Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

[Secret Alias]

As always Andrew finds a rational compromise. The other inference might be that "stylometry" is subjective.

[Giuseppe]

A reason to doubt about the authenticity is the use of the term 'Christ'.

Usually, "Christ" is used by the Christians who insist that Jesus is Christ against the deniers that Jesus is Christ.

In addition, Christ is used as a title, while Jesus is the name of the deity. And Pliny is talking about a deity.


See 'called Christ' in Josephus, Antiq., 20:200, see the Testimonium Taciteum (where Christus goes against the mention of Chrestiani, deliberately or less).

[John2]

I doubt the Christian tradition that Domitian himself took an interest in persecuting Christians and put out an effort eradicate them. That said, there probably was persecution of Christians during Domitian's reign.

Yeah, I thought that John2 was being too credulous. But do you have any opinion about the claim that Flavia Domitilla personally was involved in the foundation of the catacomb? Because that strikes me as pious legend rather than fact.

I think the idea that Flavia Domitilla was a Christian is a reasonable deduction based on the available facts. While Lampe doesn't think the catacombs pertain to Flavia Domitilla (and I could take it or leave it myself), he does think she was a Christian and that non-Christian and Christian writings indicate that "pagans often did not hesitate to categorize Christians as Jewish" (e.g., Acts 16:20: “These men are Jews and are throwing our city into turmoil by promoting customs that are unlawful for us Romans to adopt or practice”) and compares what Dio Cassius says about Clemens and Domitilla having "drifted into Jewish ways" with the Homilies of Clement 4.7:

And Appion met us, not only with the two companions just named, but with about thirty other men. And as soon as he saw me, he saluted and kissed me, and said, "This is Clement, of whose noble birth and liberal education I have often told you; for he, being related to the family of Tiberius Caesar, and equipped with all Grecian learning, has been seduced by a certain barbarian called Peter to speak and act after the manner of the Jews.

For a number of reasons, I believe it is more probable that Dio found information identifying Flavia Domitilla as a "Christian" and changed this to a woman "inclined towards Jewish practices." This is more likely than that Bruttius, who also was a non-Christian author (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3.18.4), changed "sympathizers with Judaism" to "Christian."


https://books.google.com/books?id=vOoxG ... 22&f=false

So for me it comes down to Melito and Hegesippus (because of their Jewish and Christian backgrounds, Melito's location in Sardis, one of the places addressed in Revelation, which is commonly thought to have been written in Domitian's time, and Hegesipus' awareness of 1 Clement and Jewish oral traditions, which may mention Flavius Clemens) and Bruttius (because of his presumable non-Christian and non-Jewish background) and reading what Roman writers say about "Jewish ways" in light of what Christian writings say about the pagan view of Christians in Lampe's examples.

[Ken Olson]

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

I'm a bit behind in my replies and will have to make this fairly brief.

If the text is a forgery, the author is better at counterfeiting the attitudes of Christianity's opponents than other counterfeiters of which I'm aware (see the two examples at the end). If it's a forgery, the author is expecting the reader to do a lot more work to get to the desired conclusion than in those examples.

There is no explicit statement of Roman wickedness, and no explicit criticism (nor even any implied criticism, I think) of the practice of worshipping the statues of the pagan gods or the emperor. Nor is there criticism of the Christians who comply with the governor's instructions. Both Pliny and Trajan come across as neither terribly bloodthirsty nor inspired by an unreasoning hatred of Christ and Christians.

The Christians can be reproached for their belief in Christ ('debased superstition', 'contagion') and for their disobedience to Roman authority, and they even deserve to be punished for the latter. {'I do not doubt that -- be their admitted crime what it may -- their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy surely ought to be punished']. Pliny and Trajan agree that Christians should not be sought out, but only punished if denounced by a witness. One might perhaps infer from the letter, as you have, that Christians have not actually done anything wrong. But the question never comes up of whether they might actually be right.

That Christianity spreads rapidly is common to all our sources, though I suppose it is possible to think all of our sources that say this (including Tacitus Annals 15.44) are the work of Christians.

Two further points:

1) There very likely were people in Bithynia that could and did advise Pliny on how Christians had been handled previously. But he's writing to the emperor for *approval*, and only the emperor can give that.

2) Pliny has an interest in exaggerating both the extent of the problem he dealt with and the effectiveness of the measures he took in dealing with it. However, I think there is probably an underlying truth to what he says about the sacrifices, even if it's exaggerated. The people most likely to denounce Christians to the government are those who had had their livelihoods impacted by them, such as those who sold animals for sacrifice in the temples. Even if only a few of the householder class who paid for most of the sacrifices in the temples converted to Christianity that may have caused a serious reduction in income for the vendors.

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".

I agree in principle that, if the text of Pliny's letters 96 and 97 are Christian counterfeits, they must be closely related to Tertullian's quotation of them. One of the reasons for this is that it's unlikely a forger would simply have placed letters 96 and 97 in Book X of Pliny and just waited for someone to stumble across them.

That said, I don't see a smoking gun here. At least in my opinion, there isn't anything Pliny couldn't quite plausibly have said.

Best,

Ken

PS Well, not all that brief after all. Gotta work on that.

Acts of the Apostles

Acts 5.33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35 Then he said to them, “Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him, but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. 37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

They were convinced by him, 40 and when they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and let them go. 41 As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. 42 And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah.

6.1 Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number

Licinius' Speech to his troops in Eusebius' life of Constantine:

The present occasion shall prove which of us is mistaken in his judgment, and shall decide between our gods and those whom our adversaries profess to honor. For either it will declare the victory to be ours, and so most justly evince that our gods are the true saviours and helpers; or else, if this God of Constantine’s, who comes from we know not whence, shall prove superior to our deities (who are many, and in point of numbers, at least, have the advantage), let no one henceforth doubt which god he ought to worship, but attach himself at once to the superior power, and ascribe to him the honors of the victory. Suppose, then, this strange God, whom we now regard with ridicule, should really prove victorious; then indeed we must acknowledge and give him honor, and so bid a long farewell to those for whom we light our tapers in vain.

Eusebius, of course, was fully aware of the outcome of the battle before which he placed Licinius' speech.

[Sinouhe]

If the text is a forgery, the author is better at counterfeiting the attitudes of Christianity's opponents than other counterfeiters of which I'm aware (see the two examples at the end). If it's a forgery, the author is expecting the reader to do a lot more work to get to the desired conclusion than in those examples.

If the letter is a forgery, then it follows point by point what Tertullian says in his book. The same Tertullian who told us all sorts of lies about Pilate, Tiberius and the Roman Senate concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus (Tertullian : Apologies Livre V - Eusebius: Histoire ecclésiastique livre II)

And if it is a forgery, it is certainly a renaissance forgery, more sophisticated than what one could read in antiquity or in the Middle Ages. It is still a bad forgery in my opinion, for the reasons that Polydor Hochart explains in his book.

There is no explicit statement of Roman wickedness,

This is not what Tertullian tells us in his text. He himself condemns Pliny and Trajan:

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. Why do you play a game of evasion upon yourself, O Judgment? If you condemn, why do you not also inquire. If you do not inquire, why do you not also absolve?

Anyway, how could a letter forged in the name of Pliny or Pliny himself can say openly that the Romans are cruel ? I don't understand your logic. On the other hand, what I read (and what Tertullien read or invent) is that Christians are harmless and virtuous but that they are condemned to death if they do not renounce their faith in Christ. And that is cruel.

That Christianity spreads rapidly is common to all our sources, though I suppose it is possible to think all of our sources that say this (including Tacitus Annals 15.44) are the work of Christians.

I really don't think that Bythinia had become predominantly Christian by 112 and that the temples were empty because of Jesus. I really don't.
And yes, Tacitus' testimony on christians is also doubtful.

Two further points:

1) There very likely were people in Bithynia that could and did advise Pliny on how Christians had been handled previously. But he's writing to the emperor for *approval*, and only the emperor can give that.

This is not what I read in this letter :

I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

They are the words of a lost guy who does not know what to do, who does not know how to punish them, nor to distinguish them, they are the words of someone who is alone and whom nobody can advise. This is ridiculous coming from someone like Pliny who is a magistrate and a lawyer, one of the most famous Romans in the city, an adviser to Trajan who asks his opinion in legal matters, etc. etc.
It is also ridiculous because it implies that no one had ever had to deal with these matters in Bythinia when it is said that Christianity is the most important religion in the region and that it has even supplanted paganism. And I repeat myself but Pliny was friends with Maximus, an ancient a former quaestor of Bythinia (VIII:24).

