From elaupot@usa.net Sat Nov 11 17:08:18 2000 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id RAA113002 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:08:18 -0800 Received: from nwcst283.netaddress.usa.net (nwcst283.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.23.28]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with SMTP id RAA26492 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:08:17 -0800 Received: (qmail 7711 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Nov 2000 01:08:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20001112010817.7710.qmail@nwcst283.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.23.28 by nwcst283 for [209.246.67.232] via web-mailer(34FM.0700.4.03) on Sun Nov 12 01:08:16 GMT 2000 Date: 11 Nov 00 20:08:16 EST From: Eric Laupot To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Conclusion to Jesus Quest]] X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (34FM.0700.4.03) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Phillip Snider" wrote: Before bowing out of this discussion, I thought I = would quickly sum up my objections to Laupot's = article. 1. The crux of the argument seems to depend on an = etymology = ----- The etymology is not the crux of an argument = but rather a conclusion drawn from my statistical = argument. which, while clever, strikes me as overly = elaborate, considering that we have perfectly = good etymologies of Christiani (=3D followers of Christ, which is itself a translation of the Jewish term = Messiah which was assigned to Jesus of Nazareth both = in his lifetime and after) and Nazarenos (a person = from the town of Nazareth. Thus, Jesus of _Nazareth_). = Why should we discard these etymologies, especially = because there is good reason to believe that the = former term orginated not in Palestine, but in = Antioch among the very Gentile Christians that Laupot = is unwilling to acknowledge? Is Laupot's construction impossible? No, but the valid question = is rather, is it likely? = ----- It is roughly 98.4% certain, as my statistical argument shows. Anyone who wishes more information = on this statistical argument is welcome to call me = at home at (212) 744-9450, or e-mail on or off list, = and I will be glad to discuss it with them. I would have to say no here. 2. I am still unclear how this article 'solves' the = Jesus Quest as Laupot puts it. He does seem to = establish (if we accept his etymologies) the = Christiani as a revolutionary Jewish group in the 60s = and 70s AD, but what about Christ himself? For that = matter, is this the same Christ (i.e. = historical figure) that not only Paul and the = Gentiles, but also James, Peter and the Jewish = Christians venerated as the Son of God? If so, can we = square this revolutionary figure with the Christ of = the Gospels? To some extent, yes, because many people = saw Jesus as rather a messianic figure, so = that has revolutionary implications (see Jesus' entry = into Jersusalem). Yet, the Gospel accounts suggest = this impression was incorrect. I suspect Laupot = is not disposed to accept those accounts, but they = are still historical documents (if not histories) and, = if you forgive me, the closest thing we have to = primary sources for this whole incident. It strikes me = as unwise to dismiss them altogether. 3. I don't think that Laupot takes into account that = Sulpicious Severus not only had the ability, but the = motive to inject Christiani into this presumed = quotation of Tacitus (I do not dispute this point for = now). Severus was trying to harmonize Christian, = Jewish and Roman history. Would he not want to brin = the Christians in? = ----- There are many things Severus might have = wanted to do, but my statistical argument shows = that he almost certainly didn't write this fragment. This also brings up the = interesting question of just who did Sulpicius Severus = think he or Tacitus was refering to here. My = suggestion is that he had Christians in mind = here, although I'm sure Laupot could say he = misunderstood the Tacitean passage. 4. Lastly, in response to Laupot's contention that = Tacitus does not discuss Christians at all in his = extant historical works. Since he refers to = Annales, 15, I am presuming that what he means by = this seemingly improbable statement is that any = references to Christiani in Tacitus are about these = putative revolutionaries, not Christians as we = understand it. Possibly, but isn't htat a rather = circular argument? = ------ Actually, it's not an argument but rather a = conclusion based on my statistical argument. It strikes me that the opening to = Laupot's argument is rather disingenuous because he, = in essence, defines away the possiblility that = Christiani means Christians without giving any good = explanation why we should accept this definition. That = is poor logic. ------ How we define "Christiani" will not affect my statistical argument. The definition I use actually represents a conclusion based on the = statistical argument I employed. = At this point, I am forced to agree with David Lupher = that there is not much more to be said on this issue, = largely because I cannot accept Laupot's = definitions, and hence, I doubt whether we can argue = constructively without at least agreeing on terms. Phil Best, Eric Laupot PO Box 286510 New York, NY 10128 USA elaupot@usa.net Tel. (212) 744-9450 ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D= 1 .