EarlDoherty

I disagree. It is an argument. I state “expectations” in the expectation (or hope) that I have at least a chance of persuading you and others that such expectations are reasonable and even compelling. It is what is at the basis of the argument from silence, reasonable expectations that are not fulfilled. Your retort is simply the same old tedious dismissal of the argument from silence that defenders always bring up, as though, not needing to say anything else, it is a slam dunk destroyer of any argument about expectation as to what we should find in a writer.

Moreover, I do not merely state my “expectations.” I have argued them time and time again. Here you would have us believe that some notable scale of Christian persecution under Nero is somehow lying behind all those ‘hints’ which are yet somehow never given voice to. We never get examples of that unspoken and unclarified separate persecution other than the execution of the apostles and those in their company. I demonstrated clearly to you that in the Acts of Paul there is no separate persecution other than that attached to legends about Paul’s persecution and death. Despite the clarity of the text, you wouldn’t accept that but simply skipped around it. I make essentially the same demonstration about other writers. Your counter is simply, “I don’t accept that.” So what can we do? If you give nothing but a blanket refusal to heed any expectation on my part, no matter how it is argued, then we’re in our “separate conceptual universes” situation, and that’s as far as we can go.

You also keep referring to past posts where you claim to have demonstrated that the grammer (Latin/Greek or English? it’s not clear) supports you and disproves me. I recall nothing of that nature and on looking back over those posts cannot find such. Whatever you have in mind, then, seems not to have struck me that way. But why not give me a clear example or two of it? Then we can see whether you are exaggerating or not. (Perhaps one of them is supposed to be the following?)

That’s certainly not evident from the Scorpiace quote, since tunc as you yourself pointed out, can have an ambiguous application here. I’d take it in the opposite direction. The specific executions of Peter and Paul are the whole, since that's all we're ever given. Again, why does no one ever give us specifics about the other part of the “whole”?

This is trying to split hairs. The point is, it is yet another silent passage on anything to do with martyrdom outside Peter and Paul. You seem to think that an ad hoc argument for each one of them would suffice, but the argument is cumulative.

That can’t be a ‘fact’ since it is never stated, and we are never given details about that ‘separate’ persecution other than of people that can be attached to Peter and Paul. Surely, somewhere along the line, we could expect—yes, have an “expectation”—that some writer would make your preferred option clear and give us something which, no matter how remotely, resembled Tacitus.

Maybe yes, maybe no. “Punishment was inflicted upon the Christians” is hardly necessarily on the scale of Tacitus’ Neronian persecution, or even anything identifiably like it. And I think I included in a past post my examination of Suetonius’ sentence about Christians and how uncertain it is. Actually, I guess I didn’t, so here it is:

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

The point is that Suetonius does not corroborate Tacitus’ persecution. Suetonius does not make his cryptic “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians…” in conjunction with the fire. Nor does he say enough about it to tell us the scale of it, or even its nature, much less the reason for it. And it is even questionable as fitting within its own context. From what that context indicates, the Christians could have been given a few whippings for holding too many noisy parties late at night. And if Suetonius supposedly corroborates Tacitus on anything resembling the Tacitean scale, or even on any kind of notable persecution of Christians, why does Cassius Dio not have a word to say about it? Like Suetonius, he gives his own detailed description of the fire, but with no mention of Christians in connection with it.

Suetonius in no way corroborates the Tacitus passage, and in fact his treatment (not connected to the fire, not providing any hint of a scale in keeping with Tacitus’ account) argues against Tacitus being a reliable passage in regard to the involvement of the Christians. That has been my sole purpose in all this. And if so many others also give us texts which fail to corroborate Tacitus in regard to those two things, the Tacitus passage goes down the drain for any usefulness in being a witness to an historical Jesus. The only thing salvageable from 15:44 is the description of the fire itself. Not even a simple fact of ‘persecution of Christians unconnected with an alleged responsibility for the fire’ can be secure. That’s desperation. Tacitus simply wouldn’t have gotten it that wrong.

In that connection, Ben had this to say:

The whole incident correct? He didn’t get any of it correct! If Tacitus, after a mere 40 years, had on his own incompetence turned a mild ‘punishment’ of Christians which had nothing to do with the fire into his Neronian gore-fest slaughtering in unspeakable ways hundreds of arsonists who had burned down half the city, he would have been utterly worthless as an historian. The rest of his work would have been shot through with incompetent errors as well, and he would have no reputation at all among either ancients or moderns.

This is simply Ben desperate to absolve Tacitus of the unabsolvable, and cling to some shred of reliability in his reference to an historical Christ.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

There seems to be little hard evidence as to exactly when Suetonius wrote the "Twelve Caesars" and basically none as to his date of death.

I was basing my date on the widely held guess that Suetonius finally found the time to complete the "Twelve Caesars" after he was sacked from his senior government job around 121 CE. (Even so 130 is probably too late 125 may be more likely.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You mean you don't know when Suetonius wrote the "Twelve Caesars"? Guesswork does not make 125 CE more likely.

Ben C Smith

I do not know exactly what scale, other than that it included more than the two martyred apostles (however, see below). Which I have demonstrated, and you have accepted.

You demonstrated no such thing. You opined it. Yes, the persecutions stem in that document from an encounter between Paul and Nero. Does that mean that its author knew only of the death of Paul and made up the others? Or does that mean that its author knew both of the death of Paul and of the death of others and connected the two, however artificially? You assumed the former; you never argued for it, or against the latter.

Now even you find yourself using that phrase. I feel compelled to agree. I have no idea what you find persuasive about the arguments you have given here.

I boldfaced the relevant parts of Eusebius. Let me do it again, this time with the Greek:

But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence. Thus [ταυτη] having been announced [ανακηρυχθεις] as the first among the principal enemies of God, he was led on [επηρθη] to the slaughter of the apostles.

Here the persecution described in the quotation of Tertullian must be what is referred back to by the ταυτη; there is nothing else it can refer to. And the participle is in the aorist, indicating time prior. Having been heralded as the enemy of God (by means of persecuting Christians), he was led on to kill the apostles. The one necessarily precedes the other. They are separate (though obviously related) entities.

!!

I gave two possible meanings of tunc. The first supports me without argument, since, if it means next, Tertullian is saying that Christians were put to the sword and then next Peter and Paul were, too.

The second supports me, also, since at that time implies an event to which the apostolic martyrdoms belong, and that event, from context, can only be the persecution of Christians.

It is the same in the Severus passage, where tum is used (tunc being a form of tum, and used interchangeably with it):

At that time [tum] Paul and Peter were condemned to capital punishment, of whom the one was beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion.

At that time. At which time? Severus has just described the persecution of not a few (yet uncounted) Christians. Now, at that time [tum], the time of the persecutions, Paul and Peter were also persecuted.

Which way of taking tunc would you prefer? The one that kills your hypothesis quickly? Or the one that does it slowly? Had Tertullian meant to state or imply that the persecutions consisted precisely of the executions of Peter and Paul, tunc was not the word to use.

Because the other part is nameless. Just plain ordinary Christians. It was the apostles who got top billing in Christian circles.

I ask you again: How is the death of Joe and Jane Christian relevent to what Tertullian has to say in the Prescription? He writes:

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.

Of course this is a silent passage. This must be one of those different conceptual universe things. You seem to expect to find the deaths of nonapostles mentioned in a passage explicitly about apostles. And I have no idea why. :huh:

So now, not only are the other executions in the Acts of Paul explained as inventions by the author, but they do not even exist. I dealt with Tertullian (tunc) and Eusebius earlier. It may be implicit in Tertullian; it is explicit in Eusebius.


The last line is nothing but weasel words. Of course all the deaths can be attached to Peter and Paul; they suffered in the same persecution.

Again with the scale! I repeat myself: The only scale that I am arguing is that the persecutions were not limited to the apostles. It may have been three guys, all cousins of Peter, one of whom was going to die of cancer anyway, but our authors are not just pegging Peter and Paul alone.

I doubt the persecution was that limited. Let us examine another source that we have not yet looked at. In Revelation 13 there is little doubt that the beast is Nero coming back (the so-called Nero redivivus motif). The number of the beast (666), the alternate textual tradition of that number (616), the very name beast (compare Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus), and other indicators are unmistakeable.

What is expected of this Nero, whether present or future? He makes war with the saints so as to overcome them, and authority over all the earth is given to him. As many as do not worship the image are killed.

Is this expectation of a widespread persecution based solely on the executions of Peter and Paul? I think not. I think Nero was remembered as a savage persecutor of Christians in general (not to mention others, including his own mother!), not just of Peter and Paul, who do not appear in Revelation.

Or let us consider Ascension of Isaiah 4.2-3:

After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, he who has ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descend from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother; this king will himself persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the beloved have planted. Of the twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

What is the plant which the twelve apostles have planted? Just Paul? I think not; it is clearly Christianity at large. Again the general persecution is summarized in its own terms, and again the death of an apostle is mentioned as a part of that persecution.

I think he did, though I cannot verify every detail.

Ben.

spamandham

I explained the rationale behind the claim that it was out of place, and that rationale had nothing to do with the word 'Christian'. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Yes, that's possible. ...and yet, the sentence seems out of place regardless. Did you read the 2 points I made?

I'm not speculating one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that Suetonius refers to 'Christians' as if they were one group - regardless of whether there were 0 or 1000 people running around claiming to be the Christ, with 0, 1, or dozens of unrelated sects involved.

I disagree. I think we can also examine the texts for internal consistency, for interrupted thought processes that indicated possible interpolation, for consistency with known writing styles, etc.

spamandham

20-30 years is close enough for government work, unless there's a reason to suspect a sudden change in the status of Christianity in the interim.

aa5874

I am dealing specifically with the single sentence about Christians in Suetonius' "Life of Nero". There is just not enough information to make any reasonable determination, unless you just want to guess.

It is already accepted that texts can be internally examined for contradictions and inconsistencies.

spamandham

You have not addressed either of the two points I made regarding reasons to suspect interpolation, so I'm guessing you didn't read that post.

aa5874

I did already read your post, and I just cannot make any determination whether or not the passage was interpolated or genuine.

As I have said before, the only reasonable position I can maintain, using Justin Martyr, is that the word Christians, as used in The Life of Nero, is ambiguous. It may not mean believers in Jesus Christ of Nazareth.