Yuri Kuchinsky

Toto,

You haven't answered my question,

"Who is the earliest Christian martyr that you accept as historical?"

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, Paul and Kephas are historical, and probably killed in Rome...

A coherent case will engage with the conventional Christian history (including the chronology of martyrs), and point out which parts of it are fictional and which historical.

All right, Peter, I'm aware that you're probably not a mythicist, but nevertheless it's OK for you to assume the role of a mythicist for the purposes of this discussion.

So now you're trying to present a coherent case for how Christianity originated, but there seems to be a small inconsistency in your case.

Namely, if Paul and Kephas were killed by the Romans because of their religion, why do you think they are not martyrs?

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Toto

And you have not answered any of my questions.

OK - earliest Christian martyr was some anonymous schmuck mentioned in passing in Pliny's letters. I don't know if this person believed in a HJ or not.

What's your point?

Peter Kirby

Okay.

Recall that I said that the Christians killed in Rome after the fire in A.D. 64 by Nero were not "martyrs," in the sense commonly understood (arrested for their faith and killed for refusing to recant). They were chosen by Nero as a scapegoat, as Tacitus says--assuming Cassius Dio is wrong in saying that they started the fire and were just being punished! The pogrom against them would not necessarily, nor even probably, involve the classic scenario (depicted in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and hinted at by Pliny) where the martyr chooses between Caesar and Christ. These were not martyrs, as commonly understood, simply because they had no choice. It would not be surprising if two prominent leaders of the Christian sect were rounded up along with the rest--indeed, given Nero's purpose of (making it appear to be) punishment for the crimes of the group, it would be surprising otherwise.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

John A. Broussard

Maybe I missed something, but I thought that there were no contemporary records indicating the 64 butchery involved Christians--as martyrs, scapegoats, slaves, criminals or anything else.

Please correct me if there is some contemporary evidence. I'd like to read up on it.

andrewcriddle

Tacitus c 120 CE in the Annals book XV http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html says (There have been disputes on this forum and elsewhere as to the authenticity of the passage but most historians regard it as genuine.)

Andrew Criddle

Biff the unclean

Really? Who?
I've heard Christian apologists make this same claim many times yet I've never stumbled across an actual historian who did not consider it a "pious fraud." Since "most historians regard it as genuine" it shouldn't be difficult to direct us to a few.

andrewcriddle

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html
Says This agrees with my impression that all the major works on Tacitus which I've read regard the passage as authentic.

There is a detailed defense of authenticity in Furneaux's edition of the 'Annals' but that is a work around 1900 not really a modern one.

Syme and Sherwin-White IIUC regarded it as genuine.

The modern critical editions of Tacitus' text treat it as genuine though possibly corrupt in places.

Paul McKechnie who is a Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History regards the passage as genuine. (See 'The First Christian Centuries')

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Who are the actual historians who regard Annals 15.44 to be a "pious fraud"? (And if you don't have particular historians in mind, where did you pick up this tidbit?)

The closest I can think of is Darrel Doughty, who believes it to be a rewrite of an original passage. (There's also Acharya S and some mythicists of years gone by--do they count?)

In addition to the classicists mentioned by Andrew Criddle, I would mention the historians Ronald Mellor, Michael Grant, Arnaldo Momigliano, Clarence Mendell, Donald Martin, T. A. Dorey, and Donald Dudley, who have all written books specifically on Tacitus. Plus Robert Wilken, in his book "The Christians As the Romans Saw Them."

Nevertheless, I understand that forgery is a popular allegation around here for this passage in Tacitus that mentions "Christus". It's surprising until one realizes the bias operative--though I did not know that people were thereby getting misinformation on the state of scholarship here.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

Then the individual ought to look in the mirror when issuing forth ridicule for anyone esle whatsoever.


Obviously, they are rhetorical - answers are clearly not what you are interested in.


I think Amaleq13 has summed up pretty well the problem.

It sure is infantile in comparison to what has been given to you.