Richard Carrier: "christ" In Tacitus May Be Interpolated

[♦ ficino ♦]

On Brother Jeff's mythical Jesus thread I said that Richard Carrier has an article on the Testimonium Taciteum coming out in Vigiliae Christianae.  In fact, it is already in print, in volume 68.3 (2014) pp. 264-283.  

 

Carrier's conclusion is that the following words are likely to be a Christian interpolation:  auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat, “The author of this name, Christ, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”  Carrier doesn't claim that this thesis can be proved.  He says that arguments in favor of it have met with no strong rebuttal.

 

  Carrier's main reason for doubting the authenticity of the passage comes from the fact that the original manuscript reading of the name of the group persecuted by Nero is Chrestiani (in the manuscript the word appears in an inflected form, Chrestianos).  Christianos is a correction made in the manuscript by a later hand.  Carrier argues that it would be strange for Tacitus to explain the origin of the title Chrestiani by deriving it from a guy named Christus.  He says it's more likely it comes from Chrestus, the name of a Jewish agitator mentioned by Suetonius.  Riots associated with Chrestus had provoked Claudius to expel Jews from Rome 20+ years before.  The section of Tacitus' work chronicling those years is lost, so we can't check what Tacitus said, if anything, about this Chrestus.

 

Carrier goes on to say that if we take out the words in comic font above, we get Nero blaming the fire on the Chrestians.  Suggesting that this group is being conflated with Jews in general, Carrier argues that there was not a "huge multitude" of Christians in Rome at this time, but there were very many Jews, despite Claudius' earlier decree to expel at least some Jews.  The Chrestians had been implicated in urban violence, but there's no reason why Christians would have been hated to the degree that the text says Nero's scapegoats were hated.  And Tacitus says the common people "used to call" (appellabat) this group Chrestians, using past not present tense as though the group is not extant in Tacitus' own time. Finally, all the other references of a Neronian persecution of Christians in connection with the Fire are later and in Christian sources.  The first explicit one is in Sulpicius Severus of around 400, which shares details with the Tacitean passage.  Carrier thinks SS assumed that Tacitus was talking about Christians, not knowing about the shadowy Chrestians.  The late fourth-century forgery, Letters of Seneca and Paul, says that Nero punished Christians and Jews for the fire - a possible corruption of the Chrestians persecution, if that's what Tacitus in fact recorded, suggests Carrier.

 

Carrier then weighs probabilities of various explanations.  He argues that no actual persecution of Christians in connection with the Fire occurred, on the grounds that no reference to such an event in Christian martyr stories appears until the fourth century - an argument from silence, as he acknowledges, but, he thinks, a strong one.  He also rejects the notion that Tacitus invented the tale.  Lactantius in the third century talks about blame on Christians for the fire in Nicomedia, and L. shares details with the account in Tacitus.  But Lactantius doesn't draw any parallel between that persecution, under Galerius, and a supposed persecution after the Fire under Nero.  So Carrier concludes that Lactantius' copy of Tacitus had a story of Nero's blaming the fire on a seditious group but that the group was not Christians, and Christ was not named as the group's founder.

 

Carrier sums up: unlikely that Christians from the first (rather than in late forgeries) wouldn't have used the story of Nero's persecuting their sect for the fire, if it had occurred;  Tacitus describes the group as large and seditious and as though it was not well known in his own time, which doesn't fit Christians.  So Tacitus meant the Chrestians.  Carrier says that the thesis that he meant Christians requires too many improbable assumptions.

 

Interesting that he does not join William Benjamin Smith, whom I cited in Bro Jeff's thread, and others who excise the entire passage.

 

-------------------------------

 

I think two of the assumptions on which Carrier's construction relies, which he doesn't seem to articulate, are that Tacitus would 1) refer to an obscure group like the "Chrestiani" without giving a full explanation of who they are; 2) refer to a group, to whom he had referred before, without noting his earlier discussion.  I haven't studied Tacitus in enough depth to judge whether these are things that he would do.

 

In this business, of course, everything gets argued.  So one can make a case that the "Chrestus" of Suetonius is an error for Christus, i.e. Jesus, and that Christian missionary zeal was what provoked Claudius' reaction back in the 40s.  Cf.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=testimonium+taciteum&source=bl&ots=cVBnb3QQgY&sig=h940b299PAqIFKUA3pe0RLTC3KU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gukuVOOGC6PesATM9IHQAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=testimonium%20taciteum&f=false

[directionless]

Ficino, I've been reading the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

I may have misunderstood, but if I extract the phrase “The author of this name, Christ, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” from the english translation of the paragraph in wikipedia it doesn't make sense.

 

I get something like this:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. [extracted interpolation] And a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

 

That doesn't make sense to me.

 

Maybe I misunderstood Carrier's argument or maybe the proposed interpolation can be removed easier from the Latin original?

[♦ ficino ♦]

D, I agree with you that after we take out the words that Carrier thinks are an interpolation, the result seems strange.  It seems as though Tacitus would not be identifying the Chrestians sufficiently.  

 

At this point I am inclined to wonder whether our choices really lie between excising the entire passage, i.e. the account of Nero's persecuting "Chrestians" as scapegoats for the Fire, or accepting the entire passage.  But I'm not a Tacitus expert.

[Blood]

I believe both Tacitus and Suetonius refer to "Chrestus." That's because they knew the Greek language and knew this Greek word. They did not know "Christos."

 

I'm not clear on this, but why did the LXX translate Anointed One as Christos? Were they, too, inspired by the already extant Greek root "chrest"? That would be an interesting reversal. 

 

I'm hearing an argument from personal incredulity on top of an argument from silence on this. Mind you, this kind of argumentation is considered normal within Christian scholarship, so I cannot get too mad at Carrier for using the same tactics. I don't think it helps his thesis. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I'm not clear on this, but why did the LXX translate Anointed One as Christos? Were they, too, inspired by the already extant Greek root "chrest"? That would be an interesting reversal. 

 

 

The Greek χριστός, christos, is from the verb χρίω, chrio, which means "to anoint.  The adjective χρηστός, chrestos, is from the verb χράομαι, "το use."  By the later Roman period, the vowels long e (eta) and i (iota) were pronounced the same.  I have not heard that this was the case in the Hellenistic period when the LXX was translated.  So I'd be inclined to doubt that the translators were thinking of christos/chrestos.  Christos just means "anointed."

[♦ ficino ♦]

Just adding some stuff that Carrier says, which I didn't summarize in the OP:

 

1. Pliny the Younger shows almost no knowledge of what the Christians did or believed.  Since his uncle, Pliny the Elder, had been in Rome at the time of the Fire and had written about it (blaming Nero), you'd think he would have said something about Christians if they'd been implicated.  But Pliny's ignorance suggests that his uncle had not written about them - an argument from silence for the notion that they hadn't in fact been implicated in the fire.  

2. The text of Suetonius talks about Christians persecuted by Nero but not in connection with the fire.  Suetonius also reports Claudius' banishment of Jews because of riots fomented by a certain Chrestus.  Cassius Dio says instead that Claudius only ordered the Jews not to hold meetings.  Carrier adds that Suetonius apparently knew the difference between Christians and Jews.

 

Carrier does not discuss the possibility that the whole story, not just the sentence about Christus, was interpolated into Tacitus' Annales.  From his contention that Lactantius in the third century knew this passage, though, it would seem that Carrier would not hold that the passage is a late Christian interpolation.  That's because, if it were, it looks as though it would be an expansion of Sulpicius Severus' account.  But that was written after Lactantius, around 400.

 

At this point I can only say that I think the TT is suspect.  I am not convinced about authenticity either way.  I lean toward the view that the TF is all interpolated, though, for what it's worth.

[Overcame Faith]

Here is the relevant quote from Tacitus:
 

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. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

(Emphasis mine)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html

My point is that if Christians did, indeed, interpolate (add what they wanted to) Tacitus, why didn't they remove that part which was bolded? It seems to me that a Christian would have either taken the bolded part out and replaced it with something else or they would have added some words that would have made the accusations seem like a lie.

Take this quote: "...class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace...." If it were me and I were trying to change what Tacitus wrote, I would have added something like this, "...class hated for their abominations [of which they were not guilty], called Christians by the populace...."

This quote: "...most mischievous superstition...." I would have changed it to something like this, "...[what people were led to believe were] most mischievous superstition...."

This quote: "...the first source of the evil...." I would have changed it to something like this, "...the first source of [what was thought to be] the evil...."

This quote: "...hatred against mankind...." I would have changed it to something like this, "....hatred against [what they thought was the evil in Rome] mankind...."

 

This quote:  "...criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment...."  I would have changed it to something like this, "...[people who were wrongly thought of as] criminals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment...."

 

In other words, if Christians changed what Tacitus wrote, they did one hell of a lousy job of it, in my humble opinion.

[directionless]

 

I'm not clear on this, but why did the LXX translate Anointed One as Christos? Were they, too, inspired by the already extant Greek root "chrest"? That would be an interesting reversal.

The Greek χριστός, christos, is from the verb χρίω, chrio, which means "to anoint.  The adjective χρηστός, chrestos, is from the verb χράομαι, "το use."  By the later Roman period, the vowels long e (eta) and i (iota) were pronounced the same.  I have not heard that this was the case in the Hellenistic period when the LXX was translated.  So I'd be inclined to doubt that the translators were thinking of christos/chrestos.  Christos just means "anointed."

 

So the issue is that the oldest manuscript originally said that "Chrestians were followers of Christ" and was later corrected to say "Christians were followers of Christ"?

 

If the pronunciation was the same for Christos and Chrestos, and if Chrestos was the more common word, wouldn't it be plausible that Christians would become known among Romans as "Chrestians" and the mistake could become so widespread that it would become the "correct" spelling? Then people would naturally assume that Chrestians were followers of Chrestos instead of Christos? Then wouldn't it make sense for Tacitus to add a little aside to correct this misconception when he mentioned the persecution of Chrestians?

 

Here is a quote from wikipedia that I think is saying the same thing: 

Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large. Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

[♦ ficino ♦]

@ Overcame Faith - yes, good point.  To argue that the passage is an interpolation, the only rejoinder against your point that I can think of would be to say that the Christian interpolator wanted to make Tacitus sound like Suetonius, who had written in his life of Nero that Nero persecuted the Christians, "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."  The interpolator got carried away portraying an anti-Christian attitude of a high-class Roman.

 

 @ Directionless:  yes, the oldest manuscript of Tacitus has Chrestianos.  The "e" is erased and altered into an "i" for the result Christianos.  What I've read of palaeographers who have studied that spot in the codex indicates that it's not clear whether the alteration was made by the first copyist or by someone later, although a stroke beneath the line was added later.

 

The whole Christos/Chrestos thing is too complicated for me to want to spend time trying to unravel.  The two words are Greek.  Only in Greek did long "e" and "i" come to be pronounced the same (as they still are in modern Greek).  In Latin that was not so.  But educated Romans knew Greek, so they could have confused the two words or punned or done other things.

 

A lot of us in this thread, including me, have been working from various assumptions and hypotheses.  I think there are problems with the passage, but I haven't resolved them in my own mind.  As I said above, I don't think one can use the TT with confidence as a "pagan testimony" to the historical Jesus.  When one reads things like "it is now firmly established" or "there can be no doubt" about some conclusion about history, it can turn out that the matter is not firmly established and there is doubt but scholars at the moment don't think it worthwhile to confront the doubts.  Anyway, I'm ready to be convinced of the authenticity of the TT by evidence and argument.  The fact that the passage is in the manuscript tradition generates a certain probability, which I can't quantify, in favor of its being by Tacitus.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Now I'm obsessed. Someone kill me now while there's still hope.

 

To save others time, I'm posting what I found when I went to the wikipedia Tacitus on Jesus article and looked into what it said about the authenticity of the TT - i.e. whether Tacitus wrote all or some or none of it. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

The outcome:  of the discussions of authenticity cited by wikipedia, only one offers useful info that we don't already have in this and in Bro Jeff's thread.

 

Here's what wikipedia says about the authenticity of the TT:

 

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.^[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.^[8] However, some scholars have suggested the 'Christ, the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius' line is a Christian interpolation.^[9][10]"

 

Wikipedia's footnote 5 is to their one useful record of views about authenticity:  Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001. Evans is an evangelical NT prof at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.  Evans on p. 42 quotes with approval John Meier (A Marginal Jew p. 90) that the “passage is obviously genuine.  Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible.”  Evans adds, “The hostility toward Christians in general and the failure to mention the resurrection of Jesus are strong arguments for the authenticity of the passage, as well as for its independence.”

 

OK, the argument from the anti-Christian tone is the same as Overcame Faith's in #7 above.  Meier's appeal to the manuscripts is the same as my observation at the end of #9 above.

 

Evans also appends footnote 120, but the sources he cites as though supporting authenticity do not in fact discuss authenticity at all:  Harald Fuchs in 1950;  A. Kurfess in 1951;  T.D. Barnes in 1968;  Emily M. Smallwood in 1971.  I just read all of these.  I won't bore you with the details, but all merely assume that Tacitus wrote the passage. Smallwood does note that Tacitus is the only early authority to connect the Chrestiani with the fire, and she entertains the possibility that Tacitus errs on this point about Nero - i.e. that Nero did persecute Christians but did not try to scapegoat them for the fire.  She is partial to the explanation, hinted at in early Christian authors Melito of Sardis and Clement of Alexandria, that Nero's persecution was promoted by Jews who were envious of Christian missionary success.

 

The other sources cited by wikipedia as though in favor of the authenticity of the TT don't help.  Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond (2004) does not discuss whether the passage is authentic, just accepts it.  She does, interestingly, invoke the Criterion of Embarrassment when she says that it's probably true when all four gospels say that Jesus was condemned because he claimed to be King of the Jews, since the early Christians would have found this embarrassing and not invent it.  I think she means that the early church tried to smooth it over by having Jesus say "my kingdom is not of this world," and the like.  Wikipedia's reference to the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible is silly.  That tome too simply accepts Annales 15.44 as authentic without discussion.  And their quotation from evangelicals Eddy and Boyd merely repeats similar assertions.

 

Against authenticity they cite the Richard Carrier article in Vigiliae Christianae summarized in the OP and Carrier's new book, On the Historicity of Jesus. 

 

I have to get back to my life now.

[directionless]

I wonder if the authenticity of other references to Jesus (like Josephus's mention of James) would be a factor in deciding the authenticity of the Tacitus reference? IMO Tacitus's reference would only establish the existence of Christians in Rome who claimed that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. Josephus's mention of James the brother of Jesus seems more interesting to me.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I agree.

[qadeshet]

 

 

Antiquities of the Jews 20:9:1

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. 

The descriptive "The one called Christ" most probably began as a marginal notation that was later inserted into the text. Jesus bar Damneus became high priest after his brother James was killed.

 

The Death of James

 

Josephus Unbound

[♦ ficino ♦]

Actually, can we keep this thread to the TT?  A discussion of Antiquities 20.200 is a topic of its own.

 

 

[Storm]

I took some time over the past few days and I looked through several scholarly articles in regards to the TT. My unscholarly mind read the pros and cons each article laid forth and I find that my initial and thought out conclusion is that that TT may be a indicator that Jesus was a real person. But, due to fact that scholars do not know where Tacitus got the information that Tacitus referenced in the passage, they can only speculate. When I read the portion that is being referred to, I don't see how it can definitively be a reference to Jesus being real, only that he may be relaying commonly known information. To me, it all hinges on the reference to Pontius Pilate and whether or not Tacitus' source was Official Roman documentation of the event or if he just was repeating information that he had come to know that was general public knowledge about Christians and their "founder".

 

From what I can gather, it appears that Tacitus was well sourced and he gave reliable information and used solid sources, so based on this information, he very well could have proved that Jesus did exist. But due to the insufficient knowledge as to what particular source he used in regards to the Pontius Pilate reference, we cannot say for certain that Jesus did in fact exist.

