Do we have non-Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ existed?

by Inquisitor 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  PP....Actually, I should have said that he plagiarized extensively in general, i.e. the OT, apocryphal books, Eusebius, the Chronicle of Jerome, letters of Paulinus of Nola, etc. In the case of Tacitus, we find the following allusions:

  • 2.28.2 = Annals 15.37 (cuncta denique, quae vel in feminis non sine verecundia conspicuntur spectata | cuncta denique spectata quae etiam in femina nox operit)
  • 2.28.3 = Annals 14.62, 15.44 (quasi exprobrantes aspiciuntur ... Christianum nomen | quasi exprobrantes aspiciuntur ... Christianos appellabat, auctor nominis)
  • 2.29.1-2 = Annals 15.40-44 (Christianorum multitudine ... quin ab eo iussum putaretur ... ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur | vulgus Christianos appellabat ... quin iussum incendium crederetur ... deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens ... ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur)
  • 2.30.1-3 = Historiae 1-4 (as a resume).

  There are also several other suspected allusions:

  • 2.29.5 = Annals 17-18 (presently not extant, but incertum an ipse sibi mortem consciverit | incertum an is a frequent Tacitean phrase, die nuptiarum Silanus mortem sibi conscivit in Annals 12.8.1 contains another Tacitean phrase)
  • 2.30.3-7 = Historiae 6-? (debatable)

  Annals 15.44 does not claim that the ritual was aimed at squelching the rumor. The text says that the rituals "sought to appease the gods with a propiatory sacrifice (mox petita dis piacula aditi)", in this case to ensure that the gods would not send another fire. Compare Annals 12.8 which describes propiatory sacrifices (piacula) offered to Diana to atone for incest. Hence the offerings to Vulcanus, the god of fire, and Proserpina, a goddess of Hades. Now Nero probably would have hoped that these offerings would have focused attention away from him, but these rituals would have occurred as a matter of course after such a great disaster. But "all human efforts ... did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order" (cf. 15.40), this does not mean that the rumor was the cause of the rituals but that the rumor remained in spite of the rituals.

  I find it especially unlikely that the Severus passage was the source of Annals 15.44, for the reasons mentioned above, which I think are quite good reasons...such as the evidence that Tertullian knew this passage and the slander reported as early as Justin Martyr that Christians are inclined to cause fires (easily explained by Nero's accusation). Moreover, the direction of dependence is almost certainly in the other direction because Severus as a whole plagiarized all over the place and he shows use of other parts of Tacitus.
• 

  LittleToe

  Gumby:

  Does it also say he was resurrected, appeared again, then was taken up in the sky? Does it say he truely did miracles? Does it say that all his diciples that died are all in heaven with him now in their own "mansion"?

  No, it doesn't. But evidently the writers of the [esteemed] Encyclopaedia put enough store by the historical records to state his existance as fact, as the thread title asks.

  "...but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
• 

  Spectrum

  XJW,
  
  I don't think there is enough for us to go on to allow faith to do the rest of the work. God if he exists in any form has abandoned his creation.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I'd say that the "god" of our material universe (the unfolding and evolving process) is manifestly still around, an intricate part of it, omnipresent. We're all in the very bosom of this "god". I'll agree thats not the god most people envision, but do any of us ever get to pick our biological parents?

  RE:thread topic

  Sure there's no evidence whatsoever to say that the life and acts of the biblical/apocryphal JC were history. So rationally you can discount all of those writings as fiction. But maybe more along the lines of allegorically. symbolically. basically mythically, conveying some understanding or truth. If the divine interactions and manifestations were primarily happening within, you wouldn't be looking for external evidence.
• 

  peacefulpete

  But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

  Well that's how I read it Leolaia. I agree it makes no sense unless the work of a later readactor. I agree that Tertullian made some reference to some history about Nero attacking a new sect "first springing up in Rome". (Or at least that's how Tertullian reads now) I'm suggesting the late tradition about Nero blaming the (what would have been a tiny group of) Christians for the fire was inserted into the Annals. The odd and anachronistic nature of the Annals Passage can't be ignored. But who knows perhaps the sect of Christians did exist in large numbers in Rome in the 60's and they themselves and the authorities did identify them as separated from Jews and they called themselves Christians (e or i) and noone else mentions this incredible fact that the Romans killed crowds of Christians for burning Rome.

  I'm still smiling btw. hope you are too.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Or could it be that God allowed just enough evidence to convenience but not enough that would not allow people to exercise some degree of faith?

  So the fact that there is no evidence is proof? ; I'm going to try that in court some day!.... "so you don't believe in robot Jesus?" "we believe he existed, and was a very well built machine! He just isn't our messiah!"

  MKR, you and Gumby have something in common: reading into other people's posts what YOU want them to say.
• 

  Leolaia

  Well that's how I read it Leolaia. I agree it makes no sense unless the work of a later readactor.

  I think that is just one area in which we will simply have different evaluations of the evidence. (Ain't independent thinking great? ) The phrasing of the passage makes perfect sense to me; I don't think it implies what you think it implies. And I find it unlikely that a later Christian redactor so successfully adopted Tacitus' hostile, anti-Christian voice (even making him miss a chance in affirming the fact of the resurrection), imitated his literary style, and worked in the interpolation so well into the text.

  I'm suggesting the late tradition about Nero blaming the (what would have been a tiny group of) Christians for the fire was inserted into the Annals.

  And yet I wonder how late this tradition really was, since Justin Martyr wrote c. 151 that one of the things said about Christians is that they tip over candles and lamps. The Annals were written c. 117. Tertullian seems to know not only Annals 15.44 but also addresses the slander that Christians start fires, and uses many of the derogatory words that Tacitus applies to the Christians, plus other similarities in wording (e.g. quos per flagita | quae Christianorum sanguinem flagitat, Apologeticus 46.1; vulgus Christianos appellabat | nec ulli depostulatores Christianorum quam vulgus, 35.8; auctor nominis eius Christus | at enim secta oditur in nomine utique sui auctoris, 3.6; auctor nominis ... Tiberio imperitante | sectam istam esse ... novellam ut Tiberiani tempori, 21.1; repressaque in praesens | temptaverat et Domitianus portio Neronis ... facile coeptum repressit, 5.4; exitiabilis superstitio | turpium et otiosarum superstitionum, 6.8, etc.)

  The odd and anachronistic nature of the Annals Passage can't be ignored. But who knows perhaps the sect of Christians did exist in large numbers in Rome in the 60's and they themselves and the authorities did identify them as separated from Jews and they called themselves Christians (e or i) and noone else mentions this incredible fact that the Romans killed crowds of Christians for burning Rome.

  Again, as I mentioned above, if Tacitus had Christian sources (as Pliny the Younger had as well), then he may well be relying on their reports of what happened, or at least their description of it. Also we really don't know how large the Christian community was in the mid-60s; our sources are so scant. The Corinth community by the mid-50s was large enough to split into various factions and Rome, being the capital of the empire, likely had one the largest communities in the diaspora, if not the largest. And it is hard to tell from the phrasing in Tacitus how many Christians are really in view here, e.g. is there hyperbole here, did Nero kill only enough people to make a show, whereas it was "innumerable multitudes" from the point of view of the smallish Christian community, etc. The Jewish community was quite large (e.g. at least 40,000 Jews in Rome in the time of Augustus Caesar out of a total population of 1.3 million, estimating from the 8,000 mentioned in Josephus, Antiquities 2.80), and the Christian community drew from them and from the Gentiles (especially those in the lower classes). It is worth noting that Philippians 4:22, most likely written in exile in Rome, mentions that there were Christians in the "household of Caesar (hoi ek tés kaisaros oikias)," i.e. in Nero's employ, and 1:13 also mentions that Paul's circumstances was "famous all over the Praetorium" (phanerous genesthai en holó tó praitórió), another likely exaggeration...but again suggesting that the Christians were not necessarily under the radar of the Emperor.
• 

  uk humanist

  Don't you think it's odd that the evidence is so weak, given the absolutely amazing events that occurred during this man's apparent existence?

  Accepting that this situation does not make sense (ignoring the fact that sky gods and god men from the mists of time do not make sense either), this leaves two possiblities:

  Jesus was real but didn't perform miracles, in which case what does this person matter?

  Jesus wasn't real.
• 

  gumby

  oh.....did anyone ever find where Josephus wrote about all the babies 2 and under that were killed by Herod. He musta wrote sumthin somewhere....sheesh

  Gumby
• 

  peacefulpete

  OK Leolaia, I reread it about a dozen times and finally it sunk in that the intent of the sentence I quoted in the last post was saying that depite Nero's efforts to petition the gods (to put out the fire) the rumour still spead that Nero was the arsonist. I appreciate your patience with me. Despite the odd qualities of the quote like addressing the executed one as Christ etc, I guess the jury is still out on this one. ps. Come to think of it perhaps it would be anachronistic for him to have named a "Jesus".