The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century

[John Dibble]

Here's my answer from that other thread.

I find it likely that there was a person or possibly an amalgamation of persons (there where a number of 'messiahs' at the time) on which the stories are based. How much of the account is accurate is uncertain, and the various miracle claims are particularly questionable.

[John Dibble]

I find it likely that there was a person or possibly an amalgamation of persons (there where a number of 'messiahs' at the time) on which the stories are based. How much of the account is accurate is uncertain, and the various miracle claims are particularly questionable.

Let me just say this out loud, 'cause I wanna get this straight...

So, you’re saying that Tacitus, who believed that Jesus existed and was executed by order of Pontius Pilatus…was full of crap?  I'm right about that, right? That's your story?

The man you just mocked, the nonChristian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117), studied rhetoric in Rome to prepare for a career in law and politics…he was known to love hunting and the outdoors…he married the daughter of the famous general Agricola, …and started his career (probably the latus clavus, mark of the senator) under Vespasian…and around 81 or 82, under Titus, entered political life, as quaestor…and advanced steadily through the cursus honorum, becoming praetor in 88 and a quindecimvir…and was a member of the priest college in charge of the Sibylline Books and the Secular games…and gained acclaim as a lawyer and an orator…was known for his skill in public speaking…who from his seat in the Senate became suffect consul in 97 during the reign of Nerva, being the first of his family to do so…who during his tenure reached the height of his fame as an orator when he delivered the funeral oration for the famous veteran soldier Lucius Verginius Rufus…who prosecuted Marius Priscus, proconsul of Africa, for corruption and sent him into exile…who in 112 or 113AD held the highest civilian governorship, that of the Roman province of Asia in Western Anatolia…who authored such works as  De vita Iulii Agricolae (The Life of Agricola), De origine et situ Germanorum (Germania), Dialogus de oratoribus (Dialogue on Oratory),  Historiae (Histories), and Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annals)…

…you’re telling me that this man, my chief witness… considered to be the greatest Roman historian…just decided, out of the clear blue sky to get sloppy when reporting the origins of Christianity and the official actions of a Roman Procurator?

Let's examine a few things, shall we? First, the passage from the account given in Annals:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's analyze the facts, shall we?

1. Tacitus was born around 56 AD, after the crucifixion would have taken place, so he wasn't an eyewitness. Therefore he had to get his information from other sources after the fact.

2. Annals was not written until about 116 AD. This is AFTER the gospels were in circulation. The singular mention of "Christus" in the account constitutes one sentence with only a brief summary of what happened to Jesus. No source for this information is given.

However, some scholars have pointed out that if Josephus had used official historical archives as his source he would have likely gotten Pontius Pilate's title correct - Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator. Interestingly the gospels have the same error. There is only a single sentence on the matter, and it could have easily been him simply echoing what Christians themselves had to say on the subject.

Also, it's clear that Tacitus doesn't think much about the importance of this "Christus", otherwise he would have given more information - rather the surrounding passages in question seem to be more about early Christians, which is where the real historical value of his work in the matter lie. But on the subject of Jesus there's no source and no information he couldn't have gotten directly from Christians themselves, so on the subject of the historicity of Jesus the passage is pretty much useless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and you're perfectly calm, as indicated by your staunch defense of the historical veracity of a single sentence.

[John Dibble]

1. Tacitus was born around 56 AD, after the crucifixion would have taken place, so he wasn't an eyewitness. Therefore he had to get his information from other sources after the fact.

2. Annals was not written until about 116 AD. This is AFTER the gospels were in circulation. The singular mention of "Christus" in the account constitutes one sentence with only a brief summary of what happened to Jesus. No source for this information is given.

Yet he was an expert of Roman history from 14AD to 96AD.  Had access to the official Roman records and to the highest members of Roman government, and he lived in a period of time where he would have had mentors who would have known if Rome had no knowledge of the existence and death of Jesus Christ…and he treated Jesus existence and death as a given

1. Being an expert does not mean his work would be flawless and beyond reproach, which you admitted earlier in the thread. And yet you are insisting I treat it like it is.
2. The relevant question is whether or not he just accepted the account given by Christians or if he did actual research on the existence of Jesus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You figured this out on your own?[/quote]

Weren't you going to mind your manners?

Anyways, I pointed it out because it's relevant to context - if he didn't think much about the "Christus" person why would he put any research into it? He's basically just saying "They worship some guy who got crucified". It's a rather mundane claim at that point, and he may have just accepted it at face value because it was mundane and not of interest for him to verify. Can you with intellectual honesty say there's no reasonable doubt here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. My 'focus' on Christianity is due to the fact that I live in a majority Christian country and it happens to be Christians I have the most interactions with. If my goal is to convince a religious person that their religion isn't based on rational thinking or facts I'm not going to discuss some other religion. What would be the point of that? If you were a Muslim I'd talk about Islam with you, but you happen to be a Christian so it's blatantly obvious that I'd talk about Christianity with you.

2. As you damn well know not all recorded history is accurate, and if we're looking at something that doesn't sound like a reliable source on the subject in question I'm not going to accept it as reliable. It's the same standard of evidence I use elsewhere.

3. Given your long, long follow up on the minor issue of the prefect/procurator issue I think it should be obvious to everyone here that you are heavily emotionally invested in your beliefs - if you don't think it ever clouds your judgment you're deluding yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do hope you're being facetious.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, almost nobody seriously involved in Biblical scholarship or Roman history doubts or proceeds from a position of doubt on the historicity of Jesus as a person any more, if they ever did, no matter how devoutly secular they may be.

Please remember that my original post said that I think someone the stories in the Bible are based on did likely exist - we're just sketchy on the exact details of that person's life because all writing on the subject comes well after his death.

My point on arguing over Tacitus's passage is that it's just not a reliable source for the reasons I've pointed out because jmfcst tried to pull it out like it's some kind of useful weapon to bludgeon me into submission.

[John Dibble]

Dibble,

the body of work of Cassius/Tacitus/Josephus/Philo/NT is 100k times greater than the single stone inscription referring to Pilate as a Prefect...yet somehow you believe that inscription is somehow more accurate.

Also, that stone inscription your banking so much of your Prefect argument on, was found inscribed on the bottom of a seat within a theater in Caesarea that was built by decree of Herod the Great...that fact that it was used as the flipside of a stone supporting someone's butt could very well mean it was written in error, discarded, then later used in the maintenance of the theater due to usefulness of the value of the stone it was written upon.

Did I not just call this a minor issue? And yet here you are, focused intently on it. Again, you delude yourself if you think you aren't emotionally invested.

[John Dibble]

Did I not just call this a minor issue? And yet here you are, focused intently on it. Again, you delude yourself if you think you aren't emotionally invested.

I never said I wasn't emotionally invested, after all it is my religion.  But I am not the one being accused of being a hack - most posters, religious or otherwise, find your rejection of Tacitus' acknowledgement of Jesus' existence and death to be completely absurd.

1. "Most posters"? Where did you get this data from? I see you and maybe one poster who may or may not have been being facetious. There's maybe Nathan, but he seemed to be more objecting to the notion that I was proposing Jesus didn't exist at all. (which I wasn't) On the other hand belgiansocialist warns you not to use Tacitus as a primary witness. So you've got no basis for claiming that most of the other people on this forum support you on the matter - if you want some real data about that then make a poll or something. If you'd like I can go ahead and do it for you.

2. There are real scholars who express the same doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Tacitus

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I really don't understand here is why you are griping so much about me not accepting this one sentence as being reliable when I do think that there likely was a real person that the Jesus character in the gospels were based on. Why exactly are you so obsessed over this one sentence? It's as if your entire belief system hinges on this one sentence being a reliable source of information.

@Dibble,

Continuing the “accepted as a given” theme, but this time in relation to Paul…the fact that Paul was a known member of the Pharisees, made him a good candidate to spread the gospel, because no matter where he went, the synagogues were eager to confront him.  The fact that Paul was a known entity meant he had a huge target painted on his back.  And being a target greatly helped in spreading the Gospel, because when you’re a target, you attract attention, which causes a scene, which causes crowds of onlookers to gather, which provides an audience to hear your message.

I'm sorry, but... what? You start with saying that it's about something being accepted as a given, and then you talk about Paul being a target- I'm not making the connection here, and I don't see how you're connecting the two. It seems you wrote this rather in a hurry (saw the incomplete bit you edited out) so maybe you didn't notice that this might not be a complete thought in text form. Care to elaborate?

[John Dibble]

What I really don't understand here is why you are griping so much about me not accepting this one sentence as being reliable when I do think that there likely was a real person that the Jesus character in the gospels were based on. Why exactly are you so obsessed over this one sentence? It's as if your entire belief system hinges on this one sentence being a reliable source of information.

2 possibilities, you pick which is more likely:

Possibility Number 1)  jmfcst’s entire belief in Christianity, something he was been debating for 10 years on this forum, has all hinged on Tactius’ statement.  Which is why even the testimony of his conversion in Oct 92 is full of references to Tactius.

Possibility Number 2)  jmfcst has been arguing with a purposely blind idiot who is too afraid to admit the obvious

For crying out loud, you take things too literally - I didn't literally mean that your beliefs rely solely on Tacitus, just that you seem overly obsessive over a single sentence all things considered.

Again, I'm not saying Tacitus was not a good historian, just that in regards to that single sentence it doesn't seem like he did much research on the man himself. As I've pointed out and you have willfully ignored, there are scholars (including believers in Jesus) who do not support your assertion of reliability in regards to that single sentence. Are you saying they are blind idiots too?

[John Dibble]

What's the point of this thread?

Well clearly it's an excuse for me and jmfcst to get into another pissing match - can't you tell?

[John Dibble]

Dibble,

you need to spend this weekend having your mental transmission checked, for you can't seem to make it up the slightless of hills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b7BpxZhk-0#t=0m10s

So your best refutation to my pointing out that there are serious, respected scholars who agree with me on the subject (with names you can check no less) is to assert that I have mental problems? Ad hominem is the last resort of the desperate, you know.

[John Dibble]

Jmfcst - I've taken to creating a poll with it's own thread for the Tacitus issue, as this thread is being a little too dominated by our spat.