Aside from these primary sources (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes) the superset of all sources in antiquity attest that Socrates was known to a large diversity of philosophical schools and probably also to some level of the pagan education system at large. I would consider that this provides a substantial level of multiple independent attestation. However I view the analogous proposition to be questioned here to be as follows:The primary sources regarding Socrates are said to be Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. (Or that's what I recall and can find in a brief search. We can look for another example if someone found the sandals of Socrates or something.)I have often granted that hypothetically these literary sources may be legitimate copies of manuscripts composed (often) a thousand years earlier. Equally they may not be legitimate copies. This appears to be an epistemological conundrum. How can it be unraveled and/or resolved? There is a logical fork in the road. How do researchers proceed? I am open to any suggestions.
We could spend several hours tracking down specific manuscripts, their typical dates, whether they have the word "Socrates" on them, and so on. Make lists and tables for the same. But why bother, practically speaking? I have never heard anyone suggest that we possess the autographs. The basic question is the same.
The primary sources regarding Marcion are said to be Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian. But this subset of sources in antiquity were not known at large in antiquity to multiple groups but rather were all preserved within the subset of the Nicene christian church industry and specifically within its tertiary education sector. I therefore do not consider this to represent a substantial level of multiple independent attestation. An argument can be raised that these church sources, preserved as they were by one single powerful authoritative organisaton and its education system, can not be considered to be independent to the same degree (as those for Socrates).
As outlined above, there would be myriads of diverse independent sources in antiquity which mention both Socrates (as well as these three primary sources). For this reason my belief in the integrity of the manuscript transmission history is not going beyond what the (diverse and multiply attested) evidence warrants.So for these texts that mention Socrates:... hypothetically these literary sources may be legitimate copies of manuscripts composed (often) a thousand years earlier. Equally they may not be legitimate copies. This appears to be an epistemological conundrum. How can it be unraveled and/or resolved? There is a logical fork in the road. How do researchers proceed?
What is your initial reaction to these questions regarding the manuscripts of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes?
i would describe it as likely but with some reservations.How would you describe your current position regarding the historicity of Socrates?
I'd hope they would be similar to my answers but they may not be. Classical historians tend to study the classical historians of antiquity whereas biblical historians tend to study the ecclesiastical historians of antquity.How do you believe that classical historians would typically answer these questions?
TRADITION AND THE CLASSICAL HISTORIAN
ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO
The Greek and Latin historians we consider great and exemplary were already considered great and exemplary by ancient readers. They owe their preservation to their reputation; though, of course, not all the historians who were reputable were preserved. The use of certain books in the schools and mere chance played their part in the transmission of texts. What I want to emphasize is that our judgment on the ancient historians of Greece and Rome is in substantial agreement with the ancient canons of judgment. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius were already the models for the Greek and Roman historians who were in a position to read them.
///
Though Tyche might appeal to a pagan historian, no personal god was ever invoked to explain the course of history. Just as pagan Greece and Rome had no "gesta Dei per Graecos (or per Romanos)," so they did not have their biblical counterpart, the records of a nation in its relation to Yahweh. Ecclesiastical history - the record of the true faith in its fights against heresies and persecutors - was inconceivable in pagan Antiquity. Its appearance meant the beginning of a new era.
///
Before Christian writers learned from the Jews how to present the case for the unrelenting true God, the mood of the classical historian was one of caution
ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO
The Greek and Latin historians we consider great and exemplary were already considered great and exemplary by ancient readers. They owe their preservation to their reputation; though, of course, not all the historians who were reputable were preserved. The use of certain books in the schools and mere chance played their part in the transmission of texts. What I want to emphasize is that our judgment on the ancient historians of Greece and Rome is in substantial agreement with the ancient canons of judgment. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius were already the models for the Greek and Roman historians who were in a position to read them.
///
Though Tyche might appeal to a pagan historian, no personal god was ever invoked to explain the course of history. Just as pagan Greece and Rome had no "gesta Dei per Graecos (or per Romanos)," so they did not have their biblical counterpart, the records of a nation in its relation to Yahweh. Ecclesiastical history - the record of the true faith in its fights against heresies and persecutors - was inconceivable in pagan Antiquity. Its appearance meant the beginning of a new era.
///
Before Christian writers learned from the Jews how to present the case for the unrelenting true God, the mood of the classical historian was one of caution
However the real question here IMHO would be how would classical historians describe their position on the historicity of Marcion.
My own belief in how classical historians would answer this question is that they may prefer to perhaps steer clear of the question altogether (and focus on other studies) since the historicity of Marcion is only important within the domain (subset) of the biblical historians. They therefore may prefer to leave the question for the "insiders" of the domain (subset). Some might defer to the mainstream view of biblical scholarship with some forms of reservations and caveats (such as those raised above).
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Thu Apr 17, 2025 5:41 am
