Minimalist

I'll stick with this until someone comes up with actual proof that he is wrong.

andrewcriddle

One of the problems with Tacitus is that the later part of book 5 of the Annals has been lost except for fragments. This covers the period of c 30-32 CE.

It is possible that some mention of Jesus occurred in this section.

Andrew Criddle

Zeichman

You may be interested:

From http://earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Toto

Is it more likely that

1) Christians neglected to preserve this book in spite of the fact that it mentioned Jesus?

or

2) Christians discarded this book because it failed to mention Jesus?

or

3) Christians discarded this book because its picture of Jesus was embarrassing or theologically problematic?

Steven Carr

Because journals of historical inquiry refuse to discuss the subject of the historical nature of Jesus of Nazareth, even when they are offered money to allow a debate to happen?

spin

When Mt 1:16 says "Jesus the christ", should that -- using exactly the same words as in the current text of Josephus -- be "Jesus the so-called christ"? Or when Simon is referred to as "Simon called Peter", should that be "Simon the so-called Peter"? Let's cut the "so-called" crap and realize that we are dealing with a phrase that is exactly like a gospel phrase.

Second, would Josephus have used a term normally meaning ointment (ie christos) to his Greek readers without supplying an explanation?

Third, when Josephus avoids all references to the messiah, including in a messianic prophecy which he says is fulfilled with Vespasian (though christos is used 40 times in the LXX), should we take Josephus's reference to Jesus as christ to be reflective of what Josephus actually wrote?

Fourth, is the grammatically contorted "the brother of Jesus called christ, James his name" a reflection on Josephus's language usage

• when he predominantly refers to people as son of someone,
• when he needs to qualify the qualifier (ie not just "the brother of Jesus" but "the brother of Jesus called christ", and worst of all, when he puts all the information about the qualifier in front of the person of interest, and
• when this fronting of the qualifying person only seems to happen when Josephus has very recently mentioned the qualifying person in his discourse?

It would seem that the whole phrase "the brother of Jesus called christ" is in fact an interpolation (and this phrase replaced something like "a man").


spin

Zeichman

"The Fourth R" is a popular magazine about religion, iirc, not an academic journal. The fact that Doherty and Price have been invited to participate in the upcoming "Jesus Project" is a strong testimony to the opposite.

Steven Carr

It is most strange that Josephus put the explanation of who James was before the name itself. If somebody writes 'by the name of X and some others', then we can be sure that the name is all the writer has to go on. Readers would rather learn who the some others were than what the name of James brother was. It is also well known that 'Jesus called the Christ' is the wording of Matthew 1:16. Also, a back-reference to 'Christ' is also problematic as the reference to 'Christ' in Antiquities 18 is itself regarded as dubious by many people.

How does Josephus refer back to people he has previously mentioned in those days when books had no indexes? Here he is going back two books, so readers will need more than a casual reference.

Judas of Galilee was first mentioned in 'Wars of the Jews' Book 2 Section 118 'Under his administration, it was that a certain Galilean , whose name was Judas , prevailed with his countrymen to revolt ; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans , and would, after God , submit to mortal men as their lords.'

Josephus refers to him again in Book 2 Section 433 as follows '"In the meantime one Manahem, the son of Judas , that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Quirinius , that after God they were subject to the Romans )" - considerable detail is included.

In Wars, Book 7 Section 533 we read about Judas again - "... Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews , as we have formerly related , not to submit to the taxation when Quirinius was sent into Judea to make one; ...' . So a change of book causes Josephus to say 'as formerly related'.

Judas was also in Antiquities 18 'Yet was there one Judas , a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt , who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty'.

Josephus referred back to Judas in Antiquities 20 'the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book .'

So Josephus usually put in detail and when he referred back from Ant. 20 to Ant. 18, he reminded the reader that it was in a different book. None of these factors apply to Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20. A Christian interpolator would naturally need not need to supply such detailed back-references. His readers would know exactly who Jesus called the Christ was.

spin

However, Lowder's arguments are extremely weak.

1. Tacitus clearly knows when Judea was administered by procurators, yet this passage calls Pontius Pilate a procurator when he should have been called a prefect, and, given Tacitus's knowledge in the area, including when procurators received magistrate's powers, this would an incredible error for Tacitus.
2. Tacitus has just written a beautifully vicious but subtle attack on Nero over the fire, yet the passage in question which naturally enough follows immediately on the fire, is a gross piece of sensationalism which changes the focus from Nero's presumed responsibility for the fire, to the horrendous treatment of the christians who earn the sympathy of the crowd, a sensationalism quite uncharacteristic of Josephus.
3. I haven't got a clue what Lowder is referring to by "the Latin style". The passage neither reflects Tacitus in tone nor in linguistic ability. Just consider "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontius Pilatus supplicio adfectus erat". Spray that again, Batman!
4. The silly argument about "the anti-Christian tone of the passage" simply says that a christian interpolator would not have the capacity to write something he would consider in the "tone" of Tacitus.

It is very hard to contemplate the veracity of such passages when they have been preserved by means of christian scribes who have been known to interpolate and massage texts. Who controls the present controls the past.


spin

Toto

The Jesus Project is a radical departure in the NT field. To quote Brian Flemming: Yes, a bit of hyperbole, but having been involved in this debate for some time, I can assure you that if there are no peer reviewed journal articles on mythicism, it is equally true that there are no peer reviewed journal articles that refute mythicism. Most scholars hide behind the excuse that "it's not a question that interests me," or claim that the question was settled at some time in the past; or admit that they can't prove that Jesus existed, and then go on to assume that he did.