Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TomboyMom · 02-24-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D2_Supreme

Thank you very much for the extensive list. Slightly biased i think its fair to say, but an excellent list nonetheless.

Thank you for this very useful list, the first I have seen, if complete. Mod: Is there any way it could be incorporated into the basic questions sticky above, or made into a sticky?

Quote:

By tracing the historical record of the Christians, isn't it fair to say that certainly an influential man possibly named Jesus DID in fact exist?

As I learned in the basic questions sticky above, the majority, mainstream view is that there probably was an actual person named Jesus who lived and preached in Palestine around 4 B.C. to 30 A.D. and was executed. If you have not read that sticky, you might find it useful.

Didymus · 02-24-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D2_Supreme

Thank you very much for the extensive list. Slightly biased i think its fair to say, but an excellent list nonetheless.

If anything, Iasion's excellent list is biased toward over-inclusiveness. Some of those references are indeed sources, in the sense that hearsay testimony from unknown and geographically distant sources, many years removed, is a source, but others, like Phlegon, Galen and the Acts of Pilate, don't even meet that frail standard. As evidence for Jesus, they're preposterous.

Quote:

By tracing the historical record of the Christians, isn't it fair to say that certainly an influential man possibly named Jesus DID in fact exist?

Jesus was the most common male name in first-century Judea. One or more of those Jesuses might have been revered sages, as suggested by the probable use of that name in Q, the sayings gospel that was copied by the (anonymous) authors of Matthew and Luke toward the end of the century.

But that doesn't constitute evidence that there was an actual person whose biography even loosely matched the gospels.

Didymus

andrewcriddle · 02-24-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings,

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php

Actually this passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in his 'Sacred History' written in the 5th century CE.

Quote:

IN the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it
happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium.
But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor,
and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new
city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the
charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the
accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were
accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were
invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by
being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a
few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they
should be consumed to serve for light during the night.

So it was referred to by a Christian writer about 300 years after Tacitus not 1,000 years.

Andrew Criddle

Dean Anderson · 02-24-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Actually this passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in his 'Sacred History' written in the 5th century CE.
So it was referred to by a Christian writer about 300 years after Tacitus not 1,000 years.

Does Sulpicius Severus credit it to Tacitus?

If so, then it is fair to say that it was "referred to" - but if not then what you may have is the earlier source that was later interpolated into Tacitus...

jjramsey · 02-24-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

Does Sulpicius Severus credit it to Tacitus?

If so, then it is fair to say that it was "referred to" - but if not then what you may have is the earlier source that was later interpolated into Tacitus...

Pardon me, but I do not find it credible that Christian interpolators would insert such a sarcastic description of themselves into the text.

andrewcriddle · 02-24-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

Does Sulpicius Severus credit it to Tacitus?

If so, then it is fair to say that it was "referred to" - but if not then what you may have is the earlier source that was later interpolated into Tacitus...

Sulpicius Severus does not credit the passage to Tacitus.

However, I see no reason to postulate a non-Tacitean hypothetical source used both by Sulpicius Severus and by our present texts of Tacitus

Even if (which is IMO most unlikely) the passage is not authentic, it has sufficient Tacitean traits to make it unlikely that it was originally part of some other work and later inserted in Tacitus. If it is non-Tacitean it is almost certainly an expansion of Tacitus in Tacitus' style rather than an excerpt from a non-Tacitean work.

Andrew Criddle

.

02-24-2006, 02:50 PM

Greetings,

Thanks for your reply jj :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Tacitus is hardly accepting of Christianity; he describes it as a "most mischievous superstition" and as one of the many "hideous and shameful" things that made their way to Rome.

The issue is accepting it as RECENT - the argument comes from G.A. Wells (not a very strong argument though.)
The argument seems to be that if Tacitus had really written about this new sect he would have said something like :
"this new sect became accepted, even against our laws of rejecting new superstitions - because some powerful Senators embraced it".
Perhaps others might like to expand what G.A. Wells meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

And no wonder! Tacitus' description of Christianity is hardly complimentary.

Or it was not added till later.

Iasion

02-24-2006, 02:52 PM

Greetings,

Thanks for your reply Andrew :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Actually this passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in his 'Sacred History' written in the 5th century CE.

Whoops.
Yes, that's right - I'll fix my list and mention him.

Iasion

02-24-2006, 03:27 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

If anything, Iasion's excellent list is biased toward over-inclusiveness.

Thanks :-)

Yah,
it includes all the straws I have seen apologists grasp at over the years, some indeed quite preposterous.

(There are also some other minor, late references to Christians : Fronto, Aelius Aristides, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.)

Iasion

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.