Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 06-26-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

And shouldn't it properly translate "and the [mischievous superstition]" instead of "and a [mischievous superstition]"?

In Latin, there is no definite article. But English idiom is fine with using "a" to specify definity. Cf. "it was a most horrible banquet".

Quote:

2. I dont understand why we still use the word "superstition"? Why does that word even appear one single time in this whole thread?

Because the Latin is superstitio, -onis.

Quote:

If I understand correctly, it is infact a gross mistranslation (and one which has needlessly helped to further complicate this debate at that), even in the translation above.

Superstition has a wide range of meanings. I don't have my OED (it's packed away), but dictionary.com has some relevance there. Cf. "A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance".

Quote:

If I wanna try to properly understand the subject matter, I have to first find out exactly what Tacitus meant with "superstitio". Anyone has any suggestions?

We've been over it a million times here. Check the archives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus
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 Pilatus, and the mischievous dangerous movement, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

Cult would be a far better term than movement, but only cult in the pejorative sense. Cult and superstition are both specific words in anthropology.

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Well, if followers of Simon Magus were known as Christians, does it not follow that he was known as Christ to them? :huh:

This is why I asked you about Marcion and the Marcionites. If followers of Marcion were known as Christians, does it follow that Marcion was known as Christ to them?

Ben.

In the case of Marcion, we know Jesus was his Christ, so it wouldn't follow that Marcion's followers would refer to Marcion as Christ (although I suppose they might have, but let's not wander too far into the weeds).

It's different in the case of Simon Magus. He was the object of worship for his followers, and not merely a prophet/apostle/evangelist.

Solitary Man · 06-26-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Paul had his own followers, and so did Peter. But nobody thinks Paul or Peter were the Christ.

Martin Luther spawned Lutheran Christians, and Catholics follow the Pope. But neither the Pope nor Martin Luther are considered to be the Christ.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

This is why I asked you about Marcion and the Marcionites. If followers of Marcion were known as Christians, does it follow that Marcion was known as Christ to them?

Ben.

In the case of Marcion, we know Jesus was his Christ, so it wouldn't follow that Marcion's followers would refer to Marcion as Christ (although I suppose they might have, but let's not wander too far into the weeds).

It's different in the case of Simon Magus. He was the object of worship for his followers, and not merely a prophet/apostle/evangelist.

Simon Magnus was never regarded as the Christ, nor is there any record of him regarding himself in such a way.

He regarded himself as "The Great Power of God." His illusions won him many supporters, including some Christians, Jews, Greeks, et al. But no one ever thought of him as a Christ.

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Simon Magnus was never regarded as the Christ,

I would think someone who had anything to offer, would at least know how to spell 'Magus' before authoratively declaring he was never regarded as Christ.. You can't blame your fingers. 'n' is nowhere near 'g' or 'u' on your keyboard.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Simon Magnus was never regarded as the Christ,

I would think someone who had anything to offer, would at least know how to spell 'Magus' before authoratively declaring he was never regarded as Christ.. You can't blame your fingers. 'n' is nowhere near 'g' or 'u' on your keyboard.

Okay, so pointing out a spelling error does what precisely, to counter my point?

thentian · 06-26-2008, 03:49 PM

I still don't understand what FathomFF is ging on about in this post:

Quote:

All of the above are subsections of the following header:

Quote:
(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

In which we responded to at length with:

Quote:
The above can easily be dismissed as assertion. He attempts to reduce Jesus' signifigance to nothing more than a carpenter from Nazareth, and therefore not worthy of mention. This indicates intellectual dishonesty right from the start, as a "capenter from Nazareth" is by no means an honest portrayal of a person of Jesus' purported signifigance. He then attempts to sell the idea that it would be unlikely that Tacitus(?) would have sent any report to Rome regarding the verse where Christ is mentioned, but he bases this upon the idea that the verse is about Jesus, as opposed to being about The Great Fires of Rome.

Well, he's wrong.

The verse is actually an excerpt from a work by Tacitus known as the Annals, and it is part his historical account of the Great Fires of Rome. It depicts how Nero was accused of starting the fires himself, but to quell his critics he in turn accused just about anyone, with special attention given to Christians.

This verse fits perfectly in the Annals, as it works seamlessly with the story being told. Since the verse describes Christians and Christianity as "universally abhorred, vulgar, evil," and other such names, and also describes Christ as "one who in the reign of Tiberius suffered death as a criminal, under Pontius Pilate," then any idea of Christian interpolation breaches the boundries of reason, for what kind of Christian would speak of himself, his religion, and Christ in such a manner?

That's all that needs to be said about # 1.

Since all the subsections are dependent on # 1 to be true, then if # 1 is cast into doubt, then, as we said, that's all that needs to be said about # 1

The point made in (1) looks to me to be very simple: It is unlikely that Pilate would have sent a report to Rome about the crucifixion of Jesus, followed by some arguments in favor of this view.

So I would have expected a rebuttal to be along the lines of how governors in the provinces always sent reports about executions (did they?), or of how Pilate must have found Jesus' case especially interesting, or some other such reason.

The (1) argument also questions whether such a report would have been kept long enough for Tacitus to read it later, so it seems to me that we need to know something about roman archiving practices.

I placed a question mark in blue at the place where FathomFF looses me completely. First of all, shouldn't it be Pilate instead of Tacitus, there? And afterwards, it is all about Tacitus and the bit about Christus in the Annals. None of it seems to me to adress the question of how likely Pilate was to send a report to Rome about Jesus' execution and whether such a report would have been kept for Tacitus to find much later.

Another question entirely: would Pilate refer to Jesus as "Christus" in such a report? This seems to be required if your theory is that Tacitus got the name from Pilate's report.

Cheers!

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Martin Luther spawned Lutheran Christians, and Catholics follow the Pope. But neither the Pope nor Martin Luther are considered to be the Christ.

Do/did followers of Martin Luther, or the Pope follow these men as the object of their worship?

Did followers of Simon Magus?

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I still don't understand what FathomFF is ging on about in this post:

Quote:

All of the above are subsections of the following header:

Quote:
(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

In which we responded to at length with:

Quote:
The above can easily be dismissed as assertion. He attempts to reduce Jesus' signifigance to nothing more than a carpenter from Nazareth, and therefore not worthy of mention. This indicates intellectual dishonesty right from the start, as a "capenter from Nazareth" is by no means an honest portrayal of a person of Jesus' purported signifigance. He then attempts to sell the idea that it would be unlikely that Tacitus(?) would have sent any report to Rome regarding the verse where Christ is mentioned, but he bases this upon the idea that the verse is about Jesus, as opposed to being about The Great Fires of Rome.

Well, he's wrong.

The verse is actually an excerpt from a work by Tacitus known as the Annals, and it is part his historical account of the Great Fires of Rome. It depicts how Nero was accused of starting the fires himself, but to quell his critics he in turn accused just about anyone, with special attention given to Christians.

This verse fits perfectly in the Annals, as it works seamlessly with the story being told. Since the verse describes Christians and Christianity as "universally abhorred, vulgar, evil," and other such names, and also describes Christ as "one who in the reign of Tiberius suffered death as a criminal, under Pontius Pilate," then any idea of Christian interpolation breaches the boundries of reason, for what kind of Christian would speak of himself, his religion, and Christ in such a manner?

That's all that needs to be said about # 1.

Since all the subsections are dependent on # 1 to be true, then if # 1 is cast into doubt, then, as we said, that's all that needs to be said about # 1

The point made in (1) looks to me to be very simple: It is unlikely that Pilate would have sent a report to Rome about the crucifixion of Jesus, followed by some arguments in favor of this view.

So I would have expected a rebuttal to be along the lines of how governors in the provinces always sent reports about executions (did they?), or of how Pilate must have found Jesus' case especially interesting, or some other such reason.

The (1) argument also questions whether such a report would have been kept long enough for Tacitus to read it later, so it seems to me that we need to know something about roman archiving practices.

The point was clear. The writer used the excuse that it would be unlikely that a report would be sent to Rome because Jesus was nothing but a Nazarene carpenter.

The writer is McKinsey, an often refuted person of limited significance. His position is that Jesus the carpenter did not exist, but then tries to use the supposedly non-existent person of Jesus the carpenter as the reason why no report would be sent to Rome regarding the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

It's a false argument. His argument is based upon his assertion of the insignificance of Jesus because he was a lowly carpenter, yet at the same time he claims this lowly carpenter didn't exist.

He attempts to use an argument which contradicts his own views.

It's hilarious.

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I would think someone who had anything to offer, would at least know how to spell 'Magus' before authoratively declaring he was never regarded as Christ.. You can't blame your fingers. 'n' is nowhere near 'g' or 'u' on your keyboard.

Okay, so pointing out a spelling error does what precisely, to counter my point?

When your counter point is effectively "nuh uh", and you do not even have enough knowledge to properly spell the name of the guy we're discussing, it shows your counter point to be abjectly worthless.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.