Standards of citation had not been established yet.
Not really my problem. If I was trying to convince you of unicorns being a real thing in the 9th century I don’t win the argument because record keeping was bad. You are making a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence.
Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
And now we are mind reading. You have no idea what my reaction would be to a document that says (and was verified) “I Tacticus talked to Pilot and he admitted all the details in the account were true”. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of arguing what a hypothetical me would do?
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you?
Sure.
And if so, can it be realistically attained?
Again not my problem. Just because you can’t prove your myth doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
Do you apply the same method and standard to, say, the existence of Nero? Akhenaten?
False comparison. The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary. And like all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It isnt exactly shocking that kingdoms have kings. What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
Hey quick question. If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb? This is man who is the best authority we have and he has a basic detail so very wrong.