Brent D. Shaw has questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution based on two arguments from silence: Tacitus’s use of the term “Christians” is an anachronism; and Suetonius knows of no connection between the fire in Rome and Nero’s police actions against the Christians. Both of these untestable arguments from silence are inherently weak logically. One can make a good case for the claim that Chrestianus, Christianus, and Χριστιανός are not creations of the second century and that Roman officials were probably aware of the Chrestiani in the 60s. Tacitus’s and Suetonius’s accounts of the persecution are fundamentally reliable.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1955 | 340 | 20 |
Full Text Views | 261 | 17 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 475 | 44 | 3 |
Brent D. Shaw has questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution based on two arguments from silence: Tacitus’s use of the term “Christians” is an anachronism; and Suetonius knows of no connection between the fire in Rome and Nero’s police actions against the Christians. Both of these untestable arguments from silence are inherently weak logically. One can make a good case for the claim that Chrestianus, Christianus, and Χριστιανός are not creations of the second century and that Roman officials were probably aware of the Chrestiani in the 60s. Tacitus’s and Suetonius’s accounts of the persecution are fundamentally reliable.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1955 | 340 | 20 |
Full Text Views | 261 | 17 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 475 | 44 | 3 |