Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in first-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some dispute it.[5] Some supporting authenticity argue it is too critical of Christians to have been added by later Christian scribes.[citation needed]
Some who argue against authenticity assert:[6][7]
No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero, however the Tacitus text itself demonstrates that it may be a good resource for Christians to refer to since the text derides Christians and Christianity thus proving it to be free of later tampering by Christians.[8][citation needed][9]
Pontius Pilate's rank was prefect when he was in Judea.[10] The Tacitus passage mistakenly calls Pilate a procurator, an error also made in translations of a passage by Josephus.[11] (However, Josephus wrote in Greek and never used the Latin term.) It should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, Claudius gave procurators control over Judea.[12][13] This was made possible when he augmented the role of procurators so that they had magisterial power.[14][15] Tacitus, who rose through the magisterial ranks[16][17] to become consul and then proconsul had a precise knowledge of significance of the terms involved and knew when Judea began to be administered by procurators. It is therefore problematical that he would use "procurator" instead of "prefect" to describe the governor of Judea prior to the changes that he tells us Claudius brought in.
The passage implies that the Christians may have been guilty of setting fire to Rome, another argument against veracity, for Tacitus was attempting to lay the blame of the fire on Nero by aspersion.[18]
Another ancient writer, Suetonius, mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire[19].[20]
Some of which I hold as probable.
Also:
Quote:Christians or Chrestians?
Detail of the Medicean manuscript showing the word 'Christianos'. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'
The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[21].
In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[22] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[23] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[24]
I myself am convinced Tacitus was reffering to 'innocent people', because he was trying to pin the blame of the fire on Nero (who was insane, and noted by several authors for atrocities committed to the innocents.).
I think that it is possible that just about anything can be forged... while I have no evidence beyond one letter and intended context in this instance... I do not put any text past the possibility of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_forgery
Quote:How would the quote from Tacitus help Christians at all politically such that one would forge it?
rjh4 Wrote:Do you just dismiss this as being Christian garbage?
Yes of course I think it is Christian garbage. "Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it." Funny how most of his other work survived but not the recording of Jesus' trail. Tacticus was not the only writer at the time so it would be nice to see some more evidence. In the Roman reign there were fair trails. It does not make sense to prosecute a man who did good deeds and IF that trail did ever take place there would have been large outcry from the public and many stories to follow from writers. Or have all their documents also somehow misteriously dissapeared?
Quote: If you dismiss this as being a forgery
On that topic we can only speculate because we will never be able to proof whether or not it is a forgery. There might be texts that differ within his writings indicating that it was a forgery but sure we can't proof anything. A better question might be "was Tacticus a Christian? If so, we would be reading a biased opinion of him
Quote: Furthermore, how do you discern from historical documents what is true and what is not? Do you dismiss anything refering to Jesus Christ because it must be a forgery without looking at the evidence?
Looking at the evidence? What evidence? Christianiy seriously lacks proof of any kind unless of course you would be so kind to entertain myself and many others on this forum trying to give us some!
How do I discern from historical documents? I read them and make up my own mind as to what makes sense to me. I've read the OT and decided not to believe it because it tells the story of a monster who is not moral and loving. I've discarded the NT because of all the empty promises and lies. Example: Do you receive when you pray as promised? No you don't! Proof: Look at all the starving families in Africa. Don't tell me they all don't have faith and that they pray for the "wrong" things. A moral God would love and care for his children
October 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm (This post was last modified: October 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm by AngelaRachnid.)
(October 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Why, do you suppose, a Christian apologist would feel the need to provide such forgeries to begin with?
Have you read (if you are allowed to): "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy" or "Unearthing the Bible" By Finklestein and Silverman, or "Misquoting Jesus", "Lost Christianities" or "Lost Scriptures" by Bart Ehrman.
These explain the forgeries, why they were done, by whom etc, "The Jesus Mysteries" also examines the historical evidence for the existence of jesus (Joshua in Hebrew).
General Sun teaches us to "know our enemy", in order to debate certain points maybe you should try to read the sources of information that we do.
There is equally as much if not more proof of the existence of Atlantis than your jesus
A
(October 21, 2009 at 4:08 pm)rjh4 Wrote: How would the quote from Tacitus help Christians at all politically such that one would forge it?
By giving them the sort of historical credence and proof they dont actually have, that is why all the "add inns" in older manuscripts.
A
(October 21, 2009 at 4:50 pm)Craveman Wrote: On that topic we can only speculate because we will never be able to proof whether or not it is a forgery.
Exactly and we know with Josephus that the text was adulterated by Christians, to add authenticity to themselves so why not in other manuscripts from the period.
If i am not mistaken (probably am) one of the reasons we know that the Jesus reference in Josephus was fake is that he was not referred to as the Christ until much later in History, could this be the same for the Tacitus "add inn".?
[quote="AngelaRachnid"] General Sun teaches us to "know our enemy", in order to debate certain points maybe you should try to read the sources of information that we do. [quote/]
Shall we define "the enemy" as Christianity or ignorance?
The more I read about Christianity and the more research I do, the clearer it becomes that Christianity is a man-made religion. There never was a God, Jesus (maybe as a man but not as a Christ), a crusifixion, etc. Jesus only got decided to be made the "Son of God" and not prophet at the "Nicene Council"
It makes more sense to me that Christianity was formed to control the masses. It's easy, 1. start a religion, 2. remind the masses of their mortality 3. rule with fear and obtain ultimate power and oooh yes, lots and lots of money!
(October 22, 2009 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Greed and power have always been motivators. Nothing is free from it.
Agreed.
Just out of interest frOdO, why do you believe? Do you believe all of Christianity? Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, the Trinity, crusifixion, resurrection, hell, heaven, the bible, etc.
(October 22, 2009 at 2:25 pm)Craveman Wrote: Shall we define "the enemy" as Christianity or ignorance?
There is a difference?
I would go with all religion no matter which one, they all stand for the same things cash and power over the gullible.
Quote: The more I read about Christianity and the more research I do, the clearer it becomes that Christianity is a man-made religion. There never was a God, Jesus (maybe as a man but not as a Christ), a crusifixion, etc. Jesus only got decided to be made the "Son of God" and not prophet at the "Nicene Council"
It makes more sense to me that Christianity was formed to control the masses. It's easy, 1. start a religion, 2. remind the masses of their mortality 3. rule with fear and obtain ultimate power and oooh yes, lots and lots of money!
Yep I would go with that, so when do we start one? lets go with a nature one so your everyday house plant can be an alter to worship, so that your home becomes your place of worship, then (in the UK) get all the tax exempt statuses etc, that would catch on very quickly as soon an people realized all they had to do was feed and water their yucca or rubber plant, which constituted worship to get out of Council tax we would be in power with cash within the year.
And if we dont get tax exempt status then we claim discrimination and wave placards that read "Herbal law for the UK" and otehr equally offensive stuff untill the government is so scared that they only whisper the word yucca.
(October 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm)Craveman Wrote: Just out of interest frOdO, why do you believe? Do you believe all of Christianity? Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, the Trinity, crusifixion, resurrection, hell, heaven, the bible, etc.
(October 21, 2009 at 4:50 pm)Craveman Wrote: Looking at the evidence? What evidence? Christianiy seriously lacks proof of any kind unless of course you would be so kind to entertain myself and many others on this forum trying to give us some!
Is there really a lack of evidence or merely a lack of evidence that you would accept? Is this lack of evidence for Christianity, or lack of evidence that you will accept, your reason for being an atheist?
A voice I heard in my head is evidence... but is that good evidence? Would you accept the evidence that someone heard a voice in their head, and knows that President Obama was just assassinated by a man named Barney Hills based on it? Probably not
So if you think about it... there is a ton of evidence both for and against Christianity... but there is only a little bit of what atheists might think to be good evidence for it... while there is a great deal of what the average atheist probably thinks to be good evidence against it
So it is a lack of perceived good evidence that Craveman is referring to.
