andrewcriddle

I think Tertullian must have written some form of "as God"

In the Greek translation of Tertullian quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History Book 3 chapter 33 we have "hymn Christ as [a] God" TON ChRISTON ThEOU DIKHN hUMNEIN. ThEOU DIKHN being literally "after the manner of God".

Andrew Criddle

gstafleu

(My bold)

He does? Can it not be that Pliny simply thinks Christ is not a god? Or maybe a "false god"? I'm not sure what necessitates the conclusion that Pliny thought of Christ as a man, the passage under discussion does not seem sufficient for that. Maybe there is other evidence that Pliny thought of Christ as a man? In that case it would be reasonable to assume that Pliny also thinks of Christ as a man in this passage, but lacking that the most we can say is that Pliny may have doubted Christ's divinity--whether he was a man, a cow, or simply something that didn't (as far as Pliny was concerned) exist.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Censoring is an awfully strong word, especially as Tertullian is only paraphrasing anyway.

Ben.

No Robots

Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion, the "X" makes it sound cool.-Bender.

Maybe I should say Xorship.

EarlDoherty

Some interesting observations from all of you. Thanks.

We have, of course, to presume that Tertullian automatically regarded Pliny as assuming that the "Christ" he is referring to was a man. I don't think it would have crossed his mind at the end of the 2nd century that Pliny's use of "quasi" could possibly be taken to mean that for him "Christ" had been anything other than a man. So I don't think he would have 'censored' Pliny by eliminating the "quasi" on account of a possible undesirable connotation.

It's probably just a case of a lack of accurate familiarity with the original on Tertullian's part. What one wants to read into that is one's own prerogative. Of course, he's so wound up in those first few chaptes of the Apology about the injustice of Christian persecution, it would be no wonder if he got a few wires crossed.

(I wonder how that impression Tertullian creates of the anti-Christian situation of his day (it's like he's living in a slasher movie) sits with those who claim that the whole persecution thing before Diocletian has been vastly exaggerated and even misrepresented by early Christians.)

Earl Doherty

Roger Pearse

Not least since he's in danger of being arrested himself (Scorpiace 1:1).

But I think we all know how the revisionism ploy for doing down our foes works these days by playing down whatever misfortunes have afflicted him; and likewise the reverse revisionism, of painting our own group as perennial victims in order to stifle criticism and allow us to advance our claims for privileges. Neither should influence us, IMHO.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Interesting indeed. Possibly the text of the Apologeticum is corrupt at that point. There is no ms. witness before 800, and there is a suggestion that this work of Tertullian may have been interfered with in Carolingian times in the interest of making it easier to understand. However the alternative text, of the Fulda recension, is not different:

I've now gone to look at the CSEL edition of this work. "Christo et deo" is given, as the witness of all the manuscripts, including the lost Fulda manuscript which displayed a rather different text; "Christo ut deo" is given as the reading in a manuscript collated by Heraldus. The apparatus gives Pliny "quasi deo", Eusebius QEOU DIKHN, and Jerome's Chronicle for 2124 AA (108 AD) as "christum ut deum":

Latin:

a Plinius Secundus, cum quamdam provinciam regeret, et in magistratu suo plurimos Christianorum interfecisset, multitudine eorum perterritus, quaesivit a Trajano, quid facto opus esset, nuntians ei, Praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi, et antelucanos coetus ad canendum cuidam Christo ut Deo, nihil apud eos reperiri. Praeterea ad confoederandam disciplinam, vetari ab his homicidia, furta, adulteria, latrocinia, et his similia. Ad quae commotus Trajanus rescribit: "Hoc genus quidem inquirendum non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere." Tertullianus refert in Apologetico.

English:

a When Pliny the Younger was ruling a certain province and had put to death many Christians in his capacity as governor, he became frightened by their great numbers and sought from Trajan what he should do, reporting to him that, except for their stubborn refusal to sacrifice and their predawn gatherings to sing to a certain Christ as to a god, there was nothing (unusual) to be found among them. Furthermore, in order to be united in a common way of life, they forbid themselves to commit murder, theft, adultery, robbery, and the like. Disturbed by these things, Trajan wrote back: "This kind of people should not be sought out, but when they are brought before you, it is fitting for them to be punished." Tertullian refers to all this in his Apology.

This would tend to suggest that the text is correct as it has reached us.

I suppose possibly the Greek translation of the Apologeticum used by Eusebius might have used some Greek translation of Pliny's Letters to help out at that point; but there seems no need to suppose so. The translator of this didn't understand Latin idioms such as cum maxime according to Harnack, so clearly was no great Latinist.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

EarlDoherty

There are people here (like Roger and Andrew) who are much more textual experts than I am. I have a two-part question I'm hoping someone can answer.

It is my understanding that, apart from fragments, there are no extant manuscripts of Pliny's letters. And that none of those fragments include our Letter to Trajan. The earliest witness to the latter is the printed edition of the 16th century, with whatever manuscript(s) that was based on being lost.

We've discussed earlier about certain Christian writings that refer to parts of Pliny's letters, either in direct or indirect quote. We've seen that they use either "Christo et Deo" or "Christo ut Deo". But are there any ancient Christian writings that witness to the phrase in our extant Pliny: "Christo quasi deo"?

Thanks,
Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

See http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/pliny/pliny_mss.htm

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Book 10 of the letters existed in 1500 in a copy actually written before 500 AD, at a time when there were still emperors in the west. The manuscript had spent the middle ages at the great abbey of Saint Victor in France.

Ca. 1500 a scholar in Paris made a handwritten copy of book 10 which is still extant.

A few years later the famous Venetian printer Aldus Manutius obtained the Saint Victor manuscript, and printed the text from it. Unfortunately he then chopped the ancient codex up for binding materials -- hey, parchment costs money! --, as was commonplace at the time. A few leaves survive today, none from book 10. If we had any decent inventory of old books, we might find some more as endleaves.

This is a rather good textual tradition, if we think about it; our text is based on an ancient manuscript with only one copy standing in between. Most ancient texts are presumed to be contained in copies of copies of copies of an ancient codex.

Pity that Aldus wasn't more careful, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse