When Christianity was a nutty cult

[Lumpy]

I’d be interested in reading how the Romans and other first-century peoples regarded the followers of “Christos”. What are some good sources, and how biased or accurate are they considered to be?

[BrainGlutton]

I believe the name “Christians” was originally “Chrestians,” Greek for “simpletons,” and was applied as an insult by outsiders. As with many other sects (e.g., the Quakers and the Methodists), they adopted the insulting name as a badge of honor.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

I believe the name “Christians” was originally “Chrestians,” Greek for “simpletons,” and was applied as an insult by outsiders. As with many other sects (e.g., the Quakers and the Methodists), they adopted the insulting name as a badge of honor.

You can’t be serious, but since this is GQ I have to assume you are.

Christ is from the Greek Christos (the anointed one), which just amounts to calling him “the Messiah” in Greek.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

BrainGlutton, where did you get that from? I’ve never heard it before.

The earliest reference to Christians in a non-Christian source is in Tacitus’ Annals (15.44)

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 Judæa, 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.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

Sorry, the report referred to is that Nero himself started the fire that burned Rome. Tacitus is probably a pretty good source for what Romans thought about Christians at the time - this was written probably a little after 115 CE.

[lissener]

Par Lagerkvist’s novel *Barabbas *is a masterpiece, plus it’s short. It tells the story of the robber that was released, instead of Jesus, by Pilate. In other words, the single human being for whom Jesus *literally *died so that he could live. Making him, of course, a metaphor for all of Christianity. I’m an atheist, but it’s still a favorite novel. Barabbas is, of course, not a Christian, but as time passes, he keeps hearing whispers about this new religion that he has a unique perspective on. I recommend it. Lagerkvist won the Nobel Prize for literature.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Lumpy

I’d be interested in reading how the Romans and other first-century peoples regarded the followers of “Christos”. What are some good sources, and how biased or accurate are they considered to be?

There are no non-Biblical first century sources about how the Christians were considered. Josephus’ history of the Jews, written in the 90s, some say 93 CE, has only a mention, and Tacitus is next, with some sources putting it at 109 CE, others slightly later.

As for accuracy, here’s what one commentary has to say:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term “Christian” was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.

Stein must be taken cautiously, though.
Pliny the Younger has a passage at around the same time:

Whoops! Sorry to disappoint you.

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

For the most part, however, any text that contains a reference to Christians earlier than the third or fourth century has little to say, and that at third or fourth hand.

lissener, am I missing something or is your post just a total hijack?

[Kizarvexius]

Rather than re-write my whole previous post on the topic, allow me to refer you here.

[Little_Nemo]

Some works you might want to check out:

The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus by John Dominic Crossan
The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken
The First Century: Emperors, Gods, and Everyman by William Klingaman
From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith by L. Michael White
The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman
Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

I don’t buy that Tacitus’ account isn’t authentic. It’s perfectly consistent with his style and his digressions. Not to mention that a later repeat of the sentence is no proof at all of anything - that’s the nature of ancient history. What is Stein a PhD in, anyway?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Kizarvexius, you wrote this in the thread you referenced:

3. The Great Fire broke out in 64 AD and burned for a week. Early Christianity was an apocalyptic faith, whose members believed that Christus would return at any moment with fire and sword to punish the wicked and save the faithful. To them, the sight of the capital of the world in flames could only mean that the end had come. So their collective behavior in the face of this disaster left much to be desired, at least as far as the authorities were concerned. What was so offensive? How about running about gleefully screaming “Hallelujah”, refusing to help put out the flames, and haranguing the bewildered crowds with “I told you so” sermons?

When questioned about it, you remembered no source and never came back with one.

Do you have a better memory now, or is this still unsourced invention?

[GIGObuster]

@Exapno Mapcase

Kizarvexius, you wrote this in the thread you referenced:

When questioned about it, you remembered no source and never came back with one.

Do you have a better memory now, or is this still unsourced invention?

Whoa! I thought Kizarvexius was off the mark, but I found something that shows the Christians in Rome may not have been so innocent:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_rome/clues.html

Certainly, it’s hard to know whether to trust the allegations in the writings of Tacitus. What about the explanation offered by Nero, that the Christians were to blame? At least one scholar believes Nero was on the mark. Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has spent 15 years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies. He has learned that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city to ashes. “In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied,” Baudy explains. “That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome.”

Moreover, the Book of Revelations, written a mere 30 years later, seems to equate evil with Rome. The Whore of Babylon, the source of this evil according to Revelations, is described as having seven heads. “The seven heads are seven mountains,” Revelations says. Rome, of course, is famously known as the city of seven hills. What’s more, an ancient Egyptian prophecy that would have been well known in the Christian quarters of Rome foretold the fall of the great evil city on the day that the dog star, Sirius, rises. In 64 A.D., Sirius rose on July 19, the very day the great fire of Rome began. Baudy believes that, bearing this prophetic date in mind, some of the Christians, maltreated and embittered, may have started the fire – or perhaps lit additional fires, adding fuel to the larger conflagration – in hopes of realizing their prophecies.

[Scissorjack]

@BrainGlutton

I believe the name “Christians” was originally “Chrestians,” Greek for “simpletons,” and was applied as an insult by outsiders. As with many other sects (e.g., the Quakers and the Methodists), they adopted the insulting name as a badge of honor.

You may be confusing your sources a little here. The word “cretin” entered English in 1779, from a French dialect word cretin, meaning “Christian” {compare the standard French chretien}, all ultimately derived from the Latin christianus.

As to well cretins were Christians, well, here we venture dangerously close to the murky realms of pop etymology. Cretin was a word in a French Alpine dialect, and some sources claim that the locals were Christians, or cretins, because living up in the mountains they were closer to God. This seems extremely dubious, and also doesn’t explain the connection with idiocy.

An explanation which does is that living up in the mountains, the locals had dietary deficiencies and thus thyroid problems, leading in turn to problems such as goitre and congenital mental problems: simpletons, in other words. The term cretin, or Christian, was supposedly a reference to the fact that these poor wretches were innocents and thus subject to God’s compassion too.

Which is all well and good, except that it’s both convoluted and suspiciously neat, which is often a warning sign in these types of explanations that it may not be, ahem, gospel.

[Johanna]

I thought it was from the old concept that the severely learning-disabled are under God’s special protection since they can’t look out for themselves. The AHD etymology corroborates that the word originated from Alpine valleys, but traces the semantics this way: “Vulgar Latin christianus. Christian, human being, poor fellow.” The attempts to derive it from altitude won’t even get off the ground.

In Rumantsch and Italian, two other Alpine languages, the word for “Christian” has been generalized to mean ‘human being’. (So non-Christians are animals or what? I never quite got this.) What I don’t get is how the meaning “poor fellow” was derived from “human being.” In the sense that “humanitarianism” means to care for the disadvantaged?

Cretinism as a clinical term has a specialized meaning: “A congenital condition caused by a deficiency of thyroid hormone during prenatal development and characterized in childhood by dwarfed stature, mental retardation, dystrophy of the bones, and low basal metabolism.”

[Walloon]

Has Professor Gerhard Baudy found some new texts about first-century Roman Christians that the rest of the world is unfamiliar with? Given that up to now we have had exactly one non-Biblical 1st-century reference to Christians (and even that has been called into question), this would be an astounding discovery.

[Scissorjack]

@Johanna

What I don’t get is how the meaning “poor fellow” was derived from “human being.” In the sense that “humanitarianism” means to care for the disadvantaged?

From what I can gather, the intention - assuming that the eytomology is valid - was that calling the mentally handicapped who were endemic in the Alpine valleys “Christian” was to emphasise that they were God’s creatures like everyone else, and as such shouldn’t be shunned, ostracised or mocked.

As for Christian referring to “human being” in general: well, given that in pre-Reformation times there weren’t any other faiths {apart from Judaism} in Europe, and presumably no widespread knowledge of faiths other than Islam or Judaism, perhaps Christian was synonymous with human. Anyone know how those of other faiths were referred to?

[Ranchoth]

There’s always the old “Alexamenos Worships His God” graffiti found in Rome, dated to the 2nd century A.D.

[BrainGlutton]

@Helen's Eidolon

BrainGlutton, where did you get that from? I’ve never heard it before.

Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. Also, FWIW, Robert Graves’ historical novel King Jesus.

[DaphneBlack]

@Helen's Eidolon

I don’t buy that Tacitus’ account isn’t authentic. It’s perfectly consistent with his style and his digressions. Not to mention that a later repeat of the sentence is no proof at all of anything - that’s the nature of ancient history. What is Stein a PhD in, anyway?

Just wanted to agree with this. Sulpicius preserving a quotation from Tacitus that no other source at the time has is no special case, in fact many quotations we have from ancient texts only come from one source, fragmentary or not. By Sulpicius’ time, manuscripts of Tacitus might have been rare or non-existent in many places, and he could have even copied the quotation from an intermediary, non-Tacitean source (I’m pretty sure this is what my tutor last term, one of the biggest kahunas in 'non-pagan religions under the Romans round here, thinks).

And Tacitus reporting a story sensationalistically and with a ‘conservative’ bias (i.e. senatorial, ‘old time religion’ &c) is absolutely par for the course. Stein is weak here, if not deliberately misleading.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

GIGObuster, when the issue is of a previously unknown and uncited source of information about early Christians, confirmation is not normally supplied by referencing a whole raft of previously unknown and uncited sources.

BrainGlutton, Asimov says no such thing.

Acts 11:26 … And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Antioch, the capital city of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, the great villain of the Maccabean revolt, thus became the first major center of Christianity outside Judea, and the birthplace of the word by which the world’s dominant religion of today came ever after to be known. The name may have been first applied to the followers of Jesus as a derisive insult shouted out by unconverted Gentile opponents. If so, the call of derision came to be accepted by the disciples as a badge of honor. It is not the only time in history that an insult has been accepted by the insulted and made clean. The name of the modern sect of “Quakers” is an example of that phenomenon too. “Quaker” originated as a term of ridicule.

Absolutely no mention of “‘Christians’ was originally ‘Chrestians,’ Greek for ‘simpletons.’”

DaphneBlack, while I said Stein must be approached with caution, his argument doesn’t turn on the later manuscript’s similarities. That’s a confirming point to his earlier paragraph. I’d be interested in someone examining that.