T
Timothysis
Guest
I thought that you said the reason Nero targeted the Christians was because of Jewish influence in his court.
- Status
S
steve53
Guest
Nero gave the order, of course.
But keep in mind that at the time he was maybe 27 or 28. Just a kid. Poppea, his wife, was seven years older than he was, and had great influence over him. She was cold-hearted, ordering the execution of Nero’s previous wife, the beloved Octavia, and then have her head cut off and brought to her for inspection.
Nero was probably a very popular emperor. He made sure that there were spectacles a’plenty for the Roman citizens, as well as athletic contests and music and art festivals. That he sang and played for the Roman crowds, while derided today, was probably endearing to the Roman people.
The former High Priest Ismael was beheaded in Cyrene early in the Jewish revolt. It is not hard to see Nero employing Ismael as some sort of peace ambassador to the Jewish people. Cyrene, on the north coast of Africa, was a Zealot hot-bed in those days. The Zealots probably killed him for being a Roman collaborator, despite him being a former High Priest- who was considered to be semi-divine.
You can put it all together reading Josephus carefully, and Tacitus, Suetonius, and others.
But keep in mind that at the time he was maybe 27 or 28. Just a kid. Poppea, his wife, was seven years older than he was, and had great influence over him. She was cold-hearted, ordering the execution of Nero’s previous wife, the beloved Octavia, and then have her head cut off and brought to her for inspection.
Nero was probably a very popular emperor. He made sure that there were spectacles a’plenty for the Roman citizens, as well as athletic contests and music and art festivals. That he sang and played for the Roman crowds, while derided today, was probably endearing to the Roman people.
The former High Priest Ismael was beheaded in Cyrene early in the Jewish revolt. It is not hard to see Nero employing Ismael as some sort of peace ambassador to the Jewish people. Cyrene, on the north coast of Africa, was a Zealot hot-bed in those days. The Zealots probably killed him for being a Roman collaborator, despite him being a former High Priest- who was considered to be semi-divine.
You can put it all together reading Josephus carefully, and Tacitus, Suetonius, and others.
T
Timothysis
Guest
From what I remember reading, Nero was a very mediocre talent. When he performed, no one in the audience was allowed to leave, resulting in live births in the amphitheater and fake deaths as means to get out. If an audience wasn’t enthusiastic enough in their applause, he would have a good number of them butchered. This is the same guy who, if the criminals to be executed in the arena were too few, would clear out sections of spectators to make up for the lack of numbers.
In any event, the speculation you provide that maintains that it was Jewish influence that caused the persecution of the early Christians does not satisfy the desire to rewrite a history that has been more or less written in stone for the past several hundred years. We must always be suspicious when one book out of literally hundreds (if not thousands) tries to rewrite history against the consensus of modern scholarship.
S
steve53
Guest
But it’s all in Josephus.
Josephus is the best source we have for the era on Jewish history- and parts of Roman history.
It is not like someone is pulling facts from a dozen different sources spanning two centuries and coming up with this speculation. These facts are intrinsic to one source- our best source. Add in the facts in Acts of Apostles, and one would be hard-pressed to dismiss the theory outright, as many want to do.
The Jews were real power figures behind Imperial Rome- starting with Hyrcanus II and Herod the Great’s father, Antipater all the way through Agrippa II
Not the DOMINANT power figures, mind you, but they made sure that they played a role.
And Nero, for all his inattention, was a very tolerant ruler, for the most part. Persecuting the Christians as a class was very unlike him. He fashioned himself an artist and a man of the people.
Nero was a bad singer like Clinton was a bad saxophone player.
Hagan’s “Fires of Rome” is cheap enough on Kindle. I recommend it.
Josephus is the best source we have for the era on Jewish history- and parts of Roman history.
It is not like someone is pulling facts from a dozen different sources spanning two centuries and coming up with this speculation. These facts are intrinsic to one source- our best source. Add in the facts in Acts of Apostles, and one would be hard-pressed to dismiss the theory outright, as many want to do.
The Jews were real power figures behind Imperial Rome- starting with Hyrcanus II and Herod the Great’s father, Antipater all the way through Agrippa II
Not the DOMINANT power figures, mind you, but they made sure that they played a role.
And Nero, for all his inattention, was a very tolerant ruler, for the most part. Persecuting the Christians as a class was very unlike him. He fashioned himself an artist and a man of the people.
Nero was a bad singer like Clinton was a bad saxophone player.
Hagan’s “Fires of Rome” is cheap enough on Kindle. I recommend it.
T
Timothysis
Guest
But that is the problem with basing something on just one source. If what you say is true and so obvious, then why haven’t historians from Edward Gibbon to the most recent of today arrived at the same conclusion? Why is it just one book that proposes this theory? If what you say is true, then we should all simply accept the proposals in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Just recently, within the past couple of years, some “author” and “historian” came out with a book that said that Jesus was made up by the Romans as a psychological op in order to quell the inhabitants of Judea. Guess what? His book was soundly ignored. Why? Because we know from the works of many, many others that Jesus was a real person. You are betting the farm on a long shot. If 9 people tell you that you have a duck but 1 says you really have a cat, the chances of probability say that the 9 are probably correct.
S
steve53
Guest
That is an excellent question. Why don’t “modern” historical sources come to the same conclusion, or suggest that Jewish influence over Nero was strong, and there was a continued effort by the Second Temple High Priesthood against the Christians all the way up to the Revolt in A.D. 66?
When I suggested on this forum that it might have to do with today’s political realities, that struck a hot button.
But it is not just one ancient source that this is based upon- though Josephus is by far our best source on those times. The ancient sources do not contradict each other on this.
Let’s look at Tacitus, which is our only source for the persecutions of A.D. 64. He blames it squarely on Nero. But Tacitus showed sympathy for the Christians in the same passage. In an earlier passage, Tacitus severely excoriates the independent Jewish nation under the Asamoneans for being a corrupt theocracy that enslaved its population. Agrippa I is shown to be a monster corrupting the young Caligula.
ACTS, of course, is clear that the Jews were tough on the early Christians.
Where is the flaw that would make Hagan’s speculations unwarranted?
I think most other historians just didn’t read Josephus closely enough.
Merry Xmas to all!
T
Timothysis
Guest
Why is it that you take Hagan’s viewpoint at the expense of other historians over the past several centuries? What makes him right and all of the others wrong? It surely can’t be so simple as historians only giving Josephus a cursory reading. Perhaps Hagan infers too much? It is not an easy task to go against a consensus of modern scholarship in favor of a viewpoint that only has one claimant. Nowadays, we tend to call such a singular viewpoint against educated consensus a “conspiracy theory.”
S
steve53
Guest
What historian should we defer to?
Name one, and let’s see how he (or she) interprets the same time period.
History, as an aside, should not be a “majority rules” proposition. We have to look at the evidence.
Name one, and let’s see how he (or she) interprets the same time period.
History, as an aside, should not be a “majority rules” proposition. We have to look at the evidence.
Z
z_0101
Guest
can we tie this back in the original question somehow?
the history lesson has been great; however, somewhere along the path I lost where this related to the original question… maybe just me, I’ve had a lot on my mind recently.
the history lesson has been great; however, somewhere along the path I lost where this related to the original question… maybe just me, I’ve had a lot on my mind recently.
S
steve53
Guest
OK.
You want Pilate? You’ve got Pilate…
The last piece of solid information we have on Pilate is that early in A.D. 37, just before the Passover of that year, he was removed from office by the Syrain President Lucius Vitellius. Vitellius was the father of Aulus Vitellius, who was emperor for a short time in A.D. 69.
The rest is sheer speculation.
We do not know whether Pillate committed suicide or not. He probably did not- if you are suspecting he was overcome with angst over crucifying the Galilean troublemaker Jesus. In fact, what caused Vitellius to remove him was his aggressive actions against a charismatic Samaritan leader who apparently was leading a large group of Samaritans to the top of Mount Gerrim- the holy mountain for the Samaritans.
Pilate’s men pounced on them and killed many, and their leader as well. The Samaritan leaders complained loudly to Vitellius, and he eventually removed him.
This act against the Samaritans occurred after Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36. It is very possible that Pilate thought the Samartian leader was Jesus himself, who somehow survived the crucifixion- not an unknown occurrence. Pilate had to have heard rumors about the resurrection, and Pilate knew that the body was missing from the grave. Hearing about the Samaritan leader, he put two and two together.
So Pilate at least didn’t display and remorse in that respect- he was out to finish the execution that Caiaphas and the rest wanted him to do.
So Vitellius sent Pilate to Rome for judgement in front of the Senate, but Tiberius died when Pilate was en route- March 17th A.D. 37- and after that Pilate is lost to history.
Pilate was a wealthy man, he could have bought his way out of a tough situation.
The new emperor Caius (Caligula) did not care about the war that Tiberius had wanted Vitellius to wage in the East against the Arabs, and so Vitellius retreated back to Syria with his legions. In Pilate’s place, he set up Marcellus, one of his officers, who probably served for a few years.
The first eight months of Caius’ reign, he apparently was an exemplary leader. It was only after recovery from a severe encephalitis- which had him in a coma for days if not weeks- that he became erratic and vengeful.
That said, he certainly was jealous of Vitellius, who was the Roman general of note back then, being victorious in the East and ultimately Vitellius would bring about a lasting peace with the Parthian Empire. For this reason, Caius might have gone very easy on Pilate, not wanting to give too much credence to Vitellius’ judgement in the matter.
It is easy to see that Caius would have cared little about the atrocities committed by Pilate on the Samaritans. In fact, Vitellius could have sent him off just to get him out of the way and keep things politically peaceful in the East- much like Festus sending off Paul the Apostle for “trial” in Jerusalem 25 years later.
Caius would have little reason to prosecute Pilate. But from the best sources, we simply do not know. We do know that times were good in Rome, and Caius was hailed as a refreshing new leader after Tiberius’ 22 years of reign. Pilate might simply have been retired, or suffered exile to some pleasant place, or, with his money, in the transition paid off Roman soldiers and relocated to north Africa to wait things out.
source Hagan “Fires of Rome”
You want Pilate? You’ve got Pilate…
The last piece of solid information we have on Pilate is that early in A.D. 37, just before the Passover of that year, he was removed from office by the Syrain President Lucius Vitellius. Vitellius was the father of Aulus Vitellius, who was emperor for a short time in A.D. 69.
The rest is sheer speculation.
We do not know whether Pillate committed suicide or not. He probably did not- if you are suspecting he was overcome with angst over crucifying the Galilean troublemaker Jesus. In fact, what caused Vitellius to remove him was his aggressive actions against a charismatic Samaritan leader who apparently was leading a large group of Samaritans to the top of Mount Gerrim- the holy mountain for the Samaritans.
Pilate’s men pounced on them and killed many, and their leader as well. The Samaritan leaders complained loudly to Vitellius, and he eventually removed him.
This act against the Samaritans occurred after Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36. It is very possible that Pilate thought the Samartian leader was Jesus himself, who somehow survived the crucifixion- not an unknown occurrence. Pilate had to have heard rumors about the resurrection, and Pilate knew that the body was missing from the grave. Hearing about the Samaritan leader, he put two and two together.
So Pilate at least didn’t display and remorse in that respect- he was out to finish the execution that Caiaphas and the rest wanted him to do.
So Vitellius sent Pilate to Rome for judgement in front of the Senate, but Tiberius died when Pilate was en route- March 17th A.D. 37- and after that Pilate is lost to history.
Pilate was a wealthy man, he could have bought his way out of a tough situation.
The new emperor Caius (Caligula) did not care about the war that Tiberius had wanted Vitellius to wage in the East against the Arabs, and so Vitellius retreated back to Syria with his legions. In Pilate’s place, he set up Marcellus, one of his officers, who probably served for a few years.
The first eight months of Caius’ reign, he apparently was an exemplary leader. It was only after recovery from a severe encephalitis- which had him in a coma for days if not weeks- that he became erratic and vengeful.
That said, he certainly was jealous of Vitellius, who was the Roman general of note back then, being victorious in the East and ultimately Vitellius would bring about a lasting peace with the Parthian Empire. For this reason, Caius might have gone very easy on Pilate, not wanting to give too much credence to Vitellius’ judgement in the matter.
It is easy to see that Caius would have cared little about the atrocities committed by Pilate on the Samaritans. In fact, Vitellius could have sent him off just to get him out of the way and keep things politically peaceful in the East- much like Festus sending off Paul the Apostle for “trial” in Jerusalem 25 years later.
Caius would have little reason to prosecute Pilate. But from the best sources, we simply do not know. We do know that times were good in Rome, and Caius was hailed as a refreshing new leader after Tiberius’ 22 years of reign. Pilate might simply have been retired, or suffered exile to some pleasant place, or, with his money, in the transition paid off Roman soldiers and relocated to north Africa to wait things out.
source Hagan “Fires of Rome”
- Status