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?

[marco]

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.

The non sequitur is your own insertion. I said he would have obtained his information without grubbing about with Christians and their tittle tattle. He had official jurisdiction of religious rites. I am simply removing him from the position of a fool, which you would have, to a well respected historian, which you won't allow.

You are arguing that since he's so impressive to historians, then he is to be believed.

He is not infallible - that's not the issue. Is he a worthy source? Yes. You question this, on absolutely no evidence. You create a question and talk as though it were a mathematical proposition. Historians would agree it is reasonable to accept there was a preacher called Christ who was crucified.

You oppose this position by saying that maybe the great historian Tacitus heard a rumour and jotted it down. And maybe it was embarrassment that started the rumour about a crucified Christ. And THEREFORE there was no crucifixion. (That's a proper non sequitur, by the way.)

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 171 by marco]

I said he would have obtained his information without grubbing about with Christians and their tittle tattle.

In that case Tacitus was not a good historian. He should have questioned Christians about what they believed if he could, of course. Although what those Christians had to say doesn't prove the truth of what they claimed, it does provide information about what they believed and why they believed it. If Tacitus refused to question Christians when he had the opportunity to do so, then his work as a historian of the emerging church is suspect.

I am simply removing him from the position of a fool...

I never said that Tacitus was a fool, but no matter how sensible he may have been, he could have been fooled about Jesus.

I should also point out that any good historian should divulge her or his sources when making a claim about an event. Tacitus's failure to do so argues against his credibility as a historian.

Is he a worthy source? Yes. You question this, on absolutely no evidence.

You are shifting the burden of proof. If you claim that Tacitus is a "worthy source," then it is your obligation to prove he is a credible source of information about Jesus. I have no burden to prove he was not a worthy source of information.

Historians would agree it is reasonable to accept there was a preacher called Christ who was crucified.

Although you are making a fallacious argument from authority here, I do agree that there was indeed a Jewish preacher who was crucified. In fact, I'm sure there were many of them. Where I disagree is with the methodology employed by historicists. I see their arguments as fallacious, and their evidence is weak.

You oppose this position by saying that maybe the great historian Tacitus heard a rumour and jotted it down. And maybe it was embarrassment that started the rumour about a crucified Christ. And THEREFORE there was no crucifixion. (That's a proper non sequitur, by the way.)

Not only is that a non sequitur, but it is a straw-man argument as well. I never argued that there was no crucifixion! In fact, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews.

Marco, you're obviously an intelligent and learned person. As such, it would be wise of you to go back and read what I've posted on this thread.

[marco]

In that case Tacitus was not a good historian. He should have questioned Christians about what they believed if he could, of course.

How remiss of him.

then his work as a historian of the emerging church is suspect.

It is indeed. He wasn't.

He was critical of Roman Emperors and could be critical of Roman methods: "They create a desert and call it peace." He had objectivity but no crucifix.

I never said that Tacitus was a fool, but no matter how sensible he may have been, he could have been fooled about Jesus.

I am glad he's not a fool. He believed the Christians were a dangerous rabble. If they fooled him in this regard, I don't see what they gained.

Where I disagree is with the methodology employed by historicists. I see their arguments as fallacious, and their evidence is weak.

Well we must bear fools like Gibbon gladly I suppose.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 173 by marco]

I am glad he's not a fool. He believed the Christians were a dangerous rabble.

OK, but how does that make Tacitus a reliable source of information? Tacitus could not have been a source of information about Jesus because he was not a contemporary of Jesus. Tacitus would need to rely on other people as sources about Jesus. We then need to know who those people were so we can judge their credibility.

[marco]

OK, but how does that make Tacitus a reliable source of information?

Tacitus could not have been a source of information about Jesus because he was not a contemporary of Jesus. Tacitus would need to rely on other people as sources about Jesus. We then need to know who those people were so we can judge their credibility.

Jagella - Livy and Nepos give us information on Hannibal and they were born more than a century after the Carthaginian took poison. Some of the colours in our historical pictures may be wrong, but we get the main sweep of events. I don't believe Christ had angels sing at his nativity nor did the heavens open to receive his ascension. I cannot accept he raised a cadaver to life but I can believe he was a preacher, regarded as a threat, who was crucified under governor Pilate.

Tacitus, on whom I would rely for accounts of Roman achievements, has a high reputation. His reference to Christians is fleeting, dismissive and does them no favours. He rebukes Nero for inventing things about Christians, so it seems reasonable to believe this historian isn't being inventive himself. He had the means to check his information, and he showed his skill in writing history to the satisfaction of professionals who use his works.


Anyway, you must believe what you wish. I will continue to accept what Tacitus says here.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 175 by marco]

Jagella - Livy and Nepos give us information on Hannibal and they were born more than a century after the Carthaginian took poison.

You might not understand what I'm arguing. It isn't so much the length of time from Jesus to Tacitus; it is Tacitus's source(s) that I question. Livy and Nepos had no religious zeal to proclaim to the world that Hannibal was a real person, now did they? Tacitus's sources, on the other hand, may well have been tainted by Christian beliefs. Christians were very biased toward a real Jesus and therefore had a motivation to twist the truth.

...I can believe he was a preacher, regarded as a threat, who was crucified under governor Pilate.

I can believe that too but not because Tacitus said so.

His reference to Christians is fleeting, dismissive and does them no favours.

Well, what exactly did Tacitus say about Jesus? Not "Christ," but Jesus by name?

I did a little research on Tacitus. David Fitzgerald in his book Nailed on page 197 argues that the Romans did not keep exhaustive records of their many crucifixions going back an entire century. He quotes Richard Carrier as arguing that records of Jesus' crucifixion would not have existed in Tacitus's day because of the burning of Rome--twice to the ground.

So Marco, in your rejoinder please prepare a stinging critique of David Fitzgerald and Richard Carrier as sources of information. Those darned sources; you just can't trust 'em!

[marco]

So Marco, in your rejoinder please prepare a stinging critique of David Fitzgerald and Richard Carrier as sources of information. Those darned sources; you just can't trust 'em!

I am pleased you did a little research on Tacitus. I've translated the gentleman over many years. I understand that David and Richard entertain folk with theories about the non-existence of Jesus. It may well be that documents were destroyed in the fire but I don't believe Rome's historical documentation completely perished. The fire would have destroyed much of the poor Saburra district and spread. If David and Richard employed a Lorentz transformation to visit the site in real time, and make deductions, then I am in awe of their achievement. Otherwise, they can guess entertainingly, if that's what they like doing.

[tfvespasianus]

Otherwise, they can guess entertainingly, if that's what they like doing.

Apologies as the thread has moved on and I have been on holiday, but Tacitus describes the Great Fire as the most destructive that Rome 'had ever experienced'. Moreover, a solid majority of Rome's districts were devastated by the fire. So, the baseline for destruction of Roman imperial records is more likely than not absent compelling evidence. Thus, it'd be best not to be so haughty in the dismissal of the idea that Tacitus was not consulting imperial records unless one knows of another sufficient repository of extensive imperial documentation to which Tacitus likely had access to considering his well-documented career. Otherwise, positing that he had direct access to Roman records over the competing hypotheses that it's either an interpolation (something that Christian scribes most likely did with respect to Tacitus in other passages aside from the bare mention of Christians elsewhere) or that Tacitus is relying hearsay from Christians (plausible considering when he is writing) we are left with an estimation of probabilities. If we wish to assess and choose that of the least likely probability (granting such could indeed be 'the truth') we should be at least so kind as to recognize this as such.

Take care,
TFV

[marco]

If we wish to assess and choose that of the least likely probability (granting such could indeed be 'the truth') we should be at least so kind as to recognize this as such.

Thanks for your cautionary tap on the fingers, Vespasian. I'm aware the fire was the worst Rome had seen; I don't believe the efficient Romans would have allowed their imperial history to burn - but who knows? I should imagine the poor would have watched their houses burn fast while the imperial manors would have had gallons of water poured on them by hundreds of slaves. Fire is a fairly undiscriminating medium, but thousands of servile workers would have helped. Anyway all is speculation.


I'm also aware of the possibility of a corrupt text - that's another matter.

The issue is about Christ's crucifixion, true or false, and we've strayed into the backwaters of Rome with some irrelevance. Go well.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 150 by paarsurrey1]

Quote: Jagella wrote:
The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion

The story of Jesus' resurrection from the literal or clinically dead was made-up or fabricated by Paul and the Church and Paul's followers accepted it on blind-faith, please.

To add to my post:

There were no specific witnesses of Jesus ascending to heaven and getting seated on right hand* of God, this lends a strong clue that it was a made-up story. Right, please?

Regards

OOOOOOOOO
*http://biblehub.com/mark/16-19.htm