Solo

Oh drama !

Norm, I think what Figjam Pigsarse here means to ask is how many Fosters' does it take to get you grinnin' like a shot fox.

Jiri

fromdownunder

At it's most basic it means that nothing happened before last Thursday. An argument used tongue in cheek against YECs who argue in favour of Omphalos theory.

I am starting to look through the links that you and others have provided here, and will probably leave this thread at this point. In general terms (and not requiring a reply, unless I say something you specifically object to) those of us who are not experts must follow scholarship as far as it leads, read both sides of the discussion, and obviously our previous views will have an effect on who we eventually side with, because that is the nature of the beast. I will continue to do this, but in the end, when two conflicting views cannot be reconciled, threads such as this one, will continue to provoke debate.

That is a good thing.

Norm

Roger Pearse

You are quite right, and you have put your finger on an anachronism.

In antiquity Jesus was a disreputable-sounding figure -- a dead peasant from the end of the earth who wasn't even in good standing among the Jews and died the most humiliating death, that of a slave, for heaven's sake! --, and pagans had no interest in denying his existence: on the contrary, they seem to have enjoyed sneering at this, and on how he violated various elements of the period values.

But in modern times the case is reversed: Jesus is generally revered. Thus it makes sense for a polemicist unworried by accuracy to deny his existence as a tactic, and we find that the idea arises for the first time among just such people ca. 1700.

While the ancient world was very like our own in some ways, it had different attitudes in others, and these perpetually bite the unwary or unlearned atheist.

Cyril of Alexandria wrote in Greek. No modern critical edition of the ten surviving books of this monster work exists. The Sources Chrétiennes did issue a text and French translation of books 1-2, but the job got no further. A team based in Switzerland are currently preparing an edition with German and French translations. I did contact them to see if an English translation might be made, but they said that they needed money to do that. I then approached the National Lottery here, but got nowhere.

The available text is that printed in the Patrologia Graeca by the Abbé J.-P. Migne, with a Latin parallel translation. I'm a bit dubious that I can look through this to locate one small bit, but will try.

It seems to be in PG 76, and the footnote appears against col. 335D according to the Loeb. Unhappily that column is in Aubert's edition, not the PG. But Migne, bless him, prints those numbers in the text anyway! It's in book 10 of Contra Julianum, PG 76 col. 1015-6, and the footnote 46 on that page reads "Matth. VIII, 21, 22" so I suggest that this is our passage. The text is in chunks headed alternately CYRILLUS and JULIANUS. Here is the relevant section from the Latin side:

JULIANUS

Verum istud quidem mali a Joanne cepit initium. Quaecunque autem vos deinceps adinvenistis, additis ad priscum illum mortuum novis mortuis, quis pro dignitate satis exsecretur? Sepulcris ac monumentis implestis omnia, licet apud vos nusquam dictum sit circa sepulcra versandum esse eaque colenda? Eo vero progressi estis nequitiae, ut putetis ne Jesu quidem illius Nazareni ea de re verba audienda. Audite ergo quae de monumentis ille dicit: "Vae vobis, Scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae, quia similes estis sepulchris dealbitis; foris sepulchrum apparet formosum, intus autem plenum est ossibus mortuorum, et omnia immunditia." 45 Si ergo sepulchra Jesus immunditia plena esse dixit, quomodo vos super iis Deum invocatis?

As you will see this is just the text given in translation:

However this evil doctrine did originate with John; but who could detest as they deserve all those doctrines that you have invented as a sequel, while you keep adding many corpses newly dead to the corpse of long ago? 137 You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres, and yet in your scriptures it is nowhere said that you must grovel among tombs 138 and pay them honour. But you have gone so far in iniquity that you think you need not listen even to the words of Jesus of Nazareth on this |417 matter. Listen then to what he says about sepulchres : "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres; outward the tomb appears beautiful, but within it is full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." 139 If, then, Jesus said that sepulchres are full of uncleanness, how can you invoke God at them? . . .140

Cyril responds with a quotation from the Iliad, and pagan history, to show that reverence for the tombs of dead heroes is also a characteristic of paganism, and that Jesus comments were intended as an attack on the Pharisees, not as a comment on the veneration of the martyrs.

In Cyril's reply we find this in col. 1019/1020 A (or 337A using Aubert):

Atenim, inquit, fugienda sunt sepulchra, quae Christus etiam ipse immunditiei plena esse dixit. Sciebat etiam ipse mortuum sic abominandum esse, ut ne discipulo quidem permiserit patrem sepelire. Atqui nos illum sensum eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta sunt, penitus ignorasse nullo negotio videmus.

Nevertheless, he says, tombs must be avoided, which Christ also himself said were full of uncleanness. Also he knew himself that death must be abominated thus, as he did not permit a certain disciple to bury his father. And we ourselves in no business seem to have been thoroughly ignorant of (?) that sense of those things, which were said by the Saviour.

This must be the real reference to the passage. But I think that the translator has written too hastily. Julian, after all, is attacking the Christians for paying too much reverence to graves, not too little.

I hope that helps. If people agree, I will update the webpage with the extra info.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vorkosigan

Relax, Roger. Some of us who study this are quite worried about accuracy, and we enjoy the freedom of not having a priori conclusions about the existence of certain figures from the past. You apologists, on the other hand, are stuck with positions that are methodologically insupportable.

Yes, about the same time as modern rational empirical and scholarly methods arose. No coincidence there.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

The discussion about Mark's reference to Herod has been split into its own thread:

"King" Herod and the reliability of Mark

Solo

Yes, and interestingly, the idea arises in an intelligentsia with a vested interested in overthrowing the absolutist form of government of the day (France and Habsburgs, and the influence, the two exerted on the mini-states of Germany). The belief was that without the central idol and symbol of superstition, the tyranny would fall. Volney and Dupuis operated on the fringe of the rationalist wave of France, where the more prominent atheists did not think it at all interesting to get involved in the discussion.

Similarly, in Germany of 1830's with the reactionary Metternich's status quo, the discussion of Jesus' existence, and its relation to Hegelian "false consciousness", inflamed left-wing philosophy students.

There was no "empirical" evidence or "science" that led to a reversal in the view of Jesus' historicity. From the start, the idea was tied it to political movements of their times, and to virulently anti-religious sentiments.

Thanks a bunch, Roger, I really appreciate your help. I hope that the compilation will happen sooner rather than later.

As for the quotes above, it is not apparent where the translator got the idea that Cyril was responding to Julian's accusation of Jesus having "no respect for graves". In the section exhibited, the scripture (since Isaiah) and Jesus proscribe the necromancy that Julian alleges. He also seems to indicate that this practice originates from after Jesus death:

You observe then how ancient among the Jews was this work of
witchcraft namely sleeping among the tombs for the sake of visoins. And ineed it is likely that your apostles after their teacher's death, practiced this and handed it down from the beginning...

So it looks from the passages above that Julian believed the necromancy was practiced from the earliest time. It is not clear that he knew it was practiced during the "teacher's" life.

Where in the text Julian says Jesus had "no respect for graves" and references Mt 8:21-22 in support ? Any idea ?

Thanks again, Roger.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

I suspect that Julian like many other Pagans found problematic even disgusting the Christian habit of venerating the actual dead bodies of Christian martyrs.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Hey Jiri,

I actually look at Julian's treatise in this way. In the first instance,
at the head paragraph of his text, he states his main conviction in
regard to the Galilaeans --- that it is a fabrication, a fiction of wicked
men. The second paragraph repeats this assertion in no uncertain terms.

The third paragraph then immediately commences:

Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views.

Here Julian, having FIRST presented his conviction that the
fabrication is a fiction, then sets the legal disclaimer that he is now
proceeding with his treatment of the dogmas of the Galilaeans as if
he were in a court of (4th century Roman) law, and wishes to be free
to get on with the business, without interjection.

The fourth paragraph outlines the general method of approach that
Julian will be using in outlining the "dogma", by examination of the history
of the conception of God, divinity among the Hebrews and Hellenes, and
then these same conceptions about this "sect of the Galilaeans" who (as
Julian claims) have failed to follow any of the ancient conceptions.

I have attempted to separate these issues on this page by using subject headings.

At any rate, I see Julian as Firstly (effectively) stating that he
is convinced that Jesus is part of a fabrication, a fiction, a monstrous
tale. Only then, Secondly does he deal with the intrinsic issues
related to the individual creditability of bits and pieces of the fiction,
its lack of antiquity, its separatism from the Hebrews and the Hellenes,
and other issues of integrity which he covers in the detailed sections
that follow his opening statements.

So to answer your question, again ---
I can't see offhand where Julian would be trying to discredit them
also by arguing that they invented Jesus.

IMO, Julian primarily argues that they invented Jesus, and he
also attempts to discredit the integrity, the worth and
the various "details" in the fiction.

Best wishes for now,



Pete

mountainman

Cool. Thanks alot for this reference Gerard.
Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

I think so too. I'm not sure that I understand this idea either -- rather alien as it is to our culture.

All the best,

Roger Pearse