mountainman

Pliny/Trajan Correspondence translated by by K. C. Hanson specifically does not mention "Christians" and instead the term rendered by the translator is “Christ-niks.”. I have not seen this discussed here. From this page:

When we add to this the fact that the earliest manuscript was "discovered" very late, we can see that the Pliny letter certainly does not present as unambiguous source evidence supporting the existence of the nation of the Christians c.100 CE.

Toto

I think you are misinterpreting Hanson's intent in using the term "Christ-nik."

He writes I think this means that Pliny is using the term as derogatory term, not that the people should not be indentified as Christians.

mountainman

The presence of the discussion question at the end, namely:

"Why would a translation of “Christians” be misleading here?

to me indicates that the translator obviously thinks that
the people should not be indentified as Christians.

The sourced Latin term is " Christianis ".

Hanson therefore appears to be translating the Latin" Christianis " as "Christ-niks" - not "Christians".

Toto

Historians seem to think that Christians were originally known as "The Way" and that the term "Christian" was first used by their enemies, and only later adopted by Christians. I think this is all that Hanson means.

This may be speculative, but it doesn't sound unreasonable. It is also possible that Pliny's "Christianoi" were another group, not related at all to the people who later adopted the name "Christians" - but this is even more speculative and has no evidence for it, and I am quite sure that is not what Hanson means.

Hanson seems to have constructed the term Christ-nik by analogy to "beatnik," indicating that he thinks these early Christians were countercultural hippie type individuals.

gurugeorge

WHOA!!!! STOP RIGHT THERE!!!! WHAT????

Where does that come from, if you'd be so kind?

If the people who we now call Christians weren't self identified as "Christians", what on earth is our reason for connecting them with the Christ baloney at all?

In that case, then, this "Christianity" may well have been more like "The New Age", more of a broad philosophico-theurgic study-group movement (which would fit in with Plotinus' arguing against them, and with some of the early apologists seeming to be almost Christ-free in their discourse), and the Jewish variant might just have been a variant that later co-opted the movement (as if the New Age were to be understood as "Deepak Chopraism" 2,000 years from now).

Toto

It comes from Paul. I can't locate the reference right now, but it is a commonplace. The Book of Acts states that the early church was first known as "Christian" at Antioch.

Uh, Paul, who talked about Jesus, or Christ, or some combination thereof.

Could be. That's pretty close to what Doherty believes - that the earliest version of Christianity was more of a philosophical idea based on Jewish themes.

But Christianity is always changing and evolving. No one thinks that the earliest Christianity was like the Christianity of the third century, or post-Constantine.

aa5874

It could NOT be "PAUL".

"Paul" claimed he PERSECUTED the faith and KNEW that there were people IN CHRIST before him.

The actual written evidence in the Pauline writings appear to ELIMINATE "Paul" since 37-40 CE.

andrewcriddle

See acts 9

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles is NOT an early writing is not even considered a credible source.

Toto

Thanks Andrew.

The Book of Acts may or may not be accurate on this detail, but I think it explains why Hanson thinks that "Christian" might not be a good indication of what Pliny meant, and why he uses the term "Christ-nik" instead.