Re Josephus, Tacitus on Jesus:
(found at infidels.org ..and truncated to the summary)
(Re Josephus writing)
While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the
Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.
The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:
The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate. Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage:
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)
Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in
fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various
other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.
===============================================================================
For me, it is not enough evidence. It is also not a first-person account, but the passage is written in the narrative.
==============================================================================
Regarding Tacitus:
(same source, abbreviated...go to infidels.org
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, 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. |
