by Sean Jobst
22 October 2018
Although most well-known as the Roman Emperor (361-363), Julian the Apostate (331-363) was also a noted Pagan philosopher who sought to revive the native Greco-Roman faith at a time Christianity was quickly establishing itself upon the Empire and subjugating all previous faiths. I have been studying his works lately, foremost among them the fragments that have survived - via those quoted copiously in responses of his Christian detractors - of his Against the Galilaeans, as well as parts of his letters that have survived. His personal life and characteristics are also a perfect model of Pagan morality and ethics, despite the false propaganda of Monotheists.
Julian took it for granted that each people had their own innate spirituality (what has been called Ethnic Religion), hence his term "Galilaeans" for Christians to stress it as a local phenomenon to Palestine. Just because it has become worldwide, just as has Islam from its own initial beginnings in western Arabia, does not change its historical roots and context. Nor does it make it any more truly relevant for all peoples, despite the amounts the missionaries and conquerors of those religions would absorb certain cultures of the conquered in order to make their own religion more "attractive". What most concerns us here are his arguments against the notion of a "universal God".
His premise was a Greek Myth explaining the existence of various races and peoples, according to which the gods of different peoples were delegates of a creator God - each responsible for caring for their specific races, nations and cities (Against the Galilaeans, 115D). This concept of different gods responsible for different races and nations, explains why the customs and character of peoples are so different (131C, 143A). Its also in keeping with the fact it was taken for granted by every tribe, that their gods were their own and not those of other peoples. The notion of a universalist missionary zeal to "convert" others to one's own faith is uniquely Abrahamic - there were wars, but it was never about forcing one's own spiritual worldview upon the other.
I see much validity in this, because obviously there are certain natural laws and central truths related to nature and consciousness running through all cultures and spiritual traditions. But each people had their own deities, archetypes and myths unique to them. It was so connected to the tribe, clan or ethnos that those faiths often had no specific names - it was just taken for granted that if one belonged to that community, then their spiritual worldview would also be innately held. One couldn't "convert" to the tribe's faith, but simply had to be born into it, coming from the line of its ancestors which was a central understanding of all Ethnic Religions.
The Greek Myth specifically names Hermes, who was said to be the creator of writing and languages. As noted in an informative video, Hermes also represented boundaries and was a god of dogs, symbolic of him as "guarding" the integrity of a tribe and its boundaries. One Greek legend held that it was Hermes who divided people into different nations and created their distinct languages, which angered the supreme god Zeus (whose name correlated with the Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus Pater) who did not want people to be in strife.
Julian cited Plato's account of creation in Timaeus, observing how "when Zeus was setting all things in order there fell from him drops of sacred blood, and from them, as they say, arose the race of men" ("Letter to a Priest," in The Works of the Emperor Julian, trans. W.C. Wright, Vol. 2, p. 307). He thus reasoned that "they who had the power to create one man and one woman only, were able to create many men and women at once" (ibid., p. 305). This passage pointed out the inherent flaws of the Abrahamic creation story of all mankind descending from Adam and Eve, which was unrealistic since it could not explain the inherent differences between nations:
"Therefore, as I said, unless for every nation separately some presiding national god (and under him an angel, a demon, a hero, and a peculiar order of spirits which obey and work for the higher powers) established the differences in our laws and characters, you must demonstrate to me how these differences arose by some other agency. Moreover, it is not sufficient to say, 'God spake and it was so.' For the natures of things that are created ought to harmonize with the commands of God. I will say more clearly what I mean. Did God ordain that fire should mount upwards by chance and earth sink down? Was it not necessary, in order that the ordinance of God should be fulfilled, for the former to be light and the latter to weigh heavy? And in the case of other things also this is equally true....Likewise with respect to things divine. But the reason is that the race of men is doomed to death and perishable. Therefore men's works also are naturally perishable and mutable and subject to every kind of alteration. But since God is eternal, it follows that of such sort are his ordinances also. And since they are such, they are either the natures of things or are accordant with the nature of things. For how could nature be at variance with the ordinance of God? How could it fall out of harmony therewith? Therefore, if he did not ordain that even as our languages are confounded and do not harmonize with one another, so too should it be with the political constitutions of the nations, then it was not by a special, isolated decree that he gave these constitutions their essential characteristics, or framed us also to match this lack of agreement. For different natures must first have existed in all those things that among the nations were to be differentiated. This at any rate is seen if one observes how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians. Can this also be due to a bare decree, and does not the climate or the country have a joint influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they have?" (Against the Galilaeans, 143).
He concluded, "Can we suppose that there is not some mark or symbol indelibly stamped upon the souls of men, which will accurately indicate their descent and vindicate it as legitimate?...When a man has virtuous progenitors and is himself like them, he may with confidence be described as nobly born." Julian was alluding to the notion of Divine Progenitor, which was common in the foundation myths of various peoples. Elsewhere, I discussed this motif in its Germanic context in my article, "Divine Progenitors of the Suebi: Analysis of an Important Germania Passage".
Its my contention that different peoples referred to the same divine source by different names, perhaps what the Proto-Indo-Europeans called *Dyeus Pater. But that under that divine source of the cosmos that was perceivable within nature and celestial bodies, were national gods. The Greek god Hermes was known to the Romans as Mercury. Whenever they interacted with a people, the Romans - who were conscious that their gods were not the same as those people's gods - discerned certain commonalities to engage in a practice called Interpretatio romana.
Thus, Julius Caesar noted among the Celtic Gauls that "Among the gods Mercury is the one they principally worship" (Commentarii de Bello Gallico), whom the video linked to earlier identified as the pan-Celtic god Lugus. He can be seen as a national god, especially since he had his local variants throughout the Celtic realm. Similarly, among my own Germanic ancestors the Roman Tacitus identified "Mercury" as Wotan, and indeed despite our various divergences as tribes Wotan was venerated throughout the Germanic world as our national god - with tribes having foundation myths of him being their progenitor.
Interestingly, the Greek Hermes archetype was later expressed through the term "Hermeticism" and the figure of "Hermes Trismegistus", based on the syncretism in Ptolemaic Alexandria between him and the Egyptian Thoth. Among all the Ethnic Religions under the broad category of "Paganism", there are shamanic and magical qualities that speak to seeking wisdom and transformation. There are certain constants common to all human beings, but certainly enough divergences to call into question the idea of a universal god - and this was exactly Julian's argument.
The Biblical Tower of Babel story (Genesis 11:5-6) only purports to account for the difference in languages, but fails to even consider the various physical differences, customs and law or moral codes of various peoples (Against the Galilaeans, 138A). The Qur'an similarly asserts that mankind descended from the pair called Adam and Eve, while being made into different tribes and peoples (49:13) - how to account for the vast divergences between and among our various cultures? Just as the Abrahamic religions represented centralization, by eradicating the unique differences between peoples with this idea of a universal god, universal "true religion", and dogmas and practices that are universal for all peoples to follow, they are now fitting perfectly into the Zionist-Globalist agenda.
One logical proof Julian provided against the "universal god" notion was the absurdity of a "chosen people", the Hebrews. Its hard to believe the Abrahamic god was the god of all creation, if he not only extolled a certain people as his "chosen", but also that he allowed that people to suffer conquests many times over and few successes, in contrast to the neighboring peoples who worshipped their own "false gods" (ibid., 213A). This can also be seen in their historical insignificance, in contrast to their neighbors the Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians who were responsible for the great inventions and virtuous philosophies of the ancient world (ibid., 178A). Both Christianity and Islam affirm that the Hebrews were at least once "chosen", even while still extolling their religions as universalist.
Why would a god who described himself as "jealous", who "created" everything and everyone in the world, be content to care for an insignificant tribe in Palestine, while letting all other races worship "false" gods for thousands of years? (ibid., 106D). His conclusion was that this "universal" god of Abraham and Moses was actually just the god of the Hebrews, having no relevance for other peoples. There was some creative source in the universe, but the differences between them is proof that there were multiple deities shaping the matter "created" by this Divine source (ibid., 58C), as they would necessarily be identical if Monotheism was true (ibid., 66A).
We can discern much wisdom from Julian's writings and even in his activities as Emperor. Although at the helm of an Imperium, Julian did much to restore localized control and autonomy to distinct areas and communities. So politically, he was decentralist in the midst of a political-spiritual leveling process. He argued from a Greco-Neo-Platonist perspective, because that was his cultural frame of reference. But he instinctively despised universalism enough to celebrate that every people had their own distinct Ethnic spirituality. Nevertheless, on a broader philosophical level all of us who have the same conclusions can derive a lot of inspiration from his arguments. And these arguments call us to look deep within our own cultures for guidance.
22 October 2018
 |
| Julian the Apostate |
Although most well-known as the Roman Emperor (361-363), Julian the Apostate (331-363) was also a noted Pagan philosopher who sought to revive the native Greco-Roman faith at a time Christianity was quickly establishing itself upon the Empire and subjugating all previous faiths. I have been studying his works lately, foremost among them the fragments that have survived - via those quoted copiously in responses of his Christian detractors - of his Against the Galilaeans, as well as parts of his letters that have survived. His personal life and characteristics are also a perfect model of Pagan morality and ethics, despite the false propaganda of Monotheists.
Julian took it for granted that each people had their own innate spirituality (what has been called Ethnic Religion), hence his term "Galilaeans" for Christians to stress it as a local phenomenon to Palestine. Just because it has become worldwide, just as has Islam from its own initial beginnings in western Arabia, does not change its historical roots and context. Nor does it make it any more truly relevant for all peoples, despite the amounts the missionaries and conquerors of those religions would absorb certain cultures of the conquered in order to make their own religion more "attractive". What most concerns us here are his arguments against the notion of a "universal God".
 |
| Julian's initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries, one of whose requirements was that the initiate be of the Greek ethnos |
His premise was a Greek Myth explaining the existence of various races and peoples, according to which the gods of different peoples were delegates of a creator God - each responsible for caring for their specific races, nations and cities (Against the Galilaeans, 115D). This concept of different gods responsible for different races and nations, explains why the customs and character of peoples are so different (131C, 143A). Its also in keeping with the fact it was taken for granted by every tribe, that their gods were their own and not those of other peoples. The notion of a universalist missionary zeal to "convert" others to one's own faith is uniquely Abrahamic - there were wars, but it was never about forcing one's own spiritual worldview upon the other.
I see much validity in this, because obviously there are certain natural laws and central truths related to nature and consciousness running through all cultures and spiritual traditions. But each people had their own deities, archetypes and myths unique to them. It was so connected to the tribe, clan or ethnos that those faiths often had no specific names - it was just taken for granted that if one belonged to that community, then their spiritual worldview would also be innately held. One couldn't "convert" to the tribe's faith, but simply had to be born into it, coming from the line of its ancestors which was a central understanding of all Ethnic Religions.
 |
| Hermes |
The Greek Myth specifically names Hermes, who was said to be the creator of writing and languages. As noted in an informative video, Hermes also represented boundaries and was a god of dogs, symbolic of him as "guarding" the integrity of a tribe and its boundaries. One Greek legend held that it was Hermes who divided people into different nations and created their distinct languages, which angered the supreme god Zeus (whose name correlated with the Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus Pater) who did not want people to be in strife.
Julian cited Plato's account of creation in Timaeus, observing how "when Zeus was setting all things in order there fell from him drops of sacred blood, and from them, as they say, arose the race of men" ("Letter to a Priest," in The Works of the Emperor Julian, trans. W.C. Wright, Vol. 2, p. 307). He thus reasoned that "they who had the power to create one man and one woman only, were able to create many men and women at once" (ibid., p. 305). This passage pointed out the inherent flaws of the Abrahamic creation story of all mankind descending from Adam and Eve, which was unrealistic since it could not explain the inherent differences between nations:
 |
| Roman coin issued under Julian, naming him as "Pater Patriae" (Father of the Nation) |
"Therefore, as I said, unless for every nation separately some presiding national god (and under him an angel, a demon, a hero, and a peculiar order of spirits which obey and work for the higher powers) established the differences in our laws and characters, you must demonstrate to me how these differences arose by some other agency. Moreover, it is not sufficient to say, 'God spake and it was so.' For the natures of things that are created ought to harmonize with the commands of God. I will say more clearly what I mean. Did God ordain that fire should mount upwards by chance and earth sink down? Was it not necessary, in order that the ordinance of God should be fulfilled, for the former to be light and the latter to weigh heavy? And in the case of other things also this is equally true....Likewise with respect to things divine. But the reason is that the race of men is doomed to death and perishable. Therefore men's works also are naturally perishable and mutable and subject to every kind of alteration. But since God is eternal, it follows that of such sort are his ordinances also. And since they are such, they are either the natures of things or are accordant with the nature of things. For how could nature be at variance with the ordinance of God? How could it fall out of harmony therewith? Therefore, if he did not ordain that even as our languages are confounded and do not harmonize with one another, so too should it be with the political constitutions of the nations, then it was not by a special, isolated decree that he gave these constitutions their essential characteristics, or framed us also to match this lack of agreement. For different natures must first have existed in all those things that among the nations were to be differentiated. This at any rate is seen if one observes how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians. Can this also be due to a bare decree, and does not the climate or the country have a joint influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they have?" (Against the Galilaeans, 143).
