This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tacitus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The claim about "scholarly consensus" in paragraph 3 of the lead is supposedly backed by three citations. Of these, the first is by an "evangelical scholar and author", the second by authors belonging to the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, and the third by the recently appointed Head of the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. The miracle would be if these particular individuals didn't find evidence in Tacitus that Jesus existed! JezGrove (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. In general, I think we should discuss that question on the policy talk page. Indeed, a lot of sources (I mean, theological literature and related literature) meet our formal criteria of reliable sources: they even have peer-reviewed journals, and many authors have a degree. However, all of them (at least, overwhelming majority of them) are written by people who sincerely believe in God existence, so they can hardly be considered independent sources. I think we need clarify what our policy/guidelines advise us to do in this situation.
Second, the very approach to authenticity is superficial. Actually, we have not two possibilities (authentic vs later addition), but three. First possibility: Tacitus describes the events he himself was a witness of. In that situation, we can interpret this fragment as the earliest independent non-Christian source that sheds a light on the events in Rome and Palestine. Second possibility: that text is a later addition. That means it has a zero value, and it proves nothing. Third possibility: the text is authentic, but Tacitus describes the story that was told to him by some early Christian whom he was interrogating in ca 110 A.D., when Tacitus was a high Roman official in Asia Minor. Interestingly, if that was the case, this fragment is authentic, but it adds not much to our knowledge about Christianity. Indeed, it proves just one fact: that early Christian myths about Christ had already been widely circulating in Roman Empire in the beginning of the II century. However, that is pretty obvious, so Tacitus' testimony, despite being authentic, has a virtually zero weight. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if I were a person with no preliminary knowledge on this subject, and I wanted to familiarize myself with how Tacitus' fragment on Christ is seen in modern sources, I would go to jstor.org and typed "tacitus christ". The first article is the article by Carrier (Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 68, No. 3 (2014), pp. 264-283). Note, it was a totally unbiased search. The same article appeared second in the similar google scholar search. Other articles that cite Carrier are these. They include, for example, Shaw's "The Myth of the Neronian Persecution", which says that "Although the passage is probably genuine Tacitus, it reflects ideas and connections prevalent at the time the historian was writing and not the realities of the 60s" In other words, this article, which was cited by 48 secular authors says exactly what I say: Tacitus retells the stories that had wide circulation in early II century, and he is not a reliable source for realities of 60s. Of course, you may continue to argue that tons or religious or theological literature consider Shaw or Carrier non-reliable, but their opinion on that subject has not more weight that the opinion of theologsts about Darwin's theory. Again, I am using a totally neutral unbiased procedure, which gives me, in two clicks, the sources that I presented. I am not cherry-picking. If you believe my approach to identification of sources is biased, please, show what the bias consists in. If you can provide alternative unbiased procedure for identification of sources which you believe are mainstream, please, show me this procedure. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Global Warming articles should be sourced to scholars who don't believe in it. Articles about Democrats should be sourced to Republicans. And Wikipedia should be written by people who don't read it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Obviously, the books devoted to the question if Jesus existed should be authored only by the authors having a degree in theology (which is virtually impossible if you publicly question the very fact of existence of Jesus). Your sarcasm is hardly appropriate.
Speaking seriously, global warming articles should be sourced to the scientists who have no conflict of interest. The same is true for Republicans/Democrats, etc. And the same is equally applicable to a theological writings as sources in Christianity related articles, because the membership in this group implies that you recognize some basic ideas as indisputable (at least, they themselves openly say that). That is exactly what COI means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shaw doesn’t say Jesus didn’t exist. Exactly no reputable scholar says that. Whether he thinks that Tacitus lets us know any more about early Christianity is irrelevant to that point- no reputable scholar thinks Jesus didn’t exist, Christian, atheist, Muslim, or Jew.—Ermenrich (talk)
Please, stay focused. The subject of the current thread is whether the scholarly community recognized Tacitus words about Jesus as authentic, and if yes, does that mean that these words are an independent non-Christian source that tells about the events that happened in 30-60s. You questioned my words and asked for mainstream sources. I provided sources, along with a description of an unbiased procedure, which I routinely use for identification of mainstream sources. Do you have any comments on that? If you have no counter-arguments, then, being a honest person (and I have no doubt you are), you are expected to accept that no matter if Tacitus words are authentic (I personally am inclined to agree with those who concludes they are), they are not an independent confirmation of existence of Jesus, but just a reproduction of the myth about Christ, which has already been popular in Asia Minor in 110 AD. That does not automatically mean that Jesus never existed, and I am not going to discuss this question here. That just means that Tacitus is not a proof.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, which is a collection of sources and what they say on a particular issue. Wikipedia is not a source for finding truth on an issue or finding any "proof" (an arbitrary and subjective term that seems to shift by individual). What matters is reliability (is the source self published by a nobody or is it published by a scholar or publisher that does some type of peer review) and verification (can others check a source). The sources in the contested sentence looks accurate, per what the sources say. The worldview of an author is not relevant here since people from all different sides at least acknowledge the usefulness of Tacitus on Jesus and his movement. It provides some information on the issue and that is the point scholars are making. Jesus' existence does not hinge on Tacitus or one Gospel or one letter, rather there is a body of evidence and Tacitus is just one drop in the bucket of that body of evidence.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bart Ehrman (who is an agnostic atheist) says that extra-biblical evidence for Jesus is pretty lame, but that it is virtually certain that Jesus existed. So, no, usually speaking Tacitus does not provide conclusive evidence that Jesus existed. The existence of Jesus is asserted by WP:MAINSTREAMWP:SCHOLARSHIP on other grounds. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is quoted in the article in the section "Authenticity and historical value" - Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." That section examines these issues and also refers to Carrier, a very minor fringe theory pusher who does not hold any academic position.Smeat75 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Shaw article User:Paul Siebert is referencing does not question the authenticity or value of the crucial passage in Tacitus 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. The article is called "The Myth of the Neronian Persecution", that's a clue to what it is about. It is questioning the persecution of Christians by Nero as stated in Tacitus. This idea was rebutted by other scholars. See link to article by Prof Larry Hurtado "Nero, Tacitus, the Fire, and Christians", here it is - [1].Smeat75 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not question authenticity of the passage. However, he does say that the historical value of the passage is limited. It confirms that in 100, a significant fraction of population who called themselves "Christen/Christians" believed there was a massive persecution of Christians by Nero. According to the author, the whole passage reflects the rumors that had wide circulation by 110. The author does not discuss crucifixtion of Jesus, but it would be ridiculous to believe that he totally rejects the possibility that Tacitus passage confirms that Christians were persecuted by Nero and, at the same time, admits that the same passage confirms existence of Jesus. Clearly, the author rejects a historical value of the passage as whole, but he writes nothing about Jesus because that issue is beyond the scope of his study. However, he cites Carrier, who made exactly the same conclusion: Tacitus is not a proof of Jesus existence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He cites Carrier as an example of someone arguing that the passage isn't authentic - a conclusion which he rejects. The rest of the above is your own WP:OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep in mind that Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack. The author says: "Although the passage is probably genuine Tacitus, it reflects ideas and connections prevalent at the time the historian was writing and not the realities of the 60s", and it is clear to any good faith reader that under "passage" he means Tacitus text in Annals starting "Et haec quidem humanis con..." and ending with "curriculo insistens. Unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentu". That is the very same passage that mentions Christ (but not Jesus), and it is the only non-Christian source (except Josephus) that mentions Christ.
I think you should explicitly withdraw your accusation of OR, especially taking into account that per our policy, original research is applicable only to the text written in an article space.
