mountainman

It appears you are politically impaired spin.
If you have nothing constructive to say
and are incapable of objective discussion
then perhaps you should stay off the thread.

You are quite aware that I am providing a background
argument to the six political issues that are relevant
to the analysis, and as a foundation for the full
argument.

I will bring all this information together in a later
post, and outline the reasons by which I am
convinced that we are entitled to view Julian's
main argument as "the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness."

Until then, try and behave yourself.

spin

You have failed to get past go. If this doesn't sink in, then it's only a poor reflection on your willingness to cling to vain hope.

You probably should have done that at the beginning and it might have been vaguely convincing. Now you are just covering your hind-quarters, because you were caught with your boxers at half-mast.

As you seem unable to say exactly what this clause actually means, because you cannot distinguish what Julian wrote from what Cyril did, you can't understand what Julian's main argument is.

Here I see you sitting in a horseless cart wondering why it doesn't move. YOu need the horse there, mountainman. You need the horse. You can crack your whip as much as you like, but it ain't gonna move. And just trying to get a better whip won't help.

It's dead, mountainman, dead. Perhaps you can't see the corner you're in, but you've been touting Julian for so long and so loud, yet now you have to admit you can't even say what Julian actually said, though you presciently know that Cyril unaccountably left the stuff about fabrications and fictions in, yet inserted the stuff you don't like. Subjectivity is the key element in your theory.

spin

jgibson000

Look. Either Cyril accurately reported the words of Julian vis a vis "fabrication" and "fiction" or he didn't.

Knowing why he did whatever he did, while perhaps interesting, nevertheless has no bearing whatsoever on what the truth of the matter is with respect to this point.

So .. I ask again, and would appreciate it if you actually answered and did not continue to dodge answering the following:

When Cyril quotes Julian as having said "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" did Cyril quote Julian accurately or not?


JG

Clivedurdle

There is nothing stopping it then being a 350 year old fiction!

The picture of Constantine - mafia thug - also seems wrong. I'm sure he was Arian, if he cared! He definitely liked his Mithraic rituals, he is reported as being uncertain about this xianity on his death bed. Maybe he had some canny Bishops around - like Eusebius, and let them get on with stuff, not being clear about the implications - Empires are very complex to run and stuff happened that wasn't heard about until weeks later that had huge side effects.

Maybe it's all the Huns fault!

mountainman

Cyril was a sponsored censor of the written words of Julian.
Nothing survives of Julian except the words preserved by his
self-admitted censor Cyril. Considering the citations provided
by Vlasis Rassias, we can reasonably surmise that the writings
of Julian were edicted for destruction.

So why was it politically expedient that Cyril was sponsored to
write a censored refutation of the written words of Julian? Why
was it considered necessary by the same regime to physically
mutilate also the transmission of the physical letters of the
emperor Julian?

Part of the answer to this question is found to be answered by
the words of Cyril, who admits certain historical facts: Item 6.

* the treatise was causing many people to turn away from christianity
* the treatise was regarded as particularly dangerous
* the treatise had shaken many believers.
* the treatise contained un-reported invectives against Christ
* the treatise contained matter that contaminated the minds of Christians.

The treatise was censored in order to overcome these problems.
It had to be watered down and "harmonised" to be acceptable
to Cyril's sponsors, in the fifth century. It had to omit things.

Yet the writings of an emperor could not easily be censored, as
could for example, the writings of a citizen of the empire. The
words of an emperor, despite the rise of a new state religion,
were of a higher level of authority and provenance.



In my opinion, it is reasonable to suspect that Cyril is accurately
reporting Julian, but there is far more to the story, in that Cyril,
while reporting this shocking conviction of Julian's, has
failed to report the whole (shocking) story.

For example, it seems reasonable to suspect Julian had other
specific convictions, possibly about the names of the "wicked
men who composed the fiction". This possibility will easily explain
the following things:

* the treatise was causing many people to turn away from christianity
* the treatise was regarded as particularly dangerous
* the treatise had shaken many believers.
* the treatise contained un-reported invectives against Christ
* the treatise contained matter that contaminated the minds of Christians.

I am going to stop here in this analysis and allow the above to sink in,
and to allow comments in regard to the reasonableness of these above
assertions. Perhaps spin will stop quoting himself and admit that
political issues are critical to the analysis of the surviving text.

Perhaps others in this forum, who have followed the presentation
of my arguments on this specific issue to this point, will make an
independent comment.

mountainman

We have two carbon dating citations of "christian literature"
ostensibly from the fourth century. These prevent the
earlier theorists whom I quoted from being correct.

Supreme imperial mt dictator; military supremacist;
brigand; ward irresponsible for his own actions;
murderer of family and of pagan priests - men of peace;
perceivable in modern academic eyes as "an eminent
christian theologian" and certainly regarded as "prolific
christian 'converter/proselytiser'"; basilica builder and
destroyer of ancient traditions.

You may be sure he was Arian.
But are you sure that you know what
this actually means? Research the meaning
of Arius and you will find a paradox.

He was also human, and had to relate to -- wait for it -- his soldiers.

Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

a political propagandist [1],
a good courtier [2],
the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
a political theologian, [7]
a political metaphysician [8], and
a caesaropapist. [9]

[1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
[2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
[3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
[4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
[5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
[6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
[7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
[8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
[9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593




Maybe it's all the Huns fault![/QUOTE]

jgibson000

Where on earth do you get this idea that he was a censor, let alone a sponsored one? Evidence please

Excuse me? Nothing? Have you ever looked at Masaracchia's Giuliano Imperator to see what has survived?

And if you mean nothing of Against the Galileans except what Cyril reproduces, I suggest you have a look at Theodore of Mopsuetsia, Philip of Side, Alexander of Hierapolis, and John Chrysostom.

On Theodore, see A. Guida, FRAMMENTI INEDITI DEL ‘CONTRA I GALILE!’ DI GIULIANO E DELLA REPLICA DI TEODORO DI MOPSUESTLA, Prometheus 9, 1983, 139-63 and S. A. Guida, Teodoro di Mopsuestia, Replica a Giuliano Imperatore. Adversus criminationes in Christianos luliani linperatoris. In appendice Testimonianze sulla polemica antigiulianea in afire opere di Teodoro, con nuovi frammenti del <<Contro i Galilei* di Giuliano, , Biblioteca Patristica, Florence 1994. On Alexander and Philip, see C. I. Neumann, luliani Imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt, Leipzig 1880.

And where specifically does Cyril "admit" that he "censored", let alone inaccurately quoted, Julian?

Considering the citations provided
by Vlasis Rassias,

None of which you have examined in the original or in context, I imagine. Am I correct?

I'm not interested in surmises. I am interested in evidence.

And the evidence from Chrysostom (De Babylo contra Juilanum et gentiles 11, 26-30) and Libanius, Oration 18.178, as well as the note by John Granger Cook in his The Interpretation of the New Testament in Graeco-Roman Paganism (or via: amazon.co.uk) that "The Contra Galilaeos of Julian did not provoke the extreme response (burning) that Porphyry’s Contra Christianos did" (p.284), not only stands squarely against your "reasonable surmise", but shows that it is not only not "reasonable, but that it, along with all your nonsense posted here, is scandalously under researched and woefully ignorant of both the primary and the most important secondary literature on Julian.

Why it was, if it was (and you have by no means demonstrated that it was), has nothing to do with the question of whether the quotation of Julian in question is accurate or not. So you persist in your dodgings.

What is your evidence that Julian's epistles were intentionally mutilated, let alone that anyone thought that it necessary to do so? Is this what Neuman and Masaracchia says? And while you are gathering that evidence, perhaps you can explain why it was that Cyril's work against Julian is mutilated?

OK. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether what is not omitted is quoted accurately. Is it or isn't it?


And was the "problem" really as great as you make it out to be? Chrysostom certainly doesn't think so. He tells us that no or wise or unwise person nor even a small child was or would be persuaded by Juilan's work (De Babylo).


OK. So what are the "fabrications" that Julian is intent show as "fictions"? What does Libanius, who notes that Julian showed himself wiser than Porphyry was taking up the same issues that Porphyry was intent to deal with, say these "fabrications were?

Do you know?

And if Cyril has not quoted Julian accurately -- what then becomes of your appeal to "Juilan's" statement about "fabrications" and "fictions" as primary evidence that the NT is a fourth century product?

JG

jgibson000

I think that if you are really seeking objective opinion on, and informed critical responses to, your claims and your thesis, you will not only do as you previously said you would (but have not yet done) and subscribe to the Classics List and post your claims/thesis there; you will also take note of the following project on Cyrill and Julian and contact as soon as possible its leader, Prof. Dr. Ch. Riedweg at riedweg@klphs.uzh.ch (see some of his publications below), and its other contributors (addresses below) to ask for their responses to your claims.

I also think that hell is more likely to freeze over before you do either of these things. But we live in hope.

JG

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian: Critical edition of books 1-10

The aim of this interdisciplinary project, carried out in collaboration with colleagues from Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, is to produce the first really critical edition of the remaining ten books of the (originally at least double-sized) work by Cyril of Alexandria "Against Julian", composed in the first half of the 5th century AD. In this work, the archbishop of Alexandria tries to refute the severe accusations which the Emperor Julian brought forward against the Christians more than 60 years earlier in a polemical treatise entitled "Against the Galileans".

Cyril's refutation is not only a highly interesting document of the controversies between paganism and Christianity and of the intellectual atmosphere in late antiquity quite in general. It is also a very important source for works otherwise lost, amongst them Julian's anti-Christian pamphlet and treatises by Porphyrius and other philosophers.

Weitere Informationen unter http://kyrill.ev-theol.uni-bonn.de

Project Leadership and Contacts / Projektleitung und Kontakte

Prof. Dr. Ch. Riedweg riedweg@klphs.uzh.ch
Dr. Ruth E. Harder ruth.harder@klphs.uzh.ch
Nicola Dümmler nicola.duemmler@klphs.uzh.ch

****

• Ch. Riedweg, Spätantike und Moderne. Beobachtungen zum 3. und 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Neue Zürcher Zeitung 199 (29./30. August 1998) 69f.
  
