Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Jesus Christ is the most influential figure on the planet, with more than 2 billion worshippers worldwide and many more who fondly study his teachings. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Jesus may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Tacitus: A Reliable Reference to Jesus
Usually Reliable?
Definitive evidence, J.P.? I can't go along with that. It doesn't hurt. But it doesn't close the case. Let's agree he's generally reliable. He's generally good about his sources. He's credible generally. Great. But it's not as if events never deviate from the norm.
You know, most 1st century Palestinians weren't crucified. In fact the percentage that were is exceedingly small. Maybe 1 person in 10,000. Is this definitive proof that Jesus wasn't crucified? It would be an exceptional deviation from the norm.
- JonC
December 17, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I will stick with "definitive"
I will stick with “definitive” as Tacitus is more than “generally” reliable; he is considered to be unusually, if not exceptionally, reliable. Those who argue for a deviancy from a norm must argue it, not simply suppose it to be possible.
- JP Holding
December 18, 2008 4:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tacitus is "unusually, if not exceptionally reliable"
This being the case, it makes the uncharacteristic error regarding the rank of Pilate stand out all the more. (See my comment to your fudging the data with procurator/prefect.)
Interpolations tend to stand out for what they say for themselves rather than what they contribute to the context. This is the case with the second part of A. 15.44. Previously Tacitus had carefully constructed an attack on Nero based on his manipulation of the evidence available. Interestingly he cannot say outright that Nero was responsible for the fire, so he leaves it to the fact that everyone suspected that he was and no matter what he did he couldn't shake that opinion. Then, suddenly we get the story of crispy crackly christians burning into the night in a glorious martyrdom which made even an unfriendly populace feel sympathy for them.
This whole passage undercuts Tacitus's efforts to vilify Nero, for it takes focus away from Nero's probable acts and unaccountably switches to naughty christians.
While crispy crackly christians is over the top for a Tacitus, the whole affair is significantly missing from Suetonius, who was much more in favor of the crispy crackly approach to the past. (And arguments from silence have a certain value, when the expected is not there.)
As the passage was not part of Tacitus's hatchet job on Nero, one would expect it to have been placed before he concluded his dealings with Nero on the fire in 15.44.1-2a, in order to sell his ideas about the ruler and not bury them.
The christ passage in 15.44 doesn't contribute to the context in which it is found. It actually interferes with it.
- spin December 22, 2008 11:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Little more than an imaginative construct
There was no “fudging” on the procurator/prefect issue. The response I gave is that of credentialed historians. It is clear that you simply cannot respond to such authorities on their own terms.
The remainder of your commentary is little more than an imaginative construct. It perhaps does not occur to you – as it would to professional historians who have made Tacitus their life study – that Tacitus’ qualified assessment of Nero’s involvement in the fire reflects his characteristic care as a historian, in which he refuses to make judgments based on inadequate information and simply leaves it to the reader to decide.
In short, your contrived scenario makes it conveniently impossible for Tacitus to report such a judgment, because you have already assumed that he will only be trying to vilify Nero. So what is Tacitus supposed to do if indeed the origins of the fire were uncertain? Lie about it, so that he can satisfy your pre-determined categorical profession that his sole purpose is to vilify Nero? Are you going to argue next that Tactius could not report wrongdoing or blame to anyone else at all, because he was so obsessed with finding ways to vilify Nero?
As for things being missing from Suetonius: That is an argument from silence indeed, and of no value whatsoever. Compare Suetonius’ account of Nero’s reign with that of Tacitus’ account and tell me that they match in all respect save that one; then you will have a case. As it is, you are once again merely creating arbitrary categorical distinctions.
In addition, would you mind explaining why “crispy crackly christians is over the top for a Tacitus”? What would you rank as the three events Tacitus reports which would otherwise rank closest to “over the top” for him, and why? (Or is this simply another of your contrived arguments?)
Your comment re the placement of the passage “in order to sell his ideas about the ruler and not bury them” makes no sense whatsoever and is not explained in terms of the structure of Annals 15. Nor do you explain how the passage “doesn't contribute to the context in which it is found” or “interferes with it.” I will therefore assume that you are simply making up this argument out of thin air and do not have the ability to justify it.
- JP Holding
December 31, 2008 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Holding tight for an anticlimax
If Mr Holding understood the notion of appeal to authority, he would deal with the arguments of those authorities rather than simply continuing to appeal. But this is an exercise in apologetics: authority means he doesn't have to get confused with facts.
Perhaps had Mr Holding read some of the authorities on Tacitus and his descriptions of the Roman emperors, he might find that Tacitus was far from refusing to make judgments on them. He was merely indirect in the statement of his judgments. A good analysis of the issue is Inez Scott Ryberg, "Tacitus' Art of Innuendo", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.73 (1942), pp.384-404. He might get the flavor of Tacitus' approach by actually reading a few pages of the old Roman senator.
The fact that Suetonius doesn't mention the passage is surprising on a number of fronts: it is Suetonius who prefers more salacious materials rather than Tacitus, Suetonius had a position which gave him access to city records and yet doesn't admit to knowing about the christian connection to the fire, and he is the first of a long line of ancient writers who were apparently oblivious to that connection, including several knowledgeable christian fathers.
I'm impressed by Mr Holding's inability to understand my comments about the placement of the passage on the Neronian persecution. It is a simple matter: Tacitus is doing a hatchet job on Nero regarding the fire (and please refer to your authority for help there). He starts his discussion of the fire in A.15.38 with an aspersion, "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain". It is possible that Nero was the cause of the fire. He sums up this issue in 15.44, "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." The aim is to leave the reader with the notion that it is obvious that Nero was the cause. However with the current text, the reader isn't left with the last thought on the fire being that Nero couldn't shake the accusations, but a totally different issue, that of the persecution of the christians. This christian "anticlimax" undercuts and diffuses the whole careful attack on Nero.
As to Mr Holding's last comment, "I will therefore assume that you are simply making up this argument out of thin air and do not have the ability to justify it", the apologist may assume whatever he likes in order to further his cause. This is not so much a reflection of what he is making assumptions about, as of his efforts to win an argument regardless of content.
Mr Holding certainly can cite names of authorities he has collected in the decades of his apologetic activities, but shows little interest in what those authorities actually talk about and little desire to understand the primary sources or how an ancient writer such as Tacitus goes about unveiling his agenda.
- spin December 31, 2008 4:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mr. spin reaches his climax in a valley
Despite mr. spin, I do understand what “appeal to authority” is, and why he has misapprehended it in this case. Like Mr. Zindler, he fails to realize that he is in essence asking us to accept HIS authority over that of Tacitean scholars. In the end it remains an admission on his part that he is ill-prepared to deal with the issues, much less use those authorities to his advantage.
Re the appeal to Ryberg. I said nothing to suggest that Tacitus was “far from refusing to make judgments” on emperors; it seems that mr. spin cannot answer my real arguments, so he instead creates one for me that I did not make, since that is easier to refute.
Regarding Suetonius, I note that my question asking for comparisons of content remains completely unanswered, and thus is a tacit admission by mr. spin that he cannot justify his argument that there is anything unusual in the variability of accounts. Mr. spin vaguely appeals to Suetonius liking “more salacious materials” but what is “salacious” about a particular group being falsely accused of starting a fire is hard to say, especially when compared with the lurid atrocities performed by Nero at the same time. Not only so, but mr. spin doesn’t even bother to justify, by record, Suetonius’ alleged “preferences” in this regard or their specific nature, so I will assume he is simply making this up put of his hat.
Mr. spin also vaguely appeals to “access to city records,” for what purpose is far from clear, since it doesn’t seem likely that Nero’s gossip accusing Christians of starting the fire would be documented in “city records.” Perhaps mr. spin also thinks he can find copies of “Guiding Light” in his local city hall as well. We remain unenlightened in terms of why this is a meaningful silence in any writer, beyond “mr. spin says so.”
In terms of placement of the passage, I understood very well that this was simply yet another case of mr. spin blowing smoke and flashing mirrors. He clearly had no actual explanation to start with, and his present attempt at explanation reaches new heights of logical incoherence. That the “aim is to leave the reader with the notion that it is obvious that Nero was the cause” is not in any sense reduced by the recording of a false accusation by Nero against Christians; if anything, it fits right in with a picture of Nero as a party trying to evade responsibility. Why mr. spin thinks it necessary for something else to be the “last thought,” in order for Nero to remain a bad guy, is hard to say, but it seems likely that he couldn’t strain out a better explanation in order to preserve his contrived thesis. Bottom line: There is no “christian anticlimax” save in mr. spin’s imagination, just as I predicted.
In close, note well that mr. spin is clearly out of his league in confronting the claims of the “authorities” he so readily dismisses (in favor of his own unknown “authority”). I strongly suspect that he has never read any of their words, not even Ryberg’s, and merely collected that reference out of some library database he rushed to in a panic when he found that his arguments based on a plan English reading would not simply be accepted uncritically here by a bamboozled audience. In any event, not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44.
- JP Holding
January 2, 2009 8:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Holding no bars
There is no pleasing Mr Holding. He refuses to consult the original text, preferring to rely on appeals to authority. When one supplies even one reference for him to read, specifically on the issue of how Tacitus indirectly develops his criticism of his subjects, Mr Holding denies the value of secondary sources. No, wait, that's not correct: he doesn't really mind appeals to secondary sources. He simply claims that I haven't read mine, so that he doesn't need to either. He has dug his hole of appeal to authority and now he is trying to claw his way out with a no-holds-barred "it's not me appealing to authority, it's you" argument, while finishing his argument with "not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44". One cannot take this gormlessness seriously.
Ryberg, in the article I cited, deals with Tacitus' technique, saying "It is by various devices of his style that Tacitus was able to make good his claim of writing, in the accepted historical tradition, sine ira et studio [=impartially], and yet to leave etched on the reader's mind an ineradicable impression of tyranny and oppression..." She is dealing with what Tacitus says about Tiberius, but the technique reflects the author rather than the subject. Tacitus avoids "direct accusations of crime": he "stops short of a direct charge, and yet spares the emperor nothing of the burden of guilt." (Ryberg, op.cit. p.384.)
A grasp of how Tacitus proceeded is essential to understanding the passage we are considering. Mr Holding would like readers to believe that the fanciful description of the persecution of christians tacked onto the end of the historian's masterful attack on Nero -- a description that takes the reader's mind off Nero while still dealing with the fire he has indicted Nero for --, was actually written by Tacitus. Unwilling to accept that Tacitus knew what he was doing in his proceeding against Nero, Mr Holding has no problem with one of the most highly reputed orators of his time fumbling his finish. Even Mr Holding likes a big finish: "In any event, not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44." This is little league acknowledging the big league of course, but it's a big finish for Mr Holding (no bars held).
Mr Holding has difficulties with my referring to the lusty descriptions of the treatment of the christian martyrs as "salacious materials", being torn apart by dogs or lighting up the night sky, stuff that mightn't be expected from the taciturn Tacitus but juice for Suetonius, or, better, for martyr-story hungry christians. I take this as a complaint about my use of "salacious" and I thank Mr Holding for his efforts at improving my writing technique.
Ryberg describes Tacitus as stopping short of a direct criminal charges, but here in 15.44 Mr Holding accepts that he does make a charge: "a false accusation by Nero against Christians". If we are to trust Ryberg's analysis, this is out of character for Tacitus.
Mr Holding seems unable to do anything other than to appeal to authority, and fill in the spaces with banter. I would much prefer him to consider the text for once and show that he understands the issues the text implies.
- spin January 2, 2009 3:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You shouldn't
"Those who argue for a deviancy from a norm must argue it, not simply suppose it to be possible."
Of course. That's what Zindler is doing. If we had only one piece of data, and that was the Tacitus quote, and we had nothing else (no gospels, no Josephus interpolation, nothing from Paul), and we thought the Tacitus quote was genuine, we'd probably say it's more likely than not that Jesus existed. But if we look at the additional data and find that it points towards the non-existence of the historical Jesus, we go with it, because the Tacitus quote is not definitive.
- JonC
January 1, 2009 6:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.