The book of revelation

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Saw, the other day, a history channel program about the book etc' . Today scholars tend to regard it as a manifest against the Roman empire . A question rises - What the pagan Romans thought about the book ? did they know about it ? did they refer to the book ? Any ancient pagan source ?

 

( Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione )

[caldrail]

They certainly knew about it by the Council of Nicaea in ad325. Curiously, for a book that is a call to arms against Rome, it was included as canon by the priests convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine to unify Christianity. It seems then the underlying message in the Book of Revelations had been misunderstood within three hundred years, or were the priests including it for subtle reasons? True, the Christians felt their time had come, and that Constantine was supporting their efforts, but he was still pagan at this time, a sun worshipper, and tried to have one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus.

 

Were the Christians playing it both ways? Or simply like today, assuming the prophetic prose spoke of future events rather than a diatribe against Rome?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

So, we have any reference about the book in pagan writings, let say between 120 to 500 ? It seems that they (pagan writers) ignored it .

[DDickey]

So, we have any reference about the book in pagan writings, let say between 120 to 500 ? It seems that they (pagan writers) ignored it .

 

I'm not sure they ignored it, per se. It's possible they weren't even aware of its existence, certainly the probability that they didn't know about it was higher in the second and third centuries.

[sylla]

They certainly knew about it by the Council of Nicaea in ad325. Curiously, for a book that is a call to arms against Rome, it was included as canon by the priests convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine to unify Christianity. It seems then the underlying message in the Book of Revelations had been misunderstood within three hundred years, or were the priests including it for subtle reasons? True, the Christians felt their time had come, and that Constantine was supporting their efforts, but he was still pagan at this time, a sun worshipper, and tried to have one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus.

 

Were the Christians playing it both ways? Or simply like today, assuming the prophetic prose spoke of future events rather than a diatribe against Rome?

Actually, Revelation was considered among the Apocrypha by Eusebius (ergo, Constantine I) at Nicea I (325); it would not be included in the canonical New Testament until 367, by Athanasius of Alexandria.

Edited May 12, 2009 by sylla

[sylla]

So, we have any reference about the book in pagan writings, let say between 120 to 500 ? It seems that they (pagan writers) ignored it .

 

I'm not sure they ignored it, per se. It's possible they weren't even aware of its existence, certainly the probability that they didn't know about it was higher in the second and third centuries.

I'm not aware of ANY textual quotation from the New Testament by any pagan writer.

The closest we get would be Celsus (II century), known only from his Christian detractors; it can be inferred that he knew some of the Gospels and maybe even some Pauline Epistles.

The Emperor Julian must have known well the Gospels and other Christian books, and maybe Porphyry too, but it seems no specific reference from the NT for their lost works can be inferred (However, Porphyry quoted the Book of Daniel).

On the other hand, some of the Roman historians (like Tacitus and Cassius Dio) at least partially reviewed the content of Jewish Scriptures (ie, the Christian Old Testament), probably via the Egyptians and other hostile neighbors, as their records are rather confuse and chaotic.

In essence, the consequence was that such historians deeply despised and mercilessly mocked the Jewish theology.

Edited May 12, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

The attitude of Romans toward Christianity was largely one of ignorance. I don't think we can blame tactius and Dio for that alone. The Romans saw a monotheistic faith that deliberately excluded other spiritual beliefs, something that their superstitious mindset found diifficult to appreciate.

 

For instance - To the Romans, a river was more than just a flow of excess water. It was also the manifestation of a spirit of some kind, either one of their own or a local being. If you upset that being, the river would claim you. Now I'm sure there were Romans who paid lip service or scorn to such ideas, there always is, but that was a prevailing opinion. What the Christians were saying was that this river spirit did not exist or was not worthy of consideration. Therefore, this was an insult to the being concerned, and so making river crossing a much riskier affair.

 

Of course we also know that gossip about christian practice made things difficult. They heard of cannabalistic and vampiric rites that were very un-Roman. Worse still, the Christians refused to accept the divinity of the Emperors cult. That, above all else, was tantamount to sedition.

 

I'd have to say that the pagans probably did ignore the books that would later make up the New Testament. Christianity was not a unified sect and one that held meetings in secret. Their writings were not common knowledge, and since there were occaisional persecutions, I hardly think they were going to shout about their books.

 

Once we reach the reign of Constantine there is a drive to unify the church. With the Emperors support, the Christians are creating links and Ammianus Marcellinus tells us that "The roads were filled with galloping bishops". Although Constantine had made religion free of suppression by the Edict of Milan, under his reign the politicisation of religion he sponsored would lead to factional rivalry. I suspect then there were many versions of christian texts floating around (even after the Council of Nicaea which was supposed to thrash out what was or wasn't christian).

 

After all, Ulfilas, a gothic convert and missionary, founded his own sect and may have assisted the Arian heretic Emperor Valens to spread Arianism to the Tervingi north of the Danube, part of the peace settlement for the three year war won by Valens against the Goths of Athanaric. Ulfilas wrote his own bible and translated it into Gothic, and this was something done (40 years?) after the Council of Nicaea. I would say then, that there might have been many books with minor distribution, hence the pagans may not have stressed them.

[Ursus]

Saw, the other day, a history channel program about the book etc' . Today scholars tend to regard it as a manifest against the Roman empire . A question rises - What the pagan Romans thought about the book ? did they know about it ? did they refer to the book ? Any ancient pagan source ?

 

( Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione )

 

 

Pagan commentators tended to view Christianity as an intellectually bereft, emotionally hysterical, and heretical offshoot of Judaism. If Pagans were aware of such writings they most likely would have dismissed it in such a light - the babble of a weird superstition that had already shown itself not compatible with mainstream Greco-Roman culture.

[sylla]

The attitude of Romans toward Christianity was largely one of ignorance. I don't think we can blame tactius and Dio for that alone.

Actually, what Tacitus and Dio despised and mocked was the Jewish theology as a whole.

There are no specific commentaries on the Christians within their surviving writings; the controversial passage of Tacitus on Nero's persecution in the XV book of his Annals and a couple of potential indirect references from Dio is all we have.

[caldrail]

So I'm correct then?

[sylla]

So I'm correct then?

Let me put it in this way; nothing from the available works of either Tacitus or Dio allow us to determine if they had an attitude toward Christianity at all.

Edited May 14, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

So I'm correct then?