Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 05:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 04:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Surely there is a high probability the passage from Tacitus is an interpolation.

I found this at
http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English...citus.htm.

"The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius,
was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate"

It is not quoted by the Christian fathers:
Tertullian
He was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
Clement of Alexandria
At the beginning of the third century, he made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity
that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
Origen
In his controversy with Celsus, he would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
Eusebius
In the fourth century, the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening.
It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century
The passage neither reflects Tacitus in tone nor in linguistic ability.
Just consider "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante
per procuratorem Pontius Pilatus supplicio adfectus erat".
Vocabulary
Tacitus clearly knows when Judea was administered by 'procurators',
yet this passage calls Pontius Pilate a 'procurator' when he should have been called a 'prefect',
and, given Tacitus's knowledge in the area, including when procurators received magistrate's powers,
this would be an incredible error for Tacitus.
Tacitus does not use the name 'Jesus' but 'Christus'
Tacitus assumes his readers know Pontius Pilate.
John Meier tellingly observes (without perceiving its significance):
"There is a great historical irony in this text of Tacitus;
it is the only time in ancient pagan literature that Pontius Pilate is mentioned by name
-as a way of specifying who Christ is. Pilate's fate in the Christian creeds is already foreshadowed
in a pagan historian,"- which could easily indicate Christian apologetic intervention.
Tacitus himself when dealing with this same period in his earlier work [Histories 5.9.2] gives no hint of this outrage. To the contrary, he says that in Palestine at this time "all was quiet".
It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements.
Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative.

It is very hard to contemplate the veracity of such passages when they have been preserved by means of christian scribes
who have been known to interpolate and massage texts. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

But that it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, looks very suspicious.

And finally, even if genuine, it is too late and probably from Christians in Rome.
So the Myth theory can explain it very well.

Fallacious arguments from silence, each and every one.

You have no evidence, and nothing can be contributed when nothing has been said.

Mark i suggest you read my take on this that I dealt with a few years ago at the link below, as me being FathomFFI:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157

Hi.

I looked at your link. Couldn't find anything about Tacitus there.

I did read you trying to justify that Origen didn't mention the TF. Is this an analogous argument to Nero's persecution not being mentioned by some church fathers? If so...sorry I don't buy it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 06:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 05:59 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Why on earth would the primary record identify Jesus as Christus? It was not his name. Note: any answer you give is extrapolating without evidence, and begs the question*. It makes no sense that the record of Jesus' execution would refer to him as Christus. Christus was not his name. Sure, you can make up an explanation, but you'd be making it up. Again, my position makes fewer unwarranted assumptions.

*If you argue that the record says "Christus," you are only doing so because Tacitus relied on a record that said Christus, and thus you are using Tacitus to describe the record so that the record is consistent with Tacitus. That's begging the question, and you would eviscerate a theist who tried to pull that one over on you.

No need to "make up" an explanation when evidence is available to demonstrate the point.

The title of "Christ" is from the Roman-Grecian, not from the Hebrew. Textual evidence indicates that Tacitus loathed the Jews and everything about their culture. How much did he loath them?

Here are some facts:

1. Tacitus did not name one single Jew in ANY of his works.
2. Tacitus mentions the Jews as a tribe only 3 times in all of his works.

Therefore, Tacitus used the Roman-Grecian word of "Christ" to denote the leader of the Christian sect for the simple reason that he refused to give any Jew his due by actually putting a name to any of them.

Tacitus wouldn't give a fuck who Jesus was, for to him all that mattered was the Christ- a purported Jewish king- had been conquered and crucified by the Romans.

Ok. So you are saying that Tacitus used a primary source, ( Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate, which, obviously, would have recorded Jesus' real name, ) but changed that name to "Christ" in his description?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: Jesus myth
It appears from a brief search that Tacitus does in fact name Moses, which conflicts with the notion that he does not identify any Jews. Certainly when he is writing about the origin of the Jews, he makes reference to Moses by name. Thus, when writing about the origin of Christianity, whether he gave a fuck about Jesus or not, it seems at least plausible that he would have named him (and he did not have an allergy to doing so).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 06:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok. So you are saying that Tacitus used a primary source, ( Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate, which, obviously, would have recorded Jesus' real name, ) but changed that name to "Christ" in his description?

And he's apparently doing so after mocking me for insisting that the primary record would say Jesus and not Christus, demanding proof of the obvious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 05:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 04:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Surely there is a high probability the passage from Tacitus is an interpolation.

I found this at
http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English...citus.htm.

"The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius,
was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate"

It is not quoted by the Christian fathers:
Tertullian
He was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
Clement of Alexandria
At the beginning of the third century, he made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity
that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
Origen
In his controversy with Celsus, he would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
Eusebius
In the fourth century, the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening.
It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century
The passage neither reflects Tacitus in tone nor in linguistic ability.
Just consider "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante
per procuratorem Pontius Pilatus supplicio adfectus erat".
Vocabulary
Tacitus clearly knows when Judea was administered by 'procurators',
yet this passage calls Pontius Pilate a 'procurator' when he should have been called a 'prefect',
and, given Tacitus's knowledge in the area, including when procurators received magistrate's powers,
this would be an incredible error for Tacitus.
Tacitus does not use the name 'Jesus' but 'Christus'
Tacitus assumes his readers know Pontius Pilate.
John Meier tellingly observes (without perceiving its significance):
"There is a great historical irony in this text of Tacitus;
it is the only time in ancient pagan literature that Pontius Pilate is mentioned by name
-as a way of specifying who Christ is. Pilate's fate in the Christian creeds is already foreshadowed
in a pagan historian,"- which could easily indicate Christian apologetic intervention.
Tacitus himself when dealing with this same period in his earlier work [Histories 5.9.2] gives no hint of this outrage. To the contrary, he says that in Palestine at this time "all was quiet".
It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements.
Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative.

It is very hard to contemplate the veracity of such passages when they have been preserved by means of christian scribes
who have been known to interpolate and massage texts. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

But that it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, looks very suspicious.

And finally, even if genuine, it is too late and probably from Christians in Rome.
So the Myth theory can explain it very well.

Fallacious arguments from silence, each and every one.

You have no evidence, and nothing can be contributed when nothing has been said.

Mark i suggest you read my take on this that I dealt with a few years ago at the link below, as me being FathomFFI:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157

Free, are you not smart enough to comprehend that the Argument from Silence is stronger whenever we fail to find evidence we should expect to see? That's the whole damn point. If that passage had existed that early, then early Christian leaders familiar with the work should have used it in their defense; but unanimously they never did. Now were they all aware of the passage, yet they all simultaneously decided not to reference it? If so, then why? Why then didn't they reference the passage if they knew of it? Because if they knew of it, but didn't think it was evidence of their Jesus (because they never referenced it), one has to wonder why you think it is.

Now also take into account that the vast majority of scribes who would have made copies of these records were themselves Christians, and would have had a vested interest in preserving anything that even remotely seemed to mention Jesus. So did the passage really happen to fall through the cracks of Christian scribes for over a thousand years, or did one copyist get a little over imaginative during the making of one of the copies? Isn't it more likely that the lack of reference to the passage stems from it not originally being there? The later is a far simpler and more complete explanation that makes less assumptions.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2014, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 07:03 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
Just to really complicate things, let's not forget that when Tacitus allegedly wrote this, in about 118 CE, there was no such thing as a dominant unified version of Christianity. There were many different "Christs" (Paul's was one of them) and there were many different "Jesuses" (the four canonical accounts were only four of them.)

In fact an argument can be made that in the first century, apart from the canonical Gospels, (which were probably discussed only in some small proto Christian groups) there was no talk of a flesh and blood Jesus. There was only "the Christ," a mythical spirit – man, as per Paul, and as per the Proto Marcionites and the Gnostics. Jesus, the once living flesh and blood Jewish character had barely put his foot in the door. If you were a "Christian" you were more likely to believe in the "mystery of Christ." It was only in the fourth century with Constantine that it was definitively decreed that a Jesus had been a human.

To my mind, this is further circumstantial evidence that the Tacitus description is an interpolation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 06:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 06:19 PM)Free Wrote:  No need to "make up" an explanation when evidence is available to demonstrate the point.

The title of "Christ" is from the Roman-Grecian, not from the Hebrew. Textual evidence indicates that Tacitus loathed the Jews and everything about their culture. How much did he loath them?

Here are some facts:

1. Tacitus did not name one single Jew in ANY of his works.
2. Tacitus mentions the Jews as a tribe only 3 times in all of his works.

Therefore, Tacitus used the Roman-Grecian word of "Christ" to denote the leader of the Christian sect for the simple reason that he refused to give any Jew his due by actually putting a name to any of them.

Tacitus wouldn't give a fuck who Jesus was, for to him all that mattered was the Christ- a purported Jewish king- had been conquered and crucified by the Romans.

Ok. So you are saying that Tacitus used a primary source, ( Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate, which, obviously, would have recorded Jesus' real name, ) but changed that name to "Christ" in his description?

No, he didn't change anything for the simple reason that we are speaking about two completely different cultures; the Jews, and the Romans. With this comes many differences, one of which would be names that were spelled and pronounced in a Semitic language such as Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

The Romans spoke neither Semitic language, nor wrote anything in either language. They wrote in either Greek or Latin, therefore the translation and/or pronunciation of Semitic names simply did not exist to them.

However, with the title of "Christ" being a Greco-Roman title, and one which was familiar in the Greek and Latin languages, then that is precisely why Tacitus deferred to the title of Christus instead of what we see in English as "Jesus."

Tacitus simply did not understand the Semitic languages well enough to translate any Jewish names such as "Yeshua" et al.

This is exactly why Presentism is such a fallacy. We see things from a modern perspective, and within our culture and our modern language, and then attempt to rationalize it from that position.

But to understand the Tacitus entry regarding his use of "Chrestianos/Christus," you must immerse yourself in that culture, and understand it from the perspective of a 1st century Roman.

I hope you can understand this.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 08:39 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 06:27 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  You now give even less reason to suppose that Tacitus would have independently verified the execution of a lowly Jewish criminal for the sake of documenting a throwaway line about the origin of the Christian sect. If he had such a contempt for Jews (and I'll take your word for it on that), there is less reason to suppose he independently verified that Christus was, in fact, executed on Pilate's orders and more likely that he was relying on a secondary record or on what was commonly known about Christians. It defies logic that he would independently investigate the truth claim of a sect he did not respect for the sake of authenticating the crucifixion story at the heart of that very sect.

I will show you the logical problem with your reasoning above, and it will be starkly obvious when it's pointed out.

You appear to have sided that Tacitus would have gotten his information from what was "commonly known" regarding Christianity. Now here's the logic problem:

If Tacitus got his information from what was "commonly known," then it stands to reason that the name of "Jesus" would also be "commonly known."

So then why would he not use Jesus instead of Christus, since it would obviously be a "commonly known" name?


Take your time absorbing this one.

Consider

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:33 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 06:50 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 01:46 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  EDIT: 1900 posts, Bitchez!

Fucking idiot.

Yes 1900 worthless posts that stand as a testimony that you are a waste of oxygen. Do something useful--die and donate your organs. Your brain will be disposed as waste--as it should be.

Well, aren't you just a little ball of hate. Laughat

Your tears make me smile, DipShit.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:39 PM
RE: Jesus myth
That's not even a tough question, seeing as it presupposes my position. If it's commonly known, then there is no need to go searching for a primary record to validate it.

If it's NOT commonly known, then the omission of the information is even more glaring.

Besides, "commonly known" is not the same as "universally known." The fact that he feels the need to explain the origin of Christianity to his readers shows that they did not share in this knowledge, even if this knowledge was common in other circles.

Really, when you reduce yourself to picking on my word choice, you diminish your argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: