SkepticBoyLee

Does anyone have these sources?


some time ago there was an interesting thread with accounts of rebel rousing, mischievous that begged to be killed despite the fact that Roman officials did not want to do the deed.

I am interested in good, unbiased (as can be) sources of Christian rebel rousing and specifically the ones who begged to be martyred.

DNAReplicator

Don't know about "begging to be martyred", or rabble rousing, but it would appear that there were some early Christians who chose to be martyred by Roman officials. Not that the Roman officials seemed to have a problem with obliging...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html

Although I am sure many here will disagree, I think that Pliny is the first credible non-Christian reference to Christianity. And while later interpolation of Pliny cannot be ruled out, the extremely negative description of Christians by Pliny and Trajan in the letters does not really fit this explanation.

Toto

Supposedly, Ignatius wanted to be martyred, based on his letters.

aa5874

Pliny did NOT mention anything about JESUS and there were Christians who did NOT believe in JESUS since the days of the Emperor Claudius, or as much as 70 years BEFORE the Pliny letters.

The mention of "Christians" in antiquity did NOT inherently mean JESUS believers.

This is found in the writings of Justin Martyr "First Apology"VII

Up to the middle of the 2nd century being called a Christian did not mean you believed in JESUS.

Now, it is interesting to note that the Jesus of the Synoptics did NOT really want to be or was initially UNWILLING to be martyred, it seems he was "pressured" by his Father the God of the Jews.

Mr 14:36 - But, in gJohn, Jesus pleaded with his Father, the God of the Jews, to have him GLORIFIED. The Johanine Jesus is ANXIOUS to be martyred.

John 17:1-5 -

DCHindley

There are two places I'd recommend you look.

One is the accounts of the trials of early christian martyrs. These were often based on actual trial transcripts that Christians obtained on the black market. In several cases the judges told the accused parties point blank they would be spared if they agreed to sacrifice to the genius of Caesar. They always said "thanks but no thanks" and recommended that the judge do what he had to, as a better reward awaited them if they remained faithful. The judge would comply, and there was then long accounts of the cruel tortures that were applied to get them to recant and sacrifice, getting progressively more gruesom, until the point came that it wouldn't help them if the did sacrifice, as they were destines to die of their wounds.

The other place is in discussions about the sect of Montanists in secondary literature. These folks were not content to wait for someone to denounce them and let the authorities arrest them first, but these were sometimes actually taunting the authories to arrest them. A few, perhaps fearing they might recant under torture, defiantly flung themselves off of cliffs to their deaths. The orthodox seem to have felt that these folks were going too far by seeking out martyrdom or commiting suicide like that. Generally, the few accounts of this extremism are collected together by the schoplars who wrote about it.

DCH

mountainman

The singular and earliest source for this literary material is of course Eusebius of Caesarea. See for example Eusebius of Caesarea: The History of the Martyrs in Palestine (1861). Translated by William Cureton.

See also Diocletian's persecution of the Manichaeans in the eastern empire, since it is likley that, if the accounts of Eusebius are simple fables, then they were floated at an epoch during which a minority non Roman sect had recently been "heavily persecuted" by the burning of the people and their books.


See some of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

DCHindley

I think I found just what you were looking for:

The Montanists deviated by expressing that sins could not be forgiven, they changed the length of fasts, discouraged marriage and had second marriages forbidden. Martyrdom was elevated to the highest of piety, it was deemed illegal to avoid or flee from the fate of dying for one's faith, in reality, the faithful were urged to seek persecution.

Martyrdom was linked with certain values, as one would be forgiven all one's ins and go directly to Paradise. In order to achieve martyrdom, it is reported that many followers committed immoral acts and having sex in public, but this is doubtful. More believable is the accounts of 2nd century Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius on Montanists throwing themselves into gladiatorial arenas voluntarily, shouting "Kill me, for I am a Christian!"

http://i-cias.com/e.o/montanism.htm

I cannot verify that last one. In his Meditations, book 11, he says

"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."

That is hardly as dramatic, though.

Perhaps the web page is really refering to the Acts of Carpus, Papylus and Agathonice, believed to have occurred in Marcus Aurelius' reign.

DCH

mountainman

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.'

These are simply two a polite ways of saying Marcus
has been interpolated by a later hand.

My opinion is that Marcus Aurelius was not aware of any "Christians" at all.

Huon

Source :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/carpus.html
The short version can be read here :
http://pietist.blogspot.com/2007/10/...pylus-and.html
The translater Herbert Musurillo is a jesuit.

DCHindley

Thanks for the link to those excerpts. I couldn't find one anywhere, at least one that wasn't dead as a doornail.

So, Agathonice stripped nekkid and threw herself onto that stake, eager to be burned, showing her bootiful nekkid body to the crowd. Her intentional act of titilation (no pun intended) did the trick, and the crowd had pity upon her, but to no avail.

I wonder if she turned golden brown and smelled like baking bread, as another martyr has been described?

DCH