'
As far as Jesus goes, the entire New Testament is nothing more than legend. ( With the exception that Pontius Pilate was a prefect [not a procurator! That is an anachronistic error by Tacitus] in Judea in the first century A.D. )
There is no independent attestation to any of the New Testament. There is not a single mention of Jesus in any non-biblical writing of the first century A.D. [ I discount the two fragments in Josephus. Only the longer fragment is significant, and it is all too obviously an interpolation by a later Christian scribe ]
First century Judea was lousy with religious fanatics, rabbis and "Christs" ( that is, supposed "Anointed Ones" or "Messiahs" ). The Gospels could easily be ( and probably are ) a mish-mash of "wise saws and ancient instances" and confused recollections about any number of the religious lunatics who were wandering through Judea during that century. It would not surprise me that one of these "Christs" was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and that he had a brother named James; but neither would it surprise me that the whole story was woven out of pure fantasy and bits and pieces of various incidents which occurred during that century.
The first significant mention of Christians comes from the second century. Tacitus, in his Annals, describes the Great Fire of Rome during Nero's reign, and he states:
Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.
---- Annales XV 44
[ 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 Judaea, 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.]
The Latin says that certain people confessed to "attacks," or to "seizing of plunder." Then, apparently because all or most of the people first arrested were Christians, the rest of the cult of atheists ( as the Romans thought of them ) were rounded up because "they hated mankind" and were prone to terrorism.
I do not know why so many people assume that the Christians were not, in fact, responsible for the Great Fire of Rome. They were hysterical religious fanatics; they considered Rome to be Great Babylon, a sewer of sin; they thought the world was going to end at any moment, ushering in a golden age of the reign of the saints ( that is, of their own humble selves ). What could be more natural than to attempt to hurry along the advent of so much glory and happiness? The ramshackle area of Rome where the fire started was inhabited by many Jews ( and so, presumably, by many Christians ). The Roman authorities at the time were convinced that the Christians had a hand in starting or spreading the fire.
.
