MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Is this an exercise in rational scepticism?

No

Why not? Because of the 'clown' comment?

I don't know about rational scepticism, but I've yet to see analysis of anything.

Tracer Tong wrote:I don't know about rational scepticism, but I've yet to see analysis of anything.

The analysis concerns references contained to the existence of Christians in that category of literature which is supposedly independent of the claims and the dogma of the church history. The list provided has been claimed to be comprehensive. Items on the list are to be assessed for their integrity.

I reserve the right to be sceptical of anything the church insists is a legitimate claim.

Therefore it seems reasonable to start off at the 50% mark - neither authentic nor inauthentic. We have discussed briefly these "arguments from authority" which resolve to the claim that some of these references are most likely authentic. Legitimate unless otherwise proven to be not. This is not the way forward for rational scepticism in its conflict with elements of church dogma in the field of ancient history.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Is this an exercise in rational scepticism?

No

Why not? Because of the 'clown' comment?

Primarily because you are merely asserting your beliefs. There is a lack of well-reasoned argument

Secondarily because you lack skepticism as to your own position.

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Is this an exercise in rational scepticism?

No

Why not? Because of the 'clown' comment?

Primarily because you are merely asserting your beliefs. There is a lack of well-reasoned argument

I have been citing the beliefs of academics and scholars. The argument is simple. Literary evidence outside and thus supposedly INDEPENDENT of the church (Eusebius et al) is gathered together for the epoch prior to the Christian revolution of the 4th century. The claim has been that this list is reasonably comprehensive. That has not yet been challenged.

Secondarily because you lack skepticism as to your own position.

Lets use the TF as an example. My position is certainly for a forgery. The fact remains that others have assailed it as a fraudulent interpolation by the church. And yes there are still some who argue for its genuineness in entirety. I understand we have a whole range of opinions.

There is no expectation to obtain definitive answers either way on some of these items listed. The spread - range - or spectrum - of opinion on any one item should be noted. However because the list provided in the OP has been complied after some research and is claimed to be comprehensive, an analysis of the big picture is sought.

The big picture being the integrity of the (entire list of) historical literary evidence underpinning these supposedly independent witnesses - drawn from sources of classical or Jewish literature outside the "Church Tradition" - which would have us infer the existence of Early Christians prior to 325 CE.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I don't know about rational scepticism, but I've yet to see analysis of anything.

The analysis concerns references contained to the existence of Christians in that category of literature which is supposedly independent of the claims and the dogma of the church history. The list provided has been claimed to be comprehensive. Items on the list are to be assessed for their integrity.

But you've yet to assess anything. Feel free to begin.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:
No

Why not? Because of the 'clown' comment?

Primarily because you are merely asserting your beliefs. There is a lack of well-reasoned argument

I have been citing the beliefs of academics and scholars. The argument is simple.

Perhaps it is, but I've yet to see you set it out. In your OP you stated it is possible the listed passages are all forgeries. Which of course it is. But you have haven't shown how you move from that mere possibility to anything more.

Secondarily because you lack skepticism as to your own position.

Lets use the TF as an example. My position is certainly for a forgery. The fact remains that others have assailed it as a fraudulent interpolation by the church. And yes there are still some who argue for its genuineness in entirety. I understand we have a whole range of opinions.

There is no expectation to obtain definitive answers either way on some of these items listed. The spread - range - or spectrum - of opinion on any one item should be noted. However because the list provided in the OP has been complied after some research and is claimed to be comprehensive, an analysis of the big picture is sought.

The big picture being the integrity of the (entire list of) historical literary evidence underpinning these supposedly independent witnesses - drawn from sources of classical or Jewish literature outside the "Church Tradition" - which would have us infer the existence of Early Christians prior to 325 CE.

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say here about big pictures.

The fact is there are a bunch of texts potentially providing evidence. Those which are forgeries are evidence for what the forgers thought (or at least what they wanted others to think). If any of them are authentic they are evidence for what their authors thought (or wanted others to think). So for each text a reasoned judgement has to be reached as to authenticity etc and then their evidence used accordingly. I thought that was what you were going to attempt. But when Tracer Tong offered the chance to do this you just went round in circles

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Why not? Because of the 'clown' comment?

Primarily because you are merely asserting your beliefs. There is a lack of well-reasoned argument

I have been citing the beliefs of academics and scholars. The argument is simple.

Perhaps it is, but I've yet to see you set it out. In your OP you stated it is possible the listed passages are all forgeries. Which of course it is. But you have haven't shown how you move from that mere possibility to anything more.

The intention was not to get stuck on any one item in the list but to make an assessment which is probably going to have to involve a range of probabilities. Perhaps something like this:


HOW AUTHENTIC ARE THESE "CHRISTIAN REFERENCES"?


Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

I guess the statistical average might be interesting.

Again, I don't think anything can be "proved" here, except to raise the obvious questions ...

Secondarily because you lack skepticism as to your own position.

Lets use the TF as an example. My position is certainly for a forgery. The fact remains that others have assailed it as a fraudulent interpolation by the church. And yes there are still some who argue for its genuineness in entirety. I understand we have a whole range of opinions.

There is no expectation to obtain definitive answers either way on some of these items listed. The spread - range - or spectrum - of opinion on any one item should be noted. However because the list provided in the OP has been complied after some research and is claimed to be comprehensive, an analysis of the big picture is sought.

The big picture being the integrity of the (entire list of) historical literary evidence underpinning these supposedly independent witnesses - drawn from sources of classical or Jewish literature outside the "Church Tradition" - which would have us infer the existence of Early Christians prior to 325 CE.

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say here about big pictures.

The fact is there are a bunch of texts potentially providing evidence. Those which are forgeries are evidence for what the forgers thought (or at least what they wanted others to think). If any of them are authentic they are evidence for what their authors thought (or wanted others to think). So for each text a reasoned judgement has to be reached as to authenticity etc and then their evidence used accordingly. I thought that was what you were going to attempt. But when Tracer Tong offered the chance to do this you just went round in circles

I had not encountered anyone prior to TT who has challenged the finding of the translators and academics on their assessment of the Marcus Aurelius reference being an interpolation. It was an interesting exercise. In the end some range has to be allocated to it.

Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

The default position is EVEN 50%

I see the Marcus reference as "probably not authentic" .... < 40%

For the Lucian reference, the existence of large numbers of "spurious" works in the name of Lucian reduces the chance that either of the works containing the Christian references are not "spurious", so I'd be looking at a figure less than 50%.

Nothing is certain or impossible so the extremes disappear.

Those I have already listed as known forgeries BCE and in the 1st century (except for the TF) I would be inclined to rate as "Almost certainly not authentic" with a max chance of 11%.

The TF would have to get a little more chance - Probably not authentic (13-39%)

ETC

That was the plan.

Here's a summary showing the estimated probability of the reference being authentic ....

Obviously the estimates can be disputed.




# C Date Pagan Witness to the Historicity of Christians Probability Authentic

0.1 BCE Erythraean Sibyl Almost certainly not (1-12%)
0.2 BCE 106-043 Cicero translates Sibyl’s acrostic Almost certainly not (1-12%)
0.3 BCE 040 BCE Virgil: advent of Christ predicted Almost certainly not (1-12%)
1.1 1st 030-033 King Agbar of Edessa - the letter to Jesus Almost certainly not (1-12%)
1.2 1st 093-094 Josephus Flavius - TF, Antiquity of the Jews Probably not (13-39%)
1.3 1st 050-065 Seneca - correspondence with "Paul" Almost certainly not (1-12%)
1.4 1st 054-305 Nero to Diocletian: Persecution of Christians Probably not (13-39%)
2.1 2nd 101-112 Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97; letter to Trajan Probably not (13-39%)
2.2 2nd 101-112 Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript) Probably not (13-39%)
2.3 2nd 115-116 Tacitus - Annals 15:44 Probably not (13-39%)
2.4 2nd 118-119 Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16. Probably not (13-39%)
2.5 2nd 125-135 Epictetus (via Arrian) - the Galilaeans Almost certainly not (1-12%)
2.6 2nd 170-180 Marcus Aurelius - Meditations 11:3 Probably not (13-39%)
2.7 2nd 170-180 Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
2.8 2nd 177-177 Celsus: known only via Origen as preserved by Eusebius Withdraw from list?
2.9 2nd 180-200 Galen Under investigation
3.1 3rd Mishna? Almost certainly not (1-12%)
3.2 3rd 230-235 Cassius Dio Probably not (13-39%)
3.3 3rd 220-240 Julius Africanus Thallus mentions Christians? Withdraw from list?
3.4 3rd 240-270 Mani - Various writings (dated from the end of the 4th century) Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
3.5 3rd 260-270 Plotinus Under investigation
3.6 3rd 280-300 Porphyry - Platonist academic preserved writings of Plotinus. Under investigation

Leucius Charinus wrote:I see the Marcus reference as "probably not authentic" .... < 40%

On what basis? Hitherto, you've just cited a couple of sources which think it is spurious; I've shown you others which think it isn't, or are undecided. What's needed is some argument, which is currently absent.

Leucius Charinus wrote:For the Lucian reference, the existence of large numbers of "spurious" works in the name of Lucian reduces the chance that either of the works containing the Christian references are not "spurious", so I'd be looking at a figure less than 50%.

There's the same absence here, too: the fact that some works in the Lucianic corpus are spurious is no argument at all that the Christian references in the two works I've referred to are spurious.

Frankly, this thread looks less an exercise in your analysing these references than in your long-windedly expressing that you're sceptical of them. Still, let's try another. You mention Galen in your OP. What do you have to say about him?

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:
Primarily because you are merely asserting your beliefs. There is a lack of well-reasoned argument

I have been citing the beliefs of academics and scholars. The argument is simple.

Perhaps it is, but I've yet to see you set it out. In your OP you stated it is possible the listed passages are all forgeries. Which of course it is. But you have haven't shown how you move from that mere possibility to anything more.

The intention was not to get stuck on any one item in the list but to make an assessment which is probably going to have to involve a range of probabilities. Perhaps something like this:


HOW AUTHENTIC ARE THESE "CHRISTIAN REFERENCES"?


Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

I guess the statistical average might be interesting.

Again, I don't think anything can be "proved" here, except to raise the obvious questions ...

The assignment of probabilities requires methodology. You haven't set any methodology out.

Secondarily because you lack skepticism as to your own position.

Lets use the TF as an example. My position is certainly for a forgery. The fact remains that others have assailed it as a fraudulent interpolation by the church. And yes there are still some who argue for its genuineness in entirety. I understand we have a whole range of opinions.

There is no expectation to obtain definitive answers either way on some of these items listed. The spread - range - or spectrum - of opinion on any one item should be noted. However because the list provided in the OP has been complied after some research and is claimed to be comprehensive, an analysis of the big picture is sought.

The big picture being the integrity of the (entire list of) historical literary evidence underpinning these supposedly independent witnesses - drawn from sources of classical or Jewish literature outside the "Church Tradition" - which would have us infer the existence of Early Christians prior to 325 CE.

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say here about big pictures.

The fact is there are a bunch of texts potentially providing evidence. Those which are forgeries are evidence for what the forgers thought (or at least what they wanted others to think). If any of them are authentic they are evidence for what their authors thought (or wanted others to think). So for each text a reasoned judgement has to be reached as to authenticity etc and then their evidence used accordingly. I thought that was what you were going to attempt. But when Tracer Tong offered the chance to do this you just went round in circles

I had not encountered anyone prior to TT who has challenged the finding of the translators and academics on their assessment of the Marcus Aurelius reference being an interpolation. It was an interesting exercise. In the end some range has to be allocated to it.

Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

The default position is EVEN 50%

Why should it be 50%? Just because you've got two possibilities? That needn't give 50% at all: the chance of any particular day being a weekend versus not a weekend is 2/7. I would say the default position should be higher, since as far as I know the majority of ancient texts are not forgeries (tho I have no idea what the actual % is)

I see the Marcus reference as "probably not authentic" .... < 40%

This 10% reduction appears entirely arbitrary. But if it was well-reasoned and in fact the default position were, say, 80%, then you would still have a 70% likelihood it was authentic

For the Lucian reference, the existence of large numbers of "spurious" works in the name of Lucian reduces the chance that either of the works containing the Christian references are not "spurious", so I'd be looking at a figure less than 50%.

This makes no sense. If you've eliminated some Lucian works as spurious but not the others, the others are currently in the not-spurious category. So passages within them are, in the absence of further evidence and argument, also non-spurious

The remainder of your post attempts to assign percentages. Hopefully the above explains why these just don't work

Tracer Tong wrote:You mention Galen in your OP. What do you have to say about him?

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/galen ... stians.htm

Lists 6 references of which the first two are but reference to Moses.

Of the six references listed the first two appear to refer to Jews. References 3, 4 and 5 are all references to "Moses and Christ" while Ref 6 refers to Christians.

The references 3 and 4 both from are from "De differentiis pulsuum" (=On the pulse):

REF 3

... in order that one should not at the very beginning,
as if one had come into the school of Moses and Christ,
hear talk of undemonstrated laws, and that where it is
least appropriate. [ii, 4]

and


REF 4

One might more easily teach novelties to the followers
of Moses and Christ than to the physicians and philosophers
who cling fast to their schools [iii, 3]]/list:u]



These two references appear to be the only references to the
Christians in the works of Galen. If they were genuine, would
we not have expected him to have given us a fuller account of
them [the followers of Christ] somewhere?


Here is a sample of the 6th reference:


From Galen, (=Summary of Platonic dialogues),
in 8 books; from part 3. The work is listed in De libris propriis c. 14.17

This work is lost, but a quotation is found in Arabic authors in somewhat different forms. Hunain ibn Ishaq records that he translated a work in four parts, written by Galen in eight parts, containing summaries of works by Plato.18

The first version is found in Abu Ali Isa ibn Ishaq ibn Zura 19 (known as Ibn Zura, d. 1008 AD),
On the main questions discussed between Christians and Jews. 20

Walzer translation:21


Galen ... says at the end of his summary of Plato's Republic:


[I]
"In the religious community of the followers of Christ there are most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue; and this is to be seen not only in their men but in their women as well." And I see that he admires them for their virtue, and although he is a man whose position is known and whose opposition to Judaism and Christianity is manifest and clear to everybody who has studied his books and knows what he states in them, he nevertheless cannot deny the excellent qualities which the Christians display in their virtuous activities.



But did Galen write this? Such a wonderful simply truly wonderfully glowing report on the Christians.

Testimonium Flavianum Galenium?


The major problem with those references above which are known only via Arabic manuscripts is that these references seem to resolve not to the books of Galen, but to a (lost) "Life of Galen" which seems to have been written in the late 6th century by John the Grammarian of Alexandria.

I have been trying to find without success so far the earliest archetype manuscript for Galen's "On the Pulse".

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

The default position is EVEN 50%

Why should it be 50%?

I explained that above. Essentially the logic is that 50% is the starting place if one is not using any arguments from authority (either way) and that any evidence which reduces the possible authenticity of the references decreases that starting probability, whereas any evidence which increases the possible authenticity of the references increases that starting probability.

Just because you've got two possibilities?

Because I am trying to start with a blank slate.

I would say the default position should be higher, since as far as I know the majority of ancient texts are not forgeries (tho I have no idea what the actual % is)

I agree that the majority of ancient texts are not forgeries, but the OP is examining a very specific and a comprehensive set of texts which are supposedly completely independent of the church. When that list is examined, the evidence of forgery of some of those references by the church is glaringly obvious. What is the church doing forging and interpolating literary references to Christians in the pagan and classical literature of antiquity? This is an open question.

Nevertheless, it is precisely the identification of some KNOWN forgeries, and the identification of a host of possible interpolations and/or forgeries that seems to me make it justifiable for the investigator to be highly sceptical and very suspicious about the rest of the references in this comprehensive set of references.

As a result of this, I think that it is fitting to start at the 50% mark as stated above.

Previously all of these forged and interpolated references were foisted into circulation by the church, so how can anyone possibly start with an assumption that any of these references is authentic (even 80%) by means of an appeal to the authority of the church?

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

The default position is EVEN 50%

Why should it be 50%?

I explained that above. Essentially the logic is that 50% is the starting place if one is not using any arguments from authority (either way) and that any evidence which reduces the possible authenticity of the references decreases that starting probability, whereas any evidence which increases the possible authenticity of the references increases that starting probability.

Just because you've got two possibilities?

Because I am trying to start with a blank slate.

You clearly don't understand how this works. If you are coming at something with a blank slate, then the starting probability is whatever the probability is for your question in respect of that class of things. That's why I gave as an example the question 'Is the day we are looking at a weekend day?'. The starting probability there is 2/7. With your question you have no justification for starting at 50%. The only justification would be if we already knew that 50% of the type of texts you are looking at are inauthentic.

I would say the default position should be higher, since as far as I know the majority of ancient texts are not forgeries (tho I have no idea what the actual % is)

I agree that the majority of ancient texts are not forgeries, but the OP is examining a very specific and a comprehensive set of texts which are supposedly completely independent of the church. When that list is examined, the evidence of forgery of some of those references by the church is glaringly obvious. What is the church doing forging and interpolating literary references to Christians in the pagan and classical literature of antiquity? This is an open question.

Nevertheless, it is precisely the identification of some KNOWN forgeries, and the identification of a host of possible interpolations and/or forgeries that seems to me make it justifiable for the investigator to be highly sceptical and very suspicious about the rest of the references in this comprehensive set of references.

As a result of this, I think that it is fitting to start at the 50% mark as stated above.

I'm sorry but this just doesn't follow. If you want to start with a base probability then you must justify it mathematically. You can't just write some sentences alleging church forgeries and then say 'hey presto 50%!'

Previously all of these forged and interpolated references were foisted into circulation by the church, so how can anyone possibly start with an assumption that any of these references is authentic (even 80%) by means of an appeal to the authority of the church?

This is a garbled sentence. But you seem to be trying to shift the burden. It is your argument, it is you who needs to justify your claims.

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)

The default position is EVEN 50%

Why should it be 50%?

I explained that above. Essentially the logic is that 50% is the starting place if one is not using any arguments from authority (either way) and that any evidence which reduces the possible authenticity of the references decreases that starting probability, whereas any evidence which increases the possible authenticity of the references increases that starting probability.

Just because you've got two possibilities?

Because I am trying to start with a blank slate.

You clearly don't understand how this works. If you are coming at something with a blank slate, then the starting probability is whatever the probability is for your question in respect of that class of things. That's why I gave as an example the question 'Is the day we are looking at a weekend day?'. The starting probability there is 2/7. With your question you have no justification for starting at 50%. The only justification would be if we already knew that 50% of the type of texts you are looking at are inauthentic.

The first 5 items on the list of 22 items before the end of the 1st century are known to be inauthentic forgeries.
The 6th item is the Josephus reference which has also been by some investigators to be an inauthentic forgery.
Other items on the list have been classed as interpolations, so I do see this approach as justified. We may not yet know for sure that half of this set of texts are forgeries by the church, but it sure looks eminently possible.

The major series of references from the 2nd century, are these:
Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97; letter to Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Tacitus - Annals 15:44
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.

The Christian references in each of these works (with the exception of Suetomius) have been, at one time or another, by various academics, investigated as interpolations or forgeries. Other academics see these references as authentic.

Out of the 22 listed ...

Epictetus (via Arrian) - the Galilaeans
Mishna?
Julius Africanus Thallus mentions Christians?

these three don't seem to mention Christians, they are not relevant (??) so the total may have to be reduced to 19.

So although we know that at least 5/19 are forgeries, although this is not yet 50% it is certainly heading towards 50%.

Surely this is sufficient for any investigator to be sceptical of relying upon the argument from the authority of the church that these references are legitimate?

But perhaps you don't agree upon when, or at what point, one's level of scepticism should rise to meet the integrity of the literary evidence which, more often than not, was "suddenly and unexpectedly found" in the church archives?

For example the original manuscript containing both Pliny and Trajan's Christian references was "suddenly and unexpectedly found" just prior to an Aldus printing press run and then, just as suddenly and unexpectedly, it was "lost".

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:You mention Galen in your OP. What do you have to say about him?

The references 3 and 4 both from are from "De differentiis pulsuum" (=On the pulse):

For someone who claims to have studied the references in Galen (indeed, all the references in the OP), it's strange that you're copying a mistranslation of the title of one of the relevant works from some website.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
REF 3

... in order that one should not at the very beginning,
as if one had come into the school of Moses and Christ,
hear talk of undemonstrated laws, and that where it is
least appropriate.

and

REF 4

One might more easily teach novelties to the followers
of Moses and Christ than to the physicians and philosophers
who cling fast to their schools

These two references appear to be the only references to the
Christians in the works of Galen.

The works that survive in Greek, yes.

Leucius Charinus wrote:If they were genuine, would
we not have expected him to have given us a fuller account of
them [the followers of Christ] somewhere?

Not really, no. Still, many works of Galen are lost, so he may well have done.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Why should it be 50%?

I explained that above. Essentially the logic is that 50% is the starting place if one is not using any arguments from authority (either way) and that any evidence which reduces the possible authenticity of the references decreases that starting probability, whereas any evidence which increases the possible authenticity of the references increases that starting probability.

Just because you've got two possibilities?

Because I am trying to start with a blank slate.

You clearly don't understand how this works. If you are coming at something with a blank slate, then the starting probability is whatever the probability is for your question in respect of that class of things. That's why I gave as an example the question 'Is the day we are looking at a weekend day?'. The starting probability there is 2/7. With your question you have no justification for starting at 50%. The only justification would be if we already knew that 50% of the type of texts you are looking at are inauthentic.

The first 5 items on the list of 22 items before the end of the 1st century are known to be inauthentic forgeries.
The 6th item is the Josephus reference which has also been by some investigators to be an inauthentic forgery.
Other items on the list have been classed as interpolations, so I do see this approach as justified. We may not yet know for sure that half of this set of texts are forgeries by the church, but it sure looks eminently possible.

The major series of references from the 2nd century, are these:
Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97; letter to Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Tacitus - Annals 15:44
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.

The Christian references in each of these works (with the exception of Suetomius) have been, at one time or another, by various academics, investigated as interpolations or forgeries. Other academics see these references as authentic.

Out of the 22 listed ...

Epictetus (via Arrian) - the Galilaeans
Mishna?
Julius Africanus Thallus mentions Christians?

these three don't seem to mention Christians, they are not relevant (??) so the total may have to be reduced to 19.

So although we know that at least 5/19 are forgeries, although this is not yet 50% it is certainly heading towards 50%.

Your argument is all over the place. We were talking about a starting probability before you know anything about the texts in question - 'a blank slate', as you put it. You can't introduce data about the texts themselves when trying to arrive at your starting probability. You should be looking at that data after you've got you starting point.

Surely this is sufficient for any investigator to be sceptical of relying upon the argument from the authority of the church that these references are legitimate?

Why have you introduced this straw man?

But perhaps you don't agree upon when, or at what point, one's level of scepticism should rise to meet the integrity of the literary evidence which, more often than not, was "suddenly and unexpectedly found" in the church archives?

The manuscript history of a text is clearly extremely important. I would think it should be the first thing to be addressed every time.

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

I explained that above. Essentially the logic is that 50% is the starting place if one is not using any arguments from authority (either way) and that any evidence which reduces the possible authenticity of the references decreases that starting probability, whereas any evidence which increases the possible authenticity of the references increases that starting probability.



Because I am trying to start with a blank slate.

You clearly don't understand how this works. If you are coming at something with a blank slate, then the starting probability is whatever the probability is for your question in respect of that class of things. That's why I gave as an example the question 'Is the day we are looking at a weekend day?'. The starting probability there is 2/7. With your question you have no justification for starting at 50%. The only justification would be if we already knew that 50% of the type of texts you are looking at are inauthentic.

The first 5 items on the list of 22 items before the end of the 1st century are known to be inauthentic forgeries.
The 6th item is the Josephus reference which has also been by some investigators to be an inauthentic forgery.
Other items on the list have been classed as interpolations, so I do see this approach as justified. We may not yet know for sure that half of this set of texts are forgeries by the church, but it sure looks eminently possible.

The major series of references from the 2nd century, are these:
Pliny the Younger Ep 10:97; letter to Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Tacitus - Annals 15:44
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.

The Christian references in each of these works (with the exception of Suetomius) have been, at one time or another, by various academics, investigated as interpolations or forgeries. Other academics see these references as authentic.

Out of the 22 listed ...

Epictetus (via Arrian) - the Galilaeans
Mishna?
Julius Africanus Thallus mentions Christians?

these three don't seem to mention Christians, they are not relevant (??) so the total may have to be reduced to 19.

So although we know that at least 5/19 are forgeries, although this is not yet 50% it is certainly heading towards 50%.

Your argument is all over the place. We were talking about a starting probability before you know anything about the texts in question - 'a blank slate', as you put it. You can't introduce data about the texts themselves when trying to arrive at your starting probability. You should be looking at that data after you've got you starting point.

AUTHENTICITY (a measure of historicity) of any item

Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)


I have maintained that in any investigation when knowing nothing that the default "blank slate" is the midpoint - chances are about even. That is to say I maintain that in the absence of any initial information there is no argument from authority in any direction. I have maintained that once the investigation starts, evidence will be evaluated for and against authenticity, and will lead to a provisional conclusion somewhere on the above authenticity spectrum.

If you don't agree with this, what alternative process would you suggest?

But perhaps you don't agree upon when, or at what point, one's level of scepticism should rise to meet the integrity of the literary evidence which, more often than not, was "suddenly and unexpectedly found" in the church archives?

The manuscript history of a text is clearly extremely important. I would think it should be the first thing to be addressed every time.

OK. I will accept that advice. Invariably most if not all of these texts have an earliest manuscript date not earlier than the 8th century and some substantially later. I will have to dig out the corresponding manuscript histories. In general, from what I have seen they leave a lot to be desired.

For example the Oldest manuscript (Tacitus, Annals 15:44) is dated palaeographically to the 11th century: Second Medicean manuscript, Benedictine abbey, Monte Cassino, using the Beneventan script. The script was used from approximately the mid-8th century until the 13th century, although there are examples from as late as the 16th century.

This is what Carrier writes about the Tacitus reference:

Richard Carrier, "The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44",
Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 68, Issue 3, pages 264 – 283

Abstract: (Brill) Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect.
(Academia.edu) Advances the argument of Rougé to find that in all probability Tacitus never actually referred to Christ at all, and the famous passage now in the manuscripts originally referenced a Jewish rebel group formed by Chrestus a decade later, unconnected to Christianity, and Christian scribes subsequently "improved" the passage by inserting a line about Christ.

Conclusion:

In the final analysis, given the immensity of the persecution Tacitus describes, its scale in terms of the number of victims, its barbarity, and the injustice of it being based on a false accusation of arson to cover up Nero’s own crimes, what are the odds that no Christian would ever have heard of it or made use of it or any reference to it for over three hundred years? By any reasonable estimate, quite low. Not even prolific and erudite professors of Latin like Tertullian or Lactantius? Lower still. That for nearly three centuries no Christian martyr tradition would develop from either the event or Tacitus’ account of it? Lower still. That no known legends, martyrologies, or tales would adapt or employ it as a motif in any way, not even in the various stories and legends of the persecutions and martyrdoms under Nero that we know did develop and circulate? Lower still. And on top of all that is the additional unlikelihood that all other pagan critics of Christianity (like Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, but even such critics as Celsus) would also somehow not have heard of the event or never make any mention of it.

Lowering the probability further is the way Tacitus describes the event. Tacitus treats the persecuted group as unusually large, and no longer existing, and at the time widely and inexplicably regarded as composed of the most vile criminals, who could credibly have committed arson—three features that do not fit “Christians” that well, but would have fit followers of the instigator Chrestus. It is certainly less likely that Tacitus would say these three things about the Christians in Rome in the year 64 than that he would say them of the Chrestians.

For all these reasons in combination I believe we should conclude the suspect line was probably not written by Tacitus, and was most likely interpolated into its present position sometime after the middle of the 4th century A.D. More likely Tacitus was originally speaking of the Chrestians, a violent group of Jews first suppressed under Claudius, and not the Christians, and accordingly did not mention Christ. We should so conclude because alternative explanations of the evidence require embracing a long series of increasingly improbable assumptions. So the line should be rejected as spurious, or at least held in reasonable suspicion. And this conclusion should now be taken into account when assessing the evidence for Christ and Christianity, and also when translating and interpreting Tacitus and the events following the burning of Rome under Nero. The whole passage in Annals 15.44 should instead be considered as possible evidence supplementing Suetonius on the matter of “Chrestus the instigator” and Jewish unrest at Rome.

Carrier also argues (2014) that there is a strange gap in the Annals of Tacitus for the period of middle 29 to middle 31 and cites Robert Drews' suggestion that the period was cut because it provided no information regarding Jesus. (On the Historicity of Jesus, pg 343-346)

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:....

AUTHENTICITY (a measure of historicity) of any item

Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)


I have maintained that in any investigation when knowing nothing that the default "blank slate" is the midpoint - chances are about even. That is to say I maintain that in the absence of any initial information there is no argument from authority in any direction. I have maintained that once the investigation starts, evidence will be evaluated for and against authenticity, and will lead to a provisional conclusion somewhere on the above authenticity spectrum.

No, you are getting this a long way wrong. Just because there are 2 possibilities and you don't know how to decide between them that emphatically does not mean their probability is 50/50. You don't know whether the next swan you come across will be black or white. But that doesn't mean the probability it will be black is 50%. In the absence of any other information the probability will be the ratio of black swans in the world to white.

If you don't agree with this, what alternative process would you suggest?

If you want to assign probabilities there is no other process. You need to assign a base probability based on the proportion of inauthentic texts to authentic. Then you can argue the particular text you are looking at is higher or lower because of factors about the text etc etc. I doubt you are in a position to do this (assign a base probability that is) - perhaps some academic somewhere might be in position to assemble the data, I don't know. It would be great if they did, But without the data, you have no basis to assign numbers and, in my opinion, shouldn't be trying to do so.

In terms of 'alternative process', I think the traditional approach is reasonable, namely to start with a (lightly held) presumption that a text is authentic and ask what reasons there are to think otherwise.

.
Consider Bayes Theorem? - Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

MS2 wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:....

AUTHENTICITY (a measure of historicity) of any item

Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)


I have maintained that in any investigation when knowing nothing that the default "blank slate" is the midpoint - chances are about even. That is to say I maintain that in the absence of any initial information there is no argument from authority in any direction. I have maintained that once the investigation starts, evidence will be evaluated for and against authenticity, and will lead to a provisional conclusion somewhere on the above authenticity spectrum.

No, you are getting this a long way wrong. Just because there are 2 possibilities and you don't know how to decide between them that emphatically does not mean their probability is 50/50. You don't know whether the next swan you come across will be black or white. But that doesn't mean the probability it will be black is 50%. In the absence of any other information the probability will be the ratio of black swans in the world to white.

But you are introducing prior knowledge. Prior to any knowledge about the world the investigator who knows absolutely nothing about the distribution of black and white swans cannot use this ratio because he or she has no data. The process I have described implies the investigator starts to count black and white swans, and then determines their ratio. At the beginning of this process, knowing nothing except that there are at least white and black swans, that ratio is 1:2 or 50%. As the counting continues the ratio moves from this initial starting point ratio towards the ratio of black and white swans in the world.