andrewcriddle

The problem is that in Antiquities book 20 chapter 8 Wars book 2 chapters 12-13 and Wars book 4 chapter 9 (which seem to be the only important references to Nero by Josephus) Josephus each time says that he could say much more but is choosing not to do so.

This makes arguments from his silence very problematic.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Obviously Suetonius is not the main source for Tertullian's belief that there was a persecution under Nero

However in Apology chapter 5 we have

Consult your annals, and there you will find Nero the first
emperor who dyed his sword in Christian blood, when our religion
was but just arising at Rome

It is quite possible that Tertullian's claim that there is secular corroboration of Nero's anti-Christian measures is a product of wishful thinking on his part. IMO it is more likely that he had some sort of basis for this claim. If so then the passage in Suetonius is the most plausible candidate.

Andrew Criddle

spin

If Suetonius was not the main source what would make you think that he was any source in the matter for Tertullian? What we find in Suetonius is not particularly apt for such a source.

Not Suetonius as the main source, not Tacitus, we're running out of historians of repute for the period. Perhaps we have to assume that it was one of the many who didn't survive. I would tend to think though that if Tertullian had had a real reference he would have used it, as was his wont, not this vague "check your histories". Let's face it, he probably got this from hearsay as he did with the Ebion story.


spin

Vorkosigan

Yes, but note that he says this in reference to Nero's activities and intrigues against his own family. Of Jews he specifically writes in Wars:

"- I omit to say any more about them, because there are writers enough upon those subjects every where; but I shall turn myself to those actions of his time in which the Jews were concerned."

and similarly in Antiquities:

", we shall briefly touch upon what only belongs remotely to this undertaking, but shall relate what hath happened to us Jews with great accuracy, and shall not grudge our pains in giving an account both of the calamities we have suffered, and of the crimes we have been guilty of. I will now therefore return to the relation of our own affairs."

The point stands. The "immense multitude" Nero supposedly tortured to death in outre ways must have been composed largely of significant numbers of Jews. Had there been such an event, Josephus by his own words should have mentioned it.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

I think you missed a pretty big point here, Andrew -

From Jewish Wars Book II Ch. 8



"Christians" are not even a "sect" of the Jews that Josephus noted anywhere. This book is specifically covering the period through Vespasian being sent by Nero to subdue the Jews. Failing to mention the Christians is inconceivable - unless they did not exist, basically.

Josephus spends much time on the zealots at the zenith of the destruction. He spends time on the loner kook going on about "Woe unto Israel". I'm to lazy to look up that citation specifically, but he gets konked on the head by one of the big stones of the temple.

So we've got Josephus discussing the gamut from major religious divisions down to individual kooks.

Why no discussion of the Christians? (Notwithstanding the interpolations)

Vorkosigan

John Donahue (Donahue, John R. 1995. Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, v57, January 1995, p1-26. )writes:

• "Although there is virtually universal consensus that the persecution under Nero should be dated to late in A.D. 64, the account of Tacitus does not indicate this unequivocally.(FN77) The persecution of Christians is recounted only after an extensive and presumably lengthy building project, which could scarcely have been completed in six or seven months. Even though Tacitus normally follows an "annalistic" method, at times he recounts events which extend beyond the year being recounted.(FN78) The significance of this is that the persecution of the Roman Christians may have taken place later in Nero's reign, perhaps as late as A.D. 66-67, which would have brought it into closer connection with the turmoil unleashed in Judaea and with the proposed dates for the composition of the Gospel of Mark.(FN79)
  Two further elements of Tacitus' account are important in the present context. First, Tacitus mentions a two-stage process (Ann. 15.44). Those initially arrested were admitted or confessed Christians (correpti qui fatebantur), which suggests that Christians were beginning to be known as a distinct group in Rome; then, on evidence provided by them, a multitudo ingens was arrested. Second, the charge against them was most likely misanthropia, a suspicion of hatred of outsiders, a charge frequently leveled against Jews in antiquity.(FN80)
  This section of Tacitus contains elements in common with the tribulations of the end time described in Mark 13:9-13. These verses in Mark envisage a situation of persecution where people will be "delivered up" (13:9). This happens in the context of preaching the gospel in a predominantly gentile context (13:10, {Begin Greek}ei$ p{End Greek}%{Begin Greek}auta ta ejuh). {End Greek}Most importantly, Mark states that members of the community will be responsible for delivering up others, even family members. This corresponds to Tacitus' two-stage process in which confessed Christians provided information leading to the arrest of others. Finally, the Marcan Jesus says that "you will be hated by all for my name's sake" (13:13). Tacitus mentions explicitly that Christians take their name from Christus, even though a majority of scholars holds that the phrase odio generis humani refers to a supposed perception of Jewish (and subsequently Christian) hatred of paganism, this hatred was generally reciprocated by both the Roman upper classes and the general population, who generally heaped scorn on foreign religious groups, as is evident from virulent statements against the Jews."

Donahue also sees this in 1 Clement:

• "The attack on Christianity by Nero is also remembered by Clement of Rome, writing almost a decade before Tacitus.(FN81) The author, writing from "the church of God which sojourns at Rome," is concerned that a few rash and self-willed persons have introduced or division into the church of Corinth (1 Clem. 1:1) and that several presbyters have been deposed from office (1 Clem. 44:3-6; 46:9; 47:6). After attempting to render his audience benevolent through praise of the faith of Corinth, Clement comes to the real source of the conflict, "each goes according to the lusts of his wicked heart, and has revived the unrighteous and impious envy ({Begin Greek}zhlou adikou kai asebh), {End Greek}by which also 'death came into the world' [quotation of Wis 2:24]" (1 Clem. 3:4).(FN82) Rhetorically, Clement begins with a long list of examples of the evil caused by [greek] ranging from the murder of Abel to the persecution of David by Saul (chap. 4). All of these involve evil done by intimates, not persecution by outsiders.
  Clement then comes to "noble examples of our own generation" (1 Clem. 5:1). The first is that "through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death" (1 Clem. 5:2).(FN83) Clement goes on to recount explicitly the death of Peter and Paul and, in language which is very close to Tacitus, mentions that a great multitude ({Begin Greek}polu plhjo$ {End Greek}= Latin ingens multitudo) was also persecuted. More importantly, Clement says that the sufferings of Peter and Paul were due to {Begin Greek}zhlo$ {End Greek}and goes on to recount cruel punishments similar to those mentioned by Tacitus (1 Clem. 6:1-2). More strongly even than Tacitus, who simply comments that Christians, perhaps under threat of death, gave evidence against other Christians, Clement suggests that the deaths of both Peter and Paul and the "huge multitude" were due to divisions within the community, brought on by the same {Begin Greek}zhlo$ {End Greek}which is destroying the unity of the Corinthian community.(FN84) Both Tacitus and Clement, therefore, suggest that apostasy and betrayal were sad by-products of the persecution under Nero."

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Lampe (From Paul to Valentinius) notes in his discussion that the punishments meted out to the Christians were actual Roman punishments: arsonists were to be burned (Twelve Tablets), and murderers wrapped in animal skins (Seneca, Suetonius, Modestinus). The crucifixions may have gone beyond the law if those so killed possessed Roman citizenship. Lampe goes on to note that a high percentage of Roman Jews were Citizens. Lampe argues, based on Paul's letter to the Romans, that only a minority of Christians in the city were of Jewish origin, although he does concede that the use of scriptural quotes and other features give it a Jewish-Christian flavor which he then attempts to explain away.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

1/ In Jewish Wars Josephus's claim that there are only 3 real Jewish sects is polemical it is an attempt to deny that the Zealots claiming to Follow Judas the Galilean are a legitimate Jewish group. Including Christians here would undermine his case. (The Zealots by almost any standard would have as good a claim to being a legitimate Jewish sect as would the Christians).

ii/ Josephus is discussing Jewish groups in Palestine he is not including groups like Philonic Platonising Jews in Alexandria or the Therapeutae also in Egypt. He would not necessarily have mentioned Jewish problems in Rome associated with persecution of Christians.

iii/ The non-mention of Christians in the Wars may well indicate that Jewish Christians played practically no part in events in the siege of Jerusalem. FWIW tradition, possibly legendary claims that the Christians in Jerusalem had withdrawn to Pella before any hostilities started. (Eusebius book 3 chapter 5)

iv/ As to the non-mention of Christians anywhere in Josephus this does depend on whether the Testimonium Flavium is partially an interpolation or wholly one. As it stands it does refer to the 'tribe of Christians'.
(You will probably say it is entirely an interpolation but I am uneasy about arguing that Suetonius and Tacitus are both interpolated on the basis of a silence of Josephus that is not that of the extant text of the Antiquities)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Early Gentile Christians were probably mostly previously loosely associated with the local Jewish community (the term God-fearers is often used in commentaries but there is some doubt whether it was a widespread technical term or not).

They could well have highly valued the Jewish scriptures without ever having become full proselytes.

Andrew Criddle

rlogan

claim: Josephus did not discuss Christians as a sect in Palestine because that would have legitimized the zealots.

Eh, not only is that weak reasoning on a number of grounds, but it seems an attempt to steer our attention away from the fundamental issue that Josephus does indeed discuss the Zealots. In terms of their murderous opposition to Rome, and where that would make sense in developing the history of the destruction.

This part of JW speaks to religious philosophy as opposed to the political. Josephus goes on at great length detailing the Essenes in particular. Perhaps you would care to provide evidence that the Zealots had some significant difference in religious belief from the other Jews in support of this argument.

Josephus elsewhere discusses many "groups" - as I recall, some lead by men named Jesus - that had uprisings. Whole chapters on them, such as John of Gichala. Again, they warrant attention not because of different religious philosophy, but because they revolted.

Christians, on the other hand, have a remarkably different religious belief - ManGod on earth in particular. That stands in such stark contrast to the others in terms of religious belief that it defies an explanation of Josephus' omission.


He did not mention Christians at all, period. But specifically not in what you state yourself is a discussion of sects in Palestine. How does Egypt help you out there?

The substitution of the word "group" is designed to obfuscate the very clear distinction Josephus is making among sects.

And Jews causing any kind of tumult in Rome would certainly have been germane for the obvious reason. Jews causing problems in Rome itself would not be germane to the Jewish problem Nero had in Palestine? Hmph.

Well, we're in agreement here - sort of. They played no part in the seige because they didn't exist. At least nowhere near the level the revisionist history of the 2nd century would have us believe.

They are mutually reinforcing in terms of seeing how the Christians fabricated the early history.