Actually the single sentence mentioning Jesus has been shown to have been added later. This was not unusual in those days for one scholar to add to another's writings. You'd think someone as important as Jesus supposedly was would rate more than one sentence in one historian's book.
Yeah, that was essentially what I had heard. Why wasn't he more central in the writings about that time?
...great post! This guy Atwill is spot on, hopefully "the church" doesn't have him assassinated if his findings prove to be refutable.
It's an interesting story, but 2000 years after the fact I find it incredibly unlikely that anything could be definitively proved one way or another regarding a historical Jesus.
Historical Jesus is much harder to prove than Geography Jesus, Mathematics Jesus, or Home Economics Jesus.
Unless he actually existed. It should be a piece of cake to prove if he was real. Look at all the famous people from then and before where we have solid proof they existed, but we have to take Jesus on faith alone. If a fake, well it's pretty hard to prove a negative.
FWIW, I'm completely ambivalent about this topic. I'm not a Christian and I don't really care if he was really a person or not.
