Josephus' TF the source for Tacitus' reference to Jesus?

[Peter Kirby]

his account of the Jewish War is not based on Flavius Josephus.

This would be a very salient point, in the context of this thread.

What you have highlighted does not seem to contradict the point I've made in this thread (which is that a name would most likely have been used if it were known as the name...). Nothing speaks to an attempt at precision or accuracy in your quote (except, as it so happens, positively, in parts not highlighted, from the very same quote... "maximum chronological clarity," "his information about the campaigns themselves appears to be comparatively accurate," "wrote letters to people who could tell him more," "pretty accurately renders a speech by Claudius").

We should be careful about reading anything into the statements made by secondary sources when they may be emphasizing quite different aspects (than that which we are interested in) based on different evidence (than what we ourselves our interested in). And we also of course must be especially careful about any very glittering statements or sweeping generalizations in secondary sources generally ("not a real historian," for example, whatever that means). A slightly better way to understand this paragraph and its emphasis, if it is accepted in the first place, would be....

This brings us to the vexed question: what sources were used by Tacitus? We know that he wrote letters to people who could tell him more - two letters from Pliny the Younger, concerning the eruption of the Vesuvius, survive - but he must have used other sources of information as well. He pretty accurately renders a speech by Claudius, which has survived as an inscription. The idea that he checked the state's archives, has by now been rejected; and he sometimes quotes authors like Pliny the Elder. Still, it is remarkable that he was capable of ignoring important sources as well - his account of the Jewish War is not based on Flavius Josephus. Essentially, Tacitus' sources are an unsolved riddle - which is less surprising than it seems: he was not [primarily] a real historian [as his purpose for writing], but a moralist.

[John2]

toejam,

I think Tacitus may have at least known of the writings of Josephus, because both of them mention the prophecy that foretold the rise of Vespasian and the heavenly signs that foretold the destruction of the Temple (cf. War 6.5.3-4 and Tacitus Hist. 5.13).

The existence of the TF (and whether Tacitus knew of it or something like it) is more complicated, of course, and all the more so, I think, because of Goldberg's observation that the TF has parallels with the Emmaus narrative in Luke 24:19-27.

http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

The language and ordering of the information in Luke 24 does look something like the TF, and my suspicion is that this information may have come from Josephus (and not a common source that was used by both, as Goldberg speculates), whether it was the TF as we know it or not, given Mason's idea that Luke generally did use Josephus.

And I have a hard time believing that, out of all the possible verses in all the gospels, Eusebius (or Pamphilus, or whoever) happened to use Luke 24 to create the TF.

At the same time, it is curious (and suspicious) that no one mentions the TF before Eusebius, and how the wording of the TF also bears certain resemblances to his style. I would like to say that it's all cut and dried, that the first one to mention it is the one who made it up (i.e., Eusebius), but Goldberg's observation is interesting and makes me question this.

[Peter Kirby]

Goldberg's observation that the TF has parallels with the Emmaus narrative in Luke 24:19-27.

Paul Hopper's thesis incidentally would explain this, as well as another 'parallel' in Justin Martyr.* Credal summaries would tend to be similar in outline.

* http://www.textexcavation.com/testimonium.html

[Blood]

There is an allegation/assertion that this text was not named "Annals", however, until 1544, by Beatus Rhenanus.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php? ... 87.25;wap2

and

... Rev. Taylor ... suspected the 15.44 passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.

I didn't realize that. Very interesting indeed.

[John2]

Peter,

Thanks for the links. I didn't see anything in them concerning Justin Martyr, though I did find a reference via the second link that compares the TF to (among other things) "Dialogue," but this is said to refer to something called "Dialogue: Religious Dialogue at the Sassanid Court (century V or VI)."

http://www.textexcavation.com/testimoniuminterface.html

Another link discusses Goldberg's idea and concludes:

"From this broad outline, as well as several other considerations that Goldberg mulls over in detail, it becomes apparent that there is some kind of literary relationship between Josephus and Luke at this juncture. Either Josephus has drawn from Luke, or Luke from Josephus, or both from some lost early Christian statement about Jesus."

http://www.textexcavation.com/goldbergc ... onium.html

[Peter Kirby]

The Annals are from Tacitus. No, I personally haven't enough time and interest to start building the demonstration of it here and now, but that doesn't change anything. The Annals are from Tacitus. The only thing that is needed is for people with sound mind and knowledge to publish online in order to counteract, specifically, the 'interesting' garbage that floats around. Would be nice if classics scholars stepped up here.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter,

Thanks for the links. I didn't see anything in them concerning Justin Martyr, though I did find a reference via the second link that compares the TF to (among other things) "Dialogue," but this is said to refer to something called "Dialogue: Religious Dialogue at the Sassanid Court (century V or VI)."

http://www.textexcavation.com/testimoniuminterface.html

Another link discusses Goldberg's idea and concludes:

"From this broad outline, as well as several other considerations that Goldberg mulls over in detail, it becomes apparent that there is some kind of literary relationship between Josephus and Luke at this juncture. Either Josephus has drawn from Luke, or Luke from Josephus, or both from some lost early Christian statement about Jesus."

http://www.textexcavation.com/goldbergc ... onium.html

Justin Martyr's quote is one of the ones on Ben C. Smith's textexcavation site.

http://www.textexcavation.com/anatestimonium.html

9 [B1] Γενήσεσθαι ταῦτα πάντα προεῖπε, φημί, [C1] ὁ ἡμέτερος διδάσκαλος καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς πάντων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ υἱὸς καὶ ἀπόστολος, ὢν [A1] Ἰησοῦς [G1] Χριστός, [P] ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τὸ Χριστιανοὶ ἐπονομάζεσθαι ἐσχήκαμεν. 10 ὅθεν καὶ βέβαιοι γινόμεθα πρὸς τὰ δεδιδαγμένα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πάντα, [B2] ἐπειδὴ ἔργῳ φαίνεται γινόμενα ὅσα φθάσας γενέσθαι προεῖπεν· ὅπερ θεοῦ ἔργον ἐστί, πρὶν ἢ γενέσθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ οὕτως δειχθῆναι γινόμενον ὡς προείρηται. 11 ἦν μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις παυσαμένους μηδὲν προστιθέναι, λογισαμένους ὅτι δίκαιά τε καὶ ἀληθῆ ἀξιοῦμεν· ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ γνωρίζομεν οὐ ῥᾷον ἀγνοίᾳ κατεχομένην ψυχὴν συντόμως μεταβάλλειν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ πεῖσαι [D] τοὺς φιλαλήθεις, μικρὰ προσθεῖναι προεθυμήθημεν, εἰδότες ὅτι οὐκ ἀδύνατον ἀληθείας παρατεθείσης ἄγνοιαν φυγεῖν. [....] 3 [C2] Τὸν διδάσκαλόν τε τούτων γενόμενον ἡμῖν καὶ εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθέντα [A2] Ἰησοῦν [G2] Χριστόν, τὸν σταυρωθέντα [J] ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, τοῦ γενομένου [E] ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ [α] ἐπὶ χρόνοις Τιβερίου Καίσαρος [β] ἐπιτρόπου, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ μαθόντες καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει, ὅτι [K+M] μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν ἀποδείξομεν.

Goldberg's idea is, essentially, stupid (let's be honest--we've let our brains go to mush if we think it's likely that Josephus based his account on the Gospel of Luke's resurrection chapter or vice-versa).

But if someone's parallel-seeking mind needs an explanation, the fact that Luke's statement, Justin's statement, and the Testimonium statement are all credal faith statements about Jesus Christ (as Paul Hopper shows regarding the Testimonium) should suffice to explain the broad strokes similarities.

[Ben C. Smith]

Paul Hopper's thesis incidentally would explain this, as well as another 'parallel' in Justin Martyr.* Credal summaries would tend to be similar in outline.

* http://www.textexcavation.com/testimonium.html

For whatever it may be worth, the passage in Justin Martyr was instrumental in changing my mind about the likelihood of the Testimonium being a forgery in its entirety.

Ben.

[John2]

Peter,

Thanks for the link concerning Justin Martyr, and I will consider the idea that creedal statements are generally similar across the board.

Though I don't buy the idea that Josephus used Luke or that Luke and Josephus used a common source, it's the idea that Luke used Josephus in other cases that makes me wonder if this could be another one.

[Ben C. Smith]

Goldberg's idea is, essentially, stupid (let's be honest--we've let our brains go to mush if we think it's likely that Josephus based his account on the Gospel of Luke's resurrection chapter or vice-versa).

To be clear, Goldberg proposed neither of these direct connections. He thought they both used a common source.

Ben.