mountainman

I am happy to not refer to Constantine again in this thread.

I'd like you to read what I responded to Toto.

My issue is with the opening address of Julian, which IMO
Cyril was obliged to faithfully preserve, because the original
works were at that time probably extant.

Is there a pathway of discussion in which we forget Constantine
for the moment, and concentrate on whether Julian was in a
position, or was in the habit of, publishing "lies" to the effect
that the NT was a fiction composed by (un-named) wicked men.

Do you think that one of Julian or Cyril was a liar?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

GakuseiDon

I did, and I agree with Toto.
Not (un-named) wicked men, but Galileans. But Julian is clearly talking about those Galileans contemporary to Paul, not to Constantine. See the quotes I gave earlier.

Neither has to be. I'm a historicist, Toto is a mythicist. Which one of us is lying, in your opinion? Hindus believe in Krishna, Christians in Christ. Which group is lying? I can't believe that you don't understand this point. So why try to make it seem that one of them has to be a liar?

mountainman

Julian writes "the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness".

You appear to making the assumption (as I an historicist I presume)
that the Galilaeans wrote the fiction, but I'd like to point out that
this is not the only possibility. The wicked men were those who
created the fabrication, and this fabrication is related somehow
to a line-up of various Galilaeans.

That is, the galilaeans and the wicked men are not necessarily
the same party.

My argument stresses the importance of the opening paragraph
of Julian's Three Books. I have provided reasons for thinking
that this opening paragraph is in fact the writing of Julian.

As for the rest of Julian's "reconstruction from Cyril", as an
historicist, are you prepared to think Cyril is factual of Julian,
or do you think there are political issues at stake?

Are you prepared to entertain any notion whatsoever of
censorship, in the role of Cyril, in his refutation of Julian,
by which -- because Julians works were burnt -- we are
to somehow ascertain Julian's integrity.

This thread concerns an estimation of Julian's integrity
and -- because it is unavoidable -- Cyril's integrity.

Is it possible to discuss this?



Well Cyril ---- by whome we must know Julian ---- plainly
states that his monumental work was necessary in order
to firmly neutralise the enormous impact of Julian's lies.

Or are you about to argue that Cyril did not
accuse Julian of writings lies?


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

J-D

Julian said:

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.

My emphasis.

He said he thought it was expedient to do that. I'm sure he did think it was expedient to do that. So, no, he wasn't lying.

mountainman

Thanks J-D.

Do you think then that Cyril was lying when
he accuses Emperor Julian of "writing lies",
or do you think this may be misinterpretting Cyril?

See the source documents:

1) Cyril of Alexandria, Preface

However who is it that has entered into war against the glory of Christ? They are legion, those who at various periods have let themselves go at this foolishnes, driven by the perversity of the devil; but none as went far as Julian, who damaged the prestige of the Empire by refusing to recognize Christ, dispenser of royalty and power.

2) Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian. Book 2 (beginning)

It is now necessary to come to (Julian's) own book. We will reproduce his text word for word, and will oppose our own arguments to his lies in the appropriate order, because we realize that it is necessary to firmly neutralize them. But, as I said, from his open mouth without reserve he spreads every kind of calumny against our common Saviour Christ, and pours against him ill-sounding remarks.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

J-D

I would guess that Cyril most probably did believe that Julian was lying, and hence was making an accusation he believed to be true, and hence was not himself lying. But I would not rely heavily on that guess. It is possible that Cyril was lying.

Gamera

He was telling the truth that he thought the Galileans fabricated a story.

What point does that prove? A lot of people thought Christianity had fabricated a story (which by the way is good evidence that Christians did not think it was a fiction)

One of the most common criticisms of another religion is that the religion fabricated a story.

mountainman

In the way you have interpretted Julian, I think that it proves
that you (and Toto --- see my response to Toto) are making
an assumption that "the Galilaeans" and the "men who composed
the fiction out of wickedness" are one in the same party.

But is this assumption warranted?
Is there one party, or two parties involved?
I believe this needs to be settle first, if indeed
it is possible to do so.


It seems to me that "the fabrication of the Galilaeans" simply
identifies the subject matter of the fabrication, whereas the
next words "is a fiction of men composed by wickedness"
identifies the conviction that some other men composed it.

If you think Julian was telling the truth that he thought the
Galileans fabricated a story, what do you think he means
when he refers to the authorship of wicked men? DO you mean
to impy that he thought the Galilaeans were the authors of
the fiction?


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

Thanks J-D. I can appreciate this as a viable option
or rather a range of viable options.

J-D

I still don't see where any of this gets you. Suppose Julian truly believed what he said. So what?