Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-24-2011, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No they don't. The only thing Tacitus says is "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."

Where does Tacitus give his sources, or indicate that he had a source?

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.

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, 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.

Steven Carr · 03-24-2011, 12:43 AM

Tacitus, of course, never refers to anybody called Jesus.

Suppose he had trudged his way through the destroyed records in Jerusalem or the ashes of the library in Rome that had been burned, and found a scrap of paper saying that somebody called 'Joshua' had been crucified by Pilate. How would that confirm that that Joshua was the same Joshua Christians were talking about?

It would be like saying that somebody called Michael was executed in Texas. It would be too common a name to be checked like that.

But if Christians were claiming that a crucified criminal was the agent through whom God had created the world, why would Tacitus not do what Himmler did and write them off as lunatics, rather than investigate to see if any criminals had been crucified?

And why did the Jews not stone Christians as blasphemers within about 20 seconds of them starting to preach that they should worship crucified criminals?

aa5874 · 03-24-2011, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Tacitus, of course, never refers to anybody called Jesus....

And the mention of the name of a character does NOT eliminate the character from being a MYTH.

And NO Church writer used Annals 15.44 to claim Jesus was human.

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

more interesting things - like history...

And are you aware of the long history behind knee-jerk claims that Jesus wasn't really Jewish?

Chaucer

maryhelena · 03-24-2011, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

more interesting things - like history...

And are you aware of the long history behind knee-jerk claims that Jesus wasn't really Jewish?

Chaucer

And what has this claim got to do with the historicists claim for a flesh and blood, historical, gospel crucified carpenter, named Jesus, from Nazareth?

I don't reject a Jewish context for the gospel storyline - quite the contrary - the gospel JC storyline is wedded to Jewish history. Great - the Jews have a fine sense of occasion, for finding meaning or salvation within their historical circumstances. Without that Jewish foundation christianity would have gone the gnostic route to nowhere - that christianity is still here to this day is testimony to its very Jewish roots.

aa5874 · 03-24-2011, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

more interesting things - like history...

And are you aware of the long history behind knee-jerk claims that Jesus wasn't really Jewish?

Chaucer

The author of gLuke did some kind of research and found out that Jesus was the OFFSRPING of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin. See Luke 1.34-35

Why is Jesus Jewish? Why are the Gospels history?

If Jesus was just an OBSCURE man why did people just LIE about him? Why not LIE about "PAUL" since he OUTPERFORMED Jesus in every respect.

Jesus was just around Galilee and Jerusalem and wrote NOTHING but "PAUL" the PHARISEE was ALL over the Roman Empire for ABOUT 20 years or more and was BEATEN with 195 lashes, was STONED, and was EXECUTED according to the Church yet an OBSCURE man was made God.

HJ the OBSCURE man makes ZERO sense.

hjalti · 03-24-2011, 02:45 AM

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."?

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

And are you aware of the long history behind knee-jerk claims that Jesus wasn't really Jewish?

Chaucer

And what has this claim got to do with the historicists claim for a flesh and blood, historical, gospel crucified carpenter, named Jesus, from Nazareth?

I don't reject a Jewish context for the gospel storyline - quite the contrary - the gospel JC storyline is wedded to Jewish history. Great - the Jews have a fine sense of occasion, for finding meaning or salvation within their historical circumstances. Without that Jewish foundation christianity would have gone the gnostic route to nowhere - that christianity is still here to this day is testimony to its very Jewish roots.

So what's with your beef against NoRobots and your going after the Jewish angle?

Chaucer

maryhelena · 03-24-2011, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

And are you aware of the long history behind knee-jerk claims that Jesus wasn't really Jewish?

Chaucer

And what has this claim got to do with the historicists claim for a flesh and blood, historical, gospel crucified carpenter, named Jesus, from Nazareth?

I don't reject a Jewish context for the gospel storyline - quite the contrary - the gospel JC storyline is wedded to Jewish history. Great - the Jews have a fine sense of occasion, for finding meaning or salvation within their historical circumstances. Without that Jewish foundation christianity would have gone the gnostic route to nowhere - that christianity is still here to this day is testimony to its very Jewish roots.

So what's with your beef against NoRobots and you're going after the Jewish angle?

Chaucer

I have no beef against NoRobots and I've never been after "..the Jewish angle?" in any negative sense whatsoever...:wave:

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 02:57 AM

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

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

03-24-2011, 12:43 AM	#222
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Tacitus, of course, never refers to anybody called Jesus. Suppose he had trudged his way through the destroyed records in Jerusalem or the ashes of the library in Rome that had been burned, and found a scrap of paper saying that somebody called 'Joshua' had been crucified by Pilate. How would that confirm that that Joshua was the same Joshua Christians were talking about? It would be like saying that somebody called Michael was executed in Texas. It would be too common a name to be checked like that. But if Christians were claiming that a crucified criminal was the agent through whom God had created the world, why would Tacitus not do what Himmler did and write them off as lunatics, rather than investigate to see if any criminals had been crucified? And why did the Jews not stone Christians as blasphemers within about 20 seconds of them starting to preach that they should worship crucified criminals?

03-24-2011, 02:45 AM	#227
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	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."?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.