mountainman

Is there any reason to suspect that the text of Julian has been heavily edited and politically censored by the centralised imperial state heresiological organisation? Yes, there is. From your source:


(1) The text has been recovered from Cyril's "Against Julian". The author of the text we have before us is therefore not Julian but Cyril.

(2) We have excellent reason to suspect that Cyril censored Julian for the glory and posterity of the chuch.

(3) Cyril could not censor the title of the book "Against the Galilaeans". Likewise Cyril could not censor the opening paragraph of any book. I claim that this was so because orators in the ancient world freely memorised many academic treatises, and people would quickly understand that Cyril had altered the opening paragraph had he done so.

(4) Read the translators introduction.

On the basis of all the above there is a possible reason to claim that Julian charged that Christianity was a fiction of men composed in wickedness, and to reject the above paragraph. There is. Julian may well have been Politically CENSORED. After the opening paragraph we are just as likely to be reading what the CENSOR wants us to believe Julian may have written, rather than what Julian actually wrote.

If we had before us the text of Julian, our differences of opinion might be settled, but we dont have this evidence. Therefore we cannot make any conclusive arguments until such a time. My arguments as stated are hypothetical.




Are you serious? Why does everyone expect the NT to have any intelligent design and not just a plain and simple rat cunning design?

Constantine was not into quality control systems. Book burning and executions worked just fine for any opposition. Dont you understand this? He may have thought that if four eyewitness reports were acceptable in a Roman Law Court, then they would serve him so long as he was not cross questioned. As far as I know Constantine was never cross questioned, except by his mother.



After the execution of his family members by the Christians,
Julian was raised UNDER HOUSE ARREST by the Christians.
Any conclusion that Julian was Christian is rather nieve.




Of course I have read everything available.



YES, but not in this text. See Julian's satire of Constantine and Jesus Christ.

Do you want me to cite the relevant portion of text again?

LegionOnomaMoi

Interestingly enough, the Nag Hammadi find provided a convenient field test for this. All we knew of gnosticism was basically from quotations taken from the "heresiological" texts you refer to. So, for example, Hans Jonas' initial work on the so-called gnostics was written entirely without the knowledge or use of the now plentiful texts we have written by "gnostics". However, in later editions of Gnosis und spätantiker Geist Jonas was able to provide additional material which took into account the finds from Nag Hammadi. So what does he say of our old material compared with the new? "das patristische Zeugnis ist reich und wird mit jeder Prüfung durch neu gefundene Originaltexte...aufs neue bestätigt" ("the Patristic sources are rich and with every test by newly found originals...are validated").

In other words, although our knowledge of gnosticism has greatly increased thanks to the Nag Hammadi finds, one reason it has is because while previously it was widely believed that the sources we had were too corrupted by bias to trust much or at all, we can now compare them with actual gnostic texts. And as it turns out, while the commentary on the texts by the anti-gnostic crowd was certainly biased, their quotations and the presentation of the material they were "refuting" was suprisingly accurate.

So despite the fact that Irenaeus and others were utterly biased, they nonetheless perserved rather well the original thought and arguments of those groups now usually referred to as falling under the "umbrella" of gnosticism.

This does not mean we can accept uncritically what our sources say about their "enemies", but we now do have the ability to compare a large portion of testimonies from such sources with the actual writings of those they were refuting (just as with Julian, Celsus, etc.) and determine the a priori probability that their quotations and presentation is pretty accurate, however biased the commentary.



If this were true, why quote him at all? I mean, at the time you are referring to we have a largely Christian empire, supported by emperors, and capable of destroying anti-christian texts (indeed, they did). It's not as if we are dealing with a highly literate population capable of easily copying and disseminating material. Everything is copied by hand, and must be paid for, while copies of "contraband" material were found and burned (the Nag Hammadi texts were likely buried to preserve for later, only they were never recovered by those who buried them).

He need not quote it at all.

If they did, what makes you think they stopped with the intro? Why would they memorize the intro? And these people who did, for whom Cyril accurately preserved certain portions, were suddenly incapable of checking their copies against his quotations? Or (having memorized the text) of easily spotting blatant alterations?

By a censor who happened to preserve extensive portions of his text, rather than simply offer refutations? In other words, so inept a censor that rather than succeeding as one, he in effect enabled the continual transmission and preservation of the author he was censoring?


We do have this in other cases.



So why the countless texts written to refute others? I mean, book burning and executions work so well, why the extended effort refute those like Julian?



There's a relevant portion?

mountainman

While the comparison is interesting and convenient chronologically, there are major exceptions. Where Julian was a known and well educated Roman Emperor and Pontifex Maximus, the NHC were authored and edited by unknown reclusive monks possibly associated with Pachomius.



What guarantee do we have that the source such as "Irenaeus" for example was not simply assembled in the 4th century conflict between the orthodox heresiologists and the so-called gnostic heretics? Yes I know, the guarantee of the 4th century book burning organisation that operated under the name of the christians or chrestians.



Celsus was not a Roman Emperor and could have also been fabricated for the posterity of the canonical heresiologists vs gnostic (even Platonic) heretic argument.


The specific instance being discussed is the Bishop Cyril of Alexandria's anathemetizing treatment of Emperor Julian's treatise. Cyril was an expert in anathemas, murder, arson, terrorism, etc. Emperor Julian was censored by this Cyril.





The book was causing major headaches for the church. It was turning business away in droves. Something had to be done to refute THE LIES of the Academic Emperor. Cyril refuted these lies. Emperor Julian could not have written that the New Testament and Jesus were fictions of wicked men. Documentation was produced to that effect in "Against Julian".

Of course the final arbitur would be a manuscript of the original text by Julian.

What that text might reveal IMHO could be disasterous for the integrity of the Nicaean Christian Party.







The claim is that the censor in the this case may have been censoring Julian's written conviction that the new testament and jesus were fabricated fictions. The inept censor appears to have succeeded so far.



In the case of Julian his letters have the signs of being mutilated.



The Emperor Julian's opinion and convictions were well supported by all those who had suffered under the rule of Constantine and his sons. See Ammianus for the details of executions and auto-da-fé.


From Julian's satire:

LegionOnomaMoi

I'm not schizophrenic? I mean, as long as we are discussing the impossible, why not just accept the christian interpretation of the NT?

No, more the impossibility that the entirety of our evidence for centuries of diverse, evolving, and interacting set of traditions prior to the 4th century was created out of thin air in the most sophisticated conspiracy ever dreamt of.


Why were there heretics? The entirety of the NT and (apparently) all references to it and all other previous christian authors is suddenly created or altered in the 4th century, and christianity begins via Imperial decree. So why are there heretics? The emperor had the power to create an entire religion, texts and all, wipe from the histories alternate records, alter the histories to reflect a developing christianity, and yet he somehow couldn't prevent various competing traditions from rapidly developing?

So aptly that the only evidence which remains Julian wrote it at all is...the censor's work.


So, a few years before, this church is capable of being created out of thin air: the NT was composed and innumerable texts were altered to create a fictitious history of a christianity which began some 300 years ago. Then, shortly later, a single emperor manages to write a few texts which cause "major headaches". After he is no longer, somehow the purging fires of the church, so capable of altering history so completely a few decades ago, are now inadequate. They can't "censor" Julian's work. They need a guy like Cyril to actually write a refutation. Nevermind the fact that almost no one can read, and thus Julian's work can't be directly accessed by most of the public. His work has spread so widely so quickly that the same church capable of writing christianity into history and erasing/altering the past 300 years of history is now relegated to writing and disseminating a refutation of Julian which ends up being the only way his main work against the christians survives. They couldn't simply burn it or alter it directly, or prevent it from being spread. Nope. Instead they had to end up being the only way we know about the text and any piece of it at all by publishing a refutation and spreading it around.

A few decades before, they well over a dozen generations of religious tradition out of thin air. Any documents which were problematic were altered or burnt, and nobody ever got away with saying anything about christianity being created by constantine. Now, shortly later, an emperor composes a text. After he does, all of the sudden people who have bought wholesale the idea that christianity is some several century old tradition realize that it was created by constantine. Across the lands, millions of people who were told directly or whose fathers were told that christianity was their religion, it had been around for centuries, and was started by Jesus of Nazareth (for details, please refer to our convenient collection of gospels, complete with epistles, which were composed in the first century, not a few days ago by Emperor Constantine and his consortium of evil geniuses), all of the sudden realize that they were lied to. Christianity (which they had never heard of) actually as invented! What had everybody been believing the past 20 or so years!?? A complete fiction created by Constantine, not the tradition they were told it was in the leaflets accompanying their complimentary editions of Constantine's bible!! What is the church to do? Quickly, the devise a scheme whereby they will allow people to know about the text, and in fact ensure that they will, but cleverly do so only by recording pieces of it, carefully crafted, in a refutation, which ensures that no one will realize Julian actually revealed that Constantine made up christianity.

