What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Agartha

No, the problem is you trying to prove legitime history a fake because you don't believe the Biblical narrative. Claiming Jesus was not a historical person and substantiate that by modern hearsay and bad intelligence, Do you even know what these documents look like? Your integrity is about as thin as slime now and the person who was called Christ was a real person. The stories contained within the NT are genuine, if so, given, they belong to a tradition of goodwill and a method of making the impossible possible. Jesus' method somehow toppled Rome and soon it will Topple Religion. And pseudo science, including but not exclusively, discredit based on loose assumptions and other ways to get laid ///

Actually, by studying history from all points of views has reinforced my integrity and my honest moral principles, thank you very much.

The problem with the New Testament is that it has too many textual problems, like the (alleged) disciples all tell a different story according to their own ideas and they made so many geographical and historical errors that show they were not Hebrew Jews, they were probably Greek (Mark is a clear example of this).

Another problem is that the oldest NT manuscript ever found is from 125AD. The church has failed to show any proof that the gospels existed before that time.

You may believe them because you have faith in ONE of the gods of the world. Other people have the same faith in other holy books, which include at least 4200 other Gods.

I am an agnostic, I do not see any proof of any deity whatsoever and instead of talking about my integrity, people should actually try to show me real evidence.

Remsburg's opinion of the claimed Tacitus passage. As relevant now as it was over 100 years ago.

In July, 64 A.D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the "Annals" of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:

"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man" (Annals, Book XV, sec. 44).

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.

2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.

3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.

4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.

6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.

7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.

8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.

9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.

10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.

11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.

12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.

13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence.

openlibrary.org...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thank you for this, I never actually read it before.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thank you for this, I never actually read it before.

No problem. With the link below you can read the whole thing.

It's worth also noting, that apart from this passage being at odds with what Tacitus claims elsewhere, also at odds with what someone who held an official Roman position might reasonably be expected to know/say, as well as being hugely inaccurate and exaggerated from what we do know thanks to other historians (a vast multitude of christians in Rome circa 64 CE lol?).....it was also "found" at a time (and place- Europe in the middle ages/15th century) when pious forgery had long been a rampant and a profitable business. With relics such as nails and pieces of wood from the "cross" being found everywhere, the "shroud of Turin" another good example of such fakes.

That (religious) "scholars" have to promote and quibble over a few fake verses from people who couldn't have been contemporary as the best (all) they have and that many uncritically accept this passage as authentic, says a lot about the discipline itself. it is..."late and fake"

www.positiveatheism.org...

a reply to: Agartha

''The problem with the New Testament is that it has too many textual problems, like the (alleged) disciples all tell a different story according to their own ideas and they made so many geographical and historical errors that show they were not Hebrew Jews, they were probably Greek (Mark is a clear example of this).''

Have you ever talked to more than one person that talked about the same event? Some are more detailed than the other, some may speak on one thing while another speaks on that & more. Telling the history with different historians that may or may not give the exact same eyewitness accounts does not make them any less credible.


''Another problem is that the oldest NT manuscript ever found is from 125AD. The church has failed to show any proof that the gospels existed before that time.''

Whether using velum or papyrus in time, age, quality & heavy usage can break down. This is why copies were made. Not only this, have you ever considered the fa fact that Christianity & everything about it was hated? There are other reasons why Septuagiant MSS before 125 AD may no longer exist.
1. Jewish opposition: Between the raids on Christian meetings by Jewish opposition this is a reason why earlier MSS are no longer in existence.
2. War between Rome & Jerusalem: With persecution on Christians by Rome like rounding them up to be jailed, murdered & destruction of property such as in the case of the great fire set by Nero & the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is another reason why originals & earlier MSS may no longer exist.
3. The early apostasy: The RCC & the torture of anyone possessing Bible literature by burning both literature & people at the steak can be another reason why they may no longer exist.

An interesting link, for those interested in the provenance of the Tacitus manuscripts (not vouching for the complete accuracy of it, but it's interessting).

Annales 11-16, Historiae


All of the late Italian manuscripts - some 31 at the last count - are copies of a single mediaeval manuscript, also in the Laurentian library, where it is number 68.2. It is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean', to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Bound with it are the major works of Apuleius, written slightly later than the Tacitus but at the same place.

The copies are discussed by Mendell.6

This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It derives from an ancestor written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier,8 but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.9

How the MS came to leave Monte Cassino is a matter of mystery. It was still at Monte Cassino, and was used by Paulus Venetus, Bishop of Puzzuoli, sometime between 1331 and 1344. However Boccaccio had certainly seen the text by 1371, and the MS is listed among the books given by him at his death to the monastery of S. Spirito in Florence. Whether he had 'liberated' it, or acquired it from another collector who had done so has been extensively debated, without final result.

The MS is next seen in 1427, in the hands of the book-collector Niccolo Niccoli, who had furnished bookcases for Boccaccio's collection at S.Spirito. That Niccolo had not acquired the MS legitimately is suggested by a letter to him from his friend Poggio Bracciolini, asking to see it and promising to keep quiet about it. Knowledge of the text among the humanists is correspondingly limited in this period.

Poggio returned the MS to Niccolo, complaining about its barbarous script, and comparing it unfavourably with a copy of it in humanist script held by another mutual friend, Salutati.

At Niccolo's death in 1437, the MS passed with his books to the monastery of San Marco at Florence with the Medici as executors, and the humanist copies all date from this period or later.

The editio princeps was from the press of 'Spira' at Venice, a folio volume containing only the last 6 books of the annals and the first five of the histories. It is undated, but supposed to be from either 1468 or 1470. (Dibdin, Thomas Frognall, An introduction to the knowledge of rare and valuable editions of the Greek and Latin classics, 4th edn., London (1827), vol II. p.466 checked).

[The first plate is plate XIV from Reynolds & Wilson, Scribes and Scholars. The others are directly or indirectly from a photographic facsimile: Tacitus. Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68 I. (II.) [comprising Bks. 1-5, and 11-16 of the Annals; and Bks. 1-5 of the Histories]; phototypice editus. Praefatus est Henricus Rostagno (Enrico Rostagno); in Du Bieu (W. N.) Codices Graeci et Latini phototypice editi, etc. tom. 7. Leiden, 1902.]

www.tertullian.org...

originally posted by: Transparent


Have you ever talked to more than one person that talked about the same event? Some are more detailed than the other, some may speak on one thing while another speaks on that & more. Telling the history with different historians that may or may not give the exact same eyewitness accounts does not make them any less credible.

There are too many discrepancies and too many contradictions between the 4 disciples which cannot make them trustworthy historians. Besides the different accounts regarding his genealogy and the nativity story, there are more important contradictions between them regarding what he did when he supposedly walked with them ...they can't even agree on what happened during his crucifixion and resurrection... which version are we supposed to believe?

If scholars / historians would think the gospels were reliable eyewitness accounts they would use the NT as a historical record, and they do not.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, the problem is you trying to prove legitime history a fake because you don't believe the Biblical narrative.

And, you are trying to use historicity to prove that biblical narratives are true.

That's where you are sooo wrong. I have nothing to win or lose whether you'd believe in the Bible. Like I said I don't, believe in the biblical narrative, you don't have to, but the traditions and writings are as genuine as coins from that times or for that matter Roman annals, and if anyone would come to the conclusion that Jesus never lived, well, that might have sold books back in the eighties, but it has long been rejected as populistic bovine fart.

And if Tacitus' Christus is any other than the guy who is still called Christ, can you please name ANY OTHER 1st century dissident who was still known by that name/title nearly a century after his death, and who was crucified under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and brought about the Christian movement that was severely persecuted by Rome and especially during the days of emperor Nero? You're making a laughing stock of yourselves. Pft.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

but the traditions and writings are as genuine as coins from that times or for that matter Roman annals, and if anyone would come to the conclusion that Jesus never lived, well, that might have sold books back in the eighties, but it has long been rejected as populistic bovine fart.

You can say the same thing about Hercules, and have a better case. There are statues and many, many more writings about Hercules than Jesus.

But, we don't have any statues of Jesus, no faces of Jesus on coins. In fact, outside of the Bible there is no contemporary acknowledgment of Jesus of Nazareth at all.

a reply to: windword

No, because Hercules belongs to a whole different kind of tradition. Have Greek or Roman mythologies ever claimed the events included were ever true on anything other than on an esoteric symbolic level? No, on the contrary they are sold as myths and mystery, the wisdom and knowledge the stories include are true, and most relevant manuscripts are genuine enough, and the original author Homer was most likely real enough, and there may indeed have existed a Trojan horse, and since Troy has shown itself to be a real city after all, the stories involved may turn out to have more elements of truth and history within than the stories demand.

Whatever truth you'd find within Homer's stories would be a bonus, for they are sold as myth and make-believe, but still, Hercules might have been real enough, or is real enough, and for all we know, one of these days his tomb is excavated or we find proof of Bronx-age superpowers, and for all I know my dad was Achilles and I am the unknown god of Alex the Dude, and the womb that brought me forth was the Parthenon, we just don't know that, but if I claimed it, I would still be real, whether my claims were true or not.

These Greek mythological stories are typically woven ahead of the astronomical events they profess, and belong to a tradition of «as above so below» an age old tradition of transforming astrological orders from the gods in the zodiac into real world events, like, enabling the prophet Daniel to foresee or accurately predict— the movements of Greek and Egyptian armies centuries ahead of when these orders would be professed in the night sky, and carried out. They belong more to a tradition of sophia, astrology, oracle and prophecy, which are the central themes and where the claims are made, the gallery of players and whether they existed or not is irrelevant. The celestial orders are true enough, as long as there are people ready to carry these orders out, there certainly were and are armies and fraternities enough to carry these astrological orders out. We can also choose not to, but to ignore them would be ignorance.

To say one thing or the other about the truths in these stories— we'd actually have great difficulties to completely falsify or deny the historicity of the Homerian corpus completely. The stories could be real enough, only the languages involved weren't fully standardised. All I know, is that the truth always turns out to be quite boring and unsatisfactory.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, because Hercules belongs to a whole different kind of tradition.

If that were true, then why would Justine Martyr make a plea for the acceptance of the deification of Jesus, based on Pagan traditions?

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?

He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, Strong as a giant to run his course, they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Æsculapius.

SOURCE

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And if Tacitus' Christus is any other than the guy who is still called Christ,

. Early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo do not refer to Tacitus when discussing the subject of the Christian persecution by Nero.

Also, this passage constitutes the only Pagan reference that specifically associates Pontius Pilate with Christ. Moreover, even though it was the passion and duty of Church historian Eusebius to compile all non-Christian references to Jesus in his History of the Church, he failed to mention the Annals passage. All in all, the passage smacks of being a late Christian interpolation or at the least a redaction. Tacitus Annals does not appear in the literary record until the 14th century, while the earliest extant manuscript possessing book 15 dates only to the 11th century. Hence, the authenticity and value of the Annals remain dubious.

elpidiovaldes.wordpress.com...

You're making a laughing stock of yourselves.

On the contrary. You're making yourself look desperate to prove your own Jesus theories.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, because Hercules belongs to a whole different kind of tradition.

If that were true, then why would Justine Martyr make a plea for the acceptance of the deification of Jesus, based on Pagan traditions?

Why don't you write a paper on it? Or start a thread here? You seem to have a few ideas about the poor sod.

originally posted by: windword

You're making a laughing stock of yourselves.

On the contrary. You're making yourself look desperate to prove your own Jesus theories.

And what exactly are my Jesus theories, and why would I care whatever people would have to say about them? I have nothing to gain or lose whether Jesus is real or not, but you're insulting my intelligence by your anti-religious rants. You're not a tad better than the religious fanatics. Give up, Tacitus is real, and for all we know so is Josephus and all the others as well. If you can prove any of these manuscripts are fakes, I know a few libraries, collectors and universities that would love to hear you out. If you suspect forgery, the owners of those manuscripts would love to know I think.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And what exactly are my Jesus theories

Earlier in this thread you talked about your theory that Jesus was Cleopatra's son. Remember. There's no need to get personal with me. My opinion is just as valid as yours.

a reply to: windword

And why would I be desperate? And why on earth would I be personal with you?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, because Hercules belongs to a whole different kind of tradition.

If that were true, then why would Justine Martyr make a plea for the acceptance of the deification of Jesus, based on Pagan traditions?

Why don't you write a paper on it? Or start a thread here? You seem to have a few ideas about the poor sod.

I remember how you started this thread as an offshoot of this thread, that frustrated you. www.abovetopsecret.com... My contribution, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=windword

Then again, it's rehashed again and was discussed in depth here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are ton more threads here on this very subject. It's not just me. You're not going to get your consensus here on ATS.

a reply to: windword

What are you trying to say? Do you have anything to add to this thread or do you have to turn every objection to your religious issues into some ad hominem rant? Stick to the subject, and when you are unable, don't bother posting. If you have further issues with me or threads I've been participating in, bring your issues up in the threads you refer to. You avoid answering my questions?

This thread is about Tacitus and his reference to Christus, that you claim is a forgery without having shown yourself able to prove or establish any valid case for, other than what you believe to be true. I honestly don't care what you believe. Jesus may be dead as toast today, but he most likely once lived. Carpentry can be produce some pretty amazing miracles. It can allow you to walk through walls, and walk on water, it can enable you to throw fireballs hundreds of meters through the air. But you don't believe in carpentry, do you?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What are you trying to say?

Read your own thread! Tacitus' annals, as testimony to the prove the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth has been handily debunked by scholars and their many citations, as provided by more than one poster here, in your own thread.

HERE, for example.