For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[CleanShavenJesus]

There you go again about proof.

There you go again not having any. Situation: normal.

Read my topic

[Minimalist]

[Confused Ape]

[Confused Ape]

[Minimalist]

he's also reporting that the Romans suspected Nero of starting it. Why?

Why? Why indeed? There are some people in history who we know only through the writings of their enemies. Nero is one of these. Caligula and Herod the Great come to mind as two more examples. Even Hitler does not suffer from this particular problem.

Tacitus was a member of the senatorial class. He himself also noted that he owed his career to the Flavian Dynasty ( Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) and it was the Flavians who picked up the pieces of the empire after Nero fell. All sorts of slanders are written about him by writers who came after the fact and belonged to the upper (and literate ) classes.

It is impossible to comprehend Roman history - particularly Roman political history - without understanding the centuries long battle between the patricians and plebians for power. G. Julius Caesar represented the triumph of the popular party over the senatorial class.
He founded the Julio-Claudian dynasty of which Nero was the last member. If there is one thing the Julio-Claudians understood it was that their power was based on keeping "the mob" quiet. There were no popular uprisings against even Caligula or Nero. Their opposition came from the senatorial/equestrian classes and generally had to do with the rather innovative ( read that 'extra-legal') means of extracting money from the upper classes. When the revolts came against Nero they came from Vindex in Gaul and Galba in Spain...the governors of those provinces.

So who was Nero? Even Tacitus' account indicates that Nero took steps to relieve the suffering of the poor and his own palace was destroyed in the fire. It is also true that in the aftermath of the fire he built a new palace for himself, the Domus Aurea, which was opulent beyond words ( sections of it have been found and excavated) and he no doubt financed it by extorting money from the upper classes.

What is the reality of Nero? Who knows. Did he extort money from the upper classes? Doubtlessly. As Willie Sutton noted "I rob banks because that is where the money is." Did he incur the enmity of the upper classes as a result? Obviously he did.

So in Tacitus' (and Suetonius') case we have a double motive for what they wrote. Class warfare and a desire to ingratiate themselves with the current government by pointing out the flaws of a despised enemy. We lack a favorable biography of Nero and, much as with political advertisements today, the negative ones must be taken with caution.

[Confused Ape]

[Minimalist]

Dio is a further century removed from the events. Odd that he did not quote his great predecessor, though.


Suetonius:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale.45 Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.46

Note how closely Suetonius' write up matches Pliny's. Yet we are asked to believe that Tacitus, who knew both of them and was writing at the same time heard the whole story about Pilate and the rest and no one else bothered to mention it.


I'm glad you found Carrington's write up on your own. Saves me the trouble of posting it.

I have to say I am not impressed with the argument about how great a forger would have to be to imitate Tacitus or anyone else. That's what forgers do. Someone who had copied scroll after scroll of Tacitus' writing to the point where he reaches Book XV, Ch. 44 had been working on it for a while. It's not that hard to tack on a couple of lines. Again, Bart Ehrman has written a whole book about xtian forgeries but it is a concept which goes back many years.

[ThomM]

Tacitus simply was not alive during the supposed era of the christ - so he is not at all proof of anything but something he was TOLD.

His mentioning the christ is no more proof of existence than would be his mentioning of Jupiter or Hercules

In fact - both Josephus and Tacitus mention Hercules in their writings

To claim that a person who was not born or lived during the supposed time of the christ is proof of existence is nonsense -it only proves the story at most.

The fact is - the story of the christ has too many contradictions and inconsistencies to be real. At most - there might have been a human jewish heretic upon which that MYTH is based - but the claims of the christ in the bible have NO basis in proven fact.

[Confused Ape]

[Confused Ape]