Talk:Tiberius/Archive 2

Lurid tales of sexual perversity

Why cant this be expanded? Sexual perversity can mean anything. I think its relevant to add what exactly were the allegations. 1 2 3 (Redacted) Portillo (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I at least added a line about what would now be considered child molestation/rape. I agree, it could be mentioned in a bit more detail without getting too graphic. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed religion section

A section on religion would be helpful to the reader. Tiberius worshiped the cult of Augustus and was reluctant to establish his own divinity. The article currently lacks any religious appeal, except for one section. The Romans were religious, not just political. Also, Tiberius was emperor when Christ died and he may have been open to Christianity. I am not sure there is a valid source on that one, however, it would be worth looking into. The tolerance of Tiberius may have allowed Christianity to spread throughout the Empire. That is signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Doubtful that Tiberius 'worshipped' any deity considering his dark personality, but that's just opinion. He went through the motions for POLITICAL reasons. Tiberius Caesar never heard of Jesus - that was something taking place far away and handled by one of his many-tiers below officials. The first mention of Christ/Christians to Romans was to Caligula by some apologists. Anyway, by confirming his stepfather was 'divine,' this helped keeping himself established as legitimate Princeps. The first note that the Christians in Rome had reached numbers worthy of attention was during Claudius' reign, and that only due to friction between Christians and Jews causing trouble in the city.50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrections suggested for section "Gospels, Jews, and Christians"

" According to Tertullian"
This makes it sound like Tertullian was a contemporary witness, rather than writing from a Christian viewpoint, in Africa, 200 years later. It should be clarified that he was neither a neutral party nor a contemporary.

"Tiberius most likely viewed Christians as a Jewish sect rather than a separate distinct faith.[106]"
Given that Tiberius died in 37CE, if any distinct Christianity existed before his death (a claim for which there is no evidence and no Roman record) it would have been a handful of people in the remote province of Judah. Further, the previous sentence dates the appearance of the religion decades after Tiberius' death. Therefore "most likely" is not an accurate descriptor. MOST likely would be that Tiberius never heard the name Jesus (in its Greek or any other form) nor the term Christianity at all, especially given that the first writings that mention either occur more than a century after his death. Perhaps the sentence should just be removed?

Completely inaccurate - writings existed very shortly after his death - and Tacitus wrote about the Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.36.161 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Most scholars believe that Roman distinction between Jews and Christians took place around 70 CE."
"Most" is a term that can be argued here, because it depends which type of scholar. You can easily cite the opposite; that most scholars do NOT agree. However it's not as important as the other two problem areas I mentioned above because there is at least a degree of accuracy to the statement.
Tangverse (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"AD" misplaced

The abbreviation "AD" belongs in front of the year. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It can go either way in Latin or English. One of the benefits of a synthetic language. That said, it's better to keep it consistent one way or the other and some readers (like yourself) will find it distracting the other way 'round. — LlywelynII 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Issue with Historiography Section

The format of this section is extremely biased, it only gives reason as to why Tiberius was a good emperor as opposed to what historians overwhelmingly conclude. Why is it that modern historians conclude that he was a poor emperor? This is not an editorial, this is an informational article, both sides must be recorded.

Tiberius co-princeps date

Dear Wikipedia,

This article originally had AD 13 as the date of Tiberius/Augustus co-princeps (I have an earlier copy of the article in my file). In more recent research I found 5 other references with AD 13 as the date of Tiberius co-princep with Augustus. Then I rechecked this date, but found this reference had been changed to AD 12 causing me some confusion. Why the change in dates which contradicts other reference material? Is it possible to get copies of the source material you are using to compare it with other historical data?

Thank you,

James

76.174.161.74 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ps here are the paragraphs in question:

In AD 7, Agrippa Postumus, a younger brother of Gaius and Lucius, was disowned by Augustus and banished to the island of Pianosa, to live in solitary confinement.[30][33] Thus, when in AD 12, the powers held by Tiberius were made equal, rather than second, to Augustus's own powers, he was for all intents and purposes a "co-princeps" with Augustus, and in the event of the latter's passing, would simply continue to rule without an interregnum or possible upheaval.[34]

However, according to Suetonius, after a two-year stint in Germania, which lasted from 10−12 AD,[35] "Tiberius returned and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia. And before turning to enter the Capitol, he dismounted from his chariot and fell at the knees of his father, who was presiding over the ceremonies.”[36] "Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral ceremonies."[37]

Thus according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius return from Germania.[35] "But he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent an entire day with him in private."[37] Augustus died in AD 14, at the age of 75.[38] He was buried with all due ceremony and, as had been arranged beforehand, deified, his will read, and Tiberius confirmed as his sole surviving heir.[39]

Recent edits

There is way too much use of Tacitus, Seutonius, Cassius Dio and Velleius Paterculus as sources to justify the removal of the {{primary sources}} tag. Suggest putting that back. Also, Tiberius was Augustus's goto to man whenever his chosen successors died and he needed a competent general, was the son of Augustus's wife, and eventually Augustus's adoptive son and chosen heir. I'm not sure that "[Tiberius] was a Roman civil servant and military official who served as the Emperor of Roman Empire" is any improvement on what was there before, and suggest reverting that. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both suggestions. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please do revert. Haploidavey (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Happy to discuss here. Factotem (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Did the nascent Roman Empire even have a civil service? Thought that came later. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Empire" (by any other name) was in existence long before the first emperor, and running it required what we'd probably recognise as a civil service; maybe "public administration" is more apt. The top posts were appointed through public nomination and election of the self-same, usually wealthy individuals who led the armies, served the gods and administered the laws. We've several articles pertinent to this. Haploidavey (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The civil service (primitive) was in place as soon as Rome was independent of the Etruscans.50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing has now been done at Claudius, where equally I think getting the fact that he was emperor stuck midway through the sentence does not help matters... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I removed it from Claudius. Thanks. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue

Who is Tiberillus, who is listed under the heading "Issue" (in the box on the right-hand side of the page)? There is no link to his name, unlike the other three names under the same heading, and he is also not mentioned under the heading 4. Children and Family (which, by the way, does not make it clear who is a wife and who is his child).

Is this a child who died young? or maybe a character from "I, Claudius"? No dates or references are given. Anna Lowenstein (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, died young - see google. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD"

I believe that you have made a very good article overall, I would like to ask a question concerning the quote taken from the section:'Heir to Augustus' "Thus, according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius' return from Germania". I could not verify Suetonius actually stating '12 AD'. Can you provide a book page and volume that Suetonius made this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithvalleyrancher (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius His period as a Roman emperor 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough information to evaluate your concern. Could you tell us more about the problem? Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I put this site as a reference but it was reversed to put it back ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That link just goes to the mobile version of the Tiberius Wikipedia article, so it is not necessary or helpful. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tiberius His period as a Roman emperor Help me please--👀Gremista.32 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What about his period as a Roman emperor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, there's this, and this. I find myself thinking "CIR". -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Christianity

Add a section?

Should there be a section on the rise of Christianity during Tiberius' reign? He is emperor during Christ's ministry, and Jesus refers to him in the Bible "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars". He did not persecute Christians and may have asked the Senate for Christ to be deified. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, because although Christ's ministry became historically important later on and it gradually grew into a huge religion which was opposed by some of the later caesars, during Tiberius reign it was rather irrelevant for the Roman powers that be. And Tiberius never asked the Senate for Christ to be deified: those things were later propaganda by early christian "scholars" for which there is no historical record. After all the early church "fathers" were not above forging history to fit their needs. As there is already a short part in the article with regards to Jews and Christianity (4.2), and it mentions that Christ's preached during this reign, adding even more would seem undue weight. -- fdewaele, 29 September 2021, 19:50 CET.

Emperor Tiberius & The Resurrection of Jesus Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate to Judea. It would not be a surprise that Pilate communicated to Tiberius concerning Jesus. Eusebius is the "Christian" historian who recorded the event of Tiberius asking the Senate of Jesus's deification. Christianity was allowed to spread under Tiberius. I believe a section would help, or more information in the article. Can we merely dismiss Eusebius as a liar? The information could be included in the article as "Christian tradition". There should be some information on why Tiberius let Christianity spread throughout the Empire without persecution. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That's simple: because in the period AD33-AD37 the adherents of christianity were no more than a small number (probably a couple dozen people) in a far away minor province at best with communications being tardy. There's no proof that Pilate ever wrote about Christ to Rome, or that the emperor Tiberius - and not a secretary - in fact actually then read those dispatches if they were ever send. You cannot look through the looking glass of later centuries of Christian success to a day and age where for the reigning elderly Roman emperor the few existing Christians in a far away province were not even worth to be considered a nuisance. This topic might be appropriate for a separate article about early Christian traditions, but in a biographic article about Tiberius this would be undue weight. -- fdewaele, 29 September 2021, 23:52 CET.

"Can we merely dismiss Eusebius as a liar?" I would argue that he was a liar. Church History (Eusebius) has long been considered propagandistic in nature:

"The accuracy of Eusebius' account has often been called into question. In the 5th century, the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus described Eusebius as writing for “rhetorical finish” in his Vita Constantini and for the “praises of the Emperor” rather than the “accurate statement of facts.” The methods of Eusebius were criticised by Edward Gibbon in the 18th century. In the 19th century Jacob Burckhardt viewed Eusebius as 'a liar', the “first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.” Ramsay MacMullen in the 20th century regarded Eusebius' work as representative of early Christian historical accounts in which “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed... matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence.” As a consequence this kind of methodology in MacMullen's view has distorted modern attempts, (e.g. Harnack, Nock, and Brady), to describe how the Church grew in the early centuries. Arnaldo Momigliano wrote that in Eusebius' mind "chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda "

09:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Christian tradition should not be disregarded. Eusibius answered why Tiberius did not persecute Christians. Pilate did not want Christ crucified. I am not here to argue the historical accuracy of Eusibius. Every historian has bias. Bias alone should not dismiss a historian. I am not promoting Christianity in the article either. I don't have an agenda. Labeling Eusibius account as Christian tradition is appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Much of the above seems to ignore that Eusebius was writing almost 300 years after the reign of Tiberius, and probably had little in the way of neutral or official documentary sources to go on, as well as living in the environment of a greatly expanded Christian church, surrounded by polemicism. It is not necessary to think him a liar to say he got a great deal wrong, and presents a one-sided view. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I agree including anything about Christianity at face value would be giving too much weight on something that hardly affected Tiberius. With that said, I have seen enough discussion over whether he is important to Christianity that it might make sense to include in the historiography section as it's own subsection. The fact Christians historically viewed him as a relevant figure justifies this in my opinion. However, I don't see him being portrayed by current reliable sources as giving a second thought to the cult in the eastern provinces. SpartaN (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a vote, we are all commenting so far. I have no problem with a section discussing how Tiberius was viewed by Christians. I just disagree with taking Eusebius's narratives at face value, as it is a problem which I have often encountered in articles. Are there modern, reliable sources actually discussing Christian views on Roman emperors? Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I think one thing that is clear or historians can agree on is that there were no generalized persecutions of Christians under Tiberius. Paul the apostle was free to travel anywhere and start a church. There may be some grains of truth to Eusebius' account. Tiberius may have liked Jesus' words "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars", had he been informed of them. I believe the best way is to present the information as Christian tradition, not as historical fact. How much information did Pilate give Tiberius concerning Christ? That is unknown. Tiberius did appoint Pilate to govern Judea. Sample: "Traditional Christian and historical accounts of Tiberius are generally favorable. According to historian Eusebius, Tiberius went to the Senate and asked that Christ be deified, but the Senate rejected this. Christianity gradually spread throughout Judea and there were no Roman systematic persecutions of Christians under Tiberius' reign. There is no evidence Tiberius converted to Christianity, as Tiberius later lived a debaucherous lifestyle contrary to Christian teachings." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Tiberius did appoint Pilate to govern Judea." We do not know why or how Pontius Pilate was appointed. His article includes some educated guesses on his background, but the primary sources are silent.:

• "The sources give no indication of Pilate's life prior to his becoming governor of Judaea."
• "... his cognomen Pilatus might mean "skilled with the javelin (pilum),"... "If it means "skilled with the javelin," it is possible that Pilate won the cognomen for himself while serving in the Roman military; it is also possible that his father acquired the cognomen through military skill."
• "Like all but one other governor of Judaea, Pilate was of the equestrian order, a middle rank of the Roman nobility. As one of the attested Pontii, Pontius Aquila, an assassin of Julius Caesar, was a Tribune of the Plebs, the family must have originally been of Plebeian origin. They became ennobled as equestrians."
• "Pilate was likely educated, somewhat wealthy, and well-connected politically and socially."
• "According to the cursus honorum established by Augustus for office holders of equestrian rank, Pilate would have had a military command before becoming prefect of Judaea; Alexander Demandt speculates that this could have been with a legion stationed at the Rhine or Danube. Although it is therefore likely Pilate served in the military, it is nevertheless not certain."
• "Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman province of Judaea, during the reign of the emperor Tiberius. The post of governor of Judaea was of relatively low prestige and nothing is known of how Pilate obtained the office. ... As Tiberius had retired to the island of Capri in 26, scholars such as E. Stauffer have argued that Pilate may have actually been appointed by the powerful Praetorian Prefect Sejanus, who was executed for treason in 31. Other scholars have cast doubt on any link between Pilate and Sejanus."
• "Pilate's title of prefect implies that his duties were primarily military; however, Pilate's troops were meant more as a police than a military force, and Pilate's duties extended beyond military matters. As Roman governor, he was head of the judicial system. He had the power to inflict capital punishment, and was responsible for collecting tributes and taxes, and for disbursing funds, including the minting of coins. Because the Romans allowed a certain degree of local control, Pilate shared a limited amount of civil and religious power with the Jewish Sanhedrin."
• "Pilate was subordinate to the legate of Syria; however, for the first six years in which he held office, Syria's legate Lucius Aelius Lamia was absent from the region, something which Helen Bond believes may have presented difficulties to Pilate. He seems to have been free to govern the province as he wished, with intervention by the legate of Syria only coming at the end of his tenure, after the appointment of Lucius Vitellius to the post in 35 AD."

Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

My sample does not include Pilate. There apparently is no evidence Pilate persecuted Christians in Judea and he is recognized as Roman authority. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Paul the apostle was a Roman citizen. His persecution of Christians was in 35 AD lasted six months. According to the Bible stopped by Christ on Road to Damascus. Occurred during Tiberius rein. Maybe this could be mentioned too. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a section Christianity to the historiography section. Hopefully will stick. Tried to make narration in consensus with the talk page discussion. Any interest Tiberius had with Christ, apparently was learning Jesus advocated paying taxes to Ceasar, render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think the recent additions are giving way too much weight to what in fact was still a very minor sect during Tiberius' reign. Also there are now TWO separate sections about Christinity which is a bit too much in relevance to the topic of Tiberius Caesar. Methinks those two sections should at least be joined and trimmed. Also references to Paul's persecutions and Stephen's martyr death are off topic because those were actually Jewish persecutions and not Roman persecutions and thus not relevant to Tiberius and his policies. The fact that Paul also held Roman citizenship did not make his actions actions of and by the Roman state as he in fact purely acted in his capacity as a local Jewish powerbroker and enemy of what he (until his conversion) considered to be an inimical Jewish cult who should be oppressed for diverting from standard jewish ways. -- fdewaele, 5 October 2021, 11:50 CET.

Christianity I believe is the largest faith in the world. Not too much weight. Paul used his Roman citizenship for protection. He had a right to a trial. The section I made focuses Tiberius and Christianity. I think it should be separate. The main point was Tiberius let Christianity grow in Judea. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

But all that is irrelevant with regards to the emperorTiberius. Firstly when Paul prosecuted Christians he did not do it as a Roman citizen nor could he employ the might of Rome as he wasn't a Roman magistrate, but he did it in his capacity as a Jewish officeholder who saw in christianity a threat to jewishness. And when he converted to Christianity (the date of which isn't exactly known but was most likely in 36AD) he was only persecuted under later emperors (Nero) but not under Tiberius because in those days Christianity was still an insignificant sect. How Rome looked at christianity in those very early days was most likely plain indifference and accodring to sources they did not differ them from the Jewish religion (yet) and saw them as just another squabling Jewish sect. So with regards to THIS article about TIBERIUS that - and the passage about Paul (Paul the Persecutor and Paul the Persecuted) - is all irrelevant. -- fdewaele, 6 October 2021, 10:08 CET.

I realise we're not voting (as yet) but I must agree with fdewaele's objections and add a few of my own. The new "Christianity" section is not justified by its sources (which include an Australian newspaper's article on what might or might not be the earliest known Christian church - we don't employ newspaper articles in this way - and a "believer's" website whose authorship is devoted openly and honestly to seemingly unwritten early Christian histories and the relaying of related "traditional" narratives/speculations. No harm in that but it all adds up to an rather insubstantial and off-topic diversion from the fundamental topic - Tiberius. As pointed out above (severaly), Tiberius is very unlikely to have heard or cared about an obscure Jewish sect, let alone its leader, known to a very, very small number of people, very few of whom would have mattered to the Roman authorities. And why is "The Way", introduced in the first para of "Christianity", only explained in the last para of "Gospels, Jews and Christians"? Fact is, this is an article on Tiberius, not on his speculated, un-evidenced doings in relation to primitive Christianity. If anything of the "Christianity" content is worth keeping, add it to "Gospels, Jews and Christians", which shows editorial discipline, a grasp of objective, proportionate historical method, some sound scholarly sourcing, and an ability to see and stick to the point. Haploidavey (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A rather old but far better informed and more scholarly source on Eusebius' (or as is more likely, Tertullian's) assertions regarding Tiberius, the refusal of the sought after official deification and the emperor's anger at the Senate begins at p.1 of the work below, available through jstor: Crake, J. E. A. “Early Christians and Roman Law.” Phoenix, vol. 19, no. 1, Classical Association of Canada, 1965, pp. 61–70, https://doi.org/10.2307/1086690 Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And Cmguy777, who is "Drake, 2002"? (various page numbers are given inline, but the author makes only a single, no, two appearances in the article, with no title or publisher. So which of his many works is meant?)Haploidavey (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The section is how the Christian Church viewed Tiberius. Histography. I believe I left an article link on Drake. It is significant the Christian Church started under the Reign if Tiberius. Readers may view all Roman Emperors were against Christianity. Tiberius remained pagan. But it is not out of the question Tiberius liked Jesus saying render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's concerning taxes. I can review the information and make changes. I appreciate any editor's input. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Changes made. Title change. Information moved to the "Christians" section concerning persecutions. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This version is much improvement over the previous version. Of course the reference to his "sexually immoral lifestyle, contrary to Christian teachings" is a bit funny given the immoral life various later popes and christians led. LOL. Also, it was a way of life which many pagan Romans also frowned upon and living a moral life was not exclusively Christian. Just as the disregard for it isn't exclusively pagan. -- fdewaele, 6 October 2021, 19:38 CET.

@Cmguy777; we should not try to bypass or minimise essential requirements for Wikipedia articles. Please identify "Drake 2002". Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the content you've added, your sources are not reliable sources. The work I've linked to above qualifies as a reliable scholarly source. Most of the sources you've used to support your arguments (notably the Emperor Tiberius & The Resurrection of Jesus page) don't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards. See WP:RS Haploidavey (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to bicker about sources. I have improved the article. Wikipedia requires a reliable source. Of course, scholarly sources are the best. Why is Emperor Tiberius & The Resurrection of Jesus unreliable? I respect your concerns about the sources. I don't mind changing the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As of this timestamp, that's very much better; but you'll need to be straightforward about your source's opinion - he reports but does not support or believe Tertullian's story. Btw, the website you were using as source for Emperor Tiberius & the Resurrection of Jesus presents material as factual even whenit's deeply controversial or, as most sources would have it, implausible; the site and content has no publisher's editorial oversight, the editor is also the author (with no accademic qualifications in the topic) and though she has several publications on record, none have been submitted to serious scholarly review. That's it, really. Haploidavey (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The section is historiography. The church viewed Tiberius favorably. I will look into the matter. I don't think we should imply Tertullian was a liar or apply modern historical standards to a 2-3 century historian. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you there. The accounts of Suetonius, Dio and Tacitus (primary sources all, which should not be used uncritically, as they are in this article, for the most part) contain all kinds of inconsistency. Your note is relevant to what's known of Tiberius' bad relationship with his Senate. Nominally (and actually) deification of a deceased head of state was proposed by the new head of state and enacted by the senate; it was a measure of the deceased emperor's perceived worth and his successor's "filial piety". Tiberius himself was not deified by his successor (Caligula) after death. Haploidavey (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not implausible Tiberius wanted Christ deified. Maybe he heard of miracles, the Resurrection, the darkened weather at the Crucification, the earthquake, people raised from the dead. Maybe Tiberius believed them. Let the reader decide any truthfulness of antiquity or ancient accounts. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Personal opinion has no place in an encyclopedia/Wikipedia. It's my personal opinion based on historical works that Tiberius probably never even heard about Christ and even if he had, he would never have been inclined to deify an unknown Jewish foreigner condemned as a "rabble rouser". Given the way Roman high society worked such event would actually have been very improbably and implausible. Especially as no Roman source mentions this. Had this happened it would have featured in Tacitus or another Roman historian's annals. Which they do not. And those guys were often inclined to portray previous emperors in a bad light and the proposed deification of what they considered to be a Jewish rabble rouser would fit that mold and would give them the opportunity to vent their dislike of the imperial person, or, if the Senate really did refuse (quod non) to exultate and champion the Senate's actions against that emperor. -- fdewaele, 13 October 2021, 13 October 2021, 11:27.

Yes, indeed, Cmguy777 is not using the cited source correctly or accurately. At no point does Crake (1964) state, allege or imply that Tertullian's (and thus Eusebius') accounts of this supposed slice of Imperial history are to be taken as literal and historical truths. It explores deification as an Imperial trope, and sets it apart from "real" deification. That's what the scholarly source says, so that's what the Wikipedia article should say. Haploidavey (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I was being neutral as possible. Crake (1964) did not in anyway explain why few would believe Tertullian. This is what the Church believed concerning Tiberius, not a 20th Century historian. That is all that is being stated in the article, the Church's view. Crake (1964) never explained why Tertullian is faulty. Crake (1964) never said who the "few" are that would believe Tertullian. Also Crake (1964) never really attacked Tertullian outright. Crake was a member of the Anglican Church. If Tertullian is attacked in the article, then there should be some reason why Tertullian's account of Tiberius is a myth? None is given by Crake. Crake (1964) just said few would believe Tertullian. Why? Not answered. Tertullian's view was accepted by St. Jerome and Eusibius. There was no explanation why only a few would believe Tertullian. The reader deserves a better explanation. And if Tertullian is so faulty then why would Crake (1964) even mention it? Crake should speak for himself, not what others believe or don't believe about Tertullian. The standards of the 20th Century should not be applied to Tertullian, St. Jerome, or Eusibius. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to resort to personal opinions about the evaluation of primary sources, because (in accordance with Wikipedia policy) that should be the job of modern, scholarly secondary sources. Crake is not the beginning and end of secondary source evaluations of this material. And no, we don't plonk down a whole ream of primary source material for the reader to make up their own mind about. We find the most reputable and relevant secondary source material we can. See below.

Legends are not lies - any more than myths are lies. There is such a thing as Christian legend and Christian mythology. Such legends retrospectively place the Church centre stage of Rome's moral and political life from the very beginning of Church history. Something that would not be borne out in reality for several centuries yet, except in this kind of Christian legend. It's no coincidence that notoriously 'bad' emperors in particular (Nero and Domitian, and Tiberius - don't forget his bad reputation and the fact that he wasn't deified at death) are thus retrospectively offered redemption through a defense of Christ, or even through belief in Christ; and the Church plays out a central role in its claims to provide the agency for this. It can claim authority and Unity, despite its deep divisions in doctrine and politics. Some samples of secondary source analysis of primary sources below, taken from Google Scholar.

See Harmes, Marcus, (2010) "Domitian, the fathers and the persecution of the church". In: Leeds International Medieval Congress 2010, 12-15 Jul 2010, Leeds, United Kingdom https://eprints.usq.edu.au/20033/1/Harmes__LeedsIMC_2010_AV.pdf

Regarding the legend in question (Tiberius, Christ and the senate, as conveyed by Tertullian et al), I quote: 'Barnes stresses the 'utter implausibiity' of the story. Crake argues that it is difficult to take Tertullian's tale at all seriously'.

And Barnes (see above):

Barnes, T.D., The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 1-2 , November 1968 , pp. 32 - 50

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/299693

[1]

Haploidavey (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Tertullian was a pioneer in Christian apologetics. In general, the field is not known for either their objective views on topics, nor their attention to historicity. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I used Crake (1964) as my source not Tertullian. Crake gave no explanation why only a few would believe Tertullian. Barnes says "Utter implausibility" why? The reader deserves an explanation. That was why I was reserved in putting in Crakes' view. No explanation is given. We don't really know what source(s) Tertullian had. What evidence is there Tertullian is a fraud? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I added details from Crake (1964) in the note. But Crake does not explain why Tertullian is supposedly historically inaccurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Crake doesn't need to explain it, except to other scholars, almost all of whom would be very familiar with the material, its limitations and its pitfalls. The farther back you go, the less is known and the deeper the pitfalls. Church history is probably almost all pitfalls, and this really shows up when extravagant and unlikely claims and stories are circulated as "Truth". There is no sufficient circumstantial support in Roman history for what Tertullian says. But we don't do "Truth" on Wikipedia. We don't do "Lies" either. We read the literature very carefully, and we represent the middle ground, the mainstream, in our articles. Crake is definitely middle-ground; generally well-informed. Tertullian was not; but he was probably ciculating stories that had been told for several generations, each adding something they thought sounded good. Oral stuff; that the least reliable history of all. It's something one comes to accept; I've tried to explain this above, probably not at all well. Very few scholars write about difficult subject matter for a general readership. To explain why would take several books worth. You seem to want very simple, straightforward answers to simple, straightforward questions. Try reading some of the sources given. And then read some more. They might give you some clues at least. And that's me done here. Haploidavey (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I complied and put what Crake (1964) said in the article. We don't know what written source(s) Tertullian had, if any, concerning Tiberius. The Romans had a literate culture and wrote in Latin. Terullian could of had (a) written source(s) at his disposal. We don't know. Crake was an Anglican. Does that mean he was promoting Anglicanism in his history? No. I believe Tertullian is a source. How reliable is he? We don't know. I am not verifying Tertullian's account of Tiberius. How much history was lost after Rome fell to the barbaric tribes and was sacked? We don't know. Tertullian lived before Rome was sacked. All I am saying is that there should be some room left for a reader to make their own decisions concerning history. Crake (1964) does not make a direct statement Tertullian is a fraud. He says few would believe him. A suttle difference. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: the eventual decision to add this section was the right one. It's important to note Christian mythology/hagiography/apologetics influential in the present day and to link to fuller discussion of the problems with them precisely because of readers like OP who might otherwise be left in a vacuum thinking that Tiberius was a cryptochristian and reports from the early apologists were the gospel truth. — LlywelynII 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Pilate

Since Tiberius is said to have received a report from Palestine by Tertullian, it was presumably from Pilate or an eye-witness. There is an apparent Letter from Pilate that describes the events of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. It might be worth mentioning the report from Palestine was presumably from Pilate. Yes. The letter was apparently from the fourth century. It reads like an eye-witness event. Here are sources: A Letter from Pontius Pilate Paul Winter (March 1964) and Fathers of the Church The Letter of Pontius Pilate which He Wrote to the Roman Emperor, Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ Is this worth mentioning in the article? I think so briefly. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe adding a note like this, "A letter was apparently sent to Tiberius from Pilate telling of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The authenticity and year of the letter is in dispute, possibly from the 4th century." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References