APPENDIX D.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Doane, T. W. (Thomas William)
11. The interpolator of the passage makes Tacitus speak of "Christ," not of Jesus the Christ, showing that—like the passage in Josephus—it is, comparatively, a modern interpolation, for
12. The word "Christ" is not a name, but a TITLE;[567:2] it being simply the Greek for the Hebrew word "Messiah." Therefore,
13. When Tacitus is made to speak of Jesus as "Christ," it is equivalent to my speaking of Tacitus as "Historian," of George Washington as "General," or of any individual as "Mister," without adding a name by which either could be distinguished. And therefore,
14. It has no sense or meaning as he is said to have used it.
15. Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians had their denomination from Christ, which would apply to any other of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, as well as to Christ Jesus. And
16. "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (Acts xi. 26), not because they were followers of a certain Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, but because "Christian" or "Chrēstian," was a name applied, at that time, to any good man.[567:3] And,
17. The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called "Christians," and his disciples "Bishops of Christ."[568:1]
So much, then, for the celebrated passage in Tacitus.
Note.—Tacitus says—according to the passage attributed to him—that "those who confessed [to be Christians] were first seized, and then on their evidence a huge multitude (Ingens Multitudo) were convicted, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind." Although M. Renan may say (Hibbert Lectures, p. 70) that the authenticity of this passage "cannot be disputed," yet the absurdity of "a huge multitude" of Christians being in Rome, in the days of Nero, A. D. 64—about thirty years' after the time assigned for the crucifixion of Jesus—has not escaped the eye of thoughtful scholars. Gibbon—who saw how ridiculous the statement is—attempts to reconcile it with common sense by supposing that Tacitus knew so little about the Christians that he confounded them with the Jews, and that the hatred universally felt for the latter fell upon the former. In this way he believes Tacitus gets his "huge multitude," as the Jews established themselves in Rome as early as 60 years B. C., where they multiplied rapidly, living together in the Trastevere—the most abject portion of the city, where all kinds of rubbish was put to rot—where they became "old clothes" men, the porters and hucksters, bartering tapers for broken glass, hated by the mass and pitied by the few. Other scholars, among whom may be mentioned Schwegler (Nachap Zeit., ii. 229);
Köstlin (Johann-Lehrbegr., 472); and Baur (First Three Centuries, i. 133); also being struck with the absurdity of the statement made by some of the early Christian writers concerning the wholesale prosecution of Christians, said to have happened at that time, suppose it must have taken place during the persecution of Trajan, A. D. 101. It is strange we hear of no Jewish martyrdoms or Jewish persecutions till we come to the times of the Jewish war, and then chiefly in Palestine! But fables must be made realities, so we have the ridiculous story of a "huge multitude" of Christians being put to death in Rome, in A. D. 64, evidently for the purpose of bringing Peter there, making him the first Pope, and having him crucified head downwards. This absurd story is made more evident when we find that it was not until about A. D. 50—only 14 years before the alleged persecution—that the first Christians—a mere handful—entered the capitol of the Empire. (See Renan's Hibbert Lectures, p. 55.) They were a poor dirty set, without manners, clad in filthy gaberdines, and smelling strong of garlic. From these, then, with others who came from Syria, we get our "huge multitude" in the space of 14 years.
The statement attributed to Tacitus is, however, outdone by Orosius, who asserts that the persecution extended "through all the provinces." (Orosius, ii. 11.) That it was a very easy matter for some Christian writer to interpolate or alter a passage in the Annals of Tacitus may be seen from the fact that the MS. was not known to the world before the 15th century, and from information which is to be derived from reading Daillé On the Right Use of the Fathers, who shows that they were accustomed to doing such business, and that these writings are, to a large extent, unreliable.