Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

[Peter Kirby]

Aberrant behavior can't be accounted for and cannot be assumed.

Yes, that's true. I just wanted to mention that there may be some room for doubt.

Exactly how "aberrant" would it be? Is it something particular about these copyists that made them less likely to introduce this category of scribal error?

The corrector would have worked with the source text. Otherwise there would be no way to notice many errors.

Right.

If it were in the source text for the copy, why did the corrector change it?

I am led to understand that some scribes in some places did make these kinds of speculative restorations, perhaps especially when they might seem uncontroversial, such as fixing the spelling. I suppose that there are cases when we have both the manuscript and the exemplar where that happened.

[spin]

Exactly how "aberrant" would it be? Is it something particular about these copyists that made them less likely to introduce this category of scribal error?

The vast majority of errors were naturally not consciously carried out... things like dittography (accidental repetitions), haplography (accidental omissions), fatigue (as I think in the case of Chrestiani), misunderstanding the nature of marginal notes as inclusions. Conscious errors of a benign nature would include the copyist assuming errors in the source and correcting them himself, fixing grammar, as you touch on below. Things start to become shakier when changes were to "improve" lexis, as this starts becoming subjective.

If it were in the source text for the copy, why did the corrector change it?

I am led to understand that some scribes in some places did make these kinds of speculative restorations, perhaps especially when they might seem uncontroversial, such as fixing the spelling. I suppose that there are cases when we have both the manuscript and the exemplar where that happened.

I tend to think that less controlled changes happened earlier than later. (Hi, Bernard!) The text of Codex Sinaiticus was corrected three times over an extended period. At least two of those correctional efforts were not about differences between source and copy. That sort of thing would be extremely hard in the late mediaeval period onwards. Scriptoria, set times for work with other copyists, oversight. In such conditions I think you'd need a conspiracy, which is of course possible, but highly unlikely.

[Peter Kirby]

I am led to understand that some scribes in some places did make these kinds of speculative restorations, perhaps especially when they might seem uncontroversial, such as fixing the spelling. I suppose that there are cases when we have both the manuscript and the exemplar where that happened.

I tend to think that less controlled changes happened earlier than later.

Emphasis added:

The text of Codex Sinaiticus was corrected three times over an extended period. At least two of those correctional efforts were not about differences between source and copy. That sort of thing would be extremely hard in the late mediaeval period onwards.

Okay, that's something substantial to back up the argument. I think we just need a (good) reference for that, and we can put this to bed (for good).

[spin]

The text of Codex Sinaiticus was corrected three times over an extended period. At least two of those correctional efforts were not about differences between source and copy. That sort of thing would be extremely hard in the late mediaeval period onwards.

Okay, that's something substantial to back up the argument. I think we just need a (good) reference for that, and we can put this to bed (for good).

Dunno if you'll get one. I've talked about so many different things lately, requiring special knowledge and I'm working from a modicum of experience of Italian monasteries I've visited.

[Peter Kirby]

The text of Codex Sinaiticus was corrected three times over an extended period. At least two of those correctional efforts were not about differences between source and copy. That sort of thing would be extremely hard in the late mediaeval period onwards.

Okay, that's something substantial to back up the argument. I think we just need a (good) reference for that, and we can put this to bed (for good).

Dunno if you'll get one. I've talked about so many different things lately, requiring special knowledge and I'm working from a modicum of experience of Italian monasteries I've visited.

Okay, but the argument kind of needs it (... whenever whoever can provide it). A medievalist or something would be able to say something about medieval scribal habits. This knowledge is not so specialized that there wouldn't be a lot of publications incidentally relevant to it somewhere, right? We actually have a few orders of magnitude more medieval manuscripts than ancient ones, so this should basically be pretty common sort of knowledge for those who study scribal habits and text criticism generally, without a very specific focus on antiquity (or modernity).

I understand it's tedious. (If it's pretty secure knowledge, it should be less tedious, than if it's not, I guess. Finding the needle is easier when there's plenty.) If you aren't up for it, don't worry about it.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

First, the passage itself. Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (translation modified slightly from that of Church and Brodribb):

... 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. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. 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. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good but rather to glut the cruelty of one man that they were being destroyed.

Here are some of the problems with Annals 15.44: ...

The passage is functionally a martyrdom story outlining how awfully the christians were treated--so badly that passers by could feel pity (this is in the city where people went to the amphitheatre to watch people being torn apart by wild animals for entertainment). Arguing that the picture was not favorable to christians, is merely an accusation that a christian interpolator was incapable of trying to fit into the style of the original writer.

As this material doesn't fit the tenor of Tacitus's writing, the only people to whom this passage would have much interest were christians, for it is functionally a story of christian martyrdom, though a story apparently unknown to Tertullian who refers to Tacitus and christians under Nero, but not to this passage. What we find in reading it is that the christians suffer horribly for their faith and even pagan passers by are driven to feel compassion for their sufferings.

