jgibson000

To Pete:

What is it in Pliny's letter to Trajan (10.96) that's an interpolation? The whole letter?

And what is your evidence/your reason for saying that Pliny's discussion of Christians is an interpolation?

What criteria do you use for determining interpolations in ancient texts?. Are these consistent with the criteria that professional and credentialed historians/classicists use to determine what is and what is not an interpolation in an ancient text?

To everyone else reading this thread:

What do you want to wager that however Pete replies to my questions, it will be a dodge?

JG

mountainman

Constantine was too busy sacking the treasures and wealth
of the Hellenic (pagan = ie: non christian) temples for his
own diverse ends. He already had more than enough of
absolute power.

However we have however a number of citations for
Constantine burning things, including the petitions of
attendees at the Council of Nicaea, probably to remind
them of their precarious position with respect to the
fear of God, a term he uses in the letter about Arius
and Porphyry after the Council, and also in the letter
which he sent to summon the attendees to the council.

The burning of literature in earnest only commenced towards
the end of the fourth century. I understand that the author
Vlasis Rassias obtains most of his citations form the Theodosian
Codex.

He is one of the many ecclesiastical continuators of Eusebius,
and it would not be proper and authodox for him to disagree
with the father-figure of his tax-exempt profession. Would it?

jgibson000

So what? The issue isn't whether he burned things. The issue is what were the specific things he burned and whether the source you cite as saying he issued an edict for the burning of the writings of Porphyry says what you have claimed it says. It doesn't. And it is dishonest to say it does.

You "understand"??? Don't you know? Is this another testimony to the fact that your research is limited to what you find on the internet?

I don't know. Do you? Instead of speculating about what he would or would not do (especially on the basis of yet another speculation, which is all your are really doing), perhaps you'd grace us with providing some actual hard evidence that he did indeed act in the way you think he was likely to have acted.

Can you do this? Or is it the case, as I'll wager is likely, that you've never really read Socrates' HE, let alone made a comparison of his HE with that of Eusebius, or have read any scholarship -- or for that matter anything -- on Socrates' historiographical tendencies to have even the slightest idea of whether your speculation about what he would or would not do is anything more than that, or is even worthy of any kind of consideration, and therefore cannot provide evidence for your clam?

JG

mountainman

Perhaps interpolation is the wrong term with Pliny.
What is the technical term for a subtitution of a word?

If the whole letter is not a fabrication, then the interpolation
is the substitution by the word "christian" of some other word
representing another socio-religious group, for example, the
essenes. You'll note that if you were to substitute "essenes"
for "christians" in Pliny's letter, it fits remarkably well.


To consistently test the hypothesis that Eusebius wrote fiction
it is necessary to be critical of all prenice citations (in the literature
tradition) that claim to provide unambiguous evidence for the
existence of christianity.

There is little or no evidence external to the "literature tradition".
We have the books of the NT and Eusebius telling us that this
tribe of christians existed from the first century, but we have
no bones, no inscriptions that I have looked at, no carbon dating
citations, no sculpture, no art, no coins, no archeological relics,
no citations apart from the "literature tradition", and its associated
handwriting analysis assessments.


I am usually guided by others, such as the myriad of arguments
surrounding the TF, which seek to show it an interpolation. In
ancient texts this will involve direct suggestion by a translator
of the original language, that it is somehow anomalous, or
perhaps ungrammatical, or out of character with the author.

For a recent example of myself and identification of either
interpolation, or an exchange of <<something>> to "christian",
see the thread and arguments contained in
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE).

I had never before been made aware that there was a refernce
to "christians" in this book until I read it, in horror. I posted this
thread to ascertain academic opinion as best as possible. You
will see on this thread, instances of two recent academic
translations of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and both of these
in their footnotes, point to the inclusion of margin notes, that
have been erroneously incorporated as the author's original words.


In other instances, my research must be guided by my hypotheses,
as is usually the case which most researchers.


Yes, as demonstrated in the case of the interpolation (or term
substitution) with respect to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference
to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE).

3DJay

Cite.

"During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made. A limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city." ~ Suetonius (69/75-130 C.E.)

Cite.

One translator thinks it was originally a marginal note? How old is the manuscript, the Vatican has?

Papyrus 46
Papyrus 20
Papyrus 28
Papyrus 45
Papyrus 75
The level of conspiracy, you're implying, seems a bit much.


Peace

mountainman

Perhaps interpolation is not appropriate, and plain
forgery is the more appropriate term?

The most recent citation I can think of for Tacitus and Suetonius
being forgeries is Jay Raskin's The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, chapter one, Eusebius, the master forger.


No, two separate translators.

No idea.

Every single one of the purported papyrii fragments have
been dated by a process known as paleography, handwriting
analysis, and none of these fragments you have listed, not
one of these papyrii fragments has been carbon-dated, or
rather, if it has, the results have not been published.

I have prepared an exceptions register against my own
theory, where evidence such as this appears to be not
consistent. You'll find all these papyrii listed therein.

There are 2 C14 citations with respect to the NT.
1) gThomas binding = 350 CE
2) gJudas binding = 280 +/- 60 CE

Zero NT-related papyrii have been carbon dated.
My position is skeptical, but does not require conspiracy.


Peace.

J-D

What do you mean by these words?

Do you mean that this, out of all the possibilities, is the one you think is correct?

If not, what does 'our take is' mean?

mountainman

The one that is consistent with the hypothesis being considered
(ie: Eusebian fiction) and that is consistent with all evidence available.

I have used that, for example, in the case of Porphyry.
It is remotely possible that Porphyry lived to a very advanced
age in Rome, and survived to meet Constantine in 312 CE.
However I doubt this.

Therefore my take is that, according to the hypothesis, he
could not have written about "christianity" before it was
invented, and that his works ""Against the "Christians" were
in fact written by Eusebius, under order from Constantine.

Once these writings were forged in the name of Porphyry,
Constantine became justified to rightly destroy them.
See this page on Porphyry.

It provides evidence in support of this inference, by way
of a few lines from the history of Eunapius, wrt Porphyry,
namely:

At any rate he left behind him many speculations
that conflict with the books that he had previously published;
with regard to which we can only suppose
that he changed his opinions as he grew older.
He is said to have departed this life in Rome.

J-D

When you say the one that is consistent with all evidence available, do you mean the only one that is consistent with all evidence available, or only one of a number that are consistent with all evidence available? And if you mean the latter, why do you use the expression 'our take is', which implies singularity? If it is only one of a number consistent with all evidence available, what makes it, rather than any of the others, 'our take'?

3DJay

Aren't they also putting forth that there were early christian writings, and they were written by Mary?

Ahhh, my bad...those two are getting linked to the same edition, on both Barnes & Noble and Amazon, one in the title, the other in the author description.
Okay, so two then. There seem to be quite a lot of different translators of Meditations (George Long, Martin Hammond, Alan Jacobs, Michael Chase, C R Haines, G.M.A. Grube, Meric Casaubon, A. S. Farquarson, R. B. Rutherford, David Hicks and C. Scott Hicks, Francis Hutcheson and James Moor, Robin Hard, Russell Kirk, Maxwell Staniforth, Gregory Hays). Plus, likely, many non-English translations.

Is there a general consensus?
Isn't that how many ancient documents are dated?

Inventing a religion, rewriting hundreds of years worth of history, countless forgeries.....how is that not a conspiracy?


Peace