"He commanded them to rebuild the Temple." ~ Julian the Apostate's spectacular failure to reconstruct the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 363

"For I am rebuilding with all zeal the temple of the Most High God." –Julian the Apostate
as preserved in De Mensibus written by John Lydus, 6th century AD

Like clockwork, whenever there's a military conflict in the Middle East, articles begin popping up regarding the rebuilding of the Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Some claim that construction is already secretly underway. Others maintain that the Temple can not be rebuilt except by the Messiah. The topic even came up at a White House press briefing last October when a reporter asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt if the topic of rebuilding the Temple had been brought up in Trump cabinet meetings.

"It has not," Ms. Leavitt replied. "No it hasn't"

Given that the Temple Mount is currently occupied by the Al-Aqsa mosque, building the Third Temple would entail destroying the third holiest site in Islam. So for the foreseeable future, it seems that no serious attempt can be made. And honestly, it's better that way.

The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 at the climax of the Jewish Revolt. Christ Himself predicted the Temple's annihilation some 40 years before the fact as recorded in the Gospel of Saint Matthew 24:1-2:

And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And His disciples came to show Him the buildings of the temple.  And He answering, said to them: "Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed."

The looting and razing of the Second Temple by Roman soldiers after the capture of Jerusalem is memorialized on the Arch of Titus in Rome.

Roman relief showing the looting of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the soldiers of Titus.

The subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion, which ended in AD 136, resulted in the defeat of the Jews by the Romans and their expulsion from Judea.

Between then and the present day, only one serious attempt was made to reconstruct the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. That effort was spearheaded by the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate in the early 360s AD. According to the 5th century historian Hermias Sozomen, whose Ecclesiastical History is well worth reading in its entirety, Julian showed favor to the Jewish people, but this was not inspired by any particular love for them. Instead, his goodwill toward the Jews was motivated by a desire to provoke his former co-religionists:

Click for more information.

Though the emperor hated and oppressed the Christians, he manifested benevolence and humanity towards the Jews. He wrote to the Jewish patriarchs and leaders, as well as to the people, requesting them to pray for him, and for the prosperity of the empire. In taking this step he was not actuated, I am convinced, by any respect for their religion; for he was aware that it is, so to speak, the mother of the Christian religion, and he knew that both religions rest upon the authority of the patriarchs and the prophets; but he thought to grieve the Christians by favoring the Jews, who are their most inveterate enemies. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

Sozomen offers the following rationale for why Julian allowed and encouraged the Jews to rebuild the temple:

[Julian] sent for some of the chiefs of the race and exhorted them to return to the observance of the laws of Moses and the customs of their fathers. On their replying that because the temple in Jerusalem was overturned, it was neither lawful nor ancestral to do this in another place than the metropolis out of which they had been cast, he gave them public money, commanded them to rebuild the temple, and to practice the cult similar to that of their ancestors, by sacrificing after the ancient way. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

With the cautionary wisdom of hindsight, Sozomen explains how fully and joyfully the Jews—and even many pagans—took to the monumental, but ultimately futile, task:

The Jews entered upon the undertaking, without reflecting that, according to the prediction of the holy prophets, it could not be accomplished. They sought for the most skillful artisans, collected materials, cleared the ground, and entered so earnestly upon the task, that even the women carried heaps of earth, and brought their necklaces and other female ornaments towards defraying the expense. The emperor, the other pagans, and all the Jews, regarded every other undertaking as secondary in importance to this. Although the pagans were not well-disposed towards the Jews, yet they assisted them in this enterprise, because they reckoned upon its ultimate success, and hoped by this means to falsify the prophecies of Christ. Besides this motive, the Jews themselves were impelled by the consideration that the time had arrived for rebuilding their temple. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

They had not long been at this work, however, when tragedy struck:

When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

This earthquake, which is well attested in literary sources of the period and via archaeological evidence, was very destructive, but it was not enough to discourage these eager builders from a task which was mandated not only by the emperor but, they felt, by God himself. Yet, their desire to resume the work met such a serious check that the builders found themselves unable to continue:

[I]nstead of regarding this unexpected earthquake as a manifest indication that God was opposed to the re-erection of their temple, [the Jews] proceeded to recommence the work. But all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen. This fact is fearlessly stated, and believed by all; the only discrepancy in the narrative is that some maintain that flame burst from the interior of the temple, as the workmen were striving to force an entrance, while others say that the fire proceeded directly from the earth. In whichever way the phenomenon might have occurred, it is equally wonderful. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

This second disaster was enough to dampen the ardor of even the most enthusiastic of the re-builders. Beyond that, Sozomen claims that yet another miraculous occurrence connected to the Temple re-build led many to embrace the Christian religion: 

A more tangible and still more extraordinary prodigy ensued; suddenly the sign of the cross appeared spontaneously on the garments of the persons engaged in the undertaking. These crosses were disposed like stars, and appeared the work of art. Many were hence led to confess that Christ is God, and that the rebuilding of the temple was not pleasing to Him; others presented themselves in the church, were initiated, and besought Christ, with hymns and supplications, to pardon their transgression. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

These events took place in AD 363, a few months before Julian himself was killed while on campaign in Persia. With the emperor's death, the Christian Jovian was elevated to the throne, thus ending the short-lived reconstruction effort on the Temple Mount.

It is easy to discard Sozomen's account as the fantastical tale of a later Christian. While it's true that Sozomen was not a contemporary of Julian, he was likely born within 20 to 30 years of Julian's demise, and was actively writing within the living memory of the events. It should also be remembered that Sozomen was a native of Bethelia, a town in Roman Palestine near Gaza, and it is clear from his writing about other historical episodes in and around Palestine that he was intimately familiar with the local lore. From his closing passage on this particular topic, Sozomen hints that he himself had spoken to those who witnessed the failed effort to resurrect the Jewish Temple:

If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it. [Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter 22]

For any who may find the preceding story a tough one to swallow coming as it does from an unapologetic Christian source of great antiquity, perhaps consider that there are numerous other accounts of it, including one from the Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus. Recall that Marcellinus was a pagan and furthermore, was a direct contemporary of Julian, even accompanying that emperor on his doomed campaign against the Persians. His short account of Julian's efforts regarding the Temple reads as follows:

[B]eing eager to extend the recollection of his reign by the greatness of his exploits, [Julian] proposed to rebuild at a vast expense the once magnificent temple of Jerusalem, which after many deadly contests was with difficulty taken by Vespasian and Titus, who succeeded his father in the conduct of the siege. And he assigned the task to Alypius of Antioch, who had formerly been proprefect of Britain. But though Alypius applied himself vigorously to the work, and though the governor of the province co-operated with him, fearful balls of fire burst forth with continual eruptions close to the foundations, burning several of the workmen and making the spot altogether inaccessible. And thus the very elements, as if by some fate, repelling the attempt, it was laid aside. [The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXIII, Chapter 1]

This and the several similar accounts found in the works of St. Gregory Nazianzan, Socrates Scholasticus, St. John Chrysostom, and even oblique references in the extant fragments of Julian's own letters, make it abundantly clear that the Julian the Apostate did make an attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, and this this effort failed under mysterious—perhaps miraculous—circumstances.

For a deeper dive into the multitude of ancient sources which recorded this event, visit the Eternal Christendom site.

Here are links to several additional articles on Julian that have appeared on this blog. If nothing else, Julian is a fascinating historical figure. Though unlikely, it may be hoped that he repented on his deathbed.

• A passionate longing to acquire (and destroy) books ~ The cognitive dissonance of Julian the Apostate 
• The Sudden Collapse of Greco-Roman Paganism and Rise of Christianity during the 4th century AD ~ Some Stark Clues Courtesy of Julian the Apostate
• "A monarch more wicked than all the nations of the earth" ~ Julian the Apostate and the martyrdom of Saints Juventius and Maximus
• "He hated the entire city intensely" ~ St. Eupsychius and Julian the Apostate's reaction to the destruction of the Temple of Fortune in Caesarea in Cappadocia
• December 2 ~ Saint Bibiana, 4th century martyr during the reign of Julian the Apostate.
• "Martyrs Neither Ignoble Nor Few" ~ The death of Hypatia and mob violence against Christians during the reign of Julian the Apostate

The Sudden Collapse of Greco-Roman Paganism and Rise of Christianity during the 4th century AD ~ Some Stark Clues Courtesy of Julian the Apostate

Fresco of Jesus approaching the tomb of Lazarus, from the Catacombs
of the Via Latina in Rome, 4th century AD.

In the years following the victory of Constantine the Great over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in AD 312, something unprecedented in human history happened. A religion embraced by a small, despised, unwarlike minority cult became the dominant faith of the mighty Roman Empire. How this happened has been the subject of endless scholarly debate ever after. Did the ascendant Christians impose their faith on the multitude of pagans by brute force? Did examples of miraculous events or prophecies play a role? Or did the Christian emperors simply make it so advantageous to become a Christian, as a matter of law, that the vast majority of pagans knuckled under? 

None of these solutions by itself is satisfying. Nor does the combination of all of the above provide a complete answer for why the bulk of the Empire’s population began embracing a religious creed which had been suspected, oppressed, and brutally persecuted for three centuries before. Indeed, the pagan emperors had attempted to make it advantageous to abjure Christianity. They also claimed that the pagan divinities had granted oracles saying that the gods would smile upon the Empire if those who rejected them were extirpated. And finally, pagan emperors used brute force to compel Christians to abjure. But none of these strategies proved effective in crushing Christianity.

So why, then, did Roman paganism collapse in the 4th century AD, and why did so many Roman pagans eventually flock to Christianity? 

Some evidence may be gleaned from the surviving writings of Christian apologists who had been pagan intellectuals such as Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others. The common rationale offered by these converts is that the pagan world had become so morally corrupt that they could no longer abide a hypocritical philosophy that praised virtue and glory but practiced the most debased vices and brutally killed poor souls in horrible ways for the most trifling of crimes.

More evidence may be found, ironically, in the works of Julian the Apostate. The reader will recall that Julian was a sign of contradiction in his day – a Christian apostate and revert to Classical paganism who became Roman emperor and attempted to undo forty years of Christian ascendancy within the Empire. Julian himself was an enigma, as we have seen in previous posts. He specifically spared the Christians the harshest forms of persecution, not out of compassion but because he had learned from history that such tactics didn’t work to suppress Christianity. In his own words, he says: 

A gold solidus of Julian as Caesar under
Constantius II (ca. AD 355-360), lacking at
this time his trademark philosopher's beard.

I affirm by the gods that I do not wish the Galilaeans [that is, Christians] to be either put to death or unjustly beaten, or to suffer any other injury; but nevertheless I do assert absolutely that the god-fearing must be preferred to them. For through the folly of the Galilaeans almost everything has been overturned, whereas through the grace of the gods are we all preserved. Wherefore we ought to honor the gods and the god-fearing, both men and cities. [Julian's letter to Atarbius, AD 362]

Considering he was a Christian himself (indeed, he was the nephew of Constantine the Great) who reverted to paganism, Julian is able to offer some unique insights into what the average Roman found so attractive in Christianity, and why paganism seemed so moribund by comparison. In his letter to Arascius, pagan high-priest of Galatia, written in AD 362, Julian offers advice on how to revive pagan practices, while inadvertently revealing some of the weaknesses inherent in paganism and the contrasting strengths of Christianity:

The Hellenic religion [that is, paganism] does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope. May Adrasteia [a pagan goddess] pardon my words, for indeed no one, a little while ago, would have ventured even to pray for a change of such a sort or so complete within so short a time. Why, then, do we think that this is enough, why do we not observe that it is their benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism?”

By “atheism”, Julian here is referring to Christianity, whose adherents he collectively scorns as "Galilaeans." Interestingly, he faults paganism for lacking the virtues that were taught to him as being a key facet of Christian life. He goes on to chide the high-priest, suggesting that his brother pagans should adopt Christian-like piety, honor the gods with the same type of zeal, engage in ascetical practices, and refrain from dishonorable trades: 

I believe that we ought really and truly to practice every one of these virtues. And it is not enough for you alone to practice them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception. Either shame or persuade them into righteousness or else remove them from their priestly office, if they do not, together with their wives, children and servants, attend the worship of the gods but allow their servants or sons or wives to show impiety towards the gods and honor atheism more than piety. In the second place, admonish them that no priest may enter a theater or drink in a tavern or control any craft or trade that is base and not respectable. Honor those who obey you, but those who disobey, expel from office. 

Finally, we see Julian revealing one of the aspects of Christianity that average Romans must have found very compelling—charity to the poor. The Christian zeal for the care of widows, orphans and the impoverished must have contrasted very favorably with standard pagan practices. Here we see Julian enjoining the high-priest to adopt more Christian attitudes, even providing a subsidy from the Imperial fisc: 

In every city establish frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our benevolence; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. I have but now made a plan by which you may be well provided for this; for I have given directions that 30,000 modii of corn shall be assigned every year for the whole of Galatia, and 60,000 pints 3 of wine. I order that one-fifth of this be used for the poor who serve the priests, and the remainder be distributed by us to strangers and beggars. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort, and the Hellenic villages to offer their first fruits to the gods; and accustom those who love the Hellenic religion to these good works by teaching them that this was our practice of old….Let us not, by allowing others to outdo us in good works, disgrace by such remissness, or rather, utterly abandon, the reverence due to the gods.” [The above three quotes are all taken from Julian's Letter to Arascius, High-Priest of Galatia].

In another work, the satirical essay entitled Misopogon or “Beard-hater”, Julian strikes a similar note. In chastising the pagan citizens of Antioch for their neglect of the sacrifices, Julian compares the public parsimony of the leading pagan men when it comes to the rites of the gods, to the liberality of their wives who shower their goods on the Christian churches for the care of the poor:

Yet every one of you delights to spend money privately on dinners and feasts; and I know very well that many of you squandered very large sums of money on dinners during the May festival. Nevertheless, on your own behalf and on behalf of the city's welfare not one of the citizens offers a private sacrifice, nor does the city offer a public sacrifice, but only this priest! Yet I think that it would have been more just for him to go home carrying portions from the multitude of beasts offered by you to the god. For the duty assigned by the gods to priests is to do them honor by their nobility of character and by the practice of virtue, and also to perform to them the service that is due;  but it befits the city, I think, to offer both private and public sacrifice. But as it is, every one of you allows his wife to carry everything out of his house to the Galilaeans, and when your wives feed the poor at your expense they inspire a great admiration for godlessness in those who are in need of such bounty - and of such sort are, I think, the great majority of mankind, - while as for yourselves you think that you are doing nothing out of the way when in the first place you are careless of the honors due to the gods, and not one of those in need goes near the temples - for there is nothing there, I think, to feed them with - and yet when any one of you gives a birthday feast he provides a dinner and a breakfast without stint and welcomes his friends to a costly table; when, however, the annual festival arrived no one furnished olive oil for a lamp for the god, or a libation, or a beast for sacrifice, or incense.” [Julian's Misopogon]

In another fragmentary letter to a pagan priest, Julian again hammers home his point, urging his correspondent very strongly not only to adopt charity as a regular practice, but also offering advice on the appointment of priests. Julian exhorts that only men of the highest character who possess a genuine sympathy for their fellow man be appointed as priests of the gods. This indicates, perhaps, that this was often not the case and that the character of the pagan priests likely compared very unfavorably to the priests of the “miserable Galilaeans.” Note also that Julian shows himself to be something of a pagan moralist, calling out the damage that filthy pantomime performances had done to Roman society — to the point that he would have them banned if he could:

No priest must anywhere be present at the licentious theatrical shows of the present day, nor introduce one into his own house; for that is altogether unfitting. Indeed if it were possible to banish such shows absolutely from the theaters so as to restore to Dionysus those theatres pure as of old, I should certainly have endeavored with all my heart to bring this about; but as it is, since I thought that this is impossible, and that even if it should prove to be possible it would not on other accounts be expedient, I forebore entirely from this ambition. But I do demand that priests should withdraw themselves from the licentiousness of the theaters and leave them to the crowd. Therefore let no priest enter a theater or have an actor or a chariot-driver for his friend; and let no dancer or mime even approach his door. And as for the sacred games, I permit anyone who will to attend those only in which women are forbidden not only to compete but even to be spectators. With regard to the hunting shows with dogs which are performed in the cities inside the theaters, need I say that not only priests but even the sons of priests must keep away from them?

… I say that the most upright men in every city, by preference those who show most love for the gods, and next those who show most love for their fellow men, must be appointed, whether they be poor or rich. And in this matter let there be no distinction whatever whether they are unknown or well known. For the man who by reason of his gentleness has not won notice ought not to be barred by reason of his want of fame. Even though he be poor and a man of the people, if he possess within himself these two things, love for God and love for his fellow men, let him be appointed priest. And a proof of his love for God is his inducing his own people to show reverence to the gods; a proof of his love for his fellows is his sharing cheerfully, even from a small store, with those in need, and his giving willingly thereof, and trying to do good to as many men as he is able.

We must pay especial attention to this point, and by this means effect a cure. For when it came about that the poor were neglected and overlooked by the priests, then I think the impious Galilaeans observed this fact and devoted themselves to philanthropy. And they have gained ascendancy in the worst of their deeds through the credit they win for such practices. [Fragment of Julian's letter to a priest]

In sum, we see in these passages Julian’s attempt to transplant living Christian practices into the expiring corpse of paganism in a futile effort at revivification. We should be thankful that Julian’s unique contributions to our understanding of the movement of the mid-4th century Zeitgeist have been preserved in such a remarkable way, largely through the offices of a few Church Fathers who included his writings within their own. Hermias Sozomen, for example, recorded Julian's Letter to Arascius above in his 5th century Ecclesiastical History, saying further: 

Click for more info.

On reflecting that one main support of the Christian religion was the life and behavior of its professors, he [Julian] determined to introduce into the pagan temples the order and discipline of Christianity, to institute various orders and degrees of ministry, to appoint teachers and readers to give instruction in pagan doctrines and exhortations, and to command that prayers should be offered on certain days at stated hours. He moreover resolved to found monasteries for the accommodation of men and women who desired to live in philosophical retirement, as likewise hospitals for the relief of strangers and of the poor and for other philanthropical purposes. He wished to introduce among the pagans the Christian system of penance for voluntary and involuntary transgressions; but the point of ecclesiastical discipline which he chiefly admired, and desired to establish among the pagans, was the custom among the bishops to give letters of recommendation to those who traveled to foreign lands, wherein they commended them to the hospitality and kindness of other bishops, in all places, and under all contingencies. In this way did Julian strive to ingraft the customs of Christianity upon paganism. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 16].

Much more could be written on this topic, but this post has already become more verbose than I had intended.

"A monarch more wicked than all the nations of the earth" ~ Julian the Apostate and the martyrdom of Saints Juventius and Maximus

The martyrdom of Saints Juventius and Maximus taken from the
early 11th century Menologion of Basil II.

January 25 is the feast day of the ancient martyrs, Juventius and Maximus (sometimes called Juventinus and Maximinus). These two were soldiers during the time of Julian the Apostate and suffered martyrdom at his hands, most likely in AD 363. 

You may remember from similar posts on this blog that although Julian had a deep animosity toward Christianity, he refrained from enacting a wholesale persecution in the style of Diocletian because he had seen that such methods failed to suppress the Faith and indeed, seemed to enhance its appeal. As a result, Julian had taken a more subtle approach to suppressing Christianity, as demonstrated in a previous post on Saint Eupsychius, a martyr who had participated in the destruction of the Temple of Fortune in Caesarea.

Unlike many of the semi-legendary martyrs of the late 4th century, we can be fairly certain that Juventius and Maximus not only existed, but that their acts are authentic. They are recorded in two near-contemporary sources: a homily of Saint John Chrysostom who eulogized the martyrs about 30-40 years after their deaths, and the Ecclesiastical History written by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus who wrote in the mid-5th century AD.

The account of Theodoret is rather detailed, and seems to jive nicely with the historical portrait of Julian gleaned from friendly sources like Ammianus Marcellinus and hostile ones like Hermias Sozomen and Socrates Scholasticus, as well as Julian's own surviving writings. The whole of Theodoret's account of the deaths of Juventius and Maximus runs as follows:

Julian continued to oppose religion with greater and greater boldness and effrontery, while he assumed the specious appearance of clemency, in order to lay snares to entrap men, and seduce them to irreligion. He cast things offered to idols into the fountains of the city of Antioch, and into those of Daphne, so that no one could drink of the streams without partaking of the hateful sacrifices. He defiled in the same way everything that was sold in the marketplace, for he had water which had been offered to idols sprinkled on the bread, meat, fruit, herbs, and all the other articles of food. 

The Christians wept and lamented at witnessing these abominations, yet they partook of the food according to the precept of the apostle, for it is said, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake." (1 Corinthians 10:25). 

Two of the emperor's guards, who were his shield-bearers and companions in arms, vehemently deplored, at a certain convivial party, the perpetration of such hateful deeds, and borrowed the admirable words used by the young man who gained so high a celebrity at Babylon: "You have delivered us," they said, " to a monarch who is more wicked than all the nations of the earth." 

One of those at table acquainted the emperor with this speech. The emperor sent for these two men, and asked what it was that they had said. This question giving them an opportunity of speaking freely, they, in the warmth of their zeal, made the following reply: 

"Having been brought up, O emperor, in the true religion, and having been accustomed to obey the admirable laws enacted by Constantine, and by his sons, we cannot but be deeply grieved at witnessing everything filled with abominations, and the very food contaminated by being mixed with the sacrifices offered to idols. We have lamented over this in our own houses, and now, in your presence, we publicly express our regret. This is the only cause of sorrow which we experience under your government." 

On hearing these words the mildest and wisest of emperors, as he is called by those who resemble him, threw off the mask of clemency, and disclosed his real impiety. Such excruciating tortures were at his order inflicted on these two men, that they expired under them or, rather, they obtained a release from the misery of the age, and received the crowns of victory. It was declared, that their boldness of speech, and not the religion which they defended, was the cause of their execution: they were punished, it was said, because they had insulted the emperor. This account of the transaction Julian ordered to be universally circulated, for he was apprehensive lest these champions of truth should obtain the honor of being regarded as martyrs. 

Their names were Juventius and Maximus. The church of Antioch honored them as defenders of religion, and interred them in a magnificent tomb; and even to this day an annual festival is celebrated in their honor. [Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 15]

These martyrs are also mentioned in a homily given by Saint John Chrysostom. As one-time bishop of Antioch, Saint John no doubt was very familiar with these two martyrs who would have been slain during his own lifetime. Indeed, he would have been a young man at the time, most likely living in Antioch during the reign of Julian. 

I could not locate a full literal English translation of this homily, but fragments may be found in Butler’s Lives of the Saints and other scholarly sources around the internet. The account in Butler’s mentions that when the martyrs refused to retract their statements about the emperor, they were scourged, their property was confiscated and finally, they were beheaded in prison. Following the execution, some local Christians in Antioch obtained the bodies and built for them a magnificent tomb. In his homily, John Chrysostom urges his listeners to visit the shrine of these martyrs regularly and embrace the relics, feeling confident that they may obtain blessings. In fact, this homily provides yet another example of the early Church believing in the efficacy of prayers to the saints in heaven as mediators with God as St. John makes clear in a very dramatic fashion:

“For just as soldiers, showing off the wounds received in battle, boldly converse with the emperor, so too these [martyrs], by brandishing in their hand the heads which were cut off and putting them on public display, are easily able to procure everything we wish from the King of Heaven.” [See Garbarino, Resurrecting the martyrs: The role of the Cult of the Saints, AD 370-430 – page  128]

A final ancient source on these martyrs is also worth citing. In a hymn of Severus of Antioch, a Monophysite bishop of the early 6th century AD, a third martyr is mentioned along with Juventius and Maximus—another soldier named Longinus, who along with his companions, was accounted a valiant man, a champion and a soldier of Christ who confounded Julian and stripped off his cloak of deceitfulness. See Hymns of Severus in Patrologia Orientalis, Tomus Septimus, page 612 [200] 

For more posts on Julian the Apostate, see:

• A passionate longing to acquire (and destroy) books ~ The cognitive dissonance of Julian the Apostate
• "You have won, O Galilean!" ~ Who killed Julian the Apostate?
• "He hated the entire city intensely" ~ St. Eupsychius and Julian the Apostate's reaction to the destruction of the Temple of Fortune in Caesarea in Cappadocia
• "Martyrs Neither Ignoble Nor Few" ~ The death of Hypatia and mob violence against Christians during the reign of Julian the Apostate

December 2 ~ Saint Bibiana, 4th century martyr during the reign of Julian the Apostate.

Saint Bibiana refuses to sacrifice to the pagan gods, by Pietro da Cortona, AD 1626.
This fresco is from the Church of St. Bibiana in Rome.

On December 2, Christians commemorate Saint Bibiana, a Roman martyr of the 4th century AD. Unfortunately, the facts about Bibiana's martyrdom are few as the surviving account of her passion is considered unreliable, recorded as it was centuries after her death. We know for sure that Bibiana was an early martyr as a shrine was built for her in Rome which exists to this day. Sadly, the present-day Church of St. Bibiana sits adjacent to the Termini train station in a shabby section of Rome, complete with graffiti, even on the exterior walls of the Church itself. 

