Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lucretius · 01-13-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Thank you to Lucretius for giving us his more considered thoughts. I note that Andrew has already disposed of three of Luc's arguments. The other two are, unfortunately, the most subjective and hence the least convincing. First, you simply cannot tell from just four words that something is schoolboy Latin. It looks perfectly Tacitean to me from phrases I used to support my earlier substantial post. Does Luc have anything to say about that?

I would say that you can say it is schoolboy Latin from just four words in response to the original post I have recently re-read ALL of Book 15 as well as Book 14 of Tacitus Annals in Latin and nowhere have I found such simplistic use of words.
The four words are exactly as you would write them if you had a Latin Grammar at your elbow.
The phrases you quoted ONLY referred to the fact that Tacitus used "Eius" to link with a previous statement and since this is common usage actually proves nothing.

Quote:

In the end it all comes down to whether the alliteration in the second half of the sentence under review is acceptable Tacitus or not. 'Acceptable' as Tacitus is all we need to dispose of the interpolation argument as we now have no other evidence for it at all.

I do not understand how based solely on YOUR subjective belief that the words ARE Tacitean in the first part , you can say that the matter of the first part has been resolved in any way.

Quote:

What I would like to know is if there is any Tacitean specialist who has raised so much as an eyebrow over the style of this sentence. Grant, I presume, does not. Ultimately, I am going to need more than Luc's personal opinion to say this sentence cannot be by Tacitus. So please can he cite an authority or may I just refute his argument by counter asserting?

I am trying to get hold of the latest writings of AJ Woodman who is the best authority on Tacitus working today and as soon as I do I will be sure to give his interpretation of this passage.
Counter assert all you like but I would like to see evidence that Tacitus used such excessive alliteration anywhere in his surviving works, not just the Annals but also the Histories,Agricola and Germania (all of which I have read ).
I obviously cannot show passages where Tacitus DIDN'T use alliteration as proof that alliteration is Non-Tacitean ,but can state that nowhere have I seen it used to this extent

Quote:

Finally, Luc said "Their being popularly called "Chestianos" is well documented, as after all weren't they still waiting for a Christ to appear?". Does he mean that Jews were popularly called Chrestianos and if so, please could he cite the authority for this.

I have "lost" the reference I had for this I must admit it ,so apologies for that ,it dealt with the fact that at the time Tacitus was writing not only Christians as we know them ,but also Messanaic Jews and even the followers of Osiris were referred to as "Christianos" or "Chrestianos",as soon as I find this I will provide the reference.

Lucretius · 01-14-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

First, you simply cannot tell from just four words that something is schoolboy Latin. It looks perfectly Tacitean to me from phrases I used to support my earlier substantial post.

Something I only thought of after I had logged off yesterday IF you say I cannot tell from "just four words" that this is schoolboy Latin then how is it possible that you can tell from those very same words, that it "looks perfectly Tacitean" either those four words are sufficient or they are not.
They cannot be insufficient for my argument but quite sufficient for yours.

PhilosopherJay · 01-14-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

First of all apologies in not posting this as soon as I said I would I have had some serious computer problems and only after a great deal of work have I been able to get back online.
Anyway here's my argument about the possible interpolation on this passage of Tacitus.

First of all I am going to split this sentence into it's two component parts.
"Auctor Nominis Eius Christus" and "Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio Adfectus Erat"

What can be said about the first part - very little really it is in perfectly grammatical Latin, all the right words agree with each other and that is our problem.

This is schoolboy Latin. It is worthy only of someone who knows the basics of Latin but is completely unaware of any true Latin style.

{snip}

The second part by contrast, also exhibits non-Tacitean style, but for a completely different reason.
"Tibero imPeritante Per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum suPPlicio Adfectus Erat"

The extensive use of alliteration of the letter P makes for, in my oPinion Pathetically Pedestrian, Poor and Puerile Prose.

Sorry but I just couldn't resist but I do hope you get my Point. This is bad English usage and it is equally bad Latin usage. Now don't forget that Tacitus is praised as a stylist. However, this second part is not only reminiscent of the tongue-twister " Peter Piper, Picked a Peck of Pickled Peppers", just try yourself saying it out loud as Tacitus' works would have been , but also gives the impression to me at least of being something from the comedies of Plautus or even perhaps from Petronius' satirical work "Cena Trimalchionis", where the authors are making fun of the literary pretensions of the middle classes or "upwardly mobile" freedmen.

If there is one thing the work of Tacitus isn't ,it is pretentious, it may be difficult ,it may be confusing at times ,but pretentious it never is ,

In addition, in Latin literature, and in particular in well written Latin literature the use of things such as alliteration are always used for a specific purpose. It is actually impossible to see what the purpose and intent of this alliteration would be here, what does this alliteration add to the phrase ?

Perhaps the alliteration was a mnemonic device. A non-Latin speaker asked a Latin speaker to translate a few phrases into Greek for him. He had trouble remembering the second phrase, so the Latin speaker helped him out by turning it into a phrase with a lot of alliteration to help him remember it. the non-Latin speaker remembered it exactly when he made his interpolation.

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin

01-14-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

They cannot be insufficient for my argument but quite sufficient for yours.

Yes they can. You see, you cannot claim X is an interpolation just because your theory demands it and then sit around trying to think up reasons. This is standard Jesus Myth methodology as Jesus mythologists have to find an awful lot of interpolations for their theory to work. Now, we have no reason to believe the sentence in question is an interpolation beyond your two subjective points on style. If we find that we can say nothing about the style of the sentence then it stays where we found it - embedded in the works of Tacitus who wrote it. Only if we can prove that the style cannot be Tacitus does the advocate for interpolation have a case. Otherwise the hurdle to claim interpolation is so low you could do it with anything you don't like (which is what Jesus Mythologists do, but that is another story). No author has a style so consistant that all his sentences conform to it. Tacitus, for instance, moves from using lots of archaisms to using fewer as his writing develops. So no one could exclude a sentence of Tacitus for not being archaic enough (although ironically the prefect/procurator point is very much along these lines).

Really, the only stylistic argument you could use would be to find an authority on Tacitus who has shown no interest in the Jesus Myth, who without that agenda says "Hang on, this sentence looks fishy." Now if we had such an authority I'd have to take it seriously. But AFAIK, we don't. Given how intensively studied Tacitus is, I find it quite surprising that this sentence actually sticks out so much that an amateur (however gifted, as you clearly are) can spot it as unTacitean.

Once again, I do appreciate your efforts but there is nothing here except your own opinion against mine. And who is to say that "auctor nominis eius Christus" is more schoolboyish than "tradunt temporis eius auctores" (6:9) or
"eius accusationis auctor extitit Paetus" (13:23) which are both parts of sentences that look remarkably like the one under review...

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

andrewcriddle · 01-14-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I have "lost" the reference I had for this I must admit it ,so apologies for that ,it dealt with the fact that at the time Tacitus was writing not only Christians as we know them ,but also Messanaic Jews and even the followers of Osiris were referred to as "Christianos" or "Chrestianos",as soon as I find this I will provide the reference.

You may possibly be referring to this

Quote:

From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others markers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen1 or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore

If so it comes from the Augustan History or Histories which is highly dubious as an historical source.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 01-14-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

You may possibly be referring to this:

"But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon, which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

8. From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe. I am sending you over some cups, changing colour and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. I should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely."

9 So then, holding such an opinion about the Egyptians Aurelian forbade Saturninus to visit Egypt, showing a wisdom that was truly divine. ...

If so it comes from the Augustan History or Histories which is highly dubious as an historical source.

In the Penguin edition on page 1 it tells us that 'fiction predominates ... in the whole of the second half of the work' (from which this quote comes). This letter cannot be genuine, I gather from the footnote to the Loeb, since it refers to Verus as his son (only adopted as such in 136AD), and to his sister Paulina, the wife of Servianus, who died ca. 130AD.

I read the letter as saying, not that Serapis-worshippers are called Christians; but that Egyptians don't take any religion seriously, and even those notoriously opposed to each other elsewhere are in practice interchangeable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Lucretius · 01-15-2005, 06:31 AM

Thanks Andrew I don't think that is the reference I had but it may be possible that the source I had was referring to that, I will check it out though.
Due to some more pressing projects I have(Thats the problem in trying to be a Renaissance Man

) ,it looks as if I won't be able to do much on this for the next week or even longer .
I do have some other notes which need typing up, but I just don't have the time at the moment to give this topic the time I think it deserves.
I have NOT given up on it though

and will be back hopefully with more (and better comments I hope ) as soon as I can.

Just to add something I will be about and visiting these forums on a regular basis,so I may be able to answer simple queries ,it's just I can't spend hours and hours on this just at the moment

Chris Weimer · 01-15-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Yes they can. You see, you cannot claim X is an interpolation just because your theory demands it and then sit around trying to think up reasons. This is standard Jesus Myth methodology as Jesus mythologists have to find an awful lot of interpolations for their theory to work.

Funny, this is how all scientific inquiries work. Reading over data, finds something that looks suspicious, formulates an hypothesis, run test, examine data, compare to original, conclude. Well now, isn't that exactly what we have done here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Really, the only stylistic argument you could use would be to find an authority on Tacitus who has shown no interest in the Jesus Myth, who without that agenda says "Hang on, this sentence looks fishy." Now if we had such an authority I'd have to take it seriously. But AFAIK, we don't. Given how intensively studied Tacitus is, I find it quite surprising that this sentence actually sticks out so much that an amateur (however gifted, as you clearly are) can spot it as unTacitean.

