Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

[Jagella]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

Another difficulty for the embarrassment theory is that the Romans crucified many Jews and were hated for it. The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion story to create sympathy for Jesus among the Jews and even gentiles who may have lost loved ones to the horror of crucifixion. Christians could claim then as they do today that "Jesus died for you" as they might say to a potential convert. Laying guilt trips on people can be a powerful motivation to unbelievers to join a religious group.

Yet another rationale for fabricating the crucifixion story is that it sets up the resurrection of Jesus. Without a crucified Christ his followers could not have claimed Jesus' rose from the dead, perhaps the greatest miracle of the New Testament.

Finally, if we are smart enough to assume that a presumably embarrassing story like the resurrection is unlikely to be made up and hence is likely to be true, then perhaps the early Christians thought the same way. They may have fabricated the crucifixion to lead unbelievers to conclude that Jesus was real because nobody would make up an embarrassing story! If so, then their trick is having its intended effect on modern historicists.

In any event, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for fabricating the crucifixion story. There are probably many you can think of. I should point out that the crucifixion story hasn't hurt Christianity much; Catholic churches proudly display paintings of the crucified Christ and place crucifixes in all their churches. Few if any will leave the church over this belief.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 157 by liamconnor]

All sources point to Jesus being crucified.

Which demonstrates that the crucifixion was a well-known belief. Many pagans and Jews were no doubt familiar with the Christian doctrine of the crucifixion. They probably heard about it from Christians who were very loud about what they believed.

[marco]

Where did Tacitus get his information about the crucifixion? If it's from Christians, then it doesn't count as corroboration.

This question has been raised many times. Tacitus had no great regard for Christians so it is unlikely he'd be asking them for information about a Roman governor. He had access to Roman records; that is the most likely place he got his information. Unlike the historian Suetonius, Tacitus is highly regarded for his historical documentation.


Your cautionary note about citing this or that source is understood. Tacitus is making a reference to one of his own people so it is probable he's not in error. Of course the theory about embarrassment is just a guess, far less credible than what Tacitus tells us. Have you some Roman sources to support this guess?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 157 by liamconnor]

The demand is ridiculous.




The burden of proof rests on those who say that Jesus was not crucified. There is no alternative from history.

On this thread, I have read the OP, and the most recent comments going backwards up until this one of yours, liam.
I do not see a claim that "Jesus was not crucified". I can certainly agree that the OP sounds like it's heading in that direction, but at worst, it's merely pointing out what it sees as holes in the claims made by people that "Jesus was crucified".
Expressing doubt in a claim made about history is strictly speaking not the same thing as claiming that it did not happen. Hank could say to me that on July 10th, 1860, Abraham Lincoln ate porridge for breakfast with honey on top, and I can express my doubt on that. This isn't the same as me saying "Abe Lincoln did not have honey on his porridge for breakfast July 10th 1860". He may or may not have, but the person making the claim that he did, has not, in my eyes, given me evidence to believe the claim.

All sources point to Jesus being crucified.

Kindly list these sources please. Note that again, this is not me saying "Jesus was not crucificied". This is me merely asking you to back up your claim. Who claimed Jesus to be crucified? As Jagella notes in a comment after yours, do we have anything that doesn't in the end rely upon the word of the (original) Christians?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 162 by marco]

Tacitus had no great regard for Christians so it is unlikely he'd be asking them for information about a Roman governor.

Again, Christian beliefs were well known. Tacitus would not have needed to ask Christians directly what they believed. He could have become acquainted with the crucifixion belief through the grape vine. Also, if he didn't like Christians, then he may have argued with them about their beliefs.

He had access to Roman records; that is the most likely place he got his information.

But we don't have those records if they ever existed. It's not enough to say that those records were the likely source of information used by Tacitus; if you want to make a good case for the historical Jesus based on testimony alone, then you need to know that those sources were not tainted by Christian zeal and bias. We don't know that to be the case for Tacitus's testimony about Jesus.

Unlike the historian Suetonius, Tacitus is highly regarded for his historical documentation.

Sorry, but this is an example of the weak evidence so often offered for the historical Jesus. Tacitus was highly regarded by whom and for what reason? Heck, Billy Graham is highly regarded by many people. Do you think he's a sound source of information about Jesus?

Tacitus is making a reference to one of his own people so it is probable he's not in error.

