ar, considering that after that time it is
quoted, or referred to, in an endless list of works, which by itself is
all but conclusive that it was not in existence till the fifteenth
century, which was an age of imposture and of credulity so immoderate
that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without
sufficient evidence, whatever was foisted upon them.

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 "Chrestian," 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 suppos