FathomFFI

It offers no proof of any kind, other than the fact that Christians worshiped someone/something called Christ. All it can be used for is support in the collective of intelligence.

Solitary Man

Sorry, I took posting the Van Voorst stuff as support for Doherty's thesis. Sometimes I get you two confused.

"Van Voorst does not place much weight on this." - You said that.

Great! So long as we agree.

I never said he did. In fact, I've listed Tacitus as the direct evidence for Christ existing. What Pliny shows is that Christians in the early 2nd century CE sang hymns to a man Christ just like they would to a God. Doherty has before used the passage to support his incorrect theory.

Toto

Early first century? Do you mean late first, or early second?

Solitary Man

Sorry, early 2nd.

EarlDoherty

Van Voorst was hardly an appeal to authority, since I used him only to appeal to Sherwin-White. I’m quite sure S-W also had his doctrinal commitments, but at least he was able to see and accept a possible interpretation of Pliny which went against those commitments. Van Voorst simply dismissed it.

SM’s appeal to legal texts is irrelevant. His admission about “primary meaning” acknowledges that there are other applications and understandings. Lest SM fall into the same kind of trap as did Fathom, I am not stating either the fact or the opinion that the phrase in Pliny definitely means a non-supposal. Only that it can, and therefore the statement or opinion in the other direction is not sure, which weakens the claim by those with doctrinal commitments that it indicates Pliny by “Christ” means, or likely means, an historical man named Jesus. Even Van Voorst recognized this and hedged his clear preference by admitting that “we should not place too much weight on this.” That even a scholar with doctrinal commitments would make this admission is revealing, and yet I’m to be ridiculed and implied to be somehow dishonest because I “ironically” point this out about Van Voorst? SM’s ad hominem disposition is showing.

Of course “quasi always implies a difference in subjects.” Supposal or not, it can’t be any other way. The two terms on either side of “quasi” are hardly identical, semantically speaking. If I say, “We should treat Bob as an adult,” even if Bob is an adult, ‘Bob’ is still one category (the individual that he is) and ‘adult’ is another category (the class of humans over the age of whatever). Moreover, that phrase does not tell us whether in fact Bob is an adult or not. In SM’s legal setting, he could be a minor and I am urging the court to try him for a crime as an adult. Or it could be that Bob is in fact an adult, but others are treating him as though he were a child. If the word “as”, in my example, can be ambiguous, then we don’t know one way or the other. Sherwin-White’s point was simply that the word “quasi” is ambiguous, it can be supposal or not (and it doesn’t matter what the proportionate ratio of such usage was). Therefore, there need be no “if” in the translation of Pliny’s statement. That is all I am arguing.

What, are we arguing numbers here? Sherwin-White says: “quasi deo. 'as to god'. In Pliny quasi is used commonly without the idea of supposal.” “Commonly” vs. “vast majority.” Hmmm. I wonder whose word one should accept? Does it matter? In any case, it seems that SM, in his examples, is latching onto every use of the word “quasi” rather than those appearances in which it is used as a word that clearly equates two things. The former have little if anything to say about how he meant it in the Trajan letter. “…as if I had invited the public…” does not link two categories. His “quasi margine arbusta – by a quasi-border of shrubs” is simply a comparative, “shrubs like a border.” The “quasi premium” is saying that ‘an approbation of others is a kind of reward.” That’s a direct identification, not an “as if” and cannot entail that it is not a reward.

As for the two examples given by Sherwin-White, the first is actually supposal entailing a falsity, the trees are reflected so clearly in the water as if they were planted there. (I am not sure whether S-W can be faulted here, since the note (“Cf.”—which means “compare”) in his linked piece does not clearly state that his two examples are examples of “without supposal” or simply comparisons with the contrary.) But let’s look at the other example SM focuses on. Here I will not insult the others on the board by failing to give an English translation as SM did, which was hardly him assuming that everyone is so familiar with Latin that they don’t need one, but rather touting his own knowledge as superior to theirs (or at least wanting to convey that impression) in not needing one himself.

I’m not sure I see how “this defeats Doherty severely.” SM says (sic): “For you see, the names Tacitus and Pliny were belonged to men (homines, g.pl. hominum), but here they were being used as if there [presumably they] were literature itself!” First of all, you will note that dropping the word “if” in the translation above does not affect the meaning. Is Pliny supposed to be saying that we do not belong to literature? What is literature but the people who write it? Is there a distinction being made between the man and his name here? Most importantly, can this possibly be a parallel with the Trajan passage, in which SM would claim that the first category has to signify a man who should not be equated with a god?

“He talks as if he knew everything there is to know.” That clearly implies that his ‘talk’ and ‘knowing everything’ is not a legitimate equation. That is not the kind of idea that Pliny wants to get across in his letter to Tacitus.

However, I do see a degree of “supposal” here, which makes me double my query about Sherwin-White and doubt that he is offering these two examples as support for his statement that “quasi is commonly used without the idea of supposal.” Too bad we can’t confirm that with him.

But all that aside. We need to evaluate the Trajan passage as much on its own merits as on comparison with other usages of “quasi” in Pliny, particularly as the word appears in several different kinds of contexts throughout the letters. No one is saying that Pliny’s phrase is to be literally translated “to Christ their God.” He would have used other words (with no “quasi”) if that is all he wanted to say. My friend John gives me a lot of money. I write a letter “to John as my benefactor.” (Maybe I even sing him a hymn.) John is my benefactor, my “as” links and equates, for those purposes, the two categories on either side. Strictly speaking, the “as” isn’t even necessary; I could have said I wrote a letter “to John, my benefactor.” But I didn’t, and it is quite acceptable for me to have said it as I did. What I would not have said is that I wrote a letter “to John as if to a benefactor,” because that implies that somehow he was not such, or did not deserve to be regarded as such. It would imply that I knew John was really not a benefactor (perhaps he had given me counterfeit money).

Of course, this is the implication that defenders of an HJ want to bring to Pliny’s phrase, that he was referring to someone who was not a god, or did not merit having that assumption brought to him. Whereas “they sang a hymn to Christ as a god” contains no such necessary implication. Why phrase it that way, instead of merely ‘to Christ their God”? For that, we need to consider the nature of the category “Christ.” It was not the same as saying that Mithraists sang a hymn ‘to Mithras their God.’ Everyone knew who Mithras was, that he belonged in the category “god.” To say “to Mithras as a god” would be at best redundant, at worst faintly contradictory since it could convey the idea that it would be possible not to think of Mithras as a god. Do I need go on? Not everyone, certainly not the emperor nor the average Roman, nor probably even Pliny himself before he talked to Christians, would automatically regard “Christ” as a god. In fact, if they knew anything about Jewish messianism, they would definitely think of “Messiah” as a human. Therefore, Pliny would naturally want to convey that the category “Christ” was being treated by the Christians “as”—or even “as if”—he were a god.

When it comes down to it, SM’s objections are really moot, because in the context of Pliny’s statement, neither “as” nor “as if” would have to convey that for Pliny the “Christ” is likely to be a human man.

Earl Doherty

Solitary Man

Oh, I'm so tragically sorry - you appealed to Sherwin-White instead. Big difference.

I highly doubt that Sherwin-White had mythicism in mind when he wrote that very brief note on Pliny. In fact, I think he had some other doctrinal commitment in mind, i.e. that Jesus was God. Oh, but how we love to take things out of context and twist them for our own purposes, eh Doherty? Just like what you do to Paul!

If you notice, I didn't appeal to the legal texts. I explicitly said that Pliny was not a legal text.

I think here you're seriously abusing the nature of Latin words. How many years did you have of Latin again? What did you write your thesis on? Can you show me something substantial instead of wriggling around grasping for straws. Do you have any direct evidence? No?

False. Merely acknowledging the possibility of different interpretations does not negate the strength of the one best supported. That's fallacious reasoning at its best.

Van Voorst is trying to combat the charge that we have evidence of Jesus' existence, of which Pliny is a poor witness. In that regard, it is to be accepted that Pliny is not trying to say one way or another that Jesus was human. But in using quasi he has implied that Jesus was human, and these Christians sing songs to him as if [they were singing a hymn] to a God.

I question Van Voorst's judgment. So going on about it is an appeal to authority - or rather, it's a fake argument from embarrassment. You're trying to say that a Christian with doctrinal commitments couldn't be led astray by faulty reasoning or other authority figures?

Yes! I'm glad that got across to you.

You actually have two options for this one, and it dramatically changes the reasoning. For one, if Bob isn't an adult, then it's a normal use of quasi, that he should be treated in the hypothetical circumstances that he would be an adult (or in plainer English, "as if he were an adult", or merely "as an adult", but the latter one is too ambiguous, and thus why I clarified in the beginning). This one is without direct equation (idea of supposal just isn't used, as far as I can tell).

The second option is that of direct equation. If Bob were an adult, than the use of quasi would imply that Bob isn't being treated as one. So while categorically speaking Bob and adult are equal, the difference lies in the action to Bob and to adults, i.e. though Bob is an adult, other adults are treated differently from Bob.

And finally from the legal texts we get one more, one where Bob (servus) isn't normally an adult (intercessor), but that he acts in the capacity of one. In standard prose, you don't see quasi used that way a lot (check the OLD for yourself). In fact, the only citations I saw in the OLD were of legal texts. I do remember seeing ut or uti used that way.

Not directly, though that can be inferred from the context. And taking from my outline of the two situations seen, in order for Jesus not to be a God, we would not have seen him being treated as one. Now, even I will admit that it's not a surefire thing, but it's what fits the evidence best, in my opinion. And quite frankly, I don't see you putting up anything else.

I disagree. I outlined my reasons. You're relying way too heavily on ignorance. This is unnecessary considering the surrounding circumstances. Remember, quasi isn't the normal word for "as", even though Earl is pretending that it is.

"Sherwin-White says" is not a valid argument. Sherwin-White also says that Jesus died and was raised again on the third day. Sherwin-White also says that there is a God. Appeals to authority are nada.

Actually, I picked the first ones out of book five, which was the first epistle I clicked on when I searching through his works under site:http://thelatinlibrary.com/pliny/ - oh the marvels of Google.

Praemia is the booty or spoils from war. It usually had monetary value. It's like we saying today, "just seeing you smile is my reward". However, when someone sees a sign that says, "Lost Dog: If Found, Big Reward", they're not thinking of seeing them smile as their reward. That is what Pliny is saying here.

Really, Doherty? Really? Does Sherwin-White use cf. anywhere else with examples to the contrary? Does anyone? Standard scholarly literature shows that cf. is to be compared with like examples. I've always seen "for the opposite" vel sim. for comparisons to the contrary.

No, I figured the major players here know Latin. Ben Smith, Roger Pearse, myself, and...you?

What is propria? What does it modify? I'm starting to doubt your Latin, Earl.

Literature is not the people who write it, but what is written by the people. Pliny is happy that their names are being appropriated to literature. In English, it's common to say, "I read Joyce yesterday." (Well, that particular phrase might not be so common, though it should be.) But Joyce isn't actually anything but a dead human. Pliny and Tacitus are people, not literary works. So Pliny is happy to hear that when speaking of the best literature of the times, the questioner automatically asks, "Tacitus or Pliny?"

Yes!

Yes!

This, however, is a false parallel. Now we're speaking of legitimacy, but this is an English idiom, and I'm afraid isn't that obvious from the Latin.

I'm glad that's accepted. I also wonder what Sherwin-White had in mind, because the examples he gives are sloppy to begin with (quasi is not used conjunctively with the first) and ending in the opposite direction.

Why, excellent! If you've forgotten why, see way above.

Yep! So he introduces quasi, which means that Christ isn't actually a God. I'm glad we've cleared this up.

Not on its own, it doesn't. But surrounding context dictates otherwise.

Because I fear we should have seen the Latin differently, if that were the case.

But the mere fact that he used Christo quasi deo is telling enough that he's not directly comparing the two.

A much doubtful assumption. They probably didn't, because they don't mention that they do.

All that typing, Earl, and really all you wanted to convey was that we are ignorant of what he was saying and therefore cannot make a judgment, when in reality it is you who do not know. A pity.

neilgodfrey

As a latecomer to this discussion, one silly question: To whom were hymns sung? What type or class of being?

As for the discussion over the meaning of quasi, I was left with a question mark hanging over the following exchange:

ED says: SM replies: Since SM did not refute ED's statement that there are other applications and understandings of the word, and implied rather that one can only understand the true meaning of the word if one undergoes multiple years of study of the Latin language and writes a doctoral thesis, am I beyond hope of ever understanding the meaning of this word -- and whether (like a good many words) it indeed really can have more than one application and understanding? Or is this knowledge to be reserved for major players who read Joyce and to be kept hidden from anyone who needs a translation?

Alternately, please explain how the statement addressed is a "serious abuse of the nature of Latin words".


Neil Godfrey

Roger Pearse

Earl, quasi usually means "as if"; literally 'qua-si'. I was unaware that there might be some unusual usage here, on which of course I would have no special view. Nor was I taking a position on this, except to ensure that people arguing about a word had access to the Latin.

But is the difference (in English) between "as if to a god" and "as to a god" more than infinitesimal? Is anyone really going to build an argument on the interpretation of a single word, either way? I don't believe that such an argument could be sound.

But probably I don't understand the point at issue.

EarlDoherty

I certainly agree. And I am not presuming to build an argument on "quasi" designed to prove that Pliny must be referring to Christ as a god, but to disqualify those who maintain the opposite, that the "if" indicates Pliny is referring to a Christ whom he knows is not a god. As though the underlying meaning by Pliny is something like: "They worshiped Christ as though he were a god, but of course, sir, we all know that he wasn't, but was rather a crucified criminal."

As for the difference in English, an "if" implies something that in fact is not:

"You are coming me as if I had the answer." This implies I* don't.

Whereas, with no "if," such an implication is not there:

"You are coming to me as having the answer." Which implies that I do, you know it, and I'll give it to you.

[*edited to change "you" to "I", which is what I meant to say]

Earl Doherty

patcleaver

Does quasi apply to whether Christ is god or does it apply to how they honor him.

So in your opinion which of these 4 (or something else) is closest to the the meaning of Pliny in greek.

1. They honor Christ as if he were a god.
2. They honor Christ as a god.
3. They honor Christ as if honoring a god.
4. They honor Christ as they would honor a god.