mountainman

Let me clarify my statement. I have never classified the Christian reference in Xiphilinus' epitome of Book 73 of Cassius Dio's "Roman History" as a forgery. My position is that Xiphilinus freely adds "Christian traditions/legends" to other epitomes of the books of Cassius Dio -- possibly quite INNOCENTLY -- because he is a Christian commissioned by a Christian Byzantine Emperor to recover by epitome the LOST HISTORY BOOKS of Cassius Dio. By the 11th century the Christian tradition has totally dominated all other traditions.

What my statement above was in response to was the UNCRITICAL and UNSHAKABLE FAITH placed by (tenured) Christian academics of the 19th, 20th and 21st century in the integrity of the 14th century Philosophumena manuscript, originally attributed to Origen (184/185 – 253/254) and then to Hippolytus ( (170–235) with many (out of the minority) opting for Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 CE).

We have already seen in the thread about the Pseudo-Isidorian (False) Decretals that a high-profile group of ecclesiastical scribes in the 9th century forged a great many manuscripts and documents from the pre-Nicaean epoch. Part of this massive forgery is described as follows:

Despite this evidence of massive forgery, when the 14th century Philosophumena manuscript is discovered in the mid 19th century, there is an uncritical rush to jump on board the assumption that this manuscript is a copy of something written in the 3rd century, ELEVEN CENTURIES earlier, without any reservation.

It is the utter lack of reservation that I have objected to in my statement above. The entire industry of Christian literature is based upon the assumption that masses and masses of documents in our possession have originals in the very early centuries of the common era. I find this assumption to be childish and very uncritical largely as a result of the mountains of evidence that exists to demonstrate the operation of forgery mills in the intervening centuries.

In the case of the testimony of this manuscript of the Philosophumena, a 14th century document is being used to reconstruct the 2nd and 3rd century history of the "nation of Christians". This uncritical practice is endemic to the entire field.

Toto

Let's be critical, then. Why do you think that this one reference to Marcia favoring Christians is an interpolation? There is opportunity and means, but no motive, no tell tale signs of forgery.

Forgery follows a pattern. What is the pattern here? Why link Christians to an imperial concubine who was influential in court, but was still an impure fornicator and murderess?

Duvduv

That's is what they say. But even Stephan will admit there is no manuscript dated to the 2nd century from Irenaeus, who allegedly wrote all about a complete Christian canon a mere 30 years after Justin didn't know anything about it.

mountainman

I am not claiming the reference in the epitome is either a forgery or an interpolation. This is what I stated above:

Let's be critical by way of a political analogy. Imagine a scenario which instead of pagan and Christian histories we have Republican and Democrat histories. Xiphilinus is appointed by the Republican Emperor to write an epitome of Democrat history. It is quite within the bounds of feasibility that Xiphilinus incorporates a few tid-bits of Republican historical tradition into his epitome of Cassius Dio's Democrat history.


A concubine was not regarded as an "impure fornicator" but rather a "defacto fornicator". She was allegedly fucking the Roman Emperor and presumably vice verse. So what? I do not discount the possibility that Xiphilinus had available to him the text of the Philosophumena. However I question the (uncritical) claim that the Philosophumena was necessarily in existence in the 3rd century.

stephan huller

This is becoming utterly foolish. I think the motives of the rabble here are pretty transparent. They don't like Christianity and are so blinded by their hatred for the religion that they have somehow come to the conclusion that the best argument to destroy Christianity is to argue against the authenticity of the Marcia reference. As I have already noted, a number of pious types have done the exact same thing from the completely opposite POV - they are embarrassed by the implication of (a) Dio Cassius (b) the Philosophumena (c) Irenaeus Adv Haer 4.30.1 - 4 (d) Eusebius Church History 5.21 (e) a great number of minor references here and there.

All of these reference assume a close relationship between Christianity and the Imperial court at the time of Commodus - collusion of a similar nature as what mountainman has been claim about the fourth century under Constantine.

I just want to know why is the fourth century conspiracy 'more sensible' than this 'late second century' conspiracy? I am not talking about 'inventing' Christianity in the Imperial court. I am just talking about gaining the favor of Caesar.

These references exist (a) (b) (c) (d)

In order to write the off mountainman is claiming what about each one exactly?

(a) was invented by John Xiphilinus c. 11th century by means of a clandestine visit to Mount Athos and discovering the Philosophumena? Did he set out incorporate Marcia into Dio or after discovering this ignored manuscript under a pile of books and reading the account of this Christian whore he felt so compelled to break his habit of staying faithful to Dio and added this reference in?
(b) how exactly did the Philosophumena's reference emerge? A crazy monk decided that he hated a forgotten third century bishop of Rome so much (= Callistus )that he invented a story about him being rescued from the mines by Marcia? What about the pages of detail about Callistus that have to do with Carpophorus, Sabellius and the rest of the stuff on Callistus? All made up? What were the sources? Just out of his imagination? Who was the forger?
(c) who invented Irenaeus's references about the number of Christians in Commodus's court? I guess your argument would be that it was Eusebius's forgery mill. But why? If you are going to make anyone a Christian why not chose Commodus's dad Marcus Aurelius? Indeed Irenaeus does the completely unexpected move of making the good Emperor persecute Christians in 177 CE but Commodus the wicked Emperor was favorable? What possible reason could there have been for this?
(d) Eusebius's reference has to be fake for you because he is 'such a bad guy.' So he planted the evidence in Irenaeus as to the favorable conditions in the Empire at the time of Commodus, wrote the account of 'things being more favorable under Commodus' in his own Church History and then forged the reference in the Philosophumena presumably - but on top of this John Xiphilinus stumbled upon one of his forgeries and was so hypnotized by its greatness that he too became a forger.

Ha ha ha

Please read a little bit about Commodus. The worst Emperor up until that time hands down or so generally portrayed. Not a person of 'high moral standing.'

Sheshbazzar

The difference being that significant events and personages circa 1980 can be corroborated and supported by multiple non-Xtian and non-apologetic contemporary sources.
Third century Xtian writings make claims about 1st, 2nd and 3rd century CE events and personages that are wholly lacking in any external corroboration or attestation outside of the imaginative and highly suspect religious writings of 3rd century Xtian writings. ....most of which we do not possess any originals, but only much latter Church reworked 'copies' of dubious origins and authenticity.
The 'scholarly' practice of employing ('reconstructed') 3rd century Xtian writings to corroborate and to validate the claims of 3rd century Xtian writers as a source of the 'history' of Xtianity is ......hmmm...I can think of a term for it.

mountainman

How many times can Huller make these absolutely outlandish emotionally driven false accusations against people who argue against his personal hypotheses "emotional convictions" about ancient history? How many times do I have to reject this false emotional drivel?

Please quote these references for discussion.

stephan huller

Ummm. Let's start with (A) Xiphilinus wrote an epitome that covers Books 36–80 of Dio and in those places where the original Dio is compared to his epitome it always shows remarkable conformity to the original.

But because 'the Christians' are mentioned in association with Marcia the concubine of Commodus in part of that faithful epitome, you raise questions about it.

And now (B) EVERYONE in the world who knows you, knows that you do this because you are upholding your moronic 4th century conspiracy. You aren't fooling anyone. No one thinks it is a reasonable conclusion - one that comes from impartiality - to pick this one passage out of the whole epitome to question when Xiphilinus shows such fidelity to Dio.

How else is this strange obsession with proving that Christianity arose from a conspiracy between Eusebius and Constantine? It can't be indifference.

Love? Hypnosis? Demonic possession?

mountainman

But that's not what you cited your source as stating ...


What instances drive the "always" to "nearly always"?
Does Swan elucidate these?



Sorry for questioning your "Faithful epitome"? Is that presuming your conclusion, "general knowledge" or simply a Freudian slip?


I gave Toto a political analogy.

Imagine a scenario which instead of pagan and Christian histories we have Republican and Democrat histories. Xiphilinus is appointed by the Republican Emperor (seven centuries after the Republican Party became "legalised") to write an epitome of Democrat history (prior to the "legalisation" of the Republican Party). It is quite within the bounds of feasibility that Xiphilinus incorporates a few tid-bits of Republican historical tradition into his epitome of Cassius Dio's Democrat history. Cassius Dio's Democrat history was held in very high regard by everyone.

Firstly do you understand the analogy via politics.

stephan huller

If it was "verbatim" it would be a copy not an epitome