Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-19-2010, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Hegemony strikes again.

Do you have an alternative as to whom the inscription might refer to if not christians?

Imperial tax avoiders ?

Quote:

In the absence of any alternatives christians is the best fit.

Warm and fuzzy fit? But why should anyone buy it? I handed in my standard issue "Christian glasses" some time ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

the Jews were noted as a superstitious race .....

Furthermore, how can references to "christians" and/or "chrestians" in Roman authors, related to the epoch of Nero, be differentiated from references to the Jews, who were apparently expelled from Rome under Claudius.

The schism between Jews and Christians had not yet taken place, and the hatred of the two for each other was as yet by no means such as to justify such appalling accusations ...

--- Arthur Drews

andrewcriddle · 12-19-2010, 07:23 AM

It seems unlikely that there were enough Christians in Portugal during the reign of Nero for state action against them to make sense.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 12-19-2010, 08:11 AM

I am not quite sure why the phrase "THOSE WHO TAUGHT MANKIND A NEW SUPERSTITION" should necessarily refer to Christians or even Jews.

The province of Lusitania had a long tradition of resistance to Roman rule. The most notable change in the province in Nero's reign was the appointment of Otho as governor in 58 CE. He likely assumed personal command (of Auxilliary troops, not a Legion) in 59, and ruled 10 years before rebelling against Nero in 69 and shortly after assasinated Galba to assume the crown himself.

While he was appointed governor there as the result of a love triangle between him, Nero and Poppaea Sabina, which was seen by some Roman historians as a kind of banishment, "'[w]ith the rank of quaestor Otho governed the province for ten years with remarkable moderation and integrity" (Suetonius, Lives of the Emperors - Otho).

"Moderation and integrity" is a nice way of saying "he ruled well". That means he took care of problems, such as "robbers" (the time honored term that ruling powers have always given to rebels who "rob" them of the regions revenues by causing unrest) and local superstitions (Druidism?) that some new-agey Romans might feel an attraction to - to the horror of right thinking Romans.

So, why are we surprised that Romans resident in the province erected a monument to praise Nero for doing good by them? "Thank you for clearing out the rebels and the influence of barbaric Druids, through your appointed governor, making this a nicer, gentler province in which to do business, and without even forcing us to bribe him for the benefit!"

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhugin

Inscription from Portugal (Lusitania):
(known as CIL II 231*, * as it was regarded false [CIL II, ed. Emil Hübner, 1869])

NERONI CL. CAIS [should be CAES]
AVG PONT MAX

OB PROVINC LATRONIB
ET HIS QVI NOVAM
GENERI HVM SVPER
STITION INCVLCAB
PVRGATAM

(here quoted from J. Gruter's collection, p. ccxxxviii)

Translation:

TO NERO CLAUDIUS CAESAR,
AUGUSTUS, HIGH PRIEST,
FOR CLEARING THE PROVINCE
OF ROBBERS, AND THOSE
WHO TAUGHT MANKIND
A NEW SUPERSTITION

"Some have questioned the genuineness of thi inscription, because, say they, Nero's persecution extended no farther than Rome. [...] If this inscription be genuine, it is a early an heathen monument as we could expect to find remaining concerning Christianity; especially so far off from Judea as Lusitania, now called Portugal. It must have been set up in the lifetime of Nero, who died in June A.D. 68, or, at the utmost, before his death was publicly known; for after that no people paid him any honours. [...] Nevertheless, it must be acknowlegded that the genuineness of it is not assented by all. Joseph Scaliger doubted. Pagi and others have endeavoured to vindicate it. Some others still hesitate. This monument, they say, has been seen by few or none: and the credit of the first publisher of the inscription is not established above all suspicion of falsehood and imposture." (N. Lardners translation and comments from his collected works, vol. 3, p. 608)

"Vicus Maravesar sive Maramesar sive Marquesia in lexicis tabulisve geographicis frustra me quesitus est." (CIL)

"The author concludes that, if the [inscription was a] work of a forger, this was an educated man who knew the epigraphy of the region and were acting without apologetic reasons; but [the author] does not rule out its authenticity." - summary of I. Ramelli, Note su una dubbia testimonianza epigrafica della persecuzione neroniana in Spagna - Hispania Antiqua (Valladolid), XXIV (2000), p. 125-134

What do you all think? Is it genuine? If so, does it prove the persecution of Christians?

zhugin · 12-19-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It seems unlikely that there were enough Christians in Portugal during the reign of Nero for state action against them to make sense.

Good point. But

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulus Orosius, VII, 7.65

"For he was the first at Rome to torture and inflict the penalty of death upon Christians, and he ordered them throughout all the provinces to be afflicted with like persecution"

Does this later Christian belief indicate that the inscription was falsified at a later point?

zhugin · 12-19-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

local superstitions (Druidism?)

Druids were known already by Gaius Julius Cæsar, so why would their teachings be regarded a "new superstition" in Lusitania in the time of Nero?

DCHindley · 12-19-2010, 10:41 AM

Druidism was never tolerated by the Romans, and since it was recently introduced to the Roman's by means of conquest it was "new". "Mankind" of course means "inhabitants of the Roman empire."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhugin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

local superstitions (Druidism?)

Druids were known already by Gaius Julius Cæsar, so why would their teachings be regarded a "new superstition" in Lusitania in the time of Nero?

Toto · 12-19-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhugin

...
Does this later Christian belief indicate that the inscription was falsified at a later point?

I don't think you have a good reason for rejecting the idea that this was a forgery from the 15th century.

You cited this:

"The author concludes that, if the [inscription was a] work of a forger, this was an educated man who knew the epigraphy of the region and were acting without apologetic reasons; but [the author] does not rule out its authenticity." - summary of I. Ramelli, Note su una dubbia testimonianza epigrafica della persecuzione neroniana in Spagna - Hispania Antiqua (Valladolid), XXIV (2000), p. 125-134

But this does fit the description of Cyracus of Ancona, the purported forger - an educated man who knew epigraphy and had no apologetic purpose.

OAO · 12-19-2010, 12:14 PM

In all my days at college, in both religious studies courses and history, there has never been any doubt raised against Nero persecuting Christians. This is preposterous.

Toto · 12-19-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

In all my days at college, in both religious studies courses and history, there has never been any doubt raised against Nero persecuting Christians. This is preposterous.

You did not study at Drew University with Darrell J. Doughty.

judge · 12-19-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Warm and fuzzy fit? But why should anyone buy it?

No one has to buy it. Im just saying it is the best fit.

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

12-19-2010, 07:23 AM	#32
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	It seems unlikely that there were enough Christians in Portugal during the reign of Nero for state action against them to make sense. Andrew Criddle

12-19-2010, 12:14 PM	#38
OAO Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Southeast Posts: 841	In all my days at college, in both religious studies courses and history, there has never been any doubt raised against Nero persecuting Christians. This is preposterous.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.