Tacitus and the Historical Jesus: A Flawed Testimony?

Tacitus: The Executed Christ

Cornelius Tacitus is generally considered the greatest Roman historian, yet we do not know his parentage, the city or year of his birth and death (perhaps ca. 56 and 120), or even his praenomen (perhaps Publius or Gaius). We do know that he held a series of important administrative posts, including proconsul of Asia in 112-113, where he was the neighboring administrator to his friend Pliny the Younger.

Tacitus's Histories treats 69-96 C.E., the reigns of emperors Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. It likely had twelve books, of which only Books 1-4 and a part of 5 have survived. The Annals is Tacitus's last (and unfinished) work. Dating from around 116, it treats events during the years 14-68 C.E. (from the death of Augustus through Nero) in either sixteen or eighteen books. The Annals also survives only in parts, with only Books 1-4 and 12-15 intact.

The Annals, the actual name of which is Ab excessu divi Augusti ("From the death of the divine Augustus"), is Tacitus's finest work and generally acknowledged by modern historians as our best source of information about this period. Tacitus writes tersely and powerfully. He seems to use his sources carefully, and he writes an account whose basic accuracy has never been seriously impeached.

Unlike Suetonius, he never stoops to mere scandal and rumor-mongering to make his point about the emperors. His overall tone and task are pessimistic, to record the ordeal of the Roman people and state under a dynastic system which had produced a sad parade of mostly incompetent and often immoral emperors, from Tiberius to Nero. Tacitus knew that the early empire would be seen as a bad period, so his analyses "have their uses, but they offer little pleasure" (Annals 4.33).

The abuses of the imperial system had contributed to the political, moral, and religious corruption of the Roman people. This corruption entailed the inability of the patrician class to challenge the wanton acts of the emperors and the adoption in Rome itself of foreign ways, including foreign religions like Christianity. Rome had indeed declined, but Tacitus did not believe that its fall was inevitable. He writes with a belief in the dignity and positive moral effect of good historical writing, especially on individuals, whom he, like most Romans, believed shaped the course of history.

This positive effect comes about by praising virtuous deeds for posterity and denouncing evil ones in the expectation that this will influence rulers for good (3.65) and the reader will learn to distinguish right from wrong (4.33). Tacitus's works were widely read in his own lifetime, and perhaps it may not be too much to claim that the improved state of Roman government in much of the second century was due in part to his influence.

Chapters 38 through 45 of Annals 15 describe the great fire in Rome and its aftermath in the year 64, an issue that entails introducing Christians and Christ to his readers. Tacitus begins his lengthy treatment of the fire with the question of who was responsible for it. "Following this came a disaster graver and more terrible than all other fires which have occurred in the city. Whether due to chance or to the malice of the emperor is uncertain, as each version has its own authorities" (Annals 15.38.1).

Tacitus describes the fire in a vivid narration to which no summary can do justice. Suffice it to say here that in the early morning of July 19, 64 C.E., a fire broke out in the Circus Maximus area, and for six days spread especially through the residential districts of the city despite all efforts to arrest it. The authorities finally starved it by destroying parts of the city that lay in its path. But then it broke out again and spread over three more days to other areas of Rome. In all, three of the fourteen districts of Rome were totally destroyed, seven were mostly destroyed, and only four were untouched. Aside from the physical damage and loss of life, many ancient cultural treasures were lost.

Nero was helpful at first in aiding the distressed and homeless population, and then in directing reconstruction that led to a city both fire-resistant and more beautiful. But it soon became apparent that he wanted to use private land to build a large palace for himself, the Domus Aurea, in the center of Rome. This and other suspicious events in the course and aftermath of the fire led to the rumor that Nero himself had ordered it.

Tacitus begins Chapter 44 with purposeful ambiguity. He first lists the official acts to cope with the aftermath of the fire, presumably carried out under Nero's direction. The Roman gods were appeased by special ceremonies. The Sibylline books of prophecy were consulted, resulting in further prayers to Vulcan, Ceres, Proserpine, and Juno. Ritual dinners and all-night vigils were held by married women. Then Tacitus reveals the reason for these measures:

"But neither human effort nor the emperor's generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate [Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat]. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular."

Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race [odium humani generis]. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended, they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot. Therefore a feeling of pity arose despite a guilt which deserved the most exemplary punishment, because it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but for the ferocity of one man.

The textual integrity of this section has on occasion been doubted. The text has some significant problems, as attested by the standard critical editions. These and other difficulties in interpreting the text have also led to a few claims that all of it, or key portions of it, has been interpolated by later hands. But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus's own compressed style. The overall style and content of this chapter are typically Tacitean. The passage fits well in its context and is the necessary conclusion to the entire discussion of the burning of Rome.

Sulpicius Severus's Chronicle 2.29 attests to much of it in the early fifth century, so most suggested interpolations would have to have come in the second through fourth centuries. As Norma Miller delightfully remarks, "The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin," and the same could be said of Christian interpolators. Finally, no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44, and they probably would not have been so merely descriptive in adding the material about Christ in 15.44.3.

The only textual difficulty of particular importance for our study comes at the first and only use of "Christians" in Chapter 44. Most older critical editions read Christianoi, "Christians." However, the original hand of the oldest surviving manuscript, the Second Medicean (eleventh century), which is almost certainly the source of all other surviving manuscripts, reads Chrestianoi, "Chrestians." A marginal gloss "corrects" it to Christianoi. Chrestianoi is to be preferred as the earliest and most difficult reading, and is adopted by the three current critical editions and the recent scholarship utilizing them. It also makes better sense in its context. Tacitus is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the "crowd" (vulgus) by stating that the "founder of this name" (auctor nominis eius) is Christus, not the common name implicitly given by the crowd, Chrestus.

Tacitus could have written auctor superstitionis, "the founder of this superstition," or something similar, but he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement in order to link it directly — and correctly — to the name of Christ. Due to the paucity of manuscripts, we cannot be sure about the reading Chrestianoi; but on the whole, it is much more likely than Christianoi.

The secondary literature discussing Tacitus is extensive. The largest problem in scholarship on Chapter 44 is the connection between the fire and Neronian persecution of Christians. Is Tacitus correct in strongly linking them, or were they unconnected events, as all the other surviving ancient historians who write about the fire contend? Did Nero order the fire, was it accidental, or is it perhaps true that Christians did set the fire? Under what legal authority or judicial finding were Christians persecuted?

These problems can be dealt with as they impinge upon our special focus: what Tacitus says about Christ. Of all Roman authors, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ. But what he explicitly says about Christ is confined to the beginning of one sentence in 15.44.3: "The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate." In what follows, we will examine the three main elements of this statement: the name "Christ"; Christ as founder of the movement of Christians; and his execution in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate.

As we have seen, Tacitus can spell "Christus" correctly, and he uses this spelling to correct the common misspelling "Chrestians." Attention to accuracy in detail is characteristic of his work as a whole. To Tacitus, Christians (and, by association, their founder) are certainly not "Chrestians" — "good, useful ones." Rather, they are rightly hated for their "shameful acts" (15.44.2). The word Tacitus uses for "shameful acts" is flagitia, which he last used in 15.37 about Nero. Christians belong to a "deadly superstition" (15.44.3), and have "a guilt which deserved the most exemplary punishment" (15.44.5).

Tacitus uses Christus as a personal name. In light of the "documentary precision" that characterizes Tacitus's statements about Christ, why does Tacitus not use the personal name "Jesus"? That Tacitus regards Christus as a personal name and does not seem to know "Jesus" cannot be said to impeach his overall accuracy, for two reasons. First, the New Testament itself moved in the direction of using "Christ" as a proper name independent of "Jesus." This could have been reflected in the usage that perhaps reached Tacitus, just as it certainly was in the Christian usage that reached Pliny (Letters 10.96). Second, and more significantly, even if Tacitus did know the name "Jesus," he presumably would not have used it in this context, because it would have interfered with his explanation of the origin of Christianoi in Christus, confusing his readers.

Tacitus calls Christ "the originator/founder [auctor] of this name" of "Christians." He does not mean that Christ literally named his movement after himself. Rather, "the founder of this name" means that Christ is the founder of the movement that bears this name, and thus there is a material connection between the two names. They are called Christianoi because they belong to Christ's group. This is important in how he implicitly links the punishment Christ received with the punishment his followers received at the hands of Nero. The occasional use of -ianoi as a pejorative suffix fits the context here, where Tacitus has nothing good to say about Christians.

Tacitus could well have stopped here in his description of Christ, because he has explained the origin of "Christians" in his name. But he continues by informing his readers that Christ "had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate." Many English translations reverse "the reign of Tiberius" and "by the procurator Pontius Pilate," but Tacitus gives them in this more proper order, which should be preserved in translation. For "had been executed," the Latin reads somewhat periphrastically supplicio adfectus erat. Supplicio means "punishment," especially capital punishment, and adficere when construed with punishment often denotes "inflict." So when combined, they mean "inflict the death penalty upon," to execute.

Tacitus expresses the idea of dying in a variety of ways, and this expression suits his style. But he does not say explicitly that Jesus was crucified. That Nero executed Christians links their fate with Christ's, who was executed under Tiberius. As Harris perceptively indicates, the repetition of the verb adficere ties the two together: Christians were "punished [poenis adfecit] in the most unusual ways" by Nero, and Christ "had been executed [supplicio adfectus erat]" by Pilate. That some (or all) were burned corresponds to the specific punishment under Roman law for arson, from the ancient Ten Tables. Thus, Nero made the punishment fit the crime, but did so on such a scale and with such personal ferocity that sympathy for Christians arose.

Finally, Tacitus remarks that Christ was executed "in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The emperor Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37. Tacitus does not give the year of Christ's death in the more formal way, "the X year of the reign of Tiberius." Neither does he give the crime for which Christ was crucified; perhaps this was unimportant, and his readers would have understood it to be a crime against Rome. Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from 26 to 36, years which fall in the reign of Tiberius. Pilate's name, location in Judea, and time are given accurately, in agreement with the canonical Gospels, Philo, and Josephus.

The four Gospels are unanimous that Pilate did indeed give the order for Jesus to be put to death. Bruce’s judgment is fitting: "It may be regarded as an instance of the irony of history that the only surviving reference to [Pilate] in a pagan writer mentions him because of the sentence of death which he passed on Christ."

Tacitus's description of Pilate as a procurator is in all likelihood an anachronism. Until Claudius in 41 C.E. gave each provincial governor from the equestrian class the title "procurator of the emperor" (procurator Augusti), the Roman governor was called a "prefect" (praefectus). This was borne out by the dramatic discovery in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 of the so-called Pilate Stone, the first inscriptional evidence of Pilate, dating from about 31. It reads, with brackets containing reconstruction of the lost Latin lettering, "The Tiberieum of [the Caesareans], [Pont]ius Pilate, [Pref]ect of Judea, de[dicates]."

Even after this change in 41, there may have been a certain fluidity in the use of these two titles, especially in nonofficial writings. Most scholars agree that Tacitus, like other contemporary authors, has made use of the procurator title that was more common in his own time, rather than the earlier and historically correct "prefect." A mistake like this hardly impeaches the accuracy of Tacitus's other statements about Jesus, as Wells implies. The name, location, and date of Pontius Pilate are certain, and both the procurators and prefects in Judea had the power to execute criminals who were not Roman citizens.

To conclude our discussion of the content of what Tacitus says about Christ, it is striking that most of what Tacitus says about Christians is vehemently negative and questioned by many historians, while what he explicitly says about Christ is neutral and accepted as accurate. He confines his remarks about Christ's life to the founding of his movement and his death. He presents Christ's death as a purely Roman matter. "Even if he had known about it, [Tacitus] would not have had the slightest reason to mention participation of the Jews."

Tacitus makes no mention of Christ's teaching and does not explain the revival of his movement by his resurrection. Neither does he mention that Christ is worshipped by the Christians. Finally, Tacitus does not explicitly trace any "shameful acts" of Christians to Christ; probably he cannot. But Tacitus still sees a sinister connection between the two. Christians follow a man executed by Rome, and they too are worthy of death. Nero's error is that his punishment of Christians elicited popular sympathy for a rightly detestable movement, a sympathy shared by Tacitus himself.

What is the source of Tacitus's information about Christ? Historians have proposed different kinds of sources, written and oral, Christian and Roman. To say where he did not get his information is easier than to show where he did. First, Tacitus certainly did not draw, directly or indirectly, on writings that came to form the New Testament. No literary or oral dependence can be demonstrated between his description and the Gospel accounts. The wording is too different; the only commonality is the name Pontius Pilate, and this could easily come from elsewhere. Nor did Tacitus likely draw his information from another Christian document, if his contempt for Christianity is any indication.

Second, Tacitus does not seem to have drawn on general hearsay. He would probably indicate this with an expression like dicunt or ferunt, or explicitly call it a rumor, as he does the report that Nero mounted his private stage and accompanied the burning of Rome with a song, transmuted into the popular idea that "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Moreover, hearsay typically does not produce "documentary precision" about controversial topics like Christ and Christianity. We cannot rule out that Tacitus found this information about Christ in another, now-lost Roman history that he used as a source. However, this cannot be demonstrated either, because Tacitus rarely indicates where he is relying on his sources, much less names them. A more likely source, but still not demonstrable, is a police or magistrate's report made during investigations after the fire, which may have mentioned the genesis of Christianity.

Did Tacitus find a record of Christ in high-level Roman records? These records in Rome were of two types, the Commentarii Principis and the Acta Senatus. The Commentarii Principis was the court journal of the emperors. It contained records like military campaigns, edicts, rescripts, and other legal actions by the emperor. Tacitus reports that it was secret and closed, so he could not consult it. An illustration of its secret nature is recorded in his Histories 4.40, where he reports that the Senate wished to use it for investigation of crimes, but was refused access by the emperor in an ancient claim of executive privilege. Although Tacitus had no access, he complains about the reputed poor state of the archives. (Another indication of the state of these archives is perhaps found in Pliny's letters to Trajan, where whenever Pliny refers to an imperial act, he gives the full text.)

The other type of official record is the Acta Senatus, the senate's archive of its own actions and activities. These were open, and Tacitus states that he used them, but a report about Jesus would probably not belong here. It would not be a report from Pilate or, for that matter, any Roman official in Judea, because Judea was an imperial, not senatorial, province, and so its governors would not ordinarily have reported to the Senate. The Senate could have investigated the fire of 64 and made some comment for explanation about Christ that ended up in its archive. But this remains a supposition, since we have no reference to it from any surviving source. Moreover, that Tacitus uses "procurator" anachronistically may indicate that he is not using an official imperial or senatorial document, which would not likely have made such a mistake.

An intriguing, though unlikely, source for Tacitus's information about Christ may be inferred from a few ancient Christian authors. These authors mention that Pontius Pilate wrote a report to Rome immediately following the death of Jesus or once his movement in Judea had grown after his death. Justin Martyr, writing his First Apology to the emperor around 150, states that a record of the trial and punishment of Jesus called the "Acts of Pilate" was sent to Rome that even contained evidence of Jesus' miracles (First Apology 35, 48).

Although Tertullian repeats this claim (Against Marcion 4.7,19; Apology 5, 21), it appears on the whole unlikely. No corroboration can be found for it, and we have no indication that Roman governors wrote reports about individual noncitizens whom they put to death. More likely, Justin assumed the existence of this document in his pious imagination to bolster the standing of Christianity in the eyes of the emperor, just as he could claim that the emperor possesses "registers of the census" proving that Jesus was born in Bethlehem! (First Apology 34). Or Justin may have known and regarded as authentic an apocryphal Christian document, as Tertullian seems to have.

Pilate is known in the New Testament, Philo, and Josephus as having a reputation among his subjects for being unjust and cruel, and it is almost unthinkable that he would send a report to the emperor detailing what would come to be known as one of his most notable failures. Even if Pilate had drawn up a report of Jesus' trial, a view held today by only a few, it would have gone into the closed imperial archive and not have been available to Tacitus or any other writer. That Pilate is called a procurator rather than a prefect is evidence that Tacitus's information is not based on material from Pilate — Pilate would have gotten his own title correct, and Tacitus would likely have reproduced it faithfully.

The most likely source of Tacitus's information about Christ is Tacitus's own dealings with Christians, directly or indirectly. While Tacitus does not speak of any experiences with Christians, in two periods of his life he could well have acquired knowledge of them. The later period was when Tacitus was governor of the province of Asia. At the same time, his close friend Pliny the Younger was governor of the neighboring province of Pontus-Bithynia and had difficult dealings with Christians. Tacitus could have had similar investigations or trials of Christians, who were present in several cities of Asia, or gained information about Christians from Pliny.

An earlier period when Tacitus may have learned of Christians is often overlooked by historians puzzling out Tacitus's sources. In 88 C.E. Tacitus became a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis, the priestly organization charged, among other things, with keeping the Sibylline books and supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city. Tacitus speaks in this chapter about the Sibylline books being consulted and knows the precise ritual measures that followed (15.44), actions he could have learned of while serving some twenty-four years later in the priestly organization.

Although Christianity was never an officially tolerated cult, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a priestly college charged with regulating licit religions would know something about the illicit ones. This is made more likely by the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism. So perhaps information about the proscribed foreign cult of the Christians came to him at this time.

Although what Tacitus says about Christianity has been and probably will continue to be debated, what he says about Christ is clear. In his sparse but accurate detail, Tacitus gives the strongest evidence outside the New Testament for the death of Jesus. His brief mention of Christ may fairly be claimed to corroborate some key elements of the New Testament account.

Does this "Testimonium Taciteum" therefore provide definitive evidence of the existence of Jesus? If we could be certain that Tacitus's account was based on non-Christian sources, the answer would be yes; but as we have seen, such independent knowledge is unverifiable. As R. T. France concludes, while the evidence from Tacitus corroborates the New Testament accounts of the death of Jesus, "by itself it cannot prove that events happened as Tacitus had been informed," or even the existence of Jesus. This latter, France correctly argues, has abundant persuasive evidence in the New Testament.

Tacitus, careful historian that he was, presumed the existence of Jesus and had no reason to doubt it. The most likely source of Tacitus's information about Christ is still Tacitus's own interactions, direct or indirect, with Christians. While Tacitus does not explicitly describe any personal dealings with Christians, we know that in two periods of his life, he could have gained knowledge about them.

The later period was when Tacitus served as the governor of the province of Asia, during which time his friend Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus-Bithynia. Pliny famously had challenges dealing with Christians and their legal cases, as his Letters to Emperor Trajan show. Tacitus could have encountered similar situations in Asia, where Christians were present in multiple cities, or he could have gathered information through his correspondence and friendship with Pliny.

The earlier period, often overlooked by historians speculating about Tacitus’s sources, is his service in 88 C.E. as a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis, a priestly group tasked with overseeing the Sibylline books and the practice of authorized foreign religions. In his writings, Tacitus shows knowledge of rituals and the consultation of the Sibylline books, as evidenced in Annals 15.44. Although Christianity was not an officially tolerated cult at the time, Tacitus's priestly role might have involved dealing with information about illicit religions like Christianity, especially given the growing need to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. This background may have been Tacitus's initial exposure to the Christian movement.

The broader debate about Tacitus’s account of Christians continues, but what he says specifically about Christ is significant and largely accepted. Tacitus’s concise but accurate details about Christ provide a rare and valuable non-Christian reference to the existence and death of Jesus. Tacitus, being a careful and methodical historian, seems to take for granted that Jesus existed, based on the sources and information available to him. While his work cannot stand alone as definitive proof of Jesus's existence, it does provide important corroboration of key details, especially about Christ’s execution under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

In conclusion, Tacitus's account remains a crucial piece of historical evidence that strengthens the case for Jesus's existence, but it must be viewed alongside other sources like the New Testament. His information, while limited, is neutral and non-partisan, offering a Roman perspective on events surrounding Jesus's death without delving into religious doctrine or beliefs. Tacitus presumed the existence of Jesus, and while the exact origins of his information remain unclear, it is evident that he had no reason to doubt the historical reality of Christ.