The Historical Jesus II

[proudfootz]

Ridiculous: No one serious has suggested that Tacitus never authored his account of Christians -- nor his account of how Christians got their name. They all come from Tacitus, and they all show how he gained his information on how the Christian sect got started. (Cue the woo merchants here on how his witness can be conveniently "dismissed".)

Stone

Apparently you declined to read the linked article, or are unable to rebut the arguments put forward regarding Tacitus.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/23/5-earl...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-a-roman-trio/

It hardly matters whether you consider the authors of the arguments 'serious' - such a tactic would be a rather blatant logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

It doesn't matter who puts forward the argument - if you have no counter argument, why not boldly admit your failure?

This 'argument from authority' you seem to resort to is another logical fallacy. Why not step bravely into the discussion without reliance such crutches?

 

[Stone]

proudfootz

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday,



Carrier in his new book OHJ, argue that Tacitus got it from Pliny who got it from Christians who he investigated.

Here is his full argument on Tacitus and Pliny :
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewt...p=14793#p14793

His argument being that it all began with stories from those who Pliny said sang songs to Christ as a god (quasi deo) and grew into the story in Tacitus - without there being any historical Jesus behind it all.


Kapyong
The authenticity of this Tacitus reference is dubious at best: for good reason, as already discussed.

I think it probably is meant to be a reference to 'our' messianic fanatics: but it's apparent the events described did not happen, nor did Tacitus author it.

It's about as valuable as historical 'evidence' as the Testimonium Flavianum or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Hitler Diaries.

================

I see that this posting from Proudfootz is kept in, but Kapyong's post -- directly quoted here -- gets removed. I wonder why.................

Stone

 

[maximara]

John Frum "nowhere" is irrelevant in the history of Greek/Roman mythology.

Actually John Frum is quite relevant to the Jesus question. Carrier uses the broader Malaysian cargo cults to illustrate this:

"The same thing happened in Melanesian Cargo Cults, which still revere completely mythical heroes who were nevertheless quite rapidly placed in history and believed to be real (most famously 'Tom Navy' and 'John Frum'), again within decades of their supposed appearance." (OHJ pg 9-10)

"Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them." (OHJ pg 159) Carrier goes on till page 163 on just how and why this is a the case so this is not one one line quips or other quickly dismissed elements.

 

[dejudge]

Ridiculous: No one serious has suggested that Tacitus never authored his account of Christians -- nor his account of how Christians got their name. They all come from Tacitus, and they all show how he gained his information on how the Christian sect got started. (Cue the woo merchants here on how his witness can be conveniently "dismissed".)

Stone

Your statement is a fallacy.

Not even Christian writers of antiquity used Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus.

No Christian of antiquity for hundreds of years ever used Annals 15.44 with Christus---Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Miuncius Felix, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Lactantius, Eusebius, Arnobius, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Sulpitius Severus, Rufinus, Optatus and others.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was unknown by the Roman Church up to the 5th century.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is an extremely late forgery.

 

[abaddon]

I disagree with you, abbadon, regarding the existence of a singular character who formed the seed of the Jesus myth. The man Yeshu bin Yusuf existed, raised a rabble and was strung up by the Romans as a troublemaker. The conspiracy started with the theft of the body from the tomb and subsequent disposal of the body. My researches on cults in general and middle eastern primitive religions both suggest a possibility of ritual cannibalism. In the instance of Yeshu, his core group of followers consumed knowingly and the peripheral members consumed unknowingly. The remainder was tossed into the Sea of Tiberias by Simon and peter.

Feel free. Might be that some bloke was the basis for it all. Might be that it was all entirely made up out of whole cloth. Could very well be that some random whacko was hijack into being the victim of what would become christianity. I consider that more likely, that some random bloke really existed, who got hijacked for an invented myth. In any event, I find it trivially pointless to discuss it. It is meaningless to me.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, christians have been slitting each other's throats over whose imaginary friend is the 'real' one since forever - it's rather like the academic teapot tempests where they argue over whose imaginary 'historical Jesus' is realer than the others: proto-hippy, zealot terrorist, or cynic/sage, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam.

But just as all religious fanatics can agree that an atheist is worse than a heretic, bible academics largely agree that the most evil people are those who don't take their faith in a real Jesus seriously enough. Even well-respected academics like Bart Ehrman can go their whole career without questioning the basic dogma. A rather sad commentary on the blinders even otherwise intelligent people subject themselves to.

Amazingly, the very Bart Ehrman who questions the existence of God thinks it absurd to question the existence of God's Son.

 

[proudfootz]

I see that this posting from Proudfootz is kept in, but Kapyong's post -- directly quoted here -- gets removed. I wonder why.................

Stone

Apparently someone is recklessly 'reporting' posts to the moderators.

Such behavior seems to indicate that there is material these 'reporters' are afraid of being discussed in an open and honest way.

Now who has a history of 'reporting' and threatening to report posts...?

...and why has this problem only suddenly surfaced in the past few pages?

 

[proudfootz]

Amazingly, the very Bart Ehrman who questions the existence of God thinks it absurd to question the existence of God's Son.

Apparently one can make a good living being agnostic about one but not the other...

------------

Bart D Ehrman is a North Carolina Religious Studies employee working as a Professor-distinguished/titled. Ehrman makes an annual salary of $158,662, which is 146% greater than the average of all Religious Studies employees ($64,500.00) and 299% greater than the average of all North Carolina employees ($39,741.00).

------------

http://north-carolina-employees.findthebest.com/l/153782/Bart-D-Ehrman

 

[proudfootz]

Your statement is a fallacy.

Not even Christian writers of antiquity used Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus.

No Christian of antiquity for hundreds of years ever used Annals 15.44 with Christus---Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Miuncius Felix, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Lactantius, Eusebius, Arnobius, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Sulpitius Severus, Rufinus, Optatus and others.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was unknown by the Roman Church up to the 5th century.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is an extremely late forgery.

These are the sort of hard facts which must be harrumphed away to defend the 'historical Jesus' hypothesis.

No one refers to this mention by Tacitus, nor do they refer to this supposed fire related persecution at the very heart of the civilized world by the leading personality of that culture.

It's as if 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington DC were not referred to for a couple of hundred years!

Most likely scenario - it never happened, nor did Tacitus write about it.

Verdict: poor attempt at forgery.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I have to ask where you got this idea.

Like all religion and most conspiracy theory my primary source would be, um, goatse.

Please explain the reasoning which led to your conclusion.

To the best of my recollection it was a conversation between myself, a roommate and Brother Jack. Then like most religion and all CT I've subsequently gone through the evidence and cherry picked out the bits that confirm the theory and ignored the bits that don't and made up connecting facts from whole cloth, gluing the pile into shape with supposition, inference and creative reading between the lines.

 

[JaysonR]

Not that I have any concern over Tacitus, but the logic implied that Tacitus is false because no one cited him (like Wikipedia rules for entry into validity) is a bit odd.

Perhaps I'm missing something that is obvious, so forgive me if I am, but why is it inherently held as the absolute case that the apologist list would either be aware of the entry, or if aware, would want to use it or be allowed to use it for citation?

The apologists weren't trying to prove that Jesus existed and certainly were not interested in finding secondary unbiased sources to cite from to claim therefore they had reason to believe Jesus was real.

As far as I've been aware, through the 3rd century, Tacitus's works were extremely unpopular with the Christian fellowships due to the works' prejudice against and disregard for Christianity and Judaism in general.
Tertullian thrashes upon Tacitus calling him the most vial of liars.

So I'm not certain we should expect an apologist to have cited anything by Tacitus at all; they certainly didn't need Tacitus to prove to themselves that Jesus was worth believing in as real - they already believed that.

(Note: Just to be clear. I'm not arguing here that Tacitus' entry is authentic, nor am arguing that if it is authentic that such would be proof of an historical Jesus. I am only observing that the means of determining a lack of authenticity by a lack of apologist citation does not stand as a very logical set of reasons considering the context of social behavior and the evident opinion of Tacitus' works by apologists.)

 

[Tomtomkent]

Jesus was two mortal men. Probably those called Jesus and Judas. This is why one follower describes him as a humble carpenter, another a rightful heir to the Jewish throne. One is a figurehead the other a preacher. When the preacher arranges for the figurehead to meet certain prpphecies like entering the city on a donkey the figurehead starts to believe he is god. So one tries to remove the other. Jesus and Judus both end up in a cell.

This is why Jesus shares a cell with another guy called Jesus.Who happens to be released. Why Pontius is so merciful in trying to ensure aquick death by stabbing and breaking his legs. Why the body has to go away before A Jesus makes a return.

 

[proudfootz]

Not that I have any concern over Tacitus, but the logic implied that Tacitus is false because no one cited him (like Wikipedia rules for entry into validity) is a bit odd.

Perhaps I'm missing something that is obvious, so forgive me if I am, but why is it inherently held as the absolute case that the apologist list would either be aware of the entry, or if aware, would want to use it or be allowed to use it for citation?

The apologists weren't trying to prove that Jesus existed and certainly were not interested in finding secondary unbiased sources to cite from to claim therefore they had reason to believe Jesus was real.

As far as I've been aware, through the 3rd century, Tacitus's works were extremely unpopular with the Christian fellowships due to the works' prejudice against and disregard for Christianity and Judaism in general.
Tertullian thrashes upon Tacitus calling him the most vial of liars.

So I'm not certain we should expect an apologist to have cited anything by Tacitus at all; they certainly didn't need Tacitus to prove to themselves that Jesus was worth believing in as real - they already believed that.

(Note: Just to be clear. I'm not arguing here that Tacitus' entry is authentic, nor am arguing that if it is authentic that such would be proof of an historical Jesus. I am only observing that the means of determining a lack of authenticity by a lack of apologist citation does not stand as a very logical set of reasons considering the context of social behavior and the evident opinion of Tacitus' works by apologists.)

Obviously, that is not the only curious thing about the supposed Tacitus reference.

That an obscure Jewish sect should be blamed for an attack on the capital of the Empire and persecuted by the leader of the civilized world should occur without mention or comment is the larger issue.

This would not be a secret known only to Tacitus, and therefore only of interest to people who are familiar with and respect Tacitus. One's opinion of Tacitus doesn't enter into it.

Naturally, nothing in history is absolute, but it is up to each of us to consider whether such an event would only be reported by one person at the heart of the whole political and cultural world. In my view odds are very low that this could occur and only be known by or reported by only one man a generation later.

 

[JaysonR]

Right, I was not intending to suggest that we should not question.
I was only observing that this specific reasoning seems incomplete in its considerations.

 

[Brainache]

Like all religion and most conspiracy theory my primary source would be, um, goatse.



To the best of my recollection it was a conversation between myself, a roommate and Brother Jack. Then like most religion and all CT I've subsequently gone through the evidence and cherry picked out the bits that confirm the theory and ignored the bits that don't and made up connecting facts from whole cloth, gluing the pile into shape with supposition, inference and creative reading between the lines.

Ah, OK then the serious Scholarly approach then?

It might surprise you to learn that not many Academics will agree with your conclusions.

But I know of an interesting CT regarding the Catholics and the Dead Sea Scrolls...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

You can read my take on it here, if you are interested:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

 

[proudfootz]

Right, I was not intending to suggest that we should not question.
I was only observing that this specific reasoning seems incomplete in its considerations.

Clearly no single argument can solve all difficulties.

One totes up the judgments from several different perspectives to reach a conclusion.

We could imagine many reasons why Tacitus's report might not be cited. But that combined with other considerations strengthens the indication suggested by any one of the lines of reasoning.

Had the other lines of reasoning contradicted the absence of citation of Tacitus then it would be more difficult to discern whether Tacitus was the author. As it is it appears the evidence all runs in one unmistakable direction.

 

[JaysonR]

Again, my critique is not to the overall position so a defense for the overall position is not required.
I see no reason to include the lack of citation with the other considerations when there lacks contextual reason to expect the citation by apologists.

Apologists not citing gospels is appropriate, but not citing a political figure whom they hated, so to prove an existence they did not doubt seems queer.

 

[timhau]

This is why Jesus shares a cell with another guy called Jesus.Who happens to be released. Why Pontius is so merciful in trying to ensure aquick death by stabbing and breaking his legs. Why the body has to go away before A Jesus makes a return.

If you have to get the B-Jesus out before A-Jesus comes in, why kill him? Why not just scare him out?

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you have to get the B-Jesus out before A-Jesus comes in, why kill him? Why not just scare him out?

To make a better story. To prevent him making a come back or being a rival?

 

[Craig B]

Jesus was two mortal men. Probably those called Jesus and Judas.

Why not Jesus and Jesus? We know from early manuscripts that the released Barabbas (which means "son of the father" in Aramaic) was named Jesus too.