"I could accuse him of not "qualifying" his list with their ages...."
Actually that would have been a good idea. I would have liked to have their dates, their locations and the subjects that they wrote on. Did they show any interest in Israel? Did they write about the Assyrians? Did they write about the history of Africa? Should they have? Does the fact that they did not, provide "proof" that Israel Assyria and Africa never existed. Only a ---- would think that it did but when you are desperate no cheap debating trick is too cheap.
Take Tacitus for example. Here is a summary of his work. I don't see any focus on anything but Roman concerns. It would therefore be expected that if there were any mention of Christianity that it would be in passing, which is exactly what we find. Many scholars find the reference to Christ and his followers to be genuine. Remsberg's conspiracy theory seems ridiculous to any thinking person. Why would anyone insert such a passing reference when they could have inserted something more detailed and persuasive? Why would any early Christian writers find it necessary to cite such a reference to prove that which was not in dispute,(namely that Christ was a real person)? His objections come across as strained and reaching.
"A Summary of Tacitus's Works
Works: Listed below by their conventional short titles, only one of which (Dial.) closely conforms to the transmitted titles. Dating of the three early and shorter works (esp. the Dialogus) is problematic, of the last two less so, but no precise termini for composition or publication can be fixed.
Agricola: (mss. title: De vita Iulii Agricolae): a historical biography, at once both laudatory and apologetic, of his father-in-law, who, like T., had prospered in a public career under Domitian; some have detected a hint of apologia pro vita sua in T.'s eloquent (Ciceronian) consolation at his conclusion. Perhaps conceived shortly after Agricola's death in 93, the work may not have been composed in its present form before the death of Domitian, and was only published after the accession of Trajan, probably 98.
Germania: (mss. title: De origine et situ Germanorum): an ethnographical monograph on the tribes north of the Rhine and Danube, based in part on outdated sources, structurally incoherent, and emphasizing heavily the "noble savage" theme; T.'s least successful work. Published, probably, in 98.
Dialogus: (mss. title: Dialogus de oratoribus): a discussion of the decline of oratory among leading orators and literary men of T.'s youth, set in 74/75 (17.3). Dating has nothing to do with Ciceronian style in which the work is written (cf. Leo) but depends instead on 1) whether T. at Agr. 3 implies that Agr. is his first published work and 2) alleged instances of borrowing among T.'s Dialogus, Agricola, and Germania, Quintilian's Institutiones Oratoriae, and Pliny's Panegyricus and Letters. Syme puts publication at 102 or at 107; Murgia at 97.
Historiae: (no mss. title): an annalistic history covering the period beginning in 69 and presumably going down to the death of Domitian on 18 September 96; only four books and 26 chapters of a fifth book, covering the year 69 and the first part of the year 70, survive; original scope unknown and dependent on the scope and structure of the Annales; composed, probably, ca. 100-110.
Annales: (mss. title: ab excessu Divi Augusti): an annalistic history originally intended (probably) to cover the Julio-Claudian period up to the death of Nero in June 68 (or perhaps to the end of 68) and thus to join with the Historiae, the narrative survives (in lacunose form) only down to the middle of 66. We know of 16 books, but parts of books 5, 6, 11 (beginning), 16 (second half), and all of 7-10 are missing. The first 6 books covered events from the death of Augustus to the death of Tiberius, books 7-12 the reigns of Gaius and Claudius, books 13-? the reign of Nero. Composed after the Historiae in the final years of T.'s life, the work may have been incomplete at his death."
inform.umd.edu
The list becomes meaningless when looked at in context, but of course, posting it unqualified and out of context was the only way to make it seem as though something of substance was actually being said. |
