Jesus

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 two supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews, or the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject.

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 from writers operating far out of their field. (G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German.) 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.

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 speaking): Ye follow an empty rumor, and make a Christ for yourselves.

...If he was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown.

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 set in their original context - Chapter 8 of the dialogue - make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin. What Trypho means 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! This argument by Drews, depending as it does on taking Trypho's quotes badly out of their context, should be an extreme embarrassment to other mythicist advocates!

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! One wonders how such fragile reasoning could possibly be taken seriously!

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, is a friend 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.

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

1. 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?
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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!

In this chapter 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 chapters.

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 non-Christian sources for the life and existence of Jesus. For each of these references, we will ask these questions, as applicable:

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 Tekton link to Glenn Miller's essay on that subject. (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.

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 Jesus-mythicist 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.

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!

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.

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.

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? Truthfully, there is 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:

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!

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.

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:

1. Evidence indicates that there was a certain fluidity in the usage of these terms.
2. 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.

1. 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! )
2. 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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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 a bit, 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 20.9.1But 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.

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:

Now, the disparaging:

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.

Objection: 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.

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.

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. 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.

Big obvious honking no-no on this one. We don't even need to discuss it.

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 the article, "The Trial on Trial."

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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

1. Jesus had a brother named James, who was an important member of the church;
2. Jesus was a wise and virtuous man;
3. 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.
4. Jesus was called "Christ" by some.
5. Jesus was a worker of surprising deeds - an allusion perhaps to miracle-working power.
6. Jesus was executed by Pilate by means of crucifixion.
7. His execution was prompted in part by the leaders among the Jews.
8. Christians were "named" from Him - which confirms Tacitus' own usage of the terminology.

We recommended here Glenn Miller's essay on this subject. Here is a miscellaneous objection:

This objection is sometimes tendered, and I really wonder if those who make it have actually read the works of Seneca and Pliny in question - rather than simply, say, parroting Edward Gibbon's remarks on the subject! Pliny's work is entitled Natural History [Plin.NH] , and it is a multi-volumed work covering a wide variety of subjects - georgraphy, meteorology, mineralogy, zoology, and botany. Volume 2 of this work is concerned with cosmology and astronomy, and is the place we might expect Pliny to have recorded this event - if he indeed did intend to record ALL such events! However, there is absolutely no indication that this was Pliny's intent - he offers examples, he makes descriptions, but NOWHERE is there any indication that his work is intended to be an exhaustive catalog of all possible relevant data!

More to the point, it is doubtful that Pliny would have recorded this event in any case, unless he had been there himself. The darkness at the crucifixion, as we see from Thallus, defied natural explanation, and had the character of a miracle; and this is precisely the sort of event that Pliny would pass over in disdain - for he was a skeptic and a rationalist of the highest order! Consider these words from Pliny's pen [ibid., 179, 183]:

I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to discover the shape and form of God.

That that supreme being, whatever it be, pays heed to man's affairs is a ridiculous notion.

Given the above, what would this writer have made of reports of a miraculous and unexplained darkness? My guess is, he would turn up his nose and relegate the matter to the wastebasket! He would consider such reports unworthy of his attention and not worth recording.

What, then, of Seneca and his work, Naturales Questiones [Sen.NQ] ? There is even less cause to suppose mention of the darkness here. Seneca's work is mostly theoretical surveys of natural phenomena - by no means an attempt at an exhaustive catalog of events! - and Seneca is far more concerned with drawing morals from what he records that with listing events, of which he does very little.

Bottom line: For this objection to have any force, it must be shown WHY these writers should have included a reference to the darkness - but there is simply no evidence that they should have, or would have been interested in recording it.

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He also described their actions and practices thusly:

They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.

Pliny then records how Christians received their punishment.

Although a few critics in the previous centuries claimed otherwise, there is really no doubt about the genuineness of this reference. That it is some kind of Christian creation is a position that is not taken seriously today.

Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this reference more valuable than we might suppose. Wilken, although saying that Pliny's knowledge of Christianity was "largely second-hand," also points out [Wilk.ChrRom, 6] that Pliny, prior to being a governor, held a position as a state priest - the same position held somewhat earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an overseer in the state religion. As Wilken further notes in a quote from Cicero (ibid.), those who aspired to this position ought to be distinguished citizens who would "safeguard religion by the good administration of the state and safeguard the wise conduct of religion." A member of the priesthood, in order to "safeguard the wise conduct of religion," should be expected to be "in the know" about religion. In light of the fact that Christianity was recognized as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know something about it in order to fulfill his duties! It is therefore likely that, while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-hand, he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus' existence.

More important here, however, is the testimony by Pliny that Christians died for their faith. This was extremely unlikely to have happened if Jesus had not existed.

This may be granted to an extent. Wilken [ibid.] also writes:

Even in this early period of Christian history, not everyone who become a Christian remained a Christian for the rest of his or her life. Some people initially joined the Christian sect because they found the figure of Jesus attractive, others because they were persuaded of the superiority of the Christian way of life by the behavior of a friend, others because they had married Christians. But in an age when religious distinctions were often blurred, people changed allegiances often and sometimes belonged to more than one religious group in the course of a lifetime. Consequently, there was much movement in and out of religious associations and across organizational lines...

But ultimately, this objection misses the point. Even though some people left Christianity, there were also many who did not, and died because of it - and if there was any hint that Jesus was a mythical figure (and such arguments would certainly have been passed on by the Jewish and pagan enemies of Christianity) it is extremely unlikely that anyone at all would have suffered persecution or martyrdom for His sake. That some did deny Jesus is quite irrelevant, as is the movement between religious associations common in that time: As Wilken explains, those who found that Christianity did not meet their needs or expectations simply lost interest and left - such is the fickle side of human nature. And as Momigliano indicates [Momig.PagJC, 164] , in that time period, "to know to what religious group you belong to is not identical with knowing what you believe." In the syncretistic world of the Roman Empire, a "buffet table" approach to religion was not uncommon. There were undoubtedly those who, as happens today, walked into a church, liked the company, ate the delicious food, and settled in - until the going got rough; then the untough got going! But when a Christian professed Christ and would not recant, even in the face of persecution and execution, that indicated that a final choice had been made.

This objection is rather an unfair one, and gives short shrift to the historical context of the martyrdom issue (as well as ignoring the fact that Tacitus indicates that mid-FIRST-century Christians ALSO died for their faith!). Yes, Origen "admits" that there were very few Christian martyrs; and this objection uses this "admission" to give the impression that few Christians of the time took a principled stand, and therefore, the Christian faith is in doubt, for it was probably only adhered to by a few masochistic nuts! But this objection fails on a number of accounts.

First, sheer numbers of martyrs lose their meaning, however, when we realize that Christians composed a small minority (as little as 2% as late as 250 AD; lower percentages prior to that!) of the Roman Empire's population of 60 million in the first two centuries after Christ.

Second, persecution did not automatically equal martyrdom. As Fox writes, "By reducing the history of Christian persecution to a history of legal hearings, we miss a large part of the victimization." [Fox.PagChr, 424] Some Christians, we may acknowledge, had their freedom bought by wealthy benefactors. But even then, Christians could expect social ostracization if they stuck by their faith, and that is where much of the persecution Fox refers to came from - rejection by family and society, relegation to outcast status. In the legal arena, the number of possible martyrs was reduced by Roman magistrates with softer hearts who would pass on executing Christians and instead sentence them to banishment, or to "work in mines and quarries, where they served, their heads half shaven, under constant threat of the lash." (ibid., 434) In all, it was not an easy time to be a Christian; and without surety of the existence of the Founder they followed, it is quite unlikely that anyone would have gone the distance suffering for the Christian faith. This objection simply ignores too many realities of human nature and of the historical moment.

This objection, too, misses the point. We are, indeed, talking about people, as it is said, who think that what they are dying for is the truth and although it is fashionable in skeptical circles to assume the complete stupidity of ancient peoples (i.e., commit "chronological snobbery"), the fact is that the early Christians most assuredly would have been in a position to know - with the same moral certitude that we have - whether Jesus actually existed or not. Just as much as we living in modern times, ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully . They had libraries, which contained histories from earlier times. The governments of that time kept records. So did religious authorities. To make the sort of objection enlisted above demonstrates an incredible level of historical naiveté.

