Layman

Considering that Jesus was writing in Rome after 90 CE, it's likely that his audience would be at least familiar with "the tribe of Christians" and their founder, Christ. As Ken Olson realizes, "the observation that the Christians take their name from Christ is fairly commonplace (D.E. 80, 131, H.E. 1.3.9-10), occurring also in Tacitus (Annals 44)." <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/%22Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimonium %22" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/%22Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20 Testimonium%22</a>

After all, Josephus wrote Antiquities after 90 CE. Christianity was well-known by that time in Rome and Jerusalem. In fact, there was already a relatively large community of Christains in Rome itself that had been founded 40-50 years earlier.

The Roman Church was founded probably no later than the mid-40s. As you know, the Roman Historian Suetonius wrote that Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews in 49 CE because of persistent rioting "at the instigation of Chrestus." Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25. 4. This expulsion is also referenced by Luke in Acts 18:2. The ban was not lifted until 54 CE, when Claudius died. See Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity, at 330. Many scholars believe the reference to riots instigated by Chrestus to be a reference to disturbances between Jews and Christians over the nature of Jesus Christ. "The form and words he uses points to a well-known bearer of the name, and the common confusion between Christus and Chrestus makes it easy to suppose that Christ is meant." F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, at 381. "Scholars have debated the precise identity of this person, but there seems little doubt that the events Suetonius records were brought about by arguments over the teaching of those Jews who had become followers of Jesus the Messiah (Latin Christus)." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, at 16.

But even if we discount the Suetonius reference, Paul's letter to the Romans was written by 57 CE and noted that he had for "many years planned to come to you." Romans 1:13; 15:23. Thus, Paul clearly knew about the Roman Church's existence "many years" prior to 57 CE. This matches well with the evidence of Suetonius and would support the idea that the Roman Church was founded by the mid-40s.

And we can be sure that Christianity gained some level of notoriety as a result of Nero's persecution of Christians in the 60s CE. Not only did Suetonius mention Nero's persecution, but so did Tacitus. Writing only ten or so years after Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus (Governor of Asia at the time) knew about the group of Christians, named after their "originator," Christus.

To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judaea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas horn all over the world pour in and find a ready following. Tacitus, Annals XV. 44.

It seems that Josephus, writing in Rome, would have known that Romans at least were at least somewhat aware of the Christian movement and knew that the it was named for its "originator."

I think it's entirely possible that there was an earlier identification of Jesus as "Christ." I'm not sure Meier's argument against it carries the day. But as I discuss above, even that might be redundant.

This seems to be a weak point. If Josephus is engaging in a digression with the TF, then the use of the phrase, "another outrage" is quite reasonably seen as a signal that the author is returning to his main point.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

edited again to add comments to point 8.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: It seems that Josephus, writing in Rome, would have known that Romans at least were at least somewhat aware of the Christian movement and knew that the it was named for its "originator."

Let's use a modern analogy.

How many people in New York today could tell you that the originator of the Bahai faith was Baha Ullah, called the Bab?

Yet the Bahai faith has been in existence in New York since the nineteenth century, and in 1912 the successor to Baha Ullah, Abdul Baha, came to New York. There was an article about it in the New York Times.

<a href="http://bahainyc.org/presentations/ab/ab-press.html" target="_blank">http://bahainyc.org/presentations/ab/ab-press.html</a>

Although I don't have statistics to prove it (especially for the Christians), I suggest that the percentage of New Yorkers in 2002 who are Bahai is roughly comparable to the percentage of Rome's citizens in 93 who were Christian. Although there may have been perhaps two to four times the percentage of Christians in Rome in 93 than there are Bahai in New York now (being generous), the influence and visibility of each group would still be comparable.

But, again, if you asked the man on the street in New York about who the Bab was, or what Bahai is, you will find more that don't know what you are talking about than you will find people who know what you are talking about.

Now, suppose we have a twenty-first century writer saying this: "In 1844 there arose a man who became known as 'the Bab'. He preached a doctrine of the universal fraternity of man. The Bahai, named after him, live down to this day."

There is a slight incongruity: Christians were named after the cognomen (Christ and not Jesus), while Bahai are named after the founder's given name (Baha Ullah and not the Bab). But the point remains the same: the account would make much more sense if the writer indicated the actual name that was the etymological origin of the group's name. Even if a few people would have caught the reference, many would not, and a good writer would be a little more explicit.

There is another point, not so much an argument as a counter-argument. You have insisted that the postulated original of the likes of Meier is 'coherent'. I think this may be true yet not show that the passage is authentic, but I think that the claim itself could be undermined a bit here. The passage, saying that the Christians were named after him, makes more sense with the reference to Jesus as 'Christ'. Removing this obviously bogus bit produces a passage with somewhat less coherence. So the claims of coherence for the hypothetical core may be exaggerated.

For these reasons, I think that the best way to counter this argument is to suggest that Jerome and the Syriac are right. The best response to such a counter would be the claim that Josephus would not have introduced this term without an explanation - although this would rule out the 20.200 reference as well. I am sure that others would be happy to argue with you about this point, however. What do you think about the argument that the mention of the word 'Christ' is hapax legomena (actually occurring twice but only about Jesus) and could be "incendiary" and, as such, would not be casually dropped into the narrative by Josephus without explanation? You may have noticed posts on this point from others here, such as Godfry.

Kelly Wellington has been quoted.

Godfry weighs in himself:

Assuming that you hold out the possibility for authenticity in Ant. 20.200 or for a statement about Christos in the Testimonium along the lines of Jerome, what would your answer be to arguments of this type?

Layman writes: This seems to be a weak point. If Josephus is engaging in a digression with the TF, then the use of the phrase, "another outrage" is quite reasonably seen as a signal that the author is returning to his main point.

Please find me another example in which Josephus does this: where Josephus describes an incident, describes a tangentially related incident, and then begins the next passage with 'another incident of this type' or an equivalent phrase that could not refer to the immediately proceeding passage but rather completely ignores that passage and makes sense only in referring to the passage previous to the digression. Lowder quotes Smallwood in arguing that digressions are "particularly characteristic of Josephus," so you should not have too much difficulty in finding a similar case, assuming that Josephus may have written the 18.3 section in the way that you say that he did.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Concerning estimates on the number of Christians in ancient Rome.

In the time of Caesar Augustus, there were about 320,000 people who received the "corn dole" (Res Gestae divi Augusti 15). This would have been available only to adult male Roman citizens. This has led to a rough estimate of one million for the size of the population of ancient Rome.

Bede quoted Keith Hopkins as stating that there were 10,000 Christians in the year 100 (A World Full of Gods, p. 84).

<a href="http://www.unf.edu/classes/freshmancore/halsall/core1-10.htm" target="_blank">http://www.unf.edu/classes/freshmancore/halsall/core1-10.htm</a>
"Estimated number of people - c. 50 Million"

Assuming that the Christian population of Rome was twice as dense as the average (to err on the generous side), then 1 in 25 Christians resided in the city of Rome. That would mean that there were approximately 400 Christians in Rome in the year 100.

With a population of roughly one million, we arrive at an estimate that 0.04% of the people in Rome were Christian in the year 100.

And how many Bahai's are in New York City? I don't have statistics specific to New York, but I do have a reference on the percentage of Americans that are Bahai. The percentage in New York may be higher, of course.

<a href="http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html" target="_blank">http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html</a>
Baha'i - 142,000 - 0.05%

So, based on this admittedly sketchy data, the Bahai population in New York City and the Christian population in ancient Rome are basically comparable.

The specifics don't matter that much, however. The important point is that there would be Romans, many of them, who wouldn't know much about Christianity, if they had heard of it at all. This means that a writer expressing himself in the manner of Meier's Testimonium would be just as unlikely as the made-up example of a writer mentioning 'the Bab' and Bahais named after him, without giving the name Baha.

best,
Peter Kirby

PS- If you are interested in the number of Christians in Rome around the year 250.

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04375c.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04375c.htm</a>
"A few weeks later the Roman priest Novatian made himself antipope, and the whole Christian world was convulsed by the schism at Rome. But the adhesion of St. Cyprian secured to Cornelius the hundred bishops of Africa, and the influence of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, brought the East within a few months to a right decision. In Italy itself the pope got together a synod of sixty bishops. (See NOVATIAN.) Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, seems to have wavered. Three letters to him from Cornelius were known to Eusebius, who gives extracts from one of them (Hist. Eccl., VI, xliii), in which the pope details the faults in Novatian's election and conduct with considerable bitterness. We incidentally learn that in the Roman Church there were forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two ostiarii, and over one thousand five hundred widows and persons in distress. From this Burnet estimated the number of Christians in Rome at fifty thousand, so also Gibbon; but Benson and Harnack think this figure possibly too large."

Steven Carr

'It is argued that the reference to "the tribe of Christians so named from him" requires the earlier phrase "He was the Christ."'

This assumes that 'the tribe of Christians' is genuine. The passage is first quoted in Eusebius.

Eusebius also said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of
Christians. He did not.

But when Eusebius quoted Josephus as having used that phrase, perhaps he did. Who knows?

Layman

This analogy is not analogous and therefore does not offer an effective rebuttal. For at least four important reasons.

First, if there had been riots in New York as a result of the Bahai Faith that lead Mayor Guliani to expel all Bahai and Muslims from the city, and that act had garnered the attention of at least two historians, then I would suspect that most New Yorkers would be more familiar with the faith.

Second, if Mayor Guliani had been burning Bahai practioners to death and hanging their dead bodies at the entrances to the city, I suspect that most New Yorkers would be more familiar with their existence and their faith.

Third, the audience is not analogous. It does not matter "how many" people in New York would be aware of the Bahai Faith. Josephus was not writing to all Romans and certainly not "the Roman on the street." Most people in Rome could not even read. And fewer still would likely be interested in Jewish History. His audience was more select, more informed, and more interested in Jewish history.

Fourth, it overlooks the fact that at least two Roman scholars writing shortly after Josephus were perfectly aware that Christ was the originator of Christians.

For these reasons I think the analogy fails to offer anything in the way of a rebuttal to my point.

Not really, because it fits in well with Josephus' style of avoiding the redundant. That was Meier's point.

And Van Voorst thinks that the statement "so named for him" is sufficient standing alone to inform his readers that "Christ" was the founder.

"Yet this sentence is still intelligible if an earlier statement about Jesus as (supposed) Messiah is omitted, because that Jesus is named Christ can be inferred from "the tribe of Christians named after him." This economic style of expression, which we saw above in Tacitus, is perfectly intelligible as it stands. In this stylish and astute way, Josephus can tell his readers that Jesus' followers are called Christians, and he can identify Jesus as the Christ without explicitly calling him this."

Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 96.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Well, as an intelligent, informed poster once wrote:

The fact that the term "Christ" appears only in Ant. 18.3.3 and here in 20.9.1 seems to do little to suggest the [in?]authenticity of the phrase. It has been often observed that Josephus avoided the subject of messianic expectation. Crossan states:

The more important point, however, is that neither there nor anywhere else does Josephus talk about messianic claimants. He makes no attempt to explain the Jewish traditions of popular kingship that might make a brigand chief or a rural outlaw think not just of rural rebellion but of regal rule. The reason is, of course, quite clear and was seen already. For Josephus, Jewish apocalyptic and messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian. It is hardly likely, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfillments before Vespasian, especially from the Jewish lower classes. (The Historical Jesus, p. 199)

Even in the passage where Josephus seems to describe Vespasian as the fulfillment of the messianic oracles, Josephus does not make use of the term "Christ."

Although strong at first glance, this argument does not hold up to examination. The simple fact is, there is no good evidence that anyone, anywhere was ever referred to as "Christ," with the exception of course of Jesus himself. One searches the extant Jewish literature in vain to find some example of a messianic pretender who had actually been called "Christ" by anyone. Jesus was unique in being called "Christ," and so it is not surprising that this term is only used when identifying Jesus. Josephus could have used it in the sense of a nick-name, not as a title, and thus there would be no need to explain the meaning of the name. Josephus may have simply assumed that his readers would have heard of this "Christ" of the sect called "Christians" and left it at that.

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html</a>

Seriously, I think the point is well taken. I've only recently been looking into this argument so I'm afraid I may not have much to offer in addition to your response to it. If Joseph wanted to avoid discussions of Jewish messianic expectations then he may have been reluctant to expound on what the term "Christ" meant. However, because by the time he wrote many in his audience were familiar with the term "Christ" or "Christus" as a name of the founder of a new religious movement, he could simply have used the phrase in that sense.

This would seem to cut against the version "he was believed to be the Christ" language in some reconstructions, but would be consistent with the TF reference to "the tribe of Christians named after him" and the James reference to "one called Christ."

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Actually it does not. Just the opposite in fact. This is an argument which basically says, because the TF does not previously identify Jesus as Christ, the phrase "the tribe of Christians so named for him" must also an interpolation.

In other words, it is a point that those who argue that the "He was the Christ" (or some derivative) is an interpolation but recognize the validity of "the tribe of Christians so named for him" have to deal with.

I would like to see the references from Eusebius? Was he referring to documents we know now to be inauthentic? Or to corrupt text? Or do most scholars think he invented the references from scratch?

Thanks

Peter Kirby

I wrote: There is another point, not so much an argument as a counter-argument. You have insisted that the postulated original of the likes of Meier is 'coherent'. I think this may be true yet not show that the passage is authentic, but I think that the claim itself could be undermined a bit here. The passage, saying that the Christians were named after him, makes more sense with the reference to Jesus as 'Christ'. Removing this obviously bogus bit produces a passage with somewhat less coherence. So the claims of coherence for the hypothetical core may be exaggerated.

Layman writes: Not really, because it fits in well with Josephus' style of avoiding the redundant. That was Meier's point.

In the passage as it stands, the 'Christians, named after him' part points back to the 'He was the Christ' part. Whether or not the hypothetical core could be imagined as coming from the pen of Josephus, it is false to claim, as Charlesworth does, that "These sections also are disruptive, and when they are removed the flow of thought is improved and smoother." To which I responded:

Against this, it is maintained that the so-called "Christian sections" are integral parts of the text. The phrase "for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure" refers to the phrase "if it be lawful to call him a man" and, in the present text, explains why Jesus is considered to be more than a man. The phrase "He was the Christ" is presupposed by the phrase that the "tribe of Christians" is named from him, as it has been argued above. And the phrase concerning the resurrection provides the explanation for why those who loved Jesus did not cease to do so. Although it is possible to consider these phrases to be parenthetical, it is also possible to see them as part and parcel of the entire text.

Note that this is a counter-argument to an argument for authenticity, not an argument for inauthenticity.

Layman writes:

This analogy is not analogous and therefore does not offer an effective rebuttal. For at least four important reasons.

First, if there had been riots in New York as a result of the Bahai Faith that lead Mayor Guliani to expel all Bahai and Muslims from the city, and that act had garnered the attention of at least two historians, then I would suspect that most New Yorkers would be more familiar with the faith.

Only one pagan historian (Suetonius) mentions the incident concerning 'Chrestus' and the expulsion of the Jews. There is no conclusive evidence that ties this event to Christianity. This could refer to messianic fervor of any kind, or perhaps even to an actual agitator named Chrestus, which was a suitable Greek name (and some Jews were given Greek names - such as Philip the apostle).

Layman writes: Second, if Mayor Guliani had been burning Bahai practioners to death and hanging their dead bodies at the entrances to the city, I suspect that most New Yorkers would be more familiar with their existence and their faith.

Thankfully things aren't done that way any more.

However, I am not sure that we can equate knowing the name of a sect with knowing anything about their faith. Most people in America today have heard about 'Islam'. Most people in America do not know the meaning of the word 'Islam'.

To be honest, I would be surprised if most Americans could mention the prophet 'Muhammad' and the holy book the 'Quran' without having to stop and think about it. Have you ever watched "Jaywalking" with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show? And I recall a poll that indicated that a large number of people couldn't name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

And, when it comes to matters of religion, college-educated people are often as ignorant as the average man on the street. There is no requirement to take any class that discusses religions in any depth in order to obtain a college degree in the public school system.

One other point is that the fire in Rome had happened about 30 years ago at the time that Josephus wrote, and the Christians may no longer have been fresh in the minds of Romans.

Layman writes: Third, the audience is not analogous. It does not matter "how many" people in New York would be aware of the Bahai Faith. Josephus was not writing to all Romans and certainly not "the Roman on the street." Most people in Rome could not even read. And fewer still would likely be interested in Jewish History. His audience was more select, more informed, and more interested in Jewish history.

My comments below address this a little bit. Here I will note that there was no comparative religion in the Roman curriculum and that an interest in a subject does not imply any prior about that subject.

Layman writes: Fourth, it overlooks the fact that at least two Roman scholars writing shortly after Josephus were perfectly aware that Christ was the originator of Christians.

To be technical, only Tacitus in the Christian-attesting triumvirate (Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius) says explicitly that Christians have their origin in Christ. However, this knowledge on the part of Tacitus, or even the whole trio, does not mean that the point would be "common knowledge" for the audience of Josephus.

Layman writes: For these reasons I think the analogy fails to offer anything in the way of a rebuttal to my point.

Here was the point that I quoted: "It seems that Josephus, writing in Rome, would have known that Romans at least were at least somewhat aware of the Christian movement and knew that the it was named for its 'originator.'"

I offer by way of rebuttal the point that many Romans, even many educated Romans who might read Josephus, would not have been aware that Christians traced their origins to one called 'Christ'. For the readers who would not have known what the etymology of Christian was (as I acknowledge that some would have), Josephus would have likely been more explicit, at least to the extent of giving the name from which the term 'Christian' is derived.

Pelletier points out the example of Antiquities 17.5.1, where Josephus explains the name of the port Sebastos by saying: "Herod, having constructed it at great expense, named it Sebastos in honor of Caesar." Josephus leaves out the technical explanation that Caesar's honorific name in Latin is Augustus, which was translated into the Greek language as Sebastos. It may be assumed that the reader would be aware of Caesar's title.

However, if we think that an educated Roman of the first century would have known that Caesar was called Sebastos just as much as an educated Roman of the first century would have known that Jesus was called Christ, then we are guilty of the sin of anachronism.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. An analogy is presented in order to elucidate one facet of something. If the two corresponded precisely, we would have not an analogy but rather an identity.

The purpose of the Bahai analogy was to help us overcome our natural tendency to think of Christianity in the first century as having the same importance that it came to have in the fourth century and down to today. I for one learned the identity of 'Jesus' and 'Christ' before I learned how to read. It takes an imagination pump for me to understand how Christianity would have been viewed in the first century by Romans, when it was even in view at all. Christianity was a small, fledgling sect at the time. Indeed, no pagan author of the first century is known to have mentioned Christians. The three references in the first half of the second century can be fit easily on two sheets of ordinary paper.

So, I do not think that we can assume that all the educated Romans in the audience of Josephus had heard of Christianity.

Furthermore, not everyone who had heard of Christians would have known the origin of their name. Consider Mormonism. Most people in America have heard of Mormons. I have heard of Mormons and have heard a little about them, although I have never been motivated to study the religion in any depth. I know that the founder was Joseph Smith, and I know that Utah is dominated by Mormons. I know that they have a "Book of Mormon," billed as a new testament of Jesus Christ, and that they evangelize in neighborhoods through pairs of young men in white shirts on bicycles. I know that the are also known as LDS, or the church of latter-day saints. I know that they are opposed to drugs and alcohol. I have heard that they have some odd views about Christianity in the Americas and something to do with magic underwear. For everything I know about Mormonism, however, I'd be buggered to tell you the origin of the name 'Mormon'. I just don't know it, college-educated though I am. If I were to read someone give an account of Joseph Smith and mention that the Mormons were named after something, I would expect that person to give the name of the thing after which Mormons were named.

That would just be good writing. And many people know less about Mormonism than the little that I do.

So, in considering the question of whether Josephus would have assumed knowledge on the part of his Roman audience as to the origins of Christianity, we have to attempt to set aside centuries of familiarity with Christ and try to imagine the situation when Christianity was considered an insignificant and superstitious oriental cult, when it was considered at all. The hope of my analogy to Bahai was to prime the historical imagination in this regard, to help us consider how likely it would be for Josephus to assume background knowledge concerning Christianity.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I am somewhat confused. I had not gotten to Point 2 in favor of partial authenticity (where you cite Charlesworth). I was responding to Point 7 in favor of complete inauthenticity: It is argued that the reference to "the tribe of Christians so named from him" requires the earlier phrase "He was the Christ." Are you saying that Point 7 has no probative value as used as an argument for inauthenticity, but only as a counter argument for partial authenticity?

In any event, I would like to hold off on responding to the "counter" to Point 2 until I get there. Right now I'm just addressing Point 7. I hope that is okay.

As an aside, I am truly sorry this is moving so slow and apologize if you would rather be spending your time on other subjects or projects. I certainly would not blame you if you turned your attention elsewhere or took a break.

Luke also mentions the expulsion of the Jews, though he does not mention why. In any event, there is little doubt that there was some sort of expulsion of the Jews. So the point is not how many historians mentioned it, but that it was a significant event in Rome at the time. And because it was such a significant event in Rome, it is likely that the Expulsion contributed to Roman familiarity with the name Christ.

Moreover, I do not think we need "conclusive evidence" before we make a point or argument. So long as evidence or an argument has some tendency in reason to support a point, it has probative value. As you have elsewhere noted about the Suetonius reference, "This is plausibly a reference to the expulsion of Jewish Christians from Rome." And most scholars favor the point that this is a mistaken reference to Jesus Christ and Jewish Christians (A.N. Wilson: "Only the most perverse of scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ").

Accordingly, Suetonius' reference indicates the possibility, and perhaps likelihood, that Romans would have been aware as early as 49 CE, of a Jewish sect related to a figured known as Christ.

Which is one reason that most people would not know much of anything about the Bahai faith in modern New York. They were not accused of inflicting tremendous damage on the city of New York. They can practice their faith in relative peace and without causing a public disturbance. They were never targeted by the leader of the nation for persecution and extermination. Their corpses have never lined the streets leading into the city. They were not in conflict with local mosques leaders who might persecute them. And, I might point out, the Bahai are not an evangelistic religion. Unlike Christians, they do not believe in proselytizing.

That was not the case with Christians. They were probably causing disputes with local Jewish leaders and we know they were targeted by Nero and persecuted in a very brutal and very public manner.

To the extent you are suggesting that such events were commonplace in ancient Rome, youare mistaken. The Great fire and Neronian persecution of Christians were well-known and very significant in Roman history.

Even if this were true it is irrelevant because Islam is not named for its founder. The question would not be whether Americans would know where the name Islam came from, but who the founder of Islam was. Besides, most Americans who would be interested in reading a lengthy work of history would probably know that Mohammed founded Islam even without any explicit connection between the name of the religion and the name of the founder.

Interestingly, I've read colonial American writings that referred to "Mohammadism" and knew perfectly well that it originated with some guy named Mohammed, despite the almost complete lack of Muslims in the United States.

This seems counterintuitive and anachronistic (as well as being an unfair characterization of my argument). I was not talking about religious studies per se in ancient Rome, but knowledge of current events and recent history. I do not argue that the Romans understood Christology, Soteriology, or the Trinity, but I do suspect that it is more likely that the educated elite in Rome (at most 10% of the population could read) would be more aware of the Expulsion, the great fire of Rome, and Nero's public persecution of Christians.

Of course, I do not discount the idea that many in the "lower" classes may very well have heard about Christianity. The Roman fire was an extraordinarily significant event. The subsequent persecution of Christians was a public undertaken and particularly cruel -- even by the standards of the time. And finally, Christianity was an evangelistic religion and many of its adherents were women and slaves.

I do not think we are working from a full appreciation of the significance and nature of the events at issue. We are not just dealing with a minor persecution of a minor group. Yes, considered from the standpoint of the entire Empire, it was a local persecution, but it grew out of very significant events and left a significant impact on Rome and Romans.

As Raymond Brown explains about the great fire in Rome: "While Nero was aware from the capital in A.D. 64, beginning in July 19th and lasting nine days, the greatest fire in Rome's history broke out and destroyed in whole or in part ten of Rome's fourteen districts." Raymond Brown, Antioch and Rome, at 98.

Tacitus' account on this point is very informative:

Note that Tacitus mentions how "authors" had already given different accounts of the fire. Additionally, the fire was unparalled in its destruction; literally the worst fire in Roman history. Tacitus goes on to recount how it destroyed Nero's own house, his palace, and "everything around it." After five days the fire was contained, but then exploded again and burned for another four days. Most of the city was destroyed: "[i]IRome, indeed, is divided into fourteen districts, four of which remained uninjured, three were leveled to the ground, while in the other seven were left only a few shattered, half-burnt relics of houses....." "t would not be easy to enter into a computation of the private mansions, the blocks of tenements, and of the temples, which were lost."

Clearly, therefore, the significance of the fire is not something that would have been forgotten within 30 years --whether the memory was "fresh" or not. As Professor W.C. Frend puts it, "while this was an isolated catastrophe with no sequel even in Rome, it was not forgotten. Sixty years later the event was recalled by Tacitus with scant sympathy for the Christians." The Rise of Christianity, at 109. Frend's last point is significant. The fire and Christianity were to become a related issue because Nero blamed them for the fire and engaged in a very public persecution that even Christian-haters like Tacitus would consider unjust.

