Solitary Man

They don't. It said that Christ had been crucified by Pilate and that later Christianity spread even to Rome. You're adding a bit much to it.

Parlez-vous anglais? Non? Once again, none of this is intelligible in any format. Can someone, anyone, please translate this gibberish?

I'm not quite sure what led up to this (see above) but I disagree with your assessment.

patcleaver

Mostly from Rook Hawkins http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewto...cd8ea922#38862

My comments are in square brackets.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

Tacitus: "But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

It would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but still, some do.

(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

[1.1 Even if Tacitus got his information from official records, we do not know that the official records that he accessed were reliable. He could have copied the information from some hearsay 2nd century report.]

[1.2 It is unlikely that Tacitus got this information, about the Crucifixion of Christus, from official records, because he did not say that he got this information from official records, but in other places where he got his information from official records, he tells us that he got the information from official records.]

[1.3 The official records would not have contained the name Christus. Jesus' Jewish name was Yeshua ben Yosef, and that is the name that would have been in the Roman records. Yeshua was a popular name in Judea and Pilot killed lots of criminals - there were likely dozens of Yeshua's that were killed under pilot. Christus was also a popular name - there may have even been a Yeshua ben Christus killed who had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. How would Tacitus know which record to check?]

[1.4 In the gospels, Jesus never went by the name Yeshua messiah, but always Yeshua of Nazareth. Even if he went by the name Yeshua the messiah, that name would not have been converted in meaning to Jesus Christ, but more likely simply transliterated to something that sounded like Yeshua the messiah.]

[1.5 Josephus tells us about several would-be messiahs who were killed by the Romans, but nobody fitting the description of Jesus of Nazareth. Tacitus could be talking about any would-be messiah that was killed by Pilot e.g. Jesus Bar Abbas.]

[1.6 The stories in the gospels about Jesus being killed by the Romans are not believable, so there could not have been any Roman records of his death. The most probable source where Tacitus could have obtained his information was the Christian urban legend of Christs crucifixion.]

(2) The phrase "multitudo ingens" which means "a great number" is opposed to all that we know of the spread of the new faith in Rome at the time. A vast multitude in 64 A.D.? There were not more than a few thousand Christians 200 years later. The idea of so many just 30 years after his supposed death is just a falsehood.

[2.1 In acts of the Apostles, there is no indication of significant Christian community in Rome in 64 CE.]

(3) The use of the Christians as "living torches," as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs. Death by fire was not a punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State.

[3.1 People are 70% water. You need a pyre to burn a living human.]

(4) The Roman authorities can have had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith. How could the non-initiated Romans know what were the concerns of a comparatively small religious sect, which was connected with Judaism and must have seemed to the impartial observer wholly identical with it.

[4.1 There is no reliable evidence that the Romans even recognized Christianity separately from Judaism before 300.]

(5) Suetonius says that Nero showed the utmost indifference, even contempt in regard to religious sects. Even afterwards the Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for political reasons, for their contempt of the Roman state and emperor, and as disturbers of the unity and peace of the empire. What reason can Nero have had to proceed against the Christians, hardly distinguishable from the Jews, as a new and criminal sect?

(6) It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It isn't the most popular way to convert and bring people into their religion.

(7) The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. Why would he risk burning these by lighting human fires amidst all these shelters?

(8) According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, when the fire occurred.

(9) The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

(10) It is highly unlikely that he mingled with the crowd and feasted his eyes on the ghastly spectacle. Tacitus tells us in his life of Agricola that Nero had crimes committed, but kept his own eyes off them.

(11) Some authorities allege that the passage in Tacitus could not have been interpolated because his style of writing could not have been copied. But this argument is without merit since there is no "inimitable" style for the clever forger, and the more unusual, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitus, the easier it is to imitate. Moreover, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned we are, perhaps, interested only in one sentence of the passage and that has nothing distinctively Tacitan about it.

(12) Tacitus is assumed to have written this about 117 A.D., about 80 years after the death of Jesus, when Christianity was already an organized religion with a settled tradition. The gospels, or at least 3 of them, are supposed to have been in existence. Hence Tacitus might have derived his information about Jesus, if not directly from the gospels, indirectly from them by means of oral tradition. This is the view of Dupuis, who wrote: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors.

[Tacitus could have gotten his information from any of the 50 of so non-canonical gospels that could have existed at that time, or from oral rumors among the pagans about Christians.]

(13) In no other part of his writings did Tacitus make the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians." Christus was a very common name, as was Jesus, in fact Josephus lists about 20 in the time Jesus was supposedly said to have existed.

(14) Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.

(15) The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called "Christians." Serapis or Osiris had a large following at Rome especially among the common people.

[Justin Martyr in his first apology 180 CE tells us that the nation of Samaria followed Simon Magnus and were called Christians. There were far more people called Christians who did not believe in Jesus of Nazareth then believers of Jesus of Nazareth. Even if a group called Christians were blamed for the fire it is unlikely that they were followers of jesus of Nazareth, but that Tacitus got confused.]

(18) The expression "Christians" which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, [the way] etc. were universally regarded as Jews. They observed the Mosaic law and the people could not distinguish them from the other Jews. The Greek word Christus (the anointed) for Messiah, and the derivative word, Christian, first came into use under Trajan in the time of Tacitus. Even then, however, the word Christus could not mean Jesus of Nazareth. All the Jews without exception looked forward to a Christus or Messiah. It is, therefore, not clear how the fact of being a "Christian" could, in the time of Nero or of Tacitus, distinguish the followers of Jesus from other believers in a Christus or Messiah. Not one of the gospels applies the name Christians to the followers of Jesus. It is never used in the New Testament as a description of themselves by the believers in Jesus.

(19) Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.

(20) This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability.

(21) Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.

(22) This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

(23) Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

(24) There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works including by your supposed historian.

[Early church fathers regularly quoted pagan sources to support their theological arguments, so if Tacitus had existed, then they would have quoted it.]

(25) The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.

[If Annals are not a wholesale forgery, less then a whole copy has ever been found, and the document was probably recopied numerous times, so there was plenty of opportunity and motivation for interpolation. It is not realistic to expect that the Catholic Church could guard the inviolability of the document for 1300 years while The Church was operating the greatest forgery-censorship mill in the history of the world.]

(26) In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?

(27) Richard Carrier explains that we are actually missing three years in Tacitus, "We are enormously lucky to have Tacitus--only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."

(28) Suetonius doesn't mention this event in his histories. [Even though Suetonius is critical of Nero.]

[No other ancient source ever mentions the persecution of Christians during the time of Nero.]

(29) And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus

[30. Although most Christian scholars believe that Tacitus' Annals is not a wholesale forgery, many reputable Christian scholars have believed that they were a wholesale forgery. The evidence that they are not a wholesale forgery is very weak, so the probability that its a wholesale forgery are at best around 50-50.]

[31. The following part of Tacitus is more likely just a description of the superstitious belief that identifies the Christians then a statement of historical fact: "those men ... whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again ...". It is common in discussions of mythology, that statements can be easily misinterpreted as factual when the author only intended to explain the beliefs of some group, that the author does not believe himself.]

[32. "It is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing." --Gordon Stein Ph. D.]

[Generally, the 32 arguments above are cumulative and their added effects reduce the probability that the Annals are evidence of the Crucifixion of Jesus to nearly zero.]

[Annals is not even reliable evidence that there were Christians in Rome at the time.]

[Tacitus Annals is not a primary source for any historical facts except: What were the contents of the 15th century discovered document called Tacitus' Annals]

aa5874

Tacitus is evidence for which Christ?
The Christians in the Pliny letters worshipped which Christ?

You need to read the NT.

Mark 13.6 Tell me how many persons called themselves Christ and how many persons were deceived up to the time of Tacitus and Pliny the younger?

Tacitus and Pliny the younger did NOT confirm a single thing about Jesus of the NT.

GakuseiDon

(Post removed)

FathomFFI

Really? Watch how fast 32 arguments are destroyed.

Tacitus - Part 1 of 2

Firstly, the author claims it would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but then presents a long 29 point diatribe in an effort to refute it. Now that is utterly ridiculous. But, let's take a look at what he said anyways.

Secondly, the author has used the most popular translation of Tacitus, but not the most scholarly. Below is the entire text of the Tacitus section in question:

Source Here

1. The above can easily be dismissed as assertion. He attempts to reduce Jesus' signifigance to nothing more than a carpenter from Nazareth, and therefore not worthy of mention. This indicates intellectual dishonesty right from the start, as a "capenter from Nazareth" is by no means an honest portrayal of a person of Jesus' purported signifigance. He then attempts to sell the idea that it would be unlikely that Tacitus would have sent any report to Rome regarding the verse where Christ is mentioned, but he bases this upon the idea that the verse is about Jesus, as opposed to being about The Great Fires of Rome.

