Really nice to see Chrissy again, thank you

It's interesting that Pliny knows little about the Christians in his Letters to Trajan (early 100s). Yet at the time of Domitian (ruled 81-96) he had been a member of the Commission to rebuild Rome. If the Christians had been such an important presence in Rome at the time of the Great Fire (64 CE) then shouldn't Pliny have known them well enough? This suggests that we can't trust Tacitus to be reliable on the size of the Christian presence in Rome, and this regardless of the accusations against them as arsonists. I base this comment on my recollection of Brent Shaw's article in JRS 2015. I hope I'm faithful enough to his argument.

@andrewsuryali8540

3 ай бұрын

I don't understand why Pliny's work in the Commission would have made him aware of Christians no matter how big or small their population. The Commission would have been composed of the usual gaggle of senators and equites with a few community representatives and plebeian tribunes sprinkled in. Why would they have cared about an illegal cult hiding in the Roman underground? If you look at what Domitian did to "rebuild" Rome, he basically just bulldozed his vision through the various diverse communities in Rome, both marginalized and privileged (which contributed to his downfall), so very likely the Commission didn't give two shits about the concerns of the plebs either.

@sciptick

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewsuryali8540 Pliny Jr. spent his whole life in the Roman judicial apparatus and administration. If Christians had ever attracted enforcement, he would know all about it. Even if it happened before his watch, uncle Pliny Sr. would have written it up, and he would have read that. Instead, he and Tacitus are left scratching their heads. Most likely later Christian scribes inserted the bit about Pontius Pilate in Tacitus, and the bit about torturing deaconesses in Pliny Jr. The real lesson of these passages is that Christianity had almost died out by their time, so newcomers could easily rewrite its doctrine.

@Camerinus

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewsuryali8540 -- See the reply by @sciptick, who understands the argument. Now for the sake of the argument, let's agree with Tacitus that the Christian presence in Rome in 64 was large enough to be (1) identified as Christians, i.e. an already well-defined religious group, and (2) already seen as a threat to the Roman order. How then, if this is the case, was Pliny puzzled as to who they were when Governor of Bithynia some 40 years later? If the story in Tacitus is anachronistic, however, then it all makes sense. The Christian presence in Rome in 64 CE and probably even in 100 CE, was minimal and not a cause for concern, otherwise an administrator like Pliny would have known who they were.

The letters of Paul and Seneca are fake ain't they? Sorry I ain't buying this. The first real attestation of the Tacitus passage isn't until the medieval times. But Sulpisius Severus does appear to mention the specific passage never attributing it to Tacitus. Fairly decent evidence for some later forger simply using him as a basis. Remember this is never sourced . And no contemporary or near contemporary historian Christian or otherwise even links Nero to the fire and never talk about Christians

@boblackey1

3 ай бұрын

No Paul's letters are NOT fake. Secular scholars hold 6 or 7 of Paul's letters are GENUINE. 3 are debatable and 3 ( 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are second century forgeries written after Paul's death. And there is at least 1 lost as Paul mentions "my previous letter" in 1 Corinthians and that previous letter is not extant.

@revealedgnosis

3 ай бұрын

@@boblackey1 the letters of Paul to Seneca** they are very fake! And of Paul's there are only 7 definitely assigned to Paul.

@boblackey1

3 ай бұрын

@@revealedgnosis Oh I see what you are saying. Earlier you wrote " The letters of Paul and Seneca are fake aren't they" and like my phone, that is what your spell check posted. You were actually saying the letters of Paul TO Seneca.

@revealedgnosis

3 ай бұрын

@@boblackey1 No youre right, grammar mistake my side! sorry man.

@revealedgnosis

3 ай бұрын

@user-pj9mf5gr8f yes but I believe I was talking about the first crucifixion that does appear to have happened before the world was created in some early texts, revelation 13:6 is one i think? Also the coming is a coming or revealing and never ever termed as a second coming. And this is true I'm all of the Epistles, James, 1 John , 1 Peter revelation, jude. In Hebrews there's talk of coming a second time but it's a study in itself and doesn't a actually say what Christians want it to. Highly highly interesting stuff!

Was unfamiliar with this subject. Always learn something from your channel Jacob. Thank you to Chrissy Hansen for the time and research. Always great guest Jacob thanks. Always thought provoking and has helped to questions I've had.

Thank you Chrissy thank you Jacob

You could have a Christian group that is not affiliated with Jesus. The term “christian” would be the Greek form of the Hebrew word “Messianics”. It would refer to those who believed in a messiah coming to help them against the Romans, not necessarily Jesus.

Wherever Tacitus got his information, it was NOT from an official legal document, because he would have called Pilate by his proper legal name, "prefect," because that surely would have been the title found in an official document, but he calls him "procurator" instead, which is a mistake often made.

@sciptick

3 ай бұрын

Most likely the line about Pilate was inserted by a Christian scribe centuries later, as it was wholly irrelevant. Pilate, BTW, was both prefect _and_ procurator. Executions would technically have been under the prefect's office. A procurator's job was securing the emperor's revenue. But in the 2nd century few bothered with the distinction, as most out that way were both, although calling him by "procurator" might be a dig, as that role had no formal qualifications where "prefect" was an actual rank. A later scribe would likely know nothing about it.

@boblackey1

3 ай бұрын

It's not a mistake. Prefect and procurator were both used according to Bart Ehrman and Steve Mason.

@chrish4309

2 ай бұрын

@@boblackey1 it is actually a mistake. The title "procurator" did not take over for "prefect" until the reign of Claudius. The claim that they were both in usage simultaneously has no supporting evidence as far as I can tell.

@boblackey1

2 ай бұрын

@@chrish4309 Well you are wrong according to Bart Ehrman who was critized by a few years ago on his blog for the same reason and Dr. Ehrman consulted the Roman history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the answer was Ehrman was right. It's both titles. Nothing exists (extant) from the hand of Pontius Pilate. All his letters, decrees, orders have long ago rotted away and wasn't preserved by scribes. Ehrman went on to say the very few who try to suggest Tacitus never wrote that passage and it's an interpolation are people who want to show a historical Jesus never existed apparently due to a bitter dislike of the Christian religion but it's a loosing cause as according to Ehrman it's not even an issue for him and 99.5% of scholars. Skeptical scholars such as Ehrman take issue with much of the claims of the gospels but not a historical Jesus who was a Jew who was crucified by the Romans a most popular method of execution in that day.

Chrestus meant "the good". Some royals were named that way such as Mithradates Chrestus.

Eh, the funniest take on Chrestus I've heard came from this Jewish history professor specializing on Sabbateanism, specifically on the movement's history after Tzvi's death. I don't remember his name, but he has some vids here in YT. Anyway he once said that, judging from the name, Chrestus was probably just another Bob-the-failed-Jewish-messiah who tried his best but met the usual end. While he's Jewish, he thinks Judaism has a predilection towards forming cults over dead failed messiahs, as exemplified by Tzvi, but also by the Chabad in the modern era. He also thinks the Chrestus thing may suggest that there had been multiple "Christs" in the first century. "Brother! I heard you're also a follower of Christ! Is this true?" "Yes, yes! I am, brother. You too?" "Yes. Hallowed be His name!" "Yes, and his name be Bob!" "What?" "What?"

@tyronecox5976

3 ай бұрын

Lol, Chrestus was nickname for Serapis, Osiris and Apis Sacred Bull,Titus was the Chrestus author of All biblical scripture Sabine Sancus Saints HOLY Roman Empire render to Caesar what is Caesars because he who creates owns, Matthew 26 53 gives you author and Messiah can't be denied.

Never heard the term "writing circles" before, but Thomas Brodie uses the same general concept, arguing that the very few literate people would have often known each other across large regions, and the early gospels for example would have been known to other literate people. Chrissy's book investigating early mythicist views is a great asset.

Good presentation, Chrissy and Jacob, but the fly in the _christus,_ that is, ointment, is that the original word that Tacitus wrote was probably Chréstians as evident we have in the lone manuscript left. However, I don't think there was any confusion between the pronunciation of "é" and "i" in ancient Rome, so "Chréstians" would have been pronounced as "chrehstians" as opposed to "chreestians" if the masses of the city actually called these deviants "Christians". Not only that, Suetonius makes no mention of Christians accused of torching Rome and he wrote his _Lives_ about 20 years after Tacitus wrote his _Annals._ In fact, Suetonius' clipped mention of a _prosecution_ of Christians rather than a massive _persecution_ of them flies in the face of what I have heard about historians back then who wrote about hated emperors - each subsequent story is more sensationalistic than the previous, classic example being Elagabalus. So I suspect, in agreement with Dr. Richard Carrier, that it was the Jewish instigator Chrestus who was responsible for starting this group whom Nero alleged had torched the city. So like Dr. Carrier I think the passage is partially forged.

@humbleopulence

3 ай бұрын

Wasn't the e changed into an I by scratching out the upper right part of the letter? I recall someone scanning a 6th century manuscript of either Tacitus or Suetonius and finding that the letter was physically scratched out to create an I and turn it to "Christos" but for the life of me, I can't seem to recall where i saw this image and this study, though I recall having seen it several times. Oomph, why didn't I bookmark it!

@user-uo7fw5bo1o

3 ай бұрын

@@humbleopulence Actually that was in the manuscript for Annales 15:44! The "é" in "Chréstianos" was rubbed out and an "i" written in its place to form "Christianos". I don't recall about "Chréstus" being changed to "Christus", though. Sorry. 😔

@humbleopulence

3 ай бұрын

@@user-uo7fw5bo1o well, that surely extends to Chrestus as well? If 'Chrestianos' was changed to 'Christianos', it all but proves deceptive intent. It points to a previously (mostly) mythological character being forcibly historicized in the record

@user-uo7fw5bo1o

3 ай бұрын

@@humbleopulence It definitely looks as though a mythological character was written into the record. My only uncertainty is, was the character made 100% out of whole cloth, or was the identity of someone historical attributed to him?

@humbleopulence

3 ай бұрын

@@user-uo7fw5bo1o though it's likely that a historical character existed (Talpiot Tomb comes to mind, if it's genuine), you really don't need one at this point. Whoever ends up having been the Real Yeshua is likely so diametrically opposed in spirit and character to the guy we have in the Gospels that claiming they are one and the same is like insulting them both. But again, psychologically speaking, it's far more likely to have a real guy who was crucified to be able to build on. It explains why his family is gradually massaged out of the spotlight

Salutations my dear Jacob. I just see your video while those infamous thugs are doing deep harm in a channel in Spanish. I have a little fight of cause for. Then, I remembered your channel and you professional treatment of history and come to here

I would really love to hear more from Chrissy about Nero

Titus was the Chrestus author of All biblical scripture, Matthew 26 53 gives you author and Messiah, Chrestus was the nickname of Serapis, amalgamation of Osiris and the Apis Sacred Bull.

Thanks for sharing. Got to remember that Tacitus was born 23 years after JC death, 56 ce. I'm sure he heard the rumors.. lol

❤❤❤

😐

Tactius and Josephus were born and wrote long after Jesus died. Second and third hand testimonials. Only New testament passages record events . Suspect Excellent channel.

@boblackey1

3 ай бұрын

Not that long after Jesus was crucified. Josephus and Tacitus are early second century aren't they? Less than a 100 years.

@MitzvosGolem1

3 ай бұрын

@@boblackey1 Yes but no contemporary historian first hand witness account etc .

@boblackey1

3 ай бұрын

The earliest as far as I know is Paul's letters to the Galatians circa about 50 CE about 20 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This letter decades later was selected to be part of the collection of gospels and letters that make up the New Testament. Paul (Saul of Tarcus) discussed meeting Peter who according to many sources was a follower of Jesus when Jesus was alive and James whom Paul states is Jesus' BROTHER. That claim has several other sources too. And remember there is nothing which is original for anyone. Copies of copies of copies. The original writings have long ago rotted away. Pontius Pilate is surprising to me. No letters, no orders, no decrees or anything from his hand exists today. Indeed until the Pilate stone was unearthed in Israel in 1961, a few historians doubted Pilate existed because they didn't trust the gospels in the New Testament. As to experts, Bart Ehrman, Steve Mason, Dennis MacDonald and many others are certain Jesus existed. A few including Robert Price and Richard Carrier DOUBT there was a historical Jesus. That position to me personally seems very unlikely to be correct. Do you have a position?

@MitzvosGolem1

3 ай бұрын

@@boblackey1 No first hand witness account recorded of bringing back the dead healing blind miracles and a man-god on earth by any historian like Pliny the elder the main Roman historian from that era is telling.

@boblackey1

3 ай бұрын

@@MitzvosGolem1 Telling for what MitzvosGolem1? Josephus wrote about soldiers flying through the air in iron carriages. Even educated people 2,000 years ago often believed in evil spirits, a flat earth, sun and moon the same size and the sun moves in the sky while the earth is stationary. And the Romans for example believed in a host of gods. The Apostle Paul wrote some of his letters just 20 or so years after it is assumed Jesus of Nazareth was crucified which happened to hundreds of criminals and agitators then. I can see how that could cause the non religious such as Bart Ehrman, James Tabor and other skeptical New Testament scholars to doubt or reject those miracles as historical found in the gospels but I don't see how that eliminates a historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul writing about 50 CE says he met Jesus' disciple Peter and rebuked him to his face for supporting a faulty gospel about Jesus. And same for Jesus' brother James. I wonder about the virgin birth doctrine. Paul no where in his letters says anything about a virgin birth. Did Peter and James fail to tell Paul? Or are several skeptical scholars correct about the virgin birth doctrine not existing when Paul wrote. That the virgin birth came about when Matthew wrote his gospel decades later as he apparently used a faulty Greek translation of the Jewish scripture as a source.

They played pickleball together

Hell no

Gospel of Peter blames Christians for fire of rome

@chrish4309

2 ай бұрын

Where? The only accusation I see is the claim that Christians were blamed for setting fire to the sanctuary in Jerusalem.

Here is the essence of the logical flaw in the argument here. 1. Proposition A is dependent on Proposition B 2. Proposition B is flawed and careless. Therefore Proposition A is not true. If we argue to the absurd, we can say nothing is true and everything, even the most absurd things are potentially true. Let’s apply this to history. More notably what is history in the first century context. It’s a part of the state or regional political machine. Therefore we can summarily discount all history and then say it didn’t exist and insert our own apologetic history. Bart Ehrmann makes this point quite readily in that just because you don’t like a source doesn’t mean all sources are garbage. You have to try to piece together what we have. The first thing that I would note is that the conflagration in Rome was before Nero’s death, so before 68CE. We also should note that the Christian’s were not calling themselves Christian’s at this time. Moreover, we should note that Yacov’s followers were not keen on the Christ identifier, the word Christ is not used in the Q source once. This is a Pauline identifier focused on Asia Minor. Finally the Yacovian Christian’s were Jewish and their gentile converts are Noahide, and Chrestus was a rebel of 2 decades prior. So what happened between the Roman expulsion of the Jews and the death of Yacov the pious. So the history tells us that “The Great Fire of Rome (Latin: incendium magnum Romae) began on the 18th of July 64 AD.” which means Yacov the pious is dead and the followers have scattered about. “Antonius Felix (possibly Tiberius Claudius Antonius Felix, in Greek: ὁ Φῆλιξ; born c. 5-10) was the 4th Roman procurator of Judea Province in 52-60””In 58, [During Nero’s reign]. Felix hired assassins to murder Jonathan, the High Priest, shortly after the latter took office.”[According to Acts Paul is in prison at this time]”Porcius Festus was the 5th procurator of Judea from about 59 to 62, succeeding Antonius Felix.”…….”During his administration, Jewish hostility to Rome was greatly inflamed by the civic privileges issue.” “It is fair to assert that the procurators were either openly hostile or, at best, indifferent to the needs of the Jewish populace. They were notorious for their rapacity. Their relatively short tenure, coupled with hostility toward Jews as a whole, may have impelled them to amass quick profits. Whatever the case, the last two procurators before the Jewish War (66 C.E.), *Albinus and Gessius Florus, as a consequence of their monetary extortions and generally provocative acts, were indubitably instrumental in hastening the outbreak of hostilities. The only exception appears to have been Porcius *Festus (60-62 C.E.) who made vain attempts to improve conditions. --Jewish Library” And so we see the heart of the matter here, “A brief statement in Divus Claudius 25 mentions agitations by the "Jews" which led Claudius (Roman Emperor from AD 41 to 54) to expel them from Rome: Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [the Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” So the Jews of Rome know better than to repeat that strategy, but if we go back to what’s going on, the Romans hiring the siqariyim to kill the high priest and what Yacov is telling gentile converts to do, these gentile converts won’t become Jewish overnight, it takes time, and so what we have is Noahides who can exact what the Jews like but are not Jewish. As we should note that while Paul writes a letter to the Romans, did Paul ever make it to Rome by 64? He’s locked up in Caesarea and Felix has more issues to deal with than Paul. And so we have the Muck of history to deal with. the Chestus movement was dead but you have cryptoJews living in Rome who could be used to do nepharious things and an emperor who points the finger around at various groups for his own political purposes. We have the players but we don’t have the answers.

@sciptick

3 ай бұрын

We do not have a Q, so any argument relying on something in or not in it is automatically invalid.

@Darisiabgal7573

3 ай бұрын

@@sciptick We don’t have a lot of ancient documents, it’s not an argument.

@Darisiabgal7573

3 ай бұрын

@user-pj9mf5gr8f A second hand source. Which Jesus, by that time there had been dozens of messianic claimants and several Jesus.

@Bluesruse

3 ай бұрын

All garbage sources are still garbage sources. Bart has a tendency to use this fallacy to argue from garbage sources. As to Q, a more accurate description would be to call it entirely hypothetical; as not only do we not have it, we have no evidence (other than speculative) to suggest one to have ever existed. Same is not true for the historical documents that we know existed, even if we don't have them anymore. We can't argue from documents we don't have (other than that they may have existed), and we definitely can't argue from documents we don't know we _ever_ had. Any argument based on Q violates the very logic you set yourself in the first comment of yours.

@Darisiabgal7573

3 ай бұрын

@@Bluesruse with this logic there is no history, so why study it. Bud, it’s called attestation. You look for independent documents that talk about about the same thing and you see what things replicate. The Q source is supported if it substantiates what is said by other documents. So we see in the gospel of Mark that its author is using something like a Q source, but the author of Mark is theologically opposed to it, so that authors twists it and embellishes to make his version more appealing. But we also have sources on the ebonites. We also have sources talking about a document brought by a Hebrew writer. There is also the secret sayings document which scholars have found, like Mark, the writer is trying to oppose what was in Q. The secret sayings gospel was an extremely popular document, there would be no reason to oppose a document. And BTW, there was no evidence of a secret sayings gospel until 1945, and even then the evidence slowly emerged, but after discovering the one text they found many more snippets. Found in 1900. The secret sayings gospels was one of the most popular text, we had no evidence until 1945, this kind of blows a big hole into your argument.

what's with that dood's shirt?

@modaud358

3 ай бұрын

dudette

@jimiberman3464

3 ай бұрын

🤣

Author of renown! RALPH ELLIS! (*Jesus!* .,. Last of the Pharaohs!*) .,. [ Hellas~! Ptolemy ~! Cleopatra~! .,. Bloodline lineage! ] .,. WELL? ,.

Chrestians (Crest = plume, sign of pecking order) are the chosen (by divine predestination) Claudians, nazoreans, people of height, nobles, saints of high places ; a royal family of Nicolaitans (nike = victory, lads = armed men) , heroes of the people. Superseded by ursurpers ; the Flavians, who were generally hated. Rome at the time bulked with supporters of the formal julio-claudian dynasty ; chrestians or christians , just as today Trump supporters want their man back in charge, It only has nothing to do with the fictious Jesus Christ or maybe a parody on the life of Nerones (the gospel of Mark) gained wide-spread popularity for obvious reasons. The title chrestos doesn't mean the anointed but the noble or good ; the same as Tintin, a kind of pet-name for the people's hero.

Chrissy is a dude or a chick?