aa5874

I have just read 'a letter' (10.96-97) from 'Pliny the younger' to Trajan the Emperor about the prosecution of Christians. www.earlychristianwritings.com/

The problem I am having with the letter from Pliny the younger is that Pliny appears not to have even heard of Christians or what a Christian is, that is their customs or beliefs, even though further in his letter he claims Christianity was growing rapidly.

It is odd to me that the so-called Christians are being charged or held for violating some law and Pliny has to torture and interrogate some of them to find out if Christianity is a crime.

Letter from Pliny the younger Why would Pliny the younger have Christians excuted and then ask for advice on how to prosecute them?

I would imagine that there were clear laws laid down as to the illegality of Christianity and Pliny must have known these laws and Pliny must have ,at least, heard of the executions of Christians in the region and would be aware of this new phenomena.


Has there been any analysis on this letter for it's authenticity?

Ben C Smith

Pliny admits that he has never been present at the trial of a Christian. He nowhere avers or implies that he has never heard of a Christian.

That is right. As what he would regard as a silly eastern superstition, Christianity would hold absolutely no interest for him unless duty compelled him to investigate its content.

I think they are being charged with being members of an illegal association.

This I doubt. The Neronian persecution, I think, did little more than establish that Christians were fair game in a pinch. The Domitianic persecution is something of a phantom. The law under which Pliny claims he is prosecuting Christians is a general law against political associations. I do not think the law at this time necessarily singled out Christianity in particular... yet, though I am of course open to correction on that score.

Pliny does not describe the phenomenon itself as new; in fact, he describes it as at least twenty-five years old. What he describes as new is his exposure to it close-up and personal, in a legal environment.

Yes. Lightfoot, for one. I would start with the page at the Tertullian Project that deals with the Tertullianic reference to this Plinian letter.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I think that there is a scholarly literature on this, but I have not seen it. The following is off the top of my head from ancient sources, but of course I would welcome corrections. The basic problem seems to be that, while we know that Christianity was a crime in some manner, we know very little about exactly how, or how this came about. Indeed it might be that it happened sort of by default. At the same time we need to remember that the Roman empire was not a modern state, was quite loosely organised, and that the proconsul's main duty was to keep things quiet and keep the money coming in. He had quite a free rein to achieve this.

Now Tertullian makes clear in the Apologeticum that it was the *name* of "Christian" was criminal. It seems that it didn't matter judicially what this actually involved, which, as Pliny indicates and Tertullian says, people really didn't know much about. This is illustrated also in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs many of the defendants say only "Christianus sum" (I am a Christian) which is an admission of guilt on a capital charge.

Tertullian also tells us that this criminal status was a creation of Nero (institutum Neronianum in the Ad Nationes, although some scholars have supposed him mistaken, and he doesn't repeat the charge in the revised version of the same book, the Apologeticum).

That the relation between the Roman state and the Christians did indeed change in some way that reign seems to me fairly clear. We do know of the first actual state-sponsored attacks, after all! In Acts, Christianity is merely a form of Judaism (a religio licita) although there are Jewish attempts to get it treated as non-Jewish and so technically illegal, and the Roman officials are friends and Roman law an ally. (I have read that Nero's mistress Poppaea was Jewish, which if so may be relevant). Compare this to the tone of Revelation, and the "Whore of Babylon"! No later text can take such a relaxed view until the days of Constantine.

Was it merely a question of political associations? I have my doubts, but am willing to hear different. But of course the key feature of Christianity being illegal was the refusal to participate in the state sacrifices, and this nominal act -- so considered by pagans -- was considered to be a political one. Willingness to sacrifice was the distinction, as Pliny suggests, and as the existing certificates of sacrifice from Egypt in the Great Persecution under Diocletian bear witness.

The Roman position may well have evolved ad hoc. Is it relevant that Tertullian taunts the pagans that their gods are only gods if the senate says so, and cites the example of Alburnus? After all, there may have been no specific law. If Christianity was not a Roman cult, and refused to be identified with one, and refused to participate in civic religious observances, then was it not by definition illegal without further legislation being required? (I'm not sure whether we know).

Pliny is clearly aware that Christianity is illegal per se, but seems to know little more of it. The reason that he has to deal with it is that people have been informed against (delatio) as being Christians; and he then found that more informations were laid as a result of his investigation. (Pliny must have shivered somewhat at the whole idea of delation, given his experiences under Domitian, and probably Trajan remembered the same). Did such accusations involve the property of the accused being handed over to the accuser, as in a case of maiestas under Domitian? (Anyone?)

Lactantius tells us that a manual of procedure and punishments to be applied to Christians formed book 7 of Ulpian's De officiis proconsularis, but like most texts of the 2nd century jurists this is lost. No doubt it consisted of a compilation of rescripts including that of Trajan.

Just my thoughts. Correct me where I'm wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

One issue that probably should be mentioned is the manuscript transmission for this part of Pliny the Younger's works. Pliny's Letters travelled down the centuries in 9-book and 10-book collections. But the great late-5th century Italian manuscript from the Abbey of St. Victor, which alone contained book 10, is no longer with us. It was destroyed apart from a few leaves when it came into the hands of the printer Aldus Manutius (although various transcripts were made before he saw it, and he printed his edition from it). The only child manuscript that contained this book is mutilated. So to the best of my knowledge no ancient or medieval manuscript now preserves the text of Pliny's letters to Trajan.

Not that this devalues them; but it's worth remembering.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Well if he had never been present at the trial of Christians, why does he order some to be executed and then ask for advice later.

The letter from Pliny the younger starts this way; It is difficult for me to understand why a person in doubt would order the death penalty for a silly superstition.


Pliny does not describe Christianity as 25 years old, he merely reports to Trajan the Emperor, that some claimed that they had ceased being Christians as much as 25 years ago, and this was through an informer.
Pliny the Younger Further in the letter we read that Pliny had tortured at least two female slaves to gather more information about political associations.

And after all that, execution and torture, we read
Now this is odd to me, what exactly did Pliny want advice on, the torture or the executions?

Roger Pearse

He does tell us this, you know. It's because he believes that their refusal to comply diminishes his authority -- who are they to refuse his order? --, and he has the power to execute people who are rebellious, except for Roman citizens.

Whenever we find something we don't understand, it's a flag that reminds us that the ancient world is not ours, and that most of us have no real insight into how they thought about things.

No, we read that he tortured the two deaconesses to find out what they believed, as part of his investigation.

The letter itself in the first two paragraphs makes clear what he wants to know and why.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

He follows what he perceives to be standard procedure (and what Trajan ends up largely confirming as standard procedure), then has second thoughts because he is unable to associate any concrete crimes with the sect (and eliminating crimes, after all, would have been the main point of the law against political associations). Even those who were perfectly willing to curse Christ and affirm that they had abandoned the sect had nothing to say about its criminal activities.

From a modern democratic laissez faire point of view, it is difficult for me to understand too. But involvement in illegal political associations was a capital offense at that time, understandable or not.

Yes, exactly. The description that Pliny offers implies that Christianity was at least 25 years old.

Well, their names were supplied by the informer; the information that they had ceased being Christians 25 years before was their own. The text reads:

Alii ab indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt, fuisse quidem sed desisse, quidam ante triennium, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante viginti.

Others who were named by that informer said that they were Christians, and then denied it, that they had been [Christians] but had ceased, some of them three years, others many years, and a few as much as twenty-five years ago.

It is not the informer, but rather the former Christians themselves saying that they had been Christians and then ceased to be three, many, or as much as twenty-five years ago.

Pliny tells us why he is seeking advice. In fact, he gives several reasons. He wants to know at least (A) whether age matters in the prosecution, (B) whether he has been doing the right thing so far, and (C) whether the name Christian itself is enough or it is necessary to find evidence of criminal activity.

(Reading between the lines, he probably also wants to cover his tail in case his prosecutions end up nabbing someone with connections or inciting a riot or the like. Recall how Pilate was made to answer for his handling of the Samaritan affair. However, he is not really taking any chances in writing to Trajan at this stage of the game, since it was not yet likely that Trajan or anybody else would be upset at how he had handled noncitizens so far; remember that he is sending the Roman citizens to Rome, as is proper. But only something major, I think, could get him into trouble over how he treated noncitizens.)

Ben.

aa5874

However, it is definitely not Pliny the younger who claims that some were Christians twenty-five years ago.



As far as I understand the Jewish people did not worship the Gods of the Romans and they were not executed. If you read writings of Josephus, we see the Jews, before the desruction of the Temple, were still allowed to carry out their rituals and the Jews even caused a commotion when Pilate tried to bring in statues to be worshipped.

In Matthew 21:41, Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25, ' .... Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's'.

If the Christians are paying their taxes, why are they being persecuted? Weren't the Jews granted some manner of religous freedom, why are Christians treated differently?

There are other problems with the prosecution of Christians, if we examine Pliny's letter, these non-roman citizens, were they Jewish, why is it there is no mention of nationality of the Christians?

I am trying to read between the lines but the letters are extremely fuzzy.

Ben C Smith

It is not his claim. I agree. He does certainly seem to believe them; their testimony is the reason he is having second thoughts.

That is correct. The Jews were considered an ancient (and even venerable) religion, not a political association.

Absolutely true.

Because they are part of what is considered an illegal political association.

(There is more. Good Roman subjects in the eastern part of the empire called Caesar king; Christians called Jesus king. Good eastern Roman subjects called Caesar lord; Christians called Jesus lord. Good eastern Roman subjects called Augustus the son of god; Christians called Jesus the son of God. Good eastern Roman subjects called Augustus a savior; Christians called Jesus a savior. Good eastern Roman subjects said that the birth of Augustus was the beginning of good tidings for the world, the pax Romana; Christians said that the death and resurrection, sometimes the birth, of Jesus was the beginning of good tidings for the world.)

As long as they were not Roman citizens, why would their nationality matter? I do not follow you.

They become clearer (though not necessarily ever transparent) as one compares them to the historical backdrop.

Ben.

yalla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger

I find it strange that such an experienced jurist and bureacrat as Pliny would be seeking advice in an area which he is likely to have been more informed than most other persons in the Roman Empire.
It would be more likely for the emperor to have asked Pliny just who these Christians were and what they were on about, from a legal point of view, than the reverse.
From Wiki:
"Effectively, Pliny crossed all the principal fields of the organization of the early Roman Empire."
Pliny was 3 times a member of Trajan's judicial council, an ex-presiding judge, had been active in cases involving the trials of provincial governors and had served in a range of imperial positions that would be likely to give him legal contact with Christians.
Few persons could have been expected to have known more about Christians and their relationship to Roman law than Pliny, yet he is the one asking for advice.
Strange.