Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 09-18-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

As I'm sure you know, Tacitus tells us that Nero noticed them, and that there were lots in Rome in 64 AD.

Lots? Please quote where Tacitus said anything about how many Christians were in Rome? You do believe in quoting sources, don't you?

Consider the following:

http://theocoid.blogspot.com/2006/11...stians_07.html

Roman Perceptions of the Early Christians

1 - ".......Nero's persecution had less to do with the nature of Christian identity [Johnny Skeptic: Or with the number of Christians, right?] than it did with his need to find some group to implicate in the fire of July
64."

2 - "Christians would have been suspect if only because the Jews seemed to be at unrest whenever a Christian appeared in their midst."

Johnny Skeptic: Item 1 suggests that it was not how many Christians there were in Rome that was important, but that Nero needed a scapegoat. Logically, the less numerous a group is, the easier it is to persecute them.

Regarding item 2, a smaller number of Christians were disturbing a larger number of Jews, so in order for Nero to better control the larger number of Jews, it was necessary for him to control the smaller number of Christians. Surely the Romans did not appreciate social unrest.

Ancient Romans were much different than people are today. Today, if a group of people started a strange new religion, that would not cause much of a disturbance. Most people would simply conclude that a stupid new religion had been founded. Ancient Romans were not like that.

andrewcriddle · 09-19-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: Do you believe that during Nero's reign Christians numbered in the thousands?

I think that Christians in total numbered nearly 10,000 by the end of Nero's reign. I agree that there were less than a thousand in Rome itself.

Some of the points in your post are probably true. However unless there were at least 500 Christians in Rome I doubt if the Roman authorities would have noticed.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist · 09-19-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Claims 6 and 12 seem in conflict (unless one is making the very improbable claim that the account in Sulpicius is the original and that it was rewritten to sound Tacitaean and hostile to Christianity before being inserted in Tacitus. )

Why is that any more improbable than the idea that Tacitus wrote it exactly as it now appears?

andrewcriddle · 09-20-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Claims 6 and 12 seem in conflict (unless one is making the very improbable claim that the account in Sulpicius is the original and that it was rewritten to sound Tacitaean and hostile to Christianity before being inserted in Tacitus. )

Why is that any more improbable than the idea that Tacitus wrote it exactly as it now appears?

It requires a whole series of improbable events.

The passage in Sulpicius is not a plausible origin for the one in Tacitus while Tacitus is a plausible source for Sulpicius.

Sulpicius passage in English

Quote:

IN the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium.
But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor,
and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the
charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the
accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were
accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were
invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by
being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a
few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.
In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians

In Latin

Quote:

Interea abundante iam Christianorum multitudine accidit ut Roma incendio conflagraret, Nerone apud Antium constituto. sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in principem retorquebat, credebaturque imperator gloriam innovandae urbis quaesisse. neque ulla re Nero efficiebat, quin ab eo iussum incendium putaretur. igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones; quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum.

The passage in Sulpicius is much more obviously Christian and much less Tacitaean than the passage in our manuscripts of Tacitus.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 09-20-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

[

On Tacitus
The Christ, by John Remsburg, pp. 39-43

In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:

“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man.” (Annals, Book XV, sec. 4)

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:

.................................................. .

6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.

.................................................. ....

12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.

Claims 6 and 12 seem in conflict (unless one is making the very improbable claim that the account in Sulpicius is the original and that it was rewritten to sound Tacitaean and hostile to Christianity before being inserted in Tacitus. )

Andrew Criddle

The passage in 'Annals' has no specificity with regards to the Jesus of the NT. Christus is not a name, it is a title meaning Messiah or the anointed one. Also Jesus was a common name and it appears that there may have been Jews who thought they were Christ before Jesus.

In reality, the passage cannot be used to positively identify Christus or anyone else who was regarded as a criminal during the reign of Tiberius.

spin · 09-20-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage in Sulpicius is not a plausible origin for the one in Tacitus while Tacitus is a plausible source for Sulpicius.

Sulpicius passage in English

In Latin

Quote:

Interea abundante iam Christianorum multitudine accidit ut Roma incendio conflagraret, Nerone apud Antium constituto. sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in principem retorquebat, credebaturque imperator gloriam innovandae urbis quaesisse. neque ulla re Nero efficiebat, quin ab eo iussum incendium putaretur. igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones; quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum.

The passage in Sulpicius is much more obviously Christian and much less Tacitaean than the passage in our manuscripts of Tacitus.

To be expected, Andrew, but you are not dealing with the part of the text that is most revealing. The tortures are basically word for word:

S: ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent
T: ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent

S: multi crucibus affixi
T: aut crucibus adfixi

S: aut flamma usti
T: aut flammandi atque

S: plerique in id reservati
T: --

S: ut cum defecisset dies
T: ubi defecisset dies

S: in usum nocturni luminis urerentur
T: in usum nocturni luminis urerentur

Of course there are other phrases in common to suggest that the whole content of each (except for the witness to christ and the sympathy for the christians in Tacitus) depended one on the other. The order of the two passages is the same (omitting the noted, more obviously christianizing content).

Now, the passage in Sulpicius Severus was to be expected and is in tone and context (the sort of martyr stuff that they like in that era), but that for Tacitus is overblown in tone and totally unexpected in that it ruins the attack by suggestion on Nero. Obviously Severus didn't write the passage in Tacitus. Someone later reworked Severus and inserted it.

You said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage in Sulpicius is not a plausible origin for the one in Tacitus while Tacitus is a plausible source for Sulpicius.

This has the ring of apologetics!

spin

andrewcriddle · 09-21-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

To be expected, Andrew, but you are not dealing with the part of the text that is most revealing. The tortures are basically word for word:

S: ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent
T: ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent

S: multi crucibus affixi
T: aut crucibus adfixi

S: aut flamma usti
T: aut flammandi atque

S: plerique in id reservati
T: --

S: ut cum defecisset dies
T: ubi defecisset dies

S: in usum nocturni luminis urerentur
T: in usum nocturni luminis urerentur

Of course there are other phrases in common to suggest that the whole content of each (except for the witness to christ and the sympathy for the christians in Tacitus) depended one on the other. The order of the two passages is the same (omitting the noted, more obviously christianizing content).

Now, the passage in Sulpicius Severus was to be expected and is in tone and context (the sort of martyr stuff that they like in that era), but that for Tacitus is overblown in tone and totally unexpected in that it ruins the attack by suggestion on Nero. Obviously Severus didn't write the passage in Tacitus. Someone later reworked Severus and inserted it.

You said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage in Sulpicius is not a plausible origin for the one in Tacitus while Tacitus is a plausible source for Sulpicius.

This has the ring of apologetics!

spin

My point is that if Sulpicius had something like our Tacitus in front of him he could straightforwardly and plausibly rewrite it to produce what we have.

If Sulpicius did not have anything like this we have to explain

a/ where he got his claims about Nero and the Christians (either sheer invention on his part or some entirely hypothetical source both seem unlikely)

b/ the knowledge of Sulpicius on the part of whoever interpolated Tacitus AFAIK Sulpicius' history was not particularly well known in the Dark Ages. (I might be wrong here and would welcome any information about how widely the Sacred History of Sulpicius was known.)

c/ The rewriting of Sulpicius to produce our text of Tacitus One particular problem is where the extremely Tacitaean

Quote:

but even in the city where all atrocious and shameful things flow together and are practiced

Quote:

sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque

came from.

There is no basis for this in Severus nor does a minimal rewrite to make Severus' text something Tacitus might have written require anything of the sort.

Either an interpolation into Tacitus would simply be a slight rewrite of the source being used or it would be a free composition in ones best attempt at Tacitaean style . The multi stage idea in which Sulpicius on some unknown basis writes his account and then it is interpolated in Tacitus removing specifically Christian bits and adding bits in Tacitus' sytle with no basis in the original source is something I find very implausible.

IF the passage is an interpolation I think it must be one that was already in Sulpicius' text of Tacitus.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist · 09-21-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

The passage in Sulpicius is not a plausible origin for the one in Tacitus while Tacitus is a plausible source for Sulpicius.

Then, once again, why do no Christian writers between Tacitus and Sulpicius ever mention what Tacitus allegedly wrote.

I seem to recall reading a whole list of early Christian writers who never even heard the story that Nero persecuted Christians. I wonder if I can find that list, again. Makes for interesting reading.

andrewcriddle · 09-21-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

The passage in Sulpicius is not a plausible origin for the one in Tacitus while Tacitus is a plausible source for Sulpicius.

Then, once again, why do no Christian writers between Tacitus and Sulpicius ever mention what Tacitus allegedly wrote.

.

In a long ago thread on this forum I suggested IMS that while the persecution of Christians was an ongoing reality supported by most ordinary people, Tacitus' account would be problematic.

Tacitus claims, in effect, that Roman hostility to the Christians began out of claims that they were terrorists. Christian attempting to persuade people why persecution should stop might have been reluctant to draw attention to this.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 09-21-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is no basis for this in Severus nor does a minimal rewrite to make Severus' text something Tacitus might have written require anything of the sort.

There is also the matter of the line igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. This line in Tacitus has Christians turning each other in. There is nothing to correspond to this in Sulpicius Severus, who indeed emphasizes Christian innocence (over and against Tacitus calling them criminals).

If Sulpicius found Tacitus calling Christians criminals and claiming that those arrested the first time round informed on their fellows, it is easy to account for his omission of the latter and change of the former to a statement of Christian innocence. On the hypothesis that a Christian scribe inserted these lines into Tacitus, however, these details (Christian guilt and informing against fellow Christians) become harder to explain.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.