Freethought & Rationalism Archive

watersbeak · 09-10-2013, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have examined statements attributed to Julian in "Against the Galileans" and those statements allow me to argue that the TF was not known and was not forged until AFTER c 360 CE.

The following quote would seem to support your contention, that the earliest reference to Josephus' TF is 4th century, but then, why do some scholars claim that Origen knew of TF, but failed to comment on it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324,[53] Eusebius quotes the passage[54] in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.[55][56] However, it is also possible that others, including the third-century patristic writer Origen also knew of the passage. Although Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium, scholars such as Louis Feldman and Zvi Baras have presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone

I cannot understand how a "scholar" is able to read Origen, and conclude that what he did not write about indicates something, anything....

I have not written about football. What should we then conclude about my opinion, regarding it?

Sam

mountainman · 09-10-2013, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have examined statements attributed to Julian in "Against the Galileans" and those statements allow me to argue that the TF was not known and was not forged until AFTER c 360 CE.

The following quote would seem to support your contention, that the earliest reference to Josephus' TF is 4th century, but then, why do some scholars claim that Origen knew of TF, but failed to comment on it?

///

I cannot understand how a "scholar" is able to read Origen, and conclude that what he did not write about indicates something, anything....

I have not written about football. What should we then conclude about my opinion, regarding it?

Not all scholars subscribe to the same series of hypotheses about just one item of evidence. Some scholars still think we are dealing with a Christian holy writ which was originally inspired by the Holy Spirit, who in the 1st century of the common era until the beginning of the 2nd century, used people as instruments to forge write the books of the canonical new testament.

aa5874 made that first statement. Not I.

Thanks Sam.

watersbeak · 09-10-2013, 08:13 AM

Thanks for correcting me...

Sam

Toto · 09-10-2013, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have examined statements attributed to Julian in "Against the Galileans" and those statements allow me to argue that the TF was not known and was not forged until AFTER c 360 CE.

The following quote would seem to support your contention, that the earliest reference to Josephus' TF is 4th century, but then, why do some scholars claim that Origen knew of TF, but failed to comment on it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

... Although Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium, scholars such as Louis Feldman and Zvi Baras have presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone

I cannot understand how a "scholar" is able to read Origen, and conclude that what he did not write about indicates something, anything....
...

Sam

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.)

aa5874 · 09-10-2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even Science theories may be modified on the discovery of new evidence.

Unknown evidence [presumptions] are really of no value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What do you mean precisely by this last statement? Hypotheses about the manuscript and textual evidence are of value. In fact they are essential because they must be expressed if called upon to do so.

Now we may make the hypothesis that the words we read from evidence of the books were those words written in the 5th century by the Despotic Doctor of the Church, the Refuter of those Terrible LIES of the academic Emperor Julian, the "Seal of the Fathers", the murder terrorist boss pyromaniac scumbag, nephew of Uncle Despotic Theophilus (who may have been worse), CYRIL of downtown Alexandria.

We may make the further hypothesis that quite uncharacteristically in the quote out of "Contra Julian" the author Cyril is telling the truth and presenting the statements of Julian, out of the lost (DESTROYED) "Against the Galilaeans".

You appear to be taking these hypotheses to be provisionally true.

You seem to be promoting a double standard. You appear to believe that Cyril of Alexandria was the author of writings from which "Contra Julian" was assembled.

Why are you accusing Cyril of Refuting Julian when you also admit that there was a Forgery mill??

You must admit that you really don't know what Cyril wrote or if he actually wrote anything in "Contra Julian".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Again hypotheses about what may have or may not have been written, are necessary since we are not dealing directly with what Julian actually said but with what Cyril claims to be what Julian actually said. The hypothesis that Cyril omitted everything that was really incriminating to the "Church Business and Prestige" of the 5th century is quite attractive. His job was to refute the "LIES of Julian".

Your statement is contradictory and not logical. If Cyril attempted to Refute Julian then he must have mentioned or expected to mention what Julian wrote.

This the start of "Against the Galileans". It is so obvious that Cyril did not omit everything.

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

mountainman · 09-10-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

(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.)

The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - Olson

It would appear from this blog that Feldman has now come out as a supporter of the theory that Eusebius "dunnit".

Quote:

The theory of Eusebian authorship has been criticized by James Carleton Paget (2001) and dismissed by Alice Whealey (2007), but has now also been advocated by Louis Feldman. In his 2012 review article on the Testimonium, Feldman comes to the conclusion that Eusebius is likely to be the author of the extant text:

“In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.” (p. 28).

I have not looked at Feldman's original article of 2012. However Feldman has been a very instrumental scholar in outlining the contending theories and hypotheses concerning the authenticity (or partial authenticity) of the TF. His advocation of the Eusebian authorship will upset many people.

mountainman · 09-10-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even Science theories may be modified on the discovery of new evidence.

Unknown evidence [presumptions] are really of no value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What do you mean precisely by this last statement?

I asked for clarification here. You have not answered this question.

What do you mean by the statement "Unknown evidence [presumptions] are really of no value."?

Hypotheses concerning the (both positive and negative) evidence are critical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hypotheses about the manuscript and textual evidence are of value. In fact they are essential because they must be expressed if called upon to do so.

Now we may make the hypothesis that the words we read from evidence of the books were those words written in the 5th century by the Despotic Doctor of the Church, the Refuter of those Terrible LIES of the academic Emperor Julian, the "Seal of the Fathers", the murder terrorist boss pyromaniac scumbag, nephew of Uncle Despotic Theophilus (who may have been worse), CYRIL of downtown Alexandria.

We may make the further hypothesis that quite uncharacteristically in the quote out of "Contra Julian" the author Cyril is telling the truth and presenting the statements of Julian, out of the lost (DESTROYED) "Against the Galilaeans".

You appear to be taking these hypotheses to be provisionally true.

You seem to be promoting a double standard. You appear to believe that Cyril of Alexandria was the author of writings from which "Contra Julian" was assembled.

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

Quote:

Why are you accusing Cyril of Refuting Julian when you also admit that there was a Forgery mill??

I am provisionally accepting the hypothesis that Cyril was refuting the LIES of Julian as true for a number of reasons. Cyril's books are entitled "Against Julian" and Cyril openly admits in those books (in many places) that he is setting out to refute the LIES of Julian.

In regard to the hypothesis that a forgery mill was in operation during the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th (Pseudo-Isidore), 10th centuries ... etc etc etc, this is an additional hypothesis based on a great deal evidence which is additional to the matters related to Cyril and Julian.

Quote:

You must admit that you really don't know what Cyril wrote or if he actually wrote anything in "Contra Julian".

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

I am not discounting the possibility that Cyril was forged by a later hand however as a provisional starting point for discussion I am happy to run with the hypothesis that Cyril physically authored "Contra Julian" in the 5th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Again hypotheses about what may have or may not have been written, are necessary since we are not dealing directly with what Julian actually said but with what Cyril claims to be what Julian actually said. The hypothesis that Cyril omitted everything that was really incriminating to the "Church Business and Prestige" of the 5th century is quite attractive. His job was to refute the "LIES of Julian".

Your statement is contradictory and not logical. If Cyril attempted to Refute Julian then he must have mentioned or expected to mention what Julian wrote.

While I provisionally accept the hypothesis that Cyril (in "Contra Julian") mentioned some things that Julian wrote, I also accept the hypothesis that Cyril purposefully omitted a great deal of material that Julian wrote, because Cyril openly admits to this. Julian wrote three books but Cyril appears to have confined his refutation to the first of these three books.

Quote:

This the start of "Against the Galileans". It is so obvious that Cyril did not omit everything.

Julian's Against the Galileans

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Yes of course it is obvious that Cyril did not (or could not) omit everything. One of the things that Cyril could not really afford to omit was the opening lines of Julian's three books. It is a well known fact that people have always kept as special the opening lines of books, and poems and speeches. For a modern example just have a look at 100 Best First Lines from Novels from the American Book Review. I am sure that there are ancient equivalents.

Anthologies may provide a good example where collections of speeches, books, poems or other LITERARY WORKS are collected, and in which there appears not just an index of the collection, but also the opening lines of each of the items collected.

I therefore subscribe to the hypothesis that while Cyril could have made up any statements and then attributed them to Julian, or have taken Julian's statements out of context (by omitting the context, which he certainly did in many cases), it is extremely unlikely that Cyril could have literally altered the opening statement by Emperor Julian at the beginning of his three book treatise "Against the Galilaeans" (because the books of the emperor would have been collected in many anthologies between c.363 CE and the 5th century when Cyril did his censorship.)

Now please, what do you mean by the statement "Unknown evidence [presumptions] are really of no value."?

Specifically what do you mean by "presumptions" and how does what you mean by "presumptions" relate to "hypotheses"?

I have already agreed that your hypothesis that the TF was authored after c.360 CE is quite viable.

Now as far as the OP goes I have made a summary of my position above at post # 60, with a few questions.

Do you or does anyone else have any comments to make about this (provisional) summary?

aa5874 · 09-10-2013, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I asked for clarification here. You have not answered this question.

What do you mean by the statement "Unknown evidence [presumptions] are really of no value."?

Hypotheses concerning the (both positive and negative) evidence are critical.

I have already clarified your questions.

UNKNOWN evidence cannot be used to develop an hypothesis.

DATA FIRST--THEN HYPOTHESIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

What about the forgery mill?? Are you provisionally discarding your forgery mill for Cyril, the murder terrorist boss pyromaniac scumbag?

J-D · 09-10-2013, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you understand Bayes' Theorem, why don't you apply it yourself?

Essentially I am not sure of the precise question to ask. The question relates to the estimate of the likelihood of forgery given there certainly appears to be so much forgery (interpolation, etc) of non-Christian authored documents in which references to the Christians appear before the religion was legalized . (See the list above).

Quote:

If you don't understand Bayes' Theorem, why do you place so much confidence in it?

It appears to have positive application to certain situations.

I understand the basics.

If you yourself don't know what question it is that you yourself are trying to answer, there's no way anybody else can.

Sometimes discussion can prompt such a question to arise.

The question seems to need to relate to forgery. Everyone here is IMO strolling nonchalantly through a mine-field of forgeries. Everyone admits there was a lot of forgery going on throughout the centuries from the origins of the Christian Greek Bible and all the other Bishop to Bishops Communications and Letters etc etc etc. Everyone is strolling through the century of forgeries following the carrot of the transcendental "lost original" copied perfectly to the present day. Somehow the odds of the forgeries are being swept under the carpet of consensus, and they are treated as exceptions rather than the norm.

In some of the Bayes Theorem demos I have seen an example of probability of flipping three coins, one of which is biased and always gives "heads". This seems one possible way to factor in forgery to our expectations, but as to the detailed specifications of a general question, or example, I have not got much further.

Thanks for asking.

At the moment the question is whether Galen mentions Christians.

I have collated five references above, one of which resembles the "TF", three of which involve references to "Moses and Christ" as a pair, and a final one which seems to be recognised as "sheer historical nonsense".

If we could assign values for

A the background probability that Galen mentions Christians

and

B the background probability that X is the case

and

C the probability that X would be the case given the additional information that Galen mentions Christians

then we could use Bayes Theorem to calculate

D the probability that Galen mentions Christians given the additional information that X is the case

That's the kind of question Bayes Theorem is useful for. How it's going to help you here I can't imagine.

mountainman · 09-11-2013, 02:26 AM

Thanks J-D. I'll have to think about that.

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

09-10-2013, 08:13 AM	#63
watersbeak Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: south Posts: 29	Thanks for correcting me... Sam

09-11-2013, 02:26 AM	#70
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thanks J-D. I'll have to think about that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.