rlogan

Well, here is where we can't have it both ways. If Christianity is so fledgling as to be of no notice then there isn't a reason for Nero to be persecuting them in the first place.

On the other hand, if the matter was a national obscenity in terms of the hatred and abominable acts Christians would have us believe of the Neronian persecution, then (duh) it would be captured widely in historical texts.

No matter which road one tries to follow, there is a problem for historicity. If you argue they were of no notice, then the Neronian persecution is yet another Christian fraud and the absence in Josephus, etc. is understandable.

If the argument is that they rose to the level of national concern so early, then escaping notice in Josephus is inexplicable. The TF is even harder to reconcile because he does not say oh - by the way, this is the sect upon whom those horrific acts were committed.

Instead the TF is this lonely, out-of context business about Christ doing ten thousand miracles and the "tribe" never giving up despite his crucifixion. It is just too bizarre that he would mention this without the much more compelling data from the outrages committed upon the "tribe" itself.


The merit of Jay's approach is in seeking a way to eliminate the mutually exclusive positions. And so he has placed the Jews in the seat of persecution.

Although objection has been raised that this requires a deduction of interpolations, there isn't any question about interpolation existing in the Christian record - only in the extent.

Vivisector

I think maybe "no notice" would be too strong a characterization of what I had in mind. If we begin by taking Tacitus and Suetonius at their word, then it would appear that they received just enough notice to be singled out as a scapegoat. Considering Christians recent arrival on the scene, the probable demographics of their membership in Rome, confusion or misunderstanding about their beliefs, lack of economic/political power, etc., they would have been a perfect group to scapegoat. So they only had to be well-known to the extent that they could be differentiated from adherents of other beliefs.

Notwithstanding Jay's reply yesterday, I have trouble finding motive for the Christian fraud.

I don't think they were prominent; on the contrary, very marginal in Rome proper.

You're completely correct; I'm simply not convinced that this was one of those occasions.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

That last statement gets back to my earlier question. On what basis would they have been differentiated from the Jews at such an early date?

PhilosopherJay

We may find the motive inside Eusebius's History:


Eusebius has charged Nero with murdering Peter and Paul. His source for this assertion -- go to Rome and you'll find cemeteries named after Peter and Paul. This is naturally absurd evidence. Eusebius has no evidence for his claim.

Eusebius needs to come up with some kind of evidence for his assertion. His close friend, the Emperor Constantine, or one of his many enemy bishops may ask him in what public records they may read of the Emperor Nero's executions of Peter and Paul.

Eusebius has to come up with a believable source.

Eusebius does not want to to make wholesale changes to the text. He finds references to Nero persecuting Jews in Tertullian's Scorpiace, Tacitus's Annals and Suetonius's Lives. He changes Scorpiace to say that Nero killed Peter and Paul. He changes Annals and Suetonius's Lives to say that Nero persecuted Christians. If questioned about his sources in the History, he may say he got the fact from Tertullian who was close enough in time to know the truth. Tacitus and Suetonius being hostile to Christianity only reported the terrible persecutions of ordinary Christians but did not mention the Roman Bishops Paul and Peter. They did not do this out of their hatred for Christianity which the text itself proves.

The motive for the changes was to cover up his invention that Nero killed Peter and Paul. He invented the killing of Peter and Paul in order to make it seem that there was actually a church in Rome in the First Century keeping track of these things.

I am also claiming that he probably did not do these changes before he finished writing his History. Therefore, we may look for the period from 325 to 335 as the most likely period when he changed the two passages.

Sincerely,

PhilosopherJay

Vivisector

I think there may have been several characteristics that would have differentiated the early Christians from the Jews. First, it would seem reasonable to me that the Roman Christians weren't ethnic Jews given Paul's mission as Apostle to the Gentiles. My recollection of Romans is that it is lacking a chastising tone and vitriolic attacks against the "Judaizers," so this suggests that they weren't practicing Jewish rituals or observing Jewish dietary laws. I don't know if the Jews dressed distinctively, but if they did, then this would have been another means of separating Christians from Jews. So if the Roman Christians were gentile, they wouldn't have appeared or behaved as Jews. I think it would have been easier to distinguish between a Roman Christian and a Roman Jew than between a Judean Christian and a Judean Jew.

I'd anticipate an objection on the grounds that Paul didn't found the Roman "church." Even so, I don't get the sense from Romans that Paul is writing to formerly practicing Jews.

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

Jay,

It seems your argument can be summarized thusly:

(1) Eusebius wants to demonstrate there was a church in Rome during Nero's era.
(2) To accomplish (1), Eusebius fabricates the account of Peter's and Paul's martyrdoms in HE including reference to non-existent cemeteries named after Peter and Paul.
(3) Shortly after publishing HE, Eusebius is stricken with anxiety over the prospect that the Peter/Paul martyrdom fiction will be exposed.
(4) Eusebius decides to fabricate supporting evidence by editing the works of Tertullian, Suetonius and Tacitus.

Is this a fair restatement?

Regards,

V.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vivisector,

In HE, Eusebius wants to demonstrate the continuity of the Roman Church from the time of Jesus Christ to his time. He does not specifically want to demonstrate its existence in Nero's time. The fact that he demonstrates the existence of the Church in Nero's time is incidental to this main purpose of showing the Church's continuity.



Accounts of Peter and Paul's martydoms seem to have existed quite a bit before Eusebius, so he does not need to fabricate them. He just ties these in with Tertullian's attack against Nero. It is most likely that Christians in Rome had named cemeteries after Peter and Paul by the fourth century. So his references to them are most probably real.


Eusebius does not include Tacitus's account of Christian torture. It is most certain a) he knew about the fire passage in Tacitus and b) he knew that he was stretching the truth when he said that Nero's attacks against the "Divine Religion" were in the public record. Eusebius was playing on the fact that the Divine Religion could be called Judaism before Jesus and Christianity later on. This would suggest that Eusebius had some notion of changing Tacitus and Suetonius while writing HE, but he did not do it at the time. He may have been anxious or he may have been cool and calculating about it. I really can't say.

He had already specifically edited Tertullian's "Apology" by adding chapter 5. and including part of this addition in his HE. The change to Tertullian's "Scorpions" and Suetonius and Tacitus was subsequent to the changes he made in Tertullian's Apology. There are several other works of Tertullian where he made changes to the endings, but I am not sure if he did that prior to, in parallel with, or subsequent to the HE. Again, rather then a sudden decision to fabricate supporting evidence, from Eusebius's point of view, it would have been seen as simply his normal practice of editing texts to correct them and bring them in line with God's divine plan, the TF being the most famous example.


I would phrase it this way: that as far as Eusebius's specific motive for making the changes to the specific texts of Tertullian, Tacitus and Suetonius in the specific ways that he did, it would appear that it was done to bolster support for his statement in HE that Nero was responsible for the deaths of Peter and Paul.

The reason for the insertion of the statement that Nero was behind the deaths of Peter and Paul was probably because it added credibility to his story and it fit well enough with the facts in Acts and other tales current in his day and agreed with the statement by Tertullian in Nationes that Nero was the first to attack Christians.

Warmly,

philosopherJay

rlogan

Hi Viv.


let's stay on point with your first argument:

You initially replaced the Christians here, purportedly hated and killed with such astonishing public acts of brutality, with generic "fledgling cults", as if they were the same thing.

Historians do not write about unremarkable fledgling cults. That is not an argument for why a cult that had shocking, unspeakable acts perpetrated upon them by an emporer would escape notice.


Now the argument has shifted:


They have to be "just noticeable enough" to be about the most dramatically executed people in history.

What you are still evading is that the horrific acts against the Christians are what make them noticeable for exposition, regardless of whether their beliefs were inconsequentially different or significanlty so. It's like saying Superman should be of marginal note because he was slightly taller than average.

We have the contradiction with the hapless Josephus blandly lecturing us in 90 AD about the three sects of Judaism, where decades before the Christian brand was distinctive enough to be separated out for a bloodthirsty, savage extirpation campaign of historic proportions.

Jay and I are disagreeing here on some things while agreeing on the basic idea of interpolation for the purpose of establishing a pedigree.

I would begin with a Doherty-type Christian inception followed by the fabrication of a historical Jesus. Once you've done that you also have to fabricate a circle of "history" radiating outward. The disciples. Martyrs.

The Jews fabricated their history in the HB too.

cheers back at you...

Vivisector

Good evening, RL,

I think I might understand where you're coming from, and I'll try to tie it together a little more coherently.

First, I'm suggesting that Christians were a good choice as scapegoats. At the time in question, they would have been a (presumably) relatively small group - a distinct minority in terms of beliefs. If they were relatively isolated and powerless, and I think this is reasonable, then I wouldn't find it noteworthy if average Romans knew very little about the specifics of Christianity. The average Roman, I think, would have regarded truths about the new belief as an outrage to their traditions (e.g., refusal to sacrifice to Roman gods), and they could have been downright repulsed by some of the rumors. So yes, I think they were the perfect scapegoat, because they were just high enough above radar to be detectable, but yet too marginal to be understood or even worthy of serious consideration.

Of course, even if you agree with me on the above, there is still the question of Tacitus's treatment of the Christians, namely what he doesn't say about them. Tacitus does describe Christianity as an "evil" and a "mischievous superstitition," noting that Christians were "hated for their abominations," "guilty of hatred against mankind," and "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment." He also provides some background: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ..." I don't find a lack of additional detail unusual for three reasons. First, the passage is in the larger context of what Nero did in reaction to the fire; i.e., it's not about the Christians. Second, Tacitus could have assumed that the information he presented would be sufficient for his purposes and audience. In other words, Tacitus might have never anticipated that educated Romans would have anything beyond a passing interest in this abominable cult, let alone that Christianity would ultimately be endorsed by an emperor! Third, I think it's reasonable to suppose that Tacitus himself - an educated, affluent, traditional Roman - would have known little, if anything, more than he reported. I suspect he would have considered it beneath his dignity and sense of propriety to have investigated Christianity more thoroughly or reported it more completely.

I like your point on Josephus, but I would ask, where would such a story have fit into Wars or Antiquities, given the purposes of these works?

I'm not sure I've addressed all of your points, so I'll reserve rights to a mulligan, if needed!

Regards,

V.

[Edited to add: This post put me over the hump - I'm now a "User!"]

rlogan

Likewise.


None of this I would dispute - yet.

But once you leap from "scapegoat" to outlandish public executions there are two things very wrong with this scenario:

1) Rome is a nation of law where exectuion must be based on something concrete. Sedition would be one possibility - but it is not stated in the text. So I reject Christians being executed for vague martyrdom hand-waving. It's just propaganda.

2) No matter who we are talking about, once you've lit them on fire and had animals tear them apart, the historian takes note and it is just too much to ask that a host of scholars (not just Josephus) fail to mention it, especially one who has made a point of discussing the different sects of Judaism.


Much here.

spin already addressed the issue of the passage lurching out of the context of nero-lambasting and then to Christianity heart-yanking. I agree with you here, but more generally. The Christian reference is completely out of context and the whole thing was inserted. We have to use the other evidence available to us in order to do this confidently.

That is, once you've crossed the Rubicon and have Christians martyred by Nero then you have to explain the absence in Josephus, and etc.

As far as not wanting to talk about something reprehensible - that's just silly. It is the very reason for discussing it.


But Josephus did lecture us - and especially on the Essenes. At great length. So we can't question why he did so. The only issue is why he left out the Christians in a discussion expressly dedicated to explaining to his audience who the three sects of Judaism were. Not a sinlge sentence on the Christians in this special chapter for Jewish sects.

Now, the Zealots have special blame placed upon them throughout Jewish Wars by Josephus. They incited sedition and here the Roman response was military assault. If the Christians were somehow also of offense to Rome, whether justified or not, it would also be deserving of explanation.


Viv, there is a common tactic we see employed with the pseudo-history of the Christians. On the one hand Jesus spoke before "multitudes" and shook the foundations of the Temple priests. On the other, he was from a backwater province who nobody would have noticed.

Christianity, of the gospel variety, was widespread enough by mid-first century to have churches all over and suffer deliberate programs of persecution. But on the other hand it was an insignificant cult numerous historians would have overlooked, despite being made into toasty-crisps at the neronian bar-B-que.

There is no middle ground being persued by most apologists as we move from one topic to another. Rather, the arguments are switched as convenience dictates.


Congratulations, User.