Yes, Tacitus Mentions The Historical Jesus 

"Considering subscribing" at the end 🤦🏿‍♂️😂

It's worth remembering that the gospels themselves were all four independently-written, same-era accounts later collected to settle this very question and spread the news they contain.

If Christians made it all up, the hoax is so elaborate and absolutely detailed I can only conclude the creator of the universe is behind it.

It's amazing to me the extent that people will go to dismiss good evidence when it doesn't fit their presupposed lies.

Former member of an atheist group and mocker of the faith. Thank you for these videos.

I recall a TY debate with an atheist who claimed that Tacitus was not a reputable historian. Ironically he had not read the article to the end because the author of the article had, in fact concluded that Tacitus was indeed a reputable historian! Of course that didn't change anything for the atheist.

Not only existed, but suffered and died for my salvation...

There has been in 19th century a historian, who made a joke about the unbelievers between theologians. He made a scientific prove, Napoleon had never lived but was an Apollo myth: His name was like, his mother was named Letizia, he rose in the East and perished in the Western sea, island of St. Helena! When I was 12 years old I have read a summary and laughed. It is the right way to deal with Bultmann & Co.

Binge watching your channel. Great work brother.

Wonderful content and great presentation, thank you! Keep up the wonderful work, and be diligent!

I literally saw some atheist arguing that it was not "Christus" but "Chrestus" Which is Complete different for them.

I used to be an atheist and believed what the Jesus mythers said. I didn't know any real history, despite believing I was only atheist because I was so knowledgeable. Boy was I wrong.

I'm a big fan of Jesus. :)

Most underrated apologetics channel

Excellent!! You just keep the good stuff coming.

I appreciate your videos man. Hopefully commenting etc helps. Keep up the good work!

Good books in your description!!!

let's go bro, your channel is quality

Amazing brother 🔥🔥

Commenting for the algorithm, great video!

So many great videos! You need more subs.

Can i translate your videos to portuguese and upload them to my channel giving the proper credits to you, your channel, your blog and your ministry in the description? Here in Brazil we, sadly, face a lacking on good/scholarly christian apologetics. People believe in christianity without having access to the intellectual side of it, and we want to change that as much as we can. It would help a lot if you accepted the request. Anyways, congratulations for your work!

All of the apostles except for John suffered horrible deaths for their preaching of Christ's Gospel. None of them recanted under threat of death of what they had witnessed Jesus say and do. One does not go to the grave for a known lie.

This is such a great channel

glad to see comments on here, which maintain academic scrutiny this video doesn't hold. you have a belief, and are seeking details and shaping them to fit that belief, which is unscientific

Hi Erik, I've been doing a lot of digging around for the historicity of Christ and one thing I've seen pop up over and over again is there could be "15-18 sources for Christ" if this is true, perhaps an idea for a future video? When trying to hunt down all these sources I can only find the commonly known sources like Josephus, Tacitus and Celcus.

Once again, best channel online. Hands down. May God bless you richly!

Pontious pilots letter is even more compelling as it’s an actual letter to the Roman leader Tiberius at the time Jesus exsisted and about him

Why didn't they just put it all on thumb drive?

Nice video keep it up!

Never read into this. I do remember my art history instructor at Shasta College stated during his lectures that Jesus is mentioned in numerous writings/sources from Classical Antiquity..

Hey Brother, it would be awesome if you made a video of the points in favor and against the authenticity of the shroud of turin!

Never mind the dude was born almost six decades AD.

...🍸extreme skepticism is a sort of intoxicating cocktail of arrogance, ignorance and gullibility...

Well done my friend!

Very interesting and balanced presentation. Thank you.

Doesn't mention the source, nothing on divinity, no original manuscript exists only copies. written in hindsight manner.

Tacitus did not source his information which is odd for a historian.

commenting because you have something to say < commenting to boost the video on youtube.

