Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 01-24-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

As I said before Michael Grant who wrote the Penguin Classics translation of Tacitus Annals said this

..."because the human race detested them"...

Which puts a completely different interpertation on the passage as a whole.

Holy smokes, what a distinction. I have no language skills to address this.

Can anyone here comment on the validity of this translation?

Chris Weimer · 01-24-2005, 08:32 PM

32.Odio humani generis convicti. These words may either signify the hatred of mankind towards the Christians, or the hatred of the Christians towards mankind. I have preferred the latter sense, as the most agreeable to the style of Tacitus, and to the popular error, of which a precept of the Gospel (see Luke xiv. 26) had been, perhaps, the innocent occasion. My interpretation is justified by the authority of Lipsius; of the Italian, the French, and the English translators of Tacitus; of Mosheim (p. 102), of Le Clerc (Historia Ecclesiast. p. 427), of Dr. Lardner (Testimonies, vol. i. p. 345), and of the Bishop of Gloucester (Divine Legation, vol. iii, p. 38). But as the word convicti does not unite very happily with the rest of the sentence, James Gronovius has preferred the reading of conjuncti, which is authorised by the valuable MS. of Florence.

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline...1/nt16/032.htm

PhilosopherJay · 01-24-2005, 09:28 PM

Hi Bede,

Sadly, time does not permit me to argue all the points I would wish to argue.
I will restrict myself to this important one.

Quote:

No. Nomen here means 'race, family, people or tribe'. In the first clause the 'nomen' is Jesus himself who is born. In the second it is the Christian message taught by Jesus. In the third it is the Christians themselves persecuted by Nero. The sentence means Nero viciously persecuted Christians. 'Invaleo' is a strong word with the 'in-' prefix increases the strength further. It means 'dominate', 'use strength against'. The sentence simple does not mean what you claim it does and you cannot honestly put the stress on it that your suppositions require.

Here is the chapter in question:

Quote:

Chapter VII.87 -The Christians Defamed. A Sarcastic Description of Fame; Its Deception and Atrocious Slanders of the Christians Lengthily Described.

Whence comes it to pass, you will say to us, that such a character could have been attributed to you, as to have justified the lawmakers perhaps by its imputation? Let me ask on my side, what voucher they had then, or you now, for the truth of the imputation? (You answer, ) Fame. Well, now, is not this-

"Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius ullum? "88

Now, why a plague,89 if it be always true? It never ceases from lying; nor even at the moment when it reports the truth is it so free from the wish to lie, as not to interweave the false with the true, by processes of addition, diminution, or confusion of various facts. Indeed,90 such is its condition, that it can only continue to exist while it lies. For it lives only just so long as it fails to prove anything. As soon as it proves itself true, it falls; and, as if its office of reporting news were at an end, it quits its post: thenceforward the thing is held to be a fact, and it passes under that name. No one, then, says, to take an instance, "The report is that this happened at Rome," or, "The rumour goes that he has got a province; "but, "He has got a province," and, "This happened at Rome." Nobody mentions a rumour except at an uncertainty, because nobody can be sure of a rumour, but only of certain knowledge; and none but a fool believes a rumour, because no wise man puts faith in an uncertainty. In however wide a circuit91 a report has been circulated, it must needs have originated some time or other from one mouth; afterwards it creeps on somehow to ears and tongues which pass it on92 and so obscures the humble error in which it began, that no one considers whether the mouth which first set it a-going disseminated a falsehood,-a circumstance which often happens either from a temper of rivalry, or a suspicious turn, or even the pleasure of feigning news. It is, however, well that time reveals all things, as your own sayings and proverbs testify; yea, as nature herself attests, which has so ordered it that nothing lies hid, not even that which fame has not reported. See, now, what a witness93 you have suborned against us: it has not been able up to this time to prove the report it set in motion, although it has had so long a time to recommend it to our acceptance. This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity;94 under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,95 and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself.96 Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained-righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution). Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began. During the interval there have been so many criminals; so many crosses have obtained immortality;97 so many infants have been slain; so many loaves steeped in blood; so many extinctions of candles;98 so many dissolute marriages. And up to the present time it is mere report which fights against the Christians. No doubt it has a strong support in the wickedness of the human mind, and utters its falsehoods with more success among cruel and savage men. For the more inclined you are to maliciousness, the more ready are you to believe evil; in short, men more easily believe the evil that is false, than the good which is true. Now, if injustice has left any place within you for the exercise of prudence in investigating the truth of reports, justice of course demanded that you should examine by whom the report could have been spread among the multitude, and thus circulated through the world. For it could not have been by the Christians themselves, I suppose, since by the very constitution and law of all mysteries the obligation of silence is imposed. How much more would this be the case in such (mysteries as are ascribed to us), which, if divulged, could not fail to bring down instant punishment from the prompt resentment of men! Since, therefore, the Christians are not their own betrayers, it follows that it must be strangers. Now I ask, how could strangers obtain knowledge of us, when even true and lawful mysteries exclude every stranger from witnessing them, unless illicit ones are less exclusive? Well, then, it is more in keeping with the character of strangers both to be ignorant (of the true state of a case), and to invent (a false account). Our domestic servants (perhaps) listened, and peeped through crevices and holes, and stealthily got information of our ways. What, then, shall we say when our servants betray them to you?99 It is better, (to be sure, )100 for us all not to be betrayed by any; but still, if our practices be so atrocious, how much more proper is it when a righteous indignation bursts asunder even all ties of domestic fidelity? How was it possible for it to endure what horrified the mind and affrighted the eye? This is also a wonderful thing, both that he who was so overcome with impatient excitement as to turn informer,101 did not likewise desire to prove (what he reported), and that he who heard the informer's story did not care to see for himself, since no doubt the reward102 is equal both for the informer who proves what he reports, and for the hearer who convinces himself of the credibility103 of what he hears. But then you say that (this is precisely what has taken place): first came the rumour, then the exhibition of the proof; first the hearsay, then the inspection; and after this, fame received its commission. Now this, I must say,104 surpasses all admiration, that that was once for all detected and divulged which is being for ever repeated, unless, forsooth, we have by this time ceased from the reiteration of such things105 (as are alleged of us). But we are called still by the same (offensive) name, and we are supposed to be still engaged in the same practices, and we multiply from day to day; the more106 we are, to the more become we objects of hatred. Hatred increases as the material for it increases. Now, seeing that the multitude of offenders is ever advancing, how is it that the crowd of informers does not keep equal pace therewith? To the best of my belief, even our manner of life107 has become better known; you know the very days of our assemblies; therefore we are both besieged, and attacked, and kept prisoners actually in our secret congregations. Yet who ever came upon a half-consumed corpse (amongst us)? Who has detected the traces of a bite in our blood-steeped loaf? Who has discovered, by a sudden light invading our darkness, any marks of impurity, I will not say of incest, (in our feasts)? If we save ourselves. by a bribe108 from being dragged out before the public gaze with such a character, how is it that we are still oppressed? We have it indeed in our own power not to be thus apprehended at all; for who either sells or buys information about a crime, if the crime itself has no existence? But why need I disparagingly refer to109 strange spies and informers, when you allege against us such charges as we certainly do not ourselves divulge with very much noise-either as soon as you hear of them, if we previously show them to you, or after you have yourselves discovered them, if they are for the time concealed from you? For no doubt,110 when any desire initiation in the mysteries, their custom is first to go to the master or father of the sacred rites. Then he will say (to the applicant), You must bring an infant, as a guarantee for our rites, to be sacrificed, as well as some bread to be broken and dipped in his blood; you also want candles, and dogs tied together to upset them, and bits of meat to rouse the dogs. Moreover, a mother too, or a sister, is necessary for you. What, however, is to be said if you have neither? I suppose in that case you could not be a genuine Christian. Now, do let me ask you, Will such things, when reported by strangers, bear to be spread about (as charges against us)? It is impossible for such persons to understand proceedings in which they take no part.111 The first step of the process is perpetrated with artifice; our feasts and our marriages are invented and detailed112 by ignorant persons, who had never before heard about Christian mysteries. And though they afterwards cannot help acquiring some knowledge of them, it is even then as having to be administered by others whom they bring on the scene.113 Besides, how absurd is it that the profane know mysteries which the priest knows not! They keep them all to themselves, then,114 and take them for granted; and so these tragedies, (worse than those) of Thyestes or îdipus, do not at all come forth to light, nor find their way115 to the public. Even more voracious bites take nothing away from the credit116 of such as are initiated, whether servants or masters. If, however, none of these allegations can be proved to be true, how incalculable must be esteemed the grandeur (of that religion) which is manifestly not overbalanced even by the burden of these vast atrocities! O ye heathen; who have and deserve our pity,117 behold, we set before you the promise which our sacred system offers. It guarantees eternal life to such as follow and observe it; on the other hand, it threatens with the eternal punishment of an unending fire those who are profane and hostile; while to both classes alike is preached a resurrection from the dead. We are not now concerned118 about the doctrine of these (verities), which are discussed in their proper place.119 Meanwhile, however, believe them, even as we do ourselves, for I want to know whether you are ready to reach them, as we do, through such crimes. Come, whosoever you are, plunge your sword into an infant; or if that is another's office, then simply gaze at the breathing creature120 dying before it has lived; at any rate, catch its fresh121 blood in which to steep your bread; then feed yourself without stint; and whilst this is going on, recline. Carefully distinguish the places where your mother or your sister may have made their bed; mark them well, in order that, when the shades of night have fallen upon them, putting of course to the test the care of every one of you, you may not make the awkward mistake of alighting on somebody else:122 you would have to make an atonement, if you failed of the incest. When you have effected all this, eternal life will be in store for you. I want you to tell me whether you think eternal life worth such a price. No, indeed,123 you do not believe it: even if you did believe it, I maintain that you would be unwilling to give (the fee); or if willing, would be unable. But why should others be able if you are unable? Why should you be able if others are unable? What would you wish impunity (and) eternity to stand you in?124 Do you suppose that these (blessings) can be bought by us at any price? Have Christians teeth of a different sort from others? Have they more ample jaws?125 Are they of different nerve for incestuous lust? I trow not. It is enough for us to differ from you in condition126 by truth alone.

There are approximately 60 sentences here. In 58 of them there is no reference to any physical persecution as opposed to verbal persecution of Christians, I think any reader would agree that in 58 of these sentences there are references to the bad reputation (name) that Christianity had among the general populace. Now, note the remaining two sentences.

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity;94 under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,95 and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor.

The statement "you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor" obviously refers to "This name of ours" So there is no question that this 11th sentence refers to the reputation (name) of Christianity

Here is the 12th sentence:

If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself.

This sentence too uses words like pious, unjust, pure, and public enemy. These words clearly refer to the reputation of Christianity.

So we have 60 sentences out of 60 sentences in this chapter that are talking about the reputation of Christianity.

Now we know that the terms "persecutor" and "ruthlessly condemned" and "punished" can refer either to someone who physically attacks someone or who verbally abuses someone. Anybody reading this text and understanding that all 60 sentences in the chaper have been refering to verbal abuse would naturally assume that this is what is meant by these phrases in these two sentences.

Here is an example of the term "punished" being used in connection with alleged verbal abuse just this week from a blogger:

http://www.aroostook.org/

Quote:

Because their party lost, in a very lopsided manner, so many of the elections this past November, Ms Rice has to be punished and ridiculed for doing the right thing. The illustrious Senator from California, Barbara Boxer went beyond the pall to actually question Dr Rice's integrity.

Now, the only reasonable case in which these terms could be referring to physical abuse is if Tertullian assumed that his readers already knew about Nero's attack against the Christians. Since neither Cassius Dio, Suetonius, author(s) of "Acts" nor any other known Latin or Christian documents prior to this point mention any atttack by Nero on Christians, we must assume that Tertullian assumed that all his readers were so familiar with Tacitus' statement on Nero's abuse of the Christians that there was no need for him to mention that he was talking about physical abuses rather than the verbal abuse he has talked about in all 60 sentences in this chapter.

If we accept this rather fantastic supposition, we also must accept either one of two equally fantastic correlary notions. Either Eusebius knew the passage or not. It is an equally fantastic notion that in spite of knowing this passage, Eusebius did not use it in his substantial attack against Nero in his History. Yet it is perhaps more fantastic that although this passage was common knowledge to Tertullian's Roman/Christian audience in the year 200, this passage was unknown to the well educated Christian Bishop of Caesarea in 310.

In reconstructing the history of this period, I try to stick to what is most plausible and reject fantastic suppositions regardless of the authority of those behind them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan · 01-24-2005, 10:47 PM

Jay, if Tacitus had meant Jews instead of Christians, why is there no mention in Josephus? Why not in other Roman historians, especially Dio Cassius? Sorry if I missed you addressing this question.

Also, we might expect that if Nero had really burned Jews, some early Christians might have taken delight in it somewhere along the line, the way they felt that the destruction of Jerusalem was a just calamity incited by the Jews' rejection of Jesus. It seems to me, anyway, that the problem of silence doesn't disappear if you turn from Xtians to Jews.

01-25-2005, 01:24 AM

Jay,

Quote:

Since neither Cassius Dio, Suetonius, author(s) of "Acts" nor any other known Latin or Christian documents prior to this point mention any atttack by Nero on Christians, we must assume that Tertullian assumed that all his readers were so familiar with Tacitus' statement on Nero's abuse of the Christians that there was no need for him to mention that he was talking about physical abuses rather than the verbal abuse he has talked about in all 60 sentences in this chapter.

Well, you are right about Luke because Acts stops in 62AD (most probably because that is when it was written) so it is hardly surprising it misses out events that took place afterwards. But Tacitus is explicit that Nero persecuted Christians. As we have no reason (beyond Luc's unique subjectivity) to assume an interpolation, you cannot just leave the inconvenient sentence to one side and get on with your reconstruction claiming silence. Suetonius is also explicit about Nero persecuting Christians when he says:

Quote:

"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis nouae ac maleficae" - Nero 16:2

Again, this clearly refers to Nero inflicting physical punishment on them.

So we have two Roman historians from the second century saying Nero physically persecuted Christians. That seems like pretty firm evidence for me, especially for something we have no other reason to doubt. And given how firm this evidence is, and the plain meaning of the words, we can be sure that Tertullian is also speaking about physicial punishment. Nero simply did not 'condemnatio' anybody simply by being rude to them.

While I accept that time is of the essense, my other points also require answering if you wish your reconstruction to be credible.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan · 01-25-2005, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Well, you are right about Luke because Acts stops in 62AD (most probably because that is when it was written)....

Speaking of things oft-refuted, Bede....

01-25-2005, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Speaking of things oft-refuted, Bede....

The only good counter argument against Acts being written in 62AD is that Mark is supposedly written after 70AD. Trouble is, that is based on some rather flimsy reasoning too - namely the the alleged prophecy at 13:2. But to date Mark on the basis of a line of prophecy among loads of stuff (13:5 -31) that hasn't happened when the allegedly true line is of a piece with the rest, is weak reasoning. Far stronger is JAT Robinson's point that as there is nothing specific about the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark, it must date from before the Jewish War and certainly can't date from the immediate aftermath. Arguments from silence can cut both ways and Act's silence about events after 62AD that we all agree we would rather like to know about is pretty suggestive of an early date too.

Still, none of this helps Jay as the evidential value of Act's silence about matters that occur after the end of the narrative is nil.

B

rlogan · 01-25-2005, 04:31 AM

well I'm glad Vork stepped in here on the substitution of Jews for Christians. I'm still of the persuasion of a block interpolation. One weakness of that approach is what jay is trying to fill in - who was persecuted. I am favoring the already condemned.

Jay, that was really interesting material and is again proof that the degrees of freedom in a quote-mine rapidly diminish as more of the surrounding material is filled in. The business of Christianity as a mystery religion was particularly interesting. Ha! How can they say anything about us when we're a secret cult!

cweb255, thanks for the response. Now if it reads hatred towards the group in question, then those guilty of capital offenses like murder would make sense.

Vorkosigan · 01-25-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

The only good counter argument against Acts being written in 62AD is that Mark is supposedly written after 70AD. Trouble is, that is based on some rather flimsy reasoning too - namely the the alleged prophecy at 13:2.

That is hardly the only reason to date Mark after 70, as even a modicum of research will show. The writer of Mark is very aware that the Temple has been destroyed (13:2 is hardly the only piece of evidence adduced on this point!) Additionally Acts also seems to be aware of the destruction of Jerusalem. The usual date for Acts (see Schnelle HistTheo for example) is 90-100 CE.

Quote:

Still, none of this helps Jay as the evidential value of Act's silence about matters that occur after the end of the narrative is nil.

I agree that Acts has neither negative nor positive effect on Jay's case, by itself. In conjuction with other Christian and Jewish writings, it may raise a problem.

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay · 01-25-2005, 08:12 AM

This is an excellent point. It is nice that you raised it in a post next to Bede's raising the question of Suetonius' statement that Nero tortured Christians. The problems here are 1) nobody else mentions the Jewish perscution by Nero and 2) Suetonius does mention torture of Christians by Nero.

The answer comes when we ask ourselves the question "Would an interpolator of Tactitus from the fourth century or later have known Suetonius?" The simple short answer is, "Of course." The solution to both problems is to suppose that whoever changed the Nero-Jewish torture passage in Tacitus, also changed it in Suetonius.

On this view there were two references to Tactitus's torture of Jews (in Suetonius and Tertullian) and both were changed to provide evidence that Nero tortured Christians and executed Paul and Peter.

In support of the idea that Suetonius was changed, we may offer that Suetonius speaks of Jews when discussing all the major emperors in his Twelve Books on the Caesars.

Julius:

Quote:

At the height of the public grief a throng of foreigners went about lamenting each after the fashion of his country, above all the Jews, who even flocked to the place for several successive nights.

Augustus:

Quote:

He particularly liked coarse bread, small fishes, handmade moist cheese, and green figs of the second crop; and he would eat even before dinner, wherever and whenever he felt hungry. I quote word for word from some of his letters: "I ate a little bread and some dates in my carriage." And again: "As I was on my homeward way from the Regia in my litter, I devoured an ounce of bread and a few berries from a cluster of hard-fleshed grapes." Once more: "Not even a Jew, my dear Tiberius, fasts so scrupulously on his sabbaths as I have today;

Tiberius:

Quote:

XXXVI. He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinees of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

Claudius:

Quote:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus he expelled them from Rome.

Nero:

Quote:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food, the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city [Because of their disorderly conduct].

Vespasian:

Quote:

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles. Since to put down this rebellion required a considerable army with a leader of no little enterprise, yet one to whom so great power could be entrusted without risk, Vespasian was chosen for the task, both as a man of tried energy and as one in no wise to be feared because of the obscurity of his family and name. Therefore there were added to the forces in Judaea two legions with eight divisions of cavalry and ten cohorts. He took his elder son as one of his lieutenants and as soon as he reached his province he attracted the attention of the neighboring provinces also; for he at once reformed the discipline of the army and fought one or two battles with such daring, that in the storming of a fortress he was wounded in the knee with a stone and received several arrows in his shield.

V.

Quote:

When he consulted the oracle of the god of Carmel in Judaea, the lots were highly encouraging, promising that whatever he planned or wished, however great it might be, would come to pass; and one of his highborn prisoners, Josephus by name, as he was being put in chains, declared most confidently that he would soon be released by the same man, who would then, however, be emperor.

VIII.

Quote:

Returning to Rome under such auspices and attended by so great renown, after celebrating a triumph over the Jews, he added eight consulships to his former one

Domitian: XII

Quote:

The property of the living and the dead was seized everywhere on any charge brought by any accuser. It was enough to allege any action or word derogatory to the majesty of the princeps. Estates of those in no way connected with him were confiscated, if but one man came forward to declare that he had heard from the deceased during his lifetime that Caesar was his heir. Besides other taxes, that on the Jews [A tax of two drachmas a head, imposed by Titus in return for free permission to practice their religion; see Josephus, Bell. Jud. 7.6.6] was levied with the utmost rigor, and those were prosecuted who, without publicly acknowledging that faith, yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origin and did not pay the tribute levied upon their people [These may have been Christians, whom the Romans commonly assumed were Jews]. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man ninety years old was examined before the procurator and a very crowded court, to see whether he was circumcised.

Please note in this last quote that Suetonian claims that Domitian persecuted descendents with large inheretence. We may suppose that Eusebius made up the outrageous story of Domitian persecuting the descendents of Jesus based on this information.

In any case, we find eight quotes involving jews and none involving Christians. There are four quotes involving Jews before the alleged passage containing the Christian reference and four quotes involving Jews after the alleged Christian reference. We may take it that the fifth quote which presently appears as referring to Christians actually referred to Jews.

We should point out that the Augustus Jewish quote involves food, the Tiberius quote involves superstition, and the Claudius quote involves expulsion. In the passage on Nero under question we get the motifs of food, superstition and expulsion repeated. One may see this as a thought pattern with Suetonius associating Jews with food, superstition and expulsion.
We should especially consider the fact that both Tacitus and Suetonius refer to Judaism explicitly as a "superstition," and in the only two passages alleged to be about Christianity, it is referred to as a "superstition." The reference to it being a new and mischievious superstitius involves the simple replacement of the world "Old" with the word "new." While pens were slightly heavier in those days, one may suppose that changing the word "old" to "new" would not involve very much more exertion than changing the word "Jews" to "Christians" in the same sentence.

Now we may suppose that Suetonius got his reference of Nero torturing Jews directly from Tacitus. Thus Suetonius may be impeached to stand as a witness for the Tacitus passage referring to Jews.

We may assume that this theory presupposes that these changes were conscious and not the result of scribal error. Looking at this mode of constructing Christian History, as a general rule, we may say that just as the Christians snatched lines from the books of the Old Testament from the Jews, and made them refer to themselves, the Christians snatched lines from histories about the Roman persecution of the Jews, and made them refer to themselves. However, we should keep in mind that copywrite laws being a modern 18th and 19th century invention, the Christians were just following the normal cultural mores for their time and not doing anything unusual by this practice.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Jay, if Tacitus had meant Jews instead of Christians, why is there no mention in Josephus? Why not in other Roman historians, especially Dio Cassius? Sorry if I missed you addressing this question.

Also, we might expect that if Nero had really burned Jews, some early Christians might have taken delight in it somewhere along the line, the way they felt that the destruction of Jerusalem was a just calamity incited by the Jews' rejection of Jesus. It seems to me, anyway, that the problem of silence doesn't disappear if you turn from Xtians to Jews.

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

01-24-2005, 08:32 PM	#112
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	32.Odio humani generis convicti. These words may either signify the hatred of mankind towards the Christians, or the hatred of the Christians towards mankind. I have preferred the latter sense, as the most agreeable to the style of Tacitus, and to the popular error, of which a precept of the Gospel (see Luke xiv. 26) had been, perhaps, the innocent occasion. My interpretation is justified by the authority of Lipsius; of the Italian, the French, and the English translators of Tacitus; of Mosheim (p. 102), of Le Clerc (Historia Ecclesiast. p. 427), of Dr. Lardner (Testimonies, vol. i. p. 345), and of the Bishop of Gloucester (Divine Legation, vol. iii, p. 38). But as the word convicti does not unite very happily with the rest of the sentence, James Gronovius has preferred the reading of conjuncti, which is authorised by the valuable MS. of Florence. http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline...1/nt16/032.htm

01-24-2005, 10:47 PM	#114
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Jay, if Tacitus had meant Jews instead of Christians, why is there no mention in Josephus? Why not in other Roman historians, especially Dio Cassius? Sorry if I missed you addressing this question. Also, we might expect that if Nero had really burned Jews, some early Christians might have taken delight in it somewhere along the line, the way they felt that the destruction of Jerusalem was a just calamity incited by the Jews' rejection of Jesus. It seems to me, anyway, that the problem of silence doesn't disappear if you turn from Xtians to Jews.

01-25-2005, 04:31 AM	#118
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	well I'm glad Vork stepped in here on the substitution of Jews for Christians. I'm still of the persuasion of a block interpolation. One weakness of that approach is what jay is trying to fill in - who was persecuted. I am favoring the already condemned. Jay, that was really interesting material and is again proof that the degrees of freedom in a quote-mine rapidly diminish as more of the surrounding material is filled in. The business of Christianity as a mystery religion was particularly interesting. Ha! How can they say anything about us when we're a secret cult! cweb255, thanks for the response. Now if it reads hatred towards the group in question, then those guilty of capital offenses like murder would make sense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.