Ben C Smith

Interesting. Like Barnabas 16.3-4 except without mentioning the destruction of the old temple and the rebuilding of the new. So what in 2 Thessalonians 2.4 reads like a reference specifically to a future temple?

Ben.

Amaleq13

Nevermind. I don't think it makes sense given the context since a pretender is described as taking it over. Taking what is written outside the passage into consideration, it looks like it is supposed to be read as a pre-70 prophecy.

Toto

I do not think that Paul meant either Aretas, because I don't think that he ever escaped from Damascus or from the clutches of Aretas' minions. I think he was using some sort of analogy or code language which we can only guess at. The letter was probably written much after Aretas IV, and the writer took Aretas as an archetypical ruler's name in constructing a little joke.

In any case, I do not think that the passage can be used to date Paul's letters, because we just don't know what it means.

True

Not exactly. We would have evidence that our Pauline interpolator wanted us to think that the real Paul predated 70.

It casually mentions the Temple of God. Are you sure this is the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, as opposed to a generic or metaphoric Temple?

Perhaps it offers those solid points of contact because it was written by someone who had read Paul's letters and was reacting to them. We have an old thread on this.

rlogan

Hi Ben.

I thought you would say something like this, and wondered if I would need to detail this. I see so.

What I have stated is that you chose "bits and pieces" from "here and there". Specifically, bouncing back and forth between Tacitus and Suetonius. In a way that I think constructs a view I do not see when we take the full passages in context, and in combination with one another.

I remind you that I am also confessing the need to take full account of both of these, and don't mean any pretense of being a biblical scholar. I'm just a scrub around here.

What you have done is take part of Tacitus to get Christians blamed for the fire, and take Suetonius to get this as something on Nero's "good list".

I quoted the full extent of the Tacitus passage to demonstrate exactly that - a partial combination of sources weaves an impression I do not think accurate of what we see in the whole.

Suetonius has a grand total of one line, and there is no connection to the fire whatsoever. He also does not say more than that Christians were punished - not slaughtered in barbaric spectacles.

He blames Nero for the fire in ch 38:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ars/Nero*.html


It is a very curios thing that Tacitus (if not an interpolation) would make such an outrage of the "Christian persecution" - going on about burning people into the night and having them ripped apart by wild animals and such - as a means of a diversionary spectacle associated with the fire. And one that drew sympathy from the people towards the Christians. One he clearly states is not for the public good, but one of sick cruelty.

On the other hand, Suetonius has the one line, independent of the fire. Moreover, Suetonius details cruel acts of Nero (See for example ch's 26 and 37) Along with the over-the-top play acting, gaming, and familial murders he is more widely known for.

In contrast to his first five years of decency (IIRC, banning capital punishment and pardoning liberally) Nero became a reckless and cruel despot. It is very strange to see these sources diverging so on this story, and in particular Suetonius not using this alleged barbarity as yet another example of his increasing recklessness.


I'm glad that with this exchange I've had occasion to read both Suetonius and Tacitus in more detail. There is something wrong here.

Usually, the passage quoted from Suetonius is from The Life of Claudius, where he mentions Chrestus. I'm glad we've looked into the passage you quoted in The Life of Nero because I had not seen that before.

Ben C Smith

My claim was no more than that, if the purpose here was to argue that the persecution of Christians never happened under Nero, surely we must take Suetonius into account. Here are my exact words from post 58 of this thread:

As for reading Tacitus and Suetonius together, both Tacitus and Suetonius know that Nero persecuted Christians. And both Tacitus and Suetonius think that the Christians deserved it. Tacitus goes on to aver that Nero went too far, and for his own purposes. Suetonius apparently does not see it that way, or at least ignores the excesses so as to add another item to the good list.

On the surface I see nothing unusual about such a disagreement in a matter of what could only be opinion, practically by definition (how far is too far?).

The argument from the later satirists is an argument from silence; the burden of proof, of course, is on the one so arguing. From which satirist, and in which satirical passage, would we expect to find mention of Nero and the Christians but do not?

I have the full passage written up in Latin and in English translation on my site. Ironically, my page on Suetonius has only the Chrestus reference.

Nice talking with you.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Grammatically this last he must be Paul, as in your previous sentence, so it appears that you accept Pauline authorship of 2 Corinthians, including this passage. What is it in 2 Corinthians 11.23-33 that informs you that the apostle Paul is speaking in code or by way of analogy?

(NKJV) 23 Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? 30 If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity. 31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

And is there some ancient source which states that Aretas IV absolutely did not have control of Damascus? I am curious as to which ancient source would take precedence over the explicit testimony of an author, known to his readers (IOW, not pseudonymous), who claims without further ado to have experienced the events firsthand.

If this Pauline imitator was writing in 80-100 as Peter Kirby has it, then I certainly think he would know better than we when Paul really lived.

Sure like a scientist? Of course not. But sure enough in the historical meaning of that word to take it as a working hypothesis for further testing and development. Against metaphoric I did offer this:

I am not certain what to offer against generic, since I am not certain what you mean. In what way (consistent with the rest of the passage, of course) might the temple of God be generic?

Probably more than one thread, unless I miss my guess.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Such as?
I suspect that those appearance are deceiving. I can believe that Josephus mentioned somebody named James in connection with some incident involving the high priest. I don't believe Josephus identified him as the brother of anyone alleged to be the christ.
Here it is:
It seems strange to me that the author would have omitted any mention of kinship if he had been under the impression that there was one.
Hegesippus is late second century and the pseudo-Clementine writings are, I believe, not known to be earlier than third century.

It is not disputed that somebody named James held a prominent position in the Jerusalem church during Paul's time. A few legends were bound to have gotten attached to him during subsequent generations. Given that Paul used the phrase "lord's brother" in reference to him, and given that Matthew and Mark (but not Luke) assert that Jesus had a brother named James, Christians were practically compelled to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 22.

I was thinking of how he was treated in the canonical writings, in particular by the author of Luke-Acts. How plausible is it, assuming that he thought he was writing history, that he would have said not a word about James's kinship with Jesus?

Ben C Smith

Paul had to assert his authority in order to even be considered an apostle alongside the likes of James and the other pillars. When vying for the respect of his converts and other Christians, Paul was competing, whether willingly or not, with the authority of James.

That was not the original question, at least not as you phrased it. Your original question was:

I was answering the assertion that James, thought to be the brother of Jesus, was an afterthought. Somebody for whom the very earth and heavens came into being is scarcely an afterthought.

Perhaps you meant that his explicit fraternal relationship with Jesus was an afterthought.

Hegesippus and the pseudo-Clementines are, nevertheless, part of the Christian paper trail, are they not?

Sorry. You appeared to be disputing this when you called the brother of James an afterthought, barely visible. Prominent looks like an antonym to barely visible.

But I think I may have misunderstood the thrust of your question.

Ben.

darstec

How can you base anything on Papias? We don't have the foggiest idea what Papias might have said. All we have are five or six fragments of Eusebius supposedly from the fourth century telling us what Papias supposedly said. That is not Papius, that is Eusebius proportedly telling us what he wants us to believe Papias said.

If Paul is pre-60, how can he quote passages from the LXX that according to Josephus and others hadn't been translated into Greek before the second century CE at the very least? And where did some of the other Greek scripture he claims to quote come from, as there are absolutely no examples of such versions of scripture?

Paul need only antedate Mark by a few days, if their creators were within shouting distance. I put both firmly in the second century. Marcion makes a good candidate, especially if one considers those things of his in the gospels and epistles that appear to be excised were actually things that were added later when the epistles and gospels were "catholicized".
.

Ben C Smith

We have more than five or six fragments of Papias.

What is the reference in Josephus (and the others) for this?

I am, of course, quite open to Marcion preserving an earlier version of Luke than our canonical version, but surely we would have to speak to this issue case by case, right?

Ben.