# When Christianity was a nutty cult **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 26, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010 "2006-03-26T23:35:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/21 "2006-03-27T16:03:58Z")
> [@Gordon Stein](#): > > …writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate… According to the translation quoted by Helen’s Eidolon, Pilate is identified as “one of our procurators” – just the sort of identification that would be useful to a Roman reader who does **not** recognize the name. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/22 "2006-03-27T17:06:11Z")
Even without the Sulpicius argument, his proof is just not there. His assertion that, since Nero didn’t start the fire, he didn’t need a scapegoat is just ridiculous. Whether or not he started the fire, if there was common talk that he did (which is clearly true), he could want a scapegoat. Every step of that argument is dumb and without proof. Does anyone know the exact reference in Josephus? I haven’t read him in a while - Tacitus is much fresher in my head. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/23 "2006-03-27T17:10:33Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > According to the translation quoted by Helen’s Eidolon, Pilate is identified as “one of our procurators” – just the sort of identification that would be useful to a Roman reader who does **not** recognize the name. Here’s the Latin: “per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat.” More literally, it would be “he was inflicted with punishment by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” This is a perfectly Tacitean way to write history - he doesn’t explain every name he brings up. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he expects us to know him. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/24 "2006-03-27T17:18:25Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > Even without the Sulpicius argument, his proof is just not there. His assertion that, since Nero didn’t start the fire, he didn’t need a scapegoat is just ridiculous. Whether or not he started the fire, if there was common talk that he did (which is clearly true), he could want a scapegoat. Every step of that argument is dumb and without proof. > > Does anyone know the exact reference in Josephus? I haven’t read him in a while - Tacitus is much fresher in my head. Another page from [infidels.org](http://infidels.org) provides a good summary of all the textual references, along with a discussion of Tacitus’ possible sources. [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/jury/chap5.html](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/25 "2006-03-27T17:29:34Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > Here’s the Latin: “per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat.” More literally, it would be “he was inflicted with punishment by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” This is a perfectly Tacitean way to write history - he doesn’t explain every name he brings up. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he expects us to know him. The word “procuratorem” fits into the sentence a bit more smoothly than the phrase “one of our procurators” used in the translation, and thus seems less like something deliberately inserted in order to provide an explanation for an unfamiliar name. I’d conclude that the author didn’t particularly expect his readers to recognize the name of the procurator of Judaea a century earlier, and didn’t think it was particularly necessary to go into detail on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/26 "2006-03-27T17:55:23Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > Does anyone know the exact reference in Josephus? I haven’t read him in a while [The Christ passage in Josephus.](http://www.christianorigins.com/zeitlin.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/27 "2006-03-27T18:41:03Z")
Huh. And here, I’d always thought that “Cretin” originally meant “inhabitant of Crete”, and that the insulting use was originally applied to the famous self-admitted liar Epimenides. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/28 "2006-03-27T19:08:39Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > Here’s the Latin: “per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat.” More literally, it would be “he was inflicted with punishment by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” This is a perfectly Tacitean way to write history - he doesn’t explain every name he brings up. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he expects us to know him. The more immediate problem is that Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator. If the passage is authentic then Tacitus got the title wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/29 "2006-03-27T19:24:11Z")
In terms of mainstream scholarship, Tacitus is mostly accepted as authentic while the Josephus passage is almost universally regarded as a least a partial forgery. The answer to the OP is that most Romans probably made little distinction between Christians and Jews at first. Eventually, Roman authorities came to dislike them not so much for their beliefs but because they wouldn’t sacrifice to the State gods and support the temples. That meant that a lot of people saw Christians as being “unpatriotic” and untrustworthy and there were a number of anti-Christian smears in circulation, including allegations of infant sacrifice and cannibalism. Interestingly, the early apologist Tertullian not only did not deny the accusations of infanticide but actually defended it as a practice. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/30 "2006-03-27T19:39:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Interestingly, the early apologist Tertullian not only did not deny the accusations of infanticide but actually defended it as a practice. I’m definitely going to need a cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/31 "2006-03-27T19:46:00Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > I’m definitely going to need a cite for that. [Here you go](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm). > [@Tertullian](#): > > **The charge of infanticide retorted on the heathen.** > > Since we are on a par in respect of the gods, it follows that there is no difference between us on the point of sacrifice, or even of worship, if I may be allowed to make good our comparison from another sort of evidence. We begin our religious service, or initiate our mysteries, with slaying an infant. As for you, since your own transactions in human blood and infanticide have faded from your memory, you shall be duly reminded of them in the proper place; we now postpone most of the instances, that we may not seem to be everywhere handling the selfsame topics. Meanwhile, as I have said, the comparison between us does not fail in another point of view. For if we are infanticides in one sense, you also can hardly be deemed such in any other sense; because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age. Yet there is no great difference between us, only you do not kill your infants in the way of a sacred rite, nor (as a service) to God. But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning. If, however, there does occur any dissimilarity between us in this matter, you must not overlook the fact that it is your own dear children whose life you quench; and this will supplement, nay, abundantly aggravate, on your side of the question, whatever is defective in us on other grounds. Well, but we are said to sup off our impious sacrifice! Whilst we postpone to a more suitable place whatever resemblance even to this practice is discoverable amongst yourselves, we are not far removed from you in voracity. If in the one case there is unchastity, and in ours cruelty, we are still on the same footing (if I may so far admit our guilt) in nature, where cruelty is always found in concord with unchastity. But, after all, what do you less than we; or rather, what do you not do in excess of us? I wonder whether it be a small matter to you to pant for human entrails, because you devour full-grown men alive? Is it, forsooth, only a trifle to lick up human blood, when you draw out the blood which was destined to live? Is it a light thing in your view to feed on an infant, when you consume one wholly before it is come to the birth? (_Ad Nationes_, Book 1, Chapter 15) ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/32 "2006-03-27T20:04:10Z")
That’s clearly a sarcastic rhetorical technique. Early Christians did not eat babies, nor is he saying that’s the case. He’s pointing out the absurdity of accusing them of it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/33 "2006-03-27T20:13:04Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > That’s clearly a sarcastic rhetorical technique. Early Christians did not eat babies, nor is he saying that’s the case. He’s pointing out the absurdity of accusing them of it. There’s nothing sarcastic about it. He takes the accusation seriously, does not deny it and instead tries entirely seriously to justify it. At no point does he suggest there is anything absurd about it nor does he suggest that he thinks the practice is immoral. I realize that the common Christian rebuttal to this passage is to try to wave it off as “satire,” (they have to say _something_, after all), but the passage does not follow any satirical form. Satire is about exaggeration and pointing out absurdities. This chapter does neither. The entire book is a serious response to attacks on Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/34 "2006-03-27T20:21:07Z")
Well, I’m not giving a Christian rebuttal, I’m giving a historical and literary rebuttal. Tertullian takes it to the point of absurdity, as he does in the entire _Apology_. Here are some other examples: > [@](#): > > Come, whosoever you are, plunge your sword into an infant; or if that is another’s office, then simply gaze at the breathing creature dying before it has lived; at any rate, catch its fresh blood in which to steep your bread; then feed yourself without stint; and whilst this is going on, recline. Carefully distinguish the places where your mother or your sister may have made their bed; mark them well, in order that, when the shades of night have fallen upon them, putting of course to the test the care of every one of you, you may not make the awkward mistake of alighting on somebody else: you would have to make an atonement, if you failed of the incest. When you have effected all this, eternal life will be in store for you. I want you to tell me whether you think eternal life worth such a price. No, indeed, you do not believe it: even if you did believe it, I maintain that you would be unwilling to give (the fee); or if willing, would be unable. But why should others be able if you are unable? Why should you be able if others are unable? What would you wish impunity (and) eternity to stand you in? Do you suppose that these (blessings) can be bought by us at any price? Have Christians teeth of a different sort from others? Have they more ample jaws? Are they of different nerve for incestuous lust? I know not. It is enough for us to differ from you in condition by truth alone. Regarding the charge of incest: > [@](#): > > But you should at once commend the cleverness with which we make our incest look modest, in that we have devised a spurious night, to avoid polluting the real light and darkness, and have even thought it right to dispense with earthly lights, and to play tricks also with our conscience. For whatever we do ourselves, we suspect in others when we choose (to be suspicious). As for your incestuous deeds, on the contrary, men enjoy them at full liberty, in the face of day, or in the natural night, or before high Heaven; and in proportion to their successful issue is your own ignorance of the result, since you publicly indulge in your incestuous intercourse in the full cognizance of broad day-light. (No ignorance, however, conceals our conduct from our eyes,) for in the very darkness we are able to recognise our own misdeeds. The Persians, you know very well, according to Ctesias, live quite promiscuously with their mothers, in full knowledge of the fact, and without any horror; whilst of the Macedonians it is well known that they constantly do the same thing, and with perfect approbation: for once, when the blinded OEdipus came upon their stage, they greeted him with laughter and derisive cheers. The actor, taking off his mask in great alarm, said, “Gentlemen, have I displeased you?” “Certainly not,” replied the Macedonians, “you have played your part well enough; but either the author was very silly, if he invented (this mutilation as an atonement for the incest), or else OEdipus was a great fool for his pains if he really so punished himself;” and then they shouted out one to the other, Hlsune eis thn mhtera. But how insignificant, (say you,) is the stain which one or two nations can make on the whole world! As for us, we of course have infected the very sun, polluted the entire ocean! Quote, then, one nation which is free from the passions which allure the whole race of men to incest! If there is a single nation which knows nothing of concubinage through the necessity of age and sex–to say nothing of lust and licentiousness–that nation will be a stranger to incest. If any nature can be found so peculiarly removed from the human state as to be liable neither to ignorance, nor error, nor misfortune, that alone may be adduced with any consistency as an answer to the Christians. Are you seriously arguing that Christians ate babies, and that Tertullian is evidence of this? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/35 "2006-03-27T20:33:49Z")
I’m saying Tertullian didn’t deny it and that he did not employ any obvious satirical techniques in his response. I acknowledge that used irony elsewhere but he always makes it obvious. How do you think a _serious_ defense of infanticide would look any differently than how it looks in _Ad Nationes_? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/36 "2006-03-27T20:38:38Z")
Actually, upon reading it again, I think it may well have been intended to be satirical. I will concede on that while still maintaining that I was still _technically_ correct that Tertullian did not deny the practice. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/37 "2006-03-27T20:44:19Z")
I don’t think there **would** be a serious defense of infanticide written by a Christian apologist. I think you’re absolutely wrong that he’s not being sarcastic in that passage. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/38 "2006-03-27T20:46:38Z")
Sorry, I got interrupted and didn’t refresh before posting. I think his denial is implicit, but I suppose technically he doesn’t outright deny it. Now I’m just curious - do you think early Christians ate babies? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/39 "2006-03-27T20:51:27Z")
> [@Helen's Eidolon](#): > > Sorry, I got interrupted and didn’t refresh before posting. I think his denial is implicit, but I suppose technically he doesn’t outright deny it. Now I’m just curious - do you think early Christians ate babies? No. At most, I thought Tertullian might have believed it had been a real practice in the past. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010/40 "2006-03-28T03:57:17Z")
> [@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. But it shows some background that the “Christians being in a celebratory mood for the fire” was not pulled out of… nothing. Although it sounds silly, that celebratory mood was mentioned too by Larry Gonick in the _Cartoon history of the universe II_, it seems that he referred to Gibbon E. \*The decline and fall of the Roman Empire \* or Heichlim, F.M and Yeo, C., _A history of the Roman people_ (Interestingly, he also consulted Tacitus). It seems many Romans complained to Nero for the misbehavior of the Christians during the fire and so, we got easy scapegoats by popular demand. Bottom line: I do think that Nero and the majority of Christians were innocent, but I have the feeling some nuts on the Christian side had the motivation to do it, remember that everybody “knows” that Hitler burned the Reichstag, but in reality one crazy communist did it (as much as Hitler wanted to blame the communists, the German courts declared that the perpetrator had no connection to the communist leadership, but he was indeed a communist) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-christianity-was-a-nutty-cult/350010.md?page=3)