Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Not for their religious beliefs. The account in Tacitus is interesting given that it is only from Tacitus that we find the connection between the Christians in Rome, their persecution, and the fire.
However, Christians were not routinely picked out for persecution because of their religious beliefs as I have noted in the past.
Christians were not persecuted by Rome for their religious beliefs. The entire issue was predominantly political. Of course Christians were always liable to be scapegoats for bad harvests, disease, or poor weather. Nor was personal spite from aggrieved/jealous neighbours or rival businessmen probably unknown when it came to denouncing Christians, or those suspected of being Christian. However, while it appears from the extant evidence that there were outbreaks of arrests prior to the persecutions under Decius, especially in the provinces. In those circumstances the judicial process used for the majority of criminal trials under the Principate was followed and this was the cognitio extra ordinem. In other words such capital trials in those provinces were conducted by the governor and only as and when the situation arose whereby individuals were denounced before the governor. Furthermore not all governors were blood thirsty monsters intent on slaughtering Christians. Tertullian notes that while one Roman governor Saturninus did condemn Christians to death his successors were more lenient and that they often encouraged Christians to recant or, on occasion, dismissed the charges brought against them.
The important thing for Rome was to maintain order and peace in its provinces, to ensure taxes were duly collected, and rid any areas of mali homines [bad men].
The important thing for Rome was to maintain order and peace in its provinces, to ensure taxes were duly collected, and rid any areas of mali homines [bad men].
According to the Mishnah only the misuse of the Tetragrammaton constituted blasphemy and on no occasion in those gospel accounts is that accusation ever levelled at Jesus in that respect.
How do we assess your remark with the supposed triumphal entry into Jerusalem? What was that all about?
Being acclaimed as a Messiah [or suspected of claiming] Messianic status would have been sufficient cause. And we are told in Mark and Matthew that Jesus made no comment when interrogated by Pilate. That was sufficient to condemn him.
Comment