How does that mean that Tacitus wasn't in error? Who were his "own people" and why should we believe them?

Have you some Roman sources to support this guess?

What guess is that?

[Mithrae]

Where did Tacitus get his information about the crucifixion? If it's from Christians, then it doesn't count as corroboration.

This question has been raised many times. Tacitus had no great regard for Christians so it is unlikely he'd be asking them for information about a Roman governor. He had access to Roman records; that is the most likely place he got his information. Unlike the historian Suetonius, Tacitus is highly regarded for his historical documentation.

The problem with that view is that those hypothetical Roman records most likely would not have said only that Pilate crucified a man called "Christus," which is the information relayed by Tacitus. Assuming they existed and Tacitus accessed them, most likely they would have said that Pilate killed Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph; maybe adding that he'd called himself Christ or maybe not, but the name Jesus would certainly have been there. And if the careful historian Tacitus had gone to the lengths of accessing those records, surely he too would have included the fellow's actual name?

[marco]

Again, Christian beliefs were well known. Tacitus would not have needed to ask Christians directly what they believed. He could have become acquainted with the crucifixion belief through the grape vine. Also, if he didn't like Christians, then he may have argued with them about their beliefs.

I am amused that I am called upon to defend Tacitus. He wrote to Pliny to get an exact account of the Vesuvius eruption. Pliny wrote to Trajan about Christians of the time and asked the Emperor how they were to bee dealt with. Tacitus, of senatorial rank, would not be grubbing around picking up gossip from them. My view is that he got his information in an official way, as was his wont, but neither you nor I nor the Old Man of the Mountains knows for sure. You retain your scepticism based on scepticism; I retain my respect for the historian based on many years of studying him.

if you want to make a good case for the historical Jesus based on testimony alone, then you need to know that those sources were not tainted by Christian zeal and bias. We don't know that to be the case for Tacitus's testimony about Jesus.

But we do know that he was in high authority, with absolutely no love for the squalid group of Christians, so somewhat removed from "taint." Of course he could have made up stories but he is a painstakingly conscientious historian, one we rely on for those times, so there's no need to discredit him here when we'd like to. I won't defend what the gospel writers wrote but I am happy to defend Tacitus.

Sorry, but this is an example of the weak evidence so often offered for the historical Jesus. Tacitus was highly regarded by whom and for what reason? Heck, Billy Graham is highly regarded by many people. Do you think he's a sound source of information about Jesus?

At this point I am inclined to smile and move on. Have you read anything about Tacitus? He is respected by historians as a reliable source for history of that period. Marco's opinion is neither here nor there. Heck, comparing him to Billy Graham is without meaning. Graham, as far as I know, earns no respect from historians for his historical accuracy and that is the entire point here. We're not talking about the goodness of an individual or his oratorical powers.

As it happens, I have innumerable doubts about the crucifixion myself but we must meet argument with argument. And sometimes we might even concede we are wrong. There is not much to argue about in "if" "maybe" and "go on!"

[marco]

This question has been raised many times. Tacitus had no great regard for Christians so it is unlikely he'd be asking them for information about a Roman governor. He had access to Roman records; that is the most likely place he got his information. Unlike the historian Suetonius, Tacitus is highly regarded for his historical documentation.

The problem with that view is that those hypothetical Roman records most likely would not have said only that Pilate crucified a man called "Christus," which is the information relayed by Tacitus. Assuming they existed and Tacitus accessed them, most likely they would have said that Pilate killed Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph; maybe adding that he'd called himself Christ or maybe not, but the name Jesus would certainly have been there. And if the careful historian Tacitus had gone to the lengths of accessing those records, surely he too would have included the fellow's actual name?[/quote]

Valid point. Tacitus is not writing about Christ or Pilate but about Nero and the reference is no more than parenthetical, expanding on the term Christians. It would have been inappropriate and irrelevant to say more, far less honour the Christian fraudster with a full title. The report from Pilate that may have been referred to in documents need not have glorified Christ with full titles, Why would it? "Two robbers and a rebellious upstart they call Christos were crucified today." In any event what Tacitus said was enough for his purposes. and enough for Christians, later, to rejoice in the secular mention.

I might put the cat among the pigeons by stating that there has been a question about the way the phrase is presented. Church history was in the hands of copyists - but Tacitus speaks with some contempt for Christian upstarts, so most agree the text is genuine, unlike the glowing reference to Christ in Josephus.

[Mithrae]

The problem with that view is that those hypothetical Roman records most likely would not have said only that Pilate crucified a man called "Christus," which is the information relayed by Tacitus. Assuming they existed and Tacitus accessed them, most likely they would have said that Pilate killed Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph; maybe adding that he'd called himself Christ or maybe not, but the name Jesus would certainly have been there. And if the careful historian Tacitus had gone to the lengths of accessing those records, surely he too would have included the fellow's actual name?

Valid point. Tacitus is not writing about Christ or Pilate but about Nero and the reference is no more than parenthetical, expanding on the term Christians. It would have been inappropriate and irrelevant to say more, far less honour the Christian fraudster with a full title. The report from Pilate that may have been referred to in documents need not have glorified Christ with full titles, Why would it? "Two robbers and a rebellious upstart they call Christos were crucified today." In any event what Tacitus said was enough for his purposes. and enough for Christians, later, to rejoice in the secular mention.

The fact that the passage isn't primarily about Pilate or Christ is just as much reason to consider it unlikely that he spent time digging through old records to confirm what he'd heard. In what little I've read, it seems that the existence of such detailed records is purely hypothetical to begin with; records for sentences on Roman citizens would be one thing, but keeping an archive in Rome for every backwater hick killed for eighty-plus years throughout the empire? Even if they did exist, if they were in the informal style you suggest, there'd be little reason to suppose any kind of name or title would be included; just "two robbers and a trouble-maker." But if such records were kept I would have assumed that they'd be more formal, simply listing date, name and crime; in which case the name would be Jesus and 'Christus' might not have been included at all.

It's also worth nothing that according to Wikipedia, in some of the earlier details of his Annals Tacitus' accounts are not entirely impeccable, potentially confusing even details more noteworthy than Jesus' death:
"Although his work is our most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned. The Annals are based in part on secondary sources, and there are some obvious mistakes, for instance the confusion of the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, who are both called Antonia.[38]"

If we knew that Tacitus' information had been independently verified it would be one of the strongest confirmations of Jesus' crucifixion, but there seem to be too many unknowns to make that a good argument.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 166 by marco]

Tacitus, of senatorial rank, would not be grubbing around picking up gossip from them. My view is that he got his information in an official way as was his wont...

OK, if you wish to insist that Tacitus could not have based his "knowledge" on Christian sources because he didn't like Christians, then go ahead. You're arguing a non sequitur, but if that's what it takes, then go ahead.

...but neither you nor I nor the Old Man of the Mountains knows for sure.

That is correct. We do not know what Tacitus's sources about events in the life of Jesus were. We do know that it is entirely possible that he got that information from Christians even though you doubt it.

You retain your scepticism based on scepticism...

What skepticism is that?

I retain my respect for the historian based on many years of studying him.

While I'm sure that most historians are respectable people, they need to use sound logic and present good evidence for their claims like anybody else. In the case of Jesus' historicity, I don't see them doing that.

Of course he could have made up stories but he is a painstakingly conscientious historian, one we rely on for those times, so there's no need to discredit him here when we'd like to. I won't defend what the gospel writers wrote but I am happy to defend Tacitus.

So you are impressed with Tacitus! That's wonderful, but we still need to know what his sources were.

Have you read anything about Tacitus?

I haven't studied him in depth.

He is respected by historians as a reliable source for history of that period.

I'm sure, but again, we don't know those sources!

We're not talking about the goodness of an individual or his oratorical powers.

But that's exactly what you are saying about Tacitus. You are arguing that since he's so impressive to historians, then he is to be believed.

And sometimes we might even concede we are wrong.

Oh yes--sometimes we must admit our error.

At this point I am inclined to smile and move on.

You can smile all you wish and go away, but doing so does not prove anything.

[marco]

If we knew that Tacitus' information had been independently verified it would be one of the strongest confirmations of Jesus' crucifixion, but there seem to be too many unknowns to make that a good argument.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting Tacitus was a divinity. All historians err; he is the best we have from that period. Among the offices he held he had charge of overseeing religious rites of alien groups and he was familiar with and antagonistic towards the Jews. In his position he would have at one point looked objectively into Christian behaviour and beliefs and possibly recalled what he'd learned. I don't see any reason to discount him as a reliable witness. Pliny the Younger thought his histories would gain immortality. So do I. He'll survive the onslaughts of our forum, I think.