Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2013, 02:23 PM

Origen certainly read Josephus, because he quotes him 4 times at least. Since Josephus is only quoted 13 times in literature before 325, that is a lot. More to the point, Origen is one of the very few people to quote from Antiquities 11-20 (Antiquities was transmitted in two halves). See these very old notes of my own:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Eusebius, Eusebius......it does sound somewhat fishy that a consultant or historian has so much impact beyond that of specific leaders. Who knows, maybe Eusebius was just a pseudonym for a collection of writers commissioned by the leadership of the Empire, including leaders themselves. You know, like Mark Twain was Samuel Clemens, or better yet, Franklin W. Dixon, the alleged author of the Hardy Boys books, but who was actually half a dozen different writers........

The reason is extremely simple; Eusebius invented the habit of verbatim quotation of sources. His works are studded with them. He also compiled the first church history. The two make him indispensable.

For instance, books 11-15 of the Praeparatio Evangelica are actually a rather nice primer of Greek philosophy, all quoted from mainly lost sources.

mountainman · 09-12-2013, 03:14 PM

Those who wish to argue for the authenticity of these two quotes making reference to "Moses and Christ" in Galen's work "On the Pulse" really need to address the following issues ...

(1) Galen's works (including "on the pulse") have not been critically edited.

(2) Galen's works have unavoidably been transformed and/or deteriorated during the different stages of their transmission.

(3) Galen's Greek texts rarely go back beyond the 12th century.

First printed editions of Galen - at the Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Médecine of Paris (BIU Santé)

Quote:

21 volumes (plus an index volume) of C.G Kühn's edition published in Leipzig from 1821 till 1833.

The approximate 20 000 pages of this edition (to which one refers to , as far as concerns Galen's treatises) have never had, as a whole, any critical edition ; and it excludes numerous treatises which were not kept in Greek but in their translation . An important part of Galen's work has not come down to us or has been passed on only in the Latin , Arabic and very rarely Hebrew translations . Nearly entirely lost is the majority of his philosophical and ethical works as well as important commentaries on the treatises of Hippocratus. For example , on Hippocratus' treatise "Upon air, water and situations", a treatise lost to us in Greek but surviving in Arabic . In fact, all kinds of situations coexist : some treatises, kept in Greek, have been translated both in Latin and Arabic ; other ones , lost in Greek, have been preserved only in medieval Latin translations, as in the case of "Subfiguratio empirica" ; others have been kept only in Arabic, whereas some others still have been lost in Greek, Latin and Arabic.

There is a paradox : these main medical works which represent an eighth of the whole Greek literature from Homer till the end of the second century of our era, seriously lack, for the majority of them, critical editions and their French translations. The Kühn edition, which will still remain irreplaceable for a long time, lacks both critical apparatus (except one) and/or a translation into a modern language. Let's hope that in the future there will be more scientific editions of Galen's works. It is indeed a very big task, but any initiative aiming to facilitate access to the very large Galenic corpus must be welcomed and sustained. In this sense, one can be glad that the Medical University Library of Paris (BIU Santé) has started a scannerisation programme of the main Galen editions.

Galen's texts, in the form which they came down to us, and as we are able to read them today in Kühn edition, have unavoidably been transformed and/or deteriorated during the different stages of their transmission.

Moreover, the quite recent tradition of Galen's Greek texts rarely goes back beyond the 12th century.

J-D · 09-12-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

UNKNOWN evidence cannot be used to develop an hypothesis.

DATA FIRST--THEN HYPOTHESIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Scientists can clock on at 9:00 am and work a 9 hour day and then clock off and in that period of time generate more data that you and I could poke a stick at in 9 lifetimes. Historians do not have that luxury. Every few years another new data item may be discovered from the period in antiquity we are discussing.

We have the data already. It is not going to change all that much. It is our attitude to the data that actually changes. This attitude is isomorphic to the hypotheses we allow ourselves to create and maintain, to test and retest, with respect to the available data evidence.

The absence of evidence can be used to develop a hypothesis.

In fact a hypothesis may be developed in the absence of evidence IFF (if and only if) it does not conflict with any known evidence.

You cannot develop an hypothesis about antiquity from a BLANK SHEET of paper.

Science theories are not really much different to developing an hypothesis about the past because ALL hypotheses NEED DATA FIRST.

You MUST FIRST have DATA. There must FIRST be some data-- some written statement-- some artifact, some archaeological find--some observation--some evidence.

The absence of certain details from the actual collected data can be used to develop an hypothesis.

For example, I cannot argue that my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was NOT an Eskimo because of NO or unknown evidence.

I can only develop such an hypothesis AFTER I have actually collected some kind of evidence for my great.......grandfather.

One analyses actual data NOT blank sheets of paper.

We can develop hypotheses about the Jesus cult since we have recovered the Dead Sea Scrolls, NT manuscripts, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, the Codices and other Dated evidence.

Paleographers have examined NT manuscripts and have dated them BEFORE the 4th century so it cannot be successfully argued that the Jesus cult did NOT exist before the 4th century whether or not Galen mentioned Christians.

However, whether or not Galen mentioned Christians, it can be easily argued that there was NO Jesus cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Galen writings are compatible with the recovered DATED NT manuscripts.

There are a lot of data points available about biology in general and human biology in particular. When we combine with that the additional data point that I exist, we are justified in drawing the conclusion that I had at least one great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, and also that it's extremely probable (although not absolutely certain) that I had more than one.

When we add to that the additional data points that show that some people are Inuits while other people aren't, it is reasonable to ask whether I had a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather who was an Inuit. Now, if we had some data about my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (any of them, if there was more than one), it would obviously be relevant to that question. But even without any specific data about my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, there are still other data points that are relevant to the question. There's a lot of data available about human movements into and out of the area inhabited by Inuits, and they provide a solid basis for the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely--although not absolutely impossible--that I have (or had, depending on how you prefer to express it) an Inuit great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

If our data points include manuscripts of an ancient text, and also reliable information about the dates when those manuscripts were committed to writing, then we are justified in concluding that the text was originally composed no later than date X, where date X is the date assigned to whichever manuscript has been dated as the oldest. However, we are not justified in concluding that the text was originally composed at date X. The possibility of original composition at an earlier date, maybe even a much earlier date, is still consistent with the data.

If we want to explore the question of how long (if at all) before date X the text was originally composed, then other data points apart from the dates of the surviving manuscripts may be relevant, depending on what the text is and what those other data points are. There's no valid methodological ground for discarding all other data as automatically irrelevant to the question regardless of its nature.

J-D · 09-12-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Those who wish to argue for the authenticity of these two quotes making reference to "Moses and Christ" in Galen's work "On the Pulse" really need to address the following issues

What about those who wish to argue for the inauthenticity of those two quotes? What issues do they really need to address?

aa5874 · 09-12-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The reason is extremely simple; Eusebius invented the habit of verbatim quotation of sources. His works are studded with them. He also compiled the first church history. The two make him indispensable.

Your claim that Eusebius compiled the first church history is a fallacy. Church History attributed to Eusebius is a source of fiction, forgeries and false attribution.

What makes Church History indispensable is the fact that it mentions many many fabricated accounts, forgeries and false attributed writings under the name of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James , Jude, Marcion, Josephus, Pliny and others.

mountainman · 09-12-2013, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

UNKNOWN evidence cannot be used to develop an hypothesis.

DATA FIRST--THEN HYPOTHESIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Scientists can clock on at 9:00 am and work a 9 hour day and then clock off and in that period of time generate more data that you and I could poke a stick at in 9 lifetimes. Historians do not have that luxury. Every few years another new data item may be discovered from the period in antiquity we are discussing.

We have the data already. It is not going to change all that much. It is our attitude to the data that actually changes. This attitude is isomorphic to the hypotheses we allow ourselves to create and maintain, to test and retest, with respect to the available data evidence.

The absence of evidence can be used to develop a hypothesis.

In fact a hypothesis may be developed in the absence of evidence IFF (if and only if) it does not conflict with any known evidence.

You cannot develop an hypothesis about antiquity from a BLANK SHEET of paper.

I have already stated that we have the data already. Many people have looked at this data very carefully and have come to different conclusions, sometimes diametrically opposed. I suggest that they have all subscribed to various differing hypotheses about the same data.

Quote:

The absence of certain details from the actual collected data can be used to develop an hypothesis.

For example, I cannot argue that my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was NOT an Eskimo because of NO or unknown evidence.

I can only develop such an hypothesis AFTER I have actually collected some kind of evidence for my great.......grandfather.

But it is a fact that you do not have one great, great, great, great, great grandfather, since it is quite likely (if my maths is correct) that you have 64 great, great, great, great, great grandfathers.

I think we may be straying from the OP.

mountainman · 09-12-2013, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am provisionally accepting the hypothesis that Cyril authored "Contra Julian" as true.

