of the Secular References to Jesus
[Data and Quote] [Forged?] [Reliability] [Source-Critical Capability] [Bias] [Procurator/Prefect Issue] [Use of "Christus"] [Reference to a "Multitude"] [Skeptical Pushbacks] [Conclusions]
Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. [Meie.MarJ, 89]
Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:
A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value. It is unfortunate that France so readily agreed with Wells' assessment. An investigation into the methods and background of Tacitus, as reported by Tacitean scholars (whose works, incidentally, France does not consult), tells us that this is an extremely reliable reference to Jesus and for early Christianity.
Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity?
Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery [though see Cutn.JGMM, 111-2], for the evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage. The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is so strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in the sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin! - [Dor.Tac, 149] , and it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bias! [Momig.CFou, 126] )
This is not to say that there are not those whom we may encounter who will suggest that this passage is an interpolation. Some will weakly suggest that because no church father quotes the passage early in church history, it must have been added later. No church father, however, would have willingly quoted such a negative reference to Jesus and the Christians; moreover, indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers. The Annals may not have gotten into the Church's hands at an early date. The idea that this passage is an interpolation is no more credible than the idea held in the 19th century that Tacitus' entire works are fifteenth-century forgeries!
Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?
The answer here is: Absolutely! The Tacitean literature is full of praise for the accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus, and it is singularly unfortunate that many writers in this subject area have failed to appreciate this!
Let's look at a number of quotes from scholars in the Tacitean camp:
We therefore conclude that there is every reason to trust Tacitus as reliable.
Tacitus may have borrowed his information of Jesus from Christians or from Pliny the Younger, or from some other secondhand source. It may not be reliable.
Overall, Tacitus' reliability as a historian counts against his having borrowed information uncritically from any source. Moreover, and as further support:
More generally, let's look at how carefully Tacitus analyzed and sifted his sources, according to the Taciteans:
In short, Tacitus was a very careful historian - he would certainly not trust a source that he held in such disdain as he did Christians, and he would carefully check material that came to him, even from his friends.
Finally, let us add that there was no need for Tacitus to get his information from Pliny - he had plenty of Christians in his own province of Asia where he was governor, if not more Christians than Pliny, and he was probably aware of Trajan's edict concerning Christians, which we will discuss below.
Tacitus had no motive to investigate his information on Christ. He may have accepted information from Christians uncritically.
Wells suggests that Tacitus "was merely repeating what Christians were then saying" [Well.WhoW, 20] ; "was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was a recent religion, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults," [Well.HistEv, 17; Well.JesL, 42] and "(t)he context of Tacitus' remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants."
This, as we have noted above, would be completely out of character for Tacitus: Careful inquiry was indeed part of Tacitus' modus operandi. (Ironically, in reference to the fact that Tacitus does not even say in the passage where Pilate ruled, Wells says, "Tacitus cannot be expected to give the life history of every incidental character he mentions." - [Well.JEaC, 186] . Would that he applied that criteria to Jesus in such a way!) Moreover, we have clear evidence that Tacitus would not simply repeat what he was told by people whom he disliked: When reporting on the history and beliefs of the Jews, whom he despised as much as the Christians, it seems fairly obvious from the disparaging descriptions given that Tacitus was not inclined to consult the Jews' "own view" or even "Jewish informants." Certainly no Jew told Tacitus the horrible things he suggested about the origins of Judaism!
But in a more positive light, we can also find two possible additional reasons for Tacitus to have investigated Christianity carefully:
First, a likely cause for investigation erupted right in Tacitus' backyard, so to speak, in Rome c. 95 A.D. Emperor Domitian's niece Domatilla, and her husband Favius Clemens, were accused of "atheism," related to "being carried away into Jewish customs." Judaism of course was a recognized religion, so it is quite likely that the "Jewish custom" referred to is Christianity [Benk.PagRo, 15-16] . Here, then, was a perfect motive for Tacitus to investigate the movement historically: Some of Rome's highest-placed people seem to have joined the movement!
Second, Tacitus seems to have had an interest in "pretenders," notably those who claimed to have been risen from the dead! Bowersock [Luc.TacT, 5] notes that Tacitus offers an "exceptionally detailed account" of "an adventurer who claimed to be a resurrected Nero," and also offered two other similar stories. In light of this, Tacitus would probably have shown a rather strong interest in claims of some kind of "pretender" being raised from the dead, as was the case with Jesus. (As an added note, considering the trouble that Tacitus records was gone to in order to unmask these "pretenders," a persuasive case can be made for Roman investigation into the claims of Christianity. The fact that Tacitus does not report any sort of "debunking" of Christus is even more significant!)
