The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

1.Tacitus Unfortunately, my opponent misread the source and consequently cited me for error where error was not. Parts of books 5 and 6 are missing. It is verifiably certain – as a reading of the annals will attest – ï¿½portions from 29-32 AD are indeed among those missing (1). Despite widespread scholastic acceptance of Tacitus' accuracy as a historian, my opponent seeks to disqualify this understanding by pointing out a singled alleged error. Even if the error were truly that, it would be an affront to both historical and textual criticism to suggest that such a mistake is enough to distrust the honesty of the author. Here is what the Jesus critic and historical scholar, Richard Carrier has to say about the issue: "There is no ancient history that is entirely accurate and without lies, distortions, or errors. Every qualified historian today agrees with that.(2)" "It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D ...(3)" So not only is my opponent wrong in assuming a single error would change the reliability of the source in question, but he is demonstrably wrong about the error ascribed to said source. Now there is a reason why Tacitus scholars are virtually unanimous on who Tacitus is referring. As for Christus being a title that any whose-who would have, that is incorrect with Tacitus' use. Tacitus uses Christus in a way that assumes his audience is very familiar with the person in question. Furthermore, there is only one so-called Christ who was supposedly put to death by Pontius Pilate. Moreover, Chrestians was a common misspelling at the time. As is evidence, even Christians said Chrestians, as even an extant Manuscript of Acts uses Chrestian instead of Christian (4). Christ, a Greek title, was easy to confuse with the Latin. Even still, there are no good reasons for believing that the copyist himself was not the one who fixed the mistake. So what are we left with? (1)The excerpt does not make sense if it is not referring to Jesus. (2)Even if it said Chrestian, it would suggest a common misspelling and not a different group. (3)Even if we could definitely prove that Christian was changed from Chrestian, there are no good reasons for believing it was not the copyist himself who made the correction. Lastly, did Tacitus borrow information from Christians? His remarkable ability as a historian is already in friction with this notion. There are no good reasons for believing that Tacitus took from Christian sources because (1) he wrote in a very negative tone regarding Christians, and (2) he never took information from Pliny uncritically. In Annals 15.53, Tacitus disputes and considers Pliny's information as absurd. 2.The Case of Josephus My opponent starts out with a wholly irrelevant argument: "is it not plausible that the passing reference in Antiquity of the Jews is not also an "interpolation'?" Of course it is possible. It is also possible that every single thing written in history was written by someone other than the person traditionally ascribed. That is irrelevant. The real question should be, "is it likely?" And to that question, the answer is emphatically NO. Lets look at the points: (A) My opponent claims it reads "better" without the addition of the "so-called Christ." Who cares, every extant manuscript says the so-called Christ. We have no good reasons, stylistically or textually speaking, for thinking it was not Josephus who wrote it. (B) My opponent claims that the Jesus mentioned later on in the text is the same Jesus mentioned as being the brother of James. It is too bad my opponent thinks this to be so clear – given his own admission that Jesus was a common name. You cannot blame my opponent for being unaware of the historical method and textual criticism, but on this point it is fundamentally important. First, it is customary for Josephus to use relationships as a means of identification (father and son). In fact, it was very common during Josephus' time to use DIFFERENT means of identification when dealing with two separate people who had the same name. Josephus, when making first introductions, would identify the person with another known character or place – in order to stem confusion. The idea that the Jesus, the son of Damneus, are the same people, would be stylistically out of character for Josephus, and contra ancient use of identification. (C)Christ JUST means anointed This is historically false. Christos had enormous political implications and it would be unimaginable that any High Priest would bare it. Moreover, it is impossible that they could have been referring to the same Jesus because the latter Jesus was yet to be anointed – insofar as every High Priest was anointed when appointed. Yet the former Jesus was already called "anointed (5)(6)." (D)But he should have written more. This is an argument from silence, and a poor one at that. Not only does it assume that the 2nd mentioning of Jesus Christ by Josephus is a COMPLETE interpolation (many scholars conclude it was just tampered with), but it assumes that Josephus had good reasons for writing more about Jesus. In fact, "for the entire period of 10 years around which Jesus died, Josephus devotes only "one small page" in his War, and six pages in the Antiquities. Therefore, it is actually quite significant that Josephus devotes any attention to Jesus at all.(7)" 3.Reliability of Gospels First, my opponent suggests that there is no history regarding the person of Jesus, and that would somehow suggest that he therefore did not exist (a non sequitur). This ignores the fact that those so recorded are ones who fall under certain categories. 1.Jesus did not change the political, social, or economic climate of Palestine 2. Jesus was executed as a criminal – making him significantly marginalized 3. He associated with societies rejects – offending many people 4. His own lifestyle was offensive to many 5. He was a poor carpenter living in a land full of wealthy urbanites Another point my opponent needs to grapple with is a historical one. First, the four accounts of Jesus' life are written by three eye witnesses and one who was well acquainted with eye witnesses. Every extant manuscript available confirms this. Moreover, the gospels are rife with verifiably accurate archeological facts, and many archeological facts that were first known through the Gospels. Furthermore, the remaining extant manuscripts and their age render the Gospels (according to any unbiased historical model) inherently more reliable than any other ancient source whose veracity is not questioned. The only thing that can be gathered from a supposed synoptic problem, is that there was an even earlier oral tradition from which the authors used. There independence from each other can be seen clearly here: http://bible.org... This question must be asked: According to what historical model are you using that allows you to disregard the history in the Gospels and not any other ancient sources that contain inherently less evidence, fewer and younger manuscripts, and rely on secondary sources (e.g. Alexander the Great, to name just one)? Conclusion: I'll refute my opponent's contentions in my following round. Sources: 1. http://www.sacred-texts.com... 2. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 3. http://www.tektonics.org... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.http://explanationblog.wordpress.com... 6.http://www.ucg.org... 7.http://www.tektonics.org...