Who says? Based on what? Who were the many Romans and how do we know this?
Can you answer any of these questions? Where is Baudy getting his info from? Where are Gibbon and Heichlim getting their info from?
Referencing third-hand sources, without quoting them or what is in their sources, is not evidence of anything whatsoever.
Again, the thread is about original sources. You keep not mentioning any.
Well of course, what I am doing here is using a little bit of logic, if Larry Gonik mention this without using the German scholar as reference, I have to say that there is more to be investigated, but they are not pulling this out of thin air.
Don’t be dissin’ Gibbon! More seriously, they’re trying to reconstruct Christian attitudes and apply them to situations. Fun for cartoons, but not good historical proof.
Diogenes the Cynic writes:
> . . . Originally Posted by Tertullian . . .
Wow, and I thought I was one of the earliest people to join the SDMB.
I say they’re pulling this out of thin air.
It’s your claim. You have the responsibility to back it up and prove me wrong. Can you?
Which claim? That early Christians held apocalyptic and could have interpreted the Great Fire as part of that apocalypse? Or that the Christians helped it along?
The first claim is really not very hard to back up.
Heh. ‘held apocalyptic’. ‘Held apocalyptic views or religious beliefs’ is what I meant to say.
Now hang on there, friend. I researched this issue as an undergrad, but that was almost 15 years ago. Since I have been unable to locate a copy of the paper I wrote, I will plead guilty to having posted arguments that I cannot, at present, substantiate with any direct references. I think it’s quite unfair, however, to label these as “invention”. If I am able to find a copy of my paper, and should this theory have no primary citations, I will be man enough to admit it.
And just in case you are wondering, while I was gratified to see that Larry Gonick interpreted the aftermath of the Great Fire in the same way I did, The Cartoon History of the Universe Vol II was published 2 years after I wrote my paper. So no, he was not one of my sources.
No, I’m asking what primary sources other than the ones already referenced people are basing the claims on. Were they contemporary sources, within living memory sources (such as Tacitus), historic sources based on documents no longer extant, or just statements made by later commentators?
I keep asking this question and no one gives any answer.
Thank you, yes the main reason why I got that PBS reference was to point out that others had evidence that enhanced the idea that there was a celebratory mood by the Christians when the fires occurred.
I have to say that assuming right away that all that was pulled out of thin air is silly since now 3 different unrelated sources point to a similar conclusion, might as well say all the scholars that think there was a Q document where the synoptic gospels came from, are pulling that out of thin air, :). but in this case he is assuming all those sources had nothing to support their conclusion, that IMHO is even more unlikely, but just one point was already granted, we need to find a place were the evidence for sure is *, Any German dopers can contact that fellow? For my part I will search for more information.
Fine then. Prove me wrong. But do so by citing a an actual primary source, rather than merely asserting that I’m wrong. If it’s so easy, why do you keep ducking the issue?
But please don’t even attempt to make the argument that because you’re coming up with smoke there must be underlying fire. Don’t you remember what you wrote?
Baudy makes an unsourced and extremely controversial claim based on who knows what. I can trace no deeper scholarship from him or anybody who agrees with his claim.
Larry Gonick is very entertaining, but he is not a scholar and the nature of his work requires him to use, shall we say, broad strokes. That he uses Gibbon is nice, but we have a far better understanding of the historical record than he could possibly have had. The other book is an old college textbook, and those are also not known for nuances, let alone attributions to primary texts. And it’s Heichelheim, not Heichlim.
I also tried checking out some of the books on Little Nemo’s excellent sounding list. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken looked to be the most promising title but it apparently has no records earlier than Pliny. Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox seems to start around 150 CE. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus by John Dominic Crossan seems to have no sources at all, merely speculation.
So where are these primary sources for Rome c. 64 CE? Tell me about them. Name them. Say something concrete that can be investigated. But please stop merely asserting that you’re right. This is GQ. That won’t fly here.
Don’t you ever realize when others have conceded something? I never said I was ducking the issue, far from it, I said in the end that we need to check their sources.
But the logic still remains, I still it is more damming to say those guys pulled that out of thin air, you made an accusation that destroy careers in that field, IMHO it is you who has to prove that. But regardless, I already say the sources that they mention need to be verified.
There’s a pretty good reason there are no references earlier than Pliny in Wiklen’s book - Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan (along with Tacitus and Josephus) is one of the earliest references we have to Christians by a non-Christian. I can’t believe I forgot it! I’ll try to find the quote.
There is and will be no proof that the Christians had anything to do with the fire, but they did hold apocalyptic beliefs, which they inherited from the Jews. I believe there was some fairly good quoting of Revelations earlier in the thread, which is a very good example of early Christian apocalyptic writing. Some relevant secondary sources on the topic:
The relevance of apocalyptic : a study of Jewish and Christian apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation by Rowley, Harold Henry. New York, 1955.
The Jewish apocalyptic heritage in early Christianity by VanderKam, James C. Minneapolis, 1996.
If you’d really like to find more primary sources, or if you want references to specific things in those sources, let me know. I’m not an expert on early Christianity by any means, but I’m involved enough in this thread that I can do the legwork if it’s asked of me.
Aha, found the Pliny reference. It’s letter 10.96-97. Here’s a translation.
It would, I think, be more accurate to say that one might reasonably suppose some Christians might have been in a celebratory mood. There is, however, no extant evidence for that. It’s a guess. One could equally well guess that Christians were appalled, taking this as a sign of impending tribulation. We don’t know.
I must admit to some skepticism regarding the PBS reference; I get irritated when people refer to “the book of Revelations.” There is no such book. The last book of the New Testament is Revelation; no “s”. Picky, yes; but when one is trying to read between such faint lines, it would be more impressive if there were more attention to detail.
Anyhow, as for sources, what we’ve got is:
The New Testament.
Tacitus; one reference, and it’s fairly likely Tacitus didn’t care much about the issue and didn’t bother to investigate.
Josephus; maybe. His reference looks very much like it’s been edited by a later Christian writer, so it’s very difficult to determine what, exactly, Josephus said.
Pliny. This is the most substantive and most helpful reference.
If you’re willing to go a little later than the first century, the early apologists (apologia=defense, not “excuse me”) and the earliest acts of the martyrs (such as Polycarp) will give you a sense of what some second century Romans thought about Christians; then you’d have to consider how reliably that could be extrapolated back into the first century.
Without making any accusationas regarding stuff pulled from air, I would point out that I am unsure that we have any “unrelated sources.” Gonick, a good popularizer, clearly got his information from established texts. However, it is quite possible that Heichlim and Yeo got their information from Gibbon, just as Gonick did, so, barring a discovery of their source, they are not yet established as “unrelated” to Gibbon.
Baudy seems just odd. There is no question that apocalyptic literature passed from Judaism to nascent Christianity. However, it is a pretty long leap from a literature that traditionally was used to exhort a relatively passive group to hold fast to their beliefs in the face of persecution to a claim that those people took an active role in either setting or rejoicing at the fire of Rome. As noted, if Baudy had actual texts on which his speculation was based, that would be an astounding archaeological find that would be known to everyone in the Western world. I am not aware of any apocalyptic writing prior to the middle of the 2d century that arose outside Palestine or Asia minor. That does not establish that none could have been written or preached at Rome, but it does set Baudy’s claims at one more remove from established fact.
Actually I was counting **Kizarvexius ** as one of the unrelated sources, I also did send a note to Gonick.
I did send him a note already, but I’m afraid it will not be noticed for being in English, anyone can get to him in German?
I think it’s enough to show that Middle-Eastern Christians held apocalyptic beliefs - any Christians at Rome at this time, I’d argue, were probably recent immigrants or recent converts with very little time to form a literary heritage of their own. Don’t forget that there are differences between Christian and Jewish apocalysm - Christ had just been there and (darn, I can’t remember where I read this, but I do remember my teacher espousing this belief) Christians were confident he’d be coming back at any moment. A huge fire crippling the world power would even now be interpreted (by some) as a sign of oncoming apocalypse.
I didn’t particularly want to mention this before, because it’s completely uncitable, but my undergraduate Roman history teacher, who specialized in 2nd century Christianity, did suggest to us that contemporary Christians would or could have interpreted the fire as part of the apocalypse. It would be impossible and pointless to try to prove what they had DONE, though.
Pressed on time, but here is a preview:
Well, Gonick replied! He used Tacitus, and looking around, it seems that the idea that there are doubts on what Tacitus wrote about the Christians in this thread is coming mostly from the researches from infidels.org. To be more accurate, we should say that those researches that think Tacitus was changed or inaccurate, particularly on Annals 15.44, are the ones that are actually in the minority.
Even looking at the infidel’s site:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#tacitus
I can see that the most serious doubts are coming from the assumption that there is inconclusive evidence that Tacitus had independent sources.
That IMO is very weak evidence to dismiss Tacitus, no wonder the consensus is to accept him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
I will get to what Tacitus and Gonick mentioned later.
AWESOME! I’m a total Gonick fangirl. He is a big part of the reason I’m studying ancient history.