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. 

.

MerionWest's Bad Article On Jesus

 I don't prefer spending my time on Jesus mythicism, but when media decides to take on religious subjects with misleading information, I can revise my policy. Last week, Peter Clarke of MerionWest (and of "Jokes Review") published an article arguing that mythicism is about to go mainstream. This article calls for correction on several points

To start off: 

"according to a Church of England poll, only 60% of the English hold that view [that Jesus existed]."

This is quite concerning. I believe this reflects the tendency of our modern world to not research topics that matter and have eternal consequences. Instead video games, sports and partying take up all of the free time.

Continuing:

"It stands to reason that as the United States becomes less Christian, it will become less tied to the historicity of Jesus."

Perhaps, but there is, as far as I am aware, no data to suggest this, other than perhaps the secularization of America.

Continuing:

"While Christians need Jesus to be historical, non-Christians do not have any particular reason to care either way."

For the sake of seeking truth alone, they should care. They should also care about researching the individual responsible for undergirding western culture as we know it today.

Back to the Clarke:

"Notably, for people who have not had much exposure to Christian history, Jesus seems like a fictional character. For example, I have a friend who has never once gone to church and more or less lives her life entirely oblivious to the existence of any world religion. I told her recently that I am starting to come around to the idea that Jesus was entirely fictional. “No kidding!” she responded. “I could have told you that!”

Um, so what? Unfortunately, your friend's intuitions aren't proper historical analysis. I hope this is Clarke merely giving us an anecdote--and not giving it as an argument!

Back to Clarke,

"Meanwhile, his story (we often hear) parallels those of other mythical figures who offer salvation after dying and coming back, such as Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, and Inanna."

For someone that is seeking to probe scholarly consensus, Clarke sure is out of touch. To quote T.N.D Mettinger:

“There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religion.” The Riddle of Resurrection, p. 221

Continuing:

"This point is important because more and more people are growing up like my friend, with next-to-no exposure to the Jesus story beyond the mythical bits. To these people, the mythicist view will be the default view."

According to Clarke's one off experience with a friend.

Clarke then says,

"Then, he rose up into the sky and conveniently never came back down."

I would be curious to see Clarke interact with this argument.

Continuing:

"Over the past few years, a number of in-depth, well-researched books have come out arguing for mythicism. These include: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier, Jesus: Mything in Action by David Fitzgerald, and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems by Robert M. Price."

Since time doesn't permit me to review 3 books at the moment, I'll just link some of what the scholars have to say about Carrier. See here, here and here. As for the Fitzgerald and Price books, I strongly encourage the reader to (1) look at the publishers and (2) look at the "scholarly" endorsements. Not all too good for them.

Clarke then states,

"The list of legitimate scholars who openly doubt the historicity of Jesus has grown rapidly during the past decade."

Given the comments of the scholars I linked up above, this seems quite unlikely. It's not as if the mythical position hasn't been given a fair hearing amongst scholars.

Back to Clarke: 

"Here is Richard Carrier’s case for mythicism, as he presented it in three simple points on a recent episode of the MythVision Podcast"

Anyone else seeing a pattern? Over-reliance on Richard Carrier and a lack of any original research on the scholarship from Clarke himself.

Now, let's take discuss Clar...I mean Carrier's 3 points that suggest mythicism.

1: Paul doesn't place Jesus on earth.

- Paul knew Jesus was born and raised as a Jew (Gal. 4:4) and that he descended from Abraham and David (Gal. 3:16; Rom. 1:3). Paul was in contact with Jesus' brother, James (Gal. 1:19). He knew Jesus' disciples, and even knew that the apostle Peter was married (1 Cor. 9:5)! I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.

2: Jesus only appears as a real person in texts that are highly mythological, i.e., the Gospels.

-Except the genre of the Gospels is that of Ancient biography. Ancient biographers investigated events, examined witnesses, and travelled to various sites in question. For citations and more in-depth study, see Craig Keener, Christobiography. 

2a: This basically means we only have one book that talks about Jesus as a real person, which is the book of Mark. The other gospels were written after Mark by authors who embellished the story while clearly lifting significant portions directly from Mark. And Mark is written by an unknown author who cites no sources for his information.

I've done several posts discussing these objections. See here and here. 

2b: Notably, a lot of ancient mythical characters were also given elaborate biographies that placed them in history with parents, siblings, birth-places, etc. This includes characters like Moses, Romulus, and Dionysus. In contrast, figures in history who are known to be real people either did not begin as revelatory beings, or we have clear evidence of their historicity.

Yes, there are plenty of fictional biographies in the Greco-Roman world. However, this isn't the type of biography the Gospels are, rather, they are closer to those written about real, historical figures when much information about the figures were available. Again, see Keener's Christobiography, as he states “…My interest is primarily in information-based biographies” p. 33.

3: "Attempts to get around these two points do not hold up. For example, there is an argument that Jesus must have really come from Nazareth because there is no other reason to attribute such an unlikely origin to him (Christopher Hitchens, for instance, finds this argument convincing). But the premise of this argument is false because there are many good reasons why that specific town would have been contrived for a mythical messiah. Also, many mythical figures were given obscure towns as their origin. For example, Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome, were given the birthplace of Alba Longa, an ancient city in Central Italy."

Can Clarke cite anything for me to work with here? All I have is assertion. As for Nazareth, I'd invite Clarke to consult John 1:46. Hardly mythmakers trying to make their subject seem like a mighty ruler. 

Returning to Clarke: 

Slate, for instance, provides five reasons for questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Slate is not a reputable academic institution, unfortunately. Also, take a look at who authored it. Valerie Tarico of the Center for Inquiry. You'll notice her PhD is not in a field remotely relevant to the academic Biblical studies.

Clarke goes on to cite Carrier's book, but see the links I provided earlier, wherein scholars discuss Carrier's work.

Returning to Clarke:

"As mythicist author Earl Doherty shows in a survey, historians rely on the consensus view to brush aside the mythicist theory rather than to examine it."

I think this happens with several topics in Biblical studies, such as authorship of the Gospels (although that certainly has more adherents than mythicism in contemporary New Testament studies.), so, fair enough.

Continuing:

"Carrier has also observed that most scholars who study Jesus are biased against the mythicist view because they are essentially trained to presuppose that Jesus existed as a real person."

Could this not just be to due to the fact that scholars are aware of the evidence and find mythicism wanting? Furthermore, if scholars found the evidence for mythicism compelling, who's to say that they wouldn't just begin treating the New Testament as a classicist does with, say, The Odyssey or The Iliad?

Clarke then cites a talk by Carrier:

"In a 2017 talk, Carrier explained, “Even secular experts in this field have been trained with a body of Christian faith assumptions that are this lens through which you look at this evidence and select which evidence to look at.”

This is just patently untrue. It's not as if public universities have faith commitments. Isn't the story of the Christian going off to college and returning an atheist all too common? Relevant here, again, is my response to the previous point by Carrier.

He goes on to discuss a quote by Ehrman, but that is an in-house debate for the anti-apologists and Ehrmanites. I'll let them hash that out so I can refute whatever final product they come out with.

Continuing:

"When Carrier recently debated Dennis R. MacDonald on the question of mythicism, no one in the comments section was laughing at Carrier (as Ehrman might have worried). Rather, I am seeing highly engaged comments that lean skeptically against historicity."

Given that the channel is mythvision, and the channel hosts many prominent mythicist that have a following, it's not at all surprising that you would find a large number of mythicists there.

Back to Clarke:

"It only makes sense that Jesus mythicism would find a growing audience online: The Internet loves a good contrarian view! And unlike many contrarian views that are potentially harmful to society (such as anti-vax conspiracies), I do not see any practical harm from speculating about whether or not a character from the first century was a real person or not."

1: This, however, cuts both ways. Internet access also gives people an opportunity to see how strong the evidence for Jesus is. People can access primary sources, academic books and responses to their favorite mythicists.

2: There are potential spiritual consequences, though. For Christians, Jesus is the foundation of their faith and for atheists, if Christ is indeed who the Gospels say he is, wouldn't you want to know? I can't see why self-proclaimed truth seekers wouldn't want to know.

Continuing:

"For the rest of us, Jesus mythicism is a harmless YouTube rabbit hole to venture down."

Notice a theme? For Clarke (and many of his fellow online atheists) this isn't a process of reading primary sources, scholarship and thinking through the data, it's mere leisure time on Youtube.

Continuing:

"This point is validated by the fact that many outlets discussing Jesus mythicism—such as the MythVision Podcast and the David C. Smalley Podcast—are responsible channels that do not feed off conspiracy theory hype."

I appreciate Clarke validating a former point of mine before my response was even written! 

To anticipate an objection (already given to me by Clarke on Twitter); yes, I know the primary goal of his article was to demonstrate that mythicism can gain more adherents as time goes on. However, in doing so, he has presented a lot of misleading information, which unfamiliar readers of his column can fall prey to.