Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 09-24-2007, 10:02 AM

My point, spin, is that a Christian writer is, IMVHO, unlikely to make it appear that every Christian arrested informed (for whatever reason) on his fellow Christians:

Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens... convicti sunt.

Therefore, first those who confessed were apprehended, and then, upon their information, an immense multitude... was convicted.

Now, I welcome being proven wrong here; are there any clearly Christian texts that imply, as this one does, that Christians, as a rule, turned each other in under interrogation, without any qualification at all to show that one ought to be strong rather than give in (or such)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What would make you think that the text wants you to read it as "information against a person", rather than a "disclosure [of (obviously) previously unknown fact]"?

It is not either one or the other. It is both. It is a disclosure of previously unknown information in the context of an interrogation. This is not a nice chat in a donut shop. The ones doing the informing have been apprehended or seized (correpti).

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 09-24-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This much is certain: Tacitus, who had written a subtle attack on Nero up to this point, suddenly forgets his narrative interest in Nero and goes overboard with this very atypical longish passage that has little to do with his argument. Very un-Tacitean.

spin

I think we should avoid exaggerating the subtlety of Tacitus' account of Nero. Just before the account of the Fire we have a passage that begins

Quote:

The Senate and leading citizens were in doubt whether to regard him [Nero] as more terrible at a distance or among them. After a while, as is the way with great terrors, they thought what happened the worst alternative.

and continues

Quote:

On the margin of the lake were set up brothels crowded with noble ladies, and on the opposite bank were seen naked prostitutes with obscene gestures and movements. As darkness approached, all the adjacent grove and surrounding buildings resounded with song, and shone brilliantly with lights. Nero, who polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity, till a few days afterwards he stooped to marry himself to one of that filthy herd, by name Pythagoras, with all the forms of regular wedlock. The bridal veil was put over the emperor; people saw the witnesses of the ceremony, the wedding dower, the couch and the nuptial torches; everything in a word was plainly visible, which, even when a woman weds darkness hides.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 09-24-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

My point, spin, is that a Christian writer is, IMVHO,...

(I understood it was your opinion, Ben C.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

...unlikely to make it appear that every Christian arrested informed (for whatever reason) on his fellow Christians:

Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens... convicti sunt.

Therefore, first those who confessed were apprehended, and then, upon their information, an immense multitude... was convicted.

Now, I welcome being proven wrong here; are there any clearly Christian texts that imply, as this one does, that Christians, as a rule, turned each other in under interrogation, without any qualification at all to show that one ought to be strong rather than give in (or such)?

Whether you bolden words or not here, it doesn't add any extra information, nor does it make your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What would make you think that the text wants you to read it as "information against a person", rather than a "disclosure [of (obviously) previously unknown fact]"?

It is not either one or the other. It is both. It is a disclosure of previously unknown information in the context of an interrogation. This is not a nice chat in a donut shop. The ones doing the informing have been apprehended or seized (correpti).

Still, they fessed up... to what? obviously to being christian. Their connection to the fire wasn't important according to the text. Their information led to the arrest of many. Hopefully we don't disagree on the significance so far. The only thing you seem to want is that there had to be a betrayal. If I'm wrong here, there is no argument between us. I'd just think you were being over-hopeful.

spin

spin · 09-24-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think we should avoid exaggerating the subtlety of Tacitus' account of Nero.

The thing about the account is that Tacitus knows that he can't say Nero started the fire. It's not that he was forbidden to say anything, but that he didn't have the evidence. Despite that, he manipulates his information to get the reader to think that he did start the fire, without saying that he did. This effort is suddenly derailed by the christian witness.

spin

andrewcriddle · 09-24-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think we should avoid exaggerating the subtlety of Tacitus' account of Nero.

The thing about the account is that Tacitus knows that he can't say Nero started the fire. It's not that he was forbidden to say anything, but that he didn't have the evidence. Despite that, he manipulates his information to get the reader to think that he did start the fire, without saying that he did. This effort is suddenly derailed by the christian witness.

spin

Hesitantly I would suggest that the account of Nero and the Christians has similarities to the account of Nero and the Fire. IMHO Tacitus makes his reader think that Nero was so desperate to avoid being accused of starting the fire that he claimed explicitly that 'The Christians done it'. However, read carefully, there are indications in Tacitus' narrative that the Christians were made scapegoats for the fire without being actually convicted of arson.

Tacitus is possibly manipulating sources in which killing Christians was one of the measures taken to propitiate the Gods after the Fire, so as to link the story to Nero's attempts to avoid being accused of fire-raising, and increase his reader's suspicion that Nero would not have been so scared of being accused of starting the fire if he was really entirely innocent.

Andrew Criddle.

Ben C Smith · 09-24-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Still, they fessed up... to what? obviously to being christian.

They (in general, without any hint that some acted differently) were arrested (correpti), upon which they both confessed (fatebantur) and gave information (indicio eorum) leading to the arrest of others.

There is nothing in Sulpicius that corresponds to this line, so this is a free composition as far as we can tell. On the topic of how Christian this line sounds, then, I am saying that it does not sound like the sort of thing a Christian would write. What are you saying on that same topic?

Ben.

spin · 09-24-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hesitantly I would suggest that the account of Nero and the Christians has similarities to the account of Nero and the Fire.

This simply takes all narrative interest off Nero.

spin

spin · 09-24-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Still, they fessed up... to what? obviously to being christian.

They (in general, without any hint that some acted differently) were arrested (correpti), upon which they both confessed (fatebantur) and gave information (indicio eorum) leading to the arrest of others.

There is nothing in Sulpicius that corresponds to this line, so this is a free composition as far as we can tell. On the topic of how Christian this line sounds, then, I am saying that it does not sound like the sort of thing a Christian would write. What are you saying on that same topic?

The things that are contained not in Sulpicius but in the Tacitus passage are the witness to Jesus, the capture information and the sympathy for christians. Two out of three have obvious christian utility. You are trying to offset that by reading more than you should into the third piece.

spin

Minimalist · 09-24-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Tacitus is possibly manipulating sources in which killing Christians was one of the measures taken to propitiate the Gods after the Fire

Or, the passage is a later xtian interpolation that has nothing to do with Tacitus.

My money's on that one.

andrewcriddle · 09-25-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

My point, spin, is that a Christian writer is, IMVHO, unlikely to make it appear that every Christian arrested informed (for whatever reason) on his fellow Christians:

Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens... convicti sunt.

Therefore, first those who confessed were apprehended, and then, upon their information, an immense multitude... was convicted.

Now, I welcome being proven wrong here; are there any clearly Christian texts that imply, as this one does, that Christians, as a rule, turned each other in under interrogation, without any qualification at all to show that one ought to be strong rather than give in (or such)?

FWIW the
Martyrdom of Justin and Companions http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0133.htm
gives a strong impresion that the Christians are careful not to say anything that might realistically incriminate others. (Saying you were taught Christianity by your parents currently at the other end of the Empire is unlikely to be taken further.)

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.