mountainman

Evidence. Start with the pseudo-historical polemic the Christian forgery mill indulged in over the history of the Persian sage Mani and the Manichaeans, for whom we have reasonably sound evidence to think the Manichaean persecution was real history.

That the Christian sources on Mani and the Manichaeans - Hegemonius and Ephrem Syria - engaged in pseudo-history is generally recognised. That Saint Augustine, supposedly an ex Manichaean reader represents Mani and the Manichaens by a text which does not appear to be part of the Manichaean canon of writings does not say much for Saint Augustine. A different history and canon was assembled from other evidence out of reach of the Christians since found all the way down the silk road to china. [They fled the empire in the 5th century]

The evidence suggests strongly that the Christians lied about the history of persecuted Manichaeans.

And that's one reason to disbelieve their accounts in this issue of the so-called history of "Early Christian Persecutions" before the "Peace of Constantine"

For Chrest's sake.

outhouse

Exactly.

We have exaggerations, and fictional accounts within the mythology. Its great how she explopred this in depth.



If you "like" her on facebook, you'll get updates and other material pertaining to the subject. Really enjoying her work so far.

Toto

This is a complete non-sequitur. If one Christian lied about the persecution of the Manichaeans, that still does not show that everything ever said by any Christian is a lie, much less that anyone invented an entire complicated history of Christianity for no apparent reason.

These basic errors of logic do not belong in this forum.

Huon

On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero created a diversion by torturing and executing Christians.

Pontius Pilate was the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, from CE 26–36.

How many Christians (partisans of the ideas ascribed to JC) existed in Rome, around 64 CE ?

Ah, oh, Paul and Peter ! Nobody says that they perished in this affair.

Irenaeus says (about 180 CE) that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, after Peter. What happened to Linus ?

The Liber Pontificalis, ascribed to Jerome (347-420 CE), says that he died a martyr and was buried on the Vatican Hill next to Peter. The Roman Martyrology does not call Linus a martyr. The entry about him is as follows: "At Rome, commemoration of Saint Linus, Pope, who, according to Irenaeus, was the person to whom the blessed Apostles entrusted the episcopal care of the Church founded in the City, and whom blessed Paul the Apostle mentions as associated with him."

How many blessed Apostles were killed by Nero ?

outhouse

Not many. At this time they were still worshipping in house around a dinner table.

We had 20 years of oral tradition after passover, but its really unknown how much made it to Rome.



Mythology was created later, but correct, no one then said anything.





How many were killed by Paul is the question. If he hunted this sect for 3 ish years, he had to have done a decent job on this.

There wouldnt have been that many for Nero to blame. I wonder how many Proselytes were murdered and called christians

andrewcriddle

My point is that Dr Moss (unless she has drastically changed her views very recently) does seem to accept that in the ordinary meaning of the word Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire.

Her central concern seems to be about the problematic ways in which groups use claims of victimhood, (real, exaggerated or fictional), in their conflicts with other groups. I'm not sure that the figures for the number of dead Early Christians are genuinely relevant to what she is really trying to say.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

There are at least four early Christian sources on the Manichaeans: 1 Hegemonius, 2 Ephrem Syria, 3 Eusebius and 4 Augustine. These four sources did not write historical accounts of "that savage" Mani. They wrote pseudo-historical polemic. The Christians of the 4th century who wrote about Mani and the Manichaeans lied.


The OP to which I was responding concerns the historicity of the early Christian persection (Ante Pacem). The evidence for this is very wanting and has been tabulated above. By all appearances the accounts of the early Christian persecution (including the Eusebian "Martyrs of Palestine") are no more than inventions of the 4th century.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's not that Christians were never targeted at all, but that when it happened, it was local and sporadic. There were no wide, sweeping campaigns. It was an occasional pogrom here and there, not a sustained, broad based crusade.

Another canard is that they could have saved themselves by renouncing Christianity. They weren't disliked for their theology, but for their politics.They were seen as unpatriotic because they wouldn't honor the state shrines and wouldn't fight for their country.

Sheshbazzar

And then there is the little problem of how many of these alleged early 'Christians' were actually non-Christian "Chrestian" political rebels that knew nothing at all of any Jewish Jezus crucified for their sins.

There may have been one hell of a lot of ideological and religious differences between these Chrestians and the latter Christians.

mountainman

Jesus said they would fight.

When Jesus's kingdom came to the Roman Empire his able servant Constantine fought very well.

See also Luke 19:27


But the OP is about investigating the witnesses to the historicity of the "Christian Persecutions Ante Pacem".

I posted a table at post #47 of the evidence for these persecutions under the various Roman Emperors.

My favourite is Domitian.