Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia in Regard to our Doctrine. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
XIII.—The Epistle of
Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia in Regard to our
Doctrine.1103
1103 This
edict is undoubtedly spurious. It contradicts all that we know in
regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this
century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impossible to
call it genuine. It is probably a forgery of the second century. It is
found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply a slavish copy
of the other) mss. of Justin; but this is
simply accidental, as it does not belong there, but was appended to the
edict of Hadrian by some late copyist. The edict is now almost
universally acknowledged to be a forgery; compare Overbeck, Studien
zur Gesch. der alt. Kirche, p. 93 sq. Wieseler contends for its
genuineness, but no good critic follows him. |
1. The
Emperor Cæsar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus,1104
1104 Eusebius gives this as an edict of Antoninus Pius, and yet its
inscription assigns it to Marcus Aurelius. Overbeck concludes that
Eusebius was led by internal evidence to assign the rescript to
Antoninus Pius, but that he did not venture to change the inscription
of the original which lay before him. This seems the only possible
explanation, and as Eusebius at any rate was badly confused in regard
to the names of the Antonines, the glaring discrepancy may not have
meant very much to him. In our mss. of Justin
Martyr, where this edict is appended to the first Apology, the
superscription and text are quite different from the form given by
Eusebius. The rescript is in fact assigned there by its superscription
to Antoninus Pius, instead of to Marcus Aurelius. But if that was its
original form, we cannot understand the later change to Marcus
Aurelius, for certainly his authorship is precluded on the very face of
the document; but it is easier to see how it could have been later
assigned to Antonius Pius under the influence of Eusebius’ direct
statement. We have no knowledge of the original Latin of this pretended
edict. Rufinus evidently did not know it, for he translates the
document from the Greek of Eusebius. The text of the edict as given by
Eusebius differs considerably at many points from the text found in the
mss. of Justin, and the variations are such as
can hardly be explained as due merely to copyists’ errors or
alterations. At the same time the two texts are plainly not independent
of each other, and cannot be looked upon as independent translations of
one Latin original. We may perhaps suppose that one text represents the
original translation, the other a revision of it. Whether the revision
was made by a comparison with the original, and thus more accurately
represents it, we cannot tell. If, then, one is a revision of the
other, the form given in the mss. of Justin is
evidently the later, for its statements in more places than one are an
improvement upon those of the other text in point of clearness and
decisiveness. Moreover, as remarked just above, the ascription of the
edict to Antoninus Pius must be later than its ascription to Marcus
Aurelius. | Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, for the
fifteenth time Tribune, for the third time Consul, to the Common
Assembly of Asia, Greeting.
2. I know that the gods also
take care that such persons do not escape detection. For they would
much rather punish those who will not worship them than you
would.
3. But you throw them into
confusion, and while you accuse them of atheism you only confirm them
in the opinion which they hold. It would indeed be more desirable for
them, when accused, to appear to die for their God, than to live.
Wherefore also they come off victorious when they give up their lives
rather than yield obedience to your commands.
4. And in regard to the
earthquakes which have been and are still taking place,1105
1105 Numerous earthquakes took place in Asia Minor and in Rhodes during
the reign of Antoninus Pius, and these, as well as famines and other
occurrences of the kind which were uncomfortably frequent at this time,
were always made the signal for renewed attacks upon the Christians,
who were held by the people in general responsible for these
misfortunes. See Julius Capitolinus’ Vita Antonini Pii,
chap. 9. | it is not improper to admonish you who lose
heart whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare
your conduct with theirs.1106
1106 This
sentence has caused great difficulty. Crusè translates, “But
as to those earthquakes which have taken place and still continue, it
is not out of place to admonish you who are cast down whenever these
happen, that you compare your own deportment with theirs.” Most
of the older translators and, among the moderns, Stigloher, have
translated in the same way; but the Greek of the last clause will not
warrant this construction. The original runs as
follows:…ὑπομνῆσαι
ἀθυμοῦντας
μὲν ὅταν περ᾽
ὦσι,
παραβ€λλοντας
δὲ τὰ
ὑμέτερα πρὸς
τὰ ἐκείνων. Stroth inserts μή before ἀθυμοῦντας, and translates, “Was die Erdbeben betrift, die sich
ereignet haben, und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht für undienlich
euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den Muth nicht sinken
lasst, sondern euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem vergleicht.”
The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must be rejected.
Valesius renders: Cæterum de terræ motibus, qui vel facti
sunt vel etiamnum fiunt, non absurdum videtur vos commonere, qui et
animos abjicitis, quoties hujusmodi casus contingunt, et vestra cum
illorum institutis comparatis; which makes excellent sense and
might be accepted, were it not for the fact that it fails to bring out
adequately the force of μέν and δέ. Heinichen discusses
the passage at length (in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp.
670–674), and translates as follows: Non alienum videtur vos
admonere (corripere) de terræ motibus qui vel fuerunt vel adhuc
sunt, vos qui estis quidem animo abjecto, quoties illi eveniunt, nihilo
autem minus vestram agendi rationem conferre soletis cum illorum.
Overbeck follows Heinichen in his German Translation of the edit
(ibid. p. 127 sqq.), and the translation of Closs is similar. It
seems to be the only rendering which the Greek will properly admit, and
I have therefore felt compelled to adopt it, though I should have
preferred to interpret as Valesius does, had the original
permitted. |
5. They indeed become the more
confident in God, while you, during the whole time, neglect, in
apparent ignorance, the other gods and the worship of the Immortal, and
oppress and persecute even unto death the Christians who worship him.1107
6. But in regard to these
persons, many of the governors of the provinces wrote also to our most
divine father, to whom he wrote in reply that they should not trouble
these people unless it should appear that they were attempting
something affecting the Roman government.1108
1108 Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant to
include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus. See chap. 9, above. |
And to me also many have sent communications concerning these men, but
I have replied to them in the same way that my father did.
7. But if any one still persists
in bringing accusations against any of these people as such, the person
who is accused shall be acquitted of the charge, even if it appear that
he is one of them, but the accuser shall be punished.1109
1109 This
is the climax of the whole. Not only is the accused to be set free, but
the accuser is to be held as guilty! This really goes further than
Constantine. See above, chap. 9, note 4. | Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly
of Asia.”
8. To these things Melito,1110
1110 On
Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1. | bishop of the church of Sardis, and a man
well known at that time, is a witness,1111
1111 Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage from
Melito’s Apology, quoted below, in chap. 26, where Melito
refers to edicts of Antoninus Pius; for had Eusebius referred to
another passage, he would undoubtedly have quoted it. But according to
Melito, the edicts of Antoninus were to prevent any new methods of
procedure against the Christians, i.e. tumultuous proceedings in
opposition to the custom established by Trajan. The edicts of which he
speaks were intended, then, to perpetuate the principles of Trajan,
which had been, since his time, the silent law of the empire upon the
subject. The edicts cannot have been edicts of toleration (even Melito
himself does not regard them so), but edicts against illegal,
tumultuous proceedings, and the accusations of informers, and therefore
quite in the spirit of Trajan. But as the significance of
Trajan’s rescript was entirely misunderstood in the early Church
(see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 6), so it was the common opinion
that the attitude of the State toward the Church was at bottom friendly
to Christianity, and therefore all edicts forbidding the introduction
of new methods were regarded as favorable edicts, as in the present
case by Eusebius. Again, had Melito known of such a favorable edict as
this of Antoninus, he would certainly have called special and
particular attention to it. Melito’s testimony, therefore,
instead of being in favor of the genuineness of this edict, is really
against it. | as
is clear from his words in the Apology which he addressed to the
Emperor Verus in behalf of our doctrine.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|