Peter Kirby

If you're not sure at all, mark 'not sure at all'.

If you think the passage is not genuine Tacitus, mark 'not genuine Tacitus'.

If you think the passage has no source but Tacitus's imagination, mark 'made up by Tacitus'.

If you think the passage has an oral source, mark 'Oral source - Christian' or 'Oral source - not-Christian.'

If you think the passage has a written source, mark 'Written source - secular', 'Written source - Josephus', or 'Written source - Christian'.

If your thoughts are not easily encompassed by these poll options, either do not vote or vote for the closest option, and then post about that in this thread.

Peter Kirby

I voted that Tacitus's source is Josephus.

Solitary Man

I'm inclined, at first, to agree. Surely more studies need to be done.

Doug Shaver

I suspect that it's not genuine, but if it is genuine, then his source was an oral Christian report.

2-J

In my opinion, the fake insertion of Jesus into Josephus is much more what we might expect to see in a forgery, than what we see in the Tacitus.

The Tacitus is quite restrained by comparison. Whoever inserted Jesus into Josephus couldn't help make Josephus be amazed at Jesus, but the very fact we can still sensibly debate the Tacitus is indication that it's genuine (i.e., not later inserted). I don't believe early Christian forgers would have been that sophisticated. And what do they gain from it? As we've seen it's sensible to interpret this as just Christian hearsay over 70 years after the death of Jesus.

aa5874

The word "Jesus" is all over the writings of Josephus, in Antiquities, Wars and the Life of Josephus. It is the word "Christ" that is the forgery in 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 of Antiquities of the Jews. And the word "Jesus" is nowhere in Tacitus' "Annals".

And further Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus all wrote that the Messiah, as written in Daniel, was expected by the Jews, at around 70 CE, not during the days of Tiberius.

Also Josephus made commentaries on the book of Isaiah and never mentioned one single time that there was an expectation by the Jews of the Messiah to be born of a virgin, or that Isaiah made any prediction of Jesus coming during the days of Pilate.

See Antiquities of the Jews 10.1-2, where Josephus made no link whatsoever of Jesus of Nazareth to the writings of Isaiah, and Antiquities of the Jews 10.10.1 where Josephus made commentaries on the book of Daniel and never referred to any one named Jesus at any time.

Doug Shaver

I don't see why. There is no reason to assume that all Christian scribes were as boneheaded as the one who did the TF.

patcleaver

Peter thanks for asking, but I had to vote "Not Sure" because I think you are asking the wrong question.

I think your asking the wrong question because you are forcing people to select which option they think is the most probable option even if they think that the most probably option really has a very low probability of being true.

A better question, for example, "what do you guess are the probabilities of the various possibilities, and why?"

Is there any way to set up a poll to ask for a breakdown in the probabilities by possibility?

I am guessing the following probabilities:

by Tacitus - Made up_______________________________10%
by Tacitus from oral source - non-Christian______________1%
by Tacitus from oral source - Christian_________________10%
by Tacitus from written source - Imperial records_________0%
by Tacitus from written source - Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3_4%
by Tacitus from written source - Luke 24.19-21,25-27_____5%
by Tacitus from written source - other Christian__________20%
Tacitus is a medieval forgery_________________________20%
Annals 15.44 is interpolated - made up________________10%
Annals 15.44 is interpolated from an oral source________15%
Annals 15.44 is interpolated from another written source__10%

The proponent of any position has the burden of proving that position is more likely then not, unless that burden is unfair, for example, if his opponent has tampered with the evidence or is withholding the evidence or is hiding the evidence.

Tacitus 15.44 is not reliable unless it was written by Tacitus and is based on imperial records. Someone who claims that Tacitus 15.44 is reliable has the burden of proving that his position is more likely then the sum of the probabilities of all the other possibilities put together.

It is a silly claim because it is impossible to meet that burden of proof.

Solitary Man

Tacitus is a medieval forgery at 20%!!!!

Peter Kirby

Not in the VBulletin software used by IIDB, no. Probably not in most generic polling utilities for other websites, although certainly (at least) possible to do with either custom software or a modified utility.

I wonder, however, about the real advantages of asking people to produce a probability distribution versus asking them for a single answer. The primary advantage seems to be that those who would assign probabilities for their most likely option something below 50% can anwer something other than "not sure" in good conscience. The secondary advantage is that those who are not forced to vote "not sure," but have a definite option above the rest, also get to register their second-place vote.

Personally, I like these advantages. There seems to me to be, though, a real disadvantage, viz.--people who are really not sure of the case might be inclined to spread around numbers without meaning. Giving a 20% chance to Tacitus being a medieval forgery, a 35% chance to the passage being an interpolation, and then distributing probabilities summing up to 45% for the origin of the statement in a genuine Tacitus, strikes me as confused. I can countenance the person who might split his vote 50/50 between the types of oral sources for Tacitus, or the person who is quite sure that the passage is a Christian creation and thus regards it as either an interpolation or part of a larger fabricated work. But the person who has fine theories about the origin of Tacitus's statement who also assigns a 55% chance to the idea of it not being Tacitus, is like a confused evolutionary biologist who pontificates on Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism--they're both patently false to the unconfused evolutionary biologist, so it should be a case of none of one, half of nothing of the other.

It seems to be a case of pleasing every theory with its percentage-due, which ends up really pleasing no theory and shedding no light on the subject.

Nevertheless, the polling mechanism allowing either ranked order or split votes strikes me as eminently reasonable, due to the real advantages (and despite the mentioned disadvantage), and I might like to implement it.