The Passion rotten so far

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The absence of evidence isn't proof to the contrary. Particularly when you know a situation is incomplete.

You do realize you're making these statements after the previous discussion of empirical evidence, don't you?

There's no reason to think Tacitus based his account on anything other than what was by then the well-known beliefs of the Christian sect. He's not mentioning them to give their history or the history of their beliefs, he's mentioning them because he wanted one more example of why Nero was a *****.

[MrBaggins]

I'd agree with that... as a possible scenario... but not the only possible scenario.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You do realize you're making these statements after the previous discussion of empirical evidence, don't you?

And also after discussing Quantuum Field Theory, particularly with regard to perceptive uncertainty.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I'd agree with that... as a possible scenario... but not the only possible scenario.

Possible and most probable. What sense would it make for Tacitus to root through the Roman archives to find a document about the execution of a Judean criminal in order to write a single sentence that is tangental to the point at hand, and the information contained therein was commonly known around Rome at the time? He certainly didn't go to such extremes for everything he wrote.

Another problem is that in this passage, Tacitus states Pilate's title wrongly. He wasn't called "Procurator," he was called Prafectus. If he was using an official document, why'd he get the title wrong?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Possible and most probable. What sense would it make for Tacitus to root through the Roman archives to find a document about the execution of a Judean criminal in order to write a single sentence that is tangental to the point at hand, and the information contained therein was commonly known around Rome at the time? He certainly didn't go to such extremes for everything he wrote.

Common knowledge is a good point. We don't know what verbal sources Tacitus used, either...

or what diary Pilate or other officials might have kept.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Another problem is that in this passage, Tacitus states Pilate's title wrongly. He wasn't called "Procurator," he was called Prafectus. If he was using an official document, why'd he get the title wrong?

Pontius Pilate was procurator from 26-36 CE

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Pontius Pilate was procurator from 26-36 CE

No, he wasn't, he was a Prefect. The title "Procurator" for a Roman governor did not come into use until the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.). Using "Procurator" to descrive Pilate is a blatant anachronism.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, he wasn't, he was a Prefect. The title "Procurator" for a Roman governor did not come into use until the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.). Using "Procurator" to descrive Pilate is a blatant anachronism.

Yep.. you're right... based on that block of limestone.

Interesting... since it casts doubt on the entire passage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I refer you to my earlier post - science is tending to confirm the accuracy of oral traditions. In some cases, stories once thought of as myth are being found to based accurately on historical events. Certainly more than historians ever gave credit going off the written record.

The most famous example was actually a century ago when Homer's Troy was found by a German archeologist. Hitherto Homer's stories had been considered myth and not been thought to be based on historical events.

Finding a mythical city is a far different thing that a guy dying and rising from the dead, isn't it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Interesting... since it casts doubt on the entire passage.

Indeed!

This is one of the reasons some scholars think the passage is forged, as they can't imagine Tacitus making such a mistake. I don't know about that, however, since Tacitus makes plenty of his own mistakes, and even offers outright falsehoods on occasion. Nobody's perfect.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Finding a mythical city is a far different thing that a guy dying and rising from the dead, isn't it?

And finding the remains of Troy doesn't lend credence to Zeus, Ares, Aphrodite and crew really being involved in that hanky-panky, does it?

[MrBaggins]

A few possibilities... Forged, typo, assumption, wrong word of mouth, or being based on an incorrect written account from someone else... perhaps the early Christian writings.

[Dr Strangelove]

You also have to take into account the expense and scarcity of paper, and the relative dearth of people able to write. Then again there is the fragility of ancient paper. The ancients didn;t know enough to impregante their paper with toxic chemicals so that the paper wouldn't break down for thousands of years. Stupid Ancients!

When was Tacitus wring his accounts? If it was after Claudius' time maybe he simply unintentionally used the title more common for his era. Once the title was written correcting it would have been very expensive.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Finding a mythical city is a far different thing that a guy dying and rising from the dead, isn't it?

Agreed. Any more than historians or science will ever prove that Mohammad was handed the Koran already in written form by an angel sent down from heaven riding a horse

[Dr Strangelove]

So the Romans believed that the resurrection was some sort of "pernicious superstition", but the belief that the thug who murdered the last thug who sat on the throne subsequently became a God was peachy OK fact? Someone tyell me which group survived the longest?