From elaupot@usa.net Sun Nov 12 13:52:45 2000 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id NAA115760 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:52:44 -0800 Received: from nwcst287.netaddress.usa.net (nwcst287.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.23.32]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with SMTP id NAA31196 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:52:44 -0800 Received: (qmail 18764 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Nov 2000 21:52:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20001112215243.18763.qmail@nwcst287.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.23.32 by nwcst287 for [209.246.76.225] via web-mailer(34FM.0700.4.03) on Sun Nov 12 21:52:43 GMT 2000 Date: 12 Nov 00 16:52:43 EST From: Eric Laupot To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: [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 Steve Mason wrote: So as not to presume too much further on the = list's indulgence, I'll respond only to what seems = to me central in Eric's latest, and then I'm out = with good wishes to all. = ------- This is probably your strongest argument, that the give-and-take is time-consuming. I had challenged Eric's inference, from the mere = juxtaposition of Iudaei and Christiani in the = fragment, that the latter were significant = participants in the revolt. --------- Well, this "mere juxtaposition" is the way the fragment is actually written. Nor is this my entire argument (see below). = He responded: >-------- My observation here was based on the >conclusion, derived from my statistical argument, >that fragment 2 was historically authentic, = probably Tacitean. Then I noted that in view of the = fact that>the Romans wanted to destroy the Temple = on account>of the Christiani, the Christiani must = have been>major participants in the Jewish War. I = never>said they bore arms, only that they were major >participants in some capacity or other. What could >be more obvious? The Christiani were so anti-Roman >that the latter destroyed the Temple on their = account.>This is almost tautological, unless I've = missed>something. I think that he is / you are missing a great deal. = If both groups had been active in the revolt, it seems = that the root/branch metaphor would have been = unnecessary as an explanation. For it *is* an = elaborate explanation of the otherwise peculiar claim = that destroying the temple gets rid of the Christiani. ---------- This is not the claim. The Roman argument = for destroying the Temple is not to get rid of the = Christiani, but rather their superstitio = ("religious belief"). This superstitio is probably = the one referred to by Josephus simply as the = "Fourth Philosophy," which was the guerrillas' = fourth branch of Judaism. (If the two ideologies were not the same, then the insurgents must have had two = key religious ideologies, one that went unmentioned by Josephus and the other that went unmentioned by Tacitus [at least in his extant works]). There was no love lost between the Romans and the adherents to the Fourth Philosophy, and it is interesting that Josephus conveniently "omits" to give us the proper name of this Philosophy and its adherents. = Here again is the fragment: They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a = number one priority in order to destroy completely the = religion of the Jews and the Christiani: For although = these religions [i.e., superstitiones] are conflicting, = they nevertheless developed from the same origins. = The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, = the branch [stirps] is easily killed. They had to make an argument, right? Now if it had = been obvious that the Jews and Christiani both = participated fully in the revolt, all this would have = been superfluous: you destroy them both *because they are both rebellious.* That, however, is not the = explanation. Rather, it has to do with = religiones / superstitiones: in spite of the = well-known fact (to the Romans or to Sulp. Sev.?) that = the two have serious conflicts (perhaps about = involvement in political revolts?), you could cleverly = get them both. The very sophistry of it militates = against the simple inference that the Christiani had = prosecuted the revolt. = -------- Sophistry? What makes you think the Romans were enamored of the Fourth Philosophy, or of any other sufficiently militant anti-Roman religious ideology? The meaning of the text is very plain. The Romans had had it with the Christiani and the Jews and were going to destroy not only them but their anti-Roman ideology. They were going to the "root" of the problem and took out the Temple. Perhaps you are assuming that the conflict had been limited to Israel. On the contrary, Tacitus reports in Annals 15.44 that the Christiani's superstitio had spread "throughout ('per') Judea *and Rome*"! At that time (64 CE) Rome was 80-90% = slave. Ugh! Shades of Spartacus! What were the Netsarim proselytizing, if not their superstitio. Paul also reports extensive proselytizing activity throughout large parts of the Empire by the Netsarim (his "circumcision faction"). Rome's reaction in destroying the Temple, though not commendable, was certainly understandable. (A note: my interpretation here of fragment 2 is not = dependent on any putative congruity between the = Fourth Philosophy and the superstitio of the Christiani. The fragment's meaning is clear enough = without that.) = Your inference is by no means a = restatement of the text (a tautology as you suggest), = and it would need to be justified on other grounds, = with at least with some discussion of: general = Christian teaching about war (e.g., in the gospels = written after the war and Paul's letters before) and = the long-standing pacifist tradition in earlier = Christianity, which would become a problem later on; = Eusebius' Pella tradition (HE 3.5.3) and the parallel = situation in the Bar Kochba revolt. = -------- I justified my interpretation above. Bringing Pauline Christianity into the equation, as you seem to wish to do, would be meaningless, since = Pauline Christians are never mentioned in Tacitus' fragment 2 or any of Tacitus' other extant writings. He takes not the slightest notice of Christians. Bar Kokhba's war started 62 years after the fall of the Temple. I fail to see what that has to do with anything we are discussing here. To offer an analogy, we don't use World War II to explain America's actions in World War I. If you want to prove the relevance of Eusebius' unsubstantiated and much later Pella legend (ca. 325 CE) to Tacitus' = fragment 2, good luck! = I won't develop = these here because the burden of argument is not mine. ------- Well, it's not mine either. There is no such thing as a "burden of proof" written in the universe. Science studies the real universe, and the universe is not a court of law. We are only involved in a give-and-take here. This "burden = of proof" concept derives from Logical Positivism, = which was rejected by Einstein in 1916 and afterwards = by everyone else. = If the issue is whether the Christiani = participated in the revolt, then the pertinent = evidence needs to be considered. It cannot be settled = by a statistical argument about word usage (deeply = flawed, btw, because of the sparse and fragmentary = nature of our literary remains, among other things). ---------- Well, atoms are even more sparse and = fragmentary, yet particle physicists use probability = and statistics almost exclusively to study them. What = kind of an argument is this? Also, the fragment may = be small, but it's a gem. As for the root-branch image, your argument also = depends upon the link with Isa 11.1: these are = *good* netzarim (branches, or followers of the branch = from Jesse -- not quite clear!), with Davidic-messianic = implications. But obviously that is *not* the image = in the fragment, which speaks of getting rid of *bad* = trees: destroy the root and you get the branch in the = bargain. As it happens, that particular image was very = prominent in the apocalyptically charged beginnings of = Christianity, as I showed: both John the Baptist and = Jesus, depending mainly upon Malachi 4:1 (not Isaiah), = are said to have called for such uprooting of trees = with their branches. If you feed Isa 11 into the = statistical formula, you will get a certain result. = But that rational choice, as the inference in the = previous paragraph, is highly doubtful. This appears = to be mainly a Jewish and Christian-apocalyptic image = of judgement. ------- Well, it's like this: When two groups of people = are killing each other, that means they don't like each other, eh? So the Jews saw themselves as good "trees" and the Romans saw them as bad "trees." = It doesn't require a rocket scientist to see this. Whenever I see someone as intelligent as yourself = failing to process correctly elementary data, I suspect that perhaps religious motives lie somewhere in the = background of their thinking. I can find no better = explanation for your unwillingness to admit the = possibility of the correctness of my interpretation of = fragment 2. What are the chances, statistically, that a = Christian author of the fifth century could use an = image powerfully developed in classical Christian and = biblical texts and not be dependent upon them? --------- About 98.4%, as I explained in my article. --------- A few further comments here: In an off-list = e-mail you sent me yesterday (which I replied to last night, but my computer crashed just as I was = sending the message out!) you raised two other = points which I would like to respond to: 1. You don't trust statistics. However, = probability and statistics are a branch of = mathematics, and to which I can only add, = "If you don't trust the automobile, get a horse!" (Or rely on the New Testament and Eusebius.) = 2. Your second objection is more complex and more serious. You say you do not believe that Tacitus' Christus was the same as the Jesus of the New Testament, and therefore my statistical argument (which is based on the congruity of the three words "stirps" in fragment 2, "netser," and = "Nazorean" in the New Testament) is invalid -- since Tacitus' Christiani are essentially not the same as those in the New Testament. You would be right if this were my statistical argument, but it is not. My statistical argument states that for = *Severus* (a devout fifth-century Pauline Christian) the words "Christiani" and "Nazorean" would have = meant more or less the same thing and can thus be = lumped together for statistical purposes. In = Severus' head they were the same. We can thus use my statistical analysis to eliminate Severus as the author of fragment 2. Then, as = a consequence, the known tie-ins between Tacitus' Christiani and the sects of the New Testament become even stronger: Both sects of Christiani had a founder who was executed by Pontius Pilate, both shared the same name in Latin (Christiani) and in Hebrew (Netsarim/Nazorean). Were they not, = therefore, probably the same sect? (I am not making a threshold argument here, merely drawing = conclusions from my statistical argument.) You also mentioned that Paul's use of the word = "Christos" was idiosyncratic. So? He was referring = to the resurrected Jesus, not the historical one. Paul was also idiosyncratic in a number of ways. ____________________ Steve Mason, Professor of Humanities (Classics, Religious Studies, and Graduate History) 219 Vanier College, York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada smason@yorku.ca; 416-736-2100 x66987; fax 416-736-5460 http://www.yorku.ca/smason Sincerely, 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 .