People who believe Jesus never existed, what are your thoughts on the writings of Cornelius Tacitus?

No excuse

Any body can say.."proven fakes"...that doesn't mean they are in fact fake.

I think that even if Tacitus HAD written that passage (and it's almost certain he didn't) it would be proof that he didn't know what he was talking about.

He used 'Christus' as a proper name. Anyone who knew Greek - and he definitely should have - knew that the word 'Khristós' was actually a TITLE meaning 'the anointed one.' And that it was the only way it was used at the time.

Had Tacitus, being the educated and trustworthy man that he was, actually written about this person, he would have called him 'The Christus.' But then, Tacitus would never have been in a position to know first-hand of the existence of Jesus anyway.

By the time Eusebius came along, the term 'Christ' had entered common usage among Christians as a name, rather than a title. Which is evidence that Eusebius (or someone like him) inserted the reference into Tacitus. It is also interesting that no contemporaries of Tacitus use this passage when quoting his Annals on the persecution of Christians by Nero.

Why do you suppose that is?

1) Tacitus was NOT alive during the supposed life of Christ but apparently was around 100 years later. Given the historical methods of the time, he's not inherently as reliable a source as the dozens of historians who were alive at the time (historians that never once mentioned Christ).

2) Tacitus is speaking more directly about the christians who we know for a fact existed back then. He mentions "Christus" in passing before referring to the "superstition" itself...

3) 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...

All this shows is that Christians existed (which we know) and that even back then they believed their figurehead was killed by Pontius Pilatus. It doesn't mean Tacitus verified his information about Jesus, he was clearly more concerned about the people and their "mischievous superstition" and doesn't give any real account on the life of Christus.

4) Tacitus himself hasn't always been the most accurate with his claims, but then "history" writers back in that era wrote more of what they heard and the local lore, they didn't always go and check facts - especially about something 100 years before...

5) Christians have a long and well established history of tampering with historical documents and forging extra passages to support their faith... I'm not saying that necessarily happened here, but it's possible.

Did you happen to notice the date when Tacitus was writing? Over 80 years after the crucifixion.

He was not an eyewitness and any actual eyewitnesses would have been dead. He was passing on the story as he understood it, a story which was well-established by the time he wrote his history.

I happen to believe that Jesus existed; however, mistaking this for an accurate contemporary account is a mistake no careful historian would make.

EDIT: People say that there are no independent contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, written by someone who was there - no Roman records, no reports from observers, nothing. That is perfectly true. The only accounts we have were written decades after his death by those who were relying on hearsay.

Sorry but i'm Catholic and even most Catholic scholars doubt the authenticity of it.And no one in the world has more 1st century material in there possession than the Catholic Church at the Vatican.Contrary to what a lot of people would like to believe the Catholic Church questions a lot of the material it has such as the Didache and the often passed around belief that the Apostles creed was written by the Apostles and each Apostle contributed his words to it.

So what, maybe he did exist as a deluded man who thought he was God (not the first, nor the last to think that). One mans secular writings say very little about the truth of Jesus. Back then there wasn't TV,movies, internet and very few could read. They entertained themselves by telling stories. Just like any story, they get embellished as they are past along. Christianity is nothing more than embellished stories from earlier religions.

I would also like to point out that Josephus, spoke of Jesus. But he is written out as an non-credible source.

I, again, would also like to point out, that many crimes were charged by nero/caligula during this time. And the punishment for it was usually Crucifixion.

If you can give me a direct quote from a credible source that actually uses the name Jesus, then I would accept it.

I am aware that Jesus is English. You should know what I meant.

I like that you name tacitus, since his ONLY sentence on the subject is a 4th century forgery.

Has been known about for some time. The forgers name was Eubisius and he confessed on his death bed. The church suppressed that confession for centuries.

And the ONE person that WAS there at the time (Pliny the younger) who was a prolific political and religious writer in the area, NEVER mentions Jesus, not even once.

Why? Because the early christian forgers never got their hands on his works.

Funny how reality and history trumps mythology huh?

"I know this question has been asked before; but I want to see what excuses people come up with this time."

Excuses? You must be confusing that with something we call "historical fact". Hardly surprising, that's what your cult has been doing ever since Eubisius started revising church history.

Tacitus makes a late and BRIEF reference to followers of Christianity, long after the death of Jesus. Next!

Tacitus was alive decades after Jesus was supposed to have been killed. He is just telling of his followers and their stories.

When someone asks for a source outside the Bible, it means a CONTEMPORARY source.

Pontius Pilatus was praefectus, not procurator.