Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 08-15-2011, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Therefore if you were to ask my opinion on this OP it would be that, unless further evidence is produced, Pliny's Christians were active no earlier than the 15th century.

So, if a manuscript reports a certain event, then that event, absent further evidence, must have happened no earlier than the century in which the manuscript was discovered.

Is that how you do history in general? Or do you use this method only for manuscripts containing material inconsistent with your hypothesis about Christianity's origins?

andrewcriddle · 08-15-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Thus implies that Pliny's Christians refused to carry out Emperor worship and worship of the Pagan Gods.

However, later in the letter Pliny makes it clear that they did exactly that.

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.

They were denying their faith (or past faith) in order not to be killed.

Maybe I was unclear.

Although some of those accused of being Christians backed down to avoid death, 'real' Christians according to Pliny will not worship the Emperor etc no matter what the consequences.

Some of those accused did in fact refuse to compromise and paid the penalty.

Quote:

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

Andrew Criddle

judge · 08-15-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

3. The practitioners got up before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Either this represents a cult that had nothing to do with Christianity

So, a cult that had nothing to do with christianity might rise early to sing hymns to christ?

mountainman · 08-15-2011, 09:14 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Thank you for disagreeing with me on this specific issue - namely the question of the authenticity of the Pliny, Letters 10.96-97.

Your response serves to indicate that there is indeed a range or a spectrum of assessment which has been taken, and is currently been taken, with respect to the question of the authenticity of this letter exchange between Pliny and Trajan. I may have been guilty of overstating my personal opinion and understating the range of opinion of others in this matter.

I might be wrong but it seems to me that most academics and scholars accept the genuineness and authenticity of the PJ letter exchange. It is an item of evidence that on the surface does not appear to be suspicious, even though it appeared very late in the history. If genuine it offers a unique.glimpse of a number of facets of the "Christians" and/or "Chrestians", of the modus operandi of the early 2nd century imperial Inquisition and Persecution against this sect or sects. It also appears to confirm the 4th century stories of the Christian martyrs and deaconesses.

Not all academics and scholars accept the genuineness and authenticity of the PJ letter exchange. For example,
Arthur Drews:

Quote:

Of the younger Pliny it is hardly necessary to speak further in this connection. He was dragged into the discussion of the “Christ-myth” at a late stage, merely to enlarge the list of witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. No one seriously believes that any such evidence is found in Pliny.[1] In his correspondence with the Emperor Trajan, which is believed to have taken place about the year 113, and which is occupied with the question how Pliny, as Proconsul of the province of Bithynia in Asia Minor, was to behave in regard to the Christians, he informs the Emperor that the adherents of the sect sing hymns to Christ at daybreak “as if he were a god (quasi deo).” What this proves as regards the historical reality of the man Christ we should be pleased to have rationally explained.[2] What has been said on the subject up to the present is merely frivolous, adapted only to an utterly thoughtless circle of readers or hearers.

[1] It is characteristic of the tactics of our opponents that certain Catholic writers have begun to appeal to Porphyry, the Neoplatonic philosopher, who lived 232-304 A.D. He wrote many works against Christianity, which we know only indirectly from the refutations of Methodius and Eusebius. No one can say precisely what they contained, as the Emperor Theodosius II. prudently ordered them to be burned in public in the year 435. What does that matter to the theologian as long as he can bring one more name into the field?

[2] 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 favourable 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, Aubé (Histoire des Persecutions de l'Église, 1875, p. 215, etc.), Havet (Le Christianisme et ses Origines, 1884, iv, 8), and Hochart (Études au Sujet de la Persecution des Chretiens sous Neron, 1885, pp. 79-143; compare also Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Cäsaren, 1877, p. 268, etc., and the anonymously published work of Edwin Johnson, Antiqua Mater, 1887), which have disputed its authenticity, either as a whole or in material points.

What I would like to do is to merely point out that that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of the PJ Letter exchange should not be assumed without some reservations, yet these reservations are rarely if ever presented in the balance of the discussion. The dominant paradigm appears to be that these letters are genuine, whereas imo I find this case "not proven". Their genuiness and authenticity cannot be proven. In the same breath, their forgery and fabrication also cannot be proven. Where does this leave us? More questions .....

I have interspersed some off the cuff answers below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

Actually, I think the fact that nobody mentioned this until the 15th Century is a point in favor of its authenticity. Usually, one does a forgery to make some kind of point. If nobody picks up on your point, why do it?

Money, power, influence, organized crime? The motivations for forgery are diverse.

Quote:

Nobody in the 15th century doubted the existence of Christians in the time of Pliny.

How do we really know what people thought prior to and during the 15th century inquisitions persecutions (and following) of the church?

Quote:

It is hard to imagine what point the writer would be trying to make.

Drews suggests the church wished to enlarge the list of witnesses to the historicity of Jesus and the "Chrestians" and/or "Christians".

Quote:

Did anyone really care that Pliny invested an outbreak of Christian superstition in the beginning of the second century.

The fact that the document records the inquisition of people by the rulers, accompanied by torture, fits right in to the 15th century inquisition. The document in a sense mirrors, and partly attempts to justify the hegemon of Roman rule. We already know Trajan was a brutal warlord, and that he was considered to be one of the "Good" emperors. They had a job to do in those days.

Quote:

This was never mentioned in any kind of debate previously, so if it was a 4th century document, it certainly failed because nobody took any notice of it.
Even postulating a propaganda war between gnostics and orthodoxy in the 4th century, it is hard to know who would put this out. It doesn't really say what group these Christians believed in.

According to Drews footnotes, he seems to suggest it was 15th century propaganda.

Quote:

Eusebius wants to prove that Jesus was not an evil Jewish magician, so the TF makes perfect sense as a forgery. Eusebius has the Jewish historian Josephus testifies that his followers were good Greeks and Jews and stuck with him after his death makes sense. He is arguing that evil doesn't last.

Do you have any thoughts about who and why someone would want people to believe there was an obscure sect of people in the Roman province of Bithynia who got up before dawn to sang hymns to someone/thing called Christ/Chrest whom they worshipped as a God? As a forgery, it doesn't make sense to me.

I have not studied the history of the inquisition of the church authority in the middle ages and beyond, neither the political history of the church and the nations in this age around the 15th century, in which the manuscripts of Tacitus also first suddenly appear. I am suspicious that these manuscripts may have entered the tradition as late forgeries, but that I have no proof of such pious forgery, other than the allusions to it above by Drews.

If the letters are Genuine .....

If the PJ letter exchange is authentic and genuine then the question were Pliny's Christians Proto-Gnostics becomes significant. Perhaps the Proto-Gnostics were the "Chrestians"? How do we differentiate the canonical book-following christians from the non canonical book following christians (or "Chrestians")?

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It was discovered by a true Renaissance man - Giovanni Giocondo is mainly noted as an architect. Do you have any reason to claim that his discovery of this manuscript was a supporting document for some claim, or is that just idle speculation on your part?

It is no idle speculation on my part that academics and scholars (such as Philosopher Jay and many others) cite the Pliny letter as a claim for evidence in support of the history of the christians during the 2nd century. My point again is that no other source before the 15th century mentions this Pliny Letter - we have 14 centuries of silence on the evidence before it is discovered. How do the academics and scholars explain this silence? But the major problem is the missing manuscript itself - it apparently NO LONGER EXISTS.

Quote:

History Hunters International only seems concerned with whether the group were Christians or Chrestians.

That article points out that the MISSING MANUSCRIPT if found and examined might denote the existence of Chrestians and not Christians - on the basis of what appears to be systematic evdience from antiquity whereby the two different terms have been purposefully conflated and mixed.

At the end of the day, if I ask for the manuscript evidence underlying the 15th century discoverfy to be put on the table to be examined, there is nobody on this planet who is able to do this. We have to be consistent in our examination of the evidence. The Pliny Letter is too late - 14 centuries too late. The way I see it at the moment is that the academics and scholars are not refering to the manuscript evidence when they cite the Plinly Letter (because this evidence does not exist!) - they are in fact referring to their faith in the possibility that the original letter existed in the 2nd century, as claimed from 15th century reports. In doing historical research we need to stay with the evidence itself, not faith in the evidence.

mountainman · 08-15-2011, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

3. The practitioners got up before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Either this represents a cult that had nothing to do with Christianity

So, a cult that had nothing to do with christianity might rise early to sing hymns to christ?

Or "Chrest".

mountainman · 08-15-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Therefore if you were to ask my opinion on this OP it would be that, unless further evidence is produced, Pliny's Christians were active no earlier than the 15th century.

So, if a manuscript reports a certain event, then that event, absent further evidence,
must have happened no earlier than the century in which the manuscript was discovered.

Is that how you do history in general? Or do you use this method only for manuscripts
containing material inconsistent with your hypothesis about Christianity's origins?

Hi Doug,

Thanks very much for your response. I may have never stated this before, but while I am deeply suspicious of the historical integrity of the "Universal Christian Churches" how "I do history in general" is by following the guidelines set by ancient historians.
I have often quote Arnaldo Momigliano as follows:

Quote:

Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

SOURCE

Therefore I am prepared to add that my opinion of pious forgery is 'not proven'. However on the other foot, the case for the genuineness and authenticity of the Pliny-Trajan letter exchange is also 'not proven'.

hypothesis about Christianity's origins

The same applies to my hypothesis about christian origins.

The mainstream theory is 'not proven'.
My alternative theory is 'not proven'.
The evidence at present is insufficient (for both).

I am sorry if I have in the past projected a tone contrary to these statements
and/or have omitted these over-riding disclaimers from my "in my opinions".

I would have replied to this in a more appropriate thread, but it is locked for review.

Best wishes

Pete

Toto · 08-15-2011, 09:59 PM

Drews' main point is that the correspondence, even if valid, does nothing to support the existence of a historical Jesus.

One would think that if a forger wanted to support the idea of a historical Jesus, he could have forged a letter that actually mentioned Jesus.

aa5874 · 08-16-2011, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Drews' main point is that the correspondence, even if valid, does nothing to support the existence of a historical Jesus.

One would think that if a forger wanted to support the idea of a historical Jesus, he could have forged a letter that actually mentioned Jesus.

Why must you assume a forger wanted to support the idea of an historical Jesus when the forger may have only wanted to show, falsely, that there were people called Christians who worshiped Christ as God in Bythnia?

The historical Jesus is considered Heresy and Christian writers of antiquity wrote MANY books against Heretics who claimed Jesus was an ordinary man.

It is not very likely that the forger was an HJer but a Christian who BELIEVED Christ was God and that there were Christians who worshiped Christ as God which is EXACTLY what is found in the Pliny letter.

The writings of Justin Martyr contradict the Pliny letter about Christians since it would appear that up to the middle of the 2nd century that neither the Emperor of Rome, the Roman Senate and Roman people were AWARE of Christians who worshiped a character called Christ as God.

The Pliny letter to Trajan about Christians is likely to be a forgery.

Doug Shaver · 08-16-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Therefore I am prepared to add that my opinion of pious forgery is 'not proven'. However on the other foot, the case for the genuineness and authenticity of the Pliny-Trajan letter exchange is also 'not proven'.

If you are referring to proof in anything like a mathematical sense, then I would agree with your apparent claim that there is some kind of parity between your hypothesis and the mainstream position.

But if we're talking about proof in any sense useful to a discussion of history, then I could not agree less that your position is on anything like an equal footing with conventional scholarship.

James_M · 08-16-2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Pliny states

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.

Thus implies that Pliny's Christians refused to carry out Emperor worship and worship of the Pagan Gods.

This refusal seems to have been more characteristic of (proto-)Orthodox Christians than Gnostics, hence the Christians involved were probably not Gnostics.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew.

I have to disagree with your first assertion that Pliny's Christians refused. The way I read it(and that assumes this is an accurate translation), Pliny is saying that he has heard from some source that Christians usually cannot be forced to do the emperor worship("it is said that...") but that he is contrasting that with these particular Christians who did. Thus his statement that he pardoned them.

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

08-15-2011, 09:59 PM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Drews' main point is that the correspondence, even if valid, does nothing to support the existence of a historical Jesus. One would think that if a forger wanted to support the idea of a historical Jesus, he could have forged a letter that actually mentioned Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.