the_cave

Is the Tacitus passage on Christians authentic?

Pro:

1) Claims that it is an interpolation begin to sound ad hoc, and veer into conspiracy-land.

2) Burton Mack (I guess, from what I read here) says that Tacitus exaggerated the persecution to discredit Nero.

3) Another question: if there was no persecution under Nero, then what is the numerology in Revelations about?

Con:

1) Well, there really aren't any good reasons against it, I guess I'm willing to listen to anyone who thinks they have one.

spin

Has the_cave done his homework on Tacitus?

1) Yes,
2) No,
3) What homework?
4) He is functioning on a need to know basis and he doesn't need to know anything about it.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Maybe Caligula.

GAIOS KAISAR (Caligula's real name): 3+1+10+70+200+20+1+10+200+1+100 = 616.

The "number of the beast" isn't necessarily 666: it also appears as 616.

the_cave

Well, that would make it even more of a mystery...what on earth would Caligula be doing there if the apostles were fictional characters?

the_cave

spin-

First of all, I wasn't aware that these boards were for Certified Experts Only.

But what homework I have done indicates it has been questioned, but the general consensus is that it is puzzling, but there are no real grounds to doubt its authenticity. In which case, it is evidence of the 1st century existence of Christianity (Note that I have so far not mentioned Jesus even once. However, Tacitus does claim that the Christ suffered the "extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate. Note that I have not made any claims that this indicates the historicity of the Crucifiction. I am merely asking opinions on the authenticity of the passage about Christians in Tacitus.

Because, if the Tacitus passage is authentic, what grounds are there to deny the 1st century existence of Christianity? Again, note that in that question there is no mention of Jesus.)

Toto

Here is the previous thread on Tacitus, which contains a wealth of arguments and citations:

Tacitus & co

If you have done your homework (i.e., read the previous thread so you don't try to rehash old stuff) you will see many grounds on which the authenticity of this passage can be questioned. You will also note that the question is unsettled, but that even if the passage is not a medieval forgery, Tacitus may just be repeating stories that he has heard, and not have any independent knowledge of the events. The argument by some Christians who want to make this passage out to be sure evidence of either Jesus or Christianity is that Tacitus must have been consulting official records which are now lost, but this is tenuous.

spin

You don't have to be, but your bias in choice of presentation shows that you are merely being polemic.

Look at the inscription
here, then read the so-called Tacitus passage and tell me what you notice.


spin

the_cave

Link doesn't work, but I reached it via the Advanced Search.

I had been searching by full text, not by thread titles.

The last post in that thread is from the middle of last December. The debate bogged down on points unrelated to the OP.

FWIW, the Advanced Search tells me that there are only four threads displayed after searching for "Tacitus" in the title: this one; the one I got the Burton Mack reference from (Dating Paul's Epistles); a short, useless thread on the subject; and Tacitus & Co.

I apologize for not spending enough time with the Advanced Search to find that thread (or else for assuming that a thread title search would not be productive.)

Granted. In which case I wonder, why would there be stories that Nero persecuted the Christians? (It appears that there is independent evidence for this story in Tertullian, regardless of its validity, or its authenticity in Tacitus. Unless one is going to argue that that is also an interpolation...)

the_cave

What? Polemics on IIDB? I'm shocked.

So...exactly who is hosting this forum, again?

If I was too extreme in my opinions, I apologize: I suppose I should have said "I am unaware of any good reasons against it" rather than "Well, there really aren't any good reasons against it". (On the other hand, shouldn't the assumption be that I am merely presenting my opinions, unless I specifically back them up?)
Uh...well:

1) Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius.

I take it I'm missing something.

[Edit: aha, there it is: praefectus, not procurator. Does this mean something?)

spin

Why didn't you look at the inscription or its transcription or its reconstruction??

Of course you're missing something when you don't look.

Edited to respond to the_cave's edit:

Tacitus, who knew what prefects and procuators were, for some reason in the questioned passage, calls Pilate a procurator, though procurators only started being appointed in 41 CE under Claudius, forbefore then military prefects were appointed under the control of Antioch. Procurators were not military.

The person who wrote this passage was writing without knowledge of his subject matter, assuming that procurators were always the name of the chief officer in Judaea.

Next question: who is the first writer to show knowledge of this testimony to the Christ?


spin