aa5874

The Pliny letters, if true, is very problematic. Why did he have to TORTURE people who called themselves Christians to find out how or to whom they prayed as late as the beginning of the 2nd century.

Based on Eusebius, Peter was the first bishop of Rome, an apostle of Jesus himself, the letter writer called Paul was in Rome and there were supposed to be Christian Churches all over the Empire as early as the middle of the 1st century before Nero.

Linus were bishops in Rome and Clement also, yet Pliny has to torture people to find out about Christians belief and manner of worship.

Something is very problematic with the chronology of the Gospel stories and their time of writing.

Did not Pliny ever hear about the Gospels? Did not Pliny ever read a Gospel story?

Pliny, at the start of the 2nd century surely must have heard that Christians prayed to Jesus, but he tortured people to find out.

DCHindley

Why on earth do you constantly feel the need to place the carts before the horses?

What the 2 letters between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan tell us is that in Pontus/Bithynia, around 111-113 CE, Christians were revering Christ by singing hymns to him "as/as if" a god, had common meals and vowed to be good people. HELLO, that essentially describes the typical voluntary association of common people in antiquity.

Pliny, for his part, suspects "Christ" could suggest something more sinister. Torture, I'm afraid, was a common interrogation method used on slaves and brigands. It was assumed those types would lie through their teeth. Why waste time when you could easily make the suspect WANT to talk, if only to stop the pain? So, whether or not Pliny expected some sort of plot to be exposed, or just didn't trust those whom he felt needed to be examined, he tortured.

Sounds to me like his interrogation produced no evidence for Christian literature at all. His "deaconess" didn't confess to any, although she otherwise spilled the beans on meetings, content of worship, and the nature of their oaths, which were usually closely held secrets in associations that employed them. He concludes that this is not a subversive movement, but rather a common voluntary association.

In short, he asks the emperor whether that was itself worth getting his nickers in a twist over. But like Trajan's response to a different letter regarding whether a fire brigade (which was also a kind of voluntary association) was permissible, when he concluded that such associations always end up getting involved in politics, Trajan also forbade this one. If citizens of a free city were assumed to be susceptible to plotting against the Romans, how much more these common, and very stubborn, folks?!

That account tells me that the Christians of Pontus/Bithynia, around 111-113 CE, didn't revere any literature to speak of. They also didn't know anything about Jewish messianism it seems. They just liked the sense of community of the Christian cultus, worshipped Christ as a god, and while some weren't willing to give it up, others were willing to sacrifice, or had already done the deed, even years before. Maybe the former felt that worship of Christ brought some sort of salvation, but we really cannot tell.

What Eusebius tells us is that in his day, the early 4th century CE, Christians believed that they were numerous early on. He also thought that the Therapeutae of Philo were really Christians as well. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, a rough contemporary of Eusebius, had collected a large number of really wild speculations about the relationships between Jewish, Samaritan and Christian sects in the 1st century. There are modern day Christians who claim that "baptists" (as in folks who had Calvin-like ideas) existed in an unbroken chain of tradition stretching back to Christ himself, but that don't make it so.

As for the origins of formal early Christian literature, I like the idea that the NT as we know it was published by proto-orthodox Christians sometime in the mid to late mid 2nd century CE. There is almost no evidence that there were competing collections in general circulation at all that did not derive from this one edition. If one wants to find an origin for 1 Clement or many of the other examples of "early" Christian writings, look to this, or one of the competing, publishing houses. So, the Christians of Bithynia 3 or 4 decades earlier would not be expected to be aware of what came after them.

DCH

aa5874

I have a different view to yours. Are you implying that only your view must be right?

When I read the letters, it would appear to me that Pliny had not read a Gospel story or had not heard about the beliefs and manner of worship of christians.

Based on the church writers, there were already bishops in Rome, Peter and the letter writer Paul preached in Rome, and Christian churches all over the Empire, since the middle of the 1st century.

Why is Pliny writing to Trajan to tell him that Christians worship Christ as a God, when that should have been known at least 60 years ago?

Pilate, based on Tacitus, knew about "Christians" and Nero, too.

Were there Christians who did not worship Christ as God?

The letters from Pliny to Trajan appear not to corroborate the Gospel story and the history of the christian church as found in the church writings.

Analyst

ISTM that the gospels were written by Greeks for Greeks and / or Romans, and not for Jews. Matthew may have been a Jew but there's no reason to assume he was writing for Jews.

DCHindley

I am suggesting that your's jumps to conclusions by assuming what needs to be proved.

Again, just because later Christians wanted to believe so does not make it so. There is no independent corroboration for these assertions, that is, no contemporary pagan or even "Christian" writer can be cited to show that "Christ worshippers live even now in Alexandria and are known as 'healers' (therapeutae)," etc. Historians can, and often are, wrong about interpretations of evidence from the past.

Tacitus, ca. 115-120 CE, makes two assertions in Annals, 15.44:

One that "Nero, in order to stifle the rumour, [as if he himself had set Rome on fire,] ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices, and called by the vulgar “Christians”: these he punished exquisitely."

The other was "The author of this name was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate the procurator [of Judea]."

Tacitus certainly associated these two events, and provided his own colorful opinion too: "But in spite of this temporary setback [the death of "Christ" at the hand of Pilate] the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital."

So Tacitus thought the "Christ" executed in Judea in the days of Pilate the "procurator" (he was actually a "prefect"), had something to do with the people who Nero "punished exquisitely" and "whom the vulgar [called] 'Christians'," but that association does not tell us what the term "christian" meant to Tacitus, other than a "superstition."

His contemporary Suetonius, ca. 119-122 CE, said that the "christians" upon whom Nero inflicted punishment after the fire of Rome were "a class of men addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition" (Life of Nero, 16).

He also said, in Life of Vespasian 4, that "[a]n ancient superstition was current in the East, that out of Judaea at this time would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as the event later proved, referred to a Roman Emperor, but the rebellious Jews, ... read it as referring to themselves ..."

I have to seriously wonder whether the "novel and mischievous superstition" to which "christians" of Nero's time were addicted wasn't the "ancient superstition" believed in by "rebellious Jews" and which was "later proved" in Vespasian's time to refer "to a Roman Emperor."

If so, "christians" (please take note I am NOT referring to "Christians" as you are) may refer to "rebellious Jews" in the minds of Roman aristocrats like Tacitus and Suetonius, and not to the Christ worshippers of Pliny the Younger's time. "Christ" would thus be some sort of reference to an anointed ruler expected by rebellious Jews or a title for such a ruler claimed by a specific rebellious Jew, and "christians" thus followers of such a belief or claimant.

Yes. See above ...

Under the conditions set out above, why should they?

DCH

Didymus

You are taking this out of its historical context.

The fact that Pliny tortured Christians does not mean he felt compelled to do so in order to get information. In ancient Rome, torture was standard operating procedure. When a crime was committed, it was used as a matter of course to interrogate anyone who might be complicit or have knowledge of other conspiracies - in other words, just about everyone in the vicinity. Members of the ruling classes were exempt, of course.

If there was a major crime in a household, all the household slaves were tortured, even if the culprit was known. In part, this was meant to "send a message" to any potential plotters.

Dick Cheney would have been proud.

Ddms

aa5874

Please read my post carefully. You should notice that I used the words " IT WOULD APPEAR.

I made an observation.

It would appear to me that the Pliny letters do not corroborate the Gospel story or the history of the christian church as stated by the church writers.

And if historians are wrong, who else can we turn to?


So, it would appear that the Pliny letters do not corroborate the gospel stories or the history of the christian church. It would seem his knowledge of the activities of Christians was gathered only when these so-called christians were brought before him.

He seemed not to realise that Jesus told his followers to be peaceful, and turn the other cheek, and to honour whoever is on the coin, to pay their taxes, that is, to be model citizens of the Roman Empire.

If Pliny had read the gospels he would have known that Christians worship Christ as God, but he seems to have just found out and even told Trajan of his discovery. He may have thought that Trajan did not know Christians worship Christ as God, and that Trajan did not read the gospel story either.


So, it would appear that my observation was correct after all.

Jeffrey Gibson

Irony meter going off again!

Leaving aside the matter that the NT nowhere says that Christians worship Jesus as God, and that what Pliny had confirmed in his investigations of those Christians he subjected to torture was that Bythinian Christians sang hymns to Jesus "as to a (Roman) god" (stato die ante lucem carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum inuicem), perhaps you'll do us the kindness of pointing out specifically where it is in the Gospels that Jesus commands anyone, let alone his followers/Christians, both to honour "whoever is on the coin" and , in the light of Lk. 23:2, to pay any tax that Rome imposed upon them.

It looks like it's not just Pliny who hasn't read the Gospels.

Jeffrey

aa5874

But why did you refer to Luke 23.2 when Jesus, if he did exist, would regard that passage as a false report.

Look at Luke 23.2 But based on the very author of Luke, the accusation would be a false report.

The author has another report.

Look at Luke 20.22-25 Luke 23.2 appears to be false if Luke 20.22-25 is true.

And, it should be noted that the Caesars were also regarded as GODS. See The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius.

andrewcriddle

In fact, under Roman Law legally valid evidence from slaves mostly required the use of (at least token) torture. Pliny explicitly states that the deaconesses whom he interrogated under torture were slavewomen.

Andrerw Criddle