rationalskepticism.org

Tracer Tong wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

I have made a study of all the Christian references in the classical literature (i.e. not sourced from Eusebius or the "Church") prior to the 4th century and my provisional conclusion is that the best explanation of these references is that all of them represent corruptions of the classical literature by the church organisation between the 4th century and the 15th century.

That's a strange view, but it doesn't represent an answer to my question. You know now that the genuineness of the reference in the Meditations is disputed in scholarship, so how have you judged between the two positions?

I have considered how much other literary material the church has corrupted and forged and on the basis of this, have decided that those translators who have judged that the Christian reference in Aurelius' work is an interpolation are IMHO closer to the historical truth.

OK: so you've arrived at the conclusion the reference in the Meditations is spurious not on the basis of any particular analysis of that reference, but from (i) the fact certain scholars reject it and from (ii) the alleged fact that all other references to Christians in classical literature are spurious. But presumably somewhere along the line you've engaged in analysis of specific passages, if not this one. So which ones are these?