Genealogy Of Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolutely.

So although we think that Tacitus wrote Annals in about 110-120 we do not have original extant copies. So we cannot be sure that the words ascribed to him in the context of Jesus were in the original or are later edits or interpolations.

Or that any of the words ascribed to him on anything were in the original or are later edits or interpolations. And yet, in your discussion with Stud you are appealing to Tacitus, vis: ''Problem is that Tacitus was writing in about 110AD'' You seem to be sure Tacitus IS writing in 120.

In any case you seem to have evaded the question. When are the earliest extant copies of Tacitus?

[ProfessorDavey]

Or that any of the words ascribed to him on anything were in the original or are later edits or interpolations. And yet, in your discussion with Stud you are appealing to Tacitus, vis: ''Problem is that Tacitus was writing in about 110AD'' You seem to be sure Tacitus IS writing in 120.

I think most historians are clear about when Tacitus lived and broadly when he was writing - the annals are considered to have been written in about 110-120. All I said that that was when he was writing - I never implied that we know exactly what he wrote in the original version of annals.

But even if we accept (for the sake of arguments) that the words ascribed to him about Jesus are exactly as he originally wrote them it provides no genuinely independent corroborative evidence for the historicity of Jesus - point being that as he was writing in about 110-ish he'd be aware of the developing narrative that christians were promulgating about Jesus and likely that would be the evidence he used for his very brief commentary on Jesus. There is no evidence that he know that Pilate sentenced Jesus to death independently from the narrative of the early christians.

In any case you seem to have evaded the question. When are the earliest extant copies of Tacitus?

I think the earliest version of Tacitus is I think from about the 9thC - so plenty of opportunity for changes to creep in. That said the section on Jesus does appear to be linguistically consistent with the rest of the writing, unlike some of the text in Josephus which is pretty well universally considered by scholars to be a christian interpolation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think most historians are clear about when Tacitus lived and broadly when he was writing - the annals are considered to have been written in about 110-120. All I said that that was when he was writing - I never implied that we know exactly what he wrote in the original version of annals.

But even if we accept (for the sake of arguments) that the words ascribed to him about Jesus are exactly as he originally wrote them it provides no genuinely independent corroborative evidence for the historicity of Jesus - point being that as he was writing in about 110-ish he'd be aware of the developing narrative that christians were promulgating about Jesus and likely that would be the evidence he used for his very brief commentary on Jesus. There is no evidence that he know that Pilate sentenced Jesus to death independently from the narrative of the early christians.
I think the earliest version of Tacitus is I think from about the 9thC - so plenty of opportunity for changes to creep in. That said the section on Jesus does appear to be linguistically consistent with the rest of the writing, unlike some of the text in Josephus which is pretty well universally considered by scholars to be a christian interpolation.

It seems to me that in your system you can have extant documents 1,2,3,4 centuries from the time of writing which are, by dint of that, totally unreliable.

Or you can have extant documents 9 centuries from the time of writing that are reliable.

But you can't have both. Particularly if your interpolations date earlier than your earliest extant copies.

This what happens when an unskilled atomising  methodology is brought to bear on history resulting in or motivated by special pleading and the genetic fallacy.

Also since you are now making the extent of recognition important that leads us back to the fact that the most accepted narrative is the interpretation you and your cohorts are trying to overturn now.

[Gordon]

It seems to me that in your system you can have extant documents 1,2,3,4 centuries from the time of writing which are, by dint of that, totally unreliable.

Or you can have extant documents 9 centuries from the time of writing that are reliable.

But you can't have both. Particularly if your interpolations date earlier than your earliest extant copies.

This what happens when an unskilled atomising  methodology is brought to bear on history resulting in or motivated by special pleading and the genetic fallacy.

Also since you are now making the extent of recognition important that leads us back to the fact that the most accepted narrative is the interpretation you and your cohorts are trying to overturn now.

I think you are getting mixed up (again): the point is that nobody is saying the the earliest known versions of either Tacitus or the NT are reliable given all the problems associated with their provenance, such as their detachment in time from the events they contain and the risks of human artifice (errors, exaggerations, propaganda, bias, translation issues and fabrication).

As ever, anyone who claims the content is historically accurate has the burden of proof, which means they have to address the problems noted above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are getting mixed up (again): the point is that nobody is saying the the earliest known versions of either Tacitus or the NT are reliable given all the problems associated with their provenance, such as their detachment in time from the events they contain and the risks of human artifice (errors, exaggerations, propaganda, bias, translation issues and fabrication).

As ever, anyone who claims the content is historically accurate has the burden of proof, which means they have to address the problems noted above.

Not sure what wanting the luxury to choose 2nd century copies as totally unreliable yet claiming 9th century copies as reliable apart from the christian bits has to do with burden of proof. Any assertion that something is or isnt Carrie's a burden.

Of course there is appeal to Tacitus here as there was with BHS when he appealed to Pliny to back stuff up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems to me that in your system you can have extant documents 1,2,3,4 centuries from the time of writing which are, by dint of that, totally unreliable.

Or you can have extant documents 9 centuries from the time of writing that are reliable.

But you can't have both. Particularly if your interpolations date earlier than your earliest extant copies.

This what happens when an unskilled atomising  methodology is brought to bear on history resulting in or motivated by special pleading and the genetic fallacy.

Also since you are now making the extent of recognition important that leads us back to the fact that the most accepted narrative is the interpretation you and your cohorts are trying to overturn now.

It would help you avoid mistakes like this if you first understood some basic principles of historicity. To determine the reliability of accounts, historians apply various principles as follows:

1. Relics are more credible sources than narratives. Narratives are explanations people develop to explain the events they describe. “Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again” for example is an explanatory narrative but that’s not to say that it maps necessarily to reality. Absent physical evidence though, inherently unreliable narrative is all we have.     

2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. These things can be deliberate or occasioned by for example translation errors but in any case something being written does not of itself make it reliable, especially when the authors are also proponents of a belief rather than disinterested recorders of fact.

3. The closer a source is to the event it describes, the fewer the opportunities for mistakes or forgeries – basically the Chinese whisper problem. A 100 + years gap is plenty of time throw doubt onto the reliability of the accounts that had been passed down through the generations.

4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove etc. Tacitus was essentially recording hearsay.

5. Multiple independent sources with the same accounts adds to the credibility. This is where you went off the rails with the Egyptian example. The merchant’s account is aligned with the known chronology of the pharaohs, whereas the historical record the for biblical accounts narrows to one very quickly.
 
6. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Tacitus had said, “Jesus liked a scoop of wine with his dinner” for example there’d be no particular reason to doubt him. Throw in the miracle stuff though and ancient, incomplete, potentially biased, non-contemporaneous descriptions of beliefs from people who regularly believed any number of miracle stories to be true don’t come even close for that purpose.       

So given all that, can you see now why not just accepting such accounts of the Jesus story as we do have as necessarily true isn’t special pleading at all? 

[Gordon]

Not sure what wanting the luxury to choose 2nd century copies as totally unreliable yet claiming 9th century copies as reliable apart from the christian bits has to do with burden of proof. Any assertion that something is or isnt Carrie's a burden.

Of course there is appeal to Tacitus here as there was with BHS when he appealed to Pliny to back stuff up.

Who is claiming that the content of 9th c Tacitus is an accurate historical record? After all, that version dates to 900 or so years after the events regarding Jesus, so lots of scope for human artifice to be a factor.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure what wanting the luxury to choose 2nd century copies as totally unreliable yet claiming 9th century copies as reliable ...

Who is claiming that 2ndC copies of the gospels are unreliable but 9thC copy of Tacitus is? Certainly not me. I think both have to be challenged as source materials, but the notion that earlier must be more reliable is simplistic and naive. You need to look at a whole number of issues in order to determine whether a later copy is more or less likely to resemble the original, and one of those elements is the number of generations of copies between the original and the version you are assessing.

So it is perfectly possible for copy from 200 years after the original to be a 10th generation copy, if the copying is on papyrus which doesn't last long and is regularly 'handled' in the field so likely to deteriorate rapidly. And indeed it is just as possible for a copy from 800 years after the original to be a first generation copy if the original was written on long-lasting parchment and held in a safe and secure location with limited handling.

And indeed there is evidence (or at least claims) that the gospels are examples of the former and Tacitus is an example of the latter, with claims that the earliest versions we have were copied directly from the original. Now I'm not going to provide justification for that claim, merely to make the point that this claim has been made.

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad,

It would help you avoid mistakes like this if you first understood some basic principles of historicity. To determine the reliability of accounts, historians apply various principles as follows:

1. Relics are more credible sources than narratives. Narratives are explanations people develop to explain the events they describe. “Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again” for example is an explanatory narrative but that’s not to say that it maps necessarily to reality. Absent physical evidence though, inherently unreliable  narrative is all we have.     

2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. These things can be deliberate or occasioned by for example translation errors but in any case something being written does not of itself make it reliable, especially when the authors are also proponents of a belief rather than disinterested recorders of fact.

3. The closer a source is to the event it describes, the fewer the opportunities for mistakes or forgeries – basically the Chinese whisper problem. A 100 + years gap is plenty of time throw doubt onto the reliability of the accounts that had been passed down through the generations.

4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove etc. Tacitus was essentially recording hearsay.

5. Multiple independent sources with the same accounts adds to the credibility. This is where you went off the rails with the Egyptian example. The merchant’s account is aligned with the known chronology of the pharaohs, whereas the historical record the for biblical accounts narrows to one very quickly.
 
6. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Tacitus had said, “Jesus liked a scoop of wine with his dinner” for example there’d be no particular reason to doubt him. Throw in the miracle stuff though and ancient, incomplete, potentially biased, non-contemporaneous descriptions of beliefs from people who regularly believed any number of miracle stories to be true don’t come even close for that purpose.       

So given all that, can you see now why not just accepting such accounts of the Jesus story as we do have as necessarily true isn’t special pleading at all?

Very good post.

[Spud]

Spud,

That’s like saying you know Harry Potter flew on a broomstick because you’ve read the novels as a whole, not just the chapters about quidditch.

Your argument here is just “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true”, which fails unless you can demonstrate that premise to be true a priori.   
   

The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "biblia" which means "books". It's not one book claiming to be true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "biblia" which means "books". It's not one book claiming to be true.

Yes I know – just like the Harry Potter novels are not one book.

Your point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

4.  Tacitus was essentially recording hearsay.

That can only be true if you abandon your claim that we can't know what is in copies previous to the extant copy. In this case from the 9TH CENTURY CE.

We can add this to your record of making special plea for Roman Historians Like Pliny and your amazing suggestion that Ancient Documents are usually extant from a rare case of papyral survival from Ancient Greece.

[Spud]

Vlad,

Yes I know – just like the Harry Potter novels are not one book.

Your point?

None of the Harry Potter books claimed to be true, right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That can only be true if you abandon your claim that we can't know what is in copies previous to the extant copy. In this case from the 9TH CENTURY CE.

Wrong again. Tacitus (assuming the surviving versions we have now of his works were transposed accurately) recorded narratives that had been handed down and passed on multiple times before they reached his ears. That’s what “hearsay” means.

We can add this…

No "we" can’t because “this” has just collapsed – see above.

…to your record of making special plea for Roman Historians Like Pliny…

I took the time a few posts ago to set out for you the basic principles of historicity. Why don’t you familiarise yourself with them, if only to help you look less foolish here in future?

…and your amazing suggestion that Ancient Documents are usually extant from a rare case of papyral survival from Ancient Greece.

I said no such thing, and lying about that won’t help you either. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Count,

None of the Harry Potter books claimed to be true, right?

