Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book IV/Chapter 13

The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia in Regard to our Doctrine.

1. Emperor C&#230;sar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, 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. 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&#8217; 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 . of Justin, and the variations are such as can hardly be explained as due merely to copyists&#8217; 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. 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, it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your conduct with theirs. This sentence has caused great difficulty. Crus&#232; translates, &#8220;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.&#8221; 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:&#8230;&#8017;&#960;&#959;&#956;&#957;&#8134;&#963;&#945;&#953; &#7936;&#952;&#965;&#956;&#959;&#8166;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#962; &#956;&#8050;&#957; &#8005;&#964;&#945;&#957; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8125; &#8038;&#963;&#953;, &#960;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#946;&#8364;&#955;&#955;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#962; &#948;&#8050; &#964;&#8048; &#8017;&#956;&#8051;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945; &#960;&#961;&#8056;&#962; &#964;&#8048; &#7952;&#954;&#949;&#8055;&#957;&#969;&#957;. Stroth inserts &#956;&#8053; before &#7936;&#952;&#965;&#956;&#959;&#8166;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#962;, and translates, &#8220;Was die Erdbeben betrift, die sich ereignet haben, und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht f&#252;r undienlich euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den Muth nicht sinken lasst, sondern euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem vergleicht.&#8221; The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must be rejected. Valesius renders: C&#230;terum de terr&#230; 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 &#956;&#8051;&#957; and &#948;&#8051;. Heinichen discusses the passage at length (in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp. 670&#8211;674), and translates as follows: Non alienum videtur vos admonere (corripere) de terr&#230; 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.

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. 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. Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly of Asia.&#8221;

8. To these things Melito, bishop of the church of Sardis, and a man well known at that time, is a witness, as is clear from his words in the Apology which he addressed to the Emperor Verus in behalf of our doctrine.