|
Post by caroleeilertson on Dec 6, 2008 19:58:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 7, 2008 0:49:52 GMT
Well. I think it shows the power of wishful thinking. It also shows the bankruptcy of hopes about the internet, that the growth of the world wide web would foster links between academia and the general public. Instead what has happened is that repectable journals have gone online but remain subscription only. The middle ground has opened up and into this void the lunatic fringe have been allowed to proliferate and portray themselves as the mainsteam. Somewhere, off in the distance, Clio the muse of history weeps. Thats my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 7, 2008 1:05:31 GMT
Ok, just Latins. Tertullian doesn't mention Nero's scapegoating, Roman fires. Nor - and this is probably the most telling - does Lactantius. "And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul"Multitudes converted (so the notion of early numbers had taken hold) and like Tertullian (and Eusebius in his Greek), Paul and Peter killed. But no connection to fires. Numbers are the issue. At some point, Nero's two crimes - fire and apostles - were linked. Some point between the early fourth century and Severus. Earlier is unlikely or these men, who loved showcasing the wrongs against their sect and its significance, would have called it out. Yes, Christians were picked on - and for secretiveness. It's a theme of all early apologists. But it came post-temple fall, post the gospels, post post Nero, the unfortunate whipping boy for all antiquity. Hi GentleExit, I agree with you on the numbers. One of the things that strikes me about ancient texts is the exagguration of numbers e.g the description in Acts of Paul's conversion of 3000 people. However this doesn't amount to a falsification of Tacitus. Please correct me if I am wrong but in Suetonius it seems to say: 'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and michevous belief; and Nero ended the licence the charioteers had so long enjoyed that they claimed it as a right: to wander the streets swindling and robbing the populace.' Perhaps we could get specific. If the passage in Tacitus is false, who is supposed to have interpolated what and when?.
|
|
|
Post by gentleexit on Dec 7, 2008 4:03:10 GMT
Please correct me if I am wrong but in Suetonius it seems to say: 'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and michevous belief; and Nero ended the licence the charioteers had so long enjoyed that they claimed it as a right: to wander the streets swindling and robbing the populace.' Yep, the second of the two Roman historian references to Christians and both have the same MO. Christians are never mentioned elsewhere in their works. The passages tie the movement with Nero. Though in Suetonius' case, there is no link to the fire. In him, they are part of the general "Jewish problem". No Christian historian invoked these mentions. Even though, unlike Tacitus, Suetonius remained popular. In his fourth century history, which he modeled on Tacitus, Ammianus decries that his hero is ignored, while mud rackers like Suetonius are read avidly. Failure to invoke the no longer popular Tacitus is one thing. Failure to explicitly invoke Suetonius is telling. Perhaps we could get specific. If the passage in Tacitus is false, who is supposed to have interpolated what and when?. Triumphant Christians latched onto the hatcheting of Nero that began soon after his death (or did he live on and on?). They kicked off their persecution histories with this, the worst of the worst emperors. This had the added advantage of giving them early importance. This was group think, the source of so much lore (weapons of mass destruction anybody?). There wasn't some evil or masterful creator. The interpolations came later, innocuous ballast for truth then known to all. Of course, we all approach material with assumptions. Beneath any argument I make are two opinions. Most Nero-bashes are fiction. You can see the guy grow in "evilness" as his reality receded. This goes for the slurs of the Flavians right after his death as much as those of the Christians much later. And there were no Christians per se, that far back. Even the movement's name probably came later (it's first in Acts I think. Written well after Nero). Before the end of the third century the movement was very unimpressive and after it became notable, it sought greater antiquity. If this entry in Tacitus or even the one in Suetonius are genuine, then I'm wrong. Nero did suppress a significant movement. For some unknown reason, it then lay low for two centuries and suddenly, came back, bigger than ever. For me, this is a bigger stretch than minor changes to manuscripts.
|
|
|
Post by gentleexit on Dec 7, 2008 4:21:53 GMT
The study assumes the passage as a whole is Tacitus'. Only the word Chr*** is in question. I'm surprised the spelling is such an issue. I thought the ancients were generally free with their spellings. So it is hard to put much store in a variation. That said, why change the spelling? Such precise study compared to all the wandering we've been doing here. Well. I think it shows the power of wishful thinking. It also shows the bankruptcy of hopes about the internet, that the growth of the world wide web would foster links between academia and the general public. Instead what has happened is that repectable journals have gone online but remain subscription only. The middle ground has opened up and into this void the lunatic fringe have been allowed to proliferate and portray themselves as the mainsteam. Somewhere, off in the distance, Clio the muse of history weeps. Thats my opinion. I whole heartedly agree. Publicly sponsored Academia hiding behind "pay $10" links is ridiculous. Open up or loose public money. Here is the last chance to reconnect college and public, to reinvigorate literature and history and ... and they ... And these walls are probably loss makers anyway. Colleges should be hosting the most lively of fora, exhibitions, posing what-ifs and ...
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 7, 2008 7:33:08 GMT
I whole heartedly agree. Publicly sponsored Academia hiding behind "pay $10" links is ridiculous. Open up or loose public money. Here is the last chance to reconnect college and public, to reinvigorate literature and history and ... and they ... And these walls are probably loss makers anyway. Colleges should be hosting the most lively of fora, exhibitions, posing what-ifs and ... Yeah. Reading my comment again it was probably too harsh to say it about that particular study. That is something I have been thinking about in general though. Its a shame that so much is now available on google books but all the stuff from academic journals which I genuinely enjoyed reading at university and found the most useful, is both hidden from view and unnecessarily expensive to download. If you look at other areas, all it takes is one rogue historian or 'historical institute' to launch a campaign and flood the internet with material and you have a serious problem on your hands.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 7, 2008 8:31:34 GMT
Hello all,
I really think the idea that the Tacitus passage is a Christian interpolation is a non-starter.
It's not the link to Nero but the gloss about Christians that destroys the idea. The writer of the passage assumes that his readers will need to know who Christians are. That means that the writer cannot be a Christian (who would find the idea ridiculous) and the passage must date from a time before knowledge of Christians was general. If the passage is a late interpolation by a Christian (presumably with a Christian audience in mind), the gloss makes no sense.
It is also impossible to maintain that the gloss came from a Christian pen. The references to a "exitiablilis superstitio" and to Christianity as "mali" are wholly gratuitous. The scribe not only insulted the religion but did it unnecessarily. The presense of these words render the interpolation argument ridiculous.
So does the need to argue Suetonius was interpolated as well. We end up with a massive conspiracy, especially as it is claimed Suetonius was a popular auther.
Finally, both the Annals and the Lives of the Caesars were written after 110AD, at least two generations after the reign of Nero. Errors should be ascribed to this gap rather than to conspiracy theories. For instance, by 110AD there were many more Christians, so many that a governor wrote to the Emperor to ask how to deal with them. Thus, when Tacitus was writing, "a huge crowd" seemed plausible, allowing for his usual rhetorical exaggeration. He was being anachronistic, a trap all historians fall into eventually.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by gentleexit on Dec 7, 2008 10:08:48 GMT
the gloss about Christians that destroys the idea. The writer of the passage assumes that his readers will need to know who Christians are. That means that the writer cannot be a Christian I read the details as qualification to drive home identity, not as explanation. Pilate and Jesus in the "reign of Tiberius" were Christian staples. They are markers. The other "details" are insults, standards against the Christians and their ilk later on. They don't provide information - "what enormities?" For me, the writer has to be a Christian, writing for Christians and those who know them well. as it is claimed Suetonius was a popular auther. Popular yes. Popular in his time. Not surviving-manuscript popular. And never cited for his Christian mention, in his time. Finally, both the Annals and the Lives of the Caesars were written after 110AD, at least two generations after the reign of Nero. Errors should be ascribed to this gap rather than to conspiracy theories. Yes, they had agendas. Post Julio-Claudian historians wanted to establish the legitimacy of later regimes, the new "good" emperors. They established Nero the bad, Nero still alive, recorded pretenders popping up. All stuff recycled much later in Christian circles. Nero the anti-Christ will pop up. So does the need to argue Suetonius was interpolated as well. We end up with a massive conspiracy, especially There's no conspiracy. A few men in a smoky room planning a great capper. The backdrop to all Christian tales is the near miraculous rise of an obscure sect. Sudden heights surprise the triumphant most of all and require a great tale. Think of Rome herself. Surprised to have so much. Virgil made it Troy. Think of Jerusalem. Christianity rises and suddenly up crops a great tomb worthy of Christ (Jesus was crucified as a common criminal) and the one true cross! Great things HAD to leave a trail, have antiquity. If the trail was missing, someone would make it, find it, write it. For instance, by 110AD there were many more Christians, More! (I sound like Oliver here!) There's no evidence for this. Where were they? Who says there were "many more"? so many that a governor wrote to the Emperor to ask how to deal with them. You mean Pliny? About some obscure group outside Nicomedia? What should I do about these guys? Let me tell you what they believe (as you say, real background is only given to someone ignorant of something. His is a personal letter.). This is no mass movement. The emperor knows nothing of it. But hold on, didn't these guys burn down the City? Shouldn't that be my key reference? Yeh, but I'm only Pliny. I didn't know that. How could I? "Ridiculous"? I really think the idea that the Tacitus passage is a Christian interpolation is a non-starter. Yes, we are where we start. I'm starting with the notion that there were relatively few Christians before the end of the third century (archeology finds none) and they had no effect on history before then. So this section of Tacitus has to have been manipulated (I don't buy that "Chre..." doesn't refer to Christians). Otherwise too much else makes no sense. For me. I need a scribe warping Tacitus to explain Philo's ignorance, Pliny's observations, Plutarch's silence, all the way to Nicea and its paltry number of westerners. Otherwise I see no narrative.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 7, 2008 12:03:04 GMT
I need a scribe warping Tacitus to explain Philo's ignorance, Pliny's observations, Plutarch's silence, all the way to Nicea and its paltry number of westerners. Otherwise I see no narrative. You need him to get his grubby hands on Suetonius as well. Or a seperate scribe working with an agreed story (that Nero percecuted Christians). If you wanted to put together a heroic narrative for Christianity its a bit of a round about way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by caroleeilertson on Dec 7, 2008 12:26:02 GMT
I quite agree with the points made about the profusion of intellectual firewalls and the ubiquity of bilge on the www. But, Humphrey, please tell me why you regard Dr Ida Giovanna Rao, a manuscript expert at the Biblioteca medicea laurenziana as a member of" the lunatic fringe"? It can't be because she's a woman (you cite Clio, the muse of history in affectionate terms). It can't be because she's an intellectual (you want access to more serious scholarship. Such as the following two publications written by the above-mentioned lady, maybe? • I Processi Di Girolamo Savonarola (1498) by Paolo Viti, Ida Giovanna Rao, Raffaella Maria Zaccaria January 2001, Il Carteggio Acciaioli Della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Di Firenze by Biblioteca medicea laurenziana, Ida Giovanna Rao January 1996, Book So what is the problem? Is her area of expertise (the study of ancient manuscripts) perhaps irrelevant for the question at hand (Tacitus' Annals)? Mmm - no, the skills set seems to be pretty spot on. So what is your problem with her? Maybe it's because she is just plain inconsiderate? She writes in - what I guess we must term - a non-Anglo Saxon idiom. Very bad form. Why should we bother to take her seriously?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 7, 2008 12:50:20 GMT
The other "details" are insults, standards against the Christians and their ilk later on. They don't provide information - "what enormities?" For me, the writer has to be a Christian, writing for Christians and those who know them well. No, the insults are gratuitous and implausible from a Christian quill. There's no conspiracy. A few men in a smoky room planning a great capper. I think you'll find that's how most people would define a conspiracy. I need a scribe warping Tacitus to explain Philo's ignorance, Pliny's observations, Plutarch's silence, all the way to Nicea and its paltry number of westerners. Otherwise I see no narrative. And herewith I see the difficulty. You are trying to fit the evidence to your theory and find a bit that doesn't fit. So you twist it violently to squeeze it in. That won't do. You need to avoid ad hoc explanations and go back to square one. The data doesn't fit? That means your theory is wrong not that the data can be dismissed as an interpolation. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by gentleexit on Dec 7, 2008 18:03:04 GMT
And herewith I see the difficulty. You are trying to fit the evidence to your theory and find a bit that doesn't fit. I don't think you do see it James. Methinks we're just shooting past each other. There are two views of early Christianity. Let's call them "big, quiet Church" and "small, obscure Church". The former relies on a few non-Christian references (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny's letter, Lucian and Josephus). The latter on the absence of references to these references in the first church writings, their disjoint nature and the lack of references where they should be (Philo, Plutarch, ...). Absence of anything from archeology is their icing. To argue Big you focus on each reference in isolation and ignore the embarrassing silences. To argue Small, you indignantly muster the holes and invoke errant copyists. And round and round you go. I think, it's more productive (and interesting) to focus on how stories build and are used. We have the grand tale of heroic and inevitable Christianity, building from the fourth century on and then there's Nero's. His too grows through the centuries and he was everyone's bogeyman. And his reputation was a foundation for Christianity's story: he killed Peter and Paul (in Rome, central for Rome's claim to prominence). More, he was the first persecutor, after them before they even had a name. First, he's just called a persecutor. Later, gory details arise. He's even the anti-Christ. Absence speaks louder to me, so I think small. But I think the copyists incidental. Mere sprinklers of detail to back tales long evolved. This isn't conspiracy. It's the life of story.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 7, 2008 21:37:05 GMT
gentleexit, James & humphrey:
As an interested bystander and layperson, I'd like to ask a clarifying question please.
The growth rate of christianity is a major part of this disagreement, but "big" and "small" are not very precise terms. I wonder approximately what you each mean by these terms. Are you able to put even approximate numbers on the growth of christianity in the first 3 centuries to fit each of these hypotheses?
I note that Rodney Stark, in "The Rise of Christianity", arrives at approximate figures based on a growth rate of 40% per decade, a rate that is confirmed in several other studies of growth rates of movements, including the growth of christianity in Egypt. He allows, of course, that the rate will not be uniform in time or space, but one way or another, an average growth rate of about 40% per decade must be achieved. If it is slower at first, it must be faster later, and vice versa. These estimates lead to lower figures in the early years than might be assumed from the accounts in Acts, but of course persecution and loss of faith need also to be taken into account. (As an aside, I recall that Stark did not seem to have any problem fitting the Tacitus statement under discussion here within his understanding of the numerical growth.)
Is Stark a dirty word among historians or are his figures respected? Which of the "big church" and "small church" theories best fit his data?
|
|
|
Post by gentleexit on Dec 7, 2008 22:35:10 GMT
The growth rate of christianity is a major part of this disagreement, but "big" and "small" are not very precise terms. Yes very crude and off the top of my head. But beyond "big" and "small" we're into conjecture on supposition on dubious parallel. One in a long line to try his hand. Even Gibbon had a stab at numbers. From reading a review, Stark's approach is pure conjecture - assume early numbers and steadish growth. Take the numerically possible to be definitive. His disposition is "big church", matching the tenor of Eusebius' history and its later, "bigger" successors. Another way to test someone's view is the question: did Constantine raise an obscure sect, with numbers only in the east and then dominantly in Northern Egypt, parts of rural Africa or was Christianity widespread and growing rapidly without him, a growth that tipped his hand? And the answer you get will again come back to silence vs a few isolated references. Which makes you more comfortable?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 8, 2008 4:32:59 GMT
Thanks for the quick response. I don't have any opinion or any comfort zone, I was just asking a question. I actually expected that Stark's estimates would more likely support the small church option, because he has lower figures than the 3000 conversions of Acts 2. I had assumed his estimate of numbers around the time of Constantine were reasonable, but it was the pattern of growth that was in question. But I understand you to be critical of his end estimate.
I still feel that an indication of the growth assumptions for each hypothesis would help in evaluating them.
|
|