• Ch. Riedweg, Mit Stoa und Platon gegen die Christen: Philosophische Argumentationsstrukturen in Julians Contra Galilaeos, in: M. Erler – Th. Fuhrer (eds.), Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike (Philosophie der Antike 9), Stuttgart 1999, 55-81
  
• Ch. Riedweg, With Stoicism and Platonism against the Christians: Structures of Philosophical Argumentation in Julian's Contra Galilaeos, Hermathena 166 (1999) 63-91 (english version of the previous article).
  
• Ch. Riedweg, in collaborazione con Christian Oesterheld, Scritto e controscritto: per una nuova edizione di Cirillo Alessandrino Contra Iulianum, in: C. Prato – V. Ugenti (eds.), Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi "Giuliano Imperatore. Le sue idee, i suoi amici, i suoi avversari" (Lecce, 10-12 Dicembre 1998) = Rudiae (Ricerche sul mondo classico) 10 (1998 [published 2000]) 415–433.
  
• Ch. Riedweg, Zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung der Apologie Kyrills von Alexandrien "Contra Iulianum", Museum Helveticum 57 (2000) 151-165.
  
• Towards a better understanding of Cyril of Alexandria's Against Julian. Case studies in textual criticism I, in: P. Van Deun (Hg.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixtyfifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 137), Leuven 2004, 515–521.
  
• Cf. also: Ch. Riedweg, Artikel "Iustinus Martyr II (pseudo-justin. Schriften)", Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 19, Stuttgart 2001, 848-873.
  
• Ch. Riedweg, "Welche Bedeutung hat die Patristik für 'meine Philologie'?" (Beitrag zur Podiumsdiskussion der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft am 4.1.2001 in Eisenach), in: Ch. Markschies/J. von Oort (Hg.), Zwischen Altertumswissenschaft und Theologie. Zur Relevanz der Patristik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 6), Leuven 2002, 188–193.
  
• Original title / Originaltitel Kyrill von Alexandrien, Gegen Julian: Kritische Edition der erhaltenen Bücher 1-10 Seite 1 Project 498 Patristik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 6), Leuven 2002, 188–193.
  
• Mythos mit geheimem Sinn oder reine Blasphemie? Julian über die mosaische Erzählung vom Sündenfall (Contra Galilaeos fr. 17,10–12 Masaracchia), in: A. Kolde/A. Lukinovich/A.-L. Rey (Hgg.), κορυφα νδρ . Mélanges offerts �* André Hurst (Recherches et rencontres 22), Genève 2005, 367–375.

Roger Pearse

Cyril's Contra Julianum is of interest to me also, so I am interested in some of what follows. Jeffrey's points are mine also, of course.

I'm not sure about 'censor' - a loaded word if ever there was one! But it is true that Cyril only quotes parts of Julian's work, as we see in book 2:

Whether that supports the accusation, I am not sure. It is in any case curious for someone to accuse a writer of misrepresenting a source when they need to use that writer as evidence for their case!

This is interesting. I learn a little about this from the Sources Chretiennes edition.

Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 20 (13th century) contains a catena. This has long extracts from a lost commentary on Luke by Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which he quotes from Julian Contra Galilaeos and responds to them. Guida's article publishes these.

I can see that you are scanning these references from somewhere -- can I ask where? And do you have access to them?

Philip of Side's Ecclesiastical History is lost, tho, apart from some fragments, none relevant. Socrates Scholasticus (HE VII.27) tells us that he also wrote a refutation of Julian, which has not reached us. Philip was John Chrysostom's syncellus.

Likewise the work of Alexander of Hierapolis is known to us only because it is listed in Ebedjesu's list of Syriac books. This suggests that it still existed in Syriac in the 13th century; the collapse of Syriac culture following the devastation caused by the mongol invasions means that it is one that didn't make it down to us.

The medieval Greeks did not spend time destroying Julian's works; they admired the atticism of his style and copied it, even going so far as to compose literary imitations of his letters (see the Loeb edition for examples).

I am looking forward to the Riedwig etc edition. Apparently they have Syriac fragments to offer. The PG contains fragments of books 11-20 from John Damascene.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Indeed Mr Gibson, we live in the hope of objective research.
Thanks for your references and comments, which I will gladly
endeavour to take on board when time and resources permit.

Thanks too Roger, from whose recently published website we
are now able to read a rendition of Cyril:

If one were to read the above in an objective fashion,
as the translator Wright would have probably done, at
one point then one would be entitled to say, as Wright
as done:

It was written in three Books [circa 362 CE.], but the fragments preserved are almost entirely from Book I. In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many believers. He undertook to refute it in a polemic of which about half survives, and from the quotations of Julian in Cyril's work Neumann has skilfully reconstructed considerable portions of the treatise. Cyril had rearranged Julian's hurriedly written polemic, in order to avoid repetitions and to bring similar subjects together. Moreover, he says that he omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. We have seen that a similar mutilation of the letters occurred for similar reasons.
--- Wilmer Cave WRIGHT