KT45 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'm currently researching evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and I ran across something. Christians commonly talk about a man called Tacitus and use him as evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ in his writings. I look into this and here is what Tacitus wrote. "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the 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, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. " Now do you see what I bolded. I'm curious as to what he is referring to as superstition. Is he talking about the rumors about Nero causing the fire, or is he calling the existence of Christ a superstition. Both originated in Judea and spread to Rome so it's hard to tell. If Tacitus was talking about Jesus then I find it funny that christians would use this as proof. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartP Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'm currently researching evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and I ran across something. Christians commonly talk about a man called Tacitus and use him as evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ in his writings. I look into this and here is what Tacitus wrote. "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the 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, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. " Now do you see what I bolded. I'm curious as to what he is referring to as superstition. Is he talking about the rumors about Nero causing the fire, or is he calling the existence of Christ a superstition. Both originated in Judea and spread to Rome so it's hard to tell. If Tacitus was talking about Jesus then I find it funny that christians would use this as proof. Thoughts? The reasons Christians cite Tacitus is because he was hostile to Christianity, but yet did bot deny the historicity of Jesus. In the sentence about Christus and Pilate there is no "maybe" or "apparantly" or "it is rumoured" The bit about the "pernicious superstition" is not very clear is it? Because of the last sentence where it says "not so much of the crime of firing the city" I think it is referring to rumours of nero causing the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted February 3, 2007 Author Share Posted February 3, 2007 The reasons Christians cite Tacitus is because he was hostile to Christianity, but yet did bot deny the historicity of Jesus. In the sentence about Christus and Pilate there is no "maybe" or "apparantly" or "it is rumoured" The bit about the "pernicious superstition" is not very clear is it? Because of the last sentence where it says "not so much of the crime of firing the city" I think it is referring to rumours of nero causing the fire. If that is so why did Tacitus refer say "not only through Judea, where the mischief originated". if the mischief was the fire then it would have originated in Rome not Judea. If the Mischief is christianity then it originated in Judea and spread to Rome.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartP Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 The reasons Christians cite Tacitus is because he was hostile to Christianity, but yet did bot deny the historicity of Jesus. In the sentence about Christus and Pilate there is no "maybe" or "apparantly" or "it is rumoured" The bit about the "pernicious superstition" is not very clear is it? Because of the last sentence where it says "not so much of the crime of firing the city" I think it is referring to rumours of nero causing the fire. If that is so why did Tacitus refer say "not only through Judea, where the mischief originated". if the mischief was the fire then it would have originated in Rome not Judea. If the Mischief is christianity then it originated in Judea and spread to Rome.... But isn't tacitus saying that the Christians were blamed and punished for the burning. Yes, the Christianity came out of Judea, but with it also came the burning of Rome. Mischievous Christians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'm currently researching evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and I ran across something. Christians commonly talk about a man called Tacitus and use him as evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ in his writings. I look into this and here is what Tacitus wrote. "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the 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, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. " Now do you see what I bolded. I'm curious as to what he is referring to as superstition. Is he talking about the rumors about Nero causing the fire, or is he calling the existence of Christ a superstition. Both originated in Judea and spread to Rome so it's hard to tell. If Tacitus was talking about Jesus then I find it funny that christians would use this as proof. Thoughts? Take a look at what's being written. He mentions Christus. This is a title, not a name. Even though it fits the theology of the xians it does not mention a jesus of Nazareth at all. There were many "Christs" or Messiahs that came from Judea and the bible itself mentions "false" christs during the same exact time frame that jesus was supposed to have been around (or shortly after). Could this be one of those leading the people astray? Which came first? This is a chicken and egg situation. This is happening during the time of Nero. We know in Acts that Paul was the missionary to Rome. That very few xians were supposed to be there according to Acts. So how could so many be causing an uproar during this time? Is Acts wrong? Were there really many xians there and Paul was just an after thought? Or are we to believe this all happened after Paul arrived, stayed two years, was beheaded, converted a bunch of people while under house arrest (and Nero's blessing in a way) and then for some reason "Christ" was blamed instead of Paul who instructed them all? No, this reads, if not as an interpolation, as information gained from a xian source and not checked at all by Tacitus. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Much of this was covered in the "Did Jesus Exist?" topic. You might want to look that up, too. Seems to me this "pernicious superstition" was the spectacular claims of Christianity. -CC in MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godlessgrrl Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 What's the original Latin? Do you have it available? I can translate it, if you do. That might provide a grammatical clue to what he means. Might not, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 What's the original Latin? Do you have it available? I can translate it, if you do. That might provide a grammatical clue to what he means. Might not, though. Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta mundique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godlessgrrl Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Right on. It's now after 7 AM and I haven't slept yet, so I'll probably tackle it later after dealing with today's round of insomnia and insanity, and see if that helps. (And see how much I remember my very rusty Latin!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 I think this is the same passage my NT prof presented last fall. What is here spelled Christus he spelled Chrestus. I think in the "Did Jesus Exist?, What is the non-religious historical evidence?" thread, the "Chrestus" spelling was used, too. The thread starts here. I see there are at least one or two other threads with the same title (Did Jesus Exist), but they have a different subheading. Here is the other one: "Poll: Did Jesus Exist? If So, Who Was He? A Poll on the "Who Was He, If Anyone?" Regarding Jesus" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 As far as I can see Suetonius is the only on who used the proper name Chrestus (and while apologists want everyone to believe this is a only misspelling for "Christus" it was a real proper name that was in use at the time and the passage makes much more sense when read that way). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 As far as I can see Suetonius is the only on who used the proper name Chrestus (and while apologists want everyone to believe this is a only misspelling for "Christus" it was a real proper name that was in use at the time and the passage makes much more sense when read that way). mwc Can you explain why you think it makes more sense that way? I am not challenging the statement; I don't know enough about the topic to agree or disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Can you explain why you think it makes more sense that way? I am not challenging the statement; I don't know enough about the topic to agree or disagree. You made me dig out the quote. As you can see there isn't much to it: As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. If you give it a plain reading the Jews are being instigated by <someone> in Rome and are then expelled [from Rome]. If this is a Christ, particularly jesus, what is he doing in Rome and why is he instigating Jews (so much so they're expelled)? It's assumed that Jewish Christians are rioting for some reason but that's reading an awful lot into this one little quote. A little more to note that this is to go with the expulsion noted in Acts (sorry don't have the chapter/verse handy) and while this is recorded in ~120CE the riots were supposedly in the 40's (if I recall correctly). A straightforward reading, with the knowledge that Chrestus is a proper name for the day and age, leads us to conclude simply that someone named Chrestus is leading Jews to riot and they're therefore expelled from Rome. But now that you can see the quote for yourself I'll leave it for you to decide. Now you may challenge (or not) away. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts