Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, he doesn't record the 'fact'. He repeats stories that were being circulated by those who believed. The passage does nothing more than confirm that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus.
Easy, sometimes they're so excited to see actual "proof" in black and white that they miss a few qualifying words, like, "they" believe it to be so and so, etc....
No one is claiming that Tacitus consulted Roman records. And Bart Ehrman points out in his book 'Did Jesus Exist' that Tacitus was basing his comment about Jesus on hearsay rather than on detailed historical research. Nevertheless, as Ehrman also points out, Tacitus' reference to Jesus shows that high-ranking Roman officials of the early second century knew that Jesus had lived and had been executed by the governor of Judea.
No, it shows nothing of the sort no more that Tacitus mentioning Hercules proves that Hercules was real. All we have from Tacitus is a reference to Christians who believed that their Jesus was crucified. WE have ni indication where Tacitus got his info from but it certainly wasn't first-hand. This throws a more logical light on it....
Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
McDowell and Wilson disagree. They give nine reasons for believing that "Tacitus had information other than what he heard from Christians", which may be briefly summarized as follows: (i) Tacitus does not say he was repeating information obtained from other sources; (ii) "both Justin and Tertullian challenged their readers to go read for themselves the official secular documents;" (iii) as a Roman Senator, Tacitus had access to official records; (iv) on other matters, Tacitus states that he used reliable sources and followed the majority of historians; (v) Tacitus is careful to record conflicts in his sources; (vi) he does not quote his sources uncritically; (vii) he qualifies his opinion when others do not; (viii) he distinguishes between rumor and fact; and (ix) even if Tacitus did not have independent sources concerning the historicity of Jesus, he still records the fact that Christians were willing to be martyred for their beliefs.[90]
As I argued above, it is certainly possible that Tacitus obtained his information from independent sources. But have McDowell and Wilson been able to show that it is probable that Tacitus did so? Let's consider each of these reasons in turn. (i), (vii) and (viii) are simply beside the point. To be sure, all Tacitean scholars believe that Tacitus in general was a very reliable historian who was trustworthy, critical of his sources, and usually accurate.[91] But there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that
Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]
There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition." (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I'm willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term "Mormon" at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:
Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]
That Tacitus was uninterested in Christianity is confirmed by Mellor:
For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus's good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners--Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike--and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavised on court intrigues.[97] Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?
Quote:
If a non-Roman couldn't have been tried by Pilate, Tacitus would have known about it and could have refuted it. But he didn't refute it.
He didn't need to. He is simply telling a story about Christians and what they believed.
I repeat again. Tacitus described Christianity as ...
'A PERNICIOUS SUPERSTITION'
Please explain why someone who described Christianity as such...would believe that the figurehead of a pernicious superstition was real.
Quote:
Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels which were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, and of His crucifixion say that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. They would not have written something which could have been easily refuted.
The gospels are not reliable...as your beloved historians confirm....
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
...but then you have been told that repeatedly. You just regurgitate the same old debunked Christian apologetics.
The apostles were willing to die for what they had seen with their own eyes. For what they were eyewitnesses to. Not for what they believed based on second or third hand information. They weren't willing to die for Jesus because of stories and traditions about Jesus. They believed, and they were willing to die for the gospel message because they had personally been with Jesus and because they saw Jesus after He was resurrected.
And that is the difference between the apostles who were willing to die for Jesus because they were eyewitnesses, and all others who have believed in Jesus, and were willing to die for Jesus based on what was said by others about Him.
The apostles didn't believe that Jesus had risen because others had said that He had been resurrected, but because they had personally seen the risen Jesus with their own eyes.
This is not difficult to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
So, they didn't believe because they heard about it or read about it, is this what you're claiming?...
Was I not clear? The apostles were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus.
No, it shows nothing of the sort no more that Tacitus mentioning Hercules proves that Hercules was real. All we have from Tacitus is a reference to Christians who believed that their Jesus was crucified. WE have ni indication where Tacitus got his info from but it certainly wasn't first-hand. This throws a more logical light on it....
Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
McDowell and Wilson disagree. They give nine reasons for believing that "Tacitus had information other than what he heard from Christians", which may be briefly summarized as follows: (i) Tacitus does not say he was repeating information obtained from other sources; (ii) "both Justin and Tertullian challenged their readers to go read for themselves the official secular documents;" (iii) as a Roman Senator, Tacitus had access to official records; (iv) on other matters, Tacitus states that he used reliable sources and followed the majority of historians; (v) Tacitus is careful to record conflicts in his sources; (vi) he does not quote his sources uncritically; (vii) he qualifies his opinion when others do not; (viii) he distinguishes between rumor and fact; and (ix) even if Tacitus did not have independent sources concerning the historicity of Jesus, he still records the fact that Christians were willing to be martyred for their beliefs.[90]
As I argued above, it is certainly possible that Tacitus obtained his information from independent sources. But have McDowell and Wilson been able to show that it is probable that Tacitus did so? Let's consider each of these reasons in turn. (i), (vii) and (viii) are simply beside the point. To be sure, all Tacitean scholars believe that Tacitus in general was a very reliable historian who was trustworthy, critical of his sources, and usually accurate.[91] But there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that
Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]
There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition." (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I'm willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term "Mormon" at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:
Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]
That Tacitus was uninterested in Christianity is confirmed by Mellor:
For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus's good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners--Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike--and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavised on court intrigues.[97] Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?
He didn't need to. He is simply telling a story about Christians and what they believed.
I repeat again. Tacitus described Christianity as ...
'A PERNICIOUS SUPERSTITION'
Please explain why someone who described Christianity as such...would believe that the figurehead of a pernicious superstition was real.
The gospels are not reliable...as your beloved historians confirm....
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
...but then you have been told that repeatedly. You just regurgitate the same old debunked Christian apologetics.
Your constant shouts of 'you've have been told repeatedly' don't impress me.
Tacitus' opinion about Christianity is not the issue. The issue is that he reported that Nero blamed the fire of Rome in A.D. 64 on the Christians who were so called because of Christus (which can only be a reference to Jesus) who was crucified (the extreme penalty) by Pontius Pilate. This was a known historical fact regardless of Tacitus' personal opinion about Christianity.
The Annals of Tacitus 15:44
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.
Now regarding the claim that that statement by Tacitus is an interpolation, Ehrman writes,
Some mythicists argue that this reference in Tacitus was not actually written by him---they claim the same thing for Pliny and Suetonius, where the references are less important---but were inserted into his writings (interpolated) by Christians who copied them, producing the manuscripts of Tacitus we have today. (We have no originals, only later copies.) I don't know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think this, and it seems highly unlikely. The mythicists certainly have a reason for arguing this: they do not want to think there are any references to Jesus in our early sources outside the New Testament, and so when they find any such reference, they claim the reference was not original but was inserted by Christians. But surely the best way to deal with evidence is not simply to dismiss it when it happens to be inconvenient. Tacitus evidently did know some things about Jesus.
Did Jesus Exist? Bart Ehrman, p.55
The Gospels are reliable and have historical value. Now while Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does believe everything in the Bible, he nevertheless recognizes the historical value of the Bible.
Quoting Ehrman yet again,
However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information. [p.71]
The (sometime) atheist opinion of the Bible as nonhistorical is no better than the (typical) fundamentalist opinion. [p.72]
To dismiss the Gospel from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly. [p.73]
So too the Gospels. Whatever on thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources. [p.74]
Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman
The base Christ myth theory is that "Paul" and the early Christians like Peter and John believed in a arch angel like son of God that died for their sins in the heavens not on Earth. Jesus was revealed to them in visions and through reading the Old Testament. The Epistles date before the Gospels and ''Paul" doesn't speak of Jesus on Earth. Now the gospels turn the apostles to the disciples of a Jesus put on Earth. They are totally literary creation. I refer people to Dennis McDonalds "the gospel of Mark and the Homeric epics" pretty clear the 1st gospel Mark is a retelling of Old Testament stories like Jonah and casting Jesus as an Odysseus like figure. The other gospels borrow from Mark hence the synoptic problem. The gospels are literature not history aka not a historical Jesus aka a myth. You are welcome. I also think that since the biblical patriarchs like Noah didn't exist it invalidates all the Abrahamic religions as true. I don't see a way around that.
The base Christ myth theory is that "Paul" and the early Christians like Peter and John believed in a arch angel like son of God that died for their sins in the heavens not on Earth. Jesus was revealed to them in visions and through reading the Old Testament. The Epistles date before the Gospels and ''Paul" doesn't speak of Jesus on Earth. Now the gospels turn the apostles to the disciples of a Jesus put on Earth. They are totally literary creation. I refer people to Dennis McDonalds "the gospel of Mark and the Homeric epics" pretty clear the 1st gospel Mark is a retelling of Old Testament stories like Jonah and casting Jesus as an Odysseus like figure. The other gospels borrow from Mark hence the synoptic problem. The gospels are literature not history aka not a historical Jesus aka a myth. You are welcome.
No, the apostles (who lived with Jesus during His ministry) did not believe that an arch angel like son of God died for their sins in the heaven, rather than on earth. The four Gospel accounts are clear that Jesus died on the cross by order of Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish leadership.
Paul stated that Jesus died for our sins, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day, and that He appeared to Cepas (Peter), then to the twelve, and then He appeared to more than 500 people, then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and that last of all, He appeared to Paul. (1 Cor. 15:3-8).
Furthermore, scholars recognize 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to be a pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church. In other words the tradition that Jesus had been crucified, that He rose again, and that He appeared to the stated witnesses was being proclaimed from the beginning. Paul didn't originate what he stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, but stated a creed or tradition that was in existence before he himself had his Damascus road experience with the risen Jesus.
Scholar Gary Habermas writes in this excerpt from his book, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian World View.
2. Beyond Paul's own experience, this apostle presents plenty of ad*ditional evidence for the claim that Jesus had appeared to his early fol*lowers. Essentially all critical scholars today agree that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s) that summarizes the con*tent of the Christian gospel. Jesus the Christ died for human sin, was bur*ied and raised from the dead, afterwards appearing to both individuals as well as groups of witnesses. While Paul penned the words, he is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to his lis*teners years before (1 Cor 15:1-2) what he had received from others, as the very heart of his message (1 Cor 15:3). If he were writing today, he might have footnoted his source! Thus this testimony is actually years earlier than the book of 1 Corinthians. Reginald Fuller indicates the
__________
3. Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), p. 81.
p. 183
scholarly agreement here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."
What if Jews were correct, in that Jesus WAS NOT the Messiah, what be different now or would/should change?
Jesus was NOT the worldly King and Davidic Warrior the Jews were expecting as their Messiah, but Jesus WAS the actual Messiah that God intended to send to them to correct their ancient ignorance and barbaric superstitions about the TRUE NATURE of God and His motives.
Bart Ehrman keeps being used by Christians as proof Jesus was historical. His arguments have been dissected by the likes of Carrier and Robert Price and that book was torn apart for how badly it made the case for a historical Jeaus. I still maintain how can the gospels be proof when 3 are a copy of the 1st (Mark). Anyways Bart Ehrman and Robert Price will be debating whether there was a historical Jesus in October I believe. I hope Bart doesnt use arguments like "Peter and Mary thought they saw a risen Jesus" like I've heard him use before
If he's your Messiah then that means Christianity is a relatively new religion that is only about 2000 years old and has zero affiliation with the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov...Which would mean that all the editing in the Christian Old Testament means nothing and therefore the prophecies that Christians like to relate to Jesus do not exist...So, if he is a different messiah from the one that is portrayed in the Tanakh, then how can he be the messiah of the Jews?...The Jewish sages are well studied in the Torah, both past and current sages, don't you think that those intellectuals would notice the similarities of the Maschiah and Jesus' life if any existed?...We Jews don't deny his existence as a Rabbi with a following, we deny what the Gentiles turned him into...And if it is all about spirituality, then the Kabbalists definitely would have noticed and commented on it...Can one connect Jesus with what's in the Christian Old Testament?...Sure, but, one cannot connect him with any of the prophecies of Maschiach HaMelech of the Tanakh...In fact, the description and attribute of Mashiach HaMelech that are portrayed in the Tanakh have him born of natural parents, grows, lives and dies in Israel, and in between leads the world into peace, gathers every Jew back into HaEretz Yisrael, moves the entire world to recognize and worship the One True G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov...Which, as one poster around here put it, we Jews are waiting for the Anti-Christ...So, if the attributes and description of Mashiach HaMelech are similar to your Anti-Christ, one of two things is possible, G-d lied when He imparted to us Jews the attributes and description and tasks of Mashiach HaMelech or...Since most Christians like to lay heavy charges of deception to a personified HaSatan, he has deceived the world with the greatest deception ever, that of the Chistian Religion, which most of the world appears to adhere to...There are about 15 million Jews in the world today and about 6.9 billion (and rising) Christians...Now, I am pointing out the religions that claim the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov...
Interesting, Richard, but you missed what I was saying, though you used it for a jumping-off point to say what you wanted to say. Never mind, though, it isn't an idea that can be discussed from a Jewish perspective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if Jews were correct, in that Jesus WAS NOT the Messiah, what be different now or would/should change?
