no great interest. Even if they do belong to the original texts – which could well be so – they can hardly be considered reliable evidence that the Lord was a historical figure. Neither of these Roman historians indicate that they have original and direct information about Jesus. They report what the Christian communities of their time were handing down. At best, therefore, they attest that at the beginning of the second century the church believed in Jesus’ existence and his death by crucifixion

JOSEPHUS AND NOT Tacitus

II Maccabees 11:35

II Maccabees 6:18-7:42

Neither of these Roman historians indicate that they have original and direct information about Jesus. They report what the Christian communities of their time were handing down.

Ben C. Smith wrote:ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

For which intent and by whom the letter “e” was altered, we will probably never know for certain. We only know that the scribe originally wrote about Chrestianos, “Chrestians”, which could have been just a spelling error, but, as Fuchs says: „even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist, which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chrestianos" in his original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i".“ (my translation) For the sake of clarity, I will add that this articular manuscript of Annales does not contain the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the ultraviolet photograph.

Bernard Muller wrote:

II Maccabees 11:35

I could not find the passage you quoted in the whole of I Maccabees & II Maccabees.

Bernard Muller wrote:Tacitus in 'History of the Jews', Bk V, Ch V, wrote:
"They [the Jews, likely the Hellenized ones] also look on the souls of those that die in battle, or are put to death [as Jesus?] for their crimes, as eternal."
I do not know of any evidence about Jews believing their ones put to death for their crimes would have their soul made eternal.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Giuseppe,

JOSEPHUS AND NOT Tacitus

The quote I gave is from Tacitus and not Josephus.

Giuseppe wrote:

Whether these mentions of Christus or Chrestus by Tacitus and Suetonius are authentic or inauthentic is of no great interest. Even if they do belong to the original texts – which could well be so – they can hardly be considered reliable evidence that the Lord was a historical figure. Neither of these Roman historians indicate that they have original and direct information about Jesus. They report what the Christian communities of their time were handing down. At best, therefore, they attest that at the beginning of the second century the church believed in Jesus’ existence and his death by crucifixion

(Schweitzer, definitively NOT a Mythicist)
http://vridar.org/2017/01/14/schweitzer-in-context/

What evidence is there for Christians ("as Jesus?") believing that ones put to death for their crimes would have their soul made eternal? Did Christians regard Jesus as a criminal? If so, then give the evidence. If not, then Christians and Jews are in the same boat, right? The former did not think of Jesus as a criminal, nor did at least a good number of the latter think of the Maccabean martyrs as criminals. Tacitus would merely be (tendentiously) calling either Jesus or the Maccabean martyrs (or both) criminals because they suffered deaths reserved for criminals, and to my mind he is probably doing that regardless of whether either group considered their martyrs to actually be criminals. If I am right, it does not matter what Jews or Christians thought; it matters only what Tacitus thought.