Testimonium Taciteum revalued?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Testimonium Taciteum revalued?

Post by Giuseppe »

I have read rapidly this article:

TACITUS AND THE PERSECUTION
OF THE CHRISTIANS:
AN INVENTION OF TRADITION?
BIRGIT VAN DER LANS – JAN N. BREMMER

This article is very persuasive about the fact that Annals 15:44 fits perfectly the anti-Neronian propaganda by Tacitus himself.

This article is very persuasive about the fact that Nero was the real author of the Fire for Suetonius and Tacitus and Pliny. In particular, it gives a good reason for Suetonius not linking the Fire with the anti-Christian persecution.

Where this article is lacking is where it insists, vainless in my view, that the later Christian texts refer to the Neronian persecution and to the death of Peter. In my view the Argument from Silence used by Carrier against the only construct "author nominis eius..." remains entirely valid.

The article appears to commit the possibiliter ergo probabiliter fallacy insofar :

1) before it claims that the "impulsore Chresto" affair is an undecidable problem about the identity of "Chresto"

2) and then it claims that there is no problem of inconsistency by Tacitus if he called Chrestiani the Christiani.

I think that the point 2 could be absolutely correct only if we could never know about the doubts raised by "impulsore Chresto" (point 1) on the real identity of "Chresto" for Suetonius, and by extension, of the Chrestiani for Tacitus.

My default position remains that the Suetonian "impulsore Chresto" was the riotous leader of the Chrestiani (not of the Christiani) even if Nero was really the author of the Fire.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply