Tyro

He could have gotten this information from his friend Pliny, who apprently accounted and tried Christians some years earlier.

But this is not the question I wish to be discussed. Even if the Tacitus' passage doesn't prove the historicity of Jesus, it is in my opinion still interesting what it does prove. What did Tacitus refer to? Was this about unknown Chrestiani and no Christus, or is it most probable that the Christus sentence is genuine?

aa5874

Based on Tertullian's "Apology" there was some mix-up with the words "Christian" and "Chrestianus".

Look at "Apology" 3. People who were "Christians" or "Chrestianus" did NOT have to believe in Jesus since the word "Christ" was derived from the Greek word for "anointing".

Theophilus of Antioch claimed he was a Christian not because he believed in Jesus but because he was ANOINTED with the OIL of God.

"Theophilus to Autolycus" 1.12 In antiquity there were NUMEROUS Christian cults and some had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Jesus of the NT.

andrewcriddle

The specific idea that the reference to Christ is an interpolation but the rest is authentic does seem to produce a rather incoherent text.

I'll illustrate it using an English translation, the Latin (with translation) is here

Extant textText without supposed interpolationOne feels that their should be some explanation in what Tacitus originally wrote of who or what Christians are.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Aside from the fact that the "Christians" appear as "Chrestians" under the ultraviolet lights, do we not have an amazing historical fact if it is Tacitus (56 – 117 CE) who forsees the author of Acts to have the christians name themselves as "Christians". Is Acts considered to be "authored" after 117 CE?

ynquirer

Annals 15.44, like other passages in Tacitus, paraphrases Josephus. A forger of the Latin text must have forged the Greek as well, and that seems none too likely.

Doug Shaver

If we stipulate its authenticity, it proves that Nero persecuted some Christians, and that is all it proves. Nothing else that matters can be inferred from that datum.

Tyro

Why? Tacitus states that "Chrestiani" was the common denomination at the time (vulgus appellabat), and that the group was hated for their vices. He states that it was a superstition which originated in Judaea. This is more than Suetonius, who only says that the Christiani were "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition". There is no need for Tacitus to mention the author of the name Chrestiani, since this was only a popular denomination.

PhilosopherJay

Hi AndrewCriddle,

"One feels that their should be some explanation in what Tacitus originally wrote of who or what Christians are."

This is an excellent criticism of the idea that the Pontius Pilate sentence was entirely interpolated.

We may use it also for the opposite purpose as well to prove that something in the passage must have been interpolated. The passage as translated still does not explain who or what Chrestians or Cristus was.

Since we now know that the original word Tacitus had was Chrestianos (Which any Greek speaking person or educated Roman would have known meant "The Good Ones"), we need only ask who originally gave the people this name? Saying it came from Christus would make no sense: Would anyone call the followers of Bush: Bashians or the followers of Obama: Obomians, or the followers of Clinton: Clentons? Would we call the followers of Stalin ( Man of Steel) "Stelins" or the followers of Freud, Friudians?

By doing this, Tacitus would have left his readers even more confused than when they began. Could Tacitus really be saying that Chrestians (the Good Ones) came from Chrestus (The Good One) who suffered the extreme penalty by Pontius Pilate? Who is Chrestus? It would be like saying a group was called "the Sweet Ones" because "the Sweet One" was executed, or "The Clean Ones" because "the Clean One" was executed. Readers would have thought that Tacitus had gone mad.

Rather it is likely that Tacitus would tell us who originally made up the name for the group called the Chrestianos (the Good Ones). In this case the original word that was in the text must have been Judaeos instead of Christus

Thus translated in English the original text would have read:


Tacitus could assume that his literate audience knew enough Greek to figure out that "Chrestians" meant "The Good Ones". He only had to fasten the name to the unpopular Jews to explain why the uneducated mob (vulgus)called them that.

Who exactly were the Chrestianos "The Good Ones" who came out of Judea to Rome is a good question. We should not assume they had anything to do with the Christianos "Anointed Ones" except that the "Anointed Ones" later erased the "The Good Ones" and replaced them with "The Anointed Ones" in some texts. Just as Tacitus tied "The Good Ones" to the Jews, perhaps unfairly, the Christians later tied "The Good Ones" to themselves.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Tyro

I do not understand this. Chrestus was a common name. If the Christus sentence was not interpolated, and if the original word was Chrestus, this would only be a reference to an unknown person with a quite common name, or perhaps a misspelling of Christus anyway. Just like Precious could be a name today, Chrestus, Iucundus etc. could be names back then, and were.

ynquirer

Obviously enough, Annals 15:44 states an implied critique of Suetonius—both Tacitus and Suetonius were contemporary and competing colleagues. It doesn’t really matter whether the original word was ‘Christiani’ or ‘Chrestiani’, because there must have been hesitation in Rome about their name: Suetonius himself speaks of Chrestus in Divvus Claudius while of Christiani in Nero. What really matters is that Suetonius believes that the sect’s name comes from a ‘Chrestus’ of unknown origin, while Tacitus evidences it comes from Christus of Judea. And that he learnt from Josephus—whom else from?