Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 6:48 pm
That is a very forced reading of the text. In the opening paragraph of the letter, which I quoted in the post to which you are replying, Pliny writes: '
I have never attended hearings concerning Christians," not, 'I've never heard of Christians.' Then he continues, '
so I am unaware what is usually punished or investigated, and to what extent,' which implies he knows there have been hearings concerning Christians and presumes that there is some usual way of dealing with them.
If he knew of the existence of Christians, Pliny seems to knew little more than their names.
In the rest of the letter, he lays out the procedure he followed for the emperor' approval, including 'those who are truly Christian cannot, it is said, be forced to do any of these things,' which implies he has previously heard about Christians, though it's plausible that he may never have had occasion to talk to one about Christianity before.
That is a forced reading of the text.
His sentence implies above all that he was told this when he took charge of the Christians. Moreover, he does not specify that the emperor must already know this.
The claim about there being only 17 Christians when Gregory became bishop is part of a rhetorical exaggeration from an unreliable source.
Yes, you are right to point out that the source is not very sure (either). On the other hand, it is doubtful that a region like Bythinia could have converted en masse to Christianity like Pliny describes for us at the very beginning of the 2nd century when Christianity was still an obscure little sect. If I imagine that both sources are written by Christians and that they contradict each other, I would still give more credence to a 4th century source that explains that Christianity was finally beginning to take hold in the empire at the end of the third century rather than a source that would have made Christianity a majority religion in Bythinia in 110 AD.
By the way, it is funny how the author of this letter starts by talking about the fact that he does not know how to treat Christians, implying that NOBODY around him knows how to do it either. Was there no one before him in his position? Did the Christians magically appear when Pliny took office? What about Maximus, a close friend of Pliny who was a former quaestor of Bythinia (VIII:24) and who could have informed him about the religious situation in the region even before he went there
All this is inconsistent with what the author tells us a little further on and which presents Christianity as a religion already very well established in the region and which is in the majority:
"For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certain only quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted..."
This passage is inconsistent with the beginning of the letter and betrays in my opinion the pen of a Christian apologist anxious to present Christianity as a successful religion in the region.
Can you quote Pliny saying he had nothing to learn from the prince? (Such a claim would surprise me).
It should be kept in mind who is Pline :
(From Polydor Hochart - Sur la persécution des chrétiens)
- he studied rhetoric with Quintulien (II:14, VI:6)
- He studies philosophy with Euphrates and Nicetas (I:10, VI:6)
- At 19 years old he was already pleading before the high court of the centumvirs
- In his youth he was a military tribune, then quaestor, tribune of the plebs and then magistratus of Rome.
- At 40 years old he was consul nd had completed the cursus honorum (V:13, VII:16) (the sequential order of public offices held by aspiring politicians in the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire).
- He had a distinguished rank in the senate (III:4, II:11, IX:23)
- He was one of the most famous men in the city (IX:23)
- But it is especially as a jurisconsult that Pliny was held in high regard (V:8)
- it is to him that the provinces wanted to entrust the care to plead their causes before the senate(III:4, VI:18)
- Pliny was more often a judge than a lawyer (I:10, 20,22 - II:1,16 - VI:2,22)
- the magistrates turned to him in difficult cases (VI:11)
- Trajan made him his quaestor
- [Trajan called upon him in the councils and he consulted him on the sentences that he had to pronounce (IV:22, VI:31).
- by the friendly advices which he gives to his friends Tiron (VI:1,22) and Maximus (VIII:24) at the beginning of two provinces which they were going to administer, one sees that the proconsuls were careful to surround themselves with precautions and information and that they had at heart to deserve the praise of the populations by practising a fair justice (IX:5)
- There is thus strong chance that he knew the situation in Bythinia before administering it, especially if the Christians were a religion in full expansion as he claims in his letter
- He had for friend, Maximus, a former quaestor of Bythinia (VIII:24). Maximus had no knowledge of the religious situation of the province he had administered?
- It should therefore be concluded that during his stay in Syria where he performed his military service as a tribune, he never heard of the troubles related to the Christians, although he was dealing with philosophical questions with Euphrates (I:10)
- It should also be agreed that, although he was an intimate friend and confidant of the works of Tacitus, he had never heard of the fate of the Christians in Rome under Nero and Domitian.
- He had no knowledge either of the persecutions under Trajan, if one believes Tillemont (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique TV, persécution sous trajan article 2)
- It is astonishing moreover that a magistrate so concerned and respectful of the law (I:22, VI:2), so human (VIII:24, IX:5), did not wait for the answer of Trajan to act considering that he had already put into practice a jurisprudence even before the answer of Trajan. It is about men being put to death, not just imprisonment : "those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed"
This correspondence reflects from one end to the other the apology of the Christian religion:
- The wickedness of the Roman powers that persecute the Christians
- The Christians are virtuous men of whom one cannot reproach anything if it is not their belief in Christ
- The religion spread miraculously in the empire
Are you saying Christians forged all of Book X just to slip in letters 96 and 97?
Not necessarily. It can be just an insertion of the letters 97 and 98. But Book X may also have been entirely forged for economic reasons while still supporting the legend of the Christian martyrs. Forgeries were common at that time, I'm not going to tell you that
How do those letters serve some Christian's larger aims? It seems to me the author has concealed his Christian sympathies awfully well (e.g., Christianity is lunacy, error, and infection, and those who stubbornly cling to professing their Christianity deserve to be punished with execution.
If the text is a forgery, then it is based on the book of Tertullian which mentions and describes a letter from Pliny to Trajan. Its author is therefore subordinate to the text of Tertullian. And if he wants to pass himself off as a persecutor of Christians, he is not going to openly say good things about Christians. It is clear that he has nothing to reproach them while he is making a discreet apology in the same time :
"they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food".