Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-07-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In the third century CE the author Philostratus narrates an equivalent belief in his *** history *** of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana where he has the following conversation take place:

Please note that I refer to the work as a *** history *** because this is precisely what Eusebius calls it dozens of times over in his polemical diatribe against the pagans who followed the son of Apollo, the son of Zeus.

Can you provide us with some references, please? Where specifically does Eusebius call Philostratus' work a "history".

Dear Jeffrey,

"Against Hierocles" translated to English by F.C. Conybeare (1912) contains the term "history" many times in direct reference to the account of Philostratus.

Quote:

What is the Greek term that underlies these references?

Please shine the light on this issue.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-07-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I probably could. But it's not my job to do your homework for you.

And please don't excuse yourself by saying you don't read Greek or Latin.

Dear Jeffrey,

What problem do you have with Coneybeare?

Quote:

In doing so, you only admit that you have no expertise, are incapable of doing the grunt work that real historians engage in, are not worth listening to when you make claims about what Greek and Latin texts say, and that all of your excoriations of "mainstream scholars" who do are worthless.

I make the claim that serious Greek translators such as Coneybeare are more expert than I, and that if you wish to show I have no expertise, you need to show that Coneybeare has no expertise, or at least demonstrate that all the great classicial Greek to English translations should be revised by the expert Jeffrey Gibson.

Quote:

You want to be taken seriously as an historian? Go and learn Greek and Latin. And until you have some under your belt, stop telling us what ancient texts say.

Shall I burn Coneybeare?

Quote:

AM may not have been representative of "ipagans", we dont know that. We know he was a greek in the roman army and had a way with words, but that the first part of his histories (covering the obituary to Constantine) were not preserved. We also know he appears to have made mention of Apollonius. AM is considered a reliable witness.

A reliable witness to what?

Ancient history. (As distinct from "Biblical" or "New Testament" "history")

Quote:

And how is his being a reliable witness in any way relevant to the issue at hand -- which is whether you've misunderstood, misread, eisegeted, and made uninformed and unsupportable claims about what he said, let alone what others have said about him.

The issue is the pagan wisdom highlighted by DCHindley as splashed all around the new testament as if it were being placed into the mouth of someone of more recent origins. Ammianus in his obituary to Constantius provides this cited quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MENANDER

"A daemon is assigned to every man
At birth, to be the leader of his life".

Immediately following this cite, Ammianus delivers a long phrase which includes mention of the (translated) term "guardian spirits". Your task should not be to attack me but to show people in this discussion forum exactly what Ammianus is alluding to here. There may be other transations of that phrase (ie: of Ammianus) that I am not aware of. There may be other translations of the original Menander direct -- that differ from the above. All these things are presented as questions relevant to the OP's issue.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-07-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Can you provide us with some references, please? Where specifically does Eusebius call Philostratus' work a "history".

Dear Jeffrey,

"Against Hierocles" translated to English by F.C. Conybeare (1912) contains the term "history" many times in direct reference to the account of Philostratus.

So what? Remember how you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about when you asserted on the basis of an English translation of Ammianus that Ammianus spoke of a "son of a ghost"? Are you sure you are not doing it again?

And I asked for specific citations -- e.g., book and line #.

Quote:

What is the Greek term that underlies these references?

Quote:

Please shine the light on this issue.

OK. Here's the opening of Against Heirocles in Conybeare's translation and then in the original.

Quote:

