ANES 201-001

Aaron Richards

Dr. Gaye Strathearn

11/08/2022

Tacitus On Trial: and the Christian Persecution Literature Review

Much has been said about the writings of the Historian Tacitus and his account of the

burning of Rome under the Emperor Nero. Until recently, there hasn’t been much said as to

whether Tacitus’ claim that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire is true or not. One catalyst for

this conversation was written by Brent Shaw1. In his article, Shaw argues that such this claim 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. Evidence to

support this claim is extrapolated by comparing the writings of Tacitus’s contemporaries 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.

Shaw notes that there was probably a general prejudice against Christians during Tacitus’

time which made it easy for him to anachronistically project such a connection based on oral

sources from people who were alive at the time of the event. One issue with this argument is that

the New Testament and tradition hold that Paul and Peter where executed around the same time

by Nero. However, Shaw counters this by noting that Nero probably did not have that much

information on either of them to know that they were Christians, and that he probably was just

making a judgement based on the facts given to him. Another issue with the historicity of

1
Brent D. Shaw, “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution,” JRS 105 (2015): from 73.
Tacitus’ account is how Christians were not yet well known at all in the Empire. The term

“Christian” was at the time of the incident too much of a localized term from the small, far away

city of Antioch for higher-up ranked Roman officials to have even heard of the term, let alone

would they have adapt its usage. Shaw’s research is mainly founded on anthropological and

scholarly comparison and comprehension of roman culture at the time

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. One Christopher

Jones responded that Paul and Peter’s martyrdoms did not necessarily have to serve as precursors

for a Christian Persecution by Nero.2 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 opens the possibility of Roman leaders circulating the title in imperial

correspondence. While Shaw notes that Paul is referred to as a Nazoreon in Rome, this may not

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

history is Tacitus is the term used in the account, “Chrestiani.” This term would be too specific

for Tacitus to only speculate mistakenly 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, there is a lack of sources other than Tacitus that connect

Christians to the fire of 64 CE. Eirene Bremmer and Birgit Van Der Lans propose that perhaps

there were other contemporary sources to Tacitus, and even earlier ones that were present during

2
Christopher P. Jones, “The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw,” NTS 63, no. 1
(2017): 146-152.
the incident, that simply did not survive until today.3 Returning to the issue of 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.” 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’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero

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

into question the the key sentence that refers to Christ in the text of Tacitus. In the Annals 15.44,

it is supposedly written: “The author of this name, Christ, was executed by the procurator

Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.” Were we to consider this sentence later 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 precendence 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.

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

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

3
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.
4
Richard C. Carrier, “The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44,” Vigiliae Christianae 68, no.
3 (2014): from 264.
the fire that the evidence in Tacitus for a state-directed punishment of Christians in Rome in,

Shaw directly replied to this by saying that a persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero in

connection with the Great Fire of 64 seems improbable due to the relations between Roman state

officials and Christians in the first century CE.5 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 Acts supporting the use of the name Christian,

such as in Acts 26:1-32, were additional interpolation in the text ex post facto by interested

parties. 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.

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. 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 Messiah 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. Since there is a lack of evidence via specific textual proofs or broader historical

5
Brent D. Shaw, “Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution,” NTS 64, no. 2
(2018): 231-242.
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.6 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. It is claimed 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. 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 are affected by later cultural

memory.

Tacitus’ 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 politically Nero. As Shannon writes:

“We are firmly in the territory of Nora’s ‘memory-history’ here: in a world like modern France –

or Neronian Rome – where memory as embodied in ritual no longer exists, ‘history [is] a critical

method whose purpose is to establish true memory.” (754) Tacitus, with his biases, may have

tainted the meaning of the history that he was attempting to convey.

Michael J. G. Gray-Fow in his article assumes that Tacitus’ version of the Christian

persecution is correct and expounds on the reason that Nero may have had for choosing them as

6
Kelly Shannon, “Memory, Religion, and History in Nero’s Fire: Tacitus, "ANNALS" 15.41,” The Classical Quarterly
New Series 62, no. 2 (2012): 749-765.
the scapegoats.7 The question of how Nero knew about the Christians is also addressed. 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 Claudius, and thus

indirectly Claudius’ gossip from his friend Herod Agrippa I. The likelihood of this cannot be

affirmed for certain, but it is still a possibility that cannot in the least be ruled out.

Another character that may have put Christianity on Nero’s radar was the semi-mythical

figure of Simon Magus, who according to legend went to Rome and gathers a following, thus

calling attention to Christians with whom he associated. In any case, 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 in order to keep tabs on the

already-boisterous region, and perhaps sent along reports to the emperor’s court. Graw 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. There are many other historical figures who had contact with

Christians that may have made mention one or several times of them to Nero.

J. E. A. Crake writes of several late antiquity historians to determine when Roman laws

were first put into place against early Christians.8 In this, it is seen that the term Christian was

applied in the context of Jewish complaints to their Roman government. Crake proposes that it

was a literary suggestion by Tacitus only that perhaps the name of the band accused were

7
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.
8
J. E. A. Crake, “Early Christians and Roman Law,” Phoenix 19, no. 1 (1965): 61-70.
Christians. One 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.

 Bibliography

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

Vigiliae Christianae 68, no. 3 (2014): from 264.

Crake, J. E. A. “Early Christians and Roman Law.” Phoenix 19, no. 1 (1965): 61-70.

Gray-Fow, Michael J. G. “9. 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.”

The Classical Quarterly New Series 62, no. 2 (2012): 749-765.

Shaw, Brent D. “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution.” JRS 105 (2015): from 73.

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

NTS 64, no. 2 (2018): 231-242.

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.