mountainman

We may accept the claims made at Peter Kirby's ECW page on Galen and at Roger's page of Galen or we can question them. This thread questions and explores the claim that the writings of the 2nd century Galen of Pergamum (129-200/216CE), the most accomplished of all medical researchers of antiquity, make reference to Christians.

From ECW (I have added numbers 1-4:

Roger's page notes that the Greek text for the first two citations is still preserved (but I don't see any reference to the manuscript tradition) and that the following two citations are only preserved in Arabic manuscripts dating from the 11th and 13th centuries.

Please discuss.

J-D

Yes, Galen mentioned Christians. In fact, he believed there was a group of blood vessels called Christians, in the carotid sinus, but this was later shown to be incorrect by ibn al-Nafis.

stephan huller

What is this obsession with the date of the earliest manuscripts? Almost no one uses the earliest manuscripts of any text. aa here cites material in English translations. If all the Biblical commentary in the world disappeared owing to a massive meteor strike and all that was left were aa's posts from this forum, would that 'prove' anything about the date of the Bible or Justin or Irenaeus or any of the other wonderful topics of aa's posts? Find another horse to ride. By your logic you could disprove the existence of Socrates.

mountainman

The Evolution of Manuscript Traditions by Michael P. Weitzman

stephan huller

There is a massive difference between misspelling a word or a name and what you are talking about. And more particularly the error would have been done in cultures (Europe, Middle East) where 'Christian' was known commodity. It couldn't have been accidental (unless you have some idea what the original word was). The idea that a Christian editor would add the word 'Christian' to one of Galen's insult is most unlikely.

aa5874

You appear to have concealed that you yourself is of the opinion that the NT is a MASSIVE forgery to falsely prove primacy.

Examine your own words.

You can no longer deny that the NT is a MASSIVE forgery written to FALSELY prove primacy.

Toto

From archive.org, a 1917 article Galen and the Christians

mountainman

As far as the history of Christian origins goes there is a massive difference between Christ and Chrest. You should immediately perceive, unless your comprehension skills are worse that I suppose, that the first three claimed references to Christians in the writings of Galen are of the form ....

........... the followers (or school) of Moses and Christ ....

We know that not only are there a large number of references in the literature to Chrestos and Chrestians, but there also exists substantial archaeological references for "Chrest". In the past the references to Christ and Chrest were lumbered together under the heading of evidence for Christ. This uncritical classification is not appropriate in today's age.

Roger's page mentions that some Greek MS survives for at least one of these types of references, so I think it would be a good idea to actually try and have a look at it, to confirm that the references is not to "Moses and Chrest".



Your comprehension skills are showing again. The extended 4th reference claimed to be written by Galen is however certainly not an insult, rather it is a gloriously positive reference to the Christians, one translation (from Roger's page) is as follows:

"The Testimonium Galenium"


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.

What an amazing wrap! The question of course is whether this was written by Galen in the 2nd century, or by some other party between the 2nd century and the 10th/11th/12th/15th century ????

Another completely obvious question is how could Eusebius have missed this reference in Galen [had it been in Galen in the 4th century] for his research project on the history of the nation of Christians?

I have headed this 4th Galen reference with the title Testimonium Galenium for obvious reasons. I think it looks too good to be true.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this ?

stephan huller

I think some times you get lost in the details of the massive revisionism you propose to undertake. In order to have your theory stand up, you not only have to throw doubt on the some of the surviving references to Christians before Constantine - you have to destroy all of them. By destroy I mean obliterate, liquidate, wipe out, demolish them.

To just go around and say 'the Marcia reference is a late addition - look the manuscripts are late.' Look the Philosophumena is originally attributed to Origen and now no one knows who wrote it and it mentions Marcia and because they don't know who wrote it, it must be discounted. Look there is a church at Dura Europos and if you drink a few bottles of whiskey they start looking like dancing girls. Look there are these references to Christians in Galen but there is clear expansion and some of the information is clearly secondary and added on later etc. etc. etc.

Just to throw up 'maybes' in the air isn't good enough for your theory. The question comes down to what is more likely - making excuses for 100 separate pieces of evidence, each one coming down to 'maybe this, maybe that' or letting the evidence stand.'

In the case of Galen, the question isn't whether some of the information is later additions but did Galen mention Christians, did he know they existed? And the answer is almost certainly yes. Marcus Aurelius mentions them. At least some of the surviving references are probably authentic and it is your Herculean task to convince reasonable people otherwise. But what you have presented so far isn't cutting it and you've already lost the Marcia debate. I'd say give up, but you are too unreasonable for that.

aa5874

Your argument actually helps mountainman as soon as you admit that the Philosophumena is really anonymous.

The Church at Duro Europos is not a corroborative source for writings attributed to Galen with the word 'Christian'.

Now, Any one familiar with the writings of the very Jesus cult would realize that the word 'Christian' may also mean the FOLLOWERS of Magicians like Simon Magus and Menander.

All sorts of people were called Christians in the 2nd century when Galen lived.

This is Justin Martyr explaining that there were people called Christians who had NOTHING in common with the Jesus cult.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho Who did Galen call 'Christians'??

The 'Christians' who blasphemed the name of Christ and were considered Atheist, Impious, Unrighteous, Sinful and did NOT worship Christ??

Justin Martyr did name some of the people called Christians who had NOTHING in common with the Jesus cult like the Followers of Simon Magus, Menander, Marcionites, Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, and Saturnilians.

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