Does Tacitus' testimony prove the crucifixion of Christ historically? A response to the delusions of Christians

 

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God and upon all the prophets, messengers, and messengers.

Our Christian friends cite the words of the Roman historian Tacitus to prove the crucifixion of Christ historically, as if they had brought conclusive, indisputable evidence.
We will discuss this imaginary evidence and refute it scientifically, God willing.
Who is Tacitus?

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD). He was a historian and chief magistrate of a province of the Roman Empire. Much of his writing has been lost, the most important of which are parts of the Annals and the Histories, his greatest historical works. The two books focus on the reign of the Roman emperors Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero, the rulers of the so-called Year of the Four Emperors, and cover the period from the death of Augustus (AD 14) to the death of Domitian (AD 96). There are large gaps in the text of his surviving works, including one that is four books (four parts) long in the Annals.

Father Abdel-Masih Basit says:

Roman history: Roman history attests to the veracity of the incident, according to Cornelius Tacitus (55-125 AD), a Roman author who lived during the reign of six emperors and was called the great historian of Rome. FFBruce said that Tacitus, by virtue of his relationship with the Roman government, was familiar with the reports of the governors of the provinces of the empire and with the official records of the state. In his books, “Annals and Histories,” he referred to Christ three times, the most important of which is his statement in the third part of the Annals: “In order to get rid of the accusation (i.e. the burning of Rome), Nero attached this crime to a hated class known as Christians, and he subjected them to the most severe torture. Christ, from whom Christians derive their name, had been subjected to the most severe punishment during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our governors called Pontius Pilate. A most harmful myth became popular, although it was suppressed for a short time, but it returned and became widespread not only in Judea, the first source of all evil, but it also spread in Rome, which became the focus of all the malicious and shameful things that began to come to it from all parts of the world.”

This is what Tacitus said about Jesus in his book Annals, 15.44. Do Tacitus’ words prove the crucifixion of Christ historically?
First,
Tacitus did not live during the crucifixion, but was born about 28 years after the crucifixion. However, Tacitus’ book in which he mentioned these words was written around 115 AD. So there is a huge gap between the original event (the crucifixion) and Tacitus’ writing? Can these words be used as evidence in an important topic like this?

Second,
where did Tacitus get his information from?
Christians argue that the source of Tacitus' information is a Roman record, but there is no evidence for this statement,
and Tacitus could not have obtained his information from Roman records for the following reasons:
1- Tacitus says that Pontius Pilate was the imperial agent,

and this is incorrect and is a historical paradox. If Tacitus had obtained his information from Roman records, he would not have made such a mistake,
says scholar Robert Van Voorst.



2- If Tacitus was quoting this statement from official records, he would have referred to Jesus by his name, not Christus.
3- It is unlikely that Roman records existed at the time of Tacitus, as the records were apparently burned in 64 AD when Rome was destroyed, and again in 80 AD, when the libraries of Rome were destroyed.
4- It is ironic that Tacitus would spend hours or days searching through the Roman archives to verify information about a religion and people that he does not care about and even hates.
* Christians object and say that Tacitus is an accurate and historically reliable historian who only transmits documented information.
The response:
Tacitus had no problem including false and historically incorrect information and rumors that are correct in literature or morals.
This is confirmed by the scholar specializing in the works of Tacitus, Reynold Mellor


, the translation,
along with transmitting rumors that cannot be verified; Tacitus sometimes reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. For example, when reporting on Augustus’s journey to reconcile with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa from returning to office.


The context of the speech was simply to explain the origin of the term “Christians,” which in turn was done in the context of documenting Nero’s accounts. Tacitus refers to “Christus” in the context of a moral attack on Nero. This is the kind of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat non-historical information. If Tacitus was willing to repeat non-historical information in such a context, he would certainly be willing to repeat uncontroversial, incidental, and historical information (such as the history of Jesus) without directly verifying it. Furthermore, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus was even considering investigating whether “Christ” actually existed, especially given that Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition.”
Tacitus was not interested in Christianity or Judaism, and his information about Jews and Christians is “confused,” as Tacitus scholar Ronald Mellor has argued.




Scholars assert that Tacitus got his information from Christians themselves. “


The most distinguished scholar of historical Jesus research,” as John Meyer describes it, “Ed Parrish Sanders” argues that Tacitus’s information came from Christians.



Distinguished Christian scholar Professor Richard Thomas France confirms that Tacitus' information came from Christians


Source online:
http://leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html

Christian scholar Robert Van Voorst favors Christians as the




source of Tacitus' information Scholar and theologian Leonard Gobelt confirms that Tacitus' information came from Christians


The famous scholar Bart Ehrman (although he believes in the historical existence of Christ and his crucifixion) confirms that Tacitus' information came from not Roman records but from Christians or what is said



The famous Christian scholar William Lane Craig confirms that Tacitus' information came from Christians,
saying
"no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
Source
William Lane Craig, "John Dominic Crossan and the Resurrection" The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus (ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O'Collins, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 252, n. 4.

Praise be to God Almighty
-