Tacitus explains:

Tacitus states that there was already a hatred among the Romans towards the Christians. Indeed, he notes that it was "the populace" that called them by the name "Christian." So Christians were already known in Rome before the fire even began. After the fire, Christians became the focus of intense public persecution. Their executions were gruesome public displays. And, the evidence suggests, that it was widespread in Rome. Tacitus notes that "an immense multitude" were convicted and executed. This is corroborated by 1 Clement, which tells of "a great multitude" of Christians in Rome who had suffered and were executed. (6:1). Professor Frend notes that later marytrologies put the number at close to a thousand victims. The Rise of Christianity, at 109.

It is not anachronistic to suggest, therefore, that Josephus' Roman audience would have had at least a limited knowledge of Christianity.

I am not sure what you mean by being "technical." The question is whether Pliny would have understand that Christianity was founded or related to a guy named Christ. Pliny makes it clear he was aware that Christians worshiped "Christ":

I decided to dismiss any who denied that they are or ever have been Christians when they repeated after me a formula invoking the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your image, which I had ordered to be brought with the images of the gods into court for this reason, and when they reviled Christ.... They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a God....

Pliny, Book 10, Letter 96.

Despite governing in Turkey -- Pliny was already aware of Christians prior to having to decide their cases. Before seeking guidance from the Emperor, Pliny knew that it was illegal to be a Christian. He knew that there had already been trials for Christians in Rome, though he had not personally participated in them (thus negating the idea that the knowledge of Christians among the "big three" was uniquely their own). According to Robin Lane Fox, the trials Pliny refers to had likely been occurring in Rome since the mid-90s CE. And while there was no widespread persecution under the Emperor Domitian, "certainly there had been a persecution at Rome." Robin L. Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 432-33.

It also appears that the nature of these proceedings involved asking the defendant to renounce Christ and revile him. Clearly, therefore, those involved in and aware of these proceedings would have been able to connect Christ to Christians.

I did not claim that the two were equivalent, I merely pointed out that there were many reasons to believe that Josephus' Roman (and Jewish) audience, or at least a large part of it, would be familiar with the idea that Christ was at the center of Christianity.

I believe that I avoided anachronism by pointing to specific reasons why the Romans (and certainly the Jews) in Josephus' audience would likely be familiar with the idea that Christianity was founded by someone named Christ. I might add that all of my arguments had to do with ancient events (the Expulsion, Tacitus, Pliny, Nero's persecution, lower literacy rates), while many of yours attempts to refute the point depended on anachronistic assumptions and examples (Jaywalking, "man on the street," the Bahai faith in New York).

This analogy also fails Remember, Christianity is named after its founder and Mormonism is not. And you admit that you already know who founded Mormonism. Thus, since you are drawing a parallel of what you (as an educated American with some interest in religion and/or history) would know about a minor religion and what an educated Roman (with some interest in religion and/or history) would know about a minority religion, you are supporting my point. That is, you are perfectly aware of who the founder of the minority religion is .

(By the way, I think the term Mormonism is derived from one the messenger angel (he's at the top of all their steeples) who brought the new religion to Smith: Mormo or Mormos. )

But this raises an interesting point. One I think that Van Voorst was getting at in this part of his analysis which I quoted above. That is, if you tell someone the name of the religion and then tell them that the religion was named after its founder, you already have a pretty good idea from that statement alone about what the name of the religion's founder would be. As Van Voorst states:

Yet this sentence is still intelligible if an earlier statement about Jesus as (supposed) Messiah is omitted, because that Jesus is named Christ can be inferred from "the tribe of Christians named after him." This economic style of expression, which we saw above in Tacitus, is perfectly intelligible as it stands. In this stylish and astute way, Josephus can tell his readers that Jesus' followers are called Christians, and he can identify Jesus as the Christ without explicitly calling him this.

Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 96.

Take for example, Mormonism. If I said to someone, "Mormonism is named after its founder" you would reasonably conclude that Mormonism founded by someone with a name like Mormo or Mormon. You would be wrong, but that would be the assumption most people would reasonably make. Now, it would be misleading for a writer to make that statement, but that is only because Morminism's label is not based on its human founder.

But let us look at another example. Let's look at the Bahai faith. If I said to someone, "the Bahai faith is named after its founder", that person would reasonably conclude that the founder of that religion was named Baha or Bahai. In this case, they would be fairly close to the truth. The author that wrote the statement "the Bahai faith is named after its founder" would be suggesting to his audience the proper name of the founder of the religion.

The same applies to Josephus' statement about the founder of the Christians. If I told someone unfamiliar with Christianity that "Christianity was named after its founder", that person would reasonably conclude that Christianity was founded by someone with a name like Christ or Christus. Certainly Josephus' Jewish audience would pick up on that right away. This would be especially true of those who remembered the great fire of Rome and Neronian persecution or (likely) the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. But even if they lacked this knowledge they would still come away with an idea about the name of the founder of Christianity. And it would be pretty close to the same information that you would have if you told them, "Jesus was Christ. Christianity was named after its founder." In fact, the latter statement might be considered somewhat redundant -- which is something that many ancient writers tried to avoid.

Peter Kirby

There is one thing that I will address first because it is of negligible importance to the debate yet it is bothersome. Layman writes:

Moreover, I do not think we need "conclusive evidence" before we make a point or argument. So long as evidence or an argument has some tendency in reason to support a point, it has probative value. As you have elsewhere noted about the Suetonius reference, "This is plausibly a reference to the expulsion of Jewish Christians from Rome." And most scholars favor the point that this is a mistaken reference to Jesus Christ and Jewish Christians (A.N. Wilson: "Only the most perverse of scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ").

Here is the whole of the argument presented by Mr. Wilson:

"Still, Suetonius does mention the fact that the Jews, in their uncongenial, slummy quarters in what is now the Trastevere - the crowded region which they knew as the Transtiberinum, where trades and minor crafts were carried on, linenweaving, leathermaking, perfumery - were causing continuous trouble at the instigation of 'Chrestus'. Only the most perverse scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ, a figure whom the Roman historian mistakenly supposed to be a Jew actually present in Rome and stirring up the rabble. In other words those very fears which we described above - that the monotheistic allure of Judaism should have affected the Gentiles - had already been realized in Rome itself by the middle of Claudius' reign." - Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, p. 104

What we are looking at here is the ipse dixit of Wilson without any supporting arguments. And what Wilson is saying goes against common sense: Wilson urges us that it is "perverse" for a scholar to doubt that "Chrestus" is Christ, while Chrestos is a common Greek name (a fact which Wilson does not mention and may not even know), despite the fact that Wilson's hypothesis demands that we believe that Suetonius "mistakenly supposed [Christ] to be a Jew actually present in Rome and stirring up the rabble." Now who is being perverse? Moreover, if Suetonius could make such a fundamental mistake about Christ, can we really assume that Romans of the time knew the first thing about Christianity?

It is plausible that the reference in Suetonius is muddled and that this refers to disputes between Jews and Jewish Christians, but it is absolutely nothing more than that. I assign equal or greater plausibility to the hypothesis that Christians were not in view, either that there was a messianic fervor of another flavor or that there was an actual Jewish rabble rouser named Chrestos. I would not like to base much of anything concerning early Christianity on this one obscure and ambiguous sentence. The dogmatic way in which many or even most scholars latch upon this statement proves primarily the wishful longing for more information about early Christianity from outside sources.

To their credit, not all scholars insist that Suetonius did not mean what he said. For example, Morton Smith writes: "The report that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in A.D. 41 because they were, 'at the instigation of Chrestus, repeatedly rioting,' probably refers to some local troublemaker." (Jesus the Magician, p. 66)

Erich S. Gruen reviews H. Dixon Slingerland's Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome, which argues that this is not a reference to Jesus Christ.

<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1998/98.7.02.html" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1998/98.7.02.html</a>

"Slingerland proceeds to take on the notorious crux in Suet. Claud. 24.4: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma [Claudius] expulit. His treatment, although unnecessarily prolix, argues quite powerfully against the widespread conviction that 'Chrestus' is Christ. As Slingerland points out, more fully than any predecessor, the name appears with reasonable frequency in the epigraphic evidence, encompassing persons of freedman or free born status, some of lowly origin, some of relatively prominent station. Nothing suggests Jesus Christ here. The passage indeed implies that Chrestus the impulsor was in Rome when these events transpired. And it will not do to save the Christian hypothesis by postulating Suetonius' ignorance. Nor does Acts 18:1-3 help the cause, for its reference to Jews expelled from Rome who joined Paul in Corinth does not suggest that they were Christians when they left Rome. Orosius' interpretatio christiana rests on no evidence independent of Suetonius. Slingerland reaches a proper and salutary conclusion: the burden of proof rests with those who wish to identify Chrestus with Christ, not those who distinguish them (pp 169-217)."

However, I myself do not go so far as Morton Smith in claiming that this sentence does not refer to Christ. I simply refuse to use this sentence as the basis for any further argument.

Layman writes: Accordingly, Suetonius' reference indicates the possibility, and perhaps likelihood, that Romans would have been aware as early as 49 CE, of a Jewish sect related to a figured known as Christ.

The possibility would exist without any reference at all from Suetonius, given that both Paul and the author of First Clement refer to the Roman church as being advanced in years. It is the likelihood that is the trouble because there is no evidence to make the jump from plausible to probable with regards to the reference in Suetonius to repeated riots at the instigation of Chrestus as meaning the disputes of Jewish Christians.

As an aside, while the date of 49 CE is not contradicted by any conclusive evidence, the statement by the fifth century church father is dubious. Orosius stated, "Josephus reports that the Jews were expelled from the city by Claudius in his ninth year." (Historiae Adversus Paganos VII 6:15) No such report in Josephus has come down to us.

Thankfully, you have more arrows in your quiver than just this one, and you need not commit yourself to defending "Chrestus" as meaning Jesus Christ in order to make your points. The matter of the fire under Nero, for example, serves you better without all the ambiguity.

A correction of myself on a matter of fact: the Bab and Baha Ullah are not the same person. See the entry in this encyclopedia:

<a href="http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Bahai" target="_blank">http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Bahai</a>

A closer analogy to Christians in ancient Rome would be Bahais in modern Iran.

<a href="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html" target="_blank">http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html</a>

"Babis had their eyes gouged out, were forced to eat their amputated ears, teeth were torn out and skulls crushed by hammer blows. Women had deep holes dug into their breasts and burning wicks were fuelled by the boiling fat. Soles of people's feet were skinned and then placed into boiling oil. Feet were shoed like the hoof of a horse and the victim made to run.

"Lucky were the Babis who died quickly: being tied in front of a mortar, strangled, suffocated, stoned, cut down with a sword or blows of hammers and knives."

While this would be a closer analogy, we are missing the crucial element of knowledge about how many Iranians know about Babis and Bahais. Without any statistics, a presumption that people in Iran would have heard of the pogroms seems reasonable, for much the same reasons that you urge concerning early Christians.

Placing an argument in a syllogism can be helpful to analysing its strengths and weaknesses. Here is a syllogism.

1. If Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus without mentioning "Christ" in book 18, then most in the audience of Josephus knew that Jesus was called Christ.
2. It is false that most in the audience of Josephus knew that Jesus was called Christ.
3. Therefore, it is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus without mentioning "Christ" in book 18.

Although the argument is valid (modus tollens), the premises may not be sound; indeed, I would now say that they are undemonstrated.

Though the stronger of the two, the first premise can be doubted. Meier and Van Voorst have apparently argued that the title 'Christos' for Jesus could be inferred from the name &lt;i&gt;tôn Christianôn&lt;/i&gt;, perhaps because the naming follows a canonical form: similar to New Yorker, Parisian, or Japanese. By following a canonical form, a person can understand neologisms such as 'computerese' or 'Jesus Myther'. It would be redundant for a person to write "computerese, which is technical jargon concerning computers" or "Jesus Myther, which refers to a person who thinks Jesus may be a myth." While writers often are explicit, writers also sometimes leave this information unstated with the assumption that the reader will either know the term or will figure it out. For this reason, it is arguably plausible that Josephus referred to Christianity being named after Jesus without naming Jesus as "Christ" in book 18.

The second premise is the weaker of the two. It is difficult to establish that a majority of Romans in the first century did not know anything about Christianity. To say the least, we do not have any census data in which such questions as one's familiarity with the sect of Christ were asked. I could imagine two arguments being made, though: an argument from silence and an argument by analogy. The argument from silence notes that there are no first century pagan historians that mention Christianity. This argument is weak by virtue of the paucity of extant historical literature from the first century and by the presence of three writers who mention Christianity at the dawn of the second. The argument by analogy notes that the percentage of Romans who were Christian was low and that this situation is comparable to that of modern sects about which the populace are ignorant, such as Bahai and Santeria. To this argument, the reply could be made that a small sect can become famous beyond all proportion to its numbers, with the modern examples of the People's Temple or Heaven's Gate. The key to such fame is association with a momentous event. Plausibly, early Christianity could claim association with such an event in ancient Rome, which is the famous fire that swept the city under Nero, who affixed punishment on Christianity as a scapegoat. Although this does not constitute proof that Christ was a household word in first century Rome, the idea that Josephus could not have assumed knowledge of Christianity is not established.

But there's more! In order to conclude that the Testimonium is an interpolation, we need an additional argument.

1. It is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus without mentioning "Christ" in book 18.
2. If it is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus without mentioning "Christ" in book 18 and if Josephus did not mention "Christ," then it is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus.
3. If it is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus, then the Testimonium is an insertion as a whole.
4. Josephus did not mention "Christ."
5. Therefore, it is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus. (modus ponens: 1 & 4, 2)
6. Therefore, the Testimonium is an insertion as a whole. (modus ponens: 5, 3)

Premise 1 would follow from the argument given above, but that argument is not sound. In any case, premises 2 and 3 should not prove controversial. Premise 4, however, is controversial.

Note that premise 4 would also argue against an authentic reference to Jesus in the 20th book. But it is possible, as Twelftree has done, to maintain an authentic Testimonium while disregarding the reference in the 20th book. So, it is possible that a person could accept premise 4 as true, yet reject premise 1 for the reasons given above, and thus maintain that Josephus mentioned Jesus without ever using the word "Christ."

Perhaps like Layman, I am not sure about the truth of premise 4. I will leave it to others, who are more confident about the idea that Josephus could not say "Christos," to argue that premise 4 is sound. Since premise 1 may not be true, premise 4 may not even be relevant to the discussion of the arguments against a partial Testimonium. The main thrust of premise 4 is in arguing that the 20.200 reference is corrupt. That is relevant to the overall debate, as one of the most commonly used arguments for an authentic Testimonium is based on the assumption that the 20.200 reference is authentic and presupposes an earlier account of Jesus.

My conclusion is that the arguments above do not establish the inauthenticity of a reconstructed Testimonium. But I invite comments for anyone who sees anything else that can be salvaged from this argument.

best,
Peter Kirby