ANES 201–001

Aaron Richards

Dr. Gaye Strathearn

11/18/2022

Tacitus On Trial: The Historicity of Nero and the Christian Arson

In the year 64 CE a great fire raged throughout the city of Rome, leaving much of it in

ashes. Before the smoke could even clear, the question arose in the minds of the distraught

residents of Rome: What, or who, was to blame for causing the fire? The rumor spread fast that

the emperor Nero himself started the fire because he wanted to rebuild the city to his ideal. To

avoid the ire of the masses, Nero pinned the blame on a small, eccentric community that lived in

the city: The Christians. It is a dramatic– almost fanciful– retelling of history, but it is one that is

only ever told be one Roman senator named Cornelius Tacitus in his history The Annals.1 This

raises the question: is it what really happened? how much truth is behind what Tacitus narrates?

Did Nero accuse the Christians of the city of being the arsonists behind the great fire of Rome in

64 CE?

Christianity was barely on the rise throughout the Roman empire by the time that the fire

happened, so if Nero was aware of the existence of the Christians is questionable. Tacitus was

only 8 years old in the year 64 CE, so it can be problematic to assume that he fully

comprehended all the politics around the incident at such a young age. So, how should we

11
Tacitus, The Annals, Book XV, Chapters 38–44.
receive Tacitus’ history of the great fire? Should we take its supposed veracity with a grain of

salt? Should we accept is plainly and wholly as truth without a doubt? Should we approach it

with a little or a lot of skepticism? Should we reject it completely as fiction? Some scholars use

this narration of Tacitus as the first recorded state persecution of Christians.2 If Tacitus’s account

is not true, how would this affect our perception of early Christian persecution in the first century

CE?

These are all questions that came to my mind as I investigated the research done on the

subject. I was surprised to find that there is anything but an authoritative consensus on the matter

amongst historians. Classical scholars interested in the topic have made several arguments for

and against the historicity of Nero’s pinning the fire on the Christians as told by Tacitus. Some

approach the history skeptical, assume that it did not happen, and find ways to discredit it. Others

assume that it was entirely possible and offer supporting evidence as to how it could have very

well happened. After careful research of the different opinion on the matter, I am now more

convinced than not that Nero had many opportunities to have known who Christians were, and

thus had the option of accusing them of arson. I propose to first present the arguments for and

against Tacitus’s claim, and from there explain why I believe that we should not be skeptical of

what is written in The Annals.

The narration of Nero accusing the Christians is a rather short one found in The Annals

Book 15 chapter 44 which says the following:

“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.

2
Brent D. Shaw, “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution,” JRS 105 (2015): 73–100.
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 Judea, the first source of

the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world

find their center 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.”3

Until recently, little has been said as to whether Tacitus’s claim that Nero blamed the

Christians for the fire is true or not. One catalyst for this conversation was written by Brent

Shaw.4 The main idea of Shaw’s argument is that Tacitus’ history is inaccurate, and that Nero

never accused Christians of being at fault for the fire of Rome in 64 CE. Shaw even goes as far

as to say that it wouldn’t be possible for Nero to do so. Shaw’s research is mainly founded on

anthropological and scholarly comparison and comprehension of roman culture at the time.

Evidence to support this claim is extrapolated by comparing the writings of Tacitus’s

contemporary historians like Pliny the elder, the younger, and Suetonius. We can see from their

writings that no claim of Christians being blamed for the fire are ever mentioned in their versions

of relating the event of the fire. This argument based on lack of contemporary writings that

support the account does not convince me that Tacitus’s account is false, given that it is normal

for details to get lost in the transmission of texts over thousands of years, as is pointed out by

other scholars later in this paper.

3
Cornelius Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism” in The Annals, ed. Alfred John Church, William Jackson
Brodribb (New York: Random House, 1942).
4
Shaw, “Myth of Neronian Persecution,” 73.
 Shaw notes on page 86 of his paper that by the time that Tacitus wrote The Annals in his

final years of life in the second century CE, many had a distaste for Christianity and saw it as a

troublesome cult of unruly people who refused to burn sacrifices to the emperor or the gods of

Rome.5 It is evident in many of Tacitus’s writings that he too was biased against the Christians

and shared some of the negative opinions of his time, like when he uses the word superstitio

(superstitious) in his account to describe the Christians.6 This makes it possible that Tactius

anachronistically projected such a connection onto the incident of the fire. Tacitus must have had

to rely heavily on oral sources of people who were involved enough in politics at the time of the

event to get a good picture of what happened after the fire. These people may have had selective

memory distorted by their present biases against Christians that led them to retroactively pin the

blame of the fire onto them. It may have become a popular myth later that Nero had been

prejudiced against Christians. My issue with this argument is that even though historians used

biased terminology to describe the Christians, just because something could have happened

doesn’t mean that it did.

Another issue with this argument is tradition holds that the apostles Paul and Peter were

executed around the same time by Nero, which leaves open the possibility that Nero was

introduced to Christianity through these two capital deaths.7 However, Shaw counters this by

noting that Nero probably did not have that much information on either Paul or Peter to know

that they were Christians, and that he probably was just making a judgement based on the facts

given to him.8 Another issue with the historicity of Tacitus’s account is how Christians were not

yet well known in the Empire. The term “Christian” was at the time of the incident too much of a

5
Shaw, “Myth of Neronian Persecution,” 86.
6
Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism,” XV, 44.
7
Jordan Smith, “How did Peter and Paul Die?,” Bible & Archaeology (University of Iowa, 2022).
8
Shaw, “Myth of Neronian Persecution,” 73.
localized term originating in the small, far away city of Antioch, as seen in Acts 11:22.9 This

may isolate the term too much for higher-up ranked Roman officials to have even heard of the

term, let alone would they have adapted its usage on time for the emperor himself to be familiar

enough with the term to be able to accuse the Christians of arson.

The holes that Shaw poked in the historicity of Tactius left room for other scholars to

offer alternative solutions to support the possibility of the account being true.10 Christopher Jones

responded on page 148 of his paper that Paul and Peter’s martyrdoms did not necessarily have to

serve as precursors for a Christian Persecution by Nero, and that the three incidents could have

been independently connected to Christianity.11 The author of the book of Acts says that local

officials in the city of Antioch were already calling Christians by this label, as seen with the

word χρηματίσαι. This is a Greek word which literally translates to “negotiate or have dealings

with.”12 The inference of this word means that it was not just the Christians that called

themselves by that title, but rather others as well. This opens the possibility of Roman leaders

circulating the title in official imperial correspondence, which Nero would have had access to as

the top of the chain of command. While Shaw notes on page 87 of his paper that Paul is referred

to as a Nazoreon in Rome,13 Jones points out on page 149 of his response that this may not have

been the only term used to refer to Christians at the time.14 Another point that supports the

history in Tacitus is that the historian outrightly uses the term “Christiani” in his account, which

means Christian. This term would be far too specific for Tacitus to only mistakenly speculate

9
Acts 11:22, The Holy Bible, KJV.
10
Shaw, “Myth of Neronian Persecution,” 82.
11
Christopher Jones, “The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw,” NTS 63, no. 1
(2017):146–152.
12
Cf. LSJ A for “χρηματίζω”
13
Shaw, “Myth of Neronian Persecution,” 87.
14
Jones, “Response to Shaw,” 149.
that it was used at the time of the fire. Another possibility is that the idea did not originate from

Nero, but perhaps it was the common people that accused the Christians of the fire at first.

As mentioned by Shaw on page 73 of his paper, there is a lack of sources other than

Tacitus that connect Christians to the fire of 64 CE.15 Scholars Eirene Bremmer and Birgit Van

Der Lans caught wind of this debate and proposed that perhaps there were other contemporary

sources to Tacitus, and even earlier ones that were present during the incident, that simply did

not survive until today.16 When it comes to how the term Christian could be sufficiently known

in Rome for them to be seen as a troublesome people, we can look to Romans 1:6 for possible

support. This scripture says, “Among whom are ye also called of Jesus Christ.”17 This shows that

that idea of believers identifying themselves by the name of Christ was already in practice at the

time of Paul and Nero and in Rome.

An alternative solution to the question of the historicity of the account is to assume that

Tacitus did not mean to mention Christians at all. Some scholars like Richard Carrier have

argued that Tacitus’s reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero

could possibly be a 4th century (or later) interpolation.18 This idea can be entertained by calling

into question the key sentence that refers to Christ in the text of Tacitus. As we have seen above,

in The Annals 15.44, it is supposedly written: “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 Judea, the first source of the evil.”19 Were we to consider this sentence to be an
15
Shaw, “Myth of Neronian Persecution,” 73.
16
Birgit Van Der Lans, Eirene Jan N. Bremmer, “Tacitus and the Persecution of the Christians: An Invention of
Tradition?,” Studio Graeca Et Latina LIII (2017): 299–331.
17
Rom 1:16, The Holy Bible, KJV.
18
Richard C. Carrier, “The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44,” VC 68, no. 3 (2014): 264.
19
Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism,” XV, 44.
interpolation, it would be easy enough to assume that the fire was never supposed to be

connected to Christians. This assumption would be reasonable enough given the precedence for

interpolations of Christ in other first century texts. Carrier notes that at least 1 in 10 of the

handful of non-Christian mentions to Christ during the first three centuries CE were interpolated.

Carrier additionally comments that mentions of Christ were later inserted into the text of some

histories during the Middle Ages so that they would be considered worthy of preservation. It is

possible, then, that a later subject interpolated the mention of Christ into Tacitus so that his

history would survive.

However, this is all just circumstantial evidence. Since there is no proof that indicates

the sentences were interpolated in different redactions of Tacitus’s writings, we have no reason

to doubt that it isn’t his original writing. Arguments of interpolation without evidence seem to be

come from a place of unwarranted suspicion. More importantly, I believe that to discredit this

sentence as mere interpolation would take away from Tacitus’s overarching message in the

chapter of The Annals, which is used a criticism against Nero and the corruption that had sunk

into the city. The next part of the sentence goes on to say, “but even in Rome, where all things

hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”20 We

can see from this extra information that Tacitus is considering Christianity as something

disdainful and just one example of an evil that had snuck its way into Rome. Tacitus further goes

on to describe the depth of cruelty Nero imposed on the Christians, saying “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.”21 Tacitus doesn’t seem to have a problem with the Christians being punished,

20
Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism,” XV, 44.

21
Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism,” XV, 44.
but he goes into length to say that Nero went overboard in the severity of their execution. This is

a criticism on an Emperor that Tacitus evidently did not like.

Another scholar named F.W. Clayton elaborated on the purpose of Tacitus’s writing.22

Clayton compared the parallel writings of his contemporaries like Pliny and Suetonius, who also

were biased against both Christians and Nero, to make the case that Tacitus aimed to paint Nero

in a bad light without absolving the Christians of any guilt. An issue that grieves scholars the

ambiguous wording that Tacitus uses in his writing to describe the accusation. Some of these

problematic parts are where Tacitus writes “hated for their abominations”23 but does not go into

details on what the Christian’s supposed abominations were. Another ambiguous statement is

that Nero had arrested “all (Christians) who pleaded guilty,”24 but neglects to include what

charge they pled guilty to. The way Tacitus carefully words his narration leaves us in the dark as

to what the Christians confessed to: to arson? Or to Christianity? Clayton supposes that Tacitus

articulated the history in such a way intentionally as a literary tool for us to come up with our

own conclusions on how to interpret the possible double meaning.25

Jones argued that knowledge of the term “Christians” could have reached Roman

officials by the mid-60s and that the masses of the city could have been the ones accused them

originally of causing the fire.26 However, Shaw wrote up a counter-response to these claims. He

proposed that a persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero in connection with the Great Fire

of 64 seems improbable, since Roman state officials perceived Christians as practically

22
F.W. Clayton, “Tacitus and Nero’s Persecution of the Christians,” CIQ, 41, No. 3/4 (Cambridge University, 1947):
81–85.
23
Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism,” XV, 44.
24
Tacitus, “Christians Accused of Incendiarism,” XV, 44.
25
Clayton, “Nero’s Persecution,” 81–85.
26
Jones, “Response to Shaw,” 150.
indistinguishable from Jews in the first century CE.27 Another issue with the support provided by

the book of Acts is that the text itself was vulnerable to change and revision over the years of its

circulation. It is possible that the verses shown in the book of Acts that support the use of the

name Christian were additional interpolation in the text ex post facto by interested parties. One

example of this is in Acts 26:28 where Agrippa says to Paul, “almost thou persuadest me to be a

Christian.”28 The motivation behind such intervention in the text could have been out of a desire

to establish authority and prominence in the early sprouting days of the faith and thus establish

more validation to their origins as a unique faith with an identity separate from that of Jews. My

issue with this argument is that there is no evidence to suggest that this verse has been

interpolated, so this idea is just speculation.

Shaw readily recognizes the importance of the use of the Greek verb χρηματίζειν in Acts

11:26 and its potential to be an origin of the external usage of the term Christian.29 However, he

hedges this evidence with the precaution that there are no other uses of this verb in other books

of the New Testament where we can compare the meaning. Since outside use of this word was

used often at the time of Tacitus to serve as a medium for accusatory labels, this term could have

as easily been interpolated later for the same reasons previously mentioned. The idea of the term

Christian being used so widespread could not have been supported by the Jewish communities

that accused them with the Roman officials, since they did not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the

Christ and therefore would not have used the term. It may have well been the case that some

persons who identified as Christians got caught up in actions taken by Roman officials other than

their Christian identity and would thus not fall into the parameters of an official persecution.

27
Brent D. Shaw, “Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution,” NTS 64, no. 2
(2018): 231–242.
28
Acts 26:1–32, Holy Bible, KJV.
29
Shaw, “Response to Jones,” 232.
Since there is a lack of evidence via specific textual proofs or broader historical context, a

pattern of behavior of accusing Christians seems improbable so early and thus allows us to

entertain doubts about the specific words of Tacitus.

From here, other scholars provide their insights as to why the history may be true or not.

Kelly Shannon writes that the fire itself destroyed many annals and histories that were held in the

city Rome and reflects on the connection between writing and memory.30 Shannon works off the

assumption that Nero truly did persecute the Christians in connection to the fire. She notes that

she believes Tacitus uses the Christians as a symbol of religious impurity that was festering in

Rome. Shannon claims that there is a precedent of violent extermination of religious cults

perceived as foreign, so Nero’s choice to blame a small cult like Christians would be sanctioned

by tradition.31 However, one possibility that arises from the idea of history-memory is that much

of what is remembered about the incidents around the great fire could have been affected by later

cultural memory, as similarly proposed by Shaw. Tacitus’s claim of Nero accusing the Christians

is thus possibly a result of this bias held among people of his time, and an attempt to further

tarnish Nero politically. Shannon writes: “In a world like Neronian Rome, where memory as

embodied in ritual no longer exists, ‘history [is] a critical method whose purpose is to establish

true memory.” (754)32 Tacitus, with his biases, may have tainted the meaning of the history that

he was attempting to convey.

Another approach at this debate is to assume that Tacitus’s version of the Christian

persecution is correct and to examine what sources of information Nero may have had for

choosing them as the scapegoats.33 The question of how Nero knew about the Christians is
30
Kelly Shannon, “Memory, Religion, and History in Nero’s Fire: Tacitus, "ANNALS" 15.41,” CIQ 62, no. 2 (2012):
749–765.
31
Shannon, “Memory,” 759.
32
Shannon, “Memory: Tacitus,” 749, 765.
33
Michael J. G. Gray-Fow, “9. Why the Christians? Nero and the Great Fire,” Société d'Études Latines de Bruxelles
57, no. 3 (1998): 595–616.
addressed by scholar Michael J. G. Gray-Fow. In his article, Gray-Fox says that for Nero to have

known to distinguish the Christians from the Jews, then he must have had some knowledge of

the Jews. This knowledge may have come from some of his tutors who were anti-Jewish. Nero

may have known of the Christians due to his connections to one Claudius, who was a friend of

the infamous Herod Agrippa I. The likelihood of this connect, however, cannot be affirmed for

certain.

Nero during his years of formation and instruction was privy to all sorts of information. It

is most probable that the Roman governors of Judaea were aware enough of the Christian cult to

keep tabs on the already-boisterous region, and perhaps sent along reports to the emperor’s court.

Gray-Fow makes mention of several biblical figures as well who had Roman affiliations such as:

Pontius Pilate, the centurion whose servant was healed, the centurion that stabbed Christ on the

cross with a javelin, the two roman soldiers who kept guard the tomb of Jesus, Cornelius the

Roman centurion convert of Peter, Claudius Lysias who rescued Paul from the Jewish mob at the

temple, and the Procurator Festus.34 There are many other historical Roman figures who had

contact with Christians that may have, in their respective social circles, circulated the word of

Christianity. This in turn may have reached the ears of Nero — who was at the center of all

Roman society — enough times for him to get a good sense of who they were.

A sensitive pressure point in the debate of this historicity is when Roman laws were first

put into place against early Christians.35 In an article by J. E. A. Crake, it is seen that the term

Christian was applied in the context of Jewish complaints to their Roman government. These

reports against Christians may have come to the attention of Nero, which enabled him to think of

them as a group of troublemakers small enough that no one would come to their defense were he

34
Gray-Fow, “Why the Christians?,” 595–616.
35
J. E. A. Crake, “Early Christians and Roman Law,” Phoenix 19, no. 1 (1965): 61–70.
to accuse them of arson. Another way that Nero may have known about the Christians was the

simple fact that some may have been arrested for a previous crime, and it was thus easy for Nero

to put the blame on already-convicted criminals. It may not mean that they were a well-known

group, but rather the fact that they these people who were not well-known suited Nero’s intention

quite well. It therefore does not mean that Nero intended to accuse the Christians as a group, nor

was it Tacitus’ intention to say that the Christians were already well known at the time of the

great fire, but Nero rather happened to accuse some common people who were already arrested

under his power who happened to call themselves Christians.

The reason that I am more persuaded of the possibility that Tacitus’ account of Neronian

persecution of Christians for the fire being true is because of all the different variables that could

have enabled Nero to know enough about the Christians to pin an accusation on them. There

were enough people moving around the Roman Empire, Roman and otherwise, that knew what

Christianity was for the emperor to have known of its existence. Christians had friends and foes

that could have been vocal enough for Roman officials to have known about them. There were

enough members of the early Christian church involved in all sorts of activities for Roman

government to have written documentation about them in some form or another. Some of the

scholars that have spoken against the historicity of Tacitus’ claim have declared that the

realization of its falsehood is an earth-shattering revelation that completely alters our

understanding of the course of Christian history. Given the ideas stated above, I do not believe

that we have much need for alarm, nor do we need to re-write the history books. All the

arguments to the contrary lack concrete evidence to support their possibility, so just because the

possibility exists that something may not have happened does not necessarily mean that it didn’t.
 Other Scholars vehemently defend Tacitus’ history, stating that if it was not true, then

Christian persecution does not have the roots that we typically think that it does. Even if Nero

did not actually pin the blame of the fire onto the Christians, I do not think this should alter

greatly our perception on the history of early Christianity. This is because to me, Christian

persecution is a complicated term that needs a careful definition. In my opinion, formal laws

would need to be put in force to target all members of a specific group for their beliefs to be

considered a state sponsored persecution. I do not think that this incident in history would fall

into the category of official persecution according to this definition, and therefore it is not all that

significant whether it happened or not. If Nero did accuse Christians of arson as Tacitus tells us,

does this mean that the Roman government was persecuting Christians just for being Christians?

This does not seem to be the case to me, but rather it seems like a politician was trying to protect

himself from being seen in a bad light.

Bibliography

Acts 11:22; 26:1–32, The Holy Bible, KJV.

Carrier, Richard C. “The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44.” VC 68,

no. 3 (2014): 264–283.

Clayton, F.W., “Tacitus and Nero’s Persecution of the Christians.” CIQ, 41, No. 3/4 (Cambridge
University, 1947): 81–85.
Crake, J. E. A. “Early Christians and Roman Law.” Phoenix 19, no. 1 (1965): 61–70.

Gray-Fow, Michael J. G. “Why the Christians? Nero and the Great Fire.” Société d'Études

Latines de Bruxelles 57, no. 3 (1998): 595–616.

Jones, Christopher P. “The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw.”

NTS 63, no. 1 (2017): 146–152.

Shannon, Kelly. “Memory, Religion, and History in Nero’s Fire: Tacitus, "ANNALS" 15.41.”

CIQ 62, no. 2 (2012): 749–765.

Shaw, Brent D. “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution.” JRS 105 (2015): 731–100.

Shaw, Brent D. “Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution.”

NTS 64, no. 2 (2018): 231–242.

Smith, Jordan “How did Peter and Paul Die?” Bible & Archaeology (University of Iowa, 2022).

Tacitus, Cornelius. “Christians Accused of Incendiarism.” in The Annals, ed. Alfred John

Church, William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Random House, 1942): Chapters 38–44.

Van Der Lans, Birgit; Bremmer, Eirene Jan N. “Tacitus and the Persecution of the Christians: An

Invention of Tradition?” Studio Graeca Et Latina LIII (2017): 299–331.