Yet another fringe fundy atheist has emerged from the fetid swamp that is Jesus-mythicism; Raphael Lataster (aka the Scholarship Disaster) has seed-picked a collection of poor arguments from the field (ranging from Doherty to Price to the dollar bin at the Pic and Save) and put them into a collection titled There Was No Jesus There is No God that is guaranteed to be a best seller among Skeptics who don’t realize it’s nothing new. In that sense, it is sort of like foolish Christians who keep buying the last garbage from Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Max Lucado, in spite of the fact that you could switch the covers on them and no one would be the wiser.
Because it is nothing new, it will be sufficient to address samples from particular topics. The first will be the testimony of Tacitus. Not surprisingly, Lataster’s text is essentially bare of reference to qualified Tacitean scholars, and he opts for the desperate ploy that Annals 15.44 is interpolated. Here are his specific arguments, and our replies to them as they have appeared in the prior incarnations we have addressed.
The earliest extra-Biblical or non-Biblical references (such as passages among the works of Josephus and Tacitus) appear decades after the supposed events.
The only answer needed: So what? The bulk of history Tacitus records is that of events decades before he wrote. In spite of this, I have yet to see a single Tacitean scholar – whether Syme or Benario or Mellor or any other – think that this has sort of bearing on the accuracy of Tacitius’ reports. Nor does anyone seem to think it has any bearing on such things as histories of the Civil War written today. The obvious answer to that is that “it was written decades later” is an utter irrelevancy. Such factors as competence as a historian, or access to reliable source material, erase any such issues. Tacitean historians have apparently decided that Tacitus’ reliability as a historian makes the decades-span a moot point. Yet one must ask why it is that amateur Skeptics like Lataster continue to resurrect this canard again and again and again. (The obvious answer is that they have no better arguments to speak of, and continue to be able to fool gullible everyday Skeptics who have never done any serious study in history.)
It is the phrase in the middle of this passage, referring to Christus and his death under Pontius Pilate that is of great interest. It could be that this phrase (or even the whole passage) could also be a later Christian interpolation.
“Could be” of course requires some support. The manuscript tradition, while admittedly sparse, is unanimous that 15.44 belongs in the text. I have also yet to find any Tacitean that thinks it is interpolated. This has been the province of lunatic freethinkers and fringe authors. If an interpolation is to be suggested, the grounds must be good ones, as the tests suggested by William Walker tell us. So what reasons does “the Disaster” offer?
It is interesting that the name ‘Jesus’, ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ or ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ is never used, and that this is Tacitus’ only supposed reference to Jesus. It is unlikely that a non-Christian historian would refer to this person as ‘Christ’ (a term of religious significance to Christians), rather than the more secular ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. A Christian scribe however, would have no issue in calling him ‘Christ’. Given that ‘Jesus’ is not specified, there is also the possibility that this refers to another ‘Christ’ or messiah-figure
This is not “interesting” or “unlikely” at all. This is the old “he calls him Christus” canard, which has been answered repeatedly:
Like the above objection, this is not considered at all problematic by any Tacitean or other historian. Rather than find some deficiency in Tacitus because of this, it is more plausible to recognize that Tacitus would use the name with which his readers would be most familiar - and that would not necessarily be the name that Jesus was executed under. Furthermore, simply referring to “Jesus” would not explain how it is that Jesus’ followers were named Christians. Van Voorst further makes the point that Tacitus is actually issuing a subtle corrective here: The text of the oldest manuscript of the Annals, and most likely reading, spells “Christians” with an e (“Chrestians”). In naming “Christ,” Tacitus “…is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the ‘crowd’ (vulgus) by stating that the ‘founder of this name’...is Christus, not the common name given by the crowd, Chrestus...he calls atten- tion by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement in order to link it directly— and correctly — to the name of Christ.”
It should be further added that the New Testament itself tended towards the direction of using “Christ” as though it were a proper name, and that Tacitus may be reflecting this.
Other than that, I am not sure why “the Disaster” things Tacitus ought to have referred to “Jesus son of Joseph” or “Jesus of Nazareth.” Does he think this reflects normal Tacitean usage? How many times does Tacitus introduce people by their parentage or their location? Within Annals 15, no one is introduced as the “son of” someone else. Figures like Memmius Regulus and Verginius Rufus (15.23), Lucius Lucollus (15.27), Gaius Laecanius and Marcus Licinius (15.33)., and even Pilate himself, and not introduced by way of their fathers or of their hometowns. (Though I might add, Tacitus has already introduced Jesus’ location as Judaea, which would be more than sufficient to inform his audience about what sort of person Jesus would be.)
The idea that Tacitus may here refer here to some other “Christ figure” is fairly stupid. This figure 1) founded a movement 2) that reached to Rome, and 3) whose followers were called “Christians” and was 4) crucified 5) under Pilate. It seems rather peculiar that Lataster wants to invent an otherwise unattested figure that meets all five of these criteria while also denying the existence of a figure that is otherwise attested in the New Testament and elsewhere. By that reckoning he’d have even less evidence for “Christus 2” than for Jesus Christ, yet accept the former as real while saying the latter didn’t exist.
Though Annals covers the period of Rome’s history from around 14CE to 66CE, no other mention is made of ‘Jesus Christ’.
That’s nice. So likewise dozens of other figures are never mentioned again by Tacitus, some of whom would have been more important and honorable in his eyes than Jesus. Has Lataster ensured that every procurator and prefect Tacitus refers to between 14 and 66 gets at least two mentions, for example?
This passage is also ignored by early Christian apologists such as Origen and Tertullian, who actually quotes Tacitus in the third century.
Yet another tired canard, which has been answered repeatedly:
No church father, however, would have willingly quoted such a negative reference to Jesus and the Christians. There is also nothing in the passage that would not have been common, agreed-upon knowledge to church authors or their opponents.
Latatser needs to explain in what content and for what purpose any church father would have quoted this passage. The great flaw in such reasoning is the assumption that it contained information that answered or supported whatever Tertullian or Origen were addressing. So, what then? Does Lataster know of someone in that time who doubted that Jesus 1) founded a movement 2) that reached to Rome, and 3) whose followers were called “Christians” and was 4) crucified 5) under Pilate? Or does he simply mindlessly expect someone like Origen to gratuitously quote the passage just to satisfy his arbitrary desires to see it in print?
Tacitus, born after Jesus’ death (and perhaps after Paul started writing his epistles), could not have been an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. He could well be repeating what a Christian believer is claiming. Many scholars dismiss this passage as Christian hearsay.
The “eyewitness” bit is the same objection as the “decades later” objection we dealt with above. As for the “repeating” and “hearsay” bit, this is why I offered this material:
Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?
Absolutely! The Tacitean literature is full of praise for the accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus:
Syme, who was regarded as one of the foremost Tacitean scholars, says “the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars.” He adds that Tacitus “was no stranger to industrious investigation” and his “diligence was exemplary.”
Chilver indicates, “for Tacitus scepticism was inescapable is not to be doubted.”
Martin, though noting difficulties about discerning Tacitus’ exact sources, says that“[i]t is clear, then, that Tacitus read widely and that the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite untenable.”
Grant, while charging Tacitus with bias, error, and “unfair selectivity” in various areas (especially associated with the Emperor Tiberius), nevertheless agrees that Tacitus “was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition.” Elsewhere he notes that “[t]here is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material.”
Dudley notes that despite problems in discerning what sources Tacitus used, “it may be said with some confidence that the view that Tacitus followed a single authority no longer commands support.”
Mellor observes that although he made use of other sources, including friends like Pliny, Tacitus “does not slavishly follow, as some of his Roman predecessors did, the vagaries of his sources.” He adds: “If research is the consultation and evaluation of sources, there can be little doubt that Tacitus engaged in serious research though it is not often apparent in the smooth flow of his narrative.” Tacitus “consulted both obscure and obvious sources,” and “distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian.”
Benario tells us that Tacitus “...chose judiciously among his sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment.”
Wellesley remarks that investigation “very seldom shows (Tacitus) to be false to fact” and that archaeology has shown that “only once or twice is Tacitus found guilty of a small slip.” He adds: “When the sources differ and the truth is hard to decipher, (Tacitus) takes refuge in ambiguous language or the balance of alternative and some- times spiteful variants,” rather than doing original research to determine which option is the truth. We may note that there is no such ambiguous language in the Christus cite.
Ash notes external evidence that Tacitus “was actively engaged” in “meticulous research” and internal evidence that Tacitus “investigated the facts painstakingly.”
Finally, Momigliano, while pointing out that Tacitus was of course “not a researcher in the modern sense,” nevertheless says that he was “a writer whose reliability cannot be seriously questioned.” He cites only one possible major error by Tacitus, but puts it down to him relying on a trusted predecessor rather than official records.
We therefore conclude that there is every reason to trust Tacitus as reliable. However, there are objections that have been raised by various sources in this regard.
Lataster refers to “many scholars” who “dismiss this passage” as hearsay. Unfortunately, he does not name any, nor give a reference to any, save for Ehrman earlier in the text (whose conclusion in that regard he also cites as self-contradictory), and did not find any scholar who made such a dismissal in my survey of the literature.
There is also some question over Tacitus’ reliability as historian, particularly when he calls the prefect Pontius Pilate a procurator, although he could possibly have been both.
Lataster is forced to swallow this one with that latter caveat, being that Richard Carrier has allowed for that possibility. Either way, it is a stale canard, rendered deceased both by the testimonies of Tacitus’ reliability we noted above, and by these points:
We should first consider the difference between these two titles. A procurator was a financial administrator who acted as the emperor’s personal agent. A prefect was a military official. In a minor province of the Empire like Judaea, there was probably not much difference between the two roles, and the same person would very likely hold both offices simultaneously.
Critics assume that because there is an inscription that describes Pilate as a “prefect” in Caesarea, that therefore this was his sole title. But other literary evidence shows that Pilate likewise held the title of procurator. The Jewish historian Josephus calls Pilate a “procurator” in Antiquities 18.3.1. In practical terms, “both the procurators and prefects in Judaea had the power to execute criminals who were not Roman citizens” This is a “difference” that is no difference at all.
But even if Pilate did not hold the title of procurator in his day, Tacitus may have had any number of other reasons to use that term in place of “prefect.” Tacitus may have simply been using a term with which his readers would be most familiar. Alternatively, he may have been deliberately anachronizing. Kraus and Woodman note that Tacitus often uses “archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary” and also “avoids, varies, or ‘misuses’ technical terms.” They do not cite the prefect/procurator issue specifically, but it is possible that a “misuse” of “procurator” would simply reflect Tacitus’ normal practice.
In any event, being that Tacitus’ readers were - like he had been - members of the Senate and holders of political office, we must suppose that this “error” escaped not only Tacitus’ attention, but theirs as well. We may as well suggest that a United States Senate historian’s error of the same rank would pass without comment. All of the above, therefore - along with the fact that this is not cited by Tactiean scholars as a problem - shows that there is certainly no grounds for charging Tacitus with error, or degrading the reference to Jesus because of the alleged procurator/prefect mixup.
Continuing with the Disaster Area:
Also of interest is that this supposed reference to the death of Jesus is made in Book 15 (covering CE62-65), rather than in Book 5 (covering CE29-31). Though Tacitus supposedly claims the death of Christ happened during the reign of Tiberius, Tacitus makes no mention of Jesus in the books he wrote covering the reign of Tiberius; he only makes this one passing comment among the books covering the reign of Nero, which is quite odd.
No, it isn’t odd at all, not unless Lataster has established that every procurator, every religious leader, every teacher, that Tacitus mentions, gets at least two mentions, and always in their proper chronological place. I might also add that this objection assumes that Tacitus viewed Jesus in the same reverent and respectful light that modern people do. Quite the contrary. As a disgracefully shamed and crucified figure, a passing comment like this one is quite intelligible. Indeed, has Christians not been connected to the fire at Rome, and been useful to Tacitus as an example of Nero’s cruelty, it is likely he would not have mentioned Jesus at all.
Furthermore, most of Book 5 and the beginning of Book 6 (covering CE32-37) of the Annals is lost.[ 102] The Annals is suspiciously missing information from 29CE to 32CE, a highly relevant timeframe for those that believe in Jesus! Professor of Classics Robert Drews theorises that the only plausible explanation for this gap is “pious fraud”; that the embarrassment of Tacitus making no mention of Jesus’ crucifixion (or associated events such as the darkness covering the world or the appearances of resurrected saints, as well as the resurrection, of course) led to Christian scribes destroying this portion of the text (and perhaps later fabricating the Book 15 reference).
Drews’ rather silly claim has been answered by Van Voorst, who notes that the “usual scribal practice is to interpolate, not excise” and also that other portions of Tacitus are lost as well. From the Annals, we are missing books 7 through 10. From the Histories, we are missing much of what comprised 12 or 14 total books. One is justified in wondering why Lataster did not share this information with his readers.
I had planned to say more about what Lataster said about the Gospels as biographies, but that turned out to be nothing new, and as I kept looking further, kept finding more and more than was not new, and much that was incompletely argued using embarrassingly minimal material. (E.g., it takes a lot of nerve to discuss such things as the criterion of embarrassment in just a few paragraphs.)
This left me in sort of a muddle as what to do next with his book. The further I looked into it, the more apparent it became that Lataster was an even more disastrous thinker than I first realized. When someone is so insensate as to think that use of scholars amount to a fallacious “appeal to authority” – a very common misapprehension of that fallacy by fundamentalist atheists – and so frequently raises the specter of bias as a reason to dismiss evidence, it becomes very hard to take them seriously.
Oh, well. Since I mentioned the criterion of embarrassment, let’s go ahead and discuss that.
Generally, I think the criterion of embarrassment is sound, although it requires certain caveats. Many scholars are not aware of the social science background of the New Testament, which means that some things they think of as “embarrassing” in modern terms may not be embarrassing in the ancient world. The opposite would also be true. I will not here discuss specific examples, since that it to be the subject of future research on my part. For now let me simply analyze what Lataster has to say on the subject.
First, Latatser supposes the worth of this criterion is lessened because it may be that “the author purposely provides an embarrassing example to make a point (perhaps on humility, or separation from the ego), or to provide a feeling of authenticity and credibility, avoiding suspicion over constant positive assertions.” Unfortunately, Lataster’s single example of this in application merely shows how lacking his scholarship is. In a note he suggests, regarding the point that it would have been embarrassing for women to find Jesus’ tomb empty, that:
This overlooks the possibility that the Gospel writer intentionally places such importance on women, to demonstrate just how different this new religion is, including its treatment of women, and other ‘downtrodden’ groups. Actually, isn’t that kind of the point of Christianity? The same Bible has Jesus basically saying that the ‘low shall be made high’ and the ‘high shall be made low’.
The problem with this analysis is that demonstrating “just how different” Christianity was, would have been switching one highly embarrassing aspect of Christianity for another. The social world of the New Testament was also suspicious of anything new or deviant. Lataster has unwittingly given himself a different problem without solving his first problem.
Lataster’s second objection is vague to the point of criminality: He says that “given the diversity of Jewish religions, and the diversity even of early Christianity, it cannot be assumed (with the canonical Gospels at least, with their anonymous authors) that the author would find the event or teaching in question to be embarrassing.” Well, yes, it can. We know the workings of an agonistic society. We also know a great deal about the values of that society. It just isn’t that hard to know that certain things would be considered an embarrassment. Such diversity as existed simply didn’t affect it that much.
Lataster shows once again his ability to anachronize by making a comparison to the embarrassing claims of L. Ron Hubbard, but there is a huge, huge difference between the reaction to a deviant in a collectivist, agonistic society, and an individualist society like the one that produced Hubbard. (I am also therefore saying that yes, Stanley Porter – whom Lataster quotes to the effect that it is “difficult” to know what the church thought on these matters – is wrong; while well versed in rhetoric and other matters, Porter is less engaged on matters of social science.)
Will we rotate back to the disaster that is Lataster again? I expect we will. Once I’m feeling masochistic enough again.