The following is an interesting article and I wonder how long Dr. Hunt can remain at NIH once the powers that be get wind of this article.

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist.  He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

Another Failed Presidency
An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.  In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ.  Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party.  Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

But, Barack Obama is failing.  Failing big.  Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed.  Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months?  His poll ratings are in free fall.  In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage.  This truly is unbelievable.  What’s going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative.  No, not a narrative about himself.  He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else.  But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us.  He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us.  All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are.  Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task–all contributory of course.  It’s that he’s not one of us.  And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper.  Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job.  Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize.  For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive.  An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year.  With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them.  The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

“When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.” – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus

“A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” – Unknown

Proof of the Existence of Jesus Christ.Here are some non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.

I saw this on the magazine stand at Union Station in Chicago yesterday.  At first I thought it was some kind of parody, like The Onion.   It isn’t. 

In all fairness, the article does refer to the prosperity gospel chicanery of the name-it-and-claim-it, word-faith frauds.  (Even so, to describe the article’s hypothesis as “a stretch” is to be exceedingly charitable;  I’m as disturbed by the Benny Hinns and Creflo Dollars of this world as much as the next Baptist, but to blame them for the cataclysmic folly of Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd is fantasy activism.)  

Looking at the cover, however, there is no distinction drawn between those health-and-wealth con men and legitimate, sincere, biblical believers. 

Now, in Islamic regions, in parts of India, and in communist nations like China and North Korea, persecution simply comes with being a Christ-follower.  Here in the States, though, the church still has it pretty soft and cushy (which is why the American church herself is, for the most part, soft and cushy).  Nonetheless, even here we are seeing the earliest and mildest signs of what is to come.  Magazine covers like this one are merely a foretaste. 

When Emperor Nero wanted to initiate his own campaign of anti-Christian slaughter, he first needed to scapegoat the church.  He did it by pinning a disaster on them.  Granted, it was a devastating fire and not a financial collapse, but I think the parallels are apt enough.

In 64 A.D. a fire destroyed 10 of the 14 wards of Rome.  The citizens suspected Nero was behind the fire.  In Annals of Imperial Rome (XV.44), the Roman historian Tacitus wrote an account of Nero’s response:

    “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…  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 torture-stakes, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

Nero killed two birds with one stone.  He deflected the blame for the fire from himself, and he finally had a viable rationalization for his “final solution” to wipe out all Christians.

Some would say, “Well, this magazine cover does hit on Christianity, but other religions take a beating in the media too.”  Really?  Let’s contrast the Atlantic cover against one recent incident:  The Fort Hood Massacre.  The Culture and Media Institute is a conservative group that monitors journalists and media trends.  Their recent study* on the way the major network news broadcasts are handling the story is very telling.  Below are some highlights, but I encourage you to read the entire report for yourself:

    85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.

   Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

In short:  Christianity caused the recession, but Islamic terrorism didn’t contribute to the Fort Hood Massacre. 

Got that?

In Matthew 10:17-23, Jesus said, “But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.  But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.  For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.  And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.   But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

Watch and pray, Believers.

*”PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack”
By Carolyn Plocher and Dan Gainor

From another one of my roving reporters.

From Scotland this time – dated between 300-50BC:

£1m golden hoard rewrites history of ancient Scotland

An enthusiast with a metal detector has unearthed a £1 million hoard of Iron Age gold necklaces from a field near Stirling in a discovery that is set to revolutionise the way that historians view some of Scotland’s ancient inhabitants.
According to experts at the National Museums of Scotland (NMS), the four beautifully worked “torcs” represent the most significant find of Iron Age metalwork in the country. One of the Stirling necklaces is a ribbon torc made from twisted Irish or Scottish sheet gold. Another is encrusted with circles of gold wire and beads of gold that look like pearls.
In financial terms, the anonymous finder has struck gold in every sense. A single, similar item — the Newark torc — was sold for £350,000 in 2006, suggesting that treasure trove of well in excess of £1 million will soon be paid by the Crown.
A spokesman for NMS, whose experts are studying the find, said that a value would be determined by the independent Scottish Archaeological Finds Allocation Panel early next year. “The finder is normally rewarded with the current market value,” he added.
For archaeologists, monetary matters pale against the historical significance of the torcs, which probably date from between the 1st and 3rd centuries BC. Intriguingly, the Stirling find appears to reveal links between local tribes — traditionally seen as isolated — and other Iron Age people in Europe. Goldwork of roughly equivalent design has been discovered near Toulouse, in the South of France, a connection suggesting that both ideas and technology travelled over surprisingly large distances.
Ian Ralston, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh, pointed out that the latest find comes eight years after an Iron Age cart burial was unearthed at Newbridge in West Lothian. This high-status burial — probably a chieftain and his chariot — was the first of its type to have been found in Scotland, though similar interments took place from the Atlantic coast of France to Hungary. “These two finds suggest tribes in what we think of as ‘Scotland’ had rather wider links than archaeologists a generation ago would have expected,” Professor Ralston said. “They knew what was going on elsewhere, valued similar things and emulated practice in burials or votives.
“If you had said to me in 2000, what are the chances of a cart burial turning up in Scotland, I would have said about zilch. If you had asked the same question about a hoard of torcs near Stirling, I would have said about zilch. Then these discoveries turn up and very quickly change perceptions of the past.”
He added that the find was the most significant in Scotland since 1857, when two gold torcs were found on farmland in Morayshire.
Archaeologists divide over the reasons for the burial of hoards. One school of thought believes that precious of objects would be hidden in time of war, to be reclaimed later. However, Professor Ralston leans towards the theory that the hoards were votives, offerings to the gods. Others hoards — such as 20 torcs discovered together at Snettisham, Norfolk — suggested many people acting in concert and burying items together.
“The implication is that this stuff is consigned to the ground for higher purposes. In Scottish terms this is a hugely significant deposit, but even in European terms, four torcs together is very unusual,” he said.
The jewellery probably belonged to members of a Celtic-speaking tribe, Professor Ralston added. The same tribes would bind together to face Roman invaders and would be called Caledonii by Tacitus, the historian, in the 1st century AD.
In July a hoard of more than 1,000 golden Anglo Saxon items were unearthed from a field in Staffordshire.

Scots metal detector man finds 2000-year-old lost treasure trove worth £1m [link has video pics]

Excommunication was to a Catholic Priest what Damnatio Memoriae was to a Roman citizen. The greatest indignity a person suffered in the strata of Roman society was to be declared Damnatio Memoriae upon death. They had their names wiped off the public records of the empire. It was as if they never existed and the mention of their names was an anathema punishable by exile or death.

Ancient Romans were by nature, superstitious and believed in some form of life after death.Damnatio memoriae was a form of spiritual purgatory. Prayers and sacrifices could not be made on their behalf and an emperor who had been damned could not become a god or divus.

It was a tool of control used by successive emperors to settle scores with perceived enemies. They had their properties appropriated and their families decimated. The monuments of dead emperors who were officially condemned by the senate were altered, defaced or destroyed. The Roman senate nominally independent was in reality an instrument of the Emperor and effected whatever policies were desired of it. Rome had unusual and severe ways of punishing offenders. They could be killed (crucified, decapitated, stoned to death or hanged).exiled or had their properties confiscated.

Damnatio Memoriae was introduced in the early years of the Roman Empire. Nero was particularly fond of employing this apparatus in dealing with his detractors. In 66 AD, he fell out with his confidant, Caius Petronius who was regarded as the Arbiter elegantiae of Roman society and may have been the author of Satyricon.He had the audacity of criticizing Nero’s artistic genius and insinuating that he was a Monster.Petronius committed suicide and in return, Nero had a damnatio memoriae issued against him by the Roman senate.

The same fate awaited Thrasca, a staunch stoic and opponent of Nero who chose suicide over compromise in the manner of Socrates. This scene is the last episode in the surviving books of Tacitus’Annals and is recreated in the film Quo Vadis where the main character, Nero played by Peter Ustinov upon receiving the letter announcing the suicide of his nemesis orders the Praetorian guards to destroy the house of Petronius and kill his slaves. Nero was to suffer the same fate in AD 68 when he was declared a ‘public enemy’ by the Roman senate and he committed suicide. His last words were “Qualis artifex pereo” (What an artist dies in me).

This damnation was inflicted on particularly vicious Emperors. After the assassination of Commodus(he had been strangled in the palace by a gladiator named Narcissus with the active connivance of his Christian mistress, Marcia) on December,192 ,a damnatio memoriae was issued wiping his name from the annals of Rome.Commodus was hated by the Roman senate because he took pleasure in killing and exiling the Roman gentry. During his emperorship, more than a third of the Roman senators perished.

Before his death in York in 211AD, The Emperor, Septimius Severus had summoned his two sons, Caracalla and Geta and had given them three bits of advice; “Treat the Roman legions well, ignore everybody else and get along with one another”. They obeyed the first two bits, but ignored the last.Caracalla was to kill Geta on Dec 211 along with the family of his former father in law Gaius Fulvius Plautianus,his wife,Fulvia Plautilla(also his paternal second cousin) and her brother. He persecuted Geta’s supporters and ordered a damnatio memoriae by the senate against his brother. When the people of Alexandria protested and performed a parody about the unjust murder, he had 10,000 of their delegation murdered.

After the murder of Elagabalus (March 11,222 AD), many of his associates were killed or deposed including Hierocles and Comazon. His religious edicts were revoked and the shrine of El-Gabal was returned to Emesa.Women were barred from ever attending meetings of the senate and a damnatio memoriae was decreed against him. The elevation of Elagabalus to the purple exposed the dangers of raising untested teenagers to the Roman throne and the worship of foreign cults.

Constantine the Great had his son and wife murdered in 326AD and the Roman senate issued a damnatio memoriae against them.Crispus who had been a Caesar had been accused of sleeping with his stepmother, Fausta. Both had been found in a compromising position by the emperor’s mother, Helena. Both were never rehabilitated again.

The device of Damnatio Memoriae was a particularly effective one because it kept emperors on their toes and checked their excesses. They were aware that what they did not suffer in life could be inflicted on them in death. A man’s good name was worth more than a million sesterces, a Roman wit once said. Few emperors escaped with little or no blemish on their character. Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Optimus Princeps) was one of them.

Day 33 – Ken here

I have to say, at the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, that it is, for me, a joy to read the fluid, cogent, and acerbic prose of my companion in crime here, Mark. Maybe it would be better to admit I am envious of his encyclopedic (and irritatingly instantaneous) grasp of the smallest historical details, and even more jealous of the evident ease with which he expresses himself on this blog – he makes it all look so simple – damn him.

And yes, Mark, I’ve been doing a little “probing” around and I’d really like to know what the dirt is on Pupienus and Probus (besides their suggestive names – Probus sounds like a Roman porn star to me). I haven’t even been thinking about all the gay sub-text in Gibbon, I guess I need to pay more attention when I read (doing it before midnight would probably help).

I would love to know more about Alexander – do you have any suggestions for more reading? Gibbon kept on going back and forth – Alexander was noble, stoic, and gentle, no, he’s weak, effeminate, and cruel. It all seemed like more Augustan Histories humor – Saturday Night Live sketches – to me. If you paint the same man simultaneously black and white, you make him utterly ridiculous. I’ve obviously missed the boat on Alexander, and stand in need of enlightenment.

