FathomFFI

Reasonable so far.

I could have quoted well over 40 references of Tacitus using historical Roman records and Imperial records, but didn't think I would need to go to such an extreme to a reasonable person to make a point.

He does not give references to every paragraph, or to everything in his book. He merely makes blanket statements of him using historical records for so much of his Annals, and states numerous times about his position against hearsay, that the best possible conclusion- and the most reasonable one- is that he also used said records regarding the crucifixion.

The reason would be because the words "extreme penalty" tell you that there was a trial. If Christus was brought before Pilate's court and tried, then he received the extreme penalty as per the result of that trial. The Roman histories are ripe with the trials of many people, and also ripe with their punishments. Therefore, we do indeed have historical evidence that records were kept of trials and punishments.

One does not receive such a penalty without a trial. It doesn't matter how fair the trial was, for all that matters is that a trial would have to occur before any penalty could be imposed.

It really is quite amazing how one or two simple words can reveal a ton of information when textually analyzed. Also, with Jesus being a Jew, and also being hailed as the Christ by the Jews, and when you consider the friction between the Jews and the Romans during that time according to history, then you can understand how Tacitus, who loathed the Jewish sect known as the Christians, would gleefully report how the Romans tried and crucified the Jewish Messiah.

It would be an honor for Tacitus to report such a victory over the Jews, since the Romans utterly hated the Jews.

We cannot assume, nor rule out, anything. The best we can do is make a rational decision based upon all the evidence. Being an agnostic myself- but also someone who thoroughly enjoys the philosophy of Jesus as opposed to it being a religion- it would really make no difference to me if he actually existed or not. The philosophy would still be there, whether or not it came from him.

But from the evidence, we can see in numerous places where, if hearsay is being used, Tacitus tells you it is hearsay. But he only does that- not to report it as historical fact- but to demonstrate that it may not be true, or to correct the hearsay with genuine history.

According to many of his statements, we can see that Tacitus used many different historical resources to write his Annals. Undoubtedly he would compare these historical resources for consistencies, as well as research orally to get to the truth. He appeared to be very meticulous, so much in fact that Pliny the Younger said this about Tacitus' efforts:

Pliny, a governor, and one of the most respected Romans, had so much respect for the works of Tacitus that he was just dying to be in them, and Tacitus obliged him, as Pliny is written of in the Annals.

Peace.

aa5874

Your arguments have a serious flaw.

Everything that Trypho repeated about Jesus came from Justin Martyr.

Trypho, it would appear, had no independent knowledge that there lived a person called Jesus who was thought to be the Christ at any time.

In order for you to claim that Trypho did indeed know of Jesus, you must show that in "Dialogue with Trypho" that Trypho mentioned events with respect to Jesus WITHOUT prompting from Justin Martyr.

Trypho merely repeated that Jesus was crucified because Justin Martyr had just told him Jesus was crucified.

That is all, Justin Martyr gave information about Jesus and Trypho repeated them. Without Justin, Trypho would NOT have repeated any information about Jesus.

And, you are actually re-acting to the authors of the NT, just as Trypho re-acted to Justin.

You repeat that Jesus was crucified as if you know, but you are only repeating information that you read in the NT. Without the NT, you would have had nothing to repeat or say about the crucifixion of Jesus.

And, also in the same vain, like Trypho, you have no direct knowledge that Jesus was just human and was actually living at any time, but the words of Trypho, in Dialogue LXVII, reflect your opinion of the authors of the NT even today, 1800 years after Trypho.

Dialogue with Trypho LXVII These words of Trypho can be said by any person whether they believe Jesus was human or never existed at all.

I consider Jesus as fiction, yet, agree whole-heartedly with Trypho that Justin Martyr and the authors of the NT ought to be ashamed when they told monstrous phenomena and talked foolishly like the Greeks. These authors should have written that Jesus was born man of men.

Now, tell me where did Trypho, in "Dialogue with Trypho" make any statement that he KNEW Jesus lived during the days of Pilate, had thousands of followers, was crucified for blasphemy and was believed to have ascended through the clouds on his way to heaven.

Trypho, is just like you. You all just REPEAT the words of the Christians about Jesus, even though much of it is a monstrous phenomena like the foolishness of the Greeks.

jules?

someone on this site posted this reference from Justyn's 1st apology

Toto

It's JUSTIN, not justYn.

The quote is from The First Apology

It was posted in this thread.

As explained there, Justin was probably confused about the statue to the god Simon. But he was probably correct about a variety of people using the term Christian to describe themselves. But it's hard to figure out what they did believe, or if they didn't follow some version of Jesus in their own fashion.

FathomFFI

It is remarkably simple to understand what is happening in that apology. Let me post some of it, then extract the relevant text:

1. we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch

2. He persuaded those who adhered to him

3. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians.

The text is telling us that, in the opinion of the writer, the Christians were being deceived by the doctrines of other men. This same kind of thing is also recorded in the NT.

This same thing happens even today, according to many critics. The Mormons, being one example, as well as a host of other offshoots of the Christian religion, including a few cults etc. They all consider themselves Christians, but are thought of as being "deceived" by other Christian groups.

mens_sana

I'll be happy to message you the entire article if you wish. You ignore ancient word usage at your peril. If you tried this stuff in a college course, your GPA would nosedive.

You continue to impose your contempory view ("history") upon a past that had no problem with the idea that a phantasm had floated through an earthly career.

And this is relevant, how?

jules?

[book 15 Annals]

Is Tacitus consulting official documents for this titbit of information?

andrewcriddle

Very possibly.

IIUC Official records of portents prodigies etc were carefully kept by the Roman state.

Andrew Criddle

jules?

Tacitus use of 'extreme penalty' appears to be the one entry. [if anyone knows better please direct me as I have only done a quick glance at his surviving works]

He does mention a slave [Annals book2 40] that was executed privately rather having a 'public execution'. In histories he mentions simon who tried to proclaim himself king of the Jews who was executed but no 'extreme penalty', there is mention in his writings of barbarians and traitors and slaves but they are executed. And of crucifixion he mentions that christians were not subject to the 'extreme penalty' but instead says they were nailed to crosses.

Cicero of all the quotes you use is the only one that refers to crucifixion as 'extreme penalty' but the quote (Verrem 2:5.168) appears to mean nothing. Please redirect me to either a court case or other work.

As for 'common sense' there is of course no such thing, extreme penalty does not equate to trial.

jules?

Are there official records still available? [of any period and subject]. or just the histories?

cheers