Hi Philosopher Jay,PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi All,
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.
I'd like to make a comment on this. On the surface it appears that someone created the edict document from the report in Tertullian. This type of forgery seems to be quite common in the Christian tradition. The modus operandi is something like this:
1) there is a reference to a document in an early source (eg Tertullian).
2) a document is forged on the basis of this early reference.
You have in the past, and in your book "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities", seemed to have focussed upon the figure of Eusebius of Caesarea as very likely suspect for a "Master Forger" behind the scenes. While this may be close to the truth, there are other possibilities which may also need to be investigated in order to explain the sorry state of the document tradition upon which so many people rely for their reconstructions of this "early period".
These other possibilities relate to the epoch between the 4th and as late as the 12th century during which all these documents (it is inferred) have been preserved. It cannot be ruled out that some of these forgeries were perpetrated quite late. For example it is well known that the Pseudo-Isidore forgery of the 9th century (dealing in Latin manuscripts) included over 100 forged letters purporting to be from the first three centuries ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals
- Textual overview
1.The addition of forged material to an earlier, entirely authentic Spanish collection containing texts from councils and papal letters originating in the 4th through 8th centuries—the so-called Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis (the name is derived from a manuscript that was at some time in the French city of Autun, Latin Augustodunum).
2.A collection of falsified legislation of Frankish rulers allegedly from the sixth to the ninth centuries (Capitularies)—the so-called Capitularia Benedicti Levitae—after the name of the alleged author in the collection's introduction: deacon (Latin levita) Benedictus, as he calls himself. The author falsely states that he has simply completed and updated the well-known collection by abbot Ansegis of Fontanelles (died 833).
3.A brief collection on criminal procedure—the so-called Capitula Angilramni—allegedly handed over by Pope Hadrian I to Bishop Angilram of Metz.
4.An extensive collection of approximately 100 forged papal letters, most of which were allegedly written by the Roman bishops of the first three centuries. In the preface to the collection, the author of the collection calls himself bishop Isidorus Mercator (hence the name of the whole complex). Besides the forged letters, the collection contains a large amount of genuine (and partly falsified or interpolated) council texts and papal letters from the fourth to the eighth centuries. The genuine and interpolated material derives predominantly from the Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis.
Therefore although I myself have no real doubt about the figure of Eusebius being a master forger, I have great reservations in attributing the total set of forged documents on Eusebius in the 4th century. The way I am looking at things at the moment is that we are dealing with an organisation - an INDUSTRY - the Christian Church organisation, which itself indulged in "master forgery" in every century between the 4th and the 16th century. The possible motivation for such forgery included the glorification of various pseudo-historical doctrines (e.g. the "Early Period" imperial level discussion of the "tribe of Christians"). In the weaving of a raft of fabricated documents and other literary evidence, the "church organisation" has been able to "PRESERVE" a literary record which is entirely commensurate with its claims.
The over-riding conclusion that I cannot dismiss is that this "church organisation" (irrespective of its earlier existence as some sort of "Divine Institute") became immediately corrupted as soon as it was given a political profile in the 4th century. This corruption is not limited to the forgery of documents and the fabrication of pseudo-historical accounts. Neither is it limited to the political actions of censorship, imprisonment, exile and various forms of "memoriae damnatio". The corruption of the "church industry" must also include things like the torture and execution of so-called heretics and dissidents, the formation of tribunals to conduct inquisitions, the massacre of entire city populations and many other atrocities that have been historically documented between antiquity and the modern epoch.
But back to the "Christian references". Both the Pliny and the Tacitus references are completely unattested until the 14th or 15th centuries when they were both "suddenly discovered" in the "archives" of the church organisation. Why do scholars simply TRUST the "church organisation" at face value with their assessment that such references are "genuine" rather than forgeries by the church? IDK.
So to conclude this comment there has been raised many times the phrase "IN EUSEBIUS WE TRUST". I'd just like to point out that there is a general form of this phrase which is in all probability a lot closer to the mark, and that is "IN THE CHURCH ORGANISATION WE TRUST". In specific cases there is a good likelihood that Eusebius was indeed a "Master Forger". But in the general case, considering the sweep of history and the state of the integrity of the church documents, it is more probably that the "Church Organisation" itself was continuously involved in "Master Forgery".
Keep going Philosopher Jay. I think you are on the right path.
LC
