Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:19 am
spin wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:09 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:52 amI 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),...
There are two possible explanations for the appearance of the corrected Christianos/Chrestianos in the Beneventan copy that contains Ann.15.44 (Medicee II):

1. Chrestianos was in the source text and the copyist decided to "correct the error".

2. Christianos was in the source text, but a French copyist through fatigue replaced it with Chrestianos, which was later corrected to the source.

I can't see a way to choose between these two options. The text was copied in the era before the /s/ was elided in French, yet the /i/ > /e/ didn't happen with Christus.
Lane states that this is supported by the spelling of Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16 where the uncial codex Sinaiticus reads Chrestianos.[34]

(William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206)

it may be a wish of the original forger to give an antique color to his text.
It would be worthwhile to stop linking to books and instead link to online MSS - there are tons of MSS online for everyone to view and verify

Vaticanus:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403

Left column, from the bottom, line 5: XREISTIANOUS (and that is Acts 11:26)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426

Left column, from the top, line 11: XREISTIANON (and that's Acts 26:28)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437

Right column, from the bottom, line 12: XREISTIANOI (and that's 1 Peter 4:16)

Codex vaticanus and "antiChrist":

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442

Third column, from the bottom, line 12: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 1 John 2:18)
Third column, from the bottom, line 14: ANTIXREISTOI (and that is 1 John 2:18)

It says XREISMA at the bottom of the page, by the way

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442

Left column, from the top, line 11: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 1 John 2:22)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444

Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: ANTIXR?ISTOU (and that is 1 John 4:3).

There is clearly ample room there, and it seems to be an eta but beware that it's not the letter on the other side of the leaf.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446

Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 2 John 1:7)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Sinaiticus and antichrist

Post by mlinssen »

Codex Sinaiticus and antichrist:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

παιδια εϲχατη ωρα
εϲτιν και καθωϲ
ηκουϲατε οτι ┬ αντι
χριϲτοϲ ερχεται
και νυν αντιχρι
ϲτοι πολλοι γεγονα
ϲιν οθεν γινω
ϲκομεν οτι εϲχα
τη ωρα εϲτιν

1 John 2:18, both counts

The definite article was omitted and got inserted or vice versa

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

τιϲ
εϲτιν ο ψευϲτηϲ
ει μη ο αρνουμε
νοϲ οτι ιϲ ουκ εϲ
τιν ο χϲ ουτοϲ εϲ
τιν ο αντιχριϲτοϲ
ο αρνουμενοϲ κ(αι)
τον πρα και τον υν

1 John 2:22

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

και παν
πνα ο μη ομολο
γει ιν κν εν ϲαρ
κι εληλυθοτα εκ
του θυ ουκ εϲτιν
και τουτο εϲτιν
το του αντιχριϲτου
οτι ακηκοαμεν
οτι ερχεται και
νυν εν τω κοϲ
μω εϲτιν ηδη

1 John 4:3

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

οτι πολ
λοι πλανοι εξηλ
θον ειϲ τον κοϲμο
οι μη ομολογουν
τεϲ ιν χν ερχομε

and the next page:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

νον εν ϲαρκι ουτοϲ
εϲτιν ο πλανοϲ κ(αι)
αντιχριϲτοϲ

2 John 1:17

Christ, all of them - yet what does Acts and 1 Peter say?

Acts 11:26
και ευρω_ ηγαγεν ειϲ αντιοχιαν εγενετο δε αυτοιϲ και ενιαυτον ολο_ ϲυναχθηναι εν τη εκκληϲια και διδαξαι οχλον ϊκανον χρηματιϲαι τε πρωτωϲ εν αντιοχια τουϲ μαθηταϲ χρηϲτιανουϲ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

1/2 The "long line-ending Nu" is visible on two of these words - not in the transcription alas, so I have added an underscore myself.
2/2 When zooming in on the word it is clerly visible how an attempt has been made to erase the eta of Chestions

Acts 26:28
ο δε αγριππαϲ προϲ τον παυλον εν ολιγω με πιθειϲ χρηϲτιανον ποιηϲαι

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

1/2 It is clearly visible how and attempt has been made to erase the eta at the end of the line and change it into a iota, and a note is present to attest to that
2/2 In this Codex as well there are lineending Nu's, and a few lines beneth this it can be seen that the final N of μόνον of verse 29 has been replaced by a superlinear - and these line-ending Nu's so very remarkably remind me of one of the Demotic N's, that equaled a horizontal line. But that must be a coincidence, must't it

1 Peter 4:16
ει δε ωϲ χρηϲτιανοϲ μη εϲχυνεϲθω δοξαζετω δε τον θν εν τω ονοματι τουτω

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

1/1 Likewise, an attempt has been made to replace the eta by a iota, and a neat note attests to that

Doest Nestle-Aland attest to any of this? Of course not - they attest to Sinaiticus among others omitting the word καὶ which of course is much, much more important, and very rare (I hope that my sarcasm doesn't go unnoticed) - but not to this

Resuming: we have Chrestians originally, in combination with antichristians - now that's worth a thought, I'd think
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Bezae and Chrestians

Post by mlinssen »

Bezae:

Acts 11:26
και ως συντυχων παρεκαλεσεν ⸆ ελθειν εις αντιοχειαν οιτινες παραγενομενοι ενιαυτον ολον συνεχυθησαν οχλον ϊκανον και τοτε πρωτον εχρηματισεν εν αντιοχεια οι μαθηται χρειστιανοι (⸆ - AUTON is suffixed at the end of the verse)

(https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/755)

It can clearly be seen how the text has been altered from oi mathetai xreistianoi to tou(s) mathetas xreistianous

Bezae ends at Acts 22:29 - alas

The movement started as Chrestianity. With every single text saying IS or XS, it was the perfect victim for a hostile takeover - by "Christians", for example.
Yet it is Philip who first uses this word, and no other text appears to do likewise. Antichrist? Once, amidst antichreist and antichrest

And with 35 occurrences of ChrEst in the Nag Hammadi Library, and only 2 of ChrIst (and Philip has both!), there suddenly is an intense pressure to demonstrate that there actually is even one single Christian text that says Christian and predates 500 CE
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by spin »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:19 am
spin wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:09 amThere are two possible explanations for the appearance of the corrected Christianos/Chrestianos in the Beneventan copy that contains Ann.15.44 (Medicee II):

1. Chrestianos was in the source text and the copyist decided to "correct the error".

2. Christianos was in the source text, but a French copyist through fatigue replaced it with Chrestianos, which was later corrected to the source.
Lane states that this is supported by the spelling of Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16 where the uncial codex Sinaiticus reads Chrestianos.[34]
Perhaps Lane might have considered the fact we are dealing with a Latin text, not Greek. And iotacism doesn't account for the presence of Christus, not Chrestus, whereas the French scribe hypothesis does.

Did Lane ever consider that the presence of Chrestianos was the result of a scribal error which was corrected?
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Sinouhe »

spin wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:39 am
Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:19 am
spin wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:09 amThere are two possible explanations for the appearance of the corrected Christianos/Chrestianos in the Beneventan copy that contains Ann.15.44 (Medicee II):

1. Chrestianos was in the source text and the copyist decided to "correct the error".

2. Christianos was in the source text, but a French copyist through fatigue replaced it with Chrestianos, which was later corrected to the source.
Lane states that this is supported by the spelling of Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16 where the uncial codex Sinaiticus reads Chrestianos.[34]
Perhaps Lane might have considered the fact we are dealing with a Latin text, not Greek. And iotacism doesn't account for the presence of Christus, not Chrestus, whereas the French scribe hypothesis does.

Did Lane ever consider that the presence of Chrestianos was the result of a scribal error which was corrected?
I don’t know, i didn’t read his book. But i maintain my hypothesis. I consider the testimonium taciteum to be a forgery, so the use of chrestianos can be a voluntary mistake of the forger of the Testimonium Taciteum to give an antique and neutral style to his fraud.

Tertullian, attest to the fact that Christians were constantly called the wrong name : ‘Chrestianus’ :

(Apologeticum, 3.5 - 197 AD)
Sed et cum perperam “Chrestianus” pronuntiatur a vobis…
“And even when it is said wrongly ‘Chrestian’ by you…”


If the testimonium is a forgery by a christian scribe, then he surely know this reference.

It makes sense and can be a possibility.

Your hypothesis about the french scribe is interesting too. Im french and effectively, we spell christians : «chrEtiens», not chritiens.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by MrMacSon »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:16 pm the use of chrestianos can be a voluntary mistake of the forger of the Testimonium Taciteum to give an antique and neutral style to his fraud
An interesting yet reasonable proposition (which I haven't seen before)

Tertullian attest to the fact that Christians were constantly called the wrong name : ‘Chrestianus’ :

Apologeticum, 3.5 - 197 AD
Sed et cum perperam “Chrestianus” pronuntiatur a vobis…
“And even when it is said wrongly ‘Chrestian’ by you…”


If the testimonium is a forgery by a Christian scribe, then he surely know this reference.
Chrestianus was fairly universal, based on other texts and writings we have of the pre-Nicene and Nicene periods, including Codex Sinaiticus. So, without Tertullian referring [fairly] explicitly to Annals xv.44, we can't be sure he knew it
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by spin »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:16 pmYour hypothesis about the french scribe is interesting too. Im french and effectively, we spell christians : «chrEtiens», not chritiens.
Not in circa 1150 though. The vowel, yes, but the /s/ hadn't been lost. At least that's what I understand from Chretien de Troyes, according to this (see bottom, Étymologie et Histoire, 1.b).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:39 pm
Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:16 pm the use of chrestianos can be a voluntary mistake of the forger of the Testimonium Taciteum to give an antique and neutral style to his fraud
An interesting yet reasonable proposition (which I haven't seen before)
A voluntary mistake? It either was a mistake or it wasn't, or it was intended or it wasn't. And either it was correct in the contemporary context or it wasn't.
What Sinouhe seems to be claiming is that Chrestian was the proper word at the alleged time of the alleged writing, which I would agree with. As such the word would be genuine at the moment of its writing and only appear off, or even wrong, after the movement got rebranded - hence the attempt to fix it
Tertullian attest to the fact that Christians were constantly called the wrong name : ‘Chrestianus’ :

Apologeticum, 3.5 - 197 AD
Sed et cum perperam “Chrestianus” pronuntiatur a vobis…
“And even when it is said wrongly ‘Chrestian’ by you…”


If the testimonium is a forgery by a Christian scribe, then he surely know this reference.
Chrestianus was fairly universal, based on other texts and writings we have of the pre-Nicene and Nicene periods, including Codex Sinaiticus. So, without Tertullian referring [fairly] explicitly to Annals xv.44, we can't be sure he knew it

Christianus vero, quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos), de suavitate vel benignitate conpositum est. Oditur itaque in hominibus innocuis etiam nomen innocuum.

“Christian really,” so far as interpretation goes, is derived from “anointing.” But when incorrectly pronounced by you “Chrestian” (for you have not even certain knowledge of the mere name) it is framed from “sweetness” or “kindness.”a So in innocent men you hate even the innocent name.

And no one triggers to Tertullian still second guessing after the meaning of Christian?
He's attesting to the existence of Chrestians around 200 CE - now the question is whether that is a lie, or a truth

How long did it take to hijack Chrestianity and rebrand it Christianity? 2-300 years perhaps?
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:19 am
spin wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:09 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:52 amI 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),...
There are two possible explanations for the appearance of the corrected Christianos/Chrestianos in the Beneventan copy that contains Ann.15.44 (Medicee II):

1. Chrestianos was in the source text and the copyist decided to "correct the error".

2. Christianos was in the source text, but a French copyist through fatigue replaced it with Chrestianos, which was later corrected to the source.

I can't see a way to choose between these two options. The text was copied in the era before the /s/ was elided in French, yet the /i/ > /e/ didn't happen with Christus.
Lane states that this is supported by the spelling of Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16 where the uncial codex Sinaiticus reads Chrestianos.[34]

(William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206)

it may be a wish of the original forger to give an antique color to his text.
Lane is overstepping, imo. For all we know the original was Christianos and the e was chosen because of the phonological similarities, fatigue, etc. Same as in Sinaiticus. My guess is that there simply was not a standardized lexical spelling of Christianos in the first few centuries, leading to Christians and pagans alike to interchange the e and i at will. Eventually, some authors began to either attempt correcting this, or utilized the different spelling to have their own ideas and conjecture about the terms (Gospel of Philip). At any juncture, the switch from i to e in Annals could have happened early, been retained, and then our later copyist fixed it reverting it to the original spelling.

We have no way to know, and at this point it is just conjecture, and rather pointless conjecture as far as I'm concerned, as there is no such spelling issue with Christus in the passage, which makes it clear how Chrestianos is being used.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by mlinssen »

Chris Hansen wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:03 am
Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:19 am
spin wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:09 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:52 amI 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),...
There are two possible explanations for the appearance of the corrected Christianos/Chrestianos in the Beneventan copy that contains Ann.15.44 (Medicee II):

1. Chrestianos was in the source text and the copyist decided to "correct the error".

2. Christianos was in the source text, but a French copyist through fatigue replaced it with Chrestianos, which was later corrected to the source.

I can't see a way to choose between these two options. The text was copied in the era before the /s/ was elided in French, yet the /i/ > /e/ didn't happen with Christus.
Lane states that this is supported by the spelling of Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16 where the uncial codex Sinaiticus reads Chrestianos.[34]

(William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206)

it may be a wish of the original forger to give an antique color to his text.
Lane is overstepping, imo. For all we know the original was Christianos and the e was chosen because of the phonological similarities, fatigue, etc. Same as in Sinaiticus. My guess is that there simply was not a standardized lexical spelling of Christianos in the first few centuries, leading to Christians and pagans alike to interchange the e and i at will. Eventually, some authors began to either attempt correcting this, or utilized the different spelling to have their own ideas and conjecture about the terms (Gospel of Philip). At any juncture, the switch from i to e in Annals could have happened early, been retained, and then our later copyist fixed it reverting it to the original spelling.

We have no way to know, and at this point it is just conjecture, and rather pointless conjecture as far as I'm concerned, as there is no such spelling issue with Christus in the passage, which makes it clear how Chrestianos is being used.
For all you know, Chris - which is less than little, by the looks of it.
Giuseppe once introduced me to the concept of "anti-mythicist": people whose only desire it is to obfuscate and derail anything that would lead to confirm the historical inauthenticity of the alleged Jesus Christ - and you most certainly fit the profile with this dubious little paragraph right here

Needless to say, you don't have any demonstration of your "Christians and pagans alike to interchange the e and i at will" "in the first few centuries", or do you?
Post Reply