It's time for you to wiggle little sheep!<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.
please explain this... Take your time...
Crack open a Gideons and check this out.
Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.
So, since your Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.
Irony meter goes boom!
Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus?
After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.