mountainman

If Arius could have called the work a fiction and lived, he would have, but being a man clever in disputation Arius said various things about the implementation of Constantine's new and strange religion (Eusebius argues it was not not new and strange) such as:

there was a time when he was not, and
before he was born he was not, and that
he was made out of nothing existing or
God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
or is subject to alteration or change


Constantine called the Council of Nicaea
on account of these words by Arius.

He moved against any opposition to
his implementation of the fiction.

The Nicaean creed is clear on that issue.


Julian the Apostate, emperor of the Roman empire (361-363) very shortly after the death of Constantine (337) was in a good position to see what changes had been implemented under Constantine, with effect from the Nicaean Council, and he set forth his reasons for a return to the old traditions.

At the chief of his (reconstructed treatise) he says he was "convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness". This statement alone provides some measure of support for the Eusebian fiction postulate.

What did Julian think of Eusebius?


What I would like to know specifically were the invectives used by Julian which were left unquoted by Cyril, and thus unobtainable by subsequent reconstructions of Julian. As is it mentioned in the introduction to the above:

You can bet these choice words left very little to to the imagination (of Cyril) and he could not bring himself to quote them.

Have there ever been any guessing competitions by scholars on this matter, or are any other fragments of Julian preserved that might shed illumination on this potentially interesting subject?

Julian approaches the treatise "according to a court of law".
Fiction and fraud, forgery and interpolation go hand in hand.

Could it be that Julian points out that not all of the extant versions of Josephus held in the eastern empire appear to have the wretched Eusebian interpolation evidenced in their pages? Could he have testified to the perversion of literature?

A fictional jesus (FJ) may not suit either the HJ or the MJ supporters, but then neither does history care for what we think. Integrity is a very important issue, and the history at the foundation of both the traditional and conservative views of HJ and MJ to a great degree rely upon the theory of history purportedly set forth by Eusebius of Caesarea under Constantine in the 4th century.

If the integrity of the Eusebian theory of history is bad, the history is bad.
Critical review of new testament history has shown that there is not a great deal of historical integrity available to the account.

That it is a literary fiction of theological romance now needs to be evaluated.
Discussion or consideration of this Eusebian fiction postulate would not be counter productive to the knowledge of history, especially if it that's the way it may have happened.

But if the literature by which Eusebius presents his history is itself a work of fiction, then he could easily have written both the gospels and acts, and packaged the ensemble for the first time, with the OT and a cross-reference ready-reckoner for the testimony of M-M-L-J, for the Council of Nicaea, under sponsorship of Constantine.


It is of course a two way sword. The postulate of Eusebian fiction implies christianity never existed at all until created by Constantine (as a method to tax, administer and control a newly acquired supreme empire). Evidence for the existence of christianity outside of the Eusebian sphere of influence will detract from the integrity of the postulate.

Listed is an index of exceptions, by which it is claimed christianity existed prior to the time of Constantine (4th CE), and I have attempted to resolve these exceptions.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm



Happy (pagan) easter.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

Peter Kirby

At the chief of his (reconstructed treatise) he says he was "convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness". This statement alone provides some measure of support for the Eusebian fiction postulate.

You have never supported this postulate in any measure. This statement of Julian is an example of non-support for the postulate. Just think about it: what does this actually do to indicate that Eusebius was the author of the NT and other vast tracts of ante-Nicene literature? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

regards,
Peter Kirby

mountainman

On the contrary in my original post here I outlined a number of logical implications that naturally arise as a result of consideration of a postulate of fiction. The postulate simply is that the NT and vast tracts of ante-Nicene literature is fiction, ficticious literature, theological romance, etc.

If one examines this postulate the logical implications are these:

First Implication of Historical Fiction = Alternative
The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Second Implication of Historical Fiction = Conjoins
The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Third Implication of Historical Fiction = Precedent date
The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Fourth Implication of Historical Fiction = Turbulent controversy
The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Fifth Implication of Historical Fiction = party with power
The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the words of Arius, is cited and detailed.


If the postulate is false, then the above logical implications will also necessarily be false, and there will be no evidence of any of the above occurring in history.

However if the postulate is true then we will expect to see evidence of the above implications as historical events.

Although the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea are traditionally not viewed in terms of the implementation of a massive literary fiction about a new and strange god (Eusebius argues that christianity was not new and strange, or framed by a man of recent origins), my argument is that it is consistent with what we know about these events.


In summary, the further implication of the hypothesis is that we should not be able to find any earlier evidence for the historicity of christianity (external to the reach of Eusebius) prior to the fourth century.

That no such evidence exists for christianity earlier than the fourth century (excluding Eusebius) may be argued, according to the list of exceptions that I have outlined earlier here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm


So both these approaches seem to offer indications that the hypothesis is not without some measure of integrity, and that it does not fall flat on its face the moment it is invoked. This is at least reassuring.



The statement of Julian supports the postulate of fiction, that the literature of the Galileans is nothing more than the "theological romance" claimed by Edwin Johnson in his Antiqua Mater. Moreover, it strongly supports it due to the way he states his case in the opening paragraph of his statement.

That the author of the fiction was Eusebius is incidental to the claim that the literature of the Ante Nicaean period is fiction. These are two separate claims and I am not making any sort of claim that Julian uncovered a conspiracy and could name either Constantine and/or Eusebius, because this is not necessary.

It is sufficient only that Julain recognises the christian literature as a work of fiction, and takes the time to make a formal statement to that effect, which seems to me, beyond dispute.

This statement of Julian therefore serves to substantiate the consideration of the NT and AnteNicean literature being a work of fiction. Eusebian implication in this fiction need not for the moment be argued.

It is enough just to consider the implications of fiction, rather than history or myth, because according to the Roman emperor Julian, this is what we are dealing with.

Thanks for the response.




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Roger Pearse

"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."

--- Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans: remains of the 3 books, excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum (1923) pp.319-433

It's worth adding here that I'm trying to get some money off the Lottery here to get the whole of Cyril against Julian translated into English. Cyril wrote at least 20 books, of which 1-10 survive, plus some fragments of the next 10 (amazing that it doesn't *all* survive given the devotion to Cyril in both the Greek orthodox and the monophysite churches). It's about 100,000 words in length, and a Swiss team is preparing a critical edition at the moment, with German translation; the Sources Chretiennes boys will do a French translation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

Bad news. I've read that Source Chrétiennes is "on the verge of bankruptcy": http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/m...06/04/0577.php

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Truly horrific news! Good grief... That series is the light of our days. Well, I for one am going to order the Tertullians that I have been missing right now!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

What money cannot buy are the specific invectives Julian used against christianity which Cyril could not bring himself to record for the posterity of history, due to their "contaminationary influence on the minds of christians".

We can only hope (perhaps) that the document made its way to the Islamic world prior to Cyril, and that the truth of these invectives may one day become known.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes