Mythicist Christ, what is the objection? II

[Free]

 
You failed to qualify your alternative possibility by providing an argument substantiated with evidence. 

Since we know Christus is a title and not a proper name, then obviously the person behind the title would have a name. Unless you think Pontius Pilate crucified a mythical person who didn't exist during the reign of Tiberius? No, Tacitus is saying that Christ was a person who Pilate crucified.

Therefore you are obligated to present some evidence of how this person could be someone other than Jesus, and then show evidence that the Christians were named after him as opposed to it being Jesus.

There is something called "Evidence of absence"  I'll only give one example  ... you get confused easily.

Pliny the Younger tortured and interviewed Christians, Yet he does not speak of 'Jesus', yet like his friend Tacitus. he refers to "Christ", not 'Jesus'.

I have been teaching Evidence of Absence for years, including on this forum and TTA. You have not displayed any use of it here.

Pliny the Younger, like Tacitus, likely never knew the name Jesus, or if they even heard it, would not likely know how to translate it to Greek or Latin well enough to spell it. The name Jesus is Hebrew. But the name "Christ" is Greek, and Christ was a Greek word before Jesus ever existed.

Hence, both Pliny and Tacitus would know the Greek word "Christ," but not the Hebrew name Jesus. Now I will give you a real example of Evidence of Absence:

As mentioned in a previous post, the evidence within Annals shows that not once did Tacitus name one single Jew. He used no Jewish words whatsoever. This is Evidence of Absence in which the absence of any knowledge of Jewish names of anything or anyone by Tacitus demonstrates that he is not at all familiar with Jewish words, names etc. He barely speaks about the Jews at all, other than say they caused a commotion.

And that is how Evidence of Absence is employed.

Evidence of Absence:

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

And the evidence indicates that Tacitus is missing knowledge of Jewish words, names, and terms, as well as knowledge of the Jewish culture.

You are assuming Pontius Pilate crucified someone called 'Jesus' or even 'Christus'  ... you have no way of knowing whether Tacitus was just filling in the gaps of the Christian myth by naming the Prefect at the time of the alleged crucifixion.

There may or may not have been a crucifixion, so why would I suggest any name?  ... because you assert shit doesn't obligate me to insert shit to refute you.

Your understate the position of me and other historians by concluding that we make a mere assumption. Obviously you haven't studied the Historical method yet to understand how we are arrive at a conclusion supported by the evidence.  Hereis an example of a couple relevant things from the Historical method:

Procedures for contradictory sources:

"1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.

(All available other sources agree with Tacitus that the leader of the Christian sect was entitled "Christ," and was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. All other available sources conclude that the name of this Christ was Jesus.)

3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

(In this case, the source is Tactius. His version is confirmed by other outside authorities.)

6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced."

(With Tacitus, Josephus, Paul, 1st Clement etc, we have far more than just two independant sources.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...ry_sources

That's just a very small part of how historians determine if something is historical or not. But even this alone is more than enough to conclude that Tacitus is, in fact, talking about Jesus.