mountainman

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5224107]
These sort of questions are best answered from reviews of the history of medicine, and the answers are neither immediate or obvious. So let's start by looking at Galen.


It appears to me that somehow the asclepia and the gymnasia are inter-related, and that many of the larger asclepia had gymnasia as part of their own structure.

We appear to agree that the staff at the asclepia contained "therapeutae" but apart from describing them as "followers" or "temple attendants" but we are as yet unable to find common ground on examining the role of the head attendant, and the leading group of followers, who would have performed not only coordinating the administrative load, but performed medical assessments, diagnoses, and the like.

If we do not have a head priest of Asclepius at Aegaea, or a head prophet or oracle of Asclepius at Aegaea, by which other term shall be the person whom Constantine publically executed c.324 CE be called?


Best wishes



Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

In other words, you do not know -- and have never attempted to discover -- whether there is any reference in the primary literature to a prophet of Asclepius, let alone that Asclepius had prophets. So your claim is full of hot air.

I thought as much. Thanks for confirming this.

As to what appears in RLF, let's note not only that none of the quotes you have adduced say anything about Asclepius, let alone prophets of Asclepius; they disconfirm your clam. They are evidence that only Apollo was known to have oracles.

And if anyone should be writing -- indeed has good reason to write -- to Fox, it is you. You seem to be certain that he would back up your claims about Asclepius having prophets, let alone your Eusebian postulate. Think of what a coup you'd pull of if you could produce a letter from him in which he does so.

But I suspect that the reason you haven't done so is that you are afraid that Fox would find your claims ludicrous and your use of him appalling.

But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

Now where's that quote from Grant?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=mountainman;5224165]How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. But even assuming it is correct, there's absolutely nothing in the material you adduced from/about Galen (whose works I suspect you've never even looked at) that stands as evidence that the the therapeutae of Asclepius were ascetics.

All it shows is that you not only have no idea if there is such evidence, but that in the places where you claim it's to be found you have no clue as to where to look.

Isn't it about time, Pete, that you admitted that you have no evidence for your claim, let alone that so far as you know there is none? or that you have any primary evidence that they were.

Really? And your primary evidence for this (i.e., texts attesting to this idea, archaeological reports of the excavations of Ascelpiae, and not suppositions) is what?

Contained, but had others who were not so designated? No, we do not agree.

It's not anything about "we" being able or not to find ground of any kind. It's about you citing primary (and relevant) evidence for your claims. And despite repeated calls for you to do so, you have never produced a scrap of it.

What does the primary evidence say?

And where do you get the idea that a person was publicly executed? I see nothing within it about an execution, let alone a person being executed publicly or othewise.

Quote:

επειδὴ γὰρ πολὺj ην ὁ των δοκησισόφων περι τὸν κιλικων δαιμονα πλάνοj, μυριων ἐπτοημένων ἐπ' αὐτ�* ωj αν ἐπι σωτῆρι και ιατρ�*, ποτὲ μὲν ἐπιφαινομέν�* τοιj ἐγκαθεύδουσι, ποτὲ δὲ των τὰ σωματα καμνόντων ιωμέν�* τὰj νόσουj �ψυχων δ' ην ὀλετὴρ αντικρυj ουτοj, τοῦ μὲν ἀληθοῦj ἀφέλκων σωτῆροj, ἐπι δὲ τὴν αθεον πλάνην κατασπων τοὺj πρὸj ἀπάτην εὐχερειj εικότα δὴ πράττων, θεὸν ζηλωτὴν ἀληθωj σωτῆρα προβεβλημένοj, και τοῦτον ειj εδαφοj ��3.56.2$� φέρεσθαι τὸν νεων ἐκέλευσεν. ἑνι δὲ νεύματι κατὰ γῆj ἡπλοῦτο δεξιʹ καταρριπτόμενον στρατιωτικϜ τὸ των γενναιων φιλοσόφων βοωμενον θαῦμα και ὁ τϜδε ἐνδομυχων οὐ δαιμων οὐδέ γε θεόj, πλάνοj δέ τιj ψυχων μακροιj και μυριοιj ἐξαπατήσαj χρόνοιj. ειθ' ὁ κακων ἑτέρουj ἀπαλλάξειν και συμφορᾶj προϊσχόμενοj οὐδὲν αὐτὸj ἑαυτ�* πρὸj αμυναν ευρατο φάρμακον μᾶλλον 3.56.3$� η οτε κεραυν�* βληθῆναι μυθεύεται. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐν μύθοιj ην τὰ τοῦ ἡμεδαποῦ βασιλέωj θε�* κεχαρισμένα κατορθωματα, δι' ἐναργοῦj δέ γ' ἀρετῆj τοῦ αὐτοῦ σωτῆροj αὐτόρριζοj και ὁ τϜδε νεωj ἀνετρέπετο, ωj μηδ' ιχνοj αὐτόθι τῆj εμπροσθεν περιλελειφθαι μανιαj.

Can you tell me where it appears here?

Jeffrey

mountainman

BTW, do you read either Coptic, Syriac or Momigliano?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

We know Clement and Barnabas only through Eusebius.
Eusebius is either reliable or he is not. If your postulate
is that Eusebius is a reliable witness, then you may thus
infer reliable dependencies in the Eusebian output.

However if your postulate is that Eusebius was a hired forger and was the world's first thoroughly dishonest historian (which is the opinion of some, including myself) then Clement and Barnabas are just Eusebius.




So long as the mainstream can justify its existence in the postulate of the HJ wrapped up in the postulate of Eusebian history of the HJ and his apostles, and their churches (especially the one who went to Egypt), without a scap of evidence, either in the first, second or third centuries which does not somehow involve paleographical assessment, then my postulate and explanation (that Eusebius was a Constantinian sponsored fraud) requires no evidence.

Postulates require no evidence. They require that there is no conflicting evidence. A greater measure is explanatory power.

I would be happy to argue that the postulate of Eusebian fiction, has more explanatory power than the postulate of the HJ and Eusebian authenticity combined. The place and explanation of the non canonical NT literature has essentially been swept to the side in most discussions. The apocrypha is the "other side of the coin" of christian literature.

Mainstream would not have a clue about this stuff. Its all a mystery and we have a dart board out the back with the first two centuries on it, and a handful of darts - help yourself approach.

My explanation is very simple. The apocryphal was written in opposition to the canon by clever pagan textual critics - who were ascetics, or at least demonstrated a great affinity for the imagery of ascetics - from the year 324 CE for a century or more. Sedition and parody: Jesus and the apostles were presented in romantic fictions by the pagans. The texts were banned and treated as seditious (ie: heretical), sought out and destroyed. Many were thus preserved in other languages such as the Syriac, or the Coptic such as the Nag Hammadi Codices C14 dated to the mid-fourth century.


The chronology of the Arian controversy and the chronology for the authorship of the NT apocryphal literature are the same century (324 to 424 CE). Arius was a pagan ascetic.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

How about Philostratus. Independently
preserved in Eusbebius against Hierocles:

Eusebius is quoting the histories of Philostratus. Here Apollonius is treated by Philostratus as the priest of Asclepius. What does the greek say, and, will you be emailing the translator of this work?


Best wishes



Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

So ... now you trust Eusebius (when he says what you want to believe). Didn't you just say a few posts ago that Eusebius was a hired forger and was the world's first thoroughly dishonest historian?

And does he do so accurately?

You're the one who is making claims about what this text evinces. So you tell me. And I ask again, would you be able to tell if you had the Greek text in front of you? What is the Greek word for "priest"?

And I thought we were looking for references in the primary literature to a prophet of Asclepius and/or that showed that Asclepius had prophets.

Where are those?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

The real issue, since it's you who has been making claims about matters Coptic, Syriac, and Momigliano-ian, is whether you do.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

He did?

Here's Jeromes' version of Joshua.

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=7

Can you show me where he uses Iosous for Joshua, let alone demonstrate that he always does so?

Jeffrey

patcleaver

What about dozens like ion, Iowa, ipecac, Iran ?

They knew that Jesus' and Joshua's real names were both Yehoshua. If they thought Iesus and Iosue needed to be changed, then why didn't they change them to their real names?

An initial J for these names does not conform with how other words and names were changed at the time to have an initial J.