mountainman

These authors did not add to to our knowledge of the writings
of Julian within the treatise "Against the Galilaeans".

Incorrect. There have been discussions before in this forum
which have done such process of examination in context.
You may recall that one source in the Theodosian Codex,
not yet available on the net in an English translation.

Which would be easier to accomplish, and why?
Burning the writings of a Roman citizen, or
burning the writings of a Roman Emperor?


What evidence is the translator Wright referring to in his
introduction to Julian's "Against the Galilaeans". I have posted
this a number of times, here it is again:

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 occurred for similar reasons.

--- Wilmer Cave WRIGHT

And you believe him unreservedly, do you Jeffrey?

I am unaware that Libanius refers to "the fabrication of the Galilaeans".
Would you mind citing that source.

jgibson000

You've read them, have you?

In any case, whether they add anything or not is not the issue. The issue was the truth of your claim that the text of Against the Galileans was not cited anywhere else than, or apart from what we find, in Cyril.

I didn't ask if there had been discussions. I asked if you had checked out all the "citations" and the context of those "citations" upon which V's claims were made.

Depends who is in power and what resources they have.

But the issue isn't which was/is easier. The issue is what was actually done. In framing the issue as if it were "which is easier", you once again show yourself not only far less acquainted with the issue you pronounce upon that you'd have us believe you are, but also giving in to you noted tendency to ignore actual evidence to the contrary of your positions.



That's not evidence. It's speculation. And it's poor speculation as well, in as much as omission is not mutilation.

Why shouldn't I? Is there any reason to suspect Chrysostom of lying?

Why should I give any less credence to what Chrysostom says than you give to (what you understand to be) what Cyril says. What is your reason for believing Cyril beyond the fact that on your reading of him he confirms what you want to believe?

And why is it, expert in the area of Julian and his writings that you claim to be, that you obviously weren't aware of what Chrysostom had to say about Julian?

You are??? How can that be, given the degree of expertise you claim to have vis a vis Julian and his times and the way his writings were received.

I already did. But thanks for more evidence that, as seems so often the case with you, you never read material closely or carefully and you don't see what you don't want to see.

JG

jgibson000

What time and resources does it take to write to the head of the Cyril project? What time and resources does it take to subscribe and to post to the Classics List? You seem to have enough of both to continuously start "new" threads here and to post voluminously. How about taking some of that time and some of the resources you expend here to post to the above? After all, what you are posting here is more or less the same material over and over again.

But be that as it may, may we hope that until you have been able to devote time and resources to checking your claims against what you'll find in those resources, we might actually have some relief from you riding your hobby horse and singing your one note?

JG

mountainman

Split from another thread to here.

Thanks for your response Doug. I have moved it to this thread
which contains a history of my argument in this matter of what
we can and cannot say about the things emperor Julian did
and did not publish in this original three books.

What we have, and what you quote back to me are the
contents of Cyril's refutation of Julian, and I claim that
in order to discuss what it was that Julian actually said,
it is necessary to examine the political issues associated
with this document.

I have listed these issues out earlier in this thread.

My claim here is that Cyril was a hostile censor.
Julian's original works had to be answered.
Why? Not because of his discussions of Paul
and Jesus. Why were his works "particularly
dangerous", and "turning many away from the
church".

When you read Cyril's account at Roger's website,
you can see that the treatise against Julian is
necessary because of Emperor Julian's lies.

So Firstly ...

In context with what I have written earlier on this
issue concerning political issues relevant to the
interpretation of this text, do you think Julian
-- as a person and an author - represents the
type of author who could be described as a liar?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Let me attempt to summarise my argument:


Summary of why I am arguing that it is possible that it
was "common knowledge" at the end of the fourth century
that the "new and strange religion" of the Galilaeans
was a fiction and a fabrication of wicked men -- the
emperor Constantine, and his brilliant minister for
literature amd propaganda, Eusebius Pamphilus of
Caesarea.

That when Constantine first published the fabrication
of the Galilaeans in 331 CE, it was novel and inventive.

In my opinion, it is reasonable to suspect that Cyril is accurately
reporting Julian, but there is far more to the story, in that Cyril,
while reporting this shocking conviction of Julian's, has
failed to report the whole (shocking) story.

For example, it seems reasonable to suspect Julian had other
specific convictions, possibly about the names of the "wicked
men who composed the fiction". This possibility will easily explain
the following things:

* the treatise was causing many people to turn away from christianity
* the treatise was regarded as particularly dangerous
* the treatise had shaken many believers.
* the treatise contained un-reported invectives against Christ
* the treatise contained matter that contaminated the minds of Christians.

My claim is simply this.

Julian's three books may well have named those whom Cyril
reports Julian as calling "the wicked who composed the fiction".

That is, Julian's writings exposed the invention and implementation
of christianity under the rule of "that breaker of traditions" Constantine,
and that his conviction was published and held by many people,
since it was also the opinion of a Roman Emperor.

And that these publications (Three Books by Julian) had to
be dealt with by the same regime which eventually sponsored
Bishop Cyril to refute the lies. Notably, Cyril is heavily
implicated in the murder of Hypatia, and the desruction of
ancient heritages.

The new religion had power with effect from Nicaea, and it
wanted to perpetuate that power. It was an irrestible power
that lead to the censorship of the truth of which Julian,
a very learned man, despite being given the nickname
'Bullburner", was convinced.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Doug Shaver

I see nothing in this thread in the way of evidence for your hypothesis that Eusebius invented a pre-Nicene history of Christianity out of whole cloth.

I have no problem believing that Eusebius was influenced by political considerations.

For the same reason that some Christians feel that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have to be answered. When Christianity is attacked, Christians answer. They have never needed any more reason than that to answer anyone.

If Julian said Christianity was a fabrication, and if everything Julian said was a lie, then Christianity was not a fabrication.

I have no opinion on Julian's veracity. Everything you have written up until now convinces me of nothing whatsoever about the history of Christianity.

mountainman

My point however, from the perspective of my thesis,
is that Julian's attack on christianity was the very first
attack on christianity from a position of any real power.

Whatever Constantine created at Nicaea acquired power
during his rule to 337 and through Constantius' rule to
360. It was never opposed, other than by Arius, who
was desposed of, and his name used to apply to some
theological controversy, which confused everyone.

Only when Julian came to power was christianity called
out for what it was. A fiction of men composed by
wickedness, that had been subscribed to under the
coersion of malevolent despot, by the ruling classes,
since Nicea.

Understandably, the political environment and the
political reasons, for attack and defence are entirely
different now, than then, when, as I am claiming,
christianity was literally fabricated and implemented.


That's a pity. My opinion was that while he may have
burnt alot of bulls, he was generally even headed in an
otherwise out-of-control political situation. While this
sort of thing may not weight in the veracity stakes, the
opinion of contemporaries, particularly Ammianus
Marcellinus are IMO important indicators.

Here is an obituary to Julian, and
an obituary to Constantius.

Quite unfortunately, Ammianus' obituary to Constantine
was not preserved.

If you have not yet read Gore Vidal's JULIAN, you may
like it.

Thanks for the dialogue anyway. I am in the process
of preparing a page on Cyril's involvement with the burning
of Julian's Three Books, and his censorship of the treatise.

Perhaps I could present my argument in a clearer manner.

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

Your point begs the question. Julian's attack was by no means the first "from a position of any real power" unless your thesis is true.

mountainman

I am hardly going to argue that my thesis is false after all this
research, unless of course, someone drops some unfathomably
appropriate archeological citation that cannot be reasonably
otherwise explained.

From my perspective, Julian wrote his treatise in an attempt
to redress the abomination called christianity which Constantine
has invented a generation earlier.

His three books thus were causing a great deal of concern to
the christian political environment of the end of the fourth century.

My thesis rejects the martyrdom and persecution story of Eusebius,
and thus it is only with Julian's invectives that christianity is first
attacked after its imperial inception. All this seems to be quite
consistent with the citations in the Theodosian Codex, and other
sources of the fourth century, which tell us that the christians
persecuted the Hellenics. (See Vlasis Rassias)

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

Nobody expects you to argue against your own thesis. What is expected is that you not assume your thesis as a premise of your arguments.