Vorkosigan

In the 60s Nero can detect and filter Christians out of the general Jewish population at a time when the two groups themselves were having trouble nailing down differences, but in the second decade of the second century, the educated and traveled Pliny the Younger is confused about who Christians are and what their practices were, and what punishments should be meted out to them.

Just doesn't seem possible. How did Nero tell the difference between Christians and Jews, when the former practiced in the latter's synagogues, and used their holy book (no gospels written yet).

And if this horrible event of Christians being fried in Rome really occurred, why is there no mention of it in any early Christian document? 1 Clement -- who purports to be writing from Rome -- has several references to martyrdom, including "Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishael shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and glorious worship of the Most High?" and a paragraph on Paul's martyrdom, and another on general ideas of martyrdom. Yet there was no reference to Nero's spectacular weenie roast.

Vorkosigan

spin

weenie roast indeed. Very picturesque.

andrewcriddle

Nero presumably executed people whom he regarded as Christians there may well have been a number of people executed by mistake.
Tacitus is not talking about the sort of 'due process' enquiry described by Pliny in his letter to Trajan. (As I mentioned in a thread on eblaforum Gibbon suggested in 'Decline and Fall' that a persecution of various sectarian Jewish groups triggered by the outbreak of the Jewish war in 67 was remembered a generation later as more narrowly targeted against Christians than was in fact the case.)

I find it difficult not to relate the passage in 1 Clement 6 'To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished. us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with stedfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward.' to some substantial persecution of Christians around the time of Paul and Peter's deaths. The persecution under Nero is the most obvious identification.

How far one can take differences between accounts such as those of Tacitus Suetonius and Clement as a basis for doubting authenticity, is IMO doubtful, too great an agreement could also be regrded as suspicious.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

That's an interesting ad hoc explanation of some of the problems with the passage. But it is more of an attempt to explain away what the passage says than to grapple with what Tacitus actually says. Tacitus says that those so treated were first arrested and confessed, indicating that they had been interrogated. In other words, the Romans put some effort into sorting things out. The Romans in the 70s evidently were able to separate Christians and Jews, had some knowledge of what Christianity was, saw it as a problem -- why, with so few believers? -- and that this perception was shared not only by the government but by the Roman people at large as well. The Tacitus quote appears to describe the situation of another century.

I find it difficult, though. The Elect are killed through envy (was Nero envious of Xtians?). "indignities and tortures" is muted language compared to being lit up like a torch (would you rather be burned or suffer indignities?). In that case death and torture are concurrent; while the Daniads and Dircae recieve their reward after finishing the course of their faith, with the implication that test and death are not concurrent. 1 Clement is talking about a totally different set of problems -- lingering torture of the digusting judicial kind -- and has never heard of any tortures under Nero. If you did not know about such a thing from Tacitus, would it occur to you that 1 Clement was discussing roasting humans alive which had occurred just a generation before in his own city? Of course not.

That is also true. But as Doughty points out, the number of textual variants indicates that the text as we have it has probably been worked over.

Vorkosigan

spin

Tacitus is probably not talking of anything in this passage, as it is so likely that we are dealing with a late interpolator, known first to Sulpicius Severus (if he weren't the interpolator).

And why a generation later? Coincides with another hypothetical martyrdom?

I don't think there's anything here which would make you think of what Vork so tactfully called the "weenie roast", unless you are referring specifically to the Danaids and Dircae. Does that suggest the persecution so colourfully described in Tacitus?

Besides, isn't Clement nominally dated to the reign of Domitian? Assuming his veracity for a moment, what would make you think that those uncontextualised sufferers would not be those in his own time rather than 20 years earlier? He would have signalled the earlier ones, wouldn't he??

In Suetonius and Tacitus there is contextualisation in the reign of Nero, mention of xians and some negative act toward the latter by the former. That's all they share isn't it? And Clement is even less agreeable, not even indicating Nero. There's not much agreement at all. I would have liked a fair bit more, trivial disagreements accepted for authenticity's sake, of course.


spin

Casper

gsx1138,

Look into Preterism and Preterist websites. Their belief is that Rev was written before 70 CE, and was an end-times prediction of the fall of Jerusalem. Drink deeply their arguments against late-date apologists (but skirt the secular arguments temporarily). They have an extremely early date, to the dismay of non-preterist Christians. It is quite interesting too.

Then stop and think about how powerful something could be if it were written after the fall of the Temple, but meant to seem prophetic and older. You'll gain a new insight about what early readers might have thought and just how Jewish they weren't.

Then of course get back to the secular arguments against the preterist viewpoint and you'll find that 1st century is probably too early.

andrewcriddle

Tertullian certainly referred (hostilely) to the Histories of Tacitus, I'm not sure that he refers to the Annals which is where the passage about Christians comes.

(I'm aware that in the later manuscript tradition the Annals and the Histories were transmitted together but that is probably not original)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I may have mildly misremembered what Gibbon actually said.
The original can be found for example at
http://gd.cnread.net/cnread1/ewjd/g/gibbon/hor/057.htm

Andrew Criddle

spin

Yep, he was not wont to cite Tacitus: the stuff about the ass's head, so Tertullian doesn't mind citing negative references in Tacitus, yet when it comes to dealing with the so-called Neronian persecution as in Apol.5 ("Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making profess then especially at Rome."), he is silent, not a word does he give from a colourful passsage that he could have used as evidence for the persecution and would have eked something edifying out of at Nero's and Tacitus's expense.


spin

justsumner

IF we take precognition and spiritual insight as BS (and I do)

Then The Revelation of John has to be placed at the mid second century ACE.

Period. :devil1: