Jesus was invented?

[Fragony]

Invented, of course but I doubt it was some sort of 'government conspiracy'.

That it might be is taken seriously by scholars though, wouldn't dismiss the idea all too fast. Conspriracy is perhaps too big a word, but policy, who knows. There was a messias-cultus at the time leading to a lot of civil unrest, and 'finding' him must have crossed a lot of people's mind.

'Everyone knows the Romans hijacked the story of Christianity. But they didn't invent it all for the giggles. They were rather thorough in trying to stamp it out in the beginning.'

That's complicated. Roman were very traditinal and feared that abandoning of worship of their gods would bring hardship. On the other hand, they did respect the jew's having only one god. How that makes sense I don't know. Christians were also suspected of incest because they called eachother brother and sister.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wonder how the Book of Revelation would fit into this theory, since it quite clearly describes the city of Rome (as in ancient Rome, we can ignore the Vatican for now) as a new Babylon - an evil place of persecution whose downfall and total destruction is prophesied.

An odd thing for a Roman aristocrat to write...

[Fragony]

An odd thing for a Roman aristocrat to write...

Not so much, as the abandoning of Roman gods was seen as something that was threatening, it could bring hardships to the empire.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not so much, as the abandoning of Roman gods was seen as something that was threatening, it could bring hardships to the empire.

How does this relate to my point? Revelations laments pagan Rome's persecution of Christians - pretty much the opposite of what you mention about it abandoning pagan Gods.

This whole 'theory' does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is sensationalist garbage.

[HoreTore]

I'm going to order a new batch of tinfoil before I read this.

[Fragony]

How does this relate to my point? Revelations laments pagan Rome's persecution of Christians - pretty much the opposite of what you mention about it abandoning pagan Gods.

This whole 'theory' does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is sensationalist garbage.

I am not out to hurt your feelings, just pointing out it's complicated. CountArach can probably do a better job than me I doubt this theory is new to him. I'll just gracefully step back from here on

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I am not out to hurt your feelings, just pointing out it's complicated. CountArach can probably do a better job than me I doubt this theory is new to him. I'll just gracefully step back from here on

Like CA I am a classicist, so I might be able to help. What I should point out before I start is that nowhere in this thread has he expressed support for your position.

That it might be is taken seriously by scholars though, wouldn't dismiss the idea all too fast.

The point here is that it is not. Not by the wider scholarly community anyway. It would certainly be interesting if he revealed what this mystery 'new' source is, along with the text. That he has not suggests that it is a ploy designed to pique interest and sell more books.

It does occasionally happen that important sources are found and then not published outright. An inscription near Rome, uncovered in the late 2000s, could have a rather large effect on the final chapters of my thesis. It has been bandied about in the scholarly literature that it will 'change everything' but as to exactly what it says, only the Italian archaeologist who found it knows. I am afraid he will die before he reveals it.

But that is an inscription. Actual letters and scrolls are much rarer, but are found. The question is how and where? In the absence of any information on these important points, I would suggest that he does not have a leg to stand on.

That's complicated. Roman were very traditinal and feared that abandoning of worship of their gods would bring hardship. On the other hand, they did respect the jew's having only one god. How that makes sense I don't know.

I suspect the Jews were lucky in that they were a client kingdom before they became a province. Certainly the Romans were fairly hands-off when it came to allowing alternative worship, but monotheism is a step beyond that. IIRC, failure to pray to the cult of the emperor was one reason that the Christians were persecuted. I do not really know exactly how this unfolded, but I suspect that the Romans were fine with Jewish monotheism because originally it was state-run and afterwards it was easy to maintain this. The Christians, as an alternative, and radical sect, undermined the stability of the Jewish faith and had to be extirpated.

I wonder how the Book of Revelation would fit into this theory, since it quite clearly describes the city of Rome (as in ancient Rome, we can ignore the Vatican for now) as a new Babylon - an evil place of persecution whose downfall and total destruction is prophesied.

An odd thing for a Roman aristocrat to write...

Not so much, as the abandoning of Roman gods was seen as something that was threatening, it could bring hardships to the empire.

I have to side with Rhyf here, I do not see the logical connection. More clearly: The book of Revelation prophesies the destruction of (Flavian) Rome by the Christian God, on account of its evil nature. What you Fragony are saying is true, so far as it goes, but would apply more easily to those against whom St Augustine and Orosius wrote in the 4th/5th Centuries CE.

This whole 'theory' does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is sensationalist garbage.

This pretty much sums up my current opinion, though if the actual evidence came to light I would be willing to consider it on its merits. I have some serious misgivings regarding the wider theory though. Correlation between the routes of Jesus and Titus is one thing, but as the basis of shifting the origins of Christianity forward by several decades? If Josephus was a key player in this conspiracy, why do his historical works (written afterwards) make no reference to the existence of Jesus. Most importantly, if the Flavians invented Christianity, who was Tacitus describing in the reign of Nero?

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 Judæa, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

(Apologies for the Perseus translation).

[Fragony]

'I suspect the Jews were lucky in that they were a client kingdom before they became a province. Certainly the Romans were fairly hands-off when it came to allowing alternative worship, but monotheism is a step beyond that. IIRC, failure to pray to the cult of the emperor was one reason that the Christians were persecuted. I do not really know exactly how this unfolded, but I suspect that the Romans were fine with Jewish monotheism because originally it was state-run and afterwards it was easy to maintain this. The Christians, as an alternative, and radical sect, undermined the stability of the Jewish faith and had to be extirpated.'

It's probably found in said traditionalism, the jews actually did pay tribute to Roman gods on occasions, something the christians didn't do.

[Sigurd]

...Most importantly, if the Flavians invented Christianity, who was Tacitus describing in the reign of Nero?

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 Judæa, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

(Apologies for the Perseus translation).

Any document with no original should be regarded as suspicious. Tacitus who describes a cult that was "dealt with" doesn't necessarily refer to the Christians. It has been argued that the word was tampered with. In some very early versions the word Christianos (the Christians) looks suspiciously tampered with (Photoshoping of that time). The word was most likely Chrestianos (the good).
http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

As such, again, a believer will have to rely on faith and faith alone. Any "evidence" will be scrutinized and found wanting (current status).