The next 10 pages:

Probus - a military man who governed well for 6 years and was cut down by his own troops in the end

Probus as Emperor
Probus is acclaimed at 44 years old, is continually at war by either by design or necessity (after all this is still the Crisis years of the 3rd Century) on at least 7 fronts, and trains the next generation of usurpers and emperors in his stable of able lieutenants and generals (famous names such as: Carus, Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius, Galerius, Asclepiodatus, Anniblianus) (DEF xii, p.338).

Florianus - coin Antoninianus - note the SC - with the consultation of the Senate

Florianus
This on Florianus from Wiki:
Florian was reportedly a maternal half-brother to Marcus Claudius Tacitus. According to sources, he was chosen by the army in the West to succeed Tacitus in 276, without the Roman Senate consensus. However he minted coins bearing the “SC” legend, thus showing some bonds to the Senate.
He was fighting against the Eruli when the army in the East elected Probus. He had the support of Italia, Gaul, Hispania, Britain, Africa, and Mauretania. The two rival emperors met in battle in Cilicia. Florianus had the larger army, while Probus was an experienced general, and avoided a direct clash. When it was clear Probus was superior, Florianus was assassinated by his own troops. He had been emperor for 88 days. A prophecy circulated that a descendant would one day restore the Senate and rule as far as Ceylon.
Florianus died in September 276.
In the Middle Ages the von Blumenthal family claimed descent from him, apparently because both names refer to flowers.”

More Strange Augustan History Kinks
Gibbon repeats the odd tales of the Histories as if they were fact. I can’t ever be sure if he’s writing ironically, or thinks he’s being descriptive and informative. Either way – a little different…

The Legend of a Thousand Years
Per Gibbon: “The only consolation of their fallen state (the family of Tacitus) as the remembrance of transient greatness, and a distant hope, the child of a flattering prophecy, that at the end of a thousand years, a monarch of the race of Tacitus should arise, the protector of the senate, the restorer of Rome, and the conqueror of the whole earth” (DEF xii, p.335). Let’s see, that would be about mid 13th century, perhaps the legend refers to Michael VIII and the retaking of Constantinople in 1261 from the last barbarian invasion (the Venetians)?

The First Ninja Army
The Arii held the first rank by their numbers of fierceness. They(the Arii, Lygians – modern day Longiones) studied to…improve the innate terrors of their barbarism. Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black, they chose for combat the darkest hours of the night.” (DEF xii, p.339). These are but one of the barbarian tribes Probus (or one of his able stars in his stable of generals) vanquished during his short reign.

Quoteable Gibbon
Of the Senators who gladly no longer served in the military: “They soon experienced, that those who refuse the sword, must renounce the sceptre.” (DEF xii, p.337).

Harta Imperiului Roman în 125 d.H. care îi cuprinde şi pe bastarni, sursa:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

Primele grupuri de bastarni s-au aşezat în Carpaţi( în Moldova, pe râurile Siret, Nistru şi Prut) în jurul anului 200 î.H.

După ocuparea acestei regiuni bastarnii au fost chemaţi de Filip al V-lea al Macedoniei( unul din urmaşii lui Alexandru Macedon), astfel au trecut Istrul cu un număr mare de soldaţi( după cum consemnează şi istoricul roman Titus Livius). Datorită calităţilor militare au fost temuţi de către contemporanii lor. Istorici de seamă ai Antichităţii( Plinius cel Bătrân, Tacitus, Strabon) consemnează faptul că bastarnii erau de origine germanică.

Acest lucru este confirmat şi de descoperirile arheologice. Manifestările culturale au fost denumite drept cultura Poieneşti-Lukaşenko. Această cultură a apărut datorită mai multor valuri de migraţii care s-au întins de-a lungul a 200 de ani şi care îşi aveau originea între râurile Oder şi Elba din centrul Germaniei. De asemenea în această perioadă au avut loc migraţii şi din zona Iutlandei, a insulelor daneze şi de pe teritoriul actual al Poloniei. Ca şi aşezările celtice din Transilvania, aşezările bastarnilor aveau un caracter rural. În afara materialelor ceramice descoperite în cultura Poieneşti-Lucaşenko au fost descoperite în unele situri( Boroşeşti, Botoşana, Lunca Ciurei) obiecte getice şi puţine obiecte celtice care demonstrează o strânsă legătură între aceste etnii antice.

Cultura Poieneşti-Lukaşenko se sfârşeşte în jurul anului 35 î.H. cel mai probabil din cauza faptului că bastarnii nu au reuşit să migreze la sud de Dunăre, deoarece sub conducerea regelui Deldo au fost învinşi de Marcus Licinius Crassus( rivalul lui Caius Iulius Caesar şi al lui Pompeius Magnus). Informaţiile viitoare despre bastarni se referă cel mai probabil la alte popoare pătrunse în spaţiul românesc în primele veacuri de după Hristos.

Războinic trac, sursa:http://www.historyarts.ro/i_razboinici.htm

Bastarnii au fost nişte triburi germanice foarte puternice şi iscusite în luptă, de aceea mult timp au fost nişte adversari de temut pentru rivalii lor. Ei au fost în acelaşi timp şi o populaţie extrem de controversată, deoarece nici astăzi nu se ştie cu certitudine originea lor. În 1949 la Poieneşti au fost descoperite mai multe necropole care datau din perioade diferite, alături de 50 de morminte de incineraţie.

Căpetenie geto-dacă din secolul I î.H., sursa:http://www.historyarts.ro/i_razboinici.htm

Day 32 – Ken here

We end Chapter 11, and begin Chapter 12

The Triumph
Gibbon spends almost 3 pages describing the fabulous triumph of Aurelian in Rome as told by the primary sources.  As we are still relying upon the Augustan Histories, all the luscious details very likely spring from the imagination of the HIstories’ prankster-author.

Gibbon (quoting the Histories) recounts Aurelian’s huge donation  to the temple of the Sun out of the spoils of his many successful wars – Alemanni, Gaul, Palmyra, Egypt etc. That’s an interesting detail because the sun was Constantine’s favorite deity before he chose Christ (although in Aurelian’s case both Aurelian and the sun deity were Syrian, so that could account for Aurelian’s spectacular tithing).

It seems a little more than coincidental for a couple of reasons.  The Augustan Histories internally maintain that they were written about the time of Constantine (early 300’s).  Mentioning this very minor incident only reinforces that supposition:  it is a compliment to the ruling emperor (Constantine) that both a “good” emperor (Aurelian), and Constantine would worship the same deity.  However, modern scholarship has dated the Augustan Histories to the late 300’s (395 CE), so this is another instance of the intricate set of deceptions employed by the  comedian-author of the Histories to make the texts seem internally consistent.

Queen Zenobia's Last Look Upon Palmyra, by Herbert Schmalz

Tetricus, Zenobia, and Aurelian
Gibbon relates how both Tetricus and Zenobia lived an unreal fairy tale life of happily ever after their defeats. Rather than being strangled immediately after their display in Aurelian’s Triumph, they are given expensive estates and allowed (in Tetricus’ case) to resume a public political life.  This is more Augustan History theater, it seems to me. It’s very strange to hear the story retold secondhand from as reputable a thinker/writer as Gibbon.  It’s also odd to hear him debating back and forth the reliability of the “different” authors texts: texts which we now believe to be the product of one author who created a credible story from lies by telling the same story 2 or 3 times in the words/styles of one of 6 “historians” who represent the “authors” of the Augustan Histories.

God Emperor Of Dune by Frank Herbert book cover

In the Dune Series by Frank Herbert, when Paul becomes emperor and reigns for thousands of years, one of his hobbies is to write long, involved, conflicting accounts of his own reign’s history under different pen names. He would assert under one name, refute under another, expose evidence under a third, contradict with more evidence under a fourth, etc over the centuries. I don’t know why (maybe because I like history so much), but this disturbs me.

The work of being a historian is hard enough to begin with, add to it the idea of conscious manipulation of the historical record and it becomes (esp. for the historian of Late Antiquity) an almost impossible task to complete.  All of  which is probably why the Augustan Histories irritate me so much, in such a fundamentally moral way.

Coin of Aurelian's reign

The Mint
This is a very strange interlude in Gibbon and the Augustan Histories. Gibbon devotes 2 pages to it, and labors over its validity. Supposedly, the devaluation of the currency (the steady decrease in precious metal content over the years in coins minted by the empire) was the result of malicious mint employees, who, upon being ordered to cease by Aurelian, revolt, raise an army (in the middle of Rome) and kill 7000 soldiers before being brought under control.

The Augustan History fascination with large indigestible numbers (7000? killed?) make it seem reliable and odd at the same time.  It seems to me this story is a strange parable trying to explain coin devaluation as a conspiracy theory (a few bad mint employees destroying the economic health of an entire empire – certainly not the EMPERORS fault).

What is not funny about the story, is that this very line of reasoning (conspiracy theory, malevolent few, suffering millions) becomes the basis of the government policy for Rome under Diocletian just 10 years or so later.  Diocletian issues his famous edict on price controls, freezing wages, prices, and employment.   Inflation, to the imperial mind, was caused by the greed of a few at the expense of the many, rather than being systemic and the result of fewer dollars (or denarii) chasing more goods.  The result for Diocletian was a black market economy and a further collapse of money used a medium of exchange.  Eventually, even soldiers are paid in goods: olive oil, wheat, and wine, rather than coin to buy it.

In point of fact, the devaluation of the currency by successive emperors for maintenance of the military, the horrible economic/political disruptions of the mid 200’s, depopulation from plague and war, precious metal drain to India and the East, and the concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller “noble” class of immensely wealthy landowners, all were in the process of making the money economy irrelevant. The Middle Ages, feudalism, and the manor economy were being created, and there was nothing Diocletian could do to halt it.

The 9 month Interregnum and Election of Tacitus
When the Augustan History is pulled out of the footnotes and repeated in the main text as Gibbon does for the Interregnum and for Tacitus, it is almost embarrassing. I know I’ve commented on Gibbon’s reliance on the Augustan Histories a great deal, but that is because the majority of footnotes for the last 200 pages has begun with: “Hist. August.”, then the name of one of the fictitious “authors” as the source of the footnote. The Interregnum sounds so much like a fairy tale it is hard to credit it and Gibbon sounds appropriately incredulous, but relates it anyway (What choice does he have? We have almost no other sources to use for this period).

The army and the senate bounce the nomination back and forth, (“you do it,  no, you do it,  no, really, you do it”). Could this have actually happened? Stranger things have occurred, I suppose. Then Tacitus, the Princeps Senatus head of the Senate, with sterling reputation, advanced age, and perfect manners is nominated. Just knowing the Augustan Histories you can relate the rest without reading it: he is reluctant (because he is such a good man), he reigns (for a very short time, and is assassinated by his troops for his honesty and “severity”.  That some of this actually happens (he does reign for only 6 months – we know from coins and other historical sources) shows why it’s so hard to dismiss the Augustan Histories entirely – there is truth at the center sometimes.

Tacitus as Emperor

Emperor Tacitus - an honest man, with a long political career during a very wild century, reigned 6 months (275 - 276)

This on Tacitus from Wiki:
“He was born in Interamna (Terni), in Italia. He circulated copies of the historian Gaius Cornelius Tacitus’ work, which was barely read at the time, and so we perhaps have him to thank for the partial survival of Tacitus’ work; however, modern historiography rejects his claimed descent from the historian as forgery. In the course of his long life he discharged the duties of various civil offices, including that of consul in 273, with universal respect.”

see ya tomorrow

Tacitus’ text, Agricola, provides an insight as to what Tacitus himself considered romanisation to be. However whether he meant it as a policy of the empire or an inspired tactic of Agricola is unknown. The text is a biography of Agricola, a Roman general who led his armies through Britain. It is not a coincidence that Agricola happens to be Tacitus’ own father in law and Tacitus may be using the biography to glorify his recently deceased relative. Since the readers of his text at the time would be educated Romans most likely involved in politics and the senate, his chances of benefiting from a more iconic view of Agricola are high. This casts a sceptical shadow on the entire work, mainly the contributions of Agricola to the conquest of Britain and especially the excerpt describing what seems to be a systematic romanisation of the inhabitants of Britannia.

Before addressing romanisation it is necessary to discuss Tacitus’ account of Agricola’s adventures and the issues surrounding his work. Primarily, it is impossible for even Tacitus to know the facts of what transpired in Britain. He is not a primary source; he did not witness Agricola’s explorations and battles and had to rely on potentially biased stories and oral information from people who were there or claim to know what happened. The result is that his works are the only sources of evidence for pieces of information so it is impossible to confirm or contradict his account. It is apparent that he himself is unsure of all the facts in that in the excerpt he does not give any specifics to Agricola’s location but tries giving certain hints to periods without giving the full date (such as “first year in office” ¶¶20). In his description of Agricola as a militarily mighty leader (“he would allow the enemy no rest” ¶¶20) Tacitus merely claims “many states” were subdued and conquered but then goes on to say “the following winter passed without disturbance” (¶¶21) so it is a surprise he does not name a few specific places which were acquired the autumn or summer before. Therefore we already cannot take Tacitus’ information as fact since he is not entirely reliable.

One characteristic of ancient texts that must be examined is the tendency for classical historians to focus on conveying moralistic ideals to readers even if doing so compromises the accuracy of the document. In the excerpt Tacitus uses various hints and diction to portray Agricola as an inspired, responsible, cunning role model and beacon of morality. There are certain obvious moral lessons: the fact that he preferred “penitence” to punishment (¶¶19) and “praised good discipline and kept the stragglers in order” (¶¶21) give the sense that Agricola is a strict but wise leader. His wisdom is reinforced in the line “he knew everything but did not always act on his knowledge” (¶¶19) as a hyperbole used to show that Agricola knew when to refrain from action. Tacitus also shows him as taking personal responsibility in that “he would himself chose the position of the camp and explore the estuaries and forests” (¶¶20). Finally Agricola is shown as a cunning ruler who seemingly tricked the entire conquered population into cooperation (“honourable rivalry took place of compulsion … this they called civilisation when it was but a part of their servitude” ¶¶21). He continues this outside the excerpt in describing him as a modest general who, after accomplishing a massive victory, “did not use his success for self-glorification … nor the repression of the conquered people” (¶¶ 18). At the beginning of the entire text Tacitus sets off glorifying Agricola’s ancestry, claiming Agricola’s grandfathers were “Imperial procurators,” his father was “distinguished for eloquence and philosophy,” and his mother was “a lady of singular virtue” (¶¶ 4). It has been observed that Tacitus “takes every opportunity to cast Agricola in favourable light” to the extent where he attributes almost all first century Roman forts in northern England to Agricola when archaeological evidence shows more and more originated in an earlier or later period. Therefore it seems obvious that Tacitus is glorifying Agricola rather than providing an accurate history in the particular excerpt. Tacitus could be using the text as a means to build up Agricola in order to gain any potential political benefits from being related to him. All these influences and flaws apply to his concept of romanisation as well.

Romanisation was originally considered an active imperial policy; a process when conquered people became Roman through a mixture of coercion and their own initiative. Older views expressed by Haverfield include the idea that the West lacked an ancient culture and was therefore more easily romanised compared to the East, that the strong culture of Rome “planted” in them the desire to become Roman. These in part rise from Tacitus’ passage: “Agricola gave private encouragement and public aid to the building of” (¶¶21) as it goes on to list many roman-style buildings, giving a sense of a systemized romanisation. However modern scholarship agrees on the idea that there was no policy and that romanisation romanisation “>was driven by native rival elites’ initiative; they wanted access to Roman material and culture to increase their own power and prestige. This change in historiography is partly due to the fact that Tacitus’ statement of a romanisation policy is unique and no other such evidence exists to support such a large scheme. Tacitus may not be referring to an imperial policy but a personal one of Agricola’s. However this view is disproved by Hanson who shows that the only archaeological evidence of Agricola’s involvement is in Verulamium but that credit for the community there goes to a previous leader Frontinus, claiming that by the time Agricola arrived the town was already a thriving romanised community. Millett claims that areas where romanisation was successful were those where native elites benefited from an alliance with Roman power and then emulated Roman ways to their population whereas romanisation failed in areas where “through either warfare or continued military occupation, Roman presence was socially disruptive” (the northern parts of Britain). In other words, where cooperation prevailed the native elites could maintain their position in society which enhanced their desire for Roman goods. It is possible that Tacitus included the information regarding romanisation simply as another means to enhance Agricola’s influence and power.

Therefore the excerpt was simply a means of propaganda used to promote not only Agricola but Tacitus’ personal moral views. As an author creates characters to symbolise or send messages in a story, Tacitus used (or ‘created’) Agricola for the same purpose. Hence it is difficult to determine what is true and what is fiction. Similarly it is problematic to rely on his account of romanisation: that Agricola (or the Empire) tricked their subjects into becoming Roman. Tacitus is, simply, an unreliable source with regards to romanisation; he had heavy and obvious biases, he had a stronger focus on sending moral lessons rather than accurate facts, and finally he was not present at any of the events which he is vaguely recording. Archaeological evidence is even contradicting his claims. Therefore despite the fact that Tacitus is a useful source to understanding Roman views, perspective, and way of life, he is entirely misleading as to the concept of romanisation. Tacitus’ works led earlier historians to believe Rome actually had a policy of romanisation. Today we know that romanisation was driven by native initiative and desire to acquire Roman material and culture to improve their own society and way of life.

- history biscuit

PS. history biscuit now has twitter

Tussen het voeden van onze jongste spruit en voorlezen van de oudste ben ik me wat aan het verdiepen in de lokale geschiedenis, met name op het gebied van de landbouw. Kom zo leuke dingen tegen, zoals over de naam van ons dorp, waarvan ik tot nu toe alleen de meest gebruikelijke uitleg tegenkwam. (Zie hier, over Landbouw in Nunspeet.)

Nog iets anders wat ik las: Onder de Germanen, die rond het begin van onze jaartelling in onze regio woonden, waren het vooral de vrouwen en slaven die landbouw bedreven. Het zwoegen op het land werd als laf en onmannelijk gezien, zo schrijft Tacitus. Waarom grond bewerken en eten verbouwen wanneer je zoiets ook als buit kon binnenhalen na een gevecht?

Tegenwoordig zijn het toch eigenlijk juist mannen die zich als boer met de landbouw en veeteelt bezig houden. Hun vrouw noemt zich zelden meer boerin, heeft vaak een baan buitenshuis, zorgt voor de kinderen en/of neemt nevenactiviteiten in het verbrede bedrijf op zich, zoals de zorg op de zorgboerderij of verkoop in de landwinkel.

Aan de andere kant lijkt de situatie van de afgelopen decennia misschien toch nog veel op die van tweeduizend jaar geleden. Voor velen lijkt het werk op het land nog altijd een minderwaardige manier van bestaan te zijn. Alleen besteedt men nu het gezwoeg vooral uit aan anonieme werkers ver buiten ons gezichtveld, in plaats van directe ondergeschikten.

Een gevecht om dat voedsel te krijgen wordt echter niet meer gevoerd. Een stukje plastic rondzwaaien en het heldhaftig intoetsen van vier cijfers is voldoende.

Origin: Latin
Meaning: “golden”

Originally a Roman gens name Aurelius is from the Latin meaning “golden; gilded.”  The name is borne by several famous personages throughout history, the earliest being the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius and its feminine form, by his daughter Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla. Aurelia is also the name of the mother of Julius Caesar, Aurelia Cotta, Tacitus proclaimed her the ideal Roman Matron. The Via Aurelia was named for an ancestor of her’s Aurelius Cotta. The Via Aurelia is an ancient road that runs through Rome. Other famous Aurelias include Portuguese painter Aurélia de Souza (1867-1922), famous Romanian gymnast Aurelia Dobre (b.1972) and the mother of famed poetess Aurelia Plath. The Latinate form is popular in all the Latin based countries: Italy, Portugal and Spain including South America as is its masculine counterpart Aurelio.  Aurelia is also quite prevalent in Poland. Aurelia is also the name of a genus of jellyfish, an asteroid and it is also used as a synonym for a chrysalis. Other feminine forms of the names and cognates are:

• Aurelija (Croatian/Lithuanian)
• Zlata. Zlatka, Zlatica (Czech/Slovakian) these names are often used as cognates for the Latin Aurelia, but literally mean “gold” in Czech and Slovakian.
• Aurélie (French) the name came in as the 74th most popular female name in Belgium in 2006 and the 89th most popular female in France in 2003.
• Aranka (Hungarian) this is another one that literally means “gold” in Hungarian but is used as a form of Aurelia
• Aurélia (Hungarian and Portuguese)
• Auksė and Auksys (Lithuanian) literally mean “gold” in Lithuanian but are often used as cognates

Its masculine forms include:

• Aurèle (French)
• Aurélien (French) in France, he came in as the 88th most popular male name in 2006.
• Aurel (German, Romanian and Czech)
• The Hungarian, Romansch and Bavarian Aurél
• Aurelianus (Latin)
• Aureliusz (Polish)
• Oral (Romansch)
• Aureliano (Spanish)

Its designated name-day in some countries is September 25, and the name is borne by several saints.

Tacitus’ famous warning to the Romans: “They made a desert and called it peace.”

Må citeres med fuld kildeangivelse: 

Fremskridt nr. 15 / 2. september 1976 / 4. årgang

Oldromersk fremskridtsmand

Når vi fremskridtsfolk praler af, at vor ideologi er opstået i og tilpasset 1970´ernes Danmark, er det den samlede helhed, vi tænker på.

Mange af enkeltbestanddelene er selvsagt af langt ældre dato. Den romerske samfundsskribent Tacitus, der levede for 1900 år siden, udmøntede således et af fremskridtshovedpunkterne med ordene: Pessima res publica – plurimae leges, hvilket betyder: Jo ringere stat – des flere love.

Mogens Glistrup, MF

www.frp.dk

Læs også: En Z-forfader:

http://fremskridtdk.wordpress.com/category/en-z-forfader-til-%c3%a6re-for-glistrup/

Læs også: Uffe, Bertel og Anders socialiserede Danmark:

 http://fremskridtdk.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/uffe-bertel-og-anders-socialiserede-danmark/

Tacitus had this to say about his historiographical treatment of several men who helped advance his career:

Those who profess inviolable fidelity to truth must write of no man with affection or with hatred.

Histories 2.1–2

Whether Tacitus succeeded in this or not is left to the reader to decide, but it’s a worthy ideal.

I was fortunate enough to be diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome at a fairly young age.  So as far back as I can remember, I have had the knowledge tucked away somewhere in the back of my mind that I was different and that I had certain problems to deal with that other kids my age maybe didn’t.  But I think having that knowledge early, while some children might have found it stifling, I found it liberating – I knew what the barrier was, and I knew I wanted to break it, and continue to break it.  As I grew older, each year I became better and better at breaking that barrier, at breaking through that 4th wall between me and other humans beings.  Just like a high jumper or a pole vaulter, I was pushing myself just a little bit more each time – I would “hang out” with kids after classes, I participated in high school Cross Country, I auditioned for a play in high school and got cast and continued to audition for future plays.  Eventually, I was at the point where I was even going to “parties” with some of these kids, although I could only manage that in small doses.

