Emperor Julian - bigot or hero?

[David19]

This is kind of an extension of the thread by Maggie, about Hutton (just below this one), and i didn't want to make her thread go off topic, but i've heard a lot about Emperor Julian in various books and sites, some Pagans make him out to be a great hero, who helped preserve the Hellenic religion and beliefs, but is he really that?

It's just on this site, http://www.egregores.org/tolerance.html, there's a quote from him:


"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."
the Emperor Julian, from his Against the Galileans

To me, like i said in the other thread, this quote just seems incredibly bigoted to me (and somewhat racist, as it seems to imply, a religion with Middle Eastern Jewish origins is 'false', yet his religion, of European origins is 'correct').

It also doesn't seem very polytheistic to me at all, polytheism, IMO, is about believing in many gods, not just your own (e.g. like i believe in the Norse, Celtic, Roman, Native American, Aztec, Mayan, etc gods but i don't worship them).

Anyway, i just wanted to get your opinions on Emperor Julian and this quote.

Thanks.

[Jolixte]

It also doesn't seem very polytheistic to me at all, polytheism, IMO, is about believing in many gods, not just your own (e.g. like i believe in the Norse, Celtic, Roman, Native American, Aztec, Mayan, etc gods but i don't worship them).


To be polytheist, one just has to believe in more than one (usually more than two) Gods. That's where the word comes from anyways.

As for Emperor Julian... I don't think I've heard much about him, so I'm not sure. _inabox_

[Philosophia]

Some links on him:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7094/julian.html
http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm
http://www.juliansociety.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/julian/Julian_Apostate_Roman_Emperor.htm
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/med/me-mclk.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/toj/index.htm
http://xoomer.alice.it/nnikef/livello2-i/giuliano-1-i.htm

[Philosophia]

From http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ed26.htm

During the archaeological excavations that were carried out near the Temple Mount, an inscription was discovered on a course of the Western Wall. It turned out to be from Isaiah (66:14): "You shall see and your heart shall rejoice, your limbs shall flourish like grass." Although it is impossible to date the inscription with certainty, it was probably meant to express the enthusiasm that seized the Jews when the Emperor Julian the Apostate (r. 361-363 CE) decided to rebuild the Temple. Julian, who was called the Apostate by the Christians because he restored the pagan religion, regarded Christianity as a destructive force that would prove ruinous to the empire and wanted to uproot it.

To refute Christianity's claim to be the true successor of Judaism, he planned to rebuild the Temple. In a letter to the Jews he wrote: "I too shall build and populate, by my efforts, after I successfully conclude my war against the Persians, the holy city of Jerusalem, which for many years you have yearned to see settled by yourselves, and together with you I shall give glory to the very great God." It is possible, then, that the inscription on the Western Wall may reflect joy at the prospect that the Temple will be rebuilt. In fact, the project was suspended after a fire that broke out at the site, and a month later Julian was killed in battle. His plan was not realized.

[Theres]

It also doesn't seem very polytheistic to me at all, polytheism, IMO, is about believing in many gods, not just your own.belief perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily equate to honor or worship or respect.

i find Julian ll to be one of the more interesting figures in ancieny history. in fact, if he hadn't died only three years into his reign the world as we know it might be radically different.
in fact i wrote about this back when i was moderating the History forum here...

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=15161

[David19]

He does seem interesting (he's in this Roman book i've got), but it was just that quote i posted that i kind of made me rethink him.

But, i guess everyone has good and bad sides.

[Of10Rot10]

To me, like i said in the other thread, this quote just seems incredibly bigoted to me (and somewhat racist, as it seems to imply, a religion with Middle Eastern Jewish origins is 'false', yet his religion, of European origins is 'correct').

It was meant to be bigoted. It was said as a reaction against ONE religion replacing ALL the old religions and its a shame that he didn't live long enough to unite the Pagans being displaced. I've always wondered if his death was really a murder under the guise of battle but who knows.


It also doesn't seem very polytheistic to me at all, polytheism, IMO, is about believing in many gods, not just your own.

But he was fighting FOR polytheism and against a group monotheists. He did believe in the many and was offended by the "just one" taking over the Roman Empire as *the* Religion of State.

[Brightshores]

To me, like i said in the other thread, this quote just seems incredibly bigoted to me (and somewhat racist, as it seems to imply, a religion with Middle Eastern Jewish origins is 'false', yet his religion, of European origins is 'correct').

It also doesn't seem very polytheistic to me at all, polytheism, IMO, is about believing in many gods, not just your own (e.g. like i believe in the Norse, Celtic, Roman, Native American, Aztec, Mayan, etc gods but i don't worship them).

Anyway, i just wanted to get your opinions on Emperor Julian and this quote.

Thanks.


It was meant to be bigoted. It was said as a reaction against ONE religion replacing ALL the old religions and its a shame that he didn't live long enough to unite the Pagans being displaced. I've always wondered if his death was really a murder under the guise of battle but who knows.

But he was fighting FOR polytheism and against a group monotheists. He did believe in the many and was offended by the "just one" taking over the Roman Empire as *the* Religion of State.

I agree with Of10Rot10, in general..

I would also say that any apparent "racism" in this quote is probably not there - this concept is not really historically relevant at this time. The "European vs. Middle Eastern" conflicts do tend to date from a later period in history, and didn't really get going until the Muslims took over the eastern Mediterranean shores. (Unfortunately, they've been increasing pretty much ever since, but that's another thread.) Plus, if he did intend to rebuild the Temple Mount, he clearly didn't have anything against the Jews in and of themselves - it was the Christians he had a problem with, and their Jewish roots were beside the point.

I wouldn't say he was a hero or a villain.. I'd say he was a politician who firmly believed that Christianity was a dangerous influence - and I'd definitely argue his statement was directed more at the political implications of "Jesus the Risen King" than at any theological argument.

[Theres]

The "European vs. Middle Eastern" conflicts do tend to date from a later period in history, and didn't really get going until the Muslims took over the eastern Mediterranean shores.
i have to wonder at this statement, as Thermopylae, Marathon, Salamis, etc would seem to contradict you.
in fact the Persian threat was so severe as to drive Sparta and Athens into an alliance against the common foe, and all this happened 1000 years before the advent of Islam, and 700 or so years before Julian.

[Brightshores]

i have to wonder at this statement, as Thermopylae, Marathon, Salamis, etc would seem to contradict you.
in fact the Persian threat was so severe as to drive Sparta and Athens into an alliance against the common foe, and all this happened 1000 years before the advent of Islam, and 700 or so years before Julian.
I think the phrase "European vs. Middle Eastern" does not apply to these conflicts, and has a far more modern connotation. The wars between Persia and Greece were between two regional powers, not between two distant powers who couldn't identify with any aspect of the other's culture, as that phrase would seem to imply. They certainly wouldn't have considered themselves to be of two different "races" in the modern sense - that concept didn't even exist at the time.

[Theres]

very little of that made any sense to me, but okay, whatever.

[Brightshores]

*shrugs*
I'm reminded of the old adage - one historical event + two historians = three different interpretations. :)

[Zibblsnrt]

*shrugs*
I'm reminded of the old adage - one historical event + two historians = three different interpretations. :)

That few? When did they start consolidating opinions?

[Brightshores]

That few? When did they start consolidating opinions?

:lol: so true...

[Of10Rot10]

very little of that made any sense to me, but okay, whatever.

It made sense to me.

By the time of Julian Persia and Greece weren't major threats. They weren't major threats before the time of Julius some 300 + years before Julian so I'm not clear on the point you are trying to make here.

Julian is anti Xian and by his time Xian could be any "race" of the realm. His own half brother had made it the offical religion of state and most of his family had already been wiped out because they might oppose Constantine only he and another brother were spared because they were very young and seen as no threat.

They didn't toss the idea of "race" around like we do. For them one just had to be "foreign" to be a threat even if they looked exactly like you did. Julian saw Xianity as a "foreign" religion and dangerous not as a reiligion belonging to any one "race".

Hero or just another politician is up to each person to figure out for themselves but its a little hard to argue with his belief that allowing Xianity to be the Religion of State for the Roman Empire would prove to be a very dangerous thing for all of the other Beliefs of the time and in the future.

[Theres]

you might notice that i editted out all but the following from the quoted post...


The "European vs. Middle Eastern" conflicts do tend to date from a later period in history, and didn't really get going until the Muslims took over the eastern Mediterranean shores.

this was done deliberately so that i might address that particular point. out of context? sure, and i apologise if that caused any confusion. but my point still remains... the Greeks (who were Europeans) and the Persians (who were Middle Eastern) absolutely were distant powers who were quite different culturally.
and while neither may have been major threats at the time of Julian, the cultural difference still remained, as they do to this day (Greece vs Turkey, anyone?). so my point is that the differences between them were ancient, deep-rooted, and unresolved by the timeframe in question. therefore the statement that major conflicts between the two didn't occur until the Islamic era seems very questionable to me.

i hope that clears my point.

[David19]

Hero or just another politician is up to each person to figure out for themselves but its a little hard to argue with his belief that allowing Xianity to be the Religion of State for the Roman Empire would prove to be a very dangerous thing for all of the other Beliefs of the time and in the future.

But, if Christianity hadn't become dominant, then the world wouldn't be the same place, it may be worse, we may even have been behind, scientificly speaking, for example, Islam may not have been developed, and without the Islamic scholars, we would never have got chemistry, physics, etc.

In Rome, women were treated as the property of a man (a father could give his daughter away to whoever, etc), i know Christian's didn't treat women any better, but at the time of Christianity's introduction to Roman society, they allowed women to take part in their rituals, and be unveiled in their temple (Church), etc - which wasn't done in Roman society.

[Of10Rot10]

But, if Christianity hadn't become dominant, then the world wouldn't be the same place, it may be worse, we may even have been behind, scientificly speaking, for example, Islam may not have been developed, and without the Islamic scholars, we would never have got chemistry, physics, etc.

That is one way of looking at it I guess but what if the opposite were true? Remember that the Dark-ages were the Dark-age because all knowledge outside of what the church thought was fobidden.

During this time the Church Fathers set about to destroy anything they saw as Pagan. While Ceasar is given the blame for burning the Great Library of Alexanderia thats NOT the whole truth. While the Library was never completely restored it had been restored and the Xians destroyed it completely not long after Constantine made his decree.

Chemistry isn't an Islamic developement but was just ONE of the many things they saved from early Xians. The name Chemistry means Black Arts and goes back to Egypts old name Kemet or KMT, Black for Black Lands. All the higher maths they saved from the Greeks as well as many of their great plays and philosophical works. The ideas of universities where these great works of learning could be taught freely also came from Islam and was brought back to Europe from the Cursades. The Church wasn't to happy about losing their thought control but it was too late and the cat was out of the bag.

Now I could be wrong but I tend to think we would have been more advanced were it not for the Xians seizing control.


In Rome, women were treated as the property of a man (a father could give his daughter away to whoever, etc), i know Christian's didn't treat women any better, but at the time of Christianity's introduction to Roman society, they allowed women to take part in their rituals, and be unveiled in their temple (Church), etc - which wasn't done in Roman society.

I know this as well as a Father had the right to kill any member of his household under Ancient Roman law and the Greeks were no better. But that wasn't the case all over the Ancient World and Women in Ancient Egypt actually lost rights when Xianity took over. By the time Islam came along it was no great change for them.

[Brightshores]

you might notice that i editted out all but the following from the quoted post...



this was done deliberately so that i might address that particular point. out of context? sure, and i apologise if that caused any confusion. but my point still remains... the Greeks (who were Europeans) and the Persians (who were Middle Eastern) absolutely were distant powers who were quite different culturally.
and while neither may have been major threats at the time of Julian, the cultural difference still remained, as they do to this day (Greece vs Turkey, anyone?). so my point is that the differences between them were ancient, deep-rooted, and unresolved by the timeframe in question. therefore the statement that major conflicts between the two didn't occur until the Islamic era seems very questionable to me.

i hope that clears my point.
I wasn't trying to say that there were no conflicts between Greeks and Persians/Turks before the Islamic era... I am well aware of the history of the Trojan War, the Persian Wars, etc. My point is that these conflicts do not correspond to "racial" conflicts in the modern sense (I don't know anyone who would argue that ancient Greeks and ancient Persians were of different "races" in the sense that, say, ethnic Swedes and Ethiopians might be considered different "races"). Nor do they exactly correspond with Western vs. Middle Eastern conflicts as they exist today (as in the USA vs. Al Qaeda). I was simply trying to make a cautionary point about describing the ancient world using terminology that has completely different modern connotations.

You probably know this, but just for anyone who might not be aware, Persians and modern Turks are not the same people either - The modern Iranians are the descendants of the ancient Persians, while the Turks were originally a semi-nomadic people of Central Asian origin who arrived in the region during the early 2nd millenium. So, the conflict that exists today between Greeks and Turks is not the same as the conflict that existed between Ancient Greece and Ancient Persia. The modern conflict has more to do with the repression of the Greek people which took place after Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1452 AD.

I know this as well as a Father had the right to kill any member of his household under Ancient Roman law and the Greeks were no better. But that wasn't the case all over the Ancient World and Women in Ancient Egypt actually lost rights when Xianity took over. By the time Islam came along it was no great change for them.
Actually, from what I understand, Roman woman had marginally more rights regarding property ownership and financial transactions than Greek women had. (Greek women didn't have all the same rights either - Spartan women had more rights than Athenian women, for example, but that's another story.) :) Your point is absolutely correct, though; the advent of Christianity in the region did have a major part in the erosion of women's rights in the former Roman empire. (The writings of St Augustine of Hippo were particularly influential in that regard.)

[Of10Rot10]

Actually, from what I understand, Roman woman had marginally more rights regarding property ownership and financial transactions than Greek women had. (Greek women didn't have all the same rights either - Spartan women had more rights than Athenian women, for example, but that's another story.) :)

Agreed I just think that little sticking point of a Roman man having the legal right to off anyone in his household made it a tad worse for Roman Women. And we are probalby of the same mind when it comes to Spartan Women. Who on Earth would have the, uh, guts to tell anything to a Spartan Woman except a Spartan Man and I'm not so sure they did every often.


Your point is absolutely correct, though; the advent of Christianity in the region did have a major part in the erosion of women's rights in the former Roman empire. (The writings of St Augustine of Hippo were particularly influential in that regard.)

Let's not forget that the writtings of Paul didn't help the cause of women either.

[Brightshores]

Agreed I just think that little sticking point of a Roman man having the legal right to off anyone in his household made it a tad worse for Roman Women.
Very true.

And we are probalby of the same mind when it comes to Spartan Women. Who on Earth would have the, uh, guts to tell anything to a Spartan Woman except a Spartan Man and I'm not so sure they did every often.
:lol:

Let's not forget that the writtings of Paul didn't help the cause of women either.
Again - I agree completely. I had a fight about that very thing with a Jehova's Witness who came to my door last week. 8O She didn't really like it when I called Paul a misogynist.

[Of10Rot10]

Again - I agree completely. I had a fight about that very thing with a Jehova's Witness who came to my door last week. 8O She didn't really like it when I called Paul a misogynist.

Of course not. Honestly, if it wasn't for Paul I doubt that there would be an Xianity. And then again she may not have known exactly what you were calling him either. :hahugh:

[Brightshores]

Actually, I believe my exact words to her were "I don't get the impression that Paul liked women very much." She was quite offended, and started saying something to the effect of Paul making a special place for women in Christianity. Then my husband brought up the Da Vinci Code-type Goddess expunging and the conversation kind of went downhill from there. 8O

Anyway - off topic. Emperor Julian, anyone? :)

BTW - I've always enjoyed his epithet. "Julian the Apostate." What a great name. (Second only to my former history prof's nickname for King John - "John the Incredibly Stupid." )

[Of10Rot10]

(Second only to my former history prof's nickname for King John - "John the Incredibly Stupid." )

WOW how true! :rollingla