spamandham

Sure. The evidence is that there was no widespread Christian persecution in the 1st/2nd centuries. There was quite a bit of *Jewish* persecution, which probably included Jewish Christians. But a Roman watchmen would not have been a Jew.

The general Christian persecutions were sporadic and limited *mostly* to sect leaders (according to Stark).

EarlDoherty

I would suggest a different set of percentages.

Whether the surviving record constitutes 1% or more, it is still a substantial number of documents. A subject such as the wholesale slaughter of Christians allegedly described by Tacitus would have been of intense interest to the writers of many of those documents (prior to Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century), especially when discussing various aspects of Christian martyrology. What are the odds against none of them making mention of it if it had indeed happened as the Annals describes? I would suggest 99%.

What are the odds of it having been mentioned, but that all of those mentions happened to fall in documents that have not survived, and none of them fell in documents which have? I would suggest 1%.

For Ben: What are the odds that the handful of vague, unspecific and particularly unsanguinary references to some idea of persecution by Nero in fact refer to Tacitus' gore-fest, especially in light of the fact that, for example, Suetonius in Life of Nero 38 states that it was Nero who set the fire with no mention of Christians used as scapegoats, or in the Acts of Peter it is stated that Nero was warned off in a dream not to persecute the Christians in Rome after the execution of Peter and the emperor heeded the warning, and so on? Shall we say 5%?

Generally speaking, are we too dense to be able to discern from a surviving writing what interests and concerns the writer has in mind and thereby to reasonably expect discussion or mention of an important element relating to those concerns--at least some of the time? What are the odds that the argument from silence is never valid, such as apologists are regularly led to suggest when they have no other way to discredit observations about what a document does not contain? Maybe .05%?

What are the odds that dissenters will start to take into account that often what a document does contain (my so-called "positive silences") would rule out knowledge of what is missing? Let's be generous. 10%?

What are the odds that Roger will go along with anything which calls into question received orthodox wisdom? I'll leave you to fill in the blank.

Anyway, just to let you all know that I am presently engaged in an unexpected and reluctant move of my residence which has, and will for a further time, cause me considerable problems and not a little chaos. My access to the Internet will be limited and spotty for at least a month after today. I will have access to my g-mail but on a limited basis.

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of this development has been a delay in the finalizing and printing of the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle--which incidentally will be published under a new name (twice the size and of course answering all conceivable questions and settling all debates). I now anticipate a September date, provided I don't run into further problems.

The percentage odds of this interference being the work of those pesky demon spirits? Hmmm...

Best wishes,
Earl Doherty

Roger Pearse

None of this seems to engage with my comment, but it did spark a memory.

I seem to remember that Earl trolled the web in general, and J.P.Holding in particular, with his arguments before he published his Jesus Puzzle. As a result of these experiences, he did not change his theory. But he did remove from that text various points that did not survive challenge. This is one reason that the book is somewhat vague when it comes to testable material; none such survived the process.

But, in effect, JPH acted as editor for Doherty's book, by highlighting which bits of the theory were indefensible. I suspect that Earl is hoping that I will do the same for him here, allowing him to publish something harder to challenge than he could do himself. I don't feel very inclined to play along...

These seem to be crude ad hominem arguments -- i.e. "those who disagree with me must be dirty Jews/Christians/etc". Do you suppose the idea was to try to enrage people enough to get them to respond without thinking? Naughty Earl!

Yum. Perhaps we could speculate on what pen-name Earl will adopt for it... Picking one at random, "Dan Brown"? Perhaps we could invent some! What about: "GERTIE GOODNIGHT"!?!?

Good luck with the book, Gertie.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

bacht

Good luck Earl

IamJoseph

I think 174 CE is a more authentic date here for the first mention of christians or christ as being connected with Jesus - this status developed gradually, and in elevationary layers. This may answer your question.

EarlDoherty

Where in Darwin's name did you get this? From Holding? J. P. Holding as advance editor of The Jesus Puzzle??? In his dreams! Holding and I did have exchanges (me rebutting his series against my website articles) before I published The Jesus Puzzle book, but I recall removing nothing as a result of his attacks. If anything, a few of them may have led me to add further clarification. This seems to be a good example of the kind of nonsense that gets traction among apologists to discredit mythicists, since they have so little else to appeal to.

And Roger, you certainly have a very low threshold for regarding comments as "ad hominem". In snake-pits like this, my humorous remark was Sunday-school stuff. And it was a valid question. That's another common tactic: playing the 'affronted' card when you have nothing else to offer. Playing the victim does not constitute a counter argument.

And "Dirty Jews/Christians"?!! Did I say that?? That's more 'ad hominem' against me than anything I've been guilty of! Sad.

Earl Doherty

Tyro

I haven't said anything about Christians connected with Jesus. And even if that was true (which Acts, Didache and the Second Epistle of Peter does not suggest) the question is still what Jucundus Chrestianus means and if a Roman soldier really would be called something that ment Christian, in 205 CE.

Earl and Roger (or Gertie and J.P. or whatever), please discuss the argument from silence in another thread, will you? :wave:

spamandham

...and the answer remains that yes, a Roman soldier could easily have been known to be a Christian, because Christianity was not generally illegal and Christian persecutions were local sporadic events rather than dragnets.

Roger Pearse

I suppose a denial was to be expected, now a little time has elapsed. Of course my memory of events might mislead me, or my information might have been faulty; but somehow, I think not.

Erm, Christian apologists need to discredit mythicists? In the eyes of whom? Apologists only need to rebut false accusations that anyone believes, not to teach the world what the world already knows.

This suggests to me that you don't understand the term "ad hominem", although I did explain it.

The term "ad hominem" has a specific meaning, and does NOT mean "insult". It means the genre of argument where the accusation is along the lines of "you only say this because you are a [insert adjective here]". Sorry if you had difficulty with this, but it is merely a fact of English usage, not a matter of insult or otherwise.

Try this link for an explanation. The site itself looks a bit odd, but the page is bang on. If you want an authority, rather than an explanation, there are no doubt published dictionaries of such things.

Oh dear.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DCHindley

I do not think that because this man belonged to a combination fire birgade/police force in the city of Rome that he is a "soldier." That implies a Roman citizen in a Legion. This kind of force is something you can recruit a local resident for, slave or free, Roman or not. This might be a good place to find a freedman.

Besides Herennius Chrestianus, there is also inscriptional evidence for a P. Herennius P. I. Chrestus.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PvC...esult&resnum=1

Cohors vigilum (LA): cohort of the watchmen; unit of the police force annex fire brigade.
http://dismanibus156.wordpress.com/glossary/

"Since 6AD a combined police and fire-fighting force called the Cohors Vigilum has been in operation. They'll be on hand if your apartment catches fire, but don't expect them to do two jobs at once if your valuables are stolen."
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

DCH