avi

Did he copy, or, translate and copy? Was the version which he brought with him, already translated ino Ge'ez? How did Garima acquire proficiency with Ge'ez, living his whole life in Greek speaking Constantinople? Why would he need to replicate the text? Why would he need to perform that translation in Ethiopia, instead of Constantinople?

apparently:
Nary a peep about Paul.

avi

mountainman

The fact that Paul may be missing does not really influence the fact that our best guess may be that Garima had access to a copy of, or one of the fifty original Constantine Bibles. The three oldest Greek codices are presumed to be in this category. With such a great issue perhaps 170 years earlier c.325 CE, many containing the Eusebian Canon Tables, and with the Eusebian canon tables being - Eusebian - we should be safe enough to suspect that Garima found a Constantine Bible in the City of Constantine and used it to make his Ethiopian translation.

How else can we envisage these Garima codices being produced?

DCHindley

WRT "Deaconesses",

Pliny's Latin actually calls these two ministrae, which translates as "a female attendant, maid-servant; a female assistant or minister, at religious worship."

The masculine form is minister, "an attendant, waiter, servant; also a priest's attendant or assistant; likewise an inferior officer, underofficial; hence, transf., an aider in a good or bad sense, a furtherer, promoter, helper, an abettor, accomplice."

B. mĭnistra , ae, f., a female attendant, maid-servant; a female assistant or minister, at religious worship (class. only in the trop. signif.).
1. Lit.: una ministrarum, Ov. M. 9, 90 ; 306; 14, 705: accipiat missas apta ministra notas, Ov. A. A. 3, 470 : ara deae certe tremuit, pariente ministrā, i. e. the Vestal Sylvia, id. F. 3, 47 .--Also among Christians: ancillae, quae ministrae dicebantur, i. e. deaconesses, Plin. Ep. 10, 97, 8.--
2. Trop., a servant, handmaid; in a bad sense, an aider, accessory, abettor: ministra et famula corporis res familiaris, Cic. Tusc. 1, 31, 75 : voluptatum satellites et ministrae, id. Fin. 2, 12, 37 : Camilla delegit pacisque bonas bellique ministras, Verg. A. 11, 658 .

DCH (lunchtime, boss)

avi

Thank you very much DCH, your input is ALWAYS welcome. You have, in my limited experience, generated interesting, informative, educational, and productive posts, thanks so much for participating, in the current thread.

With regard to this question of the proper English translation of the Latin "Ministrae", may I ask a couple of questions?

a. with regard to the Greek diakonos. I understand folks' desire to cite the English word deaconess, back into Greek, what I don't understand is how one gets from ministrae in Latin, to diakonos in Greek? Are the two words synonyms?

b. Is there any other word, in Latin, that one would have used, in Pliny's time, to indicate servant, rather than "Deacon" (or "deaconess")?

In other words, I think I can be refuted, simply enough, by someone who knows Latin, as I surely do not, by nothing more complex than explaining WHY deaconess is preferred to servant, for Pliny's Latin, written in Pliny's era, not our own.

I think I grasp, maybe not, the theoretical, ecclesiastical argument, which would have us translate this phrase as deaconess, rather than servant, but, I am interested in learning, instead, what folks in Pliny's time would have imagined about these two gals, apparently executed by Pliny, upon encountering this word, ministrae, in Latin, in a letter? Is Pliny really boasting that he executed a pair of junior level church officials, rather than simply placing the two servants/minor church officials under observation?

Is there some other, perhaps less erudite term, used in Latin, in those days, to represent the concept of servant, as distinct from the notion of "assistant pastor", a relatively lofty position, which implies a generous amount of respect for female intelligence, an intelligence which we today acknowledge without hesitation, but which, in my uneducated opinion, did not prevail in the time of Pliny?

avi

DCHindley

Yes they are.

According to Cornelii Schrevelii's Lexicon Manuale Graeco-Latinum et Latino-Graecum, entry for minister (ministra was not listed), the word corresponds to UPHRETHS (a rower/sailor; any laborer, assistant, servant, inferior officer, which was loaned to Latin directly as apparitor), DIAKONOS (a servant, waiting man; messenger), or - and here comes the sh*t for the fan - QERAPEUWN (one who waits on, attends, serves).

He "only" tortured them. Apparently, under Roman law, the only way testimony from a slave was considered admissible in court, was if the statement was obtained/confirmed under torture. It is not said what their fate was. Those who persisted in their profession of the name were "led away". This turn of phrase, apparently, is assumed to imply "led away for execution", but I think the punishment would differ depending upon the status of the person. Romans would be beheaded or sometimes banished, Non-Romans and slaves would, I suppose, be crucified.

I think what seems to have been implied is that these two held positions in the cult that had a technical term that corresponded with Latin ministra. Pontus/Bithynia was in Asia Minor, which would normally use Greek, not Latin, so I am going to make the not too unreasonable assumption that these two cult members had a Greek technical name. Even so, Pliny says some were Roman citizens, who might reasonably be expected to use Latin unless we are dealing with a non-Latin speaking person who has been granted Roman citizenship (there were many Greeks and Barbarians who held this honor).

DCH

avi

Thank you.

Thank you, again. Very nice work.
Much appreciated.....

I am resolved, until someone comes along, perhaps someone feeling the need to step on my head, someone who knows both LATIN, AND culture of 1st-2nd century Roman Empire administration, to regard this matter as concluded in favor of my interpretation: Pliny's letter may well be fake, but if not, I still do not accept the idea that the correct English word to describe the two gals, is Deaconess. They were servants, nothing more.

You may be absolutely correct, Pete. I may be full of bologna, as usual.

Here's my argument AGAINST the theory, that Garima used one of the 50 Constantine bibles, to prepare his translation of the four gospels:

a. Not a peep about Paul.

b. According to Bruce Metzger, the Garima gospels contain the long ending of Mark. This is not the case, in my opinion, for Codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, (reputedly two of the set of fifty) but it is the case for codex W, copied about half a century after the fifty bibles had been generated....(Did Metzger read/write Ge'ez?--how did Metzger know where Mark ended?)

Looks to me, as though Pere Garima used a LATER Greek version, by which time, the long ending had become standard, though, that still does not account for the absence of Paul.....

Some practical questions: How tough was it, in those days, to arrange a ferry ride from Aden to Djibouti? The map looks as though there is but a short distance between the horn of Africa and the Arabian peninsula, something like the Bosporus, for example, however, what about pirates? currents, sea worthy vessels?

What kind of chore would it have been for this citizen of Constantinople to march into Northern Ethiopia, having crossed the sea from Arabia?
Do we possess any travelogues from two thousand years ago, regarding this particular safari? Would he have been accompanied by a few dozen soldiers, for protection? Is it possible that Paul was left off, to conserve space/weight. Carrying all this gear up a mountain, without elephants, may have been very challenging, maybe they needed to lighten the load......

avi

rlogan

Were this male (minister) you would not be straining yourself so hard to pretend the female version is lesser than the male counterpart.

Pretty biased. It is an official, not merely an attendee, no matter how hard you try to pretend so. A "lesser" official, but an official nevertheless.

The passage has not been used by me to assert anything other than that women, by Pliny's letter, hold non-layman positions.

The response is this very weak "Oh but they were lesser officials"

So what?

I don't read anything from aa and it appears you are basing your theory on something he wrote.

Glancing at it though gives the appearance he has not even read Pliny's letter. The prohibition was against secret societies, not against Christianity.

DCHindley

The key phrase is this: "I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses."

"Who were called" indicates that the following word was a technical term in their cult. The link to the earlier discussion that Toto has posted in this thread talks a bit about the technical terms used by "voluntary associations" in the Roman imperial period.

That translation is at fault for reading into Pliny's Latin a technical term employed by Paul, rather than simply translating it as "two female slaves who were called ministrae". Then there should have been a footnote translating the term ministrae into English and perhaps suggesting that it represented this or that word in Greek, on the assumption that Greek, not Latin, probably represented the language of these cult members.

If you look at some of my older posts here you will find that I complain sometimes about the way Christian scholars tend to "hijack" events that have even the most tangential relationship to Christians to make them refer to Christianity.

This would include Suetonius' "Chrestus" who caused disturbances under Claudius, because Acts says Aquila had been expelled from Rome along with other Jews.*

Few scholars think that Christ is being referred to when Cicero complains to a friend that he sends him letters relating mundane matters like the crimes of "Chrestus".**

How about Tacitus' scapegoat "Christians" singled out for extra special punishments? What, Christians (capital "C") can be the only ones ever to have been given this designation?

How about the elevation of the Clement who wrote 1 Clement into a Roman noble, Titus Flavius Clemens, a Consul who was a great-nephew of the Roman Emperor Vespasian and married to Vespasian's granddaughter Flavia Domitilla? Flavius Clemens, a Consul, was suddenly executed by super paranoid Domitian on a flimsy pretense according to Suetonius, and Cassius Dio later says he was executed because he and his wife had adopted Jewish ways. Many Christian scholars like to assume that these "Jewish ways" were really Christian ways, because the 3rd century Clementine Recognitions/Homilies suggest this, but I think this is really just wishful thinking. Talmudic tradition portrays Clemens as a Jewish sympathizer.***

DCH

*Acts 18:2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.

**Cicero, to M. Caelius Rufus (at Rome) from Athens, 6 July [sometime between 62 & 43 BCE]: What! Do you suppose that I meant you to send me an account of gladiatorial matches, of postponements of trials, of robberies by Chrestus, and such things as, when I am at Rome, nobody ventures to retail to me?

***Suetonius' Life of Domitian 15: Finally he executed, suddenly and on some trivial pretext, his own cousin, Flavius Clemens, just before the completion of a consulship; though Clemens was a man of despicable idleness [i.e., not the type to plot against Domitian], and Domitian had previously named Flavius' two small sons as his heirs and changed their names to Vespasian and Domitian.

Cassius Dio Roman History 67.14.1-3: 1 And the same year [ca 95 CE] Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. 2 The charge brought against them both was that of atheism ["aqeoths"], a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways [ta twn Ioudaiwn] were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. 3 Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.

mountainman

Hi avi,

Not necessarily, since there cannot be any absolute certainty with such little data.

A very interesting point. When does the long version of Mark start to appear in the Greek texts? I dont know the answer to this.

This seems quite reasonable.

rlogan

You're hardly alone there! They've done way more than that with the Testimonium Flavianum: inserted in whole a forged passage pertaining to events that never happened at all.

In the cases of forgery, each case is made individually on the basis of motive, means, opportunity, textual analysis and etc.

We don't say that since some passages are clearly forged that something inconvenient to us has also been forged. You have to make the case for that forgery and in the case of Pliny/Trajan exchange there is nothing even remotely resembling what the Christians did in the TF or Tacitus for example.

I don't want to repeat myself on that but rather point out the invalidity of the "logic" that since one thing was forged we can indiscriminantly point to whatever we want and say "forgery!"