Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 3, 2011 18:55:28 GMT
Documentus, it's a good idea to take a closer look at one of HHI's examples, the editing of the second Medicean manuscript (M. II). Besides, this part is pretty ironic in a way:
Detail of the 2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.
The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing "Christians". In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i' [Georg Andresen in Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie 19, 1902, p. 780f].
In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an "e" being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an "i".[Harald Fuchs, Tacitus on the Christians, published in Christian Vigil (1950) volume 4, number 2, p. 70, note 6] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the "i" is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an "e" is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word ÷ñçóôüò (chrestos), meaning "good, useful".
"I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding ÷ñçóôüò".[Robert Renehan, "Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?", La Parola del Passato 122 (1968), pp. 368-370]
Somehow, the replacement of the "e" by the "i" (uncontroversial) in a medieval manuscript is supposed to support his wild thesis?
(First of all the arrow is misplaced, it shouldn't originate from the note in the margin but from the beginning of the same line.)
It's too bad he isn't clear what this is supposed to mean according to him. If this is supposed to support a lack of references to Christ, he should have only looked at the next line, right at the start.
Mr Clarke's quotes put the whole issue into context.
‘The only textual difficulty of particular importance for our study comes at the first and only use of ‘Christians’ in chapter 44. Most older critical editions read ‘Christianoi’, ‘Christians’. However, the original hand of the oldest surviving manuscript, the second medicean (11th century), which is almost certainly the source of all other surviving manuscripts, reads ‘Chrestianoi’, ‘chrestians’. A marginal gloss ‘corrects it to Christianoi. Chrestianoi is to be preferred as the earliest and most difficult reading, and is adopted by the three current critical editions and the recent scholarship utilising them. It also makes better sense in this context. Tacitus is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the crowd (vulgas) by stating that the ‘founder of the name’ (auctor nominis eius) is Christus, not the common name implicitly given by the crowd, Chrestus. Tacitus could have written auctor superstitionis, ‘the founder of the superstition’ or something similar but he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement to link it directly and correctly to the name of Christ.’
'Jesus Outside the New Testament’ ( books.google.co.uk/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&dq=Jesus) by Robert E Van Voorst
‘Confusing the matter are the variant spellings of Christ and Christian used by Christian and non Christian writers alike. The variants Chrestos, Chrestus, and Chrestianoi often appear, and Chrestus was a familiar proper name, meaning ‘good, useful’. So it was argued that non Christians heard Christos and converted it to the understandable Chrestos, then created the form chrestianoi, which was thus the original form of the word they used to identify believers...Outside the Jewish world ‘anointed one’ would have been virtually meaningless, and Christ thus became thought of as a name more than a title.’
The Westminster theological wordbook of the Bible By Donald E. Gowan
Whatever Lord History Hunter's intentions may be, I think it is dubious he makes no mention of the word "Christus" appearing in the next line, considering the argument he makes on his site.
A different author is careful enough to point this out:
"For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript of Annales does not contain
the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the
ultraviolet photograph."
Erik Zara in this paper.
@History Hunters International said:
Detail of the 2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.
The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing "Christians". In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i' [Georg Andresen in Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie 19, 1902, p. 780f].
In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an "e" being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an "i".[Harald Fuchs, Tacitus on the Christians, published in Christian Vigil (1950) volume 4, number 2, p. 70, note 6] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the "i" is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an "e" is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word ÷ñçóôüò (chrestos), meaning "good, useful".
"I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding ÷ñçóôüò".[Robert Renehan, "Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?", La Parola del Passato 122 (1968), pp. 368-370]
Somehow, the replacement of the "e" by the "i" (uncontroversial) in a medieval manuscript is supposed to support his wild thesis?
(First of all the arrow is misplaced, it shouldn't originate from the note in the margin but from the beginning of the same line.)
It's too bad he isn't clear what this is supposed to mean according to him. If this is supposed to support a lack of references to Christ, he should have only looked at the next line, right at the start.
Mr Clarke's quotes put the whole issue into context.
Dec 1, 2011 13:29:42 GMT humphreyclarke" said:
On the Chrestos, Chrestus, and Chrestianoi issue:‘The only textual difficulty of particular importance for our study comes at the first and only use of ‘Christians’ in chapter 44. Most older critical editions read ‘Christianoi’, ‘Christians’. However, the original hand of the oldest surviving manuscript, the second medicean (11th century), which is almost certainly the source of all other surviving manuscripts, reads ‘Chrestianoi’, ‘chrestians’. A marginal gloss ‘corrects it to Christianoi. Chrestianoi is to be preferred as the earliest and most difficult reading, and is adopted by the three current critical editions and the recent scholarship utilising them. It also makes better sense in this context. Tacitus is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the crowd (vulgas) by stating that the ‘founder of the name’ (auctor nominis eius) is Christus, not the common name implicitly given by the crowd, Chrestus. Tacitus could have written auctor superstitionis, ‘the founder of the superstition’ or something similar but he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement to link it directly and correctly to the name of Christ.’
'Jesus Outside the New Testament’ ( books.google.co.uk/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&dq=Jesus) by Robert E Van Voorst
‘Confusing the matter are the variant spellings of Christ and Christian used by Christian and non Christian writers alike. The variants Chrestos, Chrestus, and Chrestianoi often appear, and Chrestus was a familiar proper name, meaning ‘good, useful’. So it was argued that non Christians heard Christos and converted it to the understandable Chrestos, then created the form chrestianoi, which was thus the original form of the word they used to identify believers...Outside the Jewish world ‘anointed one’ would have been virtually meaningless, and Christ thus became thought of as a name more than a title.’
The Westminster theological wordbook of the Bible By Donald E. Gowan
Whatever Lord History Hunter's intentions may be, I think it is dubious he makes no mention of the word "Christus" appearing in the next line, considering the argument he makes on his site.
A different author is careful enough to point this out:
"For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript of Annales does not contain
the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the
ultraviolet photograph."
Erik Zara in this paper.