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?

[YahWhat]

So Pliny must have forgotten to address his own letter to Tacitus. That makes sense....In both cases we have later scribes copying or adding the titles/addresses - "according to" and "C. PLINIUS..." but in the latter case we have an actual letter from Pliny to Tacitus. Is it really plausible that Pliny didn't address his own letter regardless of what the actual address looked like? But if Pliny addressed his own letter to Tacitus then it's not actually anonymous anymore and your whole case evaporates. It doesn't matter if the original address was in the body of the text or not. It would have been a greeting written directly to the recipient.

It was funny to see you double down on your clearly fallacious argument from silence. Saying "We don't see it here" when a huge portion of where we would expect to find such info is missing doesn't really help your case. You would have been better off just honestly acknowledging your mistake instead of saying "well, how do you know it was actually in there?" I don't need to know that. All I need to point out is that the set is incomplete which prevents you from making your argument.

[YahWhat]

I might also add Ferguson is clear to point out that:

"I have specifically chosen to compare the Gospels' authorial traditions with that of Tacitus' Histories, since Tacitus likewise does not name himself within his historical works. If the author does not name himself within the text, there are other types of evidence that can be looked at."

He's specifically comparing historical works or in the gospels case, allegedly historical biographies, where the authors do not name themselves within the text. Applying the same standard to Pliny's letter to Tacitus is not warranted because it is a personal correspondence which would have originally been addressed with a "from and to" greeting, unless, you want to imagine Pliny was just randomly sending letters without names attached.

You say

"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."

But you never actually support the "if not more so" claim and thus fail to demonstrate Pliny wasn't actually referring to what we now know as Tacitus Histories. Sheer speculative skepticism doesn't overturn the well supported inference.

Ferguson writes:

"The evidence for the original title of the Histories is not fully conclusive, but what is noteworthy is that Pliny the Younger (a contemporary) writes directly to Tacitus and says that he is writing a "Historiae," and Tertullian, the next author to explicitly cite passages in the Histories, refers to the work by that title.

For the purposes of authorship, however, the name of the work itself need not fully concern us. The evidence is certain in the case of Tacitus that the earliest manuscript tradition of his Histories clearly identifies him as the personal author. This manuscript tradition, though late in the process of textual transition, is corroborated by Pliny (a contemporary of Tacitus), who states that Tacitus himself was authoring a historical work about the same period and events covered in the Histories. This evidence is important, because it shows that Tacitus was known as the author of this historical work from the beginning of its transmission. And, although Pliny was writing while the work was still being composed (and thus does not cite passages from the text), the first source to cite passages from the Histories after it was published, Tertullian, clearly refers to Tacitus as the known author of the text. In Tacitus' case, therefore, we have a clear claim to authorship, which dates back to the beginning of the tradition."

We don't have anything like this for the gospels. Papias saying he got his information from a mysterious "John the Presbyter" is not sufficient to place him as a contemporary with the gospels composition. The nature of this evidence is at least third-hand information where the presbyter believed Mark wrote Peter's preaching. Papias then relays this uncertain tradition.

In regards to you expecting information that Tacitus doesn't mention, his work breaks off at book 5 with the beginning of Vespasian's reign and siege of Jerusalem c. 70 CE. The books were intended to be written in chronological order. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius didn't happen until 79 CE. So it's no surprise we don't find this or the death of Pliny's uncle in his Histories when the exact place it's supposed to be is missing!

[Goose]

So Pliny must have forgotten to address his own letter to Tacitus. That makes sense....

Are you talking to me? Because I didn’t argue Pliny had forgotten. There’s nothing that forces us to think Pliny must have addressed his original letter to Tacitus. If they were regularly communicating with one another and such good friends why the need for such a formality? Another consideration is that Pliny used personal couriers to deliver his letters. Suetonius tells that single couriers were used (instead of multiple ones) so the courier himself could be interrogated for additional information by the recipient. There would have been no need for a formal address on the letter itself in this case. The courier could simply hand the letter to Tacitus and say, “A letter from Pliny.�

Have you stopped for a moment to consider how these personal letters from Pliny to all 105 recipients (including Tacitus) ended up in the corpus of Pliny’s published letters?

In Pliny’s opening letter to Septicius he says this:

�You have constantly urged me to collect and publish the more highly finished of the letters that I may have written. I have made such a collection, but without preserving the order in which they were composed, as I was not writing a historical narrative. So I have taken them as they happened to come to hand. I can only hope that you will not have cause to regret the advice you gave, and that I shall not repent having followed it; for I shall set to work to recover such letters as have up to now been tossed on one side, and I shall not keep back any that I may write in the future. Farewell..�

So did Pliny send this letter to Septicius only to have it collected back in order to be published? Did Pliny write all these letters and then later go around asking everyone for them back? Does that really sound plausible to you? Why, then, would every recipient have preserved each letter? Why would someone keep, for example, a brief letter excepting a dinner invitation? Or is it more likely Pliny recreated many of the letters from memory as best he could when he decided to publish his letters? But, then, how do we know the recreations are faithful to the originals? Did Pliny simply make some (all?) of these letters up for literary purposes? How do we know he didn’t?

In both cases we have later scribes copying or adding the titles/addresses - "according to" and "C. PLINIUS..." but in the latter case we have an actual letter from Pliny to Tacitus.

Holy circularity Batman! You haven’t shown the letter was actually from Pliny to Tacitus. The letter from Pliny to Tacitus is anonymous by the same methodology Ferguson uses to assert the anonymity of the Gospels.

Is it really plausible that Pliny didn't address his own letter regardless of what the actual address looked like?

I can ask the same question. Is it really plausible that, for example, Luke wrote his Gospel anonymously even though it was addressed to Theophilus?

You can ask these kinds of questions but they don’t address the salient point. Which is that the titles for Pliny’s letters do not constitute the body of the text.

But if Pliny addressed his own letter to Tacitus then it's not actually anonymous anymore and your whole case evaporates.

It doesn’t matter whether or not Pliny originally addressed his letter to Tacitus. You can’t prove he did. The only fact that matters is that the addresses we have are titles and they do not constitute the body of the text.

It doesn't matter if the original address was in the body of the text or not.

Of course it matters. If the address was in the body of the text itself (e.g. Paul’s letters) the letter wouldn’t be formally anonymous. Look, it’s Ferguson’s criterion, not mine.

It would have been a greeting written directly to the recipient.

Pure speculation.

It was funny to see you double down on your clearly fallacious argument from silence. Saying "We don't see it here" when a huge portion of where we would expect to find such info is missing doesn't really help your case. You would have been better off just honestly acknowledging your mistake instead of saying "well, how do you know it was actually in there?" I don't need to know that. All I need to point out is that the set is incomplete which prevents you from making your argument.

And the fact the work is incomplete prevents you from arguing Pliny was speaking of the Histories of Tacitus we have today. Again, this is your problem to solve, not mine.

--

I might also add Ferguson is clear to point out that:

"I have specifically chosen to compare the Gospels' authorial traditions with that of Tacitus' Histories, since Tacitus likewise does not name himself within his historical works. If the author does not name himself within the text, there are other types of evidence that can be looked at."

He's specifically comparing historical works or in the gospels case, allegedly historical biographies, where the authors do not name themselves within the text. Applying the same standard to Pliny's letter to Tacitus is not warranted because it is a personal correspondence which would have originally been addressed with a "from and to" greeting, unless, you want to imagine Pliny was just randomly sending letters without names attached.

You can of course complain all you want and speculate about what would have been in Pliny’s letter to Tacitus but the bottom line is that Pliny’s letter to Tacitus is formally anonymous by the same criterion that Ferguson uses to assert the anonymity of the Gospels – they do not identify the author in the body of the text. Don’t you see the irony in how you are continually arguing against the validity of that criterion by making special pleas for Pliny?

And Ferguson does think there is a comparison to be made between Paul’s letters and Pliny’s.

�I have chosen to compare the authorship of the Gospels specifically to Tacitus, partly because of an article on the Christian apologetics website Tektonics (“Dates and Authorship of the Gospels�) that makes a similar argument comparing the authorship of Tacitus, which I strongly disagree with, and also because Pliny’s letters provide an interesting parallel with Paul’s letters and Luke-Acts, where we can use outside epistolary evidence to evaluate an authorial attribution.� – Ferguson

But of course Paul’s letters aren’t anonymous in the same way that Pliny’s letters are. Paul’s letters identify the author in the body of the text. Pliny’s do not.

You say

"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."

But you never actually support the "if not more so" claim and thus fail to demonstrate Pliny wasn't actually referring to what we now know as Tacitus Histories.

Apparently you didn’t read past that sentence? Right after that sentence in the OP I wrote...

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

Now aside from the circular assumption that Pliny was referring to Tacitus’ Histories what evidence is there from Pliny’s letters that he was in fact referring to the Histories we have today?

Sheer speculative skepticism doesn't overturn the well supported inference.

Oh okay then, let's keep that in mind.

Ferguson writes:

"The evidence for the original title of the Histories is not fully conclusive, but what is noteworthy is that Pliny the Younger (a contemporary) writes directly to Tacitus and says that he is writing a "Historiae," and Tertullian, the next author to explicitly cite passages in the Histories, refers to the work by that title.

For the purposes of authorship, however, the name of the work itself need not fully concern us. The evidence is certain in the case of Tacitus that the earliest manuscript tradition of his Histories clearly identifies him as the personal author. This manuscript tradition, though late in the process of textual transition, is corroborated by Pliny (a contemporary of Tacitus), who states that Tacitus himself was authoring a historical work about the same period and events covered in the Histories.

But I can make the same argument for the Gospels! The earliest manuscripts identify the traditional authors. The manuscript tradition of the Gospels is corroborated by the contemporary Papias (in the case of Matthew, Mark, and John) who states that these people were authored works about Jesus. And at least with the Gospels we have much earlier manuscripts. And at least with Papias he isn’t referring to a work in progress but completed works.

This evidence [from Pliny] is important, because it shows that Tacitus was known as the author of this historical work from the beginning of its transmission

An entirely circular argument from Ferguson. What Ferguson should have written is, the evidence from Pliny shows that Tacitus was thought to be writing something historical at the time of Pliny. That's the more honest statement. But see how Ferguson asserts Tacitus as being known as the author of this work (i.e. the Histories)from the beginning. How on earth can Ferguson possibly know this from Pliny’s ambiguous words?

And, although Pliny was writing while the work was still being composed (and thus does not cite passages from the text), the first source to cite passages from the Histories after it was published, Tertullian, clearly refers to Tacitus as the known author of the text.

Blatant double standard from Ferguson. Tertullian also refers to the traditional authors of the Gospels as well. Or did Ferguson not know that? Apparently Tertullian is good-to-go and constitutes “very strong external evidence� in regards to Tacitus but when it comes to Tertullian’s words about the traditional authors of the Gospels, well, that’s a different story. Well, of course it is. It has to be or else Ferguson and every other sceptic is sunk.

In Tacitus' case, therefore, we have a clear claim to authorship, which dates back to the beginning of the tradition."

Whatever you say Matthew.

We don't have anything like this for the gospels.

Of course we do. The OP demonstrates that.

Papias saying he got his information from a mysterious "John the Presbyter" is not sufficient to place him as a contemporary with the gospels composition.

Already dealt with this argument in the OP.

In regards to you expecting information that Tacitus doesn't mention, his work breaks off at book 5 with the beginning of Vespasian's reign and siege of Jerusalem c. 70 CE. The books were intended to be written in chronological order. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius didn't happen until 79 CE. So it's no surprise we don't find this or the death of Pliny's uncle in his Histories when the exact place it's supposed to be is missing!

How can you not see the blatant circularity in this statement?

And besides, Tacitus alludes to the eruption in his Histories (1.2) and he explicitly mentions it in Annals (4.67). So it’s not as though there was no opportunity to mention some of Pliny’s details if Tacitus had been aware of them. Likewise, Tacitus also directly mentions Pliny the Elder in Histories (3.28) and Annals (1.69). But alas no mention of the Elder’s heroic death and no mention of Pliny the Younger despite his continual pleas to his very good friend Tacitus. Their relationship seemed very one sided.

[marco]

Have you stopped for a moment to consider how these personal letters from Pliny to all 105 recipients (including Tacitus) ended up in the corpus of Pliny’s published letters?

There may have been many more letters, as there were from Cicero. We are lucky to be in possession of some works of Lucretius, given his apparently heretical views. In discussing Pliny and Tacitus we are firmly in the land of the historically real; in discussing resurrections and ascensions and angelic births we are in fiction land. It is easy to accept Pliny's teenage description of the eruption of Vesuvius: we are fortunate to have it. This is called history. The gospels are more like Shakespeare's plays, perhaps not as well written, with Hamlet replaced by Jesus.

Yes we can ask how we got Cicero's letters to Atticus or how we found remnants of Livy's work. Fascinating. But when we turn to the gospels we are hit in the face with obvious fiction, so we stumble before we get to considering the shadows that wrote them. When Pliny jokingly tells me he's taken his writing materials on a hunt, rather than net and spear, I can relate to him; when I'm told an angel whispered something to Mary or that Satan talked to Christ alone in the desert I smile.

[Goose]

There may have been many more letters, as there were from Cicero.

Yes there may have been. Now how does that answer the question you were responding to of how these personal letters from Pliny to all 105 recipients (including Tacitus) ended up in the corpus of Pliny’s published letters?

We are lucky to be in possession of some works of Lucretius, given his apparently heretical views.

Irrelevant.

In discussing Pliny and Tacitus we are firmly in the land of the historically real; in discussing resurrections and ascensions and angelic births we are in fiction land.

Irrelevant. And besides Tacitus mentions the miraculous as well.

It is easy to accept Pliny's teenage description of the eruption of Vesuvius: we are fortunate to have it.

What you personally find easy to accept is irrelevant.

The gospels are more like Shakespeare's plays, perhaps not as well written, with Hamlet replaced by Jesus.

Classic anachronistic fallacy. It would have at least been logically coherent to say Shakespeare’s plays are like the Gospels with Jesus replaced by Hamlet.

Yes we can ask how we got Cicero's letters to Atticus or how we found remnants of Livy's work. Fascinating.

And irrelevant.

But when we turn to the gospels we are hit in the face with obvious fiction, so we stumble before we get to considering the shadows that wrote them.

Your incredulity over the content is not an argument against authorship nor is it a valid reason to “stumble� before considering who wrote them. We’ve been over this.

When Pliny jokingly tells me he's taken his writing materials on a hunt, rather than net and spear, I can relate to him; when I'm told an angel whispered something to Mary or that Satan talked to Christ alone in the desert I smile.

I’m smiling right now.

[marco]

Now how does that answer the question you were responding to of how these personal letters from Pliny to all 105 recipients (including Tacitus) ended up in the corpus of Pliny’s published letters?

I thought it was easy to follow. I see no point in speculating on the various ways. My mention of Cicero is to indicate we have books of letters and we don't need to ask which of the many methods was used to collect them.

And besides Tacitus mentions the miraculous as well.

So does Livy - but to indicate superstition, whereas the gospel writers urge us to believe the incredible.

It is easy to accept Pliny's teenage description of the eruption of Vesuvius: we are fortunate to have it.

What you personally find easy to accept is irrelevant.

It were better expressed had you said you cannot see how it is relevant. The eruption of Vesuvius DID happen; we have the description of something we know; the resurrection did not happen; it is a fiction.

The gospels are more like Shakespeare's plays, perhaps not as well written, with Hamlet replaced by Jesus.

Classic anachronistic fallacy. It would have at least been logically coherent to say Shakespeare’s plays are like the Gospels with Jesus replaced by Hamlet.

You seem to misunderstand the term anachronism and the meaning of my statement. Of course we can take some writing from the past and compare it with a modern piece. The point being made is NOT that Shakespeare's plays are like the gospels but that the gospels resemble plays. Such a comparison isn't anachronistic. You've just misunderstodo what was written.

Yes we can ask how we got Cicero's letters to Atticus or how we found remnants of Livy's work. Fascinating.

And irrelevant.

I suspect that when things don't go in the expected direction then the word "irrelevant" is a handy substitute for trying to understand the point.


I think we can dismiss the comparison of Tacitus with somebody who wrote something about some preacher as a exercise in jocularity. As I said, if we want to read plays we might prefer Shakespeare.

[Goose]

My mention of Cicero is to indicate we have books of letters and we don't need to ask which of the many methods was used to collect them.

But I am asking. If you can’t answer then just say so but don’t tell me we don’t need to ask.

And sure we have books of letters. But Pliny’s letters represent a unique scenario in that they appear to be personal letters written with the intention of publication by the author himself.

So does Livy - but to indicate superstition, whereas the gospel writers urge us to believe the incredible.

Tacitus reports the miraculous and not merely with the intention of indicating superstition.

• â€�During the months while Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the regular season of the summer winds and a settled sea, many marvels continued to mark the favour of heaven and a certain partiality of the gods toward him. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his loss of sight, threw himself before Vespasian's knees, praying him with groans to cure his blindness, being so directed by the god Serapis, whom this most superstitious of nations worships before all others; and he besought the emperor to deign to moisten his cheeks and eyes with his spittle. Another, whose hand was useless, prompted by the same god, begged Caesar to step and trample on it... So Vespasian, believing that his good fortune was capable of anything and that nothing was any longer incredible, with a smiling countenance, and amid intense excitement on the part of the bystanders, did as he was asked to do. The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood brings no reward." – Tacitus, Histories 4.81

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/4D*.html

No doubt you see this report by Tacitus as an “obvious fiction.� So, your own reasoning should therefore cause you to “stumble� before considering who wrote the Histories.

It were better expressed had you said you cannot see how it is relevant. The eruption of Vesuvius DID happen; we have the description of something we know; the resurrection did not happen; it is a fiction.

Whether or not the event happened is irrelevant to authorship. For the life of me I can’t understand why this isn’t getting through.

You seem to misunderstand the term anachronism and the meaning of my statement.

I understand the term anachronism quite well and you made one. In relation to Shakespeare’s play you said, “Hamlet replaced by Jesus.� That statement isn’t even coherent.

Of course we can take some writing from the past and compare it with a modern piece.

That depends on the intention of the comparison.

The point being made is NOT that Shakespeare's plays are like the gospels but that the gospels resemble plays.

Then you should have just said that and left Shakespeare and Hamlet out of it.

Such a comparison isn't anachronistic.

That depends on whether you are intending on comparing the Gospels to plays from antiquity or from Shakespeare.

I suspect that when things don't go in the expected direction then the word "irrelevant" is a handy substitute for trying to understand the point.

Absolutely correct. When an irrelevant point or argument is made I dismiss it as irrelevant. If I didn’t do that, I’d be chasing rabbit trails galore.

I think we can dismiss the comparison of Tacitus with somebody who wrote something about some preacher as a exercise in jocularity.

You seem eager to dismiss the comparison and I can understand why. But let’s not forget the OP cites a sceptic with a background in Classics who is the one making the comparison.

[marco]

But I am asking. If you can’t answer then just say so but don’t tell me we don’t need to ask.

If you are a history enthusiast by all means ask; the irrelevance helps to add mystery to the pointless comparison of real with fiction.

Tacitus reports the miraculous and not merely with the intention of indicating superstition.

And the Romans deified their emperors, so the flattering deduction would be that gods work miracles. When one reads Roman history one is not compelled to accept every custom mentioned. Tacitus mentions Druids too, but doesn't invite us to praise their gods. This is a quirky anecdote included to entertain and maybe flatter. Pliny describes a haunting involving buried bones; these are all take-it-or-leave-it tales, for our amusement. We can laugh but are we expected to laugh at Christ's Ascension or his raising of Lazarus? The gospels are serious attempts to enrol us into foolish superstitions. It is insulting to the Roman authors to compare them with the evangelizing nonentities of the gospels.

I understand the term anachronism quite well and you made one. In relation to Shakespeare’s play you said, “Hamlet replaced by Jesus.� That statement isn’t even coherent.

Oh, dear! If you genuinely don't understand and think you've stumbled on an anachronism, like the cannons in Macbeth, I will explain:


Q: What do the gospels resemble? A: They are not histories, certainly, more like plays, with Jesus resembling the pensive Hamlet.

Objection: But Hamlet was written AFTER the gospels. Surely some mistake. An anachronism!


Yes, if one takes the ludicrous meaning that the gospels were modelled on a later play we have an anachronism. But surely no one would take such a meaning.

I hope this helps.


Given the opportunities for misunderstanding here there is little point in pursuing the comparison of the respected historian Tacitus, son-in-law of Agricola whose traces we have here in Britain, with shadowy evangelists from somewhere, sons of somebody or other, inspired by Rumour.

[Goose]

If you are a history enthusiast by all means ask; the irrelevance helps to add mystery to the pointless comparison of real with fiction.

I’ll take that as your concession that you have no answer to the question I asked.

And the Romans deified their emperors, so the flattering deduction would be that gods work miracles. When one reads Roman history one is not compelled to accept every custom mentioned. Tacitus mentions Druids too, but doesn't invite us to praise their gods. This is a quirky anecdote included to entertain and maybe flatter. Pliny describes a haunting involving buried bones; these are all take-it-or-leave-it tales, for our amusement. We can laugh but are we expected to laugh at Christ's Ascension or his raising of Lazarus? The gospels are serious attempts to enrol us into foolish superstitions. It is insulting to the Roman authors to compare them with the evangelizing nonentities of the gospels.

Tacitus quite clearly reports the miracles of Vespasian as though they were history. There’s no indication that he thought of these reports as merely superstitious mumbo-jumbo like he does of the Christian religion. But his reporting of miracles doesn’t seem to cause you to “stumble� when considering who wrote the Histories.

Not only is your suggestion that the presence of the supernatural is a reason to cause us to "stumble" simply invalid, it isn’t used by historians. Heck, you quite clearly don’t even apply that idea evenly across the spectrum of works from antiquity. Indeed you seem to only "stumble" when it comes the authorship of the Gospels. There is a blatant double standard at play here. That much is self evident.

Yes, if one takes the ludicrous meaning that the gospels were modelled on a later play we have an anachronism. But surely no one would take such a meaning.

Of course they would. That is the natural implication of your earlier statement where you said...

“The gospels are more like Shakespeare's plays, perhaps not as well written, with Hamlet replaced by Jesus.�

Given the opportunities for misunderstanding here there is little point in pursuing the comparison of the respected historian Tacitus, son-in-law of Agricola whose traces we have here in Britain, with shadowy evangelists from somewhere, sons of somebody or other, inspired by Rumour.

You say there is little point in pursing the comparison yet you’ve posted six times in this thread. And besides clearly Matthew Ferguson thinks there is a point in pursing the comparison. He wrote a lengthy article attempting to do just that.

[marco]

Yes, if one takes the ludicrous meaning that the gospels were modelled on a later play we have an anachronism. But surely no one would take such a meaning.

Of course they would. That is the natural implication of your earlier statement where you said...

“The gospels are more like Shakespeare's plays, perhaps not as well written, with Hamlet replaced by Jesus.�

You are wrongly thinking that it is being suggested that the gospel writers "replaced" Hamlet with Jesus. As if! And you think this ludicrous interpretation is the natural one when obviously a simple comparison of two works is being made and we can identify the main character of the gospels with the fictional, eponymous hero of Hamlet. There is nothing flawed or anachronistic about such a comparison.


We could likewise compare General Schwarzkopf with Hannibal.

Many thanks for your entertaining comments.