Freethought & Rationalism Archive

12-22-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

In case anyone wants the Latin of the passage in Agricola about Nero turning away here it is

Which means 'used to' is the wrong translation as it is not an imperfect.

B

Chris Weimer · 12-23-2004, 01:47 AM

The strict literalist (me) would say never translate it as used to, because it implies an action in the past that continues to the present. But I know that there are exceptions to every rule, and Latin was fond of its idiomatic expressions.

Lucretius · 12-23-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

I think I have to agree with cweb in that I think this one sentence just doesnt "feel " right ,to me it does seem like a later addition
I must admit it is a long time since I read Tacitus and I admit that this is just my personal opinion it just seems to be not in the style of Tacitus
The rest of the comments though do seem to fit in with the general tone so it is only this one little sentence that bothers me

12-23-2004, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I think I have to agree with cweb in that I think this one sentence just doesnt "feel " right ,to me it does seem like a later addition.

Lucretius, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But before I decide what weight to give it could you let us know if you are a Tacitean scholar and confirm you have read the entire extant Tacitean corpus in Latin. Do any other current Tacitean scholars believe this sentence to be an interpolation, especially scholars who have shown no other interest in Jesus. Is there a note or anything in any of the critical editions?

Thanks

Bede

Steven Carr · 12-23-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There has been previous debates on this forum about the authenticity of the passage in Book 15 of the Annals of Tacitus referring to Nero persecuting Christians in the aftermath of the Fire of Rome.

Andrew Criddle

Really?

Even if there were doubts, your posting should have settled the issue.

Lucretius · 12-24-2004, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Lucretius, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But before I decide what weight to give it could you let us know if you are a Tacitean scholar and confirm you have read the entire extant Tacitean corpus in Latin. Do any other current Tacitean scholars believe this sentence to be an interpolation, especially scholars who have shown no other interest in Jesus. Is there a note or anything in any of the critical editions?

Thanks

Bede

I have a B.A degree in Latin and I read Tacitus as the "special" author in my 2nd year of my degree course ,which entailed reading all of Tacitus works ,and had to write an extended essay/dissertation on Tacitus at the end of the academic year .
As I said earlier it has been some time since I re-read his work and to be honest I did not dig out my old notes when making the previous comment,
however I should have extensive notes somewhere (I hope !)

Edited to add

Quote:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

I found a few of my early notes on Tacitus I will be reading them (probably in the New Year ) but found one point stright away Pontius Pilate was NOT the Procurator he was a Prefect an completely different rank of adminstrator,which I and others doubt Tacitus with his access to official records would have got wrong.
In addition Books 11- 16 of Tacitus come from one single source unlike the earlier books leading to the suspicion that an interpolation would be more likely to survive in that case,having no alternate copies to compare it with

Chris Weimer · 12-24-2004, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I have a B.A degree in Latin and I read Tacitus as the "special" author in my 2nd year of my degree course ,which entailed reading all of Tacitus works ,and had to write an extended essay/dissertation on Tacitus at the end of the academic year .
As I said earlier it has been some time since I re-read his work and to be honest I did not dig out my old notes when making the previous comment,
however I should have extensive notes somewhere (I hope !)

Edited to add

I found a few of my early notes on Tacitus I will be reading them (probably in the New Year ) but found one point stright away Pontius Pilate was NOT the Procurator he was a Prefect an completely different rank of adminstrator,which I and others doubt Tacitus with his access to official records would have got wrong.
In addition Books 11- 16 of Tacitus come from one single source unlike the earlier books leading to the suspicion that an interpolation would be more likely to survive in that case,having no alternate copies to compare it with

:notworthy: Maximus tui, Lucreti. Memore, memini de Pontio Pilato et procuratoris argumento. :thumbs:

spin · 12-24-2004, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I found a few of my early notes on Tacitus I will be reading them (probably in the New Year ) but found one point stright away Pontius Pilate was NOT the Procurator he was a Prefect an completely different rank of adminstrator,which I and others doubt Tacitus with his access to official records would have got wrong.

The xian apologist is not prepared to contemplate the ingenuousness of the argument that Tacitus was simply wrong.

If however we look at what Tacitus says about Judea in the Histories 5,

Quote:

Cneius Pompeius was the first of our countrymen to subdue the Jews. Availing himself of the right of conquest, he entered the temple. Thus it became commonly known that the place stood empty with no similitude of gods within, and that the shrine had nothing to reveal. The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed, the temple was left standing. After these provinces had fallen, in the course of our civil wars, into the hands of Marcus Antonius, Pacorus, king of the Parthians, seized Judaea. He was slain by Publius Ventidius, and the Parthians were driven back over the Euphrates. Caius Sosius reduced the Jews to subjection. The royal power, which had been bestowed by Antony on Herod, was augmented by the victorious Augustus. On Herod's death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod.

Note here that Tacitus shows he knows that Judea was not a province at this stage, but dependent on Syria for its Roman administrative control.

Quote:

Under Tiberius all was quiet. But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance. The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judaea to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave.

Here he demonstrates that he knows when Judea's status changes to a full province and is put under the control of the Roman knights...

So, yeah, Tacitus can make the mistake of placing Judea under a procurator, when he knew that the Judean procuratorship didn't arise until the time of Claudius... Jingle all the way... Oh, what fun it is to ride...

spin

12-24-2004, 09:35 AM

Lucretius, do you know any Tacitean scholars who say the sentence you object to is an interpolation? I fear your qualifications are not sufficient to count you as an authority unless you can show me other authorities that agree with you.

Spin, do you take the view that every word Tacitus wrote is accurate? From what I have read, he is considered to be extremely unreliable at times. Alll ancient and modern authors contradict themselves from time to time. And they all make slip ups. By the way, your earlier point about the word multitude is invalidated by Pliny the Elder on the Essenes (and a billion other examples of Latin exaggeration).

The fact is we have no good reason to believe this passage is an interpolation. It only even comes up because Jesus Mythers have to explain to away or their theory is dead. While it is possible to express doubt about this passage, the two Josephan ones, all the references in Paul etc etc, you can say that about any ancient reference to anything. It's a mugs game.

Any suggestion this passage is a Christian interpolation is rendered wildly implausible by the extreme rudeness of Tacitus about Christians.

Happy Christmas to you all.

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Chris Weimer · 12-24-2004, 09:55 AM

I fail to see how the mythicist theory is dead just because Tacitus, writing at 80 years after the crucifiction of Christ, mentioned him.

1: What are your credentials, Bede, since you seem so adamant to bring this up?

2:

Quote:

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] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

Quote:

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.

from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Quote:

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," but that is disputable. The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." Although Tacitus was Roman rather than Jewish and might have believed that was part of the name, it is extremely unlikely he would have selected it alone from the archives. In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no Roman documents related to a historical Jesus. The conclusion is that the information must have been derived from Christian sources. Thus it offers no independent evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.

Now, Bede, do you google?

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

12-23-2004, 01:47 AM	#12
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	The strict literalist (me) would say never translate it as used to, because it implies an action in the past that continues to the present. But I know that there are exceptions to every rule, and Latin was fond of its idiomatic expressions.

12-24-2004, 09:35 AM	#19
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Lucretius, do you know any Tacitean scholars who say the sentence you object to is an interpolation? I fear your qualifications are not sufficient to count you as an authority unless you can show me other authorities that agree with you. Spin, do you take the view that every word Tacitus wrote is accurate? From what I have read, he is considered to be extremely unreliable at times. Alll ancient and modern authors contradict themselves from time to time. And they all make slip ups. By the way, your earlier point about the word multitude is invalidated by Pliny the Elder on the Essenes (and a billion other examples of Latin exaggeration). The fact is we have no good reason to believe this passage is an interpolation. It only even comes up because Jesus Mythers have to explain to away or their theory is dead. While it is possible to express doubt about this passage, the two Josephan ones, all the references in Paul etc etc, you can say that about any ancient reference to anything. It's a mugs game. Any suggestion this passage is a Christian interpolation is rendered wildly implausible by the extreme rudeness of Tacitus about Christians. Happy Christmas to you all. Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.