Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

He was ''disposed'' in the way that he was crucified - we know he wasn't slaughtered like a militant Jew because the death of Christ via Crucifixion is an event which is well-attested to; both via historical reference from Tacticus (who also hated Christians, but acknowledged his cruxification) and on a logical level.
...

I presume you mean "Tacitus."  "Tacticus" could be Aeneas Tacticus,  Aelianus Tacticus, or possibly someone else who made no mention of Jesus.

In the case of Tacitus (that is, Publius [or Gaius] Cornelius Tacitus), the mentioning of Christ (which is not Jesus' name) is known to be tampered with.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Furthermore, even if genuine, Tacitus is obviously repeating some other source, as he could not possibly have been a witness to anything he is mentioning about Christ.  Of course, that he knew about Christians is another matter.

So, even if the passage is authentic and not something patched in later by a Christian liar (as has been shown to be the case in other instances of old texts), all it means is that the story was being spread by circa 116.  Obviously, Tacitus did not witness anything directly beyond the fact that there were members of a bizarre cult, who made various claims.  So it just means that Christians were making such claims in circa 116 about Christ, nothing more.

In other words, this is not evidence that anyone existed at all, just evidence that there were such stories in about 116.  And that is even assuming that the text is genuine, which is questionable.

One can read old texts in which Apollo and Zeus are discussed as existing, too.  They may have as much reality in them as Jesus.

All of this is a rehash of a thread from earlier this year; here is a post from that thread:

---

The fact that Christian historians (who, of course, are the most numerous types of historians who [if you will pardon the expression] historically have studied the historical Jesus) believe that there was an historical Jesus convinces TheMessiah that there really was an historical Jesus.

The idea that all historians have approached the question without bias is laughable.  For the most part, the people who seriously study the issue do so because of their religious convictions.  And then we are supposed to take their conclusions seriously, when they started by assuming that their conclusions were true!


If we look at someone like Tacitus, who he mentioned earlier here,

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31487-po...#pid870718

what that proves is that Christianity existed in 116, and that Tacitus had heard the basic outline of the story that Christians were spreading.  It does nothing whatsoever to show that the events actually took place, only that the story was in circulation at the time.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

No one is questioning the existence of Christianity (which is all that Tacitus really proves); it is only a matter of whether or not there was some person upon whom the story is based.  A story can be written with or without such a person, and can be influential (or not) with or without such a person.

Tacitus, having heard the basic story, had no particular reason to say that there was no basis in fact, but neither had he any proof that it did.  Quite frankly, the existence of such a person was unimportant to him, as, indeed, it is unimportant to pretty much anyone who is not a Christian.  It does not matter whether the story (I should write, "stories," because they are not consistent with each other) is based on a real person or not.


If TheMessiah is consistent, then he believes that there is also an historical Herakles (Hercules to those of you who prefer Roman names) and every other half-god being that there is some ancient story about.  But my guess is, he makes a special exception for Jesus, because of the indoctrination that people get on this subject.  (If you are reading this, TheMessiah, do you believe in an historical Herakles?  If not, why not?  He is referenced by multiple ancient authors and described as if he existed.  Or is it that you just go along with the prejudices of the Christian society in which you have been raised?)


Most people who attempt to search for the historical Jesus start with the assumption that there is an historical Jesus.  This is true whether they are Christians or not.  And when most of them end up believing what they started with presupposing to be true, why should anyone be surprised?

---

I've addressed this before.

The reference is from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, who was a Roman historian and senator --- who despised Christianity; hence trying to scapegoat the Christians for the Roman fire.

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.
(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)

This not being a historical reference (which it is unanimously accepted as) begs to question why the senator, who's hate for Christianity was well known would acknowledge the existence of Jesus; opposed to deny his existence, as had been demonstrated when he tried to undermine Christian influence by scape-goating them. The passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect Second Century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine.

The reason why ''But he was just repeating a Christian lie'' argument fails:

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all. This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could. He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt. He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead. On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred {"during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus. But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects. None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus. There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least quite plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.

Either your argument is lacking, or it is disingenuous.