Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-18-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But that's just it - Pliny is not at all inconvenient to mythicism.

The letter exchange between King Agbar and Jesus was once very brazenly convenient but alas times have changed. The letter exchange between "Dear Paul" and "Dear Seneca" was once very brazenly convenient but alas times have moved forward. The "TF" in Josephus was once very brazenly convenient but alas attitudes have become more sceptical and less accepting of pious forgery ....

I think you have missed the entire point.

We can identify these notorious forgeries by various means, one of which is that they were convenient to someone. Some of them are so wildly incompetently forged that even the believers have to admit that they are bogus (such as the Agbar correspondence). In other cases, the forgery is not obvious, and believers and others claim that the charge of forgery is based on mere convenience - to a modern person who does not like the results.

Tom Verenna had charged that Robert Price sees interpolations where it is convenient, but I would point out that there is nothing convenient about an interpolation here for any point of view. Pliny's letter is the earliest evidence of Christianity, but it is not evidence for a historical Jesus, and it is not especially flattering to Christians.

Vorkosigan · 09-18-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The point of this thread is to consider Robert M Price's claim that this letter is an obvious forgery. The manuscript tradition might be a part of this, but it seems consistent with authenticity, or a forgery in early times, or later.

Critical opinion is more varied than I expected.

Ditto. You commented above that Pliny is no big deal for mythicists, but I wonder if this variety of scholarly opinion reflects that same effect for scholars. It's ok to critically examine the authenticity of this letter because it really doesn't affect things one way or another.

Really got to get a hold of Detering's book....

aa5874 · 09-18-2013, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...We can identify these notorious forgeries by various means, one of which is that they were convenient to someone. Some of them are so wildly incompetently forged that even the believers have to admit that they are bogus (such as the Agbar correspondence). In other cases, the forgery is not obvious, and believers and others claim that the charge of forgery is based on mere convenience - to a modern person who does not like the results.

Tom Verenna had charged that Robert Price sees interpolations where it is convenient, but I would point out that there is nothing convenient about an interpolation here for any point of view. Pliny's letter is the earliest evidence of Christianity, but it is not evidence for a historical Jesus, and it is not especially flattering to Christians.

Of course, Pliny's letter to Trajan about Christians can be a forgery. The very fact that the letter mentions people who claimed that they were Christians up to 25 years earlier is highly questionable.

See http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html

Pliny's Letter to Trajan

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.

It is rather strange that there were Christians since the 1st century in the Roman Empire and that Pliny did NOT know what they believed.

Which Christ did Pliny Christians curse?

If there were NO Christians until the 2nd century then Pliny's letters is a forgery.

There is NO corroboration by non-apologetic writers that there were people called Christians in the Roman Empire who worshiped a Christ as a God c 185-115 CE.

The letter to Trajan about Christians may been have falsely attributed to Pliny.

Sheshbazzar · 09-18-2013, 11:15 PM

There were early (and earlier) 'Christians' that did not believe in any 'Jesus' as being The Messiah, The 'Christ', or 'THE' Son of God. Yet were called 'Christians'.
Thus it is fully possible that Pliny actually dealt with and wrote about the 'Christians' (or 'Chrestians'),
_the evidences shows the usages and spellings were often interchanged or confused, and that latter 'editors' were quite inclined to piously 'correct' Chrestian' (a 'good person') into being a Christ-ian.
Quite naturally it would have been difficult for Pliny to have established with any certainty exactly what this diverse group employing these term(s) actually believed.

aa5874 · 09-19-2013, 12:17 AM

There is no evidence from non-apologetics that there were ChrEstians or ChrIstians who worshiped a ChrIst as God since c 185 CE.

ChrEstians may have been followers of ChrEstus in the time of Claudius--See Suetonius Life of Claudius.,

There may have been ChrIstians who worshiped Simon Magus and Menander as Gods since the time of Claudius---See Justin's Apology and Origen's Against Celsus.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god.....

Now examine Origen's Against Celsus--the Simonians worshiped Simon as a God---NOT Jesus

Origen's Against Celsus 5[/u]

Quote:

He next pours down Upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the "power" of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories...

The earliest Christians did NOT worship Jesus as a God--they worshiped SIMON.

Sheshbazzar · 09-19-2013, 10:00 AM

Justin on the name 'Christians';

Quote:

And this we acknowledge, that as among the Greeks those who teach such theories as please themselves are all called by the one name "Philosopher," though their doctrines be diverse, so also among the Barbarians this name on which accusations are accumulated is the common property of those who ARE,
and those who SEEM wise. For all are called 'Christians'...

Justin is clearly identifying the existence of two very different contemporary groups whom identifed themselves by the term 'Christian'.

Quote:

There was a Samaritan, Simon....... And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils....... And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus......... And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies...... All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called 'Christians'.

Many early 'Christians' did not believe in any 'Jesus' or in any Jewish 'Christ'.

.

Minimalist · 09-19-2013, 10:04 AM

Then someone would have had to be foresighted enough to go back and plant a forgery into Tertullian making reference to Pliny.

That's moving into the "tin-foil hat" layer of conspiracy stuff.

Sheshbazzar · 09-19-2013, 10:18 AM

There would have been no need of forgery. Pliny could have actually encountered 'Christians' and wrote of it.

Stuart · 09-19-2013, 05:09 PM

Muchael Sympson posted this wonderful article articulating all the reasons why Pliny's 10th book is a fraud. It was on the Delphi forums, so I made a copy and placed it in a PDF (If you ask I'll point you to it on google docs). I'm not sure if that is a copy right violation, so I'll point you to his forum posts.

Sympson on Pliny Book 10

Also Hermann Detering (2011) but it's in German, so many of you would have trouble with it. Falsche Zeugen. pp. 75–121. ISBN 978-3-86569-070-8.

Tom Verenna · 09-19-2013, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am listening to he latest Bible Geek (Sept 8) and at one point Price makes a side comment that the famous letter from Pliny the Younger is clearly a later invention.

Price's reasons sounded credible, but I was surprised that I hadn't heard any scholarly comment to that effect.

Any references? Possibly some class notes from Darrel Doughty?

ETA: Peter Kirby links to Doughty's archived Pliny's Questions concerning Treatment of Christians and Trajan's Reply

Wow, that is really a stretch. Bob thinks a lot of inconvenient things are interpolations. I'm not sure how valid such arguments are, nor how useful they might be when given context. I like Bob, but I wish he would tone it down a bit.

But that's just it - Pliny is not at all inconvenient to mythicism.

You misunderstand. I didn't say it was convenient to mythicism. I just said it was convenient for him. I think he is absolutely wrong about Pliny. When he finds the time to publish a peer reviewed article about it, I'll happily evaluate the claim in detail.

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

09-18-2013, 11:15 PM	#34
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There were early (and earlier) 'Christians' that did not believe in any 'Jesus' as being The Messiah, The 'Christ', or 'THE' Son of God. Yet were called 'Christians'. Thus it is fully possible that Pliny actually dealt with and wrote about the 'Christians' (or 'Chrestians'), _the evidences shows the usages and spellings were often interchanged or confused, and that latter 'editors' were quite inclined to piously 'correct' Chrestian' (a 'good person') into being a Christ-ian. Quite naturally it would have been difficult for Pliny to have established with any certainty exactly what this diverse group employing these term(s) actually believed.

09-19-2013, 10:04 AM	#37
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Then someone would have had to be foresighted enough to go back and plant a forgery into Tertullian making reference to Pliny. That's moving into the "tin-foil hat" layer of conspiracy stuff.

09-19-2013, 10:18 AM	#38
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There would have been no need of forgery. Pliny could have actually encountered 'Christians' and wrote of it.

09-19-2013, 05:09 PM	#39
Stuart Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: California Posts: 39	Muchael Sympson posted this wonderful article articulating all the reasons why Pliny's 10th book is a fraud. It was on the Delphi forums, so I made a copy and placed it in a PDF (If you ask I'll point you to it on google docs). I'm not sure if that is a copy right violation, so I'll point you to his forum posts. Sympson on Pliny Book 10 Also Hermann Detering (2011) but it's in German, so many of you would have trouble with it. Falsche Zeugen. pp. 75–121. ISBN 978-3-86569-070-8.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.