Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

In his introduction. He states clearly that everything in his history is from direct sources except where specified, in which case he always specifies when he's using only hearsay. And in fact, he always keeps to that: There are a fair number of cases throughout in which he does specify that such-or-such a detail comes from hearsay. So that's a consistently maintained rule in his chronicle. It's therefore significant that he offers no such caveat in the sequence referencing Pilate's execution of Jesus the human preacher.

Chaucer

But Tactitus does not give a source for this item.

Correct: He's only systematic in giving sources for items that are hearsay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tactitus' use of sources

Quote:

There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition." (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I'm willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term "Mormon" at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:

Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]

There is a decent case to be made for this section as a forgery,

Ah, the ol' tired interpolation hula dance. Was wondering when we'd come to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

but even if it is not, it is hardly confirmation of the existence of Jesus, and it is nothing like the detailed descriptions of Hannibal.

There are plenty of detailed descriptions of Jesus. They simply come from sources -- letters and the like -- that are later than the canon and thus rarely cited in surveys like these. Not all the detailed extant sources on Hannibal come directly from H.'s lifetime either.

BTW, isn't it interesting that the source you cite seems to take Josephus as being authentic?

Chaucer

hjalti · 03-24-2011, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Chaucer, I'm a little bit confused. Are you arguing that people like Tacitus, when hearing stuff like: "And Pilate crucified Jesus Christ, the son of god!", we would expect them to say something like: "During the that time, Pilate crucified Jesus Christ, the son of god.", and not something like: "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Jesus."?

No, we'd expect them to say either "Those christians rave on about Pilate crucifying one Jesus Christ, the son of God" if they were reporting something the Christians told them, or we'd expect them to say "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Jesus" if they already knew of the incident from their own knowledge. They say the latter.

Chaucer

From their own knowledge? Do you mean from sources other than Christians re-telling the story?

And I don't know why we wouldn't expect them to distill out the claim that Jesus was god, or the fact that he got the info from Christians.

Steven Carr · 03-24-2011, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

No, we'd expect them to say either "Those christians rave on about Pilate crucifying one Jesus Christ, the son of God" if they were reporting something the Christians told them, or we'd expect them to say "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Jesus" if they already knew of the incident from their own knowledge. They say the latter.

Chaucer

Really?

You claim that if Tacitus was reporting what Christians said, he would use 'Christ' and if he knew of the incident from his own knowledge he would say 'Jesus'?

Toto · 03-24-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But Tactitus does not give a source for this item.

Correct: He's only systematic in giving sources for items that are hearsay.

I'd like to know your source for this assertion.

Quote:

Ah, the ol' tired interpolation hula dance. Was wondering when we'd come to that.

The possibility of interpolation is always a consideration for a careful historian. All these documents came through Christian scribes. Do you contend that these scribes never added anything to pagan sources?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

but even if it is not, it is hardly confirmation of the existence of Jesus, and it is nothing like the detailed descriptions of Hannibal.

There are plenty of detailed descriptions of Jesus. They simply come from sources -- letters and the like -- that are later than the canon and thus rarely cited in surveys like these. Not all the detailed extant sources on Hannibal come directly from H.'s lifetime either.

Some of the detailed descriptions of Hannibal came from his lifetime. None of the detailed descriptions of Jesus came from the generation that might have known him. And what "letters and the like" do you refer to? The gnostic gospels?

Quote:

BTW, isn't it interesting that the source you cite seems to take Josephus as being authentic?

Chaucer

That source was meant to counter Josh McDowell, so it sticks to the consensus of scholars that a reader of McDowell would be most likely to accept. A few years ago, I asked the primary author, Jeff Lowder, about the Jesus myth hypothesis, and he said that his primary concern was debate. The myth hypothesis is too complicated and too much of a distraction to work into a debate with Christians.

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

No, we'd expect them to say either "Those christians rave on about Pilate crucifying one Jesus Christ, the son of God" if they were reporting something the Christians told them, or we'd expect them to say "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Jesus" if they already knew of the incident from their own knowledge. They say the latter.

Chaucer

From their own knowledge? Do you mean from sources other than Christians re-telling the story?

Yes, including their own direct experience. For instance, Josephus was probably right there at the time when James was lynched.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

And I don't know why we wouldn't expect them to distill out the claim that Jesus was god, or the fact that he got the info from Christians.

Because a Christian would put his being son of God first, so if they were getting it from Christians, they would be impacted first by son of God and second by a metaphorical

in their description as a result. They wouldn't "normalize" it by digging down to the secondary description. What motive is there for that extra trouble? I think Paul gives us a clear indication as to how the Christian would reference Jesus and what gets prioritized. Perish the thought that the Christian might pay attention to the social-justice angle.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

No, we'd expect them to say either "Those christians rave on about Pilate crucifying one Jesus Christ, the son of God" if they were reporting something the Christians told them, or we'd expect them to say "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Jesus" if they already knew of the incident from their own knowledge. They say the latter.

Chaucer

Really?

You claim that if Tacitus was reporting what Christians said, he would use 'Christ' and if he knew of the incident from his own knowledge he would say 'Jesus'?

No -- and a good point. Thank you. In fact, I don't mean to say that, and I should have known better than to adopt someone else's version of the alternative without suspecting a trap. More fool me. No, if they got it from their own knowledge, they would have said "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Christ".

Better.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Correct: He's only systematic in giving sources for items that are hearsay.

I'd like to know your source for this assertion.

Tacitus's own assertion in his intro, plus the number of cases where he does bother to specify "but this is hearsay".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The possibility of interpolation is always a consideration for a careful historian. All these documents came through Christian scribes. Do you contend that these scribes never added anything to pagan sources?

It's never out of the question but it's very unlikely to be the case again and again and again and again and again. One has to consider the source of the suggestion for an interpolation. When mythers fall back on that for Josephus, for Tacitus, for some of the authentic Paulines, and on and on and on, all such suggestions eventually lose all credibility. There are just too many of them and they're too convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Some of the detailed descriptions of Hannibal came from his lifetime. None of the detailed descriptions of Jesus came from the generation that might have known him.

Can you please give a full list of them, indicating the precise date for each one, and the precise date of the earliest ms. for each one, together with a precise readout of all the details in each one, and a precise readout for Hannibal's death and an indication of how close to Hannnibal's death, pre- and post-, each description is? Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And what "letters and the like" do you refer to? The gnostic gospels?

No, I'm referring to things like Clement and later.

Chaucer

Toto · 03-24-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'd like to know your source for this assertion.

Tacitus's own assertion in his intro, plus the number of cases where he does bother to specify "but this is hearsay".

Here is Tacitus online: http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.html

Please quote the words. I don't see any specific discussion of first hand knowledge versus hearsay. There are numerous places where Tacitus inserts "it is said" but no clear indication that every other sentence is based on something more solid.

Quote:

It's never out of the question but it's very unlikely to be the case again and again and again and again and again. One has to consider the source of the suggestion for an interpolation. When mythers fall back on that for Josephus, for Tacitus, for some of the authentic Paulines, and on and on and on, all such suggestions eventually lose all credibility. There are just too many of them and they're too convenient.

Most of the work on interpolations has been done by historicists. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Quote:

Can you please give a full list of them, indicating the precise date for each one, and the precise date of the earliest ms. for each one, together with a precise readout of all the details in each one, and a precise readout for Hannibal's death and an indication of how close to Hannnibal's death, pre- and post-, each description is? Thank you.

Let's not get silly. I've already cited a page at livius.org and there is much more there. Do you dispute it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And what "letters and the like" do you refer to? The gnostic gospels?

No, I'm referring to things like Clement and later.

Chaucer

Which Clement? Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexander?

aa5874 · 03-24-2011, 10:17 AM

No Church writer, for HUNDREDS of years, ever mentioned that Tacitus wrote about a character called "Christus".

The forgery in "Annals" happened sometime AFTER the end of the 4th century.

This is Tacitus "Annals" 15.44

Quote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

This is Sulpitius Severus writing around the end of the 4th century in "Sacred History" 2.29

Quote:

........ And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent.

Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night....

The FORGERY in "Annals" is not found in the writing of Sulpitius Severus after at least 250 years later. Not even Eusebius mentioned the forgery of Annals only the forgeries in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews".

We know that NO extant Church writer used Tacitus "Christus" for HUNDREDS of years.

"Annals" 15.44 with "Christus" is NOT authentic.

Why are we WASTING time with Chaucer?

Steven Carr · 03-24-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Really?

You claim that if Tacitus was reporting what Christians said, he would use 'Christ' and if he knew of the incident from his own knowledge he would say 'Jesus'?

No -- and a good point. Thank you. In fact, I don't mean to say that, and I should have known better than to adopt someone else's version of the alternative without suspecting a trap. More fool me. No, if they got it from their own knowledge, they would have said "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Christ".

Better.

Chaucer

I see.

So one complete turn around later, which simply proves you are making it up as you go along.

I guess,Pilate had written that he had crucified the Messiah....

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.