]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What about the forgery mill??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius oversighted the production of Bible codices for Constantine and moonlighted writing history and martyrologies. Athanasius oversighted the production of Bible codices for Constantius and moonlighted writing hagiography and "Against Arius". Then along came Julian.

Writings attributed to Apologetics that mention activities of Constantine are likely to be forgeries or manipulated sources.

The major ancient sources for the history of the Council of Nicaea and the rule of Constantine (excluding Eusebius) are derived from three 5th century heresiological writers: Socrates (303 to 439 CE), Sozomenus (303 to 421 CE) and Theodoretus (303 to 428 CE).

Quote:

It would have been the Bishop of Rome who would be expected to handle such matters as the History of the Church and the oversight of Bible Codices--not Eusebius.

Who was Eusebius anyway??

Your guess is as good as mine. His "Church History" was listed as ANATHEMA and among the apocryphal literature in the Decretum Gelasianum.

Quote:

Examine the admitted forgery called the "Donation of Constantine". You will now see that it is claimed Constantine acknowledged Sylvester as the highest pontiff in the Roman Church--Not Eusebius.

The Donation of Constantine is featured as part of the 9th century Pseudo-Isidore forgery.

Quote:

As soon as you admitted there was a forgery mill then you don't really know who wrote anything in antiquity.

I reject that this is necessarily the case and must insist that the investigation be permitted to continue.

Investigators who examine cases of forgery do not all throw their hands in the air and admit nothing may be known. The massive ecclesiastical forgery case of Pseudo-Isidore in the 9th century was finally proved and ostensibly solved by David Blondel in the 17th century, but modern scholars are still gathering up more evidence.

mountainman · 09-12-2013, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

...... I wish to inquire if you have considered that Origen --> Pamphilus-->Eusebius-->Jerome could simply be the work of Jerome?

Very few people consider this possibility and the main reason for this oversight is that the subject matter relating to the transmission
Jesus --> Apostles --> "Church Fathers" --> Origen --> Pamphilus-->Eusebius-->Jerome
is normally dealt with by taking a degree in Theology or some equivalent.

Quote:

When you write, "It is clear that Origen..." my eyes glaze over.

How is that "clear" to you? Upon which manuscript evidence do you rely, to acquire that conviction? Is that the opinion of Epiphanius, upon whom you rely, to hold with such confidence this belief about what Origen had read? Then, I would ask, which manuscript of Epiphanius do you employ to acquire such an opinion?

All good questions Sam. Most practicing "Biblical Scholars" hold to be true the hypothesis that there were ORIGINAL manuscripts written by all these people from Jesus --> Apostles --> "Church Fathers" --> Origen --> Pamphilus-->Eusebius-->Jerome and that the texts we read today in English translations may be traced back to the epoch of "Early Christian Origins".

This hypothesis may not be true. I for one consider this hypothesis to be false.

The question as to whether Galen mentions Christians is a microcosm in this vast macrocosm. We find many people asserting Galen mentions Christians on the basis of the appearance of the words "Moses and Christ" in one of Galen's works "On the Pulse", but who really knows whether this was written by the hand of Galen or whether it was introduced in the interim period, say during the 9th century.

For example have a look at the current thread Is an unpleasant quote I've seen attributed to Augustine genuine which exemplifies the way that some false attributions may appear in the record.

mountainman · 09-12-2013, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Those who wish to argue for the authenticity of these two quotes making reference to "Moses and Christ" in Galen's work "On the Pulse" really need to address the following issues:

(1) Galen's works (including "on the pulse") have not been critically edited.

(2) Galen's works have unavoidably been transformed and/or deteriorated during the different stages of their transmission.

(3) Galen's Greek texts rarely go back beyond the 12th century.

What about those who wish to argue for the inauthenticity of those two quotes? What issues do they really need to address?

(4) Who was responsible for the insertion of this phrase into Galen's work "On the Pulse"? WHEN, WHERE, WHY

(5) What was the motive, means and opportunity for this corruption of Galen?

And particularly ....

(6) Who is the first to notice and make comment - and in which century - on the (derogatory) comments in Galen's "On the Pulse" about "the followers of Moses and Christ"?

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

09-12-2013, 02:23 PM	#91
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Origen certainly read Josephus, because he quotes him 4 times at least. Since Josephus is only quoted 13 times in literature before 325, that is a lot. More to the point, Origen is one of the very few people to quote from Antiquities 11-20 (Antiquities was transmitted in two halves). See these very old notes of my own: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.