Reevaluating Emperor Julian’s Hellenismos: Christian Apostate or Reformer?
How is Julian's "Hellenismos" to be properly understood? The only letter of Julian's where "Hellenismos" appears has been suggested to be forged, based on Julian’s puzzling use οf the term.
The reign of Emperor Julian in the mid-4th century CE has long been a subject of scholarly debate, particularly concerning his relationship with the religious landscape of the time. Outside of academia, Julian became an important figure in Pagan communities which seek to appropriate and misuse him along with Hellenismos to represent a pagan religion. The predominant argument within these Pagan communities suggests that Julian created a faith-based religion known as Hellenismos, representing the polytheistic traditions of the classical Graeco-Roman world. However, a closer examination of the historical and cultural context provides compelling evidence to refute this claim. The aim of this post is to deconstruct the misconception of Hellenismos as a unified, faith-based religion established by Julian, using key insights from Douglas Boin’s Emperor Julian, an appropriated word, and a different view of 4th-century “lived religion” to illuminate the true nature of his religious and cultural endeavors.
My vision that Christians be able to ‘act Greek’ without fear of being mocked (Hellenismos) is not yet having the success I wish, and it is the fault of those who profess it. For the matter of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope. (Trans. Douglas Boin).
While the opening sentence is not a word for word translation of the Greek, Boin provides rational for his rendering in his paper linked above.
Understanding of "Hellenismos"
The concept of Hellenismos in the time of Emperor Julian was not indicative of a unified, well-defined religious framework. Its significance and interpretation were particularly intricate within Jewish and Christian realms, where it was imbued with polemical implications. During the Maccabean era, Jews derogatorily employed Hellenismos to label those who assimilated too far into Greek culture. Essentially accusing them of betraying their own cultural and spiritual roots by 'acting Greek' (Hellenismos). This label highlighted the conflict between preserving a unique cultural identity and merging into the dominant Hellenistic society. Similarly, in later Christian communities, Hellenismos was often negatively perceived, used to denote individuals overly influenced by Greek culture and thought, potentially at the cost of their Christian principles. This notion of 'acting Greek' was deeply intertwined with the broader discourse on religious fidelity within a diverse cultural milieu. Julian's engagement with Hellenismos was essentially an effort to repossess and transform this charged term. Despite his intentions, the term's historically negative and multifaceted implications, in the eyes of hardline Christians, meant that it did not receive the broad acceptance he aimed for. Recognizing the intricate backdrop against which Hellenismos was positioned is essential to understanding what Hellenismos may have actually meant to Julian and who Julian actually was, Christian reformer or apostate.
Absence in the Material Record
The claim that Julian founded a faith-based religion known as Hellenismos is considerably weakened by the notable lack of references to the term in the physical evidence from his time in power. Had Hellenismos been a broadly acknowledged and practiced faith, one would expect to find a wealth of epigraphic and archaeological data affirming its presence and widespread practice. Yet, the historical records are remarkably quiet on this matter. Inscriptions from the era of Julian, which typically provide insights into religious practices and observances, do not make any mention of Hellenismos. For example, a particular inscription from North Africa commends Julian for his contributions to traditional "Roman worship" or "Roman religion" (religio), a phrase that, while adaptable, carries historical weight and signifies a commitment to established, socially sanctioned religious practices, not an innovative new creed. This established term stands in stark contrast to the missing mentions of Hellenismos, implying that Julian's initiatives did not culminate in a cohesive religious movement. The lack of Hellenismos in religious dedications and monuments, particularly when juxtaposed with the presence of other religious terminology, is quite telling. It indicates that Julian's conceptualization of Hellenismos failed to materialize into a distinct, organized religion and left no discernible mark on the religious fabric of the era. The profound silence in the material record regarding Hellenismos significantly disputes the idea that Julian effectively established and disseminated a new, unified faith-based religion under that name.
Julian's Intent, Context, and Appropriation
Julian's interaction with Hellenismos was more about reshaping an already existing concept rather than creating a brand-new religious structure. His intent likely centered on revitalizing the age-old religious customs and values of the Graeco-Roman world as a countermeasure to the rising tide of Christianity, a tactical decision deeply embedded in the wider milieu of religious and cultural discourse of the 4th-century Roman Empire. Julian's fervent wish for Christians of his time to adopt Greek ways by reclaiming and transforming this historically negative term was less about forming a direct opposition to Christianity and more about a subtle reworking of cultural narratives, aiming to strip away the term's derogatory implications and recast it in a positive light. This strategic maneuver to reclaim and shift the meaning of a term deeply entrenched in Christian dialogue was indicative of his broader goal to foster cultural unity under traditional values.
Grasping the social dynamics of the mid-4th century is key to understanding Julian's approach to altering the connotation of Hellenismos. His endeavor to change the narrative within the contentious Christian discourse, turning a term of scorn into one of endorsement, mirrors the larger ongoing process of religious and cultural negotiation. In an era marked by constant flux and reevaluation of beliefs and identities, Julian's actions reflect the intricate interplay of cultural and religious dialogue, rather than a straightforward attempt to institute a new, singular religion. His approach was emblematic of the broader strategies employed by various factions within the Roman Empire to adapt and thrive in a society characterized by diverse and evolving cultural and religious landscapes.
Negotiation of Christian Identity and Broader Implications
During Julian's rule, there was a significant period of reevaluating and reshaping both religious and cultural identities. Christians, in particular, were actively redefining their role and identity within the Roman Empire, a process that often involved repurposing derogatory labels to better reflect their evolving self-perception. This adaptation was part of a broader effort to coexist with diverse cultural groups while preserving their unique religious identity. Julian's engagement with Hellenismos is understood within this larger framework of identity negotiation, representing an effort to shape the ongoing conversation about the dual identity of being both Roman and Christian.
From the early days of Christianity to the 4th century, followers of Jesus demonstrated a capacity for innovation in integrating their faith within the diverse fabric of Roman society. They adeptly maneuvered through the empire's complex social hierarchy, seeking recognition and status, often while confronting criticisms from their peers for seemingly adopting too many Greek customs. Julian's initiative to reclaim Hellenismos was thus an attempt to resonate with those Christians who were already assimilating aspects of Greek culture. He aimed to provide a paradigm that harmonized their Christian beliefs with the established Roman traditions. His strategy extended beyond merely redefining a term; it was about actively participating in and influencing the ongoing negotiation of Christian identity, promoting a vision where the established Roman traditions and the evolving Christian identity could coexist harmoniously. This ongoing negotiation was reflective not only of religious beliefs but also of the broader social, cultural, and political dynamics of the time, highlighting the intricate and ever-changing landscape of religious identity within the Roman Empire.
Conclusion
Upon reevaluating Emperor Julian's period of rule and his interaction with Hellenismos, it's apparent that his endeavors were not aimed at founding a pagan religion, as neo-pagans today propose in order to justify the appropriation of Hellenismos (Hellenism). Rather, he was engaging with and shaping Christian identity from within. Often depicted as a proponent of pagan revival, Julian might be more accurately perceived as a complex individual who, while seemingly advocating for a return to ancient Graeco-Roman religious traditions, did not entirely forsake the Christian influences of his early life. His engagement with Hellenismos and his encouragement of "acting Greek" were likely part of a broader strategy to blend the rich cultural and religious tapestry of the Roman Empire, including aspects of his Christian heritage.
Julian's method, marked by the adoption and transformation of existing concepts, indicates a ruler deeply immersed in the religious and cultural dialogues of his era, endeavoring to harmonize the rising Christian identity with longstanding Roman traditions. His tenure was characterized not by a simple regression to old pagan ways but by a sophisticated process of identity negotiation, aiming to foster a society that embraced a diverse array of beliefs, including a refined perspective on Christianity.
Considering this, Julian's legacy should be interpreted considering his Christian background and his efforts to forge a religiously diverse empire. His involvement with Hellenismos and his broader interactions with the religious dynamics of the 4th-century Roman Empire underscore the intricate and challenging nature of identity negotiation during a period marked by significant cultural and religious shifts. Recognizing Julian as someone who navigated within the Christian sphere, rather than as an outsider to it, provides a more detailed and nuanced understanding of his rule and its influence on the religious and cultural narrative of the Graeco-Roman world.