Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-11-2013, 07:36 PM

Thanks Toto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Agapius was a Melkite Christian (pro-Byzantium) at a time of intensifying Islamization of his native Syria. What he wrote was political correctness for his own times. A new Shia Hamdani dynasty had been established barely 50 miles away in Aleppo. Its first prince, Sayf ad Dawlah ("sword of the state"), began a century of persistent attacks against Byzantium. Agapius' paraphrase of a Syriac rendition of Josephus from a Greek original rather significantly mentions JC's "condemnation to die" but not the actuality of it and of JC being "alive" 3 days later – in other words, a carefully balanced compatibility with Muhammad's view of a Jesus as a prophet who did not die on the cross.

The uncritical use of apocryphal and legendary materials is also common to Agapius and to the Quranic compilers.

stephan huller · 09-11-2013, 08:38 PM

Oh good. You've learned something that you can easily unlearn if the opportunity for promoting your idiotic theory presents itself.

stephan huller · 09-11-2013, 08:45 PM

And in answer to the original question - does Galen mention Christians? Yes he does. The writings associated with Galen have four allusions to Christians. I don't know that the authenticity of all of the references are solid. But at least two of them seem pretty solid to me at least.

J-D · 09-11-2013, 10:31 PM

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?

aa5874 · 09-12-2013, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am provisionally accepting the hypothesis that Cyril authored "Contra Julian" as true.

]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What about the forgery mill??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius oversighted the production of Bible codices for Constantine and moonlighted writing history and martyrologies. Athanasius oversighted the production of Bible codices for Constantius and moonlighted writing hagiography and "Against Arius". Then along came Julian.

Writings attributed to Apologetics that mention activities of Constantine are likely to be forgeries or manipulated sources.

It would have been the Bishop of Rome who would be expected to handle such matters as the History of the Church and the oversight of Bible Codices--not Eusebius.

Who was Eusebius anyway?? Was he more powerful than the Bishop of Rome?

Who was the supposed Bishop of Rome in the time of Constantine?

It was NOT Eusebius.

Examine the admitted forgery called the "Donation of Constantine". You will now see that it is claimed Constantine acknowledged Sylvester as the highest pontiff in the Roman Church--Not Eusebius.

It is also claimed Constantine got the Nicene Creed from Sylvester, the Most High Father--Not Eusebius.

In fact, Eusebius is not mentioned at all.

Writings attributed to Eusebius about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, may all be manipulated or forgeries especially -Church History, -Life of Constantine - Oration of Constantine "to the Assembly of the Saints"- Oration in Praise of Constantine - Letter on the Council of Nicaea.

As soon as you admitted there was a forgery mill then you don't really know who wrote anything in antiquity.

Donation of Constantine

Quote:

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church, who have been established now and in all previous times-grace, peace, charitv, rejoicing, long-suffering, mercv, be with you all from God the Father almighty and from Jesus Christ his Son and from the Holy Ghost.

Our most gracious serenity desires, in clear discourse, through the page of this our imperial decree, to bring to the knowledge of all the people in the whole world what things our Saviour and Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the most High Father, has most wonderfully seen fit to bring about through his holy apostles Peter and Paul and by the intervention of our father Sylvester, the highest pontiff and the universal pope.

First, indeed, putting forth, with the inmost confession of our heart, for the purpose of instructing the mind of all of you, our creed which we have learned from the aforesaid most blessed father and our confessor, Svlvester the universal pontiff; and then at length announcing the mercy of God which has been poured upon us...........Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created.............. We so learned Him to be very man and very God by the preaching of our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, that we can in no wise doubt that He was very, God and very man....................... For this is our orthodox creed, placed before us by our most blessed father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff.........

aa5874 · 09-12-2013, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

UNKNOWN evidence cannot be used to develop an hypothesis.

DATA FIRST--THEN HYPOTHESIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

You cannot develop an hypothesis about antiquity from a BLANK SHEET of paper.

Science theories are not really much different to developing an hypothesis about the past because ALL hypotheses NEED DATA FIRST.

You MUST FIRST have DATA. There must FIRST be some data-- some written statement-- some artifact, some archaeological find--some observation--some evidence.

The absence of certain details from the actual collected data can be used to develop an hypothesis.

For example, I cannot argue that my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was NOT an Eskimo because of NO or unknown evidence.

I can only develop such an hypothesis AFTER I have actually collected some kind of evidence for my great.......grandfather.

One analyses actual data NOT blank sheets of paper.

We can develop hypotheses about the Jesus cult since we have recovered the Dead Sea Scrolls, NT manuscripts, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, the Codices and other Dated evidence.

Paleographers have examined NT manuscripts and have dated them BEFORE the 4th century so it cannot be successfully argued that the Jesus cult did NOT exist before the 4th century whether or not Galen mentioned Christians.

However, whether or not Galen mentioned Christians, it can be easily argued that there was NO Jesus cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Galen writings are compatible with the recovered DATED NT manuscripts.

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2013, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ken Humphreys on Agapius

Quote:

Agapius was a Melkite Christian (pro-Byzantium) at a time of intensifying Islamization of his native Syria. What he wrote was political correctness for his own times. A new Shia Hamdani dynasty had been established barely 50 miles away in Aleppo. Its first prince, Sayf ad Dawlah ("sword of the state"), began a century of persistent attacks against Byzantium. Agapius' paraphrase of a Syriac rendition of Josephus from a Greek original rather significantly mentions JC's "condemnation to die" but not the actuality of it and of JC being "alive" 3 days later – in other words, a carefully balanced compatibility with Muhammad's view of a Jesus as a prophet who did not die on the cross.

From the World History of Agapius, part 2:

Quote:

On the same day that Adam had been driven out of Paradise, Our Lord Christ died, may He be glorified, and he was buried, then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. That year the Passover took place on 21 Adar, on Thursday, and the Passover of the Christians, the people of our Lord Christ, may He be glorified, took place on Sunday, 24 of Adar; the Ascension on Thursday, 3 of Iyar, and Pentecost on the Sunday, the 13 of Iyar.

About two paragraphs before the Josephus passage.

Duvduv · 09-12-2013, 07:45 AM

Eusebius, Eusebius......it does sound somewhat fishy that a consultant or historian has so much impact beyond that of specific leaders. Who knows, maybe Eusebius was just a pseudonym for a collection of writers commissioned by the leadership of the Empire, including leaders themselves. You know, like Mark Twain was Samuel Clemens, or better yet, Franklin W. Dixon, the alleged author of the Hardy Boys books, but who was actually half a dozen different writers........

watersbeak · 09-12-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is clear that Origen had read Josephus, because he refers to another passage in Josephus. I think the scholars have just argued that Origen's failure to mention the TF is not evidence against its existence in his copy.

(But I think that Feldman has changed his opinion on this or some related issue, although I don't have the time now to track that down.)

Thank you, Toto.

I haven't read Feldman. I haven't read, a lot. Let me rephrase that; I have read not a lot. I have in fact, read very little. I am uninformed. I do not challenge your authority, sir. However, I wish to inquire if you have considered that Origen --> Pamphilus-->Eusebius-->Jerome could simply be the work of Jerome?

When you write, "It is clear that Origen..." my eyes glaze over. How is that "clear" to you? Upon which manuscript evidence do you rely, to acquire that conviction? Is that the opinion of Epiphanius, upon whom you rely, to hold with such confidence this belief about what Origen had read? Then, I would ask, which manuscript of Epiphanius do you employ to acquire such an opinion?

Sam

Toto · 09-12-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is clear that Origen had read Josephus, because he refers to another passage in Josephus. I think the scholars have just argued that Origen's failure to mention the TF is not evidence against its existence in his copy.

(But I think that Feldman has changed his opinion on this or some related issue, although I don't have the time now to track that down.)

Thank you, Toto.

I haven't read Feldman. I haven't read, a lot. Let me rephrase that; I have read not a lot. I have in fact, read very little. I am uninformed. I do not challenge your authority, sir. However, I wish to inquire if you have considered that Origen --> Pamphilus-->Eusebius-->Jerome could simply be the work of Jerome?

When you write, "It is clear that Origen..." my eyes glaze over. How is that "clear" to you? Upon which manuscript evidence do you rely, to acquire that conviction? Is that the opinion of Epiphanius, upon whom you rely, to hold with such confidence this belief about what Origen had read? Then, I would ask, which manuscript of Epiphanius do you employ to acquire such an opinion?

Sam

I am relying on what is generally attributed to Origen. This may be mistaken, but I have not seen a reason to question these texts.

The point is that the texts generally attributed to Origen do not mention the TF, but do quote from other passages in Josephus.

Ben Smith has collected these references here:

Text Excavation - Origen on Josephus

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

09-11-2013, 08:38 PM	#82
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Oh good. You've learned something that you can easily unlearn if the opportunity for promoting your idiotic theory presents itself.

09-11-2013, 08:45 PM	#83
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And in answer to the original question - does Galen mention Christians? Yes he does. The writings associated with Galen have four allusions to Christians. I don't know that the authenticity of all of the references are solid. But at least two of them seem pretty solid to me at least.

09-12-2013, 07:45 AM	#88
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Eusebius, Eusebius......it does sound somewhat fishy that a consultant or historian has so much impact beyond that of specific leaders. Who knows, maybe Eusebius was just a pseudonym for a collection of writers commissioned by the leadership of the Empire, including leaders themselves. You know, like Mark Twain was Samuel Clemens, or better yet, Franklin W. Dixon, the alleged author of the Hardy Boys books, but who was actually half a dozen different writers........

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.