EarlDoherty

I stated no “fact” about Trypho. This is what I said:

While I stated my opinion (you challenged it, and that is fine, though hardly with very much) that the likelihood was that Trypho was fictional, I allowed an “even if.” But that was not the issue. The issue was whether, fictional or not, Justin’s dialogue represented what a real or representative Trypho would actually have said, rather than what Justin put into his mouth. You switched the focus away from that and placed it instead on Trypho’s reality, which really was irrelevant to my point. I regarded that as a sidestepping of my argument, to try to discredit that argument by thinking to call into question something which had very little to do with it.

That is a common tactic, and I usually don’t let anyone get away with it. (S.M., for example, as he did in his last post, commonly uses snide remarks verging on ad hominem to distract from the fact that he rarely has anything of substance to offer as a counter to mythicist arguments.)

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

Right, but let's not forget about what else you said, okay?

The bold type above is a positive statement.

Nonetheless, your positive statement backfired with your plan to bring anybody down a peg or two.

Regards.

EarlDoherty

Certainly. But what does that have to do with whether Trypho existed or not? It is a question of whether Justin is 'quoting' a real Trypho or simply putting words into his mouth for his own purposes. I have argued for the latter. He could be doing this in the presence or absence of a real Trypho.

Well, while that is certainly not a matter of "fact," it is certainly a matter of "opinion."

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

Don't try to move goalposts please. The purpose of me showing you making a positive statement was to prove that you were stating an opinion as fact, and doing so in an attempt to ridicule my position that Trypho may have been an actual person.

Really, the best you can do here is admit it, apologize, and let's move along. Besides, I don't deserve such derogatory comments. I am here to learn like everyone else, despite the attitude you see. This attitude works at getting people to think, and to challenge me and themselves to a higher level of scholarship.

So relax, we're all good.

mens_sana

I would express some appreciation for your reply if you had even come close to addressing the question — which concerned the TRIAL, not the crucifixion.

mens_sana

My problem is with that "if." If there was a trial, the accounts are certainly embellished. But must there have been a trial at all? After all, Jesus was neither a Roman citizen nor a "Tobiad." Perhaps a perfunctory "hearing" with summary execution?

jules?

please expand on how you think Tacitus assembled the information at hand, how he was able to identify Chistus as Jesus ben Joseph and what you presume he knew about Christians. Obviously you cannot give evidence but I am interested in your thoughts.

Solitary Man

Would you like to back up all your statements? I don't have time to do your homework for you, so if you don't mind a reference or two or ten would be nice.

Of course.

What are you talking about? Nothing you said what coherent.

FathomFFI

One thing we need to understand about Tacitus is that he, like most Romans, viewed Christians as being merely a sect of Judaism. He viewed their religion as an abomination, as well as full of superstitions.

Tacitus was writing a Roman history book, as opposed to a book that would contain any superstitions of the Jews or the Christians. He would view the Torah and Gospel as the mere religious garbage of the Jews, and would not include anything from them as part of his elite history of Rome.

Why would he present a superstition as Roman history? Would a strict polytheist present the monotheistic "superstition" as actual history?

He was a ROMAN, and partial to the ROMANS. He wouldn't be caught dead presenting Jewish/Christian religious superstitions as part of his Roman history. If he ever did that, then he would be presenting the laughable Jewish/Christian superstitions into a serious historical work, and would have made himself the laughing stock of Rome. The Christians were despised by the Romans, and no good Roman would be caught dead writing a serious work which included any Christian superstitions.

He swore an allegiance to Rome, and took an oath before the Roman gods. His religion and culture reigned supreme, and to even suggest he write Jewish or Christian superstitions into his proud Roman works would be blasphemous to him.

In a culture were Roman gods were visible from anywhere in the city in the form of idols, and where they viewed other religions as superstitions and fabrications, how then can you expect a man of Tacitus' status to use Jewish "fabrications" as a serious representation of history?

Put yourself in his shoes:

If you were writing a Roman history book, would you use the story of Adam and Eve to represent your view of actual history? Do you see how stupid it is? Would you even dare to mention the Adam and Eve story as an alternate view of history? How about Jesus flying up into heaven? Or raising the dead?

I think you can agree now that Tacitus wouldn't touch any Jewish/Christian superstitions with a 10 foot pole. They would be so absurd that he could never live it down.

So then we can ask; where did he get his information about Christus from? Would he have read a Gospel? Would he have listened to the Christian superstitions?

Or would Tacitus be writing of Christus because it was Roman history?

You decide.

Regards.

jules?

I would agree

but
Roman historical documents [why do I think of Galaxy Quest] would not say pilate condemned Jesus for proclaiming he was the true king and then say the small band of followers knew him as the messiah and that one day many would follow him even in Rome. Histories would mention the fire and Nero scapegoating the christians but who put the two events together? Pliny coulld of helped but he appears to have not known what christians believed least of all the person they worshiped as a god was once executed in by Pilate. Josephus was of little help too.

I get the point you make but the evidence is so wanting it is difficult to make a call objectively