Roger Pearse

Thank you -- most interesting. These are selected pages from early editions published by Froben at Basle. This edition was the 1563, I think -- old Froben must have been dead by then, but no doubt his sons carried on the business, and were doing Greek texts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Thanks for all this information and link post tenebras lux.
I was unaware of this research project to get Cyril out into the light.
It is good to see this happening.

Best wishes,


Pete

jgibson000

Are you claiming the the Greek word that gets translated above as "falsehood" is the same Greek word that gets translated as "fiction" in the translation of Julian's Against the Galileans?

If not, then why use the quote from Eusebius to "demonstrate" what the word in Julian translated as "fiction" actually means?

Very interesting. And yet even despite this uncertainty you still make apodictic claims not only about what Julian meant by them, but that we should take our cues about what Julian meant from what certain English words convey to English speakers even when you do not know that these English words are accurate translations or Julian's Greek.

Good for you. But you've failed to mention not only how many is "many", what these pages actually were, and, most importantly, whether or not the data that appears on first pages in is anyway relevant to the question of what Greek words lie behind the English words upon which you base your claims, let alone whether the Greek actually conveys something different than what you think it does. Your claims to know, it seems to me, is about as solid as would be a med students who only read the first page of all of his medical text books and then claimed that he was well versed in matters medical.


But leaving aside the question of how much the above is a variation on the appeal to personal incredulity, the issue isn't whether commentators have offered any unique perspectives on what Julian was up to. Rather its the question of just what it is that commentators say Julian was doing.

In any case, how would you know what the intent of Julian's invectives are since, as you yourself admit, you don't know what the words are that he employs in his invective, what their semantic range was, and whether or not they have any particular resonance in 3rd and 4th century literary circles and/or when used in the genre of writing of which Against the Galileans is one example.

But I didn't ask about "mainstream opinion". I asked about writers who are engaged in the same sort of enterprise as Julian was.

And again, how much credence should we put in what it is you are "able to determine" since you don't know what it is (the Greek words that lie behind "fiction" etc.) the meaning of which you are supposed to be determining, and you haven't consulted any of the relevant lexicographical reference works or any actual studies of Julian's vocabulary, contact with which would be requisite to do so?

You are still basing your claim on the connotations that certain English words have.

May I suggest that you have a look at the discussion of Julian's terminology and the comparative material that illuminates it that appears in Emanuela Masaracchia, Giuliano Imperatore - Contra Galilaeos. Introduzione, testo critico traduzione, Rome 1990 (Testi e Commenti/Texts and Commentaries 9).

You would also benefit from perusing the section on Julian in John Granger Cook's The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco Roman Paganism (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Jeffrey Gibson

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey Gibson,

Thank you for spending more time on your response than
it may have deserved.

I have only one comment at this time. It appears to me, admittedly
with not a great deal of service in the environment of historical
enquiry and research, that there is in fact an inordinate stress
being traditionally placed upon the textual side of the balance
of most (if not all) "historical considerations" within BC&H.

I will paraphrase the above to clarify.

We dont know what Julian actually wrote, but it suggests
that whatever it was Cyril censored some choice "charges".
Whatever the semantic range of the ultimate source words
surviving in Cyril today, behind them tower a series of words
which it would clearly seem Cyril found unutterable, and
unfit for transmission into the future. He admits this.

Therefore while it would benefit me greatly to understand
more exactly what each of these source words has to offer
by way of semantic range, in the historiography of both
Julian's and Cyril's time, ultimately any analysis that seeks
to,shall we say, ameliorate the invectives, is doomed
to failure, by Cyril's admission of censorship.

Does Textual transmission theory have a term for data
which is omitted from transmission? I sure there would be.

Thanks again for your response,
and further supplied references.



Pete

jgibson000

But besides the fact that when it comes to the "historical consideration" of what Julian's views on the origin of Christianity actually were, a text is all we have, your complaint is very odd. After all, you are the one who has been most adamant in insisting and stressing that what Julian said in this regard can and is to be known from, and is clearly set out in, a text.

So why now classify as "inordinate" what you yourself have been doing?

It does? Do you have any evidence that Cyril was known to censor or not reproduce accurately the texts he was replying to?

And if we don't know what Julian wrote, what then is the status of your conclusions regarding the emergence of Christianity that you have grounded in what you have up to now claimed Julian "says" and in your claims that you know what Julian's words mean?

Clearly seem? On what grounds? And just what would those words be?

He does? Where? And are the words that Cyril reputedly found "unutterable" the particular words that you have been adducing as evidence for your claims?

Who has been trying to "ameliorate" the invectives? Certainly not me. I've simply been trying to determine what their intent actually is and to see if you could produce any evidence that shows that your understanding of what those invectives are, what their actual import is, and whether your claims about how they lend credence to your claims about the emergence of Christianity has any merit. But so far, all you've done is to dodge these issues.

Certainly it does. But you have yet to show that any data was omitted, let alone that it occurred withing the passages you've been pointing to as providing evidence for your claims.

You are welcome. But may I ask you to return the favour by avoiding the non-responsiveness replies, the changing of the subject and shifting of the grounds of the arguments, and the refusal to dealing directly with my questions that have characterized what you've posted to me in this exchange?

Jeffrey Gibson

mountainman

This classification arose when I considerd that text is just one
of the forms of the transmission of records from the past: we
have also:

* architecture (buildings)
* art
* sculpture
* archeological relics
* coins (gold, silver, bronze)
* inscriptions
* carbon dating citations

The comment about "inordinance" related to the relative weight
of discussion on issues relating to text, as compared to discussions
on issues relating to one of the above alternate categories. That's
all, nothing major.


My claims are based on the commentary provided by the translator
of Cyril, Wilmer Cave WRIGHT, PH.D found here:

In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many believers. He undertook to refute it in a polemic of which about half survives, and from the quotations of Julian in Cyril's work Neumann has skilfully reconstructed considerable portions of the treatise. Cyril had rearranged Julian's hurriedly written polemic, in order to avoid repetitions and to bring similar subjects together. Moreover, he says that he omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. We have seen that a similar mutilation of the letters occurred for similar reasons.

Pete Brown

post tenebras lux

Pete/others, do you have any information as to Wilmer Cave Wright's personal beliefs? I ask only because I noticed a rather biased sounding (imho) phrase in the introduction you just linked to. Namely: "when his naturally pagan soul rebelled against the Christian ritual in which he had to take part".

Thanks in advance, Luxie

mountainman

Hey,

I do not have any background on Wright. I did notice what
appears to be an error in his opening phrase: "Julian, like
Epictetus, always calls the Christians Galilaeans".

AFAIK, Epictetus did not at all refer to "christians".
Hi reference to galilaeans was to the lawless men of galilee
(according to the meaning in Josephus).

Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

Particularly given that Cyril's words -- as opposed to Julian's -- are not accessible to one who knows neither Latin nor Greek.

I would highlight that a Sources Chretiennes text of books 1-2 of Contra Iulianum does already exist (not using the new edition, of course) with a French translation. My copy of this arrived today, and it wouldn't seem a great task to sit down with it, and a machine translator, and translate what Cyril says.

THAT would be a useful activity to everyone, if MM would care to attempt it. Indeed I would do it, were it not that I am so short of time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

What problem do either of you two have with the
comments in the introduction to the english
translation provided by Wilmer Cave WRIGHT, PH.D?


I am happy to receive a CD with the first-draft english output,
and volunteer the time to edit it. Msg me for a postal address.