Benko [Benk.PagRo, 16] summarizes by noting that Tacitus "was too good a historian not to look into the origin of the cult" once he had reason to look into it, and that reason is provided either by Domatilla (as Benko suggests), by Tacitus' special interest in "pretenders," or by the accusations of Nero concerning the fire. Tacitus would check his sources carefully, and this makes his reference to Jesus all the more valuable.
The issue now turns to the question: Where did Tacitus get his information of Jesus? There is really no way to tell. Ancient historians generally felt no obligation to reveal their sources. (Dudley [Dud.Tac, 28] writes in this regard: "...an ancient historian was under no obligation to give his sources in detail, nor even to mention them at all," and Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] adds that "systematic, careful references are a modern invention.") Tacitus could have gotten his information from the work of historians whom he trusted, and whose work is now lost to us. His information may have come from common knowledge. Suggestions have also been made that Tacitus got his information from Josephus, but this is rejected by Tacitean scholars: Mendell, for example, says that Tacitus "clearly knew nothing" about Josephus [Mende.Tac, 217 - see also Hada.FJos, 223] ). A common suggestion is that Tacitus got his information from Rome's imperial archives - perhaps from a letter or account written by Pilate. This leads to our next issue:
Tacitus would not have had permission to consult the imperial archives, and even if he did, it was not his regular practice to consult written documents.
Wells and others object that it is unlikely that Tacitus accessed official documents or had access to the imperial archives. Evangelical scholar Murray Harris writes that these records "were secret so that even the senate needed special permission to consult them (Tacitus, Hist. 4.40)" [Harr.GosP5, 352] . Does this thereby eliminate the possibility that Tacitus found out his information through this important source?
Both facets of this objection can be answered simultaneously. The imperial archives were indeed jealously guarded: In the cite noted by Harris from Tacitus' Histories, the Senate asks the Emperor Domitian for permission to consult the imperial archives - and Tacitus indicates that permission was granted! But what of Tacitus himself? Nothing from Tacitus' own works tell us anything about whether Tacitus himself needed special permission to consult the imperial archives. He does not tell us how difficult it was to get permission, or that he himself received (or did not receive) such permission, or how often he did get or needed to get access. However, a look at Tacitus' background suggest that if anyone would be able to get that very special permission to consult the imperial archives, Tacitus would be an excellent candidate! Consider the qualifications Tacitus enjoyed, according to Hutchins[Hutch.Tac, v] , Benario [Benar.Tac, 12-4, 19] , Grant [Gran.Tac, 7] , Dorey [Dor.Tac, 5-7] , and Mellor [Mell.Tac, 8-9] :
So it is safe to say that if anyone had access to the imperial archives, or would easily be able to get permission to see them, Tacitus had all the credentials to suspect that he would be able to do so! But beyond that, we may ask about the second facet of this objection: Is there any actual evidence that Tacitus consulted original documents generally, and governmental records specifically? Again, the answer is, absolutely! Tacitean scholars agree that the historian did indeed access governmental and public records, and did indeed consult original documents:
So Wells is obviously not in agreement with Tacitean scholars on the matter of Tacitus' consultation of written documents, and thus it is worthwhile to ask where exactly he does get his information! His source, it turns out, is a scholar named Fabia. [Well.JEaC, 187] Who is Fabia? The Taciteans are familiar with the name: Mendell [Mende.Tac, 211] notes the work of Philippe Fabia from 1893, where he wrote of Tacitus: "Primary sources, documents, records, inscriptions, and the like...were rarely consulted." However, Mendell writes, "the conclusions (by Fabia) drawn are inconsistent with the reputation of Tacitus as evidenced by the letters of Pliny and with the impression given by Tacitus himself," who "not only states that he intends to compare various accounts, but constantly cites sources of information, even though he less frequently names the authority."
Syme notes further [Sym.Tac, 282] that the arguments of Fabia and those who agreed with him are based mostly on a single passage in Tacitus where he says that he was not able to give some information that should have been in the acta diurna. Hence, it was assumed by Fabia that he had no access to it! Syme points out that Tacitus gives an explanation for not being able to get the information, and "he deserves to be taken at his word." Wells has relied upon a badly outdated and highly incorrect source for his argument! It is salient to point out here again something that cannot be emphasized enough: This type of mistake is committed only by people working outside their field, as Wells is. Tacitean scholars have the breadth of judgment and background to know that Fabia is bogus; that Wells uses him as reliable source indicates Wells' radical unfamiliarity with the scholarship in Tacitean studies. Again, this cannot be overemphasized - the mark of a novice is their uncritical use of sources and methods within a discipline. Genuine scholars, with training and background in specialty, know how to use sources critically and keep the arguments and evidence in perspective!
