FatherMithras

Wrong. Tacitus gives virtually no detailed information as would be found in an archived report, merely a small "Oh and there's these people", showing it's more likely he read a small, unimportant document.

You just made up an entire scenario out of nothing. so I don't see any need to address it. You make up a political scenario out of nowhere, with no support, claim that this would have made it important and lead Tacitus to make a tiny passing mention.

Once again you're arguing something completely different that doesn't answer my objections in the slightest. The evidence Tacitus didn't read well documented archived reports is the lack of information he gave about the subject and it's level of unimportance. Your made up scenario attempting to make it important notwithstanding.

no, you made up an ad hoc scenario with no support whatsoever. Were this the issue, more would have been mentioned in the writings of Tacitus.

No. I see you making up ad hoc stories and claiming that this hugely important fantasy story is supported by a passing mention of a minor religious cult, that if your story were true would have had a much larger mention.

I didn't say in twenty years everything would change. I said in twenty years, events are clearly discernable IF YOU ARE USING HIGHLY DETAILED ARCHIVES which you assume he was using for the "christ" mention. So the historians here are very detailed and accurate, except when they mention Chrestus because it supports your presupposed notions.

So he failed because he didn't think he had to.... Like the argument being used for Tacitus? This argument works exactly the same for Tacitus.

Except that you just made this up in order to support yourself. You're making assumptions based on "possible" situations, than using those "maybes" to create other, complex conclusions that simply don't follow.

ynquirer

You read my words well, don't you? "You have at least three pieces of evidence..." That phrase is not addressed to you, Johann_Kaspar, but to another user whose username, jakejonesiv, is indicated, quite clealy, a few lines above.

In post #3730763 of the general IIDB counter, #9 of the particular counter of this thread, jakejonesiv had raised an argument against the authenticity of Annals 15:44. He suggested that it could possibly be a forgery by either Sulpicius Severus or an 11th century monk at Monte Cassino abbey.

Now, in the post you quote I pointed at Sulpicius Severus as a piece of evidence for jakejonesiv in the sense that if Severus had forged the text, the 11th c. monk ought to be discharged. He had to choose which hypothesis to stick to before the rest of us took the issue seriously.

After additional reshaping of jakejonesiv's position, Ben C. Smith (#3732538/#31) cleared the issue by quoting in full two paragraphs of Severus, evidencing that none mentions the point under discussion, that is, Jesus' death under Pilate. Then jakejonesiv (#3735729/#63) apologized for the blunder, so closing the issue.

Do you want to re-open the discussion on the authenticity of Annals 15:44?

Gamera

Well of course Paul states all this in 1 Timothy 6:13 -. But of course in typical circular fashion, because he does, you claim that he didn't author this epistle. Nice trick.

So let's forget about 1 Timothy. Paul mentions that Jesus's crucifiction is a stumbling block to the Jews. This pretty much places the crucifiction in Jerusalem, since why else would Jews care? 1 Corinthians 1:23


But let's even leave that. So let's say Paul doesn't answer these questions, which suggests that his audience already knew.

That's my point.

I suspect that except for the four gospels most christian texts in fact do not go into these details. That's certainly true of late medaeval texts. It's clear they had the gospels, so they understood Jesus as an historical figure. Yet they didn't indulge these details. The reason -- they're audience already know them.

The same can be concluded about Paul.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Iasion;3734246]Greetings,

Actually they didn't. Most late medaeval texts are blissfully unconcerned about the details of the crucifixion.

Yep, and they would lhave got all that from early written gospels or oral accounts, perhaps directly from Paul's preaching. So if Paul already told them the details in converting them, why would he repeat it in an epistle when he already knew they knew the details -- because he himself had told them!

I don't know what you mean by "early Christians" But if you mean the Christians in the several decades after the death of Jesus, then we have Paul's epistles, which tell us he preached to them. It's a pretty good bet that if he preached to them about Jesus, he would have given them the details of the crucifixion. This is confirmed in Acts. Further if his details differed from those of the Apostles, you would expect some ms memorializing those differences. But none exists.

Well, we have 1 Timothy, which belies your claim, but of course in a circular manner you will therefore claim Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, or rather that passage is an interpolation.

But you have a more difficult problem with Paul's references to the crucifixion as a stumbling block to the Jews. If Jesus wasn't an historical figure who died in Jerusalem, why would Paul think that Jews would care at all about him?

His preoccupation with the Jewish reaction to the crucifixion only makes sense if it happened in Jerusalem, near in time to his writing, so that it was an occurence that would be meaningful for the Jews.

See above. If it was just a spiritual concept, why would Paul think the Jews would care enough about it to reject it?

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that I would feel very comfortable in speculating on the sources of Tacitus, 2000 years later, in the absence of actual statements in any ancient writer to this effect, given my own lack of any specialised knowledge of how Roman writers found their sources.

That the ex-consul Cornelius Tacitus had access, if he chose, to whatever information was available in Rome at the highest levels and to whatever level of detail he required is, I take it, not under discussion.

Whatever he actually used is speculation. I'm not sure that I think that we should ignore a statement in an ancient text purely because we can imagine that perhaps he might have heard it from someone (or whatever) rather than from some other source. If I did this, I would feel nervous that I was rationalising a pre-existing wish.

Incidentally I was born in the early 60's, but I don't feel disqualified in 2005 from discussing the hippy movement by that fact.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
(Wear some flowers in your hair)

ynquirer

Hi FatherMithras,

I regret to say that I don’t find anything new in your last remarks. They are a mere rewording of your last but one post.

My disagreement with you is quite clear, though.

You say that Tacitus’ mentioning Christus’ death under Pilate is a minor point in his narrative. Being unimportant as you say it is, Tacitus would have been relatively careless in checking the reliability of his sources, which happened to be some (lost) documentation on Christus’ bio.

This renders you position fairly untenable, since you recast the credibility issue into a question about the reliability of a hypothetical documentation that no one can assess critically - but which you reject without having read a word of it. You simply presume it is unreliable, because you prejudge that: a) the author was a Christian or group of Christians, and b) Christian sources of the 1st to 2nd century are historically unreliable. Too many suppositions for a rational discussion, don’t you think so?

The fact is that neither you or I know about Tacitus’ sources. An ad hoc, lengthy discussion on his hypothetical sources to write this paragraph is misplaced. Either you have evidence that in this case he made use of unreliable sources, or the discussion about his sources for the paragraph mergers with the discussion about Tacitus’ sources in general.

Otherwise, you have to pose special suppositions - easy prey to Ockham’s razor - as regard that he was sometimes careful with his sources while sometimes careless with them. (Do you have any evidence of this other than this case?) Good historians are usually especially careful with details that an untrained eye would deem “minor.” That’s what makes them good.

At the end of the day, you probably think that Tacitus could not have been really careful with his sources in this case because you have a strong prior belief that such a character as Christus who was put to death under Pilate - is mythical or fictitious. That may be a good point to start an intelligent discussion, but a poor one to end with.

The rest of my position is ancillary to this basic point: I trust Tacitus in his source management throughout his work. Mistakes are not excluded a priori, but they must be proven with evidence. Prejudices are not evidence at all.

jakejonesiv

If you only want me to answer a question, you should send it as a private message. Otherwise, anyone is welcome to contribute. I have no objection to Johann Kaspar's participation. Maybe you didn't want to hear the very good points he made, so you are trying to exclude him? Can you answer his question? Here it is again.

Here is a hint. Neither is an exact quotation of the other.

An 11th century monk could have interpolated Annals 15:44. The source could have been a paraphrase of similar text by Sulpicius Servus. I do not think that Sulpicius Severus forged Tacitus Annals 15:44.

See above. I do not think Severus forged the text. IMHO the text of Annals 15:44 is fishy. I think all possible angles should be examined, including Bracciolini. No need to choose just one up front. Is open discussion something you would like to avoid?
No, hell no it didn't close the issue. It was not a minor part in the argument. You are jumping to conclusions like fleas on a hot skillet.

If you are implying that I closed it, I never did.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

How is this circular? The Pastorals weren't written by the same author as the alleged genuine seven epistles. They weren't included in Marcion's cannon.

A wise decision.

They would care because someone was preaching at them. By your logic, we should conclude that Jesus was crucified in Athens, because the Greeks thought it was foolishness, since why else would the Greeks care? 1 Corinthians 1:23.


Another wise decision. The only thing better would be to omit all those lame arguments that you have to immediately snatch back.

It suggests these details hadn't been invented yet, or perhaps that the Pauline epistles generated from another source.

What about the the non canonical gospels?

Oh, puhlease! Have you never read the church fathers? Try reading Justin Martyr. :banghead: You seem to have a case of tunnel vision.

I have no interest in late medaeval texts. Why? They are too late to inform us of early Christianity. I will consider texts written up through the fifth century if you have any that you want to recommend.

No, the same thing can't be concluded about "Paul." Why did whoever forged the Pastorals and I and 2 Peter feel free to mention the life of Christ and "Paul" didn't?
Answer: These work were written late enough for the details to have been invented.

Jake Jones IV

Johann_Kaspar

Arghhh, you beat me! :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Johann_Kaspar

Quite well indeed! Maybe you have understanding problems with a few words. Let's see what we can do.As said by JJ4, this forum is open to discussion. Anyone can step in. It seems that you want to close many things. If you want a private discussion, go to the formal debate section. This forum has rules, you are not making your own rules.You see nothing is black or white. Nobody to my knowledge is sustaining that all Annals 15:44 is a forgery. It is enough that one word was changed, deleted or added to make it not authentic. This thread is about evidence of an HJ. Some people are claiming that the forgery in Annals 15:44 is but the few words about "Christ" (and Pontius Pilatus). Who did the forgery is not important, it could be anyone between Eusebius until the 11th century. When the xians had the control of the manuscripts. It could well be that all Annals were destroyed except the one mentioning "Christ". For "evidence" purposes.No, you are spinning. You pointed at Sulpicius Severus as evidence that Annals 15:44 is authentic.
It was never closed. You have problems with reading. JJ4's mistake was about the relation Orosius-Severus. Your blunder.

All this crap reply only to avoid answering my question.
Will you be so kind as to answer my question?
Which quotation of Sulpicius Severus is evidence that Annals 15:44 is authentic?

Your words:1) as the 11th century manuscript is the only one testimony of Tacitus book, it cannot be evidence to itself about authenticity.
2) Give us the quotation (bis repetita placent).
3) Which quotations?

So far you showed us no evidence whatsoever.

And now it gets very interesting, for if Sulpicius Severus did quote "the paragraph" of Annals 15:44, then we have evidence that Annals 15:44 is a forgery.

PS: thank you to pointing to Sulpicius Severus, it gives strong evidence that an HJ is not likely at all. But reading skills are necessary...