‘ LIKE GREEN HERB ’ : JULIAN ’ S UNDERSTANDING OF PURITY AND HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS JUDAISM IN HIS CONTRA GALILAEOS

Among the charges levelled against the Christians in Julian’s ‘Against the Galileans’ Judaism and its purity legislation play an essential role: By refusing Jewish sacrificial practice and dietary regulations, Julian argues, the Galileans abandoned the pure and priestly life prescribed by Moses to follow a new path of impurity and moral disorder. Julian aims to prove his allegations by strategically developing a close parallelism between Jews and Hellenes. Against a widespread view, therefore, Judaism plays essentially a polemical role in Julian’s reasoning. Only when we consider the continuing attraction which Judaism held for Christians, especially in Antioch, we can properly understand Julian’s polemics. Favouring the Jews and supporting the literal interpretation of Scripture on the one hand he affirmed indirectly the Hellenic pure way of life, on the other hand he tried to nourish inner-Christian conflicts. After the death of Constantius II in 361 his Caesar and cousin Julian, soon to be known as ‘the Apostate’, became sole Augustus and ruled the empire for almost three years (from December 361 to June 363). As suggested by at least some of the extant evidence, though this is not yet widely recognised by modern scholars, Julian conceived of his reign as a kind of purification from the plague of atheism, by which he meant the ever increasing influence of Christianity under imperial patronage. My paper will analyse the role played by Judaism and its purity legislation in the charges levelled against Christians in Julian’s ‘Against the Galileans’. I will focus on two main strands of Julian’s argument: the similarity between Hellenism and Judaism, as perceived by Julian, and the impurity of the Christians resulting 1 Julian’s brief and controversial reign represents one of the best documented chapters of later Roman history and hence one of the most studied. In addition to the classic J. Bidez, La vie de l’empereur Julien, Paris 1930, compare also R. Browning, The Emperor Julian, London 1975; G.W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, London 1978 and P. Athanassiadi, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography, London 1981. For an up to date general and exhaustive presentation with a rich bibliography see K. Rosen, Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser, Stuttgart 2006, the most excellent monography on Julian presently available. On his thought see also R. Smith, Julian’s Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate, London 1995. 2 The central position which ‘purity’ plays in Julian’s thought and action has been analysed in my wJ" lavcana covrtou. Purezza e purificazione nella riforma religiosa di Flavio Claudio Giuliano (361-363 d.C.), Diss. Pisa, 2007. For a general introduction to the subject of purity see Pureté et impureté. I. L’Histoire des religion, in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 19, 398-430.

1 Julian's brief and controversial reign represents one of the best documented chapters of later Roman history and hence one of the most studied.In addition to the classic J. Bidez, La vie de l'empereur Julien, Paris 1930, compare also R. Browning, The Emperor Julian, London 1975; G.W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, London 1978 and P. Athanassiadi, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography, London 1981.For an up to date general and exhaustive presentation with a rich bibliography see K. Rosen, Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser, Stuttgart 2006, the most excellent monography on Julian presently available.On his thought see also R. Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate, London 1995. 2 The central position which 'purity' plays in Julian's thought and action has been analysed in my wJ " lav cana cov rtou.Purezza e purificazione nella riforma religiosa di Flavio Claudio Giuliano (361-363 d.C.), Diss.Pisa, 2007.For a general introduction to the subject of purity see Pureté et impureté.I. L'Histoire des religion, in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 19, 398-430.way to understand the 'Against the Galileans' is to see it in the context of Julian's policy not just as a simply apologetic/polemical work. 8Julian's aim is to show that Christians, who pretend to be the true Israelites according to their prophets, are instead in a double sense apostates: for indeed they refused at once the Jewish Law and Hellenic worship. 9In line with Celsus and Pophyry Julian aims at the core of Christian identity: He questions their interpretation of Scripture.The Christians, he argues, are not a third ethnos, as claimed by Eusebius, distinguished from and superior to Jews and Greeks. 10They are just Galileans, adherents to a peripheral apostasy, who not deserve to be called either Jewish or Greek. 11lthough in Julian's view Judaism itself deserves criticism, because of its weak theology and absurd election claim (and its manifest inferiority), Galileans would have kept themselves at least aJ gnov teroi and kaqarwv teroi had they followed the Law of Moses.Instead they abandoned the pure and priestly life of Jews to follow a new doctrine. 12In doing so they accomplished everything that was abhorred by Moses.The key to understanding the meaning of Julian's argumentation is given in C. Gal.fr.72: Jews agree with the Gentiles, except that they believe in only one God.That is indeed peculiar to them and strange to us; since all the rest we have in a manner in common with them, temples, sanctuaries, altars, purifications (aJ gneiv ai) and certain precepts.For as to these we differ from one another not at all or in trivial matters. 13 show how the Galileans set themselves apart not only from the idea of piety common to all men (koinhv e[ nnoia), 14 but from every acceptable form of worship, Julian strategically develops a close parallelism between Jews and Hellenes.The religion of the patriarchs and the Law of Moses, even though they represent only an inferior stage to Greek tradition, possess nevertheless the validity of an ancient tradition: their origins are linked through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the Chaldeans, gev nou" iJ erou' kai; qeourgikou' , with the same piety and cultic practices as the Greeks. 15Once such an equation is established, Galilean infractions of Jewish norms will correspond to the infraction of the analogous Hellenic practices.To defraud Christians of Jewish Scriptures and prophecies, Julian claims the Jewish heritage as something really close to paganism, not to Christianity: Christians, he argues, are not similar to Jews, but Jews are similar to Greeks.Jews are kaqaroiv , and consequently Hellenes too.Their div aita is proof of proper cultic behaviour, against the Galileans' kainotomiv a, their carelessness regarding the mosaic Law, which they declared abolished by the coming of Christ. 16

Christian Betrayal of the Jewish Feast of Yom Kippur and of the Dietary Laws
This latter charge is concretised in a discussion about expiatory and purificatory sacrifices (kaqarismou; " kai; uJ pe; r aJ gneiv a"): Although they can no longer offer blood sacrifices because of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, Jews, thus Julian argues, continue sacrificing in their private homes (ej n aj drav ktoi"). 17To prove that Moses was far from considering sacrifices polluting acts in the way Christians do Julian refers to the day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16: And now observe again how much Moses says about the sacrifices that avert evils (uJ pe; r de; aj potropaiv wn): 'And he shall take two he-goats of the goats for a sinoffering, and one ram for a burnt offering.And Aaron shall bring also his bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself and for his house.And he shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the covenant.And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat,' so to send him forth, says Moses, as a scapegoat, and let him loose into the wilderness.Thus then is sent forth the goat that is sent for the scapegoat.And of the second goat Moses says: 'Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people before the Lord, and bring his blood within the veil, and shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar-step and shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins.'Thus it is evident from what has been said that Moses knew the various methods of sacrifice.Julian quotes almost verbatim (with the only exception of trav go" instead of civ maro" in Lev 16, 5, 15) the Biblical text describing the two central moments of the ritual procedure to follow during the Yom Kippur as described in the book of Leviticus: The aim of the procedure is to purify the Sanctuary, sprinkling it with the blood of the sacrificed goat, and to remove the sins from Israel's children confessing them on to the head of the goat for it to be sent into the wilderness.Julian is, as far as I know, the only pagan ever to refer expressly to the Day of Atonement ritual (and not generically to the Sabbath or other festivities, as for example Plutarch or Juvenal). 19This has a precise reason.For Christians the law of the 'old covenant' was no longer valid as law after the coming of their saviour.They therefore interpreted the atonement ritual typologically and allegorically as a pre-figuration of Christ's death for human sake.As Julian himself states (quoting the New Testament): 'Jesus was sacrificed once for all.' 20 After a development of biblical exegesis that had started in the first century, Christian theologians of the fourth century massively employed templar imagery to describe Church liturgy. 21erms like naov ", aj rciereuv ", qusiasthriv on, and a{ gia tw' n agiv wn make of the Eucharistic celebration an authentic atonement sacrifice: 22 indeed, Jesus' death and resurrection revealed the real meaning of the Day of Atonement ritual.This 'templarization' is strengthened by the opposition to Judaizing Christians: it is by attending Christian liturgies, confessing sins, celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by bearing witness through asceticism and martyrdom, and not by fasting like the Jews that men achieve spiritual purification from their moral impurities and expiate their sins. 23or Julian, the Christians, by abolishing the sacrifices which were practised by the Jews since Abraham, and by replacing them with the notion of the one and unrepeatable sacrifice of Christ, have rid themselves from the chance of expiating their misdeeds and get purified.The water which they use for washing off their sins has no meaning and value (as Julian shows in the 'Caesars' and in 'Against The Presentation of the atonement-rite of sacrifice in Tractate Zebahim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Bavli, and Yerushalmi,' in: ASE 18 (2001) 225-253. 19See F. Millar, 'Jews of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora between Paganism and Christianity, AD 312-438,' in J. Lieu -J.North -T.Rajak eds., The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, London 1992, 97-123, 106-108; P. Schäfer, Judeophobia.Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge 1997, 82-92. 20Christians did not reject the very idea of sacrifice but considered Jesus' death the ultimate sacrifice.See for example 1Cor 5,7; 2Cor 5, 17-21; John 1, 29; 1 Pet 2, 23; 1 Jn 2, 2,; 4, 10.On this topic C. Grottanelli, 'Appunti sulla fine dei sacrifici ,' in: EVO 12 (1989) 175-192; J.D.G.Dunn, 'Paul's Understanding of the Death of Jesus as sacrifice,' in S. W. Sykes ed., Sacrifice and Redemption, Cambridge 1991; P. Lampe, 'Human Sacrifice and Pauline Christology,' in K. Finsterbusch -A.Lange -K.F.Diethard Römheld ed., Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Leiden-Boston 2007, 191-209. 21The Day of Atonement was interpreted as a christological metaphor at least since the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the early second century), as transition from the old to the new covenant, from flesh to spirit; cf.Hebrews 8, 3; 9, 12-14; 10, 1-4. the Galileans'). 24Writing to the inhabitants of Bostra in August 362 (ep.114), Julian affirms that Christians who return to the worship of the Gods have to be purified in advance.Before taking part in the ceremonies they must purify their soul by public prayers, and their body through purifications. 25s further evidence for a Christian rejection of the Jewish Law Julian cites the refusal to distinguish between pure and impure animals, as witnessed in the story of the vision of Peter in the book of Acts: 26 Why in your way of life are you not as pure (kaqaroiv ) as the Jews, and why do you say that we ought to eat everything 'like green herb' (lav cana cov rtou), putting your faith in Peter, because, as you say, he declared, 'What God has cleaned, that make not you common (a} oJ qeo; " ej kaqav rise, su; mh; ; koiv nou)'?.What proof is there of this, that of old, God held certain things abominable (miarav ), but now has made them pure (kaqarav )?For Moses, when he is laying down the law concerning four footed-things, says that whatsoever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud is pure (kaqaro; n), but that which is not of this sort is impure (aj kav qarton).Now if, after the vision of Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then let us obey Peter; for it is in very truth a miracle if, after the vision of Peter, it has taken that habit.But if he spoke falsely when he said that he saw this revelation -to use your own way of speaking -in the house of the tanner, why are we so ready to believe him in such important matters?Was it so hard a thing that Moses enjoined on you when, besides the flesh of swine, he forbade you to eat winged things and things that dwell in the sea, and declared to you that besides the flesh of swine these also had been cast out by God and shown to be impure (aj kav qarta)? 27e interpretation of Jewish purity laws represents one of the main differences between Judaism and Christianity.To sum up briefly a very complex question: In the priestly theology of Leviticus, purity is requested as the main precondition to have contact with holiness (in the priestly view everything that belongs to YHWH must be considered holy, even Jewish people: holiness is thus a quality acquired by things and human beings through proximity with God): it involves absence of impurity.The latter is perceived mainly, but not in all the traditional strata, as a substance transmittable by contact, an impersonal force not relating to moral behaviour. 28The Jesus movement, as other Jewish groups of the same period, came 24 Julian criticizes Christian baptism directly in C. Gal.fr.59, 10-23 as well as indirectly, e. g. with reference to Constantine's conversion in Caes.336a-c.For pagan criticism of baptism see G. Urso, 'Purificazione e perdono: una polemica fra pagani e cristiani,' in M. Sordi ed., Responsabilità perdono e vendetta nel mondo antico, Milano 1998, 249-266. 25Ep.114, 436c: pri; n th; n me; n yuch; n tai' " litaneiv ai" pro; " tou; " Qeouv " to; de; sw' ma toi' " nomiv moi" kaqarsiv oi" kaqhv rasqai.The letter, sent to the citizens of Bostra in the summer of 362, is the public answer to Titus, the local bishop, who had asked for imperial intervention in the growing conflicts between pagans and Christians.Although it accuses the bishop as the one really responsible for the strife, it is a manifest of Julian's policy of tolerance.For an analogous letter attributed to Constantine see Eusebius, v. Const.II, 56, 1-2.According to Greg.Naz.Or.IV, 55 Julian subjected himself to a bloody purification ritual to wash off the stain of Christian Baptism.Cf. also C. Heracl.230c-d. 26Acts 10, 11-15. 27C. Gal.fr.74. 28On the topic see e.g.J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, Leiden 1973; Milgrom, 1991, passim; J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, Oxford 2000.Specifically on dietetic in conflict with the priestly interpretation and its amoral automatism, stressing the ethical and moral aspect of the concept of purity. 29New Testament traditions bear witness to tensions in the community in this field.See for example the so called council of Jerusalem in Acts and its conciliatory solution to admit Gentiles in the Jesus community. 30A more unitary attitude will be reached only in the second half of the second century, after the formation of a New Testament Canon and of the typological interpretation of the Old Testament.Christians interpreted many statements attributed to Jesus in the light of Pauline 'anti-legalism', for example Mt 15,11: 'What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.' 31 The report of Peter's vision in Acts too belongs in this context.It was one of the most ancient and authoritative attestations of the end of Mosaic law in the field of purity.The passage describes how in an ecstatic state Peter received from God the command to abolish all dietary laws of the past: 'What God has cleaned that make not you common, a} oJ qeo; " ej kaqav rise, su; mh; ; koiv nou (Acts 10:15)!'This vision justifies the passage from ritual observance to Christian-Pauline spiritualization and explains the origin of the gospel diffusion among Gentiles, which many Jews experienced as impure. 32This is where Julian locates his argument: Even if Moses once and again declared the Law eternal and untouchable, he points out, Galileans devour everything like green herb following Jesus' habits, i. e. the habits of a man who was in fact charged by the Pharisees to be a drunkard and a heavy eater. 33lready in the discourse 'To the Uneducated Cynics' Julian accuses his anonymous interlocutor, who despises Diogenes' alimentary habits, of being an Egyptian, not of the priestly caste but of the omnivorous type, whose habit is to eat everything as if it were green herbs. 34The expression 'pav nta de; ej sqiv ein wJ " lav cana cov rtou' refers to the words spoken by God to Noah after the deluge in Genesis 9:3: 'Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.' 35 At least since Justin Martyr in his 'Dialogue with Trypho' (around the middle of the second century) this passage has been interpreted by early Christian writers as proof of the uselessness of Mosaic dietary prescriptions for Christians: if the pious Noah was allowed to eat everything, except flesh with blood, Moses was forced to give the Law to Jews because of their indolence and weakness. 36Citing the book of Genesis, Julian puts Christian allegorical interpretation in context and, at the same time, stresses its feral nature.

The Meaning of Jewish Tradition in 'Against the Galileans'
According to a leading opinion this positive evaluation of Jewish practices in the Contra Galilaeos is an expression of Julian's ritualism and anti-Christian policy: Indeed, so it is argued, Julian needed and sought the support of the Jewish community as an ally against the Christians and counted on their practical help against the Persians. 37Moreover, the decision to rebuild the Jerusalem temple would have undermined one of the main Christian theological principles (the end of ancient Israel and the fulfilment of the prophecies) and conferred renewed prestige to the Jewish people. 38Even though such an instrumentalization is undeniable, modern scholars have overlooked, in my opinion, its actual function in the context of Julian's thought and political action.
In this context any reference to Jewish practices makes sense only in so far as it evokes and reflects Hellenic practices.The Christian spiritual interpretation of the sacrifice and of the purity of heart as a way of life freed by passions elevating the human soul to God was nothing new.It rooted in a long lasting tradition not only in certain sectors of Judaism (such as the Qumran community or Hellenistic / Diaspora Judaism not to mention the so-called Rabbinic Judaism) but also in Graeco-Roman philosophy.This is not the place to elaborate on the criticism directed by Greek and Roman intellectuals at a kind of worship that was perceived as purely exterior. 39An example for such a position from the early fourth century was Porphyry's 'On Abstinence'.Like many Christians of his time Porphyry understood the traditional religious elements (temple, altar, sacrifice) allegorically, as pertaining to the purification of the philosopher's soul from passions (though unlike them he stated the importance of the conventional civic cult (Abst.I, 27, 1)).In his letter to his wife Marcella he refers to inner sacrifice, purification from passions and intellectual sacrifice as the the three stages of the aj nagwghv . 40According to Porphyry, authentic purification, inner and outward (hJ e[ sw kai; hJ ej kto; " aJ gneiv a), is achieved by the θεῖος ἀνήρ through abstinence -both dietary and spiritual -assimilation to the divine (ὁμοίωσις θεῷ) through theosophy and sanctification through intellectual sacrifice. 41As Scott Bradbury has underlined, Porphyry's 'On Abstinence' is not an assault on traditional worship, but an attempt to persuade a friend of the utility of a vegetarian diet for a philosopher.It is vital to understand the rhetorical dimension of Porphyry's argument in 'On Abstinence'; and it is also important to note in this context that Porphyry's later works, like the 'Epistle to Marcella' and his 'Against Christians', were written against a background of increasing tension between Roman authority and Christianity.They seem to show an increasingly conservative attitude to traditional worship emphasizing the fundamental value of the latter. 42t any rate, with its deep philosophical motivation and its various examples of bloodless worship, Porphyry's argument seems to have been perceived as potentially so attractive to Christians that church writers such as Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria saw the need to refute it emphatically, and in detail. 43ut Porphyry had pagan critics too.Iamblichus, as is well known, rejected his vegetarianism.Iamblichus' arguments against Porphyry can be found developed mainly in the fifth book of his 'On Mysteries'.Maintaining a distinction between spiritual and material worship 44 Iamblichus thought of blood sacrifices as a way of entering theurgically into a union with the gods; for blood sacrifices, he argued, create a bond between the gods and the material substance, over which the gods preside.The gods, thus Iamblichus further, cannot be polluted by the smoke rising up from the sacrifices, as Porphyry claimed, because their very essence is purity. 45ather, the fire that consumes the sacrifices purifies (aJ gneuv ei) their matter turning it into an immaterial and utterly pure substance (eij " th; n tou' puro; " kaqarov thta kai; leptov thta metabav lletai). 