mountainman

What was Emperor Julian's prime motive
for writing Against the Galilaeans?

Has anyone create a scoreboard for the historical comments
of BC&H writers on the assessment of the motivation behind
this literary work? Or is this issue squared away somewhere,
with an authoritative opinion? If so, what is it?




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Gamera

Given Julian's religious extremism, his nostalgia, and his hatred of Christianity and Christians, his motivation is obvious and hardly scholarly.

However, the burden is on you. You use the text as an historical source. Accordingly, you need to establish its bona fides, not me.

dongiovanni1976x

Would you then accord Eusebius into this same category Gamera?

mountainman

The scholastic merit of Julian has somehow passed you by.
Although he made the claim himself, it is generally not really
disputed that he was the youngest and most educated of the
whole historical line of Roman emperors to have ascended to
the purple.

This should immediately give reign to a bridle on the usual arguments
related to extremism and hatred, arguments which have been for
some reason a perenial methodology of christian literature.

In fact, considering the epoch in which Julian reigned, and the
list of historical citations concerning his actions while in power
for those very short years, most historians from the little that
I have reviewed, portray Julian's character as non-extreme,
considering the precedents for extreme actions historically
atested to by Roman emperors. Tolerance of christians,
tolerance towards trhe people responsible for the brutal
masacre of his parents and relatives ... Julian lives up to that
saying that you are so fond of highlighting in other threads Gam.
Namely: "Love your enemies". He lived less that 31 years.


From my perspective, Julian's prime motivation for writing was
related to the historical conditions that he was witnessing during
his brief life. He was a young and extremely well educated man.
He could have been doing anything he pleased, being the supreme
emperor, yet he chose to write, in that very short time, a number
of literary works, AtG being just one.

Consequently, I find your view of Julian totally distorted with respect
to the historical data. Julian's invective against the Galilaeans, with
explicit reference, at the head of his submission, commences with
the point that he is convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness..

This is not some unknown sponsored foul-mouthed scribal monk
trying to calumniate (via literature) all that was at that time held
dear to the Hellenic traditions, it is an expedient testimony to the
history of the times, by perhaps the most educated and scholarly
Roman emperor who ever ruled.

Students of life, and students of history, would do well to study
Julian's surviving works, and retrace back all the references to
the Pythagorean traditions (such as Iamblicus) which Cyril of
Alexandria so kindly refuted for posterity, in that very wonderful
and trade marked christian tradition of literary calumny.

Have a wonderful day.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

EthnAlln

In connection with Julian, a few weeks ago I started a thread on a recent book by Steven F. Sage, titled Ibsen and Hitler, which argues that Hitler was obsessed by the plays of Ibsen, especially the two-part Emperor and Galilean, which, ironically, Ibsen wrote part of while he was living in Berchtesgaden (location of Hitler's "Alderhorst"), and which ends with the words "The Third Empire [Reich] will come!" Sage shows that Ibsen cheated on the historical research. His play presents Julian as the reincarnation of Christ, come to destroy the Pauline usurpation of Christianity. That is the message that resonated with Hitler.

countjulian

Why would Hitler want that? Without Paul, Christianity, the Empire, whatever, would be a lot more Jewish. Paul was the ultimate gentile.

Gamera

Sure. But the topic is Julian.

Gamera

So a man who claims that his enemies are filled with wickedness is a scholar and interested in scholarly elicidations of the truth.

Let me posit the following: if you claim that wickedness is the prime argument against your opponent, you are an extremist by definition with an agenda that it irrational and suspect.

Tell me, honestly, do you think that a man who had his family decimated by Constantine, a purported Christian, might have just a twinge of prejudice against Christianity. I mean, just a soupcon, that might cloud his views?

Let us know. I find it fascinating that you really think Julian was a rational character guiding by reason and dispassion, given his history and his proclamations about the wickedness of Christians. Amazing.

EthnAlln

So I would have thought, and so would most people. Julian attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, to restore the Jewish heritage. The attempt was a disaster, and the rumor spread that Julian had been attempting to undo God's curse on the Jews.

Hitler turned the story on its head. Julian launched a war against the Persians after destroying Christian churches. He would launch a war against the Communists (both marched East---a significant connection) after destroying Jewish Temples (Kristallnacht). The parallels are extremely intriguing, and I recommend the book heartily, though I'm not ready to endorse its thesis, at least not yet.

For example, Julian's cousin/wife Helena died in Rome and was buried in "Vienne" (a place in France, but easily confused with Vienna). She was widely believed to have been murdered. Only then did Julian seek political power. Hitler's niece/consort Geli (Angelika) Raubal died in Munich and was buried (at Hitler's insistence and for no discernible reason) in Vienna. She was almost certainly murdered by an agent of Hitler himself.

Julian concluded a nonagression pact with Persia, and then soon broke it and invaded Persia. (You can see the parallel). Julian, instead of proceeding directly to Ctesiphon, the Persian capital, veered off to the north. Hitler ordered his army to proceed to the north of Moscow, against all the adivce of his generals, and no one can explain why he did this. Sage points out that Hitler cited Ibsen's plays and admired Julian. He wonders if Hitler, with his superstitious belief in destiny, was acting out what he believed to be genuine prophecy. He may have thought himself the reincarnation of Julian, determined not to make the mistake of befriending the Jews this time.

mountainman

Why do you try and turn the historical considerations on their head?
Read what I wrote. Here is a paraphrase:

A man who is indisputably a very learned scholar, who is thereby
interested in scholarly elucidations of a number of truths, has
made the claim that the fabrication of the new (and strange)
testament is a "fiction of men composed by wickedness".

Note that Julian's claim is very specific. The wickedness
was used in the composition of the fiction.

Read the above carefully, and then have another go at positing.
It might help to read some independent accounts of Julian by a
selection of historians.

You have not yet made a response to the assertion that Julian
was in fact living the precept "Love thine enemies". Is it totally
inconceivable for you to consider a self-confessed non-christian
could hold such a philosophical view?

Fascination is a precursor to realisation given research.
I suggest you keep at the exercise of identifying shades
of grey amidst the black and white.

And best wishes,



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au