Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 06-21-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

This is attempting to squeeze lemonade out of watermelons. As acknowledged, Justin's discussion has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of Jesus. It is entirely about christology. Logically any and every discussion about someone said to have come to earth in the past, whether as a human or as a spirit, whether from human sperm or magical ichor or simply as a full grown being of unknown composition out of thin air, necessarily assumes he existed. Debating whether Adam had a belly button assumes that Adam existed. Such a debate does absolutely nothing by way of adding "evidence" to the historical existence of such characters.

You do realize that your argument above only supports my position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

The entire discussion revolved around Justin making an attempt to qualify Jesus as being the Christ to Trypho.

I'll take it.

Clearly you are oblivious to the logical flaws in your own words that I quoted and addressed. Which is useful for the maintenance of your position.

FathomFFI · 06-21-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Does that mean he would falsify history?

Evidence? :huh:

Does that mean he would falsify history?

Evidence? :huh:

More than a mere plausibility I'm afraid. Here's 15 points of evidence, just for starters. Pay very close attention to # 7:

Falsify or create or pass on info he could not resist because it fit in so nicely with his class biases -- Tacitus was as honest and reliable as the best of his time. His biases were clear. I can just imagine Tacitus poring over archives till late at night salivating over all those juicy tidbits of secret personal habits and deeds that no-one knew about till he verified them all one by one in those "official government documents". Yeh right.

That is not deny the probability that he consulted sources for this and that. But read the whole of Tacitus, and study him in his context, and it is clearly naive to assume every single detail found in his works was verified in some official archive.

I have studied him, and he is indeed bias, and he certainly did not like Nero.

But did he falsify history? That's a different issue. If anything, it more likely that he told the truth about such figures as Nero, but with the harshest writing he could muster.

The thing is there doesn't seem to be anyone from that time period challenging his work in terms of authenticity.

neilgodfrey · 06-21-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Here's 15 points of evidence, . . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus - Concerning Records

1. I do not find in any historian or in the daily register that Antonia, Germanicus's mother, rendered any conspicuous honour to the deceased.

2. But we have learnt that it suits the dignity of the Roman people to reserve history for great achievements, and to leave such details to the city's daily register.

3. I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius, consul-elect, proposed a motion that a temple should as soon as possible be built at the public expense to the Divine Nero.

4. But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent
hatred.

5. So now, after a revolution, when Rome is nothing but the realm of a single despot, there must be good in carefully noting and recording this period, for it is but few who have the foresight to distinguish right from wrong or what is sound from what is hurtful, while most men learn wisdom from the fortunes of others.

6. Records of this event still existed, engraven on stone and ancient bronze.

7. Many authors, I am well aware, have passed over the perils and punishments of a host of persons, sickened by the multiplicity of them, or fearing that what they had themselves found wearisome and saddening would be equally fatiguing to their readers. For myself, I have lighted on many facts worth knowing, though other writers have not recorded them.

8. The emperor further observed that she died on the same day on which Sejanus had paid the penalty of his crime two years before, a fact, he said, to be recorded

9. These records, the most ancient of all human history, are still seen engraved on stone.

10. The boundaries now fixed by Claudius may be easily recognized, as they are specified in the public records.

11. But the consuls did not venture to put the motion without the emperor's knowledge, though they recorded the Senate's general opinion,

12. Nero meanwhile summoned the Senate, addressed them in a speech, and further added a proclamation to the people, with the evidence which had been entered on records, and the confessions of the condemned.

13. Cremutius Cordus was arraigned on a new charge, now for the first time heard. He had published a history in which he had praised Marcus Brutus and called Caius Cassius the last of the Romans.

14. I have followed most historians in attributing the cause of his retirement to the arts of Sejanus

15. Historians of the time tell us that, as there was no precedent for the capital punishment of a virgin,

No doubt you have garnered the above from your own studies of Tacitus, and having read Tacitus, I am wondering what your opinion is of classicists who have dedicated countless hours to the study of his works.

Let's take one renowned translator of Tacitus, Michael Grant, for starters:

Quote:

His interpretation of facts, then, whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious. But the actual facts which he records are generally accurate. There is no doubt that he took a great deal of care in selecting his material. But where did he find it? Here we are lost. We often have no external check on what he says. And we still know very little about his sources. He himself does not greatly enlighten us. It must be granted that he mentions certain predecessors, for example the historian and literary historian Pliny the Elder. But systematic, careful references are a modem invention. Ancient historians only specified their sources in a fragmentary and unsystematic fashion. Sometimes it seems as if pride impels them to mention only those on whom they have least relied - and this might almost be suspected of Tacitus. So when he claims judicious selection, this can, it is true, sometimes be taken at its face value, but often it proves to be another means towards a censorious hint, a damning delineation.

That's from his intro to his translation that first appeared in Penguin Classics yonks ago.

At the risk of sounding a bit like a certain JG here, I would be interested to hear your thoughts of Grant's comments in relation to your own studies of ancient historians in general and of Tacitus in particular.

BTW, you raised earlier the question of Tacitus "falsifying history". I ignored your phrasing of the question at the time simply because I thought it demonstrated a naive (lack-of)understanding of the very nature of history and how historians, both modern and ancient, work. But I invite you to clarify your position in particular in relation to what Tacitus says about Christians, and Nero too, since he does, after all, only mention Christians in relation to his discussion of the character of, and accusations against, Nero.

neilgodfrey · 06-21-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Here's 15 points of evidence, . . . .

No doubt you have garnered the above from your own studies of Tacitus, and having read Tacitus, I am wondering what your opinion is of classicists who have dedicated countless hours to the study of his works.

Let's take one renowned translator of Tacitus, Michael Grant, for starters:

Quote:

His interpretation of facts, then, whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious. But the actual facts which he records are generally accurate. There is no doubt that he took a great deal of care in selecting his material. But where did he find it? Here we are lost. We often have no external check on what he says. And we still know very little about his sources. He himself does not greatly enlighten us. It must be granted that he mentions certain predecessors, for example the historian and literary historian Pliny the Elder. But systematic, careful references are a modem invention. Ancient historians only specified their sources in a fragmentary and unsystematic fashion. Sometimes it seems as if pride impels them to mention only those on whom they have least relied - and this might almost be suspected of Tacitus. So when he claims judicious selection, this can, it is true, sometimes be taken at its face value, but often it proves to be another means towards a censorious hint, a damning delineation.

That's from his intro to his translation that first appeared in Penguin Classics yonks ago.

At the risk of sounding a bit like a certain JG here, I would be interested to hear your thoughts of Grant's comments in relation to your own studies of ancient historians in general and of Tacitus in particular.

BTW, you raised earlier the question of Tacitus "falsifying history". I ignored your phrasing of the question at the time simply because I thought it demonstrated a naive (lack-of)understanding of the very nature of history and how historians, both modern and ancient, work. But I invite you to clarify your position in particular in relation to what Tacitus says about Christians, and Nero too, since he does, after all, only mention Christians in relation to his discussion of the character of, and accusations against, Nero.

While stuffing around with the above, you meanwhile posted the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

But did he falsify history? That's a different issue. If anything, it more likely that he told the truth about such figures as Nero, but with the harshest writing he could muster.

The thing is there doesn't seem to be anyone from that time period challenging his work in terms of authenticity.

And your evidence that he "more likely . . . told the truth about such figures as Nero" is . . .?? (I mean, can you answer with specificity in relation to the more salacious details about Nero?)

And your conclusion from "there doesn't seem to be anyone from that time period challenging his work in terms of authenticity" is . . .?? And the grounds for that interpretation are . . . .?? And this applies to a particular statement found in his works about Christianity because. . .??

Neil

(Blog: Vridar)

andrewcriddle · 06-21-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Very possibly.

IIUC Official records of portents prodigies etc were carefully kept by the Roman state.

Andrew Criddle

Are there official records still available? [of any period and subject]. or just the histories?

cheers

Yes (at least an epitome of the record of portents and prodigies)
See Julius Obsequens eg
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/obsequens.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iulius_Obsequens

Andrew Criddle

FathomFFI · 06-21-2008, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

His interpretation of facts, then, whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious. But the actual facts which he records are generally accurate. There is no doubt that he took a great deal of care in selecting his material. But where did he find it? Here we are lost. We often have no external check on what he says. And we still know very little about his sources. He himself does not greatly enlighten us. It must be granted that he mentions certain predecessors, for example the historian and literary historian Pliny the Elder. But systematic, careful references are a modem invention. Ancient historians only specified their sources in a fragmentary and unsystematic fashion. Sometimes it seems as if pride impels them to mention only those on whom they have least relied - and this might almost be suspected of Tacitus. So when he claims judicious selection, this can, it is true, sometimes be taken at its face value, but often it proves to be another means towards a censorious hint, a damning delineation.

