mountainman

What do you think?
Objective opinion sought.


In attempting to argue the mainstream opinion of Julian's
invective, we have the following example of spin (and others
of course) refusing to be drawn into any dialogue concerning
the political environment in which these texts are being critically
analysed.

I have elsewhere acknowledged, and repeat, that although spin's
textual criticism questions need to be addressed, the picture is
actually larger than just the text in our possession.

From a persepctive in the field of ancient history we are entitled
also to attempt some form of estimate in regard to a number of
political and social issues that may be relevant to our
subsequent understanding of the text.

Below, spin states that these following issues are not the place
to start, and that in his opinion we have to start with the isolated
text that survives to us.

This I see as a failure in objective assessment.
These issues I understand to be quite relevant.

What do you think?



Six issues related to political history.

To answer this question properly we have to understand that there
are a number of issues critical to the text, which are not in the text.

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).

The 6 issues assist in defining a background, and environment
at the times the texts were written. They are useful and IMO
cannot be ignored by objective analysis.

Any comments?

jgibson000

What "textual criticism" question?

Neither can what Julian himself says in regard to the matter of Jesus and Paul as actually first century historical entities and how what he says evisertates your thesis about what he means when he speaks of "fiction, and how he uses elsewhere in his works the term Wright translates with the word "fiction". And yet you continue to do so.

JG

spin

Oh my, another meaningless thread started by mountainman. :banghead:

All I can say is: :frown: give it a rest until you can provide some content to justify the new thread.

We've seen what you're on about and we've seen it go on and on and on for months and months without one shred of evidence. Talk about fiction.


spin

mountainman

Objective opinions sought on this general issue.
Does spin speak for everyone in the forum?

I cannot accept that everyone here thinks that political
issues (such as the list of six provided) are irrelevant in
this instance of Julian's invectives.

spin

First you deal with the content of what Julian says, which you cannot do.

mountainman

You are ignoring issue number 2 in the list.

Your claim below is logically deficient:

The claim is logically deficient
for the following reason:

We do not have what Julian said, we only have
what Cyril says in regard to what Julian said.

You may assume what Cyril says in regard to what Julian said,
is in fact what Julian said, but this is an additional assumption
on your part that needs to be stated.

However it is justifiable to in fact assume the converse.
Namely that I should NOT assume
what Cyril says in regard to what Julian said, is in fact
what Julian said, but is a censored version thereof.

The justification for the converse hypothesis is admited in the
historical fact that the christian regime mutilated not only the
text of "Against the Galilaeans", but also the personal letters
of Julian.

First, we must deal with the six issues (perhaps more, they
are listed as indicative rather than comprehensive) related
to the political environments by which the text, as we have
it -- Cyril's text, not Julian's text -- reached
the present day.

jgibson000

So .. Julian never really said anything about "fabrications" and "fictions"? And we cannot take that what he was reported to have said is really what he said?

What is your evidence for this?

JG

spin

I wrote:
mountainman added stress:
Naturally, that's not my stress. Here's mine:
You lose both ways. Either Julian didn't say it and it's irrelevant or Julian did say it and it contradicts your position.


spin

mountainman

We do not have what Julian said, we only have
what Cyril says in regard to what Julian said.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

mountainman

Question for spin:

We do not have what Julian said, we only have
what Cyril says in regard to what Julian said.

Do you agree or disagree with this?