How can we know that God is?

[rogue06]

You are confusing me with Candida Moss.

I guess you had problems with the first two words of the post: "H_A's source" and understanding everything I wrote was based on the citation you provided.

[tabibito]

"Some" unnamed persons may posit that, but given we only have five examples still surviving and that they all appear to have a number of similar elements lacking from Acts such features as a romance and a happy ending. The former was essential as it was what drove the adventure and even you would be hard-pressed to squint hard enough to find romance in Acts, particularly as a, if not the, key element.

As for Acts having a happy ending when actually it ended with Paul sent to Rome under house arrest (and where he would be later executed), it seems certain that this wasn't Paul's choice by any means or else he would have headed to Rome earlier having expressed a desire to do so rather taken there in chains (either literally or figuratively).

I can imagine you would describe an account regarding the U.S. 7th Cavalry ending with them confidently riding down to attack the Sioux encampment at Little Big Horn as a happy ending. Well, maybe it was -- for the Sioux.

Oddly enough there are a number of biographies that exhibit the same sort of sequences. It's enough to make a person wonder if the content of novels might occasionally be based on circumstances that exist in real life.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I guess you had problems with the first two words of the post: "H_A's source" and understanding everything I wrote was based on the citation you provided.

My mistake.

H_A's source is crafting strawmen to combat. Nobody that I've read claims that the persecutions were "constantly persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Romans" but rather words like "sporadically" are commonly employed.

And her objection that "Very few Christians died" reminds me of how some of the old time racists used to say that lynchings were incredibly rare and very few blacks died from them.

Then to try to handwave them off because they were largely political in scope (because Christians refused to worship the gods of Rome or the Emperor) is straight up bizarre. It's like she really doesn't have a clue or hopes her readers don't.

Given that I cited a few paragraphs from a book, where in your opinion is Moss "crafting strawmen to combat"?

And where is she trying to "handwave them off because they were largely political in scope"?

Furthermore, what led you to opine "It's like she really doesn't have a clue or hopes her readers don't."

Given your rather dismissive comments concerning Moss one gets the impression that you consider yourself as something of on a expert on these matters. I therefore await your learned comments to illustrate where [in your presumed expert opinion] Moss has got it wrong.



I also should note that I am still waiting for tabibito to provide the evidence to support what he wrote concerning what he termed my [or rather Moss'] "revisionism" concerning the "actual history" as well as evidence that Rome [as in state policy] did "systematically sporadically persecute Christians for being Christians". [My emphasis]

Given that I never promoted the idea of Christians being constantly persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Romans, your complaint is malapropos.Your portrayal of the actual history borders revisionism.
Rome did systemically sporadically persecute Christians for being Christian. The fact that it was done rarely and for limited terms does not mean it wasn't done.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And what would the Bereans expect to find in accounts of historical events that would verify Paul's claims?

My apologies, I appear to have missed this.

I understood you believed the resurrection was one such "historical event" about which Paul was preaching and his beliefs in its soteriological implications.

However, concerning Paul's beliefs, it would necessitate completely reinterpreting [along Pauline lines] various verses found within the LXX in order to "prove" his theological opinions were valid; perhaps for example the Suffering Messiah.

[tabibito]

My mistake.




Given that I cited a few paragraphs from a book, where in your opinion is Moss "crafting strawmen to combat"?

And where is she trying to "handwave them off because they were largely political in scope"?

Furthermore, what led you to opine "It's like she really doesn't have a clue or hopes her readers don't."

Given your rather dismissive comments concerning Moss one gets the impression that you consider yourself as something of on a expert on these matters. I therefore await your learned comments to illustrate where [in your presumed expert opinion] Moss has got it wrong.



I also should note that I am still waiting for tabibito to provide the evidence to support what he wrote concerning what he termed my [or rather Moss'] "revisionism" concerning the "actual history" as well as evidence that Rome [as in state policy] did "systematically sporadically persecute Christians for being Christians". [My emphasis]

Shushma Malik, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Queensland and Caillan Davenport, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History and ARC DECRA Research Fellow, The University of Queensland]

Decius believed that Romans needed to unite to show support for the gods in order to protect the empire. His sacrifice edict was not specifically directed at Christians, though it did pose a particular problem for the followers of this monotheistic religion.

The sacrifices evidently did nothing to assist Decius personally, since he died fighting the Goths in a swamp a year later. Christians could then breathe a sigh of relief until A.D. 257, when the emperor Valerian again issued an edict ordering universal sacrifice throughout the empire, but this time specifically targeting Christians. The legislation described those who did not sacrifice as un-Roman.

Death was not initially the automatic punishment for Christians who refused to sacrifice. Some clergy, such as Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa, were simply sent into exile. His less fortunate colleagues in Numidia were condemned to hard labour in the mines, a punishment usually reserved for slaves. It was only in the second stage of persecution that death was prescribed for Christians such as Cyprian.

In A.D. 260, Valerian was captured by the Persians in battle...

After Valerian, the Roman state took no official action against the Christians for more than forty years. In A.D. 303, however, the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”.

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts.

The write-up runs counter to your narrative, so I expect you to follow your usual pattern in such circumstances and dismiss this speculation by scholars. Of course, speculation that supported your contentions would be (by you) regarded as indisputably correct.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Shushma Malik, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Queensland and Caillan Davenport, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History and ARC DECRA Research Fellow, The University of Queensland]

Decius believed that Romans needed to unite to show support for the gods in order to protect the empire. His sacrifice edict was not specifically directed at Christians, though it did pose a particular problem for the followers of this monotheistic religion.

The sacrifices evidently did nothing to assist Decius personally, since he died fighting the Goths in a swamp a year later. Christians could then breathe a sigh of relief until A.D. 257, when the emperor Valerian again issued an edict ordering universal sacrifice throughout the empire, but this time specifically targeting Christians. The legislation described those who did not sacrifice as un-Roman.

Death was not initially the automatic punishment for Christians who refused to sacrifice. Some clergy, such as Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa, were simply sent into exile. His less fortunate colleagues in Numidia were condemned to hard labour in the mines, a punishment usually reserved for slaves. It was only in the second stage of persecution that death was prescribed for Christians such as Cyprian.

In A.D. 260, Valerian was captured by the Persians in battle...

After Valerian, the Roman state took no official action against the Christians for more than forty years. In A.D. 303, however, the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”.

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts.

The write-up runs counter to your narrative, so I expect you to follow your usual pattern in such circumstances and dismiss this speculation by scholars. Of course, speculation that supported your contentions would be (by you) regarded as indisputably correct.

The article - originally in The Conversation - serves to confirm precisely what I have written.

The myth of constant persecution largely stems from two works written in the early fourth century A.D., On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, a Christian professor of Latin, and the Church History of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Israel.

These authors were living in the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and tasked themselves with charting the history of Christian suffering up to this glorious moment. In both their works, the torture and execution of Christians in preceding centuries is associated with the emperors under whom they occurred. But the reality is that the punishment of Christians in the first three centuries A.D. was largely haphazard and not directed by imperial policy. [...]

In the event that a Christian agreed to sacrifice to the Roman gods, the emperor decreed that all would be forgiven.

Trajan’s letter effectively expressed the Roman state policy regarding Christians – a sort of ancient “don’t ask, don’t tell” – which lasted until A.D. 250. However, this did not put an end to denunciations by provincials who felt uneasy or threatened by Christians in their communities. [...]

It is important to emphasise that such cruel deaths were not unique to Christians. Condemnation to the beasts was a popular punishment for criminals of any type, because it maximized their suffering and allowed good and proper Roman citizens to gain pleasure from the deaths of wrong-doers.

For the Good of the Empire

The pattern of localised persecution changed in A.D. 250. In that year, the emperor Decius issued an edict that ordered all Romans to sacrifice to the gods and present a certificate to prove that they had done so. This edict was prompted by serious barbarian invasions.

Decius believed that Romans needed to unite to show support for the gods in order to protect the empire. His sacrifice edict was not specifically directed at Christians, though it did pose a particular problem for the followers of this monotheistic religion. [...]

Death was not initially the automatic punishment for Christians who refused to sacrifice. Some clergy, such as Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa, were simply sent into exile. His less fortunate colleagues in Numidia were condemned to hard labour in the mines, a punishment usually reserved for slaves. It was only in the second stage of persecution that death was prescribed for Christians such as Cyprian. [...]

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts. Every opportunity was given to Christians to acknowledge the gods, and the emperors even introduced an amnesty for imprisoned clergy if they performed a sacrifice.

The types of penalties inflicted on Christians depended on provincial governors who were charged with enforcing imperial will. Some were tortured and then burned to death. Others were mutilated and then sentenced to the copper mines in Egypt. However, Lactantius tells us that some governors did not spill Christian blood, indicating that persecution was not uniformly enforced.

Nor did all the emperors agree with the policy. Constantius, the father of Constantine, who became emperor in Gaul, Spain and Britain in A.D. 305, refused to put any Christians to death. The eastern provincials had to endure a series of waves of persecution until A.D. 313. Freedom of worship was permitted in the east that same year in the so-called “Edict of Milan”. This was neither an edict, nor from Milan, but a letter from Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius to eastern governors. https://theconversation.com/mythbust...he-lions-67365

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From the article:

In A.D. 303, however, the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”.

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts.

In regard to the Diocletian "Great Persecution" once again this has to be viewed within its historical context. As with Decius' Diocletian's edicts were concerned with furthering the sense of unity across the empire. He had taken action against the Manichaeans at the end of the third century because he perceived their religion to be derived from the enemies of Rome. Further, and in addition to, issues pertaining to piety, politics, and the stability of the empire, there were philosophical differences at his court that made Christians unpopular there. His regulation was also incremental with increasingly severe legislation being issued and these gradually rescinded the rights of Christians within the empire, this would appear to be an attempt to undo the tolerant position Gallienius towards Christians. And the persecution came in waves. The Christian church in Nicomedia was destroyed, however, it had been built opposite the palace and it may have been construed as a direct challenge to imperial power. However, that the church had been built is clear evidence that Christians were not in hiding.

Christians were denied the right to petition the courts or respond to legal actions brought against them, and this obviously made them especially vulnerable in judicial contexts. Christians of higher social status lost their rank and imperial freedmen were once again enslaved. Everyone was expected to sacrifice before engaging in any legal or official business and that included Christians.

Yet Christians did find ways around this edict. If they rarely attended church and did not hold copies of Christian writings they were not directly at risk in their personal lives. The only area where they were vulnerable was in any legal or business dealing. Apparently one Christian got around this. A letter from a man called Copres to his sister Sarapias informed her that he had discovered the requirement of sacrifice before attending court. He had therefore given his brother the power of attorney in his affairs. From this one assumes that his brother was not a Christian and was happy to help his sibling. Both men also consulted an advocate in order to determine how best to preserve their land holdings.

One might assume that Copres was not an isolated case.

It also appears that of the two emperors Galerius was more brutal. Diocletian seemed to be of the impression that the edict could be enforced without bloodshed. Galerius on the other hand was extremely cruel condemning those who refused to sacrifice to being burned alive and some Christians in the East did suffer that dreadful death.

The above is one instance of where the East and West differed with the regard to the ferocity of persecution. In the Latin West only portions of the edict were enforced and even then somewhat haphazardly. Certainly in northern Africa severe executions did take place yet the persecutions in Britain and Gaul [the region controlled by Constantius] were comparatively mild and by 304 CE appear to have stopped completely.

However, they did continue in the East where Galerius and Diocletian were in control. In Nicomedia the imperial palace twice caught fire and [regardless of the causes] the Christians were implicated. A second edict ordered the arrest of all Christian clergy and despite Eusebius telling us that the prisons were full to overflowing we should not assume from that that thousands of individuals were arrested. Roman prisons were not overly large and were simply holding places for prisoners prior to trial.

In 303 CE a third edict was issued stating that imprisoned clergy who sacrificed would be given an amnesty. Many refused but some were nominally compliant.

The fourth edict of 304 CE that required men, women, and children to gather in a public space to offer sacrifice [or face execution] is never referred to by Lactantius or by Eusebiuis in his HE. Eusebius does mention it in his Martyrs of Palestine but of the ninety-nine Christians executed only sixteen appear to have been actively sought out by the authorities.

[tabibito]

The pattern of localised persecution changed in A.D. 250. In that year, the emperor Decius issued an edict that ordered all Romans to sacrifice to the gods and present a certificate to prove that they had done so. This edict was prompted by serious barbarian invasions.

Decius believed that Romans needed to unite to show support for the gods in order to protect the empire. His sacrifice edict was not specifically directed at Christians, though it did pose a particular problem for the followers of this monotheistic religion. [...]

And what is represented by your [...]? Given that it is critical to your argument, I'll assume that the elision was inadvertent (yes, that is sarcasm)

"the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”."

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts.

Death was not initially the automatic punishment for Christians who refused to sacrifice. Some clergy, such as Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa, were simply sent into exile. His less fortunate colleagues in Numidia were condemned to hard labour in the mines, a punishment usually reserved for slaves. It was only in the second stage of persecution that death was prescribed for Christians such as Cyprian. [...]

The article - originally in The Conversation - serves to confirm precisely what I have written.

This from you says otherwise:

I also should note that I am still waiting for tabibito to provide the evidence to support what he wrote concerning what he termed my [or rather Moss'] "revisionism" concerning the "actual history" as well as evidence that Rome [as in state policy] did "systematically sporadically persecute Christians for being Christians".

And "appears" lasts for only so long as elided sections of the text are not restored.

The three critical paragraphs in the original, in full

After Valerian, the Roman state took no official action against the Christians for more than forty years. In A.D. 303, however, the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”.

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts. Every opportunity was given to Christians to acknowledge the gods, and the emperors even introduced an amnesty for imprisoned clergy if they performed a sacrifice.

The types of penalties inflicted on Christians depended on provincial governors who were charged with enforcing imperial will. Some were tortured and then burned to death. Others were mutilated and then sentenced to the copper mines in Egypt. However, Lactantius tells us that some governors did not spill Christian blood, indicating that persecution was not uniformly enforced.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And what is represented by your [...]? Given that it is critical to your argument, I'll assume that the elision was inadvertent (yes, that is sarcasm)

"the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”."



This from you says otherwise:



And "appears" lasts for only so long as elided sections of the text are not restored.

The three critical paragraphs in the original, in full

After Valerian, the Roman state took no official action against the Christians for more than forty years. In A.D. 303, however, the emperor Diocletian and his junior co-emperor Galerius, both former soldiers who viewed Christianity as a threat to traditional Roman beliefs, initiated what has become known as the “Great Persecution”.

In a series of edicts, the emperors ordered the destruction of churches, the seizure of ecclesiastical property, and the burning of Christian texts. Every opportunity was given to Christians to acknowledge the gods, and the emperors even introduced an amnesty for imprisoned clergy if they performed a sacrifice.

The types of penalties inflicted on Christians depended on provincial governors who were charged with enforcing imperial will. Some were tortured and then burned to death. Others were mutilated and then sentenced to the copper mines in Egypt. However, Lactantius tells us that some governors did not spill Christian blood, indicating that persecution was not uniformly enforced.

See above.

One also needs to consider the importance of the imperial cult in Roman society. It was believed that participating in that cult was required in order to bind the empire together. One might make a modest comparison with the present day US pledge of allegiance.

Hence in Roman society this act was a communal ritual that strengthened social ties between individuals at both a local level, and within disparate regions and groups at an imperial level.

In times of political and/or social instability this imperial cult became especially important being perceived as necessary to calm potential unrest and bring cohesion.

I would also point out that for Diocletian he was fully aware of the precariousness of his position. His reign came after some fifty years of political turbulence in the empire and between 268 CE and his accession in 284 CE [16 years] eight emperors had been assassinated, more often than not by their troops. Economic issues such as inflation and the debasement of the coinage further threatened stability.

[rogue06]

Given that I cited a few paragraphs from a book, where in your opinion is Moss "crafting strawmen to combat"?

That would be provided in the sentence immediately following that statement:

Nobody that I've read claims that the persecutions were "constantly persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Romans" but rather words like "sporadically" are commonly employed.

Her argument is a straw man because nobody is making the argument that she claims they are.

And where is she trying to "handwave them off because they were largely political in scope"?

This is also covered if you had bothered with what follows immediately afterwards:

(because Christians refused to worship the gods of Rome or the Emperor) is straight up bizarre. It's like she really doesn't have a clue or hopes her readers don't.

Don't you consider it ironic that after you were forced to acknowledge that I made it clear that I was citing "H_A's source" and not yourself as you mistakenly thought, that you then proceed to miss the answers to your questions that were spelled out quite literally immediately after the parts you quoted?

Furthermore, what led you to opine "It's like she really doesn't have a clue or hopes her readers don't."

Trying to excuse the persecutions in the way she did was wholly bizarre and left few explanations for why she would have done so. Basically, she is either clueless or else she isn't but hopes her readers are.

Given your rather dismissive comments concerning Moss one gets the impression that you consider yourself as something of on a expert on these matters.

Given the nature of my criticisms it is clear that it does not take an expert to spot the glaring mistakes.

[tabibito]

Given the nature of my criticisms it is clear that it does not take an expert to spot the glaring mistakes.

Does "it does not take an expert to spot the glaring mistakes" imply that an expert should be expected to miss them?

[rogue06]

Does "it does not take an expert to spot the glaring mistakes" imply that an expert should be expected to miss them?

I was just reading Paul L. Maier's review of Moss' book, and it seems that academic sloppiness is pretty much a major feature of it. For instance:

Perhaps the most important source that tears the intended impact of this book’s title into shreds is Cornelius Tacitus’s Annals 15:44. A pagan Roman historian who deemed the Christians little more than sewage, Tacitus writes the following about Nero’s persecution:

First the confessed members of this sect [i.e., Christians] were arrested. Next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beast’s skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his hippodrome, mixing with the crowd in the garb of a charioteer or mounted on his chariot.

Moss does not even quote this passage verbatim, as I have done, although she does summarize it. Since this is so destructive to her main thesis, she tries, astonishingly, to reduce its credibility. First she uses the timeworn argument of time itself (always the weakest argument): Tacitus, she states, wrote “at least fifty years after the event he describes” (139). And her point is? This is the same as suggesting that no one today can write accurately about what happened in the Kennedy administration!

Her next argument to undermine the Tacitus passage is an egregious error in stating that the term “Christian” was not used until, “at the earliest, the end of the first century” (139). But Luke, the evangelist, writing in AD 62 (never mind that some scholars would put it a decade later), tells us that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch even before Paul’s first mission journey in AD 47 (Acts 11:26). This erroneous claim is written by a professor of New Testament at a prestigious university? Do they have editors at HarperOne?

Other adduced arguments against Tacitus fail as well. That the cited text is an admission conceded by not a friendly but a hostile source only underlines its authenticity and credibility. In any case, what an unfortunate way to handle documentation that contradicts one’s thesis: do all you can to undermine it.

Sound like anyone we know? No wonder H_A likes this book

On a more serious note, these sort of mistakes, like her claim about when the term Christians first came about, are not the sort you would expect an acclaimed academic to make. They look like amateur hour

[tabibito]

Other adduced arguments against Tacitus fail as well. That the cited text is an admission conceded by not a friendly but a hostile source only underlines its authenticity and credibility. In any case, what an unfortunate way to handle documentation that contradicts one’s thesis: do all you can to undermine it.[/box]

Sound like anyone we know? No wonder H_A likes this book

On a more serious note, these sort of mistakes, like her claim about when the term Christians first came about, are not the sort you would expect an acclaimed academic to make. They look like amateur hour

I'm beginning to think that I have been paying too little attention to book reviews.

The comment about editors is appropriate I think. Publishers seem to have given up employing both them and proofreaders.

I remember reading a review a few years ago, that said (exact wording forgotten) "X number of errors of fact, Y number of conclusions that are not forced by their premises. It is an excellent book for first year university students."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That would be provided in the sentence immediately following that statement:

Nobody that I've read claims that the persecutions were "constantly persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Romans" but rather words like "sporadically" are commonly employed.

Her argument is a straw man because nobody is making the argument that she claims they are.

From the earliest times Christians alleged they were persecuted and indeed our mutual friend has referred to Jewish persecutions against those early Christians.

That myth continued. As Christianity developed over its first two hundred and fifty years or so the deaths of Christians were believed to be necessary as part of Christian existence and helped foster the survival of the religion "against all odds". These martyrs and their sufferings helped fuel the growth of the religion.

Hence the tradition that in its initial two and half centuries Christianity was a persecuted and suffering religion led to the so-called Age of Martyrs.

This is also covered if you had bothered with what follows immediately afterwards:

(because Christians refused to worship the gods of Rome or the Emperor) is straight up bizarre. It's like she really doesn't have a clue or hopes her readers don't.

A gross over-simplification that fails to take into account the various social and political situations that prevailed in the empire over the centuries as well as the importance of religion to ancient societies.

There is no reason to assume that the Romans were any less deeply committed to their religious traditions than anyone else. As the proconsul Vigellius Saturninus is alleged to have said to the Scillitan Christians "We too are religious and our religion is simple and we swear by the Genius of our lord the emperor, and we pray for his welfare, as you also ought to do."

From the perspective of an ancient society the refusal of one religious group in any community within that society to refuse compliance with that society's religious behaviours was a threat to both the individual community and the state. Religion was a way in which good weather, successful harvests, health and every manner of everyday life was ensured. By refusing to be part of this religious process the Christians threated to disrupt the pax deorum and their refusal to participate in the imperial cult was deemed not only disrespectful but also risked imperilling the entire empire.

Given the nature of my criticisms it is clear that it does not take an expert to spot the glaring mistakes.

I would disagree. In my opinion "the nature of" your "criticisms" which you have premised on a few paragraphs from a work that runs to 295 pages merely demonstrates the uninformed response of a self-opinionated individual who actually knows very little about the subject upon which he is pontificating.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I was just reading Paul L. Maier's review of Moss' book, and it seems that academic sloppiness is pretty much a major feature of it. For instance:

Perhaps the most important source that tears the intended impact of this book’s title into shreds is Cornelius Tacitus’s Annals 15:44. A pagan Roman historian who deemed the Christians little more than sewage, Tacitus writes the following about Nero’s persecution:

First the confessed members of this sect [i.e., Christians] were arrested. Next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beast’s skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his hippodrome, mixing with the crowd in the garb of a charioteer or mounted on his chariot.

Moss does not even quote this passage verbatim, as I have done, although she does summarize it. Since this is so destructive to her main thesis, she tries, astonishingly, to reduce its credibility. First she uses the timeworn argument of time itself (always the weakest argument): Tacitus, she states, wrote “at least fifty years after the event he describes” (139). And her point is? This is the same as suggesting that no one today can write accurately about what happened in the Kennedy administration!

Her next argument to undermine the Tacitus passage is an egregious error in stating that the term “Christian” was not used until, “at the earliest, the end of the first century” (139). But Luke, the evangelist, writing in AD 62 (never mind that some scholars would put it a decade later), tells us that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch even before Paul’s first mission journey in AD 47 (Acts 11:26). This erroneous claim is written by a professor of New Testament at a prestigious university? Do they have editors at HarperOne?

Other adduced arguments against Tacitus fail as well. That the cited text is an admission conceded by not a friendly but a hostile source only underlines its authenticity and credibility. In any case, what an unfortunate way to handle documentation that contradicts one’s thesis: do all you can to undermine it.

Sound like anyone we know? No wonder H_A likes this book

On a more serious note, these sort of mistakes, like her claim about when the term Christians first came about, are not the sort you would expect an acclaimed academic to make. They look like amateur hour

From Maier's review

But a close reading of the sources, she contends, shows that the persecutions were not continual but sporadic, not always inaugurated by the emperor in charge, and limited in scope, area, and duration.

That is precisely the point Moss is making despite Christian traditions to the contrary.

Perhaps Maier should also remember that religion for Romans religion was above all else the ius divinum, the body of state law relating to sacred matters and which preserved the pax deorum by means of the appropriate ceremonies. As Cicero repeatedly stated this was from the fact that it rested upon the auctoritas maiorum - the force of ancestral tradition.

On a final note Maier is making his comments in the Christian Research Journal which is published by the Christian Research Institute [an evangelical Christian apologetics ministry]. One is therefore not surprised that his comments are somewhat hostile nor that his article contains no footnotes by which to cross reference some of his remarks.