mg01

I ran across these references while flipping though Josh McDowell last night. They are usually taken as reference to the resurrection, and further evidence of the gospel stories, but does a simple resurrection reference fit the scope of their comments? If those being referred to simply thought that Chrestus had risen from the dead, why would that alone cause them to be looked upon as troublemakers, especially in mythological rich Rome?

Today I'm reading Bertrand Russell and the bit about the moral character of Jesus in reference to the expectation of an imminent second coming and the instructions basically to remove oneself from society because the "kingdom is near" and the "this generation shall not pass", etc... I couldn't help but wonder was it this behavior that was the "mischievous superstition" that gave Christians a bad rep. Could they have been viewed as a class of slackers, the Hari-Krishna of the day?

Is anyone aware of any discussion along these lines?

andrewcriddle

One of the problems was that Christians were prevented on religious grounds from taking part, even in rather minor ways, in the established religions of the Roman Empire.

To take a USA parallel; this was like someone refusing on religious grounds to take part in the pledge of allegiance but much worse because pagan ritual was so much a part of everyday behaviour.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

May we have the Latin phrase, please. If memory serves, I believe that Tacitus at least, if not Suetonius as well, used the expression of Judiaism as well as of Christianity. But I'll need the Latin to check.

Jeffrey

gurugeorge

What struck me about this is that IIRC one of those guys (Tacitus, Seutonius or Pliny, can't remember which, I'm sure someone here will know what I'm talking about) talks about extracting information about these "mischievous teachings" through torture.

Not sure what that implies, but it suggests the "mischievous" part wasn't necessarily applied to the mere crucifixion idea, since that seemed to be a widely known aspect of the doctrine.

Actually, it suggests the possibility that the people from whom he extracted the information were proponents of some of the weirder gnostic teachings (perhaps the "free love" type, or the baby eating type) - either that or they were babbling any old crap to stop the torture.

andrewcriddle

Pliny Letters book X letter 96 refers to interrogating under torture two slavewomen who were Christian deaconesses.

Pliny appears to have suspected the Christians of moral enormities and was unsure how to proceed when theses suspicions were not confirmed However the reason for interrogation under torture is very straightforward. In general in the Roman world legal evidence from slaves had to be obtained using torture otherwise it was invalid.

Andrew Criddle

mg01

Some searching turned up an additional reference by Pliny as well (Here).

Looks like all three had something different in mind. Lot's of places on the web, (as well as Josh McDowell) use "mischevious" for both. That alone is rather curious when the latin is different in each case.

Huon

De Vita Caesarum. Divus Claudius, 25.
Iudaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.

Huon

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...out=&loc=15.44

XLIV. ... ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Chris...ons/index.html

Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extraordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christus, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race.

Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished.