DOCSLIB.ORG

The Emperor Julian's Order to Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem: a Connection with Oracles?1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

68doi: 10.2143/ANES.43.0.2018765 M. B. SIMMONS ANES 43 (2006) 68–117 The Emperor Julian's Order to Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem: A Connection with Oracles?1 Michael Bland SIMMONS Department of History Auburn University Montgomery P.O. Box 244023 Montgomery, Alabama USA 36124-4023 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract By analyzing pagan and Christian sources from the Later Roman Empire, this study concludes that the emperor Julian was motivated by oracles, a good number possessing anti-Christian content, during the critical winter of 362–363 just be- fore his Persian campaign, to develop an increasingly hostile programme against Christianity, and his reason for ordering the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusa- lem is best understood in this context. A new hypothesis is developed, which posits that Julian was inspired by the anti-Christian works of Porphyry of Tyre (e.g., Contra Christianos, Philosophia ex oraculis) to plan the destruction of the Church and to rebuild the Temple according to Neoplatonic interpretations of an oracle inspired by Porphyry which predicted the demise of Christianity 365 years after its inception.* The emperor Julian’s order to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem is one of the most perplexing and significant events in the history of the Later Ro- man Empire.2 Owing to the tenuous data available, only hypotheses have * This article is dedicated to my colleagues in the Department of History, Auburn Uni- versity Montgomery. My sincerest thanks go to the following who offered invaluable advice: T. D. Barnes (Toronto); F. Bovon (Harvard); Sebastian Brock (Oxford); Harold Drake (Uni- versity of California at Santa Barbara); Timothy E. Gregory (Ohio State); and Pier Franco Beatrice (Padua). Listing their names does not imply agreement with my argument, and all deficiencies are solely my own. I have benefited also from the comments of the two anony- mous readers of this article. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, translations from ancient languages are my own. 2 Cf. among others in the following notes: Campbell 1900, pp. 291–306; Ensslin 1923, pp. 104–99; Vogt 1939; Braun and Richer 1978; Aziza 1978, pp. 141–58; Bernardi 1978, pp. 89– 9225-06_Anes_43_04_Simmons 68 17/1/07, 4:08 pm A CONNECTION WITH ORACLES 69 been developed, which attempt to give reasonable explanations for the em- peror’s motives, viz., to: (1) reform traditional paganism;3 (2) form an anti- Christian alliance with the Jews;4 (3) restore animal sacrifices by incorporat- ing Yahwism into a revived Hellenism;5 (4) disprove the prophecies of Jesus about the Temple (Mt. 24:2; Mk. 13:2; and Lk.19:44);6 (5) ensure that the Persian campaign would be victorious by winning the support of the Jews;7 (6) memorialize his reign with magnificent buildings;8 (7) gain economic support from the Jews in the eastern Mediterranean;9 and (8) stop the Christianization of Jerusalem initiated by Constantine.10 Although all of these are both reasonable and admirable, and often are not mutually exclu- sive, none takes into account one of the most obvious features of Julian’s religious philosophy, a keen interest and fanatical belief in oracles and how they might have influenced his imperial policies. This study will attempt to clarify some of the important questions concerning the possible inter-rela- tionship between Julian’s belief in, and his attempt to revive, oracles; his order to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem; and an increasingly anti-Chris- tian posture that he was assuming immediately before the Persian cam- 98; Phillips 1979, pp. 167–72; O’Donnell 1979, pp. 45–88; Blanchetière 1980, pp. 61–81; Bernardi 1983; Wilken 1983; Demandt 1989; Levenson 1990, pp. 261–79; Penella 1993, pp. 71– 5; Id. 1993, pp. 31–43; Barnes 1998, p. 48; Penella 1999, pp. 15–31; and Simmons 2000, 2, pp. 1251–1272. 3 Cf. Athanassiadi 1992, p. 1164; Drijvers 1992, pp. 19–26; Brood 1995, pp. 32–38, esp. p. 36. 4 Cf. Adler 1893, pp. 591–651; Gardner 1895, p. 264; Ensslin 1923, p. 190; Bidez 1930, p. 305; Head 1976, p. 146, going too far by describing Julian as an example of fourth cent. Zionism; Fouquet 1981, pp. 192–202, esp. p. 201; Wilken 1983, p. 144; Avi-Yonah, 1984, p. 190; Stemberger 1987, p. 165; Lieu 1989, p. 104; Campbell 1900, p. 298; and Athanassiadi 1992, p. 164. 5 Already expressed by J. Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. 5.11.8; Cf. Simon, 1948, p. 148; Head 1976, p. 146; Bowersock, 1978, p. 89; Blanchetière 1980, pp. 72 f.; Lewy 1983, pp. 70–96, esp. p. 78; Wilken 1984, p. 189; Id. 1983, p. 144; Lieu 1989, p. 104; Brodd 1995, p. 38; Cansdale 1996–97, pp. 18–29, esp. 26 ff; and Penella 1999, p. 24. 