Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Historical Jesus

#37721  Postby RealityRules » Mar 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Owdhat wrote:Yes, it's a shame Tactics didn't realise he needed to provide references when he mentioned some obscure cult leader who got executed anyone would think the burning of Rome was more his concern.

Except that's not all that he did. He asserts that said obscure religious leader was executed by a Roman governor and even names that governor.

Also, if it was an obscure cult, how can there be a massive crowd of them in Rome?

proudfootz wrote:
dejuror wrote:
Owdhat wrote:Yes, it's a shame Tactics didn't realise he needed to provide references when he mentioned some obscure cult leader who got executed anyone would think the burning of Rome was more his concern.


It is a shame that Tacitus' Annals does not identify any character called Jesus of Nazareth especially when there were MULTIPLE Messianic claimants and MULTIPLE persons called Jesus.

It is also a shame that no apologetic writer of antiquity used Tacitus' Annals 15.44 to argue that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Examine "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

The author of "Church History" used the forgery in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" to claim Jesus did exist.

Examine "Sacred History" attributed to Sulpitius Severus.

The passage about Christus is Missing in "Sacred History" 2.29.


It is also a shame that Existing manuscript of Tacitus' Annals shows sign of Manipulation of the word "Chrestianos".

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.


Thanks for this very succinct summary of many of the reasons intelligent people take the Tacitus reference with skepticism.

Add to that Jay Raskin's argument that the Governor and the executioner in Tacitus's Annals 15.44 have also been edited/redacted (from Nero to Tiberius and from Porcius Festus to Pontius Pilate, respectively) -


... which fits with what Josephus's Antiquities 20:8.10 says about the actions of the procurator Porcius Festus whom Nero had sent.

dejuror's point about the passage about Christus being missing from "Sacred History" 2.29 (attributed to Sulpitius Severus) is also another nail in the coffin of Annals 15.44 'authenticity'.

Yes,
dejuror wrote:Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37722  Postby proudfootz » Mar 19, 2015 8:19 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Owdhat wrote:Yes, it's a shame Tactics didn't realise he needed to provide references when he mentioned some obscure cult leader who got executed anyone would think the burning of Rome was more his concern.

Except that's not all that he did. He asserts that said obscure religious leader was executed by a Roman governor and even names that governor.

Also, if it was an obscure cult, how can there be a massive crowd of them in Rome?

proudfootz wrote:
dejuror wrote:
Owdhat wrote:Yes, it's a shame Tactics didn't realise he needed to provide references when he mentioned some obscure cult leader who got executed anyone would think the burning of Rome was more his concern.


It is a shame that Tacitus' Annals does not identify any character called Jesus of Nazareth especially when there were MULTIPLE Messianic claimants and MULTIPLE persons called Jesus.

It is also a shame that no apologetic writer of antiquity used Tacitus' Annals 15.44 to argue that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Examine "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

The author of "Church History" used the forgery in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" to claim Jesus did exist.

Examine "Sacred History" attributed to Sulpitius Severus.

The passage about Christus is Missing in "Sacred History" 2.29.


It is also a shame that Existing manuscript of Tacitus' Annals shows sign of Manipulation of the word "Chrestianos".

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.


Thanks for this very succinct summary of many of the reasons intelligent people take the Tacitus reference with skepticism.

Add to that Jay Raskin's argument that the Governor and the executioner in Tacitus's Annals 15.44 have also been edited/redacted (from Nero to Tiberius and from Porcius Festus to Pontius Pilate, respectively) -


... which fits with what Josephus's Antiquities 20:8.10 says about the actions of the procurator Porcius Festus whom Nero had sent.

dejuror's point about the passage about Christus being missing from "Sacred History" 2.29 (attributed to Sulpitius Severus) is also another nail in the coffin of Annals 15.44 'authenticity'.

Yes,
dejuror wrote:Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.


Thanks for summing up the state of the consensus about the Tacitus passage. This is a huge deficit for proponents for the authenticity (meaning it is now as Tacitus wrote it) of this passage to overcome.

Even if authentic it doesn't tell us much. So it's really a waste of energy to try to move Heaven and Earth to salvage.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37723  Postby RealityRules » Mar 19, 2015 8:24 pm

.
It seems Tertullian's Ad Nationes also fits with Raskin's argument that the passages in Tacitus's Annals 15.44 about the Governor and the execution-supervisor of an alleged Christus/Chrestus have been edited/redacted (from originally Nero to Tiberius, and from originally Porcius Festus to Pontius Pilate, respectively) -

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained - righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html
Last edited by RealityRules on Mar 19, 2015 9:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37724  Postby proudfootz » Mar 19, 2015 8:45 pm

RealityRules wrote:.
It seems Tertullian's Ad Nationes also fits with Raskin's argument that the Governor and the execution-supervisor of an alleged Christus/Chrestus in Tacitus's Annals 15.44 have been edited/redacted (from originally Nero to Tiberius, and from originally Porcius Festus to Pontius Pilate, respectively) -

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained - righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html


This would make more sense for the argument that a small group grew over time.

Interestingly, if this passage is accurate it indicates the name under discussion began well before the supposed 'historical Jesus' preached, died, or his disciples imagined he rose from the grave:

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus...


But look here:

Augustus (Latin: Imperātor Caesar Dīvī Fīlius Augustus;[note 1][note 2] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August 14 AD) was the founder of the Roman Empire and its first Emperor, ruling from 27 BC until his death in 14 AD.

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


Oops! :oops:

Was Jesus a convert to a 'christianity' which was already well underway since he was a child? :think:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37725  Postby RealityRules » Mar 19, 2015 8:57 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Interestingly, if this passage is accurate it indicates the name under discussion began well before the supposed 'historical Jesus' preached, died, or his disciples imagined he rose from the grave:
This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus...

But look here:
Augustus (Latin: Imperātor Caesar Dīvī Fīlius Augustus;[note 1][note 2] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August 14 AD) was the founder of the Roman Empire and its first Emperor, ruling from 27 BC until his death in 14 AD.

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

Oops! :oops:

Was Jesus a convert to a 'christianity' which was already well underway since he was a child? :think:

Yes, the "This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus ..." is interesting, as you point out, b/c Augustus ruled somewhat before the alleged 'Jesus-the-Christ-of-Nazareth' is alleged to have preached, and somewhat before Christianity would have 'kicked off'.

Perhaps they are referring to Chrestians of a different religion?

"under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity" is also an interesting 'clarification' by Tertullian.


This "if" writing by Tertullian in Ad Nationes is interest, too
... If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country


And Tertullian repeats the Nero-persecuted-us complex
... what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained - righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution).

Tertullian in Ad Nationes
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37726  Postby RealityRules » Mar 19, 2015 9:12 pm

.
This is also interesting -

CHAP. III.--THE GREAT OFFENCE IN THE CHRISTIANS LIES IN THEIR VERY NAME. THE NAME VINDICATED.
... <snip> ...
The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense. Surely, surely, names are not things which deserve punishment by the sword, or the cross, or the beasts.

Tertullian in Ad Nationes


It fits with what Theophilus of Antioch said in "To Autolycus" XII: Meaning of the name Christian

... And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying.

First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? ... Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of god.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.i.xii.html
Last edited by RealityRules on Mar 19, 2015 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37727  Postby proudfootz » Mar 19, 2015 9:14 pm

RealityRules wrote:.
This is also interesting -

CHAP. III.--THE GREAT OFFENCE IN THE CHRISTIANS LIES IN THEIR VERY NAME. THE NAME VINDICATED.
... <snip> ...
The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense. Surely, surely, names are not things which deserve punishment by the sword, or the cross, or the beasts.

Tertullian in Ad Nationes


It fits with what Theophilus of Antioch said in "To Autolycus" XII

... And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying.

First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? ... Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of god.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.i.xii.html


Yes, I've seen that before. Apparently some prominent christians didn't know about anyone claiming to be a messiah or whatever being connected with the cult...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37728  Postby Owdhat » Mar 19, 2015 10:16 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Stein wrote:
Owdhat wrote:That must be the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.

Doubters: We demand evidence of Tacitus not using hearsay
Free: "here's a ton of evidence "
Doubters: "we meant different evidence "
:-D


LOL! That's a riot, Owdhat. Brilliant! It expresses these myther ostriches and their agile goal posts to a T.

:cheers:

Stein

No it represents a fantasy that is not actually present in this thread.

Here is Free's ton of evidence again, if you don't recognise it as such well... I think your demanding too much of the extant material - historians take other persons existence in history on far less evidence.

Remember: a piece of ancient writing is taken as possibly true unless it conflicts with other evidence, merely not liking what it says does not count against it.
Providing references was highly unusual for historians at that time so we should not expect them.
And as one respected poster on this thread once alluded too : we will never know what "actually" happened about anything or anyone, what we're after is the closest approximation that doesn't contradict the known evidence.
So, until Tacitus is positively shown by evidence to be 'not' using Roman records when he clearly 'is' in other instances his account as written stands.

Free wrote:Listed below is blue text that Tacitus wrote for his part on Christus, the Christians, and Pilate:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

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 Judaea, 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, but 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.
"

Point 1: There is absolutely nothing in that text that even hints at a Christian source. In fact, the text describing the punishments of the Christians is something that we cannot find in any Christian source at all, nor is there any indication that this can be understood as any kind of "hearsay."

Point 2: The text denigrates Christians by stating they were hated by the general population, calls them criminals, says that they were being convicted not for starting the fire, but rather because of their hatred towards mankind.

Point 3: This text obviously did not come from any Christian source. It says much more than merely mentioning the execution of Christ, as it clearly demonstrates complete and total Roman bias against those Christians.

Point 4: No Christian would tell Tacitus- or any other Roman historian- that their beliefs were an "abomination," that they were "mischievous superstitions," or that they were guilty of "hatred towards mankind", or that they were "criminals."

Consider this: Tacitus is a Roman who is writing Roman history. We can see him doing fact checking all through his works. Here are some examples:

Tacitus Accessing the Roman Registries:

[3.3] I do not find in any historian or in the daily register that Antonia, Germanicus's mother ...

[13.31] But we have learnt that it suits the dignity of the Roman people to reserve history for great achievements, and to leave such details to the city's daily register.

[15.74] I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius ...

Point 5: (Note above that Tacitus is checking the Roman registry in 15.74, which is the very same chapter/book where he writes about Christus, Christians, and the high ranking Roman official Pontius Pilate.)

Tacitus Using Roman Historians:

[1.69] According to Caius Plinius, the historian of the German wars

[1.81] ... so conflicting are the accounts we find not only in historians but in Tiberius' own speeches.

[4.10] In relating the death of Drusus I have followed the narrative of most of the best historians.

[15.38] A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,

Point 6: (Note above how he recognizes and uses the best historians, but also note that in 15.38- which is at the very beginning of his history regarding the Great Fires of Rome, which includes the part about Christus and the Christians, he informs us that he is using the works of previous historical writers. Keep this in mind as we go on.)

Tacitus Doing His Own Legwork and Using Historian Consensus:

[4.53] This incident, not mentioned by any historian, I have found in the memoirs of the younger Agrippina,

[13.20] Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians,

Point 7: Those are really just a very small sample of how Tacitus comprised his works. He used the Roman registries, works of other Historians, the scholarly consensus of his peers, and did plenty of leg work of his own.

Point 8: In addition to all this, Tacitus was obviously a revered historian as attested to by Pliny the Younger, whom Tacitus wrote to requesting information on the death of Pliny's uncle for Tacitus' works:

Pliny the Younger's Response To Tacitus:

"YOUR request that I would send you an account of my uncle’s death, in order to transmit a more exact relation of it to posterity, deserves my acknowledgments; for, if this accident shall be celebrated by your pen, the glory of it, I am well assured, will be rendered forever illustrious."

Obviously, Tacitus was no ordinary historian.

As far as using hearsay and rumours- as though they were some kind of fact- he has this to say:

[4.11] My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request all into whose hands my work shall come, not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history which has not been perverted into romance.

Point 9: As you can see, he wasn't a big fan of using rumours or hearsay in his works, but preferred actual genuine history.
[/quote]
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2195058
Owdhat
 
Name: jb
Posts: 591

Country: UK
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37729  Postby proudfootz » Mar 19, 2015 10:30 pm

Owdhat wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Stein wrote:
Owdhat wrote:That must be the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.

Doubters: We demand evidence of Tacitus not using hearsay
Free: "here's a ton of evidence "
Doubters: "we meant different evidence "
:-D


LOL! That's a riot, Owdhat. Brilliant! It expresses these myther ostriches and their agile goal posts to a T.

:cheers:

Stein

No it represents a fantasy that is not actually present in this thread.

Here is Free's ton of evidence again, if you don't recognise it as such well... I think your demanding too much of the extant material - historians take other persons existence in history on far less evidence.

Remember: a piece of ancient writing is taken as possibly true unless it conflicts with other evidence, merely not liking what it says does not count against it.
Providing references was highly unusual for historians at that time so we should not expect them.
And as one respected poster on this thread once alluded too : we will never know what "actually" happened about anything or anyone, what were after is the closest approximation that doesn't contradict the known evidence.
So, until Tacitus is positively shown by evidence to be 'not' using Roman records when he clearly 'is' in other instances his account as written stands.

Free wrote:Listed below is blue text that Tacitus wrote for his part on Christus, the Christians, and Pilate:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

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 Judaea, 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, but 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.
"

Point 1: There is absolutely nothing in that text that even hints at a Christian source. In fact, the text describing the punishments of the Christians is something that we cannot find in any Christian source at all, nor is there any indication that this can be understood as any kind of "hearsay."

Point 2: The text denigrates Christians by stating they were hated by the general population, calls them criminals, says that they were being convicted not for starting the fire, but rather because of their hatred towards mankind.

Point 3: This text obviously did not come from any Christian source. It says much more than merely mentioning the execution of Christ, as it clearly demonstrates complete and total Roman bias against those Christians.

Point 4: No Christian would tell Tacitus- or any other Roman historian- that their beliefs were an "abomination," that they were "mischievous superstitions," or that they were guilty of "hatred towards mankind", or that they were "criminals."

Consider this: Tacitus is a Roman who is writing Roman history. We can see him doing fact checking all through his works. Here are some examples:

Tacitus Accessing the Roman Registries:

[3.3] I do not find in any historian or in the daily register that Antonia, Germanicus's mother ...

[13.31] But we have learnt that it suits the dignity of the Roman people to reserve history for great achievements, and to leave such details to the city's daily register.

[15.74] I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius ...

Point 5: (Note above that Tacitus is checking the Roman registry in 15.74, which is the very same chapter/book where he writes about Christus, Christians, and the high ranking Roman official Pontius Pilate.)

Tacitus Using Roman Historians:

[1.69] According to Caius Plinius, the historian of the German wars

[1.81] ... so conflicting are the accounts we find not only in historians but in Tiberius' own speeches.

[4.10] In relating the death of Drusus I have followed the narrative of most of the best historians.

[15.38] A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,

Point 6: (Note above how he recognizes and uses the best historians, but also note that in 15.38- which is at the very beginning of his history regarding the Great Fires of Rome, which includes the part about Christus and the Christians, he informs us that he is using the works of previous historical writers. Keep this in mind as we go on.)

Tacitus Doing His Own Legwork and Using Historian Consensus:

[4.53] This incident, not mentioned by any historian, I have found in the memoirs of the younger Agrippina,

[13.20] Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians,

Point 7: Those are really just a very small sample of how Tacitus comprised his works. He used the Roman registries, works of other Historians, the scholarly consensus of his peers, and did plenty of leg work of his own.

Point 8: In addition to all this, Tacitus was obviously a revered historian as attested to by Pliny the Younger, whom Tacitus wrote to requesting information on the death of Pliny's uncle for Tacitus' works:

Pliny the Younger's Response To Tacitus:

"YOUR request that I would send you an account of my uncle’s death, in order to transmit a more exact relation of it to posterity, deserves my acknowledgments; for, if this accident shall be celebrated by your pen, the glory of it, I am well assured, will be rendered forever illustrious."

Obviously, Tacitus was no ordinary historian.

As far as using hearsay and rumours- as though they were some kind of fact- he has this to say:

[4.11] My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request all into whose hands my work shall come, not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history which has not been perverted into romance.

Point 9: As you can see, he wasn't a big fan of using rumours or hearsay in his works, but preferred actual genuine history.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2195058[/quote]

Thanks so much for reposting this failure of Free to show the 'christ' reference was based on any documentation.

This should really put the issue to bed for good and all. :clap:

:cheers:

As regular readers here know the numbered 'points' in the quote above have already been addressed in this thread.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2195115

As has been pointed out Pilate executing a 'messiah' is supposed to have been a common occurrence and could refer to any of hundreds of candidates.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37730  Postby RealityRules » Mar 19, 2015 10:43 pm

Owdhat wrote:
Here is Free's ton of "evidence" again ...

Remember: a piece of ancient writing is taken as possibly true unless it conflicts with other evidence, merely not liking what it says does not count against it.

Free wrote:Listed below is blue text that Tacitus wrote for his part on Christus, the Christians, and Pilate:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

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/Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus [Porcius Festus], and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, 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, but 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. "

Do you see how that passage starts off referring to Nero (Roman Emperor from 54 to 68 AD), then refers to Tiberius (Roman Emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD), then refers to Nero again ??

Now Tiberius was the son of Nero, born Tiberius Claudius Nero, but making the mistake by using the wrong name would diminish Tacitus's status as a good historian, wouldn't it?

Did you read the argument that the reference to Tiberius is out of sync with the time frame, and suggests editing by inserting Tiberius for Nero?

An argument I reiterated here; & also addressed here, in that the passage with Tiberius as the prosecutor is contrary to what Tertullian says in Ad Nationes -
This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. Tertullian, Ad Nationes

ie. Nero fits better.

As for your -
Owdhat wrote:So, until Tacitus is positively shown by evidence to be 'not' using Roman records, when he clearly 'is' in other instances, his account as written stands.

- that is a Composition fallacy - attributing qualities or characteristics of parts of a whole to the whole itself, or attributing qualities or characteristics of some parts of a whole to all parts ie. even if Tacitus mostly used Roman records, he may not always have; and, as I have pointed out here, the proposition of forgery is real.
Last edited by RealityRules on Mar 19, 2015 11:21 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37731  Postby MS2 » Mar 19, 2015 10:48 pm

proudfootz wrote:
MS2 wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
MS2 wrote:
I understand your argument (such as it is) perfectly well. The fact is that as part of your argument you have misrepresented the views of your opponent.

You have now had the chance, but have failed, to quote where he said anything to suggest anybody should ignore 'that the larger part of Jesus literature from the earliest times is made up stuff - miracles, anecdotes, speeches, prophecies, etc.'

You have also failed to show where he said:
'No evidence that the Jesus found in literature is a product of imagination'

So it seems your misrepresentation is proven. Your inability to admit this, and the fact that you have done it before, strengthens the view that you are a deliberate and serial offender.


Do you really want me to explain those last few pages to you?

No, what you need to do (but can't) is show where Free said those things.

You misrepresented him and you don't have the honesty to admit it.

I quoted precisely where you misrepresented him and it is precisely that post that you need to address.

Because if that's what you need me to do, it would work out better if you asked politely instead of jumping in with wild accusations.

I have been perfectly polite. No doubt I have said things you don't like to hear, but that's a different matter.
And they aren't wild accusations. They are entirely accurate. Unless, of course, you can show where Free said those things.

Just a tip on how to have a civil conversation. :cheers:

I know perfectly well how to do that. Unfortunately for you, I also know how to point out your lies.

I also know how to point out that by (falsely) accusing me of being impolite you are trying to distract from the point.


Since you're not interested in understanding the exchange, the question is moot.

The question isn't in the least bit moot. You lied about your opponent's position. It's as simple as that.

And your continuing to squirm just makes you look worse than you already did.
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1647
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37732  Postby proudfootz » Mar 19, 2015 10:55 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
Here is Free's ton of "evidence" again ...

Remember: a piece of ancient writing is taken as possibly true unless it conflicts with other evidence, merely not liking what it says does not count against it.

Free wrote:Listed below is blue text that Tacitus wrote for his part on Christus, the Christians, and Pilate:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

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 Judaea, 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, but 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.
"

Do you see how that passage starts off referring to Nero (Roman Emperor from 54 to 68 AD), then refers to Tiberius (Roman Emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD), then refers to Nero again ??

Did you read the argument that the reference to Tiberius is out of sync with the time frame, and suggests editing by inserting Tiberius for Nero?

An argument I reiterated here http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-37720.html#p2195966

As for your -
Owdhat wrote:So, until Tacitus is positively shown by evidence to be 'not' using Roman records, when he clearly 'is' in other instances, his account as written stands.

- that is a Composition fallacy - attributing qualities or characteristics of parts of a whole to the whole itself, or attributing qualities or characteristics of some parts of a whole to all parts i.e. even if Tacitus mostly used Roman records, he may not always have; and, as I have pointed out here, the proposition of forgery is real.


Obviously, sometimes Tacitus used Roman records for his writing.

Pretending that Pilate would write about someone in any official document sent to the capital city of the Empire as if they really were the long-awaited 'savior' is taking things a bit far...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37733  Postby proudfootz » Mar 19, 2015 10:59 pm

MS2 wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
MS2 wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Do you really want me to explain those last few pages to you?

No, what you need to do (but can't) is show where Free said those things.

You misrepresented him and you don't have the honesty to admit it.

I quoted precisely where you misrepresented him and it is precisely that post that you need to address.

Because if that's what you need me to do, it would work out better if you asked politely instead of jumping in with wild accusations.

I have been perfectly polite. No doubt I have said things you don't like to hear, but that's a different matter.
And they aren't wild accusations. They are entirely accurate. Unless, of course, you can show where Free said those things.

Just a tip on how to have a civil conversation. :cheers:

I know perfectly well how to do that. Unfortunately for you, I also know how to point out your lies.

I also know how to point out that by (falsely) accusing me of being impolite you are trying to distract from the point.


Since you're not interested in understanding the exchange, the question is moot.

The question isn't in the least bit moot. You lied about your opponent's position. It's as simple as that.

And your continuing to squirm just makes you look worse than you already did.


Glad to see you've stopped in again! :P

Hope all is well with you. enjoying the weather at this time of year?

I'm fine, thanks for asking. :grin:

Be sure to visit again to flag some more posts in a thread you don't participate in!
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37734  Postby dejuror » Mar 20, 2015 8:30 am

Owdhat wrote:

Remember: a piece of ancient writing is taken as possibly true unless it conflicts with other evidence, merely not liking what it says does not count against it.


Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with Tacitus' Histories 5.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with Josephus "Wars of the Jews" 6.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with Suetonius' "Life of Vespasian.

The Jewish Messiah did NOT yet arrive up to the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE [or up to today] in contemporary non-apologetic writings.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with the very Gospels.

Jesus was NOT known as Christus by the Jews and demanded that his didciples tell no man he was Christus in the Myth/Fiction Fables of the Gospels.

The very first day Jesus publicly claimed he was the Christ he was KILLED or caused to be KILLED by the Jews in the myth/fiction fables called Gospels.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus was forged no earlier than the 5th century or sometime AFTER the writing called "Sacred History" attributed to Sulpitius Severus.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4759

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37735  Postby proudfootz » Mar 20, 2015 10:59 am

dejuror wrote:
Owdhat wrote:

Remember: a piece of ancient writing is taken as possibly true unless it conflicts with other evidence, merely not liking what it says does not count against it.


Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with Tacitus' Histories 5.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with Josephus "Wars of the Jews" 6.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with Suetonius' "Life of Vespasian.

The Jewish Messiah did NOT yet arrive up to the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE [or up to today] in contemporary non-apologetic writings.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is in CONFLICT with the very Gospels.

Jesus was NOT known as Christus by the Jews and demanded that his didciples tell no man he was Christus in the Myth/Fiction Fables of the Gospels.

The very first day Jesus publicly claimed he was the Christ he was KILLED or caused to be KILLED by the Jews in the myth/fiction fables called Gospels.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus was forged no earlier than the 5th century or sometime AFTER the writing called "Sacred History" attributed to Sulpitius Severus.


Thanks for further elucidating some of the problems with this passage! :thumbup:

Owdhat is mistaken if he really believes that this is about 'not liking what it says'.

In the parlance of Stein, MS2, and Free our friend Owdhat's representation of the argument would be called 'lying'. :coffee:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37736  Postby THWOTH » Mar 26, 2015 9:50 am


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
I would like to draw the attention of participants to my previous modnote, which some members seem to have skipped in their eagerness to contend.

modnote wrote:We all know there are strong disagreements between parties over many aspects of this issue - something the regular contributors should at least expect and accept by now. You should also be aware of the fact that the mere existence of disagreement does not signify a deficit in character or intellectual ability - no matter how convinced you are of the correctness of your own position - nor legitimise criticism on that basis. In such circumstances agreeing to disagree is a far more productive approach to discourse than resorting to personal jibes and lambastations for not seeing things the 'right' way.


To this I would add that presenting one's own interpretation of the arguments and/or sources of one's interlocutor should not be automatically taken as a wilful misrepresentation of those remarks. In a thread where disagreement over the facts and their interpretation is so palpable, both here and in the wider community, members are encouraged to avoid the mistake of taking the expression of an opposing view as evidence of wilful misrepresentation.

Again, I will reiterate; the mere existence of disagreement does not justify pejorative charges of wilful maleficence, nor justify the passing of one's assumption about the character and capacities of one's objectors, no matter however carefully they are couched to avoid falling foul of the Forum Users' Agreement.

Some members are also labouring under the misapprehension that members of the mod-team have a vested interest in favouring one side of the argument over the other. This is a silly suggestion. The mod-team's interest in this thread is entirely limited to the terms in which the 'debate' proceeds and responses to the reports submitted by its contributors.

Though some members may feel entitled to their sense of righteous indignation when the posts and posting of others is, or is not, mentioned in a modnote, there is simply no reasonable basis to assume that any action, or lack of it, by the mod-team is a wilful attempt to skew the discussion in favour of, or against, any particular point of view.

If members have concerns about moderation they should bring them to the attention of a senior moderator or start a thread in the Feedback section of the site. Discussing moderation in-thread is a distracting irrelevance and will be removed as off-topic, as is has been here.

Free. It is not reasonable to assert that a failure to accept your claims, assertions and interpretation of texts is a signifier of intellectual dishonesty. At the outset such a charge may be put down to misunderstanding, but when repeated after your interlocutor has offered reasonable clarification it becomes increasing antagonistic by repetition. Please avoid similar characterisations in future.

proudfootz. Reassigning your interlocutor's gender may have been nothing but a lapse in concentration, but after it was pointed out to you and you still failed to address the lapse it looks more like a wilful attempt to antagonise. Please guard against similar 'lapses' in future.

This thread will remain locked for a little while longer to give participants a chance to read and digest this modnote.
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38753
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37737  Postby proudfootz » Mar 26, 2015 8:49 pm

Apparently serious students of history are questioning traditional beliefs in a parallel field:

Did Muhammad Exist?

...I mentioned previously several other historians who have questioned the conventional story of Islam’s origins in my posts on Tom Holland’s book; here are a few of many more names listed by Spencer:

Ignaz Goldziher (1850-1921): Lateness of earliest biographical sources on Muhammad along with tendency to invent stories to support later political and religious positions made it impossible to treat the biographies as historically reliable. Spencer lists many names of scholars who have raised questions about Muhammad’s historicity but I list only a few here;

Henri Lammens (1862-1937): Questioned the traditional dates associated with Muhammad; noted the “artificial character and absence of critical sense” in the earliest biographies of Muhammad.

Joseph Schacht (1902-1969): Impossible to extract authentic core of historical material from the earliest texts. Many documents claiming to be early were in fact composed much later.

John Wansbrough (1928-2002): Doubted the historical value of early Islamic texts. Qur’an was developed for political purposes to establish Islam’s origins in Arabia and to give the Arabian empire a distinctive religion.

Patricia Crone and Michael Cook: Noted lateness and unreliability of most early Islamic sources; reviewed archaeological, philological sources, coins from seventh and eighth centuries. Posited that Islam arose within and then split from Judaism. Argued the Arabic setting (including Mecca) was at a late date and for political purposes read back into the history of Islam’s origins. Later, however, Crone wrote that the evidence for Muhammad’s existence is “exceptionally good” (see the quotation above).

Günter Lüling: Qur’an originated as a Christian document; reflects theology of non-Trinitarian Christianity that influenced Islam.

Christoph Luxemberg (pseudonym): Qur’an shows signs of a Christian substratum; Syriac, not Arabic, resolves many difficulties in the text.

So what are the main points that prompt questions about the historicity of Muhammad and suggest that Islam emerged as a major religion some decades after the Arab conquests? Robert Spencer lists the following:

*The first record of Muhammad’s death in 632 appears more than a century after that date.

*There is a mid-630s Christian reference to a living Arab prophet “armed with a sword”.

*Those conquered by the Arabs in the seventh century never mention Islam, Muhammad or the Qur’an until much later. They refer to their conquerors as Ishmaelites, Saracens, Muhajirun and Hagarians but never as Muslims.

*The coins and inscriptions of the Arab conquerors do not mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first sixty years after their conquests. Mentions of Muhammad are ambiguous: does it refer to a name or an honorific? Twice the name appears with a cross.

*The Qur’an in its present form was not distributed until the 650s according to the orthodox account. The Qur’an is not mentioned by the Arabs, Christians or Jews in the region until the early eighth century.

*The Arabs constructed a public building with an inscription headed by a cross during the reign of caliph Muawiya (661-680).

*Coins and inscriptions indicating Islamic beliefs, and the first mentions of Muhammad as a prophet of Islam, emerge in the reign of caliph Abd al-Malik in the 690s.

*At the same time Arabic (the language of the Qur’an according to tradition) superseded Syrian and Greek as the dominant language of the empire.

*Abd al-Malik claimed to have been the one to have collected the Qur’an sayings into the one volume contradicting Islamic tradition that this had been accomplished forty years earlier by caliph Uthman.

*At the same period (690s) the governor of Iraq Hajjaj ibn Yusuf edited the Qur’an and distributed it to various provinces, according to multiple hadiths — also something the traditional account attributes much earlier to Uthman.

*Some Islamic traditions date certain practices such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers from the directives of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earliest period of Islamic history.

*The first complete biography of Muhammad appeared 125 years after the traditional date of the prophet’s death. This biographical material proliferated after the Umayyad dynasty was replaced by the Abbasids. The new dynasty accused the Umayyads of being most irreligious. The new biographical details of Muhammad emerged at this time.

*Mecca (the supposed birth place of Muhammad and Islam) in the centre of Arabia was never a centre for trade and pilgrimage as claimed by canonical Islamic accounts.

There are many textual oddities in the Qur’an and Spencer discusses some arguments of scholars who have suggested that these remain problematic only if we accept the traditional account that they were originally composed in Arabic. They can apparently be resolved if we hypothesize Syriac and Christian sources behind them.

<full post at link>

http://vridar.org/2015/03/26/did-muhamm ... s-origins/
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37738  Postby Ducktown » Mar 27, 2015 5:24 pm

You're missing the point that to even question the status quo consensus is a sign you are not to be taken seriously and should be made to recant. We all know that geese come from barnacles, the earth is flat, disease is caused by spirits and guilty ancestors, the earth is the center of the universe, adam and eve and eden are real, god created us, noah's boat, vampires, succubi, etc.

Get with it. Accept the consensus of authority and tradition.
Ducktown
 
Posts: 209

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37739  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 27, 2015 5:45 pm

Ducktown wrote:You're missing the point that to even question the status quo consensus is a sign you are not to be taken seriously and should be made to recant. We all know that geese come from barnacles, the earth is flat, disease is caused by spirits and guilty ancestors, the earth is the center of the universe, adam and eve and eden are real, god created us, noah's boat, vampires, succubi, etc.

Get with it. Accept the consensus of authority and tradition.

That's not how science or rational skepticism works Ducktown.
You're appealing to the tradition and popularity fallacies.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#37740  Postby RealityRules » Mar 27, 2015 9:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Ducktown wrote:You're missing the point that to even question the status quo consensus is a sign you are not to be taken seriously and should be made to recant. We all know that geese come from barnacles, the earth is flat, disease is caused by spirits and guilty ancestors, the earth is the center of the universe, adam and eve and eden are real, god created us, noah's boat, vampires, succubi, etc.

Get with it. Accept the consensus of authority and tradition.

That's not how science or rational skepticism works Ducktown.
You're appealing to the tradition and popularity fallacies.

I think Ducktown was being facetious :P
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests