Josephus And Others...

[DarthOkkata]

Earlier in another thread I started [Why the Bible first, and proof of god second?] Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and others were used as a reference of Jesus actually existing as a real man.

 

After reading the actual TF, and Tacitus Annals in their entirety as well as Piny's letters to Trajan and Suetonius's 'mention'. I don't really understand why Christians would use this stuff as a reference at all.

 

"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 Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Annals 15 -44

 

It would seem that what Tacitus said was it was a destructive superstition. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian and was not sharing the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus. Rather, he was using it to say nasty things about what he viewed as a disgusting and dangerous superstition. He was not attempting to imply that such a man really existed. He was intentionally using it to belittle the beliefs of what he saw as an evil cult. It was a reference by way of insult, not an admission of truth or fact.

 

It's also worth noting that Tacitus also mentions Hercules more often than he does Jesus in his annals.

 

Example:

 

"They say that Hercules, too, once visited them, and when going into battle, they sing of him first of all heroes. They have also those songs of theirs, by the recital of which, they rouse their courage, while from the note they augur the result of the approaching conflict. For, as their line shouts, they inspire or feel alarm. It is not so much an articulate sound, as a general cry of valour. They aim chiefly at a harsh note and a confused roar, putting their shields to their mouth, so that, by reverberation, it may swell into a fuller and deeper sound. Ulysses, too, is believed by some, in his long legendary wanderings, to have found his way into this ocean, and, having visited German soil, to have founded and named the town of Asciburgium, which stands on the bank of the Rhine, and is to this day inhabited. They even say that an altar dedicated to Ulysses, with the addition of the name of his father, Laertes, was formerly discovered on this same spot, and that certain monuments and tombs, with Greek inscriptions, still exist on the borders of Germany and Rhaetia. These statements I have no intention of sustaining by proofs, or of refuting. Every one may believe or disbelieve them as he feels inclines."

 

Tacitus, Germania. Chapter 3

 

"The Angrivarians and Chamavians are enclosed behind, by the Dulgibinians and Chasuarians; and by other nations not so much noted: before, the Frisians face them. The country of Frisia is divided into two; called the greater and lesser, according to the measure of their strength. Both nations stretch along the Rhine, quite to the ocean; and surround vast lakes such as once have borne Roman fleets. We have moreover even ventured out from thence into the ocean, and upon its coasts common fame has reported the pillars of Hercules to be still standing: whether it be that Hercules ever visited these parts, or that to his renowned name we are wont to ascribe whatever is grand and glorious everywhere. Neither did Drusus who made the attempt, want boldness to pursue it: but the roughness of the ocean withstood him, nor would suffer discoveries to be made about itself, no more than about Hercules. Thenceforward the enterprise was dropped: nay, more pious and reverential it seemed, to believe the marvelous feats of the Gods than to know and to prove them." -TG

 

Why cling to Tacitus as a reliable source for 'proof' of the Historical existence of Jesus? Considering how often he speaks of Hercules, it would also be proof of Historical Hercules as well. More so than Jesus in fact.

 

It's also worth noting that Jospehus also mentions Hercules as if he was a real man who actually existed. Once again, more than he mentions Jesus:

 

"How the nation of the troglodytes were derived from Abraham by Keturah.

That from Surim was the land of Assyria denominated, and that from the other two, Apher and Japbran, the country of Africa took its name, because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus; and that Hercules married Aphra's daughter, and of her he begat a son, Diodorus, and that Sophon was his son, from whom that barbarous people called Sophacians were denominated." TF 1

 

"Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention. of these things, and thereby endeavors to show that this king exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions, for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia." TF 10

 

"He also went and cut down materials of timber out of the mountain called Libanus, for the roof of temples; and when he had pulled down the ancient temples, he both built the temple of Hercules and that of Astarte; and he first set up the temple of Hercules in the month Peritius." TF 8

 

So, considering that these writings are considered proof of Historical Jesus, they must also be proof of Historical Hercules as well. Right?

 

How can Christians cite these sources as proof of their beliefs? They are clearly unreliable for historical accuracy or facts, regardless of their authenticity.

 

Both Tacitus and Josephus are in fact stronger evidence that Hercules was a real man than Jesus.