 

Tim O'Neill indicated that Historians use parsimony and determine what is most likely to be true in a given reference based upon other scholarly references and their understanding of history and culture in that time. I have given it some thought and I can say that I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to Tacitus and his reference as being a solid "proof" that Jesus existed. I cannot say that I am fully in comprehension about commonly known things in that particular time either and I may be totally off in regards to this. But In some of the articles I read, it appears that the scholars share my conclusion, but they default that Tacitus was telling actual history and most of them concluded that Jesus was a real person. I guess I am not entirely convinced. But I am ok with that.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, I'm still mulling it over, too, as well as the TF.  As to Tacitus' sources, I think Tim said on his blog that Josephus may well have been a source for Tacitus' info about Christians.  Charles Beck in 1862, reviewing Jacob Bernays' book about the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus - which includes a shorter version of the story that we find in the TT - maintained that it looks as though Tacitus pointedly did not use Josephus as a source in writing his histories.  That's because Tacitus makes conspicuous errors about Judaism, which he would not have made had he used Josephus. (Beck's review is on Google but I can't get the link to work.)  The same conclusion would hold about whether Tacitus derived information orally from Josephus.  Perhaps more so, for Tacitus' anti-Jewish attitudes in the Histories increase skepticism over whether he associated with Josephus - though of course they don't prove that he did not.

[Storm]

Yes, I'm still mulling it over, too, as well as the TF.  As to Tacitus' sources, I think Tim said on his blog that Josephus may well have been a source.  Charles Beck in 1862, reviewing Jacob Bernays' book about the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus - which includes a shorter version of the story that we find in the TT - maintained that it looks as though Tacitus pointedly did not use Josephus as a source in his histories.  That's because Tacitus makes conspicuous errors about Judaism, which he would not have made had he used Josephus. (Beck's review is on Google but I can't get the link to work.) 

A couple of the articles I read did mention that Josephus was a possible source as well, but I got the feeling that several of them did not feel this was the case.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Yes, I'm still mulling it over, too, as well as the TF.  As to Tacitus' sources, I think Tim said on his blog that Josephus may well have been a source.  Charles Beck in 1862, reviewing Jacob Bernays' book about the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus - which includes a shorter version of the story that we find in the TT - maintained that it looks as though Tacitus pointedly did not use Josephus as a source in his histories.  That's because Tacitus makes conspicuous errors about Judaism, which he would not have made had he used Josephus. (Beck's review is on Google but I can't get the link to work.) 

A couple of the articles I read did mention that Josephus was a possible source as well, but I got the feeling that several of them did not feel this was the case.

 

There's also the chronological issue, which I mentioned in Brother Jeff's now-locked thread.  I.e. Josephus seems to have died not longer after 98, and Tacitus' Annales came out around 20 years later.  And there's the anti-Jewish attitude of Tacitus, which doesn't square easily with the hypothesis that they hung out together, though it doesn't exclude it.

 

I'm a classicist but not an expert on Josephus or Tacitus, and I don't know whether there's a study on the question, did Tacitus use Josephus.  So far the likelihood seems to incline toward "no," from what I can see.  If you've found evidence that he may have done, Storm, I'd like to see it!

[Storm]

I have been trying to go back and look at some of the articles I read. I cant seem to follow the tree of my inquisition, but I did find one article that I read that somewhat deals with the Tacitus/Josephus source debate. I think he makes a good point that, due to his higher status as senator, Tacitus would have been able to use sources that Josephus would not have had access to. I got the feeling that this guy isn't even considering Josephus as a source for Tacitus.

 

I do remember a specific article (different one) that I read basically raising the question of Tacitus using Josephus, but I do remember the conclusion by the author that Josephus was not a likely source.

 

Here is the article I reference that talks about Tacitus and Josephus in regards to the issue of Procurator/Prefect and how it ties in to the Tacitus reliability. He brings up some interesting things that, to me, make good sense. I don't know how much of a scholar this person is, but he seems to have a good grasp on the line of questioning that scholars regularly bring up in regards to whether or not Tacitus is a reliable source.

 

All of this having been said, I am purely an amateur and, at this point, I don't know who is and who isn't a legit scholar. I just read stuff and try to make as much of an informed opinion as possible. So articles I link may be completely worthless and be written by nobodys. If that is the case, my apologies. Unfortunately I have no ties to any university to look up scholarly articles and the like, so I am mostly limited by my internet searches. I think I have found enough legitimate articles to form a decent conclusion. But I am willing to go either way on this debate over whether or not Jesus actually existed.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Storm, thank you for checking back among things that you read, and thank you for linking to Mr. Horvath's studies.  After going over some of it I decided not to read further because it is not academic study published in a refereed publication.  So much to read, so little time - and this stuff isn't even my field!

 

Later, f