DCHindley

I can't quite figure out what you are objecting to here.

I'll agree that the notion that "chrestus" was a common mispronunciation for "Christus" is gratuitious, and likely was suggested to save the Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25, statement as a bona fide reference to the historical existence of Jesus Christ. That being said, I do think it is an intentional slight, only not directed at "Christians" but at Jewish messianists in general, by suggesting that "messianists" (christianoi in Greek) were really just a rabble spellbound by ringleaders using "chrestus," which refers to an actual ointment thought to give spellbinding oratorical abilities to those who annointed themselves with it (look it up on Perseus.org).

Your suggestion that this is evidence of just *another* cult in antiquity - worshiping a "good (shepherd)" - is a new one to me. Have anything to do with the Shepherd of Hermas?

But what is this about the mss with book 10 of Pliny the younger's correspondence with Trajan? Why do you doubt the mss existed in the first place, and why would someone go to the trouble to fake it as has been suggested by others? Why fake over 100 other letters if the ones that the whole mess center around are just two near the end?

Mss get lost, stolen and destroyed by war and fire. For example, several mss were lost as late as during WW1 & WW2 on account of shelling or air raids. Thank god/providence for the printed editions that were made from them, as we have with Pliny's letters with Trajan.

There is a more complete page on the surviving mss of Pliny the Younger's letters at Roger Pearse's Tertullian Project website:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/pliny/pliny_mss.htm

DCH

Sheshbazzar

Did you notice "The Good Shepherd" picture of Apollo that Clivedurdle posted in post #116?

"The Good Shepherd" title was in the ancient world applied to many different gods, Hermes Kriophors, Mithra, Attis, Horus, Osiris, Krishna and others.

I didn't suggest that I did doubt that the mss. existed in the first place, If that had been my position, I would not have wasted effort in arguing that Pliny originally wrote Chrestus.

Thus I gave that 15the century mss. the benefit of the doubt as to being somewhat genuine, if also somewhat tampered with.
My point still stands that Pliny was a very educated man, and as such would have been well acquainted with the word christos, if that was the word he had actually written, he would not have displayed any perplexity as to what manner of religion it was that he was dealing with, (The LXX, with its christos had only been around for nearly 400 years by that time)
That he reveals himself unfamiliar with the names argues that he didn't write Christo or Christani, but rather the more obscure Chrestos and Chrestanos.
I agree, it seems a lot of wasted effort, that is why I give it the benefit of a doubt, of course it is also quite possible that most of the text is authentic, with only 10.96 & 10.97 opportunistically forged in to supply what was only suggested in Tertullian.

""No manuscripts survive", and thus where does your "Letter of Pliny" come from? "

Was only the observation that there are no mss. from before the 15th century with which to compare the readings.
None of the Church Fathers ever quoted any of this text,(which is odd) and thus we cannot compare the present text with excerpts from their writings.
And that the source which we recieved it from has proven to be notoriously untrustworthy.

Doug Shaver

I don't think it is, but that's OK.

I would not attempt to argue against the possibility. My arguments are against the likelihood. There is not a scrap of decent evidence to support any such theory. They all depend on a pack of assumptions, way too many to survive Occam's razor.

dog-on

Hmm. Since the majority of the earliest writers were not Jews and since even Paul may not have actually been a Jew (another discussion), where do you see an issue with Occam, specifically?

spamandham

It's definitely got Jewish overtones, but haven't we known that for 2000 years? What special knowledge do modern Jews bring to the table?

Doug Shaver

It would help a great deal if you would suggest a particular theory for us to discuss.

As for this particular datum, I would ask for (a) evidence that Paul was lying when he said he was a Jew and (b) evidence establishing his motive for lying about that.

Absent such evidence, we've got two assumptions going right off the bat, and we haven't even said a word yet about the content of Paul's writings. That is where I see an issue with Occam's razor.

Doug Shaver

If the argument is "They were not Jews, therefore they must have been Romans," then I don't have an issue with Occam. But I do have issues.

rlogan

"Paul" is a fiction invented for credentialing beliefs in Marcionite circles.

Were that not the case, and if he were real instead, it would be the first case in the Bible where a person alleged to have written something actually was real and did write the tracts in question.

figuer

Isn't it the other way around? Greeks, Latins, Teutons have chewed, swallowed and digested the Jews.

Doug Shaver

I think that's debatable, but even if it were so, I don't see it as being prima facie improbable.