Quite agree. The myth was created by Saul of Tarsus, and the canonisation occurred several centuries later from the evolved myth, by Emperor Big Con and his boys. The article is right about the murky history of this religion. Apply any historical method to it and it doesn't pass the smell test. Bout time those Christians faced up to it.

That minor reference is much challenged and looks like a later add on. Even so, Tacitus wasn't contemporaneous history.

@David1955 Are you sure that's true? Tacitus is a much-respected historian.

Yes, but there is much debate about these passages.

[rationalwiki.org]

"Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[3]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels were are thought to already be in circulation. '

Richard Carrier, noted mythicist, has also dealt with this issue. If there were other contemporaneous sources, that might add weight, but there aren't any.

Isn't it though. It's true, if you want people to believe a lie, make it a whopper.