 |
|
|
Reply to Criticism of New Classical Scholarship
A REPLY BY THE NEW CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP (N.C.S.) REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE ROMAN PISO FAMILY (By Roman Piso, 09/22/02)
PART II
(Continuing)
Real scholars do not laugh at new ideas. They investigate them and try to understand them. Even IF a new idea sounds implausible, IF it may have as much impact upon ALL of the scholarship in this area, it demands that it be investigated fully by those who seek to criticize it; for what is the value of criticizing something that you really do not understand? That is of no value to anyone. And again, this is NOT what true scholars do. This is an entirely different view of ancient history, one in which the author of that article has not bothered to learn about before passing judgment. What I see more of than anything else from people who (without bothering to learn anything about the subject) criticize the New Classical Scholarship is that they are LAZY. They do not want to do what is necessary to understand it and even thought I have told these people time and time again that IF they really want to criticize it, they NEED to do their homework and learn about it so that they CAN make a valid argument about it. At least do so either to prove it or disprove it - but don't be irresponsible and just assume to know anything about it without doing the work that is necessary in order to understand it properly. This is a whole other view, a NEW theory. Even if at first glance you do not agree with it, it MUST be considered at the very least. This is the very same way that most of the greatest changes have occurred. A new idea is introduced and some are receptive to it, while others are not. But nonetheless, once those new ideas have been explored fully, they are shown to be either valid or invalid. This is what the scientific method is all about.
"Let's start with a foundational claim from these folks: "The member of the Piso family who started it all was Arrius Calpurnius Piso. He was the Roman general who captured the city of Jerusalem for Rome in 66 CE (Common Era), and who, collaborating with Titus (a relative) destroyed the temple there in 70 CE. In fact, both Zela (religious center of Pontus) and Jerusalem were the sites of temples that were destroyed: Julius Caesar destroyed the one in Zela in 47 BCE."
The author here is quoting from a site which is NOT an official New Classical Scholarship site. Yet, he uses what is stated there against the N.C.S. A ridiculous act for any serious scholar to do. The New Classical Scholarship cannot be held responsible for what people outside of it may say or do. Some of what is said by others may or may not be correct. But ONLY an expert from the New Classical Scholarship should be consulted for information about the Piso Project and subject matter which is related to it.
"From here it is noted that this "Arrius" is none other than Flavius Josephus himself, and the rollercoaster coasts on. But let's pause for a moment, shall we? It seems rather curious that a Net search of the name "Arrius Calpurnius Piso" turns up nothing but websites that promote or support this theory."
This really shows how ignorant the author of this article really is. He gets his information to criticize the N.C.S. from websearches! I have explained to several people just this week that it is not reasonable to expect to find enough information at this point in time on the Internet about this subject as in order for that to happen there first have to be several books out on the subject so that people can quote from them and post that information! The books will be out in the coming years and so that information will not find its way to the Internet for a few years from now. But just because all of the information is not on the Net currently does not mean that it is not known, real and valid. It only means that at this point in time, one must make use of the information that IS available in whatever form it IS in now. If you cannot find the information on the Web, and there are books or booklets available and you do not care to read them; then you should refrain from making judgments about the subject until such time as you DO have that information and are able to make a genuinely reasonable criticism of the issue.
"The name (Arrius Piso) turns up nowhere on any site dedicated to Roman history, Latin studies, or anywhere having to do with serious scholarship. This is fairly telling, because the existence of this chap seems to be a root for many facets of this theory: "Revelation 1:8 says "I am the Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." The name Arrius Calpurnius Piso begins with Alpha and ends with Omega. Could this be another way of Jesus (the Lord) saying "I am Arrius Piso."? A general rule is that you can substitute "Arrius Piso" wherever the "Lord" is referred to in the NT."
There is just too much 'junk' information posted in this article by the author for me to spend my time on as well as information that I cannot affirm because it or parts of it are NOT the research of the N.C.S. As I had said the author of this article just did a websearch and did not care whether the site that he was referring to was an official N.C.S. site or not. So, I will be snipping out some of that excess so that I can address more important things here instead. It is a waste of time for anyone to wade through such sloppy 'work'.
The author says that he cannot find the name "Arrius Piso" anywhere on any site dedicated to Roman history, Latin studies or anywhere having to do with serious (Old Classical) scholarship. Yes, that is true. So what? The author was simply looking in the wrong place. He was ignoring where the information IS about this and going to those who do not have a clue! I have answered several posts, again, just this week, on issues related to this particular statement. Here is what the students of the Old Classical Scholarship have not been taught; there was a difference between the Roman royals and the common people. Duh!
And this difference extended into many areas. The royals, for instance, had their own language which existed WITHIN the language which they used to produce works for public consumption. So, within any given work from that time, one will find a superficial version (which is what the O.C.S. works with) and another one which only the royals could understand. And this, is one of the main reasons that the Old Classical Scholarship can only get so far and why it reaches the incorrect conclusions which is does. The Old Classical Scholarship ONLY addresses the "common language" side of Roman history! They are looking at it from the OUTSIDE looking in, instead of the other way around! This is actually about ROYALS; what they did (as opposed to what has been thought previously) and how they were able to accomplish those things.
