The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: The Xenophone Challenge...response

Re: The Xenophone Challenge...response
Posted by pancho (Guest) - Saturday, February 24 2007, 16:22:18 (CET)
from - Mexico - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website title:

It is interesting how you keep starting new threads to avoid MY challenge to you and Dr. Joseph. I challenged you first and said, LET DR. JOSEPH SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE, THAT WE ARE NOT ASSYRIANS. Of course, you did NOT meet this challenge, but came up with another challenge for ME, as if I have MORE time to kill than you, never mind that you are probably luxuriating in some beach resort, drinking an ice cold beer, and wanting to kill time, while I work full-time, go to school full-time, clean house, shop, cook, do laundry, and homework.

...we settled that already...the topic I raised was Dr Joseph's statement in his book that we are mistaken in thinking we are the modern disagreed...but you provided no evidence...then you kept saying Dr Joseph "MUST"..he doesn't have to must anything...he already is you who must...and I wish you would.

...classical writers are shakey ground to build a modern case upon. Xenophon and any number of historians of 2400 years ago are a very strange reference point to prove anything about modern day claims to an Assyrian ancestry.

When I first read this last post of yours, I was going to reply to your challenge this way: I will take up your challenge ONLY if you prove that Dr. Joseph scientifically proves the fact that we are not Assyrians. But since I already KNOW that he could never prove what he is saying, I will indulge you.

...Dr Joseph has done that in his book, not to your satisfaction, but he has done his you do your's.

Fortunately for you, I have read Anabasis, better known as March Up Country, by Xenephon, and it is nothing more than a diary kept by Xenephon that describes the Peloponesian Wars during the Achaemenid period. It is a description of the battle of Cunaxa, (not sure of the spelling) where Xenephon as a soldier and a mercenary is elected as the new leader of the Ten Thousand Man Army, drawn-up together by Cyrus, to get the throne from his brother Artaxeres, (not sure of the spelling).

While the entire diary is set during this battle, in an era that Assyria was no longer referred to her original name, but her successive name, the Persian empire, the Median Empire, the Babylonian Empire, etc. there is no mistaking that Xenephon is referring to Assyria, when he uses these other titles, as corroborated in his later works. Dr. Joseph is correct in saying in Anabbasis he doesn't refer to it as "Assyria" but that is because this particular body of work ONLY deals with the conquest made by the the Medians and the Persians, which by then Assyria was being referred to as the Persian Empire.

...mentioning the name Assyria, in reference to the land of the Assyrians doesn't prove there were Assyrians living on that land at that's merely the name of the's that geographical thing again.

This is why he doesn't refer to it as Assyria in this particular book. But you would be surprised to know that although he was Athenian and a Greek citizen, Xenephon never refers to these titles during the entire time he writes these diaries. He calls himself Hellenian, the battles of Hellenia, and calls the Greek people Hellenian. Does that mean Xenephon was NOT Greek or born and raised in Greece? Of course not!

...You were born Iraqi, that you refer to yourself as an Assyrian, when there hasn't been an Assyria for 2600 years could be cited by someone as pretty weird. Many people moved to and through is it that of all those people the only ones to have "survived" are the Assyrians? When we scoff at historians for saying Assyrians ceased to exist with their do we scoff at the question, "well then where are the Babylonians..the Hurrians...the people of Mittani...where are the Sumerians, where are the Kassites, the Amorites...where did all these people go to? If we say, and we do, that only we survived, we shoot ourself's in the other foot as well...for if it isn't "surprising" at all that Assyrian descendents of people from that far back remained...then the descendants of all the rest of them must have too. Where are they? call yourself Assyrian though you weren't born in "Assyria" but the "successive" state of Iraq...therefore you are Iraqi, no matter what you call yourself to call yourself.

Furthermore, in Anabasis, Xenephon is not dealing with the entire Assyrian Empire, but parts of it, the parts Cyrus conquers innitially. But in one instance, Xenephon does say, the "the thousand man army marched through the Zagros Mountains, crossing the Great Zab, through the Assyrian Heartland, with Armenia to one side of it". In this book, he also keeps referring to the Chaldeans as the Chalybes tribe, (maybe that's how we extracted the recent name "Kalbo-Assyrians").

...that was the Assyrian heartland. The Romans knew there was an Assyria once does Dr Joseph. That isn't in question...what is in question is the claim by Nestorians that they are the descendants of those original people...classical writers who mention Assyria, even calling whatever people lived there then, "Assyrians", provide no proof that Nanajan of Ceres is a direct descendant of Ashurbanipal. I don't know why Rassam though to use Xenophon to prove anything..but he did..and so Dr Joseph was forced to take up Xenophon, but only to show that Rassam was incorrect. the translation I'm reading there are also references to the land of "Assyria"...but what does that prove? You yourself said it was no longer known as Assyria by then.....IF YOU "Walk through" Arizona, do you become a Navajo? If you move from Iraq and your child is born in Arizona, which everyone knows used to be the land of the Navajo Nation,..will your child be a Navajo, or just a citizen of Arizona?...even if he believes he is? People knew it was Assyria once...but it was Persia there was Gaul once and then France..and Albion once and then England? It would be pretty strange to have a gown woman say she was a direct descendant of he Celts of Ireland because she new the language and was born in the land "always known" as the land of the Celts...or Druids. She would be Irish and of a fevered imagination.

...we also have to remember that all of us are reading translations by various scholars and this intrudes another variable...are all translations of Xenophon in agreement?

....Dr Joseph's point; that people made the mistake of using a geographical location as the "ethnic name" of the people they found living on the Geography...even after 2000 years and after Assyria had changed to other names and been occupied and settled by hundreds of other people and tribes, is a mistake foisted on Nestorians by Europeans. We come along and insist we are the origina Assyrians...because people long ago said they "walked through Assyria and saw the people there"...and we assume those were the Assyrian people...also descendants of the original Assyrians, simply because they lived and were maybe born on the land...the same mistake we make when we assume that someone, a Christian, born in the land of the Assyrians, today known as Iraq, is a direct descendant of the ancient Assyrians, just for being born there and making the claim.

...and what of our claim that no matter where we are born or live or are buried, "we will always be Assyrians"? Would that not also have to apply to anyone born outside of Assyria, who either moved to, or was forcibly resettled in Assyria, who came from Greece or Arabia or Italy...would that person not be correct in saying that no matter that he was born or lived and was buried in Assyria, he would always remain Greek, or Arabian, or Italian? What does that say about the "ethnic" identity of the millions of people who've moved across that land in three thousand years..are you going to force an Assyrian identity on them all...when you refuse to have any other identity forced on you?

...don't we say that the Arabs could never become Assyrians because they are from somewhere else? Why then can't it also be the case that the people who "occupied" Assyria, as the Arabs later would, of all ethnicities under the sun in that cradle of all civilizations, never stopped being what they were before coming to Assyria to live and raise generations? Why do we insist that whatever people found ON the land must have been and must be of Assyrian ancestry, except the Arabs and only the Arabs...and yet drag willy nilly anyone else into "Assyria" who wanders close to its borders? Why?

...we're talking about a span of 2600 years, from the fall of Nineveh to the present, that's half as long as recorded history...and you want us to believe that the people in that region remained there....remained "pure" and that no one else replaced them in 2600 years? The only people with even a plausible similar case to make are the Jews...which raises an interesting point...the land of Israel has more than Jews in it. The geographic and also national name is Israel. Does an Arab or Italian living in Israel become Israeli? Yes, by citizenship and nationality. But does he become a Jew, even in "ethnic origin" or ethnic "identity", if not religion? No. Many people of many ethnicities, practising many religions can live in many people of many ethnic backgrounds and religions could live in ancient Assyria...when it was a nation, they would be Assyrian by nationality, but that wouldn't change their ethnicity, not unless they allowed it to...but they would all be considered residents or nationals of Assyria. But would that make them the sense in which you now use the word? I agree that there were people living on the land known as Assyria...I'll even agree that this made them "Assyrians", but only in that sense...I don't agree that living on the land made them ASSYRIANS...and that's what Dr Joseph is saying; that the Europeans found Nestorians living "in Assyria" and concluded, as Xenophon and you did, that they WERE Assyrians.

