Amaleq13

I don't see much difference between your understanding and mine but your explanation does answer my question.

Thanks for the clarification.

lpetrich

I checked an online English - Modern Greek dictionary, and it translated επικράτηση (epikratisi) as "dominance - predominance - preponderance - prevalence - reign - supremacy".

I do think that Mr. Rassis ought to consider commissioning English translations of his books; that would give them a greater audience, since English is the biggest de facto international language.

And after reading the thread which Toto pointed out, it is clear that there is a at least some evidence that the old-time religion of Greece was forcibly suppressed, much as Bede tried to argue it away.

There is some archeological evidence for such suppression, at least according to Anne the Archeologist over at http://atheistvoices.com/

Before the Xian takeover, many pagans came to practice Xianity alongside their other religions; for them, Jesus Christ was yet another god that they could worship. But afterwards, there is evidence of desecration and destruction of pagan artwork, and even bodies in some pagan temples, suggesting some people murdered there.

mountainman

No real problem. I do not find it difficult to see that
neither Cornelius of Sergius are to found in the literature.

But Fred and Bill could themselves have been tall
men in a tall story ... we may presume incorrectly.

The section in which the above quote appears relates
to the mention of Asclepius: the Greatest Gift of the
Helenes -- in the art of healing. Here, the healing
of Jesus is dismissed as " accomplished nothing worth
hearing of". The invective is targetted.

Consider this English: "Fred and Bill were purported
to be a pair of unknown Galilaean used car salesmen.
They sold you the car you are driving, but it was
never meant for off-road use. They sold alot of
Mercedes Benz to the people in the valley, but
there are no roads in the valley. Fred and Bill
purportedly made car sales to many silly people,
and to men like Cornelius and Sergius."

But if you can show me that one of these men
is mentioned on a CONTACT OF SALE of that time,
----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius
or Claudius,----then you may consider that
I speak falsely about the fabrication of the
vehicle registration papers (all matters).


Is it not possible that Julian was saying that
we will not find any mention of either Jesus or Paul
in any writings under Tiberius or Claudius? Julian's
invective IMO, may be seen to be
consistently directed towards the key figures of
the fiction.

I take your point spin, but seek to determine whether
the issue may be validly and objectively extended a
little to the key "two men" Jesus and Paul.

Best wishes,



Pete

spin

You are avoiding the grammatical and stylistic issues. The use of pronominal reference and of anaphora. There is no reason for you to consider beyond where these things point you. They tell you the significance of the reference "these men". I have merely supplied you with a reading in context, whereas you seem to want to skip over the context and interpet the text as you wish, not as it leads you. Rewriting the text to move your desired references closer to the grammatical point of issue doesn't help you: it just disfigures the text.


spin

mountainman

And you (like most academics) simply ignore the implications
of Julian's invectives, and prefer to discuss issues related to
(ahem) grammar and style.

Style spin? Style?
How much of the style we read is Cyril's? (Non-zero, non-zero, non-zero)
How much of the invectives are Cyril? (Zero, zero, zero, zero)
When will you get outside the paradigmic square?

Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

Julian believed the Bible was filled with myth.

Julian was MJ since the 4th century.

spin

What great responses! Both of you unable to add anything useful. You won't read the text. Have fun.

gstafleu

Stipulating all you've said, this still doesn't answer the question why we (or anybody) would expect that "well-known writers of that time" would mention Cornelius and Sergius. Aren't these relative nobodies? On the other hand, mention of Jesus and Paul is certainly a reasonable expectation.

Gerard Stafleu

spin

This is what Julian is saying: Cornelius and Sergius were nobodies because the likes of Jesus and Paul pitched their crud towards to gullible nobodies. Just go and look at the writers of the time and you'll find that Cornelius and Sergius don't rate a mention. If I'm wrong you can forget what I've been saying is Julian's message.


spin

gstafleu

Ah, I finally get it. Thanks spin.

Gerard