And he does not reject Carrier, he just says that the passage is "probably genuine", although other authors, including those reviewed in the Carrier's word support the idea of later interpolation. However, what is important, Shaw's conclusion ("the passage is genuine, but the described events never happened") makes the question about authenticity senseless: it does not matter if it is a later interpolation, or it was added by Tacitus itself, because in any event it is not a first hand account, it is a story told to Tacitus in 110. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not know that "it is a story told to Tacitus in 110." That is sheer speculation. As a senator he had access to the archives, he states that he consulted them sometimes, maybe he did so in this case, who knows? In any case that Shaw article did not find general acceptance among scholars and does not question that the Tacitus passage is confirmation of the death sentence passed on Christ by Pilate. Smeat75 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it is you who is engaged in sheer speculations. He could have an access to archives, but that does not mean he used them. In any event, if some of Shaw's arguments looks unconvincing, please, provide the source that says so. Shaw's article was published in a reputable journal, it has been cited many times by others. If some of these sources contains criticism of Shaw, we can speak that his conclusions is not accepted by majority of scholars. However, a burden of proof is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, You are making conclusions about Shaw that Shaw does not make - textbook OR. Smeat has already referred to RS that dispute Shaw above, look at the articles referred to in Harry Lurtado’s blog, linked above.—Ermenrich (talk)
No. Whereas Shaw focuses on Neronian persecution, he makes a broader conclusions. Among other conclusions, he says (i) that the passage does not reflects historical realities of 60s; (ii) in his article, he explains what he means by "the passage": it is the whole fragment (as I explained above), including the mention of Jesus; (iii) he makes a reference to Carrier's article, where the works of later interpolation supporters are reviewed (which means that Shaw concedes that later interpolation is at least a significant minority view); (iv) since he makes a reference to Carrier, who explicitly discusses authenticity of Tacitus passage in a context of Jesus historicity, that means that they both are discussing a historical value of the same fragment. That means that under "the passage" both Carrier and Shaw mean the same fragment, and both of them conclude it does not reflect historical realities of 60s, although their conclusions are based on different rationale.
That means that, whereas Shaw leaves the question of historicity of Jesus beyond the scope, his conclusion about historical value related to the wholel passage, not to Neronian persecution only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...conclude you, Paul. What you are doing above is classic wp:synth and wp:or. He does not say that anywhere in the article, you are using your own logic.
I still believe you are acting in a good faith, so I am explaining, hopefully, for the last time, my point. I expect your counter-arguments to contain references to concrete flaws in my arguments presented below. Your general statements (similar to the ones presented above) will be considered as an attempt to derail a discussion.
On the page 80, Shaw quotes the "relevant passage", which starts with the words "Et haec quidem... and ends with saevitiam unius absumerentur. On the pages 81-82, Shaw continues: "When was Tacitus composing these words? (...) And what sources might Tacitus have had? My conclusion, these two questions relate to the whole fragment, and Shaw assumes that Tacitus used the same sources for the whole passage, including the mention of execution of Christ.
On the page 82, Shaw presents his analysis of possible sources, and concludes: In short, there is no known sign of any lost sources for histories that covered the reign of Nero to indicate where Tacitus would have found the facts about Christians that are retailed in our passage, or anything to controvert the observed fact that the first mentions of the Christians by this name in Latin sources are those made by the younger Pliny and Tacitus. Clearly, Shaw's words allow no double interpretation: he speaks not only about Neronian persecution, but about any mention of Christians in Latin sources. His conclusion is that Tacitus and younger Pliny are the two written Latin sources that mention Christians, and there is no indication that Tacitus could have gotten this information from any written source.
On the same page, Shaw continues: The historian could simply consult Acta senatus, as we know that he frequently did. And Tacitus had at his disposal, and used, oral sources, and in this case items of information being conveyed in conversation by his contemporaries might well have been the most significant. But that is just a possibility, which Shaw discusses in the "What actually happened" section.
In that section, Shaw writes concludes that the information about the fire and Christians (he writes emphasis on the Christians and the execution of their leader under Pontius Pilatus, so, again, he speaks about the whole passage) become available to Tacitus only after he finished his Historiae (a different kind of information had come to the historian's attention in the years after he wrote The Histories.)
In the rest of the article, Shaw demonstrates that the very word "Christians" in the passage is an anachronism. It was not in use not only in Latin sources, but even among early Christians themselves (they did not use that self-name in 60s). This, as well other evidences lead Shaw to a conclusion that all mentions of Christians in that passage were added by Tacitus in 110s, based on the information he obtained after Historiae had been written, and this information came from some early Christian whom Tacitus spoke in Asia Minor. Therefore, it would be illogical to expect that Shaw's words refer only to Christians, but not to Christ himself. Indeed, Christ's name and the story of his execution was mentioned only in a context of the etymology of the word "Christians", so if the information about the later became available to Tacitus only in 110s, it would be ridiculous to expect he knew about Christ before that. Moreover, Shaw notes that Tacitus incorrectly called Pilates procurator (he was a perfect), which means he didn't consult with any written document when he was writing about Christ's execution. If any historical records about alleged execution of Christ were available to him, he named Pilates rank correctly.
I expect to get concrete counterarguments, not just general references to some alleged "consensus". Any other response will be considered a disruptive behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole section in the article "The rank of Pilate" which discusses Tacitus' use of the term "procurator". Have you read it? There are various scholarly views on this, it does not prove that Tacitus did not consult any written document.
Shaw's article which you keep going on about is referenced in the article twice in the section "Authenticity and historical value". Have you read it? The Shaw article is referred to in the sentence others have questioned if the passage represents "some modernizing or up-dating of the facts" to reflect the Christian world at the time the text was written, footnoted to the Shaw article and then a sentence, inserted into the article by User:Ermenrich incidentally, Brent Shaw has argued that Tacitus was relying on Christian and Jewish legendary sources that portrayed Nero as the Antichrist for the information that Nero persecuted Christians and that in fact no persecution under Nero took place.
The possibility that Tacitus is merely repeating hearsay is also discussed in that section - Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless". R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.
Ermenrich already told you that this talk page is wp:notaforum and asked you to make a suggestion for changing the article or drop the matter. Yet you continue to make the same repetitive and WP:TENDENTIOUS arguments here that have been fully answered. It is you who are being disruptive. Smeat75 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the rank of Pilates, I just reproduce what Shaw says.
Regarding Shaw, it does not matter who added it. We have a dispute on what this author says: I say that Shaw confirms that the passage is authentic, but he says it has no historical value, but some other users claim that Show recognises both authenticity and historical value. Importantly, no arguments have been presented in support of the latter interpretation, just references to some alleged "consensus".
This is a talk page of the article "Tacitus on Christ", and we are discussing the journal article that is devoted to this very issue. This discussion has a direct relation to the article's improvement. In this discussion, I provide a detailed analysis of some concrete source, and this source directly contradicts to what the article currently says, so this discussion has a direct relation to article's improvement. Therefore, your reference to wp:notaforum is a trivial WP:WIKILAWYERING. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, in light of two quotes provided by you, why does the lede says that there is a consensus about historical value of this passage? Moreover, as I demonstrate, in his article, Shaw questions not only the validity of the information about persecution of Christians by Nero, he rejects the validity of any mention of Christians in that passage. That means, according to him, persecution of Christians was not possible simply because no such category as "Christians" existed during that time, so, obviously, the name "Christ" could not be taken from any early source, and Tacitus learned about that person at the same time when he got information about Neronian persecution of Christians. That means Shaw's opinion was misinterpreted in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest a change or stop posting. No one is interested in what you think or infer that Shaw means, we are interested in what Shaw actually says. We say that there is a consensus per WP:RS/AC. That does not mean that every single scholar in the world has to agree.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the section is messy, and the content should be reorganized as follows.
The opinia on authenticity and historical value of the passage form a broad spectrum. One group pf authors (Bart Ehrman et al) conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus (presumably in 110s), and it reflects historical realities of late Neronian times (60s). The second group of authors (Shaw et al) agree that the passage is authentic, but they conclude that is was written based on the information that became available to Tacitus in 110s (probably some early Christian verbal testimony), and, therefore, it does not reflect historical realities of 60s, so its historical value is limited. The third group of authors (Carrier et al) conclude that that passage is a later interpolation.
I don't think anyone will disagree that the section is poorly organized. We need more evidence that there are more people than Carrier who think that the passage is forgered - his article is published in a good journal, but, as Ehrman points out, most people denying its authenticity are fringe Christ mythicists who are not publishing in reliable journals. In fact, most of Carrier's publications aren't reliable. I think under the circumstances we should keep how we mention his position as is.
We also need to be clear what we mean by "historical value". No one thinks that this "proves" Jesus existed, just that it adds to the overwhelming evidence from elsewhere.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An opabinia with opinia. No objection to cleaning it up along the lines you propose. I don't think Carrier needs to be excluded, but he's clearly not a mainstream classical scholar; he's a "crusader" cherry-picking various philosophical doctrines and historical sources to prove his essentially unproveable theories (irony intended). His opinion of the passage is relevant, but of limited value, and shouldn't be up near the top. To the extent that he's not the sole person making the argument, I think that a single paragraph could distill the main arguments and identify those making them (in references or footnotes, if there are several, but they're not especially notable as classical scholars). P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of current scholars who agree with Carrier that the Tacitus passage is forged. Perhaps Raphael Lataster, who is a Carrier acolyte. He holds a PhD in religious studies and lectures at the University of Sydney. He seems to suggest that the Tacitus passage could be a Christian interpolation. Discussion on a blog which is unsympathetic to Christ mythers -- [2]. Highly excellent amateur blogger Tim O'Neill addresses this issue [[3] saying Carrier begins by drawing attention to “a few scholars [who] have argued some or all of Tacitus’ report …. is a 4th century (or later) interpolation and not original to Tacitus” (p. 264). The operative word here is “few”, since no current Tacitus scholar holds this view. Carrier has to go back to 1974 to find any relatively “recent” outlier who has done so (a short article by Jean Rougé; “L’incendie de Rome en 64 et l’incendie de Nicomédie en 303” in Mélanges d’histoire ancienne: offerts à William Seston, Paris, 1974, pp 433-41) . He quotes Bart Ehrman's blog when Ehrman asked classicist colleague James Rives if current Tacitean scholars consider the passage a Christian interpolation or forgery and got this reply - “I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it. I am aware that since these are blogs they are not reliable sources for the article but it does seem to establish that Carrier is indeed a lone voice arguing for the passage as a forgery or Christian interpolation.Smeat75 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he's the only one arguing that it's so, the fact that scholars have raised (or acknowledged) the possibility makes it relevant and deserving of inclusion—even if none of them find the argument compelling except for Carrier. P Aculeius (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should mention Carrier's arguments as you suggest, because they represent such a small minority view that I'm unaware of anyway actually engaging with them. Shaw cites Carrier just as an example of someone arguing the passage was forged (at one point I found three citations of the article basically, each just noting it exists). I think if anything we can mention that some scholars have argued that it's a forgery, but that the majority hold it to be genuine. In fact, under those conditions, I'm not sure Carrier himself needs to be mentioned by name.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One way to test this stuff is to see if there are a decent amount of scholars who view Tacitus' passage as a complete forgery. User:Smeat75 seems to have shown that there really are none except Carrier since that is the only example anyone ever brings up about supporting that position (Carrier is the only person I have ever read that consistently thinks that all sources about Christianity are all Christian forgeries or interpolations). Are there any others that have such a view of Tacitus?Ramos1990 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that Carrier needs to be mentioned by name, just that if legitimate scholars have some doubt as to the authenticity of the passages, that should be mentioned. Even if you're 90% certain that it's authentic, your doubts aren't a fringe theory that receives undue weight just by being mentioned. It would be fine to say something as simple as, "while the scholarly consensus is that the passages are genuine, the theory that some of them could be later interpolations persists, and cannot be ruled out." Or anything along those lines, whatever seems the most suitable given the scholarly work. P Aculeius (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with articles on this subject is that if Carrier is not referred to by name, which I agree is actually undue, there will likely be a lot of editors seeking to add him. Therefore, just to avoid constant arguments, I find it easier to cite Carrier, briefly explain his POV and make it clear that he is not accepted by mainstream scholars. Smeat75 (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is only one text for Tacitus' Annales for this passage, which & the text of the Annales as a whole is not in good shape, & there is no objective way to determine if Tacitus' words have been altered, which could be accomplished if there were several manuscripts. (But then there is the problem that the shared archetype -- which is not the original text Tacitus produced -- was altered. Epistemology alone may offer help at this point.) There is the subjective tool of comparing the language of the alleged interpolation against the rest of Tacitus' writings, but that has its own drawbacks. Lacking any concrete test, any conclusion remain controversial. -- llywrch (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Ronald Syme is widely considered the authority on Tacitus; he literally wrote the book on that historian -- Tacitus, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957). When I read papers & monographs on the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, I find Sir Ronald's works are routinely cited for his erudition & insights. The bibliography of the article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary on Tacitus begins with this book. Turning to the book itself, one can clearly see that he has carefully studied the historian, his works, & the subject matter of his works. Tacitus ends with 95 appendices on numerous details of both Tacitus' works & their contents: 19 of these appendices are devoted to subjects such as "Words Tacitus Avoids", "Words only in Speeches", "The Vocabulary of the Annales", "Sallustian Language". So it would follow that Sir Ronald's opinion on this matter would carry weight.
It would be far too simple to find him declaring straightforwardly, "This passage is not a later interpolation. Tacitus wrote every word himself." In fact, Sir Ronald does not address the point directly. Instead, the matter arises obliquely after raising the issue of Christianity in Tacitus' contemporary 2nd century. At the time Tacitus was writing his Annales, we find our first independent mentions of Christianity: Pliny's famous letter to Trajan about what to do about them; Hadrian's rescript to the proconsul Minicius Fundanus a decade later about the Christian question; & between the two, Tactius was proconsul of Asia, a stronghold of Christianity. Thus on p. 469 he writes concerning Book 15, chapter 44: "The historian Tacitus, carefully noting an incident at Rome in the sequel of the great conflagration under Nero, registers the origin of 'Christiani' with documentary precision" -- & cites in the original Latin the passage about the death of Christ at the hands of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius in a footnote. Sir Ronald Syme clearly has no doubts about the authenticity of the entire passage.
Sir Ronald adds a second footnote observing that the passage "is not on only relevant to Nero and the fire at Rome -- it has a place in the economy of the whole work as one of a series of spaced incidents, the culmination being the Jewish insurrection of 66." For the scholar of the Classics is constantly alert to show us how Tacitus structures his work to deliver his message. (A tactic Sir Ronald himself uses in this book.) "How was Cornelius Tacitus to evince his mastery, blending and transmuting?" Sir Ronald opens his chapter "The Technique of Tacitus". "His principal devices are structure, digression, comment, and speeches." (p. 304) In other words, every word in this passage can be shown to serve a purpose in conveying Tacitus' message; there is none of the clumsiness or falseness that betrays the hand of another writer.
Since Ronald Syme's opinions are as a rule embraced by other experts on the period, it would be accurate to say that his assumption the entire passage is free of interpolations is the consensus opinion. So Tacitus must have written the names Christus (or Chrestus), Tiberius, & Pontius Pilate in the same passage.
But Paul Siebert claims that were he "a person with no preliminary knowledge on this subject, and I wanted to familiarize myself with how Tacitus' fragment on Christ is seen in modern sources, I would go to jstor.org and typed [sic] 'tacitus christ'." He claims that the first article he encountered was the article by Carrier in Vigiliae Christianae; but when I repeated the exercise, the first article I encountered was one by A. Kampmeier, "Josephus and Tacitus on Christ", The Monist, vol. 21, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1911), pp. 109-119 -- which is what anyone who does not have a JSTOR account will encounter first. And Kampmeier in this article makes the opposite argument Carrier makes. So I'd venture that JSTOR is not a reliable guide to expert consensus.
But isn't what Tacitus actually wrote a matter for experts on editing ancient texts? I don't have that training, I doubt Carrier has that training (in his article he relies to the work of others to argue an interpolation exists). And scholarly editions of Tacitus' Annales have been published by Oxford, Cambridge, Teubner, & other presses of high repute. What do they report as the preferred text of this passage? And reviewers in the expert periodicals will note if their text varies too far from what is expected. This is where any discussion in good faith of what Tacitus wrote would begin.
But this is not what Paul Siebert has done. Instead, he has asserted his own grounds for argument. That anyone who believes Jesus Christ/Jesus/Joshua ben Joseph existed is not a reliable source. (Ignoring the fact that Richard Carrier is an advocate for the Christ Myth theory.) That Tacitus may be unreliable in this instance. (Ignoring that when his writing is compared to independent sources, such as the Lyon Tablet or the Senatus Consultum de Pisone, Tacitus is shown to be very reliable.) He appears to be repeating the tactics of I don't hear that that led to becoming a topic at WP:AN/I, & further led him to a topic ban. A disinterested reader would be baffled at reading his arguments above: first he argues that Annales 15.44 has an interpolation; when people respond to that point, he replies "Please, stay focused" & argues that Tacitus is an unreliable source; when people respond to that point, he claims he has been subjected to a personal attack, & now argues that there was never a Neronian persecution; when people try to keep up, he then announces "I expect to get concrete counterarguments, not just general references to some alleged 'consensus'." And when I'm alerted to this discussion, he claims to me that because he's winning this argument his opponents have resorted to using his "ridiculous topic ban" to frustrate his victory.
This has gone beyond I don't hear that. This is a very sophisticated version of Randy in Boise, arguing that since we can't prove this passage in Tacitus hasn't been altered, it must be. Then shifts the goal posts on everyone else to keep us debating on his terms, apparently hoping to tire us out & get his way with the article. This is not a good-faith debate. As a result, I'm banning Paul Siebert from editing or commenting on any article or talk page related in any way to this one, at risk of the usual sanctions. Including this page & talk page. If Paul Siebert does not like that ban, he can take it to WP:AN/I & complain. -- llywrch (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(PS -- I apologize for the length of this post, but this was a complicated subject. I needed to set forth the concrete facts, then explain the bad faith exhibited here, all before making an Admin ruling. So the length was unavoidable. -- llywrch (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I have no source for this, but I would not be astounded if JSTOR, like other search engines, personalized itself to the user. Paul Siebert presumably mentions Carrier often; JSTOR lists his articles first. 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The top results returned with a query in JSTOR changes over time, for reasons I can't explain. I just clicked on the link above, & the first result was Marissa L. Ledger, Erica Rowan, Frances Gallart Marques, John H. Sigmier, Nataša Šarkić, Saša Redžić, Nicholas D. Cahill, Piers D. Mitchell, "Intestinal Parasitic Infection in the Eastern Roman Empire During the Imperial Period and Late Antiquity" American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 124, No. 4 (October 2020), pp. 631-657. (I admit I did modify the search to return only periodical articles. Otherwise, the first result would have been a chapter from the book The Quest for an Appropriate Past in Literature, Art and Architecture by Marc Laureys, "‘Sine amore, sine odio partium’: Nicolaus Burgundius’ Historia Belgica (1629) and his Tacitean Quest for an Appropriate Past", published by Brill (2019).) The point remains that using the result of a search on JSTOR is not a reliable source for consensus. It would be a useful tool to resolve disputes if it were. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a direct reading of the document. The Proof Tacitus Manuscript was Altered video shows it at the 1:48 mark. As the person there says "it does not say Christus. There is no 'e' or 'I' - no vowel at all between the 'r' and the 's'. We really don't know how to pronounce that word without a vowel. It could be Chrestus, it could be Chrastus, Christus but it certainly does not say 'Jesus'." You don't get much more reliable than the actual document and your own eyes. So I ask again ask is there anything reliable as to why the critical vowel is missing?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no greek or other contemporary translations, surviving corpora, that can confirm or refute the passage? It (the tone of the passage) smells really fishy but I believe that it can probably be determined at least to what extent the whole text is transmitted as written originally by Tacitus, a first century elite Latin author. Text analysis even without a surviving contemporary corpus should be able to determine that the same as is done with for example old testament books, the Q source, etc. Lycurgus (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What’s fishy about calling Christianity a pernicious superstition? We don’t decide for our selves whether or not it’s an authentic passage, we rely on reliable sources, virtually none of which doubts the authenticity of the passage. If you disagree with their methods take it up with them, this isn’t the place for it.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ty Ermenrich. Content analysis doesn't quite capture the field I was referring to and I don't see the right article if there is one currently. I didn say thet calling Christianity what it in fact is was fishy but rather that the whole passage seems to be like an 18th century insertion rather than something a Roman of Tacitus's class would say. In any case, by opening this section I meant to draw attention to the transmission of the text itself from Tacitus' time which such analysis would address, if there isn't like dead sea scroll type physical evidence. This matter of fact should find a place in the article. End of my contribution to it. Lycurgus (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I already said that the vast majority of scholars hold the passage to be authentic, that is, written by Tacitus. Asking if there is a copy from Tacitus’s time displays an ignorance of how ancient literature is transmitted down to us. You may as well ask if we have Virgil’s copy of the Aeneid. Your personal opinion about whether “a Roman of Tacitus’s class” would write that Christ was executed by Pilate is not relevant, and your response appears to indicate you are motivated in that opinion by a dislike of Christianity (which is a strange reason indeed given that Tacitus is insulting Christianity).—-Ermenrich (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this article has already attracted a lot of... emotions; this is why I am starting a new topic here. I hope discussions here will be more rational and to the point, instead of being about various personal beliefs and ideologies.
@Ermenrich said above: "I don't think anyone will disagree that the section is poorly organized." Well, I don't disagree either.
I have a proposal for reorganising it: A first section about the authenticity debate (or rather consensus, as far as I can tell), and a second one about historical value given authenticity. I think much of the "poor organization" is because these two topics are mixed up.
Is there any objection to this? Do you people think my proposal is reasonable?
Thanks for your encouragements! I have actually split it into three sections now, the one in between being about the sources Tacitus may have used. Corneille pensive (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
