J-D

Ah ... yes ... I suppose so. The relevance of this to Sheshbazzar's discourtesy escapes me.

J-D

Well, that's precisely my point. It would be 'expedient' for you to set forth the reasons by which you were convinced, and it is your consistent failure to do so on which I base my conclusions.

Jeffrey Gibson

It would also be necessary for Pete to demonstrate with actual evidence, and not baseless and wholly uninformed assertions, that his question begging, unsupported, and unsupportable assumption that what Julian meant by τῶν Γαλιλαίων ἡ σκευωρία was the NT canon has any validity, let alone any support from experts on Julian, and especially from R. Joseph Hoffmann to whom, if memory serves, he has appealed when making his claim.

BTW, is Pete now admitting that here Γαλιλαίων means members of the religion that according to him {Pete} Constantine founded as well, as he'd presumably have to, Constantine himself?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Readers,

If we were to travel back to the brief epoch c.360-363 we would not find one legal "christian" because Julian had legislated that they be referred to as Galilaeans. What a slap in the face for the three hundred and eighteen fathers of Nicaea! What temples remained undestroyed, were again legally opened (briefly). So since we know what he thought of Christians the next question is what he thought about Arius of Alexandria, and the Arian controversy. Does anyone know ?

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto

Google books - History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell (on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk)) p. 313:

Jeffrey Gibson

Maybe I missed it. But have you actually documented this claim anywhere with citations from primary sources? If so, could you reproduce them again, please?

If you haven't so documented this so far, will you please do so now? Where is the record of the legislation you speak of to be found?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

My previously supplied documentation for this claim is as follows. The very first thing that Julian did when he got to the new city of Constantine was to reverse the edicts of Constantine on temple prohibition.

In regard to the claim for Julian's legislating that "christians" be legally named by the name of "galilaeans" this is found in Nazanzien Oration 3.

Best wishes,


Pete

gentleexit

He saw them and their ilk as he saw the Jews. As instruments to ferment trouble in the Church. He let "errant" bishops back to their cities. Julian was so into Theurgy that he had little time for the minutiae of Church disputes.

As for "what temples remained destroyed", the implication being Constantine did the destroying or his sons (which I think you lump together right?), Julian's experience at revival is instructive.

Take his time at Antioch. Christianity dominated there. The populace treated him with derision. Egypt was similar. He wailed about ingrates who ignored the customs of their ancestors. These complaints don't go on about an organized church stopping worship. He complains about the general populace. However these places changed, by his time, after 10 plus years of Constantine as a Christian, and twenty of his son's, they were well and truly lost to tradition.

Russell's too general. After Constantine, Constans in the west was Orthodox. It was a bone of contention with his brother Constantius, who wavered. Constans may (and this is speculation) have built St Peters as an orthodox counter to Constantius' Hagia Sophia.

As for "dared". There was little daring needed vis-a-vis the Church until later in the century. In general, those labeled "Arian" (like Constantius) fudged from frustration. They failed to see what the fuss was about and thought a sort of lowest common denominator ethos should be fine.

After Julian you have a series of "easy going" emperors, soldiers, content to fight. They treat non Christians well. They don't enforce orthodoxy. Then comes the grand bigot Ambrose, whispering poison in a child's ear.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Thanks for that reference. But what really was "the Arian opinion"?

And was the Arian controversy an "internal dispute" of the christians? This is what the christian continuators of Eusebius are trying to tell us but why should we believe them instantaneously without a question or two? For a start (setting my thesis aside) the Arian controversy as a turbulent social, political and religious mxiture of turbulence and as such I cannot consider it to be "internal" to the disputes of the christians. Perhaps in Russell's time the distinction between the "insiders" and the "outsiders" as made by Momigliano did not clearly exist -- in his time the HJ was very secure, and everyone were "insiders". That the Arian controversy is now only understood with reference to the christian ecclesiastical histories as a "theological controversy" does not mean to say that it cannot be understood in more general socio-political terms. For example, does anything in the Nag Hammadi codices tell us anything about what Arianism really was?

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

How does this fulfill my request that you cite (i.e., quote) the actual text of this legislation?

Do you have this text available or not? Have you actually read Julian's epistles 46 and 32 and Nazanzien Oration 3? Can you tell me exactly what these texts say or not?

Jeffrey