Did Jesus exist?

[DC]

we seem to have regressed. I had requested the "the evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed."

Your last post contained no such evidence.

Please post the evidence of which you previously spoke so confidently.

the irony.

 

[The Big Dog]

the irony.

amen brother! The way I answered your question openly and forthrightly, you'd think that once someone spoke so confidently of "evidence" that they would be eager to provide it, rather than the old gish gallop.

Ah well, there is still time.

 

[turingtest]

Ok. I get it.

You don't know whether or not Jesus existed.

I am arguing that Jesus of the NT was a figure of mythology and you are incapable of arguing against my position.

If Jesus may have existed then it is inherently implied that he may not have.

The key part of that last phrase being "may not"; what you appear to be arguing is that he definitely did not. I'm arguing a conditional; you're arguing an absolute. It's not that I'm incapable of arguing against your position; it's that I'm not really interested in arguing with someone who seems incapable of seeing the implications of it. You're essentially just saying (at interminable length) that "absence of proof is proof of absence, dammit!"

 

[Big Al]

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!

Brainache, instead of patronising me with the bald claim of having your finger on the pulse of academic research, as opposed to poor, ignorant, feeble-minded me, why not enlighten me with your dazzling erudition by answering my points?

Do you deny that Pilate is regarded by "proper" historians as a brutal, anti-Semitic dictator, rather than a bleeding-heart liberal? The later 1st-century CE general Titus burnt down the Temple and slaughtered plenty in suppressing a riot. He went back to Rome in triumph and later became Caesar. Pilate was recalled to Rome in shame for brutality! So he obviously went beyond even Titus' burnt-earth massacres. Does this fit with the ineffectual, practically weeping uber-liberal who grows in pathos as the slavering Jewish mob becomes more and more evil as you go from in order of writing from Mark to John. The Jews get nastier and nastier and the representatives of all-powerful Rome get more and more blameless.

Were Roman governors in the habit of letting random prisoners off on special occasions - especially governors like Pilate?

What egregious historical errors have I made in my questions that gives you the right to belittle me in such a patronising way? If you can demonstrate that common knowledge shows my queries to be nuncupatory, I will willingly accede your greater learning, of course.

 

[dejudge]

we seem to have regressed. I had requested the "the evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed."

Your last post contained no such evidence.

Please post the evidence of which you previously spoke so confidently.

I already posted the evidence.

Tacitus Annals with Christus was not used by Apologetics for hundreds of years after it was supposedly written when it should have been very good evidence that the Christ had already come.

Justin argued against the Jews who claimed the Christ had not come and never mentioned Tacitus Annals with Christus--See Dialogue with Trypho.

Tertullian argued against the Jews who claimed that the Christ had not yet come and yet did not mention Tacitus Annals with Christus--See Answer to the Jews.

Tertullian knew of Tacitus and Tacitus "Histories" made reference to them in his "Apology"

Hippolytus argued against the Jews who claimed the Christ had not yet come and yet did not use Tacitus Annals with Christus. See Treatise Against the Jews

Tacitus Annals with Christus was unknown by Sulpitius Severus when he wrote "Sacred History" at the start of the 5th century.

The passage with Christus and Pilate is MISSING. It was not there in the start of the 5th century.

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.

There was no Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth and no prediction of a Jewish Messiah in the time of Pilate.

Tacitus Histories 5.

Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.

I]These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus[/I], but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth..

How could all Apologetics and the Church writers, for hundreds of years, miss such a significant piece of information that is used today to prove Jesus did exist?

It was not yet fabricated.

Tacitus Annals with Christus and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 should have destroyed any claim by the Jews that the Christ had not yet come yet Christian writers did not use them at all for hundreds of years.

Christian writers used Prophecies in the Septuagint for hundreds of years to prove Jesus had already come--- not Tacitus and Josephus.

 

[dejudge]

The key part of that last phrase being "may not"; what you appear to be arguing is that he definitely did not. I'm arguing a conditional; you're arguing an absolute. It's not that I'm incapable of arguing against your position; it's that I'm not really interested in arguing with someone who seems incapable of seeing the implications of it. You're essentially just saying (at interminable length) that "absence of proof is proof of absence, dammit!"

Again, why can't you even repeat my argument?

I am not arguing absolute--my argument is based on the EXISTING evidence.

Please, let us be honest.

This is my position for the "millionth" time.

I consider that Jesus of the NT is a figure of mythology UNTIL NEW EVIDENCE surfaces.

I did the same thing for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, Adam and Eve--they are myths as is evident in the existing manuscripts, codices and Apologetic writings.

Again and again, I need evidence first.

I cannot change my position until I get new evidence.

Do you have any?

The NT is really a compilation of Jewish, Greek, and Roman mythology, forgeries, fiction and are not eyewitness accounts.

 

[Big Al]

I agree, dejudge.

As I said in an earlier post, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's ludicrous to cite that truism as evidence of presence!

 

[The Big Dog]

Tacitus Annals with Christus was unknown by Sulpitius Severus when he wrote "Sacred History" at the start of the 5th century.

The passage with Christus and Pilate is MISSING. It was not there in the start of the 5th century.

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.

Curious. Your claim is that because Severus did not quote the section with Christ and Pilate that it was "missing." This seems to suggest intent was to copy word for word from Tacitus, whether it fit his theme or not. That of course is completely ludicrous.

Lets go to the text:

Tactitus

"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. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. .

To compare:

"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."

Say, dejudge, there seems to be quite a lot of Tacitus "missing," doesn't there? I highlighted it for you! Well, for one, Tacitus calls them hated for their abominations, while Severus calls them innocents. severus also does not mention that they admitted it, were convicted, not for setting the fire, but their "crimes against mankind."

So much "missing." Hmmm, also missing is: "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."

Now why do you think that those incendiary insults against Christ and his followers were not included in Severus "sacred history" that included his description of the martyrdom of the innocent victims of Nero?

Curious that Severus also did not include the claim that they were "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment."

Is it because they were "missing" dejudge? Perhaps something else, dejudge?

So much "missing."

tl;dr: just because it wasn't quoted, does not prove it wasn't there

 

[Big Al]

just because it wasn't quoted, does not prove it wasn't there

Yet apologists these days invariably seize on it with such avid glee as slam-dunk proof of Jesus the man. Strange, then that their forebears as well as historians of the day ignored it for so long, although the wider work itself was widely quoted.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yet apologists these days invariably seize on it with such avid glee as slam-dunk proof of Jesus the man. Strange, then that their forebears as well as historians of the day ignored it for so long, although the wider work itself was widely quoted.

lolz. "Strange" they did not include the incendiary insults, the accusations of treason and that they were criminals and abominations in their sacred histories.

"Strange."

 

[DC]

amen brother! The way I answered your question openly and forthrightly, you'd think that once someone spoke so confidently of "evidence" that they would be eager to provide it, rather than the old gish gallop.

Ah well, there is still time.

yeah that you miss the irony was to be expected.

 

[The Big Dog]

yeah that you miss the irony was to be expected.

yeah that you miss the sarcasm was to be expected.

 

[abaddon]

<respectful snip for focus>

I consider that Jesus of the NT is a figure of mythology UNTIL NEW EVIDENCE surfaces.

I did the same thing for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, Adam and Eve--they are myths as is evident in the existing manuscripts, codices and Apologetic writings.

And I agree.

However, were I writing a document 2000 years ago to intentionally either shore up or outright create a mythology, I would certainly chuck in as much real stuff as possible to give the mythology a veneer of verisimilitude. A dead itinerant preacher would be ideal fodder for such a venture since all actual eyewitnesses would be dead at the time of writing and I would be at liberty to invent/exagerate whatever details I wished. You can actually see this in action in the NT, as the four accounts can't even agree with each other, I suspect because the authors never expected their writings to be bound together side by side in the canonical bible and critically compared.

 

[turingtest]

Again, why can't you even repeat my argument?

I am not arguing absolute--my argument is based on the EXISTING evidence.

Please, let us be honest.

This is my position for the "millionth" time.

I consider that Jesus of the NT is a figure of mythology UNTIL NEW EVIDENCE surfaces.

I did the same thing for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, Adam and Eve--they are myths as is evident in the existing manuscripts, codices and Apologetic writings.

Again and again, I need evidence first.

I cannot change my position until I get new evidence.

Do you have any?

The NT is really a compilation of Jewish, Greek, and Roman mythology, forgeries, fiction and are not eyewitness accounts.

Well, let's try the "two statements" thing again; which of these two best represent your argument?

