Ben C Smith

Hi, Pete.

On another thread I mentioned that I agreed with your Eusebian fiction postulate about 0%, and you responded with a request for open dialogue.

As I do not wish to address each and every one of my objections to your view (to do so would take decades ), let me just take issue with what appears to be the root of your theory, that introductory statement by the emperor Julian in Against the Galileans:

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.

You appear to read this as his way of saying that the entire history of the Galileans (that is, the Christians) was fabricated, and you go on to hypothesize that it was Eusebius, at the behest of Constantine, who arranged this massive fabrication, that indeed there was no such thing as a Christian until Constantine created the sect.

But is that even close to what Julian meant? Did not Julian himself later write (at least according to W. C. Wright; I have not investigated Cyril of Alexandria for myself) the following?

Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement.

Since Julian was writing in the middle of century IV, a little more than 300 years would bring us back to early century I. Is Julian not agreeing, then, that Jesus was a real human being, not a fiction, who lived in century I?

He also references the apostle Paul several times, as if Paul, far from being a fiction created by Eusebius, were a real person writing after Jesus but in the earliest days of Christianity.

It appears to me that Julian knew Christianity had been around for at least three centuries. How does it appear to you?

Ben.

mountainman

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the dialogue in respect of the 0% agreement.
Certainly, if anything, this shows commitment to discussion.

My response to your line of thinking above is as follows:

Let's examine the opening section of the text:
I have split each sentence in the opening statements.
Here is a summary:

Sentences 1) and 2) state Julian's case against the Galilaeans.

Sentences 3) and 4) invokes the court of law formalities of getting
a full hearing for Julian's list of "first dogmas", etc and the statement
of case prior to opposition censure, etc

Sentences 5) and 6) commence on a summary outline of how
Julian is going to state his case before he does, what information
he is going to use, and the historical conceptions of god, etc.

Consequently, our argument is that Julian's singular conviction and
reason for writing against the new testament is stated right up the
front of the address in the first 2 sentences. We are then reminded
about civil law, the process of the courts, etc in the next 2 sentences
and finally branch out into a summary of the censure to follow.

The material which you use to demonstrate the possibility that Julian
knew Christianity had been around for at least three centuries is all
contained in the later detailed sections where he is examining the
details of the fiction, fable or monstrous tale.

As with a lawyer or barrister presenting a case is a court of law, if
they are dealing with statements and beliefs of their opponents, they
have to say such things in order to refute them. In the same sense,
I am convinced that Julian's prime reason for writing is stated at the
header of his address, and all else is details and presentation of the
formality of the censure.


To conclude, as I mentioned before, we only have a refutation of Cyril
on one of Julians three books, so we dont have everything that Julian
said, and further we know that Cyril of Alexander purposefully suppressed
material from his calumny of Julian that would corrupt the minds of
christians.

Therefore to summarise my position, although it may appear to you that
Julian knew Christianity had been around for at least three centuries, it
is not at all absolutely clear to me that he did, seeing as though he
presents a strong case of fiction against christianity in his opening
sentences.

The evidence presented that Julian believes in christianity is derived
from the detailed examination by Julian of the lore of this fiction, which
he has to say in words (as a barrister in court of law to the jury) in
his treatise in order to present the beliefs of the opponent. The barrister
does not have to believe the substance of these. Similarly, Julian in the
later stages of this treatise mentions Jesus, and 300 years, but he does
not have to believe the substance of this.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

This pasage from Julian Seems to mean that Julian regarded the Christian writings as originally composed for a minor sect and only much later coopted for the Constantinian state church.

Andrew Criddle