From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Christianity under the Romans (Was Re: The Historical Jesus )
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:40:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.t6tjt+r
Followup-To: sci.skeptic, talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <12123@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jrblack@ns-mx.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black) writes:
>In article <z5nj-kg@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu 
>(Roger Squires) writes (quoting an unnamed author):

He is not an author, he is a translator of Suetonius.  The last clause of
the second sentence Mr. Black rightly takes issue with, see below.
It has no effect on my argument concerning the historical accuracy of
"eyewitness" accounts of Jesus.

>
>|> 	   "To our Roman authors the Christians of the
>|> 	   1st century were a pitiable lot.  And they give us never a
>|> 	   clue as to whether a man Christ actually lived and was
>|> 	   crucified, or whether he was a fiction Rome herself pieced
>|> 	   together in an effort to create a religious tool by which
>|> 	   further to unite the diverse peoples under her dominion."
>
>... which no doubt is why Rome spent three centuries trying to exterminate 
>that same "fiction".  Give me a break.
>

Your knowledge of Christian persecution under Roman rule appears to need
refreshing.  Let us first look at Gibbon (you *do* have your copy of Gibbon
handy, I take it?):  Turning to Chp. 16, (referring to the Roman government)
	From the general view of their character and motives we might
	naturally conclude:  I.  That a considerable time elapsed before
	they considered the new sectaries as an object deserving of the 
	attention of government.  II.  That in the conviction of any of 
	their subjects who were accused of so very singular a crime, 
	they proceeded with caution and reluctance.  III.  That they were
	moderate in the use of punishments; and IV.  That the afflicted
	church enjoyed many intervals of peace and tranquillity.

	[Gibbon then expounds on each of these headings...How the Christians
	were primarily viewed as a politicl problem, etc.  I guess I really
	should quote stuff on this, but I have to assume that you can
	use your own brain and walk over to the library]

	The ecclesiastical writers of the fourth and fifth centuries
	ascribed to the magistrates of Rome the same degree of implacable
	and unrelenting zeal which filled their own breasts against the
	heretics or the idolaters of their own times.
	...
	The vague descriptions of exile and imprisonment, of pain and 
	torture, are so easily exaggerated or softened by the pencil of
	an artful orator, that we are naturally induced to inquire into
	a fact of a more distinct and stubborn kind; the number of persons
	who suffered death in consequence of the edicts published by
	Diocletian, his associates, and his successors. ... the multitude
	of Christians in the Roman empire, on whom a capital punishment
	was inflicted by a judicial sentence, will be reduced to somewhat
	less than two thousand persons.
	...
	We shall conclude [that] it must still be acknowledged that the
	Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have 
	inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had
	experienced from the zeal of infidels.

Let us confirm this eloquent statement with a quote from _The Civilisation
of Rome_, by Donald R. Dudley, Chapter 12:

	...Despite popular belief, persecution of Christianity by the
	Roman government was neither frequent nor extensive.

So, in short, your use of the tern "extermination" is loaded and ridiculous,
and there were four quite short periods of persecution, one (blown out
of all proportion, I might add) during Nero's reign, and three under 
Diocletian and successors.  Pretty minor stuff.

Now let us turn to the quote I gave above.

>Any author who can seriously suggest that the pagan Roman government
>invented Christianity for purposes of its own is so hopelessly biased
>(or just plain ignorant) that I'd have trouble taking seriously *anything* 
>he said.
>
>Can you please provide a reference for this?
>

He is not an author, he is a translator of Suetonius.
	Joseph Gavorse,
	translator of The Lives of The Twelve Caesars, by Suetonius
	Modern Library, 1931
Mr. Black is rightly taking issue with the second clause of the second 
sentence.  It is ridiculous, and hopefully you will delete it from your
brain.  I do assert that the first clause of the sentence is true:
namely that the best we can hope for from the Roman authors concerning
Jesus is that his life is a rumour that they are reporting.  They add nothing
to the accounts in the Bible.  They are useless for investigating the historical
Jesus, and that is all I meant by including the quote.  I should have read
it more critically before including it.  As mentioned above, it has no effect
on my argument concerning the historical Jesus.  Please see my other posts.
My thanks to Mr. Black for pointing this out to me.

> Roger Black                                             roger-black@uiowa.edu

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic