Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Suetonius; Interpretation of a word
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Poetic Justice
Apr 28, 2013, 5:11:19 PM4/28/13
to
Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus,[75] he expelled them from Rome."
Ok this is what I need defined in very simple layman's terms.
[75 footnote] Another form of Christus; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the
end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is guilty of an error in
chronology or is referring to some Jew of that name.
***The former seems probable because of the absence of quodam.***
The usual debate is over the spelling Chrestus/Christus where one camp
is the side of a man named Chrestus (a common slave name in this period)
causing these "disturbances".
And the other camp is saying Chrestus is just an accidental misspelling
of Christus or just an alternate spelling of Christus and the
"disturbances" are in-fighting among Jews and Jewish-Christians over
their belief that the Jewish Messiah (Jesus Christ) has come and gone.
Any opinions on that are welcome but here is where I'm lost.
The author of the footnote I see believes it's probable that Suetonius
just got timeline wrong and a physical Jesus is the instigator of these
~49AD disturbances.
And for Pagan Suetonius not to know all about this small Jewish
religion's off-shoot religion's timeline is not a big deal.
Now does this "absence of quodam" shed any light on his possible
intended meaning of the word in this respect.
A living slave named Chresto/Chrestus is
the instigator?
A living man with the Messiah title Christus, so not the actual person's
name but like 'President'?
A living man who in Suetonius's eyes has that actual name and that is
not a religious title?
The actual name of a dead person who has a religion named after him and
they are making disturbances over that doctrine in his name?
I googled "quodam" but I'm still confused:-).
Regards, Walter
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus,[75] he expelled them from Rome."
Ok this is what I need defined in very simple layman's terms.
[75 footnote] Another form of Christus; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the
end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is guilty of an error in
chronology or is referring to some Jew of that name.
***The former seems probable because of the absence of quodam.***
The usual debate is over the spelling Chrestus/Christus where one camp
is the side of a man named Chrestus (a common slave name in this period)
causing these "disturbances".
And the other camp is saying Chrestus is just an accidental misspelling
of Christus or just an alternate spelling of Christus and the
"disturbances" are in-fighting among Jews and Jewish-Christians over
their belief that the Jewish Messiah (Jesus Christ) has come and gone.
Any opinions on that are welcome but here is where I'm lost.
The author of the footnote I see believes it's probable that Suetonius
just got timeline wrong and a physical Jesus is the instigator of these
~49AD disturbances.
And for Pagan Suetonius not to know all about this small Jewish
religion's off-shoot religion's timeline is not a big deal.
Now does this "absence of quodam" shed any light on his possible
intended meaning of the word in this respect.
A living slave named Chresto/Chrestus is
the instigator?
A living man with the Messiah title Christus, so not the actual person's
name but like 'President'?
A living man who in Suetonius's eyes has that actual name and that is
not a religious title?
The actual name of a dead person who has a religion named after him and
they are making disturbances over that doctrine in his name?
I googled "quodam" but I'm still confused:-).
Regards, Walter
Evertjan.
Apr 28, 2013, 6:40:24 PM4/28/13
to
Poetic Justice wrote on 28 apr 2013 in alt.language.latin:
> I googled "quodam" but I'm still confused:-).
"quondam" not "quodam"
> I googled "quodam" but I'm still confused:-).
quondam = erstwhile
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
B. T. Raven
Apr 28, 2013, 11:53:08 PM4/28/13
to
Die Sun Apr 28 2013 16:11:19 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) scripsit:
> Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
>
> "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
> Chrestus,[75] he expelled them from Rome."
>
> Ok this is what I need defined in very simple layman's terms.
>
> [75 footnote] Another form of Christus; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the
> end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is guilty of an error in
> chronology or is referring to some Jew of that name.
> ***The former seems probable because of the absence of quodam.***
>
> The usual debate is over the spelling Chrestus/Christus where one camp
> is the side of a man named Chrestus (a common slave name in this period)
> causing these "disturbances".
>
> And the other camp is saying Chrestus is just an accidental misspelling
> of Christus or just an alternate spelling of Christus and the
> "disturbances" are in-fighting among Jews and Jewish-Christians over
> their belief that the Jewish Messiah (Jesus Christ) has come and gone.
>
> Any opinions on that are welcome but here is where I'm lost.
>
> The author of the footnote I see believes it's probable that Suetonius
> just got timeline wrong and a physical Jesus is the instigator of these
> ~49AD disturbances.
>
> And for Pagan Suetonius not to know all about this small Jewish
> religion's off-shoot religion's timeline is not a big deal.
Claudius might not know much in 49 but Suetonius would know a lot in 119.
>
> Now does this "absence of quodam" shed any light on his possible
> intended meaning of the word in this respect.
>
> A living slave named Chresto/Chrestus is
> the instigator?
>
> A living man with the Messiah title Christus, so not the actual person's
> name but like 'President'?
>
> A living man who in Suetonius's eyes has that actual name and that is
> not a religious title?
>
> The actual name of a dead person who has a religion named after him and
> they are making disturbances over that doctrine in his name?
>
> I googled "quodam" but I'm still confused:-).
> Regards, Walter
>
If Suetonius had written "Iudaeos impulsore quodam Chresto assidue
tumultuantis Roma expulit." that would mean something like 'disturbances
at the instigation of a certain <one named> Christ, (i.e. a name new to
me and probably to you). If Jesus of Nazareth, who is said to have died
in the year 30, were still alive in the year 49 (more than 50 years old)
that would truly be a bombshell but a more reasonable interpretation is
that his followers talked about him as if he were alive in the same way
we talk about him as still alive in 2013 a.d. Before Jesus no one talked
about a dead man in that way. Since Suetonius didn't write "quodam,"
maybe the name of Christ and even something about Christians wasn't
completely unknown to the best informed Romans even as early as the year
49 and certainly by 119 (date of _The 12 Caesars_). This seems more
likely than that he confused happenings in the times of Tiberius with
those of Claudius. Jews weren't expelled from Rome in the year 30 were
they? Sejanus (a virulent anti-Semite) and Tiberius began their tug of
war over control of the Praetorian Guard about this time but I don't
know of any expulsion. Pilate would certainly be worried about who would
win the tug of war in the spring of the year 30.
Eduardus
>
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) scripsit:
> Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
>
> "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
> Chrestus,[75] he expelled them from Rome."
>
> Ok this is what I need defined in very simple layman's terms.
>
> [75 footnote] Another form of Christus; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the
> end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is guilty of an error in
> chronology or is referring to some Jew of that name.
> ***The former seems probable because of the absence of quodam.***
>
> The usual debate is over the spelling Chrestus/Christus where one camp
> is the side of a man named Chrestus (a common slave name in this period)
> causing these "disturbances".
>
> And the other camp is saying Chrestus is just an accidental misspelling
> of Christus or just an alternate spelling of Christus and the
> "disturbances" are in-fighting among Jews and Jewish-Christians over
> their belief that the Jewish Messiah (Jesus Christ) has come and gone.
>
> Any opinions on that are welcome but here is where I'm lost.
>
> The author of the footnote I see believes it's probable that Suetonius
> just got timeline wrong and a physical Jesus is the instigator of these
> ~49AD disturbances.
>
> And for Pagan Suetonius not to know all about this small Jewish
> religion's off-shoot religion's timeline is not a big deal.
>
> Now does this "absence of quodam" shed any light on his possible
> intended meaning of the word in this respect.
>
> A living slave named Chresto/Chrestus is
> the instigator?
>
> A living man with the Messiah title Christus, so not the actual person's
> name but like 'President'?
>
> A living man who in Suetonius's eyes has that actual name and that is
> not a religious title?
>
> The actual name of a dead person who has a religion named after him and
> they are making disturbances over that doctrine in his name?
>
> I googled "quodam" but I'm still confused:-).
> Regards, Walter
>
tumultuantis Roma expulit." that would mean something like 'disturbances
at the instigation of a certain <one named> Christ, (i.e. a name new to
me and probably to you). If Jesus of Nazareth, who is said to have died
in the year 30, were still alive in the year 49 (more than 50 years old)
that would truly be a bombshell but a more reasonable interpretation is
that his followers talked about him as if he were alive in the same way
we talk about him as still alive in 2013 a.d. Before Jesus no one talked
about a dead man in that way. Since Suetonius didn't write "quodam,"
maybe the name of Christ and even something about Christians wasn't
completely unknown to the best informed Romans even as early as the year
49 and certainly by 119 (date of _The 12 Caesars_). This seems more
likely than that he confused happenings in the times of Tiberius with
those of Claudius. Jews weren't expelled from Rome in the year 30 were
they? Sejanus (a virulent anti-Semite) and Tiberius began their tug of
war over control of the Praetorian Guard about this time but I don't
know of any expulsion. Pilate would certainly be worried about who would
win the tug of war in the spring of the year 30.
Eduardus
>
Ed Cryer
Apr 29, 2013, 8:01:43 AM4/29/13
to
I believe that early Christianity had a strong militant tendency. I
could easily accept that Christians tried to burn Rome in 64 AD; helped
spread the flames if not started them.
By the time the Gospels were written there's evidence that this militant
wing had been quashed. Things like "my kingdom is not of this world" and
"render unto Caesar those things that are his, and unto God those that
are His" are evidence of the more pacifist view having won some victory.
I should think that if there's any truth in the reprisals taken against
Christians after the fire (as detailed by Tacitus) then they had good
reason to get rid of the zealots.
"Chrestus" (Greek "χρηστός") is Greek for "good", and was often used.
Plato called Socrates ὁ Σωκράτης ὁ χρηστός. Early Christians loved
symbolism and word play of all kinds. Someone must early on have come up
with "χριστός/ χρηστός".
"Quodam Chresto" and just "Chresto"; There's a difference as in our "a
certain Chrestus" and "Chrestus". Make of that what you will. I suppose
that to most the former suggests some unknown or vague factor with the
name, while the latter suggests that it was well known. It could be that
the 49AD records that Suetonius consulted came about as follows; some
slave had been tortured and when asked why he did it said "for
Chrestus". As for Jews/ Christians in 49AD, I suppose that Christianity
was often seen as a break-away wing of Judaism. St Paul's descriptions
of going around synagogues and being turfed out by the orthodox
believers might support this.
Ed
Poetic Justice
Apr 29, 2013, 6:02:00 PM4/29/13
to
>And for Pagan Suetonius not to know all
>about this small Jewish religion's off-shoot
>religion's timeline is not a big deal.
B. T. Raven wrote;
>about this small Jewish religion's off-shoot
>religion's timeline is not a big deal.
>Claudius might not know much in 49 but
>Suetonius would know a lot in 119.
that term properly:-).
Suetonius in his writing of the Life of the Caesars covers ~140yrs and
~100yrs of that would cover the birth of Jesus to ~60yrs after his
death.
Suetonius only makes 2 referrences to Christianity ~15yrs apart under
different Emperors and both are 1-liners and were made before his birth.
"...Jesus was a marginal Jew leading a
marginal movement in a marginal
province of a vast Roman Empire. The
wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan
would have known or referred to him at all
in the 1st or early 2nd century. (John P.
Meier, A Marginal Jew)
Poetic Justice
Apr 29, 2013, 7:11:26 PM4/29/13
to
OPPS...hit Send accidently:-).
>If Suetonius had written "Iudaeos
>impulsore quodam Chresto assidue
>tumultuantis Roma expulit." that would
>mean something like 'disturbances at the
>instigation of a certain <one named>
>Christ, (i.e. a name new to me and
>probably to you).
Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for and asked for it in
*simple* layman's terms:-).
>If Jesus of Nazareth, who is said to have
>died in the year 30, were still alive in the
>year 49 (more than 50 years old) that
>would truly be a bombshell
I think the author of that Footnote was just throwing-out the
possibility that although Suetonius knew about Christianity somewhat he
might have not known its timeline?
>but a more reasonable interpretation is
>that his followers talked about him as if he
>were alive in the same way we talk about
>him as still alive in 2013 a.d.
And in this case if it was in-fighting among the Jews over this
break-away Messiah cult I guess the opposing side would also use that
term as to who they were fighting against?
>Before Jesus no one talked about a dead
>man in that way.
With all the Pagan religions they must have had something close:-)?
>Since Suetonius didn't write "quodam,"
>maybe the name of Christ and even
>something about Christians wasn't
>completely unknown to the best informed
>Romans even as early as the year 49 and
>certainly by 119 (date of _The 12
>Caesars_).
We have to remember this is likely just a 1-line 'police report' from
70yrs earlier that Suetonius just copied as is?
>This seems more likely than that he
>confused happenings in the times of
>Tiberius with those of Claudius.
Sorry I can't remember the source but it was claimed that Tiberius'
friend's wife became Jewish and 4 Jewish con-men conned her (so him
also) out of money and valuables that was supposed to go to the
Jerusalum Temple?
And then Tiberius expelled all the Jews from Rome in 19AD as a result.
>Jews weren't expelled from Rome in the
>year 30 were they?
No.
>Sejanus (a virulent anti-Semite) and
>Tiberius began their tug of war over
>control of the Praetorian Guard about this
>time but I don't know of any expulsion.
Tiberius basically handed-over the Empire for Sejanus to run and
everything was just peachy until Tiberius dropped the hammer on Sejanus
in late 31AD?
>Pilate would certainly be worried about
>who would win the tug of war in the spring
>of the year 30.
I think Pilate only has to worry about Sejanus who with Tiberius'
approval is running things before and after that year.
Thanks Again for the info! Regards, Walter
>If Suetonius had written "Iudaeos
>impulsore quodam Chresto assidue
>tumultuantis Roma expulit." that would
>mean something like 'disturbances at the
>instigation of a certain <one named>
>Christ, (i.e. a name new to me and
>probably to you).
*simple* layman's terms:-).
>If Jesus of Nazareth, who is said to have
>died in the year 30, were still alive in the
>year 49 (more than 50 years old) that
>would truly be a bombshell
possibility that although Suetonius knew about Christianity somewhat he
might have not known its timeline?
>but a more reasonable interpretation is
>that his followers talked about him as if he
>were alive in the same way we talk about
>him as still alive in 2013 a.d.
break-away Messiah cult I guess the opposing side would also use that
term as to who they were fighting against?
>Before Jesus no one talked about a dead
>man in that way.
>Since Suetonius didn't write "quodam,"
>maybe the name of Christ and even
>something about Christians wasn't
>completely unknown to the best informed
>Romans even as early as the year 49 and
>certainly by 119 (date of _The 12
>Caesars_).
70yrs earlier that Suetonius just copied as is?
>This seems more likely than that he
>confused happenings in the times of
>Tiberius with those of Claudius.
friend's wife became Jewish and 4 Jewish con-men conned her (so him
also) out of money and valuables that was supposed to go to the
Jerusalum Temple?
And then Tiberius expelled all the Jews from Rome in 19AD as a result.
>Jews weren't expelled from Rome in the
>year 30 were they?
>Sejanus (a virulent anti-Semite) and
>Tiberius began their tug of war over
>control of the Praetorian Guard about this
>time but I don't know of any expulsion.
everything was just peachy until Tiberius dropped the hammer on Sejanus
in late 31AD?
>Pilate would certainly be worried about
>who would win the tug of war in the spring
>of the year 30.
approval is running things before and after that year.
