jgibson000

Look for a message from Peter Brown that says that the Johannine fragment is not good evidence since paleographical dating is unreliable and that the fragment is forged, and that Marcion is a Eusebian invention and the Paluines are 4th century forgeries.

Jeffrey Gibson

mountainman

The same type of brigands and outlaws described by Josephus.
Those who considered themselves beyond the law.
"Constantine was a brigand" according to Victor, and
later "a ward irresponsible for his own actions".

I am not aversed to education concerning the greek translated
by Wright, so please, take the floor. Consider me a student.

It does not need to be since it is included in this phrase
as the opening statement of the entire treatise, and is
juxtaposed and plainly described itself, as a fiction:
the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction
of men composed by wickedness.

jgibson000

Oh -- first century Palestinian people, then?

Is that how Josephus describes those he labels "brigands", not all of whom, BTW, were Galileans? If so, can you provide some evidence from Josephus that shows this?

Surely this is not your own argument. From whom do you take it? And why are you certain that it is a sound one?

And who is Victor? Where does his claim about Constantine come from? When decsribing Constantine, does he use the same word for "brigand" that Josephus allegedly does of "Galileans"?

You don't know? You do your exegesis of a Greek text on the basis of an English translation of it???

OK. So what is the Greek word that is translated here as "fiction"? Do you know that?

And why are you certain (1) that "fiction" is the best translation of it and (2), that it bore for Julian and his contemporaries the meaning that the English word "fiction" conveys to us? Have you looked at whether or not it appears elsewhere in his writings and that it is is used by him (or anyone in his era) to mean what you think it means?

I'm betting no.

JG

mountainman

Are we not encouraged to be skeptical? One good honest carbon
dating citation on any of the many fragments purported via the
divination of handwriting analysis of a period 16 centuries ago is
not too much to ask in this day and age my dear spin.

Until then, you are just trotting the trot.

On the contrary I was directly asked a question by spin to provide
a description and a specification of just what was this thing described
by Julian to be "the fabrication of the Galilalaens". As usual, after
going throught the yards of preparing said article, and posting of its
draft completion (some moons ago), none of the logic or contents
of my article is being mentioned.

Finally all posters must recognise the final parting shot conspiracy.

Noone in this forum has yet summoned up the courage to answer
a simple question as to how it can be perceived that a malevolent
despot needs to politically (or in any wise) conspire. The world was
a different world in antiquity. We have the precedent of the method
and the manufacture of the monotheistic autocracy by Ardashir in
the creation of Iran, one hundred years prior to Nicaea. What's any
different? Did the King of Kings Ardashir "conspire" to destroy the
Parthian civilisation and its writings, or was it just a military
supremacist's will and power that saw his ideas enacted by his
troops and his civilian followers?


Would you like to play a game Spin?
I'll be Constantine and you can be Eusebius.

mountainman

Who? Bullburner?

This nickname was actually used to his face
by one of his friends. Do you know who that
was spin?

jbarntt

Thanks spin. As a newbie I was not aware.

jgibson000

Maybe that's because it is so desperately lacking in logic.

And perhaps that's because, leaving aside the constant question begging identification of Constantine as a "malevolent despot" (now watch how Peter will focus on this and ignore what follows), the issue isn't whether or not Constantine needs to conspire (let alone how it can be perceived that he needs to do so [an epistemological question that I'm sure you didn't mean to ask]. It's whether he actually did conspire in the particular way you have been claiming he did.

Why answer a question that has no relevance to, or bearing upon, the real issue?

JG

mountainman

Political history reveals that in 350 CE, a decade before Julian
wrote his 3 books, which were refuted by Cyril and then
burned by the christian regime, it appears to be an irrefutable
fact that "land tax had tripled within living memory".

Sounds like someone, or some regime, was making alot of
money. Brigandage may essentially be politely described
as "being a pirate of the land", robbing and plundering at
will, and establishing a cruel and despotic taxation regime.

Mr Gibson, if you wish to delight the forum with future
attempts at making me look unprofessional in the greek
and latin language department, after I have clearly and
without agenda stated that you should consider me as
your student, then you shall address this irrefutable
historical economic fact described above in detail, and
summarisable as "land tax had tripled within living memory"
in the decade of the 350's CE. Sounds like brigands were
definitely afoot leading to this era, and that this brigandage
probably was directly related to the comments of Ammianus
Marcellinus, that the highways were covered with
galloping bishops".

Now to return to your questions ...

These references are all provided on the article I wrote.
Clearly you have not attempted to read it.
The URL for that article was provided In January 2007.

Sextus Aurelius Victor. See the article.

Wilmer Cave Wright translated Epictitus.
See the article I referred to. My claim is
that the "galilaeans" are the "lawless tribes
of Galilee" as would have been the case in
the Roman conquest of the region, and the
historical problems they had subduing it.

See the article.

Until you show me that Wilmer Cave Wright PhD is a deficient
in being a better teacher than you claim to be, his translations
from Greek will service my needs.

mountainman

One logical fallacy in your opinion is ...

Because all things are connected to Constantine since his
rise in the fourth century on a purely political basis as evident
with the massive turbulent military, civilian and religious changes
which occurred during his rule, and in the propagation of the
self-perpetuation of the "Nicaean Oath" and its brigandage
for the rest of the fourth century.

mountainman

Welcome jbarntt. That remarkable claims require remarkable
and consistent evidence is a good maxim that should be borne
in mind during your research of the field of BC&H.

It is a two edged sword, this maxim.