mountainman

Re: Julian the Apostate (Paperback)
by G. W. Bowersock (Author)

the following review was found here on Amazon.
Julian the Apostate (or via: amazon.co.uk)

There are certain historical figures that are nearly impossible to get to know in anything approaching an objective sense. Something about them compels us to a judgement. Julian the Apostate is one of those rare figures who forces us to react emotionally - no matter how objective we think we are. And our reaction often says more about who WE are, than about the object of our judgement.

Flavius Julianus was the last pagan Emperor of Rome. He briefly attempted to reverse the ongoing Christianization of the Roman Empire begun by his detested uncle, the Emperor Constantine. He failed miserably and died young, but his attempt to reverse the cultural tides of his day will always fascinate any who encounter Julian and his century.

Glen Bowersock's book is a classic example of 20th Century historical revisionism. The historical consensus concerning Julian since the time of Gibbon and Voltaire has been cautiously admiring on the whole. Bowersock seeks to reverse that consensus by reinterpeting the abundant historical evidence. In doing so his dislike of Julian is displayed on nearly every page. I can't go into detail here, but there are numerous instances in which the author achieves a "new" interpretation by placing the very worst construction on the evidence. In nearly every case he favors whatever presents Julian in the least favorable light. Nowhere is this more evident than in Bowersock's account of Julian's "usurpation" of the title of Augustus in 361. He strains every nerve to prove the mutiny of the soldiers was engineered by Julian and his friends and that they lied about it later, all against formidable evidence to the contrary.

That being said, this is an interesting book. The author does a good job introducing the historical context, and his scholarly account of the facts of Julian's life is lively. Read the darn thing, but do yourself a favor and read the best account ever written of Julian's reign, that contained in the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus. It is available in translation as a Penguin paperback. Ammianus served in Julian's army and was a balanced witness of the Apostate's good and bad qualities. Julian was a complex man. He was a soldier, emperor, scholar, orator, philosopher, even a political prisoner for some years, and a deeply religious pagan. He was also credulous, didactic, a fanatic, an egomaniac, and a public nuisance upon occasion. In the end however, our very best witness, Ammianus, admired Julian greatly. I must confess, so do I.

I was interested in the bolded assertion above, namely that
"The historical consensus concerning Julian since the time of
Gibbon and Voltaire has been cautiously admiring on the whole".

It appears that some members of this forum are not
cautiously admiring of Julian, who being under house-arrest
during his childhood, could hardly be regarded as "apostate".


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
AUTHORS of ANTIQUITY
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

Roger Pearse

The material quoted is commented on at some length at Tectonics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Gamera: Even if rational minded and fair minded people believed that a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, they would not be able to will themselves to accept him. Christians have somehow been able to abandon their principles and morals, but rational minded and fair minded people are not able to do that. Christians would not be able to love any God who endorsed practices that they object to. That is my position as well. It is incredible that Christians do not object to a God who frequently kills babies and innocent animals, has allowed millions of people to starve to death, and has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without hearing the Gospel message. May I ask why you have made it a priority to spread the Gospel message when God has not made it a priority for himself?

What is God’s top priority? Consider the following Scriptures:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Based upon those Scriptures, rational minded and fair minded people would conclude that God's top priority is doing everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. If that is not God's top priority, it most certainly ought to be. The best evidence indicates that that is not God's top priority.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Matthew 14:14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

Johnny: It is interesting to note that Acts 14:3 refers to events that took place AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church. Now readers, why do Christians suppose that after all of the preceding evidence, INCLUDING the presence of the Holy Sprit, that God felt the need to provide even more tangible confirmations, only to leave us with precious few tangible confirmations today, including no surviving eyewitnesses?

It is said that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. This truth obviously do not apply to people who become Christians. There is no doubt whatsoever that ANY powerful being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the word would immediately attract a lot of followers, especially if his message was deemed to be acceptable, such as 1) promising salvation by merit, 2) not requiring faith, 3) providing tangible evidence of his existence, power, and goodness for everyone to see, thereby eliminating most doubt, and most religious wars, and 4) being available to have frequent discussions with everyone, tangibly and in person. If such a being started a new religion, it would quickly become the largest religion in history, and yet some Christians claim that it would be counterproductive for God to do anything more than he has already done. How utterly absurd.

Christians would be quite pleased if God healed all of the sick people in the world, but yet, they are quite content that God refuses to heal all of the sick people in the world. Do Christians actually have any opinions of their own? Apparently not.

God HAS NOT done everything that he can do in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, and he IS willing that some people will perish or he would have done much more than he has done to prevent it. No rational minded and fair minded person can will himself to accept such a God.

At http://www.goatstar.org/atrocities-c...manded-by-god/, readers will find an article that is titled ‘Bible atrocities’. The article provides numerous examples of the detestable character of the God of the Bible. Following are some excerpts:

God threatens people with having to eat their children’s flesh

Sons of Levi are blessed for randomly slaughtering cow worshippers

God kills all the Egyptian babies for Pharaoh’s stubbornness

God kills the meat eaters

God allows people to sacrifice their babies to him to teach them a lesson

God kills a man for not impregnating his sister-in-law

God allows babies to be dashed and pregnant women to be ripped open

God threatens to have wild animals carry away the Israelite’s children

God tells people to kill their loved ones if they worship other gods

Bible says beat your child with a rod

Bible says beating and wounding people is good for them

God rewards Jacob for deceiving his dying father

Johnny: That is just for openers. The article has a lot more evidence of the God of the Bible’s detestable character. Of course, Christians will claim that whatever God does is good no matter what he does, even though God frequently hypocritically breaks his own rules.

Consider the following from an article at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleatrocities.html:

The second defense is that levitical law is obsolete and no longer valid today. But that argument is off-point: the presence of ‘any’ atrocity or unfairness in the Bible, ‘at any time in history’, invalidates it as a source of eternal truth and morality.

The third defense is that humans do not have a right to kill or commit atrocities, but God does. However, this is not a defense, but a capitulation. The atrocities and immoralities listed here should be even ‘less’ expected of a fair and perfect God.

Johnny: The Bible tells people not to sin, but God has forced everyone to sin at least some of the time by causing a sinful nature to be transmitted to every newborn baby. Exodus 20:5 says “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Now is that fair? Well of course it isn’t.

Could God do anything more than he has done in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell? It is my position that he could. There is little doubt that ANY supposedly supernatural being who healed all of the sick people in the word would immediately attract a lot of followers, especially if his message was deemed to be acceptable, such as 1) promising salvation by merit, 2) not requiring faith, 3) providing tangible evidence of his existence, power, and goodness for everyone to see, thereby eliminating most doubt, and most religious wars, and 4) being available to have frequent discussions with everyone, tangibly and in person. I submit that if such a being started a new religion that it would quickly become the largest religion in the world.

Christians would be quite pleased if God healed all of the sick people in the world, but yet, they quite content that God refuses to heal all of the sick people in the world. Do Christians really have any opinions of their own?

Surely sometimes doing good things does not entitle any being to sometimes do bad things. At best, the God of the Bible is bi-polar and/or mentally incompetent.

mountainman

Do we have any comments upon:

Glen Bowersock's book is a classic example of 20th Century historical revisionism. The historical consensus concerning Julian since the time of Gibbon and Voltaire has been cautiously admiring on the whole. Bowersock seeks to reverse that consensus by reinterpeting the abundant historical evidence.

Is there a difference between "the historical consensus" and
"the new testament historical consensus" and why?

Thanks for any objective commentary.


Pete Brown
AUTHORS of ANTIQUITY
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

spin

Julian appears to have been a rather good student of christianity before becoming emperor, so one should be able to see him studiously reading the right literature.

He could say in his work against the Galileans (preserved by good old Cyril of Alexandria),

Now I will only point out that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene, yes and Paul also, who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time, assert that he is the God of Israel alone and of Judaea, and that the Jews are his chosen people.

He knew the christian works well enough to say that both Jesus and Paul knew that the god of the Jews was the god of Israel alone.

Julian could say at the time of the writing:

Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years

so obviously he knew that Jesus could be dated to a specific time period (as indicated in the gospel of Luke), and of course he doesn't doubt his source as to the date, reinforcing the date thus:

Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects.

Julian also knows what sort of people became Galileans:

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.

He attacks the Galileans for not remaining faithful to the original message:

But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles.

In his reading of christian literature Julian became aware of the evolution of christian ideas:

At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease, and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God.

He may not understand what the gospel of John actually said because he was brought up with the trinitarian idea, but back to the evolution of christian ideas:

However this evil doctrine [Jesus being god] did originate with John; but who could detest as they deserve all those doctrines that you [Galileans] have invented as a sequel, while you keep adding many corpses newly dead to the corpse of long ago? You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres, and yet in your scriptures it is nowhere said that you must grovel among tombs and pay them honour. But you have gone so far in iniquity that you think you need not listen even to the words of Jesus of Nazareth on this matter. Listen then to what he says about sepulchres : "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres; outward the tomb appears beautiful, but within it is full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." If, then, Jesus said that sepulchres are full of uncleanness, how can you invoke God at them?

Julian accepts that Jesus and Paul and John and all the rest of them were real people who interacted with the world. He may have been wrong, but he is certainly not of the thought that christianity was a recent invention. So Jesus convinced a bunch of low life that he was someone, says Julian, but that accepts that Jesus was a "historical person" who lived 300 years before, who said things, who interpreted Jewish literature.

He also indicates that christians may have made up a bit of support (in this passage dealing with christian ferocity -- a ferocity Julian was well aware of):

you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

While accepting the reality of Jesus and Paul, he does call into question the references in Acts to Cornelius and Sergius. He asks his readers to give evidence for the existence of these men, that the events narrated regarding them happened in the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius. If he is wrong about this issue -- and Julian being the scholar who would have checked his sources --, then his reader could conclude that he was wrong about the rest.

Many christians tend not to appreciate the intrinsic merits of people who are overtly not christian. People from antiquity with high repute can be poo-pooed with immunity because they haven't been nice to christianity and because there aren't too many who will defend them, people like Lucian of Samosata, Porphyry, and Julian. One should be able to appreciate the merits of quality work despite one's biases.


spin

mountainman

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed response spin.
I now understand that your position is reasonable.
However I have one question ...


When Julian writes "But if you can show me that one of these men
is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time", I am understanding
that Julian is referring to Jesus and Paul, not Cornelius and Sergius.
ie: Julian is questioning the existence of Jesus and Paul (HERE)*

* Other references you have provided, which I have in this instance
trimmed, may be seen to provide for the belief that Julian "accepted
the reality of Jesus and Paul", as you say above. Elsewhere I have
argued otherwise, but for the moment I will refrain ...

In this specific reference above, however, am I to assume that
you are taking this same phrase to mean that Julian here is
"accepting Jesus and Paul, and questioning Cornelius and Sergius."?


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spin

Julian uses a very standard grammatical device,

and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time

Notice the repetition of "men" here, this is a type of anaphora which yokes the two references together. Assuming that the underlying Greek is reasonably reflected in the translation, the connection is strengthened by the word "these", so that "these men" is a clear pointer back to previously mentioned men, ie "Cornelius" and "Sergius".

Normally you go back to the last reference anyway to match the backward linkage of a cohesive text, ie here Cornelius and Sergius. To get back to Jesus and Paul, you have to jump over the logical grammatical choice of these two Romans and back to the previous sentence. This doesn't seem justifiable, does it?


spin

Amaleq13

Why would a mention of Cornelius and/or Sergius "by the well-known writers of that time" result in throwing everything he's said out as a false?

It seems to me that such a dramatic consequence has to relate to something more central but I disagree that it is the existence of Jesus and/or Paul since I think you have argued well that he assumes their existence.

I think it must, despite the wording, relate to his central assertion that "nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands". It seems reasonable for him to suggest that evidence that he was wrong on that central assertion would call into question everthing else he claims.

spin

Try it and see. If you can find them, then you can forget everything I've said. I'm that confident that I know you can't.

Now, you try to justify any other reading of the grammatical connections, based on the grammar and not your "intuitions".


spin

Amaleq13

How does that explain why discovering a mention of Cornelius and/or Sergius would falsify everything wrote?

If the apparent grammatical connection makes no sense, are we not justified in wondering if it was a mistake by the author?