Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

['X']

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
From Richard Owen in Rome


AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.

Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.

Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay.

Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years.

“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said.

Signor Cascioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the 12 apostles. He said that he would withdraw his legal action if Father Righi came up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the month.

The Vatican has so far declined to comment.

THE EVIDENCE

The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”

[Dr. Gonzo]

What would a Priest know about Jesus?

Priests are only in it for the tail.

[MiChuhSuh]

What would a Priest know about Jesus?

Priests are only in it for the tail.

WTF hahaha I hope that was sarcastic lol

Man this story is crazy, that would never fly in an American court, there would be way to much mixing of church and state involved

[Dr. Gonzo]

What would a Priest know about Jesus?

Priests are only in it for the tail.

WTF hahaha I hope that was sarcastic lol

Man this story is crazy, that would never fly in an American court, there would be way to much mixing of church and state involved

I wasn't being sarcastic.

All Priests want is Sex, Power, and Money.

[MiChuhSuh]

not every priest is like that but I can see if we argue it will go nowhere so.... ya.

[black]

I wasn't being sarcastic.

All Priests want is Sex, Power, and Money.

yep, and if they ain't gay then they abusing the little boys....

[Lonewolf]

Prove Christ was a real person -historically -is the question, right?

That's a real hard one to prove because of the lack of written records during the time of His Ministry walking amongst man.

The validity of His existance stems from 2 (or 3) sources, depending on what your leanings towards are.

(1) Those who walked with Him and passed it on to Diciples who wrote about the Goog News to a large extent in agreement on their message.

(2) The Jewish Nation, which for the large part denied Christ as their Saviour, historically even up to this moder age "do not deny" Christ's existance during the reign of Pontius Pilate. In fact, Jews are great record keepers when it comes to Religious Dogma and Geneology; Keeping careful roots of families and Jesus is of the line of King David, the most loved and holiest of their National Kings on whose lineage the promised of a messiah was to spring forth from. Therefore "Jesus" being out of that lineage of King David --- can not be denied.

(3) The most important one by most of us in the christian Faith, is the proof validated in our hearts through faith and grace --- And this my dear sir, you can only accept and believe in for yourself when Christ Jesus opens your eyes to the spiritual world all around us, and the kingdom of God within US.

[MiChuhSuh]

Do Other Sources Confirm Jesus Christ's Existence?
Many people assume that, apart from the Bible, history is silent concerning Jesus of Nazareth. But in fact, many independent witnesses testify of Jesus' existence. Let's notice a few.

Testimony from the Romans

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56-120) was a Roman senator, consul and governor of the Roman province of Anatolia (covering most of modern-day Turkey) as well as one of ancient Rome's greatest historians. Late in his life he wrote a 16-volume history of the Roman emperors, the Annals.

No friend to either Nero or Christians, Tacitus writes that Nero blamed "a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."

He goes on to explain that "Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ..." (Annals, 15:44, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 1998, p. 82).

A contemporary of Tacitus, Caius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 69-140), overseer of Rome's libraries and court official to several emperors, writes that the emperor Claudius "banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus [Christ] being their leader" (Lives of the First Twelve Caesars: Life of Claudius, quoted by Grant Jeffrey, Jesus: The Great Debate, 1999, p. 163). This banishment of Jews from Rome is mentioned in Acts 18:2.

Also, "Pliny the younger, the Roman legate of Bithynia-Pontus (what is now north-central Turkey) in the early second century, wrote to the emperor Trajan, requesting advice on how to deal with Christians who refused to reverence Caesar's image. Pliny noted that these Christians met regularly and sang hymns 'to Christ as if to a god' (Letters 10:96.7). The phrase 'as if to a God' suggests that Pliny knew Jesus had been a person who had lived on earth but was reluctant to call him divine" (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, p. 196).

From these historical sources, none connected in any way with the Bible, we see references to these facts:

A group called "Christians" derived its name from "Christus" (Christ).
This "Christus" was executed during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate (Tiberius reigned A.D. 14-37; Pilate held office from 26 to 36 or 37).
This new movement involved "a most mischievous superstition," quite possibly a reference to Christians' belief that Jesus rose from the dead after His crucifixion.
This new movement begun by Christians began in Judea and spread to Rome.
Early Christians considered Christ to be a divine Being.
Testimony from Josephus

Flavius Josephus, a prominent Jewish historian of the first century, is well known to historians and scholars. Born into a priestly family in A.D. 37, Josephus was well educated and commanded a Jewish detachment in Galilee during the Jewish revolt of 66-70 until his capture by the Romans. At the end of the war he went to Rome with the Roman general Titus, where he lived and wrote until his death about A.D. 100.

Josephus twice mentions Jesus in his monumental work Antiquities of the Jews, written A.D. 90-95. His most extensive quote reads:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,—a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, section 3).

While many scholars dispute parts or all of the passage, it is quoted as above by the historian Eusebius as early as 315.

A second mention of Jesus by Josephus is seldom disputed by scholars. It concerns the martyrdom of James, His half brother: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned ..." (Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, section 1).

Another prominent figure from the Gospels mentioned by Josephus is John the Baptizer: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, ... thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause ... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus,... and was there put to death" (Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 5, section 2).

Although Josephus was never a Christian, in his works we find mention of many other figures from the Gospels and other New Testament books. These include the family of the Herods; the Judean procurators and members of the high priestly families. His books, like the writings of the Roman historians and officials, provide powerful independent corroboration of the historical accuracy of the Gospels and the existence of Jesus Christ.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/JC/dieandlive_sources.htm

[MiChuhSuh]

Jesus
Nero's Scapegoats: Cornelius Tacitus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus

J. P. Holding

Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. [Meie.MarJ, 89]

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value. It is unfortunate that France so readily agreed with Wells' assessment. An investigation into the methods and background of Tacitus, as reported by Tacitean scholars (whose works, incidentally, France does not consult), tells us that this is an extremely reliable reference to Jesus and for early Christianity.

Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity?

Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery [though see Cutn.JGMM, 111-2], for the evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage. The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is so strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in the sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin! - [Dor.Tac, 149] , and it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bias! [Momig.CFou, 126] )

This is not to say that there are not those whom we may encounter who will suggest that this passage is an interpolation. Some will weakly suggest that because no church father quotes the passage early in church history, it must have been added later. No church father, however, would have willingly quoted such a negative reference to Jesus and the Christians; moreover, indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers. The Annals may not have gotten into the Church's hands at an early date. The idea that this passage is an interpolation is no more credible than the idea held in the 19th century that Tacitus' entire works are fifteenth-century forgeries!

Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?

The answer here is: Absolutely! The Tacitean literature is full of praise for the accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus, and it is singularly unfortunate that many writers in this subject area have failed to appreciate this!

Let's look at a number of quotes from scholars in the Tacitean camp:

Syme, who was regarded as one of the foremost Tacitean scholars, says [Sym.Tac, 398] "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars." He adds [ibid., 281, 282] that Tacitus "was no stranger to industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary."
Chilver [Chilv.Tac, 24] indicates that "for Tacitus scepticism was inescapable is not to be doubted."
Martin [Mart.Tac, 211] , though noting difficulties about discerning Tacitus' exact sources, says that "It 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 [Gran.Grec, 40-3; see also Gran.Tac, 18] , 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 "There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material." [ibid., 20]
Dudley [Dud.Tac, 29] 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 [Mell.Tac, 20, 45] 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 (ibid., 31-2) that, "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 [Benar.Tac, 87] 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 [Dor.Tac, 65-6] 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 sometimes 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.
Finally, Momigliano[Momig.CFou, 111-2] , 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.

Tacitus may have borrowed his information of Jesus from Christians or from Pliny the Younger, or from some other secondhand source. It may not be reliable.

Overall, Tacitus' reliability as a historian counts against his having borrowed information uncritically from any source. Moreover, and as further support:

That Tacitus got his information from Christians is disproven by the negative tone of the reference.
That Tacitus got his information on Jesus, or some of it, from Pliny originally is quite possible: The two men were close friends. Tacitius sent his works to Pliny for criticism, and "he himself begged for the product of Pliny's pen." [Mende.Tac, 15] Tacitus also "turned to Pliny for first-hand material for his Histories" [ibid., 21], so he was not hesitant to use Pliny as a source. However, this does not mean that Tacitus accepted Pliny's information on Jesus, or on any topic, uncritically. Annals 15.53 indicates that Tacitus did collect some information from Pliny - and that he disputed it, and even considered it wholly absurd! Simply because Pliny was Tacitus' friend and confidant does not mean that he believed everything that Pliny told him!
More generally, let's look at how carefully Tacitus analyzed and sifted his sources, according to the Taciteans:

Mendell notes that in Annals 13, Tacitus quotes three divergent opinions from three different historians on a story involving Nero. [Mende.Tac, 208] He was concerned even about minor historical details in this regard. Mendell [ibid., 207] further notes Tacitus' citation of a fantastic story about one Drusus, "based only on persistent rumor, which (Tacitus) refutes by the application of logic." He writes: "In the Histories there are sixty-eight instances in which Tacitus indicates either a recorded statement or a belief on someone's part with regard to something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive." [ibid., 201] These instances "would seem to indicate a writer who had not only read what was written by historians...but had also talked with eye witnesses and considered with some care the probable truth where doubt or uncertainty existed...
"The sum total of the picture is clear. For the main narrative, Tacitius assumes the responsibility of the historian to get at the truth and present it. His guarantee was his own reputation. To make this narrative colorful and dramatic, he felt justified in introducing facts and motives which he might refute on logical grounds or leave uncontested but for which he did not personally vouch. There is no indication that he followed blindly the account of any predecessor." [ibid., 203-4] Mendell also notes that Tacitus was concerned for maintaining his integrity as a historian.

In the Annals, the work with the paragraph on Jesus, Mendell cites 30 instances where Tacitus uses specific phrases "to substantiate a statement or to present a statement for which he does not care to vouch." [ibid., 205] Mendell also notes that "In Books 11-16 of the Annals (the Jesus cite is in 15) Tacitus "concerns himself with the evidence and source references to a greater extent than in the earlier books." He relies on other historians, a bronze inscription (11.14), reports or memoirs (15.16), personal testimonies (15.73), and physical evidence (15.42). There are indications of searches for first-hand (15.41) and written (12.67, 13.17) evidence. [Mende.Tac, 207] Thus the cite on Jesus comes in the middle of one of Tacitus' most carefully-documented works.

In reporting a conspiracy of Piso to assassinate Nero, Tacitus acknowledges the difficulty of accurate knowledge of such conspiracies, indicates where his knowledge is uncertain, and does not use of one of Pliny's quotes as positive evidence because he considers it to be "wholly absurd." (15.53) [ibid., 209]

In short, Tacitus was a very careful historian - he would certainly not trust a source that he held in such disdain as he did Christians, and he would carefully check material that came to him, even from his friends.

Finally, let us add that there was no need for Tacitus to get his information from Pliny - he had plenty of Christians in his own province of Asia where he was governor, if not more Christians than Pliny, and he was probably aware of Trajan's edict concerning Christians, which we will discuss below.

Tacitus had no motive to investigate his information on Christ. He may have accepted information from Christians uncritically.

Wells suggests that Tacitus "was merely repeating what Christians were then saying" [Well.WhoW, 20] ; "was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was a recent religion, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults," [Well.HistEv, 17; Well.JesL, 42] and "(t)he context of Tacitus' remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants."

This, as we have noted above, would be completely out of character for Tacitus: Careful inquiry was indeed part of Tacitus' modus operandi. (Ironically, in reference to the fact that Tacitus does not even say in the passage where Pilate ruled, Wells says, "Tacitus cannot be expected to give the life history of every incidental character he mentions." - [Well.JEaC, 186] . Would that he applied that criteria to Jesus in such a way!) 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." Certainly no Jew told Tacitus the horrible things he suggested about the origins of Judaism!

But in a more positive light, we can also find two possible additional reasons for Tacitus to have investigated Christianity carefully:

First, a likely cause for investigation erupted right in Tacitus' backyard, so to speak, in Rome c. 95 A.D. Emperor Domitian's niece Domatilla, and her husband Favius Clemens, were accused of "atheism," related to "being carried away into Jewish customs." Judaism of course was a recognized religion, so it is quite likely that the "Jewish custom" referred to is Christianity [Benk.PagRo, 15-16] . Here, then, was a perfect motive for Tacitus to investigate the movement historically: Some of Rome's highest-placed people seem to have joined the movement!

Second, Tacitus seems to have had an interest in "pretenders," notably those who claimed to have been risen from the dead! Bowersock [Luc.TacT, 5] notes that Tacitus offers an "exceptionally detailed account" of "an adventurer who claimed to be a resurrected Nero," and also offered two other similar stories. In light of this, Tacitus would probably have shown a rather strong interest in claims of some kind of "pretender" being raised from the dead, as was the case with Jesus. (As an added note, considering the trouble that Tacitus records was gone to in order to unmask these "pretenders," a persuasive case can be made for Roman investigation into the claims of Christianity. The fact that Tacitus does not report any sort of "debunking" of Christus is even more significant!)

Benko [Benk.PagRo, 16] summarizes by noting that Tacitus "was too good a historian not to look into the origin of the cult" once he had reason to look into it, and that reason is provided either by Domatilla (as Benko suggests), by Tacitus' special interest in "pretenders," or by the accusations of Nero concerning the fire. Tacitus would check his sources carefully, and this makes his reference to Jesus all the more valuable.

The issue now turns to the question: Where did Tacitus get his information of Jesus? There is really no way to tell. Ancient historians generally felt no obligation to reveal their sources. (Dudley [Dud.Tac, 28] writes in this regard: "...an ancient historian was under no obligation to give his sources in detail, nor even to mention them at all," and Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] adds that "systematic, careful references are a modern invention.") Tacitus could have gotten his information from the work of historians whom he trusted, and whose work is now lost to us. His information may have come from common knowledge. Suggestions have also been made that Tacitus got his information from Josephus, but this is rejected by Tacitean scholars: Mendell, for example, says that Tacitus "clearly knew nothing" about Josephus [Mende.Tac, 217 - see also Hada.FJos, 223] ). A common suggestion is that Tacitus got his information from Rome's imperial archives - perhaps from a letter or account written by Pilate. This leads to our next issue:

Tacitus would not have had permission to consult the imperial archives, and even if he did, it was not his regular practice to consult written documents.

Wells and others object that it is unlikely that Tacitus accessed official documents or had access to the imperial archives. Evangelical scholar Murray Harris writes that these records "were secret so that even the senate needed special permission to consult them (Tacitus, Hist. 4.40)" [Harr.GosP5, 352] . Does this thereby eliminate the possibility that Tacitus found out his information through this important source?

Both facets of this objection can be answered simultaneously. The imperial archives were indeed jealously guarded: In the cite noted by Harris from Tacitus' Histories, the Senate asks the Emperor Domitian for permission to consult the imperial archives - and Tacitus indicates that permission was granted! But what of Tacitus himself? Nothing from Tacitus' own works tell us anything about whether Tacitus himself needed special permission to consult the imperial archives. He does not tell us how difficult it was to get permission, or that he himself received (or did not receive) such permission, or how often he did get or needed to get access. However, a look at Tacitus' background suggest that if anyone would be able to get that very special permission to consult the imperial archives, Tacitus would be an excellent candidate! Consider the qualifications Tacitus enjoyed, according to Hutchins[Hutch.Tac, v] , Benario [Benar.Tac, 12-4, 19] , Grant [Gran.Tac, 7] , Dorey [Dor.Tac, 5-7] , and Mellor [Mell.Tac, 8-9] :

Tacitus was well-respected, a man who "won renown quickly," and "seemed of all the eminent men then active the most worthy of imitation." His reputation was such that in a letter of recommendation for a particular young man, Pliny indicates that being a friend of Tacitus is considered to be a sign of high quality. He won great fame as an orator, and progressed rapidly through the offices of Rome, ending up as proconsul of Asia, which was considered a "prestigious" office to hold, one of two "jewels in the administrative cursus under senatorial control" (the other being Africa). He was made a member of a body of priests "who had charge of the Sibylline books and many of the special festivals of the Roman state," at a time when this priestly body was "of the utmost importance." He reached the consulship, "Rome's highest office," in 97 A.D. - possibly having been nominated by Domitian prior to the latter's assassination.
His personal contacts were impressive as well: He married a daughter of Julius Agricola, the governor of Britain, whose biography he also wrote, and would have had to have had "the acquaintance of some of the foremost men of the state" for Agricola to have noticed him. Agricola himself was highly favored, having held office in Britain longer than any other governor there in spite of competition, possibly because of his extensive military success there. Tacitus may have advanced in part because of the influence of his father-in-law.
So it is safe to say that if anyone had access to the imperial archives, or would easily be able to get permission to see them, Tacitus had all the credentials to suspect that he would be able to do so! But beyond that, we may ask about the second facet of this objection: Is there any actual evidence that Tacitus consulted original documents generally, and governmental records specifically? Again, the answer is, absolutely! Tacitean scholars agree that the historian did indeed access governmental and public records, and did indeed consult original documents:

"Speeches of the emperor are discussed also in (Annals) 1.81, obviously as accessible. Of letters sent to Tiberius and of others attacking Nero and Agrippina he speaks (5.16 and 5.3) as though they might still be consulted. This is certainly true of the one to Tiberius." [Mende.Tac, 204] In Annals 15.74, Tacitus cites the records of the Roman Senate from Nero's time [ibid., 21] and cites Senate records elsewhere (5.4) [ibid., 212] The acta Senatus included letters from emperors, governors of provinces (like Pilate!), allies, and client kings.
Tacitus also probably made use of Rome's public libraries. [Dud.Tac, 28]
Tacitus also consulted the Acta Diurna, a daily public gazette (3.3, 12,24, 13.31, 16.22), and private journals and memoirs, which presumably "were preserved in large numbers, especially in the older aristocratic families." [Mende.Tac, 212]
Syme [Sym.Tac, 278] writes: "The straight path of inquiry leads to the archives of the Senate...the first hexad of Annales (which is not where the Jesus passage is) contains an abundance of information patently deriving from the official protocol, and only there to be discovered." Regarding an incident in Africa: "That Tacitus consulted the Senate archives is proved by the character of the material, by its distribution..." (ibid., 281) Relative to Book 4 of Tacitus' Historiae: "required constant access to the register of the Senate." (ibid.)
Mellor [Mell.Tac, 19-20] says of the Histories that Tacitus "used the records of the Senate for detailed accounts of speeches and debates..." as well as the works of earlier historians. He consulted "reminisces, biographies, autobiographies, letters, and speeches of the time, as well as...the Acts of the Senate." (ibid., 33) Mellor adds that Tacitus' "archival research is especially notable in the early books of the Annals" (not where the Jesus cite is) and may have been innovative for his time."
Benario [Benar.Tac, 80-7] highlights Tacitus' use of the works of previous historians (including some otherwise unknown to us), private records, the acta senatus, and the acta diurna. He observes that Tacitus, by his own accounting, was "heavily involved in research" and that he "sought out material which others, perhaps, had ignored or of which they were unaware."
Momigliano [Momig.CFou, 110-1] asserts that Tacitus made wide use of Senate records for the period of Domitian, and lesser use of them for the time from Tiberius to Titus; for that era, Momigliano tells us, Tacitus probably used the works of Senate historians more often.
So Wells is obviously not in agreement with Tacitean scholars on the matter of Tacitus' consultation of written documents, and thus it is worthwhile to ask where exactly he does get his information! His source, it turns out, is a scholar named Fabia. [Well.JEaC, 187] Who is Fabia? The Taciteans are familiar with the name: Mendell [Mende.Tac, 211] notes the work of Philippe Fabia from 1893, where he wrote of Tacitus: "Primary sources, documents, records, inscriptions, and the like...were rarely consulted." However, Mendell writes, "the conclusions (by Fabia) drawn are inconsistent with the reputation of Tacitus as evidenced by the letters of Pliny and with the impression given by Tacitus himself," who "not only states that he intends to compare various accounts, but constantly cites sources of information, even though he less frequently names the authority."

Syme notes further [Sym.Tac, 282] that the arguments of Fabia and those who agreed with him are based mostly on a single passage in Tacitus where he says that he was not able to give some information that should have been in the acta diurna. Hence, it was assumed by Fabia that he had no access to it! Syme points out that Tacitus gives an explanation for not being able to get the information, and "he deserves to be taken at his word." Wells has relied upon a badly outdated and highly incorrect source for his argument! It is salient to point out here again something that cannot be emphasized enough: This type of mistake is committed only by people working outside their field, as Wells is. Tacitean scholars have the breadth of judgment and background to know that Fabia is bogus; that Wells uses him as reliable source indicates Wells' radical unfamiliarity with the scholarship in Tacitean studies. Again, this cannot be overemphasized - the mark of a novice is their uncritical use of sources and methods within a discipline. Genuine scholars, with training and background in specialty, know how to use sources critically and keep the arguments and evidence in perspective!

Tacitus is a biased historian who often manipulated his data. His reference to Jesus may have been affected by this bias.

We note, of course, that all recorded history is biased and manipulated history, and we also note that there is no indication of any bias in the Jesus passage. Nevertheless, we consider it wise to explore this avenue. It shall be our aim to show that Tacitus' bias does not affect the reliability of the Jesus passage, nor indeed his reliability generally.

How is this matter to be formulated? Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 97, 100] serve as an example, charging Tacitus with bias and with both rhetorical and literary manipulation of material for his own purposes. (They do not, however, mention the Jesus passage at all.) Mellor [Mell.Tac, 7, 21] notes Tacitus' special contempt for the lower classes and his bias against Eastern religions, which he says "got the better of his judgement" causing him to think them "unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavished in court intrigues." Regarding Jews and Christians, Tacitus' bias was so great that he "accepted a hodge-podge of truth and falsehood with little critical analysis," including anti-Semitic cliches and a blending of Jewish beliefs. (ibid., 38)

Should this issue of bias be cause for concern? Not really, for two reasons. First, in spite of his bias, Tacitus is still sufficiently trustworthy. Second, there is no indication that Tacitus' bias had any effect on the Jesus reference. Indeed, if it would have had any influence, it would be the opposite of the sort required in order to devalue the reference! Let's look at some further relevant data:

Mellor (ibid., 39, 44) offers this counsel: "As we begin to analyze the distortions of Tacitus, we would do well to rein in our inclination to condemn the transparency of his political aims. All historians have prejudice and preconceptions; like a great forest or Mount Everest, it is simply easier to see them from afar." He adds that in spite of Tacitus' bias, "there is no evidence that he invented or suppressed the facts." He did not "change his details" to fit his reconstruction of the past, but rather engaged in selective interpretation - as indeed do all historical writers.

Benario [Benar.Tac, 148, 155, 157] , a more traditional scholar, likewise observes that bias is an inevitable part of any historical work. He notes Tacitus' bias against Tiberius, but also notes that Tacitus "is not being intentionally fraudulent; there is no instance of factual error in his works that can be ascribed to ulterior motives. In fact, most of the material available for rehabilitation of Tiberius's reputation in modern times comes from Tacitus's pages." Facts are still presented accurately, in spite of the bias. He adds that "(t)he information that Tacitus presents is almost invariably accurate," having been confirmed by archaeology, epigraphical evidence, and other authors.

Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] similarly records: "(Tacitus') interpretation of facts...whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious, but the actual facts which he records are generally accurate - so accurate that they involuntarily contradict his sinister innuendoes." In other words, even when Tacitus was expressing bias, his inner scruples were such that he still would not report an inaccuracy!

Finally, we return to Mellor (ibid., 40) for this admonition: "(Tacitus') passionate opinions should not obscure the fact that he is the most accurate of all the Roman historians." If we throw out the Jesus reference on this basis, we must also throw out much else of what Tacitus has written, along with the works of all other Roman historians.

Our conclusions, then, are as follows: Tacitus' bias in general, and his bias against Eastern religions like Christianity particularly, is of the opposite sort that would be required to devalue the reference to Jesus. Again, when reporting on the history and beliefs of the Jews, Tacitus' bias led him to say things that were disparaging, which means that out of contempt for Christianity, he would have reported any rumor or indication that Jesus was a fiction, or had not really been sentenced to death. As it is, we have not even that much.

Tacitus' bias did not allow him to descend into wholesale fabrication. Even if it had, however, his biases would have led him, not to acknowledge Jesus' existence, but to deny it, or at the very least denigrate Jesus' importance. But this is not what we find in the Jesus passage in Annals.

Tacitus is in error because he refers to Pilate as a "procurator" when in reality Pilate was a prefect. This means that he is unreliable, or that he probably did not consult written documents.

This objection is also favored by Wells[Well.DidJ, 10; Well.HistEv, 16; Well.JesL, 42] However, as Chilton and Evans remark, "(t)his 'error' should not be taken as evidence that Tacitus' information is faulty." [ChilEv.Stud, 465] . Two reasons may be cited for this:

Evidence indicates that there was a certain fluidity in the usage of these terms.
Tacitus may have been anachronizing on purpose.
We should first consider the difference between these two titles. A procurator, as the word implies, was a financial administrator who acted as the emperor's personal agent. A prefect was a military official.

What evidence is there for the easy interchange of these terms? Meier notes [Meie.MarJ, 100] that in a "backwater province" like Judea, there was probably not much difference between the two roles. This assertion is backed up by literary evidence. Philo and Josephus were not consistent in the usage of the terms either: Josephus calls Pilate a "procurator" in Antiquities 18.5.6, the story about Pilate bringing images into Jerusalem. (It has not been suggested, but we may wonder if, in a backwater like Judea, Pilate may have held both titles!) In practical terms, "both the procurators and prefects in Judea had the power to execute criminals who were not Roman citizens." [VanV.JONT, 48] Practically, in this context, "A difference that is no difference, is no difference." (For what it is worth, the Secular Web's Richard Carrier has now stated: "It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious with. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here."
Tacitus may have used an anachronistic term for his own reasons. The first reason may have been to avoid confusion. Sanders [Sand.HistF, 23] cites inscriptional evidence that the position held by Pilate was called "prefect " in 6-41 A.D., but "procurator" in the years 44-66, so he deduces that Tacitus was simply using the term with which his readers would be most familiar. (This is a far better point than we may realize: Being that Tacitus' readers were - like he had been - members of the Senate and holders of political office [Dor.Tac, 64] , 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!)
The second reason for this use of terminology may be deliberate anachronizing on Tacitus' part. Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 111] 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 worth asking, in light of this comment, if the usage might not have been simply part of Tacitus' normal practice. (In fact, Harris [Harr.GosP5, 349] does indeed suggest a conscious [or unconscious] anachronizing.)

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.

Tacitus refers to Jesus as "Christ" and not by a proper name. This means that he probably did not consult official records.

Wells also offers this objection. [Well.HistEv, 16-17] Like the above objection, however, it 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 [VanV.JONT, 43ff] further makes the point that Tacitus is actually issuing a subtle corrective here! The text of the oldest manuscript, 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 attention 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 NT itself tended towards the direction of using "Christ" as though it were a proper name, and that Tacitus (and Pliny as well) may be reflecting this. [VanV.JONT, 46]

[Well.JEaC, 188; Cutn.JGMM, 112] Tacitus refers to a "great multitude" of Christians at Rome. There would not be this many Christians in Rome at this early time.

This is rather an empty objection that merely assumes what it sets out to prove! Even so, what does Tacitus mean here by a "great multitude"? 50? 100? 500? Is it a relative term for, "a great multitude, in respect to the crime committed"? (I.e., if we arrested 50 people for holding up a corner gas station, does that seem like a "great multitude" to arrest for such a relatively minor crime?) There is simply no force behind this objection, for it lacks specificity.

In response to my material above, Jeff Lowder acknowledges the findings of Tacitean scholars concerning his reliability. But, he says, "there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occassionally reported stories which were false historically but were true in a literary sense or a moral sense." He also quotes Mellor as saying:

Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.
From this Lowder concludes that "(t)here is good reason to believe that Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' could very well be another one of the exceptions to Tacitus' general trend of careful, skeptical use of sources. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term 'Christians,' which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to 'Christus' in the context of a moral attack on Nero. (Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information.)"

I have already noted that Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such, and the Livia/Agrippa story is no exception. The story in question, from the first book of the Annals, is clearly reported by Tacitus as a rumor. He was consistent in discerning rumor from fact--as I noted from a Tacitean scholar, he did this with the sort of scruples rare in an ancient historian.

Mellor says that this is "good literature but it can be irresponsible history." This is correct: And it actually becomes irresponsible when rumor is reported as fact rather than as rumor. Tacitus didn't take that extra step that many of his fellow writers did. And the evidence indicates that he always made sure he reported rumor as rumor. There is no indication, as I have noted, of such qualification in the Christus cite. I am bewildered by Lowder's assertion that the context of a moral attack on Nero indicates a type of story in which Tacitus would repeat unhistorical information. Since nearly everything Tacitus reports has a moral context, applying this criteria would mean having to ashcan almost all of Tacitus' work. I believe that Lowder's argument is not the product of careful thought, nor of a genuine understanding of what Mellor and Grant are actually saying.

I am also bewildered by Lowder's argument that "(u)nless it can be shown that Tacitus actually doubted the historicity of Jesus, Tacitus' professionalism and integrity are not even relevant as Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the matter." Professionalism and integrity was one of Tacitus' most compelling motives for doing accurate history. He wrote his work for reading by his political peers--is it to be supposed that he would not take care to be accurate, in an era when prestige and honor were of utmost importance to those in power? I do not think so. Lowder's argument is again not a product of careful thought. Overall, his new arguments do nothing to refute or contradict the case presented here.

(1) Tacitus was "always" careful to identify when he was reporting rumors, yet the relevant passage does not contain such a qualification...Note that (1) is unknowable; if Tacitus reports a rumor without identifying it as such, we wouldn't know it.
Well, why not? So we are to assume based on non-evidence that Tacitus could be reporting rumors (or in this context, unconfirmed data would be a better term), even when he doesn't say he is, even when he is clearly in the habit of doing so? I am working within evidence here; Lowder is promulgating speculation without evidence for the sake of preserving a tenuous position. He does try harder, though:

Furthermore, given the incidental nature of Tacitus' reference to Christus, it seems perfectly understandable that Tacitus would not identify his statement as a rumor. According to Ronald Martin (Tacitus, 1981, pp. 208-9), Tacitus claims that it is "my intention to follow my sources where they are unanimous but where they have given different reports I will record them under their names" (Ann. 13.20) yet he often breaks even this promise.
I fail to see how the "incidental nature" of the reference has any relation to identification as rumor. Is there a proven pattern that the length of a reference by Tacitus directly corresponds to his proclivity to report (or not) whether something is a rumor? Beyond that, it seems that despite his earlier misuse of Lucian, Lowder still has not learned his lesson about reporting quotes from material in their context. Annals 13.20 contains a story of Nero which Tacitus reports using several different (and differing) sources, including Seneca, Fabius Rusticus, and Pliny. Because these sources often disagree, he tells us that it is his intention (he does not "promise" anything -- as Lowder apparently realizes now, since in the latest latest edition, he gets rid of this word) to record variations in reports, and as we know, intentions often go awry when dealing with a complexity of sources. Just how "badly" Tacitus "broke" this "promise" is a matter of discussion. Since a good deal of his source material is lost to us, it is debatable whether, and to what extent, he fulfilled his intentions. However, this quote refers only to one story in which Tacitus had multiple and conflicting sources and is therefore irrelevant to any other part of Tacitus' work, including Annals 15.44. Unless Lowder shows that there was a definite problem here, and that it was a bad habit that Tacitus picked up upon, and was a consistent problem in his work, he is again doing no more than throwing confetti in the air. (According to the Taciteans, as we have shown, this sort of problem is the glaring exception with Tacitus.)

In the latest latest edition, Lowder replied to the above:

Holding should compile a list of every source that Tacitus names in the Annals and Histories; if he did, he would discover that Tacitus almost never names his sources. According to Carrier, "We thus cannot know what he thought a 'rumor' was as opposed to a 'reliable' oral report."
I don't need such a list; I know well enough that neither Tacitus nor any ancient historian felt obliged to reveal sources. That is not the point, and the above does not answer my point at all. Carrier's comment is true as far as it goes, then -- Tacitus may have been misinformed, and thought that what was actually a "rumor," or an untruth, was a "reliable oral report." But I have shown that Tacitus was not so uncritical as to simply accept things blindly. If such a report fooled Tacitus, it fooled everyone -- in other words, we will have to posit a carefully-crafted conspiracy full of manufactured literary, testimonial, and other historical evidence. That of course is what Christ-mythers eventually must resort to -- and since Lowder isn't in that camp, we know that's not the direction he is heading, or wants to head!

In the latest latest edition, here's what else is said now:

Holding seems to assume that if Tacitus had not investigated the historicity of Jesus, Tacitus would have believed the historicity of Jesus was an unsubstantiated rumor. But why should anyone hold that assumption?
After the lessons of my personal interview with Josh McDowell, I would have thought that Lowder would have learned something about what someone "seems to assume," but apparently not. Actually, I assume no such thing; my most likely scenario is that Tacitus probably did assume that Jesus existed, but that he did investigation into some of Jesus' history (his death in Palestine, and the Christian movement) that would have revealed, in the course of investigation, that there was this little problem of there being no evidence that this Jesus character actually existed, and in fact evidence pointing to the contrary. To use Lowder's example of Mohammed, an investigator might begin by wondering how Mohammed managed to be so influential. He might want to look into how Mohammed led his forces. But to do so, there must be records and proof that Mohammed did these things, and if he didn't exist, then such records and proofs will be notably absent, or at the least fishy and contrived! They would be full of statements saying what Mohammed did and when. If a Muslim claimed that Mohammed led the Battle of Boogadoo and made all of its tactical planning, and all records, even Muslim ones, of the Battle of Boogadoo either do not mention him, or attribute his work to others, then we start wondering what's up -- as Tacitus would have. Thus in the process of investigating, one would uncover evidence leading to indications of non-existence. This is my true point, and thus the rest of what Lowder has to say re: why Tacitus would not identify this material as sourced in rumor (or unconfirmed data) is irrelevant. (It also puts paid to Lowder's pushback to a comment below on Benko, "Holding quibbles that Benko says Tacitus would have looked into the origin of Christianity, but that is not the same thing as investigating the historicity of Jesus." One simply cannot do the former without some confrontation with the latter!)

Thus, when Lowder goes on, in response to my points above:

Holding also attempts to dodge his burden of proof, when he asks for a "direct proof that Tacitus reported a rumor as a fact knowing that it was merely a rumor."
Actually, what I asked for (see below) is, "a direct proof that Tacitus reported a rumor as a fact knowing that it was merely a rumor and that it was a consistent habit of his". But that's a nitpick; here's the beef:

Remember that Holding is the one making a claim; Holding asserted that Tacitus "always" identifies rumors as such.
Yes, I did, and the indications are that Tacitus always did this -- I want to see an exception, and then I want to see that it is a consistent problem, not a surd in the pattern. And since Tacitus' care and accuracy are the recognized pattern, it is not I who is "making a claim" at all -- unless one can call recognizing a known and verified fact "making a claim."

Moreover, a moment's reflection will reveal the absurdity of Holding's request: if "Tacitus reported a rumor as a fact knowing that it was merely a rumor," we would have no way of knowing that. It is only when Tacitus identifies a rumor as such that we know a rumor was involved! Thus, at most we can only say that there are instances in which Tacitus identifies rumors as such. This tells us absolutely nothing about the number of instances in which Tacitus does not identify a rumor as such.
To which I say: Exactly my point. The data shows that Tacitus is 100% precise in distinguishing fact from rumor. Lowder has no contrary data -- all he has is (once again) a desire to beg an exception to the rule for the sake of keeping an argument afloat.

But even if Tacitus kept his promise, this shows that Tacitus would trust any source about the Christians and not mention that source, so long as no one contradicted that source. (And who would have contradicted a source which said that Christus was the founder of Christianity?)
This is truly a convoluted excuse to dismiss the testimony of Tacitus. So then: If Tacitus found nothing to contradict his sources, doesn't this mean that he investigated to see if there was any contradictory data? Couldn't this just as easily (indeed, more likely) to be taken to mean that the historicity of Jesus was so beyond question and clearly in evidence that one source was enough, or even no sources (i.e., that it was common knowledge)? Who would have contradicted such a source? In a collectivist society, anyone at all who didn't care for Christianity or for the Jews, and that included a substantial portion of the Roman Empire (see here for more details). Once again, the basis of argument is the blind stupidity of ancient peoples. Christian claims involved charges of serious action by the governor of a Roman province; if the governor of your state was accused of putting the leader of a local religious cult to death on a major religious holiday, and it was not public knowledge that this had been done, do you think it would be allowed to pass uncontested, especially in a hotbed of rebellion like Judaea?

And now Lowder calls upon Carrier to bail him out again:

As Richard Carrier told me in private correspondence, that Tacitus would not identify his statement as a rumor "would be so obvious to anyone widely familiar with ancient historiography in general that they would be astonished at the notion that one had to prove it!" Holding's error is certainly understandable; Holding is a librarian, not an ancient historian. Yet, given this, it appears that many of Holding's own words can be used against him. To paraphrase: "Holding is working outside of his field. Ancient historians have the breadth of judgment and background to know that Holding's argument is bogus; that Holding uses such an argument indicates Holding's radical unfamiliarity with ancient historiography in general."
That's nice, gents. So how about some proof beyond the generalities? How about a direct proof that Tacitus reported a rumor as a fact knowing that it was merely a rumor and that it was a consistent habit of his? Carrier's broad brush is good for the rah-rah, but it doesn't prove an iota, and is more polemic than response. If it's obvious, let's hear why, not just hear the word from the Peanut with the Ph. D. This humble librarian has certified historian sources who say that Tacitus "distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian." If what Carrier is saying is "obvious" then it seems not to be obvious to any of the Taciteans that I have read -- and I have read a great many of them. Either get specific or get somewhere else.

(2)...since "nearly everything Tacitus reports has a moral context," consistent application of my criteria would force the historian to discard nearly all of Tacitus' work...As for (2), Holding misunderstood my objection. I did not write that Tacitus always repeated false information whenever he told a story in a moral context; rather, I stated that in such a situation Tacitus might be willing to do so. It was therefore completely wrongheaded for Holding to accuse me of misunderstanding Mellor and Grant.
All reeds and blather, gents: Might be, would...what the heck is the difference other than semantics? My point in reply remains the same regardless. There is no proof that Tacitus would or might or did do any such thing. Lowder is playing a cheap game of trying to obtain a polemical advantage of an argument while at the same time maintaining plausible deniability in case he later gets skewered.

Despite all of Holding's hand waving about Tacitean scholars, Holding is simply unable to produce a single Tacitean scholar who directly states that Tacitus probably investigated the historicity of Jesus.
Chances are we won't find any historian or Tacitean scholar who will say that Tacitus "probably investigated" the historicity of any single cite-area, because they think that readers are smart enough to know that a general proclivity to do such investigation covers the whole ball of wax. On the other hand, I did note earlier that "Benko [Benk.PagRo, 16] summarizes by noting that Tacitus "was too good a historian not to look into the origin of the cult" once he had reason to look into it, and that reason is provided either by Domatilla (as Benko suggests), by Tacitus' special interest in "pretenders," or by the accusations of Nero concerning the fire." Benko is not a Tacitean per se, but he is a Greco-Roman historian specialist. Does that count?

In contrast, as we've seen, one Tacitean scholar (Mellor) has directly contradicted Holding's speculation concerning Annals 15.44.
This is in reference to a quote Lowder pulls uncritically from Mellor (and with which I am familiar):

For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus's good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners--Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike--and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavished on court intrigues.
Actually, this contradicts nothing I have said. Mellor clearly means (as is obvious by his reference to the reports of court intrigue) that Tacitus would not take the time to do an in-depth report on these subjects: the bare bones information his readers needed would be enough. He would not, therefore, go into things like the teachings of Christianity, church leadership and organization, etc. This has no relevance to the question of whether he would ensure that his bare-bones information was accurate, and the issue of his professionalism and integrity would remain intact. Lowder goes on:

As far as Tacitus and his "political peers" would have been concerned, the fact that Tacitus did not investigate the historicity of Jesus would have been no strike against Tacitus' "prestige and honor." On the contrary, Tacitus still would have been considered to be exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote!
Lowder's language is a bit vague here, so I asked earlier on this subject if it was meant to say that, "If Tacitus incorrectly reported something, that would not affect his prestige and honor, and in fact, would be considered to be 'exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote'?" He clarifies now, in the latest, latest revision of his essay:

...(M)y point was that if Tacitus correctly reported an uncontroversial, incidental detail (like the historicity of Jesus) without conducting an investigation to verify the truth of that detail, that would have been no strike against Tacitus' reliability as a historian according to the standards of ancient historiography.
So apparently, the idea is that such a detail as the historicity Jesus would have been so trivial, that even if Tacitus just said, "Oh, bother, who needs to look into this?", it would not have mattered because ancient historiography didn't count such trivia as important to look into. In other words, despite his desire to deliver accurate reports in other areas (including having to do with trivial details on other subjects, I suppose?), despite that Christianity was fast becoming a significant nuisance and played a key role following the Neronian fire, enough so that Tacitus felt obliged to say something; just here, on the "incidental detail" of Jesus' existence (or rather, on the matter of founding details that would have, of necessity, confronted data that would have related to Jesus' existence), Tacitus decided to pass on checking things out, and no one found out, and no one cared. Let's try this again: If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been -- without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and argument centered on this subject. Had such a ripple effect existed, it would not have gone away quietly and without notice, especially not in a collectivist society; and one with the care and concern of Tacitus for accuracy would have noticed it. And if he had missed this effect, it would have been a strike against him, and made him a laughingstock before his peers (in an age, again, when honor and shame were the primary motivators); and someone who does such careless things once is enormously likely to do it again, and make more mistakes. Again, all that Lowder can do, and has done, is say, "Yes, we admit that Tacitus normally was accurate, normally checked things out, but this might be an exception!" I think it becomes clearer and clearer as we progress through these interchanges that what is at stake is not the reputation of Tacitus, but that of a modern person trying to keep an argument intact for the sake of making a point.

Indeed, I've also shown that Wilken--an ancient historian and a Christian familiar with the relevant passage--also denies that Tacitus was interested in Christianity.
This is in reference to this quote:

Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people
This is again no more than what I have said about Mellor: Tacitus was not interested in reporting details about Christianity, of course, but this has no relation to his capabilities and professionalism otherwise. Like Wells and others, Lowder is confusing quality and quantity.

Side note: It is worth noting that 1 Clement seems aware of the Neronian persecution. In his first letter, after speaking of Peter and Paul, he writes:

To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished. us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with stedfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward. Envy has alienated wives from their husbands, and changed that saying of our father Adam, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Envy and strife have overthrown great cities and rooted up mighty nations."
For more info go here.

What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?

Tacitus turns out to be an extremely rich source of data that confirms important aspects of Christian history:

He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This mitigates against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological head of Christianity.
He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius.
He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a time. This would hint at the probability that Christianity was recognized to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This mitigates against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan religious ideas.
He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were dying for their faith. (We will look at the subject of martyrs as historical confirmation later in this chapter.)

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

[MiChuhSuh]

I thought this was the most interesting, as this not only goes into the evidence for Jesus's existance, it goes into why most (though not all) non-Christian and non-Jewish historians of Jesus's time didn't think Jesus was a significant figure (he was considered a radical, an outcast, he was tried and executed as a criminal, which would supposedly bring a quick end to his following, he was a poor lower class son of a carpenter and wasn't even formally educated, etc etc etc.)

Jesus
Shattering the Christ-Myth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus

J. P. Holding


During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.
The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"


It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus."

As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously.

Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives?

Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!

If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted):

When I had said this, my beloved friends, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."
Drews writes with the implication that these quotes refer to Jesus, and that it was Jesus who was "made" and who was "entirely unknown." But these quotes make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to the man Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin. Consider these passages as samples:

xxxii -- "...But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."
xxvi -"Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."
xxxviii - "For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
xxxxix -- And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."
This is strange verbiage if Trypho believes that the Christians perpetrated a fraud to the point of inventing a man of history! What Trypho means in his earlier statement is that the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah - has been created by the Christians: He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown! The issue here relates to the Jewish belief that the Christ, when he came, would not proclaim himself (a belief we see evidenced from Jesus' own circumspection in claiming to be Messiah, and in that Bar Kochba, when he arrived, did not claim the title for himself, but allowed others to proclaim it for him). Trypho is accusing the Christians, therefore, of identifying one as Christ who is not Christ -- he is not accusing them of making up a man of history! This argument by Drews, depending as it does on taking Trypho's quotes badly out of their literary and social context, should be an extreme embarrassment to other mythicist advocates; but even Wells and Doherty are making use of it!

The modern defender of the "Jesus-myth" fares no better. G. A. Wells has also picked up on the "Trypho error" in his latest work. In another place, attempting to explain why Pilate was chosen as the person who authorized the death of his fictional Jesus, Wells says that he was selected because he was "particularly detested by the Jews, and is indeed the only one of the prefects who governed Judea between AD 6 and 41 who attracted sufficient attention to be discussed by the two principal Jewish writers of the first century," Philo and Josephus. [Hoff.JesH, 39-40] In other words, Pilate was chosen because he seemed like he would do something like the Gospels describe! If anything, this is better evidence, rather, that the Gospel writers knew what they were talking about, because they knew the history.

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!
Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

"That's not good enough. If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The fact that so little was written about Jesus indicates that he was the creation of the church."

On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:

As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
An inscription that mentions Pilate.
Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see here.)


What About the Christians?
In this essay set we will only deal briefly with the question of whether the testimony of the New Testament and/or the Church Fathers offer sufficient evidence for the existence and life of Jesus. Most historians would agree that these sources are sufficient to testify to the existence of Jesus. Whether they are reliable reports of Jesus' life is another matter, one best taken up in other areas.

On the more practical and popular level, using the New Testament and the Church Fathers as proof of the existence of Jesus is generally fruitless. As we might guess from the typical reaction to the opinion of professional historians, the Jesus-myth adherent will automatically say, "Well, the Bible and the Church Fathers are biased. Of course they assert that Jesus was real." Those words often bring the popular level of the argument to an end.

So, for our purposes, there is really no need to go much further into this facet of the subject, other than to quote Harris' illustrative anecdote, which although of a slightly different application, makes the point we seek [Harr.3Cruc, 25] :

Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!
To put it succinctly, the rule of parsimony, or simplest theory, applies here. It is used explicitly as a criterion for deciding between rival hypothesis of equal explanatory power, and the simplest theory wins. (Or, as one reader put it: "Not only does Hypothesis A have more items that beg experimental support than Hypothesis B has, some of them are bigger beggars than those in Hypothesis B." Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy and one that a scientist [like a physicist] ought to NOT use to eliminate theories; but historians may be able to use it in a form like this.) Even if we do grant the wildly outrageous view that the "Jesus-myth" has equal explanatory power, it would be rejected by the law of parsimony. But, since it fails to explain the vast majority of the details - passion of the few, triumph in closed locales, resistance to modification by subsequent cultures, uniformity in variegated sources, etc. - it never even makes it this far. Parsimony, we say in summary, is closely related to plausibility, and the most parsimonius and plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity in this regard is that Jesus actually existed.

With that, we now turn to mimi-essays on the non-Christian sources for the life and existence of Jesus. For each of these references, we will ask these questions, as applicable:

Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity? Does it really refer to Jesus?

Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?

What objections have been registered against this citataion?

What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?

We conclude that we find three levels of source material:

Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus.
Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian. For the matter of Thallus, please see also our link in our essay to Glenn Miller's essay on that subject, linked in our essay. (We will look at some objections to the Thallus cite.)
Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.


Conclusion: What To Do with this Information
The evidence is clear: The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis. Here are our concluding thoughts on the matter:

I have personally come to the conclusion that adherence to the "Jesus-myth" is not the result of careful deliberation of the evidence, but rather, is the product and province of skeptical minds in the grips of an obsession. Long ago, I presented the information on Tacitus above to a Jesus-mythicist - whose ONLY source of data was G. A. Wells. He replied with implications that Tacitus was secretly in league with the Christians of his time! Then, in reply to the opinions of professional and distinguished historians regarding Wells' work, he simply suggested that they had not read Wells carefully, or even at all!

Some may say that this is merely abberational, but it is not: It is the modus operandi of the Jesus-myth circle. One well-known skeptic, Gordon Stein, cited as an authority on Josephus the works of Nathaniel Lardner - from the year 1838! There was no hint that Stein has consulted the works of modern Josephan scholars like Thackery and Feldman; there are no Taciteans, no cites from known experts in Greek and Roman history; instead, the bibliography of his report is bookended with works from G. A. Wells and Arthur Drews! Is this the work of a reasonable person, or someone in the grips of obsession?

The question remains: What on earth could possess otherwise intelligent and educated people to be so uncritical in their beliefs regarding the existence of Jesus? Here is my advice in the matter: If you have encountered people like this, I highly recommend that you provide a clear presentation of the Gospel, then leave them alone. It is a waste of time to deal with such people (except to the extent that they are deceiving others), we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more, see our responses to:

G. A. Wells
Earl Doherty
C. Dennis McKinsey
Acharya S
A fundy atheist we'll call "Bananaz"
Dan Schneider
Kenneth Humprheys (jesusneverexisted.com)


The Gamaliel Challenge
And now an update. Every now and then I like to throw out challenges that I am pretty sure will sit here for 500 years ignored; that's fine with me, because it does make a good point. Now here's a new one: I challenge any Christ-myther to prove to me that Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 5:34) wasn't a myth.

You'll be hard pressed to dissuade me. You see, aside from that reference in Acts, Gamaliel isn't mentioned anywhere at all, except in a paltry handful of rabbinic material (see here from hundreds of years later. Since you think Acts was written as late as the second century, that means all we have to prove that Gamaliel existed is a bunch of third-hand (at best) hearsay -- and as well as know from the expert historian Thomas Paine, all hearsay is automatically flushed down the loo and not be be believed.

And yet, Jewish persons (with an obvious confessional interest!) would have us believe that this guy "occupied a leading position in the highest court, the great council of Jerusalem." What are they, religious nuts? They also say he wrote three epistles. Big deal! Those could have been forged by Gamaliel-fanatics in later centuries. I say that this is the case; as one of those worthless rabbinic documents says, "When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct" (Sot.ah xv: 18). I say he was a fake, and a rallying point used to keep Jewish persons in line in the troubling period after Bar Kochba.

I also find it suspicious (see link above) that he was the first person to have the title "rabban". I think it was retrojected onto him by the Jews as a way to honor this fake, who obviously never existed and was just a figment created to inspire Jewish persons.

Finally, if this Gamaliel guy was such a hot shot and a great Jewish leader, why is his name missing from the works of historians of the day? He's not mentioned by the chief Jewish historian of his day, Josephus, who as a comtemporary would surely have recognized him as a brilliant man if all that is said above was true about him. He's not found in the works of Tacitus, Plutarch, Quintillian, Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Arrian, Petronius, Appian, Lucanus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Lucian, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Damis, Columella, Happy, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleazy, or Doc. Surely if this guy was so important, one of these writers would have taken the time to at least write a sentence about him. Why don't they?

The few records we have of him are also suspicious. There is no hint of where he was born, or where he was educated, or what kinds of tacos he liked, or anything. Surely something would have compelled someone somewhere to babble all this contextually useless information about him. Given that Gamaliel of Jabneh, also known as Gamaliel the Younger (the supposed grandson of this obviously mythical figure Gamaliel the Elder) was the head of the school of Jabneh, which became the centre of Judaism and Jewish studies after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could easily be speculated that the reason for inventing the Gamaliel myth was that the persons in charge of the school of Jabneh needed to bolster the authority of their school and thus they together invented this Gamaliel myth in order to root the authority of their leading figure all the way back to the the supposed first "rabban".

I think Gamaliel never existed. Long live the Gamaliel myth! You just try and prove me wrong!



Series Sources
Alli.Luc - Allinson, Francis G. Lucian Satirist and Artist. New York: Copper Square Publishers, 1963.
Barn.Leg - Barnes, T. D. "Legislation Against the Christians." Journal of Roman Studies 58, 1968, pp. 32-50.
Benar.Tac - Benario, Herbert W. An Introduction to Tacitus. Athens: U. of Georgia Press, 1975.
Benk.EC49 - Benko, Stephen. "The Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49." Theologische Zeitschrift 25, 1969, pp. 406-18.
Benk.PagRo - Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1984.
Blaik.MM - Blaiklock, E. M. Jesus Christ: Man or Myth? Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
Chars.DSS - Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Chars.JesJud - Charlesworth, James H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Chars.JDSS - Charlesworth, James H., ed. John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
ChilEv.Stud - Chilton, Bruce, and Craig A. Evans. Studying the Historical Jesus. London: E. J.Brill, 1994.
Chilv.Tac - Chilver, G.E.F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories I and II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.
Cross.MedP - Crossan, John D. - The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
Cutn.JGMM - Cutner, Herbert. Jesus: God, Man or Myth? New York: Truth Seeker, 1950.
Dor.Tac - Dorey, T. A., ed. Tacitus. London: Routledge, 1969.
Dud.Tac - Dudley, Donald. The World of Tacitus. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1968.
Drew.WH - Drews, Arthur. The Historicity of Jesus. New York: Arno Press, 1972. (Originally published 1912.)
Dunn.EvJ - Dunn, James G. D. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster, 1985.
Feld.JosMod - Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984.
Feld.JosJes - Feldman, Louis, ed. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987.
Fowl.LucSam - Fowler, H. W. The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905.
Fox.PagChr - Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.
Franc.EvJ - France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.
Gran.Grec - Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation. London: Routledge, 1995.
Gran.Tac - Grant, Michael. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome. Penguin Books, 1973.
Haber.VerdH - Habermas, Gary R. The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life of Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.
Hada.FJos - Hadas-Lehl, Mirielle. Flavius Josephus. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Harm.Luc - Harmon, A.M. Lucian. Loeb Classical Library, v.5 Cambridge: harvard Press, 1972.
Harr.GosP5 - Harris, Murray. "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors." Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.
Harr.3Cruc - Harris, Murray. 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Harv.JesC - Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
Hoff.JesH - Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986.
Hutch.Tac - Hutchins, Robert Maynard. The Annals and the Histories by P. Cornelius Tacitus. Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952.
KrWoo.LHn - Kraus, C. S and A. J. Woodman. Latin Historians. Oxford U. Press, 1997.
Luce.TacT - Luce, T. J. and A .J. Woodman, eds. Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition. Princeton U. Press, 1995.
Mart.Tac - Martin, Donald. Tacitus. Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1981.
Maso.JosNT - Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992.
Meie.MarJ - Meier, John P. - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Mell.Tac - Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Mende.Tac - Mendell, Clarence W. Tacitus: The Man and his Work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.
Momig.CFou - Momligliano, Arnaldo. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1990.
Momig.PagJC - Momigliano, Arnaldo. On Pagans, Jews and Christians. Middletown: Wesleyan U. Press, 1987.
Pfef.DSS - Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.
Plin.NH - Goold, G. P., ed. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Harvard U. Press, 1938.
Sand.HistF - Sanders, E.P. - The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Press, 1993.
Sen.NQ - Corcoren, Thomas, ed. Seneca. Naturales Questiones. Harvard U. Press, 1971.
Sym.Tac - Syme, Ronald. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958.
Twel.GosP5 - Twelftree, Graham. "Jesus in Jewish Traditions." Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.
VanV.JONT -- Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Well.DidJ - Wells, G. A. Did Jesus Exist? Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1975.
Well.HistEv - Wells, G. A. The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982.
Well. JEaC - Wells, G.A. The Jesus of the Early Christians. Pemberton: 1971.
Well.JesL - Wells, G. A. The Jesus Legend. Chicago: Open Court, 1996.
Wilk.JUF - Wilkens, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Wilk.ChrRom - Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1984.
Willm.WorJos - Williamson, G. A. The World of Josephus. New York: Little, Brown & Co, 1964.
Wils.EvJ - Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

[MiChuhSuh]

According to thsi website, the two most historically verifiable and in a secular sense realiable historians who mention Jesus are Tacticus and Josephus, and I already posted Tacticus so this is Josephus.

There are several other 1st century pieces that mention Jesus but they are considered historically less reliable and poosible forged in some cases (this website, though Christian, was very fair in this analysis, it is an "apologetic" website)

If you want to see the other works and evidence, go to

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

in the article it has links to "moderately" and "marginally" reliable sources as well as the "highly reliable" sources I posted:

Jesus
Josephus: A Double Dose of the Messiah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus

J. P. Holding



[Background Data] [Forged?] [The Shorter Reference] ["So-Called" Problem] [Top Billing Objection] [The Larger Reference] [Out-of-Context Objection] [Too Late?] [Why Not the Resurrection?] [Pilate Slam?] [Table of Contents] [Conclusions]

The works of the first-century historian Josephus have been held in high regard by Christians throughout history. The early church, Schreckenberg writes, saw Josephus as "a kind of fifth gospel" and a "little Bible" [Feld.JosJes, 317] , because his works "appeared to Christian theologians to be a commentary or a historic appendix to the New Testament." (ibid., 319) The church's love for Josephus "assured him an ongoing role in Western tradition." [Maso.JosNT, 8] Closer to modern times, households in France, Holland and England were known to present newborns with inscribed copies of Josephus, right along with the Bible. [Hada.FJos, 2] Thus it is that the particular references to Jesus have been held historically in the highest esteem - and perhaps, also why they have resulted in the most spilled ink!

We will not investigate the question of Josephus' reliability closely here, for there is little question that Josephus is a generally reliable historian. He had his biases, of course, and he was, unfortunately, something of a traitor to his people! However, questions as to his accuracy as a historian are not what turn up regarding his references to Jesus. Rather, they focus, almost to the point of obsession, on this question:

Are these genuine references, or are there doubts about their veracity?

There are two quotes that mention Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities: A smaller and a larger one. Both of these have been targeted by the Jesus-myth circle as interpolations made by later Christian scribes. Wells [Well.WhoW, 21; Well.DidJ, 14] , for example, rejects the small passage as a partial interpolation or marginal gloss, as did Drews [Drew.WH, 10]. Stretching the polemic, Wells says that it is "widely admitted" that both this passage, and the larger one are interpolations. [Well.HistEv, 18] (Wells' "widely" estimation is quite a bit off. According to Feldman's discernible statistics [Feld.JosMod, 684-91] , 4 scholars regard the larger passage as completely genuine, 6 more as mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation as Wells does.) Twleftree [Twel.GosP5, 300] , offering an unusual view, rejects the smaller passage on rather thin terminological grounds, but strangely, accepts most of the larger passage as genuine! Needless to say, there is plenty of discussion about these passages, and we will only be able to touch the tip of the iceberg.

Let us begin in the natural place to start: By quoting the materials in question. Here is the first and smaller quote:

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
It is the words "the so-called Christ" that are thought to be interpolated here - assuming that this passage is even noticed; some writers, I have observed, seem to forget that it exists! But let us consider the arguments for and against regarding this as an interpolation.

First, there is no textual evidence against this passage. It is found in every copy of the Antiquities we have [Meie.MarJ, 57]. This also applies to the larger passage. [ibid., 62] Some will assert as a counter that there was still sufficient time for an interpolation to occur and not enough textual evidence to prove that it didn't, but this amounts to an admission that the textual data, as it stands, favors authenticity. Anything beyond that in these terms is speculation and question-begging!
Second, there is a specific use of non-Christian terminology: The designation of James as the "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the "brother of the Lord" or "brother of the Savior." (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). The passage "squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage." [ibid., 58]
In response to this Wells objects that "an interpolator might well have been aware that an orthodox Jewish writer could not possibly be represented as calling Jesus 'the Lord.' We do not have to assume that all interpolators went to work with more piety than sense." [Well.JesL, 53]

Wells' argument is refuted by the interpolations themselves. Evidence that interpolators did have "more piety than sense" is in fact found in the larger passage in Josephus itself, where an interpolator has Josephus confessing that Jesus is "the Christ." If an interpolator added this sort of sentiment, knowing that Josephus was an orthodox Jew, then certainly he (or another interpolator) would have been careless enough to refer to James as "the brother of the Lord," had this small passage been a forgery.

Third, we may note the emphasis of the passage. It is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. [Meie.MarJ, 58-9]
Fourth, Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple. [ibid., 57] This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator.
Fifth, neither this passage nor the larger one connects Jesus with John the Baptist, as we would expect from a Christian interpolator.
The bulk of the evidence therefore favors highly the genuineness of this passage.

[Well.DidJ, 11] There is evidence of Christian influence here. In Greek the passage is the same as that in Matthew 1:16, where it is translated "him called Christ", without any expressed doubts.

France [Franc.EvJ] responds, however:

...Josephus' usage should be determined from Josephus, not from Matthew. The complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus translates legomenos as 'so-called' or 'alleged', and refers as an example to Josephus, Contra Apionen II 34, where he speaks of Alexandria as Apion's 'not birthplace, but alleged (birthplace)'. Even if legomenos does not necessarily carry this dismissive tone in our passage, it is hardly conceivable that a Christian interpolator could have been content with so non-committal a phrase.
Glenn Miller has further provided this information:

This J. ref seems to indicate the shift from title to name, as the standard Greek lexicon ABG indicates (s.v. "Christ"):
"the transition to sense 2 (personal name) is marked by certain passages in which Christos does not mean the Messiah in general (even when the ref. is to Jesus), but a very definite Messiah, Jesus, who now is called Christ not as a title but as a name"
This lexicon also points out that this form (as the passive of lego)is routinely understood in this sense, and actually cites a different passage from Josephus to illustrate this:
be called, named Mt 13:55; Hb 11:24. "ho legomenus" the so-called (Epict. 4, 1, 51: "so-called kings"; Socrat., Ep. 14, 7: "so-called Death") ...(Herm. Wr. 2, 14 the "so-called gods" in contrast to "the only God" Somewhat differently Josephus., Ant. 12, 125 ("Antiochus who is called 'god' by the Greeks")
Miller also provides indications from the Septuagint, Athanasius, and Eusebius of the use of this word in question. More important here is the usage within the NT, showing the term used in both a simple and a disparaging form:

First, some simple 'naming' ones:
"The first, Simon, who is called Peter (Mt 10.2)
"He answered, "The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes,(John 9.11)
"and also Jesus who is called Justus (Col 4.11)
Now, the disparaging:
"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),yet for us there is but one God (1 Cor 8.5)
"Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (Eph 2.11)
"Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. 19When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. 21The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. 22Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified." (Mt 27.17-22) [There should be little doubt about Pilate's skepticism about the messiahship of Jesus!]
Miller's key conclusions are as follows:

...in Josephus, it is either a non-committal record of what the public called Jesus (by that time), or a statement that reflects the transition from title to name (e.g. from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ"), or a slightly disparaging reference (i.e. the 'so-called' Christ). [But note that the disparaging uses documented above ALWAYS occurred in an oppositional form--"a so-called X, not a REAL X".]
Matthew's use might reflect the simple naming aspect (i.e. identifying the Jesus of the genealogy) or maybe even making a point that a growing body of Jewry HAD recognized Jesus as the Christ. But it is more likely that Matthew is intending to actually assert more--that Jesus was REALLY the Christ, as he goes about to show in his gospel.
It is a sign of Christian interpolation that in the reference, Jesus is named first rather than James. A Christian scribe would have given Jesus the top mention.

One might ask in reply why Josephus could not also have given Jesus top billing, simply on the basis of Jesus being the more familiar of the two names! Furthermore, note who else Josephus refers to - not just James, but also "others". If the references were reversed, the result would be a bit clumsy: "As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it James the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." I cannot say whether sense would be made of this in Greek, but in our language at least this format would leave open the question as to whether Josephus meant that James was the "brother" of the others as well as Christ or James and the "others" were brought before the council. The passage as it now reads leaves no such possible ambiguity.

Objection: If Jesus did exist, we would expect Josephus to have mentioned Jesus more than once in his histories and to have said more about him. We would also have expected him to say something about Jesus in his other work, the War.

Of course, this presumes that our second reference is itself a complete interpolation, which we will show to be an unwarranted position in a moment! However, even beyond that, it presumes motives for Josephus that the objector should have knowledge of BEFORE tendering this as an objection. We must ask what it is specifically about Josephus that would make him want to write more about Jesus! More generally, regarding the amount of space Josephus devotes to Jesus (even including the larger passage), we may note the observation of Williamson [Willm.WorJos, 120] that for the entire period of 10 years around which Jesus died, Josephus devotes only "one small page" in his War, and six pages in the Antiquities. Therefore, it is actually quite significant that Josephus devotes any attention to Jesus at all, and the lack of mention in the War means nothing -- indeed, Van Voorst notes that "the Antiquities goes beyind the Jewish War at many points," not just this one [VanV.JONT, 88-8].

We may now add that there is a sound contextual reason for this brief mention of Jesus, adduced by Byrskog in Story as History [62]. He writes: "For Josephus, as for Thucydides and Polybius, contemporary history has a methodological basis in the possibility of personal experience. He wishes for that reason to write in detail only about contemporaneous matters. (Bell. 1:18)" For Josephus and many historians of the ancient world, the ability to write authoritatively was directly related to how close you were to matters at hand. Since Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus or his ministry, his methods were such that he naturally would write less about people like Jesus or John the Baptist, and only what could be corroborated by inquiry in his own day, writing in the 90s AD.

So now we turn to the second Josephus reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, as it is popularly called. The authenticity of the passage was first questioned in the 16th century; one of it's most significant detractors was the French skeptic Voltaire [Hada.FJos, 226] . The passage reads:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
That there are interpolations here is seldom questioned; very few scholars hold that the entirety of the passage is genuine, as we have noted in Feldman's statistics. On the other hand, we have the "total interpolation" view of G. A. Wells, who points out the many positive things that Josephus says about Jesus in the passage.

The middle ground here is certainly most reasonable. Charlesworth derides "scholars acting like formal logicians" who approach the text "with an either/or mentality." The same mentality keeps them from saying that Josephus could have said anything positive about Jesus without accepting His divinity and thus rejecting all of the nice things said about Jesus in the passage. This is clearly a wrong-headed approach which does not appreciate the possibility that while some Jews followed Jesus completely, others merely admired Him "for his honesty, charisma, integrity, and teachings." [Chars.JesJud, 92]

Elsewhere, Meier [Meie.MarJ2, 59] notes that the "total interpolation" position has its respectable defenders, but it is not a majority view. Among those he cites are Conzelmann, who sees the passage as totally an expression of Christian kerygma (though without substantiation), and Hermann, who regards the Testimonium, the short passage, AND the passage in Josephus about John the Baptist as Christian interpolations. Thackeray, whom Meier describes as the "former 'prince' of Jospehan scholars," formerly regarded the entire set of passages as a forgery, but later changed to the middle-ground view of partial interpolation. Mason [Maso.JosNT, 170-1] adds the comment that "Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts" and would have been committing "an act of unparalleled scribal audacity" by creating the Testimonium out of the whole cloth. Moreover, Christian copyists also handled the works of the Jewish historian Philo for hundreds of years; yet we have no Testimonium Philoum to wrangle over! (Wells in response notes that there are supposedly Christian interpolations in the Old Testament pseuduopigrapha. But this is far from established, and Wells does not even deal with the text-critical data and methods associated with identifying interpolations. [Well.JesL, 52] )

What are some of the reasons for accepting at least some part of this passage as genuine? We can suggest that some of it must be genuine, for it is identifiably in the style of Josephus [Meie.MarJ, 62-3] ; the opening phrase, "Now about this time..." is used regularly by Josephus to the point of nausea! Skeptics often counter by saying that someone could have simply imitated Josephus' writing style, an objection which, being unreasonable, has no reasonable answer. But for a complete answer, let's go down the passage a section at a time.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,
The description of Jesus as a "wise man" cannot be rejected out of hand, for Josephus and other Jews could have regarded Jesus as a wise man without accepting His divinity - just as is the case with many people today. Josephus' language here (and throughout the passage, where it is not regarded as interpolated) is a "middle ground" between Christian acclaim of Jesus as divine and Jewish referral to Jesus as a magician and a deceiver -- against this spectrum, the words of Josephus are neutral and noncommital (and also parallel his treatment of John the Baptist). [VanV.JONT, 93, 98] Moreover, Josephus would have appreciated much of what Jesus said and did; he was not the same as the overzealous would-be militaristic Messiahs commonly opposed and defeated by the Romans. Though containing various subversive elements, Jesus' teachings of this sort were directed not against Josephus' Roman patrons, but against the Jewish establishment, and his miracles were never done with a "revolutionary" purpose in mind (like the pretender Theudas' promise to divide the Jordan do that his troops could pass, or the unnamed Egyptian's threat to knock down the walls of Jerusalem). Jesus never came close to this sort of activity (except in certain fantasy worlds attributed to the likes of Joel Carmichael), and even in his "threat" to the Temple a) was focussed on the Jewish establishment, not the Romans; and b) did not actually threaten the Temple himself - remember, the "threat" did not say WHO was going to knock the Temple down! So, as Charlesworth writes:

Jesus argued against the zealous revolutionaries and was not an apocalyptic fanatic; Jospehus would have admired this argument and position. Jesus uttered many wise and philosophical maxims and Josephus was fond of Jewish wisdom and of Greek philosophy. [Chars.JesJud, 97]
The second phrase, however, is questionable. It is sometimes rendered, "if indeed one ought to call him a man." Like the rest of the suspected interpolations, it is "parenthetically connected to the narrative" and "grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian." [ibid., 93] A Christian interpolator, moreover, would have considered the description of Jesus as merely "wise" to be insufficient, and so would want to add something else. [Meie.MarJ, 60] The passage is also not found in an Arabic citation of Josephus from the 10th century work Book of the Title, which was analyzed in 1971 by Hebrew University scholar Schlomo Pines [Cross.MedP, 373] and may represent a "more moderate attempt at Christianization of the original text."[Feld.JosJes, 340]. On another accounting, Twelftree [Twel.GosP5, 303] suggests that Josephus used the word "wise" in a suspicious or ironic manner.

The bottom line: The balance of the evidence points to authenticity for the first phrase, and gives moderate probability of inauthenticity to the second.

for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.
The first phrase has also been rendered, "For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual." The first phrase would hardly be used by a Christian to describe Jesus' miracles. The difference in translation is owed to the Greek word paradoxos, which can mean strange, surprising, or wonderful. Christian translators would naturally assume that Josephus meant the latter, where he more likely meant the second or first.

The second phrase was perhaps the subject of a mistranslation or change, replacing taethe (unusual, strange) with talethe (truth), although Meier regards this as an indulgent thing to suppose [Meie.MarJ, 85] and Feldman notes that the new word is not used elsewhere by Josephus [Feld.JosMod, 698] - neither of which is a compelling enough reason to outright reject the proposed terminology, but nor is there really any compelling reason to accept it. Neither phrase is in the Arabic version, but the reconstruction has found wide acceptance.

In addition, Meier [Meie.MarJ2, 76] offers speculation that the last phrase may not be complimentary, but rather implying "simple-minded enthusiasm, even self-delusion." He also cites Pelletier as saying that as Josephus uses the phrase, it implies no more than the subjective good faith of the listeners, "not necessarily the objective truth of what the speaker propounds." (ibid., 84)

He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.
This is also rendered, "He stirred up..." Either way would be acceptable as describing what Jesus did without supposing Christian interpolation or belief by Josephus. Indeed, the phrase seems to contradict the Gospels, which do not portray Jesus as dealing with "many" Gentiles. Meier [ibid., 65] regards this as a retrojection of the Gentile mission of Christianity.

He was the Christ,
Big obvious honking no-no on this one, though some propose that the phrase here was like the one on the other passage, referring to Jesus as one who was "called" Christ.

and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;
For our comments on this section, please see this essay.

for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.
Again, a very obvious boo-boo by the sneaky (?) interpolator -- though an alert reader has informed me that in the Arabic version, the first phase is preceded by the words "They reported..."

And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
The term "tribe" is a key here. Thackery saw this as a pejorative term for the Christians; Meier disagrees, for Josephus also uses it to describes the Jews, and Eusebius uses it to describe Christians. The phrase seems best regarded as an expression of surprise; i.e., "Those Christians are STILL here!" [ibid., 66] But it is no indication, either way, in favor of interpolation.

A worthwhile question, of course, is: how did these questionable phrases get into the body of the original text? Some suggest duplicity by Christian scribes, but it need not be so horrid. Much as certain people scribble "replies" in the margins of their books, so some scribe(s) perhaps added the questionable phrases as commentary - and then they were later carelessly incorporated into the text. [ibid., 79]

Objection: The passage is out of context. Josephus is discussing Jewish troubles, and the Testimonium is out of place. Without it the text of Josephus runs on in proper sequence. [Well.DidJ, 14; Well.JesL, 51; Drew.WH, 8-9]

This is a favorite objection, but it comes from people who obviously have not read very much of Josephus! As Thackery opined, Josephus was a "patchwork writer," one guilty of "inveterate sloppiness." [Meie.MarJ, 8] I can agree: As one with a background in language and literature, were I to give Josephus a grade for composition, it would be something around the level of a C-minus!

Even so, the "out of context" charge carries very little weight. An exposition by Mason will be helpful here. This is the outline of events under Pilate as given by Josephus [Maso.JosNT, 163-4 - using newer outline system for Josephus]:

18.35 Pilate arrives in Judea.
18.55-9 Pilate introduces imperial images in the Temple, causing a ruckus.
18.60-2 Pilate expropriates Temple funds to build an aqueduct.
18.63-4 The Testimonium appears.
18.65-80 An event set in Rome, not involving Pilate directly, having to do with the seduction of a follower of Isis in Rome.
18.81-4 An account of four Jewish scoundrels; also not directly involving Pilate.
18.85-7 An incident involving Pilate and some Samaritans.
18.88-9 Pilate gets the imperial boot.
As can be seen, this is by no means a set of connected events. Pilate has a role in all of them; but it is not even certain that Josephus is giving these events in chronological order.

Wells responds to the words of Thackery by noting that Josephus often uses phrases that indicate that he is aware that he is digressing:

"When a writer digresses, and confesses to doing so, this does not make him a 'patchwork' writer from whom we must expect any kind of irrelevancy."[Well.JesL, 51]
Wells is simply missing the point here. Confessions of digression indicate a "patchwork" writer who is conscious of his flaws in this regard. Nor may it be appropriately said that the reference to Jesus is "any kind of irrelevancy." If it was a significant event in the reign of Pilate, even in retrospect as it would be in this case, then it is quite relevant.

[Well.WhoW, 21; Well.JesL, 55] Even if the Josephus passages are genuine, they would be "too late to be of decisive importance."

This objection is senseless; it would cause us to have to trash a great deal of ancient history! As Harris points out [Harr.3Cruc, 26] our best references to the Emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD) come from historians who lived much later than he did (Tacitus, c. 115 AD; Suetonius, c. 120 AD; Dio Cassius, 230 AD), so this is hardly reason to dismiss Josephus' testimony concerning Jesus!

Objection: If this is an authentic reference, how is it that Josephus says nothing about the most important Christian belief about Jesus - his resurrection?

In fact, we may assert that Josephus does refer to this belief, albeit obliquely, when he indicates that those who loved Jesus at the first "did not forsake him" - indicating that they were in some way still devoted to Jesus himself, even after his death. Even so, this sort of objection presumes to know that there must have been a reason for Josephus to make a more direct mention, and no reason why he should not have, which is easy to assert but rather difficult to prove.

Josephus was writing to please the Roman establishment. Why would he make Pilate look like he had been duped or had done something incorrectly?

This is rather a silly objection! Elsewhere near this passage Josephus reports things that don't make Pilate smell very good, and he had no hesitation in reporting mistakes that the Romans made (i.e., the Roman soldier exposing his buttocks and making an "appropriate" sound to the crowd!). As long as he said nothing that made his CURRENT Roman patrons look goofy, I daresay he was going to be in good shape!

"There's a Table of Contents for Josephus that doesn't mention the Testimonium. This proves it wasn't there."

For this objection, we rely on material here (highly recommended for additional information as well) by Christopher Price:

...[W]hat really sinks this objection is that the table of contents was likely not created by Christians, but by Josephus or one of his assistants. That Josephus or one of his assistants would not see any point in highlighting what they spent so little time recording is hardly surprising and in no way suggests that the TF was absent....
During our debate on the TF, [Peter] Kirby and I learned that the table of contents was originally written in Greek before the sixth century. Thus, it is not a sixth century Christian creation. Additionally, we learned that Professor Thackeray had addressed the origins of the table of contents. According to Thackeray, the author of the table of contents was likely a Jew and possibly one of Josephus' assistants:
Josephus himself incorporated a rough summary of the whole in his proem, and though it is improbable that these more elaborate chapter headings are the product of his pen, they may not be far removed from him in date.
(Henry St. John Thackeray, ed. and trans., Josephus, vol. 4, page 637).
Thackeray goes on to suggest that the summaries were written by one of Josephus' assistants because "the phraseology occasionally suggests the hand of one of the author's assistants." Ibid. Given that no scholar was or is more familiar with the nuances of the style and linguistic characteristics of Josephus' writings, this opinion is entitled to substantial respect.
Finally, the original table does not refer to any of the features that would have interested Christians, such as John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, or the death of Herod. Such omissions make sense for a Jewish author, but not for a Christian one -- regardless of whether the TF existed. If Christians had originally created the table, they would not have left out those features which most interested them. The better explanation is that whoever created the summaries, they were not Christian. Thus, no significance can be gleaned from the fact that the table does not refer to the TF.
What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?

Josephus ends up being a rich source for confirmation of the Gospel record:

Jesus had a brother named James, who was an important member of the church;
Jesus was a wise and virtuous man;
Jesus had disciples, both among the Jews and Gentiles. Although Meier regards the latter as retorjectory in nature, we may suggest that it is something that simply lacked emphasis in the Gospels.
Jesus was called "Christ" by some.
Jesus was a worker of surprising deeds - an allusion perhaps to miracle-working power.
Jesus was executed by Pilate by means of crucifixion.
His execution was prompted in part by the leaders among the Jews.
Christians were "named" from Him - which confirms Tacitus' own usage of the terminology.
Issue of note: Some discussion has attended the argument that the Testimonium is strongly paralleled by Luke's Emmaus road narrative. Not surprisingly, this data has been used to suggest that Luke copied Josephus, or vice versa, or to suggest a common source. We now have a look at that issue here.