Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 03-10-2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating!

Laupot argues that Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7 (you refer to this, aa), is from the lost book 5 of Tacitus' Histories. It talks about the Roman staff w/ Titus debating whether or not to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. They decide to do so because they want to extirpate the 'Christiani.' Laupot argues that this is a latinization of the Hebrew name of an anti-Roman, messianic group that claimed some tie to the Davidic kingly line and that put a big premium on the Temple - clearly, NOT Pauline cultists. Laupot also thinks that the same group are the people referred to in Annales 15.44 - i.e. he doesn't think that passage is a Christianizing interpolation but rather a reference to a wholly different group of people, militant Jewish "messianics" who were trying to oust Rome from their homeland. Laupot does a lot with the Roman generals' metaphor of "root and branch" and sees the term Nazorean (various spellings) NOT as a reference to Nazareth but to this group's claim to be the "branch" of the Davidic root.

If Laupot is right, he adds weight to the thesis that modern Christians can't use Tacitus in support of their claims that their religion has an early 1st-century history. He goes on to suggest that after these militant-Jewish "christiani" were uprooted by the Romans in 70-72, the Pauline types moved into the vacuum and took over the name. So Laupot seems to accept a historical Paul.

If Laupot's "Nazoreans/christiani" were in Rome at the time of Nero and were persecuted as a source of evil and sedition, sort of reminds me of Al Quaida groups in Europe now. The topic also reminds me of reports in the media in the last few years of textual evidence from 1st cent. CE Palestine suggesting that some Jews then believed that a kingly messiah would die and rise again. I forget where this was reported.

The idea that the historical basis for the Tacitus passage is action by Nero against (hypothetical) Jewish messianists, not Christians in our sense, goes back to Gibbon Decline and Fall.

One should note that the pasage in its present form is clearly referring to Christians in our sense

Quote:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

i.e. either the passage has been substantially modified from its original form or Tacitus misunderstood what really happened under Nero.

Note also nero by suetonius

Quote:

He [Nero] likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition

Andrew Criddle

ficino · 03-10-2013, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating!

Laupot argues that Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7 (you refer to this, aa), is from the lost book 5 of Tacitus' Histories. It talks about the Roman staff w/ Titus debating whether or not to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. They decide to do so because they want to extirpate the 'Christiani.' Laupot argues that this is a latinization of the Hebrew name of an anti-Roman, messianic group that claimed some tie to the Davidic kingly line and that put a big premium on the Temple - clearly, NOT Pauline cultists. Laupot also thinks that the same group are the people referred to in Annales 15.44 - i.e. he doesn't think that passage is a Christianizing interpolation but rather a reference to a wholly different group of people, militant Jewish "messianics" who were trying to oust Rome from their homeland. Laupot does a lot with the Roman generals' metaphor of "root and branch" and sees the term Nazorean (various spellings) NOT as a reference to Nazareth but to this group's claim to be the "branch" of the Davidic root.

If Laupot is right, he adds weight to the thesis that modern Christians can't use Tacitus in support of their claims that their religion has an early 1st-century history. He goes on to suggest that after these militant-Jewish "christiani" were uprooted by the Romans in 70-72, the Pauline types moved into the vacuum and took over the name. So Laupot seems to accept a historical Paul.

If Laupot's "Nazoreans/christiani" were in Rome at the time of Nero and were persecuted as a source of evil and sedition, sort of reminds me of Al Quaida groups in Europe now. The topic also reminds me of reports in the media in the last few years of textual evidence from 1st cent. CE Palestine suggesting that some Jews then believed that a kingly messiah would die and rise again. I forget where this was reported.

The idea that the historical basis for the Tacitus passage is action by Nero against (hypothetical) Jewish messianists, not Christians in our sense, goes back to Gibbon Decline and Fall.

One should note that the pasage in its present form is clearly referring to Christians in our sense i.e. either the passage has been substantially modified from its original form or Tacitus misunderstood what really happened under Nero.

Note also nero by suetonius

Quote:

He [Nero] likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for the note about Gibbon; had not remembered that.

I disagree about the clarity of Tacitus' reference. Just on the face of it -- without pulling in other texts -- Tacitus' "Christiani" can refer either to "Christians" in our sense or to any other group that was known as "followers of the anointed one" or something like that. We don't know that Pilate did not execute more than one messianic pretender, or that the "superstition" has to be what we know as Christianity. If Tacitus used "christiani" in the Histories to refer to a militant group of messianic Jews, there is a probability that he used the same word with the same reference in the Annals.

Then, as I recall, there is the problem, whether Tacitus wrote Christiani or Chrestiani, no? If he wrote Chrestiani, who knows what group he meant. But I don't have a critical apparatus of Tacitus to hand here.

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating!

Laupot argues that Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7 (you refer to this, aa), is from the lost book 5 of Tacitus' Histories. It talks about the Roman staff w/ Titus debating whether or not to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. They decide to do so because they want to extirpate the 'Christiani.' Laupot argues that this is a latinization of the Hebrew name of an anti-Roman, messianic group that claimed some tie to the Davidic kingly line and that put a big premium on the Temple - clearly, NOT Pauline cultists. Laupot also thinks that the same group are the people referred to in Annales 15.44 - i.e. he doesn't think that passage is a Christianizing interpolation but rather a reference to a wholly different group of people, militant Jewish "messianics" who were trying to oust Rome from their homeland. Laupot does a lot with the Roman generals' metaphor of "root and branch" and sees the term Nazorean (various spellings) NOT as a reference to Nazareth but to this group's claim to be the "branch" of the Davidic root.

If Laupot is right, he adds weight to the thesis that modern Christians can't use Tacitus in support of their claims that their religion has an early 1st-century history. He goes on to suggest that after these militant-Jewish "christiani" were uprooted by the Romans in 70-72, the Pauline types moved into the vacuum and took over the name. So Laupot seems to accept a historical Paul.

If Laupot's "Nazoreans/christiani" were in Rome at the time of Nero and were persecuted as a source of evil and sedition, sort of reminds me of Al Quaida groups in Europe now. The topic also reminds me of reports in the media in the last few years of textual evidence from 1st cent. CE Palestine suggesting that some Jews then believed that a kingly messiah would die and rise again. I forget where this was reported.

Again it is a complete fallacy that all Christians in antiquity were of the Jesus cult. The passage in Tacitus Annals did NOT even mention Jesus.

1800 years ago Justin Martyr a Christian of the Jesus cult claimed that there were people who called themselves Christians yet Blasphemed the name of Jesus and even Magicians like Simon Magus and Menander since the time of Claudius were called Christians.

See Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho and First Apology.

Based on Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History" Tacitus Annals with Christus is an interplation which was inserted sometime at or after the end of the 4th century.

andrewcriddle · 03-10-2013, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The idea that the historical basis for the Tacitus passage is action by Nero against (hypothetical) Jewish messianists, not Christians in our sense, goes back to Gibbon Decline and Fall.

One should note that the pasage in its present form is clearly referring to Christians in our sense i.e. either the passage has been substantially modified from its original form or Tacitus misunderstood what really happened under Nero.

Note also nero by suetonius

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for the note about Gibbon; had not remembered that.

I disagree about the clarity of Tacitus' reference. Just on the face of it -- without pulling in other texts -- Tacitus' "Christiani" can refer either to "Christians" in our sense or to any other group that was known as "followers of the anointed one" or something like that. We don't know that Pilate did not execute more than one messianic pretender, or that the "superstition" has to be what we know as Christianity. If Tacitus used "christiani" in the Histories to refer to a militant group of messianic Jews, there is a probability that he used the same word with the same reference in the Annals.

The idea of two separate and independent groups both claiming to follow different messianic pretenders executed by Pontius Pilate seems unnecessarily complicated.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

You use 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus to make claims that the authors of Gospels knew of it.
You claim that authors of the NT did NOT know of "Antiquities of the Jews" but knew of "Wars of the Jews" by mere observation.

I explained that here

For the spitting in the eyes, that might have been a common procedure for healers. Or "Mark" heard about what Vespasian did in Alexandria and had Jesus used the same.
And expecting a Messiah to come was widely believed then among Jews.

Cordially, Bernard

Again, you claimed that authors of the Canon did NOT know "Antiquities of the Jews" and knew "Wars of the Jews" merely by observation.

I have EXPOSED that your observation was completely MYOPIC.

Authors of the NT did mention events and characters found ONLY in Antiquities of the Jews, ONLY in the Biography of Flavius Josephus and even in the LATER writings of Tacitus and Suetonius.

For example, the death of Herod is ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 19.8 and Acts 12 which is an indication that the author of Acts knew of the later writings of Josephus.

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The idea that the historical basis for the Tacitus passage is action by Nero against (hypothetical) Jewish messianists, not Christians in our sense, goes back to Gibbon Decline and Fall.

One should note that the pasage in its present form is clearly referring to Christians in our sense

Quote:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

i.e. either the passage has been substantially modified from its original form or Tacitus misunderstood what really happened under Nero.

Note also nero by suetonius

Quote:

He [Nero] likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition

Andrew Criddle

You are just going over a passage that makes NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth or a cult of Jesus.

You very well know that Jesus in the earliest stories was UNKNOWN as Christus.

Examine the Synoptics.

The Populace did NOT EVER call Jesus by the name of CHRISTUS during the time of Pilate in the earliest stories of Jesus.

1. Matthew 16:20 KJV

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Mark 8:30 KJV

Quote:

And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Luke 9:21 KJV

Quote:

And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing

Tacitus Annals with Christus is a blatant forgery.

There was NO Christians of a Jesus cult when the supposed Jesus was alive in the very Synoptics.

In the very Canon, In Acts of the Apostles, the Jesus cult of Christians began LONG AFTER it was claimed Jesus was dead.

People were called Christians in the Jesus cult AFTER the supposed conversion of Paul.

And NOT even Judea but in ANTIOCH.

It was probably YEARS AFTER the supposed Jesus was dead that there were people called Christians of the Jesus cult.

Acts 11:26 KJV

Quote:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass , that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Tacitus Annals with CHRISTUS is NOT only a blatant forgery BUT it is Contradicted by the very Church writers in the Canon itself.

Up to the 4th century when the supposed History of the Church was documented Tacitus Annal with Christus was UNKNOWN.

ficino · 03-10-2013, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Thanks for the note about Gibbon; had not remembered that.

I disagree about the clarity of Tacitus' reference. Just on the face of it -- without pulling in other texts -- Tacitus' "Christiani" can refer either to "Christians" in our sense or to any other group that was known as "followers of the anointed one" or something like that. We don't know that Pilate did not execute more than one messianic pretender, or that the "superstition" has to be what we know as Christianity. If Tacitus used "christiani" in the Histories to refer to a militant group of messianic Jews, there is a probability that he used the same word with the same reference in the Annals.

The idea of two separate and independent groups both claiming to follow different messianic pretenders executed by Pontius Pilate seems unnecessarily complicated.

Andrew Criddle

As I understand him, Laupot maintains that only after the rebellious Jewish messianists were off the scene did the Pauline group take over the name "Christians." On his reconstruction, the two groups did not "claim to follow different messianic pretenders executed by Pontius Pilate" at the same time, and Tacitus in Ann. 15.44 is referring only to a political messianic pretender executed by Pilate, not to the guy history knows as Jesus. Laupot's thesis is that Tacitus is not referring to that guy at all. So I don't think the complication to which you refer is fatal to Laupot.

I don't know Laupot's views on the historical Jesus.

edited to add: -----------------------------

A strike against Laupot, though, would seem to be Pliny's knowledge about "Christians," expressed in his letter to Trajan, around 113 CE. His description of the cultists he interrogated, although no mention is made of the name "Jesus," seems close enough to what we consider Christianity. Now, Pliny and Tacitus were friends and exchanged correspondence and material. So Tacitus could have based Ann. 15.44 on what he learned about Christians (in our sense) from Pliny, who in turn may have learned it from Christians themselves. This is Richard Carrier's position against those who use Tacitus as evidence for a historical Jesus - i.e. that Tacitus' report about Christians may in fact recycle material that came from Christians and, therefore, fail to be independent testimony.

There's also the problem that Annals 15.44 refers to Pilate as "procurator", when, as I recall, his actions as governor were performed in the office of prefect. Procurator was used for a governor only later. So that's a strike against Tacitean authorship of the section, though there are ways of explaining the slip in terminology.

Sigh. So many assumptions, so little time.

MrMacSon · 03-10-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

... Laupot argues that the 'Christiani' is a latinization of the Hebrew name of an anti-Roman, messianic group that claimed some tie to the Davidic kingly line and that put a big premium on the Temple - clearly, NOT Pauline cultists. Laupot also thinks that the same group are the people referred to in Annales 15.44 - i.e. he doesn't think that passage is a Christianizing interpolation but rather a reference to a wholly different group of people, militant Jewish "messianics" who were trying to oust Rome from their homeland. Laupot does a lot with the Roman generals' metaphor of "root and branch" and sees the term Nazorean (various spellings) NOT as a reference to Nazareth but to this group's claim to be the "branch" of the Davidic root.

