Ephraem the Syrian's Hymns 'Against Julian': Meditations on History and Imperial Power

Author(s): Sidney H. Griffith

Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 238-266
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583993
Accessed: 11/05/2009 09:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 238-266, E. J. Brill, Leiden

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

MEDITATIONS ON HISTORY AND IMPERIAL POWER
BY

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

Modern students of the life and reign of the emperor Julian have
called the attention of scholars to the relevance of Ephraem the Syrian's
hymns against this emperor as sources of information about the popular
Christian attitudes toward him shortly after his death in 363 A.D. So,
for example, almost twenty years ago now, when Edmund Beck had
already published his critical edition of the Syriac hymns of Ephraem
"Against Julian," with a German translation,1 Walter Kaegi pointed
out that their author had been "one of Julian's most severe Christian
critics".2 Not only so, but as Robert Browning has emphasized more
recently, Ephraem wrote these hymns in Nisibis in the very year of
Julian's death, after he saw the emperor's embalmed corpse lying in
state before the city's gates, with a Persian flag flying from the ramparts
of the citadel!3 Furthermore, a number of concrete details which
Ephraem mentioned in the hymns, such as the emperor's issue of coins
with the famous bull iconography on them, and his account of the attempt during Julian's reign to rebuild Jerusalem's temple, have also attracted the attention of historians. And Glen Bowersock has written
that this attention to what he calls Ephraem's invectives is "one of the
most fruitful developments in the study of Julian".4
Given all of this testimony to the relevance of Ephraem's Hymns
Against Julian to modern historical inquiry, it is somewhat surprising
to notice that few scholarly studies have in fact ever been devoted to the
Hymns for their own sake. Accordingly, the purposes of the present article are to provide a brief summary of the previous scholarship, to
discuss the textual structure and transmission of the Hymns, and to provide a precis of their dominant ideas, all with the hope that such a
review will entice more readers to these little known compositions of
Ephraem the Syrian.

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

239

I
Ephraem'sHymns Against Julian were first edited for the eyes of
western scholarsby J. J. Overbeckin 1865, as one of a selection of
worksfrom severalancientSyriacwriters.5Thenin 1878GustavBickell
publisheda Germantranslationof the Hymns, based on Overbeck's
text. Bickellrenderedthe poems in a prosaicGermanstyle, which provided no opportunityto accomodate the peculiaritiesof the Syriac
poetic form, and he contributedonly a few explanatorynotes.6 But
the translationitself was sufficient to excite the interestof Johannes
Geffcken, who in 1908publishedan articleon Julianand the polemics
of his enemies,in whichhe surveyedEphraem'sHymnsAgainst Julian
as a literaryunity, and compared them to Gregory of Nazianzen's
speechesagainstthe same emperor.7Subsequently,SebastianEuringer
redidthe Germanversionof the JulianHymns, with an eye to Bickell's
work, and he publishedthem in the Bibliothekder Kirchenvdter,with
a long introduction,and numerousexplanatorynotes.8Finally,in 1957,
Edmund Beck publishedthe critical edition and Germantranslation
mentionedat the beginningof the presentarticle,9and the matterhas
remainedright there ever since. To date no versions of the Hymns
Against Julianhave been publishedin any modernlanguageotherthan
German.But the futurepromisesan Englishversionof the Hymns by
Prof. KathleenMcVey, of PrincetonTheologicalSeminary,to appear
in her forthcomingvolume of selections from Ephraem'shymns in
translation,in the Paulist Press series, "Classicsof WesternSpirituality."
II
Ephraem'sHymns Against Julian have been preservedin a unique
manuscript,BL add. MS 14 571, ff. 105v-114r.0In fact, it is the earliest
datedof all the Ephraemmanuscripts.Its colophonsays, in part, "This
book belongsto the presbyter,Shemcun... It was completedin the year
830, in TeSriII, accordingto the reckoningof Apamea, and writtenby
Julian,the Edessanscribe"." The date, givenaccordingto the count of
the Seleucid era, correspondsto November, 519 A.D.'2 The scribe,
Julian, and the presbyter,Simeon, are otherwiseunknown. It is true
that both namesdo appearin the SyriacVitatraditionof MarEphraem
designatingdisciplesand scribeswho used to write down the master's

240

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

teaching (malpanutd).'3 But the present manuscript was written almost

150 years after the death of Ephraem!
In all probability, BL add. MS 14 571 was one of a number of collections of selected madrase by Mar Ephraem which circulated around the
time when major collections of the poet's works were being put
together.14 The evidence for the production of comprehensive volumes
of Ephraem's hymns is found in remarks which occur in a number of
manuscripts which transmit his works. But the principal document
which has given scholars an insight into the final form taken by these
volumes is Sinai Syriac MS 10, a text which in the judgment of Andre
De Halleux may have its own roots back as far as the sixth century.'5
From this source, which is meant to be a register of the forty-five
melodies used in the whole collection of Ephraem's hymns, one learns
of nine volumes of the author's collected madrase. And one finds the
melody-lines appropriate to the Julian hymns assigned to volume VIII,16
called variously a volume of hymns against erroneous doctrines, or a
volume of hymns on doctrines and on paradise.17
One learns from James of Sarug's homily on Ephraem, the Teacher,
how important the correct performance of his madrase was for the
deacon of Nisibis and Edessa. He reportedly spent time and energy
rehearsing the choirs which would perform them.'8 So it is no surprise
to notice in the manuscripts which transmit his hymns that
musicological considerations, such as melody, metre, incipit, theme,
and acrostic patterns, played a major role in the collection and preservation of the madrase. As Dom Outtier has shown in regard to the Paschal
Hymns, these sorts of considerations affected even the assignment of individual verses in the collections.'9 Accordingly, as was already mentioned earlier, it seems clear that the four Hymns Against Julian were
included in the collection of hymns found in BL add. MS 14 571 because
metrically, and melodically, and even thematically, they were related to
a hymn of the same metre-melody, whose incipit is "estmekw Calqustad,
Rely on the Truth," which immediately precedes the Julian hymns in
the manuscript (ff. 104-105r). This hymn in turn was probably included
with the collection of hymns De Paradiso because, as the compiler's
notation states, it is to be sung "Calqald dpardaysa," that is, according
to the melody which all fifteen Paradise hymns share.20
The theme of the hymn, "Rely on the Truth," however, is very different from themes found in the hymns De Paradiso, a circumstance
which inspired Dom Edmund Beck to give this singular hymn the name

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

241

De Ecclesia, which is more in accord with its contents.21 For, as Robert

Murray has shown, it is in fact a meditation, and a prayer, to do with
the situation of the church in the Roman empire, when it came under
pressure from Julian, after almost fifty years of enjoying official, imperial favor.22This circumstance is unmistakable in the last verse of the
hymn, which is:
The kings who once gave shade, (i.e., Constantine, Constantius)
had refreshed us in the heat.
We ate their fruit,
but were ungrateful for their branches.
We had our heart's delight
of good things and shade,
But our mouths became mad
and attacked our Creator.
Wars in the shade
we waged by our speculations;
Now he has withdrawn our shade
to let us feel the heat.23

As Beck observed, De Ecclesia was probably written when Julian was

still alive, while the Julian hymns so called, which presume the
emperor's death, must have been composed later. Since they are all written in the same metre-melody, one might then speak of five Julian
hymns.24 And there is manuscript support for this suggestion. In BL
add. MS 14 571 the four Julian hymns follow De Ecclesia, and they are
introduced with the following title:
Against Julian, the king who apostatized, and
Against erroneus teachings, and
Against the Jews.25

Then, at the end of the four Julian hymns, and indeed at the end of the
manuscript, just prior to the colophon, one finds the following notice:
"The end of the five madra?e against Julian, the pagan king".26There
is no real contradiction here. No number is mentioned in the title to the
four Julian hymns. And Beck's hymn De Ecclesia, plus the four hymns
inspired by Ephraem's contemplation of Julian's dead body, do in fact
compose the five compositions "against Julian, the pagan king," attributed to Ephraem the Syrian. The only real problem is the question
of the authenticity of the hymn De Ecclesia.
There is a startling feature to the De Ecclesia hymn which attracts the
reader's attention almost immediately. The first letters of the first lines

242

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

of the fifteen stanzas of the composition display an acrostic pattern.

The five initial letters, in sequence, with 2, 4, and 7 repetitions of the
first, third and fifth letters, spell out the name Ephraem ( )J;.l )!27
Such a phenomenon can hardly be accidental. So the only question is
whether or not Ephraem himself was responsible for it. Already in 1867
Geiger noticed this feature in others of Ephraem's hymns, and simply
accepted it as a device which the poet sometimes employed to sign his
work.28On the other hand, in regard to the De Ecclesia hymn, Michael
Breydy thinks that such an arrangement of verses could not possibly be
original, and he suggests that some manipulation of them has taken
place in the course of their transmission to achieve the acrostic effect.29
It is clear that by the year 519, when Julian of Edessa copied BL add.
MS 14 571, the earliest of all Ephraem manuscripts, the hymn De Ecclesia, with its acrostic pattern, was already assigned to Ephraem. Moreover, the title to the four Julian hymns, which follow it, was presumably
already to be found in the exemplar from which Julian of Edessa copied
his selection of madrase, so he was probably the one who contributed
the final notice in the manuscript about the 'five' hymns against Julian
the Apostate. At the very least he must have agreed with the statement.
And so he was clearly including De Ecclesia with the Julian hymns, and
in doing so he implicitly endorsed the authenticity of the hymn. It would
seem far fetched to suppose that he did not notice the message of the
hymn's acrostic device. So one might suppose that he found it so
already in the source document he employed for his collection of
selected Ephraem poems, and was not himself responsible for putting
this poem together. But this supposition brings one back to the initial
dilemma. There are three possibilities: either Ephraem himself composed the poem, and claimed authorship with the acrostic device; someone
else put genuine Ephraemian verses into this pattern; or someone composed this poem in the Ephraemian style, and advertised the fact with
the acrostic device. Given the evidence in hand, and putting aside what
moderns might think about due authorial modesty, the first option
seems to be the likely one, familiar as it is from other Ephraem
poems. And in support of its plausibility one might point to similar
practices on the part of the authors of the Hebrew Piyyutrm, synagogue
hymns which enjoyed great popularity in Palestine from the eighth century on. While these compositions, which in many ways are very much
like the Syriac madrase, are from a later time and a different people,
they do provide a useful point of comparison. Two of the earliest

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

243

writers of them, Yannai and Qallir, regularlysigned their works by

deployingthe lettersof their namesin acrosticpatternsin their poems,
after the mannerof Ephraem.30
III
In structure,the four hymns which go to make up what are usually
called Ephraem's"invectives" against Julian, are all fairly uniform.
They are all composed of six-line stanzas, and each stanza follows an
identicalpattern.First,therearethreelinescomposedof two hemistichs
apiece;each hemistichis ideallycompletein five syllables.Therefollows
a fourthline set out in sevensyllables,five in the first hemistichand two
in the second. The stanzathen comes to a close with two more lines of
two hemistichsapiece, each again with the five syllable measure. In
most cases, the fourth line of each stanza, the one in seven syllables,
marksa shift in sense in the theme, not infrequentlyin counterpointto
what was said in the first three lines.
The hymnsvary in the numberof stanzasper hymn, but there does
not seem to be any structuralsignificanceto the successivenumbersof
stanzasper hymn, i.e., 20, 27, 17, and 26, stanzasin the four hymnssequentially.The only formalvariantto be noticedin the presentationof
the four hymnsis the lack of an Cunita,or response,for the first hymn.
Since, in the manuscripttradition, this feature seems often to be the
contributionof a compiler/editor,and its absencesometimesmarksthe
continuationof a single, long hymn, which a later compilerhas disjointed, one is left in the presentinstanceto wonderif the first Julian
hymn once belonged with Beck's De Ecclesia, "Rely on the Truth,"
which, after all, marksthe Julian hymns' assignedmelody. But "Rely
on the Truth" also lacks an Cunita,so this wondermentmay only lead
up a blind alley. All of the responsesmay in fact be the contributions
of laterusersof Ephraem'shymns,anxiousto providea refrainfor congregationalsinging, in responseto a choir's renditionof the madrasa.
The uniquemanuscriptwhich containsthe four Julianhymnsleaves
us, therefore,standingbefore a series of stanzaswith a similardominanttheme, set out in the formaltrappingsof four separate,but related
hymns.Thismannerof textualexpositionis perhapsdictatedby performance,or senserequirements,and shouldnot be allowedto obscurethe
essential unity of the whole composition. In many ways it is more
suitableto think in termsof a single long hymn, "Against Julian". In

244

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

fact, in the key to the volumes of Ephraem's collected madraAdin

Sinai Syriac MS 10, the Julian hymns are cited only by the incipit of the
first of the four of them.31 And since the stanzas, which are the basic
units of the composition, are short, and most often complete in
themselves, this composition, like many of Ephraem's other hymns, is
therefore infinitely expandable. Here, as elsewhere, there is the
possibility of addition, subtraction, and even rearrangement of stanzas
in the repertory.
It has become customary, as mentioned above, to refer to these
hymns as Ephraem's 'invectives' against Julian. This description is not
really accurate, and is in fact misleading. For the traditionally educated
person of the west, the term 'invective' summons up the image of the
Psogos, the formal rhetorical device of Greek epideictic oratory,
dedicated to blackening a person's name following a set compositional
pattern.32Gregory of Nazianzen followed the pattern in his well known
invectives Against Julian.33But with Ephraem, while he surely intended
to blacken Julian's name, the purposes of his hymns against the
emperor were far broader than any such single-minded objective as
Greek rhetorical invective intended. Put simply, they are madrase. That
is to say, they are biblically oriented meditations on history, Christianity, imperial power, and the putative eclipse of paganism and Judaism.
As always with Ephraem's madraCe,the Julian hymns have a definite
ideological point of view to commend, and, in summary, this view may
be stated here in the poet's own words, from Hymn III, 7:
Regarding those whom the cross did not conquer
when it came down;
It was not that He, who was the Conqueror,
could not conquer them.
Rather, it was so that a pit
might be dug for that evil-doer,
Who came down to the east in the company of his diviners.
But when he came down and was struck,
it appeared to the discerning,
That there had already been lying in wait for him,
the battle in which he would be shamed.34

In the defeat and death of Julian, Ephraem willed to see the sign of
Christianity's ultimate triumph. Julian's reign merely provided the
refiner's crucible, to use one of Ephraem's own favorite images, from
which he envisioned the faithfully true Christians emerging in all their
proper glory.

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

245

One must rememberthat Ephraemdied in the year 373, some ten

yearsafterthe time whenhe presumablywrotethe Julianhymns.Moreover, he died with his dreamintact, of an orthodoxNiceanworld, governed by pious emperorsand orthodox bishops.35He explainedaway
the doctrinalvagariesof the emperorValens by blamingthe bickering
bishops for the ecclesiasticalchaos of his own later years.36Ephraem
must have thought, as he says in the Julian Hymns, that God had
already settled the question of the civil chaos which had earlier
threatenedthe ChristianRoman empire. For in his reflectionson the
Julian experience,Ephraempointedin his madraneto two cities, signs
of contradiction,to be warrantsfor Christ'seventualtriumph:ruined
Jerusalem,and motherNisibis, with Persia's pennantflying from her
battlements. The two were signs of contradiction, signifying for
Ephraemthe final demise of Judaismand paganismrespectively.
IV
In many ways it is a foolhardyenterpriseto propose to give an account of the dominantideasof a poet, even of those ideaswhichgovern
a relativelysmall collectionof verses,with a limitednumberof themes,
such as Ephraem'sHymnsAgainst Julian. What gives one a modicum
of confidencefor the projectis the fact that Ephraem'spoems are not
of the sort whichwerecomposedwith the canons of the ars gratiaartis
school in mind. Rather,as Syriacmadrase,a termwhichis cognatewith
the Hebrewword for the well known genre of biblical interpretation,
midras, Ephraem intended from the very beginning for his Hymns
Against Julianto be didacticpoems. This fact meansthat of a set purpose they foster certaindominantideas whichit was the author'shope
to communicate,and the interpreter'stask to illuminate.And in the
very first place, consonantwith the implicationsof the genericname,
there is the dominantidea, taken for grantedby
madrSad/hammidraS,
that
one
can
Ephraem,
only understandthe phemomenonof Julianthe
reference
to
the ChristianBible. While this idea does not
Apostate by
necessarilyrecommenditself to the criticalhistorian,it is indispensable
to anyone who wantsto know what Ephraemthoughthe was sayingin
his Julianhymns.For it was Ephraem'sconstantpracticeto turn to the
scripturesin searchof the paradigmswhich would allow him, through
typology and prophecy, to put an acceptableChristianconstruction
upon the eventsof his own time, and to locate them preciselyalong the

246

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

intellectual spectrum which for him portrayed God's own economy of

salvation for all peoples.
It is important to grasp this general, biblical concentration which is
Ephraem's frame of reference in the Julian hymns because it helps to
mark an important difference between his madrase "Against Julian",
and the Greek invectives agains Julian by his contemporary, Gregory of
Nazianzen. As was mentioned above, the latter were exercises in epideictic oratory, Psogoi.
Jean Bernardi has recently argued that the effective deployment of
the traditional genres of Greek rhetoric, both encomium and invective,
was an important ingredient in Gregory's project to develop a fully
Christian literature in Greek.37 For this reason the Christian rhetor
could never forgive Julian for his publication of the famous education
edict of 17 June 362, which had the effect of barring Christians from
the formal study of rhetoric. Of this edict of the emperor's Gregory
wrote: "In no case will he be shown to have acted more illegally than
in this: and let everyone share in my indignation who takes a pleasure
in words, and is addicted to this pursuit-of which number I will not
deny that I am one ... Words alone I cleave to, and I do not begrudge
the toils by land and sea that have supplied me with them".38
Accordingly, as Bernardi points out, one must explain the harshness
of Gregory's invective against Julian by reference to the author's intention to erect with it a rhetorical memorial of infamy for the apostate
emperor who had outlawed rhetorical training for Christians.39This intention accounts for the strongly polemic language of Gregory's invectives, which makes no concession at all to the adversary. And even
though it is clear that beyond polemic Gregory also commends in his
discourses 'Against Julian' some basic Christian ideas about God's
punitive action in the history of His people, it remains true, as Bernardi
says, that "the lively sentiment of attachment which Gregory shows for
the intellectual life and for literary expression becomes the object of one
of the most trenchant affirmations of the work".40
Nothing could be further removed from Ephraem's attitudes. One
thinks in this connection of the deacon of Edessa's famous remark,
about Greek rhetoric and dialectic, "Blessed is the one who has never
tasted the poison of the wisdom of the Greeks".4' And this circumstance of difference in outlook between Ephraem the Syrian and
Gregory of Nazianzen cautions one not to put a wrong construction
upon the fact that Geffcken found more than a dozen ideas and con-

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

247

cretedetailsin the narrativeswhichare commonto both writers.42For,

as Geffckenhimselfinsisted,these detailsmust come from the popular
Christianlore about the emperor,which was equallyavailableto both
writers,and whichthey both utilizedindependentlyfrom one another.43
What is remarkableabout this topical coincidencein Gregory'sinvectives and Ephraem'smadrase"AgainstJulian"is the consistencyof the
topics themselves,in spite of the considerablydifferent literaryconstructionsinto whichthey have been woven. This fact servesto demonstratethat the topical outline of the Christianreactionto the emperor
Julianwas virtuallycompleteat his death. And it shows once againthe
remarkablefluencyof popularChristianideasin two differentlanguage
communitiesin Byzantium,Greek and Syriac, which are often portrayedas separateand distinct.Whilemany of the topics are the same,
however, the literary forms are different in the two cultures. The
madrasais not the psogos. Geffcken too recognizedthis fact. Even
though he was more inclinedto point out thematicsimilaritiesin the
compositions of the two writers, and to speak of a characteristic
rhetorical form utilized by both of them, he still felt the need to
acknowledgewhat he called, "der Mischcharakterdes Syrers".44But
the literary form used by Ephraemis really not "mixed". It is the
madrasd,gearedto biblicalhomiletics,and to the interpretationof current events in biblicalterms.
V

Most recentwriterswho have had an occasionto referto Ephraem's

Julianhymnshave madea referenceto their famous mise en scene, the
poet standingbefore Julian's corpse, in front of Nisibis, over whose
battlementsthe Persianflag is flying, becausethe emperorJovianhanded the city over to the Persiansas part of the price of peace. Ephraem
himself composed this scene in Hymn III, stanzas 1-7.45And the
responsewhich is appointedto be sung after each stanzaof this hymn
is a fair summaryof the author's sentiments,"Praise be to the One,
who has wrappedhis corpsein shame".46But the sceneis not simplyone
of revilementfor Julian. For it is here that Ephraemraises his most
basic questionsabout the significanceof this emperor.
It is importantto notice in Ephraem'scompositionof this scenethat
there are two concrete images: the poet before the emperor'scorpse,
and Nisibis with the Persianflag, the sign of her surrender.Each one

248

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

gives a focus to the reader's attention, and in fact provides him with the
clues he needs to enter into the spirit of the Hymns.
1. The Poet before the Corpse
As for the poet, Ephraem repeats it several times, "I was astonished
at what had concurred and come to pass: the corpse and the standard
bearer, the two of them at once".47 It was the coincidence of these two
facts that sent him in search of explanations, and so that the reader
would not miss this point, the poet repeated it,
There I saw the hideous sight:
The captor's banner,
that was stuck on the tower;
The persecutor's corpse,
that was thrown into the coffin.48

And one does not have long to wait for Ephraem's reaction to this coincidence of facts. In the very next stanza he says,
I came, I drew near, my brothers,
to the coffin of the unclean one.
I stood above it,
and I mocked his paganism.49

Ephraem is struck at once with the awesome power of an emperor,

here so unexpectedly struck down, and the dire consequences of
paganism. He questions himself, "Why, even with that might of his, did
I not foresee that this would be his end?" 50for Ephraem nurtured an
image of harmony between emperor and church, which virtually
canonized the emperor.51And the horror the poet felt at the sight of
Julian's corpse is the measure of the esteem in which he held the imperial office. On this point he is perfectly clear, because looking at
Julian he said, "When his story ended, and he was dragged away,
then both sides were glad, then there was peace, due to a believing king
(i.e., Jovian), an associate of the glorious two (i.e., Constantine and
Constantius).52
2. Nisibis and the Persian Flag
The Persian flag over Nisibis also proclaimed a clear message.
Ephraem said, "The Magian arranged to fix it on the tower, to be the
standard to proclaim to the onlookers that the metropolis had become

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

249

a slave to the masters of that banner".53And, of course Julian, who had

fostered the installation of pagan institutions in the city, was found
responsible for this surrender. Ephraem went on to say, "The frightful
banner was run up to proclaim that the wickedness of its diviners had
surrendered that metropolis".54 The surrender was an accomplishment,
Ephraem reminded the reader, which had often been tried before: "For
thirty years Persia had waged war in every style, but she never could
trespass the border of that metropolis".55 Then came Julian's army, and
Ephraem found the cause of the reversal here. God, he said, "gave the
army over to perdition; paganism was known to be among them".56
Nisibis was the city which had so often before withstood Persian attack. Now, in Ephraem's paradoxical view, the image of Nisibis, with
her symbolic Persian flag standing out in the breeze, came to stand as
a symbol for the defeat of the very paganism which, by the poet's own
account, had been the ultimate cause of the city's surrender to the Persians. In her role as a symbol Nisibis became a sister-city to Jerusalem
in Ephraem's poetic vision. Jerusalem's ruin, in his imagination, stood
for the defeat of Judaism. According to Ephraem's way of thinking,
Jews were responsible for the city's destruction, because of sinfulness
and failure to accept the Messiah. Nisibis surrendered and Jerusalem in
ruins, therefore, served Ephraem as symbols to proclaim the surrender
and ruin of Christianity's principal rivals, paganism and Judaism respectively.
Ephraem's principal theme in the Julian hymns is focused in the question he asked in view of Julian's catafalque, a question which carried
all the insight of hindsight, "Why, even with that might of his, did I not
foresee that this would be his end?"57 For Ephraem had now found an
explanation for Julian's apostate reign, a phenomenon which had been
a severe challenge to the poet's own almost Eusebian view of Church
and State.58 He wrote now,
Everyonewhom the cross did not conquer
when it came down;
It was not that He could not
conquer,who was the Conqueror.
Rather,it was that a pit
might be dug for the evil doer, (i.e., Julian)
Who came down among his divinersto the east.
But whenhe came down and was struck,
Then it appearedto the discerning
That there had been lying in wait for him,
the battle in which he would be shamed.

250

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

You should know that it was for this

the Time was so long delayed,
So that the chaste one (i.e., Constantius) might
complete the years of his reign,
And the accursed one too (i.e., Julian) might
complete the measure of his paganism.
But when his story ended, and he was dragged away,
Then both sides were glad,
then there was peace;
On account of the believing king, (i.e., Jovian)
the associate of the Victorious two (i.e., Constantine and Constantius).9

VI
Daniel and the End Time
It was Ephraem's view that the rise and fall of the emperor Julian was
in fact the foreordained sign of the final demise of Christianity's twin
antitheses, Judaism and paganism. So it is with this central thought in
mind that the modern reader may the more readily perceive the dominant ideas in the madrase "Against Julian". With the prophecies of
Daniel never far from memory, Ephraem brought up episodes from
Julian's career to demonstrate his conviction. He points to the
recrudesence under Julian of both Judaism and paganism, and he
points to what happened in Jerusalem and Nisibis as signs of their final
demise. It was all but a crucible of testing for the church, according to
Ephraem, and he pictures her as never wavering under the provocation.
The tyrant became the crucible
for the beauty of the truthful.
All of the infidels (i.e., Jews and Pagans)
rejoiced in the infidel (i.e., Julian).
In him they could see
themselves, who they were.
For he was the mirror for them all.
Those who rejoiced in his victory,
shared with him his lot.
But it was the church alone
that was completely against him.60

Ephraem's explanation for the Julian phenomenon was born of his

reading of the prophecies of Daniel. Ephraem quotes from this prophet,

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

251

or explicitly alludes to the book of Daniel, some seven times in the

course of the four Hymns, "Against Julian",6' and he employs
vocabulary which evokes scenes from the Daniel story numerous times.
This was no accident, or mere personal preference on Ephraem's part.
By his day the book of Daniel had already become one of the fonts of
Christian historical eschatology.62 Furthermore, if Julian thought of
himself in his Persian campaign as the new Alexander,63 Ephraem in
turn consulted what the scripture said about the Alexander of old, in
order to explain the new Alexander's fate. According to biblical commentaries attributed to Ephraem, the book of Daniel spoke explicitly
about Alexander the Great in at least two places: chapter 2:40, where
there is the prophecy of "a fourth kingdom, strong as iron," and
chapter 8:21 where the prophet says of one of the characters in his vision, "the billy-goat is the king of Greece".64 Accordingly, one catches
the biblical vision of the madraSewhen he reads the following stanza at
the end of Hymn I "Against Julian", where Ephraem refers both to
Julian's Persian campaign, and to the vision recounted in Daniel 8:
The king, the king of Babel,
returnedto the field.
He drove him (i.e., Julian)crazy, to recollecthimself;
He maddenedhim, to come to his senses.
He rejoicedGod,
and gladdenedDaniel.
The king, the king of Greece,was found guilty.
He had angeredGod,
and disbelievedin Daniel.
And therein Babel
he was judgedand condemned.65

Keeping this biblical frame of reference in mind, one may proceed to

consider the principal themes in Ephraem's Julian hymns under the
following headings: Julian and the Christian emperors; Nisibis and
paganism; Jerusalem and Judaism.
VII
The Principal Themes of the madrase 'Against Julian'
A. Julian and the Christian Emperors
Ephraem compared Julian unfavorably with the Christian emperors
of whom he knew by the time he wrote his Hymns Against Julian, i.e.,

252

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

Constantine, Constantius, and Jovian.66 So he begins the indictment

against Julian by accusing the emperor of failure in what Ephraem considers to be the most important tasks of a Christian king, "to shepherd
mankind, to care for cities, and to drive away wild animals".67 The
"wild animals" in question, it is perfectly clear, are heretics, apostates,
and Jews.68 So Ephraem says that by contrast with the preceding two
"righteous kings,""69Julian had gone mad. And in him pagans and Jews
together found cause to rejoice, "the sons of the left hand, in the head
of the left hand".70
Like Gregory of Nazianzen, Ephraem too compared Julian unfavorably with Constantius, his immediate predecessor on the imperial
throne. The resulting portrait of Constantius as a pious God-loving
emperor, has sometimes caused modern scholars to be surprised at
Ephraem's support of this emperor, who espoused pro-Arian policies.71
But the same surprise could easily be directed to Gregory, whose invectives against Julian are even more effusive in praise of Constantius, than
are Ephraem's madraSg.Gregory found in Constantine's successor only
the fault of a false and sentimental compassion, since the emperor
spared Julian when he massacred the rest of his family.72 As for the
troubles Constantius caused Gregory's own party in the church, the
rhetor/bishop said rather disingenuously, "He did slightly vex us, yet
did so not out of despite and insolence, nor to gratify other parties at
our expense: but he vexed us a little in order that we might be at one
together, and become unanimous, and not be divided, neither be
separated by our schisms".73 As for Ephraem, he simply blamed the
troubles under Constantius on the bickering of bishops.74
In the Hymns Against Julian, Ephraem's contrast of the behavior of
Constantius with that of Julian speaks for itself:
For the son of the king (i.e., Constantius)
was a sea of calmness,
Never to be diffused, never to proclaim
he would conquer.
He knew that the mind
of the Most High is hidden.
He entrusted his crown to the Knower of all.
Even if he did not conquer and triumph,
he conquered and triumphed the more,
Whose prayer preserved the kingdom
for forty years.

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

253

He was a cedar,who at his propertime

sank down quietly.
He lay on his own bed,
he went to rest, slept in peace.
Then there shot up again
from that sweetroot of theirs(i.e., of Constantineand Constantius)
A tendershoot of paganismwho supposed
He would make mountainswait
in his shadow.
"He shot up in a night,
and in a night he withered".75

In the last two lines one recognizes Ephraem's quotation of Jonah

4:10 (PS). And in the very next stanza the poet explicitly confirms his
debt to the prophecy of Jonah for his understanding of how the Sun,
Julian's chief protective divinity,76in fact serves the purposes of the true
God.
For if Jonah sufferedbecausehe stood
Againstthe penitents;
how muchthe more will he be afflicted,
Whoeverit is, who contends
with those who are holy.77

Jonah, of course, according to the biblical story, suffered from the

Sun, by God's action, for spurning the penitent Ninevites (Jonah
4:5-11). Julian, who worshipped the Sun, perished in the land of the
Chaldeans who were the famed, primordial worshippers of the Sun. So
Ephraem devoted ten stanzas of Hymn IV to ridiculing Julian for marching against his own co-religionists.78 For, as Ephraem knew from the
Gospel (Mt. 12:26), such dissension is the sign of Satan, and the poet
wrote here of Julian, "Evil is he who is divided against himself".79
It was in conjunction with what he saw to be an alliance of Jews and
pagans under Julian against the Christian empire that Ephraem brought
up the emperor's issue of coins with the symbol of a bull stamped on
them.80Ephraem devoted four stanzas (Hymn I, 16-19)8' to these coins,
and not surprisingly, given the poet's biblical perspective, the bull on
the coins reminded Ephraem of the incident of the molten calf in the
desert (Ex. 32:1-8), and of the occasion when King Jeroboam set up two
calves of gold in Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs. 12:26-32). So in Julian's coins
Ephraem saw once again the sign of ancient Israel's apostasy,82 and he
seized upon the theme to taunt the Jews of his own day, whose support
Julian had actively solicited.83

254

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

The circumcizedsaw the imageall of a suddentherewas a bull.

On his coins they saw the shamefulbull.
They begankeepinga feast for it,
with cymbalsand trumpets.
In that bull they saw,
their own ancientcalf.84
The circumcizedsaw the bull
that was stampedon the stater.
And they rejoicedthat therewererestored
the calvesof Jeroboam.85

The bull of Julian's coins, which Ephraem said was also in the
emperor's mind and heart and dreams after the type of the Bible's desert
calf,86 served the poet as a symbol for the imperial resolve to restore
paganism. So now, after the emperor's death in the heart of old
Babylonia, Ephraem wrote, "The king, the king of Greece, of a sudden
became a bull. He butted against the churches, and was dragged
away".87 For Ephraem, then, the memory of Israel's apostasy with the
golden calf in the desert was a perfect paradigm for what happened to
what he perceived to be an alliance of Jews and pagans in support of
Julian.
The paganscarriedtheiridols about
and ran riot.
The circumcizedblew on the sOphar
and ravedfrantically.
All of them sang their songs
and behavedwantonly.
It becamea festivallike the one in the desert.
The Good One who chastened
those arousedon accountof a single calf,
Was the one who chastenedthe many
arousedon accountof a single king.88

Almost everything Ephraem knew about Julian accorded with some

biblical character or event. The emperor reminded the poet of "Ahab
and Jeroboam, Jotham and Manasseh, Jezebel and Athalia, fonts of
paganism".89 Where others made fun of the emperor's beard,90
Ephraem saw in it a Nazirite's beard, which the emperor, bending
down, "let rise up on it the reek of sacrificial smoke".91 And doubtless
Julian's beard also served to remind Ephraem of the passage where
Daniel said, "the billy-goat is the king of Greece" (Dan. 8:21). For

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

255

Ephraemcalls Julian a billy-goatthree times in the hymn in which he

alludesto the emperor'seccentricbeard.92The emperoris a billy-goat
of the kind, says Ephraem,"who stink in their beards";93a renegade
"Nazirite" kept to become a sacrificialvictim in Persia.
Even the lance that killed Julian put Ephraemin mind of biblical
parallels.At one place he comparesit to the iron instrumentwhich he
imaginedMoseshad usedto pulverizethe goldencalf in the desert,after
he had meltedit down.94In anotherplace, exploitinga theme whichin
Syriactraditionprobablycame from a purelyverbalhomologybetween
Syriacrumhaand Greekromphaia,95
Ephraemlikensthe spear(rumhd)
which killed the emperorto what he calls "the spear of paradise",
which presumablyrefers to the sword (romphaia) with which the
cherub is said to guard paradisein Genesis 3:24 (LXX).96According
to Ephraem,since Julianhad belittledChrist,who had turnedasidethe
weapon guardingparadise,97"the spear of justice passed into his belly".98As for the perennialquestionabout who wieldedthe weaponthat
killed Julian,a Christianor a pagan, Ephraemsays nothing. However,
since the individualin question is comparedto Moses pulverizingthe
molten image with an iron file in Hymn II, 7 & 8,99 one might surmise

that the poet had some unnamedChristianin mind.'00For Moseswould

stand as a type of a Christianleader, and one wonders if Ephraem
thought of the emperorJovian in this connection.
Finally, after mocking Julian for being deceived into burning his
ships, and then for exposinghimselfto death, out of shame,by removing his armorin a situationof danger,Ephraemcelebratesthe final victory of the Galilean".'?0These topics, includingthe play on the term
'Galilean', Julian's name for the Christians,as Geffcken showed so
long ago, were common ones in the Christianlore of the apostate
emperor,which one finds in the works of both Gregoryof Nazianzen
and Ephraem.'02For the latter, Julian's end recalls the triumph of
Christ, which the poet describesin the imageryof Ezekiel'sprophetic
vision of the "one who had the appearanceof the son of man" (Ezek.
1:26), carriedin a chariotborne by the cherubim.
He had mocked,and nicknamed
the brothers'Galileans'.
Behold -

the wheels

of the Galileanking in the air!

He thunderedin his chariot,
the cherubimcarryinghim,

256

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

The Galilean rolled it up, and delivered over

The diviner's flock
to the wolves of the desert.
And the Galilean fold
has overwhelmingly filled the world.'03

B. Nisibis and Paganism

A unique feature in Ephraem's Hymns Against Julian is the symbolic
role he assigns to his native city, Nisibis. The poet sees in her demise as
a Christian citadel, when Jovian ceded her to Persia, a paradoxical sign
of what Ephraem took to be the final defeat of paganism. And he
devoted twelve stanzas of Hymn II to this theme,'04 the longest single,
thematic unit in all four Julian hymns.
Ephraem's devotion to his native city, and to her bishops, is the
theme he celebrated in one of the collections of his hymns which is
among his most widely known compositions, the Carmina Nisibena.'05
But the poet was also capable of harsh, moral warnings to the citizens
of Nisibis, as is evident from the words he addressed to them about
repentance in the homilies he wrote on the occasion of the destruction
of the old imperial city of Nicomedia by earthquake in the year 358.
These poetic homilies have been preserved almost entirely in Armenian,'06 and in them Ephraem complains not only about personal vices
among the citizens of Nisibis but also about the prevalence among some
citizens of magical practices and devotion to pagan diviners.'07 And it
is in connection with these latter infidelities, fostered under Julian, that
Ephraem finds the ultimate cause of Nisibis' fall to the Persians.
One reads in the history of Sozomen that the citizens of Nisibis had
appealed to Julian for protection against the Persians, but that the
emperor was indisposed to hear their plea because they all practiced
Christianity.108 However, Ephraem says quite clearly about the
emperor,
He consulted an oracle, made a promise,
and sent us a written message.
That he would come down,
planning to subdue Persia.
The proposal of his letter,
was to rebuild Singar.
Nisibis was taken at his coming down!'09

Singar had been wrecked by the Persians in the year 360 during Constantius' campaigns. But in spite of such reversals as the one suffered

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

257

by the Romans at Singar, the Persians did not capture Nisibis at that
time.110 And this fact gave Ephraem the occasion once again to
contrast what he presented as the pious behavior of Constantius which,
in his view, had earlier saved Nisibis, and Julian's proud reliance on
paganism. Concerning the fall of Nisibis, Ephraem wrote:
The city was the capital
of the countryof Mesopotamia.
The sack-clothof the blessedone (i.e., Constantius)
had preservedit, and it was exalted.
The tyrant,with his blasphemy,
broughtit down, and it was humbled.
Who has weighedhow great is the dishonor
Of the city that was the capital
of the whole west,
Whichthey have made
the last heels of the east?"'