So then, my dear friend, you find worthy of no little admiration the parallel which, embellished with many marvels, this author has drawn between the man of Tyana arid our own Saviour and teacher. For already against the rest of the contents of the "Lover of Truth " (Philalethes), for so he has thought fit to entitle his work against us, it would be useless to take my stand at present; because they are not his own, but have been pilfered in the most shameless manner, not only I may say in respect of their ideas, but even of their words and syllables, from other authorities. Not but what these parts also of his treatise call for their refutation in due season ; but to all intents and purposes they have, even in advance of any special work that might be written in answer to them, been upset and exposed beforehand in a work which in as many as eight books Origen composed against the book which Celsus wrote and--even more boastfully than the " Lover of Truth,"--entitled " True Reason." The work of Celsus is there subjected to an examination in an exhaustive manner and on the scale above mentioned by the author in question, who in his comprehensive survey of all that anyone has said or will ever say on the same topic., has forestalled any solution of your difficulties which I could offer. To this work of Origen I must refer those who in good faith and with genuine "love of truth " desire accurately to understand my own position. I will therefore ask you for the present to confine your attention to the comparison of Jesus Christ with Apollonius which is found in this treatise called the " Lover of Truth," without insisting on the necessity of our meeting the rest of his arguments, for these are pilfered from other people. We may reasonably confine our attention for the present to the history of Apollonius, because Hierocles, of all the writers who have ever attacked us, stands alone in selecting Apollonius, as he has recently done, for the purposes of comparison and contrast with our Saviour.

Quote:

ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ �*ΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ �*ΡΟΣ ΤΑ Υ�*Ο ΦΙΛΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΕΙΣ Α�*ΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΤΥΑΝΕΑ ΔΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΙΕΡΟΚΛΕΙ �*ΑΡΑΛΗΦΘΕΙΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΣΥΓΚΡΙΣΙΝ.

Contra Hieroclem 369.1

Ἆρ' οὖν, ὦ φιλότης, κἀκεῖνά σε τοῦ συγγραφ�*ως ἄξιον ἀποθαυμάζειν, ἃ τῷ ἡμετ�*ρῳ σωτῆρί τε καὶ διδασκάλῳ τὸν Τυαν�*α συγκρίνων παρεδοξολόγει; πρὸς μὲν γὰρ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐν τῷ Φιλαλήθει,
369.5 οὕτω γὰρ εὖ ἔχειν αὐτῷ τὸν καθ' ἡμῶν ἐπιγράφειν ἐδόκει λόγον, οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη σπουδαῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἵστασθαι μὴ αὐτοῦ ἴδια τυγχάνοντα, σφόδρα
δὲ ἀναιδῶς ἐξ ἑτ�*ρων οὐκ αὐτοῖς μονονουχὶ νοήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ῥήμασι καὶ συλλαβαῖς ἀποσεσυλημ�*να,
369.10 (ἃ) τύχοι μὲν ἂν καὶ αὐτὰ τῆς προσηκούσης κατὰ καιρὸν ἀπελ�*γξεως, δυνάμει δ' ἤδη καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας κατ' αὐτῶν γραφῆς ἀνατ�*τραπται καὶ προαπελή
Page 369, line 13 λεγκται ἐν ὅλοις ὀκτὼ συγγράμμασι τοῖς Ὠριγ�*νει γραφεῖσι πρὸς τὸν ἀλαζονικώτερον τοῦ Φιλαλήθους
369.15 ἐπιγεγραμμ�*νον Κ�*λσου Ἀληθῆ λόγον, ᾧ τὰς εὐθύνας ἀπαραλείπτως, ἐν ὅσοις εἰρήκαμεν, ὁ δεδηλωμ�*νος παραγαγὼν συλλήβδην ὅσα εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν
370.1 ὑπόθεσιν παντί τῳ εἴρηταί τε καὶ εἰρήσεται, προλαβὼν διελύσατο, ἐφ' ἃ τοὺς ἐπ' ἀκριβὲς τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς διαγνῶναι ἔχοντας φιλαλήθως ἀναπ�*μψαντες φ�*ρε μόνην ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος τὴν κατὰ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν
370.5 Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τοῦ Φιλαλήθους τουτουὶ λόγου παράθεσιν ἐπισκεψώμεθα μηδ�*ν τι σπουδαῖον ἡγούμενοι πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἑτ�*ρωθεν ὑποσεσυλημ�*νων αὐτῷ διαμάχεσθαι. μόνα δὲ εἰκότως νυνὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἀπολλώνιον ἐποψόμεθα, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνῳ παρὰ τοὺς
370.10 πώποτε καθ' ἡμῶν γεγραφότας ἐξαίρετος νῦν τούτῳ γ�*γονεν ἡ τοῦδε πρὸς τὸν ἡμ�*τερον σωτῆρα παράθεσίς τε καὶ σύγκρισις.

Now please tell me what word is being translated by Conybeare as "history" and whether that word bears the meaning that "history" connotes to us.

Besides that, are you really assuming, as you seem to be, that because Eusebius calls something a "history" (if indeed he does) that this guarantees the historical reliability of the narrative in that work?

What exactly is your point in drawing our attention to the (alleged but as yet undemonstrated) "fact" that Eusebuis calls Philostratus' work on Apollonius a "history"?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-07-2008, 03:24 PM

Dear Toto,

Please feel free to split this out: Does Eusebius assert that Philostratus wrote a history in "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

"Against Hierocles" translated to English by F.C. Conybeare (1912) contains the term "history" many times in direct reference to the account of Philostratus.

So what? Remember how you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about when you asserted on the basis of an English translation of Ammianus that Ammianus spoke of a "son of a ghost"? Are you sure you are not doing it again?

Dear Jeffrey,

You keep repeating this assertion. My original post contained this:

Quote:

Ammianus Marcellinus
BOOK XXI
14. Omens of the death of Constantius Augustus.

1. In this welter of adverse event Constantius'
fortune, already wavering and at a standstill,
showed clearly the signs almost as plain as words,
that a crisis in his life was at hand. For at night he
was alarmed by apparitions, and when he was not
yet wholly sunk into sleep, the ghost of his father
seemed to hold out to him a fair child, and when he
took it and set it in his lap, it shook from him the
ball which he had held in his right hand and threw it
to a great distance.

You must have missed my sense of humor.
The ghost referred to in this quote was Constantine's ghost.
I have no idea where your seriousness has taken you.
You have missed my point and are prosecuting another.
Did you think I was referring to the Holy Ghost?

Quote:

OK. Here's the opening of Against Heirocles in Conybeare's translation and then in the original.

Quote:

ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ �*ΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ �*ΡΟΣ ΤΑ Υ�*Ο ΦΙΛΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΕΙΣ Α�*ΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΤΥΑΝΕΑ ΔΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΙΕΡΟΚΛΕΙ �*ΑΡΑΛΗΦΘΕΙΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΣΥΓΚΡΙΣΙΝ.

Contra Hieroclem 369.1

Ἆρ' οὖν, ὦ φιλότης, κἀκεῖνά σε τοῦ συγγραφ�*ως ἄξιον ἀποθαυμάζειν, ἃ τῷ ἡμετ�*ρῳ σωτῆρί τε καὶ διδασκάλῳ τὸν Τυαν�*α συγκρίνων παρεδοξολόγει; πρὸς μὲν γὰρ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐν τῷ Φιλαλήθει,
369.5 οὕτω γὰρ εὖ ἔχειν αὐτῷ τὸν καθ' ἡμῶν ἐπιγράφειν ἐδόκει λόγον, οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη σπουδαῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἵστασθαι μὴ αὐτοῦ ἴδια τυγχάνοντα, σφόδρα
δὲ ἀναιδῶς ἐξ ἑτ�*ρων οὐκ αὐτοῖς μονονουχὶ νοήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ῥήμασι καὶ συλλαβαῖς ἀποσεσυλημ�*να,
369.10 (ἃ) τύχοι μὲν ἂν καὶ αὐτὰ τῆς προσηκούσης κατὰ καιρὸν ἀπελ�*γξεως, δυνάμει δ' ἤδη καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας κατ' αὐτῶν γραφῆς ἀνατ�*τραπται καὶ προαπελή
Page 369, line 13 λεγκται ἐν ὅλοις ὀκτὼ συγγράμμασι τοῖς Ὠριγ�*νει γραφεῖσι πρὸς τὸν ἀλαζονικώτερον τοῦ Φιλαλήθους
369.15 ἐπιγεγραμμ�*νον Κ�*λσου Ἀληθῆ λόγον, ᾧ τὰς εὐθύνας ἀπαραλείπτως, ἐν ὅσοις εἰρήκαμεν, ὁ δεδηλωμ�*νος παραγαγὼν συλλήβδην ὅσα εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν
370.1 ὑπόθεσιν παντί τῳ εἴρηταί τε καὶ εἰρήσεται, προλαβὼν διελύσατο, ἐφ' ἃ τοὺς ἐπ' ἀκριβὲς τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς διαγνῶναι ἔχοντας φιλαλήθως ἀναπ�*μψαντες φ�*ρε μόνην ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος τὴν κατὰ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν
370.5 Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τοῦ Φιλαλήθους τουτουὶ λόγου παράθεσιν ἐπισκεψώμεθα μηδ�*ν τι σπουδαῖον ἡγούμενοι πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἑτ�*ρωθεν ὑποσεσυλημ�*νων αὐτῷ διαμάχεσθαι. μόνα δὲ εἰκότως νυνὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἀπολλώνιον ἐποψόμεθα, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνῳ παρὰ τοὺς
370.10 πώποτε καθ' ἡμῶν γεγραφότας ἐξαίρετος νῦν τούτῳ γ�*γονεν ἡ τοῦδε πρὸς τὸν ἡμ�*τερον σωτῆρα παράθεσίς τε καὶ σύγκρισις.

Now please tell me what word is being translated by Conybeare as "history" and whether that word bears the meaning that "history" connotes to us.

You and Coneybeare have the floor Jeffrey.
Feel free to pontificate.

Quote:

Besides that, are you really assuming, as you seem to be, that because Eusebius calls something a "history" (if indeed he does) that this guarantees the historical reliability of the narrative in that work?

No, since this is a separate issue again as you are well aware. Eusebius also calls the work other things; in his denigration and polemic and calumny of the treatise of Philostratus.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-07-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Toto,

Please feel free to split this out: Does Eusebius assert that Philostratus wrote a history in "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So what? Remember how you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about when you asserted on the basis of an English translation of Ammianus that Ammianus spoke of a "son of a ghost"? Are you sure you are not doing it again?

Dear Jeffrey,

You keep repeating this assertion. My original post contained this:

You must have missed my sense of humor.
The ghost referred to in this quote was Constantine's ghost.
I have no idea where your seriousness has taken you.
You have missed my point and are prosecuting another.
Did you think I was referring to the Holy Ghost?

Yes, it contained the above. But it contained more as well.

Your original post was in response to my claim that Matthew and Luke do not speak of a conception by the Holy Spirit. to wit:

Quote:

It does no such thing, as you should know, even if Luke and Matthew speak (as they most certainly do not) of a ghost.

And in it you claimed that AM did so speak.

See here:

So you were not trying to make a joke. You were asserting that the idea of a conception by a "ghost" was something to which AM "spoke".

See my response here, which, typically, you dodged.

Quote:

You and Coneybeare have the floor Jeffrey.
Feel free to pontificate.

In other words, you have no idea what the word is that Coneybeare translates as "history". And you have once again not done your homework to check to see if your claim had any merit.

As to pontificating, we all leave that up to you.

Quote:

Besides that, are you really assuming, as you seem to be, that because Eusebius calls something a "history" (if indeed he does) that this guarantees the historical reliability of the narrative in that work?

No, since this is a separate issue again as you are well aware.

I am aware of no such thing.

Quote:

Eusebius also calls the work other things; in his denigration and polemic and calumny of the treatise of Philostratus.

So why did you note, as you did with some emphasis, that "... I refer to the work as a *** history *** because this is precisely what Eusebius calls it dozens of times over in his polemical diatribe against the pagans who followed the son of Apollo, the son of Zeus."

What was your point in drawing our attention to this "fact"?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-08-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I probably could. But it's not my job to do your homework for you.

And please don't excuse yourself by saying you don't read Greek or Latin.

Dear Jeffrey,

What problem do you have with Coneybeare?

Did I say in the message that you quote above (full text here) that I had a problem with Coneybeare? Indeed, did I even mention Conybeare in that message?

If I had/have a problem with anyone, it was/is with you for consistently not checking out before you post your apodictic claims about what texts say, what the Greek/Latin expressions that stand behind the English expressions in question actually are.

Quote:

I make the claim that serious Greek translators such as Coneybeare are more expert than I, and that if you wish to show I have no expertise, you need to show that Coneybeare has no expertise,.

I need do no such thing, especially when the issue is whether or not you can tell me what a Greek or Latin text actually says.

Quote:

Shall I burn Coneybeare?

No. You should learn Latin.

Quote:

The issue is the pagan wisdom highlighted by DCHindley as splashed all around the new testament as if it were being placed into the mouth of someone of more recent origins.

:huh::huh:

Quote:

Ammianus in his obituary to Constantius provides this cited quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MENANDER

"A daemon is assigned to every man
At birth, to be the leader of his life".

Actually, since, as even you seem aware, neither Ammianus nor Menander wrote in English, that's not what he provided us. What Ammianus provides is:

ἅπαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ συμπαρίσταται εὐθὺς γενομΪνῳ, μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίου.

Where in this citation does Menander use the term Greek word for "leader, let alone "every"?

Quote:

Immediately following this cite, Ammianus delivers a long phrase which includes mention of the (translated) term "guardian spirits".

And which term is it that is translated in this way? And how does its inclusion in this speech (along with a lot of other terms as well) demonstrate the validity of your claim that AM is proposing "an equivalence of some form between" the "daemon" spoken of by Menander and "what we might term "one's own guardian angel""?

Quote:

Your task should not be to attack me but to show people in this discussion forum exactly what Ammianus is alluding to here.

Why is it my task when it's your claim?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-08-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Your task should not be to attack me but to show people in this discussion forum exactly what Ammianus is alluding to here.

Why is it my task when it's your claim?

Dear Jeffrey,

My explorational question is not a "claim". Thankyou.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-08-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why is it my task when it's your claim?

Dear Jeffrey,

My explorational question is not a "claim". Thankyou.

What question?

And more dodges of my questions, I note.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-08-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My explorational question is not a "claim". Thankyou.

What question?

Dear Jeffrey,

The question as to what Ammianus means when he quotes Menander, and what Menander means in the verses which have been translated as

Quote:

Originally Posted by MENANDER

"A daemon is assigned to every man
At birth, to be the leader of his life".

Quote:

ἅπαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ συμπαρίσταται εὐθὺς γενομΪνῳ, μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίου.

Where in this citation does Menander use the term Greek word for "leader, let alone "every"?

I know not.

Best wishes,

Pete

Sheshbazzar · 12-08-2008, 09:27 PM

Interesting, according to the Bible, when the first Christians went forth to spread the good news, even a miracle was worked so that every man could hear and understand in his own language, and nowhere ever is an effort by these messengers to be found, that attempts to deny or confound communication, not against friend, nor against foe.

Thousands of languages, and that one has mastered two or three, ought not that gift to be rather employed to the good edification of as many as can be reached?
But if a man should employ such a gift in perversity, only to aggrandise self through that gift by a show of putting his neighbor to public shame, shall this not at the last returned upon his own head?
Take heed, least the day come, when words you have never known put you also to shame in the sight of all.

הלאל תדברו עולה ולו תדברו רמיה׃
הפ�*יו תשאון אם־לאל תריבון׃
הטוב כי־יחקר אתכם אם־כהתל בא�*וש תהתלו בו׃

A good soldier understands, you can win a fight, but still lose the war.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2008, 09:27 PM	#20
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Interesting, according to the Bible, when the first Christians went forth to spread the good news, even a miracle was worked so that every man could hear and understand in his own language, and nowhere ever is an effort by these messengers to be found, that attempts to deny or confound communication, not against friend, nor against foe. Thousands of languages, and that one has mastered two or three, ought not that gift to be rather employed to the good edification of as many as can be reached? But if a man should employ such a gift in perversity, only to aggrandise self through that gift by a show of putting his neighbor to public shame, shall this not at the last returned upon his own head? Take heed, least the day come, when words you have never known put you also to shame in the sight of all. הלאל תדברו עולה ולו תדברו רמיה׃ הפ�יו תשאון אם־לאל תריבון׃ הטוב כי־יחקר אתכם אם־כהתל בא�וש תהתלו בו׃ A good soldier understands, you can win a fight, but still lose the war.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.