Roger Pearse

I'm not following this thread, but may I add a couple of incidental comments?

I don't think that we know what Tacitus' source was for his statements.

I'm afraid that this is quite definitely a historical reference. Those who need to suggest that this passage refers to anyone but Jesus of Nazareth need to produce some actual *evidence* for their claims, and this does not exist.

Any argument that requires us to rubbish our major source for first century history in favour of speculation is one we should treat as probably special pleading, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Why is this? Have you done this yourself?

Unfortunately this view is a minority one.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I note, with some concern, that all your posts consist of rubbishing the evidence. This should tell you that your argument (whatever it is) is invalid, you know. Valid arguments are based on the data, not on finding excuses to ignore it.

Now I don't know of any evidence that only Eusebius had a copy of Phlegon's Chronicle. The mischances of the years have left this fragment of it preserved only by him. This is not surprising, since Eusebius likewise preserves large chunks of Castor and Alexander Polyhistor. You may want to look at book 1 of his Chronicle, which has recently been translated from the Armenian, and get an idea of what his approach is. A quick skim will explain why Eusebius tends to preserve lost texts. He also quotes Diodorus Siculus (who happens to still exist; but Eusebius had no way of knowing what would survive).

The great value of all Eusebius' works is his endemic habit of verbatim citation. Since 99% of ancient literature is lost, this inevitably means that he preserves much otherwise lost. This is so much the case that books 11-15 of his Praeparatio Evangelica read like a primer of Greek philosophy, from mostly lost sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LogicandReason

Proving or disproving scientifically is impossible when the subject is unverifiable Roger. BTW, nice to have you join the thread.

You and other infer Jesus of Nazareth...don't put words in Tacitus' mouth.

I'm sure those who enforced the geocentric theory said much the same...until telescopes proved them miserably wrong. You are trying to place more value on your own chosen speculation. We have no proof either way.

LogicandReason

I did this year...wow, studying Jewish history really changed my perception about church origin. I place the antecedents to Christianity in the mid 2nd century BCE...as opposed to 30 CE.

LogicandReason

Roger, as usual I enjoy your historical knowledge. But this does not change that we are depending on Eusebius, who has an obvious bias, to report something from a document we do not have.

Opinion

Title Christ, Extreme penalty, time of Pilate is a big root I thought. Does Ignatius not count as a historical reference either?

LogicandReason

As the oral traditions grew, and the Christology was further developed, historical anchors became attached to the story. Why Pilate? he was infamous, according to Josephus (Antiquities Book 18) for brutalizing the Jews and squashing rebellions (Judah the Galilean most famous). Pilate crucified 2000 Galileans after the revolt and this is a good possibility as to why he is inserted into the Jesus story...other historical anchors of that period end up there too....Herod, Herod Antipas, J the B.

Ignatius is historical and references what he has learned. He was not a witness to a historical Jesus, said to have died long before Ignatius' birth.

I consider Justin Martyr to be one of the most dependable early church writers because of his excellent writing/language and his education. Please read his first apology and get back to me on just how certain all this history really is. He does a great job of admitting syncretism by stating that the Christology was not much different than accepted Greek mythology.

aa5874

Are you so naive not to understand that mythological figures are also claimed to have mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters?

The mythological Achilles had a human father, according to Homer.

Do you not understand that the word "Christ" is a title or means "anointed"? Do you not see that the word Jesus is missing from the passage?

Around, 133 CE, Simon barKokhba was regarded as a messiah, and Eusebius and Justin Martyr used the name "Barcochebas" to identify him and not the title messiah.

First Apology 31 And further based on the NT, Jesus was not known as Christ during the days of Pilate. Jesus was called son of David, son of man, Elijah or one of the prophets

Secondly there were no followers of Jesus called Christians before Jesus was crucufied.

Since the word "Christus" is only mentioned one time in Tacitus, and the word Jesus is missing it cannot be assumed Christus refers to Jesus of the NT.

Do you not realise that no church writer in antiquity ever used that passage in Annals to claim that Jesus existed, instead the forged passaged in Josephus was used in the 4th century by Eusebius?

show_no_mercy

If there was an earthly Christ, his actions on earth are irrelevant to Paul, and maybe by extention Cephas. The only thing that matters to Paul is his crucifixtion. In 1 Cor 1:22-23 Paul says that Jews look for miraculous signs, but the only thing they "got" was Christ's crucifixtion - their stumbling block. This means that the earthly Christ (if existed) didn't do anything notable. This means that all of the miraculous signs in the gospels like healing blind men, evicting demons, feeding thousands with 4 loaves of bread, turn water into wine, raise Lazarus from the dead, etc. didn't happen in Paul's world.

The only thing Paul's Christ did of note was that he got crucified. Paul doesn't even care where or when he got crucified. This might be why Cephas doesn't refer to any of these events for authority. The only "authority" Cephas has is that this Christ figure "appeared" to him first. Yet Paul doesn't distinguish the nature of Christ's appearance to Cephas and Christ's appearance to himself.