Commenting just to try and bump this epic video

TACITUS DEFENDED! TACITUS' statement: "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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." LIE #1 * R. T. France states that the TACITUS passage is "at best" just TACITUS repeating what he had heard through Christians. (WRONG!❌) REFUTES - First of all, TACITUS is widely known as One of the Greatest Roman Historian during Ancient times. The Annals was Tacitus' final work, and modern historians generally consider it his greatest writing. Historian Ronald Mellor calls it "Tacitus's crowning achievement", which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing". - Based on the context of the passage, it is very ridiculous to believe that TACITUS heard Christians say that Christianity was a "mischievous superstition" and "evil". The words are TOO NEGATIVE to come from Christians. - Paul Eddy states, as Rome's preeminent historian, TACITUS was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip - TACITUS was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources - Modern scholars believe that as a Roman senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus-the Roman senate's records-which provided a solid basis for his work. (The annals by Cornelius Tacitus, Anthony John Woodman 2004 ISBN 0-87220-558-4 pages x to xx) - TACITUS was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body. LIE #2 * TACITUS' statement was a Christian scribe interpolation (WRONG!❌) REFUTES - Andreas Köstenberger states that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe - Van Voorst also states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity - TACITUS clearly stated in the passage that Christianity was the "most mischievous superstition" and "the EVIL" in which Judæa was the source! - No true Christians would dare call their own faith as a "mischievous superstion" or "evil". This highly proves that the statement of TACITUS was genuine and not a forgery by Christian scribes! LIE #3 * TACITUS made a mistake by calling Pontius Pilate a "procurator" instead of a "prefect". (WRONG!❌) REFUTES - The fact that TACITUS called Pontius Pilate a "Procurator" instead of a "Prefect" only increases the authenticity of the statement and proves that it was really TACITUS who wrote the text and not interpolated by a Christian scribe! - Also, it was natural for TACITUS to use the word "Procurator" since the word was commonly used by Roman authorities during Ancient Rome. The word Procurator, Latin Procurator, plural Procuratores, [refers to] government financial agent in ancient Rome. Procurators were regularly appointed to official posts in the imperial administration of the provinces or in the departments of the imperial government concerning such matters as the grain supply, the mint, and the mines. Procurators of provinces supervised imperial finances in their respective jurisdictions. This matches Pontius Pilate's responsibility, since he had the power to inflict capital punishment, and he was also responsible for collecting tributes and taxes, and for disbursing funds, including the minting of coins. (Schwartz, Daniel R. (1992). "Pontius Pilate". In Freedman, David Noel; Herion, Gary A.; Graf, David F.; Pleins, John David; Beck, Astrid B. (eds.). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 5. New York: Doubleday. pp. 395-401. ISBN 0-385-19360-2.) ADDITIONALS: * Edward Gibbon (an English Historian who deeply studied the fall of Roman Empire) considered Tacitus the very model of the philosophic historian * Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus" * William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts * Scholars generally consider TACITUS' reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records * the editor of the 1907 Oxford Edition treated the passage (TACITUS' Annals) as genuine * Scholars such as Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd agree with John Meier's statement that "Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in TACITUS, the passage is obviously genuine."

Creative way to communicate truth. Keep it up!

Great work!!

I was not aware of this. Thank you.

Woah Thanks I learned something new I didn’t know even the way Tacitus wrote Goes against the idea that it was a Christian forgery

I am not a skeptic, I am in fact god fearing… videos like yours are essential in this age of deception and revisionism.

Great video😍

Well, I have a question. How can we be sure that official Roman records about Jesus crucifixion ever left Judea? Could Tacitus have even read the records of Pontus Pilate?

I find it fascinating that for 400 years after Tacitus wrote the tract there was no mention of Christians or Nero persecuting them. Some say it was fraudulently added but surely it's a miracle.

05:22. I just had an atheist make that claim, praise Jesus for guiding me to your answer.

Was Tacitus an ancestor of the emperor of the same name?

Where did Tacitus get those shades, it looks different from all the other ones you fit onto the other church Fathers and Christ's disciples?

Tacitus also says that Vespasianus performed miracles

He is just reporting what he heard. He's not an eyewitness. Just because there were Christians, and that they talked about him does not prove that Tacitus knew anything about an historic Jesus. Fail, you do.

I suggest if you can I would change your title. Because when I first read it I thought you were saying that Jesus was a myth. I enjoyed this as I am both a Christian and student of history.

Great report. It's a shame that several books of Tacitus' "Annals" were lost, as they covered the years that likely included Jesus' earthly ministry and crucifixion.

Sorry Christians, Tacitus lived to late for eye witnesses. LOL Give it up.

The existence of a cult worshiping Christos some 30 to 50 years after the date of the crucification is not proof of the existence of an historical Jesus. All it proves is that there was a cult which later became Christianity to claim more than that is to exhibit great confirmation bias

Awesome videos

Did Tacitus confirm also that Jesus was the Christ, as the author of the gospel narrative attributed to Mark claims - and the son of God as well?

Anything written after the gospels cannot be considered as independent. Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century and just reporting what christians believed. If you had writings from a Roman or Jewish source dated to the 30s AD that would be interesting. As it stands there are zero contemporary sources referring to Jesus. That doesn't mean he didn't exist but it does show the Jesus recorded in the gospels is largely if not entirely mythical.

There's not enough evidence for those who believe that Jesus didn't exist.

Was Tacitus not an alias/pen name used by Arrius C Piso ? Pretty sure it was. He mentions J C in several letters and writing here and there as to strengthen the Christianity story ..... for a story was all it was. The Romans kept meticulous records.

It demonstrates the existence of christians , not Jesus.

Jesus is to big for small minded people to take the risk of believing in Christ is a huge leap forward in the right direction good luck 🍀

tacitus wasn't even born until about fifty past Jesus' supposed death. anything he wrote regarding jesus was simply based upon stories, reliable or not, second or third hand that people were telling about jesus decades later. all it really proves is that people believed that jesus existed and stuff happened to him.

I saved this to my workman playlist, you obviously are a 'good' one.

The most obvious point about the quote from Tacitus is that he does not have his knowledge of Jesus from official records (and certainly not from personal knowledge). We know this because he gives the name of Jesus as Christus, not Jesus. Had there indeed been an official record from Pilate that Tacitus consulted, you can be sure Pilate would have given Jesus actual name rather than calling him simply 'Christus' (which means the same as Messiah). But if Tacitus did not obtain his knowledge of Jesus from official records, he can only have obtained it from the Christians themselves (perhaps second hand). It follows from this that Tacitus is only evidence that there were Christians in Rome in the time of Nero (something we already know from Paul's letters). "Testify"'s fallacy is the same as concluding that the angel Moroni is real simply because a tribe, named after him (the Mormons) exists even to this day.

The video’s conclusion, ‘Tacitus teaches us a lot about Jesus’, is a wild exaggeration. All that Tacitus tells us that Jesus lived in Judaea, that he was executed, and roughly when this happened. Certainly, this is evidence that the extreme mythicists are probably wrong, but that’s all; Tacitus tells us nothing at all about Jesus’s life or actions or teachings.

I'm an athiest, but I've never understood people who flat out deny Jesus existed. The evidence always seemed pretty solid to me. And I don’t get what anyone gains by arguing otherwise except satisfying an internal impulse towards contrarianism. We'll probably never get indisputable proof one way or another, you're never going to convince most Christian believers, and his effect on world history is very real regardless.

Nothing new here. The writings of Tacitus have been known and studied for centuries. So?

Tacitus mentioned Christians and not Jesus. Tacitus wasn't even born when Jesus was crucified. He is basically just reporting what Christians claimed happened.

I'm a skeptic, but do enjoy your presentations. You seem to stay calm. It's a trick I've not seen often with religion. While this information has been around for awhile, it seems like most of the folks I know never learned it. Good show.

Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius all attest to a historical Christ. Its also very important that they wrote about this long before the time of Constantine who is the emperor most often accused of inventing modern Christianity. Whether the facts or practices bore much or any resemblance to the modern version of the religion is another question entirely.

Jesus Christ at age 34 was crucified most likely on date 34 AD and referred to as Christus by the fascist roman Pontius Pilot . Sounds accurate.

But but... The Annals of history is anonymous and was written many years after the fact. ;)

It's worth mentioning that claiming Christ never existed is pretty new. They used to only question his miracles or the resurrection saying he was just a man not a god.

You dismiss the possibility of Christian scribes changing the Annals. The surviving text exists as just two lines of copy: one contains the first half and one the second half. There is, however, a gap of two years from 29-31 AD. Early Christians believed that the crucifixion was in 30 AD. Perhaps the scribes saw no mention of Jesus in that period so chose not to copy it.

Great Vid!

A very good video for people that don't like to think for themselves or read books, or look at dates, or understand their significance.

I’m a deconverted Christian > atheist, but always been deep in biblical scholarship. I really appreciate your videos, they’re refreshing to be so well done from the Christian view. Folks like Turek, William Lane Craig and the like are just 🙄🙄 I accept a historical Jesus, and some of Ehrman’s views. And while Tacitus and Josephus both wrote of Christ (Josephus most likely contains some Christian tampering, but nonetheless references Christ), they weren’t contemporaneous to the events that they’re writing about. That’s not to say the sources aren’t valuable, because they as historians can easily can utilize who/what is around them to construct a historical narrative. But those accounts and the Gospel narratives don’t seem reliable enough for me as history to verify the miracle claim of the resurrection. I left the faith for other reasons, particularly the Problem of Evil and pondering on why a tri-omni God would even create in the first place with the foreknowledge of the calamity of sin entering the world. Biblical inerrancy and textual critiques played a part as well… but mainly the Problem of Evil, or at Ehrman sometimes references, the additional Problem of Suffering. Tangents aside, love the videos! I’ve sent them to my Christian friends. Keep it up! ❤️

I had an atheist dismiss and laugh at me when I pointed out that Tacitus wrote on Jesus. His logic was that Tacitus was born in AD 56 and hence wouldn’t know about Christ. He said so on a post by William lane Craig on instagram and was a cowardly individual because he had disable responses for his comments. I laughed at his ignorance simply because his logic was akin to saying someone born after a historical figures existence cannot be an honest in their writings even though he might have access to records available to them at the time.

To be exact, Tacitus talks about Christians, which is only secondary evidence two generations later of Christ. James is well documented, not least in Josephus, but the mention of Christ there is a linguistic anachronism, politely termed a "gloss", added to align texts: in harsher terms, a forgery. The problem is that both names are metanyms, Chrestos meaning "the annointed one" - it's modern derivative is "chrysm" - and Jesus, originally Joshua, "of the House of Jesse". Study's rather stalled recently, and it's possible it can go no further. More seriously, evidential text surrenders to the sceptics. I've a decent share of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize truly belonging on high, as I was predestined to make some huge contributions in the European State Department. Alone, I was no better than any other. Inspired, I delivered, time after time after time. Repentant confession's the key to clear channels as a Seer Medium - some of London's top psychiatrists and half the Government have seen it for themselves first hand, inspiring the search for weirdos and misfits. The Boss exists, and guides those he's picked - my predestination starts in the early 13th Century.

Tacitus was born in 56 AD, so he was just repeating what he was told. Not an eye witness.

I guess that's checkmate...(only for reasonable people, not for the foolish)

What's the point? Some historian who was born after Christ passed wrote about him. What's the relevance?

Hmmm, no mention of the Saints rising from the grave during the crucifixion? Matthew 27: 51-53. Crazy right?

You should’ve talked more about Pliny the younger. Him and Tacitus were besties. It’s probable that Tacitus checked his facts with him. Guess what: Pliny never heard anything like it, struggles to remember any Christians at all although he was heavily involved in the administration (governor, consul). And the kicker: his dad, Pliny the elder was a temporary of the time when Rome was burning - not only did Pliny the elder not mention this spectacular story to his son, Christians in general were not even a topic. Strange.

Praise Jesus Christ 🙏 our heavenly father is alive and well and speaking through all of HIS blessed children. We love you father and patiently look forward to being with you in your Kingdom.

This is a small side remark in the narration of the big fire in Rome giving some information he could have heard from Christians. Without any source given it is not a strong evidence but important for the history of early christians. By the way, the recursion to Josephus and Philo concerning the use of "procurator" is doubtful because both wrote in Greek and therefor never used this term.

"Acta Pilate" the letter written about the events regarding Jesus by Pontious Pilate to Caesar in Rome.

Did you know Tacitus wrote two books about Germania and the Germanic tribes/barbs but had never actually been there? Second hand knowledge at best.

Tacitus, Lucan, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Josephus all mention Christ.

Thanks brother.

Tacitus mentions numerous historical Christian leaders, events, cities, and Jesus.

Tacitus is writing decades after the death of Jesus and is simply relaying stories handed down. He never met Jesus or anyone who had known Jesus as they were long dead. Tacitus if genuine proves that people were following the Jesus story at the time of his writings but doesn't prove that he existed at all. Early Christian fathers who should have known of Tacitus's reference to Jesus are unfamiliar with it...nice try.

When Homer wrote the Odyssey he mentioned the gods Athena and Poseidon, but these gods were later dismissed as mythical beings made up by man. The fact that a man called Jesus was crucified, which incidentally was a common form of execution used by the Romans, doesn't mean that he was the son of god just because Tacitus mentions his name. The fact remains that there are no eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion or the resurrection, so any conversations that happened during that time are based on heresay. All three of the resurrection gospel accounts are different and only Matthew mentions an earthquake-and dead people coming back from the dead. There is no roman record of an earthquake in 33 Ad, or zombies coming back to life.

Tacitus merely recognised the claims of a small cult which started before his own birth. Later the Romans saw it as a useful tool!

Taciturn was born 56 years after the dates accepted for the existence of Jesus. Much of his supposed history was mostly second or third hand information.

It is such dishonesty as this that is the most convincing evidence that the entire Jesus story is absurd and deceitful fiction.