Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 09-06-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The similar text found in Sulpicius Severus was not from Tacitus , but Paulus Orosius History Against the Pagans 7.9.4-6.
See Severus Is Not Quoting Tacitus. ©2006 Richard Carrier and Internet Infidels, Inc.

That link discusses only the controversial bit in Severus, Chronicle 2.30.6-7:

Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse an templum tanti operis everteret. etenim nonnullis videbatur aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri, quae servata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. at contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum templum in primis censebant quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur, quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, iisdem auctoribus profectas. Christianos ex Iudaeis extitisse; radice sublata, stirpem facile perituram.

Titus is reported, after a council was summoned, to have deliberated beforehand whether he should destroy the temple, it being of such workmanship. For it seemed to some that a sacred edifice, illustrious beyond all mortal things, ought not to be brought down, because, if preserved, it would be a testimony to Roman moderation, but, if destroyed, would offer a perennial notice of [Roman] cruelty. But, on the other hand, Titus himself, along with others, decided that first of all the temple should be destroyed so that the religion of the Jews and of the Christians might be removed all the more, since these religions, although contrary to one another, came forth from the same authors. The Christians rose up from the Jews; if the root were taken away, the stem would easily perish.

The passage that parallels Tacitus in Annals 15.44 comes a bit earlier, at Chronicle 2.29.1-4a :

Interea abundante iam Christianorum multitudine accidit ut Roma incendio conflagraret Nerone apud Antium constituto. sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in principem retorquebat, credebaturque imperator gloriam innovandae urbis quaesisse. neque ulla re Nero efficiebat, quin ab eo iussum incendium putaretur. igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones; quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum. post etiam datis legibus religio vetabatur, palamque edictis propositis Christianum esse non licebat. tum Paulus ac Petrus capitis damnati; quorum uni cervix gladio desecta, Petrus in crucem sublatus est.

In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and the emperor was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means that he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. It was in this way that cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterward, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were given, and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to capital punishment, of whom the one was beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion.

Ben.

Roller · 09-06-2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

Indeed! And since we have (don't we?) evidence that apocalyptic prophets around that time existed, it seems to me an ordinary claim that Jesus was one of them.

David B

We do. John the Baptist comes to mind. And Jesus associated with him.

Roller · 09-06-2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus (?) thru Ben C Smith

Afterward, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were given, and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian.

Ben.

There were laws against being a Christian? I'm aware of the "sacrifice test" but I'm not aware of any laws. Pliny wrote after(?) Tacitus' mentioning of Christians but I don't remember him mentioning any laws against Christians in his writings about them.

Is there a place where I could read up some more on this (accessible to layman

)?

jakejonesiv · 09-06-2006, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...
Is there any text on any subject transmitted from antiquity that could not be ignored by this argument? I think not. As such this argument is invalid, unless we propose to ignore the entire classical heritage.

Indeed. But that is how the world of manuscripts is.

...

Only to the layman. It's best to check these sorts of arguments against other texts. Most are preserved in single late medieval copies. You might look at Velleius Paterculus, for instance, and imagine that some passage in it is uncongenial to someone's political or religious views. Would we be impressed by an argument based on the fact that there is now no known ms, and was only ever 1, lost 5 centuries ago?

There is misreading here. The Bishop used the text in one of his extant works; unless you want to posit another copy in existence at that date, it follows that he had access to the Monte Cassino Ms. But I do not mention that as evidence of anything; it's merely a piece of data in the rediscovery of the text.

...

Just to sum up; all of these arguments rely on not knowing all that much about how the classical heritage comes to us. That is nothing to be ashamed of; most people know nothing. I wish people knew more! However the 19th century hyperscepticism, when any passage found inconvenient could be asserted to be interpolated to get rid of it led to rampant subjectivism (since the passages to be retained were so retained, despite the fact that identical arguments could be invented against them). These days scholars in general really fight shy of doing this, for obvious reasons.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the reply.

I see intelligent posters like ynquirer quoting this text like there is not a shadow of a about it; that it is slam dunk evidence for HJ.

But there is only one thing we know for sure. When Niccolo Niccoli died in 1437, a manuscript passed into the hands of the Medici and all extant copies of the text in question come from that one text.

I appreciate what you have said about most ancient texts. But shouldn't each text be judged on its own merits rather than an overall lowering of the bar? Just where do you set the bar to keep "Secret Mark" out but let Tacitus Annals 15:44 in? (Throwing the entire works of Tacitus out is another matter, and not something I am advocating in this thread).

When Christian* scribes are copying a text and we find something very much in alignment with the cause of the faith, this combination of possible religous motivation and sole custody is reason enough to give it extra scrutiny above the entirely secular documents.

Jake Jones IV

Christian* Christian is much too broad a term. I should have written Catholic.

David Mills · 09-06-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Why do you apply a different yardstick to Tacitus on Jesus?

Because, once again as spoken by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Such miraculous claims demand a different yardstick and, in themselves, corrupt the veracity of the story.

ModernHeretic · 09-06-2006, 07:05 AM

What do people think of the claim that Jesus and/or Paul were actually based upon Appolonius of Tyana? I remember reading one claim that Marcion may have actually been the author of Mark, and that large parts of Mark may have been taken from the works of Appolonius, of which Marcion purchased a copy.

Does anyone know of any good evidence that would discredit these claims?

Roller · 09-06-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernHeretic

What do people think of the claim that Jesus and/or Paul were actually based upon Appolonius of Tyana? I remember reading one claim that Marcion may have actually been the author of Mark, and that large parts of Mark may have been taken from the works of Appolonius, of which Marcion purchased a copy.

Does anyone know of any good evidence that would discredit these claims?

Try asking this in the "stickied thread" called "Some Basic Questions."

Solo · 09-06-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Just to sum up; all of these arguments rely on not knowing all that much about how the classical heritage comes to us. That is nothing to be ashamed of; most people know nothing. I wish people knew more! However the 19th century hyperscepticism, when any passage found inconvenient could be asserted to be interpolated to get rid of it led to rampant subjectivism (since the passages to be retained were so retained, despite the fact that identical arguments could be invented against them). These days scholars in general really fight shy of doing this, for obvious reasons.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi Roger,
it really looks like we are stuck between the rock and the hard place. On the rock's side the spectre of hypersubjectivism, in the hard place, good old fashioned church dogma.

I wonder if we could get by with less generalizing of attitudes. Naturally, I find the kind of logic that Jake promotes a bit of the pedestrian kind; but to be perfectly honest with you, I suspect the fact that this style of theorizing is fairly easily taken apart leads to a temptation on the other side to paint with the broad brush and argue it's all the 'same old, same old' against any attempt at revisionism.

The fact of the matter is that texts were manipulated and that interpolation and wholesale fraudulent fabrication of documents were a thriving industry in the early church. So prevalent was this game of forgery, that even the forgers were outraged: the author of 2 Thess whom noone today believes was Paul, complains (as Paul) about letters 'purporting to be from us' (2:2). The impersonator of Peter (in 2 Peter) solemnly swears that 'we have not followed cunningly devised fables' when witnessing the majesty of the transfigured Christ (1:16).

There is no running away from the fact that false witness made it into the canon. Perhaps the best way to deal with the problem is to remain open-minded and deal with the problems one by one.

Jiri

09-06-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is no running away from the fact that false witness made it into the canon. Perhaps the best way to deal with the problem is to remain open-minded and deal with the problems one by one.

Jiri,

I think you are stereotyping yourself. Roger has never said that we should do anything other than examine the texts one by one. He has stated over and over again that we must rely on the professional textual critics and palaeographers. He has never used 'church dogma' as an argument. The selfsame scholars who raised the problems about 2 Peter and 2 Thess are in the same guild as the ones who dismiss the arguments of Jake, Malachi and Iasion as the <inflammatory term removed> that they are. You can't take only the conclusions that appeal to you.

The <inflammatory term removed> argument is simple. Some texts were forged/tampered with. Therefore we don't need evidence to claim other texts were forged. As you say, this logic is <inflammatory term removed>. I think you should be saying bravo Roger for his constant efforts to inject some sanity into this debate, rather than try and paint him as a proponent of dogma unaware of the problems with the texts.

Best wishes

Bede

ynquirer · 09-06-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Mills

Because, once again as spoken by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Such miraculous claims demand a different yardstick and, in themselves, corrupt the veracity of the story.

What is extraordinary in the life of a Jew - there were and still are many of them - that suffered crucifixion - a frequent capital punishment - under Pontius Pilate who had followers - a frequent move among the Jews - that happened to be called the Christians? That such a movement is still alive?

Please tell us why this is a problem for history.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2006, 07:05 AM	#36
ModernHeretic Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 357	What do people think of the claim that Jesus and/or Paul were actually based upon Appolonius of Tyana? I remember reading one claim that Marcion may have actually been the author of Mark, and that large parts of Mark may have been taken from the works of Appolonius, of which Marcion purchased a copy. Does anyone know of any good evidence that would discredit these claims?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.