> Yes, but it is also speculative that it refers to Jesus.

I agree. It's only a possible reference to Jesus.

> the single thing that is not speculative is that the copy we have specifically said "Chrestians" and not the "Christians" that is was changed to. On this basis alone, it is a better supported claim that this is not a reference to Jesus but is instead a reference to Chrestus (as we agree, a common Roman name, which increases the probability it is referring to someone in Rome).

Except that doesn't change (1) the authenticity of Tacitus's report, or (2) that is possibly refers to Jesus and his followers. I don't think that it was changed lends weight to the case that it was someone else. Another possibility is that it was changed to correct the spelling if it DID refer to Jesus.

> Suetonius

Suetonius is also in the realm of "possible" as an external evidence for Jesus. Maybe, maybe not.

> Three hundred years of voluminous writings on the history of Christianity...

Remember, the majority of writings have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's *Mediterranean History* is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his *Universal History* in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost. That our lack of extra biblical references about Jesus is evidence against him is disingenuous at best and plain false at worst.

> It's a subject of vigorous, as in knock-down drag-out, debate. The earliest date considered possible is 170's c.e., which would be good for for you, but we'd still be left wondering why Christian writers from before that time don't bother with names if the gospels had them much ealier.

Yes, I know it's a huge debate. Why do you think we're having this conversation? As to why they didn't bother with names beforehand, we have evidence to the contrary.

Tertullian, AD 200, in *Against Marcion* (book 4, chapter 5) says that the authors of the Gospels have been known from the beginning. In the same book, but chapter 2, Tertullian says that if a Gospel is anonymous it should be rejected.

Secondly, no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist, and possibly never have.

Third, it is utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman Empire in multiple copies could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of disagreement in any manuscripts—with all four of the Gospels. If the Gospels were truly anonymous, we would expect to find some attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the same Gospels attributed to others elsewhere. If the Gospels really got their titles from scribes falsely adding them to manuscripts up to a century later, we would expect to find both (1) anonymous copies, as well as (2) contradictory titles. We find neither.

The authority of the Gospels was recognized very early. The quotes from Ignatius, Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, and the rest show a stream of recognition of authority.

> This is speculative as to whether or not (1) this person existed [it's my understanding that Chrestus was a common name], or (2) that this individual was the one referred to by Tacitus & Suetonius.

Yes, but it is also speculative that it refers to Jesus. So, who is it talking about? Because that's what we're trying to decide. The uncertainty alone makes it questionable as a supporting source for Jesus' historicity.

But, remember, [b]the single thing that is not speculative is that the copy we have specifically said "Chrestians" and not the "Christians" that is was changed to.[/b] On this basis alone, it is a better supported claim that this is not a reference to Jesus but is instead a reference to Chrestus (as we agree, a common Roman name, which increases the probability it is referring to someone in Rome).

We could stop here, because we're already firmly on "not good evidence for Jesus" ground. But, there's more! A lot more, actually, but I'll keep it simple and stick with your reference to Suetonius.

With Suetonius we have a second, independent attestation for Chrestus, and from someone with no known dog in the race, so we can presume he's relatively free of bias. This Chrestus has the same name as given by Tacitus, is described as having the same characteristics as Tacitus describes, in the same location as Tacitus describes, and during the same time Tacitus describes. Oh, Nirvana! Multiple, independent, disinterested sources are an ancient historian's wet dream.

But, but, could they be referring to different people? Maybe. Could be there were two Chrestuses running around as leaders of criminal gangs warranting historical mentions at the same time in the same place. Not as likely as only one, though. But, even if there were two, neither was said to be named Christ, so there's that to deal with.

> the argument of silence isn't worthy either.

No? Three hundred years of voluminous writings on the history of Christianity, Rome, Nero, Christian persecution, Christian persecution in Rome by Nero, whether or not Jesus was a celestial being or walked the Earth, with supporting historical references thrown about left and right but not one person bothers to bring up a mention of Christ that was in a well-circulated historical treatise by a well respected historian? You dismiss this oddity out of hand? I wonder, where is this hyper-skepticism over things that support your position?

> Re: Testimonium Flavianum

You can read some of the more recent research in a study by Paul Hopper in Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 here: Josephus Narrative Anomaly

> Agreed. I was speaking generally of a possible "peep," but there's no way to know.

Right. That's my point. Told you I'd let you win this for me :)

> Re: Muratorian Fragment & Tatian

Sorry, this got lost in the shuffle. The dating of this canon isn't settled. It's a subject of vigorous, as in knock-down drag-out, debate. The earliest date considered possible is 170's c.e., which would be good for for you, but we'd still be left wondering why Christian writers from before that time don't bother with names if the gospels had them much earlier. On the other hand, there are well regarded experts in the field who date it to the 3rd or even 4th century. These later dates obviously wouldn't be helpful for you.

No one has argued gospels weren't around, just that they were anonymous. Tatian uses the gospel later attributed to Luke, but does not himself attribute it to Luke.

> The 3rd choice is that the authors were common knowledge.

I like that, common knowledge comes in third.

It's been fun!

> manuscript we have originally said "Chrestus".

Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. I've saved the link for future reference.

> A person named Chrestus, said to be a Roman agitator and leader of a criminal band, is mentioned by historians other than Tacitus.

This is speculative as to whether or not (1) this person existed [it's my understanding that Chrestus was a common name], or (2) that this individual was the one referred to by Tacitus & Suetonius.

> The most supportable position would be that it was more likely than not added sometime in the 4th century.

Ah, too speculative to wash, and the argument of silence isn't worthy either.

> Eusibeus, citing all the evidences...

Well, I obviously have more research to do. It's all so fascinating.

> but as a bonus, the Testimonium Flavianum is believed to have been most likely forged by Eusibeus to bolster a historical Christ.

I'll admit I've never heard this theory before. Having studied this all to some extent, I'm a bit surprised to hear a new theory. I've read plenty of stuff about the TF, and what scholars consider authentic and what they consider added later, but I've never read that the entire thing was manufactured fiction by Eusebius.

> if the general grumblings in the New Testament were a "peep" about the specific event described by Tacitus, there's no way to know.

Agreed. I was speaking generally of a possible "peep," but there's no way to know.

At this point I will concede to your argument about Tacitus. I need to do more homework.

> The fact is that there are very well developed theories for why Iranaeus acted the way he did

I had also mentioned the Muratorian Fragment and Tatian as well as Irenaeus, all of whom cite Luke as the author of the 3rd Gospel. We don't know exactly how these 3 fall chronologically in their assertion.

> That would be very weird if they had names but perfectly understandable if they didn't.

The 3rd choice is that the authors were common knowledge.

> Okay, that's it. Look at all the text we've generated!

And I appreciate the dialogue! Thank you.

> Regardless, though, is there a significant difference, for your argument, that the "e" was edited to an "i"? Does it matter to the content of what is being said?

Not so much what is being said as whom it is being said about, which is the crux of our discussion. As noted, it is well documented ([url]http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf[/url]) that the manuscript we have originally said "Chrestus". A person named Chrestus, said to be a Roman agitator and leader of a criminal band, is mentioned by historians other than Tacitus. Since Chrestus was a common name in the day, there is nothing out of the ordinary to read of someone so called.

That the word "Chrestus" closely resembles "Christ" (or "Christus") is a coincidence; the names have nothing to do with each other. However, their spellings are tantalizingly close. The scribal change from an "e" to an "i" may have been motivated to deceive, or it could have been a well-intentioned effort to "fix an error", or it may just have been an unrecognized mistake. It doesn't really matter to the argument that Tacitus wrote about Chrestus, not Christ.

> Hmm. If the earliest manuscript we have is from the 1400s, how can we know a text was added in the 4th century? I'm just curious.

As I think we've agreed, "know" is perhaps too strong a word to use when we talk about much of ancient history. The most supportable position would be that it was more likely than not added sometime in the 4th century. There are several good arguments for this, but a pretty good one is probably silence.

Tertullian, who knew of Tacitus' works, goes on at length about Christians being persecuted by Nero, a fact that is not in contest, but never mentions them being falsely charged by him with the monumental crime of burning the city or being martyred for it.

Clement appears to have been very aware of Tacitus' [i]Annals[/i], having referenced them along with over 2,000 other pagan citations in his body of works. Yet, when wanting to seal the deal on non-Christian evidence for Christ by attempting to collect all pagan mentions of Christ and Christians, he doesn't mention the Tacitus passage.

Eusebius, citing all the evidences of Christianity from Jewish and Pagan sources, makes no mention of Tacitus. That's already enough to seriously question it's existence, but as a bonus, the [i]Testimonium Flavianum[/i] is believed to have been most likely forged by Eusebius to bolster a historical Christ. Had the Tacitus passage been in existence, he could have just used that rather than fake Josephus.

So, throughout the 2nd, 3rd, and early 4th century, these authors and numerous others, Christians and non-Christians, write about Christian history, Roman history, Nero, Nero and the Christians, and/or the historicity of Jesus (yes, it was an argument even then). But not one of them mentions the Tacitus passage. Nobody.

It is a reasonable conclusion that the "Christ" reference in Tacitus probably didn't exist in copies of Annals available at the time. The very first time we hear of it is in writing dated from the 5th century, Chronicle 2.29-30 by Sulpicius Severus. And thus is your question answered; that is how it is concluded that it was likely added sometime in the 4th century.

> Suetonius (Nero, ch. 38) mentions the suspicion that Nero was being blamed for the fire (without any particular mention of Christians), but in Nero 16 he mentions the persecution of Christians by Nero. And if we take Tacitus to be of the early 2nd century, as most do, he writes of it.

See what I did there? I added the bold just to point out the obvious: there is nothing to be gained on your side by pointing out people who don't reference Christians. So, zero points there. As to the rest, the question isn't whether or not Nero had a hard on for persecuting Christians; we agree on that. The question is, does Tacitus support the existence of a historical Jesus by telling of a specific, horrendous mass murder of Christians and referencing Jesus ("Christ") in Annals, or does he tell of a mass murder of a gang of criminals who's leader was a miscreant named Chrestus? The weight of evidence skews toward the latter.

> At the time of the Neronian persecution, etc., etc.

I'm actually not entirely sure what point your making here. Maybe that people were writings about Christians being jerked around? If so, already agreed. And, as noted, not the debate. Maybe that's getting lost in all the discussion. The debate is, is the Tacitus passage evidence for Christ? Okay, onward!...

> I would consider the New Testament a "peep" about it. Remember, Christians were taught to bear persecution and martyrdom with strength and tranquility. Given a Christian's worldview, I wouldn't necessarily expect a lot of writing about it. There is certainly writing later, but specifically about Nero, nothing.

I again bolded where you point out absence of evidence, which works in my favor. Maybe I'll just step aside and let you win the debate for me. (Just kidding!...maybe, lol). Anyway, if the general grumblings in the New Testament were a "peep" about the specific event described by Tacitus, there's no way to know. So, that's not good evidence that the Tacitus passage is about Christians. And, while Christians may have been willing to endure suffering, they didn't shy from writing about it. Hell, Paul starts whining right out of the gate.

> There is no competing suggestion or theory. Anyone who mentions the author of the Gospel identifies him as Luke.

We'll set aside the huge (like, enormous) logical fallacy that lack of a competing theory would be any evidence at all for a proposed theory. The fact is that there are very well developed theories for why Iranaeus acted the way he did. The most probable involves an effort by Iranaeus to nip what he considered a growing heretical influence of Marcion's teachings, in part by appealing to some problematic gospel attributions by Papias and in part by concluding (with no particular corroborating evidence) it must be Luke because of (2 Timothy 4:11)[[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4:11;&version=NIV[/url]].

Getting into Papias would be too involved, but suffice it to say that whatever his references to gospel authors, if any, no one argues that he made any reference for the gospel now attributed to Luke as having been written by Luke. As for 2 Timothy, problem one is there is no way to connect the Luke in that verse with the writings we have. The writings themselves don't claim to written by anyone, including him. Problem two is that there are very good reasons to believe that 2 Timothy is a forgery, which kinda puts the kibosh on using it evidence.

> Because he doesn't mention how he knows it doesn't mean he was making it up.

Not making it up exactly. See discussion above.

> It's quite possible that it was common knowledge

Sure, but there is no evidence of that. What evidence we do have is extensive references to and quotations from the gospels made by church fathers and others over a hundred year period and not a single one of them ever refers to any of them by name. That would be very weird if they had names but perfectly understandable if they didn't.

> ...just as nowadays one would not have to mention which president as implicated in a sexual scandal with Monica Lewinsky. We don't feel a need to identify the source to give the reference credibility; everyone knows it.

You've got it backwards. Someone might say, "Guess what, I saw Bill Clinton!", and assume everyone would know they're talking about the president who got a blow job in the Oval Office. It's less likely a person would say, "I saw that president who got a blow job by Monica Lewinsky!" and assume people would attribute the name, "Bill Clinton". And, it's way less likely - I'm to go out on a limb and say completely unbelievable - that a hundred years of writings by numerous historians would only use the "president who got a blow job" and not once use the name "Bill Clinton".

Okay, that's it. Look at all the text we've generated! And all over one little question over one itsy bitsy reference. Now, extrapolate all this dissection of narrative across millions of words of text from ancient history and imagine the mountains of back and forth, arguments for and against, pro and con. And that would just to be to assess the historicity of Jesus. "Maybe" is the most honest answer to any assertions on that topic.

> It is a forensically verified fact that the word was sloppily altered on the page from Chrestians to Christians.

I'll admit to not being familiar with that alteration. Is there a source where I can see a copy of it? Regardless, though, is there a significant difference, for your argument, that the "e" was edited to an "i"? Does it matter to the content of what is being said?

> The most suspicious segment is, "Christ, the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate at the reign of Tiberius". This can be argued to have been added around the 4th century.

Hmm. If the earliest manuscript we have is from the 1400s, how can we know a text was added in the 4th century? I'm just curious.

> Before the 4th century, there is no reference from any author or historian, christian or otherwise, to this massive persecution by Nero,

Suetonius (Nero, ch. 38) mentions the suspicion that Nero was being blamed for the fire (without any particular mention of Christians), but in Nero 16 he mentions the persecution of Christians by Nero. And if we take Tacitus to be of the early 2nd century, as most do, he writes of it.

> It also strains belief that such an event, had it happened, did not evoke a flurry of christian writings about the "immense multitude" of Christians allegedly martyred by Nero.

At the time of the Neronian persecution is when the Gospels themselves were possibly being written (I tend to place them earlier, but that's just my evaluation). The New Testament doesn't specifically mention Nero as the source of persecution, but it is filled with references to persecution and martyrdom. We have no other Christian writings from the era that have survived, if any were penned then at all. The first of any Christian writing we have besides the Bible is from Clement of Rome, and we have only 1 of his writings. We know almost nothing of his life, and can't even definitively connect him with 1 Clement.

> And this provokes not a peep from surviving christians around the region? Not a jot or tittle? Nothing? That seems implausible.

I would consider the New Testament a "peep" about it. Remember, Christians were taught to bear persecution and martyrdom with strength and tranquility. Given a Christian's worldview, I wouldn't necessarily expect a lot of writing about it. There is certainly writing later, but specifically about Nero, nothing.

> We also have no idea where Tacitus would have even heard of this martyrdom of christians even if it happened.

You're right that we don't know, but it's not out of the question to consider that it was happening in Rome. Some historians believe that Domitian persecuted Christians, and this would have been in the days of Tacitus.

> "And yet the uniform testimony of the early church is that Luke was the author."
No, it isn't.

There is no competing suggestion or theory. Anyone who mentions the author of the Gospel identifies him as Luke.

> Iranaeus pulls Luke from where the sun don't shine about a century later. He gives us zero explanation of how he knows this.

Because he doesn't mention how he knows it doesn't mean he was making it up. It's quite possible that it was common knowledge, just as nowadays one would not have to mention which president as implicated in a sexual scandal with Monica Lewinsky. We don't feel a need to identify the source to give the reference credibility; everyone knows it.

> "Chrestus" section....The text shows no signs of Christian influence,

Do you mean Chrestians from 15:44? It is a forensically verified fact that the word was sloppily altered on the page from Chrestians to Christians. Motivations for that can be argued, but here is actually little debate that this particular part of the (unaltered) writing may be genuine. In fact, most of the passage is believed to be genuine, so it is no surprise that "the style of the writing belongs to Tacitus", because it very well may have been written by him.

The most suspicious segment is, "Christ, the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate at the reign of Tiberius". This can be argued to have been added around the 4th century.

Before the 4th century, there is no reference from any author or historian, christian or otherwise, to this massive persecution by Nero, or any references to Tacitus having mentioned Christians. Even 2nd century Christians writing about Nero persecuting Christians don't mention this passage from Tacitus about Nero persecuting Christians. That's weird.

It also strains belief that such an event, had it happened, did not evoke a flurry of christian writings about the "immense multitude" of Christians allegedly martyred by Nero. Not merely martyred; but subjected to...

[i]"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."[/i]

And this provokes not a peep from surviving christians around the region? Not a jot or tittle? Nothing? That seems implausible.
We also have no idea where Tacitus would have even heard of this martyrdom of christians even if it happened. He was good friends with Pliny the Younger, a prolific chronicler and author whose uncle, Pliny the Elder, also an author, lived mostly in Rome and visited immediately after the fire, yet neither writes a thing about Christians being blamed. And there are records of Tacitus asking Pliny (Y) for information to include in his histories, so he would have surely been given this story had it been known.

What we do know is that Pliny discovered the doctrine of Christians around 110 c.e., which is just as Tacitus was writing his histories. And we know that Pliny learned of Christian doctrine from torturing christians. We have no suggestion that he made any investigation into historical foundations of their "depraved, excessive superstition". So, all we have is Pliny telling Tacitus what he learned of christian doctrine. And, there is nothing in Tacitus beyond Christian doctrine. He doesn't fill any additional details or give any evidence of any kind of investigatory research.

So, what do we know? It may be that Tacitus never mentioned Christ, or maybe he did mention him, but we can't verify that he doing anything more than repeating their doctrine.

> And yet the uniform testimony of the early church is that Luke was the author.

No, it isn't. Ignatius, et al quote nameless gospels. Not surprising, since the gospels themselves claim no authors. They give no testimony at all as to who is the author of what. Which is odd, if they knew. Iranaeus pulls Luke from where the sun don't shine about a century later. He gives us zero explanation of how he knows this.

> There are well reasoned, peer-reviewed assessments in favor of interpolation and/or fatal modification of Tacitus.

I agree with this. The "Chrestus" section, however, doesn't seem to have been the victim of such shenanigans. The text shows no signs of Christian influence, who would barely have allowed such derogatory references to themselves were they involved in the monkey business of redaction or interpolation. The style of the writing belongs to Tacitus. The section fits the context of Rome's burning. What makes the reference to Jesus possibly more credible is that Tacitus is not only not a Christian source, but not even a friendly one. It is unlikely that a Roman historian would have any desire to perpetuate a story about a man crucified by Rome for treason unless he had a substantial reason to believe that the source was reliable and the report true.

> The Gospel of Luke

Yeah, I realize the discussion of authorship is a deep one, and one that we may not want to broach.

Just briefly...

> Anonymous sources deserve suspicion. And no author claims Luke, it is an anonymous writing.

And yet the uniform testimony of the early church is that Luke was the author. The Gospel is quoted by Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr. Hermas, in about AD 97, mentions there are 4 Gospels. Irenaeus is the first to identify it as Luke, followed quickly by the Muratorian Fragment (possibly briefly preceding Irenaeus), Tatian (possibly precedes Irenaeus as well), and 25 years later Tertullian.

> The first attribution to Luke is by St. Irenaeous in 180 c.e. Irenaeus offers no chain of evidence for his claim of authorship

He says only, "Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him."

> There are well-reasoned arguments that Luke copies not only from Mark and Matthew, but from writings of Josephus

I don't know if we want to go into this discussion. I'll withhold for now.

> I think a problem is that historians create confusion... etc etc.

I love what you're saying here. The discussion has been great, and I appreciate it. It's obvious that the ancients had a different notion of historiography than we now hold and practice in modern times. That's not to say they got it all wrong, but rather that their methodologies and standards were different from ours. Evaluating all this stuff is a continual challenge, a worthy discussion, and interesting debate.

And I've enjoyed this as well. Not everyone is so collegial, including some in this thread who shall remain unnamed.

>Tacitus is often considered by those who study such things to be quite dependable, and Josephus is hit and miss.

Since you find Tacitus more dependable than Josephus, I'll simply things by focusing on him. I agree Tacitus is considered a dependable historian, at least for a historian of the time (a point I'll not expand on for now), but there are a couple of very big caveats:

Weighing the historical value of a writing requires assessing whether or not there was any tomfoolery along the way in transcribing. As much as it may be understood that a particular source seems "quite dependable", it is also understood that monkeying around during the copying of works was a veritable cottage industry.

There are well reasoned, peer-reviewed assessments in favor of interpolation and/or fatal modification of Tacitus. It would be no great surprise if this were so, since religious references were among the most attractive targets for retrofitting. And, if that is the case, then the dependability of Tacitus as a historian in this instance is moot. Whether you agree with the conclusion or not, and whether or not it is a majority opinion (which I will point out does not decide the truth of things), if there is a well reasoned opinion that the historian did not say the thing in the way presented or perhaps didn't even say the thing at all, then it's value as evidence is at the very least questionable.

The other caveat in this case is that even we accept the passage as genuine and unaltered, its meaning is ambiguous and can be reasonably interpreted two ways. Tacitus does not explain what he is telling us: a historical fact about Christ, or a historical fact about the "superstitious" doctrine of christians. Again, we are left with contrary views that can be debated with well-reasoned arguments for either and so, again, its value as evidence is questionable.

To be clear about what I suggest this means, it is not that the above arguments lead us to a conclusion that Jesus was fiction. It means that the above arguments lead us to conclusion that a claim he was real is unconvincing. Understand that I am at this point limiting us to this specific bit of evidence. I know there are collaborative arguments to be made, each and every one requiring as much discussion as this has. But, I'd like to digest this small piece of the elephant before we continue eating; is the passage in Tacitus good evidence for a historical Jesus? To which I say a reasonable argument can be made for, "no".

> Of the Gospel writers, Luke is often assessed by scholars to be a conscientious and reliable historian.

It is with great trepidation that I comment on this, since doing so risks crossing the event horizon to be sucked into the black hole of arguments over biblical historicity. But, I'll just point out some well regarded conclusions of scholars with which which you may disagree but which are still well regarded conclusions of scholars and can't reasonably be dismissed out of hand. I'm not going to argue them in detail, I'm just going to note they exist.