True, as testimonies from that time show, some of the martyrs concerned did rejoice in their portended deaths for the sake of Christ. However, "on closer inspection, the majority of known 'voluntary martyrs' turn out to be more understandable." [ibid., 442] As Fox puts it:

Almost all of then were secondary martyrdoms, sparked off by the sight of news of fellow Christians who were being tried, abused or sentenced...Elsewhere, the urge was more immediate. In the heat of the moment friends and spectators declared their common loyalty with the poor victims of injustice...Whole groups gave themselves away, in surges of indignation at unjust decisions...

In the heat of the moment, martyrdom proved infectious...

In short, these martyrdoms were similar in nature to the public protests of the modern civil rights movement. As with that movement, there were those who did seek persecution for their own glory and ego; but the majority were principled people standing up for their belief. In any event, the practice of voluntary martyrdom was warned against by some church leaders, including Origen and Clement of Alexandria. It was not the standard practice that some critics would imply. Indeed, Jesus had Himself given the general theme of "when they persecute you in this city, flee to another," as Paul did, and as the Jerusalem church did. It just got more difficult as the Church began to put down roots, and as urban merchants became outspoken for the faith.

In closing, we may acknowledge that the charge that martyrdom doesn't count as evidence is technically true - under the same assumption that scholarly consensus does not count as evidence. But, by the same token, it counts as historical data (not evidence) that also has to be explained by whatever theory we adopt. The wholesale endorsement of the Christian faith by intellectuals and intelligent merchants gives a prima facie credibility to their testimony. There are radical differences, too, between the Koresh-type martyrs and the apostles (e.g., constant interaction with the culture vs. exclusion; the considerable content-continuity with the Jewish mainstream; the radical growth thru conversion of a wide range of personality-profiles; the lack of heavy authority structures and punitive systems of hierarchy; etc.). The Christ mythicists, as we have demonstrated, would have an exceedingly difficult time accounting for this problem of martyrdoms on behalf of an allegedly non-existent personage!

True, but nor would Pliny say that Serapis and Apollo were sung to "as a god." Obviously, there would be no need for this distinction, since Serapis and Apollo were known as gods! The phrase here would indicate that someone who would not ordinarily be perceived as a god (in Roman eyes) was here being accorded the status of deity, and this points to someone who was (again, in Roman eyes) a known, supposedly mortal person.

And so, we have some valuable testimony from the hand of Pliny the Younger. He knew that Christianity was a "cult," for he refers to investigations in which "several forms of the mischief came to light" - and since he refers to it as such, he was already aware of its nature to a degree. He also knows that it is religious in nature because he takes the tactic of having the persons suspected of Christianity offer libations and worship to the statue of the emperor and the gods, and then curse Christ. Clearly Pliny shows that he knows HOW TO DISTINGUISH who is a Christian and who is not [Benk.PagRo, 10] - which would be impossible unless he had some previous idea what it was that they believed! There is a limitation to this, of course: We are not told when or where Pliny learned all of this; he COULD have just found out about all of this from his underlings a week before writing to Trajan! But a very plausible suggestion is that he had learned about Jesus and the Christians at an earlier time in his position as a state priest.

1. We learn that Jesus was worshipped, and that believers died for belief in Him, in the early second sentury. This must receive a plausible explanation that the Jesus-myth circle cannot provide.
2. We learn of several aspects of worship that correspond with the NT: Worshipping on a fixed day, practice of the Eucharist (?), and the ethical grounding of Jesus' teachings.

From this satirist and playwright of the second century, we have two quotes from a play entitled "The Passing of Peregrinus." The hero of the tale, Peregrinus, was a Cynic philosopher who became a Christian, rose in prominence in the Christian community, then returned to Cynicism. Lucian's attack is not so much on Christianity, but on the person of Peregrinus, who took advantage of the Christians' simplicity and gullibility. [Alli.Luc, 99]

The first quotes tells of Peregrinus, who learned "the wondrous lore of the Christians," became one of their leaders and was revered as a god, lawgiver, and protector, "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world." [Harm.Luc, 13] The second quote, regarding these same Christians: "Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucifed sophist himself and live according to his laws."

Obviously Jesus is not mentioned by name in these citations, but there is no doubt that it is Jesus to whom Lucian is referring here. No one else was ever worshipped by the Christians!

We are of the opinion that this reference, like the Thallus reference, has been seriously undervalued. There is good reason to accept Lucian's testimony as solid evidence for the existence of Jesus and for historical data about Jesus' life.

One of Lucian's lesser-known works is a letter-formatted treatise entitled "The Way to Write History," addressed to Lucian's friend, Philo. Using this work, we can answer an important question about Lucian that significantly increase the value of his reference to Jesus: Was Lucian concerned with historical accuracy?

The answer from "The Way to Write History" is - absolutely yes! Lucian was very concerned with historical accuracy! Consider these quotes from that same work [Fowl.LucSam, 126, 128] :

History...abhors the intrusion of any least scruple of falsehood; it is like the windpipe, which the doctors tell us will not tolerate a morsel of stray food.

The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened.

(The historian) must sacrifice to no God but Truth; he must neglect all else; his sole rule and unerring guide is this - to think not of those who are listening to him now, but of the yet unborn who shall seek his converse.

On the other hand, Lucian also clearly disdains those who do not write good history, or who filled in the gaps of their histories with invented material. Consider one subject of his satire, Thucydides, who, following the ancient historical practice of "speech-in-character," (i.e., creating appropriate words for someone to say on a certain occassion, not knowing what it is that they actually said), formulated a funeral oratory for a centurion named Afranius. Of that oratory, Lucian writes (ibid., 122):

...the flood of rhetoric which follows is so copious and remarkable that it drew tears from me - ye Graces! - tears of laughter; most of all where the elegant Afranius, drawing to a close, makes mention, with weeping and distressful moans, of all those costly dinners and toasts. But he is a very Ajax in his conclusion. He draws his sword, gallantly as an Afranius should, and in sight of all cuts his throat over the grave - and God knows it was high time for an execution, if oratory can be a felony.

Lucian, then, clearly held historical accuracy in high esteem. This leads to our second point: Considering that Lucian:

1. noted Christians for their simplicity and gullibility;
2. valued historical accuracy; and,
3. was well-educated, well-traveled, and a major figure in a literary movement of his time,

- there is good reason to believe that he would not acknowledge the existence of Jesus if there were any doubt in his mind that Jesus actually existed. He would certainly have satirized Christian belief in a fictional or historically doubtful personage mercilessly, if any such arguments existed at the time. Finally, he was in a good position to have known of such issues, being that he moved in the most educated of circles and very likely corresponded and consulted with leading figures of his day. In short, Lucian was a person who was "in a position to know" whether or not Jesus had genuine historical roots, and was exactly the sort who would raise any relevant doubts in order to enhance the impact of his satire!

However, the "lateness" of this reference is more than made up for by Lucian's critical capabilities. Lateness therefore cannot be used to devalue this passage.

And what of relying on Christians for this information? Given Lucian's disdain for Christians, it is doubtful that he would have relied on them solely for information, assuming he actually consulted them at all. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 92] indicates common knowledge as the source. Allinson [Alli.Luc, 95] says that Lucian was "evidently acquainted, by hearsay at least, with some of the facts of the crucifixion of Christ." Evans [ChilEv.Stud, 461-2] does regard Lucian's use of an unusual word to describe crucifixion ("to impale") as evidence of derivation from a non-Christian source. The evidence thus points towards derivation of this knowledge from a non-Christian source.

1. Jesus is clearly regarded as the founder of Christianity. Cynic-sage theorists please note: Though a self-declared Cynic, Lucian did NOT claim Jesus as one of his own! He identifies Jesus as being associated with the teachings of Christianity - not with Cynicism!
2. Lucian also confirms the method and place of Jesus' execution.
3. Most of all, we learn a great deal about the attitudes and practices of Christians in Lucian's time, and about the corresponding attitude of pagans like Lucian towards Jesus and the Christians. Jesus is recognized as a sage and a teacher of some worth; yet Christian belief is generally regarded as absurd.

We therefore conclude that Lucian's citation it is a more valuable testimony than has been generally recognized.

We now move to the references to Jesus in secular sources that have little value - beginning with the testimony of the Roman historian and contemporary of Tacitus, Suetonius. Here is the first of the two relevant quotes:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

A second quote does not mention Jesus, but refers to Christians being persecuted under Nero.

This is the key objection to using this passage. "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Benko, for example, has suggested that "Chrestus" was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus." [s