jgibson000

That's nice. But what does the fact that WCW translated Epictetus have to do with the issue at hand?

Interesting. But what do you do with the fact that it was not Galileans who gave the Romans trouble, but Judeans, and that Josephus does not, to my knowledge, ever describe the "brigands" he frequently refers to in War and AJ in these terms?

Until I show you? Shouldn't you, as the good skeptic you claim to be, have shown yourself by having investigated the question of whether Wright's 1923 translation was any good before you made any claims about his competency? Isn't the need of yours he "services" your need to see that the text of Julian says what you want it to say?

And what do you do with the fact that WCW himself does not believe that Julian's aim was to show that the story of Jesus and early Christianity was made up of whole cloth, but was something else entirely:

Julian, like Epictetus, always calls the Christians Galilaeans because he wishes to emphasise that this was a local creed, "the creed of fishermen," and perhaps to remind his readers that "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet"; with the same intention he calls Christ "the Nazarene." His chief aim in the treatise was to show that there is no evidence in the Old Testament for the idea of Christianity, so that the Christians have no right to regard their teaching as a development of Judaism.

And what do you do with the fact that Epictetus does not regard Christians as "brigands", let alone call then "the lawless tribes of Galilee"?

And be that as it may be, I fail to see how your response above is in any way an answer to my questions about

1. What the Greek word that is translated here as "fiction" is;

2. Whether it bore for Julian and his contemporaries the meaning that the English word "fiction" conveys to us; and

3. Whether you looked at whether or not the word translated as "fiction" appears elsewhere in Julian's writings and that it is is used by him (or anyone in his era) to mean what you think it means.

Perhaps you can enlighten me. Or should I expect another dodge?

JG

spin

There's a difference between skeptical and ridiculous.

Here ya go with your smokescreens. You can't defend your stuff. So you go to the rearguard. Just one good carbon dating. You've got dozens of palaeographic dates from thousands of texts at Oxyrhynchus.

We've got the wonderfully dated church house at Dura-Europos for which all you can do is plead yet another conspiracy -- this time one of the world's leading scholars of the time (late 1930s), Michael Rostovtzeff, must have falsified the information for religious purposes.

And you haven't given one.

You make a declaration about the "fabrication of the Galileans" without any coherent textual support. Then you change subject. You must be joking.

I went into the arguments of Julian as to what the fabrication was. You ignored it. You didn't touch on it in your link other than guessing, apparently wrongly, what he meant by "fabrication" and "fiction".

Finally all posters must recognize your inability so far to make a coherent, clear statement to support your claims.

Would you like to play a game called justifying your claims (instead of putting up another smokescreen)?

Let's try to stick to the topic.

What exactly is the "fabrication" that Julian explains in his text?

Do you agree with my analysis in this thread of his explained fabrication?

If not, why not?

Do you agree that he assumes the existence of both Jesus and Paul in order to criticize them for human failings?

If not, why not?

(And yes, I too would like to know the words translated as "fabrication" and "fiction".)


spin

jbarntt

Good point, forgot about that

mountainman

See this thread:
Epictetus's non-reference to (christian) Galilaeans?

jgibson000

And this answers my questions about

1. What the Greek word at the beginning of Julian's work that is translated as "fiction" is;

2. Whether that word bore for Julian and his contemporaries the meaning that the English word "fiction" conveys to us; and

3. Whether you looked at whether or not the word translated as "fiction" appears elsewhere in Julian's writings and that it is is used by him (or anyone in his era) to mean what you think it means

and is not a dodge of them, how?

JG

spin

The fabrication of the Galileans is their manipulations of Jewish literature amongst other things. When is mountainman going to accept that Julian is against him, when he assumes all the principal figures in christianity?


spin

mountainman

OK then, you can play Constantine first.

Well then, you'd be wise to sacrifice a corner of one,
just to be sure to be sure, so that it can be verified
by the scientific process of carbon dating.

Each of these dates has a handwriting "expert" attached,
and if memory serves me correctly, for many of the texts
many of the handwriting assessments were done in the
early part of last century. Are you sure these guys knew
exactly what they were doing 100 years ago, just after
the first world war, and that they could not have been
somewhat askew in their chronological estimates based
on the handwriting of the ancient text?

Seriously, your argument here is "have faith".
Sorry, when C14 verification techniques are
nowdays far advanced over the same techniques
a few decades ago, you are not being scientific.

It is not a church house spin, it is called a house church.
Some christian archeologist made the claim that he thinks
it may be christian, but where is the scholarly open
publication, in which journal, and has it been subject
to any review, or refutation? A sorry state of affairs
for your evidence.

He was convinced that the "fabrication" was
a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

This is according to Wrights translation.

I have earlier explained this, so why do you ask me again?

I perceive Julian's role as one of a supreme barrister.
He stated his conviction (see above) - its a fiction.
He made a legal disclaimer about what he had just said.
He then launches into discussion of characters in the NT.

In a court room, when a barister is proceeding in such
a manner and in such a case, the judge, the jury, and
everyone in the court is unambiguously aware that the
barister is convinced the NT is a fiction, and that the
events and characters which the barrister is obliged to
discuss in the fullness of the presentation of the case
against the fiction, are of course, fictitious.

No, I do not agree. He plainly states the texts are a fiction.
IMO that Julian was convinced they were simply fictitious
characters. See above for my reasons.

Do you too think Wilmer C Wright, PhD has conspired to pervert
the true meaning of Julian? If not, why dont you or Jeff simply
play the magical silver bullet, and spit this answer out?

mountainman

I agree. The major part of the fabrication being the hijacking of the
Hebrew scriptures to provide some ancient credibility, and to which
the (I claim fourth century) NT texts were appended. It was no
simple manipulation, but an entire bulk-text hijack.

Notably, the first historical precedent date for the publishing
of the finished two-part "bible" was in the rule of Constantine.

Come down out of the clouds spin.
There are no assumptions about Julian.
He is convinced that he is dealing with fiction.
A fiction of men composed by wickedness.

You'll not change this conviction of Julian unless you
establish that Wimer C Wrights english translation is
deficient at that point. Or, to use your speak, did Wright
conspire to make a false English translation.

spin

It's not necessary. The palaeography is generally convincing in itself.

More conspiracy theories to support your conspiracy.

Rubbish. My argument here is for you to learn something about palaeography and not crap on.

Hey, at least I know something about C14 dating and I have no problems with it.

Great, for lack of anything else to say, be pedantic.

So you can't say anything against Rostovtzeff, so you crap on more.

But that says nothing about what it was. Don't just gormlessly repeat the obvious without even trying to make a point.

Because you have no quality control and you can't see the inadequacy of your empty rhetoric.

Yes, yes, throwing my hands up in disgust because you put up the same smokescreen as predicted.

You are guessing and the indications from Julian are that you are simply and completely wrong. As I made clear, he is attacking both Jesus and Paul for their actions. He assumes they exist. If you disagree, show us where he's treating them merely hypothetically, using examples from the text. That's right, you can't. You are just crapping on.

You are not facing the problem set for you. Note the criticism regarding human failings. That doesn't reflect your barrister's legal fiction ploy. Try something which deals with the issues.

The reason why people refer to the original language is because people like you who know nothing about the connotations of the original words miss out on a lot of the meaning that a translator is unable to render in the target language. This is an eternal problem for translators, so don't come the "I'm so unknowledgeable I don't even understand the problem" ploy, please.

The reason why one asks for something is often because they want to know the answer. I've only found the translation on the web, but not the original Greek.

Once the original term is available, it's full implications can be understood. As the text was not written in English, we probably don't get the exact impact of Julian's words from a translation. If you don't know what the original terms for fiction and fabrication, it's very hard to meaningfully wield the terms in an argument -- when you get an argument organized.


spin

spin

So you shoot yourself in the foot by acknowledging that the fabrication includes the hijacking of the Hebrew literature.


:angel:

That's why he accepts the existence of Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and Mary. Not merely rhetorically, but because he uses their existence illustratively. He accepts that the Galileans were around for 300 years. Again, not merely rhetorically, but as a given.

And you still haven't been able to clarify what the fiction is. I have.

You're the only one peddling conspiracy here, mountainman. The translator is not part of the issue. It's your erroneous reading of Julian that is at issue.

You cannot demonstrate your understanding of Julian's fabrication using his text. You ignore most of what he says, as you do with Momigliano, and concentrate on a few phrases which you won't clarify from the text.


spin