the_cave

You mean, the references I gave in #140?
Your response to this was to ignore it.

As for my assumptions, what assumptions?

Splendid, then stop attributing my disagreement with you to apologetics. I assure you it's not the case.

You're just not very generous, are you, spin?

*I* didn't propose that he held both positions--that was someone else. I simply said it was an intriguing idea. From this, you somehow infer that I'm a member of the James Patrick Holding Junior League.

Ok, sounds plausible.

You're only saying that because you think you're right. But not everyone else agrees, spin, and it's not merely due to apologetic reasons. Surely you must be at least dimly aware of this fact.

I'm well aware of the argument. I'm suggesting it's not an open-and-shut case.

I don't need your condescension. But if you were making a stab at a compliment, I'll accept it gracefully.

spin

Yup, would have saved us both the time with that indication...

... I could have just cited my previous response as well. Why are you talking about Josephus, whose first language as he claims was Hebrew, probably knew some Aramaic (which he may have used in his first effort at B.J.) who struggled at writing a full book in Greek and you for some reason expect his knowledge of Greek and Latin to be somehow relevant to Tacitus. In short, "scratch Josephus".

You might start with the "presumably" this and the "presumably" that...

Great umm lack of connection. People disagree on different grounds.

There's some Scottish blood somewhere.

That's interesting.

Sorry, I missed the fact.

Very few ever are. And I tend to call the more borderline of cases at least to me undecided and even undecidable. Some people here have difficulties with my agnosticism.

Go more with the condescension... ending your previous post big with two italicized ifs.

the_cave

Are you contesting my assumptions that:

1) Claudius wrote his letter in Latin
2) If it were in Latin, he would have used the term "procurator"
3) epitropos and procurator would have meant the same thing to Tacitus?

If you are, great! Let us know about it. That's why I use terms like "presumably"--I'm inviting others (such as yourself) to contradict those assumptions. Seriously, go for it--what's stopping you?

And yet...none of it would make a difference. Josephus would still be using epitropos and eparchon more or less interchangeably, and even you agree that epitropos and procurator were equivalent in Tacitus' day--suggesting to us both that the passage is probably not Tacitean, and is more likely related to Josephus somehow.

In other words, I have no idea what you actually have against my assumptions here.

If what you mean by "scratch Josephus" is "When it comes to official Roman titles, Josephus has no idea what he's talking about," hey, fine--why didn't you just say so?

How true. Then whence the derision?

That would explain much

Thanks for the friendly clarification, but in that case, you're completely misreading me--I'm simply laying out the logic. I'm not in any way calling into question the likelihood of the premises.

Ok, yet another pointless argument draws to a close...sigh. I suppose we are both to blame.

MechAnimal

I agree with a lot of people here who believe that Tacitus was repeating what he heard from others who heard it from Christians, or from Christians themselves. Josephus probably heard about Jesus..... and he wrote about James the Just, Jesus's "brother", as well.... from multiple sources straight from Judea, since he was involved in the Jewish war in the mid first century. Then there are four gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, if you want to include that one. Then there's Acts, the epistles of Paul and the other epistles of the apostles. I honestly don't even see the need to cite Tacitus as a source that Jesus existed. He did, but whether or not he performed miracles or was resurrected is a point of further contention. That's probably more important than discussing whether or not he existed. What he actually did, miracles and otherwise, is an interesting topic I think because it involves research of Judaism during that time period and some sociology.

aa5874

The words "James the Just" is nowhere in any of the extant writings of Josephus. And the words "the Christ" are all forgeries as written in 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 of Antiquities of the Jews.

DCHindley

Pilate may well have had the authority to do so.

In the ANE in this general period and several centuries before and after, a king who agreed to allow a temple to operate (as the Roman emperors did WRT the Jewish temple), they generally allowed it to function in it's traditional way (rites, operations of temple land, etc) but would leave ultimate control rest in the hands of his local governor. That governor could interfere in the operation of that temple, presumably in its own interest but also the interest of the state or others it governed.

Since running water is essential for continuation of sacrificial rites, as well as for the health and sanitation of the residents of Judea, he could well have interceded to seize temple funds to pay for improvements to the city's water distribution system if he thought fit to do so, and he would have been entirely within his rights.

DCH

MechAnimal

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:...."

Yes, they're all forgeries. So are the section in the Annals of Tacitus and all of Paul's letters, as well as the gospels. Jesus existed, it's a proven fact. The only thing that didn't occur were the miracles and the resurrection. Some people I guess have a problem not being able to reject a historical document simply because there's something in it that takes them out of their comfort zone.

aa5874

This passage you quoted does not have James THE JUST, and if you remove the obvious forgery,["who was called Christ"], the passage would read, "....the brother of Jesus whose name was James, and some others.....". And this "Jesus" may have been the "son of Damneus".

I will continue from where you left off at "Antiquities" 20.9.1 Josephus, after going through the OT in Antiquities, declared that the Messiah was expected by the Jews sometime during the War of 70 CE, which would be after the death of the "James" of 20.9.1 of Antiquities.

Well, if the miracles did not occur, then Jesus did not exist. Jesus was conceived miraculously. Jesus was a miracle.

And if you persist that Jesus still existed, then I declare that the NT is fiction and is false. Jesus was not conceived by a miracle, no miracles occurred, the authors of the NT are liars.

How can the NT be credible when you claimed that the miracles or the resurrection never took place. Now, you tell me what happened since the authors of the NT did not write the truth.

When was Jesus born and who is his father or mother? You know what happened!

Ben C Smith

That is a good question. There appears to be a claim here that he did:

After all, most of the great Latin stylists -- Caesar, Cicero, Tacitus, -- knew and read Greek.

What do you think, spin? What is the evidence either way?

Ben.

Malachi151

I think it would be hard to image that an educated historian at that time wouldn't have read Greek.