mountainman

The text commences with the words:

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."

What do you think he means?
Why did he write these words?

You have failed to address Julian's main argument.
He calls the new testamanent a fiction, fable
and a monstrous tale. Why does he call the
new testament first bound to the old under
the reign of Constantine, a fabrication, a fiction
and a monstrous tale?

How does mainstream explain Julian's invectives?
I await any considered response.



Pete

spin

I am convinced that the fabrication of the chopping down the cherry tree by Washington is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.


spin the apostate

jgibson000

Can you give me the word that is translated as "fabrications"? Or are you relying for what Julian "said" only on an English translation the text of Against the Galileans?

Have you done any work in lexicons to see what the semantic range of this word was and what it was used to signify in polemical literature of the time?

Have you checked any of the more recent commentaries or articles on Against the Galileans to see if any experts in the filed of "Juilan" studies agree with you in your interpretation of the meaning and intent of the text you cite?

If so, which ones?

Jeffrey Gibson

post tenebras lux

Hi jgibson000: why don't you provide alternative meanings of the original untranslated word, if you are arguing for that? Do you know what the original word is, or are you just kicking up dust?Likewise: do you know that the original untranslated word has a large 'semantic range' or are you just kicking up dust?And how is mountainman supposed to know whom you are prepared to accept as "experts in the filed [sic] of 'Julian' studies"?

Why don't you state whom you consider to be experts in this particular field? That would seem more sensible to me (discussions tend to work better when people are prepared to be constructive and pro-active rather than when participants retreat into general negativity) - unless you're just trying to play silly buggers and kick up dust. :huh:

spin

I personally have looked for the text in its original language online to make sure that there are no pitfalls in the language. A lot can be learnt from the original language that is not in a translation. Sadly I haven't found the text, which was actually lifted from Cyril of Alexandria's Contra Julianus, which in turn indicates that what we have is only a partial version of the original. A lot of the logical linking will have been lost, so any language clues would be of great help.

It's not strange to ask for the original word in a text another is citing from. The initial task is to understand the text. It is therefore not an unreasonable request.


spin

jgibson000

Can you say "false dichotomy"?

Oh, I'm sure he knows already if he is as much an expert on Julian and the language Juilan employs as he claims (at least implicitly) he is. How could one who makes the authoritative clams that he does, not have confronted the scholarly literature or discovered who has published on Juilan in academic presses and peer reviewed, professional journal, or who is regarded by other professional classicists as the authorities on Julian.

But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is how extensively researched and well grounded in any of the published commentaries and articles on Against the Galileans or in any of the discussions in standard Lexicons of the lexical data Pete actually is, especially since he's been posturing as an expert on Julian and presenting his claims about what Juilan wrote and what he intended to say as absolutely certain and has thereby implied that he's done his homework.

But has he? If not, why should we take his claims seriously?

It's not my job. He who asserts has the obligation to prove.

Jeffrey Gibson

post tenebras lux

Yep, you still appear to be just kicking up dust. Why should 'we' take your drive-by critique seriously? If you were just wishing to clarify that Pete had done his homework, then I have no particular problem with your first three paragraphs (Pete could have just answered them 'yes', 'yes', and 'yes'), but then you added "If so, which ones?".

If you want to 'argue' that the 'experts on Julian' disagree with Pete then you should point out who (these experts are), where (the wrote something that disagrees with Pete) and how (do they disagree with Pete). Otherwise you risk coming across as just trying to kick up dust.

jgibson000

I think you need to have your eyes checked.

What drive-by critique? Or for that matter, what critique of any kind? I haven't critiqued anything. All I've been doing is asking questions to see how well grounded in scholarship and lexical studies Pete's claims about what Juilan said actually are.

But "yes, yes, and yes" would not have been sufficient answers now, would they, especially to the question of what word stands behind "fabrications" and what its semantic range is.

In any case, Pete hasn't answered in any way at all. I wonder why.

And this is a problem why?

But I don't want to argue this. And so far as I can see, I've not indicated in any way that I wanted to. I just want to see if Pete is even minimally aware of what "Julian experts" and standard Lexicons have said vis a vis the matters Peter is making claims about. Is he or isn't he?

Really? I would suggest (and I think I can say that "Spin" agrees with me here) that if anyone is coming across as "kicking up dust", it's actually you, not me.

But if by "kicking up dust" you mean "holding someone responsible for backing up the claims that he/she makes", then yes, I'm happy to accept the idea that that's what I'm doing.

Now, do you have something relevant to say to the questions I have posed?

Jeffrey Gibson

post tenebras lux

Nope, that's the girlfriend."asking questions to see how well grounded in scholarship and lexical studies" sounds like a critique in my book. Given that it was your first post on this thread (I think, I did check and couldn't see another one. If you did previously post, then I apologise) that would count as a drive-by. You didn't offer anything constructive, just demands that he show his workings as if there was a problem with said workings (imho).Why not? If you have a problem with the use of the word 'fabrications' then please state what your problem is. Otherwise you appear to be angling for a derailment in the hope of tripping Pete up over some nitpick (imho).OK. Now I know you're not for real. Do you really 'wonder why' or are you trying to be a smartarse? Do you think Pete has run away from you or are you unaware that it is night time in Australia and Pete is probably asleep. Do you know of any 'experts' who disagree with Pete? If so, please name them.So you don't have any problems with Pete's arguments, you're just asking him to show you his workings?

Cool. So until anyone (heck, it could even be you Jeff) points out the 'who, where and how', you don't actually have a disagreement with what Pete is saying.

Is that what you're saying? :huh:If by 'questions [you] have posed' you mean the ones you asked Pete regarding which texts, lexicons and 'experts' he consulted, then: Of course not, I'm not Pete for pete's sake. :banghead:

Other than, of course, continuing to wonder whether you really don't know of any experts who would (or could appear to) contradict Pete's idea.

jgibson000

No. I'm trying to find out what grounds Pete has for saying what he does. I'm sorry you don't see that this is a perfectly legitimate and, more importantly, appropriate question to ask of Pete and to request that he answer, especially given how forcefully and confidently he's made his claims.

Nor have I ever said you were.

Wonder away. But what I know or don't know is not the issue. The issue is what -- if any -- grounds Pete has for saying what he's been saying about the text of Julian and whether or not the inferences he draws from what, apparently solely on the basis of an English translation of Against the Galileans, he thinks that text says, have any merit.

Or to put this another way, the issue is whether he knows what he is talking about.

Do you think he does? If so, why?

Jeffrey Gibson