by
Damien F. Mackey
“Antiochus Epiphanes thought nothing was more certain than that he would annihilate the Jewish nation. Julian the Apostate convinced himself that it was already in his power to uproot the Christian religion”.
Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.)
This is a quote from the book, Psalms 1-72 (p. 14).
If Julian ‘the Apostate’ bears comparison, at least to some extent, with the emperor Hadrian:
“… Julian … and Hadrian were both 'full of zeal for idolatry', 'superstitious […] astrologers wanting to know everything, so constantly inquisitive as to be accused of magic'.”
then I might expect, also, some useful comparisons of this Julian with emperor Hadrian’s alter ego, king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, as according to my series:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
https://www.academia.edu/32734925/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_One_a_mirror_image_
and:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus”
https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_
Collin Garbarino talks about “an appropriation of the past” - {appropriation being a word I have been much inclined to use for when I consider pagans to have borrowed from the Hebrew scriptures but claimed the material as their own} - by Christian writers of the Maccabean period (“Resurrecting the martyrs: the role of the Cult of the Saints, A.D. 370-430”, 2010).
Though, according to my radical revision of the Maccabees in relation to the Herodian era, the Maccabean martyrs at the time of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ fall right into the period of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.
See also my article:
Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom
(7) Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Garbarino writes (emphasis added):
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2348&context=gradschool_dissertations
This appropriation of the past could even reach back farther than the time of Christ [sic].
During this expansion of the cult of martyrs in the fourth century, bishops began venerating the Maccabeans who died in the Seleucid persecutions of the 160s BC. The various books of Maccabees describe the deaths of faithful Jews at the hands of Seleucid oppressors because of their refusal to abandon the Torah.
These stories contain many of the same elements that later characterized Christian martyrologies: trials designed to cause apostasy, tortures and promises given by the magistrate, and a confession of continued faith in God. In light of these commonalities, it is surprising that Christian communities did not adopt these Jewish saints earlier. The earliest extant evidence of Christians honoring the Maccabean martyrs is Gregory of Nazianzus’s Homily 15, On the Maccabees. …. Gregory probably preached this sermon in 362, during the reign of Julian the Apostate. …. He used the Maccabean situation to criticize in a veiled manner the anti-Christian policies of the emperor. In the sermon, he explicitly says that very few Christian communities honor these martyrs because their deaths predated Christ.
…. Gregory, however, found their cult useful for promoting Christianization, and this sermon acts as a turning point for the Maccabees. Martha Vinson writes, “Before this sermon, the Maccabees are merely faces in a crowd of Old Testament exempla ... while after it, as the homiletic literature from the last decades from the fourth century attests, they have been singled out from the pack as the sole beneficiaries not only of encomia but of a well-established cult.” …. By the year 400, the Maccabees were being honored as Christian martyrs by preachers around the Mediterranean.
[End of quote]
Barry Phillips will write in a footnote (p. 129, n. 19) to his article “Antiochus IV, Epiphanes” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1910):
Dan. 11 st: " And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Cf. 8 12 9 27 12 11, 1 Macc. 1 54, 2 Macc. 6 2. Hoffman, Antiochus Epiphanes, p. 80, essays to compare Antiochus and Julian. In so far as the ideas of both were out of harmony with the spirit of the times, there is an apparent similarity between the persecutions of Antiochus and of Julian, far less, however, than the dissimilarity, owing to the fact that whereas Julian sought the extinction of Christianity as an end, Antiochus sought the extinction of Judaism but as a means to an end.
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Julian ‘the Apostate’ are similarly likened to the Antichrist.
For instance, Stephen J. Vicchio tells of Cardinal Newman’s view in Vicchio’s The Legend of the Anti-Christ: A History, p. 314): “Newman goes on in the first advent sermon on the Anti-Christ to argue that some of these historical figures have been Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Julian, “who attempted to overthrow the Church by craft and introduce paganism back again …”.
We shall conclude, still on an antichrist type, the “666” of Revelation, with Reginald Rabett’s comment (in GLateinos@; Lateinos; or, The only proper and appellative name of the man, p. 138):
For example — If we were to speak of the Emperor JULIAN who is proverbially and emphatically styled THE APOSTATE, yet it would be necessary to use the Name - Julian - because it is the Proper Name of this Man; for were we to omit his Name, no one would of a certainty conclude that Julian the Apostate was meant; but probably Antiochus Epiphanès might be intended ....
Some comparisons follow between Hadrian, his reign conventionally dated to c. 117-138 AD - but I have re-dated him to the Maccabean era:
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus
(4) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus 'Epiphanes', as also the census emperor Augustus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
- and Julian ‘the Apostate’, his reign conventionally dated to c. 361-363 AD.
From Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', p. 307 (edited by Nicholas J. Baker-Brian, Shaun Tougher):
What [Jean-Philippe-Rene de] La Bletterie says of Julian as Caesars' author differs markedly from his earlier characterization of him as emperor at the start of his 1735 biography; there, he represents Julian as … a ruler driven by 'an uncontrolled passion for glory' – one who pursued his policies with 'a kind of fanaticism', and who was not free of 'the faults which [his] amour propre perceive[d] only in others'. ….
Just what La Bletterie was thinking of, on that last count, can be inferred from his note on the passage in Caesars in which Hadrian is teased as a star-gazer who was forever prying into ineffable mysteries (311d). La Bletterie was prompted to remark that much the same could be said of Julian: he and Hadrian were both 'full of zeal for idolatry', 'superstitious […] astrologers wanting to know everything, so constantly inquisitive as to be accused of magic'. And the likeness did not end there: Julian, assuredly, 'did not have the infamous [homosexual] vices of Hadrian […], but he had almost all his [other] faults and absurdities'; both of them were ‘fickle, obstinate, and vain of soul’….
Moreover, at one point in his comparison of Julian with Hadrian, La Bletterie entertains a possibility which would imply a very hostile view indeed of Julian: 'they both passed very wise laws and performed many merciful actions; but Hadrian seemed cruel sometimes, and some say that [“l'on dit que”] Julian was only humane out of vanity'. ….
[End of quote]
Again, we read at:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?660191-Julian-the-Apostate-the-most-fascinating-quot-what-if-quot-in-late-Roman-history
“Julian is often compared in character to Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian, indeed he is very much a blend of the two. He combines Hadrian's philhellenism with Marcus Aurelius' Stoicism, scholasticism, and militaristic determination”.
From Ammianus Marcellinus, p. 309, by Gavin Kelly:
“Ammianus …. rejects the comparison chosen by Valentinian's partisans to Aurelian .... He compares him to Hadrian in his depreciation of the well-dressed, the learned, the wealthy, the noble, the brave, 'so that he alone should appear to excel in fine abilities' (ut solus uideretur bonis artibus eminere, 30.8.10); Julian too had been compared to Hadrian in one of his faults .... His tendency towards timorousness is described …”.
From Emperors and Historiography: Collected Essays on the Literature of the Roman ..., p. 315, by Daniel den Hengst:
“… divination was practiced in an uncontrolled and lawless way affectata varietate, that is to say with overzealous efforts to practice all forms of divinatio. In the necrology Ammianus compares Julian to Hadrian in this respect. By doing so he harks back again to his description of Julian in Antioch, where Julian is characterized in this context as multorum curiosior. …. In this case, Julian may have been plagued by curiositas, but he shared this vice with a great predecessor [sic]. ….
Hellenistically inclined Julian ‘the Apostate’
Like Herod ‘the Great’
“Julian is also compared with Herod, as wise men
whose behaviour is not particularly wise:
"Yet is it not all kinde of learning or wisedome which is availeable for the
true happinesse of a King or Kingdome (as may appeare in the miserable ends
of Herod, and Iulian the Apostate, both in their kindes wise and learned) but wise behavior in a perfect way, that is, Wisdom mixed with Piety, guided by Religion, and sanctified with Grace".”
Hakewill 50
On some particular likenesses between Julian and Herod, Manolis Papoutsakis has written (Vicarious Kingship: A Theme in Syriac Political Theology in Late Antiquity):
Accordingly, Julian is identified with Herod the Great a “foreigner” and, by implication (cf. Deut 17:15), a “usurper” of the Judahite throne: Herod's disruption of the legitimate line of kings resulted in the adventus of Christ, who came in order to reclaim His Judahite inheritance, that is, the Royal Office (malkutá). In his verses against Julian, Ephrem elaborates upon the Julian/Herod comparison by forcefully reading 2 Thess 2:3 into the cluster consisting of Gen 49:10 a-b and Matthew 2. As a result, Julian, a “Herodian” king who disrupted the dynasty of Constantine, the new David”, is appositely presented as a θεομάχος and is implicitly identified with the Antichrist-figure par excellence, namely, the Apostate at 2 Thess 2:3 ….
In GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S FIRST INVECTIVE AGAINST JULIAN THE EMPEROR, we read: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_2_oration4.htm
“Thou persecutor next … to Herod, thou traitor next to Judas, except so far as not ending thy life with, a halter, as he did; thou murderer of Christ next to Pilate; thou hater of God next to the Jews!”
In Jacobus de Voragine’s The Golden Legend: Lives of the Saints, we read this comment regarding Julian and a Herod (this time, though, not ‘the Great’, but Herod Antipas):
“Then Julian the apostate commanded that [John the Baptist’s] bones should be burnt. …. And like as Herod which beheaded him was punished for his trespass, so Julian the apostate was smitten with divine vengeance of God …”.
Julian has been likened, in his death, to “Herod”, and to “Antiochus”:
https://www.lostplays.org/lpd/Julian_the_Apostate
Robert Albott reports that "Iulian the Apostate, at his death cast vp his blood into the ayre, crying Vicisti Galilaee" …. This reluctant acknowledgement that Christianity was to become the dominant religion of the Roman empire is a point frequently related in references to Julian. Henry Burton notes: "And as Iulian the Apostate, pulling the mortall dart out of his bowels, though therein he saw and felt the hand of Divine revenge, yet he vttered his confession thereof with the voyce of blasphemy, Vicisti Galilaee: and so breathed out his blasphemous spirit in a desperat impenitency" …. Stephen Jerome similarly observes how "as you haue heard the godly praying, or praysing and blessing GOD, speaking graciously, sending out their spirits ioyfully, and dying comfortably:
so prophane men dye eyther carelesly and blockishly," and relates that Julian the Apostate "in his last act of life, from his infected lungs sent out venome against Christ, calling him in dirision, victorious Galilean" …. He also provides some early modern context for how Julian was perceived, citing "the examples of … Herod … Antiochus …”.
Adrian Scaife writes (“Julian the Apostle: The Emperor who “Brought Piety as it Were Back from Exile”.” pp. 113, 118-119):
…. it is still worth looking at Julian’s political platform, as it is fundamentally intertwined with his program of religious reform. Susanna Elm (2012) summarizes his efforts into three primary categories: “logoi, hiera, and the polis—Greek language and culture, its gods and all things sacred, and the city as the physical locus of Greek culture, government and religion”— and each would be amended by refocusing Roman culture around classical paideia (5).
….
The allegories also contributed to a growing theurgical framework in Julian’s new paganism whereby the adherent could create a spiritual connection with the divine (a process that began in To the Cynic Heracleius), imitating the most humanistic aspect of the Christian faith (Athanassiadi 2015, 136). Once again the shadow of Christianity looms: Julian drew from the established practices of a Greek philosophical movement to produce a religious handbook of sorts that offered spiritual advice by way of allegories—a result openly reminiscent of Christian scripture/scriptural interpretation. Meanwhile, the Hymn to King Helios pulled explicitly from Mithraism in anointing the sun-god as the central divine force. But Julian managed to incorporate the traditional pantheon of gods, too, by assigning each of the Hellenic gods an aspect of the larger Mithraic figurehead. In one typical fusion, Julian writes, “Among the intellectual gods, Helios and Zeus have a joint or rather a single sovereignty” (Hymn to King Helios, 136A-B). He continues through the pantheon one-by-one, drawing from the inspiration of Plato, Homer, Hesiod, and others to assign the various parts of the whole that is Helios: Aphrodite accounts for Helios’ creative function; Athena embodies pure intellect; and so on (Hymn to King Helios, 138A ff). The unity of the various traditional gods into the “One” can be seen as a reflection of the Christian model Julian’s uncle first established, but it also embodies the central tenet of Neoplatonism (Athanassiadi 2015, 160). In that sense, Julian simultaneously achieved a complex synthesis of a theurgical Mithraism, the Platonic form, and traditional Hellenic mythology. The emperor’s religious program, responding to unique obstacles of Late Antiquity, accounted for the diverse local mythical legacies that were so important to civic identity and established a divinity embodying the shared Romanitas of a united Hellenic empire. ….
