mountainman

I am a firm believer of not crossing bridges until you get to them.
In this instance in the very first place we need to determine
somehow, if this is possible, what Julian may have said.

What was this "fabrication of the Galilaeans"?
And if it is a fiction of men composed by wickedness,
who were these men, when did they do their business,
and why did Julian deem this activity "wicked" or
perhaps "fraudulent"?

Clearly, in today's terminology, the writings of the emperor
Julian were effectively censored by Cyril. This censorship
is not restricted to his treatise against the christian religion
but also extends to his personal letters.

I think it is important to make the attempt in understanding
exactly what it was that Julian said, and what Cyril censored,
if this is at all possible.

For example, it is quite possible that in "the fabrication
of the Galilaeans", Julian meant the new testament.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

Do you read the language that this was written in? Do you have any linguistic ability to discern some meaning in the text?

I have R. Joseph Hoffman's Julian's Against the Galileans (or via: amazon.co.uk). He translates this:

The time has come for me to say for the benefit of all how I discovered beyond any doubt that the stories of the Galileans are the inventions of deceivers and tricksters. For these men seduce people into thinking that <their> gruesome story is the truth by appealling to the part of the soul that loves what is simple and childish.

A footnote to Galileans notes, on Galileans: Julians', like Epictetus', designation for the Christians is desinged to stress the insignificance of the founder...

I propose therefore to deal with what they consider to be their primary teachings. . .

and he goes on to talk about the conception of God, the divine being, etc, without concentrating on the New Testament or the existence of Jesus, which indicates to me that the "story" is the entire religion, and the emphasis is on the nature of god, not on the historical facts that modern people try to extract from the NT, which are important for our modern sensibilities but were not the most critical elements in the ancient world.

I see no way of interpreting this a supporting the idea that Julian thought that Christianity was invented by Constantine. And I don't see that you have anything new to say on the issue.

How do you propose to proceed? If you keep repeating the same phrases over and over, you will be abusing this board.

J-D

Well, that's the question, isn't it?Is it? What makes you think that?

mountainman

Unfortunately I do not have this ability, and rely on the
discernment of meaning by as many translators that I find.
Until now, I had relied upon Wilmer Cave WRIGHT.

So, I thank you for Hoffman's translation of Cyril:


This seems to indicate (IMO quite strongly) that
"the Galilaeans" cannot be the inventors of the
stories of the Galilaeans.

It suggests that Julian discovered that the
stories of the Galileans are the inventions of
deceivers and tricksters.

Quite obviously Toto, these deceivers and tricksters
were not named by Cyril in his refutation of Julian,
however this does not alter the issue.

It suggests that Julian was convinced the NT was
invented by certain parties.


Dont you think this is relevant to NT studies?

Even if the parties are not yet known.


In this footnote, I think you'll find that Hoffman is following
Wilmer Wright, in thinking that Julian followed Epictetus'
designation for "christians" as "Galilaeans" however I think
that Wright is in error here over Epictetus.

See this thread:
Epictetus's non-reference to (christian) Galilaeans

My claim is that Epictetus is not referring whatsoever to "christians"
when he uses the term "Galilaeans", but is using the term as it
was used by Josephus, whom Epictetus follows, as meaning something
like "the lawless inhabitants and brigands of Galilee"

...[trimmed]...


My claim is that Julian was convinced the NT was invented
by certain parties, and that Julian was not lying.

Do you agree with my claim?
Or do you disagree with it?



I hope to proceed towards agreement with my claims
as stated above, or to have reasons for the objections
to these claims.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

No. It says that unknown deceivers invented the stories of the "Galileans," who, in context, are surely Christians. (This is well after Constantine, when Christianity had been recognized and supported.) But there is no reason to think that these deceivers were not part of the "Galileans."
Of course, someone or ones invented the NT.


You may be right as to Epictetus, who wrote in the first half of the second century. But what does this have to do with Julian, writing several centuries later? And it seems clear that Julian is using the term as an insult, in the same sense that Josephus uses it.

I can agree that Julian thought that the NT was invented by certain parties, but this seems trivial. It does not get you any closer to the point where you can argue that Constantine invented the NT.

J-D

No, apart from anything else, at the most it can only be an indication of what Julian thought was the case. But Julian might have been wrong. You will admit that possibility, won't you?No, it suggests only that Julian reached that conclusion. When you use the word 'discovered' it implies that Julian's conclusion was a veridical one, but it seems to me that that is an open question.Not clearly. It depends on what Julian meant by 'the stories of the Galilaeans'. That expression does not necessarily mean 'the whole of the New Testament'.Firstly, as I pointed out above, it is not clear that Julian was alleging the fabrication of the entire New Testament out of whole cloth.

Secondly, even if Julian was alleging that the whole New Testament was fabricated out of whole cloth, and even if he honestly believed that that was the case, it is still possible that he was mistaken. You will admit that possibility, won't you?If that's the direction you want to proceed in, then the next step would be for you, as the person who has made the claims, to give your reasons for them.

mountainman

Further on you comment ....


My argument is that the primary use of the term "Galilaeans"
is not a reference to "Christians" at all. When Josephus uses
this term, and then Epictetus uses this term, they mean
"lawless brigands". I will argue that this is the primary meaning
Julian intended when he uses the term.

The secondary meaning of the term, by way of the NT, is the
conection with "Christians" in the stories of the NT.

Julian employs both usages, but the former I argue is the primary
and ancient reference understood by the writers of the fourth
century, in the time Julian wrote.


So that therefore (above) when you say:


I cannot agree this is the primary reason,
for the reasons outlined above, but I do
agree it is the secondary reason.

I think Julian was saying that the inventors of the NT
were essentially "lawless brigands".




It might seem trivial to you Toto,
but someone filed a police report
saying someone had killed god.

The testimony of all witnesses in
this crime investigation is not trivial (IMO)


Although I had agreed not to bring Constantine into it,
seeing as though you mention him, my argument will
be that the reference to Galilaeans as "lawless brigands"
seems to reflect the ancient historical assessment
of Constantine according to Victor:

"[Constantine] was a mocker rather than a flatterer.
From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale,
for ten years a most excellent man, [ Ed: the decade 306-315]

for the following second ten a brigand, [ Ed: the decade 316-325] for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality, a ward irresponsible for his own actions." [ Ed: the period 326-337]

--- Sextus Aurelius Victor

It becomes apparent that I have to do a great deal more
research on the subject. Here is something from Libanius:

Extracted from
Libanius, " Julian the Emperor" (1888). Monody: Funeral Oration for Julian

The man in person we shall no more be able to see, but we can peruse his books, so numerous, and all written with skill. And yet the greatest part of those who have grown old in writing, have shunned more branches of literature than just so many as they have ventured to treat upon; whence
they have reaped less credit for what they have done, than blame for what they have not written about. But He, at one and the same time, carrying on wars and composing books, hath left behind him works in every descriptions of literature: in all of them surpassing all competitors, but his own works in that of "Epistles." Taking up these books I procure myself some consolation; by the aid of these, his offspring, you will be able to bear your sorrow; for these has he left behind him to the world in the place of children, and which time will not be able to obliterate along with the colours in his portraits.

Archaeological finds of Julian's original writings
would certainly assist in this investigation.


And it is not as if Julian does not cast Constantine
and Jesus and the Christian religion as abysmal in]
other works, such as Kronia.

The problem is that his works "Against the Christians"
and some of his letters, have been mutilated by
censorship. This is an open academic claim.
I have not authored this claim. Have a look about.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Yes - one cannot overlook any possibility.
I see everything as a "relative balance"
not as any absolute.


The word 'discovered' was actually used by Hoffman
in his translation of the opening paragraph of the
reconstruction of Julian from Cyril's "Against Julian".

It is not my word. It is merely "evidence in the balance".


See above. Julian had the nickname of "Bull-Burner".
I dont think he got everything right. But the question
remains to test and balance the evidence.

Also, please see my explantion to Toto (above)
concerning the term "Galilaeans" and its useage
in the Roman Empire to denote "lawless Brigands".


My reasons are related to the "balance of evidence"
as one might examine in a crime story. Evidence is
the only thing to be admitted for examination in the
first instance.

My thesis provides clear and unambiguous reasons
why I claim that we are not in possession of any
firm evidence in support of the unexamined postulate
of Pre-Nicene christianity.

However we are in possession of very firm evidence
that the state implementation of the christian religion
under Constantine with effect from Antioch 325 CE
has made a profound effect on the planet in terms
of the release of an imperially sponsored intolerance
for all other religious creeds, and for the persecution
of non-christians.



Evidence in balance alone provides
"reasons in the field of ancient history".

We must start with the evidence.
Reason is to be applied to the evidence.
And follow it wherever it may lead.

Do you understand this position?
If you do, then you understand my
position in this.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

J-D

You used the word too. When Hoffman used the word to translate Julian's language, it implies (unsurprisingly) that Julian asserted the accuracy of his own conclusion. When you use the word, it implies that you are asserting the accuracy of Julian's conclusions. The fact that Julian asserted the accuracy of his conclusions is not evidence for their accuracy.Why? It's not relevant to anything I was discussing.What you have not yet produced is any evidence in support of the conclusion that Constantine had the whole of the New Testament fabricated from whole cloth. So on your side of the balance there's nothing.

mountainman

On the contrary if you read my thesis I have examined
every single archaeological citation which has been used
and discussed in modern journals as being "christian"
before the rise of Constantine. I have reviewed each
of these items of evidence, and I have reasoned,
either correctly or incorrectly, that this entire set of
evidence does not actually furnish us with unambiguous
reasons to accept the existence of either a "Jesus" or
a "Gospel" or a "Christian" in the period of history
spanning the late first century through to the turn
of the fourth century.

So on my side of the balance, by reasonable argument
from the "evidence in the field of ancient history" I am
able to argue the first step in an argument to the
ahistoricity of Pre-Nicene Christianity.

The logical implication of there being no unambiguous
ancient historical evidence for the existence of Pre-Nicene
christianity, is that it must be viewed as a postulate
in the theory of mainstream history, not as a fact.

We may postulate on the basis of Eusebius that there
was a Christianity prior to Constantine, but aside from
paleographic "assessment", there appears to me to be
no other evidence to support this postulate.

We may also postulate on the basis of no evidence,
that in fact the Eusebian derived (default) chronology
is perhaps just a fiction story, and that the reason
that we cannot locate any unambiguous evidence
for the existence of Christianity prior to Constantine
is simply that there is none to be found, because
the Christian Copyright Symbol actually had a
registered ancient history priority date in the
fourth century, not the first.

So there are the two sides of the balance from
my perspective.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown