jgibson000

Yes, and you ought to heed Truman's words and test out your claims on the Classics List (where experts on Constantine, Greco Roman historiography, and students and acquaintances of M. dwell) to find out how much history you are ignorant of.

To subscribe to the Classics List, go here.

JG

spin

Stop going for the tangent to obfuscate your inability to deal with the issue. What exactly is the fabrication according to Julian's words?


spin

mountainman

Thanks. I went and had a little look in which small time I found
out that one of the posts, prefaced with a disclaimer that
Greetings, Versions of this has kept popping into my email box,
by a high profile classics publication organisation, requesting
sources ... that:

Constantine the Great (who converted Rome to Christianity)
was nicknamed "Cow-fucker".

How extraordinary! I never knew that history before.
I too would be interested in the sources for this.

Elsewhere references to authors of the Historia Augusta, of the
Panegyrici Latini, and the author Ablabius dont appear to assist
to resolve earlier issues, but as a general comment I do indeed
sincerely thank you for the reference to these archives and hope
that I can make the time to spend time there searching out an
understanding of Momigliano's Miracles, and his use of heavy irony,
with those who may possibly have known him personally.

spin

When Julian wrote the following...

Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let me simply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his name in the governorship of Cyrenius.

... was he merely arguing a rhetorical fiction, or does he accept that all these people existed and he wants to show how Jesus fit into the real world?


spin

mountainman

Spin, no wonder you are a recognised and well respected textual
critic -- you do ask very potent questions which seek definition.

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).

Before I continue to go through the motions of answering your
question above, do you think that the 6 issues listed above are
relevant to your question. If you do not think they are relevant
to this textual criticism, please let me know which, and why.

jgibson000

And I'd be interested in seeing the URL to that message.

Just as I suspected. To quote Arthur Miller" "What a grand peeping courage you have", Peter Brown. You will look at the archives. But you won't put your money where your mouth is and post your claims to the Classics List to see what professional classicists/published experts on the topics and in the areas you go on about, make of them.

In the light of your claims that you desire criticisms of your thesis and that you are exploring whether or not there is anything that stands against them, I wonder why that is.

JG

jgibson000

They were? What's your evidence for this claim?

JG

mountainman

Here is the message


Be patient Jeff. Rest assured I will invest the time
to gauge the wrath of your colleagues.

In regard to the fate of Julian's 3 books, I am not aware of the
specific edicts for its destruction at this stage, but generally
assume these would be locatable in a collection of codes from
that era.

jgibson000

It's Jeffrey, not Jeff (more of your careful reading, eh?).

And I asked you subscribe and post to the Classics List more than two months ago. So this exhortation to be patient is as revealing of how much courage of your convictions you actually have as it is hypocritical.

And leave off the paternalism. That you would in advance equate evaluation with wrath bespeaks a persecution complex on your part.

What edicts? What makes you think there were any at all? If there were, how did Cyprian and others obtain copies of Julian's Against the Galileans and why do other works of his survive?

Yeah, well you know what they say about assumptions.

JG

aa5874

Well, using your explanation of 'negative', Martin Luther King Jr, the Black Civil Rights Leader, cannot be proven to be non-existent today, and it cannot be proven that anyone died in World War II or that any one who lived died or is non-existent today.

You first need to describe your Invisible Pink Unicorn and your god, give place of residence, characteristics, effects and other pertinent attributes and then it can be determine whether or not they exist.

The Gods of the Bible, as described, are non-existent. They only live in your dreams.