9. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.[566:1]
10. No reference whatever is made to this passage by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before that time,[567:1] which, to say the least, is very singular, 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 "Chrēstian," was a name applied, at that time, to any good man.[567:3] And,