Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tyro · 10-02-2010, 06:08 PM

The theory that the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus actually wrote the infamous passage about the Chrestians being scapegoated after the Great Fire in Rome 64 A.D., but that the single sentence mentioning one Christus as the namesake of this movement, was an marginal gloss interpolated in the manuscripts, is elaborated by Roger Viklund at his blog - here. If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all.

What do you all think about this theory?

Toto · 10-02-2010, 06:52 PM

It makes sense. But Tacitus is not a very strong witness for a historical Jesus in any case. Even if he wrote that section, he could easily have been repeating what Christians told him, rather than facts from his own knowledge or investigation.

The volume of Tacitus' history that covers the years around 30 CE has not been preserved. I find this very suspicious.

aa5874 · 10-02-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

The theory that the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus actually wrote the infamous passage about the Chrestians being scapegoated after the Great Fire in Rome 64 A.D., but that the single sentence mentioning one Christus as the namesake of this movement, was an marginal gloss interpolated in the manuscripts, is elaborated by Roger Viklund at his blog - here. If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all.

What do you all think about this theory?

No Church writer used the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus to PROVE Jesus did exist even up to the 5th century and beyond or over 300 years and more.

Tacitus' Annals was written since the start of the 2nd century.

Tacitus' "Annals 15.44 where "Christus" is mentioned appears to be a forgery. And further, being called a Christian in the 1st century did not mean that one believed in Jesus.

The only EXTERNAL source with forgeries with the name Jesus is "Antiquities of the Jews" and was FIRST used in the 4th century or about 200 or more years after Josephus died.

Chaucer · 10-02-2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

The theory that the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus actually wrote the infamous passage about the Chrestians being scapegoated after the Great Fire in Rome 64 A.D., but that the single sentence mentioning one Christus as the namesake of this movement, was an marginal gloss interpolated in the manuscripts, is elaborated by Roger Viklund at his blog - here. If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all.

What do you all think about this theory?

"In the passage in question Tacitus tells us that he consulted several sources regarding the origin of the Great Fire. So we know he did refer to earlier sources on this matter. He also despised the use of mere hearsay and was scrupulous about checking his facts. And he hated Christians and regarded Christianity as "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind". So the idea that this aristocrat who thought Christianity and Christians were so vile would simply take their word for who and what their founder was is hard to accept.

It's more likely that he got his information from an earlier source." (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/po...acitus#p472028)

Chaucer

spamandham · 10-02-2010, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

The theory that the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus actually wrote the infamous passage about the Chrestians being scapegoated after the Great Fire in Rome 64 A.D., but that the single sentence mentioning one Christus as the namesake of this movement, was an marginal gloss interpolated in the manuscripts, is elaborated by Roger Viklund at his blog - here. If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all.

What do you all think about this theory?

Chrestian (root word 'good') != Christian (root word 'anointed')

aa5874 · 10-02-2010, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

The theory that the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus actually wrote the infamous passage about the Chrestians being scapegoated after the Great Fire in Rome 64 A.D., but that the single sentence mentioning one Christus as the namesake of this movement, was an marginal gloss interpolated in the manuscripts, is elaborated by Roger Viklund at his blog - here. If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all.

What do you all think about this theory?

"In the passage in question Tacitus tells us that he consulted several sources regarding the origin of the Great Fire. So we know he did refer to earlier sources on this matter. He also despised the use of mere hearsay and was scrupulous about checking his facts. And he hated Christians and regarded Christianity as "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind". So the idea that this aristocrat who thought Christianity and Christians were so vile would simply take their word for who and what their founder was is hard to accept.

It's more likely that he got his information from an earlier source." (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/po...acitus#p472028)

Chaucer

No Church writer USED Tacitus' Annals 15.44 up to the 5th century and beyond to SHOW or PROVE that a character called Jesus the Messiah did live.

It is MOST remarkable that the Church historian Eusebius used the forged "TF" instead of Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

This passage in Sacred History 2.29 written around the 5th century SHOW without reasonable doubt that Annals 15.44 was fraudulently INTERPOLATED.

Sacred History 2.29

Quote:

...it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium.

But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city.

And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent.

Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.

The fraudulent interpolation about "Christus" in today's Annals 15.44 cannot be found up to the 5th century. It is COMPLETELY missing..

No wonder Eusebius did not use Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

Tyro · 10-02-2010, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The fraudulent interpolation about "Christus" in today's Annals 15.44 cannot be found up to the 5th century. It is COMPLETELY missing

Actually, the Christus part is not even a part of the Sulpicius Severus account, which I believe you are refering to. The earliest attestation for the Christus passage is the second Medicean manuscript from the 11th century.

aa5874 · 10-02-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The fraudulent interpolation about "Christus" in today's Annals 15.44 cannot be found up to the 5th century. It is COMPLETELY missing

Actually, the Christus part is not even a part of the Sulpicius Severus account, which I believe you are refering to. The earliest attestation for the Christus passage is the second Medicean manuscript from the 11th century.

Well, that is EXACTLY the point.

The fraudulent interpolation of Tacitus' Annals 15.44 was carried out sometime AFTER "Sacred History" 2.29 was written or sometime AFTER the start of the 5th century.

Perhaps, the author of the second Medicean manuscript knew how "Christus" magically appeared in Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

Eusebius, the "historian" of the Church of God of Rome would have liked such "history" interpolated or not. And, Eusebius did ADMIT from the start that he had virtually nothing but a few fragments.

Toto · 10-03-2010, 12:17 AM

Internet Infidels FAQ

Quote:

Tacitus and Jesus
In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

mountainman · 10-03-2010, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all.

What do you all think about this theory?

The theory is quite reasonable. See also The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

10-02-2010, 06:08 PM	#1
Tyro Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: US Posts: 90	Was Tacitus' mention of Christus an interpolation? The theory that the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus actually wrote the infamous passage about the Chrestians being scapegoated after the Great Fire in Rome 64 A.D., but that the single sentence mentioning one Christus as the namesake of this movement, was an marginal gloss interpolated in the manuscripts, is elaborated by Roger Viklund at his blog - here. If this theory is correct, the only really reliable "testimony" about Jesus (Josephus I do not count) is not a testimony at all. What do you all think about this theory?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2010, 06:52 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It makes sense. But Tacitus is not a very strong witness for a historical Jesus in any case. Even if he wrote that section, he could easily have been repeating what Christians told him, rather than facts from his own knowledge or investigation. The volume of Tacitus' history that covers the years around 30 CE has not been preserved. I find this very suspicious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.