Ben C Smith

Hi.

I think Toto is agreeing with you that the extreme punishment is capital punishment, or execution, but not seeing how it has to be crucifixion in particular (as opposed to, say, hanging or beheading). In the example you provide, why can it not be merely that this particular case of the extreme punishment, or execution, happens to be crucifixion?

Ben.

Solitary Man

Is there any evidence where it's not crucifixion?

FathomFFI

It can be, depending on which class it's being applied to. For Roman citizens the extreme penalty could be a simple efficient loping off of the head.

For non-citizens and slaves, crucifixion was the extreme, ultimate, supreme penalty, and the one preferred by the Romans to use. It was done to set an example that nobody would soon forget. Agonizing on a cross for a day or two in front of people is not something that would inspire any other slave or non-citizen to commit a capital offense.

Toto

Yes - the example I cited where the miscreants were beheaded.

jules?

I find the likelihood that Tacitus took an official record of the trial and execution of a messanic wannabe in Pilate's time and cross referanced it to the execution of Christians by Nero somewhat implausable.

in the first instance any record of trial and execution would require a name for the victim. In Histories Tacitus refers to Simon who proclaimed himself 'king of the Jews' and hence the messiah or christus. Even then the association between a specific wannabe messiah and the Christians of Rome is not clear. Tacitus would not know that Jesus ben Joseph would be the christus of Nero's christians unless he had been told especially as Jesus' followers were so few in number compared to other 'christs' who met with an equally sticky end. Any official document would only state the name of criminal and crime, extra information is required to link official document to the religion of the christians.

Tacitus could have referred to Josephus who mentions numerous robbers and trickster who posed as the christ. But Josephus makes it clear that Vespasian is the christ and this belief is mentioned by Suetonius as well as other Roman writers which would determine that it was well known.

Tacitus could have spoken to Pliny the younger but although Pliny knows the christians as subversive he is unsure of what they actually believe.

Surprisingly Pliny is not told that the christians follow the christ crucified by Pilate he is simply their god.

this leads to the far more interesting question of who the christians in 64 really were. anyway that is another story. Although the crucifixion of christians was to enable them to be human torches which appears to derive from these christians predicting that Rome will burn along with the rest of the heathens, [at least according to later critics of christianity such as Celsus, who beleived the christians had perveted the long held belief in the cycle of destruction to include god raining down fire]

Solitary Man

How do you connect the two?

Who all were called Christus?

But we have that. Josephus and the Gospels report the same thing. The best hypothesis that satisfies all the evidence is that a real person named Jesus called Christ was crucified by Pilate.

Josephus never calls Vespasian the Christ. He merely said that he was whom the prophecies talked about.

Why is that relevant?

Er, shades of Doherty and bad Latin. Pliny does not say that Christ is their god, but merely that they worship him as if he were a god.

Ben C Smith

I do not know. (I am asking.)

I myself happen to suspect that Tacitus is probably echoing the servile supplicium usually meted out to slaves (refer to Hengel, Crucifixion, page 3). The route that Fathom seems to be going would raise this suspicion to firmer ground, if it pans out.

The explanation that crucifixion was reserved for noncitizens is the sort of thing I was after. Here is my next question: While (I agree) only noncitizens could be crucified, crucifixion was, AFAICT, not the only punishment reserved for noncitizens. For example, Theudas was beheaded (according to Josephus), and I doubt Theudas was a Roman citizen.

So, what is the evidence that a term like supplicium adfectus, when applied to a noncitizen, generally means crucifixion as opposed to some other form of capital punishment? (I am neither confirming nor denying that such evidence exists; again, I am asking.)

Thanks.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

Evidence? What evidence? All you have referred to is scholarly opinion "on both sides" which is "at odds". And if the main appeal is to Eusebius, that shows how feeble such "evidence" is.

By not presenting any of that evidence (other than a quote from Eusebius, which requires some evidence that we ought to trust it), you have made no counter to my post other than an appeal to authority.

So a "belief" by Eusebius a century and a half after the document is 'proof' that Trypho existed? This from a writer who presents us with a letter from Jesus himself written to Abgar of Edessa?

Christian tradition contains many ideas which virtually no scholarship today considers at all reliable, let alone accurate. Such as, for example, Eusebius' claim that Mark evangelized Egypt and was its first Christian bishop, or that Philo went to Rome to speak with Peter. Is Eusebius' view of Trypho to be regarded as any more secure than that?

A "mere 175 years"... (I can come up with no counter to this which would do it justice.) If this is the best you can come up with, I am glad to see that I don't have to take any further time on the matter. With responses like this, I don't need "good luck" to lower that peg.

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

You may be focusing too much on the person of Christus being mentioned instead of what the paragraph was trying to tell you. But let me show you what I mean ...

The purpose of calling him "Christus" instead of Jesus was to show his relationship to Christians. This is clearly evidenced by the words of "from whom the name had its origin." The paragraph is really about the Christians, and not so much about Christ. It details the punishments placed upon the Christians by Nero.

Regards.

FathomFFI

But you see, Earl, that's my point. Your diatribe was presented as if it was a fact, when the real fact is that it was merely an opinion which attempted to invalidate mine. So how is my opinion any less valid when scholars agree with it?

Since Eusebius demonstrates a knowledge of where the event occurred, then that is some evidence that his knowledge may have originated with a yet unknown source.

Regards