spin

Back to the citation:
I must admit that it is not obvious that it refers to Titus, who was just the hand of Nero. It could easily be a reference to Nero, through the operation of his hand.

But you have seen the repititive nature of the references to Nero in the Oracles. There is no question of where the interest lies: certainly on Nero.

What I find interesting in this quote from S.Severus is the reference to christians insinuated into the thought of Titus, as though we should treat it as a serious consideration.

That people would know the difference between messianists in Judea at the time of Titus seems incredible to me.


spin

countjulian

It might have been their apocolyptic furvor. Although Christians really don't like to mention it, early, early Christianity seems to have been really eschatalogical, and I know of evidence from ancient sources that the Romans didn't take kindly to that type of thing, especially when people preached the demise of Rome and especially when it was during a time of crisis.

Life of Marcus Aurelius, Part 1
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...relius/1*.html

The point of the story was to accent the tlerance of Marcus; by implication, any other non-Stoic emperor would have had the knave put to death.

jjramsey

And this purported "camping it up" included indicating that Christians ratted out one another:

I find it odd that the purported interpolator of Tacitus tried for verisimiltude to the point of making Christians look bad, while the interpreter of Josephus was not so concerned.

andrewcriddle

In context the passage reads

The matricidal mighty king who flees over the Euphrates (Nero) is distinguished from Rome's foremost man who comes out of Syria having destroyed the temple (Vespasian or Titus)

Andrew Criddle

spin

Isn't this a misinterpretation of the information?? We're dealing with a text which says that they admitted to the crimes involved -- despite Ben C's attempt to say that they admitted they were christians --, and were thus convicted on their own testimony.

Every christian who wants to save this passage falls back on this line of retrojection of values. A christian interpolator isn't able to write anything in supposed character of a christian hating pagan. They couldn't turn it around to say that the christians actually got sympathy from the people for their bad treatment.

So many people want to be coy about this text and its problems.

Let's overlook the atrocious alliteration in a text suposedly written by someone famous for his Latin style.

Let's overlook the error of rank regarding Pilate.

Let's overlook the incredible ability of ordinary people in Nero's time to recognize christians as distinct from say Jews or even messianic Jews. (After all, the reference to christus is simply a reference to a messiah.)

Let's overlook the Tacitus's subtle attack on Nero which finishes with the notion that despite the fact that Nero tried various means to throw of culpability for the fire, he wasn't able to do so, an attack which suddenly burgeons into an assault by Nero on christians and the fire itself is suddenly forgotten.

Let's overlook the passage as historical. It doesn't cut it.


spin

spin

Thanks. Yes, Vespasian (-- Nero flees after he goes to Judea, though I do note the reference to Jerusalem, which might suggest Titus).

The interest for me in the passage is the idea that Nero fled over the Euphrates, seek refuge with the Parthians.


spin

Lógos Sokratikós

Writing in 4000 CE, since "United States" means any grouping of governments, the enemy of Vietnam circa 1970CE could have been any aliance of governments as was customary at the time.

Cheap stuff like this makes me almost ashamed of being a non-believer.

Roger Pearse

Good to meet an honest man, and I'm pleased to find one. This sort of stuff seems to rot the brains of some people.

I wasn't always a Christian, but I know that if Christianity isn't true -- and the silent alternative, conformity to period values, is -- it isn't because of cheap excuses of that sort. Such dishonour any system that has to stoop to them, IMHO.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jjramsey

And an "immense multitude" of Christians were convicted on the testimony of other Christians, not merely their own testimony. Also, I'd say it is a stretch to say that the crime in question was being a Christian.

The question isn't whether a Christian interpolator isn't physically able to write "in character", but whether it is likely for a Christian interpolator to bother to do so. I already pointed out that the interpolator of the TF didn't.

No one here has overlooked that.

Right, as if no one would figure out that someone is a Christian from hints dropped in conversation, rumors, noting that so-and-so hasn't been worshipping in Roman temples, etc.

How is the fire "suddenly forgotten"? The passage is brief, only about a paragraph or so long. Tacitus wouldn't need to bracket the passage with mentions of the fire; the reader's memory wouldn't be that short.

spin

If you must have christians ratting on christians then that's ok with me, except for the fact that we need to establish christians in Rome at the time.

This is the same stuff veiled in a step backwards.

Overlook here implies "not deal with".

How do you distinguish a christian from any other messianist (assuming that the idea of messianist made sense to you in 1st c. Rome)? How does a Roman know a christian from a Jew? Your assumption level is top heavy.

It is suddenly forgotten because the writing strangely turns onto the christians and their awful treatment and the story of the fire, for which the christian material has apparently been inserted, simply stops, leaving us with the fact that the poor christians suffered and even won the sympathy of the onlookers, because of their bad treatment. Doh.


spin