Frank

I wasn't "precisely" pointing to any evidence (just a loose statement, which I'm too tired to try and verify right now)

Roger Pearse

What has happened is that Spin has played a trick on posters in this thread. If you look, he made two demands in post 2 in this thread.

1. "So which recent historians have done a significant analysis of the passage and concluded from that analysis that it was veracious?"

2. Look at my blog and refute my arguments if you can.

I ignored #2, since it had nothing to do with the point at issue, and the whole approach is simply special pleading to dispose of evidence. We should never go around trying to find reasons to ignore evidence -- it's intellectual suicide.

But #1 seems like an interesting question. Just what is the data? I realised that I didn't know, and sought to find out.

Now, of course, in reality Spin neither knew nor cared what the answer was to his "question". It was just a trick to evade the basic problem that no classical scholar, as far as I know, and as far as he knows, considers the passage an interpolation, because there is no rational reason to do so. It's the old "prove something to me or else accept my claim that there is no evidence for whatever I find inconvenient" trick. You see that online from trolls all the time.

Once I started to investigate #1, he quickly tried to shift the discussion away from that, and started trying to start a fight. He had nothing to contribute, anyway.

But I still think a bibliography of scholarship on #1 would be an interesting and useful thing to have. Until we have it, we're really just wasting time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi

Thank you aa5874, for once again providing something of substance, pertinant to the subject matter at hand: evaluation of the evidence presented as representing text originally authored by Tacitus.

Yes, I agree with your position, that, as the Wikipedia article explains, there has been clear evidence of tampering, evidently in antiquity, with Tacitus' manuscript. For some folks, especially those of us, illiterate in Greek, there is very little difference between chrestos and christos. But, then, the question must arise, if there is so little difference, why bother to change the vowel? Evidently, it was a big problem back then, in those days, when folks actually knew Greek, spoke Greek, and lived in Greek speaking countries (Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt)

As I have been excluded from reading your comments, I will instead point out what is, in my opinion, some flaws in your question. The word "recent" is both ambiguous, and irrelevant, in my opinion. The changes to the manuscript, as pointed out above, by aa5874, took place not recently. Consequently, one is not obliged to limit analysis to contemporary historians. Moreover, "significant" is a relative term, which is not well suited to the binary realm in which we are operating here: Tacitus' manuscripts are either legitimate evidence, available to enter into the pot--> Chaucer's "cumulative" evidence, or else Tacitus' supposed affirmation of the existence of "Christians" must be excluded from the pot, as rotting, putrid sarka. "Significant" doesn't make it, as a qualifier. Either the evidence from Tacitus is genuine, or it is forged. Zero or one. The input is binary, not analogue.

As we see, below, Roger disagrees with me:

Thanks Roger. At least on some level, your post, acknowledging spin's gauntlet, repudiates my claim, that spin's question is flawed.

At the same time, by concurring with spin, I am impressed that you also refuted my rejoinder to spin's complaint that you had not yet addressed his queries....
I had responded thus: :hysterical:

Obviously, I erred, as you have now replied, acknowledging the merits of spin's suggestion, and I accordingly acknowledge my error:
:shrug:

But, Roger, though I clearly erred, I must still dispute your notion, here.

It is NOT, in my opinion, worthwhile to devote even one millisecond of time studying how other folks have analyzed Tacitus. We need to focus on the manuscripts themselves, for that is our evidence, not the opinions of Kenyon et al....

avi

avi

Hi Frank,
Sorry to read of your fatigue.
Perhaps you have misunderstood Pete's question, about precision.

I think Pete sought clarification of how manuscript evidence, attributed to the quill of TACITUS, may be used to claim a practice of Christian religion in the first century, CE.

The precision issue is, or ought to be, pertinent to anyone studying C++, as I (perhaps incorrectly) thought I had read, represented an activity in which you were currently engaged.

My claim, as one who is illiterate in Greek, is that Tacitus was not writing about Christians, but about Chrestians. I believe that Sheshbazzar (post 93) has written extensively on this point, if you seek guidance on the issue, or if you find aa5874's citation insufficient.....

avi

hjalti

What? A post with arguments against the authenticity of the passage has "nothing to do with the point at issue", when the "point at issue" is the authenticity of the passage?

And please, explain why his arguments are just "special pleading to dispose of evidence"?

Well, aren't the reasons spin offers "rational"? And how do we know what classical scholars think, if we can't find any rational discussion from them on the topic?

Well, like I said, earlier, he has contributed at least:

1. The post on his blog, with arguments in favor of the passage being an interpolation.
2. Criticism of Voorst's discussion.

You seem to think #1 isn't a contribution, because it has nothing to do with the issue. :huh:

spin

Once you've got here, you should cut the crap and look at the evidence for the forgery with a little objectivity rather than the knee-jerk reaction you've demonstrated here. There is nothing riding on it being interpolated, because the passage itself doesn't have any historical value as a substantive demonstration as a witness to christ. So look at the evidence presented. There are five issues stated, though I've indicated there are numerous others. With a sanguine approach you could try to weigh up the evidence.

Toto

The substance of this blog was previously posted in Chaucer's thread here, for those who don't have access to the blog.

avi

Thank you Toto, very kind.

And, an especial thanks to Chaucer, who kindly forwarded the entire blog entry by email to me....

I am grateful to you both, however, we should respect spin's desire to prohibit entry into his realm.

I will not read anything spin wrote, on his private blog, in view of spin's desire to shelter his thoughts from my acidic comments.

I have little doubt that if I had read his comments, I would have found something to complain about...... Alas, some people are born with the glass half empty.....

avi

Frank

I've considered it sufficiently, and I still think you're position is speculative.

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83]

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...5.html#tacitus

**(the content of the above referenced footnote):

[83] Gordon Stein denied the authenticity of this passage, arguing: (1) there is no corroborating evidence that Nero persecuted the Christians; (2) there was not a multitude of Christians in Rome at that date; (3) 'Christian' was not a common term in the first century; (4) Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city; (5) Nero did not start the fire in Rome; (6) Tacitus does not use the name Jesus; (7) Tacitus assumes his readers know Pontius Pilate; (8) the passage is present word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. However, Stein's arguments are extremely weak. At best, (1), (2), and (5) only cast doubt on the reliability of the passage; these are not good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the passage. (3) and (4) are likewise irrelevant. Contrary to what Stein claims, (6) and (7) suggest that Pontius Pilate might have been relatively unknown. Finally, (8) is irrelevant. The fact that a later author expanded the passage in no way makes it probable that the original passage was interpolated. Furthermore, there are good reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage: the anti-Christian tone of the passage, the scapegoat motif, the Latin style, and the integration of the passage with the story. Stein's argument for interpolation is completely unconvincing. See Stein 1982.

Roger Pearse

Stein writes as an amateur, of course.

False: Tertullian refers to the illegality of Christianity as an Institutum Neronianum.

How does he know this?

How does he know this?

So what?

How does he know this?

Why should he? Is there any Roman source that does?

Not necessarily. All he does is identify the governer. That's just identifying when the thing happened.

Not that I recall. But if it were so, how on earth would it be evidence either way?

None of these arguments bear on the question at all. Interpolations are not discovered by these kinds of arguments.

All the best,

Roger Pearse