Then I went to college.  That was a huge stepping stone and, in some ways, it set me back a bit.  It was almost like I had to take a couple hundred steps back, reassess the situation, remember to breathe, and continue forward again.  As difficult as it was and as daunting as college was, I didn’t let the new environment completely shake me for too long.  I went back to work, like an athlete, setting the bar a little higher each time, continuing to break my previous records one by one.

But perhaps one of the key secrets to this success was learning empathy.  As a child I was told by doctors, dictionaries, and the DSM IV that empathy was a skill I lacked.  That being a kid “suffering” from Asperger’s Syndrome, I would never be able to connect with other humans the way “normal” people do.  And I think, deep down in my heart, I was shouting (if you will excuse my language): “fuck that!”  I was not going to let a diagnosis stop me from accomplishing my dreams.  So I went to work.  I learned.  Through experience and study and hard work I learned human behavior, a process most neuro-typical children learn automatically and perhaps take for granted.  I became so devoted to this study that, there came a point I realized, where I seemed to be more interested in the welfare of those around me than most kids my age.  Because I had to study human behavior and overcompensate for my inherent lack of empathy, I had surpassed my age group.  It was like an average or below average student in a class room of intelligent but lazy children.  If they cruised and if he committed, I mean absolutely committed, to getting that “A” on his world history exam, he could probably get a better mark than them in the end.

But the wonderful thing about learning this human behavior was that after a while, I didn’t have to try nearly as hard.  Instead of turning the human experience and all of human emotion into a purely logical process and analysis and application, something wonderful happened – empathy.  True, heart-felt, honest to goodness empathy.  Suddenly, I no longer had to pretend I cared about someone if I asked them how they were feeling – I did actually care.  I cared so much that I would ask follow-up questions or offer to help in any reasonable way I could.  And if someone was visibly in anguish, I would continue to ask how someone was feeling long after everyone else might have stopped caring.

I learned, in the words of Tacitus, that “you can accomplish by kindness what you cannot by force.”  By trying so hard for so long, the process of empathy slowly became natural, perhaps even more so than the average person.  Force of will and mind and sheer energy could only take me so far though, before I had to learn the power of kindness and what it can accomplish.  I had learned (and am continuing to learn) empathy, perhaps the greatest gift a human being can give and one of the most delightful to receive.

source: http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=47

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16. (NASB)

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them… – 1 Cor.2:14 (NASB)

This means that if we show the Bible to be true in its various parts then the whole must be true and will do what Paul told Timothy it will do. The second quote above, however, shows that the man that does not know the work of God’s Holy Spirit will never understand the full meaning of the Bible. But he will be able to understand a clear presentation as to how external factors show the book to be true.

It is doubtful whether any publisher has the resources to produce such a book today. Written over a period of about 1600 years (about 1,500 BC to about AD 100) with over forty authors from diverse backgrounds, most of whom did not meet, living 100’s of miles apart, in different time periods, with different lifestyles and upbringings, the fact that such a book fits together, develops themes and shows an integrated oneness is evidence itself that the ‘editor’ was not human.

Many people have dismissed the Bible and the first question they need to ask is whether they are willing to leave behind preconceived ideas and check out the facts. If a person is willing to do that, we need to be assured that we can present a ‘reasoned defence’ showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is both reliable and truthful in what it says.

What follows are some of the many ways that this can be done. Although only a sample of what can be said it is a flavour of the material available.

Reliability of NT Manuscripts

Scholar Bruce Metzger, who has written many books on this subject, informs us in The Text of the New Testament, that there are nearly 5,000 copies of early Greek manuscripts containing various parts of the NT. No other ancient book or writing comes anywhere near this figure. Most of the people who want to reject the Bible will gladly accept these other writings but will not face the fact of what that means.

Metzger and others tell us for instance that the work of Caesar written in the 1st century BC has only 10 surviving copies, the earliest dated 900 AD. Homer’s writings from the 9th century BC boast 643 copies. Compare this with the New Testament written during the second part of the 1st century AD that has 5,000 copies, the earliest dated around 130 AD.

Norman L Geisler in his book Christian Apologetics makes some interesting observations on these types of comparison:

Several observations are pertinent… (1) No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies… (2) The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books. The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years…(3) The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books… Bruce Metzger does provide an interesting comparison of the New Testament with … Homer’s Iliad. The New Testament has about 20,000 lines.0f these only 40 are in doubt (i.e., about 400 words). The Iliad possesses about 15,600 lines with 764 of them in question. This would mean that Homer’s text is only 95 percent pure or accurate compared to over 99.5 percent accuracy for the New Testament manuscript copies.

Secular Historians & Jesus

Probably the most well known of all secular historians at the time of Christ is Josephus who lived AD 37-100. He was therefore a contemporary of Christ and lived through the period recorded by the letters and book of Acts of the New Testament. We would therefore expect and indeed, we would need to find correlation between the history of the two if we want to use this as evidence. Do we? F F Bruce who has studied the history of the New Testament for many years definitely thinks we do,

Here, in the pages of Josephus, we meet many figures who are well-known to us from the New Testament; the colourful family of the Herods; the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and the procurators of Judea; the high priestly families-Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and the rest; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and so on. – The New Testament Documents – Are They Reliable?, F F Bruce, p.104.

We will also add two direct quotations from Josephus’ The Antiquities of the Jews,

“the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James” – XX, 9:1.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus… Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die. And those who had become His disciples did not abandon His discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. XVIII, 33.

One other interesting person to quote is Cornelius Tacitus a Roman historian, who wrote of Nero’s attempt to relieve himself of the guilt of burning Rome,

Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. – Annals XV, 44.

Geisler lists many others that could be called upon including; Greek satirist, Lucian (second century), Roman historian, Suetonius (c. A.D.120), Pliny the Younger (c. A.D.112), Samaritan-born historian, Thallus (c. A.D.52) and the Jewish Talmud completed by A.D.500. (Ibid, p.324.)

Archaeological Finds

Archaeology is the science of antiquities and although of course has meaning far beyond the Biblical realm it is one of the clear ‘proofs’ of the truth and reliability of Scripture.

It is in the last 100 years that Biblical sites have been excavated properly. Before that, critics of the Bible scoffed at many of the stories and place names. However today cities such as Jericho, Samaria, Bethel, Shiloh, Bethshan, Gezer, Nineveh, Babylon and Ur are no longer just bumps on the landscape but well excavated sites confirming the Biblical record. Here we just want to give you a flavour of the sort of evidence that is available. Further study into this subject can of course be very rewarding.

Ekron is mentioned more than 20 times in the Old Testament as one of five Philistine cities: Ashdod, Gath, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gaza (1 Sam. 6:17). A five-line inscription in Phoenician script was uncovered in early July 1996, at Tel-Mikne (already thought to be Ekron). The stone block containing the name of city is the first conclusive evidence of the city from archaeological sources.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon’s prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorialising the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology. Author: Bryant Wood of Associates for Biblical Research, 1995.

Just as with cities there have been sceptics who have doubted the existence of some Biblical figures. Some of those who have since been proven to exist through archaeological finds include,

Shishak, the Egyptian king.

Tiglath-Pileser III and Sennacherib, kings of Assyria.

Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon.

Darius I, king of Persia.

Augustus and Tiberius, Roman emperors.

One event that has often been looked at as a fairy story is the walls of Jericho falling down flat. Between 1907 and 1909, the first major excavation of the site took place. However, it was not until the 1950s that Kathleen Kenyon showed that the city wall had collapsed when the city was destroyed!

There is evidence for a massive fire just as the Bible says and Kenyon wrote,

The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers and household utensils; in most rooms, the fallen debris was heavily burnt.

What is even more interesting is that one part of the wall remained standing. According to the Bible, Rahab’s house would not be destroyed when the rest of the city wall fell. This is exactly what archaeologists found.

OT prophesy fulfilled in NT

This to me is one of the clearest indications of the truth and reliability of the Bible. Prophecies made up to 700 years or more before Christ was born were fulfilled with tremendous accuracy. There would be no way that any man could have organised the fulfilment of these prophecies and the way they were minutely fulfilled would mean that they could only have been brought to fruition in such detail by the overview of God.

Some of the main prophecies with their fulfilments are:

The Messiah would be born of a virgin – Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:2.

He would be of the seed of Abraham – Gen. 12:1-3 and Matt. 1:1.

He would be of the tribe of Judah – Gen. 49:10 and Luke 3:23.

He would be of the House of David – II Sam. 7:12ff and Matt l:l.

He would be born in Bethlehem – Mic. 5:2 and Matt. 2:1.

He would be the messenger of the Lord – Isa. 40:3 and Matt. 3:1, 2.

He would cleanse the temple – Mal. 3:1 and Matt. 21:12.

He would have a horrendous death – Isa. 53 and Matt. 27

He would rise from the dead – Ps. 2:7 and Acts 2:31.

He would ascend into heaven – Ps. 68:18 and Acts 1:9ff.

He would sit at the right hand of God – Ps. 110:1 and Heb. 1: 3.

OT quoted in NT

“0f the twenty-two (twenty-four) books numbered in the Jewish Old Testament some eighteen are cited by the New Testament. There is no explicit citation of Judges, Chronicles, Esther, or the Song of Solomon, although Hebrews 11:32 refers to events in Judges, II Chronicles 24:20 may be alluded to in Matthew 23:35, Song of Solomon 4:15 may be reflected in John 4:15, and the feast of Purim established in Esther was accepted by the New Testament Jews. Virtually all of the remaining books of the Old Testament are cited with divine authority by the New Testament. Jesus himself cited Genesis ·(Matt. 19:4-5), Exodus (John 6:31), Leviticus (Matt. 8:4), Numbers (John 3:14), Deuteronomy (Matt. 4:4), and I Samuel (Matt. 12:3-4). He also referred to Kings (Luke 4:25) and II Chronicles (Matt. 23:35), as well as Ezra-Nehemiah (John 6:31). Psalms is frequently quoted by Jesus (see Matt. 21:42; 22:44), Proverbs is quoted by Jesus in Luke 14:8-10 (see Prov. 25:6-7), and Song of Solomon may be alluded to in John 4:10. Isaiah is often quoted by Christ (see Luke 4:18-19). Likewise, Jesus alludes to Jeremiah’s Book of Lamentations (Matt. 27:30) and perhaps to Ezekiel (John 3:10). Jesus specifically quoted Daniel by name (Matt. 24:21). He also quoted passages from the twelve (minor) prophets (Matt. 26:31). Other books, such as Joshua (Heb. 13:5), Ruth (Heb. 11:32), and Jeremiah (Heb. 8:8-12), are quoted by New Testament writers. The teachings of Ecclesiastes are clearly reflected in the New Testament (cf. Gal. 6:7 and Eccles. 11:1 or Heb. 9:27 and Eccles. 3: 2).” – Geisler, pp.355/356.

I believe that quote alone sums up the evidence for this point and ones again we see beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a unique book full of truth that is reliable.

Personal Experience

Never forget to use this aspect as a final proof whatever else you have said. In other words, you have proved the truth of the Bible for yourself. What has God said to you that has been worked out in your life. What have you learnt from the Scripture that is a foundation for your life today. By itself this may be subjective but along with the other aspects that you have been sharing it will be seen that it is not just theory or mental ideas but reality too.

Of course, you may get accused that such evidence is only subjective and some of it will be. When God speaks through His Word to an individual then it is known to that person and may thus just be the testimony that comes from within. However, when God’s Word is worked out in your life and changes take place then the power of the Word of God can be seen and evidenced by others. No longer is it just subjective but now it can be objective and can be tested and seen to be true.

Darthcynic has replied to my article Response to Darthcynic on the Historicity of Christ over at AnAtheist in The gospels and the historical Jesus

In my previous post, I challenged Darthcynic to present a criterion for “historically meaningful” or admissible. This post begins with a discussion of Darthcynic’s answer and my admissible criterion. Before wading into discussing the gospels and Jesus, I’ll be covering Alexander as a reference point. Next, I separated the discussion of the reliability of the gospels and the claim of a historic Christ because while related, covering them together was becoming confusing. Therefore, I’ll discuss the reliability of the gospels, then cover other documents Darthcynic brought up (The Odyssey, Talmud, Koran), and close with a discussion of Jesus’ historicity.

In the interest of not making this post longer than it already is, I’ll be responding to the rest of the material brought up in two additional posts. The first will discuss my own position compared to Darthcynic’s caricature and bias. Second, I’ll address reason, science, and the supernatural, which Darthcynic brought up in Reason – Not Personal Philosophy.

Admissible Criterion

Darthcynic presents a five property approach to evaluating historical claims:

1. Agenda
2. Witness Proximity
3. Temporal Proximity
4. External Corroboration
5. Transmission Accuracy

However, this does not directly represent a historically admissible criterion. James, Darthcynic and I have discussed this topic at greater length in the comments of Monday School: Did Jesus Really Exist. In the interest of brevity, I’ll focus on two examples I presented in that thread. For more details, please read the thread.

First, consider a water quality test. The test involves measuring certain properties of water (such as oxidation, chemical composition, and temperature). These properties are parallel to the properties Darthcynic has provided. However, by themselves, they do not distinguish between good and bad water. A criterion is needed (such as >40 ppt oxidation, <10 ppb hard metals, <15 degrees C* is good water). It is this criterion I am looking for.

Second, consider a functional system. The enumeration of evaluative properties is similar to an f(x) which, given inputs (a historic claim and related evidence, or a water sample) outputs a set of measurements for each property. That output does not tell us whether the historic claim is admissible or whether the water is good quality. What we need is a second function, g(y), which when given the property measurements outputs admissibility or good or bad. Thus, what we want is really g(f(x)). I asked for g(y) and Darthcynic presented f(x). Therefore, the given properties do not represent a criterion of admissibility.

My Admissible Criterion

My core criterion for historic admissibility is:

An admissible historic claim is a probable claim

In other words, an historic claim is historic if it is more likely to be true than not (>50%). However, this is still pretty subjective. To further help determination of probability, I would consider the following criteria:

1. Earlier evidence is better than later evidence.
2. Clear claims are stronger than ambiguous claims
3. Explicit statements are stronger than implied statements
4. Both explicit and implicit statements are generally stronger than arguments from silence
5. Expected evidence is proportional to the historic impact of the claim.

The last two may require more justification.

Explicit and implicit statements ought to be favored over inference from silence because our ability to think precisely like a historic person, to divine what they knew and what they didn’t, what they would have thought was important to write regarding a given topic is itself a very imprecise process. It is not uncommon to read a modern author and think he should have brought up things he didn’t. Our ability to accurately predict an ancient author’s actions is even more questionable. That is not to say that argument from silence is inherently invalid, but it requires a great deal of evidence and justification in order to be accepted over other sources.

Regarding the final criterion, if a historic event was widely known and affected a lot of people (for example, the conquests of Alexander the Great) one would expect a lot of evidence for it. On the other hand, one would not expect to find a similar amount of evidence for relatively minor events, such as an obscure teacher in Palestine.

Historic Alexander

In the comments for Monday School: Did Jesus Really Exist I requested a comparison between the evidence for Alexander and Jesus. Darthcynic obliged, but his evaluation is overly optimistic regarding the evidence for the claim that Alexander is a historic figure. To be clear, I do not contest that Alexander was a historic figure. I accept this as a very reasonable historic conclusion.

Agenda

Darthcynic begins by suggesting that unlike the gospels, their is no religious agenda or supernatural claims regarding Alexander. However, there is still significant potential for bias. For example, Darthcynic mentions Arrian as an author of a surviving account of Alexander. However, his primary source (Ptolemy) may have presented a biased account to promote himself. [1] Darthcynic also mentions Plutarch, whose biographies were written primarily to illustrate moral parallelism [2]. Callisthenes is considered to have been a professional flatterer and to have included supernatural events and claims in his account, such as the sea doing obedience to Alexander and Alexander’s decent from Zeus [3].

Witness Proximity

Darthcynic also concludes that the surviving accounts of Alexander’s life represent independent, secondary accounts (all citing contemporary material). However, these sources are neither independent nor secondary. While they may be independent of each other, they often cite the same source material, the supposedly contemporary material Darthcynic mentions. With the exception of Callisthenes, who was executed by Alexander, [4] the sources appear to have written after Alexander’s death and based much of their material not just on their own eyewitness experience, but on primary records. For example, Ptolemy probably used Callisthenes account and mentions Cleitarchus [3] whose account was primarily secondary as well [5]. Therefore, the extant records of Alexander are primarily tertiary, rather than secondary sources.

Temporal Proximity

As discussed above, apart from Callisthenes, most known original sources were written after Alexander’s death. For example, Ptolemy’s account is often dated to between 310 and 301 BC, 10-20 years after Alexander’s death in the 320s. [3] However, extant records were written considerably later around the 1st century AD. Therefore, the documents we have represent material separated from the events by about 300 years.

Corroboration

The independence of the varying accounts is also unclear. As already noted, Callisthenes wrote the earliest account which probably was used by most other accounts written relatively close to Alexander’s death. These near sources also formed the basis for the extant histories of Alexander, which means that they can not be considered as purely independent, corroborating accounts.

Basic claims, such as Alexander’s existence and regional conquest are strongly corroborated by archaeological discovery of artifacts, such as coins.

Darthcynic mentions a general willingness to acknowledge Alexander in other sources as opposed to trying to attribute the events to some other figure or remaining silent. However, Darthcynic supplies no specifics or sources regarding this claim. Until he does, I have nothing to say about it.

Transmission

I am not aware of any significant accusations of corruption of the extant accounts of Alexander’s life. However, what material came from what original sources seems to be an uncertain topic among historians.

Conclusion

Again, I consider the claim that Alexander lived as an admissible claim. However, details about his life, especially as derived from extant sources are not as well supported as Darthcynic suggests.

Historical Reliability of the Gospels

As stated above, I am separating the specific topic of the reliability of the gospels from the discussion of the historic Jesus. Here, I’ll be addressing Darthcynic’s arguments regarding the unreliability of the gospels and contrasting that actual properties of the gospels with those of the documents regarding Alexander.

Agenda

Darthcynic argues that because the authors of the gospels were religious and wrote with a religious agenda that we can not accept their historic claims. However, Darthcynic also admits “the fact that there is an agenda does not specifically mean there will be distortion”. Despite this admission, he concludes: “Put simply they cannot be accepted at face value; we should have independent or even better, hostile corroboration.” There appear to be only two possible justifications for such a conclusion.

First, Darthcynic believes religious people are inherently unreliable and untrustworthy to a significantly greater extent than non-religious people. This betrays a strong and unjustified bias against religious people, the ultimate conclusion of that view would be that any religious source should be completely ignored with regard to historic determinations.

Second, Darthcynic may be arguing that because the gospels may be distorted by bias, we must assume they are until we can prove they are not. Such a philosophy of “guilty until proven innocent” would essentially destroy any possible knowledge about history. As noted above, there are significant issues of bias related to accounts of Alexander’s life. How can we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every passage upon which history is based is free of distortion? There may be a few cases in which we can be absolutely 100% sure of a passages reliability, but such a criterion would force us to reject most of what is currently accepted as historic.

Furthermore, the depiction of the disciples supports accuracy. Especially if the gospels were extremely biased or fabricated later, one would expect the disciples and founders of Christianity to be presented very positively. One would also expect that the apostles or their followers would have been tempted to omit their errors or avoid inventing errors. Rather, they are frequently depicted negatively. Matthew admits to being a tax collector (Matt. 9:9). Even in Mark, Peter is presented as constantly having the proverbial foot in his mouth (Mark 8:32-33, 9:5-6, 14:29-30). The disciples are also rebuked for lack of faith (Luke 8:24-25), ineffective (Luke 9:40), and slow (Luke 9:45). John presents similar foibles. This contrasts well with the self-promotion of Ptolemy and flattery of Callisthenes and demonstrates a willingness to present history accurately, even including details which are less than flattering of the movement’s founders (or indeed, the authors or sources themselves).

Darthcynic would probably argue here that gospel contradictions demonstrate a lack of accuracy, possibly caused by agenda. However, I have contested that conclusion and Darthcynic chose to focus on other issues in this recent post.

Witness Proximity

Darthcynic also discusses the quality of the witnesses related to the accounts. If traditional authorship is true, Matthew and John represent eyewitness accounts, Mark represents a collection of what is essentially Peter’s eyewitness account and Luke represents a second hand account based on eyewitness accounts. This view is supported by the early church fathers. Eusebius preserves a statement from Papias which confirms the attributions of Matthew and Mark (from Peter) [6]. Ireneus (2nd century) affirms all four attributions [7]. Even if this is not the case, it is my understanding that most scholars agree that the gospels were written during the latter half of the 1st century, too soon to invent a whole person and not too long for them to have been written as eyewitness or secondary accounts.

Darthcynic tries to claim that the life expectancy then was too short to allow this, but this is false. Life expectancy is an average not a maximum possible life span. Many people during that period lived considerably longer than the life expectancy of the age. For example, Tacitus lived approximately 60 years (AD 56-117). Polycarp lived about 86 years (AD 69-155). Therefore, Darthcynic’s claim is invalid.

Darthcynic also claims Luke denies eyewitness sources. This is also false. The passage in question is Luke 1:1-3:

Luk 1:1-3 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus…

Luke claims that his source was “delivered…unto [him]” by those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses”. As Darthcynic provides no supporting analysis for his claim, I have no idea how he concludes that Luke’s claim denies the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. However, the text itself clearly declares that Luke is claiming to base his account on eyewitness accounts. Luke also makes it clear that these things were “most surely believed” among the Christians. They were not additions dreamed up late in the establishment of Christianity and then propagated by the gospels. They were also not extrapolations from the Old Testament concerning Messiah. Such beliefs could not be described as delivered by eyewitnesses. They were commonly accepted beliefs among the Christians delivered by eyewitnesses which were later recorded by Luke.

Luke’s testimony is also considerable if one accepts Markan priority as a solution to the synoptic problem. If Luke did indeed use Mark as a source, then Luke explicitly testifies to the eyewitness nature of the account.

Finally, Darthcynic claims that unwitnessable events are recorded. He provides as an example Jesus’s prayer in Gethsemene, the wilderness temptation of Christ, the women at the tomb, and Gabriel’s visitation of Mary. Notably, someone was present in each case (Jesus, Jesus, the women, and Mary). In the case of Gethsemane, some disciples were also present. Though they fell asleep several times, that does not mean they were completely oblivious. While Matthew, Peter, and John may not have directly witnessed all these events, they clearly would have known the people involved and could easily have become aware of their accounts. Similarly, Luke could easily have consulted with the apostles or the women to receive the accounts.

Therefore, reasonable evidence supports traditional attribution, which would make the three of the gospels largely eyewitness accounts with some secondary material and Luke primarily a secondary document. Even if that is not the case, the evidence strongly supports the availability of eyewitness accounts which would make the gospel accounts likely secondary accounts, even if we reject traditional attribution. This contrasts well with the extant material on Alexander’s life.

Temporal Proximity

Darthcynic next attacks the temporal proximity of the gospel accounts as “[at best] being written some thirty to forty years after Jesus’ death”. This might be a reasonable objection to the premise of inerrancy in the gospels, but it is not a reasonable objection to central events and persons in the gospel. One might forget exact words, jumble a few events, or mistakenly remember some minor events. One is very unlikely to forget major events and details, such as the core message of Jesus, that Jesus taught multitudes in Palestine, and was crucified by the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

The time frame for gospel authorship is generally accepted to be between AD 60-100. That is, 30-70 years later than death of Christ. This is a bit later than some of the lost sources on Alexander, but compares very well with the extant material on Alexander.

Corroboration

Darthcynic focus on five primary issues regarding gospel corroboration:

1. Lack of contemporary corroboration
2. Lack of independence
3. Internal contradiction
4. Meager extra-Biblical corroboration
5. Alleged Pauline Silence
6. Alleged Denial Accounts

The first reason is certainly not a reason to consider the gospels as historically useless. As observed above, Alexander lacks contemporary corroboration apart from the lost record of Callisthenes. Second, while the gospels may not be completely independent, their differences clearly indicate some level of corroboration. The insinuation that the gospels represent copies of a single account and thus we can not accept even the most basic shared premise (the historicity of Christ) is an exceedingly unreasonable stretch. This is especially true when the same skeptics often present as their next argument the variation in the accounts as evidence of tampering, invention, and contradiction. Darthcynic is one such skeptic. He presents only one specific claim in this article: that the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Unfortunately, he provides no specific analysis supporting this claim and completely ignores my previous refutations of the supposed problems this implies. Therefore, I have nothing more to say about this claim that I have not already said.

Furthermore, while extra-Biblical corroboration may not confirm many of the details recorded in the gospels, it does confirm basic details. I recommend that the reader check out our comments discussion for Did Paul Know Jesus’s Disciples details on secular sources. Here, I’ll be focusing on Tacitus, Ignatius, and Gnostic sources.

Tacitus affirms that:

1. Christianity was founded by Jesus
2. Jesus was crucified by Pilate

While Tacitus was a historian and it seems reasonable to accept his statement as well supported, especially given his open hostility to Christianity as he records it’s origin, Tacitus does not explicitly cite a source for this information. However, that only means that in the worst possible case, Tactitus is merely repeating the claims of Christians. This at least confirms that within 90 years of when Jesus would have been crucified if the gospels are accurate, Christians commonly believed this to be the case, this was the general understanding of non-Christians regarding basic Christian doctrine, and there was no significant doubt that such events occurred.

Ignatius, an early church leader and bishop of Antioch, wrote several letters between AD 110-115, about the same time as Tacitus, affirming core gospel claims, such as Jesus’s descent from David, mother Mary, lived on earth, was crucified under Pilate, and rose from the dead [8, pg. 231]. These statements are probably based on the same Christian tradition that produced the gospels, but that does not invalidate the gospels claims. Like Tacitus, Ignatius at least confirms this as the church’s view at that time. While his statements are probably meant to refute some claims of the Gnostics, who denied a physical interpretation of some events in Jesus’ life, even the Gnostics accepted the basic historicity of Jesus, that He was a teacher, that He was crucified, and that He rose again. [8, pg. 208-215, citing The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, and The Gospel of Thomas]

Paul’s Account

Darthcynic responds to the issue of the Apostle Paul later in the article. His argument is that if Jesus had really lived, there are times when Paul would have mentioned him and since the gospels had not yet been written, it is not reasonable to say that there was no reason for Paul to write a biography. However, Darthcynic primarily ignores my primary point, which was that Paul taught a historic Christ except for a brief mention in the footnotes:

The passages Arthenor cited included Romans 1:1, 5:12-15, 8:3 – do not explicitly reference an historic entity, two do not use any mortal qualification at all, very weak; the rest are of questionable origin, some of Paul’s epistles are believed by some to not be authored by him, these are Colossians, Ephesians, Titus and Timothy 1 & 2.

Unfortunately, Darthcynic provides little to no evidence or analysis for many of these claims. He does not point to any passages where Paul should have referred to a historic Christ but did not. I am willing to discuss this argument, but not until Darthcynic presents specific cases where he believes this to be the case and analysis justifying his argument from silence. Darthcynic also fails to provide justification for ignoring Colossians, Ephesians, Titus, Timothy 1 & 2, and 1 Corinthians (which he fails to mention at all, despite my citation). However, some of his remarks can be addressed.

Darthcynic discredits the argument that Paul was not writing biographies because the gospels already fulfilled that role by pointing out that during Paul’s time the gospels had not been written. However, I never made that argument. Nor did I argue that the apostles had a big meeting to decide who would document what and revoked or denied Paul’s license to publish historic material about Jesus. What I did say is that none of Paul’s epistles set out to be historical accounts. Paul was clearly more concerned with church government, what the church should be doing, where the church was going, and theological matters, such as the mechanics of salvation, living the Christian way of life, etc. Therefore, the omission of historical details is not particularly striking in Paul’s account. Some people naturally focus of different topics. Some people are theologians, some are historians, etc. Paul clearly was not a historian and did not intend to be. There is no need for the gospels to have already been written or some secret church conspiracy to keep Paul out of the business of writing Christ’s biography to make sense of his lack of biographical reference. Biography simply wasn’t his focus.

There is another reason Paul may not have made frequent references to Christ’s life. Paul was probably not particularly acquainted with the life of Christ. He clearly knew some key details (that Jesus came in the flesh, was crucified, and rose again, etc.) and probably became aware of more details as time went on, but Paul’s own account of his life indicates that he did not follow Christ during His earthly ministry and had only limited contact with the disciples. Rather, his experience with Christ was with the risen Christ, beginning with his experience on the road to Damascus, followed by three years probably spent mostly in Arabia (Gal. 1:11-19). Therefore, Paul would be unlikely to refer extensively to the life of Christ because he was not there and did not learn much of his doctrine from what the apostles told him about the life of Christ. Rather, Paul learned the doctrine he taught from the risen Christ and a re-examination of the Old Testament, which as a zealous leader among the Pharisees, he was intimately familiar with. This helps to explain why Paul does not make extensive reference to the life of Jesus, but does make extensive reference to the scriptures of that day, the Old Testament.

However, Paul was clearly aware that Jesus lived and makes references to Jesus having lived. I cited some of them, which Darthcynic rejected as lacking “specific reference to an historic entity” and to two missing “mortal qualifications”. The rest he ignores either without mention (Corinthians) or because “some [people]” don’t think he authored them. I am not particularly interested in or impressed by “some people’s” opinion. You can often find “some people” who hold just about any given opinion no matter how reasonable or absurd. What interests me more is the justification given for this rejection which Darthcynic omits.

Moving onto the scripture I cited, let me begin by apologizing for my reference to Romans 1:1. That should have been 1:1-3. Romans 1:3 is the key verse, in which Paul declares that Jesus was a descendant of David (made of the seed of David) with a physical form (according to the flesh). By itself, 1:1 is not particularly strong, as Darthcynic stated, lacking any real mortal qualifications. Romans 5:12-15 compares Jesus and Adam, arguing that just as by one man’s (Adam) sin (original sin) death came upon all men that by one man’s (Jesus) life is made possible the justification of life to all men (5:18). The clear declaration that Jesus was a man like Adam indicates Paul considered Jesus to have been a man of flesh and blood like us. In Romans 8:3, Paul declares that Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh”, that is, in our likeness. One might try to argue that the word likeness here implies something other than flesh. However, Paul probably included it here because he was not talking about just flesh, but sinful flesh. Jesus came in the flesh, which Paul also confirms elsewhere, as in Romans 1:3, but was not sinful. 1 Cor. 15 contains many verses which indicate Paul believed that Jesus was a man, that He died like we do, and that He was raised like we shall be. Verse 21 specifically classifies Jesus as a man, again in comparison with Adam.

Darthcynic closes his remarks on Paul by claiming that Paul can easily be read as a Platonic work with Jesus as an incorporeal divinity. This claim is not supported by any analysis and is contradicted by the examination of Paul’s writings above.

Denial Accounts

Darthcynic attempts to claim that some works of the early church deny the historicity of Christ. He presents two examples.

Regarding Theophilus, Darthcynic has provided no text or analysis to support his claim. He merely claims that Theophilus omits to claim a historic Christ in an unspecified place where he ought to have done so. As no real argument has been given, but merely an unsupported and vague assertion, I have no response to make. If Darthcynic believes this claim to be important, I challenge him to support his claim. As this is also an argument from silence, the analysis needs to be pretty strong to overcome clear, explicit statements by other sources, such as the gospels, Paul, and Tacitus.

Darthcynic has been much more specific with regard to Minicius, providing the text on which his claim is based:

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

While I can see how one might interpret Minucius’s statement “you wander far from…the truth, in thinking that…an earthly being was able, to be believed God”, that Minucius is denying the historic humanity of Christ. However, that is not the only way to understand that statement. The context of the citation is a dialogue between two friends of Minucius, Caecilius and Octavius. Caecilius attacks Christianity and Octavius defends it. As most of Caecilius’s attack is an attack on Christians and rumors based on their actions and includes a defense of the Roman gods and references to Greek philosophy, Octavius’s response focuses on these claims and on Greek philosophy. The only specific reference that Caecilius makes regarding Jesus is that Christians worship a criminal and his cross. Octavius responds in Darthcynic’s citation. Regarding Greek religions of this time, Octavius has argued that their gods are mostly the products of legends about real men, turning the claim that Christians worship an earthly being back onto the pagan. His response then, to this particular claim should be understood in this way. He does not deny the humanity of Christ, but rather that men should be worshipped as gods or that they can become gods [9]. The Christian view is not that Jesus was solely a man who became a god, but that Jesus was eternally God who became a man but did not cease to be God. As such, Jesus was not simply and earthly being. Octavius’s statement does not contradict that view and therefore the claim that Octavius definitely contradicts a central tenant of Christianity in this passage is reasonably debateable.

Therefore, not only is this reference ambiguous at best, in which case I would favor the clear evidence, it is also a relatively late source (late 2nd century), which gives other sources, such as Tacitus, the gospels, etc. preference over it. At best, the text demonstrates that a late 2nd century Christian may have doubted the historicity of Christ, contrary to what was likely the prevailing consensus of his day. This is a pretty weak foundation on which to base the conclusion that Jesus was not a historic figure and the historic view rose after the establishment of Christianity.

Transmission

Regarding transmission, Darthcynic correctly attributes this primarily to Christian scribes. However, his primary complaint goes back to agenda. Just as he claims an unacceptable bias in the writing of the gospels, he claims the transmission would have been subject to the same bias. As evidence of tampering, Darthcynic contests two classic passages, the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae in John. Based on these two supposed examples of tampering, he infers rampant tampering and concludes that the gospels are therefore so unreliable, we can’t even conclude that Jesus really lived.

While there are some questions regarding these two passages, the conclusion that they represent additions is far from certain and relies primarily on a small number of early manuscripts which omit the passages and, regarding the end of Mark, alleged evidence of an editor. However, my understanding is that the vast majority of the manuscripts that we do have contain both passages. Furthermore, Mark is allegedly an editor of Peter’s account. Even adding someone else to help Mark creates no significant historical or theological problems.

Furthermore, even if these two examples are additions to original accounts, the implication of rampant tampering over the last 2 millennia is erroneous. Because of the number, extent, and dating of the manuscripts and fragments we do have, such tampering would have had to be limited to the first couple centuries at worst, making these two example more likely to represent the extent of the tampering rather than the tip of the iceberg, even if they represent tampering, which is not certain. Questions about a few passages is better than not having original, early accounts at all, as in the case of Alexander.

Conclusion

Darthcynic argues that the gospels are historically unreliable due to an agenda, lack of proximity and corroboration. He concludes that they are so unreliable that they are probably complete fabrications with a religious, metaphoric goal. While there is certainly solid historic grounds to conclude that the gospels may not be 100% accurate history, the conclusion that they are 0% history is decidedly unreasonable for documents which do not show signs of any extreme bias, are relatively close to the source, and contain basic details which are actually well corroborated. Even if much of this corroboration is considered to be repeating Christian consensus, we find no significant denial of events recorded in the gospels and confirmation that even hostile historians, such as Tacitus had no reason to question the basic premise of Jesus’ life and crucifixion.

Comparison with Other Texts/Claims

Darthcynic claims that my arguments would force one to accept the historic claims of the Odyssey, the Talmud, and the Koran as equal with the claims of the gospels. This is not true:

The Odyssey

In the Illiad and the Odyssey, Homer makes many claims. Due to limited archaeological corroboration, it seems likely to me that some basic events found in the poems can reasonably be accepted as historic. For example, the claim that an alliance of Greek kings laid siege to Troy and destroyed it. Specific details are harder to evaluate and lack corroboration.

What is probably most important in comparing the strength of the Illiad and the Odyssey’s historic claims to the claim of the historicity of Christ and the credibility of the gospels is one of timing. The gospels are generally accepted to have been written within several decades of the recorded events, the latest being John, written at most 70 years after the events. By contrast, if the archaeological site Troy VIIa is Homer’s Troy, the events would have occurred around 1190 BC [10]. If Homer authored the poems, he probably would have done so in around 850 BC in oral form [11]. The text of the Odyssey may have been canonized around 530 BC [12]. That means that the gospels are separated by their subject by at most 70 years while the Odyssey is separated by over 600 years (the date of a canonical text is best comparable to the gospels, which were likely preceded by an oral tradition as well). Therefore, the temporal proximity of the gospels is much closer than that of the Odyssey. This alone justifies considering it as much weaker historic evidence than the gospels, not equal, as Darthcynic suggests my view must consider it.

The Talmud

I have not read the Talmud, but my understanding is that it is primarily a theological work recording rabbinic thought. It is therefore not primarily a historic work and therefore not really comparable to the gospels in the first place. However, like the Odyssey, basic dating places it as less reliable than the gospels, beginning with records as early as 536 BC and recorded in approximately AD 200, given about a 700 year gap (worst case) to the gospels 70 year gap (worst case). Even if we compare the relative proximity of both to the same time period (AD 30), the gospels represent a 70 year gap and the Mishnah (earliest portion of the Talmud) would represent a 170 year gap [13].

The Koran

Like the Talmud, my understanding is that the Koran is not primarily intended as a historical work. I am also not familiar with all the claims that it makes. The conclusion that it is at least based off the teachings of a man named Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received his messages from an angel seem reasonable. I also do not have much trouble accepting that he was in contact with a supernatural being (although I would argue the being was probably demonic rather than angelic).

It also makes some claims that contradict the Bible, particularly regarding Jesus and Abraham. As related to those events, the Bible is nearer to the events and therefore, as with the Odyssey and Talmud, stronger historical evidence. If there was any particular claim Darthcynic or anyone else wished to discuss, feel free to mention it specifically. However, I see no reason to conclude, as Darthcynic does, that my analysis must accept the Koran as equal with the gospels as historic evidence.

Admissibility of a Historic Jesus

Returning now to our central topic, which is not the inerrancy of scripture, that the gospels are the most reliable historic texts ever produced, or that Jesus did everything in the gospels, but merely the simple premise that a man named Jesus really lived in the early 1st century upon whom Christianity is based.

Three views about Jesus exist and two are compatible with this basic premise. First, the divine view affirms that Jesus lived as the gospels present Him: a divine figure, working miracles, dying for the sins of mankind, rising from the dead, and ascending to the right hand of the Father. Second, the legendary view doubts or spiritualizes much of the supernatural attributions to Christ, but generally accepts at least four facts about Jesus:

1. Jesus was a historic figure
2. Jesus was a religious teacher
3. Jesus was crucified by Pilate
4. Jesus’ followers claimed He rose from the dead

The final and third view is the mythic view. This view denies that Jesus was a historic figure. Rather, it proposes that Jesus was a mythic figure, invented by Paul and others like him and later the view developed that he was a historic figure. This is the view Darthcynic is defending.

The mythic view has serious problems with historic evidence. For the mythic view to be tenable, Christianity must have been founded with the central tenant of a completely mythic Christ, which was largely supplanted by the historic view within 30-70 years and produced four detailed biographies of a man who never existed within the same amount of time. One must then believe there is no explicit evidence of this transition or any of the divisive arguments one would expect such a central doctrinal change to produce. Rather, one must accept this view based almost entirely on the divining of omissions from certain writers. One might argue that the gospels were produced as part of the mythic tradition (which seems unlikely given their content and eyewitness claims (Luke)), but one still has to accept that the mythic view was largely supplanted by the historic view quickly after the authorship of the gospels to account for Ignatius, Tacitus, and the Gnostics. In summary, this view is primarily based on an argument from silence (an inherently weak foundation), must admit that the earliest Christian documents (Paul’s writings) are at best ambiguous enough to be inconclusive, omit any discussion of what would have been a divisive, doctrinal issue Paul certainly would have commented on (a counter-argument from silence), that virtually overnight in historic terms the vast majority of Christians flipped from a mythic to a historic view within decades of the setting for a historic view, any record of the major debate this must have sparked has been lost, and this major shift in thinking was so prevalent that even secular authors had no reason to explicitly mention any view but the historic view (Tacitus) in the early 2nd century until a possible reference in the late 2nd century (Municius). Furthermore, this shift must have been so universal, that later writings by the Gnostics who accepted mythic interpretations of many of the events in Jesus’ life still accepted as historic the core outline of Jesus’ life rather than referring to an older, completely mythical tradition.

Given the evidence, the central tenant of a historic Christ, which is acceptable to both the historic and legendary views, seems much more probable than the position of the mythic view, which seems to me to be very weak indeed. The central claim that Jesus was a real person who lived on this earth was taught by Paul, confirmed by the Gospels, affirmed by writers such as Tacitus, Ignatius, and even later Gnostic authors. It is supported by the earliest clear explicit and implicit documented statements. Any contrary evidence is at best ambiguous and in most cases entirely inferred from silence, much of which, particularly in secular cases, can be explained by the relative unimportance of Jesus to most authors during His time and the century which followed. With the exceptions of certain archaeological finds one would expect to find of an empire building conqueror and civil leader but not for an obscure teacher in a Palestine, the evidence for Jesus compares well with the evidence for Alexander. While, like Alexander, there is certainly a reasonable basis to question some details, the basis for questioning the core claim, that Jesus was a real person, is very weak indeed. As a result, I conclude that given the historic evidence, the claim that a man named Jesus lived in the early 1st century whose life formed the basis for the gospels accounts is highly probable and therefore admissible.

[1] Wikipedia. Arrian.
[2] Wikipedia. Plutarch.
[3] Livius. Alexander the Great: the ‘Good’ Sources.
[4] Wikipedia. Callisthenes.
[5] Livius. Alexander the Great: the ‘Vulgate’ Tradition.
[6] Wikipedia. Papias of Hierapolis.
[7] Irenaeus. Against Heresies III. 2nd century.
[8] Gary Habermas. The Historical Jesus. College Press Publishing Company. 1996.
[9] Minucius Felix. Octavius. Translated by Roberts-Donaldson.
[10] Wikipedia. Troy VII.
[11] Wikipedia. Homer.
[12] Wikipedia. Odyssey.
[13] Wikipedia. Mishnah.

WARNING: HYPERSPACE IS NOT A WORK OF SCIENCE-FICTION.  THIS NOVEL IS FOR ADULTS ONLY–MINORS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THIS WORK     HYPERSPACE is about a man with a malfunctioning brain.  Triggered by his inability to consummate a relationship with a warm, alluring, high-spirited, and extraordinarily beautiful young woman, the protagonist’s vivid pictorial imagination and great power of memory-recall show the reader pathetic, heartrending, tragic and chilling events in his life.  After the first depiction of a traumatic childhood scene, Jason walks into a semi-desert plain.  In the darkening evening he “befriends” a small twinkling star visible to him as he stands near a rocky peak.  When he “realizes” that it “guided” him in his walk, drew him away from his home, in order that they meet, he “reaches out” to it.  This star then becomes Jason’s focus of escaping from hell.  After his failure with the woman, he boards a “spacecraft”to travel to his star friend, beginning a voyage whose final destination will shock and chill the reader.

Author’s Bio:  Brooklyn born and bred, the author of HYPERSPACE, after years of experience, study, research, and interaction, contends that the world is a Lunatic Asylum.  HYPERSPACE offers to the reading public one of his explanations as to why.  Other explanations are coming . . .  

Excerpt from novel:

Together again are he and his Friend for Eternity.  “When did we first meet, my Love?” his child’s voice is querying in his memory.  <it was before we moved  . . . before we lived near the ocean0    “We lived inland, then, my Love.  I remember perfectly!  It was flatland with hills and mountains towards the horizon.”  <one peak standing alone, close to the Edge0    “It was when I brought a report-card home with an F.  It was like this, my Loving Friend . . . I told Ma ‘I got an F in math.’  ‘Pa is not gonna like that,’ she said.  ‘As a matter of fact,’ she said, ‘I don’t like that!  Get to your room!  Pa will go up there when he gets home.’  Yes my Loving Friend!  That’s how our Meeting started!”  Chirping in a high pitched child’s sound, Jason is continuing.  “You know, I once heard someone say . . . was it a teacher or a minister? . . . I don’t remember . . . I once heard him say that sometimes good things come from bad but when the bad is happening you don’t know it will be the cause of the good!  So when Pa came up later I didn’t know good would follow.  I remember!  ‘What’s this about you getting an F, huh?’ he said.  He sounded like Pa sounds when he’s real mean.  Honest, I don’t remember what I said back!  Then Pa whupped me!  He grabbed me by my shirt and pants and pulled me off the bed, threw me back down real hard so my behind faced up and then he whupped me as hard as I’ve ever been whupped!  He used the flat of his hand, alright, but Pa is strong!  I couldn’t sit down for a long time without hurtin’.  And I cried . . . I wanna cry now, my Loving Friend, just thinking about it.  But you’re here and I feel your goodness and I know I’m safe.  Anyway, I remember laying in bed on my stomach after my whupping.  It seemed like a real long time, my laying there.  I didn’t cry too much, you know.  For some reason I just stopped.  And I felt a strange feeling in me . . . I don’t know what.”  Continuing staring out his window . . .  “Then,  my Friend for Eternity, I realized it was getting darker. I could never explain what made me get up from bed, hurtin’ the way I was.  But now I know.  You made me get up!  You did, Loving Friend!  ’Cause you wanted me to leave there, wanted me to . . .”  Hearing his father’s booming voice along with his mother’s shrieks he is continuing staring at the twinkling blue spark of light.  “I was feeling a really awful aching in my behind, you know.  But I still got up and walked!  Why would I do that?  Why would I want to?  It was you my Love!  It was you calling me to you!”  He is remembering wincing in pain, slowly and quietly opening his bedroom door, walking out into the hall, quietly closing the door, walking carefully down the stairs, not wishing his parents to see him, reaching the bottom, walking straight to the front door feeling fire burning his lower behind from his father’s beating and the back of his neck from his imagining his parents’ stares who may be in the kitchen or livingroom behind him.  Opening the door, stepping into the cool end-of-winter air, he is walking out into the flatland, feeling the trodding-on of stones and old plant life carcasses.   Silence is infiltrating the child’s memory.  <ma just crying0    “Can’t be sure . . . maybe . . .”  <how long ago was our Meeting . . . we moved here when?0    “About a year ago, I think.”  <july . . .  like now0  “And I met you about six or so months before that . . . February or March.”     He  is watching himself standing in the flatland far enough away from their house of a year and a half ago for it to hardly be visible.  “That’s when I turned away from the house and began walking towards the mountain on the Edge.  That was when I drew near to our Meeting, my Love for Eternity.  I remember my aching during the long walk to the mountain.  It was you who drew me there!  Why else would I walk so far even though I was hurting so much?”  Cloying his memory’s vision, colors are emblazoning land and peak.  Gazing at the skyward jutting jagged-edged triangle, he is viewing a mass of rock with sides of unequal height drenched in yellow sunset orange, the waning glow thinning into the sky, melding with evening blue.  Raising his eyes into the blue, thinking of outer space and of far away worlds . . .   “I was thinking, my Love, of how much better things must be out there than they are here.  It wasn’t an accident that we met!  You guided me and knew my thoughts because it was then, while looking up and thinking of these things, that we met!  For it was then that I saw your Eternal Light glimmering in my eye! First there was the darkness of the evening sky, then there was me thinking of how things had to be better up there on other worlds, and then there you were winking at me with your dear dear blueness, like a clear and bright blue diamond.  That was our first Meeting my Love, my Friend, my Goodness!  That was your calling of me to you!”  <what feeling now? . . .  highness . . .0    Whispering with excitement,  “. . .  joy . . . goodness, beauty, love,  caring . . .”  Continuing staring at the tiny pauselessly winking blue dot amidst the increased number of blinking dots now suspended in a darkening abyss he is aware of silence.

Nach einem Wochende des nur von Essen und Schlafen unterbrochenen Tacitus-Übersetzens, habe ich die erste Klausur des Semesters hinter mir. Die Erleichterung ist riesig, zumal das Wochenende wirklich kein Zuckerschlecken war. Das heißt, irgendwie doch. Ich hatte mich nämlich im Gartenhaus meiner Großeltern einquartiert, ohne Ablenkungsmöglichkeiten, ein Ort besonders reizvoll durch seine Reizlosigkeit! Und bei Oma ist die Versorgung hervorragend! Frühstück, Mittag, Kaffee und Kuchen gefolgt von Abendessen sind der Standard. Der liegt also ebenso hoch, wie meine vermutliche Gewichtszunahme, um ehrlich zu sein: Ich hab mich nicht auf die Waage getraut, zum Ausgleich gab es eine knappe Stunde Jogging und einen Eiweißdrink zum Abendbrot…

Eine Hausarbeit in Fachdidaktik gab es heut auch zurück, in Geschichte kann man sich auch mal schöne Noten holen. Während man sich in Latein bei einer 4,0 oder gar 3,irgendwas tagelang nur noch summend und hopsend vor Freude vorwärts bewegt, sorgen eine 1 oder 2 Geschichte zwar für Zufriedenheit, aber die 1,0 von heute ist dann schon etwas besonders Schönes!

Nun folgen noch Klausuren am Freitag, Montag, Dienstag und Donnerstag, dann ist das Semester auch schon wieder vorbei. Ach ja, wie die Zeit vergeht!

När Nogger Black lanserades protesterade Centrum mot Rasism högljutt, ty glassen voro rasistisk. Någon menade att reklamkampanjen (Nogger + lakrits = sant) var menad att piska upp rashat. Många var mycket upprörda. Inte över glassen, men över att Centrum mot Rasism ägnade sin skattefinansierade verksamhet till nonsens. Frågan man ställde sig var inte varför GB hatade svarta utan varför CMR inte gick ut i media med något verkligt diskrimineringsproblem? En illvillig person hade kunnat tolka deras utspel som att övriga samhället var så fritt från rasism att CMR bara hade kvar att fokusera på rasism bland efterrätter.

Nu har CMRs ordförande Mariam Osman Sherifay publicerat en text på Newsmill där hon bevisar att CMR minsann är konsekventa med sin felfokusering. Denna gång är det Lantmäteriet som är rasistiskt. Tvisten handlar om att Lantmäteriet har ett kvarter som heter “Negern”, vilket namngavs i slutet av 1800-talet. Sherifay gör en liten utflykt i europeisk kulturhistoria för att visa att själva ordet “neger” alltid varit nedvärderande. Det hon, och andra post-kolonialister, missar är att det inte är Lantmäteriet som är selektiva i sin historiebeskrivning då de väljer att behålla namnet utan snarare hon själv. Länge har olika tänkare och andra försökt skriva om den europeiska och västerländska historien till den om rasism och orientalism, till den om slaveri och förtryck. Värderingar om rationalitet, upplysning, mänskliga rättigheter, demokrati, liberalism, jämlikhet, jämställdhet och sekularism har i dessa post-koloniala tänkares hjärnor förvandlats till att handla om något annat, något ondskefullt.

Det är provocerande att Lantmäteriet ska anklagas för att vara en rasistisk organisation för att de inte döper om kvarteret. Logiken som används är att detta bara är toppen av ett isberg av vit-makt-sympatier inom den svenska statsmakten. I en passage går Sherifay på om hur vi i Sverige alltid väljer att stoppa huvudet i sanden och inte se hur hela vårt avlånga land genomsyras av strukturell rasism: “En falsk historia om ett icke-rasistiskt Sverige som aldrig har existerat utanför det svenska medvetandet, bör tilläggas”. Självklart har det i Sverige liksom hos alla andra folk och länder alltid funnits rasism. Frågan är hur relevant det är att alltid dunka det moraliserande fingret i bröstet på oss? Särskilt när ärendet rör något så oviktigt som ett kvartersnamn.

Neger var länge bara ett deskriptivt ord i det svenska språket och hade inte alls den nedsättande innebörd som Sherifey hävdar (och Nyamko Sabuni i en artikel i Aftonbladet från 2005). Det är lätt att förväxla svensk etymologi med amerikansk eftersom all vår kultur är så amerikaniserad idag och jag tror att Sabuni gör det misstaget. Därför klingar neger idag mycket sämre, med tanke på det amerikanska “nigger” som används än idag för att nedvärdera afro-amerikaner. Därför är jag enig med Nyamko Sabuni om att man inte bör använda ordet idag, då det sedan 70-talet tillkommit kränkande konnotationer. Men jag har svårt att förstå varför både hon och Sherifay så ivrigt trycker på att det är en börda att vara svart, samt att de som vidhärdar med att säga “neger” spottar svarta i ansiktet. Ordet har i sig delvis en osmickrande etymologisk historia men det är inte detsamma som att alla som använder det medvetet mobiliserar det bagaget när de yttrar sig.

En annan sak är att det är oerhört tröttsamt att ständigt läsa om kritik av forna tiders koloniala beskrivningar av övriga världen. Allt var ondska och rasism, om man ska tro Said och Fanon och de andra. En samlad antropolog-kår kan dock vittna om att människor generellt sett använder beskrivningar av främmande folk för olika syften. Oavsett var du bor i världen skiljer man på folk och folk. När hebréerna vandrade in i Kanaan beskrev de ibland främmande stammar som “jättar” på grund av den respekt de hyste för deras krigiska förmågor. När Tacitus skrev Germania framställde han germanerna som starka, ädla och vitala. En verklig övermänniskostam. Varför då? Jo, för att använda som kritik mot den dekadens hans såg runt omkring sig i Rom. Han hade aldrig varit i Germania själv och kunde inte veta sanningen, istället var huvudsyftet internt och “you better shape up, ’cause we need some men”. Var Tacitus rasist? På samma sätt var och är Europas förhållande till Afrika komplicerat. Bilden av svarta skiftade redan från början mellan ädla vildar som är totalt överlägsna de civiliserade och förklenade européerna till obildade vildar totalt underlägsna de förfinade civiliserade raserna. Samma bilder finns även i mellanöstern i deras relation till afrikaner.  Viljan att veta har dock inte grundat sig i hat utan i fascination för det annorlunda. 1700- och 1800-talets orientalister trotsade oerhörda faror för att lära sig om länder ingen visste något om. De lärde sig främmande språk utan hjälp från lexikon. De översatte poesi, berättelser, och skrev reseskildringar. De levde decennier i främmande länder. Och vi sitter lugnt och bekvämt i luftkonditionerade rum och anklagar dem för rasism och taskig människosyn. Och visst ligger det något i det, men det är inte hela sanningen, eller ens det viktigaste. Det genuina intresset för det främmande grundar sig inte i hat utan i fascination och nyfikenhet.

Min poäng är att CMR verkar anse att varje beskrivning av “svarta” som syftat till att uppvisa skillnader har varit rasistisk. Dessutom verkar Sherifay vilja att vi ska inkorporera rasism som en viktig ingrediens i den svenska historien. Allt i linje med den nya diskrimineringsideologin. Det är kort och gott historierevisionism.

CMR har bränt två av två möjliga chanser. De får en tredje men sen är det hög tid att de hittar andra finansiärer än skattebetalarna. Nu ska jag gå och äta en Nogger i solen.

Länkar

http://newsmill.se/artikel/2009/06/16/lantmateriet-ar-en-rasistisk-myndighet

http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article310052.ab

Pilate's inscription from Caesarea

Some ten years ago, two colleagues approached me with a request: could I read the general introduction to ancient history they had once written and was about to be reprinted? They wanted to seize the opportunity to remove all errors they might have made, and invited me to point out everything I could possible find.

Among the mistakes they refused to correct, was their qualification of Pontius Pilate as a procurator. True, this is what Tacitus writes in his Annals (15.44):

Christ, from whom the sect of the Christians has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.

But Tacitus is wrong. An inscription from Caesarea, found in 1961, is our evidence. It contains several lacunae, but Pilate’s title is clearly legible:

There is no doubt about it: Pilate was a praefectus (a soldier), not a procurator (a civil official). This is not a mere triviality: the trial of Jesus was a matter of military urgency, not a civil trial.

<Overview of Common Errors>

Actually, I am transfering to two separate blogs with two different themes.

For posts on Biblical history, I will he posting here: http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/

As for posts debunking the “Jesus Myth,” I’ll be posting here: http://nonpaganorigins.blog.com/

Well, see you there.