Tacitus’s mentioning “Christus”

[kimsland]

Hi all

I have a concern about Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate on the cross.

When I read up about 'when was Jesus first mentioned' I get a few bible versus which obviously gives me a reasonable date when there are mentions about Jesus Christ. But, it seems Tacitus’s mentioning “Christus” was in fact 'evidence' of Jesus on the cross, which is reasonably strong evidence that he did exist.

When investigating Christians claims on this, I have found the historian viewpoint (which could be looked as an atheist's biased viewpoint) is that he was persuaded by Jews to mention Christus after the fact, even though this Roman had full access to who was previously crucified.

My concern is: Why would a Roman be persuaded by mere peasants to lie? Wouldn't it be MORE reasonable to state that he was NOT lying and actually stated a fact about Jesus Christ?


I'm hoping I have all the names correct and given a clear concern on the matter.
This concern was raised to me within a debate with a Christian, where I mentioned IF you can supply proof that Jesus Christ existed, I'll agree that this person stated he was the son of god. Well he did! And what's more is his argument that a 'Roman wouldn't lie for a peasant' seems justified.

If you could please let me know where I am incorrect in stating that this constitutes evidence that Christ existed. Actually I am hoping you can, but from what I have read online, the Christian is correct :I shudder the thought).

Thank you

[Minimalist]

They key line here is 'Christ, the author of this name, was executed by
the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius'. This is the first-ever
reference to a historical Jesus outside the NT, dating to around 116 CE (very
near our cut-off date for usable evidence).

If the passage is authentic. I elsewhere demonstrate (following the arguments
of scholars before me who have argued the same) that this line is
probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described
not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, but followers of the Jew- ·
ish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius (as reported by
Suetonius: see §1 1). The line about Christ being executed by Pilate was
added sometime after the mid-fourth century. Before then, no one, Christian
or non-Christian, ever heard of this persecution event under Nero,
or of any reference to Christians in Tacitus; this event is not mentioned
even when second-century Christians told stories of Nero persecuting
Christians!


Richard Carrier, 'On the Historicity of Jesus"  Pg. 344

Italics added.

[ronedee]

Hi kimsland, I'm sure you can get several pov's about this on the web... and perhaps here too!

But my take is that Romans & Jews, as well as Muslims were bent on destroying Christianity.
They were trying to remove all manner of Christ. I'm surprised anyone "above" catacomb
levels was saying anything much about Jesus! It was playing with fire if they did! 

So, as for politics of the time? There could be any number of reasons for, or against
any mention of Christ. Positive or negative.

Just my 2 bits on the subject.

[vorlon13]

Manufacturing evidence after the fact is something we've seen proven time and again in the Mormon orbit. I strongly suspect all religions use the same play book.

Difference with the Mormons is they have copiously documented all their machinations and connivances recently enough in history (all within the last 200 years) and then PUBLISHED gobs and oodles of it and thus lost control over dissemination of information the current hierarchy greatly regrets being available as it FALSIFIES their religion over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I note the catholics have written evidence of priestly child sexual abuse going back 1500 (!!!!!!!) years. Kinda makes you wonder what else is in the archive, don't it ??

[kimsland]

Thanks vorlon13 on info about falsifying evidence for Mormons, but that doesn't help perfectly here.
Thanks ronedee on the fact of likely factual information being lost/removed is reasonable.
Thanks Minimalist can you please paste or describe here how you feel the evidence this was added 400 years later is stronger than never heard of this event under Nero or it was in fact true or not.

So far, it is MORE reasonable that Christus existed, not because of ronedee's lack of evidence nor because of vorlon13's falsifying evidence nor because of Minimalist's supposive addition of fabricated evidence without substantial evidence!

The Christian's argument is as valid as an atheist's argument with the same (obviously opposite) evidence.
And therefore the Christian must win by default as he at least supplied evidence! Remembering of course I am atheist.

It is reasonable to state evidence is all we need, unless it is falsified, so far no. On the contrary it seems that according to ronedee the fact that this information came from the 4th century or only a few years after the crucifixion shows that it is strong evidence to out last the ages, especially with Romans against Christians scum

Can you help further on this? Otherwise I'm willing to state the Christian is correct (you understand the difficulty is such a concept, it may stop me speaking ever again! )

[Jenny A]

Hi all

I have a concern about Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate on the cross.

When I read up about 'when was Jesus first mentioned' I get a few bible versus which obviously gives me a reasonable date when there are mentions about Jesus Christ. But, it seems Tacitus’s mentioning “Christus” was in fact 'evidence' of Jesus on the cross, which is reasonably strong evidence that he did exist.

When investigating Christians claims on this, I have found the historian viewpoint (which could be looked as an atheist's biased viewpoint) is that he was persuaded by Jews to mention Christus after the fact, even though this Roman had full access to who was previously crucified.

My concern is: Why would a Roman be persuaded by mere peasants to lie? Wouldn't it be MORE reasonable to state that he was NOT lying and actually stated a fact about Jesus Christ?


I'm hoping I have all the names correct and given a clear concern on the matter.
This concern was raised to me within a debate with a Christian, where I mentioned IF you can supply proof that Jesus Christ existed, I'll agree that this person stated he was the son of god. Well he did! And what's more is his argument that a 'Roman wouldn't lie for a peasant' seems justified.

If you could please let me know where I am incorrect in stating that this constitutes evidence that Christ existed. Actually I am hoping you can, but from what I have read online, the Christian is correct :I shudder the thought).

Thank you

I don't really have much doubt that a jew named Jesus was crucified.  Claiming a kingdom on earth not of the Romans would lead to that. But I'm not sure it matters much one way or another unless it can also be shown that he rose from the dead and was the son of god.   There have been plenty of prophets of many religion.  What is lacking is credible evidence that they were in contact with god, or were god.  Jesus was not the only preacher supposedly performing miracles in the ancient world. 

Tacitus doesn't provide evidence one way or the other as to Jesus' divinity. 

[Minimalist]

Here.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm


Not a single ancient author, xtian or pagan, knows anything about this passage in Tacitus.  A hint of it appears in the 5th century Chronicles of Sulpicius Severus, without the Pilate and Christus stuff.  Oh, and Severus does not cite Tacitus as a source.

We have ultraviolet evidence that the word "christianos" was altered from "chrestianos" in the only extant manuscript.

The whole thing appears to be a much later forgery.  And xtians forged lots of stuff because they were embarrassed that their godboy was so conspicuously absent from the historical record.

Perhaps you should go to the library and read Carrier's book.  I think you need it.

[kimsland]

I don't really have much doubt that a jew named Jesus was crucified.

Wow, that's interesting. Actually this one event (in your view then) started Christianity!
For you to agree with this has more weight than any corrupted history of the bible passages.
It also removes about a million arguments against it. How many people state that a Jesus didn't actually exist? > Millions, possibly over 100 million or more. I like your commitment

Here.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm


Not a single ancient author, xtian or pagan, knows anything about this passage in Tacitus.  A hint of it appears in the 5th century Chronicles of Sulpicius Severus, without the Pilate and Christus stuff.  Oh, and Severus does not cite Tacitus as a source.

We have ultraviolet evidence that the word "christianos" was altered from "chrestianos" in the only extant manuscript.

The whole thing appears to be a much later forgery.  And xtians forged lots of stuff because they were embarrassed that their godboy was so conspicuously absent from the historical record.

Perhaps you should go to the library and read Carrier's book.  I think you need it.

I'll quote your entire post, NOW I must go read what you stated. BEFORE I decide.
thanks.

[SteelCurtain]

Right. You're an atheist.

[kimsland]

Right. You're an atheist.

That's strange, I find the forum's subtitle under your name: Religious Views: Atheist
To be an oxymoron, and judging by the amount of posts you have done, you are happy to advertise that.

Yes I'm an atheist, but above all I honor the truth. (ie facts)