Frank

There is only one piece of evidence that I find persuasive, the reference by the Roman historian Tacitus (and before you try and attack Tacitus, you should understand that he's held in high esteem among historians, and he was not a Christian, and didn't have many good things to say about Christians).

There is some controversy regarding this reference (but not necessarily among historians). Most historians do not believe it was an interpolation, and they recognize Taticus as a great historian (so this IS "real" evidence concerning the existence of Jesus). The other prong of attack is the fact that Taticus wasn't exactly a fan of Nero (but I'm not sure how that would be a motivation to invent a story about Pilate ordering the execution of Jesus).

spin

So which recent historians have done a significant analysis of the passage and concluded from that analysis that it was veracious?

(I've blogged on the interpolation here.)

Frank

I'm nust circuous, where are you sourcing this information? Some of it is debatable, but other parts of if do not repsrement the mainstream views of historinas.

spin

I can't divine what this intended... ETA: Ahh, it's dawning, "just curious"??

I quoted my source material. I tend to use primary sources rather than rehashes.

For example?

As I asked you before, "which recent historians have done a significant analysis of the passage and concluded from that analysis that it was veracious?"

I have not seen a recent mainstream analysis of the material. Have you? Mainstream opinions are worth what any opinion is.

avi

a. couldn't access spin's blog, "denied permission" hahaha. .... "barbarians at the gate".....

b. Frank: is that a proper method, to identify the quantity of historians who may regard Tacitus as a legitimate historian? I certainly would disagree with you, on that point.

Isn't it more useful, as a metric for establishing the validity of writing which we today attribute to the quill of Tacitus, to confirm that our extant documents represent an unblemished, untarnished, unredacted copy of what Tacitus himself wrote?

In that context, Frank, can you point to the chain of evidence, demonstrating that all of our extant documents attributed to Tacitus, bypassed the Christian authorities in Rome, who were governed, (correct me if I am in error) for more than twelve centuries, by the Papal authority of the so called Papal states, predecessor of the Vatican, and one source of the terrorist Inquisition.

Would you be surprised, Frank, if all extant copies of the Quran pointed back to a single edition, edited by the successors of Mohammed? Would such a copy then be regarded by you as legitimate? To answer my own question, in my view, the Muslims would make whatever changes they wanted, to the original text, since they had absolute power, and they would then disseminate that, revised version, throughout their empire. In my view, the Christians, commencing with the reign of Constantine, behaved in precisely this same fashion. It would not surprise me, to read one day, of a discovery in an old cave or crypt or tomb, somewhere, of a first edition of Tacitus, one which was dated by nondestructive 14C analysis to have been written within a decade of his death in 117 CE, and which contained nothing whatsoever about the Christian fable.

avi

aa5874

Oddly enough Tacitus' "Annals with Christus" is probably the ONLY forgery that was NOT used by Eusebius, he used the forgeries in "Antiquities of the Jews", and "Annals with Christus" was not mentioned at all by any Christian writer for HUNDREDS of years even up to the end of the 4th century.

It can be DEDUCED that "Annals with Christus" was FORGED after Eusebius wrote the History of the Church.

If as you claim that Tacitus was held in high esteem among historians and was a Non-Christian who did NOT have many good things to say about Christian then Tacitus "Annals with Christus" would have been a SIGNIFICANT piece of CORROBORATIVE evidence for the existence of Jesus SINCE c 115 CE.

A credible, non-christian historian who did NOT like Christians and also wrote that Jesus existed should have been a "GOLD MINE" since c 115 CE.

HJers TODAY think Tacitus' "Annals with Christus" is a GOLD MINE and it would be EXPECTED that Jesus Believers would have thought the very same thing.

Amazingly No Christian writer used the supposed "GOLD MINE" of "Annals with Christus" even when making reference to a passage that appears to be similar to "Annals" 15.44.

See "Sacred History" 2.29 by Sulpitius Severus

Tertullian was AWARE of the writings of Tacitus, see "Apology" 16.

The very fact that you claimed Tacitus was held in high esteem by historians, was Non-christian who did NOT have many good things to say about Christians is the very indication that "Annals with Christus" is a forgery.

Christians writers, even Eusebius, ONLY used Tacitus to claim NERO persecuted people called Christians UP TO the END of the 4th century.

Examine "Apology" 1-5 attributed to Tertullian "Annals with Christus" is a VERY LATE forgery and was UNKNOWN by Christian writers.

By the way, whoever FIRST "discovered" Tacitus' "Annals with Christus" may know WHO actually did the forgery because ALL the so called ROMAN CHRISTIAN writers of antiquity did NOT write about "Annals with Christus".

And finally, and MOST REMARKABLE, is that Tacitus Annals 15 appeared to have been manipulated.

It has been found that the word "CHRISTIAN" in "Annals" 15 may NOT have been original but should have been the word "GOOD"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Tacitus" "Annals" is a MASSIVE disaster for HJ and cannot even corroborate that there were people called Christians during the time of NERO.

Frank

How can it be "deduced"?

Actually, Tacitus fell out of favor with early church leaders because of his contempt for Christians and Jews.

The writings of Taticus were not completely preserved, and they weren't all discovered in a single location at the same time.

This does not logically follow at all. Merely recording that a man (probably viewed by Taticus as a sage from a far flung near eastern province whose people were already predisposed to superstition) existed, does not also concede the claim that he was a god-man?

Early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo do not refer to Tacitus when discussing the subject of the Christian persecution by Nero. [20][21] Furthermore writer, Suetonius, mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire[22].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

No need, apparently Tertullian never mentioned Tacitus in reference to Nero (or the fire) anyway.

IMO you're begging the question.

Your perspective on this seems pretty biased (and I'm having a hard time viewing all this as very credible). To try and pony an idea as dogmatic truth, when even well trained (and unbiased) historians don't reject this ancient work, isn't a very good conversation starter. I'm obviously a religious skeptic, but I don't see the need to take the most extreme position in every case (even when the evidence is inconclusive). I can say Alexander the Great probably existed, while rejecting the claim that he was the son of Zeus (whose mother was impregnated during a dream by a lightning bolt), just as I can say Jesus could have existed, without believing all the associated legends.

aa5874

Don't you understand the meaning of "deduced"?

Eusebius wrote a book, supposedly the very first History book of the Church, called "Church History" and used forgeries in the writings of Josephus when he should have had a writing of HIGH ESTEEM that mentioned Jesus but did NOT.

It can be deduced that "Annals with Christus" was NOT known to Eusebius.

Eusebius would have used Annals with Christus just like HJers are ATTEMPTING to use Annals to DEDUCE that Jesus did exist.

How did you DEDUCE that?

It is really irrelevant if they were found in different locations when the manipulated section with the word "CHRISTIAN" instead of "GOOD" was found in the same location.

Tacitus' Annals cannot even help to show that there were people Christians in Rome.

How did you DEDUCED that? Tacitus did NOT mention a SAGE.

Please don't forget that Tacitus' Annals apears to have been manipulated.

Well, if Tacitus mentioned the fire but Suetonius did NOT, and Suetonius mentioned Christians but Tacitus did NOT, then there is a reliability problem.

So, NO Church writer used "Annals' with Christ" and Tertullian did not even mention Tacitus in reference to the fire so there is a problem with reliability.

How did you DEDUCE that?

How did you DEDUCE that Jesus could have existed? What is the evidence from antiquity for YOUR Jesus? " The manipulated "Annals"?

Well, I can deduce that "Annals with Christus" is a forgery because of the evidence provided by Sulpitius Severus in "Sacred History" 2.29 and that Annals has been manipulated.

hjalti

I think spin might just have tipped the scales for me, the passage sounds too much like this:

"Nero tried everything, but nothing worked to quell the rumors. Next thing he tried was to kill some Christians."

Has there been any serious discussion of the authenticity of this passage in scholarly works? JBL , CBQ or something? Surely, you're not the first one to point this out.

Toto

So Chaucer - give us a link or a reference to the professional historian who has concluded that the Tacitus reference is genuine.