Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gregg · 03-23-2007, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

I would tend to agree that the fact of the crucifixion, as you've described it, would have been of interest to the Roman authority. If Christ had been crucified by a Roman authority (and as a political rebel), I don’t think that the average pagan need have known or cared about that, but I think the Roman authority would know it.

So how strong is your expectation that Pliny would have told Trajan about this fact -- about a fact that the Roman authorities already knew?

Think about it. If Doherty is correct, and the HJ is a new idea in Pliny’s time, then Pliny might very well be informing the emperor of this new story, especially if the story was starting in his province – though in Doherty’s model, actually, it was not. It was spreading throughout the province of Asia to the west, as far as Rome. Tacitus, per Doherty, heard about it either in Asia or in Rome. It was right under the Emperor’s nose. Is it likely that a governor in faraway Bithynia is going to be the first to tell him about it?

I don’t think so. It looks like Pliny is the last one in a position to give Trajan any new information about Christian origins. He’s never even participated in past interrogations. He’s simply trying to find out for himself what punishable practices there are, and he can find only Christians who protest that their only offenses are perfectly benign things.

This is why I think that Doherty is not systematically comparing two scenarios, but merely working with the assumptions of his own model, when he sets up the expectation that Pliny would surely have INFORMED the emperor of a relevant fact (I recall something to that effect in his book, which I don't have on me). We don’t know it was new; that's the question to be decided. Under the HJ model, it was of course not new, and I think a strong case can be made that the fact (or story) of Christ’s execution would have been known to the Roman emperors sooner and more surely than it would have been known to a new governor in outlying Bithynia.

I for one have no strong expectation that Pliny would have mentioned a fact for which he had no new information, and waste his Emperor's time (or insult his intelligence) by MERELY mentioning it. The specific practices described in the letter, though, are worth mentioning, because it's not likely that the Emperor had enough interest in Christianity to know those things himself, and they make it look as if Pliny has done his homework. Conversely, mentioning the basic fact of the crucifixion without new information about it might look like he's saying that he's just now learning the most basic fact of all.

Pliny's letter indicates that Christians regarded Trajan's ban on political associations as a threat to them, which suggests that the authorities regarded Christianity as a political threat. This fits in with a model in which the Roman authorities -- not the public, but the authorities -- have heard about Christianity beginning in political sedition in Judea. The letter calls Christianity (recent) superstitio, which again fits a model in which the sect is based on recent events. It doesn't exclude mythicism, of course, since the Romans may have simply seen that the sect itself was new (although surely new sects formed all the time in the cultural religious soup, didn't they?), and that its apocalypticism and social criticisms were threatening.

I agree with you, Gregg, that Pliny's evidence is ambiguous. My problem is how Doherty can be certain that Pliny's Christians know of no historical founder.

Kevin

Kevin, I just don't think the above explanation of Pliny meets the test of Occams' Razor. Trajan in his reply doesn't show any signs of knowing much more about Christianity or Christian origins than Pliny does. Pliny seems to be doing his due diligence and reporting everything he knows. I don't see any reason to read any more than that into the exchange.

Your explanation also points up two other problems with historicism:

Problem 1. Some historicists claim that Jesus was rather obscure and was caught and executed quickly before he amounted to much of anything. In that case, it's unlikely any Roman emperor heard anything about it, or that he would remember it if he had ... scores upon scores of crucifixions were being performed all over the Empire all the time.

But if Jesus said and did nothing of note before being executed, why would anyone have thought he was the incarnate Christ? Remember, the earliest Christian writings describe the Christ as a pre-existent divine being (according to the hymn in Philippians, the Christ wasn't even called Jesus until after his crucifixion). Was there a group of Jewish mystics who were expecting the Christ to come to Earth as an obscure, humble nobody (who was nevertheless a descendant of David) to get crucified, and lo and behold, someone came along and fit the bill? Why this particular crucified Jewish man and not another? How were Gentiles persuaded, apparently through scripture alone, that this unknown crucified Jewish man who said and did nothing of note was the incarnate Christ? Was all persuasive information about Jesus passed along solely by oral transmission, with none of it slipping into written correspondence? Or did Christians just happen to preserve only those letters that didn't give any historical information?

Problem 2. You propose a Jesus the Roman emperors themselves knew about. But a Jesus the Roman emperors knew about would have had to do something to warrant that kind of notice. That means we would expect more independent testimony to his existence from Romans and Jews alike. It also makes it stranger that Christians immediately lost all interest in his earthly life, words, and actions, at least as far as writing about them was concerned. But, again, we have the very earliest Christians writing (and possibly singing) about Jesus as a divine being that "humbled himself" by taking on human likeness and form (of course, you understand the MJ thesis holds that this does not refer to an actual birth in actual flesh). Nothing whatsoever preserved that indicates Jesus was a highly influential person in his lifetime.

(G'Don says this is because Paul was adhering to certain writing conventions and intentionally writing about Jesus in a manner that disconnected him from time, place, and history. But it taxes the imagination to think that Paul and every other epistle writer would carefully craft each and every one of their letters, which were prepared in response to questions and issues and challenges within various Christian communities, to avoid any mention of Jesus' life and ministry.)

Gregg · 03-23-2007, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

But he doesn't call Christ a god.

I didn't say he did. I said he took a dim view of their "god." Note the quotation marks. Pliny might have acknowledged and respected most non-Roman gods, but it could be his dislike of the Christians was such that he refused to acknowledge the deity of Christ and this was his way of showing his disdain for the Christian "god," by not even calling it a god.

As an aside, it's kind of strange that Pliny seems to be saying it was the Christians who said they sing hymns to Christ as if to a god. But probably we should read this as Pliny's commentary one what the Christians said, not as exactly what the Christians actually said, and imagine a comma or parentheses in there: "They said they sang hymns to Christ (as if he were a god)."

Quote:

Usually the administrators act under the influence of the emperor. But regardless, Pliny is famous for being super tolerant - always praising even the worst Roman authors as at least containing some good quality. The Christians are causing trouble, however, so why should he do anything good about them? But cracking down on Christians doesn't make him a "fundamentalist".

I didn't say cracking down on Christians made him a fundamentalist. I said he sounded like quite the fundamentalist in this letter, with all his emphasis on right and proper belief and practice. I guess I'm just not being very clear. I mean, when I write "Pliny," you read "Trajan." :-)

Gregg · 03-23-2007, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I think you're right - Tacitus in his Annales writes that Christ was crucified by Pilate, and Pliny and Tacitus maintained close correspondance - even jointly prosecuting Marius Priscus, ex-proconsul of Asia Minor, in 100.

As mentioned in my longer post just above, this raises a different problem. If the Romans already knew all about Jesus so Pliny had no reason to repeat things he knew they already knew, even if he didn't know these things himself (and Trajan doesn't bother to fill him in--"My dear Pliny, I gathered from your last letter that you don't really know what these Christians believe and worship ..."), then it's reasonable to expect we could find some independent testimony to Jesus' existence. Jesus would have had to *do something* to get noticed and be remembered.

Again, we have all this dancing around the subject of the letters because "everybody already knew all that." Only in this case, Tacitus may or may not know, or maybe he just knows the Christ was some man, but he does know that Trajan knows everything, but Trajan ain't tellin'. Nice of him to not give his man information that could help him do his job.

As for Tacitus, we have no evidence that he obtained his knowledge of Jesus being crucified by Pilate from any source other than gospel-believing Christians themselves.

Gregg · 03-23-2007, 03:42 AM

Quote:

In the letter, Pliny is only describing their practices - a specific practice of worship, to be precise. Simply put, there's nothing at all which would make us assume that Pliny would tell Trajan about their "apocalyptic" beliefs, since he doesn't mention beliefs, nor about the nature of Christ's death. Those who argue that Pliny would should provide some actual justification for their argument.

He does indeed "mention" beliefs, if only in passing. He interrogated and tortured two "deaconesses" and "discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition." Sounds like they told him something about their beliefs.

And "justification" for Pliny mentioning such things if he knew about them? Well, Rome had fought an extremely bloody and costly war with the Jews. A spreading religion with some Jewish roots, based on the worship of a Jewish man crucified for sedition, and talking about the soon-coming end of the world--I should think Pliny would find this important enough to mention. But because Pliny doesn't mention it, and Trajan doesn't mention it, apparently we are to infer that Pliny doesn't know, and Trajan knows but doesn't tell.

I think the simpler explanation is that the problem the Romans had with Christians was their Jewish-like refusal to even nominally worship the Roman gods and the Emperor, "out of keeping with the spirit of the age" (especially after the bitter and brutal war with the Jews), and Pliny, showing a Josephus-like distaste for people he saw as upsetting social order, refuses to even acknowledge their god as a god, saying they sing hymns to Christ "as if" he were a god.

(There are other possibilities as well ... Pliny might not have been showing disrespect, but being unfamiliar with the sect he might not have realized they weren't named after a human founder, so he actually did think Christ was a man. Or, he may have been unfamiliar with the "Christ" god in the first place, and was just saying "they sing hymns to Christ as if he were a god" leaving unspoken "so that would seem to be their god." True, "they sing hymns to their god, which they call Christ" is more what you'd expect, but the point is that Pliny knowing Christ was a man isn't the only explanation for his phrasing.)

Kevin argues that maybe the "rank and file" Christians like these deaconesses didn't even know that "Christ" was executed for sedition. OK, they're worshipping some man as a god and they don't have a clue who he is, not even the deaconesses. Wait, what happened to the oral tradition, by which everyone already knew what they needed to know about Jesus' life and ministry so there was no need for Paul or the other epistle writers to say anything?

GakuseiDon · 03-23-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

G'Don says this is because Paul was adhering to certain writing conventions and intentionally writing about Jesus in a manner that disconnected him from time, place, and history. But it taxes the imagination to think that Paul and every other epistle writer would carefully craft each and every one of their letters, which were prepared in response to questions and issues and challenges within various Christian communities, to avoid any mention of Jesus' life and ministry.

Paul refers to an earthly Jesus, which is enough to refute Doherty IMHO. The question of why he doesn't refer to more Gospel details is secondary to that.

But let's take a look at Ignatius. This is what Doherty says:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/partthre.htm

How could Ignatius (around 107), so eager to convince his readers that Jesus had indeed been born of Mary and died under Pilate, that he had truly been a human man who suffered, how could he have failed to appeal to some Gospel account as verification of all this if he had known one?

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/partone.htm

Ignatius... himself seems curiously unaware of any of Jesus' teachings

So, for Doherty at least, a person could be a historicist and still know few Gospel details of a historical Jesus. Why then would you be surprised that Paul would know few details about a Gospel Jesus, when we have the example of Ignatius before us? (I would argue that Paul knows that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem in the near past, based on those letters that are considered genuine to Paul)

In your opinion, how could a known historicist like Ignatius have failed to appeal to some Gospel account as verification if he had known one? And for whatever reason you come up with for Ignatius, how does it NOT apply to Paul? (Think of it in terms of Kevin's OP -- what kind of Christianity is being proposed here?)

Chris Weimer · 03-23-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

But if Jesus said and did nothing of note before being executed, why would anyone have thought he was the incarnate Christ?

Have you already forgotten about David Koresh?

Quote:

I didn't say he did. I said he took a dim view of their "god." Note the quotation marks. Pliny might have acknowledged and respected most non-Roman gods, but it could be his dislike of the Christians was such that he refused to acknowledge the deity of Christ and this was his way of showing his disdain for the Christian "god," by not even calling it a god.

But that's just it - his letter reads impassively - he doesn't sound like he "hates" the Chrsitians and thus not even calling their god a god.

And besides, that's just an ad hoc explanation, and circular at that. You've presented no evidence that Pliny indeed is refusing to call their "god" a god.

And why would other writers, more fundamentalist than Pliny, talk about the God of the Christians? Your reason is totally baseless.

Quote:

I didn't say cracking down on Christians made him a fundamentalist. I said he sounded like quite the fundamentalist in this letter, with all his emphasis on right and proper belief and practice.

Please elucidate us on how doing things right makes one a fundamentalist?

krosero · 03-23-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Having gone over Pliny's letters to Trajan, I find nothing in them which is indicative of Pliny needing to inform Trajan of the practices of the Christians. Letters to Trajan fall under these categories:

1) Requesting a favor (usually a recommendation for a friend)
2) Matters concerning slaves
3) Monetary matters (such as building projects)
4) Itinerary plans
5) Foreign relations
6) Public services (such as firefighting)
7) Punishment in difficult situations
8) Laudatory letters for the Emperor
9) Matters concernign citizenship (return from exile, foreign slaves becoming citizens)
10) Military Matters

I stopped once I got to 97, the letter in question, but quickly skimmed the rest. The letter falls under #7 - he is asking Trajan about the proper method's of punishment. He's done this before in the same manner - he doesn't go into detail, but gives the basic overview for Trajan.

In the letter, Pliny is only describing their practices - a specific practice of worship, to be precise. Simply put, there's nothing at all which would make us assume that Pliny would tell Trajan about their "apocalyptic" beliefs, since he doesn't mention beliefs, nor about the nature of Christ's death. Those who argue that Pliny would should provide some actual justification for their argument.

Thanks for the effort and the summary of the letters, particularly for the link to a certain class of letters seeking advice about punishment. That is clearly what Pliny is after in our letter.

Chris, IYO, why did the the Romans regard Christianity as a political association?

Chris Weimer · 03-23-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

If the Romans already knew all about Jesus so Pliny had no reason to repeat things he knew they already knew, even if he didn't know these things himself (and Trajan doesn't bother to fill him in--"My dear Pliny, I gathered from your last letter that you don't really know what these Christians believe and worship ..."), then it's reasonable to expect we could find some independent testimony to Jesus' existence. Jesus would have had to *do something* to get noticed and be remembered.

Jesus' existence? I thought we were debating whether Pliny's Christians thought Jesus was historical. Why the sudden change?

Quote:

Again, we have all this dancing around the subject of the letters because "everybody already knew all that." Only in this case, Tacitus may or may not know, or maybe he just knows the Christ was some man, but he does know that Trajan knows everything, but Trajan ain't tellin'. Nice of him to not give his man information that could help him do his job.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Quote:

As for Tacitus, we have no evidence that he obtained his knowledge of Jesus being crucified by Pilate from any source other than gospel-believing Christians themselves.

Actually, there's evidence that he got his source from Josephus, who also lent his source to Luke. Look up on the mini-synoptic. The last I heard about the problem, Ken Olson was going to deliver a refutation, but I haven't seen anything yet. Nothing is for fact, but it's evidence nonetheless.

But to the point, so what? Tacitus still reports of Jesus as a man crucified under Pilate. That means that the Christians that Tacitus knew thought Christ was crucified under Pilate - Tacitus and Pliny also exchange correspondance and remain good friends, and finally Tacitus is also an important member of the upper Roman class, having been consul. It doesn't leave any room for Doherty's "mythicist" Christians.

krosero · 03-23-2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Kevin argues that maybe the "rank and file" Christians like these deaconesses didn't even know that "Christ" was executed for sedition. OK, they're worshipping some man as a god and they don't have a clue who he is, not even the deaconesses. Wait, what happened to the oral tradition, by which everyone already knew what they needed to know about Jesus' life and ministry so there was no need for Paul or the other epistle writers to say anything?

I don't know how you could get that from what I wrote. That would make me a kind of mythicist. I said that "the Roman authorities -- not the public, but the authorities -- have heard about Christianity beginning in political sedition in Judea," and elsewhere I speculated about the "average pagan" being ignorant of Christianity beginning in sedition. No one familiar with my posts, or the OP, should have made the mistake you did.

Gregg, I would much rather you finished my OP first, before getting into a long discussion like this, about Pliny and about Doherty's argument from silence. A lot of what you wrote in reply this morning was essentially just restating Doherty's argument from silence, so it also seemed disengaged from the specific points I made, but I'll have a reply for you later and I'll explain.

Please read my posts carefully, and if you have a suggestion for how I could be clearer, by all means, I'll listen.

Chris Weimer · 03-23-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

He does indeed "mention" beliefs, if only in passing. He interrogated and tortured two "deaconesses" and "discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition." Sounds like they told him something about their beliefs.

But there's nothing there that would force Pliny to talk about either Pilate or apocalypticism.

Quote:

And "justification" for Pliny mentioning such things if he knew about them? Well, Rome had fought an extremely bloody and costly war with the Jews. A spreading religion with some Jewish roots, based on the worship of a Jewish man crucified for sedition, and talking about the soon-coming end of the world--I should think Pliny would find this important enough to mention. But because Pliny doesn't mention it, and Trajan doesn't mention it, apparently we are to infer that Pliny doesn't know, and Trajan knows but doesn't tell.

I don't think you've made a compelling case that Pliny should have mentioned it, especially if he dismisses the ideas as "depraved and excessive superstition".

Quote:

I think the simpler explanation is that the problem the Romans had with Christians was their Jewish-like refusal to even nominally worship the Roman gods and the Emperor, "out of keeping with the spirit of the age" (especially after the bitter and brutal war with the Jews), and Pliny, showing a Josephus-like distaste for people he saw as upsetting social order, refuses to even acknowledge their god as a god, saying they sing hymns to Christ "as if" he were a god.

But you don't have any evidence for this at all. Your case that Pliny would have told him such things, especially if it was already known, as I have shown it would be, and especially if Pliny doesn't care too much for it, or thinks it to be "excessive" - there's no compelling reason for this correspondance.

Have you looked at Pliny's letters? There's nothing characteristic about Pliny which would make him, with his official correspondance with Trajan, tell about what happened.

Quote:

Kevin argues that maybe the "rank and file" Christians like these deaconesses didn't even know that "Christ" was executed for sedition. OK, they're worshipping some man as a god and they don't have a clue who he is, not even the deaconesses.

Oh come on - the deaconnesses "ministrae" were house-hold slaves.

Quote:

Wait, what happened to the oral tradition, by which everyone already knew what they needed to know about Jesus' life and ministry so there was no need for Paul or the other epistle writers to say anything?

For whom? Everything is not the same.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.