46In this way, according to Iamblichus, sacrifices could eventually assume an expiatory and purificatory role, even for the body; for they would purify it from old stains (kaqaiv ronte" auj to; aj po; khliv dwn palaiw' n) and heal it from illnesses (nov soi). 47According to Iamblichus, then, it was not so much a useful or viable option to perform corporeal sacrifices.Rather, sacrifices had to be corporeal (swmatoeidhv ") in order to do justice to the corporeal nature of the body, which by itself did not participate in the spiritual substance and was therefore relying on some sort of mediation. 48ulian, for his part, recognised spiritual sacrifice as the supreme offering to the deity.Nevertheless, when explaining in 'Against the Galileans' the biblical episode of Cain and Abel, he states, very much like Iamblichus, that animated beings are preferred by the gods because they participate in life. 49Accordingly, he argues, the best form of sacrifice is therefore the blood sacrifice subordinated to justice and virtue. 50The revival of blood sacrifices under Julian, as attested by Ammianus, Libanius and many other later sources (after Constantius had effectively banned them in 354) 51 is often put down to Neoplatonist influence upon Julian.However, modern studies have tended to exaggerate this influence. 52Iamblichus, mediated by his disciples, provided the intellectual justification for blood sacrifice, but it was politics, as much as piety, that moved Julian in this direction. 53Before being a Neoplatonist he was a Greek and a Roman, indeed he was the pontifex maximus of Rome. 54As Nicole Belayche has recently recognised, the intellectual debate about the necessity of blood sacrifices or their substitution by spiritual ones had not really affected actual practice.Even if despised by Porphyry and Christians, limited by Constantine and temporarily banned by Constantius, blood sacrifice preserved its role as the central rite of Roman, and Greek, cult.Even in the fourth century it was seen as an essential means to preserve the ordo rerum. 55Writing to the philosopher Maximus soon after Constantius'death Julian declares that now it is finally possible to attend publicly the authentic cult (hJ mei' " fanerw' " bouqutou' men).After mentioning the numerous hecatombs (eJ katov mbai pollav ) of thanksgiving to the gods, Julian remembers the order received by the gods to purify everything as much as possible (ej me; keleuv osin oiJ qeoi; ta; pav nta aJ gneuv ein eij ˝ duv namin). 56fter the providential death of Constantius, the enemy of the gods, the sacrifices that Julian describes to Maximus have the function of thanksgiving.At the same time, as the nexus sacrifice/purifying suggests, they serve to expiate the evil of the Costantinides at the eve of a new beginning signalled by the dissipation of the clouds of atheism. 57ooking at the dietary laws we can observe much the same interest in Julian.Jewish dietary abstinence, especially from pork, was well known, and despised, by Greco-Roman intellectuals.But since the second and third centuries the fact that ej gkrav teia was practised by neo-Pythagoreans and adherents of neo-orphic movements led to an increasingly positive evaluation of Jewish abstention too. 58oly men from Pythagoras to Apollonius of Tyana were known and admired for their ascetic way of life.Meat consumption, for its ties to the material world and for its intrinsic qualities preventing the elevation of the soul, had to be avoided.This intellectual ecumenism culminated in the fourth book of Porphyry's 'On Abstinence'.In addition of the dietary habits of Egyptian priests and Brahmins Porphyry refers to the alimentary habits and the pure way (div aita) of life obtained through frequent purifications (diafov roi" aJ gneiv ai") and asceticism (a[ skhsi") by the Essenes described by Josephus as examples of the true, bloodless and priestly piety. 59But he also refers to the whole Law of Moses as a witness for the call to abstinence that imposes on the Jews a pure way of Life. 60Porphyry, as Josephus, saw in the Jewish practices a reflection of the Pythagorean doctrine.His admiration for the Essenes is linked to his argumentative target and philosophical theories. 61or other aspects of their religion the Jews are bitterly criticised in his 'Against Christians'.
Much more than Porpyry's 'On Abstinence', Julian's 'Against the Galileans' remains by far the most explicit reflection from this period on the interrelations and contrasting histories and values of the three religions together with Eusebius' Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica and the later Augustine's De Civitate Dei. 62Nevertheless, Julian's evaluation of Jewish practices, just as Porphyry's, depends much on his observation of similarities with his own traditional heritage.In Julian's 'To the Mother of the Gods' sexual and alimentary abstinence is invoked as a means to achieve the purity required for the holy rites and the spiritual elevation of the worshipper.A large part of the work is consecrated to the purification rites preliminary to the Attis celebration.Julian shows that 'The end and the aim of the rite of purification is the ascent of our soul (Auj th' " de; th' " aJ gneiv a" fame; n to; n skopo; n a[ nodon tw' n yucw' n).' 63 Following the ritual path, human beings can release their soul, bound by corporal restraints, to the Great Mother. 64In the following paragraphs Julian lists all the different foods prohibited by the sacred law (ὁ ἱερὸς νόμος) during the purification period: seeds, turnips, apples, pomegranates, fishes and pork.The unifying criterion, obviously artful, chosen by Julian to homologate all the different prescriptions, is their bond with the soil.If the aim of purification is the elevation of the souls, everything chthonian must be avoided as a consequence.Even if Graeco-Roman antiquity did not know a category of polluting animals, on certain occasions and in certain cults, not to mention the Pythagoreans, abstention was requested by sacred laws, 65 even though they may in most cases have been temporary and oriented to the achievement of certain objectives. 66n conclusion to this section on the philosophical meaning of Jewish actual practices we can observe that both sacrifices and alimentary abstinences were seen by Julian as a subordinated, inferior, reflection of Hellenic worship.In this respect Jews were seen in a favourable light, because their cultic practices were clearly recognisable and visible.But they were not considered to possess absolute validity.They are mainly cited to support the argument.Neither Porphyry's nor Julian's approach is characterised by an in depth examination of Jewish doctrines, or the sincere search for an authentic similarity between Jewish and Greek traditions.
Christianity and Judaism than is commonly assumed.Origen and John accused these 'Judaizing' Christians of having misunderstood, like the Jews, the 'real', i. e. spiritual meaning of the atonement ritual.Julian therefore entered a polemical discourse that already raged within the Christian community, when he denounced the illegitimacy of the christological (allegorical) interpretation of the narrative.While Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, John Crysostom, and many others claimed that purity laws were temporary and limited to Jews because of their inferiority, other Christians appealed to the normative authority of Leviticus and to its literal meaning. 68Julian's approach has to be properly understood in the light of this debate, of the inner divisions of the Church, especially at Antioch, and of the continuing attractiveness of Judaism for Christians. 69ccording to the evolutionist theory recently supported by Guy Stroumsa, the supposed extinction of blood sacrifice in the fourth century, albeit not as radical as Eusebius wanted it to be, would have subjected the concept of purity to a process of spiritualisation: 'Avec l'épuisement, l'interdiction, et finalement la quasi-extinction des rites sacrificiels, l'idée même de pureté rituelle, à l'évidence, sera mise à rude épreuve.Elle sortira de cette épreuve radicalement transformée, vers la fin de l'Antiquité.(…) L'eau des ablutions et du baptême remplaça pour les chrétiens et pour les Juifs le feu des sacrifices.Pour Porphyre l'âme est le temple intérieur et les rituels de pureté deviennent des règles d'ascèse.' 