The passage does talk of the christians as criminals, which might suggest to some that christians couldn't write such things about christians. However, such a tendentious approach to the endeavor would render the passage obviously out of place.

The story serves no polemical value to Tacitus's efforts to inculpate Nero for the fire.

I think that spin made some really good points. On the other hand it might suggest not only "to some", but rather to many "that christians couldn't write such things about christians"

[Bernard Muller]

I think spin is doing here what he has been blaming me for: proposing motives of what drove the author or interpolator to write what they did; or motives explaining why the original author could not have written a particular passage.

I do not see anything wrong about Tacitus treating the Christian as criminals, and their religion as awful. The same for Tacitus' vivid description of the Christians cruel deaths, probably to make Nero, whom Tacitus hated, look very bad.
And that pagans having some sympathy for Christians (or others who were unjustly denounced as Christians) after what Nero did to them is very understandable: they disliked Nero, thought he used Christians for scapegoats and was overly atrocious towards them.
There is a particular religion I dislike a lot, but if their members were violently persecuted by some authoritarian regime, I certainly would feel compassion for them.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

I think spin is doing here what he has been blaming me for: proposing motives of what drove the author or interpolator to write what they did; or motives explaining why the original author could not have written a particular passage.

Pot looking for kettle.

I do not see anything wrong about Tacitus treating the Christian as criminals, and their religion as awful. The same for Tacitus' vivid description of the Christians cruel deaths, probably to make Nero, whom Tacitus hated, look very bad.

Ever one not to read what is said! It wouldn't hurt to read the whole discourse to get context. No-one is claiming that Tacitus wasn't extremely antagonistic toward Nero. But do try to know something about Tacitus, the famous restrained style, and the fact that I discussed the nature of his rhetoric against Nero, which was aimed specifically to make Nero "look very bad". However, if you believe the nonsense you wrote here above, do try to to demonstrate your claim about vivid descriptions of deaths, remembering Martin's comment about his restrain that was cited in the O.P.

No-one has said anything to inspire a comment about "Tacitus treating the Christian as criminals, and their religion as awful." (He would have been quite capable of doing so. See his comments on the Jews in Hist. 5.2-5.)

And that pagans having some sympathy for Christians (or others who were unjustly denounced as Christians) after what Nero did to them is very understandable: they disliked Nero, thought he used Christians for scapegoats and was overly atrocious towards them.
There is a particular religion I dislike a lot, but if their members were violently persecuted by some authoritarian regime, I certainly would feel compassion for them.

Uh-huh. Glad to see you can still waffle on.

[spin]

First, the passage itself. Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (translation modified slightly from that of Church and Brodribb):

... 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. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. 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. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good but rather to glut the cruelty of one man that they were being destroyed.

Here are some of the problems with Annals 15.44: ...

The passage is functionally a martyrdom story outlining how awfully the christians were treated--so badly that passers by could feel pity (this is in the city where people went to the amphitheatre to watch people being torn apart by wild animals for entertainment). Arguing that the picture was not favorable to christians, is merely an accusation that a christian interpolator was incapable of trying to fit into the style of the original writer.

As this material doesn't fit the tenor of Tacitus's writing, the only people to whom this passage would have much interest were christians, for it is functionally a story of christian martyrdom, though a story apparently unknown to Tertullian who refers to Tacitus and christians under Nero, but not to this passage. What we find in reading it is that the christians suffer horribly for their faith and even pagan passers by are driven to feel compassion for their sufferings.

The passage does talk of the christians as criminals, which might suggest to some that christians couldn't write such things about christians. However, such a tendentious approach to the endeavor would render the passage obviously out of place.

The story serves no polemical value to Tacitus's efforts to inculpate Nero for the fire.

I think that spin made some really good points. On the other hand it might suggest not only "to some", but rather to many "that christians couldn't write such things about christians"

Why? Were christian scribes not self-critical, aware of the range of antagonistic views out there, nor capable of writing such things down?

[spin]

Okay, but the argument kind of needs it (... whenever whoever can provide it). A medievalist or something would be able to say something about medieval scribal habits. This knowledge is not so specialized that there wouldn't be a lot of publications incidentally relevant to it somewhere, right? We actually have a few orders of magnitude more medieval manuscripts than ancient ones, so this should basically be pretty common sort of knowledge for those who study scribal habits and text criticism generally, without a very specific focus on antiquity (or modernity).

I understand it's tedious. (If it's pretty secure knowledge, it should be less tedious, than if it's not, I guess. Finding the needle is easier when there's plenty.) If you aren't up for it, don't worry about it.

Sadly, the topic of the systematization of scribal practice just doesn't seem to have much treatment that is available on the internet!