Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-12-2013, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Origen certainly read Josephus, because he quotes him 4 times at least. Since Josephus is only quoted 13 times in literature before 325, that is a lot. More to the point, Origen is one of the very few people to quote from Antiquities 11-20 (Antiquities was transmitted in two halves). See these very old notes of my own:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm

Actually Origen does not quote Josephus as much as you stated because some of what he claimed about Josephus have not been found or is contradicted by Josephus' in existing copies.

MrMacSon · 09-13-2013, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

... However, I wish to inquire if you have considered that Origen --> Pamphilus-->Eusebius-->Jerome could simply be the work of Jerome?

I dunno about Jerome, but Richard Carrier thinks a lot of what was recorded is more down to Pamphilus than Eusebius. In discussing the elaboration of the Testimonium Flavianum he says

Quote:

"My impression from the work of Eusebius is that he is kind of a doof and didn’t actually know where passages like this came from. I suspect he is not the forger. But [Ken] Olson’s evidence entails that if Eusebius is not the forger, then his teacher and predecessor almost certainly is, and that’s Pamphilus of Caesarea. We have almost none of what was written by that man, thus we can’t check directly, but all the evidence Olson finds of Eusebian authorship of the TF could be remnants of vocabulary, idioms, and ideas Eusebius inherited from his teacher. And the timeline fits (I argue the accidental interpolation in the other passage [Antiquities 20.200] occurred under Pamphilus’s watch as well, since it’s clear Eusebius didn’t know that had occurred, as I show in my article, yet it must have occurred after Origen, as I also show in my article, and Pamphilus was Origen’s successor; I also demonstrate there that all present copies of Josephus derive from the copy Eusebius held in his library, which was Pamphilus’s library, inherited from Origen).

"Either way, Olson’s case is extremely robust, ensuring a very high probability that the TF is a forgery of Eusebius or Pamphilus, and occurred sometime in the latter third or early fourth century."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4391

mountainman · 09-13-2013, 04:40 AM

Thanks for that reference to Carrier's blog Mac.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC

Attempts to rescue the TF should be declared dead.

mountainman · 09-13-2013, 08:52 AM

Since there have already been some discussion about "Pseudo-Isidore" ...

Isidore of Seville: The Medical Writings. An English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary

Did Galen's "De pulsuum differenti" get preserved via this source Isidore of Seville?

Quote:

Saint Isidore of Seville (Latin: Isidorus Hispalensis) (c. 560 – 4 April 636) served as Archbishop of Seville for more than three decades and is considered, as the 19th-century historian Montalembert put it in an oft-quoted phrase, "The last scholar of the ancient world".[1] Indeed, all the later medieval history-writing of Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal) was based on his histories.

mountainman · 09-16-2013, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That's an example of how you can use Bayes' theorem to revise a figure for the probability of something in the light of additional evidence.

For example, if you already have a background figure for the probability that a document is a forgery and you want to revise that in the light of additional information about the characteristics of the document, then you can use Bayes' theorem to do so if (and only if) you have a background figure for the probability of finding those additional characteristics in any document of the general type (forged or not) and a figure for the probability of finding those characteristics in a forged document.

More specifically, if you have a figure for the percentage of all documents that are in red ink, and a figure for the percentage of forged documents that are in red ink, you can use Bayes' theorem to adjust your previously established figure for the probability that a document is forged when you discover the additional information that it's in red ink.

This is not quite what I had in mind but its part of the way there.

The key concept that I think needs to be challenged is this notion that many people have regarding the faithful preservation of manuscripts from antiquity to the present day. Although everyone must be aware of the fact that there have been a great number of pious forgeries that have been exposed, this fact seems to be being (uncritically) ignored. I suspect Bayes theorem might be harnessed to expose the weakness of this position.

You're earlier example needed three groups.

Group 1: All manuscripts that have ever been considered to have been transmitted from antiquity to the present day.

Group 2: All manuscripts in this category which have been exposed as forgeries and are now rejected as forgeries.

Group 3: The balance of manuscripts held to be transmitted from antiquity and which are still assumed to be "faithful copies".

Thanks for any ideas.

J-D · 09-16-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That's an example of how you can use Bayes' theorem to revise a figure for the probability of something in the light of additional evidence.

For example, if you already have a background figure for the probability that a document is a forgery and you want to revise that in the light of additional information about the characteristics of the document, then you can use Bayes' theorem to do so if (and only if) you have a background figure for the probability of finding those additional characteristics in any document of the general type (forged or not) and a figure for the probability of finding those characteristics in a forged document.

More specifically, if you have a figure for the percentage of all documents that are in red ink, and a figure for the percentage of forged documents that are in red ink, you can use Bayes' theorem to adjust your previously established figure for the probability that a document is forged when you discover the additional information that it's in red ink.

This is not quite what I had in mind but its part of the way there.

The key concept that I think needs to be challenged is this notion that many people have regarding the faithful preservation of manuscripts from antiquity to the present day.

What notion is that many people have regarding that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Although everyone must be aware of the fact that there have been a great number of pious forgeries that have been exposed, this fact seems to be being (uncritically) ignored.

By whom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I suspect Bayes theorem might be harnessed to expose the weakness of this position.

What leads you to suspect that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

You're earlier example needed three groups.

Group 1: All manuscripts that have ever been considered to have been transmitted from antiquity to the present day.

Group 2: All manuscripts in this category which have been exposed as forgeries and are now rejected as forgeries.

Group 3: The balance of manuscripts held to be transmitted from antiquity and which are still assumed to be "faithful copies".

Thanks for any ideas.

My idea is that you should go away and study a range of example where people have actually used Bayes' theorem, in order to understand it better. Either that, or give up on the idea of using it and approach the subject (whatever it is) in some other way. You might, for example, take a stab at answering this question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

UNKNOWN evidence cannot be used to develop an hypothesis.

DATA FIRST--THEN HYPOTHESIS.

Scientists can clock on at 9:00 am and work a 9 hour day and then clock off and in that period of time generate more data that you and I could poke a stick at in 9 lifetimes. Historians do not have that luxury. Every few years another new data item may be discovered from the period in antiquity we are discussing.

We have the data already. It is not going to change all that much. It is our attitude to the data that actually changes. This attitude is isomorphic to the hypotheses we allow ourselves to create and maintain, to test and retest, with respect to the available data evidence.

The absence of evidence can be used to develop a hypothesis.

In fact a hypothesis may be developed in the absence of evidence IFF (if and only if) it does not conflict with any known evidence.

Why do you want to develop a new hypothesis?

Curiousity.

The old ones don't seem to work too well (at least for me).

What's wrong with them?

mountainman · 09-16-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

My idea is that you should go away and study a range of example where people have actually used Bayes' theorem, in order to understand it better.

That's a good idea.

Thanks

Quote:

Although everyone must be aware of the fact that there have been a great number of pious forgeries that have been exposed, this fact seems to be being (uncritically) ignored.

By whom?

For example, by those who argue that the Christian references in Galen and Cassius Dio are genuine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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. Thallus 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 · 09-16-2013, 10:11 PM

Your mode of argument is not sound. You are putting forward the notion that writings of antiquity must be rejected out of hand merely because they were preserved or believed to be manipulated by apologetics.

This is not acceptable at all.

Every manuscript must first be thoroughly examined because it may contain information or clues to resolve the matter under discussion.

The very first thing that you continue to overlook is that the word "Christian" is not directly related to the Jesus cult so it is not even necessary for the 4th century Church to have forged writings using an AMBIGUOUS word that does NOT help to show that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

The Jesus cult writers claimed that MANY Persons would be called CHRIST therefore many persons called Christians would NOT be of the Jesus cult.

Matthew 24:5 KJV

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:6 KJV

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8 KJV

Quote:

And he said , Take heed that ye be not deceived : for many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and the time draweth near : go ye not therefore after them.

Please read the very Scriptures of the Jesus cult.

The word Christian does not mean a follower of the Jesus cult.

The word Christian does NOT need to be a forgery.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.' There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names..

The mention of the name Christian in writings of antiquity can refer to Impious, Unrighteous and Sinful ATHEISTS.

In effect, the mention of Christians by any writer of antiquity can be authentic yet have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Jesus cult of Christians in the 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

My idea is that you should go away and study a range of example where people have actually used Bayes' theorem, in order to understand it better.

That's a good idea.

Thanks

Quote:

Although everyone must be aware of the fact that there have been a great number of pious forgeries that have been exposed, this fact seems to be being (uncritically) ignored.

By whom?

For example, by those who argue that the Christian references in Galen and Cassius Dio are genuine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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. Thallus 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"

mountainman · 09-16-2013, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are putting forward the notion that writings of antiquity must be rejected out of hand merely because they were preserved or believed to be manipulated by apologetics.

This is false.

I am pointing out that there are (at least) two issues regarding the "manuscripts transmitted from antiquity". The first is what they say (both in their original language and in their translation to English), which you appear to be vitally interested in, and the second is the detailed specification of their manuscript transmission history.

Here is an example of a small part of what I mean by a detailed specification of their manuscript transmission history.

Do you understand aa5874 that this manuscript transmission history must also be examined as evidence either for or against authenticity?

I am certainly not putting forward the notion that writings of antiquity must be rejected out of hand merely because they were preserved or believed to be manipulated by apologetics.

What I am arguing is that it is important to examine both what the writings say and how the writings were transmitted. I need not point out that with very few exceptions the process of manuscript transmission has been the self-appointed task of the church and its ecclesiastical scribes. This is certainly NOT a rejection out of hand but rather a necessary investigative caution.

andrewcriddle · 09-21-2013, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Feldman states (p.26) that:

Quote:

There is one phrase in the Testimonium that, while it has been noted
by several scholars, has not been sufficiently emphasized, namely, eis
eti te nun (still to this day), referring to the fact that "still to this day,"
"the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has not disappeared."
This brief phrase, I would like to suggest, may--I repeat, may--give
us the key to the whole puzzle as to the legitimacy of the Testimonium
Flavianum. That key is now available to us because of the compilation
during the past few decades of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the
complete dictionary of all the Greek words in all the extant Greek literature.
In such a thesaurus, one would expect such a phrase to appear
not hundreds but thousands of times, and it does appear frequently;
but the only writer in this entire collection of many thousands of
Greek texts to use this phrase with the words in this order, aside from
Josephus, is Eusebius, in whose writings it appears three times. This
phrase thus appears to be a favorite of Eusebius and of no one else, at
least of extant writers from that period.

Now this seems really rather impressive (to me, anyway). But we must always verify our facts.

I have just performed a TLG simple textual search myself, on "EIS ETI TE NUN", and it does indeed give 4 results:

1. Josephus, in the TF.
2. Eusebius, Church History book 1, chapter 11, verse 8, here; in, ahem, Eusebius' quotation of the TF.
3. Eusebius, Church History, book 2, chapter 1, verse 7 here: "7 When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching. **And from that time down to the present** the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of Christ, offering no common proof of the beneficence of our Saviour toward them also."
4. Eusebius, Eclogae Propheticae, p.168 l.15 (no published English translation exists): "Διὸ καὶ τότε θαυμάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς εἰκὸς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἔμφροσιν, καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἀναγράπτους παρὰ τοῖς ἱερογραμματεῦσι φυλάττεσθαι, εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν παρ’ ὅλῳ τῷ ἔθνει προφήτας γεγονέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύεσθαι·" (Anyone care to give us a translation?)

It's fairly obvious why #2 contains these exact words - it's a quotation. It is no argument against Eusebius that #3 does so, since Eusebius has the phrase in his mind from book 1.

It is interesting that the quotation of the TF in the Demonstratio Evangelica does not appear in this search; and that no subsequent quotation of the TF with the words appears either. This last bit suggests to me that that the TLG search is not doing quite what Feldman supposes.

I likewise wonder whether this method has been adequately tested for producing false positives. What other phrases might give "interesting" results.

In view of the paucity of data, there seems no obvious reason to suppose anything except that Eusebius came across the phrase in the TF and liked it enough to use it -- in the vast volume of his works -- a total of twice more. But that nobody else in Greece ever used it... um... I mistrust this claim deeply.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

......................................

There is an interesting article by Alice Whealey on the TF pages 101-104 are available on Google Books and deal with the eis eti te nun issue.

Basically Whealey argues that the earliest manuscripts of Josephus have eis te nun not eis eti te nun and so do some early citations of the TF . She suggests that Eusebius slightly corrected the text of the TF from the earlier eis te nun and that this Eusebian text has contaminated the standard text of Josephus.

IF she is right it may help us determine which early citations of the TF are using Eusebius and which are using Josephus.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.