Did Jesus exist, Part II

I think that you mean that the rest COULD be genuine. So far as I am aware there is no good evidence either way.I have to say that the version here is still positive enough that I would expect early Christians to have cited it. IIRC the earliest mention is Eusebius who is suspiciously late.s

This page is worth a read.Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum QuestionIt points out that Agapius is late and, apparently, more of a paraphrase than a translation and concerned with answering Islam. All these make it questionable as a source for reconstructing the text.

The passage from Tacitus is also easily dismissed as evidence of a historical Jesus. Why would Tacitus doubt any of wha he wrote, if he got it from Christians ? Would he doubt that the sect had a founder ? That the sects name was derived from that founder's name ? That the founder of an "evil" cult was executed by crucifixion ?

If Tacitus hated Christians he would be more likely to believe that the founder had been crucified - and more likely to publicise it. Your argument is self-defeating.0

So if he were tring to discredit Christianity would hea) Repeat a claim that Christians admitted to, indicating that their founder suffered a shamefiul death reserved for slaves and reels against Rome.Orb) embark on a major project to try to prove that the foudner didn't exist, even though he has no evidence to make such a conclusion likely or any reason to beleive that he would be able to find evidence to prove it even if it were correct. One short aside hardly indicates a major interest in Christianity.It seems obviosu to me that a) is by far the superior option since it requires no work and it is hard for Christians to deny..

Whether Tacitus was aware of a claim that Jesus was God or not (and I would not want to guess about the staus of the view within Christianity at the start of the 2nd Century) pointing out that he was crucified would seem like a good answer to it. What god would put up with that ?And if you beleive that it would be easy for Tacitus to prove that Jesus did not exist then please explain how that would be possible. It seems to me that travelling to Jerusalem, trawling whatever archives that might have survived would be a fairly large project - a lot of work for a result that would almost certainly be inconclusive. Would Tacitus need to find a complete record of all the crucifixions ordered by Pilate in the hope that the record was provably complete and that everyone on the list could be ruled out ? When "Jesus" was a not-uncommon name at the time. If not then what lesser evidence could possibly suffice ?i

It would be easy for Tacitus to make the claim but how would it be effective if he couldn't back it up ? Surely it would be better to repeat the claim that Jesus was crucified which would be beleived because even the Christians admitted it.In the absence of any evidence outside of Christian claims the existence of Jesus (in the sense that someone of that name founded the cult) would tend to be accepted by default. Thus there really is no significance to Tacitus failing to question the existence of Jesus unless we have reason to beleive that there would have been evidence to that effect easily available to him. So far as I can tell that seems unlikely.The reference to Pontius Pilate is more easily confirmed as part of Christian belief because all the canonical Gospels are usually dated to before Tacitus wrote and all of them mention Pilate - while the divinity of Jesus is only directly stated in John, probably the last written..

I'm saying that Tacitus information probably originated with Christians. I explicitly cited the Gospels as evidence of what Christians believed - with no suggestion that Tacitus used them as sources.a

Don't you mean a former Christian ? Or has Peter Kirby gone back to Christianity ?

It's still positive - it calls Jesus a "wise man" and that he was a "teacher of those who accept the truth gladly". It can be read as saying that the crucifixion was undeserved. It's so positive that if it were genuine I would expect that one of the early Christian writers would have mentioned it if it were the actual text.It is also so positive that it suggests that the author is at least sympathetic to Christianity - which makes it surprising that Jsoephus did not write more about Christianity.In my view it is more likely that the whole passage is an interprolation or it was so negative that Christian writers were loathe to refer to it.g

Well if Jospehus was interested in currying favour with the Caesars then saying anythign good about a free man executed by crucifixion - and therefore found guilty of rebellion against Rome - would be dubious. When that man is connected to an unpopular religious sect Jospehus has little reason to say good of him and good reasons to be critical.Of Judas of Galilee and Sadduc who revolted at the time of the sensus of Quirinius Josephus says that "men received what they said with pleasure" - which would be a neutral way of saying that their views were popular, rather than the positive version found in the statement about Jesus. He goes on to say:
" All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men,
and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies;"Negative enough for you ?g