Toto

JM = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Ben! Great info. Just what I was looking for.

Michael

jgibson000

Try Annals 3.24.25; 4.62.9; 11.14.15; 13.32.13; 13.42.3.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

Rather more than 3 years: books 7-10 covered the reign of Gaius and first six years of Claudius, ca. 38-46 AD. The fragmentary information in Sulpicius Severus may be relevant here.

Does not 'impero' mean 'reign'; 'tiberio imperitante' = 'while Tiberius was reigning'?

It would be very hard for someone living in 115AD not to consider the emperor to be reigning. Think of Pliny's fawning panegyric on Trajan, or the tone of his letters in book 10.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Yes, but Pilate ceased to govern in 36 or 37, right? I was pointing out only those years in which Pilate might have possibly expected a mention in the Annals.

Yes, it does. You might have misunderstood my understated tone; I do not think that imperitante is in any way an error on the part of Tacitus. Sorry if I misled you.

Completely agreed. Thanks, Roger.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Sorry -- I misunderstood.

No problem -- I was responding to the issue you quoted.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

countjulian

On the idea the Christ passage in Tacitus was forged, I found an interesting idea going off from Kirby's site the other day. What If only Christiani and the passage about Christus was forged? That would yeild us

what's interesting here is that so much of the info relating to Jesus could be only slightly changed to fit any other group or movement. So, it could have gone like

It could also have been applied to the Jews as a group, although a reader of the rest of the annals would probably have some familiarity with the Jews.

Another interesting point is that no Christian apologist ever recounts the Neronian persecution until Sulpulcius Severus in the 5th century. The Paul-Seneca correspondance, forged around the same time, also bears witness to it.

What's always puzzled me about the Neronian persecution (and the one carried out under Pliny) is, why? Why did such intesne hatred os such a seemingly obscure Jewish sect develop so quickly? To us, in the 21st century, it seems apparent that the Christians were poised to wipe out the competition and take over the empire, but I doubt Nero or Pliny knew that at the time. Hell, I don't think it would have been very possible to distinguish the group from Jews at this point (considering all of the wierd Jewish sects like the Theraputae, that occasionally gained gentile converts). One would have had to look deep down in order to tell the difference, but again, why? The closest thing I can think of to compare this to is the persecution of the Bachanteas under the Republic, reported by Livy. But even in their case, Livy actually stacks some pretty egregrious crimes on their heads, something neither Pliny nor Tacitus seem to do. Why? Riley made a point of this comparison, I'll go read it. I'm feeling lazy, does anyone want to go fetch the Livt passage?

Ben C Smith

This version raises, then does not answer, the inevitable question, what class known for its abominations? Do you see that as a problem for the hypothesis?

Do you mean the Neronian persecution in general, or do you mean the specific Neronian persecution after the great fire, with living torches and such? Because Tertullian was an apologist, and Tertullian affirms (in general terms) that Nero persecuted Christians in Apology 5.3:

Consulite commentarios vestros, illic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano gladio ferocisse.

Consult your own records; there you will find that Nero was the first to furiously attack with the imperial sword this sect then rising into notice especially at Rome.

Ben.

countjulian

Site I got it from left it at that, could be anyone. My idea was maybe another jewish sect, but it also could have been criminals, revolutionaries, anything.

Good to know. I had only hear of Severus before, and was trying not to do my own research. Thanks a bunch, it was exactly what i was looking for.

SLD

It would seem to me that if a forger had made additions to Tacitus to make it look like he was talking about Christians, he would not have added gratuitous insults to Christianity in there. The forger of Josephus puts in comments such as if Jesus could even be considered a man - something far too pro Christian to have come from Josephus.

I also think that the gospels evidence a Neronian persecution. Not explicitly though. But why is there this strong Anti-Semitism in the Gospels? All of them were written after the Judean revolt and thus after the great fire of Rome. It seems plausible to me that Nero, facing growing unrest in Judea and facing a hostile crowd at home demanding a scape goat for the fire of Rome made what on the surface seemed like a great idea: blame the Jews, but don't antagonize them too much, just blame it on a splinter group of Jews, the Christians who aren't even liked by the Jews. The Christians made an attractive target, they could be painted as those damned revolting Jews to ordinary Romans, but the Jews wouldn't really care since the Christians weren't really Jewish (for the most part).

I believe that is why there is such a desparate attempt by the Gospel writers to distance themselves from Judaism. They make the Jews in their story responsible for the crucifixion and absolve the Romans. It smacks of a desparate attempt to curry favor with the Roman authorities. It might actually have worked for a time being. For the next few decades, there are scant references to repression of Christianity. It is not until the 2nd century that the repression builds up. By then though its growth was unstoppable. Nero ended up doing Christianity a big favor.

Also, other apocraphya talk of Nero being a persecuter of Christians and from what little I read, it does not appear that Tacitus was their source (could be wrong on that).

SLD