Jesus in Tacitus

                                                        Introduction

In the fifteenth chapter of Cornelius Tacitus’ the Annals, he talks about the famous fire that engulfed Rome in the summer of 64 AD. He pins the blame of the fire on the emperor of the time, Nero.

Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per

flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio

imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in

praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem

eius mali, sed per urbem etiam

“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.” [1]

 

From this passage, we learn about the Historical Jesus and Christianity a.) Jesus was executed b.) under Pontius Pilate c.) Christianity began in Judea and d.) Christianity spread around the Roman world.

There are several popular objections to the reliability of Tacitus’ statements on Jesus, which will be addressed in this blog post.

1.1 Forgery

This first objection to Tacitus is, in my opinion, the weakest out of all of the ones we will see in this paper.

John P. Meier, a noted scholar for his five-volume Historical Jesus work the Marginal Jew series, notes, “Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible.”[2] Whiles Tacitus is obviously disturbed by the way Nero and his empire treated the Christians, [3] he describes the Christians in a very negative way, one a Christian scribe looking to interpolate a document would not use; he obviously has a deep bias against them. Let’s examine some parts of this passage.

“...a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.”

“...a most mischievous superstition...”

“...the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful...”[4]

In addition to that, the founder of this group, Christus (Jesus), suffered the extreme penalty, crucifixion. Whiles this does not refer to crucifixion, the Latin word used for “extreme penalty” is supplicium [5], which specifically refers to capital punishment in the ancient Roman world [6]. Being crucified was seen as totally offensive and humiliating. The late Martin Hengel in his study on crucifixion in the ancient world says, “[t]he instances given so far [of crucifixion] have been an attempt to show that for the men of the ancient world...the cross was not just a matter of indifference, just any kind of death. It was an utterly offensive affair, ‘obscene’ in the original sense of the word.[7]” This would lead to Tacitus having even more of a reason to despise the Christian group, because of their leader’s violent and embarrassing death.

As mentioned before, no Christian scribe would use such terrible language to describe their own religion [8]. Any theory that proposes a Christian scribe were to impersonate being a pagan insulting Christianity to “cover up their tracks” is ad hoc and has literally no evidence.

In addition to that, the passage matches the normal technique and content of Tacitean style [9] and this whole pericope fits well into the context of the burning of Rome.

For these reasons, it seems very unlikely that this passage is a forgery or interpolation added by a zealous Christian scribe.

1.2 Hearsay

Now that we’ve dealt with the forgery argument, let’s deal with the more popular, yet poor, argument of hearsay.

In this section, we’ll take a source critical examination of Tacitus, although before we can get into that we must answer an objection: does Tacitus mentioning Jesus’ title imply his use of hearsay and impeach the reliability of Annals 15.44?

I’m going to have to answer in the negative here. First of all, this passage is focused on the origin of the Christian movement, not necessarily of Jesus. Tacitus wants to explain the origin of Christianity.

As scholars Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy point out, “Tacitus only mentions ‘Christ’ in order to explain the origin of the term ‘Christians.’ A reference to ‘Jesus’ at this point would not have explained the term ‘Christian’ and thus would have been completely beside this point.”[10]

Murray Harris, a New Testament exegete and theologian, notes the connection of Christ’s fate with the persecuted Christians through the Latin word adficere. “Christians were ‘punished [poenis adfeict] in the most unusual ways’ by Nero and that Christ ‘had been executed [supplico adfectus erat]' by Pilate.[11]” Basically, the reason Tacitus uses “Christus” instead of Jesus is because he was linking them together and wanted to inform his audience of the origin of the name Christians. Now, let’s take a look at Tacitus’ sources.

Unlike modern historians, ancient historians did not cite their sources with footnotes or bibliographies, although this does not necessarily affect the reliability of Tacitus.

Robert Mellor, a prominent Tacitean scholar, points out, “...Tacitus makes it clear that he indeed do research, and, regarding accuracy as important, be distrusts many of the written sources [of that day]".[12]

Tacitus was a careful historian who made his disdain for hearsay quite clear. One passage, Tacitus says, “in my case the reason for transmitting and criticizing the rumor was that on the basis of a resounding example I [Tacitus] might dispel false hearsay and ask of those into whose hands my work comes that they should not be hungry to accept well publicized incredulities nor prefer them to what is genuine and uncorrupted by the miraculous" [13].

In occasion, Tacitus did in fact appeal to hearsay as a source, but he always makes sure to mention it and he usually distances himself from the report. For example, he says, “In transmitting Drusus’ death I have recorded what has been recalled by most authors and those of the greatest credibility; but I am not inclined to neglect from those same times a rumor so effective that it has not yet abated.”[14] He says this about a scurrilous rumor on Emperor Tiberius poisoning his own son, Drusus, before dismissing it: “this was bandied about in public, but beyond the fact that it is affirmed in no reliable author, you can readily refute it" [15]. 

  Another example can be seen in this passage describing Drusus and his interactions with gladiators:

    Drusus presided over a show of gladiators which he gave in his own name and in that of his brother Germanicus, for he gloated intensely over bloodshed, however cheap its victims. This was alarming to the populace, and his father had, it was said, rebuked him. Why Tiberius kept away from the spectacle was variously explained. According to some, it was his loathing of a crowd, according to others, his gloomy temper, and a fear of contrast with the gracious presence of Augustus. I cannot believe that he deliberately gave his son the opportunity of displaying his ferocity and provoking the people's disgust, though even this was said. [16]

I’m not saying Tacitus was a perfect historian because he is known to fabricate speeches, but in general he was an excellent, meticulous historian who paid close attention to his sources.

Regarding Annals 15.44, Van Voorst points out that Tacitus didn’t use the New Testament as a source. He points out how no literary or oral dependence can be connected between Tacitus’ passage and the Gospels [17]. It is equally unlikely he used any Christian source due to his hatred of the Christians (see 1.1).

It is also possible that Tacitus had access to official documents referring to Jesus. Tacitus uses the Senate archives, the Acta Senatus, twice in his work (Annals 5.4; 15.74), and further use of them is implied with his detailed reports of Senate activities. It is also possible that Jesus was mentioned in other sources such as the Roman public libraries, biographies, letters, speeches and in the Acta Diurna (a daily gazette).

Since Tacitus did not cite his source for this passage, this is just mere speculation, even if it very plausible. Regardless of his source, Tacitus clearly—in my judgement at least—gives independent information on Jesus in his Annals passage.

1.3 Procurator-Prefect Objection

Until Claudius in 41 AD, each provincial governor was referred to as a “prefect” but Tacitus uses the term “procurator” to describe the title of Pontius Pilate in his section of the Annals between 29 AD and 32 AD, thus making an anachronism. The proper title for Pilate during this particular time period is prefect.

However, skeptics are being overly critical when they suppose this passage is unreliable primarily because of this alleged error. I think this a gross exaggeration for several reasons. There is good ancient evidence to conclude that these terms were often used interchangeably in the first and second century.

For example, an inscription discovered at Caesarea Martina gave Pilate the correct title of prefect [18]. However, both Philo of Alexandria (Legat. 38) and Josephus (Jewish Wars 2.9.2) refer to him as procurator just as Tacitus does. In fact, Josephus uses these terms fluidly.

Josephus calls two different governors Cuspius Fadus (c. 44-46) and Porcius Festus (c. 59-61) by both terms.[19]

M.J. Harris remarks: 

it seems reasonable to suppose that there was a certain fluidity of terminology regarding the titles of the governor of Judea, at least in popular usage, during the period A.D. 6-66, but that from A.D. 6-41 the titles ‘praefectus’ or ‘pro legato’ [prefect] predominated, while after the reconstitution of the province, from A.D. 44-46 the term procurator...became the common designation. During both periods....the unofficial term ‘governor’...was also used, as it is in the New Testament of Pilate... and other Roman officials governing Judea...We can scarcely accuse Tacitus...of being inaccurate or ill-informed on this point.” [20]

 

In conclusion, the procurator-prefect objection holds no substance and should not be taken seriously as an argument against Annals 15.44’s reliability as a source.

1.4 Conclusion

None of the popular objections against Cornelius Tacitus’ Annals 15.44 hold up to scrutiny, so we are reasonable to conclude that this passage relays independent historical information that documents Jesus and early Christianity.

---

[1] Annals 15.44.3 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44

[2] Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. vol. 1, Doubleday, 1991., 90.   

[3] “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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” In addition to that, early church tradition has Paul and Peter martyred in Rome by decapitation and crucifixion, respectfully. For more on the fate of the apostles, see McDowell, Sean. Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. 1st ed., Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2015.

[4] Later in the passage Tacitus describes their crimes as “hatred against mankind.”

[5] P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 1882–83 cf. Webb, Robert L. “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus: Their Historicity and Implications.” Bock, Darrell L and Robert L. Webb eds. Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence., Mohr Siebeck 2009., 668.

[6] Cicero, Verrem 2.5.168-69 cf. Philo, In Flaccum 72

 [7] Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Fortress Press, 1977., 23.  

[8] “...no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44...” Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000., 43.  

 [9] Van Voorst, Jesus Outside The New Testament., 43.

[10] Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, 2008. PDF File., 157.

 [11] Harris, Murray. “References to Jesus in Classical Authors.” in Jesus Traditions Outside the Gospels, ed. by David Wenham, 275-324. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1982.

[12] Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus’ Annals. Oxford University Press, 2011., 23.

[13]Tacitus, Annals 4.11.3

[14] Ibid., 4.10.1

[15] Ibid., 4.11.1

[16] Ibid 1.76 

[17] Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 49

[18] Maier, Paul L. “The Inscription on the Cross of Jesus of Nazareth.” Hermes, vol. 124, no. 1, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996, pp. 58 cf. Frova, A. L'Iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Cesarea, Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo 95, 1961, 419-43.

[19] Fadusà Ant. 19.9.2 § 363, 20.1.1.2 §2; 1.2 §14 Festusà Ant. 20.8.11 §193; Jewish War 2.14.1 §27

[20] Harris, Murray J. “References to Jesus in Classical Authors”, 349-50. 

.