For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

You are still assuming Tacitus wrote that.

Was Tacitus's account of the fire true? I honestly can't see anyone fabricating a long and detailed account of a fire just so they could make a passing reference to Christians. Could Tacitus's original account have said that Nero blamed some other despised group and this was changed to Christians later on? It's possible but it seems that this is a minority view.

Tacitus On Christ - Authenticity And Historical Value

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.

Does it prove that Jesus existed? As Jesus wasn't mentioned by name I think the most sensible approach is -

James D. G. Dunn considers the passage as useful in establishing facts about early Christians, e.g. that there was a sizable number of Christians in Rome around AD 60.[10] Dunn states that Tacitus seems to be under the impression that Christians were some form of Judaism, although distinguished from them.[10] Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier state that in addition to establishing that there was a large body of Christians in Rome, the Tacitus passage provides two other important pieces of historical information, namely that by around AD 60 it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome and that even pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.[11]

Why didn't any Roman historians check to see if Pontius Pilate really had executed someone called Yeshua so they could write about him? News about previous Messiah claimants had probably filtered back to the city because they'd started revolts.

Jewish Messiah Claimants

Simon of Peraea (c. 4 BCE), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans.[3]
Athronges (c. 3 CE),[4] a shepherd turned rebel leader.
Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.

If Tacitus's passing reference to Christians is authentic (and it seems that most modern scholars do think that) the general attitude in Rome was probably "Another idiot got himself executed and these morons started a religion about it." The Romans were pagans at the time so they wouldn't have regarded Christian claims of a divine being coming back from the dead as having novelty value.

Now to the Historicity of Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7] While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity[8][9][10][11] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]

The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.[106][107][108][109] Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the notion that Jesus never existed has little scholarly support, and although some modern scholars adhere to it, they remain a distinct minority; virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe that his existence can be established.[5][110][111]

You've chosen to believe the distinct minority of scholars who insist that Jesus never existed. I take the attitude that he might have existed and Tacitus's report about Christian beliefs might be authentic. I don't regard the idea that there might have been a real man underneath the myths and fabrications as being a threat to atheism. After all, it doesn't prove that the Christian religion is true.

PS: Just thought of something else if Tacitus's mention of Christians is authentic. The word Christus wouldn't have been of Earth shattering importance to Tacitus - it's the Latinised version of the Greek word meaning anointed which was how Greek speakers had translated mashiah. The Romans were up to their ears in Jewish Messiahs and Tacitus would have regarded the idea of a Messiah as being a mischievous superstition. He had no idea that Christianity would become a major religion so it looks like he made a very brief explanation of who Christians were for future readers - they were named after a Messiah who'd been executed by Pontius Pilate. He'd have had no incentive to write a biography of the executed man because he didn't do anything interesting like starting a revolt.