Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by Secret Alias »

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Great stuff.

Our colleague neilgodfrey beat the Beast on this:

http://vridar.org/2015/12/17/the-myth-o ... hristians/
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by neilgodfrey »

Moss writes:
Most of the historical evidence for Nero persecuting Christians comes to us from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote between 115-120 CE, at least fifty years after the events he was describing.
Moss sounds as if she thinks 50 years after the purported events robs the account of some degree of credibility!

At least she has room for more mercy than Garraghan (endorsed as an authority on historical method by non other than James McGrath) who said reports that Luther committed suicide were to be discounted because they appeared as much as two whole decades after his death.

Lucky for Jesus we have scholars like Crossley and the late Casey who can date the Gospel of Mark to the mid to late 30s or early 40s at the very latest!
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by andrewcriddle »

The article accepts that the references to Christians in the time of Nero in Suetonius and Tacitus are both authentic (in the sense that Suetonius and Tacitus both wrote the passages). If so this prima-facie implies that there was a group named Christians (or Chrestians ) in Nero's Rome. It is unlikely that Suetonius and Tacitus are being independently anachronistic here.

Some have argued that the Christians (or Chrestians ) under Nero were different from what we mean by Christians but this does not seem to be what the article is proposing.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:26 am Moss writes:
Most of the historical evidence for Nero persecuting Christians comes to us from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote between 115-120 CE, at least fifty years after the events he was describing.
Moss sounds as if she thinks 50 years after the purported events robs the account of some degree of credibility!

At least she has room for more mercy than Garraghan (endorsed as an authority on historical method by non other than James McGrath) who said reports that Luther committed suicide were to be discounted because they appeared as much as two whole decades after his death.
The accounts of Luther's suicide are not only somewhat late (IIUC about 40 years after his death), they are found in hostile (Roman Catholic) sources and are contradicted by contemporary accounts.
See Schaff

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by DCHindley »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:58 amThe accounts of Luther's suicide are not only somewhat late (IIUC about 40 years after his death), they are found in hostile (Roman Catholic) sources and are contradicted by contemporary accounts.

See Schaff
I was a bit uneasy to see this overly strident, and let's face it nasty, side of Philip Schaaf! How DARE the "Ultramontanist" Romanists even *suggest* that Luther committed suicide (due to remorse and guilt I suppose). It just seems a little "over the top". You can tell where the author stands in the religious debate between Christian sects (Reformed), even giving Luther a mere 15 minutes of fame before saying "he was useful to Protestantism at the time," as if it was not so now. As for moderate Roman Catholic critics, they are sufferable, but only to be polite. God forbid if one were to reach out his hand to him in greeting <brrr>.

Please tell me this was satire. I've always liked Schaaf's works dealing with early Christian history, precisely because he does *not* sound like this in those works. But ... love to be wrong. :eek:

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by iskander »

doctor majunke.PNG
doctor majunke.PNG (147.62 KiB) Viewed 6354 times
Paul Majunke
"Unfortunately, his uncompromising zeal frequently incited him to give expression to ill-timed utterances in both the public press and Parliament, and these led to an estrangement between him and the leading Catholics of the day. In 1874 he was condemned to one year's imprisonment for violation of the press laws...
In "Luther's Selbstmord" (1892) he attempted to establish the untenable theory of Luther's suicide (concerning this question see Paulus, "Luther's Lebensende", 1898)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09557b.htm
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:58 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:26 am Moss writes:
Most of the historical evidence for Nero persecuting Christians comes to us from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote between 115-120 CE, at least fifty years after the events he was describing.
Moss sounds as if she thinks 50 years after the purported events robs the account of some degree of credibility!

At least she has room for more mercy than Garraghan (endorsed as an authority on historical method by non other than James McGrath) who said reports that Luther committed suicide were to be discounted because they appeared as much as two whole decades after his death.
The accounts of Luther's suicide are not only somewhat late (IIUC about 40 years after his death), they are found in hostile (Roman Catholic) sources and are contradicted by contemporary accounts.
See Schaff

Andrew Criddle
The point I was attempting to address seems to be getting a bit lost here.

The reports and purported evidence for Hitler's suicide also come to us via his bitterest enemies.

Would it be methodologically sound to give credence to the reports of Luther's suicide in the absence of the alternative contemporary accounts?

One historian discussing his profession's standards of evidence tell us that the answer is "Probably No".

I was referring to Garraghan's discussion, so here I quote him in full:
¶ 260 LATE APPEARANCE OF TRADITION

It is typical of popular tradition that it is first heard of long after the time when the events it
reports are supposed to have occurred. Almost invariably there is a gap, more or less broad,
between the events and their first appearance in recorded history. Such a gap occurring in the
case of any report is enough to make it suspect from the start.
Instances of such reports, found
on examination to be unverified, are without number. Thus, unaccountably tardy
first­mention of them in written record of any kind is a major argument used by critics in
discrediting such one­time general beliefs as the False Decretals, the Popess Joan, the
authenticity of the reputed works of Denis the Areopagite. Again, no contemporary
biographer of St. Thomas of Canterbury records that his mother was a Saracen princess
whom his father had married in the Holy Land.­­­­­ John Morris, "Legends about St.
Thomas," The Life and Martyrdom of St. Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury ( 2d ed., London,
1885), 523­25.

That Luther committed suicide is a story first heard of some twenty years after his death,
when it began to be circulated by persons hostile to his memory.
­­­­­ H. Grisar, Martin
Luther, his Life and Work, 57578. . . . . . Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method (1946).
A gap of twenty years is considered to be at least some grounds for suspicion.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:45 am The article accepts that the references to Christians in the time of Nero in Suetonius and Tacitus are both authentic (in the sense that Suetonius and Tacitus both wrote the passages). If so this prima-facie implies that there was a group named Christians (or Chrestians ) in Nero's Rome. It is unlikely that Suetonius and Tacitus are being independently anachronistic here.

Some have argued that the Christians (or Chrestians ) under Nero were different from what we mean by Christians but this does not seem to be what the article is proposing.

Andrew Criddle
I don't think Suetonius anywhere suggests that there was a group called "Chestians" or similar among Jews in Rome or among anyone anywhere, does he?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Fake News: Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:37 pm
andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:45 am The article accepts that the references to Christians in the time of Nero in Suetonius and Tacitus are both authentic (in the sense that Suetonius and Tacitus both wrote the passages). If so this prima-facie implies that there was a group named Christians (or Chrestians ) in Nero's Rome. It is unlikely that Suetonius and Tacitus are being independently anachronistic here.

Some have argued that the Christians (or Chrestians ) under Nero were different from what we mean by Christians but this does not seem to be what the article is proposing.

Andrew Criddle
I don't think Suetonius anywhere suggests that there was a group called "Chestians" or similar among Jews in Rome or among anyone anywhere, does he?
I assume Andrew is referring to the "Nero reference" in Suetonius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius ... _reference

"During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city."

I can't tell whether you're also referring to it and questioning whether it refers to "a group called 'Chestians' or similar among Jews in Rome" ... or what. Andrew refers to "the references to Christians in the time of Nero in Suetonius and Tacitus" and to "a group named Christians (or Chrestians ) in Nero's Rome" (and added the conditional regarding authenticity... and hasn't pressed the spelling issue, so to speak, particularly here...), so he's not wrong.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply