Best Reason to Doubt Pliny Reference to Christianity

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Philosopher Jay,

There is also the "reasonable doubt" surrounding the matter of the "Immaculate Transmission" of the Pliny letters from the 2nd to the 15th century.

Again the default position of scholarship is to accept as genuine the documents that the church organisation "suddenly finds" in its archives.

When is this childishness going to end?





LC

[Peter Kirby]

Hi Philosopher Jay,

There is also the "reasonable doubt" surrounding the matter of the "Immaculate Transmission" of the Pliny letters from the 2nd to the 15th century.

Again the default position of scholarship is to accept as genuine the documents that the church organisation "suddenly finds" in its archives.

When is this childishness going to end?





LC

Objection, leading the witness!

There is a general shadow of doubt over everything, really. The interest of this thread is the ray of light Jay promised in its title.

Doubt is mundane; reason, well... that's divine!

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Peter,

(Thanks for pushing me on this issue. In the middle of writing this, I came across another Hadrian Edict in "The Apology". I included it in the middle instead of rewriting the whole thing. Pardon the disjointedness of the argument this causes.)

I think the fact that the Pius Edict is so similar to the Trajan edict does raise serious questions about the authenticity of the Pliny-Trajan correspondence. If one member of a set has a certain property, it is more likely that another member of the set has that property.

If I bring you a gold ring and tell you that I was digging on the beach and I happen to find it, there is nothing particularly fantastic about it, and you might believe me. If I tell you that the ring is worth $2,000, but I need money immediately to pay a debt, so I'll sell it to you for $200, you might find this a reasonable opportunity to make a quick profit and accept. However, if I return the next day with another gold ring and I say that I found it digging in my backyard, and make the same offer, only a fool would not recognize that both gold rings are a scam.

Likewise, if I show you a letter from President Bush in which he thanks me for all my help and asks if I am enjoying the Honma Five Star golf clubs that he personally signed and gave to me, you might accept it as odd, but possibly true. On the other hand, if I then show you another letter in which President Obama personally thanks me for all my help and asks if I am enjoying the Honma Five Star golf clubs that he personally signed and gave to me, you should realize immediately that the second letter diminishes the chances of the first letter being authentic. If, in addition, the second letter has Obama spelled as Oboma, you should recognize that the chances of the first letter being authentic has been drastically reduced.

We are dealing here with a set of Edicts that are quite similar with two Emperors, at least 26 years apart, writing to governors of Asian territories not to persecute Christians for the fact that temples are being abandoned. That, in itself, is extremely suspicious.

It seems to be the common opinion that the second Edict is a forgery even in the most mainstream Biblical scholarship. As you pointed out in the link
http://biblehub.com/library/pamphilius/ ... oninus.htm

[1103] This edict is undoubtedly spurious. It contradicts all that we know in regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impossible to call it genuine. It is probably a forgery of the second century. It is found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply a slavish copy of the other) mss. of Justin; but this is simply accidental, as it does not belong there, but was appended to the edict of Hadrian by some late copyist. The edict is now almost universally acknowledged to be a forgery; compare Overbeck, Studien zur Gesch. der alt. Kirche, p. 93 sq. Wieseler contends for its genuineness, but no good critic follows him.

.

Now, I think we can make the case even stronger. I think because of the similarity of the Edicts and the circumstances described in the letter, we have to conclude that the writer of one knew the text of the other. If the Trajan edict writer knew the text of the Pius Edict writer, it is obvious that the Trajan Edict is fake, as it must have been written after Pius became emperor in 138.

That leaves us only one scenario for the Pliny-Trajan correspondence being true. A Christian knew the true correspondence, the Pliny Edict, and decided to copy it. He puts a similar Edict in the name of Pius and has Pius say that his father Hadrian had the similar policy. Why create a spurious edict from an emperor when you have a real one.

I believe your answer, Peter, was that the person who put the edict from Pius into Justin Martyr's Apology did not know that it was a spurious letter. It seems long odds, but people do make the case, in for example, Eusebius publishing the obviously phoney correspondence between Jesus and King Abgarus. Perhaps Eusebius found the correspondence and genuinely believed it to be true. Okay, let us say that this is a similar case. Eusebius or someone else genuinely believed the Pius Edict to be true and published it with Martyr's "Apology." Even if we allow this, we must ask why a Christian would create the fake Pius Edict when he had the real Trajan Edict? Think of someone forging another emancipation proclamation and putting it in the name of Ulysses S. Grant, the president who followed Lincoln. It would be quite absurd and pointless.

We may find an answer in the edicts themselves. We will be helped if we look in the Edicts by Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius which are also found attached to Justin Martyr's "First Apology."

Trajan's Edict -

My Pliny,

You have taken the method which you ought in examining the causes of those that had been accused as Christians, for indeed no certain and general form of judging can be ordained in this case. These people are not to be sought for; but if they be accused and convicted, they are to be punished; but with this caution, that he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance. As for libels sent without an author, they ought to have no place in any accusation whatsoever, for that would be a thing of very ill example, and not agreeable to my reign.

Trajan says 1)these thing are to be handled on a case by case basis, 2) Don't seek out Christians, 3) If Christians are accused and convicted, they may repent by supplicating to our gods, 4)ignore anonymous accusation.

Hadrian's Edict in Hadrian's Letter attached at end of "First Apology" (supposedly written just after the governorship of Serenius Granianus 123-124:

I have received the letter addressed to me by your predecessor Serenius Granianus, a most illustrious man; and this communication I am unwilling to pass over in silence, lest innocent persons be disturbed, and occasion be given to the informers for practising villany. Accordingly, if the inhabitants of your province will so far sustain this petition of theirs as to accuse the Christians in some court of law, I do not prohibit them from doing so. But I will not suffer them to make use of mere entreaties and outcries. For it is far more just, if any one desires to make an accusation, that you give judgment upon it. If, therefore, any one makes the accusation, and furnishes proof that the said men do anything contrary to the laws, you shall adjudge punishments in proportion to the offences. And this, by Hercules; you shall give special heed to, that if any man shall, through mere calumny, bring an accusation against any of these persons, you shall award to him more severe punishments in proportion to his wickedness.

Hadrian is 1) forbidding anonymous accusations, just as Trajan did ("accuse the Christians in some court of law"), 2) only if Christians "do anything contrary to the laws" should you punish "in proportion to the offences" and 3) false accusers should be punished.

Hadrian's Edict in Pius' Letter:

Concerning such persons, some others also of the governors of provinces wrote to my most divine father; to whom he replied that they should not at all disturb such persons, unless they were found to be attempting anything against the Roman government.

Hadrian says that 1) Christians should not be disturbed unless they are attempting to overthrow the Roman government.

Pius's Edict:

But if any one has a matter to bring against any person of this class, merely as such a person, let the accused be acquitted of the charge, even though he should be found to be such an one; but let the accuser he amenable to justice

Pius says 1)do not punish the person accused of being a Christian, 2) punish the accuser [being a Christian is legal, accusing someone of being a Christian is illegal]

Marcus Aurelius' Edict:

And immediately we recognised the presence of God following on the prayer--a God unconquerable and indestructible. Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive. And I further desire, that he who is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract; neither shall he commit him. And I desire that these things be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. And I command this my edict to be published in the Forum of Trajan, in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will see that it be transmitted to all the provinces round about, and that no one who wishes to make use of or to possess it be hindered from obtaining a copy from the document I now publish.

Aurelius proclaims 1)Christian God is unconquerable and indestructible, 2) No person may be accused of being a Christian, 3) Accuser is to be burned alive, 4) governors may not ask Christians to retract confessions or arrest Christians, 5) Senate should decree this, it should be published in the Forum and it should be circulated to all provinces.

Notice the progression in the edicts of the four emperors from 112 to Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
In Trajan's Edict, There is no penalty for being a Christian. Christians are not to be investigated by governors. They can escape all punishment by merely praying to Greek Gods. Thus no Christian is to be persecuted for merely being a Christian. This is exactly what Justin Martyr demands at the beginning of his "First Apology"

By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people. But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evildoers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offence, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved.

One may ask why Justin Martyr is asking the Senate for something that Trajan has already granted. The most probable answer is that Trajan never granted it and it is only a wish/demand of Christians of later times who forged the Trajan edict.

Most importantly, Trajan also grants that no anonymous charges are to be investigated. That means that a person has to give his name to an accusation. This would allow Christian groups to slander or physically attack people making the accusations. As a well organized community, Christians could easily defend themselves and attack their enemies once they were known. While Trajan's Edict does not expressly legalize Christianity, it de facto does. It is reminiscent of the recent "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the United States Military regarding Gays. its de facto effect was to allow gays to serve in the military.

Hadrian Edict attached to the First Apology, reiterates Trajan's Edict that anonymous accusations are not to be admitted. It literally starts where Trajan's Edict leaves off. It also only penalizes Christians for actual crimes, not being Christians, and it calls for penalties against the accusers.

Hadrian's Edict in Pius actually legalizes Christianity, except for Christians trying to overthrow the government. Pius' Edict reiterates the decree of Christian legality and calls for penalties against the accusers. Aurelius' Edict calls Christians special guardians of the Roman Empire and for the burning of all Christian accusers. it is to be endorsed by the Senate and sent throughout the Empire.

Thus, we have four (or five, if you include Hadrian's edict in Pius' letter as a separate one) edicts. They all function in the same way, moving towards the decriminalization and then the legalization and exaltation of Christianity, while moving first from ignoring and subverting Christian accusers and then moving towards criminalization of Christian accusers. Since they all function in the same way, how can we believe the first is real and consider the other three/four as fictions of later Christians falsely inserted into a text.

The Trajan edict fits perfectly into a chain of faked Christian letters from Emperors designed to reflect changes to Christian legal status that occurred in the early Fourth Century as occurring two hundred years earlier.

Question: Why was the edict of Trajan not included in "the Apology" since it is clear that the Hadrian-Pius Edict writers knew of it.
Answer: The forger already knew that he or somebody else had inserted it into the correspondence of Pliny-Trajan and did not need to include it here. That is also the reason he did not need to mention it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

(The Biblehub stuff is just notes from the Roberts-Donaldson edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which can also be found on CCEL, etc.)

You may be right that the Antoninus thing means to refer both to Hadrian and to Trajan, by means of saying that Hadrian reaffirmed Trajan's ruling.

None of this impinges on authenticity for the Pliny-Trajan correspondence.

To answer your question: "If the Livy [Pliny??] letter was genuine, why didn't Justin Martyr or the writer/editor of 'the Apology' just include it?"

On the assumption that the edict/letter appended to Justin Martyr is editorial (spurious), the person who added it believed that what he added were genuine. (It is certainly at least as old as Eusebius.) This particular question isn't a puzzle at all, really.

The Pliny-Trajan stuff might still by happenstance be genuine or spurious, but nothing to indicate that has been presented in this thread.

[Clive]

Might the Romans have had a very good civil service with everything properly referenced and accessible, ans l a later civil servant used the earlier letter as a draft/template for the later one?

[Leucius Charinus]

There is a general shadow of doubt over everything, really. The interest of this thread is the ray of light Jay promised in its title.

Hi Philosopher Jay and Peter Kirby,

I would certainly agree that this OP is presenting the best reasons to doubt the Pliny reference. It is a novel analysis. (I have not before seen a better one). The revised analysis above is even better. Here is the present conclusion:

Thus we have four (or five) if you include the Hadrian edict in Pius as a separate one) Edicts. They all function in the same way, moving towards the decriminalization and then the legalization and exaltation of Christianity, while moving first from ignoring and subverting Christian accusers and then moving towards criminalization of Christian accusers. Since they all function in the same way, how can we believe the first is real and consider the other three/four as fictions of later Christians falsely inserted into a text.

The Trajan edict fits perfectly into a chain of faked Christian letters from Emperors designed to reflect changes to Christian legal status that occurred in the early Fourth Century as occurring two hundred years earlier.

Question: Why was the edict of Trajan not included in "the Apology" since it is clear that the Hadrian-Pius Edict writers knew of it.
Answer: The forger already knew that he or somebody else had inserted it into the correspondence of Pliny-Trajan and did not need to include it here. That is also the reason he did not need to mention it.

Brodie calls them a "school". I call them the "church organisation". There are many things to be credited in Jay's analysis. From my perspective perhaps the greatest is the great and careful command that these forgers had over the literary evidence. Their modus operandi outlined above by Jay has the implication that they were in possession of an entire and definitive set of documents at any one time. Many and various documents. All of which served one or another or multiple purposes in the establishment of their own literary evidence. We need to think about this very carefully. We are not dealing with a "school" who had access to a subset of the extant literature. We are dealing with a school who had access to the "superset" of literary evidence. And they quite evidently had no qualms about forging literary evidence for the glory of the "story of the church organisation".

Philosopher Jay's study here indeed presents the best reason to doubt the Pliny reference. Scholars have known about the questionable integrity of the Pliny manuscript tradition (10th book) since it first became famous - by its sudden and unexpected discovery in, of all places, the church archives - in the 15th century. But scholars have NOT in general doubted the authenticity of this manuscript discovery, and today it is generally accepted and everywhere cited as one of the earliest attestations to the "tribe of Christians" in antiquity.

So thanks very much Philosopher Jay for outlining this analysis of these imperial letter exchanges.

Brilliant stuff.

Be well,



LC

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Leucius Charinus,

Thanks very much for the kind words.

I was rushing to teach a class when I wrote this so I did make some grammatical mistakes. This is how I meant the first sentence to read in the passage you quoted:

Thus, we have four (or five, if you include Hadrian's edict in Pius' letter as a separate one) edicts.

At the begining of Chapter 2 of his "Apology," Tertullian says this about the Pliny-Trajan correspondence:

For Pliny Secundus, when governor of a province, after the condemnation of some Christians and the degradation of others, being distressed at their very number notwithstanding, consulted Trajan the Emperor as to what he should do in the future, alleging that beyond their obstinate refusal to sacrifice, all he had discovered was that they were in the habit of assembling at dawn to sing to Christ as God, and to bind themselves together under a strict rule, forbidding homicide, adultery, fraud, perfidy, and all other crimes. Then Trajan wrote back that persons of this class were not indeed to be enquired after, but if brought up before the court, were to be punished.

This seems to be a more primitive version of what we find in the correspondence today. Tertullian leaves out in Trajan's letter, "they had been accustomed on an appointed day to assemble" and leaves out in Trajan's reply, "But anonymously written accusations brought to your notice ought not to be received in the case of any crime. For they form the worst precedents, and are not in keeping with our age."

In Book II, Chapter 33 of his Church History, Eusebius copies Tetullian more or less:

3. We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows: “And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them.

4. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.” Such were the events which took place at that time.

I think this shows that changes were made to the Pliny-Trajan correspondence after Tertullian/Eusebius, adding that Chrisian's worshipped "on an appointed day" just reinforces the idea that early Christians worshiped perhaps on a certain day of the week (Sunday), but the denial of anonymous accusations ties in with Hadrian's edict in Justin Martyr's "Apology."

I think this points to the idea that there was a substrate to the Pliny-Trajan correspondence that was added to and changed by Christians.It may have been originally about a different cult, not Christian, that is why we find the stuff about the two slave-women deaconesses.
I don't think Trajan would have been so ambiguous in his answer as we now have it. He was the Emperor. He would not have allowed Pliny leeway to release whomever he pleased. He would not be supporting the rights of Christians to continue their practices which all Romans thought were criminal, involving incest and cannibalism. Trajan's answer was probably just something like this:
"You have followed the correct course, my favored one, in your investigation of the cases of persons charged with being *********** if they are brought before you and the charge against them is proven, they must be punished."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

There is a general shadow of doubt over everything, really. The interest of this thread is the ray of light Jay promised in its title.

Hi Philosopher Jay and Peter Kirby,

I would certainly agree that this OP is presenting the best reasons to doubt the Pliny reference. It is a novel analysis. (I have not before seen a better one). The revised analysis above is even better. Here is the present conclusion:

Thus we have four (or five) if you include the Hadrian edict in Pius as a separate one) Edicts. They all function in the same way, moving towards the decriminalization and then the legalization and exaltation of Christianity, while moving first from ignoring and subverting Christian accusers and then moving towards criminalization of Christian accusers. Since they all function in the same way, how can we believe the first is real and consider the other three/four as fictions of later Christians falsely inserted into a text.

The Trajan edict fits perfectly into a chain of faked Christian letters from Emperors designed to reflect changes to Christian legal status that occurred in the early Fourth Century as occurring two hundred years earlier.

Question: Why was the edict of Trajan not included in "the Apology" since it is clear that the Hadrian-Pius Edict writers knew of it.
Answer: The forger already knew that he or somebody else had inserted it into the correspondence of Pliny-Trajan and did not need to include it here. That is also the reason he did not need to mention it.

Brodie calls them a "school". I call them the "church organisation". There are many things to be credited in Jay's analysis. From my perspective perhaps the greatest is the great and careful command that these forgers had over the literary evidence. Their modus operandi outlined above by Jay has the implication that they were in possession of an entire and definitive set of documents at any one time. Many and various documents. All of which served one or another or multiple purposes in the establishment of their own literary evidence. We need to think about this very carefully. We are not dealing with a "school" who had access to a subset of the extant literature. We are dealing with a school who had access to the "superset" of literary evidence. And they quite evidently had no qualms about forging literary evidence for the glory of the "story of the church organisation".

Philosopher Jay's study here indeed presents the best reason to doubt the Pliny reference. Scholars have known about the questionable integrity of the Pliny manuscript tradition (10th book) since it first became famous - by its sudden and unexpected discovery in, of all places, the church archives - in the 15th century. But scholars have NOT in general doubted the authenticity of this manuscript discovery, and today it is generally accepted and everywhere cited as one of the earliest attestations to the "tribe of Christians" in antiquity.

So thanks very much Philosopher Jay for outlining this analysis of these imperial letter exchanges.

Brilliant stuff.

Be well,



LC

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

In the previous post, I talked about four Emperor Edicts on Christianity. Three are found in Justin Martyr's Apology, allegedly 153 CE, one from Trajan found mentioned in Tertullian's "Apology" and later in Eusebius' Church History. A slightly different version of the last Edict in now found in the Letters of Pliny based on a 14th century manuscript.

In the previous post, I noted that Tertullian, writing circa 200, seems aware of the Pliny-Trajan correspondence, but does not seem aware that Trajan forbid anonymous accusations against Christians. At least he does not mention that important point. It is also interesting that he does not say that he got this from any published works of Pliny. This would suggest that it was not part of a collection of correspondence by Pliny at the time. He simply says (chaper 2):

For Primus Secundus, when he was in command of a province, after condemning some Christians, and having dislodged others from the stand they had taken up, was nevertheless greatly troubled by their very numbers, and then consulted the Emperor Trajan as to what he should do in future, stating that, apart from the obstinate refusal to sacrifice, he had found out nothing else about their mysteries, save meetings before dawn to sing to Christ and to3 God, and to establish one common rule of life, forbidding murder, adultery, fraud, treachery and other crimes. Then Trajan replied that such people were not indeed to be sought out, but that if they were brought before the court they ought to be punished.

This is the Edict that we now find in the Correspondence:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Tertullian spends about two pages talking about the Edict and how contradictory it is. It doesn't allow the seeking out of Christians, but it allows their punishment. It seems very odd that he has nothing to say about anonymous accusations against Christians being abolished. This suggests that it was not there originally or possibly, that he just did not think it important enough to comment on.

Tertullian seems unaware of the two Edicts helping Christians issued by Hadrian and Pius that are quoted in Justin Martyr's "Apology". This seems most probable when in talking about laws against Christians, he says:

Laws which Trajan made less effective by forbidding Christians to be sought out; to which no Hadrian, although an investigator of all curiosities, no Vespasian, although conqueror of the Jews, no Pius, no Verus ever set his mark.

It is kind of amazing that Tertullian, a Christian intellectual writing in circa 200 would not have heard of two Edicts by Hadrian and Pius helping Christians. This suggest that they are forgeries created after 200. One could suggest that Tertullian was not a very good legal mind (although his extensive legal knowledge shown in the rest of the document counters this) or he had some secret reason for leaving these edicts out. That they are later forgeries seems to me the much more solid probability.

Tertullian does seem to know the fourth Edict by Marcus Aurelius. He writes of it:

We on the other hand can show you a protector, if the letters of the honoured emperor M. Aurelius be searched, in which he testifies that the famous drought in Germany was put a stop to by the rain which fell in answer to the prayers of the Christians who happened to be in his army. Thus, although he did not openly abolish punishment incurred by such men, yet in another way he openly neutralized it, adding also a condemnation, and indeed a more shocking one, for their prosecutors.

Tertullian suggests that Aurelius "did not openly abolish punishment" but that he "neutralized" punishment and added "a condemnation, and indeed a more shocking one, for their prosecutors. But in the text that we have attached to Justin Martyr, it does seem that it abolished punishment:

And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail. And immediately we recognised the presence of God following on the prayer--a God unconquerable and indestructible. Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive.

It certainly seems as if Aurelius is legalizing Christianity here and not just "neutralizing punishment."

For this reason, we have to suspect that whatever version of Aurelius' Edict that Tertullian saw, it was different from the one now in our Justin Martyr "Apology".

The differences between what Tertullian reads and the four edicts we are discussing suggests that the Trajan and Aurelius Edicts were forged first and they were more modest than we now have them. Later, these two edicts were made bolder and the Hadrian and Pius edicts were added.

It seems relatively probable that the "Rain Miracle" of Marcus Aurelius was originally a miracle of an Egyptian Mystic or Priest that was done circa 172-173. Some of the Aurelius' coins suggest this and the historian Dio Cassidorus who was with Aurelious at the time suggests this. . Because of Christian rivalry with Egyptian cults the Christians simply took a miracle done by another cult and claimed it for its own. Since this forms the basis for Aurelius' Edict, we can assume that the Pliny-Trajan Christian legend formed in the same way. Pliny did write a letter about a Pontus cult to Trajan, but the cult was probably not Christian, but rivals to Christians. I am thinking "Hypsistarians."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[MrMacSon]

...

Tertullian seems unaware of the two Edicts helping Christians issued by Hadrian and Pius that are quoted in Justin Martyr's "Apology". This seems most probable when in talking about laws against Christians, he says:

Laws which Trajan made less effective by forbidding Christians to be sought out; to which no Hadrian, although an investigator of all curiosities, no Vespasian, although conqueror of the Jews, no Pius, no Verus ever set his mark.

It is kind of amazing that Tertullian, a Christian intellectual writing in circa 200 would not have heard of two Edicts by Hadrian and Pius helping Christians. This suggest that they are forgeries created after 200. One could suggest that Tertullian was not a very good legal mind (although his extensive legal knowledge shown in the rest of the document counters this) or he had some secret reason for leaving these edicts out. That they are later forgeries seems to me the much more solid probability.

Tertullian switched away from Christianity to Montanism c200 CE: would that have been relevant?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi MrMacSon,

I'm pretty sure that Tertullian's conversion came in 208 or later. I think his Apology is around 200. He mentions the Emperor's Serverus' repeal of the Papian laws was just "yesterday". Serverus ruled from 193 to 211. Unfortunately, we don't know when he repealed the Papian Laws.

In any case, what I'm thinking now is that the Pliny-Trajan Correspondence was based not on a Christian cult, but on a different sun-worshipping cult in Bithynia-Pontus. It was this Sun-worshipping cult that was a challenge to the Imperial Cult in the area and needed to stopped.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

...

Tertullian seems unaware of the two Edicts helping Christians issued by HadriaWarmn and Pius that are quoted in Justin Martyr's "Apology". This seems most probable when in talking about laws against Christians, he says:

Laws which Trajan made less effective by forbidding Christians to be sought out; to which no Hadrian, although an investigator of all curiosities, no Vespasian, although conqueror of the Jews, no Pius, no Verus ever set his mark.

It is kind of amazing that Tertullian, a Christian intellectual writing in circa 200 would not have heard of two Edicts by Hadrian and Pius helping Christians. This suggest that they are forgeries created after 200. One could suggest that Tertullian was not a very good legal mind (although his extensive legal knowledge shown in the rest of the document counters this) or he had some secret reason for leaving these edicts out. That they are later forgeries seems to me the much more solid probability.

Tertullian switched away from Christianity to Montanism c200 CE: would that have been relevant?

[Huon]

During the reign of Trajan (98-117) the population of christians could have doubled from 120 to 250.
During the reign of Hadrian (117-138) the population of christians could have doubled from 250 to 500.
During the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161) the population of christians could have doubled from 500 to 1000.
During the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) the population of christians could have doubled from 1000 to 2000.

I am not very convinced that Pliny would have written to Trajan about 100 to 250 people dispersed in Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, with some others in Rome and Alexandria.