Chris Weimer

Is there any? The gospels are often used as evidence as to when Jesus lived, i.e. around the reign of Pilate. And since the gospels were written so close to when Jesus lived, that would make them fairly credible - right? A little circularity there, no?

So what other evidence is there that Jesus lived in the 1st centry CE.

Well, I suppose we have Josephus and Tacitus - those are both problematic.

Considering the circumstances of the TF, I generally regard the entire thing as fabricated. The more I look into, the less of a real reference is made. Personally, I find the arguments for it being spurious far more convincing than the arguments for some of it being recoverable. (I hope everyone is familiar with Peter Kirby's website)

And the 20.9.1 reference is equally dubious, though I find Kirby a bit too lenient with it. The note looks and feels just like a marginal gloss, and if the TF is totally fake, then this is even more dubious.

Tacitus may be a problem, but again we're arguing with circles. Carlson claims that Tacitus borrowed from Josephus - I find his case not compelling. In fact, I find it very weak. Going back to Josephus, the passage is definitely not Josephan - the language is not his and it doesn't fit the surrounding text. Merely listing vague parallels (and weak ones at that) doesn't constitute a strong case, no matter how you decide to dress it up. The latter half of the "parallels" don't even fit at all. In fact, they contradict each other. Josephus said that the disciples did not abandon him at all, while Tacitus said they were down for a moment, but then broke out later. The only thing that parallels is the name Christ and the penalty under Pilate.

So where did Tacitus get his information from? Well, weren't Christians around that time starting to affirm the historical Jesus? Tacitus obviously did not rely on imperial records, as Carlson does get right, since Pilate was given the wrong title. Perhaps he heard if from elsewhere? Surely, out of all the Christians being interrogated, not one would say anything about the founding of their "superstition"? Is it that improbable that Mark, speculated by many to have its origin in Rome, was never picked up by an educated Roman, by any historian, even if discarded later as trash?

Overall, I find the case for Josephus and Tacitus to be flimsy and not compelling at all.

jgibson000

Have you done any work in Tacitus regarding his use of titles for Roman officials and whether or not he is alone among the other historians of his age in using what appears to be an anachronism?

I think that unless you have, you have no right to speak of what is "obvious" and what is "wrong".

Jeffrey.

Chris Weimer

If you have something substantial to say, by all means, say it. If you have an argument, let us hear it. If I'm wrong, please do point it out to me. This sniping whenever you get a chance is not very professional of you, Jeff, even if you're only dealing with amateurs.

jgibson000

I said what I meant to and it's not sniping. It's an honest question.

After all, wouldn't you agree that anyone who has not done any work in how Tacitus uses titles and how his practices tacks up against that of other historians of his age (and therefore investigated whether there was or was not a certain acceptable fluidity of usage with respect to those titles) has no real right to say with any certainty that Tacitus was wrong in how he desigates Pilate?

If not, why not?

Jeffrey

Kosh

Jeffrey, why don't you share with us about what you know regarding how Tacitus uses titles?

Ben C Smith

Well, that and the parallel of what Josephus calls accepting the truth with pleasure (probably implying gullibility) and what Tacitus calls a harmful superstition. As well as the Jewish origin of the superstition followed immediately by a statement in both historians of its wider appeal (the Greeks in Josephus, all the way to Rome in Tacitus; that would be personal knowledge of the sect, as reflected in his passage about Nero and the fire). And also the explicit statements in both historians that the movement did not die with its founder. And the specific notice in each that the movement was named for its founder.

Not to mention that it is very difficult to imagine Tacitus writing the Judean sections of his Annals without having read Josephus in the first place, the latter writing in Rome, among the upper classes, with a personal acquaintance of three successive Roman emperors.

Perhaps (though we would never know that Christians under interrogation ever talked about the earthly Jesus from Pliny). Yet somehow the information gleaned from these Christians just happened not to exceed on any side the information written up by Josephus.

Josephus nowhere either affirms or denies that the disciples abandoned Jesus, however briefly. What he says is that they did not stop loving him. Fleeing possible arrest, while not exactly the path of a hero, is not the same as ceasing to love the one arrested.

Moreover, if the testimonium in Josephus really did have some parallel to the third controversial phrase (about the resurrection, perhaps worded as we find it in Agapius), then the very reason (γαÏ?) for the love continuing to the present day is expressly recorded as having happened on the third day after the execution. In other words, even in Josephus the movement was checked, in effect, for at least two days.

Case in point. Mark presents much more information than can be gleaned from Josephus, does he not? Yet none of that treasury of information made it into Tacitus. All that made it into the Annals can be effortlessly drawn from Josephus.

Ben.

jgibson000

Not my job. For I wasn't the one who claimed -- in flatly saying that Tacitus was wrong -- the expertise in this matter.

Jeffrey

Kosh

then why don't you show us how he is wrong by telling us what you know?

Here, you can have the talking stick.

Vorkosigan

Probably because, as your explanation demonstrates, your attack on Chris' credentials is simply an ad hom smokescreen. The fact that Tacitus may or may not have used titles loosely does not invalidate Chris' observation -- indeed, an observation made by everyone who works with this passage -- that Tacitus appears to get the title wrong. That is a bare fact. You might be able to complexify the case with an appeal to Tacitean habits, but you can't remove that bare fact.

If your purpose here is to demonstrate that NT scholars are fine fellows who rely on appeals to methodology and evidence rather than arguments from authority, may I respectfully suggest that you either change your approach or get someone else to represent NT scholars Because at the moment, the stink you are going to leave behind when you depart in a huff isn't going to help matters.

Vorkosigan

jgibson000

But I didn't say he was wrong. I only asked what the basis was upon which he was as sure as he apparently was that he was correct in his claim.

I apologize for conveying anything but this.

Jeffrey