And I think you're upplaying. We might not be able to convince each other.
A few years back when I first looked at Nero, I was surprised ... one could even say disappointed (morbid as that sounds) ... at how small Nero's persecution was compared to my expectations. I might even be inclined to agree with one description I read that until Maximinus, persecution was desultory (no one would ever claim Nero's approach to government was logical and organized). So, it's kind of funny you would say this.
But, fair enough. I never expected to change your opinion, nor was my comment meant as an attack. The world is full of naysayers who deny everything from A to Z. Amongst those I know there have been some attempts to deny that Nero persecuted Christians, but my impression is that such has never been generally accepted - that it remains an opinion on the fringe. Most of us have been battered about by the world enough to be suspicious ... Hmm, an atheist who doesn't believe Christians were persecuted, no surprise (just as your reaction is probably: Hmm, a Christian who believes the persecution occurred. No surprise.)
So, I was looking for reasons why you think your position is supported. I haven't really seen anything but speculation yet. And of course it's more than fair for you to ask the same of me. Nero's persecution is not a theological necessity for me, so if you were able to convince me it didn't happen, somehow I'd manage to go on with my life.
Your treatment of the sources just seems rather odd to me. Originally you were skeptical of Seutonius and Tacitus, but you were willing to put forth the Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul to support your opinion without any comment on their credibility. You also mentioned Clement, but when I challenged that, saying that I think Clement supports that persecution occurred, you suddenly dismiss it as vague and likely not genuine. You even go back to point out that Clement doesn't mention Tacitus whom you now call "well respected", whereas earlier you said his "sources weren't always spot on" and "not always to be trusted." Sorry, but this sounds like cherry picking to me. If you're going to accept one phrase of Tacitus and dismiss another, I need better reasons.
Or we could also focus on Tertullian. Your reason for dismissing him is that he was "a Christian author of the late second century". I will grant that catching the guilty party in a confession carries more weight in cynical human minds than the accusation of a later opponent. But that doesn't mean Tertullian is of no value to this conversation. He is part of a chain leading from Pilate all the way up through Augustine's discussion of the blame placed on Christians for Rome's fall. It shows a pattern. Rome, like many other governments throughout history, was very aware of the contention caused by religious differences, and they tried to control it. They outlawed religions (or at least their practice within Rome proper) that did not acknowledge the divinity of the caesars.
Looking at the pieces separately, it is easy to dismiss them. But looking at them cumulatively, it is not so easy. We have:
cultural precedence - Rome's opposition to the challenge of other religions
Nero's inclination - You seem to agree he had the capacity and willingness to do such things
Nero's motive - To hold on to the throne
Accusations - from Christian sources
Admissions - from Roman sources
It just seems to me that claiming it didn't happen is much more unlikely than claiming it did happen.
The point is, if there were only 10, then the Romans wouldn't have hated them. If the Romans didn't hate them, then Nero needed another scapegoat ...
So, there can't be a unified Christian band in Rome, which is organised and already being disliked this quickly by Roman authorities.
Again, this argument is very weak. First of all because there are some indications that Christianity had caught the favor of some well placed Romans. But how many examples do you need of the effect small numbers can have? What about the Tea Party? A few years ago it didn't even exist, and now it's capturing Republican nominations all over. Even today the number of people who claim some type of official connection to the Tea Party is very small. Small numbers are irrelevant because they can manage to engage a much larger group that is sitting on the fence. That is a basic issue of politics that every dictator in history has had to deal with. And using "logic" when we're talking about Nero is an illogical thing to do. I never said the Romans bought into it, or that they took mass action against the Christians, or that it accomplished what Nero wanted. In fact, it was probably small (compared to later persecutions), short-lived, and a failure. But I think the evidence supports that it happened, and its discussion by later generations was part of a growing trend of persecution that continued until Rome fell.
- - -
You'll probably want a chance to reply to what I said. But, once that's done, I have a different question for you. Is there
any event of consequence from Nero's reign that you think is credible? If so, what sources support that, and why do you accept those sources? What is your criteria?
)