We know that the original church was built by Pope Saint Simplicius in the late 5th century as there is a notice in the Liber Pontificalis for his reign which states:

"He dedicated…another basilica of the blessed martyr Bibiana within the city of Rome beside the Licinian palace where her body rests." [Loomis, Liber Pontificalis, p. 105]

Alban Butler in his Lives of the Saints, attempted to disentangle the factual bits of the martyrdom account of St. Bibiana from the fictional interpolations of later ages. His account may be read in full here: December 2: Saint Bibiana, Virgin and Martyr

Street-side view of the church of St. Bibiana in Rome as it looks today.
It has been rebuilt and renovated extensively over the centuries so that little
of the original church erected by Pope Simplicius remains. 

In summary, Bibiana's family (father Flavianus, mother Dafrosa, and sister Demetria) were devout Christians and ran afoul of the prefect of Rome who was apparently a pagan. Flavianus, a man of some stature, was stripped of his rank, tortured and banished. He would die of his injuries a short time thereafter. Dafrosa was imprisoned in her house and later beheaded outside Rome. Demetria and Bibiana survived for some months and it seems that the prefect attempted to compel them to sacrifice to the pagan divinities. The women suffered starvation and torture when they would not accede to his demands. Demetria apparently expired while standing before the tribunal. Bibiana remained steadfast in her confession and were thereupon scourged to death.

In his account, Butler says that the prefect of Rome at the time was a man named Apronianus who was appointed to his position by the emperor Julian the Apostate. Apronianus is mentioned several times in the Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, a contemporary historian of Julian who was favorable to him. In Book XXVI, Chapter 3 of this work, Marcellinus gives us a fascinating account of the goings on at Rome during Apronianus's tenure:

While the changing lots of the fates were unfolding these events in the Orient, Apronianus, prefect of the eternal city, a just and strict official, among urgent cares with which that office is often burdened, made it his first main effort that the sorcerers, who at that time were becoming few in number, should be arrested, and that those who, after having been put to the question, were clearly convicted of having harmed anybody, after naming their accomplices, should be punished with death. And that thus through the danger to a few, the remainder, if any were still in concealment, might be driven away through dread of a similar fate. In this work he is said to have shown special activity for the following reason, namely, that after his appointment by authority of Julian, when he was still living in Syria, he had lost one eye on the way, and suspecting that he had been attacked by wicked arts, with justifiable but extraordinary resentment he tracked out these and other crimes with great energy. 

In this he seemed cruel to some because more than once during the races in the amphitheater, while throngs of people were crowding in, he investigated the greatest crimes. Finally, after many punishments of this kind, a charioteer called Hilarinus was convicted on his own confession of having entrusted his son, who had barely reached the age of puberty, to a mixer of poisons to be instructed in certain secret practices forbidden by law, in order to use his help at home without other witnesses. And he was condemned to death. But since the executioner was lax in guarding him, the man suddenly escaped and took refuge in a chapel of the Christian sect. However, he was at once dragged from there and beheaded. But efforts were still made to check these and similar offenses, and none, or at any rate very few, who were engaged in such abominations defied the public diligence. 

But later, long-continued impunity nourished these monstrous offences, and lawlessness went so far that a certain senator followed the example of Hilarinus, and was convicted of having apprenticed a slave of his almost by a written contract to a teacher of evil practices to be initiated into criminal secrets. But he bought escape from the death penalty, as current gossip asserted, for a large sum of money. And this very man, after being freed in the manner alleged, although he ought to be ashamed of his life and his offense, has made no effort to get rid of the stain on his character, but as if among many wicked men he alone was free from any fault, mounts a caparisoned horse and rides over the pavements, and even now is followed by great bands of slaves, by a new kind of distinction aiming to draw special attention to himself. Just as we hear of Duillius of old, that after that glorious sea-fight, he assumed the privilege, when he returned home after a dinner, of having a flute-player play soft music before him.

However, under this Apronianus there was such a constant abundance of all the necessary articles of food, that there never arose even the slightest murmur about a scarcity of victuals — a thing which constantly happens in Rome. [Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, Book XXVI, Chapter 3].

It is especially interesting to note that the condemned charioteer, Hilarinus, sought refuge in a Christian church, and also that he was dragged out by the magistrates of Apronianus who, apparently, had little respect for said churches as places of sanctuary. This may also indicate that Apronianus was using the accusation of sorcery—a crime that even Roman pagans had condemned for centuries—as a way to incriminate Christians. It should be remembered that Julian had specifically enjoined his officers not to persecute Christians directly in the style of Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian, but to act against them with more subtlety. 

A passionate longing to acquire (and destroy) books ~ The cognitive dissonance of Julian the Apostate

Bust from the Capitoline Museum which is thought to be Julian the Apostate.

In doing some research on the previous post, I ran across this intriguing letter from Julian the Apostate to Ecdicius, the Prefect of Egypt. Julian wrote the letter at the end of January in AD 362 and it follows up on the assassination of George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria, by a pagan mob in his city.

