Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 01-23-2005, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi rlogan,
To Romans, Jews would probably be something they first heard about seriously for the first time in the late 60's-early 70's. We may take that as a starting date for Roman consciousness about Jews in the world, or at least the consciousness that Tacitus would be addressing in his works circa 115 C.E..

This is reasonable insofar as the typical Roman not being cognizant of Judaism, yes.

Quote:

They would hardly consider it an old and venerable religion, but a fierce, dangerous, exotic, faraway current enemy defeated in a recent major war.

Yes, a strange practice to them - but in conquering an enemy does the occupation power necessarily view whatever they are practicing as "new"? I would think that upon invading a place, we would use language speaking to the religious heritage there as opposed to something "breaking out".

I am intrigued by the idea of the Jews being massacred. Don't get me wrong. Nero is taking some group and putting them to torturous deaths. Whoever it was must have committed capital offenses. One possibility of course is sedition. So a national enemy would make sense in that respect.

Quote:

Please note that Tacitus twice refers to Judaism as a "national superstition" in this passage from his history (book 5) where he informs his readers of the history of the region:

Yes, and it is for this reason that sedition is an attractive hypothesis. The thing that bothers me is the business about "hatred of mankind". That just seems odd, unless there is another group that indeed does hate mankind and has taken action on that hatred. Were jews viewed as hating mankind? I don;t think so...

Regards, rlogan

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-23-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Were jews viewed as hating mankind? I don;t think so..

I think you could make a case that at least some of them were hostile to gentiles, that they were insular and exclusive and rejected other gods.

OTOH, some Jews were pretty well Hellenized or Romanized so I don't know how common overt hostility would have been outside of Palestine.

Chris Weimer · 01-24-2005, 01:00 AM

I guess he was just expressing his concern over the Fundamentalists, like we do sometimes today. Hrm...

Tacitus was fundamental himself. He advocated the return to a lot of old laws such as veiled women and such, and many works he attributes to the gods. Maybe the national superstition was infringing on too much territory? It definitely would have been seen opposing the Religio...

01-24-2005, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Where is Hopkins getting his statistics? It seems inflated to me.

Given Hopkins was Professor of Classics at Cambridge with articles about ancient populations to his credit, I rather think he knew what he was talking about. Try his "Early Christian Number and its Implications" Journal of Early Christian Studies 6, 1998.

Quote:

Which Lucretius has argued it does.

No he hasn't. He's said he doesn't know anything about it.

Quote:

But it is absurd to believe that his personal lack of knowledge of Latin would stop the man who sat at the right hand of the Emperor Constantine for the Council of Nicea (if I'm recalling the conference correctly) from changing a couple of sentences in a Latin text.

With respect, you have accused Eusebius of forging entire bodies of work. You have also ignored most of the arguments in my post.

Quote:

Are you making the argument that he read the Histories of Tactitus but not the Annals?

Merely saying that we have evidence he had read the Histories at this point and no evidence that he had read the Annals.

Quote:

Thanks for the translation. This is actually more favorable to me than the one I was using. The passage is talking about attacking the "name" hard. It says nothing about any physical persecution of Christians.

No. Nomen here means 'race, family, people or tribe'. In the first clause the 'nomen' is Jesus himself who is born. In the second it is the Christian message taught by Jesus. In the third it is the Christians themselves persecuted by Nero. The sentence means Nero viciously persecuted Christians. 'Invaleo' is a strong word with the 'in-' prefix increases the strength further. It means 'dominate', 'use strength against'. The sentence simple does not mean what you claim it does and you cannot honestly put the stress on it that your suppositions require.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Lucretius · 01-24-2005, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Yes, and it is for this reason that sedition is an attractive hypothesis. The thing that bothers me is the business about "hatred of mankind". That just seems odd, unless there is another group that indeed does hate mankind and has taken action on that hatred. Were jews viewed as hating mankind? I don;t think so...

Regards, rlogan

As I said before Michael Grant who wrote the Penguin Classics translation of Tacitus Annals said this

Quote:

odio humani generis

This has commonly been translated as "their hatred of mankind" but the problem is that again as Micheal Grant states as a footnote in his translation it can in fact also be translated as
"But this phrase (odio humani generis) may instead mean "because the human race detested them" "(Penguin Classics translation footnote 2 page 365)

Which puts a completely different interpertation on the passage as a whole.

Lucretius · 01-24-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

No he hasn't. He's said he doesn't know anything about it.

No. Nomen here means 'race, family, people or tribe'. In the first clause the 'nomen' is Jesus himself who is born. In the second it is the Christian message taught by Jesus. In the third it is the Christians themselves persecuted by Nero. The sentence means Nero viciously persecuted Christians. 'Invaleo' is a strong word with the 'in-' prefix increases the strength further. It means 'dominate', 'use strength against'. The sentence simple does not mean what you claim it does and you cannot honestly put the stress on it that your suppositions require.

First of all what have I said I don't know ? If you mean I have said I do not claim to be any sort of expert on Tertullian then you are right.
I checked my notes the other day and found that when we studied Tertullian it was only selected passages NOT including the one quoted here.

Nomen meaning race is on my opinion a bit of a stretch while my Lewis & Short Dictionary does include this meaning it only refers to 2 uses of it in this sense 1 from Suetonius and 1 from Tacitus however if you read the Tacitus quoted it does actually refer to someone being adopted and so takes the NAME of a family

Quote:

Crispum equestri ortum loco C. Sallustius, rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor, sororis nepotem in nomen adscivit.

Quote:

Crispus was of equestrian descent and grandson of a sister of Caius Sallustius, that most admirable Roman historian, by whom he was adopted and whose name he took

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...011&word=Nomen

Vorkosigan · 01-24-2005, 05:53 AM

The Hopkins citation isn't quite right. The correct citation is

Hopkins, Keith, 1934-.
Christian Number and its Implications, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.2, Summer 1998

A very interesting conversation, though.

01-24-2005, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

First of all what have I said I don't know ? If you mean I have said I do not claim to be any sort of expert on Tertullian then you are right.

I said you didn't know if ch.5 of Tert's Apology was an interpolation that stuck out like a sore thumb. Was I wrong about this?

Quote:

Nomen meaning race is on my opinion a bit of a stretch while my Lewis & Short Dictionary does include this meaning it only refers to 2 uses of it in this sense 1 from Suetonius and 1 from Tacitus however if you read the Tacitus quoted it does actually refer to someone being adopted and so takes the NAME of a family

We are talking about Tert in c.220AD, not the sivler age historians. Tert is trying to be clever using nomen in three senses in one sentence. But the verb gives us the sense in each case 'ortus est' is born under Augustus. - the name is Jesus. 'inluxit' - is brought to light under Tiberius - Christian teaching. 'invaluit' is persecuted under Nero - Christian people. Typical of Tert to try and use that sort of rhetorical trick. Jay's contention that Nero was just rude about the Christian name has no foundation in the text or the context. When a Roman Emperor gets nasty with by 'condamnatio' then you can be sure things have gone well beyond a rude word and become bloody.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...011&word=Nomen[/QUOTE]

Lucretius · 01-24-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I said you didn't know if ch.5 of Tert's Apology was an interpolation that stuck out like a sore thumb. Was I wrong about this?

No you were right about this I just wanted to make sure that was what you meant so no problem there.

Quote:

We are talking about Tert in c.220AD, not the sivler age historians. Tert is trying to be clever using nomen in three senses in one sentence. But the verb gives us the sense in each case 'ortus est' is born under Augustus. - the name is Jesus. 'inluxit' - is brought to light under Tiberius - Christian teaching. 'invaluit' is persecuted under Nero - Christian people. Typical of Tert to try and use that sort of rhetorical trick. Jay's contention that Nero was just rude about the Christian name has no foundation in the text or the context. When a Roman Emperor gets nasty with by 'condamnatio' then you can be sure things have gone well beyond a rude word and become bloody.

I would have to look into the other times Tertullian uses "nomen" and how he uses it to comment properly on this ,I'm not necessarily saying I don't agree with your comments just that at first glance it appears a bit of a stretch to get that meaning and interpretation out of it .

andrewcriddle · 01-24-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

We are talking about Tert in c.220AD, not the sivler age historians. Tert is trying to be clever using nomen in three senses in one sentence. But the verb gives us the sense in each case 'ortus est' is born under Augustus. - the name is Jesus. 'inluxit' - is brought to light under Tiberius - Christian teaching. 'invaluit' is persecuted under Nero - Christian people. Typical of Tert to try and use that sort of rhetorical trick. Jay's contention that Nero was just rude about the Christian name has no foundation in the text or the context. When a Roman Emperor gets nasty with by 'condamnatio' then you can be sure things have gone well beyond a rude word and become bloody.

One should also note that Tertullian is certainly writing at a time when being a Christian could get you killed. He is seeking in Ad Nationes to provide a history and explanation of the hostility of the Roman state toeards Christians. There is IMO a presumption that when he has this hostility begin under Nero that he means by Nero's hostility something comparable to the situation in his (Tertullian's) day ie physical persecution not just anti-Christian propaganda.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2005, 01:00 AM	#103
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I guess he was just expressing his concern over the Fundamentalists, like we do sometimes today. Hrm... Tacitus was fundamental himself. He advocated the return to a lot of old laws such as veiled women and such, and many works he attributes to the gods. Maybe the national superstition was infringing on too much territory? It definitely would have been seen opposing the Religio...

01-24-2005, 05:53 AM	#107
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The Hopkins citation isn't quite right. The correct citation is Hopkins, Keith, 1934-. Christian Number and its Implications, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.2, Summer 1998 A very interesting conversation, though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.