Firstly, I did not intentionally ignore you at first, I simply forgot to respond (as I haven't responded to much in my own thread, because I just started back up at university and spend 3 hours of my day commuting, and most of it studying). Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you.
I actually think your work (particularly in Philip) is rather intriguing. I actually began looking through your work in more detail. As a side, the reason I bring up these Roman dudes is because the precede Nag Hammadi, so they possibly could help elucidate either of our positions. Which is why I want to know how you'd explain them... I'm trying to understand your position.
Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
I really liked Hermann as a critic of his mainstream colleagues, but could not follow his theories. He has often been able to make what appears to be a strong argument, but he never cross-checked that argument to prove its validity.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:49 pm So I just acquired a copy of Falsche Zeugen by Hermann Detering, and have been perusing it the last day. I found a curious argument I've not seen before and I am not entirely sure how valid it is. Detering argues (page 71):
Essentially, Tacitus only uses "genus humanum" and not "humanum genus" which is far more evident in the work of Sulpicius Severus, the first person to (openly) make use of Annals 15.44. This possibly then indicates that Severus penned the passage. Thoughts?Dass die Stelle bei Tacitus christliche Interpolation ist, die auf dem Text des Sulpicius Severus basiert, könnte auch die bei Tacitus einmalige Wortfolge humanum genus statt genus humanum zeigen. Sie geht offenbar ebenfalls auf die Lektüre des Sulpicius zurück, der stets humanum genus, aber nie genus humanum schreibt.
It’s true that Tacitus used the word order "genus humanum" about 10 times in his works and only in 15:44 "humanum genus". It’s also true that Severus Sulpicius regularly used the word order "humanum genus". One might even add that in the first century the Latin word order "odium generis humani" for misanthropy was the dominant word usage in literature (Seneca, Pliny). Let's grant Hermann this point! I'm sure you can find many counterexamples in the text of Annales 15:44, i.e. word orders that are typical for Tacitus and atypical for Severus.
I suspect that the unusual word order is a stylistic device. That's not surprising. One can find many studies on the internet celebrating Tacitus for his artistic style. The effect might lie in the emphasis on "humani" (= human).
Tacitus' account describes how the punishments reflected the alleged crimes („crimine incendii, … odio humani generis“). The Christians burned Rome –> they were burned on crosses. They hated mankind –> they were clothed as inhuman beasts and torn by beasts. It seems to me not unlikely that Tacitus wanted to express this or a similar thought.
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Wait ten times! Could you reference me to all of them? I can't find that many in checking them, though I will admit mine isn't the work of a professional by any means. I'm just an amateur nerd. I also think it is a stylistic choice on Tacitus' part as well, since Cicero seems to do that similarly as well.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:20 pmI really liked Hermann as a critic of his mainstream colleagues, but could not follow his theories. He has often been able to make what appears to be a strong argument, but he never cross-checked that argument to prove its validity.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:49 pm So I just acquired a copy of Falsche Zeugen by Hermann Detering, and have been perusing it the last day. I found a curious argument I've not seen before and I am not entirely sure how valid it is. Detering argues (page 71):
Essentially, Tacitus only uses "genus humanum" and not "humanum genus" which is far more evident in the work of Sulpicius Severus, the first person to (openly) make use of Annals 15.44. This possibly then indicates that Severus penned the passage. Thoughts?Dass die Stelle bei Tacitus christliche Interpolation ist, die auf dem Text des Sulpicius Severus basiert, könnte auch die bei Tacitus einmalige Wortfolge humanum genus statt genus humanum zeigen. Sie geht offenbar ebenfalls auf die Lektüre des Sulpicius zurück, der stets humanum genus, aber nie genus humanum schreibt.
It’s true that Tacitus used the word order "genus humanum" about 10 times in his works and only in 15:44 "humanum genus". It’s also true that Severus Sulpicius regularly used the word order "humanum genus". One might even add that in the first century the Latin word order "odium generis humani" for misanthropy was the dominant word usage in literature (Seneca, Pliny). Let's grant Hermann this point! I'm sure you can find many counterexamples in the text of Annales 15:44, i.e. word orders that are typical for Tacitus and atypical for Severus.
I suspect that the unusual word order is a stylistic device. That's not surprising. One can find many studies on the internet celebrating Tacitus for his artistic style. The effect might lie in the emphasis on "humani" (= human).
Tacitus' account describes how the punishments reflected the alleged crimes („crimine incendii, … odio humani generis“). The Christians burned Rome –> they were burned on crosses. They hated mankind –> they were clothed as inhuman beasts and torn by beasts. It seems to me not unlikely that Tacitus wanted to express this or a similar thought.
That also definitely has impact on the poetic nature of Tacitus' writing, which a few academics have gone into over time, though not many.
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Chiastic structure?Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:20 pm
Tacitus' account describes how the punishments reflected the alleged crimes („crimine incendii, … odio humani generis“). The Christians burned Rome –> they were burned on crosses. They hated mankind –> they were clothed as inhuman beasts and torn by beasts. It seems to me not unlikely that Tacitus wanted to express this or a similar thought.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Sorry, it's only six times.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:45 pm Wait ten times! Could you reference me to all of them? I can't find that many in checking them ...
Annales 3:59, 13:14
Historiae 1:30, 3:68, 5:25
Agricola 2
Greetings, Kunigunde
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Gotcha. Looks like I missed one in Historiae.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:52 amSorry, it's only six times.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:45 pm Wait ten times! Could you reference me to all of them? I can't find that many in checking them ...
Annales 3:59, 13:14
Historiae 1:30, 3:68, 5:25
Agricola 2
Greetings, Kunigunde
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:51 am
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
IMO I don't think the testimonial is an interpolation or a redaction.
First of all, you must forget the name Jesus, which was never mentioned until at least the 6th century (9th?) - even not in the codici Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Paul's letters do not testify of historical Christ, but to a mythical, Greek-Magic-Culture person:
IS CHREST (Cleopatra VII and Serapis -> Philo Synchretism), covered with a Judaic veil.
Paul, brother of Costobarus, Herodian Stoa Pharisees, along with the group of Antonia Minor and the High Priests, with whom Josephus was associated, sought to counter the Apocalytic Messianic movement in Judea with a Greco-Roman version of Judaism.
And I think Josephus supported this movement...
First of all, you must forget the name Jesus, which was never mentioned until at least the 6th century (9th?) - even not in the codici Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Paul's letters do not testify of historical Christ, but to a mythical, Greek-Magic-Culture person:
IS CHREST (Cleopatra VII and Serapis -> Philo Synchretism), covered with a Judaic veil.
Paul, brother of Costobarus, Herodian Stoa Pharisees, along with the group of Antonia Minor and the High Priests, with whom Josephus was associated, sought to counter the Apocalytic Messianic movement in Judea with a Greco-Roman version of Judaism.
And I think Josephus supported this movement...