Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 03-29-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

p97 "Tactitus is most useful of all, for his reference shows that high-ranking Roman officials of the early second century knew that Jesus had lived and had been executed by the governor of Judea"

How come this isn't the more accurate, "shows that high-ranking Roman officials reported what they had been told about this Jesus the Christians believed in"?

Because this is merely a game with words. Do we reference EVERY statement by EVERY ancient author with "reported what they had been told"? Because every ancient writer reports what he has been told or what he has seen, and we have no means to know which is the case.

We certainly don't know what you suggest here, so it isn't "more accurate".

That Tacitus knew what he wrote is evident because he wrote it. Whether what he knew was correct is a separate issue. There is not the slightest evidence on his sources for this.

Be sceptical of trickery like this. I know you didn't invent it; but it's essentially just a way to ignore inconvenient evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

......That Tacitus knew what he wrote is evident because he wrote it. Whether what he knew was correct is a separate issue....

Your response is most laughable.

You very well know that the authenticity of Annals 15.44 has been questioned so it is really illogical to assume authenticity WITHOUT corroboration !!!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Quote:

The authenticity of the Annals has been challenged several times since 1775, by Voltaire, Linguet, John Wilson Ross, P. Hochart, Leo Wiener, Eugène Bacha and T. S. Jerome.[30]
Early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo do not refer to Tacitus when discussing the subject of the Christian persecution by Nero.[31][32] Furthermore writer, Suetonius, mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire......

It is just unreasonable for Ehrman to use Questionable sources as good evidence for HIS Jesus.

denarius · 03-29-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I didn't know where to post these, but I had some questions (and comments) regarding his new book. I have it in epub from the iBooks store, and the page numbers I use refer to it when held upright (not sure if they change when laying sideways). I made liberal use of the notes feature, and made some comments that I'd like some thoughts on.

Quote:

p97 "Tactitus is most useful of all, for his reference shows that high-ranking Roman officials of the early second century knew that Jesus had lived and had been executed by the governor of Judea"

How come this isn't the more accurate, "shows that high-ranking Roman officials reported what they had been told about this Jesus the Christians believed in"? Ehrman even covers the idea (and supports it) that Tacitus didn't do his own research. So how come this becomes evidence for a reality instead of merely being what the Christians believed at the time? What is wrong with taking a skeptical position?

Quote:

pg 126: re: Luke and the other Gospel writers : "These authors were anything but disinterested, and their biases need to be front and center in the critics mind when evaluating what they have to say. But at the same time, they were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard."

I can see how this can be read into saying that they had heard (or believed) in a historical person, but that still says nothing about historical accuracy. Am I missing something? All we can say is that, at the time they were written, this is what the writer believed was true. ?

Quote:

pg 143 "The view that Jesus existed is found in multiple independent sources that must have been circulating throughout various regions of the Roman Empire in the decades before the Gospels that survive are produced. Where would the solitary source that "invented" Jesus be?"

Why "solitary source"? If the myth arose from a cult belief, then was historicized, the origins could have been oral, and they were widespread before being written down. It just seems to me like the creationists of IDiots attitude of "show me the one proof of evolution" (or the crocoduck). This (and some of the other comments he makes) just seems like padding - he's using tricks like this to make his case seem stronger, and his opponents weaker. It's disappointing.

Quote:

pg 173, after discussing Papias "Papias may pass on she legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite specific - and there is no reason to think that he is telling a bald-faced lie - that he know people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting close to that."

This reminds me of the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" trilemmana. According to Ehrman, either Papias was telling the truth, or he was a bald-faced liar (and since we can't believe that, he must be telling the truth). What about "he was mistaken", or "his sources weren't telling the truth, but he believed them anyway", or "he was making it up to reinforce his position but believed it had to be true" (I'm sure there are more). Again, more like debating William Lane Craig than a real scholar, at least to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but this reasoning makes little sense to me.

Quote:

pg 182 "But even in a letter as short as Jude, we find the apostles of Jesus mentioned (verse 17), which presupposes, of course, that Jesus lived and had followers"

...because no one would ever make up such a thing, or call themselves apostles to a mythological being. Who would ever follow the teachings of some god that wasn't physically real? Seriously? This seems to fall into the same "Paul said it, therefore it's true" line somebody quoted (or paraphrased, sorry) in a review or post somewhere. What evidence do we have, other than "this is what they wrote, so we can say this is what they believed (or at least is might seem that way)? What is the jump between "what is written" and "what is true"? I'm missing the connection.

Quote:

pg 202 "In sum, according to this unknown author {ed - in the Letter to the Hebrews, to clarify}, based on oral traditions that he had heard, Jesus was a real man who lived in the past..."

Again, the step from what they may have heard (or made up) to what is real seems to be missing. Am I just too skeptical of unsourced documents written by unknown authors?

Quote:

pg 219, on Paul and divorce "He thought the practice was not good, and he did not want to permit it. {paragraph ends, ed} At the same time, whether of not Jesus really gave the teaching is not directly relevant to the question we are asking here, so Well's objections is immaterial. Mark thought Jesus said some such thing, so Paul stays close to what Jesus is alleged to have said. Moreover, Paul indicates that his source for this teaching is not his own wisdom and insight into familial concord, but the Lord himself."

It's not really relevant, but let's bring it up because...? But it does show that Mark thought Jesus said something, so Paul used that .... and I'm still missing the step as to why we need to think that such really is based on reality. All this seems like is an argument from believing the author simply because. So, it couldn't be possible that Paul was lying? Or that he believed that his own words were coming from his god (as if that never happens!)? Or that he was repeating whatever teachings were coming from his cult/mystery religion/whatever? I've been reading this off and on for several days and still can't see where he gets this from.

Damn, this is long, and I have a lot more notes. Unfortunately, they all seem to be similar. Ehrman makes a lot of arguments that lack (to me) basic skeptical thinking. He's got his position staked out (for years) and doesn't seem to consider anything that might shake it. A couple more:

Quote:

p221 "In both these instances - as with the sayings Paul quotes from the Last Supper traditions - we have close parallels between what Paul says Jesus said (in a quotation or paraphrase) and what Jesus is recorded elsewhere as having actually said. This makes it clear to mose interpreters of Paul that he really does intend here to quote the teachings of Jesus."

Appealing to later documents that might have copied from Paul as meaning these are direct quotations? Why not illustrate that later writers (or Paul himself) were using a preexisting tradition - from any source, mythical or historical? Was such thing common among pagans (stoics, cynics, mystery religions, etc, etc)? I've heard of other celebratory meal traditions but haven't gone into the original sources of those, so I can't say. Again, am I odd in seeing this?

Quote:

pg 223 - "At the end of the day I think it is impossible to decide between these two options. Jesus no doubt said lots of things - hundreds of things, thousands of things - that are not recorded in the early Gospels. Later, many, many other things were attributed to Jesus that he probably did not say (for example, many of their sayings in the Gospel of Thomas or later Gospels)."

But he has no problem deciding which ones are real sayings and which aren't. What criteria is he using, besides his pet hypothesis? The book is loaded with these, and I'm only about halfway through. I did have one last question, though.

Quote:

pg 273. "As a zealous Jew persecuting Christians, Paul himself says that he was intent on "destroying" the "Church of God" (Galatians 1:13)"

I've heard arguments regarding the possibility of a Jew in Roman Palestine going around committing murder. Would the Romans have allowed this to happen? Do we have any evidence that they would have considered this a local matter and ignored it - especially if there was a history of trouble in the region? Or was the situation bad enough that some zealot could go around killing other Jews and get away with it? Granted, given communication problems I am sure it was easier than it would be today, but since it can still happen...but with official sanction? Of course we are still going with the assumption that what he is saying is true - he was apparently writing to people far way from the events, and the "persecutor-turned-believer" story seems to be quite popular from other religions/cultures (and other beliefs - from politics to medicine to consumerism). I've been out of the discussions for a few years, but do we have any sources? I'll try to do a search of the boards here soon, but if anybody has any scholars or books easily on hand, I'd appreciate it.

Again, apologies for the length and maybe duplication. I didn't know where to post these without derailing another post. Maybe we need one large "Ehrman commentary" thread?

Ehrman answers many of your questions later in the book. You should read the whole book.

I don't agree with many of Ehrman's arguments. We know from the TF that Christian scribes were inserting bogus information into historical texts, so I think that we can safely dismiss any arguments stemming from Tacitus, Josephus or Seutonius as unreliable. Ehrman accepts those passages as authentic but his main points do not rely on them.

GakuseiDon · 03-29-2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I've never understood that point "it's just hearsay". If Tacitus had said something to the effect that Jesus Christ never existed, mythicists would (rightly) be falling over themselves to point that out.

But if a historicist responded "Oh, that's just what the Christians believed at that time", would that be taking a skeptical position? No, I don't think so.

Some maybe, but my point would still stand. Whatever he thought, all we could say is that it was evidence of what he believed, or what he had heard - we could use it to say that some beliefs were around at the time it was written. But that's all. For anyone to go beyond that seems to me to be really stretching it too far.

It depends on what the evidence is used for. Unfortunately too often the view of some is that "we don't know for sure, therefore we don't know at all." But in this case, assuming Tacitus wrote the passage in question, it is data that needs to be incorporated into any theory of Christian origins.

judge · 03-29-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

That's not exactly what I was getting at, but that is true. We can state that this is what he (Tacitus) believed was true, but we can't use his believing as a statement of what was true. To me that goes beyond the evidnce. Maybe that is hyperskeptical, but to me that's simply being honest. All we can say is that Tacitus thought "this". Whether what he believed was true or not requires outside confirmation.

Thats true but if we apply that to all ancient sources then what wil be left?

judge · 03-29-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

...It is still a document from the period so it counts as a primary source, and it's difficult to find ancient primary source documents where some doubt can't be cast.
But why would Tacitus report that this was "what christians believed". There doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be sceptical to the point that he would cast doubt on that story more than any other story.

Please, you very well know that we do NOT have an ORIGINAL copy of Tacitus Annals.

You might not but I do have one, I'm advertising it on Ebay at the moment. Perhaps you'd care to bid, but if you don't have at least 5 positive reviews I reserve the right to reject your bid.

ApostateAbe · 03-29-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, you very well know that we do NOT have an ORIGINAL copy of Tacitus Annals.

You might not but I do have one, I'm advertising it on Ebay at the moment. Perhaps you'd care to bid, but if you don't have at least 5 positive reviews I reserve the right to reject your bid.

I don't think aa5874 would be willing to bid, unless of course all the Latin letters are capitalized.

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

...It is still a document from the period so it counts as a primary source, and it's difficult to find ancient primary source documents where some doubt can't be cast.
But why would Tacitus report that this was "what christians believed". There doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be sceptical to the point that he would cast doubt on that story more than any other story.

Please, you very well know that we do NOT have an ORIGINAL copy of Tacitus Annals.

You might not but I do have one, I'm advertising it on Ebay at the moment. Perhaps you'd care to bid, but if you don't have at least 5 positive reviews I reserve the right to reject your bid.

Please, I have ZERO use for opinion without evidence. I don't post for reviews or book sales. I present EVIDENCE FROM ANTIQUITY.

Ratzinger and Ehrman believe the Bible contains the history of their Jesus and use forgeries as evidence to support his existence.

Now, if your copy is original please SHOW ME the "E"!!!

Your "original" doesn't have the "E"???

What are you doing on E-bay without the "E" in Annals 15.44???

Adam · 03-29-2012, 10:41 PM

aa has a sense of humor? Who knew?

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

aa has a sense of humor? Who knew?

You guys take the Jesus stories too seriously.

If I wrote a book and claimed the main character was the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator that walked on sea water every body would laugh.

It would have been a big joke.

How come I am laughing at the Jesus story and you aren't???

Please, get a sense of humor. Laugh your heart out. A man will be coming in a cloud and YOU are going to see him

[Luke 21:27 KJV

Quote:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

:rolling::rolling:

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

03-29-2012, 10:41 PM	#19
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	aa has a sense of humor? Who knew?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.