Roger Pearse

The works of Galen in which the quotations are embedded are preserved in Greek. I don't know anything about the transmission of Galen's works, not least because they fill 20 volumes, and each would have a different tradition. Works are still being discovered. Something like 20% of all Greek literature preserved from before 400 AD (?) is supposedly the work of Galen. So the subject is vast, and much of it unstudied.

There is confusion in here. The two citations are not preserved in works of Galen at all. They are quoted by the Arab medical historian, Ibn Abi Usaibia, in his "History of Physicians". I found a translation of that and uploaded it here (go right to the bottom of the page).

Whether these quotations are really by Galen, or just material that had crept into the tradition by that point -- Arabic texts are funny things -- I wouldn't venture to say. But Galen was translated into Arabic wholesale, and some of his texts exist in Arabic, where the Greek is lost.

Note that you should find my page much more specific on sources than Walzer or Peter Kirby's page (taken from Walzer). This is because Walzer is hopelessly vague, and I got very frustrated, trying to pin down where, specifically, the "quotes" came from. Hence the page.

There are six references, NB.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Stuart

You are correct on the non-Christians seen as Christians, but you place it in the wrong era, about a hundred years too soon.

Two quick points.

1. Simon Magus as a character explodes on the literary scene with the Ant-Manichean literature sometime late in the 3rd century. The association with Marcionism is via The Mani followers use of the antithesis against the Christians, who are by the late 3rd century more dominated by "orthodoxy". Most likely Simon Magus is used as a fill in for Mani in the Clementines

2. There is good reasons to suspect that Justin's Apology 1.26 (which is most of what you quote in [b]) is largely a later interpolation. Like Irenaeus AH 1.23 there is an unusual appeal to NT scripture as source, specifically Acts, which does not fit the style or content of the rest of the work. In Justin there is the Sancto Simoni error (ΣΙMΩΝΙ ΔΕΩ ΣΑΓΚΤΩ), which suggests a writer from the eastern part of the empire after 274 CE - I would add 20 years to that for people to forget the details of Rome in the east and not challenge such an error (same reason I date Matthew 17:24-27 at least 20 years after Nerva lifted Fiscis Iudaicus ... need that long a time to forget it wasn't in force before the Temple fell). In Justin, if you also exclude the last sentence of 1.25 (mentions devils) then 1.25 flows nicely into 1.27 about not exposing children to the debauchery of temple prostitution without a digression into Marcion via Simon Magus.

Placing these passages in the very early 4th century fits the battle with the Manichean sect (not Christians but seen as Christians) and the growing battle to become the State religion.

(Note: In Irenaeus the most suspect are 1.26.1, most of the first sentence of 1.26.2, 1.26.4, and likely part of 1.26.5 ... much of the rest looks like typical Irenaeus description of a gnostic sect, which may have been another name, or even Menander, from the 2nd century)

OPINION:

Irenaeus and Justin above are examples of what I call "yellow light" source material. There are clear signs of not being from the original author, but it has not yet been rigorously demonstrated and acknowledged by the mainstream that they are interpolations. Its not just a green light to use if not a red light (accepted) on sources. They need to be checked and rechecked.

We should always make note and be upfront with the use of questionable material. Recently I looked into the Bar Kokhba revolt and discovered that the Christian and even some of the Jewish accounts are at complete odds with the archeological findings in the last 50 years around Israel and the West Bank. It turns out the Romans never built anything on the Temple Mount, and that Eusubius and Dio (as we have it) were wrong, and so are many other accounts. The revolt was very contained to an area of the Judaean hill country, south of Aelia Capitolina, north of Masada, and never reached the Coast or even Samaria. It was a post-War fiction that Bar Kosiba called himself the messiah, ditto that he took Jerusalem even for a day (or even tried), and ditto much that was said about Akiba. The evidence the Israeli archeologists found suggest an economic based revolt, due to taxes to support the construction of Roman projects that did nothing for Judea.

The example of Aelia Capitolina and Bar Kokhba shows the problem of perception which is created by the later interpolations and additions or changes to the text. The corruption of sources like Justin and Irenaeus who are late 2nd century church fathers, shows the depth of the problem.

Minimalist

Why would Galen not write such words as they are disparaging of xtians?

More to the point, why would a xtian scribe invent such a forgery? It would be like saying: "Look, the greatest medical mind of the age thinks we're idiots. Yay for our side!" It doesn't make sense.

aa5874

The answer to your question is extremely basic.

If an xtian attempts to write the History of the Church and cannot find any references to 'Christians' by non-apologetic sources then it makes sense for such a writer to INSERT the word 'Christian' giving the appearance that Galen knew of Christians when he actually did not.

Non-apologetic writings which contain the word 'Christian' may have been manipulated

Tacitus Annals and Josephus Antiquities of the Jews each contain the word 'Christian' and are well known blatant forgeries.

Minimalist

But aa, IF (big if) you are going to do that why would you not say something like "xtians are wonderful people."

Lucian of Samosata and Celsus had already started picking on xtian doctrine and xtians themselves. If you are going to forge something make it good. The Testimoniam Flavianum is a magnificent example of how to forge something. You'll note that it does not say "jesus was full of shit and so are all his followers."

mountainman

This is an interesting point in itself. Thanks. I too have read about the dominance of the Galen's writings when compared to the whole of preserved literature from antiquity.

Many of these treatises by early scholars are terribly vague and waffle-like.

