FathomFFI

You see, it really doesn't matter to me what you think. I am satisfied in understanding that you really do not understand any of this, as evidenced by your previous posts.

:wave:

thentian

Okay, that is hilarious, I guess.

However, to me, the question still remains. How likely is it, really, that Pilate would send such a report? I'm not at all sure provincial governors sent reports to Rome about executions of single persons, as a general rule. I would also like to know if reports of this kind were routinely archived for posterity, and how likely it is that these archives remained for Tacitus to read.

Oh, and don't forget the question I asked at the end, please!

I'm reposting it for your convenience:

Solitary Man

That's not exactly true.

Solitary Man

Don't worry much about it. I've corrected spamandham before on his spelling. That he focuses one spelling mistake is indicative of what he actually can do with the argument (i.e. nothing).

aa5874

You appear to have completely misunderstood Justin Martyr in First Apology. It is clear that the followers of Simon Magus and Marcion were called Christians

First Apology 7 And Justin reapeats the same thing, concerning Simon Magus , Meander and Marcion, in First Apology26, that is, Philosophers differ in doctrine but all are called Philosophers. Christians differ in their beliefs but all are called Christians.

First Apology 26 It is extremely clear from Justin Martyr that many persons, including followers of Simon, Meander and Marcion, were called Christians even though their doctrines or beliefs differed significantly.

FathomFFI

It really depends on how you view the situation as it all went down.

When I examine the Gospels, I look for history as opposed to religion. The one thing I do is omit all the ridiculous stuff such as miracles et al, and try to concentrate on the consistencies that work with the external evidence we find in such accounts a Josephus and Tacitus.

There are a number of things in the Gospels which we can determine as being historical. There are two consistencies that need to be considered:

1. All 4 gospels have Jesus confessing to Pilate the crime of High Treason, when he professed himself to be a king.

2. All 4 Gospels have Pilate nailing the accusation of "Jesus, King of the Jews" over Jesus' head on the cross.

This would be no ordinary crime, and no ordinary criminal. Jesus would be viewed by Pilate as someone who posed a threat to the Caesar, since he professed to be another rival king in the Caesar's empire.

Pilate would have sent a report that he crucified the "King of The Jews," and what a boast it would be for Pilate. This would never be kept quiet under those circumstances.

Since we don't know what Pilate's native tongue would be, we can't say. I suspect he was Greek, as per his name, thus it would have been sent in Greek as "Christos."

Cesc

Ok thx. So if got this right it would also be correct to use "the mischievous" in this case?

Yes, but in this case the Latin superstitio can never be translated as "superstition", can it? (same as bottom question)
Maybe "cult", "religion", "belief", etc., thats up for debate. But never "superstition", right? I just wanna make sure Im not mistaken.

Ok, but today when people read "superstition" we all know what is meant by that word. My point is if it says in a modern translation that Tacitus thinks Christianity is a "mischievous superstition" then I dont assume I have to get an English language dictionary to understand it. If I do, then its not a fair translation.

I see, my bad. I thought this thread was about these specific Tacitus things.

In your opinion, can "superstition" in any way be defended as a fair translation of superstitio in this case?

FathomFFI

"Christus" is the Latin variation of the Greek "Christos." Tacitus was written in Latin.

Ben C Smith

First, do you know for certain that Simon was called Christ? Or are you merely assuming that a claim to some kind of godhood automatically means a claim to be Christ?

Second, are you aware of the connection between Simon Magus and the Christ who suffered in Judea? Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3:

For, since the angels ruled the world ill, because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, [Simon] had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured, and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man, and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judea, when he had not suffered.

Simon suffering, or seeming to suffer, in Judea? I care not how you reconstruct this scenario, but it is clearly not independent of the story of Christ Jesus suffering in Judea. I put it to you that this is a better explanation of why the Simonians were called Christians; their leader had made a claim that linked him inextricably, not with just any Christ figure, but specifically with the Christ figure who had suffered (or seemed to suffer) in Judea. The Christ in Christian, both for the Simonians and for the Marcionites, is the Christ who reportedly suffered in Judea.

Ben.

FathomFFI

You don't understand how that is to be read and understood. Here is an easier translation:

The argument above is all about people being accused of being Christians, and being persecuted. It tells you that people were getting labeled as a Christian even when they weren't a Christian, and then being persecuted.

The objection to all this was that criminals should be punished as evil doers, and not as Christians. The label of "Christian" was being hung around the necks of people just to get them persecuted because being a Christian was a good way to get yourself killed, so people were accusing each other of being a Christian whether they were actually a Christian or not.

The author was objecting to non-Christian criminals being persecuted as though they were Christians, because it tarnished the Christian name.