Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 05:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Historians? It seems to be your own term and not anyone else's. Consider

And you didn't explore it far enough to understand that it is merely a common term for textual analysis?

Okay.

Google could only find one site (presumably yours?).

What's your definition of "common"?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-07-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you didn't explore it far enough to understand that it is merely a common term for textual analysis?

Then why not use the term "textual analysis ?
"Excavation" sounds suspiciously like "slap your own understanding on the past", especially for someone who didn't even get that witchcraft wasn't "superstition" for the residents of Salem Mass.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 10:57 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you didn't explore it far enough to understand that it is merely a common term for textual analysis?

Okay.

Google could only find one site (presumably yours?).

What's your definition of "common"?

Huh

Putting "textual excavation" in Google in quotes will demonstrate what I am talking about. It's just a common term for textual analysis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you didn't explore it far enough to understand that it is merely a common term for textual analysis?

Then why not use the term "textual analysis ?

Because to the learned, it's the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2016, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2016 11:49 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you think I am being deliberately obtuse when you do this bullshit? They do not need to know each other, nor even have heard about each other, to be contemporaries.

Not enough to be contemporaries, in the sense you are now using it. They would have had to meet and share information for this to be relevant to this conversation.

(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Ummm no? That is not what you said in your previous post at all. Here again is what you said, and how it is understood. Emphasis mine:

"Pilate is only seen as important to us because of his central place in Christian theology, which is what garnered him a mention in the section (of Annals by Tacitus),"

Your quote clearly said that the reason Tacitus mentions Pilate in this section of Annals is because Pilate has a central place in Christian theology.

The connotation of your statement infers that if Tacitus' reason for mentioning Pilate in this section of Annals was because of Pilate's place in Christian theology- and the Roman population was not Christian- then then only one's who would read and fully understand this particular part of Annals would be a Christian audience, since a Roman audience would not be privy to the understanding regarding Pilate's inclusion into this section.

Is there some other way that anyone is supposed to understand what you said? Because if so, then you will need to be far more careful of the words you choose in the future because there is simply no other way to view what you said considering the way you said it.

I said it is the only reason it is important to us. Reading comprehension, man.

(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No one is saying that Tacitus would not be off-the-cuff familiar with the cults of Rome, for all I am saying is that there is no evidence whatsoever that his remarks about Pilate and Tiberius particularly were off-the-cuff- remarks.

He is mentioning two very high-standing Roman persons- one an Emperor- here in this passage, and you think it's plausible that his remarks about them would be merely off-the-cuff?

Considering Tacitus' fact checking habits- which in this very chapter of 15 with the fires, Pilate, Christ, et al, demonstrates him accessing the previous works of Roman historians, the Acta Diurna, and the Acta Senatus among other literature, then this is direct evidence supporting Tacitus' preference for ensure that he was writing genuine history rather than mere rumors. In fact, in regards to mere rumors, Tacitus has this to say:

Annals 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."


The position that Tacitus used rumors and/or off-the-cuff remarks considering high ranking Roman officials is not only wholly unsupported, illogical, and unreasonable, but it is also hotly contested by his very own words in the text which demonstrate a continuous utilization of all available previously written historical Roman literature at his disposal.

You are pulling at straws here with not so much as even a meager hope.

And you are taking stuff out of context to maintain an ideological prejudice. Here is the context of this quote:

[4.10] In relating the death of Drusus I have followed the narrative of most of the best historians. But I would not pass over a rumour of the time, the strength of which is not even yet exhausted. Sejanus, it is said, having seduced Livia into crime, next secured, by the foulest means, the consent of Lygdus, the eunuch, as from his youth and beauty he was his master's favourite, and one of his principal attendants. When those who were in the secret had decided on the time and place of the poisoning, Sejanus, with the most consummate daring, reversed his plan, and, whispering an accusation against Drusus of intending to poison his father, warned Tiberius to avoid the first draught offered him as he was dining at his son's house. Thus deceived, the old emperor, on sitting down to the banquet, took the cup and handed it to Drusus. His suspicions were increased when Drusus, in perfect unconsciousness, drank it off with youthful eagerness, apparently, out of fear and shame, bringing on himself the death which he had plotted against his father.

[4.11] These popular rumours, over and above the fact that they are not vouched for by any good writer, may be instantly refuted. For who, with moderate prudence, far less Tiberius with his great experience, would have thrust destruction on a son, without even hearing him, with his own hand too, and with an impossibility of returning to better thoughts. Surely he would rather have had the slave who handed the poison, tortured, have sought to discover the traitor, in short, would have been as hesitating and tardy in the case of an only son hitherto unconvicted of any crime, as he was naturally even with strangers. But as Sejanus had the credit of contriving every sort of wickedness, the fact that he was the emperor's special favourite, and that both were hated by the rest of the world, procured belief for any monstrous fiction, and rumour too always has a dreadful side in regard to the deaths of men in power. Besides, the whole process of the crime was betrayed by Apicata, Sejanus's wife, and fully divulged, under torture, by Eudemus and Lygdus. No writer has been found sufficiently malignant to fix the guilt on Tiberius, though every circumstance was scrutinized and exaggerated. 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.


(Emphasis mine.) He is speaking specifically of the rumors to do with this specific story. He says so explicitly. You are the one extrapolating this into a general statement. And yes, I think an expert on religion can relate the basic claims of the Christians, including their allegation that their Christ was killed by Pilate, off-the-cuff in a passing description of who they were.

(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now this is what we call "moving the goalposts," and any atheist here can see it, albeit, but will by no means acknowledge it to aid me.

Evidence has been abundantly provided which demonstrates that even within the very 15th chapter which includes Pilate, Tiberius, Christ, and the Christians et al, Tacitus is using a plethora of written official Roman records.

Yet now, you expect that for just a small couple of lines of text he must explicitly place a footnote for his sources of just a few words? Considering what we have already proven about Tacitus' fact checking habits, this is most definitely a fallaciously excessive expectation of evidence.

Using your logic, because Tacitus doesn't place a footnote for every line of text in Annals then we must conclude it is all hearsay and not a record of Roman history!

Ridiculous.

Hardly. And I don't doubt that Tacitus is using records about the Emperor-related [Edit to Add: events] he is describing. As I've said. And will say again. So stop mentioning it.

And no, I'm not saying he must "explicitly place a footnote". Where did you get that? I'm saying it's something he would have "just known", from his work prior to being an historian, and would not have needed to consult an official record in order to explain to his readers what a Christian believes... a belief which would include the claim that Christ was executed by Pilate. Whether it was true or not would be irrelevant to his story.


(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are cherry-picking a couple of lines of text and demanding an unrealistic expectation of evidence for just those couple lines, all because it mentions Christ. If it mentioned someone named "Robert," you wouldn't bat an eyelash at it or even consider demanding any more evidence. You would simply accept it.

But no, because it mentions Christ, it must not be genuine, right? That is a dishonest approach to history.

Not "all because it mentions Christ". It is simply unnecessary for Tacitus to consult a Roman official record in order to make the statement he did, which is something he would have simply known. In order for this reference to confirm an historical Christ, it would have to be from a record-- but, as I have pointed out, a record made at the time of the trial would not contain the error we see in Tacitus' report. This indicates to me that he did get it from hearsay, rather than the record you keep claiming he must be using. (That or he was sloppy, which we both know he was not.) The obvious conclusion is that it is a descriptive footnote to explain what a Christian is to his non-Rome-resident Romans, or for future generations of readers, and not a definitive statement of recorded history.

(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yet, within the very text he mentions Caesar Tiberius in which he dedicates an entire chapter and more beginning in chapter 4, in which he goes into great detail chronicling his life.

So instead of using his own source material- which he obviously already possessed- you somehow expect people to believe that he would completely disregard his readily available written Roman records in preference to a consultation with the enemy of the Christians in an effort to get some Roman history from them?

Seriously?

I have repeatedly stated that Tacitus was careful about his descriptions of Emperors and their actions. A description of the Christians, however, is not necessarily "Roman history", in the sense that you're using it. I am stating, again, that Tacitus would not have placed the level of importance on the section about the Christians as he would on the actions of the Emperors.

(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No, it does not state that they were convicted because of their criminal beliefs, you are misrepresenting the text again. Here it is:

"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

It clearly says that they were arrested because they pleaded guilty to starting the fires of Rome. Then, upon the information they provided, they were convicted not so much (meaning, not just because of) the crime of starting the fire, but also because of their (or Neros) hatred towards mankind.

It says absolutely nothing about them volunteering any information about their beliefs, but rather it clearly says they were arrested because they pleaded guilty to starting the fires.

The crime of "hatred against mankind" was their beliefs. They were accused of many disturbing beliefs, which the Romans considered worthy of death, as Tacitus indicates. It is a bit odd to state that they were "arrested for admitting to starting the fires", given that Tacitus previously indicated that they were "hated for their abominations" and that Nero had "fixed the guilt" upon them, and that Tacitus had stated, "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts".

Tacitus seems to not consider the accusation against the Christians to be a solid case, as he would if they were admitting to setting the fire, as you are now claiming.

Try some "textual excavation" next time, perhaps?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
03-07-2016, 12:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 06:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's interesting how Philo by you gets treated as if he's an investigative reporter, even though he was not a historian, and was interested in penning his theological views, and yet you want to suggest that Tacitus, who was a a roman historian, and no particular fan of Christianity, was relaying information received by him from the Christian cult, regarding Jesus's death under Pilate, that he took at face value as true.

You also complain about Tacitus not citing his sources, if he derived them from other writings, yet Tacitus doesn't claim that he got that information from Christians, or that he was relaying information received by them, but this is your suggestion.

You say he was writing for Roman audiences, who had subsequently not heard about these events, and wanted to pass along thorough explanations, yet pass along false info regarding Jesus? Apparently Tacitus wasn't aware that Jesus didn't exist, it's only atheists 2000s year later who figured that out.

Why would Tacitus not take it at face value, when describing what a Christian was to others? Why would he care whether Jesus actually existed or not? Why would he care whether or not Pilate actually killed their leader? He was an official Roman cult investigator for a council of priests, and would have been able to rattle off such a description in the same way a religious expert today would have been able to rattle off the events claimed by Mormons about the meetings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Again, as I said to GoingUp, the only reason these items have historical significance to us is because of the rise of the Christian cult after Constantine/Eusebius. Tacitus would have considered them an annoying sect of cultists, and not worthy of the same level of historical scrutiny he would give to the actions of the emperors he was describing in Annals.

As for Philo, we simply point out that he was in a time and place to have easily heard about the miracles attested to by the Gospels, and yet clearly has not-- what would be better for a religious writer such as himself to write about?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
03-07-2016, 12:14 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2016 12:21 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 12:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 06:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's interesting how Philo by you gets treated as if he's an investigative reporter, even though he was not a historian, and was interested in penning his theological views, and yet you want to suggest that Tacitus, who was a a roman historian, and no particular fan of Christianity, was relaying information received by him from the Christian cult, regarding Jesus's death under Pilate, that he took at face value as true.

You also complain about Tacitus not citing his sources, if he derived them from other writings, yet Tacitus doesn't claim that he got that information from Christians, or that he was relaying information received by them, but this is your suggestion.

You say he was writing for Roman audiences, who had subsequently not heard about these events, and wanted to pass along thorough explanations, yet pass along false info regarding Jesus? Apparently Tacitus wasn't aware that Jesus didn't exist, it's only atheists 2000s year later who figured that out.

Why would Tacitus not take it at face value, when describing what a Christian was to others? Why would he care whether Jesus actually existed or not? Why would he care whether or not Pilate actually killed their leader? He was an official Roman cult investigator for a council of priests, and would have been able to rattle off such a description in the same way a religious expert today would have been able to rattle off the events claimed by Mormons about the meetings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Again, as I said to GoingUp, the only reason these items have historical significance to us is because of the rise of the Christian cult after Constantine/Eusebius. Tacitus would have considered them an annoying sect of cultists, and not worthy of the same level of historical scrutiny he would give to the actions of the emperors he was describing in Annals.

As for Philo, we simply point out that he was in a time and place to have easily heard about the miracles attested to by the Gospels, and yet clearly has not-- what would be better for a religious writer such as himself to write about?

Anti-Christians are quite drawn to the idea of Jesus not existing, to the point that they'd lie on his behalf, as countless false claims they make to support it indicate. Apparently folks like Tacitus wouldn't have been? I would think the idea of non-existing messiah, even the faintest suggestion of it at the time, would have bee n of considerable interest to anti-christian sentiments at the time, just like now. But apparently we're suppose to believe there was no historical Jesus, and the early Christians were able to pull the wool over everyones eyes, even Roman historians, like Tacitus, who they not only fooled into believing he was a historical person, but into believing that he was crucified under their very own Pontius Pilate.

I'm curious to hear when do you think this conversion from non-historical Jesus to a historical Jesus happened? Clearly if Christians around the time believed he was crucified under Pilate, that they did see him as an actual historical person?

Prior to Paul's own writing?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 11:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you think I am being deliberately obtuse when you do this bullshit? They do not need to know each other, nor even have heard about each other, to be contemporaries.

Not enough to be contemporaries, in the sense you are now using it. They would have had to meet and share information for this to be relevant to this conversation.

Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word "contemporary."

We'll let the readers judge you on what they know to be true.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Ummm no? That is not what you said in your previous post at all. Here again is what you said, and how it is understood. Emphasis mine:

"Pilate is only seen as important to us because of his central place in Christian theology, which is what garnered him a mention in the section (of Annals by Tacitus),"

Your quote clearly said that the reason Tacitus mentions Pilate in this section of Annals is because Pilate has a central place in Christian theology.

The connotation of your statement infers that if Tacitus' reason for mentioning Pilate in this section of Annals was because of Pilate's place in Christian theology- and the Roman population was not Christian- then then only one's who would read and fully understand this particular part of Annals would be a Christian audience, since a Roman audience would not be privy to the understanding regarding Pilate's inclusion into this section.

Is there some other way that anyone is supposed to understand what you said? Because if so, then you will need to be far more careful of the words you choose in the future because there is simply no other way to view what you said considering the way you said it.

I said it is the only reason it is important to us. Reading comprehension, man.

No, you clearly said "Pilate is only seen as important to us because of his central place in Christian theology, WHICH is what garnered him a mention in the section (of Annals by Tacitus)."

By the use of the word WHICH, you said that the reason Tacitus mentioned him in the section is because Pilate would be seen by US as being important because of his central place in Christian theology.

So yes, you said that Tacitus' motive for mentioning Pilate was because we here, 2000 years into the future, would see him as being important due to his central place in Christian theology.

You expect anyone with a clue to accept that crap? So, if that's the case, please show me how Caesar Tiberius was also a central figure in Christian theology, since he is also mentioned in the very same breath as Pilate.

And please invest in a better shovel, because the one you are using to shovel this crap is broken.

Laugh out load

Quote:
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No one is saying that Tacitus would not be off-the-cuff familiar with the cults of Rome, for all I am saying is that there is no evidence whatsoever that his remarks about Pilate and Tiberius particularly were off-the-cuff- remarks.

He is mentioning two very high-standing Roman persons- one an Emperor- here in this passage, and you think it's plausible that his remarks about them would be merely off-the-cuff?

Considering Tacitus' fact checking habits- which in this very chapter of 15 with the fires, Pilate, Christ, et al, demonstrates him accessing the previous works of Roman historians, the Acta Diurna, and the Acta Senatus among other literature, then this is direct evidence supporting Tacitus' preference for ensure that he was writing genuine history rather than mere rumors. In fact, in regards to mere rumors, Tacitus has this to say:

Annals 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."


The position that Tacitus used rumors and/or off-the-cuff remarks considering high ranking Roman officials is not only wholly unsupported, illogical, and unreasonable, but it is also hotly contested by his very own words in the text which demonstrate a continuous utilization of all available previously written historical Roman literature at his disposal.

You are pulling at straws here with not so much as even a meager hope.

And you are taking stuff out of context to maintain an ideological prejudice. Here is the context of this quote:

[4.10] In relating the death of Drusus I have followed the narrative of most of the best historians. But I would not pass over a rumour of the time, the strength of which is not even yet exhausted. Sejanus, it is said, having seduced Livia into crime, next secured, by the foulest means, the consent of Lygdus, the eunuch, as from his youth and beauty he was his master's favourite, and one of his principal attendants. When those who were in the secret had decided on the time and place of the poisoning, Sejanus, with the most consummate daring, reversed his plan, and, whispering an accusation against Drusus of intending to poison his father, warned Tiberius to avoid the first draught offered him as he was dining at his son's house. Thus deceived, the old emperor, on sitting down to the banquet, took the cup and handed it to Drusus. His suspicions were increased when Drusus, in perfect unconsciousness, drank it off with youthful eagerness, apparently, out of fear and shame, bringing on himself the death which he had plotted against his father.

[4.11] These popular rumours, over and above the fact that they are not vouched for by any good writer, may be instantly refuted. For who, with moderate prudence, far less Tiberius with his great experience, would have thrust destruction on a son, without even hearing him, with his own hand too, and with an impossibility of returning to better thoughts. Surely he would rather have had the slave who handed the poison, tortured, have sought to discover the traitor, in short, would have been as hesitating and tardy in the case of an only son hitherto unconvicted of any crime, as he was naturally even with strangers. But as Sejanus had the credit of contriving every sort of wickedness, the fact that he was the emperor's special favourite, and that both were hated by the rest of the world, procured belief for any monstrous fiction, and rumour too always has a dreadful side in regard to the deaths of men in power. Besides, the whole process of the crime was betrayed by Apicata, Sejanus's wife, and fully divulged, under torture, by Eudemus and Lygdus. No writer has been found sufficiently malignant to fix the guilt on Tiberius, though every circumstance was scrutinized and exaggerated. 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.


(Emphasis mine.) He is speaking specifically of the rumors to do with this specific story. He says so explicitly. You are the one extrapolating this into a general statement. And yes, I think an expert on religion can relate the basic claims of the Christians, including their allegation that their Christ was killed by Pilate, off-the-cuff in a passing description of who they were.

No.

In my quote of him- and please look closely- Tacitus mentioned his WORK, meaning the Annals as a whole:

"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"

Quote:
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now this is what we call "moving the goalposts," and any atheist here can see it, albeit, but will by no means acknowledge it to aid me.

Evidence has been abundantly provided which demonstrates that even within the very 15th chapter which includes Pilate, Tiberius, Christ, and the Christians et al, Tacitus is using a plethora of written official Roman records.

Yet now, you expect that for just a small couple of lines of text he must explicitly place a footnote for his sources of just a few words? Considering what we have already proven about Tacitus' fact checking habits, this is most definitely a fallaciously excessive expectation of evidence.

Using your logic, because Tacitus doesn't place a footnote for every line of text in Annals then we must conclude it is all hearsay and not a record of Roman history!

Ridiculous.

Hardly. And I don't doubt that Tacitus is using records about the Emperor-related he is describing. As I've said. And will say again. So stop mentioning it.

It's not hardly ridiculous, it is blatantly ridiculous.

Laugh out load

Quote:And no, I'm not saying he must "explicitly place a footnote". Where did you get that? I'm saying it's something he would have "just known", from his work prior to being an historian, and would not have needed to consult an official record in order to explain to his readers what a Christian believes... a belief which would include the claim that Christ was executed by Pilate. Whether it was true or not would be irrelevant to his story.

Stop trying to twist your way out of this because it isn't happening. You absolutely stated the following:

"I don't see anywhere in the Annals where he states (as he does elsewhere) that he is working from documents about Pilate and the crucifixion."

You said that in response to me saying:

"But that is not the sum total of your argument, as you are also implying that the mentions of Pilate, Tiberius, and Christ also come from the hearsay of Christians as opposed to what the textual evidence in Annals as a whole actually indicates."


The content was all about the ancient Roman written resources Tacitus was using as a whole to research for his Annals, and the abundance of it being pointed out to you. Then you respond with, "I don't see anywhere in the Annals where he states (as he does elsewhere) that he is working from documents about Pilate and the crucifixion."

So yep, you are a cherry picker who moves the goal posts.


Quote:
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are cherry-picking a couple of lines of text and demanding an unrealistic expectation of evidence for just those couple lines, all because it mentions Christ. If it mentioned someone named "Robert," you wouldn't bat an eyelash at it or even consider demanding any more evidence. You would simply accept it.

But no, because it mentions Christ, it must not be genuine, right? That is a dishonest approach to history.

Not "all because it mentions Christ". It is simply unnecessary for Tacitus to consult a Roman official record in order to make the statement he did, which is something he would have simply known.

So let me get this straight. Tacitus would have simply known the following:

1. Pilate was in Judea in Ad 28 - 36.
2. Christus was the father of Christianity.
3. The Christians were blamed for the fire.
4. The Christians were arrested and convicted.
5. The Christians were burned and tortured, serving as a light post in the night.
6. The Christians were torn apart by wild dogs.
7. The Christians were nailed to crosses to mock them.
8. Nero staged this entire event in the Gardens.

In addition to all that, since it is just a small part of the events surrounding the great fires of Rome, I guess Tacitus just automatically knew everything about the Great Fires of Rome also? All the minute details about it was already known by him? No, we both know that is unreasonable. Therefore ...

If Tacitus was researching for information about the Great Fires of Rome and what Nero did, then all the information about that event including Pilate, Christus, Tiberius, and the Christians, would have been included as part of a previously written record.

it is simply illogical and intellectually dishonest to expect Tacitus to have simply known all these minute details about the Christians, and since it is obvious that he would need previously written source materials to account for these details, that those source materials would also have included information on Christ and the Christians, Pilate and Tiberias, and all that followed.

You just can't cherry pick because it mentions Christ and make an illogical claim that Tacitus needed to use hearsay from the Christians about Pilate, Christ, Tiberius, and the Christians when the details in the text itself are so extensive as to warrant previously written source materials to chronicle the history.

You have no evidence of hearsay. You have no good supported reasoning for hearsay. And all the available evidence works against any position of hearsay.

All the available evidence can only point to Tacitus using previously written source materials, and none of it points to hearsay.

Your speculation accounts for nothing. It's worthless.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yet, within the very text he mentions Caesar Tiberius in which he dedicates an entire chapter and more beginning in chapter 4, in which he goes into great detail chronicling his life.

So instead of using his own source material- which he obviously already possessed- you somehow expect people to believe that he would completely disregard his readily available written Roman records in preference to a consultation with the enemy of the Christians in an effort to get some Roman history from them?

Seriously?

I have repeatedly stated that Tacitus was careful about his descriptions of Emperors and their actions. A description of the Christians, however, is not necessarily "Roman history", in the sense that you're using it. I am stating, again, that Tacitus would not have placed the level of importance on the section about the Christians as he would on the actions of the Emperors.

But the actions of the Emperors- in this case Nero- are exactly what this section is all about. This is all about what Nero did to the Christians. The mentioning of Pilate and Tiberius is critical to explaining to the Roman audience about who the Christians were, when they originated, and from where they originated.

Pilate is critical to the text to explain the time and place of origin of the Christian religion. In addition to that bit of history, Pilate is connected to Christus as being the person who executed Christ. But the entire point of Tacitus mentioning Pilate is not because of his place in Christian theology, nor about his execution of Christ, but rather for Tacitus to set the place and time-line of the origins of the Christians.

After he sets the place and time-line for the origin of the Christians via the mentioning of Pilate and Tiberius, he then goes on to great detail about the persecution of the Christians under Nero.

That is what you need to see here from the perspective of a historian, and not from the perspective of Christians or Christian influences.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 09:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No, it does not state that they were convicted because of their criminal beliefs, you are misrepresenting the text again. Here it is:

"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

It clearly says that they were arrested because they pleaded guilty to starting the fires of Rome. Then, upon the information they provided, they were convicted not so much (meaning, not just because of) the crime of starting the fire, but also because of their (or Neros) hatred towards mankind.

It says absolutely nothing about them volunteering any information about their beliefs, but rather it clearly says they were arrested because they pleaded guilty to starting the fires.

The crime of "hatred against mankind" was their beliefs. They were accused of many disturbing beliefs, which the Romans considered worthy of death, as Tacitus indicates. It is a bit odd to state that they were "arrested for admitting to starting the fires", given that Tacitus previously indicated that they were "hated for their abominations" and that Nero had "fixed the guilt" upon them, and that Tacitus had stated, "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts".

Tacitus seems to not consider the accusation against the Christians to be a solid case, as he would if they were admitting to setting the fire, as you are now claiming.

You have no basis to fortify your claim here. There's no evidence within the text to suggest that the Christians provided any information about their beliefs or anything else. You are completely pulling at straws here.

And in addition to that, if you think that they did provide information, then you must admit that that information was written down somewhere for Tacitus to see since the event occurred some 50 years previous to Tacitus writing Annals.

And that indicates a written source.

Quote:Try some "textual excavation" next time, perhaps?

You just got schooled on it. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2016, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2016 05:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 12:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Anti-Christians are quite drawn to the idea of Jesus not existing, to the point that they'd lie on his behalf, ..... bla bla bla

No one is "anti-Christian" here.
We've already told it it makes no difference if he existed or not.

Ya know, Tomato, your constant anti-atheist bullshit is getting really old.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-07-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 11:12 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then why not use the term "textual analysis ?

Because to the learned, it's the same thing.

You forgot the "snort".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: