Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Bernard Muller »

Giuseppe wrote:In this article
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.it ... 8.html?m=1

There is new evidence in Seneca (!) about the true identity of the ChrEstiani as gentile Judaizers. Nero killed Poppea because she was one of them.
In the article, I could not find any evidence connecting Chrestiani with strictly gentile Judaizers.
The main argument rests on the Chrestus of Suetonius. But it is far from certain he was a Jewish sect leader in Rome. And Chrestus could as easily stands for Christ, and with Jewish Christians getting unto trouble with the other Jews at the instigation of Chrestus (posthumously).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
What evidence is there for Christians ("as Jesus?") believing that ones put to death for their crimes would have their soul made eternal? Did Christians regard Jesus as a criminal? If so, then give the evidence. If not, then Christians and Jews are in the same boat, right? The former did not think of Jesus as a criminal, nor did at least a good number of the latter think of the Maccabean martyrs as criminals. Tacitus would merely be (tendentiously) calling either Jesus or the Maccabean martyrs (or both) criminals because they suffered deaths reserved for criminals, and to my mind he is probably doing that regardless of whether either group considered their martyrs to actually be criminals. If I am right, it does not matter what Jews or Christians thought; it matters only what Tacitus thought.
I did not say Christians would be " believing that ones put to death for their crimes would have their soul made eternal", but Tacitus did (for "that ones [Jews] put to death for their crimes"), about Jews thinking those would have eternal life.
Yes, I know that. My whole point depended on that.
That is, for Tacitus, someone executed by the Romans had to be a criminal, and that criminal (Jesus?) was known by Tacitus as believed by (Christian) Jews to be eternal.
"They also look on the souls of those ... put to death for their crimes, as eternal."
No word for "criminal" actually appears in the Latin, by the way: animosque proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum aeternos putant. This page: http://www.livius.org/sources/content/t ... n-the-jews, translates as follows: "and they think that eternal life is granted to those who die in battle or execution." Or you can look here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... 5A*.html#5, for this translation: "and they believe that the souls of those who are killed in battle or by the executioner are immortal."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:In this article
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.it ... 8.html?m=1

There is new evidence in Seneca (!) about the true identity of the ChrEstiani as gentile Judaizers. Nero killed Poppea because she was one of them.
In the article, I could not find any evidence connecting Chrestiani with strictly gentile Judaizers.
The main argument rests on the Chrestus of Suetonius. But it is far from certain he was a Jewish sect leader in Rome. And Chrestus could as easily stands for Christ, and with Jewish Christians getting unto trouble with the other Jews at the instigation of Chrestus (posthumously).

Cordially, Bernard
The author says that Seneca accused Jews of having provoked the Great Fire of Rome. He gives a reference in a note to a Goodman's book. Now I will give it in a more precise form.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe »

The Seneca argument (derived partially from Martin Goodman, 2008, 'Rome & Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations', 1st Edition, Penguin: New York) is the following:
In any case, regret at the
popularity of Jewish customs does not explain Seneca's description of Jews as a “most
wicked race,” sceleratissima gens. Why Seneca wrote about the Jews with such
antagonism cannot now be ascertained with certainty
, and most historians (probably
wisely) are content to leave the puzzle unsolved. Neither this phrase nor any description
of equivalent hostility is found in any other extant Latin literature about the Jews from
before 66 CE. If it is correct to date the composition of On Superstition to near the end of
Seneca's life, in 65, it may be relevant that his last years coincided with the time of the
great fire in Rome in 64 for which Christians were punished as scapegoats.
Seneca may
have treated all Jews as guilty, by association, of the crimes of which Christians were
accused, or he may have reflected a more general mood in Rome at this time of crisis
that the “atheism” shared by Jews with Christians brought the state into danger. Perhaps
the context of his description of Jews as a “most wicked race” was what mattered most:
in a treatise for Romans on superstition, Jews would provide much the best known
example of a notable “superstition,” that no God should be worshipped apart from their
own.
It is in fact rather hard to see any reason why Jews should have experienced
particular hostility from Romans before the rebellion broke out in 66. Jews were odd in
some respects, but through their adoption of many of the cultural traits of Hellenism
they resembled cultures quite familiar to Romans. (...)
Once again it was made clear that it was no part of normal Roman policy to
compel Jews to break their inherited customs
(p. 391, my bold)

If the Chrestiani were simply Gentiles converted to Judaism, then you can explain why Seneca hated so much the ''Jews''.

Differently, if you think that the Chrestiani were Christians sic et simpliciter, then you have a big problem: why were the enemies of the Christians (the not-Christian Jews) hated by Seneca for no rational motive ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe »

I find this argument very strong:
Secondly it answers the question of why the Chrestians were so credible as the originators of the Great Fire of Rome: as we have no account, to my knowledge, of the populace disbelieving Nero's slaughter of the Chrestians until Nero began to use prime land destroyed by the fire to build a new palace when the suspicion of the mob was aroused by his foolish and self-serving actions. If the Chrestians were not well-known to be agitators and trouble-makers in the streets and alleyways of Rome then it is hardly likely that the populace of Rome would have stood for so large a massacre of their fellow citizens.
(my bold)
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.it ... nd_08.html

In other terms, the pacifist Christians in Rome (see Romans 13:1-7) were less credible, as scapegoat, than the seditious followers of the ''impulsore Chresto'' of Suetonius.

Therefore I think that the Christ-line was interpolated. Note that Bernays argued that the Fragment 2 in Sulpicius Severus was written by Tacitus only in virtue of stilistic reasons. But the theology of the Fragment 2 proves that it is not genuine, against Bernays. Therefore we are dealing with the risk of a Christian interpolator really good to imitate the style of Tacitus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe »

So Seneca (quoted by Augustine):
“Meanwhile the customs of this most wicked race have gained such influence that they are now received throughout all the world. The conquered have given laws to their conquerors.
''Chrestus'' is a very common name among slaves and freedmen. The possible irony behind the name is that it alludes to ''conquered became conquerors'' and at the same time it remembers the Jewish Messiah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: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 fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Argument 4 - The assertions of Annales 15.44 agree with Tacitus’ assertions

Three examples

- Tacitus showed that Nero feared public opinion
Annales 15.44
...did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt
Annales 14.13
While Nero was lingering in the towns of Campania, doubting how he should enter Rome, whether he would find the Senate submissive and the populace enthusiastic, all the vilest courtiers, and of these never had a court a more abundant crop, argued against his hesitation by assuring him that Agrippina's name was hated and that her death had heightened his popularity.
Annales 14.60
Octavia, however, was dismissed under the form of an ordinary divorce, and received possession of the house of Burrus and of the estates of Plautus, an ill-starred gift. She was soon afterwards banished to Campania under military surveillance. This led to incessant and outspoken remonstrances among the common people, who have less discretion and are exposed to fewer dangers than others from the insignificance of their position. Upon this Nero, though he did not repent of his outrage, restored to Octavia her position as wife.


- Tacitus’ strong moral judgements
Annales 15.44
... even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular
Annales 14.15
Hence a rank growth of abominations and of all infamy. Never did a more filthy rabble add a worse licentiousness to our long corrupted morals.


- Tacitus’ religious “intolerance”
Annales 15.44
... a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. ... and a most mischievous superstition ... again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil
Historiae 5.5
This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: few arguments on the authenticity

Post by spin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:(Not so strong) Argument 3 – Words in a non-Christian sense that are important for Early Christianity

Chrestianos

In the only relevant MS of Annales 15.44, the Plut.68.2, Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68.2. (or „M.II“ or „second Medicean“) the letter “i” of the word “Christians” is forged. The original reading is “Chrestianos”. This case is often mentioned to show that there is something dubious. But the word “Chrestianos” is rather an argument for authenticity.
No, it isn't. Two important facts:

1) It was at the period when the text was copied (late 11th century at Monte Cassino) that a linguistic change was being felt. French and other Latinate speakers were moving from /i/ to /e/ in certain cases. One of these is "christian" which soon featured an "e" instead of an "i". Eventually the word would end up chretien in French as it now is. A scribe who had experienced the phonetic change would be likely to succumb to its ease when copying text.

2) When a text is altered as we see in M.II it usually means that a scribe has made an error that needed correcting. The scribal process required the scribe to reproduce the original which out any change. The correction of "Chrestianos" to "Christianos" suggests that the source text also had "Christianos".
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

Post by Giuseppe »

More you (KK and spin) argue that the original text is Christiani ''of Christ'', more it becomes a great coincidence very too-much-a-coincidence-to-be-such (therefore DIFFICULTLY a true coincidence) the enigmatic occurrence of the ''impulsore Chresto'' of Suetonius (with original readings potentially being ''impulsore CHERESTO'') in reference to riotous Jews active in Rome under Claudius.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: few arguments on the authenticity

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

spin wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:(Not so strong) Argument 3 – Words in a non-Christian sense that are important for Early Christianity

Chrestianos

In the only relevant MS of Annales 15.44, the Plut.68.2, Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68.2. (or „M.II“ or „second Medicean“) the letter “i” of the word “Christians” is forged. The original reading is “Chrestianos”. This case is often mentioned to show that there is something dubious. But the word “Chrestianos” is rather an argument for authenticity.
No, it isn't. Two important facts:

1) It was at the period when the text was copied (late 11th century at Monte Cassino) that a linguistic change was being felt. French and other Latinate speakers were moving from /i/ to /e/ in certain cases. One of these is "christian" which soon featured an "e" instead of an "i". Eventually the word would end up chretien in French as it now is. A scribe who had experienced the phonetic change would be likely to succumb to its ease when copying text.

2) When a text is altered as we see in M.II it usually means that a scribe has made an error that needed correcting. The scribal process required the scribe to reproduce the original which out any change. The correction of "Chrestianos" to "Christianos" suggests that the source text also had "Christianos".
I tend to agree with Zara that the letter “e” in “Chrestianos” was not corrected by the original scribe, because the forged “i” is not in the typical Beneventan form after the letter “r”.

Under the link (photo of the MS) you can see that in all words with the letters “ri” the letter “i” is something special. It looks a bit like ">" Here the first six words (without the forged “Christianos”) with “ri” in the MS.

principis (second line from above)
rumori (fourth line)
Christus (seventh line)
Tyberio (seventh line)
imperitante (seventh line)
originem (tenth line)


Here are the words "Christus Tyberio imperitante" (third line from above)
Image
Post Reply