- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Nero has been blamed for starting the Fire of 64 A.D. that leveled much of Rome, but I am interested in related questions about the fire’s cause. Read this: “Popular opinion demanded some scapegoat for the disaster, and Nero laid the blame upon the Christians in Rome, possibly at the instigation of the Jews whose community was divided by the spread of Christian doctrines.” [Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A. D. (New York: Macmillan, 1921)]. So, has anyone else heard anything about this? I am not familiar with Jewish-Christian relations in the 60s A.D., which is why I am wondering. Second, I just read this from a PBS site:
Nero himself blamed the fire on an obscure new Jewish religious sect called the Christians, whom he indiscriminately and mercilessly crucified. During gladiator matches he would feed Christians to lions, and he often lit his garden parties with the burning carcasses of Christian human torches. Yet there is evidence that, in 64 A.D., many Roman Christians believed in prophecies predicting that Rome would soon be destroyed by fire. Perhaps the fire was set off by someone hoping to make the prediction come true.
Look at that last sentence. I’m not sure if that’s someone’s conjecture or based on scholarly theories. Anyone heard that before?
Alright, so I found an answer to my own question:
Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has spent 15 years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies. He has learned that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city to ashes. "In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_rome/clues.htmlI find this somewhat odd because I am pretty sure that it was only after the fire that centuries of persecution of Christians began. Why, then, would Christians circulate "vengeful texts" and proclaim "Rome must burn"? This doesn't make sense. Even if Christians were treated as oddities in the Roman Empire on account of their new religion, would they have held to such political anger that Baudy suggests? This was still the age of St. Paul (still alive at the time of the fire) and acts of insurrection by Christians (perhaps first or second generation) sounds implausible.
The short answer is that we don't really know what caused the Fire of 64. This leaves the ground ripe for speculation and given the newness of Christianity it is a prime suspect for scapegaoting. In the absence of facts speculation and guessing reign supreme. I bet you that something as mundane as an ancient version of Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the fire. It is much more probable that the fire resulted from an escaped cooking fire or fire to heat water for the baths as it was started deliberately. Ancient was just as much a fire-trap as any other ancient or even medieval city. Fire codes are relatively new after all. A visit to the old part of any European city will show you how close the buildings were and even in Rome wood was the construction material of choice for the slums and tenements of the mob.
Christians and Jews were often confused by Romans : same remote origin. According to Tacitus, the reason why the Christians were targeted has more to do with their attitude towards the worship of the God-emperor than their religion:"...they were accused of disloyalty because of their refusal to perform the token ritual acknowledging the divine status of the Emperor, viewed by most citizens as little different from a modern flag salute..." http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/tacitus.html
Christians and Jews were often confused by Romans : same remote origin. According to Tacitus, the reason why the Christians were targeted has more to do with their attitude towards the worship of the God-emperor than their religion: “…they were accused of disloyalty because of their refusal to perform the token ritual acknowledging the divine status of the Emperor, viewed by most citizens as little different from a modern flag salute…” http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/tacitus.html
I believe that, but then again, I don't think that Jews would have acknowledge divine imperial status, either. From what I have heard, the Romans really disliked the Christians because their religion was new. While the Romans may not have agreed with the Jews, at least their belief was one that was rooted in something ancient, so it was respected. It was never a crime in Rome to publicly declare oneself a Jew, but it was a crime at different times to declare oneself a Christian.
I bet you that something as mundane as an ancient version of Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the fire. It is much more probable that the fire resulted from an escaped cooking fire or fire to heat water for the baths as it was started deliberately. Ancient was just as much a fire-trap as any other ancient or even medieval city. Fire codes are relatively new after all. A visit to the old part of any European city will show you how close the buildings were and even in Rome wood was the construction material of choice for the slums and tenements of the mob.
Yeah, you could be right about a mundane origin to the fire. I think the fact that Nero benefitted from the fire (it cleared land for his expansive Domus Aurea) naturally made him look like the culprit, but whether or not we believe Tacitus is another story. Great, now it sounds like I'm defending Nero! 😮
I always get suspicious when I hear conspiracy theories. Occam's Razor is too sharp for most conspiracies to stand up to too much scrutiny. I have always been suspicious about the Great Fire because the claims that Nero set it to clear land seem too pat. Of course, I have no evidence that he did not do it. It just sounds a little convenient for my tastes.
Christians and Jews were often confused by Romans : same remote origin. According to Tacitus, the reason why the Christians were targeted has more to do with their attitude towards the worship of the God-emperor than their religion:"...they were accused of disloyalty because of their refusal to perform the token ritual acknowledging the divine status of the Emperor, viewed by most citizens as little different from a modern flag salute..." http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/tacitus.html
I believe that, but then again, I don't think that Jews would have acknowledge divine imperial status, either. From what I have heard, the Romans really disliked the Christians because their religion was new. While the Romans may not have agreed with the Jews, at least their belief was one that was rooted in something ancient, so it was respected. It was never a crime in Rome to publicly declare oneself a Jew, but it was a crime at different times to declare oneself a Christian.
According to Tacitus, Christians were hated because :- The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated. - a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race.However :- people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.Christianity wasn't respected in these time but considered as a sect among others.
AFAIK Tacitus is the most believable account of what happened. I believe Nero wasn't even in Rome as the fires started, and certainly did not play a fiddle as it burned (fiddles were invented hundreds of years after that event I believe). In fact I heard that he was very popular with the common people especially in the early part of his reign (but was always unpopular with the nobility), but because of how events unfolded with his personal life I think it's believable that historians at the time smeared his name by saying that he started the fire to clear land for his palace (may or may not be true). The colosseum aka Flavian Amphitheatre I heard gets its name from the Colossus, an enormous bronze statue of Nero that stood where the arena was erected (that whole part of Rome was part of his massive palace built after the fire).
According to Tacitus, Christians were hated because :- The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius
I don’t know that I was aware of that. It seems like an obvious theory now that you mention it. Even through Christ would have been a very political figure on the part of the Romans, the Romans may have re-circulated stories of the Crucifixion as Christianity became more well-known.
So if Christ really was considered a political insurrectionist by Romans, it leads me to wonder what they thought when they eventually decided to convert to Christianity, and how they reconciled belief in an “insurrectionist” with what they themselves did.
