[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]
Jobar;616505 wrote: However, if Jack's thesis that this was an intentional fraud by later Christian scribes is true, why would *they* misspell it?
We do not know why the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus wrote χρηστιανος: The disciples were first called Chrestians in Antioch, why the scribes of Codex Vaticanus wrote "Chreistians" and why the scribes of Alexandrinus finally wrote "Christians".
I did a sampling of the papyri, and most of it reads "Chrestian" prior to Codex Alexandrinus which is generally dated (completely by church dogma) to the mid 5th century. After this date, although there are exceptions, the "Christian" reading is generally attested.
So one recourse if that "Chrestian" is some archaic form of "Christian".[/quote]
OR, there were actually two groups. "Chrestians" being the original insurrectionist movement formed by the remaining remnants of an earlier more radicalized movement in Jerusalem that had been founded by a charismatic leader named Jesus who had been publicly tried, tortured and crucified by Pilate during the Passover festival as a lesson to all Jews under Roman occupation. These would be the ones that finally regroup about a decade or so later and start some minor troubles in Rome (and are summarily kicked out by the emperor no less) and then continue to grow (no doubt using a martyr-mythology recruitment narrative) and start getting bolder and bolder to the point where they are actually seen as legitimate scapegoats by Nero (or actually did cause the fire as Nero claimed). And around that time, because they are growing bolder and getting more organized, Rome sends in an undercover operative (Paul) to infiltrate the group where he starts trying to change it from within.
Which results in the second group, which we'll call "Christians," being the bastard outcropped cult that Paul formed primarily among the gentiles (because he was never trusted to speak to the Jews being recruited for the real purpose of the "Chrestian" movement; further insurrection against Rome that eventually came to a boiling point).
The "Chrestians" were all primarily killed in the Jewish revolts (or at least enough to effectively destroy it as any kind of organized, viable threat), while the "Christians" (being primarily gentiles) survived and Paul's cult (aka, "Pauline Christianity") takes center stage, either organically as an irrelevant remnant of an anti-Jewish propaganda attempt prior to and during the first revolt or deliberately as a result of how successful it seemed to be among the fringe Jews and gentiles in controlling them. Really doesn't matter which, the origins would be the same and probably known within the Roman leadership hierarchy at least for the first few generations. Hence we have confusion over what to do with some "Chrestians/Christians" in outer regions decades after the slaughter of the Jews, such as Pliny's letters to Trajan.
Just read this section of
Pliny's letter (written some thirty to forty years after the first revolt) in light of "Christians" actually referring to a by then destroyed remnant of a Jewish insurrectionist movement (keeping in mind that, back then, "invoking the gods" would mean "swearing allegiance to Rome" and not necessarily have any
religious connotations as back then of course there was no separation of Church and State):
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
What "offenses" could those possibly be? Believing that your grandfather killed your pro-Roman, peace-loving messiah eighty years ago?
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.
Again, for what? And why the need for torture or "interrogations"?
Do you believe your grandfather killed your pro-Roman, peace-loving messiah eighty years ago? Yes.
Ok, thanks. You can go.
For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
So, the ones who were Jewish were
executed. The ones who were Romans, they simply got transferred. Again, for believing a pro-Roman, preace-loving Jewish Rabbi was killed by Jews eighty years ago? That sure as shit doesn't add up.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. 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.
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. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
Pliny is clearly looking at these people as
insurrectionists first and foremost, going so far as to
torture two of their evidently prominent female members (deaconesses, no less) to make sure that no "political associations" (no insurrectionist crimes) are being committed. That's how sure he is that they must be insurrectionists. But where would he get that idea in the first place?
Again, the "official" story of Christianity is that, circa 30 CE, all the Jews in Judea were in Jerusalem for the Passover festival and they forced Pilate to crucify their own messiah. Pilate oh so reluctantly did as they wanted and killed their peace-loving, pro-Roman Rabbi and then his remaining handful of fishermen disciples fled.
The end.
So where does Pliny get the idea that not only are these people insurrectionists, but in order to be absolutely sure they're not insurrectionists, he's got to torture two of their women and
execute the ones who won't confess?
Now read Trajan's response in the same light:
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians.
"Sifting" the cases? What sifting? Sifting means that there is something within the mix that doesn't belong--but has the appearance of belonging--and needs to be extricated. Like sifting the insurrectionist Muslims from the rest....?
For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard.
It's not?
Why wouldn't that be possible? And again, what is Trajan referring to? "Christians" would be those who believed their Jewish fathers and grandfathers killed their own Jewish messiah--Jesus--some 80 years ago; the same Jesus that preached to love Romans; pay Roman taxes; obey Romans, if they strike you give them your other cheek to slap also; the same Jesus that their Prefect declared completely innocent of all charges, but the Jews demanded he be killed. Why in the world would Trajan (or any Roman official) give two shits about anyone who believed all of that about someone that died nearly a century prior?
But what did Pliny note? That there were "Christians" in his lot that denounced Jesus
twenty five years ago, which would have meant about ten-fifteen years after the first Jewish revolt and Masada ended; after the wholesale slaughter of the Jews. But why/how would anyone "denounce" a belief that their grandfather killed his own messiah eighty years prior and what would that even mean? Who was forcing anyone to
denounce their belief that a Jewish Rabbi preaching obedience to Rome was killed by the Jews eighty years ago and for what possible reason?
Denouncing someone fifteen or so years after a tremendous revolution failed means you've been hunted as a surviving member of that revolution and the person you're denouncing was either the leader or the figurehead of that revolution, at least in so far as your part in it. Exactly as it is today, where martyrs of Islam are heralded as figureheads and Osama Bin Laden is regarded as a "savior" to certain groups of radicalized extremists (aka, "insurrectionists").
There's more from Trajan proving my point:
They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance.
Again, "by worshipping our gods" is another way of saying "swearing allegiance to Rome," but let's go to that first part. "If they are denounced and proved guilty." Well, again, guilty of what? Believing that....? And "repentance" for what? What crimes were committed that they could be resolved through "repentance" (and to whom)? It makes absolutely no sense from the official storyline perspective.
If, however, Trajan is talking about the last remnants of a decades old battle where the Romans conclusively won and these are old men now are from a long-dead faction from the Jewish revolution of over a quarter century ago, then it all makes perfect sense. It would be like a letter from a Union Colonel stationed in the South writing to a Union General twenty five years after the Civil War talking about what to do with these drunk old Confederate soldiers that still get together every week and sing Dixie and talk about the "good old days" of slavery and secession. That would be considered treason, so it would make perfect sense for said Colonel to write to a superior officer about what to do with such treasonous bastards and likewise the wisdom from the top coming back to something like this:
But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
Again, that "age" would mean post Jewish genocide with the Romans the clear and glorious victors. The great Temple had been destroyed forty or so years prior; any remaining insurrectionists had been killed at Masada shortly after that. And of course Trajan would have been writing this prior to the Levantine Jewish revolt in 115, so from Trajan's perspective, Pliny is employing anti-insurrectionist tactics against a group that had long ago been destroyed and/or castrated. As Pliny notes, most from his group had "denounced" their movement as hopeless in the decade just after it all went down and these people
now are just hippies singing their long ago songs. So, yes, if you have actual evidence that any of these people are still active insurrectionists, of course, punish them, but for the most part, we don't care any more. It's over. We won. Fuck 'em.
Basically.
But I didn't mean to hijack your thread Jack. Carry on!
opcorn:
