What’s Wrong with the World

Here's a radical notion: maybe the books weren't "written" during the early years, but the letters were?

It seems reasonable that an earlier version of the system that got us the Bible would've gotten us the books-- they pass around the letters until they notice that some SOB is writing fan fiction, so they start collecting all the stuff they know is good. That would account for the folks writing the letters being familiar with other letters, but also account for the hints folks pick up that they were written later.

Oh, the dating of I Corinthians is pretty well nailed down. It can't be much earlier than the mid-fifties.

The Dawkins quotation is instructive. Skeptics who demand strict empirical verification for any claim that might support religion often have zero problem indulging in arm-chair historiography and tissue-thin speculations when they think they can undermine religious claims. The heuristic seems to be this: any logically possible explanation for the data assembled in holy texts can be rationally accepted with *no evidence whatsoever* provided that the explanation in question is incompatible with orthodox religious belief. I can't tell you how many conversations I have had with unbelievers who sincerely think that all they have to do in order to refute the Bible is concoct some logically possible scenario which is inconsistent with textual narrative.

I can't tell you how many conversations I have had with unbelievers who sincerely think that all they have to do in order to refute the Bible is concoct some logically possible scenario which is inconsistent with textual narrative.

Yes, happens all the time. For example, if they construct some far-fetched scenario that would explain, say, the empty tomb and then a _different_ far-fetched scenario that would explain the disciples' reports, and a _different_ far-fetched scenario that would explain Paul's conversion...why, we're done, right? We've explained all the evidence from a skeptical point of view!

From your first paragraph, I had gotten the impression that you were going to argue that oral tradition couldn't explain common points between Paul and the gospels because oral tradition was likely to be sketchy and minimal. Since the common points you find between Paul and the gospels are quite sketchy and quite minimal, it would seem that this can't be the argument, but that leaves me at a loss to determine what your point is.

I recently read a pop-history book which just sort of assumed that the Neronian persecution of Christians in 65 A.D. was a fiction, based on interpolations by the Christian scribes to whom we owe the survival of such bits & pieces of Tactitus' *Annals* as survive.

No argument was offered, beyond the claim that Christian scribes had done the same with Josephus.

That's the sort of thing you're up against, Lydia.

Aaron Boyden - interesting comment, interesting blog.

Since the common points you find between Paul and the gospels are quite sketchy and quite minimal, it would seem that this can't be the argument, but that leaves me at a loss to determine what your point is.

Well, you know, actually, they're not. Look at the Luke and Paul passages on the institution.

Moreover, we have to look at the fact that there are quite a decent number of these, corresponding to several different places in the Gospels.

Steve,

That's the sort of thing you're up against, Lydia.

I guess it depends on what one means by "up against," Steve. If I considered, e.g., Zeitgeist to be serious scholarship, then maybe. But... I'm usually trying to hit something more like what one might call minimally mainstream first-century scholarship and NT scholarship--a fair bit of the latter still, actually, quite liberal and influenced again and again by the sheer _presumption_ that miracles don't happen, there couldn't be a real prophecy, and the like. But not quite as far out there as denying the historicity of the Neronian persecution.

A few puzzling sentences in Tacitus (he gives Pontius Pilate the wrong title; did he use a source that had made this error, and if so, what other errors did that source contain? Or did he make the mistake himself, because he was writing from memory and got some details confused? Again, what else might he have mixed up if he was being so careless?) make denying the Neronian persecution beyond the pale?

Aaron,

A few sentences from Tacitus would be enough for ancient historians in any matter not religious. There is not the slightest rational ground for thinking that a loose or accommodating use of Pilate's title licenses anyone in disregarding the evidence of Tacitus for the Neronian persecution. Such notions flourish only in the internet fever swamps of mythicism. They have nothing to do with responsible history, which is why no competent Roman historian with a reputation and an academic position to lose will have anything to do with them.

In any event, the allegation that Tacitus is in error about Pilate's title is dubious. Inscriptional evidence indicates that the position held by Pilate was called "prefect" from A.D. 6-41 but "procurator" in the years from 44-66; Sanders suggests that Tacitus may simply be using the term for the position most familiar to his readers, a practice that has ample precedent in ancient writers and indeed in Tacitus himself. But he may well be literally correct. The two titles were apparently used almost interchangeably in Judea at the time (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.6.5, where Pilate is called a procurator; there are also examples in Philo); in a backwater province like Judea, Pilate may well have held both titles.

Tim, are you familiar with any secular ancient history at all? Because it certainly doesn't sound like it; even from the most trusted of sources, and even when they were writing about current events (as Tacitus wasn't here, and a few decades distance can make an astonishing difference), a few sentences from an ancient source are pretty much never regarded as enough to decisively settle any question. If it's all we've got, it's all we've got, but most claims about the ancient world are to varying degrees tentative (the ones we tend to be most confident of are those where the nature and distribution of surviving artifacts located by archaeologists provide important clues; obviously this isn't one of those questions).

Certainly when there is any reason for skepticism at all, it is preferable to have more detailed accounts and independent corroboration, and in this case there is some reason to want more information. And reasons for skepticism here would start with the fact that Nero was a populist, with many aristocratic enemies that spread endless rumors about him (helped, of course, by the fact that he seems to have been genuinely somewhat erratic; a few of the stories about him are supported by more than a few sentences from Tacitus. On the other hand, some that are reported by multiple sources are nonetheless regarded as pretty certainly false because of other evidence we have). Thus, I'd be inclined to judge any report about his crimes with somewhat heightened scrutiny no matter what the content was, as it could be some mutated descendant of an aristocratic exaggeration or lie.

The error with the title is obviously not a big deal, but there's also the apparent manipulation of the text (we know chrestus was changed to christus; were there other earlier changes we don't know about?) Now, of course, most claims ancient sources have some similar causes for concern, various issues that leave room for alternative interpretations or outright skepticism, but that's precisely why most claims from ancient sources are generally given only tentative acceptance unless there are multiple independent corroborating forms of evidence.

Common wisdom (or perhaps I should say "wisdom") in the world of New Testament scholarship is that, if one is very conservative, one dates all the Gospels between A.D. 60 and 100.

Everything I’ve looked at says that the first written gospels didn’t happen until after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

…and when we Westerners hear "oral tradition," we usually assume that this means (which perhaps many NT scholars mean it to mean) "something a lot sketchier and more minimal than what we have in the texts of the Gospels."

Sort of. As a new oral tradition, Christian testimony was open to a lot of variation and outside influence, but my limited understanding is that the Jewish temple community took it as a point of pride to maintain detailed oral traditions seamlessly from generation to generation. So the problem isn’t so much with the oral tradition as it was with it being so new and unorthodox, and therefore vulnerable to significant alteration before a standard had been established. It isn’t too difficult to imagine that the different Synoptic gospels emerged from slightly different oral traditions. The Gospel of John seems to have emerged from something different, I would guess that it was written as a response to common questions among the Gentiles.

What does it say, then, about the common wisdom if we find the Apostle Paul making casual allusions to what certainly appear to be passages in the Gospels…

It would be unsurprising, since he persecuted Christians before his conversion. One can only assume he had some concrete knowledge about what Christians believed and practiced. In addition, after his conversion Paul met and interacted with Peter and other primary Christian missionaries, so he became aware of their rituals and many stories of Jesus for that simple reason.

…and making those allusions as though he expects his readers to recognize them and accept them as authoritative?
Interesting if true, but I doubt it is.

--I Corinthians 9:14: This is Paul acting as a messenger; the reader only needs to accept Paul’s authority to be a messenger, it requires nothing at all beyond that.

--I Corinthians 6:2: That is the only verse I would think has the possibility of being not widely taught and could depend upon the reader’s recognition of it. But again, it is nearly impossible to say what the other apostles told Paul or even if he is using the question rhetorically without the expectation of it being recognized. He also says, “Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” right after that, so I’m not sure what his reference is for that claim.

--I Corinthians 13:2: If that great quote wasn’t taught at or near the beginning of every missionary contact with a new population, I would have difficulty calling them Christian. It would be like if Winston Churchill had founded a military school and the instructors declined to mention his inspirational quotes or speeches. It would be absurd for a quote like that not to be mentioned.

It may seem like shooting fish in a barrel to quote Richard Dawkins on such a topic...

Yes it does. Should I only quote TV evangelists to make points against religion? Besides, the most frequent topic of discussion in that context is whether there is any evidence outside the gospels to support the Virgin Birth. That is usually where the "Paul never said..." argument is aimed at.

Everything I’ve looked at says that the first written gospels didn’t happen until after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

That's why I said "very conservative," Step2, when I went as far back as 60.

By the way, a crucial argument for the post-70 dating of the synoptics is based on the assumption that Jesus' apparent prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem were inserted after the fact. Which is question-begging against the possibility that Jesus really was able to prophesy a later event.

I disagree with your interpretation of Paul's expectations of his readers, Step2. His references read to me like those of a preacher who says, "As Jesus said," and doesn't expect his audience to say, "He did? Never heard _that_ one before" but rather to recognize from their own other knowledge that this is, indeed, what Jesus said.

On Dawkins, Step2, you will notice for yourself that the Xtreme Skeptic contingent is not unrepresented in these discussions, so a reference merely to Dawkins hardly seems entirely out of place. Nor is that quotation the most extreme of the things the New Atheists say on these topics, nor is it confined to the Virgin Birth. The implication is pretty strongly that the Pauline epistles do not confirm the historicity of the gospels in any significant way whatsoever.

Aaron,

You write:

[E]ven from the most trusted of sources, and even when they were writing about current events (as Tacitus wasn’t here, and a few decades distance can make an astonishing difference), a few sentences from an ancient source are pretty much never regarded as enough to decisively settle any question.

This claim is false; we often do exactly that. And of the Roman historians, few have such a deservedly high reputation for accuracy in detail as Tacitus. See, for example, the judgment of Arnaldo Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 112-13 – “a writer whose reliability cannot be seriously questioned,” etc.

Certainly when there is any reason for skepticism at all, it is preferable to have more detailed accounts and independent corroboration, ...

This is a mere truism; of course more information is better. Everything depends on whether there is reason for skepticism.

... and in this case there is some reason to want more information.

Let’s see.

[R]easons for skepticism here would start with the fact that Nero was a populist, with many aristocratic enemies that spread endless rumors about him (helped, of course, by the fact that he seems to have been genuinely somewhat erratic; a few of the stories about him are supported by more than a few sentences from Tacitus. On the other hand, some that are reported by multiple sources are nonetheless regarded as pretty certainly false because of other evidence we have). Thus, I’d be inclined to judge any report about his crimes with somewhat heightened scrutiny no matter what the content was, as it could be some mutated descendant of an aristocratic exaggeration or lie.

So you’re seriously suggesting that Tacitus, writing within living memory of the events in question, simply made up the persecution of the Christians or swallowed whole someone else’s fabrication of an event of this magnitude?

This is not history; this is lunacy.

The error with the title is obviously not a big deal, ...

In fact, as I have explained above, it is not obviously even an error.

[B]ut there’s also the apparent manipulation of the text (we know chrestus was changed to christus; were there other earlier changes we don’t know about?)

Here we go down the rabbit hole again. The probable change in the second Medicean manuscript is from chrestianos to christianos, not from Chrestus to Christus. The name Christus is unaltered in this manuscript, which is the only MS of Tacitus that contains the former alteration. There are no other probable alterations in this passage. And there is no need to reach for a conspiracy theory. Chrestus was a common misspelling of Christus, as many early Christian writers remarked (see Justin Martyr, First Apology 4.5; Tertullian, Apology 3 and Ad Nationes 1.3.9, etc.; see the parallel error in the Greek of Codex Siniaticus at Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16), and its emendation does not indicate any nefarious intent. In fact, most authorities consider that the emendation is itself evidence for the authenticity of the passage, since the original blunder is an error that a Christian scribe would be unlikely to make.

On the matter of popular confusion and interchange of Chrestus for Christus, see Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1.Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996), pp. 72-95.

Now, of course, most claims ancient sources have some similar causes for concern, various issues that leave room for alternative interpretations or outright skepticism, but that’s precisely why most claims from ancient sources are generally given only tentative acceptance unless there are multiple independent corroborating forms of evidence.

Nonsense. No sane historian would grant to Suetonius the same general credit that Tacitus enjoys; yet Suetonius recounts multiple uncorroborated incidents in the lives of the emperors that are nevertheless received by most historians as reliable. Roman historians routinely take information from Tacitus (e.g. the Germania) Dio Cassius, or Josephus that cannot be found in any other source. Pliny (Epistles 6.16, 20) is our only detailed source (and nearly our only source at all) for the eruption of Vesuvius. And what would we know of the Goths were it not for Jordanis?

In short, I can see no merit in any of your claims. If you want to discuss issues in ancient history in a responsible way, you’ll have to do something more than read a few myther websites or a couple of crazy books by G. A. Wells.

So, Aaron, you still wondering if Tim has any familiarity with history?

Well, yes, Bill, I'm still wondering. I'm particularly scratching my head at Pliny being "nearly our only source at all" for the eruption of Vesuvius. The volcanic eruption did leave behind one or two physical traces. But more relevantly, the reference to the Neronian persecution as "an event of this magnitude" is characteristically missing the point; Tacitus doesn't seem to have considered it an event of great magnitude (he only devotes a few sentences to it).

In general, far too many of the arguments from the biblical accuracy theorists rely on claims that someone would never lie/be mistaken in certain kinds of reports, or that a liar or someone in error would leave behind clues visible in the report itself. This is contradicted by so many examples that I can hardly imagine how someone could take such a method for assessing the credibility of reports seriously. It is absolutely necessary to look for external corroboration in assessing the accuracy of reports. We may not be able to do any more than assessing their general plausibility in light of background knowledge; when we accept a report from a single ancient source, it is because the plausibility in light of background knowledge is high, not just because of how trustworthy we think the particular source is. The report of Nero's persecution of the Christians isn't tremendously implausible, but it is a little surprising, so there's plenty of room for controversy regarding its reliability. I'm certainly not saying it didn't happen, but Lydia makes it sound like she thinks those who deny the Neronian persecution are as crazy as flat earthers or scientific creationists; the case isn't nearly that clear cut.

Aaron,

You seem to be suggesting, without ever coming out and saying it, that you reject the historical accuracy of the Bible because the Bible describes supernatural events? This comment in particular struck me as pointing in this direction:

"It is absolutely necessary to look for external corroboration in assessing the accuracy of reports. We may not be able to do any more than assessing their general plausibility in light of background knowledge; when we accept a report from a single ancient source, it is because the plausibility in light of background knowledge is high, not just because of how trustworthy we think the particular source is."

Of course, the Bible, especially the Gospels, are filled with background knowledge that we can corroborate from other sources, including archaeology. One of my favorite stories on this comes from a paper the McGrews wrote that discussed some of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ:

In the early 20th century, the French critic Alfred Loisy dismissed the description in the fourth gospel (John 5:2) of the pool of Bethesda as having five porches. This, Loisy said, was a literary alteration or addition designed to represent the five books of the law which Jesus had come to fulfill. On the basis of such reasoning, and in harmony with the late dating advocated in the previous century by the Tübingen scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur, Loisy set the date for the composition of the gospel at some time after A.D. 150. Excavations of the pool of Bethesda in 1956 revealed that it was located where John said it was, bounded on the sides with four colonnades and spanned across the middle by a fifth (Leon-Dufour, 1967, p. 67; Jeremias, 1966, pp. 36-38). As E. M. Blaiklock says, “No further comment is necessary” (Blaiklock, 1983, p. 65).

It is absolutely necessary to look for external corroboration in assessing the accuracy of reports.

Aaron seems to be a bit confused about the sheer quantity of material that we have on ancient history.

As usual, the only reason that this passage is being picked on is because it has _something_ to do with Christianity, but then the skeptic starts promulgating supposed standards that would make much of history impossible, especially ancient and Roman history.

"Biblical accuracy theorists"? Um, the Neronian persecution is not mentioned in the Bible.

In passing, I would note that I mentioned the Neronian persecution only in passing myself in relation to the date of Paul's death. I doubt that Aaron seriously wants to say that the Apostle Paul died significantly later than the date I put on it, though one never knows. In any event, the question of the dating of I Corinthians is to some extent independent of the dating of Paul's death, which appears to have taken place about a decade later.

I would point out too that Aaron has brought up repeated supposed "problems" with the Tacitus text which Tim has answered in great detail. Like most people with Aaron's biases, he doesn't say, "Gee, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I guess I was picking up on some comment from somebody who didn't know what he was talking about. I'd better be more careful in the future with slinging around this 'what else was made up or in error' talk." Nope. Just moves on to trying to press his silly and unrealistic argument that all ancient sources have to have all their statements repeated in duplicate by some other ancient source or else we're justified in being skeptical about what they say, which has also been refuted six ways from zero.

Obviously, with respect to Vesuvius, the point is that historians believe they know a lot more about Vesuvius _because of_ Pliny's account, even though the specifics of that account are not duplicated elsewhere, that is, even though Pliny's is the only written contemporary account of the event. In general Aaron's view of having to duplicate events in ancient history is false and, indeed, anachronistic. We are not talking about a world of multiple news teams reporting on events and/or putting pictures on the Internet. Tim gave a number of counterexamples to the claim that Roman historians are skeptical of any statement not independently corroborated. It's a common trope particularly of non-mainstream Xtreme Skeptics--Christ-mythers and the like--to declare in confident tones that some ridiculous standard of extra corroboration and the like is "required by history" when actually they just made it up ex post facto to justify skepticism about even a pagan account that _refers_ to Christianity, as in the Tacitus case, which does not even report a miracle nor something particularly implausible. The fire of Rome, of course, _is_ independently corroborated, so if we are merely talking about general corroboration of the passage in Tacitus taken as a whole (which when it suits him Aaron appears happy to do), then we have that. One could, of course, artificially partition off just the section about the persecution of the Christians, but that would be pretty obviously an attempt to manipulate the question to the advantage of the inexplicable skeptic of Tacitus's perfectly straightforward (and not in any sense "puzzling") account of the persecution.

The irony about all of this is that one never knows what will be challenged. Particularly when dealing with Internet skeptics who get their information and spurious objections from myther web sites, it's something of a toss-up as to what point--perhaps even as in this case an ancillary point--in one's post or argument they will choose to fasten on and arbitrarily cast doubt on.

Lydia,

What is your take on Matthean vs. Markan priority?

I don't have a firm opinion, Ingemar, but I think once one realizes various things about the general earliness and reliability of the synoptics and once one takes into account the evidence of undesigned coincidences (see some other posts on this and Tim's talks), the question loses some of its urgency. It becomes what one might call "the synoptic question" or "the synoptic puzzle" rather than "the synoptic _problem_."

Skeptics tend to rush from Markan priority to a robustly developmentalist picture with a sort of eohippus sequence of all the Gospels in which everything that isn't in Mark is automatically to be treated as added by a gradual process of (of course non-factual) development. I think it is this use of the hypothesis of Markan priority that gives the question its "edge" among skeptics and Christians alike. Once one realizes the other evidence for substantial independence, historicity, earliness, and factuality, it isn't that big of a deal.

I suppose I should add that from the little I do know, I don't think Matthean priority--perhaps in an Aramaic version--is out of the question. But I'm not committed to it.

Aaron,

You write:

[T]he reference to the Neronian persecution as "an event of this magnitude" is characteristically missing the point; Tacitus doesn't seem to have considered it an event of great magnitude (he only devotes a few sentences to it)

From Annals 15.44:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

The total number of sentences Tacitus devotes to the matter is not the proper measure of the magnitude of the event; the scope and public nature of the event are the important points. To borrow a phrase from St. Paul, these things were not done in a corner. The allegation that Nero himself ordered the start of the fire is open to reasonable dispute; there seems to be no definite information on the subject, and Tacitus himself reports it only as an allegation. But the apprehension and public torture and execution of "an immense multitude" is not subject to similar difficulties.

The report of Nero's persecution of the Christians isn't tremendously implausible, but it is a little surprising, so there's plenty of room for controversy regarding its reliability.

So where is the substantial contingent of professional Roman historians who doubt it? This is a fringe view, and for good reasons. Asking whether it's crazier than belief in a flat earth is beside the point: both are plenty crazy.

It's been pointed out to me that my claim, above, that Stephen Dando-Collins' book about The Great Fire of Rome offers no argument for his skeptical take on the Neronian persecution was mistaken. In fact, the *introduction* to the book includes a fairly extended defense of his theory that it was the cult of Isis, and not the Christians, who were blamed for the fire. My mistake for skipping the introduction - almost all of which can be read at Amazon, thanks to the "LOOK INSIDE!" function.

IMHO, the only really telling point that he makes is that it's hard to figure how there could have been "an immense multitude" of Christians in Rome as early as 65 A.D. - let alone why anybody would have considered them the least bit dangerous.

let alone why anybody would have considered them the least bit dangerous.

It doesn't appear that they had to be considered dangerous ab initio to be turned into a scapegoat. Such things do happen in the history of mankind.

What I do find a bit astonishing is that this ancillary and quite unmiraculous and uncontroversial point in my post is the focus of so much discussion. One can't help wondering if skeptics are particularly bothered even by so much as a mention of Christians in the first century by a pagan historian.

Steve,

Thanks for that. You write:

IMHO, the only really telling point that he makes is that it's hard to figure how there could have been "an immense multitude" of Christians in Rome as early as 65 A.D. - let alone why anybody would have considered them the least bit dangerous.

Tacitus doesn't say that they were considered dangerous; he says that they were hated.

With regard to the question of a vast multitude, does Dando-Collins offer any particular reason to think that this would be improbable? Paul had been an assiduous missionary for the whole of the preceding decade, and some of his early converts were Jews who had left Rome when Claudius expelled the Jews. It would be interesting to know what the problem is supposed to be here.

I do not know if there have been any relevant surveys of ancient historians and classicists outside of the bible specialists; it is an interesting question what they think, certainly. When I have had occasion to speak with one, I have often asked about these subjects, and for the most part those I have spoken with have seemed somewhat reluctant to discuss biblical history, but I haven't met any who were dismissive of the views which are being described here as "fringe." Of course, the ones I know also seem inclined to think that almost everything we think we know about ancient history is uncertain; I don't know where some of you are finding the ancient history dogmatists.

Aaron,

So, just to be clear: have you, or have you not, actually talked with or read the works of credentialed, employed specialists in Roman history who have stated explicitly that they seriously doubt Tacitus's account in Annals 15.44 of the arrest, torture, and execution of a large number of Christians in the aftermath of the fire of A.D. 64?

If you have, would you mind giving us their names and (for any who have published these doubts) the publication data for those works?

The explanation that I've heard is that these traditions pre-existed the Gospels; the Gospel writers used them when writing the text.

That, of course, is good enough as a defense of the historicity of, say, the last supper, but not for the Gospels per se.

My argument in the main post, John H., is that Paul's citations point to a much more substantial body of material than is usually associated with the concept of a "tradition." Even the allusions that aren't exact verbal parallels give us the picture of an acquaintance on the part of Paul and his audience with an extensive body of material that Paul could, as it were, dip into as needed to reinforce his assertions. The verbal parallels in the case of the last supper passage and Luke's gospel, specifically, are striking and argue access to that specific wording.

So, just to be clear: have you, or have you not, actually talked with or read the works of credentialed, employed specialists in Roman history who have stated explicitly that they seriously doubt Tacitus's account in Annals 15.44 of the arrest, torture, and execution of a large number of Christians in the aftermath of the fire of A.D. 64?

I realize the topic of specialists is a tangent from Lydia's post, but would I be justified in asking Lydia if she had actually read or talked to any credentialed, employed New Testament scholar who have explicitly stated that the gospels were written down before A.D. 60? Because if your criterion for doubt is that only experts are allowed to have it, why should I bother giving Lydia's argument any attention? Of course, I give her argument some attention for the very reason that she is suggesting that "expert opinion" is either outright wrong or at a minimum very misleading. Guess who wins the credential battle in her argument?

Step2, I'm making an argument. People are free to disagree with my argument, of course. And there are other arguments on the topic, some of which I've presented elsewhere. The attempted arguments given in this thread, such as they are, for there being something wrong with or dubious about the account of the Neronian persecution have been answered in detail right here.

The credential point is being brought up in the Neronian persecution case because there really is no reason whatsoever to doubt the account. It's just a straightforward account of a persecution. Those who inexplicably scramble around for reasons to doubt the event are not using the normal standards which are justly and reasonably followed among credentialed Roman historians. Sometimes fringe is fringe because of bias in the mainstream. Sometimes fringe is fringe because it really is nutty. You have every right to decide for yourself which is which.

Another point, Step2: I'm admitting that I'm doing the non-mainstream-challenges-mainstream thing. I'm well aware of that, I announce that with some fanfare in the main post, and I'm giving just one small reason (among others) for my doing that as the burden of the argument in the main post. If I came into the thread of someone on another blog who mentioned in passing as an established thing the dating of the synoptics as post-60's, and if I chose to challenge that, I would also acknowledge the unusual nature of my position. Moreover, I probably wouldn't bother to do that if the particular point in question were not very important to the argument of the main post.

If Aaron or anybody else wants to put up a post on a blog saying, "Yeah, I know it's completely non-mainstream to deny the historicity of the Neronian persecution of the Christians, but here's an argument that seems to me to have merit," fine, though even in doing that he should show some awareness of the relatively minor place of the point in my argument. But more, that approach has been far, far from his approach in this thread. He has picked up on an entirely ancillary point and has written in a know-all manner as though _of course_ "we" have legitimate reason to doubt or question that this event took place, to think that the text has been invidiously manipulated, that Tacitus is just a terribly careless historian, etc. When his points regarding the text and the historian's reliability (the use of "chrestus," the title of Pilate) are answered, he doesn't admit that. He moves on instead to implying that it is _standard_ in ancient history to demand duplicate confirmation of events recounted, which simply is untrue.

In short, the two approaches could not be much more different, even if we simply consider both as examples of "holding a view outside the mainstream."

The credential point is being brought up in the Neronian persecution case because there really is no reason whatsoever to doubt the account. It's just a straightforward account of a persecution.

If you think Tacitus didn't have a serious axe to grind against Nero, read the paragraph immediately preceding his account of the fire. For all I know, Nero deserved all the scorn he got and more, but it doesn't alter the fact that Tacitus was very biased against him.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_%28Tacitus%29/Book_15#37

Then consider what Steve brought up about the possibility there might not have been very many Christians in Rome at the time. Perhaps the account by Tacitus was only partially true, Nero did officially arrest a small number of Christians and coerced their confessions and then let mob violence attack the multitude of "accomplices" who may not have even been Christians. Frankly, the account by Tacitus does read more like uncontrolled mob violence than a systematic campaign by lawful authorities, even considering the general cruelty of Roman justice. So Nero could have been the catalyst, and in that sense responsible, but the main part of the murderous spectacle was fueled by conspiratorial crowd rage and not by imperial decree.

I agree with everything Lydia has said above in response to Step2.

But if it were relevant, we could point to respected scholars from Adolf Harnack to James G. Crossley who have dated the publication of some or all of the Synoptics earlier than AD 60. It is a minority position at present, but it is held today by many credentialed scholars. Just to complicate the picture, Gerd Theissen has argued that Mark, though published after 70, contains material in chapters 13-15 that dates back to the 40s or even the late 30s.

Step2, your hypotheses do not make good sense of the text. If Tacitus disliked Nero so much, why did he bother to present the claim that Nero had ordered the fire as a mere allegation? If the persecutions were just mob violence, how comes it that they involved interrogation, arrest, crucifixion (a judicial punishment), death by wild beasts, and the burning of the accused alive to light garden parties, apparently for nights on end? To say that this was "more like uncontrolled mob violence than a systematic campaign by lawful authorities" is not explaining the text: it flies in the face of what the text actually says.

As far as the number of Christians at Rome is concerned, I repeat to you the question I asked Steve: on what grounds would one argue that there were not many Christians in Rome in AD 64? In the book of Acts, 5,000 are said to have converted to Christianity in Jerusalem on a single day. Suppose, if you like, for the sake of argument, that this claim is an exaggeration by a full order of magnitude; it is still clear that Christianity spread like wildfire as early as the late 30s. Why should anyone think it surprising that a full generation later there might be thousands of Christians in Rome?

If I read a book about modern American history that did not mention 9/11, I'd surmise that the book was written before 2001. And if it did not mention WWII, I'd guess it came from before 1941. The events are too cataclysmic to overlook. They must be mentioned. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem has that sort of significance to first century Jews and Christians. If from their texts that deal with the events of that era such an event were absent, I'd suspect that the great event had not yet happened at the time of writing. Something of that significance, or something on that scale, like the bombing of the White House or of the Congress building would be to Americans, demands mention. In other words, I take the absence of the Temple's destruction to be evidence of an early date for a religious/historical text in view, and therefore date it before 70 AD. I judge the book's date both by what it says and (in some cases) what it does not.

Tim - here, fwiw, is a chunk of what Dando-Collins writes:

"That an 'immense multitude' was arrested is another cause to doubt that these people were Christians. Even the Christian Church acknowledges that the Christian community at Rome in AD 64 would have been quite small. The Apostle Paul, in his letters, usually listed the many leading Christians of the city or town where he was staying; in his letters from Rome of AD 60-62, he named not a single local Christian. In a letter apparently written in AD 66, while he was incarcerated at Rome for the second time, he specifically named just three male and one female Christians living at Rome; from their names, those four appear to have been noncitizens, probably former slaves.

"That there were indeed Christians at Rome at the time is affirmed by Acts of the Apostles, which referred to a small party of Christians coming out of the city to meet Paul at his last stop outside Rome while on his way to the capital in the spring of AD 60. But for Tacitus to describe this small community as a 'class' at Rome does not ring true..."

(footnotes omitted)

I should add that this point gives me pause, on more general grounds. Even assuming that Paul had unique gifts as a preacher, how much scope would he have had to exercise them? Was he allowed to preach in great public venues, or was he confined to small gatherings? Assuming the latter, how do we get from a small community to a vast multitude in the three or four years between Paul's arrival in Rome and the great fire?

It seems almost miraculous!

Steve,

Thanks. I find Dando-Collins's line of argument on this point completely unpersuasive. But don't worry -- I won't shoot the messenger.

He writes:

Even the Christian Church acknowledges that the Christian community at Rome in AD 64 would have been quite small.

Is there a reference for this sentence? (I'm trying to figure out who got the trademark "The Christian Church" so as to be allowed to issue official pronouncements in that name.) The suggestion that Paul would have listed all of the main Christians in any epistle written from Rome seems to me very odd. (For instance, Philemon is a personal note written for just one purpose -- wholly unlike any other epistle.)

Tacitus was a boy (perhaps 8 - 12) at the time of the events he describes. Within a decade of those events, he was a student of rhetoric in Rome. It strains credulity to the breaking point to suppose that he did not know people who had been eyewitnesses. I cannot understand why anyone who is not in the grip of a strong presupposition would feel free to dismiss his very explicit description of the event as a fiction or to suggest that he was duped about this by some other writer.

You write:

Even assuming that Paul had unique gifts as a preacher, how much scope would he have had to exercise them? Was he allowed to preach in great public venues, or was he confined to small gatherings? Assuming the latter, how do we get from a small community to a vast multitude in the three or four years between Paul's arrival in Rome and the great fire?

It's important to remember that the Epistle to the Romans, written around AD 55-57, was addressed to a large community of Christians already in Rome. (If greetings matter, look at the long list of Christians in Rome whom Paul greets in Romans 16: Priscilla and Aquilla ("and the church that meets at their house"), Epenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junias ("my relatives"), Ampliatus, Urbanus, Apelles, "those who belong to the household of Aristobulus," Herodion ("my relative"), etc. This was years before Paul arrived. Furthermore, the last section of Acts 28 says expressly that he paid for his own lodgings, received visitors (once "the leaders of the Jews," and after that they "came in even larger numbers"), and preached to them boldly. So I think there is no real mystery here.

Incidentally, there is a first century author who appears to refer to this event, Clement of Rome. Having spoken of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, Clement writes (1 Clement 6:1):

Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.

Tim,
Speaking of 1 Clement, I date it very early; first, for the reason I stated above: When he mentions the Temple, he does not mention its destruction. Second, when he mentions the Temple, he talks as if the sacrifices were still going on at that time:

1 Clem 41:2
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes.

Given that Clement writes so early, and given that he has direct knowledge of so many events in the life of Paul, and given that he knows Paul's writings so very well and quotes from them, then Paul's writings (and therefore the gospel allusions they contain) must be even earlier still -- in support of Lydia's original point. I take him to be the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4: 3.

Michael,

That is a very good observation. This argument for a pre-70 date is certainly much stronger than the standard argument that 1 Clement must have been written long after the Neronian persecution because chapter 5 represents that persecution as long past -- which in fact it does not.

Tim,
Right. You'll notice that he calls Peter and Paul "the most recent spiritual heroes," which would not be true of them if he had written 25 or 30 years after their deaths.

In chapter 5, he says:

"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

Michael,

Yes, that's exactly the passage I had in mind.

Scholarly arguments are funny things, aren't they?

If Tacitus disliked Nero so much, why did he bother to present the claim that Nero had ordered the fire as a mere allegation?

The closest modern analogy would be the difference between someone who thinks G.W. Bush is a war criminal and being a 9/11 truther. The war criminal charge is based on facts and law, although to a degree it is biased and political, the other is just a paranoid delusion. I haven't accused Tacitus of being delusional or writing complete fiction, I'm only saying he was writing a biased political history.

If the persecutions were just mob violence...

I did not say they were "just mob violence". I said the main part of the violence was fueled by mob rage and not imperial decree.

As far as the number of Christians at Rome is concerned, I repeat to you the question I asked Steve: on what grounds would one argue that there were not many Christians in Rome in AD 64?

On the grounds that most of the Christians at the time were Jewish Christians and the story of Jesus was spread mainly through synagogues. Around AD 49 Claudius expelled all Jews from the city of Rome and they were not allowed to return until Nero came to power five years later. Some of the Jewish Christians expelled may have come back, but if you knew you could be tossed out on a whim like that, what are the chances you would return? Rome was also obviously the base for all the Roman pantheon religions. Which is to say that foreign cults would have obstacles converting large numbers, especially if they were openly intolerant of Roman deities.

By A.D. 64, it's just not true to say that the "story of Jesus was spread mainly through synagogues." There were many completely Gentile Christians and had been for quite some time. In my opinion, too, the phrase "immense multitude" admits of multiple interpretations. "Thousands," for example, needn't be implied. If I were talking about people's being torched at night, I might use the phrase for a much smaller number.

Obviously, with respect to Vesuvius, the point is that historians believe they know a lot more about Vesuvius _because of_ Pliny's account, even though the specifics of that account are not duplicated elsewhere, that is, even though Pliny's is the only written contemporary account of the event

Volcanologists can date the eruption not only by contemporary records, but by carbon dating (no reason to think it wouldn't be accurate), variation in flow patterns and rock denotes, etc. If only we had such a wealth of external evidence for manuscript dating.

The Chicken

Step,

You quote a few words from me:

If the persecutions were just mob violence...

Then you respond:

I did not say they were "just mob violence". I said the main part of the violence was fueled by mob rage and not imperial decree.

But this is still contradicted by the text. I was responding to the bit where you said:

Frankly, the account by Tacitus does read more like uncontrolled mob violence than a systematic campaign by lawful authorities

And that is what I claim is false. That is not how the account by Tacitus reads.

You write:

Around AD 49 Claudius expelled all Jews from the city of Rome and they were not allowed to return until Nero came to power five years later

Do you have a source for the latter part of your claim? Suetonius does not say how long the expulsion order lasted. That it would have expired on Claudius's death is true enough; whether it had to wait for that event is not clear.

But even if the edict did last until 54, and even if all of the Christians (even Gentile ones) left, we have direct evidence that there was a sizeable Christian community in Rome just a few years later, one that Paul wanted to visit but never had. We need not resort to conjecture here: the lengthy list of greetings in Romans 16 is decisive.

MC, by "know a lot more about Vesuvius," I meant about the details in Pliny's account--e.g., the human events surrounding the eruption.

Were your interlocutor to grant that what you say provides some non-negligible evidence that raises the probability, to some extent, for a particular dating of the Gospels, the increased probability, nonetheless, is significant, for the most part, only to those who already accept a particular proposition, viz., that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. So it's not clear to me how this is an embarrassment for anyone. I should probably explain what I have in mind here.
Suppose I, the disbeliever (or a believer on the grounds of faith), comes along and says there's insufficient reason to believe the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead. You, then, go on to present to me numerous pieces of non-negligible evidence in support of the proposition, all of which I go on to grant. And so I come to agree with you that the probability that the proposition is true is raised to some extent. But, I go on to say, there is one piece of evidence--evidence that you yourself will grant--that significantly lowers the probability of the proposition's truth, viz., that it is at odds with everything we know/accept about life: things that die do not regain life. Given the amassed evidence over the last several thousand years that things that die do not regain life, the probability that any particular thing that dies does regain life will be substantially lowered by this evidence. And where we end up with respect to whether we think there is sufficient reason to believe the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead will, ultimately, depend upon how much weight we give to this evidence. But, I think anyway, the weight we give to this will likely be influenced by whether we think there is reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. At the very least I'm not sure that there is any way to require, on the basis of reason, that one only grant such and such weight to the evidence that things that die do not regain life.
Anyway, I know this strays away from the threads topic and that I likely fail to properly employ the Bayesian probability lingo, but it seems a significant point---one that I see often glossed over. Ultimately, and in short, the point I want to make, which may be less than explicit here, is that if one is to believe the proposition that Jesus was resurrected from the dead it can only be on the grounds of faith.

It is pretty common in NT scholarship to posit "sayings gospels" earlier than the canonical gospels. It would be pretty surprising if _nothing_ was written down before then. I don't see how that changes the dating of the canonical gospels though.

xox,

As you say, your comment is rather off topic. But it also makes a common slip that is worth pointing out. You write:

[T]here is one piece of evidence--evidence that you yourself will grant--that significantly lowers the probability of the [resurrection's] truth, viz., that it is at odds with everything we know/accept about life: things that die do not regain life. Given the amassed evidence over the last several thousand years that things that die do not regain life, the probability that any particular thing that dies does regain life will be substantially lowered by this evidence.

This is not quite right. What experience shows us is that, in the ordinary course of nature, things that die do not regain life when left to themselves. The qualifier is important. A Christian no less than a hard-boiled atheist agrees that, in the ordinary course of nature, dead men stay dead. He does not dispute this; he requires it. There must be an ordinary course of nature before any event can stand out against that background as miraculous, just as a river must flow in order for it to be meaningful to speak of diverting its course. To take seriously the possibility of a miracle is not to range oneself against common sense or science regarding the ordinary course of nature: it is to entertain the possibility that nature has not, in this instance, been left to itself.

Thus, when you say that

if one is to believe the proposition that Jesus was resurrected from the dead it can only be on the grounds of faith

you are quite wrong. The question is whether there is sufficient public empirical evidence, not against the laws of nature, but against the causal isolation of nature. The notion that blind faith is required misses the point completely.

Yes, xo, there is such a thing as a prior probability. I don't recall ever denying that, because I never would. This is also true of your existence, by the way. It does not follow, for a proposition such as Christ's resurrection any more than for your existence, that it can be "known only on the basis of faith." The distinction between priors and likelihoods is, on my view, only a distinction between different parts of our rational corpus relevant to some given proposition. It is not a distinction between "the rational parts we can examine" and "some irrational, made-up number that we can't do anything else about." And if it were, it would apply to everything, including, for that matter, the proposition that some particular person, or your favorite dog, did _not_ rise from the dead. After all, if a prior could be rationally set anywhere, including so low as not to be overcome by the available evidence, then perhaps you were just hallucinating that Fido did not rise. Total subjectivism regarding priors, which I reject, has no special connection to miraculous propositions.

And that is what I claim is false. That is not how the account by Tacitus reads.

I obviously disagree. Again, I am not claiming there was no persecution by Nero. There certainly was some, but I also think there was plenty of mob violence. I grant that there were some arrests, interrogations/torture, and executions by Nero's orders, but there also could have been lynchings without any arrest or interrogation. Tacitus described the situation by saying the immense multitude were convicted "not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". The entire point of this for Nero was to direct popular suspicion away from rumors about his own involvement. The thing Nero absolutely needed to prove was that some other group was responsible for the fires, which Tacitus states the immense multitude were not. It is of course possible that Nero decided to engineer a larger secondary distraction, but in terms of his primary goal he only needed to set the wheels in motion to assign the blame somewhere else, the resulting public rage could have provided much of the punishment without his direct involvement.

Step,

I'm just not seeing it in the text. The things that you yourself describe as done "by Nero's orders" are the things Tacitus actually names: arrests, interrogations/torture, and various elaborate forms of execution. When you say that "there could also have been lynchings," that's true but irrelevant to the interpretation of the text -- they aren't mentioned by Tacitus.

The immense multitude, according to Tacitus, was convicted -- not "lynched" -- on the information obtained by interrogating those first arrested.

It seems to me that you're reading between the lines and then interpreting what you find there. But what's actually on the lines is all about official actions.

The immense multitude, according to Tacitus, was convicted -- not "lynched" -- on the information obtained by interrogating those first arrested.

Think outside the box of literalism, they could have been convicted in the court of public opinion. If the reason for convicting them wasn't for setting the fires, how can it be explained in terms of Nero's personal interest? Tacitus says it was merely to glut Nero's cruelty, but that is an opinion of his I don't feel obligated to trust.

It seems to me that you're reading between the lines and then interpreting what you find there.

Because everyone does that when confronted by a biased author. Are you going to claim that you accept the entirety of accounts from liberal journalists, pundits and historians without further research and corroboration? Please.

Step2, it seems to me that you're starting with "this author was biased" and then taking something like a random walk from there. Which isn't particularly more likely to get you nearer to the truth.

In any event, since you now seem to be accepting that these _were_ Christians and that there _was_ a persecution started by Nero, it's difficult to see what possible purpose could be served in the terms of my argument in the main post by the addition of the hypothesis that there were lynchings along with actual official persecution. That Paul _wasn't_ executed in the course of something that could be called "the Neronian persecution"? That Paul died much later? That the book of I Corinthians was written much later than the 50's?

Step,

This sort of hermeneutics of suspicion seems to me to be very bad policy for reading a historian of proven credit -- decide that what he says can't actually be true, make up something that sounds plausible to you, and then spin out consequences from what you just made up.

One of the dangers of this approach is that it can lead one to read very carelessly. Thus, you write:

If the reason for convicting them wasn't for setting the fires, how can it be explained in terms of Nero's personal interest? Tacitus says it was merely to glut Nero's cruelty

But this is not the explanation Tacitus gives. He is very explicit:

A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. ... Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Maecenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity. ... Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

That is what Nero got out of it -- the diversion of suspicion away from himself. Why should this be so hard to believe?

Tim,
If you had carefully read what I wrote you wouldn't be pointing out something I've stated was absolutely required as if I had overlooked it. This is simply a case of the extent of official action. The question I'm raising is whether or not the "immense multitude" (whatever that means) who were killed after Nero diverted suspicion away from himself by torturing guilty confessions and executing those who confessed, were also executed by Nero's orders.

Also, Tacitus does conclude that the reason for the murderous spectacle was Nero's cruelty.

Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Which raises an interesting question, if Nero was so intent on diverting suspicion why would he go so far as to create public sympathy for the alleged "criminals"? Doesn't make much sense from a political perspective.

Step,

In truth, I am having difficulty following you.

The question I'm raising is whether or not the "immense multitude" (whatever that means) who were killed after Nero diverted suspicion away from himself by torturing guilty confessions and executing those who confessed, were also executed by Nero's orders.

Why doubt this? Nothing that Tacitus reports is consistent with mere lynching; the punishments are all much more elaborate -- being sewn into the skins of wild animals and thrown to dogs, being covered in a pitched shirt and lit afire at a garden party -- and would require the victims to be in custody and their sentences to be carried out by organized authority.

You asked what Nero got out of it; I pointed to direct statements explaining this. Now you're asking why Nero would "go so far as to create public sympathy for the alleged criminals." It seems plain that this was an unintended consequence of his course of action, not a motive for it. So I do not understand why you think this is an interesting question.

The Apostles and other disciples preached the words and teachings of Jesus. That's from where Saint Paul and all other Christians knew these things. Not because they were (necessarily) written down.