The Historical Jesus II

[proudfootz]

Then don't act like him.

I don't, and I won't start.

But thanks for the unnecessary warning!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

...evidence ?

My cannibal apostles posts were moved into this thread along with the rest of Stone's thread. Further discussion of this sub topic has zero or even negative value to the rest of the conversation in this thread so I will respectfully decline to elaborate and will now back away slowly.

 

[dejudge]

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.

Well, we know from those same manuscripts that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost.

Essentially, the Jesus character was a Myth.

 

[JaysonR]

It's not clear whether anyone was 'demanding' proof of an historical Jesus at that time.

That's somewhat of value for consideration.
If there lacks a context, then the idea of defense seems a bit much to expect.

However, christian authors and apologists like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius often cite pagan references to Jesus or Christ just the same in making their arguments.

I think I must have been reading these works differently, as I don't recall this.
Could you quote some examples of their defense for the historicity of Jesus by citation of non-Christian references?

 

[JaysonR]

Which (like Jospehus) is the point. Move over Christian works right after Tacitus don't mention this event either.

The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE CE) does have Nero burning Christians to death but this is around death of Paul ie 67 CE some three years after the fire and no mention of Nero blaming the Christians for the fire is made.

The later "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) has Nero considering to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) but has a dream which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . '.

Moreover, Josephus and Pliny the Elder who were both in Rome c 64 CE don't mention Christians at all which would be impossible if Nero was trying to blame them for the fire.

So not only do non Christians who were in Rome at the time not notice Nero's persecution of Christians but the Christians themselves appear to unaware of it as well and instead give two wildly contradictory accounts--either Nero killed Christians with Paul some three years after the fire or he had a dream resulting him leaving them alone which could have been as early as 64...the year of the fire.

This should send up a red flag up faster then a 25 car pile up at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway about the Tacitus passage being history.

And this is perfectly reasonable critique of the Tacitus entry to consider.
Again, I was not stating that Tacitus critique is unwarranted, or that Tacitus' entry is authentic.

I was disagreeing with one specific reasoning for concluding that Tacitus' entry is not authentic; that reasoning given was the absence of citation of Tacitus' entry by early apologists.

Even if we take an axiom of Tacitus' entry as authentic, it would not aid in proving the historicity of Jesus.

For even if it is authentic, we have the problem of both accuracy and ulterior motives.
Accuracy is a question because Tacitus was a little child for the time period he's discussing regarding the fire, and he wasn't alive for Jesus by any stretch.
Everything he writes is hearsay, if authentic.

Further, there is the issue that Tacitus is a politician and one from Anatolia on top of it - a place gripped in constant political contests and was apparently involved in quite a number of political battles which involved violence or imprisonment of many of his alliances.

So even if authentic, before we could trust the entry to be accurate, we would first need to examine the context of its appearance to examine the possibility of political motive.


These are all perfectly good approaches to challenging the authenticity and/or accuracy of Tacitus' entry.
Relying on apologists to cite Tacitus to rest the case that Tacitus did or did not write the entry, however, does seem a queer expectation considering the context.

 

[dejudge]

Relying on apologists to cite Tacitus to rest the case that Tacitus did or did not write the entry, however, does seem a queer expectation considering the context.

Again, you expose that you don't know how history is done.

 

[Belz...]

I don't, and I won't start.

Didn't I just illustrate exactly how you did ?

 

[maximara]

Relying on apologists to cite Tacitus to rest the case that Tacitus did or did not write the entry, however, does seem a queer expectation considering the context.

Actually it is not that queer. Given how Christians had something of a martyrdom complex one would expect them if not citing Tacitus to be at least writing about Nero's persecution of Christianity. And yet as with Josephus we have a Silver Blaze issue:

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

We know that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the form we now have it (if at all) and therefor is in part (if not entirely) the product of Christian hands not the original writer. And once that is know then it is not that hard to get on the 'they forged it' bandwagon. As with the Testimonium Flavianum the first "clue" is the non citation of the passage by those who had the work in hand and therefore should have cited it...but didn't.

Tertullian who read and quoted Tacitus extensively makes no mention of the passage only to some vague "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect,
making progress then especially at Rome."

And Clement of Alexandria who slugged through pagan writings regarding Pagan view of the Church knows nothing about the passage and on the list goes with Origen and even Eusebius in the 'passage in Tacitus? What passage in Tacitus?!?' camp.

Moreover as with Testimonium Flavianum the key passage breaks the flow of the narrative.

Another similarity with the Testimonium Flavianum is the lack of explanation. Tacitus clearly hates the Jews and actually explains why. Tacitus explains why he hates Jews and calls their beliefs superstition and yet does NOT explain why he hates Christians or why he calls their beliefs a superstition?

Step by step it is the Testimonium Flavianum all over again.

 

[proudfootz]

That's somewhat of value for consideration.
If there lacks a context, then the idea of defense seems a bit much to expect.


I think I must have been reading these works differently, as I don't recall this.
Could you quote some examples of their defense for the historicity of Jesus by citation of non-Christian references?

As I said, I don't think 'pagan' authors were necessarily quoted or referenced or cited only to settle historicity questions.

 

[JaysonR]

Tertullian who read and quoted Tacitus extensively makes no mention of the passage only to some vague "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect,
making progress then especially at Rome."

That is all I required.

Thank you for providing the contextual reason to expect someone to cite the work.

Recall that such was all that I was requesting and for some reason, it spiraled around to many other tangents (and attacks - not by you - upon my person) and everything but what you just supplied.

That, which you supplied, seems reasonable context for the citation to be expected.

 

[proudfootz]

Didn't I just illustrate exactly how you did ?

No, you jumped to a conclusion that I 'implied' something, while Stone blatantly accuses atheism 'mythticism' of being a religion.

Moreover you introduced the word 'hystericist' while Stone almost always refers to scholars who disagree with his preferred conclusions with demeaning and denigrating slurs.

It is Stone who litters his posts with bizarre and paranoid conspiracy theories about how skepticism towards characters in religious texts will ultimately lead to some book-burning and concentration camps and the downfall of Western Civilzation.

The fact is, Stone and I are complete opposites. Your little joke could cause ignorant people to imagine we are alike in some meaningful way.

 

[proudfootz]

Actually it is not that queer. Given how Christians had something of a martyrdom complex one would expect them if not citing Tacitus to be at least writing about Nero's persecution of Christianity. And yet as with Josephus we have a Silver Blaze issue:

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

We know that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the form we now have it (if at all) and therefor is in part (if not entirely) the product of Christian hands not the original writer. And once that is know then it is not that hard to get on the 'they forged it' bandwagon. As with the Testimonium Flavianum the first "clue" is the non citation of the passage by those who had the work in hand and therefore should have cited it...but didn't.

Tertullian who read and quoted Tacitus extensively makes no mention of the passage only to some vague "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect,
making progress then especially at Rome."

And Clement of Alexandria who slugged through pagan writings regarding Pagan view of the Church knows nothing about the passage and on the list goes with Origen and even Eusebius in the 'passage in Tacitus? What passage in Tacitus?!?' camp.

Moreover as with Testimonium Flavianum the key passage breaks the flow of the narrative.

Another similarity with the Testimonium Flavianum is the lack of explanation. Tacitus clearly hates the Jews and actually explains why. Tacitus explains why he hates Jews and calls their beliefs superstition and yet does NOT explain why he hates Christians or why he calls their beliefs a superstition?

Step by step it is the Testimonium Flavianum all over again.

Well put.

The citations of 'pagan' authors need not revolve around any controversy about 'historicism'.

 

[pakeha]

In this case, serious. I'm not the first person to read the gospels this way - Heinlein wrote Stranger In A Strange Land based on the notion, and he wasn't the first either.

That takes me back to the days of sweeping the carpet to smoke the seeds and stray flakes of leaves.

You're welcome and glad to help.

And in the same moment, I need to correct myself from before regarding Pakeha's consideration of cultural ties. [ . . . ]

If you would like, we can expand this out and really get into the finer details.

Ask and ye shall receive, yea, heaped up and flowing over.
Book-marked and treasured.

Of course I'd love to read more-I'm here to learn.
But with the condition that such posts neither interfere with nor endanger the integrity of your thesis.

 

[maximara]

That is all I required.

Thank you for providing the contextual reason to expect someone to cite the work.
Recall that such was all that I was requesting and for some reason, it spiraled around to many other tangents (and attacks - not by you - upon my person) and everything but what you just supplied.

That, which you supplied, seems reasonable context for the citation to be expected.

I wasn't sure as to what exactly you were looking for.

This does show what the major flaw with the 'source x didn't exist before date y because various writers don't cite when they should of' argument is. It is sort of like Conan Doyle's beef with the detective stories of his time the detective got a solution to the case but the reader never got an explanation on how he got there.

The 'let's take the passage as genuine and see what it really tells us' is a lot simpler. It shows just how weak the 'usual suspects' of Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius (and on really bad days the Talmud and Thallus) are. There is nothing there that cannot be explained via Melanesian Cargo Cults and mythical people such as Ned Ludd.

Then after crushing that aspect you go into the forgery aspect.

 

[pakeha]

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

Thanks for the link.

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.

I'm looking forward to getting my own copy of the OHJ. While you and Kapyong have been very generous in citing the work, it's time to leaf through it myself.

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.

Thanks for sharing your thorough grasp of when Tacitus began to be quoted by Christian authors.
Out of interest, when did Suetonius begin to be quoted by them?

[ . . . ]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. [ . . . ]

Now that IS interesting, JaysonR.
Do you recall off-hand where he does that?

[ . . . ]Who was the first apologetic writer to mention Tacitus' Annals with Christus?

Answer--No Apologetic writer for about 1000 years.

Who was the first non-apologetic writer to mention Tacitus' Annals with Christus?

Answer-No one.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus has virtually ZERO Provenance for about 1000 years.

It must be noted that when the History of the Church was supposedly composed by Eusebius that he used the FORGERY called the "TF" in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3.

It is clear that the Roman Church or their agents were fabricating evidence to support their bogus history of the Jesus cult.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was most likely invented about 1000 years AFTER Tacitus was dead.

What was happening in the Church around 1100, the time the Tacitus reference surfaces?

[ . . . ]The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE CE) does have Nero burning Christians to death but this is around death of Paul ie 67 CE some three years after the fire and no mention of Nero blaming the Christians for the fire is made.

The later "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) has Nero considering to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) but has a dream which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . '.

Moreover, Josephus and Pliny the Elder who were both in Rome c 64 CE don't mention Christians at all which would be impossible if Nero was trying to blame them for the fire.

So not only do non Christians who were in Rome at the time not notice Nero's persecution of Christians but the Christians themselves appear to unaware of it as well and instead give two wildly contradictory accounts--either Nero killed Christians with Paul some three years after the fire or he had a dream resulting him leaving them alone which could have been as early as 64...the year of the fire.

This should send up a red flag up faster then a 25 car pile up at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway about the Tacitus passage being history.

Thanks for the references to the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul.

Actually it is not that queer. Given how Christians had something of a martyrdom complex one would expect them if not citing Tacitus to be at least writing about Nero's persecution of Christianity. [ . . . ]Tertullian who read and quoted Tacitus extensively makes no mention of the passage only to some vague "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect,
making progress then especially at Rome."

And Clement of Alexandria who slugged through pagan writings regarding Pagan view of the Church knows nothing about the passage and on the list goes with Origen and even Eusebius in the 'passage in Tacitus? What passage in Tacitus?!?' camp. [ . . . ]

I wonder if Tertullian was refering to Suetonius's narrative there.

 

[Belz...]

No, you jumped to a conclusion that I 'implied' something, while Stone blatantly accuses atheism 'mythticism' of being a religion.

Your post was clear:

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

You generalized about HJ people, implying that they are like religious fanatics. I'm telling you that this is what Stone is doing, which you don't like. So don't do it.

 

[dejudge]

The 'let's take the passage as genuine and see what it really tells us' is a lot simpler.

Well, the "let's take the passage as genuine" idea is completely useless if one questions its authenticity.

Plus, authenticity is not directly related to veracity.

Plutarch wrote "Romulus" but it is not a work of history.

Even Tacitus in his "Histories" admitted that the Jewish prophesied Christus [Messianic ruler] was expected c 66-70 CE in the time of Nero.

The very War of the Jews c 66-70 CE was ELEVATED because the Jews expected their prophesied Christus under Nero accoding to Josephus and attested by Suetonius.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is confirmed to be a forgery by TACITUS own "Histories".

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is completely WITHOUT corroboration and contradicted in TACITUS' "Histories 5".

 

[maximara]

I wonder if Tertullian was referring to Suetonius's narrative there.

Doubtful. Here is the Suetonius passage in question in context:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city."

Now it is true that Tertullian claimed 'We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith."

But that is NOT the tone Suetonius gives in the passage. Rather Christians are just one of the "many abuses were severely punished and put down" ie part of a general house cleaning of Rome. The passage gives no indication any of the groups were killed and only in the case of the pantomimic actor and their partisans are we even told what the punishment inflicted even was (banishment in their case).

The Christians could have simply been driven from Rome as had been the case with Jewish and Egyptian worshipers under Tiberius in 19 CE ( Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123). Their lands could have been confiscated for the good of the state or they may have been enslave or many other non bloody ways of punishment. Tertullian is (surprise, surprise) claiming something that is NOT in the material he is citing.

Also note Tertullian state "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome." This implies the sources were well known to his readership and since he names lives of the Cæsars elsewhere (and claims it has stuff it doesn't) it likely isn't that one.

Sort of like any reasonable educated American knowing what "Four score and seven years ago" is in reference to without citation or in Scf fi circles what 'Beam, me up Scotty' or 'blue British police box' are in reference to. Odds are these sources were something else and likely didn't survive the ravages of time.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for that information, maximara.
Off to find out why Tertullian called Tacitus a liar.

 

[proudfootz]

Your post was clear:

You generalized about HJ people, implying that they are like religious fanatics. I'm telling you that this is what Stone is doing, which you don't like. So don't do it.

Indeed my post was clear - which is why I find it difficult to understand how you misapprehend it.

You appear to be confusing the two approaches. One can compare apples and oranges, as I do, by pointing out that they are both fruits, that they grow on trees, they are commercial crops, etc.

Stone is saying that apples are oranges. Full stop.

In any case, I have listed some of the significant differences between Stone's hamfisted and abusive approach and my own which should also make it abundantly clear that there are no significant similarities.