The evolution of an atheist.

quote:

---

he fact that Matthew and Luke both reported this story was quite shocking to me and that then led to me looking at the authorship of the cannonical gospels...

---

Presumably you mean Matthew reporting a quite different story, and discovering that the "standard" Christmas story is a combination of two accounts that really don't go together.

quote:

---

I'm inclined to not believe that there was a Q source. It appears to me from what I have read is that there were much shorter early writings on which the authors of the gospels drew but I don't think that there was one source, (Q), that predominated.

---

Q is the hypothetical source for the material common to Matthew and Luke that is NOT found in Mark. The main reason for proposing it is to explain how that common material got into both without Luke having access to Matthew (because of the disagreements between the two).

quote:

---

In my view the gospels don't read like something that is being fabricated.

---

The whole books maybe not. But parts, like the Nativity accounts - which are the ones specifically referred to by Bikerman - certainly do.

quote:

---

Also the stories the Messiah's resurrected body read like this is weird but here is what happened. If it had been based on the Jewish scriptures you would think that they would have a resurrected Jesus bathed in light and shining for all to see.

---

Except that if they really happened as written we wouldn't expect the major differences between Matthew and Luke/Acts. It's pretty clear that there wasn't a single, accepted story of those appearances in the late 1st Century. Which rather suggests that both are largely the product of elaborations - elaborations that developed independently.

quote:

---

As I said earlier for me the whole Christian faith centres on the resurrection. If I am convinced of that, which I am, then I am prepared to take on faith the Bethlehem story and the virgin birth while at the same time realizing that those stories aren't essential to Christianity anyway.

---

Which one ? The fact that there are two stories which have too little in common to even be considered variations of the same story is part of the problem here.

I'll add a few points to suspect that there was a living person behind the stories, although I think we'll have to say that he was less successful than the Gospels would suggest (but then exaggeration is to be expected).For one, there's the dating. On the accepted dates, it is impossible for Christianity to have been founded much later. But an earlier date would have been much more useful if the story was fiction. Firstly, then - as now - antiquity was a good thing for a religion. It got respect. Secondly relations with the Romans are a bit problematic in the Gospels. They try to blame Jesus' death on the Jews, even though the Roman authorities are clearly responsible. Placing Jesus' life before Roman rule - even in the time of Herod would avoid that.For another, there's Paul. Clearly a latecomer and clearly one who was prepared to dispute with the leaders of the Jerusalem church. The situation given us by Acts, where Paul converts only after the death of Jesus fits that quite well. It is easier to go against a dead founder than a living one.

I have a different view to both of you.Firstly the idea of Tacitus tracking down Roman records seems odd. Which records would those be, why would he be looking at them and how would he connect what he found to the Christians of his day ?On the other hand given that Tacitus strongly disapproves of Christianity it seems likely to me that the reference is to further condemn Christianity. He's saying: See ! The founder of this depraved cult was a rebel and a traitor !

Bikerman, I'm afraid your answer is superficial and doesn't really address my questions.Let's grant that Rome had a massive archive, including full records of the deeds of every Governor, Prefect or similar official, (I'm not convinced that records this detailed would have been copied to Rome rather than being left in local archives, but let's assume that the records were there, in Rome where Tacitus could find them).Given that, the question becomes why Tacitus was looking at those records out of all that huge archive and how he managed to identify "Christ" out of the many Pilate had executed. Bear in mind that there's no sign of Tacitus even knowing the name "Jesus", and that it is unlikely that he had a date for the crucifixion - not even the year.It just doesn't seem likely to me that Tacitus would do all that. Certainly I don't think he would do that for the sake of the short reference we do have. And if he happened to look at those records for some other reason it seems unlikely to me that that information would have been obvious to him.

quote:

---

Because he was writing specifically about the history of post Augustine events (in the annals). He manages to mention other notable events in Judea but misses this one. There seems to be a view that it was minor and therefore easily missed, but I still maintain that this is incompatible with the gospels. Thousands and thousands of people greet Jesus as he enters Jerusalem. He is the King of the Jews, not some ordinary tin-pot rebel. Then he is arrested, tried and crucified and then appears back from the dead to appear before hundreds of witnesses and give them a lecture.

---

Hold on, we're talking about the Tacitus reference to the execution of the "Christ" and whether it came from Roman records (as you say) or from Christian sources (as I suspect). Now that particular piece is in the context of the aftermath of the great fire in Nero's reign. Tacitus alleges that the Christians were made the scapegoats and mentions the execution as an aside.So I have to ask, are you assuming that the Gospels are actually correct and therefore Tacitus must have noticed this event and connected it to the Christians of his day ? (If so, I'd like some evidence that Tacitus did notice similar events in the same timeframe). If not, and if you are assuming that Jesus was not so significant doesn't it support my point that Tacitus likely did not get his information on the execution from Roman records ?

quote:

---

If the gospels are fiction then I would say that Jesus wouldn''t have been noticed by anyone and Tacitus would probably have mentioned him as you propose. However if the gospels are made-up then this whole conversation becomes a bit moot doesn't it? We would be spending time discussing a minor 1st century nobody...

---

Since we have good reason to think that the Gospels were exaggerated and not even that reliable historically (we can't even be sure of the date of the crucifixion) I think that it is reasonable to say that if Jesus did exist he didn't stand out that much among all the other cult leaders of the time (like John the Baptist).

quote:

---

Well...he mentioned many events in Judea in these years - I gave a list on the previous page somewhere near the top I think....
Here you go..just retrieved it:
26AD: protest to Pilate about icons
c30AD: protest to Pilate about use of Temple funds
c30AD: prophetic claims of John the Baptist
35-55AD: banditry of Eleazar
36AD: prophetic claims of 'Samaritan Prophet'
40AD: protest to Petronius about statue in Temple
45AD: prophetic claims of Theudas
45AD: banditry of Tholomaeus et al
50AD: protest to Cumanus about soldiers' impiety
50AD: banditry near Beth-horon
c55AD: prophetic claims of unnamed prophets
c55AD: prophetic claims of 'Egyptian Prophet'

---

Are you sure that Tacitus mentioned these ? I've looked through your past posts to this thread and you don't attribute anything to Tacitus except the reference in the context of the Great Fire. The similar list in Message 87 is attributed to Josephus, who, of course, had Jewish sources. (I also checked Annals Book V covering 30 AD and it has no reference to Judaea at all.)So there's no reason to suppose that Tacitus uncovered a reference to Jesus' crucifixion in earlier research (because he doesn't write about events in Judea in that period) and even less reason to suppose that he would have gone diving into the archives for the sake of an aside. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Oh, the Gospels are definitely not consistent with the idea that Jesus was too unimportant to be noticed, even if you ignore the more dramatic supernatural elements.The post-resurrection accounts have definitely been added to probably to the point where they bear little resemblance to anything that actually occurred. Matthew and Luke reflect different ways in which the story changed, that much is obvious from the disagreements. I suspect that there may have been something there, but all of it known phenomena. Thinking that you see someone in a crowd - but it isn't (do you remember the wave of "Elvis sightings" after his death ?). "Feeling" the presence of a someone you knew who now is dead. Dreams of the dead person, maybe even a hallucination or two.