Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 08-13-2011, 03:00 AM

Pliny states

Quote:

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.

Thus implies that Pliny's Christians refused to carry out Emperor worship and worship of the Pagan Gods.

This refusal seems to have been more characteristic of (proto-)Orthodox Christians than Gnostics, hence the Christians involved were probably not Gnostics.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-13-2011, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Pliny states

Quote:

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.

Thus implies that Pliny's Christians refused to carry out Emperor worship and worship of the Pagan Gods.

This refusal seems to have been more characteristic of (proto-)Orthodox Christians than Gnostics, hence the Christians involved were probably not Gnostics.

Andrew Criddle

Your assertion makes very little sense. You have ZERO basis for assumptions. There is simply not enough data presented in the letter to show that the "Christians" were NOT Gnostics.

The Pliny letter to Trajan merely shows that Pliny appear to be UNAWARE of the BELIEFS and ACTIVITIES of the "Christians" that was supposedly in custody and was UNAWARE of the Jesus story.

In the letter, Pliny FIRST EXECUTED the "Christians" who did NOT recant and then LATER TORTURED some to find out about the BELIEFS and ACTIVITIES of the "Christians".

Pliny letter to Trajan, supposedly written in the early 2nd century, is EXTREMELY significant.

It is evidence AGAINST the Pauline writings WHERE a writer implied he traveled all over the Roman Empire preaching that Jesus Christ was crucified and was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

Pliny the younger LIVED in Rome and Knew Tacitus and Suetonius yet appeared to have NO knowledge of the Beliefs and Activities of Christians or the Jesus story.

Doug Shaver · 08-13-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

but the idea that these Christians worshiped a criminal who was not only executed by Rome but that he came back to life just seems like the sort of thing that the urbane Pliny might have thought his boss would find amusing.

More like subversive, I should think. If the Christians whom Pliny interviewed were saying anything of that sort, I doubt he would have felt it necessary to ask Caesar what to do with them.

Minimalist · 08-13-2011, 10:42 PM

They may have heard of no such story themselves, Doug. That's the point. I do not accept xtian writings at face value. They have too much of an interest in embellishing their past.

Quote:

Thus implies that Pliny's Christians refused to carry out Emperor worship and worship of the Pagan Gods.

However, later in the letter Pliny makes it clear that they did exactly that.

Quote:

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.

Doug Shaver · 08-13-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

They may have heard of no such story themselves, Doug. That's the point.

On that point, I agree.

stephan huller · 08-13-2011, 11:44 PM

DHC

I am not sure that any of my opinions were influenced by Danny. Isu is unquestionably the Marcionite name for Jesus (it is all over Ephrem and Eznik). Chrestos appears in Coptic manuscripts at Nag Hammadi is quite common in heretical literature. What convinced me about the Marcionite use of Chrestos was von Harnack, Marcion [2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1924] 123, n. 2, and 343. I don't think it is very controversial to argue that the use is Marcionite. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone make the point you are making.

mountainman · 08-14-2011, 02:44 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

It is reasonable to expect that those who assert the existence of positive evidence in any matter, to present this evidence and its providence. In the case of this letter of Pliny the Younger, it appears to have been first "discovered" as a supporting document related to the history of the mention of "Christans" in antiquity, only sometime very very late in the 15th century. Somewhere else I think it is mentioned that no manuscript survives to substantiate this 15th century publication.

Therefore if you were to ask my opinion on this OP it would be that, unless further evidence is produced, Pliny's Christians were active no earlier than the 15th century.

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Manuscripts

In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny's Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Of all the early Greco-Roman sources cited on Christianity, the one with the best chance of being authentic is Pliny's the Younger's letter #96 to the Emperor Trajan. It is dated circa 112. What it tells us is not that there was any type of Christianity derived from Jesus or Judaism, but rather that there was a type of early Christianity, as Marcion contended, that was not based on Judaism.

The evidence that this Christian cult had nothing to do with Judaism is fairly strong:

1. Pliny never mentions Judaism, either in this letter or in connection with anything to do with the province of Bithynia. This was the period of time between two Jewish-Roman wars. We should expect him to report any kind of subversive activity by Jews or people connected to Judaism. Certainly leaving out the fact that the Christian cultists were connected with Judaism, if they were, would have been a big mistake.

2. The leaders of the cult are apparently two slave women called deaconesses. The Jewish culture of the age would have ridiculed women playing such religious roles. As the website Religious Tolerance notes:

Quote:

Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without permission.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband, without permission.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes.

3. The practitioners got up before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ. Shouldn't they also be singing hymns to the Jewish God as well? Shouldn't Pliny have said hymns to Christ and the Jewish God whom they consider his father? It is hard to imagine any Jewish based group that would only meet to sing a hymn to Christ.

4. The oath the cultists take have nothing to do with the Jewish Ten Commandments or the Christian Two Commandments (Love God, Love your Neighbor). They swear to not do anything wicked, specifically ne furta (not steal) ne latrocinia (not rob) ne adulteria committerent (not commit adultery), ne fidem fallerent (break trust), ne depositum appellati abnegarent (deny a deposit).

5. They held meals at some point, but when Trajan banned these things as politically subversive, they immediately stopped doing that. Certainly, this does not sound like Jewish-Christians. They give up their ceremonies without any protest.

6. Most of the members apparently quickly gave in and blessed the Gods, and the Emperor and cursed Christ to save themselves.

This sounds like some kind of Neo-Platonic Chrestus cult that worshipped Chrestus (Goodness) as a God. At the same time, the fact that it is run by two slave deaconesses and they talk about being against adultery (probably a lie) and they rose before dawn and promised to give back deposits, makes it sound like some kind of prostitution-banking racket. Perhaps the men left large deposits of money or other valuables that the women promised to give back at some point.

Note also that Pliny the Younger had been a public official for 30 years at this point. Yet, he has no idea about how to try cases involving Christians. This indicates how obscure the sect must have been.

Either this represents a cult that had nothing to do with Christianity or a cult that was Proto-Christian before Christianity merged with Judaism.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Toto · 08-14-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.... In the case of this letter of Pliny the Younger, it appears to have been first "discovered" as a supporting document related to the history of the mention of "Christans" in antiquity, only sometime very very late in the 15th century. ...

It was discovered by a true Renaissance man - Giovanni Giocondo is mainly noted as an architect. Do you have any reason to claim that his discovery of this manuscript was a supporting document for some claim, or is that just idle speculation on your part?

History Hunters International only seems concerned with whether the group were Christians or Chrestians.

mountainman · 08-14-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.... In the case of this letter of Pliny the Younger, it appears to have been first "discovered" as a supporting document related to the history of the mention of "Christans" in antiquity, only sometime very very late in the 15th century. ...

It was discovered by a true Renaissance man - Giovanni Giocondo is mainly noted as an architect. Do you have any reason to claim that his discovery of this manuscript was a supporting document for some claim, or is that just idle speculation on your part?

It is no idle speculation on my part that academics and scholars (such as Philosopher Jay and many others) cite the Pliny letter as a claim for evidence in support of the history of the christians during the 2nd century. My point again is that no other source before the 15th century mentions this Pliny Letter - we have 14 centuries of silence on the evidence before it is discovered. How do the academics and scholars explain this silence? But the major problem is the missing manuscript itself - it apparently NO LONGER EXISTS.

Quote:

History Hunters International only seems concerned with whether the group were Christians or Chrestians.

That article points out that the MISSING MANUSCRIPT if found and examined might denote the existence of Chrestians and not Christians - on the basis of what appears to be systematic evdience from antiquity whereby the two different terms have been purposefully conflated and mixed.

At the end of the day, if I ask for the manuscript evidence underlying the 15th century discoverfy to be put on the table to be examined, there is nobody on this planet who is able to do this. We have to be consistent in our examination of the evidence. The Pliny Letter is too late - 14 centuries too late. The way I see it at the moment is that the academics and scholars are not refering to the manuscript evidence when they cite the Plinly Letter (because this evidence does not exist!) - they are in fact referring to their faith in the possibility that the original letter existed in the 2nd century, as claimed from 15th century reports. In doing historical research we need to stay with the evidence itself, not faith in the evidence.

PhilosopherJay · 08-14-2011, 09:15 PM

Hi Pete,

Actually, I think the fact that nobody mentioned this until the 15th Century is a point in favor of its authenticity. Usually, one does a forgery to make some kind of point. If nobody picks up on your point, why do it?

Nobody in the 15th century doubted the existence of Christians in the time of Pliny. It is hard to imagine what point the writer would be trying to make. Did anyone really care that Pliny invested an outbreak of Christian superstition in the beginning of the second century. This was never mentioned in any kind of debate previously, so if it was a 4th century document, it certainly failed because nobody took any notice of it.
Even postulating a propaganda war between gnostics and orthodoxy in the 4th century, it is hard to know who would put this out. It doesn't really say what group these Christians believed in.

Eusebius wants to prove that Jesus was not an evil Jewish magician, so the TF makes perfect sense as a forgery. Eusebius has the Jewish historian Josephus testifies that his followers were good Greeks and Jews and stuck with him after his death makes sense. He is arguing that evil doesn't last.

Do you have any thoughts about who and why someone would want people to believe there was an obscure sect of people in the Roman province of Bithynia who got up before dawn to sang hymns to someone/thing called Christ/Chrest whom they worshipped as a God? As a forgery, it doesn't make sense to me.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It was discovered by a true Renaissance man - Giovanni Giocondo is mainly noted as an architect. Do you have any reason to claim that his discovery of this manuscript was a supporting document for some claim, or is that just idle speculation on your part?

It is no idle speculation on my part that academics and scholars (such as Philosopher Jay and many others) cite the Pliny letter as a claim for evidence in support of the history of the christians during the 2nd century. My point again is that no other source before the 15th century mentions this Pliny Letter - we have 14 centuries of silence on the evidence before it is discovered. How do the academics and scholars explain this silence? But the major problem is the missing manuscript itself - it apparently NO LONGER EXISTS.

Quote:

History Hunters International only seems concerned with whether the group were Christians or Chrestians.

That article points out that the MISSING MANUSCRIPT if found and examined might denote the existence of Chrestians and not Christians - on the basis of what appears to be systematic evdience from antiquity whereby the two different terms have been purposefully conflated and mixed.

At the end of the day, if I ask for the manuscript evidence underlying the 15th century discoverfy to be put on the table to be examined, there is nobody on this planet who is able to do this. We have to be consistent in our examination of the evidence. The Pliny Letter is too late - 14 centuries too late. The way I see it at the moment is that the academics and scholars are not refering to the manuscript evidence when they cite the Plinly Letter (because this evidence does not exist!) - they are in fact referring to their faith in the possibility that the original letter existed in the 2nd century, as claimed from 15th century reports. In doing historical research we need to stay with the evidence itself, not faith in the evidence.

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

08-13-2011, 11:44 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	DHC I am not sure that any of my opinions were influenced by Danny. Isu is unquestionably the Marcionite name for Jesus (it is all over Ephrem and Eznik). Chrestos appears in Coptic manuscripts at Nag Hammadi is quite common in heretical literature. What convinced me about the Marcionite use of Chrestos was von Harnack, Marcion [2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1924] 123, n. 2, and 343. I don't think it is very controversial to argue that the use is Marcionite. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone make the point you are making.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.