spin

No, I was referring to an earlier discussion of mine, but, as I've had a number of discussions on Tacitus, I didn't remember that the last one, the one I had in mind, was at Ebla, to be found here.

I argue that the whole passage is a later interpolation,

1) being an addendum to the context,
2) using tones not apt for Tacitus,
3) with the error of Pilate's rank -- not something that Tacitus could do, given the social implications of this particular error.
4) having the crowd knowing what xians were and Nero's servants knowing how to recognize xians (this is part of the structure of the discourse!).

The only argument for begging this was a Tacitean production was that it was so negative toward xians, yet we have no other indication that Tacitus was negative toward xians, so this argument is not relevant, seeing as it contains a very succinct xian testimony, and I don't think we can rule out xian literary abilities to concoct a testimony couched in negative terms to be inserted into Tacitus. Tertullian doesn't know about Tacitus's witness, though he knew Tacitus. In fact we have to wait another century or so before someone can cite the Tacitus passage. It reads as a xian martyrdom passage with the lovely image of the poor xians burning to light up the night sky, so awful as to make onlookers feel sympathy for these detestable xians...


spin

Toto

Start here: Invitation to a Stoning: Getting cozy with theocrats by Walter Olson

I can come up with more references if you need them.

andrewcriddle

I can see no reason for doubting the passage in Suetonius other than the fact that if authentic it provides some support for the passage in Tacitus.

This is not a good reason for regarding the passage in Suetonius as a later interpolation.

Andrew Criddle

spin

One of them at least is wrong.

The Suetonius report is just too brief to provide information about its own veracity. It does conflict with the Tacitus passage which places the supposed Neronian persecution in another context. As the Tacitus passage is quite problematical it is the most obvious choice for being wrong. Yet, if Tacitus's passage is wrong, then it casts doubt on the veracity of Suetonius as well. Our only evidence for a Neronian persecution is a questionable reference from a writer in activity 60-70 years after the reputed event.

Here is the contextualisation:

"During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food, the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city."

Do you really believe that it fits the context of abuses? How do the xian adherence to a "new and mischievous superstition" fit as an abuse?


spin

andrewcriddle

Are you suggesting that the passage in Suetonius is inauthentic because it differs in detail from the (genuine) account of Tacitus ?

Or are you saying that even though you regard the passage in Tacitus as an interpolation its differences from the passage in Suetonius are still a reason for suspecting the Suetonius passage as being inauthentic ?

Given the very miscellaneous nature of the abuses (everything from cooked meals in bars to disorderly conduct by sports celebrities) I see no reason why something regarded as an antisocial cult should not be included in the list.

Andrew Criddle

spin

The latter. If Tacitus is veracious, then Suetonius is suspect, both because Suetonius had access to all the scandalous material available (beating Tacitus easily in that field), yet shows no knowledge of Nero juicily using xians to light up the night, and the Suetonius passage is in a totally different contextualisation. If Tacitus is not veracious, then that passage shows a willingness to interfere with text, which the Suetonius passage evinces to me, as I've indicated by my question about the relationship of the xian punishment in its context.

Why did I guess you'd say that? The miscellaneous abuses are related to ordinary everyday people found in Rome. Rome also was a magnet for weird and wonderful religions. Why should this variety of believers in a Jewish type messianism, who you couldn't distinguish from real Jewish messianists, be singled out for treatment? Do you think they were any worse than the rest?


spin

andrewcriddle

Rome collected weird religious groups but also showed hostility towards such foreign and alien imports (going back to the Bacchants scandal in the 2nd century BCE.) see for attitudes in Nero's reign Tacitus Annals XIV, 44 , 5 'but now we have in our households nations with different customs to our own with a foreign worship or none at all it is only by terror you can hold in such a motley rabble.' (this speech is a pretext for committing an atrocity but the sentiments are probably genuine and widespread).

According to Suetonius the Jews had been expelled (temporarily) from Rome during the reign of Claudius, it is possible that during Nero's reign Christians (like a sort of Jew but not a legitimate 'ancestral religion') became the main targets for general anti-Jewish hostility.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This quote is about not trusting slaves, not about attacking religions.

The passage about the disturbance by Chrestus in Rome tells us that there was a ruckus caused by this Chrestus and therefore reason for action against the people, not for their religious beliefs, but for the commotion.

The writer is dealing with tavern selling food, chariot drivers cheating people and panto actors being thrown out of the city (actors often caused disturbances with the people). All of these actions involve an affected populace. Thrown into it is the quick irrelevant passage about xians, whose activities had no impact on the population.


spin

andrewcriddle

If the Christians were suspected of arson then their activities might well have been regarded as having an impact on the population.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This certainly doesn't match the stated reasoning and you'd have no reason of suspecting it (unless you're trying to relate it to the report in Tacitus which tells us the xians were more than punished as our lot in Suetonius were).


spin