So, what if Arrius Piso's name is not mentioned in any outright fashion in Roman history. He could not do that if what they were working on was to succeed. That does not mean that his name is not given somewhere in those histories; it could have been given in the ONLY way in which he could give it - in a way in which it could be hidden and not obvious. His name IS given (along with his alias names) in many of the work of the time, but just not all together as one name. As I have just said, they could not afford to do that. Even so, the Jews of the time were witnesses to what was going on and they made sure that his name could be verified as genuine and true. They put his three main real names in the Talmud. So, with all of the evidence of his name and actual existence (which has not been made public yet), and given the fact of the verification which was given by the Jews, there should be no doubt that he actually did exist. (see the information posted in The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
"Another promoting site says, "...Vitellius took control over the empire as emperor. He was killed soon afterwards, by Arrius Calpurnius Piso." Hmm. Not according to Suetonius, who in The Twelve Caesars records that Vitellius was killed by a group of soldiers who performed various atrocities on him before throwing his body in the Tiber. No "Arrius" makes as much as a bow."
Yes, he does! Suetonius DOES say that Arrius Piso killed Vitellius. But he was using one of Arrius Piso's alias names to do so. And this, is what the author does not understand. Suetonius says, "The officer (official) who dispatched (killed) him was one Antonius Primus, a native of Toulouse, and his boyhood nickname had been Becco ('rooster's beak')." Ref. Suetonius, 'The Twelve Caesars', Vitellius, the last paragraph. Of course, the average person would not know this or how to tell that Arrius Piso used that alias name let alone the many other alias names he used. He used so many alias names in fact, that we have yet to discover them all. Where did he get these alias names? He was a royal and as such he had a 'birthright' to inherit the use of the names and titles of his ancestors; subject to the approval of a royal counsel, it appears.
"This "Arrius" is also said to have to have headed Roman forces, and along with Titus, "laid siege upon the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E." Perhaps Kermit the Frog and Fozzie Bear were there as well, because Josephus makes no mention of such an Arrius (though we'd guess that's because he was Arrius and was trying to hide it?). We'd like the reader to note that there is no cite or source given for this information, which is apparently typical for this consortium. People are invented from this Piso family based on no more than a whim and perhaps a presumption of an embedded code in the NT and other documents. To put it simply, there is no evidence outside the theory that "Arrius Piso" actually existed."
Again, it takes being able to recognize his alias names in order to deduce the factual information about him, his family, relatives and his involvement in all of these areas. This takes discipline. It takes patience and a LOT of research and ability. As I have said many times before, this is NOT easy. What it means is that the real study of ancient history is actually more like 100 times more complicated and difficult than people have believed previously. But once a few basic rules are learned, it become much less complicated.
We, of the N.C.S. have already done a vast amount of the necessary research so as to form a foundation from which others may work from and have make many important discoveries; some of which, I have made or will make mention of here.
Here is another important thing that the author had inadvertently brought up, and that is the "fear" that some people have in citing areas of the Bible. Some people feel/think that it was written by ignorant and superstitious people. But they couldn't be further from the truth! This is why they feel like it is a waste of time to refer to biblical passages and they see those who do so as "ignorant." But here is the truth of the matter - one of the main things which cause those of the Old Classical Scholarship, and particularly those who are atheists or non-believers to make hasty judgments about this is the fact that WE will quote from the Bible to make many of our points. And people have even gotten the impression that WE are "religious." This simply is not so.
Many non-believers of the O.C.S. are, or fancy themselves as "scholars" and have convinced themselves that all that they need in order to understand Roman history are the so-called "secular" literary material of that time. This is totally incorrect! The truth is that those authors were working BOTH sides of the street. IF the truth is that ALL literary works that were written and produced for public consumption was written only by royals, that includes BOTH the "biblical" and non-biblical works. What one should think about regarding this issue is that what this is really all about is basically the royals verses the common people. And this, in and of itself, is an extremely important issue. And as I have been saying, changes the whole reality of history.
I have said many times before that these ancient (royal) authors were extremely well educated and intelligent. Many of them were in fact much more intelligent than the average person of today and even more so than many of the most authoritative "scholars" of this time with respect to the material that we are dealing with. And these ancient authors knew, that is, they had anticipated many things before they would happen. For instance, they knew that atheists and non-Christians would resist reading the New Testament and/or taking it seriously; and therefore, would reject it as a valid source of information. This made it the perfect place in which to insert the information which would allow researchers to find the evidence that would eventually prove that Christianity was in fact a deliberate hoax.
And what I mean when I say that the royals were "against" the common person or the masses in general is that they were doing any and all things that they possibly could to both maintain and increase their position of power and authority/control over the masses at large - including dumbing them down and causing them to become superstitious and irrational (unthinking and unable to reason correctly). And, by the way, this is NOT about a "conspiracy" as some people have said. There were various individual instances of conspiracies such as those put forth in an attempt to kill Nero (Ref. Tacitus), or Domitian (Suetonius, 'The Twelve Caesars', Domitian). But an ongoing cooperation between a majority of royals in order to achieve mutual goals is referred to as an oligarchy and NOT a conspiracy. The reason that some people like to use that term when applied to this subject is that they would like to paint this research as a "conspiracy theory." Which, it is not.
[End of Part II]
Continue to: Reply Part III
The Roman Piso Forum
The Roman Piso Homepage
The Roman Piso Debate Forum
The Piso Project Forum
The Abelard Reuchlin Website
Send E-Mail to: pisochrist@yahooi.com
Copyright © 2002 ncsreply2. All Rights Reserved