Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Giuseppe »

Quoted from
Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels, p. 93-94:


Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a friend of Pliny the Younger. His main work, Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annales), was probably written somewhat later than Pliny’s letters, namely c. AD 115-116. In his historical works, Tacitus used various sources. In particular, the Roman historian in a creative way used the works of Flavius Josephus as the sources of information concerning Jewish matters.91 It was possible because after the publication of Bellum Judaicum, as well as Antiquitates with the support of Epaphroditus, the works of Josephus, who was at least in AD 70-80 regarded as an imperial ‘specialist’ on Jewish matters in the Roman Empire, were certainly known to the intellectual elite of Rome. In Hist. 5.11.3, Tacitus used Josephus’ evidently exaggerated description of Jerusalem as located high on two hills of immense height with precipitous slopes (B.J. 5.141). In Hist. 5.12.3-4, Tacitus relied on Josephus’ description of three, and subsequently two, competing zealot parties, which were led by Simon, John, and Eleazar at the beginning of the Jewish War, but which were of necessity brought to concord (concordia / ὁμόνοια) because of the ‘external war’ (bellum externum / ὁ ἔξωθεν πόλεμος) led by the approaching Romans (B.J. 5.5-26, 71- 72, 98-105). In Hist. 5.13.1-2, Tacitus borrowed Josephus’ idea of the appearance of signs of a bloody combat in heaven and of God’s departure from his Temple, facts which did not prevail over the spiritual blindness of the Jewish people, who believed in a Judaean Messiah and not in the rule of Vespasian (B.J. 5.412; 6.288-299, 312-313). Likewise, in Hist. 5.13.3, Tacitus used Josephus’ rhetorically exaggerated reference to a great number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (B.J. 6.425).92 Moreover, Tacitus’ dating of the implausible in itself expulsion of the Egyptians and of the Jews from Italy for religious reasons to AD 19 (Ann. 2.85.4), and not to c. AD 26-30 (cf. Philo, Legat. 159-161), was probably influenced by Jos. Ant. 18.33-84, which could be understood as suggesting that the expulsion had taken place a few years after Tiberius’ rise to power, soon after Germanicus’ death (so in AD 19: cf. esp. Jos. Ant. 18.54-84 and Tacitus, Ann. 2.82-85). This inference is corroborated by the presence of the striking combination of the motifs of licentious high-ranking Roman women and of Egyptian and Jewish rites in both Jos. Ant. 18.65-84 and Tacitus, Ann. 2.85. For these reasons, Tacitus’ reference to Christ (Ann. 15.44.3) should also be regarded as dependent on the works of Josephus.93 Indeed, Tacitus’ remark concerning Christ’s death during the rule of Pontius Pilate in Judaea (Ann. 15.44.3) was most probably based on the original version of the testimony of Josephus (Ant. 18.63-64). Several particular, correlated elements of Tacitus’ remark (Ann. 15.44.2-3) were most likely borrowed from Josephus’ account (Ant. 18.63-64): (a) the non-Latin title Christus; (b) the reference to Pontius Pilate, a governor of Judaea under Tiberius, as the one who condemned Christ to a terrible death;9 (c) the name ‘Chrestians’95 as deriving from Christ; and (d) the passage of the new religion apparently directly from Judaea to Rome, with no mention of any other stages or regions of its propagation.96 Likewise, the reference to crosses on which the Christians died (Ann. 15.44.4) could have originated from Josephus’ reference to the cross of Christ.97 On the other hand, Tacitus’ mocking reference to Christianity as an evil superstition (superstitio: Ann. 15.44.3) resembles that of his friend Pliny the Younger (Ep. 10.96.8). Consequently, Tacitus’ remark concerning Christ (Ann. 15.44.3) should not be regarded as an independent testimony to the historical Jesus. However, this remark indirectly confirms the authenticity of at least a part of Josephus’ reference to Jesus Christ (Ant. 18.63-64).

schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by schillingklaus »

Of course Test. Tacitus is equally a forgery par excellence; whence it cannot support the TF by any scratch. Adamczewski is just an apologistic deceiver, only believed by extremely gullible people .
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Giuseppe »

Adamczewski has based his historicist faith on Josephus and not on the Gospels, while Errorman is historicist because of the Gospels and not of Josephus.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:43 pm Adamczewski has based his historicist faith on Josephus and not on the Gospels, while Errorman is historicist because of the Gospels and not of Josephus.
Adamczewski's position seems kind of interesting, but also a bit odd. From his (hypertextual) point of view it could possibly be "logical" in a certain sense.

You know, I also think Tacitus is authentic. But, based on that, I wouldn't conclude the authenticity of Josephus. I find that Adamczewski's reasons are rather unconvincing. The only question is where Tacitus got his knowledge from. It seems to me that Adamczewski was absolutely looking for a text as the source and he found nothing except Josephus. :scratch:
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Giuseppe »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:11 am and he found nothing except Josephus. :scratch:
that Tacitus knew Josephus's works is a fact and I wonder why Ken Olson doesn't think so.

I doubt that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, however.

I like about Adamczewski particularly his point that the Romans didn't learn about Jesus from the same Christians (since the same Christians - see Paul, see Pliny the Younger - were not interested at all about a Jesus different from the mythical Jesus "quasi deus" who only dies and rises: how could the Christians inform outsiders about things of which the same insiders were disinterested about ?).

But he ignores the third possibility, i.e. that Tacitus explained the birth of Christianity in the same way Euhemerus explained the birth of the cult of the gods: by confusing the Nazarenes with the criminal Christiani and by imagining ex nihilo a Christus crucified by Pilate as the presumed human founder.

Idem for the Suetonian impulsore Chresto.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:27 am I like about Adamczewski particularly his point that the Romans didn't learn about Jesus from the same Christians (since the same Christians - see Paul, see Pliny the Younger - were not interested at all about a Jesus different from the mythical Jesus "quasi deus" who only dies and rises: how could the Christians inform outsiders about things of which the same insiders were disinterested about ?).
I agree, it's an interesting point. But it would only have been necessary to know a bit about GMark, some rumours about Christians and the full name of Pilate. (Just to be clear, I highly doubt that GMark was Tacitus' source.)

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:27 am But he ignores the third possibility, i.e. that Tacitus explained the birth of Christianity in the same way Euhemerus explained the birth of the cult of the gods: by confusing the Nazarenes with the criminal Christiani and by imagining ex nihilo a Christus crucified by Pilate as the presumed human founder.
As one can see, we're asking the same questions, but make our own typical answers ;)
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:27 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:11 am and he found nothing except Josephus. :scratch:
that Tacitus knew Josephus's works is a fact and I wonder why Ken Olson doesn't think so.

I doubt that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, however.
I too doubt that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine ;)

It is possible that Tacitus used Josephus, and, *if* he did *then* it is a fact. But I do not think the case for it is strong. We've previously discussed the issue in this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=128117#p128117

What additional evidence does Adamczewski provide that is compelling? Which of his examples shows striking agreement between Josephus and Tacitus that would require direct literary dependence? I think the only one that comes close are the accounts in Hist. 5.13.1-2 and B.J. 5.412; 6.288-299, 312-313. But there I would contend that that material was Flavian propaganda from the time when Vespasian was campaigning to make himself emperor. I doubt that Josephus invented that material in the mid 70's when he wrote the Jewish War. It was already in circulation and Josephus was not the only source for it.

And I would agree with Kunigunde that the mention of Christ and Christians/Chrestians in Tacitus is probably authentic (i.e., I have not seen suffciient reason to doubt it).

Best,

Ken
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:16 am But there I would contend that that material was Flavian propaganda from the time when Vespasian was campaigning to make himself emperor.
reporting that the enemies were divided in rival factions would seem a bit reductive, if your goal is to maximize the importance of the victory of Vespasian on the Jewish rebels. So I think that on this point Tacitus was probably based on Josephus.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Justin and Tacitus - two "Chrestos witnesses" of a kind?

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:16 am And I would agree with Kunigunde that the mention of Christ and Christians/Chrestians in Tacitus is probably authentic (i.e., I have not seen suffciient reason to doubt it).

Best,

Ken
I am inclined to agree given the fact that Chresto has remained unaltered. Where Justin got fixed, Tacitus didn't - but perhaps it was not authentic and they forgot, or it got faked when Jesus was still called Chrest instead of Christ, as was the case with Justin.
I'd need to elaborate, I guess:

Justin Martyr First Apology chapter 26.5
πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι, ὡς ἔφημεν, Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται, ὃν τρόπον καὶ οἱ οὐ κοινωνοῦντες τῶν αὐτῶν δογμάτων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὸ ἐπικατηγορούμενον ὄνομα τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοινὸν ἔχουσιν

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them

Compared to this sentence, Thomas is banal and mundane: what on earth did Justin intend to say there?

"They are called Christians because their philosopher is called Christian, just as also those who oppose their philosopher still share the name of the philosopher they oppose"?

That would make them not equal to those who oppose their philosopher, wouldn't it?

I think that we would agree on the fact that we would like to think that he would like to say:

"They are called Christians because their philosopher is called Christian, just as also those who oppose their philosopher still share the name of the philosopher they oppose"

"They are called Christians because of my freshly invented and absolutely senseless rule that those who oppose Someone magically get called Someone-ians. Signed, Sweet Jus"

Either-or, this is an anachronism and it can only have originally said Χρηστιανοὶ instead of Χριστιανοὶ, unless at some early point of the hostile takeover the Romans decided to not only claim the religious movement but even the name and reinforce that by labeling the Chrestians Christians.
The one feat is obvious, of course. Yet what to do with a passage like this, how to fix this?

I have no idea whether this comes from the same MS stash as the next that indeed got fixed, as partial as that was: Dialogue with Trypho chapter 4, the infamous section where Justin refers to an "us" who are called Chr?stians because they are so "χρηστότατοι", the superlative of χρηστός: kind, good

The Χρηστιανοὶ there got fixed to Χριστιανοὶ, likely by a Latin scribe who didn't know what the Greek said, or was just plain stoopid - yet the reason for the fix was obvious.
Given that, Tacitus should have been fixed as well, and perhaps Ken would agree - and where the above couldn't be fixed perhaps, OR because all falsifying scribes were just dumb idiots who merely scanned the text for the word xrhstos-whatever, Trypho did get fixed and the fun thing about that crime was that it actually is an indictment of Christian scribes who fixed texts; instead of erasing the evidence of a crime it plants the very evidence right in front of everyone's nose

So. Plenty of fixing, successful or failed, so why wasn't Tacitus fixed?
Regardless of that, however, is Chrestos in Tacitus proof of its authenticity PRECISELY because it says Chrestos?

Well, not necessarily; just as Justin faked being Chrestian at a time when it suited Churchianity - only to be half-heartedly fixed when it no longer suited Churchianity - so was Tacitus faked to attest to Chrestianity by allegedly attesting to a Chrestos when it suited Churchianity: but they just omitted to fix Tacitus
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Tacitus Christus/Chrestus, Christianos/Chrestianos

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:15 am
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:16 am And I would agree with Kunigunde that the mention of Christ and Christians/Chrestians in Tacitus is probably authentic (i.e., I have not seen sufficient reason to doubt it).

Best,

Ken
I am inclined to agree given the fact that Chresto has remained unaltered.
My understanding, gathered from the secondary literature, is that the name or title is written Christus in Tacitus Annales 15.44, and the name of the group is written Christianos, but the latter appears to be a correction of Chrestianos which can still be seen faintly in the manuscript (MS plut 68.2).

Roger Pearse has a post about this from 2008, with a monochrome image of the word Christianos/Chrestianos (only):

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/200 ... backtrack/

Since then, however, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana has put the the manuscript online here:

http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWOIy ... sive#/book

I have not yet found the time to try to locate 15.44 in the manuscript. If anyone else wants to do so and post the page here, please feel free.

Best wishes,

Ken
Post Reply