bacht

Are we now seeing modern scholars (eg Robert Price) "catching up" to the 19th C radicals like the Dutch school?

matthijs

No matter how many times I read about it, I can never recall the arguments off the top of my head. Hopefully you'll have more luck remembering this than I: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=114548

Elske.

spin

Tacitus wrote his Annals in circa 130 CE. The manuscript we depend on to supply that text dates to more than 1000 years after Tacitus. You want to believe that a christian would be incapable of writing such a passage at any time during that 1000 years.

But you don't cite the whole passage. You miss out the bit about how the christians were treated so badly by the evil Nero that everyone felt pity on them. This is the presentation of a martyrdom presented from the pagan point of view. The only people interested in martyrdoms were christians, but you want to believe that they weren't capable of writing a juicy martyrdom, even if from the point of view of the pagan.

What I know is why the passage wasn't written by Tacitus, but it requires you to know something about Tacitus. You cannot expect to cite just any passage as though it were veracious.


spin

spin

The manuscript in Florence clearly had Chrestians, with the "e" then corrected to an "i". It's hard to judge the significance of this. The range is from it being a misunderstanding in ancient times in which people heard "christian" but understood another word "chrestian" (apparently from "Chrestus" a name used in Rome in ancient times) to the possibility that a French scribe may have been involved in the copying process.

The implication is inconclusive.


spin

spin

I strongly doubt that Tacitus had anything to do with the passage. It has nothing to do with the narrative he constructed against Nero. In fact, it undercuts what Tacitus wrote. He knew that he didn't have the hard evidence to blame Nero for the fire, so he built up a complex case of insinuation as to Nero having done it and nothing Nero could do could overcome that insinuation. And that's where Tacitus concluded his passage. He even placed later related events (such as deals with the rebuilding of Rome) before his conclusion in order to give his conclusion the final impact, but the christian material, with its problems appears after the Tacitean conclusion and even suggests that the christians might really have caused the fire. It takes the heat off Nero for the fire and puts christians into focus. That's just not how this craftsman had constructed his assault on Nero.


spin

steve_bnk

Do you have a link?

Toto

http://jesus-project.com/ is the official web site.

aa5874

It can easily be shown that the passage in Tacitus’ Annals 15 beginning at the word “Christus” and ending at the word “popular” appeared not to have been known by the church writers, Tertullian and Eusebius in particular up to the 4th century and even beyond.

The passage is very likely a forgery even later than the forged TF.

No church writer directed its reader to Tacitus' Annals 15, but church writers directed their readers to Antiquities of the Jews 18.



Tacitus Annals 15 Again, no church writer ever used the passage of Tacitus' Christus to bolster or confirm the claim that Jesus Christ of the NT existed. None.

It would appear that, upto Eusbebius and even later, the Roman writers had not written about Jesus Christ only that Nero persecuted those called Christians by the populace.

It should be noted that it was the people who called the class of people Christians, there is no indication the these accused persons actually called themselves Christians.

In Church History, Eusebius mentioned Nero persecuted Christians there is no mention of the man called Christus.

Church History 4.26.9In “Apology”, Tertullian claimed Nero was the FIRST to assail the Christian sect, not Tiberius or Pontius Pilate as found in Annals 15.

This is a very important point. It was Nero who was the FIRST to persecute those called Christians by the populace.

The passage in Tacitus’ Annals starting with the word “Christus” implies that Tiberius or Pontius Pilate tried to eliminate or eradicate the Christian sect, but the NT does not reflect such, only Jesus Christ was singled out by the Jews and very shortly afterwards the apostles were converting thousands of people to Christianity unmolested by Tiberius or Pontius Pilate.

It is again important to note after Jesus was crucified, there was no intervention or persecution of so-call christians at all by the Roman authorities, it was Saul/Paul who was persecuting Christians, Saul/Paul hated Christians, not Tiberius or Pilate.

The passage in Annals 15 does not reflect that Saul/Paul, a Jew, was the one persecuting Christians.

It would appear that Tertullian, writing around the end of the second century was not aware of the the information supplied by Tacitus about Christus but Tertullian was aware that it was said Nero persecuted Christians.

And further Tertullian claimed the reverse to Tacitus’ Annals, instead of Tiberius and Pilate trying to persecute Christians, Pontius Pilate became a Christian and Tiberius claimed Jesus Christ was indeed divine and the Emperor promised to protect the Christian sect.

It is important to realize that if Tiberius or Pontius Pilate wanted to eradicate a sect, they probably would have eliminated not only Jesus but his disciples or close associate just as Nero eradicated many persons called Christians.

The persecution of Christians was not done by Tiberius or Pontius Pilate, the persecution was done by the Jews, with Saul/Paul based on Tertullian and Acts of the Apostles.

Apology 5 Apology 21 So, Tertullian and Eusebius seemed only aware that Nero was claimed to have persecuted Christian, they know of no persecution of Christians by Tiberius or Pilate or where the Caesars considered Christians as evil contrary to Tacitus’ Annals.

And, it will be shown that up to the 4th century that there was no indication that the passage with “Christus” was known.

Eusebius in Church History used the TF [a forgery] instead, a passage where Jesus was described as a myth, not knowing whether Jesus should be called a man and where Jesus rose from the dead after three days.

The TF represents the Jesus of the NT, not Tacitus’ Christus.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 The TFThe passage in Tacitus’ Annals 15, starting at the word “Christus and ending at the word “popular”. appear to be an interpolation even later than the TF.

The church writers used the forged TF even after Eusebius, even after the 4th century not Annals 15 at all.

rlogan

Hi again Amaleq13.

I am trying again on a timeline, and also in the interest of understanding and not fighting to nail down this particular version of an HJ timeline with attention to some external source historical anchors.

For the moment, I am intersted in anchoring things around Josephus and the Pliny-Trajan exchange, and am quite interested to see Tacitus involved in the discussion now because I don't ascribe to the alleged Neronian persecution version of the "Christianized" Tacitus.

I think that I am to understand that your dating of the items we are about to discuss is adopted from Peter Kirby's site. I think that is the case, and I want to leave this argument about you adopting what "most professionals" think because if you get it from Peter's site, then that is the answer and is the end of what I wanted to know.

Josephus is writing in the 90's. Pliny-Trajan is circa 111-113.

Just correct me where I do not have this right. Not interested in arguing. Interested in establishing what the position is.

Circa 30 CE Historical Jesus ministry then:

30 CE -> 90's CE

Between 1 dozen and 3 dozen Christian works are circulating. Includes Pauline epistles and Gospel of Mark. Possibly Matthew. Less possibly Luke.

The Pauline material is first, and it includes a list of around a half-dozen items that could possibly overlap Markan dating - but if I understand your version we have very roughly

50-60ish Pauline ->

65ish - 80 Mark.

Now it would help somewhat if you have Mark on one side of the Temple destruction or the other. So if you pick one side of 70 or the other for me that would be helpful.

and now for Circa 93 CE.

We have of course a ruling to be made on the Testimonium. My opinion on it is not so important, but as an FYI I am on the side of complete interpolation insertion, and the James passage as one that existed but was hijacked via interpolation meddling.

So I just need a position on that please.

Then we have another 20 years between Josephus' writings and the Pliny-Trajan exchange. There are a good dozen more works circulating, including the Ignatia, which again in my opinion is spurious in it's entirety but could be in your view acceptable in the short (middle) recension or in its entirety - I don't know. Perhaps you could offer up an opinion there.

By the time of this Pliny-Trajan exchange, depending on where you come down on particular works, there are upwards of 50 of them in circulation.

That's enough to work on for now, thanks.

spamandham

It seems a few are finally stepping forward. Price is probably more qualified than average, as far as scholars go. But he does his share of speculation - it seems to be the nature of the beast.