AN OVERVIEW OF PLINY THE YOUNGER (EPISTLES & PANEGYRICUS)

Keyed to Pliny The Younger, Loeb Classical Library Edition, Volumes I & II(Roman Piso, 06-20-2004, edited 07-02-2015; from the book 'Pliny: His Words & Phrases')

PREFACE

What do we have to say about the “real” Pliny The Younger? A great deal. And that is because he was involved with so many people and many things. And all of that must be pointed out and explained in detail. First of all, I would like you, the reader, to know that this overview is just that - an overview, and not the case itself. What I intend to do here in the overview is to familiarize you with the “real” Pliny.

In other places, we will get into and explain specifics. But not so much here in the overview. This overview is intended to expose you to Pliny’s real motives and his intent in what he was writing and what he did; not to prove that view; but for now, only to show the consistency of this throughout his writings. When we DO get into the areas of proof and evidence, that will be solid evidence and will substantiate what is stated in this overview. One of the things that we will be examining later will be the true identities of those people whom Pliny wrote his letters to and whom (supposedly) wrote to him.

As we examine Pliny’s letters, we find several items (including themes) which are predominant throughout them. And one of those being that he appears to have a very high regard for “fame.” Not just the kind of fame that one may have during their lifetime, but (a) “immortal fame.” And one of the means by which he displays his intent to achieve this kind of fame is to be the source of any number of “catch phrases” or (b) cliché’s. He shares his in common, in fact, with (c) Suetonius. Pliny calls these, (d) “figures of speech.”

There are many things that I need to remember to say, as all of these are important to the overall work. While I am thinking of it, I need to inform you that when I first started writing about Pliny, his literary work and his involvement in creating and promoting Christianity, I thought that this would take two volumes and that I would have explained this well enough to be the basis of future examinations of Pliny. However, now I realize that I will be doing well if I can fit what I need to into three volumes. Note: The book 'Pliny: (His) Words & Phrases' did become two volumes. And another book as a continuation called 'The Essential Pliny' (The Younger).

In this volume, I will present my case in stages. The first will be an overview. The second will be an examination of Pliny’s indirect references and allusions to his involvement with the New Testament. The third will be direct references made by Pliny to certain parts of the New Testament - these are to be understood as examples of direct correlation between Pliny’s work and the NT texts - the same as have been found and examined between the works of Flavius Josephus and Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

Besides those items shown here, 'The Essential Pliny' contained a chapter that listed places in the epistles of Pliny where every other word matches the epistles of Paul in the New Testament. Besides the list that I had produced, Abelard Reuchlin also had a list of these as well, that he had found himself independent of my work.

(a) The phrase he uses of his uncle in a letter addressed to Cornelius Tacitus. Ref. Pliny The Younger, Loeb, Book I of II, pg. 425. (b) An example being, “I leave no stone unturned.” Ref. Book I, pg. 63. (c) Suetonius, ‘The Twelve Caesars’, Loeb. (d) The phrase “figures of speech,” Pliny, Book I, pg. 211.

THE OVERVIEW

Now, on to our overview. Since in our studies, we have already found out a massive amount of information about the circumstances in which the writers of Pliny’s time were writing,* we then also know much about what HE is really referring to when he says certain things in his literature. This is true of his statement regarding “the favored few.”* He is referring to the privilege of the royals to be

published, etc., whereas the common people enjoyed no such thing. Though Pliny keeps up the act of pretending to be a typical Roman who worships the Roman gods, he nonetheless makes use of several methods and means of promoting Christianity and various elements of it. This is so, because he, in reality, helped create Christianity by playing the part of “Paul.”* And as Pliny, he is secretly promoting it.

As one will note as they read through Pliny’s letters, Pliny is forever “praying,” promoting the idea that this is a common practice throughout the Roman Empire and that there is nothing at all either unusual or to be ashamed of about it. Pliny advises Caninius Rufus* to “create something, perfect it, to be YOURS for all time...”* This is what Pliny has done as Paul. And what he cannot contain himself about, as he KNOWS that he already has attained that “immortal fame” by his involvement in creating Christianity. This immortal fame of his, is something that he is almost constantly talking about or at least alluding to in his letters.*

And another important thing to know about Pliny and his writings is the particular ‘style’* that he used in order to “say” things very boldly, and yet, not get easily caught doing so. What he did was to go ahead and write his statements - even to the point of being quite bold, as he was, in reality, quite a braggart. But in order to “say” those things and not get caught at it immediately, he inserted them within text having to do with other subject matter. That is, he inserted them into his literary work in a different context. And he does even say, in a very specific way that this is exactly what he did. But even that too, was given in the same way! What he says is that he has written things “between the lines.”* That is also (along with other hints), letting the privy reader know that he has given his identity as the NT Paul by hiding that information also, between the lines. He also says, "mark my words." Why would anyone literally mark his words? Because, this is how you are going to solve "the mystery of the gospels" and of Pliny as Paul of the NT.

Pliny shows that he knows the way in which the human mind works, and how he can manipulate the mind of the reader. He knows that the mind retains words and information, even lines of words, so that later on the mind can ‘process’ those words and information. He knows that the human mind has a tendency to try to make sense of words and information, and that sometimes in order to do that the mind may “fill in the blanks” on its own (particularly while sleeping).

So, he can say something like, “what treasures you have...” and a Christian mind (or one beginning to become a Christian believer) will relate that to the “Christian” information that they have in their mind. The ‘Christian’ mind may call to mind from that line, on either a conscious or subconscious level, “what treasures you have (waiting for you in heaven).”* Much in the same way that just by saying the first few words on one line or another which is well-known or very familiar to a person may immediately recall the REST of those lines in the mind of that person (this is called “thought reinforcement” or suggestion, and actually, a form of hypnotism).* A Christian mind that reads or hears “My father’s house,” may think the full familiar line to themselves, even if not being aware of it, as “My father’s house (has many mansions).”* In Pliny's work, we are witnessing just how ancient royals had created and successfully promoted religion.

Pliny says, “It seems to me foolish not to model one’s self on the highest standards.”* This is a reference to the ‘standards’ of Jesus/Christianity and to the “virtues” that Pliny is trying to promote in his literary work.* One of those so-called “virtues” that Pliny is trying to put forth is that of ‘faith’. But he, like his fellow authors of the day are very clever. And get the job done by going about it in ways which are not easy for the person who is not privy to their methods and means to discover. To do this, Pliny uses other words for ‘faith’ so that what he is actually doing is not overtly apparent. It must be seen, understood and even figured out, by those who are able to do so. It is fairly complex, but demonstrable.

As one who is knowledgeable about the true context of the history and literature of the time, who reads the texts of the time and knows what they actually relate to in terms of people, places, events, et al, we (Reuchlin and I) are nearly as privy as the authors themselves, and can understand what would have been obvious to the authors and others of their learning and intellect. But, which, would be completely ‘invisible’ to those who were not privy to all of this. Thus, it is up to us to bring others up to speed, so to

speak. Pliny, as you will see, has a great time writing about and alluding to himself as Paul, and in playfully mimicking Jesus as well; because as Paul, he shared some of that same “power” as that of ‘Jesus’.* For instance, Pliny says, “I hope to be in Rome...”* As Paul, he wanted to “be (tried) in Rome.”* Also, one must remember that in order to make what they did work, and in order to get away with it, they, the authors, of the New Testament, had to backdate the story and place their characters in a slightly earlier time.* Thus, Pliny, as Paul, was to be tried in Rome, under Nero.* Pliny was born in 62 CE, so he was alive when Nero was Emperor. That is true.

And just as was done in the NT texts, Pliny, in his letters too, makes some sexual or bawdy jokes and statements, such as to say, “... my own figs and mushrooms.”* This, meaning the sexual organs of his male sex-slaves. But that would not come to the mind of those who were not thinking of Pliny as having male sex-slaves. And the way in which they would have more readily taken it is if it were stated as referring to Pliny’s own sex organs, as “my own figs and mushroom” (‘mushroom’ in the singular). So, these authors were extremely clever, AND just as cautious about what they wrote and HOW they wrote it. One way to know for certain whether one thing meant something very specific is to realize that the way that they were using literature was via a formula that was in essence, mathematical.* And which had to conform to the rules of "royal language."*

Pliny was taught, just as most of the royal children were, from the earliest age, a wide variety of subjects including the art of literary persuasion (rhetoric and propaganda), and thus, he knew full well, how to make it ‘appear’ that he is against something (like Christianity), and still put forth the best arguments for it. What Pliny actually does when he mentions Christians and Christianity is to advertise it (make it publicly known) and to paint Christians as underdogs - all, supposedly, unintentionally.

He says in what he writes, just what he knows about in terms of rhetoric and literary devices, and therefore, what HE is using in what he has written. He says, “... carefully chosen and persuasive words...”* And he uses the phrase “material rewards.”* This is because he knows that when one thinks of what one thing IS, they also generally (at least subconsciously) call to mind what the opposite of that thing is. These are what we may refer to as ‘loaded phrases’, which are somewhat similar to ‘loaded questions’.

In the case of making mention of “material rewards,” the idea of rewards which are NOT ‘material’ are brought to mind. Which is to say, the stated phrase makes minds reflect upon non-material rewards such as ‘spiritual rewards’. And this is done without ever having actually have said “spiritual rewards.” This is particularly effective when used upon minds which have been ‘primed’ to receive such ideological suggestion. So, if the letters of Pliny, filled with such literary devices, were read aloud to Christians or potential converts, it would have the intended effect of making them think in the kind of terms that would reinforce that belief.*

As was previously mentioned, one of Pliny’s ‘causes’ throughout his writings is a new or different definition and/or set of ‘virtues’.* Thus, he inserts lines like, “... the reward of virtue...”* As if he is making the statement out of a true concern for Roman youth in his time. He is, in reality, playing the part of a Stoic very much like Seneca had,* and making use of that illusion as a means of making very “Christian-like” statements while never claiming to be one himself. He was, just as all ancient royalty, and all religious leaders, atheist. This was because they all knew the truth about not only how royalty itself came to be, but also how religion came to be as well. And they knew that it was all based upon lies. Fraud that their ancestors had created, and which they were continuing in their own time.

What I am really concerned with is that people who read about this will not take the time to study it as well as they need to. The reason that this concerns me is because there are many very small items which should be known, and each and every small part of this is important, as understanding any part of it depends upon likewise understanding (or at least knowing about) everything that one may be able to. This is a ‘study’, scholarly research - not a “skimming through.” If one is to actually KNOW that these statements are indeed true, they are going to have to confirm them for themselves. The material here should actually be a required reading, and even a textbook, which is available to, and taught to, each and every person from now on.

Now, I would like to say a bit about Pliny as Paul, saying that one (addressing believers) should imitate* those who set a good Christian example. Writing as Pliny, he likewise makes such statements and alludes to that.* Such as in the statement, “... my benefaction rests in the example it sets.”* But in addition to this, Pliny also talks about “precedent examples.”* Which is a means of allowing the authors to say and do things without (technically) lying. “Precedent examples” are used along with actual “disclaimers” so as to create the most leeway for the Roman authors of that time. Pliny, is giving examples for royal descendants to follow when their turn comes to become authors; whether as Christian writers or chroniclers of worldly history, because, by use of alias identities and pen names, one writer, like Pliny, can play both parts.

As stated previously, Pliny gets away with saying bold and outrageous statements, extremely outlandish things, simply by setting them into a different context. And so, let’s meet Pliny, the Witness (aka ‘Paul’). He says, for instance, “I was called on to witness” (Ref. Book I of II, Loeb, pg. 29. Also see Book II of II, pg. 117). He is saying that he played the “witness” - Paul. But he sets this statement into another context so that the only way that anyone would know what he truly means is to know his involvement in the creation and promotion of Christianity; and that he played ‘Paul’.

I used to wonder WHY it was that the NT authors would make a point of using such terms as “guileless,” “blameless,” “innocent” and the like.* But reading Pliny, this becomes quite apparent. The foremost reason is because these are words that describe the character Jesus in his trial and punishment. He was crucified even though, in the story, he was “innocent.” The creators of Christianity really knew how to push the buttons of the masses, and that includes how to get them to rally around an innocent man (if not the son of God), who was mistreated and put to death. Secondly, it refers to the NT authors themselves; because since they used precedent examples and disclaimers for what they said and did, they were technically “blameless.” They DID give fair warning to readers. They said “beware of false prophets.” They just didn’t say that THEY were the false prophets.* Elsewhere, Pliny gives the disclaimer, “trust no one" (pg. 453). His inference being, “not even ME!”* In the NT, Arrius Piso (as the NT Jesus) gives the disclaimer, "no one is good."

With the material that Pliny provides, I could speak at great length regarding what Pliny says as well as the various literary devices which he uses. But I know that as it is, this is going to be a rather lengthy overview. So, I will have to stick to certain portions of Pliny’s work. In a letter to Attius Clemens (Pliny, Loeb, Book I of II, pg. 31), he names the philosopher ‘Euphrates’. This appears to be an alias name of Arrius Piso.* Pliny says, “But it is plain to my limited judgment that Euphrates has many remarkable gifts which make their appeal felt even by people of no more than average education.”* He is referring to Arrius Piso writing the Jesus story of the Gospels which the simple people ‘adore’. He says that he has ‘gifts’ - this to further put forth the idea that people were given ‘gifts’ from God, and that they in turn, should give something back to ‘HIM’. There is lot of subconscious stuff going on here, for those who can recognize it for what it is.

Pliny’s texts are tightly written. He says a great deal in only a few lines. But to point out each and every of these instances and then to detail them all with an explanation would be a monumental task. Such as task would be one for a group of knowledgeable people to contend with. Since this is to be an overview, and not a detailed analysis, I must restrict myself as to what I cover in this overview. Please bear this in mind. And I thank you in advance. Even so, we have much, much more to cover here.

Still speaking of the philosopher “Euphrates,” Pliny goes on to describe his physical features. He says, “He is moreover tall and distinguished to look at, with long hair and a flowing white beard.” This is how Arrius Piso looked, how Flavius Josephus looked, and how he NT ‘Jesus’ looked - all one and the same. There is more in this passage that Pliny says about ‘Euphrates” that tells us that he is speaking of Arrius Piso; but we must keep moving through this overview.

Pliny wrote several letters to Fabius Justus, aka Justus Calpurnius Piso (aka Justin Martyr), a son of Arrius Piso (pg. 35). Justus Piso appears to have been the main successor to Arrius Piso. Of his sons, it is he who appears to be the “Comforter” (Paraclete), the consolation spoken of in the NT. Justus Piso was a

bishop of Rome, a “Papa” (popa, ‘father’). Reading in the royal language, ‘para’ from the word “Paraclete” (parakletas), is papa/popa Kletas/Cletus (Popa or ‘father’ Cletus, bishop of Rome). Which we would recognize today as Pope Cletus (see John 15:26 in the earliest known Greek examples of the NT texts).

In a letter to Sosius Senecio (pg. 41), Pliny says, “This year has raised a fine crop of poets.”* Pliny and the others who participated in the creation of Christianity, undoubtedly also referred to Christian believers as their “crop.” In the NT, you will notice their use of euphemisms such as "harvest", etc. Remember this, that Pliny referred to a group of people as a “crop,” you will see why later.*

Instead of using the word “produced,” he says, “raised” as in “Jesus was “raised” from the dead.” Then he says a “fine crop” of poets. This was said to justify his use of the word “raised” - so that it could be put into a different context than that of his original (intended) meaning. And, he says “poets” to say “lying authors.” This is because elsewhere he has a precedent example of that synonymous or duel meaning by saying that poets are not bound to the truth.* He calls himself a ‘poet’ to absolve himself of lying. This was another form of ‘disclaimer’ which the royal authors of Pliny’s day had utilized when writing the lies that they did.

These ‘disclaimers’ will be found in Pliny’s work, in Josephus, and in the New Testament texts themselves, as well as the literary works of their family and relatives. Which, by the way, is another important reason for knowing just how each of these ancient authors are actually related to each other - all of this is proof and evidence.* Proof in situations such as this take a different form than that of other situations. This is because they, the authors themselves, were in control of what evidence was left to us.

That means that the only way we CAN know that this all happened in this context is by what they themselves, left us in order to do that. And that, in turn means that a different kind of proof is required and becomes very important; that of mathematical probability (or the chances of probability). To state that more simply, the proof then takes the form of just what the chances are that an author replicates and/or uses various literary devices. If/when we identify something as such, we can actually count the number of times any given author makes use of certain words, phrases and devices. This reveals his degree of literary knowledge and his actual intent.*

In several places throughout Pliny’s letters we find examples of his knowledge of what would eventually be contained in the book of ‘The Revelation’. He alludes to this too, in several places. He says, “... whether the reader has come in and has read the preface, or is coming to “the END of the book” (pg. 41). Once one knows that the main underlying theme of Pliny’s work is the NT texts, Christianity and his own part in it, one then understands the actual intended meaning for many of the things which he says. As we know, the “END” of the book about Christianity (the New Testament), was ‘The Revelation’. Though Pliny was not the author of The Revelation, he no doubt supervised and oversaw it as it was being written by wife's (Calpurnia) uncle, Julius Calpurnius Piso. Suetonius (aka emperor Antoninus Pius) too, got to see his uncle's work as it was being written.

In a letter to Junius Mauricus (pg. 43-45), he talks about a fellow royal* who could have risen in rank, but who chose not to, saying, “... he has always steadfastly preferred a life of HONEST obscurity to (that of) OUR status.”* Royals who were of higher rank, could write books and have them published. And thereby claim their own portion of ‘immortal’ fame. But they still would have had to have written in accordance with the royal law - and would have been required to LIE in doing so. By the way, Dolabella may have been one such person, as he could have been emperor had he wanted to be (it was offered to him), but chose to decline the offer.

So, Pliny’s statement about this refers to “honest obscurity” as opposed to dishonest popularity. In a letter to Septicus Clarius (pg. 47-49), Pliny says the phrase “... many houses,...” which is really a reference to the NT line, “my father’s (royal) house, has many mansions.” Therefore, “many houses,” really reads to royals “many (royal) houses.”* Pliny was adding the fact that in the war that was raging, it was not just a matter of Arrius Piso’s father’s royal house which was involved, but that their side was supported by MANY royal houses. This, he was ostensibly saying to those on the other side - the Jews (Pharisees and

Scribes). If one observes the writings involved carefully, they will find that this was a common thread throughout the Roman literature of that time. It appears that this was one way for the Romans to get out some of their frustrations regarding the war.

Pliny, while speaking of literary work says, “... they should be impressed (upon the mind) and driven home by repetition” (pg. 59). This is exactly what we find Pliny doing – and how, Julius Piso, writing ‘The Revelation’ was able to make his real meanings known.* In a tease about Nero, Pliny says (taking a line from Cicero’s speech against Verres), “An artist (!) – now WHO was he?” We know that he is teasing about the fact that Nero was overthrown by the Axis forces and that all of Nero’s legacy lies with THEM, because they were the ones who were in control of Rome when Pliny was finishing his literary work. It was from THEM that people would be told about Nero. There was no one left to speak on behalf of Nero, other than his enemies, who were now in control of the Roman Empire.

Pliny shows his hatred for both Nero and Domitian all through his letters, but a person might miss where he does this if they do not know what to look for or how to interpret what he says. As Pliny was a “good friend” of Suetonius (Suetonius was actually a grandson of Arrius Piso, and Arrius Piso was Pliny’s step-brother), he knows what Suetonius will have to say about Nero before Suetonius finishes his work on ‘The Twelve Caesars’. There, Suetonius says that Nero’s last words were, “Dead: and so great an artist!” (Ref. Suet., ‘The Twelve Caesars’, Nero, pg. 238, Penguin Classics).

Another of Pliny’s lines that remains familiar to us today is, “I leave no stone unturned” (pg. 63). The word ‘stone’ here being a keyword which refers to Arrius Piso as “Peter.” Arrius Piso, as Jesus, gives the keys to heaven to “Peter” – that is, to himself! That is the big joke about Peter within the “Inner-circle” of royals after Christianity was created. There will surely be much more research done on the true context of ancient history once academia is educated to it. And so, there will be much more discovered about this subject as a whole. Many more of these inside jokes will be found and explained. Remember, though these are just now becoming known to the non-royal public, down through the many centuries after the creation of Christianity, the ruling royal families and papal families, as well as their relatives, all knew this; thus, those who were writing, would be in on this long-standing inside joke.*

Pliny uses the phrase “divinely inspired” (pg. 65). This, of course, he pretend to have been stated in the context of a Roman who believes in the Roman gods – but this can just as well refer to the biblical or Christian texts. Pliny well knows this, as that was his intent. Speaking of Titius Aristo(n) in a letter to Catilius Severus (pg. 69-71), Pliny says that he has, “the MARK of a truly great mind.” This is a reference to Titius Aristo(n) aka Arrius Piso as being “the beast” spoken of in ‘The Revelation’ (Rev. 7:17, 13:3-4). If you read the last part of Rev. 13:3, in Greek, it actually says (by use of the word "after" as 'Piso'), "Piso (is) the Beast." Pliny knows this, because he was in on it and he is pointing us to all of this. This is because he is a) showing that he was proud of it (and this was one way that he could safely brag about it), and b) wanted to guarantee his own "immortal fame" because of his part in all of it as the NT 'Paul'.

Note that "because (of) the Lamb," in Greek, is the name 'Titus Ariston' rearranged. This is what was alluded to by Edmund Spenser when he wrote about "Titus (the) Mild" switched around as "Myld Titus (and Gesippus/[Josepos] without pryde)," in The Faerie Queene.* And that is because, likewise, in Greek, in Rev. 7:17, "because the Lamb" is aka "Titus the Lamb." Which is why the NT Jesus is referred to them as "the Lamb." This is all literary genius being displayed in various forms for those who are able to see and understand it. They, themselves, tell you this in the New Testament.* So, they can always claim to have given everyone "fair warning." Which, of course, is yet another disclaimer so that they cannot be held liable. In fact, the gospels were written in a narrative, in the form of a play, complete with acts and scenes. It was written originally as satire. Thus, that anyone actually took it seriously was (in their minds) not their fault.

Again, Pliny is saying that he was wise to at least some of what was going to be IN ‘The Revelation’ before it was finished. By the way, it may be that this Catilius Severus whom Pliny was addressing in that letter was Julius Piso. I will have to do more study on this, but I say this as one of Julius Piso’s alias identities was ‘Severus’.* One must be sure to read the research that we have already done with regards

to why it is that we can tell with absolute assurance that Arrius Piso was “the beast” being referred to in ‘The Revelation’.

In a letter to Pompeius Falco (pg. 73), Pliny has inserted the phrase, “... every man’s duty (is) to rise...” This is a reference to a man having an erection, which, in turn, is an allusion to Jesus having “risen” from the ‘dead’. The state of a man NOT having an erection is what they called ‘dead’. Read the research on the “resurrection” being secretly “re-erection.” Much of that can be found in the book 'Piso Christ'. Pliny continually drops gems of truth, but he has disguised them by having put them into a different context.

He says, “... the part you intend to play...” (pg. 75). Which was a reference to those who were playing parts in the great passion play that they were writing as the basis for the Christian religion (that is, in the gospels).* Knowing all of these things strips away all of the mystery that has had academia scratching its head for so many years. So many unanswered questions suddenly are answered. The truth has finally been revealed!

Pliny, in a letter to Baebius (Fabius/Vibius) Hispanus (pg. 75), says “My friend Suetonius Tranquillus...” Thus, if one goes through Pliny’s letters they may piece together Pliny’s close circle of “friends” (who just happen to also be his own royal relatives). We have already commented on how Pliny had written into his works items which refer to passages or lines in the works of Suetonius. In this same letter, Pliny says, “I am writing this to show you...” (pg. 75). Which is precisely what he truly was doing. He was showing us. Actually, showing us a great deal – as long as one KNOWS that he is doing so. Again, one must first be privy to what he is actually referring to with his statements. As I often say myself, the main difference in anything, is in either knowing or not knowing enough about it.

As the reader may well know by this time, Pliny makes use of Arrius Piso’s various alias names to give information about him. I cover more about that as this overview goes on. For now, I want to make certain that I do not pass over a few things of note. In Pliny’s letter to Valerius Paulinus (pg. 83-85), Pliny uses the now very familiar phrase “for heaven’s sake” (pg. 85). In his letter to Maecilius Nepos (pg. 85), Pliny speaks of Isaeus, saying, “Isaeus’ great reputation had reached Rome ahead of him, ...” Perhaps this is the source for the familiar “your reputation proceeds you!” Anyway, this Isaeus appears to be yet another of Arrius Piso’s aliases. Like another of his aliases, this Isaeus “expresses himself in Greek, Attic (Greek) to be precise” (pg. 249). And compare what Pliny says here about Isaeus (“whatever the subject, he is ready at once, ...”) to what he says of Titius Aristo(n), “there can be few questions to which he cannot provide a ready answer” (pg. 69).

And just to ensure the knowledgeable reader understands his intention to reveal yet another of Arrius Piso’s identities. He says, “He is ready with rhetorical figures and syllogisms...” drawing the privy reader’s attention to Pliny’s teacher, Quintilian (see the footnote on pg. 84), who we have already discovered to be Arrius Piso. Now, WHY would Arrius Piso be called “Isaeus?” One my be quick to note the similarity of that name to ‘Jesus’ (remove one phonetic syllable and it IS ‘Jesus’). However, it is also actually a Roman version of the name “Isaiah.” And this, we suspect, is because Arrius Piso was the person who wrote the last portion of the book of Isaiah.*

Continuing on in the same letter, Pliny explains more about HOW the New Testament texts were used more fully to be more effective than had been considered before – as a means of rallying the Gentile Christians to war with the Jews. He says, “... anything which is driven into the mind by the delivery and expression, the appearance and gestures of a speaker (oral speaker) remains deeply implanted there...” (pg. 89). Pliny was explaining HOW the NT texts were used in the early churches as a part of the Roman war against the Jews. Wherever there was a “starting point” for anti-Antisemitism in the NT, it was expounded upon ORALLY in the churches. That way, the actual written content which was anti-Semitic would be kept to a minimum, while still remaining completely effective in terms of inflaming hatred towards the Jews. This is how what they were doing had worked, and worked so well. And this is why the gospels and other parts of the NT make the Pharisees and the Scribes the enemies of the NT Jesus; because the NT was written by the Romans who were at war with those Jews; and they were using those texts as rallying points to inflame hatred within the masses against the Jews (Antisemitism).

A few lines later in yet the same letter, Pliny quotes from on of Demothene’s speeches saying, “Suppose you had heard the beast himself?” Pliny does this, referring to Arrius Piso as “the beast” of The Revelation (which, remember, was not yet finished by Julius Piso, but Pliny was already privy to parts of what it would eventually contain). Now, remember too, that Pliny is saying this to Maecilius Nepos ABOUT “Isaeus” aka Arrius Piso. He is saying that this Isaeus is the same person who is “the beast” – Arrius Piso!

And, he writes this to say, that is, to convince Nepos that he should take advantage of the opportunity to hear this great man in person, as he has this very unique opportunity available to him (because he is living in the same time and place as Isaeus/Arrius Piso, "the beast"). Pliny says, “All this goes to show that you ought to hear Isaeus – if only to have the satisfaction of having done so” (pg. 89). Again, bringing home the point that this “Isaeus” that he is speaking of is one and the same person who used all of those other aliases, Arrius Piso. Also, by the time that Pliny would be writing this, Arrius was getting to be quite elderly and was not going to be around much longer.

In a letter to Lupercus, Pliny uses the phrase, “good faith” (pg. 91). And Pliny alludes to the NT texts when he says, “... a touch of poetry into a narrative prose,” which, is a reasonable description of the Gospels, since by “poetry” he means untruth/lies (Pliny, pg. 449), and the Gospels are written in the narrative form – in the same way as a play... in acts and scenes, as has been stated previously. At the end of Pliny’s letter to Lupercus, he “confesses” his method of inserting items in his texts and of disguising them via a change of context. He does so by saying, “You could not judge whether the head or limb of a statue is in proportion and harmonizes with the whole (statue) if you examine it detached from the trunk, but you could still decide if it was well formed in itself; and the only reason why books of selected extracts are circulated is because some passages are thought to be complete apart from their context” (pg. 95). Now, think about that, if you will.

Next, in a letter to Junius Avitus, he inserts these two words, which if people did not know that Pliny had played Paul, they might very easily bypass. He says, “believe me, ...” (pg. 97). In his letter to Caecilius Macrinus, Pliny says a few things about the New Testament. He says, “... will spur on our young men (young Roman soldiers) to virtue.” That is, to blind faith. And, also, “and such splendid consolation if they die (in battle, particularly).” And still, even more, “we seek consolation in sorrow...” He is saying what benefits that Christianity offered to Rome. It would make the soldiers brave and unafraid of dying, because of the promise of life after death, in heaven. A “reward” earned by faith in the Christian God and Jesus.

And, at the same time, it (Christianity) would pacify the loved ones of the fallen soldiers who were to survive them. The “consolation” being that the families of the fallen soldiers would then think and say to themselves, “well, at least he has gone to a better place” (pg. 101). And, it (Christianity) also offered (false) hope of seeing loved ones again in (a non-existent) heaven. In Christianity, we find many "promises" being made to people in order to get them to believe. But they are promises never meant to be fulfilled. We find such promises as this to be the same kind made by clinical psychopaths to their victims in order to get what they want; knowing full well that they are deliberately lying to people just to get them to think and do what they want them to.*

We see in a letter to Caninius Rufus (pg. 101-103), Pliny teases about being a “prisoner in Christ” (as Paul), as he says, “I wonder if I shall ever be able to shake off these constricting fetters, if I am not allowed to undo them, and I doubt (as a “doubting Thomas”) if I ever shall.” Oh, me. Oh, my! Poor Pliny! And as he has already created the literary illusion of having chains on, he uses that opportunity to make an unrelated thing appear related. He says, “... as more and more links are added to the chain, I see my work stretching out farther and farther every day” (pg. 103). He is really commenting on how the new religion was spreading out farther and farther every day. The “links” that he is actually referring to are those which tie by correlation, his literary works as Pliny to his as Paul. As well as those which tie the true identity of both himself and his fellow royals to their alias names.

As for himself and his own aliases, he jokes about this too in places. One such place is in a letter addressed to Domitius Apollinaris (apparently an alias of Arrius Piso, as Arrius is aka "Apollonius",

created out of his inhered 'Pollio' name. The first letter 'A' is his initial 'A' for Arrius, "poll" is abbreviated 'Pollio', and "onius" is "Annius" with the 'A' exchanged for an 'o') on page 103. That is, in literature, they were doing the same things that we find ancient royals doing on coins of the time. Since they could not fit entire names on their coins, they would use initials and abbreviations. Thus, they could do the same thing to create aliases and pen names for themselves. Rather simple, once you understand what they were doing. And once you know these things, and understand them, there is no going back to the state of "not knowing."

He says, “I feel far more anxious and apprehensive for my “second self” than I ever did on my own account.” First notice that he once again says “feels.” That stresses that he is expressing emotion rather than intellect. He is pretending to be so much less than he actually is; he digresses down to the level of the masses – who “feel,” but seldom are able to “think” and reason. Remember that a part of the goal of these royal writers was to make the masses hyper-emotional, as playing upon emotions is what is important to make propaganda work. People who are able to think and reason things out, are not as easily fooled. Pliny said what he did about his “second self” because he is teasing about his “second self” or alternate identity as Paul.

In a letter to Octavius Rufus (pg. 105), Pliny uses PART of a well-known Christian phrase from the NT texts. He says, “set you free.” Which we know as the last part of “the truth will set you free.”* Where he has placed this, is in a portion of his work where he is talking about the truth that human beings are mortal and when they die, they are “no more.” Items such as this give away the fact that he is really an atheist. There are several things which most atheists hold in common and knowing this, atheists may tell by some things said whether or not another person thinks as they do about life. Atheists, for example, are greatly concerned about time and how long they live. This is because they KNOW that once this life is over, they, as a person in life, no longer exist. But that what they DO while they ARE alive is what lives on. Atheists generally do not want to waste any of the precious time that they have while they are living.

Also, in this, he also manages to speak about one building a literary monument to themselves. As HE was doing by writing both as Pliny and as Paul! He says, “Bear in mind that you are bound by man’s mortality, but that this one memorial of yourself can set you free: everything else is fragile and fleeting like man himself, who dies and is no more.” He was talking about what he really thought about life from his atheist point of view. Again, remember that as Pliny, he has been pretending to believe in the Roman gods. And had he really believed as he pretended to, that meant that he was also suppose to believe that it was possible for mortal men to become ‘gods’ and live forever. So, careful examination reveals the true Pliny.

Now, let me introduce you to Pliny, the philosopher. As we have seen earlier, Pliny has said, “It seems to me foolish not to model one’s self on the highest standards” (pg. 15). And thus, Pliny, in many instances, has modeled himself on Seneca. Also, to model, copy or imitate is something stressed in the NT texts. Ergo, yet, another reference to them. As philosopher, Pliny says, “but ask yourself whether it is not ill-advised to expect from others a service which you will not perform yourself” (pg. 107). Pliny and his fellow NT authors give “reasons” for why people should do things such as be ‘virtuous’ by holding to the virtues that THEY themselves are putting forth, and making ‘examples’ for people to follow. However, only the reasonable and well-trained mind would be able to “see and understand” that the reasons that they give are baseless and false. They were, in fact, created as propaganda.

In the same letter, Pliny again alludes to “a great reward” (in heaven) by saying, “A great reward awaits you...” (pg. 107). Though I wanted to save the more direct references of Pliny to the NT and its passages, I cannot resist giving you just a few of those in this overview. Here is a line which Pliny had placed in a letter to Maturus Arrianus (aka Arrius Piso) on page 113. He is, of course, joking with him using this passage. He says, “... he suggested to my freedman standing behind me...” First of all, he is winking at Arrius Piso in a way when he says this because he is saying that they both knew the power of ‘suggestion’ in literature. Secondly, he may have been teasing that he had named his freedman ‘Satan’ or had given him that nickname, because the passage that he is alluding to is “Satan, get thee behind me!” (Mark 8:33, Matthew 16:23).

I have a bit more to add to this. It seems that the use of the term “freedman” may have, at least in some instances have been used of a father regarding his son. This is because the son is in the father’s bondage or charge until he is of age. And then ‘freed’. But that the ancient authors used this term regarding their own sons without calling them such so as to give the impression or create the illusion that slaves were being ‘freed’ for various reasons. Thus, giving slaves the (false) incentive to work towards their possible release from enslavement. Also, the word “behind” in the Greek is a keyword (explained in detail elsewhere). But it appears that no matter what language a word was used in, that the fact that it is a keyword was still in force no matter what language it was used in. So, Pliny would be able to use any number of keywords which would be known as such in Greek, but ‘say’ them in Latin and they would still be seen by the privy as keywords.

Still in the same letter to Maturus Arrianus (Arrius Piso) on page 119, Pliny asks him, “how are your fruit trees and your vines, the harvest and your prize sheep?” Maturus Arrianus, as has been stated, is simply another alias of Arrius Piso. He, Arrius Piso, was grandfather of the author Flavius Arrianus (Arrian). Anyway, by Pliny saying “fruit trees,” “vines,” “harvest,” and “prize sheep,” he is referring to items related to Christianity without having to use terms that would give it all away. These are more like code-words than keywords. I will not pretend to know the exact meaning of each of these words if I do not know them. At this point, I could really only give my own best guess as to their meanings. I do think though, that at least two of them are relatively “no-brainers.” And those two are “harvest” and “prize sheep.”

That is because we know that as Jesus, Arrius Piso was a shepherd who was tending his flock. Thus, the term “prize sheep” would allude to or refer to “the best of his Christian converts.” While, “harvest,” we can deduce to mean “Christian converts” as a whole. Remember how earlier we saw an example of Pliny talking about PEOPLE (poets) as a “crop”?* That was a clue as to his doing the same thing elsewhere. And this instance would be that elsewhere. As to “vines,” this is a term which was used in association with genealogy or family trees. So, my own best guess about this would be that Arrius Piso was using his knowledge of royal family trees in order to appoint Church leaders. This would also make the use of the term “fruit trees” also understandable. “Fruit trees” are those trees which bear “fruit.” That is, they have another purpose beyond just providing shade. So, royal family trees that bear ‘fruit’ may be seen as those which produce useful members.

On page 125, Pliny slyly alludes to Suetonius’ line “boys will be boys”* by inserting “he said that boys...” Pliny may have been the actual source for some of the now well-known sayings that we find in the work of Suetonius.* Pliny periodically mentions his tutor (teacher/master) “Quintilian”(pg. 127). Quintilian is an another alias name of Arrius Piso, who, as we have already mentioned, was the older step-brother of Pliny The Younger.* Now, I already have addressed WHY it is that Arrius Piso and the other royals who were writing at the time needed so many aliases (see the book 'Piso Christ’). But to remind you of that here, I will say a bit about that. Firstly, they had to create the illusion that there were many more people writing than their actually were. Secondly, they needed to provide information about themselves without putting it all in one place. This was because if they told the truth about themselves in a way would could be readily discovered, they would not have been able to get away with what they were doing.*

Pliny uses the term “everlasting” as another connection between himself and the NT (pg. 131). Let me introduce you now to “Pliny, the Generous.” Or, the “benevolent” as you may choose to word it. This is yet another connection between Pliny and Paul. Because Christianity was created to provide for a number of the needs of the Roman empire (from the point of view of the Flavian/Pisonian rulers). And because to the leaders of religion it has always been a business – a source of income, Christianity, no less, was also important in this same aspect. Besides getting people (Christian believers) to pay ‘tithes’ Pliny was looking at ALL instances of income for the Christian churches. So, in his letters, he presses and stresses the point of “gift-giving.” He makes himself an example of great generosity at every chance he gets. What he was after in large part was to get Christian converts to bequeath their worldly goods to the Church. Another, little known source of income for early Christian Churches was sex. A subject that is covered more directly in the book 'Piso Christ'.

In a letter to Annius Severus (note that in the royal language, ‘Annius Severus’ becomes ‘Arrius Sabinus’),* he uses the term “bequest” and says, “For if I had any reason to fear that a gift I made from this bequest (to him) might be officially confiscated, I ought perhaps to pause and act with caution; but an heir is free now (under Trajan) to give away what has come to him by inheritance” (pg. 131). By saying this, Pliny has given the green light to not only those leaving property to the Church, but also those who may have inherited it! Even if they had inherited it from those who were NOT Christian believers! It is a scheme. A plan on giving people ideas on how to give financial contributions to the Church. But the common people were not aware of the fact that Christianity was created as a part of the Roman war effort. They did not know that what they would be giving would be used by the new Roman leadership to help wage war upon the Jews (again, the Pharisees, whose leaders were like secular humanists of today, and the Scribes, who were basically pacifists, but helping the Pharisees when and where they could).

Pliny, was covering a lot of bases in what he wrote. So, we can readily see his motives once we understand the true nature of what was going on at the time. He was in effect saying that, for example, if a Christian believer had a relative who owned something of value, be it real property or an estate of considerable sum (remember, even small amounts add up when multiplied by hundreds or even thousands), that they were free to give it to the Church without fear of having it confiscated by the Roman authorities. Why? The Roman authorities KNEW that it was going to a “good cause” as it was one in which THEY created!* Pliny goes on and on about the subject of ‘giving’, not only as Pliny, but also as Paul! Also remember, the same people who were Roman royalty and aristocrats were also those who were the leaders of the Christian Church - and that dynamic continued on up to at least the end of the 1st Holy Roman Empire, circa 1806.

One of the ‘virtues’ (see the list)* that Pliny was pushing in his writings was that of “giving.” He and his fellow New Testament authors were cultivating both a climate and a mindset of “giving” – for their OWN benefit! As I had stated before, on many occasions, the New Testament was created in large part as a part of the war against the Jews. Profits brought in by the early Christian churches were re-directed towards the war efforts of Rome; this is why “giving” was emphasized as it was in the texts of the NT and in Pliny’s own literary works. A few examples from the New Testament texts are seen in items relating to “Christian Giving.”

Just to give you a bit of an idea on what to go by regarding Pliny and some of the things that he had written in the NT texts, it may help you to know that Pliny as Paul wrote some of Luke (with Arrius Piso), some of Acts along with Arrius and his sons. Pliny as Paul also wrote the following; I Corinthians, some of II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, some of Philippians, some of Colosians, I Timothy, and parts of II Timothy along with Justus Piso. And also some of I and II Thesolonians, and Titus. See the following; Acts 4:33-35, Acts 20-35, I Corinthians 1:21, II Corinthians 8:1-7, 9: 14-15, Philippians 4:15-16, and Hebrews 12:16. Also, the "confessional" in the early (Catholic) Christian Churches was an invention of Arrius Piso. It was created as a means of obtaining information about their enemies from family members and others who knew of various plots and military information.

Next, we meet Pliny, the Story-teller (pg. 151). In his letter to Calvisius Rufus, he says, “Have your copper (money) ready and hear a first-rate story...” He says this as if he were a professional story-teller (see pg. 150-151). Which, while playing the part of Paul, he was! There are many bits and pieces of various devices scattered throughout Pliny’s work. He says, for instance, in this same letter, “... to rid you of any doubts, I will consult a soothsayer.” Note that where he mentions ‘doubt or doubts’ he is alluding to the “doubting Thomas” of the NT. He is pretending to believe in supernatural things so as to give the impression that things like soothsayers and omens are real. By writing as they did, the royals (including Pliny) were creating an illusion of reality itself. They were making people believe that these things were real and really happened simply by writing about it and agreeing with each other. And this was possible because of the fact that the ONLY people who were writing books were those royals (working in concert with each other). And they each understood what they were doing and what has been going on behind the scenes for centuries before Christianity was ever created. They give a literary wink and a nod to each other without letting the unaware reader know it.

This is what virtually ALL of the writers of the time were doing as this is how they confused the masses and got them to think in irrational terms so that the minds of the masses would better be prepared to except the fantastic stories told in the NT texts. In writing as they did and saying the things that they did, they were able to manipulate the minds of the masses via their writings. Remember that there was no television then and that books were one of the main ways in which people got their information. Books in those times were virtually how the common people were basing their views of reality itself. And that is a very powerful thing. Particularly when the ability to write and produce books was NOT in the hands of the masses, but only in the hands of royalty. Roman royals were very careful about who they allowed to learn to read &/or write. Most non-royals were not allowed to learn to read and write. Instead, they were read to.

Pliny, through his writings, was promoting superstition to give the minds of the masses a basis for irrational thought (belief) – as was Flavius Josephus (Arrius Piso), Suetonius (aka Antoninus Pius), and other family members. These Roman royals realized how effective ‘suggestion’ could be upon minds which were confused and thinking in irrational terms. Pliny has actually crafted various lines and phrases to act as suggestive terms for minds which were “prepared” to receive them. A couple of lines later in the same letter he inserted the phrase, “believe him.”*

Remember, a mixed up Christian-type irrational mind would pick up on anything that it may associate with their primary belief-system; either consciously or subconsciously. Thus, a line like “believe him,” becomes (to THEIR mind), “believe HIM” or “believe (in) HIM.” They may even start to imagine that it was ‘God’ himself who was speaking to them in their own mind when in reality, it was a suggestion given to them in this same fashion. Sometimes the process will take some time, and such associations will also occur upon the later reflection of a person who thinks in irrational terms, and most certainly while the subject or individual is sleeping.*

There are so many aspects to all of this. So much so that anyone who comes to know the subject of ancient history and literature may be able to specialize in particular areas of it. Such as with phrases which have double or multiple definitions. For instance, the royals would use the phrase “the rule of three.” And they gave this phrase an ‘outward’ or superficial meaning (i.e., a thesis in schools of rhetoric was supposed to be supported by three illustrations. Ref. Pliny, Loeb, Book I of II, footnote, pg. 152). However, in practical purpose, that is, the application of rhetoric and propaganda, the “rule of three” referred to the act of manipulation of the mind via a particular method. It appears that to communicate this and to educate this principle to young royals, the word “manifestation” was used instead of the phrase “rule of three” (pg. 153).*

So what WAS “the rule of three”? The rule of three is a phenomenon which royals had discovered over the course of time. Simply put, they found out that IF they were to state particular suggestions over and over again, in the same or similar way at least three times, that this method would ensure that the suggestion would be ingrained upon the minds of those being manipulated.* It, the suggestion, would be imprinted upon the mind of the irrational thinker. Those who were privy (the royals) to this would not fall victim to it as their minds were different in a number of ways; a) they were much more intelligent, b) they understood the process and how it worked, c) they could recognize when it was being used, d) and their minds were not based in irrational thought.

That alone, meant that they were NOT susceptible to suggestion (or propaganda) to the same degree as those who think in irrational terms, and/or who lacked the knowledge that they possessed. What irrational thought does, is to make the mind highly sensitive to suggestion. Which is to say, knowing this, made it possible for authors who knew and made use of this to actually ‘hypnotize’ people to some degree with the words that they wrote and used. This is an extreme type of refinement of literature and one which has never really been discussed in any detail before. Because the royals were privy to all of this, they thought things out with minds which were based upon reality and an understanding of the natural world. Information that was kept from the common person.

As one reads through Pliny’s work, the privy reader will notice just how much pleasure Pliny was taking in creating his literary mind-trap. He was always aware of the fact that his literary work would always be

NEEDED by humanity, as would the works of his fellow authors in antiquity. This is because they would always be needed as a means of instruction, as an example of what COULD be done to all of humanity under certain conditions. And also, as a means of obtaining the truth if/when it is fully understood.

They would serve to teach mankind one of the most important lessons that it would ever learn. Pliny relished the thought of his words being read and uttered for “all time.” He delighted in his “turn of phrase.” How many people today realize that so many of our most familiar phrases come to us via Pliny The Younger and Suetonius? Not many. Only a few lines down from his mention of “the rule of three,” Pliny says, “... to cut a long story short,...” (pg. 153). Did you know that Pliny was the primary ancient source for that and other phrases which have become familiar to us today?*

Pliny KNOWS that he is actually writing for TWO main audiences simultaneously – privy royals like himself, and the ignorant masses. His statement, “... why do I rouse myself (?)” would immediately be recognized as a line from Demothenes and a fairly clear allusion to self-gratification (masturbation). Pliny, jokes and jokes, like a true Roman, about various sexual subjects. But in most, if not all instances, there is also an underlying purpose to his statements. Pliny could, for instance, be saying that he is a widower at the same time he composed this letter. Which was, his excuse (defense/justification), says Abelard Reuchlin, for his molestation of a young boy.

It seems, from all that I know of the time and situations involved, that this boy was not a commoner, but another royal.* Had the boy been a non-royal, it would not have been anything of importance to them. This is because they saw things in terms of two main "races" of the world; theirs, the "royal race" and the non-royal populace. Non-royals to them, were like livestock. To be used in whatever way they saw fit. That, is the cold, but true reality, of the time when royals ruled the world.

Pliny continues throughout his writings, to impress certain thoughts, ideas and concepts upon his audience. The theme of a “reward” for instance. In this same letter that we have been examining, written to Calvisius Rufus, he again speaks about “rewards.” He says, “... offered the same or even greater rewards...” (pg. 153). To the trained observer, Pliny’s “letters” (epistles) appear NOT to be actual letters in the same sense that most people would think them to be, but rather a form of literary style which he used as a means to employ rhetoric and literary devices to be used as propaganda in one instance, while in another, as a medium in which to deliver information regarding members of the Roman royal family; his own family and close relatives (see our information on alias names and identities).

This, in addition to dispensing suggestions to ‘prepared’ minds. That is, that these were not actually real letters, but a chosen style of writing so as to impart information that would be taken as more 'real', and therefore, reliable. It was, remember, the same "style" he chose while writing as the NT Paul. Those epistles were a mix of truth and fiction, as well. Arrius Piso too, did this same thing while writing as Flavius Josephus, in 'Against Apion'. He, was 'Apion'.

Regarding Pliny’s royal relatives, this brings up yet another point that I would like to discuss. And that is that of Pliny and his ‘friends’. For now, one certain “friend,” Tacitus. Pliny tells us how Tacitus is such a close friend of his, one that he has known for some time. He knows him very well, intimately. Thus, he KNOWS that “Cornelius Tacitus” was a pen name of Neratius Priscus. Yet, he does not disclose this fact directly. Instead, he keeps the secret.

For these many years, Tacitus has been hailed by academia as one of the most important and respected of all ancient historians. And yet, no one in academia had ever written anything for publication about having thought seriously that he may NOT have been what they had thought him to be, let alone about thinking that perhaps Tacitus may not have been his actual name. You will have to read my work on Tacitus’ true identity as Neratius Priscus. See that section of ‘Piso Christ’. In the same letter that we have been discussing, Pliny inserts yet other key phrases. Such as “has risen,” which when one realizes that Christianity was created as a phallic-based religion, understands that many lines in Pliny which refer to an erect phallus (pg. 153).

While I am trying to give you a good overview of all of this and to familiarize you with the reality of the people who were living and writing in those times. I need to make you, the reader, aware of several items which may, at first, seem small or of little consequence. This is because it is nonetheless important that you know as much of this as possible in order for you to have an accurate understanding of all that was involved.

Still, in this same letter that we have been examining (pg. 153), Pliny inserted the phrase “evil ways.” He and his fellow writers were actively promoting the idea/concept of ‘evil’, changing the word ‘bad’ to ‘evil’ instead. Thus changing the mindset of the masses to think in terms of ‘evil’ as a force which is opposed to ‘good’. What things were formerly thought of as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ were changed to ‘good’ or ‘EVIL’. Why? Because this idea is what belief in their newly created religion required. The Christian God and Jesus were representatives of ‘good’ in the story, while Satan and the Jews were portrayed as ‘evil’ - not just ‘bad’, but ‘evil’. What is the difference between the two concepts? First, you should understand just WHAT words ARE.

They (words) are our way of communicating with each other. They encapsulate our very thoughts, ideas, meaning and even complex concepts. They are how we come to visualize and understand things. The concept of ‘bad’ is VERY different from that of ‘evil’. The confused and irrational mind may not grasp the difference and may claim that these two words are the same, and may even say that the two words are completely interchangeable. But something which is perceived by us as bad need not have a deliberate evil motive behind it. For instance, you could be driving down the street and a tree limb may crack from a tree along side the road and crash down upon your car. This is an accident, not a deliberate act of hate or maliciousness – it is ‘bad’, not ‘evil’. The word ‘evil’ carries the implication of a deliberate mischievous force or entity behind it, primarily, ‘the Devil’ or Satan. Thus, those words are connected to concepts incorporated into religion. And not everyday items of happenstance or nature (reality).

Are you now starting to gather what was really going on while the New Testament was being written? I should hope so. By using the word ‘evil’ instead of ‘bad’, the authors were subtly promoting the ideas that they were putting forth in the Gospels. In order for the Gospels and the other New Testament texts to be effective, a belief in not only God and Jesus was necessary, but also that of their ‘opposition’ – the Devil or Satan.

Pliny tells us this much himself when the says, “for, to be effective, a request (such as is made by the NT texts for its believers to believe in the goodness of God and Jesus) must give its REASONS” (pg. 125). The “reason” that the NT texts give is because there is a struggle between the forces of ‘good’ (i.e., God, Jesus, disciples, angels, etc.) and the forces of ‘evil’ (which in the NT includes the Jews!). Thus, the masses must be convinced that ‘evil’ (that is, supernatural evil) exists. And so, to accomplish this, the writers of the NT texts made sure that even the (so-called) non-biblical texts of history and literature likewise promoted the same irrational and superstitious concepts that the biblical texts did.

And that, in short, is HOW this had worked so well for so long – they had conquered the minds of the masses via concepts that they had created in order to do so. Yes, that was the effect, they had conquered MINDS with created mind-traps. Non-royals were being royally mind-f**ked. The result was that they were left with virtually (figuratively speaking), "sh*t for brains." That is because, through these long-standing literary efforts, non-royals were left with virtually no real or clear understanding of reality and no means of obtaining that information. Today, we might say that those who could not tell the difference between what was real and not real (in reality), were up the creek without a paddle.

Again, Pliny and his fellow writers were promoting ignorance and superstition, which was necessary in order to create irrational thought in the minds of the masses. They did so through the power of the words that they were using in what they were writing. To understand and to appreciate this fully, one must think about the power of books in terms of influencing minds in times when there was no television and when books were the main source for what people would be able to think of the world around them, other than their own sensory perception, that is.

True, a majority of people did not read nor write as that was also a part of the ‘plan’ of the royals to keep the masses as ignorant as possible in order to make them as ‘pliable’, malliable, as possible. So, in many instances, the royal aristocrats had books read to the common people. And with the advent of Churches, the propaganda could be distributed to the masses much more easily. Another way of promoting their new religion was to have their new religion taught to prison inmates as they too, were a “captive audience.”

We see this still today. Some of the prisoners would be arrested on false charges, informed of Christianity, and then released.* Before Pliny ends this particular letter (pg. 155), he says of Regulus, ‘... he had found a double set of entails, which was a sign...” Pliny speaks often of “signs” and “omens,” and of “foretelling,” as does Flavius Josephus and Suetonius.* This too, of course, is a part of what is given in the NT texts, such as the supposed "foretelling" of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Strange (not) isn't it, that the earliest gospel to say this wasn't written until AFTER the event had already happened; but was, written into a story that was backdated to an earlier time? Yes, that is propaganda.

It is Pliny who says (in a letter to Calvisius Rufus, pg. 163, “... I hope and pray...” Pliny says any number of things which, to the untrained eye may remain unnoticed for their true meaning, but which when all is told could be of some greater importance. He nonetheless derives enjoyment in putting as much information as possible into his literary work, as is revealed when it is examined critically with some knowledge of the subject matter.

As we have already seen in previous examples, Pliny could put together several key phrases within only a few lines. This is something that Pliny seems to take great pride in – he readily shows off his literary talents to those who can perceive and appreciate them. His literary work is tightly written, like that of the NT texts. Briefly, a few of the key phrases that we find in the remainder of Pliny’s letter to Calvisius Rufus (pg. 163), are; “I shall eagerly enter,” “a reassuring example,” “it was his duty,” “hard work,” “I bind myself,” “with you as my witness.”*

Now, shall I explain each of these? A better reading in terms of a translation into English (in terms of conveyed meaning) for “I shall eagerly enter” is “I shall enter eagerly.” Of course, this is easily recognized as a bawdy remark once it is realized that it was originally written separately and apart from the context in which it was set. “A reassuring example” refers to both the NT characters setting examples for their converts to follow and “imitate,” and also to the various precedent examples which were used as disclaimers for the NT authors.

“It was his duty” refers to something we already covered – Pliny is recalling that earlier line (in his letter to Pompeius Falco, pg. 73), “(it is) every man’s duty to rise.” Meaning, “to become erect.” But this particular line (“it was his duty”) could also be another disclaimer of sorts. Pliny could say this to mean that Arrius Piso created Christianity and played God and Jesus because “it was his duty” to do so, as a Roman royal. And therefore, absolving him of our blame. So according to Pliny, he was “innocent” of any wrong-doing, no matter what.

The phrase “hard work” is another sexual phrase. And we know this from our close examination of the NT texts.* “Hard work” is simply another form of “laboring hard,”* which we have found as a phrase used in the NT to mean passionate or enthusiastic fornicating.* As to the phrase “I bind myself,” that may be a reference or allusion to the “girding up of loins” in the NT and/or to the character Lazarus and the story behind the story of Lazarus, which was derived from the Egyptian story of a dead pharaoh, as a mummy “who stinketh.”*

And, IF this Calvisius Rufus whom Pliny writes this to is really Arrius Piso, then his statement “with you as my witness” could mean that Pliny as Paul was a witness for him as Jesus/Peter, and that the favor was returned somewhere in the literature of the time. Or, IF Pliny was in fact writing to HIMSELF as Calvisius Rufus, then he is alluding to the NT passage in which ‘Jesus’ says (in John 5:31), “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true (i.e., false or a lie).” He is bearing witness to himself, and therefore admitting that he is lying. Note that the same line in John 5:31 is used along with another as a disclaimer in the NT.*

It would seem that the latter instance, given what is known, makes the most sense. This is further supported by the name Calvisius Rufus itself. Of course, like nearly everything, more research and further analysis is required in order to make a better determination. But let’s examine the name Calvisius Rufus. “Cal” appears to be an abbreviation of “Calpurnius” and ALL Pisos were Calpurnii, whether they used that designation publicly or not.* This is because they ALL descend from Calpus, from whom the name derives. So, the two names always go together.

Thus, we see the name “Calpurnius Piso.” Which could be Pliny’s name as a step-brother of Arrius Piso, inherited from his step-father, Lucius Calpurnius Piso.* The “visius” portion of the name, to me, recalls a little known name used by Pisos, “Bes(t)ia.” Or, in the royal language by use of letter exchange, "Cal(purnius) Pa(u)lius/Pollios."* “Rufus” is an easy name to place with Pliny as his father figure and guardian was Verginius Rufus. So, Pliny could have inherited the ‘Rufus’ name from Verginius Rufus.*

On page 163 of Pliny (Loeb, book I of II), Pliny writes a letter to Vibius Maximus, who appears to be none other than himself as ‘Maximus’ (Abelard Reuchlin has determined that Pliny The Younger died in the year 116 while at war under the name Maximus).* Pliny mentions Maturus Arrianus (aka Arrius Piso) in this letter and continues to sing his praises. Pliny calls him the leading citizen of Altinum (Altino, on the coast of Veneta. See footnote pg. 162). Pliny says to Vibius Maximus (himself), “He (Arrius/Arrianus) loves me as dearly as you do – I need say no more.”

Pliny continues, saying, “He is incapable of pushing himself forward, and for this reason has remained a member of the order of (Roman) knights, though he could easily rise to the highest rank.” What do I make of this? This letter appears to have been written just after Domitian’s death, when Nerva had just taken the throne, and about when Arrius Piso was recalled to Rome, and before he was to co-rule with Trajan. Thus, about 96-97 CE. What Pliny may be saying is that he is taking it upon himself to see that Arrius Piso’s former authority as co-ruler of the Roman Empire is restored (he had co-ruled with Titus 79-81 CE, then upon Titus’ death, Domitian had sent him to Bithynia as governor; in effect, banishing him from Rome.*

Notice the phrase “he could easily rise.” A tease at Arrius Piso as Jesus, rising from the ‘dead’. And also a bawdy remark as ‘rising’ was a reference to what the male sex member does. Pliny takes every opportunity to plug or push his concept (for the masses) of his ‘virtues’. He says, “I feel it my duty...” (pg. 165). Another key word that Pliny uses is ‘heart’. He uses the terms as the NT texts do, in order to promote hyper-emotionalism over rational thought. Above, he said he FELT it was his duty. Not that he thought or reasoned it to be. He is promoting the idea/concept of duty/loyalty (nationalism/patriotism) as a virtue. He says, “... had set his heart on it.” This is equating the word ‘heart’ with feelings, emotions, empathy. It is irrational thought through hyper-emotionalism which was needed by these ancient royals to make their propaganda most effective.

On page 169, in a letter to Caecilius Macinus, Pliny uses the phrase “public opinion.” Pliny, as a Roman royal, knew that the “public opinion” was molded by the royals themselves, because the royals had a monopoly upon book writing, and had the only means by which to publish (create) books. And again, to remind you, when I say “royals” I include those who were leaders of religion as well. This is because they were always of the same royal ancestry, and generally closely related to those who were ruling. They would work together towards the same goals (see ‘Royal Supremacy’).*

When Pliny used the phrase (here in the same letter), “hurried out,” that was a reference to a running joke that was inserted into the New Testament, about a man who was in such a hurry that he had left without his ‘cloak’ (clothes).”* And here in the same letter Pliny says the words, “the foundation stone.” Which we who are privy to his meanings can recognize as a reference to the NT line where Jesus makes Peter the foundation stone on which the Christian Church was built.*

Pliny continues to brag about just how “giving” (generous) he is when he says, “a temple which was to be built at MY expense...” (pg. 169). He was actually converting the old Roman temples and altars of worship into Christian Churches - he says, at his own expense. But where did he get the money to do so?

Probably from the earlier churches that were bringing in revenue from sexual vice. There is more on that in 'Piso Christ'. In order to repair the damage or rifts in the Roman military and to ensure better rapport between the lowly soldiers and their royal military leaders, Pliny uses the devices of pointing out the “common ground” or similarities between them. He says, speaking of himself, “... the official duties we share (in common).”* He is speaking of “duty” again as one of the ‘virtues’ that he is pushing in his writings. He says a number of things which a Roman soldier could related to by association – which, of course, was Pliny’s intent (pg. 169).*

He continues to instill the idea of particular concepts in order to reinforce others. He says, “... my professional honor...”* Which would give a soldier the idea that HE, the soldier, is a soldier by profession, i.e., a professional soldier, with no plans for any other career and who has his ‘honor’ at stake. The idea of ‘honor’ was to be taken by the Roman soldier in association with his ‘duty’ as an official representative of Caesar on the field of battle and elsewhere. The idea here was to promote the idea of a mere foot soldier as likewise being an ‘official’, and thereby, ‘important’ to some degree. It was much like the idea of giving someone a title without any real substance behind it. It is only an ‘image’ or illusion.

Pliny used his knowledge of psychology by way of suggestion and of ego to mold the minds of the ordinary soldier so that they would think and behave as the Roman leaders wanted them to. He was pumping up the ego of the common soldier so as to delude them into thinking himself to be something more than he actually was. Thus, we can see this as having multiple purpose. Perhaps in addition to the other suggestions given to the commoners and soldiers was the purpose of instilling the thought of being honest and honorable in terms of the booty that they would come into contact with when raiding a town or village; that is, so that they would have a conscience that would bother them if they were to think of taking it for themselves.* That is so that they would turn it over to their supervisors and the lute would then go up the chain of command to the officials who would then take them for themselves.

Now when we have seen what we have here, illustrated and explained, we are much more able to also comprehend the rest of this. We have learned, and are now wiser than before. So, now in places where Pliny talks about ‘extracts’,* we may well have a better understanding of what he really meant. What are ‘extracts’? They are parts of or portions of larger, usually ‘finished’ literary work. But if he was taking parts or portions out, talking about them, explaining them and expounding upon them, then he is also opening up the idea of the contrasting concept of INSERTING parts into his texts as well.* Which appears to be what he is alluding to when he says, “extracts,”* as what he has ‘extracted’ from his literary works may also be what he had inserted INTO them (he may have extracted certain portions to elaborate upon orally to his fellow royals, as when he gives ‘speeches’).*

We continue where Pliny uses the phrase, “the meaning of my words” (pg. 171). Yes, indeed. That is what we are concerned with in this examination, and what Pliny explains to us in his own way. Pliny does make some very important statements in his ‘letters’. Such as, “... disgraceful to neglect the rights of a people...” He must have been laughing as he wrote that statement as the common people of the Roman Empire had virtually no 'rights’ whatsoever.

The ‘rights’ that Pliny is actually concerned about are those which he takes to be those of royals such as himself. And bear in mind that this is NOT to say that the ‘illusion’ of rights for the common Roman citizen did not exist – as it most definitely did. But that was just it, it was only an ‘illusion’. Not a reality. And this is what Pliny alludes to with this statement. The rights of the common person was at the center of what the war between the Roman Axis and the Jewish Allies was about (see ‘The Synthesis of Christianity’ and ‘Piso Christ’).* Pliny slips in carefully created phrases which encapsulate the ideologies that he is trying to promote. An example; “... people who have every reason to be grateful...” He plays off this angle of his campaign of creating a “giving” mindset and culture later on in his Panegyrics.* It is the “count your blessings” angle. Which is akin to “give, as also was given unto you.”* It is the manipulation of emotion and conscience – which was key to their successful use of propaganda.

What is Pliny doing? The same thing that his ancestors and royal relatives were doing. They were ‘seeding’ the minds of the masses with their own created concepts and ideas – ideas which would then

make it much easier for the royals to rule and manipulate the minds of the common people. These ancient rulers were actually using psychology in literary form to get the masses to think and do as they wanted them to. This is WHY the saying “the pen is mightier than the sword” is so true. People just need to learn why that is true, because that is the only way that they can remove the power which has been making them do things that they would not have done otherwise.

In reading the line, “... win the same gratitude.” Which is another subtle prompting of thought towards “giving,” as by giving, one generally ‘wins’ gratitude (pg. 171). He uses the word “duty” again in this same letter and then says, “All duties have their limits,” which he KNOWS will become a widely known and widely used, catch-phrase. But he also quickly qualifies the statement by saying, “and permission to be freed from them is best gained by previous compliance” (pg. 171-173). Think about it. What is this statement saying? He is saying that as far as duty goes, whether it is to its limit, beyond it, or not, one cannot expect to be freed of that duty until or unless they have first earned that consideration by DOING their duty, and NOT until then. This was a strong message to the Roman military men; particularly, the lowly foot soldier. As well as to slaves, particularly slaves who have been made religious.*

They were using propaganda such as this to maintain control over their soldiers and to get them to think in ways that would keep them loyal, unafraid, honest, and ever optimistic by offering them a number of incentives which did not cost them any money. One of these was the illusion of the opportunity to advance to the very top of the military ranks with the possibility of becoming emperor one day (at least in the soldier’s own mind). This, in reality, of course, was not true. Only royals could ever become emperor. But that illusion was dangled in front of the ordinary soldiers for the benefit of the royals who were in charge.*

Before Pliny ends that letter, he says, “... I have your support” (pg. 173). Now I’m going to explain to you something that most people never think of, and this is why lines such as this worked so well. When people hear or read what the person who is talking or has written is saying – if they relate to that person and what is being said, they will put themselves in the place of that person or persons automatically as a means of better understanding them. In other words, the ‘self’, via the ego, in their own mind, thinks as if they WERE or ARE that person and as if THEY are the one who is making the statement. This is literary transposition.*

So, when a person hears or reads “I have your support,” they are thinking to themselves and THEIR position or point of view, and thinking to themselves “I have your support.” Meaning that this soldier, for instance, is now thinking in terms of NOT being alone and instead that he has people who support him in his duty and goals. This, of course, was a useful device with regards to the morale of the Roman military personnel.*

Next, we take a look at a letter from Pliny to Baebius (Fabius Vibius) Macer (pg. 173). Pliny is talking about his uncle’s books (Pliny The Elder) and lists them in the same commentary. We will see in several places where Pliny is talking about (and thus, promoting the idea of) the supernatural; including ghosts or spirits. While he is telling of his uncle’s book on the German wars, he says that his uncle, while asleep, saw the ghost of Drusus Nero (as the footnote on pg. 173 says, this Drusus Nero was Nero Claudius Drusus, brother of Tiberius, who died in Germany in 9 BCE). Though he clearly says that his uncle was asleep at the time, and thus, this was only a dream and not real; it still puts forth the idea of ghosts. And as we will see, Pliny will later tell us another “ghost story.”*

Why does Pliny want to promote the idea of ghosts? Because this is yet another part of the Jesus story that they wanted to make people believe is real. One needs to be able to believe in ghosts if they are to believe in the “holy ghost,” which is that of ‘Jesus’ upon his death (Mark 15:37).* One may also note that Suetonius too, helps to promote the idea of ghosts, as he says of emperors upon their death that they “gave up the ghost” like is stated in Mark 15:37, John 19:30, etc. (Ref. Suetonius, ‘The Twelve Caesars’, Loeb Classical library or Penguin Classics edition).

Pliny says so much, in so many places and ways, that it is difficult for me to decide what I should elaborate upon now, or which things I should at least make some mention of at this time. Many items are

rather complex and just the mere mention of some of them may require much more detail than I can reasonably explain in this one work. This may mean that I will have to return to this subject at some point in the future to cover some of those which will not fit here presently.* But so you know, I will always try to give what information I can in the venue available.

As I have said before many times, in order for royals to know all that they did and to be as intelligent as they were, they HAD to start their studies at a very early age. Pliny mentions his uncle’s work titled ‘The Scholar’ (pg. 175). He says, that it was “three volumes divided into six sections, on account of their length, in which he trains the orator from his cradle and brings him to perfection.” In this statement, Pliny confirms what I have been saying about how incredibly intelligent the royal houses of the time actually were – and HOW they were able to become so; they studied from the earliest possible age.

And, they had access to a vast store of collected knowledge which was accumulated from perhaps as far back as from the time in which the first royals had invented the first written language. I’ll say this too, one more time (to remind you), there WERE libraries in ancient times. But, from what I know of ancient times, those libraries were NOT ‘public’ libraries. They were strictly for the use of royalty. And how is it that I have drawn this conclusion? Because the royals were not stupid. They KNEW that knowledge is power and that was their ‘edge’ against the average person.

This was how they got to be in the very position that they were in. They kept the masses ignorant. It runs directly counter to that to think that they were actually ‘educating’ the masses. When, for instance, a ‘school’ is mentioned in Pliny’s time (by Roman royals), one may reasonably conclude that that ‘school’ served the purpose of indoctrinating people into Christian belief rather than for actually educating them.* The creation of religious schools was not for the purpose of educating the masses, but of indoctrinating them. There were certain colleges that were for royalty only, but that is yet another subject.

And, one should also know that not all books that were referred to by ancient authors were allowed into the hands of anyone other than royals. Many appear to have been published strictly for royal use. And therefore, published copies may have always been held only by royals. This would explain why it is that there are no known examples of particular works.* The work that I had just mentioned on page 175 (‘The Scholar’) appears to have been one of those books which were only for the use of royalty.

When people have asked me what I think ever happened to some of these ‘missing’ or lost works, I tell them what I have suspected according to what I know about the subject. There could very well be examples of some of those works still intact. It seems that at least some of those literary works from antiquity survive, but which have not yet been found or made known or available to the public.

Actually, this brings up a very important consideration. And that is what IF there was some evidence which would show that Christianity was in reality a fraud, such as a literary confession to its creation by those who did the deed; but that evidence was found by a Christian archaeologist? There are many, many Christian archaeologists. Some of them may be honest and report the find, but still others, may not. Some may be tempted to destroy that evidence. And perhaps this has already happened, maybe even several times.* In the statement which we were talking about, Pliny uses the key phrase “on account of.”* See my explanation for this elsewhere, along with the list of keywords and their meaning and relationship to each other in ‘circles’ and ‘strings’ ('Piso Christ'). One will also note that ‘The Scholar’ is quoted by Quintilian, Pliny’s tutor, aka Arrius Piso (see the footnote on pg. 174).*

And, when Pliny mentions his uncle’s book (pg. 175) ‘Problems in Grammar’, he says, “... eight volumes; this he wrote during Nero’s last years when the slavery of the times made it dangerous to write anything at all independent (other than the emperor's point of view or intent) or inspired (meaning, "religious").” Pliny, throughout his literary work attacks Nero; and Domitian, too, for being much like him (Nero). The real reason that Pliny, the Flavians and Arrius Piso did not like Nero and Domitian is because neither of them would allow the Axis to publish their Christian texts, nor would they allow them to put forth their newly created religion (Christianity).* Thus, Pliny and the other Pisonian history and literature writers painted Nero in a bad light, saying things about him which were not true.

What does Pliny actually MEAN by his statement? Remember that he is speaking from the perspective of royals who were of the Axis (which, I will also remind you here, is what is meant by the statement in the NT that ‘Jesus’ “shall save, his people.” His people, were the Roman royalty of the Axis). So, for THEM, it most definitely seemed like ‘slavery’, and for THEM it was dangerous to write anything “independent” of the agenda of Nero – this is because Nero himself appeared to support the causes of the Jewish Allies.*

And Pliny says that it was “dangerous to write anything... ‘inspired’.” Now, what did he mean by THAT? He was talking about biblical texts as being ‘inspired’ by the concept of ‘God’. Thus, he is saying how dangerous it was for the Pisos and their supporters during Nero’s reign. And particularly so, because they were trying to create a new religion and Nero was opposed to that and would not allow them to do it.* In the paragraph that we are examining, where we see Pliny mentioning Nero, he actually manages to include the name ‘Paul’ as a Latin word (‘paulo’). He did this, it appears, to tease at the fact that he, as Paul, was set into the story in Nero’s time (“Dubii sermonis octo”: scripsit sub Nerone novissimis annis, cum omne studiorum genus paulo liberius et erectius periculosum servitus fecisset,” page 174).

Now, for just a bit on the subject of ‘keywords’ and conceptual meaning within the texts of those who were responsible for the creation and promotion (marketing) of the Christian religion we find recurring themes central to the story of ‘Jesus’ and his life, and also items which are central to the ideological aspects of that religion as well. Many of these were given either in the form of keywords (perhaps these were referred to by them as ‘watch-words’ [words to watch for]) or in conceptual form expressed by a combination of words, which were sometimes inserted into text of a different subject matter so as to conceal or disguise their true original meaning. This would have been done, of course, in order to keep the non-royal reader from discovering the actual or intended meaning of those words and phrases.

For example, when “dinner” or the act of eating is represented by words in the text of Pliny The Younger, this is most likely a way to refer to the aspect of ‘Jesus’ (the created character) as food; i.e., the Eucharist. Some of these express a more direct meaning to a specific area of the NT texts such as to a certain passage. In Pliny’s letter to Baebius Macer (on page 177), the phrase “something to eat” is used. This is not only a reference to ‘Jesus’ (Arrius Piso) as “dinner” via his alter or alias name of ‘Aristion’, but more specifically, to a bawdy joke in the NT. The phrase recalls the passage where some hungry children are offered “something to eat” and ‘Jesus’ gives them his “meat” (alluding to his privy member). A few lines later, Pliny says, “then ate something” (pg. 177). And Pliny used the word “dinner” twice in this one letter.

The way that Pliny describes his uncle as valuing time to the extreme is his way (though probably factual as well) of saying that his uncle was an atheist. This, is so as atheists in general, are keenly aware of the fact that this one life is the only one that we can actually be certain of; and therefore, we should make the most of every moment of it. In addition to this, his uncle, like Pliny himself, realized that all that would be left of them when they died is what they could leave behind as their legacy. Since they were creating literary monuments to themselves, it was their literary work that they chose to leave behind as their own monuments to themselves.* Which, of course, is exactly what Pliny The Younger was doing.

In Pliny’s case, the word ‘traveling’ might also be considered as a key word (pg. 177). This is because, as ‘Paul’, Pliny had traveled quite a bit. We already know that keywords were used to represent both Pliny and Arrius Piso (Pliny as ‘island’, while ‘mountain’ represented Arrius Piso as ‘Montanus’).* In this same letter, Pliny once again talks about “duty,” and you will find that he is fond of the term “on the other hand.”* He used that term here as well (pg. 179). And, throughout his letters, Pliny refers to himself as “lazy.” He does this because he feels (thinks) that he IS lazy by comparison to his uncle (Pliny The Elder). He says, “So I cannot help smiling when anyone calls me studious, for compared with him (his uncle) I am the idlest of men” (pg. 179).

To emulate the words (for their meaning), Pliny will, at times, use a line of words to say or indicate that same meaning conceptually. An example of this would be, “... and may even spur you on to the ambition of doing more than read them (he is talking about his literary work), if you can produce something similar yourself.” That is to say, imitate or copy him (Pliny) and what he is doing (pg. 179). There is another aspect of this that I do not wish to neglect informing you of, and that is of researching the family

connections between the people whom we are reading about in Pliny and elsewhere in the texts of that period.

An example of this comes up in a letter of Pliny to Caninius Rufus (pg. 183), as one of the main subjects of the letter is Silius Italicus. Pliny says several important things here about Silius Italicus, information which can be seen as supporting evidence for our research of Silius Italicus (see this genealogical research elsewhere). In this letter, Pliny is speaking of some events in the life of Silius Italicus and of his death. Pliny says that Silius Italicus died by starving himself to death in his own house near Naples, Italy. Martial said that Italicus had owned a home which once belonged to Cicero (see footnote, pg. 182 of Pliny).

Here are a few of the items that Pliny says about Italicus. He says that Italicus had lost the younger of his two sons. And that Italicus had damaged his reputation (with the Axis) under Nero, because it was thought that he had acted as an informer to Nero (about those who were conspiring to kill Nero). Pliny says that Italicus had maintained his friendship with emperor Vitellius (who was also on the side of the Allies). So, let’s not let the fact that Italicus had personal contact with at least these two Roman emperors escape our attention.*

All of this is put into the proper perspective once one realizes Italicus’ relation to those who Pliny speaks of (pg. 183). Pliny says that Italicus had wrote verses (and therefore, was a published author), but that his verses “cannot be called ‘inspired’.” What did Pliny mean by that? I think that when Pliny said “inspired” that he meant ‘biblical’ as “inspired (by God)” (pg. 185). This is because that is one way that he could indicate that and not have to actually state it outright. Which, is precisely what he was doing anyway as we have already seen.

Pliny says that Italicus had retired in Rome, and that he made his home in Campania (where Mt. Vesuvius is located, but to the N.W. - and therefore, apparently not buried by volcanic ash from Vesuvius’ eruption in 79 CE. See Suet., Titus, pg. 291),* and that he never left it again, not even on the arrival of the new Emperor (pg. 185).

Our preliminary genealogical research in this area shows the emperors Galba and Vitellius to have been brothers with the same father (Vitellius I); and father who was a friend and confidant of the Julian Caesars. And that, Otho was a step-son of Galba, and that Italicus was a brother of Otho (Suet., Otho, pg. 257, Penguin Classics, “Galba’s adoption of Piso came as a shock to Otho, who had hoped to secure this good fortune himself.” And Otho wrote a personal letter to Vitellius inviting him to become his father-in-law (by Otho marrying his daughter Vitellia) and share the rule of the Roman Empire with him. Suet., Otho, pg. 259). And furthermore, that Italicus (Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus aka Titianus/Trajanus) was the father of the emperor Trajan.* Knowing all of this, puts what Pliny says into the correct perspective.

Pliny says that Trajan’s younger brother had died. He places Italicus into personal familiarity with both Nero and Vitellius. And he says that Italicus maintained his friendship with (his uncle) Vitellius. He says that Italicus did not leave his home in Campania, “not even upon the arrival of the new Emperor (Trajan),” his own son! Pliny is of course, speaking of Trajan’s arrival to Rome having come from Pannonia in 99 CE. The meaning of this statement may mean that Italicus was old and frail, and that instead of leaving his home to see Trajan, he remained there and Trajan went to see HIM when he arrived in Rome (pg. 185). It will be very helpful to you if you take note of these royal family relationships as they will provide answers to previously unanswered questions in history.

Note that as Galba’s step-son, Otho had expected to succeed him. And when Galba chose Licinianus Frugi Piso instead (and adopted him), this is when Otho revolted against Galba. Whereas, previously, Otho had supported Galba. Also, when speaking of Trajan (as ‘Cocceius’), Otho had said to him not to forget that he had an uncle who was Caesar.*

Pliny the Atheist. Pliny reveals the fact that he is really an atheist in several places throughout his work in passages such as, “The thought of this fills me with pity for human frailty; nothing is so short and fleeting

as the longest of human lives” (pg. 185). Observing Pliny’s true sentiments reveals answers to at least two main items: a) that living lives of luxury, royals were generally happy and enjoyed life – thus, to them, life seemed to go much too fast. And, b) that this very same reason was the source (or at least one main source) for anger and resentment felt by royals. Because no matter how much more intelligent, richer and privileged they were than the ordinary person, they still had to die as well. This created a propensity for violence which they directed at the common person, slaves, and even other royals which they had captured and tortured. Again, though royals lived lives of luxury, they nonetheless also had to die; and as Pliny points out, they felt life to be much too short. They were keenly aware of their OWN mortality.

Pliny says several things that help to date this letter, and hence, to put much of it into perspective for us. One of the other things that he says here that helps us as researchers is (to Caninius Rufus); “It must seem to you only the other day that Nero died, yet not one of those who held consulships in his time is alive today” (pg. 185). Here is a bit more about Pliny as an atheist. He says in this same letter, “All the more reason then why we should prolong all our passing moments, uncertain though they are...” And, “let us leave something to bear witness that at least we have lived.” This, too, by the way, could allude to several things. Pliny could be saying that he, by writing of himself, is his OWN witness. Which would allude to the passage in Luke about one being their own witness. It could allude to the mention of Christ in Josephus; or all of those things. Which, is probably most likely as Pliny was a very deliberate author. And he also finishes this letter by saying, “Rivalry is good” (from Hesiod), “when friends stimulate each other by mutual encouragement to desire immortal fame” (pg. 187). Again we see Pliny’s preoccupation with “immortal fame.”

Reading over a letter of Pliny to Suetonius Tranquillus (pg. 187-189), we find him talking about “service.” Pliny will often substitute words in order to overwhelm the mind of his non-royal audience and to further instill or deepen the effects of his suggesting concepts which he has already put forth in his writings.* The word “service” or “services” is another way of expressing the point of individual “duty.” What he does is to ‘bond’ one concept to another to strengthen that idea within the minds which he intends to influence with what he writes or ‘suggests’. “Service,” “duty,” “loyalty,” “patriotism” (or nationalism) and the like are all tied together by Pliny in his epistles – but we find the same thing occurring in the NT texts as well.

Again, he is “creating” public opinion by pretending that certain predominant opinions already exist and/or are widely held.* This is what these Royal Roman authors were doing, creating a mindset, beliefs, and opinions; and NOT reflecting those which had already existed at that particular point in time. This is, as we would term it today, an example of “psychological warfare.”* In the NT, we also find mention (suggestion) of “duty” and “loyalty,” but it is bonded to “faith”/”belief” and results in a bonding of certain key ideologies to form a certain result; the loyalty of the individual to “God” and “Country,” i.e. the Roman Empire ("Give unto God what is God’s, and give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s").*

Another thing that the careful examiner will find is the binding of the idea of “hope” with faith/belief. But bear in mind that this is not ‘real’ hope, but rather ‘false hope’ – which didn’t matter in the least to those who were pushing that ‘hope’. And the ‘faith’ that they were dispensing was not ‘faith’ in anything real either, but instead, irrational thought. Giving all of these ideas and concepts to minds which could not comprehend them to be untrue, is what caused those minds to create another separate reality for themselves.

Pliny is always saying, “I hope” (pg. 189), and “I pray.”* Sometimes he says these separately and other times he says these together.* But having said them in the instances that he had together then prompts the mind to think of the other word even when they are not used together, as that is the way that the mind works and he knew that.* Which brings up the subject of inference. And we will talk more about that later on. But I did want to say right now that what Pliny does in terms of giving us information is to rely upon ‘inference’ rather than stating it outright, which he knows he could not do if what the royals were doing was to succeed. The literary device is omission, but it works in conjunction with what the reader may or may not know.

And, on page 191, we find Pliny once more promoting the idea of “evil” in saying ,”... he was a scoundrel who made no secret of his evil ways.” This, when he is speaking of Caecilius Classicus in his letter to Cornelius Minicianus.* And, in this same letter, Pliny continues to stress the importance of ‘feelings’ (emotions) and he binds this idea with “affection,” which was a substitute or alternative word for ‘love’ (as in “God is Love”).* Which takes one back to the use of the word “heart” by these authors. Pliny says, “I have come to feel a warmer affection for him” (pg. 191). He has put together a parts of two different lines and combined them so that the reader is not aware of the parts that are omitted and ‘hears’ them only in his subconscious mind; unless of course, he is a privy reader.

In this statement we have, “I have come to,” which one thinks of as the first part of “I have come to CONQUER.” And to “feel” is an emotional term. “A warmer affection for him,” would read, “A warmer LOVE for HIM (‘HIM’ being the Christian God &/or the NT Jesus). This of course, is what the mind that has been prepared to think in terms which associate thoughts with the Christian texts. These authors were exceedingly intelligent and knew exactly how to manipulate minds. Only those who likewise knew what THEY did would be able to point that out to others. Which is what we are now doing.

In the same letter (pg. 191), Pliny makes mention of one of the tactics which were used by ancient royals when he says, “... the influential (i.e. powerful and/or popular) might make scapegoats of the humble (modest, lesser known), and so escape at their expense.” What he is referring to is situations in court, but he alludes to the larger picture as well. Perhaps, he was even alluding at the Roman aristocrats having made scapegoats of the Jews during the war.* We know of how once these Pisonian/Flavian leaders and authors gained control of Rome, they had belittled and ridiculed those who could not defend themselves from such charges (Nero, Vitellius, Domitian, Jewish leaders, etc.).*

In this letter too, we see Pliny using the keyword “behind,” which we have pointed out elsewhere as having been used in the NT (in Greek) to insert the name ‘Piso’ in the NT texts (see our discussion on keywords and The Revelation; find “Get thee behind me Satan,” Luke 4:8). And Pliny says, “... to pull off the horse’s tail...” He is teasing at the word “horse” as its alternate meaning of ‘beast’. That is, that the word “beast” (as in Luke and The Revelation; also see Flavius Josephus, Whiston, 555) could be exchanged here for the word “horse.” The word “horse” was a kind of “word-bridge” or link because a “horse” was called a “beast” and the spelling of the word “horse” is “ippos,” and thus, also contained the name ‘Piso’ rearranged.

Please remember to keep in mind that what these royal writers were doing by the means that we are describing was a) what they HAD to do in order for their scheme to work, and b) that such things as the previous example were known and understandable to those who were IN on what was being done. We are talking about how it was possible for them to get away with what they did and not raise suspicion. By using such devices, they were able to give what would amount to “a wink and a nod” to each other while still having such things appear far-fetched to those who did not understand the true gravity of the situation.*

Pliny uses any number of already known and used catch phrases, but is sure to include many of his own. His ego gives his motives for this away, as it can easily be surmised that he does so because a) he knows that he (via his writings) will be a major source of information regarding the creation of Christianity for future generations, and that b) people will come to know and use the catch-phrases that he used in his texts; just as they would with those found in Suetonius. So that is something that Pliny shared in common with Suetonius.* A few that we see used in this letter are, “had in mind,” “the rest of the story,” and “one by one” (pg. 193). And true to form, Pliny continues to insert bawdy remarks into his texts. Such as, “we coupled two of them...” (pg. 193), and “we had to sweat.” He once again inserts another phrase in testament to ‘faith’ saying, “I believed it...” (pg. 193-195).

Pliny plays the part of Pontius Pilate in his own epistles when he says, “I felt that the only just course was to refrain from pressing a charge against an innocent person” (pg. 197). He was making an example of himself as a Roman official who is unwilling to punish or kill an “innocent person” like that of the character Jesus as portrayed in the gospels.

Note that one of Pliny's alias names includes the name 'Nigrinus'. The reason that he is able to use this name is because it is one that he had inherited. Very few people, other than royals, have ever figured out just who Pliny's biological father was. But it is through his biological father that he has obtained the use of this name. The reason that I mention this, is because Pliny's father's father, may well be the link to 'Pontius Pilate' and Pliny's affinity for him. More research on that is forthcoming.*

Another phrase that we caught Pliny using here is his use of the word “reward” again, saying, “the only just and adequate reward for our great labors.”* Really, WHAT “great labors”? The one “great labor” that Pliny was involved in would have been the creation of and implementation of Christianity. But remember too, that he was pushing the idea of a “reward” in heaven, and that to these authors “hard work” or “great labors” was also used as a euphemism for intense or “robust sex.”*

Pliny also uses suggestion by saying, “you can imagine” (also a catch-phrase). He wanted to create imagery within the minds of those who he was trying to influence (pg. 197).* But too, they resented having to spend so much time out of their lives to create all of this literary work. They talk about themselves being "slaves", "laborers" and "prisoners". To them, doing what they were doing, building this monument to themselves, was a monumental task. One that they, themselves, likened to building great pyramids.

On page 199, Pliny uses the phrase “open attacks.” In places, we will see Pliny using subtle remarks such as this to make reference to the war against the Jews. The phrase “open attacks” is a reference to the war; specifically to the battles of 66-73/74 CE. This is because instead of “open attacks” against the Romans, the strategy that the Jews had adopted was to remain hidden in caves and tunnels so as to take the Romans by surprise and gain that advantage over them. It was one which the Jews (Pharisees) were already very familiar with, as it was used in their earlier battles against King Herod and the Sadducean leadership which was opposed to the causes that the Pharisees were fighting for (see ‘The Synthesis of Christianity’).*

Pliny inserts the phrase “his innocence...” (pg. 199). What could be the use of such a phrase? It was used as a subliminal message intended to rekindle and remind one of ‘Jesus’ and his “innocence.” And we once again see Pliny the (inscrutable) philosopher emerge, saying, “Honesty offends those it thwarts for a time, but afterwards these are the people from whom in wins respect and approval” (pg. 199).

One must always remember and be aware of the fact that these authors were highly intelligent and thought in ingenious ways. They were people of genius. For this reason, we ourselves, must likewise be well informed, intelligent, people of genius.* For the person who is ill-informed and under educated this passage may be read and passed over as having no particular substance or meaning. But we, of course, know better than that.

“Honesty” is one of those ‘virtues’ that Pliny is trying to push in his writings. Why? This was a means by which that author could influence the conscience of people in such a way as to prompt them to “confess” things.* This point of playing upon the conscience of individuals was used in connection with the new component of the Christian religion known as “the confessional.” This was, in reality, a political tool or instrument.* This was mentioned earlier, and is explained in greater detail elsewhere.

Another phrase we see used in this letter is “out of place,”* and we see him once again using the word “imitate” in the phrase “imitate him” (pg. 199). In case I had failed to say it or have not said it enough, when Pliny and his fellow writers say the word ‘law’, as he did in this letter, saying, “It is laid down by law,” he is making a dig or taking a literary stab at, and ridiculing the Jews. This is because the new religion that the leaders of the Roman Axis had created (Christianity), had by then usurped and replaced “the law” of the Jews (Torah), by nullifying it with its rhetoric (pg. 199).* In the same letter (pg. 203), Pliny uses the phrase, “on the last day,” and does so to recall to mind the “last day” of Jesus’ life in the story (the passion play), and even the last day of a person's life (reminding them of their mortality), or even of a judgment day.*

And further, to the alert and informed mind, he says, “a perilous position.” This is to recall the scene where ‘Jesus’ is sitting atop the pinnacle of the temple (pg. 203). The main place in Pliny’s letters where he makes this known is on page 19, in a letter to Octavius Rufus. Refer to Matt. 4:5 and Luke 4:9 where the devil is trying to tempt ‘Jesus’ to jump from the pinnacle of the temple.*

Before going on, Pliny uses the phrase “honest men.” This, again, to put forth the idea of being ‘honest’ in the minds of the ignorant masses, so as to best keep them in check and from rebelling; as well as to reinforce the other ideologies that he is trying to promote. Such as, to influence the common people to have a conscience to the extreme, which he figures will in turn, prompt them to “inform” on even their closest relations who may not be ‘loyal’ Romans (an insurgent) and/or who are planning any kind of revolt, etc., while in their ‘honesty’ would confide in Church officials either in or out of ‘the confessional’.*

Near the end of this letter, Pliny says, “This is the end (of this letter), really the end,...” When speaking of “the end,” Pliny could be referring to any number of items related to the phrase ‘the end’.* However, since the main theme behind his writings is that of his part in the creation of and promotion of Christianity, “the end” brings to mind “the end” of the Jesus story – The Revelation. I think that as we have already seen, Pliny was showing that he was privy to at least SOME things that would eventually be included in “the end” of the story. Pliny is just helping to reaffirm what we already know.

Pliny continues to promote the ideas and concepts which will cause the non-privy individual to become hyper-sensitive, to become “swept up” in their own emotions and emotional responses (to produce a ‘reactive’ mind). He does so with lines such as “feelings of love and grief...” (pg. 203, in a letter to Vestricius Spurinna and Cottia). The mind that has no clue as to what he (Pliny) is really doing is like putty in his hands.

It is clear that Pliny and his fellow authors take full advantage of their psychological and literary talents to create a most effective means of influencing the masses (commoners) of lesser minds, which the royals had worked so diligently to better control and manipulate.* Pliny mixes in a little of this and a little of that, just as the New Testament did (Proculus Piso teases about this in his line about “the lump,” a mass of mixed things).*

Pliny says, “Even now, I am still in some doubt...” (pg. 205). He is again teasing about the NT character of the “doubting Thomas.”* And still, we take note of Pliny’s attempts at pushing his particular ‘virtues’ as he once more makes a point of using the words “honest” and “honesty” in this letter. Pliny uses a number of literary devices, and as we find many of them being replicated and used over and over, it becomes clear that his intent in doing so was to emphasize them.

However, before we finish our examination of this letter (pg. 205), Pliny says the following; “I have made up my mind,” “your son,” “give me guidance and direction,” “last forever,” and “truth and beauty.” By now, I would think that the informed and reasonable minds who have been paying attention to this study will be able to catch on to much of what Pliny was saying and doing with his writings. I have already explained the device of transference, which is where the reader (or hearer) puts themselves in the place of the author/writer.

So, when a person reads something like “I made up my mind” he is actually saying that to himself (i.e., thinking it), or thinking, "I need to make up MY mind". Pliny makes the individual either hearing or reading his words THINK the words he says to themselves as if this was THEIR thought originally. That is, Pliny’s intended audience think to themselves that it is inevitable that they make up THEIR mind as to what to believe. The thought runs through their mind, “I have made up my mind” as a declaration to themselves, and to which, they will most likely repeat to others; thus causing a kind of chain-reaction. Which, of course, Pliny was entirely aware of.

The mind which has been molded and made to be receptive to suggestion will read “your son” and the association made would be that of “God” giving his “only son” (John 3:16).* Pliny again plays the part of someone who is much less that he actually is, by saying, “give me (your) guidance and direction” almost

as if it were a prayer to God, but which is very similar to such lines found in the NT texts.* He is, as we have pointed out, making an example of himself for this specific purpose.*

He says, “last forever” to call up the idea of the promise made by the NT (Christianity) of the “reward” of living forever (in conjunction with the idea of a ‘soul’). Think of what an exciting and enticing thought that would be to those who lived lives which were so terrible and repressed. The idea of living forever in a paradise would be an extremely attractive idea to anyone is such a state of being. But so much more for those whose lives were so miserable and painfully endured. Now we see Pliny combining the two ideas of ‘truth’ and ‘beauty’ together. Thus, the illusion of ‘truth’ (via disclaimers) of the gospels would be thought of by the ignorant masses, as a ‘beautiful’ thing (pg. 205). Something, given their situation, would want to believe in with an unshakable faith (whether it was true or not). They had nothing else, no other offer, no other explanation for things, and no way of rationally reasoning out what was being done to them.

Now, for the very first time, people will know just HOW they need to read and study ancient literature – both biblical and non-biblical. What a great advance to this field of study! And I am most honored to be one of the first to help people to understand this as they should.* Can you imagine being a person who has contributed something great to humanity, to have the opportunity to help undo a major crime which was perpetrated against humanity itself? Well, this is exactly what we are doing with our research. We are exposing the true nature of ancient history itself and the truth about religion as well.* Think about this, we are talking about something which has never been done before, and which has the potential of changing society itself – for the better! I know what my work means, and its importance to the world. Unfortunately, so do those who desire to stop this information from getting out.

Next, we examine a letter of Pliny which is addressed to Julius Genitor (pg. 207).* He starts off by saying, “The natural generosity of our friend Artemidorus...” Again, Pliny is pushing his ‘virtue’ of “giving” or generosity. We are going to examine this letter fairly closely as there are several items of interest to us contained within it.* Still speaking of Artemidorus, Pliny says, “he is spreading an account (story)...” Pliny says, “... of my merits, which is not untrue,...” One cannot usually judge what Pliny says too quickly.

Remember, he has a habit of saying things “between the lines,” as he says (pg. 511).* It may well be that he is talking about an account being spread about his “second self” (pg. 103) as ‘Paul’.* So, we keep this in mind as we read. Pliny says, “It is true that, when the philosophers were expelled from Rome, ...” When WAS that? It was in the year 93 CE, under Domitian, by Domitian! And this was shortly after the death of Julius Agricola (see the footnote on pg. 207). We will get back to this in a moment.

But first, we need to make note of Pliny’s use of the word “honorable.” He drops words and phrases in here and there, as we have seen. And he does so very casually, without raising much suspicion – except to those who know better. See the list of Pliny’s “virtues” for a better understanding of his motives for promoting them.* In any case, this was an example of his mention of “honor” (pg. 207). And Pliny demonstrates yet another example of himself being “generous” by saying, “I raised the money and lent it to him without interest, ...” This may have a further meaning beyond being an example of Pliny being ‘generous’. It may well be a put down or dig at the Jews of the time. This because it could be an inference of the Jews money-lending, as that could have been one of the ways that they had of raising money for the war effort.*

Now, back to the philosophers that were expelled from Rome by Domitian.* Pliny says, “... at a time when seven of my friends had been put to death or banished (from Rome).”* These were: 1) Senecio (executed), 2) Rusticus (executed), 3) Helvidius (executed), 4) Mauricius (banished/exiled), 5) Gratilla (banished/exiled), 6) Arria (banished/exiled), and 7) Fannia (banished/exiled).* Regarding these people listed in Pliny’s letter, information about them will be found in another area of the work on Pliny (the book, 'The Essential Pliny', Roman Piso).*

We see as we read on, where Pliny says (pg. 207), “... there were certain clear indications to make me suppose a like end was awaiting me(!).”* He is talking about how because his ‘friends’ (really his own

relatives) were being singled out by Domitian for exile and execution, that he might be next. He says this simply because it may be how he truly felt at the time, but to use it as an opportunity to use the phrase “certain clear indications,” as this allows the audience to imagine to themselves what this vague statement might mean. The statement is nearly synonymous with “certain clear SIGNS.” Which is just how some people would have read (or heard) it. Thus, a subtle promotion of superstitious irrational thought/belief.*

As we continue reading Pliny’s letter addressed to Julius Genitor (pg. 207), we see Pliny say, “... I do not believe...” Why? This is a line inserted for two reasons that appear obvious to me, 1) as a disclaimer. This is because this is the way that Pliny chose to admit the truth that HE was NOT a believer or follower of any religion; i.e., he was an atheist. And, 2) he says this to allude (once again) to the “doubting Thomas” of the NT. Remember, as Pliny The Younger, the Roman official, he shows his "doubts" about Christianity. This too, is to hint as his also being the NT Paul, who also was once like Pliny The Younger, the Roman official (he too, was a "doubter" who was against Christians and Christianity).

Pliny says in this letter on this same page (207), “I was serving...” Which is to say, “I was doing MY duty.” As he weaves his words into a tapestry of items that he wishes to impress upon the minds of his audience. If you pay very close attention to the epistles of Paul in the NT, you will find several remarks about Paul and others being very “close” and intimate with each other, which Pliny echoes with lines like “close intimacy” (pg. 207) in this same letter. And when one reads in the NT texts that people were “refreshing their bowels,” one is left a bit uneasy. Yes, they WERE “refreshing” their bowels. But that is something that we will be discussing somewhere else (again, in 'Piso Christ').*

Continuing on in this letter, Pliny says (on pg. 209), “In fact the first sign...” This, he says to further impress upon the mind of his audience the superstitious nature of belief in omens, “signs” and foretelling. This is because it is essential to disarm the mind of those he intends for Christianity to be used upon and that means making them think and believe in things of a superstitious and supernatural nature. His fellow writers of the time do this as well, because they were all working together for the same common goals.

And one of those was to convince as many unsuspecting gentiles into believing Christianity to be true so that it will spread; so that it will eventually become the official Roman religion. It took a while (for a number of reasons), but it did eventually happen under the Emperor Constantine - a direct descendant of Arrius Calpurnius Piso (as were all of the Roman Emperors from Antonius Pius, on). There are indications that the creators of Christianity had originally intended for it to become the official Roman religion within their own lifetime (apparently during either Trajan or Hadrian’s reign).* But the war with the Jews (Pharisees) had prevented that.*

Pliny goes on throughout is writings covering each of the ‘virtues’ that he is trying to instill as ideas and concepts, but with ulterior motives. When the light of truth shines upon Pliny and his ‘virtues’ their true nature is soon seen very clearly. He says, “... his sincerity and integrity.” This is how the royals wanted the common people to think and behave, so that they would NOT think of things like revolt or of overthrowing the royal leaders of the Roman Empire. Again, these ‘virtues’ were being pushed for the “common people,” but NOT for the royals themselves. It is the “do as I say, and NOT as I do” thing. But of course, the reality of the situation was never said outright as this would spoil what they were trying to do. He says these things while speaking of his ‘friend’ Artemidorus.

Continuing, he says, “... how he shrinks from no hardship and permits himself no indulgence in food and drink, nor license in look (appearance) or thought.” First of all, let’s recognize the fact that a person such as Pliny describes here may be considered to be ‘frugal’. The reason I mention this is because this is what the Pisos have been called. Secondly, we note that Pliny is making a point of saying that he (Artemidorus) “shrinks from no hardship.” The impression given is that a) he is a “hard worker” (another of Pliny’s virtues). And that, b) he does not give up when confronted with a hardship or setback.

Furthermore, Pliny adds, “nor license in look (appearance) or thought.” What does that mean? It means that the person being described was not one to “put on airs” or to be vain in appearance. Thus, Pliny

gives his to be an example to follow, another message urging the common people to be “humble and modest in dress.”*

Which means don’t worry about spending your money on clothes. The idea being that what they save in expenses for themselves, they can contribute to the Christian Church. This also recalls lines from the NT about “filthy rags” and/or "spotted" (dirty) garments, such as at the end of Jude 1:23. The reference is actually regarding a bawdy joke that runs throughout the NT, about semen getting on a Church prostitute's garment. The joke being, why be concerned about cleaning it when it is just going to get "spotted" again and again (see the section in Piso Christ, titled, 'The Irreverent Element').*

And what does “no license in thought” mean? It means a lot. It means that they must surrender their minds to ‘God’ and do as ‘instructed’. When people stop thinking for themselves and thinking in rational terms, their mind begins to atrophy in a sense, somewhat like muscles do when they are not used. When people become accustomed to thinking in irrational terms, they begin to create their own version of reality for themselves. This is a kind of ‘coping’ mechanism of the brain. More about that in our other studies.*

And in what was said above about “no license in thought” also recalls the NT line about just thinking about a lustful thought being just as bad or the same as if the person had actually committed the lustful act. And thus, in need of ‘forgiveness’ for that sin.* But it is really a rather broad statement and can apply in several instances. And that was the idea. It goes along with being humble and doing as you are told to do without “license of thought” to argue, talk back or complain about it. Which is what they wanted the ‘perfect slave’ to do. They were trying to make slaves behave as if they enjoyed being slaves and were happy to do anything for their masters.

And having people who were controlled to a large extent through a popular new religion (through irrational thought, fear and superstition), would be excellent for any Roman in a position of authority, as they had ready passages that they could cite, and they could even encourage their subordinates to learn more about the new religion (which is actually designed to be a ‘mind trap’), at the newly created churches.*

A military leader, for instance, would have better control over his men if they were “under the influence” of the new religion. And belief in a religion which promises a reward of an eternal life in paradise after death, would take the ‘fear’ of dying out of men going off to war – making them ‘brave’ in the face of death. What military leader wouldn’t want that? And Romans were well-known for their brilliant military strategies.

The same religion that would make men brave in war, would also serve to make slaves obedient (another of Pliny’s ‘virtues’).* In this letter, Pliny makes the point of clarifying that these ARE indeed virtues that he is speaking of, as he says, “... his other virtues...” (pg. 209). Pliny adds that “his other virtues” had “won him the honor “of being chosen by Gaius Musonius (Rufus) out of several suitors for his daughter’s hand, to be the one that he approved of.*

In case you are still not aware of it, these same 'virtues' that Pliny is trying to push, are exactly the same ones that are being pushed in the NT (Christianity); yet, for some unexplained reason, Pliny The Younger, the Roman officially, was ardently against it. Yet, he also acts like he knows very little about it. Strange? Not really, now that we know what we do about Pliny and his part in all of it.

And Pliny says of Artemidorus that he pays Pliny too high a tribute and that he (Pliny) fears “he may go too far” (pg. 209). This, he says too, as to go along with other places where he speaks of people having “boundaries” of different kinds (remember to see what he says about boundaries in the next letter).* Besides this, Pliny makes the point of also mentioning (once again) “his generosity,” to further stress that idea as well (pg. 209).*

In his letter to Catilius Severus (pg. 209), Pliny says, “I will come to dinner,...” Which, of course, recalls a few items relating to the NT. 1, “Jesus” as ‘dinner’ (that is, Arrius Piso, playing ‘Jesus’ and being also

‘Aristio(n)’), and 2, the Eucharist (also the ‘last supper’), and 3, the “dinner” in which Peter (Arrius) and Paul (Pliny) feign a dispute about dinner guests while at a supper (dinner).* For not knowing much about Christianity and the New Testament, Pliny sure makes a lot of references and allusions to the subject.

Pliny is talking about conversation that “must be kept within bounds” (pg. 209). Interesting that we may also take note of Pliny speaking of having bounds or boundaries in terms of what may be said or brought up – but it is entirely understandable considering that one of the main goals of these Roman authors was to keep Christians or any other of the gentiles from speaking with or keeping company with any Jews (i.e., Pharisees and/or Scribes).*

Here, in the same letter, Pliny says, “But (even) our dinner must have a limit...” (pg. 211). Again, he is speaking of both “dinner” and of boundaries or “limits.” And yet, continuing (and at the end of the letter), he says, “for we are not the sort of people whom even our enemies cannot blame without a word of praise” (pg. 211). Now what can Pliny mean by that? Well, in this instance, he mentions this in relationship to his “enemies,” so that helps us to put this into perspective. Since Pliny is of the Axis, his “enemies” were the Jews of the time; the Pharisees and their helpers, the Scribes.* And what could his enemies possibly have to praise Pliny and “his people” about? It was the same thing that the Axis referred to as “grace,” as in the “grace of God.”

Note that Pliny will use the same phrase “a word of praise” in a letter to Maturus Arrianus/Arrius Piso (pg. 277). The “grace” that the writers of the Axis referred to was simply the fact that these authors chose to leave a means of discovering what they had done, and how they did it, as well as WHY they did it.* Which is to say that even though what they did was a crime against humanity, AT LEAST they did not intend for it (or the damage it caused) to last forever. And that, in the end, IF mankind can learn a valuable lesson from it, that it may end up benefiting humanity at some point. That was THEIR (the Axis) view of it. They could very well have did this, gotten away with it, and never given us any way of ever discovering this or verifying it. It was all up to them to do so. Thus, that was the "grace" of the Christian God, Arrius Piso.

Next, in a letter to Voconius Romanus (pg. 211), Pliny touches upon several items in this rather short letter. He gives the phrase, “bear in mind,” as one of those catch-phrases which he is so fond of giving so as to be thought of as the source for many of them; and thereby, gaining a measure of ‘fame’ via this means in the bargain as well.* And he says, “the nobility of the theme brings its own difficulties.” So, what is Pliny’s meaning in such a statement? He is referring to “nobility” and that means “royalty.”

He is therefore, saying that the theme is one written so as the actual meaning was intended for royals to understand (and NOT those who are not “noble” or royal). He further qualifies the statement in this meaning by saying, “the theme brings its own difficulties.” Yes, it would! Thinking about this carefully, the statement may remind one of a line in the New Testament about even intelligent people being as fools.*

There is more than one meaning for that, but the main one perhaps being that even those who were not reading and believing the Christian texts and religion, were reading the other material written by the very same people, which was being written in the very same way. That is because that was the reality of the situation, and all that was available to them.

This too, explains why it is that it has been so difficult to get traditional history "scholars" to think differently about what they have read and believed about ancient history; because it too, was created in much the same way as religion. In a very real sense, to many, it has become a religion. Think about it. Those texts have been "studied" in exactly the same way as the Bible. Basically, just read and believed on a very superficial level. That, as the reader here now understands, must and will change.

Pliny writes what he does, on a very sophisticated level, and some of it may well be very difficult or challenging to even intelligent and well educated people.* So, we see that as Pliny explaining (to his audience) that what HE writes is written for royals to understand in terms of the actual theme involved, and that he wrote it so as to be difficult or challenging even for THEM!*

And next, we see Pliny talk about “the reader” twice in succession. He apparently does this in order to call attention to a line given by Flavius Josephus regarding “the reader.” This is where Josephus switches it around so as to say "reader" instead of writer/author (Flavius Josephus, Whiston Translation, pg. 428).*

We see Pliny commenting further on “the reader” saying, “if he forms his opinion (or beliefs) by this alone...” If we read this statement, can we put this into perspective given what we know? Yes. Saying this, Pliny is referring to how it is that the royal authors were forming public opinion by what they were writing as they were the only ones who were writing – there was a vacuum created because all of the books and other written material for public consumption were written in this ‘closed’ or controlled environment.”

Now Pliny says (in the same letter), what he thinks of and/or what he would “prefer” of the reader, saying, “I would prefer him to give equal attention to the arrangement, the transitions and figures of speech, for, although a powerful imagination and the gift of forceful expression are sometimes to be found in the uneducated, no one can display skill in arrangement and variety of figures except the trained expert” (pg. 211).

There are a few things to address in what Pliny had said above. The first part that we look at is, “I would prefer him (the reader) to give equal attention to the arrangement, the transitions and figures of speech... (pg. 211).* Note that by saying “figures of speech,” Pliny points to his use of catch-phrases. He is really quite artful in his literary compositions and he wants to be given full credit for his efforts, which means that SOMEONE MUST understand each and everything that he writes in terms of all of its various parts and full ‘glory’. That means that he expects the literary devices that he used to be understood; that it all “come to light” at some point in time, as that is when he will gain his greatest “fame” (pg. 211).

He continues, “although a powerful imagination and the gift of forceful expression are sometimes to be found in the uneducated.” He is speaking of the “uneducated,” i.e., the “commoner” here. And he says that they can be found to have a “powerful imagination.” Yes, indeed! Particularly when their “imagination” has been carefully cultivated by literature written entirely by a group of people who have held power and authority over them for thousands of years and who kept the accumulated knowledge to themselves while “dumbing down” the commoners.

Pliny goes on to say “and the gift of forceful expression are sometimes to be found in the uneducated (common person/the masses)." The “gift”? Where would such a “gift” have come from? He is insinuating by such statements that all natural talents and abilities come from “above” (heaven/the heavens). That is, in this instance, “God.” Again, Pliny demonstrates his talent, his artfulness. But in what he says about “forceful expression found in the uneducated” recalls the line used much later by another author;* “full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.”*

And in finishing the paragraph that we have been examining, Pliny brags on himself by saying, “no one can display skill in arrangement and variety of figures except the trained expert” (pg. 211). Notice that he emphasizes “arrangement” by mentioning it twice in the same paragraph, as he does with “figures” (“figures of speech”). What about the ‘arrangement’? Pliny can mean at least two things: 1) the way in which he crafted what he said in a particular order (and by his choice of words, phrases and even themes), and 2) his arrangement in terms of the literary devices he used. Such as by building a tempo into his statements so as to let the privy reader know when he ‘infers’ a meaning without actually having to give that extra word or words (i.e., omission).*

Example: While reading on further in this letter of Pliny, we see him speaking of literature, saying, “just as in a picture, ...” (pg. 213). He is talking about painting a mental picture with words.* And, as he is saying this to Voconius Romanus, he says, “But there is no need for me to say to anyone of your attainments (inferring literary achievements).” Okay, so he says there is NO REASON for him to say this to the person whom he has addressed it to.

So, WHY is he saying it? Because the person who he addresses this to is only used by Pliny to facilitate his writings about these subjects – as are ALL the other people whom Pliny is alleged to have written his published ‘epistles’ (letters) to. Again, Pliny chose the epistle merely as a FORM of literature in which to write. He does this partly as a means of pointing to himself as ‘Paul’ – because both as himself (‘Pliny’) and as ‘Paul’, he wrote epistles.* So, back to WHO it is that Pliny is really addressing in his letters. He is talking to ALL other royals who are privy to what the actual themes are of his writings.* And, he is also writing to future generations who will, in time, also be privy to what he is actually saying via his methods and means.*

Still, in this same letter, we find Pliny using the word (keyword) “mark.” Why is “mark” a key word? Because it signifies an Egyptian ‘T’ and was synonymous with an the early Christian cross.* This was given in an apocryphal text of the NT (Barnabus) and was also the Greek letter ‘tau’. Pliny also says, “I shall be more ready to believe...” (pg. 213). Again, some of these statements made within other statements amount to what we would now terms ‘subliminal messages’.*

If you have made yourself familiar with the reality of the situation within the Roman Empire during the first and second centuries of the common or current era, then you know that a part of the war going on then between the Allies and the Axis was being fought over the several key issues; one of which was slavery.*

The wealthy royals who owned slaves were concerned a) about losing their slaves should slavery be abolished within the Roman Empire, but also b) that many slaves were starting to revolt and kill their masters. Thus, a drastic solution was needed by the slave-owning leaders of the Axis. Pliny tells us of this, as do other writers of the time.*

In his letter to Acilius (pg. 213), Pliny says, “This horrible affair demands more publicity than a letter – Larcius Macedo, a senator and ex-praetor, has fallen a victim to his own slaves. Admittedly, he was a cruel and overbearing master, too ready to forget that his father had been a slave, or perhaps too keenly conscious of it.” Again, Pliny says and does a lot in a relatively short letter. Pliny starts off by creating or just perpetuating an illusion. When Pliny speaks of Larcius Macedo, he says what high offices he has held (attained), and then says that Macedo’s father had been a ‘slave’.

But Pliny is speaking in relative terms as a royal; about another royal. That is, what the definition of ‘slave’ would be relative to ROYALS – not common people. Before royals came of age they were wards of their parents and may well felt like and even considered themselves ‘slaves’. But of course, this was from THEIR perspective and not from the outward one which they had wanted common people to think (see our work on Royal Supremacy and Royal Language).*

Once individual royals came of age they were ‘freed’ from the constraints placed upon them by their parents; and thus, this is what the reality was regarding the Roman writers referring to ‘freedmen’ – and NOT actual common slaves who were ‘freed’. Pliny himself is said to have “freed” his slaves upon his death. But in reality, the word ‘freed’ and other words similar to it were made to have another meaning via the use of precedent examples. The term when used by the royals of the time could also mean DEATH because of the ideology that the ‘soul’ was FREED from the body upon death.*Now, before we go on there are a few points that I need to touch upon regarding the need for slaves by royalty of the Roman Empire:

1. As one learns more and more about the true nature of ancient history and of those who were composing it, each bit of new information makes the picture clearer. As for royals, let’s put ourselves in their place in order to understand their thoughts and motives. We now know that they must have been atheists as they knew the truth about religion (in a way, flaunting that fact in their writings) and its various component parts. This, because THEY and their ancestors before them had been creating them.*

Thus, we now think of them as atheists who KNEW there is no afterlife awaiting them when they died. Therefore, each moment of their lives is precious to them. And slaves made it possible for them to make the most of their lives, not only by having so many of their chores and menial tasks done for them, but

also in terms of the TIME it saved them – allowing them to live full, rich, lives by saving them so much accumulated time that it could add up to extra years in their lives.

So, to the rich and powerful royals to lose the slaves and the lifestyle that they had come to take as ‘normal’ was like saying to them that they are going to have to lose time out of their lives, perhaps even years out of their lives may have been lost. And so they had a very powerful motive for preserving the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire.

It was not merely greed in terms of wealth or bitterness which made those royals so adverse to losing their slaves, it was the idea of having to lose TIME out of their all too short mortal lives. Time that they had become accustomed to and which apparently, royals had come to take for granted. But in truth, the extra time that THEY had and enjoyed came at the expense of so many other human lives.*

2. Pliny’s appeal to masters to think of treating their slaves kinder (note that this same kind of plea is found in the New Testament as well).* At least those which are household slaves with freedom to roam about the estate, that is. There appear to have been several different kinds of slaves for each kind of ‘need’. For instance, there appears to have been slave scribes, whose purpose was to act basically as human copy machines. This was how ancient royals had books produced. The slave scribe appears to be the kind of slave who was not allowed much freedom.*

There were also slaves for the purpose of sex. They may or may not have been referred to as ‘concubines’. But I doubt that that was so. I think that from what I gather, that concubines were a type of sex slave that had a measure of freedom. But that another type was that of sex slave which was entirely private to the owner and to which was kept hidden from others and allowed no freedom whatsoever. These were what the slave owner may think of as personal sex slaves.

Concubines appear to be those sex slaves which an owner was not afraid to have others know about and perhaps even ‘use’.* This brings up another point that I would like to speak about before going on and that is that these slaves had no human rights at all. And it was entirely up to the master or owner as to what he wanted to do with them, including maim, torture, and/or kill.*

3. Pliny is hinting at what their plan was in creating Christianity so as to make slaves meek, mild, and faithful to even the most cruel of masters (this too, is mirrored in the New Testament).*

4. Another point to make is that Pliny is actually perpetuating an illusion – and illusion of hope for slaves. Royals were speaking in ‘relative’ terms in many instances.* Over the course of the thousands of years that royals ruled the world, they had created a number of very ingenious illusions. Many of which, people to this day still think were true.* See our list of illusions created by ancient royals as given elsewhere.*

Continuing on, with our examination of Pliny (pg. 213), Pliny says, “He (Macedo), was taking a bath in his house at Formiae when suddenly he found himself surrounded; one slave seized him by the throat while the others struck his face and hit him in the chest and stomach and – shocking to say, in his private parts.” Pliny is giving an account which was NOT an isolated incident, but which had happened many times during the first century CE.

As a matter of fact, it appears that the all-out war of the Jews (Allies) extended to many others who helped in the same cause in their own ways, and who most probably considered themselves to have been Allies as well.* This help, or assistance in the war may have come from Britain on the one side of the Roman Empire and from the Persians and others to the East; and it appears that even Roman slaves were called upon in the war effort.

It is interesting to this scholar that the Roman war (battles) with Britain occurred at the same time as the all-out war of the Allies against the Axis (once one stops thinking in terms of vague general labels and thinks in terms of specifics, it becomes possible to get a very clear understanding of what actually transpired chronologically). One must remember too, that Nero was hated by the Flavian/Pisonian Axis;

and the things that Nero did, was pro-Allies. We may want to think of Nero as an Ally after a new re-assessment of the history of the time.

Also, Vitellius showed himself to be an Ally as well. Vitellius was helped to the position of Emperor by the common people, undoubtedly, including slaves.* He may have even been assisted by the Jewish Allies in some measure. Then, we must not forget about all of the evidence of the many ‘slave-revolts’ throughout the Roman Empire, perhaps assisting Vitellius either directly or indirectly as the case may be.* We must examine each and every factor involved and search all possibilities if we expect to have a very clear and precise understanding of just what had transpired and of who may have been involved.*

Pliny goes on to say, “When they (the slaves) thought he was dead they threw him on the hot pavement, to make sure he was not still alive. Whether unconscious or feigning to be so, he lay there motionless, thus making them believe that he was quite dead. Only then was he carried out, as if he had fainted with the heat, and received by his slaves who had remained faithful, while his concubines ran up, screaming frantically.” Pliny here, speaks of ‘faithful’ (loyal) slaves and illustrates distress from other slaves (in this instance, his concubines, who WOULD be most likely to be ‘distressed’) of his (Macedo’s) household.*

Pliny’s letter continues thusly (pg. 213-215), “Roused by their cries and revived by the cooler air he opened his eyes and made some movement to show that he was alive, it being now safe to do so. The guilty slaves fled, but most of them have been arrested and a search is being made for the others. Macedo was brought back to life with difficulty, but only for a few days; at least he died with the satisfaction of having revenged himself, for he lived to see the same punishment meted out as for murder. There you see the dangers, outrages and insults to which we are exposed. No master can feel safe because he is kind and considerate; for it is their brutality, not their reasoning capacity, which leads slaves to murder masters.”

Let’s examine what Pliny has said here. There are always several things that one must bear in mind while examining the texts of Pliny, and included among those is the fact that Pliny is clearly aware of his audience as he writes. For him, it is important to think in terms of the future generations who will be reading what he wrote. He was also aware of just how important his writings would be to future generations.

And thus, while he wrote, he wrote at times as to address those future generations directly.* I will discuss this further momentarily. Presently, I would like to direct your attention to the statement, “... was brought back to life...” Clearly, this is an allusion to those in the NT who were “brought back to life” or who were “raised from the dead.” The line, “having revenged (avenged) himself” alludes to the idea of the Christian God as a ‘vengeful’ God. And, further, Pliny says, “he lived to see the same punishment meted out as for murder,” which is easy to see as referring to the NT passage about “an eye for an eye” (Ref. Matt. 5:38).

Now, continuing with what I had said before about Pliny, at times, speaking as if directly to the future generations who would read his texts (pg. 215). Let’s first make certain that we know the difference in the future generations of the Axis (or the ruling descendants of the authors of the NT), and those who would be reading Pliny in order to further free humanity from the lie and mental bondage of religion. And particularly, in this instance, Christianity and its effects upon the minds of the masses.

He, Pliny, does at times, speak as if he is speaking to the future generations of mankind who are freed of the lie (Christianity) and as though they are equals to him (or visa versa), but in a new position as the rulers of their own world. That is, humanity itself as if comprised of individual rulers of equal power or power potential.

Read the following line and I will explain further; “There, you see, the dangers, outrages and insults to which WE are exposed (to)” (pg. 215). He is writing this to explain to US, the future generations of mankind who are now privy to exactly what he is saying. And that even though rulers and other royals lived lives of luxury and privilege, that they were nonetheless uneasy (anxious) due to the fact that at any moment they could be attacked and killed – even by their own servants (slaves).

The point being stressed by Pliny is that of, “you would have to be in MY place as a royal in these times to understand that we HAD to do what we did; create a means by which to achieve all of our goals, including the pacification of slaves (by creating Christianity), for our own safety.” Knowing what we now do, we understand precisely what Pliny’s point of view was. There are a few places in the literature of the time where there appears to be an apology of sorts given by the authors and a few of them are like this one in the sense that they appear to have been written to the future generations who know what Pliny and his cohorts were doing.*

Pliny continues, saying, “No master can feel safe because he is kind and considerate; for it is their brutality, not their reasoning capacity, which leads slaves to murder masters” (pg. 215). What, exactly, does Pliny mean here? If one reads it quickly and without thinking, it may be read incorrectly. Remember that Pliny is writing for his audience. And here, his main audience is the privy reader. He is talking about what he had addressed just prior to this, the problem of slaves attacking and killing their masters.

He says that “no master can feel safe (just) because he is (a) kind and considerate (master).” Then, he switches the subject from master to slave, saying, “for it is their (the slave’s) brutality, (and) not their (limited) reasoning capacity, which leads slaves to murder [their] masters.” Notice that I inserted the word “their” in brackets. This is because Pliny did NOT say “their,” as in “their OWN master.” Why? Because the slave revolts were not limited to slaves killing their own masters! They were, once they were rid of their own masters, undoubtedly, killing whatever OTHER masters (slave owners) that they could.

And now, a more detailed examination of this letter. How do I know what Pliny’s meaning is in what he says in this letter? Careful reasoning and deduction. In the paragraph that we are presently examining, Pliny starts off with the subject being “masters,” but changes the subject to slaves. If a person were not aware of this they may easily miss Pliny’s actual meaning here.

Furthermore, it is impossible for the second portion of the paragraph to be about masters as Pliny has already disqualified them as the subject of the second part by speaking ONLY of masters who are “kind and considerate.” IF Pliny were indeed speaking of masters in the broader sense in the second portion of the paragraph, it would have an entirely different meaning than if he were talking about a single subject master who was both good to his slaves (kind and considerate) and also brutal to them.*

The implication of this taken in the broader sense would mean that ALL masters, no matter how kind and considerate they are to their slaves, were likewise in danger of being killed by slaves; the implication being “by slaves other than his own.” Which, would be the same or similar to the meaning given by his switch of subject from “master” to “slave.”* This is because that is the meaning that is statement has without the word “their” as I have shown in brackets.*

Pliny is, to this reader, saying rather bluntly that a) slaves are brutal, and b) that it does not matter how well they are to reason (how intelligent), that c) it is their capacity for brutality toward slavery itself, which d) leads them to murder masters; e) including masters who are not THEIR masters. And thus, Pliny gives us a look at the truth about what was actually going on then.* A situation such as Pliny describes meant that (to the Axis) something quite drastic HAD to be done. And Christianity was it.* Once this is known, Pliny has just given us the Roman motive for creating a religion which would placate slaves and prevent them from attacking and killing masters.*

Thus, we have the reason WHY Christianity never preached against slavery. But instead, always preached tolerance of it.* But the NT was not written for one single reason alone. This is because its purpose was multifold.* The issue of slavery was only ONE of the items which were important to the Roman Axis (as we have discussed elsewhere).*

As Pliny ends this letter (pg. 215) to Acilius, he continues to bring up superstition. He says (speaking of Macedo), “He was in one of the public baths in Rome when a remarkable incident occurred which events proved to be an omen. One of Macedo’s slaves lightly touched a Roman Knight to ask him to let him pass; the man turned round and struck not the slave who had touched him, but Macedo himself (with) such a violent slap that he nearly knocked him down.”*

Here, Pliny speaks of an “omen” that he says came to pass. In fact, Pliny speaks of omens (as Suetonius also does) which proved true or which “foretold” of something that “came to pass.” This again, was done for the specific purpose of providing superstitious (irrational) fodder for the ignorant mind of the masses.* Now, this too, we should not pass over without commenting about.

And it is this, Pliny says, “... lightly touched a Roman Knight...” If you do not know that Arrius Piso was aka ‘Jesus’ of the Gospels, and that Arrius Piso was also a Roman Knight, you would not catch the actual meaning of this statement as yet another allusion to Arrius Piso as ‘Jesus’, and furthermore, to a specific passage in the NT. But since these things were so, and we now know what we do about Arrius Piso as ‘Jesus’, we can now see that as an allusion to the scene in the Gospels where, while on his way to his crucifixion, a woman touches the hem of Jesus’ garment and is healed (Ref. Mark 5:25-29, Matt. 9:20-21, Luke 8:44).*

Thus, given all that this one rather short letter contains, we must admit that it is never the less of great importance to us in terms of the information which is given in it. Of particular importance to us as researchers is the evidence that it gives to us about the situation that the Roman royals had to deal with in terms of the slave revolts. But again, we must put this all into the proper perspective if we are to understand it fully and correctly. For instance, the Roman leadership was faced with many things, which at times, were happening simultaneously.*

Just to name a few of the things that were keeping the Roman Axis leadership busy and which nearly led to the abolishment of slavery were; a) the slave revolts throughout the Roman Empire, b) Nero, c) Vitellius, d) Domitian, e) the war with the Jews (Pharisees), f) the war in Britain, g) the Parthian war, h) the eruption of mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, which buried the Villa of the Pisos at Herculaneum (including their personal library there), i) and the death of many of there various family members and supporters due to any number of circumstances.*

A short letter addressed to Silius Proculus (Proculus Piso) on page 215, provides some additional information, mostly of a type which may be considered “supporting evidence.” Perhaps I should take this as a opportunity to explain briefly more about Proculus Piso (Silius Proculus). He was a son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. He was aka ‘Agrippa’ in Josephus’ Vita. The reason for his name of Agrippa is because he was son of Arrius Piso by Queen Berenice, sister of Agrippa II.* Now this is VERY complicated to deduce and it is something that neither Abelard Reuchlin or myself knew until relatively recently as time goes (I had discovered this and reported it to Reuchlin, upon which, he agreed that my findings were indeed correct).*

As Reuchlin said of Proculus Piso (via our personal conversations), he did not participate in much of the creation of Christianity as he did not care much for it. He wrote ‘Romans’ along with his sister Claudia Phoebe (aka Pompeia Plotina, Trajan’s wife).* Proculus Piso was born in the year 79 CE (as can be deduced from information given in Josephus’ Vita).*

See the rest of my work on the various royal family members of the Axis.* I should also report here another thing regarding Proculus Piso that Reuchlin had informed me of, and that is that Domitian had attempted to have Proculus Piso assassinated; which appears to have been the action which set in motion the assassination of Domitian.*

Pliny says in this letter to Proculus, “You want me to read through some of your poems...” (pg. 215). He does this to say that Proculus is likewise a ‘liar’, as Pliny has already made the word ‘poet’ synonymous with ‘liar’ (through precedent example).* This letter is another example of Pliny’s tightly written texts. He says, “you can cite a precedent...” This is because Pliny and his fellow writers were setting precedent examples which they used to change the meaning of the words that they used so as to have meanings that were totally different from the original meaning of the words that they used.

This was the way in which that they could say, while using those words, that they were telling the truth. They told you what they were doing, they even warned readers; but they did it in such a way that was

entirely deceptive. They did this in conjunction with their ‘disclaimers’.* The change of the meaning of the word “poet” to “liar” is a good example of this. They, the royal Roman authors, DO tell you what they are doing, they just do not do it outright. They do it via very clever literary devices which the common person would NOT be able to understand.

While we continue reading Pliny’s letter to Silius Proculus, we notice even more of Pliny’s comments which show his atheism. For instance, he says, “any odd moments I can spare...” (pg. 217). Again, atheists are acutely aware of the limited amount of time that they have while living, and that there is no reason to expect that they will live on (as themselves) after death.* He says the phrase, “... no need for prayers...,” which is his own genuine sentiment for himself, personally.* He also gives this catch-phrase, “here and now” (pg. 217). Which is all that he can really be certain of as an atheist, as anything could happen to him as a moral being at any moment, ending his life. The only life that he is certain that he has.*

In the same letter he says, “you can cite a precedent.” That is because he and his fellow writers used precedent examples (as we have already seen), to give alternate meanings to the key words that they used. He alludes to this fact over and over again; which, of course, we also already know was one method used by Pliny and the other writers of the time to place emphasis upon a particular item.*

Pliny says, “the talent of poets.” This, was done partially to allude to the use of tempo to set a pace for the written word. That is, a tempo as in lyrics for a song. Pliny will allude to this several times in his literature. The purpose of their use of tempo in their literature was to confirm that a word was originally meant to be where one has been omitted and that they DID intend for their deliberate omissions to be known by those who were privy to what they were doing. Also, as we have seen in our examination of Pliny, the word ‘poet’ was made synonymous with ‘liar’. So, it is a key word which has an alternate meaning due to the precedent that was set to make it so.

And also in this same letter, too, he once again pushes his ‘virtue’ of giving. He says, “Cicero, you say, was wonderfully generous” (pg. 217). And to push the hyper-emotional mindset that he wants people to think is more common than it was, he says, “the warmest affection.” We see Pliny as ‘Paul’ doing the same thing in his NT epistles.* A phrase he uses here may also be noted, and that is, “... to judge from the passages...” (pg. 217).

Which, is how one MUST judge if one is to understand the true nature of ancient history and the creation of Christianity; as Pliny says, “between the lines” (pg. 511, book I of II, Loeb).* He also says, “... I feel sure...” (pg. 217). He does so (as we already know), to push ‘feelings’ (hyper-emotionalism) over thinking and reasoning. Remember, he is busy trying to instill superstition within the masses.*

We see him also, at various points, slip in suggestive remarks (the same was also done in the NT texts).* He says, “... seduced by the pleasures...” Subliminally, the reader or read to audience who is familiar with statements made in the NT would think to themselves, “seduced by the pleasures... OF THE FLESH.” What he actually says here is, “not seduced by the pleasures OF THE EAR...” (pg. 217). But we know that what one reads (or hears when read to) is NOT all that the mind catches, hears or thinks. This is because the mind is always looking for association, as this is how it stores, remembers and adds to information which it has gathered or collected. And Pliny knew that, as did his fellow writers.

While we are on the subject, perhaps I should state here what I’ve already mentioned elsewhere regarding Pliny as Paul. As Paul, Pliny wrote of this “travels” around the Roman Empire. He did that because religion was not their own business; they had many. And that included vice. The places that Pliny (as Paul) had visited were centers of vice: gambling and prostitution foremost.*

And by writing of them, he was in fact ‘advertising’ them – this, just like his mention of Christians and Christianity as Pliny had also advertised Christianity. He made these things known to the general population of the Roman Empire via his writings.* Before ending this letter, Pliny adds, “the work as a whole,” and says, “judge the parts...” He is, as he himself said, giving “an alternate version between the lines” (pg. 511).

Reading quickly through Pliny’s letter to Maecilius Nepos (pg. 217-223), Pliny alluded to Christianity’s promise of a ‘reward’ after death for believers as he says of Arria The Elder, “It was surely even more heroic when she had no hope of any such reward.” He also uses the phrase “no hope,” this, in supposed contrast to the “false hope” given to believers by Christianity. What was the ‘reward’ that was on Arria’s mind? He says, “she had fame and immortality before her eyes.”

Now, what would a Christian believer think of such a statement? They may be tempted to think that she was or may have become a Christian. But in reality, it may well have been that while she was living, her family was already beginning the proto-type and plans for the new religion. And she had hoped to be a part of it somehow, as that is where the greatest ‘fame’ would lie and a great means for her becoming ‘immortal’ (immortalized). This is because the New Testament was referred to by them as ‘the book of life.’*

Before ending that letter, he says the phrase, “words and deeds” (pg. 223). Not only is Pliny giving another catch-phrase by which he may become even better known, but he is also admitting the truth when he says, “... words and deeds which win fame are not always the greatest.” In a letter to Julius Servianus (Julius Piso), Pliny says, “... he brings me the news I want.” Which, because we know the main theme of what Pliny writes to be the NT, we know that “the news” that he wants, is the “good news.” That is, the Gospels! (pg. 223).

He talks about fear and anxiety in this letter as well as others, thus, prompting certain of his audience to dwell upon such notions and by doing so, this may instill fear and anxiety within them. Insecurities breed need, and that was a boon to the Church and the Christian religion as they were designed to be there for those who were seeking answers – like moths to a flame.

Pliny says, “a dear friend.” This was to prompt the idea of Christians to also preach to and convert their “dear friends” out of compassion and concern for them (their ‘souls’). These are all devices designed to create a certain result.* And also in this rather short letter, Pliny says,”... the accidents which can befall mankind.” This, to make a person think of their own mortality and to make them consider what “being saved” by Christianity (Christ) may do for them with its (false) hope and promise of a reward after death (pg. 223).*

In his letter to Vibius Severus (pg. 223-227), Pliny says the following words and phrases; “the official duty,” “my proper duty,” “loyal citizen,” “I hoped,” “his virtues,” “path to follow,” “setting his example,” “an emperor’s duties,” “a heavy responsibility,” “praise and excellent ruler,” “shine a beacon (of light),” “the path,” “pleasure,” “my friends,” “a third day,” “a tribute to myself,” “I hope,” “we had to endure it,” “three days,” “freedom of speech,” “a pleasure,” “tribute to our emperor,” “the enthusiasm of my audience,” “I have written for the general public,” “hopeful,” “popular opinion,” “I am also encouraged to hope,” “an audience in the theater,” “Every (royal) author who writes to please his public, models his work on what he sees has given pleasure,” “I still pray,” “someday the time will come,” “these winning phrases,” “the last three days,” “I wanted you to know,” “pleasure,” “on my account” (“on account of”).

And now to explain the meaning of these items. But I will have to pass quickly over those which you should know by now due to the fact that we already covered them before. We have already spoken about Pliny’s idea of virtue when it comes to “duty.” We have already seen him talk about people being “loyal (Roman) citizens.”* We’ve seen him bring up the subject of “hope” (false hope given to the masses).* And also of his so-called ‘virtues’.

The phrase “path to follow” can be seen as an NT reference by changing “path” to “way,” as in “Jesus is ‘the way’.” And we have also already gone over “setting examples” (imitating).* But Pliny does try to put forth the idea that being emperor is not all that one may think it to be when he says, “an emperor’s duty,” and “a heavy responsibility” closely together.*

And he says, “praise an excellent ruler.” Which, when he is speaking of Arrius Piso as co-emperor with Trajan, and knowing that Arrius Piso was aka ‘Jesus’, Pliny is secretly saying “praise an excellent ruler – king of kings, ‘Jesus’!* And to truly ‘praise’ is to ‘adore’, which reminds one of the line in Suetonius about ‘Titus’ (aka Arrius Piso as co-ruler with Titus) as the “darling of the human race.”*

Continuing with our examination from page 225, he then says, “shine a beacon,” which he obviously means as a bean of light in the night (‘darkness’); which, in turn, we see as another allusion to ‘Jesus’ (Jesus is ‘the light’).* He says, “the path.” Pliny says many of the same things as the NT do; he only substitutes different words which have the same or similar meaning.*

Here, “the path” can be seen as “the way” i.e., “Jesus.”* Cute isn’t it? And as the NT texts do, so does Pliny when it comes to evoking thoughts of passion and vice. He does so in many subtle ways, one of which is to simply use the word “pleasure.” That is a suggestive word. He says, “my friends,” which denotes a closeness which he has shown to be very intimate; as he does as Paul in the NT.*

He says next, “a third day.” This is an allusion to the passion of the Gospels, the last of the three days involved with Jesus’ arrest, trial, crucifixion, etc. from Friday to Sunday. But also to the writers it was a little joke that they put into the story. That is, that even though there are technically three days involved (Friday, Saturday and Sunday), they do not total three days in terms of hours.* At the same time, they also refers to the promise of Jesus to “rise from the dead” after three days.*

Pliny slips in the line, “(this is) a tribute to myself.”* He also says, “I hope,” which he does do, but HIS ‘hope’ is a different kind than that which is given to the common people. His hope is for realistic things and is not “false hope.”* He then says, “we had to endure it,” which he means as a further comment upon what he has already told us about what the royal slave owners had to “endure” during his time.*

Next, he uses the phrase “three days,” and we already know what it meant when an ancient author states something more than once, he does so for emphasis; again alluding to the “three days” of the passion play.* He brings up “freedom of speech,” but of course he does NOT mean it in the sense that he allows his non-royal audience to believe. He means freedom of speech for royals ONLY.*

He again uses the word “pleasure.” We had already discussed his reasons for that. He says, “(a) tribute to our emperor” (pg. 225). The word ‘tribute’ has a meaning such as to ‘give’ something. It is another subtle way for Pliny to plant suggestive thoughts of ‘giving’ in his push to make people think in terms of the so-called ‘virtues’ that he is trying to make the general population warm up to and adapt for themselves as a part of the overall plot to better control and manipulate them.* In his Panegyricus, Pliny revisits this idea of “giving,” and as here, it is directed towards the emperor.* In fact, there, he very nearly comes close to saying “give all you can, loyal Roman citizens, to our excellent Emperor!”*

Pliny finds that he HAS to comment upon how his writings as ‘Paul’ are doing, saying that he notes “the enthusiasm” of his audience. The gentiles appear to be eating it up.* Pliny states another fact that we already know, saying, “I have written for the general public.”*

He uses the word “hopeful” as he continues to push the idea of “hope” to the masses along with the rest of his ‘virtues’, but particularly to the slaves this time – as we are familiar with what the NT and Christianity promised to the slaves and poor, the (false) hope of a ‘reward’ after death.*

And he once again uses the phrase “popular opinion” knowing full well that he and his fellow royals were busy shaping “public opinion” via their writings.* He says too, “I am also encouraged to hope.” Remember that there is a connection between the keyword “hope” and that of “faith” (explained elsewhere).* Yes, as stated before, Pliny WAS indeed “hopeful.” Hopeful that the Christian religion would become the greatest religion that had ever been created by any royal. He was ‘encouraged’ because he had noted the ‘enthusiasm’ of his non-royal audience.*

Pliny also means several of his statements to have additional meanings, particularly those which are pointed remarks towards Nero and Domitian.* I will cover those which are in this letter momentarily, but to continue now with these words and phrases we look to the statement “an audience in the theater.”

Since the Gospels were written in the style of a narrative play with acts and scenes built right into them, there should be no doubt that they were being played out on the Roman stage in various theaters.* And this appears to be what Pliny’s remark refers to.* He then says, “Every (royal) author who writes to please his public, models his work on what he see has given pleasure.” In this statement, Pliny touches upon a few things. This statement recalls the NT line about “man-pleasers” (Ephesians 6:6).

And, he speaks of modeling (literary) work on some pre-existing example. Which is the same as he had said before and which is said in the NT as “imitating.”* And he slips in “has given pleasure.” Another suggestive remark.* He also says, “I still pray...” Pliny continues throughout his work to push the idea of praying, by making HIMSELF an example to follow.” If one were to note each time Pliny is praying about or for something in his Letters (Epistles) and Panegyricus they might get the impression that he does not even turn around without praying first! When one is aware as we are now becoming, some of this becomes ridiculous, quite obvious, and even a bit comical.

Pliny says “the time will come...” There’s that prophet in Pliny coming out again! We can easily see this as a reference to yet another phrase that we find in the NT, this time, in The Revelation (“the time is near...”).* And, he says, “these winning phrases.” He well knew how his carefully crafted phrases would ‘win’ converts to Christianity.* Again, to both emphasize and to clarify his meaning in what he had previously stated, he says “the last three days (of the passion of Christ).”*

In addition to this, he again speaks as if to the reader in the far-off future saying, “I wanted you to know.” He again mentions “pleasure,” and he says “on my account,” which is a variation of the key phrase “on account of” (as found in the NT).* And now you have a very good explanation of the word and phrases that Pliny had used in that letter which he had addressed to Vibius Severus.*

Since that is not done, let’s go over the portions where Pliny alludes to Nero and Domitian in that letter. Firstly, we see the phrase “an excellent ruler” as opposed to one which is NOT excellent in Pliny’s view. He has made it clear that he disliked both Nero and Domitian.* He mentions his “friends,” which earlier on, in a different letter he had commented upon the loss of some of his friends in the year 93, under Domitian.* He said, “we had to endure it,” which he had also said of the times in which Nero and Domitian ruled.

On the subject of “freedom of speech” for the Roman royals, Pliny said that this was absent during both Nero’s and Domitian’s rule.* Where he says “an audience in the theater,” that is also a reference to Nero, because Nero had used the theater (stage) to perform plays as a means of educating the public, apparently in preparation for a new Roman government (a democratic form), as he seems to have planned or at least contemplated giving over the Roman government to the Allies (Pharisees) upon his death.* The Axis knew this and that is why the Gospels were written in the style of a play. These people of the Axis would use their enemies and aspects of their enemies and their lives to produce the Gospels.*

Next, we examine a letter to Calvisius Rufus (pg. 229-231). Here we see Pliny saying the following; “many attractions,” “the pleasure,” “on the other hand,” “the hazards of fortune,” “traveling between one’s possessions,” “ a good type of slave,” “chained slaves,” “the general bad times,” “it will not be difficult to borrow,” and “I hope.” Some of the phrases that I have just made note of here are noted because of what I think their potential meaning may be or because of something I think that they may refer to.*

In my research, I have found that there was a lot of money to be made in the promotion of what today we may refer to as “attractions” or places to visit for entertainment of one kind or another – such as where one may go to on a holiday or vacation. Since I have been able to make note of several of these “attractions” (such as places of vice) perhaps this is a subtle way for Pliny to allude to and advertise or promote them.

And it well may be that they had also produced “attractions” to go to along with the religion that they had created. If we just think for a moment, we may be able to imagine quite easily how these ancient royals had already used “attractions’ as a means of gaining even more wealth.* Another ‘attraction’ that comes to mind is the place where Pliny says there are “floating islands” (Ref. pg. 343; also see Pliny The Elder).

Pliny mentions “pleasure.” We have already discussed the use of suggestive words. In our research on the subject of suggestive words, we have found that this was one of the devices used in the biblical texts as well.* This goes a long with the archaeological finds and literary evidence of combining the early Church with brothels.* Pliny uses the phrase, “on the other hand” in his work on several occasions. Perhaps this is because he wants to be thought of whenever anyone (or most people) were to use that phrase, as an extra measure of that ‘fame’ that he is always talking about.*

Pliny then speaks of “the hazards of fortune.” This is another instance where I think that he alludes to more than one thing. It seems that he alluded to what he had already said in another letter.* And that is where he had talked about what it was like for him to be a royal living in that time.* And that is but one possible meaning. I have actually been looking for an instance like this one as I had suspected that he would try to allude to Arrius Piso as ‘Fortune’ or ‘Fortunate’ once again. He calls Arrius Piso “fortunate,” in his Panegyricus thereby secretly giving him that additional alias by giving the meaning of the word/s ‘fortune’ or ‘fortunate’ into a designation for Arrius Piso.*

So, when Pliny says this as he does, it is more than likely that it is an allusion to all of the “close calls” that Arrius Piso had in his life. He had escaped death on several occasions. To name those which we know of presently (in chronological order); a) he could have been killed by Nero when Nero sentenced his father Gaius Calpurnius Piso to death. But instead, Nero had Arrius Piso exiled to Pannonia to serve in the military there. b) he could have been killed in Judea at the Temple on several occasions, and which he teases his enemies about as Jesus,* c) he could have been killed when he was ambushed by the Jews at the Pass of Horan, when he had fallen from his horse severely injuring his leg, which, he ended up losing,* d) he could have been killed by Vitellius when he had gone to assassinate Vitellius, but before he could, Vitellius struck him with his sword aiming at his head, but instead, cutting off one of Arrius Piso’s ears,* e) he could have been killed by Domitian when Domitian became Emperor, but instead of killing him Domitian exiled him to serve as governor of Bithynia (remember, Arrius Piso was co-ruling with Titus and had expected to continue to rule, but when Domitian poisoned his brother Titus, he took that position of authority away from Arrius Piso). Domitian then later, in 93 CE killed three of his relatives and exiled four others, his mother and sister being among them.* Pliny calls these seven people his ‘friends’.* Note that Domitian, the Roman Emperor, did not dare to do this until after Julius Agricola had died.*

Next, Pliny says the following, “traveling between one’s possessions,” meaning, of course, his real estate.* He could be hinting that as Paul he had traveled between places where he owned property and/or homes or villas; and possibly even some of those ‘attractions’ that we had spoke about.* Did Pliny own and/or run gambling houses and brothels? Perhaps. He then uses the phrase, “a good type of slave.” What would be a “good type of slave” to Pliny given all that we now know? I think that he is probably referring to slaves that have been indoctrinated with and therefore ‘pacified’ by Christianity.*

We see Pliny speaking of “chained slaves.” Which makes me think of a few possibilities. I think that what Pliny alludes to here is that by way of religion (Christianity), that masters may feel freer to trust their slaves. This, partially because of their belief in a ‘reward’ awaiting them in heaven for “being good” and for tolerating whatever they must during their lives as slaves.* Christianity was indeed a boon, a “godsend” for Roman slave owners. I think that you understand the meaning of what I just said. But if not, then I will explain. Christianity was sent to slave owners from the Christian God who had created it – Arrius Piso.*

Now this next statement seemed a bit odd, so I made note of it. Pliny says, “the general bad times.” Nearly everywhere else, Pliny raves about what a wonderful time he is living in by comparison to times past. I think that here he may mean that the common people were in a general bad time in terms of

finances which could be due to heavy taxation, loss of property and other wealth or resources caused by war, civil revolts and general ‘unrest’ for several years throughout the Roman Empire.*

Pliny also says “it will not be difficult to borrow.” He says this about himself, but may have also intended it to spark thoughts of borrowing in the minds of the common people. It could be that Pliny was involved in a money-lending racket (in addition to his possible income producing businesses in the field of vice).* Remember that he has apparently, previously, chastised the Jews (Pharisees) for money-lending.*

Pliny could very well be making a fortune by lending money to common people that he knew would not be able to pay it back, thereby allowing him to foreclose on and take away their property. In fact, this could have been a business which he ran in the places where he had gambling houses.* And Pliny again says “I hope.” Suggesting that there is always “hope,” never saying that it is “false hope.”*

So far, my listing of particular words and phrases used by Pliny in his letters has worked out well, for this reason I will continue in this way. Although I must remind you that we will not be touching upon each and every of Pliny’s use of key words and phrases in this overview as that is not its purpose. The purpose, once again, is to help you to familiarize yourself with Pliny; his personality, and his thought process.*

In Pliny’s letter to Maesius Maximus (himself?), on page 231, Pliny states the following; “the fierce controversy,” “mixed praise and blame,” “recent elections,” “on all sides rose,” “crowds mingled,” “disgraceful confusion,” “honor and dignity,” “he had served in the army,” “spoke on his own behalf,” “gave an account,” “the commanding officer,” “called upon,” “merit prevailed,” “the secret,” “for the time being,” “as time goes on,” “secret,” “many are influenced by public opinion,” “conscience,” “It is too soon,” “for the moment,” “deserve the honor,” “and have shown ourselves uncorrupted,” “I have told you,” “genuine news,” “political matters,” “hasn’t the time come(?),” “How are you?” “I hope that you are well,” “Everything today, it is true, depends upon the will of one man who has taken upon himself for the general good of all, our (royal) cares and responsibilities,” and “ his fount (fountain) of generosity.”

Now, putting ourselves into Pliny’s place at that point in time, what might there be a “fierce controversy” about? If we were talking about the common people we may be talking about something entirely different than that which might be a controversy to royalty of that time. Pliny could be commenting upon the ‘controversy’ that he sees the commoners debating with each other about regarding Christianity and Jesus.

Or he could be commenting upon a controversy from within the ranks of the royals, which seems more likely for the simple fact that royals, when writing, took the general stance of talking to and of each other rather than to or of the masses, unless it is about the masses as a group. It would appear to me that given the rift between some royals and others on the subject of whether or not Christianity was a good idea or not, that this is the ‘controversy’ which Pliny is talking about – that is, the controversy which had divided the royal houses into war with each other (the Allies verses the Axis).*

The phrase “mixed praise and blame” (pg. 233), recalls another phrase that Pliny has used, “a mix of grave and gay” (In a letter to Maturus Arrianus, aka Arrius Piso ). It also reminds one of the place where Proculus Piso refers to the NT as “the Lump” (a mass of ‘mixed things’, or even as an allusion to it being as human excrement).* The Gospels were both “grave and gay” as they were like a Greek tragedy, but with what appears on the surface to be a ‘positive’ spin/message. They were also a mix of praise to Jesus and the so-called ‘heroes’ of the story, and of ‘blame’ upon the Jews (Pharisees).*

“Recent elections” gives the impression of a democracy (at least in part or to some degree). Royals were the only ones who could either vote or be elected (by other royals, of course). They were creating an illusion of something that did not exist.* “On all sides rose...” appears to be a subtle allusion to a Roman orgy. Which, would be very much in keeping with Roman thought and humor of the time.*

Next, we see “crowds mingled,” which also paints a picture of an orgy. I think that we should also note the fact that the words “clouds” and “crowds” were made synonymous by precedent example,* so

“clouds” is a keyword with the alternate meaning of “crowds” (of people) and visa versa – if these ancient writers so wished to use them as such.

“Disgraceful confusion” being said when orgies have been brought up calls up images that may be seen in a wild orgy as in being taken to mean something of the nature of “any partner will do” in “the (drunken?) confusion” of the heat of the moment.* While “honor and dignity” are virtues that Pliny is pushing for his own selfish reasons.*

Again, bear in mind the fact that he is NOT saying with his virtues that EVERYONE should be held to the standards that those virtues require, and this is because he only means them for the common people. The royals, as far as he is concerned can continue on in the way that they have always been able to get away with. He knows very well that royals will not keep them, nor is that what Pliny meant. His “virtues” were ONLY intended for the masses to keep and follow.

This, so that they, the common people, may have a conscience and think and do all else that the royals wanted them to do.* Note that these authors were also pushing the same virtues such as having a ‘conscience’ to the extreme, like they had done with emotions. Example: Romans 9:1 (“my conscience”).

Continuing with our examination of Pliny’s letter addressed to Maesius Maximus (pg. 231-235), he says, “... he spoke on his own behalf,...” recalls the line where Jesus says, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:31). And also there in John, just a few lines later, he says, “I am one who bears witness of myself” (John 8:18).* Pliny also says, ‘(he) gave an account...” Which is simply another way of saying “he told a story” (pg. 233). Yes, he (Arrius Piso) DID tell a story! But, he also gave “an account” of the war as Flavius Josephus.*

He uses the words here in this letter, “... the commanding officer,” and “he had served in the army.” This appears to be said as a means of “inspiring” (convincing) young men to think about a military career. In fact, if you think about it just a bit, other than the office of Emperor, there are few other careers of the time which may be compared to the idea of a modern day celebrity.

Imagine what a young man would think in that time of being called or referred to as a “commanding officer.” That, was something to aspire to in the eyes of people who had very few options available to them in terms of acquiring a career which would command respect from others, particularly the family of the young men themselves.*

However, the truth was something different than those young men would imagine. And that is because ONLY royals occupied the ranks of the higher offices in the military.* The truth was that the common young men were simply used as bodies the vast majority of times in the Roman military; used expressly as those who would be ordered to go out and die in war – while the royals were always placed in the higher ranks so as to have the least chance of dying in battle. The royals that were in the military were always the commanding officers, directing the common military men to the field of battle and observing at a relatively safe distance generally.*

Pliny next uses the phrase “called upon.” This phrase is a subtle reference to the little joke in the NT where a slave is asked what ‘state’ he was in when he was “called” (upon) to serve the ‘Lord’. We find that little joke in I Corinthians 7:20-21; “(Let) each (be) in the state in which he was called, (and) in this (state) let him stay. (21) Were you called (to the Lord) as a slave? Never mind.” This is in, as we had said, I Corinthians, a letter or epistle of ‘Paul’. It would seem that Pliny was alluding to his own little joke while writing as Pliny.

Pliny also says the phrase, “carried more weight” (pg. 233). What this means has to do with a little joke found in Romans 2:7. It is not only a pun or joke using a play on words (which Pliny, by now is seen to be ‘famous’ for), but it also appears to be a precedent example giving the word “honor” the additional or alternate meaning of “immortality.” Romans 2:7; “seek (ye) for glory and honor, and immortality...” The word “honor” already had the additional meaning (in both Hebrew and Greek) of “glory.”

So, on that level, it was a pun based upon a play of words, as are several other puns or jokes found in the NT (see my work on this elsewhere). How do you get “honor” from the word “weight”? Because the word “honor” already has the additional meaning of “weight.” And thus, “weight” likewise is synonymous with “honor.” Again, in both Hebrew and Greek.

Let’s not forget a few key facts. Pliny himself says that he wrote in Latin and Greek.* And, the Axis had evacuated their Herodian cousins from Judea before they laid siege upon Jerusalem. Namely, King Agrippa II and his sister Berenice. So, they had the help of those who were expert in Hebrew and Aramaic. Oh, you hadn’t noticed any of this? Shame on you!

Pliny continues to make puns in his texts as Pliny using various word play just as is found in the NT texts. Here, on page 233, he says, “Sometimes the candidate would raise (bring up) objections...” This is a subtle joke about a ‘candidate’ having an erection.* Pliny says (pg. 233), “merit prevailed.” This was said to infer that Pliny’s ‘virtues’ are a way to achieve “merit” and that was a key to success.*

Pliny inserts the phrase “the secret,” but places it into his text in a different context so that it is not immediately recognized for its true meaning. “The secret” is simply another way of saying “the mystery,” as in “the mystery of the Gospels.” Which is mentioned and/or referred to throughout the New Testament texts themselves, apparently as yet another form of ‘disclaimer’.

The authors of the Gospels admitted, while writing the NT texts, that there was indeed a ‘mystery’ about them. And if one thinks just a bit, they will realize that IF the authors of the texts KNOW that there is a ‘mystery’ of some sort about them, that those authors MUST know what that ‘mystery’ is; and thus, they were as good as saying outright that they created that ‘mystery’ themselves as they were writing!

Pliny says, this phrase, “being a new...” Which can be a double allusion. It could refer to being ‘reborn’ (anew). Or it could be a reference to “a new wine in old bottles” in the New Testament. He says, “for the time being.” Which recalls Pliny’s explanation (and/or apology/reason) for the creation of Christianity. Because, he says that the royals needed it “for the time being” (Ref. pg. 235).

That next phrase that we spot is “finding a way...” Which may also be read “a path” or “the way” as in “Jesus is the way” or as in “door way,” as in “Jesus (being) the door” (Ref. pg. 235). Pliny says the following line, “very few people are as scrupulously honest in secret as in public...” Which, as we now know, includes Pliny himself.* In this line, we see him use the word “honest,” which is one of the ‘virtues’ that Pliny is trying to promote. Again, not for any ‘good’ reason, but as a means of taming an otherwise unruly public.*

He then goes on to say, “... and many are influenced by public opinion, but scarcely anyone by conscience.” And there it is. While once again commenting upon “public opinion,” which he and other royals of his day were controlling, he also speaks of a person’s “conscience.”

And that is a large part of what Pliny’s literary campaign is about,* as was discussed previously.* The phrase (as he goes on with his letter), “It is too soon...” Recalls “the time is near” (Rev. 1:3). And then, “to speak of the future...” which is a part of what Pliny has subtly been talking about.* And he says, “for the moment,” which is the same as the other phrase he used in this very same letter (“for the time being”), pg. 235.* Next, we see this line, “... candidates who best deserve the honor.”* The word “candidate” may also be seen as “initiate,” as in one being considered for a position in a church.*

NOTES:

Each item with an * in the Overview has been expounded upon elsewhere in our work (mainly in the book 'Pliny: His Words & Phrases' (Pliny As Paul), and 'The Essential Pliny', both by Roman Piso).

Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition of Pliny The Younger. The reason that Pliny's Letters & Panegyricus exists, is because these were essential to understanding the alias names and pen names being used by the Roman aristocrats of the time; particularly, the family and relatives of Arrius Calpurnius Piso

and Pliny The Younger, as well as their careers. Pliny's work makes it possible to date various items and events, and to place certain individuals at certain places at particular times.

The Panegyricus, though made to appear as though a tribute to the emperor Trajan, is actually written to provide information about Trajan's co-ruler, Arrius Calpurnius Piso (the actual power behind the Roman throne). He is the 'Optimus' being spoken of, as he is aka (Marcus) Antonius Primus, the "Supreme Authority", as he was called by Tacitus.

Also of extreme value are the maps and Index provided in the Loeb edition of Pliny The Younger. In order to fully understand the people, places and events of the time, one must know who is being spoken of when Pliny (and others) are speaking of their fellow royal Romans by using names that are particular to each.

Yes, this is very different from how history has been taught. And that is because this is the way in which is was actually written to be read and understood, and the only way that the true history of the time may be known. Any other way, is simply a waste of time that will lead nowhere. Thus, to have this information and know this as now given, is extremely important, as it is absolutely essential to put these ancient works into the proper context.

Whether one wants to study ancient history and ancient texts in this new and different way or not, it cannot be dismissed or ignored. It must be studied and researched because an explanation for it must be forthcoming. It is not simply an alternate way of reading and understanding ancient history, but the way in which it will be taught and understood from now on.

Remember this one thing, this way of viewing the subject takes into consideration much more than previous study has, and examines various literary devices that exist withing ancient texts; but have been virtually ignored until now. To learn to study the subject on this higher, more complete level, is an advance to the study of ancient history. Anything less than this, is actually preventing people from knowing all that they should know about these texts. The book 'Piso Christ' gives much more information about important aspects discussed in this Overview and related material (such as alias names and pen names).

Again, the Index in the Loeb editions of Pliny gives the names given by Pliny in his work. The names given by Pliny are key to revealing what names were used by each of the individuals that he is speaking of or to. Once that information is known, a profile of each may be produced and their place within their own family tree then also becomes possible. You may be thinking that a massive amount of work must have been involved in order to reach all of these conclusions and bring out these things; and you would be right. But in order to get at the truth once and for all, this is what was required. Please help by studying this for yourself and by letting others know about it. Thank you so very much. - Roman Piso