religion

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, if it was only this claim that made the passage look fishy then I would consider the argument. You failed to address the 3-4 other reasons it is highly suspect. Even the most conservative historians dont give the passage credence. At best, a contemporary Christian told Tacitus the story and he repeated it without checking the facts because none of it matches up to Roman records or other historians that lived during Jesus's time. Isn't that a bit suspect to you?

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen
Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also." Annals XV, 44

What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
Jesus did exist
Jesus was the founder of Christianity
Jesus was put to death by Pilate
Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)

Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government
records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny
the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical
investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or
folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and
insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable
evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source
(assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in
Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus'
existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:
"But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1
"Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2
"Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII
It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since
Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held both positions.


As for some of the other claims they are speculative.
"Tacitus should have blamed the Jews and not the Christians"
Speculation.

Seneca doesn't mention Christ or Christians: Seneca was a historian that focused on the arts, not on political history. If we read an amazon review of the best literature of the 20th century and it never mentioned Bill Clinton would we assume he did not exist?

To use Esubius as a reference is dubious at best. He unlike Tacitus before him is not noted for his diligent research into historical facts.
To say that esubius' lack of mention of the tacetian account is proof of its non-existence at his time is a speculative assumption.