I think there's a few problems with this.
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ"
Well yes, history is usually written after it happens. That's how time works. It would be nice if it had been written closer to the events, but it wasn't. That doesn't make it worthless and I don't think that a gap of 80 years is particularly exceptional for an ancient source.
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
So for starters, you haven't provided a source for this. Also, I did a bit of digging and found the term to be in use before Tacitus' time and after. Notably Suetonius uses it and he was writing at about the same time. Also, is this supposed to be a problem just for this passage? Because Tacitus uses the word "procurator" multiple times in
Annals, in English translation at least. Is this supposed to be a substantial enough objection to throw out the whole of Tacitus? Given that he is one of our most valuable sources on 1st Century Rome I think that's a bit of an overreaction.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
These aren't "records". The
Annals aren't part of some official record or something, they are histories, so I don't really know what you mean by that. Tacitus most certainly used official records as sources, but that doesn't mean that he had to follow their naming conventions. I also just don't buy this generally. If early Christians commonly referred to Jesus as "Christ" or "Christus" or "Chrestus", then I see no reason why Tacitus would not have done the same. Tacitus may not even have known the given name of this "Christ". It is clear from the context that he is using "Christ" to show the derivation of the term "Christian", which makes sense. You cite no backing for this claim. Overall, I am sceptical.
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
What do you mean he accepts it? He's not accepting anything, just reporting events. Far from being accepting, it is clear from the passage that Tacitus despises Christians and Christianity;
quote:
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.
Tacitus, Annals 15:44, bolding mine
That doesn't come across as accepting to me. That comes across as extremely hostile. He clearly regards Christians as dangerous wackaloons, which... yeah that checks out. Clearly this is a man who knows Christianity well!
No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.
This is the worst argument you bring. The reason no-one cited Tacitus is because no-one had access to Tacitus. We're damn lucky we have as much of Tacitus as we do. He wrote around thirty books of which we have about half.
Annals 11-16 survived through a single manuscript. We think of Tacitus as a big deal, but that's presentism; he was not well known in the latter part of the first millennium. The Wikipedia article on
Tacitean Studies reads;
quote:
His popularity waned with time: his unfavorable portrayals of the early emperors could not have earned him favor with Rome's increasingly autocratic rulers, and his obvious contempt for Judaism and Christianity (both troublesome foreign cults in the eyes of a 1st-century Roman aristocrat) made him unpopular among the early Church Fathers.[5] The 3rd-century writer Tertullian, for example, blames him (incorrectly—see history of anti-Semitism) for originating the story that the Jews worshipped a donkey's head in the Holy of Holies and calls him "ille mendaciorum loquacissimus", 'the most loquacious of liars'.
Doesn't sound like a source that Christians would be queuing up to read and cite. The article continues;
quote:
By the 5th century only a few authors seem aware of him
and;
quote:
After Jordanes, Tacitus disappeared from literature for the better part of two centuries, and only four certain references appear until 1360.
and;
quote:
It was not until Giovanni Boccaccio brought the manuscript of the Annals 11-16 and the Histories out of Monte Cassino to Florence, in the 1360s or 1370s, that Tacitus began to regain some of his old literary importance.
So the reason Christians didn't quote Tacitus is simply because they didn't have it. You cannot make an argument from silence in such circumstances, it's nonsensical.
Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
If you can name a single non-mythicist scholar who regards this passage as an interpolation, I would be very surprised.
details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time
But there are no "Christian stories" in there. There's nothing beyond Christ being executed. There's no resurrection, no miracles, nothing that would suggest a Christian input. Not that Tacitus would have taken such stories seriously, but he might have enjoyed mocking them. They're not there though. Indeed, he makes no attempt to describe the beliefs or practices of Christians beyond dismissive scorn. I don't think these accounts came to Tacitus directly from Christians.
In general, I'm not convinced by anything here that the Tacitus passage is fraudulent or particularly problematic. I can see how it's extremely inconvenient for mythicists though.
Mutate and Survive
On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
)
™ Version 4.2
(1)
