jules?

ENCOMIUM; meaning- A genre of literature that included five elements: prologue, birth and upbringing, acts of the person's life, comparisons used to praise the subject, and an epilogue, [I had to look that up in wiki!] Like the gospels perhaps?

Is it just me that finds the type of argument offered by mens sana pointless? Personally I got the gist of what patcleaver was pointing out. The clue in the paragraph is the word if 'if Jesus was historical, and if Jesus really did have a philosophy then Jesus was apparently a meglomanic doom merchant'. In fact fathom's statement that despite being a non-believer he valued Jesus' philosophy made me wonder what that philosophy really was. [Does this mean that because I wonder what Jesus' philosophy was then I must believe Jesus was historical? Yes! Damn, caught out again].

I was going to start a thread asking the question of philosophy but patcleaver's post is a good starting point for a discussion on what JC's philosophy is about. any chance of presenting the same post as a new thread patcleaver?

BTW any HJers out there wanting to list the facts concerning Tacitus' statement.

I know hard facts are wanting but ancient history facts will do.

patcleaver

My arguments were inconsistent, not circular.

First, I claim that if Jesus existed, he probably did not say anything that he is reported to have said in the gospels.

Second, I claim that if Jesus really said those things (or even Jesus said them as a mythical or fictional character), then Jesus was not a great philosopher, but just an ignorant insane lying savage.

Third, I claim that if you subtract out the sayings of Jesus that were previously said by other philosophers and authors, or that we have some reason for believing that he did not say (see Jesus seminar) then whatever may be original is not great philosophic insights, but just the deluded ravings of a weird and wacky megalomaniac.

I also claim that there is nothing wrong with someone making inconsistent negative claims. I even claim that there is nothing wrong with someone making inconsistent positive claims as long as they are being proposed as hypothetical alternatives. For example, in response to the trilemma that Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or magical zombie, it not unreasonable to respond with inconsistent arguments that show that Jesus was insane, evil, ignorant, a liar, mythical or otherwise fictional or anything else inconsistent with him being a magical zombie.

FathomFFI

Look, Neil, if you want to cast doubt then why stop at at Tacitus? Why not just doubt every last piece of the historical documents? Why not doubt Hitler and his murdering of the Jews? Why not doubt Nixon had anything to do with Watergate?

Should we doubt as you do, Neil? Should we start "reading into" ancient texts and extract an uncommon and unlikely comprehension as you extract?

So who cares about what is absent according to Suetonius? The fact is we have much of Suetonius' statements being echoed from Tacitus, and since we know for a certainty that he used more than Suetonius, then we know his recitation of history extends far beyond your objections.

In other words, Tacitus himself proves conclusively that he used more historical records than that of Suetonius.


The point is, he's sourcing previous historical records and the imperial archives.

The point is, he's sourcing previous historical records and the imperial archives.

Since he tells us himself that's read numerous accounts of the circumstances regarding Nero and the great fires of Rome, then what should we be thinking?

We have Tacitus echoing Suetonius claim of Nero being blamed, but we know the blaming of the Christians was not in Suetonius' account, therefore we know from Tacitus' own words that he must have sourced it from another historical record. He's combining the resources of the authors who have given both accounts. We know for an absolute certainty that Tacitus sourced his information regarding the Great Fire of Rome from previous historical records.

Therefore, we have the smoking gun in Tacitus' hands.

Amaleq13

Argument from Adverse Consequences and a fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

FathomFFI

The argument is indeed old. The underlying point about doubting history is that the Jesus mythers would not doubt the text if it had said nothing about Christ. Since they would not doubt the history of Hitler or Nixon, then why doubt the history of Christ?

If the Christus entry wasn't there, they would accept all the other arguments that Tacitus sourced his information on the Great Fires of Rome from historical Roman records, since Tacitus himself tells you this precisely right at the very beginning of his story of the Great Fire of Rome.

spamandham

We know Tacitus drew from multiple sources by his own admission, but he never claims he drew exclusively from imperial archives and previous Roman historians.

Further, we know he drew from the epistolarium as well as from exitus illustrium virorum - not official historical records by any means.

So there is no support whatsoever for the idea that the passage in question was derived from imperial archives or prior historical records.

We do not even know whether the Romans were keeping track of everyone rounded up for summary trials/executions, in spite of Justin's supposition (First Apology 35) that the Acts of Pilate contained such a thing in regards to Jesus.

Further, Ignatius (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 9
), writing around the same time as Tacitus, goes out of his way to exclaim that the execution under Pilate was historical. There would be no need for that unless it had been called into question. To me, this makes it doubtful that the passage about Christus is even genuine - unless it's interpreted as patcleaver has interpreted it. It's difficult to believe Tacitus would have recorded as fact, something that was clearly challenged as being historical, without also mentioning the controversy.

FathomFFI

But we know he did draw from previous Roman historians because he demonstrates knowledge that Nero was being blamed for the Great Fire of Rome, and we see the Roman history of this accusation directly in Suetonius' historical account, and he tells us himself that he's read the previous accounts of other writers.

The evidence is conclusive that he used historical Roman records for his writing about the Great Fires of Rome, and therefore since his writing about the Great Fire of Rome includes the paragraph concerning Christus, as well as the information regarding the Christians, we have solid evidence directly linking his sources to historical Roman records.

Arguments have been provided by many people here on this thread, but at the end of the day the argument which provided the best evidence will be the one that wins the debate.

We at Team FFI have provided the best argument, since we have supplied direct textual evidence of Tacitus sourcing his information on the Great Fires of Rome from historical Roman records. Since his writing of the Great Fires of Rome has been sourced from historical Roman records, and within that writing we find him writing of Christus and the Christians, we conclude this debate and let the rational minds determine who has proven their case.

The rest of you can continue to throw up possibilities after possibilities, and speculation after speculation, but until you provide actual evidence to support those possibilities and speculations, then you have no solid argument.

We do.

Regards.

aa5874

As you conclude your arguments, you should always remember that Eusebius preferred the forgeries or errors found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.91 to your explanation that Christus means Jesus of the NT. In fact, no early Church writer used Annals Christus to mean Jesus of the NT.

You have not shown that Christus MUST be Jesus of the NT.

And finally the Latin word "CHRISTUS" can be translated to English in two fundamental ways.

• Christus=Christus [someone's actual name]

• Christus= The Christ or A Christ .[ a title]

It is either that Christus was the real name of the person or his real name was omitted and only his title [CHRIST] was written in Annals 15.44.

GakuseiDon

I think you have presented good circumstantial evidence towards your position, but perhaps you are overstating the ability to draw firm conclusions from that. I think people here are reacting more to that, than disputing the evidence itself. The RRS's downfall is their arrogance -- it would be a shame to see Team FFI go the same way.

aa5874

Team FFI were just guessing. And they, in effect, had no downfall.

They never really got off the ground.