Tristan Scott

But not nearly as-off putting as presumptuousness, neh?

I think it is pretty clear that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and probably most of the Early Church father's works have been compromised and cannot be used either to support a historical Jesus, nor to debunk. This is not news. Manuscripts of any kind were somewhat of a rarety in the first c. Any that may have had anything about a historical Jesus would most likely have fallen into the hands of the Early Church, and would have had to have been cleansed of anything that would not supported dogma, or redacted for support.

The premise of this thread, that the lack of mention of the name "Jesus" in these compromised writings somehow supports the theory that Jesus never existed is as ludicrous as saying that these works support a historical Jesus. Being compromised, they support neither position.

spin

Relevance?

Thanks for the information.


spin

aa5874

But, you cannot prove that Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius have been compromised to the point where they cannot be used to debunk THE EXISTENCE of the Jesus of the NT.

People based their assessments on the information presented to them. So based on the extant information that there is so far, there was no Jesus Christ, no Jesus the Messiah, before the Pliny lettes to Trajan.

No writer that mentioned Christians up to the Pliny letters mentioned Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Messiah.

But, you must realise and admit that once Jesus the Christ, or Jesus the Messiah, did not exist that no writer would have mentioned him when making reference to Christians.

Well that is exactly what happened. Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny mentioned Christians and did not write a single word about Jesus the Christ.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that JESUS the Christ or Messiah was not known to be associated with Christians up to the time of the Pliny letters.

And it is even more obvious that Jesus the Christ was unknown by Pliny, he appears to have no idea who Christians believed in. And after confessions and torture, no-one still mentioned Jesus.

The writings of Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny can be used to debunk Jesus the Christ.

Tristan Scott

Of course I can. If their mention of Jesus the Christ has been redacted then they are no longer valid. This is basic, aa, I can't believe you are even arguing this.

He either existed in some form or another or he didn't exist at all. All that supports his existence is suspect. Logically that is all I HAVE to admit.

You don't know that. They could have devoted a whole chapter about a humble no-body teacher who preached for a few years who became a martyr and after his death millions became followers, and that was made into a god and given the name Jesus the Christ-all would have been redacted because this had to be a chosen one-special-virgin birth and glorious death was a must for any hero.

If you are going to disbelieve the parts that do not support your argument, and believe the parts that do, we call that cherry-picking. Redaction is acomplished by adding as well as subtracting, you know.

aa5874

The single mention of Christus in Tacitus' Annals 15.44 signifies nothing about any term becoming generalised. No other non-apologetic writer mentioned Christus that was executed in Judaea or during the time of Pilate and no apologetic source ever made direct reference to Christus in Annals 15.44.

Chaucer

Maybe not, but it is clear that either Tacitus or a forger is opting to use the term here in -- at the least -- considerably less than a reverential way.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

aa5874

I asked you for proof. You speculate.

I repeat. You cannot prove that Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius have been compromised to the point where they cannot be used to DEBUNK the existence of the NT Jesus.

Now, please tell me what was originally in Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny about Jesus.


He either existed in some form or another or he didn't exist at all. All that supports his existence is suspect. Logically that is all I HAVE to admit.

So, how do you know that? You just speculate.

We have the writings of Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny and Jesus is not found in them except for forgeries in Josephus. There is REALLY no need to speculate.

Based on your view, we might as well just discard all sources of antiquity and just guess.

What parts do not support my argument?

Jesus of the NT was not mentioned by Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus even though they mentioned Christians, and this is true even after confessions and torture as in the case of Pliny.

It is reasonable to deduce that Jesus the Messiah was not known to be associated with Christians up to the time of Pliny, he himself did not show any prior knowledge of Christian beliefs or who they worshipped, even though Jesus was claimed to have existed for about 100 years before Pliny with thousands of followers and churches all over the Roman Empuire.

spin

Do you expect an interpolator not to be able to write at least vaguely in the tone of the parent text? Wouldn't be much of an interpolation now, would it? This is one of those ideas that people keep coming out with: christians are a hopeless bunch who cannot imagine writing in the voice of someone else. They don't take note of the fact that this is a basic martyriological text in which pagan onlookers feel sorry for the christians who didn't deserve the treatment they got. They just see that it's negative on the surface to christians. I suppose that it takes extraordinary people like Juian to write a text ostensibly against himself (the Misopogon).


spin

Chaucer

What you say is entirely possible. But that does not gainsay that the very fact that an interpolator would adopt such a tone, and still use the "Christ" term casually, shows that by that time others had done the same.

Now you can't have it both ways: This aspect of the exchange started because some tried to suggest that Josephus would never use such a term casually. Then when we have some other writer provably doing just that -- and it doesn't matter in this context if it's really Tacitus or another -- that's suddenly expected because it fits with the tone.

Well -- duh! Yes, it fits with the tone. And it fits with the tone of a piece written in the first decade of the second century, while Josephus was written in either the last or penultimate decade of the first century. You can't have it one way with one and another way with the other. They're too close together. Either stooges of the Roman Empire were accustomed to using the "Christ" term casually, or they weren't. Regardless of who wrote the Tacitus passage, the adoption of such a casual tone with this term shows that it was accepted as a Roman thing to throw the term around quite casually.

Chaucer

spin

You seem to be confusing christians and Jews. You know, Josephus the author who has avoided using the term "christos" (except regarding Jesus?!), the Jew. Interpolator of a passage about christian martyriology, a christian. Get it?

Of course I can have it both ways, we are dealing with different sources. If Josephus has "christos" you expect him not to just drop it in, when it is to a Jew a loaded term that has a specific sacrality. There would be no real problem for Tacitus using the term, nor for a christian interpolator. If of course Tacitus used it, he would certainly have been educated in classical Greek and would have found the reference "christos" odd, meaning to him "unguent" -- the Jewish development of "christos" was based on bad linguistic assumptions.

If it is an interpolation, you don't know when it wasa written, so your assumptions here are baseless.

If you want to continue responding regarding this passage in Tacitus, you should at least deal with what it says in its context and how it fits (or doesn't fit) in its current location. Why does Tacitus an ex-consul and proconsul, who has shown in his texts that he knows all about Roman administration and when procurators were first used in Judea, call Pontius Pilate a "procurator" when he obviously wasn't? Why does he conclude his attack against Nero by changing subject onto christians?? You can see the abrupt transition.

...Battery's low. Gotta go...


spin