DID TACITUS USE ARCHIVES OR WAS HIS WORK ALTERED TO SUPPORT CHRISTIANITY?
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus who died in 117 AD condemned Christianity. In 115 AD Tacitus wrote his Annals.
Tacitus has two years missing from his history. The time of the ministry of Jesus is missing as if the Christians took something out. See Nailed by David Fitzgerald. It is possible that he wrote something very incriminating about Christianity - perhaps that some people were reporting visions of a being called Jesus who was never heard of before. Or that Jesus was a real man and murdered somebody. Some think Christ could have been invented and Tacitus said that.
Tacitus in the Annals declared that Christ – he doesn’t call him Jesus - had been made to face the supreme penalty (?) under Pontius Pilate, lived in Judaea and created a new system of pernicious superstition.
ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.
Translation: 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 Judæa, 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.
Christians say that since Tacitus was senator that he must have had access to
the best records and been using them to back up what he said about Christ. They
were not very good records when he did not use more of them and to get
Christians despised by accusing Christ of being a rascal. This suggests that the
records were either lost or never existed. What would records about Christ be
doing in Rome? They were probably destroyed in Palestine if they existed at all.
But we have reason to believe that Tacitus depended on gossip for his data on
Christ. We have no reason at all to think he had records.
The Christian hope that the Roman historians like Tacitus had studied the
records which the Romans scrupulously kept is a false one. There must have been
no Jesus in the records when the Church kept none. And when Christ was the
founder of a sect that the Romans hated they would have had records for he was
important but only if he had existed.
Christians argue that Tacitus complained of conflicts in his sources for other
things and that he condemned absurd statements in them and when he reported a
rumour he just said things like, “It is said”. So they think then he would have
written “it is said” if he had been recording a rumour about Christ’s death. But
why would he? It is said can mean a rumour yes but it can also means something
the historical sources say. With history it is just a matter of what is said in
records and by people who remember. All history books have a pile of rumour in
them too. That’s life. Tacitus could not possibly have said 'it is said' before
reporting everything he thought was just a story that could be false.
The Christian story was more than a rumour by that stage and one can understand
a historian taking it for granted that a Christ was crucified by Pilate if some
books say so no matter how silly the books are for he would take that as a
kernel of truth even if he never saw the books but only got good testimony about
them.
It is a fact that Tacitus did make records of events that never happened. He
only occasionally referred to something as hearsay when he knew for sure that it
was. Like all historians Tacitus would have intended to update his work when new
information came to light. If he erred on Christ perhaps he never got the
chance. Tacitus made up a story to smear Livia and Tiberius (Josh McDowell’s
Evidence for Jesus: Is it reliable?). And if Tacitus had been wrong about Christ
it did not matter for he was only writing about Nero’s treatment of the
Christians and their origin in Christ. That was the main point and the others
including the existence and (supposedly) the crucifixion of Jesus were merely
incidental. That was why he might never have checked them out. It was too hard
in those days to check out everything so it is most probable that Tacitus was
just reported what he heard or thought he heard about Christ and was not
consulting any records. He hated Christians and would have written a bit more
had he been using records. The standards of the time made allowances for a
certain amount of assumption being incorporated into historical discussions and
records. They had to. Tacitus might tell us when he thought something was a
rumour but that was only when he knew for sure and it was obviously a false
report. He would have taken rumours as true when they were good ones. Since he
did make up things to incriminate people he might have been willing to say that
Christ was tortured/crucified which was as good as incriminating Christ because
the Romans would have thought, “Gee the wretch must have done something awful to
deserve that.” Why would Tacitus investigate the existence of Christ when it was
not an issue in his day? No historian investigates everything. Nobody cared but
the Christians if Jesus or Christ lived.
Tacitus did not like Christians and would have had no interest in the details
about their Christ so he did not go to the records and why would he when he only
wrote two or three things about him? You don’t visit the library in the next
town looking for the whole life story of John F Kennedy when you just want to
write when he was shot and where. Tacitus wrote that Christians were dying for
being Christians which Christians use as proof that there was a Jesus but there
is no evidence at all that they freely died for Jesus (Josh McDowell’s Evidence
for Jesus: Is it reliable?). Moreover, some say that Tacitus’ interest in a man
who claimed to be the resurrected Emperor Nero and who had great success in
Parthia would have led Tacitus to investigate Jesus (See A Reply to J.P.
Holding’s “Shattering” of My Views on Jesus, GA Wells). But this is speculation.
Christians are often interested in religion but not in anybody else’s religion
so Tacitus being interested in the new Nero does not imply he would have
investigated Jesus too.
Christians are keen on what he wrote about Christ but not so eager to accept his
account of a miracle worked by the divine Emperor Vespasian (His. Lib. IV. C.81,
Opp. Ed. Paris, 1819, III, p.490).
Tacitus called Pilate the procurator and some believe that this title was too
uncommon before the middle of the first century to have been used by a man
depending on written records. Wells argued that it shows that Tacitus got his
data about Christ from Christian hearsay. He Walked Among Us observed that he
called another man procurator and that he even called the Emperor something that
was not his proper title (page 51). It says he was only using the layman’s
vocabulary for it was for a lay readership. If so then why did he write so
little about Christ? The public would have wanted to know what this Christianity
was about and who started it. And to say that using the wrong title for Pilate
would mean that it came from hearsay and to say that doing this two or three
more times means he wasn’t is simply ludicrous.
If Tacitus were using records he would have said Jesus or Jesus Christ instead
of just Christ. Some say if he had said Jesus Christ then he would have had to
explain how Jesus is related to Christ because the followers of Jesus were
called Christians! This is a ridiculous argument.
If Tacitus had been using Christian testimony he would have been most likely to
have called him Jesus or Jesus Christ. The records would have to be specific so
they would have been more likely to call him not Jesus or Christ but Jesus
called Christ.
Some say that Tacitus would have been likely to use Christ alone for it was
common knowledge that a Christ was expected among the Jews and this would incite
dislike of Christians. Rubbish. He would have used Jesus Christ in case anybody
didn’t know who Christ was if that was his motive.
Tacitus not going to the records show there were no records extant in his day.
Wells stated that Tacitus just got his info from the Christians and was biased
towards accepting it for it gave Christianity a recent origin and the Romans
hated new religions. He Walked Among Us rejects this on the basis that he
reported about Christ as a historical fact and not as something he heard (page
50). But history is not just about studying written records but also about oral
tradition. The unprofessional historian depends too much on oral tradition but
the professional does not turn his back on it and uses it with caution when it
is better than nothing. The professional will use it to fill gaps for a lot of
history comes from the need to avoid saying nothing. To say that Tacitus would
have said if it was hearsay is simply a lie. Then He Walked Among Us says that
Justin and others told their readers to research official documents about Jesus.
But what has that got to do with Tacitus for we don’t know if he was meant? Who
would recommend him when he only wrote a line or two? And besides Justin
recommended an Acts of Pilate that sounds like a forgery. Justin said that the
timetable of the Quirinius census which is reported in Luke still existed in his
day (Josh McDowell’s Evidence for Jesus: Is it reliable?). Justin even went as
far as to tell his readers to consult it. This calls his Acts of Pilate
references into question. Justin was not adverse to inventing back-up when he
was stuck. He must have lied too that some of his works were written for the
Emperor. We know that Pilate’s Acts or records would not have been sent to Rome
for Jesus lived in a land that was under Rome but was largely an independent
jurisdiction (ibid). It may be that Justin just took it for granted that the
Acts existed and put two and two together and came up with twenty. I find the
title of the alleged document to be suspect. Why call it the Acts of Pilate? A
legal document would be unlikely to get an appellation like that. Justin could
not recommend the gospels instead of the Acts of Pilate because the gospels were
still being censored by the Church or perhaps still even being edited at the
time.
Some believe that Tacitus could not have used records about Jesus or Christ
because when Rome turned against Pilate it wanted all trace of Pilate forgotten
(Wells Without Water). The references to Pilate in Josephus were probably
tolerated for Josephus was very unflattering to him and Josephus’ writing was
commissioned by Rome and it would not have tolerated any other for Josephus
would have been employed to do away with the need for any other memorial. That
would have made Pilate the perfect person for the Jesus mongers to blame for the
fictitious crucifixion.
Rome of course might not have destroyed all the records of Pilate in Jerusalem
for it did not care what the Jews thought. But the likes of Tacitus and the
people in Rome would not have been allowed to mention him and there would have
been no records in Rome. This would mean both that there were no records and no
Christian gospels were tolerated so any gospels would have been kept secret. And
above all that somebody interfered with the text about Jesus in Tacitus because
it speaks of Pilate. When they went to the bother of putting in an unnecessary
reference to Pilate they probably invented the whole thing. A forger would only
put in a reference to Christ and perhaps his death if there were a need to
fabricate evidence that Jesus lived because he didn’t live at all.
The mention of Christ is of no worth even if we cannot rule out it having come
from records – which we can. It would have to come from the ancient records to
be trusted. Historians have sometimes mistaken fictitious characters for real
ones. Records were sometimes muddled up and altered in the copying and sometimes
entries were made too late. Sometimes it was impossible to tell if a record had
the right information in it.
Some believe the data Tacitus gives about Christ was an interpolation because it
calls him Christ and seems to say he was executed which is religious dogma. In
response to this it is said that stating Jesus’ title and that he existed and
was put to death is not religious dogma. Christ was a religious title and to say
he was executed when the evidence of Paul indicates that this was revealed
through visions means it is a religious dogma. To say it is not is as silly as
saying that the existence of Adam and Eve is not a religious dogma. The idea
that the Christ material is a statement of dogma cannot be disproved. So its
authenticity cannot be proved either. Those who say the Christ material is dogma
not history will have to accept that if it is not an interpolation then Tacitus
did not access any records for he did not know Christ was a religious title and
that the death of Christ was a dogma.
The passage is nearly exactly the same as one in the work of a man called
Sulpicius Severus who died in 403 AD. This man was known for his credulity and
tall stories. He did not copy from Tacitus because nobody seemed to know of the
Tacitus passage in those days. There is no evidence that they knew. It appears
then that the copyists copied the passage from Severus’s book into Tacitus.
There is no evidence for the authenticity of the Tacitus text on Jesus (The
Jesus of History, A Reply to Josh McDowell, Gordon Stein). If it is forged then
it is proof that the Christians were manufacturing fabricated evidence for the
existence of Christ.
The argument that Tacitus used records from Jesus’ day is worthless speculation
and not only that it makes no sense. We are not sure that Tacitus mentioned
Christ at all. If he did was the Christ Jesus? And Tacitus does not
clearly say he means the Christ suffered execution under Pilate. His words
could fit a man who was tortured and who maybe died from it in time. He does not
mention crucifixion. Tacitus is no help when you want secular references
to the historical Jesus. All we find is that there was a mystery and the
kind of mystery you would expect if Jesus never really lived.