DCHindley

Naaah,

All the literary evidence says that all except for a few officially sanctioned associations were forbidden, and the permitted ones were religious.

This was caused by a proliferation of openly political clubs that formed during the Roman civil war, which kind of got out of hand. They were formally created, at least on the surface, for the purpose of furthering this or that cult (in this case Roman gods) or civic duty (fire brigades, etc), but they openly flouted their political allegiances with one or more of the warring generals.

While they were afterward formally banned, all of them except the kind noted above, Romans of the lower classes still formed burial societies, cultic associations, trade associations, etc. Same went for the Hellenistic lands conquered or subject to Roman rule. As long as they showed no political activity they were often allowed to operate, although they had to be careful to either keep a very low public profile or seek some sort of formal recognition. These recognized ones were mostly burial associations.

Most of these associations are believed to have had around 100 members each, but some were 40-50 and others could have several hundred members. The real purpose of most of them was an excuse for periodic banquets/drinking parties (financed by dues), not political activism, although the Romans periodically cracked down (notice Pliny's comment that the Christians ceased regular meetings on account of him publishing an edict prohibiting them - a little self promotion slipped into his official letter to the boss) on suspicion that they will one day side with this or that local faction and complicate things for their governors.

Now one way folks got around this was to form household associations, often as burial societies associated with this or that wealthy household. The elite get to play the part of patrons, forging networks with folks who could get things done for them (artisans, merchants, etc), and give their retainers and slaves an excuse to have some fun now and then (the drinking parties).

The most basic focus of organization was in the household itself. We have inscriptions from several hundred collegia domestica associated with the imperial household, the house of Livia, and various private households. [...] It was probably to the advantage of masters and mistresses of large households to permit their slaves and freedmen to organize collegia. This would effectively discourage them from joining outside associations in which the owner might not have much influence. Such was probably the case with the household "collegium quod est in domo Sergiae L(uci) f(iliae) Paullinae" from which a series of inscriptions, all of them funerary, come. The similarity between this (apparently technical) phrase* and the hē kat' oikon autōn ekklēsia which occurs in the Pauline corpus (Rom. 16:5, Col 4:15) allows the possibility that some of Paul's churches began in domestic collegia. [Kloppenborg again, same article as before, pg 23] http://books.google.com/books?id=1rZ...um=6&ct=result

DCH

*That phrase "collegium quod est in domo ..." ("collegium established in the household of ...") corresponds to "and the according-to house of-them church" ("them" being Prisca and Aquila) in Rom 16:5, and "and the according-to house of-her church" ("her" being Nymphas) in Col 4:15.

aa5874

But, what I find astonishing and incredible about the letter is that Pliny had already executed some of these so-called Christians before he wrote to Trajan for advice.

Then later tortures two women, again before he wrote to Trajan.

And, if Christians were rounded up and brought before Pliny, it must have meant that those who brought these so-called Christians knew that the Christians were contravening some law that was already enforced and that there was some prescribed punishment or penalty for the offence of being a Christian, yet Pliny the governor after executing some them, appears not to know how to deal with or fairly judge those who are called Christians.

GakuseiDon

Who are you, and what have you done with the real aa__??? :constern01:

Those are good points, aa.

rlogan

I don't see that in there. I see where he imprisoned some, but for their "obstinacy ".

It is clear from both his statement about outlawing secret societies, from his direct implication to Trajan that Christians are one such society, and from the fact he knows nothing about their beliefs indicates that they are indeed a secret society.

Look carefully at how Pliny tells the Emperor that the temples were empty and sacrificial animal sales were way off while secret societies were allowed to exist. That after banning secret societies, Temple attendance picked up again and so did sacrificial animal sales.

Until I had read this again due to your comment, I had forgotten or not realized how a fair reading refers to christianity as fairly widespread by 112 CE. People admitted to being Christians as long as 20 years, and I will buy into that. [edit: I bought that before, but what I did not realize is how it had spread out so widely]

After the destruction of the Temple, faith would obviously be shaken in the religious establishment. So a general post - CE 70 mileu naturally existed wherein not just christians, but other (see Pliny letter) associations sprang up.

So a reasonable proximate story for Christians is a post-70 CE beginning as a first principle, deciseively established by the ridiculously obvious reference to the temple destruction as "prophecy" in Mark. But nothing that Josephus mentions and therefore either very small and underground or nonexistent in the 90's.

But a full generation later there is a movement afoot in secret societies with no historical founder, but a Hymn. The sing the hymn about a christ they worship as a god.

This is not the christianity we expect in one led aboveground by a historical jesus that was crucified by pilate. All that would have been established by Trajan.

It is a mythical christ.

DCHindley

I have to wonder what that "punishment" must have been, considering it is immediately applied if the name "Christian" is embraced obstinately and without repentance, where in contrast when the defendant is a Roman citizen, he is shipped to Rome for trial before the emperor (or at very least in a suitable court in Rome itself). Besides, the Romans really didn't have a sense of punishment by incarceration: they might apply summary justice to non-citizens in the form of beatings by rods or lashes, as well as chopping off of the head, they merely banished citizens to the boondocks.

Pliny subjected those girls to tormentum (from torqueo, an instrument with which any thing is turned or twisted), essentially the rack! That is far more serious that a beating or whipping. Also, he doesn't torture anyone until those who had repented said it was just a harmless association, and he thinks maybe he is being hoodwinked.

He clearly thought that Christians must have been guilty of something depraved or seditious, and this information coming from the repentants was directly contradicting that understanding. However, the torture of the deaconesses confirmed what the repentants had said, that this was nothing more than a "depraved superstition."

If one wonders where Pliny got the idea that the crimes of the Christians was something serious, note definition II in the Lewis & Short Latin dictionary (i.e., to take vengeance):

punior - to punish, correct, chastise
I. To inflict punishment upon, to punish (syn.: castigo, animadverto, plecto, multo).
II. To take vengeance for, to avenge, revenge, = ulcisci (rare)

Vengence for what ... sedition?

Here he has folks engaged in a superstition, and it appears to have been operating as a harmless association for up to 20 years (ca 90-93 CE). Whatever it was that got it the bad rep, it clearly was no longer like that. Pliny now had to worry that so many were being charged, at first in person but now anonymously, that he felt that only bad could result to the social fabric of the province to prosecute without a means to allow repentance, as he had started to do. He made a case that his solution seemed practical, but wanted the emperor's blessing - and he got it.

He may have obtained further details about the cult than those he disclosed to Trajan. Just the phrase "depraved superstition" suggests that was described to him was itself "pravus" (crooked, distorted, misshapen, deformed), apparently making a pun on the torture inflicted on the deaconesses.

DCH

B. mĭnistra , ae, f., a female attendant, maid-servant; a female assistant or minister, at religious worship (class. only in the trop. signif.).
1. Lit.: una ministrarum, Ov. M. 9, 90 ; 306; 14, 705: accipiat missas apta ministra notas, Ov. A. A. 3, 470 : ara deae certe tremuit, pariente ministrā, i. e. the Vestal Sylvia, id. F. 3, 47 .--Also among Christians: ancillae, quae ministrae dicebantur, i. e. deaconesses, Plin. Ep. 10, 97, 8 .--
2. Trop., a servant, handmaid; in a bad sense, an aider, accessory, abettor: ministra et famula corporis res familiaris, Cic. Tusc. 1, 31, 75 : voluptatum satellites et ministrae, id. Fin. 2, 12, 37 : Camilla delegit pacisque bonas bellique ministras, Verg. A. 11, 658 .

aa5874

Pliny to Trajan

Clivedurdle

Surely this is evidence it was being treated as a criminal matter of treason.

They refused three times to sacrifice to the gods. The response to that is of course execution.

And I thought the temples were very unhappy about loss of trade to these atheists!

DCHindley

The actual word in question is some form or other of the verb "punior" which means simply "to punish" or sometimes "revenge". I think the letter leaves it to the reader to infer what exactly that punishment was. The translation -aa- used (which is the more usual than the one Andrew linked us to) made the inference that execution was the punishment called for by the circumstances.

Remember the Roman symbol of the "fasces," that bundle of rods (cudgels) with a hatchet (execution axe) in the center? It was meant to convey that the Romans delivered summary justice. Wherever their armies went, whenever and wherever they encountered local resistance to their programme, they could and would set up a chair, judge some one by Roman standards (not the defendant's), unroll that fasces, and proceed to either give the defendeant the beating of his life, or use the hatchet on his neck.

So, considering the defiance to the repeated request to repent and sacrifice to the emperor's genius, I think you are right that there could be no other suitable punishment other than execution.

DCH (at lunch)

andrewcriddle

These are good points.

What I think is happening is that Pliny knows that Christians are regarded as bad probably disloyal maybe immoral people. When he is faced with Christians who refuse to affirm their loyalty by venerating the Gods and the Emperor (the equivalent in the USA of refusing to say the pledge or salute the flag) Pliny feels on firm ground. These people clearly are disloyal and must take the consequences.

However faced with ex-Christians prepared to do what is necessary to establish their loyalty Pliny is less certain. Is having been a Christian grounds for punishment ? or must one have done specific bad things as a Christian ? And anyway what are these specific bad things that Christians do ? This lot didn't seem to be doing them. (He used torture to find out what really goes on but didn't really get anywhere.)

It is at this point that Pliny contacts Trajan.

Andrew Criddle

rlogan

Holy shit, that is not the version I have been working with, from the fordham site here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...y-trajan1.html

What source are you quoting?