spin

Question for mountainman:
Do you agree or disagree with these two options?

mountainman

The process whereby agreement or disagreement is reached
with respect to these two options, and other options,
needs to understand that we only have the writings of
Bishop Cyril at our disposal.

The writings "Against the Galilaeans" by Julian do not exist
as such, except in a reconstructed form. We do not have
the writings of Julian, the emperor, they are lost.

When we read "Against the Galilaeans" we must be aware
of the fact that we are reading Bishop Cyril speaking for
Julian, and we can either assume:

1) Cyril was absolutely 100% accurate with his presentation of Julian.
2) Cyril was 90% accurate
3) Cyril was 80% accurate
4) Cyril was 70% accurate
5) Cyril was 60% accurate
6) Cyril was 50% accurate
7) Cyril was 40% accurate
8) Cyril was 30% accurate
9) Cyril was 20% accurate
10) Cyril was 10% accurate
11) Cyril was totally inaccurate with his presentation of Julian.

spin

Now that you can see the problem you're in, I can understand this rearguard action.

Perhaps you should have thought about this before you started your touting of Julian as the indicator of your grand conspiracy. Sadly he isn't. You've merely come to the end of your wringing of the one phrase that caught your attention. Now that you can see that you can't defend it, perhaps you'll reconsider the whole proposal as being on just as shakey grounds, ie without a shred of evidence to support it.


spin

mountainman

In arriving at the following pronunciation which
of the following "Cyril Options" did you assume?


When we read "Against the Galilaeans" we must be aware
of the fact that we are reading Bishop Cyril speaking for
Julian, and we can either assume:

1) Cyril was absolutely 100% accurate with his presentation of Julian.
2) Cyril was 90% accurate
3) Cyril was 80% accurate
4) Cyril was 70% accurate
5) Cyril was 60% accurate
6) Cyril was 50% accurate
7) Cyril was 40% accurate
8) Cyril was 30% accurate
9) Cyril was 20% accurate
10) Cyril was 10% accurate
11) Cyril was totally inaccurate with his presentation of Julian.

jgibson000

I should have thought that you'd see that the assumption this claim is correct was the basis of my questions to you.

So now that I have answered what you asked me, will you please answer, in stead of dodging, what I asked you?

JG

jgibson000

OK. So which of these assumptions do you hold to, especially with respect to Cyril's report that Julian claimed that the NT was a "fabrication" and a "fiction"?

JG

mountainman

Yes, on the basis of your question marks, I did see this.
Essentially you are saying that issue number 2 of 6 is
a valid issue. Are you prepared to also acknowledge
that the other 5 issues listed, relating to the political
background of the history of the document being discussed.
(ie: Julian's 'Against the Galilaeans'), are also relevant to the
debate? (I have listed these again below).

However I have seen no similar indication from spin that
he acknowledges even this item 2, as you do. In fact spin
has stated that these 6 items are not relevant, so he
appears to be arguing that this item 2 is not relevant.

In regard to, the following question:

I am inclined towards rejecting the first half a dozen options
because of a number of reasons. That is, I think it is reasonable
to think that Cyril was less than 50% accurate with his dealings
in the presentation of the words of Julian, based upon the earlier
outlined 6 political issues.

However, your dialogue on this thread has at least confirmed
that we are in agreement that there is at least one of six issues
related to political history, that needs to be examined and borne
in mind when one examines Cyril's refutation of Julian.

I am surprised spin cannot admit this.


To summarise, these 6 political issues related to any analysis
of Julian's (reconstructed from Cyril) "Against the Galilaeans",
are as follows:

1. Julian did not write this. Julian's original 3 books are burnt,
presumed lost.

2. These words from Julian are reconstructed from Cyril's refutation
of only part of the work - was it the first book only, of Julian's.

3. Julian wrote at a very unique time of political history.
It was time immediately after a successive 40 year term
in which christianity had just become the state religion,
and he was the first voice to be able to speak about it.

4. Cyril also wrote at another unique time of political history.
It was a time after which christianity had already re-obtained
its political position as the state religion, and was in power,
and kicking hard against all and sundry, as history will have it.

5. The reasons that Julian wrote, and that Cyril wrote, are different.
They had different things to say. Different sponsors. IMO
Bullburner sponsored himself, Cyril by the basilica-crew.

6. Cyril admits Julians 3 books were causing many people to turn
away from christianity, that they were to be regarded as particularly
dangerous, that they had shaken many believers, that they
contained invectives against Christ and that they originally also
contained such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians.
(All this via W.Wright's intro).

jgibson000

I am saying no such thing.

Nope. They are red herrings. The only thing that is relevant to the debate -- and the one thing you keep doding -- is deternmining (1) whether Juilan actually spoke of the NT as fabrications and fiction, (2) what he meant by these terms if he did, and (3) getting you to see that if the words you have placed so much emphasis on are not Julians and don't represent what he said, and if Julian assumes, as he certainly does, the actual existence in the first century of Jesus and Paul, your case for the use of Julian to butress your conspiracy theory vis a vis the NT collapses.

JG

mountainman

Irrespective of my position, which I will expand after the
appropriate groundwork, it is inconceivable to me that there
are people in this discussion forum who are prepared to
stand up and say that --- in this specific case of the
writings of Julian --- that background political issues are
irrelevant red herrings, as Jeffrey and spin are now claming.

In regard to the six issues posted we have this response:

In order to debate this issue on what "Julian actually wrote"
I find that the political issues are contributory to a better
understanding of any theory of what "Julian actually wrote".

So, what did "Julian actually write"?

Let's look at my first item of possible relevance.

Item 1.
Julian did not write this. Julian's original 3
books are burnt, presumed lost.

Is this political and historical fact relevant to the question
what did "Julian actually write"? It tells us that we are
not looking at the writings of Julian. I think this is relevant
knowledge, and not a red herring.

Item 2.
These words from Julian are reconstructed from Cyril's
refutation of only part of the work - the first book only,
of Julian's original writings

Is this political and historical fact relevant to the question
what did "Julian actually write"? It tells us that the words
and phrases we are reading are from the pen of Cyril. I
find that this knowledge is mandatory in any analysis of
the question in focus, and not a red herring.

Item 3.
Julian wrote at a very unique time of political history.
It was time immediately after a successive 40 year term
in which christianity had just become the state religion,
and he was the first voice to be able to speak about it.

Is this political and historical fact relevant to the question
what did "Julian actually write"? Considering the implications
of the above two historical facts, I would argue that if we
only have the words of Cyril, and are attempting to reconstruct
the words of Julian, and thus any meaning of these words, then
the political environment at the time Julian wrote (362 CE) will
be of a very vital relevance in this attempted reconstruction.

Simply because we are reliant upon a hostile witness (Cyril)
the following issues delineate in no red-herring-like terms:

Item 4.
Cyril also wrote at another unique time of political history.
It was a time after which christianity had already re-obtained
its political position as the state religion, and was in power,
and kicking hard against all and sundry, as history will have it..

Is this political and historical fact relevant to the question
what did "Julian actually write"? Considering the fact that
it is Cyril and only Cyril by whom the "what Julian
actually wrote" is preserved to us, I would have thought
that this item is rather critical. How are we to gauge the
political aspirations of Cyril, and how are they relevant to
what Julian actually wrote, are important elements in this
debate. While they may be difficult to specify, they cannot
be regarded as red-herrings. Cyril's political motivation is
clearly discernable to a number of objective historians.

That Cyrils political motivations should be irrelevant to our
understanding of what Julian wrote, when we know that
only the writings of Cyril preserve Julian, is a rediculous
position of paltry analysis.

Item 5.
The reasons that Julian wrote, and that Cyril wrote, are different.
They had different things to say. Different sponsors. IMO
Bullburner sponsored himself, Cyril by the basilica-crew.

Is this political and historical fact relevant to the question
what did "Julian actually write"? This pointed issue tells us
that Julian and Cyril wrote from different perspectives of
political motivation. It also highlights the well known fact
that the original writings of Julian were self-sponsored, and
that Cyril was not. Cyril's writings against Julian were sponsored
by a specific group of people in the empire at the time Cyril wrote.

I find that this point is not irrelevant in the groundwork of
the debate in determining "what Julian actually wrote", and
the information obtained when researching this issue not
to be irrelevant red herrings.

Item 6.
Cyril admits Julians 3 books were causing many people to turn
away from christianity, that they were to be regarded as particularly
dangerous, that they had shaken many believers, that they
contained invectives against Christ and that they originally also
contained such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians.
(All this via W.Wright's intro).

Is this political and historical comment mentioned by Wright
relevant to the question what did "Julian actually write",
in the light of the foregoing? In presenting the above 5
items it becomes clear that this 6th item must be admitted
for relevance.


In debating the issue of "whether Juilan actually spoke of
the NT as fabrications and fiction" these 6 above issues
are IMO relevant in different ways and none of them are
irrelevant.

Only once the above is clarified can we move on to
further analysis ...

See above.

spin

It's dead, mountainman, dead. Perhaps you can't see the corner you're in, but you've been touting Julian for so long and so loud, yet now you have to admit you can't even say what Julian actually said, though you presciently know that Cyril unaccountably left the stuff about fabrications and fictions in, yet inserted the stuff you don't like. Subjectivity is the key element in your theory.


spin