Did Jesus exist?

[Minimalist]

And whoever forged that passage into Tacitus doubtlessly had access to the fucking book of "Acts."

[The Grand Nudger]

The history of a man named Jesus? There are several, as you know. 

Strike one.

However, Tacitus tells that a man put to death by Pontius Pilate had followers who were called "Chrxstianos".

Tacitus recounts to us, at best, that there were christians who espoused such beliefs. He goes so far as to explicitly call those beliefs superstition.  I'm not asking you for a history of belief or believers. Strike two.

What a coincidence. The Book of Acts tells us pretty much the same thing.

Fairy tales, strike three.

[Cephus]

-and that contention establishes the historicity of jesus just as much as the passage (and further speculation) below does..... 


...which is not at all.

This should be awfully simple.   I'm looking for the history of a man, not the history of the beliefs of his followers, or a recitation of fairy tales which include him as a character.

Questions of christianity, in the selected passage above, are the least of the worries the passage has as far as reliability is concerned btw.  There's far greater concern that the passage in question editorializes the reign of Nero to a greater extent than it recounts it.  Any tidbit of info regarding the history of christian belief that might be gleaned from the passage is a footnote, comparatively.

The history of a man named Jesus? There are several, as you know. 

However, Tacitus tells that a man put to death by Pontius Pilate had followers who were called "Chrxstianos".

What a coincidence. The Book of Acts tells us pretty much the same thing.

Actually, that passage was entirely unknown until it was claimed by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century.  No Christian apologist prior to that ever claimed anything about that passage supposedly written by Tacitus.  It is widely thought to be a fraud, just like the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities.

[The Grand Nudger]

It really doesn't matter whether or not it's a forgery, in context.

[Minimalist]

Actually, that passage was entirely unknown until it was claimed by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century.

Nope, not quite but you have put your finger deftly on the problem.

Here's what Severus wrote ( Book II, 29  Chronica) and he did not cite Tacitus as a source.

In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterwards, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were enacted; and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to death, the former being beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion. And while these things went on at Rome, the Jews, not able to endure the injuries they suffered under the rule of Festus Florus, began to rebel.

And here is Annales 15:44 as we have it today.

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 theircentre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

While the opening of the passage is slightly re-written from the original Severus the red-highlighted part - which is all the jesus freaks care about - is not so much as hinted at by Severus and it would have served him well with the point he was trying to make.  If it had been there.

What is clear is that Severus was writing at a time, early 5th century, when xtians were starting to pull their "oh, poor, poor, persecuted us" bullshit.  That's what he cares about.

But you are quite right when you say that no xtian or pagan writer prior to Severus had ever heard or associated Nero with persecuting xtians for the Great Fire.  Given the oft-stated position that Tacitus was such a "great" historian it seems highly unlikely that the early church writers could have been so negligent as to miss this little tidbit.

[Bob Kelso]

I picked "Not probably" because "I couldn't care less" wasn't an option.

[robvalue]

I find it hilarious that people who were around not that long after Jesus' supposed life were not convinced anyone would buy the story. They felt a bunch of forgeries were needed, not least of which the "extra final scene" in Mark.

And screwing around with Josephus etc. shows that they were very concerned that Jesus' very existence was not evident, even at that time.

[Pat Mustard]

On "Christians" and "Chrestians" in Tacitus’ Annals
 


(Detail of the gap where an "e" was replaced by an "i".)

From time to time in this forum and elsewhere on the Internet, atheists persist in grasping desperately for any means to call the historical existence of Jesus into question. One common tactic is to undermine the significance of the witness of Tacitus as found in his history of Rome, Annals. Wikipedia addresses the controversy in an article as follows:
 

The passage states:
 
... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ...
 
In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'. "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown. It is impossible today to say who altered the letter e into an i. In Suetonius’ Nero 16.2, "christiani", however, seems to be the original reading". Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term "Chrestians", or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages. It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians. Robert Van Voorst states that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century. The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term. In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi. In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".
 
Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large. Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe. Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts". Paul Eddy sees no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.

 
+++
 
In summary, this article contains the following points and explanations regarding the i/e gap:
 
1.     The terms “Chrestianos” and “Christianos” (as well as “Chrestus” and “Christus”) were used interchangeably during this period without any impact on the meaning of the passages in question rendering the entire kerfuffle moot.
2.     It is possible that Tacitus intentionally wrote “Chrestianos” originally and then used the word “Christos” immediately after to demonstrate his own superior knowledge.
3.     It is possible that Tacitus wrote “Chrestianos” and that a scribe in the 11th century corrected what he thought to be a blunder by Tacitus by changing the “e” to an “I”.
4.     It is possible that Tacitus wrote “Christianos” and that a later scribe wrote “Chrestianos” –an error subsequently corrected back to the original “Christianos”.

Thanks for posting evidence which disproves your argument, you little ball sucking shit you.

[Cephus]

Actually, that passage was entirely unknown until it was claimed by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century.

Nope, not quite but you have put your finger deftly on the problem.

I didn't bother going into any detail because we both know he isn't going to listen anyhow.  Why waste time on the willfully ignorant?

[Minimalist]

Because there are many others here who are not as ignorant as your average bible-thumping moron.