Julian the Apostate, the last Roman pagan emperor, had a pretty short reign of less than two years, but he made a big splash and is arguably the most well-known emperor of the late Roman period. But various Christian theologians, chroniclers and thinkers would be highly critical of him and his championing of paganism after his death. So this video is part of a series on what his critics wrote about him. And in this video, I'm going to look at how the late...
4th century, early 5th century Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus saw the Emperor and discusses criticisms of Julian's actions and works. And if you'd like to jump straight into the analysis of Socrates' arguments against Julian, I've added chapters in the description.
below so you can jump straight to whichever point is of interest. Socrates Scholasticus was a church historian who lived in Constantinople and he's primarily known for his book Historia Ecclesiastica or Church History which is a very detailed
account from Constantine's time on the never-ending conflicts between the Aryan Christians and Catholics and the numerous other heresies that were springing up in the eastern half of the Roman Empire and also the huge issues that a lot of Christians had with
what was decided in the Council of Nicaea where Jesus was officially elevated to divine status and therefore equal to God. Socrates' account is generally much more down to earth and with none of the excessive heaping of praise on Constantine due to his conversion to Christ. Christianity as Eusebius, for example, introduces in his work Life of Constantine.
In fact, pointing a finger at Eusebius, Socrates says himself he has no interest in panegyrics or excessive adulation of Constantine or his sons or in fact downplaying Julian or showing him in excessive bad light because he was a pagan. Quote, also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author, meaning Eusebius, has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the prizes of the emperor than on an accurate statement.
of facts socrates then makes it clear he's more interested in the unvarnished truth and to his credit he does initially make an allowance for the fact that julian was one of the more well-read and cultured of the emperors calling him quote a prince who was eminently distinguished for his learning unquote although as we'll see he does still decide to attack julian for his pagan sympathies
The emperor Julian died on the 26th of June 363 CE during the war against the Persians. His body was brought back by Jovian who succeeded him as emperor and he was eventually buried in the church of the holy apostles in Constantinople despite not being a Christian.
On the death of Julian the well-known and respected pagan philosopher Libanius who was a friend of Julian would write his funeral oration which he named Julianus. But this funeral oration referred positively to Julian's policies in restraining the spread of Christianity. and of his book Contra Galileos meaning against the Christians which was an anti-Christian polemic.
Socrates admits that Libanius was, as he puts it, an excellent rhetorician but uses this funeral oration for Julian as the reason to not only find fault with Libanius but also with Julian on a more general front. Enthusiastica he explains himself before beginning his criticism. Quote, Since then he, meaning Libanius, has spoken in the spirit of a pagan, a sophist, and the friend of him whom he lauded. We shall endeavour to meet what he has advanced as far as we are able.
So let's get into the detail of what Socrates wrote about Julian and in fact Libanius as well. His arguments can be boiled down into 10 different points and we'll go through those one by one. Socrates firstly accuses Libanius of comparing Julian too favourably with Porphyry in his funeral oration. Porphyry was a formidable pagan polemicist against Christianity who died around 30 years before the birth of Julian and he is generally
regarded as the greatest critic of Christianity whose work has survived in some fashion to the present day. Libanius Socrates argues in his praise for the dead emperor suggests Julian's arguments in his work against Christianity were more powerful than those of Porphyry and that Julian goes about his mission more eloquently and persuasively than Porphyry did. Porphyry came from Tyre and is therefore referred to as the Tyrian sage or Tyrian old man by Lubanius.
Socrates quotes what Libanius in his oration wrote about Julian. Quote, when the winter had lengthened the night, the emperor made an attack on those books which made the man of Palestine, both God and the son of God, and by a long series of arguments, having proved that these writings, which are so much revered by Christians, are...
ridiculous and unfounded he has evinced himself wiser and more skillful than the Tyrian old man but may this Tyrian sage be propitious to me and mildly bear with what has been affirmed and seeing that he has been excelled by his son. So in this video I'm going to ignore Julian's point regarding the paradox of Jesus being God and the son of God at the same time and I'll deal with that in a future video perhaps. But regarding Socrates suggesting Labanus's praise for the dead Julian is praised too.
much and the suggestion that Julian was a better opponent of Christianity than Porphyry, Socrates is forgetting that this funeral oration by Libanius is really a eulogy for the dead emperor and the whole purpose of a eulogy is to show the deceased person in a favourable light. So even though in Socrates' time the general impression was that Porphyry's work was a gold standard of polemics against Christianity, it didn't make sense to show Julian in a negative fashion at his funeral.
And staying on the issue of who was a better critic of Christianity, Socrates is forgetting that Julian's life was cut short and he died at the pretty young age of 32. So he never had the chance. growing up in a Christian environment during his youth to freely voice his opinion or write on the subject and of course once he became emperor he had
Just two short years to both manage the empire, a full-time job in itself, and to write his polemic. Porphyry, on the other hand, lived during the age of pagan emperors and also lived to a ripe old age and therefore had much more time, opportunity and freedom to... write his work against Christianity. So it's unfair in many senses to compare the two on their works. Socrates also attacks Libanius for flattery and essentially bending with the wind in terms of opinion.
An example he quotes is Libanius writing flattering words about Constantius II when he was alive an emperor. However, after Constantius' death and during the reign of Julian, Socrates writes that Libanius, presumably because he was a pagan himself, then began writing severe criticism of the dead emperor. Quote, For while Constantius was alive, he wrote encomiums upon him.
But after his death, he brought the most insulting and reproachful charges against him. So that if Porphyry had been emperor, Lubanius would certainly have preferred his books to Julian's. And had Julian been a mere sophist, he would have termed him a very indifferent one.
as he does Echibolius in his epitaph upon Julian. So essentially his argument is that Libanius can't be relied on because he is a flatterer. However it has to be remembered that Julian was dead and Jovian who was a devout Christian was now emperor. praising a pagan emperor for his anti-christian stance was now once again a risky endeavor nevertheless libania still praises him for it and this showed a certain amount of boldness so libania certainly wasn't necessarily changing his opinion
due to the exigencies of the political and religious situation. If he was, then he would be criticising Julian instead to curry favour with Jovian. Socrates also suggests that Julian, like Porphyry before him, spends more time showing contempt for the Bible and Christian beliefs rather than actually putting forward sound arguments against Christian dogma.
quote that both julian and porphyry whom libanius calls the tyrian old man took great delight in scoffing is evident from their own works unquote and that therefore the the works of both porphyry and julian are given much more respect than they really deserve And Socrates suggests that in any case it was too late for Julian to try and overthrow Christianity.
But throughout the long contest into which he entered, instead of attempting to disprove anything by sound reasoning, as Libanius asserts, in the absence of truth he had recourse to sneers and contemptuous jests of which he was excessively fond.
and thus he sought to hold up to derision, which is too firmly established to be overthrown, unquote. He then argues that both Julian and Porphyry used straw man arguments and that many of their arguments could equally be used against paganism, which they knew, but...
purposely avoid to prevent their case from being weakened. He doesn't, however, address any of the numerous arguments that either Porphyry or Julian made against Christian beliefs. However, to be fair, Socrates' book was more on church history than a counter against either or Julian so he can be forgiven on that front.
Socrates next argues that both Porphyry and Julian do not hesitate to criticise or make fun of the great thinkers of yesteryear, and that counts against them as they have little respect for the great men of the past. Porphyry, for example, in one of his works called The
History of the Philosophers had criticized the famous Greek philosopher Socrates, who was generally regarded for his wisdom, modesty and virtue. And in the same fashion, Julian, in his work The Caesars, lampoons various previous emperors. Julian, he writes, quote, displayed a like morbidness of mind in his book entitled The Caesars, wherein he introduces all his imperial predecessors, not sparing even Mark the philosopher.
Their own writings therefore show that they both took pleasure in taunts and reviling. By Mark the philosopher he's referring to the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Surely he suggests someone like Socrates and by extension other great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle were beyond...
criticism and surely Julian had no place in lampooning a thinker like Marcus Aurelius as well as other previous emperors. But this is a weak point as the Greek believed in free discourse and free thinking and certainly there was no great injunction in not believing or banning criticism of Socrates at all in the Greek way of thinking. And even Plato and Aristotle disagreed with Socrates on various issues and that was all part of the cut and thrust of talking about philosophy.
As far as Julian's work the Caesars was concerned the work was written as a comedy in which lampooned all and sundry not just Marcus Aurelius and of course lampooning the previous emperor didn't necessarily mean he agreed or disagreed with him on any issue of philosophy. Free thought and the freedom to criticise and challenge previous beliefs was central to Greek thinking.
This was of course quite a polar opposite to Christianity where belief in a certain dogma was necessary and beyond question. Anyone who questioned or disagreed with any dogma or belief could be labelled a heretic and thrown out of the church. There was a huge
number of heresies in that time and the way the church dealt with them was quite different than draconian compared to pagan differences in belief. So the difference in opinion showed the chasm that had opened up between pagan free thinking and the Christian religion where any criticism of Jesus or the apostles or saints was complete anathema.
Socrates then refers and quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus who in his second oration against the pagans mentions Julian hiding his true feelings regarding paganism before he became emperor and that Julian had already been looking in this direction well before he rose to power.
In other words, that he was living a lie and that his reasons for visiting Athens during his youth were not sincere. His motive, he wrote, for this visit was twofold. One reason was honourable to him, to see Greece and attend the schools there. The other was a more secret one which few knew anything about for his impiety had not yet presumed to openly avow itself to have opportunity of consulting the sacrifices and other imposters respecting his own destiny
In fact Socrates would quote more from Gregory of Nazianzus which portrayed Julian in pretty bad light mentioning many of his body language traits but in an extremely negative way and generally remarking on his personality being fickle or extravagant. in mind and thinking and essentially suggesting that Julian was not really fit to be emperor, not having the persona required for the position.
Quote, for it seemed to me that no good was portrayed in it by a neck seldom steady, that the frequent shrugging of shoulders and eyes scowling and always in motion, together with a frenzied aspect, a gate irregular and tottering, a nose breathing. only contempt and insult, with ridiculous contortions of countenance expressive of the same thing, immoderate and very loud laughter, nods as it were of assent and drawing back of the head as if in denial, without any visible cause.
Speech with hesitancy and interrupted by his breathing, disorderly and senseless questions, answers no better, all jumbled together with the least consistency or method.
why need i enter into minute particulars such i foresaw he would be beforehand as i found him afterwards from experience and gregory would write that he had essentially predicted that julian would come to power and very unfairly compares his tenure as emperor to the various biblical disasters and cataclysms and seemed to be satisfied with his premature end.
quote for it would have been far better than i should have been convicted of having formed an erroneous judgment than that the world should be filled with so many calamities and that such a monster should have appeared as never before had been seen
Although many deluges and conflagrations are recorded, many earthquakes and chasms and descriptions are given of many ferocious and inhuman men, as well as prodigies of the brute creation, compounded of different races of which nature produced unusual things. forms. His end has indeed been such as corresponds with the madness of his career."
But leaving what Gregory of Nazianzus thought of Julian, Socrates then returns to his own thoughts and also accuses Julian and Porphyry of strawmanning or even changing the meaning of what the bible said in various portions and that Julian scoffs at the biblical
god for his anthropomorphic nature in other words god is rather spoken of as a man with human attributes like anger and jealousy rather than a supreme divinity being above and beyond human understanding and human weaknesses and also that they Meaning Julian and Porphyry, being skilled in sophistry, abused their power to fall Christians back into the pagan fold. Quote, it is also very obvious that the emperor in his discourses was intent on beguiling the ignorant and did not address himself to...
those who possess the form of the truth as it is presented in the sacred scriptures. And later he writes that Julian and Porphyry in their various compilations have endeavoured to do violence to the truth, sometimes by the corruption of passages of sacred scripture.
and others by either adding to the express words and putting such a construction upon them as suited their own purpose many have demonstrated by confuting their cavils and exposing their fallacies again he doesn't mention any specific places where he thinks julian or porphyry have done that although he mentions other christian apologists like oregon for example having already considered refuted their objections julian had also scoffed literal meaning of the bible
Already in that time, there were many Christians who realised the literal meaning of, say, the Genesis story or a great flood or the plagues sent on Egypt had repercussions which made them impossible to believe. And that maybe these stories were therefore... impossible to take literally. But then there was the problem of who to believe and what to believe in the Bible.
Quote, he's also very indignant because all men do not form the same opinion of them and inveighs against those Christians who understand the sacred oracles in a more literal sense. But it ill became him to rail so vehemently against the simplicity of the vulgar.
and on their account to behave so arrogantly towards the sacred scriptures, nor was he warranted in turning with aversion from those things which others rightly apprehended, because forsooth they understood them, otherwise then he desired they should."
day and age there was a great difference in opinion amongst Christians as to how to understand and take the bible mythology and Socrates rails at Julian for mocking the Christians on this aspect although it has to be said the Christians of that time mocked the pagan
His next argument was that Julian and Porphyry were angry ex-Christians who were turning upon their former beliefs with the expected zeal that any apostate would show. Socrates suggests Porphyry was a ex-Christian who had had, through bad experience with Christians, decided in anger to renounce his former religion.
But now, as it seems, a similar cause of disgust seems to have operated upon him to that which affected Porphyry, who, having been beaten by some Christians at Caesarea in Palestine and not being able to endure such treatment from the... Workings of unrestrained rage renounce the Christian religion.
From hatred of those who had beaten him he took to writing blasphemous works against Christians as Eusebius Pamphilus has proved who at the same time refuted his writings and he suggests Julian too had followed the same route. Perhaps he was hinting at Constantius having Julian's father and brother killed being the cause of his apostasy, and perhaps there is some weight in that, although it's known Julian had a natural interest in Greek philosophy and only gave up Christianity at the age of 12.
pointy during his studies, rather than through the hatred of Constantius. Certainly he never attributes his apostasy to his treatment by the previous emperor. Socrates' final argument was that Julian showed hypocrisy of the highest order for scoffing at Christians for...
elevating the man Jesus to divine status for surely pagans did exactly the same for their emperors. When a roman emperor died he was immediately seen as joining the gods and in fact he accuses Lubanius of doing exactly this to Julian after his death that of seeing him as a god.
Quote, but when Libanius the sophist says in derision that the Christians make a man of Palestine both God and the son of God, he appears to have forgotten that he himself has deified Julian at the close of his oration. For they almost killed, says he, the first messenger of his death, as if... he had lied against a god and a little afterwards he adds
oh thou cherished one of the gods thou disciple of the gods thou associate with the gods in fact he even labels libanius as elevating porphyry himself as suggested by his oration when he writes may the syrian meaning porphyry be propitious to me and this raising to divine status he said was unequivocal and it wasn't just praise and then he goes on to say that many persons elevated to divine status were in fact drunkards like hercules and bacchus rather than sober upstanding men
We might indeed show by a variety of instances that the practice of deifying human beings was far from uncommon amongst the heathen. Nay, they did so without the slightest hesitation. And in fact, it wasn't just emperors, but many other heroes and other personalities who had been deified and included many who did not deserve this accolade because of their actions. Pagans like Attis, a priest in Phrygia, was seen as the personification of the gods.
Adonis and Bacchus and he also cites the more famous example of Alexander the Great being made a god when he visited the oracle of Delphi. The oracle had declared Alexander to be quote king divine concealed in mortal form unquote. Quote, these are the words of the demon at Delphi, meaning the Oracle of Delphi, who, when he wished to flatter potentates, did not scruple to assign them a place amongst the gods. He wrote, suggesting Alexander was one of the many given this honour.
again when alexander king of the macedonians passed over into asia the amphictyons courted his favor and the python s uttered this oracle to zeus supreme amongst the gods and athena try to genia pay homage and to the king divine concealed in mortal form. Him Zeus begat in honour to be the protector and dispenser of justice amongst mortals, Alexander the King. And continuing on the same point, Socrates points out that although the deification could be put down to simple flattery, this didn't
explain lesser men who simply didn't have sufficient qualities but getting the same honour and being elevated to the status of gods. And he gives the example of Cleomedes, a pugilist or boxer who was made a god as commanded by the Oracle of Delphi.
various people strongly rejected this idea. Quote, the last of the heroes is Cleomedes the Astipalian, him honour with sacrifices, for he is no longer a mortal. Because of this oracle, Diogenes the cynic and Inimaos the philosopher strongly condemned Apollo. Another classic example was Hadrian who had raised his dead companion Antinous to the status of God.
Socrates writes that Libanius didn't have an issue with these examples and many others that the pagan oracles raised which he terms ridiculous and contemptible absurdities and which Libanius would surely have known about.
Meanwhile he argued that Christianity was different in that faith in Jesus was paramount before his divine status could be understood. Quote, Moreover that man in Christ was united to the Godhead so that while he was apparently but man he was the invisible God and that both these
things are most true the divine books of christians distinctly teach but the heathen before they believe cannot understand for it is a divine oracle that declares unless you believe assuredly you shall not understand unquote
However, the praise and the accolade of the elevation to God status of the Roman emperor was essentially quite different to the Christian belief that Jesus was God himself, that he had always been God or part of God and creator of the universe. And this wasn't... accolade or mark of respect rather it was a belief that he was the divine and always had been.
so summing up there were various points raised by socrates scholasticus some better than others while some are really personal attacks as with the points raised by gregory of naziensis but it does give us a valuable insight into a fifth century point of view into the man and i'll go through what other writers wrote about him in future videos as well uh so stay tuned to the channel and give it a subscribe and if you'd like to be notified of future videos do please hit the bell button as well