Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-11-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

We were discussing your assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan were interpolations. You have not provided any positive evidence for this assertion. Your methodological principles do not require you to: that is what is wrong with them.

I went searching for references to Jesus in the
writings of Virgil, and in the writings of Cicero.
Did you think I could find them?

They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.

These skeptics were already known to Origen
"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

J-D · 09-11-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

We were discussing your assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan were interpolations. You have not provided any positive evidence for this assertion. Your methodological principles do not require you to: that is what is wrong with them.

I went searching for references to Jesus in the
writings of Virgil, and in the writings of Cicero.
Did you think I could find them?

They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.

These skeptics were already known to Origen
"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

Are you under the delusion that this constitutes positive evidence for the assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan are interpolations?

mountainman · 09-13-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I went searching for references to Jesus in the
writings of Virgil, and in the writings of Cicero.
Did you think I could find them?

They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.

These skeptics were already known to Origen
"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

Are you under the delusion that this constitutes positive evidence for the assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan are interpolations?

This depends on how you were to define
the word "delusion". Since you used this
term, perhaps you should define it.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 09-13-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Are you under the delusion that this constitutes positive evidence for the assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan are interpolations?

This depends on how you were to define
the word "delusion". Since you used this
term, perhaps you should define it.

Best wishes,

Pete

For the purposes of this discussion, 'erroneous belief' is an adequate definition.

mountainman · 09-14-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

We were discussing your assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan were interpolations. You have not provided any positive evidence for this assertion.

The interpolation of Pliny and Trajan is trivial in the whole
scheme of the christian fabrication of the fourth century.
The interpolator simply substituted "the Jews" with "the
chrestians".

Do you expect to find a signed confession from the
interpolator? Do you expect people who engage in fraud
to document it by leaving positive evidence? Do you
need your head read?

mountainman · 09-14-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

For the purposes of this discussion, 'erroneous belief' is an adequate definition.

Then may I suggest that we agree upon an adequate
background paper in this case, such as perhaps ..

The Question of Forgeries
Dr. Susan Whitfield, The International Dunhuang Project

Quote:

The nineteenth century musician's attitude is closer to that still prevailing in much of China and Japan, where the past is seen 'as a continuous corridor leading to the present.' This attitude is reflected in the architecture, where a building, despite being rebuilt several times, is still labelled as old as the original and, more relevantly here, where collectors mount old manuscripts and add their own colophons and seals. In the urge for classical statuary seen in late eighteenth-century Europe, ancient statues were 'improved' by the addition of missing parts. Throughout the history of manuscripts, they have been likewise 'improved', with owners, whether they be monasteries or private individuals, adding patches, extra sheets, colophons and seals, remounting them, and replacing badly damaged sections with newly copied ones. Like Bach's music, the manuscript is seen as a 'living' object, with each generation having the right to make it relevant to themselves.

The attitude of textual scholars contrasts with paper historians and others who are only interested in the manuscript as an object and may not even be able to read the text. When it come to looking at the manuscripts from the point of view of forgeries, however, it is apparent that they are treated very much as objects — as works of art (a situation very different from Indian manuscripts, as Lancaster points out). As far as we know, the texts of forged manuscripts are not unique or variant: they are simply reproductions of existing texts. The forgers were not concerned to create history — at least, not by producing variant textual sources — nor, it would appear, were they interested in showing off their personal skills. The majority of Dunhuang forgeries were probably made for one reason: money.

I hope you do not object J-D to by embolding
of the final word of the quote, from the background
paper of Dr. Susan Whitfield.

J-D · 09-16-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

We were discussing your assertion that the references to Christians in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan were interpolations. You have not provided any positive evidence for this assertion.

The interpolation of Pliny and Trajan is trivial in the whole
scheme of the christian fabrication of the fourth century.
The interpolator simply substituted "the Jews" with "the
chrestians".

Do you expect to find a signed confession from the
interpolator? Do you expect people who engage in fraud
to document it by leaving positive evidence? Do you
need your head read?

I expect people who make a historical assertion to be prepared to produce some sort of evidence for it. You feel entitled to manufacture historical assertions without feeling any obligation to have any kind of evidence for them. That's what you are doing in this case. That is why I say you are methodologically bankrupt. And when I have raised this point on more than one thread, nobody has been prepared to defend your methodology. As I said before: Give it up, Pete! You're not fooling anybody!

J-D · 09-16-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

For the purposes of this discussion, 'erroneous belief' is an adequate definition.

Then may I suggest that we agree upon an adequate
background paper in this case, such as perhaps ..

The Question of Forgeries
Dr. Susan Whitfield, The International Dunhuang Project

Quote:

The nineteenth century musician's attitude is closer to that still prevailing in much of China and Japan, where the past is seen 'as a continuous corridor leading to the present.' This attitude is reflected in the architecture, where a building, despite being rebuilt several times, is still labelled as old as the original and, more relevantly here, where collectors mount old manuscripts and add their own colophons and seals. In the urge for classical statuary seen in late eighteenth-century Europe, ancient statues were 'improved' by the addition of missing parts. Throughout the history of manuscripts, they have been likewise 'improved', with owners, whether they be monasteries or private individuals, adding patches, extra sheets, colophons and seals, remounting them, and replacing badly damaged sections with newly copied ones. Like Bach's music, the manuscript is seen as a 'living' object, with each generation having the right to make it relevant to themselves.

The attitude of textual scholars contrasts with paper historians and others who are only interested in the manuscript as an object and may not even be able to read the text. When it come to looking at the manuscripts from the point of view of forgeries, however, it is apparent that they are treated very much as objects — as works of art (a situation very different from Indian manuscripts, as Lancaster points out). As far as we know, the texts of forged manuscripts are not unique or variant: they are simply reproductions of existing texts. The forgers were not concerned to create history — at least, not by producing variant textual sources — nor, it would appear, were they interested in showing off their personal skills. The majority of Dunhuang forgeries were probably made for one reason: money.

I hope you do not object J-D to by embolding
of the final word of the quote, from the background
paper of Dr. Susan Whitfield.

I have no objection. I just don't understand why you want to.

The generalisation that forgery occurs (which it undoubtedly does) is not evidence supporting the hypothesis of forgery in any particular case.

I really don't understand how your mind works. I wonder whether anybody does.

mountainman · 09-18-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I really don't understand how your mind works. I wonder whether anybody does.

Did Pre-Nicene Christianity (x) Exist?
the Argument to Ahistoricity (2007)

There are two ways to "prove" ahistoricity: [1]

(1) If you can demonstrate that there is both
(a) insufficient evidence to believe x and
(b) sufficient evidence to disbelieve x,
then it is reasonable to disbelieve x.
This is the "Argument from Silence."

(2) If you can demonstrate that all the evidence
can be far better accounted for by a theory (y)
(Theory y = "Constantine invented christianity")
other than historicity (theory x),
then it is reasonable to believe y and,
consequently, to disbelieve x. This is
the "Argument to the Best Explanation."

[1] Adapted from Did Jesus Exist?
Earl Doherty and the Argument
to Ahistoricity (2002)
Richard Carrier

Johnny Skeptic · 09-18-2007, 07:18 AM

Mountain, perhaps a web site at http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html will help you.

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

09-18-2007, 07:18 AM	#70
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Mountain, perhaps a web site at http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html will help you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.