Here is the brief letter in full:

Some men have a passion for horses, others for birds, others, again, for wild beasts; but I, from childhood, have been penetrated by a passionate longing to acquire books. It would therefore be absurd if I should suffer these to be appropriated by men whose inordinate desire for wealth gold alone cannot satiate, and who unscrupulously design to steal these also. Do you therefore grant me this personal favor, that all the books which belonged to George be sought out. For there were in his house many on philosophy, and many on rhetoric; many also on the teachings of the impious Galilaeans [ie, the Christians]. These latter I should wish to be utterly annihilated, but for fear that along with them more useful works may be destroyed by mistake, let all these also be sought for with the greatest care. 

Let George's secretary take charge of this search for you, and if he hunts for them faithfully let him know that he will obtain his freedom as a reward, but that if he prove in any way whatever dishonest in the business he will be put to the test of torture. And I know what books George had, many of them, at any rate, if not all; for he lent me some of them to copy, when I was in Cappadocia, and these he received back. [Taken from Julian the Apostate, Letters, Works Vol. 3]

He wrote another very similar letter to a certain Porphyrius (perhaps the secretary of George mentioned above) about six months later from Antioch, indicating that the desired books had not yet arrived.

How many interesting insights into the paradoxical character of Julian can be fit into a single letter? First, Julian reveals his passion for books. Within a few sentences, however, he declares his wish that the books of the Christians be destroyed. This sentiment is very much in keeping with the previous edict of Diocletian and Galerius during the Great Persecution that sought to destroy all Christian literature. More on this topic may be found here, here, and here.

Also of note is that Julian and George of Alexandria were on good terms at one point — good enough for him to lend Julian precious books and for Julian to be intimately familiar with the contents of George's library. After George's murder at the hands of a pagan mob in Alexandria, Julian wrote an admonitory letter to the Alexandrian pagans which, again, seems to reveal something quite paradoxical in his character. It includes the following excerpt:

Now compare this letter of mine with the one that I wrote to you a short time ago, and mark the difference well. What words of praise for you did I write then! But now, by the gods, though I wish to praise you, I cannot, because you have broken the law. Your citizens dare to tear a human being in pieces as dogs tear a wolf, and then are not ashamed to lift to the gods those hands still dripping with blood! But, you will say, George deserved to be treated in this fashion. Granted, and I might even admit that he deserved even worse and more cruel treatment. Yes, you will say, and on your account. To this I too agree; but if you say by your hands, I no longer agree.
[Taken from Julian the Apostate, Letters, Works Vol. 3]

Here Julian seems to display an admirable desire that the law be enforced by those legally bound to do so, as opposed to a bloodthirsty mob. He expresses his disappointment that his allies, the pagans of Alexandria, have resorted to lawlessness in their desire to destroy George who was viewed as their common enemy. However, his respect for the law apparently doesn't extend to punishing the the murderers of George. He says:

It is a fortunate thing for you, men of Alexandria, that this transgression of yours occurred in my reign, since by reason of my reverence for the god and out of regard for my uncle and namesake, who governed the whole of Egypt and your city also, I preserve for you the affection of a brother. For power that would be respected and a really strict and unswerving government would never overlook an outrageous action of a people, but would rather purge it away by bitter medicine, like a serious disease. But, for the reasons I have just mentioned, I administer to you the very mildest remedy, namely admonition and arguments, by which I am very sure that you will be the more convinced if you really are, as I am told, originally Greeks, and even to this day there remains in your dispositions and habits a notable and honourable impress of that illustrious descent. [Taken from Julian the Apostate, Letters, Works Vol. 3]

So to recap, Julian became furiously angry at the Christians in Caesarea who pulled down the Temple of Fortune and enacted new and severe laws against them. He also expressed his opinion that the crimes of George of Alexandria deserved "worse and more cruel treatment" than to be torn to pieces by a mob. At the same time, he gave the pagans of Alexandria who did the tearing in pieces a free pass while mouthing his profound respect for proper legal procedure.

Such a fascinating and enigmatic man was Julian. Was he a man of intense cunning, like a modern politician who uses the law to advance his agenda, while ignoring it when it hampers him? Or was he simply a true believer who unwittingly practiced situational cognitive dissonance, adopting whatever path seemed right to him at the time, even when his beliefs conflicted in very obvious ways?

I tend to think he was the former.

Interestingly the "uncle and namesake" mentioned above is Julianus who was at one point a high official in Alexandria and later served as Comes Orientis under Julian. He died a particularly horrifying death.

"He hated the entire city intensely" ~ St. Eupsychius and Julian the Apostate's reaction to the destruction of the Temple of Fortune in Caesarea in Cappadocia

A mosaic portrait of an anonymous young saint from the Rotunda
of St. George in Thessaloniki, Greece, 4th century AD.

April 9 is the traditional feast day of the little known saint, Eupsychius of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Though he lived after the time of Constantine, Eupsychius was a martyr who suffered during the reign of Julian the Apostate. His crime, apparently, was his role in the destruction of the Temple of Fortune in Caesarea ca. AD 362 immediately after the accession of Julian to the imperial throne. The historian Hermias Sozomen, writing about 80 years after the event, provides the only close-contemporary account of Eupsychius’s death:

It is said that about this period, Basil, presbyter of the church of Ancyra, and Eupsychius, a noble of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who had but just taken to himself a wife and was still a bridegroom, terminated their lives by martyrdom. I believe that Eupsychius was condemned in consequence of the demolition of the temple of Fortune, which, as I have already stated, excited the anger of the emperor against all the inhabitants of Caesarea. Indeed, all the actors in this transaction were condemned, some to death, and others to banishment. [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter XI]

Later accounts add legendary details to the trial and passion of Eupsychius, but these are not considered reliable. For more information, see this article in the journal Harvard Ukrainian Studies, "The Two Faces of Saint Eupsychius."

Sozomen goes on to say explicitly that these executions and banishments were “perpetrated contrary to the will of the emperor,” who had adopted a less rigorous method of dealing with his former co-religionists. However, Julian was apparently so angry with the destruction of the temple of Fortune in Caesarea that he decided to inflict a severe punishment on the city’s reputation, the Christian clerics living therein, and the Christian community in the city more generally:

[T]he emperor erased Caesarea, the large and wealthy metropolis of Cappadocia, situated near Mount Argeus, from the catalogue of cities, and even deprived it of the name of Caesarea, which had been conferred upon it during the reign of Claudius Caesar, its former name having been Mazaca. He had long regarded the inhabitants of this city with extreme aversion, because they were zealously attached to Christianity, and had formerly destroyed the temple of the ancestral Apollo and that of Jupiter, the tutelar deity of the city. The temple dedicated to Fortune, the only one remaining in the city, was overturned by the Christians after his accession; and on hearing of the deed, he hated the entire city intensely and could scarce endure it. [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter IV]

Julian as depicted on a bronze coin.

This passage is interesting because it shows that as early as AD 360, this major city which is located right in the middle of Asia Minor had a large, active and predominately Christian population who frequently came into conflict with their pagan neighbors. A century before, Caesarea had been taken and pillaged by the Persians in the aftermath of the defeat of Valerian. The Byzantine historian Zonaras, writing some 700 years later, claims that the city had a population of some 400,000 at the time of the sack and that Persians “destroyed everyone” after penetrating the city’s defenses. [The History of Zonaras, Book XII]

The city recovered during the intervening hundred years, perhaps becoming a haven for Christians at this time. In the late 4th century, it would go on to become the most important bishopric under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the see of Saint Basil the Great, and an important center of learning and culture. In his funeral oration for Saint Basil in AD 381, Saint Gregory Nazianzen describes Caesarea as: "this illustrious city of ours...the guide and mistress of my studies, the metropolis of letters, no less than of the cities which she excels and reigns over." [Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XLIII)

Julian’s anger at the destruction of the Temple of Fortune extended to frustration with the lukewarm pagan population of the city who, he felt, should have resisted more stoutly, even to the point of giving their lives for their gods as the Christians undeniably did for Christ. Though stopping short of enforcing capital punishment upon the destroyers of the temple himself, Julian’s nonetheless exacted a heavy penalty from the Christian community in Caesarea and threatened much worse:

Click for more info.

He also blamed the pagans, who were few in number, but who ought, he said, to have hastened to the temple, and, if necessary, to have suffered cheerfully for Fortune. He caused all possessions and money belonging to the churches of the city and suburbs of Caesarea to be rigorously sought out and carded away; about three hundred pounds of gold, obtained from this source, were conveyed to the public treasury. He also commanded that all the clergy should be enrolled among the troops under the governor of the province, which is accounted the most arduous and least honorable service among the Romans. He ordered the Christian populace to be numbered, women and children inclusive, and imposed taxes upon them as onerous as those to which villages are subjected.

He further threatened that, unless their temples were speedily re-erected, his wrath would not be appeased, but would be visited on the city, until none of the Galileans remained in existence, for this was the name which, in derision, he was wont to give to the Christians. There is no doubt but that his menaces would have been fully executed had not death quickly intervened. [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter IV]

Julian perished shortly thereafter during his ill-fated campaign against Persia, thereby ending the brief resurgence of paganism.

Sozomen proceeds to offer an explanation of Julian’s strategy for dealing with his hated Christian foes — certainly a more nuanced approach than that of his predecessors:

It was not from any feeling of compassion towards the Christians that he treated them at first with greater humanity than had been evinced by former persecutors, but because he had discovered that paganism had derived no advantage from their tortures, while Christianity had been especially increased, and had become more honored by the fortitude of those who died in defense of the faith. [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book V, Chapter IV]

Sozomen’s observations here seem to be borne out by Julian’s own writings and surviving edicts which emphasize, at the same time, his hatred for Christianity and his desire to use less violent methods to defeat the followers of Christ.

Based on Sozomen’s comments, it is most likely that the martyrdom of Saint Eupsychius was ordered and carried out by the local governor in Caesarea without consulting the emperor, rather than overtly or surreptitiously commanded by Julian himself. However, the harsh punishments inflicted by Julian upon the entire Caesarean Christian community in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple of Fortune seem like an overreaction. Perhaps Julian, like Galerius and Diocletian before him, was anxious to use such rash acts by groups of overly zealous Christians as a rationale for the enactment of more repressive measures against the Christian community.

It is also possible that the martyrdom of Saint Eupsychius was another example of the type of spontaneous mob violence against Christians that seemed to erupt across the Greek east during Julian's reign. Given Sozomen's comment that the pagans in Caesarea were few in number, however, this seems less likely.