What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

In fact most criticisms of historical figures that can be levelled at Jesus can be levelled elsewhere.

Not so. I doubt there are many (if any) figures with no historicial evidence and overwhelmingly magical/mythological claims that aren't considered myth.

There are plenty of things we thought were mythological but later turned out not to be with various bits of magic attached to them. Everything from being born of gods, having golden limbs, writing on the moon, meeting Amazonian queens ... it's bit like watching '300' or 'Braveheart'. It's really not uncommon for people to have myths or legends added to them in history. We even do it these days.

The basic crux is, is there anything special about historical Jesus and what would we expect?

* Jesus wasn't the first Jewish 'messiah' around this time to make bold claims.
* He wasn't the first Jewish 'messiah' to be executed.
* He wasn't the first to interpret the world through parables.
* Pontius Pilate probably existed.
* John the Baptist probably existed.
* Jesus never really did anything that obviously amazing in the first place if you discount the magical parts.

how many times have I seen this on ATS. A thread starts out addressing a question and then later the "hay Jesus was into the black arts anyway" or he wasn't the first this or that.

Jesus interpreted the Kingdom of Heaven with parables not the world.
These other "Messiahs" figures were generally nationalist, militants ect. There was never anyone close to Jesus. The Romans didn't even want to crucify him and called him innocent of any charges. They only beat him due to political considerations, an attempt to pacify the Jewish leaders.

Oh and by all means! The workers of darkness and sorcery are now and have been trying to co-opt Jesus as one of their own, as a practitioner, a worker of magic. A subject that Jesus himself addressed specifically. The same sort that are accusing him now or sorcery are the same sort that did 2000 years ago.

a reply to: Ove38

Oh it's not that hard really. It's getting there and away which is and has always been the art involved. Anyone with balls alone can still pick up a rock and crack open his neighbour's skull. But then you would have to get away with it. That part's become tougher. Besides, with big data every living soul is basically accounted for at any time. Did you know that every brain on the planet constantly broadcasts a unique stream of data that can be collected and be treated like any data, stored, copied, modulated, transmitted, and the fun thing about it, is that this data has no mass in itself, no medium other than your own brain (which is the most advanced structure we know of in the universe) so like language and thoughts and other things belonging to the ether world, we are not bound by time and space, it can be used for magic, but so can language and prayer too.

As for the Bread, tasty you said? Jesus is tasty? Thought he was more the rock solid kind to you lot. Guess eating rocks these days....

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

In fact most criticisms of historical figures that can be levelled at Jesus can be levelled elsewhere.

Not so. I doubt there are many (if any) figures with no historicial evidence and overwhelmingly magical/mythological claims that aren't considered myth.

There are plenty of things we thought were mythological but later turned out not to be with various bits of magic attached to them. Everything from being born of gods, having golden limbs, writing on the moon, meeting Amazonian queens ... it's bit like watching '300' or 'Braveheart'. It's really not uncommon for people to have myths or legends added to them in history. We even do it these days.

Ever since I saw Braveheart the first time I have come to think about Jesus, when Wallace holds his speech and that lad argues that Braveheart is seven feet tall, and Wallace starts talking about how he plans to destroy England by shooting fireballs out his arse. What people expect from Jesus trails along the same line of reasoning. I mean halo, cloud and eyes of blazing fire. The Christians are expecting someone completely different than the Christ that might actually show up. There's another film with Mel Gibson which is spot on, an obscure spin-off off Mad Max, called Max Beyond Thunderdome, where we meet a group of kids living in the desert who has developed a religion about a certain Tomorrow Morrow Land and their god called Captain Walker. Quite spot on really. Brave New World also comes to mind, with their Ford Almighty. Also a few lines of Kierkegaard lingers in the back of my mind, where he expects humanity to end in laughter since we would believe the end of the world was a joke.

The basic crux is, is there anything special about historical Jesus and what would we expect? […] Jesus never really did anything that obviously amazing in the first place if you discount the magical parts. […] It's totally possible that Jesus didn't exist, but that's not as obviously evident as people make out.

Aye to all that. There is no apparent reason why Jesus should become the centre of gravity of the greatest religion known to man. AND conquer the Roman Empire in the process. But what if Joseph was in fact Caesarion, Julius Caesar's only known son who was reported killed soon after after Cleopatra and Caesar were killed. His body has never been found to my knowledge.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
The earliest Tacitus works themselves have been tampered with, this is a fact. Whether the passage itself existed originally, or to what extent it was changed, isn't so certain either. At best he is repeating urban myth, at worst it is Christian forgery.

rationalwiki.org...

Quoting rational wiki on a debate about historical Jesus is a bit like letting George Bush decide if Americans won 'the war' in Iraq.

You are allowed to follow up and look into the claims and show where they might be wrong, instead of pandering to your bias. I would say relying on "Religious Scholars" who are usually devoted believers in all things Christian woo (many even believe the miracles, which means they have departed from reality altogether) would be far worse.

Its clear to see that even the slightest bit, as in this case, of even a reference to Jesus is subject to outright rejection on its face. The ideas about Tacitus in this thread demonstrate that. There hasn't been a single criticism, on this thread, of his reference to Jesus that is worth any sort of salt.

To you personally...

The best that can be said is that he acknowledged Christians existed and acknowledged their stories/belief existed...around 80 years (best part of of a century) after they were said to have taken place.

There are genuine reasons to have some doubt even about this. Quite convenient that certain years (the very ones when the myth was said to have taken place), seem to have gone missing (while under care of the Church?). Odd that no early Christians referenced Tacitus (not even well known forger Eusebius) until the 5th century (known forger Sulpicius Severus). We know for a fact spelling in the oldest manuscript has been altered. The claims of Christian persecution in Rome that is at best greatly exaggerated, he gives no sources or hint that he used any, with an unlikelihood that he would have investigated such a groups claims themselves, even if records were available (also unlikely) etc etc.

At best, he was not contemporary and it is still not evidence that even a normal unremarkable person became mythicised out of all proportion forming the seed of the Jesus myth (though good that it is at least acknowledged here, as it is by all genuine academics, that the biblical version of Jesus certainly did not exist). It is reasonable (but not conclusive) evidence that he knew of Christians and the story behind their myth.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well yes and lord knows that all information about Christ and Christianity has only emerged at the hands of forgers, historical revisionists, liars ect. lol This idea is what has been blown out of all proportion!

And the creepy, out right fabricated, anti-christian flow, that purports to work out of an academic search for the truth leads the way. Claiming to have no ax to grind these supposed academic meanderers plod through the offerings like psyco butcher hacks. At once historians, textual critics, discoverers of great fraud they haven't arrived here by honest investigation but started out to destroy.

Frankly only an uneducated dumbazz on the subject would just swallow up these ad hoc rebuttals of every source of historical Christianity.

I will give an example.....say 60 to 70 years after the fact Tacitus writes. This is offered as a primary weakness in his testimony. The truth is in real historical terms the timing is perfect for the amount of information that he offers. Nothing that Tacitus says is challenged at all by the time span. In fact it gives a good look at how Christianity is viewed in its general points by the time it had settled into its second generation. Its not much different and with the same depth that folks in the west today generally understand Islam. And Tacitus uses the same sort of tone and view that folks today in the west use when talking about Islam. Like he is addressing non-christian romans when he writes. Certainly nothing to justify calling him a plagiarizer of Josephus.

originally posted by: Pinke
There are plenty of things we thought were mythological but later turned out not to be with various bits of magic attached to them.

There are no "various bits of magic" involved here...as much as an overwhelmingly magical story with small portions of unsupported mundane claims, some of them almost as unlikely.

There are also countless mythical figures who were believed to be real historical people at one time. Clearly a logical fallacy if you are using this as an argument.

The basic crux is, is there anything special about historical Jesus and what would we expect?

* Jesus wasn't the first Jewish 'messiah' around this time to make bold claims.
* He wasn't the first Jewish 'messiah' to be executed.
* He wasn't the first to interpret the world through parables.

There are even some that do have historical evidence to suggest they did, in fact, exist. Unlike Jesus.

* Pontius Pilate probably existed.
* John the Baptist probably existed.

Neither of whom are Jesus.

* Jesus never really did anything that obviously amazing in the first place if you discount the magical parts.

Nonsense. The story is overwhelmingly a magical one to begin with, with this aspect being the entire point. If you then remove the extremely unlikely events out of what is left, such as throwing people out of a huge temple with armed guards (he ain't getting out of that in one piece), the remarkable improbability of the Sanhedrin and Pilate story (so remarkably improbable they should have been noticed and written about, yet no one did) you aren't left with much. The great multitudes that knew about him and came from far and wide that no one noticed, can just as easily be passed off as nonsense as it can be passed off as massive exaggeration.

In the end your left with the possibility a religious nutter named Jesus existed in Palestine and might have ridden a Donkey. That's possible. It's also possibly a complete fabrication or conglomeration of various mythology.

The only thing particularly special about Jesus is that a modern religion exists around the person. As far as the Romans were concerned it was just another week day where they had to nail someone to a piece of wood. It's not like we can find evidence of burnt cities, forgotten wars, or cloned fish. What 'historical' evidence would we expect from an executed ancient Jewish peasant?

It's not so much what would be expected, as much as what we have. Which is basically nothing we don't have for countless other mythical beings.

Genuine academics/historians reject all magical claims outright and when such people are accepted historically, it is for other genuine historical reasons. Caesar is unlikely to have been led across the Rubicon by a magical piper. Though he did exist and it's very likely he did cross the river with some of his troops (possibly while shouting "alea iacta est"!). In this respect, Jesus seems no more likely than Romulus.

It's totally possible that Jesus didn't exist, but that's not as obviously evident as people make out. There are also plenty of alternatives to who the 'real' Jesus is... You've even admitted that it's not entirely unreasonable and yet ...

Yes, it's possible a normal rather insignificant person might have formed part of later, wildly mythicised cult beliefs. That doesn't mean it's probable. It's also possible the claims of this cult are entirely made up. It's possible (even very plausible) that "Jesus" is a conglomeration of past mythical and real stories/people. If you "believe" someone existed, no qualms with that. I don't believe it and "belief" isn't really what is claimed by Christians.

I see what you did there.

Rational wiki, whilst it can be an okay starting point, is overwhelmingly easy to predict, rude at times, and overly certain of itself on some issues. It mirrors many of my beliefs but there are a large number of articles where I know the opponents on the issue have better arguments than the ones presented. It doesn't quite pass as academic or as opinion piece and it's sometimes more one than the other without warning.

This area of "academia" is historically the domain of the church and clergy. It is still largely over run with religious delusionals who actually believe the whole thing and gain "qualifications" from religious based institutions. Incredibly biased to start with a belief and look for what might support it. As realistic as expecting the truth of Scientology, from a Scientology trained "academic".

Expecting anyone who's paranormal world view centres around unshakeable belief in an invisible sky wizard, incorporating magical beliefs and tales (which the Jesus myth is absolutely central to), to be objective about those beliefs themselves... is a bit unlikely. I welcome sceptical opinions.

The only other reason I could think of to bust it out would be in a discussion like this and then it's mostly just too insulting to change minds. Most of the time I feel like it's just a place for snarky people to give each other metaphorical back rubs whilst wearing ceremonial top hats and monocles. They used to also have a cult of fedora wearers but they exiled those to redit sometime ago.

What you "feel" is up to you. Imagined faux pas with fashion, or perceived pompousness is an explanation for your bias, not a denial of it. My bias is strictly to do with an obvious general lack of intellectual integrity within religious based "academia" (and not only dealing with history).

As you brought up fashion, how do you feel about men wearing frilly frocks and the reverence shown to icons depicting torture etc?

There have been and still are genuine objections to this Tacitus passage...it's unlikely there were many Christians in Rome at the time, early church fathers who would surely have delighted in finding mention of Christian persecution (or anything remotely hinting at the religion) but didn't...despite many of them scouring ancient documents for such things... the fact that Paul seems to have been evangelising quite freely (at odds with the "persecution" claims)... no mention of Christian persecution by any one at the time...the extreme unlikelihood that someone like Tacitus, a Roman official would mention such a person as the "Christ" this way...no mention of Christians in any other of his works... precedence of similar Christian interpolation/pious forgery etc.

At best this is a (somewhat dubious) reference to Christian etymology.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well yes and lord knows that all information about Christ and Christianity has only emerged at the hands of forgers, historical revisionists, liars ect. lol This idea is what has been blown out of all proportion!

And the creepy, out right fabricated, anti-christian flow, that purports to work out of an academic search for the truth leads the way. Claiming to have no ax to grind these supposed academic meanderers plod through the offerings like psyco butcher hacks. At once historians, textual critics, discoverers of great fraud they haven't arrived here by honest investigation but started out to destroy.

Frankly only an uneducated dumbazz on the subject would just swallow up these ad hoc rebuttals of every source of historical Christianity.

I will give an example.....say 60 to 70 years after the fact Tacitus writes. This is offered as a primary weakness in his testimony. The truth is in real historical terms the timing is perfect for the amount of information that he offers. Nothing that Tacitus says is challenged at all by the time span. In fact it gives a good look at how Christianity is viewed in its general points by the time it had settled into its second generation. Its not much different and with the same depth that folks in the west today generally understand Islam. And Tacitus uses the same sort of tone and view that folks today in the west use when talking about Islam. Like he is addressing non-christian romans when he writes. Certainly nothing to justify calling him a plagiarizer of Josephus.

You are relying on a somewhat dubious claim (historically) from someone who was born decades after the "supposed" events and who mentions it breifly and rather spuriously, best part of a century after.

I find it hard to understand that people cling to this myth in such a way. The "historical" idea is a failure without the magic, though I prefer not to separate them anyway.

As an allegorical myth, the Christ story can be a beautiful one with deep meaning. As a historical one, it becomes quite ugly and portrays god as a self centred maniacal fool.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Pinke
There are plenty of things we thought were mythological but later turned out not to be with various bits of magic attached to them.

There are no "various bits of magic" involved here...as much as an overwhelmingly magical story with small portions of unsupported mundane claims, some of them almost as unlikely.

There are also countless mythical figures who were believed to be real historical people at one time. Clearly a logical fallacy if you are using this as an argument.

It's not my fallacy. It is in direct response to your claim that magical = fake. Just seems like you've restated my point? Side note: regarding the other poster, I don't believe Jesus is magical at all.

Regarding religious history studies being bias ... Sure. No argument. That's an argument to have with other people really.

Maybe it's my English but I don't understand what you mean by 'bias'. Bias is considered unfair prejudice? So in context I cannot understand what you mean since you also apply this to yourself. I don't think there is anything 'unfair' about disliking an information source which includes insults. I'm prejudice against tone not informations.

Many of the sources I've looked at independently so I really have no need for rational wiki - it has no bearing on my opinions in this discussion.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well yes and lord knows that all information about Christ and Christianity has only emerged at the hands of forgers, historical revisionists, liars ect. lol This idea is what has been blown out of all proportion!

And the creepy, out right fabricated, anti-christian flow, that purports to work out of an academic search for the truth leads the way. Claiming to have no ax to grind these supposed academic meanderers plod through the offerings like psyco butcher hacks. At once historians, textual critics, discoverers of great fraud they haven't arrived here by honest investigation but started out to destroy.

Frankly only an uneducated dumbazz on the subject would just swallow up these ad hoc rebuttals of every source of historical Christianity.

I will give an example.....say 60 to 70 years after the fact Tacitus writes. This is offered as a primary weakness in his testimony. The truth is in real historical terms the timing is perfect for the amount of information that he offers. Nothing that Tacitus says is challenged at all by the time span. In fact it gives a good look at how Christianity is viewed in its general points by the time it had settled into its second generation. Its not much different and with the same depth that folks in the west today generally understand Islam. And Tacitus uses the same sort of tone and view that folks today in the west use when talking about Islam. Like he is addressing non-christian romans when he writes. Certainly nothing to justify calling him a plagiarizer of Josephus.

You are relying on a somewhat dubious claim (historically) from someone who was born decades after the "supposed" events and who mentions it breifly and rather spuriously, best part of a century after.

This is what I am talking about. His account doesn't really fall under the categories of dubious or spurious. The use of these terms here reflects bias and is gratuitous. The time frame doesn't come into question because he is in a very general way confirming what is known elsewhere in general. There is no evidence of a "time strain", no indication that he is doing anything but passing general knowledge about the group, its known claims and a knowledge of history. He sought to prove nothing here. The reason he is being attacked is because he is, in this climate, inadvertently, so to speak, proving historical claims made elsewhere.

originally posted by: Pinke

It's not my fallacy. It is in direct response to your claim that magical = fake. Just seems like you've restated my point? Side note: regarding the other poster, I don't believe Jesus is magical at all.

The notion that some claims with magic were verified, minus the magic (such as Caesar) therefore it would make this one any more, or less likely = fallacy. It rises or falls on it's own merits alone.

Maybe it's my English but I don't understand what you mean by 'bias'. Bias is considered unfair prejudice? So in context I cannot understand what you mean since you also apply this to yourself. I don't think there is anything 'unfair' about disliking an information source which includes insults. I'm prejudice against tone not informations.

Thats like shooting the messenger. Whether you like the source is a separate issue.

I don't see bias as necessarily having to be unfair. Though it certainly can be.

Many of the sources I've looked at independently so I really have no need for rational wiki - it has no bearing on my opinions in this discussion.

It's customary, when refuting any source, to offer more than an emotional plea.

originally posted by: Logarock

This is what I am talking about. His account doesn't really fall under the categories of dubious or spurious.

It does appear incorrect in many ways. It appears quite unlikely in others (such an Imperial Roman referring to some executed Jew as the "Christ"). Why no mention of Christians anywhere in his other works? Why no mention of this passage from early Christians who quoted from Tacitus?...and on... and on...

The use of these terms here reflects bias and is gratuitous.

In your opinion.

The time frame doesn't come into question because he is in a very general way confirming what is known elsewhere in general. There is no evidence of a "time strain", no indication that he is doing anything but passing general knowledge about the group, its known claims and a knowledge of history. He sought to prove nothing here. The reason he is being attacked is because he is, in this climate, inadvertently, so to speak, proving historical claims made elsewhere.

At best he is repeating a claim. At worst...

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Pinke

It's not my fallacy. It is in direct response to your claim that magical = fake. Just seems like you've restated my point? Side note: regarding the other poster, I don't believe Jesus is magical at all.

The notion that some claims with magic were verified, minus the magic (such as Caesar) therefore it would make this one any more, or less likely = fallacy. It rises or falls on it's own merits alone.

Yes, you're restating my point again.

Our only difference here is that you believe those 'merits' make it far more likely Jesus wasn't a real person of some description, and I think perhaps the case is overstated. But you've also made clear your issue is with Christians and what they make of Jesus.

Thats like shooting the messenger. Whether you like the source is a separate issue.

Even if I was, I'm shooting the messenger who is quoting sources I've already read. I think you are placing far too much emphasis on this wiki.

It's customary, when refuting any source, to offer more than an emotional plea.

I'm not sure if something else is going on or you've missed a previous point. Perhaps I am explaining badly ... I don't need that wiki - I've read most of the sources they're quoting and studied the major arguments. Not sure, it is same with the issue of Jesus in the temple ... You have ascribed to me opinions I don't hold.

I doubt you're pushing to test your own opinions, they seem fairly set and I doubt you're seeking my advice on historical epistemology so I'm uncertain the value of the discussion. Communication difficulties don't appear to be helping either. Nice chat, but perhaps we should end it here.