If Laupot is right, he adds weight to the thesis that modern Christians can't use Tacitus in support of their claims that their religion has an early 1st-century history. He goes on to suggest that after these militant-Jewish "christiani" were uprooted by the Romans in 70-72, the Pauline types moved into the vacuum and took over the name. ...

or merged with them, or these militant-Jewish 'christiani' had or developed influence over several groups sequentially or concurrently

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 06:26 PM

We cannot just be going over the same forgeries day after day.

It is already known that there is NO Provenance for Tacitus Annals with Christus for hundreds of years.

Three hundred years after Tacitus Annals with Christus was supposedly No Apologetic writer used Tacitus Annals with Christus to argue that Jesus did exist in the Flesh--NO-ONE.

1. In the 2nd century When Justin Martyr ARGUED Against Trypho and claimed Jesus Christ did come he did NOT use Tacitus Annals with Christus.

2. In the early 3rd century When "On the Flesh of Christ" was composed TO ARGUE that Jesus was NOT a Phantom we hear NOTHING of Tacitus Annals with Christus.

3. In the mid 3rd century When "Against Celsus" was composed to argue against Celsus who claimed Jesus had a human father Neither Celsus or Origen made use of Tacitus Annals with Christus.

4. In the 4th century when the History of the Church was supposedly composed there is NO claim that Tacitus wrote about Jesus.

5. At the End of the 4th century when Sulpitius Severus wrote the Sacred History of the Church there is NO CLAIM that Tacitus wrote about Jesus.

It is so extremely easy to deduce that Tacitus Annals is forgery.

Christians and HJers today cling to Tacitus Annals with Christus because they think it is evidence for Christianity.

Well how is it that Christians did NOT use it in antiquity??

Tacitus Annals with Christus was UNKNOWN.

Tacitus Annals with Chritus is a most blatant forgery.

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The idea of two separate and independent groups both claiming to follow different messianic pretenders executed by Pontius Pilate seems unnecessarily complicated.

Andrew Criddle

What utter absurdity.

Andrew your posts are really pathetic it is as if you have not read the stories of Jesus at all.

This is a serious matter. You seem to be engaged in propaganda. Day after day, month after month and Year after year you repeat the very same errors.

Even in gMark it is claimed there was ANOTHER that was performing miracles under the name of Christ.

Even the Jesus character claimed there would be MANY FALSE CHRIST and MANY WILL BE DECEIVED.

1. Matthew 24:5 KJV

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

2. Mark 13:6 KJV

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

3. Luke 21:8 KJV

Quote:

And he said , Take heed that ye be not deceived : for many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and the time draweth near : go ye not therefore after them.

And NOT only did the Jesus character claim there would be Many false Christ but in the Earliest stories it is claim there was SOME OTHER CHRIST in the very time of the supposed Jesus.

Mark 9:38 KJV

Quote:

And John answered him, saying , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said , Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

In the time of PILATE, IN THE VERY STORIES of the Canon, there was a CHRISTUS who was NOT Jesus.

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

03-10-2013, 06:26 PM	#339
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	We cannot just be going over the same forgeries day after day. It is already known that there is NO Provenance for Tacitus Annals with Christus for hundreds of years. Three hundred years after Tacitus Annals with Christus was supposedly No Apologetic writer used Tacitus Annals with Christus to argue that Jesus did exist in the Flesh--NO-ONE. 1. In the 2nd century When Justin Martyr ARGUED Against Trypho and claimed Jesus Christ did come he did NOT use Tacitus Annals with Christus. 2. In the early 3rd century When "On the Flesh of Christ" was composed TO ARGUE that Jesus was NOT a Phantom we hear NOTHING of Tacitus Annals with Christus. 3. In the mid 3rd century When "Against Celsus" was composed to argue against Celsus who claimed Jesus had a human father Neither Celsus or Origen made use of Tacitus Annals with Christus. 4. In the 4th century when the History of the Church was supposedly composed there is NO claim that Tacitus wrote about Jesus. 5. At the End of the 4th century when Sulpitius Severus wrote the Sacred History of the Church there is NO CLAIM that Tacitus wrote about Jesus. It is so extremely easy to deduce that Tacitus Annals is forgery. Christians and HJers today cling to Tacitus Annals with Christus because they think it is evidence for Christianity. Well how is it that Christians did NOT use it in antiquity?? Tacitus Annals with Christus was UNKNOWN. Tacitus Annals with Chritus is a most blatant forgery.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.