For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Minimalist]

Exactly - he was reporting what Christians believed at the time. The Christians didn't need to read his book in order to learn what they were supposed to believe.

Ape you refuse to even consider the distinct probability that P. Cornelius Tacitus never said any such thing. That this whole bit of bullshit was a later insertion by a medieval monk/scribe who was trying to provide a little historical basis for his boy.

In case you think that sort of thing did not happen you really need to read up on the long history of xtian forgeries.

http://www.harrington-sites.com/fa.htm

Try to remember the words of Eusebius, the so-called church historian.

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)

Curiously, it was Eusebius who suddenly "discovered" the Testimoniam Flavianum of Josephus after centuries of xtian writers had missed it.

Really.


I cannot explain why you are getting a blank page - however I did try to link to it so honor is served. Fortunately, it is not all that long. Enjoy.

Sunday, March 12, 2006
DID TACITUS MENTION JESUS?
Did Tacitus mention Jesus as a historical person?

One historian, Edwin Yamauchi, calls the mention in Tacitus “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”
The quote, supposed to have been written around 117 AD, reads:
“Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome .”

This passage is interesting for several reasons.

The discussion is of the sect of “Christianity,” not Jesus Christ. Jesus is mentioned only with reference to the Christian claim that he was their founder.

This is of little importance, however, as the passage is likely a forgery perpetuated by Church not for the purpose of providing evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but to promote the idea that Nero persecuted Christians for burning Rome.

1. No contemporary historians record a Neronian persecution of Christians.
2. Nero’s famed minister, Seneca, wrote extensively but never even mentioned Christians in Rome.
3. Eusebius never refers to this passage when makng the claim of Neronian persecution.
4. Tertullian quoted Tacitus extensively, but never refers to this passage.
5. No commentator who quoted Tacitus ever made reference to this passage before the 15th century.

The reason no commentator made reference to this passage before the 15th century is that the entire “Annals” in which it appears was unknown until the purported “discovery” made by Johannes de 1468.

It is always cause for suspicion when a copy of an “ancient” writing by a famous historian is suddenly discovered, centuries after the death of the author, containing passages radically different from other writings by that author which enjoyed continuity. The fact that those touting the discovery had a vested interest in the spurious passage makes it even more doubtful, as this provides a motive for the forgery.