spin

Not my enemy though, just as you aren't. I go where the evidence points. You got any for me to go with?


spin

spamandham

You're summary of the discussion is basically true, but IMHO, the whole issue regarding Tacitus is a red herring in regards to establishing the historicity of Jesus as best I can tell.

Even if Tacitus did pen those words in entirety, it merely proves the existence of Christianity at the time of his writing. It provides no weight at all to establishing the historicity of Jesus as far as I can tell, since we don't know what Tacitus' source was for the information about the Christ he wrote about. For all we know, he wasn't even writing about Jesus, but about some other "christ" crucified under Pilate. My understanding (which admittedly may be wrong and perhaps someone here can set this straight), is that "christs" were a dime a dozen in the early 1st century.

Is there is contention against the idea that Christianity existed at the time Tacitus wrote?

Johann_Kaspar

It did not exist. Christianity began with Marcion.

No Robots

According to our friend Mountainman, it started c. 300 with Eusebius of Caesarea. Oh, yeah, and some folks around here think it started just after the Fall of Jerusalem in c. 70.

spamandham

If I have my chronology right, Tacitus wrote the passage in question around 115 CE. Polycarp is recorded to have made mention of Marcion that same year (Pol. Phil. 2:18,19), implying that Marcion was at his game earlier than that.

Justin Martyr then made a negative statement regarding Marcion supposedly in 138 CE, in which he refers to the followers of Marcion as Christians and his teachings being wide spread (Justin's [First] Apology. I.26. ANF. vol. 1. p. 171).

This does support what you are saying that Marcion is the founder of Christianity as we know it, but I don't see any inconsistency between this hypothesis and the writing of Tacitus, since Marcion was clearly active spreading his ideas before Tacitus wrote the annals in question.

The Christus Tacitus refers to could well be a figure invented by Marcion.

No Robots

I am Spartacus.

Johann_Kaspar

Your chronology is wrong.

No Robots

The mythicist position on Tacitus seems to be: "We'll fight tooth and nail to prove it was an interpolation; but if we lose the argument, we will claim it isn't relevant." It's like the accused man: "I didn't do it; and if I did, I'm sorry."

Johann_Kaspar

Irrelevant. If it is an interpolation, it proves that xians forged the text. Then the relevant question would be: why?

If it is authentic it confirms that messianists Jews set the fire to Rome. It would tell nothing about the reality of a character who lived - or not - almost one century before the text was written. The legend had time to grow "true".

GakuseiDon

I've never understood that argument. Sure, legends can spring up oevernight, but to dismiss Tacitus on that basis doesn't make sense. Christians telling Tacitus around 110 CE that they believed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is a fairly strong piece of evidence for historicity. The most likely reason that Tacitus heard this is because that is what the Christians believed, and the most likely reason that Christians believed that was because that is what happened. Not 100% proof, I agree, but a piece of evidence that can't be dismissed so easily, either (assuming it isn't an interpolation).