Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 08-05-2002, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
[QB]There is one thing that I will address first because it is of negligible importance to the debate yet it is bothersome. Layman writes:

Moreover, I do not think we need "conclusive evidence" before we make a point or argument. So long as evidence or an argument has some tendency in reason to support a point, it has probative value. As you have elsewhere noted about the Suetonius reference, "This is plausibly a reference to the expulsion of Jewish Christians from Rome." And most scholars favor the point that this is a mistaken reference to Jesus Christ and Jewish Christians (A.N. Wilson: "Only the most perverse of scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ").

Here is the whole of the argument presented by Mr. Wilson:

"Still, Suetonius does mention the fact that the Jews, in their uncongenial, slummy quarters in what is now the Trastevere - the crowded region which they knew as the Transtiberinum, where trades and minor crafts were carried on, linenweaving, leathermaking, perfumery - were causing continuous trouble at the instigation of 'Chrestus'. Only the most perverse scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ, a figure whom the Roman historian mistakenly supposed to be a Jew actually present in Rome and stirring up the rabble. In other words those very fears which we described above - that the monotheistic allure of Judaism should have affected the Gentiles - had already been realized in Rome itself by the middle of Claudius' reign." - Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, p. 104

What we are looking at here is the ipse dixit of Wilson without any supporting arguments. And what Wilson is saying goes against common sense: Wilson urges us that it is "perverse" for a scholar to doubt that "Chrestus" is Christ, while Chrestos is a common Greek name (a fact which Wilson does not mention and may not even know), despite the fact that Wilson's hypothesis demands that we believe that Suetonius "mistakenly supposed [Christ] to be a Jew actually present in Rome and stirring up the rabble." Now who is being perverse? Moreover, if Suetonius could make such a fundamental mistake about Christ, can we really assume that Romans of the time knew the first thing about Christianity?

I actually do not view Wilson as much of a New Testament scholar, my reference was mainly intended to show that the majority of scholars have concluded that the Suetonius reference was a mistaken reference to Jesus.

Quote:

It is plausible that the reference in Suetonius is muddled and that this refers to disputes between Jews and Jewish Christians, but it is absolutely nothing more than that. I assign equal or greater plausibility to the hypothesis that Christians were not in view, either that there was a messianic fervor of another flavor or that there was an actual Jewish rabble rouser named Chrestos. I would not like to base much of anything concerning early Christianity on this one obscure and ambiguous sentence. The dogmatic way in which many or even most scholars latch upon this statement proves primarily the wishful longing for more information about early Christianity from outside sources.

The reason many scholars reject the idea that it was some unknown Jew named Jesus is that -- despite being aware of many, many Jewish names in Rome from that time -- there is no evidence that any Jew was every known by the name Chrestus.

Quote:

Layman writes: Accordingly, Suetonius' reference indicates the possibility, and perhaps likelihood, that Romans would have been aware as early as 49 CE, of a Jewish sect related to a figured known as Christ.

The possibility would exist without any reference at all from Suetonius, given that both Paul and the author of First Clement refer to the Roman church as being advanced in years. It is the likelihood that is the trouble because there is no evidence to make the jump from plausible to probable with regards to the reference in Suetonius to repeated riots at the instigation of Chrestus as meaning the disputes of Jewish Christians.

As an aside, while the date of 49 CE is not contradicted by any conclusive evidence, the statement by the fifth century church father is dubious. Orosius stated, "Josephus reports that the Jews were expelled from the city by Claudius in his ninth year." (Historiae Adversus Paganos VII 6:15) No such report in Josephus has come down to us.

Thankfully, you have more arrows in your quiver than just this one, and you need not commit yourself to defending "Chrestus" as meaning Jesus Christ in order to make your points. The matter of the fire under Nero, for example, serves you better without all the ambiguity.

I agree that the Neronian persecution (and Pliny and Tacitus references) provide much stronger support for my position.

Quote:

Placing an argument in a syllogism can be helpful to analysing its strengths and weaknesses. Here is a syllogism.

