Iasion

Hiya,

* What evidence is there that Tacitus got this information from Roman records?

* Why did Tacitus name the prisoner as "Christ", instead of the more usual "Jesus, son of Joseph", which would be expected in Roman records ?

* Why did Tacitus get Pilate's title wrong, when Roman records would not ?



Really?
Please DO so.

Please demonstrate that
"he got this information from historical Roman records"


Iasion

FathomFFI

Before I do that, would it be worth my time, or would you merely hand-wave all the evidence away?

Where do you stand on this stuff? I've been through this before with irrational people, and it's like ... nobody home.

Iasion

Hiya,

Yes, please do present your evidence and I will genuinely consider it. I hope others will too.


* What evidence is there that Tacitus got this information from Roman records?

* Why did Tacitus name the prisoner as "Christ", instead of the more usual "Jesus, son of Joseph", which would be expected in Roman records ?

* Why did Tacitus get Pilate's title wrong, when Roman records would not ?


Iasion

FathomFFI

Firstly, Jesus, son of Joseph for a Roman reference regarding a Jew? The Jews do that for themselves, but the Romans wouldn't do that much for the Jews.

The Romans and the Jews hated one another. The wars they had were so bloody that it cost over 2 million lives between both factions when you look at the history.

The Romans would not have respected Jesus enough to care who his father was. As far as they would have been concerned, they would be crucifying somebody named Christ, and one Jew was as good as another. They probably didn't even know his name was Jesus, only that the record stated that Pilate crucified someone who was called the Christ.

Secondly, its quite possible that Pilate had other titles other than just the ones listed in the Gospel. He could have been promoted or demoted or had duties added on that came with a title. This was common among the Romans, as even Tacitus had numerous titles such as "Senator, Consul, Governor, Historian, etc" Likewise for Pliny the Younger, who had numerous titles.

It is known according to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that Pilate got himself into trouble and was summoned to appear in Rome because of it. His biasness against the Jews resulted in a few bloodbaths which some high ranking Jews complained to Rome about.

Now let's take a look at this evidence for Tacitus.

What most of those who try to claim Tacitus as being meaningless do is assert that the following statement means something:

"You can't prove that Tacitus got his information about the crucifixion of Christus from Roman records. Therefore, we can say he got it as a result of hearsay from the Christians or somebody else in the area."

Only the desperate make such statements as shown above, because if the statement above was rational, then we could examine every book ever written, find one single paragraph we don't like, and say it can't be true because the author didn't list his source for that one paragraph.

That's just insane.

The real question that needs to be asked and answered is this:

"Did Tacitus source ancient Roman historical records and imperial records for his Book, Annals?'"

You see, since the crucifixion entry is part of the book called Annals, then all that is really needed here are two things:

1. Confirm that Tacitus would not use hearsay.
2. Confirm he sourced his Annals from historical Roman records and imperial records.

If he sourced his Annals from Roman historical and imperial records, and it can be demonstrated that he would not use hearsay, then it's a slam dunk that the crucifixion paragraph came from Roman historical and imperial records. After all, if he didn't use hearsay, are there any other options? None that I am aware of, therefore if it wasn't hearsay, then it was official records.

So let's take a look at what Tacitus says himself. Firstly, we will determine why he wrote Annals:

Right off the bat, in the very first paragraph, Tacitus tells you the reason he is writing this Roman history book called Annals. He says clearly that the history of many of the emperors used terror to falsify their own history, and then after those emperors died, other history was written by those who hated the dead emperors. Tacitus is telling us that there were some historical records that were falsified, and then tells us he's going to tell us the facts, and do it with no bitterness or partiality.

Therefore, we can reasonably expect that his Annals will, at least for the most part, reflect an accounting of history written by a man who has nothing better to do then correct history with a few facts.

So where did he source his information from to get these facts? Listed below are the records Tacitus used to source his annals:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus' Annals - Book 1 According to Caius Plinius, the historian of the German wars, she stood at the extremity of the bridge, and bestowed praise and thanks on the returning legions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus' Annals - Book 1 I can hardly venture on any positive statement about the consular elections, now held for the first time under this emperor, or, indeed, subsequently, so conflicting are the accounts we find not only in historians but in Tiberius' own speeches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus' Annals - Book 3 I do not find in any historian, or in the daily register, that Antonia, Germanicus's mother, rendered any conspicuous honour to the deceased, though besides Agrippina, Drusus, and Claudius, all his other kinsfolk are mentioned by name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus' Annals - Book 4 In relating the death of Drusus I have followed the narrative of most of the best historians.

Above, we have Tacitus quoting historian Caius Plinius regarding the German wars; we have him expressing his knowledge of conflicting reports of the historians; we have him accessing the daily Roman register; and we have him blatantly telling us he followed the narratives of the best Roman historians.

And a couple more kickers ...

Both the quotes above have Tacitus accessing the Roman Imperial records right around the crucifixion paragraph in the book on Nero.

So, we now have no doubts that Tacitus sourced his Annals from official records. That has been conclusive. However, the naysayers will still continue to insist that Tacitus likely used hearsay for the crucifixion paragraph.

To counter that, we get the information right from the horses mouth of Tacitus himself, and he'll tell you what he thinks of "hearsay:"

"To put down hearsay .... in preference to genuine history."

Tacitus clearly shows his disdain for hearsay in the story he's refuting, and opts to not use it in favor of genuine history.

We can clearly see Tacitus did not like hearsay, but preferred genuine history, therefore we have no reason to think he's used "hearsay" for the crucifixion passage, and instead used official records.

Besides, Tacitus tells us the Christian beliefs are nothing but superstitions, and it would be quite unbecoming for an elite historian like him to use Christian hearsay superstition about their idea of the death of Jesus, which included his supposed resurrection. The Christians were still a Jewish sect back then, and I can't see Tacitus ever using Christian superstitions in his prized Annals.

He'd be laughed out of Rome.

That's all. Hope you enjoyed.

aa5874

Now, can you explain why no Christian writer of antiquity used Annals 15.44 to prove Jesus existed?

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius did NOT use Tacitus' Annals 15.44 at all to prove Jesus existed.

And if as you claim Tacitus got the information of Christus from Roman records, then it would be likely that Christians in Rome or Christian apologist in Rome or, wherever Tacitus found this historical record of Jesus, would have broadcast and spread this information in every book and in every place to destroy all and every argument of the skeptics.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 would have been the trump card, the smoking gun, so to speak, but all the Christian writers of antquity refused to use it.

The Christian writers appear to have been forced to use the forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews, but why didn't they use Annals 15.44?

ANNALS 15.44 WAS NOT YET INTERPOLATED or it was known that CHRISTUS WAS NOT JESUS OF THE NT

FathomFFI

Oh I see, you just can't rationalize or debate the evidence, so you need to pull off the old "interpolation trick."

Dude knock yourself out, but I can't take you seriously, and no rational historian on earth will either.

By the way, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius had no need to prove the existence of Jesus to anyone.

aa5874

Appeal to authority! You just can't deal with the facts.

Eusebius tried to show that Jesus existed in Church History 1.11.8 by using the interpolated pssages of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

NO Christian writer of Antiquity used Annals 15.44, the interpolations of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 were used instead to show Jesus existed.

These are some of the possibilities:

• Annals 15.44 was known to be fiction.

• Annals 15.44 was interpolated after Eusebius' Church History

• Christus was already known not to be Jesus of the NT.

FathomFFI

Appeal to authority? By saying that no rational historian would take you seriously? I could understand the claim if I was using an argument from an authority, but all I am saying is that none would take you seriously.

I haven't presented you an argument from any authority.

Eusebius wasn't trying to prove the existence of Jesus in his Church History work to nobody. Nobody in that work is ever noted as questioning the existence of Jesus.

As for the rest of your crazy claims, do you have any evidence that Annals 15.44 was interpolated after Eusebius' Church History, or Christus was already known not to be Jesus of the NT, or Annals 15.44 was known to be fiction? What's that? Oh, you don't have any evidence? Okay, we are done with them. They are all dismissed as nothing but empty statements.

Everything else is an argument from silence. Also, once again, nobody needed to use Tacitus to prove the existence or death of Christ. And besides, why would any Christian want to use the Tacitus text when it says the Christians and their religion was a mischievous superstition, abominations, a class hated?

Sure, I can see it now ...

Jack: "Hey! Ya wanna be a Christian?"
Jill: "What is a Christian?"
Jack: "Here, let me show ya what Tacitus says!"
Jill: "Uhhh, after what Tacitus said ... no. I don't think so."

lol

Get serious, but have fun.

aa5874

Team FFI has just flamed out.

FathomFFI

Hope is a wonderful thing. Don't ever let go of it. When you've lost everything else, at least you'll still have hope.

Meanwhile, I just finished reading The Jewish Wars from Flavius Josephus. History is a powerful tool. And I'll never let go of that.