Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-19-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

..
I have provided a source (above multiple times) which states that Cassius Dio did not mention Christianity. ..

Your source is not the sort of peer reviewed scholarly reference that would be persuasive. In fact, it appears to be an encyclopedia aimed at high school students, maybe undergraduates, writing papers on Great Men in History. I can see why it would prefer not to mention the Emperor's concubine.

It is Great Lives from History: The Ancient World, Prehistory-476 C.E. Dio Cassius - Greek-Roman Historian

Quote:

Recommended for high schools.

Reference for Students
Gale Group

These resources will be helpful for reports at the high school level and beyond. While some of the material in Lives can be found in the Encyclopedia of World Biography and other sources, these volumes include many more lesser-known individuals.

School Library Journal

Recommended - both volumes. General readers; undergraduates.
Choice

mountainman · 08-20-2013, 04:11 AM

Epitome

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

An epitome (/ɨˈpɪtəmiː/; Greek ἐπιτομή from ἐπιτέμνειν epitemnein "to cut short") is a summary or miniature form; an instance that represents a larger reality, also used as a synonym for embodiment. Epitomacy represents, "to the degree of."

Many documents from the Ancient Greek and Roman worlds survive now only "in epitome", referring to the practice of some later authors (epitomators) who wrote distilled versions of larger works now lost. Some writers attempted to convey the stance and spirit of the original, while others added further details or anecdotes regarding the general subject. As with all secondary historical sources, a different bias not present in the original may creep in.

Documents surviving in epitome differ from those surviving only as fragments quoted in later works, and those used as unacknowledged sources by later scholars, as they can stand as discrete documents, albeit refracted through the views of another author.

Epitomes of a kind are still produced today, when dealing with a corpus of literature, especially those classical works which are often considered dense and unwieldy, and unlikely to be read by the average person, in order to make them more accessible: some of these are more along the lines of abridgments, such as many which have been written of Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a work of eight large volumes (some 3600 pages), often published as one volume of about 1200 pages.

An abridgment differs from an epitome in that an abridgment is made of selected quotations of a larger work; no new writing is composed, as opposed to the epitome, which is an original summation of a work, at least in part.

From the Introduction to the Loeb Translation ....

Quote:

About one third of Dio's History has come down to us intact.
The extant portions are:

(a) Books XXXIV-LX (in large part), continued in eleven Mss.;
(b) Book LXXVIII with part of LXXIX (or LXXIX with part of LXXX
according to Boissevain's division), preserved in a single Ms.;
(c) the Paris fragments describing events of the years 207-200 B.C.,
recovered from the binding of a Strabo Ms.

The references to Christians appear in (at least) Books 70, 72 and 73.

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the INTRODUCTION

Books 61-80

For Books LXI-LXXX our chief authority is Xiphilinus, a monk of Constantinople,
who made an abridgement of Books XXXVI-LXXX at the request of the emperor Michael VII.
Ducas (1071-1078). Even in his time Books LXX and LXXI (Boissevain's division),
containing the reign of Antoninus Pius p. xxvand the first part of that of Marcus Aurelius,
had already perished. He divided his epitome into sections each containing the life
of one emperor, and thus is of no authority as regards Dio's divisions; furthermore
his task was very carelessly performed. The epitome is found in at least sixteen Mss.;
but all the rest are derived from one or the other of two fifteenth century Mss.,
Vaticanus 145 and Coislinianus 320. Besides these two (abbreviated V and C), we have
readings from an unknown Xiphilinus Ms. entered in L´ of Dio to fill various gaps;
but the scribe of L´ dealt very freely with such passages.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander · 08-20-2013, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

N/A

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Could someone enlighten me as to where this consensus about this passage comes from? A google search directs me to this where a footnote gives these references discussing the issue:

P. A. Brunt, "Marcus Aurelius and the Christians," in "Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History", ed. C. Deroux, Collection Latomus 154 (Brussels, 1979), 1:483 f.

J.M. Rist, "Are you a Stoic? The case of Marcus Aurelius", in: "Jewish and Christian self-definition", ed. B.F. Meyer and E.P. Sanders, Philadelphia, 1982, vol. 3, p.23-45; esp. p.26.

A. Birley, "Marcus Aurelius: a biography", 2nd ed., New Haven, 1987, p. 263 f. (Appendix 4)

I have no access to any of these. Can anyone else obtain them easily? I'd be grateful for some PDF's.

I can see in JSTOR, however, an opinion by C.R. Haines, "A Few Notes on the Text of Marcus Aurelius", The Classical Review 28, 1914, p.219-221, here: that he states:

Anthony Birley, Marcus Aurelius, revised edition published in 1987, paperback edition published in 1993, Reprinted 2001 by Routtledge, appendix 4, Christianity, pages 256 – 265.ISBN 0415171253

Anthony Birley introduces the Appendix with these s words:

Quote:

It is unnecessary to stress the immense importance of developments in Christianity during the lifetime of Marcus Aurelius...

On page 264 Anthony Birley discusses Meditations 11:3.
P. A Brunt in C. Deroux (ed) ,Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History I(1979) 483 ff state that the words “like the Christians” are a later addition. Birley considers the reference to the Christians in 11: 3 to have been written by Marcus Aurelius.

The meaning of the Greek word “parataxis” is the key to understanding what Marcus was saying and therefore whether the reference to the Christian ethos was absurd and hence an interpolation ,or whether the words of Marcus would have been expected by readers in his own time. Birley says that “references to Christians in Galen support it [Birley’s]”.

In the main text in page 154 ff Birley explains that Marcus uses “parataxis” to say Christians were trained to die. This would then be a view of the Christians rather similar to that of Epictetus.

Galen on Jews and Christians.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2...nd-christians/
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/ga...christians.htm

Internet links for Galen on Jews and Christians,

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8...stians&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...stians&f=false

mountainman · 08-20-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Anthony Birley, Marcus Aurelius, revised edition published in 1987, paperback edition published in 1993, Reprinted 2001 by Routtledge, appendix 4, Christianity, pages 256 – 265.ISBN 0415171253

Anthony Birley introduces the Appendix with these s words:

Quote:

It is unnecessary to stress the immense importance of developments in Christianity during the lifetime of Marcus Aurelius...

On page 264 Anthony Birley discusses Meditations 11:3.
P. A Brunt in C. Deroux (ed) ,Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History I(1979) 483 ff state that the words “like the Christians” are a later addition. Birley considers the reference to the Christians in 11: 3 to have been written by Marcus Aurelius.

The meaning of the Greek word “parataxis” is the key to understanding what Marcus was saying and therefore whether the reference to the Christian ethos was absurd and hence an interpolation ,or whether the words of Marcus would have been expected by readers in his own time. Birley says that “references to Christians in Galen support it [Birley’s]”.

In Maxwell Staniforth's 1964 translation and Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations we read the opposite opinion ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hays' endnote for 11.3 says

"This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians]
is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader;
there is no reason to think Marcus
had the Christians in mind here."

Quote:

This would then be a view of the Christians rather similar to that of Epictetus.

Epictetus never refers to Christians. He refers to Galilaeans
and he does not mean the Galilaeans referred to by the Emperior Julian,
he refers to the lawless brigands in the regions around Galilee.

See Gibbon's disambiguation of the Galilaeans

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-20-2013, 06:06 PM

Thanks Iskander. We had to discuss Galen's references sooner or later.

These reference are (at earliest) derived from 11th century Arabic sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Galen on Jews and Christians.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2...nd-christians/
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/ga...christians.htm

Internet links for Galen on Jews and Christians,

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8...stians&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...stians&f=false

From Roger's blog page ...

Quote:

The Roman medical writer Galen (d. 199 AD) refers to Jewish or Christian ideas in six places in his works.

Some of the works of Galen involved no longer exist in Greek, and the Arabic translation has to be used. In some cases the Arabic translation also has perished — although we know from Hunayn Ibn Ishaq that he translated it — and all we have is quotations in later writers.

It would be good to see the manuscript tradition here.

Of the six references listed the first two appear to refer to Jews. References 3, 4 and 5 are all references to "Moses and Christ" while Ref 6 refers to Christians.

Here is a sample of the 6th reference:

Quote:

From Galen, Πλατωνικῶν διαλογων συνόψεις (=Summary of Platonic dialogues), in 8 books; from part 3. The work is listed in De libris propriis c. 14.17

This work is lost, but a quotation is found in Arabic authors in somewhat different forms. Hunain ibn Ishaq records that he translated a work in four parts, written by Galen in eight parts, containing summaries of works by Plato.18

The first version is found in Abu Ali Isa ibn Ishaq ibn Zura 19 (known as Ibn Zura, d. 1008 AD), On the main questions discussed between Christians and Jews. 20 Walzer translation:21

Galen ... says at the end of his summary of Plato's Republic:

"In the religious community of the followers of Christ there are most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue; and this is to be seen not only in their men but in their women as well." And I see that he admires them for their virtue, and although he is a man whose position is known and whose opposition to Judaism and Christianity is manifest and clear to everybody who has studied his books and knows what he states in them, he nevertheless cannot deny the excellent qualities which the Christians display in their virtuous activities.

A most admirable question: did Galen write this?

Such a wonderful simply truly wonderfully glowing report on the Christians.

Testimonium Flavianum Galenium?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 08-21-2013, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

....A most admirable question: did Galen write this?

Such a wonderful simply truly wonderfully glowing report on the Christians.

Testimonium Flavianum Galenium?

You must also ask: Did Eusebius write this?

Remember your 4th century forgery mill.

Iskander · 08-21-2013, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

N/A

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

See Gibbon's disambiguation of the Galilaeans

Please, tell me where to find what you are asking me to read.
Edward Gibbon explains why Nero found the Christians of Rome guilty and why Rome tolerated the Synagogue, but found the primitive early Church unacceptable.
I will accept “Gibbon’s disambiguation of the Galileans” if you admit that Gibbon is also true about Nero .

Edward Gibbon, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire
Chapter XVI: Conduct Towards The Christians, From Nero To Constantine

Quote:

From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; 1 and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. 2 The enthusiasm of the Jews was supported by the opinion, that it was unlawful for them to pay taxes to an idolatrous master; and by the flattering promise which they derived from their ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters, and to invest the favorites of heaven with the empire of the earth. It was by announcing himself as their long-expected deliverer, and by calling on all the descendants of Abraham to assert the hope of Israel, that the famous Barchochebas collected a formidable army, with which he resisted during two years the power of the emperor Hadrian

Rome tolerated the Jewish Nation, but their Christian imitators were a sect of deserters

Quote:

Since the Jews, who rejected with abhorrence the deities adored by their sovereign and by their fellow-subjects, enjoyed, however, the free exercise of their unsocial religion, there must have existed some other cause, which exposed the disciples of Christ to those severities from which the posterity of Abraham was exempt. The difference between them is simple and obvious; but, according to the sentiments of antiquity, it was of the highest importance. The Jews were a nation; the Christians were a sect: and if it was natural for every community to respect the sacred institutions of their neighbors, it was incumbent on them to persevere in those of their ancestors. The voice of oracles, the precepts of philosophers, and the authority of the laws, unanimously enforced this national obligation. By their lofty claim of superior sanctity the Jews might provoke the Polytheists to consider them as an odious and impure race. By disdaining the intercourse of other nations, they might deserve their contempt. The laws of Moses might be for the most part frivolous or absurd; yet, since they had been received during many ages by a large society, his followers were justified by the example of mankind; and it was universally acknowledged, that they had a right to practise what it would have been criminal in them to neglect. But this principle, which protected the Jewish synagogue, afforded not any favor or security to the primitive church.

By embracing the faith of the gospel, the Christians incurred the supposed guilt of an unnatural and unpardonable offence. They dissolved the sacred ties of custom and education, violated the religious institutions of their country, and presumptuously despised whatever their fathers had believed as true, or had reverenced as sacred. Nor was this apostasy (if we may use the expression) merely of a partial or local kind; since the pious deserter who withdrew himself from the temples of Egypt or Syria, would equally disdain to seek an asylum in those of Athens or Carthage. Every Christian rejected with contempt the superstitions of his family, his city, and his province. The whole body of Christians unanimously refused to hold any communion with the gods of Rome, of the empire, and of mankind. It was in vain that the oppressed believer asserted the inalienable rights of conscience and private judgment. Though his situation might excite the pity, his arguments could never reach the understanding, either of the philosophic or of the believing part of the Pagan world. To their apprehensions, it was no less a matter of surprise, that any individuals should entertain scruples against complying with the established mode of worship, than if they had conceived a sudden abhorrence to the manners, the dress, 8111 or the language of their native country.

Nero found the Christians guilty

Quote:

The guilt of the Christians deserved indeed the most exemplary punishment, but the public abhorrence was changed into commiseration, from the opinion that those unhappy wretches were sacrificed, not so much to the public welfare, as to the cruelty of a jealous tyrant

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717...-h/25717-h.htm

mountainman · 08-21-2013, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

This would then be a view of the Christians rather similar to that of Epictetus.

AFAIK Epictetus never refers to Christians. He refers to Galilaeans
and he does not mean the Galilaeans referred to by the Emperior Julian,
he refers to the lawless brigands in the regions around Galilee.

See Gibbon's disambiguation of the Galilaeans

Please, tell me where to find what you are asking me to read.

I objected to the claim that Epictetus mentions Christian.

Quote:

Epictetus (/ˌɛpɪkˈtiːtəs/;[1] Ancient Greek: Ἐπίκτητος; AD 55–135) was a Greek sage and Stoic philosopher.

My position is that Epictetus does not mention Christians but that he mentions "Galilaeans" and that these Galilaeans were not Christians.

Gibbon has this to say about the Galilaeans:

Chapter XVI: Conduct Towards The Christians, From Nero To Constantine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibbon

Under the appellation of Galilaeans, two distinctions of men were confounded, the most opposite to each other in their manners and principles; the disciples who had embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, 41 and the zealots who had followed the standard of Judas the Gaulonite. 42

The former were the friends, the latter were the enemies, of human kind; and the only resemblance between them consisted in the same inflexible constancy, which, in the defence of their cause, rendered them insensible of death and tortures.

This was all about your comment - "This would then be a view of the Christians rather similar to that of Epictetus".

AFAIK Epictetus does not mention Christians at all. He actually mentions "Galilaeans".

Like Marcus Aurelius, he was a stoic philosopher who revered the guardian "daimon" within.

AFAIK this was the pagan (philosophical concept of a) holy spirit.

Epictetus; AD 55–135) was a Greek sage and Stoic philosopher.

"Nevertheless he has placed by every man a guardian,
every man's Daimon, to whom he has committed the care of the man,
a guardian who never sleeps, is never deceived.

For to what better and more careful guardian could He have entrusted each of us?
When, then, you have shut the doors and made darkness within,
remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not;
but God is within, and your Daimon is within, and what need
have they of light to see what you are doing?

To this God you ought to swear an oath just as the soldiers do to Caesar. .....

~ Epictetus

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-21-2013, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

....A most admirable question: did Galen write this?

Such a wonderful simply truly wonderfully glowing report on the Christians.

Testimonium Flavianum Galenium?

You must also ask: Did Eusebius write this?

Remember your 4th century forgery mill.

According to Roger's Reference 6

Quote:

...

The first version is found in Abu Ali Isa ibn Ishaq ibn Zura 19 (known as Ibn Zura, d. 1008 AD)

Galen is described as a Roman medical writer but we might also add that he was the personal Physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic philosopher. Galen is reported to have received leave from military service on account of his being "in service" to the god Asclepius. Galen was a "therapeutai" of Asclepius. Would Galen have written this glowing "TG"?

It looks like a classical case of a Testimonium Flavianum Galenium.

It could be a product of any century between the 4th and the 10th, since the first Arabic attestation is that late.

The Pseudo-Isidore material is from the 9th century but I think most of this was Latin, whereas Galen wrote Greek. But the preservation of his works in the ms tradition is messy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

All of the extant Greek manuscripts of Galen were copied by Byzantine scholars. In the Abbasid period (after 750 AD) Arab Muslims began to be interested in Greek scientific and medical texts for the first time, and had some of Galen's texts translated into Arabic, often by Syrian Christian scholars (see below). As a result some texts of Galen exist only in Arabic translation,[45] while others exist only in medieval Latin translations of the Arabic. In some cases scholars have even attempted to translate from the Latin or Arabic back into Greek where the original is lost.[44][46][47]

The claim that Galen mentions Christians was unknown to Eusebius. Eusebius could have taken this glowing phrase out of Galen, had it existed, and used it in his history project for the Christian church and the conga line of apostolic bishops. That he did not do so is more than incredible.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 08-21-2013, 09:17 PM

Epictetus on textexcavation

Quote:

First, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, early century II, Dissertations 4.7.5-6 (Greek text from Daniel J. Theron, Evidence of Tradition, page 18; English translation slightly formatted from the same):

Αν τις... ουτως δε και ουτος τας μεν υλας παρ ουδεν η πεποιημενας, την παιδιαν δε την περι αυτας και αναστροφην ασπαζηται· ποιος ετι τουτω τυραννος φοβερος η ποιοι δορυφυροι η ποιαι μαχαιραι αυτων;

If a man... has reckoned the material things of life as nothing, but is glad to play with them and handle them, what kind of tyrant, or guards, or swords in the hands of guards can any more instil fear in the breast of such a man?

Ειτα υπο μανιας μεν δυναται τις ουτως διατεθηναι προς ταυτα και υπο εθους οι Γαλιλαιοι, υπο λογου δε και αποδειξεως ουδεις δυναται μαθειν, οτι ο θεος παντα πεποιηκεν τα εν τω κοσμω και αυτον τον κοσμον ολον μεν ακωλυτον και αυτοτελη, τα εν μερει δ αυτου προς χρειαν των ολων;

Therefore, if madness can produce this attitude of mind toward the things which have just been mentioned, and also habit, as with the Galileans, cannot reason and demonstration teach a man that God has made all things in the universe, and the universe itself, to be free from hindrance and to contain its end in itself, and the parts of it to serve the needs of the whole?

Wilmer Cave Wright writes:

Julian, like Epictetus, always calls the Christians Galilaeans because he wishes to emphasise that this was a local creed....

Wright cites Gregory Nazianzen, First Invective Against Julian 76 (115), as follows concerning Julian (the apostate) himself: Γαλιλαιους αντι Χριστιανων ονομασας και καλεισθαι νομοθετησας (he named the Christians Galileans and passed laws that they be so called). But were the Christians known as Galileans as early as Epictetus? Or was Epictetus referring to different Galileans, perhaps of the sort who had instigated revolts against Rome?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.