Talk:Tacitus on Christ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] POV
This article has an NPOV header because parts of the article are POV. The phrase "We have here an enemy of Christianity,a serious historian,accepting the historical existence of Jesus at a time closer to the events then most modern day critics of his existence.", whilst likely true, is designed to put a POV spin on the facts.
Hmm... I agree. Moreover, the article goes on to say that Tacitus "was not particularly interested in the Jews or the Christians." So like, I'm removing the Tacitus=Enemy of Christ, and the NPOV header.Yeago 21:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article seems to me to be inaccurate to the point of Macbeth's wife. Surely T. is saying more than that Xians (and Jesus) were around: look at the word "evil" Kdammers 02:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Linking of Nero
OMG, what a silly damned dumb debate.
[edit] Alternate Translation
Since when is procurator supposed to translate into prefect... Ah, yes, since Pilatus was not procurator, unlike what is mentioned in a text written in part against Nero by a Tacitus who was maybe a tad eager to make him into more of a monster than he may have been. Actually, the A.T. seems to be, maybe, a bit unreliable. D.
[edit] Translation problem
The English translation you offer is slightly inaccurate as a representation of the Latin: the predicate is missing. What Tacitus actually says is that Nero "punished those, whom the mob was accustomed to call Christians, who were hated for their immorality" (per flagitiam). So it is even a bit more scurrilous: he turns the Christians' own name for themselves against them. The stress (the inflected verb) is actually on the "calling", rather than the hating, which is an adjective. One of those beautifully untranslateable Tacitean sentences that carries twice as much weight as the structure will bear. It all reminds one rather of the apocryphal story about the English miners' strike, where a strikebreaker was supposedly interviewed in a fit of rage and talked about "that Arthur Scargill, as he calls himself...". Peter Agocs, Budapest
- The inaccuracy of that passage was apparent even to me, and I don't speak Latin. Can someone who does, please check the translation? PiCo 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I too have found the passages to be translated very poorly. It had "falsely accused" instead of "fasten" for the lain word subdidit. Talk about POV! This article needs some work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
There may also be another translation problem that reveals that the historian made no reference to Jesus Christ. The Latin word for "Christ" derived from the Greek word "Christos" which means "the annointed one". Thus, there needs to be more sufficient evidence to claim that this Roman historian was referring to Jesus Christ and not any other Christ at the time (many people claimed to be christos). Also, I would hope that someone would check the references/sources for their soundness in regards to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.96.2 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move to "Tacitus on Christ"?
Since Tacitus never uses the word "Jesus", should not this article be renamed "Tacitus on Christ" or "Tacitus on Christus"?--Panairjdde 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point, but prefer the current title. The debate is whether the passage provides evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. We use "Jesus" to refer to that particular guy. Paul B 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The article should be renamed to Tacitus on Christus. As it is now, the article title itself implies a conclusion which isn't supported by the source. This title is now referenced in about 11 other articles which link here, repeating the problem of that unsourced statement. --Vinsci 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- What about Tacitus on Christianity or Tacitus and Christianity? That's a better description of what most of the passage is about, and I think most of the scholarly discussion on this passage is more concerned with Christians in Rome and non-Christian responses to them than with the origin of the Christian movement. EALacey 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm adding NPOV header again
I'll list my reasons soon, if it is not already self-evident. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- It rarely is with articles about Jesus. It may be self-evidently too skeptical to one, and self-evidently too credulous to someone else. I really can't guess which you might think it is. Paul B 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This title is surely incorrect?
Why is it Tacitus on Jesus? As far as I can see, it is Tacitus on Christ as the latter refers to the Messiah, not to any historical figure Jesus or Joshua. I suggest the title be changed as it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0001 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- See Move to "Tacitus on Christ"?, above. EALacey 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] annals authenticity is disputed
Food for thought. According to a book at gutenberg project, Annals was forgery any credibility to this? http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/9098 not sure really how wikipedia works, figured you'd like to see a link to a book which states Annals is forged, might be important for the header or something let people know the book itself is under dispute in whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.146.195 (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- This was argued by J. W. Ross, whose book you cite, and also by P. Hochart, both in the 19th century. They failed to convince historians at the time; Henry Furneaux pointed out in his commentary on the Annals (2nd edition, 1896, pp. 8–12) that many details in the work are confirmed by inscriptions that weren't available to Bracciolini, the supposed forger. More recent sources don't even discuss Ross's theory. Wikipedia's "undue weight" policy states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." It isn't mentioned at Tacitus or Annals (Tacitus), and shouldn't need to be mentioned here either. EALacey 11:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
