post tenebras lux

Hi Chris, I'm a bit confused as to why you referenced the Cargo Cults. Are you suggesting that there's 'overwhelming evidence' that John Frum actually existed? :huh:

Could you kindly elucidate? Thanks in advance.Cute idea, but there seems to be very little material online discussing its merits. Whilst I recognise that you might not wish to launch into a full-scale explanation, could you be so kind as to at least explain why you feel his tale of the Widow of Ephesus points towards an historical Jesus rather than a mythical one?

Thanks, Luxie.

post tenebras lux

Ah, like that.

How far from the gospel accounts of Jesus can we stray before you stop counting it as an historical Jesus?

One who was born and died a hundred years earlier?
One who was impaled on a tree or hanged from one? Or even one where neither trees nor crosses had any part in his death?
He doesn't have to be called Jesus of course, but how about one who wasn't even jewish nor living in the actual 'holy land'?
One who didn't preach any of the words/sentiments attributed to Jesus, or who didn't even preach at all?

By your standards would you still consider such a proposed (fairly unrecognisable) historical kernel to count as an historical Jesus?And you're not prepared to give a summary of your findings here? Nice.Nice again. So why bring up the so-called Petronian Question in the first place?

Chris Weimer

It depends entirely on the conclusion, but yes, with the qualified understanding of historicity that I think is being abused by many here. Take aa5678 (who can remember his numbers?): to him (at least this is what I gather from his posts), for Jesus to be historical he requires that a figure fit the NT description to the very T. It doesn't have to be so.

For example, have you read any "alternative timeline" books? The basic premise is to history and write fiction surrounding people, places, etc... that are real but to describe it as happening in a different manner. This was actually common in antiquity, although the genre was different. They didn't do it to ponder idle musings of what life would be like, or what would happen if such and such happened. You can see it happening in the NT, where Matthew and Luke take Mark and tweak it, or various Acta which were written about historical figures. Much of the time its devotional, or religious in nature. But even if every word of the Acts of Paul is ahistorical, that doesn't mean that Paul himself is ahistorical.

If you give me some time. If you look through JSTOR, if you have access to it, you can find plenty of relevant articles.

Because anyone who's looked into it deeply can see a resemblance to the problem of the historical Jesus as well.

spin

Have you got any bibliographical indications to offer, Chris?


spin

Chris Weimer

I'm guessing from your response earlier that you read Allan Cabaniss' "A Footnote to the Petronian Question" Classical Philology, vol. 49, no. 2 (1954): 98-102. Page 99 in particular. Also note K. F. C. Rose "Time and Place in the Satyricon" Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 93 (1962): 402-409; idem The date and author of the Satyricon, Leiden, Brill, 1971; the review of K. F. C. Rose's The Date and Author of the Satyricon by M. S. Smith The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 63 (1973): 308; and J. P. Sullivan The Satyricon of Petronius: a literary study, London, Faber, 1968.

That should lay the groundwork.

spin

You got it. The conclusion says, "the preceding speculations, highly conjectural and tentative as they are, do not conclusively prove anything." Cabaniss understands his position well. He has noted parallels and considered the date of writing and authorship of the Satyricon as a means of opening further discussion in the area.

I also had a look at this article, whose content is true to its title, but couldn't find anything relevant to the Milesian tale Cabaniss analyses.

Smith is a bit over half a page of general (negative) review of Rose from which the only thing I found out about the Petronian Question is that it was found in the name of Rose's first chapter.

This book like Rose's isn't available on JSTOR, so unfortunately I'm not much wiser on the Petronian Question. But thanks anyway.


spin
--------------
Here, for anyone interested, is the story:

"There was once upon a time at Ephesus a lady of so high repute for chastity that women would actually come to that city from neighboring lands to see and admire. This fair lady, having lost her husband, was not content with the ordinary signs of mourning, such as walking with hair disheveled behind the funeral car and beating her naked bosom in presence of the assembled crowd; she was fain further to accompany her lost one to his final resting-place, watch over his corpse in the vault where it was laid according to the Greek mode of burial, and weep day and night beside it. So deep was her affliction, neither family nor friends could dissuade her from these austerities and the purpose she had formed of perishing of hunger. Even the Magistrates had to retire worsted after a last but fruitless effort. All mourned as virtually dead already a woman of such singular determination, who had already passed five days without food.

"A trusty handmaid sat by her mistress's side, mingling her tears with those of the unhappy woman, and trimming the lamp which stood in the tomb as often as it burned low. Nothing else was talked of throughout the city but her sublime devotion, and men of every station quoted her as a shining example of virtue and conjugal affection.

"Meantime, as it fell out, the Governor of the Province ordered certain robbers to be crucified in close proximity to the vault where the matron sat bewailing the recent loss of her mate. Next night the soldier who was set to guard the crosses to prevent anyone coming and removing the robbers' bodies to give them burial, saw a light shining among the tombs and heard the widow's groans. Yielding to curiosity, a failing common to all mankind, he was eager to discover who it was, and what was afoot. Accordingly he descended into the tomb, where beholding a lovely woman, he was at first confounded, thinking he saw a ghost or some supernatural vision. But presently the spectacle of the husband's dead body lying there, and the woman's tear-stained and nail-torn face, everything went to show him the reality, how it was a disconsolate widow unable to resign herself to the death of her helpmate. He proceeded therefore to carry his humble meal into the tomb, and to urge the fair mourner to cease her indulgence in grief so excessive, and to leave off torturing her bosom with unavailing sobs. Death, he declared, was the common end and last home of all men, enlarging on this and the other commonplaces generally employed to console a wounded spirit. But the lady, only shocked by this offer of sympathy from a stranger's lips, began to tear her breast with redoubled vehemence, and dragging out handfuls of her hair, she laid them on her husband's corpse.

"The soldier, however, refusing to be rebuffed, renewed his adjuration to the unhappy lady to eat. Eventually the maid, seduced doubtless by the scent of the wine, found herself unable to resist any longer, and extended her hand for the refreshment offered; then with energies restored by food and drink, she set herself to the task of breaking down her mistress's resolution. 'What good will it do you,' she urged, 'to die of famine, to bury yourself alive in the tomb, to yield your life to destiny before the Fates demand it?

"'Think you to pleasure thus the dead and gone?

"'Nay! rather return to life, and shaking off this womanly weakness, enjoy the good things of this world as long as you may. The very corpse that lies here before your eyes should be a warning to make the most of existence.'

"No one is really loath to consent, when pressed to eat or live. The widow therefore, worn as she was with several days' fasting, suffered her resolution to be broken, and took her fill of nourishment with no less avidity than her maid had done, who had been the first to give way.

"Now you all know what temptations assail poor human nature after a hearty meal. The soldier resorted to the same cajolements which had already been successful in inducing the lady to eat, in order to overcome her virtue. The modest widow found the young soldier neither ill-looking nor wanting in address, while the maid was strong indeed in his favor and kept repeating:

"Why thus unmindful of your past delight,
Against a pleasing passion will you fight?"

"But why make a long story? The lady showed herself equally complaisant in this respect also, and the victorious soldier gained both his ends. So they lay together not only that first night of their nuptials, but a second likewise, and a third, the door of the vault being of course kept shut, so that anyone, friend or stranger, that might come to the tomb, should suppose this most chaste of wives had expired by now on her husband's corpse. Meantime the soldier, entranced with the woman's beauty and the mystery of the thing, purchased day by day the best his means allowed him, and as soon as ever night was come, conveyed the provisions to the tomb.

"Thus it came about that the relatives of one of the malefactors, observing this relaxation of vigilance, removed his body from the cross during the night and gave it proper burial. But what of the unfortunate soldier, whose self-indulgence had thus been taken advantage of, when next morning he saw one of the crosses under his charge without its body! Dreading instant punishment, he acquaints his mistress with what had occurred, assuring her he would not await the judge's sentence, but with his own sword exact the penalty of his negligence. He must die therefore; would she give him sepulture, and join the friend to the husband in that fatal spot?

"But the lady was no less tender-hearted than virtuous. 'The Gods forbid,' she cried, 'I should at one and the same time look on the corpses of two men, both most dear to me. I had rather hang a dead man on the cross than kill a living.' So said, so done; she orders her husband's body to be taken from its coffin and fixed upon the vacant cross. The soldier availed himself of the ready-witted lady's expedient, and next day all men marveled how in the world a dead man had found his own way to the cross."

Chris Weimer

Er, spin, as I said before, I wasn't referring to the attestation of Jesus' death. If you paid attention, you'd realize that the first article is a footnote on the Petronian Question.

spin

I'm puzzled as to why you say this, Chris. I was looking to see the "plenty of relevant articles" on the Petronian Question that you mentioned. That's what I asked for and that's what I commented about regarding your bib. Or were you giving "plenty of relevant articles" on Petronius?


spin

Chris Weimer

Here's some more for you, although I can't see why you don't look them up yourself.

Rose, K. F. C. "The Date of the Satyricon." The Classical Quarterly vol. 12, no. 1 (1962): 166-168.

Van Buren, A. W. Review of La Questione Petroniana, by Enzo V. Marmorale. Journal of Roman Studies vol. 39 parts 1 and 2 (1949): 201-202.

You might also want to check out several articles by Henry T. Rowell on the matter, including book reviews. Can I assume you have access to JSTOR? It'd save me time - I ought to be writing a paper on Quintilian instead of getting you started on the Petronian Question.

spin

I think that beside the first article (Cabaniss), I haven't seen anything on the subject of that part of the Petronian Question relating to the crucifixion story inserted in the Miletan tale.

Found two book reviews regarding Petronius, but not the Question.

At the moment.

Sorry, Chris. Don't worry about it. Get Quintilian out of the way.


spin