spin

That's been my response to your attempts at reducing everything into one melting pot.

This is simply rubbish. You have played the game of saying if you don't accept the texts my guy is in then I won't accept any guy in any text. At the same time you have the corollary that you'll accept any guy already acceptable in any text, if others accept yours. The plea to "I don't have a 'guy'" is as credible as HJers not having a guy.

Those texts considered "historical" have been shown to be related to the body of knowledge built up about the past. That body of knowledge was originally textually based, but it has undergone a vast revision through the use of epigraphy, coins, statuary, archaeological remains of all sorts, plus a whole flotilla of other data from the time. Once the body of knowledge is built up, a text's historicity involves how much of it reflects that knowledge. If there is nor enough to show a tangible connection with that knowledge one cannot establish the historical value of the text.

What you are saying is literary evidence is all you will accept and it apparently doesn't matter which literature.

You have been caught out attempting to play ostrich with evidence. Remember the coins as one example. You simply did a Larsguy47 on that evidence. You didn't even get your feet wet on all the other evidence available. You were playing at waiting for the mountain to come to you.

It's a required effort if you want to deal with historical evidence in the field of establishing historicity for your guy.

You seem to be prevaricating. The topic has been raised, but not gone over meaningfully.

I was hoping that you would try to scratch the surface of the problem rather than float above it.

The content of texts has no relation to the real world until they can be attached to it. The writer being in the real world will naturally use material from the real world to fill the text, but we have no way going from solely the text to know if it does have a meaningful relation to the real world. You need to supply a means of constructing that relation with the real world. As you eschew everything but the text, it seems you abandon all hope of doing so.

How do you separate the merely plausible figure from the person connected to the past? Plausibility is not a sufficient condition for historicity, so how do you get beyond plausibility?

Like a snake with its tail in its mouth going around in circles.

What you cannot fathom is that there is more than just the text. You cannot fathom that you need to use more than just the text to establish historicity.

You're supposed to use a blushing smilie here.

Funny, I've been trying to get you past the notion of a text qua text is sufficient for historicity. Now you want me to spell what you are supposed to do out for you.

The task is simple: how do you connect your stuff to what we already know about the relevant past?


spin

spin

This is not correct. Thucydides' material is related not just to other texts but to the real world through the comparison of content with evidence of events.

I cannot help it if you don't examine the categories. Do you read a text by looking at the individual letters in the text or have you got past that stage to working with words?

Twiddling texts is not necessarily related to anything in the real world. You need to have your analysis tied with a rope, otherwise it'll float away.

"Or can be" tells the tale. How do you discern historical evidence? How do you relate a text to the period they purport to deal with? How do you discern the relation of the content to the period they were written in?

I can only go by what you say or refuse to say. You incessantly go on about texts and do not acknowledge anything else. If it is a straw man it's one of your own construction.

This is a typical response of yours when unable to say anything meaningful. Avoid giving content related comments as it will show up your situation and change tack. Sure sign of your contentlessness.

I made the distinction as simple as possible in the comment you cited from me -- reductionist, but the aim was for clarity in face of your pussyfooting. It was a direct statement which was hoping for content from you, a statement disappointed by your look nothing up my sleeve response.

In an effort to get you to deal with the simple distinct I made in the comment you cited, by Ramses II I mean the guy whose corpse they've got preserved in the Cairo Museum along with some of his relatives, corpses identified through the epigraphy found with the bodies. I mean the guy who is talked about in epigraphy from his temple and from monuments around Egypt. I mean the guy who made a treaty with the Hittites, copies of which were found in Thebes and Hattusa, in Egyptian and Hittite.

We write the history of the times of Ramses II based on the evidence from the period. Shuffling literary texts is only one facet of doing history.

When you can get to it, how do you distinguish between the Marcion and Ebion? (Ebion is the person Tertullian and various other fathers knew as the founder of the Ebionite movement.)


spin

spamandham

yeah, but this was written in 1959, not the 4th century. Does it cite any damning evidence from the 4th century?

mountainman

What do you make of Migliano's use of the term miracle,
used twice for emphasis, in the beginning of this work. It would
appear that the foremost ancient historian of the 20th century
wished his students to associate the miraculous, with the times
of Constantine the Great. How absurdly dry is his wit?

spin

For fuck's sake, mountainman, we've been through this. In context the miracle is in the eyes of the christians of the time. That is what Momigliano is saying. Note: to the christians of the era, ie there were christians at the time when Constantine defeated Maxentius a few kilometres north of the Milvian Bridge.

How shallow is your reading? Read the text, not what you desire it to say. That's why you have said ridiculous things about Julian's put down of christianity. You're too busy listening to your inner voice to read what the texts say to you.

Read this again:

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious. The victory was a miracle though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine.

The first sentence puts firmly established christians prior to 28 October 312. Note the "suddenly and unexpectedly"? Momigliano says that to the christians of 312 the victory was sudden and unexpected. These characteristics are those of miracles, hence his use of the term here. If you simply read the text, your difficulties will often go away.


spin

spamandham

I don't make anything of it at all.

Do the 4th century sources contain this damning evidence?

mountainman

Yes we have spin, in a thread entitled Momigliano's Miracle.

You dont appear to have any new material except
turning up the ascii a few degrees. I find it entirely
miraculous that Momigliano uses the term "miracle"
in his work at all, whatsoever, dont you?

We all know that biblical historians use the term, but
ancient historians normally try and side-step miracles.
Momigliano was arguably the best in his field, Jewish,
fleeing Musolini's Italy for Oxford, one might expect
him never to mention the term, yet he uses it quite
specifically in a central thesis, not once but twice.

spin

And you appear to be none the wiser for the thread. You still don't seem to understand the words that Momigliano said. It is plain as the nose on your face. You can find that, can't you? Well, it's been spelt out before. Momigliano doesn't give comfort to your grand conspiracy. As I said, he has christians prior to 312. He makes his use of "miracle" clear. The impact of Constantine's victory was so sudden and unexpected -- miraculous in fact. The only reason you don't get it is because you don't want to.

There is no relevant content here, mountainman. Come back to earth and read what Momigliano wrote. It is no refuge for your folly.

One day you might enjoy "The victory was a miracle though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine."


spin

mountainman

We do not have the following evidence:

1) Constantine's will (although it apparently existed)
2) Ammianus Marcellinus' obituary on Constantine.
3) Ammianus Marcellinus' history of the prenicene epoch.
4) Emperor Julian's original 3 books "Against the Galilaeans".

We have a period of history in which Constantine ruled
by absolute military power, supported by propaganda.
All the signs of a malevolent despot out to change the
world of his age. You are of course aware of the evidence
of the damning evidence against the new christian regime.

Whatever you mean by "damning evidence" may turn out
to not any one individual thread, but the pattern of the
combination of all threads.

mountainman

And you appear to be none the wiser that I have outlined
my objections to you (and Carrier) simplistically waving around
a conspiracy flag, in the thread entitled:

Constantine's Bible: "conspiracy theories" vs "absolute political power"