Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

[Chrissy Hansen]

Chris Hansen here:
<SNIP>

I've also taken flack ..., for my position that Tacitus was not an independent source and likely relied on information garnered from Christians (through Pliny the Younger, imo),

Apologies for taking this clause out of the context of your whole post, but I was interested by this idea.
It would seem to require that Pliny knew more about Christian origins than is stated in his extant work.

Andrew Criddle

Yes, but I don't think it unlikely. As Ken Olson has pointed out elsewhere, the amount of information that Tacitus presents is essentially akin to what one would find in lots of short creedal-like statements. Ken points to Justin Martyr First Apology 13 as one such example:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

I would similarly add Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 1:

He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Essentially, it seems like to me just general information that he could have gathered. I just submitted a paper on this for peer review, but in it I show also where Pliny and Tacitus traded letters back and forth, and additionally, where we have evidence that Tacitus sent his work to Pliny for emendations and opinions, which gives Pliny ample opportunity to share his knowledge on Christians. I think it would be fair to say he knows more than what was put in a letter, given he did interrogate Christians and such.

[Ulan]

Essentially, it seems like to me just general information that he could have gathered.

I never understood why Tacitus was listed as a proof that Jesus was a historical figure. At best, he proves that Christians existed.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Essentially, it seems like to me just general information that he could have gathered.

I never understood why Tacitus was listed as a proof that Jesus was a historical figure. At best, he proves that Christians existed.

Agreed

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

At best, he proves that Christians existed.

... and that there was a story in his day that a Christ was crucified in Judaea under Pontius Pilate.

EDIT: "executed"

[Giuseppe]

At best, he proves that Christians existed.

... and that there was a story in his day that a Christ was crucified in Judaea under Pontius Pilate.

a serious possibility is that Tacitus was the first to mention Pilate in connection with Christ. Once the link Christ/Pilate was mentioned by a Pagan writer, that link entered officially in the Christian tradition.

[neilgodfrey]

... which gives Pliny ample opportunity to share his knowledge on Christians. I think it would be fair to say he knows more than what was put in a letter, given he did interrogate Christians and such.

What are your objections to Tuccinardi's analysis?

[Giuseppe]

Chris, if Tacitus talked about Chrestiani and not Christiani, was this because he had heard by Pliny about Bythinia's Marcionite Christians adoring Jesus as the "Good" (meaning of Chrestos) ?

The corollary is decisive: the Marcionites insisted always on Jesus being a new deity. A recent deity. Accordingly, Tacitus thought that Christus was a recent historical figure. The link with Pilate could be born entirely in the mind of Tacitus.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Chris, if Tacitus talked about Chrestiani and not Christiani, was this because he had heard by Pliny about Bythinia's Marcionite Christians adoring Jesus as the "Good" (meaning of Chrestos) ?

Carefully. Tacitus is not talking about Chrestians, but about being called Chrestians by the people. That may be a nickname (which I suspect).

[Giuseppe]

Chris, if Tacitus talked about Chrestiani and not Christiani, was this because he had heard by Pliny about Bythinia's Marcionite Christians adoring Jesus as the "Good" (meaning of Chrestos) ?

Carefully. Tacitus is not talking about Chrestians, but about being called Chrestians by the people. That may be a nickname (which I suspect).

something as: the people call them the "Good ones", but their founder was at contrary Christus. Is Tacitus degrading him by merely calling him Christus in opposition to Chrestus? Was the name of Pilate part and parcel of an attempt to degrade him? Euhemerization in action, yes?

[Chrissy Hansen]

... which gives Pliny ample opportunity to share his knowledge on Christians. I think it would be fair to say he knows more than what was put in a letter, given he did interrogate Christians and such.

What are your objections to Tuccinardi's analysis?

My biggest issue with Tuccinardi's article (and I am more than happy to change my position on this if more research is published on the matter) is that while Tuccinardi may find non-Plinian elements in the text, we are not told where the elements occur. And without knowing that, it does not seem particularly helpful. The reason being, since Pliny in the text is reporting on a tradition he has not reported on elsewhere, and therefore using terms he hasn't elsewhere, of course there will be a larger degree of non-Plinian style and language in the text. He never talks of Christians elsewhere, and as he is reporting what he gathered from interrogating Christians, we would expect non-Plinian language. So, where the interpolations supposedly occur in the text based on stylometric analysis is important. If it occurs in the sections where he broadly reports on Christianity, then it may not be an indication of interpolation at all, but of borrowed language from those he interrogated.

Which leads to me to another problem which is that we have proven that author's can consciously alter their style (in fact a very interesting study was published on adversarial techniques to undermine stylometric analysis, see https://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~sadia/p ... ometry.pdf) and also their styles change over time and under various influences. So, I am actually unsure about the entire presupposition of Tuccinardi's paper that "each author owns distinctive writing habits, independent of his/her will, and [...] the author cannot intentionally alter these features."

I think that Tuccinardi's analysis is a really intriguing start for interpolation theories, but until more work is published on the matter, I remain unconvinced of interpolation so far.