Chris Weimer

You can find the latest post from my blog here:

The Quest for the Historical Jesus, pt. 3
There are three early historians who are thought to mention Jesus Christ. The first is Josephus. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian writing once captured in Judaeo who then wrote for the emporers of Rome. He wrote in Aramaic and translated it himself into Greek, but all we have surviving is the Greek copy. He published his Antiquitates Iudaeorum (Antiquities of the Jews) in the early 90's CE. In it, he refers twice to Jesus Christ. However, the passages are very dubious and show clear signs of tampering. In fact, the first reference is so Christian, that it is often labelled the "Testimonium Flavianum" for its gospel-like message.

Perhaps the best survey of the passages is done by Peter Kirby at EarlyChristianWritings.com. In it he examines the both passages and evidence for and against their authenticity. His conclusion is typical - the first reference is spurious and the second contains an interpolation. I would have to agree with him on this.

More recently, some have challenged this. Notably, Stephen Carlson at Hypotyposeis suggests that some form of the TF must have been original since Tacitus uses it. Also, G. J. Goldberg makes a case that Josephus and Luke both used a proto-source for their information.

Well, concerning Josephus and Luke, it has been shown elsewhere that there Luke most likely had used Josephus independent of this examination. I currently have no doubt that Luke uses Josephus. However, I do not think the situation is so simple as it may seem. As Goldberg's theory may afford some evidence to an original TF, I still have my doubts.

Ken Olsen has been doing some research on this, and you can find our conversation on Xtalk about it. Ben C. Smith has also dared to rebut some of Olsen's claims as well.

That the passage is entirely spurious, I find on Peter's site that arguments 5-11 are the most convincing. It was, in fact, those arguments that led me from thinking that it was merely corrupted to entirely spurious, especially 5 and 8. That the passages sticks out like a whale in the jungle (pardon my metaphor) is always the first sign of an interpolation. (Well, second sign - the first is absence in some manuscripts).

So what of Luke and Tacitus then? This is difficult. To be certain, there are no certainties here. It's merely guesswork, hypothesizing, and scratching of head and chin. Actually, I am still undecided entirely. I like what Ben has done, but find that Ken Olsen's dismissal makes more plausible sense. What if the parallels are merely imagined? Odd coincidence for those that seem like real parallels? Especially noted is that Tacitus seems to not know Antiquitates at all, instead relying on Bellum Iudaeorum (War of the Jews).

Also, there is something odd about passage in Tacitus. When first reading it, it did not seem right to me - call it gut instinct. It was then I realized that others also have doubted it's authenticity. Having checked into it, there are only two qualities which seem unTacitean. There's the odd cut-off in Tacitus, which makes a short sentence (Tacitus is usually rather profuse with his words). The other being the alliteration which is rather unknown in Tacitus - "Tibero imPeritante Per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum suPPlicio Adfectus Erat". A user on IIDB made a rather impressive post in favor of forgery, and this is where I got it from. And of course, the Procurator/Prefect and Christ/Chrestian mismatches seem to nudge me as something wrong. What? I'm not sure. But something... Hopefully I'll have more on this sooner or later.

The last author is Suetonius, who in the Life of Claudius 25.4 we see, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." This is, however, a rather dubious connection to Jesus. When did Jesus instigate the Jews in Rome? However, we see later on, "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

At this time, I have no conclusion, not even a working hypothesis on how to solve this jungle of a puzzle. I am working on the possibilities, though, and will keep everyone updated on how that turns out.

Chris Weimer

Also, Kevin Edgecomb weighs in here.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for the post and this link, Chris. Good stuff.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Thanks Ben. I tried to be as even-handed as possible, since I really am not sure yet. I wanted to get this posted so I can move on to the more difficult parts of HJ research.

Chris

S.C.Carlson

It's all difficult.

Chris Weimer

Oh yes, what was I thinking... Actually, I should have said easier parts. This in particular is just frustrating.

Stephen, you've been in debate with Ken Olsen over this. Perhaps you can offer some more insight.

Chris

andrewcriddle

Although the claim is sometimes made that Tacitus avoids alliteration I'm not convinced it is correct. From a review of a translation of the Annals at
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-07-15.html

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

That's not near the scale of the passage in question. However, please bear in mind that I'm merely noting how it is unusual - it very well way me fullly Tacitean.

S.C.Carlson

I'm not sure how much I can add. My goal is to get the whole Tacitus-Josephus angle peer-reviewed and published to see what scholars do with it. Olson's dissertation is in this area, so he's still working on it.

My tentative conclusions are as follows:

(1) Some form of the TF is original to Josephus, possibly along the lines of the Agapius version but conceivably more negative to Christianity.

(2) The Tacitus bit is not an interpolation. Tacitus had access to Josephus's works in the imperial library. Although he generally did not use him and prefered other source, the reason he used Josephus to discuss Jesus is because it was his only source to do so. I doubt that Tacitus interviewed Christians for the information.

(3) There is probably some relationship between Luke and Josephus, but I have not decided how that goes. If Luke used Josephus, then Josephus is an independent, non-Christian source for Jesus, but Luke is post-93. If Josephus used Luke, then Luke is pre-93 and there is no independent, non-Christian source left for Jesus (since Tacitus used Josephus, too).

(4) Suetonius and perhaps the imperial records only really know of Nero's persecution of the "Chrestians." It is Tacitus who links the Chrestians to Christ, which Suetonius botched by calling him "Chrestus." (Tacitus could well be right, but he is the first of our sources to make that linkage explicit.)

Stephen

Vorkosigan

Had a few too many beers that night, eh Chris?