FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => History and Archeology => Topic started by: Jericho on February 23, 2003, 11:48:42 am
-
I know I should do my homework on this, but...
Who were some of the most anti-Christian of the roman emperors? I knew nothing about Julian the Apostate until this morning and had no idea of his anti-Christian, pro-paganism stance.
I'm slowly educating myself on these emperors whose coins I own, but it's slow going.
I'm curious, who are some of the greatest (or most infamous) anti-Christian emperors?
jericho
-
Nero
Marcus Aurelius
Trajan Decius
Valerian
Claudius Gothicus
Diocletian
Galerius
Maxentius
Julian II
Possibly Basil II, someone theorised he was a pagan for some reason. Trust me to know this eh. ::)
LordBest. 8)
-
Nero (I don't think he'd ever heard about the sect), Decius and Diocletian are sometimes considered as having taken a special delight in pursuing the Christians.
If you want to read about good old Julian there are many books and ancient sources. The apostate is probably the emperor about whom we know the most. Ammianus Marcellinus (a pagan) wrote about him and then there are the Christian historians. Socrates for instance - I believe - (I'm just too lazy to get up from my chair and check it out) wrote extensively about Julian or Julien le Philosophe as the Frogs call him.
G. W. Bowersock has written a short and highly readable book on the emperor and some of the emperor's own writings are also extant. (3 volumes in the Loeb library)
Some Byz pagans used the death of Julian instead of the death of Christ as marking a new era.
-
Yes, Nero blamed them for the fire, Claudius II (Gothicus) claim to fame is martyring St Valentinus and Diocletian should in fact come after Galerius as Galerius was really fanatical about it while Diocletian thought it was just good for a laugh, I'd imagine. Some of Julian IIs own writing have surived, I have a letter he wrote the public of Antioch (who didnt like him much and didnt want to convert) which is a brilliant piece of self-satire. And guess what, the public of Antioch converted. ::) I think it was Antioch anyway.
LordBest. 8)
-
If you're interested in the transition from paganism to christianity I recommend that you get Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox. I'm almost prepared to promise you the money back if you're dissatisfied by this broad work that conjures up a lost world. The past is a foreign country and reading this book is like travelling.
There's also an old German work called die letzten Tagen des Griechischen-Römischen Heidenheits by J. Geffcken. I don't know if there's a translation but if anyone should have a dusty copy on their shelf I'm more than willing to buy it.
T. D. Barnes is supposed to be very good on Constantine and should include lots of info about his pagan forerunners as well.
Ramsay McMullen, A. D. Nock and Peter Brown are also recommended.
-
Anyone interested in the above-mentioned Basil II or Basil the Bulgar-slayer should read the masterly chapter about the emperor in Psellus' Chronographia.
-
Julian didn't persecute Christians in the normal sense of the term, but he did make life difficult for them by throwing out pro-Christian laws, ordering the teaching of anti-Christian works, and the like. The last persecutions were at least partly aimed at church finances; the empire needed money, and the church had it. By that time, though, relationships were closer than they might seem; the church was already beginning to use the imperial courts to settle property disputes. Constantine's takover was really the result of a process of evolution rather than a sudden change.
I suspect the persecutions may have been exaggerated; one Second-Century writer (I forget who) says that they 'know the names' of the martyrs, which suggests that there was a fairly limited number of them. Tertullina may have written that 'If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile fails to rise, if there is famine, if there is plague, the cry goes up, 'The Christians to the lion!'. what, all of them to one lion?' but he was a terrible exaggerator, and he wasn't the only one. I doubt whether the empire was sufficiantly organised for the sort of widespread persecution often envisaged; the Emperor would issue a decree, but whether and how far it was carried out probably depended largely on provincial governors. Diocletian's laws about maximum prices don't seem to have had much effect, and it was probably the same thing in numerous other areas.
-
I defend IULIANUS II.
This emperor is a survivor to the slaughter of the families perpetrated from Constantinus I (cynical man and opportunist). Order to Atene studies philosophy with profit and absorbs the values of the Attica (Justice and Democracy).
Become Julianus imperator is of front a big problem.... was initiated the persecution of the Christians against the pagans.
Julianus intervenes and declares free each cult. .obviously the pagan to despoil of all his possessions asks the reinstate,,,. "give to us our temples... .and the attached propertys " They that's why burst brawls and revolts.
....Julianus intervenes and tries to do to respect his edicts.
The Christians win the game and write the history to their use and consumption.
For avoid equivocals I declare of be Christian Apostolic Roman.. .and also convinced democratic.
ser
-
The persecution of Christians was in many ways unique in history. It was rather small to gain such publicity, it was not the size claime by early historians as Christianity didnt have the numbers until the 5th century to be persecuted in such a manner and by then they were persecuting pagans. secondly it was the only persecution where people were tortured and cajoled to save them. Instead of killing people because they were Christian the government tried to get them to show loyalty to the emperor, if they had done that they could have gone home regardless of their religious beliefs. Much of the evidence gathered from earlier Christian cemetaries would indicate that in fact many more Christians sacrificed to the emperor and went on happily rather than became matyrs.The numbers that died naturally areproportionate to the amount of early Christians believed to have been in the empire, and very few showed signs of execution.
LordBest. 8)
-
LB, the persecution of Christians went beyond being merely an issue of loyalty to the emperor, at least during Diocletian's reign...it was a real religious struggle. In 303, Diocletian issued an edict prohibiting all assemblies of Christians for purposes of worship and commanded the destruction of their churches and sacred texts. This was followed by two further edicts ordering the arrest of all Christian clergy who refused to sacrifice to pagan divinities. A fourth edict in 304 extended these edicts to all Christians, not just clergy.
-
Oh yeah, it was different during the Geat Persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, i was referring to the earlier persecutions. But even the "great" persecution is an overblown title as christians werent particularly numerous. remember only about half the population attached themselvesto any single cult, and by far the largest was the cult of Isis, followed by Mithras leaving Christianity with a very small percentage of the population. And when you consider most of them were not matyred it only leaves a very small number who were killed and this is coroborated by burial evidence. But it was still far more sadistic and took on overtones of ethnic cleansing during the first decade of the 4th century.
One chap I spoke to likened the persecution of Dio and Galerius to the Nazi persecution of gypsies and the persecutions of earlier times to the US perseuction of communists. I personally think both are innacurate but there you go. ::)
LordBest. 8)
-
I, too, defend Nero. His "ravanous pursuing of Christians" was no more than bull-plop conceived solely by biased Christian historians who lived 500 years after the man died. He did not set fire to Rome, nor did he burn Christians alive. >:( The fire started in a bakery. :P
-
Sejanus and LB, there IS evidence outside of Christian writers that Nero killed Christians, in Rome, in front of crowds, and burned them alive. Read Tacitus' Annals XV: "Dressed in wild animals' skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight. Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled with the crowd."
-
Claudius II (Gothicus) was the emperor responsible for the persecution which resulted in the execution of St. Valentine on Feb. 14, 270. By the way, in addition to being a lay priest, Valentine was a physician. :)
-
In my city Claudius II has a tall consideration.
Beyond to the spent possession all years long of his kingdom for contain the diffused anarchy from the auto-proclamation of many usurpers, it besides always was attentive to the economic comfort of the population that lived working the fields. .the chronicles tell us that it to expenses of the state made scatter million of tons of quicklime on the ground of many regions for reduce the acidity of the ground and to give again the fertility impoverished from too intense exploitation.
This economic healing got him the recognition "post mortem.". .the so much commemorative coins attest it,
As then to the persecutions must be told that the Christianity has founded his fortune on the commiseration of wrong perhaps not suffered from..
ser
-
About Tacitus' claim - though he is more accurate than any other ancient historian of whom I know, he is EXTREMELY biased! :o He makes many false claims about Tiberius and all the other saps he didn't like, one of which was Nero. Nero was not mad. Nero was loved by the public until the great fire - HE WAS THE LAST SURVIVING HEIR OF GERMANICUS!!!!!!! :o :o :o
-
LB - If Tacitus wrote that Nero persecuted Christians, even assuming some bias and inaccuracy, there is simply no logical way to blame 6th century Christians for "conceiving" the story. Now you're casting doubt on the account by saying that Tacitus is extremely biased. I don't dispute that, and am indeed convinced that he exaggerated many of Nero's faults. But why would he invent this particular story? Tacitus was no fan of the Christians, and even stated that they deserved their punishment. He was not alone in this belief: Suetonius wrote essentially the same thing, listing the persecution of Christians among Nero's good deeds. So if Tacitus really wanted to discredit Nero on this issue, why would he make up something that he would no doubt categorize as one of Nero's good deeds? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to downplay the persecutions, thereby implying that Nero was "soft on crime?"
Obvoiusly, you are an admirer of Rome's pagan culture, as, to a point, am I. I hope you will not let that admiration cloud your logic, nor lead you to knowingly make factually erroneous claims under the guise of defending that culture.
-
Remember Tacitus and Suetonius were good friends from the same class and I think both were extremely biased against emperors who persecuted their class. However if Pliny, whom I believe to be far more impartial, corroborates them both then I will be convinced it happened. This is the way to go about studying ancient history, checking all sources and then speculating about the bits that overlap. One of the reasons Gallienus turned out to be one of the most brilliant emperors, once you sort out the crap all thats left is a brilliant campaigners who presided over a cultural renaissance. Sodding Historia Augusta)
Romes "pagan culture" was the most tolerant and cultured society in charge of the greatest empire and wealthiest state in the entirety of human history, not to say it didnt have its down side. :)
LordBest. 8)
-
LB, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I agree that Tacitus was biased against Nero. But Tacitus didn't like Christians either, and thought they deserved their punishment. So, logically, why would Tacitus fabricate a story about Nero doing a good deed if Tacitus' intent was to discredit Nero? It doesn't make sense.
-
Ah, thats a good point actually. When I have the time I'll read through Pliny and see what he says, and maybe go through Tacitus again too.
LordBest. 8)
-
I agree with Laetus. If Tacitus who was about ten years old when Nero pathetically exclaimed "Qualis artifex pereo" wrote that Nero persecuted the christians it was probably because he did so.
It is also important to remember that Tacitus didn't take it for granted that his readers knew who the christians were. He explained that they were the followers of a criminal (I think he uses that word but I can't find the passage right now) executed during the reign of Tiberius. It is not likely that he had reason to tell lies about a not very well known religious sect.
-
Of course Tacitus had to explain who the Christians were, there were 300 cults of varying sizes existing in the city of Rome, saying "Oh the Christians are being burned again, poor buggers" would most likely get a response of "which ones are the Christians again?". Christians were not a household name until the 4th century. :)
This sort of debate is good though, I always assumed that because there was doubt about the veracity of Tacitus claims then it was probable they were fictitious. Now that i think about it and as Laetvs pointed out Tacitus didnt like Christians it seems more likely that during the reign of Nero Christians were publicly executed.
LordBest. 8)
-
You say that Tacitus was around 10 under the regn of Nero? The persecution of Christians would not be a 10-year-old's main concerns. In fact, he probably didn't even care unil he began writing his books. Nero had no reason to persecute Christians - as he was not insane nor were the Christians any threat to Romans society. The Romans were an incredibly tolerant race; which is one of the main reasons that they survived for so long. Adopting the traditions and assimilating other peoples was a great skill that the Romans had. They did not single out peoples for their religion, nor the colour of their skin. I am not saying that the Romans agreed with Christianity, but I am saying that they did not loathe it. Tacitus claims many inaccuracies against almost every emperor he writes about. 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. Thus with this short passage he was able to kill two birds with one stone. As most great writers, Tacitus can invent fanciful stories or fantasies. He did so with every emperor - especially Tiberius. Suetonius also had a penchant for inventing things - and the mere fact that they were friends and wrote about the same things comes as no surprise.
And why, may I ask, did not Cassius Dio write of this? And why did no other pagan historians write of this? Why did only later, Christian propagandists write about this? These same Christian "historians" who made it seem as though the Christians had been the butt of Roman jokes and atrocities, tried desperately with their rambling writings to glorify Christianity and make it saeem as though it had been punished. I have all too many Julio-Claudian historians who agree with this; who say that no, Nero did not tie up Chrisitians, tar them and burn them alive. History has a bad way wrongly incriminating people because of one line in on book written by one author who couldn't care less. To believe the later Christian propagandists is to hold onto old, incorrect traditions and to not look at all of the facts. Look at all of the factors and biases before coming to a conclusion, for this will surely spread light on any topic.
-
I have all too many Julio-Claudian historians who agree with this; who say that no, Nero did not tie up Chrisitians, tar them and burn them alive.
Name them.
-
You say that Tacitus was around 10 under the reign of Nero? The persecution of Christians would not be a 10-year-old's main concerns.
When I was 10 I watched the news. I'm sure Tacitus was a boy of more sense than me and that he noticed some things.
I know Tacitus was a better writer than an accurate historian and I only said that his words make it probable that Nero persecuted the Christians. To be reasonably sure we would need more evidence. However they were a fanatic group, they didn't carry the respect of tradition and it wouldn't be surprising if they made themselves conspicuous very early - fine scapegoats!
I didn't reach a stronger conclusion than some likelihood, otherwise I agree with most of your post.
-
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 :D:
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
-
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.
-
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. :P 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!
-
... 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?
-
<<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.
-
Does anyone know the names of any prominent historians or any scholarly works which claim that Nero did not persecute Christians?
-
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 ;)).
-
Ah....But the problem with that is most ancient historians did not attempt to refute innacuracies, but instead ommitted them from their histories. ;)
-
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!
-
Gaius, a Roman Christian, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth.
Mille grazie!
-
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.
-
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. 8)
-
Tacitus' account of Nero's "persecution" of Christians was actually quite entertaining. ;D 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. ;)
-
Oh, and would anyone like to point out to me where Suetonius talks of Nero's burning Christians? ::)
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
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!
-
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
-
opinion was expressed that it is quite plausible that the Roma fire of 64 for
an equivalent of Al-Qaeda atack.
Well, I suppose that the accident is more likely, but given his architectural interests, that is evident also on coins, I suppose it cannot be excluded that Nero himself was really responsible (at least of the beginning) of the fire, induced to have the possibility of reconstructing a part of Rome without being blamed for putting people out of their homes...
Federico
-
Now I've checked what Tacitus said (always a good idea!) I see I accidentally strengthened his remark; he didn't write that the Christians were followers of Jesus, but that, as Curtis wrote, the name derived from him. There's an ambiguity there, I think. Even the New Testament reflects a certain confusion at times; what of Apollos, who makes an appearance in Acts 18; he 'had been instructed in the way of the Lord' and 'taught accurately the things concerning Jesus', but he 'knew only the baptism of John', and was not accepted as a member until he'd had things explained to him 'more accurately', and had been rebaptised in Jesus' name. So he belongs to some branch of the movement which Luke, who doesn't want to admit to there having been divisions and quarrels in the church, won't fully accept even though they teach accurately about Jesus! I think there was a lot going on that we just don't know about.
-
When I have a question concerning Tacitus and his works, I normally defer to Sir Ronald Syme:
"Tacitus, carefully noting an incident at Rome in the sequel of the great conflagration under Nero, registers the origin of the name 'Christiani' with doucumentary precision."
"Tacitus (it is fair to surmise) had conducted investigations into the behaviour and beliefs of those malcontents, discovering perhaps no deeds of crime or vice but only an invincible spirit that denied allegiance to Rome when allegiance meant worship of Caesar. Yet it was an 'exitiabilis superstitio'." (Tacitus, vol II, pg 469)
-
His language is completely pejorative, and while he gives the origin of the mname, what he doesn't do is to say how widespread it is, whether all groups of 'Christiani' are linked, or whether the name is used for unconnected groups which happen to use similar language. We might speak today of 'millennarians' who make the imminenent Second Coming a central plank of their religion, and say that the idea goes back to the person who started the Seventh Day Adventists. But the name encompasses numerous unconnected groups, some of which have very different agendas.
Writing at around the same time as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger says of trials of Christiani that 'I do not know what are the cusomary penalties or investigations.... whether the name itself, even if inocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attached to that name'. He questioned a number of former Christians, and discovered a harmless society, which they had left when an edict against secret societies had been published. He subsequently tortured two servant women, and discovered 'nothing but a depraved and extravagant superstition' (similar perjorative language to Tacitus). His concern isn't that he's dealing with a bunch or terrorists - he makes no mention of any such idea - but that there are allegations that the temples are deserted. It's an unlikely story on the face of it, but similar allegations are a prominent part of the story in Acts, written not too long before.
So there's clearly confusion about what these people are, what crime they've committed (if they were known to have torched Rome, surely every governor would have known it!), and they're eventually banned under a general ordinance against societies, implying that at the time there was no specific law against them. I teach Religious Education, and I spend a great deal of time addressing confusion about Islam, which is far better known that Christianity was then; governments and police show similar confusion to my students. Just after 9/11, for instance, a local Sikh leader was arrested because a policeman saw a picture of Guru Nanak in his house, and assumed that any guy with a long beard and a turban had to be bin Laden! Given the prejdice displayed against the Christiani, which would have been exacerbated enormously if some of them were terrorists, I wouldn't trust the Roman writers of the period to be at all objective about them.
-
I agree with many of your points Robert.
In the days of Nero, there could not have been very many people who we would think of today as Christians.
It's very possible that the name 'Christini" was an umbrella term encompassing many different messianic sects then residing at Rome.
-
Unfortunately, I do not know any study explaining satisfactory why the Christian
project was so successful in a long run (written not from the point of view of Roman Catholic church).
Apparently, it failed down in the first century and, possibly, due to energetic measures of Nero.
In the thread on the Roma fire we arrived, seemingly, to an understanding
that it is very unprobable that Nero ordered to burn Rome or was happy with the fire. He lost more than any other citizen! Reading Tacitus, I arrived to a conclusion that he was a talented ruler, of the same level as Vespasianus.
-
I don't think it's true to say that Christianity (which is largely an anachronism in that context!) 'failed' in the 1st Century; it may well have been quite successful as a Jewish movement, but this history has been thoroughly suppressed and there's little to go on. As long as it remained essentially Jewish, its success in the Hellenistic world was nevessarily limited. It wasn't until the middle of the 2nd Century that it began to find interpreters (known to history as the Apologists) who really set out to re-interpret it for a Roman audience, and it took theologians like Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd Century) and Origen (early 3rd) to reall get things shifting. By the time of Constantine, it was powerful, wealthy, thoroughly Romanised, and its time had come.
-
Seems to me that Paul was writing to Christian communities all around the Hellenistic oriented part of the Empire in the mid first century. Certainly these communities were trying to define themselves within a set of doctrine and there was obviously disagreement in the dynamics of forming that doctrine, but most certainly it must have been Messianic in it's basis which would have increasingly seperated them from their Jewish roots. It's my opinion that this new religion was growing like wildfire for people who found an appeal that made it desirable and in my mind that was in great part due to the promise of a better afterlife like that familiar to the Christian and Muslem of today. After all, the only ones that had a chance of a happy eternal life in the 'Roman' world were the Augusti!
-
Paul's communities were very small and scattered; the Roman church could meet in one house, for instance. Obedience to Jewish law is consistently a big issue, though Paul is quite flexible in his responses to the problems. It's clear from Galatians 2 that, despite major tensions, when the crunch came, Paul had to do what James and the Jerusalem lot wanted; the same picture of dominance by James is seen in Acts. What we see there is still a Jewish movement, with significant Gentile participation. It's only in Romans that we can say that the Gentile group is clearly predominant, and that seems to be down to the specific situation there. Jerusalem, which was obviously as Jewish as you can get, dominates for the whole of that generation.
In the 2nd century, there's a steady move towards the development of a Hellenistic form of Christianity, doubltess due to a decline in Jewish presteige on the one hand, and a desire to be acceptable to the Romans on the other. But htrough that century, you still find writers insisting that the Church had the true interpretation of Mosaic law, which is a very Jewish stance to be taking! It's only in the 3rd Century that you really get the rise of a completely Hellenised church, though Clement of Alexandria in the second was the pioneer of that.
-
There is a stunning parallelism with the history of Church in the first centuries and the history of the Communist Party.
Before the WWI there is a small radical group of Jewish intelligencia in Russia lead by Lenin. The communist project
was not popular at all. However, the war changed everything and the project became feasible, especially, due to the German money massively injected at a suitable moment: Lenin's group ("bolsheviks") took the control on the whole country.
Lenin died soon and his cult was established. Similarly to Christianism, the project became international. The Jewish origin of Ul'yanov-Lenin was declared top secret and only in perestroika it was revealed that his grandfather from mother's line got a permission from the Jewish community for the conversion in 1820, had a successful career and obtained a nobility from the emperor (I believe that this facts are still not well-known). The communist historicians rewrote history to give an importance to very minor facts. Jewish names were deleted from records (one can see the process comparing successive prints of the same book: The History of Civil War). It seems that the Christianism also had a ``stage of generalization", probably, in the 3rd century when the Roman empire was on the edge of collapse. To be honest, Christianity is just a branch of a Judaism. This point of view became tolerable or acceptable only recently. Now one can find more and more often that the European civilization is not just Chistian but Judeo-Christian.
-
Well, Robert, far be it for me to argue with a scholar which I am most certainly not. I just think it would be terribly interesting to know what that early congregation was like while it was first starting to define itself. Most certainly and logically it had to have been deeply connected to the Judaic community from which it sprang. But at the same time it must have been developing a set of Messianic tenets that clearly set it apart from the mainstream. Whatever the actual numbers of followers were in the first century, the fact that it had established itself in so many places is remarkable considering it was within the first generation of people who had witnessed the lifetime of the Christ. And in numbers that would have gained the notice of the Romans who were already passing edicts against "secret societies" as pointed out in an earlier post.
-
The question is, what's the 'mainstream', and how do you define it? Before 70, there was such a diversity of Jewish groups that some scholars speak of 'Judaisms' in the plural. Mostly, we know very little about them, and there must have been many more strands we know nothing of at all. To define one group over and against a Jewish 'mainstream' at this time is risky, and probably impossible. After 70, the Pharisees (or at least the liberal, pro-Roman ones who survived the defeat) began to re-invent themselves as rabbis, and it does become possible to speak in those terms. But each was, to some degree, defined by the other, just like Protestantism and Catholicism after the Reformation.
When it comes to Messianism, you can't say, simplistically, that 'the Jews' were expecting 'the Messiah'; every messianic text has a different spin on it, and we just don't know what proportion of the Jews were expecting anything at all. The term isn't much used before the church popularised it, and a lot of the documents point to angelic, rather than kingly, intervention. I think this links with an early Christology which saw Christ as an angel, combining the two. It's pretty clear that 'messiah' meant a human king, rather than a divine figure, ruling in God's name, and was only spiritualised later. Josephus peaks of 'kings' who appear to have been messianic figures, at least to their followers; the term 'messiah' is reserved for Vespasian. bar-Kochba was declared to be the Messiah by a leading early Rabbi, Akiba. Both revolts appear to have been inspired by messianic hopes as much as by Roman tyranny, and the pro-Roman Jews who dominated the scene afterwards spiritualised and de-politicised the term, following the lead the pro-Roman section of the church had taken a century before. Messianism was very much something inherited from Judaism, like everything else in 1st-generation Christianity!
-
Points well taken, but I didn't mean to infer that every Jewish sect had a Messianic focus. My point was that whatever the word or words used to describe it that it must have been central to this new Jewish sect that eventually evolved to be the group that we would know as Christian. And it would seem logical that it would be central to their apostolic message to convert new followers. Otherwise what was it that gave them an identity at all?
-
Originally nothing more than the idea that Yeshua ben Yosef (AKA Jesus) was the Messiah! The Jerusalem church under James must have fitted fairly well into the Jewish spectrum, since it dominated the scene for a generation till his death, probably in 62, and the disaster of 70. If Josephus' account of his murder by the Sadducees is authentic, then he must have been someone fairly important in the city, perhaps a popular religious leader, since the High Priest was apparently deposed by the Romans aster the Pharisees complained about the matter. This also suggests that he wasn't too far from the Pharisees in his 'take' on the Law. The Paul faction has its roots in what appears to have been a very early split between Jerusalemites and Jews from the Dispersion. TheNew Testament books often show a line on the Law which isn't too far from the liberal wing of the Pharisees, but Paul seems to have become so liberal that many Jews wouldn't have seen him or his followers as practising Jews at all, and over time, they followed one path, while what became Rabbinical Judaism followed another. But they share the same root, in Second Temple Judaism.
-
Sorrry to interrupt such a great conversation at such a late date, but it seems to me that Yesuh the son of Joseph was very disturbed that his teachings were being accepted by the Samaritans, I mean the Goyim, and not by the People he meant to teach. I wonder whether he would have traded all his fame, and all his future influence, if he could have been accepted as a true Jewish Prophet.
-
Seems to me that it is like asking if J was 'out of his time', would he have opted to be a TV evangelist.......don't know, but I'll bet the choir would knock your socks off!!!
-
I don't think we can really answer that one for sure; all we have to go on is the evidence of Christian communities in the generations after his death, and they don't agree abot a lot of things! What we can be reasonably sure of is that he was a Jew, and that therefore he identified with some part of the spectrum of Jewish beliefs, and that he was a Galilean. Galilee was a very multi-ethnic area with little history of Jewish rule (the name probably derives from Galil ha-Goyim; the District of the Nations). Jews were a minority there, while the majority of peasants were probably non-Jewish Israelites (Jew, at that time, primarily referred to Israelites who identified with the Jerusalem area and its religious agenda) with more affinity for Samaritans than Jews. So where did Jesus stand; did he grow up as a nationalistic exile, identifying with Jerusalem and its strictness, or was he a liberal with more concern for his non-Jewish neighbours? We're gueassing here, and we're not helped by a dearth of direct evidence as to the views of Galilean Jews.
-
But wasn't he somewhat more that a Jew from Galilee? As an advocate of the Essene wouldn't he have had a somewhat extra-Jewish view of the world?
-
I don't think he was an Essene! There were similarities; both movements accepted the idea of the Temple while rejecting the regime there as corrupt, and both seem to have organised themselves in comparable ways; possibly that was how a Jewish movement of the day was expected to organise itself. But the Essenes were extremists on the Law who rejected laxer Jews, never mind Gentiles. They even refer to themselves as 'the House of Separation'. One of their rules (from the 'Damascus Covenant') was that if an animal fell down a well on the Sabbath, you didn't pull it out (this would have been work), and if a man fell down you couldn't use a ladder or rope to get him out. You didn't associate with people outside the group on the Sabbath. Their rules on the purity of Jerusalem were so strict that they had to go so far outside the city to go to the toilet that the journey there and back was more than a Sabbath days' journey (the distance you could walk on the Sabbath). According to Josephus, they didn't 'go to stool' (Victorian translation) there on the Sabbath. The mind boggles! The Jesus movement, on the other hand, was open to Gentiles, even if the extent of their membership was controversial, and relaxed (mostly) about the Law, though again there was a lot of controversy about it. The attitudes of the two are complete opposites.
-
Perhaps 'advocate' is a little more than I wanted. Familiar certainly (his cousin the Baptist was certainly one)! But though strict in their practice, didn't the Essenes also tolerate and study alternative religions to find aspects of the Yahweh as might be illuminated by the study? And if so wouldn't that exposure have created a predilection to including non-Jews in his movement?
-
J the B may have been an Essene if what Luke wrote about him is historically correct, and there's no guarantee of that. If he ever was, he must presumably have left at some point, since going out baptising all comers is completely at odds with Essense practice. They were essentially reactionaries, against increasing Hellenism (though, like all Jews of the time, they were actually pretty thoroughly Hellenised themselves), and against Sadducean domination of the Temple. Many of their surviving writings reject other Jews; they don't mention Gentiles except as the enemy. What evidence we have that they may have been more open to other religions comes from secondary sources, and is probably not correct.
-
Robert, thank you for your patience. What I have been trying to understand is 'what was this cult that the Romans at the time of Nero in the mid 1st century found to be a harmless but curious religious sect' ? We know that they refused to perform any of the rites that would require them to perform sacrifices to the welfare of the Roman State or it's emperor. We apparently know that they were not in favor of the hard line Jews dominating the Temple and it's religius politics. So what was it that set them appart and gave them an identity? To say they were followers of the Christ figure is obvious, I guess. But what does that mean? Much later on (4th century) they were recognized by Constantine for their ablity to perform what amounted to welfare acts in the distribution of food and clothing to the poor and needy which the Roman State was not really set up to do. In extrapulation, does that provide the hint of a clue to what they were about at the beginning? Something extending beyond their Jewish roots; actively seeking converts in the lowest castes of the "Roman" world; and perhaps a rite of baptism as an act of rebirth? You must be right in that at the beginning they were represented by small groups scattered around the Mediterranean basin. But they did grow and there must have been something in what they were about that made them powerfully attractive........
-
Reading Tacitus or Suetonius one cannot concclude that
'...the Romans at the time of Nero in the mid 1st century found to be a harmless but curious religious sect'.
Definitely, it was condemned as very dangerous cult. By the way, nowadays Europeans consider
as dangerous sectes some religious movements which have the most reputed status of Churches in the US,
is not it?
It seems that Nero's eradicated the branch presumably guilty in the Roma fire and related with Christ.
As a proof one can recall a strange fact: fifty years later
or so Hadrian confused the cult of Christ with that of Serapis, see the discussion in
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=18555.0
-
There's noting unique in the Christians' prediliction for evangelism; Judaisn was itself much more of a missionary religion then, and the Christians didn't go round knocking on strangers' doors offering a cheap trip to heaven if you signed up to a list of doctrines and went to their church! What they did was offer an open door, to a degree, in an age which was far more religious than this. Full membership of the church, or at least the Gentile section of it, was easier than becoming a Jew; no need for circumcision or the 613 commandments of the Law! In all probablility, that was much of its attraction; it was a monotheistic faith in an age when people were looking for such, and was more successful at adapting to an Romano-Greek setting than its rivals. Christian writers certainly claimed that their care, or 'love' for one another was a major factor in attracting people, and it would be an odd one to choose if there wasn't something in that. We know from their behaviour under Max Daia that this caring wasn't confined to their own community, which may well have helped spread the attraction. But unfortunately there's much which is lost; we know the Roman authorities in the late 1st and early 2nd Centuries loathed them, at least when it suited them, but we don't really know why. It could be simply that they were a vulnerable minority who could easily be used as scapegoats, rather like the Jews in more modern times. When Tertullian says, 'When the Tiber rises to the walls, when the Nile fails to rise, when the sky fails to move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is plague, the cry goes up at once, "Christians to the lion!" What, all of them to one lion?' he may well have his finger right on it.
-
I very complex and interesting era to be sure. That the Romans who normally were very tolerant of 'foreign' religions would feel threatened by this one says much in that their worst dreams did come true......
-
Unfortunately, Christians writers are extremely biased. We can see such a phenomenon
of partiality and censoreship in XX century. To take ceriously Christians writers it is the same as consider as reliable source "The Short Course of the History of VKP(b)" (of course, communism is a political movement but with a certain features common with religeous ones). Looking further for a historical analogy, we can find a very recent example. When Soviet Empire collapsed, Moscow was inundated by missionaires of different religions ready to invest good money to infiltrate the land. Was the Roman Catholic Church active? No, of course. Please, may your own suggestions on Churches which were the most active. But they did not succeed. The Russian Orthodox Church, the traditional one, could rebuff all attacks, create a union with the power and restore its positions. It seems that similar processes one could expect in Ancient Rome where Oriental religions were competing during the 2nd and 3rd century and in that period Christianism was not the dominating and the most attractive one. The difference is that the domestic religion was fractioned between numerous temples and failed down in face of a totalitarian monotheism.
-
I think it ultimately failed because times were changing and the old paganism didn't offer sonvincing answers any more.I think the near-breakdown in the 3rd Century was probably crucial; when the empire came together again there was a clear move towards monotheism in a way which I don't see earlier. I haven't come across any historical studies of this though.
-
One aspect of Polytheism is that those who belonged to one cult had a begrudging respect for those who belonged in another cult, and they could live side by side without trying to convert or destroy each other. The Christian church set out from the start to make converts. They had an agenda and this captured the attention of the Roman ruling class. They eventually made converts among the wives and daughters in the upper classes and, once they had the women, it was inevitable that rest of the empire would fall to Christianity.
-
;D
-
I surmise that you have a moderately bent sense of humor? If so I have found a kindred spirit. If not then I apologize but, get behind me Satan!!
-
Hi Bob,
Yes. I looked for a smiley face with a tounge in his cheek, but I couldn't find one!