Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-14-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Tacitus is a medieval forgery at 20%!!!!

Who said anything about medieval?

Ben C Smith · 04-14-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Tacitus is a medieval forgery at 20%!!!!

Who said anything about medieval?

Pat Cleaver did:

Quote:

Tacitus is a medieval forgery_________________________20%

Ben.

Toto · 04-14-2008, 03:03 PM

I see. Nevermind.

patcleaver · 04-14-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Tacitus is a medieval forgery at 20%!!!!

Who said anything about medieval?

Sorry, I couldn't remember which century they "discovered" it (15th), and didn't think it was worth spending my time looking it up. So I guessed medieval (500-1200). By the way do you remember when??

I think it would be really valuable to get some people thinking in terms of probabilities instead of absolutes.

Ben C Smith · 04-14-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Sorry, I couldn't remember which century they "discovered" it, and didn't think it was worth spending my time looking it up. So I guessed.

Quite right. Arguments against the authenticity of an ancient passage or book would only get bogged down in such dirty details as who in history first quoted or alluded to that passage or book. Better to simply assume the inconvenient passage or book is spurious, announce it to the entire forum in a confident tone, wait for the other side to present any evidence, and then dismiss that evidence out of hand. One might even venture to reprimand the one(s) presenting that evidence for their audacity in thinking that evidence matters more than assertion.

Other activities that would be a sheer waste of your time are reading the passage or book in question, learning its original language or consulting those who know it, and becoming familiar with the current state of scholarship on the matter.

I highly recommend, however, popping into as many threads as possible to authoritatively declare your views on topics that would not be worth your while to research. Keep up the good work. :thumbs:

Ben.

Toto · 04-14-2008, 06:28 PM

There are those who think that the passage in Tacitus was a medieval forgery.

Christianism.com

Quote:

The original MSS, containing the "Annals of Tacitus" were "discovered" in the fifteenth century. Their existence cannot be traced back further than that time. And as it was an age of imposture, some persons are disposed to believe that not only portions of the Annals, but the whole work, was forged at that time. Mr. J.W. Ross, in an elaborate work published in London some years ago, contended that the Annals were forged by Poggio Bracciolini, their professed discoverer. At the time of Bracciolini the temptation was great to palm off literary forgeries, especially of the chief writers of antiquity, on account of the Popes, in their efforts to revive learning, giving money rewards and indulgences to those who should procure MS. copies of any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors. Manuscripts turned up as if by magic, in every direction; from libraries of monasteries, obscure as well as famous; the most out-of-the-way places,--the bottom of exhausted wells, besmeared by snails, as the History of Velleius Paterculus, or from garrets, where they had been contending with cobwebs and dust, as the poems of Catullus.'

However,

Quote:

A portion of the passage--that relating to the manner in which the Christians were put to death--is found in the Historia Sacra of Sulpicius Severus [c. 360 - c. 430?] ["historian and hagiographer"; "priest" (Ox. Dict. C.C.)], a Christian Father, who died A.D. 420.

Note also the case for the passage being inauthentic without necessarily being a forgery:

Quote:

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing."

The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell by Gordon Stein, Ph.D.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-14-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are those who think that the passage in Tacitus was a medieval forgery.

Note also the case for the passage being inauthentic without necessarily being a forgery:

Quote:

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing."

The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell by Gordon Stein, Ph.D.

Note too that, as is shown by his bibliography to his article, Stein, a physiologist, did not consult a single discussion of the Tacitean passage by a Classicist or Tacitean scholar. His authorities are Drews and Wells.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith · 04-14-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are those who think that the passage in Tacitus was a medieval forgery.

Christianism.com

Quote:

The original MSS, containing the "Annals of Tacitus" were "discovered" in the fifteenth century. Their existence cannot be traced back further than that time. And as it was an age of imposture, some persons are disposed to believe that not only portions of the Annals, but the whole work, was forged at that time. Mr. J.W. Ross, in an elaborate work published in London some years ago, contended that the Annals were forged by Poggio Bracciolini, their professed discoverer. At the time of Bracciolini the temptation was great to palm off literary forgeries, especially of the chief writers of antiquity, on account of the Popes, in their efforts to revive learning, giving money rewards and indulgences to those who should procure MS. copies of any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors. Manuscripts turned up as if by magic, in every direction; from libraries of monasteries, obscure as well as famous; the most out-of-the-way places,--the bottom of exhausted wells, besmeared by snails, as the History of Velleius Paterculus, or from garrets, where they had been contending with cobwebs and dust, as the poems of Catullus.'

However,

Note also the case for the passage being inauthentic without necessarily being a forgery:

Quote:

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing."

The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell by Gordon Stein, Ph.D.

Both the Tacitus passage and the Severus passage are on my site. That the forger should have copied the Severus passage into Tacitus involves a particular unlikelihood, IMHO, namely the omission of mention of the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Ben.

the_cave · 04-14-2008, 06:41 PM

It looks like this is the passage from Sulpicius Severus? (Note that there doesn't appear to be anything in here about Pilate--I have no idea if that means anything or not.)

Interea abundante iam Christianorum multitudine accidit ut Roma incendio conflagraret, Nerone apud Antium constituto. sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in principem retorquebat, credebaturque imperator gloriam innovandae urbis quaesisse. (2) neque ulla re Nero efficiebat, quin ab eo iussum incendium putaretur. igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones; quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. (3) hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum. post etiam datis legibus religio vetabatur, palamque edictis propositis Christianum esse non licebat. tum Paulus ac Petrus capitis damnati; (4) quorum uni cervix gladio desecta, Petrus in crucem sublatus est. dum haec Romae geruntur, Iudaei, praesidis sui Festi Flori iniurias non ferentes, rebellare coeperunt. adversus eos Vespasianus proconsulari imperio a Nerone missus multis gravibusque proeliis devictos coegit intra muros Hierosolymae confugere. (5) interim Nero iam etiam sibi pro conscientia scelerum invisus, humanis rebus eximitur, incertum an ipse sibi mortem consciverit; certe corpus illius non repertum. (6) unde creditur, etiam si se gladio ipse transfixerit, curato vulnere eius servatus, secundum illud, quod de eo scriptum est; et plaga mortis eius curata est, sub saeculi fine mittendus, ut mysterium iniquitatis exerceat.

Toto · 04-14-2008, 06:50 PM

Jeffrey - I was just trying to provide enough information to patcleaver to confuse the issue. Is there anything wrong with the facts or logic?

But this is the reference I was looking for: previous thread on Tacitus

and here's a valid link for Darrell Doughty's course notes on Tacitus: Wayback

View Poll Results: What's the source of this passage?
Not sure at all	8	24.24%
Not genuine Tacitus (interpolated)	10	30.30%
Made up by Tacitus	0	0%
Oral source - non-Christian	2	6.06%
Oral source - Christian	8	24.24%
Written source - secular	2	6.06%
Written source - Josephus	3	9.09%
Written source - Christian	0	0%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

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

04-14-2008, 03:03 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I see. Nevermind.

04-14-2008, 06:41 PM	#19
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	It looks like this is the passage from Sulpicius Severus? (Note that there doesn't appear to be anything in here about Pilate--I have no idea if that means anything or not.) Interea abundante iam Christianorum multitudine accidit ut Roma incendio conflagraret, Nerone apud Antium constituto. sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in principem retorquebat, credebaturque imperator gloriam innovandae urbis quaesisse. (2) neque ulla re Nero efficiebat, quin ab eo iussum incendium putaretur. igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones; quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. (3) hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum. post etiam datis legibus religio vetabatur, palamque edictis propositis Christianum esse non licebat. tum Paulus ac Petrus capitis damnati; (4) quorum uni cervix gladio desecta, Petrus in crucem sublatus est. dum haec Romae geruntur, Iudaei, praesidis sui Festi Flori iniurias non ferentes, rebellare coeperunt. adversus eos Vespasianus proconsulari imperio a Nerone missus multis gravibusque proeliis devictos coegit intra muros Hierosolymae confugere. (5) interim Nero iam etiam sibi pro conscientia scelerum invisus, humanis rebus eximitur, incertum an ipse sibi mortem consciverit; certe corpus illius non repertum. (6) unde creditur, etiam si se gladio ipse transfixerit, curato vulnere eius servatus, secundum illud, quod de eo scriptum est; et plaga mortis eius curata est, sub saeculi fine mittendus, ut mysterium iniquitatis exerceat.

04-14-2008, 06:50 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jeffrey - I was just trying to provide enough information to patcleaver to confuse the issue. Is there anything wrong with the facts or logic? But this is the reference I was looking for: previous thread on Tacitus and here's a valid link for Darrell Doughty's course notes on Tacitus: Wayback

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.