Judge Strange—­writing on another point—­gives us an argument against the authenticity of this passage:  “As Josephus made Rome his place of abode from the year 70 to the end of the century, there inditing his history of all that concerned the Jews, it is apparent that, had there been a sect flourishing in the city who were proclaiming the risen Jesus as the Messiah in his time, the circumstance was one this careful and discerning writer could not have failed to notice and to comment on” ("Portraiture and Mission of Jesus,” p. 15).  It is, indeed, passing strange that Josephus, who tells us so much about false Messiahs and their followers, should omit—­as he must have done if this passage of Tacitus be authentic—­all reference to this additional false Messiah, whose followers in the very city where Josephus was living, underwent such terrible tortures, either during his residence there, or immediately before it.  Burning men, used as torches, adherents of a Jewish Messiah, ought surely to have been unusual enough to have attracted his attention.  We may add to these arguments that, supposing such a passage were really written by Tacitus, the two lines regarding Christus look much like an interpolation, as the remainder would run more connectedly if they were omitted.  But the whole passage is of more than doubtful authenticity, being in itself incredible, if the Acts and the Epistles of the New Testament be true; for this persecution is said to have occurred during the reign of Nero, during which Paul abode in Rome, teaching in peace, “no man forbidding him” (Acts xxviii. 31); during which, also, he wrote to the Romans that they need not be afraid of the government if they did right (Romans xii. 34); clearly, if these passages are true, the account in Tacitus must be false; and as he himself had no reason for composing such a tale, it must have been forged by Christians to glorify their creed.

The extreme ease with which this passage might have been inserted in all editions of Tacitus used in modern times arises from the fact that all such editions are but copies of one single Ms., which was in the possession of one single individual; the solitary owner might make any interpolations he pleased, and there was no second copy by which his accuracy might be tested.  “The first publication of any part of the ‘Annals of Tacitus’ was by Johannes de Spire, at Venice, in the year 1468—­his imprint being made from a single Ms., in his own power and possession only, and purporting to have been written in the eighth century.... from this all other MSS. and printed copies of the works of Tacitus are derived.” ("Diegesis,” p. 373.)