Board index ‹ Christianity

[Electric Wire]

Tacitus

"In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them.

However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians."

"the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion.
However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there was not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome.

Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century."

Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource."

"Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a perfect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

"Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively.

Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings.

Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century."

"The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians."

In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author...."
"In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations.""

Ignatius

So of the 15 letters, he supposedly wrote 8 of them are known forgeries. Being (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary)

As for the other 7 (Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians) there is still some debate among scholars.

"They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in the time of 250 AD."
"We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops), deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints. At this point in history, congregations were still autonomous and independent, but we also see the seeds of development for the Papal system, where one man rules over all churches world wide which first occurred in 606 AD."

"Within one of the "7 genuine Ignatius letters", is a powerful clue it is clearly a forgery from a later time. The very first historical reference to the "Catholic Church" is nestled warmly between very strong commands to obey the bishop as you would Jesus Christ and the only valid baptism or communion service is one by the bishop's authority. We feel that is it no coincidence that the first historical reference to the church as the "Catholic Church" is contained within one of the "7 genuine Ignatius letters". We feel it is proof enough to reject all as forgeries."

[jimwalton]

I am catching on that you believe the minimalists, the radical fringe of "scholarship" that derides anything Christian. I take issue with your sources for their bias and ignoring of plain evidence.

> it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time

Thomas Finn, in his work "The Early Christian World" (http://home.lu.lv/~harijs/Macibu%20materiali%20,teksti/Gramatas%20Seno%20Laiku%20Vesture%20(%20Elektroniski%20)/Early%20Christianity/The%20Early%20Christian%20World.%20Vol.%201-2.%202002.pdf), determined there were thousands of Christians in the empire by the 60s, and about 7500 Christians in the empire by AD 100. In Rome itself he says there were about 1400 Christians at the end of the 1st century.

> Ignatius

> he supposedly wrote 8 of them are known forgeries.

Again, you write as if these things are settled. Other scholars write, "These letters are widely accepted as authentic."

So where does that leave us? You believe the minimalists, and I side with the majority of scholars. We're certainly not going to convince each other.

[Electric Wire]

James Ossuary

The best expert opinions seem to be that it's a real box and that "Jacob son of Joseph" part of the inscription is real, but that the "brother of Jesus" part is a modern forgery (the patinas are different). That was also the finding of the Israeli Antiquities Authority.
Couple this with the fact that the antiquity dealer who "found" it got busted with a counterfeit antiquities operation in his house and there is every reason in the world to be skeptical that is at connected to jesus from the bible.

Moving on.

Longevity myths

> In any case, the evidence was have from Sumer corroborates the Bible.

There are Sumerian kings "recorded" to have reigned 36,000 years. 43.000 years and 72,000 years. If that's something you think is at all realistic then there really isn't anything else I can say.

I don't need to disprove something that hasn't/ maybe can't be proven in the first place. This is one of the examples where faith is needed, and I certainly don't have any faith.

> It's not really a problem. Somewhere along the path the text of 2 Sam. 23.8 became corrupted, and we know that. So we know what the text is supposed to read.

It is a problem when it happens over and over again. Is half the bible corrupt? Is that not a problem? There are clearly a ton of contradictions so why is that not worrying for someone who thinks it's the word of god?

> We would need to talk about specifics.

The claims of a global flood, The Earth only being thousands of years old, and the biblical order of "Creation" are some good examples.

> The evidence to support it is that Ab gave birth to 3 sons, and then later in life, he acknowledged that he had no heirs.

But you would think if they found it important enough to mention he had no heirs that they would also find it important to note why he didn't anymore. Right?

> Because it's an accurate record of what he found. He found this list, and he publishes it. That's honest.

Yes, but I was just saying why show the entire incorrect list of numbers instead of just saying "he found a census and proclaimed it but it was false" or something. Just seems curious.

[jimwalton]

> The James Ossuary

I know the IAA deemed it to be a forgery, but the case was followed carefully in issue after issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review and Newsweek, which I read and kept.

> the patinas are different

It turns out that several members of the Materials Committee (examining the ossuary and its inscription) "are not experts in the scientific area which proved crucial for their conclusions." There was also concern that they were biased coming into the examination.

It also turns out that "the head of the Israeli Geological Survey initially silenced his two associates who first authenticated the patina on the ossuary."

The Royal Ontario Museum analyzed the patina with Scanning Electron Microscopy and determined that the patina was consistent with the era of the 1st century. They also determined that the inscription, when examined under a 60x microscope, had weathered naturally (i.e., not a forgery).

Further determination was that the IAA report on the ossuary was "deeply flawed." The same scholar from the IAA, Dr. Orna Cohen, who declared that it "suggests forgery" later admitted that "the same yellowish patina that is on the side of the ossuary is also in the incisions of the letters of 'brother of Jesus'."

The work of the IAA has been subjected to subsequent examination and found to be in error. And yet the idea of "Forgery on the basis of the patina" persists. Orna Cohen has said, "The end of the inscription 'brother of Jesus' appears authentic; in some places [in 'brother of Jesus'] there seems to be remains of old patina." She admitted to finding ancient patina in the word "Jesus". Professor Goren, one of the examiners on the IAA, has also since admitted to the presence of ancient patina in the "Jesus".

> There are Sumerian kings "recorded" to have reigned 36,000 years. 43.000 years and 72,000 years. If that's something you think is at all realistic then there really isn't anything else I can say.

The Sumerians used a sexagesimal system, while the Jews used a base 10. Decimal rather than sexagesimal values would put them in the same range as the biblical number with the total being almost identical.

The biblical names: Seth 912, Enosh 905, Kenan 910, Mehalalel 895, Jared 962, Enoch 365, Methuselah 969, and Lamech 777. The corresponding names in the Sumerian list translate to Alulim 800, Alalgar 1000, Enmenluanna 1200, Enmengalanna 800, Dumuzi 1000, Ensipanzianna 800, Enmenduranna 600, and Uburtutu 500. Both lists add up to roughly 6700 years.

> Is half the bible corrupt?

Of course not. Just a handful of numbers such as these.

> The claims of a global flood

I have good reason to belief the flood was massive regional, not global.

> The Earth only being thousands of years old

Well, this is just absurd, and the Bible doesn't teach this.

> and the biblical order of "Creation" are some good examples.

Genesis 1 is a functional account of creation (how the cosmos and earth were put in order to function), not an account of material creation (how the world and cosmos came into existence). It's a longer discussion.

> But you would think if they found it important enough to mention he had no heirs that they would also find it important to note why he didn't anymore. Right?

Not necessarily. Notice that the two texts come within 4 chapters of each other, by the same author. 2 Samuel is really a story about David, not about Absalom, and certainly not about Absalom's kids. Every historian makes decisions about what to include and exclude. It was a very common occurrence in those days to lose young children to death. This is not a genealogy, but a story about Absalom's pride, his rebellion against David, and God's protective hand on David. To go into the reasons Absalom has no children is distracting and has no place in the story.

> the Nehemiah list

Sure, we can think of a dozen other ways that the story could have been written, but there's no evil or contradiction in the way it was written.