I'll bump it again. 

I do not have a whole lot of facts about the non-existence of jesus, even though I think he was a made up character that had an amalgamation of several other cults before him. 

BUT, even if such a dude existed, by all accounts, he seemed like a bullying asshole and would certainly not be someone that I would follow.

I remember a guy that used to post on here quite a bit that called himself Rook Hawkins. He had mountains of biblical texts and dissertations about the mythology of Jesus. 

Unfortunately, I do not have enough information to really debate that matter. I don't believe that Jesus existed, but when people start debating texts, historians, and scholarly works, I get a little lost. 

You see, I take it this way, even if someone names jesus had existed, that would prove absolutely nothing in my mind. So I have never really pursued it. 

I had the bible beat into my head so much as a child that touching a bible today is revolting. I'd rather not waste my reading time studying a cult that I used to be a part of. 

HOWEVER, with that having been said, I applaud the Atheists out there that take the time to do so. I think the more evidence to disprove any of their "theist science and history" can never be a bad thing. 

But it is just not something I know enough about to debate one on. 

Whenever I get into debates with theists ( whether online or in person) I generally use the position that the bible is a terrible framework to build your life around and there is no point in reading it. 

I would like some more pointers about the non-existence of Jesus, just to really piss the christians off. But, I am too lazy to research them.  Any quick pointers like Jesus Never Existed posted could prove to be helpful to me in the future. 

I may have to do some more reading up on this. While I have stated that it does not really matter if there was a jesus either way ( guy was a complete asshole if he did exist) but having more information to refute the existence of him could certainly help piss more christians off. Which is always a good thing in my book. 

Thanks for the info. 

Dude, the bible claims Jesus had THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of followers and was known far and wide! Yet the historical records shows that's not true!  Another great link here:

I can recall being taught the following story about Jesus at the Jewish day school I attended:

"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose Hebrew name was Rabbi Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter named Joseph and his mother's name was Mary. Mary became pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and became a learned rabbi. He traveled all over Israel preaching that people should love one another. Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he did not deny this, which made the other rabbis very angry. He caused so much controversy that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate had him crucified. He was buried in a tomb and later his body was found to be missing since it had probably been stolen by his disciples."

A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent story, I became interested in the origins of Christianity and decided to do some further reading on the "famous Rabbi Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any legitimate historical source.

There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no historical Jesus. 

  In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.   

 http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Why not??

You should tell her the truth that Jesus only  exists in the delusions of looney ChristNUTS!

You have a comprehensive list. I note you do not go in search of the "real" Jesus. Yet you do go in search of the "real" Moses. Why dismiss one mythology and try to salvage a "kernel of truth" about another?

Awesome points, but you are always going to battle up hill with believers. They have faith and faith doesn't care about facts or evidence.

LOL..can someone translate Old Seer's post? Has senility set in?

[1] Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels,..."

Holy crap, batman!  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. 

That's like saying, "Tom Sawyer cannot be found in literature any earlier than the writings of Mark Twain..."

Damn.  And to think you LEAD with that one.  I gotsta keep reading.  This is gonna be good.

Personally, I have no problem with this kind of language, but one of your brothers-in-christ on the board here would like you to know that you're being, and I quote, "disgusting".

Christians, eh ? 

Did you just compare your lord and savior to a fictional character ? 

Oh, okay. 

Yes indeed. Please do keep posting.

Hi JesusNeverExisted,

JNE wrote: "[1] Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings
earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only toward the
end of the first century CE."

I agree with you that the book of Mark was not composed until the end of the first century (around A.D. 70), but most scholars believe that various earlier sources, both oral and written, underlie the text. These may include:

1. A passion narrative.

2. Miracle stories.

3. Logia source or Q.

4. Other narrative traditions.

Further, many of the letters of Paul are undoubtedly very early and contain even earlier hymns, creeds and traditions. Critical scholarship also accepts that certain eyewitnesses of Jesus (or Apostles) wrote epistles about him.

JNE wrote: "[2] There is no non-Christian reference to Jesus earlier than the second century.
The two references in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) are unreliable
and can be dismissed in their entirety as later Christian insertions."

It is widely accepted that Mara bar Sarapion wrote about Jesus in the first century. If we are allowed to include the very early second century then Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger also mention him. Papyrus fragments from the book of John are also found at this particular time. As for Josephus, the mention of Jesus in Antiquities 20 is not disputed by scholars who specialize in Josephan studies. This is first century evidence right where we would expect it--from a Jew intimately familiar with the history of Palestine. There is an obvious Christian interpolation in Antiquities 18, of course. But even here it is highly likely that Josephus described Jesus and his ministry in either a neutral or negative manner. I personally believe that it was entirely negative. I believe this because Origen explictly states that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. How would he know this unless Josephus asserted this belief in the Antiquities? This amounts to two mentions of Jesus by Josephus.

JNE wrote: "[3] The early epistles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus
(Messiah Savior) as a spiritual, heavenly being, one revealed by God through
scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a
new salvation movement acting on revelation from the Spirit."

To make it easier on me, I'll simply quote from The Jesus Legend: "[Paul] knew Jesus was born and raised as a Jew (Gal 4:4) and that he was a descendent of Abraham and David (Gal. 3:16; Rom 1:3). Paul knew Jesus had a brother named James (Gal.1:19) and perhaps other brothers as well (1 Cor. 9:5.). He knew by name a number of disciples who ministered with Jesus, and he knew that Jesus's disciple Peter was married (1 Cor.9:5). Paul also knew that Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23) and that he was executed by crucifixion (1 Cor. 1:17-18; Gal 5:11; 6:12; Phil 2:8; 3:18) with the help of certain Judean Jews (1 Thess. 2:14-15). Paul was aware that Jesus instituted a memorial meal the night before his death (1 Cor. 11:23-25, and that Jesus was buried after his death and was resurrected three days later...".

Hi Anonymouse,

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to narrow the focus a bit so that we don't go off into too many directions at once.

Anonymouse wrote: "Pliny the Younger does NOT mention him, period. Read his words exactly. Same for Mara and Suetonius. Again, read the words exactly. The only possibly credible one does not name him either but contains a corroborative detail on execution by Pilate.

If those people had been called Jesusites there would be many fewer questions. However the name "anointed ones" doesn't get you anywhere. There was a whole lot of anointing going on in those days all over the world. It was not an exclusively Judean custom."

Let's discuss Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius. These three men had several things in common:

1. Each wrote about a charismatic leader named either "Christus" or "Chrestus" who developed a large following. The actions of these followers resulted in major disturbances throughout Rome or its provinces during which an Emperor was forced to respond with harsh punitive measures.

2. Each individual led very similar lives. "The three Romans, who are close to one another, all come from state circles, had all held government office and in addition had literary ambitions." Quotation from The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide.

3. All three wrote about Christus or Chrestus between approximately 110 and 120 A.D. Incidentally, Pliny and Tacitus were friends and neighboring administrators. Suetonius was also a friend to Pliny.

The question remaining is whether or not the Christus or Chrestus mentioned in these works corresponds to the Christ mentioned in the New Testament.

Let's begin with Pliny the Younger. Pliny reports to the Emperor Trajan that various people have been accused of being Christians. He next asks what should be done with those who confess to be Christians but will not recant. Finally, he proceeds on a course of action after the Emperor responds to him with a letter. 

It is very important for this discussion to note that Pliny relates that Christians will not worship images of gods or Emperor. They also will not revile Christus. The Christians of the N.T. were also forbidden to do such things. Further, this particular man Christus was actually worshipped as a god and had hymns sung to him in a religious service. The same is true for the Christ of the N.T. Additionally, few who considered themselves "Messiah" actually claimed the title of Deity or had it conferred upon them. Both Jesus Christ of the N.T. and the Christus of Pliny appear to be precisely the same individual since both were worshipped as God alone by their adherents. 

Both the Christians of the N.T. and the Christians of Pliny also share the same moral values. Namely, they do not commit crimes, steal, rob, commit adultery, break a promise, or withhold a deposit when reclaimed.  

In my opinion, due to the above evidence, there can be little doubt that Pliny is referring to Jesus Christ and his followers. Also, since Pliny probably wrote his letter in 112 A.D. and several of those interrogated had been Christians for over 20 years, we arrive once again back in the first century. 

I also believe that Tacitus referred to Jesus Christ. Both the Christ of the N.T. and the Christus of Tacitus got their start in Judea. Both were executed in the reign of Tiberius under Pontius Pilate. Both of their followers were active during the same time period (A.D. 64 and earlier). Lastly, both of their followers would have been considered a threat to the Roman state due to their extreme religious views.

Although Suetonius is the weakest link, I believe that he too likely mentioned Jesus Christ and his followers. Unfortunately, since Suetonius writes so little about this "Chrestus," it is impossible to know with absolute certainty who he was referring to. I'm definitely open to considering and weighing different viewpoints, but for now I think the evidence tips in favor of the identification of Chrestus with Christ. 

At this point I have to suggest you have never read what they did write. I have. If you can find a way to read what you claim in those words please quote them exactly.

Rome was against all secret societies particularly those with religious connotations. I know of no place where this is explained or justified. I would guess it was fear that local, conquered gods could be used to incite insurrection.

Neither Christus (the anointed) nor Chrestus (the good) is the name Jesus. Nothing in the usage of either term implies there was a leader who had a following.

There is no suggestion any of these groups were causing empire wide problems or in Rome proper that was particularly noteworthy. In the first century BC Judeans living inside the walls of Rome were causing local riots or some such among themselves. They were forced to leave the city and live outside it walls -- were there are catacombs showing very non-Judean customs. (Jew == Judean without distinction according to Josephus)

By the standards of the empire the response was punative but not exceptionally so. Pliny reports NO problems at all. He simply finds the leaders, explains the problem to them and their activities either changed or ceased. The behavior he does describe has no connection to later known Christian customs.

Again if you find anything contrary to the above please quote the exact words which you consider to be contradictory and tell me why.

Yes they were upper class Romans for whom the same career path applied and they were in the process of rising to their level of incompetence. Yes, those three and thousands of others were related in the same manner. So?

Or perhaps to the anointed Julius Caesar who was elevated to an official god of the pantheon and who had temples for his worship. Sort of like the Pope creating saints. It is then also necessary to consider none of three makes such a connection nor even suggests they are all the same group. The proximity in time is unimportant as, for example, Seutonius is talking of events decades earlier, history not contemporary and does not comment the group continues in his time.

I am willing to go over this stuff with you but only if you actually read the material yourself and talk about what is written. I am NOT interested in addressing your deliberately false statsments about the words. No one is being accused of being a Christian rather Pliny learns that it what they call themselves AFTER which it becomes an accusation.

Quote the words which lead you to claim there is evidence of a particular person involved. I do not find them.

With the things you name they "share" the same moral code with 99% of the empire whether or not observed or put into practice. Again it is the secret nature not the "morality" which draws the attention. And they knock it off when told to.

As you have presented no connection whatsoever to a wandering petty con artist in Judea nearly a century earlier just what is it you do not doubt? Considering you have not read anything you are talking about and adequately demonstrate that (or that you are deliberately lying about what is written)

The Jesus you are talking about got his start in the Galilee not Judea. In the 2nd c. BC the Maccabes conquered the Galileans and forced them to adopt the Judean Yahweh cult practices. All of the followers of your Jesus were Galileans, descendents of forced converts to Judaism. What their religion was like before the forced conversion is unknown at this time.

Just where do you find that as the perceived threat? You don't appear to know much about Rome either.

In this matter if it is not spelled out it does not exist. "Who else could it mean?" is the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Saying Jesus the Galilean or no one is the fallacy of the false choice.

I am still undecided on whether Pliny is referring to Christians, but I need to look at Tacitus more before I comment further on this.

Now that I have looked further into this, I withdraw the claim that the Historia Augusta is evidence for the use of the term Christian being used that way.

There does seem to be a strong consensus that the Historia Augusta is from the fourth century, though Galimberti in 'Hadrian and the Christians' suggests that it may have some reliable bits.

Bold font is perfectly fine. In fact, it is a pleasure to have a civilised dialogue. It forces me to read more.

Regarding

"My intention is only to show that Christians did indeed exist during the first century and that they are identical with their counterparts depicted in the epistles of the New Testament. The Christians of Pliny’s letter and the Christians of the N.T. both worshipped a Messiah who possessed all the trappings of a Deity. Both were forbidden to worship other idols or gods. Both sang hymns during religious services and had identical moral values."

I accept that there probably were Christians in the first century, my main point (which I should have stuck to) was that this doesn't demonstrate a historical Jesus Christ.

As to whether the Pliny Christians were identical to the Christians of the NT Epistles, I'll also need more research, but at first impression, the morals in Pliny's letter don't seem to be specific to Christians. Not worshipping other gods, singing songs to the anointed one, meeting before dawn and taking ordinary food don't seem to be necessarily Christian either.

I'll have to get back to you for the rest of the issues when I've read more Tacitus and Seutonius.

Hey Anonymouse,

Anonymouse wrote: “At this point I have to suggest you have never read what they did write. I have. If you can find a way to read what you claim in those words please quote them exactly.”

No, I did read each passage many times.

Anonymouse wrote: “Rome was against all secret societies particularly those with religious connotations. I know of no place where this is explained or justified. I would guess it was fear that local, conquered gods could be used to incite insurrection.”

I think that we can both agree that Rome would not want “secret societies” that might “incite insurrection.”

Anonymouse wrote: “Neither Christus (the anointed) nor Chrestus (the good) is the name Jesus. Nothing in the usage of either term implies there was a leader who had a following.”

Yet, Tacitus explicitly states that Christ did have followers: “Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians’. The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate….” Obviously, Tacitus has just informed us that certain individuals were punished by Nero and that the founder of their movement had been called Christ.

Suetonius also relates that a certain Chrestus led an agitation that resulted in the Jews being expelled from Rome. Whether this is a reference to aggressive missionary activity by Christians in the name of Christ or simply the name of an individual who was perceived as stirring up trouble in Rome is a topic of debate among scholars. The issue is actually somewhat complex, in my opinion, and there are good arguments on both sides.

I will discuss Pliny, Christ and Christ’s followers below.

Anonymouse wrote: “There is no suggestion any of these groups were causing empire wide problems or in Rome proper that was particularly noteworthy.”

The Christians mentioned in Pliny’s letter were in the process of causing major problems in the eyes of Rome—they rejected the gods and refused to make offerings of wine and incense to an image of the Emperor. This is sedition. They were even being put to death for their recalcitrance. Here is the relevant passage: “I order them [Christians] to be taken away for execution; whatever they have admitted to, I am sure that their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished.” Worse yet for Pliny and Trajan, the ideas of the Christians appeared to be spreading among all classes, ages and regions.

The Christians mentioned in Tacitus are believed by the populace to have committed “shameful acts” and harbored “hatred for the human race.” They were “hated” by the Romans. They practiced a “deadly superstition” that was “evil.” Their “guilt” deserved an “exemplary punishment.” Indeed, they were executed and tortured more for their hatred of the human race, according to Tacitus, than the trumped up charges of arson. This doesn’t sound like a friendly rivalry to me—especially as it resulted in so much death and suffering.

Anonymouse wrote: “By the standards of the empire the response was punative but not exceptionally so.

Really? Well, I guess if you don’t consider execution to be harsh…

Anonymouse wrote: “Pliny reports NO problems at all. He simply finds the leaders, explains the problem to them and their activities either changed or ceased”.

Their activities certainly did either change or cease. If the Christians wanted to live, their activities changed. If they preferred to be martyred, their activities ceased.

Anonymouse wrote: “The behavior he does describe has no connection to later known Christian customs.”

This certainly is not my observation.

Anonymouse wrote: “Yes they were upper class Romans for whom the same career path applied and they were in the process of rising to their level of incompetence. Yes, those three and thousands of others were related in the same manner. So?”

I was simply setting the scene.

Anonymouse wrote: “Or perhaps to the anointed Julius Caesar who was elevated to an official god of the pantheon and who had temples for his worship. Sort of like the Pope creating saints. It is then also necessary to consider none of three makes such a connection nor even suggests they are all the same group. The proximity in time is unimportant as, for example, Seutonius is talking of events decades earlier, history not contemporary and does not comment the group continues in his time.”

More about this below (including Julius Caesar).

Anonymouse wrote: “No one is being accused of being a Christian rather Pliny learns that it what they call themselves AFTER which it becomes an accusation.”

I’m not sure I follow what you’re attempting to say. Men and women were brought to Pliny on suspicion of being a Christian. Further accusations against the Christians began when “an anonymous accusatory pamphlet [circulated] containing the names of many people.”

Anonymouse wrote: “Quote the words which lead you to claim there is evidence of a particular person involved. I do not find them.”

Here, I believe, you are essentially asking me to find a quotation from Pliny that proves that the Deity Christ had also been a living person. I cannot do this. I can, however, infer that the Christians interrogated by Pliny believed in such a concept.

First, it must be remembered that only the Deity Christ was allowed to be worshipped. The Christians would not invoke the name of other gods. This meant that the entire Greek/Roman pantheon plus the popular Mystery Religions of the time were anathema to them. As I mentioned before, the Christians of the N.T. believed the same thing.

Second, this Deity Christ that was worshipped by Pliny’s Christians had an extremely odd name: Anointed. This makes little sense in a Roman/Greek context. As Robert Van Voorst notes in Jesus Outside the New Testament, “The Greek ‘Christos’ and its Latin equivalent ‘Christus’ would have suggested a strange meaning to most ancients, especially those unfamiliar with its Jewish background. Its primary Greek meaning in everyday life suggests the medical term ‘anointer’ or the construction term ‘plasterer.’ These meanings would not have the religious content that ‘Christ’ would have to someone on the inside of Christianity.” In Roman and Greek mythology, a god or goddess will sometimes anoint an individual with a substance for medicinal purposes or magical protection.  A worshipper of a particular deity also might be anointed.

Third, there is no evidence from ancient historians that the term “Christian” was applied to anyone other than a follower of Jesus Christ. The deified Julius Caesar and others like him were not worshipped by followers named “Christians” despite their having been anointed as kings or emperors in life.    

Fourth, the Christians Justin Martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the author of the Didache, and the author of the Shepherd of Hermas were all contemporaries of Pliny and Tacitus. We have their extensive writings. Obviously, Christianity was alive and well in the Roman Empire at this particular time.

Result: The Christians referred to by Pliny practiced a monotheistic religion. The particular God they worshipped had an unusual name (Christ), which does not make much sense in a Greek/Roman context but finds rich meaning among Jews. The arrival of the “anointed” was an integral part of their religion and was an event that was especially anticipated during the first century. Indeed, Josephus lists many self-proclaimed “Christs” in the first century who were defeated, along with their followers, by the Roman authorities. Only one Jewish “sect”, however, promoted the idea of a human “Anointed One” who was concomitantly a Divine Being. This sect, of course, is known to us as the early New Testament Christians. There can be no mistaking that Pliny’s Christians and the Christians of the N.T. were one and the same. Christian contemporaries of Pliny even write of their own existence and that they are part of the same pedigree as earlier Christians of the first century. They include Justin, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and the authors of other works.

Anonymouse wrote: “With the things you name they "share" the same moral code with 99% of the empire whether or not observed or put into practice. Again it is the secret nature not the "morality" which draws the attention. And they knock it off when told to.”

I don’t believe that these Christians shared the same moral code with 99% of the empire. Adultery by both males and females was frowned upon in this religion. In Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson writes that “Extramarital sexual relations were readily available (at least in Greek and Roman circles), with prostitution and adultery common…the law did not allow the woman to prosecute her husband for his infidelities.” This moral code, when combined with the evidence that I have presented above, leads me to believe that the Christians of Pliny and the N.T. were one and the same.

Anonymouse wrote: “The Jesus you are talking about got his start in the Galilee not Judea. In the 2nd c. BC the Maccabes conquered the Galileans and forced them to adopt the Judean Yahweh cult practices. All of the followers of your Jesus were Galileans, descendents of forced converts to Judaism. What their religion was like before the forced conversion is unknown at this time.”

Two birth narratives place Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea. More importantly, however, three Gospels explicitly maintain that Jesus was baptized and started his ministry in Judea. The fourth Gospel, John, lists a presently unknown location where Jesus began his ministry but informs us that it was not in Galilee. Jesus actually left for Galilee, according to John, the day after his baptism. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is depicted as preaching and healing in Judea, Samaria and Galilee.

