Does Vinzent assume that the Tacitus's fragment 2 is really tacitian?
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:43 am
I am a bit disappointed by this Vinzent's claim:
(Resetting the Origins of Christianity, p. 329)
I have always thought that if the Fragment 2 is genuine, then Eric Laupot is correct (Jesus existed and was Judas the Galilean).
Since the (only possible) conclusion is unexpected, then also the premise has to be false. Really does Vinzent believe to the premise?
In the seventies, Titus' Council of War describes 'Christians' in the same breath first as 'one religion' ('superstitio') , using the metaphor of a root and branch.
(Resetting the Origins of Christianity, p. 329)
I have always thought that if the Fragment 2 is genuine, then Eric Laupot is correct (Jesus existed and was Judas the Galilean).
Since the (only possible) conclusion is unexpected, then also the premise has to be false. Really does Vinzent believe to the premise?