Duvduv

From reading about Julian it is not very clear at all as to what kind of pagan he actually was. Even in the history of Sozomen that records an alleged letter to Jews from Julian, Julian professes belief in the Most High God, Creator, with no reference to any pagan deities. Of course it is impossible to say even whether such a letter was authentic or merely the literary device and religious exaggeration of the state-sponsored author called Sozomen.

Was the Edict of Toleration in 362 anything more than a sign of pre-Christian liberalism on his part, especially given his apparent allegiance to the one monotheistic God?

Furthermore, despite conventional wisdom suggesting he wanted the Jews to rebuild the Temple, there is no evidence that this is true. It might be suggested that he wanted to rebuild a Jewish community in Jerusalem but nothing more. No ancient Jewish sources to my knowledge ever mentioned the plan by Julian to rebuild the Temple either.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/julian-jews.asp

Interestingly, according to traditional Jewish chronology the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted around the period after his death in a hurried manner, making it more difficult to study than the Babylonian Talmud.

Toto

The Most High God was Zeus, recast as a single deity compatible with the philosophy of the day.


See Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Clivedurdle

From Wiki it seems Eusebius was his tutor!

Duvduv

Toto, it does not sound like that in the letter itself. It sounds very Jewish-friendly to me. Note that there is no reference to anything pagan in the letter allegedly written to the Jews. On the contrary, it sounds very monotheism-friendly. And it STILL is unclear what kind of "pagan" he was, or whether he was a philosopher who tended towards Jewish/Noahide monotheism.
And was the Edict of 362 anything more than an expression of toleration and liberalism towards others rather than a "restoration" of paganism. Of course filtering out the propaganda in the church writers is difficult.

Duvduv

Furthermore, despite all the hoopla surrounding the Council of Nicaea, the empire and its leaders were still juggling around their beliefs in various factions throughout the fourth century (and even thereafter), right through the time of Theodosius the First. Quite a "feat" for a religion that was around allegedly for 300 or 200 years (take your pick).

Valentian I is described as a tolerant, liberal Athanasian "Christian," and his brother, Valens, an Arian one.

Toto

Julian was educated as a Christian, but rejected that belief system (which is why he is Julian the Apostate, not Julian the Pagan.) His paganism might have just been the default after he decided not to follow Christianity. His pro-Judaism was probably another aspect of his rejection of Christianity.

Are you proposing the thesis that Julian was a secret Jew?

spin

Wrong Eusebius.

There was never any active professing of christianity for him to have apostacized from. Despite the intentions of Eusebius of Nicomedia to have him raised as a christian, Julian was actually educated by his mother's slave tutor, Mardonius who gave him a proper classical education and during his middle teens when he had the first opportunity to get out of his forced exile he was already seeking access to the most famous pagan scholars.

Duvduv

I don't think you were paying attention. Please reread what was written in regard to him, and his letter, then reread my first posting. It is not at all clear that he was a "pagan" as opposed to a liberal who sympathized with Jewish monotheism. That's all I can say from the context. I know he was hated. But just because of an Edict of Tolerance he wasn't necessarily seeking to restore old paganism.

andrewcriddle

Julian was a follower of the pagan neo-Platonist Maximus of Ephesus. See eunapius on MAXIMUS

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

Well, the letter to the Jews attributed to Julian sure doesn't sound pagan to me.