Thanks Again for the info! Regards, Walter
Poetic Justice
Apr 29, 2013, 8:31:20 PM4/29/13
to
Ed Cryer wrote;
>I believe that early Christianity had a
>strong militant tendency.
Ahhh...A strong hatred maybe but strongly militant would likely have put
them on Rome's radar in the 1C?
>I could easily accept that Christians tried
>to burn Rome in 64 AD; helped spread the
>flames if not started them.
Fires are an everyday fact of life in Rome, it's only the ones that get
away that we hear about, the next real biggie is in 80AD.
Lighting a single fire and hoping it gets away is a very big longshot.
But I've always thought it was very possible for some Christian zealots
getting a 'Mob Mentality' during the Fire and helping it along.
Suetonius mentions that happened so it could be based on fact but he
puts the blame on Nero's boys as he also does with the Fire.
>By the time the Gospels were written
>there's evidence that this militant wing
>had been quashed.
I just don't think it existed and if so Rome would have quashed them,
they really don't pop-up as anti-Roman until 30yrs later when only Nero
blames them.
>Things like "my kingdom is not of this
>world" and "render unto Caesar those
>things that are his, and unto God those
>that are His" are evidence of the more
>pacifist view having won some victory.
If their view was anything militant at Christianity's founding in Judaea
I doubt anyone would have survived to spread their doctrine.
>I should think that if there's any truth in
>the reprisals taken against Christians after
>the fire (as detailed by Tacitus) then they
>had good reason to get rid of the zealots.
If the Emperor commands it...it happens.
If he needs a scapegoat...it happens.
He doesn't need a good reason or even proof, as Mel Brooks said "It's
good to be the King":-).
>"Quodam Chresto" and just "Chresto";
There's a difference as in our "a certain
>Chrestus" and "Chrestus". Make of that
>what you will.
>I suppose that to most the former
>suggests some unknown or vague factor
>with the name, while the latter suggests
>that it was well known.
Thanks! You and B.T. both put it in simple layman's terms that even I
can understand:-).
>It could be that the 49AD records that
>Suetonius consulted came about as
>follows; some slave had been tortured and
>when asked why he did it said "for
>Chrestus".
Thanks Again! And even with a simple layman's example:-).
>As for Jews/ Christians in
>49AD, I suppose that Christianity was
>often seen as a break-away wing of
>Judaism.
>St Paul's descriptions of going around
>synagogues and being turfed out by the
>orthodox believers might support this.
Same thing as; I assume the 2.2 Billion Christians in the World the vast
majority believe that Jesus is returning one day to the Earth.
If one branch of the many Christianity religions say with 50 million
members World Wide suddenly announces that their leader is Jesus Christ
returned I suspect that they will be officially shunned by all the other
Christian religions and not welcomed at any Christian gatherings?
>I believe that early Christianity had a
>strong militant tendency.
them on Rome's radar in the 1C?
>I could easily accept that Christians tried
>to burn Rome in 64 AD; helped spread the
>flames if not started them.
away that we hear about, the next real biggie is in 80AD.
Lighting a single fire and hoping it gets away is a very big longshot.
But I've always thought it was very possible for some Christian zealots
getting a 'Mob Mentality' during the Fire and helping it along.
Suetonius mentions that happened so it could be based on fact but he
puts the blame on Nero's boys as he also does with the Fire.
>By the time the Gospels were written
>there's evidence that this militant wing
>had been quashed.
they really don't pop-up as anti-Roman until 30yrs later when only Nero
blames them.
>Things like "my kingdom is not of this
>world" and "render unto Caesar those
>things that are his, and unto God those
>that are His" are evidence of the more
>pacifist view having won some victory.
I doubt anyone would have survived to spread their doctrine.
>I should think that if there's any truth in
>the reprisals taken against Christians after
>the fire (as detailed by Tacitus) then they
>had good reason to get rid of the zealots.
If he needs a scapegoat...it happens.
He doesn't need a good reason or even proof, as Mel Brooks said "It's
good to be the King":-).
>"Quodam Chresto" and just "Chresto";
There's a difference as in our "a certain
>Chrestus" and "Chrestus". Make of that
>what you will.
>I suppose that to most the former
>suggests some unknown or vague factor
>with the name, while the latter suggests
>that it was well known.
can understand:-).
>It could be that the 49AD records that
>Suetonius consulted came about as
>follows; some slave had been tortured and
>when asked why he did it said "for
>Chrestus".
>As for Jews/ Christians in
>49AD, I suppose that Christianity was
>often seen as a break-away wing of
>Judaism.
>St Paul's descriptions of going around
>synagogues and being turfed out by the
>orthodox believers might support this.
majority believe that Jesus is returning one day to the Earth.
If one branch of the many Christianity religions say with 50 million
members World Wide suddenly announces that their leader is Jesus Christ
returned I suspect that they will be officially shunned by all the other
Christian religions and not welcomed at any Christian gatherings?
B. T. Raven
Apr 29, 2013, 10:02:36 PM4/29/13
to
Die Mon Apr 29 2013 18:11:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) scripsit:
Seems oversimplified to me. Tiberius' mama didn't raise any fools.
>
>> Pilate would certainly be worried about
>> who would win the tug of war in the spring
>> of the year 30.
>
> I think Pilate only has to worry about Sejanus who with Tiberius'
> approval is running things before and after that year.
>
> Thanks Again for the info! Regards, Walter
>
Accipe cum grano salis.
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) scripsit:
>
>> Pilate would certainly be worried about
>> who would win the tug of war in the spring
>> of the year 30.
>
> I think Pilate only has to worry about Sejanus who with Tiberius'
> approval is running things before and after that year.
>
> Thanks Again for the info! Regards, Walter
>
B. T. Raven
Apr 29, 2013, 10:20:32 PM4/29/13
to
Die Mon Apr 29 2013 19:31:20 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) scripsit:
> Ed Cryer wrote;
>
>> I believe that early Christianity had a
>> strong militant tendency.
>
> Ahhh...A strong hatred maybe but strongly militant would likely have put
> them on Rome's radar in the 1C?
>
>> I could easily accept that Christians tried
>> to burn Rome in 64 AD; helped spread the
>> flames if not started them.
>
> Fires are an everyday fact of life in Rome, it's only the ones that get
> away that we hear about, the next real biggie is in 80AD.
> Lighting a single fire and hoping it gets away is a very big longshot.
>
> But I've always thought it was very possible for some Christian zealots
> getting a 'Mob Mentality' during the Fire and helping it along.
>
> Suetonius mentions that happened so it could be based on fact but he
> puts the blame on Nero's boys as he also does with the Fire.
>
>> By the time the Gospels were written
>> there's evidence that this militant wing
>> had been quashed.
>
> I just don't think it existed and if so Rome would have quashed them,
> they really don't pop-up as anti-Roman until 30yrs later when only Nero
> blames them.
Could have started accidentally at a Christian hearth but it is far more
likely to have been part of Nero's scorched earth urban renewal plan.
He has been returning to earth at a very slow rate of return for 1917 years.
>
> If one branch of the many Christianity religions say with 50 million
> members World Wide suddenly announces that their leader is Jesus Christ
> returned I suspect that they will be officially shunned by all the other
> Christian religions and not welcomed at any Christian gatherings?
>
Thanks for mentioning _A Marginal Jew_ I cited that book in this forum
about 10 years ago. I don't know how accurate Meier's classical
demography is. Here are my back of the envelope estimates (very rough
but not off by an order of magnitude, I trust):
year -- absolute number of professed Christians -- total population
under Roman control (East and West)
30 12 60m
64 5000 65m
96 30000 70m
111 80000 75m
150 200000 80m
177 300000 75m
202 400000 70m
235 500000 65m
250 1m 65m
284 3m 60m
313 6m 60m
361 12m 60m
380 15m 55m
410 20m 50m
449 30m 45m
476 30m 40m
Also, up until about 150 a.d. 80% of the Christians were either in the
Eastern half of the empire or in Rome.
Eduardus
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) scripsit:
> Ed Cryer wrote;
>
>> I believe that early Christianity had a
>> strong militant tendency.
>
> Ahhh...A strong hatred maybe but strongly militant would likely have put
> them on Rome's radar in the 1C?
>
>> I could easily accept that Christians tried
>> to burn Rome in 64 AD; helped spread the
>> flames if not started them.
>
> Fires are an everyday fact of life in Rome, it's only the ones that get
> away that we hear about, the next real biggie is in 80AD.
> Lighting a single fire and hoping it gets away is a very big longshot.
>
> But I've always thought it was very possible for some Christian zealots
> getting a 'Mob Mentality' during the Fire and helping it along.
>
> Suetonius mentions that happened so it could be based on fact but he
> puts the blame on Nero's boys as he also does with the Fire.
>
>> By the time the Gospels were written
>> there's evidence that this militant wing
>> had been quashed.
>
> I just don't think it existed and if so Rome would have quashed them,
> they really don't pop-up as anti-Roman until 30yrs later when only Nero
> blames them.
likely to have been part of Nero's scorched earth urban renewal plan.
>
> If one branch of the many Christianity religions say with 50 million
> members World Wide suddenly announces that their leader is Jesus Christ
> returned I suspect that they will be officially shunned by all the other
> Christian religions and not welcomed at any Christian gatherings?
>
about 10 years ago. I don't know how accurate Meier's classical
demography is. Here are my back of the envelope estimates (very rough
but not off by an order of magnitude, I trust):
year -- absolute number of professed Christians -- total population
under Roman control (East and West)
30 12 60m
64 5000 65m
96 30000 70m
111 80000 75m
150 200000 80m
177 300000 75m
202 400000 70m
235 500000 65m
250 1m 65m
284 3m 60m
313 6m 60m
361 12m 60m
380 15m 55m
410 20m 50m
449 30m 45m
476 30m 40m
Also, up until about 150 a.d. 80% of the Christians were either in the
Eastern half of the empire or in Rome.
Eduardus
Ed Cryer
Apr 30, 2013, 11:28:41 AM4/30/13
to
very commonly meted out to those who conspired against Rome.
Does the story hold up to the light of historical reason, that the Jews
found him guilty of blasphemy and handed him over to the Roman
authorities to be crucified?
Here, take this bloke and execute him.
Why?
He's a heretic.
I think it much more likely that Jesus was stirring up trouble that
affected Roman rule. And something more than just religious discontent
amongst a people who were well known to the Romans as troublesome.
They let a convicted rebel (Barabbas) go free and crucified Jesus.
Ed
Poetic Justice
Apr 30, 2013, 3:14:20 PM4/30/13
to
>Tiberius basically handed-over the Empire
>for Sejanus to run and everything was just
>peachy until Tiberius dropped the hammer
>on Sejanus in late 31AD?
B. T. Raven wrote;
>for Sejanus to run and everything was just
>peachy until Tiberius dropped the hammer
>on Sejanus in late 31AD?
>Seems oversimplified to me.
Oversimplified as a 1-liner true but that's what recorded history tells
us.
>Tiberius' mama didn't raise any fools.
all round pretty nice guy.
But he's not on the A List for Emperor.
Agrippa is a good 'just in case' stand-by but he dies.
Livia produces no children with Augustus.
Augustus' two grandsons both die young.
All that remains is his step-son Tiberius and by this time he doesn't
want the job.
He had even earlier put himself in self-exile to get away.
And Augustus' forced him to divorce his wife who he loved dearly and
marry Augustus' widowed nymphomaniac daughter.
He's in a job he doesn't want and years later he just walks-away from it
and self-exile's himself to Capri.
>[Thanks Again for the info!]
>Accipe cum grano salis.
[Off to google translate] and I'm back:-).
Nope, none was needed for the 'quodam Chresto' information.
But for all your other info, I got that covered:-). Regards, Walter
http://citynoise.org/upload/13786.jpg
Poetic Justice
Apr 30, 2013, 7:59:20 PM4/30/13
to
B. T. Raven wrote;
>Could have started accidentally at a
>Christian hearth
That's actually a close possible truth.
The Fire started SW of the Circus Maximus at the edge of a Jewish
ghetto-like neighborhood where Jews that were also Christians live.
Maybe it did and all Christians got the blame?
Or maybe Roman Authorites when actually looking for the starting place
of this Fire tried to blame the Jews but the Jews then blamed the
Christians.
There's no love between them and it would be the wise choice?
Or most likely it's just an average everyday fire that got away?
No one's blamed for the next major fire (80AD) and all the others after
that (except the Visigoths in 410).
>but it is far more likely to have been part
>of Nero's scorched earth urban renewal
>plan.
His urban renewal plan is after the Fire to make the city more
fire-resistant, I doubt burning down the city to make it more
fire-resistant was his Masterplan:-).
The actual blame placed on Nero was that he burned down the city in
order to obtain land to build his vast palace (Golden House) which he
did after the Fire.
But his actual torching of the city to do this is far-fetched IMO.
Why put his new palace on the Palatine Hill in-between the Fire's
starting place and the land he wants?
This is the land he later builds on [XXX
The Palatine o Hill is here [XXXo but the Fire starts here+ [XXXo----->+
See the problem in that conspiracy theory?
If you want that land to be burned to the ground while leaving your new
palace on land you already own left alone wouldn't this be a better
plan?
Start *multiple* fires** here [XXX*o*<--wind--- when the wind is blowing
in that direction.
>year -- absolute number of professed
>Christians -- total population
>under Roman control (East and West)
>30 12 60m
Come on at least give them a 100 or so, they've been working really hard
at this:-).
>313 6m 60m
The number that gets thrown around alot is 1/3 when Constantine
legalizes Christanity.
You have it at 10% but I have no idea who is right in this.
Regards, Walter
>Could have started accidentally at a
>Christian hearth
The Fire started SW of the Circus Maximus at the edge of a Jewish
ghetto-like neighborhood where Jews that were also Christians live.
Maybe it did and all Christians got the blame?
Or maybe Roman Authorites when actually looking for the starting place
of this Fire tried to blame the Jews but the Jews then blamed the
Christians.
There's no love between them and it would be the wise choice?
Or most likely it's just an average everyday fire that got away?
No one's blamed for the next major fire (80AD) and all the others after
that (except the Visigoths in 410).
>but it is far more likely to have been part
>of Nero's scorched earth urban renewal
>plan.
fire-resistant, I doubt burning down the city to make it more
fire-resistant was his Masterplan:-).
The actual blame placed on Nero was that he burned down the city in
order to obtain land to build his vast palace (Golden House) which he
did after the Fire.
But his actual torching of the city to do this is far-fetched IMO.
Why put his new palace on the Palatine Hill in-between the Fire's
starting place and the land he wants?
This is the land he later builds on [XXX
The Palatine o Hill is here [XXXo but the Fire starts here+ [XXXo----->+
See the problem in that conspiracy theory?
If you want that land to be burned to the ground while leaving your new
palace on land you already own left alone wouldn't this be a better
plan?
Start *multiple* fires** here [XXX*o*<--wind--- when the wind is blowing
in that direction.
>year -- absolute number of professed
>Christians -- total population
>under Roman control (East and West)
>30 12 60m
at this:-).
>313 6m 60m
The number that gets thrown around alot is 1/3 when Constantine
legalizes Christanity.
You have it at 10% but I have no idea who is right in this.
Regards, Walter
0 new messages