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Pinke

It's not my fallacy. It is in direct response to your claim that magical = fake. Just seems like you've restated my point? Side note: regarding the other poster, I don't believe Jesus is magical at all.

The notion that some claims with magic were verified, minus the magic (such as Caesar) therefore it would make this one any more, or less likely = fallacy. It rises or falls on it's own merits alone.

Yes, you're restating my point again.

Our only difference here is that you believe those 'merits' make it far more likely Jesus wasn't a real person of some description, and I think perhaps the case is overstated. But you've also made clear your issue is with Christians and what they make of Jesus.

I bet people tie all sorts of miracles to Haile Selassie, Raskolnikow, John Dee or Ghandi. If we were to conclude upon such legends that the people in concern didn't exist we would have straight out stupified ourselves. As for magic, the mystical hodhod bird was just spotted in Norway. Heart leaped May all gods protect it.

a reply to: Pinke

Yes we must have crossed wires.

That you have a low regard of rational wiki is fair enough. As an unsupported opinion.

I don't hold any religions in high esteem. This isn't why I don't believe Christ existed, however.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
I bet people tie all sorts of miracles to Haile Selassie, Raskolnikow, John Dee or Ghandi. If we were to conclude upon such legends that the people in concern didn't exist we would have straight out stupified ourselves. As for magic, the mystical hodhod bird was just spotted in Norway. Heart leaped

May all gods protect it.

Yeah, no doubt. Should be easy enough then to list some comparable Christ like miracles say, for Ghandi? Though obvously we can rule out resurrection (not so for Elvis, been seen many times). Virgin birth perhaps? He might have defied gravity and walked across the Ganges?


So we have the "supposed" passage from Tacitus in the early 2nd century.

Seemingly uncorroborated (Christian persecution) by anyone who was actually in Rome at the time.

None of the early Christian writers (some of whom reference Tacitus) mention this passage. In fact no one seems to mention it.

Sulpicius Severus writes something that is almost the same word for word... in the 5th century.

Then (copies of) Tacitus manuscripts are found in the 15th century and, as if by magic (perhaps it does exist) one passage in these copies echoes Christian scribe Sulpicius Severus 5th century thoughts, almost word for word....

Coincidence surely. That doesn't sound dubious.....

Well, seeing this thread is drifting towards rants over Jesus this Jesus that I'd just like to revisit the OP and remind people that if they want to challenge age old systems of historiography and even challenge the way we understand and research history these days.... Well, do it somewhere else.

Truth hurts. Not everything out there is a conspiracy feeding some select few's collective evil ego. Or the Romans. Sometimes history is true enough. That Tacitus is one of a very few documents of history from about the time of Christ that remains to this day, back when these annals were written there was a well of documents available, it's the time of the Alexandrian library for heaven's sake.

And at the time of Gutenberg, centuries later, there may have been fabricated a few books out of the blue, but we must not forget that back then lots of ancient documents lost today surfaced or became available and finding their ways to eternity via the type foundries and the paper mills. Just a few thoughts worth considering before jumping at the lion, thats all.

For all I care Tacitus may even be a forgery, it really doesn't matter. If Jesus did live this doesn't in any way prove or disprove any of the fantastic claims this guy is subject to in religious literature ranging from a certain Roman Church whose current pope is supposed to be the last one, to crazy pentecostal hand wavery and psychotic babbling, and what they have made Jesus become to present day. The world is falling apart outside, the bleeding Pesta is rattling her rake out there, was that a headache? Fever, me? The least thing we need are people trying to distort the truth for personal means. Sweet grapes make bitter wine, peoples.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Well, seeing this thread is drifting towards rants over Jesus this Jesus that I'd just like to revisit the OP and remind people that if they want to challenge age old systems of historiography and even challenge the way we understand and research history these days.... Well, do it somewhere else.

Agree with your view, or go away, is what you are saying.

No. I don't think so.

Truth hurts.

That being that there is no genuine evidence that this "imaginary friend" of the gullible ever had a real historical existence (even if we entertain the passage as genuine, which is itself stretching things).

Not everything out there is a conspiracy feeding some select few's collective evil ego. Or the Romans. Sometimes history is true enough. That Tacitus is one of a very few documents of history from about the time of Christ that remains to this day, back when these annals were written there was a well of documents available, it's the time of the Alexandrian library for heaven's sake.

Written almost a century after Jesus was claimed to have been crucified...highly inaccurate...gives no hint of having used any sources...almost word for word with a 5th century Christian scribe...from a group that is known for forgery and trying to write their own version of history...never mentioned by early Christian "scholars" (some of whom quoted extensively from Tacitus)...or anyone else...

We should start a thread on all of the early church scribes/scholars who don't mention the Tacitus passage. Some of whom were purposefully looking for any reference to Christianity in the hope of making their mythical story seem like it was real.

And at the time of Gutenberg, centuries later, there may have been fabricated a few books out of the blue,

...and before then...we had to rely on Christian scribes...and all manner of pious frauds that they were well known for (you do realise these exist even within the new testament?)...

For all I care Tacitus may even be a forgery, it really doesn't matter.

That's unlikely, it seems you do care little more than that.

Though I agree,whether a (likely) forgery or not, it doesn't matter. It isn't evidence for a historical Jesus either way.

If Jesus did live this doesn't in any way prove or disprove any of the fantastic claims this guy is subject to in religious literature ranging from a certain Roman Church whose current pope is supposed to be the last one, to crazy pentecostal hand wavery and psychotic babbling, and what they have made Jesus become to present day. The world is falling apart outside, the bleeding Pesta is rattling her rake out there, was that a headache? Fever, me? The least thing we need are people trying to distort the truth for personal means. Sweet grapes make bitter wine, peoples.

In vino veritas?

The "fantastic claims" this guy is subjected to are by default, discounted. They run counter to every genuine observation anyone has ever made about our universe.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Well, seeing this thread is drifting towards rants over Jesus this Jesus that I'd just like to revisit the OP and remind people that if they want to challenge age old systems of historiography and even challenge the way we understand and research history these days.... Well, do it somewhere else.

That's exactly what should be happening, re religious "scholarship". People should challenge it because it looks as farcical as any other "academic" discipline that is guided (largely) by religious motives and principles (creationism for instance).

Traditionally this area of study was the sole domain of the church. Thus it became entrenched as the default position based on religious fanaticism and for much of this time, to deny it was forbidden to the extent it could have resulted in a painful end at the hands of the inquisition. We still see people who double as clergy, with qualifications from religious institutions, pretending to be objective scholars and proffering this view as it if were some sort of fact. Non est factum. It's really quite the opposite and as more secular historians look into this, this biased attitude will (and is beginning to) change.

It is acknowledged that the standards of historical evidence for this position are quite low (and hence standards of scholarship are correspondingly low, not to mention biased) and simply relies on accepting the bible as historically factual. When the claims are overwhelmingly magical and this is the point of the whole story, I see no problem with increasing the standards and level of scrutiny, rather than relaxing them. Thus we see that many of the mundane claims are not only unsupported, but are exceptionally unlikely.

The problem for secular historians who wish to study this area is that to gain a consensus amongst the (largely religious) historians who specialise in it on anything that is not in favour of historicity, will be difficult for reasons that are really, quite separate. As there are many who's entire delusional world view hinges on historicity, if you remove that, the entire paranormal cult ideology falls to the level it belongs, mythology.

Your above quote is a very poor effort to remove dissenting opinion via a weak appeal to authority fallacy. This isn't like science where there are genuine empirical methods of determining the validity of claims. It might have been better to discuss why, or not, this passage itself is valid (or in fact, whether this area of academia itself should be considered valid). Either way, it is not, nor can it ever amount to genuine evidence of a historical jesus.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Anything else you'd like to say? You know. There is a word for you people, and our parents told us that you were not real. Nowadays, I'm not so sure. Soo... are you a Tusseladd or a Ranglefant? A Jotun perhaps? Dovregubben?!? So many species, I don't know the names of half of them. Fusentass?