Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ulrich · 11-10-2005, 02:37 PM

I have been looking into Pliny's letters a bit, and it seems that at a portion of them can be traced back as far as 500 CE, whether or not this potion (the Morgan fragment) contains the writings being disputed here, I do not know. I am not an expert on this field by any means, and I am at work right now, and for some reason my boss thinks that attending meetings and writing scripts is more important than researching Pliny (go figure). Maybe someone in BC&H would be more helpful in this regard.

Looking at the text surrounding what you posted here, though, I think there are some issues that might be cleared up by posting on them and offering a bit of commentary:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96

Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan
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.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. 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.

From the first paragraph, you can see that Pliny is agonizing a bit over whether all Christians and former Christians should be dealt with in the same manner, or whether the age of the person or their subsequent deconversion should be considered. He is also bringing up the issue with Trajan of whether he should be punishing Christians for being Christians, or if it should first be demonstrated that they have broken laws that Christian are known to break (presumably, refusing to worship the Roman gods). So Pliny does seem to be in some way attempting to contest the way in which Christians are treated without offering his head to Trajan at the same time.

Of course he goes on to show that even though he has reservations he has been fulfilling his duty in punishing the Christian, and explains his methodology. I think we should pay attention to the portion I bolded above, though, as this gives us an indication of how Human Rights were perceived in the Roman Empire. We delved into this discussion earlier in this thread, but i think this makes it apparent that only Roman citizens were considered to have any rights whatsoever, and the people he was punishing were not Roman citizens.

Pliny, as a Roman citizen, would consider himself as above those whom he is punishing, but at the same time, it seems he is displaying at least some concern for punishing them without good reason. In fact, in the response by Trajan (not posted here), Pliny is advised not to punish those who have been anonymously identified as Christians, even though, as non-citizens, they are not protected by Roman law.

Afghan · 11-10-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

I don't know which other fora you frequent here, but I frequently see threads commenting upon how modern day christians in christian-majority North America claim that they are being persecuted and discriminated against. To the best of my knowledge, there is little or no reliable evidence towards the persecution of christians pre-Constantine, whereas there is ample evidence of christian presecution against others post-Constantine.

No evidence is going to be 100% reliable. Going back 2,000 years and dealing with a fringe group it is going to be sketchy at best. But it all goes the same way. All the evidence says the Christians were persecuted. Yes, there are ways of interpreting the evidence compatible with them not being persecuted but I don't see any strong evidece for that hypothesis. There doesn't seem to be any motivation to doubt the simpler interpretation that some persecution did take place.

And nobody is disputing the Christians persecuted a great many people after Constantine but that doesn't mean the earlier Christians weren't persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

On a less personal aside: I know of many, many, people with persecution and/or martyr complexes, don't you?

Again, I'm not saying it was impossible. It just seems to be a rather elaborate way to interpret the evidence and it seems to leave a lot unexplained that is accounted for if we do admit that persecution took place. Principally, I'm thinking of the shift in focus towards the Christ-like virtue of martyrdom in Christian theology in the second century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

I already did provide 'just one source': it was Gibbon.

Sorry, my bad. I meant a primary source. Where did Gibbon get it from?

post tenebras lux · 11-11-2005, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afghan

No evidence is going to be 100% reliable. Going back 2,000 years and dealing with a fringe group it is going to be sketchy at best. But it all goes the same way. All the evidence says the Christians were persecuted. Yes, there are ways of interpreting the evidence compatible with them not being persecuted but I don't see any strong evidece for that hypothesis. There doesn't seem to be any motivation to doubt the simpler interpretation that some persecution did take place.

Unfortunately, all the evidence that suggests that the early christians did suffer persecution has been through the same filter: a prolonged period of christian hegemony during which the collection and copying of ancient texts was controlled by religious (christian) institutions. Why do we have no evidence that did not go through this filter?

Quote:

And nobody is disputing the Christians persecuted a great many people after Constantine but that doesn't mean the earlier Christians weren't persecuted.

But their later persecution of others could be a motivation to fabricate evidences of early christians suffering persecution by way of a justification. Like people who justify beating somebody up by saying 'But he started it! He hit me first!'. We only have the christian's word that they were attacked first.

Quote:

Again, I'm not saying it was impossible. It just seems to be a rather elaborate way to interpret the evidence and it seems to leave a lot unexplained that is accounted for if we do admit that persecution took place. Principally, I'm thinking of the shift in focus towards the Christ-like virtue of martyrdom in Christian theology in the second century.

Christians often have a persecution complex, what can I say. Religion seems to tend to attract people who are mentally unstable, including people with paranoid delusions and martyr complexes, what can I say.

Quote:

Sorry, my bad. I meant a primary source. Where did Gibbon get it from?

Your bad indeed, you're asking me to provide a primary source for what is, basically, a universal negative. In such a case, I guess we'd have to call Gibbon a primary source as, if we were to have asked him what source he relied upon, he would most probably have replied 'Study. Years and years of studying all the evidence available to me.'

Now, since his death, has anyone turned up any new evidence in favour of the persecutions really happening?

Alf · 11-11-2005, 05:35 AM

I have been reading with interest the debate between lux and Afghan. Not sure what to comment on it but it IS a derailment of the original OP. I don't really want it to stop though as it is of interest to me also even if I cannot contribute much to the discussion.

However, I would like to get some attention back to the OP and ask the following question again in the hope that someone can answer it for me.

When reading the original greek text (as best as we can of what is available to us today), can we say that it is a valid interpretation to say that when Matt 5:22 talk about "fools" it refers to the situation that you tell a fellow christian that he is a fool, then you have made yourself ready for hell. It says nothing at all about calling non-christians for fools.

Is this a valid interpretation of Matt 5:22 or is it wrong? I.e. does it clearly indicate "anyone" or some group larger than just "fellow christians". Matt 5:22 in the english translation appear to say something like 'If you say to a brother "you fool" you will go to hell" or some such to that effect (different translations use different wordings but this is the essence of the message as far as I can see). My understanding is that "brother" here refer to "a fellow christian" or "a brother in the faith". I.e. it does not include people outside of the faith. So, a christian who call an atheist "you fool" do NOT necessarily gets himself a ticket to hell according to Matt 5:22.

Is this a valid interpretation? Anyone care to answer this question for me?

Alf

Barefoot Bree · 11-11-2005, 06:04 AM

Sorry, Alf, we got lazy. Shall we split this into two threads?

Wayne Delia · 11-11-2005, 06:10 AM

I put this together in about 1997, it started out mostly tongue-in-cheek but evolved to a serious criticism of the verse, and it seems to have found its way all over the Internet and Usenet. Quite a few people still correctly attribute it to me. I remember jotting these notes down while killing time in a less-than-exciting IBM class.

MINI-FAQ: Psalms 14:1

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good." (Psalms 14:1)

Ad Hominem Fallacy: An argument is discounted based on attacking the character of the person making the argument. ("He is wrong when he says there is no God, because he is a fool.")

Strawman Fallacy: Arguing against a position by creating a different, weaker, or irrelevant position and refuting that position instead of the original. ("There is no God" misrepresents "There isn't sufficient evidence that God exists.")

Circular Reasoning: The truth of the conclusion is assumed in order to justify the premises. ("The fool says there is no God, because anyone who says there is no God is a fool.")

Begging the Question: The argument creates a secondary proposition that is related to the primary proposition, which requires a similar argument that is missing. (The existence of God is assumed, while addressing propositions of whether God exists.)

Fallacy of Inconsistency: The argument is inconsistent with other arguments within the same context.
In the Christian context, Jesus commands against the invective in Psalms 14:1, warning that "whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire" in Matthew 5:22.

Special Pleading: The inappropriate attribution of emotive functions to objects that do not have that capability. (Hearts are not capable of "knowing" or of feeling emotions.)

Redundancy: Psalm 53 is identical to Psalm 14.

Questionable Premise: It is obviously not the case that all atheists do nothing but bad deeds. This premise is invalidated by a single example of an atheist doing a single charitable act.

