(February 18, 2013 at 10:05 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Minimalist and I are discussing whether Tacitus's report about Nero's persecution of Christians is authentic. It's got nothing to do with whether Jesus really existed.
It's difficult to say. It's understood by historians that historical sources like Tacitus had no set of standards put down like we do in modern times, since professional historians didn't appear until von Ranke.
One of the advantages of this however is the generally obvious agendas and biases of the source in question when compared to other sources. Tacitus is known to be scornful of the aristocracy at the time of Nero, of which he himself was a member, and Nero was usually at odds with the Senate during the later parts of his reign. The difficulty here comes from his opinion of Nero himself.
Nero is clearly a tyrant according to Tacitus, possibly insane. Writing of christian persecution might well have strengthened this notion if Tacitus were in favour of, or even indifferent to christianity, but so far as I'm aware he had no particular opinion towards christianity.
The general bias towards Nero in regards to what he did to christians is therefore a little difficult to make out, but I can only see an omission of atrocities if Tacitus were either in favour of Nero, or actively against christianity.
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
