Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Simonmagus · 07-19-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Incidentally, I'm disappointed that Roger hasn't weighed in on this thread, perhaps to comment on some of the points that might be seen as affecting issues broader than the specific question of Renaissance forgery, such as why there is such silence on the Annals in Christian circles if it contained the passage in 15:44. Sulpicius Severus is a puzzling lone voice, open to other interpretations in his relationship with our extant Annals passage.

Earl Doherty

Hello Mr. Doherty.

To me, it seemed quite obvious why Christians might avoid the Tacitus passage. It doesn't seem to be something a Christian would want to quote with how Tacitus portrayed the Christians as criminals and with false beliefs.

Also, we really don't see a whole lot of chances in Christian antiquity for those verses to be quoted, since most of the writings for the era don't really call for any good reason to quote Tacitus. With the limited number of chances to quote it, along with the possibility that early persecuted Christians may very well have avoided contact (including visting Roman libraries to read Tacitus) with the Romans during Tacitus' time as a means of survival, I think we can see many legitimate reasons why those verses were not mentioned, in my opinion.

EarlDoherty · 07-19-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon

To me, it seemed quite obvious why Christians might avoid the Tacitus passage. It doesn't seem to be something a Christian would want to quote with how Tacitus portrayed the Christians as criminals and with false beliefs.

This is a lot like the oft-cited reason why Christians before Eusebius did not quote Josephus' Testimonium, but in neither case does this explanation stand up to closer scrutiny. I will quote from my draft of the new Tacitus chapter for my book, though this is just an introduction to a very detailed look at the silent record on 15:44 in three centuries of Christian writings. But it will give you the basic answer that I think you are overlooking...

Quote:

Another Strange Silence

The most prominent is akin to the situation in regard to Josephus’ Testimonium: no Christian writer makes mention of this passage in Tacitus for at least three centuries. Why should we expect such mention? For one thing, it would constitute a reference to Jesus by a pagan writer, of which there were precious few in the first couple of centuries. But also, for the simple reason that through those first few centuries Christians were fixated on the problem of persecution, its injustice but also its fascination. So great was this fascination that a host of writings were produced recounting the martyrdoms of this and that figure in early church history, from Peter and Paul and other apostles, to Ignatius and Polycarp, and far beyond. Modern scholarship has come to judge that this picture was vastly exaggerated for the period prior to Diocletian (late 3rd century) on the eve of Christianity’s triumph, and that traditions about persecution for the very early period are thoroughly unreliable. The existence of persecution became for Christians an apologetic argument for the veracity of the faith. In the words of Joseph McCabe (The Popes and their Church2):

Quote:

“According to the Catholic writers, and even the official liturgy of their Church, the Roman community of the first three centuries was so decked and perfumed with saints and martyrs that it must have had a divine spirit in it. Now the far greater part, the overwhelmingly greater part, of the Acts of the Martyrs and Lives of the Saints on which this claim is based are impudent forgeries, perpetrated by Roman Christians from the fourth to the eighth century in order to give a divine halo to the very humble, and very human, history of their Church.”

So extreme did they strike later Christian observers that much of this literature was denounced as simple fabrication, even by churchmen. As McCabe says, “many of these forgeries were already notorious in the year 494, when Pope Gelasius timidly and haltingly condemned them.”3

Thus, there was every reason for Christian writers to appeal to the Tacitus passage to highlight what should have been the prime example of early persecution by the Roman authorities. Nor should it be claimed that such writers might not have been aware of Tacitus’ writings. Drews (op.cit., p.27) lists “Christian writers who are acquainted with Tacitus, such as Tertullian, Jerome, Orosius, Sidonius Apollinaris, Sulpicius Severus, and Cassiodorus.” If, on the contrary side, defenders argue that the Annals of Tacitus were known throughout the centuries in order to counter the claim of later forgery for the work or even of interpolation of the book 15 passage, then they must face squarely the problem of the lack of Christian reference to it in the early period.

Tertullian

Tertullian is a case in point....

Earl Doherty

Roger Pearse · 07-19-2008, 12:41 PM

d) Tacitus read in Campania.

However the Mediceus II in Montecassino in the 14th century found a user interested in topography, the Franciscan Paulinus Venetus. He cannot be certainly reckoned among the humanists, who no doubt were otherwise interested.

Paulinus Venetus, also named Paulinus Minorita was born around 1270/1274 and was bishop of Pozzuoli from 1324 to his death in 1344. He obviously could read the Mediceus II, despite the beneventan script which the humanist Poggio was unable to decipher [42], leaving his mark in the Codex in marginal notes. A century earlier a reader had already found in several places that the 11th century writing was fading because of the unsatisfactory preparation of the parchment.[43]

The most extensive work of Paulinus Venetus is the world history named the "Satyrica gestarum rerum, regum atque regnorum et summorum pontificum historia". This was a substantial work with various appendices, whose final version is probably to be dated to 1331 and which gathers various materials, as the adjective satyrica suggests, and thus brings something for every reader. The work was certainly not intended for the possession of every man.
Four copies contain it; a note in the copy of unknown provenance today in Bamberg says: "The municipality of Venice has a second copy of this text, and King Robert (of Naples, the feudal lord of the bishop of Pozzuoli) possesses a third, with the help of which he explains to every envoy the situation of his countries and regions, as if he had been there, at which they are truly surprised at his wisdom; the church of Prague possess a fourth book."[45] In the appendices are a Mappa mundi, an description of the earth, in writing and as a picture, and in writing in the section over Campania Tacitus is quoted: in two short passages by name "this is again" and ten rather long partially accurate without naming the author. Paulinus has copied from Tacitus' 13th and 14th book extracts of the "Germania" of Tacitus from the German humanists [53] and copied those passages from the 15th book of the "Annals" (and at the same time emphasized in the Mediceus II by marginal notes), which refer to Puteoli / Pozzuoli and the locations at the gulf: of Misenum, Bauli, Baiae, Cumae, the Averne and Lucrine lakes and the traces of the fossa usque ad ostia Tiberina planned by Nero (Paulinus calls the fossa Montis Barbari and probably identified it with Agrippa's channel, that was only buried after his time, 1538, by an eruption from Monte Nuovo).[46] The use of Tacitus by Paulinus is thus certain - and quite strictly limited - to the references of interest to a particular region; in this he is similar to the interest of Rudolf of Fulda.

EarlDoherty · 07-19-2008, 01:07 PM

It's nice to see you join in, Roger. But I'm not sure what your post is meant to demonstrate. (Edit: OK, use of Annals B.P.--"Before Poggio"; I was focusing on the more specific question I just raised about the authenticity of 15:44, which is my point of interest.) Existence of the later Annals by the 14th century is not hanging entirely on the witness of Venetus. But as far as I can see, Venetus did not quote 15:44. However, I'm not trying to make that necessarily meaningful, as we're assuming that Medicean II contained it, though it would help to know just exactly when the first quote from that chapter's references to Christ and the Christians can be found in Renaissance (or later) Christian writings.

Earl Doherty

Simonmagus · 07-19-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon

To me, it seemed quite obvious why Christians might avoid the Tacitus passage. It doesn't seem to be something a Christian would want to quote with how Tacitus portrayed the Christians as criminals and with false beliefs.

This is a lot like the oft-cited reason why Christians before Eusebius did not quote Josephus' Testimonium, but in neither case does this explanation stand up to closer scrutiny. I will quote from my draft of the new Tacitus chapter for my book, though this is just an introduction to a very detailed look at the silent record on 15:44 in three centuries of Christian writings. But it will give you the basic answer that I think you are overlooking...

Quote:

Another Strange Silence

The most prominent is akin to the situation in regard to Josephus’ Testimonium: no Christian writer makes mention of this passage in Tacitus for at least three centuries. Why should we expect such mention? For one thing, it would constitute a reference to Jesus by a pagan writer, of which there were precious few in the first couple of centuries. But also, for the simple reason that through those first few centuries Christians were fixated on the problem of persecution, its injustice but also its fascination. So great was this fascination that a host of writings were produced recounting the martyrdoms of this and that figure in early church history, from Peter and Paul and other apostles, to Ignatius and Polycarp, and far beyond. Modern scholarship has come to judge that this picture was vastly exaggerated for the period prior to Diocletian (late 3rd century) on the eve of Christianity’s triumph, and that traditions about persecution for the very early period are thoroughly unreliable. The existence of persecution became for Christians an apologetic argument for the veracity of the faith. In the words of Joseph McCabe (The Popes and their Church2):

On the surface this may seem like a decent argument, until we recognize that there really isn't any comparison between what Tacitus wrote and what Josephus wrote. Josephus has obviously been interpolated, to what extent, we are not certain. The difference between Josephus and Tacitus is obvious; we have Josephus writing a flattering report regarding Christ and the Christians, but not so with Tacitus. Based on that alone, I would not attempt to compare them for the sake of your argument. There's just too many variables that will attack an argument like that, which puts you on the defensive immediately.

Another problem that I see is that you seem to believe that a supposed Jewish messiah such as Jesus would be respected enough by pagan writers to warrant mention. If we take what we have in regards to historical documents, we really don't see much in the way of any kind of long list of pagan writers who would have much of a good reason to write anything about Jesus. Perhaps you should post a list of the pagan writers which you believe should have mentioned Jesus in their writings? I really don't know of any personally, but that could be just my own ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Thus, there was every reason for Christian writers to appeal to the Tacitus passage to highlight what should have been the prime example of early persecution by the Roman authorities. Nor should it be claimed that such writers might not have been aware of Tacitus’ writings. Drews (op.cit., p.27) lists “Christian writers who are acquainted with Tacitus, such as Tertullian, Jerome, Orosius, Sidonius Apollinaris, Sulpicius Severus, and Cassiodorus.” If, on the contrary side, defenders argue that the Annals of Tacitus were known throughout the centuries in order to counter the claim of later forgery for the work or even of interpolation of the book 15 passage, then they must face squarely the problem of the lack of Christian reference to it in the early period.

Tertullian

Tertullian is a case in point...

Earl Doherty

I'm certain that most scholars will agree, including yourself, that we have but a fraction of the early writings regarding this subject, and in my opinion we are lucky to have anything at all written about this Jesus character.

Yet, with Tertullian, we do find some evidence which does seems to correspond with what was written in the Annals. For in Chapter V of his Apology, we see this reference -

Quote:

Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making profess then especially at Rome. But we glory in having our condemnation hallowed by the hostility of such a wretch. For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero's condemnation.

Tertullian does indicate that a Roman history of the persecution of Christians by Nero existed. All the elements that we see above are found only in the Annals, and it would be interesting indeed if the Annals was actually a part of Tacitus' Histories as suspected, and we capitalized the word "histories" above.

Tertullian's apology is speaking to a Roman, and telling that Roman to consult his historical records. I can find no other historical record whereas Nero persecuted Christians and made them profess their faith/guilt/whatever in Rome other than what we see in the Annals.

It is a curious and interesting view which does have support. Therefore, I wouldn't want to say Tertullian is actually silent about it, not when we can see evidence to the contrary.

mountainman · 07-19-2008, 10:59 PM

There is also the question of the value of the input from the work of (hello Jeffrey) a good classical scholar Arthur Drews (1912). In his work Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus Drews presents the case that the evidence for the historicity of any relationship between the emperor Nero and any "purportedly existent christians" does not in fact have any support.

Quote:

It is clear that we have here no reference to the per-
secution of the Christians under Nero. It is not even
stated that the apostles named met with a violent death
on account of their faith, as the word " martyresas "
(" after rendering his testimony ") need not by any means
be understood to mean a testimony of blood, because the
word " martyr " originally means only a witness to the
truth of the Christian faith in the general sense, and is
equivalent to " confessor," and was only later applied to
those who sealed their faith by a violent death. 2 If the
expression in the above text is usually taken to refer to

1 Neutestatamentl. Apokryphen, edited by Hennecke, 1904, ch. v.

2 See Hochart, Etudes au Sujet de la Persecution des Chretiens sous
Neron, 1885.

THE ROMAN WITNESSES 29

the execution of the apostles under Nero, it is not because
Clemens says anything about this execution, but merely
because, according to Christian tradition, Peter and Paul
are supposed to have been put to death at the time of the
Neronian persecution. This tradition, however, is not
only relatively late, but extremely doubtful in itself.
That Peter was never in Eome, and so did not meet his
end there under Nero, must be regarded as certain after
the research of Lipsius.

Final note. Arthur Drews footnotes Antiqua Mater, a study of Christian origins (1887)

Best wishes,

Pete

andrewcriddle · 07-20-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

d) Tacitus read in Campania.

However the Mediceus II in Montecassino in the 14th century found a user interested in topography, the Franciscan Paulinus Venetus. He cannot be certainly reckoned among the humanists, who no doubt were otherwise interested.

Paulinus Venetus, also named Paulinus Minorita was born around 1270/1274 and was bishop of Pozzuoli from 1324 to his death in 1344. He obviously could read the Mediceus II, despite the beneventan script which the humanist Poggio was unable to decipher [42], leaving his mark in the Codex in marginal notes. A century earlier a reader had already found in several places that the 11th century writing was fading because of the unsatisfactory preparation of the parchment.[43]

The most extensive work of Paulinus Venetus is the world history named the "Satyrica gestarum rerum, regum atque regnorum et summorum pontificum historia". This was a substantial work with various appendices, whose final version is probably to be dated to 1331 and which gathers various materials, as the adjective satyrica suggests, and thus brings something for every reader. The work was certainly not intended for the possession of every man.
Four copies contain it; a note in the copy of unknown provenance today in Bamberg says: "The municipality of Venice has a second copy of this text, and King Robert (of Naples, the feudal lord of the bishop of Pozzuoli) possesses a third, with the help of which he explains to every envoy the situation of his countries and regions, as if he had been there, at which they are truly surprised at his wisdom; the church of Prague possess a fourth book."[45] In the appendices are a Mappa mundi, an description of the earth, in writing and as a picture, and in writing in the section over Campania Tacitus is quoted: in two short passages by name "this is again" and ten rather long partially accurate without naming the author. Paulinus has copied from Tacitus' 13th and 14th book extracts of the "Germania" of Tacitus from the German humanists [53] and copied those passages from the 15th book of the "Annals" (and at the same time emphasized in the Mediceus II by marginal notes), which refer to Puteoli / Pozzuoli and the locations at the gulf: of Misenum, Bauli, Baiae, Cumae, the Averne and Lucrine lakes and the traces of the fossa usque ad ostia Tiberina planned by Nero (Paulinus calls the fossa Montis Barbari and probably identified it with Agrippa's channel, that was only buried after his time, 1538, by an eruption from Monte Nuovo).[46] The use of Tacitus by Paulinus is thus certain - and quite strictly limited - to the references of interest to a particular region; in this he is similar to the interest of Rudolf of Fulda.

Hi Roger thanks for this.

One point: in the part

Quote:

Paulinus has copied from Tacitus' 13th and 14th book extracts of the "Germania" of Tacitus from the German humanists [53] and copied those passages from the 15th book of the "Annals" (and at the same time emphasized in the Mediceus II by marginal notes), which

I think you may have inadvertently got a heading mixed up with the main text (the phrase I've bolded) I would translate

Quote:

Paulinus has copied from Tacitus' 13th and 14th and 15th book of the "Annals", (and at the same time emphasized in the Mediceus II by marginal notes), those passages which

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 07-20-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Incidentally, I'm disappointed that Roger hasn't weighed in on this thread, perhaps to comment on some of the points that might be seen as affecting issues broader than the specific question of Renaissance forgery, such as why there is such silence on the Annals in Christian circles if it contained the passage in 15:44. Sulpicius Severus is a puzzling lone voice, open to other interpretations in his relationship with our extant Annals passage.

Earl Doherty

Hi Earl

I've suggested in previous threads that, at least before the end of persecution, Christians would have been reluctant to draw attention to a passage claiming that anti-Christian measures originated in a belief that Christians are arsonists.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-20-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

I've suggested in previous threads that, at least before the end of persecution, Christians would have been reluctant to draw attention to a passage claiming that anti-Christian measures originated in a belief that Christians are arsonists.

Andrew Criddle

This is an extremely weak suggestion. Chistians were accused of being atheists and cannibals and the early so-called Christian writers made mention of these accusations in their writing.

andrewcriddle · 07-20-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

I've suggested in previous threads that, at least before the end of persecution, Christians would have been reluctant to draw attention to a passage claiming that anti-Christian measures originated in a belief that Christians are arsonists.

Andrew Criddle

This is an extremely weak suggestion. Chistians were accused of being atheists and cannibals and the early so-called Christian writers made mention of these accusations in their writing.

That's a good point.

However in those cases, Christian writers were trying to refute current widespread beliefs about them.

IF Tacitus' claims about why Nero persecuted Christians were not widely or generally known, then I don't think Christians would have wanted to publicise them.

Andrew Criddle

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

07-19-2008, 12:41 PM	#33
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	d) Tacitus read in Campania. However the Mediceus II in Montecassino in the 14th century found a user interested in topography, the Franciscan Paulinus Venetus. He cannot be certainly reckoned among the humanists, who no doubt were otherwise interested. Paulinus Venetus, also named Paulinus Minorita was born around 1270/1274 and was bishop of Pozzuoli from 1324 to his death in 1344. He obviously could read the Mediceus II, despite the beneventan script which the humanist Poggio was unable to decipher [42], leaving his mark in the Codex in marginal notes. A century earlier a reader had already found in several places that the 11th century writing was fading because of the unsatisfactory preparation of the parchment.[43] The most extensive work of Paulinus Venetus is the world history named the "Satyrica gestarum rerum, regum atque regnorum et summorum pontificum historia". This was a substantial work with various appendices, whose final version is probably to be dated to 1331 and which gathers various materials, as the adjective satyrica suggests, and thus brings something for every reader. The work was certainly not intended for the possession of every man. Four copies contain it; a note in the copy of unknown provenance today in Bamberg says: "The municipality of Venice has a second copy of this text, and King Robert (of Naples, the feudal lord of the bishop of Pozzuoli) possesses a third, with the help of which he explains to every envoy the situation of his countries and regions, as if he had been there, at which they are truly surprised at his wisdom; the church of Prague possess a fourth book."[45] In the appendices are a Mappa mundi, an description of the earth, in writing and as a picture, and in writing in the section over Campania Tacitus is quoted: in two short passages by name "this is again" and ten rather long partially accurate without naming the author. Paulinus has copied from Tacitus' 13th and 14th book extracts of the "Germania" of Tacitus from the German humanists [53] and copied those passages from the 15th book of the "Annals" (and at the same time emphasized in the Mediceus II by marginal notes), which refer to Puteoli / Pozzuoli and the locations at the gulf: of Misenum, Bauli, Baiae, Cumae, the Averne and Lucrine lakes and the traces of the fossa usque ad ostia Tiberina planned by Nero (Paulinus calls the fossa Montis Barbari and probably identified it with Agrippa's channel, that was only buried after his time, 1538, by an eruption from Monte Nuovo).[46] The use of Tacitus by Paulinus is thus certain - and quite strictly limited - to the references of interest to a particular region; in this he is similar to the interest of Rudolf of Fulda.

07-19-2008, 01:07 PM	#34
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	It's nice to see you join in, Roger. But I'm not sure what your post is meant to demonstrate. (Edit: OK, use of Annals B.P.--"Before Poggio"; I was focusing on the more specific question I just raised about the authenticity of 15:44, which is my point of interest.) Existence of the later Annals by the 14th century is not hanging entirely on the witness of Venetus. But as far as I can see, Venetus did not quote 15:44. However, I'm not trying to make that necessarily meaningful, as we're assuming that Medicean II contained it, though it would help to know just exactly when the first quote from that chapter's references to Christ and the Christians can be found in Renaissance (or later) Christian writings. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.