A discussion on Tacitus

[James Hannam]

Occasionally, someone who knows what they are talking about blunders into the Secular Web's discussion board. A new poster FathomFFI (an agnostic but I know nothing else about them), has been giving the mythers a hard time here:

iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=246288

I found his discussion of Tacitus quite interesting and it is also worthwhile to see the hardbangers getting upset.

Best wishes

James

[sandwiches]

Thanks. I found it really interesting too. The Jesus mythologists have always been a bit puzzling - the determination that black is white. Which is simpler that Jesus existed or that he was invented and the myth was believed in an incredibly short space of time and that all references outside the Gospels were forged? Incredible really and amusing when they are shown up so clearly.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a Christ-myther or anything close: I think that the NT gospels are generally accurate, Paul and Hebrews offer useful supplements as to early Christian beliefs, and Josephus (including the Arabic Testamonium) provides all the independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and activity necessary.

That said, I don't think that the Tacitus reference adds much of anything worthwhile to our knowledge of the so-called historical Jesus. Although Tacitus had access to Senatorial archives and previous historians, it's doubtful that he actually did independent research to confirm his two lines of Latin about Jesus. True, Fathom cites a number of places where Tacitus cites an imperial source for his information. But we can't plausibly generalize from these to the conclusion that Tacitus always checked his facts. The citations simply offered some authority on the particular facts for which they are cited

And the origins of a Judean superstitio is not the sort of topic where he would have reason to check them. After all, the details of Claudius' freedmen's machinations behind the scenes and Nero's sexual escapades (for example) were far more interesting to Tacitus' elite Roman readers; since his readers already had some preconceptions about imperial acts, Tacitus was more likely to spend hours checking his facts on these than on an annoying Judean mystery-religion. Tacitus cites no source for his note on Jesus because (unlike the other events that Fathom details) Jesus' ministry wasn't a big enough deal for him to appeal to a previous authority. (Two related points: (1) the subject of Annals 15.44, and the object of his readers' interest is really Nero, not the Christians; his elite Roman readers were far more likely to check his information on the emperor, not the pissant superstitio. (2) If an elite reader did become amused by Christianity and want to learn more, he would probably check not Roman records about the crucifixion, but with a Christian or someone who knew a Christian. That's how one checked on the origins of a religion in Rome: their origins were considered to belong to the realm of orally transmitted stories, not to that of verifiable historical events.)

Fathom seems to assume that like a 19th-century German historian Tacitus would take pains to make sure every detail was accurate. Tacitus would not. And this goes particularly for founder-figures he mentions. All you need to do is look at what he says about the founding of Rome (Annals 1.1.1: was Rome actually ruled by kings from the beginning as Tacitus confidently declares? there were no contemporary writings to check from, and Livy, a far less painstaking historian, himself expresses doubts about the accuracy of his data for the era of the kings!). Tacitus' discussion of Judaism is riddled with transparent errors and rumors (which he sometimes cites as such), though it's more accurate than other Greco-Roman accounts (Histories 5.3-5). There's no way he checked trustworthy sources (like Josephus) for his fairly lengthy account of the Jews, which was a far more significant social group than the Christians and therefore received more attention. Why then would Tacitus bother to check any existing records on the Christians, whom he mentions just once? (On the other hand, the exact title of Pilate is also insignificant; Roman governors could hold multiple titles, especially at different points in their position.)

I therefore conclude that Tacitus (like, e.g., Lucian later in the second century) simply reproduced the Christian story of their founder without checking for his accuracy. After all, if these weird Christians wanted to proclaim that their founder was a crucified Galilean (neither of which was very flattering), why dispute them? The point is that All that the reference really tells us is that the Christian etiology of their own religion in no way struck Tacitus as implausible.

[sandwiches]

ANONYMOUS GUEST - That was interesting and thought-provoking too. Evidently you are not a "Christ-myther" - much too thoughful and logical and not even faintly ridiculous.
To truly judge the value of Tacitus as to the existence of Jesus does indeed require a knowledge of his work and approach and readership which is beyond me. As one with a legal background I had always assumed that the reference in Tacitus was too distant in time and with no reference to the source to be meanigful as a piece of "direct" evidence as to the existence of Jesus (ie one would not bring it out in a legal case as too weak unless one were desperate ).
But then I have never really felt His existence needed such evidence. Who would have invented such a figurehead for their religion? Why write so many Gospels with such apparent variation in the detail. Nevertheless the Tacitus reference is evidence against a Jesus myth in that is it not pretty much what one would expect at this sort of date (as Fathom brings out) in a Roman writer? ie some sort of hideous Jewish branch-off barely conceivable to a decent (ampitheatre-going, slave-owning) respectable Roman citizen. Just something to be referred to in passing during a description odf the excesses of Nero - excesses which were so barbaric that they even inspired sympathy for these ridiculous Christians? Rather like Josephus refers to the execution of Jesus during his description of the excesses of Pilate. I.e. these are the kind of references one would expect - by those indifferent to Jesus but aware of something of the beliefs ( by hearsay of some sort) of his growing band of adherents. Ie they are very unlikely to be Christian interpolations.
If anything these kind of references merely increase my awe that an apparently obscure Galilean preacher who had died years before such references continued to have this effect and increase my sense of disbelief (as one whose background and interests are in law and history) that anyone could imagine that the references themselves are anything other than one would expect if Jesus were a genuine historical figure much in line with the depiction in the Gospels (whether or not one views Him as the Son of God).

[bjorn]

I think we can say more than that. Tacitus had at least no indication that Jesus had not lived, or that Pontius Pilate had not been responsible. And I do find it plausible that he at least would have checked if these notorious "superstitious" people, had managed to get the Roman official right (and indirectly I also think that leads to the plausibility that he may have checked if he really was responsible).

To put it short: I find it far more reasonable to believe Tacitus wrote History also here, than just repeating hearsay. It may have started as hearsay, however, then, he would have done a small bit of checking to see if it had any connection to reality, e.g. if PP and J had any connection.

Anyhow, I find the hole J-myth theory a bit of a hoot. The present wave, which I elsewhere have coined the Fifth Quest for the Non Historical Jesus, started with Wells in the 70's and is the first time more than a few have been convinced.

Still, it is hard to see it as more than a convenient trick to annoy Christians and avoid dealing with arguments further down the line (e.g. the Quintlemma or The Resurrection). It is part of Stirring up Christians 101. It leads to so many, perpetual and fruitless bickerings that I think most J-mythers laugh loudly behind the scenes.

How much of a dogma (and an arrogant one as well) is has become in some circles, is properly revealed in this thread.

[Anonymous]

sandwiches,

Agreed on every point. As I said, Tacitus adds nothing to our knowlege of Jesus. He does tell us something about what the Roman elite thought about Christianity ca. AD 110. Of course Tacitus found "Christus'" existence plausible enough; lots of Judeans were executed under Roman rule. True, not a lot of them founded sustainable religions; but if this weird superstitious adherents wanted to claim a crucified Judean (not exactly the most prestigious of identifiers) as their God, why dispute it? (But at the same time, why check the accuracy of their claim?)

As to your increased awe at Christianity's success in spite of the shame of a crucified savior, remember that there weren't a lot of elite Romans among first- and early-second century Christians. Recent studies have continually concluded that Christians tended to be (a) poor and (b) Judean, Greek or otherwise eastern Mediterranean in ethnic origin (see, e.g. Peter Lampe's excellent work (From Paul to Valentinus, English translation 2003) on the Christians of Rome in the first two centuries). With Tacitus' readers and the early church, we're not talking about the same audiences.

bjorn,

You are of course free to disagree. My conclusions come from years of studying the methods and accuracy of ancient historians (although admittedly I've done more work on Greek than Latin ones).

Generally, when describing a religion of foreign provenance, ancient historians simply repeated what that religion's adherents themselves and/or what other members of his own culture (in Tacitus' case, Romans) said or had written about it. They didn't consult documents to back up their claims; this emphasis on using using documents to learn the events of the distant past developed only in the 17th-19th centuries (on which point, James will back me up). So I judge based on Tacitus' research priorities and on his inaccurate account, of a far more significant religion in his day (the Jews, an account he could have corrected simply by acquiring a copy of the Septuagint--and yes, Tacitus read Greek--every educated Roman of his day did) and conclude that Tacitus probably did not do any research beyond learning what Christians said about themselves.

As for the Pilate reference, Tacitus of course had access to Senatorial records and other histories that touched on Pilate's career. But again, this wasn't an important enough detail to warrant going all the way to the house of archives to look at them. Ancient historians simply did not bother to check every little detail; even the best of them, Thucydides, has been proven through study of other documentation to have made errors that a little more inquiry of the right people would have illuminated. And given the insignificance of Christianity in his day, this was a little detail to Tacitus.

As for the Jesus myth, I agree with you that it's a total waste of time. The only professional historian I know of who is even considering it is Richard Carrier--and Carrier has written that his flirtation with the theory only developed because specialists in early Christianity have not bothered to answer Earl Doherty and defend Jesus' existence.

Which is a pretty bad reason; the question needs to be whether the synoptic gospels', John's, Paul's and Josephus' independent authority are enough to establish his existence. And all four are accurate enough in what we can check to put a heavy burden of proof on anyone arguing against Jesus' existence. Even a careful researcher like Doherty must knock down each of these authorities by interpreting a lot of NT passages in unusual and implausible ways to establish a consistent Christ-myth. His readings are too tortuous to convince me, even if Carrier was predisposed to believe him. (Granted, Christianus sum. Sed simul historicus sum.)

[bjorn]

Interesting thoughts, though I find it all perhaps a bit too much generalising from other Historians when Tacitus himself insisted he tried to write in a different way.

However that may be, I have personally never used Tacitus as a source for the existence of Jesus.

Anyone denying the largest elephant in the room - the New Testament - as cointaining more than sufficient sources for the fact that Jesus at least existed, will not fall for Tacitus or other non NT sources.

As shown by the case where video proof of police officers beating up Rodney King was explained piecewise away by lawyers, any source can be undermined and discredited. It is just a question of motive and stubborness.

[Anonymous]

bjorn,

I agree with you on the biggest elephant in the room; the NT cannot just be dismissed as "biased," while Tacitus or another non-Christian is labelled as "objective." "Bias" often has little to do with accuracy. Instead, the historian needs to look at _all_ the available contemporary evidence to check on the plausibility of historical propositions.

Yes, Tacitus claims to aim at truth. But again, pretty much all ancient historians starting from Thucydides (and before him Herodotus implicitly) claimed to aim at truth, and claimed to do better at it than their predecessors. We can't take such claims in Tacitus at face value; they were a standard rhetorical trope. Instead, we have to ask how plausible it is that, for his particular statement about Jesus (Annals 15.44), Tacitus sought independent corroboration from Roman sources. And Tacitus' particular procedures (not those of ancient historians generally) for writing about founder figures (like the Roman kings and the Jews) do not indicate that he looked at any contemporary documents, as Fathom claims. And unlike 19th-century German "scientific historians," Tacitus in particular did not check every fact (see, e.g., Ronald Mellor's assessment in Tacitus (Routledge: 1993), ch.2, esp. pp. 31-40).

However, the more important issue is that we do agree that even discounting Tacitus' testimony, the NT cannot be dismissed. Jesus is too deeply embedded in the NT to be made up; at least three streams of independent testimony (Mark, Paul, and John--I'm a Q skeptic) assume his words and activities, and agree on enough of the basic facts to assure his existence.

[Petersean]

That was a very interesting thread, although I'm amazed at the level of wooden arguments that I saw, e.g., "superstition" means fiction, "docetism" means fiction, etc.

Based on the arguments presented, I'm inclined to agree that Tacitus sourced his observation in some Roman source. After all, thus far all I have to go on is Tacitus' stated plan and his apparent practice and no evidence to the contrary. I was also impressed by the response to the question about Tacitus' being able to source his claims about omens in Roman documents.

Of course, outside of the argument, my gut - without more - argues that Tacitus was simply recapitulating Christian claims about themselves. That seems logical in that Tacitus is aware of Christians as a distinct group and is aware of at least one bit of information that could not be found in an official Roman source - i.e., that Christians claimed to follow Christ (although it may have been found in a Roman source, namely Pliny.)

It seems to me that the significance of Tacitus is:

1. Christians were a substantially significant group in Rome at the time of Nero as to warrant being singled out for repression.

2. Christians were sufficiently well-known at the time of Tacitus for their origin story to be somewhat known to aristocratic Romans, and

3. No one was even hinting at the idea by Tacitus' time that Christ was anything other than a historical figure.

If this was the only evidence we had, it seems to me that this evidence would indicate that the notion that Christ was a myth is itself an "after-invented" myth.

[James Hannam]

Thinking about things a little more deeply, I agree with Sandwiches and Anon that Tacitus tells us nothing we didn't already know. He is interesting for his two line summary of Christianity from a Roman point of view in 110AD.

However, if we are arguing with Jesus Mythers he does provide independent colloboration of what Christians were saying in 110AD. Remember, this is prior to the date that many mythers think the NT was written and it is certainly prior to the formation of the canon. Thus Tacitus requires that an outside observer should have no inkling that Jesus was not a real person. This is not an automatic defeater for the Myther thesis, but it is a very serious problem.

Best wishes

James

[TheistusMaximus]

Aye...... Tacitus is particularly devastating to the mythicist position, as I have yet to see any real objections to it's validity.

There is he existing manuscripts before the 10th century, but that of course applies to quite a lot of antiquity.