mountainman

It may become a clear indication of these things if you take Julian's text
out of the original context, in which he clearly states at the head of his
argument that he is dealing with a fabrication, a fiction, a monstrous tale.

In the opening paragraph he states the legal problem with christianity
in very specific manner. It is a fiction. It is a fable. It is a monstrous tale.
Immediately after opening his text with these statements he then says:

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.

Everything in Julian's subsequent text is addressed to these first dogmas
and one of these chief dogmas is the achievements and historicity of jesus.
Thus I believe it can be successfully argued that Julian's text does not in fact
evidence Christ's historicity, but in fact evidences an argument against the
fabricated literature, fables, tales, fictions and dogma of the Galiliaeans.

Julian is clearly championing a diagnosis of fiction.
We are unable to tell whether he specifically names
the perpetrators, because such invectives have been
purged from his account by the horrified Cyril who could
not so contaminate the minds of christians.

Biblical scholarship in its formalised evolution has
failed to explore this hypothesis to date, with few
exceptions. The reason that scholarship has not
explored this hypothesis of fiction (and today still
cringe from it) is that it has a certain implication
that represents the "unutterable of unutterables".

Julian like most Romans wanted to be taken seriously.
They were grave and serious people - gravitas -
and demanded respect. That is why his entire text
commences with this sentence structure in the first
paragraph:

1) christian literature is a fiction of men composed by wickedness
2) not divine literature, but a fabulous, childish, foolish, monstrous tale
3) intent to treat of all their first dogmas, as if in a court of law

IMO Julian does not support an historical jesus.
IMO Julian does not support a mythical jesus.
IMO Julian supports a fictional jesus.


Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Vorkosigan

Mountainman, what are the exact quotes that show Julian thought it was a myth?

No Robots

Oh...my...god. I'm on the same side as Vorkosigan!

And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. (Mt 27:51)

Vorkosigan

"I'm on the side of truth. Is there another?"

mountainman

Julian does not call it a myth, Julian calls a spade a spade.
He calls the fabrication of the galiliaeans a fiction.

I consider that Julian's overall opening statement
a clear indication of his positionality ...

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. 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. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.

It is worth while to recall in a few words whence and how we first arrived at a conception of God; next to compare what is said about the divine among the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to the sect of the Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs but have abandoned them also and followed a way of their own.

The first paragraph of Julian's opening address I consider
to be sufficiently capable of demonstrating Julian thought
it (the fabrication of the Galilaeans) a fiction.

In the second paragraph (above) Julian commences to
outline the reasons by which he thought it (the fabrication
of the Galilaeans) a fiction.





Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

rlogan

Is there a distinction between myth and fiction that is useful to us here?

I do note that Julian states the Hellenes invented myths about their Gods and on the other hand uses "fabrication" of the gospels.

But I am not sure this is significant.


I do like that he points out by reasonable standard that the serpent is a friend to mankind in the garden of eden story.

mountainman

From an historian's perspective it would be useful to recognise the fact
that a fiction, as distinct from a myth, has a specific historical author.

Although Julian uses the word "myth" in a number of places in his writing,
he uses the term "fiction" at the head of his address purposefully.

He uses the term "fiction" because he was convinced that the entire
mass of literature was not a myth, but a fiction, and as such had an
historical author, with a name, and a date of composition.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

mountainman

Additionally, besides the fact that a fiction may be associated with
a specific historical author, while a myth is usually not, there is the
issue of the translation of the original word "fiction" as authored by
Julian.

Is someone able to advise me whether the word used by Julian
translated here as "fiction" is the same word used by Eusebius
here, and translated below as "falsehood"?


"How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)
PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel,
The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.


Thanks,


Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

I don't have the Greek for either passage at hand so what follows is just guesswork.

In other passages in Julian's works translated fiction the word is PLASMA or derivatives, and I suspect the same is true of his specifically anti-Christian writing.

The chapter heading in Eusebius seems in context to be paraphrasing the idea of the noble lie in Plato wher the word is PsEUDOS or derivatives.

Hence my guess would be that different words are involved.

Andrew Criddle

boneyard bill

Typically a myth can be regarded as a fictionalized account of a truth. The details of the myth may not be true, but it conveys a message of some truth or another. It isn't cognitively true but it may be metaphorically true. If Julian characterized Christianity as a fiction, he is placing it well below the Greek religion in veracity because the Greek religion had many myths but these myths weren't necessarily fictions in their totality but only in their details.