DDickey

EDIT: Above, for some reason, I wrote BC instead of AD. I tried to edit it, but in doing so, the format, for some reason, got extremely wonky. Hence this post. My apologies for the mistake. I'm hitting myself for making such a stupid blunder.

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine. The whole crucifixion story, as well as those of the miracles, runs very close to the mythology of Dionysus/Bacchus. There is not one depiction of the biblical crucifixion prior to the fourth century, and one source I have suggests even later than that. Even the 'donkey on a cross' graffito in the catacombs, believed popularly to be a pagan mockery of Jesus (if so, a far from intelligent one) is nothing of the kind and is a reference to Osiris, whose stories also anticipate many of the Jesus ones. Depictions of Bacchus on a cross, however, are sometimes found, dating from the 2nd century. They even show the very familiar 'slump' of the knees to one side, seen so often in later crucifixes. (yes, I can provide references and pictures if required). Maybe the crucifixion story was grafted from earlier mythology as a mechanism to make pagan converts feel comfortable with the idea of a deified Jesus. It would not be the only instance of pagan mythology being grafted on to the new faith. The statement I highlighted above is simply not true. The four gospels were probably written between 35 to 65 years after Jesus' crucifixion. They mention the crucifixion. The earliest sources we have period on the life of Jesus are Paul's epistles. They were written in the 50's AD. In his epistles he mentions Jesus' crucifixion. (If by depicted you mean art, statues, et cetera, I can answer that, too, if you'd like.) I believe, and many scholars also believe (not that I'm calling myself a scholar), that Jesus did actually exist and that he was crucified. As an aside, I would also like to let people know that I'm not a Christian Apologist. I'm a hard-core non-believer. But I'm also a student of history and historical methodology. Prior to my interest in the "historical" Jesus, I didn't even believe that he'd actually ever existed. But I think the evidence, albeit limited and biased, does suggest that a Jewish prophet named Jesus was crucified in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate. But, it should be noted, establishing this does not in any way, shape, or form lend credence to the stories of miracles and the resurrection.

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine. That doesn't cover the point however. There is a strong possibility that Jesus was indeed nailed up - we just don't have any positive proof of that and there is a contemporary tomb in northern India that is named as the tomb of Jesus, who spent his later years living there according to the locals. Don't dismiss that out of hand, there is a case to answer. After all, the sect of Saint Thomas was discovered in India by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century. Now as to why Jesus's followers would spread stories of crucifixion we enter the realm of hypothesis. I could certainly attempt a few alternatives, but without any stronger historical connection, it wouldn't have any validity. That however is the problem with the bible. It's a story rewritten to give Jesus the status of a demigod, to make him the figurehead of a religion. Notice the bible is split into two. The Old Testament, an embellished account of Jewish history, and the New testament, a portrayal of Jesus. Although the bible is our primary source for the life of Jesus (as indeed it was always intended to be) it remains a biased and suspect work. Well, I don't think anyone will disagree that the Bible is a biased work. But bias is accounted for in the three criteria historians use in an attempt to smoke out, so to speak, information about the historical Jesus. As I mentioned before, the major criteria are: Multiple attestation, Dissimilarity, and Contextual credibility. When one employs these criteria, one can discover certain probabilities. Dissimilarity can help in seeing through biases. As far as Jesus in India: We know that India had trade in the ancient world with Asia Minor and the Mediterranean world. It

I'm not sure they ignored it, per se. It's possible they weren't even aware of its existence, certainly the probability that they didn't know about it was higher in the second and third centuries.

The majority of scholars, Christian or non-believer, agree that Jesus probably was crucified. As with most stories from antiquity, it's hard to "prove" anything, but one can attach degrees of probability to the case(s). As such, the probability that Jesus was crucified is high because it fits several criteria. 1.) It's multiply attested, 2.) It meets the Dissimilarity (or Embarrassment) criterion, meaning, in this context, that if it runs contrary to Christian beliefs there's an increased probability that it actually occurred. Nowhere in Ancient Judaism can one find even an inference that the Messiah would be sacrificed, would be executed. That's not what Jews prior to Jesus' crucifixion believed; they believed their Messiah would be a conquering General who would destroy Israel's enemies and restore her to her rightful, God-given sovereignty. Even in the New Testament, one finds that Paul, in his epistles, states that the notion of Jesus being executed was the early Christians' largest stumbling block in converting Jews. It is THE reason why most Jews, both ancient and modern, didn't convert or conform to early beliefs about Jesus. So one must ask: Why, if Jesus' death was mythical or fabricated, did the early Christians concoct the crucifixion story? Since it runs contrary to what the Jews believed, and we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, why would his followers invent a crucifixion story? The answer is: They probably wouldn’t have invented the story. Jesus probably was crucified, but he, in my view, certainly wasn’t crucified as it was portrayed in the New Testament. As for the reasons for Crucifixion, because we have no information about people being crucified for reasons other than sedition or armed rebellion, it is probable that those were the two primary reasons for executing men in such a manner. Simply because we do not have evidence in toto does not mean that that’s evidence to the contrary; if one states that men were crucified for other reasons, one must provided solid evidence. I see none in this regard. It is improbable that the events as narrated in the Gospels are what led to Jesus’ crucifixion; Pilate wouldn’t have been bullied by the local aristocracy—which is what the high priests were—nor would he have allowed himself to have been threatened, implicitly or otherwise, by a large group of people demanding Jesus’ death. However, we do have evidence from the First Century CE that Roman Magistrates in Judea did intervene through violence matters that should have been relegated to the Jews. Still, I believe history has lost—or suppressed—vital information here. Jesus was probably crucified. If so, why? For sedition? Maybe; if so, what exactly did he do? If he was crucified for armed rebellion, no evidence was preserved—therefore making such claims would be speculation unfounded in our early sources. The point is: Jesus probably was crucified; but it’s probable that he was for reasons not preserved in our sources. I want to point out that this post was more or less a response to this quote by caldrail (emphasis mine):

Me too. I notice that some of Goldsworthy's comments are pertinent to the currently running topic about comparisons with Rome and the US. He seems to regard them as inevitably loaded and somewhat fatuous. A vew many ofus agree with. I must say, I am listening to all of the interviews on DDickey's link, and I am enjoying all of them. I am also fast becoming a fan of Marshall Poe, who also gives some good insights as well as being a competent interviewer/presenter. I agree with the latter statement. He's a man who understands the methods employed by a historian, which makes his questions more interesting and insightful. He's just not some random figurehead asking vacuous questions. I'm glad you liked the link.

I agree entirely. I hate those comparisons, and I ridicule people who make them. In my experience, I find that people who make such comparison know little to nothing about Rome, either the Republic or Imperial era, and about as much about the American Republic. When such comparisons are made, they are always used in a way to justify a current partisan point of view. I absolutely can't stand them. And as for that paragraph you quoted, re: SuperObama riding valiantly on horseback: I think I threw up a little in my mouth and had to choke it back down when I read that. How appalling.

I found this recent interview with Adrian Goldsworthy online and thought I'd share it. It's an audio interview and runs an hour. Here's the link. For those who aren't going to listen to it, at the end, Goldsworthy says that his next book will be a duel biography of Marc Antony and Cleopatra.

Sounds interesting, DDickey. I think you should do a review on it for UNRV! Well, I can certainly give it a try! I'm fairly familiar with the material, so that helps.

Right now I'm reading Adrian Goldsworthy's new book. I'm also re-reading Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman. I recently re-read the New Testament and plan on doing some homework regarding the context of first century Judea--just for, you know, fun. I also managed to snag a hardcover first edition of Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic on ebay for $36.00. I was extremely excited about that, and I'm going to start reading it as soon as it gets here.

I picked this up yesterday, and I'm about 60 pages into it. I'm a fan of Goldsworthy, so I've been looking forward to reading this. Although, I must admit, it probably won't have a huge impact on me--negative or positive--because I'm not as well read in the late Empire as I am in the Republican period. Now I've got to blast through this because Tom Holland's new one comes out in a few days.

That is impressive. You know, I have been known to criticize religion--sometimes harshly; but then you see something like this and wonder if you could be as passionate about something--anything.

What a fascinating and exciting discovery. I look forward to the release of more information as they continue to explore the site!

From the CNN article, my favorite quote in the entire piece: I'm going to start using that: Pyramidiots.

I recently finished reading Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson--an absolutely amazing read, and anyone interested in WWII-era and modern day cryptanalysis should check it out. (It is, it should be noted, a work of fiction.) Right now, I'm reading The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather. I haven't read much about late Imperial Rome, but this one has certainly grabbed my attention. I'm reading it on the Amazon Kindle, so I'm not sure how far along I am in page numbers, but I've only read 5% of it so far, so I'll be reading this for a while. Then I plan on reading either Goldsworthy's new one or Tom Holland's new one--I have a paperback ARC sitting by me on the shelf, but I haven't cracked it open yet.

Sorry, I haven't been around lately. But I'm back. I think. Anyway, I fixed my computer; sold some other stuff, so, fortunately, I was able to save my precious collection of books on Rome.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that more and more. I'm a console gamer, so I use my PC only for writing and surfing the internet. Nothing else.

Ha. Ha. I'd get about fifteen cents if I sold that.

My computer recently died and I need to sell some stuff so I can buy a new one. I

LINK

Over at Hulu.com you can watch, for free, four documentaries about the Roman Empire. From PBS, the series is entitled, Empires; there are more episodes, in addition to the four about Rome, such as the history of Isreal and the Medici. Here's the link. Unfortunately, it's about as historically accurate as most popular documentaries one is likely to encounter. They rely on rumor and speculation found in the primary sources and label them as fact.

This is disquieting, to say the least.

Such a fantastic novel. I'm a huge McCarthy fan, and I really enjoyed The Road. As for me, I finally started reading Gaius Marius: A Political Biography by Richard J. Evans. I'm only about thirty pages in, but I love it--I tend to lean more toward analysis, and, in that regard, Evans's book doesn't disappoint.

What a tragedy. A relatively young man lost his life because people wanted to purchase items at a discount.