As regards my apparent
previously displayed knowledge of this era of history
this is all an education for me. This stuff isn't at the top of my head, but I do enjoy reading history and trying to gauge objectively what actually happened. Often this is not possible (even for very recent history) and we can only come up with what may have happened. This is particularly true for ancient times, and I think that what people believe about someone like Jesus Christ is bound to have more to do with their own social and psychological background than history. As one commentator once said, there's just enough evidence to make the belief intellectually tenable and enough also to make unbelief intellectually tenable also. It's only when Fundamentalists and Jesus Mythers lay claim to Absolute Truth based on wild assumption and unscholarly "facts" that things get distasteful with obvious agendas at play.
Eljubbo wrote:
Is always an easy, yet completely valid, answer to "why?", in this case why? or why not? write about Christ if you are a contemporary writer. It proves as little as answering "Why not?" with "Why?", however. In either case,
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
It has occured to me that to be even discussing Tacitus in this context is a bit odd, as we have even less evidence for his existence than we have for that of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, I'll illogically press on...
I'm not aware of the existence of the original manuscript of ANY manuscript of antiquity, so for none to exist of Tacitus is no big shocker. The "New Testament" manuscripts are amongst the oldest and closest to the originals we possess. Some say that this is because the Christian church, after it was empowered by Constantine, destroyed everything else. Unlike the story of the Caliph who fired the baths of Alexandria with its library (ok, so some say it ain't true, but there's no smoke without fire
) , we have no evidence of this and it is the stuff of conspiracy theory rather than reliable history. An example of the lack of such secular documents is Caesar's Gallic War, which has only around 10 ancient manuscripts which confirm the original, the oldest of which was penned 900 years after the original. Did the Christians burn all of these too? Why? Maybe Caesar recorded something therein that contradicted their beliefs?
Anyway, the oldest extant Tacitus manuscript is 11th century. There is much more manuscript evidence for the reliability of the gospel manuscripts than there is for Tacitus, so even if he is unreliable, they can be held reliable.
Then we’re on to the mechanics of whether this one account was penned by Tacitus’ hand. Tacitus’ unusual style and construction have been held up as one of the reasons that the account must be genuine. It would be equally valid to state that the more idiosyncratic the script, so the easier it is for a master forger (and that’s what we’d be dealing with – a graphologist of the utmost skill), to replicate and re-write.
Scholars agree that the overall content and style of the passage are typical of Tacitus. The passage is not only in context, but is the conclusion necessary to the whole discussion of the firing of Rome.
The Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (early fifth century) attests to this passage, so that any interpolations would have to have been carried out between the 2nd and 4th centuries. The Latin scholar Norma Miller tells us that the pagan glossers of ancient manuscripts did not usually gloss in Tacitean Latin, why then should Christian glossers? Also to state unequivocally that Christians made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as appear in Annals 15.44 just for the sake of backing their case up requires an primary attitude of mistrust towards Christians per se, ergo unobjectivity.
Christian interpolators would surely "like men drowning" have been much more descriptive in their "gloss" than what we read in Annals 15.44.3. And why did the same guys, presuming they doctored Josephus, ignore Philo's works? There are many, many holes to this conspiracy theory. I have no problem with it as a theory, I respect it as theory. What is misleading is when people state such theory as if it were unequivocal fact.
Bilderberger, you write that
Tacitius mentions Christ - i.e. The Messiah - he does not mention Jesus.
therefore you must disagree with the hypothesis that this passage was interpolated? Surely the glossers would have added "Jesus" to make their case stronger? Also, there is no mention of Christ's resurrection or divinity here, which is what such glossers would have being trying to sell.
The crucifixion of Jesus would have been a non-event for the Imperial Senate. A carpenter from Galilee being executed would have been swamped under the tide of capital punishment the Roman Empire carried out all through its course. That Tacitus located this passage (supposedly sent to Rome in the Acta Pilati - Acts of Pilate), and that it had even been included in the senatorial documents of the time if anything weakens the argument.
Tacitus does not identify his source here, and many postulate that even if it the passage is authentic that he was given the data by Christians. However, there is no 'ferunt' or 'dicunt' used, which usually indicated hearsay as a source, and Tacitus relied more so on written material, which he didn't always reference.
I doubt strongly that Tacitus used a letter from Pilate for this (if it existed it hardly would have been extant at his time of writing).
He is more likely to have relied on information from the Acta Diurna and/or the Acta Senatus recording the classification of this Jewish sect as a "religio prava", which would have been done sometime prior to the official Domitian persecution. For such an official persecution as that of Domitian, a legally recorded classification detailing the religion would have been necessary. What's more likely, I think, is that Tacitus was merely relating what was common knowledge at the time of writing.
Further, Tacitus’ description of what Nero inflicted upon the Christians is by no means accepted wisdom.
What about Suetonius, who tells us that in Nero's reign "the Christians were punished, a group of persons given over to a new and harmful superstition"? Soon we'll be casting all the manuscripts of ancient antiquity into disrepute (except Philo)!
As for burning Christians not being in line with custom & practice of Roman torture, does this in itself prove indisputably that Tacitus is unreliable? Domitian enjoyed having the genitals of his victims burned, which was not in line with Roman custom of torture either. He was an innovator, as was Nero. In this case the punishment can truly be said to fit the crime, as Tacitus tells us, these were to be no ordinary run-of-the-mill executions, but "Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths".
Why did Nero pick on the Christians? Well it had to be someone. It could have easily been someone else and they would have had to wait for the next Roman emperor to take a dislike to them. Who can say why he chose them? To question his choice is hardly a basis on which to question the histrocity of Tacitus. The worship of a
crucified peasant was seen as most distasteful and was "the latest thing" in bizarre and repulsive new fads of the time.
Tertullius makes no mention of this passage in all his many treatise on Christianity / Christians, surely if this passage existed at the time he would have seized upon it “like a man drowning”.
I presume you refer to Tertullian. Why he would have needed Tacitus account of Nero's persecution "like a man drowning" I don't know. I doubt those early Christians went to the lions because of their faith in a passage in Tacitus (of which many of the illiterates would have been unaware), not to mention Tertullian, who would advise you to "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect" (Apol 5).
Neither Clement nor Eusebius use Tacitus, do you think Eusebious was reliable? Their non-use of Tacitus could indeed be one argument against the reliability of Tacitus referral to Christ, but accepted in the context of all the argument for the reliability of the passage, i.e., we weigh all the evidence, remembering that
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" That is to say, no ancient author or inscription reads anything like "Tacitus was an unreliable historian", or "Tacitus did not exist", or "Tacitus was interpolated by Christian types". Also, no ancient pagan authors (of whom there were many denouncing Christianity) tell us that Christians fiddled with the Annals. Their is no positive evidence to that end, only conjecture.
There's little in ancient history that is wholly reliable, especially when submitted to the painstaking 21st century "historical" criteria to which we are here submitting the existence of Jesus Christ. Eusebius non-inclusion of Tacitus is as good an argument for the non-existence of Tacitus as it for the non-existence of Jesus Christ.
Do you think Clement of Alexandria was reliable? Will you then be objective and accept his evidences also for the reliability of the "New Testament" documents? Speaking of which, I wonder as to the point of this discussion. There is plenty of evidence in the Christian writings for the existence of Christ. I'm not saying that secular sources are unreliable, just that the Christian sources are much more reliable in that there are more manuscripts and older manuscripts. The fact that they bear the descriptor "Christian" immediately puts them into the "unreliable" box for many. Unfortunately they must put the entire corpus of ancient literature in there with them, and concede that it is pointless to prove or disprove the histrocity of Christ as we have insufficient evidence for or against. Which would be a fair, admirable and honest positon, I might add.
I have yet to read this piece on new evidence about early Christianity from a
fragment of Tacitus, but no doubt it will be intersting whatever its findings. I'm sure those of you with avid interest in Tacitus will enjoy it.
Yes, that "a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure" bit sounds very neutral. Not.
The idea being to dump the non-neutral bits, I might add. Sorry for the lack of clarity!
Zygon, I would accept your correction of "many scholars" had I written "all scholars", or "most scholars". I simply wrote "Scholars", which could mean as little as two. However, by way of clarity, Professor Louis Feldman's round up would suggest that 4 scholars see the larger passage as completely genuine, 6 see it as mostly genuine, 20 as having some interpolations, and 9 as having several interpolations. Thirteen regard it as being totally an interpolation. If they can't agree on it given the depth of their knowledge, we hardly will either! Based on Feldman's stats I should now correct my piece to read "Most scholars do not see the piece as being entirely interpolated", i.e., most scholars (more learned than you or I) are happy that Jospehus made some mention of Christ.
I've never come across the 646 theory, but it sounds really interesting, as textual variants are something in which I have particular interest. Thanks for the ref Zygon. I'll look elsewhere than Callahan though, the proven unreliable non-scholar that he is.
His other attempt: "Bible Prophecy: Failure of Fulfillment?", has an inadequate bibliography (less than 20 sources to support his viewpoint, less than 12 on the "Christian viewpoint", none of which are cutting edge scholarly works!). His arguments against the Book of Daniel therein are cringeworthy in the extreme, having been proven tosh many years ago. Not surprsing though, given he is not an expert in this field, nor does he know a biblical language, it would seem. The one good thing is his expose and condemnation of the more crazy contemporary exegeses of Revelation. But you don't have to read him to see how crazy that can be! By the way, I recommend "Bible Prophecy: Failure of Fulfillment?" as a good education on how not to do biblical criticism, and hell, I might even get his newer text for some light entertainment!
Now, how about an at lengthy piece on the unreliability of Philo? Anyone... ??
