Arguments concerning the Testimonium Taciteum.

[spin]

The "ri" digraph was not an option when the scribe committed to the wrong "r". Too much intervention would have been required, removing both "r" and "e" in order to insert the correct digraph for the Beneventan script. The solution presented is simple and clear... and an obvious correction to anyone who was familiar with the script.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good but rather to glut the cruelty of one man that they were being destroyed.

Last but not least Argument 5 - Annales 15.44 strongly condemned Christ and the Christians as "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment". Christian forgeries and Pseudepigrapha didn’t do that, but show Christ and Christians naively in a positive light.

Letter 12. Seneca to Paul, greeting Hail, my dearest Paul. Think you that I am not in sadness and grief, that your innocent people are so often condemned to suffer And next, that the whole people thinks you so callous and so prone to crime, that you are supposed to be the authors of every misfortune in the city Yet let us bear it patiently and content ourselves with what fortune brings, until supreme happiness puts an end to our troubles. Former ages had to bear the Macedonian, Philip's son, and, after Darius, Dionysius, and our own times endured Gaius Caesar: to all of whom their will was law. The source of the many fires which Rome suffers plain. But if humble men could speak out what the reason is, and if it were possible to speak without risk in this dark time, all would be plain to all. Christians and Jews are commonly executed as contrivers of the fire. Whoever the criminal is whose pleasure is that of a butcher, and who veils himself with a lie, he is reserved for his due season: and as the best of men is sacrificed, the one for the many, so he, vowed to death for all, will be burned with fire. A hundred and thirty-two houses and four blocks have been burnt in six days, the seventh brought a pause. I pray you may be well, brother. Given the 5th of the kalends of April; Frugi and Bassus consuls (64).

Testimonium Flavianum About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius Pontius Pilate unto Claudius, greeting. There befell of late a matter which I myself brought to light (or, made trial of): for the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with fearful judgements of their own fault; for whereas their fathers had promises (al. had announced unto them) that their God would send them out of heaven his holy one who should of right be called their king, and did promise that he would send him upon earth by a virgin; he then (or this God of the Hebrews, then) came when I was governor of Judea, and they beheld him enlightening the blind, cleansing lepers, healing the palsied, driving devils out of men, raising the dead, rebuking the winds, walking upon the waves of the sea dry-shod, and doing many other wonders, and all the people of the Jews calling him the Son of God: the chief priests therefore, moved with envy against him, took him and delivered him unto me and brought against him one false accusation after another, saying that he was a sorcerer and did things contrary to law. But I, believing that these things were so, having scourged him, delivered him unto their will: and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they received money from the Jews. And these things have I reported (unto thy mightiness) for this cause, lest some other should lie unto thee (Lat. lest any lie otherwise) and though shouldest deem right to believe the false tales of the Jews.

The letter of Lentulus Publius Lentulus, president of Jerusalem, to the senate and the people of Rome: There appeared in our times, and still is, a man of great power [or virtue] named Christ Jesus, who is said by the people to be a prophet of truth, whom his disciples call the son of God, since he resuscitates the dead and heals those who are sick [or languishing]. He is indeed a man of tall stature, notable, having a venerable countenance, whom those who gaze upon him can both love and dread; hair truly wavy and curly, considerably bluish and shining, fluttering from the shoulders; having a part in the middle of the head according to the custom of the Nazarenes; a flat and most serene forehead, with a face without any wrinkle or spot, which a moderate redness embellishes; nothing of his nose or mouth is at all reprehensible; having an abundant and reddish beard, the color of his hair, not long but bifurcated; his eyes being varying and bright. In his reproaches he is terrible, in his admonition placid and amiable, cheerful, but his gravity preserved, who no one has ever seen to laugh, but often to weep. He is extended in the stature of his body, having hands and arms delectable to see; grave in his eloquence, rare and modest, splendid among the sons of men. Be well.

[MrMacSon]

(Not so strong) Argument 3 – Words in a non-Christian sense that are important for Early Christianity

Chrestianos

In the only relevant MS of Annales 15.44, the Plut.68.2, Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68.2. (or „M.II“ or „second Medicean“) the letter “i” of the word “Christians” is forged. The original reading is “Chrestianos”. This case is often mentioned to show that there is something dubious. But the word “Chrestianos” is rather an argument for authenticity.

Are you proposing an argument for 'authenticity of the text' (to when)?; or for authenticity of use of 'Chrestianos' when Tacitus would have written Annals?

(Not so strong) Argument 3 – Words in a non-Christian sense that are important for Early Christianity
Chrestianos
In the only relevant MS of Annales 15.44, the Plut.68.2, Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68.2. (or „M.II“ or „second Medicean“) the letter “i” of the word “Christians” is forged. The original reading is “Chrestianos”. This case is often mentioned to show that there is something dubious. But the word “Chrestianos” is rather an argument for authenticity.

No, it isn't. Two important facts:

1) It was at the period when the text was copied (late 11th century at Monte Cassino) that a linguistic change was being felt. French and other Latinate speakers were moving from /i/ to /e/ in certain cases. One of these is "christian" which soon featured an "e" instead of an "i". Eventually the word would end up chretien in French as it now is. A scribe who had experienced the phonetic change would be likely to succumb to its ease when copying text.

2) When a text is altered as we see in M.II it usually means that a scribe has made an error that needed correcting. The scribal process required the scribe to reproduce the original which out any change. The correction of "Chrestianos" to "Christianos" suggests that the source text also had "Christianos".

A significant issue is that Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus have, in Greek, Chrestian rather than Christian: suggesting that Chrestian was the preferred terminology in the 4th century, at least.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

(Not so strong) Argument 3 – Words in a non-Christian sense that are important for Early Christianity

Chrestianos

In the only relevant MS of Annales 15.44, the Plut.68.2, Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68.2. (or „M.II“ or „second Medicean“) the letter “i” of the word “Christians” is forged. The original reading is “Chrestianos”. This case is often mentioned to show that there is something dubious. But the word “Chrestianos” is rather an argument for authenticity.

Are you proposing an argument for 'authenticity of the text' (to when)?; or for authenticity of use of 'Chrestianos' when Tacitus would have written Annals?
...
A significant issue is that Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus have, in Greek, Chrestian rather than Christian: suggesting that Chrestian was the preferred terminology in the 4th century, at least.

Thanks for this serious comment. I do not think that “chrestianos” is an argument that Tacitus himself wrote the text. Therefore I wrote “rather” in the sense of “rather than against the authenticity”.

As you and Giuseppe pointed out the data show that forms like Chrestus, Chreistus, Chrestianos or Chreistianos occur often in the oldest mss and in Pagan writings. Therefore a natural assumption may be that our manuscript with Annales 15.44 goes back to a very old and/or Pagan Vorlage.

[andrewcriddle]

It may be worth noting that Suetonius in the Life of Nero reports Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae the text appears to be clearly Christians not Chrestians.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

(Not so strong) Argument 3 – Words in a non-Christian sense that are important for Early Christianity

Chrestianos

In the only relevant MS of Annales 15.44, the Plut.68.2, Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68.2. (or „M.II“ or „second Medicean“) the letter “i” of the word “Christians” is forged. The original reading is “Chrestianos”. This case is often mentioned to show that there is something dubious. But the word “Chrestianos” is rather an argument for authenticity.

Are you proposing an argument for 'authenticity of the text' (to when)?; or for authenticity of use of 'Chrestianos' when Tacitus would have written Annals?
...
A significant issue is that Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus have, in Greek, Chrestian rather than Christian: suggesting that Chrestian was the preferred terminology in the 4th century, at least.

Thanks for this serious comment. I do not think that “chrestianos” is an argument that Tacitus himself wrote the text. Therefore I wrote “rather” in the sense of “rather than against the authenticity”.

As you and Giuseppe pointed out the data show that forms like Chrestus, Chreistus, Chrestianos or Chreistianos occur often in the oldest mss and in Pagan writings.

This is highly misleading. "Chrestus" is Latin. I don't know what "Chreistus" is, as I've never seen it, but "Chreistos" would be transliterated Greek, where the epsilon-iota replaces a simple iota. "Chrestianos" is again Latin and "Chreistianos" is Greek. It seems to me Latin and Greek are being mixed here.

I did manage to find "Chreistus" used once in a translation of Irenaeus, for Irenaeus (Bk 1 Ch 15) is talking of the number of letters in the word, as explained by a heretic, ie eight letters, indicating that we are dealing with the Greek form.

There was an old sound change in ancient Greek, a few centuries BCE, where epsilon-iota moved to a iota (probably long), the letter combination began cropping up again early this era, where, instead of a iota, an epsilon-iota was written.

Therefore a natural assumption may be that our manuscript with Annales 15.44 goes back to a very old and/or Pagan Vorlage.

This is an unfounded assertion. It is opposed to the fact that M.II was corrected, not left as "Chrestianos", which one would expect if original. And it makes little sense for the text to say that "Chrestianos" is derived from "Christus" without any further explanation, given the change in vowel. The form "Chrestianos" does not sit well as a derivation from "Christus". "Christianos" is transparent and fits the context.

[iskander]

It may be worth noting that Suetonius in the Life of Nero reports Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae the text appears to be clearly Christians not Chrestians.

Andrew Criddle

In the Septuagint [χρηστος] is found in several psalms , for example in
105:1 αλληλουια εξομολογεισθε τω κυριω οτι χρηστος οτι εις τον αιωνα το ελεος αυτου

χρηστος is pronounced as christos by native modern Greeks,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkHQIjntik
IMHO It is a trivial linguistic accident peculiar to English and perhaps also to Latin. but without any important meaning in both cases.
As Solo once said:

I don't know why but this thread reminds me of a Woody Allen complaint that it took him years to realize that 'Tsar' and 'Czar' actually refer to the same monarch.

Best,
Jiri

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=178&hilit=Chretien&start=60

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In the Septuagint [χρηστος] is found in several psalms , for example in
105:1 αλληλουια εξομολογεισθε τω κυριω οτι χρηστος οτι εις τον αιωνα το ελεος αυτου

χρηστος is pronounced as christos by native modern Greeks,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkHQIjntik
IMHO It is a trivial linguistic accident peculiar to English and perhaps also to Latin. but without any important meaning in both cases.

Cod. Sinaiticus has also a "Chreistos" in Psalm 110:15 (των χρειϲτων μου)

[Giuseppe]

Chrestus was a typical Jewish name in Rome just in virtue of the his meaning: the "good" one.
Do you remember Justus of Tiberias?
Justus means: the "just" one.

[iskander]

Chrestus was a typical Jewish name in Rome just in virtue of the his meaning: the "good" one.
Do you remember Justus of Tiberias?
Justus means: the "just" one.

Christianity is a great civilization Giuseppe and far superior to the Mosaic horrors of the Demiurge. When Paul says in Galatians 4:4 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children". Paul is saying that the mosaics were willing slaves , but Jesus was offering a new beginning.
Was Chrestus a common name in Rome?, Jesus is a common name in South America. The triumph of Christianity owes nothing to Tacitus.