Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Viklund · 10-08-2010, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Actually if I was engaged in looking at something outside my speciality and people were writing in a knowing way about it, I would want to know that they were in fact advocating as reasonable something that no professional agrees with. Wouldn't you?

Otherwise it merely depends how much of our time we want to spend reasoning with the ignorant and obtuse. I never feel a strong urge to try to prove what no educated person doubts, and what those who question it can offer no evidence for beyond reiteration. Others may feel differently, of course; but I find such people actually rather thin on the ground.

Not that this means that we should not investigate things for ourselves, rather than rely on authority. But let's have those who make fringe claims acknowledge that this is what they are doing. Too many of them like to hide behind a pretence of scholarship (I think of Freke and Gandy here, for instance), designed to influence the unwary.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Well, if it is an intelligent, or even the most intelligent reasoning, than I don’t care if it is not “academically respectable”, since then the academics most probably are wrong. This has happened on many occasions. So it is not a matter of referring to the academic position, but referring to an intelligent position, no matter if this also is the academic position or not. Of course one needs to be aware of, not necessarily the academic position itself, but the arguments which the academics rely upon. But that is all!

I understood your statement that it is not an academically respectable idea that this passage is an interpolation, as an argument in favour of it being genuine (or at least an argument against the arguments that it is a forgery). If this was not your intention, but only to refer to the position held by most academics, then I apologize. I do agree with your conclusion that we should “investigate things for ourselves, rather than rely on authority”

Roger Viklund

Roger Pearse · 10-08-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Viklund

Well, if it is an intelligent, or even the most intelligent reasoning, than I don’t care if it is not “academically respectable”, since then the academics most probably are wrong.

Well, we all have to deal sometime with people whose main method of argumentation is repetition. I shall look forward to your method of dealing with it!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto · 10-09-2010, 01:10 PM

An unproductive exchange between Roger and spin has been split off here and locked.

Back to the subject matter. . .

PhilosopherJay · 10-09-2010, 02:15 PM

Hi ynquirer,

I find it a rather amazing coincidence that Tacitus uses Christus and Chrestians, while Suetonius uses the exact opposite, Chrestus and Christians.
This suggests to me that we may be dealing with one interpolater who was working with the two texts. He was unsure if he should use the "i" or the "e" and placed his bets each way. Having Christus with Christians makes sense, having Chrestus with Chrestians makes sense. Splitting the terms the way they appear in Tacitus and Suetonius make no sense.

My other puzzle is the use of the expression "supplicio adfectus erat" for what the crucifixion of Jesus in Tacitas 15:44. He uses the expression crucibus adfixi shortly thereafter in the same paragraph to describe the punishment of the Chrestians, so he certainly knew how to describe a crucifixion. I am wondering if the words supplico adfectus erat could mean "affected supplication" instead of "death penalty." This would make more sense if the interpolater was trying to tell us in Tacitas that Christus/Chrestus came to Rome after pretending supplication,where all terrible things end up.

This seems to fit in with the idea of Irenaeus that Jesus lived till 50. Perhaps an alternative Christian history/myth had Jesus moving to Rome, continuing his preaching in the time of Claudius and living till the time of Nero. The interpolator tried to put this alternative story into the two texts.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay (AKA Jay Raskin)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Obviously enough, Annals 15:44 states an implied critique of Suetonius—both Tacitus and Suetonius were contemporary and competing colleagues. It doesn’t really matter whether the original word was ‘Christiani’ or ‘Chrestiani’, because there must have been hesitation in Rome about their name: Suetonius himself speaks of Chrestus in Divvus Claudius while of Christiani in Nero. What really matters is that Suetonius believes that the sect’s name comes from a ‘Chrestus’ of unknown origin, while Tacitus evidences it comes from Christus of Judea. And that he learnt from Josephus—whom else from?

stephan huller · 10-09-2010, 02:45 PM

Jay,

Consider the use of Chreistos in various places (Irenaeus AH Book 1) as another way to 'hedge one's bet.'

Stephan

Tyro · 10-09-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I find it a rather amazing coincidence that Tacitus uses Christus and Chrestians, while Suetonius uses the exact opposite, Chrestus and Christians.
This suggests to me that we may be dealing with one interpolater who was working with the two texts.

I do not understand why Suetonius is dealt with as saying something about Chrestus and Christiani. Suetonius is not mentioning impulsore chresto in the same context or even the same time as the Christiani. When Acts is written, apparently there was nothing to suggest that Christians had anything to do with the expulsion of Jews by Claudius. I don't see why the chresto-part would be an interpolation. Jews were uproaring at the instigation of Chrestus. No Christiani mentioned or implied here.

spin · 10-09-2010, 03:33 PM

It should be pointed out that christians themseves were sometimes confused over the issue, given that the word "christians" in Acts 11:26 is written Χρηστιανούς in Codex Sinaiticus and Miniscule 81.

It's also worth noting that the French word for "christian" is "chrétien" (where the "s" was lost between vowel and consonant and the vowel becomes accented, c.13). Perhaps it was a French scribe who copied Tacitus?!

spin

stephan huller · 10-09-2010, 03:55 PM

Chrestos was the preferred Marcionite terminology and I think derives from the LXX translation of yashar. It emphasizes Jesus as an angelic hypostasis rather than the messiah (which is till utterly implausible for Jews to this day).

aa5874 · 10-09-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The specific idea that the reference to Christ is an interpolation but the rest is authentic does seem to produce a rather incoherent text.

I'll illustrate it using an English translation, the Latin (with translation) is here

Extant text

Quote:

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 Christians 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 Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Text without supposed interpolation

Quote:

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 Christians by the populace, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

One feels that their should be some explanation in what Tacitus originally wrote of who or what Christians are.

Andrew Criddle

But, Sullpitius Severus in 'Sacred History ' 2 did produce a very coherent text without 'Christus'.

Examine 'Sacred History' 2.29

Quote:

....... it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium.

But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city.

And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders.

[He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent.

Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.

'Sacred History' 2.29 without 'Christus' is completely coherent.

It must be noted that no Christian writer used extant Annals 15.44 to prove Jesus had real human flesh or was crucified.

All christian writers appear to use Tacitus or Roman history to claim Nero persecuted Christians and this is consistent with Sacred History 2.29, 'Church History' 2.29.4 and 'Apology.

Examine 'Church History' 2.25.4

Quote:

4. ...The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome."....

'Apology' 5 by Tertullian

Quote:

...Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome.'

No christian church writer asked Romans to examine their Roman histories to find that Jesus was crucified or was God and man.

spin · 10-09-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Consider the use of Chreistos in various places (Irenaeus AH Book 1) as another way to 'hedge one's bet.'

Not hedging bets, Stephan. But I think it's perhaps a general sign of confusion. Ναζιραιος in Codex Sinaiticus is written Ναζειραιος. In the 8th of the Sybilline Books there is an acrostic poem whose initial letters spell out Ιησους Χρειστος Υιος Σωτηρ Σταυρος. The Wiki entry says, "The ει pseudo-diphthong was confused with ι, except before vowel, where it was confused with η."

spin

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

10-09-2010, 01:10 PM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	An unproductive exchange between Roger and spin has been split off here and locked. Back to the subject matter. . .

10-09-2010, 02:45 PM	#55
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Jay, Consider the use of Chreistos in various places (Irenaeus AH Book 1) as another way to 'hedge one's bet.' Stephan

10-09-2010, 03:33 PM	#57
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	It should be pointed out that christians themseves were sometimes confused over the issue, given that the word "christians" in Acts 11:26 is written Χρηστιανούς in Codex Sinaiticus and Miniscule 81. It's also worth noting that the French word for "christian" is "chrétien" (where the "s" was lost between vowel and consonant and the vowel becomes accented, c.13). Perhaps it was a French scribe who copied Tacitus?! spin

10-09-2010, 03:55 PM	#58
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Chrestos was the preferred Marcionite terminology and I think derives from the LXX translation of yashar. It emphasizes Jesus as an angelic hypostasis rather than the messiah (which is till utterly implausible for Jews to this day).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.