Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kent F · 08-26-2013, 03:19 PM

Let me ask you, Mountainman, if the Christian reference in the writings of Cassius Dio is a 4th century forgery, then why did this forger, of all the hundreds of people mentioned by the historian, choose Marcia, a woman of sin, a mistress to the mad Emperor Commodus who saw himself as a demi-God like Hercules? It's about one of the worst choices the forger could have made.

stephan huller · 08-26-2013, 03:57 PM

You're asking for what's reasonable and mountainman doesn't do reasonable. Cuing ridiculous hopelessly desperate waffle in one, two, three ...

mountainman · 08-26-2013, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

Let me ask you, Mountainman, if the Christian reference in the writings of Cassius Dio is a 4th century forgery, then why did this forger, of all the hundreds of people mentioned by the historian, choose Marcia, a woman of sin, a mistress to the mad Emperor Commodus who saw himself as a demi-God like Hercules? It's about one of the worst choices the forger could have made.

Hi Kent,

The Christian reference may have been inserted quite innocently by the 11th century BYZANTINE Christian, because the reference basically claims their was a legend/tradition in which Marcia "greatly favoured the Christians and rendered them many kindnesses.".

Quote:

Originally Posted by English translation of 11th century epitome of Cassius Dio

The tradition is that she greatly favoured the Christians and rendered them many kindnesses, inasmuch as she could do anything with Commodus.

This is something an epitome might supplement to Cassius Dio. We have seen this is precisely the case in Book 72. The 11th century Christian epitome simply adds the Christian related legend to the account.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-26-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

we do not have the original books of Cassius Dio for this segment of history and instead have substituted a 12th century epitomist

This isn't even worth discussing. The same information appears in other sources (Hippolytus, Ref. 9.12) Get a life. Do something useful. This is a complete waste of time.

You have not yet responded to the issues raised in the translator's introduction to this text attributed to Hippolytus, formerly to Origen. This text resolves to a very late manuscript with all sorts of problems and issues.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 08-26-2013, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

This isn't even worth discussing. The same information appears in other sources (Hippolytus, Ref. 9.12) Get a life. Do something useful. This is a complete waste of time.

You have not yet responded to the issues raised in the translator's introduction to this text attributed to Hippolytus, formerly to Origen. This text resolves to a very late manuscript with all sorts of problems and issues.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

I'm trying to figure out why this thread is still going on. I have gone through it, and it is hard to find a focus.

It seems we have a manuscript that is, like many others, not in great shape, but no indication that any of the difficulties revolve around Marcia or her favor towards Christians.

We have a bogus claim, that Dio does not mention Christians, made in a high school text book, which I hope we all recognize is baseless (unfortunately fairly typical of the quality of many US secondary school textbooks.)

We have a case where there is a clear added reference to Christians, but it is marked as such.

We have no clear motive for an interpolator to turn an imperial concubine into a friend of Christians, and no particular reason to think that it was a marginal note (it could be but that would mean that there is another source for Marcia, which we don't know about.)

I would ask Pete, if he want to continue this thread, to specifically quote the issues (with page numbers) that are worth discussing in the translator's introduction referred to above.

Also, please stop adding 6 blank lines at the end of your posts before your signature. I makes scrolling through the thread more difficult than it should be.

Roger Pearse · 08-27-2013, 12:07 AM

A good summary. I had the same experience, leafing through and trying to find some specifics. There doesn't seem to be anything more to say.

mountainman · 08-27-2013, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would ask Pete, if he want to continue this thread, to specifically quote the issues (with page numbers) that are worth discussing in the translator's introduction referred to above.

These issues have already been outlined at (post #65) in my response to Andrew copied below:

Re: Hippolytus' work against heresies

The only manuscript is via an "extremely crabbed hand of the fourteenth century.

The source we are using for Cassius Dio is a Byzantine Christian epitomator of the eleventh century.

I don't see as a problem the claim that the epitomist had access to Hippolytus' work against heresies.
The same Byzantine scribe had access to the Christian legend of the "Thundering Legion" (Book 72).
Obviously someone had access to it in the fourteenth century.

It seems to me that a likely explanation is that another christian legend has been included in the epitome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by English translation of 11th century epitome of Cassius Dio

The tradition is that she greatly favoured the Christians and rendered them many kindnesses.

The epitome provides for yet another Christian tradition, that may not have been in Cassius Dio's original books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

"Philosophumena; or, The refutation of all heresies, formerly attributed to Origen, but now to Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, who flourished about 220 A.D. Translated from the text of Cruice"

From the introduction:

Quote:

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.

The evidence found in the 19th century appears to be dated to the 14th century.

The Christian epitomator worked in the 11th.

But there were those who thought the ms. was a forgery:

Quote:

Forgery: Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin
Heinrich Stahelin

Quote:

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.

That's not too inspiring is it?

So why do we think Hippolytus wrote it?

Quote:

Authorship:

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 discovered 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 Tertullian.

Originally they thought Origen wrote it.
Now they think Hippolytus wrote it.
But the controversy is far from determined.
Tertullian may be back in the running next.
At least the Latinisms would made sense.

Quote:

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

Callistus almost appears to be an Arian heretic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INTRODUCTION to "Philosophumena"

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...

Summary

Can anyone cite any academic treatment dealing with the OP?

I have cited one academic treatment that answers in the negative.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 08-27-2013, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

It seems to me that a likely explanation is that another christian legend has been included in the epitome.
..

Except that there is nothing to explain, and the first Christian addition was plainly marked as such, while this is not.

If this is what it comes down to, there's nothing more to say here.

mountainman · 08-27-2013, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

It seems to me that a likely explanation is that another christian legend has been included in the epitome.
..

Except that there is nothing to explain, and the first Christian addition was plainly marked as such, while this is not.

If this is what it comes down to, there's nothing more to say here.

More uncritical nonsense.

(1) Failure to address any of the points raised, re-requested and then re-raised above, about the integrity of the Origen Hippolytus manuscript which is from the 14th century.

(2) Failure to cite any previous mention of the Cassius Dio reference by any writer from antiquity to the present day. Which writer at any time takes note of this Christian reference between the time that Cassius Dio wrote until the Christian epitomator wrote in the 11th century? Which writer mentions the Christian reference between the 11th and the 21st century?

Those who are arguing for the genuine nature of this Christian reference in the "Roman History" of Cassius Dio are obliged to explain the silence on this reference from antiquity to the present day. This is beginning to look like Apologetics 101.

stephan huller · 08-27-2013, 06:01 PM

mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.

mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.

mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat.
mountainman: it's not a cat.

mountainman: I hate cats.

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

08-26-2013, 03:19 PM	#91
Kent F Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 60	Let me ask you, Mountainman, if the Christian reference in the writings of Cassius Dio is a 4th century forgery, then why did this forger, of all the hundreds of people mentioned by the historian, choose Marcia, a woman of sin, a mistress to the mad Emperor Commodus who saw himself as a demi-God like Hercules? It's about one of the worst choices the forger could have made.

08-26-2013, 03:57 PM	#92
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You're asking for what's reasonable and mountainman doesn't do reasonable. Cuing ridiculous hopelessly desperate waffle in one, two, three ...

08-27-2013, 12:07 AM	#96
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	A good summary. I had the same experience, leafing through and trying to find some specifics. There doesn't seem to be anything more to say.

08-27-2013, 06:01 PM	#100
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: it's not a cat. mountainman: I hate cats.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.