Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus. 
[/quote]

Tacitus is not merely repeating what Christians were saying in Rome in 64 CE (the time of the Nero persecution). He is reporting what Roman official tradition knew about the origins of the sect: that it traced back to an executed founder named Christus in Judea under Pilate.

That is independent corroboration of the same core historicist claim found in the Gospels and in Josephus.

So no, you cannot “rule Tacitus out completely” as evidence for a historical Jesus. Among professional ancient historians, it is one of the strongest pieces of extra-biblical evidence we have.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is accepted as authentic by essentially 100 % of specialists in Roman history (e.g., Ronald Syme, Ronald Mellor, Anthony Barrett, Michael Grant, etc.). It is routinely cited as independent, non-Christian evidence that: A historical person regarded as the founder of Christianity was executed by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius. The movement originated in Judea.

Even strongly skeptical scholars who are open to mythicist arguments (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, James Crossley) treat the Tacitus passage as reliable confirmation of those basic facts.[/quote]

The points you raise are standard historicist fare, relying on assumptions about the nature of Tacitus's sourcing that simply do not withstand rigorous scrutiny.

You contend that Tacitus is reporting "what Roman official tradition knew." This is a highly optimistic reading of the evidence. Tacitus was writing some fifty years after the events in question, likely relying on secondary sources, perhaps oral reports, the acta (which he may have consulted for official details like Pilate's name), or even popular hearsay among Romans, which was invariably informed by what the Christians themselves were saying about their founder. There is no "official tradition" of the internal beliefs of a tiny, obscure foreign cult that would have remained pristine and independent of that cult's own narrative for half a century.

You assert that Tacitus provides "independent corroboration." The entire issue at hand is the source of his information. If his source was ultimately Christian information circulating in Rome, then it is not independent at all; it merely confirms that Christians in Rome believed in an executed founder. Tacitus was a historian, yes, but he was not an investigative historian on the ground in Judea in 33 CE. He reported what was commonly understood in his educated Roman circle.

You correctly note that Annals is accepted as authentic by virtually all specialists in Roman history. The text itself is authentic. The debate is not about the authenticity of the text, [b]but the reliability of the claim within the text as an independent source for a historical person[/b]. These specialists you list are experts on Roman history, law, and administration, but they are generally not specialists in the origins of Christianity, New Testament source criticism, or the nuances of mythicist arguments. They treat the passage at face value because it fits the general consensus narrative they operate within.

You also mention strongly skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman. While Ehrman is skeptical of many Bible claims, he is explicitly and robustly historicist when it comes to Jesus’ existence. Citing him as "open to mythicist arguments" is a considerable stretch. These scholars operate within the dominant paradigm, and challenging the historicity of Jesus is often considered beyond the pale of 'mainstream' academic discourse, regardless of the quality of the evidence.

When you dissect the passage, you find Tacitus knew nothing about Christians other than their name, the place of origin (Rome), their place of origin from (Judea), the name of the founder (Christus), his execution under Pilate, and their "mischievous superstition". Every single one of these details aligns perfectly with the Christian narrative circulating at the time. There is zero information that he could not have gleaned from asking a Roman Christian, "Who are you people, and who founded your cult?"

Tacitus provides excellent evidence for what Christians in 115 CE believed about their origins, but he offers zero independent, non-Christian evidence that those beliefs were factually true. To assume otherwise is to engage in circular reasoning, using the text to confirm the historicity which is already assumed before the text is even analyzed. The passage, therefore, can and should be ruled out as an independent confirmation of a historical Jesus.

[/quote]

And more[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics