When was the term "christian" first used?

[steve43]

Interesting take on Tacitus and the famous persecution passage, Spin.

What is your opinion on an equally famous passage in Histories about the Jews?

Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. ..We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguilded [sic] them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction.
This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country and set at nought parents, children and brethren. (Tacitus Histories V 4-5)

[spin]

Interesting take on Tacitus and the famous persecution passage, Spin.

What is your opinion on an equally famous passage in Histories about the Jews?... (Tacitus Histories V 4-5)

I don't see the connection (or relevance here). What is your interest with the passage?

[steve43]

If you don't want to comment, that's OK.

[spin]

If you don't want to comment, that's OK.

I'm not adverse to commenting, but it is not relevant to the rest of the thread. However, you must have had some reason to bother to ask about it. If you don't want to explain, that's OK too. But that doesn't make commenting seem worthwhile.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Spin,
Thanks for the information on the word "rumori." I should have checked out the word in Latin, but I am terribly busy as usual. I wonder why the translator put it as "report" rather than the more obvious "rumor?"

Besides all your excellent arguments, one perhaps should add the idea that Tacitus wrote in chronological order. This means that Tacitus must have written about the time of Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in a previous annal. This passage gives no hint that he previously mentioned Tiberius, Pontius Pilate or Christ. Tacitus should have referred us to this (e.g. "As I already mentioned this Christ character was killed in the time of Tiberius...) or he should have told us why he did not mention it in his book on Tiberius (e.g. My good Christian friends all tell me Christ died in the time of Tiberius, but I could not find any offical evidence of this, so I did not publish it in my work on Tiberius.)
How can Tacitus not explain anything about Christ and Christianity when apparently even the most educated Romans of his time (example, Pliny the Younger) seems to know nothing about the group.
Imagine someone writing a book on President Obama and saying something similar about an unknown group: "President Obama blamed the problems with the website on the Mogarians. They got their name from Moga who was fired by President Bush. People felt sorry for the Mogarians."

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Spin,

This is an excellent and valid point. The statement "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" is the conclusion to the passage. The passage about the Christians seems an add-on. Whoever has added it on has also made an erroneous connection.

Note this: 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...

There was a "belief" that there was an "order". Does the word "report" in the following line refer to the popular "belief" or the "order." Nero would obviously want to get rid of the "belief" not the "order"(whether he gave it or not).

The word "report" was the choice of translator and does not contain the modern understanding of the word. The Latin is actually "rumori" and "rumor" is sufficiently close to give the correct idea.

The add-on says he wanted to get rid of "the report". What report? A popular belief is not "a report". The word "report" seems to refer to the order Nero gave to start the fire. If Nero gave the order, he would not want to get rid of it and if he didn't give the order he couldn't get rid of it. Often, when people add on to something, they do not look at the meaning of the last line, they simply look at the last word and attach the add-on to it. That seems to be the case here. The editor who attached the passage about the Christians was only attached it to the last word in the sentence, not to the thought of Tacitus. That thought is that he tried everyone naturally and supernaturally possible to avoid blame for the fire. The Christian passage should have logically come before the line 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." Blaming Christians obviously falls under the category "all human efforts".

This is the point (#4) I made some years back elsewhere, so I may as well repeat the summary list of problems I have with the TT.

1. Tacitus says what he wanted to in way of conclusion, "But no human efforts, nor the lavish gifts of the emperor, or the propitiations of the gods, could banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." Without Tacitus accusing Nero of anything, he leaves the emperor holding the bag for the fire, ie everyone knew he ordered it. But Tacitus, known as one of the greatest orators of his era, immediately changes topic from the involvement of Nero regarding the fire to the horrors of the persecution of christians and loses focus in his attack on Nero by hiding this sharp criticism of Nero with a passage about christians.
2. It erroneously calls Pontius Pilate a "procurator" when Tacitus is a major source for the fact that procurators weren't given control of provinces before the time of Claudius. (See below.)
3. It has Nero's gardens being given over to the burning of christians at night in 15.44.5, when the gardens were filled with people made homeless by the fire who were waiting while new dwellings were being built (15.39.2).
4. It is a passage about something Nero attempted in order to dispel the rumours that he'd started the fire, after Tacitus stated that none of his efforts could dispel the rumours.
5. Tacitus, known as one of the greatest orators of his era, writes a passage that blames the christians for something, but is unclear as to what it was that they pleaded guilty of.
6. The style of the passage wildly does not reflect Tacitus's renowned style of reserve and understatement.
7. The passage is functionally a martyrdom story outlining how awfully the christians were treated--so badly that passers by could feel pity (this is in the city where people went to the amphitheatre to watch people being torn apart by wild animals for entertainment). Arguing that the picture was not favorable to christians, is merely an accusation that a christian interpolator was incapable of trying to fit into the style of the original writer.

I would have to argue each point as they are just dot points here. I argued the procurator issue in the link above. (For some reason Richard Carrier has written a few strange defenses of the use of "procurator" here.) But in the current thread I add a further two problems, the lack of outcome for blaming the christians and the tie from the orders at the end of #38 with the order in #44.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Tenorikuma,

This is good stuff. Thanks.

One can imagine that Christian interpolators filched the material from the missing parts of Tacitus' own annals and simply changed Isis followers to Christians. They would have destroyed these parts because there is no mention of Jesus in them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Jay, if you remember who originally made the case that 15.44 originally referred to persecution of the devotees of Isis, and that it's been transposed from an earlier part of the work, I'd be very interested in reading that person's publication.

Since I brought it up initially, I figured it was my job to dig up the reference.

Here it is: The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of the Emperor Nero and His City by Stephen Dando-Collins. Dando-Collins notes that several details of the persecution imply Isis followers were the victims rather than Christians (fire played a role in Isaic rituals, and a priest dressed as Anubis [i.e. a dog-deity] for a major yearly Isis festival). He also shows that Nero had previously been involved in the cult but had rejected it, that it was subject to derision and mockery by prominent Romans of the day, that it had previously been banned in Rome at various times, and that the cult went into decline from the time of Nero until the Flavians rehabilitated it.

[spin]

Hi Spin,
Thanks for the information on the word "rumori." I should have checked out the word in Latin, but I am terribly busy as usual. I wonder why the translator put it as "report" rather than the more obvious "rumor?"

I actually answered this in my last post: 'The word "report" was the choice of translator and does not contain the modern understanding of the word.' The translation is old and the translator used a word whose significance has changed focus. Look at the first definition of report here, or the second here, or the third here. All yield "rumor". The modern understanding is rarely that any more. It's a pitfall of being dependent on old materials published on internet. Meanings shift and users merrily think their modern understanding is what the old source meant. That's an excellent reason why you should never make arguments that depend purely on the words in someone else's translation, especially one found on internet, ie old.

Besides all your excellent arguments, one perhaps should add the idea that Tacitus wrote in chronological order. This means that Tacitus must have written about the time of Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in a previous annal. This passage gives no hint that he previously mentioned Tiberius, Pontius Pilate or Christ. Tacitus should have referred us to this (e.g. "As I already mentioned this Christ character was killed in the time of Tiberius...) or he should have told us why he did not mention it in his book on Tiberius (e.g. My good Christian friends all tell me Christ died in the time of Tiberius, but I could not find any offical evidence of this, so I did not publish it in my work on Tiberius.)
How can Tacitus not explain anything about Christ and Christianity when apparently even the most educated Romans of his time (example, Pliny the Younger) seems to know nothing about the group.
Imagine someone writing a book on President Obama and saying something similar about an unknown group: "President Obama blamed the problems with the website on the Mogarians. They got their name from Moga who was fired by President Bush. People felt sorry for the Mogarians."

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Spin,

This is an excellent and valid point. The statement "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" is the conclusion to the passage. The passage about the Christians seems an add-on. Whoever has added it on has also made an erroneous connection.

Note this: 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...

There was a "belief" that there was an "order". Does the word "report" in the following line refer to the popular "belief" or the "order." Nero would obviously want to get rid of the "belief" not the "order"(whether he gave it or not).

The word "report" was the choice of translator and does not contain the modern understanding of the word. The Latin is actually "rumori" and "rumor" is sufficiently close to give the correct idea.

The add-on says he wanted to get rid of "the report". What report? A popular belief is not "a report". The word "report" seems to refer to the order Nero gave to start the fire. If Nero gave the order, he would not want to get rid of it and if he didn't give the order he couldn't get rid of it. Often, when people add on to something, they do not look at the meaning of the last line, they simply look at the last word and attach the add-on to it. That seems to be the case here. The editor who attached the passage about the Christians was only attached it to the last word in the sentence, not to the thought of Tacitus. That thought is that he tried everyone naturally and supernaturally possible to avoid blame for the fire. The Christian passage should have logically come before the line 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." Blaming Christians obviously falls under the category "all human efforts".

This is the point (#4) I made some years back elsewhere, so I may as well repeat the summary list of problems I have with the TT.

1. Tacitus says what he wanted to in way of conclusion, "But no human efforts, nor the lavish gifts of the emperor, or the propitiations of the gods, could banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." Without Tacitus accusing Nero of anything, he leaves the emperor holding the bag for the fire, ie everyone knew he ordered it. But Tacitus, known as one of the greatest orators of his era, immediately changes topic from the involvement of Nero regarding the fire to the horrors of the persecution of christians and loses focus in his attack on Nero by hiding this sharp criticism of Nero with a passage about christians.
2. It erroneously calls Pontius Pilate a "procurator" when Tacitus is a major source for the fact that procurators weren't given control of provinces before the time of Claudius. (See below.)
3. It has Nero's gardens being given over to the burning of christians at night in 15.44.5, when the gardens were filled with people made homeless by the fire who were waiting while new dwellings were being built (15.39.2).
4. It is a passage about something Nero attempted in order to dispel the rumours that he'd started the fire, after Tacitus stated that none of his efforts could dispel the rumours.
5. Tacitus, known as one of the greatest orators of his era, writes a passage that blames the christians for something, but is unclear as to what it was that they pleaded guilty of.
6. The style of the passage wildly does not reflect Tacitus's renowned style of reserve and understatement.
7. The passage is functionally a martyrdom story outlining how awfully the christians were treated--so badly that passers by could feel pity (this is in the city where people went to the amphitheatre to watch people being torn apart by wild animals for entertainment). Arguing that the picture was not favorable to christians, is merely an accusation that a christian interpolator was incapable of trying to fit into the style of the original writer.

I would have to argue each point as they are just dot points here. I argued the procurator issue in the link above. (For some reason Richard Carrier has written a few strange defenses of the use of "procurator" here.) But in the current thread I add a further two problems, the lack of outcome for blaming the christians and the tie from the orders at the end of #38 with the order in #44.

[arnoldo]

Allegedly, the Emperor Hadrian used the term "christian" circa 134 A.D. in the following context.

The Egyptians, whom you are pleased to commend to me, I know thoroughly from a close observation, to be a light, fickle, and inconstant people, changing with every turn of fortune. The Christians among them are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God. The truth is, there is no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician, that does not do homage to Serapis. The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ. It is a race of men, of all the most seditious, vain and mischievous. The state is powerful, rich, and abounding, and of so active a disposition, that no one is allowed to live without occupation. Some are glass-blowers, some paper-makers, some weavers of thread. All are professors of some one art or other. The blind, and those who have the gout in their feet or hands, find something to do. There is one God whom all worship both Christians, Jews, and Gentiles. I wish this place maintained a better character, worthy of its rank as the first city in Egypt. I have made great and liberal grants to it. I have restored to it its ancient privileges; I have laid it under much obligation by immediate benefits; and after all, as soon as I had left this people, they began to calumniate my son Verus, and I reckon you heard what they have said concerning Antinous. I wish them no further harm, than that they may live upon their own chickens, hatched on their own dunghills, according to that disgusting practice of theirs, which it is disagreeable even to allude to.
source

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Arnoldo,

What is the source Stephen used for the quote from Hadrian?

[arnoldo]

The source could be a forgery however other parts of this book support it's authenticity. FWIW, Mark (aka,the Boukalou/Buffalo) was allegedy martyred during a festival dedicated to Serapis (the bull)in Alexandria.

Source: The African Memory of Mark: Reassessing Early Church Tradition By Thomas C. Oden