Genealogy Of Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is correct.

I'm sorry he's shown himself up as wrong and so has shown you to be wrong.

[Roses]

I'm sorry he's shown himself up as wrong and so has shown you to be wrong.

In your opinion!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but if we apply the rules of recognition of historical documents that you yourself have imposed we have to ask 1) Is it Tacitus? 2) When are the earliest extant copies for the independent evidence?

No “we” don’t. There are versions of various documents that purport to be the writings of Tacitus. They may be wholly accurate transcriptions, partially accurate transcriptions, or entirely wrong transcriptions. The point the Prof was making though was that – whatever their provenance – their content in some respects at least is corroborated by different and independent historical records. As a general principle, independent corroboration tends to add credence to the reliability of the record under consideration.

This is one of the basic principles of historicity that I set out for you that you either ignored or misrepresented.   

These are just doubts you have imposed on literature about christianity.

Non Application can only mean a) special pleading or b) The genetic fallacy.

Or that they fail the basic principles of historicity…

…which they do. 

Inability to believe or extraordinary claims aren't historical arguments.

No-one has said otherwise. What has been said though is that if you want to make extraordinary claims you cannot rely on the standard of evidence generally accepted for prosaic claims to justify them. As I keep explaining to you and you keep ignoring, the reason for that should be obvious: if you set the evidential bar low for your particular fantastical claims then you have no choice but to set it equally low for any other fantastical claims. It’s an all or nothing deal – and any attempt to slip your claims under the wire while rejecting others is the actual special pleading on show here.   

So under your rules there may be coins and artifacts but Tacitus can't tell anything because by the ninth century, the original words of Tacitus are consumed by history.

He said no such thing. Why have you just lied about that?

Of course, History is more consistently done in the way you have inconsistently treated Tacitus and the inconsistent honour Hillside has given to Pliny.

And more lies to follow. Why?

I suppose what I am asking is that you harmonise you historical method.

Some of us already have – the “harmonising” is the basic principles of the historical method that I set out for you. What you’re being asked to do though is either to apply them to your faith claims (in which case they fail the tests of historicity) or to explain why those claims should be exempt from those principles. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In your opinion!

No, In Professor Davey's.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point the Prof was making though was that – whatever their provenance – their content in some respects at least is corroborated by different and independent historical records.

Yes but if we can't accept pre Earliest extant copies of Tacitus on those grounds why are you accepting the testimony of Earliest copies of other and independent(?) historical records.

Which different and independent historical records are you referring to anyway and what is the earliest extant copy of them? (I just know you won't tell us because it knackers your argument.)

[ProfessorDavey]

No, In Professor Davey's.

No - I think you'll find that the opinion that LR was commenting on was your opinion that I was wrong and by inference LR was also wrong.

However, as ever you've provided no credible argument and evidence to back up your opinion, which as so often from you is hopelessly muddled and deeply incoherent. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but the rest of us are just as entitled to disregard your opinion as jumbled non-sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - I think you'll find that the opinion that LR was commenting on was your opinion that I was wrong and by inference LR was also wrong.

No, your own view is split between not being able to take anything as reliable if the earliest copies are from centuries later.........and appealing to Tacitus, earliest extant copy from the 9th century. This is particularly odd since you discount christian literature dating centuries earlier.

So if Littlerose agrees with you which of these arguments is she agreeing with? Since I agree appeal can be made to Tacitus she must be agreeing with the idea of not being able to appeal to Tacitus.


However, as ever you've provided no credible argument and evidence to back up your opinion, which as so often from you is hopelessly muddled and deeply incoherent. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but the rest of us are just as entitled to disregard your opinion as jumbled non-sense.

I think i've more than proved that not only is your opinion jumbled nonsense but there are two of them!!!! Both, are diametrically opposed to each other.

[ProfessorDavey]

........and appealing to Tacitus

You really are talking non-sense Vlad.

I never 'appealed to Tacitus' - show me where I did. Indeed I actually did the opposite, may argument being that even if we accept that the teeny tiny reference to Jesus in his work was in the original (a bit if and one I made clear was just for the sake of the argument), that it provides little comfort to christians because it is neither contemporary (being from about 110AD - if it is in the original), nor do we have evidence that it is genuinely independent. Indeed, quite the reverse as Tacitus refers to christians and therefore must have been aware of their existence and likely of their views and claims. Thus the evidence that Jesus was sentenced to death by Pilot could easily have come from christians themselves rather than independently. And, of course, what is in Tacitus is hardly 'hold the front page' news - merely suggesting that christians existed, that they worshiped Jesus and (they believed) that Pilot sentenced Jesus to death. None of that is controversial really, is it.

None of that negates the issue of whether the Jesus bit in Tacitus is in the original or added later.

, earliest extant copy from the 9th century. This is particularly odd since you discount christian literature dating centuries earlier.I think i've more than proved that not only is your opinion jumbled nonsense but there are two of them!!!! Both, are diametrically opposed to each other.

I'm sorry - again you are talking non-sense. The situation is much more complicated than your naive and simplistic that earlier must equate to more accurate. That simply isn't necessarily true. Here are a few reasons why not.

1. We need to consider number of times copied rather than just length of time. A text copied 20 times over 200 years is likely to be more susceptible to change than one copies once in 500 years.

2. We need to consider the quality and 'agenda' of the copyists.

3. We need to consider who the author was and whether there are other texts attributed to that author in existence that allow linguistic analysis to be performed.

4. We need to look for other corroborating evidence - so if Tacitus mentions Nero and we have coins with Nero on them, that provides supporting evidence for the veracity of that claim of the existence of Nero. Likewise if Tacitus talks of the Roman occupation in a particular land and the dates when they were there and we have archeological evidence of Roman occupation during those dates again it provides supporting evidence for the veracity of that claim.

There are others too, but I suspect in your Vlad-blinkered way you will simply ignore these points.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but if we can't accept pre Earliest extant copies of Tacitus on those grounds why are you accepting the testimony of Earliest copies of other and independent(?) historical records.

This is incoherent – what are you trying to say here? What would a “pre Earliest Extant copy” of something be?   

Which different and independent historical records are you referring to anyway and what is the earliest extant copy of them? (I just know you won't tell us because it knackers your argument.)

The Prof has already covered this, but references to Roman emperors (whose details are documented independently in other source) provides corroborative support for the Tacitus (or whoever subsequently adapted Tacitus) accounts that we do have.