The self-evident emergence of Christianity

[Secret Alias]

Planning on creating a journal to self-publish? Jacob Neusner did that. No shame. He also kept re-publishing the same fucking paper in different ways. Must have the world record for scholarly publishing.

[mlinssen]

Planning on creating a journal to self-publish? Jacob Neusner did that. No shame. He also kept re-publishing the same fucking paper in different ways. Must have the world record for scholarly publishing.

Stephan Huller, you are a failure in many ways - where should I start?
It seems to be more fruitful to merely show you the way:

My Publication List: https://www.academia.edu/57161277/Publi ... 2022_April

By series, ordered in descending chronological order
I have published over 3,000 pages on Thomas, which includes Koepke and over 500 pages of Discussion content - please consult the series and descriptions given below

• Recommended reads

The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas - Detlev Koepke
The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, 2015 (2021 edition)
The most outstanding research on Thomas, in combination with research into the NT and Christian origins; 833 pages

• Complete Thomas Commentary

Complete Thomas Commentary, Part II (inc. Discussion content)
Complete Thomas Commentary, Part II, 2022 (Part I, logia 0-13, appeared 20-04-2021)
Most detailed Thomas Commentary ever, on Thomas content alone. Logia 0-55; 584 pages.
• Includes Discussion Content on Part I in secondary paper; 97 pages
• Includes Discussion Content on Part I & II in secondary paper; 116 pages

• Absolute Thomasine Priority

The self-evident emergence of Christianity
Absolute Thomasine Priority, Part IV, 2022
Outline of the events and circumstances that led to the inevitable emergence of Christianity via the 'Pauline way' and that of the gospels; 20 pages

The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins
Absolute Thomasine Priority, Part III, 2020
Detailed and full presentation and comparison of the 72 logia that got copied by the canonicals, including all of their versions; 140 pages

Two types of Jesus parables: canonical vs Thomasine - like night and day
Absolute Thomasine Priority, Part II, 2019
Detailed and full presentation of all 15 canonical "parables" that were not copied from Thomas, and that show remarkable deviations in all kinds of aspects from those that did; 32 pages

Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most unsatisfactory manner
Absolute Thomasine Priority, Part I, 2019
Proposes Thomas being the (unwilling and unwitting) sole source to all of Christianity; a.o. explains where John the Baptist comes from; 82 pages
 

• Thomas in Context

The Parable of the Vineyard in Context: don't outsource your Quest
Thomas in Context, Part IX, 2021
Detailed Commentary on logion 65; 16 pages

The Parable of the Dinner in Context: friends have become strangers
Thomas in Context, Part VIII, 2021
Detailed Commentary on logion 64; 16 pages

The Parable of the Rich Man in Context: don't mistake means for goals
Thomas in Context, Part VII, 2021
Detailed Commentary on logion 63; 10 pages

The Parable of the Seed and the Weed in Context: powerful dark words
Thomas in Context, Part VI, 2021
Detailed Commentary on logion 57; 19 pages

The Parable of the Strong Man in Context: help him
Thomas in Context, Part V, 2021
Detailed Commentary on logion 35 - a better version is available through the Commentary; 22 pages

The Parable of the House Owner in Context: let him sleep
Thomas in Context, Part IV, 2020
Detailed Commentary on logion 21 - a better version is available through the Commentary; 30 pages

The Parable of the Mustard Seed in Context: work that earth
Thomas in Context, Part III, 2020
Detailed Commentary on logion 20 - a better version is available through the Commentary; 21 pages

The Parable of the Sower in Context: against religion
Thomas in Context, Part I, 2020
Detailed Commentary on logion 9 - a better version is available through the Commentary; 26 pages

The Parable of the Net in Context: nothing to find
Thomas in Context, Part II, 2020
Detailed Commentary on logion 8 - a better version is available through the Commentary; 27 pages

• Literal Thomas

Interactive Coptic-English Thomas translation (v1.9), with full reverse concordance
Literal Thomas, Part VII, 2022 (version 1.0 appeared 29-02-2002)
Most detailed Thomas Translation ever, fully traceable and verifiable. Every single Coptic word is hyperlinked to online dictionaries, and both indices and concordances are in full; 262 pages

