Athanasius of Alexandria and The Emperor Julian. Rhetorics of Identity and of The Dialogue

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ АВТОНОМНОЕ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ
УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ
ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
«НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
«ВЫСШАЯ ШКОЛА ЭКОНОМИКИ»
Образовательная программа «Медиевистика»,

по направлению 46.04.01 «История»
Каташинская Анастасия
Athanasius of Alexandria and the Emperor Julian.

Rhetorics of Identity and of the Dialogue
(Афанасий Александрийский и император Юлиан:
риторики идентичности и конфликтного диалога)
Выпускная квалификационная работа (магистерская диссертация) студента 2-го курса
Академический руководитель Научный руководитель
Д.и.н., профессор PhD, доцент
П. С. Стефанович А. С. Авдохин
Москва 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Historiography 5
2.1. From Gibbon to Markus to today 5
2.2. Christianization of Hellenism 10
2.2.1. Apuleius, Lucian, Petronius 10
2.2.2. Galen 14
2.2.3. Celsus, Porphyry, Julian 14
3. Historical situation. Julian and Athanasius in context 17
3.1. Athanasius & Julian timeline 17
3.2. Description of the Christian debate of the time. Schism in Antioch 18
3.3. Athanasius’ response. Council of Alexandria 362 19
3.4. Julian’s response to the schism and his policies 20
3.5. Evidence for intertextuality 23
3.5.1. Asclepius and Heracles VS Christ 23
3.5.2. Julian’s view οf the pantheon of gods 30
4. Cosmological image of God the Father in Athanasius and Julian 33
4.1. Premises that allow for a comparison 33
4.2. Approach and methodology 36
4.3. Analysis of the epithets ἀΐδιος and ἄτρεπτος 39
5. Conclusion 45
Bibliography 46
Primary Sources 46
Secondary Sources 47
1
1. Introduction
It is traditional to view late antiquity through the lens of a dichotomy of
Christian and non-Christian (pagan, classical, hellenistic, etc.). Adolf von
Harnack’s idea of hellenization of Christianity as well as the widely accepted
notion of Constantine’s сhristianization of the Roman Empire are based on the
assumption that Christianity unapologetically took over everything that preceded it,
as if Christianity appropriated hellenistic culture as well as the political
organization of the Roman empire. As a result of this approach, the observations
that were being made on different phenomena of this period were described using
the language of this sharp dichotomy1 and often with a hindsight of victorious
Christianity2. Recent scholarship, however, has made a departure from viewing this
transitional period in these terms. In a paper devoted to the audience of Julian the
Apostate’s writing, Susanna Elm poignantly remarks that “all those involved in the
study of Late Antiquity <...> labor hard to disrupt and complicate narratives of
triumph and decline and to soften the divide between non-Christian and Christian,
both orthodox and heretical”.3 A departure does not mean a break from a tradition
because the sources and the scholarship on this period are defined by this
dichotomy. Thus, the attempts to go beyond the existing conventions are
inseparable from a dialogue with them.
The present paper is concerned with this premise of dominating Christianity
and seeks to render a less absolutist account of the existing relations between
paganism and Christianity in the 4th century. Both Athanasius of Alexandria and
1
It was remarked by Claudia Rapp, “Hagiography and the Cult of Saints in the Light of Epigraphy and
Acclamations” in Byzantine Religious Culture edited by Alice-Mary M. Talbot et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011, 291) that
“scholarship on this period represents a continuing effort to measure the relative weight of the ancient tradition and
Christian innovation and to determine the precise formula of their admixture.”
2
“The relationship between Rome and Christianity continues in modern times to be cast in the grand narrative
according to which the Roman empire declined and fell soon after Christianity had triumphed.” Susanna Elm,
“Julian the writer and his audience.” In Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', 2.
3
Susanna Elm, “Julian the writer and his audience”, 4.
2
the emperor Julian, who are at the heart of my research, are emblematic figures of
a time emblematic in itself as marking the Christianisation of the Roman Empire.
Whereas the image of Athanasius as historical figure is distorted by the dominating
reference as bishop of Alexandria, a church father and a pioneer of the Christian
orthodoxy, that of Julian is distorted by his paganism and his apostasy, which had
won him a corresponding cognomen that diffuses a characteristically anti-Christian
perception. As such they represent two camps: Christian and Hellenistic, or pagan.
I will demonstrate that the dialogue between pagans and Christians during
the first centuries after the death of Christ cannot be viewed only as Christianity
appropriating Greek culture (i.e. hellenization of Christianity). It is more accurate
to view it as a less straightforwardly developing communication, in which both
parties borrowed from each other. To make this more articulate, one can think of it
as a sports game, where a newcomer team with a particular technique (and,
perhaps, even a different vision of the game) makes it to the top league. As the
time passes, this lesser team gradually starts to demonstrate a more successful
performance by acquiring the practices of its more proficient rivals. It starts to win
and to shake the authority of the former leaders of the game. These teams, in their
turn, try to reclaim their domination by acquiring the winning strategies of the
newcomer. The newcomer is Christianity, and hellenization of Christianity is the
process of acquiring the rules of Hellenisitic culture, i.e. the ‘top league’. It seems
fair to say the Christian-pagan dialogue of the first five or six centuries represented
a similar exchange where the rivals advanced by appropriating the other’s
techniques and strategies. Christian thought and practice did indeed take the upper
hand, and the hellenization of Christianity describes the result of the struggle
between Christianity and Hellenic culture, of which paganism is part. However, it
does not make as much justice to the struggle itself, before the outcome was a fact.
3
In the first section, I will provide a history of the construction and
deconstruction of the idea of victorious Christianity in late antiquity studies and an
overview of instances that speak for a ‘reactive’ borrowing of Hellenism from
Christianity. In the second section, I will describe in detail the context of relations
between Athanasius and Julian: the dealings they were both involved in, the
context of Athanasius’ exile ordered by Julian, and premises for an intertextual
analysis of them as authors. In the third section, I will demonstrate, based on
textual evidence, the difference in how the two use approach paideia in order to
reveal continuity with the ‘reactive’ borrowing mentioned above.
4
2. Historiography
2.1. From Gibbon to Markus to today

As has been said, our view of late antiquity has long been dominated by the
paradigm of triumphant Christianity and conquered paganism. Within the scope of
modern scholarship this development can be traced as far back as the 18th century.
Edward Gibbon, the author of the famous History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, evaluates the primacy of Christianity and defeat of pagan religions
as inevitable, even if he does not ascribe this inevitably to the intrinsic qualities of
the two belief systems. More than a century later Arthur Darby Nock echoing
Gibbon’s notion of triumphant Christianity draws an exceptionalist view of it.
First, he distinguishes between religions of traditions (essentially, cults) and
prophetic religions (Judaism and Christianity). He employs this distinction to speak
about religious systems of Antiquity4 and to finally arrive at a conclusion that
Christianity owes its success not to the figure of Christ, but to its meeting the needs
of the society5. This exceptionalist conception of Christianity, formulated on
theological and institutional levels, keeps, yet again, one’s attention away from a
more articulated historical account of the interplay between Christianity and
paganism. Not only does this view undo the dialogue between Christianity and
4
Religions of traditions are defined as relying for their backbone on hallowing of the customs transmitted through
generations. Prophetic religions rely on reason (which is communicated by a prophet, and dispensed by his
followers), as Nock puts it, and hold practice of secondary importance. His further observations regarding the
difference of the two reveal a position of superiority of the latter. Religions of traditions, according to Nock, are
mere systems of religious observances of small social units and require no difficult decision in adhering to them,
because they have “no important contacts with other cultures which have either material or intellectual superiority or
a cult and belief capable of exciting curiosity and attention.”Whereas in prophetic religions, a conversion (and not
adherence) takes place and comes with a painful renunciation of the past. According to Nock’s system, Christianity
as a religion thus appears superior to paganism. See Arthur D. Nock, Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion
from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. (Lanham: University Press of America, 1988).
5
“The success of Christianity is the success of an institution which united the sacramentalism and the philosophy of
the time.” See Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion, 210-211.
5
polytheism, but also it tends to reduce historical discourse to the sphere of religion
studies.
Nock makes a noteworthy remark on the role that Greek philosophy played
in emergent Christianity: “In Christianity it [Greek philosophy] was used for the
interpretation of a body of doctrine widely held by men speaking Greek and Latin.
In its rivals it was used to give substance and meaning to what was essentially a
cult and a mythology.”6 This is a fine illustration of the notion of hellenized
Christianity briefly mentioned in the introduction. This idea and historiographic
framework can be traced to the theological debates that originated during the
Reformation. Elaboration of the notion of hellenization of Christianity in Late
Antiquity is associated with the German scholarly tradition represented by Johann
Lorenz von Mosheim, Ferdinand Christian Baur, Reinhold Seeberg and Adolf von
Harnack7. It virtually conceptualizes a period that represents a concentration of
varied historiographical beginnings and ends similar to a knot of entangled threads:
end of Antiquity, beginning of the Middle Ages; end of the Western Roman
Empire, beginning of the Eastern Roman Empire; end of paganism, beginning of
Christendom; end of purely Roman political aristocracy, admission of the barbaric
elites on the territories formerly ruled from Rome, and of philosophical hairesis,
beginning of orthodoxy. While the framework of hellenization of Christianity in
Late Antiquity makes a good fit for the historiographic situation, it also causes
problems when it comes to historical scrutiny. It will be demonstrated that the
persistence of the notion of ‘hellenized Christianity’ overshadowed a reactive
process, in which hellenistic culture was borrowing from Christianity. Standalone,
hellenization of Christianity renders a paradoxical situation in which the culture
6
Ibid, 268-269.
7
Formulation and elaboration of the notion of hellenized Christianity is thoroughly explained in an article by Pyotr
B. Mikhailov, “Konzepziya ellinizatsii khistianskva v istorii teologii.” In Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tikhonskogo
gummanitarnogo universiteta. Seriya 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiya. Religiovedenie, no. 71, 2017, 50–68.
6
that surrounded paganism, i.e. hellenism, not only survived, but “triumphed”
alongside Christianity, while paganism has died out, as is commonly held, without
leaving a trace.
This situation starts to be addressed from the 1970-s onwards and is best
showcased in the works of Rowan Williams, Frank Trombly, Glen Bowersock and
Garth Fowden8. Bowersock, while making a case for traces of tenacious paganism
in the 6th century, points out that the emphasis on Greek language and philosophy
in the study of early Christianity is problematic and that the whole concept of
hellenization “is a useless barometer for assessing Greek culture”9 (part of which is
paganism). Bowersock breaks Hellenism down in language, thought, and
mythology involved in the cults. He then demonstrates that while Christianity
could “espouse” Hellenism at the level of literature and thought, paganism met
Hellenism at the level of language and mythology. The confusion becomes even
more obvious when we come to realize that the adjective hellenikos could be used
to designate both pagan and Greek attributes.10 Thus we see that notion of
Hellenization problematized. But, as Fowden notices, Bowersock is less concerned
with Christianity than he is with paganism11. In other words, he does lay bare the
contradictions of the idea of triumphant Christianity and extinct paganism, but does
not grapple with the concept of hellenization as applied to Christianity.
In more recent scholarship yet another distinctive turn can be discerned.
Robert Markus’ in his The End of Ancient Christianity takes for a starting point not
our existing framework, but the very phenomenon of religious conversion. For it is
8
It is noteworthy that these questions are anticipated by scholarship focusing on the economic and social aspects of
late antiquity. It seems secure to claim that their discoveries [specify] paved the way to questions hitherto
overlooked. Frank Trombley, while trying/undertaking to answer “how, where and when pagan religion was
displaced by Christian monotheism and where it was not” (best represented by the works of Jones (1986) and de Ste.
Croix (1981)), supports his arguments with legal evidence and available knowledge of the social blueprint.
9
Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, 7.
10
Ibid, 9-10.
11
Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind (Princeton: University
Press, 1986), xiv.
7
the Christianization, here understood as massive conversion from paganism into
Christianity, that has always been central to our conceptualization of late antiquity
and hence to the way we tend to think about it. Markus demonstrates that drawing
a rigid line to separate one period as distinct from another based on the fact of mass
conversion can be misleading. His rationale is straightforward: the evidence
provided by our sources taken at face value (the fact of circulation of religious
creeds, edicts regulating religious life, ritual behavior and religious art, often
ascribed to a specific religion without reservation) speaks for privileged
expressions of belief at best and cannot be extrapolated on larger groups of people,
let alone everyone.12 Even if part of what Markus is doing is deconstructing
traditional patterns of approaching late antiquity, he also lays out paths that are
better aligned with the subject. He proposes not to make any distinction between
Christian and pagan cultures13 and to treat them as existing in a single cultural
space14. Another direction for scholarship on Late Antiquity concerns the questions
with which we approach our sources. Markus suggests that our inquiry should not
stop when we arrive at factual answers regarding lifestyles, beliefs, and ritual
practices. We can learn about the actual value of this information by asking what
the meaning of these facts was. An illustrative example is provided by Markus in
12
See Robert Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10. Besides
that, defining something as Christian or pagan is complicated by the way in which religious beliefs manifest
themselves. According to Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity, 3: “the line which separates religion from ‘the
way of doing things’ may be hard to trace, and it will rarely stay still”. In this respect, we have to be sure that we are
conscious of the differences between secular and sacred, cultural and religious and that these categories are not
clear-cut.
13
It is this distinction that underlies the idea of the hellenization of Christianity.
14
One can argue that Markus contradicts himself when he claims this because the observation is preceded by a
suggestion to avoid using the terms “religion” and “culture” in the study of Late Antiquity. And yet, the case that he
makes is significant. When Markus warns the reader that distinguishing between religion and culture is problematic,
he essentially reveals that it is hard to tell where religion ends and a way of doing things, i.e. culture, starts. To avoid
it, he introduces a different perspective, according to which “if one can speak of a ‘Christian culture’ in the Late
Roman world, it is one shared in great measure with its non-Christian counterpart.” See Markus, The End of Ancient
Christianity, 12.
8
Chapter 8, in which he scrutinizes celebration of festivals at the threshold of the
5th century15.
Most recent studies on Late Antiquity build on this line of thought. A
collection of papers published following the conference held in the Hungarian
Academy in Rome in 2012 and dedicated to the research on pagan-Christian
relations in the 4th century was put together by Michele Renee Salzman, Marianne
Sághy, and Rita Lizzi Testa in a book called Pagans And Christians In Late
Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, And Coexistence In The Fourth Century.
While these papers cover a variety of themes, they are united by an assumption that
the “the once-dominant notion of pagan-Christian religious conflict cannot fully
explain the texts and artifacts, as well as the social, religious, and political realities
of late antique Rome”16, demonstrating continuity with Markus. This scholarly
conversation addresses different topics, among which: pagan-Christian dialogue at
the senatorial level (M.R. Salzman, R. Chenault, A. Cameron); semantic range of
the word “pagan” (T.Jürgasch, D. Boin); confrontation of religious groups in
context (M.Kahlos, D. Slootjes); scrutiny of religious practices (J.Bjørnebye, D.E.
Trout, N. McLynn, F. Diosono) and burial traditions (N.D. Lewis, M.Hellström, M.
Sághy, G.L. Dal Santo); and, finally, iconography of late antique imagery (C.M.
d’Annouville, S. Anghel, L. Nagy). This range of areas of research reflects
present-day situation in the studies of Late Antiquity. Within the scope of the
present research, the theme of religious confrontation, broadly put, will be brought
forward.
15
“Such questions [of whether festivals were considered secular or sacred] are not answered by merely listing
festivals found surviving in Christian calendars or in other evidence of Christian practice, and labeling them ‘pagan
survivals’, as if such survival proved anything.lo What is needed is searching investigation of what exactly the
celebration of such traditional festivals involved, and what those — pagans as well as Christians — who took part in
them thought they were doing, and what those who tried to prohibit participation in them accused them of doing.”
See Markus, Robert. The End of Ancient Christianity, 107-120.
16
Michele Renee Salzman, M. Sághy, and R. Lizzi Testa, Pagans And Christians In Late Antique Rome: Conflict,
Competition, And Coexistence In The Fourth Century (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 2.
9
As regards the dialogue between Athanasius of Alexandria and Julian the
Apostate, a few remarks have to be made. While both received great scholarly
attention, their writings have not been probed for the respective influences of
paganism and Christianity. Athanasius appears in our sources and scholarship
primarily in the light of his confrontation with other Christian groups considered
heretical, and not with groups external to Christianity. Julian’s writings,
respectively, have not been studied with respect to Christian debates of his time
until Susanna Elm’s relatively recent research on the dialogue between Julian and
Gregory of Nazianzus. Some scholars went as far as to claim that “there is no trace
of Christianity to be found in his [Julian’s] rather obtuse philosophical
speculations.”17 This provides a great opportunity to dig into this formerly
overlooked area.
2.2. Christianization of Hellenism
2.2.1. Apuleius, Lucian, Petronius

We know that paideia of educated Christians in late antiquity builds on the
classical Greek paideia. It is thus a Christianized paideia built on the classical
curriculum – a phenomenon characterized, yet again, by hellenization of
Christianity.18 It is as if Christianity entered the game and acquired the rules of
Hellenic paideia, but the paideia itself remained unshaken. The process of
appropriation of classical knowledge by Christian intellectuals in service of
Christian thought is indubitable, but we should not forget about the educated elite
that was in dialogue with or resisted this Christian influence. More prominent for
this paper is the question of how classical paideia (not in strictly institutional
17
Susanna Elm, “Julian the writer and his audience.” In Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', 8.
18
See Matthew R. Hauge, A.W. Pitts, eds, Ancient Education and Early Christianity (London: Bloomsbury T&T
Clark, 2016) and Peter Gemeinhardt, L. Van Hoof, and P. Van Nuffelen, eds. Education and Religion in Late Antique
Christianity. Reflections, Social Contexts and Genres (London, New York: Routledge, 2016).
10
educational sense, but rather as a cultural currency) of those who did not embrace
Christianity underwent a change informed by distinctly Christian elements. A
familiarity with the Bible and with broader Christian heritage among non-christian
writers has been well attested. We see it in satirical novels (Lucian, Apuleius,
Petronius), in comparative treatises (Galen), and in polemical attacks against
Christians (Celsus, Porphyry). In what follows I will provide a brief overview of
these authors to shed light on pagan, or Hellenic, engagement with Christian
literature and themes in the first centuries of the common era and I will start with
the novel genre.
Apuleius, Lucian, and Petronius wrote satirical novels which, among other
topics, exposed what appeared, in their time, as weaknesses of the Christian
teaching. Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, also referred to as The Golden Ass, was
written in the late 2nd century. It narrates the adventures of a Roman youth Lucius
who, transformed into a donkey by magic, gets involved in a series of humiliating
events that render him exhausted and desperate. Finally, he finds resolution of his
sufferings and salvation in the cult of the goddess Isis. It is generally agreed that
Apuleius’s Metamorphoses contains parodic allusions to Christians, while
Christianity is not being openly criticized. Ilaria Ramelli has argued that allusions
to Christianity play on accusations that were commonly used against Christians in
the days of Apuleius, like accusations in magic and astrology, in atheism, and in
onolatry (worship of the donkey).19 The latter appears to be formative for the
presentation of Lucians' guise as a donkey, under which he was undergoing his
sufferings in the picaresque fashion. Same satirizing device is used for the
demeaning descriptions of the personal qualities. Thus, Miller’s wife is ascribed
attributes, usually charged against Christians: wantonness (lascivia), immodesty
19
Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, "Apuleius and Christianity: The Novelist-Philosopher in Front of a New Religion" In Intende,
Lector - Echoes of Myth, Religion and Ritual in the Ancient Novel, edited by Marília P. Futre Pinheiro, et al., (Berlin,
Boston: De Gruyter, 2013, 145-174), 152.
11
(impudicitia), unfaithfulness (inimica fidei), obstinate (pervicax pertinax), etc.20
This is suggestive of Apuleius’ intention to provide a parody of a Christian woman.
Ramelli suggested that Apuleius, being a Middle Platonist who was proud of his
philosophical affiliation with Platonism, “was not sympathetic to a doctrine that
focused not only on the incarnation and passion of God, but also on the
resurrection of the dead.”21 Hence, Apuleius’ was a reportedly polemical interest in
Christianity.
Lucian’s Passing of Peregrinus presents a similar literary treatment of
Christianity, but uses different devices. Alexey D. Panteleev, while making a case
for a later date of writing of The Passing of Peregrinus, reveals that Lucian uses as
his source the 2nd-century Martyrdom of Polycarp. He observes that Lucian
follows closely the elements of the plot of the Martyrdom even in small detail, like
the description of compiling the fire, taking off of the clothes, and a description of
a particular odor.22 Panteleev further explains that the effect that Lucian thus
achieves is denigration of Peregrinus, cynic (a group that Lucian also despised),
and of the Christian martyrs.23
A scrutiny of the text of Satyricon demonstrates similar developments to
what we saw with Apuleis and Lucian. The discussion of the influence of Christian
texts on Satyricon, like on The Passing of Peregrinus, depends on the question of
dating. Satyricon was traditionally attributed to the mid-1st century CE to the
authorship of Petronius. The general assumption is that the later the date, the
higher is the likelihood of derivation from Christian texts due to later establishing
of canonical Christian writings. Hence, more recent findings suggest later dating,
20
Ibid., 152-154.
21
Ibid., 157.
22
Aleksey D. Panteleev, “Martyrium Polycarpi and De morte Peregrini: once again on old discussion.” In
Indo-European Linguistics And Classical Philology–XXI Proceedings of the 21st Conference in Memory of
Professor Joseph M. Tronsky (Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2017), 642-652, at 643.
23
Ibid., 649.
12
which accordingly allows for associating parallels with Canonical Gospels. The
following shared topoi are thus distinguished in Satyricon: “ritual anointing,
crucifixion, a disappearance from the cross, a cannibalistic fellowship meal,
(implied) resurrection and the motif of the empty tomb”.24 Robert Walsh lays
emphasis on two themes from the Gospels: the banquet scene, i.e. the Last supper,
and the funerary events scenes, i.e. from crucifixion to the tomb proceedings. The
following elements draw a parallel between the Last Supper and the Cena:
Anointing of Trimalchio who presides over a banquet setting, anointing of all
attendants as anticipation of a funeral, and crowing of a rooster as a forestalling
ominous event.25 Another example is the story of the Widow of Ephesus that
embraces Gospel elements such as crucifixion, guards, robbers, the nights in the
tomb, missing crucified corpses and ascending the cross.26 Walsh demonstrates that
the incorporation in Satyrica of the elements alluding to the New Testament has a
satirical function, just as has Lucian’s calque of Martyrdom of Polycarp in The
Passing of Peregrinus and Apuleius’ employment of accusations commonly held
against the Christians in his Metamorphoses.
Walsh makes another remarkable observation that is absent in the studies on
Apuleius and Lucian. He reminds that the genre of the Gospels is not literary
independent, as has been maintained by theological rather than historical
approaches to the New Testament.27 Thus, he remarks, in agreement with Stanley
K. Stowers’ observations28, that the missing corpses motif was a common topos in
antiquity and that “myths such as that of Herakles, his missing body and his
24
Robert F. Walsh, “The Satyrica and the Gospels in the Second Century”. The Classical Quarterly 70.1 (2020),
356.
25
Ibid., 361.
26
Ibid., 363.
27
Ibid., 359.
28
Stanley K. Stowers, “Kinds of Myths, Meals, and Power: Paul and Corinthians”, in Redescribing Paul and the
Corinthians, eds. Ron Cameron and Merrill P. Miller, Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians (Atlanta, 2011),
105–50, at 105.
13
conquering of death would have helped contextualize Paul’s message about the
new, pneumatic body of Christ.”29 In other words, a motif that is associated as
distinctly Christian is attested to have a Hellenic background. The idea of
hellenized Christianity is thus wavered by simple evidence of features that derive
from Hellenic context.
2.2.2. Galen
Galen was a 2nd century physician who, along with anatomy and medicine,
had a good grasp of philosophy. It is noteworthy that he never adopted the views of
any philosophical school because he criticized them for “dogmatism and
unwillingness to entertain opinions different from their own.”30 We find
information about Christianity in Galen’s medical treatises, where he does not treat
it with any special attention, but rather mentions Christians in passing along with
other philosophical schools. In De usu partium, in a section discussing the
reasoning for absence of hair on the forehead, Galen claims that Moses’ account of
creation and way of treating nature31 is superior to that of Epicurus. However, he
criticizes Moses’ cosmogony as inferior to that of Plato, as presented in Timaeus.
This same critique was later used by Julian in his Contra Galilaeos. Openly
polemical, and not critical accounts against Christianity are represented by the
works of Celsus and Porphyry, not to mention Julian.
2.2.3. Celsus, Porphyry, Julian

Robert Wilken points out that Celsus’ is the first polemical account against
Christians that provides a rich and varied argument and is informed by a firm grasp
29
Robert F. Walsh, “The Satyrica and the Gospels in the Second Century”, 366.
30
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 2nd ed. (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 2003), 70.
31
Wilken brings to our attention that Galen is unlikely to have read the New Testament and his reading of Genesis is
to be regarded as Christian account of creation. Besides, in the 2nd century a distinctly Christian cosmogony was
given little attention by Christians thinkers. See Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 87-88.
14
of the Gospels.32 The central points of Celsus’ critique concern theological
inconsistency (God’s descent from the heavens, God’s omnipotence as performed
on natural processes of the body, i.e. resurrection, inconsistency of worshiping
Jesus with the idea of one God); Jesus’ life (the virgin birth, the baptism, his
resurrection, his miracles and teachings) 109; apostasy from Judaism (offense of
the Jewish Law and a departure from the traditional ways). The difficulty with
worshiping Christ was that he was seen as a rival to one God, whereas pagan gods
were always seen as inferior to one God. Clesus’ concern with the worship of Jesus
along with one God prefigures the 4th century solution declared at the council of
Nicaea, according to which Christ is of the same substance as God.
While Celsus’ anti-Christian work claimed the attention of only one
apologist, Porphyry’s writings against Christians found response among a number
of Christian intellectuals, like Eusebius, Methodius, Apollinarius, Jerome, and
Augustine. Whereas the Christian emperors Constantine and Theodosius II
responded by censoring his texts. Based on what has survived. Porphyry’s
engagement with his subject is deeper than what we see in Celsus33. Porphyry
engages with the Biblical text at a level comparable to that of the Chrisitian
intellectuals. He demonstrates the legitimacy of historical interpretation of the
Book of Daniel over a prophetical one, used by the Christians as a source of
prophecies heralding the coming of Christ. When approaching the New Testament,
he focused his attack on proving the inconsistencies and contradictions between the
four Gospels. It is noteworthy that Porphyry offers an evaluation of the figure of
Christ that differs strikingly from that of Celsus and from what Julian will later
32
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2003), 96-108.
33
“Celsus also criticized the biblical text, but he did not know the Scriptures as well, nor was he as skillful a literary
critic as Porphyry. Porphyry also had the benefit of Origen’s exegesis, which helped him to see where the problems
lay”. See Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 2003), 147.
15
provide in Contra Galilaeos and his other anti-Christian works. According to
Porphyry, Jesus was a wise and pious man who worshiped one God and taught
others the same virtues, while his disciples distorted this making Jesus God. Hence,
Jesus deserves being honored, not as a god, but as a wise man. Porphyry’s
conception of Jesus made him fit for the pagan mentality to the detriment of his
divinity. While Porphyry’s vision of Jesus differs from that of Celsus, their
arguments generally agree, even if Porphyry demonstrates a more thorough literary
and historical criticism than Celsus.
Julian’s Contra Galilaeos is third in line of the anti-Christian texts. The
opinions regarding the merit of Julian’s work differ: Wright sees Contra Galilaeos
as continuation of Celsus’ and Porphyry’s works,34 Athanassiadi estimates it as
inferior to the work of Porphyry.35 Nonetheless, the logic of CG echoes the logic of
his predecessors. He follows the same magistral arguments, namely that the
Christians departed from the Jewish law and that Jesus has no divine qualities
compatible with one God. Regarding the latter, he takes Celsus’ stand and does not
claim that Jesus was a sage, like Porphyry did. In fact, Julian’s stand on Christ is
even more intricate than this. While Julian attacks Christ’s divine and pre-existing
nature, he shapes Asclepius and Heracles after Christ. This has been convincingly
demonstrated by David Neil Greenwood36 and will be discussed in more detail
further in this paper.
34
Emperor Julian. The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, edited and translated by Wilmer Cave Wright (London:
Heinemann, 1923) 314.
35
Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian. An Intellectual Biography (London: Routledge, 2014), 6.
36
Greenwood, David Neal. “Julian’s Use Of Asclepius: Against The Christians.” Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 109 (2017): 491–509. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44863970.
16
3. Historical situation. Julian and Athanasius in context
3.1. Athanasius & Julian timeline

26 November 361 - George reentered Alexandria
January 362 - Julian reclaims the library of George of Cappadocia
9 Feb 362 - Prefect of Egypt Gerontius publishes the edict redeeming Christian
bishops in Alexandria
21 Feb 362 - Athanasius reclaims his see in Alexandria
22 February 362 - Julian withdraws the privilege of free transportation from
bishops and reserves the right to grant free transportation to himself
March 362 - Writing of Orations 5, 6, 7
April-May 362 - Council of Alexandria
Before 12 May - Julian sends a letter to the Alexandrians (Epistula 24), while still
in Constantinople
after 12 May - Julian Leaves Constabtinople
17 June 362 - Law restricting Christian teachers (Epistula 36) is passed
about October 362 - Another letter (Epistula 46) is sent to the prefect of Egypt,
asking for deposition of Athanasius from the see in Alexandria
October 362 - Letter to Photinus
24 October 362 - Athanasius leaves Alexandria, and not long after the
Alexandrians petitioned Julian for his return. Epistula 47 was his answer to
them.
November - Dec. 362 - A letter-response (Epistula 47) to the Alexandrians, they
“demanded Athanasius back”.
Winter 362/3 - Julian writes Contra Galilaeos
17
3.2. Description of the Christian debate of the time. Schism in
Antioch
Julian and Athansius were contemporaries, even if their timelines were
slightly misaligned in relation to one another. Julian was born in 331 when
Athanasius was already bishop of Alexandria. When Julian became sole ruling
augustus in 361 Athanasius was in his early sixties. Regardless of the gap, our
sources bear witness to an actual involvement that the two had in the affairs of one
another.
When Julian became emperor following Contantius’ death, Athanasius was
in exile starting in 356. In the beginning of 362 the new emperor issued an edict
with which he restored all the bishops who had been sent into exile during
Constatius’ rule, among whom was Athanasius.37 After Julian’s edict, Athanasius
reclaimed his see with zeal and readily set on the pressing issues of the day. During
eight months of Athanasius’ episcopacy in 362 he managed to make an impact on
the churches of the West and got involved in the affairs of Antioch, which was
torn, at that time, by a schism dividing the Christian parties. The origins of the
schism can be traced back to the Council of Serdica in 343 that marked a formal
division between the Churches of East and West. The schism in Antioch, as it was
addressed in 362, divided the Christian community between three parties: adherent
of the homoousian (same essence), homoiousian (similar essence) and homoean
(Son is like Father, at the detriment of using the word οὐσία, essence) creeds. The
official creed at that time, endorsed by the Council of Constantinople in 360
(resolving the conflicting decisions of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia),
contained homoean christology. David Hunt concisely explained the homoean
formula of 360 as the “‘lowest common denominator’ of the doctrinal alternative, a
37
Iuliani Imperatoris. Epistulae, leges, poematia, fragmenta varia. Edited by Joseph Bidez and François Cumont, Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1922, p 51-52.
18
hard-won (not to say enforced) consensus attractive to an emperor with his eye on
the prize of formal unity, and designed especially to exclude those of the
competing participants who occupied the extremities of theological spectrum”38. In
other words, it accommodated the Nicene inclination to associate Son with Father
and the non-Nicene (Arian) inclination to distinguish their natures. While
Athanasius used this opportunity to reclaim the Nicene formula in Antioch and
elsewhere in the empire by the resolution of the Council of Alexandria, Julian
engaged with the debate on Christ’s divinity in an unconventional manner.
3.3. Athanasius’ response. Council of Alexandria 362

Between April and May 362, Athanasius summoned a Church Council in
Alexandria. The Council was not an isolated phenomenon. While most of the
bishops came from Egypt and Libya, three bishops (Eusebius of Vercellae, bishop
Asterius from Arabia and representatives of Lucifer of Cagliari) represented other
Churches. One of the issues of the council was the schism in Antioch39. Two
documents resuming the decisions of the council were issued: Epistula Catolica
and Tomus ad Antiochenos. The former was sent to all provinces of the Empire, the
latter was addressing the specific situation at Antioch along with more generic
issues. While the council did not lead to peace between the conflicting parties in
Antioch, it had a wider resonance around the Empire. The Council of Alexandria
had a wave effect: similar councils were held in 362 in Greece, Spain, and Gaul.
They repeated the decision of the council of Alexandria in pardoning those
38
David Hunt, “The Christian context of Julian’s Against the Galilaeans.” Chapter in Emperor and Author: The
Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', 254-255.
39
The Council of Alexandria in 362 was occupied with four issues: 1. The terms on which communion should be
vouchsafed to those Arians who desired to reunite 2. Arian christology: the doctrine of the Holy Ghost 3. The state
of the Church at Antioch was the most practical problem before the council. 4. In connection with the Antiochene
situation, a question of theological terminology was addressed (οὐσία, ὑπόστασισ), a thorough. (Shaft and Wace
481-482).
19
clergymen who had acquiesced to the Arian versions of Christianity out of
necessity or under threat.40
3.4. Julian’s response to the schism and his policies

Julian, who spent most of his emperorship in Antioch while preparing his
military campaign to Persia and elaborating his religious policies, had the issue of
the Antiochian schism at hand41. Glanville Downey had suggested that Julian’s
decision to reside in Antioch for such a long period was due to the fact that it
offered “a unique field for re-conversion to the Hellenic faith.”42 Whether this
actually motivated Julian cannot be said with certainty, but it is true that Antioch
would have better served the purpose than other metropolises of the East, namely,
Constantinople and Alexandria - the strongholds of Christianity. Antioch was
famous as a libertine city. Soon after Julian’s arrival the Antiochians, drawn into a
schism of their own, grew discontent with a religious revolution proposed by the
new emperor. Thus, both Julian and Athanasius were involved in the Antiochian
cause, which, in its turn, was symptomatic of a larger debate between different
Christian parties.
Julian’s political ambitions might seem paradoxical. A glance at a small
selection of texts can reveal a somewhat contradictory attitude that Julian had to
Christianity. Among Julian’s edicts, two were meant to make a considerable impact
on Christians. On 22 February 362, Julian withdrew the right for free transportation
and other travel privileges granted by Constantine in 314 from bishops and other
40
Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge:
Harvard University, 2001), 158.
41
“Later in 362, Julian was confronted with a public relations crisis in Antioch that escalated rapidly. Attempting to
bring events back under control, Julian returned to that pattern. He wrote a letter attacking a Nicene bishop, invited
the cooperation of a bishop universally agreed upon as heterodox, and then followed up with theological recraftings
of Asclepius into the preexistent son of Helios who took on a body to become the savior from sin.” Quoted from
David Neal Greenwood, Julian and Christianity. Revisiting the Constantinian Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2021),75.
42
Glanville Downey, “Julian the Apostate in Antioch.” Church History vol. 8, no. 4 (1939): 303-315, at 309.
20
Church figures.43 This measure, whether called for by economic hardships or
ideological concerns, inevitably inhibited the ease of travel to and from different
parts of the empire when a council would be summoned. A measure that was met
with greater resonance was an edict issued on 17 July 362 which restricted
Christian instructors to teach Greek curriculum.44 However, Julian’s own bent to
Christian legacy did not seem to bother the emperor. Another document, A Letter
to a Priest, represents an instruction for pagan priests to embrace practices
performed by Christian priests.45 Taken at face value, this shows both a contempt
for and appreciation of Christianity.
As paradoxical as Julian’s policies appear to be, If Julian was involved in
the religious debate of his time, it was, David Hunt argues, with awareness of the
intricacies of the Christian debate.46 He is likely to have aimed at siding with those
Christians whose views were most compatible with his version of paganism and
who could, via this common denominator, embrace his religious program. Hunt has
suggested that Against the Galilaeans is not just a generic treatise against
Christians, but it is engages with contemporary debate on Christ's divinity47. Within
the Christian debate Julian would side with the party whose position was closest to
his traditional Hellenic views on religion, i.e. the extreme Arianism. That he did
not oppose himself to all of the Christians can be asserted from the fact that he
championed Aetius, who was holding on to extreme Arianism, and Photinus, who
upheld full divinity of God the Father at the expense of the divinity and eternity of
God the Son.
43
Emperor Julian. The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, edited and translated by Wilmer Cave Wright (London:
Heinemann, 1923), xix.
44
Ibid., 116-123.
45
See and David Neal Greenwood, Julian and Christianity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2021), 103.
46
David Hunt, “The Christian context of Julian’s Against the Galilaeans.” Chapter in Emperor and Author: The
Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', 251–262.
47
Ibid., at 254.
21
Recently, David Greenwood showed a continuity between Athanasius’
description of Christ with Julian’s portrayal of Asclepius and Heracles48. There is
considerable literature juxtaposing Christ with late antique divine human figures
(Heracles, Asclepius, Dionysus). It has been argued that early Christians used a
familiar Mediterranean concept of human gods, or immortals, to proclaim Jesus.49
Herbert Jennings Rose demonstrated a reverse influence.50 Similarly, Greenwood
has demonstrated that terminology used by Julian can be traced to Athanasius and
to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament51. In his book Julian and
Christianity Greenwood uses this evidence to show that modeling a pagan figure of
savior (Asclepius) after Jesus was Julian’s pagan response to the religious schism
in Antioch52. This interplay of characters will be treated in more detail in the next
chapter.
The actual confrontation between Julian and Athanasius was not less real.
While Julian was conducting his pro-pagan, or anti-Christian, policy, the course of
events was not headed his way as the wave of re-conversion to Nicene Christianity
in the West and in other parts of the Empire shows. The authority of the
Alexandrian church, Athanasius’ involvement with the affairs of the Christian
Church in the empire and the impact that he has made were, very possibly, the
reasons for Julian’s command to depose Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria. While
still in Constantinople, Julian writes a letter to Alexandrians (Epistula 24)
requesting Athanasius to depart from the city. In another letter sent around
October 362, this time addressed to the prefect of Egypt (Epistula 46), Julian
repeats his demand, because, apparently, Athanasius had not left neither his see,
48
ref-ce
49
Charles H. Talbert; “The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 no
3 (1975): 419–436.
50
Herbert J.Rose, “Herakles and the Gospels.” Harvard Theological Review 31(1938): 113–42.
51
David Neal Greenwood. “New Testament Christology, Athanasian Apologetic, and Pagan Polemic.” The Journal
of Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2017): 101–105.
52
Greenwood, Julian and Christianity, 75.
22
nor the city. After the second warning, Athanasius leaves the city (into his fourth
exile). Not long after his departure, Alexandrians send a letter to the emperor
asking him to remit Athanasius. Julian writes an extensive return-letter to the
Alexandrians (Epistula 47). This letter is noteworthy for its content echoes Julian’s
Against the Galilaeans. The basic ingredients of his argument against Christians
are prominent in the ep. 47. First, it is the notion that an obvious error that
Christians have committed is that they turned away from the traditions and the
laws of their forefathers. Second, it is a framework with two poles (Hellenism and
Judaism)53, in relation to which Christianity is antithesized. With this letter we find
the strongest accusation of the Alexandrians and an open disdain of Athanasius.
3.5. Evidence for intertextuality
3.5.1. Asclepius and Heracles VS Christ

As has been mentioned, Julian’s writings contain many parallels with
distinctly Christian elements. Julian’s descriptions of pagan figures of human
immortals (Asclepius, Heracles and Dionysos) echo Christian descriptions of
Jesus. They are paired with pagan figures of fatherly gods (Zeus, Helios and
Apollo) in a relationship modeled on the Christian depictions of the relationship
between God the Father and God the Son. Examples of this are extensive/ample
and stretch over most of Julian’s late writing that mark his active polemic with the
Chrtistians. An emblematic example of this is contained in the description of
Asclepius in Contra Galilaeos:
ὁ γάρ τοι Ζεὺς ἐν μὲν τοῖς νοητοῖς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀσκληπιὸν ἐγέννησεν, εἰς
δὲ τὴν γῆν διὰ τῆς Ἡλίου γονίμου ζωῆς ἐξέφηνεν. οὗτος ἐπὶ γῆς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
53
This framework fits well in Julian’s threefold religious policy: it was aimed to affirm the position of paganism, to
promote the Jewish cause (especially their tradition of offering sacrifice), and to denigrate the Christian cause by
imposing legal restrictions. See Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (79-93) and Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius,
155.
23
ποιησάμενος τὴν πρόοδον, ἑνοειδῶς μὲν ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ περὶ τὴν
Ἐπίδαυρον ἀνεφάνη, πληθυνόμενος δὲ ἐντεῦθεν ταῖς προόδοις ἐπὶ πᾶσαν
ὤρεξε τὴν γῆν τὴν σωτήριον ἑαυτοῦ δεξιάν. ἦλθεν εἰς Πέργαμον, εἰς Ἰωνίαν,
εἰς Τάραντα μετὰ ταῦθ᾿, ὕστερον ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην. ᾤχετο δὲ εἰς Κῶ,
ἐνθένδε εἰς Αἰγάς. εἶτα πανταχοῦ γῆς ἐστι καὶ θαλάσσης. οὐ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον
ἡμῶν ἐπιφοιτᾷ, καὶ ὅμως ἐπανορθοῦται ψυχὰς πλημμελῶς διακειμένας καὶ τὰ
σώματα ἀσθενῶς ἔχοντα.54
This concise fragment provides a narrative that brings to mind distinct elements of
Christ’s life: origination from God the Father, i.e. Zeus, descent to earth from
heaven in the shape of a man, extension of his powers universally (put in a
metaphor of the “saving right hand”), raising of sinful souls and bodies. The choice
of words employed to describe Asclepius repeats the language in respective
passages from the Old and the New Testament, identified in the following excerpts
from the Scriptures:55
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ
(the only Begotten) ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽
ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον
ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ (might be saved) ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.56
(Jn 3:16-17)
54
(trans) “I mean to say that Zeus engendered Asclepius from himself among the intelligible gods,1 and through the
life of generative Helios he revealed him to the earth. Asclepius, having made his visitation to earth from the sky,
appeared at Epidaurus singly, in the shape of a man; but afterwards he multiplied himself, and by his visitations
stretched out over the whole earth his saving right hand. He came to Pergamon, to Ionia, to Tarentum afterwards;
and later he came to Rome. And he traveled to Cos and thence to Aegae. Next he is present everywhere on land and
sea. He visits no one of us separately, and yet he raises up souls that are sinful and bodies that are sick.” from The
Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright (London: Heinemann, 1923), 375.
55
The observation was made by David N. Greenwood, Julian and Christianity. Revisiting the Constantinian
Revolution, 88.
56
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish
but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world
through Him might be saved.” translation taken from the New King James Version.
24
Τοῦτο γὰρ φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
ὑπάρχων, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἶσα θεῷ, 7ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν,
μορφὴν δούλου (form of a slave) λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος
(being born):57(Phil 2:5-7)
Τώρα γνώρισα ότι ο Κύριος έσωσε τον χρισμένο του· θα τον ακούσει από
τον ουρανό τής αγιότητάς του· η σωτηρία τής δεξιάς (of His right hand) του
γίνεται με δύναμη.58(Ps 20:6)
More examples of the description of begetting of Asclepius, expressed in identical

language, occur in Julian’s orations:
πάσας δὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστης νοερᾶς
συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ Μουσηγέτης. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν
τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖ, γεννᾷ (begat) μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν,
ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρ᾿ ἑαυτῷ.59
Τί ἔτι σοι λέγω, πῶς τῆς ὑγιείας καὶ σωτηρίας πάντων προυνόησε τὸν
σωτῆρα (saviour) τῶν ὅλων ἀπογεννήσας (begetting) Ἀσκληπιόν60
57
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it
robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in
the likeness of men.” translation taken from the New King James Version.
58
“Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; He will answer him from His holy heaven With the saving
strength of His right hand.” translation taken from the New King James Version.
59
(trans.) “Further Helios, since he comprehends in himself all the principles of the fairest intellectual synthesis, is
himself Apollo the leader of the Muses. And since he fills the whole of our life with fair order, he begat Asclepios in
the world, though even before the beginning of the world he had him by his side” in The Works of the Emperor
Julian, vol. 1, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright (London: Heinemann, 1913), 392-393.
60
(trans.) “Shall I now go on to tell you how Helios took thought for the health and safety of all men by begetting
Asclepios to be the saviour of the whole world?” The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 1, ed. and transl. by W. C.
Wright (London: Heinemann, 1913), 418-419.
25
The parallels, thus, are as follows:
Julian The Scriptures

ἐγέννησεν; γεννᾷ; ἀπογεννήσας μονογενῆ (Jn 3:16) ; γενόμενος (Phil
2:7)
ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ
μορφὴν δούλου (Phil 2:6)
τὴν σωτήριον ἑαυτοῦ δεξιάν; σωτηρίας;
σωτῆρα η σωτηρία τής δεξιάς (Ps 20:6)
Concerning Julian’s phrase about raising of the sinful souls and bodies, a
recurring scene of raising from the dead in the New Testament61 suggests a
continuing parallel. There is no lexical evidence to prove the point, but inclusion,
in Julian’s text, of the raising of souls and bodies motif as part of a larger passage
alluding to Christianity, whose parallels are better attested, allows for the
comparison still.
In addition to this, I suggest, that Asclepius is presented as a counterpart to
Jesus follows from the context. The description discussed above belongs to a
passage where Julian compares Hellenic and Hebrew versions of solutions to
spiritual crises. In Contra Gentes Julian explains that it is not easy for every man to
share in the spirit (πνεῦμα) that comes from gods, that the prophetic spirit
(προφητικὸν πνεῦμα) of Hebrews as well as the oracles (χρηστήρια) of Greeks have
fallen silent.62 After having delineated what can be called “spiritual crisis”, he
continues by offering an account of solutions to it. He goes on to say that Zeus
provided sacred arts (ἱερῶν τεχνῶν) to cope with this and, in addition, that the
greatest gift, namely Asclepius, was engendered by Zeus. Then Julian, by means of
posing a rhetorical question about Hebrew alternatives, demonstrates that no such
61
Three major examples are those of Lazarus' resurrection in John (11:1-44), Widow of Nain’s Son amidst the
funeral procession in Luke (7:11–17), and raising from the dead of Jairus’ daughter in Luke (8:49–56).
62
The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3 (London: Heinemann, 1923), 372.
26
gifts were granted to the Hebrews and proceeds with rebuking Christ at length. His
presentation of the Hebrews’ ‘crisis management’ solutions is less straightforward
than that of the Hellenes, because his question remains hanging in the air.
However, this rhetorical question is followed by a lengthy critique of Jesus. In the
absence of a different counterpart which is otherwise presumed from the context,
the juxtaposition of Christ and Asclepius comes to the fore.
Taking Julian’s derivations from the Christian writings one step further,
Greenwood has demonstrated that Julian’s articulation not only repeats the
language and plot elements of the Scriptures, but also has parallels with
Athanasius’ writings. He distinguishes three epithets καθαρός, δημιουργός, and
δυνατὀς and traces their occurrence from the New Testament to Athanasius and to
Julian. Greenwood compares the following passages:
Epistle to the Hebrews:
προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως,
ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ
σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ. (Hebrews 10:22)
ἐξεδέχετο γὰρ τὴν τοὺς θεμελίους ἔχουσαν πόλιν, ἧς τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς
ὁ θεός. (Hebrews 11:10)
λογισάμενος ὅτι καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς ὁ θεός: ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν
παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο. (Hebrews 11:19)
Julian, oration To the Cynic Heracleios:
τί γὰρ ἄπορον ἦν Ἡρακλεῖ; τί δ᾿ οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ τῷ θείῳ καὶ
καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι, τῶν λεγομένων τούτων στοιχείων δουλευόντων αὐτοῦ
τῇ δημιουργικῇ καὶ τελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμει;63
Athanasius, De Incarnatione:
63
(trans.) “For what was impossible to Heracles? Which was there of the so-called elements that did not obey his
divine and most pure body since they were subdued to the creative and perfecting force of his stainless and pure
intelligence?” In The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2 (London: Heinemann, 1913), 11.
27
ἀλλὰ λαμβάνει τὸ ἡμέτερον [σῶμα], καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἀχράντου
καὶ ἀμιάντου ἀνδρὸς ἀπείρου παρθένου, καθαρὸν καὶ ὄντως ἀμιγὲς τῆς
ἀνδρῶν συνουσίας. Αὐτὸς γὰρ δυνατὸς ὢν καὶ δημιουργὸς τῶν ὅλων, ἐν τῇ
παρθένῳ κατασκευάζει ἑαυτῷ ναὸν τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἰδιοποιεῖται τοῦτο ὥσπερ
ὄργανον, ἐν αὐτῷ γνωριζόμενος καὶ ἐνοικῶν.64
While the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews refer to the God of the Old
Testament as well as to Christ, the beginning of the Epistle contains a statement of
Christology65 connecting the God of the Hebrews to Christ. Some of these themes
are further used by Athanasius to describe Jesus66. These same epithets used by
Athanasius then appear in Julian’s description of Heracles. This juxtaposition
shows that not only the themes of purity, power, and creativity are being carried
from one context to another, but also the language used to express these is
persistent. This parallel highlights another element present in both fragments: the
begetting from a virgin.
In Athanasian account, Jesus takes up human body ἐξ ἀχράντου καὶ ἀμιάντου
ἀνδρὸς ἀπείρου παρθένου, from a virgin uncontaminated, undefiled, chaste, and
unacquainted with man. Julian does not specifically speak of the birth of Heracles,
but he adds that ὃν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς, ἐπιστήσας αὐτῷ φύλακα
τὴν θεὸν ταύτην, ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενος αὑτοῦ, τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσεν 67.
Whether this implies begetting in the same sense as with Jesus’ incarnation is not
clear. From Contra Galilaeos we learn that Julian repudiates the begetting of a god
64
(trans.) “But he took our body, and not simply that, but from a pure and unspotted virgin ignorant of a man, a body
pure and truly unalloyed by intercourse with men. For he, although powerful and the creator of the universe,
fashioned for himself in the virgin a body as a temple, and appropriated it for his own as an instrument' in which to
be known and dwell.” in Athanasius. Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione. Ed. and transl. by Robert W. Thomson
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 152-153.
65
(Hebrews 1:8-10)
66
This transition is referred to at length in Greenwood’s article: David N. Greenwood, “New Testament Christology,
Athanasian Apologetic, and Pagan Polemic.” The Journal of Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2017): 101–105.
67
(trans.) “For him did mighty Zeus, with the aid of Athene goddess of Forethought, beget to be the saviour of the
world, and appointed as his guardian this goddess whom he had brought forth whole from the whole of himself.” In
The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright (London: Heinemann, 1913), 110-111.
28
from a virgin and a human.68 The fact that Julian replaces Alcmene (commonly
referred to as Heracles’ mother) with Athena (the virgin goddess) suggests divine
and not human origin of Heracles. According to the traditional account of
Heracles’ life, Athena did foster Heracles, but she was not his mother. In addition, I
observe that Julian employs the verb φυτεύω, not γεννάω, which he used to
describe the begetting of Asclepius. Even if φυτεύω is used to speak of procreation
and generation, its original meaning is to plant, to cultivate. Thus, the use of
φυτεύω is ambiguous and allows for more than one interpretation, as such it gives
room for an account similar but different from the begetting of Jesus.
This observation made by Greenwood paves the way for another parallel.
Ἀχράντος, one of the epithets used by Athanasius for his lengthy description of
Virgin, appears in the respective passage from Julian in reference to Heracles’
intelligence (τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ). Often throughout Julian’s writings
ἄχραντος and καθαρός occur as a synonymous pair, literally, unstained and pure69.
This same formula is repeated in a brief reference to Heracles in the Hymn to The
Mother of Gods70: ψυχῆς ἀχράντου καὶ καθαρᾶς ὁποίαν τὴν Ἡρακλέους.71 In
Athanasius’ texts, ἀχράντος is similarly paired with παρθένος, most often referring
to Virgin Mary. In Julian, it refers to the desecrated maidenhood of a priestess,
leaving us with only one such reference to virginity72. It thus appears fair to suggest
that while ἀχράντος deos not occur as frequently as καθαρός, δημιουργός, and
68
(trans.) “But if, as you believe, the Word is God born of God and proceeded from the substance of the Father, why
do you say that the virgin is the mother of God? For how could she bear a god since she is, according to you, a
human being?” in The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright (London: Heinemann,
1923), 400-401.
69
See Oration 1. Panegyric in Honour of Constantius in The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 1, 22-23; Oration 4.
Hymn to King Helios Dedicated to Sallust in the Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 1, 362 , 380-382, 410; Oration
7. To the Cynic Heracleios The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2, 110-11, 128.
70
Orations Hymn To the Mother of the Gods and To the Cynic Heracleios were written around the same time in
March 362.
71
(trans.) “soul undefiled and pure, that of Heracles for instance” in The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 1, 467.
72
(trans.) “Thereupon a terrible and unjust suspicion fell on the maiden who had been consecrated to the most sacred
office of priestess, and they began to accuse Claudia—for that was the name of that noble maiden—of not having
kept herself stainless and pure for the goddess;” in The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 1, 447.
29
δυνατὀς and their forms, it suggests another recontextualization of Christian, or
more narrowly, Athanasian terminology.
3.5.2. Julian’s view οf the pantheon of gods

Greenwood's discoveries as well as some of my observations have demonstrated
how Julian engages in offering Father-Son alternatives to Athanasius’ Christology.
However, his framework of Asclepius-Helios or Heracles-Zeus only covers the
realm of so-called secondary gods of traditional Graeco-Roman pantheon and
leaves out the one universal, cosmological, God. An important distinction between
Julian’s and Athanasius’ versions of the figure of σωτηρ is that Julian’s father
figure is one of the Greek gods, while for Athanasius it is the cosmological God. In
fact, it is part of Julian’s rhetoric to distinguish between the one δημιουργός and the
lesser gods, where Zeus, Athena and Helios belong to the latter category.
Therefore, my further research will focus on revealing whether Julian addresses the
cosmological extension of Athanasius’ Christology like he does address the
father-son extension of it.
One of the issues that Julian is concerned with in Contra Galilaeos is
whether the God of Hebrews, and as such the God of Galileans, i.e. of the
Christians, is the immediate creator of the universe, ὁ προσεχής [εἴη] τοῦ κόσμου
δημιουργὸς. After having compared the accounts of creation of the Hebrews and of
the Hellenes73 Julian concludes that the lore of Hellenes does contain the account
of the immediate creator (338-340), while Moses failed to give an account as
convincing.74 To arrive at this conclusion, he rhetorically, point-by-point,
demonstrates the supposed deficiency of the Old Testament to make a trustworthy
case for the creator of the universe. He goes on to say that even if the God of
73
We find similar evaluation of the accounts of creation from Plato and Genesis in earlier literature that criticizes
Christianity, namely in Celsus and in Galen.
74
The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright, 341.
30
Hebrews was the universal God, the beliefs of Hellenes, are “higher than theirs,
and he has bestowed on us greater blessings than on them, with respect both to the
soul and to externals”.75 His understanding of the pantheon of Hellenic gods as
well as the appropriate place for the God of Hebrews is clear from the following
passages:
ὡς, εἰ μὲν ὁ προσεχὴς εἴη τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργὸς ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ Μωυσέως
κηρυττόμενος, ἡμεῖς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ βελτίους ἔχομεν δόξας οἱ κοινὸν μὲν
ἐκεῖνον ὑπολαμβάνοντες ἁπάντων δεσπότην, ἐθνάρχας δὲ ἄλλους, οἳ
τυγχάνουσι μὲν ὑπ᾿ ἐκεῖνον, εἰσὶ δὲ ὥσπερ ὕπαρχοι βασιλέως, ἕκαστος τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ διαφερόντως ἐπανορθούμενος φροντίδα· καὶ οὐ καθίσταμεν αὐτὸν
οὐδὲ ἀντιμερίτην τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτὸν θεῶν καθισταμένων. εἰ δὲ μερικόν τινα
τιμήσας ἐκεῖνος ἀντιτίθησιν αὐτῷ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἡγεμονίαν, ἄμεινον τὸν
τῶν ὅλων θεὸν ἡμῖν πειθομένους ἐπιγνῶναι μετὰ τοῦ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνον
ἀγνοῆσαι, ἢ τὸν τοῦ ἐλαχίστου μέρους εἰληχότα τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἀντὶ τοῦ
πάντων τιμᾶν δημιουργοῦ.76
Οἱ γὰρ ἡμέτεροι τὸν δημιουργόν φασιν ἁπάντων μὲν εἶναι κοινὸν πατέρα
καὶ βασιλέα, νενεμῆσθαι δὲ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐθνάρχαις καὶ
πολιούχοις θεοῖς, ὧν ἕκαστος ἐπιτροπεύει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ λῆξιν οἰκείως ἑαυτῷ.
ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν μὲν τῷ πατρὶ πάντα τέλεια καὶ ἓν πάντα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς μεριστοῖς
ἄλλη παρ' ἄλλῳ κρατεῖ δύναμις, Ἄρης μὲν ἐπιτροπεύει τὰ πολεμικὰ τῶν
ἐθνῶν, Ἀθηνᾶ δὲ τὰ μετὰ φρονήσεως πολεμικὰ, Ἑρμῆς δὲ τὰ συνετώτερα
μᾶλλον ἢ τολμηρότερα, καὶ καθ' ἑκάστην οὐσίαν τῶν οἰκείων θεῶν ἕπεται
75
76
(trans) In The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright, 358-359.
31
καὶ τὰ ἐπιτροπευόμενα παρὰ σφῶν ἔθνη.77
Julian is not interested in defining the rules within the pantheon of created gods, he
is more concerned with the relationship between one God and gods that are
governed by him. We see that the God of Hebrews is in competition with ὁ
προσεχὴς εἴη τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργὸς. Julian’s solution to this is the following: (1)
there is one superior god, ὁ προσεχὴς εἴη τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργὸς; (2) All other
gods are subordinate to him and he assigned them to each nation; (3) The god of
Hebrews, and accordingly that of Christians, is likely to be a god of one nation, and
not the one god of all, for Hebrews failed to give an appropriate account of the
immediate creator and the God of Hebrews appears to care only about the Hebrews
and not the whole world.
Accordingly, the son-father alternatives that we see in Julian (Heracles-Zeus,
Asclepius-Helios) belong to the realm of creatures of the immediate creator,
precisely where Julian places the Christian God too. Whereas the Father figure of
the Christians is by implication the immediate creator, as claimed by the Hebrews.
What interests us is whether Julian pays heed to and tries to mimic Christian, more
specifically Athanasian, descriptions of God the Father in its cosmological
dimension.
77
(trans) “Our writers say that the creator is the common father and king of all things, but that the other functions
have been assigned by him to national gods of the peoples and gods that protect the cities ; every one of whom
administers his own department in accordance with his own nature. For since in the father all things are complete
and all things are one, while in the separate deities one quality or another predominates, therefore Ares rules over the
warlike nations, Athene over those that are wise as well as warlike, Hermes over those that are more shrewd than
adventurous ; and in short the nations over which the gods preside follow each the essential character of their proper
god.” In The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright, 345.
32
4. Cosmological image of God the Father in Athanasius
and Julian
4.1. Premises that allow for a comparison

Julian appears to hold little concern for the description of one god in his texts, even
if he repeatedly points to the oneness of God-Creator. However, the opening
section of Contra Galilaeos contains Julian’s description of the universally
knowable God. The formula in which this description is written down will be
shown to have strong allusion to the Christian formula of God the Father, as is
termed in Athanasian theology. Before embarking on a point-by-point comparison
of the Greek and Hebrew concepts of divine, Julian provides his understanding of
the knowledge of God. According to it, “human race possesses its knowledge of
God by nature and not from teaching” which “is proved to us by the universal
yearning for the divine.”78 In the next paragraph, Julian provides a description of
this universal perception of God as follows:
ὐδεὶς ἔστιν, ὃς οὐκ ἀνατείνει μὲν εἰς οὐρανὸν τὰς χεῖρας εὐχόμενος,
ὀμνύων δὲ θεὸν ἤτοι θεούς, ἔννοιαν ὅλως τοῦ θείου λαμβάνων, ἐκεῖσε
φέρεται. καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀπεικότως ἔπαθον.
ὁρῶντες γὰρ οὔτε πληθυνόμενον οὔτε ἐλαττούμενόν τι τῶν περὶ τὸν

οὐρανὸν οὔτε τρεπόμενον οὔτε πάθος ὑπομένον τι τῶν ἀτάκτων,
ἀλλ᾿ ἐναρμόνιον μὲν αὐτοῦ τὴν κίνησιν, ἐμμελῆ δὲ τὴν τάξιν, ὡρισμένους
δὲ φωτισμοὺς σελήνης, ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατολὰς καὶ δύσεις ὡρισμένας ἐν
ὡρισμένοις ἀεὶ καιροῖς, εἰκότως θεὸν καὶ θεοῦ θρόνον ὑπέλαβον.
78
33
τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον, ἅτε μηδεμιᾷ προσθήκῃ πληθυνόμενον μηδὲ ἐλαττούμενον
ἀφαιρέσει, τῆς τε κατ᾿ ἀλλοίωσιν καὶ τροπὴν ἐκτὸς ἱστάμενον μεταβολῆς
πάσης καθαρεύει φθορᾶς καὶ γενέσεως,
ἀθάνατον δὲ ὂν φύσει καὶ ἀνώλεθρον παντοίας ἐστὶ καθαρὸν κηλῖδος·
ἀΐδιον δὲ καὶ ἀεικίνητον, ὡς ὁρῶμεν, ἤτοι παρὰ ψυχῆς κρείττονος καὶ

θειοτέρας ἐνοικούσης αὐτῷ, ὥσπερ, οἶμαι, τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα παρὰ τῆς ἐν
ἡμῖν ψυχῆς, φέρεται κύκλῳ περὶ τὸν μέγαν δημιουργόν, ἢ πρὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ
θεοῦ τὴν κίνησιν παραδεξάμενον | τὸν ἄπειρον ἐξελίττει κύκλον ἀπαύστῳ
καὶ αἰωνίῳ φορᾷ.79
Julian’s version of universal knowledge of God is centered on cosmological

immutability. Julian speaks of the immutability of heavenly bodies as perceived by
all men. The immutability of heavenly bodies taken together with regularity of the
movement of the sun and the moon communicated to men the perception of God.
The reason for this is that God undergoes no change (“ἅτε μηδεμιᾷ προσθήκῃ
πληθυνόμενον μηδὲ ἐλαττούμενον ἀφαιρέσει , τῆς τε κατ᾿ ἀλλοίωσιν καὶ τροπὴν
ἐκτὸς ἱστάμενον μεταβολῆς πάσης καθαρεύει φθορᾶς καὶ γενέσεως”). The key to
79
The quoted text is divided in paragraphs deliberately to highlight different themes. (transl.) “There exists no man
who does not stretch out his hands towards the heavens when he prays; and whether he swears by one god or
several, if he has any notion at all of the divine, he turns heavenward. And it was very natural that men should feel
thus. For since they observed that in what concerns the heavenly bodies there is no increase or diminution or
mutability, and that they do not suffer any unregulated influence, but their movement is harmonious and their
arrangement in concert; and that the illuminations of the moon are regulated, and that the risings and settings of the
sun are regularly defined, and always at regularly defined seasons, they naturally conceived that the heaven is a god
and the throne of a god. For a being of that sort, since it is not subject to increase by addition, or to diminution by
subtraction, and is stationed beyond all change due to alteration and mutability, is free from decay and generation,
and inasmuch as it is immortal by nature and indestructible, it is pure from every sort of stain. Eternal and ever in
movement, as we see, it travels in a circuit about the great Creator, whether it be impelled by a nobler and more
divine soul that dwells therein, just as, I mean, our bodies are by the soul in us, or having received its motion from
God Himself, it wheels in its boundless circuit, in an unceasing and eternal career”. From Emperor Julian, The
Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, ed. and transl. by Wilmer Cave Wright (London: Heinemann, 1923), 322-323.
34
perceiving God by contemplation appears to be the principle of immutability, for
this is what makes it available to all men. To this Julian adds the following
attributes of God: ἀθάνατον φύσει (immortal by nature), ἀνώλεθρον (indestructible)
and καθαρὸν παντοίας κηλῖδος (pure of any stain). The next and last passage in this
description adds new attributes and dynamics to describe God. It is eternal (ἀΐδιον)
and in perpetual movement (ἀεικίνητον); it moves in unceasing circles around the
great creator (τὸν μέγαν δημιουργόν), it is set in motion either by more powerful
(κρείττονος) and more divine (θειοτέρας) soul that dwells within it (ἐνοικούσης
αὐτῷ) or by having accepted motion (κίνησιν) from God Himself (πρὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ
θεοῦ).
Juxtaposed with a fragment from Athanasius’ De Synodis Arimini in Italia et
80
Seleuciae in Isauria (which summarizes Athanasius’ Christology) it reveals
some similarities.
οἴδαμεν ἕνα θεόν, μόνον ἀγέννητον, μόνον ἀίδιον, μόνον ἄναρχον, μόνον
ἀληθινόν, μόνον ἀθανασίαν ἔχοντα, μόνον σοφόν, μόνον ἀγαθόν, μόνον
δυνάστην, πάντων κριτήν, διοικητήν, οἰκονόμον, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον,
δίκαιον καὶ ἀγαθόν, νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης τοῦτον θεὸν
γεννήσαντα υἱὸν μονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, «δι' οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ
τὰ ὅλα πεποίηκε», γεννήσαντα δὲ οὐ δοκήσει, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ· ὑποστήσαντα
ἰδίῳ θελήματι ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον81
At the lexical level, occurance of the same or cognate terms suggests intertextual
80
De Sinodis was composed in 359 in response to the resolution of Ariminum-Seleucia councils. It is remarked by
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford: 2012, 14) that De Sinodis represents “the culmination of his
[Athanasius’] doctrinal argument”. Among other issues, the letter engages in the restatement of the Nicene doctrine,
with the relation of God the Father and God the Son as its central concern. The formula of Christology found here
offers a recapitulative expression, elements of which are ample in earlier writings of Athanasius, especially in the
writings against the Arians (Historia Arianorum, Orationes tres contra Arianos).
81
Athanasius, De Synodis (PG 26: 708d-709a). (transl) “We acknowledge one God, one unbegotten, one eternal, one
without beginning, one true, one having immortality, one wise, one good, one lord, judge, governor, overseer of all,
immutable and unalterable, righteous and good, God of Law and of prophets and of New Testament, who begat one
begotten Son before everlasting times, “through Him he made made the ages and the universe”, begat Him not in
appearance, but in truth; gave substance to Him at his own will, immutable and unalterable, perfect God’s creature.”
35
parallels: ἀίδιον - ἀΐδιον, ἀθανασίαν ἔχοντα - ἀθάνατον, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον
- (negative use of) τῆς τε κατ᾿ ἀλλοίωσιν καὶ τροπὴν and οὔτε τρεπόμενον. These
expressions raise themes of eternity, immortality and immutability. An overlapping
of themes from Julian’s cosmological and Athanasius’ Christological contexts well
illustrates Rebecca Lyman’s case for cosmological extension of Athanasius’
theology.82 In what follows, two notions will be brought to the fore: eternity and
immutability. Ramelli stresses continuity between Origen and Athanasius in the
importance they both give to the notion of immutability of God.83 For them, it is
the immutability that warrants His goodness.84 Ramelli thus virtually confirms
what Peter Witticomb said earlier, more specifically that “like Origen, Athanasius
links the eternity of the fatherhood of God not only with the attribute of
immutability but also with the attribute of goodness.”85
4.2. Approach and methodology

We have seen that Greenwood traces Julian’s borrowings from Athanasius to
a Christological passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament.
However, the Christological theology of Athanasius per se uses Platonist language,
and not the language of the Christian Scriptures (as will be demonstrated below).
In this situation, the task of identifying distinctly Christian or non-Christian, not to
mention Athanasian, influence is complicated by an overlapping of supposedly
conflicting contexts. Thus, if my hypothesis that Julian adopts Athanasius’
expression is correct, the situation would virtually be as follows: a word, or an
expression, originally found in the Hellenic context, enters a Christian context, in
which its semantic range changes; if the word reenters the Hellenic context, it will
82
Rebecca Lyman, Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 124-159.
83
Ramelli, "Origen’s First Followers", 254.
84
Ibid, 239.
85
Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 182.
36
carry the acquired Christian attributes with it. In order to see whether Julian’s
vocabulary for cosmology derives directly from the Hellenic context, I intend to
exclude the case for Julian’s Hellenic background in the articulation of his
cosmological account. If, on the contrary, it will be demonstrated that Julian’s
vocabulary depends on Platonic philosophical terminology, then it will mean that
Julian and Athanasius rely on related sources.
The task of excluding Hellenic background implies a comprehensive study
of the words used by Athanasius and Julian in these and other relevant passages.
Such study would involve a quantitative lexical analysis as well as contextual
analysis performed on the whole of Platonic, Hermetic (Corpus Hermeticum), and
Papyrical (Greek Magical Papyri, PGM) corpuses. While the scale of such study
extends the conventions of a master’s thesis, I decided to produce a targeted probe
into the authors who are central to the philosophical background of Julian. I will
make two selections of authors: those who were formative for Julian’s Neoplatonist
background and those who were formative for Athanasius’ language for the idea of
incarnation. Before presenting my selections, a brief description of their
intellectual formation is due.
Athanasius of Alexandria inherited the intellectual and theological tradition
of the Alexandrian Church, which goes back to Philo, Pantaenus, Clement and
Origen. Origen who synthesized Alexandrian lore with Neoplatonist philosophy
and developed Trinitarian theology is recognized to have had the greatest influence
not only on Athanasius’ theology, but also on later generations of theologians.86
Given the overarching influence of Origen, tracing his intellectual circle is also
crucial for this research. Alexandrian philosopher Ammonius Saccas, regarded as
86
See Annewies van den Hoek, “Origen’s Role in Formulation Later Christological Language” in Origeniana
Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, eds W. A. Bienert and U. Kühneweg(Leuven:
Peeters, 1999), 39-50 and Charles Kannengiesser, “The Philosophical Background Of The Athanasian Doctrine Of
Salvation.” Vox Patrum 26, t. 49 (2006): 265-276, at 266-7.
37
precursor, or founder of Neoplatonist, is famously known as Plotinus’ teacher. In
an article aimed at clarifying Origen’s background, Ilaria Ramelli convincingly
argues that two figures referred to as Ammonius’ Saccas disciples by Eusebius of
Caesarea, namely Origen the Christian and Origen the Pagan, represent one person
known to us as Origen of Alexandria.87 That Origen was familiar with
Neoplatonism was clear enough without this testimony, but Ramelli’s enquiry
allowed for another crucial discovery: that Numenius of Apamea, a 2nd-century
pythagorean and a forerunner of neoplatonism, was studied by Origen and by
Plotinus, as witnessed by Porphyry.88 She also makes a case for Origen’s and
Plotinus’ adoption of Numenius’ philosophical terminology.89
Julian’s intellectual background is varied. Following Bowersock’s account,
in his early years Julian was instructed by Arian Eusebius and by Mardonius, a
eunuch from Gaul.90 The latter (supposedly a Christian too, in tune with the court
policy of the day) is reported to have been more dear to Julian and it was he who
introduced Julian to classical Hellenism, especially to Homer and Hesiod. His
Christian education was secured during the six years he spent in Cappadocia
beginning from his early adolescence, where royal eunuchs would be in charge of
maintaining the Christian faith of Julian.91 Later years spent in Nicomedia and
Pergamum signify his involvement with Greek philosophy as is. In Pergamum
Julian met Aedesius, the disciple of Iamblichus. But, as the latter was already an
elderly man, Julian listened to his disciples, Eusebius and Chrysanthius, and then
pursued Maximus of Ephesus’ instruction. While Julian’s academic profile was
87
Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, "Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism Re-Thinking the Christianisation of
Hellenism", Vigiliae Christianae 63, 3 (2009): 217-263.
88
Ibid., 234.
89
Ibid., 231-232.
90
Glen W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 21-32.
91
Bowersock suggests viewing Julian’s later claim, about his familiarity with the book in the library of George of
Cappadocia, as evidence for his knowledge of the Christian texts. See Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 26.
38
well-rounded, his Neoplatonism, as was argued by Andrew Smith92 and Pοlymnia
Athanassiadi93, relies more heavily on Iamblichus than on its other exponents.
Therefore, my selection of authors for Athanasius is represented by Origen
and Numenius; for Julian - by Iamblichus and his precursors, Porphyry and
Plotinus. Common for both selections will be Plutarch, an exponent of Middle
Platonism, who like Numenius, foreshadowed Neoplatonist philosophy. My further
research will consist of two steps. First, I will make an analysis of the terms used to
express the ideas of eternity (ἀΐδιος and αἰωνίoς) and immutability (ἀμετάβλητος,
ἄτρεπτος and ἀναλλοίωτος)94 from Plato and from the Old and the New Testaments
(as ultimate sources for two conflicting developments). Second, I will trace their
use in two groups of sources: namely sources that represent Julian’s and
Athanasius’ intellectual backgrounds.
4.3. Analysis of the epithets ἀΐδιος and ἄτρεπτος

The adjectives for immutability, ἄτρεπτος and ἀναλλοίωτος, are nowhere to
be found in Plato. The idea of divine immutability is dealt with in Republic II (381
b-c). To engage with the topic, Plato uses the verbs ἀλλοιόω and μεταβάλλω and its
derivative, the noun μεταβολὴ. These adjectives do not occur neither in the Old, nor
in the New Testament. Like in Plato, the idea of God’s immutability is expressed
otherwise. For example, in Malachi 3:6 the verb ἀλλοιόω is used to declare God’s
immutability. In the New Testament, ἀμετάθετος occurs in Hebrews 6:17 to refer to
the firmness of God’s purpose. There are likely to be other occurrences of
expression of the idea of the immutability, but since they are out of the scope of the
present inquiry, I should stop at this.
92
Andrew Smith, “Julian’s Hymn To King Helios: The Economical Use Of Complex Neoplatonic Concepts,” 235.
93
Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian. An Intellectual Biography (London: Routledge, 2014),126, 136-7.
94
The chosen adjectives or their cognates occur in the excerpts chosen for comparison.
39
(Fig. 1) Number of occurrences of the adjectives being studied, according to the TLG Corpus of
2003.
Two adjectives in ancient Greek, ἀΐδιος and αἰωνίoς, are used to express the
idea of eternity. Plato uses the two terms interchangeably, but αἰωνίoς is claimed to
be used to signify that what is beyond time.95 In general, ἀΐδιος refers to
metaphysical, cosmological eternity, αἰωνίος - to cyclical, life-long events, to the
future times. In other words, ἀΐδιος is non-temporal, while αἰωνίος suggests some
idea of beginning, end, or periodicity, and has a sense of otherwise inexpressibly
large measures.
In Septuagint ἀΐδιος occurs only twice, in 4 Maccabees, 10: 15.2, and in
Wisdom, 7:26.1 – the books originally written in Greek. Otherwise, αἰωνίoς is used
to express the idea of eternity. Even in pivotal moments, like the establishing of the
perpetual covenant between humans and God, the word αἰωνίoς is employed. The
situation with the New Testament is similar: ἀΐδιος occurs only twice, in the Epistle
to the Romans and in the Epistle of Jude. Αἰωνίoς, on the other hand, occurs one
hundred and two times and there is no agreement on whether αἰωνίoς was used to
signify both meanings or only one.96
Significantly, Ramelli demonstrates that Origen uses both terms in their
normative meaning: ἀΐδιος is referred to in the sense of non-temporal eternity, and
95
Ilaria Ramelli, D. Konstan, “Terms for Eternity: αἰώνιος and ἀΐδιος in Classical and Christian Texts”, (Nova Tellus
24, 2, (2006): 21-39), 29.
96
Ibid., 33-34.
40
almost always in reference to God or His attributes; αἰωνίoς occurs referring to a
sequence of ages. Like Origen, Athanasius uses both words and applies them
appropriately with regard to their proper meaning97, not to their Scriptural use.
As is demonstrated on (Fig. 1) Plotinus uses all the adjectives relevant to the
present research. They occur in their normative meanings, even if more often refer
to being, and not to anything divine. They never appear in proximity to each other
and thus they do not form word groups similar to the ones we saw in Athanasius
and Julian. Porphyry does use the words ἀΐδιος, ἄτρεπτος and other relevant
adjectives. However, they are not very frequent and, just like in Plotinus' Enneads,
they do not appear as a part of a word group containing the sought for adjectives.
In Iamblichus’ texts, these adjectives are not just frequent, but they occur together
at least three times:
Δύναται δέ τις καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, ὡς τοσαύτην ἔχουσιν οἱ κατὰ μέρη
διῃρημένοι δαίμονες, οἱ φυλάττοντες τὰ μέρη τοῦ παντός, ἐπιμέλειαν ἧς
εἰλήχασιν ἕκαστοι μερίδος καὶ κηδεμονίαν, ὡς μηδὲ λόγον ἐναντίον
ἀνέχεσθαι, τὴν δὲ ἀίδιον διαμονὴν τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ διαφυλάττειν
ἀμετάτρεπτον.98
Εἴπερ γάρ τι τοῖς θεοῖς ἄλλο προσήκει, δηλονότι καὶ τὸ ἀίδιον καὶ
ἀμετάβλητον αὐτοῖς ἐστι συγγενές.7,499
97
See Ramelli, "Origen’s First Followers in Alexandria and the East, and His First ‘Detractors’". In The Christian
Doctrine of Apokatastasis, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 253: “The occurrences of the term ἀΐδιος, which indicates absolute
eternity, abundantly surpass those of the more polysemic αἰώνιος, prevalently used in quotations or echoes of
Scripture. Both adjectives together form a very large number of occurrences, and Athanasius’s usage appears
conscious and precise. The adjective ἀΐδιος refers almost exclusively to the eternity of God”.
98
“One may also say this, that such daemons are allotted partial administrative power, and guard the parts of the
universe; they are attentive to the part over which they each preside to the extent that they cannot allow a word said
against it, and their concern is to preserve the eternal permanence of the things unchanging in the world.” As
translated in Iamblichus, De mysteriis. Translated by Emma C. Clarke, et al. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2003), 266-267.
99
Ibid., 298-299. “For, whatever else pertains to the gods, it is clear that the eternal and the immutable is connatural
with them.”
41
Μιᾶς μὲν γὰρ ἐκείνης οὔσης αὐτὸ ἁπλοῦν ἐστιν, ἀμερίστου δ' ἀδιαίρετον καὶ
ἀτρέπτου ὡσαύτως ἀναλλοίωτον.100
This is remarkable also because the number of occurrences in Iamblichus
correlates with the number of occurrences in Plotinus’ Enneads. However, in
Plotinus’ text they do not form word groups. The latter example here presents
another curious use; ἄτρεπτος and ἀναλλοίωτος form the synonymous pair that
occurs in the selected passage from Athanasius’ De Synodis two times, and over
fifteen times in all his texts. A slightly different situation is observed in Numenius
and Plutarch.
Fragments that remain from Numenius witness the use of three epithets
(ἀμετάβλητος, ἀναλλοίωτος and ἄτρεπτος) to express the idea of immutability.
Ἀναλλοίωτος and ἄτρεπτος are both used in reference to God, ἀμετάβλητος occurs
in a description of body, equally in a philosophical sense. It is noteworthy that
ἄτρεπτον here occurs side by side with ἀΐδιος: “Εἰ μὲν δὴ τὸ ὂν πάντως πάντῃ
ἀΐδιόν τέ ἐστι καὶ ἄτρεπτον καὶ οὐδαμῶς οὐδαμῇ ἐξιστάμενον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ”.101
In the texts of Plutarch ἄτρεπτος stands for a personal quality of
steadfastness, or, on the negative end of the meaning - stubbornness. It is more so
used by him in descriptions of statesmen or military officers. One time ἄτρεπτος is
used to describe the inflexibility of Stoic notion of destiny.102 But to refer to
immutability in a philosophical sense, he uses ἀμετάβλητος. In Moralia Plutarch
recapitulates Plato’s and Pythagoras’ notion of souls by saying: “ἄφθαρτος οὖσα
τὴν φύσιν καὶ ἀίδιος, οὔ τι μὴν ἀπαθὴς οὐδ᾿ ἀμετάβλητος, ητος, ἐν ταῖς λεγομέναις
φθοραῖς καὶ τελευταῖς μεταβολὴν ἴσχει καὶ μετακόσμησιν εἰς ἕτερα σωμάτων
100
Ibid., 64-65. “For even as the latter is single, it also is simple, as it is without parts, so also it is indivisible, and as
it is invariable, so also is it not subject to change.”
101
Numénius, Fragments, Trans. by Edouard des Places (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973), 51-51. “As long as being
eternally and immutably in its entirety, and in no way it does it separate from itself, but stays the same and thus
remains.”
102
Plutarch. Moralia, Volume XIII: Part 2: Stoic Essays. Translated by Harold Cherniss. Loeb Classical Library 470
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 596.
42
εἴδη.”103 In total, ἀμετάβλητος occurs nine times in Plutarch’s writings and in all
instances it is used to express immutability in metaphysical sense. Ἀΐδιος
frequently occurs in Plutarch and is used in it’s normative meaning. In his essay To
an Uneducated Ruler, Plutarch refers: ὧν θειότερον οὐ πῦρ ἐστιν οὐ φῶς οὐχ ἡλίου
δρόμοςοὐκ ἀνατολαὶ καὶ δύσεις ἄστρων οὐ τὸ ἀίδιον καὶ ἀθάνατον.104 This passage
witnesses the epithets used by Athanasius used in close proximity by Plutarch (τὸ
ἀίδιον καὶ ἀθάνατον). The previous example also shows proximity of ἀΐδιος and
ἀμετάβλητος, alluding to Athanasius’ articulation of Christology.
The synonymous pair ἄτρεπτος and ἀναλλοίωτος that we saw in Iamblichus
occurs in Origen five times. That Athanasius relies heavily on Origen has been
demonstrated, but Athanasius appears not only to use the same language and ideas,
but also to intensify the frequency of their use. Corpuses of both authors are of
relatively the same size, but ἀΐδιος and ἄτρεπτος occur in Athanasius nearly five
time as often. By implication, Origen’s Commentary on the Psalms has a similar
articulation to that of Athanasius: τὸ δὲ σὸν ἀΐδιον καὶ ἀπαράτρεπτον καὶ
ἀθάνατον.
We have thus seen that most lexical parallels are found with Numenius,
Plutarch and Iamblichus, while the strongest presence of the adjectives and word
groups being investigated is seen in Athanasius. It can be argued that, given
Julian’s attested reliance on Iamblichus, derives, consciously or not, his
cosmological language from him. However, a stronger presence of these words in
the sources that belong to the tradition that only foreshadows Plotinus’
Neoplatonism and then in the Christian texts of Origen and Athanasius together
103
“Although imperishable of nature and eternal, it is in no way impassible or immutable, but at the times of its
so-called death and destruction it experiences an alteration and recasting which bring a change of outward bodily
shape.” Translated in Plutarch. Moralia, Volume XIII: Part 2: Stoic Essays, transl. by Harold Cherniss, 368-369.
104
“... nothing is more divine [than God] ,—nor fire, nor light, nor the course of the sun, nor the risings and settings
of the stars, nor eternity and immortality.” Translated in Plutarch, Lives, Volume II: Themistocles and Camillus.
Aristides and Cato Major. Cimon and Lucullus, transl. by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 47. Cambridge,
(Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1914), 60-61.
43
with the attested cases of Julian’s adoption of other elements of Athanasius’ text as
well as Christian Scriptures make for a stronger case for Julian’s familiarity and
literary dialogue with the Christian texts, among which Athanasius’ writings come
to the fore.
44
5. Conclusion
Julian, referred to and associated with the nickname “the Apostate”, is often
perceived as an exception, as a one-of-a-kind emperor who stood up for an outlived
worldview. Dismissing Julian’s view and his alternatives to the religious crisis of
the Empire would mean silencing a voice that can, in fact, enrich our
understanding of the fast-changing political course of the 4th century. Observations
made by Susanna Elm, David Greenwood and David Hunt revealing the presence
of Christian elements in Julian’s ‘apostasy’ demonstrate that Julian was more in
line with the political and cultural agenda of the day. With the present research, I
contributed to the aforementioned line of thought by suggesting to look not only at
the parallels between the figure of Christ and it pagan counterparts, Asclepius and
Heracles, but also at traces of Athanasius’ distinctly Christian description of One
God. The task is complicated by an entangled relationship between contemporary
Christian and Platonist sources, but a thorough lexical analysis with an accurate
consciousness of the sources can give fruitful results. The research thus carried out
is not conclusive. Further investigation into different terminology used to describe
One God in both Christian and Hellenic contexts would be a logical continuation
of the present work.
45
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Athanasius. Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione. Edited and translated
by Robert W. Thomson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Athanasius. Opera omnia. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 26. Ed. J. P.
Migne, Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857.
Emperor Julian. The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 1. Edited and translated by
Wilmer Cave Wright. London: Heinemann, 1913.
Emperor Julian. The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2. Edited and translated by
Emperor Julian. The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3, edited and translated by
Iamblichus. De mysteriis. Translated by Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and
Jackson P.Hershbell. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003
Iuliani Imperatoris. Epistulae, leges, poematia, fragmenta varia. Edited by Joseph
Bidez and François Cumont, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1922.
Numenius. Fragments. Translated by Edouard des Places. Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1973.
Plutarch. Moralia, Volume XIII: Part 2: Stoic Essays. Translated by Harold
Cherniss. Loeb Classical Library 470. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1976.
Plutarch. Lives, Volume II: Themistocles and Camillus. Aristides and Cato Major.
Cimon and Lucullus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical
Library 47. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1914.
46
Secondary Sources:
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. Julian. An Intellectual Biography. London: Routledge,
2014.
Baker-Brian, Nicholas J. and Shaun Tougher, eds. Emperor and Author: The
Writings of Julian 'the Apostate'. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales,
2012.
Barnes, Timothy D. Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the
Constantinian Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2001.
Bowersock, Glen Warren. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1990.
Bowersock, Glen Warren. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1978.
Croix, G. E. M. De Ste. The Class Struggle In The Ancient Greek World: From The
Archaic Age To The Arab Conquest. New York: Cornell University Press,
1981.
Downey, Glanville. “Julian the Apostate in Antioch.” Church History vol. 8, no. 4
(1939): 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3160167.
Elm, Susanna. “Julian the writer and his audience.” In Emperor and Author: The
Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', 1-18.
Fowden, Garth. The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan
Mind. Princeton: University Press, 1986.
Gemeinhardt, Peter, L. Van Hoof, and P. Van Nuffelen, eds. Education and
Religion in Late Antique Christianity Reflections, Social Contexts and
Genres. London, New York: Routledge, 2016.
Greenwood, David Neal. Julian and Christianity. Revisiting the Constantinian
Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2021.
Greenwood, David Neal. “Constantinian Influence upon Julian’s Pagan Church.”
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68, no. 1 (2017): 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046916000609.
Greenwood, David Neal. “Julian’s Use Of Asclepius: Against The Christians.”
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 109 (2017): 491–509.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44863970.
47
Greenwood, David Neal. “New Testament Christology, Athanasian Apologetic,
and Pagan Polemic.” The Journal of Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2017):
101–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flx231.
Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria. Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Father.
Oxford, 2012.
Hauge, Matthew Ryan, A.W. Pitts, eds. Ancient Education and Early Christianity.
London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.
Hunt, David. “The Christian context of Julian’s Against the Galilaeans.” Chapter
in Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', 251–262.
Jones, A. H. Martin. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: a Social Economic and
Administrative Survey, vol. 1. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1986.
Kannengiesser, Charles. “The Philosophical Background Of The Athanasian
Doctrine Of Salvation.” Vox Patrum 26, t. 49 (2006): 265-276.
https://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_31743_v
p_8213/c/8213-8068.pdf.
Lyman, J. Rebecca. Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in
Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Markus, Robert. The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
Mikhailov, Pyotr B. “Konzepziya ellinizatsii khistianskva v istorii teologii.” In
Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tikhonskogo gummanitarnogo universiteta.
Seriya 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiya. Religiovedenie, no. 71, 2017, 50–68.
Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander
the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Lanham: University Press of America,
1988.
Panteleev, Aleksey D. “Martyrium Polycarpi and De morte Peregrini: once again
on old discussion.” In Indo-European Linguistics And Classical
Philology–XXI Proceedings of the 21st Conference in Memory of Professor
Joseph M. Tronsky. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2017, 642-652.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E, David Konstan, “Terms for Eternity: αἰώνιος and ἀΐδιος in
Classical and Christian Texts”, Nova Tellus 24, 2, (2006): 21-39,
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=59120913002.
Ramelli, Ilaria L. E.. "Apuleius and Christianity: The Novelist-Philosopher in
Front of a New Religion" In Intende, Lector - Echoes of Myth, Religion and
48
Ritual in the Ancient Novel, edited by Marília P. Futre Pinheiro, Anton Bierl
and Roger Beck, 145-174. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110311907.145
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. "Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism
Re-Thinking the Christianisation of Hellenism", Vigiliae Christianae 63, 3
(2009): 217-263, doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/157007208X377292
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. "Origen’s First Followers in Alexandria and the East, and His
First ‘Detractors’". In The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, (Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill, 2013) doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004245709_003
Rose, Herbert Jennings. “Herakles and the Gospels.” Harvard Theological Review
31 (1938): 113–42.
Salzman, Michele Renee, M. Sághy, and R. Lizzi Testa, eds. Pagans And
Christians In Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, And Coexistence In
The Fourth Century. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press,
2016.
Shaft, Peter and Henry Wace, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,
Volume 4, St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1995.
Smith, Andrew. “Julian’s Hymn To King Helios: The Economical Use Of Complex
Neoplatonic Concepts.” In Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian 'the
Apostate', 229-238.
Stowers, Stanley K. “Kinds of myths, meals, and power: Paul and Corinthians,” in
Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians, eds. Ron Cameron and Merrill P.
Miller (Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 105–50, at 105.
Talbert, Charles H. “The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 94 no 3 (1975): 419–436. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3265162
Trombly, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c 370-529. Vol I-II.
Leiden: Brill, 2014.
van den Hoek, Annewies. “Origen’s Role in Formulation Later Christological
Language” in Origeniana Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen
des 4. Jahrhunderts, eds W. A. Bienert and U. Kühneweg, 39-50. Leuven:
Peeters, 1999.
Walsh, Robert Faith. “The Satyrica and the Gospels in the Second Century”. The
Classical Quarterly 70.1 (2020): 356-367.
doi:10.1017/S0009838820000488.
49
Widdicombe, Peter. "The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1994.
Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. 2nd ed. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003.
Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1987.
50

Athanasius of Alexandria and The Emperor Julian. Rhetorics of Identity and of The Dialogue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Athanasius of Alexandria and The Emperor Julian. Rhetorics of Identity and of The Dialogue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ АВТОНОМНОЕ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ

Образовательная программа «Медиевистика»,

Athanasius of Alexandria and the Emperor Julian.

Выпускная квалификационная работа (магистерская диссертация) студента 2-го курса

Академический руководитель Научный руководитель

Д.и.н., профессор PhD, доцент

2.1. From Gibbon to Markus to today

2.2. Christianization of Hellenism

2.2.1. Apuleius, Lucian, Petronius

2.2.3. Celsus, Porphyry, Julian

3.1. Athanasius & Julian timeline

3.3. Athanasius’ response. Council of Alexandria 362

3.4. Julian’s response to the schism and his policies

3.5. Evidence for intertextuality

3.5.1. Asclepius and Heracles VS Christ

More examples of the description of begetting of Asclepius, expressed in identical

Julian The Scriptures

3.5.2. Julian’s view οf the pantheon of gods

4.1. Premises that allow for a comparison

ὁρῶντες γὰρ οὔτε πληθυνόμενον οὔτε ἐλαττούμενόν τι τῶν περὶ τὸν

ἀθάνατον δὲ ὂν φύσει καὶ ἀνώλεθρον παντοίας ἐστὶ καθαρὸν κηλῖδος·

ἀΐδιον δὲ καὶ ἀεικίνητον, ὡς ὁρῶμεν, ἤτοι παρὰ ψυχῆς κρείττονος καὶ

Julian’s version of universal knowledge of God is centered on cosmological

4.2. Approach and methodology

4.3. Analysis of the epithets ἀΐδιος and ἄτρεπτος

You might also like