Ephraem found the cause of Nisibis' fall not just in Julian's

paganism, but in the fact that after thirty years of religious loyalty in
the face of Persian invasions,"2 under Julian the city government allowed a formal installation of paganism within the walls. Ephraem
wrote:
In the summerin whichthe idol
was set up withinthe city,
Gracefled from it
and wrathhurriedin."3

One no longer knows what exactly was the idol which was set up in
Nisibis, or by whose agency. But in view of Ephraem's verses on the
subject, it seems clear that Sozomen exaggerated the religious constancy
of the city fathers of Nisibis in the face of Julian's known policies. The
easiest construction to put upon Ephraem's evidence is that given the
emperor's pagan proclivities, the Nisibenes in fact courted his protective
favor by allowing a pagan temple to function, and in this desperate tactic Ephraem found the cause of the city's fate.
Ephraem invested the surrender of Nisibis to the Persians with a prophetic function comparable to that assigned by Christian writers to ruined Jerusalem after 70 A.D. He put the point bluntly, the city "wronged
its Savior; He abandoned it"."" But then Ephraem also said,

258

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

In our own day, the gates of the city

have been shut.
So that with them might be shut
the mouth of pagans, and those led astray.' 5

Nisibis, says Ephraem, "is the city that heralds to the world the shame
of its diviners. Its shame is perpetual. God has handed it over to be a
perpetual herald, who will not tire.16
Ephraem did not blame the emperor Jovian for the surrender of
Nisibis to the Persians. Rather, he held Julian's paganism, shared by the
army, and even by some citizens of Nisibis, to be responsible for the
surrender. In this assessment of the situation Ephraem was not unique. 17What seems to be original in his view is the idea that Nisibis, with
her Persian flag, is a type, a mirror, in which one might consider the
end of paganism itself.
Nisibis, which was taken,
is in the type of a mirror.
God has set it up so one might see in it
the pagan who had come down.
He took what was not his;
he lost what was his own.
But it is the city that heralds to the world
The shame of its diviners;
its shame is perpetual.
God has handed it over to be a perpetual herald,
who will not tire."8

C. Jerusalem and Judaism

Ephraem, along with Gregory of Nazianzen, is one of the earliest
Christian writers to mention the attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem temple
under the rule of the emperor Julian. The final portion of the fourth
Julian hymn concerns this issue.19 Needless to say, Ephraem regarded
the enterprise as an outrage. And he assigned the blame for the undertaking to the Jews, "the crucifiers (zakOpe)," as he calls them, "who
dared, threatened, and even came in to rebuild the ruin which they had
themselves brought to ruin by their sins".'20 For as Ephraem saw it,
Jerusalem had been destroyed in the first place because of the Jews'
refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and because of what he saw as
Jewish complicity in Jesus' death. As Ephraem himself put it, the Jews
had destroyed Jerusalem "by the wood (-en cross) of the Master-

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

259

builder",'2' and now, taking advantage of Julian's policies, "they have

propped her up again on the bruised reed of paganism".'22
The attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem temple was thwarted by a
natural disaster of some sort, according to the story as it has been told
in Christian circles.'23And Ephraem is one of the earliest writers to refer
to it.
Jerusalemquakedwhen she saw
That her wreckershad come in again,'24
to disturbher calm.
She complainedto the Most High
againstthem, and she was heard.
He commandedthe wind and it blew,
He signalledthe quakesand they came;
The lightening,and it flashed;
the air, and it darkened;
The walls, and they were wrecked
the gates, and they wereopened.
Fire came out and consumedthe scholar-scribes,
Who had read in Daniel,
that she should lay in ruins forever.
They read, but they did not learn;
they werechastenedagain, and they learned.'25

Ephraem's reference here to the prophecy of Daniel (9:24-27), in the

last lines of this stanza, occasions no surprise to the reader who is
already aware that Daniel's visions have furnished the poet with one of
his most important conceptual models for making sense of the whole
Julian episode in Christian history. What is surprising is the fact that
Ephraem takes no notice here of the prophecy about Jerusalem in Mt.
24:2, "not one stone will be left on another-it will all be torn down".
Other Christian writers have been concerned with this Gospel passage,
particularly in connection with Julian's plans for the Jerusalem temple.'26 But Ephraem contented himself with Daniel, perhaps precisely
because the prophecy is part of the Jewish scripture. And Ephraem was
concerned to see the demise of both paganism and Judaism in the defeat
of Julian, so he reminded the reader:
Daniel passedthe sentence
againstJerusalemand decreed
She will not be built again,
and Sion believedhim.

260

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

The two of them were worn out, and they wept.

He cut off and cast away their hope.'27

According to Ephraem, Jerusalem in her ruins is a testimony to Christianity's triumph, so to Jerusalem and Sion he says:
In the place of the People-uprooted
They will come with Hallelujias
from all the peoples,
To see within your wombs
the grave and Golgotha.'28

Like Nisibis with her Persian flag, then, ruined Jerusalem too, according to Ephraem, stands for the ultimate triumph of Christianity
over paganism and Judaism. And parenthetically one may notice the
poet's reference to Christian pilgrims coming to Jerusalem to see "the
grave and Golgotha". It may in fact be the earliest documentary
evidence in Syriac for the popularity of pilgrimage to the Holy Land in
the fourth century.'29
Ephraem's hope to see in the emperor Julian's fate the final defeat
of every force opposed to the triumph of a Christian empire is echoed
in the last stanza of his Julian hymns. So one may fittingly bring to a
close this discussion of the major themes in these hymns by quoting
their final stanza.
Who will ever again believe in
fate and the horoscope?
Who will ever again affirm
diviners and soothsayers?
Who will ever again go astray,
after auguries and Zodiacal signs?
All of them have been wrong in everything.
So that the Just One will not have to instruct
each one who goes astray,
He broke the one who went astray,
so that in him those who have gone astray might learn their lesson."3

NOTES

' Edmund
Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Paradiso und Contra
Julianum (CSCO, vols. 174 & 175; Louvain 1957).
2
W. E. Kaegi, Research on Julian the Apostate, 1945-1964, The Classical World 58
(1965) 234.

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

261

See RobertBrowning,TheEmperorJulian(Berkeley&Los Angeles 1976),pp. 213 &

3
217.
4 G. W.
Bowersock,reviewof R. Klein (ed.), JulianApostata, Wege zur Forschung,
509 (Darmstadt1978), in Numen 28 (1981) 91. See also Bowersock'sown citationsof
Ephraem'shymnsin his Julian the Apostate (Cambridge,Mass. 1978).
J. J. Overbeck,S. EphraemiSyriRabulaeepiscopiEdesseni,BalaeiAliorumqueOpera
Selecta(Oxford 1865)3-20.
6
G. Bickell,Die Gedichtedes h. Ephramgegen Julianden Apostaten,Zeitschriftfur
katholischeTheologie2 (1878)335-356.
7 J.
Geffcken,KaiserJulianusund die StreitschriftenseinerGegner,Neue Jahrbucher
fur das klassischeAltertum,Geschichteund deutscheLiteratur21 (1908) 174-178.My
thanksaredueto ProfessorDavidLevensonof FloridaStateUniversityfor informingme
of this importantarticle.
8
S. Euringer,Des heiligenEphramdes SyrersausgewahlteRedenund Lieder,in Des
heiligenEphrdmdes SyrersausgewahlteSchriftenI. Band, Bibliothekder Kirchenvater,
37 (Munich,1919) 199-208.
9 See n. 1 above.
'0 See W. Wright,Catalogueof SyriacManuscriptsin the BritishMuseum,3 vols. (London 1870-1872),vol. II, 413. See also the descriptionof the MS in EdmundBeck, Des
heiligenEphraemdes SyrersHymnende Fide (CSCO,vol. 154;Louvain1955),p. iii, with
a photographof a specimenpageas plate IV. A furtherdiscussionof the MS is included
in the volumein whichthe JulianHymnsare published,Beck, De Paradisound Contra
Julianum,vol. 174, p. iii.
I Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, p. 91.
12 V. Grumel,La chronologie(Paris 1958)244.
3
See, e.g., T. J. Lamy, SanctiEphraemSyriHymniet Sermones,vol. II (Mechliniae
1886)col. 35.
14 See AndreDe Halleux,La transmission
des Hymnesd'Ephremd'apresle MS. Sinai
Syr. 10, f. 165v-178r,in SymposiumSyriacum1972. OrientaliaChristianaAnalecta, 197
(Rome 1974)21 &36.
15 See De Halleux,La transmission,and idem, Une cle pourles hymnesd'Ephremdans
le MS. Sinai Syr. 10, Le Museon85 (1972) 171-199.
16 See De
Halleux,La transmission,31 &57; idem, Une cl6, 184 & 193.
" See De Halleux,La transmission,37, wherethe headingof the Julianhymnsfurnishes
some hints about the title of vol. VIII.
18 See P. Bedjan(ed.), Acta Martyrumet Sanctorum,vol. III (Paris 1892)665-679.
19 See B. Outtier, Contributiona l'etude de la pr6histoiredes collections d'hymnes
d'Ephrem,Parole de l'Orient6 &7 (1975-1976)49-61.
20
Beck discussedthis reasoningfor the inclusionof the Julianhymnsin the MS in E.
Beck,Des heiligenEphraemdes SyrersHymnenContraHaereses.CSCO,vols. 169&170
(Louvain1957),vol. 169, p. xv.
21
See Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, pp. i &ii.
22
See R. Murray,Symbolsof Churchand Kingdom(Cambridge1975) 106-113.
23
The translationis Murray's,Symbols, 110-111.
24
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, pp. i &ii.
25
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, 71. For a discussionof this title,
and its role in the effort to reconstructthe likely shape of the original volumes of
see De Halleux, La transmission,37-38.
Ephraem'scollectedmadraNS,

262

SIDNEYH. GRIFFITH

Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, 91.

Ibid., 67-70. In his edition Beck has very helpfullyset these initial lettersinto the
marginso that their patternis clear.
28
Dr. Geiger,Alphabetischeund akrostichontische
Liederbei Ephram,Zeitschriftder
deutschenmorgenldndischen
Gesellschaft21 (1867)474-475.See Ephraem'snamespelled
out in acrosticsin Beck, ContraHaereses,vol. 169, no. XL, 160-162;idem, Carmina
NisibenaI, vol. 218, II, 6-9; idem,De Fide, XLIX-LXV,154-203.In the latterinstance
the last 200 stanzasof poetrybegin with the letter ) .
29
M. Breydy,Kult,DichtungundMusikbei den Syro-Maroniten,
BandIII, Rishaiqole;
(Kabyath,Lebanon1979)480.
30
See J. Schirmann,HebrewLiturgicalPoetryand ChristianHymnology,The Jewish
QuarterlyReviewn.s. 44 (1953-1954)123-161.See n. 28 above for Ephraem'sacrostics.
31
De Halleux,Une cle, p. 193, no. 41 d.
32
Seethe descriptionsin GeorgeA. Kennedy,GreekRhetoricunderChristianEmperors
(Princeton1983)25, 59-63.
33
Gregoryof Nazianzus'Orations4 and 5, "AgainstJulian",are in PG, vol. 35, cols,
531-720.See now the neweditionof the Greektext, withFrenchtranslation,introduction
and commentary,in J. Bernardi,Grdgoirede Nazianze,Discours 4-5: Contre Julien
(SourcesChr6tiennes,no. 309; Paris, 1983).An Englishtranslationof theseinvectivesis
availablein C. W. King, Julianthe Emperor(London 1888) 1-121.
34
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, 82-83.
35 -See SidneyH. Griffith,Ephraem,the Deaconof Edessa,and the Churchof the Empire, in Diakonia,Essays in Honor of Robert T. Meyer(Washington1986)22-52.
36
See Beck, Hymnende Fide, vol. 154, 271.
37
Bernardi,Grdgoirede Nazianze,ContreJulien, 14 and 15.
38
OrationIV, 100, in the translationof King, Julian the Emperor,p. 100.
39
Bernardi,Gregoirede Nazianze,ContreJulien, 33, 38-39, 41.
40
Ibid., 64.
26
27

41

Beck, Hymnen de Fide, vol. 154, 7.

See Geffcken,KaiserJulianus,174-178.
43
Ibid., 174.
44
Ibid., 174, n. 2.
45
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, 81-83. See Browning, The
EmperorJulian,217;Bowersock,JuliantheApostate, 10, 118;P. Brown,Societyand the
Holy in Late Antiquity(Berkeley1982)90, 101.
42

46

47
48

Ibid., p. 81.
III, 2, p. 81.
III, 3, p. 82.

III, 4, p. 82.
III, 5, p. 82.
51
See, e.g., the expression"Constantine,the saint", in EdmundBeck, Des heiligen
Ephraemdes SyrersSermonesIII, CSCO,vols. 320 & 321 (Louvain,1972),vol. 320, 22.
These homilies,however,may not be authentic.
52
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, III, 8, p. 83.
49
50

53
54
55

III, 1, p. 81.
III, 2, pp. 81-82.
III, 3, p. 82.

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

56

263

III, 10, p. 83.

III, 5, p. 82.
58 See Griffith, art. cit., n. 35 above.
59 Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, III, 7 & 8, pp. 82-83.

57

60

I, 13-15,pp. 73-74.

61

See Hymns I, 18 (Dan. 4:30), 20 (Dan. 8, 9:27); II, 5 (Dan. 8:21), 9 (Dan. 8:21), 14
(Dan. 2:12); IV, 20 (Dan. 9:23-27), 23 (Dan. 9:26-27).
62
See Gerhard Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie, die Periodisierung der
Weltgeschichte in den vier Grossreichen (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem tausendjihrigen
Friedensreich (Apok. 20); eine Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Munchen 1972) 4-16.
63
See Browning, The Emperor Julian, 190; Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 15, 101;
Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism, an Intellectual Biography (Oxford
1981) 192-193, 224-225.
64
Petrus Benedictus (ed.) Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia, quae exstant
Graece, Syriace, Latine (vol. II; Romae, 1740) 206 &219. Pace Poskalsky, p. 15, who does
not mention Ephraem's view from p. 219. Of course, there may be some question about
the authenticity of the Daniel commentary, but it does not vitiate the present point.
Ephraem refers to Dan. 8:21 four times in the course of the Julian hymns.
65
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, I, 20, p. 75.
66
See above, n. 48. Later in his life Ephraem even excused Valens for his Arianizing
policies. See Griffith, art. cit., n. 35 above; Beck, Hymnen de Fide, vol. 154, 271.
67
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, I, 1, p. 71.
68
See Griffith, art. cit., n. 35 above; Beck, Contra Haereses, vol. 169, pp. 52, 95; vol.
170, p. 89, n. 12.
69
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, I, 12, p. 73.
70
I, 14, p. 74. "Left-hand" imagery appears also in I, 2 & 14; II, 9. It is to be interpreted
with reference to Mt. 25:31-46.
71
See, e.g., R. Murray, Symbols of Church, 244-245.
72
See Contra Julianum I, 3, 21, 38, PG, vol. XXXV, cols. 533, 549, 564; King, Julian
the Emperor, 1-2, 12, 19-20.
73 Contra Julianum
I, 37, PG, vol. XXXV, col. 564; King, Julian the Emperor, 21.
74
E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones de Fide, CSCO, vols. 212 & 213
(Louvain 1961), vol. 212, 42.
7S
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, IV, 15-16, p. 88.
76
See Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian & Hellenism, 173-178.
7
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, IV, 17, p. 88.
78

IV, 7-17, pp. 86-88.

IV, 14, p. 88.

On Julian's coins see F. D. Gilliard, Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate, The
Journal of Roman Studies 54 (1964) 135-141. But see also Bowersock, Julian the
Apostate, 61, 104, fig. 9, facing p. 111.
81
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, 74-75.
82
Ephraem's reference to these biblical parallels is his primary reaction to the coins, and
not simply a cover for his presumed unfamiliarity with the pagan iconography. Pace
Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 104.
83
See Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 88ff.
84
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, I, 16, p. 74.
79
80

264
85
86
87

88

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

I, 18, p. 75.
I, 19, p. 75.
I, 18, p. 75.
II, 7, p. 77.

II, 2, p. 76. See also IV, 5, p. 86, for a more extended comparison of Julian with
Ahab.
90
The Antiochenes made fun of the emperor's beard as a part of their general compaign
of ridicule against him, and Julian responded to their complaints against him in his work
The Antiochene, or Misopogon, i.e., "Beard Hater". See Browning, The Emperor Julian,
158; Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 103-104; Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and
Hellenism, 201-225.
9'
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, II, 5, p. 76. See Num. 6:5.
92
II, 5, 9, 18, pp. 76, 77, 79.
93
II, 9, p. 77.
94
II, 8, p. 77: "With hardened iron he destroyed that calf." At Ex. 32:20 the Peshitta
says that Moses ground the now molten calf with a file until it was pulverized: "?apeh
bgawpina Cdamddethdqeq."
95
R. Murray, The Lance Which Re-opened Paradise, a Mysterious Reading in the Early
Syriac Fathers, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973) 224-234, and see the important
adjustment, "The Lance which Re-opened Paradise: a Correction," loc. cit., 491.
96
Peshitta has harba for romphaia. The verbal homology discussed by Murray produced
its effect in the Syriac tradition prior to Ephraem's day.
97 See
Ephraem's use of this image in his madrase "de paradiso," II, 1 in Beck, De
Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, 5.
98
III, 14, p. 84.
99
II, 7-8, p. 78.
'00 Referring only to III, 14, p. 84, Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 116, surmises that
Ephraem had a pagan in mind.
10' Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, III, 15-17, pp. 84-85.
102
Geffcken, Kaiser Julianus und die Streitschriften, 175-176. One topic shared between
Ephraem and Gregory which Geffcken did not mention is the allusion to Julian's pagan
Uncle Julian, the emperor's namesake, whose horrid death so depressed the emperor. For
Ephraem see Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, IV, 3 &4, pp. 85-86. For
Gregory see Contra Julianum II, 1, 2, PG, XXXV, col. 665; King, Julian the Emperor,
86. See also Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 62-63; Browning, The Emperor Julian, 157,
183-184.
103 Beck, De Paradiso und Contra
Julianum, vol. 174, III, 17, p. 85. The verb in the
phrase, "The Galilean rolled it up..." is uncertain. See Beck, ibid., vol. 175, p. 79, n. 17.
Here one understands gall, 'to roll', as in the action of rolling up a scroll. For the possibility of a transitive sense for this verb, see the use of the cognate word in Aramaic to mean
to "roll up" a scroll, M. M. Jastrow, Sefer Millim (New York 1982), vol. I, 249. One
should note the word-play in Syriac in this verse, involving the words glilaye, giglawhy,
glilayd, and gallah or galah.
104
Beck, De Paradiso und Contra Julianum, vol. 174, II, 15-27, pp. 78-81.
105 E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, CSCO, vols. 218, 219,
240, 241 (Louvain 1961 & 1963). Vols. 218 and 219 contain the hymns devoted exclusively
to Nisibis and her bishops. See also J.-M. Fiey, Les eveques de Nisibe au temps de saint
89

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN'S HYMNS 'AGAINST JULIAN'

265

tphrem, Parolede l'Orient4 (1973) 123-135;idem, Nisibe, metropolesyriaqueorientale

et ses suffragantsdes originesa nos jours, CSCO, vol. 388 (Louvain1977)21-36.
106
See C. Renoux,lphrem de Nisibe, memresur Nicom6die,PatrologiaOrientalis37
(1975). LXX, 355 pp.
Ibid., memre X & XI, 193-269.
108 PG, LXVII, col. 1221.

107

E. Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, II, 15, p. 78.

See AndrePiganiol,L'empirechretien(325-395),HistoireRomaine,tome iv (Paris
1947) 107.
1 Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, II, 25, pp. 80-81. For another
referenceto Constantiusin sackclothsee II, 19, p. 79.
109

112

13
14

115

See II, 20, p. 79; III, 3, p. 82.

II, 20, p. 80.
II, 26, p. 81.
II, 17, p. 79.

II, 16, p. 79. See the full stanzaquotedbelow.

See R. Turcan,L'abandonde Nisibe et l'opinion publique(363 ap. J.-C.), in R.
Chevallier(ed.), Melangesd'archeologieet d'histoireofferts a Andre Piganiol, 3 vols.
(Paris 1966),vol. II, 875-890.
18 Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, II, 16, p. 79.
9 IV, 18-25,pp. 88-89. See the Englishtranslationof stanzas18-23in S. P. Brock,A
LetterAttributedto Cyrillof Jerusalemon the Rebuildingof the Temple,Bulletinof the
School of Orientaland African Studies 40 (1977) 283-284. For a discussionof the
rebuildingof the Jerusalemtempleas a featurein Julian'sbiographysee Browning,The
EmperorJulian, 176;Bowersock,Julianthe Apostate, 120-122.See David Levenson,A
Sourceand Tradition.CriticalStudy of the Storiesof Julian'sAttempt to Rebuildthe
JerusalemTemple(Ph. D. Thesis,HarvardUniversity;Cambridge,Mass. 1979),soon to
be publishedin a revisedform by E. J. Brill, Leiden.
120
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, IV, 18, p. 89.
121
IV, 22, p. 89. The "Masterbuilder",of course, is Christ.For this title see Murray,
Symbols,223-224.
122
IV, 22, p. 89. The image of the "bruisedreed" is from 2 Kgs. 18:21,Isaiah36:6.
Ephraemused it earliertoo, in I, 2, p. 71 and II, 10, p. 77.
123
See S. P. Brock,A LetterAttributedto Cyril,267-286;idem, The Rebuildingof the
TempleunderJulian,a New Source,PalestineExplorationQuarterly108(1976)103-107.
124
Officially, Jews had been banned from Jerusalemsince the time of the emperor
Hadrian(d. 138A.D.). SeeEusebius'remarksin his HistoriaEcclesiastica,IV, 6, K. Lake
(ed. and trans.), Eusebius, The EcclesiasticalHistory, Loeb ClassicalLibrary,2 vols.
(Cambridge,Mass., 1959),vol. I, pp. 310-313.
125-Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, IV, 19-20. p. 89.
126
See the articlesby Brockcited in nn. 116 & 120 above.
127
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, IV, 23, p. 90.
128
i.e., the Jews, and 'the
IV, 25, p. 90. The contrastbetween'the People' (Cammd),
i.e., the gentileswho acceptedJesusas the Messiah,is a commonone
peoples,' (Camme),
in Ephraem'spoetry.See in particularits deploymentin E. Beck, Des heiligenEphraem
des SyrersPaschalhymnen,CSCO,vols. 248&249 (Louvain1964).See also Murray,Symbols, 41-68.
116

17

266

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

129
Pilgrimagefrom Greekand Latinspeakingareasis well documentedfor this period.
See E. D. Hunt, Holy LandPilgrimagein the LaterRomanEmpire,A.D. 312-460(Oxford 1982).
130
Beck, De Paradisound ContraJulianum,vol. 174, IV, 26, p. 90.

Institute of Christian Oriental Research.

The Catholic University of America.
18 Mullen Library, Washington, DC 20064