Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 03-29-2011, 09:59 PM

On my brief excursion onto the Rational Skepticism DB (from which I ran off screaming into the night due to the rabid bullying of Tim O'Neill), I made the following contribution (minus the first paragraph) to a discussion on Tacitus. It met with silence. I posted it later, plus the first paragraph, on the JesusMysteries list, where it garnered a few comments, but no real contention. It does an end run around all discussion about Tacitus' style or content. (It constitutes a brief summation of the major part of a 50-page examination of Tacitus in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.)

Quote:

In the thread “Earliest References to Gospelist Communities” a bit of space is taken up with rejecting and defending (the latter by Jack) the Tacitus passage about “Christus” and the Neronian persecution. The following is a posting I made on the subject in my brief sojourn onto the Rational Skepticism board. Before quoting it below, let me remark on Jack’s claim that the relevant 15:44 passage contains Tacitean language fingerprints. One of the examples is hardly of a conclusive nature, that the appearance of “Chri/estianos” and “Christus” in close proximity has to be a Tacitean juxtaposition on the basis of tying related words together. The other example given by Jack falls outside the specifically Christian passage, so it is entirely irrelevant to any argument about Tacitean “prose style” in application to the debate. In any case, this very subjective type of ‘proof’ of authenticity is, as far as I’m concerned, trumped by other considerations about the question. To wit:

Quote: I said I would make a precis of my case against authenticity for the Tacitus passage on Christians and Christus. Someone several pages ago (I won’t bother to look up a quote) argued that the lack of any Christian appeal to the Annals passage itself was not significant. Perhaps it isn’t, although if Christian writers could make reference to the extant Testimonium in Josephus (once it appeared in Eusebius, not before), there is no reason not to question why they couldn’t have also encountered Tacitus’ alleged reference to Christians in his Annals and appealed to it. But this silence is overshadowed by the lack of any Christian appeal in another respect, one that is very much significant.

It is not so much that no Christian ever refers to Tacitus’ account of the Neronian pogrom against Christians after the Great Fire, but they never refer to the persecution itself per se, to any accusation that Christians had set the fire or were punished because of it, until the beginning of the 5th century. Nor does any other Roman historian following Tacitus, whether drawing on Tacitus or not.

It hardly needs to be asked whether we should expect such a mention. Christians during the first few centuries were fixated on their own sufferings and martyrdom at the hands of the pagan authorities. Traditions (many of them not based on fact) arose about martyrdom for almost every figure in early Christianity, from Peter and Paul to Ignatius and Polycarp and beyond, and virtually every apostolic figure in the early Christian firmament, reflected in a host of writings throughout the first few centuries. Yet not a single piece of martyrology was written devoted to anyone who was said to have been martyred during the Neronian slaughter. Not even Peter and Paul’s death were cast in that context.

What have Christian writers before the 4th century said about Nero? Tertullian (Apology 5) says something very typical of such references:

“Consult your histories: you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome…”

No description of this “assailing” is given, nor any reason, other than “not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation.” No reference to the fire, or the accusation that Christians had set it. What are the “histories” he refers to? The Latin word is commentarios better translated as “records”, and considering that the comment has been preceded by a reference to some kind of communication to Tiberius about Christ’s divinity (which Tiberius accepted!) and later in the Apology a reference to Roman archives containing an account of the world darkness at the crucifixion, Tertullians “histories/records” may be nothing more than real or imagined Christian forgeries and fantasies.

When he refers in Scorpiace (15) to Nero shedding Christian blood, it is entirely in terms of Peter and Paul and the legends attached to their martyrdom. The same in his De Praescriptione (36), indicating that for Tertullian, all his references to Nero persecuting the Christian sect could well include only the apostles, and perhaps some individuals attached to them.

Eusebius in his History of the Church (II, 25) describes Nero as “monster of depravity” in connection with his murder of his own close relatives. But in regard to Christians, Eusebius quotes the above passage from Tertullian’s Apology without enlarging on Tertullian’s unspecific language. He refers to Nero as “the first of the emperors to be the declared enemy of the worship of Almighty God.” None of this can be securely identified with either the Tacitus account (which Eusebius does not quote) or even with an historical Neronian pogrom on the basis of Christians setting the Fire.

Eusebius, too, describes the martyrdom of Peter and Paul without either mentioning a wider persecution after the Fire or linking the former apostles’ deaths with that event. In fact, like Tertullian, he expands on his remark that Nero was “the first among the principal enemies of God” by recounting in some detail the “slaughter” of Peter and Paul, even quoting other Christian writers about their martyrdom. Earlier in the same book he went into great detail quoting Hegesippus on the legendary murder of James the Just. And yet not a word, not a single detail is spent describing the ghastly gore-fest found in the extant Tacitus.

Melito of Sardis, around 170, wrote in Petition to Antoninus: “Of all the emperors, the only ones ever persuaded by malicious advisers to misrepresent our doctrine were Nero and Domition, who were the source of the unreasonable custom of laying false information against the Christians.” Not a murmur about the Fire, not even a clear statement that any Christians were murdered.

What is going on here? Certainly not that every single Christian commentator would choose to be silent or else refer to a Neronian persecution in such vague terms, never giving a single direct indication that they were aware of such an event. I have suggested that some tradition about a minor event or anti-Christian animosity under Nero (perhaps even relating to the Jews, which was later misunderstood as involving Christians) grew into a later conviction of Nero being a persecutor, but with no information about what that persecution consisted of. Or, it might all have grown out of the traditions of martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Or, it might have grown out of nothing specific.

But there are Christian apocryphal documents which reflect traditions (or simply the writers’ inventive views) which rule out any Neronian persecution as a result of the Great Fire. The Acts of Paul enlarges on legends of Paul’s death under Nero by having the emperor round up other Christians in Rome and condemning them, by reason of their association with Paul, to death by fire. No mention of the Great Fire or any accusation that Christians had set it. If the latter were known, it is hardly likely any Christian would have crafted a story which ignored it and substituted a limited execution of Christians because of their connection with Paul. However, the Acts of Peter is conclusive. Here Nero seeks to kill all those Christians in Rome who were converted by Peter. He was prevented from doing so by a dream in which he was being scourged and told:

“ 'Nero, you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ. Keep your hands from them!' And so Nero, being greatly alarmed because of this vision, kept away from [Peter’s] disciples from the time that Peter departed this life. And thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord, rejoicing and exulting in the Lord.”

No writer (here probably about the beginning of the 3rd century) who knew of a general persecution and killing of Christian brethren in the city of Rome by Nero could possibly have constructed this scene, one which effectively rules out the occurrence of any such persecution.

Now consider the Roman historians. Yes, there is a line in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars in the book on Nero (16.2) which says: “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Every bit as vague and non-committal as Christian commentators on a Neronian persecution, with no reference to any reason, let alone that they had burned down half the city. It’s hard to understand why Suetonius would have been so austere if he were referring to something as dramatic as the Tacitus scene. And why didn’t he draw on Tacitus’ Annals, so recently written in his own city, to recount that persecution, a practice very common among ancient historians? If he indeed had Christian responsibility for the Fire in mind here, why was that very thing left out in chapter 38 of the same book when he comes to describe the Fire itself, where he treats the legend of Nero’s responsibility for it as factual, and makes no reference to a persecution of Christians?

Some regard the line in chapter 16 as an interpolation, not least because if it were applied to the Fire, it would be in dramatic contrast to the much milder measures by Nero it is surrounded with, laws concerning state expenditures, the distribution of food, brigandage by chariot drivers and the expulsion of pantomime actors from the city.

The same silence is found in Cassius Dio in the early 3rd century. He, too, in his Roman History (62.16-18) when describing the Great Fire makes no mention of Christians or their persecution and makes Nero responsible for it.

The well-known letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan portrays Pliny as knowing very little about Christians and not knowing what sort of punishment is usually meted out to them. Trajan replies that, while those stubbornly refusing to retract should be punished, a “go easy” policy should be adopted toward rooting out Christians from the populace. Could such sentiments be expressed, if the Neronian precedent portrayed in the Annals was known to either man?

These and other documents (all are discussed at much greater length in my book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man) cast very strong doubt that the scene recounted in Tacitus was known to anyone, Christian or Roman. How, then, was the idea formed in the first place, probably a couple of centuries later, certainly after Eusebius?

Melito and Tertullian both give evidence of a telling phenomenon: the practice of “blaming the Christians” for all the evils that befall. (See the latter’s Apology 40.) If this was the trend, we could well envision that sooner or later someone would impute to them responsibility for the Great Fire under Nero, perhaps prompted by some tradition of a milder antagonism on Nero’s part for Christians (or Jews). There was undoubtedly an account of the Fire by Tacitus in Annals 15, but did some Roman scribe, following the ‘blame the Christians’ practice, perhaps drawing on an existing popular legend recently developed in Roman society, insert the Christian responsibility into it, later reworked by Christians? Or was the entire thing a Christian insertion, giving expression to the ‘in the air’ accusation against the Christians? It’s not outlandish that Christians would embrace such a rumor as an inspiring piece of Christian martyrology under an infamous emperor, a badge of honor such as Tertullian regards martyrdom, and enshrine it in the histories of a famous historian.

In such a scenario (which would explain certain problematic elements such as the very derogatory language against Christians—not impossible in itself, though, if a Christian interpolator wanted to really convince the reader of authenticity), the entire passage in the Annals collapses. If the Christian involvement in the Fire and the resulting punishment of them must be rejected as almost certainly historically unfounded, the passing line about “Christ” crucified under Pilate cannot stand, and Tacitus must be dismissed as providing any witness to an HJ.

A passage very like the Annals account is first found in Sulpicius Severus, a Christian chronicler at the beginning of the 400s. There is an extensive common language between it and the extant Tacitus, spelling a virtually certain literary connection between them. But he does not cite Tacitus, or even indicate he is drawing from a source, so we cannot be sure who borrowed from whom. And Severus does not include/reproduce the “Christus” element in Tacitus. Several possible scenarios surrounding the Severus connection are possible, but I will not go into those here. They are thoroughly discussed in my book. My point here was to offer the conclusion that the historicity of the Neronian persecution on account of the Fire is highly questionable, virtually to be rejected. And that, in its demolition, carries to destruction the reference to Christ in Tacitus’ Annals.

Earl Doherty

Frank · 03-29-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

The only valid reason I can think of to read the work of a Nazi, is if I was an officer in an army who was trying to defeat the fucker. Since I'm not then I won't

Feel free to bullet point whatever relevant thing this old dead Nazi may have said, which you think can add to this discussion (but otherwise, as a general rule, I do not read Nazi garbage). Yes I may be censoring myself, but it's a matter of efficiency. We can only read so much in one lifetime, so why divert precious time to reading anything generated by a Nazi (it's mind pollution, and I try not to litter)?

Hi Fred,

The New Testament was first "WIDELY PUBLISHED" by a fascist military supremacist who's actions and words were just as, if not more lamentable, than those of Hitler. Constantine the Great - Fascist. Does this fact alter your attitude in any manner? The 4th century, often referred to as an age of imperial christian intolerance and persecution, also witnessed many acts of fascism in the name of the imperial christian state.

Best wishes,

Pete

I'm not sure if I buy the analogy (but of course since I'm an atheist, it really doesn't matter). Either something is true or not. Bullshit comes in all shapes and sizes, but it still has a distinct odor (if you stand near a church on Sunday you can catch a whiff)

steve_bnk · 03-29-2011, 11:48 PM

I believe Herodotus is known to have filled in the blanks and taking litereray license in describing places he did not visit. Not that he was dishonest, but he was limited.

I'd expect no different in the time of Tacitus.

Why would anyone consider Tacitus to be journalisticaly accurate?

mountainman · 03-30-2011, 02:22 AM

Hi Earl,

This is really a pretty good summary of the main issues that surround the authenticity of the Tacitus reference. Thanks very much for it.

Best wishes,

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

On my brief excursion onto the Rational Skepticism DB (from which I ran off screaming into the night due to the rabid bullying of Tim O'Neill), I made the following contribution (minus the first paragraph) to a discussion on Tacitus. It met with silence. I posted it later, plus the first paragraph, on the JesusMysteries list, where it garnered a few comments, but no real contention. It does an end run around all discussion about Tacitus' style or content. (It constitutes a brief summation of the major part of a 50-page examination of Tacitus in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.)

Quote:

In the thread “Earliest References to Gospelist Communities” a bit of space is taken up with rejecting and defending (the latter by Jack) the Tacitus passage about “Christus” and the Neronian persecution. The following is a posting I made on the subject in my brief sojourn onto the Rational Skepticism board. Before quoting it below, let me remark on Jack’s claim that the relevant 15:44 passage contains Tacitean language fingerprints. One of the examples is hardly of a conclusive nature, that the appearance of “Chri/estianos” and “Christus” in close proximity has to be a Tacitean juxtaposition on the basis of tying related words together. The other example given by Jack falls outside the specifically Christian passage, so it is entirely irrelevant to any argument about Tacitean “prose style” in application to the debate. In any case, this very subjective type of ‘proof’ of authenticity is, as far as I’m concerned, trumped by other considerations about the question. To wit:

Quote: I said I would make a precis of my case against authenticity for the Tacitus passage on Christians and Christus. Someone several pages ago (I won’t bother to look up a quote) argued that the lack of any Christian appeal to the Annals passage itself was not significant. Perhaps it isn’t, although if Christian writers could make reference to the extant Testimonium in Josephus (once it appeared in Eusebius, not before), there is no reason not to question why they couldn’t have also encountered Tacitus’ alleged reference to Christians in his Annals and appealed to it. But this silence is overshadowed by the lack of any Christian appeal in another respect, one that is very much significant.

It is not so much that no Christian ever refers to Tacitus’ account of the Neronian pogrom against Christians after the Great Fire, but they never refer to the persecution itself per se, to any accusation that Christians had set the fire or were punished because of it, until the beginning of the 5th century. Nor does any other Roman historian following Tacitus, whether drawing on Tacitus or not.

It hardly needs to be asked whether we should expect such a mention. Christians during the first few centuries were fixated on their own sufferings and martyrdom at the hands of the pagan authorities. Traditions (many of them not based on fact) arose about martyrdom for almost every figure in early Christianity, from Peter and Paul to Ignatius and Polycarp and beyond, and virtually every apostolic figure in the early Christian firmament, reflected in a host of writings throughout the first few centuries. Yet not a single piece of martyrology was written devoted to anyone who was said to have been martyred during the Neronian slaughter. Not even Peter and Paul’s death were cast in that context.

What have Christian writers before the 4th century said about Nero? Tertullian (Apology 5) says something very typical of such references:

“Consult your histories: you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome…”

No description of this “assailing” is given, nor any reason, other than “not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation.” No reference to the fire, or the accusation that Christians had set it. What are the “histories” he refers to? The Latin word is commentarios better translated as “records”, and considering that the comment has been preceded by a reference to some kind of communication to Tiberius about Christ’s divinity (which Tiberius accepted!) and later in the Apology a reference to Roman archives containing an account of the world darkness at the crucifixion, Tertullians “histories/records” may be nothing more than real or imagined Christian forgeries and fantasies.

When he refers in Scorpiace (15) to Nero shedding Christian blood, it is entirely in terms of Peter and Paul and the legends attached to their martyrdom. The same in his De Praescriptione (36), indicating that for Tertullian, all his references to Nero persecuting the Christian sect could well include only the apostles, and perhaps some individuals attached to them.

Eusebius in his History of the Church (II, 25) describes Nero as “monster of depravity” in connection with his murder of his own close relatives. But in regard to Christians, Eusebius quotes the above passage from Tertullian’s Apology without enlarging on Tertullian’s unspecific language. He refers to Nero as “the first of the emperors to be the declared enemy of the worship of Almighty God.” None of this can be securely identified with either the Tacitus account (which Eusebius does not quote) or even with an historical Neronian pogrom on the basis of Christians setting the Fire.

Eusebius, too, describes the martyrdom of Peter and Paul without either mentioning a wider persecution after the Fire or linking the former apostles’ deaths with that event. In fact, like Tertullian, he expands on his remark that Nero was “the first among the principal enemies of God” by recounting in some detail the “slaughter” of Peter and Paul, even quoting other Christian writers about their martyrdom. Earlier in the same book he went into great detail quoting Hegesippus on the legendary murder of James the Just. And yet not a word, not a single detail is spent describing the ghastly gore-fest found in the extant Tacitus.

Melito of Sardis, around 170, wrote in Petition to Antoninus: “Of all the emperors, the only ones ever persuaded by malicious advisers to misrepresent our doctrine were Nero and Domition, who were the source of the unreasonable custom of laying false information against the Christians.” Not a murmur about the Fire, not even a clear statement that any Christians were murdered.

What is going on here? Certainly not that every single Christian commentator would choose to be silent or else refer to a Neronian persecution in such vague terms, never giving a single direct indication that they were aware of such an event. I have suggested that some tradition about a minor event or anti-Christian animosity under Nero (perhaps even relating to the Jews, which was later misunderstood as involving Christians) grew into a later conviction of Nero being a persecutor, but with no information about what that persecution consisted of. Or, it might all have grown out of the traditions of martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Or, it might have grown out of nothing specific.

But there are Christian apocryphal documents which reflect traditions (or simply the writers’ inventive views) which rule out any Neronian persecution as a result of the Great Fire. The Acts of Paul enlarges on legends of Paul’s death under Nero by having the emperor round up other Christians in Rome and condemning them, by reason of their association with Paul, to death by fire. No mention of the Great Fire or any accusation that Christians had set it. If the latter were known, it is hardly likely any Christian would have crafted a story which ignored it and substituted a limited execution of Christians because of their connection with Paul. However, the Acts of Peter is conclusive. Here Nero seeks to kill all those Christians in Rome who were converted by Peter. He was prevented from doing so by a dream in which he was being scourged and told:

“ 'Nero, you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ. Keep your hands from them!' And so Nero, being greatly alarmed because of this vision, kept away from [Peter’s] disciples from the time that Peter departed this life. And thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord, rejoicing and exulting in the Lord.”

No writer (here probably about the beginning of the 3rd century) who knew of a general persecution and killing of Christian brethren in the city of Rome by Nero could possibly have constructed this scene, one which effectively rules out the occurrence of any such persecution.

Now consider the Roman historians. Yes, there is a line in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars in the book on Nero (16.2) which says: “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Every bit as vague and non-committal as Christian commentators on a Neronian persecution, with no reference to any reason, let alone that they had burned down half the city. It’s hard to understand why Suetonius would have been so austere if he were referring to something as dramatic as the Tacitus scene. And why didn’t he draw on Tacitus’ Annals, so recently written in his own city, to recount that persecution, a practice very common among ancient historians? If he indeed had Christian responsibility for the Fire in mind here, why was that very thing left out in chapter 38 of the same book when he comes to describe the Fire itself, where he treats the legend of Nero’s responsibility for it as factual, and makes no reference to a persecution of Christians?

Some regard the line in chapter 16 as an interpolation, not least because if it were applied to the Fire, it would be in dramatic contrast to the much milder measures by Nero it is surrounded with, laws concerning state expenditures, the distribution of food, brigandage by chariot drivers and the expulsion of pantomime actors from the city.

The same silence is found in Cassius Dio in the early 3rd century. He, too, in his Roman History (62.16-18) when describing the Great Fire makes no mention of Christians or their persecution and makes Nero responsible for it.

The well-known letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan portrays Pliny as knowing very little about Christians and not knowing what sort of punishment is usually meted out to them. Trajan replies that, while those stubbornly refusing to retract should be punished, a “go easy” policy should be adopted toward rooting out Christians from the populace. Could such sentiments be expressed, if the Neronian precedent portrayed in the Annals was known to either man?

These and other documents (all are discussed at much greater length in my book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man) cast very strong doubt that the scene recounted in Tacitus was known to anyone, Christian or Roman. How, then, was the idea formed in the first place, probably a couple of centuries later, certainly after Eusebius?

Melito and Tertullian both give evidence of a telling phenomenon: the practice of “blaming the Christians” for all the evils that befall. (See the latter’s Apology 40.) If this was the trend, we could well envision that sooner or later someone would impute to them responsibility for the Great Fire under Nero, perhaps prompted by some tradition of a milder antagonism on Nero’s part for Christians (or Jews). There was undoubtedly an account of the Fire by Tacitus in Annals 15, but did some Roman scribe, following the ‘blame the Christians’ practice, perhaps drawing on an existing popular legend recently developed in Roman society, insert the Christian responsibility into it, later reworked by Christians? Or was the entire thing a Christian insertion, giving expression to the ‘in the air’ accusation against the Christians? It’s not outlandish that Christians would embrace such a rumor as an inspiring piece of Christian martyrology under an infamous emperor, a badge of honor such as Tertullian regards martyrdom, and enshrine it in the histories of a famous historian.

In such a scenario (which would explain certain problematic elements such as the very derogatory language against Christians—not impossible in itself, though, if a Christian interpolator wanted to really convince the reader of authenticity), the entire passage in the Annals collapses. If the Christian involvement in the Fire and the resulting punishment of them must be rejected as almost certainly historically unfounded, the passing line about “Christ” crucified under Pilate cannot stand, and Tacitus must be dismissed as providing any witness to an HJ.

A passage very like the Annals account is first found in Sulpicius Severus, a Christian chronicler at the beginning of the 400s. There is an extensive common language between it and the extant Tacitus, spelling a virtually certain literary connection between them. But he does not cite Tacitus, or even indicate he is drawing from a source, so we cannot be sure who borrowed from whom. And Severus does not include/reproduce the “Christus” element in Tacitus. Several possible scenarios surrounding the Severus connection are possible, but I will not go into those here. They are thoroughly discussed in my book. My point here was to offer the conclusion that the historicity of the Neronian persecution on account of the Fire is highly questionable, virtually to be rejected. And that, in its demolition, carries to destruction the reference to Christ in Tacitus’ Annals.

Earl Doherty

mountainman · 03-30-2011, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Quote:

Constantine the Great - Fascist.

I'm not sure if I buy the analogy (but of course since I'm an atheist, it really doesn't matter).

Hi Frank,

It is not an analogy but what the evidence from ancient history itself suggests, and therefore --- in that field --- as far as I am concerned, the question of being a theist or an athiest is immaterial. Anyone who feels they need to look sidways at Hitler, should take a good long hard look at Constantine.

Best wishes,

Pete

Roger Pearse · 03-30-2011, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't see any lists from you of recent historians who have made a scholarly analysis of the passage.

You've given no evidence that you ... <bluster>

And there we have it. A steely determination to do wrong, a steady refusal to do any research, combined with a brass face in so doing and an impudent determination to demand others prove things to him -- so long as those things are inconvenient, of course.

Moral: We mustn't spend too much of your time on negatives, friends, whatever they are against. Any of us can lose our humanity and degenerate into a dog barking mindlessly at what we don't like, if we spend our days telling ourselves what a fool everyone else is. It rots the mind.

Let's stick this poor fool on ignore and go back to the question: what scholarly literature can we find which discusses the question of the authenticity of the passage?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yellum Notnef · 03-30-2011, 06:02 AM

How delightful! I feel like I'm back in another time reading all this fancy British bluster.

Maria L · 03-30-2011, 06:30 AM

I'm neutral on this issue. I don't know if Jesus walked this earth or not. Apparently, 'Jesus' (or Yeshua) was the 4th most common name for males in that time and place. So there were plenty of Jesus's, many of whom must have been crucified, some during the 10 year prefecture of Pontius Pilate.
According to wikipedia one of the biggest reasons why early Christians didn't use Tacitus was the language he used to describe them:-

Quote:

"most mischievous superstition", or a "source of the evil" or as something "hideous and shameful" etc.

But even if this Tacitus passage is genuine, so what? He was born in 56CE... roughly 25 years after the alleged crucifixion of the alleged Jesus Christ. Tacitus was 60 years old when he wrote Annals. 85 years is a long time for us; for people back then - whose life expectancy was so much less than ours - it was an eternity. 85 years ago it was 1926; the year of the General Strike in the UK, the birth of the queen and the death of Rudolph Valentino. Hitler was a little known minor crackpot in Bavaria.
There is no dispute that Christians were in Rome at the time Annals was written. No doubt they believed Jesus was the son of god and performed all kinds of miracles all those years before. People believe all kinds of daft things these days too. Look at the Heaven's Gate people (btw their website is still there 14 years later). Tacitus probably heard about this 'Christ' from these Christians in Rome. Does anyone believe that he took the trouble of travelling all the way to Judea to check out the life and death of this, for him, minor character?
Either way, I don't see why this disputed passage should trouble Mythers too much. Same applies to the Josephus and Seutonius etc. If Christians can show extra-biblical corroboration from writers who lived in the same time and place as Jesus supposedly did then that would be a help.

aa5874 · 03-30-2011, 06:54 AM

As soon as HJers claimed HJ was an OBSCURE preacher then then the authenticity of Tacitus Annals with Christus is NOT relevant to the HJ argument.

Based on HJers when HJ was alive he was some what like JESUS son of Ananus, an apocalyptic preacher, who was mentioned in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.3.

Jesus the Son of Ananus, a supposed apocalyptic preacher, was NOT regarded as a Messiah or Christus, but just a MADMAN and BEATEN to a pulp.

If Jesus of the NT was a Messiah then he would be a RULER of the Jews or some significant WELL-KNOWN Jew of major political, historical and theological implications.

HJ was just an OBSCURE preacher man and as Chaucer ABSURDLY indicated "Christus was a NICKNAME of HJ".

But, the Emperor Julian of the 4th century will EXPOSE all the FORGERIES about Jesus.

Examine "Against the Galileans"

Quote:

.... But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters...

Up to the time of Julian the Emperor there was NO well-known writer who wrote about Jesus and Paul.

If HJ was an OBSCURE preacher, then the forgery in Tacitus "Annals" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with HJ.

Juststeve · 03-30-2011, 06:56 AM

Maria:

The least Tacitus shows, if authentic, is that there were, at the time he wrote The Annals people who believed in an historic Jesus who was crucifid under Pilate. That is just one of several data points that needs to be accounted for by a myther. The myther must offer a better explanation for how people came to believe that than the HJ person has. As Chaucer has said the case is cumulative. Those of us who lean to the side of a HJ know there is no extant first hand testimony about Jesus from the time he was alive. We also know there is very little first hand eyewitness testimony about the vast majority of the people who lived in that time and place.

Steve

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

03-29-2011, 11:48 PM	#63
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	I believe Herodotus is known to have filled in the blanks and taking litereray license in describing places he did not visit. Not that he was dishonest, but he was limited. I'd expect no different in the time of Tacitus. Why would anyone consider Tacitus to be journalisticaly accurate?

03-30-2011, 06:02 AM	#67
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	How delightful! I feel like I'm back in another time reading all this fancy British bluster.

03-30-2011, 06:56 AM	#70
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Maria: The least Tacitus shows, if authentic, is that there were, at the time he wrote The Annals people who believed in an historic Jesus who was crucifid under Pilate. That is just one of several data points that needs to be accounted for by a myther. The myther must offer a better explanation for how people came to believe that than the HJ person has. As Chaucer has said the case is cumulative. Those of us who lean to the side of a HJ know there is no extant first hand testimony about Jesus from the time he was alive. We also know there is very little first hand eyewitness testimony about the vast majority of the people who lived in that time and place. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.