spamandham

This will be my last reply to this line of inquiry.

...to properly capture the nuances in the Greek syntax that are not captured by the translation we've been discussing. As to his source for the Greek, that question has already been adressed several posts back.

mountainman

Yes. A classic nit by which the weightier details are cast aside. The text in question is actually called AGAINST JULIAN and was written as a polemical response to whatever Julain wrote in his three books Against the Galilaeans. What do we know of what Julian actually wrote? This is not a straightforward question, and its external political assessments have been rudely ignored in all earlier discussions. Politics and textual criticism have fuzzy boundaries. Thank christ for C14.

Yes. Jeffrey Gibson will do. Do you want his email address?

However I have my reservations about Gibson in regard to his flippant dismissal of Coneybeare's translation of Philostratus in that Jeffrey disputes the contention that there were in fact extant priests of Asclepius in the epoch of the first three centuries and at the time in the fourth, at which point Constantine publically desecrated this ancient and reverred lineage of architecture (and also in the coinage of the emperors), abondoned the traditions of his ancestors, and embarked upon the most lavish reconstruction in precious stone in antiquity, raising basilica after basilica, many over the top of the ancient (pagan) temples.

Best wishes,



Pete

spamandham

No need, he's already weighed in on this discussion.