Tyro

When Suetonius writes about Chrestus in Divus Claudius there is nothing to suggest that he is refering to any founder of a Christian sect. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this Chrestus had anything to do with the Christiani mentioned in Vita Neronis, so to say that Suetonius "believes that the sect’s name comes from a ‘Chrestus’" is simply not founded in the writings of Suetonius. By the way, Suetonius is not believed to have written his biographies when Tacitus wrote Annales, so I cannot see why Tacitus would have deemed it necessary to criticize Suetonius for something Suetonius had not yet written.

Pliny the Younger, a friend of Tacitus, apparently had contact with the Christiani before the 15th book of the Annales was written. If Tacitus' text is about the Christiani, he could just mention what Pliny had told him about this group. When Pliny had trials against the Christiani, there must have been some of them mentioning the founder of the sect as Christus. But this is only relevant if the Christus sentence was not interpolated.

The theory that Tacitus paraphrased Josephus presumes that the Josephus passage is genuine, and that it identified Jesus as Christos. I do not believe that this can be assumed.

gurugeorge

Isn't all this somewhat complicated by the fact (?) that at some point in the early Church "Chrestian" was a live alternative for "Christian" - so much so that one of the Church Fathers had to address the confusion? (Sorry can't recall which one, but I'm sure others here will know what I'm referring to.)

(And isn't one of the oldest archaeological finds - of a Marcionite Church - "Chrestian"?)

(OTOH, if "Chrestian" is associated with Marcionism, then that would go to show that it's precisely Marcionism that was prominent enough to attract Roman attention at that time! OTOH, agitation doesn't sound much like the Marcionite bag, so maybe there was just some agitator called "Chrestus" who led some kind of rebellion at that time.)

show_no_mercy

This might mean that Tacitus had encounters with Marcionites. It would explain why Tacitus never makes the connection that this "strange new superstition" was connected with the very old superstition of Judaism. Because the Marcionites did not have that connection!

Roger Viklund

I have previously considered it to be unlikely that Tacitus was forged, because of the anti-Christian tone of the passage. The only way a forgery to me seemed possible or at least probable, would then be that simply the sentence “Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat” (“Christ, from whom the name had its origin, was in the reign of Tiberius executed by procurator Pontius Pilatus”) was a later addition – perhaps a marginal gloss that was inserted into the text. That part is after all not the least hostile toward Christians.

Like Andrew I did however find the sentence which then would be left to Tacitus to be rather inconsistent. Therefore I have not found it plausible that it was a forgery.

Nevertheless, I have recently re-evaluated my position. Not that I do consider it to be a forgery, but simply that I consider the hypothesis that the text was forged as a real possibility. I re-evaluated my position as I realized that the text which is left when “Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat” is removed, actually makes as much or even more sense than if it stays.

The expression ”repressaque in praesens” which directly follows upon the Christus-passage, is the key element. It means literally “repressed at present”. As there is no tense in the sentence, there is no way of telling how much time the writer had in mind. But if the Christus-passage remains, the repression means that the movement was repressed when Christus died in the early 30’s, whereupon the mischievous superstition (exitiabilis superstitio) again broke out. It did not then again brake out only in Judea, but also in Rome. To read this literally would mean that it broke out again after the death of Christus and that it was in full blossom as Nero executed his massacre in the 60’s.

This is not that logical for several reasons. First of all the movement cannot really have been said to be checked as Christus was executed if we are to believe in the Christian history. Actually the movement first began by that time. Before that, it would have only, or mainly, been a local Galilean movement. Secondly, since Tacitus is dealing with the events in Rome in the 60’s, the outbreak before the 60’s (i.e. in between the death of Christus and the massacre by Nero) seems out of context with the rest.

But IF “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, was in the reign of Tiberius executed by procurator Pontius Pilatus” is removed, the movement will be checked by Nero’s action and afterwards broke out again in Rome, which was the reality when Tacitus wrote c. 115 CE.

The weird thing, and what made me previously dismiss this possibility, is the reference to Judea, where the movement also was checked. Now Tacitus could not really mean that it was checked in Judea by the action of Nero in Rome in 64 CE, and then broke out again in Judea, because this really had nothing to do with Judea and also the war broke out there in 66 CE. Unless one thinks that the Chrestians was another Jewish messianic sect that participated in the war, as Sulpicius Severus (building on Tacitus, some believe) seems to suggest, this interpretation seems farfetched. However, the text does not have to be read this way. Another way of interpreting this sentence is to see Judea and Rome as separate entities. The movement was checked in Rome by Nero’s action in 64, and broke out again, not only in Judea, where it had started in the 30’s, but also in Rome in the late 60’s and later.

To me this makes as much or even more sense than if “Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat” is left.

I do of course not consider this to be an argument in favour of forgery. It is simply a way of suggesting a possibility and showing that the sentence can easily be removed without any severe damage to the text left. But in order to argue in favour of forgery, you will need to put forward other arguments.

Roger Viklund

stephan huller

It is worth noting that when Lucian makes reference to 'that crucified sophist' he does not even so much as make an identification of Christ's name. He apparently describes him as a 'lawgiver.' The point is that ancient reports often left out critical bits of information. Look also at Dio's reference to the Boucoli who rose up against Marcus Aurelius. No explanation is given other than the name.

aa5874

It is already shown that in "Sacred History" 2 by Severus in the 5th century that there was no mention of "Christus" in a passage that appears to be from Annals 15.44.

But, another point again, is that no Church writer used Tacitus' Annals 15.44 in their refutation of Marcion's Phantom Jesus.

In "Against Marcion" by Tertulian, this writer who appears to be familiar with writings of Tacitus' did NOT use Annals 15.44 to prove once and for all that Jesus was completely human and was executed under Pontius Pilate based on the Roman records.

This is "Apology" by Tertullian But, in 5 books when arguing "Against Marcion" who claimed the son of God was not human but was a phantom, Tertullian did not even mention Tacitus Annals 15.44 which should have shown once and for all, and known throughout the Empire for almost a hundred years in advance, that Roman records did state that Jesus was executed being human.

The two main criteria that Tacitus' Annals 15.44 was subject to forgery has been met.

1. A writer in the 5th century used what appears to be Annals 15.44 and "Christus" is missing.

2. A writer who appears to be familiar with the writings of Tacitus did not use Annals 15.44 to argue Against Marcion who claimed the son of God was not human but a phantom.

Annals 15.44 with "Christus" would have been a very powerful piece of evidence for the Jesus Christian cult in their refutation of Docetism but no Church writer ever used it.

Late forgery of Annals 15.44 is the very likely reason for the omission.

Tyro

The Marconite inscription is dated 318 CE, i.e. two centuries after Tacitus and 254 years after the Great Fire in Rome. Tertullian remarked the Christianus - Chrestianus mixup, and Lactantius the Christus - Chrestus issue.

spin

While I'm sympathetic to Roger Viklund's case and have used such arguments here at BC&H, I find it stronger that the whole passage, starting with "ergo abolendo rumori" (Thus, to stanch the voices), is secondary to the text, added later by a christian hand.

The strongest reason to see the whole passage as alien is that it works against the discourse that Tacitus wrote regarding Nero and the fire. The fire discourse starts at 15.38 already making aspertions against Nero, thus:

[T2="b=1;s=0;bc=yes;p=5;bdr=1,solid,#000000;bg=#FFF FFF"]A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain...[/T2]

Nero came from his villa at Antium to Rome to deal with the events, providing services and aid, after which Tacitus adds (15.40.3)

[T2="b=1;s=0;bc=yes;p=5;bdr=1,solid,#000000;bg=#FFF FFF"]These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.[/T2]

Various ineffectual efforts to fight the fire by Nero (as shown by Tacitus) has Rome in ashes. Nero soon builds himself a new palace where once stood the people's residences and he considered building a canal to supply his new palace with water from far away. Tacitus puts it (15.42.2):

[T2="b=1;s=0;bc=yes;p=5;bdr=1,solid,#000000;bg=#FFF FFF"]Nero, however, with his love of the impossible, endeavoured to dig through the nearest hills to Avernus, and there still remain the traces of his disappointed hope.[/T2]

He ends his discourse (15.44.2) with the subtle climax:

[T2="b=1;s=0;bc=yes;p=5;bdr=1,solid,#000000;bg=#FFF FFF"]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.[/T2]

At least, that's how I understand him ending it. Nero couldn't shake the accusation that he was responsible for the fire and that's certainly what Tacitus wants the reader to think. Although there is not enough evidence for Tacitus to say straight out that Nero was responsible, he paints it as good as Nero had lit the fire.

However, this is not how the text now ends. The fact that Nero couldn't shake the accusation now gets drowned by a subsequent passage about the martyrdom of christians, which ends with passers-by having sympathy for these nasty christians, nasty because of unspecified outrage. This is followed by the sentence about Jesus and Pilate, with the error about Pilate being a procurator. Then there is a confused passage that scholars can't agree on about the arrest of christians. This brings us to all the juicy martyrdoms, which leaves the ordinary Romans so horrified that that they pitied the victims. Here is the end of the passage:

[T2="b=1;s=0;bc=yes;p=5;bdr=1,solid,#000000;bg=#FFF FFF"]Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.[/T2]

And where was Nero in all this? He was cavorting around dressed up as a charioteer, as a kind of sideshow to the main event. Instead of leaving the readers with the notion that Nero was responsible for the fire, the reader now comes away with the spectacle of christians...

[T2="b=1;s=0;bc=yes;p=5;bdr=1,solid,#000000;bg=#FFF FFF"]...doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[/T2]

This passage is about christians being martyred for deeds that are not clear. Accusations against them are uncharacteristically hard to follow, if written by one of the top orators of the era. The details of what happened to the christians is less in the spirit of a literary craftsman with such sensibilities as Tacitus and more in the mold of christian zeal.

[hr=1]88[/hr]

This passage is always taken out of context, so one pays no notice of how it fits into the whole discourse and it seems to me it fits very badly. Tacitus works hard through the fire narrative to blame Nero indirectly and, having achieved his goal, it is all dissipated in a flurry of christian martyrdoms.


spin

Tyro

What would be a Christian forgers purpose? The passage is not used by more than one Christian in about a millennium, so why forge it?

spin

Forgery necessarily? Tradition says Nero persecuted christians. Where would you put a note about such persecution if not in the margin of a narrative of some other dastardly deed by the beast himself? Christians inherited an anti-Nero attitude from the Jews. A little imaginative martyriological musing and viola'. Who knows how long the marginal comment might have sat there? Such a passage would be more important to christians later on than a life of Nero.

And would you be so quick to use the word "forgery" regarding Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah?


spin