Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin's First Apology VII

Any one familiar with Jesus cult writers should know that 'Christians' can also mean followers of or those aided by the Devil.

Justin's First Apology

Originally Posted by Stuart

You are correct on the non-Christians seen as Christians, but you place it in the wrong era, about a hundred years too soon.

Originally Posted by Stuart

You are correct on the non-Christians seen as Christians, but you place it in the wrong era, about a hundred years too soon.

Two quick points.

1. Simon Magus as a character explodes on the literary scene with the Ant-Manichean literature sometime late in the 3rd century. The association with Marcionism is via The Mani followers use of the antithesis against the Christians, who are by the late 3rd century more dominated by "orthodoxy". Most likely Simon Magus is used as a fill in for Mani in the Clementines

2. There is good reasons to suspect that Justin's Apology 1.26 (which is most of what you quote in [b]) is largely a later interpolation. Like Irenaeus AH 1.23 there is an unusual appeal to NT scripture as source, specifically Acts, which does not fit the style or content of the rest of the work. In Justin there is the Sancto Simoni error (ΣΙMΩΝΙ ΔΕΩ ΣΑΓΚΤΩ), which suggests a writer from the eastern part of the empire after 274 CE - I would add 20 years to that for people to forget the details of Rome in the east and not challenge such an error (same reason I date Matthew 17:24-27 at least 20 years after Nerva lifted Fiscis Iudaicus ... need that long a time to forget it wasn't in force before the Temple fell). In Justin, if you also exclude the last sentence of 1.25 (mentions devils) then 1.25 flows nicely into 1.27 about not exposing children to the debauchery of temple prostitution without a digression into Marcion via Simon Magus.

Placing these passages in the very early 4th century fits the battle with the Manichean sect (not Christians but seen as Christians) and the growing battle to become the State religion.

(Note: In Irenaeus the most suspect are 1.26.1, most of the first sentence of 1.26.2, 1.26.4, and likely part of 1.26.5 ... much of the rest looks like typical Irenaeus description of a gnostic sect, which may have been another name, or even Menander, from the 2nd century)

OPINION:

Irenaeus and Justin above are examples of what I call "yellow light" source material. There are clear signs of not being from the original author, but it has not yet been rigorously demonstrated and acknowledged by the mainstream that they are interpolations. Its not just a green light to use if not a red light (accepted) on sources. They need to be checked and rechecked.

We should always make note and be upfront with the use of questionable material. Recently I looked into the Bar Kokhba revolt and discovered that the Christian and even some of the Jewish accounts are at complete odds with the archeological findings in the last 50 years around Israel and the West Bank. It turns out the Romans never built anything on the Temple Mount, and that Eusubius and Dio (as we have it) were wrong, and so are many other accounts. The revolt was very contained to an area of the Judaean hill country, south of Aelia Capitolina, north of Masada, and never reached the Coast or even Samaria. It was a post-War fiction that Bar Kosiba called himself the messiah, ditto that he took Jerusalem even for a day (or even tried), and ditto much that was said about Akiba. The evidence the Israeli archeologists found suggest an economic based revolt, due to taxes to support the construction of Roman projects that did nothing for Judea.

The example of Aelia Capitolina and Bar Kokhba shows the problem of perception which is created by the later interpolations and additions or changes to the text. The corruption of sources like Justin and Irenaeus who are late 2nd century church fathers, shows the depth of the problem.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Simon Magus as a character explodes on the literary scene with the Ant-Manichean literature sometime late in the 3rd century.

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

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

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.

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

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

Kapyong

Originally Posted by Minimalist

In whose opinion? Yours? They weren't writing it for you. It was written to fill in an obvious blank in the historical record about their godboy. Once that was done Eusebius checked it off his bucket list.

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

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.

Originally Posted by aa5874

You seem to be operating some kind of double standard. Do you not have an opinion that "The Testimoniam Flavianum is a magnificent example of how to forge something".

Based on the evidence from antiquity, I disagree with your opinion.

Now, are you implying that the TF was written for you?

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.