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

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

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?
I don't think it is an interpolation. I have cited Tuccinardi as a supporter of the interpolation theory, but I personally have qualms with Tuccinardi's study that keeps me from finding it conclusive (I won't get into them here). I also think that arguments in favor of Tacitus using Josephus are based on pretty flimsy evidence. Tacitus in his Histories seems to have no Jewish source for his wild claims about the origins of Judaism. Following F. F. Bruce, I think Tacitus is likely using polemical pagan sources there, and I think he did the same here, using Pliny the Younger as his source.

I'm pretty well convinced that the Testimonium Flavianum and the James Passage (20.200) are wholesale interpolations.
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 Pliny have had that Tacitus lacked?
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 12:56 am What sources would Pliny have had that Tacitus lacked?
I argue that it is not necessarily that Tacitus was seeking a source, but that Pliny provided it of his own accord in helping edit/critique Tacitus' work, as we know he did. Pliny would have a relevant piece of information that further aids Tacitus' critical eye toward the reign of Nero, whom he consistently seeks to paint as a tyrant. So he included it to show more of his corrupt personality, along with also putting down a Judean "superstition" which he is rather fond of admonishing anyways (Histories 5).
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Sinouhe »

For Pliny the Younger, it's never mentioned but the manuscrit which contain the christian text has been lost just after his discovery in the 15th century.

The work of Pliny is made up of 10 books: All the texts of antiquity which mention the works of Pliny the younger make mention of 9 books of correspondence. Never 10. The text concerning Christians is in the 10th book.
The 10th book was found in the 15th century by Giovanni Giocondo, a Dominican architect, in the form of some manuscripts which brought together all 10 books. The 10th book manuscript was lost mysteriously and for no reason immediately after it was published. This manuscript, despite its importance, has never been found, and therefore constitutes the only source concerning the 10th book of Pliny the Younger.
For the 9 other books, we have several manuscripts.
The scholars who translated the 10th book did not have access to the original manuscript and worked only with copies.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Sinouhe wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:06 am For Pliny the Younger, it's never mentioned but the manuscrit which contain the christian text has been lost just after his discovery in the 15th century.

The work of Pliny is made up of 10 books: All the texts of antiquity which mention the works of Pliny the younger make mention of 9 books of correspondence. Never 10. The text concerning Christians is in the 10th book.
The 10th book was found in the 15th century by Giovanni Giocondo, a Dominican architect, in the form of some manuscripts which brought together all 10 books. The 10th book manuscript was lost mysteriously and for no reason immediately after it was published. This manuscript, despite its importance, has never been found, and therefore constitutes the only source concerning the 10th book of Pliny the Younger.
For the 9 other books, we have several manuscripts.
The scholars who translated the 10th book did not have access to the original manuscript and worked only with copies.
An unfortunate, but not uncommon reality. I'm reminded of a similar situation with the Finnsburh Fragment in Old English studies. We only have a copy to work with. The original was lost shortly after publication.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Sinouhe »

An unfortunate, but not uncommon reality.
I don't think it's very common either, especially if we consider the importance of this discovery : an entire book totally unknown until his discovery in the 15th century.
And i wonder why the translators did not have access to the original manuscript when it was not yet lost :confusedsmiley:
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Sinouhe wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:18 am
An unfortunate, but not uncommon reality.
I don't think it's very common either, especially if we consider the importance of this discovery : an entire book totally unknown until his discovery in the 15th century.
And i wonder why the translators did not have access to the original manuscript when it was not yet lost :confusedsmiley:
Probably need to see who the first translators were. They may not have even been in the vicinity or same country, thus, unable to actually get to them before they were lost. It also was not uncommon for old manuscripts to get discarded or reused for something else once preserved elsewhere (the Old English poem Waldere is an example of this fate, the two fragments we have were used as stiffening for a prayer book binding).

Finnsburh fragment was lost despite being housed in Lambeth Palace, which was littered with scholars and translators all over (and also being semi important for British national identity, as it concerns the figure Hengest, long considered the legendary founder of Kent and a massive symbol in English lore and older histories). This is particularly interesting, since it was found in the late 1705, just as interest in Beowulf begins to become a thing (the first mention of it by name is 1700, and the Finnsburh fragment is directly related to the Finnsburh Episode in Beowulf as well). Anyways, what I'm saying is that it happens and does not always need to be nefarious.

As you can tell, when I don't do NT stuff, my other main love is Old Germanic (English, German, Norse, etc.) poetry and prose.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by MrMacSon »

Sinouhe wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:18 am I don't think it's very common either, especially if we consider the importance of this discovery : an entire book totally unknown until his discovery in the 15th century. And i wonder why the translators did not have access to the original manuscript when it was not yet lost :confusedsmiley:
This is similar to the situation with Book 5 of Annals missing (+/- part of a book either side (book 6 ?)): the Book thought to cover most of the time of the emperor Tiberius who, of course, has a mention somewhat out of 'chronological place' in Annals xv.44
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Sinouhe »

Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:25 am
Sinouhe wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:18 am
An unfortunate, but not uncommon reality.
I don't think it's very common either, especially if we consider the importance of this discovery : an entire book totally unknown until his discovery in the 15th century.
And i wonder why the translators did not have access to the original manuscript when it was not yet lost :confusedsmiley:
Probably need to see who the first translators were. They may not have even been in the vicinity or same country, thus, unable to actually get to them before they were lost. It also was not uncommon for old manuscripts to get discarded or reused for something else once preserved elsewhere (the Old English poem Waldere is an example of this fate, the two fragments we have were used as stiffening for a prayer book binding).

Finnsburh fragment was lost despite being housed in Lambeth Palace, which was littered with scholars and translators all over (and also being semi important for British national identity, as it concerns the figure Hengest, long considered the legendary founder of Kent and a massive symbol in English lore and older histories). This is particularly interesting, since it was found in the late 1705, just as interest in Beowulf begins to become a thing (the first mention of it by name is 1700, and the Finnsburh fragment is directly related to the Finnsburh Episode in Beowulf as well). Anyways, what I'm saying is that it happens and does not always need to be nefarious.

As you can tell, when I don't do NT stuff, my other main love is Old Germanic (English, German, Norse, etc.) poetry and prose.
Yes it's very interesting.

I checked my book : the first translation of the 10th book of Pliny has been done with the original manuscript.
But there was many accusations of the manuscript being a fake (anachronism in the letter, style not usual for Pliny, etc).
Then a second translation has been done by Jean-Marie Cataneo few years after to upgrade the first one, but without the original manuscript. He wrote a letter to the Prelate Ambrosio Maino to defend the authenticity of the book.
The next translator, few years after did the same and again, he wrote a letter to defend the authenticity of the book.
So basically, this 10th book was very controversial and often considerate as being a fake because of its discovery and its mysterious loss, but also for its content.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Giuseppe »

Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:03 amPliny would have a relevant piece of information that further aids Tacitus' critical eye toward the reign of Nero, whom he consistently seeks to paint as a tyrant. So he included it to show more of his corrupt personality, along with also putting down a Judean "superstition" which he is rather fond of admonishing anyways (Histories 5).
this is intereting, thanks. So, as the Tacitus's logic would go, insofar Nero is the emperor, then the anti-imperial propaganda of the Christians is partially justified even by Tacitus. My point is that Tacitus would have never mentioned the Christians, if the latter were not an example of anti-imperial propagandists who could be used, for that matter, against Nero.
Post Reply