For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

Why? Why indeed? There are some people in history who we know only through the writings of their enemies. Nero is one of these. Caligula and Herod the Great come to mind as two more examples.

So in Tacitus' (and Suetonius') case we have a double motive for what they wrote.

You forgot Cassius Dio

After this Nero set his heart on accomplishing what had doubtless always been his desire, namely to make an end of the whole city and realm during his lifetime. 2 At all events, he, like others before him,13 used to call Priam wonderfully fortunate in that he had seen his country and his throne destroyed together. Accordingly he secretly sent out men who pretended to be drunk or engaged in other kinds of mischief, and caused them at first to set fire to one or two or even several buildings in different parts of the city,

At least Tacitus gives Nero the benefit of the doubt when he says - "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain,"

Cassius Dio doesn't seem to mention Nero doing anything nasty to Christians. Seutonius does although he didn't go into great detail.

Seutonius Life Of Nero

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

So it looks like Christians might have been in Rome in 64 AD. I don't think Sulpicius Severus can be relied on, though, because he was writing in the 4th century AD so probably got his information about the persecution from reading Tacitus and Seutonius. I think we can discount his idea that Nero's going to come back as well.

Nero As The Antichrist

Writing late in the fourth century AD, Sulpicius Severus recounts the reign of Nero in his ecclesiastical history: As he was the first to persecute the Christians, so perhaps he will be the last; many believe that he will come before the Antichrist. Too, given that his body never was found, there are doubts whether Nero committed suicide. Even if he did kill himself with a sword, it was believed that the wound had healed and that he will recover, as foretold in Revelation, and return at the end of the world to work the mystery of iniquity (Chronica, II.28-29).

Can you see a later xtian writer inserting a couple of lines though?

If that bit is a fake it was cleverly done because the writer managed to capture Tacitus's ranting style. He also made sure that he used the word 'superstition' to match Pliny's and Seutonius's view of Christian beliefs.

The only real argument for it being a fake that I could find for free on the internet is this -

Nero's Fire And Christian Persecution?

According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. Annals, XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE. The Fantastic details of the sufferings of the Christians - dressed in animal hides and torn apart by dogs, crucified, and used as human torches - fits the pornographic masochistic obsession of the early Church. The sordid details of flesh torn and blood copiously shed is repulsive to the modern mind. For some reason the early Church wallowed in graphic descriptions of virgins violated and gored to death by bulls, old men crucified suffering horrific tortures and not to mention the over-fed lions of the Colosseum. By the way, the Romans did not feed their lions exclusively on Christians, any old mal-content would do; and more often did.

The niggling problem with that is the faker having to mimic Tacitus's style for more than a couple of lines.

Tacitus Again

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.

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.

As Tacitus was saying that everyone got the message to shut up about the fire as part of his build-up to the assassination attempt it's likely that he did write most of it.

Aaarrgggh - I accidentally posted this instead of saving it as a draft.

Anyway, there are still two questions I'd like you to answer.

1) If Christians in 64 AD didn't believe that their Messiah was executed by Pontius Pilate, when did they start believing it? It's up to you to find the information.

2) Why is the possibility that these lines are authentic such a threat to atheism?

It seems that most modern scholars regard the suspect lines as being authentic but they don't all think that they prove Jesus actually existed.

Historical Value

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[56] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[57]

This is why I said the most sensible approach is the one about the lines telling us something about early Christian beliefs.