spin

Roger whinged about my contributions to this thread. He is contributing what he often contributes. Contempt. I'm more interested in content, content which you aren't prepared to provide. Come back, Roger, when you want to be serious.

mountainman

Hi Frank,

Did you read the chapter of Drew's book that I referenced?
The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus/Part 2/Section 2 ............... T A C I T U S
We are dealing with ancient history Frank.
Stay with the OP.
Read the page and get back to me.

Best wishes


Pete

Toto

Van Voorst footnotes that quote as Norma P. Miller, "Tacitus: Annals XV" London, Macmillan, 1973, p. xxviii, which does not seem to be online.

eta: available on Amazon.com (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Roger Pearse

Why don't you go and find out and tell us all?

Try contributing instead of demanding.

Roger Pearse

In which post did you list recent scholarly publications discussing Annals 15:44?

Oh.

Roger Pearse

I couldn't find it either. My guess is that it is an edition, tho. I'd want to see what it actually says.

But really this is only one piece of the puzzle. What we need are a few more references to scholarly material discussing the subject. All those discussing the passage that I could find didn't even mention the possibility that it was an interpolation.

Is anyone other than myself actually looking for any?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Frank

The only valid reason I can think of to read the work of a Nazi, is if I was an officer in an army who was trying to defeat the fucker. Since I'm not then I won't

Feel free to bullet point whatever relevant thing this old dead Nazi may have said, which you think can add to this discussion (but otherwise, as a general rule, I do not read Nazi garbage). Yes I may be censoring myself, but it's a matter of efficiency. We can only read so much in one lifetime, so why divert precious time to reading anything generated by a Nazi (it's mind pollution, and I try not to litter)?

spin

You've given no evidence that you are in any position to make such a judgment. You're just talking through your hat, as is frequently the case.

Typical misrepresentation of reality. It is not an insult to point out facts, Roger. You don't know what I know, so stop kidding yourself.

And you think you are saying something when you are in fact supporting my position. If there are no recent analyses from historians all this stuff about historical consensus is rubbish. It hasn't received scholarly analysis in the past 20 or 30 years.

[HR=1]100[/HR]
I have put forward five pointers to the passage's inauthenticity. You have nothing to say about that. You can't even muster a historian's analysis that contradicts what I have argued. In fact much of what I've put forward hasn't been dealt with in the last 100 years, if ever. To be brief:

1. Tacitus would not knowingly put in the erroneous rank of Pilate as procurator, when he has indicated he knew when procurators were first used as governors of provinces.

2. The overblown style full of gory details of torture and mayhem does not reflect Tacitus: "His practice elsewhere suggests that he judged it beneath the dignity of history to record such sordid events." (Tacitus and the Writing of History, U. Cal. Press, 1988, p.73.)

3. This is fundamentally a martyrdom story in which terrible things were done to christians and the passers by were forced to feel sympathy for them.

4. The passage confuses continuity when it opens up the gardens of Nero up to the gore fest when they'd already been opened for temporary lodgings for the homeless.

5. It fundamentally doesn't understand the discourse of Tacitus, placing the material where it doesn't belong, ie after the conclusion of the fire discourse.

Frank

There's nothing you're saying, which if true, wouldn't have been apparent to a scholar working 30 years ago. Who's conclusions are you citing? Are they your own? If so, are you fluent in Latin, or is this your take from an English translation? If you are citing someone else, then what are their qualifications? On what basis do you conclude that this reference doesn't match Taticus' writing style, when most (if not all) the historians who have commented on this, disagree with this assessment? So far I see a list of five bare assertions.

spin

Pure ad hominem. You won't read the arguments because of the man.

I've just taken a quick dip and I think there is material worth consideration (especially when at least one point in his summary of Hochart is an idea I've had regarding Nero as apocalyptic bad guy, a post Jewish War development).