RAFH

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. The book referred to does not exist, there are only copies of copies, the latter of which were made and kept by the folks that use this as evidence of their beliefs. Beyond that, its what someone wrote second hand of what they may have believed was what happened. Such evidence would never be accepted in a court of law. Would you want to have to face such evidence if something critical depended on it? A copy of a copy of a manuscript written several decades after the event being described and the copy being used for evidence was made by and in the custody of the person accusing you.

This is a general rule I use for evidence, would I accept it in a court of law if my life was on the line. And don't go to the notion I would accept any evidence if it was my life at stake. If you wish make it somebody's life and assume I am a very ethical person who would find the conviction of an innocent man one of the most wicked deeds possible.


I don't know about Juma's opinion, but its my opinion and its the credible opinion of many others. Almost certainly the first example is an interpolation. The second is highly suspect for many reasons, not the least is its the only reference to JC. If JC was notable enough to be a reference for someone, as the brother of, 25 years after his supposed death, its odd there is no other reference to him. Its very odd someone would be identified as the brother of someone dead for 25 years unless that someone was SOMEONE anyone knew, particularly when the writing of such is 40 years after the event and 1500 miles away for an entirely different audience. Yes, there are quibbles and such about all this but it remains the reference is suspect and with good reason.

Again, I go by my general rule of evidence, would I accept it in a court of law if something of great import was at stake.

If there had been numerous references by Josephus, I would be substantially more inclined to accept it. If we had an original manuscript, I would be very much more inclined to accept it. If the copies we had were from a previously unknown vault discovered in the previously undisturbed tomb in China or Southern Africa from the 1st or 2nd century, I would be a lot more inclined to accept it.

People will point to, say, Julius Caesar and note there is not much evidence of him either. True, but there is more evidence and its substantially better evidence: Thousands of coins with his likeness that date to that time. Books he himself wrote. Events in history that make sense and are recorded by other parties, including parties hostile to the Romans. Statues and Murals all of which are remarkably similar and don't really show a fabulous looking guy but a real person with normal features such as baldness. Reports by other parties. His parents and family lineage is know and by multiple sources. His descendants, both by blood and law, are know and by multiple sources. In short, Julius Caesar fits in history. But more to the point, he was a man, who did what humans do. He did not work miracles. There are no extraordinary claims made about him. He could be real.

The Evil One

There are plenty of extraordinary claims, actually, such as the claim that he became an Olympian demigod after his death. However, the difference is that once the extraordinary, unsubstantiated elements are peeled away there is still penty of man left. This is much less so with Jesus. Once the extrordinary and unsubstantiated is peeled away there's barely anything left.

Gosh this thread is wandering.

Coleslaw

Happens when you follow strange celestial objects.

Kosh

Maybe we should ask the King for directions...

(see, another point of fiction... THREE men all asking for directions?)

Thomas II

Actually,that was pretty good, because I am sure that after all the torture he had suffered till then he still had the sense of humor to say to himself:
"Hmmm...Let me just rend the veil and keep them guessing and debating for years to come..."

And it's that Jesus was like that...

:grin:

Roger Pearse

It's treated as a proper name in pagan Roman literature, tho.

Tacitus might have done all sorts of things. What he does do is tell us who these Christians were and who their founder was. Speculation about his sources is just that, surely? That he was in a position to know is evident.

I think there is a fallacy here. What we have is a piece of historical data. The argument consists of making up a story around that piece data which allows modern people to ignore it. I cannot imagine any piece of ancient testimony on any subject that could not be rubbished in this manner.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This argument would dispose of the entire classical heritage.

The rule that we should use for evidence is the same rule that we use for all other historical evidence, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

The issue involved here, that I think you are sidestepping, Roger, is that, just as there has been tendentious corruption of christian literature, there easily could have been tendentious corruption of christian kept pagan works. We clearly have a case with Josephus at some level with the TF. The text has been corrupted. We may argue how much, but the fact itself is difficult to deny with any credibility. When we argue points on subjects where there are vested christian interests using christian kept sources, there is always the doubt regarding the fidelity of the transmission of the texts.

I'm sure you know how easy the corruption could be: a simple marginal or superlinear note gets taken for an omission.

Yes.


spin

Roger Pearse

Well, you are quite right. Indeed there could have been tendentious corruption of ANY copy of ANYTHING. Few texts will not pass through human hands at some point, and all humans have agendas. Pagan copyists had their views, you know. We all know this, I'm sure. (I'm sure we all know that 100% of all texts transmitted down the ages passed through Christian hands). But...

The question then becomes whether we take any notice of this a priori objection. If we do, then ALL books must be discarded on this same ground (which is absurd and obscurantist, surely) since every one of them is open to this objection; if we don't, then NONE of them must get this treatment.

Both of these are rational positions. Which do we adopt?

My own answer is that we adopt the former, but we accept that corruption may have occurred and we accept it to the extent that there is positive objective evidence of it occurring in a specific case. I really don't see what alternative we have, you see, that doesn't amount to rampant subjectivism.

May I express a personal opinion? The problem that I see in the humanities generally (I may be biased as someone with a science degree here) is the tendency of the attitudes of the person doing the study, the age in which he lives and the political or religious movements to which he belongs or which he dare not offend, to get into the study as deliberate or unconcious prejudices. (This applies just as strongly if the person doing the study is *me*! After all, how will I see my own biases?) To write anything objective, we've somehow got to avoid this, and this means taking rather more pains to do so, and at every stage trying to minimise the element of personal judgement and instead going for measurables.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu

So what measurables can we gather from the Tacitus quote, taking it as original and uncorrupted. He mentions Christians, so we can establish with certainty that there were Christians around when Tacitus wrote. Then he mentions Christ's death under Pilate. He does not mention how he knows this. There are two logical possibilities: he found out about it independent from the Christians, or he heard it from the Christians. We know that Christians were in the habit of telling people just that story, so the hearsay scenario cannot be rejected. I would say that at best we come up with: Christians, yes certainly; death under Pilate, maybe.

Gerard Stafleu