PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

I'm thinking that the Christians were more likely followers of Archpriest Gaius Cassius Chrestos. However, assuming the Christians were originally Cebelleans, the deaconesses could easily have been priestesses or castrated males.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

True, but it also does not mention anybody named Jesus. We can at least connect Gaius Cassius Chrestos to the place and time, and we know that he was an important, historical person. We can't connect Yeshua Christos or any of his followers to the place or time, and we cannot even say that Yeshua Christos was an historical person.

I would have to say that there is an equal chance of Pliny referencing either one.

Therefore, we can no longer really say that Pliny knows about Jesus or early Christians (followers of Jesus). We have to say that Pliny may or may not know about Christians (followers of Jesus).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

Please explain........
Along comes one Giacondo who claims to have "discovered" a text the effect of which is to lend credence to a more ancient source for "Christians". This Giacondo is a loyal priest of the church, and you would say he could be trusted?
And so many people get worked up about this letter? Makes no sense to me.

Toto

But it's not an especially complimentary source, and the question of whether Christians existed in the first century was not really an issue at that time. The gospels and Josephus were enough proof for anyone who wanted proof.

andrewcriddle

I think it is reasonably clear that Pliny wrote Christ- not Chrest- Christ and Christians occur a number of times in the letter. And this is corroborated by the paraphrase in Tertullian's apology

Atquin invenimus inquisitionem quoque in nos prohibitam. Plinius enim Secundus cum provinciam regeret, damnatis quibusdam Christianis, quibusdam gradu pulsis, ipsa tamen multitudine perturbatus, quid de cetero ageret, consuluit tunc Traianum imperatorem, adlegans praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de sacramentis eorum conperisse quam coetus antelucanos ad canendum Christo et deo, et ad confoederandam disciplinam, homicidium, adulterium, fraudem, perfidiam et cetera scelera prohibentes. Tunc Traianus rescripsit hoc genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Josephus mentioned Christians??? The TF is a forgery. The TF magically fell from the Sky when "The History" of the Jesus cult was composed in writings attributed to Eusebius.

It would seem that Pliny did NOT read the Gospels, heard about the Jesus cult of Christians, did NOT come in contact or Conversed with any Christian.

Pliny's actions of TORTURING the Deaconesses Contradicts the claims in Acts and the Pauline writings that the Jesus cult of Christians were ALREADY known, PREACHED and established WITH CHURCHES around the Roman Empire at least 50-80 YEARS EARLIER.

Toto

My post was in response to Duvduv's suggestion that the 15th century priest Giacondo composed the entire letter.

In the 15th century, a Catholic priest would have no reason to try to establish the mere existence of Christianity in the early 2nd century. A priest would assume that Acts of the Apostles was enough evidence for anyone, so the motive to forge this letter is lacking.

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Since we know that at least one Christian scribe corrected Chrestians to Christians in Tacitus, we may assume that others did the same. From a Christian scribe's point of view, it would be a logical correction.

We also know Christians thought that Chrestos and Chrestians were simply Roman misspellings of the name. For example, Justin Martyr in his First Apology makes a joke out of the common spelling:

The joke really only works if Martyr had said, "for we are accused of being Chrestians, and to hate what is Chrestian is unjust.

In most circumstances regarding early text, it is impossible to tell if Chrestos or Christos was originally used.

Tertullian himself says in his apology (III), But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity."

It is interesting that Tertullian doesn't quite get the contents of Pliny's description right. He says:

Here's the letter as we have it.

Notice that the oath does not mention being "faithful to their religion" or "murder," or "dishonesty' as Tertullian states. He seems to be trying to make the oath somehow match something from the Ten Commandments which it definitely does not.

Also he talks of singing hymns to "Christ and God." This is very different than "Christo quasi deo" - (which is "Christ as if to a God," I believe).

So while Tertullian can be used as evidence for the early existence of the Pliny text, I don't think we can be certain from him if Chrestos or Christos was used in it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

What's wrong with a piece of outside evidence composed to reinforce certain beliefs?
Even in this century it's been done........they invented the story of the babies being removed from incubators in Kuwait by the Iraqis in 1990 when it was a bald faced lie. But it helped their case for the war.....

Toto

In war, the first casualty is truth. There's a pattern to building up a fervor for war by painting the enemy as subhuman.

Can you articulate any particular reason for a 15th century priest to invent a not especially flattering reference to Christianity in the early 2nd century?