Tacitus on Jesus

From Free net encyclopedia

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote concerning the Great Fire of Rome, in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116):

Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Chrestus Tibero 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, quo cuncta mundique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

The following is a translation of the above Latin text:

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. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Chrestians, who were hated for their enormities. Chrestus, 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.

Some scholars, such as Gordon Stein, have said that the name Christus was later substited for Chrestus by Christian scribes, and that the passage really is not about Jesus the Christ. The 19th-century scholar John Wilson Ross suggested that the Annals themselves had been forged by the Renaissance humanist Poggio Bracciolini, but his thesis has found no support among classicists and palaeographers.[1] Unlike the case with Josephus on Jesus, however, there is less clear evidence for doubting the authenticity of this text; debate focuses rather on the nature of Tacitus's sources[2].

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," since Pilate is known from a surviving inscription to have been prefect (i.e. governor), as is also stated in the Gospels. The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no authentic contemporaneous Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.

Because of his unflattering descriptions of Christianity (quoted above) and Judaism (Hist., V.iii, iv), Christians have impugned his credibility since at least the 3rd century: Tertullian called him "ille mendaciorum loquacissimus" (Apologeticus 16), and the Catholic Encyclopedia mentioned "the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of the Hebrew people ." [3] This hardly does him justice as an historian: his shrewd understanding of the political age which preceded him is virtually unparalleled. He was not particularly interested in the Jews or the Christians, both of whom were marginal troublemakers to the Roman aristocracy of the day. However, the text does mention that Christians existed, which is not generally in doubt, and that they had founding in "Christ" who was executed by Pilate, a statement trustworthy, from a reliable historian who investigated vigorously.

Where did Tacitus get his information of Christ then? Ancient historians generally felt no obligation to reveal their sources. (Dudley [Dud.Tac, 28] writes in this regard:

"...an ancient historian was under no obligation to give his sources in detail, nor even to mention them at all,"'

and Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] adds that:

"systematic, careful references are a modern invention."

Tacitus could have gotten his information from the work of historians whom he trusted, and whose work is now lost to us. Suggestions have also been made that Tacitus got his information from Josephus, but this is rejected by Tacitean scholars: Mendell, for example, says that:

Tacitus "clearly knew nothing" about Josephus [Mende.Tac, 217 - see also Hada.FJos, 223] )."

A common suggestion is that Tacitus got his information from Rome's archives - perhaps from a letter or account written by Pilate, though the existence of any such letter is pure speculation. Nor is there any evidence that any records of Jesus's trial were held in Rome. The fact that Tacitus never refers to "Jesus", but only to "Christus" ("anointed one") suggests that he did not use archival sources, in which this title is unlikely to have been used, but rather derived his information directly or indirectly from Christians. G.A. Wells and others object that it is unlikely that Tacitus accessed official documents or had access to the imperial archives.

However Tacitean scholars agree that the historian did often access governmental and public records, and did indeed consult original documents: Speeches of the emperor are discussed also in (Annals) 1.81, obviously as accessible. Of letters sent to Tiberius and of others attacking Nero and Agrippina he speaks (5.16 and 5.3) as though they might still be consulted. This is certainly true of the one to Tiberius." [Mende.Tac, 204] In Annals 15.74, Tacitus cites the records of the Roman Senate from Nero's time [ibid., 21] and cites Senate records elsewhere (5.4) [ibid., 212] The acta Senatus included letters from emperors, governors of provinces (like Pilate!), allies, and client kings. Tacitus also probably made use of Rome's public libraries. [Dud.Tac, 28]

Tacitus also consulted the Acta Diurna, a daily public gazette (3.3, 12,24, 13.31, 16.22), and private journals and memoirs, which presumably :"were preserved in large numbers, especially in the older aristocratic families." [Mende.Tac, 212] Syme [Sym.Tac, 278] writes: :"The straight path of inquiry leads to the archives of the Senate...the first hexad of Annales (which is not where the Jesus passage is) contains an abundance of information patently deriving from the official protocol, and only there to be discovered." Regarding an incident in Africa: "That Tacitus consulted the Senate archives is proved by the character of the material, by its distribution..." (ibid., 281) Relative to Book 4 of Tacitus' Historiae: :"required constant access to the register of the Senate." (ibid.)

Mellor [Mell.Tac, 19-20] says of the Histories that Tacitus :"used the records of the Senate for detailed accounts of speeches and debates..." as well as the works of earlier historians. He consulted :"reminisces, biographies, autobiographies, letters, and speeches of the time, as well as...the Acts of the Senate." (ibid., 33) Mellor adds that Tacitus' :"archival research is especially notable in the early books of the Annals" (not where the Jesus cite is) and may have been innovative for his time."

Benario [Benar.Tac, 80-7] highlights Tacitus' use of the works of previous historians (including some otherwise unknown to us), private records, the acta senatus, and the acta diurna. He observes that Tacitus, by his own accounting, was :"heavily involved in research" and that he :"sought out material which others, perhaps, had ignored or of which they were unaware." Momigliano [Momig.CFou, 110-1] asserts that Tacitus made wide use of Senate records for the period of Domitian, and lesser use of them for the time from Tiberius to Titus; for that era, Momigliano tells us, Tacitus probably used the works of Senate historians more often.

[edit]

External links

Template:Wikiquote Template:Wikisourcelang Template:Commons

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Tacitus_on_Jesus"