WMD

post tenebras lux · 11-11-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

I have been reading with interest the debate between lux and Afghan. Not sure what to comment on it but it IS a derailment of the original OP. I don't really want it to stop though as it is of interest to me also even if I cannot contribute much to the discussion.

Sorry. Just the 'argument from inertia' concerning these evidences sometimes rankles with me. They seem to be accepted as legitimate solely because they've 'always' been considered legitimate.

Quote:

However, I would like to get some attention back to the OP and ask the following question again in the hope that someone can answer it for me.

When reading the original greek text (as best as we can of what is available to us today), can we say that it is a valid interpretation to say that when Matt 5:22 talk about "fools" it refers to the situation that you tell a fellow christian that he is a fool, then you have made yourself ready for hell. It says nothing at all about calling non-christians for fools.

Is this a valid interpretation of Matt 5:22 or is it wrong? I.e. does it clearly indicate "anyone" or some group larger than just "fellow christians". Matt 5:22 in the english translation appear to say something like 'If you say to a brother "you fool" you will go to hell" or some such to that effect (different translations use different wordings but this is the essence of the message as far as I can see). My understanding is that "brother" here refer to "a fellow christian" or "a brother in the faith". I.e. it does not include people outside of the faith. So, a christian who call an atheist "you fool" do NOT necessarily gets himself a ticket to hell according to Matt 5:22.

Is this a valid interpretation? Anyone care to answer this question for me?

Alf

Well, that's my interpretation too. However, a similar exercise can be conducted upon Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 where the quote "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" comes from.

In both cases, the verse is followed with these, almost identical, verses:

Quote:

Originally Posted by psalm 14

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psalm 53

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

I think that all of humanity is included in this rebuke, so is all of humanity being called fools?

Perhaps (and I speculate here), the key word is 'heart'. Did the hebrews, like the greeks (?), believe that thinking took place in the heart? Is there maybe the claim being made that, even though the hebrews said that there was a god with their lips and mouths and that they sought to serve/know him, they did not actually believe (in their hearts) what they were saying and so did not really seek to serve/know him? :huh:

Just a thought.

Barefoot Bree · 11-11-2005, 06:47 AM

This thread is really more BC&H-ish than EoG-ish, so we're going to ship it over there and let it run free. Off you go!

Alf · 11-11-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Sorry. Just the 'argument from inertia' concerning these evidences sometimes rankles with me. They seem to be accepted as legitimate solely because they've 'always' been considered legitimate.

Well, that's my interpretation too. However, a similar exercise can be conducted upon Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 where the quote "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" comes from.

In both cases, the verse is followed with these, almost identical, verses:

I think that all of humanity is included in this rebuke, so is all of humanity being called fools?

Perhaps (and I speculate here), the key word is 'heart'. Did the hebrews, like the greeks (?), believe that thinking took place in the heart? Is there maybe the claim being made that, even though the hebrews said that there was a god with their lips and mouths and that they sought to serve/know him, they did not actually believe (in their hearts) what they were saying and so did not really seek to serve/know him? :huh:

Just a thought.

I think you can safely say that hebrews on the time we are talking here has been sufficiently influenced by greek thinking that they accepted as "common knowledge" that emotions and feelings was centered in the heart while the brain was the center of rational thinking.

Plato gave the following reasoning for why the brain was the center of rational and logical thinking. I guess we can take it as understood that the emotions and irrational thinking was NOT considered to take place in the head and so had to be located elsewhere - in the heart.

The head is that part of the human body which most resemble a sphere. The sphere is the most perfect of all geometrical shapes and the human capability of logical and rational thinking is the most perfect of the human abilities. Consequently, the center for such thinking must be located in the head.

A few comments here: As usual Plato was wrong. However, although his conclusion happened to be correct here, his reasons for reaching this is as off the mark as it is possible to be. Also, one would think that the man's balls are even more spherical - kinda odd he didn't reach the conclusion that the center for logical thinking was in the balls.

Either way, I think it was "common knowledge" in those days that emotions and feelings was in the heart (you know the heart beat faster and harder when your emotions are high) and Plato and possibly also others appeared to think that rational and logical thinking was centered in the head. I.e. the brain.

This is why we use a heart symbol for love today and we have all those phrases that connect heart and emotions. He's got a good heart. They have no hearts (as GWB said recently concerning the terrorists bombers in Jordan). I promised my heart to you. etc etc the list goes on and on of phrases and words where we connect heart and feelings. This is from the ancient greek belief that the center of emotions was in the heart and the hebrew at that time was not only aware of this but probably also accepted it.

Alf

post tenebras lux · 11-11-2005, 07:06 AM

OK Alf. But what about my idea that the psalms are really complaining that no one is a true jew, than no one is actually seeking god and that everyone is a fool for not taking the then prevailing theological bullshit seriously enough.

11-11-2005, 06:10 AM	#36
Wayne Delia Contributor Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Posts: 10,056	Mini-FAQ: Psalm 14:1 I put this together in about 1997, it started out mostly tongue-in-cheek but evolved to a serious criticism of the verse, and it seems to have found its way all over the Internet and Usenet. Quite a few people still correctly attribute it to me. I remember jotting these notes down while killing time in a less-than-exciting IBM class. MINI-FAQ: Psalms 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good." (Psalms 14:1) Ad Hominem Fallacy: An argument is discounted based on attacking the character of the person making the argument. ("He is wrong when he says there is no God, because he is a fool.") Strawman Fallacy: Arguing against a position by creating a different, weaker, or irrelevant position and refuting that position instead of the original. ("There is no God" misrepresents "There isn't sufficient evidence that God exists.") Circular Reasoning: The truth of the conclusion is assumed in order to justify the premises. ("The fool says there is no God, because anyone who says there is no God is a fool.") Begging the Question: The argument creates a secondary proposition that is related to the primary proposition, which requires a similar argument that is missing. (The existence of God is assumed, while addressing propositions of whether God exists.) Fallacy of Inconsistency: The argument is inconsistent with other arguments within the same context. In the Christian context, Jesus commands against the invective in Psalms 14:1, warning that "whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire" in Matthew 5:22. Special Pleading: The inappropriate attribution of emotive functions to objects that do not have that capability. (Hearts are not capable of "knowing" or of feeling emotions.) Redundancy: Psalm 53 is identical to Psalm 14. Questionable Premise: It is obviously not the case that all atheists do nothing but bad deeds. This premise is invalidated by a single example of an atheist doing a single charitable act. WMD

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

11-11-2005, 05:35 AM	#34
Alf Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 3,189	I have been reading with interest the debate between lux and Afghan. Not sure what to comment on it but it IS a derailment of the original OP. I don't really want it to stop though as it is of interest to me also even if I cannot contribute much to the discussion. However, I would like to get some attention back to the OP and ask the following question again in the hope that someone can answer it for me. When reading the original greek text (as best as we can of what is available to us today), can we say that it is a valid interpretation to say that when Matt 5:22 talk about "fools" it refers to the situation that you tell a fellow christian that he is a fool, then you have made yourself ready for hell. It says nothing at all about calling non-christians for fools. Is this a valid interpretation of Matt 5:22 or is it wrong? I.e. does it clearly indicate "anyone" or some group larger than just "fellow christians". Matt 5:22 in the english translation appear to say something like 'If you say to a brother "you fool" you will go to hell" or some such to that effect (different translations use different wordings but this is the essence of the message as far as I can see). My understanding is that "brother" here refer to "a fellow christian" or "a brother in the faith". I.e. it does not include people outside of the faith. So, a christian who call an atheist "you fool" do NOT necessarily gets himself a ticket to hell according to Matt 5:22. Is this a valid interpretation? Anyone care to answer this question for me? Alf

11-11-2005, 06:04 AM	#35
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	Sorry, Alf, we got lazy. Shall we split this into two threads?

11-11-2005, 06:47 AM	#38
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	This thread is really more BC&H-ish than EoG-ish, so we're going to ship it over there and let it run free. Off you go!

11-11-2005, 07:06 AM	#40
post tenebras lux Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva Posts: 5,756	OK Alf. But what about my idea that the psalms are really complaining that no one is a true jew, than no one is actually seeking god and that everyone is a fool for not taking the then prevailing theological bullshit seriously enough.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.