mountainman

Wasted space? Do you think Huller is wasting space with this repetitive posting of pictures?
Why does he not address the problems with the Hippolytus manuscript outlined?

When are you going to jerk Huller's chain?

Toto

Addressed, but you don't like the answer, and you have not followed my suggestion that you specify exactly what points you think are worth discussing.

I don't know of any, but I don't know why this is an issue. Which writer would you have expected to mention this passage, which refers to an imperial concubine and adds nothing to Christian theology?

I don't think this is the strongest or cleanest evidence, but on balance, it doesn't look like an interpolation or a forgery. If you want to claim that it is, you need a bit more argument other than "it possibly could have been."

stephan huller

Pete wants the world to accept the fourth century conspiracy FIRST and from their move on to question the evidence that contradicts this claim. But only a fool would operate this way. The testimonies to Marcia the Christian exist and are independent of one another and are much stronger than any of the stale nonsense he puts forward. I've said it before - if a Christian came on this board and argued that a modern Satanic conspiracy was guiding all the discussions in this forum they would be banned from the forum. And yet ...

aa5874

The passage in Roman History 73 does not state that Macia was a Christian or refer to Marcia the Christian.

Marcia was NOT a Christian but had goodwill towards them.

Whether or not there were Christians in the time of Commodus--Marcia was NOT described as a Christian in Cassius Dio Roman History 73.

But, what is even more remarkable is that two previous chapters in Roman History 70 and 72 that mention Christians were admittedly NOT written by Cassius Dio.

The stories about Christians were ADMITTED to have come from other books NOT Cassius Dio.

In fact, one of those books was mentioned--Eusebius Pamphili 'Ecclesiastical History'.

Roman History 70

mountainman

How many times can Huller repeat the same mistake?

Not good for reputation points.



The reference in the 11th century epitome of Cassius Dio Book 73 does not describe Marcia as a Christian.
The reference states that there was a [Christian] tradition in which she showed favour towards them.

The key word being [Christian] tradition .
The key thing that a [Christian] epitome writer - perhaps quite innocently - would add.



Thanks aa5874. I was just about to point this out.

Huller has a severe lack of comprehension skills.

I don't know how he arrives at these totally BS claims.

Moreover he insists on derailing any discussion I contribute to by continuously advertising the fact that I have in the past argued for consideration of the hypothesis that we are dealing with a 4th century Christian origins, when it has nothing to do with the technical references being discussed.

Toto

But Pete - what other motive do you have to challenge this reference? If Rodney Stark's reconstruction of Christian growth has any bit of accuracy, Christians at this time were an obscure group with a few fellow travelers like Marcia in the courts. This is the sort of off hand mention that you would expect. If a Christian interpolated anything, you would expect some supernatural intervention, or tales of martyrs, not this.

mountainman

Where are they addressed?
Were all the issues addressed?
Who addressed all the issues raised?



Well before you suggested that I had already provided a list of points to be discussed in regard to the claim made by Huller and Andrew ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller Quote: How is it "derailing" a thread, to inquire about sources of information? But what's there to 'inquire' about? The information has been there for centuries and it is confirmed in many other sources. The most obvious being the Christian source the Philosophumena commonly identified as 'the Refutation of Heresies' and attributed to Hippolytus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller The same information appears in other sources (Hippolytus, Ref. 9.12)

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle One problem with regarding the reference to Marcia's Christian sympathies in the epitome as being a late interpolation is that in practice it requires the epitomist to have had access to Hippolytus' work against heresies. This is improbable; the work seems to have been little known in the medieval church, possibly because it is so very unkind to poor pope Callistus. Andrew Criddle

Here are the issues that need to be addressed:

Problems with the Philosophumena as a witness of Cassius Dio

(1) 14th century ms

The MS., written as appears from the colophon by one
Michael in an extremely crabbed hand of the fourteenth
century, is full of erasures and interlineations, and has
several serious lacunae.


(2) The question of the Forgery of the ms

Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin
and Heinrich Stahelin separately advocated the ms was a forgery


(3) The Number of Latinisms ...

Jacobi, its first critic, was so struck by the
number of " Latinisms " that he found in it as to conjecture
that it is nothing but a Greek translation of a Latin original.


(4) The Callistus/Noetus heresy is Post Nicaean ...

He further accuses Callistus of leaning towards
the heresy of Noetus who refused to admit any
difference between the First and Second Persons of the
Trinity...


(5) the Authorship was Origen, now Hippolytus, perhaps Tertullian ...

Jacobi in a German theological journal was
the first to declare that it must have been written by
Hippolytus, a contemporary of Callistus, 2 and this proved
to be like the letting out of waters. The dogma of Papal
Infallibility was already in the air, and the opportunity was
at once seized by the Baron von Bunsen, then Prussian
Ambassador at the Court of St. James', to do what he could
to defeat its promulgation. In his Hippolytus and his Age \
(1852), he asserted his belief in Jacobi's theory, and drew
from the abuse of Callistus in Book IX of the newly dis-
covered text, the conclusion that even in the third century
the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome was effectively denied.
The celebrated Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln,
followed with a scholarly study in which, while rejecting
von Bunsen's conclusion, he admitted his main premises ;
and Dr. Dollinger, who was later to prove the chief
opponent of Papal claims, appeared a little later with a
work on the same side. Against these were to be found
none who ventured to defend the supposed authorship of
Origen, but many who did not believe that the work was
rightly attributed to Hippolytus. Among the Germans,
Fessler and Baur pronounced for Caius, a presbyter to
whom Photius in the ninth century gave the curious title
of " Bishop of Gentiles, " as author ; of the Italians, de
Rossi assigned it to Tertullian and Armellini to Novatian ;
of the French, the Abbe Jallabert in a doctoral thesis voted
for Tertullian ; while Cruice, who was afterwards to translate
the work, thought its author must be either Caius or Ter-
tullian.

Will someone point out the problem if we allow the 11th century Christian epitome writer to have had access to this 'work against heresies' written by Hippolytus or Origen or Tertullian, but for which we have only one 14th century manuscript.

The writer of the epitome clearly had other books available to him.


As aa5874 has pointed out, one of these was Eusebius "Church Hi Story".

Here is some background on the author of the epitome of Book 73:

John Xiphilinus

mountainman

The reference is found in the statement of a "Christian tradition" in the epitome of a Christian scribe of the 11th century, the earliest manuscript being from the 15th century.

The following from Roger's notes:

The question resolves to who is more likely to have added a Christian tradition to a collection of books on "Roman History" by Cassius Dio? We have two options. One - it was added by Cassius Dio, or two, it was added by the Christian epitomator John Xiphilinus (or someone between the 11th and 15th century). We have already seen that John Xiphilinus freely adds Christian traditions in Books 70 and 72. Therefore the second option appears far more likely.

The writers of epitomes may freely (and quite innocently) add legends and traditions to their account. As such this need not be perceived as an interpolation. The translator Carey states that John Xiphilinus's task was "very carelessly performed" and that the scribe of the 15th century MS "dealt very freely with such passages".

Can you find any academic discussion that supports your argument that this reference was likely to have been made by Cassius Dio in his original works? I have searched for such without any success. Huller's contribution in the citation of animal pictures is about what I expect his childish and immature contribution to be, but any other contributors are expected to make reference to some academic reference in order to further the answer the question in the OP.

stephan huller

It was a statement about the relative value of your efforts for ten years here and in other parts of the internet universe. Another picture:



The caption: 'Pete's fourth century conspiracy theory in action'

mountainman

How does this relate to the question of the OP "Does Cassius Dio mention Christians"?

And why do you continue to raise this issue time and time again?