...The brother of Ashurbanipal was made king of Babylon...did he become Babylonian? Many Assyrians moved to Babylon during that time, did they become Babylonian for moving to Babylon? The Assyrians, like the Persians after them, had an empire is made of many subjugated people...a client king or ruler would be put over those people...he would become the king or "ruler" of that part of the larger kingdom...The Persian king, having one of the largest empires ever, had such rulers or kings ruling the provinces...satraps if you prefer...therefore to speak of a "king of Assyria" could simply mean the client-king for the Persian emperor, ruling that part, one province, of the Persian empire once called Assyria...and maybe still called by that doesn't make the ruler, or the people who live on the land "descendants of the ancient Assyrians"...not by a long shot.

No one knows for sure what "Greek" words Xenephon actually used to describe the inahbitants of Mesopotamia in Anabasis, but he does use the word Mesopotamia, and as Assyrians we're doing it're using as established fact what we're trying to determine...that's like a jury memebr saying, "this filthy murderer whose guilt we must determine..." That's also begging the question, which you constantly do and which is not empirical at all...when you say "and as Assyrians we" show where you're coming from...and so all your arguments in this matter, if you were a professional scholar or scientist, would be tossed out.

have used this term since time immemorial to describe ourselves and Assyria,

...that is the NAME of the land. I can use the name "Germany" to describe the country, that doesn't make me German for uttering that word...not even if I live there.

when we use the term Bet-Nahrain, which means Mesopotamia. Conseqently, Dr. Joseph and others can only guess the reasoning behind Xenephon's usage of words, or the translators usage of words to describe Xenephon's words. must you. Dr Joseph isn't disputing the word Mesopotamia or Assyria...he is wondering about the meaning of other words...and so has everyone you wonder about the things you doubt. It is the job of scholars not to "guess"...but try to substantiate any ideas they have...if we are to accept classical or even Medieval writers without "guessing" at what they meant and seek the truth of it, we'd be in a fine mess now. to guessing the meaning of ancient have the same problem since you have to rely on cuneiform translations...

But I ask this question to TRY to understand Dr. Joseph's motives. WHY does Dr. Joseph only cite Anabasis to prove his methodology? Granted, let's just forget the translators of Xenephon in Anabasis for a minute. WHY is that the only source used by Dr. Joseph??? Why not Xenephon's other works where he clearly uses the terms Assyria and Assyrian over and over again!

...he uses other sources...and I'll get to them. The fact that in other books Xenophon, or ten other classical writers in ten thousand books, "mention Assyria" provides no evidence that modern Assyrians exist. I am only on page EIGHT...we've taken this detour out of consideration for you and how upset you were...I'll get back to his other sources soon...and, as you admit Xenophon was in error when NOT calling those lands Assyria the first time through...why do you think he got it right, according to you, the second time, when he mentions it? Why, because you didn't like his first "mistake" but liked his second you call that the "truth"? is that how you conduct research; according to what results please you?

Also, why doesn't Dr. Joseph use other sources and other writers, who have referred to Assyria by its proper name and title? Who is being selective here?

...wait a bit...since you haven't read the book, how do you know what is or isn't in it? he does use other sources...wait a bit. Once one is disputing that Assyria and Assyrians didn't exist. His point is that modern writers got it wrong when assuming that the Nestorians above ground were necessarily the descendants of those may well be quoting or thinking of the very authors who also got it wrong...that is the problem..and if you mean Dr Joseph was being "selective" by limiting himself only to Xenophon among "classical writers" was not his idea to discuss Xenophon as Xenophon. Dr Joseph only mentions Xenophon because he is discussing Rassam's error...and Rassam was relying on Xenophon...had Rassam used another source, or twenty, Dr Joseph would have discussed them...he was not discussing classical writers and what they say about Assyria, so that you could "accuse" him of "being selective"...he was discussing Rassam's source for his mistake...and that source was Xenophon and only Xenophon. have to provide the names of the "other writers"..not just say there are other also need to cite the actual works so we can check...because as you said...many mistakes have been made.

For example, in Educating Cyrus, Xenephon uses the words Assyria and Assyrians hundreds of times. This work was written by Xenephon during the same period as Anabasis. So what is Dr. Joseph's point? and WHY is he being selective in his sources?

...It is you who misunderstood the reason Dr Joseph used Xenophon at wasn't to prove "Assyrians didn't exist in classical times"...he also didn't bring Xenophon up to prove him wrong or was to show that Rassam got Xenophon have to cite your sources...chapter and page and edition...this is what scholars such as Dr Joseph he has done in this have to also do it in scholarly journals and magazines...please provide this information...since all these people have made errors, you may have too...we need to check...anyone can refer to Dr Joseph's sources, they are all there in footnotes and bibliography...this is important and it takes time...but it is better, more thorough.

...for centuries after the fall of Rome, people moved to and lived in and were born in Rome, the city. Does that make them ROMANS? "Yes", as far as citizens of a territory of that name, but "No", as direct descendants of the ancient people of ROME. The city still has the name it had 2500 years ago...are there any direct descendants of Julius Caesar there? Even if they spoke classical Latin(languages are all learned, no one is born SPEAKING his "native" tongue)...would that make them citizens of THAT Rome? Assyria was known as Assyria, even after it was no longer ASSYRIA...for some time after. Naturally, then, the people living on the land of "Assyria" would be referred to by writers AS Assyrians..or "the people of Assyria" one might say today, "the people of Rome"...without meaning or ever being able to "prove" that these people of Rome are the direct and only descandants of THOSE people of Rome.

That means he is TRYING to prove something persoanl to HIMSELF only, not to the rest of the world, when the rest of the world KNOWS damn well all about Assyria, and the Assyrians.

,,,as does he...about ancient Assyria...which is what Xenophon was discussing, not modern claims to being Assyrian. Rassam was trying to prove that the ancient people Xenophon encountered were Chaldeans..because they were in the land known as Chaldee...Dr Joseph only referred to Xenophon because Rassam cited him as his source for this error...Dr Joseph "selected Xenophon and only Xenophon" because Rassam selected Xenophon and only Xenophon. Not because he was trying to prove something "personal to HERSELF only".

WHY does Dr. Joseph ONLY use Xenephon and Anabasis, out of hundreds of historians who have written about Assyria and the Assyrians? WHO IS SELCETIVE? know, you'd have a lot more time on your hands if you'd pose your question many times are you going to accuse Dr Joseph of being "selective", for me to have to tell you he was following Rassam's lead and discussing Xenophon because that's who Rassam was using...why do you keep repeating this over and over? Is it to somehow fix it in people's minds...just because you keep repeating it, and therefore some "bright youth' might have it fixed in his bright mind that "Dr Josephisselectiveselectiveselective"?

...Dr Joseph makes a distinction between the ancient Assyrians and modern claims by Nestorians...whereas you smoosh them all together and take it for granted that they are all one are taking it for granted that you have already proven they are the same...which is exactly the point in question. And I told have not read his book...wait and I'll get to the other parts. I'm struggling to absorb it and understand it takes time and patience.

Here are some quotes by Xenephon from the Educating Cyrus:

..if these quotes mention "Assyria" they still have nothing to do with the point at hand. Dr Joseph said Rassam got it wrong when he said Xenophon called the people he saw in Assyria, Chaldeans. That was the ONLY reason he discussed Xenophon...I have no doubt Dr Joseph has read these would be difficult to escape with a doctorate from Princeton WITHOUT reading them...his purpose in mentioning Xenophon had nothing to do with these books...his only reason for bringing him up was to show Rassam was in error...he has many other sources and means to show you are in error too...and none of those come from Xenophon. I don't care if Xenophon married an Assyrian has nothing to do with Dr Jospeh being "selective" as you keep repeating...and it would have no bearing at all on the main theme of Dr Joseph's book...which is that modern day claims, not ancient ones or classical ones or even Medieval ones, to being Assyrians are in error...okay?

"Now this was the state in which Cyrus found the tribes and peoples of Asia when, at the head of a small Persian force, he started on his career. The Medes and the Hyrcanians accepted his leadership willingly, but it was through conquest that he won Syria, Assyria, Arabia, Cappadocia, the two Phrygias, Lydia, Caria, Phoenicia, and Babylonia. Then he established his rule over the Bactrians, Indians, and Cilicians, over the Sakians, Paphlagonians, and Magadidians, over a host of other tribes the very names of which defy the memory of the chronicler; and last of all he brought the Hellenes in Asia beneath his sway, and by a descent on the seaboard Cyprus and Egypt also."

..."winning Assyria" means he won the LAND called Assyria...and he, like Layard, assumed the people living there were the original Assyrians.

..when the Assyrians moved people around in their empire...did the people they moved to other countries become the ethnicity of those countries? A hundred years after the land of Aram had been defeated and incorporated into the Assyrian empire would a traveller be correct in saying he travelled to the LAND of the Arameans? yes he would...for they all knew the LAND, which doesn't move or die, was known by that ancient name...but if the Jews moved to the LAND called Aram...did those Jews become Arameans?...and would someone seeing the Jews on the LAND of Aram, be correct in assuming the people on the land are the SAME ethnic group, the Arameans, as once had the NAME of the land? Probably, yes...if he wasn't a scholar and didn't do some more guessing and then searching.

Here's another one:
" . And Cyrus was ever in the front, like a young hound, untrained as yet but bred from a gallant stock, charging a wild-boar recklessly; forward he swept, without eyes or thought for anything but the quarry to be captured and the blow to be struck. But when the Assyrian army saw their friends in trouble they pushed forward, rank on rank, saying to themselves the pursuit would stop when their own movement was seen. [22] But Cyrus never slackened his pace a whit: in a transport of joy he called on his uncle by name as he pressed forward, hanging hot-foot on the fugitives, while Cyaxares still clung to his heels, thinking maybe what his father Astyages would say if he hung back, and the others still followed close behind them, even the faint-hearted changed into heroes for the nonce."

...I saw this quote today...but again, the "Assyrian" army could simply mean the army FROM the land of Assyria which was after all a province of the Persian empire at the time...any one hundred Iraqi citizens who move to America and join the American Army become the soldiers of America...but are they Americans...and if so, in what sense? Did their parents come on the Mayflower? Were they born here later...are they naturalized they stop being Iraqis the minute they become the "American Army"? The "Army Of Rome" was not made of Romans...not for the last 200 years or so...and there were hardly any Romans in the Eastern ROMAN Empire of Byzantium...they were mostly Greeks and asians or Orientals and they spoke Greek not Roman Latin. more thing...since neither you nor I read Greek...and since there are any number of Greek scholars and translators..and since we all admit mistakes have been made...we can't be that sure of what we're actually reading...and scholars are best equipped and knowledgeable and check all or several sources, while we, as you well know, take for truth that which confrims our beliefs and "lies" whatever challenges them or threatens our take all of this a little easy, for I'm sure if I brought you a translation that did not call them would call that man a liar and stay calm.

And another one:
"Now Astyages, watching their furious onslaught, and seeing the enemy move steadily forward in close array to meet them, decided to advance without a moment's delay himself, for fear that his son and Cyrus might come to harm, crashing in disorder against the solid battalions of the foe. [23] The Assyrians saw the movement of the king and came to a halt, spears levelled and bows bent, expecting that, when their assailants came within range, they would halt likewise as they had usually done before. For hitherto, whenever the armies met, they would only charge up to a certain distance, and there take flying shots, and so keep up the skirmish until evening fell. But now the Assyrians saw their own men borne down on them in rout, with Cyrus and his comrades at their heels in full career, while Astyages and his cavalry were already within bowshot. It was more than they could face, and they turned and fled. After them swept the Medes in full pursuit, and those they caught they mowed down, horse and man, and those that fell they slew. There was no pause until they came up with the Assyrian foot." again...if someone comes up with the "American foot"...just who is in that foot when to be American means to be from everywhere else? The Persian king was hiring mercenaries...did the Greeks in the Persian army become part of the Persian foot..did that then make them ethnically Persian? Did they become Persian feet by being in a Persian army? The "Assyrian army" could simply mean those Persian troops then quartered in the land of Assyria, and what does "Persian" mean in that context anyway...just how many people made up the Persian empire and its foot? When the Persians attacked the Greeks at Marathon the Persian army was made of a few hundred thousand troops from all parts of the empire...were they all "Persian" for being part of a Persian army...and if so, in what way?...the "Assyrian" army Xenophon calls by that name, and rememebr it is HIS name for it, not the Persian King's name for it...might well have been Persians...or Greeks too...or any other ethnic group or groups who had been settled in the land once known as Assyria and by then a province of "Persia". None of this proves anything about modern claims of being Assyrian descendants...people living on Navajo lands don't become the descendants of those people because they live on the land...this is Dr Joseph's point.

And another:
"Now in the fullness of time Astyages died in Media, and Cyaxares his son, the brother of Cyrus' mother, took the kingdom in his stead. By this time the king of Assyria had subdued all the tribes of Syria, subjugated the king of Arabia, brought the Hyrcanians under his rule, and was holding the Bactrians in siege. Therefore he came to think that, if he could but weaken the power of the Medes, it would be easy for him to extend his empire over all the nations round him, since the Medes were, without doubt, the strongest of them all.

...No other modern historian in the world says that in 400 BC an "Assyrian king" conquered all these nations. if Xenophon is referring to his own the 5th Century BC...then you show me ONE...just one modern historian who agrees that at that time, an Assyrian king conquered Arabia and the tribes of Syria and Bactria too.

[3] Accordingly he sent his messengers to every part of his dominions: to Croesus, king of Lydia, to the king of Cappadocia, to both the Phrygias, to the Paphlagonians and the Indians, to the Carians and the Cilicians. And he bade them spread slanders abroad against the Persians and the Medes, and say moreover that these were great and mighty kingdoms which had come together and made alliance by marriage with one another, and unless a man should be beforehand with them and bring down their power it could not be but that they would fall on each of their neighbours in turn and subdue them one by one. So the nations listened to the messengers and made alliance with the king of Assyria: some were persuaded by what he said and others were won over by gifts and gold, for the riches of the Assyrian were great. [4] Now Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, was aware of these plots and preparations, and he made ready on his side, so far as in him lay, sending word to the Persian state and to Cambyses the king, who had his sister to wife. And he sent to Cyrus also, begging him to come with all speed at the head of any force that might be furnished, if so be the Council of Persia would give him men-at-arms. For by this time Cyrus had accomplished his ten years among the youths and was now enrolled with the grown men. [5] He was right willing to go, and the Council of Elders appointed him to command the force for Media. They bade him choose two hundred men among the Peers, each of them to choose four others from their fellows. Thus was formed a body of a thousand Peers: and each of the thousand had orders to raise thirty men from the commons--ten targeteers, ten slingers, and ten archers--and thus three regiments were levied, 10,000 archers, 10,000 slingers, and 10,000 targeteers, over and above the thousand Peers. The whole force was to be put under the command of Cyrus. [6] As soon as he was appointed, his first act had been to offer sacrifice, and when the omens were favourable he had chosen his two hundred Peers, and each of them had chosen their four comrades. Then he called the whole body together, and for the first time spoke to them as follows."

And lastly, before I get tired.
""Listen, then," said Cyaxares. [5] "Croesus the Lydian is coming, we hear, with 10,000 horse and more than 40,000 archers and targeteers. Artamas the governor of Greater Phrygia is bringing, they say, 8000 horse, and lancers and targeteers also, 40,000 strong. Then there is Aribaius the king of Cappadocia with 6000 horse and 30,000 archers and targeteers. And Aragdus the Arabian with 10,000 horse, a hundred chariots, and innumerable slingers. As for the Hellenes who dwell in Asia, it is not clear as yet whether they will send a following or not. But the Phrygians from the Hellespont, we are told, are mustering in the Caystrian plain under Gabaidus, 6000 horse and 40,000 targeteers. Word has been sent to the Carians, Cilicians, and Paphlagonians, but it is said they will not rise; the Lord of Assyria and Babylon will himself, I believe, bring not less than 20,000 horse, and I make no doubt as many as 200 chariots, and thousands upon thousands of men on foot; such at least has been his custom whenever he invaded us before."

...Alexander the Great became the "Lord of Babylon" a little later...are you going to call him Babylonian now? That people inhabited the land once known as Assyria has never been in question...people occupy that land now...but they are not the descendants of the ancients for their occupancy and street addresses, or the ancient history of that land...however, I will concede that modern translators seem to have proven that Xenophon did mention the land of Assyria and its king...but the land and its ruler don't make the people there ethnic Assyrians...and we can't be sure that the translators got it right either...or all agree with one you said, this takes more thorough research...and I will ask Dr Joseph about this.

...However...Dr Joseph didn't didn't have any "selective agenda" as you've been repeating over and over in chosing to discuss "only" xenophon. He only mentioned him at all to make a point about Rassam's misuse of Xenophon to "bolster" his own ideas etc. And this occurs on page eight of a 260 page book.

So one might ask, what does ALL this PROVE? Nothing, absolutely NOTHING!

Except that Dr. Joseph IS SELECTIVE in his sources, and is an opportunist.

...when you haven't read the book, when you persistantly make the erroneous claim that Dr Joseph "only selects" Xenophon because he wants to "prove something to himslef" and then keep asking why this is the ONLY evidence, when this appears on page 8 and there are a couple of hundred pages yet to go...would seem to indicate that more than one person can be accused of being opportunistic and selective. That you are so vehemently certain of the flaws in a book you haven't read makes a very poor case, for you, when you slam a scholar you claim "is out to prove things for himself only". I can't imagine Dr Joseph being as certain and adamant as you are about a book he hadn't read and slamming it and calling its author "opportunistic" among othersuch terms. A leetle unseemly, don't you think, to accuse Dr Joseph of being "selective" for referencing only one book...when you haven't read the book you're questioning to know whether or not he's cited a hundred references...and we are only on page EIGHT! is this your "more thorough research must be done";Not even reading a book you seek to dispute? Would any scholar do such a thing? Did Dr Joseph? met the Xenophon Challenge very well(although it has little bearing on the larger issues, which we will get to)...except you failed to provide the sources for your quotes and we don't yet know what hundreds of other translators have had to say in their translations..and since you did happen to tip your hand from the very beginning and still to this day persist in behaving as if it was all a proven fact already...then it's very likely that if two contradictory versions were put in your hand, you'd have no trouble knowing which was telling the "truth" and which was "lying", or which one you would present here, because you showed yourself to be so partisan from the beginning, which no scholar of any standing would do but, as you said, you are an while you quoted others well and at great isn't convincing by itself because of the many other errors contained in those translations..but we'll keep an open mind and continue reading Dr Joseph's least I will. You can wait on my posts.


The full topic:

Content-length: 35988
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; FunWebProducts)

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9