Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-14-2013, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't think you were paying attention. Please reread what was written in regard to him, and his letter, then reread my first posting. It is not at all clear that he was a "pagan" as opposed to a liberal who sympathized with Jewish monotheism. That's all I can say from the context. I know he was hated. But just because of an Edict of Tolerance he wasn't necessarily seeking to restore old paganism.

I think your problem is the word "pagan." Julian was called a pagan because he was not a Christian. He did try to restore some of the old rituals as part of the Roman civic religion, but I doubt that he believed in the old gods any more than any classically educated person of the time. You might view him as a religious liberal, although this doesn't sound like a liberal:

My brother [cousin] Constantius of honored memory [in whose reign, 337-361, severe laws were enacted against the Jews] was not so much responsible for these wrongs of yours as were the men who used to frequent his table, barbarians in mind, godless in soul. These I seized with my own hands and put them to death by thrusting them into the pit, that not even any memory of their destruction might still linger amongst us.

Duvduv · 03-14-2013, 04:53 PM

You know what? I don't think that was even originally written by him. It doesn't sound royal or dignified. Even in comparison with the letter to the Jews attributed to him.

mountainman · 03-14-2013, 05:46 PM

The following is from ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS by Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

JULIAN:

"The Greeks sought after truth, as its nature requires,
by the aid of reason and did not suffer us to pay heed to the
incredible fables or impossible miracles like most of the barbarians."

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

p.158

"Julian at least never really ceased to be a monotheist - which does
not mean a Christian.

Julian regarded the Sun or Helios as the Supreme God and subordinate
to him the hierarchy of the other gods. (p.154)

Momigliano sees Julian as a monotheistic pagan.

mountainman · 03-14-2013, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

....

I doubt that he believed in the old gods any more than any classically educated person of the time.

UPON THE SOVEREIGN SUN

I doubt that he believed in the incredible literary fables or impossible miracles of the Christian god.

Perspicuo · 03-14-2013, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Most High God was Zeus, recast as a single deity compatible with the philosophy of the day.

See Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If I am allowed the following online suggestion... http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-01-31.html

mountainman · 03-14-2013, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You might view him as a religious liberal, although this doesn't sound like a liberal:

My brother [cousin] Constantius of honored memory [in whose reign, 337-361, severe laws were enacted against the Jews] was not so much responsible for these wrongs of yours as were the men who used to frequent his table, barbarians in mind, godless in soul. These I seized with my own hands and put them to death by thrusting them into the pit, that not even any memory of their destruction might still linger amongst us.

Julian may have been referring to people in the court of Constantius like the despotic "Paulus the Chain" who was responsible for the torture and execution of "NUMBERS WITHOUT END" of (non-Christian) people. For details see Ammianus.

Duvduv · 03-14-2013, 06:31 PM

I wonder if the effects of the demise of Jewish-friendly Julian was a motivating factor in the hurried redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud which is dated to before the year 370. I have never found this mentioned anywhere.

Toto · 03-14-2013, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Most High God was Zeus, recast as a single deity compatible with the philosophy of the day.

See Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If I am allowed the following online suggestion... http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-01-31.html

Monotheism between Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

The fourth century was a major religious battleground. The rise of Christianity, and in particular its dominance from Constantine onwards, marked an important shift in the religious history of the Mediterranean. Christianity saw this change as the victory of its monotheism over the polytheism of paganism. This volume studies how similarities between paganism and Christianity were obscured in the polemic that was waged by Christianity against paganism and in the pagan responses to it. The volume includes papers on Porphyry, Augustine, Themistius, Latin verse inscriptions, as well as papers that deal with the different ways in which Christian and pagan thinkers conceived of monotheism. A recurring theme in the papers show that a concrete religious issue lay at the heart of such polemic: who can one worship? Christians would restrict worship to their God, whereas pagans accepted cultic acts for the many traditional deities. The debate about monotheism was therefore not just about conceptions of the divine, but was part of the creation and defence of social, cultural and religious identities in Late Antiquity.

I think the question is complicated by a narrative that says that polytheism is primitive and bad, and monotheism indicates a higher evolutionary development. So people who like Julian will try to paint him as monotheistic. On the other side, Islamic apologists emphasize that Christianity isn't really monotheistic, with its Trinity and the saints.

And then there is that joke with the punch line spoken by an atheist father, "There is only one god and we don't believe in him."

Perspicuo · 03-15-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And then there is that joke with the punch line spoken by an atheist father, "There is only one god and we don't believe in him."

Jewish father.

It has several versions. One of them:

Quote:

On the Upper West Side of NYC lived an assimilated Jewish man who was now a very militant atheist. But he sent his son Morris to Trinity School because, despite its denominational roots, it was a great school and completely secular.

After a month, the boy came home and said casually, "By the way, Dad, I learned what Trinity means! It means 'The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.'"

The father could barely control his rage. He seized his son by the shoulders and declared, "Morris, I'm going to tell you something now and I want you never to forget it. Forget this Trinity business. There is only one God... and we don't believe in him!"

http://jewishmag.com/89mag/humor/humor.htm

The comicity is due to the "well known secret" that many Jews are also atheist.

mountainman · 03-15-2013, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I wonder if the effects of the demise of Jewish-friendly Julian was a motivating factor in the hurried redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud which is dated to before the year 370. I have never found this mentioned anywhere.

Julian and other pagan sourses seem to charge Constantine as a "breaker of [pagan] traditions". The pagan traditions had operated for many centuries before they were OVERTURNED by Constantine's centralised monotheistic state religious agenda. These pagan traditions were often cooperative and collegiate and there must have been a great multitude of beliefs. Judaism seems to have fitted in as best it could within this cultural religious [pagan] milieu. Certain pre-Constantinian Emperors did persecute the Jews, but AFAIK such measures were more of an exception than a rule.

However Constantine's agenda implied everyone [pagans and Jews alike] were expected to receive the "Good News" and to conform to this newly conceived centralised monotheistic state religious cult. The years between 325 and Julian may have witnessed massive persecution against any who would not overtly conform to the new agenda.

Julian attempted to heal the break in the pagan traditions, but it was almost dead Jim, and he was not fated to have much time.

We can be certain that there was a strong backlash from the incumbents of the centralised monotheistic religious regime who regained the empire upon Julian's death. We might also expect that those people living at the time might have predicted a return to the massive suppression which the short rule of Julian had temporarily alleviated.

PRESERVATION of the Old Traditions was (again) in peril with Julian's death.
The Talmud was no exception.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2013, 04:53 PM	#12
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You know what? I don't think that was even originally written by him. It doesn't sound royal or dignified. Even in comparison with the letter to the Jews attributed to him.

03-14-2013, 06:31 PM	#17
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I wonder if the effects of the demise of Jewish-friendly Julian was a motivating factor in the hurried redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud which is dated to before the year 370. I have never found this mentioned anywhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.