People who believe Jesus never existed, what are your thoughts on the writings of Cornelius Tacitus?
And also to those who contend that there are no records of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible and to those that contend that Jesus is a fictional character. Below is an excerpt from Book XV of the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus believed to have been written in the early 100's. Tacitus was a former Roman Governor of Britain and of Aquitania and a respected Roman historian known to be reliable. In it he mentions that Christ existed and was executed; that he had followers; and that Emperor Nero, WHO DIED IN 68 A.D., killed Christians, including by crucifixion. Plus Tacitus, being Roman, had no reason nor motive to promote Jesus Christ. In fact he even calls following Christ "evil".
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty under the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part find their center and became popular. Accordingly, they first arrested all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much for their crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skin of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burned, to serve a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car, Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
I know this question has been asked before; but I want to see what excuses people come up with this time.
Well Jesus' actual name was Yeshua; the name "Jesus" in an English variation that didn't appear until about the 1500's.
Janet: "But I do call into question a story that was written about someone more then 67yrs after their "death"." Ok so then by your logic if someone wrote about, say, former Vice President Charles Curtis today, you would also "call it into question"?
To the people who say that it is forged (Taive and Canadian Atheist); like many have argued in the past, why would they still paint Christianity as being so bad for, especially a Catholic bishop like Eusebius? If he or anyone else was trying to fake a writing and pass it off as that of a historian's; then logic would stand to dictate that they wouldn't write that that Christ's followers were committing "abominations" and were "evil". Nor would a Catholic bishop with a Christianity promoting agenda write that Christians had a "hatred against mankind".
lainiebsky: Yes of course I know when he wrote it; hence why I specifically mentioned it in one of my opening sentences. The early 100's is still pretty early. While Tacitus' exact date of death is not known; most sources list it as being 120. My point was that so many people are Hell bent on sticking to their contention that there is NO mention of Jesus outside of the Gospels.
Nic4: He also mentions the actual person that they follow (although yes it is by title and not by name as skeptik points out; but also it was a common reference to Jesus) and that they were being persecuted. If Jesus supposedly never existed; then how would he have so many followers in 35 or less years after his death and resurrection, enough for Nero to launch crusade against them?
Mike K.: "This doesn't change the fact that none of the historians, writers, philosophers, teachers, leaders, etc. alive and aware at the time Jesus was said to have lived never heard of him or wrote of him. There is a complete absence of records of him from that time, and this was one of the most documented eras in human history...and doesn't give any real account on the life of Christus. "
Well; as you know Jesus' following was much bigger AFTER his lifetime. Jesus, who may I remind you only had a three year ministry; was not known enough outside of the Palestine area until after his resurrection.
What I mean was that Tacitus' job or aim was to write of the Roman Empire; not to write a biography of a Jew. But he DID write of the EFFECTS of Jesus' presence on the Roman Empire; both in Judea and Rome.
skeptic: It's obviously an English translation.
Seriously some people are ridiculous. If a historian was writing about ANY other figure in the history of time, any emperor or caesar or king or scientist or general or explorer or writer or politician or whatever the writing would never be questioned once. But if it's about Jesus; oh no; gotta be a fake. Gotta be attacked. I agree Tacitus was not an eyewitness; but it IS a mention of Jesus outside of the Bible.