andrewcriddle

On the general point raised by the OP

Studying the origins of Christianity is a legitimate secular historical project. As part of this project one must either a/ take the accounts of Christian origins given in reasonably contemporary sources as being at least moderately good evidence, or b/ regard them as near worthless by reasons of their bias and other problems

a/ probably leads to a historical Jesus (most people, IMO rightly, think it improbable that our existing sources were in their original context proclaiming a mythical Jesus in say Doherty's sense.)

b/ has the disadvantage that it replaces an account supported by near contemporary evidence with one with no ancient evidence at all and which is not intrinsically clearly more plausible than the alternative it is replacing.

Hence rejecting a historical Jesus seems to lead either to radical skepticism about our ability to know how Christianity arose, or to excessive skepticism about a historical Jesus coupled with excessive credulity about a non-historical alternative.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Sorry, I think I have a reasonably clear picture that fits with generally understood views - it is the big bang hj - or is it unknown rabbii who gets christified that to be honest does not give a clear picture of how xianity arose!

I see loads of different people into gnostic messianic ideas, mixed with various concepts "in the air" of an actually Greek Empire controlled by Romans in contact with a very wide range of cultures, add in a few wars, some probably excellent playwrights for the Passion story, some later chancey religious experiences of an emperor and his family, some authoritarian doctrinal attitudes and slowly marinade for two thousand years.

Some detail, history, probabilities, making sense of actual groups around, all in all a far stronger explanation than a goddidit big bang with various model jesii depending on the strength of one's faith!

ynquirer

Tacitus’ Annals 15:44 is credible historical evidence that supports the idea that Jesus existed in human form. No serious historian doubts of either its authenticity or the writer’s seriousness in checking sources.

ynquirer

There are two points in this criticism. The first one is the alleged perpetration of material error by the writer of Annals 15:44 on calling Pilate a procurator - an error that Tacitus would never have committed. The second point is alleged inconsistency within the paragraph: it begins a case against Nero, ends as evidence of the historical Jesus.

The whole criticism hinges on the alleged mistake: this serves the critics the purpose to erode the writer’s credibility. Yet if the critique on alleged mistake is dismissed, the rest of the criticism is purely interpretative, that is to say, almost nothing. I shall here deal with the alleged mistake while leave the discussion of the rest of the criticism for subsequent posts - if someone still wishes to contend for the opposite opinion.

In 1961 a carved stone was discovered that called Pilate “prefect of Judea” (click here for additional information). It has since become customary for mythicists - that is, supporters of the idea that Jesus did not exist as a historical person - to say that extant Annals 15:44 commits a mistake that Tacitus would not have committed. Quite wrong. Procuratorship and prefecture were by no means incompatible.

I shall not claim personal authority, but Wikipedia’s (click here):

“Equestrian procurator

The Emperor also had under his control a number of smaller, but potentially difficult provinces that did not need an entire legion. These provinces were put under the control of governors of equestrian status. New conquests generally fell into this equestrian category but most were later changed in status to reflect the changing conditions of Roman's growing empire. Thus, a province would become upon conquest a procuratorial province until it was decided that it should become either an imperial or senatorial province and thus governed by either a propraetor or proconsul. Like the other imperial provinces, the equestrian governors could serve any length of time up to 5 years, or even longer.

[…]

Though the practice of appointing equestrians to help manage provinces officially began with Augustus, governors from years before had appointed procurators to help them govern. However, it was not until the reign of Claudius that these procurators received the powers of a governor. Though by definition the procurators were prefects, a procuratorship was a more formal way of denoting a prefect’s authority to govern. It is important to note that procurators were not magistrates, so did not own imperium, and merely exercised the Emperor’s, or governor's, authority with his approval." (Bold type is mine, y.)

According to this, therefore, that Annals 15:44 calls Pilate - a notorious member of the equestrian order - the procurator of Judea does not exclude his altogether being the prefect of that province - a particularly difficult one in which he served for ten years. What Tacitus does here is to state a more formal way of denoting his authority as prefect to govern. Not a mistake, but proof of his expertise in Roman administration instead.

Malachi151

No, there isn't ANY credible evidence for the existance of Jesus, and to boot, as you said, the story fo Jesus is much better explained as mythology than as history.

Why do people treat him as a real figure? 2,000 years of weight behind it, and most historians aren't specifically scholars of the existance of Jesus, so they just assume.

spamandham

I'm willing to accept that Paul actually existed. I agree the evidence of that is strong. I'm also willing to accept he knew two men, Peter, and James who were early Christian leaders, and that James could easily be the same James spoken of by Josephus.

That said, I don't see how any of this demostrates the existence of a historical Jesus, unless Paul tells us about interactions between Jesus and these other two men. But he doesn't.

Paul seems to be totally clueless as to any details about an earthly Jesus other than his death and resurrection. I would say this lack of discussion on Paul's part, when it would have been extremely relevant in establishing the authority of his writings, is actually direct evidence that neither Peter nor James had known Jesus personally either.

Regarding Josephus, I'm willing to accept that Josephus had heard about Jesus. The problem is, if Jesus WAS a mythical legendary figure, Josephus would not know that, and would rightfully simply assume the Jesus fellow he hears people talking about was a real person. I don't think Josephus was lying about Jesus or making things up, I just don't think he did any real journalism to confirm what he had heard. The flying chariots he reports later on is proof of the tabloid nature of his writings. The fact he was reporting a lot of hearsay does not make his writings worthless, but it does reduce their significance substantially. What he wrote about Jesus was not unique (assuming he wrote it). It is the same knowledge any learned person probably would have heard in the first century via Christian sources.

Malachi151

#1) Josephus never wrote anything about "Jesus"

1) The "brother of James" quote is an interpolation.
2) The other paragraph is purely added later, and even if it weren't, the source is clearly the Christian story either way, even if Josephus did write it its not an independent account.

#2) I doubt that "Peter" was real. His name and role are too mythical.

#3) Someone wrote the "letters of Paul", whoever that was we can call Paul.

#4) Paul was a liar.
a) Paul says that he saw a vision of Jesus. That's an outright lie unless you believe in the magic.
b) When Paul says that he met with James he says: "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

That's a dead giveaway that its a lie..... Paul says many things that can't se so, such as 500 people seeing Jesus after he came back from the dead, etc.

spamandham

Tacitus was one of the most rigorous writers of his day. He is known to have drawn upon numerous sources, including official records. That being the case, is there any way to determine whether or not he drew upon Roman records or eyewitness accounts regarding the man mentioned in Annals 15.44?

Tacitus referred to the one executed under Pilate as "Christus". He also referred to Pilate as a procurator instead of prefect. The latter could be a matter of simple human error on his part, which is unlikely considering the rigor of his writings.

But by referring to the man executed as "Christus" instead of a formal name (Jesus son of whoever from whereever) the best guess is that his source for this information was NOT Roman records, or even eyewitness accounts, but rather a Christian source of unknown integrity. This source apparently didn't even know that Pilate was a prefect rather than a procurator.

In other words, 15.44 is a strong affirmation of the existence of Christianity, but is a terribly weak case for a historical Jesus.

I don't think anyone contends the existence of Christianity in the first century.

Malachi151

Not only this, but this is two sentences in a series of books. This wasn't the subject of what we was writing about, this is simply one footnote. The idea that Tacitus would have even tried to do any meaningful research on this to find any records is absurd.

This was one minor clarifying statement in a very large set of documents, hardly the thing he would have wasted time on.

GakuseiDon

Why would he have assumed that? Why wouldn't Josephus have known that the Jesus people were talking about was a mythical legendary figure?