Way to miss the point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. Tacitus (assuming the surviving versions we have now of his works were transposed accurately) recorded narratives that had been handed down and passed on multiple times before they reached his ears. That’s what “hearsay” means.

You can't seem to escape from a claim that we cannot trust copies of works which didn't survive while simultaneously promoting the assumption that the surviving versions were transposed accurately....... those  seem to be two opposing ideas you are able to hold true in your head

I said no such thing, and lying about that won’t help you either. 

My Bad............... Ancient Egypt.

Vlad,

It would help you avoid mistakes like this if you first understood some basic principles of historicity. To determine the reliability of accounts, historians apply various principles as follows:

I have listed your howling errors and laughed at your pretentions to being a bit of an ancient Historian.

1. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Never said they were'nt....so straw man

Narratives are explanations people develop to explain the events they describe.

Never said they weren't . What's your point?     

2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

Never said they couldn't be and never suggested that all are but especially christian accounts, That is a logically shite route but one you people seem addicted to

These things can be deliberate or occasioned by for example translation errors but in any case something being written does not of itself make it reliable, especially when the authors are also proponents of a belief rather than disinterested recorders of fact.

There are no disinterested observers here, they also have an interest .

5. Multiple independent sources with the same accounts adds to the credibility. This is where you went off the rails with the Egyptian example. The merchant’s account is aligned with the known chronology of the pharaohs, whereas the historical record the for biblical accounts narrows to one very quickly.

Again there are no independent sources on some issues because of their political and religious significance. A merchants account is a merchants account and is paydirt for disinterested and dispassionate observation of the type you are trying to inject into Roman history.

6. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This statement and it's explanation may very well reduce to philosophical empiricism.

Exclaiming everything is nonsense because extant copies don't exist later then arguing from that document is charming in a child but upsetting when an adult tries it

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not one book claiming to be true.

So if the bible doesn't claim to be true, why do you assume it is and tie yourself up in knots trying (and failing) to prove that it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can't seem to escape from a claim that we cannot trust copies of works which didn't survive while simultaneously promoting the assumption that the surviving versions were transposed accurately....... those  seem to be two opposing ideas you are able to hold true in your head

Are you literally not reading what’s being said, or are you choosing to misrepresent it deliberately?

Try reading what I actually said in plain words, and then respond that instead.

My Bad............... Ancient Egypt.

No, your “bad” was lying by claiming falsely that I’d said “and your amazing suggestion that Ancient Documents are usually extant from a rare case of papyral survival from Ancient Greece.” Ancient documents (from any civilisation) are not “usually extant” at all, and I've never said otherwise.

I have listed your howling errors and laughed at your pretentions to being a bit of an ancient Historian.

Seems unlikely that you’ve done any such thing, but let’s see shall we?

Never said they were'nt....so straw man

You’re off to a bad start. I was merely explaining the basic principles of historicity to you as your previous efforts had shown your ignorance of them. 

Never said they weren't . What's your point?

See above. Writing down what people believed is not necessarily the same as writing down what happened. 

Never said they couldn't be and never suggested that all are but especially christian accounts, That is a logically shite route but one you people seem addicted to

Again, see above. The documents on which you place great weight for your beliefs may have been erroneously reproduced or forged (as might any documents based on equally rickety epistemological foundations). Thus reliance on them for claims of certainty is ill-founded.     

There are no disinterested observers here, they also have an interest .

Irrelevant. We were talking about the authors/transcribers of ancient records, not about commentators on them here.

Again there are no independent sources on some issues because of their political and religious significance. A merchants account is a merchants account and is paydirt for disinterested and dispassionate observation of the type you are trying to inject into Roman history.

Your use of language is so poor that I can’t work out what you’re trying to say here. I was merely explaining to you that corroborative evidence from independent sources tends to add to the credibility of those sources individually. It’s not a difficult concept.

This statement and it's explanation may very well reduce to philosophical empiricism.

Except it does no such thing. If you think extraordinary claims require merely the reliability of evidence that applies to ordinary claims, then you have to explain how you’d exclude all extraordinary claim from the same evidential benchmark – you know, the point at which you always run away. 

Exclaiming everything is nonsense because extant copies don't exist later then arguing from that document is charming in a child but upsetting when an adult tries it

And the straw man to finish. As you know full well that I have never said “everything is nonsense because extant copies don't exist” nor anything even close to that, why do you just resort to lying like this immediately you’re out of your depth?

So to re-cap – there were no “howlers”, the basic principles of historicity that I set out for you still seem to elude you, and you still seem either unable or unwilling to engage honestly rather than lie and misrepresent at every turn.

Why do you bother?     

[Gordon]

You can't seem to escape from a claim that we cannot trust copies of works which didn't survive while simultaneously promoting the assumption that the surviving versions were transposed accurately....... those  seem to be two opposing ideas you are able to hold true in your head

That isn't what anyone is saying: so either you're misrepresenting or your reading for comprehension skills are sadly lacking (or both).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again either you assume accurate transposition to the extant version of Tacitus which BHS is prepared to suggest

or you assume that you cannot derive what earlier versions contain because they are not extant.

You cannot have both.

[Gordon]

Again either you assume accurate transposition to the extant version of Tacitus which BHS is prepared to suggest

or you assume that you cannot derive what earlier versions contain because they are not extant.

You cannot have both.

Let's try a simpler approach.

The uncertain provenance of both the extant versions NT and Tacitus, given both the risks of human artifice and the passage of time since the events being described in them, make them unreliable of sources of historical fact. Whether or not there were any preceding versions, and if so what the content of these was and to what extent they grew arms and legs over time, leading to the extant versions is unknown. Therefore, the extant versions are of uncertain provenance.

As such they are not reliable records of historical fact (though they may have other uses): too many risks attached to them, you see.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again either you assume accurate transposition to the extant version of Tacitus which BHS is prepared to suggest

WHY ARE YOU LYING AGAIN?

[ProfessorDavey]

Again either you assume accurate transposition to the extant version of Tacitus which BHS is prepared to suggest

or you assume that you cannot derive what earlier versions contain because they are not extant.

You cannot have both.

Setting aside Tacitus' teeny tiny comment on Jesus (if we accept the extant version to be similar to the original), much of Tacitus' content is backed up by clear independent evidence. So when he talks of Nero we have coins and all sorts of other artefacts that demonstrate that Nero existed, who he was and what was happening at the time. So Tacitus provides colour and narrative to basic factual historical evidence that is beyond doubt. The same is not true for Jesus.

[Roses]

Setting aside Tacitus' teeny tiny comment on Jesus (if we accept the extant version to be similar to the original), much of Tacitus' content is backed up by clear independent evidence. So when he talks of Nero we have coins and all sorts of other artefacts that demonstrate that Nero existed, who he was and what was happening at the time. So Tacitus provides colour and narrative to basic factual historical evidence that is beyond doubt. The same is not true for Jesus.

That is correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Setting aside Tacitus' teeny tiny comment on Jesus (if we accept the extant version to be similar to the original), much of Tacitus' content is backed up by clear independent evidence. So when he talks of Nero we have coins and all sorts of other artefacts that demonstrate that Nero existed, who he was and what was happening at the time. So Tacitus provides colour and narrative to basic factual historical evidence that is beyond doubt. The same is not true for Jesus.

Yes but if we apply the rules of recognition of historical documents that you yourself have imposed we have to ask 1) Is it Tacitus? 2) When are the earliest extant copies for the independent evidence?

These are just doubts you have imposed on literature about christianity.

Non Application can only mean a) special pleading or b) The genetic fallacy.

Inability to believe or extraordinary claims aren't historical arguments.

So under your rules there may be coins and artifacts but Tacitus can't tell anything because by the ninth century, the original words of Tacitus are consumed by history.

Of course, History is more consistently done in the way you have inconsistently treated Tacitus and the inconsistent honour Hillside has given to Pliny.

I suppose what I am asking is that you harmonise you historical method.