What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

Anyone here ready to disprove the Roman historian Tacitus in the fifteenth book of his 116 AD work, Annals-- and his mentioning 'Christus', 'Pontius Pilatus', 'Christians' and 'Nero' ?

classics.mit.edu...

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. 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. 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. 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.

I used to join the choir messing that there are no historical mentioning Jesus by historians. But then I went off and bought the books where he's supposed to have been mentioned, and did some research into the matter. And amazingly, there are infact a few quotes that remain virtually unchallenged. Among them Tacitus.

So, is Tacitus a forgery? Few serious scholars (if any) believe so, and I have yet to come across a convincing debunking hypothesis. So please, humour me. I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias and people calling themselves scientists showing clear signs of the same indoctrination you normally see with the religious people.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I was just talking last night about whether there were any historical documents referencing Jesus. Personally I do not believe that Jesus was/is God or the son of God, but I have always been interested in thinking about him as a character in a story, and/or as an actual person who lived his life on this earth. I will look into this with an open mind. Thanks for sharing - I look forward to hearing others' thoughts as well.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Al Gore had not invented the internet, nor did anyone have more than 0 texts or minutes on their smart rocks (which ended up broken at public stonings anyway)

No one has a "selfish with Jesus". And Tacitus being a "contemporary" of Jesus? A book 70 years after 33c.e.

You should have highlighted the next part which discusses the uprising of the mystery religions throughout the whole empire. That is the important part. Ultimately merging with Christianity.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
The existance of Pilatus is attested by inscriptions, i believe.
Most of Tacitus that survives, comes from only one manuscript.
I don't remember ever seeing an attack on the authenticiy of this
passage.

How does the atheist who has gained notoriety attacking the historicity
of Jesus handle this one?
Of course, the passage calls Cristus a most mischievous superstition.

There is also the reference in the letters of Pliny, where he reports to the Emperor Trajan on his interrogation of Christians and what they do and ask what should be done with them.

Frankly, "lack of historical reference" is not a big issue anyway. Most of the few surviving texts come from Rome or Greece, and they are interested in hardly anybody outside Rome or Greece.
It's the same with the other provinces. We know the names of almost no Britons (from texts, as distinct from things archaeologists have found) from the whole of the Roman occupation.

Does it really prove anything? Tacitus was a 2nd century writer. He wrote of Nero and how Nero used the Christians as a deflection from himself for the fire that burned Rome in 64 AD.

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome."

Christians were in existence by then and regarded by Romans as an even lower class than Judeans;

"Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. 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."

The story of Christ's crucifixion is part and parcel with other New Testament Biblical tales, and Tacitus recorded it as he heard it. Most scholars agree he most likely heard it from Pliny the Younger, who he shared his writings with for critiquing. Christ in the context of Tacitus' annals is mentioned in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians. He gives the account of Christ that Christians believed in and were giving of themselves. I suppose from a writer's standpoint if you are going to write of Christian persecution under Nero you have to give some account of how they came to be.

originally posted by: UMayBRite!
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
The existance of Pilatus is attested by inscriptions, i believe.
Most of Tacitus that survives, comes from only one manuscript.
I don't remember ever seeing an attack on the authenticiy of this
passage.

Yes, and conveniently the text covering the years 29-32 AD in this manuscript is missing. Tacitus' pro-Roman angle is possibly the main reason anything of his Annals survived. We must not forget that Jesus was convicted for being "King of the Jews" -- a threat to Roman superiority, and the rule with Rome concerning such "traitors" was 'Damnatio Memoriae' or "Damnaton of Memory" -- they erased the person from history, much like how all statues of certain pharaohs have had their faces chiseled off and names wiped away from official seals etc.

How does the atheist who has gained notoriety attacking the historicity
of Jesus handle this one?

Yes, isn't it exiting?

Of course, the passage calls Cristus a most mischievous superstition.

Indeed, and that's probably why Tacitus' books survived as I mentioned above. Also, this passage doesn't actually name Christus, it only uses his commonly used title.

First off he only mentions cristus and never by the name jesus. Like josephus, he is only recounting stories that he has heard from other lands. We know the story exists. What this doesn't do, is give a first hand account. He is just referencing a story not a person. We know there were people who called themselves christians at that time, and they were not well accepted then. He also mentions vulcan, ceres, proserpena, and juno too. So does his account of them also prove their existence?

His contempt for them does not go unnoticed either. He calls them mischievous, superstitious, evil, shameful, and haters of humankind. Worthy of the worst punishments and tells of how they used them as bonfire fodder when the sun went down.


Now Pontius was supposed to actually have met jesus and had council with him. Where is Pontius' account?
Bring on the next one.


a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

This is what we know about Tacitus and his writings:

- The original Tacitus Annal Books 11 to 16 are lost, so we only have copies of that specific reference to Christians. All those copies were written centuries later, in fact, the first one we know of was from the 15th century.
- The word Christians was not used in Rome at that point in their history. They were usually called Nazarenes or disciples (see Acts 1:15). The term 'Christian' was not used until the 2nd centrury after Christ.
- Tacitus was not a witness to Christ and he could not have met any disciples alive when he wrote his annals. Even if he really did write that passage, it would have all been hearsay anyway.
- Tacitus described Judea in his 5th book (which is not lost) and he never mentions Jesus or Christians at all.

There were lots of forgeries done in the Middle Ages and early Christianity and this chapter seems to be one of them.
One big mistake: Pilatus was a prefect and not a procurator, big difference and Tacitus was an imperial writer, he would have known that.

I personally do not believe this passage of the Annals prove the historical figure of Jesus. But this is just my humble personal opinion, and it doesn't necessarily mean others have to think so to. And no, I am not an Atheist, but an Agnostic.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Does it really prove anything? Tacitus was a 2nd century writer.

Tacitus obviously based his work on other sources than his own memory. Are you saying that a historian writing about things before he was born is automatically a fraud? That would discredit most historians ever having lived on this planet. Please, help me here.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Not to mention the only surviving copy of the Annals originally called Christians "Chrestians" (with an "e"), when the text was copied in the middle Ages with the spelling intact (Chrestians), it was then changed to an "i", leaving a small gap in the word that became subject to debate. To Romans of the 1st century "Christians" and "Chrestians" meant the same thing. However, for Tacitus to use the name Chrestians would surely indicate he was hearing the origin tale of "Chrestians" second hand and not directly from Christians themselves.

I was under the impression documentation had to say Jesus of Nazerath. Not that I care to decide on forgeries. I simply want to point out we need to search for documentation of the correct person.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What it means is he did not personally witness the existence of Christ and was only relating the origin tale of Christians in a secondhand fashion. To use this as "proof" of the existence of Christ is a logical fallacy. We have no Roman record, from Pilate or elsewhere, of any such execution of "Christ."

What we can't say is that Christ is not an amalgamation of several figures, radical rabbis perhaps, of that era who were persecuted under Roman rule of by rival factions of Jews such as the Pharisees.

By the late 1st century and early 2nd century the tale of Christ and his Crucifixion was canon as part of "Christianity," it was what everyone who called themselves a follower of Christ believed. Hence it was what Tacitus wrote when Describing the Christians, or as he called them, "Chrestians."

I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias and people calling themselves scientists showing clear signs of the same indoctrination you normally see with the religious people.

How does the atheist who has gained notoriety attacking the historicity of Jesus handle this one?

Well, here we go again. You speak from the same ignorance you accuse atheists of having when they speak of xtianity. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god/deity/divinity. Being an atheist does not automatically put one in the Jesus did not exist camp. Atheists are individuals with one thing in common. They don't believe in god. After that, we may or may not agree on other things.

As to Tacitus. I give his writings as much validity as I give other writings of the time. They are all suspect, because the writers had their own agenda and perspective. Just like today. I can only imagine the convoluted mess we are leaving for those who are alive 2000 years from now.

Jesus wept!

a reply to: Agartha

If we were to only rely on original manuscripts written in the pen of eye witnesses in historical research we wouldn't know much about this world. I may be rising my spear too early, but even if our earliest known copy of this part of Annals is from the Middle Ages, Tacitus' Annals are referred to and quoted by a bunch of other historians and commenters from his time forward. For instance, the early Church fathers loathed Tacitus for his negative descriptions of the Christians, and he was controversial and a hot potato among critics in Rome for his negative descriptions of various Roman Emperors.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I was under the impression documentation had to say Jesus of Nazerath. Not that I care to decide on forgeries. I simply want to point out we need to search for documentation of the correct person.

[sarcasm]Yes, and we should only believe historians who use the Harvard referencing system.[/sarcasm]

[irony]Tacitus' Christus must have been another person who was executed by Pilate and had a notable body of followers called Christians who were targeted by Nero?[/irony]

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

We have no Roman record, from Pilate or elsewhere, of any such execution of "Christ."

Except Tacitus and give or take a few others. Your doctrine of "logical fallacy" about assertions based on historical sources no serious scholar refutes, using sound scientific method-- where can I buy your book? This doctrine of yours will revolutionise the way we understand and research history. "Logical fallacy" hehe, that's a good one. How do one apply logics to history?

Well im sure Tacitus is referencing the same story. It still does nothing to prove jesus was a real person and definately doesn't make mention that he was a magical entity who could perform miracles and was the son of a deity.

It does not matter if jesus was a real person or not. The acts attributed to him could still not be confirmed or believed by anyone with a sound mind. Even if we found lots of contemporary writings about first hand accounts of his life. The earliest writings depicted him as a regular dude. The embellishments came much later.

To me, it does not matter if there was an actual person named jesus. The events that were copied and pasted onto him are still just as unbelievable.


a reply to: Utnapisjtim

If some one had fed thousands with a few loafs of bread and a couple fish then he would have had millions of people queuing up to see it. Same as if some one walked on water it would have spread far and wide. Every one would have been talking about it, all over the roman empire and there would have been countless historians writing about it. All the historians of that age never even mentioned it. No one says any thing about it and the only people who go on about this jesus guy were romans. There again Constantine needed a new god to unite all the people in the empire. So of course the romans are biased.