Roger Pearse

I do hope that no-one has gained the impression from anywhere that any portion of Annals was composed other than by Tacitus himself? Surely arguing that "it could have happened" isn't really acceptable, whatever the subject under discussion. What text could not be debunked in such a fashion?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

The interpolation in Tacitus Annals 15:44 is theorized by Prof. Doughty to be the portion struck out below, with the original from Tacitus remaining.

Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race.

Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished.

Persecution and Martyrdom in Early Christianity
Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians.
Annals 15.44.2-8
Darrell J. Doughty
Professor of New Testament
Drew University, Madison, NJ, 07940

Jake Jones IV

FatherMithras

No. It could be nearly anything. It could be a letter or bit of news circulated about some upstarts in a foreign land, or a minor report on said group.

Since I never in my replies hinted at A or B, you've simply shown you're projecting your own odd ideas onto other people. You are attempting to use Tacitus brief mention to support the existence of a very specific document that would support a historical Jesus. I'm claiming his mention supports a document about his followers. Very different than the complex, unparsimonious ideas you seeem to be attributing to me. Had I said any of what you claim I did, I'd agree with you.

Agreed! We both have no evidence that the documentation we claim exists actually existed. however, you claim that there is a VERY specific documentation on a person there is no other evidence existed than your made up, very specific document. I'm saying there was some paper or suc mentioning christians with a passing reference to their beliefs. The latter seems more parsimonious.

IE you completely ignore what you'd said prior about Seutonious not checking EVERYTHING he wrote due to perceiving events as less than importance. Go reread your own reply and you'll see what I'm talking about. Tacitus felt no need to check the validity of a tiny, minor, unimportant detail. Had the event in question been of significant importance, he may very well have. The amount of fact checking would be directly proportional to the importance of the subject he was mentioning. Tacitus writing is not free from errors. When he does make them, how do you explain it? I simply say they were a result of him not checking what e perceived to be less important.

Not in the slightest. I don't believe Jesus was a mythical figure at all. You assumed I did (another unsupported assertion that you projected onto me for who knows what reason) based on the fact I don't support your unsupported assertions about Tacitus.

That is fine. You can have faith in your unparsimonious ideas. I agree that Jesus was a historical figure, but not that there was documentation of him in Rome because I don't see the wildly odd stories about him being true. His crucifixion, miracles, and following were probably made up after the fact for a character who was likely a minor Jewish reformed who was killed by his own people. He may not have existed, but I honestly can't effectively evaluate it either way. I simply believe he's based on a real character due to Paul's writings seeming to have come about too soon for a mytical figure to have been created.

jakejonesiv

Hi FM!

Let's assume for sake of argument that Jesus was historical, but was a minor figure. Why couldn't he have lived in Paul's remote past?

Jake Jones IV

FatherMithras

I don't get exactly what your asking. Oh, if you'd like to IM me about this, my IM is Fathermithras.

Iasion

Greetings,

How are they relevant?
I was comparing the 1st and 2nd centuries with, say, the 3rd and 4th - which are full of references to the details. Details which are MISSING from the earlier writers.


But now you are just assuming your claim is true - telling us what WOULD HAVE happened if your beliefs are true.

But,
the issue is what the evidence shows - that Paul and the early Christians did NOT mention the details, even when expected.



IF.
Once again, you just assume your beliefs are true. But the evidence is against it - there is no evidence of such details in the early decades. LATER the Gospels become known and everyone repeats the details endlessly.


Here I mean Christians before about 130CE or so - who show NO knowledge of the details at all, even when expected.


No they don't.

Paul never explicitly mentions Jesus preaching or teaching at all. He says he got his gospel from "no man", but through scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

Paul even says "we do NOT know how to pray" !

How do YOU reconcile that with Jesus allegedly just having taught them the Lord's Prayer?

Paul argues about issues such as food cleanliness and divorce - WITHOUT ever mentioning that Jesus allegedly taught on these very issues.

Why doesn't Paul know anything about Jesus' teachings?


So, IF your beliefs are true, this proves your beliefs true?

But, the evidence is that Paul knew nothing of any historical crucifixion.


What?
There WERE NO details to be different.
(And the MSS show very many differences indeed.)
I cannot see your point here.


Was not written by Paul.
Irrelevant.


As noted by another, it was a stumbling block to the Greeks too - therefore he was crucified in Athens, according to your argument.


Iasion

ynquirer

You don’t understand anything, do you? I don’t bother whether Tacitus dived into the imperial records on Judea or just heard the full story from Pontius Pilate’s grandson, who happened to be his mate. I mean that he was quite reassured that the story was true.

And in the ultimate analysis, it is irrelevant that you believe that Jesus, if a real person, was not as important as to be mentioned in documentation in Rome rather than he did not exist at all. A like prejudice prevent you from recognizing in Tacitus on Christus the same standards of professional proficiency you are ready to credit him with for the rest of his work, your evidence being none.

FatherMithras

Way to be insulting. Your ideas about this subject are unconventional to me. I agree he was reasonably sure the story was true. That doesn't in any way refute anything I've said at all. At least you've stopped projecting ideas onto me, though.

Correct. the fact my belief is backed up by what is known about Rome at the time is what's important. Christianity was a minor fringe cult of little importance and what I think about that doesn't effect the reality of the situation.

Way to make a ridiculous strawman of what I'd said. The fact is, Tacitus writing doesn't mean Jesus existed. It simply mentions what he knew about Christians and there beliefs. It is also apparent, from the size of what he wrote, and the climate in Rome, that this was of little important. You ignore the FACT that Tacitus has made several errors in his writing, generally considered to be because he thought the bits he was writing about were of little import and you have failed to acknowledge the fact that during fact checking, more important ideas that are contraversial will have much more review than relatively unimportant bits of political gossip. Why you assume what you do, contrary to what we know about the writings of Tacitus and other Roman historians, I can't begin to imagine. I will not however, try to rationalize your motivations as you've done with me.

Malachi151

I shouldn't even waste time on this, but since other Christians make these same claims I'll go ahead and waste my time.

Tacitus says:

Now, the only way that this can provide critical evidence for the existance of "Jesus Christ" is if Tacitus confirmed that "Christus" had actually been put to death by Pilate by finding a record of the execution. Anything other than that, bascially, is hearsay.

Now, is a record of "Christus'" death essential to Tacitus for what he is saying? No, not at all.

Tacitus isn't trying to prove that "Christus was killed by Pilate", he's just trying to give a general background explanation of what this sect of people is and how it got its name.

What you are proposing is something like if I, or any other histori\an, were to write a statement about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that fought in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s by saying something like this: "In the 1930s members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were killed in Spain, where they were fighting in the Civil War. The brigade was named after Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, who was shot to death by John Wilkes Booth in 1865.", that it would be reasonable to think that I went to the national archive to find the death certificate of Abe Lincoln to write this statment.

It's compeletly absurd.

Everything that Tacitus recorded was common knowledge.

The subject of his writing was Nero and the fire of Rome in 64, not the Christians, they are just the footnote.

If he was doing any archival research it would have been on the fire, and perhaps even on the executions, but it wouldn't have been on "Christus". That wasn't the subject of his writing.

Furthermore, it wouldn't even make sense for any relavent Roman records to have teh name "Christ", "Christos", or "Christus" in them anyway, because supposedly, Jesus was in a community of Aramaic and Hebrew speaking people, so he wouldn't have been called "Christos" by people in his own community in the frist place, so there wouldn't have been any record of him, in his own place and time, that referred to him as "Christos", or "Christus", and the term "Christianity" wouldn't have existed at that place and time, nor is it recorded in the gospels, and its only mentioned in the Bible liek 1 or 2 times in some of the epistles.

In fact, I'm not even sure that the "Christians" would have been called Christians in 64, even that seems unlikely, though not impossible of course, but it seems to me that Tacitus is probably reading the name Christians back into the event, I doubt that they were identified as such at that time.

Its probably that the group of people who worshiped crosses, etc. later took on the name Christians by the time Tacitus was writing.

This happens all the time, this type of thing happened a lot in the 1500s-1800s when Europeans wrote about various tribes, calling them by names that they never had and names that they didn't call themselves, at the time the events they were writing about occured. Hindus is an example. The term Hindoo came from the Brits, it wasn't a name that any Indian group called themselves.

jeffevnz

More or less. I don't find the handful of early 2nd century sources very convincing.

But bear in mind that we wouldn't necessarily expect to find extrabiblical evidence for an HJ. Very little literature from that time survives. Assuming the Gospel claims of Jesus's popularity and abilities are either exagerrated or made up altogether, it's very possible that a lot was written about him that simply hasn't survived.

I'm leaning more and more toward the HJ side for other reasons. I find the presence of embarassing details in the Gospels pretty compelling (eg, Joseph's suspicion of Mary's pregnancy, people from Jesus's hometown thinking he was full of it, failed prophecy, etc). You wouldn't include stuff like that if you were making up a story about someone that was meant to paint him in a good light. I also find it interesting that in the Gospels, Jesus talks and acts like a very real con-man. Lastly, we know that Christianity started some time in the early to mid-1st century, and religious movements are almost always started by a single charismatic individual. My gut feeling is that he was a real guy.