Now, the packets go house to house again, just as they did when Constantine first decided "hey, I feel like white-washing centuries of history and creating a religious tradition", and all of a sudden everybody is reading Cyril and all memory of Julian is erase. A moment ago, he was a major problem for the church, as everybody realized what was really going on. Now, all of a sudden, these same people have forgotten that they were told all of christian history was invented by a relative of Julius, and instead accept Cyril's version. The mass dissemination of Julian's work, including the many who had memorized the intro, meant nothing after a few chosen misquotations from Cyril. THAT sure silenced 'em.

If it weren't for the inept censors, nobody would know Julian's work existed, let alone what it contained.



Just not well enough for anybody to realize that Cyril had misquoted him.

mountainman

There were people who disagreed that the Official True Story of Canonical Jesus was a True Story.

These people were regarded as heretics. Besides these people there were people who were at that time of Nicaea followers of Apollo or Zeus or Asclepius or Hercules or Isis or Diana or Plato or Homer or even Buddha or Mani. All these cults immediately became cults of heretics.

McJesus had arrived.



Some people prefered to read Plato and not the NT.

These naughty heretics.




The Arian controversy got away from the early Christian emperors. They had no control over the reaction of the empire to the Most Seriously Gravitas Roman engineered and utterly humorless Bible.

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

The work is mentioned by others, although no text survives. The translator states:



Who was going to argue with the Bishop Cyril at the height of his power? The refutation of Julian's LIES was dedicated the Theodosius II

Solo

By convincing oneself the fake has been ordained by God.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

I suppose one might convince oneself that the above is worth reading.

mountainman

Yes, religious experiences are notorious inspirations for fabrications and pious forgeries. The historian Grant quipped - for example - that "Constantine managed to convince himself he'd had a religious experience."

mountainman

Nicaea popularises the importance of Constantine's "Bible" 325 CE.
Julian writes "Against the Christians" c.361 CE.
Cyril refutes the "lies of Julian" c.440 CE


Julian c.363 CE suddenly and unexpectedly was no longer alive.

The Christians, whom Julian had legally called "Galilaeans", fought back and regained the places of power in the cities of the Roman Empire. See Damasius's triumphant military victory in the streets of Rome for the office of being "Bishop".

By 381 CE the emperor Theodosius decrees on behalf of the 318 Nicaean Fathers.



Others wrote refutations which were not preserved.

Cyril's is preserved.


Copies might be obtained by any number of people who could read and who could afford the copying costs. Julian was an emperor after all, and he did have a great deal of support from the pagan demographic.


The forgery mill organisation of the early 4th century is a century and many generations removed from the forgery mill organisation to which Cyril despotically belonged. But business and power was business and power. The ruling church organisation established in the early 4th century under the auspices of the 318 Nicaean Fathers PERPETUATED ITSELF, with imperial support.


The political context under the rule of Julian c.363 CE differed from the context before 360 CE, and after he died. They could not burn the book while Julian was alive. The book burning and bad reviews of the book commenced when Julian died.

As the Christians resumed "Christian Church Business As Usual", the existence of the book was a thorn in their side. Obviously they tried to search out and destroy the book, as they did for the Gnostic gospels and books of the heretics under Constantine and Constantius II.

By publishing an official version of what was wrong with the "lies of the Emperor Julian", the despotic church hoped to sway people back to the fold of BELIEF.




What evidentiary sources are extant for the period 325-337 CE?



Whatever they we told by the 318 Nicaean Fathers.
What does the Nicaean Creed actually attest to?



My claim is that the Arians (followers of the words of Arius - see the Nicaean Creed) already knew that Constantine published fiction. My claim is that rule of Constantine was Neronian.

Neverthess an organisation was spawned at Nicaea that became the centralised monotheistic heresiological cult of christians. And it perpetuated itself by very favorable business opportunities (which included imperial sponsorship and tax exemption) generation after generation, and through the three year hiccup of Emperor Julian.




Everyone knew about Julian's three books against the "plain and simple religion of the Christians". Everyone knew that for a few years the Christians were legally renamed to Galilaeans. It was a most embarrassing epoch.

But people die and memory fades. Who controls the past controls the present and the future, and so the heresiological forgery mill organisation known as the orthodox state church, controlled the preservation of literature. They suppressed the "lies of Julian". Then they "refuted the lies of Julian" because the books of Julian were damaging the integrity and respectability of the Official True Canonical Story about Bilbo Jesus Baggins.

sotto voce

Nah. He just shoved a spear up the backside of whoever said he didn't.

Piously.