gregor

good to learn there was no heterodoxy in the first two centuries - all one big happy hymnal.

Ben C Smith

Well, I could not get hold of Furneaux, but I now have Syme, Tacitus, in hand. Syme has an appendix (number 61) called Mistakes in the Annales, and on page 747 (in volume 2 of 2) he writes:

Two items concerning the history of Judaea are puzzling. Under 49 stands the brief notice 'Ituraeique et Judaei defunctis regibus Sohaemo atque Agrippa provinciae Syriae additi' (XII. 23. 1). Now Herod Agrippa had acquired some notoriety for his services to Claudius in the two critical days following the assassination of Caligula. He died in 44, Judaea being then annexed and put under the procurator Cuspius Fadus (PIR2, C 1636). That fact ought surely to have been registered in the lost books. One wonders therefore whether the historian may not have confused him with his brother, Herod of Chalcis, who died in the eighth year of Claudius (Josephus, AJ XX. 104): Chalcis was in fact given to the son of Herod Agrippa a year or two later (the date inferred from BJ II. 284). Then there is Tacitus' account of the division of Judaea between Ventidius Cumanus and Antonius Felix (XII. 54). Incompatible with Josephus. Yet Tacitus is explicit—note especially the intervention of the legate of Syria and the indictment of Cumanus. His account can probably stand (cf. PIR2, A 828).

[PIR stands for Prosopographia Imperii Romani.]

So the line in Annals 12.23 appears to stand as a Tacitean mistake. In other parts of this appendix Syme does make reference to minor title or rank errors, such as assigning the consularia insignia to Rufrius Crispinus instead of the praetoria (see 16.17).

Syme also notes on page 748:

In fact sundry discrepancies in the later books ought to be carefully scrutinized (see App. 60). The author failed to revise that portion of his work. Perhaps he did not live to complete it.

Turning to appendix 60, we find that the affected books are the third hexad, book 13 to the end of the extant work. Our reference to Pilate and Christ stands in that hexad, at 15.44. Perhaps calling Pilate a procurator is the sort of mistake that Tacitus would have noticed and corrected had he revised those books.

Note that Syme does not mention that Tacitus called Pilate a procurator in his appendix on Tacitean mistakes. Tacitus was published in 1958; the Pilate inscription was not discovered until 1961. Until 1961, apparently, no one knew to charge Tacitus with the error; in fact, Syme himself calls Pilate a procurator on page 469.

On pages 532-533 Syme speaks to Annals 15.44, our chapter on Nero and the Christians. In note 5 he writes:

This famous chapter has provoked an enormous literature... and more perplexity than is warranted.

I daresay we have seen several examples of unwarranted perplexity on this very thread. Indeed, Syme has the following to say on page 746 about emending the text so as to remove Tacitean mistakes:

Some scholars resort to emendation, generously transferring to the historian their own inerrancy.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

In a thread last year I said So the accuracy of Tacitus here had apparently been questioned before the Pilate inscription was discovered.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Good to know. Thanks.

Ben.

countjulian

That's true for the Stoics, but not for the Cynics. Diogenes and his progeny all preached the inherent EVIL of all material things; remember Seneca's Chrei about Diogenes, he was drinking from a clay cup he kept with him when he saw that a little boy was drinking from his hands; he smashed the cup, saying "This boy has beaten me in Simplicity." We read in the Life of Diogenes

And again

Seneca himself said, memorably, that "only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God."

I'm afraid that simply stems from a misunderstanding of Stoicism. In the Stoic view, there are 2 classes of people: the sages and the fools. Anyone who is not a sage is a fool; there are no levels of "foolery." And any way, you sidestepped the question. Originally you had said that one of the revolutionary things about Christianity was that it preached equality for all, even slaves, ignoring the fact that slaves such as Epictetus seems to play a prominent role in Stoicism. Indeed, Seneca in his 47th letter to Lucillius says

Edit: Here's another good one:

countjulian

I want a response to this. Bump.

Malachi151

Plato taught against excessive wealth as well, which critics of Christinaity recognized.

http://members.aol.com/PS418/celsus.html

Apologist

There were Christians before the gospels were written.

Johnny Skeptic

Which proves what of any significance?

Gamera

[QUOTE=countjulian]This makes my point, not yours. Diogenes preached simplicity, which could easily be slotted into the category of traditional Roman values, much as rich Republicans today, who have never worked a day in their lives, base political campaigns on traditional American values of hard work. No one much sees the contradiction today (or least no one who's concerned with the willowisp of traditional American values) and no body would see the contradiction in 1st century Rome.

Again, a trope. One can be rich and proclaim one's despite for wealth. And moan about the burdens of having to be rich in this complex world. I'm sure more a few Roman politicians did so.

There is an aristocracy, but simply based on different criteria than birth and wealth. Rather it's based on sagacity. Roman society wouldn't find that a threat, but again an idea easy to assimilate into the traditional Roman virtue discourse.

Christianity purported to destroy all social categories, making it a threat that couldn't be assimilated, or at least not easily assimilated. One either accepted the gospel of this (alien) god, or rejected it and were doomed. That's not something Roman authorities wanted to hear, because it was explicitly unRoman.


Regarding this quote you provided --
"On one occasion, he met Anaximenes, the orator, who was a fat man, and thus accosted him; "Pray give us, who are poor, some of our belly; for by so doing you will be relieved yourself, and you will assist us "

Vague egalitarianism like this could be assimilated by Roman discourse as a call for traditional Roman meritocracy. Indeed, the more Roman government became based on privilege and wealth, the more it had to promote language about meritocracy and pretend to uphold hose values.

This is simply of a different order from Jesus' call to "love your enemies." That simply couldn't be assimilated into Roman society as a traditional value. It was contrary to everything Rome stood for, both in its fabricated traditional form and its realpolitik form of the Empire. Rome could only look at such a teaching as seditious.