Scholarship on the Historicity of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quis_UtDeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flavius Clemens? There was an oddball theory in the 19th century that Clement I was a freed slave who once belonged to a cousin of the emperor, but I do not know much more about it.

Flavius was a family name for the emperors Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. The first two were responsible for the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Vespasian adopted (enslaved?) Josephus, a Jewish leader he captured during the Jewish war, who became known as Flavius Josephus.

Josephus wrote his works under the patronage of the Emperor. As if having a Jew writing for an emperor was not enough of an obstacle to understanding, the passage he wrote about Christ was ‘augmented’ by Christian copyists. I think other mss had the original, which is generally how his work appears now. That is a lot of noise in the transmission.

Sorry for the digression, I am actually trying to make the point that historicity is hard to establish.
 
Considering it’s an atheist historian, that would definitely help the case
 
Quis_UtDeus said:
Considering it’s an atheist historian, that would definitely help the case
Click to expand...
Indeed. He explains why Jesus wasn’t a myth. Also Tacitus hated Christians yet spoke about a man named Jesus Christ who was crucified by Pontius Pilate
 
Dovekin said:
Sorry for the digression, I am actually trying to make the point that historicity is hard to establish.
Click to expand...
It is, there are no witnesses to the resurrection. But I guess the best we have is the dramatic and rapid change in the Apostles and disciples, and the rapid and determined spread of Christianity in the first few centuries.

Josephus the historian gave us a good description of the first rebellion, and the second hold out.

To the op, the witness of Pliny on the Christians is quite interesting too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top