6 Used often in conjunction with the Book of Daniel. Cf. J. Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. 5.11.8; Sozomen, HE 5.22; Theodoret, HE 3.15; Socrates, HE 3.20, giving a prophecy of Cyril of Je- rusalem based on Jesus and Daniel; Allard 1903, 3, p. 134; Bidez 1930, p. 305; Vogt 1939, p. 46; Ricciotti 1960, p. 224; Avi-Yonah 1976; Browning 1976, p. 176; Aziza 1978, p. 152; Bowder 1978. p. 111; Bowersock 1978, p. 89; Geffcken 1978, p. 154; Blanchetière 1980, pp. 76 f.; Lewy 1983, p. 72; Wilken 1983, p. 141; Id. 1984, p. 189; Lieu 1989, p. 104; Cameron 1993, p. 97; Potter 1994, p. 171; Smith 1995, pp. 7 and 217; Penella 1999, p. 24; Potter 2004, p. 514. 7 Cf. Avi-Yonah 1976, pp. 192 f.; Cansdale 1996–97, pp. 26–8. 8 Avi-Yonah 1976, pp. 192 f., following Ammianus Marcellinus 23.1.2. It is interesting that Josephus, Jew. Ant. 15.380–1, gives similar reasons for Herod’s rebuilding program. 9 Cansdale 1996-97, pp. 26-8. 10 Cf. Vogt 1939, p. 49; Wilken 1983, p. 143; Feldman 1993, p. 404; On Julian and the Christians in general see (e.g.): Bidez 1914, pp. 406–61; Braun 1978, pp. 166–75; Dupont 1979, pp. 197–216; Scicolone 1979, pp. 420–34; Hunt 1985, pp. 186–200; Drijvers 1992, p. 22; Smith 1995; Penella 1999, p. 24. 9225-06_Anes_43_04_Simmons 69 17/1/07, 4:08 pm 70 M. B. SIMMONS paign. I hope to show indisputably that oracles motivated Julian’s policies more significantly than has been thought and to offer yet another hypoth- esis related to his order to rebuild the Temple. I. Ammianus Marcellinus and Julian on the Temple Project We begin with the only pagan text related to Julian’s order to rebuild the Temple: … diligentiam tamen ubique dividens, imperiique sui memoriam, magni- tudine eorum gestiens propagare, ambitiosum quondam apud Hieroso- lymam templum, quod post multa et interneciva certamina, obsidente Vespasiano, posteaque Tito, aegre est expugnatum, instaurare sumptibus cogitabat immodicis, negotiumque maturandum Alypio dederat Antiochensi qui olim Britannias curaverat pro praefectis. (Amm. Marc. XXIII.1.2)11 What Ammianus omits here is noteworthy. The fact that there is no as- sociation between the rebuilding and Julian’s religious policies merits seri- ous attention because the Roman historian is usually careful when covering Julian to note the emperor’s excessive superstition and the relation between portents, omens, and imperial policies.12 Apparently Ammianus deliberately ignores the religious interpretation of the event, preferring to give an exclu- sively secular explanation; Julian wanted to memorialise his reign by great public works.13 Yet his presentation of the Temple project as one of a number of unfavorable omens' which climaxed with the failure of the Per- sian campaign can perhaps be best understood as a negative assessment of the overall religious nature of the emperor’s actions during the last months of his life.14 Also, the nature of the literary evidence must be critically evalu- ated on an individual basis: Jewish sources are completely silent,15 only one 11 I use here Rolfe 2000: “…and eager to extend the memory of his reign by great works, he planned at vast cost to restore the once splendid temple at Jerusalem, which after many mortal combats during the siege by Vespasian and later by Titus, had barely been stormed. He had entrusted the speedy performance of this work to Alypius of Antioch, who had once been vice-prefect of Britain.” Seaver 1978, pp. 273–84, argues that Ammianus and the Chris- tian writers substantially agree about the rebuilding attempt, so we should accept it as histori- cal. 12 E.g., Amm. Marc., XXI.1.7–14; XXII.12.6–8; XXII.14.3. 13 On attempted explanations of the omissions, see Philips 1979, p. 168; Hunt 1985, p. 194; Matthews 1989, pp. 110–12; and Barnes 1998, p. 48. 14 Cf. Philips in Achetemeier 1979, pp. 168, 170; Penella 1999, p. 18. 15 Perhaps Adler 1893, p. 625, gives the best explanation for the silence: Julian’s failure to rebuild the Temple caused the Jews to omit all references to the event. See also Bacher 1897– 98, pp. 168–72: the Jews rejected the plan; Avi-Yonah 1976, p. 197 (a neutral attitude from most Jewish leaders); Bowersock 1978, p. 90 (Palestinian Rabbis were hesitant); Seaver 1978, p. 276 (bitterness over the failure); Lewy 1983, p. 71 (Julian had no contacts with Jewish sages 9225-06_Anes_43_04_Simmons 70 17/1/07, 4:08 pm A CONNECTION WITH ORACLES 71 pagan historian mentions it, and Christian writers who do mention it are not, with the exception of Gregory of Nazianzus and Ephrem, contempora- neous with Julian’s reign. From July 362 to March 363 Julian was in Antioch, and he died 26 June 363 during the Persian campaign.
Recommended publications

  • A Synopsis of Byzantine History, –

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-40474-8 - John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057 John Wortley Frontmatter More information JOHN SKYLITZES: A synopsis of Byzantine history, – John Skylitzes’ extraordinary Middle Byzantine chronicle covers the reigns of the Byzantine emperors from the death of Nicephorus I in to the deposition of Michael VI in , and provides the only surviving continuous narrative of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. A high offi cial living in the late eleventh century, Skylitzes used a number of existing Greek histories (some of them no longer extant) to create a digest of the previous three centuries. It is with- out question the major historical source for the period, cited con- stantly in modern scholarship, and has never before been available in English. Th is edition features introductions by Jean-Claude Cheynet and Bernard Flusin, along with extensive notes by Cheynet. It will be an essential and exciting addition to the libraries of all historians of the Byzantine age. is Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Manitoba. He has published widely on the Byzantine era, and completed several translations to date, including Les Récits édifi - ants de Paul, évêque de Monembasie, et d’autres auteurs (), Th e ‘Spiritual Meadow’ of John Moschos, including the additional tales edited by Nissen and Mioni (), Th e spiritually benefi cial tales of Paul, Bishop of Monembasia and of other authors () and John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Histories (AD –) , a provisional transla- tion published
  • ABSTRACT the Apostolic Tradition in the Ecclesiastical Histories Of

    ABSTRACT the Apostolic Tradition in the Ecclesiastical Histories Of

    ABSTRACT The Apostolic Tradition in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret Scott A. Rushing, Ph.D. Mentor: Daniel H. Williams, Ph.D. This dissertation analyzes the transposition of the apostolic tradition in the fifth-century ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. In the early patristic era, the apostolic tradition was defined as the transmission of the apostles’ teachings through the forms of Scripture, the rule of faith, and episcopal succession. Early Christians, e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, believed that these channels preserved the original apostolic doctrines, and that the Church had faithfully handed them to successive generations. The Greek historians located the quintessence of the apostolic tradition through these traditional channels. However, the content of the tradition became transposed as a result of three historical movements during the fourth century: (1) Constantine inaugurated an era of Christian emperors, (2) the Council of Nicaea promulgated a creed in 325 A.D., and (3) monasticism emerged as a counter-cultural movement. Due to the confluence of these sweeping historical developments, the historians assumed the Nicene creed, the monastics, and Christian emperors into their taxonomy of the apostolic tradition. For reasons that crystallize long after Nicaea, the historians concluded that pro-Nicene theology epitomized the apostolic message. They accepted the introduction of new vocabulary, e.g. homoousios, as the standard of orthodoxy. In addition, the historians commended the pro- Nicene monastics and emperors as orthodox exemplars responsible for defending the apostolic tradition against the attacks of heretical enemies. The second chapter of this dissertation surveys the development of the apostolic tradition.
  • THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa

    THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa

    Theological Studies 49 (1988) THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa. N RECENT YEARS systematic theologians have been showing increased I interest in studying the doctrine of the Trinity. An integral part of that study should be an exposition of the origins of the doctrine. The question of origins can be posed in an analytical fashion, as Maurice Wiles has done: .. .we seem forced to choose between three possibilities: either (1) we do after all know about the Trinity through a revelation in the form of propositions concerning the inner mysteries of the Godhead; or (2) there is an inherent threefoldness about every act of God's revelation, which requires us to think in trinitarian terms of the nature of God, even though we cannot speak of the different persons of the Trinity being responsible for specific facets of God's revelation; or (3) our Trinity of revelation is an arbitrary analysis of the activity of God, which though of value in Christian thought and devotion is not of essential significance.1 I think that this analytical approach is in important respects secondary to the genetic one. The first Christians spoke about God in the terms which we now try to analyze; surely the reasons why they used those terms are most relevant to a sound analysis. The main words whose usage needs to be fathomed are the Greek words prosöpon, hypostasis, ousia, andphysis.2 Prosöpon is the earliest of these terms to have attained an accepted conventional usage in early Christian speech about God, and therefore the chief determinant of the shape which the complex of terms was to take.
  • Chapter 1 Barbarian Agency and Imperial Withdrawal: the Causes And

    Chapter 1 Barbarian Agency and Imperial Withdrawal: the Causes And

    Chapter 1 Barbarian agency and imperial withdrawal: the causes and consequences of political change in fourth- and fifth-century Trier and Cologne Introduction Snapshots from the years 310, 410, and 510 reveal that the political landscape of the Rhineland changed almost beyond recognition over the course of three centuries. In 310 AD, Trier was one of the foremost cities of the Roman Empire, acting as a main residence of the Emperor Constantine and the seat of the Gallic praetorian prefecture. In Cologne, meanwhile, the completion of the fortress of Divitia just across the Rhine reinforced the city’s significance in the context of imperial defensive strategy. By 410 AD, however, both the imperial residence and the praetorian prefecture had been removed from Trier, and many frontier troops who had been stationed near Cologne were gone. The Rhineland had suffered an apparently devastating barbarian invasion, that of the Vandals, Alans, and Sueves in 406, and was to face many more attacks in the coming half-century. After the invasion, the legitimate emperors were never to re- establish their firm control in the region, and the reign of the usurper Constantine III (407 - 411) marked the last period of effective imperial rule. Around 510 AD, the last vestiges of imperial political power had vanished, and both Trier and Cologne were part of the Frankish kingdom of Clovis. The speed and extent of this change must have dramatically affected many aspects of life within the cities, and, as such, it is crucial that we seek to understand what brought it about. In so doing, we must consider the fundamental question of whether responsibility for the collapse of imperial power in the Rhineland ultimately lies with the imperial authorities themselves, who withdrew from the region, or with the 11 various barbarian groups, who launched attacks on the frontier provinces and undermined the Empire’s control.
  • The Assumption of All Humanity in Saint Hilary of Poitiers' Tractatus Super Psalmos

    The Assumption of All Humanity in Saint Hilary of Poitiers' Tractatus Super Psalmos

    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects The Assumption of All Humanity in Saint Hilary of Poitiers' Tractatus super Psalmos Ellen Scully Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Scully, Ellen, "The Assumption of All Humanity in Saint Hilary of Poitiers' Tractatus super Psalmos" (2011). Dissertations (1934 -). 95. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/95 THE ASSUMPTION OF ALL HUMANITY IN SAINT HILARY OF POITIERS’ TRACTATUS SUPER PSALMOS by Ellen Scully A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2011 ABTRACT THE ASSUMPTION OF ALL HUMANITY IN SAINT HILARY OF POITIERS’ TRACTATUS SUPER PSALMOS Ellen Scully Marquette University, 2011 In this dissertation, I focus on the soteriological understanding of the fourth- century theologian Hilary of Poitiers as manifested in his underappreciated Tractatus super Psalmos . Hilary offers an understanding of salvation in which Christ saves humanity by assuming every single person into his body in the incarnation. My dissertation contributes to scholarship on Hilary in two ways. First, I demonstrate that Hilary’s teaching concerning Christ’s assumption of all humanity is a unique development of Latin sources. Because of his understanding of Christ’s assumption of all humanity, Hilary, along with several Greek fathers, has been accused of heterodoxy resulting from Greek Platonic influence. I demonstrate that Hilary is not influenced by Platonism; rather, though his redemption model is unique among the early Latin fathers, he derives his theology from a combination of Latin-influenced biblical exegesis and classical Roman themes.
  • Aspects of St Anna's Cult in Byzantium

    Aspects of St Anna's Cult in Byzantium

    ASPECTS OF ST ANNA’S CULT IN BYZANTIUM by EIRINI PANOU A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham January 2011 Acknowledgments It is said that a PhD is a lonely work. However, this thesis, like any other one, would not have become reality without the contribution of a number of individuals and institutions. First of all of my academical mother, Leslie Brubaker, whose constant support, guidance and encouragement accompanied me through all the years of research. Of the National Scholarship Foundation of Greece ( I.K.Y.) with its financial help for the greatest part of my postgraduate studies. Of my father George, my mother Angeliki and my bother Nick for their psychological and financial support, and of my friends in Greece (Lily Athanatou, Maria Sourlatzi, Kanela Oikonomaki, Maria Lemoni) for being by my side in all my years of absence. Special thanks should also be addressed to Mary Cunningham for her comments on an early draft of this thesis and for providing me with unpublished material of her work. I would like also to express my gratitude to Marka Tomic Djuric who allowed me to use unpublished photographic material from her doctoral thesis. Special thanks should also be addressed to Kanela Oikonomaki whose expertise in Medieval Greek smoothened the translation of a number of texts, my brother Nick Panou for polishing my English, and to my colleagues (Polyvios Konis, Frouke Schrijver and Vera Andriopoulou) and my friends in Birmingham (especially Jane Myhre Trejo and Ola Pawlik) for the wonderful time we have had all these years.
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses The Meletian schism at antioch Barker, Celia B. How to cite: Barker, Celia B. (1974) The Meletian schism at antioch, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9969/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk THE MSLETIAN SCHISM AT ANTIOCH THE MELETIAN SCHISM AT ANTIOCH THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BY CELIA B. BARKER, B.A. (Dunelm) FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Department of Theology, Date: April,1974. University of Durham. (1) The object of this thesis is to examine the schism in the Church of Antioch during the Arian Controversy of the Fourth century, with a view to establishing what coherent order, if any, can be found in the course of events, and to show how the interaction of theological emphases and personal prejudices exacerbated and prolonged the Antiochene divisions.
  • Collector's Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage

    Collector's Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage

    Liberty Coin Service Collector’s Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage (49 BC - AD 518) The Twelve Caesars - The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (49 BC - AD 96) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Julius Caesar (49-44 BC) Augustus (31 BC-AD 14) Tiberius (AD 14 - AD 37) Caligula (AD 37 - AD 41) Claudius (AD 41 - AD 54) Tiberius Nero (AD 54 - AD 68) Galba (AD 68 - AD 69) Otho (AD 69) Nero Vitellius (AD 69) Vespasian (AD 69 - AD 79) Otho Titus (AD 79 - AD 81) Domitian (AD 81 - AD 96) The Nerva-Antonine Dynasty (AD 96 - AD 192) Nerva (AD 96-AD 98) Trajan (AD 98-AD 117) Hadrian (AD 117 - AD 138) Antoninus Pius (AD 138 - AD 161) Marcus Aurelius (AD 161 - AD 180) Hadrian Lucius Verus (AD 161 - AD 169) Commodus (AD 177 - AD 192) Marcus Aurelius Years of Transition (AD 193 - AD 195) Pertinax (AD 193) Didius Julianus (AD 193) Pescennius Niger (AD 193) Clodius Albinus (AD 193- AD 195) The Severans (AD 193 - AD 235) Clodius Albinus Septimus Severus (AD 193 - AD 211) Caracalla (AD 198 - AD 217) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Geta (AD 209 - AD 212) Macrinus (AD 217 - AD 218) Diadumedian as Caesar (AD 217 - AD 218) Elagabalus (AD 218 - AD 222) Severus Alexander (AD 222 - AD 235) Severus The Military Emperors (AD 235 - AD 284) Alexander Maximinus (AD 235 - AD 238) Maximus Caesar (AD 235 - AD 238) Balbinus (AD 238) Maximinus Pupienus (AD 238) Gordian I (AD 238) Gordian II (AD 238) Gordian III (AD 238 - AD 244) Philip I (AD 244 - AD 249) Philip II (AD 247 - AD 249) Gordian III Trajan Decius (AD 249 - AD 251) Herennius Etruscus
  • OPUS IMPERFECTUM AUGUSTINE and HIS READERS, 426-435 A.D. by MARK VESSEY on the Fifth Day Before the Kalends of September [In

    OPUS IMPERFECTUM AUGUSTINE and HIS READERS, 426-435 A.D. by MARK VESSEY on the Fifth Day Before the Kalends of September [In

    OPUS IMPERFECTUM AUGUSTINE AND HIS READERS, 426-435 A.D. BY MARK VESSEY On the fifth day before the Kalends of September [in the thirteenth consulship of the emperor 'Theodosius II and the third of Valcntinian III], departed this life the bishop Aurelius Augustinus, most excellent in all things, who at the very end of his days, amid the assaults of besieging Vandals, was replying to I the books of Julian and persevcring glorioi.islyin the defence of Christian grace.' The heroic vision of Augustine's last days was destined to a long life. Projected soon after his death in the C,hronicleof Prosper of Aquitaine, reproduccd in the legendary biographies of the Middle Ages, it has shaped the ultimate or penultimate chapter of more than one modern narrative of the saint's career.' And no wonder. There is something very compelling about the picture of the aged bishop recumbent against the double onslaught of the heretical monster Julian and an advancing Vandal army, the ex- tremity of his plight and writerly perseverance enciphering once more the unfathomable mystery of grace and the disproportion of human and divine enterprises. In the chronicles of the earthly city, the record of an opus mag- num .sed imperfectum;in the numberless annals of eternity, thc perfection of God's work in and through his servant Augustine.... As it turned out, few observers at the time were able to abide by this providential explicit and Prosper, despite his zeal for combining chronicle ' Prosper, Epitomachronicon, a. 430 (ed. Mommsen, MGH, AA 9, 473). Joseph McCabe, .SaintAugustine and His Age(London 1902) 427: "Whilst the Vandals thundered at the walls Augustine was absorbed in his great refutation of the Pelagian bishop of Lclanum, Julian." Other popular biographers prefer the penitential vision of Possidius, hita Augustini31,1-2.
  • Calendar of Roman Events

    Calendar of Roman Events

    Introduction Steve Worboys and I began this calendar in 1980 or 1981 when we discovered that the exact dates of many events survive from Roman antiquity, the most famous being the ides of March murder of Caesar. Flipping through a few books on Roman history revealed a handful of dates, and we believed that to fill every day of the year would certainly be impossible. From 1981 until 1989 I kept the calendar, adding dates as I ran across them. In 1989 I typed the list into the computer and we began again to plunder books and journals for dates, this time recording sources. Since then I have worked and reworked the Calendar, revising old entries and adding many, many more. The Roman Calendar The calendar was reformed twice, once by Caesar in 46 BC and later by Augustus in 8 BC. Each of these reforms is described in A. K. Michels’ book The Calendar of the Roman Republic. In an ordinary pre-Julian year, the number of days in each month was as follows: 29 January 31 May 29 September 28 February 29 June 31 October 31 March 31 Quintilis (July) 29 November 29 April 29 Sextilis (August) 29 December. The Romans did not number the days of the months consecutively. They reckoned backwards from three fixed points: The kalends, the nones, and the ides. The kalends is the first day of the month. For months with 31 days the nones fall on the 7th and the ides the 15th. For other months the nones fall on the 5th and the ides on the 13th.
  • ANA.LEOTA. the Epitaph of the Roman Soldier and Christian

    ANA.LEOTA. the Epitaph of the Roman Soldier and Christian

    409 ANA.LEOTA. I. A LAODICEAN BISHOP. THE epitaph of the Roman soldier and Christian bishop discovered by my friend Mr. Calder, and published with learning, accuracy and sympathy in the preceding pages, is one of the outstanding and exceptional historical docu­ ments that the soil of Anatolia has preserved to modern times. Itranks along with or next to the epitaph of Bishop A vircius Marcellus, and far surpasses in importance the interesting document intermediate in age, the epitaph of the Makarios Papas, Bishop Theophilus.1 As Mr. Calder mentions, almost every word in the closely compressed biography suggests a new train of thought, for it plunges us into the heart of the final struggle between Christianity and Paganism in Anatolia. Here we have a person who played a leading part in the great drama, not indeed on the greater stage of the empire, but on the nar­ rower stage of a Province. Like most of the leading figures in the development of the Orthodox Church in Anatolia, he belonged to one of those wealthier country-families about which we are beginning .to learn a little through recent dis­ coveries-families which could command the highest edu­ cation of the time and thus have access to the higher career ; 2 for in that civilized time education was the necessary pass­ port for entrance to public life (except for the man of rare and outstanding genius, who is always largely independent of circumstances). Mr. Calder has treated with tact and knowledge the earlier part of Engenius's career; and has indicated with the brevity which circumstances required the most important 1 Published by Miss Ramsay in Studies in the Hi8tory and Art of the Eastern Provinces, p.
  • Hilary of Poitiers' View of the Holy Spirit

    Hilary of Poitiers' View of the Holy Spirit

    HILARY OF POITIERS’ VIEW OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Joey Newton Hilary of Poitiers was a significant defender of Nicene orthodoxy in the fourth century. This article focuses on his contribution to the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. What is particularly fascinating is that Hilary’s most profound contribution was made in a prayer rather than a lengthy argument as such. Hilary of Poitiers is generally recognized as the bridge between Western and Eastern Christianity in the development of Trinitarian theology during the fourth century.1 The ongoing controversy surrounding the creed of Nicea (325) that was kept alive by the tenacious defenders of Arian theology was the context in which Hilary formed his theology and wrote his key theological work, De Trinitate.2 Hilary’s purpose was to refute decisively the Arian teaching of Christ as a created being and the homoiousian teaching that Christ is not fully equal to the Father in his deity. The final section of De Trinitate (12.52–57) is a prayer that pulls together Hilary’s primary points concerning the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This paper considers the final three sections of that prayer, paying special attention to Hilary’s understanding of the Spirit in relation to Father and Son and his work within believers, thus demonstrating that Hilary had a fuller sense of the Holy Spirit than is sometimes afforded him. 1 The various suggestions for his importance undergird the scope of his influence. For example, John Lawyer asserts the language of Hilary and his systematic approach to Trinitarian discussion was crucial in the development of Trinitarian theology in the West (cf.