GakuseiDon

No. I should have said, "Why did Christians claim it? Because they didn't believe it?"

My point is that Tacitus is actually evidence in support of a HJ existing in the time of Pilate. Ahistoricists need to explain why that piece of datum exists (e.g. forgery) -- they can't just say that it isn't evidence. Some will say "Oh it's just hearsay", as though that itself removes the problem.

Toto

It is second hand, hearsay evidence, which we know can be unreliable. Tacitus is evidence that later Christians said that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, which is weak evidence at best that he was.

show_no_mercy

It is just hearsay. I don't see how this evidences the existence of Jesus. It's only evidence for the beliefs about Jesus. Belief that someone exists and the actual existence of that person share no necessary relationship.

aa5874

The reference to "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals 15.44 does not confirm that there was a character called Jesus or that "Christus" was Jesus of the NT.

It must be noted that even if Jesus of the NT did exist, others were ALREADY using his NAME.

Mark 9:38 - It is NOT really known who was Christus based on Tacitus' Annals 15.44, and if the so-called Christians were not followers of another who used the name Christus.

Solo

Now, that's where you are not credible: it could be hearsay, and it could be incorrect beliefs about Jesus, but the possibility does not immediately become a historical fact of non-existence merely because you wish it.

So, even if I conceded FSOA that Tacitus' source was Christian or informed by Christians, logically you still need to explain how a belief in a divine nature of Jesus would have arisen, given the degrading connotations of, a) crucifixion itself and, b) crucifixion by a relatively recent minor Roman prefect. Why would Christians, if they wanted to invent a universal, mythical Soter want to go to the trouble of insisting on his humiliation vis-a-vis earthly authorities, knowing that they this would cause only derision among the gentiles, and anger the Jews, their main proselytic rivals ? Any ideas ?

Jiri

show_no_mercy

I don't see where I asserted that it was a historical fact of non-existence. I stated two facts: 1. It's hearsay and 2. there's no necessary correlation between beliefs and historicity.

Solo

These are not facts. You assume without evidence it is hearsay and you assume without evidence the hearsay is a belief. And I note that you have no response to the question I put to you.

Jiri

Toto

Tacitus gives no indication that he had firsthand knowledge of Jesus being crucified under Pilate, which makes this hearsay at best (there is a decent argument for interpolation in the archives.)

DCHindley

Let's not confuse definitions of myth.

If you are talking about second level meaning (signs) built from simpler literal meanings (the signifier and the signified), then you are talking myth as described by Roland Barthes. Christian theology and literature are filled with these. That doesn't necessarily mean that either the signifier or the signified are made up things. As Barthes says, "in myth, the first two terms are perfectly manifest ... However paradoxical it may seem, myth hides nothing: its function is to distort, not to make disappear." (Myth Today) What can be distorted, can to some extent be undistorted.

If by "myth" you mean folklore intended to explain the common conditions of mankind, then the Christian "myth" does not fit the definition. Freke & Gandy, etc, can find all the parallels they want, but Jesus' death and the loss of his corpse simply do not "explain" common conditions in the life of mankind (cycle of birth-death, injustice, cataclysms, tragedies, war, etc).

However, myth as defined by Barthes does explain how unhidden signals (facts if you want) can be distorted into a second level meaning of salvation.

DCH

ercatli

I thought it would be useful to respond to this comment, in which you make a quite clear and definite claim.

I will mention three classes of sources: NT, non-canonical gospels, and other sources. To respond to your statements based on expert historical analysis, I will show that (a) they belong to antiquity (according to historians, this period covers the period from 8th century BCE to 6th century CE), (b) that they are historical sources (i.e. sources which historians can and do use), and (c) they yield useful information about the historical figure, Jesus.

I will address these points by references to and quotes from established scholars. This is standard practice - in any book or paper on history, the author will refer to other writers who have established certain matters rather than go over the material again. Thus these quotes are both evidence in themselves and a summary of the larger body of evidence that can be found in the references (far too voluminous to report in detail on a forum like this).

1. Biblical sources.
The NT contains at least half a dozen books which can be considered here (the 4 gospels, Acts and Paul's letters). If we chose instead to consider the pre-gospel sources (Mark, Q, M, L, etc), we would have more.

All these sources are first century. Bart Ehrman, in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (2003 and 2007) (or via: amazon.co.uk) says that "most historians" date the gospels to the mid 60s to mid 90s. Every scholar I have read agrees, within a few years. These sources belong in antiquity.

Historians use the sources to construct their historical analysis:

• The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire, in his book "Jesus: an historian's review of the gospels" (1992), explicitly says he used the same methods of historical analysis in reviewing the gospels as he used in his other work (he wrote more than 50 books). His conclusion: "the picture they [the gospels] present is largely authentic .... information about Jesus can be derived from the gospels."
  
• In "From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (2004), L Michael White, director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins and Chair in Classics and Christian Origins at the University of Texas discusses the historical sources of the life of Jesus (p97), and he says "here we must include the gospels". Then in a section titled "The Four Gospels as Historical Sources", he says: "They are without doubt some of the earliest sources we possess regarding the life and death of Jesus."
  
• In "The Quest for the Real Jesus", a chapter in "The Cambridge Companion to Jesus", F Watson, Professor of Exegesis, University of Aberdeen, discusses how the NT is composed of both history and commentary based on the faith of the early believers. Nevertheless, he says this is "without detriment to the historical actuality." In "Quests for the Historical Jesus" in the same book, JP Paget from the University of Cambridge describes "a growing conviction amongst many scholars that the gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought."

Please note that these scholars are not saying that the gospels are without error, and they indicate that much of the material in the gospels is the result of christians reflecting on their faith. They are also aware that textual scholars such as Bart Ehrman have identified a number of variant readings which call some passages into question. But they nevertheless indicate quite clearly that they see the NT gospels as historical sources. F Watson and LM White (in the above references) go into some useful detail about the influence of faith on the recording of history, and how the gospels contain elements of both. Watson says: "Modern historical study tends to understand ancient historiographical texts as 'sources', disregarding their ideological biases and other 'unhistorical' elements and using the residue as raw material for independent historical reconstruction (which will naturally display ideological biases of its own)."

And so the majority of experts conclude from the evidence that we can indeed know significant details of Jesus' life to be historical - I have already provided a sample of these on the Was Jesus A Cynic Philosopher, Apocalyptic Preacher, Or Marginal Jew? thread (post #3).

One reason why scholars can conclude this, despite the textual variations and other difficulties, is that there are so many more texts (copies) of the NT than historians normally have.

• New testament scholar, the late John A.T. Robinson (formerly of Cambridge University) concluded in "Can We Trust the New Testament?" (1977): "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world."
  
• Helmut Koester, Professor of New Testament Studies and Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School in "History and Literature of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (2000): "Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors."

2. Non-canonical gospels
Some scholars believe some of the non-canonical gospels (notably Thomas) are early. I will not argue this, but if it were true, these would add to the early historical sources we have of the life and teachings of Jesus. L Michael White ("The Gospel Truth") says study of these documents, even the later ones, can be "enlightening for deeper understanding of the traditional gospels".

3. Other sources
Everyone knows the main sources here - Tacitus, Josephus and a few others. While these (especially the latter) have been the subject of much discussion, the following can be said:

• Tacitus' well-known reference is to "Christus" who was executed by Pilate. LM White (from the above book, p96) concludes: "there is hardly any reason to think Tacitus has somehow doctored the facts. Although Tacitus confirms the basic facts regarding Jesus' death under Pilate, he tells us little more and Jesus remains an enigma." Most scholars I have read hold a similar view.
• The reference to Jesus in Josephus (the Testimonium Flavianum) is much more problematic. Everyone agrees there has been interpolation, with opinion divided about the authenticity of the rest. However the second reference to James "the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ" is generally considered to be genuine. LM White concludes that the genuineness of the latter passage tends to support the genuineness of the disputed sections of the former (p98).
• Thus White is able to say: "That Jesus was a real figure of first-century Judean history is no longer much questioned, as it once was. Later sources from opposing camps - Romans, Jews and Christians - show that all sides acknowledged both his life and his death." (p95).
• Other scholars agree, e.g. C Tucket, Professor of NT Studies at Oxford University, commenting on Tacitus and Josephus (in "The cambridge Companion to Jesus", mentioned above) concludes: "All this does at least render highly implausible any far-fetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontiius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support him seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing more, the non-christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score."

So we can see that the conclusion of a broad range of scholars, arguing on historical grounds alone, come to conclusions quite contrary to your statements. This doesn't deny that there are difficulties, disagreements and unsolved problems. But the confident, unqualified statements that you have made must at least be qualified (if you provide evidence to support that) or else be shown to be contrary to the evidence (if you do not supply evidence to support them).

I invite you now to present your evidence. Thanks.