When was the term "christian" first used?

[steve43]

The Neronian persecution is an apocryphal development of the 4th century. It started with the Jewish loathing of Nero for his sending the curse of Vespasian upon them. In the middle of the 2nd century the death traditions of Peter and Paul emerged. Tertullian talks about Nero's acts against the faith, the only tangible reflection of which were the deaths of Peter and Paul.(Praes.Heret. 36) Eusebius 2.25 does provide anything better. Really the same goes for Lactantius (Deaths of Persecutors, 2). The evidence for a Neronian persecution vanishes.

Tacitus?????

[ficino]

Hi Steve, we've been discussing what a number of us think is the interpolated status of Annales 15.44 (or part of it) on the "when was the term 'christian' first used" thread, starting here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=344&start=10#p5056

[steve43]

Well, OK.

But if you start to discount Tacitus, what's the point? Where is your gold standard?

[ficino]

Well, OK.

But if you start to discount Tacitus, what's the point? Where is your gold standard?

Not sure what you mean by "Tacitus." I don't think anyone deems Tacitus a bad historian, or denies that his works are invaluable sources for Roman history of the first century. But should Tacitus be considered the author of Annales 15.44? Lots of reasons to suspect that passage; it's not special pleading to think it bears the marks of interpolation.

[steve43]

Well, OK.

But if you start to discount Tacitus, what's the point? Where is your gold standard?

Not sure what you mean by "Tacitus." I don't think anyone deems Tacitus a bad historian, or denies that his works are invaluable sources for Roman history of the first century. But should Tacitus be considered the author of Annales 15.44? Lots of reasons to suspect that passage; it's not special pleading to think it bears the marks of interpolation.

"Cut-and-paste" or "what if?" historical scholarship is always a slippery slope and rarely leads to anything useful.

If Tacitus was altered by later Christians, why wasn't Paul the Apostle added in, or Peter?

[stephan happy huller]

WTF does this have to do with the thread? Please have this discussion in spin's other thread.

[andrewcriddle]

Against andrewcriddle's identification of 1 Peter as early, we should consider the evidence of Tertullian:

It is also curious that Tertullian while describing the various 'instruments' in the canon (De Resurrect. 33, 38, 39, 40) finishes quoting passages from the Old Testament and continues: "This is enough from the Prophetic Instrument : I appeal now to the Gospels!" Passages from St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, follow in order. Afterwards comes a reference to the Apocalypse as contained in the Instrument of John ; and then a general reference to the Apostolic Instrument but no reference to any material from Mark.

The broad distinction of the different Instruments points to the existence of distinct groups of books, which may have been separately circulated.

In another treatise, probably of a somewhat earlier date (De Pudicitia, cc. 6, 12, 19) Tertullian observes a similar arrangement. First he quotes the Gospels, or rather as he calls it the Gospel; and then appeals to the Apostolic Instrument in which again he includes the Acts and the Epistles of St Paul. Afterwards - not to dwell always on Paul he notices the Apocalypse and first Epistle of St John, and speaks of a passage from the last chapter as the close of his writing. And then it is, when he has noticed the dis- cipline of the Apostles/ that he adds as it were over and above a testimony of a companion of the Apostles taken from the Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews. The absence of all mention of the first Epistle of St Peter is remarkable; and it has been supposed with some probability that he was not acquainted with it till the close of his life, and then only from the Greek. [Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament p. 238]

Polycarp in the Letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century CE) clearly knew 1 Peter.

Andrew Criddle

[DCHindley]

The Wikipedia article also says that [Wm. Benjamin] Smith was a white supremacist.

The article below is (way too) looooong and full of hot air, but the only thing I could detect from it about the Caucasian race is that it is too ethnocentric to fully appreciate the oriental influences that shaped Christian literature and its transmission.

[quote="William B Smith in the article "New Testament Criticism: Status and Drift," "]If the importance of a writing be estimated by the influence it exerts and has exerted on the mind of men and on the history of the human (more particularly the Caucasian) race, Homo Europaeus, and there seems to be no other standard nearly so just, then it must be admitted that the New Testament writings so far transcend all others as to form a class of their own. This affirmation need not be argued; it is undisputed. Hence it becomes a matter of supreme interest to understand these writings, from which modern no less than mediaeval history takes its start, its form, its color, and, in great measure, its inspiration. But no understanding is final or satisfactory that is not historical. [Encyc Amer, vol 11, 1904-5, pg 1][/quote]

The red text represents Smith's restatement of the prejudice of the majority of critics, and the blue represents his sarcastic challenge to look closer at the evidence, especially the new evidence coming out in his times.

DCH

[spin]

Let's go back to the final part of the fire narrative, as it now stands in Ann. 15.44. There is a glaring problem I have not discussed before that is overlooked because of reading bias, our reading bias. We are so gulled by the horrid treatment the narrative says that was suffered by the poor christian martyrs.

44. Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the temple and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Tacitus tells us that Nero tried everything, "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." Well, it seems, not quite everything. Finally, we are told, he hit on another thing to do "to get rid of the report", he "fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures" on the christians. So far, so good, you might say. He tried everything but nothing worked, so after trying everything he discovered it was not quite everything. He had another trick up his sleeve: he blamed the christians. But the weird thing is that we don't get told whether it was successful or not.

After we learn of the failure with human efforts, with gifts and even with propitiations, these "precautions of human wisdom" being to no avail, we don't learn the result of Nero's shifting the blame. Instead, we learn about what happened to the christians.

Next time I corner you in a bar, look me in the face and tell me if you think the TT is the work of one of the greatest orators in ancient Rome. This is when those who want it to be veracious say, "he must have been having a bad day." That's after the meticulous way he stitched Nero up to take the wrap for the fire with no evidence.

[steve43]

You are really stretching it here. Of course Nero was successful with this strategy. He remained in power, people became even more afraid of him, and he got to build his Domus Aureas.