This article demonstrates that Tacitus, who coined the term interpretatio Romana, used this concept differently than today's historians of religion. Tacitus differentiated between universal and local gods. It is also shown that this differentiation fits the author's structuring of "Germania", which he divides into a general and a specific part. This carries far-reaching consequences because for instance the cult of the Semnones is a local superstitio in tacitean terms, and the common identification of Roman with ”Germanic“ gods since J. Grimm (...) must be abandoned. Finally, the article establishes that G. Wissowa's seminal work on interpretatio Romana, which assumes the deity cults of Germania superior and inferior, fails to take into account that Tacitus, as a historian of religion, merely dealt with "authentic" and "original" Germania. (shrink)

The following article shows what Tacitus Ann. 15,44 thought of the role of the Chrestiani at the burning of the Roman capital A.D. 64 and why they themselves as punishment of their,,crime“ were crucified and burned. In order to demonstrate this the textus receptus is first analysed linguistically and its content interpreted in its historical and sociological context. It is ethnohistorically established as a fact that Tacitus counted the Chrestiani as a minority of the Iudaei. Linguistically it is proved that (...) the words aut flammandi atque ubi are corrupt and have to be emended ad flammas dati, ut, cum why some of the Chrestiani as part of their punishment were given to the flames, i.e. Latine: ad flammas dati. (shrink)