Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

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):
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.
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?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by MrMacSon »

The only commentary which I'm aware of along these lines, ie. about Sulpicius Severus possibly having had a hand in or being related to what's in Annals 15.44, is Arthur Drews commentary in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, 1911/12

... The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century. A fuller account is then given in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 A.D.), but it is mixed with the most transparent Christian legends, such as the story of the death of Simon Magus, the bishopric and sojourn of Peter at Rome, etc. The expressions of Sulpicius agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus,* if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness.[67]

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

* previously, Drews listed

"We have a number of instances in the first centuries of Christian writers who are acquainted with Tacitus, such as Tertullian, Jerome, Orosius, Sidonius Apollinaris, Sulpicius Severus, and Cassiodorus."

'note 67 is

67. In his De l'Authenticity des Histoires et des Annales de Tacite Hochart points out that, whereas the Life of St. Martin and the Dialogues of Sulpicius were found in many libraries, there was only one manuscript of his Chronicle, probably of the eleventh century, which is now in the Vatican. Hence the work was almost unknown throughout the Middle Ages, and no one was aware of the reference in it to a Roman persecution of the Christians. It is noteworthy that Poggio Bracciolini seems by some lucky chance to have discovered and read this manuscript (work quoted, p. 225) cf. Nouvelles Considerations, pp. 142-72.

I think Poggio Bracciolini has been said to have been one of the key people to have handled the Annals after they were [re-discovered in the 13th or 14th century (and, iirc, he has a history of 'processing' church history).

fwiw note #62

62. Arnold has attempted to ascribe to Tacitus a close acquaintance with the Christians from the fact that Sulpicius Severus used him as his authority in his description of the destruction of Jerusalem, and that his statement that Titus deliberately furthered the destruction of the temple in order to destroy at once the Christian and the Jewish religion was taken from the last conclusion of the fifth book of Tacitus's Histories (work quoted, p. 46 [Die Neronische Christenverfolgung, 1888]). No less an authority than Jakob Bernays (Über die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, 1861, p. 57) has seen in this reference of Sulpicius a literal agreement with the statement of Tacitus in the Annals (xv, 44), that Judaea was the birthplace of the Christian religion, and concluded from this that Sulpicius had Tacitus before his eyes. Bruno Bauer has, however, observed that the ecclesiastical teachers of the fourth century were so firmly convinced of the hostility of all the emperors after Claudius to the Christians that the pupil of the Saint of Tours could easily penetrate the secret design of Titus without any inspiration from the Histories of Tacitus (Christus und die Caesaren, p. 216). Hence the inference that Sulpicius possibly took the statement from Tacitus is anything but convincing, and thus the idea that Tacitus had any close acquaintance with the Christians falls to the ground.

Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Yeah, I'm aware of Drews' arguments. Interesting, though still a bit speculative.

I'm mostly interesting in this rather peculiar argument from Detering and the linguistics. From what I can find, Tacitus only uses the phrase four times (Agricola 2 generis humani; Annals 3.59 generis humani; 13.14 generis humani; 15.44 humani generis), so we hardly have a good sample size to work from. True the other three times he uses generis humani, but that wouldn't be that big of a deal when there are only four instances to go off of.

And from what I can see, the interchange of this word order seems to have been a common trope found in Cicero (De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 3.19 humani generis and genere humano), Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.174 humanum genus, cf. 7.6 generis humani), Suetonius (Life of Galba 9 humano generi, cf. Life of Titus 1 generis humani), Livy (History of Rome 35.33 generis humani, cf. 38.48 humani generis), Florus (Epitome of Roman History 1.1 generis humani, cf. 2.14. humani generis). Later texts like the Historia Augusta also interchange (23 The Two Gallieni uses both humani generis and generis humani).

So, like, from what I can tell Tacitus being inconsistent is just... standard Roman practice when using this phrase.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by MrMacSon »

Chris Hansen wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:39 pm ... from what I can see, the interchange of this word order seems to have been a common trope found in Cicero (De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 3.19 humani generis and genere humano), Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.174 humanum genus, cf. 7.6 generis humani), Suetonius (Life of Galba 9 humano generi, cf. Life of Titus 1 generis humani), Livy (History of Rome 35.33 generis humani, cf. 38.48 humani generis), Florus (Epitome of Roman History 1.1 generis humani, cf. 2.14. humani generis). Later texts like the Historia Augusta also interchange (23 The Two Gallieni uses both humani generis and generis humani)
Do each of those authors only have one instance of each version? Does the Historia Augusta interchange them equally?

Searching Sulpicius' Chronica for 'human' gives (in chronological order):
  1. humanum genus abundaret
  2. humanam corrupere progeniem
  3. humanum genus decreverat
  4. humanum genus diversaque
  5. humani ingenii consilium fuit
  6. humano malo quo aegre
  7. humanum genus interisse
  8. humana specie assumpta
  9. humani ingenii non refrenavit cupiditatem

    via http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sulpiciu ... hron1.html
So
  1. humanum genus x 4
  2. humani ingenii x 2
  3. generis humani or genus humanum x 0

If the other authors use 'generis humani' and 'humani generis' fairly equally then, with Sulpicius Severus using 'humanum genus' (and maybe 'humani ingenii') exclusively, Tacitus using 'humani generis' in Annals 15.44 and 'generis humani' three times elsewhere might be significant.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

No, they are not distributed equally with these authors. Cicero in particular also favors generis humani.

I believe (I'll find it) that Tacitus also has one instance of humani ingenii (Agricola 42).
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by neilgodfrey »

What sources would have informed Tacitus of the persecution of the Christians?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Giuseppe »

@Chris

Hardly an interpolator would have written Chrestiani in the place of Christiani.

If Plinius about the Christians is a forgery, as you think (per Tuccinardi), then was Tacitus based on a lost negative Josephus's testimonium about the Christiani?
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Sinouhe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:23 am @Chris

Hardly an interpolator would have written Chrestiani in the place of Christiani.

If Plinius about the Christians is a forgery, as you think (per Tuccinardi), then was Tacitus based on a lost negative Josephus's testimonium about the Christiani?
It can be a desire of the scribe to harmonize this interpolation with Suetonius to appear credible.
67. In his De l'Authenticity des Histoires et des Annales de Tacite Hochart points out that, whereas the Life of St. Martin and the Dialogues of Sulpicius were found in many libraries, there was only one manuscript of his Chronicle, probably of the eleventh century, which is now in the Vatican. Hence the work was almost unknown throughout the Middle Ages, and no one was aware of the reference in it to a Roman persecution of the Christians. It is noteworthy that Poggio Bracciolini seems by some lucky chance to have discovered and read this manuscript (work quoted, p. 225) cf. Nouvelles Considerations, pp. 142-72.
For someone who can read french, i highly recommend the book of Polydor Hochart : "Études au sujet de la persécution des chrétiens sous Néron".
It absolutely blew my mind when i read it. It's very technic and Hochart is a very learned person.
It even advocate the interpolation for Pliny the younger and Suetonius with very good arguments.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:14 pm If the other authors use 'generis humani' and 'humani generis' fairly equally then, with Sulpicius Severus using 'humanum genus' (and maybe 'humani ingenii') exclusively, Tacitus using 'humani generis' in Annals 15.44 and 'generis humani' three times elsewhere might be significant.
I will use Cicero as a case example (I won't go into his countless orations though):

Academica:
1x generis humani

De Amicitia:
1x generis humani

De Divinatione:
2x generi humano
1x humanum genus
1x quotes Ennius "humanum genus" (won't tally this one)

de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum:
3x generis humani
1x genere humano
1x genere etiam humano
1x humani generis
1x ingenii humani

De Legibus:
1x ingenio humano
1x generis humani
1x humano generi
1x humani generis

de Natura Deorum:
3x generis humani
2x generi humano
1x humano genere
2x humano generi
1x genus humanum

De Officiis:
4x generis humani
1x generi humano
3x humani generis

De Oratore:
1x humani generis
1x humano genere

De Republica:
1x generis humani

Epistulae ad Familiares:
1x genere humano

Letters to and from Quintus:
1x genere humanissimum

Lucullus:
1x humani ingenii

Timaeus:
1x generis humani

Tusculanae Disputationes:
1x humano genere
4x generis humani
1x generi consuleret humano
1x humani generis

Totaling this all up (as long as I'm not mistaken with 3AM math brain) we have a grand result of:

1 count of humanum genus (+1 one quoted from Ennius)
1 count of genus humanum
1 count of genere etiam humano
1 count of generi consuleret humano
1 count of genere humanissimum
1 count of humani ingenii
1 count of ingenii humani
1 count of ingenio humano
2 counts of genere humano
2 counts of humano generi
3 counts of humano genere
5 counts of generi humano
7 counts of humani generis
19 counts of generis humani

Which tallied up into the distinctions of Detering's humanum genus and genus humanum we get (along with similar divisions for ingenii):

30 forms of genus humanum (roughly, including the more divided ones)
13 forms of humanum genus
2 forms of ingenium humanum
1 form of humanum ingenium

If we lump our forms together into just two groups (for ease of discussion) we get 32 vs. 14, meaning that of 46 similar phrases, Cicero favors genus humanum form 69.57% of the time (rounding to nearest hundredth), while using humanum genus only 30.43% of the time.

I noticed that I did not find all the relevant references in Tacitus' work. So here they all are:

Historiae:
1x ingenii humani
2x generis humani

Annales:
2x generis humani
1x humani generis

Agricolae:
1x generis humani
1x humani ingenii

Tallying up we have 5x generis humani; 1x humani generis; 1x ingenii humani; and 1x humani ingenii. Not a very large dataset at all to work with, but lumping together as above, we have the following percentage rates: 6 genus humanum and 2 humanum genus or 8 total. This means that Tacitus uses humanum genus at 25% and genus humanum at 75%. These are rather close to the rates of Cicero, with the same emphasis on favoring genus humanum. Results? Tacitus is probably just following convention... of course, this is 3AM brain at work too,
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:21 am What sources would have informed Tacitus of the persecution of the Christians?
I think the information likely stemmed from Pliny the Younger (the thesis of a paper I'm working on right now actually). Tacitus exchanged drafts of his books for Pliny to look over, edit, correct, etc. and some studies have argued that there close enough affinities with Pliny's work elsewhere in Annals and Histories, that he likely used Pliny as a source. Plus, we have letters from Pliny to Tacitus specifically giving information for Tacitus to use elsewhere (here are all the letters they exchanged in the published versions: Letters 1.6; 1.17; 1.20; 4.13; 6.9; 6.16; 6.20; 7.20; 7.33; 8.7; 9.10; 9.14). Of these, Tacitus does seem to solicit information on occasion (6.9; 6.16; 6.20) and Pliny volunteers information to Tacitus on another issue (7.33). He also made emendations and corrections (8.7; 7.20). I just find it the most parsimonious answer to the issue, and explains a lot of the problems with the text, including the Chrestian/Christ interplay (common mistake due to phonology), the usage of Christus as the name for the leader of Christianity instead of Jesus, etc. As for the Neronian Persecution, following Blom I think it is partially attested elsewhere in Christian history (I'm still inclined to think it is a myth), and that Pliny picked it up from Latin Christians, giving us this barebones account of Christus, his death, and the "superstitio rursum" of Christianity.
Last edited by Chrissy Hansen on Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply