Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-21-2013, 10:14 PM

Yes. This summarises the issue about whether Epictetus mentions Christians.
This was discussed many years ago here. Ben leaves the open question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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?

Hence the disambiguation via Edward Gibbon between the two different Galileans.

AFAIK Julian popularised the term Galilaean for the Christians. AFAIK prior to the 4th century the Galilaeans were the Jewish rebels of Galilee and Epictetus is far more likely to mention these.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander · 08-22-2013, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

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

I objected to the claim that Epictetus mentions Christian.

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

Anthony Blier says

Quote:

They [the Christians] were trained to die. This would then be a view of the Christians rather similar to that of Epictetus.”The Galileans”, Epictetus taught –surely referring to the Christians—were fearless by habit 33
Note 33, Meditations 11.3;1.7;Epictetus,Disc.4.7.6. Cf App.4

Professor Blier also discusses the work of A.P. Brunt who holds the opposite view and he does it in a generous manner.

Gibbon:
Gibbon says that Christians were also known by the name of Galileans and that the Gaulonites were dead and buried under the ruins of Jerusalem; whilst the Christians/Galileans were expanding.

Why were the Jews not chosen for punishment?, asks Gibbon and Gibbon answer is that there had arisen among them a new and pernicious sect of Galilaeans, which was capable of the most horrid crimes

Quote:

We may therefore presume to imagine some probable cause which could direct the cruelty of Nero against the Christians of Rome, whose obscurity, as well as innocence, should have shielded them from his indignation, and even from his notice.
The Jews, who were numerous in the capital, and oppressed in their own country, were a much fitter object for the suspicions of the emperor and of the people: nor did it seem unlikely that a vanquished nation, who already discovered their abhorrence of the Roman yoke, might have recourse to the most atrocious means of gratifying their implacable revenge. But the Jews possessed very powerful advocates in the palace, and even in the heart of the tyrant; his wife and mistress, the beautiful Poppaea, and a favorite player of the race of Abraham, who had already employed their intercession in behalf of the obnoxious people. 40 In their room it was necessary to offer some other victims, and it might easily be suggested that, although the genuine followers of Moses were innocent of the fire of Rome, there had arisen among them a new and pernicious sect of Galilaeans, which was capable of the most horrid crimes

The new sect of Galileans the disciples who had embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, 41 .
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.
The followers of Judas, who impelled their countrymen into rebellion, were soon buried under the ruins of Jerusalem; whilst those of Jesus, known by the more celebrated name of Christians, diffused themselves over the Roman empire.

Why have you invited Gibbon to speak for you? Gibbon says that “Galilean” was another name for “Christian” and that Christians were already in Rome during the reign of Nero.
Why do you mention “ daimon” ? You write like a religious fundamentalist, perhaps guided by your mysterious daimon

The new sect of Galileans the disciples who had embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, 41 was alive and growing , but the followers of Judas the Gaulonite were dead and buried under the ruins of Jerusalem

Duvduv · 08-22-2013, 05:57 AM

Sounds like there was great confusion in the text attributed to Julian. After all, why would the emerging Christians have been called Galileans under any circumstances, especially since Jesus was "born" in Bethlehem, and a "descendant" of David (on mother's side), and a Judean?
And if the Christians were gentiles anyway, what is the point of relating them to any name of ancient Palestine at all, other than to establish in a BACK-HANDED MANNER their ANTIQUITY and AUTHENTICITY?

Haven't we discussed previously the phenomenon of condemnations of "Christians" going back to the first century functioning as establishing the authenticity of Christians in a totally back-handed way?! The Toldoth itself can be seen in this way, which is why I highly doubt the Toldoth stories were ever even written by Jews. By professing condemnation of Christianity one in fact lends LEGITIMACY to the idea of its antiquity back to the first century. That's very creative indeed.

mountainman · 08-23-2013, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Anthony Blier says

Quote:

They [the Christians] were trained to die. This would then be a view of the Christians rather similar to that of Epictetus.”The Galileans”, Epictetus taught –surely referring to the Christians—were fearless by habit 33
Note 33, Meditations 11.3;1.7;Epictetus,Disc.4.7.6. Cf App.4

Professor Blier also discusses the work of A.P. Brunt who holds the opposite view and he does it in a generous manner.

"Surely referring to the Christians?"

What does Perhaps Professor Blier think happened at Masada?

Quote:

The Siege of Masada by troops of the Roman Empire towards the end of the First Jewish–Roman War ended in the mass suicide of the 960 Jewish rebels and their families holed up there.

We don't here about a mass suicide of Christians, only these Galilaean rebels.

It is therefore completely obvious that the entire Roman Empire knew that the Jewish Galilaeans rebels (at Masada) were trained to die. The Christians of the first century are totally unattested outside of the New and Strange Testament. Only a myopic Christian mind would even contemplate Epictetus may have been referring to Christians here.

Quote:

Why have you invited Gibbon to speak for you?

I like the way he writes.

Quote:

Gibbon says that “Galilean” was another name for “Christian” ...

But it was not popular until Julian made it so in the 4th century ....

Quote:

... and that Christians were already in Rome during the reign of Nero.

I don't agree with everything Gibbon says.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-23-2013, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sounds like there was great confusion in the text attributed to Julian. After all, why would the emerging Christians have been called Galileans under any circumstances, especially since Jesus was "born" in Bethlehem, and a "descendant" of David (on mother's side), and a Judean?
And if the Christians were gentiles anyway, what is the point of relating them to any name of ancient Palestine at all, other than to establish in a BACK-HANDED MANNER their ANTIQUITY and AUTHENTICITY?

I think Julian also saw the Christians as rebels against the pagan society and this may have been why he invoked the name of "Galilaeans" for them.

Quote:

Haven't we discussed previously the phenomenon of condemnations of "Christians" going back to the first century functioning as establishing the authenticity of Christians in a totally back-handed way?! The Toldoth itself can be seen in this way, which is why I highly doubt the Toldoth stories were ever even written by Jews. By professing condemnation of Christianity one in fact lends LEGITIMACY to the idea of its antiquity back to the first century. That's very creative indeed.

Yes it is. It's just rat cunning.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander · 08-23-2013, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Anthony Blier says

Professor Blier also discusses the work of A.P. Brunt who holds the opposite view and he does it in a generous manner.

"Surely referring to the Christians?"

What does Perhaps Professor Blier think happened at Masada?

We don't here about a mass suicide of Christians, only these Galilaean rebels.

It is therefore completely obvious that the entire Roman Empire knew that the Jewish Galilaeans rebels (at Masada) were trained to die. The Christians of the first century are totally unattested outside of the New and Strange Testament. Only a myopic Christian mind would even contemplate Epictetus may have been referring to Christians here.

I like the way he writes.

But it was not popular until Julian made it so in the 4th century ....

Quote:

... and that Christians were already in Rome during the reign of Nero.

I don't agree with everything Gibbon says.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?

Toto · 08-23-2013, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

"Surely referring to the Christians?"

What does Perhaps Professor Blier think happened at Masada?

We don't here about a mass suicide of Christians, only these Galilaean rebels.

It is therefore completely obvious that the entire Roman Empire knew that the Jewish Galilaean rebels (at Masada) were trained to die. The Christians of the first century are totally unattested outside of the New and Strange Testament. Only a myopic Christian mind would even contemplate Epictetus may have been referring to Christians here.

At Masada, soldiers chose suicide over surrender. I don't think this is the same as being trained to die. You could say that all soldiers are trained to kill and to die- but this would not distinguish the Galileans,

"Being trained to die" does bring to mind Christian martyrs. Christians are attested by the second century by most people's standards, even if you reject the Nero reference.

Duvduv · 08-23-2013, 11:21 AM

I may be taken to task, but the word "alleged" mass suicide is more than appropriate in this case, for which no evidence exists for a mass suicide on Massada by Zealots or anybody else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

"Surely referring to the Christians?"

What does Perhaps Professor Blier think happened at Masada?

We don't here about a mass suicide of Christians, only these Galilaean rebels.

It is therefore completely obvious that the entire Roman Empire knew that the Jewish Galilaean rebels (at Masada) were trained to die. The Christians of the first century are totally unattested outside of the New and Strange Testament. Only a myopic Christian mind would even contemplate Epictetus may have been referring to Christians here.

At Masada, soldiers chose suicide over surrender. I don't think this is the same as being trained to die. You could say that all soldiers are trained to kill and to die- but this would not distinguish the Galileans,

"Being trained to die" does bring to mind Christian martyrs. Christians are attested by the second century by most people's standards, even if you reject the Nero reference.

Toto · 08-23-2013, 12:37 PM

For purposes of interpreting this reference, it doesn't matter if the mass suicide was actual or fictional. - just as it doesn't matter if there were Christian martyrs, or only stories of Christian martyrdom.

mountainman · 08-23-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

"Surely referring to the Christians?"

What does Perhaps Professor Blier think happened at Masada?

We don't here about a mass suicide of Christians, only these Galilaean rebels.

It is therefore completely obvious that the entire Roman Empire knew that the Jewish Galilaean rebels (at Masada) were trained to die. The Christians of the first century are totally unattested outside of the New and Strange Testament. Only a myopic Christian mind would even contemplate Epictetus may have been referring to Christians here.

At Masada, soldiers chose suicide over surrender. I don't think this is the same as being trained to die. You could say that all soldiers are trained to kill and to die- but this would not distinguish the Galileans,

The figures speak for themselves - nearly 1000 Galilaean rebels are "allegedly" reported to have selected death over surrender in the 1st century.

Quote:

"Being trained to die" does bring to mind Christian martyrs. Christians are attested by the second century by most people's standards, even if you reject the Nero reference.

The problem here is chronology: the source is Epictetus [55-135 CE] (via Arrian)

Quote:

His most famous pupil, Arrian, studied under him when a young man (c. 108 AD) and claimed to have written the famous Discourses from his lecture notes

Our source for the alleged fabulous martyrdoms are SINGULAR (not hundreds or thousands) and are sourced all by way of Eusebius, and the dates of these martyrdoms (excluding the bullshit Nero business) are all well after Arrian's notes (108 CE) or Epictetus' death (135 CE).

This leaves us with the logical observation that Epictetus makes reference to those Galilaeans - Judaean rebels, not Christians - who were all over Judea in the 1st century until the Roman military offensive at Masada.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

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

08-22-2013, 05:57 AM	#83
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sounds like there was great confusion in the text attributed to Julian. After all, why would the emerging Christians have been called Galileans under any circumstances, especially since Jesus was "born" in Bethlehem, and a "descendant" of David (on mother's side), and a Judean? And if the Christians were gentiles anyway, what is the point of relating them to any name of ancient Palestine at all, other than to establish in a BACK-HANDED MANNER their ANTIQUITY and AUTHENTICITY? Haven't we discussed previously the phenomenon of condemnations of "Christians" going back to the first century functioning as establishing the authenticity of Christians in a totally back-handed way?! The Toldoth itself can be seen in this way, which is why I highly doubt the Toldoth stories were ever even written by Jews. By professing condemnation of Christianity one in fact lends LEGITIMACY to the idea of its antiquity back to the first century. That's very creative indeed.

08-23-2013, 12:37 PM	#89
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	For purposes of interpreting this reference, it doesn't matter if the mass suicide was actual or fictional. - just as it doesn't matter if there were Christian martyrs, or only stories of Christian martyrdom.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.