Religion

[tonea2003]

There was, Roman historian Tacitus wrote Jesus was given the highest punishment during the reign of Pilate. He was an independent source who slated christians but yet stated the above.

you are now scraping the barrel, one tacitus wasn't even alive at the time alleged events and two he didn't write his annals until the 2nd century, well after at least 3 of the gospels, plenty of time for heresay and chinese whispers to take hold
especially as there wasn't any official records from the time.
and in your own words "it wasn't the trial of the century it was a few dozen shepherds following a zealot" that the romans put to death
yet a man from rome saw fit that he needed to include this unremarkable event in his history of the roman empire
why would he do that? if it is indeed how you portray it, there is no need for him to know about it.
as you well know at the time of the annals Christianity would be no more than just cult of little significance

 

[tonea2003]

Well for an amateur historian like me it makes all the difference, as historical fact is all I care about.

Theologically it makes absolutely no difference and as I’ve said, I’m not going to argue with you that miracles and people rising from the dead never happened.

it makes a difference of course to the fact if he existed or not
but it makes no difference to the core question which i think we agree on

 

[Octavian]

you are now scraping the barrel, one tacitus wasn't even alive at the time alleged events and two he didn't write his annals until the 2nd century, well after at least 3 of the gospels, plenty of time for heresay and chinese whispers to take hold
especially as there wasn't any official records from the time.
and in your own words "it wasn't the trial of the century it was a few dozen shepherds following a zealot" that the romans put to death
yet a man from rome saw fit that he needed to include this unremarkable event in his history of the roman empire
why would he do that? if it is indeed how you portray it, there is no need for him to know about it.
as you well know at the time of the annals Christianity would be no more than just cult of little significance

It wasn’t “well after”, Tacitus died in 120AD, this is just a few decades after the Gospels were written and when Christianity started to take off. John was probably written just 30 years prior.

He was a professional historian who had access to Roman records. Why would a non Christian professional historian write that? He felt Christians were beneath Romans by the way.

Tacitus did his research after the fact.

 

[tonea2003]

It wasn’t “well after”, Tacitus died in 120AD, this is just a few decades after the Gospels were written and when Christianity started to take off. John was probably written just 30 years prior.

He was a professional historian who had access to Roman records. Why would a non Christian professional historian write that? He felt Christians were beneath Romans by the way.

Tacitus did his research after the fact.

lets quantify well after, mark around 70 ce matthew/luke 90ish, annals 116ce so i would say a generation, thats pretty much well after in my book. but why, it was an unremarkable event(your words) one of many that attracted little or no attention, no one deemed it fit to be recorded at the time.
yet this esteemed roman historian(to my knowledge never went near judea) felt the the need to include in his history of the roman empire.
you have got to agree something isn't right here

 

[Octavian]

lets quantify well after, mark around 70 ce matthew/luke 90ish, annals 116ce so i would say a generation, thats pretty much well after in my book. but why, it was an unremarkable event(your words) one of many that attracted little or no attention, no one deemed it fit to be recorded at the time.
yet this esteemed roman historian(to my knowledge never went near judea) felt the the need to include in his history of the roman empire.
you have got to agree something isn't right here

It would be now, to only see biographies of Margaret Thatcher for example being written today as the earliest copies would be astonishing but back then, this was not only very common as so few could read and write but mentions of Jesus were actually pretty close to the fact, compared to other ancient historical figures. Alexander the Great I’ve mentioned, we have coins with him on and other artefacts which confirms it but he wasn’t written about for 300 years after he died, well we don’t have any writing about him until 300 years after he died, there likely was a lot written nearer and at the time.

The crucifixion itself was pretty unremarkable other than it being described very brutally compared to others for that time, in the gospels.

But the reason Tacitus chooses to write about it is because by the 2nd century Christianity had taken off substantially and christians were becoming a very significant minority group in Rome itself.

Nobody in Rome would know about it at the time it happened in 30-33AD but by 100-120AD, everyone in Rome knew the Christians and that’s why he wrote about them and wrote about where they came from.

