Talk:Tacitus on Jesus

message: 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.
In my opinion, this scheme looks logical, and it summarises all existing opinia. Any comments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've posted on this at Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Authenticity and historical value 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The opinion of one authority on Tacitus 

message: Is there anything reliable about why this is missing the critical vowel?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , can you point to where you mean? I can't find "Chrstus" through a quick search, but it's certainly a typo.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We rely on wp:reliable sources, which some video online by a guy who is not an expert in ancient texts or palaeography is not. There is a whole section on the paleography of the MS if you read the article. There's an i missing in Chr stianos, not Christus.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Chrstus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, the really fishy thing is the use of the term "Christianity" in Nero's time or even "Christ" ftm and by a Roman elite no less. At that point it was still the jesus movement oder. Church of Antioch#History  Lycurgus (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provenance 

message: 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?
More generally, do you think there are other things we could improve to this article? Corneille pensive (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think splitting the two notions is a good idea.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Authenticity and historical value (bis)