Tacitus is a biased historian who often manipulated his data. His reference to Jesus may have been affected by this bias.
We note, of course, that all recorded history is biased and manipulated history, and we also note that there is no indication of any bias in the Jesus passage. Nevertheless, we consider it wise to explore this avenue. It shall be our aim to show that Tacitus' bias does not affect the reliability of the Jesus passage, nor indeed his reliability generally.
How is this matter to be formulated? Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 97, 100] serve as an example, charging Tacitus with bias and with both rhetorical and literary manipulation of material for his own purposes. (They do not, however, mention the Jesus passage at all.) Mellor [Mell.Tac, 7, 21] notes Tacitus' special contempt for the lower classes and his bias against Eastern religions, which he says "got the better of his judgement" causing him to think them "unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavished in court intrigues." Regarding Jews and Christians, Tacitus' bias was so great that he "accepted a hodge-podge of truth and falsehood with little critical analysis," including anti-Semitic cliches and a blending of Jewish beliefs. (ibid., 38)
Should this issue of bias be cause for concern? Not really, for two reasons. First, in spite of his bias, Tacitus is still sufficiently trustworthy. Second, there is no indication that Tacitus' bias had any effect on the Jesus reference. Indeed, if it would have had any influence, it would be the opposite of the sort required in order to devalue the reference! Let's look at some further relevant data:
Mellor (ibid., 39, 44) offers this counsel: "As we begin to analyze the distortions of Tacitus, we would do well to rein in our inclination to condemn the transparency of his political aims. All historians have prejudice and preconceptions; like a great forest or Mount Everest, it is simply easier to see them from afar." He adds that in spite of Tacitus' bias, "there is no evidence that he invented or suppressed the facts." He did not "change his details" to fit his reconstruction of the past, but rather engaged in selective interpretation - as indeed do all historical writers.
Benario [Benar.Tac, 148, 155, 157] , a more traditional scholar, likewise observes that bias is an inevitable part of any historical work. He notes Tacitus' bias against Tiberius, but also notes that Tacitus "is not being intentionally fraudulent; there is no instance of factual error in his works that can be ascribed to ulterior motives. In fact, most of the material available for rehabilitation of Tiberius's reputation in modern times comes from Tacitus's pages." Facts are still presented accurately, in spite of the bias. He adds that "(t)he information that Tacitus presents is almost invariably accurate," having been confirmed by archaeology, epigraphical evidence, and other authors.
Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] similarly records: "(Tacitus') interpretation of facts...whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious, but the actual facts which he records are generally accurate - so accurate that they involuntarily contradict his sinister innuendoes." In other words, even when Tacitus was expressing bias, his inner scruples were such that he still would not report an inaccuracy!
Finally, we return to Mellor (ibid., 40) for this admonition: "(Tacitus') passionate opinions should not obscure the fact that he is the most accurate of all the Roman historians." If we throw out the Jesus reference on this basis, we must also throw out much else of what Tacitus has written, along with the works of all other Roman historians.
Our conclusions, then, are as follows: Tacitus' bias in general, and his bias against Eastern religions like Christianity particularly, is of the opposite sort that would be required to devalue the reference to Jesus. Again, when reporting on the history and beliefs of the Jews, Tacitus' bias led him to say things that were disparaging, which means that out of contempt for Christianity, he would have reported any rumor or indication that Jesus was a fiction, or had not really been sentenced to death. As it is, we have not even that much.
Tacitus' bias did not allow him to descend into wholesale fabrication. Even if it had, however, his biases would have led him, not to acknowledge Jesus' existence, but to deny it, or at the very least denigrate Jesus' importance. But this is not what we find in the Jesus passage in Annals.
Tacitus is in error because he refers to Pilate as a "procurator" when in reality Pilate was a prefect. This means that he is unreliable, or that he probably did not consult written docuements.
This objection is also favored by Wells[Well.DidJ, 10; Well.HistEv, 16; Well.JesL, 42] However, as Chilton and Evans remark, "(t)his 'error' should not be taken as evidence that Tacitus' information is faulty." [ChilEv.Stud, 465] . Two reasons may be cited for this:
We should first consider the difference between these two titles. A procurator, as the word implies, was a financial administrator who acted as the emperor's personal agent. A prefect was a military official.
All of the above, therefore - along with the fact that this is not cited by Tactiean scholars as a problem - shows that there is certainly no grounds for charging Tacitus with error or degrading the reference to Jesus because of the alleged procurator/prefect mixup.
Tacitus refers to Jesus as "Christ" and not by a proper name. This means that he probably did not consult official records.
Wells also offers this objection. [Well.HistEv, 16-17] Like the above objection, however, it is not considered at all problematic by any Tacitean or other historian. Rather than find some deficiency in Tacitus because of this, it is more plausible to recognize that Tacitus would use the name with which his readers would be most familiar - and that would not necessarily be the name that Jesus was executed under. Furthermore, simply referring to "Jesus" would not explain how it is that Jesus' followers were named Christians; Van Voorst [VanV.JONT, 43ff] further makes the point that Tacitus is actually issuing a subtle corrective here! The text of the oldest manuscript, and most likely reading, spells "Christians" with an e ("Chrestians"). In naming "Christ," Tacitus "is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the 'crowd' (vulgus) by stating that the 'founder of this name'...is Christus, not the common name given by the crowd, Chrestus...he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement in order to link it directly--and correctly--to the name of Christ."
It should be further added that the NT itself tended towards the direction of using "Christ" as though it were a proper name, and that Tacitus (and Pliny as well) may be reflecting this. [VanV.JONT, 46]
[Well.JEaC, 188; Cutn.JGMM, 112] Tacitus refers to a "great multitude" of Christians at Rome. There would not be this many Christians in Rome at this early time.
This is rather an empty objection that merely assumes what it sets out to prove! Even so, what does Tacitus mean here by a "great multitude"? 50? 100? 500? Is it a relative term for, "a great multitude, in respect to the crime committed"? (I.e., if we arrested 50 people for holding up a corner gas station, does that seem like a "great multitude" to arrest for such a relatively minor crime?) There is simply no force behind this objection, for it lacks specificity.
In response to my material above, Jeff Lowder acknowledges the findings of Tacitean scholars concerning his reliability. But, he says, "there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occassionally reported stories which were false historically but were true in a literary sense or a moral sense." He also quotes Mellor as saying:
From this Lowder concludes that "(t)here is good reason to believe that Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' could very well be another one of the exceptions to Tacitus' general trend of careful, skeptical use of sources. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term 'Christians,' which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to 'Christus' in the context of a moral attack on Nero. (Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information.)"
I have already noted that Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such, and the Livia/Agrippa story is no exception. The story in question, from the first book of the Annals, is clearly reported by Tacitus as a rumor. He was consistent in discerning rumor from fact--as I noted from a Tacitean scholar, he did this with the sort of scruples rare in an ancient historian.
Mellor says that this is "good literature but it can be irresponsible history." This is correct: And it actually becomes irresponsible when rumor is reported as fact rather than as rumor. Tacitus didn't take that extra step that many of his fellow writers did. And the evidence indicates that he always made sure he reported rumor as rumor. There is no indication, as I have noted, of such qualification in the Christus cite. I am bewildered by Lowder's assertion that the context of a moral attack on Nero indicates a type of story in which Tacitus would repeat unhistorical information. Since nearly everything Tacitus reports has a moral context, applying this criteria would mean having to ashcan almost all of Tacitus' work. I believe that Lowder's argument is not the product of careful thought, nor of a genuine understanding of what Mellor and Grant are actually saying.
I am also bewildered by Lowder's argument that "(u)nless it can be shown that
Tacitus actually doubted the historicity of Jesus, Tacitus' professionalism and integrity
are not even relevant as Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the
matter." Professionalism and integrity was one of Tacitus' most compelling motives
for doing accurate history. He wrote his work for reading by his political peers--is it to
be supposed that he would not take care to be accurate, in an era when prestige and honor
were of utmost importance to those in power? I do not think so. Lowder's argument is again
not a product of careful thought. Overall, his new arguments do nothing to refute or
contradict the case presented here.
