Did Jesus exist?

[dejudge]

[*]Tacitus was born 20 years after Jesus supposedly died. Not contemporary.

These comments have always baffled me, as it indicates a profound misunderstanding of what Tacitus was writing about. He was writing about the Great Fire in Rome (which of course took place while he was alive) and the fact that Nero blamed the Christian community in Rome for it. He never claimed to be a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore to reject it on that basis makes no sense.

Tacitus did not mention Jesus and may not have even mentioned Christians. The word ChrEstians may have been manipulated.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was unknown for hundreds of years even when the History of the Church was composed around c 325 and when the Sacred History of the Church was written c 400 CE.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is a very very late forgery far later than the "TF" in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

It was the forgery called the "TF" which was used to prove the advent of the Christ--never ever Tacitus' Annals.

 

[The Big Dog]

Tacitus did not mention Jesus and may not have even mentioned Christians. The word ChrEstians may have been manipulated.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was unknown for hundreds of years even when the History of the Church was composed around c 325 and when the Sacred History of the Church was written c 400 CE.

You will agree, won't you, that your opinion is quite the minority view, is it not?

You might also recall that Tacitus view of the "Christians" was quite, quite negative, and something that one would not ordinarily expect to be included in anyone's Sacred History of the Church. Agree?

 

[dejudge]

Tacitus did not mention Jesus and may not have even mentioned Christians. The word ChrEstians may have been manipulated.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was unknown for hundreds of years even when the History of the Church was composed around c 325 and when the Sacred History of the Church was written c 400 CE.

You will agree, won't you, that your opinion is quite the minority view, is it not?

You might also recall that Tacitus view of the "Christians" was quite, quite negative, and something that one would not ordinarily expect to be included in anyone's Sacred History of the Church. Agree?

Again, I have no interest in the numbers game.

You imply that evidence is irrelevant.


You seem to have no idea that the word "Christians" is disputed in Tacitus Annals.

You seem to have no idea that word Christians does not mean followers of Jesus.

The word Christian is derived from the word Greek word meaning Anointed.

King David was called Christ.

Followers of Simon Magus the Magician were called Christians since the time of Claudius even before the time of Nero.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does not help the HJ argument.

 

[llwyd]

Probably.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, I have no interest in the numbers game.

You imply that evidence is irrelevant.


You seem to have no idea that the word "Christians" is disputed in Tacitus Annals.

You seem to have no idea that word Christians does not mean followers of Jesus.

The word Christian is derived from the word Greek word meaning Anointed.

King David was called Christ.

Followers of Simon Magus the Magician were called Christians since the time of Claudius even before the time of Nero.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does not help the HJ argument.

I can understand that YOU have no interest in the "numbers" game, "pound the table" and all.

I see we have moved beyond the forgery angle, progress!

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 Judæa, 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.

I was unaware of the claim that "king David" and (or?) "Simon Magus the Magician" "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

Wait a tick! I suggest that we have overlooked the phrase "from whom the name had its origin." I believe that Tacitus was clearly referring to "Christians" as deriving from the same guy that suffered the extreme penalty. Agreed?

It would appear that you have no idea that the actual text in question does not support your King David and (or? really? you have two mutually exclusive explanations for that? Huh....) Simon Magus theories.

But.... PROGRESS!

 

[dejudge]

There might be some sort of secular Christian History specialist consensus that the Testimonium Flavium was completely a later interpolation, but I think you are probably wrong about the consensus on the mention of James being a later addendum. Richard Carrier thinks it probably wasn't a complete interpolation. However, he thinks (along with quite a few others) that the James mentioned wasn't James the brother of Jesus Christ.

We have already gone through the James story found in Josephus.

Even the writers of the Church deny that James was the brother of Jesus.

Chrysostom when writing his Commentary on Galatians 1.19 admitted James was not the brother of Jesus.

Examine Chrysostoms Commentary on Galatians 1.19

Ver. 19. “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother.” ............ But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him “the Lord's brother,” although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

Rufinus in the Preface of the Recognitions admitted James the Lord's brother was was alive around c 67-69 CE.

James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 was killed c 62 CE.

The Preface to the Recognitions

The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair...

Plus, HJers argue that their HJ was not the Christ but an obscure preacher man.

In order to be called the Christ [Anointed] by Jews HJ MUST be alive and must actually be either a King of the Jews or an High Priest.

Once a Jew dies before he is Anointed then he cannot be called the Anointed [Christ] posthumously.

Obscure HJ was not assumed to be a King of the Jews or an High Priest.

Obscure HJ was regarded as a crucified Criminal.

Jesus called Christ [the Anointed] in AJ 20.9.1 was alive c 62 CE and was Jesus the son of Damneus who became the High Priest after Albinus came to Judea.

The matter has already been resolved.

HJ the supposed dead obscurity is a modern invention.

 

[maximara]

Most first century history is based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus. Cassius Dio says nothing. Tacitus mentions Christ, Suetonius mentions Christians, and Josephus has a passage about the brother of Christ (and another long and corrupt passage which probably did so originally).

You will find, however, that the headbangers are ready with excuses to ignore this data.

Only a fool manufactures a silence and then argues that his manufactured absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

They are not so much excuses but alternative explications.

Josephus

The fact no one cites the TF in Josephus until the 4th century, it breaks the flow of the chapter it is in, and there was a copy of Josephus as late as 1600 which didn't have it makes the paragraph suspect.

In Against Celsus 1.47 Origen records "this writer" (Josephus) ... "in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" ... "says nevertheless" ... "that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)"

In Against Celsus 2.13 Origen states "But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

Note that the James-Jesus passage we have in Josephus does NOT connect the death of this James with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, or any other disaster despite Origen stating twice that the passage he is referring to does.

Finally, the James of Josephus died c64 CE by just stoning while Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all had James the Just dying c. 70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priests between these two events so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James and the "him called Christ" phrase was added to make the connection.

Tacitus

We now know that our oldest copy of Tacitus was tampered with and he was talking about Chrestians. The problem here is not only was Chrestus a common slave name and used as a title, but Chrestians may have been the name of cult that followed Serapis (Osiris) per the Hadrian to Servianus 134 CE letter found in the Historia Augusta (yes that work has problems but historians are stuck using it)

So this could have been a splinter group of Chrestians (either Osiris or followers of a Messiah calling himself Chrestus), Tacitus could have been just repeating what Christians were telling him, this could have been in reference to followers of another Christ (which Paul warned of in the 50s CE), or ala Josephus we have more tampering.

Suetonius

No one denies Christianity existing in the 1st century but all we get is "punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief" Moreover, there is no connection between these punishments (in chapter 16) and the Great Fire (chapter 38) and they are presented as examples of "During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made".

The only headbanger material is with regards to anyone who presents these three as "proof" Jesus existed.

 

[dejudge]

I can understand that YOU have no interest in the "numbers" game, "pound the table" and all.

I see we have moved beyond the forgery angle, progress!

Well look at Tacitus Annals 15.44 and then look at Severus "Sacred History" supposedly composed in the 5th century.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt../ah/Tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html

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 Judæa, 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.

Now, Please, examine Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History 2.29 and you will notice the part about Chrisitus is MISSING.

Sulpitius Severus Sacred History 2.29

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.

I was unaware of the claim that "king David" and (or?) "Simon Magus the Magician" "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

Wait a tick! I suggest that we have overlooked the phrase "from whom the name had its origin." I believe that Tacitus was clearly referring to "Christians" as deriving from the same guy that suffered the extreme penalty. Agreed?

It would appear that you have no idea that the actual text in question does not support your King David and (or? really? you have two mutually exclusive explanations for that? Huh....) Simon Magus theories.

But.... PROGRESS!

You are unaware of many things.

Even in the NT Jesus was NOT known as Christ. In the NT, Jesus never started a new religion.

You are unaware of Acts of the Apostles--it was the Holy Ghost.

Jesus was known as John the Baptist or a prophet in the very NT stories--Not Christus.

You are unaware that Jesus did not want the populace to be converted.

You are unaware that Pilate did not even know who Jesus and found no fault with Jesus.

Mark 8

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi ; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am ?"

28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist ; and others say Elijah ; but others, one of the prophets." 29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am ?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ." 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

Are you aware that there was another person called Christ in the very NT when Jesus demanded that no-one should know that he was the Christ?

Mark 9:38 NAS

John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us."

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a very very late forgery and was fabricated no earlier than than the start of the 5th century and was not used by any Church writer or Apologetic who wrote of the History of the Church.

You are unaware of the evidence that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus was a forgery.

 

[Big Al]

You are unaware that Pilate did not even know who Jesus and found no fault with Jesus.

The powerful procurator Pontius Pilatus is recorded in Roman history as a hard guy - indeed, brutal. Both Philo and Josephus describe him so.

I have serious problems with the idea that a Roman procurator noted for his brutality would:

• Take orders from the local priesthood on whom to prosecute
• Ask the downtrodden masses what they wanted him to do after he failed to judge that a Roman law had been broken. Why didn't he just hand Jesus back to the Sanhedrin and let them deal with the matter?
• Apply a specifically Roman punishment to a man he regarded as blameless because the downtrodden masses demanded that he, the embodiment of Roman power in Judea, do so

And I really have a problem with the idea that Roman procurators were in the habit of just letting somebody off every now and then, on special occasions. That doesn't sound like Roman justice.

And was it normal for common criminals to be brought to the Roman governor for trial?

 

[Brainache]

The powerful procurator Pontius Pilatus is recorded in Roman history as a hard guy - indeed, brutal. Both Philo and Josephus describe him so.

I have serious problems with the idea that a Roman procurator noted for his brutality would:

• Take orders from the local priesthood on whom to prosecute
• Ask the downtrodden masses what they wanted him to do after he failed to judge that a Roman law had been broken. Why didn't he just hand Jesus back to the Sanhedrin and let them deal with the matter?
• Apply a specifically Roman punishment to a man he regarded as blameless because the downtrodden masses demanded that he, the embodiment of Roman power in Judea, do so

And I really have a problem with the idea that Roman procurators were in the habit of just letting somebody off every now and then, on special occasions. That doesn't sound like Roman justice.

And was it normal for common criminals to be brought to the Roman governor for trial?

When are you going to alert Academia to their error?

If you know something that none of the world's History Professors are aware of, you'd better run and tell them.

Let us know how you get on.

Seeya!

 

[The Big Dog]

Well look at Tacitus Annals 15.44 and then look at Severus "Sacred History" supposedly composed in the 5th century.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt../ah/Tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html


Now, Please, examine Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History 2.29 and you will notice the part about Chrisitus is MISSING.

Sulpitius Severus Sacred History 2.29




You are unaware of many things.

Even in the NT Jesus was NOT known as Christ. In the NT, Jesus never started a new religion.

You are unaware of Acts of the Apostles--it was the Holy Ghost.

Jesus was known as John the Baptist or a prophet in the very NT stories--Not Christus.

You are unaware that Jesus did not want the populace to be converted.

You are unaware that Pilate did not even know who Jesus and found no fault with Jesus.

Mark 8

Are you aware that there was another person called Christ in the very NT when Jesus demanded that no-one should know that he was the Christ?

Mark 9:38 NAS

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a very very late forgery and was fabricated no earlier than than the start of the 5th century and was not used by any Church writer or Apologetic who wrote of the History of the Church.

You are unaware of the evidence that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus was a forgery.

And you seem to be unaware that your multiple contradictory explanations (King David! Simon! Some other guy! oh wait! Forgery!) not only do not help you, they demonstrate the reasons why the overwhelming consensus of historians and biblical scholars states that it is genuine.

But you don't do numbers..... as I said, if my position was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists, I would not do "numbers" either.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Need another option: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Jesus".

 

[IanS]

Another good question would be -

"is the biblical writing alone reliable enough evidence to show Jesus probably existed?"​

If it was an even slightly credible source, maybe. But it's not, so no.

Well that’s a bit of problem then for anyone believing in Jesus, isn’t it?

Because as far as anyone can honestly tell, when any other writer outside the bible, such as Josephus or Tacitus etc., makes any mention of Jesus the only known source from which any of those later hearsay writers could have obtained any mention of Jesus, is the earlier biblical writing itself.

That is - there is actually no other known primary or independent source except the bible.

In which case, any belief in Jesus really rests entirely upon belief in the truth of the bible.

 

[IanS]

And you seem to be unaware that your multiple contradictory explanations (King David! Simon! Some other guy! oh wait! Forgery!) not only do not help you, they demonstrate the reasons why the overwhelming consensus of historians and biblical scholars states that it is genuine.

But you don't do numbers..... as I said, if my position was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists, I would not do "numbers" either.

You are equating bible-studies with research science?

Bible scholars are not scientists.

There is really no comparison at all here between the evidence gathered by science to establish it's theories vs. the belief that bible-scholars and theologians express in what they deduce from the words of the bible.

 

[maximara]

When are you going to alert Academia to their error?

If you know something that none of the world's History Professors are aware of, you'd better run and tell them.

Let us know how you get on.

Seeya!

Big Al is right that nothing in the Gospels account regarding the trials, Pontius Pilatus, or how Romans handled crucified people jives with history--something that HJ crowd tends to ignore:

* The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century. (The Trial that Never Took Place)

* Jesus preaches in the open so there is no need for the whole Judus betrayal. A real Roman official would have sent a modest group of soldiers and got the guy as what happened with John the Baptist.

* As mentioned by BigAl, Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Josephus relates two accounts where Pilate's solution to mobs causing a disturbance was brutally simple--have Roman soldiers go out and kill them until they dispersed. Moreover it is never really explained in the Bible why if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy why Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus crime has been sedition then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas or for the Sanhedrin to be involved for that matter.

* The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life Of Flavius Josephus (75)

* Given Jesus short time on the cross and reports of him being out an about afterword certainly the Romans might have wondered if they had been tricked yet there is nothing in the reports of the Romans acting in this matter. Carrier describe how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.

On every point the Gospels can be crosschecked with history they fail.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are equating bible-studies with research science?

Bible scholars are not scientists.

There is really no comparison at all here between the evidence gathered by science to establish it's theories vs. the belief that bible-scholars and theologians express in what they deduce from the words of the bible.

We are of course discussing the Historical provenance of Tactitus, which of course is likewise dependent on a range of scientific disciplines, such as archaeology, geology, etc. I would have thought that having read the entire post in context that was absolutely clear. Nevertheless, I would cheerfully modify my statement as follows:

if my position was rejected by the overwhelming majority of HISTORIANS and BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well that’s a bit of problem then for anyone believing in Jesus, isn’t it?

Because as far as anyone can honestly tell, when any other writer outside the bible, such as Josephus or Tacitus etc., makes any mention of Jesus the only known source from which any of those later hearsay writers could have obtained any mention of Jesus, is the earlier biblical writing itself.

That is - there is actually no other known primary or independent source except the bible.

In which case, any belief in Jesus really rests entirely upon belief in the truth of the bible.

"makes any mention of Jesus the only known source from which any of those later hearsay writers could have obtained any mention of Jesus, is the earlier biblical writing itself. That is - there is actually no other known primary or independent source except the bible."

Well that is patently false. Tacitus, for one, was alive during the very period he was describing (i.e. the Great Fire, the persecution of the Christians by Nero) Actually, it appears undisputed that he obtained his information from sources other than the "bible."

 

[The Big Dog]

Even in the NT Jesus was NOT known as Christ. .....

.....

Mark 8

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi ; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am ?"

28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist ; and others say Elijah ; but others, one of the prophets." 29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am ?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ." 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

lolz

protip: when using the Gish Gallop form of "debate" it is best not to directly contradict oneself in the very same post.

 

[dejudge]

And you seem to be unaware that your multiple contradictory explanations (King David! Simon! Some other guy! oh wait! Forgery!) not only do not help you, they demonstrate the reasons why the overwhelming consensus of historians and biblical scholars states that it is genuine.

Your statement is highly illogical and baseless. You cannot present statistics, data and poll showing the overwhelming consensus of historians and biblical Scholars.

Please, desist from Chinese Whispers and Rumors.

We already know of this ploy--it is used predominantly by HJers since they have no evidence for their obscure Jesus who was NOT CHRIST.

There is no consensus and NO HJ has ever been found in the history of the Quest for an HJ since its initiation.

But you don't do numbers..... as I said, if my position was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists, I would not do "numbers" either.

That is your problem. You say things for which you have no data. If you say something on this forum you better get the supporting data.

I need the data, the study, the poll which shows what you claim about the consensus of historians and Biblical Scholars.

I will show you that Robert Eisenman contradicts your claim and stated NO-ONE has solved the question of an HJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

 

[The Big Dog]

Your statement is highly illogical and baseless. You cannot present statistics, data and poll showing the overwhelming consensus of historians and biblical Scholars.

Please, desist from Chinese Whispers and Rumors.

We already know of this ploy--it is used predominantly by HJers since they have no evidence for their obscure Jesus who was NOT CHRIST.

There is no consensus and NO HJ has ever been found in the history of the Quest for an HJ since its initiation.



That is your problem. You say things for which you have no data. If you say something on this forum you better get the supporting data.

I need the data, the study, the poll which shows what you claim about the consensus of historians and Biblical Scholars.

I will show you that Robert Eisenman contradicts your claim and stated NO-ONE has solved the question of an HJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

That is a curious response. We are discussing a fairly straightforward and simple matter: the authenticity of Tacitus. You yourself provided a link that established the consensus of historians and biblical scholars.

which link shall i believe, your earlier link or the youtubey?