Stuart wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:51 am
The section in question is almost certainly a Christian interpolation
https://vridar.org/2016/02/17/fresh-dou ... hristians/
It is not the standard size of his other chapters, being many times larger. The writing style is very different. Also the 10th letter was unknown until the middle ages, and the manuscripts with it late. Jerome for example knows only of 9 letters.
But in my view there are many other internal problems with the context of the legal letters to Trajan. It reads like a thinly disguised apology. The purpose would have been to support the notion of a Trajan era persecution, as church lore said there were many. Another problem is Christians supposedly being demanded to call Trajan Dominus et Deus (“Lord and God”). This is ridiculous. No Roman Emperor could expect to be anything more than Divus (Divine). After their deaths, the best that emperors could hope for was to be called Divus (Divine), not Deus (God). "Lord and Master" was how some sycophants addressed him, never God. In fact he rejected even Lord. The poet Statius states that Domitian rejected the title Dominus, much like his predecessor Augustus.
This is not a witness I would put any weight on. Interpolation is screamed at from a half dozen different directions.
I think you mean Letter 96 (Pliny to Trajan on the Christians) of Book X of Pliny's Letters. Are you referring to the size of the Letter in comparison to the other letters and the lateness of the manuscripts of Book X? Or do you know a manuscript of Book X that does not contain Letter 96 (or 96 and 97, which is Trajan's reply to Pliny).
The earliest attestation of Letter 10.96 that I am aware of is in Tertullian's Apology, 2, c. 197:
Oh, how great the glory of the ruler who should bring to light some Christian who had devoured a hundred infants! But, instead of that, we find that even inquiry in regard to our case is forbidden. For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some from their steadfastness, being still annoyed by their great numbers, at last sought the advice of Trajan, the reigning emperor, as to what he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an obstinate disinclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and other crimes. Upon this Trajan wrote back that Christians were by no means to be sought after; but if they were brought before him, they should be punished. O miserable deliverance — under the necessities of the case, a self-contradiction! It forbids them to be sought after as innocent, and it commands them to be punished as guilty. It is at once merciful and cruel; it passes by, and it punishes. (Tertullian, Apology,2).
What is the evidence that the Letter specifically requires Christians to call Trajan Dominus et Deus? What is required of them seems far more general (also, Pliny says he separated Roman citizens for a different legal process, so this would apply only to non-citizens):
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians and called upon the gods after me, and with incense and wine made obeisance to your statue, which I had ordered to be brought in together with images of the gods for this very purpose, and who moreover cursed Christ (those who are truly Christian cannot, it is said, be forced to do any of these things), I ordered to be acquitted.
Others who were named by an informer stated that they were Christians and then denied it. They said that in fact they had been, but had abandoned their allegiance, some three years previously, some more years earlier, and one or two as many as twenty years before. All
these as well worshiped your statue and images of the gods, and blasphemed Christ (Pliny, Letters, 10.96).
Finally, I don't think this reads like a thinly disguised apology. Is there a clear suggestion in the text that the Christian beliefs are actually true? I don't think trying to establish that there was persecution under Trajan provides a convincing motive to forge a text. Do we have any reason to think there was in fact no persecution of Christians under Trajan? Epistle 97, Trajan's reply to Pliny, suggests that Trajan was not directing a persecution against the Christians, but that Roman magistrates had to try such cases as were brought before them by accusers as part of their general function of maintaining law and order.
You have followed the appropriate procedure, my Secundus, in examining the cases of those brought before you as Christians, for no
general rule can be laid down which would establish a definite routine. Christians are not to be sought out. If brought before you and found guilty, they must be punished, but in such a way that a person who denies that he is a Christian and demonstrates this by his action, that is, by worshiping our gods, may obtain pardon for repentance, even if his previous record is suspect. Documents published anonymously must play no role in any accusation, for they give the worst example, and are foreign to our age (Trajan to Pliny; Pliny, Letters, 10.97).
Best,
Ken