andrewcriddle

If Christians were executed under Nero it was probably using a similar legal procedure to that described in Pliny's letters. ie accusation of being a Christian followed by refusal to clear oneself by 'cursing Christ'.

It seems beyond real doubt that the strict legal basis for the persecution of Christians was, up till the mid 3rd century, more messy than was usual in Roman law.


Suetonius at least in our existing texts does mention action by Nero against Christians. As I have mentioned in other threads Josephus explicitly says that he is being selective in what he tells us about abuses committed by Nero.



It is IMO highly unlikely that Josephus had, when he wrote the Antiquities, (the War might be another matter) literally never heard of Christians. His omission of them in a list of Jewish sects in the Antiquities is almost certainly not simply a result of sheer ignorance of their very existence.
Josephus, as you say, claims that the Zealots and their activities bear responsibility for the Jewish War. I'm not sure why he should have regarded the persecution of Christians in Rome in that light.

(It would, assuming he knew of such events in Rome , have been quite possible to have regarded them in that way. Sulpicius Severus seems to have done so, but Josephus tends to emphasise those causes of the War which occurred in Palestine. He could if he had chosen have written an account in which the wider political context of the Empire was much more prominent, but that is not the account of the War he actually did write.)

One possible middle ground which I have previously suggested is that the account in our Texts of Tacitus is more or less what Tacitus wrote but it is not an entirely accurate account of what happened.

Andrew Criddle

Vivisector

Hello, again, RL ... so, my lofty status as "User" doesn't entitle me to one free, "Yeah, dude, what you said!" on here???

I might be misunderstanding you here, but assuming I'm not, there are a few points I'd offer up. Nero chose the path of scapegoating to quell the rumor that he had ordered the fire - this is his motive, as per Tacitus. The Christians were an outstanding candidate in this regard (as I think you agreed). It sounds as if your objection is, how did Nero pull this off given that Rome was a nation of laws? Here, I'd note that there were other occasions where Roman emperors (including Nero) had persons executed solely on their say-so. At least some emperors seemed to be bound only by what they thought they could get away with. So the difference is one perhaps in magnitude and method rather than principle. If things were as bad after the fire as Tacitus describes, I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that it would be extremely easy to whip the masses into a frenzy of bloodlust, especially when it's those detestable Christians we're talking about. I don't know what legal mechanisms were used, if any (kangaroo courts, maybe?), but I think Tacitus makes it very clear that, in the beginning, the majority of Roman citizens would have been all in favor of what happened. I just don't see their legalistic inclinations as something that would have served to obstruct their intent in this instance.

As an additional note, it's not difficult to find instances where horrendous things happened in supposed nations of laws, even in relatively recent times. I think history teaches us that, if the conditions are bad enough and you have a suitable scapegoat, you can get people to do almost anything to their fellow humans.

A little more on Josephus following.

To clarify, I'm not arguing for authenticity of the passage, because - as you point out - much more has to be considered. I originally jumped in because of what I perceived as weaknesses in particular points in the argument for interpolation.

I originally meant to say that Tacitus might have considered Christians (as opposed to the event) beneath his dignity to fully investigate and report. The best analogy that comes to my mind at present is NAMBLA. I know very little about them, but what I do know - or think I know - I find utterly repulsive. I have absolutely no desire to learn anything more about them than what I already think I know. Maybe Tacitus looked at Christians the same way; one could certainly infer it from what he wrote.

I didn't originally mean to say that Tacitus considered the persecution reprehensible. On second thought, though, maybe Tacitus was a little ambivalent - even embarrassed - about the incident. One can almost read him as saying, "Sure, those repugnant creatures deserved to die, but Nero went too far."

I don't see any reason that Josephus would have mentioned the Roman Christians. Josephus pretty much wrote about Judea and surrounding environs, tending to discuss events in Rome only when they directly impacted the Jews. To my knowledge, Josephus didn't even write about the fire in Rome, even though he visited there that very year! So it seems more logical to me that, if Josephus were going to mention Christians at all, it would have been in the context of Judea, Galilee, etc. Of course, whether Josephus wrote of Christians in a Jewish context is the subject of another debate, which I'll certainly not get into here.

You and I might want to revisit this one; I'm not sure I've done a good job of writing what I'm thinking.

As you obviously know from my profile, I can't be called a (conscious) defender of the faith! But I suppose I'd take the middle ground: the movement started small and spread quickly, but primarily among the marginalized and disenfranchised - largely beneath the consciousness of respectable society. Maybe something like a metastisizing cancer.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

Does that mean you think it is more likely he didn't consider them to be a Jewish sect?

Assuming the answer is "yes", do you agree with Vivisector that even the Romans would have made that distinction in the 1st century?

Vivisector

I'll let Andrew answer for himself, but I'll think aloud here just because I was considering this during my last reply to rlogan.

Josephus must have been in an interesting position: he was in position to be exposed to both Jewish and Roman Christians. If much of the conventional wisdom is true, and Jewish Christianity differed significantly from Roman (or, perhaps more properly, Hellenistic) Christianity, that must have been something of a confusing situation for Josephus (assuming he cared)!

I think we need to get someone to "channel" Josephus and find out just wtf he knew and what he was talking about.

rlogan

yeah dude, what you said...

Right, Viv. Was not impugning you for being an apologist. But hoping to smear you with their tactics.

I have to look up a couple of references in the JW. But I want to address a point andrew and you have made.

I can't understand why someone would advance the theory that the Christian Neronian persecution would be unrelated to the roman quashing of the Jewish rebellion in judea.

It's like saying we would not expect a writer discussing the Afghan war to be interested in events in distant NY on september 11.

If the Christians, A Jewish sect, were so despised they needed to be extirpated, and if the source was Judea, and Judea was being quashed due to uppity Jews, then it is precisely relevant.

This would have been outstanding PR for an invasion were it actually true. You just can't have the Christians being hatefully slaughtered in Rome, and then completely irrelevant when Rome lays seige to Jerusalem.

- got to look up a couple of citations...

rlogan

Well exactly. This was a legal proceeding and not a mob-type execution. And more to the point, it was demonstrating deference to authority.

I am in agreement with the first paragraph, and it would make sense if Tacitus had said the Christians refused to acknowledge Roman authority.



Jewish Wars Book II ch. 8 is the discussion of the three sects.

got to run. be back...

Vivisector

My one free pass - I'll bookmark the spot so I can come back to it when I get beaten up in the future!

Enjoy Josephus - personally, I prefer a quart of Tylenol PM. On point, though, I think one of the key issues is why Rome went to war against Judea. I'd suggest it was for political reasons. In other words, Rome prosecuted the war because their authority had been challenged by the Jewish uprising. It was imperative that they put down the rebellion spectacularly as an example to anyone who might be harboring similar aspirations. I think they would have done the same thing had any of their (non-Jewish) provinces risen up in revolt.

The other issue you raise is the degree to which Romans would have associated Christianity with Judaism. Earlier, I argued that citizens of Rome proper would have seen adherents of the two beliefs as distinct groups. However, I would expect that distinction to diminish with proximity to Jerusalem, where the Christians might have appeared as very similar to Jews. But it seems all this is beside the point if Rome went to war for political reasons rather than religious reasons.

Cheers,

V.

andrewcriddle

There are similar discussions in Antiquities Book XIII chapter 5 and Book XVIII chapter 1.

The discussion in Book XIII would not mention Christians in any case because it is talking about the 2nd century BCE, however the discussion in Book XVIII is talking about the 1st century CE mentions Pharisees Sadducees Essenes and Zealots but not Christians.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

IMO Josephus when writing the 'Antiquities' knew of Christians did not consider Christians to be a Jewish sect. What his views were when writing the 'War', I'm less sure. Although I think he probably had at least some knowledge of their existence.

If, for the sake of argument, he regarded Christians as a Jewish fringe group whose provocative behaviour in Rome has been a factor leading to the war, then he might well not have mentioned this embarrassing fact in the 'Jewish War'. Josephus throughout the 'War' is trying to prevent Jews as provoked rather than provoking.

If, one the other hand he regrded Christians as a non-Jewish group whose sufferings in Rome were irrelevant to the 'Jewish question' then he wouldn't have mentioned them either.

(He probably would have mentioned the Christians if he regarded them as a pseudo-Jewish group for whose behaviour real Jews got blamed. )

As to the Romans in the time of Nero, IMO it would always have been formally possible to separate Christians from non-Christian Jews eg by requiring suspects to curse or denounce Christ.

I don't however think it is likely unless a/ A large minority at least of Christians in Rome are of non-Jewish origin and b/ Conflict between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews in Rome means that Christians of Jewish origin are associating with Christians of non-Jewish origin more than with non-Christian Jews.

Andrew Criddle

Lucretius

First of all I just want to let you know I have not abandoned this topic I still have some things to say however two weeks ago my computer "died "on me and I am in the process of "resurrecting " it
So hopefully soon I will be able to make some further comments ,I may also have the opportunuty in the near future to actually get to read a 16th Century copy of Tacitus Annals so I am looking forward to that.