The link provided by Toto is in the same category:

Its by M. Sprengling, Volume: 21, The American Journal of Theology.

After swimming through immense vagueries the author states a number of times that the source of all the Arabic writings is from the 6th century and named as John the Grammarian, of Alexandria. This seems to point to John Philoponus

A review of R.Walzer's work "Galen on Jews and Christians" in Classical Philology > Vol. 46, No. 3, Jul., 1951 by G. E. von Grunebaum (Pages 197-198) basically states the same thing regarding the Arabic sources ....

So as you have pointed out we should note that the Arabic sources are not the works of Galen but rather a (lost) "Life of Galen" which seems to have been written in the late 6th century.



Yes thanks Roger, but the first two appear to be related to only Moses and do not mention the Christians at all, whereas the other following four references have the references to Christians. I was for the moment just focusing on the mention of Christians in the works of Galen, and have therefore momentarily disregarded the first two references to Moses.

aa5874

The TF is not a good example of a good forgery. The TF was too good to be true.

My argument is not that Galen did NOT write the word Christian but that it cannot be presumed that all mention of the word Christian in the 2nd century referred to the Jesus cult.

2nd century Jesus cult writers SPECIFICALLY claimed some called Christians were Magicians, and Atheists who blasphemed the name of Christ.

Up to this very day, people do NOT presume ONLY Roman Catholics were called Christians in antiquity.

Marcion and the Marcionites were called Christians in the 2nd century.

Marcion the Christian preached ANOTHER God and Another Son.

Justin' First Apology Against Heresies, Refutation Against All Heresies and Prescription Against the Heretics were composed to show that there were people called Christians who did NOT BELIEVE the Jesus story.

mountainman

I have listed 4 references to Christians claimed to have been written by Galen and certainly the first three of these are quite disparaging (See the OP).

One solution to this question is that a non Christian inserted these references to Christians into the books of Galen well after the 4th century. I have shown above that the Arabic sources which contain these "quotes" appear to be all sourced from a 6th century source John Philoponus aka John the Grammarian.

However the 4th of the 4 references is not in the same category ...

The 4th reference states the opposite sense, and appears to praise the Christians as the highest minded virtuous people on the planet. As I have mentioned, it looks like the classic case of a "Testimonium Galenium"

Galen ... says at the end of his summary of Plato's Republic:

"In the religious community of the followers of Christ there are most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue; and this is to be seen not only in their men but in their women as well."

And I see that he admires them for their virtue, and although he is a man whose position is known and whose opposition to Judaism and Christianity is manifest and clear to everybody who has studied his books and knows what he states in them, he nevertheless cannot deny the excellent qualities which the Christians display in their virtuous activities."

This reference is the type that looks like the "Testimonium Flavianum" and could have been written by Eusebius. The only reason I think this could not have been written by Eusebius is because Eusebius never mentions it and, if it had existed in the 4th century, or if he invented it, then Eusebius would have mentioned it.

Like the Christians are "most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue"?

mountainman

The Galenic Question
By John Scarborough (1981)

Here is the introduction to this article and the first footnote ...

contains occasional passages of sheer historical nonsense,

e. g. p. 16: "[Galen became] the personal physician of the emperor Marcus Aurelius,
who was quite in favour of the new Christian religion."

So here we have yet another references to Christians in the books of Galen which is not included in the reviews mentioned in the OP. It may be considered a 5th reference. But immediately it has been assailed as "sheer historical nonsense".

mountainman

The pagan witnesses to Christians prior to the pagans accepting the Christian holy writ as the governing light of the Roman empire do not number in the hundreds. They are a surprisingly small number when they are listed according their CLAIMED AUTHORSHIP. Here is a non-exhaustive list, so feel free to add any pagan (i.e. "non Christian) author I have overlooked ...




List of "pagan" (non-Christian) authors who mention "Christians" before Nicaea

• Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
  
• King Agbar of Edessa - the letter to Big J.
  
• Seneca - the wonderful correspondence with "Dear Paul"
  
• Tacitus - Annals 15:44,
  
• Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.
  
• Pliny the Younger - Plinius, Ep 10:97; a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan
  
• Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript) -
  
• Epictetus - the Galilaeans
  
• Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3
  
• Galen - Being discussed in this thread Does Galen mention Christians?
  
• Cassius Dio - Being discussed in another thread Does Cassius Dio mention Christians?
  
• Celsus: known only via the refutation of Origen as preserved by Eusebius
  
• Julius Africanus - Chronologer used by Eusebius, whom Eusebius "corrects" by 300 years. Mentions Christians?
  
• Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
  
• Porphyry - Ascetic pythagorean/Platonist academic and preserver of the writings of Plotinus.

There may be others ....

Lampridius relates to the Historia Augusta and as such is 4th century.

You have failed to cite a reference to your claim of Herodian.


So you see the situation is far from impossible that we really have no pagan witnesses to Christians before the Council of Nicaea. I am not making this claim without being responsible and examining the sources. I see that this is required in order to perform a rational appraisal of this question. So there is no need to continue and subject my efforts to ridicule unless you can come back with some sort of reasonable citation from the sources.

LATE NOTE: Some kind of Bayesian analysis seems to suggest itself to this analysis. I have been thinking about what form it might take, and if anyone has any suggestions please feel free to outline them.

Bayes' Theorem for Everyone 01 - Introduction