spin

T & S are writing 60 years after the event. They are not writing about their own times, as for example Polybius or Josephus (Wars) did. In modern historical research they are not considered primary sources to my understanding.

Scholars are turning more and more to the epigraphy of the time, the monumental inscriptions, even coin representations as guides to understand rulers and events written about by biased writers.

I wonder though how many modern scholars actually support the idea that Nero had anything to do with causing the fire these days. I've read a few recent analyses on the life of Nero, which, while being critical of the man's character, nevertheless are more sympathetic than the ancient writers.

Not a good sample.

Pliny is writing about a group he is personally aware of and is a more tenable witness than either T or S. (Pliny merely reports what he hears at the time of his arresting the xians.)

We need to deal with the comments in their contexts.

:banghead:

All the stuff has already been debated for years about the fact that no-one shows any knowledge of the data relating the Christians to the fire found in Tacitus, neither writers contemporary to T nor later classical writers, nor xian writers elsewise familiar with T, up until the time of Sulpicius Severus. You know all this stuff. Add to this the fact that no datable father that early shows knowledge of the Pilate connection. Tie to it the modern analysis that Nero had nothing to do with the fire, but was personally involved in fighting it. What we have is someone writing well after events, unaware of the perception of Nero in Rome, or his lack of connection with the fire, but writing with a certain hindsight unavailable at the time of T.

Historical research seems to work in mysterious ways. One doesn't start by accepting the validity of the content of an apparent historical writer. One has to work to show that the writer is likely to know what he writes.

Historical research is not a popularity contest.

What I have seen is an uncritical bunch of xian apologists trying by hook or by crook to infuse some historical basis to their beliefs.

I think Pliny the Younger is a fair indication.

I'm nowhere near any books, but a internet search which returns scholarly work should confirm the fact about T & S's patrons.

For Caligula, it was only after he began to suffer from lead poisoning that he really began to be warped. At the same time he was rather estranged from the powers of his time, having seen the murder of most of his family.

Nero was popular -- and I mean with the general public (not the Senate) -- up to the fire. And it was the wake of the fire which caused the disrest which developed against him. Nero did engratiate himself with the public, giving them gifts and providing for their entertainment. You'll find no popular unrest until after the fire.

(It's interesting that people follow T's vituperations against Nero. He so often states something that would normally be perceived as a good gesture and then turns it sour through his bias.)

Nero in Jewish (and later in xian) eyes was a monster because of what he tried to do through Petronius in the temple -- erect a statue of himself.

I'd read up about them if I were you. Modern analyses will prove to be illuminating. (I remember Anthony Barrett on Caligula [found it in a quick search: "CALIGULA: The Corruption of Power"], but that's about all that sticks in my memory.)

It's often that you have to work with all the texts and more evidence. Tacitus has to be weighed up often, because he simply isn't a primary source -- well, maybe in his Histories, not his Annals. He is as good as his sources. Suetonius displays less even keel than T.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the analyses available to me. But remember, Nero was popular. He had no reason to cause the fire. He was in Anzio at the time. He came back and personally helped fight the fire. The accusation that he started it stinks. Even T says "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts".

I find the use of terms like "forgery" in regard to ancient literature usually inappropriate. (For example composition through accretion can't be called forgery, nor can composition in someone else's name through respect, nor composition in another more ancient writer's name to disguise one's real intentions, etc.)

I might perhaps call the Josephan testimony forgery, along with the T passage. The "Chrestus" passage in S is misunderstood. The S "Christians" passage may or may not be veracious, though I'd guess in its context it reflects the sort of thing which was done with Tacitus and somewhat differently in Josephus.

(It's very hard for a xian to admit that in literature that was under the control of xians who were in favour of burning books they didn't like, it's very hard to accept any questionable references to xianity. It would be like accepting Soviet merits expressed in Soviet literature or praise for American operations in Iraq from western media. Remember Orwell: he who controls the present controls the past.)


spin

Johann_Kaspar

OK. Now the most important question is: why?

By the way, I prefer "messianists" than "xians". That greek word is a fraud in itself. Isn't it true that Romans accepted all kind of religions...?! [See Josephus]

Johann

Johann_Kaspar

Caligula, not Nero.

About Tacitus: guess what: some books are missing... just guess for what periods...

True, not true... Interpolated, not interpolated... the debate can go for years. Matter of faith at the end... unless a second (earlier?!) copy of Tacitus is found... complete... Dreaming...

Interesting guess work, but only guess work for now.

Johann

spin

Yeah, right. (Memory can only do so much.)

Well, as a guess for why Nero was held in such a bad light may have been that he sent Vespasian into Judea.


spin

Haran

I don't think we have any sources from exactly the time of Nero. Tactius and Suetonius are the closest in time. As I said before, they were close enough in time to have probably known eyewitnesses. The use of different eye-witnesses is probably the reason for most of their disagreements. It is not unreasonable to rely on the history only 60 years removed from an event.

Perhaps you mean that more is becoming available? Scholars have always, to my knowledge, used epigraphy, numismatics, etc., in their conclusions when they are aware of it and it is available.

Well, there is Arther Ferrill for one. I'm not sure how highly they are thought of, but in Adkins & Adkins "Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome" (1994), they write:

p.7
"64 Great Fire at Rome, for which the Christians were blamed."

p.291
"In 64 Nero found the Christians a convenient scapegoat for the fire in Rome..."

I do not know what the majority believes, but if they are simply assuming that Tacitus and Suetonius are not telling the truth of what they believed to have happened, I don't think I'd agree with them.

I understand this, but I also understand that this can easily lead to errant hyperskepticism. A case in point would be the discovery of Troy after others believed the stories about it to be fairy tales...

I'm skeptical of skeptics who dismiss ancient authors' accounts simply because of their interpretation of fragmentary archaeological information.

Of course, there is the true first mention of "Christians" in Acts. But I assume we are looking after that (or dismissing it)...

I agree. I think both he and Nero were probably mostly ok at the beginning of their reigns, but something happened...lead poisoning, schizophrenia. Whatever the cause, I believe that they probably did the things mentioned by the ancient historians.

Well, again, Suetonius mentions the "good" things that Nero did in the beginning. I would imagine that the general public was probably ok with him then. However, Suetonius then breaks and goes into the "evil" things that Nero did and talks about how he turned people against him. Suetonius talks of the popular sayings against Nero during his time, etc.

If you believe Nero was popular even after he murdered his mother, murdered citizens in the streets at night for a bit of fun, and burned Rome possibly to set up a new palace for himself, then why? Epigraphy? I'm sure there were some inscriptions dedicated to his memory. I'd just like to know what your reasoning is for rejecting the many ancient statements against him in favor of scholars in our time saying that he was popular...

Thanks and I may have a go at it. However, as you must know, there are opposite opinions out there.

You've simply stated this assumption several times now. What is your evidence? Yes, he was probably initially popular, however, his madness? led him to commit many acts against his family and the public that most likely cost him most of that popularity.

This must be why Porphyry's and other critics works are still in existence. Some preserved by the Christians... Sorry, but I don't buy this argument overall. I don't deny that it happened on some level, but not as you seem to suggest. In fact, one could say that the persecutions and book burnings by the pagans in power before the Christians destroyed a lot of Christian evidence.

Haran

Why do I say that there were persecutions of Christians? Because the persecutions are mentioned by many ancient historians both Christian and non-Christian. I do not have a list of the works. Perhaps that is something I will consider doing in the near future because I get tired of seeing people claim that the persecutions of Christians were "myth".

Why? What is your evidence that this word was a fraud? I prefer "Christian" and not "xian" because the texts from the time in question refer to them as "Christian"... The Christians, themselves, seemed to refer to themselves as "the church" or ecclesia. Regardless, I think "Christian" is appropriate at the time period under scrutiny here because of the various witnesses to it.

I'm sure they did... And? Christians were considered by many ancients to be "atheists".

Try The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. It is an interesting and enlightening read, even if I don't agree with all of what he says.

Anyway, what I was referring to earlier, I think, was that Nero is said to have "despised all religious cults".

Amazon URL edited by Toto

Haran

Funny, but with the many differing scholarly opinions, I'm close to agreement (though some scholars Christian and non want to cast doubts on things for ideological purposes - sad...). However, obviously, my opinion based on how I see the facts, is that Nero set the fire and blamed it on Christians who existed as an identifiable group at the time.

spin

On Nero starting the great fire of 64 CE

Tacitus is unable to state with certainty that Nero started the fire:

A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire.

If Tacitus, who spares no attacks on Nero, can't say whether accident or treachery, there's no point in listening to Suetonius, who is consistently more intersted in racy material than in history, claim that Nero started the fire.

The facts we have in the matter of Nero and the fire of 64 CE:

0) Fires were an extremely common occurence in ancient Rome (hence the Vigili)

1) Nero was in Antium at the time the fire broke out

2) He had finished, in the same year, his sumptuous palace, Domus Transitoria, which was destroyed in the fire

3) He rushed back to help fight the fire.

Why would Nero have started such a fire? To appropriate the land? Why not just confiscate it? He was after all the emperor of Rome. And as a means of town planning a fire is a little uncontrollable.

Why would Nero cause the destruction of his newly finished palace? The traces which remain of the palace shows that it was exquisitely decorated, so Nero spent a fortune on it. Why not wait till he burnt Rome before spending his money? Naturally, he didn't burn Rome and the palace was a victim of a fire that had nothing to do with him. Or perhaps he finished the palace early in the year and by July he was unhappy with it?

Here's Tacitus's direct report on Nero's actions:

Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Maecenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.

It's a good day's trip from Rome to Antium, so let us assume that one day passed before the fire reached a stage that people decided to inform him, one day till the courier arrived and one day till he returned to Rome, making at least three days before Nero was in the city. By that time the fire had reached his palace, but note the way Tacitus packages his arrival, as though Nero didn't return until his palace was in danger. Tacitus is clearly biased against Nero, yet unable to blame him for the fire.


AS I have no books with me, I'll demur on the notion that Nero was popular up until the fire.


How do you meaningfully date Acts?

Why do you necessarily believe writers who were writing to a particular audience after the demise of the Julio-Claudian family?

Suetonius says even less that can be construed as favourable to Nero than what Tacitus does.

I think we should pin the rumour of the fire down to Nero's enemies, for it is incredible for me that Nero started the fire. As I said, not even Tacitus can bring himself to say anything definite about the Nero causing it, despite the fact that he new of the rumours and claims.

Murdering his mother and other aristocrats was no trouble for the plebs. They didn't see it. They saw the bread and the circuses, and that kept them happy.

There are in fact not many ancient statements. Just S, T, and Cassius Dio, to my knowledge.

As to epigraphy from Nero's time, you should consider that with the downfall of the Julio-Claudian house, the last member fell into damnatio memoriae and almost nothing of his survives. If I remember correctly there is only one bust of Nero available in modern times, so I would think, like most other things the rest were destroyed.

It's funny that you should mention Porphyry for there were two attempts to rub out his writings.


spin

Toto

Haran - I suspect that Johan Kasper meant "why were Christians persecuted?" although of course the other question is also interesting.

Johann_Kaspar

You are suspecting right! And I am still waiting the answer considering that the Romans were tolerant about "religions".

{edited by Toto to fix tags/id for clarity}