That's from his intro to his translation that first appeared in Penguin Classics yonks ago.

At the risk of sounding a bit like a certain JG here, I would be interested to hear your thoughts of Grant's comments in relation to your own studies of ancient historians in general and of Tacitus in particular.

He's actually one of the finest scholars the world ever lost. His credentials are indisputable, and his work will be immortal.

Yet, I do not agree with his assessment for the simple reason that Tacitus himself confutes him. The textual evidence from Tacitus demonstrates a man who not only used references, but also cross-referenced his research by "following the narratives of many other historians."

Tacitus' own words make Tacitus an exception to the general rule. Tacitus also refuted him again while listing the names and locations of his sources several times. Therefore it seems to me that Tacitus was using all available resources at his disposal. What I think Mr. Grant failed to take into consideration was the limited resources that would actually be at Tacitus' disposal, for what other factual resources would be available except the works of other Roman historians and Roman imperial records?

If Tacitus could have managed to find even 5 Roman historians worthy of referencing, along with the Roman imperial records, then we should say he fared rather well. He did a remarkable job with limited resources, in my opinion.

However, Mr. Grant and I do agree on the biggest thing: "But the actual facts which he records are generally accurate."

We are all entitled to our opinions, and that is mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

BTW, you raised earlier the question of Tacitus "falsifying history". I ignored your phrasing of the question at the time simply because I thought it demonstrated a naive (lack-of)understanding of the very nature of history and how historians, both modern and ancient, work. But I invite you to clarify your position in particular in relation to what Tacitus says about Christians, and Nero too, since he does, after all, only mention Christians in relation to his discussion of the character of, and accusations against, Nero.

I don't believe that Tacitus shows any sign of intentionally falsifying history. Could he be mistaken? Yes of course, but how do we even make that determination?

There is no doubt of the bias of Tacitus, particularly against Nero, as well as the Christians. His descriptions of Nero demonstrate a deep hatred for the man, but it is understandable if his descriptions of the acts of Nero are given the benefit of the doubt as being truthful. When I read about Nero in Tacitus, I disliked him intensely also. The utter barbarity of the man would undoubtedly be offensive to a civilized Roman such as Tacitus and others, as it demonstrated everything that a proud Roman was not.

What Nero did was an insult to justice, and Rome was the architect of a fantastic system of justice of which we today still employ in spirit. He represented absolute power corrupting absolutely, and epitomized a total lack of moral fortitude insomuch that his actions against the Christians were so ridiculously barbaric as to fester the ire of even those closest to him.

Tacitus' view of the Christians was justified, since the religion itself was monotheistic, which posed a threat to the polytheistic Roman authorities. The Romans would deify men of renown, yet the Christians would rebuke such deification in favor of their one God. Therefore, from a religious perspective, Tacitus was well inside the frame of expectation in regards to his views of the Christians, given the circumstances of his existence.

Therefore, the view of Tacitus against Nero is justified, in my opinion, but I do not see his hatred of the man spilling over to the point of any serious embellishment of Nero's history, aside from using very harsh words against the man to obviously incite an equally negative response from the readers. His style and prose of writing was remarkable, and even Mr Davis had a difficult time translating it.

Peace.

jules? · 06-22-2008, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

and the origin of the Cicero quote?

Cicero.

You used Cicero (Verrem 2:5.168) as a referance to 'extreme penalty' and this referance by Cicero is the centre piece of your argument which I have assumed runs something like this;

Tacitus used imperial records
Christus being subject to the extreme penalty by PP derives from records because a/ he was subject to the extreme penalty, i.e. a crucifixion which required a trial b/ a trial and execution would be recorded and be available to Tacitus.
Therefore a trail and crucifixion of a christ by PP within his ten year tenure that led to followers in Rome within a few decades must be an independant reference to Jesus.

I have already expressed my concern that Tacitus fails to use the term 'extreme penalty' elsewhere [simply refering to execution and on one occasion of death by being thrown from a rock] which could indicate a late inclusion and the fact that your Cicero referance fails to inform me of what trial or corrispondence or writing written by Cicero. It appears the reference of (Verrem 2:5.168) is dead end quote much used by Christian apologists.

I trust you can see my problem with your 'history lesson'. Specific evidence would be most useful.

mens_sana · 06-22-2008, 11:23 AM

Question for whomsoever:

I remember reading (somewhere) that the Romans had a highly developed system of civil law, but that criminal law wasn't nearly so advanced.

It is also my understanding that provincial governors were responsible for (1) getting the taxes in and (2) keeping the peace, with relatively few instructions beyond that about how to go about such, e.g., Pliny's request for instructions regarding the Christians.

So, we are now in provincial Jerusalem with a governor who, later, was recalled to explain a massacre in Samaria. In a Jerusalem that could swell to triple its normal population during Passover, a Jerusalem that had previously seen riots during the festival, a Jerusalem with governor and troops on hand — how likely is it that any peasant would have had a trial instead of summary execution when riot could have been imminent?

aa5874 · 06-22-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Question for whomsoever:

I remember reading (somewhere) that the Romans had a highly developed system of civil law, but that criminal law wasn't nearly so advanced.

It is also my understanding that provincial governors were responsible for (1) getting the taxes in and (2) keeping the peace, with relatively few instructions beyond that about how to go about such, e.g., Pliny's request for instructions regarding the Christians.

So, we are now in provincial Jerusalem with a governor who, later, was recalled to explain a massacre in Samaria. In a Jerusalem that could swell to triple its normal population during Passover, a Jerusalem that had previously seen riots during the festival, a Jerusalem with governor and troops on hand — how likely is it that any peasant would have had a trial instead of summary execution when riot could have been imminent?

Now, you ask?

I thought you knew all along.

Anyhow, read "The Life of Josephus" 75, maybe that will help. Three of Josephus' associates were crucified and he got permission to take them down, one of them survived through the help of a physician.

I guess the survivor might have remembered if there was a trial.

FathomFFI · 06-22-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Cicero.

You used Cicero (Verrem 2:5.168) as a referance to 'extreme penalty' and this referance by Cicero is the centre piece of your argument which I have assumed runs something like this;

Tacitus used imperial records
Christus being subject to the extreme penalty by PP derives from records because a/ he was subject to the extreme penalty, i.e. a crucifixion which required a trial b/ a trial and execution would be recorded and be available to Tacitus.
Therefore a trail and crucifixion of a christ by PP within his ten year tenure that led to followers in Rome within a few decades must be an independant reference to Jesus.

I have already expressed my concern that Tacitus fails to use the term 'extreme penalty' elsewhere [simply refering to execution and on one occasion of death by being thrown from a rock] which could indicate a late inclusion and the fact that your Cicero referance fails to inform me of what trial or corrispondence or writing written by Cicero. It appears the reference of (Verrem 2:5.168) is dead end quote much used by Christian apologists.

I trust you can see my problem with your 'history lesson'. Specific evidence would be most useful.

There is no problem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus' Annals

In the cases of Suilius Caesoninus and Plautius Lateranus, the extreme penalty was remitted.

There's another one from Tacitus. Now, let's look carefully at how Nero's cruelty towards the Christians was described:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus' Annals

Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for these criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion;

The words of "extreme and exemplary punishment" are used to describe the punishments given to the Christians, which included the act of being crucified.

If you really want to find the truth of the matter, you really need to look for it.

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

06-22-2008, 11:23 AM	#88
mens_sana Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande Posts: 397	Question for whomsoever: I remember reading (somewhere) that the Romans had a highly developed system of civil law, but that criminal law wasn't nearly so advanced. It is also my understanding that provincial governors were responsible for (1) getting the taxes in and (2) keeping the peace, with relatively few instructions beyond that about how to go about such, e.g., Pliny's request for instructions regarding the Christians. So, we are now in provincial Jerusalem with a governor who, later, was recalled to explain a massacre in Samaria. In a Jerusalem that could swell to triple its normal population during Passover, a Jerusalem that had previously seen riots during the festival, a Jerusalem with governor and troops on hand — how likely is it that any peasant would have had a trial instead of summary execution when riot could have been imminent?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.