Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Just for the record, I am still something of a fan of the idea, which has been discussed on this forum before, that Tacitus is here relying on Josephus. (Say, is it a coincidence that one of the comments on that weblog is signed Fathom??)

Ben.

That was me about 3 years ago. You will find I repeated it almost verbatim to my post to Rook Hawkins, near the bottom of my post, which was so well done that he banned me, moved the thread out of his private forum, and renamed it as his only means of a response.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157

You'll notice he never responded to it, and even his own forum members were wondering why I was banned. Rook made a false excuse. He since re-instated me, but I can't be bothered with that lack of maturity.

Solitary Man · 06-26-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

That was me about 3 years ago. You will find I repeated almost verbatim to my post to Rook Hawkins, near the bottom of my post, which was so well done that he banned me, moved the thread out of his private forum, and renamed it as his only means of a response.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157

You'll notice he never responded to it, and even his own forum members were wondering why I was banned. Rook made a false excuse. He since re-instated me, but I can't be bothered with that lack of maturity.

Theist then? Agnostic now?

thentian · 06-26-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

But let me show you how to view the Tacitus text so that perhaps you will understand why Tacitus did not use the name of Jesus in his writing:

Quote:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus

You see, the text really doesn't focus on Christus. The whole section is all about how Nero was being blamed for starting the great fire of Rome, and about how he deflected the blame to the Christians.

The only reason Christus was mentioned with the name of "Christus"- instead of Jesus- was to identify the Christians with their god, Christus. It was to show where the name of "Christians" comes from. Tacitus could not show that relationship if he had used the name of Jesus.

Hmm... possible, I admit, but I'm not so sure about the plausibility. Tacitus, noteworthy for his desire to be as accurate as possible (always checking the sources when possible!), gives his readers the impression that "Christus" is the actual name of this god, while knowing well that it was only a title of sorts. It would only have taken a few more words to explain the matter fully.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

That was me about 3 years ago. You will find I repeated almost verbatim to my post to Rook Hawkins, near the bottom of my post, which was so well done that he banned me, moved the thread out of his private forum, and renamed it as his only means of a response.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157

You'll notice he never responded to it, and even his own forum members were wondering why I was banned. Rook made a false excuse. He since re-instated me, but I can't be bothered with that lack of maturity.

Theist then? Agnostic now?

I never really had a particular religion, just my own understanding. The best way to describe me is agnostic. I don't have any particular religious beliefs. However, I think the philosophy of Jesus is the most interesting I have ever seen, which in my opinion, can be completely unlocked in the first chapter of Genesis from 1.1 - 2.3.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

But let me show you how to view the Tacitus text so that perhaps you will understand why Tacitus did not use the name of Jesus in his writing:

You see, the text really doesn't focus on Christus. The whole section is all about how Nero was being blamed for starting the great fire of Rome, and about how he deflected the blame to the Christians.

The only reason Christus was mentioned with the name of "Christus"- instead of Jesus- was to identify the Christians with their god, Christus. It was to show where the name of "Christians" comes from. Tacitus could not show that relationship if he had used the name of Jesus.

Hmm... possible, I admit, but I'm not so sure about the plausibility. Tacitus, noteworthy for his desire to be as accurate as possible (always checking the sources when possible!), gives his readers the impression that "Christus" is the actual name of this god, while knowing well that it was only a title of sorts. It would only have taken a few more words to explain the matter fully.

Yes but again, like I said, Christus wasn't his focus. Christus was just incidental to the story he was trying to tell. We were lucky he said anything at all, really. After all, he was a Roman who obviously hated Christianity and everything about it.

Solitary Man · 06-26-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Hmm... possible, I admit, but I'm not so sure about the plausibility. Tacitus, noteworthy for his desire to be as accurate as possible (always checking the sources when possible!), gives his readers the impression that "Christus" is the actual name of this god, while knowing well that it was only a title of sorts. It would only have taken a few more words to explain the matter fully.

Where did you get god from? Tacitus could not have known Christus to be a God, and this is external evidence for Pliny understanding Christus to be a human, because a God could not have been crucified by Pilate.

Solitary Man · 06-26-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Theist then? Agnostic now?

I never really had a particular religion, just my own understanding. The best way to describe me is agnostic. I don't have any particular religious beliefs. However, I think the philosophy of Jesus is the most interesting I have ever seen, which in my opinion, can be completely unlocked in the first chapter of Genesis from 1.1 - 2.3.

Was never a fan of the Genesis story. Always saw the mingling of ἡ Νυχ και το Χαος to be more of my kind of genesis.

And Kahlil Gibran to be deeper than Jesus.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

I never really had a particular religion, just my own understanding. The best way to describe me is agnostic. I don't have any particular religious beliefs. However, I think the philosophy of Jesus is the most interesting I have ever seen, which in my opinion, can be completely unlocked in the first chapter of Genesis from 1.1 - 2.3.

Was never a fan of the Genesis story. Always saw the mingling of ἡ Νυχ και το Χαος to be more of my kind of genesis.

And Kahlil Gibran to be deeper than Jesus.

I just researched him; he seems interesting.

thentian · 06-26-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Yes but again, like I said, Christus wasn't his focus. Christus was just incidental to the story he was trying to tell. We were lucky he said anything at all, really.

But... if so, and by the same token, is it not equally likely that he just got the background of these christians from their own mouths? Why bother to search around in dusty archives to find out about them, if it was just incidental to the story he was trying to tell? Sure, it's hearsay, which Tacitus doesn't like, but he has no reason to think they would lie about such a matter, and one good reason to think it is true. For they are admitting that their leader was crucified by a roman governor, in other words something very shameful! Who would admit to something like that, if it wasn't true (at least to their knowledge).

Solitary Man · 06-26-2008, 08:22 PM

"Why bother to search around in dusty archives to find out about them, if it was just incidental to the story he was trying to tell?"

Having access to the imperial archive, he probably, you know, read them. People back then spent less time watching TV and more time reading. Go figure.

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

06-26-2008, 08:22 PM	#320
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	"Why bother to search around in dusty archives to find out about them, if it was just incidental to the story he was trying to tell?" Having access to the imperial archive, he probably, you know, read them. People back then spent less time watching TV and more time reading. Go figure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.