Dreams of Any Kind You Please

[robert j]

Roman poet and essayist Juvenal wrote from the perspective of the privileged classes in his satirical commentaries on city life around 100 CE.

Juvenal engages in a sustained expose on the perfidy of wealthy Roman wives in his essay, The Ways of Women (Satire 6).

His essay is chock-a-block with references to gods, goddesses, and superstitions of the times --- especially about 2/3 of the way through where he focuses on the superstitions of privileged Roman women.

But tellingly, In case anyone might wonder, Juvenal nowhere in his essay mentions rituals or mysteries of a Jesus Christ.

Amid rituals to satisfy Bellona, the Roman goddess of war, and Cybele, the mother of gods with a Phrygian eunuch attendant; rituals in observance of Isis; tributes to Anubis, the god of the dead; bribes for forgiveness by Osiris; and consultations with soothsayers examining the entrails of a dog, and Chaldaean astrologers; just to name a few, we find a mention of Jewish mysticism.

In this passage Juvenal looks down his nose in a barely disguised sneer at a woman of the streets ---- not one providing physical comforts, but rather spiritual. The passage is a caricature, a composite portrait drawn from a plethora of types he'd seen on the streets of ancient Rome.

Jewish mystics were the gurus of the times.

Leaving her basket and her truss of hay
a palsied Jewess comes begging to her secret ear
an interpreter of the scrolls of Jerusalem
faithful messenger of highest heaven
high-priestess of the Tree

She too fills her palm but sparingly
for a Jew will tell you dreams
of any kind you please
for a mere small coin

robert j.

[Roger Pearse]

But tellingly, Juvenal nowhere in his essay mentions rituals or mysteries of a Jesus Christ.

Clear proof that none such existed; indeed that nothing that Juvenal does not mention existed.

Or not.

[robert j]

Certainly not proof --- nor intended to be such. It was just an aside --- for the post to fit within this section of the forum --- something to go along with my main point --- the interesting way Juvenal characterized the mystic Jewess.

Perhaps "tellingly" is too strong a word. But the absence is notable in the long list of superstitions practiced by trendy rich Roman women around 100 CE.

robert j.

[Roger Pearse]

Are you sure that it is certainly, definitely, "notable", in some undefined sense, indicating something undefined - but not an argument from absence of evidence, dear me, oh no - but clearly significant?

Seriously: I don't think you could state this argument in any form that was valid. At the moment you're relying on insinuating the argument, as a way to dodge the fallacy. That's never a good idea.

[robert j]

Roger,

As I've said, the line was not intended as proof, nor was it even intended as an argument (from silence). It was nothing more than a throw-away line --- the line could be removed from the post without detracting in any way from the main point of the post (Juvenal's characterization of the mystic Jewess).

Yes, tellingly is too strong a word. My intent was to make note of, to point out, that in Juvenal's long list of gods, goddesses, and superstitions among rich and trendy Roman women around 100 CE --- just in case anyone might wonder --- there was no mention of a Jesus Christ. I've edited my OP to clarify.

robert j.

[neilgodfrey]

The silence of Juvenal on Christianity is not insignificant. True, alone, in isolation, it certainly does not present a logically valid case re Christians. There is a significance, however.

I suspect anyone with an interest in early Christianity who comes to Juvenal's satire for the first time immediately looks for some mention of Christians. Why this expectation or at least strong curiosity? Because if indeed the Christians had featured so prominently in Rome as other accounts and interpretations have suggested -- Jews being expelled at the instigation of "Chrestus", Nero using the fire to scapegoat the Christians and the Roman public reacting with sympathy towards a group they otherwise despised, Pastoral laments of women being easily misled by charlatans in the context of Christianity -- then we would expect some passing mention of this despised and troublemaking sect by Juvenal in this particular satire.

It is a simple prediction test applied to a hypothesis. The hypothesis fails this particular prediction test.

That alone does not, of course, falsify the hypothesis, but it does count as a mark against it when we are looking at the larger picture.

[steve43]

It is interesting to read what Josephus writes about Poppea, the wife of Nero.

She had a secret salon devoted to mysticism and the occult. In A.D. 63, Josephus probably attended more than one of their gatherings.

Astrology was officially outlawed, though the aristocracy practiced it and Tiberius was said to be no mean astrologer.

The Jews of the Second Temple were famous astrologers, though all of their writings on it were lost, and the High Priesthood itself was outlawed after the Jewish Revolt.

As for the Chistians, one could make the case that their crypto-cannibalistic ritutals made them such outliers that a satirist playwright of the late first century A.D. would not use them in any fashion in his light entertainment.

But Rome arguably became the main Jewish center in the empire and as they have done in any society they have a presence in would have influenced the culture.

[Adam]

It is interesting to read what Josephus writes about Poppea, the wife of Nero.

She had a secret salon devoted to mysticism and the occult. In A.D. 63, Josephus probably attended more than one of their gatherings.

Wow, 63 A. D. Josephus was in Rome, the same year Luke was there? And people here date Luke decades later than that on the assumption Luke got his information from Josephus! If that's so then either of them could have gotten information from each other or a common source, without forcing Luke to be later than 93 A. D.

[neilgodfrey]

Wow, 63 A. D. Josephus was in Rome, the same year Luke was there?

This is all hypothetical, of course. Luke himself is hypothetical.

[DCHindley]

PGM IV. 2039-2066 Then go quickly to where [someone] lies buried ... spread the [magically prepared] hide under him at about sunset. Return [home], and he will actually be present and will stand beside you on that night. And he describes to you how he died, but first he tells you if he has the power to do anything or to perform any service.

And take a leaf of flax and with the black ink which will be revealed to you, paint on it the figure of the goddess who will he revealed to you, and paint in a circle this spell

"PHOUBEL TAUTHY ALDE MINOOURITHI SENECHO CHELETHICHITIATH MOU CHO ARIANTA NARACHI MASKELLI (formula) AEBITHO ACHAIL CHAOSOUNISOU SOUNIARTENOPH AKCHEREPHTHOUMI BOLPHAI AROCHO ABMENTHO PHORPHORBA CHNOUCHIOCHOIME; I adjure [you], dead spirit, by the Destiny of Destinies, to come to me, NN, on this day, on this night, and I agree to the act of service for me. And if you don't, expect other chastisements."

(and place on his head the leaf which has been spread out and wreathe him with black ivy, and he will actually stand beside you through the night in dreams, and he will ask you, saying, "Order whatever you wish, and I do it").

Hans Dieter Betz, ed, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation-Including the Demotic Spells (1986)

Sounds kinda, um, kinky, doesn't it? I mean, body painting, being "serviced" at night by a dead person, chastisements. Hmmmmm (said like Smithers on The Simpsons TV show when thinking about the elderly and decrepit Mr. Burns, his boss)

DCH