aa5874

But presently we are trying to make a determination whether Tacitus Annals is interpolated, yet you are claiming that translations of Greek were poor and a certain line was botched with respect to Tertullian.

How can you single-handedly make such finding when the interpolation issue has not yet been resolved?

It may be that the passage in Annals was bothched or from a poor translation.

In fact, your explanation does not resolve anything, it is just an explanation based on your imagination without any evidence or credible support.


What you imagine to be true may actually be completely false.

mountainman

Hi Andrew and others,


This is the precise reason why Eusebius is not regarded as any form of integrous historian in the field of ancient history. Biblical (specifically new testament) History cannot relinquish the Eusebian foundation and hence it can be already seen as an island being submerged by the incoming tides of the distribution of the ancient historical evidence as distinct from traditional evidenceless belief. (in the historicity of stories penned and assembled under the name Eusebius on behalf of .................)

Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

What does a potential interpolation issue in the Annals by Tacitus have to do with whether the Greek translation of the Apology by Tertullian that Eusebius used was fair or poor?

And who says I made this finding singlehandedly?

Ben.

aa5874

I thought it was irrelevant to claim the Greek translation was poor, and further it would very difficult for you to show that the translation was indeed poor.

aa5874, and please tell me I am not wrong. I shudder to think other people have made the same finding without any supporting evidence.

Ben C Smith

That you did not see the relevance in no way surprises me.

Kirsopp Lake in the Loeb edition of the Church History of Eusebius notes the poor Greek translation of the original Latin. So does whoever wrote the footnotes for the ANF series at this same point in the text.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Harnack wrote a book on the Greek translation of the Apologeticum, and gives examples.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

EarlDoherty

I'm glad you've joined in here, Ben. But you have entirely missed my point. The key question is not why Eusebius does not make mention of Tacitus, but why he does not make mention of the Neronian persecution in terms which are allegedly recorded by Tacitus. Even if he was completely unfamiliar with Tacitus' Annals, he should certainly have been familiar with a Neronian persecution of the nature that Tacitus describes, if we are to assume that Tacitus' passage is authentic. I have demonstrated that he is not familiar with that kind of Neronian persecution because he restricts such a persecution to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

I think it is also debatable that Eusebius could have been ignorant of the Tacitus account, even if it was only by hearsay or a poor translation of the Latin. The existence of such an account could not fail to have become known at least by repute within the Christian community, and (efficient historian that he was--after all, he did track down a letter written by Jesus) Eusebius would have had every reason to make sure he looked it up.

Anyway, here are a few paragraphs from my treatment of this topic in my new chapter:

Can you quote that line from Tertullian (perhaps also with Eusebius' use of it) which you think "clearly" refers to a general persecution under Nero? Before giving it to us, I would suggest you read my earlier post (#44) about how "clear" Tertullian is not about the extent of the Neronian persecution and his alleged dependence on Tacitus' Annals.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.25.3-5a:

But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence. Thus having announced himself as the first among the principal enemies of God, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles.

Here the execution of the apostles is distinct from the beginning of the persecution of the Christian faith.

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.22.8:

It is probable indeed that, as Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, the defense by Paul of his doctrine was more easily received, but that, when he had advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of daring, he made the apostles as well as the others the subjects of his attacks.

Who are the others here? Are they members of the imperial family or other Roman enemies of Nero? Or are they the other Christians attacked by Nero?

Tertullian, Scorpiace 15:

We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then [tunc] is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then [tunc] does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.

If tunc is taken here in a consecutive sense (as next), then Tertullian is saying that Nero (A) stained the faith with blood, then (B) killed Peter, and then (C) killed Paul.

If tunc is taken here in a correlative sense (as at that time), we ask ourselves: Which time? Clearly the time when Nero stained the faith with blood. At that time Peter and Paul were killed. This implies, to my mind, that Tertullian has an event in mind to which the executions of Peter and Paul belong; he does not have the executions of Peter and Paul in mind as the complete substance of the event.

Tertullian, Apology 5.3:

Consult your records: You will there find that Nero was the first emperor who wielded the sword ferociously on the blood of Christians, when our religion was just springing up in Rome. But we even glory in being first dedicated to destruction by such a monster. For whoever knows him can understand that it could only have been something of supreme excellence that called forth the condemnation of Nero.

No limiting of the persecutions to the two apostles here. This is a persecution against Christians, against us.

This is the sort of consideration that sinks the entire argument. We do not know that Eusebius knew the Tacitus account, but we do know that Eusebius knew 1 Clement (where, as you stated, the persecution of the multitude of Christians is described in the same terms as the persecution of Peter and Paul, so what would Eusebius have thought?) and the Acts of Paul, which has the following line (among others):

Nero therefore went on in Rome, slaying many Christians without a hearing, by the working of the evil one.

Tacitus is not the only text before Eusebius that mentions a general persecution against the Christians by Nero.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

Well, Ben, if you are happy having to go through such contortions to tease out an obscure meaning from a text which ought to have been blatantly direct about such an event as the Neronian persecution as we find described in Tacitus, then feel free. You know the old expression, "if it helps you get through the night."

But it ought to evident to the dispassionate observer that so much of the rebuttal case against observations like my own seems to be of this very nature, contortions to tease out obscure implications from texts which on the surface contain such a perplexing and revealing void.

But it's all so vague and unspecific, isn't it? And I have explained the Acts of Paul, but I'll give you my full footnote on the subject:

And I think I dealt with the so-called 'clarity' of Tertullian in regard to a Neronian persecution in that post #44.

Nor do I accept the feasibility that Eusebius could have been totally unaware of the Tacitus passage, in one way or another. That a Christian historian obviously fixated on the history of martyrdom could have passed that up is inconceivable, or limited it to brief phrases like " and other Christians". No link with the fire is made, and we have seen other indicators that individuals attached to Peter and Paul were seen as martyred along with them, and that alone could account for all those trivial little phrases you point to in History of the Church.

That's all I can say. And I'll leave it up to others to judge for themselves.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

I am puzzled at your characterization of my argument as contortions. I pointed out what tunc appears to imply, under either of its two principal meanings; that is all.

Yes, it is. But you read stuff into the vagueness that I do not. I do not even claim that either Tertullian or Eusebius knew Tacitus! (Though it seems more likely that the former would have known him than the latter.)

So, when a text does not explicitly say that Nero killed ordinary Christians, it is to your favor; and, when a text does explicitly say that Nero killed ordinary Christians, it is to your favor. Must be nice.

Your argument depends wholly upon what you expect writers who knew of the persecution would or would not write. I reject your expectations. As usual.

He most certainly could have been. You are simply mistaken here.

On this we agree.

Ditto.

Ben.