Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Irish1975 »

There is a good discussion of the Testimonium Taciteum in a recent publication by 3 classical scholars:

The Emperor Nero: A Guide to the Ancient Sources (Princeton UP, 2016), by Anthony Barrett, Elaine Fantham, & John Yardley (pp. 161-170).

This section of Tacitus, and he is the only ancient source for the events, is of enormous historical interest, yet it is plagued by problems, and at least as early as the late nineteenth century it was rejected in its entirety as an interpolated Christian forgery [Hochart, P., Etudes au sujet de la persecution des Chretiens sous Neron, 1885]. This extreme view is not now generally accepted by scholars. The language and style is perfectly Tacitean, without any of the exaggerations that one might expect in a forged piece. ...Hence, if this passage is an interpolation added sometime before the end of the fourth century (when the Christian writer Sulpicius Severus cites it), it would have to be an almost unbelievably brilliant piece of deception by a true master forger who was prepared to create a negative image of his own cause in order to throw the skeptical reader off the scent.

But in the ensuing discussion they throw mostly cold water on the case for authenticity. The first thing to note is a textual connnection that may not have been noticed or discussed in previous discussions of Annals 15.44 on this forum (I’m probably wrong of course). About Tacitus’ incorrect identification of Pilate as Procurator, rather than Prefect, they find an interesting connection in the Vetus Latina text of the NT:

In these pre-Jerome Latin versions of the NT, at Luke 3:1, where in the Greek text Pontius Pilate’s office is described by the neutral Greek word hegemon, the Vetus Latina translates the term with the phrase procurante Pontio Pilato (“when Pontius Pilate was acting as procurator”). Thus, the notion that he held the office of procurator was part of the Latin Christian tradition.

(Maybe someone can cite this text for confirmation.)

The authors rehearse the familiar argument from silence at length. Suetonius and Dio have no version of these events.

Perhaps even more astonishing is the silence of Christian writers...Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome, and Eusebius all refer to Nero generally as a persecutor. The supposed fates of Peter and Paul made this inevitable...But not a single Christian writer makes any mention of what they would surely have viewed as the first large-scale martyrdom. The case of Eusebius is striking since his Ecclesisastical History is in effect an exhaustive history of martyrdoms in every corner of the empire...

Then they discuss some internal difficulties of the text:

It is not well integrated into the narrative. Nero’s scheme to deflect blame from himself is introduced, and then the topic is dropped, with no indication of any permantent or long-term effects on the perception of Nero’s guilt or on Nero’s reputation generally. Indeed, the whole section from “But neither human resourcefulness...” to “...one man’s cruelty” could be eliminated from the Annals with no loss of sense or continuity.

Pontius Pilate is simply described as “procurator” without reference to the “province” for which he had a degree of responsibility (strictly, Judaea was not a true provincia but part of, and subordinate to, the province of Syria.) This is a very curious way to introduce him. Pilate is well known to Christian tradition as the governor of Judaea at the time of the crucifixion, but to the Roman reader of Tacitus’ day he was not known nearly well enough to “need no introduction.”

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pmAbout Tacitus’ incorrect identification of Pilate as Procurator, rather than Prefect, they find an interesting connection in the Vetus Latina text of the NT:

In these pre-Jerome Latin versions of the NT, at Luke 3:1, where in the Greek text Pontius Pilate’s office is described by the neutral Greek word hegemon, the Vetus Latina translates the term with the phrase procurante Pontio Pilato (“when Pontius Pilate was acting as procurator”). Thus, the notion that he held the office of procurator was part of the Latin Christian tradition.

(Maybe someone can cite this text for confirmation.)
Seems to check out. This verse in the Vetus Latina is almost identical to the same verse in the Vulgate. I find procurante Pontio Pilato Iudaeae in Sabatier's old edition, and I find it on the Latin side of Scrivener's edition of codex Bezae (whose text is Old Latin, not Vulgate):

Luke 3.1a in Codex Bezae.png
Luke 3.1a in Codex Bezae.png (28.37 KiB) Viewed 6293 times
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pmThe authors rehearse the familiar argument from silence at length. Suetonius and Dio have no version of these events.

Perhaps even more astonishing is the silence of Christian writers...Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome, and Eusebius all refer to Nero generally as a persecutor. The supposed fates of Peter and Paul made this inevitable...But not a single Christian writer makes any mention of what they would surely have viewed as the first large-scale martyrdom. The case of Eusebius is striking since his Ecclesisastical History is in effect an exhaustive history of martyrdoms in every corner of the empire...

I think the case of Eusebius is weaker than this paragraph supposes. Eusebius' knowledge of Latin texts is pretty dismal (Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, pages 261-262). For example, the only text by Tertullian that he quotes is the Apology, and that only in Greek translation.

But I have certainly harbored my own doubts about this Tacitean passage for a good while, and have added a link to this thread from the OP of my own exploratory thread about it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Secret Alias »

From what I remember Tacitus seems to use Josephus too which might be strange given the dating for the Annals c 116 CE. Taciturn makes Josephus seem more reliable than he really is. I'd have expected Tacitus to have used Justus of Tiberias. Our whole opinion of Josephus is raised by this usage. If it's a forgery then ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:30 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pmAbout Tacitus’ incorrect identification of Pilate as Procurator, rather than Prefect, they find an interesting connection in the Vetus Latina text of the NT:

In these pre-Jerome Latin versions of the NT, at Luke 3:1, where in the Greek text Pontius Pilate’s office is described by the neutral Greek word hegemon, the Vetus Latina translates the term with the phrase procurante Pontio Pilato (“when Pontius Pilate was acting as procurator”). Thus, the notion that he held the office of procurator was part of the Latin Christian tradition.

(Maybe someone can cite this text for confirmation.)
Seems to check out. This verse in the Vetus Latina is almost identical to the same verse in the Vulgate. I find procurante Pontio Pilato Iudaeae in Sabatier's old edition, and I find it on the Latin side of Scrivener's edition of codex Bezae (whose text is Old Latin, not Vulgate):


Luke 3.1a in Codex Bezae.png
Thanks Ben.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:41 pmI think the case of Eusebius is weaker than this paragraph supposes. Eusebius' knowledge of Latin texts is pretty dismal (Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, pages 261-262). For example, the only text by Tertullian that he quotes is the Apology, and that only in Greek translation.
It’s hard for me to imagine that, if this atrocity happened in Rome, the Roman church would have no tradition about it, no martyr shrines, nothing. And weren’t there plenty of Greek-speaking, Greek-writing Christians in Rome?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:19 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:41 pmI think the case of Eusebius is weaker than this paragraph supposes. Eusebius' knowledge of Latin texts is pretty dismal (Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, pages 261-262). For example, the only text by Tertullian that he quotes is the Apology, and that only in Greek translation.
It’s hard for me to imagine that, if this atrocity happened in Rome, the Roman church would have no tradition about it, no martyr shrines, nothing. And weren’t there plenty of Greek-speaking, Greek-writing Christians in Rome?
Ah, I see the issue. Sorry, my comment was going only toward the proposition that Eusebius knew Tacitus' writings. I misread. The snippet was talking about the event itself.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:08 pm From what I remember Tacitus seems to use Josephus too which might be strange given the dating for the Annals c 116 CE. Taciturn makes Josephus seem more reliable than he really is. I'd have expected Tacitus to have used Justus of Tiberias. Our whole opinion of Josephus is raised by this usage. If it's a forgery then ...
Do you know of any scholars who believe Josephus to be an entirely fictional construct? Or at the least that his works are largely co-opted and spurious?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by MrMacSon »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pm
There is a good discussion of the Testimonium Taciteum in a recent publication by 3 classical scholars:

The Emperor Nero: A Guide to the Ancient Sources (Princeton UP, 2016), by Anthony Barrett, Elaine Fantham, & John Yardley (pp. 161-170).

... if this passage is an interpolation added sometime before the end of the fourth century (when the Christian writer Sulpicius Severus cites it), it would have to be an almost unbelievably brilliant piece of deception by a true master forger who was prepared to create a negative image of his own cause in order to throw the skeptical reader off the scent.

Arthur Drews provided an interesting take on Sulpicius Severus's so-called citation: Drews proposed Sulpicus doctored Annals 15.44 when he wrote his passage in his Chronicle.

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witn ... /Section_2

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pm About Tacitus’ incorrect identification of Pilate as Procurator, rather than Prefect ...
I think there was a period when both terms were used by the Romans, so that might not be an issue.

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pm
The authors rehearse the familiar argument from silence at length. Suetonius and Dio have no version of these events.

Perhaps even more astonishing is the silence of Christian writers...Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome, and Eusebius all refer to Nero generally as a persecutor. The supposed fates of Peter and Paul made this inevitable...But not a single Christian writer makes any mention of what they would surely have viewed as the first large-scale martyrdom. The case of Eusebius is striking since his Ecclesisastical History is in effect an exhaustive history of martyrdoms in every corner of the empire...

Yeah, that's noteworthy.

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pm
Then they discuss some internal difficulties of the text:

It is not well integrated into the narrative. Nero’s scheme to deflect blame from himself is introduced, and then the topic is dropped, with no indication of any permanent or long-term effects on the perception of Nero’s guilt or on Nero’s reputation generally. Indeed, the whole section from “But neither human resourcefulness...” to “...one man’s cruelty” could be eliminated from the Annals with no loss of sense or continuity.

Pontius Pilate is simply described as “procurator” without reference to the “province” for which he had a degree of responsibility (strictly, Judaea was not a true provincia but part of, and subordinate to, the province of Syria.) This is a very curious way to introduce him. Pilate is well known to Christian tradition as the governor of Judaea at the time of the crucifixion, but to the Roman reader of Tacitus’ day he was not known nearly well enough to “need no introduction.”

An interesting proposition is that of philosopher Jay Raskins: that Annals 15.44 is authentic except for the names Tiberius and Pontius Pilate, which would have originally been Nero himself and another procurator Porcius Festus, 52-60 AD, in the time that Annals 15 was otherwise about (ie. not the time of Tiberius), ie. -

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (ie. crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, 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 center and become popular.

Raskins thinks Antiquities 20.8.10, which starts with reference to disturbances in Judea in Festus' time as procurator, supports this, viz. -

Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

via https://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/294/

Who Christus/ Chrestus and his followers were at this time - ie. mid-century - may be hard to fathom, but it could better align with Seutonius' references to Chrestus in Claudius' time, fl. 41-54 AD, in Claudius 25, and to Christians in Nero's time, in Nero 16.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Some Classicists on Annals 15.44

Post by Irish1975 »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:56 am
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:02 pm About Tacitus’ incorrect identification of Pilate as Procurator, rather than Prefect ...
I think there was a period when both terms were used by the Romans, so that might not be an issue.

Pilate is described as holding the office of “procurator.” This term was not used for the equestrian governors of administrative districts like Judaea at the time of the crucifixion; that is, in the reign of Tiberius. It is not in fact found in that sense until later, when it is used by Claudius. Before then, such governors were knowns as praefecti. We know that Pilate was no exception to this rule, because in a building inscription discovered at Caesarea in Judaea he is explicitly identified as praefectus. Thus, the reference to Pilate, of much more interest to a Christian reader that to a pagan Roman, contains a serious and elementary historical anachronism.
(p. 165)

It would be interesting to know more about Tacitus’ general degree of accuracy and precision when it comes to political offices and their terminology, over different periods in the early empire. I imagine he would be about as reliable as any ancient historian writing about Roman affairs, especially because he himself was an accomplished lawyer, quaestor, praetor, quindecimvir, senator, suffect consul, etc. as a member of the equestrian class.
Post Reply