Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cesc · 06-24-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

2. Tacitus wrote the passage not in order to tell a factual historical account about Christ or Christianity for which he cared little, but instead to tell a factual historical account about the (if I understand correctly) Fires of Rome. To which the Christ/Pilate detail had no relevance whatsoever.

Not entirely true, as far as # 2 is concerned. The passage Tacitus wrote was all connected by Nero's accusation against the Christians for starting the fires.

Tacitus pointed out that Nero personally was getting blamed for the fires. He also showed that in order to deflect blame away from himself, Nero blamed the Christians. Tacitus then demonstrated who the Christians were by connecting them to Christ, and by showing that Christ was executed by a Roman official, Pontius Pilate, back in Tiberius' reign.

The whole thing was relevant to the explanation.

I see. So in that case the Christ/Pilate statement would not merely be a "detail" but infact be relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

So would you not agree with me at least to some extent that in writing this particular short passage concerning the Fires of Rome, Tacitus would not care or have any reason to suspect whether the Pilate execution was a true certain historical fact or not?

No I would not agree because Tacitus has demonstrated a penchant for being factual and for correcting some previously written false history. Since he was writing about a Roman official (Pilate), and also writing about an event happening during the reign of Tiberius, it would appear to totally contradict his own purpose about correcting history if he himself began to create a false history for Rome in regards to Pilate and Tiberius.

Point taken, he would certainly care about being as factual as possible about statements concerning any Roman high official. So if he had had any reason to doubt for one second the factuality of the Christ/Pilate execution we should assume he tried to look into it. But what if he didn't have any reason to doubt it, which seems to be the case (read in relation to my next response).

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

The way I see it as of this moment:

That was not the point of his writing it (point 2) and he had no reason to doubt it to begin with (point 1). So why would he even bother to look it up. He would have practically no reason to do so. He certainly didnt write the Annals to tell anything about the history of the Christian sect itslelf and without their role in the Fires of Rome he would most likely had no reason at all to write about this 'ridiculous' sect. He cared little, and as you point out his intended audience certainly cared little about it. They only cared about the Fires of Rome.

What Im saying is that the probability in that case will rise considerably that he was infact writing the Christ/Pilate story even though it was hearsay. Even though he states that he wants to be factually correct about his history writing. But the detail about Christ/Pilate does not fall under the category of his history writing. Only the role of the Christian sect in the Fires of Rome. So the Christ/Pilate detail would be completely irrelevant as far as Tacitus knew and he only mentions it to briefly explain what the Christian sect was about.

His statement that "Christ suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate" was irrelevant to the overall passage. He was not trying to establish any historicity about the Christ/Pilate story at all, but instead the historicity of the persecution becuz it had relevance to the Fires of Rome. Why would he care one single bit about the historicity of the Christ/Pilate statement. Sure, its important to us now, but it wasn't at all to Tacitus (rather the opposite, it would seem to me).

It mattered little to him to be correct about the Christ/Pilate story, becuz that was not the point of the story, only a single short sentence about a sect he cared little for anyway, even disliked as I understand. And since, to begin with, he had no reason to doubt the historicity of this - to him - irrelevant execution of Christ/Pilate he would just accept it as fact, or he simply wouldnt care. If he had found out afterwards that it was merely an urban legend so he had been non-factual about Christ/Pilate, do you think he would have lost any sleep over that? Imo, only so far as if it had had any relevance to what he would consider "real history", which it supposedly wouldnt have.

He couldnt care less if he was being factual or not about Christ/Pilate becuz it was just a silly sect to him and he had no reason to even begin to suspect that perhaps Christ/Pilate was just an urban legend. Then why wouldnt he accept Christ/Pilate hearsay without blinking? He had no reason to suspect it was perhaps an urban legend and it was not important to him. He didnt care about that tiny detail and his intended audience wouldnt care either.

Do you see my reasoning and what do you think? Or anyone else?

You see this is where we disagree. Tacitus was a Roman historian, writing Roman history. He was not writing the history of the Christians, you see. If Tacitus had not checked to make sure it was factual, then he would be guilty of including Christian superstitions into his Roman history, since he calls the Christian religion a superstition.

For Tacitus to use hearsay would amount to him actually lying in his annals about Pontius Pilate and the reign of Tiberius, if the execution of Christ by Pilate had not actually occurred. If it were not true, and only a superstition, he'd get ridiculed very fast for writing such a thing.

All the evidence we have about those early Romans is that they absolutely hated the Christians. The Christian religion was viewed as blasphemous to the Romans, and with Tacitus epitomizing the quality of the Roman elite, it is just completely improbable that he would ever include superstitions into his Annals.

In conclusion, the textual evidence shows that Tacitus sourced his Annals from historical Roman records as well as the imperial registries. It appears a bit on the ridiculous side if we then expect him to show his sources for every word or paragraph, as in the paragraph concerning Christ. He does list his sources for many Roman officials, but not all by any stretch.

The only conclusion I can arrive at, given the evidence and the understanding of the mindset of Romans circa 1st century, is that Tacitus provided a factual account of Roman history regarding the execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

Regards.

I completely understand your point. But who says he regarded the execution as part of the 'superstitions' (regardless of what precisely that word implied). Lots of people were executed or crucified (poor rascals!), nothing 'Christian superstition' about that at all?

So I would then propose that Tacitus' line of thought could have been that "Pilate executed lots of men, big deal, but this one happened to be a leader of a sect with superstitious beliefs".
By including the execution (any execution/crucifixion) as a fact, Tacitus was in no danger of including any superstition in his Annals. He was completely home free in that department. Why would any Roman doubt that Pilate had infact executed their leader. Sure, they'd doubt that this leader was who the Christians said he was, but surely not a trivial execution itself? ("trivial" as judging by Tacitus' passage)

So to me it can be either way. He could have looked into it or he could have accepted the hearsay because there's nothing superstitious about a Roman killing a Jew (pun intended!) And that if he'd taken the trouble to look it up, it would then rather have been for the purpose of documenting Christian history than Roman history, one thing in itself we agree would be unlikely.

In conclusion, I dont regard the Christ/Pilate statement as being as "important" to Tacitus as you do. And by that reasoning, I still assume that its just as likely to be hearsay than properly sourced, and perhaps even more the former than the latter. But as I wrote, I personally need to do alot of studying before I can feel comfortable with any true conclusion about this Tacitus business. Goin to bed now and gonna watch the rest of "The Passion" (a documentary by Mel Gibson).

Cheers

patcleaver · 06-24-2008, 06:35 PM

A science fiction writer named Larry Hubbard, who said there was more money in religion then writing, used his powerful mind to discover that Xenu, the ruler of the galaxy 75 million years ago, transported billions of excess aliens on space ships to earth and put them into volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs; and Xenu collected their thetans (souls) and brainwashed them with Christianity and other religions to confuse them, and then left them on earth; and today most people are possessed by dozens of these body thetans, but his church of Scientologists can detect these thetans using an electrical resistance meter while asking you questions, and then clear (exorcise) them for a modest fee. Scientology is just an ignorant superstition.

After reading this, would a reasonable person think that I believed in Xenu and all the other things in the first sentance of this post?

It is at least ambiguous, whether the author believes it or not, when an author discusses religious beliefs of someone else.

"Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men ... whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again ..."
-- Tacitus, Annals

After reading this, why would you think that Tacitus believed the Christian superstition that Christ was killed by the Romans?

What is the pernicious superstition? If its the Christian's beliefs then the only beliefs of the Christians that he mentions are their belief that "Christus, was put to death by ... Pontius Pilate". The Christians blamed the Romans for killing Christ. It is possible that upper class Romans were simply aware that the Christian charge against them, that they killed Christ, was simply not true.

Tacitus probably checked the official records to verify that nobody named Christ was ever executed under Pontius Pilot, and then tells us that the Christian belief, that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilot, is a pernicious superstition.

Can you prove that the Christian belief in the execution of Christ by the Romans is not the pernicious superstition that Tacitus is talking about.

Can you prove that other Christian beliefs that he does not mention are the pernicious superstition, but the Christian beliefs that he does mention are not the pernicious superstition, but things he agrees with.

FathomFFI · 06-24-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Not entirely true, as far as # 2 is concerned. The passage Tacitus wrote was all connected by Nero's accusation against the Christians for starting the fires.

Tacitus pointed out that Nero personally was getting blamed for the fires. He also showed that in order to deflect blame away from himself, Nero blamed the Christians. Tacitus then demonstrated who the Christians were by connecting them to Christ, and by showing that Christ was executed by a Roman official, Pontius Pilate, back in Tiberius' reign.

The whole thing was relevant to the explanation.

I see. So in that case the Christ/Pilate statement would not merely be a "detail" but infact be relevant.

Relevant as an incidental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Point taken, he would certainly care about being as factual as possible about statements concerning any Roman high official. So if he had had any reason to doubt for one second the factuality of the Christ/Pilate execution we should assume he tried to look into it. But what if he didn't have any reason to doubt it, which seems to be the case (read in relation to my next response).

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

You see this is where we disagree. Tacitus was a Roman historian, writing Roman history. He was not writing the history of the Christians, you see. If Tacitus had not checked to make sure it was factual, then he would be guilty of including Christian superstitions into his Roman history, since he calls the Christian religion a superstition.

For Tacitus to use hearsay would amount to him actually lying in his annals about Pontius Pilate and the reign of Tiberius, if the execution of Christ by Pilate had not actually occurred. If it were not true, and only a superstition, he'd get ridiculed very fast for writing such a thing.

All the evidence we have about those early Romans is that they absolutely hated the Christians. The Christian religion was viewed as blasphemous to the Romans, and with Tacitus epitomizing the quality of the Roman elite, it is just completely improbable that he would ever include superstitions into his Annals.

In conclusion, the textual evidence shows that Tacitus sourced his Annals from historical Roman records as well as the imperial registries. It appears a bit on the ridiculous side if we then expect him to show his sources for every word or paragraph, as in the paragraph concerning Christ. He does list his sources for many Roman officials, but not all by any stretch.

The only conclusion I can arrive at, given the evidence and the understanding of the mindset of Romans circa 1st century, is that Tacitus provided a factual account of Roman history regarding the execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

Regards.

I completely understand your point. But who says he regarded the execution as part of the 'superstitions' (regardless of what precisely that word implied). Lots of people were executed or crucified (poor rascals!), nothing 'Christian superstition' about that at all?

He didn't regard the crucifixion as part of the superstitions. The superstitions occurred after the crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

So I would then propose that Tacitus' line of thought could have been that "Pilate executed lots of men, big deal, but this one happened to be a leader of a sect with superstitious beliefs".

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

By including the execution (any execution/crucifixion) as a fact, Tacitus was in no danger of including any superstition in his Annals. He was completely home free in that department. Why would any Roman doubt that Pilate had infact executed their leader. Sure, they'd doubt that this leader was who the Christians said he was, but surely not a trivial execution itself? ("trivial" as judging by Tacitus' passage)

History is all about recording the past for the sake of the future. Tacitus was merely stating a few facts about Christus and the Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

So to me it can be either way. He could have looked into it or he could have accepted the hearsay because there's nothing superstitious about a Roman killing a Jew (pun intended!) And that if he'd taken the trouble to look it up, it would then rather have been for the purpose of documenting Christian history than Roman history, one thing in itself we agree would be unlikely.

How would looking it up in the Roman registry or Roman history books make it a "Christian" history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

In conclusion, I dont regard the Christ/Pilate statement as being as "important" to Tacitus as you do. And by that reasoning, I still assume that its just as likely to be hearsay than properly sourced, and perhaps even more the former than the latter. But as I wrote, I personally need to do alot of studying before I can feel comfortable with any true conclusion about this Tacitus business. Goin to bed now and gonna watch the rest of "The Passion" (a documentary by Mel Gibson).

Cheers

Well then, you will need to find examples of Tacitus using hearsay for his Annals to prove your point. You may find places where he actually tells you that he's heard hearsay, and relates it, but to find him using hearsay as a historical record?

Good luck.

FathomFFI · 06-24-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

"Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men ... whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again ..."

-- Tacitus, Annals

After reading this, why would you think that Tacitus believed the Christian superstition that Christ was killed by the Romans?

What is the pernicious superstition? If its the Christian's beliefs then the only beliefs of the Christians that he mentions are their belief that "Christus, was put to death by ... Pontius Pilate". The Christians blamed the Romans for killing Christ. It is possible that upper class Romans were simply aware that the Christian charge against them, that they killed Christ, was simply not true.

Tacitus probably checked the official records to verify that nobody named Christ was ever executed under Pontius Pilot, and then tells us that the Christian belief, that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilot, is a pernicious superstition.

Can you prove that the Christian belief in the execution of Christ by the Romans is not the pernicious superstition that Tacitus is talking about.

Can you prove that other Christian beliefs that he does not mention are the pernicious superstition, but the Christian beliefs that he does mention are not the pernicious superstition, but things he agrees with.

I almost fell off my chair when I read this from you. Let me demonstrate how silly your argument is.

You are saying that the execution of Christus by Pontius Pilate was the "pernicious superstition."

Are you ready for a good laugh? Watch how I destroy that assertion with just a couple of simple questions:

1. What is superstitious about Pilate executing Christus? Where's the superstition in that?

2. If the execution of Christus by Pontius Pilate was the "pernicious superstition," should we then think that there was a report stating that Pilate had also executed Christus in Rome because the text says "broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome?"

Are you trying to say that a report was going around that Pontius Pilate executed Christus in Rome?

spamandham · 06-24-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

So then we can ask; where did he get his information about Christus from?

A legitimate question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Or would Tacitus be writing of Christus because it was Roman history?

A possible answer, but one no more plausible than many others. Modern skeptics read between the lines of ancient myths to unjustifiably filter out presumed history from obvious fantasy. Would we expect ancient writers to be even more skeptical than this lackadaisical form of modern scholarship?

We have not established that Tacitus' Christians are followers of Jesus rather than say, Simon Magus. We can not say with any reasonable degree of certainty whether the Gospels came first, whether Tacitus wrote first, or whether Tacitus was augmented after the fact, and we have no clue as to what his sources were in regards to Christians.

FathomFFI · 06-24-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

We have not established that Tacitus' Christians are followers of Jesus rather than say, Simon Magus.

Since the text mentions that those Christians got their name from the Christ who was executed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius, then we must ask the big question:

Is there any evidence whatsoever that another Christ other than Jesus was also executed by Pontius Pilate sometime around AD 33, and that that Christ also had followers known as Christians?

When does skepticism become so unreasonable that it becomes a mockery?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

We can not say with any reasonable degree of certainty whether the Gospels came first, whether Tacitus wrote first, or whether Tacitus was augmented after the fact, and we have no clue as to what his sources were in regards to Christians.

Yes we can say with total 100% certainty that many gospels came long before Tacitus, whether written or oral, because it is virtually unanimous in the scholarly world that Paul existed and over half his letters are authentic.

In those letters, Paul mentions several gospels in existence. Your problem is thinking "canon" only, and not considering oral and other written gospels.

And until you can prove that another person named Christ was executed by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33 in Judea, and Christians were named after him, then it is with all skepticism considered that Tacitus wrote about the only person who has ever been known to be that Christ.

His name was Jesus, and it's been proven 100% conclusive until proven otherwise. Not you, nor anyone else on this forum has presented even so much as a miserable argument against the evidence. All arguments have been worse than miserable. Pathetic in fact. Disgraceful to scholarship.

All assertion; no evidence, period. <-- that's the best any of you have done.

And you call yourselves "skeptics?" You make a mockery of honest skepticism.

spamandham · 06-24-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Is there any evidence whatsoever that another Christ other than Jesus was also executed by Pontius Pilate sometime around AD 33, and that that Christ also had followers known as Christians?

You have noted correlation (which was certainly not contended anyway), not causality. The range of datings of the gospels overlap the dating range of the portion of Tacitus' Annals of interest, I assume you are aware.

Further, there is very little in ancient history which has arrived to us in mint condition. We certainly do not have extant copies of Annals dating to the late first/early 2nd century. What we have are copies of copies of copies...of copies, the earliest of which we have extant, being dated to around 850 CE..., and almost certainly generously edited along the way.

The calling out of Pontius Pilate by name - an otherwise rather minor figure of secular history but remarkably familiar to anyone who's read the NT - should set off your BSometer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

When does skepticism become so unreasonable that it becomes a mockery?

When the case being argued is unreasonably strongly supported, rather obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

We can not say with any reasonable degree of certainty whether the Gospels came first, whether Tacitus wrote first, or whether Tacitus was augmented after the fact, and we have no clue as to what his sources were in regards to Christians.

Yes we can say with total 100% certainty that many gospels came long before Tacitus, ...

:rolling:

FathomFFI · 06-25-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Is there any evidence whatsoever that another Christ other than Jesus was also executed by Pontius Pilate sometime around AD 33, and that that Christ also had followers known as Christians?

You have noted correlation (which was certainly not contended anyway), not causality. The range of datings of the gospels overlap the dating range of the portion of Tacitus' Annals of interest, I assume you are aware.

And I assume you are completely unaware that there are no reputable scholars in agreement with you? Their combined credentials certainly show far more credibility than your completely unsupported and uneducated opinions.

Your opinion is worthless without supporting evidence. You've said nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Further, there is very little in ancient history which has arrived to us in mint condition. We certainly do not have extant copies of Annals dating to the late first/early 2nd century. What we have are copies of copies of copies...of copies, the earliest of which we have extant, being dated to around 850 CE..., and almost certainly generously edited along the way.

And you have evidence to support this supposed editing along the way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The calling out of Pontius Pilate by name - an otherwise rather minor figure of secular history but remarkably familiar to anyone who's read the NT - should set off your BSometer.

Why should he be any different than Pliny or Tacitus? They were all governors. It's also been proven that he existed, numerous times. He's actually recorded historically secularly more than Pliny or Tacitus. And why would his mention in Tacitus- which describes Christianity as superstitions, abominations, and just about everything else- be suspicious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

When the case being argued is unreasonably strongly supported, rather obviously.

Okay, so the better the arguments, the more you resist? So instead of acknowledging the value of the arguments and evidence, you simply push it all aside and say, "Not good enough?"

Like a said, honest skepticism is is unheard of with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Yes we can say with total 100% certainty that many gospels came long before Tacitus, ...

:rolling:

Prove the evidence wrong. Go ahead. We're waiting. Prove all the scholars wrong. Prove it all wrong.

Can you?

No, because you lack the education. Period.

:deadhorse:

jules? · 06-25-2008, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

<snip>

After reading this, would a reasonable person think that I believed in Xenu and all the other things in the first sentance of this post?

It is at least ambiguous, whether the author believes it or not, when an author discusses religious beliefs of someone else.

"Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men ... whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again ..."
-- Tacitus, Annals

After reading this, why would you think that Tacitus believed the Christian superstition that Christ was killed by the Romans?

What is the pernicious superstition? If its the Christian's beliefs then the only beliefs of the Christians that he mentions are their belief that "Christus, was put to death by ... Pontius Pilate". The Christians blamed the Romans for killing Christ. It is possible that upper class Romans were simply aware that the Christian charge against them, that they killed Christ, was simply not true.

Tacitus probably checked the official records to verify that nobody named Christ was ever executed under Pontius Pilot, and then tells us that the Christian belief, that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilot, is a pernicious superstition.

Can you prove that the Christian belief in the execution of Christ by the Romans is not the pernicious superstition that Tacitus is talking about.

Can you prove that other Christian beliefs that he does not mention are the pernicious superstition, but the Christian beliefs that he does mention are not the pernicious superstition, but things he agrees with.

A good point, simple and an explaination why Tacitus would not use a name and instead just the title. [some seem to miss the simple point that the christian belief or 'superstition' was [is] that Pilate executed their leader and that he rose again, I think Tacitus would think this to be a very silly story]

Roger Pearse · 06-25-2008, 01:37 AM

This thread seems to involve an awful lot of speculation being passed off as evidence. It's not useful to invent some kind of story and then demand people 'explain' various details of it.

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

06-24-2008, 06:35 PM	#152
patcleaver Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 742	A science fiction writer named Larry Hubbard, who said there was more money in religion then writing, used his powerful mind to discover that Xenu, the ruler of the galaxy 75 million years ago, transported billions of excess aliens on space ships to earth and put them into volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs; and Xenu collected their thetans (souls) and brainwashed them with Christianity and other religions to confuse them, and then left them on earth; and today most people are possessed by dozens of these body thetans, but his church of Scientologists can detect these thetans using an electrical resistance meter while asking you questions, and then clear (exorcise) them for a modest fee. Scientology is just an ignorant superstition. After reading this, would a reasonable person think that I believed in Xenu and all the other things in the first sentance of this post? It is at least ambiguous, whether the author believes it or not, when an author discusses religious beliefs of someone else. "Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men ... whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again ..." -- Tacitus, Annals After reading this, why would you think that Tacitus believed the Christian superstition that Christ was killed by the Romans? What is the pernicious superstition? If its the Christian's beliefs then the only beliefs of the Christians that he mentions are their belief that "Christus, was put to death by ... Pontius Pilate". The Christians blamed the Romans for killing Christ. It is possible that upper class Romans were simply aware that the Christian charge against them, that they killed Christ, was simply not true. Tacitus probably checked the official records to verify that nobody named Christ was ever executed under Pontius Pilot, and then tells us that the Christian belief, that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilot, is a pernicious superstition. Can you prove that the Christian belief in the execution of Christ by the Romans is not the pernicious superstition that Tacitus is talking about. Can you prove that other Christian beliefs that he does not mention are the pernicious superstition, but the Christian beliefs that he does mention are not the pernicious superstition, but things he agrees with.

06-25-2008, 01:37 AM	#160
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	This thread seems to involve an awful lot of speculation being passed off as evidence. It's not useful to invent some kind of story and then demand people 'explain' various details of it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.