Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-14-2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The bottom line is that we go back to the evidence that the Philosophumena and the Epitome of Cassius Dio represent two different witnesses to Marcia being closely associated with the Christians at Rome. This helps explain Irenaeus's statement that many of 'faith' were at the Imperial court writing as he was in the very same period (c. 185 - 190 CE).

Again, the Philosophumena precisely stated that Marcia was a concubine of Commodus.

A concubine is an active fornicator.

In effect, the Philosophumena, associated Marcia with the WICKED and UNGODLY.

In the Philosophemuna, Fornicators and adulterers are associated with wickedness.

Littlejohn · 09-14-2013, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

'tavolino' - from tavola? little table?
.

.
Yes, little table. It's a Italian way to say, to mean something not spontaneously born, but on a specific project.

.

Littlejohn · 09-14-2013, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...This helps explain Irenaeus's statement that many of 'faith' were at the Imperial court writing as he was in the very same period (c. 185 - 190 CE).
.

.
Tanks you!..

Another exceptional testimony which thou hast provided me in support of my insights, such as that of 'many gospels' written by Luke' (see Irenaeus)

Greetings

.

stephan huller · 09-14-2013, 12:39 PM

There's an example of the diminutive having implications beyond merely signifying "something small." Americans don't understand that everyone in antiquity didn't just "think in English." It should be a rule - don't speak a second language, shut the f ... up

Littlejohn · 09-14-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There's an example of the diminutive having implications beyond merely signifying "something small." Americans don't understand that everyone in antiquity didn't just "think in English." It should be a rule - don't speak a second language, shut the f ... up

.
Yes, you're right ...

The syntactic constructions of the periods of the speeches in English, reflects this way of thinking 'English'. One way to us Mediterranean peoples quite alien ...

.

stephan huller · 09-14-2013, 01:45 PM

Yes from my limited experience it is often stunning how reliant languages are on familiar 'idioms.' It's a dead give away that the person doesn't really speak the language.

mountainman · 09-15-2013, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't find any of this nonsense useful in determining whether John Xiphilinus read the Philosophumena while writing the Epitome of Dio Cassius.

If you think anything about this epoch (or earlier epochs) can be satisfactorily determined with absolute certainty then you're crazy, because we can only attempt to reconstruct history using a massive series of parallel possibilities (i.e. probabilities).

Quote:

We know he had the writings of Dio Cassius in front of him and where we possess the original material from Dio Cassius the epitome is 'almost verbatim' (see comment above). Why then should we accept the idea that in this one section of text which contradicts mountainman's thesis that John Xiphilinus broke convention and added an idea from a document no one - including himself - ever saw, ever used, ever quoted, ever cited?

(1) Xiphilinus had the entire literary resources of Byzantium and the Emperor at his disposal.

(2) Xiphilinus tells us he had other books (e.g Eusebius'sd Church History) before him.

(3) Xiphilinus freely adds Christian legends to his epitomes of Books 70 and 72.

(4) There is no evidence to suggest that Xiphilinus never saw the Philosophumena.

Quote:

Why is the argument that .... the document [was] somewhere in the Byzantine Empire a plausible coincidence?.

It is a plausible possibility rather than an impossibility.

stephan huller · 09-15-2013, 04:26 PM

Quote:

If you think anything about this epoch (or earlier epochs) can be satisfactorily determined with absolute certainty then you're crazy, because we can only attempt to reconstruct history using a massive series of parallel possibilities (i.e. probabilities).

No only a crazy - or a wickedly dishonest - person would offer a defense of an unsubstantiated claim that MANUSCRIPT A was dependent on MANUSCRIPT B 'because the two manuscripts existed at the same time in two different warehouses' It's incredible that you could come up with something so stupid and pretend your theory is perfectly workable. You've simply given up pretending to study history. By using the 'any manuscript that existed at the same time as another manuscript' argument for proving literary dependence you could disprove any historical event. You have to provide some sort of evidence to establish borrowing from A to B. This isn't even fun any more. It was one thing when you just looked desperate. Now you prove yourself totally dishonest. Shame on you Pete.

mountainman · 09-15-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

If you think anything about this epoch (or earlier epochs) can be satisfactorily determined with absolute certainty then you're crazy, because we can only attempt to reconstruct history using a massive series of parallel possibilities (i.e. probabilities).

No only a crazy - or a wickedly dishonest - person would offer a defense of an unsubstantiated claim that MANUSCRIPT A was dependent on MANUSCRIPT B 'because the two manuscripts existed at the same time in two different warehouses'

The claim is not that they existed in two different warehouses.

Quote:

You have to provide some sort of evidence to establish borrowing from A to B.

The claim is that they were both available to Xiphilinus in the same imperial archive at Constantinople in the 11th century

stephan huller · 09-15-2013, 07:39 PM

That's so dishonest you should be ashamed of yourself. There is no evidence for the Philosophumena outside of Mount Athos - period. It wasn't known or used by anyone - ever. Just admit it. You're just making stuff up

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2013, 12:39 PM	#244
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There's an example of the diminutive having implications beyond merely signifying "something small." Americans don't understand that everyone in antiquity didn't just "think in English." It should be a rule - don't speak a second language, shut the f ... up

09-14-2013, 01:45 PM	#246
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes from my limited experience it is often stunning how reliant languages are on familiar 'idioms.' It's a dead give away that the person doesn't really speak the language.

09-15-2013, 07:39 PM	#250
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	That's so dishonest you should be ashamed of yourself. There is no evidence for the Philosophumena outside of Mount Athos - period. It wasn't known or used by anyone - ever. Just admit it. You're just making stuff up

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.