neilgodfrey

Truly amazing, is it not, how "one of the finest scholars" could have overlooked what to you is such a simple and obvious point? When I see such a facile disagreement with one whose "credentials are indisputable" and whose "work will be immortal" my instinct is to turn to the works of the latter and read his discussion about the area of your disagreement. If you wish to persuade me you will have to demonstrate that you truly understand the point made and discussed by the scholar with "indisputable credentials" and then explain the flaws in his argument. Simply pulling out a passage from Tacitus and claiming he overlooked it doesn't cut it.

This is the sort of sly shifting word game that is really a form of dishonesty. You were asking me if I believed Tacitus "falsified history", and when I belatedly addressed the lack of understanding behind that question you shift your ground to "intentionally falsifying history". That's simply being naughty.

Neil Godfrey

FathomFFI

And what do you think the intelligent readers here think you actually said? Do you you think you can express your meaning in one simple sentence?

Dude, you haven't said a god damn thing. Period.

BUT ... does your argument disqualify my statements? How the hell does your argument actually address what I said?

Your argument missed the point so much that your argument is non sequitur.

neilgodfrey

This is simply skirting the question. I pointed out the limits of Tacitus's ability to tell the truth and nothing but the truth etc, and supported it with the comments by Michael Grant. That is not in question, and nor is the comparative strength of Tacitus as a historian.

It does not follow that everything we read in Tacitus was supported by impeccable documentary sources. Quite apart from the serious problem that the detail about Nero's persecution of Christians is absent from Suetonius et al., we have no idea who most of the historians were that he relied on. Tacitus tells us things that he says happened "in secret", including discreet sexual liaisons, private room plottings, games of anonymity and disguise, and so forth, that by their very nature can not have had any authoritative documentary verifiable sources -- that by their very nature had to have been sourced in rumours and suspicions. Presumably Tacitus got some of this info from other historians, but that does not make the data any the more reliable as "historical fact".

One can read a few lines in an author where he says he is honest and always checks everything he can, and then proceed to believe everything he has written because we see that he does seem to say a lot that seems pretty right. That's a bit like saying we will believe everything we hear or read on tv or in the papers because most of it seems pretty accurate.

We are still allowed to use our common sense, and that will sometimes be enough to alert us to when we might be reading bs in a newspaper. Ditto when we read something about a sect this aristocrat despised as not really worthy even of existence. What sources are most likely to have been closest to hand? Common hearsay or the imperial archives about a single execution about 70 years ago? And what would such an aristocrat have been happy to rely on for his brief throwaway line in this particular episode he was narrating for the pursposes of further attacking Nero?

It defies plausibility that such a person would go to state archives to dig out details of a single crucifixion 70 plus years old (if such existed!) just to drop in a single detail about a sect he hated, when his real interest was in using the story to throw more dirt at Nero. It is extremely plausible that he would have relied on common hearsay about the many runours circulating about this sect. How often do we hear a highly reputable news source today slip in a common assumption or widespread hearsay comment about a widely disliked movement or group even though most of their other info might well come from impeccable sources. Even the best will slip up or drop in an assumption etc from time to time amidst all their protestations and reputation for "factuality" and "honesty". To toss out plausibility and common sense and what we know of historical sources of ancient historians is not a reasonable way to analyze or study any text.

To take at face value an author's claims to being reliable, and then hold and stretch those claims to unreasonable and implausible extents, is really just another form of proof-texting. Only it is extending proof-texting beyond the bible and to whatever secular source can be found to support the bible.


Neil Godfrey

patcleaver

The historical Jesus v Mythical Jesus debate is irrelevant to the value of the philosophy of Jesus. The philosophy of Jesus is whatever the character in the gospels said whether he is mythical or historical. If Mark, Luke, Matthew and John made up the philosophy of Jesus that has nothing to do with its value as philosophy.

Most historians think that Plato made up whatever he claims that Socrates said, but that has nothing to do with the philosophical value of what Socrates said as a character in Plato's book.

Even if Jesus was historical, it is very unlikely that any of the sayings of Jesus were actually said by the historical Jesus, because it was the practice at the time for historians to just invent the sayings of historical persons. That is one explanation for why, when Luke and Matthew copied the words of Jesus from Mark, they felt so free to change them, at times to improve their grammar and at other times just to please their own personal tastes.

Also if Jesus is not historical, then its a lot easier to justify keeping the good stuff and throwing out the crap such as the following:

In Mark:

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10

If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38

Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

In Luke:

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

In Matthew:

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

In John:

As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66

FathomFFI

And I suppose you expect me to refute your "argument of many questions" as being valid?

Get serious.

neilgodfrey

Way back you said my argument was agreeing with yours. When I was actually summing up your argument in order to expose its logical flaws, you jumped on my summary and laughed that I had just agreed with you! (#79).

It seems you find it difficult to read an argument that extends beyond the "one simple sentence" you demand.

The depths of your arguments are way too subterranean for me, Fathom.

patcleaver

I did not ask you any questions. I just wanted you to think for a change.

Why would an agnostic think that he should refute it when I list reasons that Jesus was a jerk?

The Jesus of the NT is not an enlightened philosopher, he is an insane, lying savage. If you subtract all the prior saying of previous Jewish Philosophers, Greek stoic philosophers, and Hinduism/Buddhism, all you have left is the deluded raving megalomaniac.

neilgodfrey

I should add, Fathom, that if you took the trouble to follow the stream of posts as they come to you, and read the latest post by X in relation to what X previously posted, including following X's train of correspondence with you from step one, that you might discover that X has said one hellovalot, and that you have simply resorted to responding to X's latest rebuttals of your response, in isolation from previous posts, as if that was all they ever had to say from step one. You seem only tp read or take note of the last post that appears here -- and in the process modify the terms of the initial debate, thus making it a waste of time to even attempt a serious coherent discussion.

P.S.
Having taken the time to check out the website you represent, FFI, can I suggest that you:

2. make it a little bit more "academic" in appearance (since it deplores comments that it says fall short of "academic conduct") by tidying up the three or four grammatical and spelling howlers (typos?) on its homepage to give readers confidence in the educational level of its authors;
3. identify the learned correspondents behind it (do you know of any academic standard that allows for articles to be published anonymously?)
4. and enable readers to really contact someone associated with it,
5. and allow for those authors attacked on it a right of reply.
6. Even better, will you assign a peer review panel for it, with the names and academic credentials of said panel publicized for all to see?

andersbranderud

Gentile Roman Hellenist idolaters knew nothing about תורה (Torah). They didn't even distinguish the Netzarim from other "Jews." To them, the Netzarim were simply Jews, not Christians. It was Christians who, even though they were Hellenists, because they were anti-Caesar, whom Tacitus recounts that Romans in Rome persecuted as the seditious subversives. Jews, on the other hand, were persecuted for practicing Judaism. The two persecutions were dissimilar and usually unrelated.

Since Tacitus was a Gentile Roman Hellenist idolater who knew nothing about תורה (Torah), that's like trying to understand the life of sheep through the eyes of a lion.

Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua - Mashiakh (Messias) - in Orthodox Judaism
www.netzarim.co.il

mens_sana

And then you go on to cite a number of Jesus sayings with the conclusion that Jesus was a "jerk." Doesn't the circularity of this strike you?

By the way, I think historical practice of time was to invent sayings "for the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said." (Thucydides, History, 1.20.1). If you had decent documentation in front of you, you used it — if you were lacking such, then Thucydides' practice (rephrased again by Lucian of Samosata [for a 500-year tradition]) came into play. If you "invented" despite the documentation, then "history" became propaganda – or encomium.