Anonymouse wrote: “In this matter if it is not spelled out it does not exist. "Who else could it mean?" is the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Saying Jesus the Galilean or no one is the fallacy of the false choice.”

Regarding Suetonius, I’ve said that the evidence connecting Chrestus with Christ is only slightly more convincing than other posited theories. It very well may be that Jesus Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with this passage in Suetonius.

If you are going to insist you have read it then you know they called themselves Chrestos, the Good, not even Christos, the Anointed. Yet you keep saying they called themselves Christians when that is clearly untrue. Why?

 Robert123. I unintentionally deleted your post because you hit "REPLY" off of some SPAM. When you do that it becomes the child of the spam post. Please only select reply on a members posts such as Anonymouse. I did the spam deletion on my Droid so I cannot cut a paste. I still have the droid window available and will do my best to manually retype it on my computer. Please review and you can post any corrections. Sorry about this.

Also I will use the bbcode quote function you might want to familarize yourself with that. Instead of hitting reply you can hit the quote link instead.

For directions on bbcode go to this page and search for BBCode Guide

http://www.rationalresponders.com/filter/tips

 I don't know why but spammers love this thread.

They go after threads that are on the homepage because they have more worth.  This threads been featured on the homepage for a while.

Sorry about the delay, it’s taken me this long to find the time to do the reading and I’m still just on some aspects of the younger Pliny. Ideally, a lot more research is required, but rather than spend another week reading, I’ll present what I have found so far.  Some of my conclusions are tentative.

Most historians accept the Pliny to Trajan letters about Christo as authentic, but not all. I found the letters strange from the first reading, and I'm increasingly tending to distrust them more, but forgery and interpolation is a tricky issue, so a lot more reading is needed. At this rate, it'll be a long while before I get to Tacitus or the other topics, but I will try to eventually do so.

Reasons for suspicions about authenticity:

It makes Pliny look incompetent as he’s allowed this superstition to spread and undermine society.

Pliny is an experienced lawyer yet seems not to know much about the law.

It is the only time Christo is mentioned by him.

Roman laws were codified soon after by Hadrian in the Edictum Julianum and in them there is no mention of a law against Christians or instances of Trajan or Hadrian or Pliny purging them.

The manuscript of book ten is lost, we don’t know what it originally said.

Rome was generally tolerant of religions and didn’t execute people for no reason.

The refutation of the idea of Christians being cannibals pops up. It may be an attempt to promote the idea that Nero persecuted the Christians.

It is unlikely that there were so many Christians in Bithynia at the time. No evidence of many Christians till at least 3rd century. Also, Pliny has been working there for over a year and hadn’t heard of them till now.

How did Tertullion get hold of a letter that wasn’t supposed to have been published?

Did Christians sing antiphonic hymns in that era?

Would Pliny differentiate between Christians and Jewish sects?

No archaeological or other external evidence of Christians then.

The letter is vague, giving no names or dates or placenames.

In the panegyric, Pliny praises Trajan for “his abandonment of vexatious and petty prosecutions for high treason” yet here he is killing people for no clear reason.

Christians have a history of interpolating into history.

Justin Martyr doesn’t know of these letters.

Ordinary people were not legally expected to offer prayer to Trajan or curse their local god.

If the Christians were purged, why did Marcion succeed in Bithnyia and Pontus?

Trajan’s reply is odd. He says do not seek them out, no law can be made, but kill them if they are denounced to you. Otherwise leave them be and ignore anonymous letters even though I just told you to kill them if it isn't anonymous.
 

Reasons to accept it as legitimate:
 

Most historians accept it.

It is standard in this era for letters to use the literary devices of making the author seem important and the emperor even more important.  Flattery of Trajan may explain why Pliny looks incompetent and why all problems are neatly resolved and Trajan doesn't mind the incompetence.

Tertullian quotes from it.

Tertullian quotes it as ‘to Christ and god’ but the later manuscript supposedly had ‘to Christ as to a god’.

Maybe I have confirmation bias and haven’t read enough literature from the era for context.

Maybe it rings more true in the Latin.


Other:
 

If they were Christians, what sort? The area was known as non-orthodox, so possibly Marcionites; but possibly followers of any old messiah.

The Essenes and Therapeutae sang hymns and met before daybreak as do many religions with a sun worship background.

Christos is used forty times in the Septuagint. Theophilus says “We are called Christian because we are anointed with the oil of God", not because there was a human Christ.

Fraud, theft, adultery and falsifying trust seem to be prohibited by the Ten Commandments with ‘not bearing false witness’ covering fraud and falsifying trust. I’d expect many cults or schools of philosophy to agree.

Early Christians in the time of the apologists were Hellenist Jews/Platonist philosophers, not mentioning a physical person god. The letter makes no mention that Christo is a person, Christo is worshipped as a god.

The Chresto/Christo issue is interesting. There was a Socrates Chrestos of Bithynia around this time.
 

Cheers, you've seen how slow I can be.

I'm starting to hate this topic. It's like the black hole of spam. Worst part is coming in here ready to nuke, only to find there's an actual post. Damn you AE!

 Looks like this thread is getting really interesting.

Don't ever hit reply on a spam post or a mod may accidently delete it. We cannot know about this until it is too late.

If I see an embedded spam post I try to just edit all the contents of the spam post including a spam pic at times like above.

I wonder if Brian could figure out how to demote this on the home page and put up an pseudo thread where spammers would be drawn instead.

Dating:

Regarding the dating of letters 10-96/97, I’ve found various opinions on exactly when Pliny governed Bithynia-Pontus. It seems agreed that he arrived there on 17 September, according to Letter 10-17A. Some say this was is 109, some 110 or 111. I’ve not looked into why the dating of the year differs.

Either way, the start year is only an offset and it seems agreed that the span of his letters was at least 18 months and letters 10-96/97 were towards the end of his term. The conclusions I’ve found are that they were written between ‘well over a year’ and ‘about 18 months’ into his term. This doesn't seem to be controversial.


Possible signs of admitting to incompetence:

He admits to not knowing the law, despite being an experienced lawyer.

He admits to arbitrary justice. Despite not knowing if a law has been broken, he kills them anyway if they are locals, but only when they are obstinate and confess to being Christiani.

Pliny has already made an edict against political societies, but he is admitting that this has been ineffective.

After executing a few, he decides to torture the deaconesses to find out more. He finds them mostly harmless. The competent thing to do would be to do the torture before the executions.

Having executed a few he decides to postpone further investigations and consult Trajan, thus admitting that he has acted in haste and possibly in error.

He admits to not tackling this serious problem till late in his governorship and consequently allowing all sorts of incriminations to become widespread and to have allowed many people in the cities, towns and villages to have been put in danger of the cult. This may have started before his term, but he doesn't say so.

He tells the boss that the problem is partly the fault of Rome, due to the lack of legal procedure for repentance. And even then, it only ‘seems possible’ to check and reverse it.

Despite admitting to having allowed the cult to spread and to not know quite what to do about it, he then tries to offset this failure by taking the credit for the increase in use of the temples.

He admits to have set a dangerous kind of precedent that is out of keeping with the spirit of the age, by acting on an anonymous list.


Summary:

Why would a successful politician and lawyer allow himself to appear so foolish in the eyes of the emperor and the reading public, especially since letters in this era were generally used as rhetorical literary devices to portray an idealised governor and emperor? Especially problematic is the way Rome is blamed.

There are two aspects to this potential incompetence. Firstly, whether Pliny would allow himself to be perceived as incompetent and then whether he actually was incompetent. For me, the most troubling is the perception. It seems unlikely that such a man in that age would allow such an image in a letter to the emperor.

This level of detail may seem like obsessive nit-picking, but since this is supposed to be one of the first references to the existence of Christians, it is worthy of deep examination. Also, these famous letters have been argued about for years, but this this aspect of them less so.

To do:

I’ve only skimmed the surface though and in order to be more confident I’d have to read a lot more of his letters and those of other public figures of the time. Not to mention reading historians’ opinions. That would take quite some time, so I’ll defer that for now and try to look at the other talking points.

Next:

On to talking point 002!