Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-04-2013, 09:49 PM

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

Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
Possibly a 4th century forgery, at least corrupt.
King Agbar of Edessa - the letter to Big J.
Forged 4th century by Eusebius
Seneca - the wonderful correspondence with "Dear Paul"
Forged by someone in the 4th century
Tacitus - Annals 15:44,
Manuscript appears in the 15th century
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
Manuscript appears in the 15th century, and then "lost"
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Manuscript appears in the 15th century, and then lost
Epictetus - the Galilaeans
Does not use the word Christians.
Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3
Considered a "magin gloss" by recent translators
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
In Eusebius we trust
Julius Africanus - Chronologer used by Eusebius, whom Eusebius "corrects" by 300 years. Mentions Christians?
In Eusebius we trust
Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
There is a large known collection of 4th century forgeries in the name of Lucian
Porphyry - Ascetic pythagorean/Platonist academic and preserver of the writings of Plotinus.
"The apostles were inventors"

aa5874 · 09-05-2013, 01:10 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But the converse also applies.

Your converse does NOT logically apply. You are the one who implied Cyril was a murderer without any written evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

So, why are you accusing Eusebius of forging the TF when you now suggest what is attributed to writers of antiquity may have not have written by them.

Why are you implying Cyril was a terror boss murderer if it cannot be shown who wrote under the name of Cyril or Julian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

Are you claiming that every word in "Against the Galileans" were corrupted? How can you show what is corrupted in 'Against Galileans" without any evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any logic must therefore be extremely cautious and conditional.

So, why did you refer to Cyril as the corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terror-boss murderer?

Logically you should have been more cautious as soon as you admitted that the text source is corrupted----- It may not have been corrupted by Cyril and Julian may not have written "Against the Galileans".

Now, please exercise some caution. Logically Eusebius may not have written the TF if there was a forgery mill.

mountainman · 09-05-2013, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Logically Eusebius may not have written the TF if there was a forgery mill.

This is possible.

But it is also possible that Julian exposed Eusebius's "TF" (which was subsequently omitted by Cyril, along with other stuff, such as the identity of the "wicked men") and then went on to write ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian via Cyril

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.

I don't know which of these possibilities (if either) is closer to the historical truth.

But anyway, the OP is about whether Galen mentions Christians.

mountainman · 09-05-2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Marcus Aurelius mentions them.

Not according to Maxwell Staniforth's 1964 and Gregory Hays' 2003 translation

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:

Originally Posted by Maxwell Staniforth's note on same

* If these words are authentic and not a later insertion,
they are the only reference which Marcus makes to the Christians.

C.R. Haines, however, in the Loeb edition of the Meditations,
points out that the clause is

'outside the construction, and in fact ungrammatical.
It is in the very form of a marginal note,
and has every appearance of being a gloss
foisted into the text.'

aa5874 · 09-06-2013, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Logically Eusebius may not have written the TF if there was a forgery mill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This is possible.

But it is also possible that Julian exposed Eusebius's "TF" (which was subsequently omitted by Cyril, along with other stuff, such as the identity of the "wicked men") and then went on to write ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian via Cyril

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.

It is precisely because Cyril did NOT OMIT Julian's claim or implication that there was NO well known writer who mentioned Jesus and Paul is the very reason we can argue that the TF was NOT composed up to c 360 CE.

If Eusebius did live and was dead before c 360 CE then he did NOT forged the 'TF'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I don't know which of these possibilities (if either) is closer to the historical truth.

But anyway, the OP is about whether Galen mentions Christians.

Well, you yourself in this very OP referred to Cyril as the corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terror-boss murderer when you knew in advance that you DON'T know if your claim is close to the historical truth.

The very same thing applies to your argument about Galen and Christians. You really don't know what is closer to the historical truth.

The fundamental weakness in your argument is that you reject every piece of evidence from antiquity that does not support you while simultaneously accepting the same manipulated sources.

You must now admit that you really don't know who wrote anything in antiquity and what was written.

mountainman · 09-07-2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is precisely because Cyril did NOT OMIT Julian's claim or implication that there was NO well known writer who mentioned Jesus and Paul is the very reason we can argue that the TF was NOT composed up to c 360 CE.

But because it is also possible that Julian exposed Eusebius's "TF" (which was subsequently omitted by Cyril, along with other stuff, such as the identity of the "wicked men") and THEN claimed there was NO writer mentioning Jesus (in much the same way that people today CLAIM Josephus did not mention Jesus) your reasoned argument, while possibly true, must remain conditionally "true".

BTW re: Cyril, the following is quoted by Charles Freeman in his The Closing Of The Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (or via: amazon.co.uk)

p.267

"When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

Quote:

the corrupt heresiologist pyromaniac terrorist-boss murderer Cyril.

heresiologist = common knowledge
pyromaniac = Carl Sagan suggests Cyril torched the library of Alexandria
terrorist-boss = Cyril controlled a "mass of armed men" and used them in anti-pagan campaigns.
murderer = Hypatia

aa5874 · 09-08-2013, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is precisely because Cyril did NOT OMIT Julian's claim or implication that there was NO well known writer who mentioned Jesus and Paul is the very reason we can argue that the TF was NOT composed up to c 360 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But because it is also possible that Julian exposed Eusebius's "TF" (which was subsequently omitted by Cyril, along with other stuff, such as the identity of the "wicked men") and THEN claimed there was NO writer mentioning Jesus (in much the same way that people today CLAIM Josephus did not mention Jesus) your reasoned argument, while possibly true, must remain conditionally "true".

Even in court trials a verdict is conditional on the evidence presented--NOT on the presumption that there may be other unknown evidence.

My argument is not based on non-existing unknown evidence. I cannot presume that there is some other unknown evidence and cannot presume that the unknown evidence ONLY supports your position.

The existing evidence support my argument so I can argue for infinity that the TF was NOT known or forged up to at least c 360 CE based on Julian's "Against the Galileans".

mountainman · 09-08-2013, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is precisely because Cyril did NOT OMIT Julian's claim or implication that there was NO well known writer who mentioned Jesus and Paul is the very reason we can argue that the TF was NOT composed up to c 360 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But because it is also possible that Julian exposed Eusebius's "TF" (which was subsequently omitted by Cyril, along with other stuff, such as the identity of the "wicked men") and THEN claimed there was NO writer mentioning Jesus (in much the same way that people today CLAIM Josephus did not mention Jesus) your reasoned argument, while possibly true, must remain conditionally "true".

Even in court trials a verdict is conditional on the evidence presented--NOT on the presumption that there may be other unknown evidence.

My argument is not based on non-existing unknown evidence. I cannot presume that there is some other unknown evidence and cannot presume that the unknown evidence ONLY supports your position.

The existing evidence support my argument so I can argue for infinity that the TF was NOT known or forged up to at least c 360 CE based on Julian's "Against the Galileans".

You have provisionally convinced me aa5874 to conditionally (I will assume Cyril is not lying about what he reports Julian to have written in the material cited above) accept your above argument on the basis of the available evidence. I think that you are the kind of person who would change your findings and thus modify your argument should the discovery or provision of new evidence, not now available, become available.

A quick look at who first mentions this after Big E....

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Even after Eusebius' 324 AD reference, it is not until Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (c. 392 AD) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the Testimonium's reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening patristic authors.[116][117]

Scholars also point to the silence of Photios as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the Testimonium at all in his broad review of Josephus.

How late is late? What does the manuscript tradition look like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the Testimonium is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the Antiquities. [63] There are about 170 extant Latin translations of Josephus, some of which go back to the sixth century, and according to Louis Feldman have proven very useful in reconstructing the Josephus texts through comparisons with the Greek manuscripts, reconfirming proper names and filling in gaps.

\\\\

In 1971, a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was brought to light by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian.[71][4][72] These additional manuscript sources of the Testimonium have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus' mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the Testimonium.'

The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - Olson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Olson

The theory of Eusebian authorship has been criticized by James Carleton Paget (2001) and dismissed by Alice Whealey (2007), but has now also been advocated by Louis Feldman. In his 2012 review article on the Testimonium, Feldman comes to the conclusion that Eusebius is likely to be the author of the extant text:
“In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.”

(p. 28).

More recently, I’ve published another paper, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum,” in which I’ve tried to bring out more clearly what the text means in the context of Eusebius work and what his purpose was in writing it.

aa5874 · 09-08-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The existing evidence support my argument so I can argue for infinity that the TF was NOT known or forged up to at least c 360 CE based on Julian's "Against the Galileans".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

You have provisionally convinced me aa5874 to conditionally (I will assume Cyril is not lying about what he reports Julian to have written in the material cited above) accept your above argument on the basis of the available evidence. I think that you are the kind of person who would change your findings and thus modify your argument should the discovery or provision of new evidence, not now available, become available.

Even Science theories may be modified on the discovery of new evidence.

Unknown evidence [presumptions] are really of no value.

I have examined statements attributed to Julian in "Against the Galileans" and those statements allow me to argue that the TF was not known and was not forged until AFTER c 360 CE.

Julian implied that there was no well known writers who wrote of Jesus and Paul when writing of events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

A quick look at who first mentions this after Big E....

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Even after Eusebius' 324 AD reference, it is not until Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (c. 392 AD) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the Testimonium's reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening patristic authors.[116][117]

Scholars also point to the silence of Photios as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the Testimonium at all in his broad review of Josephus.

There are many clues that parts of 'Church History' were composed or manipulated AFTER the end of the 4th century of After Eusebius was dead.

Examine part of the opening statement attributed to Eusebius in "Church History" 1.

Eusebius admitted he only FOUND a few BRIEF FRAGMENTS of the past.

Eusebius' Church History" 1

Quote:

............ I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived....

Now go to "Church History" 6.

The supposed Eusebius is now claiming that there was a LIBRARY at Aelia which flourished with writings of the Early Church and that it was easily accessible.

Church History 6

Quote:

1. There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible.

They have been kept until our time in the library at Ælia, which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church.

We have been able to gather from that library material for our present work.

It is clear that Church History is the product of MULTIPLE authors.

1. One author only had BRIEF Fragments.

2. The others had 'LIBRARIES' of Epistles and books from JESUS, ABGARUS, Philo, JOSEPHUS, John the presbyter, Hermas, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Ariston, Barnabas, Polycarp, Hegesipus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen and others.

Eusebius' Church History" 1

Quote:

.......I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments...

Toto · 09-08-2013, 02:05 PM

Perhaps Julian recognized that the TF was an obvious forgery, so he discounted it.

09-04-2013, 09:49 PM	#41
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Updated List of "pagan" (non-Christian) authors who mention "Christians" before Nicaea Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews Possibly a 4th century forgery, at least corrupt. King Agbar of Edessa - the letter to Big J. Forged 4th century by Eusebius Seneca - the wonderful correspondence with "Dear Paul" Forged by someone in the 4th century Tacitus - Annals 15:44, Manuscript appears in the 15th century 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 Manuscript appears in the 15th century, and then "lost" Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript) Manuscript appears in the 15th century, and then lost Epictetus - the Galilaeans Does not use the word Christians. Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3 Considered a "magin gloss" by recent translators 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 In Eusebius we trust Julius Africanus - Chronologer used by Eusebius, whom Eusebius "corrects" by 300 years. Mentions Christians? In Eusebius we trust Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet There is a large known collection of 4th century forgeries in the name of Lucian Porphyry - Ascetic pythagorean/Platonist academic and preserver of the writings of Plotinus. "The apostles were inventors"

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

09-08-2013, 02:05 PM	#50
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Perhaps Julian recognized that the TF was an obvious forgery, so he discounted it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.