Talk:Tiberius

Tiberius name; 16 years later

Tiberius is called Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus according to these inscriptions, but coins only show Tiberius Caesar Augustus, which makes me think that the omission of the Iulius may be just to save space. Maybe we should mention that in a footnote or something? Tintero21 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A section on Tiberius coins might work or photo gallery in the Legacy section. I believe Roman coins have been discovered in England. I believe the coins were made out of either silver or bronze. You can buy Roman coins today. I believe it is a popular market. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Coin 1
• 
  Coin 2
• 
  Coin 3

Rather than this small selection, you can more helpfully link to Category:Coins of Tiberius at Wikicommons for anyone who might want to expand the article's treatment of Tiberius's coinage, which is certainly an important topic. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that files there from the UK government never bother to categorize their additions. In addition to the coins in the category, be sure to search for "coin Tiberius" or use similar queries to see if any of those files are clearer or better. — LlywelynII 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

acta senatus

I think it should be noted that records of the Roman Senate, acta senatus, were recorded on papyrus, that did not last long. Apparently none have survived in tact. That is why it can't be confirmed Tiberius supported the Christians. It seems all the accounts of Tiberius are all second hand accounts recorded later. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot of presupposition, not to say WP:OR, and I doubt very much that it would be accepted. One might claim that flying saucers are not mentioned in the Acta because papyrus weevils spoiled the only copies. I'm surprised at your bringing this up; hardly any originals have survived even in fragmentary form to attest to contemporary events in ancient history. So? Haploidavey (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR. The acta senatus was published in the acta diurna, kind of the "CNN" of its times. Since there are no original copies, it seems research on Ancient Rome, by modern historians, does not use original source documents for verification, such as what took place in the Senate during the reign of Tiberius. So, I thought it would be helpful for the reader to understand this. For example, it is disputed that Tiberius asked Christ to be deified by the Senate, after his crucifixion, and Tiberius confronted the Senate over the matter. That is fine. I am all for using a modern historical assessment of the matter. I am not pushing anything here or promoting any fringe history. It is merely informing the reader there are no original records of the Roman Senate, because they were recorded on papyrus, and they were destroyed over time. Of course, a reliable source would be needed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: Legislation against the Christians T. D. Barnes (1968) The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 58, Parts 1 and 2 (1968), pp. 32-50 (19 pages), Published By: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Barnes says that the account of Tiberius confronting the Senate is traced back to the acta senatus. Barnes said that the Apology of Apollonius took the account from the acta senatus during the reign of Tiberius. Barnes said that Tertullian, who recorded the account, did not use the Apology of Apollonius. In other words, Barnes is associating the account with the acta senatus. That is why I brought up the issue that acta senatus was on papyrus. It no longer exists. I am only reading from the first page of Barnes (p 32). Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The section is not doubtful about Tertullian and early church. It is just a matter of opinion of how the early church viewed Tiberius. Without the Acta Senatus available for historians, it is difficult to ascertain what really took place during Tiberius's reign. I find it interesting that the early church has a positive view of Tiberius, a pagan Emperor. It is important for the reader to know Tiberius did not persecute the Church. The source in the article says only a handful of emperors persecuted the church. Another issue undiscussed is Tiberius's relationship with Pilate. The Romans had good communications for their time. What occurred in Palestine could have been communicated to Tiberius. Pilate according to the Bible did not want to crucify Christ. Historians are free to doubt the authenticity of the account. Practically speaking, there is no way to verify the account. But what can be verified is that the early Church viewed Tiberius positively. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We should be a little more precise, and resist undue generalisation. What's "true" is that Tertullian claimed this. The claim does not address "what the early church" had to say about Tiberius, but what Tertullian, a very well-known Christian apologist, had to say about Tiberius, many years later, long after his death; tantamount to saying "once he'd read/heard the proofs, even this famous pagan emperor believed Christ was divine (or so I've been told by/read in an impeccable source)". And it spreads from there. No previous source is needed. It's part of Christian mythology. That's how Apologetics works. Haploidavey (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: the upshot, as far as I'm concerned, is that we should only represent what Tertullian claimed through the filter of a modern, reliable and historically analytic secondary, mainstream source. Haploidavey (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Tertullian's statement is relevant to rather shaky claims that Roman laws recognised religions as licit or illicit. See Religio licita. Haploidavey (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And perhaps one could take another look at what Barnes actually says, regarding Tiberius' supposed intervention with the senate on the matter of the deified Christ (never mind all the guff about supposedly lost evidence of the acta): "The utter implausibility of the story ought to need no argument." What we're left with is the employment of "legendary and fictitious" material. Barnes singles out a particularly unreliable late tradition that St. Peter "baptised Nero, his son and the whole Imperial court."

Just one more thing: what's with the New testament references? the article once carried a notice regarding over-dependence on Primary sources; Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, you name it; all unsupported by secondary sources and modern analysis. In fact, contrary to how wikipedia is supposed to work. The same goes for Biblical texts. So, who removed the notice? And why? Haploidavey (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked every case, but on a skim through just now, it seems that references to primary sources in this article are usually paired with references to secondary sources, which is not against the rules and is not reliance (e.g. the section on the Retirement to Rhodes is drawing on Seager and Levick for the points of interpretation, while also providing references to the primary sources on which those interpretations are based). As long as that is what is happening, I think that is useful for readers and would resist efforts to strip the primary source references out. Of course if there are cases of OR in the article, where WP is interpreting the primary sources independently, that should stop (on the main point regarding T & Christians, I agree with the position that you have outlined). Furius (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, citing to both primary and secondary sources isn't happening, except in a very few cases; we don't need to strip much, just to confirm that the primary sources used are also used by secondary sources. I added the Seager and Levick analysis a couple of years back (iirc), and several other mainstream reappraisal of claims made. In the sources and notes section, these really stand out in the surrounding sea of Suetonius, Tacitus etc. The days are gone when all those primary sources were added together to make a convincing and conventional narrative. Haploidavey (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies are due, I didn't use or add Seager or Levick. Can't remember what I added, except that it was an addition to the section on Capri, a secondary source appraisal. Haploidavey (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC) PS: and today, some secondary source opinion on deification issues. Haploidavey (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I had thought the early church went into the 300s. I am not referring to the Biblical Church in the new testament that maybe lasted into the late 90s or early 100s. Perception is reality. The early Church, including Tertulian, and Father's supported Tiberius, for whatever reason. I admit there is no way to verify the account without an early reliable source. The account either took place or it did not. It is not about doubting or believing. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"baptised Nero, his son" What son? Nero's only known legitimate child was a daughter, Claudia Augusta. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the guy you're replying to mentioned the account was "particularly unreliable". — LlywelynII 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the original claims for this section, no, they're not appropriate to go into on Tiberius and every other article tangentially related to ancient Rome. Yes, it would be worth sourcing and improving discussion of in certain articles about the Historiography of ancient Rome, which needs its coverage of primary sources (as opposed to the POVs of surviving accounts) drastically improved. — LlywelynII 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Decennalia

The article needs some minor discussion of Tiberius's two decennalia—Romans don't seem to have yet started calling the second one a vicennalia or to have cared much about the intermediate quinquennalia at this point—particularly the fact that they seem to have been dated by Augustus's death in August rather than by the Senate's rubber stamping of formalities a month or two later, which is most of what our Wikipedia lists date by owing to our own biases. — LlywelynII 01:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Saint-Raymond bust or Louvre full-body

To reiterate here, @MahadBoi I disagree that the statue photo is better to use here. It is blurry and the real detail of interest—not the robes and arms—are also smaller for the reader than before. Remsense诉 14:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

understandable, but do you think that maybe there could be a better photo for the bust? MahadBoi (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with the photo. Do you think it would be better if the empty space was cropped, allowing more room for the details of interest? Remsense诉 14:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, when considering alternatives we should remember that, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Inserting a tall image pushes those key facts down, partially or even completely out of sight depending on the screen and window, frustrating the attempt to provide a few facts at a glance. NebY (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m a new editor to Wikipedia, thanks for letting me know MahadBoi (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course! It's a very common thing for editors to grapple with early. Welcome aboard, by the way. Remsense诉 16:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)