What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

a reply to: Agartha

I'd love to see that evidence, for it turns out you are most likely dead wrong. Saying something is fake doesn't make it fake, and listing up different manuscripts from different eras of Roman and Christian safe-keeping to echo Cogito slightly disharmonious. Truth is these manuscripts were copied and held by different schools, and not all were what should I say too keen on some of the things that were there. Compare JW bibles against NIV or ESV against KJV, they are supposed to be identical, but they are oceans apart. Fact is, no two of more than 10 000 mss for the NT are identical. They all differ, a little here a little there. To claim they're forgeries, well, forgeries need forgers and forgers need an agenda and a reason.

Without having read any of the «Christian scholars» you list up except for your out-of-your mind reference to Origen who himself has no doubts on Jesus life and existence. I guess your other references are as noughtwitted as your Origen quote so I don't even bother looking them up.

I still wonder why if, as many claim, that jesus is the most attested figure in all of history and the bible is historically accurate with "all mainstream historians" blah blah...why I haven't noticed the bible, or at least the new testament, or at least the gospels being promoted as genuine history books...in the "history" section of the library...alongside works by people like Julius Caesar?

I imagine the covers would read something like.....

"Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Julius Caesar" - a famous Roman military commander and statesmen discusses his 9 yr campaign in Gaul.

"The Gospels by ???" - Four pseudepigraphical and contradictory accounts dealing mainly with the last days of a magical Jewish Rabbi who...was born of a virgin...had a magical physics defying star herald his arrival...walked on water...raised the dead...healed by faith...said stuff...turned water into wine...magically calmed the seas/storms...rode a donkey...successfully attacked a huge and heavily guarded temple complex all on his own, unarmed...said more stuff...was crucified among darkness and earthquake while the undead run amok...resurrected before floating off to heaven on fluffy white clouds...

His words faithfully recounted in (oddly enough) Greek by completely anonymous authors who never saw or heard any of it themselves probably sometime between 50 - 150 yrs later.

lol.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

How is a tertiary source a valid source for existence? And Tactitus' account IS a tertiary source since he is writing down what he heard from someone else. He didn't live during Jesus' time.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Agartha

I'd love to see that evidence, for it turns out you are most likely dead wrong. Saying something is fake doesn't make it fake, and listing up different manuscripts from different eras of Roman and Christian safe-keeping to echo Cogito slightly disharmonious. Truth is these manuscripts were copied and held by different schools, and not all were what should I say too keen on some of the things that were there. Compare JW bibles against NIV or ESV against KJV, they are supposed to be identical, but they are oceans apart. Fact is, no two of more than 10 000 mss for the NT are identical. They all differ, a little here a little there. To claim they're forgeries, well, forgeries need forgers and forgers need an agenda and a reason.

Without having read any of the «Christian scholars» you list up except for your out-of-your mind reference to Origen who himself has no doubts on Jesus life and existence. I guess your other references are as noughtwitted as your Origen quote so I don't even bother looking them up.

They are forgeries whether you want to believe it or not. I am not here to convince you, I am here just to state what the evidence says, but you won't read it.

Regarding Origen, let me explain because I can see you have not read either texts or you would have known immediately what I was talking about, just like Cogito Ergo Sum did:

- In the year 93 AD Josephus wrote and published his book 'Jewish Antiquities'. In there he (apparently) wrote a reference to James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ. Even Christian scholars do not believe he ever mentioned The Christ because of Origen..... let me explain why.

-In the year 230-250 AD Origen, who was a church father and a strong believer in Jesus the Christ, cites Josephus on the death of James the brother of Jesus but states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus and fails to cite the alleged passage where Josephus called Jesus the Christ. If Josephus had really called Jesus 'The Christ' then Origen, a man of Christian faith, wouldn't have expressed his wonder that 'the Jewish historian did not accept that our Jesus is Christ'.

- Then, in 324AD and as if by magic, Eusebius quotes the famous (or infamous) chapter by Josephus calling Jesus 'The Christ'.

Is it clearer now?

a reply to: Agartha



''In the year 93 AD Josephus wrote and published his book 'Jewish Antiquities'. In there he (apparently) wrote a reference to James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ. Even Christian scholars do not believe he ever mentioned The Christ because of Origen..... let me explain why.''

Does Josephus claim Jesus was the Christ? No he didn't. Josephus did acknowledge the fact that Jesus was the brother of James. To make clear that this wasn't someone else named James with a brother named Jesus he does say that this Jesus; the brother of James was called the Christ. So to call this a forgery based on whether Josephus believed Jesus was the Christ or was called the Christ is not saying that he was a mythical character. Josephus' writings backs up that Jesus was a real person. West Ford, a mulatto man once owned by Washington's family as a slave said he was the illegitimate child of George Washington & slave woman named Venus. Was he? We know he was the son of Venus, she said West was George's son, but their is no DNA proof. The fact is West Ford was a living breathing human. Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter said he was a member of the Rockefeller family. Is he? Nope, but because he isn't does not mean that he doesn't exist as a living breathing person. Just because you don't believe what a person says they are does not make that person one that never existed.

The majority of Jews were looking for a political revolutionary Messiah & when Jesus proved not to be the kind of Messiah they were looking for most discredited him. It was only when Pilate questioned Jesus & said I find no fault in this man is when the Jewish religious leaders came with their ace card by saying that Jesus made himself king of the Jews; a authority that undermined Rome's yoke. These trumped up criminal charges on Jesus to Roman officials (Pontius Pilate) were brought forth. Anyone in opposition to Rome's world power rule were a threat to it that could potentially cause a revolt so to prevent this Rome was duped to having Jesus killed. This could also be another reason Josephus referred to Jesus not as the Christ, but as the one called the Christ. One things for sure, Josephus did acknowledge Jesus as being a living breathing person as being the brother of James & called the Christ.

Josephus' life overlapped those who were eyewitnesses & personally knew Jesus so witnesses were still alive. Not only this, but the Apostle John was still alive at the time Jewish Antiquities was written as well. Again, to write any mention of Jesus, the brother of James called the Christ would have been no benefit to him. Why did he mention them? Because he was mentioning the James, the brother of Jesus, the one that Christianity was founded on.

a reply to: Transparent

Even most Christian scholars agree that Josephus references to "Christ" were later forgeries, probably added by Eusebius, or are too weak to carry the burden of testimony to the existence of Jesus Christ.

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While believing in a reference to Jesus by Josephus does lend some credence to the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I am a little confused by this thread. Of course, Tacitus is not a forgery and of course, he is not a witness of this time.
Tacitus is the most important writer when it comes to the early descriptions of Germans (How do you distinguish between old Germans and Germany in English? - Honest question, because they are very different from each other.) and Celtic or Gallic people.

Jesus is also mentioned in the Quran. But maybe this is not what you wanted to read.

a reply to: windword

''Even most Christian scholars agree that Josephus references to "Christ" were later forgeries, probably added by Eusebius, or are too weak to carry the burden of testimony to the existence of Jesus Christ.''

Yes, those that claimed that Tacitus' writings (as well as Josephus ) on Jesus were/are too weak to carry the burden of testimony to the existence of Jesus Christ. Some people say that man never walked on the moon. Some say that global warming is a lie. Are these true? Whichever way you choose to respond, the fact of the matter is that there is proof of the existence of Jesus. Just because some historians claim that the secular writings mentioning Jesus are frauds doesn't line up with the evidence that they are not.

The burden of proof among the critics are still reaching.

a reply to: Transparent

Whichever way you choose to respond, the fact of the matter is that there is proof of the existence of Jesus.

No. There isn't proof of a biblical Jesus outside of the Bible. However, Jesus, sure, there were plenty of men named Jesus that lived during the 1st century. Josephus names 19 of them. None, however fit the criteria for the times and adventures of one Jesus of Nazareth Christ.

a reply to: windword
So the Muslims are the only ones who accept him as prophet? Funny - Your people is just damning the Muslims.

a reply to: Siddharta

Muslims believe in Adam and Eve, Noah and Jonah too. So?

Who ever believes in that nonsense, I am not sure.

But Jesus is acceptet as a prophet by the Muslims.

But is it really interesting who believes in those old legends and who does not?

a reply to: windword

Sure one did, Jesus the brother of James called the Christ.

a reply to: Transparent

Nope. That's an interpolation placed there hundreds of years later, most probably by Eusebius, who we know boasted of such practices, and set out to create and make sure the biblical scriptures he selected/wrote reflected his doctrine.

Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.
[www.newadvent.org...

We already know, from Origen, that Josephus wrote nothing of Jesus, the brother of James, being called "the Christ". Josephus wrote that he believed that Vespasian was the Messiah.

