Originally Posted by jules?

Tacitus use of 'extreme penalty' appears to be the one entry. [if anyone knows better please direct me as I have only done a quick glance at his surviving works]

He does mention a slave [Annals book2 40] that was executed privately rather having a 'public execution'. In histories he mentions simon who tried to proclaim himself king of the Jews who was executed but no 'extreme penalty', there is mention in his writings of barbarians and traitors and slaves but they are executed. And of crucifixion he mentions that christians were not subject to the 'extreme penalty' but instead says they were nailed to crosses.

Cicero of all the quotes you use is the only one that refers to crucifixion as 'extreme penalty' but the quote (Verrem 2:5.168) appears to mean nothing. Please redirect me to either a court case or other work.

As for 'common sense' there is of course no such thing, extreme penalty does not equate to trial.

Originally Posted by jules?

and the origin of the Cicero quote?

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

This same thing happens even today, according to many critics. The Mormons, being one example, as well as a host of other offshoots of the Christian religion, including a few cults etc. They all consider themselves Christians, but are thought of as being "deceived" by other Christian groups.

Originally Posted by aa5874

And the Mormon Christians think that the other Christians have been deceived.

And all who take their opinion from Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Marcion, Cerinthus, Valentinius, Simon Magus, are all called Christians.

Originally Posted by Iasion

Hiya,

* What evidence is there that Tacitus got this information from Roman records?

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Assuming the passage in Tacitus to be genuine - - -

Tacitus was quite prepared to write the most sensationalist gossip about Nero as "historical fact", gossip that was no doubt widely circulating among Tacitus's own class and faction that hated Nero long after his demise. Victors, after all, get to create the history.

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Tacitus hated Nero and couldn't bring himself to spare a single detail of malicious rumour that had ever come to his ear about the man.

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

How plausible is it that the same author would take the trouble to wade through archives going back many decades to verify some solitary aspect of the rumours he had heard about a loathsome religious sect, one of the many "degraded and shameful", "anti-social", "deadly superstitions" that he complained then collected in Rome?

Originally Posted by Tacitus - Concerning Records

1. I do not find in any historian or in the daily register that Antonia, Germanicus's mother, rendered any conspicuous honour to the deceased.

2. But we have learnt that it suits the dignity of the Roman people to reserve history for great achievements, and to leave such details to the city's daily register.

3. I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius, consul-elect, proposed a motion that a temple should as soon as possible be built at the public expense to the Divine Nero.

4. But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent
hatred.

5. So now, after a revolution, when Rome is nothing but the realm of a single despot, there must be good in carefully noting and recording this period, for it is but few who have the foresight to distinguish right from wrong or what is sound from what is hurtful, while most men learn wisdom from the fortunes of others.

6. Records of this event still existed, engraven on stone and ancient bronze.

7. Many authors, I am well aware, have passed over the perils and punishments of a host of persons, sickened by the multiplicity of them, or fearing that what they had themselves found wearisome and saddening would be equally fatiguing to their readers. For myself, I have lighted on many facts worth knowing, though other writers have not recorded them.

8. The emperor further observed that she died on the same day on which Sejanus had paid the penalty of his crime two years before, a fact, he said, to be recorded

9. These records, the most ancient of all human history, are still seen engraved on stone.

10. The boundaries now fixed by Claudius may be easily recognized, as they are specified in the public records.

11. But the consuls did not venture to put the motion without the emperor's knowledge, though they recorded the Senate's general opinion,

12. Nero meanwhile summoned the Senate, addressed them in a speech, and further added a proclamation to the people, with the evidence which had been entered on records, and the confessions of the condemned.

13. Cremutius Cordus was arraigned on a new charge, now for the first time heard. He had published a history in which he had praised Marcus Brutus and called Caius Cassius the last of the Romans.

14. I have followed most historians in attributing the cause of his retirement to the arts of Sejanus

15. Historians of the time tell us that, as there was no precedent for the capital punishment of a virgin,

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Compare my discussion of F. F. Bruce's argument in favour of the evidence of Tacitus here.

Neil

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

It would not be incorrect to state that if Trypho thought that Jesus did not exist, yet encourages the Christians to acknowledge this Jesus to be a man of mere human origin, that he would be contradicting himself, for it is completely illogical for Trypho to encourage Christians to recognize the human qualities of someone who did not physically exist. . . . . .

The entire discussion revolved around Justin making an attempt to qualify Jesus as being the Christ to Trypho. Yet Trypho, although admitting that Jesus was crucified and therefore to have existed,

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

This is attempting to squeeze lemonade out of watermelons. As acknowledged, Justin's discussion has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of Jesus. It is entirely about christology. Logically any and every discussion about someone said to have come to earth in the past, whether as a human or as a spirit, whether from human sperm or magical ichor or simply as a full grown being of unknown composition out of thin air, necessarily assumes he existed. Debating whether Adam had a belly button assumes that Adam existed. Such a debate does absolutely nothing by way of adding "evidence" to the historical existence of such characters.

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

The entire discussion revolved around Justin making an attempt to qualify Jesus as being the Christ to Trypho.

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Does that mean he would falsify history?

Evidence? :huh:


Does that mean he would falsify history?

Evidence? :huh:


More than a mere plausibility I'm afraid. Here's 15 points of evidence, just for starters. Pay very close attention to # 7: