spamandham

...I suppose I am now, but what seems to be missing from this exchange, and none of the sources you've presented thus far show, is the original references upon which all this is based. Conclusions from historians are nice and all, but not sufficient IMHO. Ancient history is simply not clear cut enough to draw firm conclusions.

mountainman

What do you think of the fourth century firm conclusion
of Emperor Julian, from 'Against the Galilaeans'?

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.

spin

You don't respond by changing the topic and expect to get reasonable treatment. We were dealing with your attempted use of Momigliano's statement:

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious. The victory was a miracle though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine.

You attempted to make something out of Momigliano's use of "miracle" in this statement and I have been responding on that subject, to the effect that Momigliano doesn't support your notion of christianity popping into existence at the bidding of Constantine, but existed prior to 312, and that the miracle he was talking about was the one perceived by those pre-Constantinian christians.


spin

spin

Julian of course assumes the existence of both Paul and Jesus, demeaning them for aiming low in their proselytic efforts. He thought that they had little hope of getting anyone important involved.


spin

spamandham

I'd say that's solid evidence that Emperor Julian believed the Galilaeans invented a story. It's also clear he didn't have much positive to say about Eusebius, but the Emperor clearly thought Christianity was an ancient tradition (from the translation you linked):

"But that not only the Galilaeans of our day but also those of the earliest time, those who were the first to receive the teaching from Paul, were men of this sort, is evident from the testimony of Paul himself in a letter addressed to them. For unless he actually knew that they had committed all these disgraceful acts, he was not, I think, so impudent as to write to those men themselves concerning their conduct"

It seems clear that Emperor Julian believes Christianity is much older than his own time, and he is also accusing Eusebius of making shit up. So, this does support part of your premise, in that Eusebius made up a bunch of crap, but it doesn't support the entire premise, as it suggests that Christianity of some form preceded the 4th century by a significant amount of time.

mountainman

One needs to understand how the text we now read as Julian's has
arrived. In his introduction to the English translation of the
work referecned above, Wilmer Cave WRIGHT informs us:

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 [of the emperor Julian] occurred for similar reasons.

The text we read has been reconcontructed from a censored refutation.
The original books were burned -- perhaps they may one day surface.
The censorship of the work is vital to our understanding of Julian.

We cannot assume the text at face value as Cyril would have us do.
There can be none of this "of course Julian assumes this", or
"Julian assumes that" ....

We must look to the opening of the treatise to understand
what Julian may have been trying to say. The treatise was
evidently called "Against the Galilaeans". The opening of
the treatise has the following structure:

1) Opening statement of conviction.
2) Legal disclaimer.
3) Opening of more detailed treatments.

1) Opening statement of conviction.

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.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth

2) Legal disclaimer.

Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.

3) Opening of more detailed treatments.

It is worth while to recall in a few words
whence and how we first arrived at a conception of God;
next to compare what is said about the divine among
the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of
those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to
the sect of the Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief
of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the
reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs
but have abandoned them also and followed a way of
their own................. etc

This should be reasonably clear.

It is necessary to perceive also that Julian was perhaps
one of, if not the greatest of acadmic minds of his time.
He is not to be seen simply as an orator for his conviction,
but as the worlds greatest barrister of the time.

He plainly states his conviction - that the fabrication
(ie: the New Testament) is a fiction. He then presents
his legal disclaimer. He then launches into the detail.

Now, I'd like you to consider the modus operandi incumbent
upon a barrister in the presentation of his case, when that
case is the prosecution for fraudulent misrepresentation
contained in a recent publication --- a fiction book.

He will state his conviction - that the book is fiction.
After that point, because he is actually in a court of law,
everyone in that courtroom knows he is talking about a fiction,
with fictitious characters, fictitious events, etc, etc.

When a barrister, after summing up the charge, commences
to talk about the characters in the fiction book, the judge
and the jury and everyone in the courtroom (except spin)
understands that the barrister is talking about fictitious
characters in the fiction book.

Julian may talk about Paul and Jesus, but that does not mean
that he thinks they are in any sense historical, because in
his summary charge, at the head of his arraignment, he has
revealed to the court-room the conviction that he thinks
the fabrication in which they are referenced, is a fiction.


Additionally, in another work, Julian makes reference at
the same time to Constantine and Jesus. See Julian's
Kronia, linked off the above mentioned page.

spin

We have already looked at the treatise. You are abusing it just as you abuse Momigliano.

Julian wrote:

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.

What exactly is the fabrication of the Galileans -- and I don't just mean what you want it to mean --, can you demonstrate what the fabrication of the Galileans is? If so, what is it and explain how you know.

You cannot assume your conclusion. Do the work. Demonstrate that the new testament is the fiction that Julian is talking about.

Where?

That doesn't touch the surface of Julian's complaint against Jesus and Paul in their low aim for proselytes. He disparages them for appealing to the losers of the empire. He certainly doesn't treat them as though they are fictional or that he is carrying out some legal fiction in dealing with them.


spin

spamandham

That being the case, the text seems to carry very little weight at all in establishing whether or not Christianity was a fourth century invention. It doesn't seem valid to argue that the parts that support the idea of a fourth century invention are authentic, while the parts that don't support that are not - at least in general.