Roger Pearse

Thanks. Just before these words (p.42), Van Voorst writes:

In addition the reference '61' was omitted by ECW:

Unfortunately there are no other references for the passage quoted.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I have now looked at Ronald Syme's 2 volume Tacitus. He mentions Christians on p.467-9 and 532-3. In neither case does he indicate any question as to the authenticity of the passage.

But in footnote 5 on p.533 he adds:

Roger Pearse

The CAH must be a reference to the second edition. The only version I have access to is the third edition.

aa5874

The word "Chrestianos" in the MEDICEAN MANUSCRIPT was manipulated and so "Christianos" cannot be considered authentic.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Under ultraviolet light the ORIGINAL "E" can still be seen in the MEDICEAN MANUSCRIPT at the LAURENTIAN LIBRARY.

Frank

The comments by Van Voorst are interesting. Even if we don't take for granted the idea that no Christian interpolator would make such disparaging remarks regarding his own religion, the skill and background it would have taken to get away with such an interpolation can't be understated.

The interpolator would have had to have a good understanding of Tacitean writing style, and would have had to be comfortable with ancient Latin. Not insurmountable, but it still narrows the field considerably (and thus makes it more unlikely).

There are many historical events for which we only have the account of one historian (and some of them are very big events). That Tertullian or other writers didn't associate Christians with the fire of Rome (or state that as a basis for persecution, even if the charge was fabricated) doesn't diminish the authenticity of Tacitus' comments (it's not difficult to see the motivation on part of these early Christian writers for this omission, that is assuming they were even aware of all the relevant facts).

The most supportable objection to the authenticity of these comments is to question Tacitus' sources. Did he learn about this from an official record, or was it hearsay that made its way to him visa vi popular Christian beliefs? Pilate is also mentioned by Josephus and Philo (not to mention there was coinage issued by Pilate, and other archeological evidence connecting him to Judea). Tacitus himself began his career under Vespasian (who before becoming emperor led the sack of Jerusalem), and worked under Titus (Vespasian's son). Vespasian subjugated Judea a little more than 20 years after Pilate's governorship (and Titus was with him).

So it's not hard to imagine that the history of Pilates' governorship was either common knowledge to the Roman leadership at the time, or at least contained in an official record (which we can assume Tacitus had access to).

If Jesus was just a garden variety sage who led a rebellion in Judea (of which there was no shortage of) would we second guess Tacitus' reference to him (and the rigor of his research)? I don't think we would. Of course this same line of reasoning is exactly what would provide motivation to an interpolator (but a charge of interpolation and questioning Tacitus' sources are two very different, unrelated, and mutually exclusive claims, and thus must be examined independently).

If we assume Tacitus did make the entry, then there's very good reason to believe it was accurate, and it seems to me there's less reason to question its veracity. If we want to promote the idea that it was an interpolation, then we need to explore the likelihood that someone with the needed skill and background had control over these works. This is quite a big charge when you think about it. The kind of education and experience required to pull this off makes it seemingly unlikely that it was just some random scholar with no connection to the church (in those days that level of academic training was, I imagine, very hard to acquire). If it was the church, then we have to wonder if they had control over "all" of Tacitus' works (because if they only had a portion of his works, interpolation would be a very risky proposition, since the unearthing of other parts of Tacitus' works could have resulted in exposing the interpolation, and thus implicating the church). With every little part that we piece into this puzzle, interpolation becomes exceedingly unlikely. Not impossible, and we probably can't make a judgment based on the preponderance of the evidence (given how remote in time this is), but the better view seems to be to simply accept this into our history. When we're trying to piece together 2,000 year old history, this sort of evidence is often the best we have. We don't have a problem saying Alexander the Great existed, yet we don't believe (as legend would have it) that he was the son of the mythic god Zeus.

spin

In other words, Chaucer knows of no recent historian who has made a scholarly analysis of the passage.

Roger Pearse

Nor you, apparently.

Please contribute something useful, rather than trying to harass someone who is in point of fact in the right, as we both know.

Roger Pearse

Van Voorst's book doesn't seem to be a bad piece of work.

As I understand it, tho, the issue here is not whether or not we consider the idea of interpolation here probable -- our qualifications to do so need not be curiously investigated -- but whether the consensus of scholars does so. At the moment, the evidence seems to be that the question is hardly on the table at all for Tacitus scholars. That's why we're having difficulty finding any who discuss it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

I have contributed something useful. That's what has stimulated this thread.

It's your turn. How about adding something that is substantive in the analysis of the passage? At the moment the discussion seems to be shuffling secondhand opinions around.

You might think you know something, Roger, but don't deign to think you know what I know. You have frequently proven to be clueless in that respect. And while you're here, how about you producing any recent historian's analysis of the text (recent, you know in the last 20 or 30 years). Syme (1958) gives no real analysis of the passage, passing the reader on to the previous CAH (1934). I know you cannot cite any recent analysis by a historian.

spin

We are interested in historical analysis, not apologetics. Van Voorst's qualifications as a historian:

[T2]B.A. in Religion from Hope College in Holland, Michigan,
M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, and
Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City[/T2]
Any history? No. Any historiography? No.

Here are Van Voorst's opinions:

[T2]1|But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus' own compressed style.|opinion||
2|The overall style and content of this chapter are typically Tacitean.|no evidence, just opinion||
3|The passage fits well in its context and is the necessary conclusion to the entire discussion of the burning of Rome.|obviously false, as I have demonstrated elsewhere||
4|Sulpicius Severus's Chronicle 2.29 attests to much of it in the early fifth century, so most suggested interpolations would have to have come in the second through fourth centuries.|opinion and I've argued elsewhere that the contrary is true||
5|As Norma Miller delightfully remarks, "The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin," and the same could be said of Christian interpolators.|so what exactly reflects Tacitean Latin here?||
6|Finally, no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44, and they probably would not have been so merely descriptive in adding the material about Christ in 15.44.3.|yeah, yeah, christian scribes are too incompetent!?||[/T2]