mountainman

I am not picking a fight. I am defending my
right to interpret the words of Julian (via Cyril)
in an explicit historical sense.

I am defending the words of Julian in their
most literal and explicit ancient historical sense,
because he thought it was expedient to inform
the world of his convictions at that time.

When he says that he was convinced that the fabrication
of the Galilaeans was a fiction of men composed by
wickedness (as we learn grudging through Cyril) he
was the first author of antiquity to have any say
whatsoever about the rule and turbulence which
Constantine had started at Nicaea, in 325 CE.

Why would he say such an extraordinary thing
about the new state religion?

J-D

All this verbiage boils down to the simple fact that you refuse to be methodologically even-handed because doing so won't give you the results you want. You have a predetermined result and then select your line of approach in order to support it. Ergo, you are methodologically bankrupt. I explained in my previous post what a balanced methodology might look like: you have not given any reason for rejecting this approach or for regarding an alternative methodology as superior.

Is there anybody reading this thread who thinks that my remarks on methodology are flawed, or that Pete's position is methodologically superior?

mountainman

I have a predetermined postulate and am entitled to
select a line of approach in order to both test that
hypothesis, and simultaneously construct a theory
of ancient history based upon that one postulate.

The "results" that I deal with are all the citations
available to the field of ancient history, and I am
entitled to view these "results" with the assistance
of a theory of ancient history (itself developed upon
a postulate, as explained).

I fail to see the substance of your objections.
I appreciate the use of FOR and AGAINST columns
of argument and their comparitive and relational
weighing, but in this instance, as I asked, what
use would it serve me?

If you can provide a concrete sample, perhaps
I have misundertood where you are coming from.

Best wishes,


Pete

ClassicsFiend

The Bible may not have been part of the world as a single book for a long time, and I'm fine with discussing that. But biblical texts are cited much earlier than the formation of the actual book, and you've shown me absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise. I would basically need you to go through every text (or at least a very significant number), in every different style and language, that deals with Christianity before Constantine, and show me exactly how and why they are "frauds" or "interpolations." Shepherd of Hermas, Letters of Clement, the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, "gnostics" like Valentinus and Marcion, plus each individual NT book. And the list is far, far longer than what I can produce off the top of my head. To show what you want to and essentially rewrite Christian history as it is currently accepted, you have a loooong row to hoe.

If people have certain beliefs and get riled up over them, then that affects the way they behave. When you read the texts, some of which I cited for you above, you can see that these people are having a theological argument, and that they got so excited about it that it caused major disturbances in the church. The Egyptian church eventually split off as a result of a fight over how the human and divine nature of Christ really worked. Your political explantion is not "simple" when you take all of the evidence that people actually cared about christological issues into account -- you just happen to bypass all the evidence and ignore what these people were really trying to discuss. Take that Gregory of Nyssa quote I tossed you above. I'd say it implies that regular joes were fired up over it as well.


Again, I think what you see as the most "literal and historical" sense of the words is a very serious misinterpretation. If Julian were trying to express that Christianity was a fabrication in the sense that you want it to be, he wouldn't have focused on Bible contradictions (heavily centered on Hebrew scripture), mentioned Jesus offhand along with other Bible figures without making strong implications that Jesus was more made up than anyone else, or openly admitted that Pagan myths were also invented. I think your favorite quote in context reveals this very clearly. Also, it's not like Christianity had never had critics before, like Celsus and Porphyry. Oh yeah, you'll have to show me how those are false/interpolated also. I want specifics.

Further questions you should be thinking about if you think all of Christianity pre-Constantine was fabricated:

Why does there seem to be such a strong difference between Christian writers from the eastern and western halves of the empire? (Eastern authors seem more philosophically inclined.)

How do you deal with the presence of early Gnostics and heretics who had their own controversial belief systems before Constantine? (And if they weren't before Constantine how do you propose to prove that?)

Why did the Arian controversy start in Egypt among Egyptian clergy? If it didn't, how do you show that, and why would Constantine choose Egypt?

How do you explain the development of early desert monasticism, especially since Anthony the Great was already out in the desert doing his ascetic thing by the time Constantine got going? And if you don't think he was doing that, how do you explain the development of that concept? How/why would Constantine or his cronies come up with that lifestyle for certain people?

Also, if the New Testament were invented, why would Constantine have it focus so much on the particular subjects the NT does focus on? i.e. Jesus' willingness to work on the Sabbath or bend other Old Testament laws -- concepts that are not going to immediately be familiar to non-Jewish Romans? Why would parts of the New Testament seem so focused on leaving the world by rejecting family and seeking to store up treasures in heaven if the document were designed to induce submission to an emperor? I think a lot of the New Testament emphasizes rejection of worldly social order. Not a great idea for a leader looking to control people. (Also this doesn't make sense because Christians were opposed to emperor cult, something Constantine allowed and something that would have been beneficial to him, as the emperor.)

Why did so many bishops at the Council of Nicaea disagree with each other so violently if Christianity were made up right then? And why did future church councils meet on the same christological issue and disagree with Nicaea later? Why did Arians regain power after Nicaea? (THIS is where I think political issues come in -- I suspect Constantine was willing to switch sides based on political expediency. But that is another topic altogether.) How did Constantine's son turn out to be Arian?

If the persecutions of Christians were fake, how did the Meletian heresy arise, and how did the Meletian schism happen?

Basically the questions that arise from your conspiracy theory are huge questions, and you will have to explain a LOT -- probably enough to write multiple books -- on going through the accepted New Testament documents alone. Of course, I seriously doubt you will do the actual work, but that's basically what you'd have to do to rewrite history. You will require a lot more than suspicion and a couple of misinterpreted quotes to knock these issues down. If you don't know Latin and Greek already, I suggest learning them and doing the proper reading so you can show us how all of the texts are fraudulent and written by the same group of people. I would need a TON of strong evidence and textual analysis to show me how all of pre-Nicene Christian writing could have been fabricated.

I think you're way off base and will continue to do so, but good luck anyway. I should be packing right now as I am about to leave the country for a while, so I'll leave you to it.

J-D

What you are not entitled to do, by any sound methodology, is to reject a line of approach solely because it leads to rejecting your theory. That is not an intellectually valid procedure in history, in science, or anywhere else.It would serve to liberate you from your intellectual error.