Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-17-2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I would certainly be interested to hear about these collections of classical testimonia.

One such collection was touched upon when we dealt with Origen and the background to the TF. Origen had a collection which included references to both the JtB passage and the James passage, a related collection reflected by Jerome when he mentions them, and by Eusebius who seems to have had a collection also inadvertently including Origen's effort as coming from Josephus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Was there a reason why you didn't write "Histories"?

I gave the common classical abbreviation for works of Tacitus. You know, it's not like there were many to choose from. You'll often see "Tac. A. 12.63" or similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Or link to a source?

I referred to my own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This sort of thing makes it hard for readers in this forum to engage with your comments, you know.

So I responded quickly. I had thought that you were at ease in the field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

So does tossing terms like 'lexeme' around in a non-technical forum (I couldn't be bothered to read back through your posts and work out what you were trying to say, or rather not to say). Let's all write to be understood, not to attempt to impress.

If you can't cope with simple linguistic terms, what are you bothering in the field for. And why are you bothered about how Tacitus uses the terms "procurator" and "prefect" if you won't even look at how he uses them?

After this little tantrum of yours, bye, Roger. :wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The Book 5 of the Histories in English is here.

[5.9] Cneius Pompeius was the first of our countrymen to subdue the Jews. Availing himself of the right of conquest, he entered the temple. Thus it became commonly known that the place stood empty with no similitude of gods within, and that the shrine had nothing to reveal. The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed, the temple was left standing. After these provinces had fallen, in the course of our civil wars, into the hands of Marcus Antonius, Pacorus, king of the Parthians, seized Judaea. He was slain by Publius Ventidius, and the Parthians were driven back over the Euphrates. Caius Sosius reduced the Jews to subjection. The royal power, which had been bestowed by Antony on Herod, was augmented by the victorious Augustus. On Herod's death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod. Under Tiberius all was quiet. But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance. The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judaea to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave. He had married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, and so was the grandson-in-law, as Claudius was the grandson, of Antony.

[5.10] Yet the endurance of the Jews lasted till Gessius Florus was procurator. In his time the war broke out. ...

This certainly records the change in the appointments system, and is new to me -- thank you. But it doesn't really add anything to the question about what these people were titled.

Rather than have me repeat memories of journal articles, why not have a read of the literature on prefect and procurator for details of how confused it all got around that time.

As with much of your post, I'm afraid that this conveys little to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 06-17-2006, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

One such collection was touched upon when we dealt with Origen and the background to the TF. Origen had a collection which included references to both the JtB passage and the James passage, a related collection reflected by Jerome when he mentions them, and by Eusebius who seems to have had a collection also inadvertently including Origen's effort as coming from Josephus.

In Contra Celsum Origen refers to no such collection, however, so the existence and use of one is an inference by someone. Eusebius likewise does not mention this; and although you don't say where in Jerome, if you mean De viris illustribus he also does not say this.

The majority of your statements seem to be very unreliable.

The remainder of your post needs no comment from me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 06-17-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In Contra Celsum Origen refers to no such collection

I didn't say he did. But I can't give you an autographed copy of the document, so don't worry, be happy.

Rick Sumner · 06-17-2006, 04:51 AM

Rom.15.7-9 seems to me to indicate that the suggestion that the letter is written exclusively to Jews is quite incorrect. Likewise 1.16, 2.9, 2.25-26, 3.9, 10.12 and so on. It seems clear, IMHO, that it was written with both Jewish "Christians" and Gentile "Christians" in mind. I don't know what we should call such a group if not a " Christian community." The term "Christian" is, of course, somewhat anachronistic, but not enough so that it isn't useful here.

More importantly, Paul's argument is against Jewish Christians (or, more aptly, "Judaizers." People who wished the Gentiles in the community to accept circumcision), but for Gentile Christians. That is, it is of greater concern to Paul that he convince Gentile Christians not to accept circumcision than it is that he convince Jewish Christians not to ask for it. ETA This is more important because it furthers the suggestion to the nature of his audience: It doesn't make sense for him to take such tacts if Gentiles were not intended recipients.

That Paul uses scriptural basis (which spin would like to emphasize) for this does not, as spin suggests, point to an exclusively Jewish audience. "Judaizers" were, presumably (in fact, very presumably--one who would suggest otherwise would own a substantial burden) preaching circumcision by relying on scripture, and pointing to "Christianity" as the extension of that covenant. There is no other way for Paul to attack this: He *has* to rely on complicated prooftexting and "tortured exegesis" (to steal an oft-used term). He has no other recourse.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin · 06-17-2006, 05:58 AM

For those interested in Tacitus and his knowledge of Judea and the terms "procurator" and "prefect", you will note that in the passage that Roger Pearse kindly put up, Tacitus indicates that after Judea was under the control of Herod it passed to Herod's three sons, adding "The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judaea to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen".

We have the passage of Judea out of the hands of local management and as a unified province put in the hands of the Roman equestrian order or Claudius's freedmen. The administrator of an imperial province, eg Judea from this time on, was a procurator. Judea did not become a province until Claudius made it one, so obvious there was no procurator of Judea before this time and Tacitus clearly indicates his knowledge of the status of Judea's administration in his History.

That he would unaccountably call a military prefect -- for that's what Pilate was -- a procurator is unthinkable. Tacitus time and again talks of "camp prefects", "city prefects", "prefect of the Pretorian Guard", etc., as well as referring to administrators of imperial provinces as "procurator".

When talking of Vespasian's rewards people for good work in H(istory) 2.82, Tacitus writes, "Many among them he distinguished with prefectures and governments, and several with the honours of senatorial rank; all these were men of eminence who soon reached the highest positions." The phrase "with prefectures and governments" should actually be "with prefectures and procuratorships" [(multos) praefecturis et procurationibus]. That there are administrative differences is clearly evident in Tacitus's distinctions. He is consistent with his use of "procurator" for the administrator of provinces, while the former worked under other people as administrators of parts of provinces (as with the Alps which was a province divided into two prefectures), though with "prefectures and procuratorships" he is clearly referring to provincial positions.

Tacitus has indicated that he knew what the difference between the two positions is. He has indicated that he knew what the status of Judea was before and after the change brought in by Claudius. He indicates that Judea was put into the hands of imperial agents who administered provinces, ie procurators. He refers to procurators of Judea. That he would call someone who was not an administrator of an imperial province, while knowing the state affairs in the particular case of Judea, a procurator is ludicrous.

This is just one aspect of the christian addition to Tacitus.

spin

Rick Sumner · 06-17-2006, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I said earlier: "It probably demonstrates a text that has been normalized by later writers."

This doesn't strike you as ad hoc? Interpolation by virtue of failure to cohere with your preferred reconstruction?

I'd suggest the preferred interpretation, particularly in the light of the manuscript tradition against such interpolations, should be one that accounts for it. To be sure, sometimes the manuscript tradition is wrong (eg. 1Thess.2.15-17, at least IMO), but those need to be argued on more substantiative grounds than that they don't work with what you interpret the epistle's intended audience to be.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Malachi151 · 06-17-2006, 06:30 AM

Okay, well enough about the procurator vs prefect issue, that's been done to death.

Back to my central question.

Is there any evidence, other than this Tacitus quote, that "Christians" existed in Rome in 64?

If so, were the people who wre called Christians the same people that we identify with the story of Jesus?

THe earliest references to the term "Christian" in the Bible from from around 80 at the earliest. There is one mention of "Christian" in Acts, one mention of "Christians" in Acts, and one mention of Christan in 1 Peter. All of these were written around 80 at the earliest, if not 20-40 years later.

The mention in Acts says that Paul used the term Christains, but its never mentioned in the writings of Paul.

How could there have been a significant group of identifiable "Christians" in Rome in 64?????????????????????????????????????????

spin · 06-17-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

This doesn't strike you as ad hoc?

Only when you put the cart before the horse.

S.C.Carlson · 06-17-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I said earlier: "It probably demonstrates a text that has been normalized by later writers."

How convenient.

mountainman · 06-17-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Back to my central question.

Is there any evidence, other than this Tacitus quote, that "Christians" existed in Rome in 64?

...[trim]...

How could there have been a significant group of identifiable "Christians" in Rome in 64?????????????????????????????????????????

What if the answer to your central question is that
there is absolutely zero evidence of "christians" anywhere
in the year of 64, let alone in Rome.

The implication of fiction by the primary eccesiastical "historian"
of the "tribe of christians" is that no such tribe existed anywhere
in the antiquity so described, until the century this "historian"
penned his monstrous fable.

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

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

06-17-2006, 04:51 AM	#24
Rick Sumner Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada Posts: 2,612	Rom.15.7-9 seems to me to indicate that the suggestion that the letter is written exclusively to Jews is quite incorrect. Likewise 1.16, 2.9, 2.25-26, 3.9, 10.12 and so on. It seems clear, IMHO, that it was written with both Jewish "Christians" and Gentile "Christians" in mind. I don't know what we should call such a group if not a " Christian community." The term "Christian" is, of course, somewhat anachronistic, but not enough so that it isn't useful here. More importantly, Paul's argument is against Jewish Christians (or, more aptly, "Judaizers." People who wished the Gentiles in the community to accept circumcision), but for Gentile Christians. That is, it is of greater concern to Paul that he convince Gentile Christians not to accept circumcision than it is that he convince Jewish Christians not to ask for it. ETA This is more important because it furthers the suggestion to the nature of his audience: It doesn't make sense for him to take such tacts if Gentiles were not intended recipients. That Paul uses scriptural basis (which spin would like to emphasize) for this does not, as spin suggests, point to an exclusively Jewish audience. "Judaizers" were, presumably (in fact, very presumably--one who would suggest otherwise would own a substantial burden) preaching circumcision by relying on scripture, and pointing to "Christianity" as the extension of that covenant. There is no other way for Paul to attack this: He has to rely on complicated prooftexting and "tortured exegesis" (to steal an oft-used term). He has no other recourse. Regards, Rick Sumner

06-17-2006, 05:58 AM	#25
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	For those interested in Tacitus and his knowledge of Judea and the terms "procurator" and "prefect", you will note that in the passage that Roger Pearse kindly put up, Tacitus indicates that after Judea was under the control of Herod it passed to Herod's three sons, adding "The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judaea to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen". We have the passage of Judea out of the hands of local management and as a unified province put in the hands of the Roman equestrian order or Claudius's freedmen. The administrator of an imperial province, eg Judea from this time on, was a procurator. Judea did not become a province until Claudius made it one, so obvious there was no procurator of Judea before this time and Tacitus clearly indicates his knowledge of the status of Judea's administration in his History. That he would unaccountably call a military prefect -- for that's what Pilate was -- a procurator is unthinkable. Tacitus time and again talks of "camp prefects", "city prefects", "prefect of the Pretorian Guard", etc., as well as referring to administrators of imperial provinces as "procurator". When talking of Vespasian's rewards people for good work in H(istory) 2.82, Tacitus writes, "Many among them he distinguished with prefectures and governments, and several with the honours of senatorial rank; all these were men of eminence who soon reached the highest positions." The phrase "with prefectures and governments" should actually be "with prefectures and procuratorships" [(multos) praefecturis et procurationibus]. That there are administrative differences is clearly evident in Tacitus's distinctions. He is consistent with his use of "procurator" for the administrator of provinces, while the former worked under other people as administrators of parts of provinces (as with the Alps which was a province divided into two prefectures), though with "prefectures and procuratorships" he is clearly referring to provincial positions. Tacitus has indicated that he knew what the difference between the two positions is. He has indicated that he knew what the status of Judea was before and after the change brought in by Claudius. He indicates that Judea was put into the hands of imperial agents who administered provinces, ie procurators. He refers to procurators of Judea. That he would call someone who was not an administrator of an imperial province, while knowing the state affairs in the particular case of Judea, a procurator is ludicrous. This is just one aspect of the christian addition to Tacitus. spin

06-17-2006, 06:30 AM	#27
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Okay, well enough about the procurator vs prefect issue, that's been done to death. Back to my central question. Is there any evidence, other than this Tacitus quote, that "Christians" existed in Rome in 64? If so, were the people who wre called Christians the same people that we identify with the story of Jesus? THe earliest references to the term "Christian" in the Bible from from around 80 at the earliest. There is one mention of "Christian" in Acts, one mention of "Christians" in Acts, and one mention of Christan in 1 Peter. All of these were written around 80 at the earliest, if not 20-40 years later. The mention in Acts says that Paul used the term Christains, but its never mentioned in the writings of Paul. How could there have been a significant group of identifiable "Christians" in Rome in 64?????????????????????????????????????????

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.