Matthew Crawford: Theotokos between Christians and Pagans: Julian, Cyril, and Nestorius on the Mother of God(s)

The Emperor Julian was raised as a Christian, and, despite his abandonment of the faith, still engaged in Church disputes regarding the divinity of Christ, agreeing with the bishop Photinus, for example, that it is absurd to imagine the deity inhabiting a human womb (Letter55). In his Contra Galileos, Julian even twice mentioned the term theotokos, acknowledging its frequent usage by Christians and denying its suitability as a description of Mary. In one of the two fragments containing the term, Julian once again named the same Photinus as being a part of a contemporary debate over the identity of the one born from Mary. In order to contextualize these statements from Julian, this paper will examine the usage of the term theotokos prior to the Nestorian controversy when it became a topic of intense debate between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. It will then ask whether there is any continuity between Julian’s repudiation of the idea of theotokos and Nestorius’s rejection of the term, as well as any continuity between Cyril’s rebuttal to Julian’s CG and his defense of the term against the bishop of Constantinople. Finally, the paper will address the recent suggestion from Susanna Elm that Julian’s own Hymn to the Mother of the Gods may be read as a sort of rival, pagan version of the Christian idea of Mary as theotokos.

Marie-Odile Boulnois: The biblical text and its variants in the debate between Julian and Cyril : the case of Genesis 6,2 and 49,10

The biblical argument plays a considerable role in Julian’s controversy against Christianity and has certainly contributed to the "incomparable efficiency" of his work, as pointed out by his adversary Cyril of Alexandria. This communication will focus on two verses Gn 49, 10 and Gn 6, 2 invoked by Julian to refute the idea that Moses spoke, either of the coming of Jesus, or of an Only-Begotten Son of God. The specificity of this debate is that it concerns not only the interpretation of these verses, but the very form of the biblical text, its possible falsification or the existence of marginalia.

Michael Hanaghan: Christian Visions and Sozomen’s Julian

According to Sozomen (6.2), a friend of the emperor Julian lodged in a church as he traveled into Persia to join up with the emperor. On successive nights a dream vision appeared to him in which a group of apostles and prophets predicted Julian’s death. Soon afterwards Julian, mortally wounded by an unknown assailant in battle, threw his blood into the air. Sozomen provides competing explanations for this behavior, including that Julian hoped to besmear a vision of Christ which had just appeared to him.This paper argues that these stories respond to Julian’s criticism of Christianity in his Contra Galilaeos. At Contra Galilaeos339E-340A Julian criticizes Christians for soliciting dream visions and cites Isaiah 65.4 in support of his condemnation. For Julian solicited dream-visions (enupnia) are a form of trickery (magganeia). Sozomen’s inclusion of this story makes Julian’s friend the proxy target of Julian’s criticism for his conscious decision to spend another night in the church so that the revelatory dream could complete itself. In Contra Galilaeos358D-E Julian cites Genesis15 to show that the appearance of God to Abraham occurs after sacrifice and darkness. In Sozomen’s account darkness descends on the battle just before Julian’s sacrificial throwing of his own blood in reaction to his vision of Christ.Sozomen’s account justifies his claim that divine wrath caused Julian’s death, highlights Julian’s failure to predict it, and reveals that Christian criticism of Julian continued to develop in reaction to Contra Galilaeos.

Brad Boswell: What is an ἀποπομπαίος? Cyril and Julian on Sacrificial Goats

This paper offers a preliminary account of the dueling exegetical strategies carried out in Against Julian, Cyril of Alexandria’s polemical response to Julian ‘the Apostate’.  Through a close reading of Against Julian9.13-20, I show that without considering Cyril and Julian as representatives of systematically rival traditions of life and thought, our analyses run the risk of obscuring key features of Cyril’s treatise.This becomes clear as I build on Christoph Riedweg’s illuminating analysis[1] of ἀποπομπαίος and ἀποτρόπαιος, ambiguous terms which are nevertheless central to Against Julian9.13-20. They are critical, first, in Julian’s attempt to assimilate the Mosaic sacrificial ritual in Leviticus 16 to his own religious practice; and, second, in Cyril’s alternative exegesis which treats the two goats treated therein as an αἴνιγμα, pointing to the μυστήριον Χριστοῡ. Riedweg’s philological research clarifies the semantic possibilities of these terms; but, his final evaluation – which suggests that Cyril and Julian each forced a literal interpretation on their opponent while reserving allegorical interpretation as a ‘Zaubermittel’ for their own exegetical quandaries – needs modification and expansion.  By reading this passage as an individual instance of systematic narrative conflict between traditions we can begin to offer a more expansive and robust account of the exegetical duels of Against Julian.

[1] Christoph Riedweg, "Exegese Als Kampfmittel in Der Auseinandersetzung Zwischen Heiden Und Christen: Zum 'Sündenbock' Von Lev 16 Bei Julian Und Kyrill Von Alexandrien," Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 16, no. 3 (2012).

Aaron Johnson: A Conflict of Interpretations: A Response on the Bible in Julian and the Christians

A significant amount of weight seems to have been given by Cyril's contemporaries to Julian's knowledge of the Scriptures. In fact, the majority of the contra Julianum engages directly with Julian's interpretations of a wide array of biblical passages. Three papers in this workshop are dedicated to the issue of Julian's interpretations and Cyril's or Sozomen's responses. My paper will interact with these papers and indicate directions for further investigation.

Eirini Artemi: Cyril of Alexandria and Julian the Emperor in dialogue for the ancient Greek philosophy and paganism

In the 5th century, Cyril of Alexandria wrote a large apologetic work, as a response to Julian the Apostate’s anti-Christian work Against the Galileans. Aside from the obvious divide of one being a Christian and one a pagan, Cyril's religious views were very different from Julian's. Julian's arguments against the Christian doctrine do not greatly differ from those used in the second century by Celsus, and by Porphyry in the third and he regarded the relations between Neoplatonic criticism of Christian Word. As a pagan, Julian had adopted the Platonic and Neoplatonic conception of the one God. Cyril doesn’t stack up against the Platonic one. Cyril’s goal in responding to Julian is, therefore, to help the sceptical reader to find the real faith. Cyril invokes precisely the evidence of Platonist philosophers in favour of the Trinitarian doctrine. Cyril shows, unlike Julian, that the Greek philosophers accept the three principal hypostases and using the term triad, they agree with Christian teaching. So, ancient philosophers as Porphyry supported that the substance of the divinity has proceeded towards three hypostases. Cyril doesn’t only confront Julian’s view against Christian, but he also confirms something that Justin the Martyr supported centuries ago about the spermatikos Logos. In this paper, we will examine this two works, Against the Galileans of Julian and Against Julian of Cyril, not only from their theological opinions but as arguments using the “common images" (εἰκότα), the possible logical arguments, in supporting the positions of Julian and Cyril in a legal struggle.