Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-25-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

.................................................. ....................
But let's assume that the letters are authentic. Here is the text in Latin and English.

Pliny and the Christians
The letter from Pliny to Trajan was written apparently around 112 CE and we find a Roman official faced with a situation with which he was not familiar, and wanted assurance from the Emperor that he was doing the right thing. There are no gospel details and not even a mention of the name Jesus.

The timing and the location are correct for these to be pre-Marcionite Christians. Marcion of Pontus would appear in Rome bearing the Apostilicon some 30 odd years later. Some of the suspects were rounded up strictly on the words of informers. Evidently this included persons who were called "Christians" or a word quite similar up to 25 years before. . But the letter itself shows that the definition of what was a "Christian" had undergone a radical redefinition in the recent past. According to the letter, "the contagion of this superstition" had spread very rapidly. The new craze was so pervasive that pagan temples "had been almost deserted". This was a recent occurance, else the situation would have come to offical notice long before, and the situation would not have seemed so novel to Pliny. To paraphrase a modern saying, Pliny was not dealing "with your father's Christians."

This suggests two possibilities. Either the earlier Christians (or Chrestians?) of 25 years earlier were unassociated with the new wave except by accident of name. Or, if there was a continuim, something new had fundamentally been added to the old Christianity that had sparked the new craze; "the towns and even the country villages which are being infected with this cult-contagion. " It was effectively a new religion that had gone viral, although luckily, from Pliny's viewpoint, the peak had past.

So what do we know about the new religion? The most telling comment is "they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice there seems to be some ambiguity implied as to whether Christ was considered a man or divine, “Christo quasi deo.” A Marcionite (or pre-Marcionite) docetic conception of Christ would explain the ambiguity very well.

Hi Jake

Pliny appears to be describing what the Christians and ex-Christians had been doing for decades. I can't see any indication that singing hymns to Christ as God was a recent development. It isn't even clear that Christianity had only very recently become popular in the area. Maybe the previous governor had ignored the issue. From Pliny's other letters to Trajan there was a history of mismanagement in the province.

I agree that Pliny's letters are not evidence of orthodox Christianity but that seems maybe a different issue. The OP seemed to be suggesting not just that Christians in the late 1st century were unorthodox by later standards but that there were no late 1st century Christians.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 10-25-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Pliny appears to be describing what the Christians and ex-Christians had been doing for decades. I can't see any indication that singing hymns to Christ as God was a recent development. It isn't even clear that Christianity had only very recently become popular in the area. Maybe the previous governor had ignored the issue. From Pliny's other letters to Trajan there was a history of mismanagement in the province.

I agree that Pliny's letters are not evidence of orthodox Christianity but that seems maybe a different issue. The OP seemed to be suggesting not just that Christians in the late 1st century were unorthodox by later standards but that there were no late 1st century Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Evidence for the history of Christianity DIRECTLY related to the NT Jesus is the issue. The Pliny letters are NOT EVIDENCE of any Christians directly related to NT Jesus.

Again, you ALREADY know that "Christians" is an ambiguous term and that the OP is referring to Christianity which was DIRECTLY derived from the NT Jesus Christ.

It is CLEAR that Pliny himself had ZERO knowledge of the BELIEFS of the Christians or their history and had to TORTURE some to find out what they Believed.

Pliny himself LIVED in ROME and should have been Familiar with Christians.

Pliny letters TEND to confirm that the history of Christianity was INITIATED without any actual character called Jesus.

J-D · 10-25-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Pliny appears to be describing what the Christians and ex-Christians had been doing for decades. I can't see any indication that singing hymns to Christ as God was a recent development. It isn't even clear that Christianity had only very recently become popular in the area. Maybe the previous governor had ignored the issue. From Pliny's other letters to Trajan there was a history of mismanagement in the province.

I agree that Pliny's letters are not evidence of orthodox Christianity but that seems maybe a different issue. The OP seemed to be suggesting not just that Christians in the late 1st century were unorthodox by later standards but that there were no late 1st century Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Evidence for the history of Christianity DIRECTLY related to the NT Jesus is the issue. The Pliny letters are NOT EVIDENCE of any Christians directly related to NT Jesus.

Again, you ALREADY know that "Christians" is an ambiguous term and that the OP is referring to Christianity which was DIRECTLY derived from the NT Jesus Christ.

It is CLEAR that Pliny himself had ZERO knowledge of the BELIEFS of the Christians or their history and had to TORTURE some to find out what they Believed.

Pliny himself LIVED in ROME and should have been Familiar with Christians.

You have given no reason to think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Pliny letters TEND to confirm that the history of Christianity was INITIATED without any actual character called Jesus.

You have not shown how.

arnoldo · 10-25-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

......Don't the letters between Pliny and Trajan about the Christian problem conflict with your analysis ?

They date from c 111 CE but they refer to a Christian movement going back some decades before that time.

Andrew Criddle

Again, your implications are NOT logical.

You ALREADY know in advance that Pliny the younger NOWHERE mentions Jesus and that it cannot be PRESUMED that there was ONLY one single Christian movement in the 2nd century.

As I have pointed out to you more than once even in gMark and gLuke there was some other character who was called Christ and Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ.

You ALREADY know in advance that the name Christ was NOT unique to Jesus and that even in the Synoptics that it was claimed Many shall come in the name Christ.

See Mark 13.21 and Matthew 24.23. It was PREDICTED in the very NT that Many persons will be called CHRIST.

The Name CHRIST is NOT derived from Jesus.

Justin Martyr claimed there were MANY different cults called Christians who did NOT BELIEVE the Jesus story.

Justin Martyr also claims that the Jesus story has been know at the time he wrote his Apology for over 150 years. IMHO, Justin Martyr's writings does not support the hypothesis that Christianity began in the second century.

Quote:

But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible —let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof of those things which are urgent.
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/publ...ore_christ.htm

aa5874 · 10-25-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...Justin Martyr also claims that the Jesus story has been know at the time he wrote his Apology for over 150 years. IMHO, Justin Martyr's writings does not support the hypothesis that Christianity began in the second century...

Justin Martyr claimed Jesus did actually exist as the Child of a Ghost in the reign of Tiberius so I don't know how a Child of a Ghost could have started Christianity in the 1st century.

Examine "First Apology"XXI

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter....

There are many things said by Justin about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

Jesus could NOT have started Christianity and still be the Child of a Ghost, born WITHOUT Sexual union.

Do you know how Justin's Child of a Ghost called Jesus could have started Christianity in any century?

Justin Marty supports MYTH Jesus.

Myth Jesus did NOT exist in the reign of Tiberius.

J-D · 10-25-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...Justin Martyr also claims that the Jesus story has been know at the time he wrote his Apology for over 150 years. IMHO, Justin Martyr's writings does not support the hypothesis that Christianity began in the second century...

Justin Martyr claimed Jesus did actually exist as the Child of a Ghost in the reign of Tiberius so I don't know how a Child of a Ghost could have started Christianity in the 1st century.

Examine "First Apology"XXI

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter....

There are many things said by Justin about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

Jesus could NOT have started Christianity and still be the Child of a Ghost, born WITHOUT Sexual union.

Do you know how Justin's Child of a Ghost called Jesus could have started Christianity in any century?

Justin Marty supports MYTH Jesus.

Myth Jesus did NOT exist in the reign of Tiberius.

You have not explained what you mean, in this context, by the term 'Myth Jesus'.

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2011, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

Pliny appears to be describing what the Christians and ex-Christians had been doing for decades. I can't see any indication that singing hymns to Christ as God was a recent development. It isn't even clear that Christianity had only very recently become popular in the area. Maybe the previous governor had ignored the issue. From Pliny's other letters to Trajan there was a history of mismanagement in the province.

I agree that Pliny's letters are not evidence of orthodox Christianity but that seems maybe a different issue. The OP seemed to be suggesting not just that Christians in the late 1st century were unorthodox by later standards but that there were no late 1st century Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

I see your point.

I think we should be a bit cautious with how we view the testimony of the alleged Christians. They were rounded up in a “witch hunt” manner based on accusations compiled in anonymous lists. Who knows under what duress some may have confessed to being Christians before being brought before the more enlightened Pliny. Just read the letter again and mentally substitute “witch” for “Christian” and you will catch my drift.

Some of these unfortunates recanted saying they were never Christians (which leaves open the counter charge “were you lying then or lying now?”) or even better, “I may have been a Christian but it was such a long long time ago!”

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2011, 04:44 AM

Andrew,

There is something amiss between Taictus Annals 15:44 and the Letters between Trajan and Pliny. If the alleged events described in Tacitus Annals 15:44 were accurate, then Christians had been known since the time of Nero as "a class hated for their abominations" known for their hatred of mankind, well known as a hideous and shameful superstition, of whom an immense multitude had been convicted of burning Rome, and then publicly killed in very grusome manners, including human torches in Nero's garden.

This renders Pliny's rather bland inquiry about his "hesitations and lack of information concerning the Christians" a bit incongruent. Indeed, how could the quintessential Roman lawyer Pliny be so apparently ignorant of the Neronian pogrom?

Pliny writes to Trajan that he did not know
. the legal grounds for prosecution
. how stringently to prosecute
. what punishment was required
. how far it was to be carried out

Either the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny, or both are inauthentic.

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2011, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

.................................................. ....................
But let's assume that the letters are authentic. Here is the text in Latin and English.

Pliny and the Christians
The letter from Pliny to Trajan was written apparently around 112 CE and we find a Roman official faced with a situation with which he was not familiar, and wanted assurance from the Emperor that he was doing the right thing. There are no gospel details and not even a mention of the name Jesus.

The timing and the location are correct for these to be pre-Marcionite Christians. Marcion of Pontus would appear in Rome bearing the Apostilicon some 30 odd years later. Some of the suspects were rounded up strictly on the words of informers. Evidently this included persons who were called "Christians" or a word quite similar up to 25 years before. . But the letter itself shows that the definition of what was a "Christian" had undergone a radical redefinition in the recent past. According to the letter, "the contagion of this superstition" had spread very rapidly. The new craze was so pervasive that pagan temples "had been almost deserted". This was a recent occurance, else the situation would have come to offical notice long before, and the situation would not have seemed so novel to Pliny. To paraphrase a modern saying, Pliny was not dealing "with your father's Christians."

This suggests two possibilities. Either the earlier Christians (or Chrestians?) of 25 years earlier were unassociated with the new wave except by accident of name. Or, if there was a continuim, something new had fundamentally been added to the old Christianity that had sparked the new craze; "the towns and even the country villages which are being infected with this cult-contagion. " It was effectively a new religion that had gone viral, although luckily, from Pliny's viewpoint, the peak had past.

So what do we know about the new religion? The most telling comment is "they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice there seems to be some ambiguity implied as to whether Christ was considered a man or divine, “Christo quasi deo.” A Marcionite (or pre-Marcionite) docetic conception of Christ would explain the ambiguity very well.

Hi Jake

Pliny appears to be describing what the Christians and ex-Christians had been doing for decades. I can't see any indication that singing hymns to Christ as God was a recent development.

Andrew,

N/A

If the previous governor had ignored the issue, then there is no indication that the singing of the hymn or the cult contagion was anything that had occurred decades earlier.

Jake

andrewcriddle · 10-26-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Andrew,

There is something amiss between Taictus Annals 15:44 and the Letters between Trajan and Pliny. If the alleged events described in Tacitus Annals 15:44 were accurate, then Christians had been known since the time of Nero as "a class hated for their abominations" known for their hatred of mankind, well known as a hideous and shameful superstition, of whom an immense multitude had been convicted of burning Rome, and then publicly killed in very grusome manners, including human torches in Nero's garden.

This renders Pliny's rather bland inquiry about his "hesitations and lack of information concerning the Christians" a bit incongruent. Indeed, how could the quintessential Roman lawyer Pliny be so apparently ignorant of the Neronian pogrom?

Pliny writes to Trajan that he did not know
. the legal grounds for prosecution
. how stringently to prosecute
. what punishment was required
. how far it was to be carried out

Either the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny, or both are inauthentic.

Jake

Hi Jake

Since Nero was apparently subject to damnatio memoriae I don't think his pogrom was a legally valid precedent.

Andrew Criddle

10-26-2011, 04:44 AM	#58
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Tacitus and Pliny Andrew, There is something amiss between Taictus Annals 15:44 and the Letters between Trajan and Pliny. If the alleged events described in Tacitus Annals 15:44 were accurate, then Christians had been known since the time of Nero as "a class hated for their abominations" known for their hatred of mankind, well known as a hideous and shameful superstition, of whom an immense multitude had been convicted of burning Rome, and then publicly killed in very grusome manners, including human torches in Nero's garden. This renders Pliny's rather bland inquiry about his "hesitations and lack of information concerning the Christians" a bit incongruent. Indeed, how could the quintessential Roman lawyer Pliny be so apparently ignorant of the Neronian pogrom? Pliny writes to Trajan that he did not know . the legal grounds for prosecution . how stringently to prosecute . what punishment was required . how far it was to be carried out Either the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny, or both are inauthentic. Jake

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.