[QUOTE=Caparazon]
I read, (sory no cite), that the consensus was that Tacitus an Josephus did write about Jesus but in a very unflatering way. Medieval monks didn’t like this and when they copied from the original they “created” a better version.
I am sure some doper can clarify
[/QUOTE]
It’s true that Tacitus was very unflattering but his passage does not appear to have been altered. To give some context, Tacitus is describing Nero’s attempt to scapegoat Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. (Tacitus’ history was written around 115 CE) Here is the passage:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. 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.
(Annals 15.44).
As you can see, the bolded portion is not flattering to Jesus and that’s one of the reasons it’s believed to be authentic.
Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum, on the other hand is believed to have been tampered with. Here it is again. The portions in red are what is believed to have been interpolated by Christian forgers:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." (Antiquities 18.3.3)
The portions which are believed to be authentic seem fairly neutral, not adoring, perhaps but not vicious like Tacitus. Of course, it’s not impossible that anything malicious in the Josephus’ original words (if there were any original words) could have been stricken by the same interpolator. Some scholars believe the entire passage is interpolated. Probably the foremost problem is that it is highly unlikely that Josephus would have called Jesus the Messiah (“ho Cristos”) without becoming a Christian. Josephus did not like Messianic claimants in any case and it strains credulity that he would blithely call somebody the Messiah in such an offhand manner. Even more significantly, Origen explicitly claimed that Josephus did not call the Jesus the Messiah. There are other problems too. The first known quotation of the TF is in Eusebius (4th century), it is not quoted by other Church Fathers before then even though it would bolster their case. Many also argue that the passage does not fit Josephus’ writing style and does not fit easily within the narrative context where it appears. Some say that Origen’s claim is also evidence that he didn’t know the passage, but I’m not so sure it couldn’t better taken as evidence that he did know something like it. If he didn’t know it all, I think it would have made more sense for him to say that Josephus didn’t mention Jesus than to assert that he just didn’t call him the Messiah. The latter claim, I think, carries an implication that FJ did say something abut Jesus.
There is a second passage in Josephus (called the “James passage”) which goes like this:
The other passage is found in Antiquities 20.9.1 and reads as follows:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, **and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called called Christ, whose name was James**, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more..."
This passage is generally taken as authentic, but the consensus is not universal.
These references in Josephus (c. 94 CE) and Tacitus (c. 115 CE) are the only semi-contemperaneous, non-Christian references to Jesus and they tend to be the things that put historical consensus “over the 50 yard line,” so to speak, in favor of a Historical Jesus. Like DrDeth said upthread, it’s not like 100% certainty or even 80 or 90. It’s more like in the 60’s. More probable than not, but nowhere near as certain as the existence of someone like say, Augustus Caesar (or even Pontius Pilate, for that matter).