Frank

Right, which circles back to my original analysis. Something I like to do with religion is simply examine the facts as I would examine them if they were presented in a modern context.

Imagine some scribe copied this text, but inserted a spurious paragraph. If we imagine the entire paragraph is spurious, and it's motivation was religious in nature, then at some point in the chain, our copyist/forger has to misspell the name of his lord and savior (to which he's devoted his life and academic career). Not only do we have to imagine this, but we also have to imagine that our hypothetical forger was extremely literate, well versed in ancient latin, etc.

The thing is, we can examine the entire book and through simple handwriting analysis determine whether or not it was written by the same author, and determine whether it matches Tactean writing style. This doesn't preclude the idea that the passage at issue was spurious, but it does confine the scope of our analysis. Our copyist goes through all the labor to copy this entire book (not an easy task without a word processor, or at least a modern bic pen and modern paper), just to insert this little paragraph. Then, after all that, he mispells the name of his god. Rather than simply rewrite the page, he crudely erases his mistake and corrects it. Okay, I guess it would have been considerable work to rewrite the entire page, and maybe our forger just got lazy (and we have to presume he didn't predict the advent of ultraviolet devices that would one day be used to examine these documents).

Nevertheless, this whole exercise seems painfully contrived to try and support a preexisting position.

I certainly have nothing to gain from arguing for the authenticity of this document, I'm an atheist (and a very thorough one). I simply think it's more plausible to believe Tacitus did write this, he misspelled the title of Jesus because it was only an incidental fact (not really relevant to his purposes), and there would little need for him to exhaustively research something he viewed as an absurd superstition. If someone reports on the history of Mormonism, would mispelling a name take away from the historical value of the report? It might if the report claimed to be an exhaustive examination of Mormonism, whereas it wouldn't if it was merely told in the context of the history of Illinois (where Joseph Smith was killed by a mob, while awaiting trial).

GakuseiDon

This is the sentence:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero [blamed the Christians]...

I would have to bow to someone with greater knowledge of Latin, but wouldn't "all human efforts" include "lavish gifts of the emperor" and "propitiations of the gods"? Perhaps that is part of the interpolation? It seems that all the good things Nero tried failed. So he tried framing someone.

Anyway, I guess it is possible that you and spin are correct, so I will agree to disagree.

GakuseiDon

It's possible, but it doesn't affect my point AFAICS. It would then read as though the interpolator had the Christians, those "hated for their abominations", confessing under torture of a "hatred against mankind" rather than starting the fire:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace... a most mischievous superstition... even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

It sounds like the Christians, under torture, were admitting to a "hatred against mankind". I would expect that a martyrdom account would explicitly include something about Christians dying for their faith, otherwise (I argue) why put in something like this? But I admit a crafty interpolator might have done it this way.

The rest of your note about Christians' impression of Rome as the Great Babylon from Revelation is interesting. It is reminiscent of how some modern day Muslims call the USA the "Great Satan", and how Allah will destroy its riches and bring it to its knees.

aa5874

Once it can be shown that there was MANIPULATION of Annals then it's AUTHENTICITY is doubtful.

GakuseiDon

But why is lighting more fires after dark an issue? You're implying that the Romans wouldn't or couldn't kill people in that manner in the gardens, but AFAICS you are just throwing it out there as though it were obvious. You are raising doubts, not providing evidence.

Please state your conclusion clearly: In your view, was it unlikely that Romans had the ability to burn people in the gardens, at night, surrounded by temporary wooden structures? If so, what is your evidence for such a view?

Yes, it looks right to me, at least in English. Which I know is dangerous. Still, it reads like this:

"All human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods up to that time, did not banish the sinister belief... Consequently..."

What is the meaning of the Latin word used for "consequently"? In English, it suggests something happening after or as a consequence of a previous action. "I tried everything to get her to date me, I gave her gifts, I sacrificed to the gods, nothing worked. Consequently I blackmailed her." Looks good to me. If someone said "But if you tried everything, didn't that include blackmail?", I wouldn't see the sense of the question personally.

