Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 05-28-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

This is a description of some kind of cult following Mosaic Laws of sacrifice and religous rites.

How do you know that early xtians were not exactly that before getting their later makeovers from Irenaeus and others?

Minimalist · 05-28-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Why execute these so called Christians and then write for advice on trivial matters?

Because Roman magistrates were expected to ACT. They had to maintain order and, the letter makes clear that the "crime" of the xtians was the holding of secret meetings. They were regarded as seditious but those who demonstrated their loyalty to the empire were released. Those who did not, and who were not citizens, were dealt with the way traitors were normally dealt with.

It would have taken months for even the Roman cursus publicus to get Pliny's letter to Trajan and return with a reply. I see nothing wrong with a junior officer seeking confirmation of his decisions from his boss. I wouldn't put too much stock in the obsequious language. He was writing to an emperor who was worshipped as a "god." A little ass-kissing is to be expected.

aa5874 · 05-28-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

This is a description of some kind of cult following Mosaic Laws of sacrifice and religous rites.

How do you know that early xtians were not exactly that before getting their later makeovers from Irenaeus and others?

Well, based on the Pliny letter, Christians were just simply people who sacrificed animals to god and practised temple worship. There is nothing in the letter about Jesus.

It would appear to me that Jews may have been commonly referred to or called by outside sources the "anointed ones" or "Christ" when transliterated to Greek, hence the word "Christians".

Jesus "Christians" appear to be after the Pliny letter.

aa5874 · 05-28-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Why execute these so called Christians and then write for advice on trivial matters?

Because Roman magistrates were expected to ACT. They had to maintain order and, the letter makes clear that the "crime" of the xtians was the holding of secret meetings. They were regarded as seditious but those who demonstrated their loyalty to the empire were released. Those who did not, and who were not citizens, were dealt with the way traitors were normally dealt with.

So, the letter to Trajan was not necessary. Pliny just had to ACT. He had already made the most serious decisions. He had executed and tortured some of these so-called Christians, and had sent some to Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

It would have taken months for even the Roman cursus publicus to get Pliny's letter to Trajan and return with a reply. I see nothing wrong with a junior officer seeking confirmation of his decisions from his boss. I wouldn't put too much stock in the obsequious language. He was writing to an emperor who was worshipped as a "god." A little ass-kissing is to be expected.

So, again the letter to Trajan was not needed. If it would have taken months for Trajan's reply to reach Pliny, he just had to ACT.

The remainder of the so-called Christians had either denied that they were Christians or had cursed Christ.

There were no Christians left in Pliny's custody, they were either executed or sent to Rome.

The letter is just absurd. It may have been forged.

Dave31 · 05-28-2009, 11:51 AM

Minimalist:

Quote:

Why would a later xtian forger alter a text which claims that many of those same xtians "worshipped Roman gods" and "cursed christ?" Later xtians carefully cultivated the myth of martyrs merrily dying for their jesus. Pliny undercuts that motif.

I think the argument goes that serious historians or politicians of the time wouldn't have made "merry" comments about Christians. The style of the letter is more in line with what Pliny would have written as governor. Also, why does Pliny need to explain to Trajan who Christians are? It seems Trajan is completely unaware of them. aa5874 gives other great arguments to doubt its authenticity. He concludes: "The Pliny letters asking for advice on "Christians" make very little sense. They are very likely to have been fabricated.... The letter from Pliny is most absurd when examined carefully."

I agree, and that answers Ben C. Smith's comment: "Pliny is not seriously in question at present; but all things are open to question."

Here's another good response:

Quote:

...like the TF, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.

http://truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

That link also has the argument against the authenticity of Tacitus. I asked Acharya for more info about this, and here's what she said:

Quote:

Arthur Drews gives a good argument for why Suetonius is probably not referring to "Christians" as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. (Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, p. 18) That same book has more arguments against the value of Tacitus and Pliny as well. For example, Drews says:

Quote:

Moreover, the genuineness of this correspondence of Pliny and Trajan is by no means certain. Justin does not mention it on an occasion when we should expect him to do so, and even Tertullian’s supposed reference to it (Apol. cap. ii) is very doubtful. The tendency of the letters to put the Christians in as favorable a light as possible is too obvious not to excite some suspicion. For these and other reasons the correspondence was declared by experts to be spurious even at the time of its first publication, at the beginning of the sixteenth century; and recent authorities, such as Semler, Aub (Histoire des Persecutions de l’Église, 1875, p. 215, ,etc.), Havet (Le Christianisme et ses Origines, 1884, iv, 8), and Hochart (Etudes au Sujet de la Persecution des Chretiens sous Neron, 1885, pp. 79-143; compare also Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Casaren, 1877, p. 268, etc., and the anonymously published work of Edwin Johnson, Antigua Mater, 1887), which have disputed its authenticity, either as a whole or in material points.

Drews also says:

Quote:

...Andresen has made a fresh study of the Tacitus manuscript, and shown that the word was at first “Chrestianos,” and was later altered to “Christianos”; whereas it is written “Christus,” not “Chrestus.” “Now it is quite clear,” says Harnack, “Tacitus says that the people call the sect Chrestiani..."

(WHJ, p. 40)

Drews has a great discussion of "Chrestus" in that book as well. He also says:

Quote:

There is no proof of the existence of Pauline Epistles before Justin, and it remains an open question whether Justin had any knowledge of such Epistles. Papias also is silent about Paul’s’ Epistles, even at a point where he would have been bound to mention them if he had known them. It is also a matter for reflection that as early as the second century there were heretical sects, such as the Severians, who declared that all the Epistles of Paul, were spurious.

In his First Apology, Justin refers to the Christians as "Chrestiani," as related by Stephen Benko:

Quote:

In the second part of this sentence Justin referred to the occasional spelling of the name "Christian" as Chrestianus in Latin, and the coincidence that in the Greek language the word Chrestos means "good." So, in the same chapter he wrote: "For we are accused of being Christians (Chrestiani) but to hate what is good (Chrestos) is unjust." (Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, p. 2)

Benko is evidently referring to Justin's discussion in the First Apology, 4, of "good or evil." Most translators render the term "Christiani," when in fact the entire section is obviously about the use of the word "good," and it should be "Chrestiani." I suspect that many other usages of "Christians" in Justin should be in reality "Chrestians." Obviously, the autographs of Justin's works would be "useful" or chrestos in this case. A study of the manuscript tradition re Justin would doubtlessly be very enlightening.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica (I) states that the three instances in the NT (Acts and 1 Peter) where the word "Christian" or "Christians" is used appear as "Chrestian(s)" in the "uncorrected א [Aleph]" manuscript. (Cheyne, 749.) That would be the Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the earliest MS of the Bible in existence (4th cent.). The EB further states:

Quote:

...the time, the place, and the circumstances of the origin of the name Χριστιανος as a specific designation are obscure. According to Acts 11:26 the matter seems a simple one; but, with this passage before us, it is remarkable how seldom the name occurs elsewhere in the records of early Christianity...

Outside of the NT, according to the exhaustive researches of Lipsius, the name does not occur in either of the epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome; it is absent from Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Tatian, and the Cohortatio ad Graecos. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, as also the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, have it only in a few passages of later insertion; so also with the Gnostic writings. As a word in regular use it makes its earliest appearances in the Apologists--Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix...

The EB lists the Epistle to Diognetus attributed to Ignatius, which would represent an earlier use of the term, if it is not spurious, as is suspected. Then we have Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is also raised as an example of using the term "Christians" in one passage. Although wishful thinking places the Didache in the first century, it is most likely from the second. Without having studied the manuscript tradition, I would nevertheless be suspicious if the one passage (12.6) with the word "Christian" may not either represent "Chrestian" or be an interpolation. My suspicions, of course, are well founded because of all the forgery, interpolation and general chicanery concerning Christian texts and history.

The conclusion seems to be that "Chrestiani" is the more widely used term in the earliest times of the Church. It may even be the earliest name for those who came to be called "Christians." In this case, "Jesus the Good," as found in an inscription at a Marcionite church in Syria dated to 318 would have been the preferred if not earliest title for this god. It should be further noted that the name "Christian" has come down to us in French as "Chrétien," reflecting the Latin of Chrestianus. This development would again tend to verify that "Chrestian" was the oldest and preferred name for the followers of "Jesus the Good." Moreover, the fact that "Chrestus" may have been the earliest title for Jesus, rather than "Christos," would provide another piece of the puzzle demonstrating the TF and James passages in Josephus to be interpolations.

Toto · 05-28-2009, 12:41 PM

Drews' Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus is also available on wikisource.

There are some exhaustive threads on the subject of Christianos vs. Chrestianos if you search the forum - e.g. Thread on Tacitus.

andrewcriddle · 05-28-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

I asked Acharya for more info about this, and here's what she said:

Quote:

The EB lists the Epistle to Diognetus attributed to Ignatius, which would represent an earlier use of the term, if it is not spurious, as is suspected. Then we have Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.

The Epistle to Diognetus and the Epistles of Ignatius both use the term Christian but these are entirely separate works.

The Encyclopedia Biblica says

Quote:

As a word in regular use it [Christian] makes its earliest appearances in the Apologists.......and in the 'Epistle to Diognetus', in Ignatius, who uses also the word ChRISTIANISMOS [Christianity],...

This appears to have been misunderstood as a claim that the Epistle to Diognetus is attributed to Ignatius.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 05-28-2009, 04:06 PM

While I do not seriously doubt the authenticity of the Pliny letter, I do find it interesting that he would write to the emperor so many letters. I didn't count exactly, but if a table I saw in the Internet is correct, he wrote about 68 letters to Trajan, apparently during his 18(+?) months as governor of Pontus-Bithynia. That would be an average of almost 4 a month, and we only have the ones deemed suitable for publication!

However, Pliny the Younger was probably the first governor of a Senatorial province to be appointed by an emperor. This was unprecedented! Senatorial governors had an appointment of a single year, while imperial governors usually were appointed for 3 years, so he was serving a compromise term. He was also charged with setting the finances of the province in order (mainly righting expenses to match revenues), but there was much wrong there or so many preceding governors would not have faced charges from the populace. I suppose he wanted to proceed cautiously and not overstep his authority, and in the process asked for a lot of input from the emperor.

As for their "crimes," I do not think it was "secret" meetings as they stated, and he accepted as fact, their statement that they ceased them upon his order to cease all such meetings by voluntary associations. Maybe he was tooting his own horn here, and overstated the success of his order. No, he seems to be wondering what the crimes was for which the "christians" were to be punished. He basically says that they seemed like any other voluntary association adhering to a superstitious cult.

The Romans often tolerated "eastern" and Egyptian cults among the masses, but periodically had to chastise Roman citizens who took them up (such as order them to publicly burn their sacred books and vestments). I have to imagine that he was not happy to see the well respected Roman and Greek temples neglected in preference for a superstitious cult. Perhaps this was the reason why the province had fallen to pieces, and he needed to find a simple and quick solution for it: Execute the obstinate non-citizens, send obstinate citizens to the emperor for trial, and grant amnesty to those who renounced it by example of public sacrifice to the emperor's genius.

He claims that his solution was having an effect, but how much of this claim was real and how much was "spin" is open to question.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Why execute these so called Christians and then write for advice on trivial matters?

Because Roman magistrates were expected to ACT. They had to maintain order and, the letter makes clear that the "crime" of the xtians was the holding of secret meetings. They were regarded as seditious but those who demonstrated their loyalty to the empire were released. Those who did not, and who were not citizens, were dealt with the way traitors were normally dealt with.

It would have taken months for even the Roman cursus publicus to get Pliny's letter to Trajan and return with a reply. I see nothing wrong with a junior officer seeking confirmation of his decisions from his boss. I wouldn't put too much stock in the obsequious language. He was writing to an emperor who was worshipped as a "god." A little ass-kissing is to be expected.

Minimalist · 05-28-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

So, again the letter to Trajan was not needed. If it would have taken months for Trajan's reply to reach Pliny, he just had to ACT.

The remainder of the so-called Christians had either denied that they were Christians or had cursed Christ.

There were no Christians left in Pliny's custody, they were either executed or sent to Rome.

The letter is just absurd. It may have been forged.

aa,

The letter may have been unnecessary....I wish I had a buck for everytime I saw someone kissing up to the boss when I was working... but it makes no sense as xtian forgery. It does not tell the tale that they wanted told.

Now, if it had said, "they refused to worship our gods or make sacrifice to you and said that they would willingly prefer death to cursing their christ," THAT would make sense as a xtian forgery.

But it doesn't say that. And Trajan comes off as a cross between Gandhi and Oliver Wendell Holmes. I would much rather have had Trajan as US Attorney General than that moron that Bush appointed.

mountainman · 05-30-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

So, again the letter to Trajan was not needed. If it would have taken months for Trajan's reply to reach Pliny, he just had to ACT.

The remainder of the so-called Christians had either denied that they were Christians or had cursed Christ.

There were no Christians left in Pliny's custody, they were either executed or sent to Rome.

The letter is just absurd. It may have been forged.

aa,

The letter may have been unnecessary....I wish I had a buck for everytime I saw someone kissing up to the boss when I was working... but it makes no sense as xtian forgery. It does not tell the tale that they wanted told.

It provides in the retrojection business
what is known as a "priority date".

They were unconcerned about anything else.
In the style of the "Testimonium Flavianum"
they - at some stage in later preceedings -
could cite ancient historical mentions.

Quote:

And Trajan comes off as a cross between Gandhi and Oliver Wendell Holmes. I would much rather have had Trajan as US Attorney General than that moron that Bush appointed.

Constantine called Trajan a "Wall plant, and
Socrates critical questioning "a menace to the State".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2009, 12:41 PM	#16
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Drews' Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus is also available on wikisource. There are some exhaustive threads on the subject of Christianos vs. Chrestianos if you search the forum - e.g. Thread on Tacitus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.