Haran

Spin, stating that I need to read more history is simply poisoning the well. I have no idea what your own background is nor why I should accept the things you state as fact without sources to back them up. The things I have stated have come directly out of books. The fact is that there are reputable modern sources that say Nero probably set the fires in Rome. I happen to see it their way. Many of the things I have stated are as plausible as the possibility that Tacitus and/or Suetonius lied...

Steven Carr

SPIN
Suetonius was writing in the 120s, so he can't be considered primary evidence on the matter.

HARAN
Why?
We commonly rely on current historians to tell us the details of what happened only a half century ago. Why can they get the story right? Because there are eye-witnesses still alive who can give them the stories.

CARR
By DEFINITION, somebody in the 120's is not a primary source for something in the 60s.

Tacitus and Suetonius are not perfect, but I see no reason to doubt that there was some sort of persecution by Nero.

spin

If you've noticed, I've been trying to put you into the mind of seeking better information than what I can give you now.

But this is generally balderdash. Do your own searching for scholarly analyses. There is a lot of shite on the web. You have some idea of what a scholarly analysis is.

Tacitus doesn't push himself to lie. I have stated that in a few posts now. He is merely totally against the person, yet still is unable to say that he started the fire. You are concocting lies from my point of view. Suetonius may lie, I don't know. I do know that he is very blatant in his presentation, even worse than Tacitus. Where we might see Tacitus unable to come out with a declaration of something, Suetonius falls over saying yes.

Dealing with texts means dealing with the authors, what they are doing, and to whom they are writing. Why do you give me the idea, you're not interested in these necessary things?

I am away from all books and in no position to get access. I ask you not to take my word on anything, but to do your own footwork to test what I have been saying, not just to go back to the writers and go back over their words in this single instance.


spin

Johann_Kaspar

Sorry, but I disagree on about everything. The gospels were written in Hebrew. This point was demonstrated in France by Claude Tesmontant and Bernard Dubourg. The church made believed that they were written in Greek. And then they wanted to confuse Hebrew with Aramaic. All messianists are Jews, they are as much "separated" as the other parties (Herodians, Sadduceans, etc.). Did not you know that by the age of 12, every male Jew must be educated and shall be able to read the bible in Hebrew? (Luke 2:41+, sure for the church they were speaking Greek in the temple!) By the way the party to which Yehoshua belonged according to the gospels was the "Nazoraios". It is described has a Jewish party. And later as a synonym of the christian party as well as an heretic christian party. It means that Yehoshua is an heretic for christians. Funny isn't it? Jewish soldiers during the siege of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew. I was thinking that everybody here knew about it.

Your comparison with current English is not valid. English is the language of the imperialist State. Do you think that the Talibans are speaking English between themselves and that they read the Quran in English? Everywhere Muslim believers are studying Arabic to be able to read and understand the Quran.

Johann_Kaspar

Bad rumors of course! But not only rumors! Facts too, like the Rome burning. I checked the reference of your book: I am interested by the time until the destruction of the temple, maybe until the last revolt, but not so much by what happened afterwards. What I could see from the book is that it deals with later times. As the book is cheap, I may well order it.
Is there even one mention of the name "christian" before 70?
Romans had no problem with religious or not religious people. They only cared that other people will pay the tribute.

spin

What's the Hebrew word for praetorium (or praitwrion), eg Mk 15:16?

The assumption level necessary to separate translation Greek from the language which has a Semitic substratum makes pronouncements about original languages other than Greek for the gospels rather difficult, especially when one can see the improvement in the standard of Greek from the writing of Mark till its rewrites in Matthew and Luke.

You will have difficulty showing that such a confusion was "deliberate".

No, don't try that one, unless you'd like to suggest a literacy rate far superior to the normally over hopeful 5% of the population in that day and age. It's better not to retroject much later understandings from normative Judaism.

This may suggest that he was considered old enough, nothing more.

Whoa there!!! Flying assumptions.

1) The Greek text which is the oldest we have gives the name as "iesous", how can you objectively get to some prior form?

2) Mark specifically uses the term nazarenos, which is the earliest form; when used by Luke it was once given as "nazarenos" and twice "nazwraios", while Matthew simply omits it, then "nazwraios" was added in non-marcan material at a later redaction of each. Nazarenos is clearly the one to go on as an epithet from Jesus. While "nazwraios" may have been a "party", we have no indication for "nazarenos". Nazwraios may derive from NZYR, while it would seem that "nazarenos" comes from NCR (C = tsade).


spin

gregor

Spin

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Let me ask, for someone a few decades late in studying this in school, what books should one read to get a good sense of Roman history from 80 BCE to 410 CE?

I assume Gibbon is the gold standard, but it seems one could spend a lifetime just reading various editions of his books. I was always too intimidated to start. Also, how current is the output?

THANKS

Haran

Spin, I have and have read more information than just the ancient authors. If you feel that you have something to teach me and convince me of, I'm afraid you'll have to provide references to books (like Barretts...thanks) or (since you don't seem to have any at hand) weblinks with reputable information and/or bibliographies. To be fair, it would be preferable to me if you would present scholars views on both sides of the issue as well, since it is obvious that there are differing views (even if yours might be of the majority).

I'm afraid it is not balderdash. Thanks, but I can usually discern junk scholarship. Some of my own analysis has come from places such as Bryn Mawr reviews. You are assuming a lot about my information.

Excuse me? (wonderful...here comes the Christians lie thing again...) I am presenting the texts as they are stated, spin. You appear to be making assumptions about the authors and rationalizing away what they say.

Tacitus stated that there were rumors both that Nero may have or may not have intentionally set the fire (or had it set by "authorities"). Suetonius wrote later than Tacitus. I see no reason why I should believe that better resources were not available to him and that he might have been able to substantiate Tacitus' "rumors".

I cannot see that my analysis is much different that the assumptions and rationalizations of many modern scholars on the issue. Why completely reject my analysis yet accept theirs? I realize that my opinion may be a minority opinion today, but a majority opinion isn't always right.

I do not mind your recommending books and reputable websites that reflect your views (which you should be able to find since reputable information should be available out there somewhere). However, I do not appreciate you implying that I am "concocting lies" and that I have not read any reputable sources. I have read reputable sources that express dissenting opinions.

Barrett reflects your own views (or you, his). His ideas, according to another scholar, are a rehash of ideas from the past century with little new data to back up the assumptions and rationalizations. Besides, the book is about Caligula and not Nero. Nonetheless, I may try to find the book as it has been highly recommended by those with views such as yourself.

Haran

I guess Spin's poisoning of the well is unfortunately working one some. Either that, or some never trust a theist.

Regardless, I'll make a recommendation for a good book that would get you started. Spin would actually probably like the book too if he has not already read it, because it seems to hold to the majority view on Nero's burning of Rome.

The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome

Don't let the name fool you. It is not just an Atlas. However, it has some great maps for helping to understand the Roman empire.

I also recommend Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. It has an incredible load of information, including various provinces and when they became provinces. It briefly describes emperors, writers, Gods and Goddesses, military, language, etc. It is an excellent resource. Though they do not say Nero set the fire in Rome, they do say that he used the Christians as scapegoats (which was really what started the whole debate here).

{Amazon URLs edited by Toto}

spin

I have been working from the texts with an eye to what I have learned over the decades -- when I've had the time -- about the writers concerned, which is often from the way the writer uses his information, or what people have said in their forwards that made sense, or distant memories of books which I either own or have owned.

You may be right.

No, you are not reading what I wrote now for two messages on this. I am accusing you of projecting into my head the idea that I think T lied, which I have denied: you have concocted the lies (that you project onto me) here. If you want to take it as "here comes the Christians lie thing again", that's just you.

This may be true, but I don't see the evidence that S knew or used T.

Look at the materials each one uses. Look at the difference in depth and kind.

Sorry, it's just me: I see no effort from you to deal with the authors and their methods at all. You show no understanding of the factionalism that was rife in Rome, which was submerged during the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

The problem is that you did concoct the lies. I didn't make the statement about lies.

And I mentioned it only as such. (But let me say, having seen Barrett's historical methodology in action, I would certainly recommend his works.)

I actually can't remember whose efforts on Nero stick in my head. (I have been reading scrolls for too many years.) Still, do you agree with the following data?

0) Fires were rather frequent in ancient Rome;

1) Nero was not in Rome at the time the fire broke out;

2) He came back before the fire ended and worked to fight it, as well as provided aid to the homeless;

3) Nero built the Domus Transitoria in 64 CE, the year the fire raged and it was burnt down;

4) That the fire rekindled in different areas (while it was put out at one point, which apparently was below the new locations);

5) That T couldn't say that Nero started the fire even though he would have liked to (given T's attitude against Nero) and despite the fact that he was writing with sixty years of hindsight. (Yes, he was aware of reports that said he did and yet T couldn't support them.)


Point 1 is consistent with Nero's behaviour. He often went to Anzio where he had a villa.

Point 2 is positive in T's report, when T is so negative towards Nero.

Point 3 by itself should dissuade you from Nero starting the fire.

Point 4 deals with the rekindlings, given the initial low-lying locations of the initial blaze, the kindling at higher locations only indicates that they hadn't completely killed the fire.

Point 5 is clear in itself.

You may rely on Suetonius, the scandalmonger, who was writing even further away from the time to be more factually trustworthy, but how about showing it?


spin