Tacitus on historicity of Jesus - reliable source or not?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Weak yes. jmfcst is perhaps a little too attached to it, but it's reasonable corroboration considering that there's really no reason to follow a mythical-Jesus hypothesis anyway.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Weak yes. jmfcst is perhaps a little too attached to it, but it's reasonable corroboration considering that there's really no reason to follow a mythical-Jesus hypothesis anyway.

“weak”, huh?  You mean just like those same hacks also claimed the corroboration concerning the existence was of Pilate “weak”, and that the nonNT corroboration about Pilate was due to relying upon Christian sources….that is, until the Pilate inscription was found in 1961 and shut down that line of hackery.

That's not what 'weak' means in the context of the options in this poll. 'Strong' has to mean that you think the other side has no case at all, and this isn't even a question as to the history of Jesus (on which I'm a strong yes, obviously, since I'm a Christian), it's a discussion of a specific source.

Duly noted that you're not 'too attached' to it. I'm sorry I said that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Right, and that's why I think Josephus is a better corroborating source than Tacitus is on this particular subject.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's no indication that Tacitus got Pilate's rank 'wrong', either, even if Pilate was not called 'procurator' during his lifetime. The sources disagree as to whether he was a prefect or a procurator, and the simplest explanation is that the position was simply renamed at some point. Which, well...it was. It was attested to have been, twice.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's no indication that Tacitus got Pilate's rank 'wrong', either. The sources disagree as to whether he was a Prefect or a Procurator, and the simplest explanation is that he was both, which was far from unheard-of in the Roman administrative system for outlying areas.

Alternatively Tacitus could have just used the equivalent rank that was in use for the position Pilate held during his day for one reason or another. The Pilate rank issue is a minor argument against reliability rather than a major one.

Yes, I edited the post to reflect that possibility as well. In Japanese history the first few dozen Emperors bore one of four different titles, すめらみこと 'sumeramikoto', 大和大君　'yamato ookimi', 倭国王 'wakoku ou', or 天の下大王 'ame no shita ookimi', and during the medieval period 帝 'mikado' was used, but these days they are almost always referred to as 天皇 'tennou' like modern Emperors.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's no indication that Tacitus got Pilate's rank 'wrong', either, even if Pilate was not called 'procurator' during his lifetime. The sources disagree as to whether he was a prefect or a procurator, and the simplest explanation is that the position was simply renamed at some point. Which, well...it was. It was attested to have been, twice.

The following call Pilate a prefect:
A single Inscription found in Caesarea

The following 3 call Pilate a procurator:
the NT - from the viewpoint of Judea
Josephus - from the viewpoint of Judea
Tacitus - from the viewpoint of Rome

Given the historical accuracy of titles of officials from the works of NT/Josephus/Tacitus, it is highly highly doubtful that three corroborative yet separate historical views, two from Judea and one from Rome, would have gotten Pilate's rank wrong.

If we knew the whole truth, there’s probably a very simple way to reconcile all 4 sources.  To sit here 1970 years later with just very small fragments of the whole picture, and claim there is no possible reconciliation is extremely arrogant and most likely, dead wrong.

The reconciliation is the fact that the position got renamed twice. It was procurator before AD 6 and after AD 44, the latter period being when NT, Josephus, and Tacitus were written. It was prefect between those dates. There's no conflict.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The reconciliation is the fact that the position got renamed twice. It was procurator before AD 6 and after AD 44, the latter period being when NT, Josephus, and Tacitus were written. It was prefect between those dates. There's no conflict.

but Tacitus did use the title prefect to refer to others...so he did know the difference between the titles...so I am not so sure it is that simple.

...heck, for all we know, it might be as simple as the stone inscription calling him prefect was a mistake that was discarded immediately after it was chiseled and reused as the underside of the step in the theatre where it was found in 1961.

There are just too many unknowns…but what is known is that we are nearly 2000 years separated from three corroborative histories from three renowned 1 Century historians from three completely different backgrounds. 

Maybe the other people whom he referred to as prefects had held offices that still had that title during his writing period. Maybe the Pilate stone was indeed in error. It's probably not worth bothering ourselves about; we'll almost certainly never know in this life.