Lisp has certainly had a strong influence on Julia. First class functions, homoiconicity, running code at compile time and compiling code at runtime, the interactive REPL, dynamic typing and GC, everything you could really want from a Lisp is there.
But, syntax does make a difference, I think. For example, deeply nesting expressions concisely is far less natural in Julia than Lisp. Macros, while just as powerful, are a little more awkward thanks to Julia's more complex syntax and the fact that you have to often write @foo begin rather than just (foo. Don't get me wrong, Julia's syntax is great, and it's entirely the right choice for the technical space, but for that reason I think I'd say that Julia isn't *a* Lisp as such. Yes, they're similar in terms of raw language power, but each for different problems. I've often thought that a Lisp which compiles to Julia would be a cool project, though. If you're interested, this Paul Graham essay<http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html> is an interesting read. It seems he was spot on about languages with algol-like syntax adopting more Lisp features.
