Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-04-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthijs

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There are people who don't care either way. There are those whose considered position is that the evidence is inconclusive. There are others who think that Jesus was fictional.

I'm tempted to vote "all of the above." But let's be fair, I think all scholars (people in general, actually) have a working model, a particular leaning. And as much as I'll admit to guesswork, I do believe the general leaning is towards a historical Jesus.

I wouldn't agree. I personally don't lean on the issue. Historians these days are becoming more rigorous about their personal baggage. It makes for more meaningful analyses.

spin

matthijs · 05-04-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can tell you a lot about Tacitus. I k now that he knew the political status of Judea and that he would never have called Pilate a procurator and I can supply Tacitean evidence for this view. I can also say that he would never have placed the christian testimony where it is found. Wanna know why? He also was regarded as one of the best orators of his time, yet the passage contains one of the worst cases of alliteration that one could imagine.

Not to be pesky, but if you've got time I'd be interested to hear all this. I've read up on Tacitus pretty well, yet somehow I've never heard of the alliteration, nor seen evidence that Tacitus didn't retroject the wrong title as a mistake.

delusional · 05-04-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is a statement of your lack of objectivity. What do you know about Tacitus? A historian is supposed to know about the sources used, understanding that every source needs to be validated. So, what do you know a bout Tacitus, or do your just trust that because a text has a useful passage it must be veracious?

I can tell you a lot about Tacitus. I k now that he knew the political status of Judea and that he would never have called Pilate a procurator and I can supply Tacitean evidence for this view. I can also say that he would never have placed the christian testimony where it is found. Wanna know why? He also was regarded as one of the best orators of his time, yet the passage contains one of the worst cases of alliteration that one could imagine.

Quote:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Exactly who is supposed to have fabricated that passage? It must strike even you as being ever so unlikely that a Christian would describe himself in those terms.

dog-on · 05-04-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is a statement of your lack of objectivity. What do you know about Tacitus? A historian is supposed to know about the sources used, understanding that every source needs to be validated. So, what do you know a bout Tacitus, or do your just trust that because a text has a useful passage it must be veracious?

I can tell you a lot about Tacitus. I k now that he knew the political status of Judea and that he would never have called Pilate a procurator and I can supply Tacitean evidence for this view. I can also say that he would never have placed the christian testimony where it is found. Wanna know why? He also was regarded as one of the best orators of his time, yet the passage contains one of the worst cases of alliteration that one could imagine.

Quote:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Exactly who is supposed to have fabricated that passage? It must strike even you as being ever so unlikely that a Christian would describe himself in those terms.

Depends on the intent, doesn't it?

delusional · 05-04-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Exactly who is supposed to have fabricated that passage? It must strike even you as being ever so unlikely that a Christian would describe himself in those terms.

Depends on the intent, doesn't it?

Not really. In addition to using far more favourable language about himself, a forger would probably cast Tacitus in the role of somebody favourable to Christianity. You only have to look at Josephus if you want to know what a Christian interpolation would look like.

spamandham · 05-04-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Two or three sentences hardly allows room for more than a bare statement of their position. The fact remains, Jesus Mythicists are severely lacking when it comes to mainstream academic support.

IMHO, 'mainstream' is not compelling when there are well qualified scholars who disagree with the mainstream *opinion* and back that disagreement up with *analysis*. The very fact that it is possible for well qualified scholars to be in such stark disagreement, says to me that the evidence is ambiguous, or there is an underlying agenda somewhere, or there are unquestioned assumptions at play. IMHO, I think it's a combination of all three.

matthijs · 05-04-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

You only have to look at Josephus if you want to know what a Christian interpolation would look like.

Surely you mean: what a Christian interpolation, made by a copiest of Josephus, can look like.

Elske.

dog-on · 05-04-2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Depends on the intent, doesn't it?

Not really. In addition to using far more favourable language about himself, a forger would probably cast Tacitus in the role of somebody favourable to Christianity. You only have to look at Josephus if you want to know what a Christian interpolation would look like.

You are making quite a few assumptions here.

As I said, it all depends on the specific intent of the perp.

show_no_mercy · 05-04-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Not really. In addition to using far more favourable language about himself, a forger would probably cast Tacitus in the role of somebody favourable to Christianity. You only have to look at Josephus if you want to know what a Christian interpolation would look like.

You are making quite a few assumptions here.

As I said, it all depends on the specific intent of the perp.

Isn't there some debate as to whether it originally says "Christians" or "Chrestians"? And besides, Tacitus might just be recounting the claims of the Christians, not his own investigation.

spamandham · 05-04-2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Depends on the intent, doesn't it?

Not really. In addition to using far more favourable language about himself, a forger would probably cast Tacitus in the role of somebody favourable to Christianity. You only have to look at Josephus if you want to know what a Christian interpolation would look like.

Maybe, but a *really* clever forger would insert words into the mouth of his opposition, that although unflattering, tend to support some point being made.

I'm not claiming that this is what happened in regard to Tacitus, but it's possible and there is at least one reasonable argument that can me made to support the idea..

Based on Rodney Stark's estimates, Christianity represented ~0.003% of the population at the time of the great fire of Rome. It is surprising that Nero would have even heard about such a small group. An argument can be made that this is an anachronism - evidence of a later edit.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.