The Anti-Christian Emperors

[the_Apostate]

He could just have easily stated that Nero persecuted the Zoroasterians.  And, as you claim, Tacitus was also not particularly fond of the Christians either - especially when calling Christ a criminal.  

No, the followers of Zoroaster were an ancient and dignified lot and that counted for pretty much in the ancient world. To have stated that would have been very different.

The question about when the christians became a household name which LB raises is a very interesting one. Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius (yeah I know they were friends) suggests that at least highly educated Romans knew who the christians were at the beginning of the second century though the words of Tacitus surely means that not all his potential readers were supposed to know.

Here's the  :Dpeace treaty

Sejanus considers it unlikely that Nero persecuted the christians.

The Apostate believes he did.

Both agree that the evidence for this is not very solid and that for all we know Tacitus and Suetonius may have the same source be that source written or oral.

Cheers

[Robert_Brenchley]

By the time I was 10 I'd been reading the papers for several years; the only thing I can remember not being able to handle was the pages and pages of blurb every time anyone was hanged. the death penalty for murder was abolished in the UK when I was 8.

The way Tacitus describes the persecution, he makes it sound like a serious scandal; he mentions the 'feeling of compassion' the people had for the victims. Does any other Roman writer apart from Suetonius mention this, even in general terms? Apart from these two, we have Clement of Rome (late 2nd Century), Eusebius quoting two earlier sources whose dates I don't know, and Sulpicius Severus, again I don't know his dates. Most scholars would accept that the persecution occurred, at least in Biblical Studies. Tacitus certainly sounds as though he has an axe to grind.

[sejanus]

Okay....I agree with the treaty.


BUT......I would just like to clear up one last thing:
We are not talking about modern 10-year-olds.  I believe that Tacitus was aristocratic, no?  An ancient aristocratic male about to go into puberty and with high ambitions is not going to care about some little sect being persecuted.  Young boys of the time would have been training to go into manhood - learning manners and only hearing about the most important and general topics from his father or his father's clients.  There were thousands of things going on at that one time.  Persecution was nothing new.  And the persecution of an insignificant religious sect was not cared for by the aristocratic of the time, who had to deal with things involving themselves much, much more.
Is it fair to guess that RB and TA were lower middle-class to upper middle-class in their upbringing?  Everyone in Roman society was working.  And the children had to prepare for manhood, thus leaving them extremely little time to explore that which they liked; and they didn't have summer vacation either.  There was no middle class in Roman society - only lower-class and upper-class.  The lower class wouldn't particularly care because they had to deal with the trudgeries of everyday life!  And the aristocracy wouldn't care because there were much more important matters and thoughts to entertain.  And there were no newspapers!

[the_Apostate]

... Eusebius quoting two earlier sources whose dates I don't know, and Sulpicius Severus, again I don't know his dates.

Sulpicius Severus (c. 363 - c. 420) is a late source, but I'd be very interested in who the two sources in Eusebius are. If they were pagan historians that would be strong corroborating evidence. Unfortunately I have no copy of Eusebius on my bookshelf could you look them up for me Robert?

[Robert_Brenchley]

<<Sulpicius Severus (c. 363 - c. 420) is a late source, but I'd be very interested in who the two sources in Eusebius are. If they were pagan historians that would be strong corroborating evidence. Unfortunately I have no copy of Eusebius on my bookshelf could you look them up for me Robert? >>

Gaius, a Roman Christian, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. I must apologise for an error in my earlier post; Clement of Rome was of course late 1st Century.

[Laetvs]

Does anyone know the names of any prominent historians or any scholarly works which claim that Nero did not persecute Christians?

[sejanus]

I seldom read later accounts of Julio-Claudian history - for they most often take information from Suetonius and thus have many innacuracies.  I read the original sources and seperate the facts from the crap.  I thus find it much easier to add two and two and get four, instead of six (which usually happens when you read Suetonius and Dio ).

[sejanus]

Ah....But the problem with that is most ancient historians did not attempt to refute innacuracies, but instead ommitted them from their histories.

[Laetvs]

Then until presented with actual evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that Tacitus' account is generally valid (maybe not all the details but at least the general idea--Nero killed Christians).  Sejanus, if you ever remember the names of those historians you met in Italy, please let me know.  

If anyone else has ever read anything (ancient or modern) that directly refutes Tacitus on this, please pass it on.  Thanks!

[the_Apostate]

Gaius, a Roman Christian, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth.

Mille grazie!

[the_Apostate]

There is simply no firm evidence. Two pagan writers that knew eachother is certainly no firm evidence.

These are the respects in which my views differ from yours and Sejanus':

1) Tacitus had no reason to lie about the persecution of christians during the time of Nero therefore it is likely that they took place but definitely not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2) The passages are not forgeries. Takes a genius to fake a genius and the medieval monks didn't even have the historical insight to fake the latin of Tacitus. In fact they didn't have much of the modern historical outlook at all. If they should have inserted passages they would have done it in their latin not in the latin of Tacitus.
3) It is not unlikely that the christians had made themselves conspicuous in Rome twenty years after the death of Christ even if there were many many sects in Rome and since not very many respected such a new sect they would have been ideal for some amusement-persecution by baddie boy Nero.

In fact the persecutions may have given them some much needed publicity and would have helped them to expand.

 

[LordBest]

There is no firm evidence either way, that persecution took place is possible but the manner in which it was implemented is highly unlikely and that is the part I believe is fabrication. At worst I would imagine church leaders were killed and others exiled in the case of citizens or just resold in the case of slaves.
I reserve opinion on whether some of the letters of Pliny are false, though similar messages engraved on tablets found in Palestine are suspiciously similar and i believe are fuel for the fact they might originate from holy land scribes.
                                       LordBest.

[sejanus]

Tacitus' account of Nero's "persecution" of Christians was actually quite entertaining.  The style in which it reads is one that Tacitus most often uses when writing propaganda and/or his disolusioned biases.  And besides that, the description is quite short - only two tiny paragraphs.  The footnote by the translator (Michael Grant - one of the greatest Julio-Claudian hisotrians alive) which refutes Tacitus' claims is in fact longer than the quote itself.  If this was such a nationaly outcry, then Tacitus would obviously have written more about it, as he does with everything else.  The mere shortness of this indicates that it is one of his many innaccuracies conceived for the sole purpose of rhetorical effect and imposing his views on the reader.

[sejanus]

Oh, and would anyone like to point out to me where Suetonius talks of Nero's burning Christians?

[seth]

in fact, galerius was the 1st emperor to allow christianity. shortly before dying, he publicly denounced his earlier edicts which persecuted christians.
i know i read it somewhere.. cant remember where though..

[roscoedaisy]

I thought it was Constantius I who did that.  He didn't carry out the persecutions as avidly as the other Tetrarch's and never got into it.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Constantius I published the ban on Christians but never implemented it. galerius persecuted them avidly (though not as much as Max Daia), then restored their peoperty and renounced the ban just before his death. Suetonius blames Nero for the fire of Rome (Nero 38), says nothing about Christians, and emphasises his greed at the time. I'm not sure about Tacitus' account of the persecution; it seems to be in character for Nero, though the stories of his atrocities are doubtless exaggerated, perhaps grossly so. Tacitus seems to have had axes to grind about both Christians and Nero. No Chriatian author mentions it before the 2nd Century. No document can be shown to have been written under its influence, though plenty of early Christian works are influenced by persecution, probably from Jews. Something may well have happened, but if it did it must have been pretty limited in scope.

[vercingetorix]

1) Tacitus had no reason to lie about the persecution of christians during the time of Nero therefore it is likely that they took place but definitely not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2) The passages are not forgeries. Takes a genius to fake a genius and the medieval monks didn't even have the historical insight to fake the latin of Tacitus. In fact they didn't have much of the modern historical outlook at all. If they should have inserted passages they would have done it in their latin not in the latin of Tacitus.
3) It is not unlikely that the christians had made themselves conspicuous in Rome twenty years after the death of Christ even if there were many many sects in Rome and since not very many respected such a new sect they would have been ideal for some amusement-persecution by baddie boy Nero.

I am not sure these arguments are entirely accurate.
First of all monks did have the qualities to write using the same latin as Tacitus and the reason they would do it is simple. I don't say they did for tacitus but most certainly the did in other cases, one of the most famous being Testimonium Flavianum, where Flavius Josephus, a jew, supposedly claims that Jesus was Mesiah and he resurrected after three days. Fragments from Eusebius were also forged. Monks were clearly educated in a radical christian doctrine, they despised the ancient pagan beliefs, while, at the same time they admired other cultural aspects of the antiquity. As you probably know their habits from "Il nome della Rosa" by Umberto Eco (or seen the movie with Sean Connery) their religious society is centered on the library where tey copy books, but, but, especially patristic books, old christian books. The ones from the classical antiquity are under close survey and only a few got to see them. Anyway I believe that these monks, if not invented certain episodes, they could at least exagerate them in their christian belief.
As for the christianity during the reign of Nero, the roman society did not differenciate it much from other jewish religious parties, and they rejected it as being jewish and for being jewish and not because of Christ. I believe that the episode told by Tacitus and Suetonius also, is true but I am not sure that the proprtion of the drama is accurate.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Whoever forged the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus did a poor job, which is why modern scholars have been able to spot it, despite its being a considerably shorter passage than that in Tacitus on Nero's persecution. As far as I know, nobody has claimed to have evidence that that isn't authentic Tacitus. I think something happened, but that Tacitus may well have overemphasised it due to his dislike, firstly, of Nero, who he wanted to vilify, and secondly, of the Christians. Subsequently, of course, the church has run the story for all it's worth, and the end result is a pretty false picture in my view. Tacitus says that Nero killed 'many' Christians, but how many is that? Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in about 52, and while they seem to have returned in Nero's reign, the picture we get from Paul's letter to the Romans is of a church now dominated by what was formerly (probably) the Gentile minority, and which is small enough to meet in one, probably small, house. I don't think there were that many Christians there to kill.

[*Alex]

I watched a program recently called "Who burned Rome?" (can't remember whether it was on Discovery or History). The upshot was that if the Christians (or a group allied to them) did not start the fire they were probably responsible for spreading it. The producers of the program also concluded that Nero really believed the Christians were involved and that they were in fact Rome's equivalent of Al Quaeda.

Alex.

[Robert_Brenchley]

I've come across that idea as well. Trouble is, we only really know much about the pro-Roman, non-Torah observant Pauline churches, there's only a scattering of texts from the observant majority. We do know, from the book of Revelation, that some were vehemently anti-Roman, and dreamed of God visiting Rome with a sort of bigger and better version of the fire. We also know that the Jerusalem church virtually disappeared in 70, though Palestinian Christianity remained strong, and continued to be dominated by Jesus' family. What we don't know is how they stood on the war. Traditionally, it's been assumed that they were anti-rebel, but that has no evidence to back it, and Revelation against it. We don't even know for sure that Tacitus' 'Christiani' were what we call Christians today; the term meant something like 'Messianists', and could actually have referred to the followers of any Messiah figure. It's certainly possible that some such group, whether followers of Jesus or not, were responsible for the fire, and Tacitus and others transferred the blame to Nero. Or it could have been a pure accident like the Great Fire of London, for which someone was actually hanged. There's just no certainty at all.

[curtislclay]

Looking at the passage in Tacitus, I think there can be no doubt that it is original not interpolated, and that the basic facts related by Tacitus must be correct:  Nero blamed the fire of 64 on the Christians and executed them in such cruel ways (attaching animal skins to some so they would be torn apart by dogs, burning others alive on crosses at night) as to arouse sympathy for the victims and horror at Nero's own ferocity.
You can't profess to be a serious historian and then make up alleged public events that took place only sixty years before you wrote.  If Nero's punishment of the Christians had never taken place as Tacitus relates, contemporaries of his with access to numerous other histories of Nero's time and also with their own or their parents' reminiscences of the true events, would have immediately refuted it and made Tacitus the laughingstock of intellectual Rome late in Trajan's reign!
Surprisingly, there have been scholars who dismissed Tacitus' account as an interpolation, or thought for example that it was really the Jews not Christians that Nero blamed and punished for the fire, but these ideas are solidly refuted by Furneaux in his 1896 Oxford edition and commentary on Tacitus, Appendix II, "On the Neronian Persecution of the Christians".  I would be interested to hear from Sejanus on what grounds Michael Grant rejected the factuality of Tacitus' account.
Robert B. says Tacitus' "Christians" may just have been messianists of a different stripe, not followers of  the Christian Jesus, but Tacitus explicitly says that their name arose from Christ who was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius!
As to the "huge multitude" of Christians punished according to Tacitus, Furneaux comments that this difficulty "may be lessened by remembering that the expression is rhetorical, and that the somewhat similar 'immensa strages' ['immense slaughter'] of 6. 19, 3 has been thought to mean no more than twenty executions in one day."

[Robert_Brenchley]

It's true that Tacitus identifies them as followers of the Christos executed by Pilate, but Pliny's letter to Trajan shows how little the Romans understood of what was undoubtedly a complex and diverse movement or movements. JC led one branch, another remained true (as far as we know) to John the Baptist, there may have been others. I didn't say that it was a strong possibility, merely that it was possible; the chance of its being a non-Pauline branch of the Jesus movement is, I think, far greater. If it was the Pauline branch, then 20 or so executions is perfectly plausible, except that there's no evidence of the church in Rome ever having been devastated in such a fashion! In the case of Suetonius' remark about the followers of 'Chrestus', the confusion is obvious; does the name refer to Christians, Messianists of some other stamp, or followers of some bloke called Chrestus?

[Numerianus]

We have quite an interseting discussion in the thread
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=12122.0
where the opinion was expressed that it is quite plausible  that  the Roma fire of  64 for 
an equivalent of Al-Qaeda  atack. As the  supreme commander Nero reacted
quite efficiently.  The Roman writers  had no doubts that the enemies  should be
punished but  in a conventional way (which could mean just to crusify)  but they condemned Nero
for searching especially cruel kinds of executions to satisfy hiw perversive nature.
By the way,   the exhautic punishmens chosen  could have some deep sense.
I read somewhere that only several decades ago British authorities  to fight
the islamic terrorists used a practice to bury them in a pig skin (no entrance to paradise!)
and it was  a dissuasive measure!

[Federico M]

Tacitus explicitly says that their name arose from Christ who was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius!

I'm going to quote these words a bit out of their context... The fact that Tacitus had to explain who these "Christians" were is quite telling and suggest that indeed Nero was just looking for some minor and not very influent sect to blame without too many problems... In other words, if we really want (as a "theoretical" exercise) to fint a very "anti-Christian" emperor, we shouldn't, in my hopinion, put Nero on the top of the list. He probably persecuted the Christians by accident more than for religious or political reasons (even if he probably did a big "show"). On the other hand, some other emperors had specific social and political reasons to contrast this new cult.

Federico