Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

[MrMacSon]

^So, LC answered my question - he sees it as a reference to Jesus, only he believes it is forged. Thanks.

MrMacSon, you haven't answered my question: Do you think the reference is referring to Jesus or not (forget for the moment questions over authenticity).

I believe Testimonium Taciteum is highly likely a text doctored, interpolated or forged later by Christians, but not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, either.

[toejam]

^So you're saying as it stands now, it is a reference to Jesus (given that you believe it's been tampered with by Christians)?

[MrMacSon]

^ No. As Carrier said

The entire line in between (“the author of this name, Christ [Chrestus?], was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in
the reign of Tiberius”) would then be a later Christian interpolation, attempting to convert this passage about the Chrestians
into a Neronian persecution of Christians. This, too, has been proposed before.27 And there are good arguments in its favor.
First, the text flows logically and well with the line removed. Second, the notion that there was “a huge multitude” (multitudo ingens)
of Christians/[Chrestianos] in Rome to persecute, though not impossible, is somewhat suspect; whereas, by contrast, Jews were present by the tens of thousands, and there were already enough Chrestus-followers under Claudius to result in a city-wide action against them.

The later interpolators probably did not know what they were dealing with; did not know what they were supposed to be creating; or what they created was not they final product -

Fourth, Tacitus [or the passages's redactor-interpolators] says the people “called” them Chrestians, vulgus Chrestianos appellabat, notably the past tense.29 Why would he [or they] not use the present tense if he [or they] believed the group was still extant, as Christians were?
In fact, Tacitus [or the passage's redactor-interpolators] makes no explicit mention of this group still being extant in his [their] own day

[KSmith94]

Honestly, there's no reason to think he didn't exist. As said before, Tacitus and Josephus write about him. If you really think about it, Jesus of Nazareth was nothing special in his time. He claimed to be the Messiah, but to many, he was an itinerant Galilean rabbi. Many sages and prophets were claiming to be divine and healing people, teaching love and compassion, so to a pagan Roman historian, Jesus wouldn't have been that interesting. His followers were passionate, though, and that really stuck out apparently. Josephus would write about Jesus, because he's Jewish. Jesus is one of Josephus' national kin, and when someone attracts as many zealous followers as Jesus did, Josephus is bound to write something about him.

[Peter Kirby]

Honestly, there's no reason to think he didn't exist. As said before, Tacitus and Josephus write about him. If you really think about it, Jesus of Nazareth was nothing special in his time. He claimed to be the Messiah, but to many, he was an itinerant Galilean rabbi. Many sages and prophets were claiming to be divine and healing people, teaching love and compassion, so to a pagan Roman historian, Jesus wouldn't have been that interesting. His followers were passionate, though, and that really stuck out apparently. Josephus would write about Jesus, because he's Jewish. Jesus is one of Josephus' national kin, and when someone attracts as many zealous followers as Jesus did, Josephus is bound to write something about him.

Welcome to the forum. There's a good argument to be made that Josephus didn't actually write about Jesus. As such, and if "Josephus would write about Jesus," would that not mean that there is at least one reason to think that he did not exist, namely the silence of Josephus?

Of course this is not my idea. Arthur Drews, one hundred years ago, drew attention to the same reasoning being discussed in Germany at the time:

"Even an orthodox theologian like Kropatscheck writes in the 'Kreuzzeitung' (April 7, 1910): 'It is well known that the non-Christian writers in a very striking way ignore the appearing of Christ. The few small notices in Tacitus, Suetonius, &c., are easily enumerated. Though we date our chronology from him, his advent made no impression at all on the great historians of his age. The Talmud gives a hostile caricature of this advent which has no historical value. The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, from whom we might have expected information of the first rank, is absolutely silent. We are referred to our Gospels, as Paul also says little of the life of Jesus; and we can understand how it is that attempts are always being made to remove him, as an historical person, from the past.'" (The Christ Myth, p. 234)

[MrMacSon]

Honestly, there's no reason to think he didn't exist. As said before, Tacitus and Josephus write about him.

I suggest you read more widely about the various views about those passages.

• eg. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

He claimed to be the Messiah, but to many, he was an itinerant Galilean rabbi.

The writings about him - the NT - narrates that ie. Jesus is essentially a character in a narrative.

His followers were passionate, though, and that really stuck out apparently.

It sticks out coz the cult became big.

Jesus is one of Josephus' national kin, and when someone attracts as many zealous followers as Jesus did, Josephus is bound to write something about him.

But Jospehus didn't write much, if he wrote anything at all (ie. the Josephean passages 'about' Jesus may be later fabrication; see link above).

[DCHindley]

In Christian terminology, Jesus Christ = Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Jesus, Christ. I e., they all are virtually interchangeable.

When assessing Roman sources, you cannot automatically make this kind of equation:
Jesus = a man named Jesus, I do not think any use this name for the Jesus Christ of the Christians (Josephus being an exception)
Christ = An anointed person (appointed to a task), a king, a priest, the Judean High Priest
Christians = Christians, followers of an anointed person (not necessarily Jesus Christ), people who anoint themselves, messianists.
Chrestus = Chrestus (a slave name), chreston (the juice of the plant chickory used by magicians to enhance the effectiveness of their spells), [Jesus] Christ (allusion to slave name as a form of insult)

I thought I had once put together a list of all these references in Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger in the original languages, but now cannot find them, so I may have to do it again ...

DCH