Well, why not? So we are to assume based on non-evidence that Tacitus could be reporting rumors (or in this context, unconfirmed data would be a better term), even when he doesn't say he is, even when he is clearly in the habit of doing so? I am working within evidence here; Lowder is promulgating speculation without evidence for the sake of preserving a tenuous position. He does try harder, though:
I fail to see how the "incidental nature" of the reference has any relation to identification as rumor. Is there a proven pattern that the length of a reference by Tacitus directly corresponds to his proclivity to report (or not) whether something is a rumor? Beyond that, it seems that despite his earlier misuse of Lucian, Lowder still has not learned his lesson about reporting quotes from material in their context. Annals 13.20 contains a story of Nero which Tacitus reports using several different (and differing) sources, including Seneca, Fabius Rusticus, and Pliny. Because these sources often disagree, he tells us that it is his intention (he does not "promise" anything -- as Lowder apparently realizes now, since in the latest latest edition, he gets rid of this word) to record variations in reports, and as we know, intentions often go awry when dealing with a complexity of sources. Just how "badly" Tacitus "broke" this "promise" is a matter of discussion. Since a good deal of his source material is lost to us, it is debatable whether, and to what extent, he fulfilled his intentions. However, this quote refers only to one story in which Tacitus had multiple and conflicting sources and is therefore irrelevant to any other part of Tacitus' work, including Annals 15.44. Unless Lowder shows that there was a definite problem here, and that it was a bad habit that Tacitus picked up upon, and was a consistent problem in his work, he is again doing no more than throwing confetti in the air. (According to the Taciteans, as we have shown, this sort of problem is the glaring exception with Tacitus.)
In the latest latest edition, Lowder replied to the above:
I don't need such a list; I know well enough that neither Tacitus nor any ancient historian felt obliged to reveal sources. That is not the point, and the above does not answer my point at all. Carrier's comment is true as far as it goes, then -- Tacitus may have been misinformed, and thought that what was actually a "rumor," or an untruth, was a "reliable oral report." But I have shown that Tacitus was not so uncritical as to simply accept things blindly. If such a report fooled Tacitus, it fooled everyone -- in other words, we will have to posit a carefully-crafted conspiracy full of manufactured literary, testimonial, and other historical evidence. That of course is what Christ-mythers eventually must resort to -- and since Lowder isn't in that camp, we know that's not the direction he is heading, or wants to head!
In the latest latest edition, here's what else is said now:
After the lessons of my personal interview with Josh McDowell, I would have thought that Lowder would have learned something about what someone "seems to assume," but apparently not. Actually, I assume no such thing; my most likely scenario is that Tacitus probably did assume that Jesus existed, but that he did investigation into some of Jesus' history (his death in Palestine, and the Christian movement) that would have revealed, in the course of investigation, that there was this little problem of there being no evidence that this Jesus character actually existed, and in fact evidence pointing to the contrary. To use Lowder's example of Mohammed, an investigator might begin by wondering how Mohammed managed to be so influential. He might want to look into how Mohammed led his forces. But to do so, there must be records and proof that Mohammed did these things, and if he didn't exist, then such records and proofs will be notably absent, or at the least fishy and contrived! Thus in the process of investigating, one would uncover evidence leading to indications of non-existence. This is my true point, and thus the rest of what Lowder has to say re: why Tacitus would not identify this material as sourced in rumor (or unconfirmed data) is irrelevant. (It also puts paid to Lowder's pushback to a comment below on Benko, "Holding quibbles that Benko says Tacitus would have looked into the origin of Christianity, but that is not the same thing as investigating the historicity of Jesus." One simply cannot do the former without some confrontation with the latter!)
Thus, when Lowder goes on, in response to my points above:
Actually, what I asked for (see below) is, "a direct proof that Tacitus reported a rumor as a fact knowing that it was merely a rumor and that it was a consistent habit of his". But that's a nitpick; here's the beef:
Yes, I did, and the indications are that Tacitus always did this -- I want to see an exception, and then I want to see that it is a consistent problem, not a surd in the pattern. And since Tacitus' care and accuracy are the recognized pattern, it is not I who is "making a claim" at all -- unless one can call recognizing a known and verified fact "making a claim."
To which I say: Exactly my point. The data shows that Tacitus is 100% precise in distinguishing fact from rumor. Lowder has no contrary data -- all he has is (once again) a desire to beg an exception to the rule for the sake of keeping an argument afloat.
This is truly a convoluted excuse to dismiss the testimony of Tacitus. So then: If Tacitus found nothing to contradict his sources, doesn't this mean that he investigated to see if there was any contradictory data? Couldn't this just as easily (indeed, more likely) to be taken to mean that the historicity of Jesus was so beyond question and clearly in evidence that one source was enough, or even no sources (i.e., that it was common knowledge)? Who would have contradicted such a source? Anyone at all who didn't care for Christianity or for the Jews, and that included a substantial portion of the Roman Empire. Once again, the basis of argument is the blind stupidity of ancient peoples. Christian claims involved charges of serious action by th governor of a Roman province; if the governor of your state was accused of putting the leader of a local religious cult to death on a major religious holiday, and it was not public knowledge that this had been done, do you think it would be allowed to pass uncontested, especially in a hotbed of rebellion like Judaea?
And now Lowder calls upon Carrier to bail him out again:
That's nice, gents. So how about some proof beyond the generalities? How about a direct proof that Tacitus reported a rumor as a fact knowing that it was merely a rumor and that it was a consistent habit of his? Carrier's broad brush is good for the rah-rah, but it doesn't prove an iota. This humble libriaian has certified historian sources who say that Tacitus "distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian." If what Carrier is saying is "obvious" then it seems not to be obvious to any of the Taciteans that I have read -- and I have read a great many of them. Either get specific or get somewhere else.
All reeds and blather, gents: Might be, would...what the heck is the difference other than semantics? My point in reply remains the same regardless. There is no proof that Tacitus would or might or did do any such thing. Lowder is playing a cheap game of trying to obtain a polemical advantage of an argument while at the same time maintaining plausible deniability in case he later gets skewered.
Chances are we won't find any historian or Tacitean scholar who will say that Tacitus "probably investigated" the historicity of any single cite-area, because they think that readers are smart enough to know that a general proclivity to do such investigation covers the whole ball of wax. On the other hand, I did note earlier that "Benko [Benk.PagRo, 16] summarizes by noting that Tacitus "was too good a historian not to look into the origin of the cult" once he had reason to look into it, and that reason is provided either by Domatilla (as Benko suggests), by Tacitus' special interest in "pretenders," or by the accusations of Nero concerning the fire." Benko is not a Tacitean per se, but he is a Greco-Roman historian specialist. Does that count?
This is in reference to a quote Lowder pulls uncritically from Mellor (and with which I am familiar):
Actually, this contradicts nothing I have said. Mellor clearly means (as is obvious by his reference to the reports of court intrigue) that Tacitus would not take the time to do an in-depth report on these subjects: the bare bones information his readers needed would be enough. He would not, therefore, go into things like the teachings of Christianity, church leadership and organization, etc. This has no relevance to the question of whether he would ensure that his bare-bones information was accurate, and the issue of his professionalism and integrity would remain intact. Lowder goes on:
Lowder's language is a bit vague here, so I asked earlier on this subject if it was meant to say that, "If Tacitus incorrectly reported something, that would not affect his prestige and honor, and in fact, would be considered to be 'exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote'?" He clarifies now, in the latest, latest revision of his essay:
So apparently, the idea is that such a detail as the historicity Jesus would have been so trivial, that even if Tacitus just said, "Oh, bother, who needs to look into this?", it would not have mattered because ancient historiography didn't count such trivia as important to look into. In other words, despite his desire to deliver accurate reports in other areas (including having to do with trivial details on other subjects, I suppose?), despite that Christianity was fast becoming a significant nuisance and played a key role following the Neronian fire, enough so that Tacitus felt obliged to say something; just here, on the "incidental detail" of Jesus' existence (or rather, on the matter of founding details that would have, of necessity, confronted data that would have related to Jesus' existence), Tacitus decided to pass on checking things out, and no one found out, and no one cared. Let's try this again: If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been -- without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and argument centered on this subject. Had such a ripple effect existed, it would not have gone away quietly and without notice; and one with the care and concern of Tacitus for accuracy would have noticed it. And if he had missed this effect, it would have been a strike against him, and made him a laughingstock before his peers; for someone who does such careless things once is enormously likely to do it again, and make more mistakes. Again, all that Lowder can do, and has done, is say, "Yes, we admit that Tacitus normally was accurate, normally checked things out, but this might be an exception!" I think it becomes clearer and clearer as we progress through these interchanges that what is at stake is not the reputation of Tacitus, but that of a modern person trying to keep an argument intact for the sake of making a point.
This is in reference to this quoute:
This is again no more than what I have said about Mellor: Tacitus was not interested in reporting details about Christianity, of course, but this has no relation to his capabilities and professionalism otherwise. Like Wells and others, Lowder is confusing quality and quantity.
What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?
Tacitus turns out to be an extremely rich source of data that confirms important aspects of Christian history: