Roger Pearse

None of this is unreasonable, but may I humbly point out that all this type of argument relies on imagination? Surely we can always find reasons to suppose that an ancient writer 'must' have written something; or 'could not' have written something else? It's just too easy. Wouldn't it be safer to accept that all texts are transmitted without intentional alteration unless we can show that they have been tampered with, and accept proof only where the tools we use to detect it work evenly across all ancient literature?

Tertullian in Ad Nationes I goes further and refers to the criminalisation of Christianity as the "Institutum Neronianum".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I guess what I am saying is that the text as you cited it, without Christ and the Christians, just leaves the reader hanging. It would be like reading that in 1969 Richard Nixon charged a group that was hated by all with treason. The reader would be wondering: What group? Hippies? Beatniks? Flower children?

Ben.

rlogan

This has been proposed on IIDB before, and is a possibility, yes.

One problem is that Claudius supposedly drove the Jews out of Rome in the previous administration.

I suppose one could actually cite this as evidence in favor of the hypothesis. Whatever vestiges were left, or whomever migrated back was an "outlaw" more or less already.

I can't help but think that Tacitus is at the very least an extreme exaggeration though.


I tried this argument with Ben on another thread and it got no mileage.

The need for a Neronian persecution is most urgent for the Christian apologist, not the historian.

countjulian

Because of Tertualian, I'm leaning in the direction that it really did happen, but my question is again, why? If it was just because Nero was mad, why did it happen again under Pliny?

jgibson000

Of course the scale of the persecutions under Pliny was no where near what it was under Nero. But to find out why it happend under Pliny, read Plinny. He tells you himself.

As to the causes of Nero's "hatred". a good place to start would be W.H. Frind's Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church - Amazon UK link

Then forthe overall question this excahnage between the Roman Historians A.N. Sherwin White and Geoffrey E.M. de Ste. Croix will be informative.

A.N. Sherwin-White, "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., Vol. 3 (1952): 199-213.

A.N. Sherwin-White, "Why were the Early Christians Persecuted? An Amendment," Past & Present 27 (1964): 23-27.

Geoffrey E.M. de Ste. Croix, "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" Past and Present, Vol. 26 (1963): 6-38.

Geoffrey E.M. de Ste. Croix, "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? A Rejoiner," Past & Present 27 (1964): 28-33.

A good bibliography is posted at:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/persecution.php

Jeffrey

rlogan

Hi jeffry.

It is not clear to me. Perhaps this is why you did not state so directly.

http://www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html

You can see what Pliny claims to have done to them, but not why he is persecuting them so.

This is especially strange in that he confessed a lack of knowledge regarding what the Christians believed. He seems to have tortured two "Deaconesses" to find out, and comes away with nothing more than it being a disgusting superstition.

But most interestingly, he claims their behavior "innocent".

The only direct possibility from his letter is Trajan's purported ban on secret societies. That sure takes the air out of any claims for Christians being persecuted for their beliefs per se.

Roger Pearse

Pliny tells us that being a Christian -- the name of Christian -- was itself a criminal offence. Tertullian confirms this: "Non licet esse vos" (You are not allowed to exist) is the sneer of the pagans, and he writes at some length on the unreasonableness of hating what you hardly know, all for a name.

If we read Acts, we find that Christianity was not illegal at that time, and that the Roman governors were allies if anything. But Jewish leaders kept trying to persuade these governors that Christianity was not part of Judaism (which was legal) and so was an illegal cult.

By the time we read Pliny, we find that Christianity *is* an illegal cult, even if not much is known about it, and Tertullian explains how it works. (He mentions also how any new religion must be legalised in Rome).

Tacitus tells us that Nero did persecute the Christians. We have no evidence of this from Romans before then. We have Revelation, in which Christians are clearly being persecuted; we have the testimony of Hegesippus of a persecution of sorts under Domitian, quickly abandoned. We have the testimony of Tertullian that the illegal status of Christians was the legal creation of Nero.

So it all fits together to tell a single story; of a group gradually coming into existence, attempts by the Jews to get them made illegal, a Roman emperor using them as a scapegoat and making the name of Christian illegal, an eminent Roman in the early second century finding his (eastern) province littered with them (so this was clearly different from Rome) and knowing them an illegal group; various examples in the second century (the passiones of Justin Martyr, the Scillitan martyrs, etc) and Tertullian explaining how it actually worked on the ground at some length.

I have read somewhere that Poppaea, Nero's mistress, was Jewish. If so then the attempts by Jewish leaders to criminalise Christianity may be directly or indirectly responsible for this coming about. This would tend to explain much about the separation of church and synagogue, and the bitterness in (e.g.) Barnabas. But I don't know whether P. was in fact Jewish or how we know. Anyone?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

There is also the Ascension of Isaiah 4.1-3, which affirms that Nero (metaphorically called Beliar) both killed one of the twelve (surely Peter) and persecuted the plant that the twelve had planted.

And the Acts of Paul 10, which says that Nero decreed that all Christians should be killed, burned the Christians with fire, and had Paul beheaded. (Incidentally, the Acts of Paul preceded Tertullian.)

And 1 Peter 4.12-17 indicates a persecution of Christians. Even if we take 1 Peter as pseudonymous (I myself am undecided; I think 2 Peter is pseudonymous, but 1 Peter is still a question mark) that would be evidence of a belief that Christians were persecuted in the days of Peter. Verse 12 even calls the persecution a fiery test, or burning. Could be a mere metaphor, of course, but it could also allude to the burning of Christians as in Tacitus and the Acts of Paul.

So I agree with you. I lean in the direction that the persecution under Nero really did happen.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I had not heard that she was Jewish, but rather that she favored Judaism. Josephus calls her religious in Antiquities 20.8.11 §195, and in Life 3 he has this to say:

And when I had thus escaped, and was come to Dieearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea, wife of Caesar, and took care as soon as possible to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set at liberty. And when besides this favor I had obtained many presents from Poppea I returned home again.

There is probably more about her somewhere, but I am not sure where.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Interesting. What text of the Acts of Paul are you using?

Tertullian discusses the composition of the Acts of Paul in De Baptismo 18.

All the best,

Roger Pearse