I am the author of the article in question,
"Tacitus' Fragment 2," and I just wanted to respond to some of the comments on my work:

The main point seems to involve Alfred Kriman's supposed statistical refutation of my argument, on the discussion group Classics-L (see above for the URL giving his "brutal" critique). Krimans suggests that I made a mistake by making only a single calculation of the probability of randomness that the author of fragment 2 chose the word "stirps." Krimans believes I should have calculated this probability 20 times, not once, despite the fact that fragment 2's author only used the word "stirps" once in the fragment! Kriman's argument is patently absurd. If he's right, then Johnny Cochrane should also have proposed we test OJ's blood samples 20 times, not just once, so as to give his client a better chance to get off the hook.

If anyone wants to disprove my statistical argument, they'll have to do a lot better than this. My thesis has been endorsed by a statistician with a Ph.D. in the field (see note 18 of the article) and has also been endorsed privately in their correspondence with me by a number of the world's top philologists (I haven't heard from other statisticians yet). A number of other philologists have not accepted some or all of my conclusions, but that's what makes a ballgame! Even many of the philologists on Classics-L accepted my main premise, i.e., that Tacitus' fragment 2 is genuine. Once you accept that fact, it's merely a question of interpreting the fragment. Thus, it's by no means true that all of the participants on Classics-L failed to endorse any aspect of my argument. Also, 99% of the listmembers on Classics-L did not participate in the discussion there. No one knows what they thought.

For those interested, I also have a posting on the Feedback Forum of 6/8/01 in response to Richard Carrier's post of 5/8/01 (thread: "Laupot on Tacitus").

I would also like to respond to some of the comments in the present discussion group that my article aparently
discusses "Christians." It does not, by and large. It discusses "Christiani," who were Jewish participants in the first Jewish War against Rome (66-73CE). As I show in my study, Tacitus' Christiani were definitely not Pauline Christians.

Another question raised in the present discussion group was why my study solves the problem of the historical Jesus. What I failed to mention in my article, because it is already well known to New Testament and classical scholars, is that Tacitus' Christiani are widely identified with the Christiani of the New Testament. This is because both sects have the same name in Latin and a founder with the same name, Christus, who was executed by the same Roman, Pontius Pilate (Tacitus Annals 15.44). In fact, my study makes this connection even stronger, showing that both sects had the same name in Hebrew, Netsarim, and in Greek, Nazoraioi.

When you read Tacitus and compare it with the New Testament, of course, they don't sound like the same sect because Tacitus (often considered the greatest of all Roman historians) was writing history, and the authors of the Gospels were writing fiction. However, the Gospels modeled their characters on the historical Christiani that Tacitus wrote about (see above). Tacitus' Christus, the founder of the Christiani (Annals 15.44) was most likely the historical Jesus of the New Testament.

Sincerely,
Eric Laupot