Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Roman Congregation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
  • To: "Corpus Paulinum" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Roman Congregation
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:25:20 -0700


Jeffrey G. wrote:

>
> I find your particular reasons for why any 2nd cent Roman historian using
the name
> Chrestus could only be referring to Jesus very intriguing, but only
because of it's
> boldness in the face of evidence to the contrary.
>

To be perhaps nit-picky with you, I don't think there's any 'evidence to the
contrary' to cite, but, rather, there's debate over the evidence I bring.
Big difference.

Anyhow…

>
> So far as I know, up to the time
> that Tacitus (who never uses either the name "Chrestus" or the term
"Chrestians" of
> any person or group) and Seutonius wrote -- no later that 120? -- there is
absolutely
> no indication (1) that the name "Christus", if known at all, was known as
anything
> other than a title, let alone a household word, among the Roman elite or
to Roman
> historians,

That's almost true, Jeffrey. Until Tacitus and Suetonius used the terms in
their histories, there's no known previous non-Christian use except
Josephus' (He counts as an "honorary" Roman writing in Rome for a Roman
aristocratic patron). Here, you're really saying what I'm saying. But you
seem to imply that these references somehow undercut my position. I don't
see your logic. Josephus and Tacitus **are** unmistakably referring to Jesus
Christ. The Suetonius reference is debatable to you, but not to me or to
E.P. Sanders. You must have misunderstood me if you think that Sue. and/or
Tac. are refutations of my position.

>
> , , Up until them
> or (2) that Christians, let alone "chrestians", were, apart from the
> context of the Neronian persecution (which, ironically, as Tacitus himself
notes,
> actually ended up gaining the christianoi **sympathy** from the Roman
public),
> thought of or treated as scapegoats, notorious or otherwise,
>

Again, you are citing against me the very evidence that supports my
contention -- Neronian persecution. In addition to Nero's anti-Christ
campaign we have the Claudian expulsion of Jews including any
Christ-believers (arguably a partly Christian persecution). You also
mentioned "Persecution Lite" committed by Trajan. I have always heard of yet
another committed by Domitian, but have never read the source material. All
four were contemporaries of Sue. and Tac. That's 2-4 persecutions by yr
100.

My point in mentioning these was merely to show that the Christians were
identifiable and established as a group, which can be inferred from their
being serially picked on. That's all I wanted to show, really.


>
> or (3) were serially
> persecuted by the Roman state (on this, see further W. Frend, _Martyrdom
and
> Persecution in the Early Church_ .

As many as four 1st cent. emperors tee'd off on Xians. How do you define
'serial'?

>
> which you might also consult with profit on the
> Suetonious' Chrestus=Christus=Jesus debate. He does not think much of it).
>

Until someone actually gives me an argument or an evidence, rather than
citing a book, I'll stick with my opinion.

Jeffrey, you seem to be saying that Frend is saying that all those cherished
Christian stories about martyrs being thrown to the lions aren't true after
all. And that there's no martyrdom of Peter and Paul or Justin Martyr or
Perpetua. I'm at a loss here. Can this really be true?

>
> To my knowledge, the only greco-roman evidence of post Neronian pre 120 CE
official
> Roman persecution (organized state action) of Christians we have is in
Pliny's letters
> to Trajan (c. 113), and that was ad hoc and very local, and even then not
very well
> approved of by the emperor who actually went on to restrict it!
Interestingly, the
> Pliny correspondence with Trajan shows clearly that Christus, was *not*
known as a
> household name, let alone one indicating Jesus, for Pliny has to do some
fairly
> extensive detective work in order to discover just who this Christus
worshiped by
> Christians (who he didn't know very much about either) actually was. This
latter fact
> seems to me to be damning evidence against the validity of your reasons.
>

I respectfully disagree. I don't find Pliny's ignorance about christology to
have any bearing on my actual point, which was, that Christus/os was a
recognizable reference **in the context of any discussion about marginal
Judaic sects**. Even today, debate rages about who/what Jesus was. That
doesn't mean the name Jesus Christ is unheard of.

In Pliny's day, at least Tacitus for one (Annals 15.44) had a definite and
negative opinion of Christians. Josephus had a more neutral/favorable one.
Pliny and Trajan could have asked around a bit more.

Finally, the fact that Trajan in ca. 100 would ask an academic to find out
"just who this Christus fella is anyway" shows the irrepressible social
impact the sect was having.

Hence, in view of :
--the persecutions related to Christians conducted under perhaps 3-4
emperors;
--Tacitus' description of the beliefs;
--Josephus' Jewish histories, written in the context of a major Eastern war;
and
--Christian documents circulating in 2nd cent. Rome,

I think it's a fair assumption that 2nd century reference by historians to
'Christus/os' are likely to be referring to a well-known figure.

Best regards,

Jon

PS - sorry for belated reply to a post last wk. I've been away from the
net …





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page