Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 05-27-2009, 11:28 AM

What is the 1st valid mention of Christians, Christianity?

There seems to be no mention of Christians or Christianity in the NT until the book of Acts 11:26 "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch"

Quote:

"It is almost universally agreed that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke, see also Luke-Acts. The traditional view is that both books were written c. 60, though most scholars, believing the Gospel to be dependent (at least) on Mark's gospel, view the book(s) as having been written at a later date, sometime between 70 and 100..."

"...Several scholars have argued that Acts used material of both of Josephus' works...which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later...It has also been pointed out that no ancient source actually mentions Acts by name prior to 177"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date

Quote:

"the Muratorian Canon of c. 170 did not contain this, and a number of other General epistles, suggesting they were not yet being read in the Western churches."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_E...rship_and_date

Justin Martyr at around 150 may be the first person outside of the bible to use the word Christian. And there's no valid evidence that Acts or 1 Peter existed before Justin Martyr as well. All of this info may lend weight to the late dating theory of the Gospels too.

andrewcriddle · 05-27-2009, 12:29 PM

Our present texts of Pliny Josephus Suetonius and Tacitus all use the word Christian (or Chrestian in the case of Tacitus).

Few on this forum doubt the authenticity of the Pliny reference, the others are more controversial.

Andrew Criddle

Dave31 · 05-27-2009, 01:18 PM

Which is why I asked for "valid" mentions. There is good reason to be skeptical of Pliny, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus. Josephus is viewed by many as a forgery, in whole or part. There is a question as to whether or not these others references are to "Christiani" or "Chrestiani," because Tacitus, for one - if his passage is even genuine - discusses "Chrestus," not "Christos." Even Pliny's use of "Christiani" is in question and could be a later Christian revision. I have read that Justin Martyr uses the term "Chrestiani" exclusively in the original texts.

I should have qualified, who were the first Christians outside the bible to mention Christians and Christianity? There seems to be no mention of Christians or Christianity by Christians in the NT until the book of Acts 11:26 "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts calls their faith "the Way," not "Christianity." There is no use of the word "Christianity" in the Bible, as far as I could see.

If the book of Acts didn't appear in the historical records until 177, who first labeled them as Christians at Antioch?

Minimalist · 05-27-2009, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Even Pliny's use of "Christiani" is in question and could be a later Christian revision.

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.

Quote:

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.

aa5874 · 05-27-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Our present texts of Pliny Josephus Suetonius and Tacitus all use the word Christian (or Chrestian in the case of Tacitus).

Few on this forum doubt the authenticity of the Pliny reference, the others are more controversial.

Andrew Criddle

Can you give the numbers for those who doubt the authenticity of the Pliny reference on this forum? Did you carry out some kind of poll?

There are major problems with the Pliny letters where he mentioned the word "Christians".

It cannot be explained or it does not make sense for Pliny to have executed people who claimed to be "Christians" and then later write to Trajan for advice on how to treat "Christians" in custody.

Trajan, in Rome, was hundreds of miles away from Pliny's location, perhaps over a thousand miles from Rome by sea. Why execute these so called Christians and then write for advice on trivial matters?

And after executing some Christians, he then used torture to gather more information.

What would have been Pliny's response if Trajan had condemned his execution and torture of the "Christians"?

At the end of the letter Pliny really needs no advice. He has no "Christians" in custody.

1. Pliny has executed all those who maintain they are "Christians".
2. Pliny has sent the Romans who are "Christians" to Rome.
3. Some of the remainder are to be released since they denied they were Christians.
4. The remainder have cursed Christ and worship Roman gods.

The Pliny letters asking for advice on "Christians" make very little sense. They are very likely to have been fabricated.

It would appear that Pliny did not know the difference between "Christians" and most possibly Jews or those who were converting to Judaism

Pliny claims that the "Christian" are buying animals to sacrifice and are going back to long-neglected religous rites and attending the temples.

These "Christians" are really Jews or people who are converting to Judaism.

"Christians" do not sacrifice animals. Jesus Christ died for their sins and Pliny did not know that.

Quote:

........It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and; that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found.......

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

Quote:

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians.

I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.

For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. 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.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

[b]I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. [b]For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and; that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny

Quote:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

The letter from Pliny is most absurd when examined carefully.

mountainman · 05-27-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Which is why I asked for "valid" mentions. There is good reason to be skeptical of Pliny, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus. Josephus is viewed by many as a forgery, in whole or part.

...[rimmed]...

If the book of Acts didn't appear in the historical records until 177, who first labeled them as Christians at Antioch?

Who during the rule of Marcus Aurelius referred to Christians?
Apparently some later interpolator wishes us to infer this may
have been the emperor himself.

The Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' "Christian" reference

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE) is located at Meditations, 11:3. Here is George Long's English translation:

"What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show."

Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations
Hays' endnote for 11.3 says:

"This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians]
is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader;
there is no reason to think Marcus had the Christians in mind here."

Maxwell Staniforth's 1964 translation of Meditations
The translation is as follows:

"Happy the soul which, at whatever moment the call comes for release from the body, is equally ready to face extinction, dispersion, or survival. Such preparedness, however, must be the outcome of its own decision; a decision not prompted by mere contumacy, as with the Christians, * but formed with deliberation and gravity and, if it is to be convincing to others, with an absence of heroics."

The corresponding footnote reads as follows:

* If these words are authentic and not a later insertion,
they are the only reference which Marcus makes to the Christians.
C.R. Haines, however, in the Loeb edition of the Meditations,
points out that the clause is

'outside the construction, and in fact ungrammatical.
It is in the very form of a marginal note,
and has every appearance of being a gloss
foisted into the text.'

This is simply a polite way of saying Marcus
has been interpolated by a later hand.

Its not turtles all the way down.
Its interpolations all the way down.
Down from the door where it began.
If Tolkien is any guide.

Doug Shaver · 05-28-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

What is the 1st valid mention of Christians, Christianity?

In a forum like this, it is impossible to answer that question without starting an argument.

So far as I'm aware, there is no document pertinent to Christian origins that somebody doesn't think is fake or for some other reason doesn't prove whatever most people think it proves.

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

There is a question as to whether or not these others references are to "Christiani" or "Chrestiani," because Tacitus, for one - if his passage is even genuine - discusses "Chrestus," not "Christos."

I think you may be confusing Tacitus with Suetonius. Tacitus has Christus. Suetonius at one point writes of a Chrestus.

Quote:

Even Pliny's use of "Christiani" is in question and could be a later Christian revision.

Pliny is not seriously in question at present; but all things are open to question.

Quote:

I have read that Justin Martyr uses the term "Chrestiani" exclusively in the original texts.

Where did you read this? The Greek text that I have access to has Χριστιανοι, with the expected iota; if that edited Greek text differs from the available manuscripts, I would certainly like to know.

Ben.

aa5874 · 05-28-2009, 08:33 AM

The last paragraph of Pliny's letter to Trajan is extremely problematic, he is not describing "Chriatians" as found in the NT or the church writings, Pliny is clearly describing some superstition that adhere to the Mosaic Laws of sacrifice.

Christins do not sacrifice animals to God

It is Jews or Jewish converts that sacrifice animals to God.
Pliny to Trajan

Quote:

........[b]I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. [b]For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered.

For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.

It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and; that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found.

Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

And further, Pliny never once mentioned the word "Jesus". There is no indication any where in the Pliny letter that there were Jesus believers or stories about Jesus at the time of his writing, early 2nd century.

It is now becoming clear to me that it was Jews or Jewish proselytes that were called "Christians" by outside sources at some time before the Jesus stories were fabricated.

Based on the last paragraph, Pliny's letter has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Jesus believers.

Pliny to Trajan

Quote:

.......It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and; that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found......

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

It would appear then that Justin Martyr was the first to mention Christians that believed in Jesus. According to Justin Martyr there were Christians that believed in Jesus at the time of Simon Barcochebas.

Toto · 05-28-2009, 09:08 AM

Psst - aa5874 - the Jews were not the only religion that sacrificed animals in Temples. It seems pretty clear to me that Pliny is talking about pagans who had been seduced by that weird new cult of Christianity - "but it seems possible to check and cure it" - and the reformed Christians are returning to the old religion and sacrificing to the Roman gods.

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

05-27-2009, 12:29 PM	#2
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Our present texts of Pliny Josephus Suetonius and Tacitus all use the word Christian (or Chrestian in the case of Tacitus). Few on this forum doubt the authenticity of the Pliny reference, the others are more controversial. Andrew Criddle

05-27-2009, 01:18 PM	#3
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	Which is why I asked for "valid" mentions. There is good reason to be skeptical of Pliny, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus. Josephus is viewed by many as a forgery, in whole or part. There is a question as to whether or not these others references are to "Christiani" or "Chrestiani," because Tacitus, for one - if his passage is even genuine - discusses "Chrestus," not "Christos." Even Pliny's use of "Christiani" is in question and could be a later Christian revision. I have read that Justin Martyr uses the term "Chrestiani" exclusively in the original texts. I should have qualified, who were the first Christians outside the bible to mention Christians and Christianity? There seems to be no mention of Christians or Christianity by Christians in the NT until the book of Acts 11:26 "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts calls their faith "the Way," not "Christianity." There is no use of the word "Christianity" in the Bible, as far as I could see. If the book of Acts didn't appear in the historical records until 177, who first labeled them as Christians at Antioch?

05-28-2009, 09:08 AM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Psst - aa5874 - the Jews were not the only religion that sacrificed animals in Temples. It seems pretty clear to me that Pliny is talking about pagans who had been seduced by that weird new cult of Christianity - "but it seems possible to check and cure it" - and the reformed Christians are returning to the old religion and sacrificing to the Roman gods.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.