2) Pliny has an interest in exaggerating both the extent of the problem he dealt with and the effectiveness of the measures he took in dealing with it. However, I think there is probably an underlying truth to what he says about the sacrifices, even if it's exaggerated. The people most likely to denounce Christians to the government are those who had had their livelihoods impacted by them, such as those who sold animals for sacrifice in the temples. Even if only a few of the householder class who paid for most of the sacrifices in the temples converted to Christianity that may have caused a serious reduction in income for the vendors.

What is the need to exaggerate the problem?
A new religion is spreading, it is known to Trajan (unless you consider that Trajan doesn't really know what Christians are and what they represent either). I don't see why Pliny should exaggerate the situation unless you consider him a dedicated enemy of the Christians. On the other hand, I understand very easily why a forger who knows Tertullian's text would exaggerate the dynamism of Christianity in Bythynia.
Besides, the fact that he describes the Christians to Trajan, their beliefs, the way they grouped themselves, etc., seems illogical if one assumes that the emperor knew the Christians and are a well known sect in the Empire. But again, if this is a forgery, then i understand why the author would presents the Christians in a beautiful light.

One of the reasons for this is that it's unlikely a forger would simply have placed letters 96 and 97 in Book X of Pliny and just waited for someone to stumble across them.

I rather think that the book X was entirely forged to be resold at a high price as it was very common at that time to create fake books of the antiquity. This would explain all the mysteries surrounding the discovery of the manuscript, its disappearance, the doubts surrounding this discovery, and the style of book X itself. Besides, no one had ever heard of a Book X before its discovery, Pliny's letters having always been considered as part of 9 books. The correspondence of the Christians would then be only an anecdotal element that would have been inspired by Tertullian. But not the primary purpose of the forgery.
Perhaps it was Tertullian's text that inspired the creation of a book of unpublished letters by Pliny. A whole book would have far more financial value and be far more believable than two lost letters concerning Christians in Bythinia.

That said, I don't see a smoking gun here. At least in my opinion, there isn't anything Pliny couldn't quite plausibly have said.

I think the opposite. Coming from a high magistrate of Rome, member of the senate, lawyer, adviser of the emperor in judicial affairs, this letter is really incoherent. But I guess we won't agree on that

Acts 5.33

If I imagine that it is a renaissance forgery, it is not very relevant to compare it with the Acts or Eusebius. Especially since the creativity of the forger is strongly limited by the text of Tertullian. And Tertullian is very clear: he makes Pliny a cruel being who condemns without reason the nice and innocent Christians. And I hope you will agree with me, in view of how he manipulates history with Pilate, Tiberius and the senate, it would not be surprising if Tertullian invented a story of a letter from Pliny to Trajan to present Christians under a good day and the Roman Emperor with Pliny as the villains.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Just going to join in on Pliny, since it is something currently in my wheel house.

I do not think Book X.96-97 are forgeries and I do not see any particularly good reason for concluding such. Tuccinardi has attempted to argue that parts of 96-97 are interpolated, but this comes with several caveats and limitations:

(1) His dismissal of Tertullian as dishonest or a liar is just flawed. The stories which Tertullian purported about the Acts of Pilate and the Rains of Aurelius are both found in the works of Justin Martyr, coming quite a while before Tertullian (1 Apology 35 and 68), which means he wasn't dishonest, but was using stories that were in circulation. I think that Tertullian is reliant on Justin's 1 Apology for this information, and therefore the reference to Pliny's letter is more secure, as Justin does not reference Pliny. It does not disavow his usage of Pliny. Likewise, it should be noted that while he does not reference Tacitus' Annals (which according to Anthony Barrett seem to have fallen into disrepair and neglect for centuries, as no one cites them ever), he does use Tacitus' Histories at one point. Thus, we know he was familiar with a scribe in Pliny's circle, and probably then familiar with Pliny's work. As such, I think we have good reason for considering the letters authentic on that basis alone. In order for this theory to work, Tertullian must be presupposed to be lying on this, and I see no good reason to think so. Sinouhe's comment about Tertullian calling Trajan and Pliny cruel is actually irrelevant. Of course he would, because he wants any occasion to do so, even when the letter does not describe them as such. In fact, it appears that your basis for also calling Tertullian a liar I've already addressed above. Tertullian is not a liar, but is at worst just repeating something that was in common circulation from other forgers of the time, as Justin Martyr attests to these before Tertullian.

(2) Tuccinardi's stylometric analysis of the letter did not turn up conclusive results. While he claims that parts of the letters are interpolated, we do not know what parts are, as he does not say in the paper, and furthermore given that Pliny is referencing a cult he has never talked about before, we would expect atypical terms and elements being used, thus, even if it is stylistically variant from Pliny's work, the variation does not lead us to conclude interpolation. Furthermore, his stylometric analysis only considered Book X, and not the previous nine books of letters, which may have led to differing results, and additionally, stylometric analysis is not entirely difficult to fool (conscious and unconscious events can lead to one's writing style changing over time, to the point that two pieces of writing by the same author may not be considered the same by a stylometric analysis, unless very specifically adjusted for this).

(3) This leaves us with other theories. Sinouhe's points seem to have at various times misread or overread the text of the letters. There is no point, agreeing with Ken, where the letters are anti-Roman, anti-pagan worship, or anything similar. The letters refer to Christians in negative terms (superstitionis istius contagio; superstitionem pravam), but do not have any clear indication that they are on some crusade to eliminate all Christians. To the contrary, Trajan and Pliny are like: nah fam, don't seek them out and we aren't going to have this be a free for all situation of "look this dude's a Christian" without due process. Like, if anything, these letters are at best thinking Christians are a superstitious cult, but as long as they worship at the Imperial Cult, Trajan and Pliny are happy to basically ignore them. This does not serve any Christian narrative of mass persecution, nor as an apologetic. Pliny and Trajan come off as mostly disinterested beyond just wanting to make sure the cult obeyed the law. At no point in these letters are Christians described as "virtuous" or anything similar. They are specifically polemicized as an infectious superstition (see above). Virtuous, they are not.

(4) I know of no Christian forgery or interpolation that manages to disguise itself as well as this. Compare the interpolations in Josephus' TF, the forgeries about Marcus Aurelius, or similar. We must presuppose a Christian forger whose skill is basically unevidenced for his time. Your comment "Anyway, how could a letter forged in the name of Pliny or Pliny himself can say openly that the Romans are cruel?" is actually rendered a bit nonsensical. Ken's logic is sound because Christian forgers almost always interjected their own subjective perspectives. Thus, the deeply fervent Josephus, a Jew, ends up writing that "he was the Messiah" in Antiquities 18 from the pen of a forger, even though Josephus would never write this, or Marcus Aurelius begins praising the Christian god, or similar. Thus, the fact that this does not happen in Pliny's letters is direct evidence *against* them being forgeries.

I don't see any good reason to think this letter is inauthentic or has been tampered with. I've read it and numerous other Roman documents of the time, and it seems just in keeping with the rest of Pliny's letters, particularly the rest of Book X.

[Sinouhe]

(4) Your comment "Anyway, how could a letter forged in the name of Pliny or Pliny himself can say openly that the Romans are cruel?" is actually rendered a bit nonsensical.

With all my respect, it is your reasoning which rendered nonsensical. You are asking a forger posing as an imperial governor to speak ill of or misrepresent his actions in Bythinia.

Ken's logic is sound because Christian forgers almost always interjected their own subjective perspectives. Thus, the deeply fervent Josephus, a Jew, ends up writing that "he was the Messiah" in Antiquities 18 from the pen of a forger, even though Josephus would never write this, or Marcus Aurelius begins praising the Christian god, or similar. Thus, the fact that this does not happen in Pliny's letters is direct evidence *against* them being forgeries.

As I explained earlier, if it is a forgery, it is not a complete forgery but a text constructed from the testimony of Tertullian. With the constraints that this imposes. The comparison with the TF is unnecessary and irrelevant. The aim of the forger here is not to make the apology of Christianity but to write a letter which would be the letter that Tertullian describes in his book. And obviously its author wants the forgery to be credible.
In spite of this, the pen of a Christian is easily seen and you are wrong when you say that the apology does not appear in the letter:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.

And since I imagine that all this comes from Tertullian (who is used to manipulating history by inventing anecdotes about high Roman dignitaries and even the emperor concerning Jesus and christianity), he betrays his own apology in his text :

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.

[MrMacSon]

... I think that Tertullian is reliant on Justin's 1 Apology for this information, and therefore the reference to Pliny's letter is more secure, as Justin does not reference Pliny. It does not disavow his usage of Pliny ...

• That doesn't seem to be cogent

... it should be noted that while he does not reference Tacitus' Annals ... he [Tertullian] does use Tacitus' Histories at one point. Thus, we know he was familiar with a scribe in Pliny's circle, and probably then familiar with Pliny's work. As such, I think we have good reason for considering the letters authentic on that basis alone.

• That doesn't seem cogent, either

[Chrissy Hansen]

With all my respect, it is your reasoning which rendered nonsensical. You are asking a forger posing as an imperial governor to speak ill of or misrepresent his actions in Bythinia.

No, I'm asking a Christian forger to act as almost all Christian forgers do... by not being consistent with their target forgery.

As I explained earlier, if it is a forgery, it is not a complete forgery but a text constructed from the testimony of Tertullian. With the constraints that this imposes. The comparison with the TF is unnecessary and irrelevant. The aim of the forger here is not to make the apology of Christianity but to write a letter which would be the letter that Tertullian describes in his book. And obviously its author wants the forgery to be credible.
In spite of this, the pen of a Christian is easily seen and you are wrong when you say that the apology does not appear in the letter:

This does not remotely explain why the letter is not at all worded like any other Christian forgery. My comparison to the TF and others showed this, and why the actions of Pliny and Trajan are not obviously insidious... your explanation is to just psychoanalyze your hypothetical forger as not wanting to "make an apology of Christianity" but "to write a letter" and that this forger "wants the forgery to be credible." I mean, if we can just psychoanalyze this hypothetical forger enough, it seems like your theory becomes unfalsifiable, and therefore, I don't see how it is particularly rigorous, because at this point any counterargument you just sum up to the psychology of this forger.

Being constrained by Tertullian does not mean that this author would not interject their own perspectives, and frankly why not just make Trajan and Pliny more obviously brutalistic toward Christianity and really drive home Tertullian's point? This letter does not do this remotely, to me.

Like all those "easily seen" bits you listed also could easily just be: Pliny reporting what a Christian said... which is what he says he is doing. In which case, any Christian material is irrelevant, because of course it is if Pliny is reporting what they said. If Pliny is reporting what they said, of course it would be obviously Christian, and therefore this is not evidence of forgery unless you can establish inauthenticity on other grounds.

I fail to see anything in this letter that jumps out as "forgery" to me.

[Chrissy Hansen]

... I think that Tertullian is reliant on Justin's 1 Apology for this information, and therefore the reference to Pliny's letter is more secure, as Justin does not reference Pliny. It does not disavow his usage of Pliny ...

• That doesn't seem to be cogent

... it should be noted that while he does not reference Tacitus' Annals ... he [Tertullian] does use Tacitus' Histories at one point. Thus, we know he was familiar with a scribe in Pliny's circle, and probably then familiar with Pliny's work. As such, I think we have good reason for considering the letters authentic on that basis alone.

• That doesn't seem cogent, either

In what way?

The first one establishes that Tertullian isn't a liar. So the whole reason for doubting the veracity of his citation of Pliny goes down the tubes. He isn't a liar, he was just reliant on stories from Justin. At best, Justin is a liar. Justin does not reference Pliny though, so this means that Tertullian got his reference from elsewhere or made it up, and we have no reason to think he was just randomly making up stories (which I disproved by reference to Justin).

Also, I'm not sure how the second is not cogent either. If Tertullian worked from the work of a scribe who was in Pliny's circle, it would probably increase the chances of him knowing another in that same circle... especially since we know Pliny and Tacitus were close friends, Pliny edited and corrected Tacitus' work and contributed information to it, and more. Of course, I could definitely be wrong here, but I fail to see where my argument is lacking cogency.