there is not such evidence of which am aware. If so what is it?[/QUOTE]Copernicus;625136 wrote:No, I believe that the Christian references may have been interpolations, because I have found the arguments against veracity to be more convincing than the arguments for it. You are of the opposite opinion. As far as I am concerned, my personal bias does not undermine my conclusion any more than yours undermines your conclusion. Attacking the motives of a person you disagree with is a common rhetorical tactic when one has no better reason for dismissing the opinion of that person.Metacrock;624322 wrote:you will not find many real historians (ie Ph.D. teaching in university publishing and going to conferences) who don't accept Tacitus as real. the only reason you think it's forged is because you don't like what he says.Copernicus;624134 wrote:The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.
I said "argument", not "evidence". There is a difference. The question is really over whether those few words were ones that could plausibly have been inserted by later Christian scribes, given that errors, forgeries, and interpolations (especially regarding Christianity) were quite common back then. For example, Tacitus's coverage of the years when Jesus was allegedly alive--20, 30, and 31--are alleged to be missing and have been deliberately removed, quite possibly by Christians who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus in them. Tacitus calls Pontius Pilate a "procurator", although that could not possibly have been his title at the time. (That rank only occurred for governor's of Judea after 44 AD.) He was actually a "praefectus" (prefect), and one supposes that Tacitus would have known that, given his tendency to verify his claims. Nevertheless, the most convincing argument is that, even if the passage had been genuine, it could only have shown that Tacitus accepted the stories of Christians. He did not base his claim on actual Roman records. So it really doesn't count as evidence of historicity at all. It is irrelevant.