Thread 17906084

I looked into it and there's no hard, slam-dunk evidence that Jesus was a real person. The stories about him look exactly like other mythical characters. There is no mundane historical account from a known source or eyewitness. Just anonymous stories written long after he supposedly lived.

There's more historical evidence to support the existence of these people than Jesus:
Robin Hood
King Arthur
Beowulf
Ragnar Lodbrok
Socrates
Homer
Confucius

>But muh Tacitus!
Doesn't even mention Jesus
>But muh Josephus!
Doesn't even mention Jesus
>But muh Pliny!
Doesn't even mention Jesus. Does mention Christians, but who fucking cares, it's likely a forged volume anyway
>But muh Talmud!
Written 500 years later, who fucking cares
>But muh Lucian!
Doesn't even mention Jesus
>But muh Mara bar-Serapion!
Doesn't even mention Jesus
>But muh Suetonius!
Doesn't even - well, you get the idea
>But muh archaeology!
All dates to the 3rd century or later
>But muh literature!
All dates to the early-to-mid 2nd century, or later

>>17906112
>pretending to be a mythicist so I can samefag debunk my own post and make atheists look bad
Make it more subtle next time.

>>17906106
>there's more
lying jew, how do (you) quantify that? explain your methodology or stfu
All of those people existed anyways, and what you said is completely irrelevant to the thread

>>17906112
>Doesn't even mention Jesus
That's not true. Even if you think the Testimonium is a complete forgery, and many secular experts think it is only a partial interpolation, he directly mentions James the Brother of Jesus and that is almost universally seen as valid even by atheist scholars.
Of course it is true that there is very little non-biblical evidence of Jesus, so its ultimately down to a probability, but the probability is that there was a preacher who the Romans killed, and a cult developed around him after his death, probably with a very different theology than what Jesus himself preached. It's the simplest explanation for the early Christian movement.

>>17906150
The simpler explanation is that stories about flying rabbis are made up.

>>17906202
Claiming real people in the ancient world also had magic powers was not that unusual. In fact claiming to have magic powers was not unheard of. There was a guy contemporaneous to Jesus who claimed he could control the weather, and apparently there were even people who believed him. It is perfectly possible to separate real people from stories about them having magic powers.

>>17906112
Tacitus mentions Jesus by name.
>Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 Judæa, 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.
Annals, 15.44

How can you say there is no Jesus when He lives so rent free in your heads?

>>17906084 (OP)
Jesus is the Atonement. You'll not comprehend anything about Jesus talking to people here. Read ACIM.

>>17906291
Christus is not a name, it means the anointed. Jesus's name was not "Christus" not even in translation. Now there is no doubt Tacitus was referring to Jesus, but he did not refer to him by name.

>>17906905
For all intents and purposes, it is a name. Just like how “Martel” wasn’t actually a name for Charles Martel, but it effectively became one over time. Besides, Tacitus used the Latin word “nomen” when referring to the word “Christus”. So, he considered it a name.

>>17906238
The thing is there are only stories about a jew flying around with magic powers and no mundane accounts. There are mundane accounts of Caesar, Alexander the Great and others who were ascribed magic powers. Mythical characters don't usually have mundane accounts.

>>17907209
There are plenty exemples of Jesus doing mundane things in the bible.

>>17907220
Superman does mundane things but the account on the whole is fantastical.

>>17906084 (OP)

Shroud of Torino.

>>17907303
Once again, pretty much every major historical figure of the period has supernatural or extraordinary stories attached to them in accounts. Jesus may have more than others, but that alone doesn’t mean he didn’t exist.

>>17906084 (OP)
>>17906106
>I hate God and have zero scruples lying about him.
Damn, I'm so glad that you are heaping all this damnation on your head. I can't wait to relish the terror you'll experience when you stand before God for judgment, not to mention the exquisite torture you'll be forced to endure, without rest, forever.

>>17907209
Caesar was a general and the defacto ruler of a huge empire. Jesus was a backwater preacher from the most rural part of said empire. We would expect such mundane accounts if Jesus was important in his lifetime, but he really was not. Jesus is important because of a cult that came to prominence a few decades after he died. So we are left with a question, was he a real man, or if not how did this cult start in the first place? The vast majority of scholars, including the majority of secular scholars conclude, based on not only biblical accounts but also brief mentions by people like Josephus and Tacitus, that he was a real man. The gospel accounts, while fantastical, do seem to have nuggets of a preexisting oral or written tradition, including some familiarity with the Jewish theology and politics of Jesus lifetime. And the cult seems to have been spreading before Paul's ministry. That all suggests its started with a historical person, however off the rails it became later on.

>>17906084 (OP)

*blocks*

*your*

*path*

>>17907315
>pretty much every major historical figure of the period has supernatural or extraordinary stories attached to them in accounts.
But not solely fantastical accounts.

>>17907367
imagine blindly believing in transparently made-up fiction because you're scared of magic lava.

>>17907761
Fake.

>>17907758
>Jesus was a backwater preacher from the most rural part of said empire.
How do you know? That's not extant in the texts. In the texts he flies around in the sky and does magic powers while thousands of people watch.

>>17906291
Annals was written a couple lifetimes after Jesus allegedly died, and Tacitus gave NO source. He probably was just repeating the Gospel narrative (which doesn't appear in Paul's epistles) that Pliny the Younger extracted from the Christians he interrogated.
Therefore, it's irrelevant top establishing historicity.

>>17907771
>How do you know? That's not extant in the texts.
It is a hundred percent in the text. The bible is very clear he and his core followers came from Galilee, which was even considered a backwater in Jerusalem. Jesus critics in the bible even comment on this. And again, what would you expect something written by a cult about its leader fifty years after their death to say? that he was a nobody who was killed? Even ignoring the possibility of fraud you would expect grief stricken followers to come up with something.
You seem to think either Jesus is everything the bible says he is or he never existed. As if there are not any other possibilities. This is the kind of argument you expect from a third rate apologist.
Also, historians analyze texts, they just don't assume they are true or false and leave it at that. Even wildly inaccurate accounts can still contain useful information. I think the accounts of Jesus miracles are as unbelievable as you do, but I expect such stories from deeply religious people.

>>17906084 (OP)
Here's your "hard evidence":
>slam-dunks your fucking head into the toilet

>>17907978
Let me give you an example. "The real Harry Potter was just some schoolkid." That's fine to speculate, but a "real" Harry Potter can't be deduced from the texts. A rationalization for why there's no evidence cannot itself be evidence.

>>17908134
Yes I know that is what you are going for. But you may not be aware that historians have tools to tell the difference between something like Harry Potter and the gospel of Mark. Leaving the question of Jesus aside it contains mentions of people like Peter who we know existed, aside from more important historical figures it mentions like Herod or Pilate. Rowling never claimed Harry Potter was a real person. All our ancient texts that mention Jesus do.
>A rationalization for why there's no evidence cannot itself be evidence.
The existence of the Christian religion is evidence. It had to come from somewhere, and even if there was nothing else, a single human founder would be most likely. That said, there are other things. Josephus does mention Jesus. All the early historical mentions cite Jesus or "Christ" as its founder. Historically, the idea that someone else founded it like Paul makes little sense. It is not consistent with the facts as they are nor does it explain them.
This is not consensus historians making some big exception for Jesus. They do this kind of thing for a lot of people, concluding they probably existed based on a circumstantial case. The only reason it is so remarkable is that Jesus, after his death, had an outsized impact of human history so people think there should be more evidence of him. But that confuses the man with the movement. Jesus did not have a big impact, his movement did.

>>17907766
>But not solely fantastical accounts
Yes they are.

>>17907808
>Annals was written a couple lifetimes after Jesus allegedly died, and Tacitus gave NO source.
Irrelevant.
>He probably was just repeating the Gospel narrative
He's clearly not doing that in the text. He's just reporting factually that Nero blamed this group of people who were named after Jesus.

>>17907992
Not convinced.

>>17907769
And gay.

>>17909002
>Irrelevant.
Absolutely relevant. If Tacitus gives no source, then where did he GET that information? The likely answer is, as I said, from Pliny, who was his best buddy and writing pal.
>He's clearly not doing that in the text
Yes, he was. Pontius Pilate putting Jesus to death is the Gospel narrative. It doesn't appear in Paul. So, uncritically and without any source, repeating what Christians believed about Jesus already about a hundred years after Jesus allegedly died is NOT relevant evidence for historicity.

>>17909032
>If Tacitus gives no source, then where did he GET that information?
Ancient authors rarely cite their sources. If this is your criteria, then practically no ancient writing is trustworthy.
>The likely answer is, as I said, from Pliny, who was his best buddy and writing pal
Sure, that's possible. But it's pure conjecture.
>Pontius Pilate putting Jesus to death is the Gospel narrative.
The gospel narrative is Jesus being the son of God who traveled around the area, preaching and performing miracles, gathered disciples and that three days post-mortem, he came back to the dead.
None of that is in Tacitus' account. None of Tacitus' phrasing appears in the bible. He's not repeating the gospel account just because he repeats one historical fact which the gospels also contain.

>old testament saints and patriarchs resurrected en masse when jesus resurrected and showed themselves in jerusalem
>not a single jew in 33AD wrote about this astonishing event that would shake their culture to their core

lol. lmao.

>>17906291
Tacitus was talking about it with reference to Christians, he was basically just repeating what Christians themselves claimed, not verifying Jesus' existence himself. How could he have any way considering he was born 20 years after Jesus had supposedly died

>>17909134

The records were all destroyed by Pagan Rome.

>>17907761
The vatican have certainly been very vested in blocking the path of anyone who isn't a dyed in th wool catholic researching after the last time they did it ended up being such an embarrassment for them.

>>17909124
>Ancient authors rarely cite their sources
Actually, yes, they do. Basically any historian in antiquity would at least say "so-and-so said XYZ" and then say what he thought about that source.
Especially about a character as obscure as Jesus (yes, obscure, Pliny didn't even know what the fuck they BELIEVED until assigned by the Emperor to go find and interrogate some).
>But it's pure conjecture.
Not at all. Tacitus and Pliny had a pretty close writing relationship. And if Tacitus ISN'T using Pliny as the source of his account of what Christians believed, what WAS he using? You see the issue?
>The gospel narrative is Jesus being the son of God
Did I say he repeats the entire narrative? No, just the narrative of Jesus being put to death by Pilate. Again, that DOESN'T appear in Paul, and Paul is unaware of it ever occurring. So it's the Gospel account.
>He's not repeating the gospel account just because he repeats one historical fact which the gospels also contain
Don't try to slip that in there. We are trying to establish that Tacitus WAS relaying historical information and not just repeating what Christians said they believed. That's the whole problem with using Tacitus as evidence, because it's so late, AND contradicts Paul, who was the earliest Christian author we indisputably have.
So, again, why is a late, sourceless snippet in Tacitus (likely lifted from Pliny) useable as historical evidence?

>>17909151

Kek what does dyed in the wool even mean? What did your Vatican insult even mean? You think saying random retarded shit is funny?

You are a fucking retard. Cope post again because you’re my bitch.

Every time I tell you to cope post you do. It’s been 3 times already. Do it again and show everyone who your daddy is. Cope post retard. Do it.

>>17909134
But they did write about it; It’s in the bible

>>17906084 (OP)
Your picrel is about managing your emotions and not getting lost in them

>>17909153
>Basically any historian in antiquity would at least say "so-and-so said XYZ" and then say what he thought about that source.
They only do this occasionally; most of the time, they don't. That you think they do is evidence that you have never read an ancient source. For instance, see pic, a passage from Tacitus which is just a little earlier. He doesn't say where he got any of this information. Are you going to say that all of this untrustworthy?
>Tacitus and Pliny had a pretty close writing relationship.
And where's your hard evidence that Tacitus was citing Pliny? You have none, and that's why this is conjecture.
>what WAS he using? You see the issue?
There isn't an issue. Ancient writers did not often cite their sources. QED.
>No, just the narrative of Jesus being put to death by Pilate
Is it unfathomable in your mind that Tacitus is saying this because it was well known to be true, rather than him getting this from gospel accounts? All you have done here is made it so that you can never be proven wrong. If I produce 100 writers who said that Jesus was killed by Pilate, you'll just say that they're repeating the gospel, and it's not trustworthy evidence.
>Again, that DOESN'T appear in Paul, and Paul is unaware of it ever occurring. So it's the Gospel account.
>AND contradicts Paul, who was the earliest Christian author we indisputably have
Paul is 100% irrelevant to what we're talking about. I don't know why you're so anal about this point.

>>17909145
>he was basically just repeating what Christians themselves claimed,
You don't know this.
>How could he have any way considering he was born 20 years after Jesus had supposedly died
True, anon. There is literally no way to know anything about the period before you were born.

>>17909275
You've completely ignored my point. A sourceless claim, written nearly three lifetimes after the events allegedly took place, which uncritically repeats what the Gospels already said, is NOT good evidence for historicity.
If Tacitus doesn't say what his source is, we have to try and figure it out. The only logical source is Pliny, who was close to Tacitus, was basically the foremost legal expert in the Empire, and who was the first Roman authority to get a list of alleged Christians and actually wring out what the fuck they even believed.
So if not Pliny as the likeliest source, then what? If it were Roman records, he would have said, and Pliny would have mentioned it in his letters to the Emperor. Pliny was unaware of any legal records on Christians, and thus had to interrogate some. So, again, what was Tacitus's source that Pliny himself didn't even know about?
>because it was well known to be true
Circular, again. If it were well known, Pliny would have known about it. In his own letters he confessed that he didn't know anything about Christians, and that there were no records as to what they believed. And you bet that if PLINY didn't know, then a jumped-up gossip writer like Tacitus absolutely didn't know.
>Paul is 100% irrelevant to what we're talking about
Paul is literally the first Christian author we indisputably have. He is absolutely relevant, because the Gospels came AFTER him. Hence why I said Tacitus repeats the GOSPEL narrative. The conflicts between the gospels and Paul are a key part of the historicity debate.

>>17906084 (OP)
Hey OP can you look into this "Alexander the Great" guy?
I want to know if he is a real person or not

I mean sure if you just reject all their writings as forgeries then yeah there’s no evidence
>>17906112

>>17909153
I don't know if you have read Taticus, but he is often used as a source for things that happened during the reign of Tiberius and he does not always cite their sources.
Yes, it is perfectly possible to dismiss the Taticus account because it is brief and probably second hand. But these little quotes in ancient historians are all pro-existence. That adds to the case.

>>17909347
>But these little quotes in ancient historians are all pro-existence.
You keep completely ignoring the issue with this source. WHERE he got his information is of extreme importance to the validity of using this as a source to establish historicity. You can't just say "well it's there so it must be valid".
Every other instance of Tacitius not properly sourcing his work is just not RELEVANT, for exactly the reasons I've given.
So until you can say where the fuck he got his information from, or better yet find that source itself, then Tacitus account is much more reasonably explained as him just lifting from Pliny's research, because they were buddies.

>>17909325
>You've completely ignored my point.
No, I've seen your point, and it's completely hollow.
>A sourceless claim, written nearly three lifetimes after the events allegedly took place, which uncritically repeats what the Gospels already said, is NOT good evidence for historicity.
It is in the context of ancient history. Plenty of peoples' existence is only know to us from sources written well after their deaths.
>which uncritically repeats what the Gospels already said
Just saying this over and over doesn't make it true. You have failed to demonstrate how Tacitus' writing has taken from the gospels in any way. It's not grammatically similar to the bible writings and it's presented in completely different context.
>If it were Roman records, he would have said and Pliny would have mentioned it in his letters to the Emperor.
More conjecture. I've already demonstrated that Tacitus doesn't always cite his sources, which you haven't even bothered to refute.
>In his own letters he confessed that he didn't know anything about Christians
Pliny says he knew nothing about what Christians believed, not that he was unaware of Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate or how their religion started. In fact, going by your own logic, shouldn't that be something Pliny ought to have mentioned? If this Jesus person never existed, you'd think Pliny would have mentioned it. Funny how not a single ancient source, even ones hostile to Christianity, never do that, huh?

>>17909365
>You have failed to demonstrate how Tacitus' writing has taken from the gospels in any way.
So exactly where IS it from? Because the only source, even in the BIBLE which claims that Jesus was killed under the reign of Pilate was the Gospels, and every single source after that only ever gives the Gospels as the ultimate source. There existed no Roman records of it, and like I said if there had been some independent source Tacitus used, Pliny would have known about it.
>More conjecture.
You can't dismiss the cold facts with "muh conjecture". Your ONLY answer so far has been "well it must've been well known for Tacitus to just say it", when I have already refuted that. Were it well known, Pliny would have known it too!
The ball is in YOUR court to prove that Tacitus is a useable source. If he himself had no source, then HOW does it establish historicity in the absence of any SUPPORTING material?
> In fact, going by your own logic, shouldn't that be something Pliny ought to have mentioned?
Pliny didn't even have an awareness of the concept of "Jesus". Notice how Tacitus DOESN'T say "Jesus"? He uses the CHRISTIAN honorific of "Christus". Which is exactly what the Christians whom Pliny interrogated would have given him. Pliny only established that the Christians believed in a "christus" killed by Pilate because they TOLD him. And THEY only knew about it because of the Gospels, because Paul sure as fuck didn't say that.
>Funny how not a single ancient source, even ones hostile to Christianity, never do that, huh?
At the time, euhemerization was quite common, so the idea of a savior deity killed on Earth wouldn't have been out there at all. Regardless, most refutations of Christianity TODAY don't either. But that's not relevant at all to establishing historicity. Do opponents of Luddism ever point out that Ned Ludd was fictional?
This entire point you just gave was a total non-sequitur.

>>17909153
>>17909325
If Tacitus is just repeating the gospel narrative, why does he repeat only one point and then leave so much of the more important gospel stuff out of his account?

>>17909384
The simple answer is, we don't know. The more speculative answer is that he only felt that saying "These freaks worship some dead criminal" was needed because Tacitus was just that kind of author. He probably didn't care about the rest of the stuff about Jesus having superpowers or "saving the universe".

>>17909381
>So exactly where IS it from?
We don't know. Is this such a difficult notion for to grasp? If you want speculation, then it's possible that Tacitus went too the court of Titus and asked some of the Jews there.
>You can't dismiss the cold facts with "muh conjecture"
True. Good thing I'm only dismissing conjecture as conjecture then. Your argument is that Pliny and Tacitus were close therefore the latter borrowed for the former. You have no evidence of this and are only speculating. Therefore, by definition, it is conjecture.
>"well it must've been well known for Tacitus to just say it"
I only suggested that it was a possibility.
>then HOW does it establish historicity in the absence of any SUPPORTING material?
In history, if we want to examine the veracity of something stated in writing, one way is to compare it with other sources. If the same information is independently present in more than one source, it's more likely that it's true. You're arguing that Tacitus' statement isn't independent. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to back this up beyond pointing out that information is present in both sources. Moreover, Tacitus does not say something like "it was said that..." or "They believed that..." He just states the information as factual. Ergo, I remain convinced that it is independent and probably true.
>Notice how Tacitus DOESN'T say "Jesus"? He uses the CHRISTIAN honorific of "Christus". Which is exactly what the Christians whom Pliny interrogated would have given him
He mentions "Christus" because he's talking about a group of people called "Christians" and explaining the origin of their name. Also, In the gospels, Jesus is referred to primarily as "Jesus", and sometimes "Jesus Christ". If anything, that's evidence that Tacitus wasn't just taking a page from the gospel accounts.

>>17909381
>>17909388
Tacitus isn't repeating the gospel account because he never mentions crucifixion. He says Pilate inflicted the "ultimate punishment" upon him. All of the gospels say "crucifixion" explicitly.

>>17909440
>We don't know. Is this such a difficult notion for to grasp?
Because it's ESSENTIAL to establishing historicity! If you don't know where the fuck he got it, we either have to discard it as useless for establishing historicity, or we have to try and figure out the likeliest place he would have got the information.
> If you want speculation, then it's possible that Tacitus went too the court of Titus and asked some of the Jews there
Firstly, had this been sufficient, Pliny would have done it. It was literally his JOB. Secondly, why exactly would "the Jews" in Titus's court know anything about Christians? It's purely circular, assuming historicity, Thirdly, which Jews? Who?
>Your argument is that Pliny and Tacitus were close therefore the latter borrowed for the former.
I didn't say it was CERTAIN. I said it was the likeliest source, and that it fits perfectly with what Tacitus wrote.
>I only suggested that it was a possibility.
You haven't provided any other basis for this being used to establish historicity then, if you're not asserting that it WAS a "well known fact".
You're saying, again, that it adds to historicity purely because it's there.
>You're arguing that Tacitus' statement isn't independent.
I'm saying we don't know the source, and that the likeliest source is Pliny's interrogation of Christians. You have offered no resistance to the first claim, and no alternatives to the second.
>He just states the information as factual.
This does not make it independent nor evidence for historicity, even if it WERE just the result of Tacitus uncritically repeating snippets of the Gospel accounts.

Let me make it really simple: unless Tacitus cited his source, or YOU can give a source more likely than Tacitus lifting from his buddy Pliny who was the first guy to track down Christians and ask them what the hell they believed in a hard, legal context, this blip in the Annals is simply useless for establishing historicity because it doesn't say ANYTHING.

>>17909462
"Crucifxion" was a vague term at the time, and meant many forms of execution. So Tacitus just saying "he was executed" i.e. deliberately killed to death, makes perfect sense. Even in the Bible, it doesn't actually say what "crucify" literally meant, just that it was a fatal execution.

>>17909474
>Because it's ESSENTIAL to establishing historicity!
You're the only one who thinks this.
>If you don't know where the fuck he got it, we either have to discard it as useless for establishing historicity, or we have to try and figure out the likeliest place he would have got the information.
If you truly believe that, then there's no point in even discussing ancient sources with you because you're clearly disposed to not trusting anything they say. I don't even know why you're on the history board if you have this much skepticism about written sources.

>>17909308
>You don't know this.
He literally wasn't there and lived thousands of miles from Jerusalem, the only way he was going to know about it was from hearsay, most of which is going to come from Christians with regards to the topic of Jesus.

>>17909478
>"Crucifxion" was a vague term at the time, and meant many forms of execution
>Even in the Bible, it doesn't actually say what "crucify" literally meant, just that it was a fatal execution.
You're completely wrong. Not only does the Latin vulgate bible use the verb for crucify (crucifigere), it also mentions carrying the cross and Jesus being placed upon it.
Jesus being crucified is the most basic thing about Christianity, and if Tacitus didn't know about it, then it's safe to say he wasn't listening to Christians.

>>17909535
Assessing the trustworthiness of written sources is literally history 101, you should never really just trust them outright and look into the motivation of it, as well as whether the author could have misinterpreted something, based his knowledge on hearsay etc. Not surprising that a totally uncritical christian would hate critical assessment of sources though considering refusing to assess validity of sources is basically a requirement to be one.

>>17909551
>Assessing the trustworthiness of written sources is literally history 101
True, which is why every credible historian who has studied Tacitus and this passage believes it be genuine and independent.

>>17909555
he is describing the emerging christ cult

not validating their claims lol

>>17909555
Yes with regards to what he knew christians believed

>>17909565
>>17909583
Nice try, but wrong again. They agree it's a genuine reference to the historical Jesus. Tacitus never describes what they believed.

>>17909535
>You're the only one who thinks this.
You are an absolute mental midget if you seriously think it's not.
>If you truly believe that, then there's no point in even discussing ancient sources with you
Your entire argument boils down to, "it's proof of historicity because....well it just is because its there!" You have offered no actual rational reason as to why it's proof of historicity, and have failed to rebut any of my arguments to the contrary, and instead adhere to a tautology of "well it's proof of historicity because Tacitus is repeating a well known fact, and we know it was well-known because its in Tacitus".
>>17909549
My point is that Tacitus wouldn't have cared about the minutia of the execution, even if the Christians who confessed to Pliny gave it. He was just saying "these silly guys are named after some dead criminal whom they call 'the Annointed One'."

>>17909702
>My point is that Tacitus wouldn't have cared about the minutia of the execution
Which directly contradicts your point that he was "uncritically repeating the gospel narrative". Thus, we can conclude that the Tacitus reference to Jesus is independent and evidence for Jesus' existence. Congratulations, you played yourself.

>>17909596
Nah

If jesus was historical why is he only mentioned within the christian framework lol

>>17909329
We have detailed accounts of Alexander written by people who personally knew him. Not to mention coins, inscriptions, statues and things he built that date to his lifetime. None of that exists for Jesus.

Equivalent examples are fine but they have to be equivalent.

>>17909716
>Which directly contradicts your point that he was "uncritically repeating the gospel narrative"
No it doesn't, retard. Jesus being executed by Pilate IS the Gospel narrative. Tacitus just wouldn't have cared about the MINUTIA of the Gospel account that he would have gotten from Pliny's interrogations.
For him, it likely was enough to say "these guys are named after some dead criminal". In fact, IF Tacitus WERE repeating some historical fact or well-known event, he would have been much more specific. Instead, the Christians are just some unknown cult that worships (according the Gospels) a dead thug. At least, to a fairly low-brow author like Tacitus.

>>17909741
Equivalents to Jesus are Inanna, and guys like Mithras, Attis, Ned Ludd and John Frum/Tom Navy.

>>17909204
>the only account of it is from cultists who say their magic rabbi made it happened

wow. very credible lol.

ITT:
>Ancient writers don't mention Jesus
>See, there's no evidence!

>Ancient writers mention Jesus
>They're just repeating what Christians said, there's no evidence!

>>17909743
Out of curiosity, what kind of reference to Jesus by a non-Christian writer WILL you accept?

>>17909784
A contemporary account, some form of Roman record of his arrest and trial, a CRITICAL contemporary account would really be the best one. Someone from the time, or citing a specific author from that time, saying "hey this Jesus guy really sucks ass!"
The ONLY 1st century non-Christian references to Jesus are two small blips in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, and both can be fairly sure to be interpolations, for different reasons.

But ultimately, the reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus are more predicated on what IS there instead of what ISN'T. Because if it were purely due to lack of evidence, it would be a far weaker position.

>>17909353
>You keep completely ignoring the issue with this source. WHERE he got his information is of extreme importance to the validity of using this as a source to establish historicity.
pretty much no one uses SOLEY the Tacitus quote to establish historicity. And we often do not know for sure where many ancient historians get their info. Ancient histories are incredibly flawed as second hand sources in that sense, but they are at least something which is why historians consider them. You seem to think because there are issues with a source it can't be considered. That is wrong.
You talk all about establishing historicity but you don't seem to care about the actual standards historians use. Suffice to say your burden of proof is a higher one than they call for.

>>17909801
>and both can be fairly sure to be interpolations, for different reasons
Very convenient that every source which can prove you wrong is fake

>>17909818
>because there are issues with a source it can't be considered.
The issue IS the heart of the question on using this specific piece of Tacitus as evidence, though. Because WHERE he got his info determines if it's actually referring to some historical record OR if it's just repeating Pliny's findings. So far, you have offered no reasonable case for the former. Therefore, lifting from Pliny IS the more reasonable explanation.
If you just ignore all that and say "it doesn't matter if there's a source" then the whole argument can be dismissed because the source IS the crux of the issue with Tacitus.
>>17909834
As I said, there are good reasons to conclude that Josephus was interpolated, the first instance of mentioning Jesus is well known to be an interpolation, the second is more debated, but I think the evidence is pretty strong that it is.

>>17909474
>Thirdly, which Jews? Who?
Titus brought several prominent Jews back to Rome with him after his campaigns in Judea. Among them were princess Berenice and the historian Josephus.

>>17909847
Except that Tacitus didn't start his career until Vespasian was Emperor. So the court of Titus really doesn't matter. Regardless, even if you were to (baselessly) claim that Tacitus used Josephus as a source, owing the Antiquities of the Jews....you still can't address why Pliny was unaware of any of this information. Thats part of why you can be pretty sure that Jospehus was interpolated on.
And if you try to shrug off Pliny....then that means you don't know who the fuck he was.

>>17909842
>>So far, you have offered no reasonable case for the former.
Because I think its very possible he was repeating a second hand source, Pliny or someone else. Though he would be in a better position to spot inaccuracies in those reports than we would. Ultimately I don't consider the matter to rest on Tacitus. Even if all we had was Paul's letters and the gospels I would still say the odds were on the side of a historical Jesus. Tacitus is just consistent with that, which is why he is mentioned.
>the first instance of mentioning Jesus is well known to be an interpolation, the second is more debated, but I think the evidence is pretty strong that it is.
You have that backwards. The debate is whether the first mention is a partial or total interpolation, with people in both camps. While the second, more minor mention is generally considered authentic. Pretty much no one outside the mythcist movement challenges the passage about James the brother of Jesus.

>>17909741
>We have detailed accounts of Alexander written by people who personally knew him. Not to mention coins, inscriptions, statues and things he built that date to his lifetime. None of that exists for Jesus.
So who are the Apostles?
What are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

>>17909968
>Tacitus is just consistent with that, which is why he is mentioned.
The point is not if Tacitus is "consistent" with the Gospel account, it's if he establishes HISTORICITY of Jesus. Because ALL he said was "Nero put the blame on some people who were named after a dead criminal who was killed under Pilate." So, to make it real simple, the question is not "do the Gospels say that too", the question is "where the fuck did Tacitus get that information?".

As far as the Josephus issue goes, it's a whole other bag. There is genuinely no basis for claiming the TF was a "partial" interpolation. It's purely apologetics and secular historians sympathetic to them trying to save face. It comes out of nowhere and makes no sense in context.
The second mention was obviously interpolated because Josephus literally says what "Jesus" he was talking about a little bit later in the same story. It was Jesus ben Damneus, and THAT Jesus makes way more sense in context.
So we aren't gonna play the game of "X is generally accepted" because until very recently MOSES was also accepted as historical too.

>>17910059
>What are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
The Gospels were written anonymously. They were compiled and titled together.

>>17910059
The Gospels are just about the worst type of evidence you could ask for Jesus existing.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17258
>Let’s start with the problem: it’s well known in mainstream scholarship that the “names” attached to the Gospels were all assigned later, by whoever assembled the four Gospels into a single edition to be published together. Moreover, their titles use the designation not of authorship, but of source: kata Markon does not mean “by Mark,” it means “according to Mark,” which in ancient parlance meant Mark was not the author of the Gospel, but the purported source used by that author. What author? We’re never told. Thus, some third party was attaching this claim to the Gospel. It was not put there by the Gospel’s original author.

Setting that aside for a moment, you may be thinking, "who cares who wrote them? They are accounts corroborating the existence of Jesus". The only problem with that is that the Gospel narratives have been picked apart and it's pretty clear where these stories come from: the authors just weaved together Homer and Old Testament stories into a new narrative. Not enough people recognize this but the work of Dennis MacDonald was a huge blow to the idea that the Gospels contain a grain of historical truth and he's not even skeptical of the historicity of Jesus like Carrier is. The authors of the Gospels made it up from start to finish. No wonder they didn't sign their names.

>>17910075
>The point is not if Tacitus is "consistent" with the Gospel account, it's if he establishes HISTORICITY of Jesus.
No, it is not. That is what you seem to be fixated on at the expense of the bigger picture.Which is what historical theory has the most explaining power in keeping with the facts as we know them?
> It's purely apologetics and secular historians sympathetic to them
Oh yes, secular historians and apologists just love each other. Jesus being a guy is about the only thing the two camps have in common. They disagree on almost every other aspect of his life and the movement after him.
>So we aren't gonna play the game of "X is generally accepted"
You are the one who made a misleading statement about the consensus on Josephus. I pointed out that the consensus is not one negative and the other probable. Is one mixed opinion and the other excepted. On what grounds do you say there is "no basis"? frankly I don't know enough Greek to do literary criticism of Josephus, but if you happen to have a PHD is the subject then wow us. Otherwise yes I will go with at experts generally accept until such time as I see a convincing proof otherwise. All you do is raise an argument that another Jesus would make more sense there. Sorry, its an argument at least but I need more than that to just accept it.

>>17910105
>Which is what historical theory has the most explaining power in keeping with the facts as we know them?
We are TRYING to establish the facts. That's why this is important.
>Oh yes, secular historians and apologists just love each other.
Besides those historians who work FOR Christian institutions, you'll find that secular historicists make the same mistakes that apologists make intentionally.
>You are the one who made a misleading statement about the consensus on Josephus.
No, I said that the TF is an interpolation, you agreed, just that you added the caveat that many historians just presume that it was "partial" for.....no reason. The second, I said that the EVIDENCE is strong that it's an interpolation, the evidence being, just read the text and remove "the one called Christ", and the passage still makes perfect sense and Josephus even says who the "Jesus" is there.
Go ahead. Read it.

>>17909887
>Except that Tacitus didn't start his career until Vespasian was Emperor
I'm not saying he did this while Titus was emperor.
>you still can't address why Pliny was unaware of any of this information
Juts because Pliny doesn't mention something doesn't mean he didn't know about it.

>>17910118
>just that you added the caveat that many historians just presume that it was "partial" for.....no reason.
Actually, several historians make the argument for partial authenticity. See this if you want examples: https://historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
>the evidence being, just read the text and remove "the one called Christ", and the passage still makes perfect sense and Josephus even says who the "Jesus" is there.
This is a pathetically weak argument. You can arbitrarily remove any words from any writing you like and have it still make sense. That doesn't mean it's forged.

>>17910148
>Juts because Pliny doesn't mention something doesn't mean he didn't know about it.
Pliny's entire mission would have been pointless if there were easy to access and official sources on what Christians were and what they believed.
>>17910154
This article is far too long to refute every single point in this discussion, and you know that. I never, ever said that no historians attempt to prove that, somehow, the TF is genuine or even PARTLY genuine. If you want to discuss specific points from that very long article, you bring them up yourself.
>This is a pathetically weak argument.
No, it isn't at all. Like I said, go read it. If you remove "the one called Christ", which makes no sense in context and isn't even the word that Josephus would have used for Jesus as your OWN source admitted(with regards to the TF), the text is not only absolutely clear, but what Josephus was REALLY saying shines through.
Guess what? It's EXACTLY the same with the entirety of the TF.
The problem isn't that if you remove them it doesnt interrupt the flow, it's that if you remove them you realise that they weren't even supposed to BE there. That their inclusion actually muddles what Josephus was saying.

Your source article tries to debunk this, but fails because it assumes that the TF is whole and complete....while spending a bunch of time beforehand saying that it's a partial! Go ahead and look at the part where he tries to debunk the "OOP" argument, and then read what he said earlier.
The rest of his attempt to refute the silence of Origen is, well, it's a mess frankly. This entire argument is riddled with tautologies like these, and genuine disruptions of logic. For the entire article he just presumes there EXISTS a partial, without any real evidence to back that up. For all of your hemming and hawing about conjecture, this article is exactly that.

>>17910212
Either you're retarded or you possess no reading comprehension. I wasn't linking the article in attempt to "debunk" you, or prove the passage isn't forged. I linked it because it provides examples of historians who argue for the partial authenticity view.
>and isn't even the word that Josephus would have used for Jesus
Correct, and that's a good argument for why it's likely forged. However, saying "if you remove the words it still makes sense" is not a good argument; it's retarded.

>>17910279
You should try following Amaterasu Ōmikami.

>>17910279
> linked it because it provides examples of historians who argue for the partial authenticity view.
I never said that there were none though. I just said that their position is hilariously weak, and simply not coherent.
>saying "if you remove the words it still makes sense" is not a good argument; it's retarded.
Except it isn't because if you READ the passage like I keep saying, you'll see exactly the "Jesus" that Josephus was talking about, and it makes FAR more sense in context than a completely unrelated "Christ", which as I pointed out and you agreed, Josephus would NEVER have called the Biblical Jesus.
Add that to the fact that the ONLY other time Josephus mentions anything to do with the Biblical Jesus, allegedly, if from a previous debated passage (TF), that itself is at LEAST partly interpolated as even you agree.
You can see why, at best, your position is incredibly weak.

>>17906084 (OP)
>>17906106
Do you have any evidence of your biological father perchance?

>>17910298
NTA
If you're referring to the "James, brother of the Lord" passage, then it's almost certainly not forged, and the academic consensus is that it's genuine. Josephus is referring to two different Jesus in that section. "Jesus who was called Messiah" and "Jesus son of Damneus" are two different people.

>>17910358
None of those three versions of the text appear. It just says "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ". Josephus never says this Jesus is a different guy, OR links it back to his earlier (alleged) mention of the same figure, to contrast that against Jesus ben Damneus, who is mentioned in that exact story and is in fact integral to the story itself.
So your assertion is just wrong, and not in the text.

>>17910364
>Josephus never says this Jesus is a different guy
He calls one "Jesus who was called Christ" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus" If he was referring to the same person, he would have just said "Jesus" with no honorific or title the second time.

>>17910373
But as I said, he never says they're two different people. Is he calling Jesus ben Damneus "the Christ"? Remember, his audience had no fucking clue who "the Christ" was or who "James, the brother of the Lord" was (even if one were to concede that the James here IS the Biblical James).
If it were a Josephus original, you can bet he would have clarified all of that, and linked back to the TF and said, basically, "the Christ, this guy I talked about before, refer back to this section to read all about him!"
Because if he didn't, as I said, it would have sounded like he was calling Jesus ben Damneus, "the Christ".

>>17910382
>But as I said, he never says they're two different people
Do you need him to say that? I'm looking at it right now and it seems obvious that he's talking about two people with the same first name. Idk what to tell you dude
It's like with Jesus apostles how there are two James with different titles to differentiate them
>Remember, his audience had no fucking clue who "the Christ" was or who "James, the brother of the Lord" was
How do you know that tho?

>>17910394
>Do you need him to say that?
Imagine you're reading this when it first came out. You don't know what the fuck "the Christ" means. The ONLY other Jesus mentioned here is Jesus ben Damneus. So is Josephus calling Jesus ben Damneus "the Annointed One"? Kind of weird to say that. What did he mean by that? Because Josephus just DOESN'T say.
He doesn't even mention the TF in the same passage, which you might expect.
BUT it is consistent if this was a margin note that was accidentally included by a later scribe as part of the text. Hence its brevity and assumption that the reader knows who or what "the Christ" is.
>How do you know that tho?
1st century bottleneck and Pliny's investigations indicate that Christians were extremely obscure and not widespread at all. So why would a historical work about the history of the Jews NOT clarify what "the Christ" means, especially when referring to the Biblical Jesus, AND during a time when there were MANY Jesuses and people claiming to be the "New Joshua", some of whom Josephus DIRECTLY talks about?
The audience would be radically confused, and Josephus was not an author in the habit of confusing his audience.