Duvduv

Is it overly necessary to reinvent the wheel, especially when you are asking to refute claims that themselves attempt to prove what cannot be empirically proven but which require acceptance as givens that need not be empirically proven because "they just are."

Toto

Who is trying to reinvent the wheel?

If you require absolute proof of things, there is no point in trying to do ancient history at all. If this is the stance you take, please stop posting in this forum. You are just wasting everyone's time.

We have to operate on the usual principles of ancient history: we look for the most probable explanation of the evidence, given that the evidence is always more or less uncertain.

Duvduv

Who said anything about absolute proof, as opposed to empirical proof. And in fact the truth is that empirically one cannot really propose anything more than a hypothesis about ancient history one way or the other, especially when events are recorded by the winners.

And "most probable" is in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it?

Well, at least a biased approach can argue more for the unproven empirical existence of Marcion than for the existence of, say, Moses.

mountainman

It's called an epitome of history.
The epitome was written in the 11th century by a Christian.
Some of the original books of Cassius Dio are available.
This late source is not one of these.


I have provided a source (above multiple times) which states that Cassius Dio did not mention Christianity.


Can you find an independent source to substantiate the "common knowledge" that Cassius Dio mentions Christianity?






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

"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:

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:



That's not too inspiring is it?

So why do we think Hippolytus wrote it?


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.


Callistus almost appears to be an Arian heretic.


Summary

Can anyone cite any academic treatment dealing with the OP?

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

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

You cited an 11th century epitome of Cassius Dio, not one of the original books of Cassius Dio. I think that this is precisely the reason that the Salempress article states "Dio's writings never mentioned Christianity".


The earliest text of the "Philosophumena" was written with an "extremely crabbed hand of the fourteenth century, is full of erasures and onterlineations, and has several serious lacunae.". There were controversies over this ms. being a forgery. It was originally thought to be Origen but now were running with Hippolytus despite heavy backing for Tertullian. What can we say about the evidence? Well it's all pretty late, and the parallel between this sort of stuff and the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries looks more applicable the more of these "church father" manuscripts surface on the market.


What I would not mind seeing is the Greek word that has been translated to "Christians" in this epitome of the 11th century.

I can recall reading that the translation may have come via the French, in which case "CHRESTIANS".

We could be looking at another ultra-violet image of the Greek text here.



Therefore IMO the claim that Cassius Dio mentions Christians is as yet "not proven".




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

Ha ha ha ha.

andrewcriddle

N/A

If the Philosophumena is a 3rd century work then the precise authorship of the work is irrelevant to the point I made.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

AFAIK the appearance of the Philosophumena manuscript in the 19th century, dated to the 14th century, is the only textual witness for some unknown Christian heresiologist. There are all sorts of reports about this ms including the estimation by some for forgery.

The hypothesis that there in fact existed a 3rd century Philosophumena manuscript may not necessarily be the right hypothesis. I retain the right to point out that there have in the past also been identified problems with the appearance of manuscripts of both Tacitus and Pliny-Trajan (see Drews) from the 14th/15th century. This Cassius Dio reference is a similar sort of thing, but very late to the scene (19th CE).

But to return to the OP, as I mentioned above to Kent ...


The reference under discussion to date is from an epitome of history.
Cassius Dio did not write his own 11th century epitome of history.
The epitome was written in the 11th century by a Christian.
Some of the original books of Cassius Dio are however available. (See above)
This late source is not one of these.


I have provided a source (above multiple times) which states that Cassius Dio did not mention Christianity.


Can you find an independent source to substantiate the "common knowledge" that Cassius Dio mentions Christianity?







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

Oh? Pray tell why so? Oh I forgot you start off wanting to prove a fourth century conspiracy theory. Good you pointed that out.

Oh and this has what to do with the topic at hand? Oh yes, you are obsessed with proving a fourth century conspiracy theory. Glad you pointed that out.

.

Ha ha ha.