Part I.
What historical locations might those be? Not a single Greco-Roman or Jewish writer in the early first century has anything to say about “jesus.” Before you trot out Tacitus and Suetonius know that both of these were 2d century writers. Suetonius, in Life of Claudius, mentions one “Chrestus” and predictably xtians jump on that and say he means “Christus” because what the hell...it’s only 1 letter difference. Well, “whole” and “whore” are one letter different, too and convey completely different ideas. Further, Claudius became emperor in 41 after the assassination of Caligula and xtians claim their boy was dead while Tiberius was emperor so to then assert that Chrestus/Christus was in Rome causing trouble years later seems silly even by xtian standards. But they are desperate. Chrestus was a common Greek name and meant “Good.” Suetonius also has a brief mention of xtians in the Life of Nero:
“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”
This line is placed between crackdowns on crooked innkeepers and drunken charioteers. He does not say what kind of punishment. In fact, it could easily be a reference to the aforementioned followers of Chrestus ( Chrestianos rather than Christianos) which some well-meaning scribe thought he was correcting because, again, its only one letter difference. We do not have evidence one way or the other so I’ll let it pass. More to the point, Suetonius does not mention xtians with regard to the Great Fire of 64 which is so near and dear to the hearts of xtians in Tacitus. The problem is, no one else mentions this either and therein lies the rub with Tacitus.
It is important to understand that Tacitus and the heretofore unmentioned Pliny the Younger were good friends and Suetonius was a junior officer on Pliny’s staff when he was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. C 110 AD Pliny was appointed governor of Bithynia-Pontus by Trajan and duly took Suetonius with him. Pliny died in 112 AD so we have a pretty firm date for the following correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Pliny issued an edict forbidding secret meetings and then ended up arresting a group which called itself xtians for violating that order. He wrote to Trajan:
It would have been wonderful had Pliny expanded upon what he considered “depraved, excessive superstition” ( recall the words of Suetonius!) but he did not. One wonders if he would have mentioned the silly idea that these xtians worshiped a criminal who had been crucified by a Roman magistrate but magically came back to life? Given the recounting of their activities he did give it seems that he might have thought the emperor would find such a belief amusing, but, he disappoints us with his brevity. We will never know if Pliny had run into a random gnostic group but I have always found this line “sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god “ to be an interesting choice of words. “As to a god” rather than a god himself? Odd.
Even more telling is Trajan’s reply:
The point of all this is that no where in Pliny’s letter or Trajan’s reply is there the slightest hint of anger with xtians for having burned down the capitol a mere 45 years earlier. You would think that these Roman aristocrats would harbor some resentment for that, no? But the mildness of Trajan’s reply - allowing pardon through repentance - seems oddly misplaced to a group which the Tacitus’ story would have us believe damn near burned Rome to the ground and who were brutally punished by Nero. But not a word or even a hint of that comes through. Suetonius, who as a junior officer could easily be seen holding the stylus and writing down the confessions of these xtians that Pliny was questioning, doesn’t seem to know anything about them being involved in the fire, either.
Even more to the point, no other ancient writer...xtian or otherwise...makes reference to that passage in Tacitus, either.
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm
The reference above to 400 AD is to the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus a 5th century writer who wrote (without crediting Tacitus, btw):
Contrast this with the supposed writings of Tacitus:
Note that not even Severus includes the stuff about Pilate and Tiberius and again he fails to cite as his source one of the most famous historians of the Roman world? Really? How far does one have to go to strain credulity? The failure of anyone to note Tacitus’ writing on the subject is a clear indication that this passage was a later forgery based on the obscure Severus’ fable of Nero punishing multitudes of xtians. Does it not strike you as odd that Pliny would write over 40 years later of his general unfamiliarity with xtians when there were supposedly multitudes of them in Rome itself?
I know you want to believe but there comes a point when you have to say, enough.
I’ll deal with Paul next. This is getting too long.
Quote:The position seems kind of reactionary to me, to assume a person as historically located as Jesus is false.
What historical locations might those be? Not a single Greco-Roman or Jewish writer in the early first century has anything to say about “jesus.” Before you trot out Tacitus and Suetonius know that both of these were 2d century writers. Suetonius, in Life of Claudius, mentions one “Chrestus” and predictably xtians jump on that and say he means “Christus” because what the hell...it’s only 1 letter difference. Well, “whole” and “whore” are one letter different, too and convey completely different ideas. Further, Claudius became emperor in 41 after the assassination of Caligula and xtians claim their boy was dead while Tiberius was emperor so to then assert that Chrestus/Christus was in Rome causing trouble years later seems silly even by xtian standards. But they are desperate. Chrestus was a common Greek name and meant “Good.” Suetonius also has a brief mention of xtians in the Life of Nero:
“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”
This line is placed between crackdowns on crooked innkeepers and drunken charioteers. He does not say what kind of punishment. In fact, it could easily be a reference to the aforementioned followers of Chrestus ( Chrestianos rather than Christianos) which some well-meaning scribe thought he was correcting because, again, its only one letter difference. We do not have evidence one way or the other so I’ll let it pass. More to the point, Suetonius does not mention xtians with regard to the Great Fire of 64 which is so near and dear to the hearts of xtians in Tacitus. The problem is, no one else mentions this either and therein lies the rub with Tacitus.
It is important to understand that Tacitus and the heretofore unmentioned Pliny the Younger were good friends and Suetonius was a junior officer on Pliny’s staff when he was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. C 110 AD Pliny was appointed governor of Bithynia-Pontus by Trajan and duly took Suetonius with him. Pliny died in 112 AD so we have a pretty firm date for the following correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Pliny issued an edict forbidding secret meetings and then ended up arresting a group which called itself xtians for violating that order. He wrote to Trajan:
Quote:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
It would have been wonderful had Pliny expanded upon what he considered “depraved, excessive superstition” ( recall the words of Suetonius!) but he did not. One wonders if he would have mentioned the silly idea that these xtians worshiped a criminal who had been crucified by a Roman magistrate but magically came back to life? Given the recounting of their activities he did give it seems that he might have thought the emperor would find such a belief amusing, but, he disappoints us with his brevity. We will never know if Pliny had run into a random gnostic group but I have always found this line “sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god “ to be an interesting choice of words. “As to a god” rather than a god himself? Odd.
Even more telling is Trajan’s reply:
Quote:You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
The point of all this is that no where in Pliny’s letter or Trajan’s reply is there the slightest hint of anger with xtians for having burned down the capitol a mere 45 years earlier. You would think that these Roman aristocrats would harbor some resentment for that, no? But the mildness of Trajan’s reply - allowing pardon through repentance - seems oddly misplaced to a group which the Tacitus’ story would have us believe damn near burned Rome to the ground and who were brutally punished by Nero. But not a word or even a hint of that comes through. Suetonius, who as a junior officer could easily be seen holding the stylus and writing down the confessions of these xtians that Pliny was questioning, doesn’t seem to know anything about them being involved in the fire, either.
Even more to the point, no other ancient writer...xtian or otherwise...makes reference to that passage in Tacitus, either.
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm
Quote:According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. Annals, XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE. The Fantastic details of the sufferings of the Christians - dressed in animal hides and torn apart by dogs, crucified, and used as human torches - fits the pornographic masochistic obsession of the early Church. The sordid details of flesh torn and blood copiously shed is repulsive to the modern mind. For some reason the early Church wallowed in graphic descriptions of virgins violated and gored to death by bulls, old men crucified suffering horrific tortures and not to mention the over-fed lions of the Colosseum. By the way, the Romans did not feed their lions exclusively on Christians, any old mal-content would do; and more often did.
Eusebius, when the Church was triumphant in the 4th century, after the ‘persecutions’ could only find 146 martyrs in the history. As we shall see, in Lactantius, between Domitian in the nineties and Decius in the late 3rd century there was a long peace where the Church was not persecuted. There was then a brief period of political persecution, especially under Diocletian, before his successor formed an alliance with them in the beginning of the 4th century. Constantine defeated his political opponents with the assistance of the Christians and recognized the fact when he held power. This period, of the Ante & Post-Nicene Fathers, knows nothing of Nero’s fire and its Christian victims.
The reference above to 400 AD is to the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus a 5th century writer who wrote (without crediting Tacitus, btw):
Quote:CHAPTER XXIX.
Is the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, 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. In this way, cruelty tint began to be manifested against the
Christians. Afterwards, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which
were enacted; and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to
be a Christian.
Contrast this with the supposed writings of Tacitus:
Quote:Yet no human effort, no princely largess nor offerings to the gods could make that infamous rumor disappear that Nero had somehow ordered the fire. Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated. Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race. And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps. Nero gave his own gardens for this spectacle and performed a Circus game, in the habit of a charioteer mixing with the plebs or driving about the race-course. Even though they were clearly guilty and merited being made the most recent example of the consequences of crime, people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.
Note that not even Severus includes the stuff about Pilate and Tiberius and again he fails to cite as his source one of the most famous historians of the Roman world? Really? How far does one have to go to strain credulity? The failure of anyone to note Tacitus’ writing on the subject is a clear indication that this passage was a later forgery based on the obscure Severus’ fable of Nero punishing multitudes of xtians. Does it not strike you as odd that Pliny would write over 40 years later of his general unfamiliarity with xtians when there were supposedly multitudes of them in Rome itself?
I know you want to believe but there comes a point when you have to say, enough.
I’ll deal with Paul next. This is getting too long.
