|
Post by sankari on Dec 23, 2011 8:23:57 GMT
we dismantled (at least I think we did it efficaciously) some of the most common argumentations in favor of Tacitus' interpolation, especially the problem of the non citation of Tacitus by christian and pagan authors. When your theory has been published in the relevant peer reviewed scholarly literature, let me know. Not before. Fortigurn, I believe you may have misunderstood parapicchus' position. If I read him correctly, he is arguing in favour of the reference to Christ, not against it.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 23, 2011 8:35:19 GMT
Fortigurn, I believe you may have misunderstood parapicchus' position. If I read him correctly, he is arguing in favour of the reference to Christ, not against it. I read it several times, because it wasn't clear if 'Tacitus' interpolation' meant 'the alleged interpolation in Tacitus' or 'the material in Tacitus which is generally accepted but which we consider an interpolation', but either way I'm not interested in attempting to read several pages of Italian. I want to see it in the peer reviewed scholarly literature.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 23, 2011 8:46:25 GMT
parapicchus, could you please summarise your position for us in English? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by parapicchus on Dec 23, 2011 9:59:21 GMT
My, our, position is that the passage is authentic since is written in tacitus style and reflects his opinion about jews and eastern cults, there are no real philological issues and the textual tradition we posses, even if it's a modest and limited one, do not present any hint of interpolation apart the chrestiani/christiani correction. The silence in christian and pagan authors is easily explainable and is not a valid argument. So the argument about interpolation is trying to resolve a problem that do not exist.
We usally do not waste our time in confuting the mythicist or conspiracy theories, or the apologetic ones (they go directly to the trash section), since we as scholars and students are devoted to the historical critical method, yet this time we made an exception for some specifical reasons related to the italian reality and the person involved. In Italy it's spreading the theory that Jesus did not exist since in reality he was John of Gamala. And the Tacitus question is a major point in this theory. So we lost some of our time trying to put some methodological and philological sense in our interlocutor.
Since I've been reading some of the discussions in this forum and I've seen that the Tacitus question has been risided more than once I thought that somebody familiar with the italian language could find interesting that discussion. Nothing more that that.
@ Fortigurn: You are free to do as you like, of course, and of course italian can be a difficult language if if you are not familiar with it, so do not waste your time. What I do not understand is the pubblication affirmation, we, me and you, are actually writing in a forum, and we share our opinions in this form. You statement would have sense if you do not partecipate in forums but read and write only in peer reviewed magazines.
Sorry if I jumped in in the discussion with an external (italian!) link, it was not my intention to stir anything up.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 23, 2011 12:08:35 GMT
My, our, position is that the passage is authentic since is written in tacitus style and reflects his opinion about jews and eastern cults, there are no real philological issues and the textual tradition we posses, even if it's a modest and limited one, do not present any hint of interpolation apart the chrestiani/christiani correction. The silence in christian and pagan authors is easily explainable and is not a valid argument. So the argument about interpolation is trying to resolve a problem that do not exist. Thanks for your clarification. I learned Greek and Latin, and I'm learning Chinese, but I don't have room in my head for another language, especially one I'm not going to use. I just didn't find a link to two pages of Italian very useful. I don't mind reading forums, as long as they're in a language I can understand. If your work is published in a peer reviewed journal it will have sufficient merit that I can quote it in my own studies, and it will be in a language I can understand. This means it will actually be useful to me. Until then it unfortunately isn't useful to me. I didn't intend to criticize your work, especially since I haven't even read it, so I apologize if my comment came across negatively. Your comment was fine, it's just that the content to which you linked is completely inaccessible to most of us.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 23, 2011 12:11:00 GMT
My, our, position is that the passage is authentic since is written in tacitus style and reflects his opinion about jews and eastern cults, there are no real philological issues and the textual tradition we posses, even if it's a modest and limited one, do not present any hint of interpolation apart the chrestiani/christiani correction. The silence in christian and pagan authors is easily explainable and is not a valid argument. So the argument about interpolation is trying to resolve a problem that do not exist. Thanks parapicchus, I appreciate this. Great summary.
|
|