Jeffrey Gibson

Besides that, there have been times when I have stated what I disagree with vis a vis claims Pat has made (his claims about πειράζω for one [see here] and his ability to give an "educated" critique of my article on the Matthean and Lukan WTS [see here] for another). But on those occasions, all we've had from him was exactly what I said was likely we'd have from him.

Jeffrey

patcleaver

Yes, Stark is the best estimate we have, but his number could be off even an order of magnitude at that time would not surprise me.

Yes, this is all conjecture, but that is often all we have about early Christianity.

patcleaver

You started a thread by asking people for their critique and then insulting me specifically by name in your OP.

I gave you a premature critique after skimming your paper, and based on comments by others. What did you expect.

I said I would give you a more educated critique later. I meant more educated with respect the my premature critique.

I read most of your paper and made notes about typographical errors and questions, but when you got insulting I dropped it, and have no plans to continue my review.

Now your on some silly vendetta – as though I cared. Very strange.

Amaleq13

All three sentences make perfect sense as specific examples of how Egyptians are "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor".

All three sentences describe the chaotic lack of specific religious identity that the first sentence establishes as a problem.

This is clearly not true. What you call "Roger's theory" is simply a plain reading of the text.

Thank you for providing, albeit reluctantly, support for this claim. Why you consider the need for it an insult is beyond me.

Accepting Stark's assumptions and your own, I would have to agree that what is described in the letter does not seem consistent.

stonewall1012

It is not exactally true that ALL we have about Christianity is conjecture. Most of this depends upon whom one views as the earliest viable source on early christianity. Those views shift and change... for example until the nag hammadi discovery is was assumed though literary criticism that the "gospel" acount of john couldn't possibly have been from the 1st Century. It was considered too "advanced" theologically to have come from the 1st century. At Nag Hammadi a codex from 200CE was discovered as well as fragments dating from 125 CE. This hard evidence destroyed "literary criticism" that assumed the work was from late second century early third century.

More over this "literary criticism" was touted as "evidence" that the writter of the "gospel of John couldn't have been the apostle.

It is very likely that whomever lived and discarded these documents at Nag hammadi may have been from the very community that the Christians Pliny the Younger was referencing. This gives creedance to the assertion that Plinys writtings about christians was probably not interpolated but actual testimony.

Why should I discard this hard testimony and physical evidence in favor of Starks admittedly conjecture based assertion that the christian community was too small to be noticed?

patcleaver

I agree that he does not have to support his denial of my positive claims. It is up to me to prove my claims or to leave them unproved.

The problem is that Jeff has not denied that my claims are true. I have no reason to think that Jeff disagrees with anything that I have said. When I ask him what he disagrees with, he refuses to tell me. He seems to be asking for proof just to be annoying.

I am not going to waste my time providing support for things that nobody disagrees with. There has to be an actual dispute about something before I am going to spend time providing support. Also, even though he does not need a reason to deny my positive proposition, if he has a reason then he should state it.

I said about Alexandria in 135 CE, Jeffery responds Notice that Jeffery does not deny that my number is correct. He does not say that my number is too high or too low or even that he does not believe that its true. He is not making any arguments or adding to the discussion.
As far as I know, he has the perfect citation from a primary source on his desk looking at it right now, and it says exactly what I claim, and he just wants to waste my time.

This is not an academic paper.
There is no reason for me to support any positive proposition that I state unless there is an actual dispute about whether its true. Someone has to at least deny that its true, and even then, I may choose not to provide support unless its important to me or I care what they think.

spamandham

Having scanned through this thread, this does seem to be the case.

That said, I think he's being intentionally obnoxious because you've taken an untenable and somewhat belligerent stance in regards to the term 'Christian' being applied to worshipers of Serapis.

Reading through your original post in this thread (not sure of the history prior to this thread since it's a split...)

Assuming all your assumptions pan out in regards to growth rates, etc., the proper conclusion is not that 'Christian' referred to worshipers of Serapis, but rather, that the idea anyone in Alexandria was known as a Christian by Hadrian is an anachronism, i.e., Hadrian had never even heard the term 'Christian'. If your assumptions are not correct and Hadrian had heard the term 'Christian', then Roger's interpretation makes more sense.

Just admit your error and move on. You'll earn respect by doing so.

Jeffrey Gibson

How kind of you.

First, the name is Jeffrey, not Jeff, as I've indicated in every message I've sent to you or posted here on this board. (who was it who complained about people not reading messages carefully?).

Second, if you'll go back and review this thread, you'll see that the issue has always been (and it's not just me who thinks so) not whether your claims are true, but whether you can sustain them, i.e., whether you have any evidence of the sort that you yourself demand from others when they make positive claims to even begin to think that your claims are true. So why you think it's a problem that I have not denied what you've been claiming is beyond me.

Yes, indeed, no one would ever have cause to think that what you have written in this thread (not to mention elsewhere) bears any resemblance whatsoever to anything academic, despite your claims to be the only one here following in the methodological footsteps of "true" academics!

Then you have given up all rights to ever complain when someone does not respond to any request that you might make of them to support what they claim. Why should they not get to use the "I deem it too unimportant/unintersting to answer" card that you are now dealing yourself?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you please show me where I have asked Pat for "proof" of his claims. So far as I can see, I've asked him what evidence he bases his conclusions on.

Can you please show me where I've regarded Pat to be taking any stance in regards to the term 'Christian' being applied to worshipers of Serapis?

So far as I can see all I've done vis a vis the terms Serapis and Christ is to ask Pat what his evidence is for his claim that there was a faction of Serapis worshipers who worshiped a pagan deity called "Christ".

I know of none. But that might be due to not having done sufficient research in the area of Serapis cults in Alexandria in the early 2nd century So I'd like to see what evidence he has. After all, he must have some. And it must be good (i.e.. not grounded in "fantasy"). Otherwise, why should he expect anyone, as he apparently does, to accept his claim as "authentic" and "true"?

Jeffrey

spamandham

I'm not aware of any request on your part for "proof" of his claims. I'm only aware of your request for the evidence he bases his claims on, for points that neither you nor anyone else participating in the thread has disagreed with.

The tone of the request comes across as an attempt to wear him down. If that isn't the case, then I retract my observation.

Feel free to enlighten on us all on your reason for the request.