R. G. Price - On the Mythic Jesus

[Zenith]

Sorry for delaying so much... it lasted some time and was not my favorite thing to do to search everywhere, etc.
I'm just interested in discussing this topics...

Min, I thought about replying to your posts (this is part 1). Perhaps you will reply back.

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

Not necessarily. For instance, Muhammud is written in many ways: Muhammud, Mohammed, Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Mahammed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhammod, Muhamad, Mohmmed, Mohamud, Mohammud, Muhammad, Mahomet, etc. They are written differently, but represent the same arabic name.

Just as a note.

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.

it is written:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.", which does indeed sound as if Chrestus was indeed a living person in that time causing instigation (rather than being a problem caused by disputes over a man that died long before).

“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.

drunken charioteers? strange emphasis for "unlawful people".

XVI. He devised a new style of building in the city, ordering piazzas to be erected before all houses, both in the streets and detached, to give facilities from their terraces, in case of fire, for preventing it from spreading; and these he built at his own expense. He likewise designed to extend the city walls as far as Ostia, and bring the sea from thence by a canal into the old city. Many severe regulations and new orders were made in his time. A sumptuary law was enacted. Public suppers were limited to the Sportulae [576]; and victualling-houses restrained from selling any dressed victuals, except pulse and herbs, whereas before they sold all kinds of meat. He likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious [577] superstition.

Anyway, "mischievous superstition" seems to suggest the problem.
I found this:

Tacitus says that Nero attempted to shift the blame to the Christians (Chrestiani), setting off the earliest documented Imperial persecution of what was regarded by the Romans at the time as still a Jewish sect and as a superstitio ("superstition," or illegitimate form of religious belief).

And from the site quoted above, Note 577 says:

[577] "Superstitionis novae et maleficae," are the words of Suetonius; the latter conveying the idea of witchcraft or enchantment. Suidas relates that a certain martyr cried out from his dungeon--"Ye have loaded me with fetters as a sorcerer and profane person." Tacitus calls the Christian religion "a foreign and deadly [exitiabilis] superstition," Annal. xiii. 32; Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, "a depraved, wicked (or prava), and outrageous superstition." Epist. x. 97.

It seems that chrstianity has been regarded something like cancer spreading through the roman empire or something. As suggested (and, as I quoted somewhere below), the crime seems to be the "mischievous superstition".

A bad effect of the christians for the Roman Empire we can also see in the Bible (namely, Acts 19.21-41): the christians (here, the apostles) were provoking unrest among the people. And the worst insult for the pagans devout to their gods was to consider it bullshit, even preach on the streats that "these gods are false" and break the commercial things such as making and selling idols. And also "mischievous religion" or "mischievous people" is not an uncommon term. We know that the muslims (mostly in the muslim countries) hate the jews and consider them "mischievous" and "evil" as if they are born "mischievous" and "evil" and that must be exterminated, and hate their religion too. So if the christians were also being hated and seen as a threat, a danger, pests, it is plausible to have been called "mischievous" and "evil" and to have been unrest because of them.

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.

As about "The problem is, no one else mentions this either and therein lies the rub with Tacitus." - should we understand that anything that any historian wrote and was unique (not precisly written with all the details in other part) is a lie? How many historical information would we throw as garbage then?

Anyway, If Rome indeed burnt and Nero was not shy to massacre people (not necessarily having an appetite for christians) then it would have been easy for him to blame others for the fire, and the christians (i don't know how much they distinguished christians from jews then) could have sounded as a good target. Anyway, "christians being killed, then, there" would have not necessarily been an outstanding thing that everyone would hurry to write about (i.e. that would have been a mere detail), especially later on.

I don't know if you believe the historical information that Rome burnt, or you claim that it was a theory of conspiracy or something. But if Rome indeed burnt, then I see the christians & jews as a proper scapegoat (if you believe that Rome indeed burnt, then perhaps you tell me a better target). As about the means of torture and killing and the number of people, I am a bit skeptic. Tacitus seems to see Nero as a diabolical person, and he speaks about him with hatred and despise. So it is possible that driven by this, to emphasize the evil things he did and clearly impose his subjective view, and it is possible for him to have added things from himself, which is possible not to know for sure.

Anyway, if you believe that Rome has not been burnt, I'll give you some places, perhaps you can explain them.
Here it seems that the city has been reconstructed after the fire:

XVI. He devised a new style of building in the city, ordering piazzas to be erected before all houses, both in the streets and detached, to give facilities from their terraces, in case of fire, for preventing it from spreading; and these he built at his own expense. He likewise designed to extend the city walls as far as Ostia, and bring the sea from thence by a canal into the old city. Many severe regulations and new orders were made in his time. A sumptuary law was enacted. Public suppers were limited to the Sportulae [576]; and victualling-houses restrained from selling any dressed victuals, except pulse and herbs, whereas before they sold all kinds of meat. He likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious [577] superstition.

And here, Nero does not seem to be depicted as being a nice person:

During six days and seven nights this terrible devastation continued, the people being obliged to fly to the tombs and monuments for lodging and shelter. Meanwhile, a vast number of stately buildings, the houses of generals celebrated in former times, and even then still decorated with the spoils of war, were laid in ashes; as well as the temples of the gods, which had been vowed and dedicated by the kings of Rome, and afterwards in the Punic and Gallic wars: in short, everything that was remarkable and worthy to be seen which time had spared [614]. This fire he beheld from a tower in the house of Mecaenas, and "being greatly delighted," as he said, "with the beautiful effects of the conflagration," he sung a poem on the ruin of Troy, in the tragic dress he used on the stage. To turn this calamity to his own advantage by plunder and rapine, he promised to remove the bodies of those who had perished in the fire, and clear the rubbish at his own expense; suffering no one to meddle with the remains of their property. But he not only received, but exacted contributions on account of the loss, until he had exhausted the means both of the provinces and private persons.

And I read in Britannica:

The great fire that ravaged Rome in 64 illustrates how low Nero's reputation had sunk by this time. Taking advantage of the fire's destruction, Nero had the city reconstructed in the Greek style and began building a prodigious palace—the Golden House—which, had it been finished, would have covered a third of Rome. During the fire Nero was at his villa at Antium 35 miles (56 km) from Rome and therefore cannot be held responsible for the burning of the city. But the Roman populace mistakenly believed that he himself had started the fire in Rome in order to indulge his aesthetic tastes in the city's subsequent reconstruction. According to the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus and to the Nero of the Roman biographer Suetonius, Nero in response tried to shift responsibility for the fire on the Christians, who were popularly thought to engage in many wicked practices. Hitherto the government had not clearly distinguished Christians from Jews; almost by accident, Nero initiated the later Roman policy of halfhearted persecution of the Christians, in the process earning himself the reputation of Antichrist in the Christian tradition.

I wonder how Nero has treated the christians so nicely, if they came to the conclusion that he must be the Antichrist!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said:

Pliny issued an edict forbidding secret meetings and then ended up arresting a group which called itself xtians for violating that order.
...
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

I've read all the talking. But it looks to different than what you claim.

XCVII

To the Emperor Trajan

It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers. From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.

XCVIII

Trajan to Pliny

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.

The punishment was for being christians and for not worshipping the pagan idols and the statue of the caesar. And the "mild" Trajan, allowed pardon if they repented of practicing christianity.
I wonder if you did not read all.

As about the burning of Rome and blaming that on christians... it needn't be any uncontrollable rage about it. If that happened (i.e. rome burnt and christians blamed) then this theory of conspiracy should have been known to the subsequent Caesars & other important people. Moreover, the Roman Emperor wasn't Hitler - to scream of anger and hatred every word, seemingly not being able to show a smile, and to read hatred from every word he wrote on paper. If Christianity was seen as a plague spreading in the empire, then that was reason enough to hate them, to call them vile and mischievous and persecute them (and, politically, there needn't be any hatred exposed on paper).

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?

"a criminal" meant nothing. Instead, the most insane things in that age appeared to be:
- a man that people heard that existed is claimed to be a divinity, and worshipped as a divinity, when everyone knows that he was a man (i.e. he did not appear as a god, etc.)
- the strong belief in an authentic resurrection from the dead. It's like hearing a neighbour saying about his friend - that you know that he was decapitated - that has been resurrected from the dead. The differences between now and then are that a) you have heard a similar theory before, but 1-2nd century AD hasn't; b) you may ask for evidence now, but after more than 40 years in the pagan Roman Empire you couldn't verify anything.
- the rejection of the greek philosophies - the wisdom most appreciated and venerated in the Roman Empire and in the greek culture. It was like now hearing a christian claiming that the earth is 5000 years old, that there was no big bang and no evolution theory.

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.

If people knew that Christ existed as a man, then specifying "as to a god" makes perfect sense. But that implies that the pagan romans knew the Christ as having existed, i.e. to have existed as a man.

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.

I don't know from where you've got the idea that Suetonius knew a lot about the christians, nor that he asked xtians what happened (i.e. to confess).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm

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.

That looks very strange. Unfortunately, I didn't find a free .pdf of "On the Martyrs" or an online version.
But this is what I've found:

About the Author: Eusebius (A.D. 263-339), a Greek Christian writer, was born in Palestine and educated at Caesarea, the city of which he later became bishop. A close friend of Emperor Constantine, the Greek Bishop Eusebius wrote the only surviving account of the Church during its first 300 years. Apart from this work we would know little of its rapid extension, its vitality, tribulation, persecutions, and martyrdoms. He deals with the ordeals of 146 martyrs, the teachings of 47 heretics, and the proceedings leading up to the major Councils, especially Nicea.

It's specific 146 martyrs, not only 146 in whole history.

On the same page:

At that period in some parts of the world the persecution of the Church flared up again more fiercely, and as the result of mob onslaughts in one city after another countless martyrs

But the arrests went on, and day after day those who were worthy filled up the number of the martyrs, so that from the two dioceses were collected all the active members

Also, it seems to be from Eusebius of Caesarea, Martyrs of Palestine:

These martyrdoms were accomplished in Palestine during eight complete years; and of this description was the persecution in our time. Beginning with the demolition of the churches, it increased greatly as the rulers rose up from time to time against us. In these assaults the multiform and various conflicts of those who wrestled in behalf of religion produced an innumerable multitude of martyrs in every province, — in the regions extending from Libya and throughout all Egypt, and Syria, and from the East round about to the district of Illyricum. But the countries beyond these, all Italy and Sicily and Gaul, and the regions toward the setting sun, in Spain, Mauritania, and Africa, suffered the war of persecution during less than two years, and were deemed worthy of a speedier divine visitation and peace; the heavenly Providence sparing the singleness of purpose and faith of those men. For what had never before been recorded in the annals of the Roman government, first took place in our day, contrary to all expectation; for during the persecution in our time the empire was divided into two parts. The brethren dwelling in the part of which we have just spoken enjoyed peace; but those in the other part endured trials without number.

From what is written above it is obvious that Eusebius could not have known their exact number and was speaking about more than 146.

The reference above to 400 AD is to the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus a 5th century writer who wrote (without crediting Tacitus, btw):

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?

Did they really use to quote people, note references as from where they've got there info and stuff, back then?

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.

The greatest difference between Tacitus and Severus is that Tacitus emphasizes that Nero was very evil. As he lived in the time of Nero, it is possible to have been from those people Severus described that strongly believed that Nero did that intentionally. And anyway, I think it's a bit odd to 'quote' as source someone you contradict.

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?

hmm... weren't the jews and christians kicked off from Rome before Trajan?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I've found about Nero:

The first five years of the reign of Nero were marked by the mildness and equity of his government. He discouraged luxury, reduced the taxes, and increased the authority of the Senate. However, he sank into licentiousness, and from licentiousness to cruelty and crime.

It would be impossible to detail all the crimes of Nero, but the deliberate burning of Rome was probably the worst.. In A.D. 64 a fire broke out in Rome, which lasted for six days, consuming the greater part of the city. Nero was believed to have ordered the city to be fired, to obtain a clear representation of the burning of Troy, and, while Rome was in flames, amused himself by playing upon musical instruments. Whether this account of Nero was true or false is debatable but Nero did decide to blame this event on the Christians, and inflicted upon them terrible cruelties and punishments. The city was rebuilt upon an improved plan, and Nero's palace, called the Golden House, occupied a large part of the ruined capital with groves, gardens, and buildings of unequalled magnificence.

Tyranny and Crimes of Nero.—But Nero’s worst foes were those of his own household, especially his unscrupulous and ambitious mother, Agrippina. The intrigues of this woman to displace Nero and to elevate Britannicus, the son of Claudius, led to Nero’s first domestic tragedy—the poisoning of Britannicus. He afterward yielded himself to the influence of the infamous Poppaea Sabina, the most beautiful and the wickedest woman of Rome. At her suggestion, he murdered first his mother, and then his wife. He discarded the counsels of Seneca and Burrhus, and accepted those of Tigellinus, a man of the worst character. Then followed a career of wickedness, extortion, atrocious cruelty, which it is not necessary to describe, but which has made his name a synonym for all that is vicious in human nature, and despicable in a ruler.

Burning and Rebuilding of the City.—In the tenth year of his reign occurred a great fire which destroyed a large part of the city of Rome. It is said that out of the fourteen regions, six were reduced to ashes. Many ancient temples and public buildings were consumed, such as the temple of Jupiter Stator ascribed to Romulus, and the temples of Vesta and Diana, which dated from the time of the kings. The reports which have come to us of the conduct of Nero during this great disaster are very diverse. Some represent him as gloating over the destruction of the city and repeating his own poem on the “Sack of Troy.” Other reports declare that he never showed himself in a more favorable light, exerting himself to put out the flames, opening the public buildings and the imperial palace for the shelter of the homeless, and relieving the suffering by reducing the price of grain. But it is charged that if he performed these charities, it was to relieve himself of the suspicion of having caused the conflagration. Whatever may be the truth as to his conduct, the burning of Rome resulted in rebuilding the city on a more magnificent scale. The narrow streets were widened, and more splendid buildings were erected. The vanity of the emperor was shown in the building of an enormous and meretricious palace, called the “golden house of Nero,” and also in the erection of a colossal statue of himself near the Palatine hill. To meet the expenses of these structures the provinces were obliged to contribute; and the cities and temples of Greece were plundered of their works of art to furnish the new buildings.

First Persecution of the Christians.—In order to shield himself from the suspicion of firing the city, Nero accused the Christians and made them the victims of his cruelty. Nothing can give us a more vivid idea of this first persecution than the account of the Roman historian Tacitus, which is of great interest to us because it contains the first reference found in any pagan author to Christ and his followers. This passage shows not only the cruelty of Nero and the terrible sufferings of the early Christian martyrs, but also the pagan prejudice against the new religion.

Tacitus says: “In order to drown the rumor, Nero shifted the guilt on persons hated for their abominations and known as Christians, and punished them with exquisite tortures. Christ, from whom they derive their name, had been punished under Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Checked for a time, this pernicious religion broke out again not only in Judea but in Rome. Those who confessed their creed were first arrested; and then by their information a large number were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race. In their deaths they were made the subjects of sport; for they were covered with the skins of wild beasts, worried to death by dogs, nailed to crosses, burned to serve for torches in the night. Nero offered his own gardens for this spectacle. The people were moved with pity for the sufferers; for it was felt that they were suffering to gratify Nero’s cruelty, not from considerations for the public welfare.” (“Annals,” Bk. XV., Ch. 44.)

Conclusion: I don't know for sure whether Nero burnt Rome or it was other cause, but an accusation of chrstians & jews sounds plausible, and strengthens the view of them as being a pest. Anyway, I have found these information from sources (such as Britannica) that don't aim at sustaining either side (christians' side or pagans' side), and I don't know why I should call Britannica for instance, a bullshit and strongly believe that things are exactly how you say (where you chose which historical documents are fraud and which are true, perhaps to come to the conclusion you want). I believe that it is very possible for christians to have been persecuted in the Roman Empire, along with the jews, as many were persecuted as heretics by the Christian Roman Empire afterwards, because they did not agree with the truths of the clergy (e.g. ecumenical councils).

I await your reply.

[coffeeveritas]

Are you talking about the destruction of the Serapeum? Because there were no books destroyed in that fire.

I assumed he was talking about the library at Alexandria. It was either ransacked or burned or both thanks to religious chaos between Christians and Pagans.

The famous Library of Alexandria was destroyed by accident by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, and again by Aurelian sometime in the 3rd Century. There was no religious chaos between Christians and Pagans in either of those cases; they were both Roman military actions. The “backup” library in Alexandria was located in a pagan temple and it was called the “Serapeum.” (See Min’s post I quoted below.) The temple which was part of the same complex as the library was ordered destroyed by the Bishop of Alexandria. It was ordered destroyed after a series of conflicts between Christians and Pagans over the issue of the discovery of a number of human skulls found in an abandoned pagan temple. The conflict had escalated to a full scale riot, and the pagans present took a number of Christians hostage and locked themselves in the Serapeum temple. They ultimately executed the hostages and were arrested. The bishop then made a public display of the superstitions associated with the worship of the pagan gods in the city and the pagans attacked the gathered Christians and killed as many as they could. At this point the Bishop of Alexandria asked the emperor for permission to destroy all the pagan temples, which included the Serapeum. We do not have any indication that the library at the periphery of the temple was ordered destroyed, or that it was still there at the time. It is important to note that the target of the destruction was not the library, but the temple of Serapis, and we have evidence that the Christians in Alexandria actually had a tradition of valuing the books of the library rather highly.

I wasn’t sure which library you meant when you said “library at Alexandria” since there were two main ones, so I talked about both.

The Serapaeum was the last refuge of the Library of Alexandria which had been severely damaged....possibly in an earthquake...in the previous century. What was salvaged was moved to the Serapaeum as a kind of second-string "library."

in which the Serapeum was vandalized and its library destroyed, is dated about 391.

Your source here seems to be indicating that we have evidence that the library was destroyed along with the temple, but we don’t. There is no specific mention of a library or of any scrolls destroyed in any of the accounts of the destruction of the Temple of Serapis, not even in pagan sources, and the historian Ammianus Marcellinus writing before the destruction of the temple refers to its library in the past tense, indicating that the library had been moved. The one account we have of any scrolls being lost is from Orosius, who either speaking of men of his age or Christians, says that people had taken scrolls from temples. He makes no specific reference to the Serapeum, and he is talking about people stealing scrolls, not destroying them.

The xtian emperor Jovian ordered the burning of the library of Antioch in 364.
The library at Ephesos was damaged by the Goths so it looks like xtians can't be blamed for that one.
Xtian crusaders burned the library of Constantinople during the 4th crusade showing that the propensity for destruction had not been bred out of ignorant xtians even by the 13th century.

Ok, that’s what I’m talking about. Whenever I ask for accounts of book burning all I ever get is people saying “Christians destroyed the Library of Alexandria” by which they mean the Serapeum (though some actually think it was the famous library that was destroyed). This is good stuff; I’ll have to read those stories. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Min!

Xtians were not under suspicion for being xtians....the Romans tolerated all sorts of crazy shit under the guise of religion. They were suspected of sedition because they purportedly would not swear allegiance to Roman gods ( including by this time, the Emperor himself). Both Trajan and PLiny indicate that those who did so swear were pardoned.

We have evidence (from various apologia) that Christians had no problems swearing allegiance to the Roman Emperor, but they refused to worship him. That was why they were classified as an illegal religious group. It’s pretty clear in the account of Pliny that what people were being charged with was "being Christian." He says, “I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished.” The only thing that Pliny needed to know to punish them was whether or not they were Christians. They didn’t swear allegiance to the emperor to be pardoned, they had to worship him. Pliny says the of the ones he pardoned, “They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ.” There was no oath of allegiance in there anywhere but “religious rites” and “an invocation to the gods.”

But again, you are getting way off the original point which, back in post #16 you said that jesus was well located historically and I challenged you for those historical locations and reminded you that Suetonius and Tacitus were 2d century. Suetonius' comments are insignificant enough to be dismissed but Tacitus is another story. [You go on to argue that Tacitus is not a valid source and was interpolated later]

The people I mentioned for my historical proof were the apostle Paul, the writers of the gospels, the writers of the rest of the NT, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, and Clement of Rome. It seems we have different views on their historical reliability. If any of them were at all historically reliable it would be hard to argue that Christianity wasn’t a fairly widespread movement by the 60’s CE or at very lest the 90’s, and it also would be hard to argue that there wasn’t a person named Jesus who was a teacher in Palestine in the first century.

Your comments have been enormously helpful for me Min, I feel like I understand the debate between the “Historical Jesus” and “Mythic Jesus” camps very clearly now. It seems that those scholars who view the aforementioned authors as reliable sources are in the “Historical Jesus” camp, and those scholars who view the aforementioned authors as unreliable sources are in the “Mythic Jesus” camp. I have a little chart of the basic positions of both sides in my head now, which is good because a visual will help me remember all of this. In the process I also freshened up on my scholarship in the area and even found leads on good book burning accounts. Very profitable indeed!