More useful information and discussion on the kind of issues we are
thinking about can be found in the following journal -- well worth a
look:

http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/

Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology                tel: +44 121 414 7512
   University of Birmingham     fax: +44 121 414 6866
   Birmingham  B15 2TT  United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
    The New Testament Gateway
    Mark Without Q
    Aseneth Home Page

Jeffrey Gibson claims that a whole string of scholars, including
Kloppenborg, believe that:
<< ...the saying against signs had from the beginning as its
contextualizing frame..... Q11:14 >> , the exorcism of a mute demoniac.

Jeffrey,
   Do you mean from the beginning of the oral tradition? If so, then
you're quite wrong.
   I've just been along to the local university arts library and checked
what J.S.Kloppenborg has to say in _The Formation of Q_. (Fortress
Press, Philadelphia, 1987).
   Kloppenborg has a quite separate discussion of the development of the
sayings in Luke 11:14-15,17-20 on the one hand 11:16,29-32 on the other
hand. He mentions the variant opinions of Schuermann, Polag and
Schweizer, but it is evident that all four of these scholars see these
two groups of sayings material as being separate in the oral tradition
which preceded Q.
   Kloppenborg sees the saying against signs as having developed in three
stages:
(1) Q11:16,29a-c
(2) addition of Q11:30
(3) addition of Q11:31-32.
   Thus the story of the exorcism of a mute demoniac has no special
relevance to the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth's refusal to give a sign.

Ron Price

ron.price@...

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

Greetings list members,

I apologize for posting this off topic subject, but I recieved a rather odd
email from some crank in response to a post on one of the many discussion
lists I participate in (I recognize the address). It is written entirely in
Latin and my familiarity with Latin is not sufficient to translate.

I believe there are several here who are conversant in Latin and thought
someone my be able to translate it for me. I appreciate any help anyone can
offer. Text follows.

"Ridentur mala qui componunt carmina; verum gaudent scribentes et se
venerantur et ultro, si taceas, laudant quidquid scripsere beati. at qui
legitimum cupiet fecisse poema, cum tabulis animum censoris suet
honesti."


Jimi Fosdick
Wheaton, IL

I hope this didn't get posted twice, but I was bouncing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimi Fosdick
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:12 AM
> To: 'XTalk'; 'Synoptic-L'
> Subject: OFF TOPIC - Can someone help?
>
> Greetings list members,
>
> I apologize for posting this off topic subject, but I recieved a rather
> odd email from some crank in response to a post on one of the many
> discussion lists I participate in (I recognize the address). It is written
> entirely in Latin and my familiarity with Latin is not sufficient to
> translate.
>
> I believe there are several here who are conversant in Latin and thought
> someone my be able to translate it for me. I appreciate any help anyone
> can offer. Text follows.
>
> "Ridentur mala qui componunt carmina; verum gaudent scribentes et se
> venerantur et ultro, si taceas, laudant quidquid scripsere beati. at qui
> legitimum cupiet fecisse poema, cum tabulis animum censoris suet
> honesti."
>
>
> Jimi Fosdick
> Wheaton, IL

Jan,
   I agree with Bernard that any persecution ca. 70 CE would have been
spasmodic.
   Bear in mind that even the Jews did not make a firm distinction
between themselves and the Christians until the Council of Jamnia, ca.
90 CE, when the Christians were expelled from the synagogues.
   I don't know where you get the idea that Mark was trying to sway
opinions in high places. I could have believed it of Luke (Luke 1:3).
   In _The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church_, Brandon paints a
graphic picture of the Roman authorities parading triumphantly through
the streets of Rome with the spoils of the Jerusalem temple following
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. This is depicted on the Arch of
Titus in Rome. Doubtless many Roman citizens would have seen this
parade, and been influenced by the mocking of the Jewish rebels.
Furthermore it is arguably a small step from refusing to pay taxes, to
outright rebellion.
   Bearing in mind that (in my opinion at least) Mark was probably
written in Rome at just about this time, it is entirely logical that in
order to find favour with ordinary Roman citizens, the author would have
wanted to dissociate Christianity from such rebelliousness, and for that
matter from the Jews, for how many citizens would distinguish between
peacable Jews and rebellious Jews?

Ron Price

ron.price@...

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

Ron Price wrote:

>Jan,
>I agree with Bernard that any persecution ca. 70 CE would have been
>spasmodic.

Spasmodic or not, the fact is that in 64 A.D. Christians were singled our
for persecution and put to death by the authorities for being Christians,
while Jews were left alone. Granted that Nero was prone to act wilfully, he
could still not target Christians as a group in 64 A.D. without that group
having been proscribed by Roman law or at least ruled illegal by a high
court ruling. Tacitus says as much in Annals XV.44

igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens
haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

therefore those who confessed were arrested first and then, on the basis of
their testimony, a huge multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime
of arson as for their hatred of the human race.

This is unambiguous testimony of a judicial process, with an examination of
witnesses and death sentences being passed. Tacitus agrees that those found
guilty of being Christians deserved "ruthless punishment"; he only
criticizes Nero for the cruelty with which he meted out the death sentences.

Christianity was a proscribed religion in 64 A.D., yet a decade earlier the
Governor of Greece was not aware of its existence. What important event
happened in between those two dates that could have led to Christianity
being defined as distinct from Judaism and placed outside the law? The court
that tried Paul, the Court of Caesar, had this power and the issue before it
was precisely the status of Christianity in relation to Judaism.

>Bear in mind that even the Jews did not make a firm distinction
>between themselves and the Christians until the Council of Jamnia, ca.
>90 CE, when the Christians were expelled from the synagogues.

That the Christians were officially expelled from the synagogues in 90 CE is
one thing; that no "firm" distinction was made by the Jews between
themselves and the Christians until then is quite another. That distinction
was already made by the Jews of Corinth in ca. 54 A.D. before Gallio, the
Governor of Greece.

>I don't know where you get the idea that Mark was trying to sway
>opinions in high places. I could have believed it of Luke (Luke 1:3).

I get this idea from the general tendentiousness of Mark's account. He has
axes to grind, particularly against the Temple administration, whom he
accuses of a conspiracy to destroy Jesus. His tries to discredit Peter. He
tries to prove that Jesus was the Messiah whose coming the prophets of
Israel had predicted. All of this is consistent with the gospel being
authored in support of Paul at his trial, where the issue was precisely if
worship of Jesus as the Messiah was consistent with Judaism, or if Paul was
"trying to persuade people to worship God in a way that is against the law"
(Acts 18:13, reporting accusations leveled against Paul by Corinthian Jews
ten years earlier).

>In _The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church_, Brandon paints a
>graphic picture of the Roman authorities parading triumphantly through
>the streets of Rome with the spoils of the Jerusalem temple following
>the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. This is depicted on the Arch of
>Titus in Rome. Doubtless many Roman citizens would have seen this
>parade, and been influenced by the mocking of the Jewish rebels.
>Furthermore it is arguably a small step from refusing to pay taxes, to
>outright rebellion.
>Bearing in mind that (in my opinion at least) Mark was probably
>written in Rome at just about this time, it is entirely logical that in
>order to find favour with ordinary Roman citizens, the author would have
>wanted to dissociate Christianity from such rebelliousness, and for that
>matter from the Jews, for how many citizens would distinguish between
>peacable Jews and rebellious Jews?

But by 70 A.D. Christians were considered as much, much worse than Jews by
the Romans. For Tacitus (albeit writing with hindsight) Christians were
"notoriously depraved" and Christianity was "a deadly superstition"
(exitiabilis superstitio) deserving "ruthless punishment". In Roman law a
"superstitio" such as Christianity, is something wholly different than a
"religio" such as Judaism. Despite the unsavory mix of tales that Tacitus
tells about the origin of the Jews and about Judaism in the fifth chapter of
his Histories he still terms Judaism a "religio." For the author of GMark to
have wished to dissociate a "superstitio" from a recognized "religio" to
protect the former from the disrepute in which the latter had fallen due to
the rebellion in A.D. 70 is quite unthinkable. It was rather the
"superstitio" that tried to pretend it was the "religio" as long as it
could; this option became closed to it after the verdict in the trial of
Paul.

Regards,

Jan Sammer
Interpres
Prague-Czech Republic
sammer@...
www.interpres.cz

Could you possibly comment on this book:

Strickert, Fred. Bethsaida: Home of The Apostles. Collegeville,
Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Would you recommend it as an introductory text.

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Boston, England)

> Christianity was a proscribed religion in 64 A.D., yet a
decade earlier the
> Governor of Greece was not aware of its existence. What
important event
> happened in between those two dates that could have led to
Christianity
> being defined as distinct from Judaism and placed outside
the law?

One such important event was certainly the expulsion of Jews
from Rome by Claudius. As you know, this was because of
"Chrestus" - supposedly some disagreements between
"non-Christian" Jews and "Christian Jews" living in Rome.
After the expulsion of Jews Gentile members of the
"Christian" community continued practising their religion in
the city. They were now something different from the Jews,
they were Christians. Right?

Sakari Hakkinen
University of Helsinki
Department of Biblical Studies
sakari.hakkinen@...
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html

Ron Price wrote:

>Jan,
>I agree with Bernard that any persecution ca. 70 CE would have been
>spasmodic.

Spasmodic or not, the fact is that in 64 A.D. Christians were singled our
for persecution and put to death by the authorities for being Christians,
while Jews were left alone. Granted that Nero was prone to act wilfully, he
could still not target Christians as a group in 64 A.D. without that group
having been proscribed by Roman law or at least ruled illegal by a high
court ruling. Tacitus says as much in Annals XV.44

igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens
haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

therefore those who confessed were arrested first and then, on the basis of
their testimony, a huge multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime
of arson as for their hatred of the human race.

This is unambiguous testimony of a judicial process, with an examination of
witnesses and death sentences being passed. Tacitus agrees that those found
guilty of being Christians deserved "ruthless punishment"; he only
criticizes Nero for the cruelty with which he meted out the death sentences.

What Tacitus tells is that Nero, seeking to throw off from himself the blame for the fire when the case for his responsibility for it kept mounting against him in the public mind, lit (excuse the pun) upon the group known as Christianoi

(which by the way, seems for Tacitus to be a designation not of a  sect known to be separate from Judaism, but of one particular Jewish group among many others known by different names -- on this,  see  D. Benko, _Pagan Rome and the Early Christians_; M. Grant, _Nero_),

notably,  exactly as Classical authors, and  in close parallel with the way Tacitus (in the Histories) , describe Jews (apud ipsos, fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios, hostile odium) -- another indication that Tacitus did not regard the christainoi as separate from Jews ,

In other words, according to Tacitus,  Nero chose them to bear the blame NOT because they were doing anything illegal in being christianoi or that being christianoi was already against the law, let alone one, the breaking of which, merited death, but because, known as those who were "hostile to [Roman] humankind" ( a charge which, by the way, Diodorus Siculus notes was levelled against the Jews by Antiochus Epiphianes on account of keeping to the Law of Moses, and was regularly regarded in by Romans as a characteristically Jewish fault -- see Cicero), they were the ideal scapegoat -- generally viewed as outsiders, malcontents, ready not so much to do personal damage as to turn their backs on obligations to their fellow men (that's what the charge of odium means) whom the Roman populace were already inclined to believe were capable of, and willing to engage in,  the flagitia which fire represented  (on this, see W.H. Friend. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church.  

In line with this, you might wish to note not only that the charge of odium is NOT a legal charge (see Cicero, De officiis, 1.29 and Tusc. 4.11.25) but that the particular punishment to which the Christians were subjected under Nero, the moesta tunica as well as combat against beasts, was not a punishment that Roman law at that time called, or even  allowed,  to be inflicted on those practising a proscribed religion or cultic practice received.  (the punishment in these instances was expulsio or corecita). But it was something prescribed in the case of those who were tried and convicted of incendiarism (see Digest 47.9.9). which, if you'll read carefully the Tacitus quote you outlined above, is the one and only charge Tacitus notes was levelled against the christianoi and the one and only charge for which they suffered.

Also against you claim stand two other facts. First, as 1 Clement shows, in 95 CE, when, a generation later,  Christians and Jews did have a separate identity in Rome, and had by that time come to be known among the Roman elites as having a separate identity, Christian worship was not proscribed in Rome not was the organization of the church destroyed. A strange thing indeed if, according to Roman Law,  being christianoi was against the law and deserving of death.

Second, Pliny the younger knows NOTHING about any general Roman proscription against Christianity, let alone that being a christian merited death. When, around 120,  he moves against Christians in his province in Bythinia, it is not because they are christians, and therefore an illegal group, but because they, in converting some of the populace away from idol worship and patronage of local Temples,  had begun to have an adverse effect on the local economy. Local merchants, whose livelihood depended upon swift business in these Temples,  were pressing him to do something about christians not because they had broken any laws, or were known to be members of an illicit sect,  but because they had hurt business. Indeed, when Pliny brings some christians before his tribunal, he is uncertain how he should proceed against them. This is strange if, as you claim, christianity was recognized under Roman law as something which made its adherents automatically liable to death.

Need, I say then, in the light of all this, that I think your reconstruction of the "political motives" behind GMark -- or indeed of the trial of Paul -- is highly dubious?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
 

Jacob

I have found this book to be very helpful. I teach a class on Introductory
Archaeology: Bethsaida as a Test Case, and I use it as the textbook. It brings
much of the technical information from _Bethsaida_Vol._1_ (Arav and Freund)
down to a more understandable level, though it is still helpful and proves
copious footnotes. The index is not very helpful, but provides black and white
pictures and introduces some of the HJ information. I also picks up the 1995-
early 1998 discoveries, which Bethsaida Vol 1 does not have, but Volume 2 will
have, whenever it finally arrives (any day now).

Jacob Knee wrote:

> Could you possibly comment on this book:
>
> Strickert, Fred. Bethsaida: Home of The Apostles. Collegeville,
> Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998.
>
> Would you recommend it as an introductory text.
>

Yes, I would recommend it.

Thanks
Brian Tucker
Riverview, MIjbtucker@...

[snip]

  Bearing in mind that (in my opinion at least) Mark was probably
written in Rome at just about this time, it is entirely logical that in
order to find favour with ordinary Roman citizens, the author would have
wanted to dissociate Christianity from such rebelliousness, and for that
matter from the Jews, for how many citizens would distinguish between
peacable Jews and rebellious Jews?
 

I think far more plausible, especially in the light of Chp. 13, that Mark (like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) is writing strictly to a Jesus movement audience sometime before the end of the war in order to stave them off from joining with the Jewish/Zealot nationalistic cause which, given (a) the defeat of Cestius Gallus after he approached and began to make the  first full scale Roman assault against the Temple and (b) what appeared to be a divinely engineered halt to Vespasian's assault on the Temple (the death of Nero and the subsequent year of the three emperors), seemed actually, as the Zealots were proclaiming, to have God on its side.

This, rather than some highly speculative ideas about mounting a campaign to take over the temple and win Roman hearts to help in this endeavour, or an apologia to Rome helping to distinguish Christians from rebellious Jews (ala Josephus vis a vis loyal from fanatical Jews) seems to me to be a much more plausible Sitz im Leben for the Gospel.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
 

Jan Sammer wrote:
>
> > Jan Sammer wrote:
> >
> > > point I tried to make earlier was that after 64 A.D. and the outbreak of
> > > officially backed persecution of Christians, such currying of favor with
> > > Roman authorities would have been rather pointless.
> >
> > Why not? Christians were still around and the Romans were still in
> > control.
>
> Of course, but GMark is obviously trying to sway opinions in high places.
> After about 62 A.D., and perhaps even a year or two earlier, the opinions of
> the Roman authorities were made up.

There is simply no evidence for that. And Jeffrey, in his excellent post
on that matter, addressed this as it deserved. I'll leave it to that.

  The kind of Christian writing you get
> after the persecutions start is the book of Revelations, with its thinly
> veiled exhortations to an all-out war against Rome.

"thinly veiled exhortations to an all-out war against Rome."
Where did you get that from? It looks you are running on very thin air
here.
The book of Revelations was not the only Christian book written after
62. These books (gospels, epistles) were either totally unconcerned
about relationship between Christians and authorities, or advised
obedience. Revelation is the only book which is anti-Roman. It is the
exception and not the rule.
Revelation has a long history,
see http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/danrv.shtml for more info,
but let's say here that the Christianized version appeared around 95
(almost every scholars agree on this date, me too), at a time when
emperor Domitian was getting paranoiac in his last years (93-96) and
wanted to be recognized as a God. Most historians think that the
persecution then was not aimed at Christians per say, but also Jews, or
anyone else who would not accept Domitian as "my Lord and my God". So
Domitian's persecution certainly cannot be considered as a proof of a
long lasting official Roman policy against Christians (which started in
62!)

>
> >  >After 70 A.D. all the
> > > malice shown in the synoptics, and particularly GMatt., towards the
> "chief
> > > priests and the elders" would have been pointless as well.
> >
> > The same GMatt. clearly describes Pharisees turning into rabbis which
> > started to happen around 80-90 (Mt23:2-3,6-7). "the chief priests and
> > **the elders** (and teachers of the law)" likely represents Jewish
> > leaders and religious elite generally:
> > Mk8:31 "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many
> > things and be rejected by the **elders**, chief priests and teachers of
> > the law, ..."
> > Please note that the elders and teachers of the law were still kicking
> > around after 70.
>
> What's important is that the chief priests were no longer around and it is
> they who are the major target of the synoptic writers' wrath.

So what's your point?
For Matthew, the major target are Pharisees turning into rabbis.
For Mark, the major enemies are teachers of the law.
Are you trying to say that the synoptic gospels (or only GMark) had to
be written when the chief priests were still around?

>  The point is that Mark is catering to Roman
> sensibilities.

Mark is catering to a few Christians which may have thought about not
paying taxes (just like Paul did earlier in Romans) and therefore get
the whole Christian community into trouble. Please note that this
thought can be entertained by anyone, anytime, and of any religious
belief (or none). Yes, it is perfectly natural, isn't it?


>
> > Respect of the authorities is also obvious in 1Peter (according to my
> > view, written in Asia Minor around 75-80):
> > 1Pet2:13-14a "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority
> > instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or
> > to governors, ..."
> > and in "Titus", which according to most critical scholars, was written
> > well into the 2nd century:
> > Titus3:1a "Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities,
> > ..."

> These are prescriptions for survival in a hostile environment.

If it is the case, we would have a lot more prescriptions like that, and
they would be a lot more vivid. And these prescriptions are no different
of what Paul wrote in Romans, before 62.

Bernard
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/

Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

>
> I think far more plausible, especially in the light of Chp. 13, that Mark
> (like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) is writing strictly to a Jesus
> movement audience sometime before the end of the war in order to stave them
> off from joining with the Jewish/Zealot nationalistic cause which, given (a)
> the defeat of Cestius Gallus after he approached and began to make the  first
> full scale Roman assault against the Temple and (b) what appeared to be a
> divinely engineered halt to Vespasian's assault on the Temple (the death of
> Nero and the subsequent year of the three emperors), seemed actually, as the
> Zealots were proclaiming, to have God on its side.

Jeffrey, your historical knowledge could use some upgrading. This
Cestius Gallus came into Jerusalem in 66CE, before Vespasian came into
play, well before the death of Nero (68) and well before the year of the
3 emperors (69). Refer to Josephus' Wars, book II, from Chapter XVIII.

Bernard
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/

Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>
> I think far more plausible, especially in the light of Chp. 13, that Mark
> (like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) is writing strictly to a Jesus
> movement audience sometime before the end of the war in order to stave them
> off from joining with the Jewish/Zealot nationalistic cause which, given (a)
> the defeat of Cestius Gallus after he approached and began to make the  first
> full scale Roman assault against the Temple and (b) what appeared to be a
> divinely engineered halt to Vespasian's assault on the Temple (the death of
> Nero and the subsequent year of the three emperors), seemed actually, as the
> Zealots were proclaiming, to have God on its side.

Jeffrey, your historical knowledge could use some upgrading. This
Cestius Gallus came into Jerusalem in 66CE, before Vespasian came into
play, well before the death of Nero (68) and well before the year of the
3 emperors (69). Refer to Josephus' Wars, book II, from Chapter XVIII.

Looking over what I wrote, I fail to see that I did not make a temporal distinction between these two forestalled campaigns and/or that I indicated, as you seem to have read me,  that the one under Cestius Gallus took place during same period as the one under Vespasian.

So my historical knowledge is just fine, thank you. Perhaps what needs upgrading is the prescription for your glasses :)!

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
 

At 03:16 PM 9/1/99 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>Second, Pliny the younger knows NOTHING about any general Roman proscription
>against Christianity, let alone that being a christian merited death. When,
>around 120,  he moves against Christians in his province in Bythinia, it is
>not because they are christians, and therefore an illegal group, but because
>they, in converting some of the populace away from idol worship and
>patronage of local Temples,  had begun to have an adverse effect on the
>local economy. Local merchants, whose livelihood depended upon swift
>business in these Temples,  were pressing him to do something about
>christians not because they had broken any laws, or were known to be members
>of an illicit sect,  but because they had hurt business. Indeed, when Pliny
>brings some christians before his tribunal, he is uncertain how he should
>proceed against them. This is strange if, as you claim, christianity was
>recognized under Roman law as something which made its adherents
>automatically liable to death.

I'm in general agreement with other points in this message (not copied
here), but I have a different take on Pliny and early second century
Christianity.  Yes, it is true that Pliny is uncertain in how he should
proceed against Christians and asks for Trajan's guidance in handling
Christians.  But it seems clear from Trajan's response that being a
Christian is per se a crime.

Trajan (Pliny, Letters 10.97) stated: "They are not to be sought out; if
they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this
reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves
it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion
in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance."

In Trajan's response, all a Christian had to do to avoid the penalty (of
death, by the way [is there evidence that hurting business was a capital
crime?]) is to renounce Christianity and he will be pardoned.  This
shows that being a Christian is a necessary element to the offense.
There is no mention of any role of hurting business in the prosecution
of the case (although hurting business could be the main reason for the
accusation in the first place).

Therefore, Pliny's correspondence with Trajan shows that in the early
second century, being a Christian was a (capital) crime per se,
remaining on the books from an earlier time (Domitian?) even though
this crime was only sporadically enforced and consequently prone to
selective enforcement for a host other reasons, such as those
explained in Jeffrey's remarks.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

It has been my recent understanding that the tax collectors that Jesus was
said to consort with were part of the exploited class--born a tax collector,
always a tax collector, with very little chance of escape from an enforced
"class occupation," reviled by all, etc.  Is this completely false?

I like Crossan's book, but I found his chapter on "The Companionship and the
Kingdom," especially his sub-chapter on Tax Collectors and Sinners"
unconvincing.  Part of this is that his understanding of tax collector as
occupation is a voluntary occupation that supports the exploiting class.

Your thoughts?

Sarah DiAngelo

You ladies and gentlemen are killing me.  The real cards, as my father would
say, of the NT, IMHO are Joseph of A., Nicodemus, the tax collector in the
fig tree, the woman who successfully tells Jesus he's all wet.

Oh, well. . . too good to be true, I guess.

SMILE Guys!!!!

Sarah DiAngelo

Jeffrey wrote:

>
> I'm sorry, Jan, but this wholesale misinterpretation of Tacitus cannot be
left
> to stand without challenge.  There is no -- and I repeat, no -- evidence
that
> Christianity was proscribed as a religion in Rome before the outbreak of
the
> fire, let alone after it until well into the third century.


Wasn't it the case, though, that an offshoot sect would have been, by
default, "superstitio" unless and until it gained recognition as licitas
"religio"?


If such was the case, then wouldn't the birkah ha-minim in the 80s have had
the effect of formally excluding Christians from the legal rights enjoyed by
Jews -- at which point, Christians would have automatically been subjected
to punishment under law.  Is that not correct?

>
> In other words, according to Tacitus,  Nero chose them to bear the blame
NOT
> because they were doing anything illegal in being christianoi or that
being
> christianoi was already against the law, let alone one, the breaking of
which,
> merited death, but because, known as those who were "hostile to [Roman]
> humankind" ( a charge which, by the way, Diodorus Siculus notes was
levelled
> against the Jews by Antiochus Epiphianes on account of keeping to the Law
of
> Moses, and was regularly regarded in by Romans as a characteristically
Jewish
> fault -- see Cicero)
>

You appear to be saying that christianoi were tried/convicted for being
hostile to Romans. If that is your explanation for Tacitus' legal
terminology, then your argument against Jan seems a bit overstated. You seem
not to disagree that the 64 AD Roman administration have singled out
Christainoi for conviction of anti-Roman sentiment. In this, Christianoi are
viewed as distinct from Jews.  Yet you dispute with Jan over the issue that
christianoi were formally illicit.  You seem to concede that sufficient
differentiation exists so that Nero can arrest christianoi for a
categorical, collective-style offense deserving of death.  Surely that is a
de facto designation of being an illicit belief system.


>
> In line with this, you might wish to note not only that the charge of
odium is
> NOT a legal charge (see Cicero, De officiis, 1.29 and Tusc. 4.11.25) but
that
> the particular punishment to which the Christians were subjected under
Nero, the
> moesta tunica as well as combat against beasts, was not a punishment that
Roman
> law at that time called, or even  allowed,  to be inflicted on those
practising
> a proscribed religion or cultic practice received.  (the punishment in
these
> instances was expulsio or corecita). But it was something prescribed in
the case
> of those who were tried and convicted of incendiarism (see Digest 47.9.9).
> which, if you'll read carefully the Tacitus quote you outlined above, is
the one
> and only charge Tacitus notes was levelled against the christianoi and the
one
> and only charge for which they suffered.
>

A couple of paragraphs above this, you appeared to say that the persecution
involved Roman-hating. That made sense to me because it would account for
mass-executions, which would be harder to justify if the charge is arson.
Perhaps you could clarify how the 2 offense interact.


>
> Second, Pliny the younger knows NOTHING about any general Roman
proscription
> against Christianity, let alone that being a christian merited death.
When,
> around 120,  he moves against Christians in his province in Bythinia, it
is not
> because they are christians, and therefore an illegal group, but because
they,
> in converting some of the populace away from idol worship and patronage of
local
> Temples,  had begun to have an adverse effect on the local economy.
>

Perhaps economic impact provided a motive originally, but this seems to have
been superceded or augmented.  Trajan's edict defined a Christian as de jure
deserving of death, simply for professing Christ. As Pliny wrote of it,
there was no provision for clemency based on factors such as age, sex, etc.
BOOK TEN LETTER 97 TRAJAN TO PLINY:

"THE METHOD YOU have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those
denounced to you as Cbristians is extremely proper. … when they are
denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction,
however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall
give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be
pardoned on the ground of repentance…"

This seems way beyond an economic matter. The Imperial edict clearly was
directed against Christian beliefs/practices.

>
> Local
> merchants, whose livelihood depended upon swift business in these Temples,
were
> pressing him to do something about christians not because they had broken
any
> laws, or were known to be members of an illicit sect,  but because they
had hurt
> business. Indeed, when Pliny brings some christians before his tribunal,
he is
> uncertain how he should proceed against them. This is strange if, as you
claim,
> christianity was recognized under Roman law as something which made its
> adherents automatically liable to death.
>
> Need, I say then, in the light of all this, that I think your
reconstruction of
> the "political motives" behind GMark -- or indeed of the trial of Paul --
is
> highly dubious?
>

It's curious that you object to Jan's claim of a political motive. Pliny
himself identifies the Christians' crime as being a violation of govt.
edicts against *political associations*.


"…it was their [Christians']custom to separate, and then reassemble to
partake of food ‹but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this
practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by
which, **according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations.**
I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the
assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses:
but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."
(Book 10, letter 96, to Trajan)


Jeez everything is political.  Christians were suspected subversives.  Paul
was arrested for undermining the law. Riots sometimes followed his sermons.
In the 60s he and Peter were executed, and  Clement hints that underhanded
politics ("envy") had a part. Christians were rounded up as arson
scapegoats.  All of this politically tinged suspicion sure makes sense.
That's how it works in an empire.

I'd say Jan's interpretation of gospels as attempted exculpatory tracts or
testimonials is
at least plausible. It is consistent with all evidence and events.  Paul's
epistle to Rome is part of defense team strategy ("submit to authority" Rom
13); likewise Heb 13 and Peter (1Pet2.18ff).  All of this "obey the masters"
verbiage was generated by men facing serious recurring legal problems and
scrutiny ever since the crucifixion. Surely that fact isn't coincidental
here.

Best regards,

Jon

Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

> Hmmmm. What I was trying to indicate above (indeed, what I thought I had
indicated)
> was (a) that during the course of the war, from it's outbreak at the cessation
of
> the temple sacrifice to the emperor and the massacre of the Roman contingent
which
> had been in the Fortress Antonia to the burning of the Temple under Titus,
there had
> been two separate non-prosecuted onsets by Roman forces against the Temple
mount
> (the first by Cestius Gallus, in 66 shortly after the outbreak of the
rebellion
> which ended with him turning tail and being routed, and the second under
Vespasian,
> some years later, which he forestalled because of his having to turn his
attention
> to the civil turmoil that erupted in Rome at the death of Nero) and (b) that
both of
> these forestalled onsets were viewed by the supporters of the nationalistic
cause as
> being engineered by God and proof that he would not let his Temple be
violated.

I have to agree I was a bit too quick. But your post was rather
confusing. Anyway I am glad you are edging towards GMark being written
in 70CE. You are at least at 69 now, going on 70.

Bernard
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/

 
I'm in general agreement with other points in this message (not copied
here), but I have a different take on Pliny and early second century
Christianity.  Yes, it is true that Pliny is uncertain in how he should
proceed against Christians and asks for Trajan's guidance in handling
Christians.  But it seems clear from Trajan's response that being a
Christian is per se a crime.

Trajan (Pliny, Letters 10.97) stated: "They are not to be sought out; if
they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this
reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves
it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion
in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance."
 

(who earlier had specifically written to Trajan,  when receiving  denunciations against individuals, both citizens and non citizens, on the grounds that they were Christians [ad me tamquam Christiani deferbantur],  that he -- notably, someone who had held important administrative posts in Rome before being assigned to the governorship of Bythinia -- did not know whether it was the nomen itself (the mere profession of Christianity) or the sclerea (the "crimes" supposedly associated with it)

No less an authority on the Roman persecutions of Christians than W.H. Frend concludes from this that "There was [at this point in Trajan's reign],  therefore, no general edict proscribing Christians, and [Trajan himself] was not intent to pronounce one" (Martrydom and Persecution in the Early Church, p. 164).

So I am not as certain as you are, Stephen, that it is clear that in 115 or so that the Pliny/Trajan correspondence makes it clear that being a Christian was per se a crime.

[snip]

Therefore, Pliny's correspondence with Trajan shows that in the early
second century, being a Christian was a (capital) crime per se,
remaining on the books from an earlier time (Domitian?) even though
this crime was only sporadically enforced and consequently prone to
selective enforcement for a host other reasons, such as those
explained in Jeffrey's remarks.
 

So I doubt that in Trajan's time there was (if there ever had been) anything "remaining on the books" in this regard..

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
 

Sarah,

Tax collectors were reviled by many, yes, for the additional monies extorted
beyond the tax passed on to the government.  But that is why tax collectors
wanted the job - they were able to skim.  There was not much turnover
because it was rare to give up the position, not because there were no
options.

Crossan is right here.

Joanne Cummings

----- Original Message -----
From: <Legendmyth@...>
To: <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 6:49 AM
Subject: [XTalk] Crossan's BOC: Problems with Tax Collectors&Sinners


> It has been my recent understanding that the tax collectors that Jesus was
> said to consort with were part of the exploited class--born a tax
collector,
> always a tax collector, with very little chance of escape from an enforced
> "class occupation," reviled by all, etc.  Is this completely false?
>
> I like Crossan's book, but I found his chapter on "The Companionship and
the
> Kingdom," especially his sub-chapter on Tax Collectors and Sinners"
> unconvincing.  Part of this is that his understanding of tax collector as
> occupation is a voluntary occupation that supports the exploiting class.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Sarah DiAngelo
>

Jeffrey wrote:

>
> I'm sorry, Jan, but this wholesale misinterpretation of Tacitus cannot be
left
> to stand without challenge.  There is no -- and I repeat, no -- evidence
that
> Christianity was proscribed as a religion in Rome before the outbreak of
the
> fire, let alone after it until well into the third century.

Wasn't it the case, though, that an offshoot sect would have been, by
default, "superstitio" unless and until it gained recognition as licitas
"religio"?

 
If such was the case, then wouldn't the birkah ha-minim in the 80s have had
the effect of formally excluding Christians from the legal rights enjoyed by
Jews -- at which point, Christians would have automatically been subjected
to punishment under law.  Is that not correct?
 

> In other words, according to Tacitus,  Nero chose them to bear the blame
NOT
> because they were doing anything illegal in being christianoi or that
being
> christianoi was already against the law, let alone one, the breaking of
which,
> merited death, but because, known as those who were "hostile to [Roman]
> humankind" ( a charge which, by the way, Diodorus Siculus notes was
levelled
> against the Jews by Antiochus Epiphianes on account of keeping to the Law
of
> Moses, and was regularly regarded in by Romans as a characteristically
Jewish
> fault -- see Cicero)
>

You appear to be saying that christianoi were tried/convicted for being
hostile to Romans.

If that is your explanation for Tacitus' legal
terminology, then your argument against Jan seems a bit overstated. You seem
not to disagree that the 64 AD Roman administration have singled out
Christainoi for conviction of anti-Roman sentiment. In this, Christianoi are
viewed as distinct from Jews.

Yet you dispute with Jan over the issue that
christianoi were formally illicit.  You seem to concede that sufficient
differentiation exists so that Nero can arrest christianoi for a
categorical, collective-style offense deserving of death.

Surely that is a de facto designation of being an illicit belief system.

[snip]

A couple of paragraphs above this, you appeared to say that the persecution
involved Roman-hating. That made sense to me because it would account for
mass-executions, which would be harder to justify if the charge is arson.
Perhaps you could clarify how the 2 offense interact.

As for arson being a cause of mass execution of the suspected guilty party, have you ever read Livy and what he recounts happened to the Bacchanals who actually did conspire to burn Rome down? Or how seriously in the light of this conspiracy, and what it achieved,  arson involving any city property was taken in Roman law? How high up on the scale of capital offences flagitia such as incendiarism was? How intent Roman law was to act swiftly and remorselessly and thunderously against it? And do you have any idea of how great and costly and murderous the fire of Rome actually was?  How much pressure Nero was take vengeance on who ever had caused it? In the light of this, what makes sense to you isn't the issue.

[snip]

Perhaps economic impact provided a motive originally, but this seems to have
been superceded or augmented.  Trajan's edict defined a Christian as de jure
deserving of death, simply for professing Christ. As Pliny wrote of it,
there was no provision for clemency based on factors such as age, sex, etc.
BOOK TEN LETTER 97 TRAJAN TO PLINY:

"THE METHOD YOU have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those
denounced to you as Cbristians is extremely proper. … when they are
denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction,
however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall
give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be
pardoned on the ground of repentance…"

This seems way beyond an economic matter. The Imperial edict clearly was
directed against Christian beliefs/practices.

It's curious that you object to Jan's claim of a political motive. Pliny
himself identifies the Christians' crime as being a violation of govt.
edicts against *political associations*.
 

I'd say Jan's interpretation of gospels as attempted exculpatory tracts or
testimonials is
at least plausible.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
 

Legendmyth@... wrote:
>
> It has been my recent understanding that the tax collectors that Jesus was
> said to consort with were part of the exploited class--born a tax collector,
> always a tax collector, with very little chance of escape from an enforced
> "class occupation," reviled by all, etc.  Is this completely false?

The office of a portitores was purchased from the Roman Legatus by
provincials at a cost equivalent of about $50K today.  Rome got
the $50K upfront collected by the publicani and the portitores got to
keep what they collected at the border for incoming goods.  Matthew,
therefore, would have been a well-off bureaucrat.

Jack
--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon@...

http://www.historian.net

I wrote:
>
> > Christianity was a proscribed religion in 64 A.D., yet a
> decade earlier the
> > Governor of Greece was not aware of its existence. What
> important event
> > happened in between those two dates that could have led to
> Christianity
> > being defined as distinct from Judaism and placed outside
> the law?

Sakari responded:
> One such important event was certainly the expulsion of Jews
> from Rome by Claudius. As you know, this was because of
> "Chrestus" - supposedly some disagreements between
> "non-Christian" Jews and "Christian Jews" living in Rome.
> After the expulsion of Jews Gentile members of the
> "Christian" community continued practising their religion in
> the city. They were now something different from the Jews,
> they were Christians. Right?
>
I was actually looking for an event that would follow, not precede the
incident with Gallio. In Chapter 18 of Acts, Gallio, the Governor of Greece
and brother of Seneca, refused to take up charges against Paul made by
Corinthian Jews to the effect that Paul was trying to persuade the people to
worship God in a way that is against the law (NOMON) (18:13-15). The
incident follows Paul's meeting Aquila and Priscilla who had been expelled
by Claudius (49 A.D.) The Gallio incident shows that there was as yet no
official policy on Christianity. With regard to the "Chresto impulsore"
incident, which I thought we analyzed rather exhaustively on the old
Crosstalk a few months back, the facts appear to be the opposite to what you
suggest. Suetonius states that Jews were expelled and from Acts we know that
among those expelled there were at least two Christians, i.e., Aquila and
Priscilla. One could argue, as Ian did, that they became Christians only
under Paul's influence in Corinth, but Acts makes no mention of their
conversion, which tends to indicat that they were Christians already at the
time of their expulsion. Thus no distinction is made between Christians and
Jews at this time.

Regards,

Jan

Jeffrey :

>I would question the hidden assumption here -- that Mark wrote his
>Gospel for, and intended it to be read by, the Roman public. Do we have
>any indication -- even assuming that his Gospel has a Roman provenance --
>that he wrote what he wrote for non christians?

One issue that needs to be faced is the fact that the Jesus movement seemed
not to have missed the absence of narrative writings of the gospel type for
the first thirty years or so of the movement's existence. It is reasonable
to assume that the gospels were produced in response to a need. Now members
of the Jesus movement had no need to hear Markan diatribes against the
Temple authorities, proofs that Jesus' words and actions were consistent
with him being the Messiah of Israel, or exonerations of Pilate. The attempt
to clear the Roman governor of responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion is
indicative of an attempt to make Jesus acceptable in Roman eyes. From a
purely Jewish/Christian perspective being executed by a man such as Pilate
would be no cause for shame.

>I think far more plausible, especially in the light of Chp. 13, that Mark
(like
>the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) is writing strictly to a Jesus
>movement audience sometime before the end of the war in order to stave
>them off from joining with the Jewish/Zealot nationalistic cause which,
>given (a) the defeat of Cestius Gallus after he approached and began to
>make the  first full scale Roman assault against the Temple and (b) what
>appeared to be a divinely engineered halt to Vespasian's assault on the
>Temple (the death of Nero and the subsequent year of the three emperors),
>seemed actually, as the Zealots were proclaiming, to have God on its side.

The references in Chapter 13 to being arrested and taken to court may well
refer to Paul's experiences, the purpose being to show that Jesus foresaw
what his disciples, and particularly the disciple currently under arrest in
Rome, would have to suffer for his sake.

>This, rather than some highly speculative ideas about mounting a campaign
>to take over the temple and win Roman hearts to help in this endeavour, or
>an apologia to Rome helping to distinguish Christians from rebellious Jews
>(ala Josephus vis a vis loyal from fanatical Jews) seems to me to be a much
>more plausible Sitz im Leben for the Gospel.

Here I would only object to your "highly speculative" terminology. Paul
declares in no uncertain terms that his converts are the true Israel. The
gospel writers portray the Messiah of Israel as having been killed as a
result of a Temple conspiracy. Does it not follow that the true Israel has
the right to run the Temple and displace the direct descendants of the
Messiah's enemies? Would this not help explain Matthew 27:25 where the
"Temple party" haranguing Pilate accepts responsibility for Jesus' death on
behalf of its children--i.e., the generation that ran the Temple ca. 60
A.D.? After all, the purpose of accusing someone of a crime is usually to
make sure they get the punishment they deserve. And the accusation is
usually made to someone with the power to take the appropriate action.

Regards,

Jan Sammer
Interpres
Prague-Czech Republic
sammer@...
www.interpres.cz

At 12:01 AM 9/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>You ladies and gentlemen are killing me.  The real cards, as my father would
>say, of the NT, IMHO are Joseph of A., Nicodemus, the tax collector in the
>fig tree, the woman who successfully tells Jesus he's all wet.
>
>Oh, well. . . too good to be true, I guess.

Huh?  Why do you ascribe historical reality to these?  What is the criterion
you employ in determining historicity?  Or are your choices merely as
capricious as those you decry?
Or- are ya just sounding off?

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- jwest@...
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

At 12:48 AM 9/2/99 -0500, you wrote:

On this thread-- listers may be interested to know that the plenary address
at the southeastern regional meeting of the sbl last year was precisely on
this point.

was christianity a religio or a superstitio???  our speaker went into great
detail explaining the use of superstitio (which basically has nothing to do
with superstition but with magic and unrefined views of deity).

christianity was a superstitio becuase it was popular in some segments of
the empire.  it became a religio when it was adopted by constantine.

best,

jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- jwest@...
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Jeffrey:

>Referring to my use of the evidence of Pliny to refute a claim of Jan's
that christianity was by >62CE a proscribed religion Stephen C. Carlson
wrote:

>>I'm in general agreement with other points in this message (not copied
>>here), but I have a different take on Pliny and early second century
>>Christianity.  Yes, it is true that Pliny is uncertain in how he should
>>proceed against Christians and asks for Trajan's guidance in handling
>>Christians.  But it seems clear from Trajan's response that being a
>>Christian is per se a crime.
>>Trajan (Pliny, Letters 10.97) stated: "They are not to be sought out; if
>>they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this
>>reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves
>>it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion
>>in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance."

>Ah, but this ignores the explicit notice with which Trajan begins his
response to Pliny
>(who earlier had specifically written to Trajan,  when receiving
denunciations against >individuals, both citizens and non citizens, on the
grounds that they were Christians [ad me >tamquam Christiani deferbantur],
that he -- notably, someone who had held important >administrative posts in
Rome before being assigned to the governorship of Bythinia -- did not >know
whether it was the nomen itself (the mere profession of Christianity) or the
sclerea (the >"crimes" supposedly associated with it) that "it it is not
possible to lay down any general rule >which can be applied as the fixed
standard in all cases of this nature".

The fact that Pliny was unsure as to the punishments to apply to specific
cases does not negate the clear import of Letter 10.97.

Jeffrey:

>No less an authority on the Roman persecutions of Christians than W.H.
Frend concludes from >this that "There was [at this point in Trajan's
reign],  therefore, no general edict proscribing >Christians, and [Trajan
himself] was not intent to pronounce one" (Martrydom and Persecution >in the
Early Church, p. 164).

I have tried to show that the characterization of Christianity as a
superstitio (the word Tacitus uses in Annals XV.44) as distinct from the
religio licita of Judaism was not the result of a lex or an imperial edict,
but rather of a verdict in a private case, albeit one handed down by the
highest court of the Empire, the Court of Caesar. This would explain why
Christianity was persecuted sporadically and not systematically. Except for
isolated and brief periods, suppression of Christianity was not state
policy, as the suppression of Druidism was, for example.


Jan Sammer
Interpres
Prague-Czech Republic
sammer@...
www.interpres.cz

Jeffrey:

>There is no -- and I repeat, no -- evidence that Christianity was
proscribed as a religion in >Rome before the outbreak of the fire, let alone
after it until well into the third century.

I should have said a proscribed superstitio, not a proscribed religio. In
any case the practice of Christianity was punishable under Trajan (see
separate message).

>Nor is there any evidence that Nero could **not** move, if he so desired,
>against anyone he wished without appeal to some prior proscription in
matters
>as grave as culpability for the fire.

I doubt that Nero could move against anyone he wished, without evidence. He
could move against a group whose religious beliefs did not enjoy official
status. The very fact that he chose to make Christians the scapegoats means
that Christians were somehow distinguishable from Jews. That's an important
datum in itself. The Roman authorities could tell Christians apart from
Jews, even though ten years earlier Gallio, who should have been as well
informed as anyone, had no idea of the existence of any Christians and
considered Paul's preaching to be part of an intra-Jewish dispute. Something
changed in the course of that decade.

>What Tacitus tells is that Nero, seeking to throw off from himself the
blame for
>the fire when the case for his responsibility for it kept mounting against
him in
>the public mind, lit (excuse the pun) upon the group known as Christianoi
>(which by the way, seems for Tacitus to be a designation not of a  sect
known to
>be separate from Judaism, but of one particular Jewish group among many
>others known by different names -- on this,  see  D. Benko, _Pagan Rome and
>the Early Christians_; M. Grant, _Nero_), as one which it would be
politically
>expedient to use as scapegoats NOT because they were already a proscribed
>group, but because they were known, notably,  exactly as Classical authors,
and
>in close parallel with the way Tacitus (in the Histories) , describe Jews
(apud
>ipsos, fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios,
>hostile odium) -- another indication that Tacitus did not regard the
christainoi
>as separate from Jews, as odium generis humani,  and therefore would not be
>missed even if their arrest, trial, and execution was carried out illegally
and
>against any evidence of their real culpability for the fire.

Tacitus exculpates the Christians as being responsible for the fire, by
stating that Nero "subdidit reos" , which has the clear connotation of
offering scapegoats; yet a few lines later he states that they were "sontes
et novissima exempla meritos" (guilty and deserving of the most exemplary
punishment). So Tacitus admits their guilt and only objects to the cruel
manner of their punishment. "Sontes" cannot refer to the charges of arson,
since Tacitus has already stated that they were merely scapegoats. This
conclusion is underscored by the unsavory terms in which he describes this
new superstitio.

The characterization of both Christians and Jews as hating the human race
does not mean they were regarded as equivalent.  The whole issue of how
separate the christianoi were is rather pointless in my view. Once they had
a name and could be told apart, they were separate. One could argue whether
Jehovah's Witnesses or Moonies are Christians. It does not much matter. If
they can be told apart, they can be persecuted or even outlawed. Though Jews
also allegedly hated the human race, they were not made into human torches
by Nero. For all the negative things Tacitus has to say about the Jews in
the fifth chapter of his Histories, he does not call Judaism a superstitio
but rather a religio. He does call Christianity a superstitio in Annals
XV.44.

>In other words, according to Tacitus,  Nero chose them to bear the blame
NOT because
>they were doing anything illegal in being christianoi or that being
christianoi was already
>against the law, let alone one, the breaking of which, merited death, but
because, known
>as those who were "hostile to [Roman] humankind" (a charge which, by the
way,
>Diodorus Siculus notes was levelled against the Jews by Antiochus
Epiphianes on account
>of keeping to the Law of Moses, and was regularly regarded in by Romans as
a
>characteristically Jewish fault -- see Cicero), they were the ideal
scapegoat -- generally
>viewed as outsiders, malcontents, ready not so much to do personal damage
as to turn
>their backs on obligations to their fellow men (that's what the charge of
odium means)
>whom the Roman populace were already inclined to believe were capable of,
and willing
>to engage in,  the flagitia which fire represented  (on this, see W.H.
Friend. Martyrdom
>and Persecution in the Early Church.

The reason they were inclined to so believe may have something to do with
the publication of the Book of Revelations ca. 62 A.D. in which Christians
are exhorted to punish Babylon the Great:

Treat her exactly as she has treated you,
pay her twice as much as she has done...
She will be burned with fire...
The kings of the earth who shared her immorality and lust will cry and weep
for the city when they see the smoke of her burning....

>In line with this, you might wish to note not only that the charge of odium
is NOT a legal
>charge (see Cicero, De officiis, 1.29 and Tusc. 4.11.25) but that the
particular punishment
>to which the Christians were subjected under Nero, the moesta tunica as
well as combat
>against beasts, was not a punishment that Roman law at that time called, or
even
>allowed,  to be inflicted on those practising a proscribed religion or
cultic practice
>received.  (the punishment in these instances was expulsio or corecita).
But it was
>something prescribed in the case of those who were tried and convicted of
incendiarism
>(see Digest 47.9.9). which, if you'll read carefully the Tacitus quote you
outlined above, is
>the one and only charge Tacitus notes was levelled against the christianoi
and the one and
>only charge for which they suffered.

I agree that the Christians were not punished for odium. They were clearly
punished as arsonists. The manner of their punishment is consistent with
that. What is more, there may have really been arsonists among them. As
said, Tacitus seems to exonerate them from the charge, yet calls them guilty
and deserving of exemplary punishments, without making clear the nature of
their guilt.

>Also against you claim stand two other facts. First, as 1 Clement shows, in
95 CE, when,
>a generation later,  Christians and Jews did have a separate identity in
Rome, and had by
>that time come to be known among the Roman elites as having a separate
identity,
>Christian worship was not proscribed in Rome not was the organization of
the church
>destroyed. A strange thing indeed if, according to Roman Law,  being
christianoi was
>against the law and deserving of death.

I suggested a court verdict, not a lex or an imperial decree. This court
verdict rejected the Christian claim of representing the true Israel, and
thereby deprived Christianity of the protection afforded to Judaism under
Roman law. This is consistent with the varying degrees of tolerance and
persecution experienced by Christianity over its first three centuries. It
had no legal standing, but its extirpation was not state policy, as it was
in the case of Druidism.

<snip> re: Pliny--answered in a separate email.

I should have said a proscribed superstitio, not a proscribed religio. In
any case the practice of Christianity was punishable under Trajan (see
separate message).

>Nor is there any evidence that Nero could **not** move, if he so desired,
>against anyone he wished without appeal to some prior proscription in
matters
>as grave as culpability for the fire.

I doubt that Nero could move against anyone he wished, without evidence. He
could move against a group whose religious beliefs did not enjoy official
status.

[snip]

Tacitus exculpates the Christians as being responsible for the fire, by
stating that Nero "subdidit reos" , which has the clear connotation of
offering scapegoats; yet a few lines later he states that they were "sontes
et novissima exempla meritos" (guilty and deserving of the most exemplary
punishment). So Tacitus admits their guilt and only objects to the cruel
manner of their punishment. "Sontes" cannot refer to the charges of arson,
since Tacitus has already stated that they were merely scapegoats. This
conclusion is underscored by the unsavory terms in which he describes this
new superstitio.

[snip]

I agree that the Christians were not punished for odium. They were clearly
punished as arsonists. The manner of their punishment is consistent with
that. What is more, there may have really been arsonists among them. As
said, Tacitus seems to exonerate them from the charge, yet calls them guilty
and deserving of exemplary punishments, without making clear the nature of
their guilt.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...