Toto

Wikipedia is not a good source. You can search the archives here, where that passage has been dissected. It could easily have been a marginal note that was copied into the text by a Christian scribe, since only Christians copied Josephus. The Greek is very awkward, indicating that there is something unusual going on.

So you are quoting a passage that does not mention Jesus as proof that there was a person named Jesus? Think about it.

Even if this passage is authentic, it is second hand information at best.

No, unbiased historians would admit that these passages leave a lot of room for doubt. Even R.F. France admitted that the extra-biblical proof of Jesus' existence was dodgy.

You realize you are quoting a Christian apologist, who is quoting Michael Grant, but that Michael Grant is probably not an atheist, and did not examine the question in detail.

I personally wish this issue would die down. But I recognize this false comparison as a propaganda technique from Christian apologists and I don't want to perpetuate it. Von Daniken believed that the Bible was accurate. People who believe that Jesus rose from the dead are the real fringe thinkers.

I sympathize with your sense of priorities.

Tom Sawyer

There are numerous references to Gotham city throughout many different kinds of works. Similarly, there are any number of references to a woman named Scarlett O'Hara and the primary source for those references is itself validated by accurate descriptions within the text of events in a war which are themselves corroborated by even more numerous sources, so it's valid to assume that it's valid historical documentation of the life of a woman who lived through that war.

Diogenes the Cynic

I wasn't asking for evidence of historicity, by the way. I know the arguments well. I was just trying to establish what exactly the mythicist hypothesis really is. It sets itself in opposition to HJ, but it's like pulling teeth to get a clear answer as to what "HJ" means.

steve_bnk

What do you mean by mythicist.

Tom Sawyer

Isn't it pretty much just the difference between saying that the Jesus myths are based on the life of an real person, regardless of how far off the Biblical accounts are from the actual events which took place in his life, and saying that he was a completely fictional character from the start?

The HJ stance can be an extraordinarily wide range of different positions which have little in common with each other beyond "there actually was this dude ...", so any clearer an answer than that would be specific to whomever you're speaking to at the time.

I also doubt that there would be a clear line between the two positions and the placement of the line would again depend on the individual. As an example, take Rambo. I've been told that the Rambo character was loosely based on a real person (or an amalgamation of various people). If that's the actually the case, would that loose basing mean that you have a "Historical Rambo" position as opposed to a "Mythical Rambo" position? In terms of Jesus, I've heard that stance argued for both sides and there being a real person or people behind the myths means that you're taking an HJ position even though there's only a loose basing between the real and created characters and also that the character being a fictitious person means that you're taking a MJ position even though that fictitious person was loosely based on one or more real people.

smeat75

That is impossible to say for sure. Tacitus, like all ancient historians, seldom or never quotes his sources. But as a senator he had access to official records and it is generally agreed among Tacitean scholars that numerous passages in his works show evidence of his consultation of official documents.
Yes the famous passage about "Christus" or "Chrestus" could be second hand information, hearsay. On the other hand it could even be that he saw an official report of Jesus' trial and execution in the archives somewhere, it is impossible to say.
"Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[45] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.[46] Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear.[47] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Tacitus is considered one of the most reliable of all ancient historians and the information in that passage is quite specific. "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."

If Tacitus had said of any other group "This movement was founded by so-and-so who came form such and such a province and was put to death at the time of this emperor by this particular person in charge" no one would dispute it. In fact the passage is only disputed by people who come to it with a preconceived idea that there never was such a person as Jesus/Christ, however you want to term him.

outhouse

False


HJ can be summed up in a few sentances there is so little historicity, no one really debates this.

A poor peasant, traveling teacher/healer of judaism who was baptised by john, went to the temple ticked off the romans who quickly put him to death on a cross.

Tom Sawyer

False. There have been any number of defenses for a Historical Jesus position which are totally unrelated to that and you don't need him baptized by John, ticking off the Romans or being executed in any manner. He doesn't need to be poor and I heard one description of it where he was actually a revolutionary leader and not any kind of teacher or healer.

Your post is like describing a Christian as someone who follows all the tenets of the Catholic Church and believes in the infallibility of the Pope and the word doesn't apply to anyone else.

smeat75

"

My comment:
Thank you for your sympathy!

Godfrey

If we're getting so elaborate, why don't we just wish for a time machine and a video camera?

Don't forget batteries.