1) Based on the EXISTING evidence, there was definitely never any such person as Jesus.
or
2) Based on the EXISTING evidence, there may have been an otherwise unknown itinerant preacher (who may or may not even have been named Jesus) around whom the Jesus mythology of the NT was built and grew. The lack of evidence indicates that no such person ever existed, but he may have.

 

[turingtest]

I agree, dejudge.

As I said in an earlier post, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's ludicrous to cite that truism as evidence of presence!

I'm not sure that truism, phrased that way, is exactly true (though I certainly agree that the absence of evidence is no evidence of presence). "Evidence" is only an indication that a thing (or a theory) may be true; it's consilience of evidence that strengthens possibility to probability. So I think the total absence of any evidence for something can, indeed, be an indication only- evidence- that it's not true; but it certainly doesn't prove that it's not. And this, I think, is the basis of my disagreement with dejudge; AFAICT, he's arguing that absence of evidence is proof of absence.

 

[IanS]

He provided exactly as much "evidence" for this claim as he provided for the rest of his Annals, which have universally been declared authentic and authoritative.

Wait, check that, in fact in this section, he has more authority because it actually occurred when he was alive.

I understand that THIS section is heretical to Mythticians of course.

If you are suggesting that historians rely only upon uncorroborated hearsay stories from writers like Tacitus to conclude on that hearsay basis alone, that various historical events are factual, then I doubt if any genuine historian could possibly defend that as good or safe practice. And certainly not where the most important events and figures in all of history are concerned (Jesus is probably the single most important figure in all of human history).

If historians accept as true, various historical events described by authors like Tacitus, then it is invariably because what the author describes is confirmed and supported by all sorts of other historical writing and artefacts from the period. And that certainly must be the case for the most important events and most important figures where a great deal of other historical inference and conclusion depends on their deductions being correct.

But that is absolutely not the case where Jesus is concerned.

In the case of Jesus there is not a single shred of any other primary mention of Jesus at all except that which comes from the NT bible.

Tacitus was apparently born too late ever to have personally known about anything that ever happened to Jesus. Which means anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus could only have come to him from what other people said or wrote about Jesus. But Tacitus makes no mention of who told him any such stories of Jesus. And the only known earlier original source of any mention of Jesus from whom later hearsay authors like Tacitus could possibly have got any such mention, was the biblical writing itself.

We might imagine that it's more likely that authors like Tacitus were simply repeating whatever stories were being commonly told verbally on the streets by Christians themselves at that time. And that's probably a reasonable conclusion. But we do not actually know what any such Christians were really saying, and the fact remains that the only source that we do know of for sure, is the earliest biblical writing. So, in all honesty we can only reasonably conclude that ultimately, anything that later hearsay authors like Tacitus ever said about Jesus, came as far as is actually known, originally from the bible.

All roads lead straight back to the bible.

 

[abaddon]

All roads lead straight back to the bible.

Do you think that's true? I don't. I think the various so called books of the bible were simply screeds composed by the authors and directed to an audience which they wished to brainwash into compliance with whatever orthodoxy was the flavour of the day. In other words, the authors simply wrote (and subsequent others altered it) whatever they thought would have most effect on their intended audience. It is the ultimate cold reading which has lasted thousands of years. What the authors did not expect was that their writings would be assembled and critically compared side by side, and their entirely contradictory nature would be exposed.

One only has to look at the two gospels which give the genealogy of jesus through joseph, all the way back to King David. Not only do the two accounts of the genealogy disagree, Joe is not his father anyway. I continue to be astonished at the mental hoops believers jump through to explain this.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache, instead of patronising me with the bald claim of having your finger on the pulse of academic research, as opposed to poor, ignorant, feeble-minded me, why not enlighten me with your dazzling erudition by answering my points?

OK Beautiful.

Do you deny that Pilate is regarded by "proper" historians as a brutal, anti-Semitic dictator, rather than a bleeding-heart liberal?

No. Why would I?

The later 1st-century CE general Titus burnt down the Temple and slaughtered plenty in suppressing a riot. He went back to Rome in triumph and later became Caesar. Pilate was recalled to Rome in shame for brutality! So he obviously went beyond even Titus' burnt-earth massacres. Does this fit with the ineffectual, practically weeping uber-liberal who grows in pathos as the slavering Jewish mob becomes more and more evil as you go from in order of writing from Mark to John. The Jews get nastier and nastier and the representatives of all-powerful Rome get more and more blameless.

Nope. Was it supposed to?

Were Roman governors in the habit of letting random prisoners off on special occasions - especially governors like Pilate?

Nope. You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension...

What egregious historical errors have I made in my questions that gives you the right to belittle me in such a patronising way? If you can demonstrate that common knowledge shows my queries to be nuncupatory, I will willingly accede your greater learning, of course.

The fact that you think this is relevant to the historicity of Jesus. The Gospels are fiction, we all know that.

The fiction seems to be built around a preacher who was executed by Pilate (not outrageous, as you yourself point out, he was famous for it).

Later generations of Roman followers progressively exculpated the Romans and implicated the Jews in the death of Jesus.

You should get to grips with the basics of what it is your opposition are arguing, before you start getting all sarcastic about how much you know about this subject.

If you are interested in my thoughts on the subject, start here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

Enjoy your learning experience.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you are suggesting that historians rely only upon uncorroborated hearsay stories from writers like Tacitus to conclude on that hearsay basis alone, that various historical events are factual, then I doubt if any genuine historian could possibly defend that as good or safe practice. And certainly not where the most important events and figures in all of history are concerned (Jesus is probably the single most important figure in all of human history).

If historians accept as true, various historical events described by authors like Tacitus, then it is invariably because what the author describes is confirmed and supported by all sorts of other historical writing and artefacts from the period. And that certainly must be the case for the most important events and most important figures where a great deal of other historical inference and conclusion depends on their deductions being correct.

But that is absolutely not the case where Jesus is concerned.

In the case of Jesus there is not a single shred of any other primary mention of Jesus at all except that which comes from the NT bible.

Tacitus was apparently born too late ever to have personally known about anything that ever happened to Jesus. Which means anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus could only have come to him from what other people said or wrote about Jesus. But Tacitus makes no mention of who told him any such stories of Jesus. And the only known earlier original source of any mention of Jesus from whom later hearsay authors like Tacitus could possibly have got any such mention, was the biblical writing itself.

We might imagine that it's more likely that authors like Tacitus were simply repeating whatever stories were being commonly told verbally on the streets by Christians themselves at that time. And that's probably a reasonable conclusion. But we do not actually know what any such Christians were really saying, and the fact remains that the only source that we do know of for sure, is the earliest biblical writing. So, in all honesty we can only reasonably conclude that ultimately, anything that later hearsay authors like Tacitus ever said about Jesus, came as far as is actually known, originally from the bible.

All roads lead straight back to the bible.

Actually, there seems to be no possibility whatsoever that Tacitus was repeating what he was told by Christians. There seems to be no dispute that he was repeating common knowledge about what Romans of the time knew about the Christians in their community. Hence the abusive descriptions that were not repeated by later Apologists. There is no chance that Tacitus based anything he wrote on the bible, therefore, this is an authentic independent source confirming the fact of the extreme penalty of the Christ by Pilate.

 

[dejudge]

Actually, there seems to be no possibility whatsoever that Tacitus was repeating what he was told by Christians. There seems to be no dispute that he was repeating common knowledge about what Romans of the time knew about the Christians in their community. Hence the abusive descriptions that were not repeated by later Apologists. There is no chance that Tacitus based anything he wrote on the bible, therefore, this is an authentic independent source confirming the fact of the extreme penalty of the Christ by Pilate.

Your claim is not corroborated by any Christian or Apologetic writer of antiquity for hundreds of years.

It is the complete opposite.

It was commonly believed that Jewish Messianic rulers would come at around c 66-70 CE--not c 33 CE.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius corroborate the COMMON belief among Jews.

At c 75 CE, when Wars of the Jews was composed, Vespasian was considered the Savior of the Roman Empire--Not Christus.

Who was Christus?

How did Christus die?

Please, stop the Chinese Whispers and Rumors.

We don't know who Christus was in Tacitus Annals--not even the Christians of antiquity acknowledged him.

HJers admit their Jesus was hardly known and that it was decades later he was embellished.

Christus and his followers were already well known in Judea and Pilate had to stem the new religion by killing Christus.

It took hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years, before Christian writers mentioned Tacitus' Christus.

Why??

It was a forgery.