spin

Deep.

Irrelevant to the analysis of either the particular passage or its relationship to its context. We have the passage about the christians, so we can comment on it.

People have simply failed to be able to say where the fire narrative ends. The reason for this is obvious if one considers the discourse issues. The end of the narrative has been disguised.

You've already indicated that you don't feel qualified to deal with the issues and you've staunchly demonstrated your feeling with such meaningful comments as "your analysis stinks".

Frank

Are you trained in ancient Latin? Do you at least hold a graduate degree in history? Are you a forensic expert who specializes in ancient documents? Have you actually read every single work generated by Tacitus? Are you a Roman historian?

spin

You've already disqualified yourself from commenting on such things anyway, so what does it matter? All you seem to want to do is bleed and not deal with the subject of this thread.

This is the substantive part of my previous post:

Do you have anything to say about it?

Frank

In other words NO ... you have no qualifications

mountainman

Hi Frank,

Have you ever heard of common sense? You dont need to be a rocket scientist to see the signature of fraud, or to receive a dud cheque. People are trained to believe what they are taught up to a certain point, and then start questioning things independently.

Critical questioning is an excellent trait, and you've demonstrated it. But when one really questions things one must at least try to give up any preconceived notions of where the answers will lead, and follow through laboriously step by step with a review of the sources themselves.

You dont need to be trained in Lating to read an ENglish translation of the Latin by a very experienced and highly trained academic Latin scholar. You do not need to be trained in ancient history to read a book about any specific epoch in ancient history authored by the foremost ancient historians on the planet - for example, Arnaldo Momigliano.

One does not need to be a forensic expert who specializes in ancient documents, to read reports of forensic experts who do specializes in ancient documents, and ultra-violet light analysis techniques, to understand the principles of such forensic analysis, or their results.

One does not have to read every single work generated by Tacitus to read what Tacitus is supposed to have written about the CHRESTIANS or the JEWS, since others who HAVE read every single work generated by Tacitus, have reported their finds on the matter.

It all boils down to common sense.

At the end of the day Tacitus is a useless witness not only for the historicity of Jesus,
but for the historicity of the NT, the "Nation of Chrestians" and the "Chrestian Church".

Tacitus is evidence of nothing but pious fraud.

We need to drop the My-God-Tacitus-May-Be-Genuine-Evidence bone, and move on.


There's some good advice.
Clarity is a valuable commodity.



Best wishes,


Pete

spin

Stay confused.

Frank

I think I have considered the arguments (and I do have less confidence in my previous preconception that the Tacitus report gives us anything of historical value). Nevertheless, the idea that the passage is spurious (beyond the alteration of one letter) is "at best" a minority view. I think the available evidence (if you want to call it that) better supports the idea that Tacitus didn't glean anything about Jesus from an official record, or anything of the sort. Moreover, I don't think I'm disparaging Tacitus in any way by thinking this. I still greatly value his contribution to history (and it's only because what was a small marginalized cult, has grown into the largest religion on earth, that there's any controversy regarding this issue at all). I could be wrong, but I see no reason to overturn what at least appears to be the majority opinion of historians who have dealt with this issue.

Fair enough, but I think I was the one who presented the most recent scholarship on this issue (including the 2008 ultraviolet analysis), and those historians do not believe the report was spurious (notwithstanding the alteration of a single letter). That single letter is a very important letter in this context (and its alteration raises various other issues), but the majority opinion appears to remain in tact. The only issue seriously disputed is Tacitus' source. If he was informed by second hand reports of Christian legends, then it has no real intrinsic value (in the context of the historicity of Jesus).

I guess you want to prove that Christianity was invented in the second or third century ... which is a pretty tenuous position (although that subject is an entirely different monster).

I completely disagree with the implication that common sense will lead any unbiased person to believe this report was completely spurious. It hasn't lead most scholars to this conclusion, so you certainly carry a high burden of proof with this assertion. Moreover, I've been called many things in life, but biased in favor of Christianity hasn't been one of them (not saying you said that ... you didn't, but just to clear the air)

Toto

There's still no evidence that this is in fact the majority view. So far we have found 2 Tacitus specialists who think the passage is authentic, and about 6 who seem to disagree.

Christian apologists have made it a tactic to claim a majority view on an issue to avoid examining it. I don't see the point of playing along, especially if there is no such majority.

mountainman

But you do not yet have a majority. See Toto's post above. The score appears to be 2 to 6 against your position. You could increase the score by finding some further historians or academics etc who have examined the evidence, and the opinions of their peers, and who support the position that the Tacitus passage is "authentic".

aa5874

This is what I find COMPLETELY DISTURBING.

ATHEISM is a MINORITY POSITION yet a so-called ATHEIST will play the "NUMBERS GAME.

It is of NO REAL VALUE to bring up any numbers when the 2008 finding with the use of ULTRAVIOLET light has shown that an "E" is VISIBLE.

ALL opinions PRIOR to the use of ULTRAVIOLET light has been RENDERED INVALID.

The discovery of the "E" through ULTRAVIOLET light makes it FAR MORE likely now that the ORIGINAL or EARLIER document from which the Medicean manuscript was copied did ALSO contain an "E".

But, there is MORE BAD NEWS. There is REAL BAD NEWS.

There is NO "CHRISTUS" in the MEDICEAN Manuscript.

The word contains NO vowel.

Tacitus ANNALS has been DELIBERATELY MIS-TRANSLATED to read "CHRISTUS" when there is NO such word in ANNALS.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UgO8fAJVVM


And please DESIST from the NUMBERS GAME. That is the very last argument that an ATHEIST should attempt to use.

If the MAJORITY is right then why in the world are you an atheist?

BUT, What a DISASTER NOW.

The words "Christians" and "Christus" ARE NOT in the earliest known manuscript of Annals.

We have a MASSIVE FRAUD on our hands.

We NOW have ACTUAL evidence that ANNALS was KNOWN to be MANIPULATED for HUNDREDS of years.

The MEDICEAN manuscript is in the LAURENTIAN LIBRARY.