Vorkosigan

Yes, everyone knows that Christians are robots incapable of creative and sympathetic thought. That is why there are no forged documents associated with early Christianity, no evolution of doctrine throughout the existing texts, no denials of the positions of others, no heretical positions, and no criticism of others' beliefs. It was simply impossible for Christians to imagine themselves or other Christians from the point of view of others.

*sigh*

Vorkosigan

mountainman

Although there are claims that the manuscript containing this reference is from the 11th century, according to Arthur Drews:

Drews on Tacitus


Hence my reference to the 15th century.

The manuscript attesting the Pliny references are of the same ilk.
They appear in the 15th century. But let us return to Tacitus ...



This is apparently a scribal activity on the so-called 11th century manuscript. The section in which Tacitus mentions "CHRESTIANS" was apparently left unnoticed by all and sundry until the late 15th century. This needs an explanation.

We can no longer accept uncritically these manuscripts as positive evidence from antiquity for certain CLAIMS, as has been the case for many centuries. The question as to whether what negative evidence is to be associated with these claims has not yet been satisfactorily answered.

mountainman

And the moral to this story is that it pays to remember that virtually all Christians, at least all the important ones, were heresiologists.

I suggest that all readers add this word to their dictionary, since it is a fundamental concept in the study of early christian origins.

mountainman

Grant is a two edged sword smeat75. The central and only source of so-called Christian history is Eusebius. Unlike the "Biblical Historians", Grant presents liberal doses of negative evidence against Eusebius. For example in his Early Alexandrian Christianity:

tanya

Hi Tom, thanks for a stimulating and informative post. I must disagree with your choice of words here:
... a "Mythical Rambo" position? NOPE. Rambo was a legendary, not a mythical fictional character.

That distinction lies at the heart of this thread's theme:
mythicism ALWAYS implies supernatural attributes.

Absent supernatural ability, the account is Legendary, not mythical.

The two words are not synonyms.

Two points:
1. No, not from "whole cloth". The Greek fairy tale about Hercules, a human born of human female inseminated by a god, Zeus, serves as template for the Jesus story, as shown by Mark 1:1 (Byzantine version)
2. mythicism is a category of fiction, characterized by legendary dimensions which embrace supernatural attributes. Absent a claim of supernaturality, the composition can only be described as Legend, not myth.

The Jesus story is a GREEK myth, in the tradition of Hercules, not a Jewish story, written in Greek.

I doubt this explanation. I have not yet explored Toto's link to Carrier's article, (thanks, I will get to it...), but isn't it more likely that the change was made by an eleventh century scribe?

, Not GREEK???? Evidence that Tacitus wrote in Latin, not Greek?

.
Thank you for reminding us, not only that Tacitus was referring to a sect called Chrestians, where the Greek word has a specific meaning, but also, that evidence of forgery is right in front of us, it is not some kind of wild accusation, based on prejudice. The claim of forgery is based on evidence.

mountainman

Ancient historical evidence that would falsify various theories of the mythical Jesus

A 1st century BCE mythical Jesus theory might be difficult to falsify (See Toledot Yeshu)

A 1st century CE mythical jesus theory might be difficult to falsify, and/or to be distinguished from the mainstream HJ theory.

A 2nd century CE mythical jesus theory would be falsified by unambiguous evidence of the historical existence of a) Jesus, b) the canonical books of the NT, c) the existence of canonical book-following "Christians" (not "Chrestians") in the 1st century.

A 3rd century CE mythical jesus theory would be falsified by unambiguous evidence of the historical existence of a) Jesus, b) the canonical books of the NT, c) the existence of canonical book-following "Christians" (not "Chrestians") in the 1st or 2nd century.

A 4th century CE mythical jesus theory would be falsified by unambiguous evidence of the historical existence of a) Jesus, b) the canonical books of the NT, c) the existence of canonical book-following "Christians" (not "Chrestians") in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd century.


The evidence may be presented in various forms.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

Inter-corroboration of evidence between various fields is highly regarded.

(e.g. it would nice to find a shrine, a figurine or a trinket for Jesus before the 4th century)







The "Evidential Bearing Fields" of Ancient History


Part (1): The "Literature Traditions"

the speakers - authors (particularly "historians") and their estimable historicity.
the words - ancient texts: their literature, its philology, and its translations.
the documents - physical written source - original texts (codexes, papyrii, papyrii fragments)
the historians - comments and analyses of the above by past and present ancient historians.



Part (2): The "Field Traditions"

architecture, buildings, monuments
inscriptions in stone and metal and mosaic - the epigraphic habit
sarcophagi, cadavers, burial relics, funerary ornaments
coins (gold, silver and others)
art, paintings and graffitti
sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, ornamental works
archeological relics and other citations



Part (3): The "Analysis Support Traditions & newer technologies"

paleographic assessment of original texts, papyrii and papyrii fragments
radio carbon dating citations
collective and collaborative databases: epigraphic, numismatic, etc.
multi-spectral imaging

Steve Weiss

How could there be a tomb for Jesus if he ascended bodily into heaven?

Diogenes the Cynic

Is it necessary for a Historical Jesus to have ascended bodily to Heaven?

Juststeve

The historical Jesus didn't ascend bodily into heaven. People don't do that in real life.

Steve

Godfrey

I doubt it too. But I think a more plausible explanation than a later interpolation is that Tacitus wasn't being as rigorous in his chronicling as he sometimes was, based on the fact that it was a minor point to him. He often used memoirs as sources, among other things, so it may have been an issue with his source material. Or he may have been taking the Christian tradition at face value.

In any case, he doesn't pretend to have firsthand knowledge. As far as I am concerned, he merely confirms the existence of Christians.