{"title":"安抚众神,拯救帝国","authors":"Ari Finkelstein","doi":"10.1525/california/9780520298729.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 explores Julian’s effort to employ Judean “sacrifice” as an example of Hellenic orthopraxy and to convince Christians that the Eucharist was invalid because it bore no relationship to Hebrew sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was a key plank of Julian’s hellenizing program. It was also rarely found in Antioch, eschewed by both Hellenes and by Christians. In Galileans, Julian employs the theurgic Neoplatonism of Iamblichus of Chalcis to describe Jewish private slaughter as sacrifice. Such sacrifice is meant to stand in for Hellenic sacrificial orthopraxy. In the process, Julian demonstrates that Judean private sacrifice is the direct successor of Hebrew sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, while the Christian Eucharist is new and invalid. The impact of Julian’s argument on Antiochenes is also considered.","PeriodicalId":215560,"journal":{"name":"Specter of the Jews","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Propitiating the Gods, Saving the Empire\",\"authors\":\"Ari Finkelstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/california/9780520298729.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 4 explores Julian’s effort to employ Judean “sacrifice” as an example of Hellenic orthopraxy and to convince Christians that the Eucharist was invalid because it bore no relationship to Hebrew sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was a key plank of Julian’s hellenizing program. It was also rarely found in Antioch, eschewed by both Hellenes and by Christians. In Galileans, Julian employs the theurgic Neoplatonism of Iamblichus of Chalcis to describe Jewish private slaughter as sacrifice. Such sacrifice is meant to stand in for Hellenic sacrificial orthopraxy. In the process, Julian demonstrates that Judean private sacrifice is the direct successor of Hebrew sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, while the Christian Eucharist is new and invalid. The impact of Julian’s argument on Antiochenes is also considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":215560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Specter of the Jews\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Specter of the Jews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520298729.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Specter of the Jews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520298729.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter 4 explores Julian’s effort to employ Judean “sacrifice” as an example of Hellenic orthopraxy and to convince Christians that the Eucharist was invalid because it bore no relationship to Hebrew sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was a key plank of Julian’s hellenizing program. It was also rarely found in Antioch, eschewed by both Hellenes and by Christians. In Galileans, Julian employs the theurgic Neoplatonism of Iamblichus of Chalcis to describe Jewish private slaughter as sacrifice. Such sacrifice is meant to stand in for Hellenic sacrificial orthopraxy. In the process, Julian demonstrates that Judean private sacrifice is the direct successor of Hebrew sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, while the Christian Eucharist is new and invalid. The impact of Julian’s argument on Antiochenes is also considered.