Nero tried everything to square himself with the people: gifts, sacrifices. When this didn't work, he accused the Christians. How is that different to my example? :huh:

Does the Latin for "Consequently" shed any support here for interpolation?

Tacitus had moved on from describing the fire. He was writing about Nero's mansion, the effort to clear rubbish, swamps, etc. The punishment of the Christians (for causing the fire) is in that section, after the rebuilding efforts and before the two-headed babies.

Again, all you are doing is throwing up doubts. Doubts are fine, but they don't constitute evidence. It's possible some crafty interpolator is at work, but there is no obvious interpolation AFAICS (not that I'm claiming any special skills for detecting such). Perhaps an examination of the Latin itself may provide better clues for interpolation.

spin

Tacitus is writing 60 years after the fact. He has the benefit of hindsight. Among the things placed before the conclusion is the building of the Domus Aurea, which was reputed to have had 300 rooms, occupying parts of three hills where the Colosseum now stands, but where he'd built an artificial lake.

Tacitus places fire related topics specifically before his conclusion in order to make his conclusion have the desired impact. The building of the palace, the attempted construction of a canal, the erection of new tenements along safer lines are all things that lasted well after the chronological time of his conclusion. The canal was probably abandoned with his overthrow.

To get to his conclusion about Nero, one expects that he do the same same thing with the christian story as he did with the other things, ie put it before the conclusion.

You need to understand what Tacitus was doing, so that you don't lose track. This was a condemnation of Nero with regard to the fire, a condemnation which goes down the tube when it is waylaid to talk about christians getting killed qua christians and gaining sympathy from passers by on the spot where the Vatican would be built.

It's not just about some generic bias. The fire invective is focused. It's aim is to pin the fire on Nero despite the lack of evidence. Instead, the conclusion of the fire discourse is drowned by crispy crackly christians.

Tacitus was seen by his contemporaries as one of the greatest orators of his time. However, his rhetorical skills are being dismissed without consideration here. When he wrote something as elaborated as the fire discourse, he won't forget what he is talking about by the time he gets to the end.

Total failure.

Stop ranting. You failed to get the gist of the problem. You didn't find any analogous examples. You just listed a few cases where blood was mentioned as though that was going to achieve something. What you needed was people doing horrid gory things. You know,

[T2]Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired[/T2]
Was the last copy done by a French monk? I don't know how long it will take for you to register the question. I've asked you now three times without seeing any brain activity.

Frank

Even if we assume an inexact chronology (which is fine), his statement clearly precludes the idea that Nero began persecuting Christians right after the fire. There was clearly a significant time gap, and in fact during that gap in time, Nero lavished the city by funding these redevelopment projects.

Tacitus is clearly saying (to rephrase): notwithstanding Nero's expenditures on redevelopment and helping those who lost as a result of the fire, he was still unable to squelch widespread rumors that he was responsible for it (and therefore scapegoated this small religious cult to divert blame away from himself).

Something that is also an interesting thing to consider (I'm not sure to what extent this question has ever been explored), what if Christians really were responsible for the fire? Religious extremism often manifests as terrorism.

Indeed he was, and I always liked Tacitus (outside of this context). It sort of pisses me off that Christians have hijacked this great historian (and when you do a google search, you have to weed through piles of Christian fucking rubbish before you can find valuable information).

What do you mean failure? I've provided numerous examples of gory stories by Tacitus

Register another bare assertion by Spin!

Ranting? If I was ranting ... it's certainly better than your persistent whining :moonie:

Toto

Remember the technology of the time. Manuscripts were copied by hand on a regular basis because otherwise they would crumble into dust. So generations of scribes had a hand here, and they were the educated class of the day, literate and well versed in Latin, as monks who spend their careers reading Latin manuscripts would be.

As for the "misspelling" - look up the French for "Christian."

I don't really have any fixed position on whether this is an interpolation. Some posters here have proclaimed that it's just obviously authentic, and that there is a consensus of modern scholars that Tacitus wrote this. But I can't find this consensus. It appears that some scholars have pointed out numerous problems with the passage for the last few centuries, making a reasonable argument for interpolation, and then there are other scholars who brush off these arguments without fully addressing them. It's a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs.

spin

A large part of Rome had just been burnt down. Lighting promiscuous fires after dark would in no sense be reassuring or probable. More fire would probably be the last thing that people would have wanted to see.

But mine was a passing comment to your contortions regarding the gardens opened up to the homeless for shelter with temporary structures, then, as though that hadn't happened, given over again for a spectacle.

The temporary structures [subitaria aedeficia] were exstruxit, ie "constructed", as a "refuge for the multitude in misery". Those structures were not going away in a hurry, so you have to imagine the two situations occupying the same space in order to justify what appears to be a continuity problem in the narrative.

This is simply ergo, "therefore, so", so "consequently" is logical enough, but "up to that time" is the translator's addition.

[T2]sed non ope humana [human efforts], non largitionibus principis [the emperor's generosity] aut deum placamentis [placation of the gods] decedebat [make go] infamia quin iussum [order] incendium [the fire] crederetur [was believed].[/T2]
As I've already stated, this sentence was made with the hindsight of sixty years. it can't be used to construct a chronology. It was how Tacitus ended his fire narrative. And you demonstrated the change in topic that follows in your last post.

No human efforts worked, so he tried another human effort.

These were all related to the fire and Nero's efforts to deal with its repercussions. They were all part of the lead up to the condemnation,

[T2]"all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order."[/T2]
Uncharacteristically for Tacitus, the text does not make itself clear in this respect: was the punishment meted out "for causing the fire". It says that they were arrested who acknowledged. But acknowledged what? The previous sentence talked about the destructive superstition (exitiabilis superstitio). You don't know what they were punished for. Fine orator, don't you think?

And fine orator to lose focus of his condemnation of Nero regarding the fire by changing the topic and slipping into a discussion about people being torn by dogs or burnt alive.

This is discourse analysis. It's clear that, if the passage were kosher, it would have no historical value for the existence of christ for it would be at best hearsay from the time of Tacitus's writing, so we should be able to look at it with a little more objectivity.

I've put forward several problems that are for more insurmountable. And I could add others, but I've preferred to stick with the literary side of the analysis.

1. The use of "procurator" is just plain out of the question, given Tacitus's demonstrated knowledge.

2. The style is not consistent with the great orator, whose work had been subtle until this christian stuff.

3. It is still a martyrdom story, no matter how you bent it. People are condemned for their faith. This is only loosely connected with Tacitus's attack on Nero over his behavior concerning the fire.

4. Double usage of the gardens doesn't reflect the work of someone who had crafted his fore narrative so deliberately.

5. The christian addendum changes the topic, introduces Suetoniesque garishness that distracts from conclusions that are swamped and lost. You can't even say whether the persecution of the christians to dispel the unhappy belief was successful or not (which should tell you that the "ergo" doesn't have any weight).

The discourse marking is quite plain, though you don't wish to see it.

1. We have a hindsight conclusion about Nero's failure to dispel the belief that he was responsible for ordering the fire despite his having tried everything.

2. In order to end his discourse with this conclusion, he needed to shift events that continued long after the fire before the conclusion, which would allow him to finish what he started in 15.38, for, although he didn't know if the fire were started by chance or treachery, he could conclude that everyone thought it was by treachery.

These are the clear rhetorical indications from the text. However, instead of ending the fire narrative with structural coherence, ie functionally answering the question he started with, he stumbles at the end, exploding into arrests for some reason not made clear and horrendous deaths. And the reader has totally forgotten about Nero's nefariousness regarding the fire.

You cannot seriously expect such ham-fistedness from a writer famous for his exquisite style and subtlety.

Frank

Books 11 - 16 Historiae) were written in Italy (around 1040), and Annales (books 1 - 6) were written in Germany much earlier (around 850). This is pre-Renaissance.

However, much of the scholarship is very old (the only recent research I've seen was the 2008 ultraviolet examination of the second Medicean (books 11 - 16), which confirmed that the "e" was changed to "i" (I guess a reexamination would be great ... but an affirmative claim that this is a forgery is baseless, particularly since these claims are largely generated by people who lack any credentials in textual criticism).