mikem

Were any of Aristotle's works written by him? My understanding is that they were student lecture notes. If this is the case there would be nothing remarkable about the absence of any reference to Alexander.

ynquirer

Do you mean to imply that Aristotle didn’t even mention Alexander in his lectures on Politics, which were later published as a well-known book? He mentions a number of statesmen, such as Philolaus, Zaleucus, Charondas, Phileas, Cosmi, Lycurgus, Cleisthenes, one king Charillus, several tyrants, most of whom we only know because Aristotle mentioned them - but not just one mention of Alexander?

And we do know that the book was written after Alexander became king, for a mention in chapter 5 of the assassination of king Philip of Macedonia - Alexander’s father - by Pausanias, a slave.

Toto

Aristotle on PoliticsI can see a number of possible reasons why Aristotle might not have mentioned Alexander - ALexander was a controversial current ruler, not a historical figure.

Chris Weimer

For some reason, this reminds me of reading Paul through Acts...how odd...

ynquirer

Madame Bovary is fiction, but Adam and Eve are not. Perhaps they are mythical entities, yet not “fiction.” It is of course true that a fiction may produce a myth. Such was the case of Aeneas, who was believed to be a true figure, or so it seems, by Geoffrey of Monmouth. A myth may also inspire a great deal of fiction, as many instances can show. My own opinion is that there is always something true beneath every myth - but not necessarily beneath every fiction.

The theory of Julian about the origin of Christianity seeks to explain a myth through mere fiction, and in a very short time - a few decades, only. That’s difficult for me to swallow.

“… but because he wished a restoration of paganism.” This is the quotation in full. Do you want to conceal the fact that he wished to restore paganism?

I don’t know as much of Apollonius of Tyana as to have a firm opinion on that myth. Unless someone convince me otherwise, though, it looks like it started from a fiction engineered in the second century so as to counterweigh the growing influence of Christianity among the constituencies of paganism. The mythical Apollonius echoes the historical Jesus.

Just gut-feeling, as you say.

hallq

The first reference to Apollonius comes from an Epicurean writer who seems to have viewed him as a charlatan. This fact, in my mind, pretty well secures his historicity. However, I would he's the best example of someone whose existence is about as open to challenge as Jesus (who I do think existed).

mountainman

The theory sees Julian seeking to explain the origin of christianity
as a fiction and a monstrous tale invented by wicked men, whom
the theory names as Constantine and Eusebius.

The word "myth" is avoided by this theory, because the
word "fiction" (involving its fraudulent misrepresentation
as a true and accurate account of history) is far more
appropriate in this context.


No, we all know that he wished to restore the ancient traditions
which he charges Constantine as having trashed. This is not the
issue.

The issue is that we have Julian c.362 CE writing quite conscientiously
that he is convinced that the new testament is a fiction. Practically all
historians, and absolutely all ecclesiastical historiographers claim (to
make a rough summary) that Julian is known for his invectives against
christ, christianity, the church and Constantine.

It troubles me that this charge of New Testament fiction by Julian
is being dismissed as part of the general invective. This is the issue.
Your post seemed to suggest that Julian was not making
(or was for some reason incapable) of making a rational
historical comment, in the fourth century, when he wrote:

the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction
of men composed by wickedness

mountainman

Here is a page on Apollonius of Tyana

A comparison between the assessment of the historicity of Jesus
and that of Apollonius has been conducted in this thread

Both figures were purportedly born in 4 BCE.
Apollonius' citations for a postive rating of historicity
exceed Jesus', based on criteria used by Richard Carrier.

ynquirer

Should Julian have drawn his critique of Christianity from rational analysis of historical facts, he would have turned from Christian into a sort of skeptic, not into a die-hard defender of paganism. He first turned pagan, then he fancied the great Constantine-Eusebius conspiracy. That seems likelier to me.

spin

Atheism wasn't a visible choice in those days. There's a lot of philosophy gone under the bridge since Julian's time that makes skepticism a more likely philosophical position. I think you're retrojecting. Julian is defending old values, just as Origen's Celsus did. The best I've seen is Lucian of Samosata, but that just may be that he never showed his cards.



spin