aa5874

Of course there is evidence it is right there in "Against the Galileans". Julian did question the historicity of Jesus. And did assert that Jesus was NOT from Judah.

Look at it again.

"Against the Galileans" The NT claimed Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Julian is saying flatly that IT is not true.

That is the evidence.

mountainman

It is widely acknowledged that Cyril acted as a censor against Julian. It is widely acknowledged that Cyril's work against Julian was a polemical work sponsored by the christian orthodoxy to refute what they called "the lies of emperor Julian".

There thus remains a basis on either side to argue over just how much Cyril censored and altered the original three books of Julian.

There is no evidence that Julian thought Jesus was anyone other than a mere fictional character. Julian's opening address as cited by Cyril plainly states this condition.

Julian's three books were driving people away from christianity in droves during the 4th century, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Julian flatly considered Jesus to be a figment, just like Arius did. Julian after all was brought up in the bosom of Arianism.

mountainman

The details within the work of Julian "Against the Christians" is a literary reconstruction of the polemical censorship of a literary work authored by Bishop Cyril entitled "Against Julian". It is not a reconstruction of Julian, but of what Cyril writes "Against Julian". Bishop Cyril was a christian pyromaniac thug and murderer. He probably lied through his teeth.

Toto

But you've just claimed that the text is not reliable. What is it?

Arius did not consider Jesus to be a figment.

spamandham

If the work is fundamentally an unreliable record of Julian's sentiments, do you then have any good reason then to keep quoting from this work in support of your thesis?

You can't have it both ways, and I'm pretty sure I've made this point to you previously.

mountainman

The text of Cyril cannot be viewed as reliable on face value since it represents the text of a hostile witness trying to refute "the lies of Emperor Julian". However the text is amenable to political analysis.

Constantine writes (rhetorically) to Arius:

According to hypothesis do you accept
as a figment him who has condemned
the figments of the heathen?

Letter of 333 CE

From this it might be argued that Constantine reveals
that Arius accepted Jesus as a figment.

mountainman

The work is to be considered fundamentally an unreliable record of Julian's sentiments because it represents a political/polemical REFUTATION composed by the orthodox Bishop Cyril against Julian. However, this refutation by Cyril when examined has two major components. It has the opening address of Julian, and it has a host of detailed references.

My position is simply that Cyril as a censor could do what he wanted with the host of detailed references in the original work "Against the Christians" however he could not afford to censor the actual opening paragraph of the work, since it was arguably widely known and memorised as such. People will be far more inclined to remember the opening address rather than the details of the entire book.

My position is that Cyril therefore could not afford to alter, censor or change the opening address by which Julian starts his three books. And thus, what we read as Julian's opening address might be the only thing that Cyril has not censored of Julian. As you are aware, the reconstructed opening address of the three books runs as follows ....

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.

After this point, Julian then provided a legal disclaimer about his detractors (ie: the orthodox christians of the 4th century) altering or censoring his words. This disclaimer runs as follows ....

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/

Thus my argument is that the above opening address is likely to be a fair and uncensored version of Julian, but that Cyril has simply butchered out all of the following details of Julian's work all references to Constantine and Eusebius as the "wicked men" who were responsible for the "fabrication of the Christians".

We know that Cyril was very concerned about the writings of Julian. Cyril writes that he is compelled to refute "the lies of Julian"
and goes about the business in many books.

... but none as went far as Julian,
who damaged the prestige of the Empire
by refusing to recognize Christ,
dispenser of royalty and power.

he composed three books against the holy gospels
and against the very pure Christian religion,
he used them to shake many spirits
and to cause them uncommon wrongs.

--- Bishop Cyril about Julian

Cyril states that "Julian refused to recognise Christ". I take this to mean that Cyril is complaining loudly and bitterly that Julian refused to accept the historical Jesus as an authentic figure.

aa5874

BUT, the evidence is right there. Julian stated..." HE
(JESUS) IS NOT FROM JUDAH". If Julian did believe Jesus was a man from Judah then he would HAVE said , HE IS FROM JUDAH.

Julian clearly stated where Jesus was from in the very first line of his book.

JESUS WAS FROM FICTION.

"Against the Galileans"
But, again the words of Julian is right in front of you. "HE IS NOT FROM JUDAH. HE IS FROM FICTION.

"Against the Galileans" Now tell me where was your Mary from? I hope it is not Judah.

spamandham

Under this hypothesis then, the only thing that we can say is that Julian thought the gospel story was a work of fiction. ...which really isn't surprising. Christians are the only ones who believe Jesus actually walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. Everyone else views these stories in the same way you propose Julian did. But yet, Jesus is almost universally accepted to have been a historical person even by non-Christains.

How do you conclude from this that Julian thought Jesus was fictional rather than simply fictionalized?

I wouldn't take it to mean that. I would take it to mean that Julian did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.

Toto

There is no historical or linguistic basis for your interpretation.

The idea of a "historical" Jesus is a modern concept that would have been virtually meaningless at that time.