 

If nothing else, they are compelling evidence of both being equally true.

 

So, why use them as 'proof' for the historical 'fact' of Jesus's existence at all?

 

It seems rather counter productive, and serves more to work against the idea than for it.

 

I don't understand why either is even considered as secondary evidence of the reality of Jesus anymore. They are both rather pathetic excuses for evidence of any kind. Neither really supports the idea of Jesus, they both in fact support the idea of Hercules more than Jesus.

 

If nothing else, they don't seem reliable at all. Neither one of them in fact. Both are supportive of the mythical character Hercules as a real person, so why should I trust their opinions of Jesus regardless of how supportive they are of the idea that he was a real person?

 

It's almost as silly as trusting someone who supports Zeus as a real historical figure for evidence of Jesus being a real person who actually existed. In fact, that's exactly what it is.

 

Pliny the younger, also seems an unusual reference. He corresponded with emperor Trajan. In these writings he mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians, and asks Trajan about what action to take against them, if any. Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation, but only show that there were Christians living at the time.

 

Suetonius, is also an unusual citation for 'Historical Jesus':

 

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome." -Claudius 5.25.4

 

"Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not a misspelling of "Christus", meaning Christ. The passage states that there was actually someone named Chrestus in Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.

 

Even if Suetonius is talking about Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century. This doesn't even imply that Jesus existed at all.

 

Suetonius also fails to confirm the existence of Jesus.

 

So, I'm curious to know, since they've been brought up as 'evidence' at one point or another, exactly how any of these are in any way 'evidence' or 'proof' that even imply that Jesus was a real person?

 

None of them seem to even infer such a thing. At the very least, as I mentioned, there is more evidence in these writings of 'Historical Hercules' than any evidence of Jesus as a real person.

 

I'm confused here. How did we get to the point where any of this even qualified as secondary evidence of any such thing at all?

 

None of it even implies what the Christians claim it does.

 

Why is TJP even wasting time discussing these things at all? It's a complete waste of time to even consider these things as 'evidence' for Jesus.

 

How on earth did we get to this point with such shaky, unfounded, and completely and obviously misinterpreted evidence as any of this stuff?

 

It's not even good enough to claim as 'second hand' or 'secondary' evidence. It's a stretch to even call any of it even so much as hearsay at all.

 

Historical Jesus? More like Historical Hercules. It's outright silly.

[Guest Davka]

I can tell you what the Christian apologists say about this.

 

First, the ugly rumor that the disciples of Jesus stole his body and only pretended that he had risen from the dead was started by the Romans right after Jesus rose. This is documented in the NT, so it must be true. It should come as no surprise that a Roman historian would believe this rumor to be true.

 

Second, it is quite possible that there actually was a historical Hercules, but that he was merely a kick-ass gladiator and the story about him being half-god was just folklore. Not like the story of Jesus being half-god, because we already have established that's true, because the NT says so.

 

And finally, because history is written by the winners and the Christians were getting their butts kicked until Constantine converted, the early historians all gave the Roman side of things, because to admit that the Jewish Messiah was real and all the Roman gods were false simply was not thinkable.

 

Rule number one for Christian apologists: start from the conviction that modern Christianity is 100% accurate, and then fit the facts to the theory. Ignore or dismiss all facts that cannot be forced into this worldview as lies from the devil and the delusions of Christ-haters.

[Neo-skeptic]

Rule number one for Christian apologists: start from the conviction that modern Christianity is 100% accurate, and then fit the facts to the theory. Ignore or dismiss all facts that cannot be forced into this worldview as lies from the devil and the delusions of Christ-haters.

 

I find it ironic that they use this tactic, since they seem so quick to condemn the usage of it by anyone other than themselves. In the arena of Creationism vs. Evolution, Ken Ham often accuses people taking the side opposite to him of trying to fit the evidence to their worldview. Of course, in his mind, you need to start with a "biblical" worldview if you want the evidence to make sense.

[Mutate]

Ken Ham's "everyone has pre-assumptions" arguement is crap to me.

[DarthOkkata]

Edit: Started new topic with this one, went a bit further off than originally intended.

[RationalOkie]

Reeeeeally solid work Darth. I've never heard this argument before. Thank you for sharing.

 

R.O.