mountainman

Start with the treatment of Tacitus in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus/Part 2/Section 2 by Arthur Drews, (November 1, 1865-July 19, 1935) and work forward.

See especially the second section: "II. Arguments against the Genuineness."

Frank

Fair enough, but Norma Miller (who Van Voorst references) was not only a historian, but an expert on Taticus.

She was a Reader in Classics at the University of London, at Royal Holloway College, but formed through her pupil, J.P. Bews (a faculty member of Classics for many years who passed away in August 2000), a fond connection with Trent which she often referred to as her "other university". She visited Trent on several occasions, the last as Ashley Fellow in 1985/86, and became an honorary member of the department and of Traill College where the department was formally located for many years. After Norma's far too early passing in 1988, the department and Traill College established jointly a fund that would honour her memory. The three essays prizes, as outlined on the Norma Miller Essay prize web page, were established as follows: The first, for Classical Literature 100 (former course code) students ("Greek Drama in Translation") recognizes Norma's large role in the establishment of this course in its present form in 1975/76, and was first awarded in 1992. The second, for students in courses in Roman History and Civilization, reflects her lifelong interest in that field, particularly the historian Tacitus; it was first awarded in 1995.

http://www.trentu.ca/ahc/awards_NormaMiller.php

hjalti

Maybe good ol' Carrier will publish an article on this passage next!

Annals were written in ~115 CE. Would there even be an "immense multitude" of Christians in Rome at that time? Is Tacitus prone to inflating numbers and exaggerating?

How many Christians would there even be in Rome at ~65 CE?

Frank

Refering to anything by Arthur Drews is ridiculous. Clumsy attempt at guilt by association. The only thing Drews was right about is that Nietzsche was antithetical to Nazism (otherwise, he was an intellectual fucktard, who didn't even deserve to be Nietzsche's shoe shine boy).

spin

She passed away 22 years ago. When did she write what Van Voorst cites from her? And what exactly did she write about the christian material in A.15.44?

I've specifically asked for a recent historian's analysis here because standards have become more stringent regarding evidence in more recent times. Fewer things are taken for granted.

Frank

Look at your own number 5 above. You're asking for a "recent" historians analysis, but to my knowledge no one seriously questions this entry by Tacitus (at least not these days). If you have someone, then please share (of course someone that meets "your own" standards, a real historian e.g. someone with a PhD in history)?

Roger Pearse

Have you read his book?

mountainman

Hi Frank,

Your invectives are showing. How about addressing the issues raised by Drews?

Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

Nope.

People who offer nothing can hardly complain if they are suspected of knowing nothing.

Nothing to offer?

Frank

You referred to a known Nazi sympathizer (and yes, I strongly denounce Drews, and all Nazi ass holes like him). But your reasoning in appealing to the comments of such a person is perfectly transparent (you're certainly not the first one to imply something like Stalin was an atheist, therefore all atheists must be like Stalin). Drews was a Nazi and Jesus myther, therefore there's an association with Nazism and Jesus mythicism.

Frankly, it's a desperate argument. If you had some other reason for mentioning this person, then my apologies (but honestly I'm really not interested in reading the gibberish vomited out by a thankfully dead Nazi). I personally don't buy into the Jesus myth argument, but I also don't think those who do are Nazi's (or anything remotely resembling Nazi's). This view has been explored by all sorts of different people (and there's no common thread, as clumsy theistic arguments usually try to imply when desperately digging for material).

Who can blame them I guess (after all, they're supporting an idea for which not a drop of evidence exists).