Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Cyberman]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

This is proof of what, maybe your ability not to be able to distinguish reality from the movie screen.

GC

This too is what we call irony.

Also a missed point; I suspect and hope deliberately. The same "minimal facts" that Habermas uses to prove his case can also be used to prove Star Wars. I'm not on the same bottom-feeding level as you to make a judgement call on the ability of Habermas, Randy and you to tell reality from fantasy the way you, a xtian, feel the need to do to me.

[Longhorn]

(1) start with the presupposition that a god exists
(2) use special pleading to get to your specific god
(2) insert baseless assertion
(3) make an unjustified leap to a 'supernatural' explanation
(4) therefore Allan/YHWH/Baal/FSM/Shamalamaramadingdong

Hey, this apologetics stuff is easy.....I'm quitting my day job

[tonechaser77]

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

This text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later 'Christian interpolation'; however, the version given above is a translation of the Arabic text which does not contain the 'Christian' additions.

Even with the Arabic version of Josephus there is evidence of Christian interpolation. The phrase ...and the tribe of Christians so named after him, has not disappeared to this day, confirms this. There was absolutely no tribe of Christians during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. 
Furthermore, this Arabic version is a work of Agapius of Hireapolis from...the 10th century!! Claims that an Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are ridiculous. Written Arabic barely existed at such an early date. Moreover, Agapius was a pro Byzantium Christian at a time of intensifying Islamization of Syria. What he wrote was political correctness that was intended on saving his own ass. In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of Jesus and only serves to confuse the people who don't dig in far enough. 

Tacitus (AD 116)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44)

Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being 'the founder' of Christianity and as 'executed in the reign of Tiberius' under Pontius Pilate. As Tim O'Neill notes:

"This clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists.  They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation.  But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect second century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine."

In addition to these two authors, several others from the first and second century must be taken into consideration.

I agree here that an interpolation is far less likely, however it is highly conceivable that Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

Mara bar Serapion (ca. AD 73)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

While Jesus is not named, and 'wise king' is not a common Christological title, there is little doubt that the author is speaking here of Jesus because the loss of the Kingdom of the Jews coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while the "new laws he laid down" refer to the doctrines of the Christian faith. 

Further, it was well known that Pilate ordered a sign to be hung on the cross above Jesus' head which read "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in several languages. Mara, a Jew in captivity, was writing to his son, and he speaks of this 'wise' Jew as a king...echoing Pilate's own words. The fact that Mara probably doesn't mention Jesus directly is understandable because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews; Mara does not want to offend his captors.

Assumptions can't be made on this either. Why would someone give two philosophers by name but then not name Jesus? Instead, we just get this vague "the wise king". Furthermore we know the letter was composed after 73 AD but before the 3rd century. Even if we take the conservative estimate of 70 AD this is some 35 years after the alleged death of Jesus it proves nothing. The author mentions nothing about being an eye witness or how he was brought to this information. It does nothing to prove that an actual Jesus really existed. At best it only suggests that a "story" about him did. 

Your remaining two examples, Lucian and The Talmud do nothing to add to the fluff either as they are over 100 years after the alleged event and only support "stories" not actual evidence.

[Minimalist]

and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom,

No, Tone.  After 70 the Jews continued to live in Judah even if Jerusalem itself was a ruined city.  The condition mentioned here dates from the end of the bar Kochba Revolt which ended in 135.... not so coincidentally when all of this xtian shit starts to take shape.

[Randy Carson]

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

This text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later 'Christian interpolation'; however, the version given above is a translation of the Arabic text which does not contain the 'Christian' additions.

Even with the Arabic version of Josephus there is evidence of Christian interpolation. The phrase ...and the tribe of Christians so named after him, has not disappeared to this day, confirms this. There was absolutely no tribe of Christians during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. 

Not only was the term "Christian" in use before the end of the first century, but so was the proper noun "Catholic Church".

The book of Acts was written before AD 65, and the early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as AD 107, those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, AD 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Second, Tacitus and Josephus were contemporaries...and it is likely that these two historians were acquainted with one another as a result of their work in Rome.

Furthermore, this Arabic version is a work of Agapius of Hireapolis from...the 10th century!! Claims that an Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are ridiculous. Written Arabic barely existed at such an early date. Moreover, Agapius was a pro Byzantium Christian at a time of intensifying Islamization of Syria. What he wrote was political correctness that was intended on saving his own ass. In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of Jesus and only serves to confuse the people who don't dig in far enough. 

Would the purpose of quoting a version of Josephus that does not contain the Christian additions be to examine the passage as it appeared prior to modifications? Of course. Thus the existence of the Arabic text - regardless of its age - provides insight into what Josephus probably wrote.

[Randy Carson]

Tacitus (AD 116)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44)

Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being 'the founder' of Christianity and as 'executed in the reign of Tiberius' under Pontius Pilate. As Tim O'Neill notes:

"This clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists.  They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation.  But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect second century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine."

I agree here that an interpolation is far less likely, however it is highly conceivable that Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

Tacitus' contempt for Christians is well-known. Why would he have spoken with any of them? Additionally, the Christians had been banished from Rome on several occasions. How easy would it have been for him to interact with them? Finally, if you were a Christian, would you have been eager to talk to Tacitus? I don't think so.

But why take my word for it? Atheist blogger Tim O'Neill answers you here:

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all.  This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could.  He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history." (Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt.  He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition...evil...hideous and shameful...(with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, or his miracles, or anything about the claim that he rose from the dead.  On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred ("during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus.  But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects.  None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus.  There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.

[Randy Carson]

Mara bar Serapion (ca. AD 73)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

While Jesus is not named, and 'wise king' is not a common Christological title, there is little doubt that the author is speaking here of Jesus because the loss of the Kingdom of the Jews coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while the "new laws he laid down" refer to the doctrines of the Christian faith. 

Further, it was well known that Pilate ordered a sign to be hung on the cross above Jesus' head which read "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in several languages. Mara, a Jew in captivity, was writing to his son, and he speaks of this 'wise' Jew as a king...echoing Pilate's own words. The fact that Mara probably doesn't mention Jesus directly is understandable because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews; Mara does not want to offend his captors.

Assumptions can't be made on this either. Why would someone give two philosophers by name but then not name Jesus? Instead, we just get this vague "the wise king".

I gave the answer to that question: because Mara was in Roman captivity and other members of his family may have been in prison, also. Why antagonize them?

Furthermore we know the letter was composed after 73 AD but before the 3rd century. Even if we take the conservative estimate of 70 AD this is some 35 years after the alleged death of Jesus it proves nothing.

The Letter is almost certainly after AD 70 since the author speaks of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem when he writes, "their kingdom was taken away at that very time." At what time did the Jews lose their kingdom? AD 70.

The author mentions nothing about being an eye witness or how he was brought to this information. It does nothing to prove that an actual Jesus really existed. At best it only suggests that a "story" about him did. 

I was not an eye-witness to the sinking of the Titanic, but I can recount the details of what happened with great accuracy.

Your remaining two examples, Lucian and The Talmud do nothing to add to the fluff either as they are over 100 years after the alleged event and only support "stories" not actual evidence.

I suppose. But the story is the one in which Jesus died by crucifixion. Apparently, a LOT of people were telling that story - early and often.

That's what historians refer to as independent multiple attestation.

[tonechaser77]

Not only was the term "Christian" in use before the end of the first century, but so was the proper noun "Catholic Church". 

The book of Acts was written before AD 65, and the early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). 

As early as AD 107, those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote: 

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, AD 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Second, Tacitus and Josephus were contemporaries...and it is likely that these two historians were acquainted with one another as a result of their work in Rome.

Would the purpose of quoting a version of Josephus that does not contain the Christian additions be to examine the passage as it appeared prior to modifications? Of course. Thus the existence of the Arabic text - regardless of its age - provides insight into what Josephus probably wrote.

1.) Acts was not written before 65 AD. The Acts seminar concluded that it was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspirations. In fact it has been proven that exact phrases and wording were used. Previously, scholars saw the correspondence between Paul’s letters and Acts as proof that they were written in the same era. In fact, the reverse is true. Acts used Paul’s letters as a source while shying away from Pauline theology, which lost popularity in the second century. Acts was a complete fabrication and proves nothing. 

 
And with regards to your other comment: the purpose also provides insight to what was shown to be interpolated or added in later regardless of Greek or Arabic. It's quite clear that the areas aforementioned were added in and bear absolutely no evidence in the existence of Jesus.

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus.
Origen spent half his life contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defense of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this paragraph from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen didn't quote this so called golden paragraph because this paragraph had not yet been written.
It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?

In the Greek version, If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.
It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

The simple fact is that Josephus knows nothing of Christians.
It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: " the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ... were edified... and ... were multiplied." – Acts 9:31.

This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12). 

And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this -- 
Quoted: He says "When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." – Life, 2.
Josephus elsewhere does record a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its superstar: 
"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. 
They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...

And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." – Antiquities 18.23. 

Nothing could better illustrate the bogus nature of the Testimonium than the remaining corpus of Josephus's work. The argument is completely mute.

---

Tacitus' contempt for Christians is well-known. Why would he have spoken with any of them? Additionally, the Christians had been banished from Rome on several occasions. How easy would it have been for him to interact with them? Finally, if you were a Christian, would you have been eager to talk to Tacitus? I don't think so.

But why take my word for it? Atheist blogger Tim O'Neill answers you here:

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all.  This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could.  He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:


Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt.  He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition...evil...hideous and shameful...(with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, or his miracles, or anything about the claim that he rose from the dead.  On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred ("during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus.  But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects.  None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus.  There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.

I subscribe to Gibbon's theory on Tacitus: namely, that Tacitus, who was writing during the reign of Hadrian, conflates the early 1st century bandit followers of Judas the Gaulonite, known as "Nazarenes", with the Christians of his own time (i.e. 130s AD), who were also known as "Nazarenes". 
The tax revolt of Judas the Gaulonite (aka Judas of Gamala, Judas of Galilee) is descibed by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews - Book 18). 
It occurred during the goverorship of Sulpicius Quirinius (aka Greek "Cyrenius" in Luke) in 6/7 AD.
Moreover, Gibbon suggests that Jewish moderates might themselves have fingered the extremists in order to direct popular anger away from themselves.

One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.

Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...
No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word for word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.
His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.

What's even further peculiar is that Ultraviolet photo of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy). 

The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.
The truth may be that there was an original gnostic cult following a personified virtue, "Jesus Chrestos" (Jesus the Good). Consequently, they were called Chrestians, an appellation which seems to have attached itself at an early date to the sectarians of the "heretic" Marcion. Support for this possibility comes from the earliest known "Christian" inscription, found in the 19th century on a Marcionite church at Deir Ali, three miles south of Damascus. Dated to circa 318, the inscription reads "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good", using the word Chrestos, not Christos. 
As a flesh-and-blood, "historical" Jesus gradually eclipsed the allegorical Jesus so, too, did "goodness" get eclipsed by "Messiahship". Justin, in his First Apology (4), about thirty years after the death of Tacitus, plays on the similarity in sound of the two words Χριστὸς (Christ) and χρηστὸς (good, excellent) to argue for the wholesome, commendable character of Jesus followers.


In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

[Randy Carson]

1.) Acts was not written before 65 AD. The Acts seminar concluded that it was written around 115 CE ...

The Acts Seminar?

Oh, my. From their website:

Acts Seminar to complete its work at Spring Meeting
Dennis E. Smith, Chair
From The Fourth R
Volume 24-2
March-April 2011

The Acts Seminar has now come to the end of its decade-long period of research. Our charge was to do for the Acts of the Apostles what the Jesus Seminar did for the Jesus tradition [emphasis added], namely to go through the document with a fine-toothed comb and separate the historical from the non-historical.  

"...do for the Acts of the Apostles"? or "do to the Acts of the Apostles what the Jesus Seminar did [to] the Jesus tradition."?

Just one more hatchet job.

[Randy Carson]

Acts was a complete fabrication and proves nothing. 

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

One question: What is your opinion? Was Jesus of Nazareth a real person or a myth?