Zombie Bible Series

The Bible -- with Zombies! Today only $.99 on the Kindle Daily Deal, which, if you have Kindle, you should be watching. The Blurb...

Father Polycarp has a Gift. He can bring peace and rest to the restless dead.

At his touch, each hungering corpse lies still at last. But to do this, Polycarp must first look into each one's blind eyes and find the remnant of the soul caught within the shambling corpse. He must witness its secrets, its suffering -- all that it loved and feared and regretted in its brief life. Only then can he absolve that soul and set it free. Only then will it cease to walk and feed.

But Polycarp has more than the dead to worry about: second-century Rome is bitterly divided.....

Streetview brings you old Israel

Missing Israel? Streetview now does it:

To help you explore Israel’s history and present, we’ve launched imagery of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv-Jaffa and Haifa on Street View. You can explore the narrow streets of Jerusalem’s Old City and each of its four quarters, walk along the Via Dolorosa and see the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, visit the Western Wall and theMount of Olives. You can stop by the Biblical Zoo, then visit the Israel Museum and the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum—and explore more with the Art Project and the Yad Vashem photo archive. Or you can stroll through Tel Aviv’s bohemian Neve Tzedek neighborhood and the ancient port of Jaffa, and take a virtual trip to some of Tel Aviv’s scenic beaches or to Haifa’s Baha’i Gardens. 

Reviewing Ehrman Did Jesus Exist?: Introduction

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

Bart Ehrman
HarperOne, 2012

I've decided to do a chapter by chapter review of this hefty volume on the historical argument for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth by longtime New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, a thinker and scholar whose previous works I have found both admirable and informative -- his books are generally well written, interesting, erudite, and broad-minded.

When this book was first announced last year, there was great enthusiasm and excitement in the community of mythicists on the internet. This was partly because (1) we knew that no matter how good or bad it was, it would generate new interest in mythicism; (2) such books for lay audiences are uniformly and predictably shallow and bad yet Ehrman is no William Lane Craig or Josh McDowell; and (3) it was by Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman! For many of us in the community of interested people who do not subscribe to any of the Historical Jesus views held by the various academic schools, Ehrman has always been a congenial figure, writing about topics such as forgery and the theological diversity of early Christianity that are of great interest to the mythicist community.

Ehrman begins his introduction by explaining how he came to write this book. In this opening section he lays out the first prong of a four pronged approach to defending the historical existence of Jesus while at the same time showing that mythicism is false.

The first prong of this approach is relegating mythicism to the status of crank belief ("conspiracy theorists," he calls them) and reassuring readers that they will be with "the experts" and the majority. This is a purely social and rhetorical tactic -- it consists of placing oneself in the "reasonable center". Ehrman accomplishes this by locating himself in the "center" with those fringe mythicists off to one side and eventually, at the end of the work, the fringe fundamentalists on the other. Thus reassured, the reader can join him in the center where the "reasonable" people reside.

Ehrman's observation that only one New Testament scholar who is a mythicist is part of this rhetorical tactic. In fact Ehrman did not do his homework, there are others, and they could easily have been found, though of course his main point that they are a tiny minority is correct.

Another key aspect of this rhetorical approach is that Ehrman presents mythicism as the result of atheism which is driven by the desire to debunk Christianity. At then beginning of the book he claims that mythicists are driven by an agenda, while at the end, states "It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact all them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics". This is a gross error, and Ehrman does a profound injustice to the field.

This, as well as Ehrman's failure to locate easily found mythicist scholars, raises an issue we will see throughout the book: striking omissions.

Indeed, it appears that the second and perhaps most important prong in Ehrman's four pronged approach is omission. Simply put, whatever is not convenient to his case...disappears. Why it disappears is difficult to say, perhaps it is deliberate, perhaps not. The usefulness of this approach is that if called on it, Ehrman need merely claim that he didn't have enough space or that it wasn't important. I will have more to say on this topic as we delve into this volume. Let it be sufficient to note that once Ehrman has presented his claim that mythicists are people who cannot be convinced, he then appears to treat them as if they need not be listened to.

Ehrman alludes to the third prong of his approach in the introduction: presenting the historical case for the existence of Jesus. I will discuss this in the relevant chapters.

The fourth prong of his approach to the debate I will discuss at an appropriate point in the review, but it is already garnering much attention over at Neil Godfrey's Vridar.

In reading the introduction, the reader should keep in mind when confronting this flow of rhetoric designed to isolate mythicists on the fringe that it is really as simple as this: there is only one reasonable position, and that is the one supported by evidence generated using robust and reliable methodologies, assembled into the interpretive framework that explains the data most comprehensively and with the fewest anomalies. The reader should hew to that view in assessing Ehrman's presentation, and simply ignore the constant flow of pointless rhetoric.

In reality, the mythicist-historicist debate is a clash of competing interpretive frameworks, a clash over the same body of data over which there are divergent interpretive views -- one of which claims success because it has powerful social support. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in the social and historical sciences.

Readers who are familiar with the history of science can probably name many examples of how social approval in a historical or human field for a given interpretation of the data hindering consideration and acceptance of new ideas. The struggle to overcome the Clovis First interpretive framework that came to dominate North American archaeology until about three decades ago is a good example (the battle is still ongoing, and will likely end when the last of the Clovis Firsters dies off). Another good example is the way paleoanthropology was changed by the influx of females in the 1960s; the interpretive frameworks had been dominated by males and their points of view. Every August in the US we see another example of the clash of competing interpretive frameworks over how the atomic bombings of Japan should be understood.

Thus, the reader should be aware that the clash between mythicists and historicists is not a clash between loons similar to those who think the moon landings were faked and NASA, or between Creationists and real scientists, as Ehrman would have it. That is mere rhetoric, lazy, cheap shots.* In evolutionary biology or climate science the methodologies are robust and testable and the evidence overwhelming and the Denialists on either part are essentially anti-science. Historical explanation is not like scientific explanation (though it may draw on it), and scholars who bluster that mythicists are like Creationists are (probably deliberately) making a serious category error.

In historical Jesus studies both mythicists and historicists learn the same ancient languages and study the same texts, using the same methodologies. Both sides keenly appreciate and esteem good scholarship and hold basically the same set of New Testament scholars in high regard, including Ehrman himself. I suspect that if you compared the bookshelves of most people writing on mythicism with Ehrman's own, they would look very much alike. None of the major mythicist writers can remotely be described as anti-science or anti-scholarship. Again, the problem is not denial of reality, but a clash of competing interpretive frameworks.

Because all this is new to him -- Ehrman was surprised to discover this body of literature, he avers -- Ehrman's writing on mythicism often exhibits the level of familiarity shown by an anthropologist who has decided to learn all he can about a mysterious tribe -- by observing them through field glasses at a distance. As far as I know, and I am a moderator of one of the most important mythicist discussion groups on the internet, Ehrman has never participated in any of the discussions in the major mythicist forums (I'd welcome correction on that assertion, btw). Save for Robert Price, whom he apparently contacted for information on mythicism, Ehrman does not seem to have interacted much with any of the major mythicist writers.

In sum, as we will eventually see, this is a surprisingly mediocre book in every way, pairing an enfeebled, ignorant discussion of Jesus mythicism with a similarly impoverished, doctrinaire discussion of the historicity of Jesus. Instead of mind-expanding cataclysm, Ehrman has, sadly, given us mere catechism.

See you soon with a look at Chapter 1.

*The comparison to Holocaust Denial is simply beyond the pale.

University Class Editing of Wiki Pages

This came over the intertubes from H-Asia. Might be useful as a class project in your field...

++++++++

H-ASIA
April 2, 2012

Wiki Writing?
From: Richard Jensen <rjensen@uic.edu>

The folks at Wikipedia are promoting the idea of university classes incorporating Wikipedia projects.  That is the students would made additions to Wikipedia articles, for class credit. The professor would monitor the quality, and the folks at Wikipedia would provide all sorts of technical help.

I'm one of those helpers--and I've been editing a lot of Wikipedia articles, including some on India and Japan. Looking at hundreds of history articles, my take is that the average Wiki contributor is a&nbsp;male undergraduate who is mostly interested in military or political history, and is generally not familiar with social or cultural history, nor with historiography, nor with the scholarly literature.  The articles need help. Since they are the #1 source used by students any upgrading would be a public service. But it also may teach the students to write and cite--and get instant feedback, with their work actually published for the world to see.

The program is in startup mode and is operating mostly in the USA right now. The project covers all academic disciplines, and has been endorsed by the Sociology and Psychology associations, which have
activities underway.

There will be an online training program for teachers this summer, plus a help desk and maybe even on-campus help.  I edit a private discussion list you can join. Anyone interested in giving it a try
for next year should contact me at rjensen@uic.edu

Richard Jensen
rjensen@uic.edu

There is some information on the Wikipedia program at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Current_ambassadors

on the sociologists see
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/18/sociology-association-encourages-members-help-improve-wikipedia

Hippolytus, Josephus, Essenes: Christian editing of Josephus?

Sid Green, a net-acquaintance, argues that Hippolytus in Refutation of All Heresies copied his information on the Essenes from Josephus, and the way that he presents the information indicates that Josephus has undergone editing by Christians.

I thought I'd compare the two to see how this idea works, and to flex my rusty NT blogging muscles. For reference, At the bottom of this post after the READ MORE fold I've placed both side by side, more or less topic by topic.

It's important to note that Hippolytus normally follows Josephus faithfully, line by line, sometimes even preserving interesting words or language from Josephus. There are, however, several interesting, and Green argues, telltale, differences.

First, Josephus writes:

then, that he will maintain just actions toward humanity; that he will harm no one, whether by his own deliberation or under order; that he will hate the unjust and contend together with the just;

...while Hippolytus, normally faithful to Josephus, suddenly veers from the Josephean text:

next, that he will observe just dealings with men, and that he will in no way injure any one, and that he will not hate a person who injures him, or is hostile to him, but pray for them.

Clearly the description in Hippolytus makes the Essenes more "Christian" in their outlook than the extant Josephus text does, since Hippolytus has the Essenes praying for their enemies. Did a Christian editor change the text of Josephus to make it less Christian, or did Hippolytus make the Essenes more Christian? If the latter, what could possibly have been his motive?

In discussing the four orders of the Essenes, Josephus writes:

They are divided into four classes, according to their duration in the training, [H] and the later-joiners are so inferior to the earlier-joiners that if they should touch them, the latter wash themselves off as if they have mingled with a foreigner.

...while in Hippolytus, where the [H] is above, he has an entire passage with no parallel in Josephus about fundamentalists who are tougher than average about rules, randomly circumcise people, and who are known as Zealots and Sicarii:

For some of them discipline themselves above the requisite rules of the order, so that even they would not handle a current coin of the country, saying that they ought not either to carry, or behold, or fashion an image: wherefore no one of those goes into a city, lest (by so doing) he should enter through a gate at which statues are erected, regarding it a violation of law to pass beneath images. But the adherents of another party, if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His laws— supposing such to be an uncircumcised person, they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii. And the adherents of another party call no one Lord except the Deity, even though one should put them to the torture, or even kill them.

..when you look at the passage carefully, the obvious seam in Josephus jumps out. He moves immediately from declaring that there are four types of Essenes to discussing the later-joiners relative to the early joiners. Whereas, in Hippolytus, the progression of ideas, from discussing what fundamentalists the more-Essene-than-the-Essenes are, to the late-comers, a progression that makes more sense.

A little further down, Hippolytus does not parallel a passage in Josephus about 'the war against the Romans' since that would likely make no sense to a reader a century removed from Josephus.

Further on, once again we are faced with the choice of either an editor removing a passage from Josephus or Hippolytus Christianizing the Essenes:

Josephus:

For the view has become tenaciously held among them that whereas our bodies are perishable and their matter impermanent, our souls endure forever, deathless: they get entangled, having emanated from the most refined ether, as if drawn down by a certain charm into the prisons that are bodies.

Hippolytus:

Now the doctrine of the resurrection has also derived support among these; for they acknowledge both that the flesh will rise again, and that it will be immortal, in the same manner as the soul is already imperishable.

In the extant Josephus passage, the Essenes believe the body will die but the soul will live. Hippolytus has them supporting a doctrine similar to that of Christianity with resurrection of both the body and of the soul.  Did Hippolytus make the Essenes more Christian? If so, whatever for?

The final passage I'd like to point out offers some very interesting changes. Josephus writes (I've marked them into two parts, A and B):

A
For the good, on the one hand, sharing the view of the sons of Greece they portray the lifestyle reserved beyond Oceanus and a place burdened by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but which a continually blowing mild west wind from Oceanus refreshes.

B
For the base, on the other hand, they separate off a murky, stormy recess filled with unending retributions. It was according to the same notion that the Greeks appear to me to have laid on the Islands of the Blessed for their most courageous men, whom they call heroes and demi-gods, and for the souls of the worthless the region of the impious in Hades, in which connection they tell tales about the punishments of certain men—Sisyphuses and Tantaluses, Ixions and Tityuses—establishing in the first place the [notion of] eternal souls and, on that basis, persuasion toward virtue and dissuasion from vice.

In Hippolytus this is completely different.....

A
And this locality the Greeks were acquainted with by hearsay, and called it Isles of the Blessed. And there are other tenets of these which many of the Greeks have appropriated, and thus have from time to time formed their own opinions.

B
For the disciplinary system in regard of the Divinity, according to these (Jewish sects), is of greater antiquity than that of all nations. And so it is that the proof is at hand, that all those (Greeks) who ventured to make assertions concerning God, or concerning the creation of existing things, derived their principles from no other source than from Jewish legislation. And among these may be particularized Pythagoras especially, and the Stoics, who derived (their systems) while resident among the Egyptians, by having become disciples of these Jews.

In Part A Hippolytus appears to make the claim that the Greeks have appropriated tenets of Jewish thought, though that's not completely clear. Josephus was ever eager to prove the antiquity of the Jews and their greatness. It strikes me that this is a very Josephean claim. Yet this claim is not found in the Josephean "original".

Part B is as different as night and day. Josephus gives a run-down of Greek beliefs, completely veering from his discussion of the Essenes to talk about how the Greeks established their own ideas of the soul. Hippolytus continues his very Josephean train of thought, attributing the development of Greek ideas of God to the Jews, claiming that Greek wise men got their ideas as the disciples of Jews, and fronting this with the very Josephean claim that Jewish ideas of the Divinity predate those of all other nations!

In fact, Josephus makes this exact claim of Hippolytus' in Contra Apionem, in Part II, where he asserts the antiquity of the Jewish law over those of other lawgivers among the non-Jews, points to cultural borrowings from the Jews now prominent among the Greeks, and claims that Pythagoras and other thinkers held ideas about God similar to those of the Jews, with the clear implication that they learned such ideas from the Jews.

Thus, it would seem that the position Josephus holds in the passage on the Essenes is the opposite of the one he holds elsewhere. Moreover, if you read the passages against each other, it almost looks as if Josephus is replying to Hippolytus' assertions that the Greeks depended on the Jews by saying that, no, the Greeks developed their own ideas based on their own mythological characters!

I think it is very clear, but especially in this last section that an editor, probably a Christian editor, has been at work adjusting Josephus to de-Christianize his discussion of the Essenes.

Once again, the two passages are set against each other in a long table below the READ MORE line. To save space I've reduced the font size, just hit CONTROL and + to increase the size of the font in your browser window.

Canon SX260 HS Review

Well well. I've finished a careful reading of Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. I've got Price's book on the problems of mythicism and Ehrman's new volume waiting for me to put eyes on them. Expect reviews shortly. In the meantime, I've got a first impressions review of the new Canon SX260 HS I just got on my Taiwan blog with some sample pics.

Not yet....

Still trying to get going blogging here, but too much stuff going on right now.

Darrell Doughty on Tacitus Recovery

I was hunting for this page and found out it is no longer up at

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Tacitus.html

So I thought I'd save it here, out of the cache. Thank all gods for the Wayback Machine.

+++++++++++++++++

Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians.   Annals 15.44.2-8

Text and Discussion

This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for the persecution of Christians by the Romans (see E. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, pp. 70f). It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination. On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero creatred a diversion by torturing and executing Christians.

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus. Tyberio imperitante per procuratorem pontium pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat. non modo per iudaeam originem eius mali. sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque .,. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur. deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens. haud proinde in crimine incendii. quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt .,. "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:

"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. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Literature Paul Keresztes, "Rome and the Christian Church, I. From Nero to Sereri," ANRW 2.23.1, 247-315; L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians (New York, 1913); H. Fuchs, "Tacitus über die Christen," VC 4 (1950), 65-93; E.T. Klette, Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero nach ihrem Quellen inbes nach Tac. Ann. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht (Tübingen, 1907); Charles Saumagne, "Tacite et Saint Paul," Revue historique 232 (1964), 67-110; "Les incendiaires de Rome et les lois pémales des romains," Revue historique 227 (1962), 337-360. Discussion According to Keresztes (251ff), it is "generally agreed" that what the Christians were actually accused of here was not arson, but "hatred of the human race" - although it is somewhat unclear what this would have included. Keresztes suggests that for Tacitus it would have included "the flagitia, the abominations, that were associated with the Christian name." (252). But we have no evidence for such an association at the time of Nero, or even the time of Tacitus. What "abominations" are in view here? Keresztes explains that "there should be no serious doubt that this quite abstract idea of odium, 'hatred,' without concrete proof of crimes, could be subject to juridical condemnation to death in view of the indubitable fact that the Christians were 'tried' by the cognito process of one of the highest magistrates of Rome, very likely the perfectus urbi." (252) But precisely this "indubitable fact" is in question here, i.e., the claim that "without proof of specific crimes" Christians were condemned to death by "one of the highest magistrates of Rome." According to Keresztes, the trial of the Christians in Tacitus' story "may be illustrated by the trial of Christ by the governor of Judea about thirty years earlier. The charges against Christ did not fall under any particular Roman law, but were allegations of some particular undesirable actions on which Pontius Pilate was asked to judge... Just as we still do not know the basis of Pilate's condemnation of Christ, we do not know the basis for the condemnation of Tacitus' Christians. Both Christ and the Christians of Rome may have been condemned by the judges for any one or any number of the allegations of 'undesirable' acts against them..." (253) This takes for granted, of course, that the account of Jesus' trail before Pilate is historical. We have to do here with legends in which the absence of specific accusations reflects the Christian view that the martyrs always were wrongly--one could even say illegally--put to death. Keresztes observes that what Tacitus' text actually seems to say is that Christians were convicted not "on account" of their hatred for the human race, but expressly "of hatred for the human race," and that this "sounds absurd even in the context of the undoubtedly arbitrary cognito extra ordinem." (254) Taking advantage of a textual variant, and a favorable alternative meaning for odium humanigeneris, Keresztes constructs a rather complicated argument for a "more natural meaning that could well be that of Tacitus." (254f). Keresztes recognizes, however, that this varient reading "could well be the result of an effort to 'correct' Tacitus by giving it a more banal meaning," and that his proposal has not found overwhelming support among scholars, who propose other ways of making sense out of the text. All such attempts to render what Tacitus says less "absurd" or less "objectional," however, are really attempts to preserve the authenticity of a legendary account, which from a historical perspective must have involved specific crimes and specific charges. In conclusion, Keresztes asks, "What then brought them to be persecuted as Christians some time between the fire of 64 A.D. and 68 A.D.?," and observes that "on the basis of ancient Christian sources (e.g., 1 Clem 5; 6), ... modern writers --i.e., Allard [1903], Canfield [1913], Klette [1907], Bacchus [1908], and Frend [1965])-- feel certain that the Christians were finally persecuted as a result of Jewish intrigues." "According to this thinking, the Christians were persecuted... as undesirable elements of society and as Christians. The situation may have been brought about by the enemies of Christianity [Jews?], through some legislation, as is suggested by solid Christian tradition. This may be corroborated by 'St. Peter's First Letter' (esp. ch. 4) where the Christian name certainly appears to be a capital crime for which it was desirable to suffer just as it was, by contrast, undesirable to suffer for crimes against the common law." (257) When all else fails, blame the Jews. In any case, one can not appeal here to writings such as Clement and 2 Peter since the assumption that Christians were persecuted by Nero has often been used to date these writings (Like Frend, Keresztes seems to think that 2 Peter had these events directly in view). In fact, however, both Clement and 2 Peter refelect a much later situation. General Observations The text is full of difficulties, and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition  (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over. It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to -- arson or being Christians? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another. But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes! Then, with regard to this particular source, I note that the earliest manuscript we have for the Annales dates from the 11th century, and must therefore have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes (and Christian apologists). So there were certainly opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote. Furthermore, it is highly remarkable that no other ancient source associates Christians with the burning of Rome until Sulpicius Serverus (Sacred History, 2.29), in the fifth century (c. 408). The dramatic and fantastic description of the tortures suffered by the scapegoats resembles the executions portrayed in legendary Acts of Christian Martyrs. And John Meir (who regards this text as early evidence for pagan recognition of a historical Jesus) tellingly observes (without perceiving its significance): "There is a great historical irony in this text of Tacitus; it is the only time in ancient pagan literature that Pontius Pilate is mentioned by name -- as a way of specifying who Christ is. Pilate's fate in the Christian creeds is already foreshadowed in a pagan historian," -- which could easily indicate Christian apologetic intervention. For all these reasons, therefore, one must at least conclude that this text is too problematical to serve as historical evidence for anything. I myself, however, regard it as probable that we have to do here with a later Christian elaboration. One might ask whether those passages in Christian or Roman writings before Severus are ones in which we would expect to find a reference to Christians being associated with the burning of Rome, and yet we do not? Well, Tertullian tells his readers, "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect" (Apol 5); but he makes no mention of Christians setting Rome on fire. If Tertullian had read Tacitus (which seems very probable), we would have to assume this information was probably not yet present. Other ancient historians also refer to Nero's persecution of Christians (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Pliny the Elder), but none of these associates the persecution of Christians with the burning of Rome. Irenaeus makes no reference at all to a persecution under Nero. Origin has little to say about any persecutions. And although Eusebius knows the tradition of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul under Nero (HE 2.25) and even conceives the persecution of Christians under Nero -- "the first of the emperors who showed himself to be the enemy of the divine religion" -- as a kind of salvation-historical turning point in Christian history, he nevertheless makes no reference to the "multitude" of believers who supposedly suffered martyrdom under Nero at the time of the burning of Rome. The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening. It is often objected that "no matter what the textual or historical difficulties, no Christian would ever have written such phrases as 'pernicious superstition' or 'the home of the disease' or 'loathed for their vice' " -- that "such a Christian would have let such things stand if he was redacting the passage," and that "there is not a hint of Christian theology or tendentiousness in the entire chapter."  This is the most common argument against the possibility of a Christian interpolation here. However, the reference to Christ having been "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is certainly a "hint of Christian theology." As a historicization of the Christian myth it has the same significance here as it does in the Apostles Creed (c. 340). The reference to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition" characterized by "hatred for all humankind" could be verisimilitude, reflecting what Christian apologists later attributed to pagans and what someone thought Tacitus also might have said. The apologetic nuance of even these remarks, however, is the qualification "which was checked for the moment, only to break out once more" -- i.e., the idea that persecution of Christians is of little avail (cf. Acts 5:33-39). We might also ask how many Christians were present in Rome in Nero's time -- enough to constitute an "immense multitude"? The legends concerning persecutions of Christians in early times greatly exaggerate the actual events. (See the careful discussion by Robin Lane Fox in his book Pagans and Christians, 419ff). And the interpolation in Tacitus reflects this tendency. Even Frend (162) calls attention to the fact that this passage replicates language and motifs from Livy's account of the Bacchanal conspiracy - as something that Tacitus "may have had in mind," since Tacitus describes the persecution of Christians by Nero "in almost identicle terms." Two things are particuarly remarkable here. One is the reference to the "immense multitude" (multitudo ingens) that was convicted, a theme also found in Livy's account, but probably not appropriate for Christians in Rome in 60 CE. And the other is that in both cases the charge involved with setting fires. Since I have now spent so much time pondering this text, however, I might speculate a bit regarding its possible redactional composition. To begin with, it is not obvious here that Christians or anyone else were charged with setting the fire. The most probable meaning rather is that Nero created a "diversion" (the phrase subdidit reos is vague) in the form of a "spectacle" or "circus" - by "subjecting to the most extra-ordinary tortures those persons hated for their abominations by the common people..." -- i.e., persons later referred to as "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment" (presumably for various crimes). And this may have been the original content of Tacitus' account, the purpose of which--reflecting his negative opinion of Nero--was to depict Nero in an ugly way: so we are told "... it was not as it seemed for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." The confusing reference, however, to people being arrested because they "confessed" has the appearance of a Christian motif, as well as the idea that "based on their information," an immense multitude was convicted, which resembles what we read in Pliny and Christian Martyr Acts. So the Christian elaboration may include at least the identification of the despised people as "Christians" (christianosappellabat), the reference to Christ as the founder of the movement, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and the revival of the movement in Judea and even in Rome, as well as the references to people confessing to be Christians and then ratting on their Christian brothers, and their being put to death because of their "hatred for the human race.". It is difficult to determine what else might be Christian elaboration. The description of the tortures suffered by the crimnals resembles what we find in Christian martyr legends. And the reference to "mockery" of those condemed to death and execution by crucifixion could be Christian motifs (cf. Mark 15:29-32; Mt 27:39-44; Lk 23:35-38). But the portrayal of Nero in the gardens driving his chariot may be original. And the conclusion could also be original: "Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished." Notice that the interpolated material constitutes a solid block:

"called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race."

And when this material is removed the text still makes perfect sense.

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

One should finally recognize that, as Keresztes correctly observes, the portrayal of Christians being persecuted here suffers from the same ambiguities and difficulties as the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels. To be executed in such a way, the Christians would have been brought to trial before a Roman magistrate, where witnesses would be heard and charges evaluated. But as Keresztes observes, "Just as we still do not know the basis of Pilate's condemnation of Christ, we do not know the basis for the condemnation of Tacitus' Christians (ANRW 2.23.1, 253). Keresztes argues that we have to do here an cognito extra ordinem, and that in such cases the "quite abstract idea of odium, 'hatred,' without concrete proof of crimes" was probably sufficient to warrant condemnation to death. But this is unlikely. Keresztes simply assumes what must have been the case in order to make sense of what the Gospels and Tacitus relate when these sources are read uncritically. The entire story makes better sense, however, if Tacitus' original account related the execution of criminals who had already been convicted of serious crimes.

Well, still not here yet

I was going to be posting here, but then a local county government gave me a great gig that has me traveling most of my off days down in southern Taiwan. Hope to see you all by the end of the month.

Bible Argh from Newsweek

All over Facebook and Twitter is Newsweek's completely incompetent article on marriage and the Bible:

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.

Stunning incompetence and illogic like this will be ripped to shreds on both liberal and conservative blogs. Should be a fun few days of reading. But it is the kind of thing that just begs the question of why Newsweek couldn't find some scholars of marriage and the Bible to write this piece. Or at least, find someone who had read Leviticus or the Gospel of Mark.

*Creak* Letting some light in...

I've decided to re-open this blog over the next couple of months. So let's let a little light into this place with some pics from my ride last week up in Miaoli, the county north of Taichung city where I live.

Cycling has become a kind of national sport in Taiwan, one that blends the emerging concepts of green leisure and sustainable lifestyle -- here in Taiwan marketed as a consumer ideal rather than a philosophy for living -- and Taiwan's industrial prowess. The island is a world center of bike manufacturing, and within 30 kms of my house are some of the most important component and frame makers on earth.

Looking northeast out of the town of Shihgang toward the central mountain range.

Orange groves. The mountains outside of Taichung city in central Taiwan are important fruit growing regions.

The Dajia River, looking east toward Dongshih.

Egrets are a common sight in Taiwan's waterways.

Me with the Liyu Reservoir behind me. The ridge I'm resting on is at about 400 meters above sea level.

Winter means the reservoir is at a low level.

Rolling down Route 3 to Miaoli County Route 130.

When we do 130 we always stop here for snacks and drinks.

130 is characterized by lovely views and steep 10-13% grades. Taiwan's mountainous areas are among the steepest in the world.

A colony of spiders.

A mother guards her brood.

Bamboo marches along the road.

Looking south towards Jhuolan, the wine grape region, and Hsinshe, the mushroom producing center of the area.

I'm a slow climber. It takes me about forty minutes of climbing to reach the top.

The restaurant where I'm eating lunch awaits me on the left, perched by the side of the road.

Because of the excellent views and mountain foods and temples, there is a steady trickle of tourists and as a result, infrastructure to serve them. Here I stop at the Mile High Cafe.

Hakka-style cooking is the specialty of the place.

The bike takes a break.

Lunch.

Waitress.

Nothing like lunch with a view.

The restaurant is well positioned just below the top of the ridge, which rises to about 800 meters.

Up at the top on a Saturday there's a respectable flow of day-trippers enjoying the good weather and the local festival.

In Taiwan, wherever people gather, so do vendors.

Enjoyable views from the summit.

The descent is wonderful.

Abandoned buildings are a common sight on Taiwan roads.

Like many roads in Taiwan, this one follows a river valley downhill.

It runs past local farms and restaurants catering to tourists.

From there I turn onto a much smaller road to the famous old collapsed Japanese-era railroad viaduct.

Bucolic scenery.

I have many pics of this ruin from previous rides through the area; here's an old one.

After the railroad viaduct the road climbs a small ridge, then falls into a peaceful little valley whose opening is crossed by the modern railroad bridge.

Never mind what they say; Taiwan's national sport is fishing.

Rolling through the valley, I leave the lovely part of the ride and get back on the crowded, noisy, four lane roads home....

CFP: Christianity and China, J of Amer-E Asian Relations

Here's a fascinating topic combining Christianity with foreign affairs in a key global location:

++++++++++++++++

H-ASIA March 25, 2007

Call for Articles: Special Issue of Journal of American-East Asian Relations
********************
From: "Dong Wang"

Call for Submissions for a Special Issue of the Journal of American-East Asian Relations

"Christianity in China as an Issue in the History of United States-China Relations"

The Journal of American-East Asian Relations publishes cutting-edge academic articles on trans-pacific international relations with a world-wide readership in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Contributions are sought from scholars in all fields of the social sciences and humanities for a special issue of the Journal, entitled "Christianity in China as an Issue in the History of United States-China Relations."

[more description deleted]

Inquiries and manuscripts should be sent to the Guest Editor of the
special issue by December 1, 2007:

Dong Wang (Guest Editor and Associate Editor of the Journal of
American-East Asian Relations)

Gordon College
dong.wang@gordon.edu

[Christianity] [China]

Esther as Taiwanese Opera

A Taiwanese opera group has decided to stage the Jewish tale of Esther from the Christian Bible using Taiwanese opera.

A rare combination of traditional Taiwanese opera and orchestral music with the Bible story of Queen Esther will be presented by Yage Theater at Taipei City Hall's playhouse at 7:30 p.m. today and tomorrow.

Yage Theater and Everlight Chemical Industrial Co. have invited senior citizens from five elderly homes to join the general public for the performances.

The play, titled "Palace Walls", is a musical about Queen Esther presented in the form of Taiwanese opera accompanied by orchestral music.

"Palace Walls" will depict the invisible walls erected with greediness in people's hearts and minds under the mounting pressure of modern life.

Executives of Yage Theater said the performances will not only be presented in an entirely new form of intermingled Eastern and Western arts, but they will also shed light on how people may exercise self-reflection and help jointly build harmony in the society.

The audiences invited to the performances will include current residents of five elderly homes in Taipei City, including the Taipei Municipal Guang Chih Care Home and the Shilin Old People Care Center, as well as elderly institutions in Datong, Xinyi and Songshan districts.

Yage Theater expects the performances will help spread the love of God to all corners of society, including the unprivileged sections.

[Taiwan] [Christianity] [Esther]

Revving up for Action

Watch this space. I'll be posting soon.

Blogging Issues

I haven't been around here in a while, and it doesn't seem likely I'll have much chance to blog here more than once or twice a month, as my work schedule has increased dramatically, since my parents are coming this summer and my son is going back to hideously expensive private school next semester (*gasp of pain*). I am also trying to finish two books this semester.



Lately I've been nurturing my Taiwan blog, which is now getting 350-450 visitors a day and requires some investment of time almost every day. That blog is my personal blog, where I post plenty of photos of my life, from panoramas to bugs, trips around Taiwan (most recently a doozy to Hoping Island in Keelung Harbor), and loads of snarky political commentary on Taiwan's complex international situation, history and the foreign media's inability to get either right, as well as links to doings around our crazed island, resources for understanding Taiwan, and suchlike. The Sword, alas, has a more restricted range of postings.

I'm sorry that I've been so neglectful of this blog, for I love The Sword very much, and I have a laundry list of stuff I'd like to lay out here. But never fear! I'm still around. Look forward in the next few months to more on where the writer of Mark had Jesus killed, on the claim that the gospels are "embellished history" as a version of Popper's conventionalist twist, and other stuff to raise your eyebrows and blood pressures! I'd also like to thank everyone who has spent a minute here, made a comment, or dropped me an email. You guys make it all worthwhile.

Michael