13 Policy on Jews
Public Declaration by Julian
1 March 363
This declaration, addressed to all the Jews in the Empire, was probably promulgated at Antioch in the beginning of March 363, on the outbreak of the war with the Persians, presumably after consultations with representatives of Jewish communities.
Its text has been preserved in a collection of Julian’s letters which was published for the first time at the end of the fourth century, and again in the beginning of the sixth century, probably by a Christian from Alexandria. Our text certainly formed part of the collection published in the second edition, for it is cited by Sozomenus, who used this edition in his work.Like other fourth century sources, this text was intensively examined by philologists in search for literary forgeries. Heiller was the first to question its authenticity, and his conclusions were gradually accepted by other students of this text. Vogt may be taken as a typical example of this hyper-critical attitude; he believed that the text is a literary forgery executed in the early fifth century by a Jew who benefited from a neoplatonic education. He argued that a linguistic comparison of this text and Julian’s authentic works resulted in enough important differences to rule out the hypothesis of a common authorship. Other arguments bear on the supposedly false historical circumstances adduced by our text. Vogt found it difficult to believe that Julian could have manifested a favourable attitude towards the Jews, to the extent of calling the patriarch “brother” or of treating the Jewish cult with respect. He misunderstood, finally, some of the measures announced in this document, such as Julian’s intervention in order to abolish the Apostles Tax.
These arguments were entirely refuted by Hack, Levy, and Stern, who came to the conclusion that Vogt not only exaggerated the linguistic peculiarity of this text against Julian’s other works, but that it conformed to Julian’s ideas and policies as well as to the official terminology employed in the Imperial Chancellery of the fourth century. The Scriptural citations found in our text, finally, a notorious clue in unmasking Jewish forgers, may not necessarily point in this direction, for Julian was conversant with the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, thanks to his Christian upbringing, and made good use of this knowledge in his polemics against the Christians. It was only natural for him to turn to it when he addressed his Jewish subjects. Recent studies tend, therefore, to accept this text as genuine.In this declaration Julian publicized the practical measures he adopted in the framework of his general Jewish policy, which was determined by his master plan to integrate Judaism in a polytheistic- imperial system strong enough to oppose Christianity. He emphasized that he expected the Jews to respond to his favourable measures concerning their welfare and religion, by manifestations of loyalty in the religious sphere, namely prayers for him and renewal of the Temple cult in Jerusalem. Three practical measures are announced in this context:
(A) cancellation of outstanding debts originating in illegal taxes imposed on the Jews in the past, and aborting the imposition of a new tax of this kind;
(B) “recommendation” to the Patriarch Hillel II to abolish the Apostle-tax and similar taxes;
(C) restoration of Jerusalem and its settlement with Jews, and by implication restoration of the Temple.1
The draftsmen of this text made use of formulae well known in the Imperial Chancellery, such as the Milan declaration of 313 with its grant of freedom of religion to the Christians, and the traditional prayer for the welfare of the emperor, which originated probably in the Hellenistic Jewish communities but was adopted by Jewish and Christian communities alike.
From Christian sources we know that the authorities started the promised restoration of the Temple with the active participation of the Jews, but that work was interrupted by various accidents in the building site, which were seen by the Christians as miraculous omens, and finally stopped after Julian’s death.
Julian referred to his decision to restore the Temple in a fragment of a letter which was inserted into his letter to Themistius. The identification of this fragment’s date and addressee is still problematical, but the common opinion among historians is that it was addressd to Theodorus, the Supreme Priest in Asia, and that it should be dated to a time subsequent to our text. An earlier dating, however, to a time prior to the beginning of the restoration works, perhaps even before the publication of our text,2 would be in accord with its references to the Temple as still in ruin.Epistulae, 51 (Hertlein, No. 25), ed. W.C. Wright, pp. 176-181
Ιουδαίων τφ κοινφ*
Πάνυ ύμϊν φορτικώτατον γεγένηται έπί των παρφχηκότων καιρών των ζυγών τής δουλείας τό διαγραφαϊς άκηρύκτοις ύποτάττεσθαι ύμάς καί χρυσίου πλήθος άφατον είσκομίζειν τοϊς τού ταμιείου λόγοις* ών πολ- 5 λά μέν αύτοψεί έθεώρουν, πλείονα δέ τούτων έμαθον εύρών τά βρέβια τά καθ’ ύμών φυλαττόμενα.
*Ετι δέ καί μέλλουσαν πάλιν εισφοράν καθ’ ύμών προστάττεσθαι είρξα, καί τό τής τοιαύτης δυσφημίας άσέβημα ένταήθα έβιασάμην στήσαι, καί πυρί παρέδωκα τά βρέβια* τά καθ’ ύμών έν τοΐς έμοις σκρινίοις* άποκείμενα, ώς μηκέτι δύνασθαι καθ’ ίο ύμών τινά τοιαύτην άκοντίζειν άσεβείας φήμην. Καί τούτων μέν ύμϊν ού τοσοΰτον αίτιος κατέστη ό τής μνήμης άξιος Κωνστάντιος όάδελφός, όσον οί τήν γνώμην βάρβαροι* και τήν ψυχήν άθεοι, οί τήν τούτου τράπεζαν έστιώμενοι, οΰς έγώ μέν έν χερσίν έμαίς λαβόμενος είς βόθρον* ώσας ώλεσα, ώς μηδέ μνήμην έτι φέρεσθαι παρ’ ήμίν της 15 αύτών άπωλείας.
Έπί πλέον δέ ύμας εύωχείσθαι βουλόμενος, τόν άδελφόν *Ιουλον,* τόν αιδεσιμότατον πατριάρχην, παρήνεσα καί τήν λεγομένην είναι παρ’ ύμίν άποστολήν* κωλυθήναι, καί μηκέτι δύ- νασθαι τά πλήθη ύμών τινά άδικείν τοιαύταις φόρων είσπράξεσιν, ώς πανταχόθεν ύμίν τό άμέριμνον ύπάρχειν έπί τής έμής βασιλείας, ίνα ά- 20 πολαύοντες ειρήνης* έτι μείζονας εύχάς ποιήσθε ύπέρ τής έμής βασιλείας τφ πάντων κρείττονι καί δημιουργώ θεώ,* τω καταξιώσαντι στέψαι με τή άχράντφ αύτοΰ δεξιςί.* Πέφυκε γάρ τούς έν τινι μερίμνη έξεταζομένους περιδέίσθαι τήν διάνοιαν καί μή τοσοΰτον είς τήν προσευχήν τάς χέίρας άνατείνειν τολμάν, τούς δέ πανταχόθεν έχοντας 25 τό άμέριμνον όλοκλήρφ ψυχή χαίροντας ύπέρ τού βασιλείου Ικέτηρίους λατρείας ποιέίσθαι τω μείζονι, τω δυναμένφ κατευθΰναι τήν βασιλείαν ήμών έπί τά κάλλιστα, καθάπερ προαιρούμεθα. *Οπερ χρή ποιείν ύμάς, ίνα κάγώ τόν των Περσών πόλεμον* διορθωσάμενος τήν έκ πολλών έτών έπιθυμουμένην παρ’ ύμών ίδείν οικουμένην πόλιν 3ο άγίαν 'Ιερουσαλήμ έμοίς καμάτοις άνοικοδομήσας οίκίσω καί έν αύτή δόξαν δώ* μεθ* ύμών τω κρείττονι.TO THE COMMUNITY OF THE JEWS3
The worst burden of the yoke of slavery imposed upon you in the past has been that you were subjected to unpublished taxes and obliged to bring in to the Accounts Department of the Treasury an ineffable quantity of gold.
Much of these I have seen myself, and much more I learnt when I discovered the tax-lists4 kept against you. Furthermore, I prevented that a tax be imposed again on you, caused the impiety derived from such infamy to be stopped, and put in fire the lists laid up against you in my offices,5 so that no more could one throw against you such an ill-fame of godlessness. My brother Constantins, worthy of remembrance, is not as guilty of these things against you as are those barbarians in mind6 and godless in spirit who ate at his table, whom I seized with my hands, threw into a pit,7 and exterminated, so that not even the memory of their extermination shall remain with us in the future. Wishing you to fare even better, I have recommended to my brother Julus,8 the most reverent patriarch, that that which is called among you apostle-tax9 be abolished, and that in the future no one could harm your multitudes by exacting such taxes, so that you shall have freedom from care in every way during my reign and, enjoying peace,10 you shall make even greater supplication for my reign to God, the mightiest of all, the creator,11 who found me worthy to be crowned with his immaculate right hand.12 For it is natural that those who are visited by some care are preoccupied and do not have even the courage to raise their hands in prayer, while those that are entirely free from any care shall—rejoicing with their whole heart—perform the supplication-service for my Imperial authority to the Greatest, in whose power it is to direct my reign for the best, according to my purpose. This you must do, in order that I myself, once I have terminated well the war with the Persians,13 shall rebuild and settle on my expense Jerusalem the holy city, which you have longed for many years to see settled, and in her I shall honour14 the Greatest with you.NOTES
1. See Linder, pp. 136-141.
2. See Bidez & Cumont, No. 89b, pp. 127-146; Wright, II, pp. 295-339.
3. Community: the Greek term κοινόν, like its Latin equivalent ‘concilium’, designated, in the political context of the Later Empire, a provincial organization of cities representing the whole population of that province. These organizations dealt with a wide variety of common problems, and maintained direct contacts with the provincial authorities as well as with the central government. See, for instance, the rescript of Alexander Severus to the ‘concilium of the Hellens in Bithynia’, preserved in the Digest (Dig.style='font-size:8.5pt;font-style:normal'> 49:1:25) and in Papyrus Oxyrinchus XVII: U. Wilcken, “Urkunden-Referat No. X: P. Oxy. XVII,” Archiv für Papyrusfor- schung, IX (1930), pp. 89-92; P. Μ. Meyer, “Die Epistula Severi Alexandri Dig. XLIX,1,25 = P. Oxy. XVII 2104,” Studi Bonfante, II, Milan 1930, pp. 341-344. Unlike the Western ‘concilia’, the Eastern organizations sometimes corresponded to nations and ancient cult-communities. The sources employ this term with the genitive of the province’s name, such as κοινόν ’Ασίας... Κιλικίας... Συρίας, or, more frequently, with the genitive of the province’s inhabitants, such as κοινόν Θρακών έν Φιλιπποπόλει... Μακεδόνων. .. Γαλατών... Λυκίων... Κυπρίων, etc. Julian’s declaration seems to have been addressed to such a κοινόν in Palestine, or in another province, for it was issued after consultations with Jews, according to the evidence of Gregory of Nazianzus and Socrates Scholasticus. See Λόγοι, 11:4, ed. C. Clemencet & A. B. Caillau, PG, XXXV, Col. 668; Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία, 111:20, ed. H. Valesius, PG, LXVII, Col. 429. It is impossible to identify this κοινόν positively, due to the omission of the geographic term from the inscription of our text. On the κοινόν consult Μ. de Dominicis, “Il ‘Concilium provinciae’ nell’organizzazione amministrativa del basso impero,” Scritti romanistici, Padua 1970, pp. 265-304; Kornemann, PW, 1:7, 1900, s.v. Concilium, Cols. 801-830; idem, PW, Suppl. IV, 1924, s.v. Κοινόν, Cols. 914-941.
4. Tax-lists: the Latin term ‘brevia’ in Greek transcription. It generally covers the whole range of working-papers produced by the Imperial administration in course of its activity, such as lists, summaries, memoranda, and statistical reports.
5. Offices: the Latin term ‘scrinia’ in Greek transcription. It signified, originally, the boxes used to keep books and documents, but in the fourth century the term ‘scrinia publica’ designated the chancellery offices responsible for the various types of official correspondence, and consequently for a wide variety of government functions, such as judicial, legislative, and fiscal activities.
6. Barbarians in mind: this phrase alludes to the purge carried out among Constantins’ closest associates shortly after Julian’s arrival at Constantinople on 11 December 361. The special court established for that purpose issued death sentences on Ursulas, formerly Count of the Sacred Largesses, Eusebius, Praepositus Sacri Cubiculi, Paul, notary, and the Executive-Agent Apodemius. The last two were executed at the stake, while many others were either executed or exiled. This purge of the officials who shared responsibility for the fall and execution of Gallus, Julian’s brother, was favourably received by important sections of the population, who disapproved of the expansion of the civil administration in court and the recruitment of its personnel from candidates of inferior status and origin rather than from the army. Paul, the notary, is of a particular interest in the context of our law, for in 359 he organized a series of political trials against many members of the aristocracy and the highest officials of the East, most of them from Egypt. As these trials were held in Bethsan, he was bound to come into contact with the predominantly Jewish population of the Galilee, and one can assume that this influenced him in the direction recorded by Julian. See Stein, I, pp. 167-168; C. Vogler, Constance et iadministration imperials, Strasbourg 1979, pp. 147, 189-190, 220, 242. The reference to Constantius in our text is very similar to that employed by Julian in his letter to Hermogenes, Prefect of Egypt in 361. See Bidez & Cumont, No. 33, pp. 40-41.
7. Pit: an allusion to the Pagan term είς βόθρον θύειν, referring to sacrifices to spirits of the nether world, but one detects also echoes of the Septuagint translation to Sirach xxi:10 and Ps.size=1> xciii: 13.
8. Julus was the Patriarch Hillel II, who held office probably between 320 and 365 or 370. See H. Gratz, Geschichte der Juden4, Leipzig 1908, IV, p. 449; Stern, op. cit., p. 563.
9. Apostle-tax was designated by the Latin term ‘aurum coronarium’, and in the Jewish sources by,σ>η3Γΐ5 ΓψΊΥ Π3Λ»,xW?3 Ί31 ,κρΟ’Β,ΓΠΪ». The Archsynagogues were responsible for collecting the money raised for this tax and transferring it to Palestine in the hands of special Palestinian “apostles.” The proceeds were employed for the upkeep of the patriarch and his establishment, as well as the Sages. See Juster, I, pp. 385-390; H. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, Cambridge, Mass., 1961, pp. 195-198.
10. Peace: a conjecture of Reiske to replace a lacuna in the manuscripttradition. See the apparatus criticus in Wright’s edition (Loeb Classical Library), p. 178.
11. Creator: Julian followed lamblichus, who identified the god of the Jews with the demiurge in Plato’s Timaeus.
12. Right hand: an epithet frequently used by lamblichus. Julian alluded here to Helios, demiurge and Rome’s principal god.
13. The war with the Persians: the declaration was issued by the chancellery in the beginning of the war against the Persians, in March 363. Julian was to perish in its course (26 June).
14. Honour: see the Septuagint translation to DTfrKb TV *ύΠ: δότε δόξαν τω θεω (Ps. lxvii:35).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heyler, Juliani Imperatoris quae Feruntur Epistolae, Mainz 1828; M. Adler, “The Emperor Julian and the Jews,” JQR, V (1893), pp. 615-651; Seeck, Regesten, p. 212; J. Bidez & F. Cumont, Imperatoris Caesaris Flavii Claudii luliani Epistulae, Leges, Poemata, Fragmenta varia, Paris 1922, pp. 192-193, 279-281; J. Bidez, La vie de Vempereur Julien, Paris 1930, pp. 305-309; J. Vogt, Kaiser Julian und das Judentum, Leipzig 1939, pp. 64-68; M. Hack, “Is Julian’s Declaration a Forgery?,” Yavneh, II (1939), pp. 118-139; idem, “Remarks on ‘Julianus and the Building of the Temple’,” Zion, VI (1940-1941), pp. 157-158 (in Hebrew); Y. Levy, “Julianus Caesar and the Building of the Temple,” Studies in Jewish Hellenism, Jerusalem 1960, pp. 221-254 (in Hebrew); W. den Boer, “Two Letters from the Corpus lulianeum,” Vigiliae Christianae, XVI (1962), pp. 187-197; J. G. Gager, “The Dialogue of Paganism with Judaism—Bar Cochba to Julian,” HUCA, XLIV (1973), pp. 97-101; Avi-Yonah, pp. 193-196; S. P. Brock, “The Rebuilding of the Temple under Julian: A New Source,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, CVIII (1976), pp. 103-107; G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, London 1978, pp. 8890, 120-122; C. Aziza, “Julien et le Judaisme,” in: R. Braun & J. Richer, eds. L’Empereur Julien: de I’histoire d la legende (331-1715), Paris 1978, pp. 150-158; M. Stern, Greek and Roman Authors on Jews and Judaism, II, Jerusalem 1980, pp. 508-510, 559-568.