The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:Bart Ehrman has a reply to Carrier regarding his (Ehrman's) book:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

...[trimmed]...

While I agree that Ehrman is in good company, and while I acknowledge that this exchange is particularly on the question of consensus (and that Carrier provoked a continued exchange in that regard), it is still illustrative of a general tendency in these discussions to recuse oneself from the plane of historical evidence and take retreat in the plane of historical opinion. It'd be lovely if this mastery of the state of opinion could be accompanied by something that isn't a waste of the reader's time... like a discussion of evidence. Enough with the tedious counting of heads...
Thanks for the link to Carrier's paper and Ehrman's reply above.
Good and objective points in the above summary.

Evidence is king. Opinion a rabble.




LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: While I agree that Ehrman is in good company, and while I acknowledge that this exchange is particularly on the question of consensus (and that Carrier provoked a continued exchange in that regard), it is still illustrative of a general tendency in these discussions to recuse oneself from the plane of historical evidence and take retreat in the plane of historical opinion. It'd be lovely if this mastery of the state of opinion could be accompanied by something that isn't a waste of the reader's time... like a discussion of evidence. Enough with the tedious counting of heads...
I'm not sure much of this could be called "evidence" - I think most discussion refer to specific 'passages', or 'information'. Statements or discussion about passages might be better called that (ie. statements or discussion); unless it is discussion in the form of good cogent or sound argument, and then such argument could be called argument.

but I agree it should be less about argument from authority, argument from tradition, or argument by numbers / the democratic fallacy.

At least Bart has looked a bit further -
Peter Kirby wrote:Bart Ehrman has a reply to Carrier regarding his (Ehrman's) book:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
The Tacitus Question

While I’m on the Tacitus reference. At one point in my book I indicate that “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55). Carrier says this is “crap,” “sloppy work,” and “irresponsible,” and indicates that if I had simply checked into the matter, I would see that I’m completely wrong. As evidence he cites Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964-68) The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970) pp. 253-66, where several scholars allegedly indicate that the passage is forged.

In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation. What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t. I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago, and so far as I know, they have no followers among trained experts today. In that connection it is surprising that Carrier does not mention Benario’s more recent discussions, published as “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1969-1973,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1974-1983,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1984-1993,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1994-2003.” Or rather it is not surprising, since the issue appears to have died on the vine (one exception: a brief article in 1974 by L. Rougé). I might also mention that there is indeed a history of the question that goes before the mid-20th century. I first became aware of it from one of the early mythicists, Arthur Drews, whose work, The Christ Myth (1909) raises the possibility. But Drews did not invent the idea; it goes back at least to the end of the 19th century in the work of P. Hochard in 1890, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite. I’m not sure if Carrier is familiar with this scholarship or not. But my point is that I was not trying to make a statement about the history of Tacitus scholarship; I was stating what scholars today think.

But Carrier’s objection to my view did take me a bit off guard and make me wonder whether I was missing something, whether there were in fact scholars of Tacitus who continue to think the reference to Jesus was an interpolation in his writings. I am a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, not of Tacitus!
And so I asked one of the prominent scholars of the Roman world, James Rives, who happens now to teach at UNC. Anyone who wonders about his credentials can look them up on the web; he’s one of the best known experts on Roman religion (and other things Roman) internationally. He has given me permission to cite him by name, as he is willing to stand by what he says.

My initial email question to [James Rives] was this:
  • I’m wondering if there is any dispute, today, over the passage in Annals 15 where he mentions Jesus (whether there is any dispute over its authenticity).
His initial reply was this:
  • I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it. There are some minor textual issues (the spelling ‘Chrestianos’ vs. ‘Christianos’, e.g.), but there’s not much to be done with them since we here, as everywhere in Tacitus’ major works, effectively depend on a single manuscript.
I then asked [James Rives] about the article Carrier mentioned with respect to Benario, and this was his reply:
  • Benario’s article cited below is one of a series he did over a period of decades, in which he summarizes other people’s work on Tacitus; they’re an extremely useful bibliographical resource (although there’s no reason that a non-specialist would be aware of them!). I’ve just checked this particular article, and can only assume that the particular work to which your adversary makes reference is mentioned on p. 264: Charles Saumagne, ‘Tacite et saint Paul’, Revue Historique 232 (1964) 67-110, who according to Benario ‘claims that the Christians are not mentioned in 15.44, that there is an ancient interpolation, taken from book 6 of the Histories, which were written after the Annals, and that Sulpicius Severus was responsible for the transposition’. So I’m wrong that no classicist has argued that the passage is not authentic. Saumagne may not be alone: Benario cites another article on the same page whose author ‘recalls that Christians are not linked with the fire before the time of Sulpicius Severus’. Nevertheless, I would still point out that 1) Saumagne does argue that this is an interpolation, but only from another of Tacitus’ works; 2) the whole thing sounds like a house of cards to me, since Histories Book 6 doesn’t exist and so can’t provide a firm foundation for an argument; 3) this is clearly a minority opinion, since I’ve never encountered it before.
He then pursued the matter further (he’s a *great* colleague!), and wrote me this:
  • I’ve had a quick look at the two articles in question. Saumagne does think that the text has been interpolated, but also that the reference to Christ being killed under Pontius Pilate comes from a lost portion of Tacitus’ Histories. His argument seems very shaky to me, but in either case it doesn’t affect your own, since Saumagne thinks that Tacitus knew about and referred to Jesus, which is the main thing for you. The other article, by Koestermann (an editor of Tacitus), argues that Tacitus made a mistake in associating the Chrestiani with Christ, but doesn’t say anything about the reference to Christ not having been written by Tacitus himself. There may be scholars who’ve argued that the reference to Christ is a later interpolation into the text, but neither of these two did, and I certainly don’t know of any others.
I'm not sure about James Rives or Saumagne's assertion "that Sulpicius Severus was responsible for the transposition" - it is possible Rives has mistaken Saumagne, or Saumagne erred).

The assertion "that Sulpicius Severus was responsible for the transposition" seems to be contradicted by the position that -
[The Tacitus] story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus 360-420 CE, a Christian of the fifth century:
  • In the meantinme, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact Nero could not, by any means he tried, escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devored by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians.

    Chronicles 2.29
Is [the] Tacitus Reference an Interpolation?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Ehrman et al have failed to investigate fully, or primarily

DM Murdock/Acharya S gives a fuller discussion/argument
[Arthur] Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Carrier adds further comments; and references to others who consider Tacitus Annals 15.4 to include interpolation -
The entire line in between (“the author of this name, Christ, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in
the reign of Tiberius”) would then be a later Christian interpolation, attempting to convert this passage about the Chrestians
into a Neronian persecution of Christians. This, too, has been proposed before.27

Carrier R (2014) 'The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44'
Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 68, Issue 3, pages 264 – 283

pdf of that paper available in the 1st post of this thread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 238#p27389

27 Most convincingly by Jean Rougé, “L’incendie de Rome,” and in a different respect by Saumagne (see previous note). Earl Doherty, an undergraduate in classics, also details a respectable argument to the same conclusion, in line with Rougé (see first note). A similar case for interpolation, suggesting it may have begun as a marginal gloss later inserted accidentally, has also been made online by Roger Viklund, “Tacitus as a Witness to Jesus — An Illustration of What the Original Might Have Looked Like,” Jesus Granskad (2 October 2010) at http://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/. On accidental interpolation as a general phenomenon see Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200,” pp. 490-91
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Earl Doherty also makes an argument regarding Tacitus in a lengthy chapter of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, pp. 637-742.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Here's more from Earl Doherty on Tactius

1/ http://vridar.org/2012/04/23/5-earl-doh ... oman-trio/

and
2. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44), is the first pagan writer to speak of Jesus as a man crucified by Pilate. Rather than representing information he dug out of an archive (the Romans would hardly have kept a record of the countless crucifixions around the empire going back a century), this was probably derived from Christian hearsay about a human founder of the movement, newly circulating in the Rome of Tacitus’ day (c.115). On the other hand, there are those who question the authenticity of this passage as well. Around the same time, Suetonius’ report (Claudius, 25) about Jews in Rome agitating under "Chrestus" in the reign of Claudius is so brief and uncertain, it may not be about Christ and Christians at all. In any case, it would not witness to an historical Jesus.

As for the references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud: even though some remarks are attributed to rabbis who flourished around the end of the first century (none earlier), they were not written down before the third century, and thus are unreliable. In any case, they are so cryptic and off the mark, they can scarcely be identified with the Gospel figure.

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
3. The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals written around 115, makes the first pagan reference to Jesus as a man executed in the reign of Tiberius. This is not likely to have been the result of a search of some archive, for the Romans hardly kept records of the countless crucifixions around the empire going back almost a century. We have no evidence of such extensive record-keeping. Besides, Tacitus is not known as a thorough researcher, which is illustrated by the fact that he gets Pilate's title wrong, something that might have been corrected had he consulted an official record. Scholars such as Norman Perrin (The New Testament: An Introduction, p.407) acknowledge that Tacitus' "information" probably came from local Christian hearsay and police interrogation; this would have been at a time when the idea of an historical founder had recently taken hold in Rome. There is even some reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage, despite its vilifying description of Christians. The association of a persecution of Christians with the great fire in Nero's Rome (the context of Tacitus' reference) is nowhere mentioned by Christian commentators for the next several centuries.

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/postscpt.htm
4. In regard to Tacitus, it is, however, another matter entirely when one recognizes that no Christian writer before the 5th century appeals to the key 15:44 passage of the Annals in which a Neronian persecution of Christians as accused arsons in the Great Fire of Rome is recounted, along with mention of their founder “Christus crucified by Pilate.” That includes Tertullian who had a fixation on the topic of martyrdom, and Eusebius who was concerned with recounting the martyrdoms of renowned figures like Peter and Paul and James the Just. That silence, the centuries-long period of non-attestation to the Christians/Christus passage in the Annals, should indeed go a long way to spelling its non-existence over that period. And in fact, even in the 5th century, the appearance of something resembling the Tacitus account in Sulpicius Severus does not cite Tacitus as its source, nor does it include the reference to Christus crucified by Pilate. There is thus scope for postulating that the Severus passage was not drawn from the Annals but from some Christian invention which subsequently served as the basis for an interpolation into 15:44. Clear attestation to this alleged ‘non-Christian witness to Jesus’ can be dated no earlier than the 9th century.

To get back more specifically to Krystian’s question, there are a fair number of attestations to other works of Tacitus throughout the period between their composition and Renaissance times, but strangely enough not for the Annals. (For a complete listing, see C. W. Mendell, Tacitus: The Man and his Work, p.225f.) However, we do have a reference in Jerome to the existence of the Annals in a ‘boxed set’ with the Histories, though no quote from them. Mendell considers that Jerome may not actually have read them.

This silence for three centuries (at least) on the part of Christian commentators about the content we now find in Annals 15:44 is often explained away by suggesting that the works of Tacitus, or any other Roman historian, would not have been common reading material among Christians. But Tertullian, Jerome and others show knowledge of other works by Tacitus, yet in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. It is hard to believe, regardless of regular Christian reading material, that an account of such a dramatic event in Christian history, indeed the elimination of a vast portion of the Christian community in the capital of the empire, would have remained for centuries under the radar of every extant commentator.

This observation almost becomes inconsequential, however, when set against the fact that no Christian writer during those three centuries ever clearly refers to that Neronian persecution per se, simply as something present in Christian tradition, regardless of whether they knew the Annals account or not.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset29.htm
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Charles Wilson »

Peter Kirby wrote:It has been frequently mentioned that the portion of Annals that could have included a lengthier mention of Jesus (or "Christ") is missing. You can see that it cuts out in the years covering A.D. 29-31 (the end of book V and beginning of VI). Of course this could be pure happenstance.
PK--

Not to be too argumentative - since, as of today, we would be arguing over something we DON'T have - there is another alternative and that is that the missing Annals goes missing because the material doesn't have mentions of "Jesus"/"Christ". That is, "It would be obvious that the missing material would show that parts of the NT were rewrites of Tacitus". Since that would undermine the New Religion, it gets excised and burned, or at least taken out in the trash.

Acts 5: 1 - 11 gives a terrific summary of Annals and the sad tale of Messalina, who is at the feet of her mother as the Roman soldiers bust down the door to bring an end to the Story of Claudius' Wife Messalina and her...ummm...ill advised dalliance with someone else. Moral: Don't screw around on the emperor:

"Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

Pliny the Younger has a letter where he states that it would be nice if Tacitus would use his Prose to Immortalize Pliny the Elder. P the E dies in Heroic Action at Pompeii and P the Y is a little more than indebted to the Elder for rearing him as a son. "A little help here, Tacitus?...". Further, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are at the funeral of Verginius Rufus, who was offered Imperial Honors multiple times and refused, at one time leaving out the back door when the soldiers come to help him make the right decision about being the emperor after the death of Otho.

All strange and interesting stuff but since we DON'T have those important sections of Annals...

CW
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by John T »

Yet, Carrier, et al. will continue to try to discredit the historical evidence for Jesus simply out of loyalty to his religious belief.

Carrier's wacko theories are contrived, arrogant assertions of unproved or unprovable principles.

Simply put, Carrier is a dogmatist.

Yet, for some on this forum he is still considered a respected Biblical historian. :banghead:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:(and, they lived in a region that supposedly had, in their time, people worshiping Serapis as a god who were called Christians).
MrMacSon wrote:or another entity as 'a Christ' (eg. Serapis).
I'm not sure I follow. Do you have references regarding this?
I thought I had read something about this while researching possible links between Serapians and Christians for this thread. It may have been this -
CHRISTIAN ROOTS IN THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT OF SERAPIS

The cult of Serapis was to have sweeping success throughout Greece and Asia Minor, especially in Rome, where it became the most popular religion. There was a Serapis temple in Rome as early as 105 BC. Initiation into the Serapis cult included the rite of baptism, and Sir Alan Gardiner, the British Egyptologist, argued in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology in 1950 that Egyptian baptism should be seen as analogous to Christian baptism, of which he commented: "In both cases a symbolic cleansing by means of water serves as initiation into a properly legitimated religious life." The cults of Serapis and Isis did not merely survive the emergence of Christianity, but in the 2nd century AD actually increased in popularity. Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both, while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus*. The rite of baptism, part of the initiation ceremony of the Serapis cult, was also adopted by the Church as part of its initiation ceremony.

http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_ ... ianity.htm
according to Tacitus, Serapis (i.e., Apis explicitly identified as Osiris in full) had been the god of the village of Rhakotis before it expanded into the great capital of Alexandria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis#History
* The Serapis imagery is incredibly Christ-like -
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus

Post by Peter Kirby »

This sounds like the game of telephone... nowhere is it said that Serapis was referred to as Christ, even in this secondary source.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply