spamandham

Thanks for digging that up. But it still only addresses part of the issue. Does it make sense to lean heavily on another written work, when you have direct access to eye witnesses?

But more importantly, does the 'us' in Luke 1 mean 'myself and you all' or does it mean 'our group'.

spamandham

Of course it has nothing to do with English. The point was not that the English is grammatically incorrect, but rather, that I'm working from a translation, and recognize there may be relevant nuances in the original that I'm overlooking. That's the only reason I've mentioned the word 'English' at all.

We are discussing two possibilities:

a) The 'us' refers to the writer himself and his audience
b) The 'us' refers to the group they belong to

What I'm saying, is that by mentioning eye witnesses, but not naming them, (b) is the more natural interpretation.

In Acts 6:14, "For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and shall the customs which Moses delivered us", the exact same Greek word, ἡμῖν, is used in a context in which it can only mean "our group", so my interpretation is reasonable.

I read this to mean that Tacitus is attempting to bolster the strength of his claim by pointing out that it originated in eye witness testimony. He is not claiming to have interviewed those eye witnesses, to have ever spoken to them, or to even know who they are.

Tacitus is writing in the same way I'm suggesting Luke is - a claim that his work is rooted in eye witness testimony, but not a claim that he himself knew those eye witnesses.

Ben C Smith

Neither is the more natural interpretation. The words used cannot bear the meaning or implication you are trying to assign them.

Absolutely. And so is the other interpretation, as when in Eusebius, History of the Church 2.15.1-2, direct hearers of Peter ask Mark to write down the teachings that Peter had delivered to them [αυτοις].

Tacitus knows more about these eyewitnesses than that. He says that these eyewitnesses are still now (nunc) passing this story along. Even if he is simply lying, his words imply that he knows something about these people; he knows that they are still telling the tale. Besides, we know that somebody was relating this tale; Tacitus did not make it up (Josephus and Suetonius both mention it). IOW, Tacitus had to have a source, and he does not tell us who it was.

Speaking of Josephus, he writes concerning a certain celestial phenomenon: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signs (refer to Wars 6.5.3 §288-299). So Josephus does not name his alleged witnesses, either.

I suppose you could invent a new rule of history: Whenever witnesses are not named, no witnesses were actually known to the author. But what would you do with the myriads of modern journalistic references to what witnesses say or what those close to the President report? Are all journalists who attribute their stories to anonymous witnesses simply lying? Or is the rule perhaps misguided?

Ben.

Doug Shaver

They would scarcely have done themselves any good trying to deny Jesus' existence. What do you think the Christian reaction would have been if any Jew had tried that?

Even if some Jews believed that Jesus was a figment of Christian imagination, what proof might they have offered? What kind of evidence for Jesus' nonexistence was in their possession that they could have showed their accusers? And how would the accusers have responded if any Jews had produced any such evidence?

aa5874

Who would have witnessed Vespasian using SPIT to cause and did make a blind person to see?

The witnesses are not anonymous but non-existent.

Ben C Smith

There always have been and still are plenty of people who claim to be eyewitnesses of miracles. This is true whether or not miracles happen.

Ben.

aa5874

So, you would expect Tacitus to name the witnesses who falsely claimed Vespasian used SPIT to cure an anonymous blind, just as anonymous authors produced witnesses [the disciples]that saw Jesus use SPIT to make the blind see?

And by the way, SPIT miracles, like those of Vespasian and Jesus, NEVER happened.

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if this claim isn't cut from the same cloth as your "Kings were never presented as exorcists" one.

Jeffrey

DaBuster

Not quite. If Tacitus was relating a story he actually heard, then the witnesses existed but lied about what they had seen – i.e. they are anonymous false witnesses.

Toto

Claiming that there are witnesses, but not naming them, is one of the hallmarks of urban legends, I believe. "You don't believe it? Well there are witnesses - or someone who knows someone who actually saw this."