Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 07-30-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackal5096

The report by Tacitus is the only one that implicates christians as responsible for the fire.

The Tacitus report does not implicate the Christians. The report accuses Nero of implicating the Christians and implies that it was a false implication.

DCHindley · 07-30-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them.

Yes but the line about being "unacquainted with the nature of their crimes" does seem to indicate that he is unaware of any tradition that they were responsible for burning down half the city of Rome. For that matter, Trajan's reply was pretty mild, as well.

On another board I'm dealing with a guy who insists that ALL christian references prior to the mid-third century are later forgeries. Why write a forgery which makes Trajan look like Oliver Wendell Holmes? It doesn't make sense.

Pliny was no legal slouch, having prosecuted several senior level Roman officials for corruption (well, greater than usual corruption) before heading off to Bithynia-Pontus as legatus Augusti for Trajan.

When he says he was "unacquainted with the nature of their crimes" he likely meant "by direct evidence" although I would suspect he had heard secondary accounts that would be considered hearsay in a court.

Again, he was completely taken back by the fact that they appeared, under examination, to be a harmless religious cult, and this did not appear in his eyes to justify the extreme measures against them that he understood should be applied.

Trajan, interestingly enough, also does not seem to know for sure what they were originally criminalized for, although Pliny does note that their leader was executed by a Roman procurator, which would have been proof enough that they were seditious. Trajan seems to agree that under the circumstances described by Pliny (they are a harmless religious cult), if they reject an opportunity to recant and sacrifice to the emperor, they should be "punished" (executed) for their obstinancy.

DCH

Minimalist · 07-30-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

if they reject an opportunity to recant and sacrifice to the emperor

Indeed. The "crime" seems to be treason, not being a religious cult. The Romans were notoriously tolerant of cults.

jackal5096 · 07-30-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackal5096

The report by Tacitus is the only one that implicates christians as responsible for the fire.

The Tacitus report does not implicate the Christians. The report accuses Nero of implicating the Christians and implies that it was a false implication.

Thanks for the clarification. I was only trying to point out that any implication of the christian's responsibility for the fire was only found in Tacitus's annals. Other writers mention the fire, but don't mention Nero or anyone else implicating the christians.

EarlDoherty · 07-31-2007, 11:17 AM

There is a point usually overlooked in regard to the key phrase in Pliny. From my “Alleged Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth” (Part 3) article:

Quote:

In most cases, Van Voorst provides an extensive analysis of the documents he examines, although this does not prevent him from making unfounded assumptions and self-serving choices. Often he will include an observation or interpretation which is actually detrimental to his case and then downplay or ignore it, preferring a more amenable conclusion. In regard to Pliny’s letter to Trajan, he notes [p.28] that A. N. Sherwin-White “points out that in Pliny ‘quasi is used commonly without the idea of supposal,’ to mean simply ‘as’.” I’ve long made that observation myself, but Van Voorst is the first I’ve seen since Sherwin-White to admit that “Christo quasi deo” does not have to be translated “Christ as if (to) a god.” Van Voorst goes on to note that “Pliny can also use quasi in its typically hypothetical meaning (‘as if, as though’),” but we have no means of knowing which way Pliny meant it. If the key phrase can be taken as “sang a hymn to Christ as (to) a god,” then there is not even the implied suggestion of an historical man. Van Voorst himself concludes: “So while ‘as if’ may imply here that the Christ Christians worship was once a man, we should not place too much weight on this.” Van Voorst concludes that Pliny got whatever his information might be on Christianity from Christians themselves in Bithynia. If five years before Tacitus wrote in Rome, Bithynia does not seem to know of an historical Jesus, it is quite possible that the news of such a founder had not yet reached the southern shore of the Black Sea.

Earl Doherty

Gamera · 07-31-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I understand references "christians."

1 Did capital letters exist?

2 Might he have been referencing a group who believed in annointing? Would "annointers" be a reasonable translation?

Clive,

1: No.

2: Could have, but I don't think it is the case here. I think a general reference to "annointers" is more likely in the case of citations by Suetonius and possibly Tacitus, probably signifying a kind of Jewish subversive movement with messianic theology.

The "Christians" he encounters here are clearly a private association which Pliny initially treats as a political threat but upon investigation starts to think is a harmless mystery cult. So he asks Trajan for advice: "Should I make a distinction?"

Trajan says, "No, treat all private associations like threats." Private associations, except for a few long established religious ones, were prohibited by Roman law because they had been used to sow sedition during the Roman civil wars, although the prohibitions were not always enforced at local levels, especially in the cases of mystery cults.

In another letter, Pliny had also been advised by Trajan not to even allow a private association of fire fighters in one city, on the reasoning that "you never know which private associations will end up plotting against us" (yes, that is paraphrased).

DCH

Thank you DCH. I was unaware of this level of state paranoia under Roman rule. It throws light on the political pressures "authorized" historians like Tacitus must have worked under, and what distortions must have taken place in the authorized histories we have inherited from that time.

Clivedurdle · 08-01-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Trajan, interestingly enough, also does not seem to know for sure what they were originally criminalized for, although Pliny does note that their leader was executed by a Roman procurator, which would have been proof enough that they were seditious.

Might this be the source of introducing Pilate into the gospel story? What are the implications for dating the NT books?

Chris Weimer · 08-01-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Thank you DCH. I was unaware of this level of state paranoia under Roman rule. It throws light on the political pressures "authorized" historians like Tacitus must have worked under, and what distortions must have taken place in the authorized histories we have inherited from that time.

Time for review.

Minimalist · 08-01-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

If five years before Tacitus wrote in Rome, Bithynia does not seem to know of an historical Jesus, it is quite possible that the news of such a founder had not yet reached the southern shore of the Black Sea.

Earl Doherty

But, Earl, if as you wrote that Ignatius of Antioch was writing letters in 107 with the gist of the story already formed, is it so hard to believe that the idea could have spread far and wide using the wonderful Roman roads and the equally well-travelled sea lanes around Asia Minor?

Why couldn't those ideas have reached Bithynia by 112? Especially if "Mark" did not begin in Palestine.

Doug Shaver · 08-02-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

If five years before Tacitus wrote in Rome, Bithynia does not seem to know of an historical Jesus, it is quite possible that the news of such a founder had not yet reached the southern shore of the Black Sea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

But, Earl, if as you wrote that Ignatius of Antioch was writing letters in 107 with the gist of the story already formed, is it so hard to believe that the idea could have spread far and wide using the wonderful Roman roads and the equally well-travelled sea lanes around Asia Minor?

Earl did not say it was hard to believe the story had gotten there. He said it was quite possible that it had not.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.