• KneeTitts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion, which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[3]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels are thought to already have been in circulation.

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tacitus

      According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

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

      Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[15][30] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic.

      Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value

      A. The first line of the Tacitus passage says Chrestians, not Christians.

      Suetonius says Chrestus was personally starting trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius.

      Suetonius is writing years after Tacitus yet doesn’t mention that Chrestus died.

      So Chrestus can’t be Jesus because it’s the wrong decade, wrong continent and missing a death.

      B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

      P.S. Even if the second line was somehow authentic, the information would have come from Christians. This would be the equivalent of deriving Abraham’s biography by talking to Muslims.

      This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

      In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens, if this is all you got, you are holding an empty bag.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

        Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

        According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

        So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

        B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

        I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

        This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

        Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?