badger3k

I didn't know where to post these, but I had some questions (and comments) regarding his new book. I have it in epub from the iBooks store, and the page numbers I use refer to it when held upright (not sure if they change when laying sideways). I made liberal use of the notes feature, and made some comments that I'd like some thoughts on.

How come this isn't the more accurate, "shows that high-ranking Roman officials reported what they had been told about this Jesus the Christians believed in"? Ehrman even covers the idea (and supports it) that Tacitus didn't do his own research. So how come this becomes evidence for a reality instead of merely being what the Christians believed at the time? What is wrong with taking a skeptical position?

I can see how this can be read into saying that they had heard (or believed) in a historical person, but that still says nothing about historical accuracy. Am I missing something? All we can say is that, at the time they were written, this is what the writer believed was true. ?

Why "solitary source"? If the myth arose from a cult belief, then was historicized, the origins could have been oral, and they were widespread before being written down. It just seems to me like the creationists of IDiots attitude of "show me the one proof of evolution" (or the crocoduck). This (and some of the other comments he makes) just seems like padding - he's using tricks like this to make his case seem stronger, and his opponents weaker. It's disappointing.

This reminds me of the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" trilemmana. According to Ehrman, either Papias was telling the truth, or he was a bald-faced liar (and since we can't believe that, he must be telling the truth). What about "he was mistaken", or "his sources weren't telling the truth, but he believed them anyway", or "he was making it up to reinforce his position but believed it had to be true" (I'm sure there are more). Again, more like debating William Lane Craig than a real scholar, at least to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but this reasoning makes little sense to me.

...because no one would ever make up such a thing, or call themselves apostles to a mythological being. Who would ever follow the teachings of some god that wasn't physically real? Seriously? This seems to fall into the same "Paul said it, therefore it's true" line somebody quoted (or paraphrased, sorry) in a review or post somewhere. What evidence do we have, other than "this is what they wrote, so we can say this is what they believed (or at least is might seem that way)? What is the jump between "what is written" and "what is true"? I'm missing the connection.

Again, the step from what they may have heard (or made up) to what is real seems to be missing. Am I just too skeptical of unsourced documents written by unknown authors?

It's not really relevant, but let's bring it up because...? But it does show that Mark thought Jesus said something, so Paul used that .... and I'm still missing the step as to why we need to think that such really is based on reality. All this seems like is an argument from believing the author simply because. So, it couldn't be possible that Paul was lying? Or that he believed that his own words were coming from his god (as if that never happens!)? Or that he was repeating whatever teachings were coming from his cult/mystery religion/whatever? I've been reading this off and on for several days and still can't see where he gets this from.

Damn, this is long, and I have a lot more notes. Unfortunately, they all seem to be similar. Ehrman makes a lot of arguments that lack (to me) basic skeptical thinking. He's got his position staked out (for years) and doesn't seem to consider anything that might shake it. A couple more:

Appealing to later documents that might have copied from Paul as meaning these are direct quotations? Why not illustrate that later writers (or Paul himself) were using a preexisting tradition - from any source, mythical or historical? Was such thing common among pagans (stoics, cynics, mystery religions, etc, etc)? I've heard of other celebratory meal traditions but haven't gone into the original sources of those, so I can't say. Again, am I odd in seeing this?

But he has no problem deciding which ones are real sayings and which aren't. What criteria is he using, besides his pet hypothesis? The book is loaded with these, and I'm only about halfway through. I did have one last question, though.

I've heard arguments regarding the possibility of a Jew in Roman Palestine going around committing murder. Would the Romans have allowed this to happen? Do we have any evidence that they would have considered this a local matter and ignored it - especially if there was a history of trouble in the region? Or was the situation bad enough that some zealot could go around killing other Jews and get away with it? Granted, given communication problems I am sure it was easier than it would be today, but since it can still happen...but with official sanction? Of course we are still going with the assumption that what he is saying is true - he was apparently writing to people far way from the events, and the "persecutor-turned-believer" story seems to be quite popular from other religions/cultures (and other beliefs - from politics to medicine to consumerism). I've been out of the discussions for a few years, but do we have any sources? I'll try to do a search of the boards here soon, but if anybody has any scholars or books easily on hand, I'd appreciate it.

Again, apologies for the length and maybe duplication. I didn't know where to post these without derailing another post. Maybe we need one large "Ehrman commentary" thread?

aa5874

Ehrman provided mis-leading information.

In Tacitus Annals 15.44 there is NO mention of a character called Jesus.

No apologetic source of antiquity used Annals 15.44 to claim Jesus did exist not even Eusebius who used the Fogeries in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

Even in the NT, there were No persons called Christians on the day Jesus was crucified and Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ. In fact , in gMark, Jesus did NOT want any one to know he was Christ and did NOT want the Jews to be saved.

In the earliest Jesus stories, Jesus was called Son of Man, Elijah or one of the prophets.

Annals 15.44 is a forgery or not about Jesus.

Adam

Yes, who's this "Christus" he talks about there? Christians surely have nothing to do with Jesus, surely not as early as Nero in 64 A. D.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3Achapter%3D44

judge

It is still a document from the period so it counts as a primary source, and it's difficult to find ancient primary source documents where some doubt can't be cast.
But why would Tacitus report that this was "what christians believed". There doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be sceptical to the point that he would cast doubt on that story more than any other story.

GakuseiDon

I've never understood that point "it's just hearsay". If Tacitus had said something to the effect that Jesus Christ never existed, mythicists would (rightly) be falling over themselves to point that out.

But if a historicist responded "Oh, that's just what the Christians believed at that time", would that be taking a skeptical position? No, I don't think so.

Toto

I don't get your objection. If Tacitus had said that Jesus never existed, it would refute a common claim that there were no mythicists in ancient times; but it still might be hearsay, and a skeptic would not take the statement at face value.

aa5874

Don't you understand that people here do NOT presume Tacitus did write those words about Christus???

Don't you understand that apologetic sources of antiquity did NOT use Tacitus Annals to argue that Jesus did exist???

HJers today are using Annals 15.44 to show Jesus did exist yet for hundreds of years not one Skeptic or apologetic used Tacitus for existence of Jesus.

Apologetic sources used JOSEPHUS to prove Jesus existed even people who lved in Rome.

Not even the Gospels support Tacitus Annals--there were NO Christians on the day Jesus died.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is a forgery or NOT about NT Jesus.

badger3k

That's not exactly what I was getting at, but that is true. We can state that this is what he (Tacitus) believed was true, but we can't use his believing as a statement of what was true. To me that goes beyond the evidnce. Maybe that is hyperskeptical, but to me that's simply being honest. All we can say is that Tacitus thought "this". Whether what he believed was true or not requires outside confirmation.

badger3k

Some maybe, but my point would still stand. Whatever he thought, all we could say is that it was evidence of what he believed, or what he had heard - we could use it to say that some beliefs were around at the time it was written. But that's all. For anyone to go beyond that seems to me to be really stretching it too far.

aa5874

Please, you very well know that we do NOT have an ORIGINAL copy of Tacitus Annals.

Again, you seem to have difficulties in reporting the facts.


First of all The Existing present document that contains Tacitus Annals is NOT a primary source. It was written HUNDREDS of years AFTER the 2 CE and does NOT mention Jesus.

Secondly, Tacitus himself is NOT a Primary source for NT Jesus. Tacitus was supposedly born 56 CE.

Thirdly, Tacitus Annals in its Existing state is questionable PRECISELY where the word "Christians" is found. The word Christians appears to be manipulated and should ChrEstians.

So, Tacitus Annals is NOT a PRIMARY Source but a QUESTIONABLE source which in its Existing form was written HUNDREDS of years AFTER Tacitus was dead.

Tacitus Annals does NOT mention Jesus and also most likely did NOT mention Christians.

Ehrman's use of Tacitus Annals for an historical Jesus is indeed quite strange when as an historian he should know of the problems of manipulation associated with Annals 15.44.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