Chris on the Testimonium Taciteum

[Chrissy Hansen]

A contradiction I see in a Tacitus's dependance on Pliny, is that Tacitus would have learned from Pliny that the Christians were pacifists, contra factum that Tacitus describes clearly the Christians(=Chrestiani) as rioters (more along the Suetonian impulsore Chresto than otherwise).

Tacitus didn't describe Christians as rioters. He wrote that Nero fastened the blame for the fire on Christians.

the only evidence that Tacitus means that they are rioters is the fact that he writes Chrestiani and not Christiani, and obviously Chrestus in Suetonius is a rioter.
Carrier thinks rightly that it can't be a coincidence.

Actually I think here it probably is a coincidence. Chrestus was likely just a Jewish instigator and nothing more. The "Chrestian" and "Christus" issue in Tacitus is explainable as Tacitus correcting common mispronunciation, because the i and e sounds interchanged a lot, and Christians were often mistaken as "Chrestians" because of this, which several old Church Fathers noted and even joked about.

[Giuseppe]

A contradiction I see in a Tacitus's dependance on Pliny, is that Tacitus would have learned from Pliny that the Christians were pacifists, contra factum that Tacitus describes clearly the Christians(=Chrestiani) as rioters (more along the Suetonian impulsore Chresto than otherwise).

How does Chris explain this fact?

Main issue here:

Tacitus does not describe them as rioters and in fact does not describe their criminal activities at all. This is part of the problem with Tacitus' passage and its general disjointed attitude toward Christians, is the fact that the crimes they are accused of and punished for are unclear. This does not, therefore, parallel the "impulsore Chresto" of Suetonius, which is likely referring to a Jewish revolt, and has no connection to Christianity whatsoever.

ok, but if Pliny started his inquiry in Bithynia with the assumption that the Christians were real rioters, an assumption later confuted by the facts according to the same Pliny (once the latter realized that the Christians were pacifists), then the possibility is raised, that also Tacitus approached the Chrestiani with the a priori assumption that they were (potential) rioters.

[Chrissy Hansen]

ok, but if Pliny started his inquiry in Bithynia with the assumption that the Christians were real rioters, an assumption later confuted by the facts according to the same Pliny (once the latter realized that the Christians were pacifists), then the possibility is raised, that also Tacitus approached the Chrestiani with the a priori assumption that they were (potential) rioters.

Pliny does not ascribe riotous behavior to Christians. Neither does Tacitus. So I fail to see how this is an issue.

[Giuseppe]

ok, but if Pliny started his inquiry in Bithynia with the assumption that the Christians were real rioters, an assumption later confuted by the facts according to the same Pliny (once the latter realized that the Christians were pacifists), then the possibility is raised, that also Tacitus approached the Chrestiani with the a priori assumption that they were (potential) rioters.

Pliny does not ascribe riotous behavior to Christians. Neither does Tacitus. So I fail to see how this is an issue.

according to James S. Valliant, if I remember well his book Creating Christ, Pliny started his inquiry against the Christians because the Christians had some bad reputation as rioters or potential rioters. The facts confirmed Pliny that the exact contrary was true: the Christians were basically harmless. But if Tacitus learned by Pliny, then we should expect to see in Tacitus a more human comprehension of the Chrestiani ...

[Chrissy Hansen]

according to James S. Valliant, if I remember well his book Creating Christ, Pliny started his inquiry against the Christians because the Christians had some bad reputation as rioters or potential rioters. The facts confirmed Pliny that the exact contrary was true: the Christians were basically harmless. But if Tacitus learned by Pliny, then we should expect to see in Tacitus a more human comprehension of the Chrestiani ...

Pliny's letter never discusses them as rioters at all. Merely, it seems at this point that since they were unrecognized and a problematic superstitio, it came under the governor to intercede and halt the movement as it was not permissible. Here is Pliny's full letter (from: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

At no point in this letter does he indicate they had any connection with being "riotous." They are simply a deviant cultus.

Valliant's idea, if this is what he argues, is entirely just his own conjecture, which neither the letter nor Tacitus ever evince.

[Giuseppe]

Someone has seen in this "stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy"

For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.

...the same "stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy" observed among the Zealots, when they could call "Master" only YHWH.

[MrMacSon]

1. My response to Tuccinardi got axed in the final draft, but basically I doubt the ability of stylometric analysis to really tell us much about these letters. While Tuccinardi's analysis is interesting, I think further studies need to be done before accepting its findings, particularly I would like to see what happens if Books I-IX are also factored in, as Tuccinardi only used Book X.

• Cheers. It's interesting your response to - & I presume discussion of - Tuccinardi's paper got axed considering what your paper is about
  
  • eg. it would rely on the veracity of Pliny's Epistle 10.96.

2. ... My initial draft did cite Jones, but I needed to conserve space, and whether or not Shaw's particular thesis is correct is rather inconsequential for my paper to begin with (I only occasionally cite Shaw and Moss in the paper).

• Cheers. I only wondered b/c Jones is listed as a reference: #16 here, so I wondered if you had teased the some of the Shaw-Jones[-Shaw] thing out (without needing to refer to the 2nd Shaw paper). As you say, "whether or not Shaw's particular thesis is correct is rather inconsequential for my paper."
  
  And I note the start of that response:

  I did not cite Jones' response mostly just because I found it particularly weak. It relies heavily on the historicity of Acts, and I think that Shaw's counter response in NTS was more than able to handle Jones' issues.

3. I didn't find Bremmer and Van Der Lans' objections particularly engaging ... their attempt to note that there may have been a distinctive community of "Christ followers" to persecute is strange and poorly evidenced. They cite Paul's letter which contains references to some 25 people, and this is enough for them to declare a distinctive Christ community, but that number is incredibly small that they would most assuredly go unnoticed in a city whose population ca. 60 CE was possibly as high as 1,000,000 people or more. The idea that a handful even the size of a few hundred would have been noticeable is rather unbelievable to me. This gets more complicated looking at the Pliny letters where it appears that Christians are just being discussed by Roman authorities for the first time, requiring an investigation and direct thoughts from the Emperor on what to do.

Thus, I don't find any of the counter arguments persuasive at all, and it seems more that a lot of it is attempting to explain away the problematic silences and contradictions, rather than the meat of how Shaw's argumentation functioned.
.

• Cheers, again. I had only partly read Van Der Lans and Bremmer previously, and found it hard to follow. So, my posting of excerpts from it ended up being as much an exercise in me trying to make sense of it, as anything.

[mlinssen]

Justin Martyr is the first FF to use "x-tians", and he attests to Xrhstians - and counts himself among them

First Apology Chapter 4

https://archive.org/details/apologiesof ... 5/mode/1up

Notice the skipping of verses in the following:

1. Ὀνόματος μὲν οὖν προσωνυμία οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε κακὸν κρίνεται ἄνευ τῶν ὑποπιπτουσῶν τῷ ὀνόματι πράξεων" ἐπεί, ὅσον γε ἐκ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος, χρηστότατοι ὑπάρχομεν.
5. Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον.
1. By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most good people.
5. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is good is unjust

Let's look at the bold words:

1. χρηστότατοι - superlative of χρηστόι, which is plural nominative of χρηστός. Comparative would be χρηστότεροι

useful, good of its kind, serviceable

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... xrhsto%2Fs

2. Χριστιανοὶ - we'll come to that in a minute

3. χρηστὸν - singular accusative of χρηστός, object of μισεῖσθαι, together with τὸ: "the good". μισέω is the verb 'to hate', μισεῖσθαι is the present infinitive

So we have the superlative of χρηστός on the left, the regular adjective χρηστός on the right, and caught in between is Χριστιανοὶ - and even if one doesn't know any Greek at all, it is evident that Χρηστιανοὶ would fit an awful lot better.
The extant MS is Parisinus Graece 450 – 14th CE

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... 5b/f4.item

No use looking it up but I'll do that later today anyway just for fun. But let's transliterate this:

1. By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most Chrestos people.
5. For we are accused of being Chrestians, and to hate what is Chrestos is unjust

And that is it, and even if we assume this to be original, and when we uncritically accept the circular evidence for Justin Martyr's life, works and dates, then we find ourselves in 156 CE with Justin unambiguously attesting to Chrestians who are called Chrestians without a shred of a doubt.
Justin counts himself among these Chrestians, and even comes up with a fun explanation for the name itself

And we would have outside witnesses BEFORE that period who speak of Christians?

Sure

What Tacitus does attest to, is the moment in time during which his text got interpolated: right after the hostile takeover of Chrestianity by Christianity, when the icon was still called Xrhstos and its original followers Xrhstians: to accommodate the dating game of Churchianity, the Christians are here placed in time before any others.
Or perhaps this was original and said Chrestians, yet got changed to Christians on purpose: but that would be less likely

One thing is for sure: it is an anomalous anachronism to have Tacitus say what it says

For Justin Martyr, First Apology Chapter 4, https://archive.org/details/apologiesof ... 5/mode/1up is a helpful source:

The earliest MS is Parisinus Graece 450, 14th CE, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... 5b/f4.item

JustinMartyr-FirstApology_Chapter4.png (524.74 KiB) Viewed 482 times

Chapter 4 starts at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom#

JustinMartyr-FirstApology_Chapter4_ParisinusGraece450-1of2.png (630.22 KiB) Viewed 482 times

... and continues on the next page:

JustinMartyr-FirstApology_Chapter4_ParisinusGraece450-2of2.png (410.45 KiB) Viewed 482 times

Transcription, starting from the first complete line at the top of the screenshot, text numbering kept intact and nomina sacra f(ixe)d, including scri{bal err}ors indicated where those deviate from the text used as transcription. καὶ is sometimes represented via what looks like an @ and I have put that in between square brackets behind the word where such is the case.
HUGE FAT DISCLAIMER: I most certainly am not qualified in any way to do this, so use at your own risk. This script is horrible to my eyes and I usually read 1st-5th CE Coptic / Greek / Latin only

τυφλώττοντες αὐτῶν, αὐτοῖς ὀφλήσωμεν· ὑμέτερον δὲ,
ὡς αἱρεῖ λόγος, ἀκούοντας ----- ἀγαθοὺς εὑρί
σκεσθαι κριτάς. 5. ἀναπολόγητον γὰρ λοιπὸν μαθοῦσιν, ἢν
μὴ τὰ δίκαια ποιήσητε, ὑπάρξει πρὸς θ(εό)ν. IV 1. Ὀνόματος
μὲν οὖν προσωνυμίᾳ οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε κακὸν κρί
νεται ἄνευ τῶν ὑποπιπτουσῶν τῷ ὀνόματι πράξεων·
ἐπεί, ὅσον τε ἐκ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος χρη
σ{τ}ότατοι ὑπάρχομεν. 2. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ οὐ τοῦτο δίκαιον ἡγού
μεθα, διὰ τὸ ὄνομα ἐὰν κακοὶ ἐλεγχώμεθα, αἰτεῖν
ἀφίεσθαι, πάλιν, εἰ μηδὲν διά τε τὴν προσηγορίαν
τοῦ ὀνόματος καὶ(@) διὰ τὴν πολιτείαν εὑρισκόμεθα ἀ
δικοῦντες, ὑμέτερον ἀγωνιᾶσαί ἐστι, μὴ ἀδίκως κο
λάζοντες τοὺς μὴ ἐλεγχομένους τῇ δίκῃ κόλασιν
ὀφλήσητε. 3. ἐξ ὀνόματος μὲν γὰρ ἢ ἔπαινος ἢ κόλασις
οὐκ ἂν εὐλόγως γένοιτο, ἢν μή τι ἐνάρετον ἢ φαῦλον
δι’ ἔργων ἀποδείκνυσθαι δύνηται. 4. καὶ(@) γὰρ τοὺς κατη
-----
γορουμένους ἐφ’ ὑμῶν πάντας πρὶν ἐλεγχθῆναι
οὐ τιμωρεῖτε· ἐφ’ ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα ὡς ἔλεγχον λαμ
βάνετε, καίπερ, ὅσον γε ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος, τοὺς κατη
γοροῦντας μᾶλλον κολάζειν ὀφείλετε. 5. Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ
εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρησ{τ}ὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δί
καιον. 6. καὶ πάλιν, ἐὰν μέν τις τῶν κατηγορουμένων
ἔξαρνος γένηται τῇ φωνῇ μὴ εἶναι φήσας, ἀφίετε
αὐτὸν ὡς μηδὲν ἐλέγχειν ἔχοντες ἁμαρτάνοντα, ἐὰν
δέ τι ὁμολογήσῃ εἶναι, διὰ τὴν ὁμολογίαν κολάζετε·
δέον καὶ τὸν τοῦ ὁμολογοῦντος βίον εὐθύνειν καὶ(@) τὸν τ{οῦ}

[Chrissy Hansen]

1. My response to Tuccinardi got axed in the final draft, but basically I doubt the ability of stylometric analysis to really tell us much about these letters. While Tuccinardi's analysis is interesting, I think further studies need to be done before accepting its findings, particularly I would like to see what happens if Books I-IX are also factored in, as Tuccinardi only used Book X.

• Cheers. It's interesting your response to - & I presume discussion of - Tuccinardi's paper got axed considering what your paper is about
  
  • eg. it would rely on the veracity of Pliny's Epistle 10.96.

2. ... My initial draft did cite Jones, but I needed to conserve space, and whether or not Shaw's particular thesis is correct is rather inconsequential for my paper to begin with (I only occasionally cite Shaw and Moss in the paper).

• Cheers. I only wondered b/c Jones is listed as a reference: #16 here, so I wondered if you had teased the some of the Shaw-Jones[-Shaw] thing out (without needing to refer to the 2nd Shaw paper). As you say, "whether or not Shaw's particular thesis is correct is rather inconsequential for my paper."
  
  And I note the start of that response:

  I did not cite Jones' response mostly just because I found it particularly weak. It relies heavily on the historicity of Acts, and I think that Shaw's counter response in NTS was more than able to handle Jones' issues.

3. I didn't find Bremmer and Van Der Lans' objections particularly engaging ... their attempt to note that there may have been a distinctive community of "Christ followers" to persecute is strange and poorly evidenced. They cite Paul's letter which contains references to some 25 people, and this is enough for them to declare a distinctive Christ community, but that number is incredibly small that they would most assuredly go unnoticed in a city whose population ca. 60 CE was possibly as high as 1,000,000 people or more. The idea that a handful even the size of a few hundred would have been noticeable is rather unbelievable to me. This gets more complicated looking at the Pliny letters where it appears that Christians are just being discussed by Roman authorities for the first time, requiring an investigation and direct thoughts from the Emperor on what to do.

Thus, I don't find any of the counter arguments persuasive at all, and it seems more that a lot of it is attempting to explain away the problematic silences and contradictions, rather than the meat of how Shaw's argumentation functioned.
.

• Cheers, again. I had only partly read Van Der Lans and Bremmer previously, and found it hard to follow. So, my posting of excerpts from it ended up being as much an exercise in me trying to make sense of it, as anything.

Yeah the Tuccinardi bit was removed mostly just to save space and because it was a lot of words just to say: I disagree and will be functioning from the standpoint it is authentic.

To re: Jones, I cite him on footnote 10 only just to list the response. But I don't engage him further, again because the Shaw issue is inconsequential and I think Jones' response was unconvincing. I did forgot I cited him the one time, but it is mostly just to note the debate.

My primary concern is how the narrative we have came to be. If my theory is correct it explains the disjointed and weird aspects of the passage as being a reflection of Tacitus' combining two separate tales together, one being stemmed from Christians via Pliny, and it does this without having to resort to various theories of interpolation, which I generally find questionable.

[andrewcriddle]

A contradiction I see in a Tacitus's dependance on Pliny, is that Tacitus would have learned from Pliny that the Christians were pacifists, contra factum that Tacitus describes clearly the Christians(=Chrestiani) as rioters (more along the Suetonian impulsore Chresto than otherwise).

How does Chris explain this fact?

Main issue here:

Tacitus does not describe them as rioters and in fact does not describe their criminal activities at all. This is part of the problem with Tacitus' passage and its general disjointed attitude toward Christians, is the fact that the crimes they are accused of and punished for are unclear. This does not, therefore, parallel the "impulsore Chresto" of Suetonius, which is likely referring to a Jewish revolt, and has no connection to Christianity whatsoever. I agree with M. H. Williams and other recent commentators on this part.

The vague crime they are punished for is "odium humani generis" or "hatred of humankind" which is just a stock polemic that was hurled at tons of marginal communities by Roman authors. It has no real historical merit, in my opinion.

On the question of what the Christians were really accused of by Nero, see this very old thread. https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=109462

Andrew Criddle