Philostorgius on the Jews

Philostorgius is a name that few know and even those whose few who do know of him know little about him. That is unfortunate in many respects because Philostorgius was an early Church historian who lived sometime between the fourth and fifth centuries in the Eastern Roman Empire. He wrote two principle works that we know about: one was a history of the Church and the other was a critique of Porphyry of Tyre's powerful philosophical polemic 'Against the Christians' (of which again we only have fragments).

Ironically - not unlike Porphyry - Philostorgius' works were destroyed by proponents of what became the early Christian Church as Philostorgius was regarded as a heretic of probable Arian or pseudo-Arian views (specifically in and around the concept of the Trinity). We know of Philostorgius only through the fact that a few copies of his works survived in the libraries of Constantinople and that a famous ninth century Byzantine Orthodox Patriarch named Photius wrote an Epitome (i.e., a summary) of Philostorgius' 'Ecclesiastical History', which has come down to us.

Of course that situation is not ideal, but what it tells us about Philostorgius' views on the jews is of interest as it helps to make us aware of that for most of its history Christianity has had a profoundly antagonist relationship to the jews, but one based on religious confession as opposed to the recognition that jews are a biological group, which Judaism has helped to create, sustain and reinforce.

The first mention that Philostorgius makes of the jews is in relation to the later Old Testament, which Photius summarizes as follows:

'Philostorgius says that he cannot tell who was the author of the two books which are commonly called those of the Maccabees. But he is especially loud in the praise of their unknown author, inasmuch as the events which he narrates in them are found to correspond exactly with the prophecies of Daniel: and also because of the skill which he shows in explaining how the evil deeds of men reduced the condition of the Jewish people to the lowest depths, just as afterwards it was the valour of other men that retrieved it again; when the Jews resuscitated the spirit in which they had met their enemies of old, and had seen their temple purged of foreign superstitions.' (1)

In the above it is important to understand that the logic that underlies what Photius and Philostorgius write is deeply and profoundly Christian. Meaning that they look at the disparate elements of the Old Testament as being prophetic so in this instance they see in the Book of Daniel the prophecy that is fulfilled by the coming of the original terrorists (otherwise known as the Maccabees) and the restoration of the temple of Solomon to their fundamentalist and iconoclastic views. (2)

This further means that Photius and Philostorgius view this Biblical history as a series of prophetical successions (i.e., a process of lax observance creates an angry Yahweh who in turn sends a prophet to warn the jews who are then allowed to be subjugated and oppressed if they do not turn away or are lead to victory by the prophet if they mend their ways) which culminated in the arrival and the rejection of the Messiah (Jesus) among the jews as well as including the jews committing decide and the cup passing from the jews to the gentiles.

In this sense we can see that both Photius and Philostorgius approve of what the Maccabees did because they view it as the fulfilment of an earlier prophecy in the Book of Daniel and because the fundamentalist iconoclasm of the Maccabees fitted nicely into their own beliefs about the issue of idolatry and polytheism in the world.

This passage should not be read - as some might suggest - as being complementary towards the jews as what Photius and Philostorgius are praising is the fulfilment of divine prophecy as opposed to the historical jews or the jews of their own time.

This is made abundantly clear in the next mention Philostorgius makes of the jews, which Photius summarizes as follows:

'Further, he relates that this Theophilus, having passed a long life among the Romans, formed his character upon a pattern of the most strict amid perfect virtue, and embraced the true faith concerning God; but, he adds, that he chose the monastic life, and was promoted to the deaconate at the hands of Eusebius. Thus much as to his early life. But afterwards, having undertaken this embassy, he was invested, by the men of his own party, with the episcopal dignity. But Constantius, wishing to array the embassy with peculiar splendour, put on board of their ships two hundred well-bred horses from Cappadocia, and sent with them many other gifts, with the double view of making an imposing show and of conciliating the feelings of the people. Accordingly, Theophilus, on his arrival among the Sabaeans, endeavoured to persuade the ruler of the tribe to become a Christian, and to give over the deceits of heathenism. Hereupon, the customary fraud and malice of the Jews was compelled to shrink into deep silence, as soon as ever Theophilus had once or twice proved by his wonderful miracles the truth of the Christian faith.' (3)

Now in the above we can see that in summarizing an embassy of a Christian deacon named Theophilus to the Sabaeans (best known as the people of the Queen of Sheba [= Saba]) (4) in order to convert their ruler away from polytheism and to Christianity. There is little reason for either Photius or Philostorgius to mention the jews at this point as they are only dealing with polytheism and Christianity per se.

