Roger Pearse

Does he indicate by what means this interesting piece of information -- not recorded in any ancient text -- as to the sources of Tacitus and Pliny reached him?

Scepticism, my boy, scepticism.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sheshonq

Who cares? The question isn't forgery. The question is whether or not it is accurate. There are three things to ascertain:

(a) Was Tacitus in a position to know this information?
(b) How did Tacitus come by this information - first hand, second hand, a document, etc. ?
(c) Considering his entire body of writing as a whole, can Tacitus be trusted as an objective source for information?

Hogwash.

1. There is no reason to suppose that Tacitus had the kind of access and information required by the apologists to support their strong declarative point of view.

2. Moreover, the other instances of Tacitus reporting blatantly incorrect information (Jews worshiping an ass? ) and mythic/fantastic events (chariots in the sky? a phoenix in Egypt?) cannot be ignored, much as you would like to try.

If anyone here is being selective in reading Tacitus, Roger, it is you. You focus on the section about Christians, and deliberately disconnect it from other incorrect or unbelievable sections. You keep the parts that help your argument, and discard whatever is unflattering to your position.

How ironic that you should be advising others on the value of skepticism. Your fetish for manuscripts has combined with your agenda to blind you to the limitations and shortcomings in taking Tacitus at face-value.

the_cave

Has anyone ever suggested that the passage is an interpolation, but not by a Christian? That would seem to be the most favorable explanation at this point, IMO. I also remain intrigued by the parallels to Josephus, not only to the TF, but also wrt the prefect/procurator mixup (but I am not saying at this time which way the influence runs).

Ben C Smith

Ben.

the_cave

The germane part of my question was the phrase "but not by a Christian"--that is, the question has often been cast solely in terms of authorship either by Tacitus or by a Christian interpolator. But it could also be the case that the interpolator was not a Christian.

Ben C Smith

I see. Sorry. I did not mean to represent you. It sounded like you were saying that an interpolation (not by a Christian) is your preferred choice overall.

At any rate, I think spin sufficiently answers the question on his own. Who cares? Spin cares.

Ben.

the_cave

I do tend to lean towards a non-Christian interpolation as the explanation--but I would agree that a Christian interpolation is problematic, and is no better an explanation than simply attributing it to Tacitus.

Gamera

If you're saying this is the only place where Tacitus makes factual errors or wanders off on tangents, I think you're wrong.

Sheshonq

I don't think the person (the_cave) who suggested interpolation meant to suggest forgery. Misguided but deliberate attempts to clarify a passage with additional words are more consistent with the tone of his post.

Ben C Smith

Maybe, but were you reckoning with interpolation at all?

If you are distinguishing between forgery and interpolation, this seems to skip right from forgery over interpolation to the accuracy of the statement, which you fill out as pure Tacitus (was Tacitus in a position to know this information, how did Tacitus come by this information, and
can Tacitus be trusted as an objective source for information?).

I am saying that there are some people who care very much about more than how Tacitus came by this information; they care whether Tacitus wrote the passage at all.

Ben.