zhugin

Inscription from Portugal (Lusitania):
(known as CIL II 231*, * as it was regarded false [CIL II, ed. Emil Hübner, 1869])

NERONI CL. CAIS [should be CAES]
AVG PONT MAX

OB PROVINC LATRONIB
ET HIS QVI NOVAM
GENERI HVM SVPER
STITION INCVLCAB
PVRGATAM

(here quoted from J. Gruter's collection, p. ccxxxviii)

Translation:

TO NERO CLAUDIUS CAESAR,
AUGUSTUS, HIGH PRIEST,
FOR CLEARING THE PROVINCE
OF ROBBERS, AND THOSE
WHO TAUGHT MANKIND
A NEW SUPERSTITION

"Some have questioned the genuineness of thi inscription, because, say they, Nero's persecution extended no farther than Rome. [...] If this inscription be genuine, it is a early an heathen monument as we could expect to find remaining concerning Christianity; especially so far off from Judea as Lusitania, now called Portugal. It must have been set up in the lifetime of Nero, who died in June A.D. 68, or, at the utmost, before his death was publicly known; for after that no people paid him any honours. [...] Nevertheless, it must be acknowlegded that the genuineness of it is not assented by all. Joseph Scaliger doubted. Pagi and others have endeavoured to vindicate it. Some others still hesitate. This monument, they say, has been seen by few or none: and the credit of the first publisher of the inscription is not established above all suspicion of falsehood and imposture." (N. Lardners translation and comments from his collected works, vol. 3, p. 608)

"Vicus Maravesar sive Maramesar sive Marquesia in lexicis tabulisve geographicis frustra me quesitus est." (CIL)

"The author concludes that, if the [inscription was a] work of a forger, this was an educated man who knew the epigraphy of the region and were acting without apologetic reasons; but [the author] does not rule out its authenticity." - summary of I. Ramelli, Note su una dubbia testimonianza epigrafica della persecuzione neroniana in Spagna - Hispania Antiqua (Valladolid), XXIV (2000), p. 125-134


What do you all think? Is it genuine? If so, does it prove the persecution of Christians?

Minimalist

Where does it mention "christians?"

Toto

Christianity was known as a superstition. But it was hardly the only supersition.

The Lardner reference is on google books at p 623.

CIL II is Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum II.

zhugin

Hardly the only superstition indeed, but perhaps the only new superstition worth to be mentioned as such by the Roman historians.

Suetonius says "genus hominum superstitionis novæ ac maleficæ" (Nero 16.2)


"The Spanish Inscription in Gruter p. 238, No. 9, is a manifest and acknowledged forgery contrived by that noted imposter, Cyracus of Ancona, to flatter the pride and prejudices of the Spaniards. See Ferreras, Historie D'Espagne, tom. i. p. 192 (p. 15)" (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (or via: amazon.co.uk), vol. 2, endnote 47, publ. 1781) This opinion is apparently not shared by Ramelli.

boneyard bill

Somebody is always teaching the world a new superstition.

Nonetheless, do we know of any other superstitions that Nero was accused of suppressing? It sounds like this inscription is another piece of evidence in support of the claim of Neronic persecution, but it's not a smoking gun that will end the controversy.

mountainman

Window dressing old superstitions?
Cut-and-paste-inanity ?

How about the superstition of the four year regularity of the Olympic games.
Also the superstition about having a level playing field in the Olympic Games.
Nero called them forward and won all events.
Maybe the inscription refered to a new superstition
that Nero was not, after all, a god?



See also what Drews has to say about the Neronic persecution of the followers of "Chrestus" in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, or even what Gibbon writes about the "Galilaeans" and Nero.



The critical response is at post # 2.

aa5874

It is ALREADY known that the word "Christian" was NOT derived from Jesus. It is ALREADY known there were CHRISTIANS who did NOT believe in Jesus.

The persecution of a superstition cannot be shown to mean that Jesus was human.

spamandham

This seems pretty far fetched. "Taught mankind a new superstition" is perhaps an idiom, but if not, it implies to me something that is far reaching. I think it's absurd to claim that Christianity had a broad reaching impact in the 1st century - unless Christianity is much older than generally accepted.

The "new superstition" probably is related to robbery, since they are mentioned in the same breath. Maybe there was a notorious robbery cult of some kind (like gypsies) that it's referring to?

zhugin

So it's just an odd coincidence that the inscription is a about Nero purging a new superstition and that both Tacitus and Suetonius speaks of the doctrine of the Chrestiani/Christiani as a superstition, and that Suetonius specifically states that this superstition was new?

zhugin

Indeed not. My question is if the inscription proves the persecution against the Christiani/Chrestiani under Nero. Jesus has nothing to do with this.