However, mention them they do and point out by implication that the ruler of the Sabaeans was obviously somewhat en hoc to the jews given that they were are told by necessary implication that the jews attacked the Christian arguments and their messenger in the hearing of the ruler. This suggests that the jews were a significant force in their terms of their political influence or numbers (and quite possibly both) to be reckoned with in the kingdom of Saba. Given that to be able to do this and be taken as the serious threat to the purpose of Theophilus' embassy that Philostorgius portrays them as: the jews would have had to wield a substantial amount of power in the kingdom of Saba as otherwise why would a ruler bother listening to them or seek their opinion on a matter of domestic policy?

Indeed, if we but acknowledge that the jews were a power to be reckoned with in the kingdom of Saba at the time then it makes sense of why Photius and Philostorgius would mention them at all.

Photius and Philostorgius make the defeat of the jews by Theophilus into a form of intellectual lesson of the believers in the power of miracles (i.e., the Christians at this time as well as variants of pagan neo-Platonism) against those who used empiricist arguments against the veracity of said miracles (i.e., pagan intellectuals such as Porphyry and the jews in relation to Christianity) in that latter doubted, but when they had made their intellectual objections (i.e., what Photius and Philostorgius call the 'fraud of the jews') a miracle was summoned by Theophilus and allegedly occurred leading to the confutation of said objections by the entrance of the miraculous occurrence(s).

In addition to the simple mechanics of the passage as I have outlined above: it is clear that Photius and Philostorgius see that the jews are - as the literal unrepentant murders of the Messiah - out to oppose Christianity at every turn and will use any method at their disposal (no matter how fraudulent or deceitful) to achieve that end. Photius and Philostorgius further give us a motive for this in their suggestion that malice towards Christians (although towards non-jews in general would be accurate) is what lies behind this informal jewish declaration of total war.

This is well represented by the narrative of Theophilus' embassy to the ruler of the Sabaeans in so far as here the jews are already influential, but to maintain their influence (which they believe would be challenged by the introduction of Christianity) they ally with another natural religious enemy of theirs (polytheism) in order to stop Christianity as an 'enemy of my enemy'. As polytheism is not only an aberration to Judaism but the Torah all but declares that the jews have a duty to wipe it out: root and branch.

To disingenuously ally with polytheism against Christianity is a betrayal of Judaism as such and is used by Photius and Philostorgius to illustrate to the reader how proverbially low the jews will go (i.e., abandon their own religious beliefs when it is convenient for them to do so) to attack Christians in a clever rhetorical juxtaposition to the iconoclastic purging of the temple of Solomon by the Maccabees (i.e., the jews are now the idolators and the Christians are the chosen of Yahweh to purge that temple of its graven images).

This juxtaposition is made clear when we read Philostorgius' description of jewish indecision in relation to the Emperor Julian and his project to rebuild the temple of Solomon in order to disprove the words of Jesus and not because Julian had any love for the jews.

Photius summarizes Philostorgius' comments as follows:

'The apostate Julian endeavouring to convict of falsehood the prophecies of our Saviour, in which he declared that Jerusalem should be so utterly overthrown that "one stone should not be left upon another,” not only failed in his attempt, but also was compelled against his will to give a most irrefutable proof of their truth. For having collected together all the Jews from every quarter, and having Supplied them with money from the imperial treasury and with other resources, he enjoined upon them to set about the rebuilding of their temple. But a panic repeatedly inspired in their minds, such as no tongue of eloquence can describe, put a check to their attempts, and also covered with shame and disgrace as well the emperor as the Jews, and drove them into the greatest straits. Hence flames came down and destroyed those who dared to set a hand to the work ; hence an earthquake came and swallowed them up, while others perished again by some other calamity. So the audacity which dared to cast discredit upon the prophecies of our Lord, was overruled to show their venerable truth and efficacy.' (5)

In the above we can see that once again the implicit assertion behind the fact that an unnatural panic supposedly seized the jews (actually they were cautious because they rightly suspected that Julian despised them nearly as much as he did Christians) is that they were betraying their own professed beliefs and this was representative of the fact that they - in Christian thought - were no longer the 'chosen' of Yahweh and that cup had passed - a-la Saint Paul's aphorism - to the gentiles.

In essence Philostorgius is asserting that - like with Theophilus' embassy to the Sabaeans - the jews were the deadly enemy of Christians everywhere and that as such they were (like the proverbial Anti-Christ) prepared to do anything to stop the spread of the Christian gospel among the gentiles and that even went as far as to ally with militant polytheism - as represented by Julian - against the explicit rules of the Decalogue itself. (6)

Indeed, Philostorgius viewed the jews as being stridently anti-gentile in general as well as viciously anti-Christian as is evinced from what he says in relation to the Emperor Hadrian and his reasons for suppressing the jews (which Philostorgius heartily approves of).

Photius summarizes Philostorgius' comments as follows:

'The Roman emperor Hadrian, who was called Aelius, named the city of Jerusalem Aelia, after himself, in order entirely to banish and exclude thence the Jewish race, that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country. Hadrian was in reality afraid of their hot and impetuous disposition as a nation, and especially dreaded lest they should meet in that city under the pretext of performing their sacrifices, and cause the Romans trouble.' (7)

Now aside from the overt point that Philostorgius and Photius are making that the jews are fanatically opposed to gentiles and seek by main force and subterfuge to conquer and rule them. We can see that Philostorgius is making the more subtle point that this fanaticism is not caused by Judaism per se, but rather he attributes it to the 'hot and impetuous disposition' of the jews.

This interpretation is further reinforced by Philostorgius' subtly complementary description of how Hadrian expelled the jews as a people (i.e., not just the followers of Judaism) from Judea and the implicit suggestion by Philostorgius that the jewish sacrifices (i.e., the annual rites of Judaism conducted at the Temple of Solomon) are used as nothing more than a convenient excuse for the jews to assemble at a central point from which they can launch terrorist attacks and plan political conspiracies against the non-jews (i.e., 'cause the Romans trouble').

In essence we can see that from what little we know of Philostorgius that he was both a militant Christian and the proponent of a radical anti-Judaism, which bordered on what we would now call anti-Semitism. As such then we can see that he belongs in the long gentile Christian tradition of radical, borderline anti-Semitic anti-Judaism along with the likes of Martin Luther and Paul de Lagarde.

References

(1) Phot. Epi. Ecc. Hist. Philo. 1:1

(2) It is worth noting here that modern commentators on the Wahabi variant of Islamic theology have largely passed by the fact that Wahabism is largely a confused regurgitation of the purist and fundamentalist dogmas of early jewish groups like the Zealots and Maccabees.

(3) Phot. Epi. Ecc. Hist. Philo. 3:4

(4) A long-time state occupying much of what is today Yemen and southern Saudi Arabia, which may or may not have been the origin of the people of the land of Punt that was the mythologised origin of the Egyptians.

(5) Phot. Epi. Ecc. Hist. Philo. 7:9

(6) This interpretation is confirmed by Ibid. 7:14, where Photius clearly states that Philostorgius asserted that a 'book of prophecy' (i.e., Genesis in this instance) fell among the jews and polytheists (which they took as a prophetic omen), which supports the case that Philostorgius was indeed arguing that the jew had broken the commandments of Decalogue and that accordingly the 'cup had passed'.

(7) Ibid. 7:11