Thanks for these comments, Leon. This is indeed another possibility that can be drawn from an interpretation of the Arabic version.

Phil

Leon Zitzer

Thanks for your comment about some of the difficulties even with issues of multiple attestation. If, for example, Tacitus is dependent on Josephus for his information (they were both active as writers in Rome in similar circles), then the “multiple” in multiple attestation is reduced further. Then if we propose that Josephus simply uncritically reported what he heard from some Christian, then all we’ve got is the Christian claim.

However, I do not think that this scenario has a high level of probability, in part for the reasons I noted in the previous comment in reaction to the suggestion that Tacitus accessed this information (execution of Jesus under Pilate) from Christians, rather than from some other source in the capital (e.g. imperial records or other imperial elites). We have no evidence that would allow us to argue for a high level of probability for this scenario. Also, this scenario pictures Tacitus and/or Josephus trusting some average Christian for information about imperial judgments, something that I would doubt. Remember that the first audiences of Tacitus and Josephus are the elite in Rome itself.

In my opinion, the concept of multiple, independent attestatation is important for any historical study, and I would not privilege early Christianity by using another method in that case.

There’s far more that could be said, but that’s all the time I have now. Thanks for your comment.

Phil

One thing I wonder about is what happens to a criterion like ‘multiple attestation’ when all the sources, in all probability, derive from the one small Jesus Movement? ‘Multiple attestation’ is, as I’m sure you’ll agree, not a criterion that sits above all historical evidence, but is a generalising ‘law’ or ‘rule’ derived from historical evidence itself. The rule can only provide a cogent basis for historical argumentation when the sources are genuinely independent, and, probably, a matter of ‘public’ knowledge. So, does the rule apply to the early Jesus Movement at all, which was, after all, a small sect, defining its own beliefs? When I read Tacitus, it seems clear that he is reporting what Christians say about Jesus, such as his crucifixion under Pilate. So, in what respect does this provide ‘multiple attestation’? Josephus also reveals his familiarity with ‘the tribe of Christians’, so I wonder where he got his summary from?

Multiple attestation is a well-supported rule for an event like the fire of Rome, but that is because the criteria on which it is based (publicly verifiable knowledge) applies. Does it do so for the Jesus Movement and its beliefs? To the same or lesser extent? Only minimally?

Thanks very much for these further observations. A further twist on the Tacitus material is that he incorrectly calls Pontius Pilate a “procurator”, a title that was only used of the Roman governor of Judea later in the century. Pilate was actually a “prefect”. It may be suggested that Tacitus had access to imperial records for his reference to the execution of Jesus.

As to the idea of Josephus (if that is authentically Josephus) and Tacitus getting their impressions from the Christians themselves or from Christian sources, I highly doubt that (although it’s not impossible). That would imply a higher level of knowledge about the (obscure) followers of Jesus that is not borne out by other contemporary Greek or Roman evidence. Pliny the Younger, for instance, who is a Roman governor of the province of Bithynia-Pontus (northern Turkey) ca 111 CE seems to know virtually nothing about the Christians and when he interrogates it is still very little that he knows (let alone accessing the Christian writings or whatever). I would suggest that Tacitus, Pliny’s contemporary, would similarly know almost nothing about the Christians (let alone using their writings as a source or trusting that what he hears them say, if he meets any, would be reliable information to build into his Annals). The general disdain that Roman elites / officials like Tacitus and Pliny have for the “superstitions” of the lower classes would also speak against them taking the time to consult writings by such “ignorant” (from the elite perspective) people.

One further thing to add to these somewhat random musings here: The first outside observers of followers of Jesus, like Tacitus, seem to view this as some obscure Judean group that’s just what you would expect from those rebellious and trouble-causing Judeans(who had decades before “revolted” from the Roman perspective), not as a self-standing group whose writings you might consult.

These are just my impressions, but I also see the possible value in what you say. Either way, your point is absolutely right that we’ve got problems with even these sources!

Thanks again, especially since this allowed me to flesh things out a bit.
Phil

Take Josephus. Did he learn of Pilate and the Cross from official sources or from Christians themselves? He is apparently well aware of the Christian movement and seems to express sympathy toward it. Was such sympathy accompanied by familiarity with their internal historical claims.

On to Tacitus. He fumbles the details. He seems to be inferring a man named Christus from the term Christian when that is not the name of their founder. He could have gotten the names Pilate and Tiberius from Christian sources or inferred Tiberius from a Pilate claim. If he had been working from good, explicit imperial records I would have expected him to get Jesus’ name right.

What we have is a testimony to the existence and spread of Christianity in the late first and early second century along with a limited window on there beliefs.

Frustrating indeed.