Talk:Tacitus on Jesus/Archive 2

'misspelling'
I tagged the sentence that stgates: Tacitus misspelled Christian in the passage, but he reported that the error was a mistake of the crowd that he then corrected when he mentioned “Christ.” "Misspelled" is the incorrect word here (see textual criticism for why), and the section in this article that discusses orthography doesn't even support the statement. I don't see the passage in Tacitus as "correcting" the crowd; it just says that Christus was the auctor of the name (auctor nominis eius Christus), the source, origin, the word from which it derived. This is entirely in keeping with ancient modes of etymology, which are often a much more implausible stretch.

I should note (since I think the preconceptions one brings should be revealed, and not disguised as something else, and I don't intend to edit here anyway) that I don't see why people go to such lengths to "prove" that this passage isn't about the early Christians and their Christ. Simplest explanations are often best. Of course it's also possible that the passage refers to a Chrestus, a slave or freedman seen as a "troublemaker" whose followers were called Chrestiani (on the model of, say, the followers of Clodius being called Clodiani). All sound interpretations have a place. As it stands, however, there's a sort of strenuous feel to the article, of trying too hard to wring out every bit of probative value on either side. But this is probably an accurate reflection of the state of scholarship.

I'd also like to see a more modern translation of Tacitus used: "a most mischievous superstition" is not an accurate representation of the phrase exitiablilis superstitio.

One last thing: I have reservations about presenting any source as scholarly when the title ends for Dummies. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Improvements
Kudos to the editor adding scholarly views to this article. Could I make a suggestion? It's starting to read a bit like an annotated bibliography, structured by listing a scholar's view one at at time. I wonder whether (once you assemble all your info) you'd consider rewriting to place the emphasis on the view rather than the scholar. In some cases, scholars who aren't notable enough to have a WP article (or who simply lack one at present) are significant enough to the statement of a particular point to be named within the body copy, but mostly, attributing ideas are what citations are for. For a general reader, the presence of all the proper nouns in the text makes the ideas (which can often be difficult) harder to digest. Just a suggestion, based on my experience as a teacher. it's a difference between an encyclopedia article and the first chapter of a dissertation, kinda. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How did you know I was planning to use this as my dissertation?... kidding. But you are right. The temptation is to add the scholar name just to be sure that there is no question later as to how that came about, but it is probably overdone. Please feel free to shorten those to keep just the key authors. But there is the possibility that in 6 months someone will say: "That was just X's view and not the overall scholarly view" so we do need to keep some of them. As to how many to keep it will be a judgement call, and will probably not make a huge difference in the end.


 * One item the article is missing is the confusion in Rome at the time about he "this is my body" practice, and I will add that too. The next item is to clean up the lede to have 4 paragraphs to summarize it per WP:LEAD. Then it will be in a reasonable shape probably. History2007 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh heh. That sounds great. Thanks for working on this article, and for being the rare editor who doesn't take criticism personally. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not take it personally? I just put 3 bandaids on my ego, a minute ago.. kidding. No problem, I love historical research. It is fun. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which material did I remove?
If I removed material, it was by mistake; reverting all of my changes would most likely be throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Psvait (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, sorry per WP:BRD that is what needed to be done, given that there were problems with the rest of your edits too (as I said not an improvement). Those edits generally took minority views and emphasized them, not conforming to the general scholarly opinions. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that I have emphasized any particular opinion. (Also, as an aside, it would appear that I am the one who initiated the BRD, as you are the one who made the reversion :-P). Could you please be more specific? Psvait (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I initiated the BRD, and I stated it as such in the edit summary. I will be more specific about the problems in the edit I reverted, but have to be off line for a little while, but will respond with details. History2007 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no information was removed; it was simply reorganized by grouping relevant material together and differentiating properly between authenticity and reliability (or historical value, as you have renamed it). Given that no information was removed, I'm going to revert the article back; please list your specific dispute here first and discuss it before reverting again. Psvait (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I am following the steps properly. I issued a warning on your talk page This is not the way to do it: read the pages mentioned on your talk. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I read BRD; it does not preclude reverting. In fact, it suggests making a BOLD edit in return, and while that BOLD edit should hopefully avoid a reversion, it is the case that my BOLD edit must be so.
 * The fact of the matter is that you are the one who is avoiding discussion. So far, I am the only one who has made a reasonablely specific statement in the discussion. Psvait (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop the bickering, please. The best thing to do here is to proceed one point at a time. That way, throwing out any controversial bathwater doesn't leave the baby squalling. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am in teh middle of some other work. But will repond. There are several points: lede was shortened from 4 parag to 3, a non-RS source website was added that should not be there. Material that is not subject to general schol agreement was bulleted in repetition, etc. I need a few hours in real life, but will respond further. In the meantime, there is no need for an edit war. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the next time you want to make a reversion that is likely to require discussion, then please make the discussion first. I never figured that my changes would be controversial, and clearly a wholesale reversion is controversial; ergo, discussion needs to ocurr before your change.
 * Now, regarding your main issue (as you listed it on my talk page as the reason for reverting):
 * lede was shortened from 4 parag to 3:
 * So, basically, what you are saying is: "I didn't even bother to read what I was reverting." It changed from 4 to 3 paragraphs because I combined 2 paragraphs! In particular, I changed this:


 * Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator. His writings shows no sympathy towards Christians, or knowledge of who their leader was. His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the symbolic ritual as cannibalism by Christians.


 * Robert E. Van Voorst states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity. John P. Meier states that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.


 * to this:


 * Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator. Accordingly, his passage shows no sympathy towards Christians, or knowledge of who their leader was. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity. John P. Meier states that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.


 * Do you see? Also, because you didn't read anything, you may have also been confused by the fact that I moved both this material:


 * His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the symbolic ritual as cannibalism by Christians.


 * and this material:


 * Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.


 * down into the section Historical Value (what used to be the section Reliability), because it has to do with historical value and not authenticity.


 * Unfortunately, I did make a formatting mistake, but it is rather minor and doesn't really affect what is being said or the illusion of removed material that you have conjured; I will fix it presently.


 * Now that I have qualified my edits at length, I will&mdash;according to BRD&mdash;make my bold change. Psvait (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Was Tacitus a mathematicians? Does 3 equal 4?
First, Mr Psvait you owe me an apology for your statement that:


 * So, basically, what you are saying is: "I didn't even bother to read what I was reverting." It changed from 4 to 3 paragraphs because I combined 2 paragraphs!

Here is the lede in your edit:


 * The Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christ and the early Christians in Rome in his Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44.


 * This passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.


 * Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Is that right? And here is the lede before your edit?


 * The Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christ and the early Christians in Rome in his Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44.


 * This passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.


 * Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.


 * The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around 60 AD, namely that there was a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome and that even pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.

Is that right? Do we need more explanations here?


 * Question 1: How many paragraphs are there in the version in your edit? Are there 3 or 4? How many paragraphs are there in the version before your? Are there 3 or 4?


 * Question 2: Do we all understand what a lede means? I hope, I hope.


 * Question 3: Do we all need to read the page number a few times for clarification? That may be the case.

So please do watch your French Monsieur before saying that I revert without reading. Now you owe me an apology, then we will proceed. I also issued you another warning. In general the edits you make seem to diminish the validity of the Tacitus document, in opposition to the scholarly view that it has value - that is the problem, as well as the error in the page number which incorrectly assumes that 3 is not the same as 4. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit that there is a certain humor in the fact that the missing paragraph of which you speak escaped my notice. However, in my defense, I was not aware that it was removed; as far as I was concerned, I was editing ONLY the sections at the bottom, which I hope will explain the confusion (given this assumption, I figured that what you meant by "lede" are the paragraphs leading into that section of the article).
 * Why didn't you just put the erroneously removed paragraph back?
 * I was going to do so for you just now, but then I realized that it closely matches an existing paragraph in the lede:
 * This passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.
 * How about incorporating the missing paragraph:
 * This passage contains an early non-Christian corroboration of the origin of Christianity and the execution of Christ as described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. In addition, it establishes these facts:
 * There was a sizable presence of Christians in Rome around 60 AD.
 * It was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome.
 * Even pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.
 * I think your additional issues are tacked on as a baseless afterthrought; there is debate, and I haven't really added or diminished from the content of the article in the least; I've simply organized it better. Psvait (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So I was correct that you deleted a paragraph from the lede? And your denial of that was incorrect. Right?


 * There is no reason on earth to have bullets in the lede. How does it improve the article to have bullets when that paragraph states it in prose. WP:LEAD requires 4 paragraphs at most, and in my edit there, and in the discussion above I clearly stated that it was 4 paragraphs.


 * So why did you delete the 4th paragraph from the lede in the first place? Those types of deletions do not just happen as typos.


 * Your suggestion to use bullets there runs against WP:LEAD that requires 4 paragraphs at most. I had followed those guidelines when I wrote the lede. Hence the best option is to put back the 4th paragraph as it was, issue an apology to me for your previous statement and then we will proceed.


 * The consolation is that the page number may not have errors after all, so I do not have to work on that. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it got deleted; you can see in our discussion that I certainly had no idea it was your point of contention&mdash;I didn't know, because you refused to provide an explanation at all of your reversion of my edits; had you done so, we could have avoided much of this heartache.


 * Most importantly, Wikipedia has guidelines; there is no law or literal interpretation; Wikipedia culture has been built on the spirit of the "law". Bullets do an excellent job of listing and emphasizing the additional facts provided by the passage, and the introduction looks great with them. Your "THERE MUST BE 4 PARAGRAPHS!" mantra is just so bizarre. Psvait (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that statement is flatly, flatly incorrect. It is not my mantra, it is what WP:LEAD states. Read it:


 * The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs.

You must follow the guidelines. That is simple. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I really cannot believe you are making such an argument. It is mind-boggling; I am reminded of Commander Data trying to be human :-) Psvait (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Stick to the issue at hand and follow WP:LEAD. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After all of this confused discussion, it turns out that this bizarre point you are making is the issue at hand. From my talk page just now:
 * I recall that you reverted my edits wholesale without explanation when a simple explanation from you would have avoided much confusion. I recall that you didn't bother to just reintroduce the erroneously deleted couple of sentences. I recall your bizarre adherence to "THERE MUST BE 4 PARAGRAPHS IN THE LEDE!!!!1111". Psvait (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there must be 4 paragraphs in the lede. Did I neglect to mention that? It is a "respect for Wikipedia" issue. There is, however, no guideline against teh use of multiple !!!! marks on your own talk page. Feel free to use those. But do follow what WP:LEAD tells you to do. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I will point out that WP:LEAD says:
 * The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs.
 * Now, please note these two points:
 * The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article,
 * but should be no more than four paragraphs.
 * Even with your literal interpretations, less than four paragraphs is acceptable. Moreover, the current version of WP:LEAD doesn't have one occurence of the word 'bullet', and it does state:
 * The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article... It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible.
 * The bullets I used do this perfectly, and this format and this reasoning is much better than splitting up a paragraph into 2 paragraphs unnecessarily just so to meet the arbitrary (and fabricated) requirement that "THERE MUST BE FOUR PARAGRAPHS!" (which would appear to be erroneous, anyway, even under a literal interpretation of guidelines).
 * Moreover, consider the guideline on lists:
 * Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article... The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list.
 * Gah! Why am I even arguing about this? Psvait (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not a mind reader and will not speculate on your motives, so you will have to guess that yourself. However, it is clear that you are editing the page without any agreement whatsoever, based on a personal and unilateral determination of what looks great during a WP:BRD discussion. This must stop. Is that clear? You must follow WP:LEAD. You must show respect for Wikipedia. Is that clear? You must discuss with other users when your edits meet objections. Is that clear?


 * Your edit introduced a less than WP:RS website leaderu.com which I had correctly removed. Read and respect WP:RS.


 * Your edit created an orphan reference number 4 called AntiochRome, thus making a mess of carefully added scholarly references. Do not delete references and do not add non WP:RS websites. Your edit has done both.


 * The use of the bullets in your edit gives far too much real-estate to the 3 other facts in the lede and runs against WP:UNDUE. The three facts which I added today are not the "primary issue" in the article and should not be given WP:UNDUE space in the lede. Your edit runs against so many issues it is hard to enumerate them.


 * I will not revert you in order to avoid an edit war, but you should be reverted and must stop making a mess of article references and ignoring the guidelines. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Psvait, regarding this incorrect comment by you I had explained why I did not revert you, so my action was not without explanation. It was to show respect for the WP:BRD process. You must realize that you can not continue making unilateral changes without discussion because they look good to you. Your next step is to remove the non-RS site you introduced and issue an over due apology. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not a mind reader? Oh, that's rich! You are also editing the page without any agreement whatsoever, and worse, without any explanation whatsoever. This too must stop. Is it clear that you are doing these things, and that your initial reversion was horribly handled? You must learn to respect the spirit of the guidelines&mdash;the spirit on which Wikipedia's culture was built; this is not a place for literal interpretation of the "law", especially when you clearly misinterpret it. Is that clear?
 * '''With regard to the "less than Historicity of Jesus article... or maybe it was already there; I can't remember! However, why not make a specific note of that fact and then a specific edit, instead of a wholesale reversion of my edits without trying to make it clear what's going on?
 * With regard to the "orphan reference": Why didn't you just fix the orphan reference? That orphan reference was made because I copied your text verbatim when incorporating it into the existing text, without realizing that it didn't actually refer to anything anymore; you have known this whole time, and yet didn't do anything about it; instead, you chose to issue a citation as it were, like some bored traffic cop. I'm guessing that rather than doing productive work, you're basically trying to fill my talk page with "citations" so that you can drop a note to some admins saying "See? This guys is really bad!"
 * With regard to the bullets: I just can't take you seriously after that "THERE MUST BE 4 PARAGRAPHS!!!!11111" shennanigans. In any case, those bullet points do represent a significant portion of the article's content: Scholars have indeed said that value of the passage in question is that it makes these additional points. Upon looking over the introduction, it seems that it is biased towards an appreciation for the passage; perhaps we should add a 4th paragraph (I KNOW you'd like that!) which is a bit more disparaging about the value of the claims.
 * You should not have reverted my edits anyway; besides accidentally deleting a paragraph (which, at that time, was relatively repititious anyway!), I didn't change the content of the article in the slightest. Your initial reversion was overbearing, you have made discussion difficult and confusing, you have wasted time and space in favor of poor formatting choices (regarding the flow of this thread), you have made mind-bogglingly bizarre and erroneous appeals to "Wikipedia protocol" based on faulty interpretations of the GUIDELINES, and you have been content to issue meritless citations like a would-be bureaucratic god rather than participate in improving Wikipedia by making productive edits.
 * Quite frankly, I think what you have written on your user account page has a lot to do with what's happened here:
 * Generally, I try not to do minor edits to a large number of articles and prefer to write longer, more substantial articles on completely new topics
 * Perhaps you are not used to working with a bunch of users who are all trying to make productive edits&mdash;who see a broken link and then fix it without even thinking of issuing meritless citations, who improve content based on structure and flow rather than "SOME DOCUMENT SOMEWHERE ON WIKIPEDIA SAYS THERE MUST BE 4 PARAGRAPHS!!!!111" (which is WRONG anyway).
 * This has been so unproductive; it's ridiculous. At least I learned how to stick a "div" element in a comment... Psvait (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, your statements are by and large flatly incorrect. One does not need permission or agreement to edit or fix a page if there are no objections. However, once an objection has been introduced then agreement must be achieved. May I suggest yet another few rounds of reading of WP:BRD perhaps? That might clarify things. But who knows?


 * In the meantime, copying of a non-WP:RS reference from one Wikipedia page to another is no excuse at all. It is just faulty logic to defend a non-RS source based on presence elsewhere. There are less than RS sources in Wikipedia, but that is no excuse for propagating unreliable sources. That reference must be removed from this page. And in time it will be. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that I am not the one who needs to read WP:BRD. With regard to the non-WP:RS source, I was not trying to defend it! Why do you insist on making so many misinterpretations? As I clearly stated: "why not make a specific note of that fact and then a specific edit?" If I introduced a non-WP:RS while attempting to make two related articles agree (by coping information), then make a note of that fact and get rid of it. You are making up points of contention because of your apparently spectacular ability to misinterpret things. Psvait (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Next step for you: remove the non-WP:RS source, then issue an apology as stated above, then continue. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to let you bully me around anymore. Psvait (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that sounds like a WP:NPA statement. Avoid that type of statement. I asked you to remove the non-WP:RS reference you introduced, because I do not want to revert you myself. It is simple. You need to remove that reference. It will be removed. Period. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove it! This is not a point in contention. Psvait (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You should remove it yourself to respect WP:RS. I am following WP:BRD. So you must remove it. It will be removed. Period. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"It was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome."
This sentence is misleading; surely Tacitus is not the best evidence for this. See Fiscus Judaicus and Split of early Christianity and Judaism (where Tacitus isn't even mentioned). Cynwolfe (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And it isn't even what the cited source says: "So it is quite likely that Tacitus at least saw the Christians as a form of Judaism, even though they could be distinguished more precisely as 'Christians.'" The cited source also does not support the statement about what "even pagans" believed (setting aside the fact that no such thing as "pagans" as a collective existed at the time; please see Religion in ancient Rome and this explanation of the term by the historian of early Christianity Peter Brown). No such generalization about "pagans" is made in the source cited. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this was the source. If "even pagans" is misleading we can change it, no big deal. But I used what the source said. History2007 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For some reason, that source wasn't showing up when I checked; I only saw Beginning from Jerusalem. Sorry. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. However, if you think it can be improved, you should reword it. If it "looked" uncertain or vague to you it will probably look that way to some other users too. So you can fix it as you see fit, or I can do that later. I was actually about 75% done with my fixes when the lovely discussion above started. So there is certainly room for more explanation and sources etc. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

historical value as an independent Roman source
How is somone reciting baseless stories that he has no idea where true or not, has "historical value" it has no more value than the first person to write about the story of snow white, or more thna somone latter it comes from the sme source. The value of the source is what counts, not when someone recited it.--60.242.71.160 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works based on WP:RS references, which say it has value. Not a subject to debated among editors, it is what the scholars write about it that matters, per WP:V. History2007 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if those who disagree are so plainly wrong, clearly it wouldn't hurt to show their views rather than simply showing some biased Christians criticisms of their views? The article has a clear mission, and a clear POV, to suppress those who disagree and only show their opinions through the veil of biased Christian sources with an agenda. 65.0.97.220 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A dreadful article
This article is not encyclopediac. It contains considerable quantities of original research, where the Wikipedian has written his own understanding of the facts on the subject, rather than simply reporting what a reliable source has to say. The people who ARE referenced do not seem to me to be of very good quality. Much of the article is plainly derived from some of the headbanger articles that go around the web "proving" that Jesus never existed, and finding excuses of any kind to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That sort of source is simply not WP:RS. If that argument is made by a scholar, then quote him and reference him; if not, it should go. Likewise the sources on the other side don't seem very good to me either. And there is speculation all over it.

The article is largely worthless. We need to rework it asking:

1. Who precisely are the reliable sources? 2. What do they say?

and reporting what they say, and only what they say, and looking for reliable sources for and against whatever we want to say. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your work here. I have some doubts that this article needs to be separate from Suetonius on Christ and Pliny the Younger on Christ, since some of the issues overlap. I wonder whether it would be more useful to have an article on "Roman Imperial sources that refer to Christ or Christians", but I don't know what such a thing would be called; I don't find these article titles satisfying, either, because I've been unable to think how a first sentence could be constructed that follows MOS on bolding the phrase relevant to the title. The bold phrase doesn't have to be identical to the article title, but should be at least equivalent. I'm unclear about the history that led to these being content forks (presumably) from the article on evidence for the historical Jesus. (I'm supposedly taking a break from working on WP, except for taking my watchlist, but I'm glad I saw this.) Cynwolfe (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. It's an article by a christian on what they would like to be true rather than the usual unbiased articles I would expect from the Wikipedia, so worthless. Herbert Cutner in his book Jesus: God, Man or Myth fully explains why the Tacitus verses are totally untrustworthy.(Cyberia3 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Careful that your own personal bias does not skew your editing. One reference that has a counter opinion, such as the Cutner book, cannot be taken as an end all beat all. Unless he's the world's foremost source on Tacitus, et al, his is just one opinion among many. I'm all for improving articles and ensuring the text matches the references, but going in with idea that "the article is largely worthless" and "It's an article by a christian on what they would like to be true" are completely counter-productive and should be left out of the discussion. The focus should be on the specific issues on the page and how to improve them - not on personal interpretations of the content. Ckruschke (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Two separate issues. One is that the comment responded to was an old comment from 10 months ago, and did not refer to the current page. But that is a separate issue. Regarding Herbert Cutner just look at the Google results. He is not a scholar, not a WP:RS source, and his book was published by Booktree which specializes in what they themselves call "controversial titles" i.e. if you can not get published elsewhere, come here, we will do it. Other books they have published include "Atom-Smashing Power of Mind", etc. And Cutner actually does not have any arguments of his own by and large and repeats older arguments from others. Not a WP:RS or scholarly source by any measure. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrestos/Christos and Chrestianity/Christianity
This is a simple issue, over which unnecessary speculation has been made. The fact is that there are two ancient Greek words, χρηστος (meaning "useful" or "good") and χριστος (meaning "anointed" or "Christ"). They sound the same in modern Greek and there is no reason to suppose that they didn't sound the same in first century Greek. The first transliterates into Latin as Chrestos (hence the references to Chrestos by the Latin historian(s)), and still survives in modern Greek, but almost entirely as a proper name only and is sometimes wrongly transliterated when Greeks/Cypriots of that name go abroad, giving non-Greeks the mistaken impression that the parents were being somewhat blasphemous in giving that name. John of Wood Green (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But these need references if used in the page. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing unsupported opinions
I have moved the unlearned views of non-classicist biblical scholars talking about what they believed one should expect from Tacitus regarding the use of technical terms. This is not evidence; it's pure conjecture. It is not sufficient just to give someone's opinion: there needs to be reasons for them. In fact, those opinions should be removed from the article. According to WP:SECONDARY, "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." If there is no reliance on primary sources behind such opinions, then they are not sources. --  spin  control 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but my understanding of policy is miles away from yours. Those WP:SECONDARY sources are indeed what is used throughout Wikipedia. Again with apologies I mus say that the logic of the statement: "there is no reliance on primary sources behind such opinions" totally escapes me. How can Tacitus (the primary) refer to how he should be interpreted? It would be impossible for him to do that. As one of the "top experts" Van Voorst is the source to render the opinion. In fact Van Voorst book keeps getting high marks from other authors and he is a totally WP:RS source. Believe me, I know policy after the couple of articles I have tried writing. Expert opinion in WP:SECONDARY is exactly what is needed. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Van Voorst is not a classicist, neither is Chilton or Evans, ie they are not experts in the field of classics. Opinions used here are supposed to be based on evidence. What evidence do any of these people employ to support their opinions? One doesn't usually supply opinions based on nothing. You usually give what other primary sources indicate to support your opinion in a specific case. Do other relevant ancient writers of the period, who, like Tacitus, should know the cursus honorum, supply instances of such misuse of a technical term? --  spin  control 19:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is time for you to read WP:V, and carefully. Wikipedia is not about truth or evidence, it is about verifiability. Read WP:V, then read WP:RS, then ask on WP:RSN and someone will explain it to you. By your line of argument, most sources from this article (and most other articles) will have to be excluded, for their distance from primaries. That is not how Wikipedia works. Anyway, please get other opinions elsewhere, for I am speechless here... History2007 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tone, please. Read WP:SOURCES. WP:RSOPINION would lend support for such a use of a source, but what we have here is three untinged opinions attempting to be used as significant, when opinion is not cumulative in WP. --  spin  control 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that you are disputing sources such as Van Voorst. FYI Van Voorst is a great source for this article because this article is about "a non-Christan references to Jesus" Right? Of course. And what is the title of Van Voorst's book? Jesus outside the New Testament. Bull's eye. Is his book any good? On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. So he is a great WP:RS source for this article. Period. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, per WP:Calm it might be a good idea to hold off here for a few days, go o the beach, then restart and smell the roses again. So I will get my beach umbrella and look on here after 24 hours. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both Van Voorst's and Chilton and Evans' books are published by an academic publisher with a good reputation. Van Voorst holds a degree in Biblical Greek - that's as close as you can get to what you need when comparing the Biblical title for Pilatus to the one used by Tacitus. Van Voorst, Chilton and Evans are clearly experts on the New Testament and the historical Jesus. History2007 has collected the accolades other scholars have bestowed on Van Voorst's work. How much more reliable can a source get? Huon (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, so it is not relevant here. Tacitus wrote in Latin. None of the above scholars is a Latinist: Chilton is a Semitic scholar, Evans & Van Voorst, Greek. As is, all I see is a series of appeals to authority.


