SkipCaptcha
175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Adversus Christianos (view source)
Revision as of 00:55, December 11, 2015
, 00:55, December 11, 2015Knowest thine enemies
'''''Adversus Christianos''''', latin for ''Against Christians'', is a set of fifteen books written in Sicily by pagan philosopher [[Porphyrius]] ([[233]] AD -c.[[303]])<ref>The birthday is given in ''A New and General Biographical Dictionary'', where it's also said he lived about seventy years.</ref>, considered the most able and most bitter adversary the early christians ever knew. These books were burned in [[448]] under emperor [[Teodosius]], after they were banned in the [[Council of Ephesus]].<ref name=blount>[[Thomas-Pope Blount]], ''Censura Celebrorum Authorum'', p.145 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=yMi2oarWKIsC&pg=PA145&f=false (latin text)]</ref> <ref name=dictionary>''A New and General Biographical Dictionary'', Volume X, p.1 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=eacDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&f=false (english text)]</ref> <ref name=lynam>Rev. [[Robert Lynam]], ''The British Essayists'', Volume 23, p.48 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=JTxTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA48&f=false (english text)]</ref>
These books were soon refuted by [[Eusebius]] and [[Methodius]], and latter by [[Apollinarius]] (in [[345]]) and [[Philostorgius]] (in [[425]]); but neither the books nor the four replics have survived. Based on [[Hortensius]]'s biography of Porphyrius, it can be inferred that the purpose of these books was to prove that the [[Book of Daniel]] was not a prophetic text, but that it related events that happened to the kings of Syria and Egypt <ref>Respectively, the [[Seleucid]] and [[Ptolemaic]] dinasties that ruled these areas after the Empire of [[Alexander the Great]] was partitioned among his generals.</ref> and was written '''after''' the historical facts.<ref name=erskine>[[John Erskine]], ''Sketches Ad Hints of Church History, and Theological Controversy'', Volume 1, p.187 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=JOIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA187&f=false (english text)]</ref>
Porphyrius, in the twelfth book of ''Adversus Christianos'', was the first to attack the authenticity of the [[Book of Daniel]] and his arguments have been repeated since that time by many scholars. The core of this attack is that Daniel's prophecies are exact to the minute details, so they are not prophecies at all, but they were written by some Pseudo-Daniel living during the time of these events. Daniel was written during the reign of [[Antiochus Epiphanes]], in Greek, and that "Daniel did not so much predict future events as narrate past ones". <ref name=john.king>[[John King]], translator of [[John Calvin]]'s ''Calvin's Commentaries'', ''Translator's Preface'', ''Authenticity of the Book of Daniel'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc24/cc24001.htm (english text)]</ref>
Porphyrius's arguments, that survived only in the text of [[Jerome]],<ref name=john.king /> are: <ref name=jerome>[[Jerome]], ''Commentary on Daniel'' [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm (english text)]</ref>
* ''Daniel was not composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.''
* ''Daniel did not foretell the future so much as he related the past.''
* ''Whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future.''
* ''Daniel does not belong to the Hebrew Scriptures, since it was composed in Greek''
* ''[[Nebuchadnezzar]], a very proud king, would have never fallen on his face and worshipped Daniel'' (Dan 2.47)
* ''The queen, wife of King [[Belshazzar]], knew more about past events than the king, which is absurd'' (Dan 5.10)
* ''The events after Dan 11.24, which correspond to the date of the composition of the text, are all wrong''
Some of these arguments were easily dismissed as soon as they were made, for example, the argument about the queen being Belshazzar's wife, instead of his mother or grandmother, and of the king worshipping Daniel, instead of the God of Whom Daniel was the voice.<ref name=jerome /> The argument about the non-canonicity of Daniel was dismissed when parts of the book were found among the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]].<ref>[http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls?locale=en_US ''Fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except the Book of Esther) were found in the Qumran caves, the most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls sites'']</ref> Other arguments required modern techniques, for example, there are modern mathematical models that can date a text based on the language used, and Daniel is not a text that corresponds to the reing of Antiochus, but rather to the time of Babylonian hegemony or the reign of [[Cyrus the Great]].<ref name=daniel>See the reference section in the article about the [[Book of Daniel]]</ref> And even if Daniel were written at the time of Antiochus, it still contains some predictions, like the arrival of the Messiah in Jerusalem, and the total destruction of this city, so it would be a very weak argument to suppose that Daniel was false in claiming to be a prediction of events during the reign of Antiochus while being accurate for events that happened about two centuries later.<ref name=daniel />
== References ==
<references />
These books were soon refuted by [[Eusebius]] and [[Methodius]], and latter by [[Apollinarius]] (in [[345]]) and [[Philostorgius]] (in [[425]]); but neither the books nor the four replics have survived. Based on [[Hortensius]]'s biography of Porphyrius, it can be inferred that the purpose of these books was to prove that the [[Book of Daniel]] was not a prophetic text, but that it related events that happened to the kings of Syria and Egypt <ref>Respectively, the [[Seleucid]] and [[Ptolemaic]] dinasties that ruled these areas after the Empire of [[Alexander the Great]] was partitioned among his generals.</ref> and was written '''after''' the historical facts.<ref name=erskine>[[John Erskine]], ''Sketches Ad Hints of Church History, and Theological Controversy'', Volume 1, p.187 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=JOIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA187&f=false (english text)]</ref>
Porphyrius, in the twelfth book of ''Adversus Christianos'', was the first to attack the authenticity of the [[Book of Daniel]] and his arguments have been repeated since that time by many scholars. The core of this attack is that Daniel's prophecies are exact to the minute details, so they are not prophecies at all, but they were written by some Pseudo-Daniel living during the time of these events. Daniel was written during the reign of [[Antiochus Epiphanes]], in Greek, and that "Daniel did not so much predict future events as narrate past ones". <ref name=john.king>[[John King]], translator of [[John Calvin]]'s ''Calvin's Commentaries'', ''Translator's Preface'', ''Authenticity of the Book of Daniel'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc24/cc24001.htm (english text)]</ref>
Porphyrius's arguments, that survived only in the text of [[Jerome]],<ref name=john.king /> are: <ref name=jerome>[[Jerome]], ''Commentary on Daniel'' [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm (english text)]</ref>
* ''Daniel was not composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.''
* ''Daniel did not foretell the future so much as he related the past.''
* ''Whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future.''
* ''Daniel does not belong to the Hebrew Scriptures, since it was composed in Greek''
* ''[[Nebuchadnezzar]], a very proud king, would have never fallen on his face and worshipped Daniel'' (Dan 2.47)
* ''The queen, wife of King [[Belshazzar]], knew more about past events than the king, which is absurd'' (Dan 5.10)
* ''The events after Dan 11.24, which correspond to the date of the composition of the text, are all wrong''
Some of these arguments were easily dismissed as soon as they were made, for example, the argument about the queen being Belshazzar's wife, instead of his mother or grandmother, and of the king worshipping Daniel, instead of the God of Whom Daniel was the voice.<ref name=jerome /> The argument about the non-canonicity of Daniel was dismissed when parts of the book were found among the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]].<ref>[http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls?locale=en_US ''Fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except the Book of Esther) were found in the Qumran caves, the most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls sites'']</ref> Other arguments required modern techniques, for example, there are modern mathematical models that can date a text based on the language used, and Daniel is not a text that corresponds to the reing of Antiochus, but rather to the time of Babylonian hegemony or the reign of [[Cyrus the Great]].<ref name=daniel>See the reference section in the article about the [[Book of Daniel]]</ref> And even if Daniel were written at the time of Antiochus, it still contains some predictions, like the arrival of the Messiah in Jerusalem, and the total destruction of this city, so it would be a very weak argument to suppose that Daniel was false in claiming to be a prediction of events during the reign of Antiochus while being accurate for events that happened about two centuries later.<ref name=daniel />
== References ==
<references />