Anonymous sources deserve suspicion. And no author claims Luke, it is an anonymous writing. The first attribution to Luke is by St. Irenaeous in 180 c.e. Irenaeus offers no chain of evidence for his claim of authorship; it's a bald assertion. Those defending historicity argue that it must have been just a fact commonly known among the fathers. This is totally ad hoc as there is zero evidence for this other than the claim of Irenaeus itself. It also raises the question of why the many writings of the fathers prior to 180 refer to the gospels numerous times but never by any name.

The first naming of the gospel by Irenaeus came a century have Luke is said to have died, 80's c.e. The pious dating of Luke, though, may be problematic. There are well-reasoned arguments that Luke copies not only from Mark and Matthew, but from writings of Josephus. The latter didn't appear until the mid-90's c.e., so they're not a particularly good source for an author who is said to have died in the 80's.

A claim of historical accuracy of Luke is definitively rebutted if you stay with Luke-Acts as narratives of actual history. Here we step into a nightmarish hall of mirrors where every book has dizzying arguments for and against historicity. But, I'm going to proceed on a perhaps erroneous assumption that you find these to be a good history. In which case, if you claim history, you will need to explain at a minimum the discrepancies between Luke and Paul on: the experience of Paul's conversion, the source of Paul's gospel, the sequence for the Jerusalem Council and the incident at Antioch. There are also numerous points of general history in Acts that are considered implausible by many historians, but we have enough on our plate.

The point of all this being, at the risk of being nauseatingly repetitious, there are good arguments to be made against Luke (and Acts) as accurate histories. And this leads to my final point, which aligns with your own final point regarding the uncertainty of history...

I think a problem is that historians create confusion by being too often sloppy and casual. They may say it is a fact that there was a Jesus with the same conviction as they may say it is a fact that Jimmy Carter was the 39th president when the evidentiary difference between these claims is night and day.

When pressed on justifying claims for long ago, it is common practice to move the goalpost. Well, they say, it's good evidence as far as ancient history is concerned. They seem unaware or indifferent to the fact that lowering their standard to meet up with the conclusion dramatically weakens their claim.

This problem becomes really entrenched where someone has a pony in the race. Even in modern times, good luck arguing with devotees of Sathya Sai Baba that he hasn't actually regurgitated gold. But, it makes no difference to me whether or not Socrates, or Alexander the Great, or King Arthur, or so on and so on, were historical figures. And, I have no preference for Jesus being historical or fictional.

This is not a allusion to you having a bias. I don't know you well enough to say. Just because we disagree certainly isn't evidence enough for that. I would just say to be on the lookout for them.

Before I say anything else, I want you to know that I appreciate this discussion. Challenges to my thoughts make me think deeper, research more, and consider my positions, all of which is always valuable. I always appreciate a good discussion. Thank you.

> None of this actually matters, though. We're spending a lot of energy on Lincoln, or at least I am, in a effort to respond to your argument, but it doesn't matter how much we can trust the historians on Lincoln (But, for the record, they have a boatload of rock solid evidence. I mean, seriously, like a a shit ton.). What matters to this particular discussion what we can determine from the historians about Jesus, and that's super shaky.

I guess my deeper point is that we have sufficiently good historical data about Jesus to make reasoned decisions.

> Tacitus and Josephus, never tell us their source which, being historians, they often did.

We all have to assess the reliability of historical sources. Tacitus is often considered by those who study such things to be quite dependable, and Josephus is hit and miss. Neither of them tell us much about the historical Jesus, but even the tidbits are of historical interest.

Of the Gospel writers, Luke is often assessed by scholars to be a conscientious and reliable historian.

I study such things as best as I can, searching such fields as history, archaeology, science, philosophy, biblical studies, logic, and such, but I'm not a professional historian. I read what I can, digest as much as possible, and try to draw conclusions from the professionals. I don't consider the records we have to be "rank speculation," but your conclusion is obviously different.

> At best you can say that the majority opinion on a topic of historicity can be decided by the consensus of scholars. In addition to poor practices which the experts themselves acknowledge are a common problem, the nature of history often lends itself to different conclusions, all of which may be reasonable. There is also the conundrum of deciding who really is an expert, which in biblical studies is no small feat. That all said, I agree that going against the consensus generally means providing reasoned argument, and I try to do that.

I agree with this and don't find it widely different from the point I was making. Historians confess that their field is far less "certain" than many people seem to think. And you're right about the conundrum of expertise, which is also true in biblical studies. We're all slugging our way through mountains, no, planets of material to try to arrive at what is true.

> The four Gospel writers, Josephus, and some of the church fathers were closer in time to Jesus than we are to Honest Abe

Addressing the gospels would engulf all of time and space, so I'll demur. The church fathers also are a Byzantine topic that will hijack us. So, I'm going to keep it on point if you don't mind - focused, simple - and stay with how much we can trust the historians who were not merely further away in time, but not even from the same generation.

For Lincoln, though, the overwhelming contemporaneous evidence from the day is that he was in the White House 1861-1865; you'll need to explain who was there if he wasn't. But, of course, the evidence for Lincoln's life in general is incontrovertible. We have over 100 photographs of Lincoln. I'll repeat that: Photo. Graphs.. We have extensive original writings produced by his own hand. We have the original written record documenting his marriage. We have the original copies of reporting by eyewitness journalists of his speeches and public appearances. We have his original campaign buttons, flyers, and posters. We have original documents written to and about him by Hannibal Hamlin, his vice-president. We have original notes and writings from military officers and government officials of the day to him and about him. We have the records of James Buchanan surrendering the presidency to him. We have records of Andrew Johnson speaking of Lincoln upon succeeding him. We have records from Curtis and Woodward, the surgeons who did his autopsy. We even have some of the original instruments they used. The mountain of evidence for Lincoln is of such massiveness and quality that it eclipses anything from any historian or other writer about Jesus.

None of this actually matters, though. We're spending a lot of energy on Lincoln, or at least I am, in a effort to respond to your argument, but it doesn't matter how much we can trust the historians on Lincoln (But, for the record, they have a boatload of rock solid evidence. I mean, seriously, like a a shit ton.). What matters to this particular discussion what we can determine from the historians about Jesus, and that's super shaky.

> Re: Oxyrhynchus Papyri

I've never argued that historical writings don't exist or that ancient historians didn't refer to them. I've argued that the historians in our discussion, Tacitus and Josephus, never tell us their source which, being historians, they often did. There's also no historical evidence of Jesus known to have existed at the time (outside the gospels, which simply regurgitate doctrine, which I mention just to let you know I know they were around), so to what historical references they might have turned is rank speculation.

> Re: Alexander the Great and the Gospels

Here, again, we find this thread about Tacitus and Josephus in danger of being diverted. You see, I believe there is only very evidence of the worst kind, truly awful really, that the Gospels were written by "two disciples, three eyewitnesses, and a thorough historian". Rather than start generating massive walls of texts between us about this, I'll just retreat to also having art, coins, and inscriptions, which keeps Alexander in the lead.

> We decide on historicity only by the consensus of scholars who study these things.

Not so. At best you can say that the majority opinion on a topic of historicity can be decided by the consensus of scholars. In addition to poor practices which the experts themselves acknowledge are a common problem, the nature of history often lends itself to different conclusions, all of which may be reasonable. There is also the conundrum of deciding who really is an expert, which in biblical studies is no small feat. That all said, I agree that going against the consensus generally means providing reasoned argument, and I try to do that.

I'm going to end the topic of suffering, if you don't mind. It's been fun, but our arguments are pure opinion so I don't foresee making any ground either way.