Quote:A. To be a primary source it would have to be an actual document recorded by Tacitus not a copy made hundreds of years later.
Except Tacitus wrote his works, not hundreds of years later, but approximately 75 years after the purported crucifixion. He is considered a near contemporary because he was born in the mid 1st century.
Tacitus's works are indeed considered a Primary Source for the crucifixion of Jesus due to his works being a Roman historical record. All too often we see people looking at his text regarding Christ and think it's some kind of Christian record just because it mentioned the crucifixion of Christ. But what these people neglect to observe is that Tacitus records by name both the Roman executioner, Pilate, and the Emperor at the time, Tiberius. They do not understand that Tacitus is relating Roman history here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Christian history or Christian beliefs.
All throughout his works Tacitus names his sources within each section and story-line. He names official roman records, and the works of previous Roman historians as sources. What he does not name as a source is anything that is not Roman. All his sources are regarded and listed as Roman sources only.
The section on Christ is in regards to the Great Fires of Rome, and how Nero was being blamed for starting those fires. At the very beginning of this section, Tacitus tells us his sources:
"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain,
as authors have given both accounts ..." -
Annals XV
This is clear evidence that Tacitus was sourcing the written works of previous historical authors who wrote about the Great Fires of Rome.
Roman history books are Roman records of Roman history. They were no different in regards to their objective than history books we read today; both record history.
Therefore, Tacitus names his sources for the Great Fires of Rome, which includes the part about Christ. You see, he's writing about the Great Fires of Rome, not about Christ or the Christians.
And he names his sources as being the historical records of Roman authors who came before him.
And in all fairness, this strong point should be acknowledged in the interests of intellectual honesty, and should never be denied in the interests of personal bias.
Quote:B. It is open to debate whether or not Tacitus actually wrote about Christ or if those mentions were added centuries later by Christian Monks. i.e. forgeries.
No evidence for forgery at all. The best anyone can come up with is a copy of Tacitus that spelled "Chrestians" and was changed to "Christians." But the very same people who say that it originally said Chrestians also say it was a complete interpolation from the other side of their mouth. So which is it? Did it originally say Chrestians, or was it a complete interpolation? It can't be both, so make up your mind and then show evidence to prove the claim.
Quote:C. Jesus, if he existed, was dead before Tacitus was born. That kind of rules him out as primary source for the existence of Jesus. He could be a primary source about Christians, but not Christ.
Like I said, Tacitus is a primary source for Roman history, not Christ, or the Christians. His work is a primary source for a Roman record of the crucifixion of Christ by the Romans.