Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:56 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:30 am
However, on the surface of things, Julian appears to be referring to contemporaries of Tiberius and Claudius. What are the arguments in favor of the other meaning?
The fact that Cyrill could (and had) quote just the Testimonium Taciteum against Julian's insistence on the absolute insignificance of Jesus among the writers at that time.

But Cyrill didn't.

Here the Argument from Silence is particularly strong.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by arnoldo » Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:15 pm

Regarding the meaning of the Emperor Julian’s writing in the following passage;
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

Does the phrase “fabrication of the Galileans” indicate that Galileans created the fabrication or possibly non-galileans (romans?) created a fabrication about Galileans?

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:04 am

Another argument against the Testimonium Taciteum, particularly strong:

A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire.

(Annales 15:38)
  • 1) a mere accident
  • 2) Conspiracy by Neron
Where is the third version about the Christians ?

Did Tacitus omit it because it was simply absent in the original text, or because it was not a version given by "authors", but by mere contemporary hearsay ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe » Mon May 18, 2020 8:49 pm

I ask if it is possible this translation for the Jesus passage in the Testimonium:

The carrier of the name "Christ" was killed under Tiberius by procurator Pilate.

I.e. "Christ" is used as apposition and not as attribute.

Hence, if this was the case, then Tacitus is saying that the "auctor" was only a preacher of the name Christ, just as when we say "apostles of the Christ" (to mean: people who preach the Christ).

Thoughts?

ADDENDA: My first thought is that Tacitus knew that Christus was a title, not a name.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe » Mon May 18, 2020 10:15 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 8:49 pm
I ask if it is possible this translation for the Jesus passage in the Testimonium:

The carrier of the name "Christ" was killed under Tiberius by procurator Pilate.

I.e. "Christ" is used as apposition and not as attribute.

Hence, if this was the case, then Tacitus is saying that the "auctor" was only a preacher of the name Christ, just as when we say "apostles of the Christ" (to mean: people who preach the Christ).

Thoughts?

ADDENDA: My first thought is that Tacitus knew that Christus was a title, not a name.
I think that Tacitus is saying here that Jesus was the man who is called Christ. This is not different from the interpolation found in Josephus about Jesus "called Christ". Hence, the proto-catholic propaganda (heard by Tacitus) was particularly insisting on the claim: Jesus is called the Christ.

The implicit corollary is that someone was denying that Jesus was the Christ. Still in the time of Tacitus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe » Tue May 19, 2020 8:24 pm

"Auctor nominis eius Christus" means "carrier, bringer of his name Christus", not necessarily: "creator of his name was Christus".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply