I don't dispute that there were excesses under Christian rule that should not have happened. But it could have been worse. Philosophy saw its power and influence curtailed but it managed to survive. In fact, there was nothing to replace it until the arrival of science and rampant materialism.

Philosophy saw its power and influence curtailed but it managed to survive. In fact, there was nothing to replace it until the arrival of science and rampant materialism. — Apollodorus

It could of course had been worse. Like the Huns could have sacked Constantinople and Rome, or a large meteorite could have wiped out mankind.

It could also have been better. Sometimes I dream about a world where Hypatia was spared and allowed to teach, where all the emperors had the wisdom of Constantine (who instated freedom of religion) and where pagan religions were left alone by Christian mobs.

Of course it was historically not possible, never in the cards, because the new polis, the empire, needed some sort of common, empire-wide moral foundation. It needed the one God if it was to remain one empire.

1. The text says nothing about Euthyphro’s relationship with his father. There is no indication that he wanted to kill him. — Apollodorus

He was there to prosecute his father. If he prevailed the likely outcome would be the death penalty. There is no indication that he wanted his father dead, but he was fully aware of the consequences should he prevail.

3. The fact that Euthyphro calls it “murder” is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the court’s ruling. — Apollodorus

The dialogue leaves open the question of whether he even does prosecute. With regard to the dialogue there is no relevance of a court ruling for a trial that might never occur.

It needed the one God if it was to remain one empire. — Olivier5

As you probably know the Council at Nicaea was convened because of a rift between Christian theologians regarding the divinity of Jesus. Under Constantine this was not just a theological matter it was political.

Origen had produced thousands of treatises and books. He had reviewed systematically all the gospels available at his time, including some now lost. For this and many other reasons, the burning of his work was a grievous loss. — Olivier5

On the one hand I think that without the efforts of the Church Fathers to unify the early Jesus movement into the universal Catholic Church, the future of Christianity might have been very different in various ways. This may have saved it from splintering. On the other, this does done at the cost of destroying what was part of the movement's very spirit, that is, the indwelling of spirit expressed through gospels of witness of inspiration.

If he prevailed the likely outcome would be the death penalty — Fooloso4

1. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you have zero evidence for.

The dialogue leaves open the question of whether he even does prosecute. — Fooloso4

2. Precisely. So, it is all speculation.

With regard to the dialogue there is no relevance of a court ruling for a trial that might never occur. — Fooloso4

3. The issue of relevance was in connection with your unfounded assumption that the father would have been (a) found guilty of murder and (b) sentenced to death, should a trial have taken place. But you have zero evidence for that.

So, it's back to square one (1) above.

If he prevailed the likely outcome would be the death penalty
— Fooloso4 [Bold added]

1. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you have zero evidence for. — Apollodorus

The penalty for murder was death. Of course we have no evidence of the outcome of a trial that had not yet happened and might never have happened.

Precisely. So, it is all speculation. — Apollodorus

I made no prediction as to whether or not he would be found guilty. You are the one who speculated on the outcome:

The only relevant thing is the court’s ruling.

4. My take is that, after hearing Euthyphro’s testimony, the court would have found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. — Apollodorus

3. The issue of relevance was in connection with your unfounded assumption that the father would have been (a) found guilty of murder ... — Apollodorus

You need to read more carefully. As an aid I bolded the part of the statement above that you quoted and missed. If he prevailed does not mean he would prevail or did prevail.

The kind of Christianity that survived had a deep affinity for Platonism. Through people like Augustine, Platonism lived on for centuries. — frank

Correct. Platonism had a huge impact on the Roman Empire especially in the east, e.g., Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. There were important Platonic schools in Alexandria (Egypt), Antioch (Syria), and Tarsus (Syria), all cities with large Jewish communities, resulting in the emergence of Hellenistic Judaism.

Hellenistic influence is also evident in Palestine itself. Greek was widely spoken by Jews. St Paul who was a native of Tarsus, spoke fluent Greek and was sufficiently conversant with Hellenistic philosophy to debate with Greek philosophers in Athens. His teacher Gamaliel instructed his students both in Jewish and Greek traditions.

Christian philosophy was so close to Platonism, indeed it had been largely developed on Platonic foundations, that to suppress Platonism would have amounted to an assault on Christianity itself. Besides, Platonism stood at the apex of the Roman culture that Christianity adopted wholesale along with the administrative apparatus and legal system. In fact, Greeks called themselves "Romans" and inhabitants of Constantinople (New Rome) called themselves "Romans" (Romioi) until very recently (some possibly still do so). Arabs and Turks also referred to Greeks as "Romans" (Rum). The celebrated Persian poet Rumi, got his name from the same source (al-Rumi, literally, "from Rum", i.e., Greek Anatolia).

But all this was happening in the East. Western Christianity and, in particular, Protestantism is a different story.

Under Constantine this was not just a theological matter it was political. — Fooloso4

It's complicated. Constantine himself was no theologian and couldn't care less which version of JC the bishops would chose. He just wanted the disputes to stop.

The penalty for murder was death. Of course we have no evidence of the outcome of a trial that had not yet happened and might never have happened. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I'm saying, viz., you've got no evidence that (a) the penalty for murder was death and (b) the alleged crime was "murder". No evidence = no evidence, there is no if or but about it.

IMHO, you are flogging a dead horse there.

You are being disingenuous. @Fooloso4 is just saying that Euthyphro plays the role of the fool in the dialogue, a fool ready to prosecute his own father for the accidental death of a slave.

It's complicated. Constantine himself was no theologian and couldn't care less which version of JC the bishops would chose. He just wanted the disputes to stop. — Olivier5

Right. That is why I said it was political.

@Fooloso4 is just saying that Euthyphro plays the role of the fool in the dialogue — Olivier5

If that's what he is "just" saying, I have no problem with it.

But what he actually says is this:

but he does not show that what he is doing is something the gods love, unless the gods love patricide. — Fooloso4

The penalty for murder was death. — Fooloso4

etc. ....

His argument is this:

1. The penalty for murder is death.

2. If taken to court on charges of murder, Euthyphro's father will be sentenced to death.

3. By taking his father to court on charges of murder Euthyphro causes his death, therefore he is guilty of patricide.

But he has no evidence for either (1) or (2).

The conclusion (3) is wrong. His argument fails.

The death penalty was the most severe form of punishment in Athens and usually reserved only for the most severe offenders of the law. The death sentence was generally reserved for those who had been found guilty of intentional homicide or who had commited another grave sin.

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/death-penalty-classical-athens/

As to the alleged crime being murder:

Socrates: What is the charge, and what is the lawsuit about?
Euthyphro: Murder, Socrates.

4a

Most of your challenges to what I say could easily be settled if you would just read the text.

I'm not sure anymore whether your misrepresentations are intentional or if there is something else going on that prevents you from understanding. Either way I am not going to waste my time responding again.

Most of your challenges to what I say could easily be settled if you would just read the text. — Fooloso4

OK, let's have a look at you new "argument" if that's what it is. This is what you are saying:

1. The death sentence was generally reserved for those who had been found guilty of intentional homicide or who had commited another grave sin.

2. Socrates: What is the charge, and what is the lawsuit about?
Euthyphro: Murder, Socrates.

Let's take a closer look at what this means:

1. The death sentence was "generally reserved for intentional homicide".

True, but this was not mandatory. The penalty could have been exile or a fine.

2. Euthyphro thinks his father is guilty of murder or intentional homicide.

This is also true. But there is no evidence that it was murder or intentional homicide. In fact, it sounds very much like unintentional homicide or even an accident.

It follows that there is absolutely no evidence or guarantee that (a) Euthyphro's father was guilty of murder and/or that (b1) the court would find him guilty as charged and (b2) sentence him to death.

