copernicus

Exactly so. 'Christus' refers to an 'annointed one', and it wasn't always just applied to Jesus. So 'Christiani' could just have been Jewish zealots. (Don't complain, Roger. I know that this is just speculation. Maybe Nero did persecute real Christians.)

Roger Pearse

This seems like a profitable question for those interested but unfamiliar with Cornelius Tacitus personally to explore. What information, available in the ancient world, could he have accessed had he so desired?

But this thread has now become "what *could* have happened." I have nothing special to contribute on that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jgibson000

But this is a particular Christus -- the one who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate. Besides that, what Jewish Zealots -- if that is really what "Christiani" allows -- were in Rome during Nero's reign? And what do we make of the fact that Tacitus does not use this term for the Zealots, despite his knowldege of them and their leadership, in his desciption and account of the Jewish war?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

A certain Jewish source of rather high profile.

No, just every insurgent and peasant whose execution made it into his Jewish source.

The source would use Christ rather than Jesus in order to make a clear connection between the executed man and the movement named after him (or rather named after his title, Christ). S. C. Carlson has made a good case that Josephus was the source whence Tacitus got his information about the Christians.

Ben.

Diogenes the Cynic

Christos only means "anointed" in Greek. Christus is a Latin transliteration from Greek, not a translation. That indicates that Tacitus was using the word as a proper name, not as a descriptive term (if he wanted to convey an "anointed one" in Latin, he could have said Unctus). Plus. he uses the name specifically in conjunction with Christians and with Pilate. I don't think there is a case of mistaken identity here, just whether Tacitus source was independent of Christian tradition.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks for the link. Stephen's case seems plausible if not conclusive. Of course, it requires at least part of the TF to be authentic. Ironically, Carlson's scenario would remove Tacitus as being independent attestation for HJ, but it would do so in a way which would validate Josephus. Very interesting.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I have always rather enjoyed that irony. Both the conservatives and the liberals win one and lose one.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

There's nothing inconsistent with a putative forger of Tacitus being dependent on the forger of the TF. If the former knew about Josephus, and knew that Tacitus had relied on him for his account of the Jewish war, then the inference is obvious. Most forgers prefer to work from known exemplars, after all. One can easily picture the forger saying to himself -- now what would Tacitus write.....

If the TF is for real, then isn't it the earliest mention of "Christians" as the name for followers of Christ?

Vorkosigan

RUmike

I suppose this depends on when one dates Acts. Unless you mean first in non-Christian texts.

Chris Weimer

I suppose if the Lukan dependence on Josephus is true, then Josephus would predate Acts.