Did Jesus exist, Part II

I did a little research but by the time I got back, the thread was closed.non-Biblical references to Jesus:One is from Tacitus, circa 115 AD. My author does not suggest that there is anything suspicious about this passage. The passage that has obvious later additions is from Josephus.Here's the passage from Tacitus. The context is that of a horrific fire that occurred in Rome in 64 AD. Somebody was trying to blame Nero for it, so Nero blamed the Christians: This is from "The Historical Jesus," by John Crossan, 1991. Tacitus
Annals

Promoted by AdminJar

robinrohan,The problem with Tacitus is that he is as in the dark as you & I. He was born after Jesus died, & can therefore only tell us what he himself has been told. By others who also also never saw Jesus.This is independent evidence of christianity, not Jesus.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-10-2006 12:39 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This passage from Tacitus was quoted in briefer form in the earlier thread: Message 18--Percy

Tacitus was an historian. If he suspected that the Christian story was untrue, or questionable, I imagine he would have said, "their founder Christus, according to their traditions, was executed during the reign of Tiberius" or something of that sort.But there is no qualification given at all.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2006 11:44 AM

That was one of the reasons I suggested that you include a link to what he actually wrote. He was a historian and wrote many, many volumes of the history of the early Roman Empire.The subject he's discussing is Rome in the early years. The quote being discussed is simply an aside in his work. It is not even the subject of the quotation, but only mentioned as one justification that Nero used for his actions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Now let's go on to Josephus, a Jewish historian. There are a couple different versions of this passage, in different languages.Let's look at one. According to my author Crossan, only part of the passage was added to by later Christians. Josephus, of the Jewish faith, would certainly not have written these passages. Nonetheless the rest of it seems genuine.I'm putting the parts that my author says were later additions in brackets. This was written about 93 AD. abe: typosThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2006 12:00 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2006 12:13 PM

robinrohan, How could he know what was true or not? I imagine he just took what he heard as fact & repeated it.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Why did Josephus never become a Christian, if he thought Jesus was the messiah?According to Origen, Josephus died a pharasaic Jew.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 01-10-2006 01:04 PM

Brian, the parts in brackets were added later, by a Christian.

OIC, sorry I didn't read your message carefully enough.

I think that you mean that the rest COULD be genuine. So far as I am aware there is no good evidence either way.I have to say that the version here is still positive enough that I would expect early Christians to have cited it. IIRC the earliest mention is Eusebius who is suspiciously late.s

Another point I will make is that Tactitus was a good friend of Pliny the Younger, who wrote the earliest known letter about Christians that is undisputed. It was in about 110 C.E. and it concerned on how to deal with Christians. He gothis information from the torture of slaves that were 'deconesses' in the Christian religion. (I will note that makes those two slaves women who were christian leaders)What I find interesting is that the other commentary about Christians aside from Pliny and Tactitus is Suetonus, who was a secretary for Pliny in about 111-112 C.E. time frame.

I believe Robin's point was that any historian worth his salt checks his facts, and if there is any reasonable doubt he doesn't make a statement without qualifying it.

Hi Faith, I would agree if you were thinking about modern day historians, but pre-renaissance historians did not write critical histories. Regarding Josephus, he is known to be quite a careless researcher, he frequently contradicted himself, and made some real errors in chronology.He wasn't a critical historian, he actually wasn't even a very good historian, here is some info.There can be no doubt of Josephus’ chronological errors. As one example out of many, note his appraisal of the first year of Cyrus the Great. In the War he said the year was what is recognized today as 570 B.C.E. But in one part of his Antiquities he said it was 578 B.C.E. and in another he said it was 586 B.C.E. In reality, most historians today feel the year was actually 538 B.C.E.

​

Not only was Josephus inconsistent in his own references, he was wrong in all of them. One might excuse Josephus for mistaking chronological matters some six centuries before his time, but it should be expected that he would fare better in periods much nearer his own lifetime. Yet at the very time of Herod (during whose reign Jesus was born), Corbishley, some fifty years ago, shows that the writings of Josephus contain much evidence of a deeper corruption than many seem to suspect. Everyone who has gone into the subject at all is aware that there are obvious blunders in the chronology of Josephus, but no successful attempt to remedy them appears to have been made.References are on the link.Josephus is well known for sloppy work.For what it is worth, I do believe there was an historical Jesus, but I feel that may be a hangover from my days as a Christian. As an objective researcher, I can see that a good case could be made for Jesus being a fictional character. I am not saying he was, it really doesn't capture my interest that much, but it is a possibility given the lack of information about him.I know we have the Gospels, but they are not written as a critical history either, they are written to persuade, and they are so full of supernatural claims and inaccuracies that their reliability is doubtful.Brian.