Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

[Goose]

A few years ago Classics doctoral candidate and internet skeptic Matthew Ferguson wrote an interesting article titled Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels. In it he compared the Histories of Tacitus with the Gospels looking mainly at the internal and external evidence for authorship of the respective works.

Coming from my academic background in Classics, I have the advantage of critically studying not only the Gospels of the New Testament, but also other Greek and Latin works from the same period. In assessing the evidence for the Gospels versus other ancient texts, it is clear to me that the majority opinion in the scholarly community is correct in its assessment that the traditional authorial attributions are spurious. To illustrate this, I will compare the evidence for the Gospels’ authors with that of a secular work, namely Tacitus’ Histories. Through looking at some of the same criteria that we can use to evaluate the authorial attributions of ancient texts, I will show why scholars have many good reasons to doubt the authors of the Gospels, while being confident in the authorship of a more solid tradition, such as what we have for a historical author like Tacitus.

Most of the arguments Ferguson presents against the internal evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels are a rehashing of the typical skeptical objections which have been addressed many times over (see links to Daniel B. Wallace below). Perhaps at some point I will start a thread looking at them. However, for now and for the purposes of this thread I’d like to focus on the external evidence for the authorship of the respective texts. It’s in this respect that Ferguson, due to his back ground in Classics, presents a unique perspective. One that I will use to show that, despite Ferguson’s claim to the contrary, the external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is very strong (or at least as strong as the evidence for Tacitus).

Of course Ferguson, being a skeptic, attempts to argue the external evidence for Tacitus is very strong whereas, “We have precisely the opposite situation in the case of the Gospels.� But is this really an accurate assessment of the external evidence? Is the external evidence for the authorship of the Gospels really that weak by comparison to Tacitus and his Histories? One has to wonder how rigorously Ferguson has thought this through and whether he has examined the evidence for Tacitus with the same level of skepticism he applies to the external evidence for the Gospels. Especially in light of the fact that one of the main sources he appeals to for Tacitus is none other than a Christian source, Tertullian, who also makes extensive comments on the authorship of the Gospels.

Or would it be a more accurate and reasonable assessment to say the strength of the external evidence between Tacitus’ Histories and the Gospels is, for the most part, roughly about even? I think it will be become quite evident as we move through this that that skeptics like Ferguson do not apply the same level of skeptical reasoning to the authorship of secular texts from the likes of Tacitus. It seems authorship for many secular works is simply taken for granted. Once we apply to Tacitus the same hyper-skeptical reasoning often applied to the authorship of the Gospels we will see that the evidence for Tacitus’ doesn’t seem to fare any better.

This brings us to my argument. If the external evidence for the authorship of the Gospels can be shown to be at least as strong as the external evidence for Tacitus’ authorship (or said another way, if the external evidence for Tacitus can be shown to be no stronger than the evidence for the Gospels) then whatever is to be said about the strength of the external evidence for Tacitus must likewise be said of the external evidence for the Gospels. I will formulate the main argument like this:

The Main Argument:

• 1. The external evidence for Tacitus’ authorship of his Histories is very strong.
  
  2. The Gospels’ external evidence is equally as strong as the external evidence for Tacitus’ Histories.
  
  3. Therefore, the external evidence for the Gospels is very strong.

So let's look at the support for premise (1) of the Main Argument.

External Evidence:

In terms of external evidence for the authorship of Tacitus’ Histories, we have Pliny the Younger (a contemporary) writing directly to Tacitus while he was authoring a work that Pliny calls a “Historiae.� This historical work that Pliny describes was further identified as the Histories that we possess today by Tertullian (c. 200 CE), who was the next author to directly refer to it. Tertullian names Tacitus as the author in Adv. gentes 16, and refers to the “fifth book of his Histories� (quinta Historiarum). Regarding subsequent citations of Tacitus’ historical works, Mendell (Tacitus: The Man And His Work, pg. 225) explains:

Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in each century down to and including the sixth.

Thus, Tacitus was identified as the author of his Histories from the beginning of the tradition, rather than being speculated to be the author later in the tradition. This is very strong external evidence. We have precisely the opposite situation in the case of the Gospels.

Thus we have, from Ferguson, the assertion that the external evidence for Tacitus is very strong. And this assertion is supported by the evidence from Pliny (a contemporary) and Tertullian (an unambiguous explicit attribution of authorship).


Let’s now look at the support for premise (2) of the Main Argument.

(T) External evidence for Tacitus’ authorship (lived c. 56 – 120 AD, wrote c. 100 AD):


(T.1) Evidence from Pliny (lived c. 61 - 113 AD):

Ferguson argues (via Mendell) that the first attribution of authorship of the Histories to Tacitus comes down to us from one of Pliny’s letters to Tacitus.

• â€�I predict (and I am persuaded I shall not be deceived) that your histories will be immortal. I frankly own therefore I so much the more earnestly wish to find a place in them.â€� – Pliny, LXXXV to Tacitus

And that’s pretty much it from Pliny here. Two very brief and ambiguous sentences.

Firstly, let’s not forget that Pliny’s letter to Tacitus is itself, strictly speaking, anonymous. It fails to mention Pliny or Tacitus directly. It fails to provide any concrete internal evidence for authorship. How do we know Pliny even wrote this brief letter? How do we know it was intended for Tacitus? Granting its authenticity how do we know Pliny ever had direct contact with Tacitus?

Secondly, Pliny is just as likely, if not more so, using the word histories in reference to a genre and not the title of a specific work. Numerous times in his letters Pliny refers to the generic genre of history. Even Mendell concedes it isn’t clear from Pliny whether this particular quote is a reference to genre or a specific title. Further solidifying the view this is simply a reference to genre is the fact Pliny uses the very same word elsewhere in his letters to refer to the genre of history.

�[Verginius Rufus] read poems composed in his honour, he read histories of his achievements, and was himself witness of his fame among posterity.� – Pliny, XVII — To VOCONIUS ROMANUS

Further, Pliny could just as likely be referring to what we now call the Annals of Tacitus as it was of a historical genre as well. Nothing in Pliny’s letter compels us to think he was necessarily referring to The Histories attributed to Tacitus which we have today and which it seems Tertullian is alluding to.

But there are more problems with Pliny. At the time Pliny was writing this letter to Tacitus he is referring to a work by Tacitus’ which is still in progress. One which Pliny himself seems hopeful to find a place in. Pliny is not referring to a completed or published work which he has actually read. It’s not as though Tacitus handed Pliny a finished copy and said, “Here, read this history I wrote and tell me what you think.� We know from Pliny’s letters that other works from other authors were left unfinished and completed by later writers. So how do we know Tacitus even completed this history then? Perhaps Tacitus was merely contemplating a history and never got around to actually writing one. Perhaps Pliny is responding to a false rumour he had heard that Tacitus had merely intended to write a history. We just don’t know how Pliny got his information about what Tacitus was planning to write or was in the process of writing.

Lastly, in another series of anonymous letters Pliny provides to Tacitus an account of his uncle’s death in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (LXV & LXVI to Tacitus) which Pliny seems to imply Tacitus had requested for his history. But that account from Pliny is not found in the histories of Tacitus. Neither is Pliny the Younger mentioned by Tacitus despite Pliny’ pleas to Tacitus to include him. In other words, as is often argued by skeptics regarding Mark and our Greek Matthew in relation to Papias’ words, the Histories of Tacitus we have today do not reflect the expected content as described by Pliny.

At most all we can say about Pliny, assuming we grant the letter’s authenticity, is that he attests to the notion that Tacitus may have been in the process of writing something. And that something was, as far as Pliny seemed to know, some kind of work that fell into a historical genre. Not a lot to go on really. Certainly no stronger than say the words of Papias.


(T.2) Evidence from Tertullian (lived c. 155 – 240 AD, wrote c. 200 AD):

• â€�Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal.â€� – Tertullian, Apology XVI

And also:

• â€�Cornelius Tacitus first suggested. In the fourth book of his histories, where he is treating of the Jewish war, he begins his description with the origin of that nation, and gives his own views respecting both the origin and the name of their religion. He relates that the Jews, in their migration in the desert, when suffering for want of water, escaped by following for guides some wild asses, which they supposed to be going in quest of water after pasture, and that on this account the image of one of these animals was worshipped by the Jews.â€� – Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.11

And here are Tacitus’ words from the fifth book of the Histories as they have come down to us:

• â€� Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.â€� - Tacticitus, Histories

Firstly, Tertullian is writing approximately 100 years after Tacitus which, as will see, isn’t significantly earlier than some of the external attributions we have for the Gospels (Irenaeus, Martyr, Papias, etc).

Secondly, Tertullian nowhere indicates his source regarding Tacitus. Since Tertullian seems to have been familiar with Pliny’s letters (Apology 2) it’s possible Tertullian simply assumed a connection between Pliny’s letters and Tacitus’ writings much in the same way scholars do today. After all, the same kind of argument is often made regarding Irenaeus et. al. and Papias. But if that’s the case with Tertullian then he is no more independent or reliable than say Irenaeus would be if Papias’ writings were Irenaeus’ source. The bottom line is that we have no way of establishing a direct line of communication from Tertullian back to Tacitus. Whereas we have evidence there was a personal connection with external sources of attribution for the Gospels in the case of the disciple John -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus.

Thirdly, Tertullian’s paraphrasing is quite different in the two quotes (I’ve highlighted the discrepancies). In the Apology he says the Jews were, “expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia� whereas in Ad Nationes he says the Jews, “in their migration in the desert.� In the Apology there is the important detail that the Jews “discovered a fountain.� In Ad Nationes this important detail is omitted. In the Apology the Jews, out of gratitude for having discovered water, “consecrated a head of this species of animal.� Whereas in Ad Nationes the Jews merely worshipped “the image of one of these animals.�

Fourthly, further complicating matters is that Tertullian gets the chapter right in the Apology buts get the chapter wrong in Ad Nationes. This, in conjunction with the third point above, seems to strongly suggest that Tertullian never possessed a copy of Tacitus’ Histories. But was instead merely relaying hearsay and oral traditions concerning what he had heard that Tacitus had written about the Jews. This would explain why Tertullian’s own words are contradictory, why he gets the chapter wrong in one quote, and why he does not provide a direct quote in either instance.

Fifthly, does Tertullian “explicitly cite passages in the Histories� as Ferguson claims? Well, Tertullian certainly seems to show a general awareness of the content of the passage from Tacitus. Tertullian seems to provide a paraphrasing to be sure. But certainly not an explicit citing of Tacitus as the above quotes quite clearly show. It’s painfully obvious Ferguson has overstated his case here. Or, if this reference from Tertullian is to be considered an explicit citing of Tacitus then surely we can say the same of the numerous church fathers who likewise seem to paraphrase the Gospels. Thereby opening a flood gate of early external citations of the Gospels.

Lastly, Ferguson also claims that Tertullian “refers to the [Histories] by that title.� Well, yes, Tertullian refers to the histories of Tacitus. But it’s not at all clear that he calls them the Histories as though that were the title. Like Pliny, this seems just as likely to be a reference to genre. After all, it was a history so it’s only natural Tertullian would refer to it as the histories of Tacitus. What else would Tertullian likely call a historical work with no unique title? How does Tertullian know it was written by Tacitus though? This is the salient question. Tertullian doesn’t say. Once again, no better than the external evidence for the Gospels it would seem.

In summary, the evidence for Tacitus’ authorship of the Histories boils down to, at best, two sources. The first from the contemporary Pliny. An early and ambiguous claim that Tacitus may have written something - an historical work of some kind. The second from Tertullian. His conflicting words coming around a hundred years later. This amounts to, in Ferguson’s eyes, very strong external evidence.


Now let’s compare the external evidence for the Gospels.

(G) External evidence for the Gospels: (Listed in order of approximate temporal proximity)


(G.1) Evidence from Papias (lived c. 60 - 130 AD, wrote c. 100 – 110 AD):

In a similar way Pliny was a contemporary to Tacitus there is evidence that Papias was likewise a contemporary to the Gospel writers. Remember, Pliny’s strength is argued on the basis that he was a contemporary to Tacitus. Therefore, I only need to argue for a contemporary to the authors of the Gospels to match the evidence from Pliny. Which is what we have with Papias if not more so. There is evidence that places Papias in the direct company of some of the people who are said to have written the Gospels.

“And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him.� - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4

Now, it is often argued Papias’ credibility is questionable on the basis of Papias’ own words as recorded by Eusebius (Church History 3.39.4). It is argued that Papias’ source wasn’t the disciple John but was rather an unknown John which Papias calls the “presbyter (or elder) John.�

• εἰ δέ που καὶ παÏ�ηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς Ï€Ï�εσβυτέÏ�οις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν Ï€Ï�εσβυτέÏ�ων ἀνέκÏ�ινον λόγους, τί ἈνδÏ�έας á¼¢ τί ΠέτÏ�ος εἶπεν á¼¢ τί Φίλιππος á¼¢ τί Θωμᾶς á¼¢ Ἰάκωβος á¼¢ τί Ἰωάννης á¼¢ Ματθαῖος ἤ τις ἕτεÏ�ος τῶν τοῦ κυÏ�ίου μαθητῶν á¼… τε ἈÏ�ιστίων καὶ á½� Ï€Ï�εσβÏ�τεÏ�ος Ἰωάννης, τοῦ κυÏ�ίου μαθηταί, λέγουσιν. οá½� γὰÏ� Ï„á½° á¼�κ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον ὅσον Ï„á½° παÏ�á½° ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενοÏ�σης.’ – Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, CH 3.39.4

A few comments on this. Firstly, by way of comparison Pliny provides no direct evidence as to how he came by his information on what Tacitus was writing. Neither does Tacitus tell us he was in the company of Pliny. It is simply assumed Pliny had some special firsthand knowledge of what Tacitus was writing. For all we know Pliny got his information from the pool boy. Pliny’s strength is that he was a contemporary to Tacitus not that we have some concrete evidence that Pliny’s source was Tacitus himself. So this objection seems to be rather moot.

Secondly, it wasn’t unprecedented for π�εσβυ�τε�ος to have been used in the context of a disciple and witness to Jesus (1 Peter 5:1).

Thirdly, Papias doesn’t use any word other than π�εσβυ�τε�ος (presbuteros) when referring to the disciples Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew in the entire passage. Suggestively, however, Papias drops π�εσβυ�τε�ος when he refers to Aniston but keeps it for John in the latter part of the passage thereby seemingly making the distinction that the John mentioned was the same disciple John just mentioned. Whereas Aniston was not a disciple.

Fourthly, Papias seems to making the distinction between what the disciples who have died said (εἶπεν) and what those who are still alive say (λέγουσιν). Thus we have the latter distinction between the π�εσβυ�τε�ος John and Aniston as John was still alive, John being a disciple whereas Aniston was not.

Here’s what Papias was recorded as saying about the Gospels:

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.�- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

�Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.� – Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, CH 3.39.15


(G.2) Evidence from Justin Martyr (lived c. 100 - 165 AD, wrote c. 150 AD):

�For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.� - First Apology 66

�And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.� – Dialogue with Trypho 81

�when He kept silence, and chose to return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles� – Dialogue with Trypho 102

�For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spoke to Him, 'You are my Son: this day have I begotten You,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him, 'Get behind me, Satan: you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve... For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass.� - Dialogue with Trypho 103

�For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit,' as I have learned also from the memoirs. For He exhorted His disciples to surpass the pharisaic way of living, with the warning, that if they did not, they might be sure they could not be saved; and these words are recorded in the memoirs: 'Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.� – Dialogue with Trypho 105

�...through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles... And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened... A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel; and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.� – Dialogue with Trypho 106


(G.3) Evidence from the Anti-Marcionite Prologues (c. 160 - 180 AD):

�The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books.�

Some scholars have dated these prologues to around 160 – 180 AD. The prologues attribute authorship to Mark, Luke, and John. There was likely a prologue to Matthew but it has been lost to us. The prologue to John is particularly of interest as it appeals to the authority of Papias’ writings. In other words, in his writings Papias had claimed John wrote a Gospel.


(G.4) Evidence from the Muratorian fragment (c. 170 – 180 AD):

�The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it... For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence — as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain...�


(G.5) Evidence from Irenaeus (lived c. 130 - 202 AD, wrote c. 180 AD):

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

As mentioned we have evidence that Irenaeus met Papias who had heard John. We also have evidence that Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John and others who knew Jesus.

�But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.� – Against Heresies 3.3.4

�As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul...But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him the beloved, and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel...� - Against Heresies 3.14.1


(G.6) Evidence from Theophilus of Antioch (lived c. (?) – 183 AD):

�And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,� showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.�� - To Autolycus 2.22


(G.7) Evidence from Clement of Alexandria (lived c. 150 – 215 AD, wrote c. 195 AD):

"And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark". – as recorded by Eusebius, CH, 2.15.1

� Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.� – as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.5-7


Since classical scholars such as Mendell see Tertullian as a reliable enough source on the authorship of texts to use him for Tacitus it’s worthwhile to see what Tertullian also says about the Gospels.

(G.8) Evidence from Tertullian (c. 200 AD):

�We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors...Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.� – Against Marcion 4.2

"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning." - Against Marcion 4.5

Now, I’m not sure how it can be argued Tertullian is unreliable for the Gospels but reliable for Tacitus without some type of Special Plea fallacy.


And for good measure, Origen.

(G.9) Evidence from Origen (lived c. 184 – 253 AD, wrote c. 230 AD):

�Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.� – as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7


For the sake of interest a few resources:

Here is a source which outlines the external evidence for Mark.

Daniel B. Wallace on the authorship of:
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

We can summarize the strength of the external evidence for the respective texts with the following table (1).

• [row]Table (1)[col][center]Tacitus (c. 100 AD)[/center][col][center]Matthew (c. 80 AD)[/center][col][center]Mark (c. 70 AD)[/center][col][center]Luke (c. 80 AD)[/center][col][center]John (c. 90 AD) [/center][row]Contemporary claims authorship of [i]something[/i][col][center]Yes (Pliny)[/center][col][center]Yes (Papias)[/center][col][center]Yes (Papias)[/center][col][center]No[/center][col][center]Yes (Papias)[/center] [row]First direct unambiguous authorial attribution[col][center]Tertullian (c. 200 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)[/center][col][center]Irenaeus, Theophilus (c. 180 AD)[/center] [row]Approximate years to first direct unambiguous attribution[col][center]100[/center][col][center]100[/center][col][center]110[/center][col][center]100[/center][col][center]90[/center] [row]Additional claims to authorship within approx. 100 yrs.[col][center]None[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr, Marc. Pro.[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr, Muratorian fr., Marc. Pro.[/center][col][center]Justin Martyr, Muratorian fr., Marc. Pro.[/center] [row]Total claims to authorship within approx. 100 yrs.[col][center]2[/center][col][center]3[/center][col][center]4[/center][col][center]4[/center][col][center]6 [/center]

Once again to summarize the Main Argument:

• 1. The external evidence for Tacitus’ authorship of his Histories is very strong.
  
  2. The Gospels’ external evidence is equally as strong as the external evidence for Tacitus’ Histories.
  
  3. Therefore, the external evidence for the Gospels is very strong.

Question for debate: Which premise in the main argument do you dispute and why?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Goose]

So why is it that multiple volumes are written about chapters of great men's lives, even minor mens lives. But outside of the Bible, only single sentence references justify entire swaths of history, and contradict entire swaths of history?

Celsus wrote extensively, (and his works were destroyed) demonstrating that Jesus DID NOT exist, yet these works are disputed, Tacitus and others make these insertions, and other suggested forgeries, yet these are trumpeted as great verifications.

They are not.
Supposedly, a resurrection is the greatest event in human history. It certainly would be, were it true.

We had both Jesus and Lazarus come back from the dead. Though it is understandable Jesus left no record, floating conveniently up into the sky as he did, it is incomprehensible why Lazarus should not have gone on to be nearly as great as Jesus.

Where is Lazarus' biography? Where are his descriptions of the afterlife? Where are his interviews with philosophers and kings?

It only makes sense, if like history says, he was made up afterwards.
Chroniclers of fake events would be too amazed by their own created God to be concerned with the plot device, Lazarus. But then, it probably boggled their minds to try to describe Heaven.

[Goose]

Below are the first references and quotations of the Gospels among external source, which treat them anonymously for some decades after their composition:

Ignatius (c. 105-115 CE) appears to quote phrases from Matthew (see here), and to allude to the star over Bethlehem (Mt. 2:1-12) in his Letter to the Ephesians (19:2); however, Ignatius does not attribute any of this material to the disciple Matthew nor does he refer to a “Gospel according to Matthew.� Polycarp (c. 110-140 CE) likewise appears to quote multiple phrases and verses from Matthew, Mark, and Luke (see here), and yet he neither attributes any of this material to their traditional authors nor refers to their traditional titles. There is scholarly dispute, however, as to whether Ignatius and Polycarp are quoting written texts, or instead interacting with oral traditions. As such, it is uncertain whether these two authors are directly referencing the Gospels that we possess today.

If Ignatius and Polycarp are quoting oral traditions rather than written texts then there is no argument to be made here. We wouldn’t expect there to be attribution to a particular author in that case.

Assuming these were written texts Polycarp and Ignatius are quoting from then it would be incumbent upon Ferguson (or other skeptics) to explain why these quotes are found only in our four Gospels. How could both Polycarp and Ignatius have to come to quote these Gospels, and no other Gospel, as authoritative placing them on the level of scripture if these texts were circulating anonymously? Surely the best explanation is that Polycarp and Ignatius had good reason to think these texts, like the letters of Paul, had the authority of apostolic authorship standing behind them.

Now as support for Ferguson’s argument the Gospels circulated anonymously from the beginning he notes that the early writers Polycarp and Ignatius use material found in the Gospels but do not name them or attribute authorship to them. As though if they had known the authors they would have named them. However, what Ferguson either doesn’t know or doesn’t want to tell his readers is that Ignatius and Polycarp also quote directly from and allude to other works such as Paul’s letters on numerous occasions without ever attributing authorship or naming them either:

�For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.� - Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 3.

�while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.� – Paul, 2 Corinthians 4:18

�But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one born out of due time.� - Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 9.

�...and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle...� – Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:8-9

Now consider that Ignatius knew of Paul’s letters and the content of those letters:

�You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.� - Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 12.

Ignatius also uses the Old Testament without attributing authorship or sources:

�For it is written, God resists the proud.� – Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 5.

�...as it is written, The righteous man is his own accuser.� – Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, 12.

The second quote is from Proverbs 18:17. Is this evidence Proverbs was circulating without a title at the time of Ignatius?

As for Polycarp we seem to have a similar situation. Polycarp also, as though it they were equally authoritative, quotes directly from or alludes to: (1) Paul’s letters (2) 1 Peter 1:8, 13; 2:22, 24; 21; 3:9, 22; 5:5 (3) 1 John 4:3 (4) Tobit 4:10; 12:9 (4) Isaiah 52:5 and (5) Psalm 4:4. Polycarp never directly attributes authorship to any of these texts either (although he does allude to the teachings of Paul).

Paul’s letters and the Psalms are just simply referred to as scripture by Polycarp. No attribution of authorship:

�For I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, Be angry, and sin not [Psalm 4:4], and, Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.[Ephesians 4:26]� – Polycarp, to the Philippians, 12

So Ignatius knew of Paul’s letters yet when Ignatius alludes to or directly quotes the contents of Paul’s letters he never directly attributes authorship to Paul either. There’s a similar case with Polycarp. What are we to make of that? Are we to think, for example, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians (which Ignatius quotes) were circulating anonymously? Or that Polycarp and Ignatius were not aware Paul had written these letters?

So it would seem that whatever Ferguson is to say about Polycarp’s and Ignatius’ failure to name the Gospels’ authors or give them titles he must also say about Paul’s letters et al. as Polycarp and Ignatius fail to name the authors and give them titles as well.

We must ask which seems more likely then. That in the time of Polycarp and Ignatius the Gospels, along with Paul’s letters and all the other texts mentioned above, circulated anonymously without titles/authors or Polycarp and Ignatius simply felt free to quote from and allude to these works without having to constantly name the authors and titles? It seems the latter is more likely when one further considers the audience of Polycarp and Ignatius were believers who would have been familiar with the source of the quotes.

Finally, Ignatius and Polycarp do not constitute direct authorial attributions this is true. However, they are still early sources, within just a few decades, clearly using Gospel material. Let’s not lose sight of the fact we don’t have this additional early kind of evidence for Tacitus’ Histories.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by Goose]

Errrm, perhaps they are both quoting an original source?
It is certainly weird to quote the OT, for it had not been written yet, it only existed as scraps of other peoples fairy tales at the time.

How would he have quoted a verbal tradition?

[Goose]

A stronger case can be made that the Epistle of Barnabas (80-120 CE) quotes Matthew (22:14), particularly because the epistle says “it is written� (4:14), when referring to the verse “many are invited, but few are chosen�; and yet, the Epistle of Barnabas does not attribute this verse to a text written by the disciple Matthew. What is further worth noting is that the Epistle of Barnabas (4:3) also refers to the Book of Enoch, and states “as Enoch saith,� showing that the epistle refers to traditional authorship elsewhere, when it was known.

More of the same from Ferguson. This idea that the Gospels were anonymous from the beginning. This time the Epistle of Barnabas is given as support. Again Ferguson is making too much of authors who quote sources but do not attribute authorship. Just one chapter later the Epistle of Barnabas also directly quotes Isaiah saying “it is written� without attributing these verses to Isaiah either.

�For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] says thus: “He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.� – Epistle of Barnabas, 5.

�But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed...Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. – Isaiah 53:5, 7

The Epistle of Barnabas also directly quotes Genesis without attributing a title or author.

�For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.� – Epistle of Barnabas, 6.

�Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.�� – Genesis 1:26

In fact, the Epistle of Barnabas either alludes to or quotes directly from Isaiah possibly as many as 20 some odd times without ever directly naming Isaiah. It also either draws from or directly quotes Jeremiah, Deuteronomy (ch. 9), and other OT texts without directly naming the author or title. It also uses the formula “it is written� in chapters 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, and 16 without ever naming an author or title of the text.

It would seem once again we have a case where an author felt at liberty to quote from or allude to known authoritative texts without having to name the author or title.

[Goose]

Even more important, however, is when the Didache (c. 50-120 CE) directly quotes the Lord’s prayer (8:3-11), which is written in Matthew 6:9-13. This quotation is important, because the Didache attributes these verses to “His (Jesus’) Gospel� (ο κυ�ιος εν τω ευαγγελιω αυτου) without referring to a “Gospel according to Matthew.� What the Didache is probably referring to, therefore, is the original title of the Gospels, before they were attributed to their traditional names. As discussed under the “Internal Evidence� section above, the Gospels were most likely originally referred to under the title το ευαγγελιον Ιησου Χ�ιστου (“The Gospel of Jesus Christ�); however, when later there were multiple gospels in circulation, the construction κατα (“according to�) was added, in order to distinguish individual gospels by their designated names. The Didache likely preserves, therefore, a trace of their original titles, which were anonymous.

The Lord’s Prayer was just that, a prayer. It was similar to creeds which were memorized (e.g. Philippians 2:5-11). Not unlike many Christians still do today with the Lord’s Prayer Christians memorized this prayer. It was after all the way in which Christians were instructed to pray. So the Didache is just as likely quoting oral tradition which had come down from Jesus. Or it’s using oral tradition that may have been derived from Matthew’s Gospel (or Luke's Gospel). No need to expect the writer of the Didache to attribute this to Matthew specifically. And why would it anyway? It's not as though the prayer is only found in Matthew. A version of the Lord’ prayer is also found in Luke (11:2-4).

Moreover, the Lord’s Prayer found in the Didache differs slightly from Matthew with the additional ending, “Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever� which is not found in Matthew. Neither is the instruction to pray this way three times per day found in Matthew.

Suggestively, just prior to the Lord’s Prayer the Didache (ch. 7) echoes the great commission statement made by Jesus found only in Matthew (28:19) and yet the Didache doesn’t attribute this to “His (Jesus’) Gospel.�

“Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit� – Didache 7.

Why didn’t the Didache likewise attribute this great commission statement to “His (Jesus’) Gospel� as well then? Why does the attribution to “His (Jesus’) Gospel� occur after this in chapter 8 in reference to the Lord’s prayer if Matthew was the source for the Didache here? If we understand the use of “Gospel� in the Didache to mean the message of Jesus and not a reference to any particular book this argument disappears.

Further, even if the Didache was drawing from the text of Matthew, like many works of the time, it wasn’t unprecedented for the Didache to echo the sentiments of other writers without providing attribution. For example, the Didache seems to draw from Paul’s letters without attributing authorship either.

�Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money� - Didache 15

�A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous...Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money...� – Paul, 1 Timothy 3:1-3,8-9

[ttruscott]

45 years ago the BEST Bible scholars were those who used textual criticism and its systematic techniques for analyzing ancient manuscripts...It was just coincidence they were either atheists or became atheists by their interpretations of the bible...

and all denied that their bias interfered with their scholarly approach! Gone now and good riddance, sigh.

[YahWhat]

Why do you say Pliny the Younger's letter to Tacitus is formally anonymous when the letter is addressed with both Pliny's name (as author) and Tacitus' name (as recipient): C. PLINIUS TACITO SUO S?

Furthermore, the letter's title cannot be a later scribal addition, as discussed in more detail here: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2012 ... e-younger/

[Goose]

Why do you say Pliny the Younger's letter to Tacitus is formally anonymous...

Because it doesn’t internally name the author within the body of the text. It’s the same criterion sceptics like Ferguson use to assert the anonymity of the Gospels.

To begin with, the Gospels are all internally anonymous in that none of their authors names himself within the text.

...when the letter is addressed with both Pliny's name (as author) and Tacitus' name (as recipient): C. PLINIUS TACITO SUO S?

Are we counting titles as evidence for authorship then? Because these addresses in Pliny’s letters are clearly titles and do not constitute the body of the text itself. In the manuscripts given by Pearse (the 5th C. Morgan Fragment) the titles sit atop the body of the text. The text itself is written in scriptura continua whereas the titles are not. The titles are also often a smaller font of uncial than the body of the text. And in any event, even you recognize them as titles. The only question, then, is did Pliny provide these titles himself or did someone else provide them?

Furthermore, the letter's title cannot be a later scribal addition, as discussed in more detail here: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2012 ... e-younger/

Here’s what Roger Pearse says:

• â€�The presence of extra information in the titles means that these cannot be scribal work; they must come down from Pliny himself, unless we propose to imagine some intermediate person locating this information and adding it, which seems unlikely and unnecessary.â€�

It’s not at all clear from Pearse what this “extra information� in the titles is that would force us to conclude the titles must come down from Pliny himself. However convincing this may sound, this is pure speculation from Pearse. We have no way of knowing, with the kind of certainty Pearse is asserting here, that these titles must have come down to us from Pliny himself. I could very well imagine them being added by a later editor/compiler. Pearse’s only objection to this idea is his opinion that it “seems unlikely and unnecessary.� But he provides no argument for thinking so.

[YahWhat]

Why do you say Pliny the Younger's letter to Tacitus is formally anonymous...

Because it doesn’t internally name the author within the body of the text. It’s the same criterion sceptics like Ferguson use to assert the anonymity of the Gospels.

To begin with, the Gospels are all internally anonymous in that none of their authors names himself within the text.

...when the letter is addressed with both Pliny's name (as author) and Tacitus' name (as recipient): C. PLINIUS TACITO SUO S?

Are we counting titles as evidence for authorship then? Because these addresses in Pliny’s letters are clearly titles and do not constitute the body of the text itself. In the manuscripts given by Pearse (the 5th C. Morgan Fragment) the titles sit atop the body of the text. The text itself is written in scriptura continua whereas the titles are not. The titles are also often a smaller font of uncial than the body of the text. And in any event, even you recognize them as titles. The only question, then, is did Pliny provide these titles himself or did someone else provide them?

Furthermore, the letter's title cannot be a later scribal addition, as discussed in more detail here: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2012 ... e-younger/

Here’s what Roger Pearse says:

• â€�The presence of extra information in the titles means that these cannot be scribal work; they must come down from Pliny himself, unless we propose to imagine some intermediate person locating this information and adding it, which seems unlikely and unnecessary.â€�

It’s not at all clear from Pearse what this “extra information� in the titles is that would force us to conclude the titles must come down from Pliny himself. However convincing this may sound, this is pure speculation from Pearse. We have no way of knowing, with the kind of certainty Pearse is asserting here, that these titles must have come down to us from Pliny himself. I could very well imagine them being added by a later editor/compiler. Pearse’s only objection to this idea is his opinion that it “seems unlikely and unnecessary.� But he provides no argument for thinking so.

Can you provide a convincing case that the title in Pliny's letter was a later scribal addition? Last time I checked, merely "imagining" it to be the case is not sufficient. Pearse points out how the words are not separated from the title in the 5th century manuscript. With the gospels, it's different because Ferguson gives the actual reasons why the titles were most likely later additions and this isn't just him being a "skeptic." It's the modern mainstream scholarly view. In light of fair play can you cite the reasons scholars give to doubt that Pliny himself wrote this letter to Tacitus?

But even if we start comparing titles, the gospels still lose because they use the unconventional Greek κατα, meaning “according to� or “handed down from� title rather than the standard genitive case which indicated personal possession such as Corneli Taciti or Cor. Taciti Libri (“The Books of Cornelius Tacitus�).

"The specific wording of the Gospel titles also suggests that the portion bearing their names was a later addition. The κατα (“according to�) preposition supplements the word ευαγγελιον (“gospel�). This word for “gospel� was implicitly connected with Jesus, meaning that the full title was το ευαγγελιον Ιησου Χ�ιστου (“The Gospel of Jesus Christ�), with the additional preposition κατα (“according to�) used to distinguish specific gospels by their individual names. Before there were multiple gospels written, however, this addition would have been unnecessary. In fact, many scholars argue that the opening line of the Gospel of Mark (1:1) probably functioned as the original title of the text:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…

This original title of Mark can be compared with those of other ancient texts in which the opening lines served as titles. Herodotus’ Histories (1.1), for example, begins with the following line which probably served as the title of the text:

This is the exposition of the history of Herodotus…

A major difference between the Gospel of Mark and Herodotus’ Histories, however, is that opening line of Mark does not name the text’s author, but instead attributes the gospel to Jesus Christ. This title became insufficient, however, when there were multiple “gospels of Jesus� in circulation, and so, the additional κατα (“according to�) formula was used to distinguish specific gospels by their individual names. This circumstance, however, suggests that the names themselves were a later addition, as there would have been no need for such a distinction before multiple gospels were in circulation." - Matthew Ferguson

According to Pedar Foss, Pliny's greeting was a standard opening for a letter written to a familiar recipient:

C. PLINIUS TACITO SUO S.

Gaius Plinius greets his dear (friend) Tacitus.

‘C‘ is the abbreviation for the common name ‘Caius‘, or ‘Gaius‘. ‘S‘ is short for ‘salutem‘, and goes with the gapped verb ‘dicit‘ to mean ‘says greeting’. ‘Suo‘ is a term of affectionate familiarity often used to denote ‘one’s own’ (i.e., family and friends). This is a pretty standard opening for a letter. https://quemdixerechaos.com/2012/11/28/ ... gplinypt3/

Under your hypothesis, you have to concoct some other imagined unnecessary person who added this personal greeting secondarily. Do you have any reason at all to suspect this? This is the same method Christ mythers use to discard evidence they don't like.

There's also the inconvenient fact where Tacitus inserts himself in the first person.

"Beyond the titles, we can look within the body of a text to see if the author himself reveals any clues either directly or indirectly about his identity. For Tacitus, while the author does not explicitly name himself, he does discuss his relation to the events that he is describing in the Histories (1:1):

'I myself was not acquainted with Galba, Otho, or Vitellius, either by profit or injury. I would not deny that my rank was first elevated by Vespasian, then raised by Titus, and still further increased by Domitian; but to those who profess unaltered truth, it is requisite to speak neither with partisanship nor prejudice.'

Here, while he does not name himself, the author of the Histories reveals himself to be a Roman politician during the Flavian Dynasty, which he specifies to be the period that he will write about. This matches the biographical information that we have of Tacitus outside of the Histories. For example, we know outside the text that Tacitus was writing a historical work about the Flavian period, since we have letters from Pliny the Younger (6.16; 6.20) written to Tacitus, where he responds to Tacitus’ request for information about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (which Tacitus also alludes to Hist. 1.2). Pliny’s letters also refer to Tacitus’ career as a statesman, such as when he gave the funeral oration for the Roman general Verginius Rufus (2.1). So we know from outside the Histories that Tacitus was a Roman politician writing a history about the Flavian era. This outside information is corroborated exactly by the evidence within the text. Thus, we have good reason to suspect that the author of the Histories is Tacitus, as the internal evidence strongly coincides with this tradition.

This kind of first person interjection from the author, described above, where Tacitus mentions his own relation to events within the narrative, stands in stark contrast with the anonymous style of narration in the Gospels. Although Tacitus does not overtly name himself in his historical works, he still uses the first person to discuss biographical details about himself. The gospels Matthew and Mark, in contrast, do not even use the first person, spoken by the author, anywhere in the text! Instead, both narratives are told in the third person, from an external narrator. This style of narration casts doubt on whether either author is relating personal experiences. As Irene de Jong (Narratology & Classics: A Practical Guide, pg. 17) explains:

'It is an important principle of narratology that the narrator cannot automatically be equated with the author; rather, it is a creation of the author, like the characters.'

The narrators of both Matthew and Mark describe the events in their texts from an outside point of view. This is a subtle aspect of both texts, but it is a very important consideration for why scholars describe them as “anonymous.� Neither narrative is an overt recollection of personal experiences, but rather focuses solely on the subject–Jesus Christ–with the author fading into the background, making it unclear whether the author has any personal relation to events set within the narrative at all." - Ferguson.

Lastly, in another series of anonymous letters Pliny provides to Tacitus an account of his uncle’s death in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (LXV & LXVI to Tacitus) which Pliny seems to imply Tacitus had requested for his history. But that account from Pliny is not found in the histories of Tacitus. Neither is Pliny the Younger mentioned by Tacitus despite Pliny’ pleas to Tacitus to include him. In other words, as is often argued by skeptics regarding Mark and our Greek Matthew in relation to Papias’ words, the Histories of Tacitus we have today do not reflect the expected content as described by Pliny.

Does your argument from silence account for the fact that only 5 books of Tacitus' Histories are extant? We're missing most of them! It's kind of hard to find information when a large portion of the work no longer survives.

[Goose]

Can you provide a convincing case that the title in Pliny's letter was a later scribal addition?

Can you provide a convincing case they weren’t?

But I do think it suggestive that there are 105 recipients of Pliny’s letters spanning probably over a decade (only 77 of the recipients we know something about) covering a wide range of topics from business dealings to accepting dinner invitations. Forty-eight letters were addressed to high ranking senators. Others were addressed to acquaintances, friends, family, his mother-in-law, men, women, married couples, and so on. It doesn’t seem to matter who is being addressed or for what reason, the titles are always the same. Even when Pliny was angry the same title was used.

C. Plinius Paulino suo s.

�I am angry with you; whether I ought to be I am not quite sure, but I am angry all the same.� – 2.2

http://epistol.glossa.dk/plinius.html#ep7_8

Do you use the same opening address with everyone you write to regardless of the reason? I sure don’t.

I think we can safely say these titles were added. If they were the original addresses used by Pliny in the actual letters surely Pliny would have varied his address at least occasionally over the years given the wide variety of persons addressed and reasons for writing. Who and when the titles were added, then, is the salient question. And we just don’t know the answer to those two questions.

But you are missing the point anyway. The point is: they are titles and as such do not constitute the body of the text. This is why I said Pliny’s letters are formally anonymous. They are formally anonymous using the very same criterion Ferguson (and other sceptics) use to assert the anonymity of the Gospels.

Pearse points out how the words are not separated from the title in the 5th century manuscript.

And? They are still titles. Pearse acknowledges this and so did you. These aren’t addresses contained in the main body of the text something like what we see in Paul’s letters.


It’s plainly obvious the title “C. Plinius Maximo suo salute� sits atop the body of the text as I said earlier. Also notice how the body of the text is written in scriptura continua whereas the title clearly is not.

And here’s a 9th century manuscript of Pliny’s letter to Tacitus (6.16):


The address is clearly a title. It’s virtually indisputable that these opening addresses are titles.

With the gospels, it's different because Ferguson gives the actual reasons why the titles were most likely later additions and this isn't just him being a "skeptic."

I’ve addressed many of those reasons throughout this thread starting here. And I can give the same kinds of reasons Ferguson gives. 1) Pliny’s letter is anonymous, it doesn’t mention the author in the text itself. 2) When Pliny’s letters are alluded to by writers like Tertullian (Apology 2, which predates our oldest manuscripts for Pliny’s letters) they not referred to by the titles we have.

It's the modern mainstream scholarly view. In light of fair play can you cite the reasons scholars give to doubt that Pliny himself wrote this letter to Tacitus?

You are missing the point. The point is, using Ferguson’s criterion he applies to the Gospels we find that Pliny’s letter to Tacitus is formally anonymous as well. You have to make a Special Plea for Pliny’s letters to get around this.

But even if we start comparing titles, the gospels still lose because they use the unconventional Greek κατα, meaning “according to� or “handed down from� title rather than the standard genitive case which indicated personal possession such as Corneli Taciti or Cor. Taciti Libri (“The Books of Cornelius Tacitus�).

Okay then, let’s count titles as external evidence for authorship and compare them if you want to. I don’t think Tacitus fares any better than the Gospels here.

I’m not sure how the Gospels lose here simply on the grounds of “according to...� vs. “of.� Ferguson makes quite a bit about “according to� vs. “of� as though this syntactical difference in the respective titles proves something meaningful. It seems to me this argument misses the salient point however. Which is whether or not the respective authors names are associated with the text. Does the syntax of the title really matter that much? I don’t think it does so long as the author is associated with the text.

And besides in the case of Tacitus notice the manuscript titles are something like Cornelius Tacitus’ or The Books of Cornelius Tacitus. There’s no reference to the Histories of Tacitus in the manuscript titles we have. So even Tacitus has his own problems when looking solely at title attributions.

Further complicating matters, we have numerous proposed titles for Tacitus’ Histories used throughout antiquity.

1. Pliny refers to “your histories.�

2. Tertullian refers to them as the “histories of Tacitus.�

3. According to Mendell (as referenced by Roger Pearse) , Jerome, in is Commentary on Zacchariah, refers to Tacitus’ writings as “the lives of the Caesars in 30 volumes from Augustus down to the death of Domitian.�

4. Then there are the differing manuscript titles mentioned above.

There just doesn’t seem to be a uniform pattern. Indeed the Histories of Tacitus, it appears, may have been without a formal title until well after Tertullian.




As for the use of κατα in the Gospel titles. It wasn’t unprecedented for this word to be used in the context of attributing authorship.

1. Plato used it to refer to the writings of Pindar:

Σωκ�άτης

τί δέ; ο�κ ἂν οἴει με κατὰ Πίνδα�ον “καὶ ἀσχολίας ὑπέ�τε�ον π�ᾶγμα� ποιήσασθαι τὸ τεήν τε καὶ Λυσίου διατ�ιβὴν ἀκοῦσαι; -Plato, Phaedrus 227b

Translated as:

Socrates:

What? Don't you believe that I consider hearing your conversation with Lysias “a greater thing even than business,� as Pindar says?

“My mother, Thebes of the golden shield, I will consider thy interest greater even than business.� – Pindar, Isthmian, 1.1

2. 2 Macc 2:13 used it to refer to Nehemiah’s writings:

“κατὰ τὸν νεεμιαν�

3. Martin Hengel has noted the analogy of the Greek translations of the one Old Testament. The Greek translations of the Old Testament by The Seventy (i.e. The LXX), Aquila, and Symmachus were referred to as “according to the seventy� and “according to Aquila� and “according to Symmachus� by the Greek church fathers.

Thus, if we understand there to be one Gospel message (like there was one Old Testament) in four different versions it seems perfectly reasonable to say something like “according to...�

X according to A
X according to B
X according to C and so on.

"The specific wording of the Gospel titles also suggests that the portion bearing their names was a later addition. The κατα (“according to�) preposition supplements the word ευαγγελιον (“gospel�). This word for “gospel� was implicitly connected with Jesus, meaning that the full title was το ευαγγελιον Ιησου Χ�ιστου (“The Gospel of Jesus Christ�), with the additional preposition κατα (“according to�) used to distinguish specific gospels by their individual names. Before there were multiple gospels written, however, this addition would have been unnecessary.

This is pure circular speculation. It doesn’t at all follow that that names were added later perhaps at the time when the title “according to� was added. And the argument that: “The κατα (“according to�) preposition supplements the word ευαγγελιον (“gospel�)� is problematic as some of the earliest manuscripts have simply κατα (“according to...�) with no ευαγγελιον (“gospel�).

In fact, many scholars argue that the opening line of the Gospel of Mark (1:1) probably functioned as the original title of the text:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…

It is also just as likely this was nothing more than an opening line with Mark's name as subscript not unlike some manuscripts with subscript titles.

This original title of Mark can be compared with those of other ancient texts in which the opening lines served as titles. Herodotus’ Histories (1.1), for example, begins with the following line which probably served as the title of the text:

This is the exposition of the history of Herodotus…

A major difference between the Gospel of Mark and Herodotus’ Histories, however, is that opening line of Mark does not name the text’s author, but instead attributes the gospel to Jesus Christ. This title became insufficient, however, when there were multiple “gospels of Jesus� in circulation, and so, the additional κατα (“according to�) formula was used to distinguish specific gospels by their individual names. This circumstance, however, suggests that the names themselves were a later addition, as there would have been no need for such a distinction before multiple gospels were in circulation." - Matthew Ferguson

Of course Ferguson simply cherry picks one of the very few histories which happens to name the author in the opening line. If Ferguson were to stick to the chosen case example - Tacitus’ Histories – he couldn’t make this argument. Here’s the opening to the Histories by Tacitus:

�I begin my work with the time when Servius Galba was consul for the second time with Titus Vinius for his colleague.�

According to Pedar Foss, Pliny's greeting was a standard opening for a letter written to a familiar recipient:

That's not in dispute. Although it is odd the same opening is used in every single letter regardless of who was being addressed.

Under your hypothesis, you have to concoct some other imagined unnecessary person who added this personal greeting secondarily. Do you have any reason at all to suspect this? This is the same method Christ mythers use to discard evidence they don't like.

It’s interesting that you see the methodology I am applying to Tacitus as unreasonable. The irony of course is that it’s the same kind of methodology and arguments used against the authorship of the Gospels by people like Ferguson. And besides, I thought you approved of the arguments Christ-mythers used anyway. You’ve quoted the Jesus-myther Richard Carrier in numerous debates.

There's also the inconvenient fact where Tacitus inserts himself in the first person.

Irrelevant. We are looking at the external evidence, not internal arguments. So I will keep this next section very brief.

"Beyond the titles, we can look within the body of a text to see if the author himself reveals any clues either directly or indirectly about his identity. For Tacitus, while the author does not explicitly name himself, he does discuss his relation to the events that he is describing in the Histories (1:1):

'I myself was not acquainted with Galba, Otho, or Vitellius, either by profit or injury. I would not deny that my rank was first elevated by Vespasian, then raised by Titus, and still further increased by Domitian; but to those who profess unaltered truth, it is requisite to speak neither with partisanship nor prejudice.'

Here, while he does not name himself, the author of the Histories reveals himself to be a Roman politician during the Flavian Dynasty, which he specifies to be the period that he will write about.

I don’t think Ferguson is being anywhere near as sceptical towards Tacitus here as he is towards the Gospels. The author says nothing at all here about his position as a Roman politician. It's not clear if the author is speaking of political, social, or economic rank. The author uses the word dignitatemwhich implies his dignity was elevated. One could be elevated in various ways by the actions of a Caesar (King, President, ruler, leader, etc) without ever having met that person. The author says very little here about himself or his actual relationship to the subject matter in fact.

This matches the biographical information that we have of Tacitus outside of the Histories. For example, we know outside the text that Tacitus was writing a historical work about the Flavian period, since we have letters from Pliny the Younger (6.16; 6.20) written to Tacitus, where he responds to Tacitus’ request for information about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (which Tacitus also alludes to Hist. 1.2).

Entirely circular. The letter’s themselves never state either Pliny’s name or Tacitus’ in the body of the text.

Pliny’s letters also refer to Tacitus’ career as a statesman, such as when he gave the funeral oration for the Roman general Verginius Rufus (2.1). So we know from outside the Histories that Tacitus was a Roman politician writing a history about the Flavian era.

This outside information is corroborated exactly by the evidence within the text. Thus, we have good reason to suspect that the author of the Histories is Tacitus, as the internal evidence strongly coincides with this tradition.

This is all very circular. The Histories themselves say nothing directly about the author being a politician. And the one event which we would expect to be in the Histories of Tacitus - the death of Pliny’s uncle - isn’t found in the Histories which have come down to us.

And besides. We have plenty of information from outside the Gospels about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I could make all the same kinds of arguments that the outside information is corroborated by the evidence within the texts as well. See the link to Daniel B. Wallace in the OP for a sampling.

This kind of first person interjection from the author, described above, where Tacitus mentions his own relation to events within the narrative, stands in stark contrast with the anonymous style of narration in the Gospels.

Once again Ferguson is over stating his case and not presenting the evidence fairly. The anonymous author of the Histories makes a few passing comments in the opening about his having benefited from the reigns of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. But that’s about it. The author of the Histories reports from a third person perspective throughout the work even when he is reporting on the events surrounding Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. One just need read the Histories and this becomes self evident.

Although Tacitus does not overtly name himself in his historical works, he still uses the first person to discuss biographical details about himself. The gospels Matthew and Mark, in contrast, do not even use the first person, spoken by the author, anywhere in the text! Instead, both narratives are told in the third person, from an external narrator. This style of narration casts doubt on whether either author is relating personal experiences.

I wonder if Ferguson also argues the author of the Gallic Wars isn’t relating personal experiences by virtue of the fact that it is also written in the third person. Yeah, somehow I doubt it.

The narrators of both Matthew and Mark describe the events in their texts from an outside point of view. This is a subtle aspect of both texts, but it is a very important consideration for why scholars describe them as “anonymous.� Neither narrative is an overt recollection of personal experiences, but rather focuses solely on the subject–Jesus Christ–with the author fading into the background, making it unclear whether the author has any personal relation to events set within the narrative at all." - Ferguson.

Conveniently Ferguson says nothing at all about John or Luke which both have a first person interjection from the author. And this is a bit of a moot point in regards to Mark anyway. Mark isn’t thought to have been a witness to the life of Jesus so why would we expect him to report it as though he were?

Does your argument from silence account for the fact that only 5 books of Tacitus' Histories are extant?

You say that like there’s something wrong with an argument from silence when you use them all time. And why do I need to account for lost books? That’s your problem, not mine.

We're missing most of them! It's kind of hard to find information when a large portion of the work no longer survives.

That’s about as circular a statement as they come. You are assuming the description of the death of Pliny’s uncle and eruption would have been in the now lost portions of the Histories because the Histories we have today really was the work Pliny was referring to in his letters.

It’s not as though Tacitus never mentions the eruption or Pliny the Elder in the extant portions of the Histories at all. He does. So he had opportunity to show knowledge of Pliny’s account. But no mention by Tacitus of the details found in Pliny’s letters. Not even a mention of his allegedly good friend and pen-pal, Pliny the Younger, despite Pliny’s continual pleas to include him in Tacitus’ Histories.