Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-22-2012, 11:07 AM

Your post does NOT at all explain the identity of those called Christians in the Pliny letter.

Pliny EXECUTED the Christians but acknowledge that he did NOT know what they believed--this Contradicts your claim that Pliny knew of the Gauis Christos, his followers and his teachings.

Also, in the letter, Pliny TORTURED two Deaconesses to find out the TRUTH--again this suggest that Pliny had NO prior knowledge of the Beliefs of the supposed Christians and that he himself KNEW NOTHING of those supposed cult of Christians.

The Execution and Torture of the supposed Christians by Pliny do suggest that Pliny considered the Christians a REAL SERIOUS threat to Roman Rule.

1. Pliny EXECUTED some of the supposed Christians.

2. Pliny TORTURED two deaconesses.

3. Pliny BOUND the Roman citizens that were Christians and Sent them to Rome for Trial.

4. Pliny HELD the remainder in Custody Pending a response from Trajan.

Pliny's Christians were regarded as Extremely Volatile by Pliny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Nicaea was a leading city in Bithynia. Gauis Cassius Christos was the archpriest in charge of teaching the Bithynians to worship in the Roman style. It is clear that he was someone that Pliny and Trajan would have known about. One can well imagine that the followers of the archpriest Christos would be called Christians.
We can well imagine that there must have been some type of tension in how the Archpriest Christos taught Roman worship in Bithynia and how a Roman like Pliny would have wanted it observed.
The Christians who Pliny talks about in his letter to Trajan are the followers of Archpriest Gauis Cassius Christos.
This explains why Pliny does not have to explain anything about Christos or the Christians. Trajan would have known that they were talking about the recent archpriest Christos and his followers.

How can we be sure that these are the Christians that Pliny are talking about and not the followers of Jesus Christ?

We should note the three conditions that Pliny gives for clearing a Christian.

Quote:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Note that these entail an argument over how the Roman imperial cult should be worshipped.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 08-22-2012, 12:46 PM

Hi aa5874 and all,

The previous archpriest (#1 Priest appointed by Rome for the whole territory) Gauis Cassius Christos would have had followers, who would have been called Christians. One can well imagine that he would have a huge ego and feel that the people of Bithynia should not worship a Roman as a God alone, but a man from Bithynia, like himself. The dispute would have led his followers to abandon the Roman temples.

Naturally Pliny who has been sent as Governor to restore order would

1. execute people
2. torture people
3. Send the Roman citizens who followed Gauis back to Rome for trial.
4. Hold followers of Gaius
5. Consider them volatile.

The key is the timeline, some stopped following Christos 3 years ago and some stopped following him as long as 25 years ago. Christos is associated with the reign of Vespasian (69-79) and Titus (79-81). If Pliny is writing in 111, then 25 years earlier would be about 86. This would place the first break with Gaius in the middle of the reign of Domitian, 81-96. Domitian had exiled the Bithynian orator Dio Chrysostom, forbidding him from ever going to Rome or Bithynia again. This might have caused some kind of tension between the archpriest Christos and Domitian.

The main point is that Pliny does not tie the Christian movement in Bithynia to Judea, Jews or to any other movement. This would suggest a local movement. Since we have an archpriest named Christos shortly before this time, it is entirely possible that the references are to him and his followers.

We know that Bithynia was a troublesome spot for Rome. Before becoming governor there, Pliny defended two ex-Roman governors from charges of corruption (Julius Bassos in 102/103 and Varenos Rufus in 106/107).

Does anybody know anything more about this Archpriest Gaius Cassius Christos?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post does NOT at all explain the identity of those called Christians in the Pliny letter.

Pliny EXECUTED the Christians but acknowledge that he did NOT know what they believed--this Contradicts your claim that Pliny knew of the Gauis Christos, his followers and his teachings.

Also, in the letter, Pliny TORTURED two Deaconesses to find out the TRUTH--again this suggest that Pliny had NO prior knowledge of the Beliefs of the supposed Christians and that he himself KNEW NOTHING of those supposed cult of Christians.

The Execution and Torture of the supposed Christians by Pliny do suggest that Pliny considered the Christians a REAL SERIOUS threat to Roman Rule.

1. Pliny EXECUTED some of the supposed Christians.

2. Pliny TORTURED two deaconesses.

3. Pliny BOUND the Roman citizens that were Christians and Sent them to Rome for Trial.

4. Pliny HELD the remainder in Custody Pending a response from Trajan.

Pliny's Christians were regarded as Extremely Volatile by Pliny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Nicaea was a leading city in Bithynia. Gauis Cassius Christos was the archpriest in charge of teaching the Bithynians to worship in the Roman style. It is clear that he was someone that Pliny and Trajan would have known about. One can well imagine that the followers of the archpriest Christos would be called Christians.
We can well imagine that there must have been some type of tension in how the Archpriest Christos taught Roman worship in Bithynia and how a Roman like Pliny would have wanted it observed.
The Christians who Pliny talks about in his letter to Trajan are the followers of Archpriest Gauis Cassius Christos.
This explains why Pliny does not have to explain anything about Christos or the Christians. Trajan would have known that they were talking about the recent archpriest Christos and his followers.

How can we be sure that these are the Christians that Pliny are talking about and not the followers of Jesus Christ?

We should note the three conditions that Pliny gives for clearing a Christian.

Note that these entail an argument over how the Roman imperial cult should be worshipped.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874 · 08-22-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874 and all,

The previous archpriest (#1 Priest appointed by Rome for the whole territory) Gauis Cassius Christos would have had followers, who would have been called Christians. One can well imagine that he would have a huge ego and feel that the people of Bithynia should not worship a Roman as a God alone, but a man from Bithynia, like himself. The dispute would have led his followers to abandon the Roman temples....

Again, you are merely speculating because there is NO such information at all in the Pliny letter. It is the CONTENTS of the letters that MUST be analyzed NOT what you IMAGINE could have happened.

This is basic.

It is known that people IMAGINE all srts of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

....Naturally Pliny who has been sent as Governor to restore order would

1. execute people
2. torture people
3. Send the Roman citizens who followed Gauis back to Rome for trial.
4. Hold followers of Gaius
5. Consider them volatile...

Again, Pliny did NOT even know if he acted correctly and that is precisely why he wrote the letter.

Pliny, in the letter, is terribly confused about the Christians and NEVER even mentioned their Leader. Surely it would be expected that Pliny would have been extremely interested in Capturing and Executing the LEADER of the Christians.

There is NOTHING about Gasius Christos in the Pliny letter as a KNOWN leader of the Christians.

PhilosopherJay · 08-22-2012, 05:07 PM

Hi aa5874,

We have no evidence that Trajan or Pliny ever heard of anybody named Jesus Christos. The fact that Gaius Cassius Christos was the archpriest of Bithynia means that they must have heard of him. We know that Christos was a major religious figure in Bithynia around this time. We do not know that anybody in Bithynia had ever heard of Jesus Christ. It is simply logical that the reference "They worship Christos as a God" refers to him and not to a non-historical character who probably wasn't invented until well after 111.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874 and all,

The previous archpriest (#1 Priest appointed by Rome for the whole territory) Gauis Cassius Christos would have had followers, who would have been called Christians. One can well imagine that he would have a huge ego and feel that the people of Bithynia should not worship a Roman as a God alone, but a man from Bithynia, like himself. The dispute would have led his followers to abandon the Roman temples....

Again, you are merely speculating because there is NO such information at all in the Pliny letter. It is the CONTENTS of the letters that MUST be analyzed NOT what you IMAGINE could have happened.

This is basic.

It is known that people IMAGINE all srts of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

....Naturally Pliny who has been sent as Governor to restore order would

1. execute people
2. torture people
3. Send the Roman citizens who followed Gauis back to Rome for trial.
4. Hold followers of Gaius
5. Consider them volatile...

Again, Pliny did NOT even know if he acted correctly and that is precisely why he wrote the letter.

Pliny, in the letter, is terribly confused about the Christians and NEVER even mentioned their Leader. Surely it would be expected that Pliny would have been extremely interested in Capturing and Executing the LEADER of the Christians.

There is NOTHING about Gasius Christos in the Pliny letter as a KNOWN leader of the Christians.

Duvduv · 08-22-2012, 05:21 PM

Maybe someone should ask the 15th century priest Giacondo for his opinion on this. After all it was he who "discovered" the Pliny letter that had previously never been known anywhere.......

Toto · 08-22-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...
Does anybody know anything more about this Archpriest Gaius Cassius Christos?

...

Google does not seem to know anything about him, beyond the article you cited. But you have the email address of the author of that article.

PhilosopherJay · 08-22-2012, 09:43 PM

Hi Toto,

Gaius Cassius Christos was part of the Cassius family of Nicaea. It was one of, if not the leading family, in the city. One member of the family was arrested and his family lands confiscated because of his involvement with a conspiracy against Nero in 66 C.E.

This is an unique obelisk dedicated to family member Cassius Philiskos

This is the sarcophagus of Gaius Cassius Christos himself:

In back of the sarcophagus is the City's left gate. The inscription on Nicaea's left gate says it was built through the agency of Gaius Cassius Christos. Other Gates in the City also have his name inscribed. He must have been an extremely important person if he had a number of the city's gates built, gates that are still standing 1900 years later. He apparently also built monuments that included statues of proconsuls who were his friends. This suggests that the archpriest Gaius Cassius Christos was an extremely rich and powerful person. In the context of Bithynia, the expression "they worship Christos as a god" does not seem inappropriate for him.

I came up with this here

from The imperial level for Urban Life and Local Politics in Roman Bithynia, Small World of Dion Chrysostomos URBAN LIFE AND LOCAL POLITICS IN ROMAN BITHYNIA, the small world of Dion Chrysostomos. By Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen. AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS. Aarhus University Press 2008:

Quote:

The Cassii of Nikaia
The first member of this prominent Nikaian family known to us is C. Cassius Asklepiodotos, a wealthy Bithynian who in the aftermath of the Vinician conspiracy (AD 66) was dragged down because of his friendship with Barea Soranus, one of the conspirators. Unlike some of Soranus’ other associates, Cassius Asklepiodotos chose to stand by his friend and was punished with relegation and the confiscation of his estates, but survived to be rehabilitated by Galba.

If he was a near contemporary of Soranus, who was suffect consul in 52, Cassius Asklepiodotos will have been born towards the end of Augustus’ reign or early in that of Tiberius. Beyond his rehabilitation in 68,we know nothing of his further career. In an orchard some five kilometers northwest of Nikaia stands a remarkable monument: from a base nearly three metres in height, an obelisk-like stone spike rises seven metres towards the sky (fig. 22). The “obelisk” itself is triangular in cross-section and constructed of large marble blocks; at least one block is missing, so originally the total height of the monument must have been close to 12m. The base is wide in relation to the obelisk, and squared recesses are cut into its top surface. Corresponding holes are found in the sides of the obelisk itself, to a height of 2.5m above the top of the base(fig. 23). Clearly, the obelisk originally did not stand alone but was flanked by life-sized or larger bronze sculptures, whose hands and feet were fixed to metal cramps in the recesses.On the rear face of the lowest block of the obelisk, one reads that it was raised by “C. Cassius Philiskos, son of C. Cassius Asklepiodotos, having lived 83 years” (fig. 24). Assuming that Nero’s victim was born c. 12, and his son c. 37, Philiskos will have died around the year 120. There is no mention of any municipal offices held by Philiskos himself or his father. We are not well informed about élite funerary practices in Bithynia (though the remains of a large Hellenistic stone sarcophagus found outside the eastern necropolis suggests that Nikaians were not, in general, averse to funerary ostentation). Still, the combination of obelisk and bronze sculpture sets this monument in a class by itself. His extravagant monument leaves no doubt that Cassius was a leading citizen, perhaps the leading citizen of the city; for any others, a monument of this size and character would have been an intolerable display of hybris.

Another Cassius of the first century, C. Cassius Chrestos is known to posterity from the inscriptions in honour of the emperor set up over the north and east gates of the city (fig. 25): “To the emperor and the imperial house andto Nikaia, first city of the province, the proconsul M. Plancius dedicated this through the agency of C. Cassius Chrestos, who set it up”.

Over the arched niches flanking the east gate, two additional inscriptions were found, one “to the patron of the city, the proconsul M. Plancius Varus,[from] his friend C. Cassius Chrestos” and an almost identical one from “his friend Ti. Claudius Quintianus”. Şahin and Merkelbach hypothesized that niches above one or more of the inscriptions may have held a statue of the proconsul. As patron of the city, the proconsul was clearly its benefactor on a major scale; though no inscriptions are preserved, we may take it that heal so paid for the restoration of the west and south gates, and there is other evidence for the proconsul’s generosity elsewhere in the province. As the proconsul’s associate, C. Cassius Chrestos must have been a man of some standing within the community as well. His sarcophagus (fig. 26) which was found in the necropolis outside the east gate, is a plain, unadorned stone box. Its inscription gives his career as follows: “C. Cassius Chrestos, presbys[ambassador],archiereus
and sebastophant, lived 58 years.” In this remarkably terse cursus, none of the traditional municipal offices are mentioned. The three offices that
are named all serve to illustrate Chrestos’ close relation to the ruling power, just as the inscription over the side arch of the gate identifies Chrestos as the proconsul’s “friend”. That he was selected as ambassador shows that Chrestos belongs to the highest level of society, while his allegiance to the emperor is attested by the two imperial priesthoods, whose nature is not quite clear. To be worth mentioning in the epitaph, an archiereus is presumably a priest of the provincial cult, either at the temple in Nikaia (assuming that it was still functioning at this late date) or, more likely,
in Nikomedia. The office of sebastophant may refer to a municipal cult

The offices of Chrestos have apparently been listed not chronologically, but in descending order of social status.The sarcophagus of Chrestos is intriguing in two other respects. The first is that despite his expressed pro-Roman orientation, he had himself inhumed and not cremated. The second is its remarkably modest nature, compared to the often ornate sarcophagi typical of the region. Both are easily explained if his sarcophagus was intended to be placed in a pre-existing family tomb. Şahin and others have suggested that Cassius Chrestos was a son or brother of Asklepiodotos, but when the evidence of their burials is taken into account, it is more likely that they belonged to separate branches of the family.
Chrestos was buried just east of the city, while Philiskos and his relations were presumably interred near his obelisk, some distance northwest of the city but close to a country mansion of his branch of the Nikaian Cassii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...
Does anybody know anything more about this Archpriest Gaius Cassius Christos?

...

Google does not seem to know anything about him, beyond the article you cited. But you have the email address of the author of that article.

PhilosopherJay · 08-22-2012, 10:03 PM

Just to shade in the scenario a little, I would imagine that the situation went something like this. Gaius Cassius Christos was the most powerful priest throughout the province. He was a national hero. He built walls and monuments in the major city of Nicaea. He bribed Roman Proconsuls to allow a lax form of worship of the imperial cult. At least six Roman proconsuls were put on trial for taking bribes during their time in Bithynia around this time. After his death, his followers lost interest in following the Roman religion and started to go back to their own form of worship which Pliny describes. Christos himself became a God to them. For Pliny this was treason and he made them demonstrate their obedience to Roman Gods and the emperor. Trajan is only concerned about the anonymous accusations thing and tells Trajan to just make sure they are faithful to the Roman Gods/religion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Toto · 08-22-2012, 10:12 PM

Does the inscription say Chrestos or Christos?

stephan huller · 08-22-2012, 10:21 PM

This would explain why "Christos" became Christiani in Latin sources and Christianoi in Greek ones. Very, very interesting. Could be a major discovery.

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

08-22-2012, 05:21 PM	#15
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Maybe someone should ask the 15th century priest Giacondo for his opinion on this. After all it was he who "discovered" the Pliny letter that had previously never been known anywhere.......

08-22-2012, 10:03 PM	#18
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Just to shade in the scenario a little, I would imagine that the situation went something like this. Gaius Cassius Christos was the most powerful priest throughout the province. He was a national hero. He built walls and monuments in the major city of Nicaea. He bribed Roman Proconsuls to allow a lax form of worship of the imperial cult. At least six Roman proconsuls were put on trial for taking bribes during their time in Bithynia around this time. After his death, his followers lost interest in following the Roman religion and started to go back to their own form of worship which Pliny describes. Christos himself became a God to them. For Pliny this was treason and he made them demonstrate their obedience to Roman Gods and the emperor. Trajan is only concerned about the anonymous accusations thing and tells Trajan to just make sure they are faithful to the Roman Gods/religion. Warmly, Jay Raskin

08-22-2012, 10:12 PM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Does the inscription say Chrestos or Christos?

08-22-2012, 10:21 PM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This would explain why "Christos" became Christiani in Latin sources and Christianoi in Greek ones. Very, very interesting. Could be a major discovery.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.