Julian’s Against the Galileans

[arnoldo]

Is the Emperor Julian arguing in the text below that parts of the writings of Paul, Matthew, Luke and Mark were altered to reflect Johannine theology regarding the nature of Jesus?

But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. 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. And after he had spoken briefly about John the Baptist he referred again to the Word which he was proclaiming, and said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But how, he does not say, because he was ashamed. Nowhere, however, does he call him either Jesus or Christ, so long as he calls him God and the Word, but as it were insensibly and secretly he steals away our ears, and says that John the Baptist bore this witness on behalf of Jesus Christ, that in very truth he it is whom we must believe to be God the Word. But that John says this concerning Jesus Christ I for my part do not deny. And yet certain of the impious think that Jesus Christ is quite distinct from the Word that was proclaimed by John.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ans_1_text.htm

[One Bad Pig]

Is the Emperor Julian arguing in the text below that parts of the writings of Paul, Matthew, Luke and Mark were altered to reflect Johannine theology regarding the nature of Jesus?

That seems to be the case. He possibly had Marcion in mind, whose canon was limited to a mutilated version of Luke's gospel and certain of Paul's letters, with insinuations that Matthew/Mark should be mutilated similarly. The passage also includes an interesting hostile witness to veneration of the tombs of martyrs while John was still alive.

[arnoldo]

Julian’s criticism of OT writings does seem to reflect Marcion’s alleged conception of the demiurge. Julian writes,

It follows that, according to Moses, God is the creator of nothing that is incorporeal, but is only the disposer of matter that already existed. For the words, "And the earth was invisible and without form" can only mean that he regards the wet and dry substance as the original matter and that he introduces God as the disposer of this matter.

It’s an interesting hypothesis that Julian had Marcion in mind when he stated that the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke and Paul were altered to reflect a higher Christology. The next question would be what Julian thought these texts had originally stated regarding the nature of Jesus.

[arnoldo]

Julian’s thoughts regarding the unaltered writings may be found indirectly regarding his siding with the views held by Photinus. Photinus was a bishop in the fourth century who at times was judged to hold heretical views. Naturally, once Julian became Emperor Photinus was courted by Julian in an effort to bring increased division to the church. In a letter to Photinus , Julian writes,

O Photinus, you at any rate seem to maintain what is probably true, and come nearest to being saved, and do well to believe that he whom one holds to be a god can by no means be brought into the womb. But Diodorus, a charlatan priest of the Nazarene, when he tries to give point to that nonsensical theory about the womb by artifices and juggler’s tricks, is clearly a sharp-witted sophist of that creed of the country-folk.

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=4137

Apapostoli can probably go into greater depth regarding the views of Photinus regarding the nature of Jesus but Photinus may’ve thought Jesus was just a man.

[One Bad Pig]

Julian’s thoughts regarding the unaltered writings may be found indirectly regarding his siding with the views held by Photinus. Photinus was a bishop in the fourth century who at times was judged to hold heretical views. Naturally, once Julian became Emperor Photinus was courted by Julian in an effort to bring increased division to the church. In a letter to Photinus , Julian writes,



Apapostoli can probably go into greater depth regarding the views of Photinus regarding the nature of Jesus but Photinus may’ve thought Jesus was just a man.

It turns out his views were complicated:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

[Photinus] makes the Father and the Word one Person (prosopon). The Word is equally with the Father unbegotten, or is called a part of the Father, eternally in Him as our logos is in us. The latent Word (endiathetos) becomes the explicit Word (prophorikos) not, apparently, at the creation, but at the Incarnation, for only then is He really Son. The Divine Substance can be dilated and contracted (so St. Hilary translates platynesthai and systellesthai, while Mercator's version of Nestorius's fourth sermon gives "extended and collected"). This is exactly the wording of Sabellius, who said that God platynetai, is broadened out, into Son and Spirit. To Photinus the expansion forms the Son, who is not, until the human birth of Christ. Hence before the Incarnation there is no Son, and God is Father and Word, Logopator.

[technomage]

I do not think Julian is arguing that the texts were altered, but that the doctrine was altered. Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not explicitly state a high Christology, and it is the theory of many (myself included, but that's irrelevant to this thread) that the doctrine of Christ developed over the years from his death until the writing of GoJohn.

This is not a response that will be accepted with equanimity by most Christians, but it does seem to be the crux of Julian's statement.

[One Bad Pig]

I do not think Julian is arguing that the texts were altered, but that the doctrine was altered.

Yeah, that's probably a fair reading.

Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not explicitly state a high Christology, and it is the theory of many (myself included, but that's irrelevant to this thread) that the doctrine of Christ developed over the years from his death until the writing of GoJohn.

This is not a response that will be accepted with equanimity by most Christians, but it does seem to be the crux of Julian's statement.

I'd accept that the doctrine of Christ was developed, but not that it was altered. Larry Hurtado has argued at length in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity that a high Christology was present from the beginning.

[technomage]

Present ... perhaps, though I'd have to read the book and see his arguments to see if they were warranted. But not universal, and (to all available evidence) not accepted by Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Even if it was present at the beginning, it was not the orthodox view (in as much as the early church had an "orthodox view").

[arnoldo]

Julian seems to be arguing that originally the beliefs held by the early church reflected a low christology and then this doctrine and or texts were altered. Julian may’ve been aware that the texts he mentions (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul’s writings) were altered at some point (by Marcion?) to reflect docetic doctrine. However, these alterations chiefly involved omitting information in the texts rather than adding information. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, writes the following concerning Marcion.

Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103127.htm

In Julian’s argument against Christianity it would make no difference if the texts were altered by admitting or omitting text. By allying himself with Photinus, Julian also gives an indicator to what he held the original doctrine of the church was before it was altered.

[technomage]

Julian seems to be arguing that originally the beliefs held by the early church reflected a low christology and then this doctrine and or texts were altered.

This point of view generally follows the scholastic views of early Christianity.

Julian may’ve been aware that the texts he mentions (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul’s writings) were altered at some point (by Marcion?) to reflect docetic doctrine. However, these alterations chiefly involved omitting information in the texts rather than adding information.

I doubt the texts were altered--the current texts we have for those books are pretty good, and alteration of that scale would most likely have been noted by (and argued against by) the church fathers of that time. Additionally, while there is of course no guarantee that the altered texts would survive, the possibility does exist.

Even if the texts were altered, I think we can definitely eliminate Marcion from the list of possible suspects--Marcion was anti-Jewish, and would have had nothing to do with the texts that showed Jewish influence. That's part of the reason he worked with GoLuke--it was (and is) the least "Jewish" of the texts, and he butchered what there was.

No, at least after about 150 or so the ECF were very good at noting authors who amended texts to suit their doctrines.

[One Bad Pig]

Present ... perhaps, though I'd have to read the book and see his arguments to see if they were warranted. But not universal, and (to all available evidence) not accepted by Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Even if it was present at the beginning, it was not the orthodox view (in as much as the early church had an "orthodox view").

If it was present and Paul disagreed with it, he would have written against it. To Paul, though, Jesus Christ was "Lord," a term used in the LXX to refer to God - and we never see any caution from Paul to the contrary. In Phil 2:6-11, Jesus is implicitly lowering his status from equality with God by becoming incarnate. 1 Cor 8:6 is a short statement from Paul exhibiting a high Christology which needs no explanation from him, so it must have been familiar to his readers. We're getting somewhat away from the thread topic, so I probably won't respond further.

[technomage]

If it was present and Paul disagreed with it, he would have written against it.

Not necessarily. First and foremost, he would have to be aware of it, and while Paul was a busy man, he couldn't keep his fingers in all the activities of the nascent church.

To Paul, though, Jesus Christ was "Lord," a term used in the LXX to refer to God - and we never see any caution from Paul to the contrary.

To call Paul as an advocate of high Christology is to wear modern blinders, my friend. First and foremost, Paul continually refers to Jesus as anthropos, and he repeatedly makes a distinction between God and Jesus. (Rom 5:1, 5:11, 6:11, 6:23, 7:25 for just a few examples).

Lets look at your examples:

In Phil 2:6-11, Jesus is implicitly lowering his status from equality with God by becoming incarnate.

Jesus is implicitly lowering his status, yes ... but was he God, or was he "in the shape of God," and "thought being equal with God was not a prize to be seized"?

This passage is the closest Paul comes to a high Christology, and I'll have to admit that depending upon the how those phrases are properly understood, it may be explicit high Christology. But there are far too many cases where Paul makes an explicit distinction between God and Jesus to accept that he held the position explicitly.

1 Cor 8:6 is a short statement from Paul exhibiting a high Christology

Excuse me? 1 Cor 8:6 makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus.

We're getting somewhat away from the thread topic, so I probably won't respond further.

And I can't traipse into the Christian areas of the forum, so the discussion seemingly ends here.

[arnoldo]

I doubt the texts were altered--the current texts we have for those books are pretty good, and alteration of that scale would most likely have been noted by (and argued against by) the church fathers of that time. Additionally, while there is of course no guarantee that the altered texts would survive, the possibility does exist.

Yes, I agree with you that our current texts are for the most part good. As per Irenaeus it was the texts which were used by Marcion which were altered and subsequently destroyed by the proto-orthodox sect of Christianity for the most part. My point was that Julian may’ve raised the issue of alteration of Christian texts to attack his opponents.

Even if the texts were altered, I think we can definitely eliminate Marcion from the list of possible suspects--Marcion was anti-Jewish, and would have had nothing to do with the texts that showed Jewish influence. That's part of the reason he worked with GoLuke--it was (and is) the least "Jewish" of the texts, and he butchered what there was.

Yes, Marcion was anti-Jewish and supposedly rejected the entire OT and excised any references in the gLuke and Pauline writings linking Jesus to the OT. Marcion’s preference for the gLuke however may’ve in fact led to an alteration in the gLuke in it’s present form as per Bart Ehrman (see Luke 22:43-44 and the Imperturbable Jesus)

No, at least after about 150 or so the ECF were very good at noting authors who amended texts to suit their doctrines.

Agreed.

[technomage]

My point was that Julian may’ve raised the issue of alteration of Christian texts to attack his opponents.

I will note that there is a difference between "the texts were altered" and "Julian raised the issue of alteration." It's possible (and common among the less-informed skeptics, even today) to raise the objection in the complete absence of evidence, merely as a way to attack your opponent or perpetuate the argument.

But that reading of Julian may be problematic. He (quite accurately) speaks of "the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles" that changed over time (though he accuses John of making the change deliberately, a charge I rather doubt). He then mentions the other writings, but just by his grammar, it looks like the teachings were changed, not the writings.

Of course, I could be splitting the hair too fine, but at least from the English translation, that's what it looks like to me. I'd probably be more certain in my analysis, one way or another, if my Greek was better.

Marcion’s preference for the gLuke however may’ve in fact led to an alteration in the gLuke in it’s present form as per Bart Ehrman (see Luke 22:43-44 and the Imperturbable Jesus)

Interesting lecture. I have some doubts that Marcion himself is responsible for this emendation: Justin Martyr refers to it in his "Dialogue" (Chap 103), which I usually date to not long after the Bar Kokhba revolt (136-145). On the one hand, Marcionite writings can be found elsewhere in the mainstream texts (Marcionite prefaces to the Pauline Epistles in the Codex Fuldensis, among others, and some Marcionite readings in the actual texts, ), and Justin lived in Rome when Marcion came there, so it is possible. But on the other hand, Justin makes frequent (and reverent) discussions of the Old Testament prophets, which Marcion rejected.

It's an interesting question, but beyond my ability to discern.

[Jedidiah]

I do not think Julian is arguing that the texts were altered, but that the doctrine was altered. Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not explicitly state a high Christology, and it is the theory of many (myself included, but that's irrelevant to this thread) that the doctrine of Christ developed over the years from his death until the writing of GoJohn.

How much more explicit can you get than to state that Jesus was the creator?

For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him (Colossians 1:16).