stephan huller

This is the account from 73:4

I see you are wasting other people's times in other forums http://historum.com/ancient-history/...istians-7.html

The archetype was not written at Mount Athos so your point is irrelevant. The problem with your theory is that Xiphilinus didn't just epitomize book 72 (73) but abridges Books 36–80 of Dio from Pompey the Great to Severus Alexander. Since we have some portions of the full text therein we can judge how faithful Xiliphinus's epitome was. According to Peter Michael Swan (The Augustan Succession : An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History p. 36):

"Although he reduces Dio's text severely, Xiphilinus reproduces nearly verbatim what he takes from it (as comparisons made where both texts are extant."

This deluded conspiracy thing has your brain in knots. There is no "there, there" in any of these whispers you plant.

And just to make clear, pious scholars have actually attempted to engage in your line of argument for the exact opposite reason that you do - i.e. they are embarrassed by the reference and want to make it go away to restore dignity to their Christian beliefs. No luck either.

stephan huller

Please stop making empty statements like this. Come back when you actually have something.

mountainman

I sometimes wonder why a bunch of intelligent (and often tenured) people hold such unshakable FAITH WITHOUT EVIDENCE for the transmission of "Christian related" manuscripts from the early centuries of the common era to the 21st century, considering the vast accumulation of evidence for forgery in the intervening centuries (such as the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th etc etc etc).

The answer seems to be a shared "common knowledge" that the history of Christian origins is exactly the way these forged manuscripts represent it to be and that it cannot be any other way. I think there is something drastically wrong with this "common knowledge".

Toto

There's no faith involved. We know that there were forgeries and errors in transmission, and also accurate copyists and accurate transition. You aren't playing the game properly if anything you find inconvenient can be labeled a forgery. You need some sort of theory showing why this particular passage is likely to have been forged. You have not done that so far.

Roger Pearse

Glad to find that it isn't just us who have to endure this stuff.

Would it be kind to post a note in that forum to advise them that he's doing it here?

Sheshbazzar

So it is your position that the 'testimony' of 3rd century CE (or latter) documents ('insulting a third century bishop of Rome') can be employed as 'proof' of what allegedly took place or was believed back in 180 CE ?

Roger Pearse

Depends whether we, living in the 21st century, could possibly be testimony as to what happened in 1980 AD.

But probably I misunderstand the argument.

stephan huller

The Philosophumena is a development of Irenaeus's anti-heretical efforts from the second century. Callistus was redeemed c 180 CE but only became bishop of Rome c 217 CE during the day reign of the notorious transgender Emperor Elagabalus. Brent sees monarchian parallels between the two

aa5874

On your own blog you argue that Irenaeus wrote in the 3rd century. Why are you giving the impression that Irenaeus' anti-heretical efforts are from the second century?

See http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-reign-of.html

As soon as you admitted Irenaeus wrote in the 3rd century then "Against Heresies" is most likely a corrupted source.

You have also admitted the New Testament is a massive forgery to prove primacy.

stephan huller

Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd century