How many times must I remind you about your faulty logic?<quoted text>
But this doesn't indicate that Tacitus didn't write it. This is clearly a case of a later scribe correcting what was believed to be a misspelling. In ancient Rome, Christians were commonly called Chrestians because they (and Tacitus) had previously thought that Chrestus was a name rather than a title. They had mistranslated "Christ" which is the Hebrew word for "Messiah". That a later scribe corrected the misspelling doesn't mean that Tacitus didn't write it. In fact, none of the original Annals of Rome exist anymore. We have copies. Spelling corrections were common in those days. It doesn't change the meaning at all. Teachers correct spelling errors every day. Does that mean the student didn't write the paper?
Now, as to your charge that I'm erecting straw men, go ahead and prove me wrong by answering my questions honestly.
1) Do you accept the Tacitus history of Augustus Caesar as accurate?
2) Do you accept the Josephus historical account of Herod Agrippa?
3) Do you accept Pliny the Younger's description of the Mount Vesuvius volcanic eruption as accurate?
I will accept answers of yes or no to these questions. They're simple. Either you accept them or you don't.
If you do accept all of them as historically accurate, then it shows you have bias against only those passages that speak of Jesus or make any kind of reference to him as a historical person.
If you don't accept them as historically accurate, then we might as well just wipe out all we know of ancient Hebrew and Roman history since these are probably our very best historians from that era in human history.
Either way, you've cornered yourself. Now go ahead and wiggle out of this conundrum.
Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.
In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):
"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 at this day."
The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity.
In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.
All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.
'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Caesar by comparison is easily verified.