Was Jesus an Historical Figure?

Recommend (0) Comments (3)

This response deals only with issues related to Tacitus. In response to these arguments by Wells:

I have already answered the argument regarding the use of “procurator”. Zindler adds, “without saying procurator of what.” Thus is false. Tacitus clearly says that Pilate is “procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

I have already answered the argument regarding the use of “Christus”.
Wells’ charge re Tacitus being “surely glad to accept from Christians” reflects an incorrect view of Tacitus as a careful researcher, as shown in my first point. Moreover, we have clear evidence that Tacitus would not simply repeat what he was told by people whom he disliked: When reporting on the history and beliefs of the Jews, whom he despised as much as the Christians, it seems fairly obvious from the disparaging descriptions given that Tacitus was not inclined to consult the Jews' "own view" or even "Jewish informants."

The Greco-Roman historian Stephen Benko sums it up by noting that Tacitus "was too good a historian not to look into the origin of the [Christian] cult…"

Regarding Zindler’s remaining issues, I have some questions.

1)    Zindler fails to explain why Tacitus is required to “again allude to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings.” Where else in his writings ought he to have done this? Is Zindler thinking of Tacitus’ biography of his father-in-law, Agricola? Or is he thinking that Tacitus ought to have mentioned something that happened in Nero’s reign again, only when reporting the history of the Emperor Domitian, who lived some 30 years later? Is Zindler arguing that anything Tacitus only mentions once must be ahistorical? It does not seem that Zindler has an actual argument here.

2)    What other pagan authors does Zindler suppose ought to have mentioned this persecution, and why? In addition, is he arguing that anything mentioned by Tacitus, but not mentioned by other historians, must be ahistorical? If so, can he please provide a catalog of events reported only once in Tacitus, and nowhere else, that we are likewise to assume are not historical?

3)    Will Zindler please provide citations from the works of Tertullian and Clement showing where the reference by Tacitus would have been useful in proving some point that they were making?

4)    Zindler quotes Taylor with the apparent implication that the passage was forged sometime around the 15th century. I have three questions. First, since the passage is universally accepted as genuine by Tacitean and Greco-Roman historians (whose names I cite in my first argument), on what basis should we accept the authority of Taylor over these authorities who have spent their academic careers writing on and studying Tacitus? Second, how can this passage have been forged around the 15th century when we currently possess an 11th century manuscript of Tacitus which contains the passage? Finally, why does Zindler believe that sources like Taylor (who was merely a pastor) are more useful than contemporary scholars of Tacitus in deciding such matters?

In Response to "Extrabiblical Evidence." Part II

I have already answered the claim of Josephus’ testimony as “out of context”.

In terms of Origen and Clement, I would like to ask Zindler what arguments they were addressing that Josephus’ words would have provided “ammunition” for as an answer.  As Josephan scholars have reconstructed it, it serves no apologetic purpose. Indeed, that Origen even made statement that Josephus did not believe Jesus was Messiah implies the existence of the Testimonium at Origen’s time, just as it has been reconstructed.

Regarding Photius and Vossuis: Rylands' work offered no documentation for this claim concerning Vossius and so I consider it to be unproven. As for Photius, the three “codices” were simply summaries that give only thin slices out of all of Josephus' work, amounting to a few pericopes.  Lack of mention of the Jesus passages means nothing at all.

In terms of the shorter reference, Zindler’s argument is merely a case of begging the question of inauthenticity and contriving an explanation for why the evidence, as it stands, does not show inauthenticity.

Zindler refers to Smith’s claim that “there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts…” This is contrary to the verdict of Josephan scholars, who know of no manuscript that lacks the passage in question.

Finally, there is the matter of Zindler’s appeal to lack of mention of the darkness at the crucifixion and of Matthew’s resurrected saints. I would like to ask Zindler to explain:

1)    By what means he gauges the extent of the darkness, and how he determines that it would be differentiated from eg., cloud cover or some other natural phenomenon.
2)    How many “saints” he supposes Matthew thinks came out of their graves.

I can then deal further with his arguments. It is my contention that his analogy to an atomic weapons test presumes too much in terms of the nature and impact of these events.