Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 06-24-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Tertullian certainly read and wrote in Greek, although all his Greek works are now lost.

You know, I knew that. My mistake for not pointing that out; thanks.

Ben.

Gamera · 06-26-2006, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Further adding to these problems we have the quotes of Suetonius, which i finally found.

Here wa have:

Claudius was emperor from 41 to 54, so if we are to assume that "Chrestus" is "Jesus", then that places Jesus in Rome some time between 41 and 54, which completely invalidates the Christian account of Jesus' death, etc. and also contradicts the Tacitus account of "Christus" being put to death my Pilate.

This does indacte a pre-existing conflict between the Jews and the Roman authorities, however, which does help the case of the Tacitus quote.

It still doesn't add up or make sense though.

The well-known passage by Suetonius is clearly the result of a garbled transmission. Assuming Chrestus refers to Christ, then Suetonius thought Jesus was a living person stirring up trouble because Christians kept talking about him as a living person who was their lord. It is a natural mistake for a rather hardheaded realist like Suetonius, who couldn't possibly understand the notion of a risen Christ living in the hearts of his followers.

Gamera · 06-26-2006, 02:18 AM

[QUOTE=Malachi151]"

Quote:

A simple matter"? Nonsense. First of all, we don't have ANY history or documentation regarding "conflicts" between Christians and Rome prior to this, so anything you say is pure speculation.

That's the matter we are trying to prove with this inquiry.

Quote:

Secondly, the Christian message was largely one of integration between Jews and "Gentiles", at least the later Christian message that as come down to present day. If that was not the message of these Christians then their "Christianity" has no relationship to present day Christianity.

I don't think its fair to say that integration was in the minds of Jewish religious authorities as it related to Christians.

Quote:

What, exactly, could these Christians have done for Tacitus to claim that Christians were "were hated for their enormities"?

Preached the immorality of wealth and power, the universal brotherhood of man, including slaves, preached that there was only one lord, and he wasn't the emperor. Those are enormities enough for Romans. Also, check out Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, where she argues that the Jewish authorities had a real motivation to suppress proto-Christians because their preaching about the immient return of the King of the Jews, would have sounded seditious to the Romans. Judea had limited self rule under Nero, but were charged with collecting taxes and keeping order. Thus, Jewish leaders had a real stake in suppressing anything that sounded seditios to Roman so that they didn't lose their self-rule, and the perks that went with it.

Quote:

What enormities could they have engaged in to be so hated in a place where slavery was accepted, human sacrafice was not unknown, the public killing of people for entertainment too place, etc?

See above. This makes my point.

Quote:

What were these Christains doing to be so recognized and hated? Apprently, in order to be the scapegoat here, they had to have been THE MOST hated group in Rome!

See above.

Quote:

I just don't see how a sect of people comes to be that notorious in 30 years, especially, if, as Tacitus claims, their disruptions started in Judea.

It's called scapegoating. And there was amble opportunity in the Jewish/Christian/Roman dynamic for that to have taken place. To ask that persecutions be "rational," is odd indeed.

Quote:

Then Tacitus goes on:

"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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular"

So, apprently the Christian movement had been repressed for a time, so lets say that this means 5 to 10 years. Now we are somewhere around 40-45 CE.

Again, I see this as the natural consequence of the Jewish community trying to deflect anti-semitism against their enemy, Christianity, which was close enough to Judaism in the eyes of Roman authorities to do the trick.

Quote:

Tacitus claims that Chrisianity was "hideous and shameful", again, how? What were they doing that elevated themselves above the rest to become known, essentially, as the most hated in group in Rome?

See above. To deny the preeminence of wealth and power in 1st century Rome was hideous and shameful to a good Roman like Tacitus.

[

Quote:

Now keep in mind, according to the Tacitus account, and since we have NO OTHER ACCOUNT TO GO ON at this early stage, not even ANY Christian source about Christain activity in Rome, this all happened between about 45 CE and 64 CE, a period of about 20 years.
So, according to this, Christianity moved from Judea to Rome, and once in Rome, within a period of 20 years, became the most infamous and hated sect.

WTF, this makes no sense?!

The rapid spread of Christianity is an historical fact.

Quote:

It certianly makes no sense if these "Christians" have any relationship to the beliefs of the Pauline Christians, who were preaching harmony between Gentile and Jew. These Christians, if they indeed existed, had to have been doing something else.

I don't know if Pauline Christians thought that well of Judaism. But be that as it may, the issue is not what Christians did, but whether Jewish authorities used Christianity, as a perceived Jewish sect, to be the target of Roman scapegoating that would otherwise be directed against them.

Quote:

Acts tells us that the term "Christians" was first used in Antioch while Paul was there, though this wasn't recorded until some time between 80 and 100.

What makes this all the more bizarre is that this account would have us believe that "Christianity" spread like wildfire from Judea around 33 CE to Rome in 64 CE, while all of the rest of the Christian history appears that Christianity developed and spread rather slowly, not really taking on any substantial form until around 100 and even at that they had low numbers.

It is an undisputed historical fact that Christianity did spread like wildfire. In a couple hundred years it utterly dominated the Empire. Amazing.

Quote:

Christians don't really become noticed and addressed by non-Christians until around 100 in all of the other references that we have, so how is it that they are so up front and in the middle of a situation back in 64?

Well, not according to Acts, which recounts the prosecution of Christians (under whatever name) by Jewish authorities. And that's my point. Do you really want to argue that the Jesus movement was well-recieved by traditional Jews?

Gamera · 06-26-2006, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

How would you know?? This was a heterodox Judaism prior to the Pharisaic normalization of the religion. There were all sorts of wild varieties of Judaism in circulation, even gnostic varieties, so you wouldn't know what was considered by the Jews as a block, because there was such variety.

