Is Against the Galileans a Composite?

[Duvduv]

The first thing worth noticing in Against the Galileans is that the author(s) assume the reader already knows what is being referred to, and knows the definition of these "Galileans", requiring no introductory information at all, and also assumes the readers knows what unstated Galilean "doctrines" exist in contradistinction to Judaism. The author also refers to the beliefs of the "Hellenes" and their paganism from a perspective that is more sympathetic to Judaism itself.

There is no mention of any of the actual beliefs of the so-called Galileans until a paragraph in which he suddenly introduces the names of Jesus the Nazarene and Paul, without giving any information about these individuals or what is believed about them. In fact the author(s) spend(s) more time talking against Paul without any context pertaining to him or to Jesus himself, and does so again from a perspective that is decidedy Jewish-friendly, which is reflected to his return to extension discussion of Moses.

The author(s) continues on the same path, meandering on about the pagans and Jews, until he repeats statements about Jesus and Paul, and then just as suddenly introduces mention of "Jesus Christ," Mary and Joseph, the Baptist and Peter, but this is quite far into the book itself, and just as before, assumes that the reader already knows what the concepts rooted in the NT canon mean. In addition the author(s) move(s) back and forth from a third-person speech to a second-person ("the Galileans"/they to "you").
The author(s)'s dogma and rhetoric is quite pro-Jewish vis a vis canonical Christianity which the
author(s) assume(s) the reader already is well-informed about, giving the impression that the author was a Jew or at least on the edge of becoming one.

But the heavy emphasis on (undefined) Christian concepts in the second half of the book stands in contrast to the non-emphasis on it in the first half. One can only wonder whether this so-called text allegedly written by Julian is really a composite job - and another rather confused and poorly done one at that, and one that sounds like it came into existence later rather than earlier.

[dewitness]

What is confusing about this statement in the opening paragraph of "Against the Galileans"?

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.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Are you implying that it was the Church forgers who wrote the introduction of Against the Galileans long after Julian was dead?

Unless the Church forgers were complete Idiots then it is hardly likely that "Against Galileans" was a product of forgery.

[Duvduv]

PLEASE reread my posting carefully. You used to do it this way also on the other Forum, and I had to ask you to REREAD my posting!!
Thanks, AA.

[dewitness]

You imply that "Against the Galileans" is a forgery or manipulated [a composite job] and I will show that your claims are not logical unless the forgers were complete idiots.

....But the heavy emphasis on (undefined) Christian concepts in the second half of the book stands in contrast to the non-emphasis on it in the first half. One can only wonder whether this so-called text allegedly written by Julian is really a composite job - and another rather confused and poorly done one at that, and one that sounds like it came into existence later rather than earlier.

In "Against the Galileans" Julian asserted Christians SLAUGHTERED Heretics and Jews.

"Against the Galileans"

.....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, [64] because they did not wail over the corpse [65] in the same fashion as yourselves...

Again, only a completely idiotic Christian would forge writings of Julian stating that Christians did slaughter Heretics and Jews.

[Leucius Charinus]

The first thing worth noticing in Against the Galileans is that the author(s) assume the reader already knows what is being referred to, and knows the definition of these "Galileans", requiring no introductory information at all ....

Julian had introduced a law in the empire by which the cult was not to be referred to by name as the "Christians" but by the name of the "Galilaeans". On the basis of this imperial law it is reasonable to assume that Julian knew that his readers knew that he was referring to what we now call the "Christians".

... and also assumes the readers knows what unstated Galilean "doctrines" exist in contradistinction to Judaism.

Julian appears to have been distinguishing the "new doctrines" found in the New Testament to the "old Judaic doctrines" found in the LXX

The author also refers to the beliefs of the "Hellenes" and their paganism from a perspective that is more sympathetic to Judaism itself.

Julian is regarded as being tolerant to Judaism (and all other religious doctrines), in contradistinction to the history of intolerance of the Christian cult to Judaism (and all other religious doctrines) for the period c.325-360 CE. Julian portrayed Christians as apostates from Judaism.

The author(s) .... the author(s) move(s) back and forth from a third-person speech to a second-person ("the Galileans"/they to "you"). The author(s)'s ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Galilaeans

After Julian's death in battle in 363, the essay was anathematized, and even the text was lost.

We only know of Julian's arguments second-hand,
through texts written by Christian authors who sought to refute Julian.

///

What we know of it comes from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, who quoted it at length while writing a refutation that was finished either between 434-437 or 439-441. Cyril's refutation, however, does not survive fully intact. Only ten books still exist, all of which cover the first book out of three of Against the Galileaens, though multiple fragments of another ten books also survive.[5]

[5] Russell, Norman (2000). Cyril of Alexandria, pp. 190-191 (See below for link to Google Books)

It would be interesting to see what these multiple fragments of another ten books (total of 20 books) of the polemical response Contra Julianum by Cyril of Alexandria have to say. But in any event, they represent a polemical refutation of what Cyril calls "the lies of Julian".

But the heavy emphasis on (undefined) Christian concepts in the second half of the book stands in contrast to the non-emphasis on it in the first half. One can only wonder whether this so-called text allegedly written by Julian is really a composite job - and another rather confused and poorly done one at that, and one that sounds like it came into existence later rather than earlier.

The 20 books Contra Julianum by Cyril of Alexandria came into existence in the 5th century and the 3 books of Julian were burnt.

Whereas Julian had supported the Jewish community in the Roman Empire and sought to rebuild their temple, Cyril often wrote of how the Jewish community stood in the way of Christianity, and that Gentiles ought to reject all things Jewish, including the idea of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, an idea which Julian had embraced.[8] Perhaps it was this fundamental disagreement over the value of the Jewish faith that made Cyril's refutation so bitter, as it speaks of Julian as a satanically inspired man who desired to drag as many others as he could away from the Christian faith, and the Greek tradition that Julian came from as folly.[9] Indeed, according to Cyril, any truth that was in the Greek texts was there as a result of the Greeks having heard of the wisdom of Moses— even Plato supposedly was a great admirer of the Jewish lawgiver.[10] His refutation was thus an attempt to prove that Julian's view of the Platonic tradition as superior to the Mosaic religious tradition was, in fact, the reverse of the truth, as it was the Greeks whose words were a shadow of the truth of Moses.

Cyril of Alexandria (Google eBook) by Norman Russel
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=N-- ... navlinks_s

As a ruler of the church of Alexander and president of the Third Ecumenical Council of 431, Cyril was one of the most powerful men of the fifth century. Not only did he define the concept of christological orthodoxy for the next two centuries, but he is also often regarded as an unscrupulous cleric who was responsible for the murder of the female philosopher Hypatia and for the overthrow of the archbishop Nestorius.

[Peter Kirby]

Hi Duvduv,

It is not unusual that Porphyry starts talking about the Galileans without introduction. Several non-Christian writers talk about the Galileans, or the Christians, without any real explanation: Epictetus, Suetonius, Galen, and Marcus Aurelius.

There might be something to your argument about a composite text, but it's not really been shown to be more than possible.

Best regards,
Peter Kirby

[Duvduv]

Hi, Peter. You make a good point. And of course relying on the obscure text attributed to Julian to identify "Christians" as Galileans is a big problem. I am surprised scholars have not even questioned the internal content and context of the book as I have suggested. I am increasingly convinced there were interpolations and that the book itself is a composite of more than one text. I don't see why people cannot accept this possibility in texts considering the fact that it was easier to adapt an existing text that corresponded more closely to the new Christian beliefs than to reinvent the wheel from scratch. We find this situation in those texts that supposedly were originally written about Christians but do not mention Jesus or anything about actual Christian theology. Then there is the technique of ancient texts that condemn the Christians while at the same time in a back-handed way LEGITIMIZE the antiquity of canonical Christianity in the time of Pilate and Tiberius that they condemn.

[Leucius Charinus]

I have already suggested the content of the book as a composite in terms. Please go back and look at that posting.

In one sense what we are reading today on the internet, entitled "Against the Galilaeans", is a composite work. In his introduction to the English translation of the following work, Wilmer Cave WRIGHT informs us:

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.

Scholars have reconstructed what they are presuming Julian wrote c.361 CE in his three books "Against the Christians" from the first ten of the twenty books of "Contra Julian" Bishop Cyril of Alexandria c.429-441 CE (??) wrote. Consequently this reconstruction may well appear as a composite work.

[Duvduv]

Well, it is worth contemplating at the very least. After all, the first half or so of the book doesn't even mention anything about the beliefs of Christians/Galileans at all, and for that matter does not even explain the origin of the term Galilean for Christians, which does not even exist anywhere else in self-identification of any Christians anywhere. Now what if "Galileans" did not really refer to Christians at all, and what if the book itself as a composite is merely a BACK-HANDED support for the antiquity of Christianity (as Contra Celsum or even Dialogue/Monologue with Trypho).........???

[dewitness]

Well, it is worth contemplating at the very least. After all, the first half or so of the book doesn't even mention anything about the beliefs of Christians/Galileans at all, and for that matter does not even explain the origin of the term Galilean for Christians, which does not even exist anywhere else in self-identification of any Christians anywhere. Now what if "Galileans" did not really refer to Christians at all, and what if the book itself as a composite is merely a BACK-HANDED support for the antiquity of Christianity (as Contra Celsum or even Dialogue/Monologue with Trypho).........???

What if it is not a back-handed support for the antiquity of Christianity??

What if Galileans did really refer to Christians??