mountainman

Neither a forgery or an interpolation?
"Innocent"(?) addition of Christian tradition(s) ...

Political Analogy: Christian epitomes of Pagan History vs Republican epitomes of Democrat History

Imagine a scenario which instead of pagan and Christian histories we have Republican and Democrat histories. Xiphilinus is appointed by the Republican Emperor (seven centuries after the Republican Party became "legalised") to write an epitome of Democrat history (prior to the "legalisation" of the Republican Party). It is quite within the bounds of feasibility that Xiphilinus incorporates a few tid-bits of Republican historical tradition into his epitome of Cassius Dio's Democrat history.

Cassius Dio's Democrat history was held in very high regard by everyone.

Does anyone here appreciate the political analogy above?

If not are there any criticisms to be made of it?



This explicit question as to whether Cassius Dio mentions Christians may be taken for granted by some people, as "common knowledge" by others, as a "consensus of opinion" by others .......

I have taken the liberty of reposting this from James The Least

stephan huller

Blah blah blah. Nothing here. Wasting everyone's time. Your theory is dead. RIP

mountainman

analogies via politics are lost on textual critics

stephan huller

the reality of the existence of manuscripts which disprove a silly theory is lost on mountainman

Toto

It doesn't make any sense, but that is perhaps because you are not that familiar with American politics?

There are comparable analogies in American historiography. Certain American Christians have tried to rewrite American history to make the founding fathers evangelical, believing Christians. But this involves outright, obvious fictions (such as George Washington and the cherry tree) or actual forged documents (such as George Washington's prayer book.)

.

Or just accepted by those who read the document and don't see a reason to reject it.

These are stirring words. Unfortunately, Michael Crichton was something of a nutcase on the issue in question, global warming, and wanted to reject the growing consensus in favor of that theory. But the consensus in science of usually correct, because it is based on numerous observations repeated in laboratories or experiments in different countries.

Historians who talk about a consensus rarely have the same robust collection of data behind their claimed consensus opinions.

aa5874

You seem to be implying that historians are nut cases as soon as you admitted that they do not have the same robust collection of data which is needed to have well developed theories.

It is quite shocking to me when some so-called historians use the Bible as historical data for a character described as the product of a Ghost and a virgin.

In any event, the claim that there were Jesus cult Christians soldiers in the Roman Army in the 2nd century is basically a load of crap.

It is completely absurd that people who worshiped a supposed Jew as a God, the Creator and Messianic ruler would be allowed in the Roman Army. The Romans typically executed followers of those who claimed to be Jewish Messianic rulers or false prophets.

First of all, Christians of the Jesus cult were operating in SECRET based on writings of the Jesus cult.

In Origen's "Against Celsus" 1, the very first thing that Celsus claimed is that Jesus cult Christians violated the Laws and were meeting in secret.

Against Celsus 1 The Jesus cult of Christians were afraid that they would be killed if it was known that they were identified as Christians.

Now examine 'Against Celsus' 1.3In the same "Against Celsus" 8, Origen admitted that Jesus cult Christians had no need to kill people or to fight in any war.

Against Celsus 8

Toto

You seem to not understand English.

watersbeak

I hope to avoid being similarly lost. Can you specify one of these "manuscripts", which confirm that "Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd century"?

I don't require an armful of citations. One will suffice. Thank you.

Sam

stephan huller

Oh God. Is this the future of atheism?

Toto

Hello Sam:

Unfortunately, you are walking into the middle of a long standing debate that everyone else is tired of.

There are no original documents from the second century, but there are sufficient pieces of evidence to disprove Pete's notion that Christianity was invented when the emperor Constantine told Eusebius to forge the entire Christian canon. We don't know why Pete is clinging to this theory., which requires rejecting paleographic dating of manuscripts and several other improbabilities.

I don't know if anyone can actually prove that Irenaeus wrote in the late second century, as opposed to someone in the third century forging a document in his name, which might not even have been Irenaeus.

What is your interest in this?