Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #1

Post by 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.
Matthew Ferguson wrote: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.
Matthew Ferguson wrote: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?
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

YahWhat
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 11:44 am

Post #11

Post by YahWhat »

Goose wrote:
YahWhat wrote: What's the point of citing Ferguson's article and the external evidence when you don't even address the critique he gives of the external evidence?
If you feel I have over looked or not addresed in the OP an argument Ferguson has made which will overturn one of the premises of my main argument concerning the external evidence then please present it.
That would be premise 2. I'm talking about the critique of the "external evidence" that Ferguson gives in the article you cite. You completely ignore it and, yet, present the "external evidence" as if there are no problems with it. Obviously, after one reads the article, one would understand why the external evidence isn't as "strong" as you present it here.
  • 1. "But furthermore, it is also not true that there were no other names proposed. The early 3rd century Roman presbyter Gaius attributed both the Gospel of John and Revelation to the authorship of the Gnostic Cerinthus (Epiphanius, Pan. 51.3.1-2). Likewise, Marcion had edited an abridged version of the Gospel of Luke, which he did not attribute to any named author. As Tertullian (Adv. Marcion 4.2.3) reports:

    'Marcion, in contrast, attributes no author to the gospel, that is, his own gospel, as if for the same man to whom it was not a crime to alter the very body of the text, it were not also permitted to affix a title. On this point I might have taken a stand, contending that a work ought not to be recognized, which does not erect its head, which displays no courage, and which offers no proof of credibility from the fullness of its title and the requisite authority of its author.'

    So, indeed, there are other attributions that survive in the record, and if the writings of “heretical� authors had not been stamped out by the orthodox church in Late Antiquity, there could have possibly been more. The sheer fact that the church fathers wrote polemics against figures like Marcion and Gaius of Rome testifies to the fact there were, indeed, disputes about the authorial attributions. In contrast, no ancient source claims that the Histories was written by a different author than Tacitus."


    2. "Likewise, Plutarch’s biographies are not “anonymous� in the same sense as the Gospels. Anonymity can mean that an author does not provide his name within the body of the text, but it can also refer to whether a text is written in the author’s own voice. As discussed above, authors like Tacitus make authorial interjections in the first person (even if they do not provide their name within the text), indicating that they are relating their own personal perspective. The Gospels, in contrast, mostly lack these authorial interjections, and instead are written in a collective, third person manner of narration. Plutarch uses the first person when discussing battle monuments that were located near the town of Chaeronea, which he states could be seen during his own time, in his Life of Alexander (9.3). This passage needs to be considered alongside the fact that Plutarch was said to be a native of Chaeronea. And so, this biography is not fully anonymous, since Plutarch appears to allude to his own eyewitness experience in discussing details about his home town, which we can use to corroborate external evidence claiming that he was an author from that town."

    3. "So, we do have references to works written by Matthew and Mark, which date prior to Irenaeus, in the writings of the church father Papias. Unlike the sources mentioned above, however, Papias does [not] make allusions to or quote any passages from these texts, so that it is unclear whether he is referring to the texts that we know today as the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark. Papias’ own writings are likewise no longer extant, and so his reference to these works is only preserved in the later writings of the 4th century church father Eusebius. Incidentally, Eusebius (Hist eccl. 3.39.13) elsewhere describes Papias as a man who “seems to have been of very small intelligence, to judge from his writings.� Likewise, another fragment of Papias tells a story about how Judas, after betraying Jesus, became wider than a chariot and so fat that he exploded…"

    4. "Since Irenaeus clearly knew Papias’ works (Against Heresies 5.33.4), he probably drew the connection between these texts and the gospels Matthew and Mark from his testimony [21]. However, a major problem with this tradition, noted above, is that Papias never quotes from the works that he attributes to these authors, and he could very well not be referring to the texts that were later called Matthew and Mark. This is especially true for Matthew, which Papias claims was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, even though the Gospel of Matthew that we possess today is a Greek text. But for Mark as well, Papias’ statement that the gospel “lacked rhetorical arrangement� (ου μεντοι ταξει) does not mesh very well with the internal evidence the text itself, which is actually pretty sophisticated in its plot and rhetorical devices [22].

    Papias himself had never met any of the apostles (Hist. eccl. 3.3 2), and he was relying on a tradition reported by an unknown figure named John the Presbyter, or “elder John.� It could be the case, therefore, that this oral tradition was referring to other, unknown texts that were later conflated with Matthew and Mark."


    5. In fact, even Christian scholars like Raymond Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 210) acknowledge that this discrepancy is a major problem for connecting Papias’ statement with The Gospel of Matthew:

    'The vast majority of scholars … contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic original … Thus either Papias was wrong/confused in attributing a gospel (sayings) in Hebrew/Aramaic to Matthew, or he was right but the Hebrew/Aramaic composition he described was not the work we know in Greek as canonical.'

    One possible cause for the discrepancy may be that Papias is actually referring to an earlier literary source, which the (otherwise anonymous) author of Matthew later used when writing the gospel. This possible source has sometimes even been connected with the hypothetical “Q source.� Bruce Metzger (The New Testament, pg. 97) discusses this possibility, stating:

    'As a solution of this difficulty it has often been suggested that what Matthew drew up was an early collection of the sayings of Jesus, perhaps in Aramaic, and that this material, being translated into Greek constitutes what scholars today call the Q source. In that case, the first Gospel was put together by an unknown Christian who utilized the Gospel of Mark, the Matthean collection, and other special sources.'

    If this is the case, however, then the disciple Matthew only authored a collection of Jesus’ sayings, which hardly entails that he stamped his eyewitness approval upon other material in Matthew, such as its legendary infancy narrative or miracles. Furthermore, even if Matthew did author such a source, then this would still entail that the Gospel of Matthew was misattributed when it was connected with his name (or at least that the attribution was oversimplified), by conflating a source for the text with its author [24]."

    https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scho ... e-gospels/

    6. "Sometimes Papias’ statement that Mark was written ου μεντοι ταξει, which I have translated as “without rhetorical arrangement,� is instead interpreted as “not in chronological order.� This is not a very probable reading of the passage, however. As Michael Kok ( The Gospel on the Margins, pp. 188-189) explains:

    'Scholars disagree on whether ταξις refers to a chronological or literary arrangement. Chronology was a desideratum of historians and Papias may have borrowed the platitude on neither subtracting nor adding falsehood from them … The difficulty with this is that historians rarely chose the term ταξις for chronology. Instead, they preferred χ�ονος or και�ος for sequential time … Papias probably had a rhetorical arrangement in mind. Rhetoric had a prominent role in education and Hierapolis was home to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus.'

    If Papias meant that Mark lacked rhetorical arrangement, this description does not mesh very well with the internal evidence of the gospel. The Gospel of Mark is actually quite polished in its rhetorical composition and uses a number of sophisticated literary devices. Whitney Shiner in “Creating Plot in Episodic Narrative� discusses many of the literary techniques used by the author of Mark, which I summarize in a review here."
    https://celsus.blog/2015/11/19/whitney- ... l-of-mark/
There's a ton of more problems but you get the point.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #12

Post by liamconnor »

[Replying to post 1 by Goose]
(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.
�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.� – Pliny, LXXXV to Tacitus

And that’s pretty much it from Pliny here. Two very brief and ambiguous sentences.
If this letter is addressed to Tacitus explicitly, then it does have superior evidence of attribution, over the Gospels. We have no letter from a named person made directly to a named author of a gospel.

I am attempting to be intellecutally honest, and I know hyperskeptics (i.e. not intellectually honest) here will have a heyday over this. There still remains good evidence and reasoning for traditional attribution; as for Marcan and Lucan authorship, the best theory for the data is that a real Mark was familiar with some of the disciples, most likely Peter. I have no reason to dismiss out of hand that a man named Luke knew Paul (who did not know Jesus) and did some research among disciples and contemporaries of Jesus when writing his two volumes.

But a letter written to a gospel writer regarding his gospel would be as near conclusive as ancient history allows.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #13

Post by marco »

Goose wrote:

Marco I appreciate the effort. But you are making the same irrelevant circular arguments over and over.

Thanks for your appreciation, Goose. The circular argument flaw can be directed at historians in general in that reasonable deductions are made but of course there is always the possibility of error. Yes, when I read Tacitus and Pliny, Cicero and Virgil, I may be wrong in ascribing the text to these partiular names. I get information about Vesuvius which is written first hand by somebody, and I ascribe a form of letters, Plinius if you please, to that anonymity. I believe the info but perhaps the speaker was Pallius and not Plinius. And so?

Who was John? The son of Zebedee. And who was Zebedee. The father of John of course. I think this circularity is rather more troubling than the one I am applying, but let's agree there is a dual attempt to fashion truth from uncertainty. My view is that the truth we fashion about Tacitus and Pliny has a stronger claim. Why? Because one is in a world that impinges on our own, with references that are known and checkable. The other is a world of anonymous nothings in fishing boats somehwere. Pliny gives us information we can actually examine today at Pompeii. John -well yes, he's John.

Move from the anonymities to what they wrote: Tacitus talks of Britain and of things whose relics we still have; John mentions words turning to flesh and blood and the meanderings of a preacher. We can accept the metaphor and the existence of a holy man. Why not? Move to miracles and ascensions and Tacitus remains level-headed; John seems not to be and we are then right to question whether this anonymity is, like Tacitus, a historian, or like Andersen, a maker of myths.
Last edited by marco on Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #14

Post by Elijah John »

liamconnor wrote:I am attempting to be intellecutally honest, and I know hyperskeptics (i.e. not intellectually honest) here will have a heyday over this. .
Moderator Comment

Please do not accuse anyone of being "intellectually dishonest".

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #15

Post by Goose »

YahWhat wrote:That would be premise 2.
I will take it that you affirm premise (1) then.
I'm talking about the critique of the "external evidence" that Ferguson gives in the article you cite. You completely ignore it and, yet, present the "external evidence" as if there are no problems with it.
The point of citing Ferguson is primarily to establish premise (1). Having said that, you are wrong to say I’ve completely ignored his arguments. That shows me you haven’t read the OP (or at least have failed to understand it). If you had read it you’d have noticed I have addressed some of his qualitative arguments. Perhaps not point by point (that was never the intention of the OP – a point by point refutation of Ferguson), but the more salient ones have been addressed – e.g. Papias’ source, the unknown presbyter John.

But you are missing the point of the argument entirely. The way I’ve framed my main argument I don’t even need to address a single argument Ferguson makes against the external evidence for the Gospels in order to establish premise (2). I could, in theory, grant every single argument he makes against the external evidence for the Gospels. I would, in that case, only need to show that the external evidence for Tacitus suffers all the same problems thereby bringing the quality of the evidence for Tacitus down to roughly the same level of strength as the evidence for the Gospels. And I’ve done at least that. I’ve virtually demolished the external evidence for Tacitus using the very same critical reasoning and type of arguments Ferguson makes against the Gospels. I’ve left the external evidence for Tacitus face down on the ground quivering in pool of its own blood. I’ve done it this way to force you into the position where you need to address my arguments regarding Pliny and Tertullian if you wish to reject the conclusion that the Gospels external evidence is very strong. Or you could dispute premise (1) and argue the evidence for Tacitus’ Histories is actually quite weak. That’s another way out. But telling me to go fetch Ferguson doesn’t do either. At this point my OP has left the evidence for the respective texts, from a qualitative standpoint, on roughly a level footing. And since the external evidence for the Gospels quite clearly destroys the evidence for Tacitus on a quantitative level, as table (1) in the OP shows, this allows me to say the external evidence for the Gospels overall is not only as strong, but stronger, than the evidence for Tacitus.
Obviously, after one reads the article, one would understand why the external evidence isn't as "strong" as you present it here.
Well obviously if one were to only read Ferguson’s article in a vacuum and not read my OP. Thus the OP balances out the scales by presenting the evidence for Tacitus in a more honest light. Ferguson presents the evidence for Tacitus as though it were say, illustratively, a 9 out of 10 in terms of strength. He does this mostly by assertion. He says things like, “Tacitus was identified as the author of his Histories from the beginning of the tradition...� He simply bases this assertion on the circular assumption that Pliny is in fact referring to the Histories of Tacitus we have today without a providing single scrap of evidence to justify this. Ferguson asserts, “we have Pliny the Younger (a contemporary) writing directly to Tacitus while he was authoring a work that Pliny calls a “Historiae�.� Then Ferguson says Tacitus, “was further identified as the Histories that we possess today by Tertullian.� I guess Ferguson thinks that by inserting an upper case [H] in History he has settled the matter. He doesn’t offer an analysis of these texts at all. It’s a classic case of Begging the Question. Ferguson then applies qualitative arguments to the Gospels in an attempt to bring them down to say a five out ten in terms of strength. What I’ve done in the OP is take the evidence for Tacitus and shown it suffers all the same problems, perhaps even to a larger degree. Thereby bringing the evidence for Tacitus down to say a similar five out of ten. I’ve shown how the evidence for the Gospels is as strong (if not even stronger) by showing the evidence for Tacitus is just as weak (if not weaker). Capiche?

I will, however, over the coming days address Ferguson's arguments against the external evidence for the Gospels on a point by point basis.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #16

Post by Goose »

liamconnor wrote:If this letter is addressed to Tacitus explicitly, then it does have superior evidence of attribution, over the Gospels. We have no letter from a named person made directly to a named author of a gospel.
That is one of my points in the OP. The letter supposedly from Pliny to Tacitus is, strictly speaking, just as anonymous as sceptics say the Gospels are. It neither directly names Pliny or Tacitus in the text. And it reveals no concrete clue that would connect Pliny's comments to Tacitus’ Histories. Unless of course it's circularly assumed the reference to "your histories" is evidence that it was the Histories of Tacitus. But, how then, is this much better than Papias' words?

But a letter written to a gospel writer regarding his gospel would be as near conclusive as ancient history allows.
Ferguson, in his article, imagines something like what you suggest here. He imagines that Pliny’s letter to Tacitus is that strong.

�In contrast, the first external reference to Tacitus’ Histories is in Pliny the Younger’s epistles (7.33.1), a contemporary source, written to the author himself. This would be the equivalent of the apostle Paul, for example, writing a letter to Luke, in which he discussed the composition of Luke’s gospel.�

But here Ferguson is simply being disingenuous I think as well as royally Begging the Question. Where, I might ask, does Pliny discuss the composition of Tacitus’ Histories?

Imagine if Christians trotted out an anonymous letter that later tradition attibuted to be from Paul to Luke with nothing concrete in its contents to identify either Luke or Paul or link the contents to Luke’s work. Further imagine this letter said something like this:

�I predict that your narratives will be immortal. I so much the more earnestly wish to find a place in them.�

Further imagine this letter went on to discuss events that aren’t found in Luke’s writings.

Now imagine Christians claiming this is a direct attribution by a contemporary to Luke, i.e. Paul, affirming Luke’s authorship of his Gospel and the book of Acts.

Now, what do you think the skeptics might say about that? They would of course vigorously dispute it. But, with Tacitus, this kind of evidence is just given an uncritical pass.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #17

Post by Goose »

marco wrote:My view is that the truth we fashion about Tacitus and Pliny has a stronger claim. Why? Because one is in a world that impinges on our own, with references that are known and checkable. The other is a world of anonymous nothings in fishing boats somehwere. Pliny gives us information we can actually examine today at Pompeii. John -well yes, he's John.
But once again this has nothing to do with authorship. Besides the Gospel writers reference material that is known and checkable as well.
Move from the anonymities to what they wrote: Tacitus talks of Britain and of things whose relics we still have; John mentions words turning to flesh and blood and the meanderings of a preacher.
John mentions more than that and you know it. You seem to be pinning your entire argument on John.
We can accept the metaphor and the existence of a holy man. Why not? Move to miracles and ascensions and Tacitus remains level-headed; John seems not to be and we are then right to question whether this anonymity is, like Tacitus, a historian, or like Andersen, a maker of myths.
Again, your personal incredulity over the content has nothing to do with authorship. And it's not as though Tacitus never mentions anything of a supernatural nature. He surely does.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #18

Post by Mithrae »

Goose wrote: 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?
Since you ask, both premise 1 and premise 2 :lol: The external evidence outlined regarding Tacitus' Histories doesn't seem to be what I would describe as 'strong.'

I'd also dispute that the external evidence regarding the first gospel, canonical 'Matthew,' is equal or comparable to the evidence for Histories. The first clear attribution comes from Irenaeus, and even that is problematic in his assertion (if memory serves) that it was written while Peter and Paul were in Rome (c. 64CE) whereas the canonical book is almost indisputably a product of the 70s or perhaps even 80s CE. It's missing from the extant text of the Muratorian fragment, and apparently from the extant text you've posted of the Prologues (which I'd not encountered previously). Justin Martyr's allusions to the "memoirs of the apostles" are neither specific attribution nor even (in light of his inclusion of Mark and Luke) necessitate direct apostolic authorship. But most importantly, as YahWhat already outlined in post #11, the earliest attribution of a gospel to Matthew seems to describe something markedly different from the canonical work. I'm partial to the theory that the Q source was a Greek translation of Matthew's original sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue. Clearly the evidence connecting canonical Matthew to the apostle of that name is much weaker even than that regarding Tacitus.

Otherwise, an excellent post suggesting that the external evidence of authorship for the latter three gospels is comparable to Tacitus', if not necessarily "very strong."

I should also add that in the case of John there are actually multiple clear attributions pre-dating Irenaeus, which are particularly compelling for the fact that they come from outside the 'proto-orthodox' stream of thought:
- From Heracleon, c. 170CE ("The words, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.� (John 1:18), were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.")
- From Ptolemaeus the Valentinian, as quoted by Irenaeus ("Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God. . . . And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.�")

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Authorship: Tacitus vs. the Gospels

Post #19

Post by Goose »

Mithrae wrote:Since you ask, both premise 1 and premise 2 :lol: The external evidence outlined regarding Tacitus' Histories doesn't seem to be what I would describe as 'strong.'
I have no issue with this approach. It is, if nothing else, consistent. I would ask, however, can you think of a secular text with stronger external evidence than Tacitus’ Histories? That might make an interesting comparison.

Classical scholars generally think the external evidence for Tacitus is very strong due mostly to the words of Pliny. But even in the event the evidence for Tacitus is weak, so long as the evidence for the Gospels is just as good, they are both in the same boat. I can live with that.

I won’t push back too hard on Matthew because it is probably the most problematic of the Gospels in terms of authorship. But a few counter points since you have taken the time to offer some counter arguments.
I'd also dispute that the external evidence regarding the first gospel, canonical 'Matthew,' is equal or comparable to the evidence for Histories. The first clear attribution comes from Irenaeus, and even that is problematic in his assertion (if memory serves) that it was written while Peter and Paul were in Rome (c. 64CE) whereas the canonical book is almost indisputably a product of the 70s or perhaps even 80s CE.
Firstly, I think it’s important to remember this argument can made only because the church fathers attempt to provide meaningful details about the composition of the Gospels. Conversely, it is more difficult to make this argument in regards to Pliny not because his information is correct but precisely because Pliny lacks any of the meaningful details about Tacitus’ work we see recorded by the early church fathers.

Secondly, I think we can agree that the external evidence could have been wrong in the details. We need not accept uncritically everything the church fathers report. But we need not throw the baby out with the bath water either (and I don’t think you are suggesting that we do). Surely the church fathers could be wrong on one point and right on another. Just as Tertullian is wrong in one of his quotes regarding the chapter and seems to misquote Tacitus to some extent.

Thirdly, I’m not so sure we can say so definitely that Matthew is “indisputably a product of the 70s or perhaps even 80s CE.� Granted probably a majority of scholars hold to a date sometime between the 70’s to late 80’s for Matthew for various reasons. But there are scholars, such as Wallace, who have argued for a date of 60-65 AD for Matthew (see the link in the OP). So it would seem a later date in the 70-80’s is at least disputable.

Fourthly, and somewhat ironically, I think this bit of information from Irenaeus argues against the idea that he was wholly dependent on Papias’ words. Papias, at least in the words that have come down to us, says nothing at all about the tradition regarding Matthew writing while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This particular detail, at least in the early evidence, is found only with Irenaeus. Perhaps handed down to him form Polycarp who in turn received it from John. Surely if this detail had been recorded by Papias it would have been mentioned by Eusebius. In any case, this would seem to suggest that Irenaeus is reporting independently of the Papias tradition.
[Matthew] missing from the extant text of the Muratorian fragment...
And what should we deduce from its absence? Because Mark is also missing. The fragment which has come down to us begins, “. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.� It then goes on to say, “The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples.�

The author of this fragment is quite clearly aware of the tradition that the third Gospel was written by Luke and the fourth by John. In light of this, we have to ask which seems more likely. The author had no idea about the tradition of Matthew’s authorship (and Mark’s) or the preceding portions of the text which speak of these traditions have been lost to us?
...and apparently from the extant text you've posted of the Prologues (which I'd not encountered previously).
Yes Matthew is missing from the prologues. One possibility which seems probable is there was a prologue for Matthew which has likewise been lost to us.
Justin Martyr's allusions to the "memoirs of the apostles" are neither specific attribution nor even (in light of his inclusion of Mark and Luke) necessitate direct apostolic authorship.
I agree that Martyr would not count as a direct attribution of authorship per se for Matthew. If this is problematic I’d be willing to remove Martyr from table (1) for Matthew bringing the total attributions within 100 years for Matthew down to 2, the same as Tacitus. But I will come back to Martyr in more detail when I address some of Ferguson’s objections.
But most importantly, as YahWhat already outlined in post #11, the earliest attribution of a gospel to Matthew seems to describe something markedly different from the canonical work. I'm partial to the theory that the Q source was a Greek translation of Matthew's original sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue. Clearly the evidence connecting canonical Matthew to the apostle of that name is much weaker even than that regarding Tacitus.
This is probably the strongest argument against Matthew’s authorship. But I don’t think it’s insurmountable. We do have evidence via Josephus (Wars of the Jews, ch. 1) that a work which was first written in the Jewish native language (which is, like Matthew, now lost to us) was later translated to Greek without any discernible signs of translation. It would take a skilled translator indeed but not out of the realm of possibility and certainly not an unprecedented event at the time. Add to this that the church fathers quote from the Greek Matthew and attribute it to Matthew. This would seem to suggest that, at least as far as the church fathers were concerned, this was what had happened. Eusebius alludes to it in chapter 3 of his church history.

But the argument against Matthew is that the work we have doesn’t align with what we would expect given the external evidence. And that is a fair charge. But I think I can successfully make a similar argument against Pliny’s words as I’ve noted in the OP and subsequent posts.

So in light of the above I’m not so sure the external evidence for Matthew is weaker than that for Tacitus. At least if we are going to say it is weaker, I don't see how we can say it is much weaker.
Otherwise, an excellent post suggesting that the external evidence of authorship for the latter three gospels is comparable to Tacitus', if not necessarily "very strong."
Thanks. Although this thread falls short of proving authorship (which was never the intention) I think, at the very least, a thread like this challenges biases on both sides of the fence towards how we treat the evidence.
I should also add that in the case of John there are actually multiple clear attributions pre-dating Irenaeus, which are particularly compelling for the fact that they come from outside the 'proto-orthodox' stream of thought:
- From Heracleon, c. 170CE ("The words, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.� (John 1:18), were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.")
- From Ptolemaeus the Valentinian, as quoted by Irenaeus ("Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God. . . . And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.�")
Thanks for that.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #20

Post by Goose »

I'll start working through Ferguson's arguments. I will start with his first argument in his section on external evidence.
Matthew Ferguson wrote: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.
That’s about as circluar an assertion as they come. Pliny says nothing at all in his letters that comples us to think when he says “histories� he meant Tactitus’ Histories we have today.
Matthew Ferguson wrote:This is very strong external evidence. We have precisely the opposite situation in the case of the Gospels. As New Testament expert Bart Ehrman (Forged, pg. 225) explains:

The anonymity of the Gospel writers was respected for decades. When the Gospels of the New Testament are alluded to and quoted by authors of the early second century, they are never entitled, never named. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin, these books are simply known, collectively, as the “Memoirs of the Apostles.�
I’m sure when Ehrman wrote this he had no idea it would be used in a comparative argument between Tacitus and the Gospels. What Ferguson doesn’t tell us is we have what may be even a worse problem with Tacitus.

Around the same time as Justin Martyr was writing Claudius Ptolemy wrote his Geography and apparently used Tacitus as a source without naming him as Mendell explains:
  • â€�About the middle of the second century Ptolemy published his [Geography]. In 2. 11. 12 (ed. C. Muller, Paris, 1883) he lists in succession along the northern shore of Germany the towns of Flhou&m, and Siatouta&nda. The latter name occurs nowhere else and has a dubious sound. The explanation is to be found in Tacitus, Ann. 4. 72, 73: "Rapti qui tributo aderant milites et patibulo adfixi; Olennius infensos fuga prae-venit, receptus castello, cui nomen Flevum; et haud spernenda illic civium sociorumque manus litora Oceani praesidebat." The governor of lower Germany takes prompt action, the account of which winds up: "utrumque exercitum Rheno devectum Frisiis intulit, soluto iam castelli obsidio et ad sua tutanda degressis rebellibus." The source of Ptolemy's mistake is obvious.â€� – Mendell, Tacitus: The Man and His Work
If Mendell’s argument here is sound then it would seem Tacitus’ Annals was circulating anonymously by the time Ptolemy was writing. Using Ehrman/Ferguson logic the anonymity of these histories was respected for decades as well then. Why wouldn't they have been if the Gospels were? When the Annals is used in the early second century by Ptolemy it is not entitled and no authorial attribution is given either. Tacitus’ name was probably attached sometime between Ptolemy and Tertullian then. As time passed from the composition of Tacitus’ Histories/Annals it became necessary to distinguish it from other Roman histories thus a title was probably attached to avoid confusion. Who attached the title, we simply don’t know.

With Martyr at least we have him attributing the writings he speaks of to apostles. And he only quotes from our four Gospels. It’s not as though we have a quote from the Didache that Martyr attributes to the “memoirs of the apostles.�

Martyr also puts the memoirs of the apostles (which he elsewhere calls Gospels, First Apology 66) on par with the prophets as authoritative.

�And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things “ - First Apology 67.3

Curiously Martyr does seem to be aware of the tradition that the book of Revelations was attributed to John.

�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

It seems unlikely that Martyr would be aware of the tradition that this prophecy was attributed to John but not be aware of the more important tradition that John wrote a Gospel.

Suggestively Martyr also seems familiar with the early tradition that one of the Gospels is based upon Peter’s authority.

�And when it is said that [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder...� – Dialogue 106

Who are the memoirs of “him� that Martyr is referring to? This is the salient question here. Well it isn’t the memoirs that Jesus himself wrote. That much is obvious. And it’s unlikely this is a reference to the memoirs about Jesus as the nearest antecedent is Peter. The context then seems likely to be referring to the memoirs of Peter. Well which Gospel was known to be based upon the memoirs of Peter? That’s right, Mark’s Gospel. And to solidify this view Mark is the only Gospel to record these two naming events together and the only Gospel to record the second event.

�So [Jesus] appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder)� – Mark 3:16-17

How could Martyr have been aware of the tradition that a Gospel was based upon Peter but not have been aware of the tradition that Mark was the author? This seems highly unlikely that he would know the former without knowing the latter.

In the end, Martyr is not a direct attribution of authorship. But if he is to be used in the argument against authorship then surely he can be used in an argument for traditional authorship. Even if one won’t grant that Martyr is tactility affirming Mark’s authorship, Martyr is at the very least relatively early confirmation that the Gospels had apostolic authorship standing behind them. In comparison to Tacitus we don’t even have that much from the likes of Ptolemy. Not even a mention that would confirm that the authority of a respected Roman historian stood behind the histories attributed to Tacitus.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

Post Reply