• schnapsidee@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not a historian, but Tacitus definitely mentioned Jesus’ crucifixion. Saying there are a “a lot” of source is an exaggeration, you’re right about that, but there’s basically no doubt that Jesus was a real, historical figure. (I’m not saying that you’re disputing that, I’m just still stuck on the guy actually thinking that Jesus wasn’t real.)

    Obviously Christian sources can’t be taken at face value, but there’s enough corroborating evidence - be it archaeological or written - that proves that at least some of the things in the gospels are based on facts, even if it’s certainly embellished and a lot of it likely just made up and/or warped over time.

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Issue with Tacitus is he wrote about Jesus over 70 years after he allegedly died. After a Christian movement was already under way.

      And yes I do think Jesus was a real historical figure.

      But we have very little actual history on him, that’s all.

    • quinnly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Annals of Tacitus were lost throughout history and many of the passages (including the ones that mention Christ) were rewritten in the 11th century by Christian monks. We cannot trust it as an historical source any more than we can trust the Bible itself