Roger Pearse

Hey, you've run into a long-standing discussion here, and perhaps would have responded differently had you realised what was being said?

Just to briefly summarise the point being made:

If the argument is that all history is bunk, then of course it is a self-consistent point of view. But it isn't an argument about whatever statement it is being used to debunk; it applies to *all* ancient history.

Since the renaissance all educated men have thought differently. That makes such a position obscurantism.

In short adopting such a view means that the discussion is not between Christian and non-Christian, but between the educated man (whether Christian or not) and the uneducated non-Christian.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

Roger,

I apologize if you didn't get the tongue and cheek nature of my response. Point being, I have encountered this same comeback (then this applies to all historical figures, etc, etc, etc....) time and time again when dicussing the topic of historicity. This comeback, I guess, is code for the word "uncle".

Roger Pearse

Perhaps there might be something in it.

Sorry -- I don't understand.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

Guess that was obscure....uncle can refer to a childs game...

spamandham

When you condsider we are sampling no more than 1% of the documents the ancient world had to offer, odds are that our conclusions are more bunk than fact.

diana

We are different people, but I might reword your response to say, "By similar arguments, scholars question the historicity of other famous figures and events, as well."

Confucius. The Battle of Troy. King Arthur.

d

diana

I was just reading up on Kirby's nice condensation of arguments for and against the authenticity/reliability of the Tacitus passage, and I have a question about this comment:

I'm wondering how Goguel supports the conclusion that "Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate."

I understand the arguments for Tacitus consulting a document, as laid out on the referenced page, although I think they are far from conclusive. Tacitus clearly wasn't so meticulous if he screwed up the procurator/prefect designation (he mentions prefects several times elsewhere in the annals, demonstrating his awareness of the office), and the side mention of who the Christians claimed to be and follow was not the point of the passage in question, which would be valid reason to simply repeat what Christians said about their own beliefs in this instance. What was important was the demonstration of Nero's cruelty (and Tacitus strongly implies in that passage that Nero burned Rome, doesn't he? Wouldn't this be another instance of a certain degree of unreliability/repeating hearsay?)

What I'm particularly curious about is the assertion that the document Tacitus presumably referenced was neither Jewish nor Christian.

d

aa5874

Roger, do you have anything else to support the historicity of Jesus? Or is it just a case where ancient history is mostly bunk and therefore the historicity of all ancient figures will never be determined, even Apollo or Alexander the Great?

torquemada

The right question is not, was there a Jesus? but what was Jesus? He was clearly not a divine being, he did not die for your sins, etc. He was part of a messianic movement expecting God to save Israel from Rome. God didn't do anything and Jesus was killed as a potential rebel and as someone proclaimed king of Israel by the crowds.

Is there something about this you don't get?

Minimalist

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why the christian-types always trot out the rather tortured reference in Suetonius' Life of Claudius (Chrestus, and all) and avoid the far more clear reference in his Life of Nero?

* Suetonius Life of Nero


Could it be that the implication of "mischievous" undercuts the notion in Tacitus that this was a gang of arsonists? Suetonius mentions nothing about their punishment having anything to do with the fire.

Or....perhaps Tacitus was interpolated by some scribe who never knew of Suetonius?