Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 07-12-2008, 07:16 PM

Thanks very much, Andrew. This Latin-English material is actually a very good example of the difficulties we face in this kind of discussion where so much turns out to be dependent on what a primary source actually said. Perhaps given the vast collective knowledge on this board about everything under the religious sun, I should have searched out any past words on the topic before offering my “example” to Roger. Still, while I agree that Roger’s summary of the Historia Augusta passage may have been correct and the translation used by Drews misleading, there is more complexity to this situation (and the Historia passage) than is being acknowledged. Even Roger, in that 2005 thread Toto gave us a link to (and which I had not seen before), admitted that there is some ambiguity in that passage. Drews opted for one of those ambiguities, Roger another. (Though from what I can see at the moment, the weight of probability is likely with Roger.)

But I do not have any particular investment in the alternate understanding of the Historia passage. As I said, I was arguing principles. The aspect of this whole question which is of significance to me is the usages of “Christus vs. Chrestus” and “Christiani vs. Chrestiani” in regard to Tacitus. Some simply claim it was a meaningless distinction, they were simply interchangeable terms, especially in non-Christian circles. But I still have a nagging doubt on that score, not the least in regard to the textual variance in Tacitus 15:44. Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.43) points out that in our oldest extant manuscript of the latter part of the Annals, “Chrestianoi” was present, corrected in the margin to “Christianoi.” Eddy and Boyd, drawing on Van Voorst, opine that the former “almost certainly reflects the original” (The Jesus Legend, p.180, n.44). Now, Van Voorst suggests (and he is drawing on Harnack) that the immediate juxtaposition in our text of “Christus” (in reference to his execution by Pilate) constitutes Tacitus having “corrected” the just-stated crowd’s inaccurate designation of “Chrestians.” To me, that’s a bit of a stretch, more a device to keep the two references wedded and in the hands of Tacitus, while ignoring other considerations that might separate them or cause other problems for authenticity.

For one thing, if Tacitus really wanted to say that the crowd was wrong, and “Chrestians” should have been “Christians” through the name of their founder “Christus”, we might ask why he did not make that clearer. He could have said so. But more importantly, those claiming that the terms were interchangeable, especially among pagans, have gotten themselves into a contradiction. If that were so, why would Tacitus feel any need to “correct”? Why, indeed, would he perceive it as “wrong” if “Chrestians” was as good as “Christians”? If he felt the need to correct for consistency, and they were interchangeable, why not simply substitute “Christians” for “Chrestians” in the earlier phrase? Why would he bother to (and very indirectly) “correct” the crowd’s usage of the other term for his readers, since it would not have constituted an issue? No, the over-subtlety of Van Voorst’s imputation to Tacitus does not convince me that this is what Tacitus has to be doing.

An appeal was made to Tertullian, that he says that the pagans are simply ‘mispronouncing’ the word, but this is hardly to be taken as a dispassionate (which Tertullian definitely is not) presentation of the actual extent of the situation. It does not take into account that the word “chrestus” actually has its own meaning, and that it appears in writings, not just in the mouths of pronunciation-challenged taunters of Tertullian.

My point is that the ‘fact’ that the crowds in Tacitus called (or named) the group in question “Chrestians” may point to something other than “Christians” as we know it. It doesn’t have to be to people in a Serapis cult, if the Historia Augusta, even with its possible ambiguity, is the only basis on which such an option could rest. The modern writings this thread has been examining, regardless of the degree to which their reputability may be called into question by some, have presented several options for a usage of “Chrestos” in other venues besides that to do with Jesus of Nazareth, from Jewish messianism to things a little more esoteric and admittedly less firmly supportable. The point is, all of these would have to be discredited as having any possible validity in the Tacitus context to the same degree (or more) as the Historia Augusta claim, and that simply hasn’t been done. Besides, I am sceptical about blanket condemnation by such as Roger that the entire category of things like this is “rubbish”, mainly because it is too much like a very similar dismissive attitude for everything in the category of so-called “parallels” between the Jesus story and the Hellenistic and mystery cult myths. That attitude I have demonstrated is unjustified in the fourth of my “The Mystery Cults and Christianity” series of website articles (“A Cult of Parallels”, provided one brings a certain degree of nuance and qualification to the issue.

Anyway, I’m not here to argue any particular aspect of the “Chrestians/Christians” issue. In my new chapter on Tacitus (much longer than in the first edition) which I am presently working on, I focus on many things, only one of which is the question of what “Chrestians” could refer to in 15:44 and looking at the options that have been suggested—and even criticizing some of them. Like most writers on either side, Drews could be uneven in the feasibility of his various arguments on a lot of topics, but this doesn’t mean that they are all to be automatically dismissed. Not even a kook like Kersey Graves can be said to have had nothing legitimate or useful to say. At least that sort of research (and they are not all kooks) is saying something, rather than “It’s all a crock!”

However, there is one thing I will do in depth in a new thread. In a private exchange with Roger recently I pointed out what I felt were vague and even misleading statements on his tertullian site in the matter of witness to the Annals through the centuries, where that relates to the theory of Renaissance forgery of that work. He suggested that I post that section (which I sent him) of my chapter here, for discussion. By the way, I’ll state right now that I regard that theory as untenable, but there are observations to be made in connection with it which can be useful in other aspects of the Tacitus authenticity question.

Earl Doherty

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 08:47 PM

Earl, Interesting. I guess I don't understand the ultimate point. Are you trying to discredit 1st century non "christian" accounts of Christians existance?
Are you trying to disredit Tacticus and the Nero connection, or Suetonius chrestus reference?
Are you doubting that Nero killed christians or doubting seutonius referenced Chrestus?
That you have little use for Tertullian that is obvious.
Are you trying to say that if you can believe Tacticus and Suetonius are referencing Christ why dis believe Hardian is referencing Chestians as worship Serapis?

mountainman · 07-12-2008, 09:55 PM

The Historia Augusta is most likely yet another forgery in the epoch of Constantine ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

In the West, among the Latin historians, the resistance to Christianity showed itself in a mixture of silence amid condescension; Christianity is rarely mentioned. If it is mentioned, kindness and good humour prevail. What counts is the vast zone of silence, the ambiguity which gives Latin pagan historiography of the fourth century its strange imprint of reticence and mystery. Seldom are historians of historiography faced by works so difficult to date, to analyse in their composite nature and to attribute to a definite background. For the first time we come across historical work done in collaboration, — which adds to its elusiveness.

The Historia Augusta is the classic example of historiographic mystery. The work purports to have been written by six authors at various moments of the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Some at least of the alleged authors claim to have written in collaboration. This very claim of team-work is baffling: cooperative ‘Cambridge histories were not common in antiquity. The writing is sensational and unscrupulous, and the forged documents included in this work serve no obvious purpose.

One or two passages may point to a post-Constantinian date either for the whole collection or at least for the passages themselves. But the date and the purpose of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae remain au unsolved problem.

--- Pagan and Christian Historiography
--- in the Fourth Century A.D.
--- A. Momigliano, ed.,

andrewcriddle · 07-13-2008, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Historia Augusta is most likely yet another forgery in the epoch of Constantine ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

In the West, among the Latin historians, the resistance to Christianity showed itself in a mixture of silence amid condescension; Christianity is rarely mentioned. If it is mentioned, kindness and good humour prevail. What counts is the vast zone of silence, the ambiguity which gives Latin pagan historiography of the fourth century its strange imprint of reticence and mystery. Seldom are historians of historiography faced by works so difficult to date, to analyse in their composite nature and to attribute to a definite background. For the first time we come across historical work done in collaboration, — which adds to its elusiveness.

The Historia Augusta is the classic example of historiographic mystery. The work purports to have been written by six authors at various moments of the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Some at least of the alleged authors claim to have written in collaboration. This very claim of team-work is baffling: cooperative ‘Cambridge histories were not common in antiquity. The writing is sensational and unscrupulous, and the forged documents included in this work serve no obvious purpose.

One or two passages may point to a post-Constantinian date either for the whole collection or at least for the passages themselves. But the date and the purpose of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae remain au unsolved problem.

--- Pagan and Christian Historiography
--- in the Fourth Century A.D.
--- A. Momigliano, ed.,

There is by now something near consensus among Historians of the Ancient World that although the Augustan History claims to be a collaboration between several authors working in the time of Constantine it is in reality the work of a single author working in the time of Theodosius the Great at the end of the 4th century CE.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty · 07-13-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall

Earl, Interesting. I guess I don't understand the ultimate point. Are you trying to discredit 1st century non "christian" accounts of Christians existance?

NO, although I'm not sure what you have in mind by "1st century non Christian accounts".

Quote:

Are you trying to discredit Tacticus and the Nero connection, or Suetonius chrestus reference?

YES to the first part. The second question is not yet addressed.

Quote:

Are you doubting that Nero killed christians or doubting seutonius referenced Chrestus?

YES to the first. NO to the second (whoever Chrestus might have been).

Quote:

That you have little use for Tertullian that is obvious.

NOT AT ALL. Tertullian actually has some extremely useful things to say in connection with the Tacitus issue.

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if you can believe Tacticus and Suetonius are referencing Christ why disbelieve Hardian is referencing Chestians as worship Serapis?

ONE bottom line is that Hadrian did not write the letter in the Historia. And as I acknowledged before, the Historia is almost certainly unreliable for the Serapis claim.

Note my remarks within the above quote.

To properly answer all these questions would require that I essentially post my chapter here, which I wouldn't do. I don't want too many irons in the fire, but certain points may come up. I will post the Renaissance forgery business (again, not something I subscribe to) later today in a new thread.

Earl Doherty

stonewall1012 · 07-13-2008, 01:49 PM

ED: "NO, although I'm not sure what you have in mind by "1st century non Christian accounts"."

We are referencing mithras- Chrestos- non Jesus people and Serapis right? Since we are concerned primairly with disproving Christ as a historical figure I assumed by saying "1 century non christian accounts" that you would understand my referencing non christian accounts or "independent" accounts of referencing to Christ as being some physical creature.

I am familiar with historians that are beginning to suspect Taticus as being "interpolated" I am curious, do you see Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger as interpolated as well?

And if I may ask when do you see the fist authentic christian author? I would just like to get a date so that we can start nailing down when Christianity was fabricated.

EarlDoherty · 07-13-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall

I am familiar with historians that are beginning to suspect Taticus as being "interpolated" I am curious, do you see Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger as interpolated as well?

Not the main Suetonius passage in Life of Claudius. But the even smaller reference to Christians in Life of Nero is possibly an interpolation. Since the latter closely relates to the Tacitus question, I have given it some attention in my Tacitus chapter.

Pliny, too, enjoys arguments for interpolation, and I will be outlining these too in the same chapter, but I don't necessarily have to commit to things like this one way or the other. People like Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius are like Janus; their references can face in both directions, and even if one does not or cannot commit to either, it gives them a double-whammy for arguing against any reliability as evidence for an historical Jesus.

Quote:

And if I may ask when do you see the first authentic christian author? I would just like to get a date so that we can start nailing down when Christianity was fabricated.

I accept the first authentic Christian author (with limitations) as Paul, and I know that I thereby disappoint certain radicals on this board, and elsewhere. But please note that I am not in a position right now to get into a discussion on this very large topic, or on 'when Christianity was fabricated,' so please don't expect anything further from me on it.

I should have the Renaissance forgery thing posted within an hour.

Earl Doherty

stonewall1012 · 07-13-2008, 06:42 PM

ED: " I am not in a position right now to get into a discussion on this very large topic, or on 'when Christianity was fabricated,' so please don't expect anything further from me on it."

In not in a position either to have a protracted historical debate concerning minutia of evidence I just lack the time and resources... however, i am intrigued. I think most "radicals" as you call them would contend that christianity doesn't have a solid historical figure until the latter half of the 2nd century.

I am curious which document of Pauls do you consider authentic?

Toto · 07-13-2008, 06:50 PM

stonewall - Earl Doherty is the author of The Jesus Puzzle. Please do not drag this thread off topic or force him to repeat what he has written there without at least glancing at that webpage.

stonewall1012 · 07-13-2008, 07:15 PM

ok...? sorry... I am struggling here to find "common ground".

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

07-12-2008, 07:16 PM	#31
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Thanks very much, Andrew. This Latin-English material is actually a very good example of the difficulties we face in this kind of discussion where so much turns out to be dependent on what a primary source actually said. Perhaps given the vast collective knowledge on this board about everything under the religious sun, I should have searched out any past words on the topic before offering my “example” to Roger. Still, while I agree that Roger’s summary of the Historia Augusta passage may have been correct and the translation used by Drews misleading, there is more complexity to this situation (and the Historia passage) than is being acknowledged. Even Roger, in that 2005 thread Toto gave us a link to (and which I had not seen before), admitted that there is some ambiguity in that passage. Drews opted for one of those ambiguities, Roger another. (Though from what I can see at the moment, the weight of probability is likely with Roger.) But I do not have any particular investment in the alternate understanding of the Historia passage. As I said, I was arguing principles. The aspect of this whole question which is of significance to me is the usages of “Christus vs. Chrestus” and “Christiani vs. Chrestiani” in regard to Tacitus. Some simply claim it was a meaningless distinction, they were simply interchangeable terms, especially in non-Christian circles. But I still have a nagging doubt on that score, not the least in regard to the textual variance in Tacitus 15:44. Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.43) points out that in our oldest extant manuscript of the latter part of the Annals, “Chrestianoi” was present, corrected in the margin to “Christianoi.” Eddy and Boyd, drawing on Van Voorst, opine that the former “almost certainly reflects the original” (The Jesus Legend, p.180, n.44). Now, Van Voorst suggests (and he is drawing on Harnack) that the immediate juxtaposition in our text of “Christus” (in reference to his execution by Pilate) constitutes Tacitus having “corrected” the just-stated crowd’s inaccurate designation of “Chrestians.” To me, that’s a bit of a stretch, more a device to keep the two references wedded and in the hands of Tacitus, while ignoring other considerations that might separate them or cause other problems for authenticity. For one thing, if Tacitus really wanted to say that the crowd was wrong, and “Chrestians” should have been “Christians” through the name of their founder “Christus”, we might ask why he did not make that clearer. He could have said so. But more importantly, those claiming that the terms were interchangeable, especially among pagans, have gotten themselves into a contradiction. If that were so, why would Tacitus feel any need to “correct”? Why, indeed, would he perceive it as “wrong” if “Chrestians” was as good as “Christians”? If he felt the need to correct for consistency, and they were interchangeable, why not simply substitute “Christians” for “Chrestians” in the earlier phrase? Why would he bother to (and very indirectly) “correct” the crowd’s usage of the other term for his readers, since it would not have constituted an issue? No, the over-subtlety of Van Voorst’s imputation to Tacitus does not convince me that this is what Tacitus has to be doing. An appeal was made to Tertullian, that he says that the pagans are simply ‘mispronouncing’ the word, but this is hardly to be taken as a dispassionate (which Tertullian definitely is not) presentation of the actual extent of the situation. It does not take into account that the word “chrestus” actually has its own meaning, and that it appears in writings, not just in the mouths of pronunciation-challenged taunters of Tertullian. My point is that the ‘fact’ that the crowds in Tacitus called (or named) the group in question “Chrestians” may point to something other than “Christians” as we know it. It doesn’t have to be to people in a Serapis cult, if the Historia Augusta, even with its possible ambiguity, is the only basis on which such an option could rest. The modern writings this thread has been examining, regardless of the degree to which their reputability may be called into question by some, have presented several options for a usage of “Chrestos” in other venues besides that to do with Jesus of Nazareth, from Jewish messianism to things a little more esoteric and admittedly less firmly supportable. The point is, all of these would have to be discredited as having any possible validity in the Tacitus context to the same degree (or more) as the Historia Augusta claim, and that simply hasn’t been done. Besides, I am sceptical about blanket condemnation by such as Roger that the entire category of things like this is “rubbish”, mainly because it is too much like a very similar dismissive attitude for everything in the category of so-called “parallels” between the Jesus story and the Hellenistic and mystery cult myths. That attitude I have demonstrated is unjustified in the fourth of my “The Mystery Cults and Christianity” series of website articles (“A Cult of Parallels”, provided one brings a certain degree of nuance and qualification to the issue. Anyway, I’m not here to argue any particular aspect of the “Chrestians/Christians” issue. In my new chapter on Tacitus (much longer than in the first edition) which I am presently working on, I focus on many things, only one of which is the question of what “Chrestians” could refer to in 15:44 and looking at the options that have been suggested—and even criticizing some of them. Like most writers on either side, Drews could be uneven in the feasibility of his various arguments on a lot of topics, but this doesn’t mean that they are all to be automatically dismissed. Not even a kook like Kersey Graves can be said to have had nothing legitimate or useful to say. At least that sort of research (and they are not all kooks) is saying something, rather than “It’s all a crock!” However, there is one thing I will do in depth in a new thread. In a private exchange with Roger recently I pointed out what I felt were vague and even misleading statements on his tertullian site in the matter of witness to the Annals through the centuries, where that relates to the theory of Renaissance forgery of that work. He suggested that I post that section (which I sent him) of my chapter here, for discussion. By the way, I’ll state right now that I regard that theory as untenable, but there are observations to be made in connection with it which can be useful in other aspects of the Tacitus authenticity question. Earl Doherty

07-12-2008, 08:47 PM	#32
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	Earl, Interesting. I guess I don't understand the ultimate point. Are you trying to discredit 1st century non "christian" accounts of Christians existance? Are you trying to disredit Tacticus and the Nero connection, or Suetonius chrestus reference? Are you doubting that Nero killed christians or doubting seutonius referenced Chrestus? That you have little use for Tertullian that is obvious. Are you trying to say that if you can believe Tacticus and Suetonius are referencing Christ why dis believe Hardian is referencing Chestians as worship Serapis?

07-13-2008, 01:49 PM	#36
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	ED: "NO, although I'm not sure what you have in mind by "1st century non Christian accounts"." We are referencing mithras- Chrestos- non Jesus people and Serapis right? Since we are concerned primairly with disproving Christ as a historical figure I assumed by saying "1 century non christian accounts" that you would understand my referencing non christian accounts or "independent" accounts of referencing to Christ as being some physical creature. I am familiar with historians that are beginning to suspect Taticus as being "interpolated" I am curious, do you see Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger as interpolated as well? And if I may ask when do you see the fist authentic christian author? I would just like to get a date so that we can start nailing down when Christianity was fabricated.

07-13-2008, 06:42 PM	#38
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	ED: " I am not in a position right now to get into a discussion on this very large topic, or on 'when Christianity was fabricated,' so please don't expect anything further from me on it." In not in a position either to have a protracted historical debate concerning minutia of evidence I just lack the time and resources... however, i am intrigued. I think most "radicals" as you call them would contend that christianity doesn't have a solid historical figure until the latter half of the 2nd century. I am curious which document of Pauls do you consider authentic?

07-13-2008, 06:50 PM	#39
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	stonewall - Earl Doherty is the author of The Jesus Puzzle. Please do not drag this thread off topic or force him to repeat what he has written there without at least glancing at that webpage.

07-13-2008, 07:15 PM	#40
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	ok...? sorry... I am struggling here to find "common ground".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.