How does one come to believe something?

[Freodin]

OK, then I will ask you. Why is Tacitus not a credible historian? What evidence do you have? Britannica.com claimed that he "was the greatest historian who wrote in the Latin language". So why is the historians atime Britannica.com wrong?

A "credible" historian can be wrong. A "great" historian can be wrong also. But that is not the point here. Maybe we could make a point about the difference in methods and approaches, the different sources that historians now acknowledge in their evaluations... and what in know about ancient historians in general and Tacitus especially in this regard.

But the point I wanted to make seemed to have gone well over your head.

So Tacitus is a credible historian? He is the greatest of the Latin-writing historians? He is correct in what he wrote?

Well, I do not disagree. So let's look at what he wrote:
"...Nero fastened the guilt [...] on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."
"... a most mischievous superstition, [...] 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..."
"...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."

So, according to the great and credible historian Tacitus, Christians were hated for the abominations, were a most mischievous superstition, evil, hideous and shameful, (some of them) were pleading guilty of setting fire to Rome, and the rest of the convicted simply hated mankind in general.

Nice bunch, isn't it?

Now some might object that all these thing Tacitus wrote down only were said about the Christians. Tacitus might not have had primary sources for these statements. He just didn't make that clear - he did't write something like "as I have been told".

He states it as facts.

And it is the same with his mention of "Christus" and his death by Pilatus.

So where did he get his informations from? Most likely, from contemporary and regional sources... that is, people who were Christians or who knew Christians. As Tacitus wrote at the beginning of the second century, it is not a great surprise that he included informations available to people of his era and area.

 

[Kylie]

Are you suggesting that the historians at Britannica.com are wrong about Tacitus? Can you provide any evidence that says Tacitus is not a credible historian.

So, that's a no, you can't give me any primary sources about Jesus, isn't it?

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps you should tell the historians at Britannica.com that they are wrong about Tacitus. I am sure they will heed your council because of your superiority in the field of antiquity. [emoji4]

Wouldn't know, as I need to create an account to read their article about Tacitus. What do they say about him?

I have not seen anything about Tacitus which shows anything other than he is repeating a story he has heard. It's much like how a historian today could write about how there are 9/11 conspiracy theorists without it actually meaning that the conspiracy theorists are correct.

 

[Kylie]

He validated that the man Jesus actually existed, was crucified, and worshipped as a result. You are correct that it does not prove christianity as the true religion and it does not prove that Jesus is the Christ. It does provide extra-bliblical evidence that Jesus existed.

No, he wrote that there were claims and stories that the man Jesus actually existed, was crucified, and worshipped as a result.

But that doesn't mean that Jesus really existed. I can write claims that Harry Potter fought Voldemort, but that doesn't make that true either.

 

[BukiRob]

No, he wrote that there were claims and stories that the man Jesus actually existed, was crucified, and worshipped as a result.

But that doesn't mean that Jesus really existed. I can write claims that Harry Potter fought Voldemort, but that doesn't make that true either.

Prove then that Caesar lived. Prove that the Romans built Rome.... After all using your porus logic you can not provide any evidence that anyone from the ancient world live. Using your standard Galileo, Newton, Plato all of the egyptian pharaohs, and everyone ever written about has not evidence that they really existed.

 

[Kylie]

Prove then that Caesar lived.

You want a primary source for Caesar? Like these coins made to commemorate his victories in Gaul?

How about the fact that we have commentaries of war that he actually wrote? You can read an English translation of Commentarii de Bello Gallico at Project Gutenberg. We also have accounts written by Cicero, a person who not only lived at the same time as Caesar, but also spoke highly of Caesar, saying he was a skilled orator and prose author.

We also know that Sallust, a Roman historian and politician, who was a contemporary and supporter of Caesar, wrote quite a bit about Caesar.

Prove that the Romans built Rome....

Actually, the settlement known as Rome has been occupied for about 5000 years, so the exact details of how it was formed, and by whom, are a bit of a mystery. It's not like there were a bunch of people who called themselves Romans who came along and decided to build a city there. http://www.ancient.eu/Rome/

After all using your porus logic you can not provide any evidence that anyone from the ancient world live.

Nonsense. If you believe that is what I have been saying, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. I have been saying that since we have no primary sources for Jesus, only hearsay, we cannot take them as reliable sources.

Using your standard Galileo, Newton, Plato all of the egyptian pharaohs, and everyone ever written about has not evidence that they really existed.

Again, this is just nonsense. We have primary sources for all of these people.

 

[devolved]

Prove then that Caesar lived. Prove that the Romans built Rome.... After all using your porus logic you can not provide any evidence that anyone from the ancient world live. Using your standard Galileo, Newton, Plato all of the egyptian pharaohs, and everyone ever written about has not evidence that they really existed.

I think she did a great job, but you are missing the point.

Historians have methods of determining the reliability factor of any given historical claim. Some descriptions and claims are more reliable than other, especially when it comes to the sources that that information is gleaned from, and the perceived reliability of these sources.

There's a lot of thought that's poured into this, and it's actually worked out to a rather strict methodology and science (loosely speaking). For example, we could analyze what a person is saying and how they would be describing something. For example, a loyalist would likely have a rather different account than someone who is an enemy. An educated person would use certain jargon that uneducated wouldn't use. Likewise, their dialect and terms used would indicate that they are likely from certain cultural background and not other.

When it comes to artifacts, it could be that we know that certain specialized items were made in a particular region based on techniques and materials used, and etc.

Thus, there's a lot of historical methodology at play when dissecting any given claim.

The point being... not all historical claims are created equal.

Sure, certain claims in history are very obscure, but these are not the same level claims as the Jesus claim. Caesar or Plato never have been described to perform miracles or resurrect and live on in "hearts of people" and that they will be coming back in the end of the era. If they did, then we wouldn't likely believed that part.

Thus, let's say that there was a person who inspired the legendary Jesus, who was a rebellious rabi who was crucified by Roman authorities and who inspired a religious movement of the "Che" or "Victor Tsoy" variety. That's essentially the base historical consensus at best.

There are other historians like Richard Carrier, who would disagree and say that even that is debatable based on the textual criticism of the accounts themselves, but that's besides the point.

How does one get from that historical baseline .... to "everything in the Bible is as it says it is"?

 

[BukiRob]

You want a primary source for Caesar? Like these coins made to commemorate his victories in Gaul?

How about the fact that we have commentaries of war that he actually wrote? You can read an English translation of Commentarii de Bello Gallico at Project Gutenberg. We also have accounts written by Cicero, a person who not only lived at the same time as Caesar, but also spoke highly of Caesar, saying he was a skilled orator and prose author.

We also know that Sallust, a Roman historian and politician, who was a contemporary and supporter of Caesar, wrote quite a bit about Caesar.



Actually, the settlement known as Rome has been occupied for about 5000 years, so the exact details of how it was formed, and by whom, are a bit of a mystery. It's not like there were a bunch of people who called themselves Romans who came along and decided to build a city there. http://www.ancient.eu/Rome/



Nonsense. If you believe that is what I have been saying, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. I have been saying that since we have no primary sources for Jesus, only hearsay, we cannot take them as reliable sources.



Again, this is just nonsense. We have primary sources for all of these people.

A coin is not a primary source. That coin could have been made by anyone for any reason. Since there is no date we do not know for certain when it was made. Sure we can use associative method to tell us what era it was deposited in the ground to be later found... but a coin does not prove that caesar existed. Maybe he is a concept... who knows.

Your point about the Jewish Messiah is absurd. No serious, literary scholar secular or religious would agree with you... like even a little

 

[devolved]

A coin is not a primary source. That coin could have been made by anyone for any reason. Since there is no date we do not know for certain when it was made. Sure we can use associative method to tell us what era it was deposited in the ground to be later found... but a coin does not prove that caesar existed. Maybe he is a concept... who knows.

A coin is merely a part of the collective of evidence that she provided. It's not that any single piece of that evidence would conclusively support that Caesar existed.

Any claim would go through stages of testing:

1) A plausibility of the claim
2) A probability of the claim
3) A likelihood of the claim

(in that order)

Once one clears the plausibility hurdle, then it's all about evaluating the probability line to determine the likelihood of the claim. The more contemporary and independent evidence lines that feed into the claim would increase the probability of the claim being true.

 

[Freodin]

No, he wrote that there were claims and stories that the man Jesus actually existed, was crucified, and worshipped as a result.

But that doesn't mean that Jesus really existed. I can write claims that Harry Potter fought Voldemort, but that doesn't make that true either.

Even that is not completely correct. Tacitus never said any word about Jesus. Not a single mention.

He only mentions "Christus", (maybe not even that: there is evidence that the original sources spell it "Chrestus", and the "i" is a later interpolation.)

But that only supports the idea that Tacitus' writing was based on contemporary sources instead of primary sources (whatever these might have been): no one from Jesus lifetime and area would have called him "Christus". This is a term that comes from the later, non-jewish but greek community.

 

[Kylie]

A coin is not a primary source. That coin could have been made by anyone for any reason. Since there is no date we do not know for certain when it was made. Sure we can use associative method to tell us what era it was deposited in the ground to be later found... but a coin does not prove that caesar existed. Maybe he is a concept... who knows.

Rubbish. There are tons of coins, all bearing the same images, cast in the same forge (or however they made coins back then, I don't know).

We can know when they were made by dating the layers we find them in. If they are found with pottery that dates to a particular time, and there are organic remains that dateto the same time, and the coins are not found any later or earlier than that layer, then we can be fairly sure that the coins are contemporary sources.

Also bear in mind that the coins do not exist in a vaccuum. There are lots of other contemporary sources that support the existence of Caesar.

I suspect you are just really wanting to poo-poo my argument, but you haven't done so.

Your point about the Jewish Messiah is absurd. No serious, literary scholar secular or religious would agree with you... like even a little

Again, you make the claim and don't support it. I don't want an argument from authority, I want an argument from EVIDENCE. There is no PRIMARY SOURCE of evidence that I am aware of that supports the idea that Jesus Christ ever existed as a person.

If you have such a source, please produce it.

 

[Near]

There is no PRIMARY SOURCE of evidence that I am aware of that supports the idea that Jesus Christ ever existed as a person.

The Epistles are primary sources. They seem to at least support the idea of a person Jesus, who is regarded as the Jewish Messiah.

 

[Kylie]

The Epistles are primary sources. They seem to at least support the idea of a person Jesus, who is regarded as the Jewish Messiah.

No they aren't. I couldn't find one that was written before AD 50. That is not a contemporary source with regards to Jesus.

 

[Near]

No they aren't. I couldn't find one that was written before AD 50. That is not a contemporary source with regards to Jesus.

Of course they're primary sources; they were written by the apostles. They're also contemporary since Jesus was alive after AD 50, because he has conquered death. If Jesus died and never rose from the dead, then there's no point in Christianity, but if he was raised from the dead, contemporary is anytime from his incarnation and onward.

 

[Kylie]

Of course they're primary sources; they were written by the apostles. They're also contemporary since Jesus was alive after AD 50, because he has conquered death. If Jesus died and never rose from the dead, then there's no point in Christianity, but if he was raised from the dead, contemporary is anytime from his incarnation and onward.

By your logic, an account of Jesus written in 1952 would count as a primary source, since "Jesus was alive after AD 50, because he has conquered death." I am not going to start with the assumption that Jesus is real in order to let myself be convinced that Jesus is real. If you were in my position, would you? Since they were not written at the time of the events they describe, I will not accept them as primary sources.

As for the epistles themselves, I will have to do more reading on them. But the reading I have done so far (which I admit is not much) has shown contradictions within itself. For example, Romans 2:5-6 says that God judges people according to their deeds, but in the next chapter, Romans 3:20 says, "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

Other study I have done show that Paul never claims he met an earthly Jesus, nor does he give an account of Jesus' life on Earth (except for a few interpolations). [SOURCE]

Also, I have to wonder, if the Epistles count as undeniable evidence that Jesus existed, why is there no evidence of Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Even that is not completely correct. Tacitus never said any word about Jesus. Not a single mention.

He only mentions "Christus", (maybe not even that: there is evidence that the original sources spell it "Chrestus", and the "i" is a later interpolation.)

But that only supports the idea that Tacitus' writing was based on contemporary sources instead of primary sources (whatever these might have been): no one from Jesus lifetime and area would have called him "Christus". This is a term that comes from the later, non-jewish but greek community.

You do realize that "Christus" is Latin for "The Christ". Since tacitus is mentioning "The Christ" that "Christians" worshiped, it is obviously clear that Tacitus is referring to Jesus Christ.

 

[Freodin]

You do realize that "Christus" is Latin for "The Christ".

Wow... I am impressed. I never knew that, and I would never ever thought that. Who would ever think of such a translation for a name?

Seriously though... not quite. I know that many people today use "Christ" or "Christus" as the surname of Jesus, especially in the U.S. But it is not a name, but an epiphet. It describes how his followers saw Jesus... as "the anointed". (Which is also the meaning of "messiah". So saying "Jesus Christ is the messiah" is a tautology.)

Since tacitus is mentioning "The Christ" that "Christians" worshiped, it is obviously clear that Tacitus is referring to Jesus Christ.

That is where we get back to the sources.

First: one argument that apologets like to use is that Tacitus is an independent extra-christian source for Jesus.
But this name he uses (if we accept he did use 'Christus') refutes this argument. Any non-christian source that Tacitus would or could have used... for example, the roman judicial documents that were never found, but are sometimes implied... would not have used "Christus" as a description for Jesus. Not in combination with his name, and definitly not solely as his name.

This means whatever his sources were, these sources already were Christian or repeated the Christian narrative.

Second: there is evidence that the original name in this excerpt wasn't "Christus", but "Chrestus". Whatever the connection between these two "names" might be, and however they might be used by early Christians, that gives at least room to the option that Tacitus was NOT talking about Jesus, but combined Christian infos with contemporary events in Rome.
(I admit that this is an option only, and world require additional evidence to be considered valid.)

Third, and the point that I wanted to make and that you simply keep ignoring: if you want to use Tacitus as a reliable source for the existence of the person of Jesus, because Tacitus as a respected historian uses a vague reference to this person as he was described by his later followers...
... then you would also have to accept that Tacitus was a reliable source for the description of early Christians in Rome as a bunch of unruly arsonists.

 

[Freodin]

Interesting sidenote on epiphets and what they might tell you about sources:
In the high middle ages, there was a German / Holy Roman Emperor called Ludwig (or Louis) IV from the House of Wittelsbach. He is commonly known, and always called that in any modern mention: "Ludwig the Bavarian".

What most people do not know is that this was originally meant as an insult. Bavaria at that time was rural, backwater, unimportant. Not wanting to adress him as king or emperor, his opponents from the papal side decided to basically call him "the Hillbilly".

So if you come across a contemporary source where Ludwig is called "bavarus" (Which is Latin for "bavarian", if anyone wonders), you can be almost certain that this source is from his enemies.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Wow... I am impressed. I never knew that, and I would never ever thought that. Who would ever think of such a translation for a name?

Seriously though... not quite. I know that many people today use "Christ" or "Christus" as the surname of Jesus, especially in the U.S. But it is not a name, but an epiphet. It describes how his followers saw Jesus... as "the anointed". (Which is also the meaning of "messiah". So saying "Jesus Christ is the messiah" is a tautology.)


That is where we get back to the sources.

First: one argument that apologets like to use is that Tacitus is an independent extra-christian source for Jesus.
But this name he uses (if we accept he did use 'Christus') refutes this argument. Any non-christian source that Tacitus would or could have used... for example, the roman judicial documents that were never found, but are sometimes implied... would not have used "Christus" has a description for Jesus. Not in combination with his name, and definitly not solely as his name.

This means whatever his sources were, these sources already were Christian or repeated the Christian narrative.

Second: there is evidence that the original name in this excerpt wasn't "Christus", but "Chrestus". Whatever the connection between these two "names" might be, and however they might be used by early Christians, that gives at least room to the option that Tacitus was NOT talking about Jesus, but combined Christian infos with contemporary events in Rome.
(I admit that this is an option only, and world require additional evidence to be considered valid.)

Third, and the point that I wanted to make and that you simply keep ignoring: if you want to use Tacitus as a reliable source for the existence of the person of Jesus, because Tacitus as a respected historian uses a vague reference to this person as he was described by his later followers...
... then you would also have to accept that Tacitus was a reliable source for the description of early Christians in Rome as a bunch of unruly arsonists.

Gotcha.

 

[Freodin]

Gotcha.

Whatever you think you "gotcha" me at... you have to be a little more elaborate. I cannot follow you.