Frank

Now I know why politicians never admit that they've modified their views in light of reevaluation

After reading the opinions of various historians (that participation in this thread has pushed me to do) I've changed my view somewhat (and guess what, I don't give a shit what people think, I'm not afraid to admit that my mind isn't stuck in time, in fact I see very little to admire about such an approach).

I did believe that Tacitus gleaned his information from reliable sources (like, for instance, an official record). Upon learning that it's unlikely such an official record existed (and even if it did, it's unlikely Tacitus was informed by it, since the comment in question was incidental to the overriding purpose of the writing, and given the mistaken use of terminology), I now think this passage in his Annals is of little evidentiary value to the question of the historicity of Jesus (and frankly nothing else seems relevant enough to waste much over).

In other words, if Tacitus didn't glean this information from an official source, then it really doesn't fucking matter whether it was completely forged, partially forged, whether it was a Frenchmen, or an Italian, at what point in the chain of custody was it altered, etc. It doesn't prove historicity, the end!

I may not agree with the reasoning offered by you (and various others in this thread), but since I concur with the conclusion, I'll leave you guys to bicker over the finer points of this issue (I have little interest in endlessly trading speculations).

aa5874

This is quite remarkable. You have done what many have refused to do. But, at the end of the day it is ONLY the evidence that matters.

Frank

I'm a lawyer, so evidence is obviously important to me. However, it's also important to distinguish speculation from what can actually be supported by the evidence. We know the manuscript we have was altered, we know it's likely (if Tacitus made this statement at all) that he used a term to describe Jesus that had a completely different meaning than Christ.

We can speculate as to who may have made this alteration, when it was made, whether the entire passage is spurious, and so on. But beyond an ability to say the manuscript we have was altered, whatever we say is conjecture.

History does involve quite a bit of speculation, but it's very careful, systematic, and skilled speculation. So I have to view speculation offered by an expert on the topic as superior to speculation offered by a non-expert. It's not to say we can't comment or speculate about whatever we like, but as a default rule, expert opinion holds more value (and there's very good reasons for this).

The critical question is whether or not Tacitus sourced his information from an official (or at least highly reliable) source. Historians (at least those I've read recently, who appear to be non-biased) say he probably didn't, and while that may be speculation, it has a higher indicia of reliability (compared to biased opinion from someone with a vested interest either way).

aa5874

Well, if you are a lawyer you should have known from the very start that Tacitus Annals was QUESTIONABLE.

You should KNOW that QUESTIONABLE evidence is a NIGHTMARE for any lawyer on any side.

I have been a JUROR.


As a LAWYER, you KNOW that you are SPECULATING that TACITUS "described Jesus".

I have been a JUROR. I can recognise when LAWYERS are SPECULATING.

JURORS are INTELLIGENT. LAWYERS don't KNOW?

As a LAWYER, you should KNOW that it is ONLY necessary to show DOUBT.

I was ONCE A JUROR.

AS a LAWYER, you should KNOW that EXPERTS can have COMPLETELY OPPOSITE OPINIONS using the same IDENTICAL DATA.

I was A JUROR.

A JUROR does NOT have to ACCEPT the OPINION OF ANY EXPERT.

You are a LAWYER. You should KNOW.

As a LAWYER, you should KNOW that non-experts can have the same OPINION as any EXPERT.

I was a JUROR.

And at the ENd of the day it is the OPINOIN of the JUROR, the NON-EXPERT, that matters.

ONLY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CAN OVERTURN THE OPINION of the JUROR.

AS A LAWYER, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT.

Tacitus Annals is actual EVIDENCE of a MASSIVE FRAUD and a COVER up. It should have made KNOWN hundreds of years ago by LATIN EXPERTS who examined the MEDICEAN Manuscript that the word with letters CH??STIANOS was MANIPULATED and could NOT be translated as CHRISTIANS.

The letters do NOT represent any actual LATIN word or a whole LATIN word.

JURORS are INTELLIGENT. JURORS ONLY NEED CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. As a Lawyer, you should KNOW.

hjalti

aa5874, just to be clear, are you saying that you were a juror?

hjalti

They don't?

(I really should stop clicking "view post")

Chaucer

Totally irrelevant. I see I have to talk to you in your language --

PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS DEAL WITH WHAT SEEMS MORE LIKELY, NOT WITH LEGAL PROOF.

Got that?

Chaucer

hjalti

Chaucer, you don't capitalize all the words, that's just wrong. You should only capitalize 50-75% of them.

aa5874

Are you a PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN?

You KNOW FRANK don't like to deal with Non-experts.

I deal with the ULTRA VIOLET light evidence.

And we can SEE the BIG FAT "E".

Tell me what is LIKELY?

By the way, I was probably the FIRST to DICOVER your language.

avi

Thanks for sharing this with us, Frank.

In the end, regardless of the color ink, or the size of the script, what really matters, in my opinion, is this:
the forum provides a fertile soil to grow, to improve, to learn, and to understand.

Some of us enter the forum with a legal background, others with knowledge of linguistics, foreign languages, or philosophy.

Those of us less well prepared to argue with such scholars, sometimes fail to persuade others of our own convictions. On the other hand, if we continue to persevere, we may, even if by accident, stumble upon a useful clarification. I am grateful to all of the participants of this thread, I learned something useful....

Thanks, Frank, and all the rest.....

avi