|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of an atheist. | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: The whole books maybe not. But parts, like the Nativity accounts - which are the ones specifically referred to by Bikerman - certainly do.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024