Evidence: The Gathering

[Jenny A]

Atheist author and NT scholar Bart Ehrman agrees: Tacitus provides solid support for the existence of the historical Jesus.

Ok, and please don't ignore this request at all, because otherwise it means you're not interested in an honest discussion. In which book and page does Ehrman say Tacitus' remark about the Christians is solid support for Jesus' existence?

More importantly, why does he say it provides solid evidence. The reasons are the important thing. Otherwise all you have is an appeal to authority.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Thanks for actually making an argument for the skeptic position. It's pretty rare than anyone here actually does that, so I appreciate your time and effort.

---

A) 116CE is not contemporary with c.33CE. It is 80 years past, nearly three whole generations later. So again you are wrong.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56-117) was a senator and historian of the Roman Empire known to us through the surviving portions of his two major works: Annals and Histories. Considered one of the greatest Roman historians, Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and to the existence of Jesus’ followers. More on that last bit below.

Notice the date of Tacitus' birth; he would have been about 39 years old at the time that the last living apostle John wrote his gospel in AD 95. The immediate successors of the apostles - people like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch - were all still alive at the time that Tacitus was in Rome and gathering the data that later formed his two works of history. Clement of Rome, for example, was a disciple of Peter and Paul, and he was in Rome (and pope) until his death in AD 99. So, that's not "three whole generations" from Jesus to Tacitus. Peter taught Clement, and Tacitus was in Rome at the same time that Clement was head of the Church in that city.

Jesus --> Peter --> Clement

IOW, Tacitus was a contemporary of the first generation of disciples of the original apostles. It wasn't "three whole generations" later.

B) Tacitus doesn't actually speak about Jesus. He speaks about a man named Chrestus. Now the thing about the Latin name Chrestus is that at the time it was so common both as a given name and a title that there are literally thousands of references to different people with the name in the surviving fragments of Roman records and books. So the very best you get from Tacitus is that there was a group in Rome at c.65CE who followed an unidentified Chrestus who was killed under the orders of Pilate.

Oh, sure. Pilate killed lots of people who were called "Chrestus" and who had followers who proclaimed that their particular version was God.

Seriously, only one "Chrestus" had a group of followers who became so "notorius" that Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome. Tacitus wrote:

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. 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. 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.” (Annals of Imperial Rome, 15:44)

C) The authenticity of the passage, or it's sources are heavily in doubt, because there is no shred of evidence that Nero persecuted any group calling themselves 'Chrestians' or 'Christians' after the burning of Rome. The fact of the matter is that the church itself invented the 'persecutions', along with most other supposed persecutions by the Roman state in the 4th century.

Atheist (and AF forum member) Tim O'Neill notes:

"This clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists.  They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation.  But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect second century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine."

Atheist author and NT scholar Bart Ehrman agrees: Tacitus provides solid support for the existence of the historical Jesus.

So again you fail Randy. Tell me, how do you put up with such constant and unremitting failure?

When it happens, I'll let you know.

---

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Do you have any original source material to verify your claims about Tactius?

The Annals, book 15, paragraphs 38-44 are the relevant passage. The title is an online link to a full length version of the text. I copied only 15:38-44, and bolded the particular section that talks about the Christians, but included the whole section for context.

There are no originals of Tacitus, but we do have an (11th?) century copy that is considered to be a valid copy, though some think there were interpolations inserted by the Christian monks who copied it. I don't see evidence of it as much in Tacitus as in Josephus, where the "added material" is much more obvious.

Of particular note, but usually overlooked by the Christian apologists who mention this section, is that Tacitus was on a council tasked with recording religious cults, and seems to have been reading the testimonies of condemned Christians, where he says "upon their information". Many apologists posit, without evidence, that when he says Pilate crucified "Christus", he is working from official Roman records of the crucifixion, but I think the context makes plain that he's just talking about what the condemned were claiming.

---

[15.38] A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus. For here there were no houses fenced in by solid masonry, or temples surrounded by walls, or any other obstacle to interpose delay. The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the city, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them, it outstripped all preventive measures; so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the city, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets, which characterised old Rome. Added to this were the wailings of terror-stricken women, the feebleness of age, the helpless inexperience of childhood, the crowds who sought to save themselves or others, dragging out the infirm or waiting for them, and by their hurry in the one case, by their delay in the other, aggravating the confusion. Often, while they looked behind them, they were intercepted by flames on their side or in their face. Or if they reached a refuge close at hand, when this too was seized by the fire, they found that, even places, which they had imagined to be remote, were involved in the same calamity. At last, doubting what they should avoid or whither betake themselves, they crowded the streets or flung themselves down in the fields, while some who had lost their all, even their very daily bread, and others out of love for their kinsfolk, whom they had been unable to rescue, perished, though escape was open to them. And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.

[15.39] Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Maecenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.

[15.40] At last, after five days, an end was put to the conflagration at the foot of the Esquiline hill, by the destruction of all buildings on a vast space, so that the violence of the fire was met by clear ground and an open sky. But before people had laid aside their fears, the flames returned, with no less fury this second time, and especially in the spacious districts of the city. Consequently, though there was less loss of life, the temples of the gods, and the porticoes which were devoted to enjoyment, fell in a yet more widespread ruin. And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name. Rome, indeed, is divided into fourteen districts, four of which remained uninjured, three were levelled to the ground, while in the other seven were left only a few shattered, half-burnt relics of houses.

[15.41] It would not be easy to enter into a computation of the private mansions, the blocks of tenements, and of the temples, which were lost. Those with the oldest ceremonial, as that dedicated by Servius Tullius to Luna, the great altar and shrine raised by the Arcadian Evander to the visibly appearing Hercules, the temple of Jupiter the Stayer, which was vowed by Romulus, Numa's royal palace, and the sanctuary of Vesta, with the tutelary deities of the Roman people, were burnt. So too were the riches acquired by our many victories, various beauties of Greek art, then again the ancient and genuine historical monuments of men of genius, and, notwithstanding the striking splendour of the restored city, old men will remember many things which could not be replaced. Some persons observed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 19th of July, the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome. Others have pushed a curious inquiry so far as to reduce the interval between these two conflagrations into equal numbers of years, months, and days.

[15.42] Nero meanwhile availed himself of his country's desolation, and erected a mansion in which the jewels and gold, long familiar objects, quite vulgarised by our extravagance, were not so marvellous as the fields and lakes, with woods on one side to resemble a wilderness, and, on the other, open spaces and extensive views. The directors and contrivers of the work were Severus and Celer, who had the genius and the audacity to attempt by art even what nature had refused, and to fool away an emperor's resources. They had actually undertaken to sink a navigable canal from the lake Avernus to the mouths of the Tiber along a barren shore or through the face of hills, where one meets with no moisture which could supply water, except the Pomptine marshes. The rest of the country is broken rock and perfectly dry. Even if it could be cut through, the labour would be intolerable, and there would be no adequate result. Nero, however, with his love of the impossible, endeavoured to dig through the nearest hills to Avernus, and there still remain the traces of his disappointed hope.

[15.43] Of Rome meanwhile, so much as was left unoccupied by his mansion, was not built up, as it had been after its burning by the Gauls, without any regularity or in any fashion, but with rows of streets according to measurement, with broad thoroughfares, with a restriction on the height of houses, with open spaces, and the further addition of colonnades, as a protection to the frontage of the blocks of tenements. These colonnades Nero promised to erect at his own expense, and to hand over the open spaces, when cleared of the debris, to the ground landlords. He also offered rewards proportioned to each person's position and property, and prescribed a period within which they were to obtain them on the completion of so many houses or blocks of building. He fixed on the marshes of Ostia for the reception of the rubbish, and arranged that the ships which had brought up corn by the Tiber, should sail down the river with cargoes of this rubbish. The buildings themselves, to a certain height, were to be solidly constructed, without wooden beams, of stone from Gabii or Alba, that material being impervious to fire. And to provide that the water which individual license had illegally appropriated, might flow in greater abundance in several places for the public use, officers were appointed, and everyone was to have in the open court the means of stopping a fire. Every building, too, was to be enclosed by its own proper wall, not by one common to others. These changes which were liked for their utility, also added beauty to the new city. Some, however, thought that its old arrangement had been more conducive to health, inasmuch as the narrow streets with the elevation of the roofs were not equally penetrated by the sun's heat, while now the open space, unsheltered by any shade, was scorched by a fiercer glow.

[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 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.

---

---

Also, a useful discussion of the Roman texts which mention Jesus/Christ can be found here.

From the article:

---

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

---

[GrandizerII]

Ok, and please don't ignore this request at all, because otherwise it means you're not interested in an honest discussion. In which book and page does Ehrman say Tacitus' remark about the Christians is solid support for Jesus' existence?

More importantly, why does he say it provides solid evidence.  The reasons are the important thing.  Otherwise all you have is an appeal to authority.

True, but I've read a couple of his books and think Randy is slightly misrepresenting him. But could be wrong.

[Randy Carson]

Maybe; but you're trying to jump the gun by presupposing he has a position for which to argue. Instead of, you know, first asking if he has one and then inviting him to argue for it.

I'll try that approach.

What about you, Stimbo?

Do you have a question about theism or Catholicism that you'd like to ask?

[Randy Carson]

Notice the date of Tacitus' birth; he would have been about 39 years old at the time that the last living apostle John wrote his gospel in AD 95. The immediate successors of the apostles - people like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch - were all still alive at the time that Tacitus was in Rome and gathering the data that later formed his two works of history. Clement of Rome, for example, was a disciple of Peter and Paul, and he was in Rome (and pope) until his death in AD 99. So, that's not "three whole generations" from Jesus to Tacitus. Peter taught Clement, and Tacitus was in Rome at the same time that Clement was head of the Church in that city.

Jesus --> Peter --> Clement

Randy, Randy... Do you know how many people, at that time, claimed to have been disciples of the original disciples?
Do you know how many texts were in circulation claiming to have been written by one of those original apostles?
Do you know why they didn't all survive the biblical editing?

For all we know, Clement merely claimed to have gathered info from Peter to boost his credibility with his audience.
Of course, even then, it is relevant in the fact that there were people who were followers of the christ figure all the way in Rome, so that this Clement could have someone to whom pass that message.
The existence of followers of the christian cult in Rome is quite odd at such an early stage of the cult... either there was a sort of mass migration from the middle-east to Europe , or those few christians that did go to Rome on business or leisure had a great rhetoric that convinced the pagans.
Still, it's not much evidence for the existence of the Jesus fellow... just evidence for the existence of followers of the message allegedly brought forth by him.

Now, you may claim that John was still around, but you'll quickly find that the account in the bible attributed to John is widely agreed by the experts to not have been written by the apostle John.... just another phony... which makes one wonder at the accuracy of its contents.

First, Clement was known and mentioned by Paul.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

The Church was small in the beginning, poca, and a lot of these guys knew each other personally as a result of all the travelling they did on their missionary journeys.

Second, there were many Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost who were from other parts of the Roman empire to which the Jews had dispersed.

Acts 2:5-12
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”


Well, what it means is that after these Jews joined the Church, they went back to their homes...and some of them went home to Rome.

This is why Paul's Letter to the Romans is written to a well-established Church..but one he had never previously visited.

[Randy Carson]

Atheist author and NT scholar Bart Ehrman agrees: Tacitus provides solid support for the existence of the historical Jesus.

Ok, and please don't ignore this request at all, because otherwise it means you're not interested in an honest discussion. In which book and page does Ehrman say Tacitus' remark about the Christians is solid support for Jesus' existence?

I promise I will not ignore you, but before I give you the answer, I have a question for you.

Are you asking because you don't believe that Ehrman views Tacitus' remarks as corroboration of the existence of the historical Jesus?

[Randy Carson]

Do you have any original source material to verify your claims about Tactius?

The Annals, book 15, paragraphs 38-44 are the relevant passage. The title is an online link to a full length version of the text. I copied only 15:38-44, and bolded the particular section that talks about the Christians, but included the whole section for context.

There are no originals of Tacitus, but we do have an (11th?) century copy that is considered to be a valid copy, though some think there were interpolations inserted by the Christian monks who copied it. I don't see evidence of it as much in Tacitus as in Josephus, where the "added material" is much more obvious.

Of particular note, but usually overlooked by the Christian apologists who mention this section, is that Tacitus was on a council tasked with recording religious cults, and seems to have been reading the testimonies of condemned Christians, where he says "upon their information". Many apologists posit, without evidence, that when he says Pilate crucified "Christus", he is working from official Roman records of the crucifixion, but I think the context makes plain that he's just talking about what the condemned were claiming.

---

[15.38] A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus. For here there were no houses fenced in by solid masonry, or temples surrounded by walls, or any other obstacle to interpose delay. The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the city, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them, it outstripped all preventive measures; so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the city, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets, which characterised old Rome. Added to this were the wailings of terror-stricken women, the feebleness of age, the helpless inexperience of childhood, the crowds who sought to save themselves or others, dragging out the infirm or waiting for them, and by their hurry in the one case, by their delay in the other, aggravating the confusion. Often, while they looked behind them, they were intercepted by flames on their side or in their face. Or if they reached a refuge close at hand, when this too was seized by the fire, they found that, even places, which they had imagined to be remote, were involved in the same calamity. At last, doubting what they should avoid or whither betake themselves, they crowded the streets or flung themselves down in the fields, while some who had lost their all, even their very daily bread, and others out of love for their kinsfolk, whom they had been unable to rescue, perished, though escape was open to them. And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.

[15.39] Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Maecenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.

[15.40] At last, after five days, an end was put to the conflagration at the foot of the Esquiline hill, by the destruction of all buildings on a vast space, so that the violence of the fire was met by clear ground and an open sky. But before people had laid aside their fears, the flames returned, with no less fury this second time, and especially in the spacious districts of the city. Consequently, though there was less loss of life, the temples of the gods, and the porticoes which were devoted to enjoyment, fell in a yet more widespread ruin. And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name. Rome, indeed, is divided into fourteen districts, four of which remained uninjured, three were levelled to the ground, while in the other seven were left only a few shattered, half-burnt relics of houses.

[15.41] It would not be easy to enter into a computation of the private mansions, the blocks of tenements, and of the temples, which were lost. Those with the oldest ceremonial, as that dedicated by Servius Tullius to Luna, the great altar and shrine raised by the Arcadian Evander to the visibly appearing Hercules, the temple of Jupiter the Stayer, which was vowed by Romulus, Numa's royal palace, and the sanctuary of Vesta, with the tutelary deities of the Roman people, were burnt. So too were the riches acquired by our many victories, various beauties of Greek art, then again the ancient and genuine historical monuments of men of genius, and, notwithstanding the striking splendour of the restored city, old men will remember many things which could not be replaced. Some persons observed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 19th of July, the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome. Others have pushed a curious inquiry so far as to reduce the interval between these two conflagrations into equal numbers of years, months, and days.

[15.42] Nero meanwhile availed himself of his country's desolation, and erected a mansion in which the jewels and gold, long familiar objects, quite vulgarised by our extravagance, were not so marvellous as the fields and lakes, with woods on one side to resemble a wilderness, and, on the other, open spaces and extensive views. The directors and contrivers of the work were Severus and Celer, who had the genius and the audacity to attempt by art even what nature had refused, and to fool away an emperor's resources. They had actually undertaken to sink a navigable canal from the lake Avernus to the mouths of the Tiber along a barren shore or through the face of hills, where one meets with no moisture which could supply water, except the Pomptine marshes. The rest of the country is broken rock and perfectly dry. Even if it could be cut through, the labour would be intolerable, and there would be no adequate result. Nero, however, with his love of the impossible, endeavoured to dig through the nearest hills to Avernus, and there still remain the traces of his disappointed hope.

[15.43] Of Rome meanwhile, so much as was left unoccupied by his mansion, was not built up, as it had been after its burning by the Gauls, without any regularity or in any fashion, but with rows of streets according to measurement, with broad thoroughfares, with a restriction on the height of houses, with open spaces, and the further addition of colonnades, as a protection to the frontage of the blocks of tenements. These colonnades Nero promised to erect at his own expense, and to hand over the open spaces, when cleared of the debris, to the ground landlords. He also offered rewards proportioned to each person's position and property, and prescribed a period within which they were to obtain them on the completion of so many houses or blocks of building. He fixed on the marshes of Ostia for the reception of the rubbish, and arranged that the ships which had brought up corn by the Tiber, should sail down the river with cargoes of this rubbish. The buildings themselves, to a certain height, were to be solidly constructed, without wooden beams, of stone from Gabii or Alba, that material being impervious to fire. And to provide that the water which individual license had illegally appropriated, might flow in greater abundance in several places for the public use, officers were appointed, and everyone was to have in the open court the means of stopping a fire. Every building, too, was to be enclosed by its own proper wall, not by one common to others. These changes which were liked for their utility, also added beauty to the new city. Some, however, thought that its old arrangement had been more conducive to health, inasmuch as the narrow streets with the elevation of the roofs were not equally penetrated by the sun's heat, while now the open space, unsheltered by any shade, was scorched by a fiercer glow.

[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 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.

---

---

Also, a useful discussion of the Roman texts which mention Jesus/Christ can be found here.

From the article:

---

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

---

You've raised a number of interesting questions, but they have all been addressed by fellow atheist Tim O'Neill in an article published here. He writes:

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all.  This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could.  He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history." (Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt.  He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition...evil...hideous and shameful...(with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, or his miracles, or anything about the claim that he rose from the dead.  On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred ("during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus.  But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects.  None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus.  There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.

[Randy Carson]

More importantly, why does he say it provides solid evidence.  The reasons are the important thing.  Otherwise all you have is an appeal to authority.

True, but I've read a couple of his books and think Randy is slightly misrepresenting him. But could be wrong.

Ok, and please don't ignore this request at all, because otherwise it means you're not interested in an honest discussion. In which book and page does Ehrman say Tacitus' remark about the Christians is solid support for Jesus' existence?

I promise I will not ignore you, but before I give you the answer, I have a question for you.

Are you asking because you don't believe that Ehrman views Tacitus' remarks as corroboration of the existence of the historical Jesus?

Ah. Now I see why you asked.

Have you read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

True, but I've read a couple of his books and think Randy is slightly misrepresenting him. But could be wrong.

I promise I will not ignore you, but before I give you the answer, I have a question for you.

Are you asking because you don't believe that Ehrman views Tacitus' remarks as corroboration of the existence of the historical Jesus?

Ah. Now I see why you asked.

Have you read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Yes. But you're (deliberately?) missing the point. Ehrman is an atheist. Coming to the conclusion that Jesus was an actual, living person does not in any way make it more likely that the Gospel accounts of him were any more than a myth created by his followers after the fact, and perpetuated by Paul, as Ehrman's work points out in analysis of the (legitimate) epistles of Paul to the early churches.

Reliance on Tacitus' stated policy of sticking only to documentation and not to "hearsay", when discussing his reference to the Christian sects, ignores that he is essentially discussing them in-passing. His earlier comments about the source of the fires is of no note, as it only references the source he got for the reasons behind the fires, and he is careful to document where he got that information. It is an enormous stretch to take an overall policy when regarding history (as the Annals  are not about religious sects, but about the actions of the emperors) and apply it to a passing description of the claims of those being executed for religious mischief. There is no reason he would have documented the details of their particular religious practices, in his side-reference to the execution of the Christians, during a wider discussion of Emperor Nero. Tacitus saw all cults of Rome as "mischievous superstitions" (etc), because that was his job. He documented the various cults of Rome, and notes the Christian sect as just one more such cult. It is only the importance of Christianity, post-Constantine, that makes us take note of that one passage at all. 

I know you were just citing the author, but I did list volume 15.38 (which he references) in my own citation of Tacitus, specifically to show how his reference to sources was so far removed from his reference to the Christians. Whether he got his information from the records of the testimonies of the Christians about to be executed or from Josephus in their "circles" makes little difference in terms of this discussion, except that Josephus would have known more Christians directly. It sheds no light on the question of whether the information is sourced from (now lost, if they ever existed) Roman records about Pilate and the alleged trial of Jesus. 

What does shed light on the question of whether official Roman records about Pilate were used is the question of why Tacitus (who, as you say, was so careful when dealing with official records) would use the incorrect title of Pilate at the trials. Pilate held both jobs at different points in his career, so it would be understandable if second- and third-generation Christians got his title wrong (Annals was written 80+ years after Christ's alleged execution, and Josephus' Antiquities was 60 years later), but there is no way that the Roman offical account of the trial would get the title at the time of the trial  wrong, when referring to Pilate. Roman accounts recorded at the time of the trial  would not have made a mistake about his present rank, even if it had changed during the course of his career, as some have argued. Arguments that there was no effective difference between Procurator and Prefect ignore that the Romans would not have seen it so, since Tacitus himself records the moment when (in 44 C.E.) Procurators were given the power to govern provinces. This strongly implies that his source material was not a Roman record of the trial events alleged, but of allegations made by later Christians or those who had interviewed Christians about why they believed what they believed. And that is what is seen in both Tacitus and Josephus' accounts, generally (once you remove the obvious interpolations added to Josephus).

TL;dr version - Nothing Tacitus wrote indicates what O'Neill speculates about in his writing, regarding the source of the side-note about executed Christians and/or the historicity of the source of their religious beliefs, in that passage. It does lend credence to the idea that Jesus was a living person, and that his second- and third-generation worshipers at least believed that he was executed by Pilate, but nothing else.