Well, he's wrong.

The verse is actually an excerpt from a work by Tacitus known as the Annals, and it is part his historical account of the Great Fires of Rome. It depicts how Nero was accused of starting the fires himself, but to quell his critics he in turn accused just about anyone, with special attention given to Christians.

This verse fits perfectly in the Annals, as it works seamlessly with the story being told. Since the verse describes Christians and Christianity as "universally abhorred, vulgar, evil," and other such names, and also describes Christ as "one who in the reign of Tiberius suffered death as a criminal, under Pontius Pilate," then any idea of Christian interpolation breaches the boundries of reason, for what kind of Christian would speak of himself, his religion, and Christ in such a manner?

That's all that needs to be said about # 1.

And he somehow got a census report of how many Christians existed at the time? Does this guy ever show any evidence to support his assertions? This assertion is dismissed on the grounds of a lack of evidence. He has no way to prove what he claims. But let me show you something.

Just over 50 years ago L. Ron Hubbard began his cult by opening the doors to the first Scientology church in Los Angeles. Today this cult boasts over 10,000,000 members. This is religion with no god to worship. Yet, in just over 50 years they pulled in 10,000,000 members.

So what does the author mean by "a great number" of Christians? Is it not concievable that in 30 years the Christian religion could pull in just 1/10th of 1% of the faithful that Scientology pulled in and have a population of 10,000? Is it not even concievable that Christianity could have done a full 1% of what Scientology did and have a population of at least 100,000? The population of the Roman Empire at the time has been estimated at about 60,000,000 people, therefore for anyone to suggest there wasn't enough of a population for Christianity to florish is saddly mistaken.

The Book of Acts and Letters of Paul show the quick advancement of Christianity in the area, as it seemed to be getting sold on every street corner to the gullible and downtrodden. Because of Paul, Christianity became hellenized and was spread all through Greece within 30 years after the death of Christ. This is evident by the letters of Pliny the Younger, and his reports of Christianity in Bithynia a mere 47 years later. Bithynia is in north-western modern day Turkey, and is more than just a day's journey from the origins of the Christian faith in Jerusalem, Israel. In fact, for Christians to travel on foot from Israel to Bithynia meant travelling 800 miles, and at least another 400 miles to get to Greece, and that's if they got lucky enough to get a boat.

What I'm saying here is, Christianity was very wide spread within just 30 years, especially since it began in Israel and was reported all over what is now Greece and Turkey within just a few short years. And when we look at the 2.3 billion Christians on earth today, how anyone can suggest that it didn't grow fast is beyond comprehension. It's the largest religion on earth- almost twice as large as Islam- and it didn't get that way by crawling at a snail's pace.

In regards to # 3 of what the author claims, it's just another example of him not looking before he leapt. Here's evidence as to whether or not the Romans would burn anyone:

The Romans had no problem burning people in any variety of ways. Therefore, as far as the Romans were concerned it was, "Let's grab a cold drink and throw another Christian on the barbie."

But seriously, with the cruelist forms of torture such a crucifixion, being eaten alive by wild beasts, and a number of other methods, the burning of people by the Romans was no big deal. The evidence I have provided speaks for itself. They burned people, and they loved it.

I have already shown that they also burned the Jews, therefore it was not "special punishment." In fact during the four years of war, the Romans had taken 97,000 prisoners. Thousands of them were forced to become gladiators and were killed in the arena, fighting wild animals or fellow gladiators. Some, who were known as criminals, were burned alive. Others were employed at Seleucia, where they had to dig a tunnel. But most of these prisoners were brought to Rome, where they were forced to build the Forum of Peace and the Colosseum. The Menorah and the Table were exhibited in the temple of Peace. It's also reported in other historical accounts that the Romans would burn condemned criminals in the Colosseum for sheer entertainment.

It's a matter of historical record according to Jewish, Christian, and Roman history.

The only thing he's gotten correct here- by stating "hardly distinguishable from the Jews"- is that Nero didn't give a damn who he burned; Christians, Jews, criminals, anybody would do. This author has obviously not studied enough to know that the Christian and Jewish monotheistic beliefs prohibited them from honoring the many Greek gods, and paying tribute to them. Paying tribute to those gods was a revered custom, and for the Christians and Jews to not recognize the Greek gods was a supreme insult to the Romans, especially since many Roman Emperors considered themselves gods, and were deified.

When the Roman Emperor Trajan replied to Pliny the Younger, he said this: "Whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it by worshiping our gods- even though he was under suspicion in the past- shall obtain pardon through repentance."

How obvious can it be? The Roman Emperor himself talks about a "pardon" here. The only reason he would use the word "pardon" is if a crime was being comitted. The crime that is obviously being comitted is that the Christians would not worship the Roman gods. The Christians were guilty of monotheism in a culture were polytheism was the law.

So there the author has the "reason" why Nero considered the Christians as "criminals." They just simply were.

This statement does nothing to disprove Tacitus' writing. Why is it inconceivable? The Christians were zealots and fanatics at the time. The spread of their religion was their only agenda. I have already illustated that the spread of Christianity was rapid by pointing out that it was in Greece and what is now Turkey. Paul's letters show he was in Rome, and in prison. Christianity was all over the place, and that is exactly why 275 years later Christianity was what was running the collapsing Roman Empire.

This author seems to be trying to add a new twist to the same previous points.

Another red herring. This statement is so stupid the author must be embarrassed. Absolute desperation. Besides, since Rome was burning and so many people were in Neros' garden, and as Tacitus points out, those people were blaming Nero, then why not light up a few Christians right in front of them? Should he burn them where nobody can see them?

Nice try, but leaving out evidence only confirms this author is purposefully trying to be deceitful. Here's the rest of the story.

Enough said there.

And yet another attempt to misrepresent the truth of what Suetonius wrote, for the quote the author took from Suetonius refers to a single gladiatorial show, as so:

And elsewhere, according to the very same Suetonius ...

And we're done with # 9.

Honestly this author's speculation transcends the boundaries of exaggeration. Post after post reeks with desperation, as assertion reigns supreme and the evidence non existant. I mean, here is an author who attempts to use the very same Tacitus to discredit the same very Tacitus! And at the same time the author admits that Nero committed cruelties, while trying to deny that the cruelty bestowed upon the Christians didn't happen. And finally, the quote does not say that "he feasted his eyes upon the ghastly spectacle," although knowing Nero, he would with pleasure.

# 10 is dismissed. It does nothing to discredit the Tacitus text.

I knew it wouldn't take long before he played the forgery card. I mean why the hell not? Since he can't provide one decent argument, well hell ... let's claim it a forgery and call it a day! Therefore, let him deal with this:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm


The big question here is, who would want to forge the entry? The text regarding Christ and Christians is so uncomplimentary that no Christian would refer to Christ as a "criminal" without committing blasphemy against their god. No Christian would claim that their religion was an "evil superstition." If a Jew had written it, then the Jews would be confirming the existence of Christ. Who's left to blame if this was an interpolation? Nobody.

He goes on to say that the verse regarding Christ has nothing "Tacitian about it." The verse describes a cruelty committed by Nero yet it is only one of many which describes the cruelty of Nero. For example, at the age of 17 Nero began is killing spree by beginning with his own stepbrother. Later, Nero then began the murder attempts on his mother; he tried to poison her three different times, once he tried to kill her by rigging her ceiling over her bed to collapse while she was in bed and by building a boat that deliberately sank but she managed to escape and swim to shore. He then hired an assassin who stabbed and clubbed her to death in her home in 59 A.D. Nero then turned his attention to his wife. He divorced Octavia in A.D. 62 and then had her executed on the false grounds of adultery.After sending off her husband to a frontier post to die, he than married the man's widow Poppeae Sabina, whom he later allegedly killed by kicking to death after she complained and nagged about him coming home late from the races that he attended.

So whatever this author is trying to insinuate certainly does not add up to much at all.

Tacitus' description of the Christians and of Christ give no credibility that he would be caught dead reading a gospel. Furthermore he recites absolutely nothing from a gospel, nor does he recite anything the Christians would say. In fact, what he does do is affirm the existence of Pontius Pilate- who had the dual role of both Prefect and Procurator, which has also been affirmed by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, and The Wars of the Jews. Philo of Alexandria also confirms the existence of Pontius Pilate.

In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."

Therefore, with the existence of Pontius Pilate conclusive, and with Tacitus affirming his existence with the positive statement of He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius,there can be no reaching any other conclusion. Tacitus did not dispute his own statement, nor call it inaccurate in any way whatsoever. He did not claim that Pontius Pilate did not exist. He stated clearly that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberus. This means that his statement came from his own knowledge according to Roman records, and not from Christian sources.

Thus, the author's assertion is without evidence, for no where in any of the writings of Tacitus does he ever mention a gospel, or mention anything else regarding the Christian doctrine which would substantiate the author's assertion. In short, no evidence exists whatsoever that Tacitus knew anything more about Christ or Christianity other than what he drew from his own experiences, and his own experiences stated that Christ was a "criminal," and the Christians and Christianity were "a pernicious (evil) superstition; hateful for their crimes; a monstrosity; guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment."

Not one iota of evidence exists which shows Tacitus being influenced by the Christian doctrine. On the contrary, everything he said is consistent with the Roman view of Christianity, and the view is that Christians were despised.


It appears that the author seems so fixated on the Christian segment that he's forgotten what the purpose of the text actually is. Are we to assume that the purpose of Tacitus' writings were to document the movements of the despised Christians? Or is it more accurate to accept the fact that his writings were to document some history of the Romans? One must not forget that the section regarding the Christians and Christ was not written to be speaking of them specifically, but was written into the context of an accounting of Nero's actions. In short, that specific section relates to Nero, and details his cruel actions against the Christians.

Therefore, there is no other evident reason for Tacitus to speak about the Christians in any of his other works, for it is obvious by his remarks that they were hardly worth the pen and ink to speak about them at all.

Josephus did indeed list many people with the name of Jesus, but only one was ever listed in the same context as Pontius Pilate as evidenced in the Arabic copy of the Antiquities. The fact that both Josephus and Tacitus lump the death of Christ together with Pontius Pilate as being the one who put him to death distinguishes this specific Jesus from any other.

This is a very desperate charge indeed. Tacitus wasn't "made" to say anything; what he wrote is what we see. The fact that the title of "Christians" finds its root only from Jesus Christ is indisputable, for there is no record of this title being assigned as to having its root in anyone else. There is no evidence of this author's assertion whatsoever. Aside from that, the mention of Pontius Pilate as the one who sent Jesus to his death cements the fact of whom this "Christus" actually is.

There is no evidence to support the author's assertion.

This will end Part 1 of my evaluation of the claims against the Tacitus text. This will be a 3 Part series which we will examine all the evidence extensively, while exploring some hidden and yet unrealized arguments to support the existence of Jesus called Christ.

Part 2 will deal with the last of the authors statements, and will be the next post.

FathomFFI

Tacitus - Part 2 of 2

This is part two of a discussion regarding Tacitus. As in Part 1, we will continue to examine the points a certain author made to contest the legitimacy of a specific section of Tacitus' writings in which he discusses Christ, and the persecution of Christians by the Romans. The following is the remainder of the author's points.

Regarding # 15 & # 18

The first thing I noticed about these two arguments is how the author attempts to make a case in # 15 that the word "Christians" also applied to the followers of the sun-god Serapis, obviously suggesting that Tacitus was referring to them. But on the first line of his # 18 he clearly states that Tacitus applied the name of "Christians to the followers of Jesus, contradicting his own assertion in # 15. This leaves me with more than enough doubt as to the credibility of this author, as he doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind. But despite this author contradicting his own assertions, I will post an argument as to the rest of his statements.

In regard to Christians being named after Serapis, it should be noted that there is only one record relating to this charge, and that record is in dispute as to its authenticity. However, the record related to that charge comes from a letter found in a book entitled "Augustan History" purportedly written by Emperor Hadrian to Servianus. The following is an excerpt of that letter which contains the content refered to by the author of "Assertion # 15."

Therefore, we can conclude that the author of # 15 used the above quote as his source, since there are no other in existence. We can also conclude that the worshippers of Serapis were the very same "Christians" who worshipped Jesus Christ as per the clear statements in the letter. It really doesn't matter if the statements in the letter are true or not, but if the author insists they are indeed true, then he must also admit that the Christians he refered to were the very same ones who worshipped Christ.

The author asserts that "Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the 1st century mentions the name of Christians." I suppose if he likes he can discount Flavius Josephus' account in the Arabic version of the Antiquities, who was a hellenized Jew writing for the Romans. Although neither Pliny nor Tacitus wrote their works regarding the Christians in the 1st century, they were indeed 1st century writers since they were both born in the mid 1st century. This alone refutes his ridculous assertion.

Everything else the author asserts is a total argument from silence, and is therefore dismissed.

Another desperate attempt. Since he cannot remove the text regarding Christ and the Christians, then he's stating the whole thing must then be suspect. Also, who are these "most scholars" he's referring to? The actual accepted scholarly concensus was illustrated in Part 1 of this discussion regarding Tacitus, and it states clearly that no one who has attempted to discredit the works of Tacitus has been credible enough to be taken seriously. All attempts to discredit the authenticity of the works of Tacitus have failed, and miserably.

This assertion is dismissed.

Again, the author attempts several more arguments from silence. But let's put some of it to bed.

In regards to # 24 & 25 - Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome, the first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about A.D. 850. Books eleven through sixteen- including book 15 which speaks of Christians and Christ- are in another manuscript which date from the eleventh century. In addition, only approximately half of Tacitus' Histories and Annals remain today. This dating of the texts refutes the assertions of # 25 and # 24(as it predates the 15th century, and thus existed).

Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine (c. 400 CE) quotes the Tacitus text regarding Christ at length in his Chronicorum Libri II, 29, when the church fathers were barely cold in their graves. Thus, we have evidence of the authenticity of the text some 280 years after it was published. Thus, this clearly refutes # 24 and 25 and shows the ignorance of the author.

In regards to # 23, there was absolutely no reason for Origen to use the Tacitus text in his Contra Celsus work. Celsus was not disputing the existence of Jesus, but was ridiculing the Christian religion's claim of the divinity of Jesus, as well as the validity of the Christian religion itself. In fact Celsus admits to the existence of Jesus, and even names the father of Jesus as Pantera. The entire Contra Celsus work was one in which Origen attempts to justify the philosophy of the Christian faith and a refutation of paganism, and no where was there any cause to justify the Christian faith by actually naming any martyrs, or specific examples of how any were martyred. In fact, the use of any example of the word "martyr" appears only once in the last book, the 8th, and does not list any specific time or date of anyone being martyred.

Therefore, # 23 by the author is an unjustified attempt to misrepresent the Contra Celsus work by giving the false impression that the work itself was some kind of Christian work which referenced the martyrs. It simply wasn't, and it simply didn't.

In # 22 McKinsley fails to acknowledge the greater possibility that Clement of Alexandria was completely unaware of the existence of Tacitus, let alone aware of the Annals which had been published a mere 80 years previous. Also, the author greatly embellishes his characterization of Clement of Alexandria as one who collected quotes from pagan authors to justify the existence of Jesus, for the truth is that he did indeed collect quotes from many various pagan authors- not to supply proof of the existence of Jesus- but to justify his own philosphical views by comparing them to ancient philosophers.

Therefore, I must state that McKinsley's assertions are a blemish upon the truth, for by exclusion of the actual motive of Clement of Alexandria for collecting evidence from pagan authors, the author has misrepresented the works of Clement of Alexandria. Also, the author must assume Clement of Alexandria was aware of Tacitus "Annals", and there is no evidence whatsoever that he was.

In # 21, we have another argument from silence. Again, the author must assume that the Annals of Tacitus were known to Eusebius. The author must also assume that even if Eusebius knew about The Annals there was sufficient reason to use the passage. The author's assertion leaves far too much to assumption and offers nothing more than speculation designed to cast doubt. However, an argument from silence is a known falacy.

In # 20, none of Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage. The arguments of Tertullian whereas he referenced Tacitus only twice dealt with Tacitus' book "The Histories," and were all used to argue against the assertion that Judaism was created from the worship of the head of an ass. Again, this is another argument from silence, and even then the author's argument is unsubstantiated.

In # 26, the author's assertions of "overlooked for 1360 years" have been refuted by my previous posts. Nothing more needs to be said.

In # 27, the author actually attempts to make a case for the existence of Jesus! He's trying to show the possibility of some missing text of the final years of the ministry of Jesus. This argument, if true, defeats his own purpose.

Regarding # 29, the style is consistent with Tacitus' writings throughout his entire works. He tells it like it is, all the way from the beginning to the end. Therefore, the assertion of the author doesn't even require me to refute it, for all anyone has to do is read the works of Tacitus to prove it to themselves.

Regarding # 28, Tacitus states clearly that the previous histories of the emporers was falsified under the threat of terror:

In the opening paragraph of Tacitus' Histories we also read this:

As you can see above, Tacitus states clearly that after the conflict at Actium (36 BC) the truthfulness of history was impaired. For the second time we have Tacitus confirming that the History of the Roman Emperors was falsified for a number of reasons. Among those previous historians, we would also have Suetonius, whose writings are clearly biased because its obvious he hated the man of Nero. Yet, even in Suetonius we have this account of the fires of Rome:

Suffice to say we now have two separate historical accounts of the fires of Rome.

But you see, when we examine the very next paragraph from Tacitus' Histories, I will show you once again what he obviously has no clue about:

Do you understand now the importance of investigation for evidence, how subtle the evidence can be, and how it can be lit up like a neon sign when discovered? Here we see again Tacitus confirming that the capital city of Rome was lit on fire by its own citizens. We now have Tacitus' Histories confirming what he said in his Annals. You should be aware that this evidence alone destroys all 29 arguments of the author.

What you are seeing from Tacitus, my friend, is the corrected History of the Roman Empire.

Just a little treat for you so that you remain confident, I will provide you again with something no one else mentioned. Please understand I do not mean to boast, but to educate. Quoted below is part of a poem written around 250 AD by a Jewish Christian named Ben Asaph, as part of his lengthy poem entitled "The Moriad."

And also ...

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Book...en_moriad.html

Regards From TEAM FFI.

patcleaver

In response to your ignorant ad homonym remarks, I will respond when I get time. I noticed that you did not respond to my post, but just dumped something from some other place. Can I presume that you agree with whatever you did not respond to, mostly stuff in square brackets, such as the following:

[1.1 Even if Tacitus got his information from official records, we do not know that the official records that he accessed were reliable. He could have copied the information from some hearsay 2nd century report.]

[1.2 It is unlikely that Tacitus got this information, about the Crucifixion of Christus, from official records, because he did not say that he got this information from official records, but in other places where he got his information from official records, he tells us that he got the information from official records.]

[1.3 The official records would not have contained the name Christus. Jesus' Jewish name was Yeshua ben Yosef, and that is the name that would have been in the Roman records. Yeshua was a popular name in Judea and Pilot killed lots of criminals - there were likely dozens of Yeshua's that were killed under pilot. Christus was also a popular name - there may have even been a Yeshua Ben Christus killed who had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. How would Tacitus know which record to check?]

[1.4 In the gospels, Jesus never went by the name Yeshua messiah, but always Yeshua of Nazareth. Even if he went by the name Yeshua the messiah, that name would not have been converted in meaning to Jesus Christ, but more likely simply transliterated to something that sounded like Yeshua the messiah.]

[1.5 Josephus tells us about several would-be messiahs who were killed by the Romans, but nobody fitting the description of Jesus of Nazareth. Tacitus could be talking about any would-be messiah that was killed by Pilot e.g. Jesus Bar Abbas.]

[1.6 The stories in the gospels about Jesus being killed by the Romans are not believable, so there could not have been any Roman records of his death. The most probable source where Tacitus could have obtained his information was the Christian urban legend of Christs crucifixion.]

BTW, In my top drawer, I keep a copy of a signed confession by Poggio that he forged The Annals of Tacitus.

I keep it in my top drawer with a copy of a signed affidavit of Sulpicius Severus that he was the original author of the section in his writings that are, in part, word for word identical to the interpolation about Christ in Annals.

I will produce them, of course, as soon as you prove that the Annals are authentic and reliable - preferably by producing the original of that document and another original document by Tacitus so we can compare handwriting and check for evidence of alterations.

FathomFFI

John Wilson ROSS published a book entitled Tacitus and Bracciolini:: the Annals forged in the XVth century, intended to prove that Poggio had forged the works of Tacitus.

It would be interesting to know how Poggio, who lived in the 14th century, could forge 9th century manuscripts!

Good luck with that endeavor.

Toto

Thanks for the laugh.

But seriously, folks, I thought that when I split this out, we might get a focused discussion on Tacitus.

The last discussions of whether this passage in Tacitus was forged occured in this thread: Another Tacitean poll (about Annals 15.44 on 'Christus') , and in this thread.

FFI's post is difficult to read because of the formatting, but I may get back to it later.

patcleaver

let me quote specifically from his confession:

"I wrote it in a 9th century handwriting style on some old paper that I collected and figured that everyone would be too stupid to figure it out."