Actually, it was me who spotted the quote as being unTacitean, a general feeling, and I've been falling closer and closer to the historical Jesus for quite some time now. Are you going to poison my well too? Either way, this has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with Jesus mythicism. If it proved to be there, then it doesn't change anything. It's obviously not an official documentation by the way he referred to Jesus (Christ). Surely you don't think trials were as the gospels claim they were. Au contraire, they were actually civil. :banghead:

And as for amateurs, I've given you plenty of other scholarly information (and I believe Toto did also) about the possible interpolation. Now you are just in denial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Once again, I do appreciate your efforts but there is nothing here except your own opinion against mine. And who is to say that "auctor nominis eius Christus" is more schoolboyish than "tradunt temporis eius auctores" (6:9) or
"eius accusationis auctor extitit Paetus" (13:23) which are both parts of sentences that look remarkably like the one under review...

Two things here. The first is that both examples you gave are very stylistically different, look at word placement.

PhilosopherJay · 01-15-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Perhaps the alliteration was a mnemonic device. A non-Latin speaker asked a Latin speaker to translate a few phrases into Greek for him. He had trouble remembering the second phrase, so the Latin speaker helped him out by turning it into a phrase with a lot of alliteration to help him remember it. the non-Latin speaker remembered it exactly when he made his interpolation.

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin

The second sentence should read. A non-Latin speaker asked a Latin speaker to translate a few phrases into "Latin" (not "Greek") for him.

If we look at Eusebius's History we see that he blames Nero for the first prosecution of the Christians. We should expect him to quote this passage from Tacitus in support of his contention. Instead he quotes Tertullian who refers us to Roman sources. Now Eusebius worked on his History over many years, possibly 15 years, He knew that Tertullius said that Roman sources talk about the persecution of Christians under Nero. Can we imagine that Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea was so isolated from Latin texts that he would not be able to find out that the Roman historian Tacitus had written a passage that supports his contention that Nero was the first person to persecute Christians. One may find it natural that Eusebius would not know about Roman literature in general, but is it really possible he did not know about the only Roman literature that talked about Christians being in Rome in the time of Nero. I submit that the far more likely scenario is that he would know about Tacitus' reference if it existed.

This means the most likely scenarios are that he left it out by choice, it did not exist, or he forged the reference himself. There was no reason to leave it out as the passage proves Eusebius's point that Nero was the first to persecute Christians, even according to a Roman source, and not just a Christian source like Tertullian, whom he uses. The double source of Tacitus and Tertullian would have made his case much stronger. The passage also shows the unjustified hatred held by Roman writers like Tacitus who did not know anything about Christianity beyond the name of the founder. This point too would have been useful for Eusebius.

If the passage did not exist, then we have to wonder what Tertullian was referring to when he told the Roman senators in his "Apology" to consult their records. What other records besides Tacitus contained the information and how would they know which ones to consult? If he was not referring to the passage in Tacitus, then why does he not name the source. Does he really expect the senators to search their scrolls for it. We may take it as most likely that the Tertullian passage refers to the well known passage in Tacitus.

We are again left with the question of why Eusebius did not follow Tertullian's guide and consult and use the passage in Tacitus?

On the other hand, if we assume that Eusebius rewrote the passage in Tacitus to point to Christians and then rewrote the passage in Tertullian to support his contention that Nero persecuted the Christians, all problems disappear. In fact we get a bonus. We see the cleverness of Eusebius. If he had referred directly to his interpolated passage in Tacitus, somebody with an old copy of Tacitus could have exposed his duplicity. Instead he forges the passage in Tertullian, a work that very few Romans could be expected to own. Thus he uses Tertullian as his witness and has his witness Tertullian refer to obliquely to Tacitus' work.

If somebody confronted Eusebius with the fact that he interpolated Tertullian, he could have thrown up his hands and say, "But Tertullian refers to Roman sources, why did I not just use Tacitus instead of putting the accusation in Tertullian. If confronted with the accusation that he interpolated both Tertullian and Tacitus, he may throw up his hands and scream "What an absurdity, I don't know Latin and I have never read Tacitus" This explains why Euseius does not quote Tacitus's description directly in his history. Doing so would have destroyed his alibi. Essentially the interpolation in Tertullian was just meant to be a cover for his interpolation in Tacitus. The trick in forgery is not just to forge something, the trick is not getting caught. It is because of his cleverness that I refer to Eusebius as the Master Forger.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan · 01-15-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Anon.: it is true that title had changed from prefect to procurator around 41,

Was it in 41? Agrippa ran the show in Judea from 41-44. After that we had procurators instead of prefects. Prior to that we had prefects. Was there a procurator who served alongside Agrippa? I don't think so....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2005, 06:31 AM	#57
Lucretius Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: . Posts: 1,014	Thanks Andrew I don't think that is the reference I had but it may be possible that the source I had was referring to that, I will check it out though. Due to some more pressing projects I have(Thats the problem in trying to be a Renaissance Man ) ,it looks as if I won't be able to do much on this for the next week or even longer . I do have some other notes which need typing up, but I just don't have the time at the moment to give this topic the time I think it deserves. I have NOT given up on it though and will be back hopefully with more (and better comments I hope ) as soon as I can. Just to add something I will be about and visiting these forums on a regular basis,so I may be able to answer simple queries ,it's just I can't spend hours and hours on this just at the moment

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.