The Historical Jesus II

[proudfootz]

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

Maybe Tertullian is trying to say the christians did set the fires, and that Nero was right!

 

[Belz...]

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.

Ok so one comparison with cults is OK and the other is not. I suppose you don't have any explanation as to why this is so except for the fact that one is uttered by you and the other by Stone ?

 

[dejudge]

Maybe Tertullian is trying to say the christians did set the fires, and that Nero was right!

Tertullian made mention of Tacitus in "The Apology".

Tertullian claimed or implied Tacitus was the first to give out the notion that Christians worshiped the Head of a Donkey as their God.

Tertullian's Apology

For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an ass's head.

Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds.

In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal.

And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image.

But the said Cornelius Tacitus (the very opposite of tacit in telling lies) informs us in the work already mentioned, that when Cneius Pompeius captured Jerusalem, he entered the temple to see the arcana of the Jewish religion, but found no image there.

Amazingly, Tacitus FIRST gave the notion that Christians worshiped the Head of a Donkey as their God--NOT Christus.


Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery based on TACITUS' "Histories" 5.

 

[IanS]

:
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.

Proudfootz - I have no idea which of your posts that above quote came from, but the vast majority of academic bible scholars do appear to be religious Christians. And from the backgrounds that have been quoted extensively here it does seem that in fact almost all of them entered that profession precisely because they were theists with very devout religious beliefs and a wish to spend their lives learning more about Jesus, the bible, and Christianity.

It's probably true that, like Bart Ehrman, quite a few of them subsequently realised how unreliable the NT writing is as history. And a handful like Hector Avalos may actually have lost their religious beliefs altogether. But for the vast majority, afaik there is no reason to think that their religious faith has disappeared.

 

[maximara]

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

Actually it is an excellent argument ala Sun Tzu:

"Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city."

Showing that even if taken as entirely genuine a passage proves basically zilch about Jesus as a historical person is a far more powerful argument.

Look at the tap dance that goes on with the Testimonium Flavianum about what is genuine and what was added by Christians. And that is a passage that we know that in part (or in whole) is a Christian fiction.

Questioning a source's authenticity from the get go is going against the apologist's walled city as they pull their ace of 'your just denying the evidence like those who deny the Holocaust'. (Yes I know the argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt but these guys are going for an emotional reaction not a logical one)

By showing that even if taken as entirely genuine a passage can be explained away with real world examples the apologist generally are left stumbling for an emotional argument to salvage their "evidence".

To use Sun Tzu above you first attack their plan (show why the evidence even if genuine is useless), produces other pieces that show the evidence is in error (attack alliances and the army), and then show after all that a source's authenticity is questionable (their walled city is now a empty shell)

That way if they try to pull the deny the Holocaust BS you have the higher emotional ground of pointing they are not addressing how the evidence can be explained way. They have to shift gears if they want to salvage their "evidence'

"Therefore, if the enemy is at ease, be able to exhaust him;" - Sun Tzu

 

[Belz...]

Actually it is an excellent argument ala Sun Tzu:

"Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city."

Showing that even if taken as entirely genuine a passage proves basically zilch about Jesus as a historical person is a far more powerful argument.

Yeah but that requires doing something else than just denying that the enemy might have a point, and that's something that Dejudge refuses to do.

 

[maximara]

Proudfootz - I have no idea which of your posts that above quote came from, but the vast majority of academic bible scholars do appear to be religious Christians. And from the backgrounds that have been quoted extensively here it does seem that in fact almost all of them entered that profession precisely because they were theists with very devout religious beliefs and a wish to spend their lives learning more about Jesus, the bible, and Christianity.

It's probably true that, like Bart Ehrman, quite a few of them subsequently realised how unreliable the NT writing is as history. And a handful like Hector Avalos may actually have lost their religious beliefs altogether. But for the vast majority, afaik there is no reason to think that their religious faith has disappeared.

I would argue that it is far more then religious faith at work here.

John Armstrong is a deist (ie religious) and he has a whole series of youtube videos on how Jesus is a philosophical myth but Fightingatheist has a video that is pro historical Jesus.

Rather what you really have are is Confirmation Bias that bounces between Euhemerism and the Great Man hypothesis (more the later these days).

The Great Man hypothesis says that history is shaped by great men. Christianity is a major historical event therefore it must have a great man behind it.
That great man is obviously Jesus.

The converse is the Great moment hypothesis - that events made people who were in the right place in the right time to become great. If no such person materializes then the society will create one from what is available. And so people like Ned Ludd, Robin Hood, John Frum, and many others come into being.

History started with Great Man hypothesis as its default setting. In fact, the very concept of a Great Moment hypothesis didn't really hit its stride until the 1970s.

So you have nearly 3000 years of Great Man hypothesis vs perhaps 45 years of Great Moment hypothesis. It is obvious where the bias leans.

 

[proudfootz]

Ok so one comparison with cults is OK and the other is not. I suppose you don't have any explanation as to why this is so except for the fact that one is uttered by you and the other by Stone ?

You seem to be having a difficult time comprehending my very simple and straightforward argument. That comparing two things is different than saying two things are identical.

It's best you stop digging yourself into this hole and find another way to derail the thread.

 

[proudfootz]

Tertullian made mention of Tacitus in "The Apology".

Tertullian claimed or implied Tacitus was the first to give out the notion that Christians worshiped the Head of a Donkey as their God.

Tertullian's Apology

Amazingly, Tacitus FIRST gave the notion that Christians worshiped the Head of a Donkey as their God--NOT Christus.


Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery based on TACITUS' "Histories" 5.

So... no denial from Tertullian that christians really did set the fire to Rome.

 

[proudfootz]

Proudfootz - I have no idea which of your posts that above quote came from, but the vast majority of academic bible scholars do appear to be religious Christians. And from the backgrounds that have been quoted extensively here it does seem that in fact almost all of them entered that profession precisely because they were theists with very devout religious beliefs and a wish to spend their lives learning more about Jesus, the bible, and Christianity.

It's probably true that, like Bart Ehrman, quite a few of them subsequently realised how unreliable the NT writing is as history. And a handful like Hector Avalos may actually have lost their religious beliefs altogether. But for the vast majority, afaik there is no reason to think that their religious faith has disappeared.

I have no problem with bible scholars being confessed believers in gods and all that, so long as they pursue their craft honestly.

What is distasteful is the reactive and unthinking excoriation of those who do not believe in the same gods or their emissaries.

So long as it is pretended that bible scholars are historians who merely opine about the relative likelihood of this or that being the case, why should it be regarded as practically heretical to consider that there is also the probability that this or that is not the case. Is that concept not entailed in the whole concept of 'probability'?

But apparently it is completely uncontroversial for Ehrman to say that anyone who didn't believe in an historical Jesus would have a hard time finding work in the field of bible studies - and this speaks volumes about the sort of bias which is seemingly quite acceptable.

 

[pakeha]

Maybe Tertullian is trying to say the christians did set the fires, and that Nero was right!

Tertullian made mention of Tacitus in "The Apology".

Tertullian claimed or implied Tacitus was the first to give out the notion that Christians worshiped the Head of a Donkey as their God.

Tertullian's Apology

Amazingly, Tacitus FIRST gave the notion that Christians worshiped the Head of a Donkey as their God--NOT Christus.


Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery based on TACITUS' "Histories" 5.

So... no denial from Tertullian that christians really did set the fire to Rome..

No.
I spent a pleasant hour looking for just why Tertullian called Tacitus a garrulous liar.
Part, of course is due to the obvious pun on Tacitus' name, the rest on the story of how Pompey entered the Holy of Holies (long before Christianity came on stage) and what he found there.
The story's here
http://books.google.es/books?id=Wxh...3#v=onepage&q=Tertullian Tacitus liar&f=false

A curious little sidebar, all in all.

 

[proudfootz]

I would argue that it is far more then religious faith at work here.

John Armstrong is a deist (ie religious) and he has a whole series of youtube videos on how Jesus is a philosophical myth but Fightingatheist has a video that is pro historical Jesus.

Rather what you really have are is Confirmation Bias that bounces between Euhemerism and the Great Man hypothesis (more the later these days).

The Great Man hypothesis says that history is shaped by great men. Christianity is a major historical event therefore it must have a great man behind it.

That great man is obviously Jesus.

The converse is the Great moment hypothesis - that events made people who were in the right place in the right time to become great. If no such person materializes then the society will create one from what is available. And so people like Ned Ludd, Robin Hood, John Frum, and many others come into being.

History started with Great Man hypothesis as its default setting. In fact, the very concept of a Great Moment hypothesis didn't really hit its stride until the 1970s.

So you have nearly 3000 years of Great Man hypothesis vs perhaps 45 years of Great Moment hypothesis. It is obvious where the bias leans.

Apparently there is some confusion about what I wrote: I do not indicate that the general agreement of theists about atheists is motivated by the exact same belief system of religious devotion as the general agreement of Jesus historicists about skeptics. I am comparing two different things and not saying these two things are identical.

It cannot be denied that in the 'West' we live in a society soaked in the traditions of christian religion - see the date on your computer screen? It's 2014 years since Jesus was born. Every christmas we get 'experts' telling us about the 'real' Star of Bethlehem, or the 'real' Wise Men, or some other wisdom. Every easter we get articles about the 'real' Jesus and how important he was and continues to be.

And I completely agree that the 'great man' view of history still keeps its dead hand on the tiller of academic and popular thought. Even though it has become clear that many 'culture heroes' need not have actually existed: to keep things biblical let us mention Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in this connection.

In some ways I think the 'great man' view is a rebellion against the feeling of helplessness that people can experience - they are inspired by the examples of these heroes who have shaped their own destiny (in the story, anyway) and it gives ordinary people hope and meaning.

 

[Brainache]

Proudfootz - I have no idea which of your posts that above quote came from, but the vast majority of academic bible scholars do appear to be religious Christians. And from the backgrounds that have been quoted extensively here it does seem that in fact almost all of them entered that profession precisely because they were theists with very devout religious beliefs and a wish to spend their lives learning more about Jesus, the bible, and Christianity.

It's probably true that, like Bart Ehrman, quite a few of them subsequently realised how unreliable the NT writing is as history. And a handful like Hector Avalos may actually have lost their religious beliefs altogether. But for the vast majority, afaik there is no reason to think that their religious faith has disappeared.

Even the Jewish ones? How much faith do they have in Jesus?

Once again you are relying on ad-hom.

 

[dejudge]

Actually it is an excellent argument ala Sun Tzu:

"Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city."

Showing that even if taken as entirely genuine a passage proves basically zilch about Jesus as a historical person is a far more powerful argument.

Showing that Tacitus' Annals is a forgery is a far more powerful argument especially when there are writings attributed to the same Tacitus which completely contradicts Annals 15.44 with Christus.

Tacitus' Histories is evidence that Annals 15.44 with Christus is a very late forgery.

Tertullian admitted that Tacitus was of the opinion that Christians worshiped the Head of an Ass like the Jews.

I attack the HJ argument from every conceivable angle.

I have already shown that Tacitus' Annals with Christus does not mention Jesus of Nazareth, does NOT claim Christus was crucified, does not claim Christus was from Nazareth, and does not state when Christus suffered the ultimate penalty.

There is no evidence that Pilate crucified any one in non-apologetic sources.

Look at the tap dance that goes on with the Testimonium Flavianum about what is genuine and what was added by Christians. And that is a passage that we know that in part (or in whole) is a Christian fiction.

Questioning a source's authenticity from the get go is going against the apologist's walled city as they pull their ace of 'your just denying the evidence like those who deny the Holocaust'. (Yes I know the argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt but these guys are going for an emotional reaction not a logical one) .

Your statement lacks logic and is most bizarre.

Even Scholars have deduced the NT is riddled with at least 18 forgeries or falsely attributed books including the Pauline Corpus, and that even supposed genuine writings are littered with interpolations.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" and "Forged" by Bart Ehrman

Please, it is naïve to accept questionable passages as authentic when not even Christian themselves ever used Tacitus' Annals with Christus.

By showing that even if taken as entirely genuine a passage can be explained away with real world examples the apologist generally are left stumbling for an emotional argument to salvage their "evidence".

By showing the passage was a forgery and unknown even to the Roman Church for almost a thousand years the apologist would also be left stumbling.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to be having a difficult time comprehending my very simple and straightforward argument. That comparing two things is different than saying two things are identical.

I never claimed that you said they were identical.

It's best you stop digging yourself into this hole and find another way to derail the thread.

What hole ? You clearly said what I quoted you saying.

 

[dejudge]

No.
I spent a pleasant hour looking for just why Tertullian called Tacitus a garrulous liar.
Part, of course is due to the obvious pun on Tacitus' name, the rest on the story of how Pompey entered the Holy of Holies (long before Christianity came on stage) and what he found there.
The story's here
http://books.google.es/books?id=Wxh...3#v=onepage&q=Tertullian Tacitus liar&f=false

A curious little sidebar, all in all.

I have already shown the passage on Tacitus in Tertullian's Apology.

Tertullian's Apology

For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an ass's head.

Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds.
In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal.
And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image.

But the said Cornelius Tacitus (the very opposite of tacit in telling lies) informs us in the work already mentioned, that when Cneius Pompeius captured Jerusalem, he entered the temple to see the arcana of the Jewish religion, but found no image there.

In the Apology attributed to Tertullian it was claimed that it was TACITUS who FIRST put forward the notion that Jews and Christians worshiped the Head of an Ass as their God.

Tertullian's Apology is evidence against Annals' 15.44 with Christus.

Annals 15.44 with Christus was probably interpolated about 1000 years AFTER Tacitus was dead.

 

[proudfootz]

I never claimed that you said they were identical.

Then you should be able to see that what Stone habitually engages in is substantially different.

What hole ? You clearly said what I quoted you saying.

Yes, that is the hole: what Stone does and what I was doing are different, and you're trying to say they are the same.

The 'hole' is that every time you post it appears you cannot tell the difference between things that are different.

(This does not necessarily reflect on HJers in general that you seem to miss the point after it is repeatedly explained.)

 

[proudfootz]

Even the Jewish ones? How much faith do they have in Jesus?

Once again you are relying on ad-hom.

You are apparently having difficulty with the meaning of 'majority'.

Once again, you are relying on misunderstanding common English words to score 'points'.

 

[Brainache]

Did any of our UK Forumites get along to this:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/events/jandb/booking.aspx

The conference Jesus and Brian or: What Have the Pythons Done for Us? ran over the weekend 20-22 June 2014 in the Edmond J Safra Lecture Theatre, King’s College London, and was a huge success.
Devised, designed and organised by Professor Joan Taylor, this conference aimed to use Monty Python’s Life of Brian as a tool to reflect on Jesus and his times, among other subjects. Delegates flew in from all around the world to be treated to three days of superb papers from top scholars in the fields of Jesus research and the history of Roman Judaea, modern art, Bible and film, the blasphemy laws and the film’s reception.
...

Looks like it might have been the best Jesus Seminar Ever! Certainly the presence of John Cleese and Terry Jones would have made it a bit more interesting than most...

I'll have to keep an eye open for the videos. Apparently there will be a book next year too.

 

[pakeha]

Did any of our UK Forumites get along to this:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/events/jandb/booking.aspx



Looks like it might have been the best Jesus Seminar Ever! Certainly the presence of John Cleese and Terry Jones would have made it a bit more interesting than most...

I'll have to keep an eye open for the videos. Apparently there will be a book next year too.

Thanks for the heads-up!