 

[tonea2003]

It would be now, to only see biographies of Margaret Thatcher for example being written today as the earliest copies would be astonishing but back then, this was not only very common as so few could read and write but mentions of Jesus were actually pretty close to the fact, compared to other ancient historical figures. Alexander the Great I’ve mentioned, we have coins with him on and other artefacts which confirms it but he wasn’t written about for 300 years after he died, well we don’t have any writing about him until 300 years after he died, there likely was a lot written nearer and at the time.

The crucifixion itself was pretty unremarkable other than it being described very brutally compared to others for that time, in the gospels.

But the reason Tacitus chooses to write about it is because by the 2nd century Christianity had taken off substantially and christians were becoming a very significant minority group in Rome itself.

Nobody in Rome would know about it at the time it happened in 30-33AD but by 100-120AD, everyone in Rome knew the Christians and that’s why he wrote about them and wrote about where they came from.

if that was the case where is he getting his info from certainly not from any roman because it was deemed not fit to be recorded at the time even though they recorded everything!!
would he have known any of the gospels i'm not so sure, maybe mark as it was probably written in rome
and maybe the stories concocted by early Christians promoting the myth that was gaining traction.

 

[Octavian]

if that was the case where is he getting his info from certainly not from any roman because it was deemed not fit to be recorded at the time even though they recorded everything!!
would he have known any of the gospels i'm not so sure, maybe mark as it was probably written in rome
and maybe the stories concocted by early Christians promoting the myth that was gaining traction.

The Romans probably did record it, they were known to record executions, wouldn’t that be some document if we could get our hands on? Alas we obviously can’t. However, Tacitus would have had access to whatever information he wanted in the empire at that time as he was nearing the end of his career/life and was highly regarded.

In the Annals he’s actually writing about Nero’s persecution of Christians, as Nero was losing his grip on Rome and was using a scapegoat for the fire.

Knowing what I do about Tacitus, I doubt he’d have been as lazy as to just take the Christian line on Jesus, especially as he didn’t like them and wasn’t sympathetic to Christianity.

Tacitus is regarded by scholars as the greatest Roman historian. He’s very highly thought of.

 

[tonea2003]

The Romans probably did record it, they were known to record executions, wouldn’t that be some document if we could get our hands on? Alas we obviously can’t. However, Tacitus would have had access to whatever information he wanted in the empire at that time as he was nearing the end of his career/life and was highly regarded.

In the Annals he’s actually writing about Nero’s persecution of Christians, as Nero was losing his grip on Rome and was using a scapegoat for the fire.

Knowing what I do about Tacitus, I doubt he’d have been as lazy as to just take the Christian line on Jesus, especially as he didn’t like them and wasn’t sympathetic to Christianity.

Tacitus is regarded by scholars as the greatest Roman historian. He’s very highly thought of.

I know he is but will concede my interest in him only extends to his link on this topic of his career which isn’t much

so will defer to your apparent greater knowledge on him with other stuff

Which makes the missing years 29 through 31 of his history and annals curious and interesting
So much so some historians think it may have been done deliberately
Why one could only hazard a guess

 

[Octavian]

I know he is but will concede my interest in him only extends to his link on this topic of his career which isn’t much

so will defer to your apparent greater knowledge on him with other stuff

Which makes the missing years 29 through 31 of his history and annals curious and interesting
So much so some historians think it may have been done deliberately
Why one could only hazard a guess

The missing years cover two of the biggest maniacs to Emperor Rome so that could have something to do with it but who knows.

The Vatican claims a missing manuscript gives a year for the crucifixion of 41AD but I highly doubt this to be true and could be the Vatican doing what they do best, be slippery fuckers.

 

[tonea2003]

The missing years cover two of the biggest maniacs to Emperor Rome so that could have something to do with it but who knows.

The Vatican claims a missing manuscript gives a year for the crucifixion of 41AD but I highly doubt this to be true and could be the Vatican doing what they do best, be slippery fuckers.

That we will agree on ref the Vatican