Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

Also, I don't know why you said there is ''no evidence'' for Jesus - there's about as much evidence as one would expect for a 1st century preacher - we have 2 historical references to him which I explained.

Which only repeat what christians said at that time. Color me not impressed, since that's kind of expected. Outside the gospels there's absolutely no evidence for Jesus acutally being real.

People, you actually have to look up what being a historian or author actually meant in the old world. It was taking oral history at face value without checking the sources. It was also painting an ideal instead or reality and transporting an agenda wasn't frowned upon. So, Tacitus is only evidence for christians existing and making certain claims at the time.

They do not ''only repeat what Christians said at the time'' --- I had posted earlier but Tacticus, an anti-Christian had largely made sure that he would not just ''repeat claims'' - that's a simplification of what Tacticus would do, and in context, it doesn't really make sense.

And as I said, Tacticus would be the last person to paint an ''ideal'' given that hated Christians and saw them as evil.

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all. This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could. He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt. He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead. On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred {"during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus. But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects. None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus. There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least quite plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.