Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-02-2013, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, Eusebius did NOT write the TF.

If Eusebius did live and did die BEFORE 355 CE then he did NOT write the TF.

The TF was most likely forged AFTER c 360 CE.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

aa5874 · 09-02-2013, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, Eusebius did NOT write the TF.

If Eusebius did live and did die BEFORE 355 CE then he did NOT write the TF.

The TF was most likely forged AFTER c 360 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

I really don't know where you get that. The Church History makes glowing reference to Constantine's son, Crispus. Since Crispus was executed ( for treason?) in 326 it would indicate that Eusebius finished it in 325 at the latest.

What evidence are you claiming?

And no, it wasn't written for me. It was written because of a glaring lack of historical references to the godboy which must have been embarrassing to the church fathers who were concocting this story. There are other examples such as the Gospel of Nicodemus which is dated to the mid 4th century, too. A coincidence? If you like coincidences.

My argument is the "TF" [Antiquities of the Jews 18.8.3] was composed AFTER c 355 CE.

Parts of Church History may have been written before c 355 CE but it would appear that the "TF" was not known up to the time of Julian the Emperor.

Julian knew of no well known author of the 1st century who wrote of Jesus and Paul.

Julian the Emperor of Rome wrote "Against the Galileans" c 362 CE.

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

...But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius.

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

aa5874 · 09-03-2013, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, Eusebius did NOT write the TF.

If Eusebius did live and did die BEFORE 355 CE then he did NOT write the TF.

The TF was most likely forged AFTER c 360 CE.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

I used the existing evidence from antiquity.

Examine "Against the Galilean" attributed to Julian the Emperor.

Julian knew of no well known writer who mentioned Jesus and Paul when writings about the time period of Tiberius and Claudius.

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio wrote about the time of Tiberius and Claudius and wrote NOTHING of Jesus and Paul.

Julian the Emperor also knew of writings of Eusebius so should have known of the TF where Josephus supposedly wrote of Jesus.

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Now, when Julian mentioned Eusebius it was in reference to the "Preparation of the Gospel"---Not "Church History"

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

...And yet the wretched Eusebius will have it that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them, and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic....

Eusebius' Preparation of the Gospel'

Quote:

There would also be found among them poems in metre, like the great Song of Moses and David's 118th Psalm, composed in what the Greeks call heroic metre. At least it is said that these are hexameters, consisting of sixteen syllables: also their other compositions in verse are said to consist of trimeter and tetrameter lines, according to the sound of their own language.

There is no indication in the existing writings of Julian that he knew of Eusebius' Church History" and the 'TF' up to at least c 362 CE.

mountainman · 09-03-2013, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, Eusebius did NOT write the TF.

If Eusebius did live and did die BEFORE 355 CE then he did NOT write the TF.

The TF was most likely forged AFTER c 360 CE.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

I used the existing evidence from antiquity.

You used Doctor Cyril.

Quote:

Examine "Against the Galilean" attributed to Julian the Emperor.

At the moment that is impossible, since it was burnt by the Christians.

Quote:

Julian knew of no well known writer who mentioned Jesus and Paul when writings about the time period of Tiberius and Claudius.

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio wrote about the time of Tiberius and Claudius and wrote NOTHING of Jesus and Paul.

Julian the Emperor also knew of writings of Eusebius so should have known of the TF where Josephus supposedly wrote of Jesus.

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Now, when Julian mentioned Eusebius it was in reference to the "Preparation of the Gospel"---Not "Church History"

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

...And yet the wretched Eusebius will have it that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them, and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic....

Eusebius' Preparation of the Gospel'

Quote:

There would also be found among them poems in metre, like the great Song of Moses and David's 118th Psalm, composed in what the Greeks call heroic metre. At least it is said that these are hexameters, consisting of sixteen syllables: also their other compositions in verse are said to consist of trimeter and tetrameter lines, according to the sound of their own language.

There is no indication in the existing writings of Julian that he knew of Eusebius' Church History" and the 'TF' up to at least c 362 CE.

The writings of Julian have been reconstructed out of the refutation of Julian by the corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terror-boss murderer Bishop and Doctor of the 5th century church, Cyril of Alexandra "Against Julian".

We know Cyril left things out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilmer Cave WRIGHT translator of AGAINST JULIAN

It was written in three Books [circa 362 CE.], but the fragments preserved are almost entirely from Book I. In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many believers. He undertook to refute it in a polemic of which about half survives, and from the quotations of Julian in Cyril's work Neumann has skilfully reconstructed considerable portions of the treatise. Cyril had rearranged Julian's hurriedly written polemic, in order to avoid repetitions and to bring similar subjects together. Moreover, he says that he omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. We have seen that a similar mutilation of the letters occurred for similar reasons.

aa5874 · 09-03-2013, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The writings of Julian have been reconstructed out of the refutation of Julian by the corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terror-boss murderer Bishop and Doctor of the 5th century church, Cyril of Alexandra "Against Julian" ...We know Cyril left things out.

You are implying that "the corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terror-boss murderer" Cyril left out the evidence to show that Jesus and Paul were well known by writers about the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Your statement is void of logic.

You seem to be arguing about what is not known.

It is no value to speculate about what may have been left out because you cannot show what the details that were left out and cannot show they actually help your argument.

You must understand that your " corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terror-boss murderer" Cyril is likely to LEAVE OUT parts of "Against the Galileans" that exposes Cyril's own corruption.

My argument is based on what is attributed to Julian.

Julian admitted or implied that he knew of NO well known authors who mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Julian was familiar with writings attributed to Eusebius but did Not make references to "Church History".

What is LEFT of "Against the Galileans" is evidence against your claim that the TF was fabricated by Eusebius.

Up to the time of Julian, up to c 360 CE, there was no known history of Jesus and Paul in writings of antiquity like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio which further implies that Julian was NOT aware of Eusebius' Church History".

mountainman · 09-03-2013, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement is void of logic.

You seem to be arguing about what is not known.

It is no value to speculate about what may have been left out because you cannot show what the details that were left out and cannot show they actually help your argument.

But the converse also applies. It is no value to speculate about what may have been left in (by Cyril) because you cannot show that the details that were left in are from Cyril or Julian, and thus cannot show they actually help your argument.

The evidence is that the source text is a corrupted version of Julian.

Any logic must therefore be extremely cautious and conditional.

Roger Pearse · 09-04-2013, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilmer Cave WRIGHT translator of AGAINST JULIAN

It was written in three Books [circa 362 CE.], but the fragments preserved are almost entirely from Book I. In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many believers. He undertook to refute it in a polemic of which about half survives, and from the quotations of Julian in Cyril's work Neumann has skilfully reconstructed considerable portions of the treatise. Cyril had rearranged Julian's hurriedly written polemic, in order to avoid repetitions and to bring similar subjects together. Moreover, he says that he omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. We have seen that a similar mutilation of the letters occurred for similar reasons.

Treat Wright's comments with great suspicion. I have compared some of her translations of "Julian" with the French of Cyril, and she seems to have used great freedom in translation.

Here is what Cyril actually says, at the start of book 2:

Quote:

2. It is now necessary to come to (Julian's) own book. We will reproduce his text word for word, and will oppose our own arguments to his lies in the appropriate order, because we realize that it is necessary to firmly neutralize them. But, as I said, from his open mouth without reserve he spreads every kind of calumny against our common Saviour Christ, and pours against him ill-sounding remarks: I will abstain from responding with similar details, and, advising the wise party to ignore that in his words which risks dirtying the spirit by simple contact, I will endeavour to combat this (method of) 'combat', by denouncing on all occasions his habit of scoffing which speaks wrongly and irrelevantly without ever being able to arrive at saying a true thing.

It also should be known that in his first book he handles a great mass of ideas and does not cease turning and turning over the same arguments in every direction; some developments which are found at the beginning of his work, he also advances in the body of the book and at the end: he thus reveals a kind of disorder in the articulation of his discussion, and, fatally, those who want to argue against what he says seem constantly to be repeating themselves instead of finishing them once for all. We will thus divide his text according to an appropriate classification, we will gather his ideas by categories and will face each of them not on several occasions, but only once, the with appropriate explanations and following the rules of the art (of speaking).

Cyril seems to be saying that Julian's work contained a great deal of simple jeering, which he has omitted, in order to engage with his arguments.

J-D · 09-04-2013, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

FWIW, this was the task I would like to see addressed by some working of Bayes Theorem, as mentioned:

Quote:

LATE NOTE: Some kind of Bayesian analysis seems to suggest itself to this analysis. I have been thinking about what form it might take, and if anyone has any suggestions please feel free to outline them.

Bayes' Theorem for Everyone 01 - Introduction

Quote:

So what is Bayes Theorem?

Bayes Theorem is a plan for changing our beliefs in the face of evidence.

Bayes Theorem applies to everything (all kinds of beliefs and evidence).

BT shows us what to expect in every given situation.

The idea that Bayes Theorem is a plan for changing our beliefs in the face of evidence seems appropriate to this specific exercise.

Any ideas out there?

If you understand Bayes' Theorem, why don't you apply it yourself?

If you don't understand Bayes' Theorem, why do you place so much confidence in it?

mountainman · 09-04-2013, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

Some in your list don't stand up to scrutiny as references to quote "Christians" :

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

List of "pagan" (non-Christian) authors who mention "Christians" before Nicaea

Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
Possibly a forgery, at least corrupt.
King Agbar of Edessa - the letter to Big J.
Forged by Eusebius
Seneca - the wonderful correspondence with "Dear Paul"
Forged by someone
Tacitus - Annals 15:44,
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.
Mentions 'Chrestus', not Christians, probably not Christ either
Pliny the Younger - Plinius, Ep 10:97; a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript) -
Epictetus - the Galilaeans
Probably Christians, though he doesn't us the word.
Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3
Galen - Being discussed in this thread Does Galen mention Christians?
Cassius Dio - Being discussed in another thread Does Cassius Dio mention Christians?
Celsus: known only via the refutation of Origen as preserved by Eusebius
Julius Africanus - Chronologer used by Eusebius, whom Eusebius "corrects" by 300 years. Mentions Christians?
Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
Porphyry - Ascetic pythagorean/Platonist academic and preserver of the writings of Plotinus.

Kapyong

Most of these are forgeries, but I think the references in Lucian of Samosata are genuine (they ring true, they are not especially complimentary to Christians). I suspect Celsus is also pre-Nicean.

The Tacitus reference has been challenged. There are old threads.

I suspect that earlier pagan references to Christians were generally not positive, and later Christians just did not preserve them.

But I suspect that Pete would like to draw the conclusion that since so many of these are forgeries, all of them are. I don't think this will hold up.

FWIW, this was the task I would like to see addressed by some working of Bayes Theorem, as mentioned:

Quote:

LATE NOTE: Some kind of Bayesian analysis seems to suggest itself to this analysis. I have been thinking about what form it might take, and if anyone has any suggestions please feel free to outline them.

Bayes' Theorem for Everyone 01 - Introduction

Quote:

So what is Bayes Theorem?

Bayes Theorem is a plan for changing our beliefs in the face of evidence.

Bayes Theorem applies to everything (all kinds of beliefs and evidence).

BT shows us what to expect in every given situation.

The idea that Bayes Theorem is a plan for changing our beliefs in the face of evidence seems appropriate to this specific exercise.

Any ideas out there?

Many of the forgeries (not that these are all necessarily early forgeries) were freely circulated in the 4th century, and were perhaps accepted (by the common people) as being true. Gradually over time and the after the Age of Enlightenment people gradually began to "wake up".

If you understand Bayes' Theorem, why don't you apply it yourself?

Essentially I am not sure of the precise question to ask. The question relates to the estimate of the likelihood of forgery given there certainly appears to be so much forgery (interpolation, etc) of non-Christian authored documents in which references to the Christians appear before the religion was legalized . (See the list above).

Quote:

If you don't understand Bayes' Theorem, why do you place so much confidence in it?

It appears to have positive application to certain situations.

I understand the basics.

J-D · 09-04-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you understand Bayes' Theorem, why don't you apply it yourself?

Essentially I am not sure of the precise question to ask. The question relates to the estimate of the likelihood of forgery given there certainly appears to be so much forgery (interpolation, etc) of non-Christian authored documents in which references to the Christians appear before the religion was legalized . (See the list above).

Quote:

If you don't understand Bayes' Theorem, why do you place so much confidence in it?

It appears to have positive application to certain situations.

I understand the basics.

If you yourself don't know what question it is that you yourself are trying to answer, there's no way anybody else can.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.