1. If Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus without mentioning "Christ" in book 18, then most in the audience of Josephus knew that Jesus was called Christ.
2. It is false that most in the audience of Josephus knew that Jesus was called Christ.
3. Therefore, it is false that Josephus mentioned that Christians were named after Jesus without mentioning "Christ" in book 18.

Although the argument is valid (modus tollens), the premises may not be sound; indeed, I would now say that they are undemonstrated.

Interesting. Of course, it might be possible that Josephus -- being a Jew -- underestimated his Roman audience in regards to knowledge about Christianity.

Quote:

Though the stronger of the two, the first premise can be doubted. Meier and Van Voorst have apparently argued that the title 'Christos' for Jesus could be inferred from the name <i>t�n Christian�n</i>, perhaps because the naming follows a canonical form: similar to New Yorker, Parisian, or Japanese. By following a canonical form, a person can understand neologisms such as 'computerese' or 'Jesus Myther'. It would be redundant for a person to write "computerese, which is technical jargon concerning computers" or "Jesus Myther, which refers to a person who thinks Jesus may be a myth." While writers often are explicit, writers also sometimes leave this information unstated with the assumption that the reader will either know the term or will figure it out. For this reason, it is arguably plausible that Josephus referred to Christianity being named after Jesus without naming Jesus as "Christ" in book 18.

I want to clarify that this argument is largely from Van Voorst, not Meier. Meier seems to argue that knowledge about Christianity then existing in Josephus' audience would have justified the reference to Christians.

Quote:

The second premise is the weaker of the two. It is difficult to establish that a majority of Romans in the first century did not know anything about Christianity. To say the least, we do not have any census data in which such questions as one's familiarity with the sect of Christ were asked. I could imagine two arguments being made, though: an argument from silence and an argument by analogy. The argument from silence notes that there are no first century pagan historians that mention Christianity. This argument is weak by virtue of the paucity of extant historical literature from the first century and by the presence of three writers who mention Christianity at the dawn of the second. The argument by analogy notes that the percentage of Romans who were Christian was low and that this situation is comparable to that of modern sects about which the populace are ignorant, such as Bahai and Santeria. To this argument, the reply could be made that a small sect can become famous beyond all proportion to its numbers, with the modern examples of the People's Temple or Heaven's Gate. The key to such fame is association with a momentous event. Plausibly, early Christianity could claim association with such an event in ancient Rome, which is the famous fire that swept the city under Nero, who affixed punishment on Christianity as a scapegoat. Although this does not constitute proof that Christ was a household word in first century Rome, the idea that Josephus could not have assumed knowledge of Christianity is not established.

Sounds good. But I guess I still think the references by Pliny and Tacitus, and perhaps to a lesser extent the Domitian persecution in Rome, are factors that favor sufficient knowledge of Christianity to understand the reference "so named from him".

Vorkosigan · 08-05-2002, 09:32 PM

delete

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2002, 02:00 AM

Layman writes: I actually do not view Wilson as much of a New Testament scholar, my reference was mainly intended to show that the majority of scholars have concluded that the Suetonius reference was a mistaken reference to Jesus.

What Wilson said is that a scholar would have to be among the "most perverse" in order simply to doubt that "Chrestus" is a reference to Jesus Christ, whom Suetonius by mistake thought was present in Rome under Claudius stirring up trouble in person. But it is certainly not "perverse" to have such doubt.

Layman writes: The reason many scholars reject the idea that it was some unknown Jew named Jesus is that -- despite being aware of many, many Jewish names in Rome from that time -- there is no evidence that any Jew was every known by the name Chrestus.

You meant to write, an unknown Jew named Chrestos -- or at least otherwise unknown. At first, this seems to be a bad argument. Chrestos is a Greek name. Many Jews were given a Greek name. So what is to prevent us from thinking that a Jew was given the name Chrestos, an acceptable Greek name meaning basically 'the good'?

This argument could be shored up with another consideration. Chrestos is a homophone of Christos in ancient Greek. It may have been that Jews did not want to give their boys a name that sounds like "Christ" -- assuming that Jews of the first century attached theological significance to the Greek word Christos. I have doubts about the idea that a first century non-Christian Jew used the Greek word Christos with a theological meaning, simply because I have never been shown a such a Jewish Greek text -- although I certainly invite any quotes in this regard. But if Jews did understand Christos in a theological way, it does seem reasonable that Jews would not be naming their boys "Messiah."

However, the options remain that the Suetonius reference means that (a) there was a messianic fervor or messianic dispute of some kind or that (b) there was a messianic pretender in Rome who was the proximate cause of the continual disturbances. The latter would better represent the surface meaning of Suetonius' remark than the former. I do not know how the Christian or Jesus Christ theory could be shown superior to (a) and (b).

Layman writes: Interesting. Of course, it might be possible that Josephus -- being a Jew -- underestimated his Roman audience in regards to knowledge about Christianity.

I think you meant to say that Josephus might have overestimated his audience's knowledge. I think that this is a weaker objection to the first premise than the one already given. But I guess it adds a modicum of additional incredibility.

Layman writes: I want to clarify that this argument is largely from Van Voorst, not Meier. Meier seems to argue that knowledge about Christianity then existing in Josephus' audience would have justified the reference to Christians.

OK.

Layman writes: Sounds good. But I guess I still think the references by Pliny and Tacitus, and perhaps to a lesser extent the Domitian persecution in Rome, are factors that favor sufficient knowledge of Christianity to understand the reference "so named from him".

If I wasn't clear, I now think that it is plausible that the audience of Josephus knew that the originator of Christianity was Christ.

Argument 8 seems to have been left by the wayside. Last comments made on the matter were these: "Please find me another example in which Josephus does this: where Josephus describes an incident, describes a tangentially related incident, and then begins the next passage with 'another incident of this type' or an equivalent phrase that could not refer to the immediately proceeding passage but rather completely ignores that passage and makes sense only in referring to the passage previous to the digression. Lowder quotes Smallwood in arguing that digressions are "particularly characteristic of Josephus," so you should not have too much difficulty in finding a similar case, assuming that Josephus may have written the 18.3 section in the way that you say that he did." Do you have any additional thoughts on argument 8?

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 08-08-2002, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
[QB]Layman writes: I actually do not view Wilson as much of a New Testament scholar, my reference was mainly intended to show that the majority of scholars have concluded that the Suetonius reference was a mistaken reference to Jesus.

What Wilson said is that a scholar would have to be among the "most perverse" in order simply to doubt that "Chrestus" is a reference to Jesus Christ, whom Suetonius by mistake thought was present in Rome under Claudius stirring up trouble in person. But it is certainly not "perverse" to have such doubt.

I agree that no one who doubts the Suetonius reference is perverse. But he clearly intended to imply that those doubters were few. I could offer other quotes backing that up (or did I already?).

Quote:

Layman writes: The reason many scholars reject the idea that it was some unknown Jew named Jesus is that -- despite being aware of many, many Jewish names in Rome from that time -- there is no evidence that any Jew was every known by the name Chrestus.

You meant to write, an unknown Jew named Chrestos -- or at least otherwise unknown. At first, this seems to be a bad argument. Chrestos is a Greek name. Many Jews were given a Greek name. So what is to prevent us from thinking that a Jew was given the name Chrestos, an acceptable Greek name meaning basically 'the good'?

Because due to writings and burial sites we have hundreds and hundreds of Jewish names from that time period and none of them are Chrestos.

Quote:

This argument could be shored up with another consideration. Chrestos is a homophone of Christos in ancient Greek. It may have been that Jews did not want to give their boys a name that sounds like "Christ" -- assuming that Jews of the first century attached theological significance to the Greek word Christos. I have doubts about the idea that a first century non-Christian Jew used the Greek word Christos with a theological meaning, simply because I have never been shown a such a Jewish Greek text -- although I certainly invite any quotes in this regard. But if Jews did understand Christos in a theological way, it does seem reasonable that Jews would not be naming their boys "Messiah."

That is reasonable.

Quote:

Layman writes: Interesting. Of course, it might be possible that Josephus -- being a Jew -- underestimated his Roman audience in regards to knowledge about Christianity.

I think you meant to say that Josephus might have overestimated his audience's knowledge. I think that this is a weaker objection to the first premise than the one already given. But I guess it adds a modicum of additional incredibility.

Overestimated would be correct. And hey, I'll take every modicum I can get.

Quote:

Argument 8 seems to have been left by the wayside. Last comments made on the matter were these: "Please find me another example in which Josephus does this: where Josephus describes an incident, describes a tangentially related incident, and then begins the next passage with 'another incident of this type' or an equivalent phrase that could not refer to the immediately proceeding passage but rather completely ignores that passage and makes sense only in referring to the passage previous to the digression. Lowder quotes Smallwood in arguing that digressions are "particularly characteristic of Josephus," so you should not have too much difficulty in finding a similar case, assuming that Josephus may have written the 18.3 section in the way that you say that he did." Do you have any additional thoughts on argument 8?

I really have not had time to do such a search. But I think you are being too mechanistic in your approach here. Even if there was no other such parrallel citation -- and even if Josephus did not intent to portray Jesus' death as a bad thing --, it does not make my explanation unlikely. There is nothing unreasonable with recovering from a digression by saying, "Another calamity..." It flows very naturally.

And since Josephus relied heavily on his secretaries for the last few books of Antiquities, there is no gauranty that such a recovery would be found elsewhere.

Hopefully I'll have time to do some sort of search on this, but it will not be forthcoming this week.

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2002, 10:15 PM

Layman writes: Because due to writings and burial sites we have hundreds and hundreds of Jewish names from that time period and none of them are Chrestos.

What evidence is there against that idea that the Suetonius reference means that (a) there was a messianic fervor or messianic dispute of some kind or that (b) there was a messianic pretender in Rome who was the proximate cause of the continual disturbances?

Layman writes: That is reasonable.

But do you know of a non-Christian Jewish text from the first century or before that uses Christos in a theological sense?

Layman writes: I really have not had time to do such a search. But I think you are being too mechanistic in your approach here. Even if there was no other such parrallel citation -- and even if Josephus did not intent to portray Jesus' death as a bad thing --, it does not make my explanation unlikely. There is nothing unreasonable with recovering from a digression by saying, "Another calamity..." It flows very naturally.

I am not taking a mechanistic approach. I do not agree that the passage as it stands "flows very naturally." I think that the chapter reads much more smoothly once the Testimonium is removed. There is then no need to come up with a special explanation of why Josephus starts 18.3.4 in the way that he does; nothing would be more natural than to follow a description of a calamity with the words "another calamity." I do not consider it to be likely that Josephus would have started the 18.3.4 passage, after writing something about Jesus, in a way that does not reflect the most recent passage at all and practically pretends that it isn't there. But you seem to think that the statement is natural, and I want to avoid a battle of dueling intuitions. That's why I offer a "mechanistic" approach. If you can find another example of what you claim Josephus did here, then your intuition is correct in that the statement may have been Josephan. If there is no parallel example of what you claim Josephus did here, then the chances that your explanation is true become less likely.

best,
Peter Kirby

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

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

08-05-2002, 09:32 PM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	delete [ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

08-08-2002, 02:00 AM	#13
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman writes: I actually do not view Wilson as much of a New Testament scholar, my reference was mainly intended to show that the majority of scholars have concluded that the Suetonius reference was a mistaken reference to Jesus. What Wilson said is that a scholar would have to be among the "most perverse" in order simply to doubt that "Chrestus" is a reference to Jesus Christ, whom Suetonius by mistake thought was present in Rome under Claudius stirring up trouble in person. But it is certainly not "perverse" to have such doubt. Layman writes: The reason many scholars reject the idea that it was some unknown Jew named Jesus is that -- despite being aware of many, many Jewish names in Rome from that time -- there is no evidence that any Jew was every known by the name Chrestus. You meant to write, an unknown Jew named Chrestos -- or at least otherwise unknown. At first, this seems to be a bad argument. Chrestos is a Greek name. Many Jews were given a Greek name. So what is to prevent us from thinking that a Jew was given the name Chrestos, an acceptable Greek name meaning basically 'the good'? This argument could be shored up with another consideration. Chrestos is a homophone of Christos in ancient Greek. It may have been that Jews did not want to give their boys a name that sounds like "Christ" -- assuming that Jews of the first century attached theological significance to the Greek word Christos. I have doubts about the idea that a first century non-Christian Jew used the Greek word Christos with a theological meaning, simply because I have never been shown a such a Jewish Greek text -- although I certainly invite any quotes in this regard. But if Jews did understand Christos in a theological way, it does seem reasonable that Jews would not be naming their boys "Messiah." However, the options remain that the Suetonius reference means that (a) there was a messianic fervor or messianic dispute of some kind or that (b) there was a messianic pretender in Rome who was the proximate cause of the continual disturbances. The latter would better represent the surface meaning of Suetonius' remark than the former. I do not know how the Christian or Jesus Christ theory could be shown superior to (a) and (b). Layman writes: Interesting. Of course, it might be possible that Josephus -- being a Jew -- underestimated his Roman audience in regards to knowledge about Christianity. I think you meant to say that Josephus might have overestimated his audience's knowledge. I think that this is a weaker objection to the first premise than the one already given. But I guess it adds a modicum of additional incredibility. Layman writes: I want to clarify that this argument is largely from Van Voorst, not Meier. Meier seems to argue that knowledge about Christianity then existing in Josephus' audience would have justified the reference to Christians. OK. Layman writes: Sounds good. But I guess I still think the references by Pliny and Tacitus, and perhaps to a lesser extent the Domitian persecution in Rome, are factors that favor sufficient knowledge of Christianity to understand the reference "so named from him". If I wasn't clear, I now think that it is plausible that the audience of Josephus knew that the originator of Christianity was Christ. Argument 8 seems to have been left by the wayside. Last comments made on the matter were these: "Please find me another example in which Josephus does this: where Josephus describes an incident, describes a tangentially related incident, and then begins the next passage with 'another incident of this type' or an equivalent phrase that could not refer to the immediately proceeding passage but rather completely ignores that passage and makes sense only in referring to the passage previous to the digression. Lowder quotes Smallwood in arguing that digressions are "particularly characteristic of Josephus," so you should not have too much difficulty in finding a similar case, assuming that Josephus may have written the 18.3 section in the way that you say that he did." Do you have any additional thoughts on argument 8? best, Peter Kirby

08-08-2002, 10:15 PM	#15
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman writes: Because due to writings and burial sites we have hundreds and hundreds of Jewish names from that time period and none of them are Chrestos. What evidence is there against that idea that the Suetonius reference means that (a) there was a messianic fervor or messianic dispute of some kind or that (b) there was a messianic pretender in Rome who was the proximate cause of the continual disturbances? Layman writes: That is reasonable. But do you know of a non-Christian Jewish text from the first century or before that uses Christos in a theological sense? Layman writes: I really have not had time to do such a search. But I think you are being too mechanistic in your approach here. Even if there was no other such parrallel citation -- and even if Josephus did not intent to portray Jesus' death as a bad thing --, it does not make my explanation unlikely. There is nothing unreasonable with recovering from a digression by saying, "Another calamity..." It flows very naturally. I am not taking a mechanistic approach. I do not agree that the passage as it stands "flows very naturally." I think that the chapter reads much more smoothly once the Testimonium is removed. There is then no need to come up with a special explanation of why Josephus starts 18.3.4 in the way that he does; nothing would be more natural than to follow a description of a calamity with the words "another calamity." I do not consider it to be likely that Josephus would have started the 18.3.4 passage, after writing something about Jesus, in a way that does not reflect the most recent passage at all and practically pretends that it isn't there. But you seem to think that the statement is natural, and I want to avoid a battle of dueling intuitions. That's why I offer a "mechanistic" approach. If you can find another example of what you claim Josephus did here, then your intuition is correct in that the statement may have been Josephan. If there is no parallel example of what you claim Josephus did here, then the chances that your explanation is true become less likely. best, Peter Kirby [ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.