70Following this view there should be an obvious conflict, but there is not.Even if the authentic purification (oj rqh; kav qarsi") is defined in Ad Matr.Deor.163a as 'to turn our gaze inwards (strafh' nai pro" eJ auto; n) and observe (katanoh' sai) how the soul and embodied mind are a sort of mould and likeness of the form that are embodied in matter,' 71 Julian, like Iamblichus and even Porphyry, adds that 'by the rite of purification and as "sympathizers" (…).Governments on the whole, finding them too numerous, too important economically, and generally loyal, were favourably disposed toward the Jews; and intellectuals, to a much greater degree than hitherto has been acknowledged, admired them.'  (dia; th' " aJ gisteiv a") not the soul alone but the body as well is greatly benefited and preserved (ouj c hJ yuch; mov non, aj lla; kai; ta; swv mata bohqeiv a" pollh' " kai; swthriv a" aj xiou' tai).' 72 The authenticity and reliability of such practices, thus Julian, are granted by the godly exhortations of the most holy among the theurgists' (toi' " uJ perav gnoi" tw' n qeourgw' n) 'mortal husk of raw matter'. 73Recalling that according to Julian, Judaism derived its practices from Chaldea, the reason why Jews and Hellenes are similar becomes self-evident.In contrast to Stroumsa's view Julian uses the Jewish idea of purity in support of his own idea of purity, which he develops in fundamental opposition to the Christian idea; and this is consistent with Julian's view that Christianity is a complete abomination.For Julian it is the Christians who -wrongly!-hold a spiritualised concept of purity.In New Testamentary Greek the term aJ gneiv a indicates the purity condition achieved by the believer not through a ritual act but by a way of conduct inspired by the ex-ample of Jesus. 74Consequently, among the Church fathers aJ gneiv a is the obedience to the Gospel and especially asceticism and chastity. 75The fathers mention ritual aJ gneiv ai only in reference to Jews and pagans.Julian's understanding is diametri-cally opposed to this.For him the standards are set by what he perceives to be the Jewish practice.As for Porphyry, purity for Julian is never entirely spiritual but it still remains the most important cultic precondition.
In 'Against the Galileans' Ju-lian (as reported by Gregory of Nazianzus and Sozomenos) expresses revulsion at the Christian concept of katharsis, as realised in particular in the ritual of baptism.In Julian's view the latter constitutes a hopelessly inadequate means of salvation.As already mentioned, in the letter to the inhabitants of Bostra Julian requested an elaborate ritual purification of converted Christians. 76Also 'Against the Galileans' Julian criticised Christian burial practices and in particular the cult of the Martyrs, because they constitute a concrete cause of pollution. 77This should not be taken as a reflection of Pythagorean abhorrence of death.Julian ordered the removal of the earthly remains of St. Babylas from the neighbourhood of the Castalian spring at Daphne and the ritual purification of the place 78 and the corpses buried near the temple of Dydima, 79 praised the citizens of Emesa for burning Christian churches, which in Giorgio Scrofani, '"Like Green Herbs": Julian's Understanding of Purity and His Attitude Towards Judaism in His Contra Galilaeos,' in: Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 2 (2008) 1-16; ISSN: 1754-517X; Website: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/clarc/jlarc.html16 day Jews were no credible allies for Julian in his task of recovering Hellenism from the iron dark age of the Constantinian period.They had never had, nor would they ever have, a share in the empire.They are mentioned and praised only in polemical contexts, in contrast to the Christians.Their doctrines are never discussed outside the 'Against the Galileans' and in some letters from the same period, in contrast, for example, to the doctrines of the Egyptians, which are exploited to demonstrate the antiquity of Helios worship in the 'Hymn to King Helios'. 85oreover, although Julian did note other features of contemporary Judaism, e. g. mutual Jewish charity, the kind of Judaism which attracted him most no longer existed.It had vanished with the temple.Julian's main aim in 'Against the Galileans' was to refute Christianity.His support of Judaism in the course of this refutation was a by-product.Only when we consider the continuing attraction which Judaism held for Christians, especially in Antioch, we can properly understand Julian's polemics.Favouring the Jews and supporting the literal interpretation of Scripture on the one hand he affirmed indirectly the Hellenic pure way of life, on the other hand he tried to nourish inner-Christian conflicts.