Josephus writing on "Jesus" are well,known forgeries, acknowledged by most credible Biblical scholars.

a reply to: Siddharta

But Jesus is accepted as a prophet by the Muslims.

So what? Their doctrine came 600 years after the supposed facts. It's bewildering seeing who believes any of this nonsense, like Mohamed ascending to heaven on a magic flying horse, let alone the magical antics of Jesus the supposed Christ! Puleese!

originally posted by: Transparent

The burden of proof among the critics are still reaching.

The critics are saying that the burden for those making the positive claim (that the gospel jesus existed as a real historical person), has never been met to begin with.

It is a lingering and historically unsupported assumption that is held onto fervently. A leftover from a time when it was enforced on people along with the threat of excommunication, torture and execution for daring to think otherwise (which really wasn't that long ago). This is how it became accepted. There never was anything in the historical record indicating it was true.

originally posted by: Siddharta
a reply to: windword
So the Muslims are the only ones who accept him as prophet? Funny - Your people is just damning the Muslims.

People can believe in whoever they wish. That isn't really the issue. It is the claim of a jesus as per the gospels existing as historical fact that is at issue. There has yet to be a persuasive argument for this notion that is based on the historical record offered by anyone. This is because there is no real historical record for such a person existing and the standards (which probably should be higher given the nonsensical claims in the gospels) have to be lowered significantly to maintain this position.

a reply to: Agartha

Here is the Quote from Jospehus minus the Christian redaction preserved in an easly copy of the (Testimonium Flavium) found in Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 based on the work of the scholar Geza Vermes who had performed a detailed analysis of the Testimonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.

In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "he was the Christ" is changed to "he was called the Christ" and the resurrection reference is omitted.Vermes states that the Testimonium provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.

"Now there was about this time Iesous who was called Christos, a wise teacher of those persons who love to believe in the miraculous who gained a reputation among both among both Jews and Greeks. And when Pilate, at the behest of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that followed him from the beginning & regarded him as the Messiah did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, still survive to this day ..."

This is just in case people throw the baby out with the bath-water !

Clear as mud?

a reply to: Sigismundus

"Now there was about this time Iesous who was called Christos,

"Christos" or "Chrestus"?

We know that scholars of the day believed that Emperor Vespian fulfilled the Messianic prophecy, so why would Josephus switch from his "messianic" verbage to "Christos" when describing Jesus Christ? "A wise teacher called Chrestus" (Good and Usefull) seems more in line with reality.

The Roman general Vespasian, who attacked the Jews, may seem an odd candidate for a Messiah, but nonetheless, his coup d'état in 70 was regarded as the fulfillment of the famous Balaam-prophecy that

a star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter will rise out of Israel. It shall crush the foreheads of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed. (Numbers 24.17-19)

Most people thought that the new ruler would be the liberator of Israel, but Flavius Josephus claims to have found the true meaning of the prophecy.

What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. (Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313)

The Roman authors Suetonius and Tacitus give the same interpretation of the prophecy, probably using the same source, who was not Flavius Josephus. This proves that there was at least one other author who shared Josephus' opinions.
There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome -as afterwards appeared from the event- the people of Judaea took to themselves. (Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5)

The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. (Tacitus, Histories 5.13)

www.livius.org...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

How is a tertiary source a valid source for existence?

How is Tacitus a tertiary witness? He would most likely be a secondary witness. Referring to eye witness accounts and Roman documentation of such written according to strict Roman doctrines of documentation.

And because of oxygen, if we are to speak on the manuscripts themselves. Unless you'd write on fine vellum at the cost of a year's wages per sheet— your writings would disintegrate within 100-1000 years depending on handling and storing. Transcription and copying was essential, for unless they kept up the pace, the corpus of manuscripts would rot and turn to dust. They didn't have paper. Interpolations happen all the time it has nothing to do with forgery really, it could even be the direct opposite. If they were added it means their entry could not be falsified nor rejected. There are however often political or sectarian implications surrounding these added texts. Question remains whether they remain and the nature of these interpolations, whether they are missing passages originally contained,or they represent different schools and sects, or whether they belong to some other hitherto unknown tradition. For there were many copies of these books normally, and they were recopied on a steady page. If we were to find the missing Tacitus books or a few pages belonging to one of them, but copied by, say, another scribe, and these books were put into an existing codex, these added books could easily be considered interpolations.