Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-03-2010, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

This element of the FAQ does not appear to be very evidence driven. I dont understand why the second objection "much more serious"? Why wouldn't the first objection of INTERPOLATION be "much more serious"? Surely in anyone's ledger, the presence of fraud is far more serious than idle suppositions about Tacitus's knowledge.

Besides the FAQ does not appear to mention three issues covered above in this discussion which relate very closely to the issue as to whether or not clear evidence of textual tampering exists, These are ...

(a) the TO-BE-EXPLAINED "Chrestos" reference rather than "christos"

(b) the TO-BE-EXPLAINED 5th century Sulpicius Severus reference in Sacred History 2.29

(c) the TO-BE-EXPLAINED manuscript tradition itself - second Medicean manuscript from the 11th century (quite LATE)

Toto · 10-03-2010, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

,,

I dont understand why the second objection "much more serious"?
Why wouldn't the first objection of INTERPOLATION be "much more serious"?

Because there is no clear proof of interpolation accepted by a consensus of scholars, as there is for the Testamonium.

A debater can concede the interpolation issue but still argue that Tacitus is not evidence of a historical Jesus.

mountainman · 10-03-2010, 01:22 AM

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..

No wonder Eusebius did not use Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

igsfly:

Eusebius had what Arnaldo Momigliano repeatedly called "CONTINUATORS", He also mentions that ...
Eusebius invented ecclesiastical history and Athanasius invented the biography of the Christian Saints (hagiography).

But there were continuators of these two great INVENTIVE luminaries of "Christian Origins".
The archaeological evidence for "Christian Saints" commences to explode in the late 4th century, with BONES and RELICS.
Damasius invented the relic and tourist business in Rome while Cyril -the "Seal of the Fathers" invented the refutations of Julian's LIES.

GakuseiDon · 10-03-2010, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

I don't understand the force of that point. If Tacitus had written that Christians believed that Christ was some ahistorical Logos which was first preached under Pilate in Judea, surely it would suddenly have the greatest of implications?

If the question of ahistoricity is being considered, then the fact that you had Christians telling Tacitus that Christ was crucified under Pilate surely provides some kind of terminus a quo for historicist Christians? In a cumulative case, I can't see this as anything other than an important piece of data, assuming that Tacitus wrote it.

mountainman · 10-03-2010, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

,,

I dont understand why the second objection "much more serious"?
Why wouldn't the first objection of INTERPOLATION be "much more serious"?

Because there is no clear proof of interpolation accepted by a consensus of scholars, as there is for the Testamonium.

There may not be a consensus however you and I both know that the Tacitus issue is also complicated by at least the three issues listed above, one of which --- the analysis of the "CHRESTIANS/CHRISTIANS" --- see the image/photo from www.jesusneverexisted.com --- is fairly recent.

Consequently, even if the Tacitus reference was not forged, it appears to have been altered from "Chrestians" to "Christians".
Consequently, Tacitus may be talking about the same "Followers of Chrestos" mentioned by Suetonius(?).

Here is an article on it.

Quote:

Ultraviolet photo of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy).

The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i".

Do we have a ball park estimate for the number of scholars who have questioned the integrity of the Tacitus "mention" of "CHRESTOS", or whether Tacitus has been forged in part? (Or in entirety?)

Here are 8 from Drews (including Drews) ....
Hochart, Pierson, Edwin Johnson, William Benjamin Smith, Bruno Bauer, H. Schiller, Arnold + Drews

Quote:

II. Arguments against the Genuineness.

(a) General Observations.—

As regards the passage in Tacitus, the simple credulity with which it had hitherto been accepted led to a sceptical attitude, not only abroad, where the Frenchman Hochart,[40] the Dutchman Pierson,[41] the English author of Antiqua Mater, Edwin Johnson, the American William Benjamin Smith in Ecce Deus (1911), and others assailed its genuineness, but also in German science. Besides Bruno Bauer,[42] H. Schiller has drawn attention to certain difficulties in the Tacitean tradition that had been overlooked; and even Arnold acknowledges, though he endeavours to show the unsoundness of the critical view of the passage, that “this reference, which had hitherto been regarded as quite simple and easy to understand, has been very little understood.”[43] According to Hochart the passage contains as many insoluble difficulties as it does words.[44]

mountainman · 10-03-2010, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A debater can concede the interpolation issue but still argue that Tacitus is not evidence of a historical Jesus.

Setting aside the interpolation/forgery issue, if the analysis with the ultraviolet image (above) is correct, then Tacitus cannot represent evidence for any historical "Christians", but only evidence of historical "Chrestians" --- "the Good People?"

spin · 10-03-2010, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

,,

I dont understand why the second objection "much more serious"?
Why wouldn't the first objection of INTERPOLATION be "much more serious"?

Because there is no clear proof of interpolation accepted by a consensus of scholars, as there is for the Testamonium.

A debater can concede the interpolation issue but still argue that Tacitus is not evidence of a historical Jesus.

I would deal with this situation the other way around. The fact that the A.15.44 testimony isn't evidence for a historical Jesus, ie that it doesn't fit the material that Tacitus generally uses, that the source isn't transparent (how he could have obtained it more than 80 years after the reputed time), should give us pause to allow us to look at the passage with less heat and analyze it for its role in its context.

spin

Doug Shaver · 10-03-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If the question of ahistoricity is being considered, then the fact that you had Christians telling Tacitus that Christ was crucified under Pilate surely provides some kind of terminus a quo for historicist Christians?

Yes. Early second century. I don't see that as a problem for ahistoricism.

Toto · 10-03-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

I don't understand the force of that point. If Tacitus had written that Christians believed that Christ was some ahistorical Logos which was first preached under Pilate in Judea, surely it would suddenly have the greatest of implications?

If the question of ahistoricity is being considered, then the fact that you had Christians telling Tacitus that Christ was crucified under Pilate surely provides some kind of terminus a quo for historicist Christians? In a cumulative case, I can't see this as anything other than an important piece of data, assuming that Tacitus wrote it.

That's a separate question. Once you admit that Christianity started with a mythical Jesus, you can look into exactly when the legend became historicized. Tacitus would only be evidence of some Christians in 115 CE reporting that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. Doherty thinks that Mark was written around 90 CE, so this is not remarkable.

Doug Shaver · 10-03-2010, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

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.

I've seen something like that argument before, and I still don't get it.

Tacitus hates Christianity. OK. Some Christians tell him that their founder died ignominiously by crucifixion. OK. He is loathe to just take their word for anything. OK.

BUT . . . what truth could he have hoped to uncover about Jesus that would have made him look any worse?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.