Unicode Thomas transcription / Chrestians in the Gospel of Philip
Literal Thomas, Part VIII, 2021
Flawless Unicode transcription of Coptic Thomas plus Chrestian(s) in Philip "translated" as Christian(s) 5 out of 5 times; 24 pages
• Includes Discussion Content in secondary paper; 29 pages

Thomas exceptions wrt Sahidic
Literal Thomas, pertains to the translation (Part VII), 2021
Every single unique word in Thomas (756) verified for dialect and attestation against the 5 major dictionaries; 6 pages

XRESTOS in Thomas logion 65 - impossible
Literal Thomas, pertains to the translation (Part VII), 2020
A spin-off from the Translation Discussion, leading to the (mutual) conclusion that M. Grondin's pictures of 'xrestos' (now removed) have been tampered with to a great extent; 23 pages

One-pager on 'Translation versus interpretation in Thomas - the perplexing treatment of logion 74'
Literal Thomas, Part VI, 2019
Single-page overview of the three major "translations" of logion 74 and their full emendation commentary; 1 page

Translation versus interpretation in Thomas: the perplexing treatment of logion 74
Literal Thomas, Part VI, 2019
Detailing the corruption of the translation of logion 74 by e.g. Guillaumont and Layton; 23 pages

The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas
Literal Thomas, Part V, 2019
Explaining the metamorphosis model and demonstrating the meaning of and relation between the parables; 68 pages

Judas, the kiss, the morsel - and lifting of heels
Literal Thomas, Part IV, 2019
Describing the truly grand character evolvement of Judas in the canonicals and explaining the Tanakh references behind the kiss and the last supper; 14 pages

Complete metamorphosis in each Jesus parable of Thomas
Literal Thomas, Part III, 2019
Demonstrating the presence and working of the metamorphosis model in each parable; 18 pages

Metamorphosis as a means - the steganography of Thomas revealed by logion 2
Literal Thomas, Part II, 2019
Introducing the presence and working of the metamorphosis model in Thomas; 19 pages

The parable of the tenants in GoT logion 65: Perhaps they/he didn't recognise/know him/them
Literal Thomas, Part I, 2019
Demonstrating that the literal translation of this phrase in logion 65 is perfectly applicable; 10 pages

• Thomas Miscellaneous

ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library
Thomas Miscellaneous, Part IV, 2021
Questioning the persistent mistranslation of 'Chrest(ian(s))' with 'Christ(ian(s))' in the entire Nag Hammadi Library; 37 pages
• Includes Discussion Content in secondary paper; 59 pages

Kingdom of the Heavens - translator trauma?
Thomas Miscellaneous, Part III, 2021
Questioning the persistent mistranslation of 'kingdom of the heavens' with 'kingdom of heaven' in Matthew and Thomas; 16 pages
• Includes Discussion Content in secondary paper; 61 pages

How the staurogram turned into a stirhogram (inc. Discussion content)
Thomas Miscellaneous, Part II, 2021
Questioning the cognomen of 'staurogram' for a ligature that is a combination of the Coptic Ti and Rho, in NT MSS as well as Gnosis writings; 10 pages
• Includes Discussion Content in secondary paper; 57 pages

The three words Jesus spoke to Thomas
Thomas Miscellaneous, Part I, 2020
Questioning the usual assumptions for these three words, while suggesting a simple solution based on the literal translation; 19 pages

• Miscellaneous

The Gospels testify: did Jesus die on the cross? (inc. Discussion content)
Miscellaneous, Part II, 2021
Decisively demonstrating exactly that, 13 pages
• Includes Discussion Content in secondary paper; 84 pages

How academia.edu broke the entire View counting system while trying to only fix Total Views
Miscellaneous, Part I, 2021
Narrating the events that occurred over a period of a couple of weeks, 32 pages

[mlinssen]

Discussion on academia.edu has been opened:

https://www.academia.edu/s/1735e301c2

It will a lively and interesting Discussion in the midst of this Holy Week where all Christians are trying really hard to hush and taboo anti-Judaism in order to avoid getting blamed for antisemitism: there are loud calls from Christian academics such as Annette Reed for staying far away from "anything Jewish"

Sanctimonious Week would be a much better label in that regard - but we can see how the making of Christianity hasn't really accomplished peace for Judaism, can't we?

[Jagd]

This is intended to be my last paper on it all: 3 years, over 2,000 pages written in 32 papers - and the puzzle is solved

https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_s ... ristianity

Abstract:

This article proposes a business case for the emergence of Christianity, and one that has its basis in society at large, crossing the boundaries of time and place.
Under the circumstances presented it was nigh inevitable that Christianity came into being, and Mark and Paul will demonstrate the alignment in identical goals accomplished via similar methods, unified under one and the same overarching plan

Judaism plays a more than pivotal role in Christian origins and the two share a common history that goes back many decades, perhaps even centuries

I ran into difficulties when creating a Discussion, so that'll be some time although lately Academia Support has resolved issues in a matter of mere hours!
Regardless, I wish you a very interesting read as usual, and welcome any and all feedback

This is dynamite, Martijn. A gorgeous primer on the bleeding-edge of this whole study. I've already shared it with some friends.

Question: How do you figure the largely anti-Judaic gospel of John figures into all of this, especially considering the intimate Johannine-Thomasine connections? The Christology of John appears unassociated from the Tanakh (including its "prophecies", laws, and Yahweh) and more indebted to Hellenic thought. Mainstream scholars (and Ehrmanized researchers) often chalk this up to Christianity moving away from Judaism over time. But considering the Thomasine-Johannine connection and how the fundamentals of Christianity/Chrestianity are so Hellenic, could it be that Christianity/Chrestianity moved toward Judaism, and the Christology of the gospel of John contains remnants from before that move?

Hi Jagd, thanks!
John is, I think, like Thomas, first and foremost pro-Samarian. Not Samaritan as in the religion, but Samarian as in the country / region.
John is published late but written very early I think - it is so purely Thomasine in nature yet it really does seem to come last in the NT. Yet its was first in the order of Irenaeus' Canon so that's puzzling, although nothing guarantees that that John there resembled the one that we know in any way

Chrestianity became Christianity when the Romans rewrote it and - to overcome the gaping void with Judaism because of its fierce opposition to it - fused it with Judaism in order to end the wars

That's the tweetable content really, and John is certainly Chrestian, perhaps even a proto-*Ev. Look at his crucifixion scene: he uses the native Greek for flogging whereas Mark and Matthew use the Roman loanword - so it is Mark who invented it and all of it got added to John

I think

Do you think the pro-Samarian aspect is based on the old Judaic-vs-Samaritan rivalry, but maybe as just a way to dig at the Judaics? Specifically, that the Alexandrian (and maybe Syrian) Chrestians were trying to lampoon Judaism by supporting the Judaic rival, like a German being pro-Irish just because they really hate the British.

This all aligns with the cleansing of the Temple being an attack at the heart of Judaism, and maybe in a post-70 CE world that whole story is the Christ character serving as an omen/herald of the fall itself. It's no wonder that Christ makes his remark at Mark 13:2:

Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”

It appears that the older meaning of the story was that the temple was to fall because it was the house of Judaism, and then after the Judaization of Chrestianity this story (which was so essential to the Christ narratives, at that point) was reframed to mean that the temple fell because it wasn't doing Judaism correctly, with Christianity situating itself as proper Judaism. But it appears that the anti-Judaic sentiment was preserved in Thomas & John, maybe because John was such a black sheep text and the synoptic editors didn't try to harmonize it too much.

Do you mean that Mark came up with the crucifixion scene and then it was added to John?

[mlinssen]

Do you think the pro-Samarian aspect is based on the old Judaic-vs-Samaritan rivalry, but maybe as just a way to dig at the Judaics? Specifically, that the Alexandrian (and maybe Syrian) Chrestians were trying to lampoon Judaism by supporting the Judaic rival, like a German being pro-Irish just because they really hate the British.

This all aligns with the cleansing of the Temple being an attack at the heart of Judaism, and maybe in a post-70 CE world that whole story is the Christ character serving as an omen/herald of the fall itself. It's no wonder that Christ makes his remark at Mark 13:2:

Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”

It appears that the older meaning of the story was that the temple was to fall because it was the house of Judaism, and then after the Judaization of Chrestianity this story (which was so essential to the Christ narratives, at that point) was reframed to mean that the temple fell because it wasn't doing Judaism correctly, with Christianity situating itself as proper Judaism. But it appears that the anti-Judaic sentiment was preserved in Thomas & John, maybe because John was such a black sheep text and the synoptic editors didn't try to harmonize it too much.

Do you mean that Mark came up with the crucifixion scene and then it was added to John?

My greatest strength is in not thinking anything!
I dunno really, but yes: there is such a strong divide in the Tanakh: Abraham vs Moses, Yahweh vs Elohim, Samaria versus Judea, and so on

What strikes me in Thomas is not just a dislike of Judeans, or Judaism. Or a rejection - it is fierce and burning hate, but then again some or a lot of that is interpretation, dunno. Read my Commentary and (dis)agree if you like, but some of it is very outspoken.
Thomas couldn't be a Samaritan as he doesn't promote anything of Judaism, he despises all of it - this is not a question of doing something better than someone else, this is about vehemently rejecting the entire planet of that other person

Your "Christ-Temple quote" is nothing but a remake of Thomas logion 71 "71. said IS : I will overturn [dop] this house and there-is-not anyone will be-able build he undisturbed" which gets stressed by John 2:21 "But He was speaking concerning the temple of His body."

I don't believe in the whole 70 CE destruction thing, all we have is Jospehus attesting to it, and a single menorah on the 81 CE Arc of Tiberius.
Temple looted? Perhaps yes, but if it was destroyed during battle then where did the menorah come from, was it temporarily not on display?
The whole 70 CE story only exists so the Jesus story can be retrofitted to prior that time.
Whether the Temple allegedly fell undoubtedly was subject to debate over the course of centuries, and not very relevant in my eyes

Yes, Mark created the resurrection as part of the damage control / mitigation of *Ev. Here's a shorty that I'm working on as addendum:

Comparing Mark 15:37-16:8 to the relevant parts in Luke (23:45-24:12)

Two stories that share a great amount of similarities, with even some verbatim agreements - although only the Greek, with NA28 in hand, can demonstrate the extent of the latter.
Looking at Luke and each verse, only verse 24:7, 10 and 12 have nothing in common with Mark: the repetition of the prediction, the mentioning of the names of the women (for the first time), and the indispensable verse 24:12 that declares Peter as the winner, as the very first one who convinces himself that the body is gone. And of course verse 24:9 is pivotal as it narrates the very opposite of its counterpart Mark 16:8 - although the result of that in essence is the same, which is stressed by 24:11.
Looking at Mark and each verse, there are three verses that don't have parallels in Luke: 15:44, 45 and 16:3 - and starting with the latter, that clearly is an attempt to let the audience in on the predicament that the women would be facing "under regular circumstances" even though Joseph apparently had no issues in 15:46 in moving the stone all by himself, and three women easily have more power than one single man - but this is how Mark operates, and this is one of the many mistakes that Mark made. It's like he wrote all this over the weekend, given it all little thought, or perhaps not caring at all about the contradictions that he created himself; just wave a few words at the audience, at a fast pace and it is the story line that matters, not the details - something like that perhaps?
But the verses that really stand out are 15:44 and 15:45:

44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already. 45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph.

I can take a hint, usually. But these two verses here stress the same thing three times: has Jesus died? Two questions in these verses, one implicit answer. But that is not all, that same κεντυρίων here previously already affirmed the death of Jesus in 15:39, by - again implicitly - repeating verbatim the pivotal word of 15:37:

37 Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν
39 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν, εἶπεν “Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἦν.”

Jesus ex-Spirits, ἐκπνέω; from the verb πνέω that relates to the noun πνεῦμα: 'blast, wind','air, breath', 'spirit'. Jesus breathes out - a beautiful choice of word, isn't it?

1. Jesus dies in Mark 15:37
2. Jesus dies in Mark 15:39, by repeating the scene of 15:39 yet this time from the viewpoint of the centurion
3. Jesus is doubted by Pilate to have died in Mark 15:44, and Pilate does so twice in one single verse
4. Jesus' death is confirmed once again by the centurion

Let's make that even more concise:

1. Mark 15:37 - Jesus dies
2. Mark 15:39 - Jesus dies (centurion point of view, implicit)
3. Mark 15:44a - Jesus dies? (Pilate's first implicit question)
4. Mark 15:44b - Jesus dies? (Pilate's second implicit question)
5. Mark 15:45 - Jesus dies (centurion point of view, formal witness this time, "explicit")

This is the difference between Mark and Luke: an enormous, gigantic, overwhelming emphasis on the real, actual death of Jesus. In the space of 9 verses, the death of Jesus gets literally and explicitly named 5 times - and that is disregarding all the implicit references such as the burial, anointing, and whatnot.
If *Ev came before Mark, then it is not so hard to see that Mark affirms that really everyone (Romans only!) confirmed that Jesus was dead; he "states the facts" so to say. He really, absolutely, leaves not a shred of doubt about the fact that "the whole world" - and again, only the Romans, no Judaic or "Gentile" plays any role here - is under the impression that Jesus has died.

[Leucius Charinus]

The later Christian paraphrases of Cassius Dio mention Christianity more than once.
There is probably only one original reference.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... o/73*.html

Thanks Andrew. I suspected this was the case.

Until I see the manuscript that this comes from it has no value - we all know how willing and able Christians are to Christify everything - and it is highly likely that this also says Chrestians, not Christians.

////

Pearce to the rescue!
https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manu ... assius.htm

The Epitomes, on the other hand, while they often repeat entire sentences of Dio verbatim, or nearly so (as may readily be seen by comparing extant portions of the histories with Zonaras or Xiphilinus), must, nevertheless, be regarded as essentially paraphrases." (Cary)

And that's exactly where this quote is from.
And once again I find myself doing the homework of others who just wave some English at me, without a reference to anything else. And I have busied myself for over half an hour with this, learned something new yes, and while it is completely irrelevant to the OP, the thread, the entire topic at hand and the 20-page paper, it is telling of the way this "field" works

The Christian reference in Cassius Dio and Tacitus was mentioned at page 8 in the paper. IMO this reference is derived from the epitome of Xiphilinus and as such was added in the 11th century. It is therefore immaterial whether the reference says Christian or Chrestian because it is likely not from the hand of Cassius Dio, but from the 11th century.

Arthur Drews made a study of "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" in non Christian literature, however what is actually required is an expanded study of "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians" in non Christian literature. Such a study indicates that arguably all such literary witnesses have been interpolated.

The Christian references in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Marcus Aurelius, Galen and other pre-Nicene non-Christian authors are arguably much later interpolations by the church industry centuries afterwards. This is actually way this "field" works (IMO). This is not "The Great Silence of the First Century" but the first three.

[mlinssen]

A clean attempt at the addendum: picture attached for the Mark-Luke parallels (best open in separate tab)

Comparing Mark 15:37-16:8 to the relevant parts in Luke (23:45-24:12)

Markan-Lukan-Ending01.png (239.56 KiB) Viewed 1390 times

Two stories that share a great amount of similarities, with even some verbatim agreements - although only the Greek, with NA28 in hand, can demonstrate the extent of the latter.
Looking at Luke and each verse, only verse 24:7, 10 and 12 have nothing in common with Mark: the repetition of the prediction, the mentioning of the names of the women (for the first time), and the indispensable verse 24:12 that declares Peter as the winner, as the very first one who convinces himself that the body is gone. And of course verse 24:9 is pivotal as it narrates the very opposite of its counterpart Mark 16:8 - although the result of that in essence is the same, which is stressed by 24:11.
Looking at Mark and each verse, there are three verses that don't have parallels in Luke: 15:44, 45 and 16:3 - and starting with the latter, that clearly is an attempt to let the audience in on the predicament that the women would be facing "under regular circumstances" even though Joseph apparently had no issues in 15:46 in moving the stone all by himself, and three women easily have more power than one single man - but this is how Mark operates, and this is one of the many mistakes that Mark made. It's like he wrote all this over the weekend, given it all little thought, or perhaps not caring at all about the contradictions that he created himself; just wave a few words at the audience, at a fast pace and it is the story line that matters, not the details - something like that perhaps?
But the verses that really stand out are 15:44 and 15:45:

44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already. 45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph.

I can take a hint, usually. But these two verses here stress the same thing three times: has Jesus died? Two questions in these verses, one implicit answer. But that is not all, that same κεντυρίων here previously already affirmed the death of Jesus in 15:39, by - again implicitly - repeating verbatim the pivotal word of 15:37:

37 Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν
39 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν, εἶπεν “Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἦν.”

Jesus ex-Spirits, ἐκπνέω; from the verb πνέω that relates to the noun πνεῦμα: 'blast, wind','air, breath', 'spirit'. Jesus breathes out - a beautiful choice of word, isn't it?

1. Jesus dies in Mark 15:37
2. Jesus dies in Mark 15:39, by repeating the scene of 15:39 yet this time from the viewpoint of the centurion
3. Jesus is doubted by Pilate to have died in Mark 15:44, and Pilate does so twice in one single verse
4. Jesus' death is confirmed once again by the centurion

Let's make that even more concise:

1. Mark 15:37 - Jesus dies
2. Mark 15:39 - Jesus dies (centurion point of view, implicit)
3. Mark 15:44a - Jesus dies? (Pilate's first implicit question)
4. Mark 15:44b - Jesus dies? (Pilate's second implicit question)
5. Mark 15:45 - Jesus dies (centurion point of view, formal witness this time, "explicit")

This is the difference between Mark and Luke: an enormous, gigantic, overwhelming emphasis on the real, actual death of Jesus. In the space of 9 verses, the death of Jesus gets literally and explicitly named 5 times - and that is disregarding all the implicit references such as the burial, anointing, and whatnot.
If *Ev came before Mark, then it is not so hard to see that Mark affirms that really everyone (Romans only!) confirmed that Jesus was dead; he "states the facts" so to say. He really, absolutely, leaves not a shred of doubt about the fact that "the whole world" - and again, only the Romans, no Judaic or "Gentile" plays any role here - is under the impression that Jesus has died.

To be continued and added to the Discussion at some point

[mlinssen]

Do you mean that Mark came up with the crucifixion scene and then it was added to John?

About the Samaritan: the Judas in the NT is Judas the twin at all times. I have a fun and short paper on him, 10p, that narrates his dramatic character evolution throughout the NT

In it, I interpret whence the kiss and the morsel come

https://www.academia.edu/39976842/Judas ... g_of_heels

It will answer your question about insiders and outsiders, perhaps

[andrewcriddle]

The later Christian paraphrases of Cassius Dio mention Christianity more than once.
There is probably only one original reference.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... o/73*.html

Thanks Andrew. I suspected this was the case.

Until I see the manuscript that this comes from it has no value - we all know how willing and able Christians are to Christify everything - and it is highly likely that this also says Chrestians, not Christians.

////

Pearce to the rescue!
https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manu ... assius.htm

The Epitomes, on the other hand, while they often repeat entire sentences of Dio verbatim, or nearly so (as may readily be seen by comparing extant portions of the histories with Zonaras or Xiphilinus), must, nevertheless, be regarded as essentially paraphrases." (Cary)

And that's exactly where this quote is from.
And once again I find myself doing the homework of others who just wave some English at me, without a reference to anything else. And I have busied myself for over half an hour with this, learned something new yes, and while it is completely irrelevant to the OP, the thread, the entire topic at hand and the 20-page paper, it is telling of the way this "field" works

The Christian reference in Cassius Dio and Tacitus was mentioned at page 8 in the paper. IMO this reference is derived from the epitome of Xiphilinus and as such was added in the 11th century. It is therefore immaterial whether the reference says Christian or Chrestian because it is likely not from the hand of Cassius Dio, but from the 11th century.

Arthur Drews made a study of "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" in non Christian literature, however what is actually required is an expanded study of "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians" in non Christian literature. Such a study indicates that arguably all such literary witnesses have been interpolated.

The Christian references in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Marcus Aurelius, Galen and other pre-Nicene non-Christian authors are arguably much later interpolations by the church industry centuries afterwards. This is actually way this "field" works (IMO). This is not "The Great Silence of the First Century" but the first three.

There is a discussion of the historical sources for Marcia at Christian Concubine ? The claim in the Epitome of Cassiud Dio is corroborated by Hippolytus (who is IMO unlikely to have been known to Xiphilinus).

Andrew Criddle

[Leucius Charinus]

There is a discussion of the historical sources for Marcia at Christian Concubine ? The claim in the Epitome of Cassiud Dio is corroborated by Hippolytus (who is IMO unlikely to have been known to Xiphilinus).

Thanks for the refs.

The first one says: " Xiphilinus, a Christian monk who composed his summaries of Cassius Dio in late 11th century CE Constantinople, may himself have drawn from the Christian patristic tradition for evidence of Marcia’s sympathies, rather than using Dio as his only source." Hippolytus may have used similar Christian patristic traditions.

The emergence of Christianity can be tracked -

* within the Christian literature (canonical, apocryphal and ecclesiastical history)
* within the extant non-Christian literature
* within the surviving physical manuscripts themselves
* within the archaeological remains

I will have to reread Martijn's article