The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Apparently this paper from Richard Carrier is online at Brill.

Abstract:
Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect.
Academia.edu abstract: "Advances the argument of Rougé to find that in all probability Tacitus never actually referred to Christ at all, and the famous passage now in the manuscripts originally referenced a Jewish rebel group formed by Chrestus a decade later, unconnected to Christianity, and Christian scribes subsequently 'improved' the passage by inserting a line about Christ."

Conclusion:
In the final analysis, given the immensity of the persecution Tacitus describes, its scale in terms of the number of victims, its barbarity, and the injustice of it being based on a false accusation of arson to cover up Nero’s own crimes, what are the odds that no Christian would ever have heard of it or made use of it or any reference to it for over three hundred years? By any reasonable estimate, quite low. Not even prolific and erudite professors of Latin like Tertullian or Lactantius? Lower still. That for nearly three centuries no Christian martyr tradition would develop from either the event or Tacitus’ account of it? Lower still. That no known legends, martyrologies, or tales would adapt or employ it as a motif in any way, not even in the various stories and legends of the persecutions and martyrdoms under Nero that we know did develop and circulate? Lower still. And on top of all that is the additional unlikelihood that all other pagan critics of Christianity (like Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, but even such critics as Celsus) would also somehow not have heard of the event or never make any mention of it.

Lowering the probability further is the way Tacitus describes the event. Tacitus treats the persecuted group as unusually large, and no longer existing, and at the time widely and inexplicably regarded as composed of the most vile criminals, who could credibly have committed arson—three features that do not fit “Christians” that well, but would have fit followers of the instigator Chrestus. It is certainly less likely that Tacitus would say these three things about the Christians in Rome in the year 64 than that he would say them of the Chrestians.

For all these reasons in combination I believe we should conclude the suspect line was probably not written by Tacitus, and was most likely interpolated into its present position sometime after the middle of the 4th century A.D. More likely Tacitus was originally speaking of the Chrestians, a violent group of Jews first suppressed under Claudius, and not the Christians, and accordingly did not mention Christ. We should so conclude because alternative explanations of the evidence require embracing a long series of increasingly improbable assumptions. So the line should be rejected as spurious, or at least held in reasonable suspicion. And this conclusion should now be taken into account when assessing the evidence for Christ and Christianity, and also when translating and interpreting Tacitus and the events following the burning of Rome under Nero. The whole passage in Annals 15.44 should instead be considered as possible evidence supplementing Suetonius on the matter of “Chrestus the instigator” and Jewish unrest at Rome.
I've also attached the paper as a PDF.
Attachments
interpolation-tacitus.pdf
(512.21 KiB) Downloaded 646 times
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Charles Wilson »

Another question to consider: If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus with a tip o' the hat to Suetonius are singled out for forged interpolations, "Why Them?"
'Cause they were in on the Joke at its inception and the 3rd and 4th century Lunkheads knew about it. The loss of Annals is another mystery here but...another day, perhaps.

CW
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Charles Wilson wrote:Another question to consider: If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus with a tip o' the hat to Suetonius are singled out for forged interpolations, "Why Them?"

'Cause they were in on the Joke at its inception and the 3rd and 4th century Lunkheads knew about it. The loss of Annals is another mystery here but...another day, perhaps.
I understand Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, & Suetonius were contemporaries with close personal and geo-spatial ties. ie. they lived close together.

(and, they lived in a region that supposedly had, in their time, people worshiping Serapis as a god who were called Christians).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

It has been frequently mentioned that the portion of Annals that could have included a lengthier mention of Jesus (or "Christ") is missing. You can see that it cuts out in the years covering A.D. 29-31 (the end of book V and beginning of VI). Of course this could be pure happenstance.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:I understand Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, & Suetonius were contemporaries with close personal and geo-spatial ties. ie. they lived close together.
Carrier goes through each of them in constructing his hypothesis (...although parsimony may just posit that they shared information regarding Christians).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote:It has been frequently mentioned that the portion of Annals that could have included a lengthier mention of Jesus (or "Christ") is missing.
or another entity as 'a Christ' (eg. Serapis).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

We've had a thread before on this topic (linked for reference).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Not sure if copying or just similar...

Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, ch. 14-15

But Galerius, not satisfied with the tenor of the edict, sought in another way to gain on the emperor. That he might urge him to excess of cruelty in persecution, he employed private emissaries to set the palace on fire; and some part of it having been burnt, the blame was laid on the Christians as public enemies; and the very appellation of Christian grew odious on account of that fire. It was said that the Christians, in concert with the eunuchs, had plotted to destroy the princes; and that both of the princes had nearly been burnt alive in their own palace. Diocletian, shrewd and intelligent as he always chose to appear, suspected nothing of the contrivance, but, inflamed with anger, immediately commanded that all his own domestics should be tortured to force a confession of the plot. He sat on his tribunal, and saw innocent men tormented by fire to make discovery. All magistrates, and all who had superintendency in the imperial palace, obtained special commissions to administer the torture; and they strove with each other who should be first in bringing to light the conspiracy. No circumstances, however, of the fact were detected anywhere; for no one applied the torture to any domestics of Galerius. He himself was ever with Diocletian, constantly urging him, and never allowing the passions of the inconsiderate old man to cool. Then, after an interval of fifteen days, he attempted a second fire; but that was perceived quickly, and extinguished. Still, however, its author remained unknown. On that very day, Galerius, who in the middle of winter had prepared for his departure, suddenly hurried out of the city, protesting that he fled to escape being burnt alive. [15] And now Diocletian raged, not only against his own domestics, but indiscriminately against all; and he began by forcing his daughter Valeria and his wife Prisca to be polluted by sacrificing. Eunuchs, once the most powerful, and who had chief authority at court and with the emperor, were slain. Presbyters and other officers of the Church were seized, without evidence by witnesses or confession, condemned, and together with their families led to execution. In burning alive, no distinction of sex or age was regarded; and because of their great multitude, they were not burnt one after another, but a herd of them were encircled with the same fire; and servants, having millstones tied about their necks, were cast into the sea.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44

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 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. 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. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:(and, they lived in a region that supposedly had, in their time, people worshiping Serapis as a god who were called Christians).
MrMacSon wrote:or another entity as 'a Christ' (eg. Serapis).
I'm not sure I follow. Do you have references regarding this?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bart Ehrman has a reply to Carrier regarding his (Ehrman's) book:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
The Tacitus Question

While I’m on the Tacitus reference. At one point in my book I indicate that “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55). Carrier says this is “crap,” “sloppy work,” and “irresponsible,” and indicates that if I had simply checked into the matter, I would see that I’m completely wrong. As evidence he cites Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964-68) The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970) pp. 253-66, where several scholars allegedly indicate that the passage is forged.
In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation. What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t. I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago, and so far as I know, they have no followers among trained experts today. In that connection it is surprising that Carrier does not mention Benario’s more recent discussions, published as “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1969-1973,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1974-1983,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1984-1993,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1994-2003.” Or rather it is not surprising, since the issue appears to have died on the vine (one exception: a brief article in 1974 by L. Rougé). I might also mention that there is indeed a history of the question that goes before the mid-20th century. I first became aware of it from one of the early mythicists, Arthur Drews, whose work, The Christ Myth (1909) raises the possibility. But Drews did not invent the idea; it goes back at least to the end of the 19th century in the work of P. Hochard in 1890, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite. I’m not sure if Carrier is familiar with this scholarship or not. But my point is that I was not trying to make a statement about the history of Tacitus scholarship; I was stating what scholars today think.
But Carrier’s objection to my view did take me a bit off guard and make me wonder whether I was missing something, whether there were in fact scholars of Tacitus who continue to think the reference to Jesus was an interpolation in his writings. I am a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, not of Tacitus! And so I asked one of the prominent scholars of the Roman world, James Rives, who happens now to teach at UNC. Anyone who wonders about his credentials can look them up on the web; he’s one of the best known experts on Roman religion (and other things Roman) internationally. He has given me permission to cite him by name, as he is willing to stand by what he says.
My initial email question to him was this:

I’m wondering if there is any dispute, today, over the passage in Annals 15 where he mentions Jesus (whether there is any dispute over its authenticity).

His initial reply was this:
I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it. There are some minor textual issues (the spelling ‘Chrestianos’ vs. ‘Christianos’, e.g.), but there’s not much to be done with them since we here, as everywhere in Tacitus’ major works, effectively depend on a single manuscript.

I then asked him about the article Carrier mentioned with respect to Benario, and this was his reply:
Benario’s article cited below is one of a series he did over a period of decades, in which he summarizes other people’s work on Tacitus; they’re an extremely useful bibliographical resource (although there’s no reason that a non-specialist would be aware of them!). I’ve just checked this particular article, and can only assume that the particular work to which your adversary makes reference is mentioned on p. 264: Charles Saumagne, ‘Tacite et saint Paul’, Revue Historique 232 (1964) 67-110, who according to Benario ‘claims that the Christians are not mentioned in 15.44, that there is an ancient interpolation, taken from book 6 of the Histories, which were written after the Annals, and that Sulpicius Severus was responsible for the transposition’. So I’m wrong that no classicist has argued that the passage is not authentic. Saumagne may not be alone: Benario cites another article on the same page whose author ‘recalls that Christians are not linked with the fire before the time of Sulpicius Severus’. Nevertheless, I would still point out that 1) Saumagne does argue that this is an interpolation, but only from another of Tacitus’ works; 2) the whole thing sounds like a house of cards to me, since Histories Book 6 doesn’t exist and so can’t provide a firm foundation for an argument; 3) this is clearly a minority opinion, since I’ve never encountered it before.

He then pursued the matter further (he’s a *great* colleague!), and wrote me this:

I’ve had a quick look at the two articles in question. Saumagne does think that the text has been interpolated, but also that the reference to Christ being killed under Pontius Pilate comes from a lost portion of Tacitus’ Histories. His argument seems very shaky to me, but in either case it doesn’t affect your own, since Saumagne thinks that Tacitus knew about and referred to Jesus, which is the main thing for you. The other article, by Koestermann (an editor of Tacitus), argues that Tacitus made a mistake in associating the Chrestiani with Christ, but doesn’t say anything about the reference to Christ not having been written by Tacitus himself. There may be scholars who’ve argued that the reference to Christ is a later interpolation into the text, but neither of these two did, and I certainly don’t know of any others.

I think that’s enough to settle it. I really don’t think what I said was “irresponsible,” “sloppy,” or “crap.”
While I agree that Ehrman is in good company, and while I acknowledge that this exchange is particularly on the question of consensus (and that Carrier provoked a continued exchange in that regard), it is still illustrative of a general tendency in these discussions to recuse oneself from the plane of historical evidence and take retreat in the plane of historical opinion. It'd be lovely if this mastery of the state of opinion could be accompanied by something that isn't a waste of the reader's time... like a discussion of evidence. Enough with the tedious counting of heads...
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply