A Cautionary Note on Julianrsquos lsquoPagan TrinityrsquoDavid Neal Greenwood

In his classic biography La Vie de lrsquoEmpereur Julien Bidez 1930 253 wrotethat Julianrsquos triadic presentation of God uniquely contained lsquodes reacuteminiscencesde la triniteacute chreacutetiennersquo This established something of a trend in studies ofJulian followed firmly by Nesselrath 2008 214 who identifies a lsquopaganerTrinitaumltrsquo in Julianrsquos seventh oration and more vaguely by Chadwick 2001 175who reflects on Julianrsquos triadic Neoplatonist language and concludes lsquoSomeChristian influence may reasonably be discerned herersquo The implication is thatJulian was borrowing from Christianity to co-opt the concept of the Trinity It isabsolutely correct to claim that Julian altered existing theology and crafted hiswritings to confront or co-opt Christianity but I believe that the perception of hisTrinitarian use of Helios is a modern phenomenon that breaks down at certainpoints It is noteworthy that works by those specialising in Neoplatonism such asDillon 1999 and Smith 2012 have examined the relevant passages without men-tion of any lsquopagan Trinityrsquo I have argued that in his writings the pagan emperorJulian strove to recapitulate the Christianising gains of the Constantinian revolu-tion responding not only by physically countering his uncle Constantinersquosinscriptions and building programs but theologically confronting Christianity bycrafting Heracles and Asclepius into rival saviours1 It is tempting to see Julianrsquosuse of Helios in the same vein as a deliberate paralleling of the Christian Trinitybut I believe that the evidence suggests otherwise in all but one case and thateven there caution is called for Although some writers have suggested Trinitar-ian parallels for many individual Julianic texts the comparison works more plau-sibly in the aggregate as when examined individually many of the passagesappear to be incidental not intentional parallels to the Christian Trinity

I should like to be very clear about the terminology used herein When I referto Trinitarian thought in Christianity I make reference to the concept of a Godexisting in three ὑπόστασες Father Son and Holy Spirit In this relationalframework each person plays a different role in the economic Trinity in whichthe Son is begotten by the Father and incarnates in the world In contrast I referto monotheistic or henotheistic Neoplatonic thought as triadic describing God asexisting in three ὑπόστασες on three levels of reality In Julianrsquos unique varia-tion on the Neoplatonic structure either Zeus or Helios begot a son (Heracles orAsclepius) who incarnated in the world but significantly was outside the Neo-

Ancient Philosophy 33 (2013)copyMathesis Publications 391

1 Greenwood 2013 289-296 The numbering and Greek text of Julian follows the Budeacute editionof Bidez Rochefort and Lacombrade 1924-64 and the translations are my own

platonic triad I therefore distinguish Julianrsquos presentation of Zeus-Helios theFather and either Heracles or Asclepius the Son as binitarian reflecting Julianrsquosattempt to supplant Christ without being bothered to provide a complete Trinitywith a pagan Holy Spirit analogue Julian does not claim equality and identitybetween Helios and Asclepius in the Christian fashion As Smith 2009 43 pointsout lsquoOne of the chief complaints of all anti-Christian polemic is the identifica-tion of Christ as Godrsquo

I Julianrsquos educationIt is important to understand where Julianrsquos exposure to Christian theology

came from as modern scholars must look back from the other side of the writingsof the Cappadocian fathers and the Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed Julian waseducated by Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia and George later bishop of Alexan-dria and under the authority of Constantius II (Julian Ep 106 107 Ammianusxxii 94) All three of these men rejected the Nicene definition Julianrsquos mostinfluential teacher was his pagan tutor Mardonius (xii 352c) who was followedby men of similar background like the pagan Nicocles and the apostate Hece-bolius (Libanius Or xv 27 xviii 12) and later the pagan Themistius (vi 257d258a-d) Although Constantine had supported and contributed to the Nicene set-tlement in 325 from that point until after Julianrsquos death in 363 those rejectingNicaea were in the political ascendancy with the conflict not truly subsidinguntil after the formulation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381 Priorto becoming sole ruler Julian supported the Catholic Christians in 360-361 in theWest not from conviction but for political expediency He realised that theNicene and non-Nicene parties were committed enemies and offered an amnestyto the exiled Nicenes as a means of sowing dissent He continued stirring this potin late 362 with his exhortation to Photinus the non-Nicene Christian (Ep 90)The conflict during Julianrsquos lifetime focused on the nature and origination ofChrist and with minor exceptions debates on the Holy Spirit were not on theagenda until well after Julian This means that the Christian tradition Julian wasfamiliar with and reacted against did not emphasise the concept of the Trinity asthree but was focused on the relation of Father and Son within it Given this it isonly reasonable to expect that Julianrsquos lsquomental furniturersquo was the product of abinitarian Christian theology Indeed despite Julianrsquos scathing attacks on Chris-tianity and particular aspects such as the Incarnation in his Contra Galilaeos onecan search the surviving remnants of the work in vain for any overt criticism ofthe Trinity Julianrsquos exposure to and interest in engaging Christian Trinitarianconcepts should not be overstated

II Neoplatonic languageEvaluating authorial intent in Julianrsquos passages at hand is made more difficult

by virtue of Julianrsquos frequent presentation of gods in threes which suggests tosome readers a connection with the Christian concept of the Trinity As an exam-ple Hoffmann 2004 67 cites Julianrsquos late 361 letter to his spiritual advisor Max-

392

imus as invoking a lsquotrinity of powersrsquo Ἴστω Ζεύς ἴστω μέγας Ἥλιος ἴστωἈθηνᾶς κράτος καὶ πάντες θεοί lsquoZeus great Helios and powerful Athena bemy witnesses and all the godsrsquo (Ep 26415a) However mere citing of gods inthrees does not justify a Trinitarian reference especially when it consists of threenamed gods invoked amidst a host of others It is important to recall the triadicnature of Neo-Platonismrsquos reality As far back as Naville 1877 103 we havewarnings that Julianrsquos triad originated from Neoplatonism not Nicaea2

The seminal Neoplatonist thinker Plotinus divided reality into threehypostases the first being τὸ ἕν or lsquothe Onersquo the second νοῦς or Intelligenceand the third ψυχή or the Soul The combination of monotheistic religion andthree levels of reality suggests a god existing in some sense on three levels TheChaldean Oracles outline a divine triad of the πατήρ or Father his δύναμις orpower and his νοῦς or intellect (Chaldean Oracles fr 4 Majercik)3 Porphyryfurther developed a triad within the hypostasis of the νοῦς that consisted ofBeing Life and Intellect proper (Commentary on Timaeus fr 79) one whichDillon 1989 9 points out most closely resembles the Christian Trinity with its co-ordinate rather than hierarchical structure While that creates some interestingcoincidences it does not demonstrate intentional paralleling of Christian theol-ogy on Julianrsquos part as his writings reflect more of the Neoplatonic triad than theNicene Trinity Smith 2009 43 notes lsquoNow this grouping of three realities orhypostases was sufficiently similar to the Christian Trinity to be exploited byChristian theologians But it differed of course fundamentally in that the Neo-platonic hypostases were subordinate to each other and not co-ordinate as ortho-dox Trinitarian doctrine eventually demandedrsquo Both Dillon 1999 107 andWright recognise Julianrsquos triadic framework as normative Wright 1896 52wrote lsquoJulian follows him [Iamblichus] in the main with his trinity of theκόσμος ὁρατός or visible universe the κόσμος νοερός its model relievedfrom the imperfections of matter and represented in the ὁρατὸν by the planetsand thirdly the κόσμος νοητός over which rules the supreme principle of theGood or the One (τὸ ἕν) not to be grasped by the intelligencersquo

Along these lines Wright 1896 90 identified a number of technical Neopla-tonist terms used by Julian including θεουργός lsquoperformer of sacramental

393

2 Bidez 1930 253 offers a paragraph with remarkably similar wording to Navillersquos but excludesNavillersquos caveat regarding Neoplatonism as the font rather than Nicaea Bidez lsquoIl y a de la parenteacuteentre son Roi-Soleil et le dieu secondaire auteur de la creation que les Peres au deuxieme siecleavaient defini sous le nom de Logos puis au concile de Nicee sous le nom de Fils consubstantielJulien esperait peut-etre substituer dans lrsquoadoration populaire son demiurge mediateur au Verbe-Jesusrsquo Naville 1877 104-105 lsquoIl y a une parente evidente entre son Roi Soleil et ce dieu secondaireorgane de la creation que les Peres du deuxieme sicle avaient proclame sous le nom de Logos et leConcile de Nicee sous le nom de Filshellip Julien esperait peut-etre substituter le Roi Soleil au Verbe-Fils dans lrsquoadoration populairersquo

3 Cf Wallis 1972 106 116 Athanassiadi and Frede 1999 14 who write of the Chaldean Ora-cles lsquohere too we have a monotheistic theology though there is some dispute about the nature of theone God is it trinitarian and if so are we dealing with a subordinationist or a co-ordinationist trini-tarianismrsquo

ritesrsquo (Julian viii 173a Iamblichus De mysteriis iii 18) ἀποπλήρωσις lsquofillingsatisfyingrsquo (Julian xi 144d Porphyry De abstinentia iii 18 Iamblichus De mys-teriis v 26) ἀποπληρωτής lsquoone who completes or fulfillsrsquo (Julian iii 90c PlatoRepublic 620e Iamblichus De mysteriis v 10) ἀποπληρωτικός lsquocompleting orfulfillingrsquo (Julian xi 137b Iamblichus De mysteriis v 26) ἑνοειδής ἑνοειδῶςlsquoresembling having the form of unityrsquo (Julian xi 139b Plotinus Enneads vi 95)περικόσμιος lsquomundanersquo (Julian xi 138d 145d Iamblichus De mysteriis ii 1 4)and αὐτοψυχή lsquoabsolute soulrsquo (Julian Ep 89b Plotinus Enneads v 913) Theuse of such vocabulary demonstrates the thoroughgoing Neoplatonist strain per-meating Julianrsquos writings

Julianrsquos language of begetting procession and sonship has definite affinitiesto Christian writings but is not radically different in principle from other writ-ings within Neo-Platonism This filial language has some parallels in theChaldean Oracles (late second-century) and the writings of Proclus (412-485)and Damascius (c 458-after 538) The Chaldean Oracles refer to the SupremeDeity as the lsquoFatherrsquo (eg fr 7 Majercik) Proclus in arguing againstIamblichusrsquo redefinition of the One as lsquoGod and the godsrsquo also refers to the firstgod as lsquofatherrsquo (Commentary on Parmenides 107015ff) Damascius comment-ing on Porphyry wrote of the τῆς νοητῆς τριάδος lsquoFather of the Noetic triadrsquo(De principiis i 868-15 Ruelle = Porphyry fr 367 Smith) These are examples ofpassages in which Julian might be drawing upon either Christian or Neoplatonicthought Nevertheless if Julian was attempting to draw a Christian inference theemphasis was on paralleling Christ not the Trinity Julian provided an examplein his Letter to the Alexandrians of late 362 where he chided the Alexandriansfor their recalcitrant attachment to Christ and compared him with Helios (Ep111434d)4

τὸν μέγαν Ἥλιον λέγω τὸ ζῶν ἄγαλμα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶἔννουν καὶ ἀγαθοεργὸν τοῦ νοητοῦ πατρόςI speak of great Helios his intelligible fatherrsquos living imageendowed with soul and intelligence maker of all good5

Julian referred to Helios as his fatherrsquos living image which is interesting in lightof the fact that Christ whom Julian is comparing Helios to is described similarlyin Col 115-16 albeit in different language as lsquothe image (εἰκών) of the invisi-ble Godhellipin him all things in heaven and on earth were createdrsquo (ἐκτίσθη) HereHelios is cast in the role of the Son as opposed to the other passages in which heplays the role of the Father and is the begetter of Heracles and Asclepius (vii220a xi 144a) If Julian both portrayed Zeus-Helios as the father of the gods andcompared him directly to Christ this suggests he was not trying to formulate aconsistent lsquopagan trinitarian theologyrsquo but responding ad hoc for specific pur-poses which suggests uniqueness for Or vii 228d This sort of language alsoappears in Julianrsquos Hymn to King Helios in which he wrote that Helios was

394

4 This letter can be dated to November or December 362 by Julianrsquos reference to the banishmentof Athanasius who left 24 October 362 (Ep 111435c)

5 There is a lacuna in the manuscripts

begotten in the likeness of the Good (xi 133a) and proceeded from the Good ineternity past (xi 142a 146b 156c) Julian reinforced this by repeatedly writingthat Helios was the son of the Good (xi 133a 144d vii 228d)6 While it is indeedsuggestive language that recalls Christian theological writings much of Julianrsquosterminology here may be properly categorised as interested in engaging Christrather than the concept of the Trinity

III Possible Trinitarian parallelsThere are four remaining possible parallels examples drawn from two of

Julianrsquos orations Julian presented Or vii in spring 362 in Constantinople for theupcoming festival of Cybele in March (Lib Or xviii 157) While Julian wasostensibly responding to a disrespectful oration by the Cynic Heraclius (Julianvii 234c-d) he used that opportunity as a vehicle for his criticisms of Constan-tine Constantius II and Christianity In it Julian recalled in mythic format hisupbringing and the horrific realisation that his cousin Constantius II was behindthe deaths of his father and most of his siblings and laid out a response in whichhe was divinely commissioned to redress these grievances We have first the pas-sage regarding Julianrsquos unique portrayal of Heracles which Nesselrath 2008 214describes as containing a pagan Trinity unmistakably borrowed from Christian-ity7 Julian wrote (vii 219d-220a)

βαδίσαι δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς τῆς θαλάττης νενόμικα Τίγὰρ ἄπορον ἦν Ἡρακλεῖ Τί δrsquo οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ τῷθείῳ καὶ καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι τῶν λεγομένων τούτωνστοιχείωνhellipδουλευόντων αὐτοῦ τῇ δημιουργικῇ καὶτελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμειὋν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπιστήσαςαὐτῷ φύλακα τὴν θεὸν ταύτην ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενοςαὐτοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσενI believe he walked on the sea as upon dry land For what wasimpossible to Heracles What of the so-called elementsenslaved to the creative and consummating power of hisimmaculate and pure mind did not hearken to his divine andmost pure flesh Him great Zeus through foreseeing Athenabegat to be the saviour of the world and assigned to him asguardian this goddess he had brought forth whole from thewhole of himself

Julianrsquos presentation of the origin and parentage of Heracles is unique Julian isindeed supplanting Christian theology with an analogue of his own but the key

395

6 This of course sets up an interesting conflict by Julianrsquos casting both Asclepius (xi 144b 153bContra Galilaeos 200a-b) and Helios (vii 228d xi 133a 144d) in the role of pre-existent begottenson but such inconsistencies did not overly trouble Julian

7 lsquoHerakles hier nicht als christusgleiche Figur dargestellt zu sehen die noch dazu in eine Artpaganer Trinitaumlt (ZeusmdashAthenamdashHerakles) eingebaut wird deren Inspiration durch die christlicheunverkennbar istrsquo

question here is whether he is using Athena to parallel the Holy Spirit in theChristian Trinity Marcel Simon 1973 398 writes that lsquothe divine triad thussketched out closely resembles a Trinityrsquo while Jean Bouffartigue 1992 167 iseven more adamant regarding Athenarsquos role as analogous to the third person ofthe Christian Trinity8 Guido 2000 156 suggests that as Athena in Julianrsquos handswas not extruded from Zeusrsquo head but rather taken whole from the whole of himshe was in essence an identical replica9 Despite Nesselrathrsquos assertion of anlsquounmistakeablersquo inspiration from the Christian Trinity for this passage I believethat caution is still appropriate Julian posits no overt equality between Athenaand the other two gods leaving the Trinitarian parallel somewhat incomplete asAthena fulfils no role similar to that of the Holy Spirit in Christian theologyInstead as Barnes 1998 147-148 notes in an aside in his work on the historianAmmianus Marcellinus Athena is a lsquovirgin motherrsquo analogue I argue that hereJulian was borrowing elements from Christianity to draw a triple parallel withHeracles the saviour of the world and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin god-dess Athena (vii 219d-220a) Jesus the saviour of the world and child of God andthe virgin mother Mary and Julian himself as the divinely chosen saviour of theempire and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin goddess Athena (vii 229c-230a232d)10 While there is no specific Biblical textual parallel it is not necessary forJulian to have copied a text rather than a concept Dependence upon strict verbalparallels to exact passages will only take us so far and as Bouffartigue 1992 113notes the bulk of Julianrsquos material lacks such11 The specific focus in this pas-sage on Christ sets it apart from the others cited below from Or xi and C Gal

Allisson 2002 35 finds lsquola triniteacute chreacutetiennersquo in the passage recalling Julianrsquosrescue from the disease of Christianity (vii 229c-230a)

Λέγειν δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς ἄρχεται πρὸς τὸν Ἥλιον laquoΤουτὶ τὸπαιδίονraquo ἔφη ξυγγενὲς δὲ ἦν αὐτῶν ἄρα παρερριμμένονπου καὶ ἀμελούμενον ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐκείνου τοῦ πλουσίουκαὶ ἀνεψιὸς τῶν κληρονόμων laquoτοῦτοraquo ἔφη laquoσόν ἐστινἔκγονον Ὄμοσον οὖν τὸ ἐμόν τε καὶ σὸν σκῆπτρον ἦ μὴνἐπιμελήσεσθαι διαφερόντως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιμανεῖν αὐτὸκαὶ θεραπεύσειν τῆς νόσου Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ὅπως οἷον ὑπὸκαπνοῦ ῥύπου τε ἀναπέπλησται καὶ λιγνύος κίνδυνός τετὸ ὑπὸ σοῦ σπαρὲν ἐν αὐτῷ πῦρ ἀποσβῆναι laquolaquoἢν μὴ σύγε δύσεαι ἀλκήνraquoraquo Σοὶ δὲ ἐγώ τε ξυγχωρῶ καὶ αἱ Μοῖραικόμιζε οὖν αὐτὸ καὶ τρέφεraquo Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς

396

8 lsquoComme le Saint-Esprit Athena intervient en tiers pour realiser la procreation drsquoun fils dont lamere est une femme et le pere un principe transcendantrsquo

9 lsquoSecondo la sua opinione Atena egrave stata generata nella sua interezza non dalla parte superiorema dalla totalitagrave de Helios re Infatti non vi egrave nessuna differenza fra Helios e Zeusrsquo

10 The following authors recognise the parallel between Christ and Heracles in this passageWright 1913 111n4 Lacombrade 1964 131n3 Simon 1973 398 Athanassiadi 1981 133 197Barnes 1998 147-148 Nesselrath 2008 213-214

11 lsquoLes allusions expregraves aux textes scripturaires sont eacutevidemment constantes dans le traiteacute Contreles Galileacuteens Elles sont quasi-inexistantes dans le reste de lrsquooeuvrersquo

Ἥλιος ηὐφράνθη τε ἡσθεὶς τῷ βρέφει σωζόμενον ἔτικαθορῶν ἐν αὐτῷ σπινθῆρα μικρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸἐντεῦθεν ἔτρεφεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον ἐξαγαγὼν laquoἜκ θrsquoαἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ ἔκ τrsquo ἀνδροκτασίηςraquo ὁ πατὴρ δὲὁ Ζεὺς ἐκέλευσε καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν ἀμήτορα τὴνπαρθένον ἅμα τῷ Ἡλίῳ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκτρέφεινAnd then Zeus started to speak to Helios lsquoThis is the childrsquo hesaid And the child was a blood-relation of theirs who hadbeen cast out and uncared for a nephew of that rich man andfirst cousin of the heirs He said lsquoThis is youroffspring Swear by my sceptre and yours to take care of himto shepherd him and to heal him of his illness For you seehow he is as if stricken by smoke filth and soot and there is adanger that the fire sowed in him by you will be extinguishedldquoif you will not exert your strengthrdquo But the Fates and I willgive place to you therefore save and rear himrsquo King Heliosheard this and was cheered and took pleasure in the babe see-ing that in him a small spark of himself was saved And fromthen he reared that child he had brought forth lsquofrom the bloodand tumult and slaughter of menrsquo And Father Zeus com-manded motherless Athena the virgin to rear the child togetherwith Helios

While this passage does indeed name three gods Zeus Helios and AthenaAllisson instead finds the Trinity in the three elements Julian described his beingstricken with namely καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύς12 As the overriding purposeof this passage appears to be depicting Julian as the son of God in parallel withboth Heracles and Christ that suggests to me other solutions than Allissonrsquos Thepassage is certainly rich with metaphoric use of language as for example Julianprimarily uses νόσος in his writings to refer to his Christian upbringing (ContraGalilaeos 327b Ep 61424b Ep 98401c) in the sense of lsquoillnessrsquo or lsquodiseasersquoHowever metaphor does not excuse the extent to which Allisson reads theologi-cal meaning into the passage without textual warrant13 In Or vii Julian was

397

12 lsquoLa fumeacutee la crasse et la suie crsquoest le christianisme dans lequel Julien a eacuteteacute eacuteleveacute et auquel ila voulu montrer sa fideacuteliteacute jusqursquoagrave lrsquoacircge de vingt ans peut-ecirctre faut-il voir dans cette utilisation detrois termes une critique de la triniteacute chreacutetienne concept qui a fait beaucoup parler de lui dans lesquerelles theacuteologiques contemporaines de Julienrsquo

13 The Homeric phrase lsquoif you will not exert your strengthrsquo or literally lsquoif you will not put onstrengthrsquo (Iliad ix 231) suggests another possible provenance for the καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύςThis phrase is far more likely drawn from Julianrsquos favourite source of allusion the Iliad My thanks toJoe Walsh who reminded me of the scene in which Antilochus informed Achilles of the death of hisbeloved Patroclus (Iliad xviii 22-25) ὣς φάτο τὸν δ᾽ ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ᾽ ᾔσχυνεπρόσωπον νεκταρέῳ δὲ χιτῶνι μέλαιν᾽ ἀμφίζανε τέφρη lsquoHe spoke and the black cloud of sor-row closed on Achilleus In both hands he caught up the grimy dust and poured it over his head andface and fouled his handsome countenance and the black ashes were scattered over his immortal

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

imus as invoking a lsquotrinity of powersrsquo Ἴστω Ζεύς ἴστω μέγας Ἥλιος ἴστωἈθηνᾶς κράτος καὶ πάντες θεοί lsquoZeus great Helios and powerful Athena bemy witnesses and all the godsrsquo (Ep 26415a) However mere citing of gods inthrees does not justify a Trinitarian reference especially when it consists of threenamed gods invoked amidst a host of others It is important to recall the triadicnature of Neo-Platonismrsquos reality As far back as Naville 1877 103 we havewarnings that Julianrsquos triad originated from Neoplatonism not Nicaea2

The seminal Neoplatonist thinker Plotinus divided reality into threehypostases the first being τὸ ἕν or lsquothe Onersquo the second νοῦς or Intelligenceand the third ψυχή or the Soul The combination of monotheistic religion andthree levels of reality suggests a god existing in some sense on three levels TheChaldean Oracles outline a divine triad of the πατήρ or Father his δύναμις orpower and his νοῦς or intellect (Chaldean Oracles fr 4 Majercik)3 Porphyryfurther developed a triad within the hypostasis of the νοῦς that consisted ofBeing Life and Intellect proper (Commentary on Timaeus fr 79) one whichDillon 1989 9 points out most closely resembles the Christian Trinity with its co-ordinate rather than hierarchical structure While that creates some interestingcoincidences it does not demonstrate intentional paralleling of Christian theol-ogy on Julianrsquos part as his writings reflect more of the Neoplatonic triad than theNicene Trinity Smith 2009 43 notes lsquoNow this grouping of three realities orhypostases was sufficiently similar to the Christian Trinity to be exploited byChristian theologians But it differed of course fundamentally in that the Neo-platonic hypostases were subordinate to each other and not co-ordinate as ortho-dox Trinitarian doctrine eventually demandedrsquo Both Dillon 1999 107 andWright recognise Julianrsquos triadic framework as normative Wright 1896 52wrote lsquoJulian follows him [Iamblichus] in the main with his trinity of theκόσμος ὁρατός or visible universe the κόσμος νοερός its model relievedfrom the imperfections of matter and represented in the ὁρατὸν by the planetsand thirdly the κόσμος νοητός over which rules the supreme principle of theGood or the One (τὸ ἕν) not to be grasped by the intelligencersquo

Along these lines Wright 1896 90 identified a number of technical Neopla-tonist terms used by Julian including θεουργός lsquoperformer of sacramental

393

2 Bidez 1930 253 offers a paragraph with remarkably similar wording to Navillersquos but excludesNavillersquos caveat regarding Neoplatonism as the font rather than Nicaea Bidez lsquoIl y a de la parenteacuteentre son Roi-Soleil et le dieu secondaire auteur de la creation que les Peres au deuxieme siecleavaient defini sous le nom de Logos puis au concile de Nicee sous le nom de Fils consubstantielJulien esperait peut-etre substituer dans lrsquoadoration populaire son demiurge mediateur au Verbe-Jesusrsquo Naville 1877 104-105 lsquoIl y a une parente evidente entre son Roi Soleil et ce dieu secondaireorgane de la creation que les Peres du deuxieme sicle avaient proclame sous le nom de Logos et leConcile de Nicee sous le nom de Filshellip Julien esperait peut-etre substituter le Roi Soleil au Verbe-Fils dans lrsquoadoration populairersquo

3 Cf Wallis 1972 106 116 Athanassiadi and Frede 1999 14 who write of the Chaldean Ora-cles lsquohere too we have a monotheistic theology though there is some dispute about the nature of theone God is it trinitarian and if so are we dealing with a subordinationist or a co-ordinationist trini-tarianismrsquo

ritesrsquo (Julian viii 173a Iamblichus De mysteriis iii 18) ἀποπλήρωσις lsquofillingsatisfyingrsquo (Julian xi 144d Porphyry De abstinentia iii 18 Iamblichus De mys-teriis v 26) ἀποπληρωτής lsquoone who completes or fulfillsrsquo (Julian iii 90c PlatoRepublic 620e Iamblichus De mysteriis v 10) ἀποπληρωτικός lsquocompleting orfulfillingrsquo (Julian xi 137b Iamblichus De mysteriis v 26) ἑνοειδής ἑνοειδῶςlsquoresembling having the form of unityrsquo (Julian xi 139b Plotinus Enneads vi 95)περικόσμιος lsquomundanersquo (Julian xi 138d 145d Iamblichus De mysteriis ii 1 4)and αὐτοψυχή lsquoabsolute soulrsquo (Julian Ep 89b Plotinus Enneads v 913) Theuse of such vocabulary demonstrates the thoroughgoing Neoplatonist strain per-meating Julianrsquos writings

Julianrsquos language of begetting procession and sonship has definite affinitiesto Christian writings but is not radically different in principle from other writ-ings within Neo-Platonism This filial language has some parallels in theChaldean Oracles (late second-century) and the writings of Proclus (412-485)and Damascius (c 458-after 538) The Chaldean Oracles refer to the SupremeDeity as the lsquoFatherrsquo (eg fr 7 Majercik) Proclus in arguing againstIamblichusrsquo redefinition of the One as lsquoGod and the godsrsquo also refers to the firstgod as lsquofatherrsquo (Commentary on Parmenides 107015ff) Damascius comment-ing on Porphyry wrote of the τῆς νοητῆς τριάδος lsquoFather of the Noetic triadrsquo(De principiis i 868-15 Ruelle = Porphyry fr 367 Smith) These are examples ofpassages in which Julian might be drawing upon either Christian or Neoplatonicthought Nevertheless if Julian was attempting to draw a Christian inference theemphasis was on paralleling Christ not the Trinity Julian provided an examplein his Letter to the Alexandrians of late 362 where he chided the Alexandriansfor their recalcitrant attachment to Christ and compared him with Helios (Ep111434d)4

τὸν μέγαν Ἥλιον λέγω τὸ ζῶν ἄγαλμα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶἔννουν καὶ ἀγαθοεργὸν τοῦ νοητοῦ πατρόςI speak of great Helios his intelligible fatherrsquos living imageendowed with soul and intelligence maker of all good5

Julian referred to Helios as his fatherrsquos living image which is interesting in lightof the fact that Christ whom Julian is comparing Helios to is described similarlyin Col 115-16 albeit in different language as lsquothe image (εἰκών) of the invisi-ble Godhellipin him all things in heaven and on earth were createdrsquo (ἐκτίσθη) HereHelios is cast in the role of the Son as opposed to the other passages in which heplays the role of the Father and is the begetter of Heracles and Asclepius (vii220a xi 144a) If Julian both portrayed Zeus-Helios as the father of the gods andcompared him directly to Christ this suggests he was not trying to formulate aconsistent lsquopagan trinitarian theologyrsquo but responding ad hoc for specific pur-poses which suggests uniqueness for Or vii 228d This sort of language alsoappears in Julianrsquos Hymn to King Helios in which he wrote that Helios was

394

4 This letter can be dated to November or December 362 by Julianrsquos reference to the banishmentof Athanasius who left 24 October 362 (Ep 111435c)

5 There is a lacuna in the manuscripts

begotten in the likeness of the Good (xi 133a) and proceeded from the Good ineternity past (xi 142a 146b 156c) Julian reinforced this by repeatedly writingthat Helios was the son of the Good (xi 133a 144d vii 228d)6 While it is indeedsuggestive language that recalls Christian theological writings much of Julianrsquosterminology here may be properly categorised as interested in engaging Christrather than the concept of the Trinity

III Possible Trinitarian parallelsThere are four remaining possible parallels examples drawn from two of

Julianrsquos orations Julian presented Or vii in spring 362 in Constantinople for theupcoming festival of Cybele in March (Lib Or xviii 157) While Julian wasostensibly responding to a disrespectful oration by the Cynic Heraclius (Julianvii 234c-d) he used that opportunity as a vehicle for his criticisms of Constan-tine Constantius II and Christianity In it Julian recalled in mythic format hisupbringing and the horrific realisation that his cousin Constantius II was behindthe deaths of his father and most of his siblings and laid out a response in whichhe was divinely commissioned to redress these grievances We have first the pas-sage regarding Julianrsquos unique portrayal of Heracles which Nesselrath 2008 214describes as containing a pagan Trinity unmistakably borrowed from Christian-ity7 Julian wrote (vii 219d-220a)

βαδίσαι δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς τῆς θαλάττης νενόμικα Τίγὰρ ἄπορον ἦν Ἡρακλεῖ Τί δrsquo οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ τῷθείῳ καὶ καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι τῶν λεγομένων τούτωνστοιχείωνhellipδουλευόντων αὐτοῦ τῇ δημιουργικῇ καὶτελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμειὋν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπιστήσαςαὐτῷ φύλακα τὴν θεὸν ταύτην ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενοςαὐτοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσενI believe he walked on the sea as upon dry land For what wasimpossible to Heracles What of the so-called elementsenslaved to the creative and consummating power of hisimmaculate and pure mind did not hearken to his divine andmost pure flesh Him great Zeus through foreseeing Athenabegat to be the saviour of the world and assigned to him asguardian this goddess he had brought forth whole from thewhole of himself

Julianrsquos presentation of the origin and parentage of Heracles is unique Julian isindeed supplanting Christian theology with an analogue of his own but the key

395

6 This of course sets up an interesting conflict by Julianrsquos casting both Asclepius (xi 144b 153bContra Galilaeos 200a-b) and Helios (vii 228d xi 133a 144d) in the role of pre-existent begottenson but such inconsistencies did not overly trouble Julian

7 lsquoHerakles hier nicht als christusgleiche Figur dargestellt zu sehen die noch dazu in eine Artpaganer Trinitaumlt (ZeusmdashAthenamdashHerakles) eingebaut wird deren Inspiration durch die christlicheunverkennbar istrsquo

question here is whether he is using Athena to parallel the Holy Spirit in theChristian Trinity Marcel Simon 1973 398 writes that lsquothe divine triad thussketched out closely resembles a Trinityrsquo while Jean Bouffartigue 1992 167 iseven more adamant regarding Athenarsquos role as analogous to the third person ofthe Christian Trinity8 Guido 2000 156 suggests that as Athena in Julianrsquos handswas not extruded from Zeusrsquo head but rather taken whole from the whole of himshe was in essence an identical replica9 Despite Nesselrathrsquos assertion of anlsquounmistakeablersquo inspiration from the Christian Trinity for this passage I believethat caution is still appropriate Julian posits no overt equality between Athenaand the other two gods leaving the Trinitarian parallel somewhat incomplete asAthena fulfils no role similar to that of the Holy Spirit in Christian theologyInstead as Barnes 1998 147-148 notes in an aside in his work on the historianAmmianus Marcellinus Athena is a lsquovirgin motherrsquo analogue I argue that hereJulian was borrowing elements from Christianity to draw a triple parallel withHeracles the saviour of the world and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin god-dess Athena (vii 219d-220a) Jesus the saviour of the world and child of God andthe virgin mother Mary and Julian himself as the divinely chosen saviour of theempire and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin goddess Athena (vii 229c-230a232d)10 While there is no specific Biblical textual parallel it is not necessary forJulian to have copied a text rather than a concept Dependence upon strict verbalparallels to exact passages will only take us so far and as Bouffartigue 1992 113notes the bulk of Julianrsquos material lacks such11 The specific focus in this pas-sage on Christ sets it apart from the others cited below from Or xi and C Gal

Allisson 2002 35 finds lsquola triniteacute chreacutetiennersquo in the passage recalling Julianrsquosrescue from the disease of Christianity (vii 229c-230a)

Λέγειν δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς ἄρχεται πρὸς τὸν Ἥλιον laquoΤουτὶ τὸπαιδίονraquo ἔφη ξυγγενὲς δὲ ἦν αὐτῶν ἄρα παρερριμμένονπου καὶ ἀμελούμενον ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐκείνου τοῦ πλουσίουκαὶ ἀνεψιὸς τῶν κληρονόμων laquoτοῦτοraquo ἔφη laquoσόν ἐστινἔκγονον Ὄμοσον οὖν τὸ ἐμόν τε καὶ σὸν σκῆπτρον ἦ μὴνἐπιμελήσεσθαι διαφερόντως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιμανεῖν αὐτὸκαὶ θεραπεύσειν τῆς νόσου Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ὅπως οἷον ὑπὸκαπνοῦ ῥύπου τε ἀναπέπλησται καὶ λιγνύος κίνδυνός τετὸ ὑπὸ σοῦ σπαρὲν ἐν αὐτῷ πῦρ ἀποσβῆναι laquolaquoἢν μὴ σύγε δύσεαι ἀλκήνraquoraquo Σοὶ δὲ ἐγώ τε ξυγχωρῶ καὶ αἱ Μοῖραικόμιζε οὖν αὐτὸ καὶ τρέφεraquo Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς

396

8 lsquoComme le Saint-Esprit Athena intervient en tiers pour realiser la procreation drsquoun fils dont lamere est une femme et le pere un principe transcendantrsquo

9 lsquoSecondo la sua opinione Atena egrave stata generata nella sua interezza non dalla parte superiorema dalla totalitagrave de Helios re Infatti non vi egrave nessuna differenza fra Helios e Zeusrsquo

10 The following authors recognise the parallel between Christ and Heracles in this passageWright 1913 111n4 Lacombrade 1964 131n3 Simon 1973 398 Athanassiadi 1981 133 197Barnes 1998 147-148 Nesselrath 2008 213-214

11 lsquoLes allusions expregraves aux textes scripturaires sont eacutevidemment constantes dans le traiteacute Contreles Galileacuteens Elles sont quasi-inexistantes dans le reste de lrsquooeuvrersquo

Ἥλιος ηὐφράνθη τε ἡσθεὶς τῷ βρέφει σωζόμενον ἔτικαθορῶν ἐν αὐτῷ σπινθῆρα μικρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸἐντεῦθεν ἔτρεφεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον ἐξαγαγὼν laquoἜκ θrsquoαἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ ἔκ τrsquo ἀνδροκτασίηςraquo ὁ πατὴρ δὲὁ Ζεὺς ἐκέλευσε καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν ἀμήτορα τὴνπαρθένον ἅμα τῷ Ἡλίῳ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκτρέφεινAnd then Zeus started to speak to Helios lsquoThis is the childrsquo hesaid And the child was a blood-relation of theirs who hadbeen cast out and uncared for a nephew of that rich man andfirst cousin of the heirs He said lsquoThis is youroffspring Swear by my sceptre and yours to take care of himto shepherd him and to heal him of his illness For you seehow he is as if stricken by smoke filth and soot and there is adanger that the fire sowed in him by you will be extinguishedldquoif you will not exert your strengthrdquo But the Fates and I willgive place to you therefore save and rear himrsquo King Heliosheard this and was cheered and took pleasure in the babe see-ing that in him a small spark of himself was saved And fromthen he reared that child he had brought forth lsquofrom the bloodand tumult and slaughter of menrsquo And Father Zeus com-manded motherless Athena the virgin to rear the child togetherwith Helios

While this passage does indeed name three gods Zeus Helios and AthenaAllisson instead finds the Trinity in the three elements Julian described his beingstricken with namely καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύς12 As the overriding purposeof this passage appears to be depicting Julian as the son of God in parallel withboth Heracles and Christ that suggests to me other solutions than Allissonrsquos Thepassage is certainly rich with metaphoric use of language as for example Julianprimarily uses νόσος in his writings to refer to his Christian upbringing (ContraGalilaeos 327b Ep 61424b Ep 98401c) in the sense of lsquoillnessrsquo or lsquodiseasersquoHowever metaphor does not excuse the extent to which Allisson reads theologi-cal meaning into the passage without textual warrant13 In Or vii Julian was

397

12 lsquoLa fumeacutee la crasse et la suie crsquoest le christianisme dans lequel Julien a eacuteteacute eacuteleveacute et auquel ila voulu montrer sa fideacuteliteacute jusqursquoagrave lrsquoacircge de vingt ans peut-ecirctre faut-il voir dans cette utilisation detrois termes une critique de la triniteacute chreacutetienne concept qui a fait beaucoup parler de lui dans lesquerelles theacuteologiques contemporaines de Julienrsquo

13 The Homeric phrase lsquoif you will not exert your strengthrsquo or literally lsquoif you will not put onstrengthrsquo (Iliad ix 231) suggests another possible provenance for the καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύςThis phrase is far more likely drawn from Julianrsquos favourite source of allusion the Iliad My thanks toJoe Walsh who reminded me of the scene in which Antilochus informed Achilles of the death of hisbeloved Patroclus (Iliad xviii 22-25) ὣς φάτο τὸν δ᾽ ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ᾽ ᾔσχυνεπρόσωπον νεκταρέῳ δὲ χιτῶνι μέλαιν᾽ ἀμφίζανε τέφρη lsquoHe spoke and the black cloud of sor-row closed on Achilleus In both hands he caught up the grimy dust and poured it over his head andface and fouled his handsome countenance and the black ashes were scattered over his immortal

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

ritesrsquo (Julian viii 173a Iamblichus De mysteriis iii 18) ἀποπλήρωσις lsquofillingsatisfyingrsquo (Julian xi 144d Porphyry De abstinentia iii 18 Iamblichus De mys-teriis v 26) ἀποπληρωτής lsquoone who completes or fulfillsrsquo (Julian iii 90c PlatoRepublic 620e Iamblichus De mysteriis v 10) ἀποπληρωτικός lsquocompleting orfulfillingrsquo (Julian xi 137b Iamblichus De mysteriis v 26) ἑνοειδής ἑνοειδῶςlsquoresembling having the form of unityrsquo (Julian xi 139b Plotinus Enneads vi 95)περικόσμιος lsquomundanersquo (Julian xi 138d 145d Iamblichus De mysteriis ii 1 4)and αὐτοψυχή lsquoabsolute soulrsquo (Julian Ep 89b Plotinus Enneads v 913) Theuse of such vocabulary demonstrates the thoroughgoing Neoplatonist strain per-meating Julianrsquos writings

Julianrsquos language of begetting procession and sonship has definite affinitiesto Christian writings but is not radically different in principle from other writ-ings within Neo-Platonism This filial language has some parallels in theChaldean Oracles (late second-century) and the writings of Proclus (412-485)and Damascius (c 458-after 538) The Chaldean Oracles refer to the SupremeDeity as the lsquoFatherrsquo (eg fr 7 Majercik) Proclus in arguing againstIamblichusrsquo redefinition of the One as lsquoGod and the godsrsquo also refers to the firstgod as lsquofatherrsquo (Commentary on Parmenides 107015ff) Damascius comment-ing on Porphyry wrote of the τῆς νοητῆς τριάδος lsquoFather of the Noetic triadrsquo(De principiis i 868-15 Ruelle = Porphyry fr 367 Smith) These are examples ofpassages in which Julian might be drawing upon either Christian or Neoplatonicthought Nevertheless if Julian was attempting to draw a Christian inference theemphasis was on paralleling Christ not the Trinity Julian provided an examplein his Letter to the Alexandrians of late 362 where he chided the Alexandriansfor their recalcitrant attachment to Christ and compared him with Helios (Ep111434d)4

τὸν μέγαν Ἥλιον λέγω τὸ ζῶν ἄγαλμα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶἔννουν καὶ ἀγαθοεργὸν τοῦ νοητοῦ πατρόςI speak of great Helios his intelligible fatherrsquos living imageendowed with soul and intelligence maker of all good5

Julian referred to Helios as his fatherrsquos living image which is interesting in lightof the fact that Christ whom Julian is comparing Helios to is described similarlyin Col 115-16 albeit in different language as lsquothe image (εἰκών) of the invisi-ble Godhellipin him all things in heaven and on earth were createdrsquo (ἐκτίσθη) HereHelios is cast in the role of the Son as opposed to the other passages in which heplays the role of the Father and is the begetter of Heracles and Asclepius (vii220a xi 144a) If Julian both portrayed Zeus-Helios as the father of the gods andcompared him directly to Christ this suggests he was not trying to formulate aconsistent lsquopagan trinitarian theologyrsquo but responding ad hoc for specific pur-poses which suggests uniqueness for Or vii 228d This sort of language alsoappears in Julianrsquos Hymn to King Helios in which he wrote that Helios was

394

4 This letter can be dated to November or December 362 by Julianrsquos reference to the banishmentof Athanasius who left 24 October 362 (Ep 111435c)

5 There is a lacuna in the manuscripts

begotten in the likeness of the Good (xi 133a) and proceeded from the Good ineternity past (xi 142a 146b 156c) Julian reinforced this by repeatedly writingthat Helios was the son of the Good (xi 133a 144d vii 228d)6 While it is indeedsuggestive language that recalls Christian theological writings much of Julianrsquosterminology here may be properly categorised as interested in engaging Christrather than the concept of the Trinity

III Possible Trinitarian parallelsThere are four remaining possible parallels examples drawn from two of

Julianrsquos orations Julian presented Or vii in spring 362 in Constantinople for theupcoming festival of Cybele in March (Lib Or xviii 157) While Julian wasostensibly responding to a disrespectful oration by the Cynic Heraclius (Julianvii 234c-d) he used that opportunity as a vehicle for his criticisms of Constan-tine Constantius II and Christianity In it Julian recalled in mythic format hisupbringing and the horrific realisation that his cousin Constantius II was behindthe deaths of his father and most of his siblings and laid out a response in whichhe was divinely commissioned to redress these grievances We have first the pas-sage regarding Julianrsquos unique portrayal of Heracles which Nesselrath 2008 214describes as containing a pagan Trinity unmistakably borrowed from Christian-ity7 Julian wrote (vii 219d-220a)

βαδίσαι δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς τῆς θαλάττης νενόμικα Τίγὰρ ἄπορον ἦν Ἡρακλεῖ Τί δrsquo οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ τῷθείῳ καὶ καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι τῶν λεγομένων τούτωνστοιχείωνhellipδουλευόντων αὐτοῦ τῇ δημιουργικῇ καὶτελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμειὋν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπιστήσαςαὐτῷ φύλακα τὴν θεὸν ταύτην ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενοςαὐτοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσενI believe he walked on the sea as upon dry land For what wasimpossible to Heracles What of the so-called elementsenslaved to the creative and consummating power of hisimmaculate and pure mind did not hearken to his divine andmost pure flesh Him great Zeus through foreseeing Athenabegat to be the saviour of the world and assigned to him asguardian this goddess he had brought forth whole from thewhole of himself

Julianrsquos presentation of the origin and parentage of Heracles is unique Julian isindeed supplanting Christian theology with an analogue of his own but the key

395

6 This of course sets up an interesting conflict by Julianrsquos casting both Asclepius (xi 144b 153bContra Galilaeos 200a-b) and Helios (vii 228d xi 133a 144d) in the role of pre-existent begottenson but such inconsistencies did not overly trouble Julian

7 lsquoHerakles hier nicht als christusgleiche Figur dargestellt zu sehen die noch dazu in eine Artpaganer Trinitaumlt (ZeusmdashAthenamdashHerakles) eingebaut wird deren Inspiration durch die christlicheunverkennbar istrsquo

question here is whether he is using Athena to parallel the Holy Spirit in theChristian Trinity Marcel Simon 1973 398 writes that lsquothe divine triad thussketched out closely resembles a Trinityrsquo while Jean Bouffartigue 1992 167 iseven more adamant regarding Athenarsquos role as analogous to the third person ofthe Christian Trinity8 Guido 2000 156 suggests that as Athena in Julianrsquos handswas not extruded from Zeusrsquo head but rather taken whole from the whole of himshe was in essence an identical replica9 Despite Nesselrathrsquos assertion of anlsquounmistakeablersquo inspiration from the Christian Trinity for this passage I believethat caution is still appropriate Julian posits no overt equality between Athenaand the other two gods leaving the Trinitarian parallel somewhat incomplete asAthena fulfils no role similar to that of the Holy Spirit in Christian theologyInstead as Barnes 1998 147-148 notes in an aside in his work on the historianAmmianus Marcellinus Athena is a lsquovirgin motherrsquo analogue I argue that hereJulian was borrowing elements from Christianity to draw a triple parallel withHeracles the saviour of the world and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin god-dess Athena (vii 219d-220a) Jesus the saviour of the world and child of God andthe virgin mother Mary and Julian himself as the divinely chosen saviour of theempire and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin goddess Athena (vii 229c-230a232d)10 While there is no specific Biblical textual parallel it is not necessary forJulian to have copied a text rather than a concept Dependence upon strict verbalparallels to exact passages will only take us so far and as Bouffartigue 1992 113notes the bulk of Julianrsquos material lacks such11 The specific focus in this pas-sage on Christ sets it apart from the others cited below from Or xi and C Gal

Allisson 2002 35 finds lsquola triniteacute chreacutetiennersquo in the passage recalling Julianrsquosrescue from the disease of Christianity (vii 229c-230a)

Λέγειν δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς ἄρχεται πρὸς τὸν Ἥλιον laquoΤουτὶ τὸπαιδίονraquo ἔφη ξυγγενὲς δὲ ἦν αὐτῶν ἄρα παρερριμμένονπου καὶ ἀμελούμενον ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐκείνου τοῦ πλουσίουκαὶ ἀνεψιὸς τῶν κληρονόμων laquoτοῦτοraquo ἔφη laquoσόν ἐστινἔκγονον Ὄμοσον οὖν τὸ ἐμόν τε καὶ σὸν σκῆπτρον ἦ μὴνἐπιμελήσεσθαι διαφερόντως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιμανεῖν αὐτὸκαὶ θεραπεύσειν τῆς νόσου Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ὅπως οἷον ὑπὸκαπνοῦ ῥύπου τε ἀναπέπλησται καὶ λιγνύος κίνδυνός τετὸ ὑπὸ σοῦ σπαρὲν ἐν αὐτῷ πῦρ ἀποσβῆναι laquolaquoἢν μὴ σύγε δύσεαι ἀλκήνraquoraquo Σοὶ δὲ ἐγώ τε ξυγχωρῶ καὶ αἱ Μοῖραικόμιζε οὖν αὐτὸ καὶ τρέφεraquo Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς

396

8 lsquoComme le Saint-Esprit Athena intervient en tiers pour realiser la procreation drsquoun fils dont lamere est une femme et le pere un principe transcendantrsquo

9 lsquoSecondo la sua opinione Atena egrave stata generata nella sua interezza non dalla parte superiorema dalla totalitagrave de Helios re Infatti non vi egrave nessuna differenza fra Helios e Zeusrsquo

10 The following authors recognise the parallel between Christ and Heracles in this passageWright 1913 111n4 Lacombrade 1964 131n3 Simon 1973 398 Athanassiadi 1981 133 197Barnes 1998 147-148 Nesselrath 2008 213-214

11 lsquoLes allusions expregraves aux textes scripturaires sont eacutevidemment constantes dans le traiteacute Contreles Galileacuteens Elles sont quasi-inexistantes dans le reste de lrsquooeuvrersquo

Ἥλιος ηὐφράνθη τε ἡσθεὶς τῷ βρέφει σωζόμενον ἔτικαθορῶν ἐν αὐτῷ σπινθῆρα μικρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸἐντεῦθεν ἔτρεφεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον ἐξαγαγὼν laquoἜκ θrsquoαἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ ἔκ τrsquo ἀνδροκτασίηςraquo ὁ πατὴρ δὲὁ Ζεὺς ἐκέλευσε καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν ἀμήτορα τὴνπαρθένον ἅμα τῷ Ἡλίῳ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκτρέφεινAnd then Zeus started to speak to Helios lsquoThis is the childrsquo hesaid And the child was a blood-relation of theirs who hadbeen cast out and uncared for a nephew of that rich man andfirst cousin of the heirs He said lsquoThis is youroffspring Swear by my sceptre and yours to take care of himto shepherd him and to heal him of his illness For you seehow he is as if stricken by smoke filth and soot and there is adanger that the fire sowed in him by you will be extinguishedldquoif you will not exert your strengthrdquo But the Fates and I willgive place to you therefore save and rear himrsquo King Heliosheard this and was cheered and took pleasure in the babe see-ing that in him a small spark of himself was saved And fromthen he reared that child he had brought forth lsquofrom the bloodand tumult and slaughter of menrsquo And Father Zeus com-manded motherless Athena the virgin to rear the child togetherwith Helios

While this passage does indeed name three gods Zeus Helios and AthenaAllisson instead finds the Trinity in the three elements Julian described his beingstricken with namely καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύς12 As the overriding purposeof this passage appears to be depicting Julian as the son of God in parallel withboth Heracles and Christ that suggests to me other solutions than Allissonrsquos Thepassage is certainly rich with metaphoric use of language as for example Julianprimarily uses νόσος in his writings to refer to his Christian upbringing (ContraGalilaeos 327b Ep 61424b Ep 98401c) in the sense of lsquoillnessrsquo or lsquodiseasersquoHowever metaphor does not excuse the extent to which Allisson reads theologi-cal meaning into the passage without textual warrant13 In Or vii Julian was

397

12 lsquoLa fumeacutee la crasse et la suie crsquoest le christianisme dans lequel Julien a eacuteteacute eacuteleveacute et auquel ila voulu montrer sa fideacuteliteacute jusqursquoagrave lrsquoacircge de vingt ans peut-ecirctre faut-il voir dans cette utilisation detrois termes une critique de la triniteacute chreacutetienne concept qui a fait beaucoup parler de lui dans lesquerelles theacuteologiques contemporaines de Julienrsquo

13 The Homeric phrase lsquoif you will not exert your strengthrsquo or literally lsquoif you will not put onstrengthrsquo (Iliad ix 231) suggests another possible provenance for the καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύςThis phrase is far more likely drawn from Julianrsquos favourite source of allusion the Iliad My thanks toJoe Walsh who reminded me of the scene in which Antilochus informed Achilles of the death of hisbeloved Patroclus (Iliad xviii 22-25) ὣς φάτο τὸν δ᾽ ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ᾽ ᾔσχυνεπρόσωπον νεκταρέῳ δὲ χιτῶνι μέλαιν᾽ ἀμφίζανε τέφρη lsquoHe spoke and the black cloud of sor-row closed on Achilleus In both hands he caught up the grimy dust and poured it over his head andface and fouled his handsome countenance and the black ashes were scattered over his immortal

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

begotten in the likeness of the Good (xi 133a) and proceeded from the Good ineternity past (xi 142a 146b 156c) Julian reinforced this by repeatedly writingthat Helios was the son of the Good (xi 133a 144d vii 228d)6 While it is indeedsuggestive language that recalls Christian theological writings much of Julianrsquosterminology here may be properly categorised as interested in engaging Christrather than the concept of the Trinity

III Possible Trinitarian parallelsThere are four remaining possible parallels examples drawn from two of

Julianrsquos orations Julian presented Or vii in spring 362 in Constantinople for theupcoming festival of Cybele in March (Lib Or xviii 157) While Julian wasostensibly responding to a disrespectful oration by the Cynic Heraclius (Julianvii 234c-d) he used that opportunity as a vehicle for his criticisms of Constan-tine Constantius II and Christianity In it Julian recalled in mythic format hisupbringing and the horrific realisation that his cousin Constantius II was behindthe deaths of his father and most of his siblings and laid out a response in whichhe was divinely commissioned to redress these grievances We have first the pas-sage regarding Julianrsquos unique portrayal of Heracles which Nesselrath 2008 214describes as containing a pagan Trinity unmistakably borrowed from Christian-ity7 Julian wrote (vii 219d-220a)

βαδίσαι δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς τῆς θαλάττης νενόμικα Τίγὰρ ἄπορον ἦν Ἡρακλεῖ Τί δrsquo οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ τῷθείῳ καὶ καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι τῶν λεγομένων τούτωνστοιχείωνhellipδουλευόντων αὐτοῦ τῇ δημιουργικῇ καὶτελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμειὋν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπιστήσαςαὐτῷ φύλακα τὴν θεὸν ταύτην ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενοςαὐτοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσενI believe he walked on the sea as upon dry land For what wasimpossible to Heracles What of the so-called elementsenslaved to the creative and consummating power of hisimmaculate and pure mind did not hearken to his divine andmost pure flesh Him great Zeus through foreseeing Athenabegat to be the saviour of the world and assigned to him asguardian this goddess he had brought forth whole from thewhole of himself

Julianrsquos presentation of the origin and parentage of Heracles is unique Julian isindeed supplanting Christian theology with an analogue of his own but the key

395

6 This of course sets up an interesting conflict by Julianrsquos casting both Asclepius (xi 144b 153bContra Galilaeos 200a-b) and Helios (vii 228d xi 133a 144d) in the role of pre-existent begottenson but such inconsistencies did not overly trouble Julian

7 lsquoHerakles hier nicht als christusgleiche Figur dargestellt zu sehen die noch dazu in eine Artpaganer Trinitaumlt (ZeusmdashAthenamdashHerakles) eingebaut wird deren Inspiration durch die christlicheunverkennbar istrsquo

question here is whether he is using Athena to parallel the Holy Spirit in theChristian Trinity Marcel Simon 1973 398 writes that lsquothe divine triad thussketched out closely resembles a Trinityrsquo while Jean Bouffartigue 1992 167 iseven more adamant regarding Athenarsquos role as analogous to the third person ofthe Christian Trinity8 Guido 2000 156 suggests that as Athena in Julianrsquos handswas not extruded from Zeusrsquo head but rather taken whole from the whole of himshe was in essence an identical replica9 Despite Nesselrathrsquos assertion of anlsquounmistakeablersquo inspiration from the Christian Trinity for this passage I believethat caution is still appropriate Julian posits no overt equality between Athenaand the other two gods leaving the Trinitarian parallel somewhat incomplete asAthena fulfils no role similar to that of the Holy Spirit in Christian theologyInstead as Barnes 1998 147-148 notes in an aside in his work on the historianAmmianus Marcellinus Athena is a lsquovirgin motherrsquo analogue I argue that hereJulian was borrowing elements from Christianity to draw a triple parallel withHeracles the saviour of the world and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin god-dess Athena (vii 219d-220a) Jesus the saviour of the world and child of God andthe virgin mother Mary and Julian himself as the divinely chosen saviour of theempire and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin goddess Athena (vii 229c-230a232d)10 While there is no specific Biblical textual parallel it is not necessary forJulian to have copied a text rather than a concept Dependence upon strict verbalparallels to exact passages will only take us so far and as Bouffartigue 1992 113notes the bulk of Julianrsquos material lacks such11 The specific focus in this pas-sage on Christ sets it apart from the others cited below from Or xi and C Gal

Allisson 2002 35 finds lsquola triniteacute chreacutetiennersquo in the passage recalling Julianrsquosrescue from the disease of Christianity (vii 229c-230a)

Λέγειν δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς ἄρχεται πρὸς τὸν Ἥλιον laquoΤουτὶ τὸπαιδίονraquo ἔφη ξυγγενὲς δὲ ἦν αὐτῶν ἄρα παρερριμμένονπου καὶ ἀμελούμενον ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐκείνου τοῦ πλουσίουκαὶ ἀνεψιὸς τῶν κληρονόμων laquoτοῦτοraquo ἔφη laquoσόν ἐστινἔκγονον Ὄμοσον οὖν τὸ ἐμόν τε καὶ σὸν σκῆπτρον ἦ μὴνἐπιμελήσεσθαι διαφερόντως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιμανεῖν αὐτὸκαὶ θεραπεύσειν τῆς νόσου Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ὅπως οἷον ὑπὸκαπνοῦ ῥύπου τε ἀναπέπλησται καὶ λιγνύος κίνδυνός τετὸ ὑπὸ σοῦ σπαρὲν ἐν αὐτῷ πῦρ ἀποσβῆναι laquolaquoἢν μὴ σύγε δύσεαι ἀλκήνraquoraquo Σοὶ δὲ ἐγώ τε ξυγχωρῶ καὶ αἱ Μοῖραικόμιζε οὖν αὐτὸ καὶ τρέφεraquo Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς

396

8 lsquoComme le Saint-Esprit Athena intervient en tiers pour realiser la procreation drsquoun fils dont lamere est une femme et le pere un principe transcendantrsquo

9 lsquoSecondo la sua opinione Atena egrave stata generata nella sua interezza non dalla parte superiorema dalla totalitagrave de Helios re Infatti non vi egrave nessuna differenza fra Helios e Zeusrsquo

10 The following authors recognise the parallel between Christ and Heracles in this passageWright 1913 111n4 Lacombrade 1964 131n3 Simon 1973 398 Athanassiadi 1981 133 197Barnes 1998 147-148 Nesselrath 2008 213-214

11 lsquoLes allusions expregraves aux textes scripturaires sont eacutevidemment constantes dans le traiteacute Contreles Galileacuteens Elles sont quasi-inexistantes dans le reste de lrsquooeuvrersquo

Ἥλιος ηὐφράνθη τε ἡσθεὶς τῷ βρέφει σωζόμενον ἔτικαθορῶν ἐν αὐτῷ σπινθῆρα μικρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸἐντεῦθεν ἔτρεφεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον ἐξαγαγὼν laquoἜκ θrsquoαἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ ἔκ τrsquo ἀνδροκτασίηςraquo ὁ πατὴρ δὲὁ Ζεὺς ἐκέλευσε καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν ἀμήτορα τὴνπαρθένον ἅμα τῷ Ἡλίῳ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκτρέφεινAnd then Zeus started to speak to Helios lsquoThis is the childrsquo hesaid And the child was a blood-relation of theirs who hadbeen cast out and uncared for a nephew of that rich man andfirst cousin of the heirs He said lsquoThis is youroffspring Swear by my sceptre and yours to take care of himto shepherd him and to heal him of his illness For you seehow he is as if stricken by smoke filth and soot and there is adanger that the fire sowed in him by you will be extinguishedldquoif you will not exert your strengthrdquo But the Fates and I willgive place to you therefore save and rear himrsquo King Heliosheard this and was cheered and took pleasure in the babe see-ing that in him a small spark of himself was saved And fromthen he reared that child he had brought forth lsquofrom the bloodand tumult and slaughter of menrsquo And Father Zeus com-manded motherless Athena the virgin to rear the child togetherwith Helios

While this passage does indeed name three gods Zeus Helios and AthenaAllisson instead finds the Trinity in the three elements Julian described his beingstricken with namely καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύς12 As the overriding purposeof this passage appears to be depicting Julian as the son of God in parallel withboth Heracles and Christ that suggests to me other solutions than Allissonrsquos Thepassage is certainly rich with metaphoric use of language as for example Julianprimarily uses νόσος in his writings to refer to his Christian upbringing (ContraGalilaeos 327b Ep 61424b Ep 98401c) in the sense of lsquoillnessrsquo or lsquodiseasersquoHowever metaphor does not excuse the extent to which Allisson reads theologi-cal meaning into the passage without textual warrant13 In Or vii Julian was

397

12 lsquoLa fumeacutee la crasse et la suie crsquoest le christianisme dans lequel Julien a eacuteteacute eacuteleveacute et auquel ila voulu montrer sa fideacuteliteacute jusqursquoagrave lrsquoacircge de vingt ans peut-ecirctre faut-il voir dans cette utilisation detrois termes une critique de la triniteacute chreacutetienne concept qui a fait beaucoup parler de lui dans lesquerelles theacuteologiques contemporaines de Julienrsquo

13 The Homeric phrase lsquoif you will not exert your strengthrsquo or literally lsquoif you will not put onstrengthrsquo (Iliad ix 231) suggests another possible provenance for the καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύςThis phrase is far more likely drawn from Julianrsquos favourite source of allusion the Iliad My thanks toJoe Walsh who reminded me of the scene in which Antilochus informed Achilles of the death of hisbeloved Patroclus (Iliad xviii 22-25) ὣς φάτο τὸν δ᾽ ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ᾽ ᾔσχυνεπρόσωπον νεκταρέῳ δὲ χιτῶνι μέλαιν᾽ ἀμφίζανε τέφρη lsquoHe spoke and the black cloud of sor-row closed on Achilleus In both hands he caught up the grimy dust and poured it over his head andface and fouled his handsome countenance and the black ashes were scattered over his immortal

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

question here is whether he is using Athena to parallel the Holy Spirit in theChristian Trinity Marcel Simon 1973 398 writes that lsquothe divine triad thussketched out closely resembles a Trinityrsquo while Jean Bouffartigue 1992 167 iseven more adamant regarding Athenarsquos role as analogous to the third person ofthe Christian Trinity8 Guido 2000 156 suggests that as Athena in Julianrsquos handswas not extruded from Zeusrsquo head but rather taken whole from the whole of himshe was in essence an identical replica9 Despite Nesselrathrsquos assertion of anlsquounmistakeablersquo inspiration from the Christian Trinity for this passage I believethat caution is still appropriate Julian posits no overt equality between Athenaand the other two gods leaving the Trinitarian parallel somewhat incomplete asAthena fulfils no role similar to that of the Holy Spirit in Christian theologyInstead as Barnes 1998 147-148 notes in an aside in his work on the historianAmmianus Marcellinus Athena is a lsquovirgin motherrsquo analogue I argue that hereJulian was borrowing elements from Christianity to draw a triple parallel withHeracles the saviour of the world and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin god-dess Athena (vii 219d-220a) Jesus the saviour of the world and child of God andthe virgin mother Mary and Julian himself as the divinely chosen saviour of theempire and child of Zeus-Helios and the virgin goddess Athena (vii 229c-230a232d)10 While there is no specific Biblical textual parallel it is not necessary forJulian to have copied a text rather than a concept Dependence upon strict verbalparallels to exact passages will only take us so far and as Bouffartigue 1992 113notes the bulk of Julianrsquos material lacks such11 The specific focus in this pas-sage on Christ sets it apart from the others cited below from Or xi and C Gal

Allisson 2002 35 finds lsquola triniteacute chreacutetiennersquo in the passage recalling Julianrsquosrescue from the disease of Christianity (vii 229c-230a)

Λέγειν δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς ἄρχεται πρὸς τὸν Ἥλιον laquoΤουτὶ τὸπαιδίονraquo ἔφη ξυγγενὲς δὲ ἦν αὐτῶν ἄρα παρερριμμένονπου καὶ ἀμελούμενον ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐκείνου τοῦ πλουσίουκαὶ ἀνεψιὸς τῶν κληρονόμων laquoτοῦτοraquo ἔφη laquoσόν ἐστινἔκγονον Ὄμοσον οὖν τὸ ἐμόν τε καὶ σὸν σκῆπτρον ἦ μὴνἐπιμελήσεσθαι διαφερόντως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιμανεῖν αὐτὸκαὶ θεραπεύσειν τῆς νόσου Ὁρᾷς γὰρ ὅπως οἷον ὑπὸκαπνοῦ ῥύπου τε ἀναπέπλησται καὶ λιγνύος κίνδυνός τετὸ ὑπὸ σοῦ σπαρὲν ἐν αὐτῷ πῦρ ἀποσβῆναι laquolaquoἢν μὴ σύγε δύσεαι ἀλκήνraquoraquo Σοὶ δὲ ἐγώ τε ξυγχωρῶ καὶ αἱ Μοῖραικόμιζε οὖν αὐτὸ καὶ τρέφεraquo Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς

396

8 lsquoComme le Saint-Esprit Athena intervient en tiers pour realiser la procreation drsquoun fils dont lamere est une femme et le pere un principe transcendantrsquo

9 lsquoSecondo la sua opinione Atena egrave stata generata nella sua interezza non dalla parte superiorema dalla totalitagrave de Helios re Infatti non vi egrave nessuna differenza fra Helios e Zeusrsquo

10 The following authors recognise the parallel between Christ and Heracles in this passageWright 1913 111n4 Lacombrade 1964 131n3 Simon 1973 398 Athanassiadi 1981 133 197Barnes 1998 147-148 Nesselrath 2008 213-214

11 lsquoLes allusions expregraves aux textes scripturaires sont eacutevidemment constantes dans le traiteacute Contreles Galileacuteens Elles sont quasi-inexistantes dans le reste de lrsquooeuvrersquo

Ἥλιος ηὐφράνθη τε ἡσθεὶς τῷ βρέφει σωζόμενον ἔτικαθορῶν ἐν αὐτῷ σπινθῆρα μικρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸἐντεῦθεν ἔτρεφεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον ἐξαγαγὼν laquoἜκ θrsquoαἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ ἔκ τrsquo ἀνδροκτασίηςraquo ὁ πατὴρ δὲὁ Ζεὺς ἐκέλευσε καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν ἀμήτορα τὴνπαρθένον ἅμα τῷ Ἡλίῳ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκτρέφεινAnd then Zeus started to speak to Helios lsquoThis is the childrsquo hesaid And the child was a blood-relation of theirs who hadbeen cast out and uncared for a nephew of that rich man andfirst cousin of the heirs He said lsquoThis is youroffspring Swear by my sceptre and yours to take care of himto shepherd him and to heal him of his illness For you seehow he is as if stricken by smoke filth and soot and there is adanger that the fire sowed in him by you will be extinguishedldquoif you will not exert your strengthrdquo But the Fates and I willgive place to you therefore save and rear himrsquo King Heliosheard this and was cheered and took pleasure in the babe see-ing that in him a small spark of himself was saved And fromthen he reared that child he had brought forth lsquofrom the bloodand tumult and slaughter of menrsquo And Father Zeus com-manded motherless Athena the virgin to rear the child togetherwith Helios

While this passage does indeed name three gods Zeus Helios and AthenaAllisson instead finds the Trinity in the three elements Julian described his beingstricken with namely καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύς12 As the overriding purposeof this passage appears to be depicting Julian as the son of God in parallel withboth Heracles and Christ that suggests to me other solutions than Allissonrsquos Thepassage is certainly rich with metaphoric use of language as for example Julianprimarily uses νόσος in his writings to refer to his Christian upbringing (ContraGalilaeos 327b Ep 61424b Ep 98401c) in the sense of lsquoillnessrsquo or lsquodiseasersquoHowever metaphor does not excuse the extent to which Allisson reads theologi-cal meaning into the passage without textual warrant13 In Or vii Julian was

397

12 lsquoLa fumeacutee la crasse et la suie crsquoest le christianisme dans lequel Julien a eacuteteacute eacuteleveacute et auquel ila voulu montrer sa fideacuteliteacute jusqursquoagrave lrsquoacircge de vingt ans peut-ecirctre faut-il voir dans cette utilisation detrois termes une critique de la triniteacute chreacutetienne concept qui a fait beaucoup parler de lui dans lesquerelles theacuteologiques contemporaines de Julienrsquo

13 The Homeric phrase lsquoif you will not exert your strengthrsquo or literally lsquoif you will not put onstrengthrsquo (Iliad ix 231) suggests another possible provenance for the καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύςThis phrase is far more likely drawn from Julianrsquos favourite source of allusion the Iliad My thanks toJoe Walsh who reminded me of the scene in which Antilochus informed Achilles of the death of hisbeloved Patroclus (Iliad xviii 22-25) ὣς φάτο τὸν δ᾽ ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ᾽ ᾔσχυνεπρόσωπον νεκταρέῳ δὲ χιτῶνι μέλαιν᾽ ἀμφίζανε τέφρη lsquoHe spoke and the black cloud of sor-row closed on Achilleus In both hands he caught up the grimy dust and poured it over his head andface and fouled his handsome countenance and the black ashes were scattered over his immortal

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

Ἥλιος ηὐφράνθη τε ἡσθεὶς τῷ βρέφει σωζόμενον ἔτικαθορῶν ἐν αὐτῷ σπινθῆρα μικρὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸἐντεῦθεν ἔτρεφεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον ἐξαγαγὼν laquoἜκ θrsquoαἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ ἔκ τrsquo ἀνδροκτασίηςraquo ὁ πατὴρ δὲὁ Ζεὺς ἐκέλευσε καὶ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν ἀμήτορα τὴνπαρθένον ἅμα τῷ Ἡλίῳ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκτρέφεινAnd then Zeus started to speak to Helios lsquoThis is the childrsquo hesaid And the child was a blood-relation of theirs who hadbeen cast out and uncared for a nephew of that rich man andfirst cousin of the heirs He said lsquoThis is youroffspring Swear by my sceptre and yours to take care of himto shepherd him and to heal him of his illness For you seehow he is as if stricken by smoke filth and soot and there is adanger that the fire sowed in him by you will be extinguishedldquoif you will not exert your strengthrdquo But the Fates and I willgive place to you therefore save and rear himrsquo King Heliosheard this and was cheered and took pleasure in the babe see-ing that in him a small spark of himself was saved And fromthen he reared that child he had brought forth lsquofrom the bloodand tumult and slaughter of menrsquo And Father Zeus com-manded motherless Athena the virgin to rear the child togetherwith Helios

While this passage does indeed name three gods Zeus Helios and AthenaAllisson instead finds the Trinity in the three elements Julian described his beingstricken with namely καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύς12 As the overriding purposeof this passage appears to be depicting Julian as the son of God in parallel withboth Heracles and Christ that suggests to me other solutions than Allissonrsquos Thepassage is certainly rich with metaphoric use of language as for example Julianprimarily uses νόσος in his writings to refer to his Christian upbringing (ContraGalilaeos 327b Ep 61424b Ep 98401c) in the sense of lsquoillnessrsquo or lsquodiseasersquoHowever metaphor does not excuse the extent to which Allisson reads theologi-cal meaning into the passage without textual warrant13 In Or vii Julian was

397

12 lsquoLa fumeacutee la crasse et la suie crsquoest le christianisme dans lequel Julien a eacuteteacute eacuteleveacute et auquel ila voulu montrer sa fideacuteliteacute jusqursquoagrave lrsquoacircge de vingt ans peut-ecirctre faut-il voir dans cette utilisation detrois termes une critique de la triniteacute chreacutetienne concept qui a fait beaucoup parler de lui dans lesquerelles theacuteologiques contemporaines de Julienrsquo

13 The Homeric phrase lsquoif you will not exert your strengthrsquo or literally lsquoif you will not put onstrengthrsquo (Iliad ix 231) suggests another possible provenance for the καπνός ῥύπος and λιγνύςThis phrase is far more likely drawn from Julianrsquos favourite source of allusion the Iliad My thanks toJoe Walsh who reminded me of the scene in which Antilochus informed Achilles of the death of hisbeloved Patroclus (Iliad xviii 22-25) ὣς φάτο τὸν δ᾽ ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ᾽ ᾔσχυνεπρόσωπον νεκταρέῳ δὲ χιτῶνι μέλαιν᾽ ἀμφίζανε τέφρη lsquoHe spoke and the black cloud of sor-row closed on Achilleus In both hands he caught up the grimy dust and poured it over his head andface and fouled his handsome countenance and the black ashes were scattered over his immortal

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

very definitely playing with Christian-oriented metaphor in the passages cited Inhis attempt to present Heracles as a parallel to Christ and himself as a secondHeracles he altered not only Heracles but Helios and Athena as well DrawingAthena from Zeusrsquo substance and making Heracles their (virgin-born) sonindeed suggests equality of substance However Athenarsquos role as the lsquovirginmotherrsquo rather than as the Holy Spirit dictates that caution be used in presentingeven this closest passage as an lsquounmistakablersquo pagan trinity Julianrsquos overt bini-tarian purpose makes it ultimately less likely that Julian is making an allusion tothe Trinity here

The next alleged Trinitarian parallels are found in the Hymn to King Helioswhich Wright 1913 351 introduced by writing that in it Julianrsquos lsquoaim was to pro-vide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of ChristianityrsquoJulianrsquos triad in Or xi includes the One Helios-Mithras and the physical sun (xi132c-d) Dillon 1999 107 evaluates Julianrsquos Neoplatonic triad as lsquoa pretty simplescenariorsquo Julian composed this for the festival of Sol Invictus on 25 December362 The Hymn is Julianrsquos exposition for a Hellenic audience of the monotheisticor henotheistic pagan faith he offered In this oration Julian cited an oracle ofApollo declaring the kinship of Helios and Zeus (xi 135d-136a)

εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κοινὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔξωτῆς ἀγαθοεργίας ἧς καὶ αὐτῆς μεταδίδωσι τοῖς πᾶσιμαρτυράμενοι τούς τε Κυπρίων ἱερέας οἳ κοινοὺςἀποφαίνουσι βωμοὺς Ἡλίῳ καὶ Διί πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἔτιτὸν Ἀπόλλω συνεδρεύοντα τῷ θεῷ τῷδε παρα-καλέσαντες μάρτυρα (φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς οὗτος Εἷς Ζεύςεἷς Ἀίδης εἷς Ἥλιός ἐστι Σάραπις) κοινὴν ὑπολάβωμενμᾶλλον δὲ μίαν Ἡλίου καὶ Διὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς θεοῖςδυναστείανBut if he has nothing in common with those others beyond hisbeneficial power and of this he gives a part to all we invokethe priests of Cyprus who produce common altars to Heliosand Zeus but yet before this call to witness Apollo sitting incouncil with this god For this god declares lsquoOne Zeus One

398

tunicrsquo The text of the Iliad is that of West 1998-2000 and the translation that of Lattimore 1961Achilles sitting amidst the Achaian ships and the smoke and fire of battle was overwhelmed andutterly grief-stricken at the death of Patroclus It is expressed in slightly different terms as Achilles isstricken with a lsquoblack cloudrsquo instead of lsquosmokersquo with lsquogrimy dustrsquo the filthy nature of which isrevealed when Achilles used it to lsquobefoulrsquo his face and lsquoblack ashesrsquo rather than lsquosootrsquo Despite thedifferent vocabulary the imagery and word order strongly suggest an allusion to Iliad xviii 20-22Julian had already cast himself as the New Achilles in his Or iii composed in 358 while he was Cae-sar under his cousin Constantius II Julian hinted at future unrest when he opened his panegyric toConstantius II with King Agamemnonrsquos failure to treat his general Achilles well (iii 49c-50a) Withthis new allusion to himself as Achilles in AD 362 Julian conveyed the depth of his grief at the lossof his family to his audience Simultaneously he cast himself again in the role of the new Achilleswhose deep sorrow was paralleled by a terrible wrath The actions of Constantius IIrsquos soldiers in AD337 created an implacable enemy whose vengeance would be complete

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

Hades One Helios Serapisrsquo Let us receive then truly onepower in common of Helios and Zeus among the intellectualgods

The original oracle referred to Zeus Hades and Dionysus (Macrobius Saturna-lia i 1818) Although Serapis was associated with Dionysus if Julian was tryingto assemble a lsquopagan Trinityrsquo from an established oracle it would have been tohis benefit to stay with a more consistent triad Further the modern history ofinterpretation may have been influenced by the more suggestive standard Englishtranslation by Wright 1913 369 lsquoZeus Hades and Helios Serapis three gods inone godheadrsquo This is somewhat misleading suggesting a parallel textual con-nection to Christian theological writings which is not evident Lacombrade1964 93 described this passage as containing Julianrsquos lsquoconception drsquoune diviniteacutetrinitairersquo but sensibly attributed the impulse behind it solely to IamblicheanNeoplatonism14 Julian discussed the νοερός ἥλιος and concluded with lan-guage that as both Naville 1877 104-105 and Athanassiadi 1975 366 point outechoed the Nicene creed15 lsquoKing Helios is one and proceeds (προῆλθε) fromone godhelliphe gathers together the last and the firstrsquo (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς πρώτοις)(xi 141d-142a) Here Helios προῆλθε or lsquoproceedsrsquo from the One much as doesthe Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεται or lsquoproceeds fromrsquo the Father in John 1526 andthe third clause of the Nicene Creed The last and the first recalls the statementattributed to Christ lsquoI am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last thebeginning and the endrsquo (Rev 2213 NRSV) Such an echo of Christian theologi-cal language suggests intentionality to some although procession is a conceptwell known within Neoplatonism Julian himself explained this passage as pluralgods of like substance who sum up Helios but in him are one (xi 143b) Theemperor thereafter posited another three in one unity of Helios Apollo andDionysus (xi 144a)

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Διονύσου μεριστὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδαμοῦφαίνεται χωρίζων ὁ θεὸς Ἡλίου τούτῳ δὲ αὐτὴνὑποτάττων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀποφαίνων σύνθρονον ἐξηγητὴς ἡμῖνἐστι τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων Πάσαςδὲ ἐν αὑτῷ περιέχων ὁ θεὸς ὅδε τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς καλλίστηςνοερᾶς συγκράσεως Ἥλιος Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ ΜουσηγέτηςἘπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλην ἡμῖν τὴν τῆς εὐταξίας ζωὴν συμπληροῖγεννᾷ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν ἔχει δὲ αὐτὸν καὶπρὸ τοῦ κόσμου παρrsquo ἑαυτῷ And Apollo too never appears to distinguish the divided cre-ativity of Dionysus from Helios Always subordinating Diony-sus to this one [Helios] and declaring him enthroned with him

399

14 lsquoLa thegravese majeure de son propos sa division ternaire de lrsquounivers ne lrsquoa-t-il pas tireacutee dutheacuteosophe syrien De mecircme sa conception drsquoune diviniteacute trinitaire nrsquoa pas drsquoautre originersquo

15 Naville 1877 104-105 compared xi 141-142 to the Nicene Creed and wrote that JulianrsquosHelios shared an lsquoobvious kinshiprsquo with the Son and speculated that perhaps Julian was hoping lsquotoreplace the Word-Son with the Sun Kingrsquo cf Athanassiadi 1975 366

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

Apollo is interpreter for us of the most beautiful thoughts ofGod Moreover since he contains in himself all the principlesof the finest intellectual synthesis he is known as Helios-Apollo who leads the Muses And since he fills the whole ofour existence with good order he begat Asclepius in the worldthough before the world he had him beside himself

The last sentence bears a resemblance to a common proof-text used in the Chris-tological controversies of the mid-fourth century in which lsquowisdomrsquo wasclaimed as a pre-incarnate Christ lsquoThe Lord created me at the beginning of hiswork the first of his acts of long ago Ages ago I was set up at the first beforethe beginning of the earthrsquo (Prov 822-23) Yet again the Neoplatonic triad isevident a concept not unique to Julian and the distinguishing characteristics ofthe Christian Trinity are not present As the lsquosonrsquo in this case appears not to be amember of the lsquothree in onersquo triad that places the focus on binitarian parallelsThis emphasis on the begotten Asclepius as Christ is recognised by some modernscholars although not usually in extensive detail16

The references in Or xi taken by some as deliberate parallels of the ChristianTrinity turn out to be more revealing of Neoplatonismrsquos triadic framework ofreality a structure shared with other Neoplatonists not attempting to parallelChristianity Within this framework Julian made reference to multiple gods shar-ing the substance of Helios specifically mentioning in this oration Zeus HadesHelios Serapis Apollo Asclepius and Dionysus I would suggest that in thesepassages Julian reveals his intention at points to mimic Christ with pagan alter-natives such as Asclepius but expends little or no effort to co-opt the Christianconcept of the Trinity

IV ConclusionGiven Julianrsquos interest in co-opting Christian theology it sounds quite reason-

able that he would want to do so in regards to the Christian Trinity as well How-ever that founders when examining the individual passages it has been appliedto Even if Julian was attempting to compose a consistent Trinitarian parallel on abroad level combining elements from different documents he produced a dis-tinctly wobbly Trinity In such a scenario this makes Helios at various points theSon and lsquoliving imagersquo of the One (Ep 111434c-d) the Spirit who lsquoproceedsrsquofrom the One (xi 141d-142a cf 146b 156c) and the Father who lsquobegetsrsquo his sonAsclepius (xi 144a) language that again is not inconsistent with Neo-PlatonismIt is worth noting that when Julian drew his deliberate parallels between Heraclesand Christ (vii 219d-220a) and Asclepius and Christ (xi 144b 153b ContraGalilaeos 200a-b) he did so with much clearer intention than this Crucially it ispossible to find contemporary literary reaction to Julianrsquos binitarian motif of theFather God and his incarnate divine son but such contemporary reaction to sup-

400

16 Wright 1913 419n1 1923 315 McKenzie 1958 156 Lacombrade 1964 131 Athanassiadi1981 167 Bouffartigue 1992 649 Dillon 1999 113-114

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

posed Trinitarian themes in Julianrsquos writing remains elusive17 A superior expla-nation would be that Julian wrote of his existing triadic Neoplatonic structurewhile making various binitarian allusions thereby creating incidental similaritiesto rather than deliberate parallels of the Christian Trinity18

Department of ClassicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh United Kingdom

BIBLIOGRAPHYAllisson M 2002 Les religions de lrsquoempereur Julien pratiques croyances et politiques MA the-

sis Universiteacute de NeuchacirctelAthanassiadi Polymnia 1981 Julian and Hellenism An Intellectual Biography (as Polymnia

Athanassiadi-Fowden) Oxford Oxford University Press Reprinted in 1992 with new introduc-tion as Julian An Intellectual Biography London Routledge

Athanassiadi Polymnia and Frede Michael edd 1999 Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Barnes Timothy 1998 Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Bidez Joseph ed 1924 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t11 12 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Bidez Joseph 1930 La vie de lrsquoempereur Julien 3rd edn Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedition Les belles lettresBouffartigue Jean 1992 LrsquoEmpereur Julien et la culture de son temps Paris Institut drsquoeacutetudes

augustiniennesChadwick Henry 2001 The Church in Ancient Society From Galilee to Gregory the Great Oxford

Oxford University PressElm Susanna 2012 Sons of Hellenism Fathers of the Church Emperor Julian Gregory of

Nazianzus and the Vision of Rome Berkeley University of California PressDillon John 1989 lsquoLogos and trinity patterns of Platonist influence on early Christianityrsquo 1-13 in G

Vesey ed The Philosophy in Christianity Cambridge Cambridge University PressDillon John 1999 lsquoThe theology of Julianrsquos Hymn to King Heliosrsquo Iacutetaca Quaderns Catalans de

Cultura Classica 14-15 103-115Dillon John 2007 lsquoWhat Price the Father of the Noetic Triad Some Thoughts on Porphyryrsquos Doc-

trine of the First Principlersquo 51-59 in G Karamanolis and A Sheppard edd Studies on PorphyryLondon Institute of Classical Studies

Greenwood David 2013 lsquoPollution Wars Consecration and Desecration from Constantine to Julianrsquo289-296 in Markus Vinzent ed Studia Patristica 62

Guido Rosanna ed 2000 Giuliano lrsquoApostata Al cinico Eraclio Lecce CongedoHoffmann R Joseph trans 2004 Julianrsquos Against the Galileans Amherst Prometheus TrustLacombrade Christian ed 1964 Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 22 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacutedi-

tion Les belles lettresMajercik Ruth ed 1989 Julianus The Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary Lei-

den BrillMcKenzie AM 1958 The reaction to Christianity in pagan thought from Celsus to Julian PhD

thesis University of GlasgowNaville H-Adrien 1877 Julien lrsquoApostat et sa philosophie du polytheacuteisme Paris Librairie Sandoz

401

17 Himerius Or xli 92-93 Eunapius fr 28 29 Blockley Libanius Or xii 28 44 xiii 42 xv 3669 xvii 36 Gregory Nazianzen Or iv 94

18 I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Sara Parvis for their assistance as well as the anony-mous reviewer

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402

et FischbacherNesselrath Heinz-Gunther 2008 lsquoMit ldquoWaffenrdquo Platons gegen ein christliches Imperium Der

Mythos in Julians Schrift Gegen den Kyniker Herakleiosrsquo 207-219 in C Schaumlfer ed KaiserJulian ldquoApostatardquo und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum Berlin De Gruyter

Rochefort Gabriel ed 1963 L lsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres complegravetes t 21 Paris Socieacuteteacute drsquoeacuteditionLes belles lettres

Simon Marcel 1973 lsquoEarly Christianity and Pagan thought Confluences and conflictsrsquo ReligiousStudies 9 385-399

Smith Andrew ed 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta Leipzig De GruyterSmith Andrew 2009 lsquoPhilosophical objections to Christianity on the eve of the Great Persecutionrsquo

33-48 in V Twomey and M Humphries edd The Great Persecution Dublin Four Courts PressSmith Andrew 2012 lsquoJulianrsquos Hymn to King Helios the economical use of complex Neoplatonic

conceptsrsquo 229-235 in N Baker-Brian and S Tougher edd Emperor and Author The Writings ofJulian the Apostate Cardiff Classical Press of Wales

Wallis RT 1972 Neoplatonism New York DuckworthWright Wilmer 1896 The Emperor Julianrsquos Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism

PhD dissertation University of ChicagoWright Wilmer trans 1913 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 2 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity PressWright Wilmer trans 1923 The Works of the Emperor Julian vol 3 Cambridge MA Harvard Uni-

versity Press

402