Cesc

Indeed, but this is Roman history with which Tacitus is concerned. He still only gives one little sentence about Christ/Pilate.


[emphasis mine]
I completely disagree that its "the likely source". Perhaps "a likely source".
I think the 'most' likely source for the Christ/Pilate statement must be assumed to have been Christianity itself. Do you agree, and why/why not?

FathomFFI

I completely disagree because Tacitus claimed that the Christian religion was anything but the truth, and full of damaging superstitions. He described Christians as criminals who were deserving of their punishments.

I cannot fathom a Roman historian who views Christianity as Tacitus did as someone who would go to the Christians and get information from a religion described as Tacitus described it. Since, to him, it was all a superstition, I cannot accept he would chance putting Christian monotheistic superstitions in his Annals, especially when he was a polytheist Roman. If Pilate didn't execute Christus, then Tacitus would be misrepresenting Roman history.

Besides, Christians were so persecuted that the sight of someone Tacitus' stature would make them hide. Imagine a Roman governor coming to your home if you were a Christian? It would be certain death.

Aside from that, the textual evidence totally supports the good possibility that he used Roman records, and there is not a shred of evidence in the text that says he may have used hearsay.

That's the truth. There's just no evidence at all for hearsay.

spamandham

If your methodology is simply to dismiss all minority perspectives simply because they are minority perspectives, then of course what you're left with is just the majority opinion.

Regardless, there is still overlap between the time range Mark is dated to (65-80 as the mean, with 105 at the high end) and the time range Tacitus could have written over (probably no earlier than about 80 and no later than 117) even if you throw out the Dutch radicals.

Uhm, then why are you arguing there is no overlap between Tacitus and Mark?

Cesc

Mr. Hubbard was many things, but stupid wasn't one of them lol!

Anyway, Im very sympathetic to the view that to a Roman like Tacitus, the Christians' mumbo-jumbo would have been one big pile of 'superstition'. But like I wrote above in another post, I dont see why any Roman would suspect that the Pilate execution part was some kind of sinister fraud or urban legend. To me its more logical that any given Roman would think something to the effect of "for f*ck sake, if that Christ dude hadn't been killed, these fanatics would never have become such a pestilence with all their ridiculous doctrines and superstitions!"

But doesn't it all depend on exactly what the "Christian hearsay" was at that time, or was at the time of Tacitus? What was "the pernicious superstition" exactly that Tacitus talks about? We can only speculate or make qualified assessments, but its certainly one of the cruxes of the matter, imo.

This is another perspective or point of view. Not entirely silly, in my opinion.

I see where you're coming from. I definately think its an interesting perspective. But in the view of his specific phrasing in that small passage of his, added to my reasoning in my top response of this post as well as the limited knowledge I currently hold on this specific subject, I tend to assume more that his Christ/Pilate statement was not meant as part of the pernicious superstition he mentions.
Im not going to try and hide the fact that this is just my personal ill-informed opinion, but I value the discourses on these subjects immensely :- )

spamandham

That's actually a valid point. There's no explicit referent for the 'pernicious superstition', unless it is indeed referring to the idea that Pilate punished Christus. The paragraph never mentions what else the referent could be. Our 20th century English speaking minds tend to fill in that missing referent with 'christianity', but perhaps there is no missing referent at all.

It actually makes sense for Nero to pin the burning of Rome on Christians if they are believers in a false 'superstition' that Pilate killed Christ, and it also explains why Pilate - an otherwise minor historical figure - is called out by name whereas 'Christus' is not, and the charge of 'hatred of civilization' then comes into context and makes sense as well.

Is there someone here familiar enough with ancient Latin style to provide more insight into this point?

Toto

For a trip down memory lane - The Pilate thread that challenged Christians to back up the claim that any skeptic thought that Pilate was a myth, ever. Still waiting for Jim Larmore to come up with the documentation.

Toto

"Superstitio" is not quite the same as our word superstition, which refers to a single belief. It generally refers to what we would call a cult, or a small, politically impotent religion.

Cesc

Yes, this is very important. What exactly did he write about the Christians? Any chance you could sometime point me to all the passages in Annals that talk about/describe the Christians? This is where my short-comings in this subject are embarrasingly exposed!

But surely you must admit that "the likely source" was perhaps an over-eager wording? Not that its relevant to our subject matter!

Yes, but this we've been over before? The execution part would most likely not have been included in "the superstitions"? Anyway, I cannot assess this as well as you since I've only read a tiny part of the whole deal, as of yet. Firstly, I now need to read everything he wrote about the Christians.

I'd stick it to him!

Fair enuff, it might "support the good possibilty", Im very open to that of course.

For me, its all about finding the most likely proposition. Im not looking for the "truth", since "the truth" is impossible to find.

Cesc

Yes, this is one of the things that is crucial to take into consideration in the whole assessment.

FathomFFI

Here's the whole thing below:

1. A class hated for their abominations.
2. Their beliefs were a mischievious superstition.
3. Their beliefs were "evil," and a part of "all things hideous and shameful."
4. They were convicted, not so much for firing Rome, but due to their hatred against mankind.
5. They were criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishments.

Tacitus holds nothing back. He hated the Christians without doubt.

An over-eager wording as the likely source? I have no doubts he was eager to demonstrate how the Romans killed the Jewish Messiah, and the god of the Christians; all the more why he would check his facts.

Everything he wrote about Christians in the Annals is above.

That's a good attitude, and that's exactly what I'm doing.