SDS

Jesus was a real dude.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0480Barabbas.html

Chris Weimer

Not quite. Superstitiones was the Roman label like our "cult" - it implies a dangerous religious group. That has nothing to do with gullibility at all.

That's quite a stretch there, isn't it? Regardless, there isn't any dependency on Tacitus' part there.

This is tied together with the name Christ and is easily logically deduced from both of them without the need for dependency.

Irrelevant. This presupposes the conclusion that it was there in the first place.

Again this presupposes that the Josephan passage came first.

I fear that you read a modern interpretation into this text. Surely, one who loved this man would not forsake him neither? That the disciples did not stop loving Jesus tells us absolutely nothing. That they didn't forsake him is strong words indeed.

Two things: 1 - again this presupposes Josephus. There's no evidence that Josephus himself was first. 2 - there's more from Josephus than there is in Tactius.

The only thing relevant to Roman authors would be the death of the leader at the hands of a Roman, especially if they found the rest of the story ridiculous.

Chris Weimer

I'm not sure - I'm never sure. In biblical studies, you can never be sure. This is a discussion, Jeffrey, not a paper. I'm raising a question, if you will, and perhaps I was a bit confusing on my words of certainty, but rest assured, I have none.

Chris Weimer

It gets better.

Say Tacitus is dependent on Josephus - who is Josephus dependent on? What historical source could Josephus have utilized, if he did so indeed, to gather his information about Jesus the Christ.

-----------------------------------

More on Tacitus - Why is it that Tacitus is only concerned with the name Christ and not Jesus, while Jesus is first in Josephus?

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps dependence can be found here - not Tacitus upon Josephus, but (the forger of ) Josephus on Tacitus. This argument definitely runs two ways.

Chris Weimer

Back to Ben for a sec.

I take that back. I think it does imply the disciples abandoned Jesus - why else would the author write that they didn't stop loving him. Would they normally stop loving him? Does Josephus use this kind of idea anywhere else? Is he ever this emotional with the followers of criminals of the state he is trying to please?

jgibson000

Where did I say anything about Chris's credentials?. All I've done is to ask about what methodology he employed to come to the conclusion that he did.

That he gets it wrong or that he only appears to get it wrong?

]

But the question is: Is it a bare fact? Have you yourself looked at such texts as Philo Legation to Gaius 38 or Josephus Jewish War 2.8.1 and 2,9.2 or the data gared on this matter by Murray Harris in his References to Jesus in Classical Authors in _Jesus Traditions Outside the Gospels? Or is your claim just based on an appeal to what has supposedly been made by ebeveryone who works with this passage.

In any case, I'm not complexifying the issue. I'm only attempting to raise the question of whether Tacitus appparently getting Pilate's title wrong is a good reason for diismissing Tacitus as a witness to the existence of Jesus. If Tacitus was loose in his use of the titles, and if he is only doing what others in his day were doing and using, as was common practice when refering to Roman provincial governors who were in power before 41 CE, an anachronism, it is not.

You mean like the one you employed above when instead of providing actual evidence that only PRAEFECTUS was used of a Roman Provincial governor before 41 CE, you noted that this is something that "everyone says"?

Umm, what on earth leads you to think that my "purpose" here, even assuming I had one, is what you say it might be?

But apologies if anything I've said has led you to believe that it is. I speak for myself and myself alone.

Jeffrey

countjulian

Perphaps Mark had not yet been written in 110 AD?

Chris Weimer

I've merely assumed that since no objection has been made on what I've said, that I should continue to assume I'm right.

So, was Tacitus loose in his titles? What are the circumstances that he is loose in them with. How does it effect the passages?

Vorkosigan

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have misread ".......has no real right to say with any certainty that Tacitus was wrong in how he designates Pilate?" to mean that you were implying that he had no real right to speak on the topic.

I can weasel with the best of 'em, Jeff.

Here's are two simple questions. What title does Tacitus give Pilate? Procurator. What title did Pilate actually hold? Prefect. No matter how you slice it, Tacitus is wrong, although Carrier has argued that both titles were used. In which case T. is only half wrong.

Yes, I realize that. But you seem to do it by attacking Chris.

I agree. It does weaken the effect of Tacitus' error to note that titles were often attributed erroneously.

You seem to have misread. It is widely agreed upon that Tacitus erred in attributing the wrong title to Pilate (how many citations would I need to establish this?). The fact that such confusions were not uncommon, does not mean that this error is not a strike against the passage. It simply reduces the effect of that strike. Recognizing the error, most scholarship then attempts to explain why T. made it, as Carlson did by pointing to the ambiguity in Josephus, or as Meier did in the article in Biblica a while back, arguing as I recall that it could be explained by abbreviation in the original record. Etc.

My mistake, of course.

Apologies if you felt insulted.

Michael

jgibson000

Have a look at Annals 15.25 and Tacitus' reference there to Roman governors around Syria in the time of Nero (i.e., well after Claudius' change of title for governors from Prefect to Procurator) as Prefects but to others (including apparently Judea) as Procurators.

And have a look at ILS 1358-59 which apparently shows that even as early as the time of Augustus the title of Procurator was in use of Roman governors and was used synonymously with Prefect.

Jeffrey