Gamera

[QUOTE=countjulian]That doesn't surprise me in the least. In my opinion there is a relationship between misunderstanding historical events and political conservatism.

Don't get your point. Whatever the Romans thought are irrelevant to the actuality of the early church, in which elders were appointed to serve not to run roughshod. It wouldn't surprise me that the Romans, steeped in hierarchical thinking, couldn't begin to understand early church structure. And that only fed into their paranoia that it was a movement that was a direct political threat to the Empire.

I think enjoying a good whipping relates to punishing the body.

Ah, put to what purpose? The christian story is based on a worldview that is directly contradictory to the premises of Roman rule. Particularly the apotheosis of secular power. Diogenes is in the tradition of wisdom literature -- he taught balance, cultivation of virtue and integrity, blah blah blah. There are a hundred examples from a hundred cultures. Diogenes could have written the Old Norse Havamal. Same lessons. These don't threaten an Empire that was founded on the mythos of Roman virtue. They just enhance it. And in any case, Diogenes didn't have a movement behind him. He was basically one of numerous philosophers that taught such and such and had a few students. Christianity spred like wildfire, especially among the lower classes. A real threat to Roman rule.


For the reasons discussed above. (a) he didn't have a following among the lower classes, if at all. And (b) he's notion of being worthy of god really didn't contradict Roman rule. Seneca did not believe in a day of judgment and a millenial rule. He believed in wisdom and balance. Easy to use encorporate such lingo into the Imperial propaganda machine. Indeed, it was par for the course for Emperors to claim they represented the epitome of Roman traditional virtues of humility, toughness, blah blah blah.

I didn't ignore it, I asked why and what is the nature of this love. Let me suggest it is because of the punishment, not despite it.

I guess your making my point now. If some questioned the Stoic teachings as subversion, how much more likely is it that Christianity was seen as a threat.

Again, doesn't his make my point, not yours?

Doug Shaver

Do you have any evidence for that, or are you just parroting something you heard somewhere?

I offered a couple of suggestions: It was supported only by Christians, or it was supported by all Christians. Are you saying it would not have been a Christian movement if either of those had been the case?

spin

Tacitus tells us that Judea went under the auspices of Syria.


You know what Tacitus said about it. I asked you how long it took for the situation to reach Claudius, how long it took for his decision and how long it took to get put into practice. In the interim we know that Judea was in the hands of Syria.


spin

spin

It should start to be clear to all who are not addicted to the belief that there must have been a persecution under Nero that this persecution is a later invention. Eusebius, when dealing with this supposed persecution uses Tertullian as his major source, Tertullian who was writing 150 years after the supposed event. All Eusebius knows about the "persecution" is a later tradition that the apostles, Peter and Paul, were martyred (read E.H. 2.25 well -- it's an eye opener). Besides this Eusebius has a rather confused notion of Nero, partly confusing him with Caligula and partly reporting the usual anti-Julio-Claudian claptrap -- which could be a facile reading of Suetonius and Tacitus. In brief, Eusebius is clueless about the reality as usual and is only helpful in displaying what could be known about his time.

Where is Tacitus, apparently the only testimony we have for the supposed persecution derived from a false accusation related to the fire of Rome of 64 CE? He only appears conveniently with Sulpicius Severus, a yet later christian writer.

What about Suetonius, and the mention of the christians punished? Not very useful that... we have a list of civil provisions under Nero (Suet. Nero 16.2):

1) no hot foods were to be sold in taverns,
2) christians were to be tortured,
3) no charioteer diversions, and
4) pantomimes were banished.

Note the odd one out? For those that need help: civil disorder often gathered around taverns, charioteers were known for their creation of civil disorder and civil disorder also flourished around pantomime shows. Perhaps civil disorder is also an attribute of early christianity, but I doubt it. Yet, this list gives the christians the worst stick.

Texts such as Tacitus and Suetonius have survived due to christian monks and scribes maintaining them. We certainly need to be aware of this fact when analysing the texts that they maintained. We are so when it comes to biblical texts and see that the woman caught in adultery was not original to the text, nor was the ending of Mark, nor the trinitarian intrusions such as found in 1 John and elsewhere. As we have to face reality the orthodox corruption of christian texts for polemical reasons, we also have to face the possibility of the same sort of thing with non-christian texts in christian hands. We have a clear example of corruption with the TF in Josephus (whether one wants to admit a total inserion or not). Why should non-christian works which have less sanctity be any less prone to corruption for polemical purposes?

The so-called pagan witnesses to christianity need to be understood in the context of their preservation as well as their literary and historical context.

Tacitus is supposed to be our only literary witness to a persecution derived from a fire, yet

1) the text is not known to be known to christians until very late,
2) the text contains an error that Tacitus should not have made,
3) the text changes the emphasis of a subtle attack on Nero to a bloodfest against the christians, and
4) the text gives the Roman pagans of Nero's time the ability to discern christians from other messianists that seems better than the a half century later, when Pliny is trying to come to terms with what to make of christians in Bythinia (see Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan).

The rush to justify christian persecution overshadows the problems implicit in dealing with the source texts. Where are the other pagan reports of crispy crackly christians burning bright into the night in the writers who were more into such literary delights? They're simply not to be found, just as are reasons to take this disastrous gloss in Tacitus are not to be found. In fact tangible evidence for a Neronian persecution in general is just as lacking. This won't stop the gullible touting of Tacitus unanalysed as sure proof of persecution by Nero trying to find a scapegoat for the fire which he didn't even start.

But why a Neronian persecution when there were real christian persecutions (as the fuss over the bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, hiding out while his counterpart in Rome gets martyred during the period of Decius and Valerian)? Nero was responsible for the destruction of the temple and the fall of Judea to Vespasian and Titus. This was a bloody affair which spelt the end of a Judean state (with the last embers coming from the messianic hopeful Simeon Bar Kochba). After Nero disappeared from the scene there were rumours for decades of his coming return (see numerous Sybilline Oracles). Because of this war, Nero became the enemy par excellence of the Jewish people as a whole. He persecuted the whole population of the Jewish god and our christian friends obviously inherited this attitude towards Nero and as they too were the populstion of the Jewish god, they too must have been persecuted by this monster.

It is normal for the slow acting young Nero to be the fall guy to the various shallow analyses of Rome at the time, based on the polemic writings of the anti-Julio-Claudian writers, but, when you are trying to learn what actually happened, the historian's job is to give the source texts a hard critical going over rather than slavishly accept the literal truths of these noble writers.

The case for a Neronian persecution in general is extremely weak, based on unverified sources. Until some more coherent analysis of the evidence regarding the matter comes along, we should see the persecution as a "pious fiction", as probably was a Flavian persecution under Domitian. This is of course not to say that christians never got a hard time before the reign of Trajan, as the Romans went through various sorts of purges, such as throwing out all the philosophers from Rome, so christians could have received a hard time when the Jews did or when all other groups did. It's just that the historical viability of a Neronian persecution never takes flight, as there aren't the historical wings to get it up.


spin

spin

For some reason you would like to ignore the real political situation. Why? Just because it is uncomfortable for your desires? Syria was the leading province of the region, as has consistently been shown. H.Agrippa was an appointed king because of his friendship with the Julio-Claudian family.There is no precedent to say that after his death the kingdom should be handled differently from before he got the realm. Syria dealt with all the major decisions in the region, be it regarding the Pathians, the Armenians, Arabs or the Jews. There is no way to deny this. The texts are teeming with examples.

What does Tacitus say, that you don't like so much?


spin

Ben C Smith

No, I want you to elucidate your version of the political situation with primary evidence, not your own good reasoning.

I agree. And I know where to find primary evidence for this statement.

I agree. And I know where to find primary evidence for this statement.

I cannot trace the reason for such a question. The answer is nothing. But I do not know what even inspired the question.

This is the very Tacitean statement in dispute. Tacitus may be right. You may be right. But it is surprising that in this case a statement may stand on its own, while in the case of the Neronian persecution all the various statements fall together and mean nothing to you.

The following is from our original exchange on the events following the death of Agrippa:

Note that in that section of the Antiquities, after the death of Agrippa, the citizens of Caesarea and Sebaste raise a ruckus at the house of the deceased king. Where was Syria during this ruckus? Syria apparently did not intervene; once Claudius had Fadus installed as procurator, he ordered Fadus (A) to punish the inhabitants of those cities, (B) to remove the Caesarean body of soldiers, and (C) to replace those removed soldiers with soldiers from Syria.

You said that, when the kings were not ruling Judea, it was Syria that dealt with the disturbances. Why had Syria not intervened during this disturbance, if Syria was in charge as soon as Agrippa had died?

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Could you explain what you mean by Eusebius confusing Nero and Caligula ?

I can't see it myself.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Spin said I've been looking through the references in the Sibylline Oracles to the Roman destruction of the Temple.

Although there are certainly pasages there blaming it on Nero there are also pasages blaming it on Vespasian/Titus
Titus is regarded very hostilely in rabbinic Jewish tradition as the destroyer of the Temple.

I'm not clear that Jewish attitudes over the Jewish war explain why Nero would gain a fictitious reputation as a persecutor of Christians rather than Vespasian or Titus.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I doubt Eusebius ever read Suetonius or Tacitus. According to Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, page 312, Eusebius seldom cites Latin literature. Even when he cites Tertullian, according to Carriker, it is only the one work, the Apology, and that through a Greek translation. Neither Suetonius nor Tacitus makes the library list on pages 302-303.

In what way?

We certainly do. But you will need to go into at least a little detail to explain why one of these Christian monks or scribes gave Tacitus the words exitiabilis superstitio for Christianity. And, if Tacitus is suspect in your eyes because he makes a bigger deal of the event than you think he ought, why is Suetonius suspect? This selective list is all that I can gather so far:

The actual list is:

1. Limit on expenditures.
2. Public banquets confined to distribution of food.
3. No cooked foods except pulse and vegetables to be sold in taverns.
4. Christians were punished for their new superstition.
5. Chariot diversions banned.
6. Pantomime banned.

The lead into this list is:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made.

That is the topic. New laws. (I am not sure where you got the idea that the topic was civil disorder only, though of course many new laws will naturally be made in order to quell or prevent civil disorder, as the many abuses line hints.) Thus, the punishment of Christians was, according to Suetonius, new. This agrees with Tertullian (that Nero was the first to flash the imperial sword against the sect).

Ben.

Roger Pearse

A *bad* Greek translation, as Harnack showed long ago.

All things that censors and moralists would approve of, designed to restore Roman moral fibre. The expulsion of sleazy foreigners (philosophers, magicians, etc) happens in other cases, I believe.

All the best,

Roger Pearse