Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

[MrMacSon]

I saw this take yesterday or reddit's r/AcademicBiblical (but can't now find it) -

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god .... When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food

- the question being, I think, is/was it reference to a sun-worshipping cult? [with Christ or perhaps Chrestus as the Sun; or vice versa]

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 121

.
God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship, as it is written [Deuteronomy 4;19], but no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun; but for the name of Jesus you may see men of every nation who have endured and do endure all sufferings, rather than deny Him. For the word of His truth and wisdom is more ardent and more light-giving than the rays of the sun, and sinks down into the depths of heart and mind. Hence also the Scripture said, ‘His name shall rise up [ἀνατελεῖ] above the sun.’ And again, Zechariah says, ‘His name is Ἀνατολὴ / Rising/ 'the East'.’

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01. ... .cxxi.html
.

That passage is from about the second fifth of that chapter.

The chapter starts

And as they kept silence, I [Justin] went on: “[The Scripture] by David about this Christ, my friends, said no longer that ‘in His seed’ the nations should be blessed, but ‘in Him.’ So it is here: ‘His name shall rise up for ever above the sun; and in Him shall all nations be blessed’ [Psalm 72:17] But if all nations are blessed in Christ, and we of all nations believe in Him, then He is indeed the Christ, and we are those blessed by Him. God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship, as it is written, but no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun ... https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01. ... .cxxi.html

‘His name shall rise up for ever above the sun ...’ — twice in that chapter


The last half is

But if He so shone forth and was so mighty in His first advent (which was without honour and comeliness, and very contemptible), that in no nation He is unknown, and everywhere men have repented of the old wickedness in each nation’s way of living, so that even demons were subject to His name, and all powers and kingdoms feared His name more than they feared all the dead, shall He not on His glorious advent destroy by all means all those who hated Him, and who unrighteously departed from Him, but give rest to His own, rewarding them with all they have looked for? To us, therefore, it has been granted to hear, and to understand, and to be saved by this Christ, and to recognise all the [truths revealed] by the Father. Wherefore He said to Him: [ Isaiah 49:6 => ] ‘It is a great thing for Thee to be called my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and turn again the dispersed of Israel. I have appointed Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be their salvation unto the end of the earth.’

[John2]

Related to the previous point, Pliny never hints in the least that these Christians are worshiping (as a god) a would-be Jewish revolutionary or messiah that had been executed by the Roman state. As I said above, especially considering the context of Roman-Jewish political relations of the period, I’m surprised Pliny would fail to mention this detail.

Was Jesus ever considered a would-be Jewish revolutionary, though? I don't know any early source that portrayed Jesus that way. Christians were regarded as belonging to a superstitious sect according to Tacitus and Suetonius, rather than to a revolutionary one.

I think the NT itself presents Jesus as a revolutionary, at least in the sense of having the same goals as revolutionaries (like altering the "customs of our fathers" and the belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth," as per Josephus) and dying like one.

I see Jesus as being very much like the way Josephus describes Fourth Philosophers, particularly Theudas and the type that he says "deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government." What were Jesus' teachings against the "customs of our fathers" if not "innovations" and his proclamation of the "kingdom of God" and the coming of the "son of man" if not a call for (or at least a prediction of) a "change of government"? Jesus just had his particular way of accomplishing these things and paid the same price for it as other Fourth Philosophers.

But by the time of Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius, the setting of Christianity had changed into a post-destruction (and more largely Gentile) "superstition" removed from its original "revolutionary" context.

[GakuseiDon]

I think the NT itself presents Jesus as a revolutionary, at least in the sense of having the same goals as revolutionaries (like altering the "customs of our fathers" and the belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth," as per Josephus) and dying like one.

I don't get that from the NT, I'm afraid. Sure, Jesus might have really been an anti-Roman authority revolutionary, or might never have existed at all, or anything in between. But I'm not aware of anyone presenting Jesus as a would-be Jewish revolutionary until more modern times. I'd be interested to know to the contrary.

[Ken Olson]

The section in question is almost certainly a Christian interpolation

https://vridar.org/2016/02/17/fresh-dou ... hristians/

It is not the standard size of his other chapters, being many times larger. The writing style is very different. Also the 10th letter was unknown until the middle ages, and the manuscripts with it late. Jerome for example knows only of 9 letters.

But in my view there are many other internal problems with the context of the legal letters to Trajan. It reads like a thinly disguised apology. The purpose would have been to support the notion of a Trajan era persecution, as church lore said there were many. Another problem is Christians supposedly being demanded to call Trajan Dominus et Deus (“Lord and God”). This is ridiculous. No Roman Emperor could expect to be anything more than Divus (Divine). After their deaths, the best that emperors could hope for was to be called Divus (Divine), not Deus (God). "Lord and Master" was how some sycophants addressed him, never God. In fact he rejected even Lord. The poet Statius states that Domitian rejected the title Dominus, much like his predecessor Augustus.

This is not a witness I would put any weight on. Interpolation is screamed at from a half dozen different directions.

I think you mean Letter 96 (Pliny to Trajan on the Christians) of Book X of Pliny's Letters. Are you referring to the size of the Letter in comparison to the other letters and the lateness of the manuscripts of Book X? Or do you know a manuscript of Book X that does not contain Letter 96 (or 96 and 97, which is Trajan's reply to Pliny).

The earliest attestation of Letter 10.96 that I am aware of is in Tertullian's Apology, 2, c. 197:

Oh, how great the glory of the ruler who should bring to light some Christian who had devoured a hundred infants! But, instead of that, we find that even inquiry in regard to our case is forbidden. For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some from their steadfastness, being still annoyed by their great numbers, at last sought the advice of Trajan, the reigning emperor, as to what he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an obstinate disinclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and other crimes. Upon this Trajan wrote back that Christians were by no means to be sought after; but if they were brought before him, they should be punished. O miserable deliverance — under the necessities of the case, a self-contradiction! It forbids them to be sought after as innocent, and it commands them to be punished as guilty. It is at once merciful and cruel; it passes by, and it punishes. (Tertullian, Apology,2).

What is the evidence that the Letter specifically requires Christians to call Trajan Dominus et Deus? What is required of them seems far more general (also, Pliny says he separated Roman citizens for a different legal process, so this would apply only to non-citizens):

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians and called upon the gods after me, and with incense and wine made obeisance to your statue, which I had ordered to be brought in together with images of the gods for this very purpose, and who moreover cursed Christ (those who are truly Christian cannot, it is said, be forced to do any of these things), I ordered to be acquitted.

Others who were named by an informer stated that they were Christians and then denied it. They said that in fact they had been, but had abandoned their allegiance, some three years previously, some more years earlier, and one or two as many as twenty years before. All
these as well worshiped your statue and images of the gods, and blasphemed Christ (Pliny, Letters, 10.96).

Finally, I don't think this reads like a thinly disguised apology. Is there a clear suggestion in the text that the Christian beliefs are actually true? I don't think trying to establish that there was persecution under Trajan provides a convincing motive to forge a text. Do we have any reason to think there was in fact no persecution of Christians under Trajan? Epistle 97, Trajan's reply to Pliny, suggests that Trajan was not directing a persecution against the Christians, but that Roman magistrates had to try such cases as were brought before them by accusers as part of their general function of maintaining law and order.

You have followed the appropriate procedure, my Secundus, in examining the cases of those brought before you as Christians, for no
general rule can be laid down which would establish a definite routine. Christians are not to be sought out. If brought before you and found guilty, they must be punished, but in such a way that a person who denies that he is a Christian and demonstrates this by his action, that is, by worshiping our gods, may obtain pardon for repentance, even if his previous record is suspect. Documents published anonymously must play no role in any accusation, for they give the worst example, and are foreign to our age (Trajan to Pliny; Pliny, Letters, 10.97).

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

I saw this take yesterday or reddit's r/AcademicBiblical (but can't now find it) -

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god .... When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--ordinary and innocent food ... I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

- the question being, I think, is/was it reference to a sun-worshipping cult? [with Christ or perhaps Chrestus as the Sun; or vice versa]

Perhaps, but I think we might look at the similarity to a practice within Judaism before assuming a pagan sun cult.

Pliny on the Christians:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. (Pliny, Espistles, 10.96).

Josephus on the Essenes:

And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. After this every one of them are sent away by their curators, to exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great diligence till the fifth hour. After which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside their [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening. (Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.5/)

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

Philo's Logos also has a solar aspect. His name after all is 'the rising.' "Behold a man (anthrőpos) whose name is the rising (anatole)" ἀνατολή = sunrise.

[Stuart]

Yes I mean letter 96

[Charles Wilson]

That leaves Pliny the Younger and Tacitus to have material interpolated into their texts and letters to show that they were not so cynical as to have the nerve to create the Empty Tomb out of whole cloth. They are then shown as providing an early part of the Christian History when they had no idea as to what was to happen.

Shown to whom, though? Were the interpolations there to impress pagans? To impress other Christians? 'Interpolation' isn't an answer to a question, because it raises its own question. For example, whether Pliny the Younger wrote 'it' (whatever 'it' may be) or it was written by an interpolator: why was it written, what does it mean, etc? Similarly for interpolations into Paul and other writers.

Well, to keep speculations to a minimum, when the entire Christian Enterprise began, it took some time before the second generation or so had to make it all consistent and descriptive of EVERYTHING. Lenin had to show that Russia in fact had gone through the Industrial Revolution to justify the Soviet takeover of Russia. It didn't matter if it was true or false, it was determined that it was true and it was off to the Gulag if you disagreed.

Most of this Interpolating Task these days is given to Eusebius and he's as good a fall guy as anyone. He appears to be writing in the same manner - and for the same reasons - as a Lenin would write. It wouldn't matter if someone in the Roman Court knew the truth or not. Both he and Eusebius would be gone in a few years but the writing would be there and those who followed would see it as *TRUE*. That's all that mattered. See also Flavius Constantinus Heraclius, who strengthened the Eastern Front of his empire by signing agreements with the wandering peoples of that area. Heraclius was gone in ten years or so but we are still living with results of his actions.

For example, whether Pliny the Younger wrote 'it' (whatever 'it' may be) or it was written by an interpolator: why was it written, what does it mean, etc?

The whole Otho, Verginius Rufus thing finds Tacitus and Pliny the Younger speaking at VR's funeral. In my scheme of things, it's fairly weak but it does explain the tie-In to the Empty Tomb. As long as the Roman Thesis holds sway, the death of Otho and Verginius Rufus should come into play. GJohn has Galba's beheading, Otho's sword-in-the-side with water and blood (Death at the Po River) and Vitellius' homosexual relations with Asiaticus, explaining the vinegar on the sponge on the hyssop stick. Otho dies on an early Sunday morning and you can calculate that date if you wish.

Otho dies and is hastily disposed of. A Mausoleum is built at Brixellum and VR high-tails it out the back door when the troops show to proclaim him Emperor (The third time it happened!). The tomb is empty all right...

I could be radically wrong here but it would make some sense to have Interpolations placed into Pliny and Tacitus...and Suetonius as well.
Everybody's got their Interpolations. I've got mine. (Almost sounds good enough to be a country song.)

Best,

CW

[Aleph One]

I'm just responding to a few of these as I read along the replies.

Was Jesus ever considered a would-be Jewish revolutionary, though? I don't know any early source that portrayed Jesus that way. Christians were regarded as belonging to a superstitious sect according to Tacitus and Suetonius, rather than to a revolutionary one.

I can see your point. My line of thinking was more that he's accused of claiming to be "King of the Jews" and is obviously critical of the current Jewish leadership, who had been instated by the Romans, not to mention that the distinction between terrorist rebel and non-violent messiah may have been lost on representatives of the empire.

I've always been interested in the parts highlighted below: (1) Christians were affected by an edict against political associations, (2) Christianity called "depraved, excessive superstition"

Yeah and (apparently) he uses the same word for "secret organization" or "political society" that he earlier uses (in a previous letter) to describe a would-be public troupe of firefighters, which Trajan warns him off for reasons including "secret societies always lead to subterfuge."

The section in question is almost certainly a Christian interpolation

So I really don't know much about these debates so I'm eager to look into it (I just thought the consensus was that it's genuine). Also I think because the content of Pliny's letter seemed benign enough to not immediately put me off (unlike a really obvious interpolation like the Testimonium Flavianum) I wasn't so suspicious. [Edit: Other than the persecutions (which is no small "other") which did ring apologetic warning bells for me too.]

[MrMacSon]

I saw this take yesterday or reddit's r/AcademicBiblical (but can't now find it) -

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god .... When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--ordinary and innocent food ... I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

- the question being, I think, is/was it reference to a sun-worshipping cult? [with Christ or perhaps Chrestus as the Sun; or vice versa]

Perhaps, but I think we might look at the similarity to a practice within Judaism before assuming a pagan sun cult.

Pliny on the Christians:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. (Pliny, Espistles, 10.96).

Josephus on the Essenes:

And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. After this every one of them are sent away by their curators, to exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great diligence till the fifth hour. After which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside their [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening. (Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.5/)

Best,

Ken

Cheers Ken. I certainly wasn't proposing a pagan sun cult, which is why I posted up thread (top of this page) about Justin Martyr citing Hebrew scripture making reference to the sun (and I have Suetonius' Claudius 25 and Nero 16 in mind on the Christ aspect, too).

Josephus' War, 2.8.5 certainly helps expand and elaborated on a Jewish dimension.