mountainman

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ns_0_intro.htm
In the introduction to AGAINST THE GALILAEANS the translator Wilmer
Cave WRIGHT says in opening:

"Julian, like Epictetus, always calls the Christians Galilaeans"

I have found one and one only reference to the "galilaeans" in the texts
of Epictetus online here:
http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Discourses4.html

The reference in the above text appears at CHAPTER VII, entitled
"On freedom from fear", here is the relevant section:

This reference to "Galilaeans" here appears to me to have nothing at all
to do with christians. From another source, the following information:

On the basis of the above alternate version of the term "Galilaeans"
it would seem reasonable to make the claim that the text of Epictetus
makes no reference to the Galilaeans (meaning christians) whatsoever.

If this is the case, then the translator Wright, is not accurate in his
opening claim Epictetus always calls the christians Galilaeans.

Are there any other sources of Epictetus that mention either Galilaeans
or anything christian? Is the source quoted above, in which an alternate
meaning to the term Galilaeans is defined, in error? Are there any
other reasons Wilmer Wright might make this claim?

Thanks for any insights.



Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

A/ Galilean is used by other pagan writers such as Julian to refer to Christians (In the case of Julian there seems no doubt whatever that by Galileans he means Christians)

B/ The Galileans in Epictetus seem to be people who are prepared (albeit in an unenlightened way) to despise death for the sake of their principles. A link with Christians dying rather than perform pagan worship suggests itself.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

None at all as far as I am concerned.

It may suggest itself however I would very much like to know
whether such a suggestion is unwarranted on the basis that
the term "Galilaeans" in the time of Epictetus had an entirely
different choice of meaning, than it did in the time, and context
that Julian uses it.

In Epictetus, it occurs once only and with apparent happhazard
reference within a section entitled "On freedom from fear." which
commences with the rhetoric "What makes the tyrant formidable?"

In the earlier days of Epictetus, the term "Galilaeans" as far as I
can determine also referred to the "lawless inhabitants of Galilee"
as distinct from the fishermen etc, of the gospels. It seems to
be sort of like a frontier territory without any law, to which ppl
would travel if they were being severely oppressed by the law,
and the tyranny of the times, which fits the chapter description.

The argument is that this meaning best fits the writings of Epictetus
and therefore Epictetus has no information to tell us about the
tribe of christians, despite Wilmer Cave WRIGHT's assertion to
the contrary.



Pete Brown

yummyfur

But doesn't Julian use the term Galilean as a perjorative, one that he knows the Christians will hate? I find it somewhat similar to how some Christians will call other Christians, Pharisees, to put them down.

Since Hegesippus says the Galileans are a Jewish sect that are against Christians, and this would seem to be an appropriate name for the fourth sect of Judaism, that Jospehus talks about, which are the followers of Judas of Galilee. Wouldn't it be more likely a term for this group, who probably were despised by the whole Roman world, because of both the Jewish revolt and sectarian violence around the Roman world? and since they were both novel Jewish sects, it would be an apropriate way to diss Christians, by comparing them to this historically despised group?

Also the precepts of the sect of Judas of Galilee, as described by Josephus, fits well with Epictetus's usage. They are willing to die for even trifling affronts to their liberty and religion.

mountainman

So you seem to agree that the term "Galilaeans" referenced only once
in the literature of Epictetus does not in fact refer at all to "the tribe
of christians", but rather the (lawless) inhabitants of Galilee.

Is this correct?


Pete Brown

Vorkosigan

Perhaps Epictetus has read Josephus, and been impressed with the account of Galileans, or perhaps it is a reference to Masada.

Vorkosigan

yummyfur

Kind of, I think it refers more to a sect, than neccasarily any person from Galilee. So similar to the word Samaritan, technically this could be any one who lives in the region of Samaria, but also any of the sect of the Samaritans, who may or may not actually live in this region, and many who live in the region of Samaria, are not Samaritans.

The sect would be the offshoot of Judas the Galiliean, and would be somewhat synonymous with the Zealots.

The key qoute from Jospephus on the sect of Judas the Galilean, that distinctly links up with Epictetus usage.

"They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain."

Also, I don't think Epictetus would have needed to read Jospehus, as Jospehus says, they are well known to many. The bloody Jewish revolt swept up not only Palestine, but any region with a large Jewish population, so it's effects were felt throughout the Roman world. Since Epictetus was a slave to an important freedman of Nero's, I'm sure he had considerable information on the Judean revolt. Also it's possible this term was used by Justus of Tiberias as well, though we don't have his works.

Astreja

This is a very interesting thread, which raised a rather odd question in my mind. (Apologies for the derail)

With Judas of Galilee and his followers causing trouble for the Romans, is it possible that the Gospels originated with a Roman sympathizer or a splinter faction of Judas's movement? In other words, could a historical Jesus have originally been a follower of Judas rather than the other way around?

Vorkosigan

Hahaha. You are not the only one with that suspicion. Lots of people have wondered if there was a connection. Jay Raskin has a good study of the alternative:

Raskin's Piece

Vorkosigan

Astreja

Vorkosigan, am I reading Raskin correctly? He theorizes that "Jesus" was actually Simon?