FathomFFI

Well, because he did bother to search around in dusty old archives. He says that over and over many times in the Annals itself. He even recites that he researched at least 2 different historical accounts on the fires of Rome just before he wrote the part about Christus.

Therefore, it clearly shows us that he was sourcing historical records for the text just before Christus, and immediately after Christus. There's no reason to believe that his research did not also turn up the information on Christus, since it's right in the middle of the whole story that he sourced from historical records.

It seems odd that all his sources come from historical records, but then we exclude the one part about Christus from being sourced from the same historical records. Hell, we have his hand on the smoking gun for all the text surrounding the part about Christus.

So why should we believe he didn't use sources from historical records on Christus? After all, he used them for every last bit of the rest of the story, so he says.

Ben C Smith

Reminds me of Nietzsche in some ways.

Ben.

thentian

Heh! You got me there! I had to think a bit before realizing it was from one of FathomFF's posts! 327, to be exact.

FathomFFI

Yes, but even though Tacitus could understand that the Christians thought of Christus as a god, doesn't mean he himself felt that way about Christus. In fact, he wouldn't, being a polytheist Roman and all with his own Greek gods all over the place.

Pliny's letters indicate that Pliny himself thought that the Christians worshiped Christ as if he was a god.

Solitary Man

Another favorite of mine. If only my German were better. And my Arabic.

Solitary Man

Yes, a slight conflation. Later pagans, like Celsus, knew that the Christians worshiped Christ as a god, but denied his divinity anyway.

spamandham

Why would I even bother trying to prove something...

...that you've proven yourself?

FathomFFI

I'm not surprised that the correlation totally eludes you.

spamandham

Fathom has already admitted it to be a typo, and it should be obvious to you Ben, that was the case even if he had not admitted it.

Within this very thread, Fathom has demonstrated not only this goof, but a much greater blunder he swept under the rug, which was his lack of knowledge of the range the Gospels are dated over vs the range Tacitus is dated over even by standard majority dating, even going as far as to claim the two ranges did not overlap while simultaneously stating that Tacitus wrote in the first century!

spamandham

For you Ben, I'll stop :deadhorse: Fathom and Solitary Man get the last word if they want it.

It's certainly not the least bit implausible. I've seen lot's of claims that Tacitus was using Roman records, and to some degree, he may have. To another degree, he was writing them.

But the idea that he used them exclusively comes across as much too self serving and unjustified, and in regards to the passage in question, specious as well.