He concluded, "Can we suppose that there is not some mark or symbol indelibly stamped upon the souls of men, which will accurately indicate their descent and vindicate it as legitimate?...When a man has virtuous progenitors and is himself like them, he may with confidence be described as nobly born." Julian was alluding to the notion of Divine Progenitor, which was common in the foundation myths of various peoples. Elsewhere, I discussed this motif in its Germanic context in my article, "Divine Progenitors of the Suebi: Analysis of an Important Germania Passage".
 |
| Migratory routes of the Indo-Europeans |
Its my contention that different peoples referred to the same divine source by different names, perhaps what the Proto-Indo-Europeans called *Dyeus Pater. But that under that divine source of the cosmos that was perceivable within nature and celestial bodies, were national gods. The Greek god Hermes was known to the Romans as Mercury. Whenever they interacted with a people, the Romans - who were conscious that their gods were not the same as those people's gods - discerned certain commonalities to engage in a practice called Interpretatio romana.
Thus, Julius Caesar noted among the Celtic Gauls that "Among the gods Mercury is the one they principally worship" (Commentarii de Bello Gallico), whom the video linked to earlier identified as the pan-Celtic god Lugus. He can be seen as a national god, especially since he had his local variants throughout the Celtic realm. Similarly, among my own Germanic ancestors the Roman Tacitus identified "Mercury" as Wotan, and indeed despite our various divergences as tribes Wotan was venerated throughout the Germanic world as our national god - with tribes having foundation myths of him being their progenitor.
Interestingly, the Greek Hermes archetype was later expressed through the term "Hermeticism" and the figure of "Hermes Trismegistus", based on the syncretism in Ptolemaic Alexandria between him and the Egyptian Thoth. Among all the Ethnic Religions under the broad category of "Paganism", there are shamanic and magical qualities that speak to seeking wisdom and transformation. There are certain constants common to all human beings, but certainly enough divergences to call into question the idea of a universal god - and this was exactly Julian's argument.
 |
| As an archetype, Hermes later gave rise to the symbolic figure of Hermes Trismegistus, the quest for wisdom, magic and transformative journeys of the psyche, the true meaning of "alchemy" |
The Biblical Tower of Babel story (Genesis 11:5-6) only purports to account for the difference in languages, but fails to even consider the various physical differences, customs and law or moral codes of various peoples (Against the Galilaeans, 138A). The Qur'an similarly asserts that mankind descended from the pair called Adam and Eve, while being made into different tribes and peoples (49:13) - how to account for the vast divergences between and among our various cultures? Just as the Abrahamic religions represented centralization, by eradicating the unique differences between peoples with this idea of a universal god, universal "true religion", and dogmas and practices that are universal for all peoples to follow, they are now fitting perfectly into the Zionist-Globalist agenda.
One logical proof Julian provided against the "universal god" notion was the absurdity of a "chosen people", the Hebrews. Its hard to believe the Abrahamic god was the god of all creation, if he not only extolled a certain people as his "chosen", but also that he allowed that people to suffer conquests many times over and few successes, in contrast to the neighboring peoples who worshipped their own "false gods" (ibid., 213A). This can also be seen in their historical insignificance, in contrast to their neighbors the Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians who were responsible for the great inventions and virtuous philosophies of the ancient world (ibid., 178A). Both Christianity and Islam affirm that the Hebrews were at least once "chosen", even while still extolling their religions as universalist.
Why would a god who described himself as "jealous", who "created" everything and everyone in the world, be content to care for an insignificant tribe in Palestine, while letting all other races worship "false" gods for thousands of years? (ibid., 106D). His conclusion was that this "universal" god of Abraham and Moses was actually just the god of the Hebrews, having no relevance for other peoples. There was some creative source in the universe, but the differences between them is proof that there were multiple deities shaping the matter "created" by this Divine source (ibid., 58C), as they would necessarily be identical if Monotheism was true (ibid., 66A).
We can discern much wisdom from Julian's writings and even in his activities as Emperor. Although at the helm of an Imperium, Julian did much to restore localized control and autonomy to distinct areas and communities. So politically, he was decentralist in the midst of a political-spiritual leveling process. He argued from a Greco-Neo-Platonist perspective, because that was his cultural frame of reference. But he instinctively despised universalism enough to celebrate that every people had their own distinct Ethnic spirituality. Nevertheless, on a broader philosophical level all of us who have the same conclusions can derive a lot of inspiration from his arguments. And these arguments call us to look deep within our own cultures for guidance.