 * And I just removed the spurious claim regarding procurator, "exactly as stated in the Gospel of Luke" --  spin  control 00:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Appeal to authority" like this is exactly what WP:NOR and WP:V are about. If Chilton, Evans and Van Voorst have been criticised for their insufficient background, please present a reliable source that makes the case. Huon (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't deal with the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Such appeals are offered in lieu of content. --  spin  control 08:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Van Voorst, Chilton, and Evans are fine sources and easily meet the demands of WP:NOR and WP:V. If Doktorspin demands that classicists be used as sources here, he could bestir himself to do some simple Google Scholar searches and find some. Like, say, Paul L. Maier ("The Fate of Pontius Pilate", Hermes 99 (1971) 362-371). Can't say I've spent much time getting up to speed on the current debate here, but I don't think that the rank of Pilate is especially controversial, especially since there's epigraphic evidence, and I don't think that Van Voorst et al. depart from conventional wisdom on this topic. (If anyone responds to this post by saying "But Richard Carrier says..." I'll just point out that he doesn't hold an academic position, ok?) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Doktorspin .. could bestir himself to do some simple Google Scholar searches and find some." You should know better than this noise when you've seen the sorts of sources I employed in the overhaul of the Julian article. --   spin  control 08:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you *know* how to find sources, you're just choosing not to here, and instead are complaining about the editors who do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mild ad hominem based on pure conjecture is not worth saying. --  spin  control 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet the heart of it is what you said about the item not even being controversial. I really do not know what all the fuss has been about, and there are WP:RS sources that clearly explain it. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the rank of Pilate is not controversial. And in any case, I added a few more sources, Crossan, Feldman, etc. And in his book on Pilate, Warren Carter says that either may be appropriate. And his book on Pilate is a key book. And Feldman notes that the titles may not be rigid and Josephus uses "prefect and procurator" elsewhere, etc. So it is not a controversial issue at all. And the new sources show that unlike Doktorspin's characterization the issue is not one of "linguistics" but of historical context as much as anything else. So his section-making and fencing in of some scholars to 2nd class sources was not appropriate.


 * By the way, Carrier seems to think that Van Voorst's book is a good source on the topic, but as you said that endorsement may not be needed in any case... History2007 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Josephus he uses επαρχος (18.33), επιτροπος (15.406), and ηγεμων (18.55), yet Feldman translates them all as procurator. (Slight correction: it was Marcus who used "procurator" in AJ 15.406. I've got a mixed collection of Loeb Josephus. Feldman translates επιτροπος as "procurator" in 18.158.) --  spin  control 08:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually your looking up what Josephus used and deciding how Feldman translated it is WP:OR given that you will be discussing "facts" not sources. WP:V says what Feldman "concluded" is what matters. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be reducing WP:OR to reading. --  spin  control 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Now there has been a further load of speculation poured into the breach and no facts added. Take this gem: "Philo (who died AD 50) and Josephus also use the term procurator for Pilate." Where is the quality control? Philo and Josephus, writing in Greek, never, ever, ever used the word "procurator". Appeal to the Greek is a non sequitur. And it doesn't matter how many biblical scholars peddle the opinion that Tacitus retrojected, was anachronistic, that Josephus used "procurator". There is not a single fact here, nor any history, and we still don't know why these scholars gave these particular opinions. The article has got longer with no added content. --  spin  control 08:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just looked up the Feldman work we cite, and he says Philo and Josephus call Pilate "επιτροπος, which is definitely the same as procurator" (I hope I remember the wording correctly; Wikipedia was down when I read that, and I didn't take notes). I don't think we need to mention the Greek term they use, and we can take Feldman's word that they indeed call Pilate a procurator, though in Greek. As an aside, Feldman is a classicist, so he satisfies your criteria for who may voice an opinion on Tacitus.
 * We need not know why the scholars gave these opinions; it's entirely sufficient that they did and got their opinions published with reputable publishers. It's not our job to second-guess the experts, but to report what they have to say. If there is some dissenting scholarly opinion, please provide a reliable source to that effect. Otherwise I fail to see what all this is about. Huon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Feldman, who is not a Latinist, says in Josephus and Modern Scholarship (de Gruyter 1984), p.318, "επιτροπος in War 2.169 for Pilate definitely equals procurator". It's a parenthesis however and may represent the view of the scholar he is citing [Frova]. He adds, "The New Testament, [Frova] notes, very accurately refrains from calling Pilate procurator but instead terms him governor {ηγεμων), whereas Josephus is looser in his terminology." Yet we see that Josephus does in fact use ηγεμων for Pilate in 18.55. --  spin  control 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am actually again almost speechless here regarding the Doktor's statement that "it doesn't matter how many biblical scholars peddle the opinion that Tacitus retrojected, was anachronistic, that Josephus used "procurator". I think a good and careful reading of WP:V is again in order, of course. But as a side comment, whenever I see someone type "evidence" in bold, I already know the outcome of the discussion. There will be talk and talk, requests to read WP:V again and again, and in the end WP:V will be the victor. I guess that is what the V really stands for.


 * Now, let me provide an overview of the situation here:


 * What Tacitus used to refer to the rank of Pilate differs from what appears on the Pilate stone.


 * Several scholars have provided explanations for the difference.


 * The Doktor does not like the explanations provided by the scholars, because he thinks they do not have "facts". He is no longer complaining about WP:Primary - great! And he no longer disputes that the experts are qualify as WP:RS sources - great! But he seems to be saying that the expert statements matter not given that they have no "evidence".


 * Remedy: A careful reading of WP:V.


 * So let me put it this way Doktor: if Louis Feldman translates all/some of επαρχος, επιτροπος, and ηγεμων as procurator as you said, that is good enough for me, and certainly good enough as a WP:RS source for Wikipedia. In any case, what he wrote in his article (regardless of your looking up Josephus which is WP:OR) can be used in Wikipedia. Period. I will not even attempt to discuss the "facts" with you because that would be WP:OR.


 * But one thing I have learned reading Feldman is that he is usually smarter and far more knowledgeable than the next fellow. You can not argue against Feldman. He is a totally WP:RS source, and highly respected expert. And once you acknowledge WP:V that ends the discussion. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "if Louis Feldman translates all/some of επαρχος, επιτροπος, and ηγεμων as procurator as you said, that is good enough for me". You say this even when you know that ηγεμων as "procurator" is wrong in the case of Pilate in AJ 18.55.


 * You may almost be speechless, but one has a responsibility to be accurate. Surely you cannot just cite opinions without knowing why those opinions have weight. --  spin  control 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! You got it Doktor! "Sources rule" when they are WP:RS. My opinion (and yours) do not matter because in Wikipedia, "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." What you and I think about Feldman's accuracy does not matter. You got it Doktor! You got it! History2007 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Confusing two issues here doesn't help your cause. The first issue is the accuracy of Feldman, the second, the fact that the opinion cited has nothing behind it. Opinions without support are the same as nothing said. --  spin  control 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Feldman translates ηγεμων as "governor" and says that's a more accurate term to describe Pilatus' rank than επιτροπος. Secondly, these opinions have weight because they are experts' opinions published with reputable publishers. Your (and my) personal opinion, in comparison, is worthless. Unless you have reliable sources that actually dispute Feldman's or Van Voorst's claims, you cannot second-guess the experts (not for the purposes of Wikipedia articles, at least). What exactly do you want? Huon (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You should know better than to cite something without supplying the exact source. Citable experts supply primary sources (or other experts who do) for their opinions.


 * This whole die-hard defense here of sundry unsupported opinions exposes the fact you have nothing better to offer with regard to the fact that Tacitus is one of our major sources for the change from prefect to procurator in the period of Claudius. Flanking maneuvers require you to stay on the field. -- 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Feldman says so on p. 818 of Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, part 2, volume 21, if that's what you're asking. That's the relevant Feldman source we cite in the article, in case you don't remember; the one I said I looked up. And Feldman definitely is not a primary source; Tacitus, Josephus and Philo are the primary sources. Huon (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly so. In Wikipedia the opinion of every editor about the "accuracy" of the statement by Feldman (or other experts) has exactly the same value: zero. Maybe, that will become clear to all participants in this discussion now? I hope so... I hope so... As I said, whenever I see "evidence" in bold, I know we will end up saying verifiability, not truth. I just knew it... History2007 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We should not be tradents in mere opinions. That is the problem. Do you or do you not have any sources for scholarly arguments (obviously entailing evidence for the conclusions) that indicate that what you have put in the article is anything more than unsupported, if popular, opinion? So far, it seems you haven't. --  spin  control 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes we should, as long as those opinions are published in reliable sources. History2007 has presented a long list of accolades for one of those sources, showing that it has passed peer review with flying colors. A scholar who gets his work published by a reputable publisher need not show his evidence to become an acceptable source. Let me repeat: What do you want? Are you saying that all scholarly monographs and research articles published in peer-reviewed journals are worthless as sources? Only those which don't satisfy your personal standards of "evidence"? If you want to make the case that Van Voorst or Feldman are not reliable sources, please raise the issue at the RS noticeboard. Huon (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course. But the Doktor is not disputing that Louis Feldman is WP:RS. So WP:RSN will not help. The Doktor knows that Feldman is WP:RS because Feldman is the top expert and the Doktor knows that because he owns Loeb. He knows Feldman is the expert, but he thinks Feldman is wrong! But, I give up, given that after the many many references to WP:V I see the word "should". Look Doktor, Wikipedia has "policies". Right? We follow them. Right? What the traffic laws "should be" is a separate issue from what the traffic laws "are". Right? If you do not like the traffic laws, you lose your driving license. Right? I think you have clearly, clearly run over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT a few times now Doktor. Clearly. How many times have I asked you to read WP:V? This is what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is intended for. It does not matter what Wiki-policies "should be". What matters is what they are. I am speechless now. I will stop. History2007 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to the Doktor: I noticed that you are still re-arranging the quotes. Not that I care really, because the quotes you added are by and large WP:RS. But as Akhilleus said at the start, this is not a controversial issue. And I said by and large because a few of those comments pre-date Penny Lane but we should not make a fuss about that. I have not checked but Yelnitsky does not seem to mention Tacitus, does he? And V Voorst does not seem to use ἡγεμών in his book as far as I recall - I have not checked. Did you? But in any case, I think what you added works, regardless of the re-arrangements as long as conformity to sources is maintained. Yet, I would prefer reliance on sources that post-date Let it be - but let us let that be the song here... History2007 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Complaining about when materials were written is not very useful. The reference article on "procurator" and "prefect" is from 1939 (Sherwin-White), on the philology of "Nazarene" 1946 (Albright), on Hebrew palaeography 1960 (F.M.Cross), on P52 1934 (C.H.Roberts) and so on. I didn't add anything to the Van Voorst dribble. I merely clarified Feldman's dribble... and provided sources that were a little more relevant to Tacitus. In this matter Crossan, Chilton and Van Voorst are tertiary sources, using the expertise of secondary sources. It's not their field. Instead of putting contentless rubbish in an article, one should try at least to make it balanced rubbish, rather than the one-sided rubbish I found in the article. This sort of imbalance is a generic problem for Wiki. --  spin  control 12:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But Sherwin-White 1939, Albright 1946, etc. are not used in this article. Right? If they are used elsewhere they are not really WP:RS any more and should be repaired. Not that I can be bothered to do those.... There are of course hundreds of thousands (my guess) of outdated and self-published sources in Wikipedia. I once wrote a program that flagged the self-published ones. I guess I could have modified that to flag the outdated ones too - but perhaps in another life time... But the existence of outdated sources in one place does not mean one should use them elsewhere. In any case, the 1960s sources were not that old for a field that is not fast moving like electronics... that was why I said let it be... So I would prefer to leave your last edit as is, unless someone else objects to it. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content
I reverted a large deletion by Doktor spin because it was fully sourced and relevant to the authenticity section where it appeared. The validity of the statements were not questioned, but they were said to be better in another article. Having that that paragraph here does not decrease encyclopedic quality - just informs the reader who may have questions about the larger context. If anything, there should be a longer discussion in Annals about its authenticity, with a Main link and a summary here. I touched it up in the Annals article anyway, mentioned Zanobi da Strada, etc. anyway, and left a Main link to it from here.

This type of short summary here with a Main link not really affect disk space in Wikipedia, given the amount of space used on talk pages, but simply clarifies things for a reader in the context of authenticity. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to include an analysis of the Annals generally when this article doesn't deal with the Annals, but a small section of it. There is no relationship between the issues relating to the Bracciolini claims and the Testimentum Taciteum, therefore it has no place in the article. So, I have to remove it. You need some reason to include the material and there isn't one and apparently History2007 understands this because History2007 provides no reasoning for actually including it. --  spin  control 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If we're going to get into a conflict over this, perhaps we should go straight into a RfC. --  spin  control 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to spend 30 days of your life following an Rfc over one paragraph, that is your choice, of course. Anyway, I also restored another fully sourced paragraph you just deleted that referred to the three facts the passage teaches a user. That paragraph gives the user information about the Tacitus passage. That is what an encyclopedia is about: giving users reliable information about the topic of the article. Is that a good enough reason?

I should first point out that you are not disputing the validity or reliability of the material you are deleting. You are just deleting WP:RS sourced content because you think it is not important to inform the user about it (although this article is not that long). That is the issue here.

And I do have a serious concern about your editing behavior here Doktor spin. This whole long discussion started with you attempting to remove fully sourced material. At no point have you found a problem with the reliability of sources based on Wikipedia policies, but have been using subjective statements to justify the removal of content. You started by saying that the two references you fenced in and wanted to remove were not based on "evidence" (in bold) and their authors were less than capable because their main subject was not classics. Those were not policy based reasons for deletion, and you eventually backtracked from your assertions. The reasons you have provided here are also purely subjective - and do not rely on comparison with what scholars consider relevant. The material you are deleting is discussed by scholars as they discuss the topic of the article. That is clear. This type of deletion of "reliable content" about a topic does not increase encyclopedic quality, but diminishes it. And it just takes talk page effort, and the results will in the end follow policy, as in the other case.

So let me spell it out in this case:


 * The subject of the article is what Tacitus wrote in Annals book 15 # 44. That is clear.


 * Following WP:TPA, the article should "explore all aspects of the subject". So the article should look at the implications and ramifications of the scholarly analysis of the subject and inform the user about them. That is also clear.


 * Again, following WP:TPA, the article should "Branch out". That means that the article should provide links to related topics. In Wikipedia that is often done via a "Main" link where a brief summary is provided, and a Main link leads the user to another article. That is done all over Wikipedia, and is standard practice. That is how hypertext development works, a brief description is provided and the user can click for more information.

Now regarding authenticity of the Annals:


 * How do we know if the "authenticity of Annals" itself is related to this article? Because when discussing authenticity a user has two questions:


 * Is the passage authentic?
 * Is the book the passage comes in any good anyway?


 * So both issues need to be addressed. Another way to know if an item is related to a topic is to see if a major book on the subject discusses the two together. So we could ask:


 * Does Van Voorst's book (which in the discussion above was called the "best recent discussion on the topic" and the "fullest compilation of all this data" by other scholars) refer to the authenticity of the Annals itself when it discusses Annals book 15 # 44? Yes, it does, and that was the reference you removed!

So the material you removed is what the best book on the topic considers relevant to the topic. That material must therefore stay. It is just one paragraph with a Main link and given the above is fully related to the subject.

Now, going to the the issue of the three separate facts that the passage teaches a user which you deleted and I just restored.


 * That paragraph was included because Raymond Brown's book said that these were three "interesting facts" that the passage provided. I actually did not know those three facts myself, but came across in Brown's book and given that he considered it relevant to the passage I included it. That item is relevant because a leading scholar states that it is an interesting fact that can be based on Annals book 15 # 44, the item being discussed in this article.

So both of the fully sourced items you deleted (whose correctness, reliability or sourcing is not disputed) are discussed by scholars when the subject of this article is written about. They are clearly relevant in the eyes of scholars. They need to remain in the article to inform the reader. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Given no response for over a day, as stated in my edit summary, per the WP:PRESERVE policy, I have restored the fully sourced content that appears in "scholarly references" along with the discussion of the subject of this article. Per WP:PRESERVE this content should not be removed at will by any editor without consensus to do so. Hence, Doktorspin you should not make another unilateral revert decision here, and should follow Wikipedia policy to preserve content sourced to WP:RS sources that discuss the subject of this article. Another unilateral revert by you at this point to delete content that should be preserved per policy would be a clear breach. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure we need that paragraph. It refutes a fringe hypothesis about the authenticity of the Annals and engages in some general praise for Tacitus' work. It's well-sourced, but is it relevant? Don't we give undue weight to that fringe hypothesis? Is anything in that paragraph particularly relevant to Tacitus on Christ, as opposed to the Annals in general? I'd say we could omit it and just keep the main link to the authenticity section of the Annals (Tacitus) article without losing anything of value to this article's topic. Huon (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We could try that as a half-way solution, now that you suggested the Main item. The way that paragraph went in was that one of our old friends added the Wilson Ross book and the references to the refutation of that had to be added. So how about one sentence that the "theories that the Annals itself has been forged have also been generally rejected" where Hochart is mentioned. That and the Main should take care of it. I will trim it that way. Let me know. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The new version looks very good to me. Huon (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine. Let's move on then.... History2007 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The reinsertion of material that is irrelevant to this article is simply against Wiki policy. It plainly contravenes WP:ROC, especially Article scope, ("The topics an article covers should match the article's title"). While a generic discussion on the authenticity of the Annals is suitable for the Annals article where we do find such a discussion, in an article whose limits are the Testimonium Taciteum, Annals 15.44, it is off topic. While discussions on the authenticity of 15.44 or parts thereof are relevant, given the scope of the article, there is no sense in talking about the authenticity of the whole manuscript.

The reliability of the sources is not at issue here (that is merely one necessary condition). What matters is the relevance of the information to the article, so talking about reliability misses the problem. Neither Van Voorst's nor Raymond Brown's books have the limits of this article, ie the significance and authenticity of Annals 15.44. Their comments on the wider context are not relevant here. In fact Van Voorst's comment is in the Annals article. We are not bound by the cited writers so much as the limits of the topic. Here we are not dealing with the Annals as a whole, so discussions about authenticity as a whole just don't belong here.

On a personal note, you have been making aspersions about my editing throughout your responses here, which are certainly against the Wiki spirit of assuming good faith. Hints of "disruptive editing" and "editing behavior". Please stick to the topic and not the person. --  spin  control 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are talking about the "one sentence" that is cited to Van Voorst and the "see also" link? One sentence whose reliability is not in question? I really don't know what to say after all that has been said... Look, it was discussed, another editor made a suggestion, we trimmed it to one sentence... it just provides a link... What is the big deal now?


 * My reference to your "editing behavior", citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT etc. refers to the behavior, not the person. I still say we were running over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before about your rejection of van Voorst as a source, but that seems to be over now and you seem to have finally accepted that Van Voorst is a valid WP:RS source.


 * On that note, in this edit you changed "pagan" to "people who were not Christians". Did you check the source? I did. It says pagans. The equation "pagan = non-Christian" which your edit assumes is false. Your edit makes it deviate from the source. Did you check the source? History2007 (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You cause this yourself by not citing properly. If some nitwit uses the POV term "pagan" it's better to blame them for doing so, ie put it in a quote, mark it with a "(sic)". If you use a writer's exact words you are responsible for citing them properly.


 * And if someone says, "you're acting like a ____" (fill in suitably negative term), this refers to the behavior, not the person, right? --  spin  control 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh boy... Oh boy... Now Raymond Edward Brown is a "nitwit"? Am I hearing that you think Brown is a nitwit? Please confirm that so we can all get a good laugh out of it at least... First Louis Feldman is considered wrong. Now Brown is a nitwit... I did get a laugh out of that one...


 * Now, did you intend "you're acting like a ____ (fill in suitably negative term)" to refer to me or to yourself, or to Brown? Please clarify that one. We may get a laugh out of that too. I should probably just shrug that one off as laugh of the day and move on anyway. But the nitwit comment about Brown is in a class by itself Doktor... But anyway that is what that distinguished scholar wrote in his book. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Those "nitwits" are professors of theology, and to my knowledge (and according to our own article on paganism), the term need not be used pejoratively, but can just be a blanket term for Roman polytheism. I see no reason to put it in scare quotes. In particular, it does not mean "people who were not Christians" but also excludes Jews. I'm a little troubled by this renewed attempt to claim that we know better than our sources. That's simply not how it's done. We don't "blame" reliable sources for their word choice.
 * Regarding the line on the authenticity of the Annals as a whole: Surely the authenticity of the whole book is relevant to the part of the book we're interested in. We need not bother with detailed coverage here because there's a better place, but a one-sentence mention seems entirely appropriate. Huon (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you noticed the same trend that I noticed: Brown is called a nitwit, Feldman is wrong, others are this, that and the other... When is this going to end? These are highly respected scholars. They are not wrong nitwits. History2007 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

While it's entertaining to see you toady over people using POV terms, we are not here to do so. Our job is to try to provide quality information (and not mere opinion) from tenable sources in NPOV language. --  spin  control 02:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we back to the "not mere opinions" discussion again about what WP:RS sources say? I thought we had gotten over that....This seems to be a generic issue, because you said the same thing on the Suetonius page now, i.e. that the views of scholars there are "purely POV". So I think this is a generic issue about how you perceive WP:RS sources and WP:V and not just about this specific page. This discussion is really not a content issue any more about this page (or Suetonius), but a "policy interpretation issue" on your part. History2007 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am getting more convinced by the minute that this is a "policy perception issue" on the part of Doktor spin, given that on the Suetonius on Christians page he now states that statements by acclaimed scholars in WP:RS sources are "hot air". This is certainly not a content issue, but a manifestation of a policy perception issue on his part. History2007 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I haven't looked at the Suetonius issue, but the repeated attempts to dismiss reliable sources that disagree with Doktorspin's personal opinion are deeply troubling. I have commented on the "mere opinions" of experts published in reliable sources before (repeatedly, in fact); ignoring that is indeed a case of WP:IDHT. Huon (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What he said there was that there is "no way to test" what the experts such as James Dunn say, and hence it is "hot air". He has previously removed some, but not all references to the fact that some scholars think Suetonius was confused. He actually says that there is "no way to test" if what the scholars say is true, hence the scholars are generating "hot air". So here he calls a highly respected scholar a nitwit, elsewhere he says James Dunn's statements are hot air... How can I respond to this type of comment? History2007 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Conformity to sources and the use of pagan by scholars
I should note that after all the discussion above, Doktor spin is on my talk page now again stating the same namely that the use of pagan is POV. Fortunately he is no longer calling scholars nitwits, so we have had progress on that front, but regarding the use of pagan, we seem to have an issue that belongs here, not my talkpage. So let him explain again here, not there. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Distortion of other people's comments through decontextualization and overgeneralization tends to add up to deliberate misrepresentation. Ridiculous example: 'He actually says that there is "no way to test" if what the scholars say is true', removed from context and applied by implication to all scholars. This is reprehensible behavior.

I made no comment specifically about James Dunn's statements being hot air. This is simply ad hominem and you need to stop. I did make a comment about unfalsifiability, but I can do nothing for your apparent difficulty in grasping the scholarly concept. If you cannot disagree with R.T. France's cited comment that misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake", then you are dealing with an unfalsifiable claim. --  spin  control 04:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess what? I do not agree with you at all. I will not even bother to look up the diff about "hot air", but it is there. We have been through that. And you did say that expert claims need to be "tested" before they can be WP:RS, and a few editors rejected your view again on WP:RSN. And yet you said that again on ANI just after your view had been rejected on WP:RSN. That is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Someone commented about you on ANI: "he just seems to be standing on a soapbox." Their words, not mine. But I think we do have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem here now. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange. --  spin  control 10:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You said it, and thank Heaven briefly so... History2007 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to have disintegrated into irrelevant bickering. Suetonius and Dunn are irrelevant to this article. Are there any proposals to improve this article? I see none, excepting Doktorspin's proposal to deviate from the wording used by a reputable scholar in a reliable source, which I don't consider an improvement. If there's an issue with user conduct, the relevant venues are WP:RFC/U and maybe WP:AN or WP:AN/I - and you two have been at the latter place recently. Huon (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion should just stop. History2007 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian v Chrestian
This section might usefully point out that in French, a Romance language, Christ is 'Christ' (or 'Le Christ'), but Christian is 'Chrétien' (and Christianity is '(La) Chrétienté'). But I fear that if I were to say this without quoting a Reliable Source, some unbeliever might revert me, especially as 'Chrétien' tends to support the view that Chrestiani (and indeed Chrestus) are very weak arguments against the historicity of at least the broad outlines of Christianity. But as I'm an unbeliever myself, I don't really feel like putting in the effort to look for a RS, not even to improve Wikipedia (especially when I expect others will gladly put in the hard work instead of me). But presumably there are some Christians out there who can be bothered to look for such a source, so please do (and please also check up on whether '(La) Chrétienté' (and 'Chrétien') should normally begin with a lower case C, as I suspect they should). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep ... a RS would be necessary. I'm pretty sure that Latin -ist- to French -et- is a natural sound change. Not to mention the fact that the isolated persistence of a Latin manuscript variant—a variant that has been deleted in our only apparent witness—into a modern language would be something so remarkable that reliable sources probably wouldn't be wanting, they'd have precipitated this article.  davidiad { t } 02:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it is NOT our only apparent witness. Last time I looked it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica many years ago, the oldest apparent pagan reference to Christianity was a statement that 'Chrestus' had been stirring up trouble in Rome around 42AD. You can find many references to this here. Obviously this reference is not too popular since it doesn't support the historicity of Christianity. The Encyclopedia Britannica simply dismissed the reference as clearly mistaken since Christ was never in Rome (though this wasn't quite so clear to me, and sounded more like a rather bad case of assuming the truth of something (in this case the Gospels) whose truth you were supposedly trying to prove). But in any case my point regarding French is NOT that the French E has been inherited from Latin, but that if the I of Christianity can change to E among Christian French speakers who know and presumably care that Christ should have an I, then it can at least as easily change from I to E among pagan Latin speakers who neither know nor care that Christ should have an I. But there's little point in continuing this argument, since we both agree that a Reliable Source is necessary. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you get a more reliable source than this? --  spin |control 15:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something in the abbreviations there, sehr geehrter Doktor? In the etymology section I don't see any connection made between Chrestianus and Chrétien, just Christianus.  davidiad { t } 16:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I was being absentminded. I was interested in the date of when cristïens became crestïen (11-12th c.), ie when the Mediceus II was copied. The dictionary doesn't supply an etymological connection between chrétien and chrestianus--there isn't any--, but a reliable source for the dating of the vowel change evinced in the manuscript error that was corrected. --  spin |control 15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh ... thanks! I was worried both my French and my ability to unpack a dictionary entry had eroded completely.  davidiad { t } 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on reflection, the E is actually further evidence that it's not a Christian interpolation, because you would expect even a clever interpolation (as this one would have to be) to use an I to avoid people asking awkward questions and thinking sceptical thoughts about the E (which is presumably why the E was eventually corrected back to an I). Indeed to me it's actually at least one of the most powerful arguments (and perhaps THE most powerful argument) against it being an interpolation, if only because the other arguments usually seem so thoroughly weak and unconvincing to an unbeliever like me (for instance, saying 'we have 3 independent sources' invites the reply 'that's not hard to fake when you have thousands of Christian scribes'; and saying 'the criticism of Christianity in Tacitus is too harsh to have come from a Christian' invites the reply 'only if all Christian interpolaters and all their paymasters are very stupid which seems very unlikely', and so on). I wonder are there any Reliable Sources pointing out how powerful an argument for the historicity of the broad outlines of Christianity the E actually is (or at least how relatively powerful it is, since we still have to rely on the supposed reliability of the claim that Tacitus always used reliable sources rather than accepting Christian hearsay, just as he seemingly accepted pagan hearsay about alleged Christian abominations, otherwise despite not being an interpolation the passage may still tell us lilttle or nothing about Christianity's historicity) ? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So ... yep, a RS is necessary.  davidiad { t } 04:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have researched this topic in the past year or two. The modern French usage issue does not comes into the picture in scholarly discussions from what I have seen. But the academic discussions have taken place and there are multiple elements that point to the reference being to the group of people "hated for their abominations" (read Eucharist, drinking the blood of their founder) who came out of Judea who were present in Rome around 60 AD. And these were clearly not the typical Jews. The other issue you are mentioning has to do with the Divus Claudius 25 item "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." which refers to the expulsion around 49 AD. Most scholars hold that it refers to Christians (Louis H. Feldman, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans (Oct 1, 1996) ISBN 0567085252 p. 332). But that Suetonius reference only has a marginal impact on what Tacitus wrote years later. However, the overall scholarly consensus is quite clear: There were Jews in Rome at the time of Claudius, they fought among themselves (most scholars hold that the Christians were trying too hard to convert the others) and Claudius sent (some or all of them out) around 49 AD. Then around 60 AD Nero used them as an excuse about the fire. There is scholarly agreement on those issues, and as usual Louis H. Feldman has done his homework better than most others who write on the topic, if you want to look up his work in time. There is probably need for a better overview article than the mess at Origins of Christianity but not on my path to fix it. Yet I can tell you that these days there is not much scholarly debate if there Christians in Rome around 60, there were for sure by most scholarly measures. And in Nero 16 Suetonius mentions that Nero had mistreated the "Christiani" as in "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." So that all fits together. So the class men given to the new and mischievous superstition grew to be a significant number by the time Pliny etc. started to deal with them. So think of it this way: by the time Pliny wrote about them in 110 AD or so there were many of them, and they did not all arrive on a single bus from Jerusalem all at once, so the picture fits: they were there in 49, grew in number by 60 and by the turn of the first century there were noticeable enough to be getting attention span from Trajan in 110 AD. That is the straightforward scholarly view. History2007 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think many unbelievers would dispute much of what you say about Christians. However, what you don't address is what many do dispute (here, presumably among many other places), which is roughly whether there is any historic evidence for the life and death of Christ (and, in this case, whether Tacitus's stuff is such evidence). I don't know how many of these unbelievers are deemed scholarly. And I don't really care what the scholarly consensus is, as I expect there are a lot more Christian scholars in this area than non-Christian ones, and the consensus of Christian scholars regarding Christianity seems to me as irrelevant as the consensus of atheistic scholars about atheism, or of Islamic scholars about Islam, etc, or indeed the consensus of unbelieving scholars regarding Christianity - indeed I care about it all so little that I was perfectly happy to offer Christians a small helping hand on the Christ - Chrestiani matter, which is how I got started here, as you can see. Personally I'd rather like to see Christians do a bit more research on two things - one is the reported bright nova (new star) in the Chinese records for the spring of 5BC, and the other is the reported Roman massacre in the town of Seqiris (I'm not sure I've the spelling right) near Nazareth when Herod died in 4BC. I don't think those reports can ever prove anything, but they might allow for interesting new speculations concerning the star of Bethlehem, the massacre of the Holy Innocents, and how all this might have given Jesus some kind of useful headstart in the messiah stakes - though probably nothing that should unduly disturb the faith of either Christians or atheists :) However I think what started out as a minor digression for me is beginning to get a bit more time-consuming than I had intended, so I think I shall now wish you all the best of luck, and bow out of the conversation. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a digression as you said, for massacre of innocents etc. have zero impact on the historicity of Jesus, and are just gospel details. And as Tacitus is just one element in the discussion. As for "I don't know how many of these unbelievers are deemed scholarly" these days the answer is almost none, for there is not one professor of history in a good university (no typo here) who denies the existence of Jesus - the challenge has been out for over a year. Please see the Christ myth theory page regarding that discussion. The issue of the "existence" of Jesus has now been settled in "academic circles" and only the amateurs still debate it. The accuracy of the gospel accounts is a very, very different issue and there is hardly any scholarly agreement on their accuracy. Most scholars hold them to have a number of internal conflicts in any case - but that does not relate to the existence of the Jesus they were writing about - even if they do not agree on the details of his life. So almost total agreement on existence of Jesus, and almost no agreement on gospel details, as in the Christ myth theory page. History2007 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now, after a little thinking, it seems that if the Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny sequence was not clear to you, other readers may have questions about it as well. So I added a short section here about it and will also add to the end those articles to give a brief summary of the temporal order in which the passages were written by these 3, give links to places like Nero 16, etc. Will do it in a day or so. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, I had said I was bowing out of the conversation, but I have been foolishly unable to resist my Guardian Devil urging me to briefly get back in :) Your 'I will eat a Bible page if a skeptic can find any professor of Ancient History or the New Testament from a reputable university who thinks Jesus did not exist' link doesn't impress. First, quite likely almost nobody is even aware of the existence of the challenge. Secondly it may just mean that genuine skeptics are excluded from 'good' universities, as arguably suggested by two sentences in the Christ myth theory article that you recommend:    Sentence 1) In 2012 biblical scholar Thomas L. Brodie, former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute, published a book in which he argued Jesus is mythical. I have no biographical info on Brodie other than what's in that sentence, but the term 'FORMER director' seems to perhaps be hinting at a problem facing scholarly sceptics who are unwilling to make at least some concessions that are useful to Christianity. It is of course at least seemingly useful to Christianity to have non-Christian scholars who concede that Christ existed. And I would expect similarly problems for scholars who are skeptical of Islam in Islamic countries, or skeptical of atheism in atheistic countries, etc, which is one of several reasons why I said in my previous post that I didn't really care what the scholarly consensus was - and please don't nudge me into boring you with my rather predictable views concerning related matters such as the peer review process especially when used in relation to this kind of topic (I only mention peer review here because it gets favorably mentioned by someone you were agreeing with on the Christ myth theory Talk page) :) But obviously I have no way of proving any of these suspicions of mine.   Sentence 2) However, academic resistance to the extreme versions of myth theory grew, e.g. John Allegro was dismissed from his university position for writing a book that took extreme positions on the issue and it took Thomas L. Thompson well over a decade to find an academic position. This second sentence leads me to thoughts similar to those provoked by the first, except that this time there are biographical details, which suggest, at least in my biased view, that Allegro probably got what he deserved, but that Thompson seems quite likely to be a scholar who was forced to live in poverty outside of academia for long periods because his views, despite eventually earning him a doctorate summa cum lauda, were too inconvenient for some (though he seems to have been writing about the alleged mythical nature of the Patriarchs rather than of Jesus). But once again I have obviously no way of proving any of these suspicions of mine. Of course none of the above need necessarily contradict anything iin your statement that 'As for "I don't know how many of these unbelievers are deemed scholarly" these days the answer is almost none, for there is not one professor of history in a good university (no typo here) who denies the existence of Jesus - the challenge has been out for over a year'. As for the different matter of 'That is a digression as you said, for massacre of innocents etc. have zero impact on the historicity of Jesus, and are just gospel details.', I suspect it actually could become quite relevant to the credibility of the gospels, and consequently to the plausibility of the claim that Jesus was historic, if there ever were to emerge convincing independant evidence of gospel details such as a star of Bethlehem or a massacre of the innocents. I spent a few hours doing a tiny bit of research on these two topics after writing my last post, but found no mention of 'Seqiris', and was a bit disappointed to learn that the 5BC 'star' seems to have being a comet, and not the interesting nova that the BBC (or maybe Channel 4) had claimed in a program a few years ago. I won't bore you with why a comet is less interesting to me than a nova, beyond saying that it seems to me for various complicated reasons that a nova would make it more likely Jesus was historic, and despite being an unbeliever, I usually feel it's more interesting if he is historic. But in any case, it would have little or no relevance to this article on the Tacitus stuff. Hopefully next time I will be better able to resist the urgings of my Guardian Devil :) Tlhslobus (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, per WP:Forum I can not continue that discussion on the star, Brodie, etc., given that it has no bearing on this article, but is a general discussion on gospel accounts. We could have had a fun discussion on this under other circumstances, given that today is the day for a nice drink (or two), but per WP:Forum we must avoid it - I mean avoid the discussion, not the drink or two. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right, and you and WP:Forum have thus thankfully saved me from my Guardian Devil's demand that I should add a few more lengthy 'just-these-last-and-then-I'll-shut-up' paragraphs on the lack of mention of various agnostic positions on the matter, and the relevance of notions like simulated reality, and the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics :) I hope you enjoyed your drink or two :) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:Solemnity will come in play as well as WP:Forum soon, so discussions need to end in any case... History2007 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)