They should have known better

[achilles12604]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

This transaction occurred in the Was the TF inserted thread. And I find it to be a topic unto itself.


Is my view on this matter sound? I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public. And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disproven.

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic? How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas, and move into a totally new and different religion when their totally outrageous and absurd claims were so blatently and obviously false?

They should have known better.


Please evaluate the above 3 points of uniqueness and comment. Am I off my rocker? Are there other religions which can boast the same unique situations as Christianity? Do these situations have an impact on the verifiability and validity of Christian claims as a whole?

[achilles12604]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.

The bolded section is the place where the AFS falls apart usually. Another example of this being applied is in the "Was the TF inserted"

[Goat]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.

The bolded section is the place where the AFS falls apart usually. Another example of this being applied is in the "Was the TF inserted"

Let's look at the time frame of those. Tacitus was about 115 c.e. It is most likely he got his information from Christians.

The Talmud was written down in the late 2nd century to the 6th century, with a number of redactions. It is certainly after the split of Christianity and the Jewish faith, and well after the gospel accusing the Sanhedrin of all sorts of illegalities came out. It is evidence of reacting against that gospel, but not of a primary source for Jesus. The amount of time is too far away.

[achilles12604]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.

The bolded section is the place where the AFS falls apart usually. Another example of this being applied is in the "Was the TF inserted"

Let's look at the time frame of those. Tacitus was about 115 c.e. It is most likely he got his information from Christians.

So your argument hinges on a well respected Roman Historian citing a cult members comments ignoring the official roman records?

You don't think it more likely that he was citing Roman Records which have since been destroyed?

[Goat]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.

The bolded section is the place where the AFS falls apart usually. Another example of this being applied is in the "Was the TF inserted"

Let's look at the time frame of those. Tacitus was about 115 c.e. It is most likely he got his information from Christians.

So your argument hinges on a well respected Roman Historian citing a cult members comments ignoring the official roman records?

You don't think it more likely that he was citing Roman Records which have since been destroyed?

No, I don't. He might have been, but there is no evidence for it. He also was a friend of Pilney the younger, who wrote the empire asking for advice about Christians.

I don't know Tacitus's sources, and neither do you.

I do know that Christians had reached Rome by that time. I DO know that it is most likely that most of the Gospels were written and in use. I can not discount hsi getting information directly or indirectly from Christians. I can not discount it might be from official records. Because of the time frame (about 80 years after the alleged event), I know that I can not count it as being uncorrupted from Christian sources. Let's look at the writing of Tacitus.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Tacitus used the name "Christus" for Jesus. According to the Gospels, Jesus did not use the term 'Christ' for himself. Any Roman sources would have
used the name Jesus (Or a variation on that theme). Instead, Tacitus used a Greek name similar to the title given Jesus by the early Christians. In my opinion. that eliminates the probability that Tacitus used official Roman records.


He could have, but there is no evidence that he did, and the use of the name "Christus" makes that a lesser possiblity.

[achilles12604]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.

The bolded section is the place where the AFS falls apart usually. Another example of this being applied is in the "Was the TF inserted"

Let's look at the time frame of those. Tacitus was about 115 c.e. It is most likely he got his information from Christians.

So your argument hinges on a well respected Roman Historian citing a cult members comments ignoring the official roman records?

You don't think it more likely that he was citing Roman Records which have since been destroyed?

No, I don't. He might have been, but there is no evidence for it. He also was a friend of Pilney the younger, who wrote the empire asking for advice about Christians.

I don't know Tacitus's sources, and neither do you.

Granted. Do you consider it prudent to formulate a conclusion about one question, based on assumptions about another?

This is exactly what you have done and you have no evidence to even support yet another conspiracy theory.

I do know that Christians had reached Rome by that time. I DO know that it is most likely that most of the Gospels were written and in use. I can not discount hsi getting information directly or indirectly from Christians. I can not discount it might be from official records. Because of the time frame (about 80 years after the alleged event), I know that I can not count it as being uncorrupted from Christian sources. Let's look at the writing of Tacitus.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Tacitus used the name "Christus" for Jesus. According to the Gospels, Jesus did not use the term 'Christ' for himself. Any Roman sources would have
used the name Jesus (Or a variation on that theme). Instead, Tacitus used a Greek name similar to the title given Jesus by the early Christians. In my opinion. that eliminates the probability that Tacitus used official Roman records.


He could have, but there is no evidence that he did, and the use of the name "Christus" makes that a lesser possiblity.

Can you supply ANY other example of this Historian supplicating his reports? Was his reputation one of high or low esteem in the eyes of his collegues?

[Goat]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.

The bolded section is the place where the AFS falls apart usually. Another example of this being applied is in the "Was the TF inserted"

Let's look at the time frame of those. Tacitus was about 115 c.e. It is most likely he got his information from Christians.

So your argument hinges on a well respected Roman Historian citing a cult members comments ignoring the official roman records?

You don't think it more likely that he was citing Roman Records which have since been destroyed?

No, I don't. He might have been, but there is no evidence for it. He also was a friend of Pilney the younger, who wrote the empire asking for advice about Christians.

I don't know Tacitus's sources, and neither do you.

Granted. Do you consider it prudent to formulate a conclusion about one question, based on assumptions about another?

This is exactly what you have done and you have no evidence to even support yet another conspiracy theory.

I do know that Christians had reached Rome by that time. I DO know that it is most likely that most of the Gospels were written and in use. I can not discount hsi getting information directly or indirectly from Christians. I can not discount it might be from official records. Because of the time frame (about 80 years after the alleged event), I know that I can not count it as being uncorrupted from Christian sources. Let's look at the writing of Tacitus.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Tacitus used the name "Christus" for Jesus. According to the Gospels, Jesus did not use the term 'Christ' for himself. Any Roman sources would have
used the name Jesus (Or a variation on that theme). Instead, Tacitus used a Greek name similar to the title given Jesus by the early Christians. In my opinion. that eliminates the probability that Tacitus used official Roman records.


He could have, but there is no evidence that he did, and the use of the name "Christus" makes that a lesser possiblity.

Can you supply ANY other example of this Historian supplicating his reports? Was his reputation one of high or low esteem in the eyes of his collegues?

Well, it depends.. there have been a number of times that he based reports on rumors. He was very contemptuous of non-Romans, and apparently was less likely to follow up on his information when it comes to that. Apparently, the quality of Tacitus's work was uneven, depending on the subject matter.

Come to think of it, since he used 'Christus' rather than Christ, and Christus was a Greek name, it probably was not directly from a Christian source either, since roman records would have said Jesus, and if he got it directly from a Christian, he would have used 'Christ'.

[achilles12604]

Can you supply ANY other example of this Historian supplicating his reports? Was his reputation one of high or low esteem in the eyes of his collegues?

Well, it depends.. there have been a number of times that he based reports on rumors. He was very contemptuous of non-Romans, and apparently was less likely to follow up on his information when it comes to that. Apparently, the quality of Tacitus's work was uneven, depending on the subject matter.

Come to think of it, since he used 'Christus' rather than Christ, and Christus was a Greek name, it probably was not directly from a Christian source either, since roman records would have said Jesus, and if he got it directly from a Christian, he would have used 'Christ'.

I asked if you could PRESENT. I didn't ask if you could muse.

Evidence goes a lot farther than your say so.

Show me a source which proves Tacitus cited rumors as facts.

[Goat]

Show me a source which proves Tacitus cited rumors as facts.

Why certainly

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

To be sure, all Tacitean scholars believe that Tacitus in general was a very reliable historian who was trustworthy, critical of his sources, and usually accurate.[91] But there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that

Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]

There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition." (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I'm willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term "Mormon" at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:

Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]

That Tacitus was uninterested in Christianity is confirmed by Mellor:

For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus's good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners--Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike--and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavised on court intrigues.[97]

Mellor concludes that Tacitus "scorned or merely ignored" the Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.[98] Since the historicity of Jesus was not in doubt at the time Tacitus wrote and since Tacitus' reference to Christus is entirely incidental, Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the historicity of Jesus. As far as Tacitus and his "political peers" would have been concerned, the fact that Tacitus did not investigate the historicity of Jesus would have been no strike against Tacitus' "prestige and honor."[99] On the contrary, Tacitus still would have been considered to be exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote![100]

and

Concerning (iv) and (vi), Grant notes that Tacitus was only skeptical "on occasion," that he "persistent[ly] and lamentabl[y]" accepted many rumors, and that he "conducted extremely little independent research, quite often [he] quotes the sources that were available to him,"[103] a fact that is consistent with the hypothesis that Tacitus simply repeated what he learned from Christian sources. Grant quotes the following excerpt from Goodyear:

One feature very damaging to Tacitus's credit is the manner in which he employs rumores. Of course, a historian may properly report the state of public opinion at particular times, or use the views of contemporaries on major historical figures as a form of 'indirect characterisation' of them. But Tacitus often goes far beyond this.

He implants grave suspicions which he neither substantiates nor refutes. Their cumulative effect can be damning and distorting.... Time and again Tacitus is ready with an unpleasant motive, susceptible neither of proof nor of disproof.[104]

[achilles12604]

Show me a source which proves Tacitus cited rumors as facts.

Why certainly

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

To be sure, all Tacitean scholars believe that Tacitus in general was a very reliable historian who was trustworthy, critical of his sources, and usually accurate.[91] But there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that

Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]

There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition." (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I'm willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term "Mormon" at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:

Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]

That Tacitus was uninterested in Christianity is confirmed by Mellor:

For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus's good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners--Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike--and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavised on court intrigues.[97]

Mellor concludes that Tacitus "scorned or merely ignored" the Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.[98] Since the historicity of Jesus was not in doubt at the time Tacitus wrote and since Tacitus' reference to Christus is entirely incidental, Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the historicity of Jesus. As far as Tacitus and his "political peers" would have been concerned, the fact that Tacitus did not investigate the historicity of Jesus would have been no strike against Tacitus' "prestige and honor."[99] On the contrary, Tacitus still would have been considered to be exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote![100]

and

Concerning (iv) and (vi), Grant notes that Tacitus was only skeptical "on occasion," that he "persistent[ly] and lamentabl[y]" accepted many rumors, and that he "conducted extremely little independent research, quite often [he] quotes the sources that were available to him,"[103] a fact that is consistent with the hypothesis that Tacitus simply repeated what he learned from Christian sources. Grant quotes the following excerpt from Goodyear:

One feature very damaging to Tacitus's credit is the manner in which he employs rumores. Of course, a historian may properly report the state of public opinion at particular times, or use the views of contemporaries on major historical figures as a form of 'indirect characterisation' of them. But Tacitus often goes far beyond this.

He implants grave suspicions which he neither substantiates nor refutes. Their cumulative effect can be damning and distorting.... Time and again Tacitus is ready with an unpleasant motive, susceptible neither of proof nor of disproof.[104]

Anything from a neutral source instead of one known for skewing facts a particular direction? Shall I pull out Answers in Genesis during the next flood debate?

Ok fine, I shall read this. Let's see.

[Goat]

Show me a source which proves Tacitus cited rumors as facts.

Why certainly

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

To be sure, all Tacitean scholars believe that Tacitus in general was a very reliable historian who was trustworthy, critical of his sources, and usually accurate.[91] But there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that

Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]

There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition." (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I'm willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term "Mormon" at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:

Christianity is not part of Tacitus's history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero's vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]

That Tacitus was uninterested in Christianity is confirmed by Mellor:

For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus's good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners--Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike--and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavised on court intrigues.[97]

Mellor concludes that Tacitus "scorned or merely ignored" the Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.[98] Since the historicity of Jesus was not in doubt at the time Tacitus wrote and since Tacitus' reference to Christus is entirely incidental, Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the historicity of Jesus. As far as Tacitus and his "political peers" would have been concerned, the fact that Tacitus did not investigate the historicity of Jesus would have been no strike against Tacitus' "prestige and honor."[99] On the contrary, Tacitus still would have been considered to be exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote![100]

and

Concerning (iv) and (vi), Grant notes that Tacitus was only skeptical "on occasion," that he "persistent[ly] and lamentabl[y]" accepted many rumors, and that he "conducted extremely little independent research, quite often [he] quotes the sources that were available to him,"[103] a fact that is consistent with the hypothesis that Tacitus simply repeated what he learned from Christian sources. Grant quotes the following excerpt from Goodyear:

One feature very damaging to Tacitus's credit is the manner in which he employs rumores. Of course, a historian may properly report the state of public opinion at particular times, or use the views of contemporaries on major historical figures as a form of 'indirect characterisation' of them. But Tacitus often goes far beyond this.

He implants grave suspicions which he neither substantiates nor refutes. Their cumulative effect can be damning and distorting.... Time and again Tacitus is ready with an unpleasant motive, susceptible neither of proof nor of disproof.[104]

Anything from a neutral source instead of one known for skewing facts a particular direction? Shall I pull out Answers in Genesis during the next flood debate?

Ok fine, I shall read this. Let's see.

You may read it, of course. There are a number of Christian scholars that are quoted in that. It all comes down to.. we don't know his source, and there is no reason to think that he was using Roman records for Jesus, since his subject matter was not Christians per say, but Nero.