3. By taking his father to court on charges of murder Euthyphro MAY cause his death, IF HIS CASE IS SUCCESSFUL, therefore he is guilty of TRYING TO BE patricide. — Apollodorus

FIXED

FIXED — Olivier5

Lol A bit too many "mays" and "ifs", and still no evidence. It can't be established that he is even "trying to be patricide". You just said he was a fool who didn't know what he is doing.

All we know is he intended to take his father to court because he believed it was his duty to do so.

It can't be established that he is even "trying to be patricide". You just said he was a fool who didn't know what he is doing. — Apollodorus

He is a greedy fool plotting for his father's death or banishment, possibly for the heritage.

That may make an interesting possibility. But as I already pointed out, the text says absolutely nothing about the relationship Euthyphro has with his father. If he really believes in doing right and avoiding wrong as he seems to be saying, then it is unlikely. Besides, we don't know what the inheritance may be. And if his father is old and frail he may die soon anyway.

Besides, Platonism stood at the apex of the Roman culture that Christianity adopted — Apollodorus

I knew this. I'm wondering about the world Jesus lived in. Weren't the Sadducees hellenized Jews? I wonder if they would have been familiar with Plato.

You are presenting ideas about Plato that most would hold to be absurd — frank

In the academic milieu of the last 100 years or so, Fooloso4's approach to read the dialogues as not being a map to a doctrine is the commonly accepted practice. Who are the "most" people you are pointing to?

I don't ask that rhetorically. I am only familiar with the "close study of the text" method that was my freshman year in college 45 years ago.

In the academic milieu of the last 100 years or so, Fooloso4's approach to read the dialogues as not being a map to a doctrine is the commonly accepted practice — Valentinus

Did you see a post of mine that suggested otherwise?

Weren't the Sadducees hellenized Jews? I wonder if they would have been familiar with Plato. — frank

Good question. The Sadducees were certainly the most Hellenized among religious Jews. Apparently, they controlled the Sanhedrin (named after Greek synedrion, "council") for some time. It seems tempting to think that Greek influence also meant Platonic influence. But I wouldn't know to what extent this was the case among the Sadducees. Was their rejection of an immortal soul even compatible with Platonism?

G Scott Gleaves in Did Jesus Speak Greek? provides an excellent introduction to the influence of Greek in Roman Palestine. He believes that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic which seems perfectly plausible to me. I am sure that any citizen of Palestine, Jew or Greek would have had access to Platonic philosophy if they wanted to. There were ten Greek cities (Decapolis) in the region. The city of Sepphoris was only three miles from Nazareth on the road to Cana of Galilee (where Jesus turned water into wine).

Was their rejection of an immortal soul even compatible with Platonism? — Apollodorus

Good point. What Greek influence would that have been? Stoicism?

In the academic milieu of the last 100 years or so, Fooloso4's approach to read the dialogues as not being a map to a doctrine is the commonly accepted practice. — Valentinus

Thank you. It is nice to have some confirmation from someone familiar with the scholarship. As you have probably seen, some have accused me of making this up, not knowing what I'm talking about and on and on.

There are, however, still some around who think it is all about Plato's doctrines. They tend not to look at the whole of the dialogues, but pull things out of context.

What Greek influence would that have been? Stoicism? — frank

Well, with Alexander's conquest of the region, the primary Greek influence would have been political, religious, and social. In cultural terms, I suppose Stoicism would have been more appealing to religious groups. Though, as I said, Jews must have been aware of Platonism and would have had access to its teachings any time. As with Christians and Muslims and, indeed, with Graeco-Roman Pagans, people would practice the mainstream religion in public whilst pursuing any philosophical current (Platonism or Stoicism or a mixture thereof) in private if so inclined.

You mean other than the quote from you saying it?

You mean other than the quote from you saying it? — Valentinus

Where?

You are presenting ideas about Plato that most would hold to be absurd — frank

That was about his insistence that Plato can't be called an idealist and other oddities.

I said nothing about doctrine