Standard Judaism, WTF is that in 64 CE??? Get real.

Please do, but first, I think you'll need a few courses in the state of Judaism in the first century. Your lack of knowledge is too obvious.

spin

Be a pleasure.

Roman antisemitism is well documented. Some 4,000 Jews were deported to the island of Sardinia during the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. The first recorded pogrom took place during the reign of the Roman Emperor Caligula in 38 C.E.

Do you really need handholding for the proposition that Jews were the object of Roman empireal wrath?

As to the Christian/Jewish conflict in the 1st century, it is also well documented from nonchristian sources.

http://www.iwu.edu/~religion/ejcm/Mc...wers.htm#_edn2

Also, check out Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, where she argues that the Jewish authorities had a real motivation to suppress proto-Christians because their preaching about the immient return of the King of the Jews, would have sounded seditious to the Romans. Judea had limited self rule under Nero, but were charged with collecting taxes and keeping order. Thus, Jewish leaders had a real stake in suppressing anything that sounded seditious to their Roman masters so that they didn't lose their self-rule, and the perks that went with it.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Roger Pearse · 06-26-2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You know, I knew that. My mistake for not pointing that out; thanks.

I have to plug my website somehow...

The interesting thing is that rumours were circulating in Paris in the 1570's that Philip of Spain had a manuscript containing the Greek works of Tertullian. Pamelius in his 1583/4 edition dedicates a preface to that monarch and appeals to him to make it available. But if it ever existed, it may have perished in the fire in the Escorial in the following century. Or, who knows -- maybe it still exists, on some forgotten shelf in some forgotten library in Spain. No-one has any real idea what is in Spanish manuscript collections, even today.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

countjulian · 06-26-2006, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Preached the immorality of wealth and power, the universal brotherhood of man, including slaves,

The Stoics and especially Cynics preached all of those things, yet I cannot remmember any significant "Stoic/Cynic persecutions."

Malachi151 · 06-27-2006, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Preached the immorality of wealth and power, the universal brotherhood of man, including slaves,

Virstually every group preached this, just like virually everyone in America today preaches it, yet nevertheless American is a culture of power and wealth.

To claim that this is what Christians were persecuted for is complete nonsense.

The charges brought against Christians in ater works is that they pratcised infanticed and ate babies in their secret rituals. Strangely, Teruellian admits that this is true as well.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Quote:

CHAPTER 15
The charge of infanticide retorted on the heathen.

Since we are on a par in respect of the gods, it follows that there is no difference between us on the point of sacrifice, or even of worship, if I may be allowed to make good our comparison from another sort of evidence. We begin our religious service, or initiate our mysteries, with slaying an infant. As for you, since your own transactions in human blood and infanticide have faded from your memory, you shall be duly reminded of them in the proper place; we now postpone most of the instances, that we may not seem to be everywhere handling the selfsame topics. Meanwhile, as I have said, the comparison between us does not fail in another point of view. For if we are infanticides in one sense, you also can hardly be deemed such in any other sense; because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age. Yet there is no great difference between us, only you do not kill your infants in the way of a sacred rite, nor (as a service) to God. But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning. If, however, there does occur any dissimilarity between us in this matter, you must not overlook the fact that it is your own dear children whose life you quench; and this will supplement, nay, abundantly aggravate, on your side of the question, whatever is defective in us on other grounds. Well, but we are said to sup off our impious sacrifice! Whilst we postpone to a more suitable place whatever resemblance even to this practice is discoverable amongst yourselves, we are not far removed from you in voracity. If in the one case there is unchastity, and in ours cruelty, we are still on the same footing (if I may so far admit our guilt) in nature, where cruelty is always found in concord with unchastity. But, after all, what do you less than we; or rather, what do you not do in excess of us? I wonder whether it be a small matter to you to pant for human entrails, because you devour full-grown men alive? Is it, forsooth, only a trifle to lick up human blood, when you draw out the blood which was destined to live? Is it a light thing in your view to feed on an infant, when you consume one wholly before it is come to the birth?

Roger Pearse · 06-27-2006, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The charges brought against Christians in ater works is that they pratcised infanticed and ate babies in their secret rituals. Strangely, Teruellian admits that this is true as well.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Quote-mining an author who writes sarcastically is a risky business. I recommend that you read the whole book.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gamera · 06-27-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Virstually every group preached this, just like virually everyone in America today preaches it, yet nevertheless American is a culture of power and wealth.

To claim that this is what Christians were persecuted for is complete nonsense.

The charges brought against Christians in ater works is that they pratcised infanticed and ate babies in their secret rituals. Strangely, Teruellian admits that this is true as well.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

If you think classic pagan culture promoted the idea of universal brotherhood and the immorality of wealth and power you need a refresher course.

Gamera · 06-27-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

The Stoics and especially Cynics preached all of those things, yet I cannot remmember any significant "Stoic/Cynic persecutions."

The Stoics and Cynics did not preach the immorality of wealth and power. The preached the virtue of simplicity and self-reliance -- quite a different thing. They could be seen as upholding "traditional" Roman values, without threatening Imperial power.

Christians preached the IMMORALITY of wealth and power, and how the rich and powerful were not simply not as virtuous as they could be, but absolutely viscious and subject to punish by God at the day of judgment. Christianity was an attack on the core values of the Empire.

See the difference?

The same is true of "universal brotherhood." The Stoics and Cynics in fact upheld meritocracy, the idea of virtue being the core value of human existence. Christianity preached the opposite -- that our righteousness is worthless before God and we need a savior.

See the difference?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.