Discourse to the RRS regarding Tacitus
Offline The quote from Tacitus in question will be found below:
"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)
The following is the first claim by the RRS against Tacitus:
(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.
It should be noted that the quote above is complete assertion, and provides no evidence for support. It should also be noted that the assertion above screams an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy, since the argument basis itself upon the absence of the purported Roman records which, like most ancient Roman records, could have been lost and/or destroyed by the ravages of time. That being said, I will list the 3 RRS claims in the assertion above:
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."
2. "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."
3. "For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance."
Although there are 3 listed above, I will deal with # 2 for now.
The RRS asserts that "the execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events... ." This statement completely contradicts the RRS' position that Jesus never existed, otherwise how could Jesus be a "Nazareth carpenter?" If he never existed, he could hardly be a carpenter. Therefore, to claim this as a reason as to why the Roman authorities would not have any record of the execution of Jesus is ludicrous and completely self-defeating. Since we know that the only record of Jesus being a carpenter comes from the Holy Bible, and the RRS claims the Gospel record as a fabrication and Jesus did not exist, then to claim that the reason the Tacitus would not have read a previous record of the execution of Jesus is because he was an insignificant carpenter not worthy of note is very surprising and considerably amusing.
In order for the statement to be valid, the RRS must admit to the existence of Jesus. If not, then I will await their explanation as to why the RRS would use what they claim as a fabrication in the Gospel of Jesus being a carpenter to support their reasoning. The logical reasoning is completely invalidated, for you cannot use a a self-proclaimed fabrication to assert a possibility, truth, or a fact. If the Gospel record of Jesus being a carpenter is a fabrication as the RRS claims, then they cannot use a fabrication to quantify their reasoning as to why no Roman records existed for Tacitus to refer to. It is completely illogical. The following is an illustration of the faulty logic:
ASSERTIONS:
1. Jesus did not exist.
2. Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter.
3. The Romans would not have kept a record of Jesus' execution because Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter.
Question: If Jesus did not exist, how then could he be a Nazareth carpenter?
The logic simply falls apart under examination. If Jesus did not exist, he therefore could not be a Nazareth carpenter, and the RRS reasoning as to why no Roman records existed for Tacitus was because Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter is logically invalidated. The only way to validate this argument is to admit that the lowly Nazareth carpenter existed, which subsequently would mean that Jesus must have existed.
If the RRS argues that "Assuming Jesus existed," then 'the execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable... ,'" then that assumption must come with evidence to support it. This means that in order to support the assumption, you must provide evidence to support the existence of Jesus.
Interesting twist, I must say. Either way you look at it, the argument is logically invalidated, and/or the assumption contradicts the RRS position of the non-existence of a historical Jesus.
In conclusion, according to the information available in # 1, the argument in its entirety is logically invalidated. The 3 claims I listed from the RRS in # 1 all depend on Jesus existing to be validated. Since the position of the RRS is that Jesus did not exist historically, then their argument in # 1 is logically and ideologically contradictory to their claims.
I now ask the RRS to respond to this argument before I continue through the rest of their claims against Tacitus.
Permanently banned
- Login to post comments
Offline
From now on, please do me a favor, and respond to everything at one time, otherwise you’re making me do more work than I want to do. I have to go through, copy all your remarks into one document, reformat it, and go through the hassle of separating your comments from mine. Do us all a favor, and hit the quote button, quote things all in one reply, and save me (and you) time.
Very well, but prepare yourself for some very long posts with that method.
Quote:The questions you will see from me are logical questions; ones which you will face from people far greater than myself if you enter the scholarly world.You fail to realize I’m already a part of the scholarly community. You do know I am being reviewed for publication?
I do know about your review, but being a part of a scholarly community is not what makes a scholar any more than a graduate certificate does. The true mark of a scholar is that which demonstrates a profound and advanced knowledge of a particular subject.
Since you are still under review for publication, then the jury is still out. And even if you are published, any claims of being a scholar will not be made by you, but rather your peers.
Impressing yourself is nothing. Impressing your peers is everything.
Quote:If you cannot answer them, simply reconsider the validity of your argument and dismiss it if necessary.Only if you promise to do the same.
It's like a religion to me.
Quote:It is pointless to hold onto an argument if it cannot be supported, and it is also intellectual suicide to hold onto frivolous arguments in the scholarly world.You understand you are coming from this position, not I? The burden of proof rests on he who alleges.
I have alleged nothing. I have asked to see your arguments against the validity of the Tacitus text regarding Jesus. I have not presented a view on it, but am only here to examine your arguments.
There are two burdens of proof. The first burden of proof is indeed on he who alleges, but the 2nd burden of proof also rests with anyone else who alleges. It's know as "assuming a burden of proof."
The moment you provide counter-points with evidence, you have assumed a burden of proof because you have made a counter-claim. Here is a simple example:
Subject 1: The Tacitus text is authentic, and here's my evidence.
Subject 2 The Tacitus text is not authentic, and here's my evidence.
Both subjects above have burdens of proof because both made a claim either for or against the authenticity of the Tacitus text, and both volunteered evidence. The moment you bring new evidence into a debate, you have assumed a burden of proof because of that evidence. You then must defend the integrity of your evidence from the original claimant.
Quote:I have a clue.Based on your earlier replies to me, I am skeptical. That is not an insult. You are naïve about the state of the evidence. More on this as we review your passages.
I assure you, you will regret this statement later.
Quote:Therefore, let's take a look at what you are saying.Quote:Rook_Hawkins wrote:It is as irrelevant as the Parium Marble, in that just because it says a legendary character lived or event happened does not make it so. I am not holding to different standards here, and am applying criticism to everything equally. I give my reasons below for not accepting this evidence as reputable.
By using the same method of argument as you use above, we can equally say that because it says Jesus lived, then we have been given no reason to believe he didn't. Let us use some logic in assessing the text according to your argument.
Fallacy of False Analogy. That is not what I am saying. Perhaps you do not know what the Parium Marble is?
Yes I know about the Parium Marble. My point which eluded you was "just because it says a legendary charactor did not live, or event did not occur does not make it so." In the context of Jesus, just because you say he did not exist, does not make it so.
That kind of argument works both ways, and is actually pointless.
Quote:The Tacitus text claims that a man named Christus, understood as Jesus,By you.
Actually, almost universally agreed upon by almost every reputable scholar, if you want the truth. You should be aware that it will indeed be intellectual suicide to deny that Christus refers to Jesus, as all arguments to support that assertion have been met with solid evidence to the contrary, bringing ridicule to those who were hense regulated to the bottom-feeders of the intellectual gene pool.
But if you feel you can contest it ...
Quote:lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate.I would note that he does not say that Christus was executed.
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators.”
You can assume the extreme penalty means death, but there is no real evidence textually to assume execution, nor even crucifixion. You are stretching this.
Actually, the words "extreme penalty" literally refer "crucifixion."
The Roman statesman Cicero called it "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (Verrem 2:5.165) and "the most extreme penalty" (Verrem 2:5.168). The Jewish historian Josephus, who certainly witnessed enough crucifixions himself, called it "the most wretched of deaths." The Roman jurist Julius Paulus listed crucifixion in first place as the worst of all capital punishments, listing it ahead of death by burning, death by beheading, or death by the wild beasts.Quote:What reason do we have for doubting this claim? In order to even substantiate doubt, we must have reason. You have said you will give your reasoning below. Fair enough, now let us explore those reasons.
In fact, the crucifixion was put at the top of what is known as the three summa supplica, giving it distinction as the extreme penalty, with the # 2 spot being filled in by burning creamtio, and the third being interchanged between decapitation decollatio, and of being fed to wild beasts damnatio ad bestias.
In other words, Christians were either sliced and diced, thrown on the barbie, or fed to the dog, depending on the party atmosphere, if we take Nero's exploits into consideration.
How do you like your Christian, Rook? Rare? Medium? Or well done?
Would you like fries with that?
$8.99 please. Will that be cash or debit?
Thank you, and have a nice day.
But seriously, extreme penalty does indeed refer to crucifixion.
Quote:What reason do we have for doubting this claim? In order to even substantiate doubt, we must have reason. You have said you will give your reasoning below. Fair enough, now let us explore those reasons.
There are a lot of reasons for doubting this claim. Not all rest squarely on the Tacitus passage. You must review the whole state of the evidence, which I do not think you’ve done, and come to a conclusion based on it.
Hey, I will be the first in line to admit to the likely possibility that there is much that I do not know. I have no problems learning new things, and adding those new things to my own position, if they are proven worthy enough to add.
But first, we need to see legitimate arguments to doubt it.
Quote:Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:How can it not be relevant if it is probably genuine? Are you doubting your position on the non-existence of Jesus?
No, I am not doubting it. It is just not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. This is also in light of the compendium of evidence, when viewed in its cumulative whole.
You have asserted that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. Yet, you have not explained why. We are not dealing with a compendium of evidence when viewed in any cumulative whole, but only with the Tacitus text.
You are minimalizing the evidence by ignoring it all. If we only took evidence in bits and pieces a lot could be assumed but little would ever be understood or interpretable. This is your naivety playing into your judgment as I discussed earlier.
Rook? In an effort for me to ignore evidence you must first provide it. Your argument is meaningless without it. Since you have not yet provided the evidence requested, any claims of me ignoring it are just crazy man.
Quote:You must now provide arguments backed with evidence to support your position that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation.Tacitus is not a reputable representation of anything. Please consult any modern encyclopedia on antiquity for the article on Tacitus and ancient historians, also see Grant’s Greek and Roman Historians (1995). You can not, nor should you, put trust in the words of any historian or documentarian from antiquity. You should never believe what you read, even if you cite it for something; caution must always be made. Historians, particularly Roman historians, were almost always under the influence of outside sources, generally the politics of their period, their families, friends, the Caesar’s, the populace, and most certainly, rumor.
Tacitus is recounting events from 40 years prior, he is writing his works, the Annals, in c. 110’s CE. He is no longer in Rome when he is writing these down, but probably in Asia, where he was proconsul from c. 112-113. Pliny at this time was the Emperors legatus Augusti in Bithynia-Pontus, which is in Asia Minor. This is the period in which he executed those Christians and wrote to Trajan to confirm he had done the right thing. I have no doubt that he would have also consulted his good friend Tacitus, and probably even Suetonius, who was also a good friend. It is interesting also that Suetonius does not mention this event occurring in Rome, but Tacitus does, often in digression state. He goes on about he superstition of the religion and does not explain the horrible abominations (flagitia invisos) he claims that the Christians committed, the reason for their lack of respect among the populace in Rome.
Okay, much was said here, but I ask that you do not ask me to read large volumes as a means of attempting to locate your points. Therefore, I will address this assertion when you have actually provided quotes from your sources, as opposed to expecting me to purchase these volumes, and then research them to contest or confirm your position.
Put it in a nutshell, Rook, and get your point across clearly.
Quote:(Please understand that my questions may seem like demands, but on the contrary they are designed to really make you examine the validity of your arguments. This exercise will make you far stronger.)I’ve really already examined the evidence. Keep in mind, at one time I originally thought the chapter was an addition added by later Christians. You do know we are missing the years in which this Christus supposedly lived from his Annals. Yet we get no information regarding this at all. We are also missing his Histories for these years, and also the reign of Nero, so there is no way to examine if he wrote about this incident again.
But where does Tacitus quote years for much of anything in Annals? He doesn't use years much at all, but was still using pre-Gregorian old-school technique of assigning eras. The reign of Nero, for example, is an era. In fact, we see this as a common trait among all the writers from that era. His description of the era of Christ's death pinpoints it to AD 30 - 35.
I have only accepted the authenticity of the account because I see it being something he picked up in Asia, from Pliny. This is why he does not mention Christians anywhere else in his Annals.
If I were you, I would abandon the Pliny assertion. As I have demonstrated, it works far better against you than it does for you.
Quote:Although we have evidence of the letters between Pliny and Tacitus, there is absolutely no evidence to support Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus regarding Jesus, Christus, or whoever you want to call him.There is more reason to accept this conclusion than there is that he was getting his information from records, especially since he often cites his sources when he pulls them from the records elsewhere in his Annals. There is additional reason to assume this link. He calls Christianity a “destructive superstition” (exitiabilis superstitio) which is exactly the thing that Pliny calls it in his letter to Trajan. (Pliny calls it a superstition twice, in one instance he calls it a superstitionem pravam—a depraved superstition—and also a superstitionis istius contagio, or a contagious superstition. This meets one criterion for reworking or borrowing, specifically in interpretability. Also, both Tacitus and Pliny both recount the leader as ‘Christ’ instead of ‘Jesus’, indicating another link between the two. The only difference between Pliny’s account and Tacitus’ account is that in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, he never mentions that Jesus lived under the reign of Tiberius, nor was he penalized by Pilate, and Tacitus specifically suggests (oddly) that the populace calls them Christians after their leader, which suggests that Tacitus got this additional information from the population and not records (vulgus Christianos appellabat auctor nominis eius Christus).
You seriously need to review the evidence more carefully. Assuming that Tacitus pulled his records of Jesus from an imperial document is more specious and rests purely on wishful thinking. Instead, the evidence reveals a more simple explanation.
I have reviewed the evidence very closely, and the result was the argument I gave you, which has not been addressed by you yet in this post. Perhaps the next.
Permanently banned
- Login to post comments
Offline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:From now on, please do me a favor, and respond to everything at one time, otherwise you’re making me do more work than I want to do. I have to go through, copy all your remarks into one document, reformat it, and go through the hassle of separating your comments from mine. Do us all a favor, and hit the quote button, quote things all in one reply, and save me (and you) time.Very well, but prepare yourself for some very long posts with that method.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:The questions you will see from me are logical questions; ones which you will face from people far greater than myself if you enter the scholarly world.You fail to realize I’m already a part of the scholarly community. You do know I am being reviewed for publication?
I do know about your review, but being a part of a scholarly community is not what makes a scholar any more than a graduate certificate does. The true mark of a scholar is that which demonstrates a profound and advanced knowledge of a particular subject.
Since you are still under review for publication, then the jury is still out. And even if you are published, any claims of being a scholar will not be made by you, but rather your peers.
Impressing yourself is nothing. Impressing your peers is everything.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:If you cannot answer them, simply reconsider the validity of your argument and dismiss it if necessary.Only if you promise to do the same.
It's like a religion to me.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:It is pointless to hold onto an argument if it cannot be supported, and it is also intellectual suicide to hold onto frivolous arguments in the scholarly world.You understand you are coming from this position, not I? The burden of proof rests on he who alleges.
I have alleged nothing. I have asked to see your arguments against the validity of the Tacitus text regarding Jesus. I have not presented a view on it, but am only here to examine your arguments.
There are two burdens of proof. The first burden of proof is indeed on he who alleges, but the 2nd burden of proof also rests with anyone else who alleges. It's know as "assuming a burden of proof."
The moment you provide counter-points with evidence, you have assumed a burden of proof because you have made a counter-claim. Here is a simple example:
Subject 1: The Tacitus text is authentic, and here's my evidence.
Subject 2 The Tacitus text is not authentic, and here's my evidence.
Both subjects above have burdens of proof because both made a claim either for or against the authenticity of the Tacitus text, and both volunteered evidence. The moment you bring new evidence into a debate, you have assumed a burden of proof because of that evidence. You then must defend the integrity of your evidence from the original claimant.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:I have a clue.Based on your earlier replies to me, I am skeptical. That is not an insult. You are naïve about the state of the evidence. More on this as we review your passages.
I assure you, you will regret this statement later.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:Therefore, let's take a look at what you are saying.Quote:Rook_Hawkins wrote:It is as irrelevant as the Parium Marble, in that just because it says a legendary character lived or event happened does not make it so. I am not holding to different standards here, and am applying criticism to everything equally. I give my reasons below for not accepting this evidence as reputable.
By using the same method of argument as you use above, we can equally say that because it says Jesus lived, then we have been given no reason to believe he didn't. Let us use some logic in assessing the text according to your argument.
Fallacy of False Analogy. That is not what I am saying. Perhaps you do not know what the Parium Marble is?
Yes I know about the Parium Marble. My point which eluded you was "just because it says a legendary charactor did not live, or event did not occur does not make it so." In the context of Jesus, just because you say he did not exist, does not make it so.
That kind of argument works both ways, and is actually pointless.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:The Tacitus text claims that a man named Christus, understood as Jesus,By you.
Actually, almost universally agreed upon by almost every reputable scholar, if you want the truth. You should be aware that it will indeed be intellectual suicide to deny that Christus refers to Jesus, as all arguments to support that assertion have been met with solid evidence to the contrary, bringing ridicule to those who were hense regulated to the bottom-feeders of the intellectual gene pool.
But if you feel you can contest it ...
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate.I would note that he does not say that Christus was executed.
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators.”
You can assume the extreme penalty means death, but there is no real evidence textually to assume execution, nor even crucifixion. You are stretching this.
Actually, the words "extreme penalty" literally refer "crucifixion."
Quote:The Roman statesman Cicero called it "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (Verrem 2:5.165) and "the most extreme penalty" (Verrem 2:5.168). The Jewish historian Josephus, who certainly witnessed enough crucifixions himself, called it "the most wretched of deaths." The Roman jurist Julius Paulus listed crucifixion in first place as the worst of all capital punishments, listing it ahead of death by burning, death by beheading, or death by the wild beasts.Quote:What reason do we have for doubting this claim? In order to even substantiate doubt, we must have reason. You have said you will give your reasoning below. Fair enough, now let us explore those reasons.In fact, the crucifixion was put at the top of what is known as the three summa supplica, giving it distinction as the extreme penalty, with the # 2 spot being filled in by burning creamtio, and the third being interchanged between decapitation decollatio, and of being fed to wild beasts damnatio ad bestias.
In other words, Christians were either sliced and diced, thrown on the barbie, or fed to the dog, depending on the party atmosphere, if we take Nero's exploits into consideration.
How do you like your Christian, Rook? Rare? Medium? Or well done?
Would you like fries with that?
$8.99 please. Will that be cash or debit?
Thank you, and have a nice day.
But seriously, extreme penalty does indeed refer to crucifixion.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:What reason do we have for doubting this claim? In order to even substantiate doubt, we must have reason. You have said you will give your reasoning below. Fair enough, now let us explore those reasons.
There are a lot of reasons for doubting this claim. Not all rest squarely on the Tacitus passage. You must review the whole state of the evidence, which I do not think you’ve done, and come to a conclusion based on it.
Hey, I will be the first in line to admit to the likely possibility that there is much that I do not know. I have no problems learning new things, and adding those new things to my own position, if they are proven worthy enough to add.
But first, we need to see legitimate arguments to doubt it.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:How can it not be relevant if it is probably genuine? Are you doubting your position on the non-existence of Jesus?
No, I am not doubting it. It is just not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. This is also in light of the compendium of evidence, when viewed in its cumulative whole.
You have asserted that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. Yet, you have not explained why. We are not dealing with a compendium of evidence when viewed in any cumulative whole, but only with the Tacitus text.
You are minimalizing the evidence by ignoring it all. If we only took evidence in bits and pieces a lot could be assumed but little would ever be understood or interpretable. This is your naivety playing into your judgment as I discussed earlier.
Rook? In an effort for me to ignore evidence you must first provide it. Your argument is meaningless without it. Since you have not yet provided the evidence requested, any claims of me ignoring it are just crazy man.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:You must now provide arguments backed with evidence to support your position that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation.Tacitus is not a reputable representation of anything. Please consult any modern encyclopedia on antiquity for the article on Tacitus and ancient historians, also see Grant’s Greek and Roman Historians (1995). You can not, nor should you, put trust in the words of any historian or documentarian from antiquity. You should never believe what you read, even if you cite it for something; caution must always be made. Historians, particularly Roman historians, were almost always under the influence of outside sources, generally the politics of their period, their families, friends, the Caesar’s, the populace, and most certainly, rumor.
Tacitus is recounting events from 40 years prior, he is writing his works, the Annals, in c. 110’s CE. He is no longer in Rome when he is writing these down, but probably in Asia, where he was proconsul from c. 112-113. Pliny at this time was the Emperors legatus Augusti in Bithynia-Pontus, which is in Asia Minor. This is the period in which he executed those Christians and wrote to Trajan to confirm he had done the right thing. I have no doubt that he would have also consulted his good friend Tacitus, and probably even Suetonius, who was also a good friend. It is interesting also that Suetonius does not mention this event occurring in Rome, but Tacitus does, often in digression state. He goes on about he superstition of the religion and does not explain the horrible abominations (flagitia invisos) he claims that the Christians committed, the reason for their lack of respect among the populace in Rome.
Okay, much was said here, but I ask that you do not ask me to read large volumes as a means of attempting to locate your points. Therefore, I will address this assertion when you have actually provided quotes from your sources, as opposed to expecting me to purchase these volumes, and then research them to contest or confirm your position.
Put it in a nutshell, Rook, and get your point across clearly.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:(Please understand that my questions may seem like demands, but on the contrary they are designed to really make you examine the validity of your arguments. This exercise will make you far stronger.)I’ve really already examined the evidence. Keep in mind, at one time I originally thought the chapter was an addition added by later Christians. You do know we are missing the years in which this Christus supposedly lived from his Annals. Yet we get no information regarding this at all. We are also missing his Histories for these years, and also the reign of Nero, so there is no way to examine if he wrote about this incident again.
But where does Tacitus quote years for much of anything in Annals? He doesn't use years much at all, but was still using pre-Gregorian old-school technique of assigning eras. The reign of Nero, for example, is an era. In fact, we see this as a common trait among all the writers from that era. His description of the era of Christ's death pinpoints it to AD 30 - 35.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:I have only accepted the authenticity of the account because I see it being something he picked up in Asia, from Pliny. This is why he does not mention Christians anywhere else in his Annals.If I were you, I would abandon the Pliny assertion. As I have demonstrated, it works far better against you than it does for you.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:Although we have evidence of the letters between Pliny and Tacitus, there is absolutely no evidence to support Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus regarding Jesus, Christus, or whoever you want to call him.There is more reason to accept this conclusion than there is that he was getting his information from records, especially since he often cites his sources when he pulls them from the records elsewhere in his Annals. There is additional reason to assume this link. He calls Christianity a “destructive superstition” (exitiabilis superstitio) which is exactly the thing that Pliny calls it in his letter to Trajan. (Pliny calls it a superstition twice, in one instance he calls it a superstitionem pravam—a depraved superstition—and also a superstitionis istius contagio, or a contagious superstition. This meets one criterion for reworking or borrowing, specifically in interpretability. Also, both Tacitus and Pliny both recount the leader as ‘Christ’ instead of ‘Jesus’, indicating another link between the two. The only difference between Pliny’s account and Tacitus’ account is that in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, he never mentions that Jesus lived under the reign of Tiberius, nor was he penalized by Pilate, and Tacitus specifically suggests (oddly) that the populace calls them Christians after their leader, which suggests that Tacitus got this additional information from the population and not records (vulgus Christianos appellabat auctor nominis eius Christus).
You seriously need to review the evidence more carefully. Assuming that Tacitus pulled his records of Jesus from an imperial document is more specious and rests purely on wishful thinking. Instead, the evidence reveals a more simple explanation.
I have reviewed the evidence very closely, and the result was the argument I gave you, which has not been addressed by you yet in this post. Perhaps the next.
This is what you said in this e-mail:
(1) You will not read a book you haven't read, which is entirely pertinent to the discussion, and will continue to accept the historians at face value.
(2) You will ignore all important evidences and criteria at establishing a link between two sources of evidence.
(3) You will ignore the relevancy of a Argument from Silence even though it meets all four criteria as laid out elsewhere on this message boards.
(4) You will continue to assert rather then dismantle my arguments, especially considering the obvious evidence for my case. Instead you'll just suggest I didn't make any.
(5) You will ignore the fact that we are missing the years of Christ's birth by assuming I was suggesting he wrote in years. Even though you are correct and he didn't cite years, he was discussing periods, and we are missing the period that encompasses those years. You have not refuted this point.
(6) You will attempt to contradict yourself and suggest a link between what Josephus says about crucifixion and assume that means the same thing in Tacitus, although claiming I can't do that (and my link is much more valid, since we know Pliny and Tacitus communicated. No evidence exists that Tacitus knew of Josephus' works)
(7) You say a lot and prove nothing, ignore the whole of the evidence, and you appeal to authority without realizing that this association is still contested and debated, and has been for over three hundred years, since the dawn of the enlightenment and critical history.
(
You ignore that this script has been copied and translated by Christian monks and comes to us after a long line of Christian interpolations.
That about sums up every point you've made since the beginning of this discussion.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline Rook_Hawkins wrote:Tacitus is probably genuine, but it is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? Your position is that Jesus is not historically evidenced, yet you say the Tacitus quote is "probably genuine," and yet claim it as irrelevant?
How can it not be relevant if it is probably genuine?
Because it's a report of hearsay, taken from Christians. It's not a historical claim on the part of Tacitus. Even William Lane Craig agrees with this!
If this is news to you, you're not ready for this discussion.
There are serious problems with using the passage you quoted as independent corroboration of Jesus:
Jeffery Jay Lowder states:
"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
So it may simply be that Tacitus was relying on oral tradition, and not on any historical research for his reference to Jesus. Tacitus himself tells us about the value of such traditions:
"...everything gets exaggerated is typical for any story" and "all the greatest events are obscure--while some people accept whatever they hear as beyond doubt, others twist the truth into its opposite, and both errors grow over subsequent generations" (Annals 3.44 & 3.19). (Cited via Carrier's article)
As weak as the Tacitus claim is, it remains a possibility that even this weak bit of apparent corroboration is a later interpolation. The problems with this claim are examined here:
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?p=38864&sid=eae887916e8679c9...
Some of these problems are summarized by Gordon Stein:
"While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that 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."
- The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell
Gordon Stein, Ph.D. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml
Supporting Stein's claim is that, as with the Testimonium, there is no provenance for the passage: No early Christian writer uses Tacitus' passage in their apologetics, even when discussing Christian persecution by Nero:
* Tertullian (ca. 155–230)
* Lactantius (ca. 240 - ca. 320)
* Sulpicius Severus (c. 360 – 425)
* Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339)
* Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)
However, the key point here is that Tacitus did in fact write a thorough history of the purported times of Jesus and his ministry, and while this work is lost to us, Tacitus never makes any cross reference to it during his discussion of christians and Nero nor at any other point in his surviving works.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline [
This is what you said in this e-mail:
(1) You will not read a book you haven't read, which is entirely pertinent to the discussion, and will continue to accept the historians at face value.
(2) You will ignore all important evidences and criteria at establishing a link between two sources of evidence.
(3) You will ignore the relevancy of a Argument from Silence even though it meets all four criteria as laid out elsewhere on this message boards.
(4) You will continue to assert rather then dismantle my arguments, especially considering the obvious evidence for my case. Instead you'll just suggest I didn't make any.
(5) You will ignore the fact that we are missing the years of Christ's birth by assuming I was suggesting he wrote in years. Even though you are correct and he didn't cite years, he was discussing periods, and we are missing the period that encompasses those years. You have not refuted this point.
(6) You will attempt to contradict yourself and suggest a link between what Josephus says about crucifixion and assume that means the same thing in Tacitus, although claiming I can't do that (and my link is much more valid, since we know Pliny and Tacitus communicated. No evidence exists that Tacitus knew of Josephus' works)
(7) You say a lot and prove nothing, ignore the whole of the evidence, and you appeal to authority without realizing that this association is still contested and debated, and has been for over three hundred years, since the dawn of the enlightenment and critical history.
(
That about sums up every point you've made since the beginning of this discussion.
None of this is a shock, given that our friend came out of the running blocks by citing Tacitus as if it were an independent historical corroboration of "Jesus"
I like what Carrier says about Tacitus:
Richard Carrier writes:
"...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.)."
Tacitus' work refutes a historical jesus, and yet, christians cite him as if citing Tactitus works in their favor!
Ignorance is a great thing - if you don't know what you're talking about, you're free to assert whatever you want, free from the facts that refute you. Is there a theist who cites Tacitus who's actually examined his work?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline (2) You will ignore all important evidences and criteria at establishing a link between two sources of evidence.
He calls Christianity a “destructive superstition” (exitiabilis superstitio) which is exactly the thing that Pliny calls it in his letter to Trajan. (Pliny calls it a superstition twice, in one instance he calls it a superstitionem pravam—a depraved superstition—and also a superstitionis istius contagio, or a contagious superstition. This meets one criterion for reworking or borrowing, specifically in interpretability.
(3) You will ignore the relevancy of a Argument from Silence even though it meets all four criteria as laid out elsewhere on this message boards.
(5) You will ignore the fact that we are missing the years of Christ's birth by assuming I was suggesting he wrote in years. Even though you are correct and he didn't cite years, he was discussing periods, and we are missing the period that encompasses those years. You have not refuted this point.
(6) You will attempt to contradict yourself and suggest a link between what Josephus says about crucifixion and assume that means the same thing in Tacitus, although claiming I can't do that (and my link is much more valid, since we know Pliny and Tacitus communicated. No evidence exists that Tacitus knew of Josephus' works)
You ignore that this script has been copied and translated by Christian monks and comes to us after a long line of Christian interpolations.
"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde
- Login to post comments
Offline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Personally, I don’t see much evidence establishing any link between Tacitus’ passage and Pliny’s letter. You argue:(2) You will ignore all important evidences and criteria at establishing a link between two sources of evidence.Quote:Errr, no – not really. Tacitus and Pliny both call Christianity a “superstition” because, technically, that’s what Christianity was from an aristocratic Roman’s perspective. Cicero defines the difference between a “superstition” and a true religion by arguing that the former is “groundless fear of the gods” while the latter is "pious worship of the gods" (Nat. D. 1.117; 2.72). Plutarch condemns superstition as being obsessed with the well-being of the individual, arguing that the superstitious man “enjoys no world in common with the rest of mankind”. This is what made Christianity a superstition in Roman eyes and therefore what also made it a threat to the common good and the wellbeing of the state. And this is why Tacitus and Pliny aren’t alone in calling Christianity a “superstition”. Suetonius uses the same term (“punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a set of men adhering to a novel and mischievous superstition” Nero, XVI), as does Celsus.He calls Christianity a “destructive superstition” (exitiabilis superstitio) which is exactly the thing that Pliny calls it in his letter to Trajan. (Pliny calls it a superstition twice, in one instance he calls it a superstitionem pravam—a depraved superstition—and also a superstitionis istius contagio, or a contagious superstition. This meets one criterion for reworking or borrowing, specifically in interpretability.
Of course, this is not to say that Tacitus didn’t get his impression of Christianity from Pliny, but the fact that the term had a technical meaning and was applied to Christianity by other writers dilutes the strength of any argument from close verbal correspondence.
Quote:Arguments from Silence are highly tricky beasts. And it’s a bit much to expect this guy to address something “laid out elsewhere on this message boards”. If you want to make this Argument from Silence stick, you should probably make it in detail, using your four criteria.(3) You will ignore the relevancy of a Argument from Silence even though it meets all four criteria as laid out elsewhere on this message boards.
Quote:What’s to refute? It’s not like there’s any doubt about whether we are missing those parts of Tacitus corpus.(5) You will ignore the fact that we are missing the years of Christ's birth by assuming I was suggesting he wrote in years. Even though you are correct and he didn't cite years, he was discussing periods, and we are missing the period that encompasses those years. You have not refuted this point.
Quote:I don’t see him making any claim to a “link” between Josephus and Tacitus. He simply used some quotes from Josephus, Cicero and Justus Paulus to show that “the extreme penalty” was commonly understood to refer to crucifixion.(6) You will attempt to contradict yourself and suggest a link between what Josephus says about crucifixion and assume that means the same thing in Tacitus, although claiming I can't do that (and my link is much more valid, since we know Pliny and Tacitus communicated. No evidence exists that Tacitus knew of Josephus' works)
Quote:Umm, no – he didn’t ignore that at all. He’s made the very solid counter to the idea that this passage is an interpolation by pointing out that a Christian interpolator would hardly call Christianity “a class hated for their abominations”, a “pernicious superstition”, an “evil”, “sordid and degrading”, and having “hatred of the human race”. These descriptions have all the hallmarks of authenticity – they are precisely what we’d expect someone like Tacitus to say about a “superstition” (especially the “hatred of the human race” part, which fits with Cicero and Plutarch’s condemnation of superstitious cults). No medieval monk would have this kind of accurate grasp of how a Roman aristocrat would have seen Christianity – their idea of a subtle interpolation is ramming “He was the Messiah” sideways into a passage of Josephus.You ignore that this script has been copied and translated by Christian monks and comes to us after a long line of Christian interpolations.
Personally, I think Tacitus got his information about Christianity from popular hearsay rather than official records. But the case you've made for him getting it from Pliny is not strong and the case for later interpolation is, IMO, even weaker.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline I am finding this thread to be interesting and informative. I wish I could add something to the conversation, but I what I know about this subject can fit on the head of a pin.
But as a practicing forensic entomologist and a doctoral student, it is not up to me to keep others in the field current with my research and publications, and likewise, it is up to me to keep up with the literature. And, things change. Three years ago, I could not have predicted the assemblage change that has occurred due to an introduced (by accident) species.
I'm fairly certain that students (I'm using the term broadly here!) are allowed to change their minds or revise their positions based upon "new" information in all fields.
Anyway, carry on...great discussion.
- Login to post comments
Offline Suetonius was part of Pliny's staff, and also a good friend, and I already suggested that Suetonius also was informed by Pliny on the matter. Tacitus was a scrupulous historian (that is, if you can consider an ancient historian scrupulous), I highly doubt he just trusted a Christian on the street with information.
He got it from a source he trusted. He goes on about his sources, I do not think he would have used a source he felt was spurious. Especially not from somebody he considered to believe in a monstrous superstition.
As I already stated, he and Pliny were both in Asia during these years, and exchanged letters during this time. I see no reason why, based on your argument, that this is less likely to have happened.
You misunderstand the point.
I am not just looking at the words but at the whole picture. When you consider the other parts of my argument, as a cumulative whole, it is more probable that Tacitus got his information from Pliny, another statesmen and not a slave or lower class citizen who made up the Christian populations. I'm not saying, nor did I ever say, that it was a certainty. Just that it was more probable then his argument.
On another note, do you constantly feel the need to just butt in and argue against everything I say all the time?
HE didn't seem to know that. And if he did, he didn't go about the argument the right way. He instead initiated an ad hoc argument. Gosh, are you even paying attention here?
His point is that Tacitus got his information from Roman records. His whole case is that is more probable. Please read an entire thread before commenting on things.
I'm not arguing for an interpolation!
Please read the whole thread.
I said in the very first response that the passage is probably genuine. All I did was show that there is still reason for debate on this subject--I do not agree with the position that it was interpolated. Pay attention.
"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde
- Login to post comments
Offline Rook_Hawkins wrote:No arguments with any of that, and Pliny may well have been Tacitus’ (and Suetonius’ ) source. Or one of them. Or he might not have been his source at all. And no, I doubt Tacitus was using grubby Christian yokels as his source, but he could still get his information from hearsay without chatting to Christians.Suetonius was part of Pliny's staff, and also a good friend, and I already suggested that Suetonius also was informed by Pliny on the matter. Tacitus was a scrupulous historian (that is, if you can consider an ancient historian scrupulous), I highly doubt he just trusted a Christian on the street with information.Quote:But he doesn’t go on about his source here, which means we’re left with nothing more than speculation about where he got his information from. It could have been Pliny. It could have been someone else. It could have been some kind of official record. I’m simply pointing out that the fact he uses the term “superstition” and so does Pliny isn’t a very strong indication that Pliny is his source, since “superstition” is simply a technical term that people of the class and education of a Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius or a Celsus would (and did) use about cults like Christianity.He got it from a source he trusted. He goes on about his sources, I do not think he would have used a source he felt was spurious. Especially not from somebody he considered to believe in a monstrous superstition.Quote:I didn’t say it was “less likely”, it’s entirely possible. I’m simply disagreeing with you that it’s more likely on the basis of the use of the term “superstition”.As I already stated, he and Pliny were both in Asia during these years, and exchanged letters during this time. I see no reason why, based on your argument, that this is less likely to have happened.Quote:I do? How?You misunderstand the point.Quote:I know you aren’t saying it’s a certainty and I’m certainly not saying it’s impossible or unlikely. But whether you’re “looking at the words” or “the whole picture”, you’re assigning a degree of probability to it that simply isn’t supported by the evidence. The fact that the two men knew each other and were in roughly the same neck of the Roman woods at the time is interesting, but circumstantial. And the use of the word “superstition” is too slender a thread on which to hang your assertion of “higher probability”. It’s possible Tacitus got his information about Christianity from Pliny. That’s all we can say.I am not just looking at the words but at the whole picture. When you consider the other parts of my argument, as a cumulative whole, it is more probable that Tacitus got his information from Pliny, another statesmen and not a slave or lower class citizen who made up the Christian populations. I'm not saying, nor did I ever say, that it was a certainty. Just that it was more probable then his argument.Quote:Eh? This is a discussion forum – that’s what we do here.On another note, do you constantly feel the need to just butt in and argue against everything I say all the time?Quote:Yes, actually, I am. But I’ll leave him to take up this point – he seems pretty capable of doing so to me.HE didn't seem to know that. And if he did, he didn't go about the argument the right way. He instead initiated an ad hoc argument. Gosh, are you even paying attention here?Quote:I have read the whole thread – several times actually. You said he “ignore[s] that this script has been copied and translated by Christian monks and comes to us after a long line of Christian interpolations”. I pointed out that he didn’t ignore this – he covered this earlier in the thread.His point is that Tacitus got his information from Roman records. His whole case is that is more probable. Please read an entire thread before commenting on things.Quote:Okay. “Todangst” seems to be though.I'm not arguing for an interpolation!Quote:I have, thanks.Please read the whole thread.Quote:I said in the very first response that the passage is probably genuine. All I did was show that there is still reason for debate on this subject--I do not agree with the position that it was interpolated. Pay attention.
Ebionite, I'm not being rude, please do not take my blunt responses as rudeness. I am just rushed for time, and I hate repeating myself. My problem with you (really, it's more of what annoys me) is that you have this passive state which can drive me crazy. You sit firmly in the middle, and seem to want to smack everyone down to this middle position. You've done this before, and where sometimes I see it as you genuinely wanting to help, you seem to have the wrong approach to it.
By the way, you're right about coincidental things, but coincidence can be evidence for my point in this case. You posit that it is not more probable that Tacitus received his information from Pliny, but rather hearsay, but you do not give any helpful inferences about where. You admit, and I agree, that it would probably not have been from a yokel Christian, however you do not help the conversation, this discussion, by not adding to it. This is where I feel you are going about this the wrong way. Fine, I accept your position that we cannot know, but history isn't about certainty ever. It's about probability and observations. When you get enough observations that lead to a specific conclusion, if the evidence is in place, you can build a hypothetical model on the evidence.
At this moment, I fail to see how you have shown with any ability that Pliny being the influence is just as similar as roman documents. You have not made that case. And I fail to see you citing any coincidental evidence (along the same lines as the evidence I've given which goes beyond just word exchanges) to show that there is similar evidence present, or even similar coincidences. So even still, I still have the higher probability, because at the very least, I can present some very interesting "peculiarities" that would lead to a higher "risk" of Pliny discussing these events with Tacitus. Can you duplicate this evidence to show a high enough "risk" of peculiarities to present the case that Tacitus got his information from Roman Documents? Or even still, another source? (Keep in mind, I can prove that Pliny and Tacitus communicated personally in the past, and can prove they were in the same vicinity to each other during the period in which Tacitus was writing and Pliny was persecuting).
Regards.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Before making assertions perhaps you should review more up-to-date material on this message board? Nobody here is currently making that claim, and in fact it is years old.
Tacitus is probably genuine, but it is irrelevant. It is more than likely Tacitus got his information from Pliny the Younger, a correspondent and friend of his. There were also Christians in Rome, so I see no reason why Tacitus wouldn't have been able to learn his information from hearsay both from his friend and the rumor mills on the streets. Especially since the time Tacitus wrote this in the 110's CE, two canonical Gospels had already been written, Marcion and many of his followers were already confronting the orthodoxy on their practices, and Luke-Acts was being written, while also refuting the dozens or more other noncanonical Gospels and Acts being circulated at the same time.
The distinction between Acts and Paul on Pauline theology and church theology alone is more then enough evidence to disregard the hearsay on Jesus during this period. Especially when examining the immense amount of mythmaking taking place.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
On the contray, I took this evidence directly from this site, and which is found in your own post on this site at the following address:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2901
Perhaps you forgot about it?
Permanently banned
I just told you it was outdated. Perhaps you don't read what people write to you? Check when that was posted.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Why is it irrelevant? Your position is that Jesus is not historically evidenced, yet you say the Tacitus quote is "probably genuine," and yet claim it as irrelevant?
How can it not be relevant if it is probably genuine? Are you doubting your position on the non-existence of Jesus?
Although we have evidence of the letters between Pliny and Tacitus, there is absolutely no evidence to support Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus regarding Jesus, Christus, or whoever you want to call him.
Therefore, there is no reason to accept this argument.
Again, you have no more evidence to support Tacitus learning this from Christians than anybody else does of him learning it from some long lost Roman records. All is speculation, and all without evidence.
You must understand that without evidence your argument does not have any more weight or truthfulness than the one that claims Tacitus "could have gotten his information from Roman records."
Since we do not have complete records of any canonical Gospels in existence during the time of Tacitus, then again this must be regulated as speculation. I am of course aware of the GoJ parchment, as well as other evidence, but parchments and fragmented quotes of Gospel entries do not qualify that they came from the current canons. They only point to a possibility, but certainly not a certainty.
In other words, I can accept that some Gospels were in existence, but to say that the ones in existence included the current canon is quite presumptious.
Also, what evidence can you present for Luke-Acts being written during the 110s? Internal evidence clearly shows it was being written decades before. Here, let me show you:
And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the camp commander. But Paul was allowed to dwell by himself, with a soldier guarding him.
You can see by the use of "we" above that the author was claiming to be with Paul during Paul's lifetime, sometime before the temple destruction, at around AD58. According to your position, it would mean that the author was writing Acts some 50 -60 years later. This would be unlikely given the age of the person who was with Paul during Paul's lifetime.
Acts contains evidence of a 1st person narrative in many places, indicating that whoever was writing it traveled with Paul during the mid 1st century. If we reasonably conclude that the person was a mere 25 years old in AD58, it would put him in his 80s to be writing Acts sometime in the AD 110 - 115.
It would also be very unlikely that a younger person writing Acts could get away with using a 1st person narrative during the AD 110s-120s while creating a complete fabrication. It would be rather obvious to his peers that he was lying due to his age.
Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with your dating of Acts, and side with the scholars regarding a date of circa AD70.
I am willing, howewver, to entertain the notion that Acts was redacted during the 110s - 120s.
I have no argument against the war between the Gospels, as that is clearly evidenced by the Gnostics, Nazarenes, and other followers of Jesus.
What church theology are you refering to? Could you be speaking of the Nazorenes as being the church in Jerusalem? If so, I agree, the difference between the apostles theology and Paul is obvious to even a moderate student. This is precisely why there was friction between them, and why Paul was shunned.
Act 28:16
Permanently banned
Then what is it doing on your site if its outdated? Why is it still there representing your views? It was written 18 months ago, with no links to any update.
What are people supposed to do when no message about it being outdated is published? And why is your website still publishing it if it does not represent your views?
Do not blame people for getting confused when the author of confusion is your own website.
Blame yourself, no one else.
Permanently banned
They are supposed to be diligent enough as adults to stop waiting for people to give them answers and take responsibility to search the sight thoroughly enough to see if they have had their positions already answered. Adults, responsible ones, do this daily with everything in their lives, but as soon as they come to a message board, it seems, they instantly become intellectually lazy. There is a reason why we have a "google search" option on the left hand side of the website.
However, you are right I should post a disclaimer here. I do not remove old posts, because I feel that people have a right to see what I have posted in the past, even if I stand corrected on something, or update it. It is for the benefit of being open and honest, so people do not question my integrity (although it inevitably happens that the occasional nitwit will come on here and do so, often ignorantly).
I trust in the rest of your endeavors on this site you'll be goodly enough to look before you leap, and in turn you'll gain more respect around here.
Regards.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Perhaps if you understood that I did look for an update to your Tacitus argument and was unable to locate any update to it.
Please direct me to the latest update on your Tacitus argument.
Thank you.
Permanently banned
Again, I already posted the new position I hold on Tacitus above, in my original post to you.
Also, to my disadvantage, I cannot post a disclaimer on that nor can I delete the thread, as for some reason my mod abilities do not reflect well on threads that existed two or three updates ago. I do not know why, there seems to be a glitch. This is the update I would have posted, however, and will post when the glitch is fixed:
Before reading this list, one should read the first post in this thread and review my blog for additional details. Much of this information is years old (some of it as old as 6 years) and is in desperate need of revisions. Many revisions have already been made, so please read my blog for more information and see the above post for additional off-site links to revisions to many positions discussed here. [4/22/2008]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Okay, I have responded to that position and await your response.
Permanently banned
No problem, I accept your explanation and understand. Hope you get the glitch fixed soon so this problem does not continue. I could see how it could get frustrating explaining these things over and over to new people who come on board.
I wish you well, and good luck.
Permanently banned
It is as irrelevant as the Parium Marble, in that just because it says a legendary character lived or event happened does not make it so. I am not holding to different standards here, and am applying criticism to everything equally. I give my reasons below for not accepting this evidence as reputable.
No, I am not doubting it. It is just not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. This is also in light of the compendium of evidence, when viewed in its cumulative whole.
So where do you propose he received his information? It is not speculative to suggest that Pliny didn't communicate this, especially considering they were good friends and were communicating at this juncture in time. I see no reason to doubt this conclusion, as Pliny obviously communicated with others about his experience with Christians.
Claiming speculation and not giving an additional explanation does not suffice for a dismissal. You'll have to do better than this to show my hypothesis is incorrect.
Considering Tacitus usually cites his sources, I find it dubious that you would suggest this. Why does no other Christian write of these records or make mention of them? Why do they, in turn, only go back to the various Gospels and Acts, and later on, Josephus and the early church fathers? Why not the Roman records? This is a rather silly argument.
There is evidence of correspondence between Pliny and Tacitus, and that they were good friends. There is no evidence of Roman records. SO far, my explanation is statistically more probable than yours.
Why do you suppose that manuscript fragments are the only evidence for dating the Gospels? This is a little naive of you. The Gospels themselves, particularly Luke-Acts, give us some very good indications of when they were written. Since Luke-Acts took information and replicated them in its own form, means and narrative, the conclusion is adequate that Mark and Matthew came before it. Please review any modern scholarship on the dating of the Gospels and the intertextuality between them.
Not really. Especially considering the narrative reworking. I suggest you spend some time reading my article on Languages and Dating. I would admit that the form in which the canonical Gospels exist in today may not have reflected the Gospels in their entirety during the period in question.
Survey says...Oh wrong, sorry. The author of Luke-Acts clearly was not with Paul when he was alive. The author of Luke-Acts switches from first-third person because of what the authors intent was. You cannot take a Gospel at face value. I suggest you read modern criticisms for the dating of Luke-Acts. Start with Joseph B. Tyson and Richard I. Pervo. When you read them, and can adequately refute their positions, I will accept your conclusion here. However no adequate refutation exists in written form against their conclusions, which are now a year old.
Again, you're being naive. The Homeric epics show signs of first person narration as well. But the accounts were written hundreds of years after the period they are describing. You cannot take ancient literature at face value like this. You have to first understand intent, and from there make your judgments. Currently you're taking intent for granted.
That's silly. I suggest you research the Second Sophistic, please. Also consider how many pseudonymous Gospels and Acts exist written by people long after the death of those the works are ascribed to, in many cases hundreds of years later, and they were considered "canonical" by many Christians. Do you really think you have an adequate argument while not knowing any of this?
You can disagree, but your evidence is lacking, your conclusions are false, and your logic is based on ignorance and poor research. So currently you're not doing too well. Hopefully you'll read up a bit more before the next round?
Assuming the whole case in point. Do not do that. You have yet to prove a historical Jesus.
Paul isn't shunned. Paul shuns them. Read Galatians. Acts is clearly a late fiction, you cannot trust it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
It can be. I respect your understanding and appreciate it.
I like you, you seem honest. Please stay around. I hope we can continue this discussion as civilly as we have been. I ask you do not take my blunt responses for rudeness, I'm just short on time often and like to keep my replies short, unless I feel a real need to go into detail. (However, that is really what my blog is for)
Regards.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
The questions you will see from me are logical questions; ones which you will face from people far greater than myself if you enter the scholarly world. Do not become offended at these questions, nor with me personally. If you cannot answer them, simply reconsider the validity of your argument and dismiss it if necessary. It is pointless to hold onto an argument if it cannot be supported, and it is also intellectual suicide to hold onto frivolous arguments in the scholarly world.
My aim here is not to point my finger and laugh at you, but to provide solid counter-arguments against your position for the purpose of approximating the truth. You need these type of arguments to help you identify the strengths and weaknesses in your position, and you need these kinds of arguments from someone with a clue.
I have a clue.
Therefore, let's take a look at what you are saying.
By using the same method of argument as you use above, we can equally say that because it says Jesus lived, then we have been given no reason to believe he didn't. Let us use some logic in assessing the text according to your argument.
The Tacitus text claims that a man named Christus, understood as Jesus, lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate. What reason do we have for doubting this claim? In order to even substantiate doubt, we must have reason. You have said you will give your reasoning below. Fair enough, now let us explore those reasons.
You have asserted that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. Yet, you have not explained why. We are not dealing with a compendium of evidence when viewed in any cumulative whole, but only with the Tacitus text.
You must now provide arguments backed with evidence to support your position that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation.
(Please understand that my questions may seem like demands, but on the contrary they are designed to really make you examine the validity of your arguments. This exercise will make you far stronger.)
I do not propose that Tacitus got his information from any specific source, because no evidence exists to support any assumption. It is in fact speculative to suggest Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus because you have not provided evidence to support the claim. Your assertion that just because Tacitus and Pliny were good friends who communicated indicates that it is possible Pliny educated Tacitus can only be seen as a possibility, but without support.
You must understand that if you claim Pliny as the one who educated Tacitus, then you are claiming that Tacitus received his information about Christ from a Roman authority. Pliny was the governor of Bithynia-Pontus, and was also very active in the Roman legal system. He was known for prosecuting at the trials of many provincial governors, as well as presiding over the trials of early Christians and other trouble-makers.
Therefore, you must understand that if you are arguing for Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus, then you are arguing that Tacitus got his information about the prosecution and execution of Jesus from an expert in Roman law, who would undoubtedly be educated in Roman legal history, which would include any history of the execution of Jesus by Pilate.
Do you now understand the problem with your argument? As you can see, it can be completely used against you, and supported with evidence.
Do not be angry, but instead take what you can get from this argument and, as I said previously, re-examine the validity of your arguments. You will realize soon that despite my knowledge on the subject of the historicity of Jesus, my knowledge is not why I am here.
I can see that smile on your face from here. You've figured out what I'm doing. Let's continue.
In the scholarly world, you must understand that speculation is left in the dust if not supported with additional evidence. Let me give you an example of exactly what I am trying to convey.
Subject 1: "Albert Einstein was a closet homosexual with a fetish for ladies underwear."
Subject 2: "How do you know this?"
Subject 1: "I just know, and I don't have to explain how."
Subject 2: "Yeah ... okay. See ya."
Your argument is not all that dissimilar from the argument above. It's considered baseless assertion, and the value of the assertion will be minimal, and over time it will be forgotten due to the fact that it has no support. Like the argument above, your argument will face ridiculing in the forum of scholarly review.
I suggest that you do not present any argument that does not have a good degree of support. Your reply to me above does nothing to negate my quoted statement, as my quoted statement remains valid due to the fact that you did not contest it with evidence.
Understand that evidence is God in the scholarly world, while talk is cheap. No evidence = no point. It's that simple. It's that cut and dry. Therefore, you must present evidence to support your claim, or abandon the claim for the sake of credulity.
Rook you will never get another chance to gain credulity if you screw up on your first book. If you present arguments like this in your book, you may never get published again. I'm not kidding you one iota. If you wish to be a serious author, then take serious critiques from people with a clue. Take them to heart. Grit your teeth, bite down hard, and take the full blunt at this point in time, because it's far better you take it now and make adjustments, then take it later and never get a 2ND chance.
This only a web forum, it is not your life. Here, you can make changes to your arguments, but once they are etched in stone in your book, well ... they are etched in stone.
I will return again to complete this argument.
Have yourself a good night, and always remember to doubt yourself. Challenge your ideas and beliefs completely. It's okay to be wrong and correct yourself, but its never okay to know you are wrong and do nothing about it.
Take that advice from someone who has been wrong far more often than anyone else I know.
Good night.
Permanently banned
Geezz, THANKS, both of you for caring and sharing , really ... (feels good)
For a student of classics, there's also the slight change in prose style for this passage (in Latin). It's not like it's precise or rigorous to say so, but that section doesn't "read" like Tacitus. It's choppier. The rhythm doesn't really match the surrounding chapters. Obviously that's no conclusion, it just makes me suspicious.
So while it's "probably genuine" in the sense that it may have been copied faithfully, there's still some controversy even of that point. After that is when you're faced with the fact that he's essentially repeating gossip.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Please note that I have underlined the word "fact" in your quote above. You need to understand that a fact is something which has been conclusively proven.
Since you have stated that you were merely suspicious of the wording, how then do you go from being merely suspicious to claiming a fact?
People get misunderstood because of the words they use. I myself am not immune to making these mistakes, but I am much wiser to it from experience.
Permanently banned
Oh, it's a fact that he was essentially repeating gossip. Read the passage. Classical works are all taken with a grain of salt anyway. Nobody even though of the eruption of Vesuvius as necessarily having taken place until the remains of Pompeii were found. My suspicions of the wording imply that the gossip was most likely either altered by Christian scribes, or inserted altogether. Those are two completely different points of contention, though.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
1. Upon reading the passage I find no evidence that he was essentially repeating gossip. There is no evidence in the context to support this assertion.
2. There is no evidence of Christian interpolation whatsoever.
Firstly, your two points above contradict each other. Was Tacitus repeating gossip, or was it a Christian interpolation? Which one is the supposed fact that you speak of?
It's obvious that both cannot be facts. Since you have contradicted your position, then your claim of a fact in this matter is clearly suspect, and without merit. You cannot present two completely different and opposing positions as facts and then claim either one or both to be a fact.
It is illogical.
Do you now see what I see in your argument?
Permanently banned
Firstly, you are making several arguments from silence. Secondly, you are now citing Christians as the source of Tacitus' education, when previously you cited Pliny the Younger, indicating uncertainty. Thirdly, you are suggesting that the earliest Christians would somehow have access to Roman records when the Roman records themselves evidence Christians as being maliciously persecuted. Fourthly, why would any self respecting Christian of that age wish to cite Tacitus' record? The record is a scathing hatred filled rebuke of Christianity, and hardly anything any Christian would want to refer to.
But let us examine your questions regarding the silence of early Christians in regards to not mentioning Tacitus. Below you will find listed some early Christian writers, and information about them.
ORIGEN:
In regards Origen, 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, an additional attestation to the existence of a historical Jesus. 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 existence of Jesus to Celsus, since by his own admission, Celsus believed that Jesus existed. There was absolutely no reason for Origen to quote Tacitus to Celsus, for to do so would leave Origen quoting a very uncomplimentary and blasphemous statement by a Roman authority.
Therefore, anyone who attempts to use Origen as an argument from silence is making 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 attempts to justify the existence of Jesus to Celsus. It simply wasn't, and it simply didn't.
Clement of Alexandria:
Using an argument of silence against Clement of Alexandria must exclude the possibility that Clement of Alexandria was unaware of the existence of the works of Tacitus. One embellishment of this argument from silence is that the characterization of Clement of Alexandria is as one who collected quotes from pagan authors to justify the existence of Jesus, but 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 philosophical views by comparing them to ancient philosophers.
The author of this tale 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.
Tertullian:
None of Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage from Tacitus. 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. Tertulian simply had no reason to use the Tacitus passage whatsoever.
That's just a few, and the rest can all be addressed in like manner. Although addressing arguments from silence is not required as a means of defense, my objective here was to show how many of these arguments are actually fallacious when investigated and confronted with direct evidence.
Arguments from silence are a logical fallacy, unless they utilize abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning begins with a set of accepted facts and attempts to approximate the best explanation. In order for the argument from silence to be valid in regards to the silence of the early Christian writers, a set of accepted facts must be established. In short, factual evidence must be supplied to demonstrate cause for abductive reasoning.
a) Is it a fact that the Tacitus text did not exist for the early Christian writers to reference?
b) Is it a fact that the Tacitus text would be required by any of the early Christian writers?
c) Is it a fact that any of the early Christian writers knew about the Tacitus text?
These are just a few examples of facts that need to be established before abductive reasoning can be utilized to aid an argument from silence. With no facts you have no abductive reasoning, and subsequently no valid argument from silence.
I will engage more in this discussion later.
Permanently banned
Since you have no evidence of a correspondence between Pliny and Tacitus regarding Christians, then you must understand that you have no evidence at all to support your assertion. Evidence of them being good friends is not evidence to support that they discussed anything about Christians. The first question scholars would ask you is this:
Q: What evidence do you have to support Pliny the Younger as being the one to educate Tacitus in regards to the Christians?
If you reply to them with the answers you gave to me, you will be rapidly dismissed. Assertions and speculations are not evidence, especially when they come with no hint of support. Tacitus spoke with many people, so why not just choose anybody as being the one to educate him about Christians? Since no evidence exists to show any corresponence between Tacitus and Pliny regarding Christians, then by using your argument methood we can equally say that Tacitus recieved his information from Joe Blow down the street at the local Roman tavern. We can say anything because, according to your argument, evidence is not required.
But the truth is, evidence must be required to at least give cause for abductive reasoning. Claiming that Pliny knew Tacitus does not substantiate any fact that Pliny educated Tacitus on the Christians. Here is the your faulty logical train of thought:
Subject 1: Because Pliny knew Tacitus, Pliny educated Tacitus in regards to the Christians.
Subject 2: What evidence do you provide to support Pliny educated Tacitus in regards to the Christians?
Subject 1: The evidence is that Pliny knew Tacitus.
This is a logical fallacy known as a circular argument. It's the same kind of argument theists use when promoting their beliefs. Here is the same example from them:
Subject 1: The bible is the word of God
Subject 2: How do you know this?
Subject 1: Because the bible says so.
Rook, do not trap yourself into circular arguments in the scholarly world. They will expose those in a heartbeat and dismiss you to the Tower of London to have you drawn and quartered.
More later.
Permanently banned
Firstly, I advise you with the utmost sincerety that my scholarship is, and always will be, cutting edge. This is not a boast, but a statement designed to instill confidence in you in regards to my motive to being here. I am not here to doubt your scholarship, but to expose the weaknesses in your arguments for the betterment of of your own scholarship. Please understand that I am an old hat at this, and have been squeezed through the wringer more than just a few times myself by able minded scholars intent on teaching me the finer virtues of debate, much to my humiliation.
The result of their teaching is evident in the quality of the arguments you see me presenting to you. I will pick you apart, piece by piece, throw them all down on the ground and tell you to pick up the good pieces and leave the rest on the floor. I assure you, by the time I am done with you, you will be doubting everything you know about many of the things you assert, and you will become a far better man because of it.
I am not your enemy, I am just playing the devil's advocate.
Secondly, gospel fragments do not confirm that they come from the canons. For example, the oldest Gospel of Mark stops at the empty tomb, but the canon teaches the resurrection. This begs the question: Is the oldest Gospel of Mark the original, or is the canon a redacted version? What is the truth? There are arguments running amuck about it, but at the end of the day the solid evidence is that the oldest Gospel of Mark does not have anything written past the empty tomb, and therefore provides an argument that the resurrection story was an interpolation.
All Gospel fragments do is confirm that a Gospel existed. It could be the same as the canon, and it could just as easily not be precisely the same as the canon. You cannot tell what a jigsaw puzzle picture is by looking at one small piece, and a fragment is just one small piece. We cannot say that the fragments date the canon for a certainty, but only that they date a Gospel. Whatever Gospel version it is, is an unknown. Is it part of a complete canon gospel? How do you know? How do you know it's not part of another previous gospel that was later redacted, and all you are seeing is what the original and the redacted versions have in common? Since we have the original Gospel of Mark as evidence, we therefore have abductive reasoning at our disposal.
Since we know that a Gospel of the Hebrews existed, we have clear evidence to support other Gospels. Since we can see the similarities in the 4 canons, then we must accept the same similarities would also exist in non canonized Gospels. Again, we are provided with abductive reasoning because the evidence supports it, and solidly.
The Gospel of Thomas illustrates many of the teachings of Jesus in the canons almost verbatim. And yet again, all the more reason to employ abductive reasoning.
Do you understand this? When you have evidence to support doubt, then in the interest of true scholarship that evidence must be brought to light and discussed. It must be fairly evaluated with intellectual honesty, and either accepted or rejected without bias.
It is what it is. It's black and white, yes or no, right or wrong. The only way it can be a "maybe" is with abductive reasoning.
That's the truth, Rook. Trust me, and believe it, or at the very least, investigate what I claim about abductive reasoning. I give you my word that I will not steer you wrong.
Back soon ...
Permanently banned
From now on, please do me a favor, and respond to everything at one time, otherwise you’re making me do more work than I want to do. I have to go through, copy all your remarks into one document, reformat it, and go through the hassle of separating your comments from mine. Do us all a favor, and hit the quote button, quote things all in one reply, and save me (and you) time.
You fail to realize I’m already a part of the scholarly community. You do know I am being reviewed for publication?
Very well.
Only if you promise to do the same.
You understand you are coming from this position, not I? The burden of proof rests on he who alleges.
Based on your earlier replies to me, I am skeptical. That is not an insult. You are naïve about the state of the evidence. More on this as we review your passages.
Fallacy of False Analogy. That is not what I am saying. Perhaps you do not know what the Parium Marble is?
By you.
I would note that he does not say that Christus was executed.
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators.”
You can assume the extreme penalty means death, but there is no real evidence textually to assume execution, nor even crucifixion. You are stretching this.
There are a lot of reasons for doubting this claim. Not all rest squarely on the Tacitus passage. You must review the whole state of the evidence, which I do not think you’ve done, and come to a conclusion based on it.
You have asserted that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. Yet, you have not explained why. We are not dealing with a compendium of evidence when viewed in any cumulative whole, but only with the Tacitus text.
You are minimalizing the evidence by ignoring it all. If we only took evidence in bits and pieces a lot could be assumed but little would ever be understood or interpretable. This is your naivety playing into your judgment as I discussed earlier.
Tacitus is not a reputable representation of anything. Please consult any modern encyclopedia on antiquity for the article on Tacitus and ancient historians, also see Grant’s Greek and Roman Historians (1995). You can not, nor should you, put trust in the words of any historian or documentarian from antiquity. You should never believe what you read, even if you cite it for something; caution must always be made. Historians, particularly Roman historians, were almost always under the influence of outside sources, generally the politics of their period, their families, friends, the Caesar’s, the populace, and most certainly, rumor.
Tacitus is recounting events from 40 years prior, he is writing his works, the Annals, in c. 110’s CE. He is no longer in Rome when he is writing these down, but probably in Asia, where he was proconsul from c. 112-113. Pliny at this time was the Emperors legatus Augusti in Bithynia-Pontus, which is in Asia Minor. This is the period in which he executed those Christians and wrote to Trajan to confirm he had done the right thing. I have no doubt that he would have also consulted his good friend Tacitus, and probably even Suetonius, who was also a good friend. It is interesting also that Suetonius does not mention this event occurring in Rome, but Tacitus does, often in digression state. He goes on about he superstition of the religion and does not explain the horrible abominations (flagitia invisos) he claims that the Christians committed, the reason for their lack of respect among the populace in Rome.
I’ve really already examined the evidence. Keep in mind, at one time I originally thought the chapter was an addition added by later Christians. You do know we are missing the years in which this Christus supposedly lived from his Annals. Yet we get no information regarding this at all. We are also missing his Histories for these years, and also the reign of Nero, so there is no way to examine if he wrote about this incident again.
I have only accepted the authenticity of the account because I see it being something he picked up in Asia, from Pliny. This is why he does not mention Christians anywhere else in his Annals.
There is more reason to accept this conclusion than there is that he was getting his information from records, especially since he often cites his sources when he pulls them from the records elsewhere in his Annals. There is additional reason to assume this link. He calls Christianity a “destructive superstition” (exitiabilis superstitio) which is exactly the thing that Pliny calls it in his letter to Trajan. (Pliny calls it a superstition twice, in one instance he calls it a superstitionem pravam—a depraved superstition—and also a superstitionis istius contagio, or a contagious superstition. This meets one criterion for reworking or borrowing, specifically in interpretability. Also, both Tacitus and Pliny both recount the leader as ‘Christ’ instead of ‘Jesus’, indicating another link between the two. The only difference between Pliny’s account and Tacitus’ account is that in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, he never mentions that Jesus lived under the reign of Tiberius, nor was he penalized by Pilate, and Tacitus specifically suggests (oddly) that the populace calls them Christians after their leader, which suggests that Tacitus got this additional information from the population and not records (vulgus Christianos appellabat auctor nominis eius Christus).
You seriously need to review the evidence more carefully. Assuming that Tacitus pulled his records of Jesus from an imperial document is more specious and rests purely on wishful thinking. Instead, the evidence reveals a more simple explanation.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)