After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

[Peter Kirby]

This paper shows a statistical approach to dating texts by reference to variation in word and phrase usage (by medievalists, but could possibly be used in other contexts):

https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2405

[Peter Kirby]

The Astronomica is dated no later than the reign of Tiberius on the basis that it refers to the emperor as only "Caesar."

The only sure terminus for the Astronomica is the mention of Varus’ defeat at Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. As Katharina Volk argues, he likely is writing during the end of the reign of Augustus and the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, since he only addresses the emperor as “Caesar,” something that began to change under Tiberius, though some see him entirely in the latter’s reign.

[Peter Kirby]

Luvius Andonicus' work is dated based on references from later authors regarding the date of his works (mainly Cicero).

Livius Andronicus was born ca. 285 BCE in Tarentum in Magna Graecia in southern Italy. He was likely taken as a prisoner of war (and therefore slave) to Rome after Tarentum’s sack in 272. Accius alleges that Andronicus was actually taken in 209 when Tarentum fell to Rome for a second time. However, Cicero states that he personally inspected a document (Brutus 72-73) which confirms Andronicus’ first play in 240. Livy (27.37.7) states that Andronicus composed a partheneion to Juno for M. Livius Salinator during the Salinator’s consulship in 207; it is unlikely Andronicus could have gained so much notoriety in just two years.

[mlinssen]

The Astronomica is dated no later than the reign of Tiberius on the basis that it refers to the emperor as only "Caesar."

The only sure terminus for the Astronomica is the mention of Varus’ defeat at Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. As Katharina Volk argues, he likely is writing during the end of the reign of Augustus and the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, since he only addresses the emperor as “Caesar,” something that began to change under Tiberius, though some see him entirely in the latter’s reign.

Oh really? Then Thomas dates to first half of first CE?! If only I'd known!

Seriously: I agree with your angle here, yet I can give you the answer that you already have but likely will extract from Pete:

viewtopic.php?p=146242#p146242

Pete only uses what be(ne)fits him, or doesn't hurt his theory.
He won't comment on which of the two invented Zizanion, namely either Thomas or Matthew, because the only likely answer there places Thomas (and thus the NHL) prior to the NT, invalidating his theory. Yet he will start this highly suggestive post, only to allege that Thomas dates to 4th CE at the very earliest.
Naturally, he also won't comment on the Greek Thomas evidently being sloppy copies of the Coptic

Pete will never let go of his silly theory, as it's the main achievement of his life - in a sense he can be compared to a religiot who's invested the better (and likely best) part of his life into a Ponzi scheme but doesn't want to acknowledge that out of fear, not of losing face, but of realising that he's wasted decades with falsehoods

Any digging into his theory is a threat, so he'll just deflect - he's not interested in knowing whether his theory holds, he's just like a Bernard Muller: his website always contains the right answers and will continue to do so many centuries after his demise (LOL)

[Peter Kirby]

The Astronomica is dated no later than the reign of Tiberius on the basis that it refers to the emperor as only "Caesar."

The only sure terminus for the Astronomica is the mention of Varus’ defeat at Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. As Katharina Volk argues, he likely is writing during the end of the reign of Augustus and the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, since he only addresses the emperor as “Caesar,” something that began to change under Tiberius, though some see him entirely in the latter’s reign.

Oh really? Then Thomas dates to first half of first CE?! If only I'd known!

Thomas attributes a quote to Jesus and someone else. Interestingly enough, Jesus was said to have been crucified under Tiberius.

(Also kidding. There's probably something a lot more specific to the reference of an "address" to the emperor. Thomas does not have an address to the emperor.)

[mlinssen]

The Astronomica is dated no later than the reign of Tiberius on the basis that it refers to the emperor as only "Caesar."

The only sure terminus for the Astronomica is the mention of Varus’ defeat at Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. As Katharina Volk argues, he likely is writing during the end of the reign of Augustus and the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, since he only addresses the emperor as “Caesar,” something that began to change under Tiberius, though some see him entirely in the latter’s reign.

Oh really? Then Thomas dates to first half of first CE?! If only I'd known!

Thomas attributes a quote to Jesus and someone else. Interestingly enough, Jesus was said to have been crucified under Tiberius.

(Also kidding. There's probably something a lot more specific to the reference of an "address" to the emperor. Thomas does not have an address to the emperor.)

Astronomica_Volkman.png (155.97 KiB) Viewed 1264 times

https://www.academia.edu/15609411/_A_Ce ... 11_pp_1_10

As that's such an awfully long URL, let me hand you the short version: https://www.academia.edu/15609411

According to Volkman, the reference (and not address) to the Kaisar is less significant than the Battle of Teutoburg forest.
Yet the references do start with an address and if you borrow for 1 hour you can see for yourself, just go by the Search Results: https://archive.org/details/astronomica ... p?q=caesar

p 4 The only vocative Caesar, a genuine address
p 128 reference: deus Caesar
p 282 reference: sub Caesare mundi
p 284 reference: qua genitus Caesar

Well, I'm not really impressed...

So, these are not addresses, but references - and Thomas uses the same.
So, Thomas can be 1st CE Peter, according to you(r argument here).
Yet so could then the Synoptics, who copy him - and we come to the inevitable conclusion that your argument is moot, as its feature can be duplicated - consciously or subconsciously - via copying (in a scriptorium as just daily work), plagiarising (with the aim to rework) as well as forging (where traits like these naturally get exploited)

I do agree though, that texts in general do contain pointers to date and time. And the grain of truth is that the source text to Astronomica, as well as the source text to either Thomas or the Synoptics, may very well have been composed at a time that contemporary habit called for referring to the Kaisar as Caesar alone - so we could state that with some certainty

And as we all know that no Christian gospel was composed in 1st CE, then we must conclude that Thomas was composed around the time of Augustus?

[Peter Kirby]

p 4 The only vocative Caesar, a genuine address

Thank you for finding the genuine, direct address. This was the basis of the argument that I quoted.

p 128 reference: deus Caesar
p 282 reference: sub Caesare mundi
p 284 reference: qua genitus Caesar

None of these are the basis of the argument I quoted.

So, these are not addresses, but references - and Thomas uses the same.

Incorrect. There is an address in the Astronomica. There is no address in Thomas. So the argument I quoted applies to the Astronomica, and it doesn't apply to Thomas.

So, Thomas can be 1st CE Peter, according to you(r argument here).

Incorrect. It doesn't accord with the argument quoted.

Well, I'm not really impressed...

That's fine. I'm not asking you to be.

[mlinssen]

p 4 The only vocative Caesar, a genuine address

Thank you for finding the genuine, direct address. This was the basis of the argument that I quoted.

p 128 reference: deus Caesar
p 282 reference: sub Caesare mundi
p 284 reference: qua genitus Caesar

None of these are the basis of the argument I quoted.

So, these are not addresses, but references - and Thomas uses the same.

Incorrect. There is an address in the Astronomica. There is no address in Thomas. So the argument I quoted applies to the Astronomica, and it doesn't apply to Thomas.

So, Thomas can be 1st CE Peter, according to you(r argument here).

Incorrect. It doesn't accord with the argument quoted.

Well, I'm not really impressed...

That's fine. I'm not asking you to be.

Right. Now all we need is the actual argument from Volk, even if that would leave us all with only 1 opinion from 1 person based on one single vocative - a vocative which naturally couldn't exist without a custom to address the Kaisar via his title alone

Until then, all we have is your assertion - and I'll admit that there seems very little to gain here

[Peter Kirby]

Now all we need is the actual argument from Volk

I read this part of Volk's book. They don't make this argument.

Pliny's Panegyric to Trajan provides a genuine counter-example, so this particular argument must be withdrawn.

[Peter Kirby]

Sometimes a terminus ante quem is found through an extant reference to an earlier reference that is no longer extant, as in this example of a terminus in the early 3rd century:

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/di ... 1-0268.xml

A terminus ante quem is provided by the 4th-century CE grammarian Charisius, who says that Festus was cited by Pomponius Porphyrio, a scholar working in the early 3rd century CE (Char., Gramm. p. 285.12 Barwick).