mountainman

For anyone really interested in the reading of the treatise
by Julian, ROman Emperor c.360-362 CE, nick-named
"Bullburner" on account of his extensive sacrifies, you
should firstly be made aware that his original three books
are no longer extant. The christian regime of the fourth
and fifth centuries did a good job or burning them, and
the task would have been more or less completed in the
intervening years.

Miraculously, and I use this word in the realistic and
positive sense, archeological finds and information yet
to be recognised may turn up fragments of this original
three book work by the Emperor Julian.

Now, having said that the original work was destroyed,
what then is the treatise Against the Galilaeans?

It is a reconstruction of a refutation of these three books.
The bishop Cyril wrote the refutation in the fifth century.
The reconstruction was done, from Cyril, in the 19th century.
We are not looking at Julian's words.
We are looking at their hostile censorship by Cyril.



Roger Pearse, instead of congratulating you, should really
have given you the above advise, and then referred you
to his website, to the page Against JULIAN.

Anyone who does not think that Cyril is a political censor
of the words of the Emperor Julian, please raise your hand
and explain the reasons for your logical assessment.


Pete Brown

mountainman

Feel free to write an expose at any time.

mountainman

I am very sorry but I do not buy that explanation.

I am not looking at this from the perspective of a
biblical historian. but an ancient historian. If there
is a simple and reasonable political explanation for
the same historical events, then I consider it quite
reasonable to accept and consider such.

I am not twisting the words of Arius at all.

I am merely pointingt out that the words of Arius can also
be interpretted from the position that Arius was the only
opponent to Constantine's military supremacy, and that
the only opponent to a new ROman religion, that the warlord
was bringing from the west (Rome 312-324).



Again, I disagree. Arius' words can be interpretted as
historical comments on the new god Jesus, who was
being heavily, let me repeat, VERY HEAVILY promoted
by the supreme imperial mafia thug.

It is a matter of ancient history, and scientific and
archeological evidence. And for christ's sake, will
you please drop this conspiracy theory business.

Absolute power does not need conspiracy.
Dont you understand this simple political fact?


“And remember,
where you have a concentration
of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with
the mentality of gangsters get control.

History has proven that.
All power corrupts;
absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

--- Acton

ClassicsFiend

Guess you shouldn't be listing "the words of Julian" in your "data set" repeatedly then. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Sure it's excerpted from Cyril but it's a totally normal scholarly practice to refer to that bit of text as "Against the Galileans" and generally to reconstruct historical documents by compiling quotes from them found in other documents. You also didn't have a problem with arguing with "Arius' words," even though we have his words from other historians who quoted him.

I don't see how spouting a bunch of easy-to-look-up facts will bolster you at this point, especially because those facts are both irrelevant and involve shooting yourself in the foot.

J-D

By all means.

Here we have two hypotheses.

1. Christianity did not exist before Constantine.
2. Christianity did exist before Constantine.

A balanced methodology would gather available data and look at whether, taking all the data together, they fit better with hypothesis 1 or with hypothesis 2.

But you, because of your own bias, adopt a biassed methodology instead.

When the discussion turns to hypothesis 1, you insist that the methodological onus is to produce evidence that falsifies it. All you undertake to do is to show how any bit of evidence might possibly fit with hypothesis 1. You make no attempt to produce any evidence that positively supports hypothesis 1 as against hypothesis 2, by showing not merely that it can possibly fit with hypothesis 1 but also that it fits with hypothesis 1 better than with hypothesis 2.

When the discussion turns to hypothesis 2, however, you apply a biassed double standard and insist that the methodological onus is to produce evidence that positively supports it. All you undertake to do is to show how any bit of evidence that fits with hypothesis 2 might also possibly fit with hypothesis 1.

ClassicsFiend

An ancient historian makes it his business to understand the world he is studying, and if the Bible is part of that world, then he should work to understand it. This is especially true for you because you are discussing Christians and Biblical texts. It is absolutely shameful that you're attempting to discuss this stuff and simultaneously claming you don't need to know about it. Your solution is not "simple and reasonable," nor will you make it so by saying "I don't accept that" or continually taking quotes out of context. I put the quotes in context to show that you were interpreting them incorrectly. For example, Arius might say the Son didn't always exist, but he also makes it very clear down the line that the world was created through -- and therefore after -- the son. This would definitely shoot down your argument and put Arius's argument on a cosmic level. Any amount of reading about christological conflicts should make this abundantly clear unless you've only read work by a crackpot or two.

Seriously, go read more and then come back. In fact, I suggest you read Peter Brown (ironic eh?). He's a Princeton professor and probably the most readable scholar of Late Antiquity ever. He would do you a world of good.

mountainman

Well is it my job to do everyone's homework?

So you magnanimously assert without explanatory support.
When you provide reasons for your assertions, leave the
shotgun at home. Thanks.


Pete Brown

ClassicsFiend

No, but you should certainly have done yours. On both this thread and on your one about carbon dating you showed remarkable lack of research. You didn't know where the Gospel of Thomas with the binding you cited was located (i.e. probably in the Nag Hammadi codex), for example. And in this case I would say it's clear you haven't read all of your Arius or Julian -- just the opening lines. Or maybe you just didn't pay attention, which seems to be your m.o.

If you type "Against the Galileans" in a google search, those links to tertullian.org -- one of which mentions before you even enter the site that the work is quoted from Cyril -- pop up. It's not that hard. Also, I explained why it was irrelevant -- it's what we have to work with, and "Against the Galileans" is the common term for the document. I believe you prefer to call it "Fabrication of the Galileans," but you refer to it as Julian's words and by that title nonetheless. I just don't see why you felt a need to pick a fight on that issue at all.

mountainman

What you have termed Hypothesis Number One is new
on the scene and has not been academically assessed.
FWIW, I have not read many theses arguing it.

What you have termed Hypothesis 2 is the ruling paradigm
and is essentially unquestioned. Pick up any academic text
in the field of ancient history, and you will find them quoting
Eusebius for the details of things in the prenice epoch.

Moreover, what you call hypothesis one, I have on a number
of occassions during discussions in this forum, perhaps even
my initial posts, and elsewhere, called an implication of
a separately articulated hypothesis.

Let me say this again slowly.

My initial postulate or hypothesis is this:
that Eusebius wrote and tendered fiction.

I have outlined this in my Introductory Sketch.

There are several implications of this postulate with
respect to the consideration of evidence from the
field of ancient history. These implications are:

First Implication of Historical Fiction = Alternative

The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Second Implication of Historical Fiction = Conjoins

The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Third Implication of Historical Fiction = Precedent date

The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Fourth Implication of Historical Fiction = Turbulent controversy

The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Fifth Implication of Historical Fiction = party with power

The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.


I am defending Hypothesis Number One because noone before
has seen fit to give it a run for its money, and because it seems
to me to represent an interesting research project in the field
of ancient history.

My stance is scientific. The theory can be shown wrong.
But it may also predict that "christian evidence" is demarked
in the archeological record with a very sharp delineated
boundary with respect to chronology, and correspondent
with the rise of Constantine.

The theory may also be able to predict a number of other
issues which before have been problematic and not well
explained until a new perspective has been afforded.

These are:

1) The Arian controversy.
2) The Treatise of Julian "Against the Non Pagans".
3) The censorship of Cyril of Julian's treatise.
4) The role of the neopythagorean lineage of philosophers and
their corresponding religious figures, associated in some way
with the "Pontifex Maximus" role in the Roman empire at that time.
5) The place and the calumny of Apollonius of Tyana, published
author of the first century, sage and historical figure, who was
targetted by Eusebius, via a Hierocles "profile" in the 4th century,
at the sponsorship of Constantine, Hellenic-Hater.
6) The adamant stance of the Jews that they posses no
records of the new ROman god, first bound in completeness,
with his Hebrew and New Contexts contiguous, in the
Constantine Bible 331 CE, the same year Arius, according
to Sir Isaac Newton's research, was poisoned in a bog-house
in Constantinople. Arius --- constantine's sole opponent.
Puppet on a string perhaps?

7) The list is endless, as our common antiquity IMHO
is yet to be perceived in a new light and paradigm.

mountainman

With respect to the field of ancient history we have the
fact that Constantine was the very first person to have
gathered together the books of the Hebrew texts, and
the books of the NT texts, and bound them together
in his Constantine Bible of 331 CE.

We know the Hebrew texts were around as early as 250 BCE
translated at that time from the Hebrew to the Greek.

What we dont know in a very specific non-handwaving
fashion is whether the NT texts were around for the
length of time claimed by the literature generated by
Eusebius, with respect to the history of the church.

When did the Bible become part of the world?
Yes, a good question for research indeed. The
answer however may turn out to be the 4th century,
and not a decade earlier.

Why accept christological explanations when simple
and plain political explanations will clearly suffice
for the evidence that is available to us?


He makes some good points on the history of "christian art".
Have you ever read them? I have.