Chris Weimer

Bait and switch, Toto.

Yes, we can visually observe evolution in action in a laboratory. Likewise, we can read the Gospel of Mark. Those two are evidence for their respective theories - the Theory of Evolution and the Historical Jesus. Evolution is a fact, but the Theory of Evolution - ask any scientist - is not a fact, it's a theory. A theory is a scientific explanantion for a body of related facts. Gravity, for instance, explains the attraction between two masses. It's a theory, but the attraction is fact.

This reminds me of the creationists who say that Satan forged the evidence for Evolution. You can write off anything if you attribute everything to "novelists and forgers", despite there being no evidence for such a charge.

Yes, sort of like how you mythicists treat history.

diana

Hello, Chris.

I don't always know; this is why I return to this subject from time to time, and do a bit more research and rethink my former position. However, I have a hunch the gospels aren't historical, though, because they speak of miracles and, along with that, contradict the archaeological record, etc. Does this mean they contain no correct history? Of course not. But it does make me look askance at them as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

But you ask an interesting question. How do you determine which historical records are accurate and which are not?

Thanks.

That's just the point. Since we can't seem to begin with no assumption in the matter, I'm questioning which a priori assumption we should begin with, and why. Along with that, I question where it gets us to begin with any a priori assumption which we'll more than likely proceed to prove to our own satisfaction.

I think there may have been a historical Jesus figure, but I'm not convinced there was. However, I am convinced there was no Jesus god/man. The rest, for me, is a purely academic exercise. I study it out of an undying fascination with the subject...more or less for the same reason some people collect stamps.

Really? Awesome! Where? Link? Reference? Thanks!

The assertion that we have reason to believe there were times Tacitus didn't check his facts very closely? Out of curiosity, haven't you been through these discussions before? I'm wondering why you'd have me list the reasons to doubt Tacitus' fact-checking. :huh:

He has Pilate listed as a procurator. He knows what prefects are and references them elsewhere in his Annals, but he screwed up on this point. Even with the explanation that he was possibly checking actual records and possibly misinterpreted a possibly abbreviated "PR," the fact remains that he didn't care enough about this detail to make sure he got it right. Those who want the passage to be genuine, based on actual historical fact handwave this problem away and forgive Tacitus' oversight, being thankful that at least he got the Christian part right.

The presumed use of a Roman document and Tacitus' use of the title "Christus" to identify the religion's founder doesn't ring true, either. Why would Jesus be listed as "Christus" in an official document? Doesn't make sense. Why would Tacitus use this name instead of Jesus (Yeshua ben Joseph?)? So that we understand where the name "Christian" comes from, of course. So far, so good.

But where did Tacitus get this particular bit of info--about the presumed title of the person who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius"? Probably from Christians themselves. Or perhaps this is another thing he picked up from "the populace." It simply doesn't make sense that Romans would list their common criminal as anything other than his given name.

Many people argue that Tacitus always said when he was interjecting hearsay and he didn't do so in this case, proving he drew all the information from a reliable record. But he didn't say "The man known as/called Christus" here, even though his reference to the man by his title appears to be hearsay. At some point, he has made the leap--if he has any document from which he's getting his information in the first place--to interlacing hearsay in order to make the whole thing make sense to the casual reader without having to say too much (Tacitus, as you know, was known for his concise style).

So I--no longer being convinced of an HJ--read the same passage, and ask how conclusive such a passing reference can be, considering the difficulties. For me, the simplest and most obvious explanation is that he was focused on providing info about Nero and tossed in some commonly "known" information about the persecuted class.

d

Toto

Chris - are you seriously saying that there is no evidence of forgery in early Christianity? are you seriously saying that all historical documents must be accepted at face value on a par with a laboratory experiment?

Are you completely incapable of imagining that people who do not accept a historical Jesus are sincere and have actually looked at the evidence for themselves? And that most of them are not motivated by hatred of Christianity or Jesus?

jeffevnz

I never said it disproved the MJ position. In fact, I explicitly said that it didn't. So it's a little strawman-ish for you to keep saying that it's not a "death blow" to MJers, or that it won't obtain surrender. The OP asked for evidence, not proof.

I'm trying to get opinions on whether the argument I made is evidence for HJ, and how strong of evidence it is. You did answer my question, which I appreciate, but I was hoping to get some substantive responses to my reasoning, beyond just a "yes" or "no", and I've seen very little of that.

Starting a new thread on it...

Chris Weimer

Hello diana,

Contrary to what you may think, it is good to see you up here.

Other ancient historians, including Tacitus, a man who was consul of Rome and thus had access to the archives, also speaks of miracles.

Instead of looking at them askance, try looking at them critically.

I take all literature at face value unless there's some other reason not to.

It's more than a mere hobby for me. It's my life. I was just telling a friend the other day that I can see myself in no profession other than a professor.

Letter of Pilate to Tiberius.

So one mistake means he cannot be trusted on anything at all? Sorry, but historians make mistakes - especially ancient historians. Tacitus also said some pretty untrue stuff - did Vespasian really cure a blind man? However, unless you have evidence that Tacitus is wrong here, we cannot assume based on one mistake that he is.

Evidence?

Did he really? And if so, what does that say, that at the beginning of the first century CE, Christians readily believed that their savior had died by the hands of Pilate. Mark had only been out a couple of decades, yet Tacitus only offers that explanation.

What does that tell you, diana?

But would Tacitus necessarily have used it?

And I don't think that Tacitus picked it up from the populace - Pliny was unaware of anything Christians believed until he tortured them in Bythinia.

That's a bit of a stretch for you, isn't it?

What's your point?

Moreover, what does any of this have to do with the historical Jesus?

Chris Weimer

No, I didn't say that.

For its respective field, yes. Except I'd switch out "historical" to "ancient". Have fun.

Nope.

But hey, if you want to ignore the bulk of what I said, that's your prerogrative.

Toto

Speaking of forgery -

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0810.htm

Listing this as a source does nothing for your credibility

Toto

But you did compare people who think that Christian history contains forgery to creationists who claim that Satan forged the geological record, did you not? Or did you just juxtapose them for the purpose of confusing the argument?

May I suggest that you think about this a bit more?

Perhaps if you would excise the emotional content of your posts and the false and insulting analogies, I could figure out what you consider your argument to be. As it is, what you appear to be saying is that everyone must uncritically accept all historical documents at face value unless there is a compelling reason not to, and anyone who disagrees with you will have scorn and mockery heaped upon their heads.

Chris Weimer

She didn't ask for anything authentic, she merely asked for manuscripts.

Chris Weimer

No, I didn't. I compared people who explain away all the evidence for an historical Jesus as the product of novelists and forgers to Creationists who explain away all the evidence for the Theory of Evolution as a forgery by Satan.

No, but I wish you would take your own advice. Think about it Toto. Stop using your pathetic feelings and think.

You placed a false word in my mouth. Poor form, Toto. Getting closer and closer to the fundamentalists, are we? Where did I ever say "uncritically"? In fact, in my last post to Diana, I said we should engage them critically!

And yet you continue to wonder why I suspect that you have ulterior motives. You sly dog you.