Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione

101 Pages·1972·9.489 MB·English

by  William R. Schoedel (ed.,trans.)

Oxford Early Christian Texts
Athenagoras
Leaatio
ΑΝΩ
De Resurrectione
Edited and Translated by
W illiaD1 R. Schoedel
OXFORD EARLY CHRISTlAN TEXTS
General Editor: Dr. Henry Chadwick
Dean of Christ Church, Oxford
The main object of the series is to
provide reliable working texts, with
English translat.ons, of importantworks
by writers of .the patristic period' ίη
both Greek and Latin. There ννίll be ηο
attempt to make it a, complete patro
logy, only those works being included
for which it is considered there is a
real need ίη this kind of edition.
Each volume contains an introduc
tion, text and select critical apparatus,
with English translation en face, refer
ences to quotations and allusions, and
brief notes οη subject-matter.
ISBN Ο 19 826808 4
Ι n the Legatio Athenagoras deals with
the charge of' atheism' so often levelled
against the early Church ίπ the Roman
Empire. His efforts to re-orient the
social and religious ideas of the Romans
help us to see the situation as many
early Christians must have seen ίΙ and
this makes the work of great importance
to the historian and theologian.
The de Resurrectione is probably not
(despite tradition) from the hand of
Athenagoras. It seems to have emerged
from the Origenist controversies and
stands as an illustration of the way
ίπ which traditional items of faith
WθΓθ defended ίπ the face of Platonist
metaphysics.
OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS
Generαl Editor
DR. HENR Υ CHADWICK
Dean of Christ Church, Oxford
ATHENAGORAS
ATHENAGORAS
Legatio
AND
De Resurrectione
EDITED AND TRANSLATED
ΒΥ
'ιVILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
OXFORD
ΑΤ ΤΗΕ CLARENDON PRESS
1972
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. 1
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
CAPE TOWN IBADAN NAIROBI DAR Ε! SALAAM LUSAKA ADDIS ΑΒΑΒΑ PREFACE
DELHI ΒΟΜΒΑΥ CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE HONG KONG ΤΟΚΥΟ
Α L Τ Η Ο U G Η Athenagoras iS not well known and left ηο
deep mark οη the life and thought of the ancient Church,
© OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1972 the two documents which come down to us under his name
may be read as fragments of larger debates and ίη this way
contribute significantly to our understanding of two im
portant problems that emerged ίη the early period.
Athenagoras' Plea is especial1y noteworthy for the light
which it sheds οη the social problem of Christianity as a
popular re1igious movement ίη the Roman Empire. The
author's careful exploration of the charge of 'atheism' sub
ordinates traditional polemics to a controlled apologetic aim
and reveals more clearly than other early discussions some
thing of the underlying difference between Christian and
Graeco-Roman views of 'piety'. Raffaele Pettazzoni and
others have taught us that the clash between Rome and the
Church was ίη part a clash between two distinct types of
religion: first, the ancient religion of city and state-that is,
the type of ΓeΙίgίοη which establisl1es and enshrines the values
of the political and social institutions of this world; and
second, the universal religion with its message of salvation
that is, the type of religion which (1ike Christianity) orients
men to values that transcend the mundane order of things.
Athenagoras knows as certainly as Vano that there is a
'political religion' which the emperors welcome for the sake of
social stability. He presents Christianity as superior to such
religion and appeals to an authority greater than that of the
state; but he also emphasizes the loyalty of Christians ίη
conventional terms. U nfortunately, the underlying tensions
ίη this marriage of themes and their practical consequences
PRINTED ΙΝ GREAT BRITAIN are not adequately explored. Ιη particular, Athenagoras
ΑΤ ΤΗΕ UNIVERSITY PRESS. OX}<'ORD fails to realize that the mild 'atheism' of a pagan elite-the
ΒΥ νΙΥΙΑΝ RIDLER philosophers-could not properly be compared with the
PRINTER ΤΟ ΤΗΕ UΝΙVΕRSΙ1Ύ
thoroughgoing 'atheism' of a popular religious movement
νϊ PREFACE
such as Christianity. Rome's tolerance, however broad, had
limits which our apologist cannot fully grasp; consequently,
he neglects the social issues for argumentation (sometimes CONTENTS
superficial and arid) οη theological and metaphysical issues.
The weakness of his work, however, should not be exag
INTRODUCTION ίΧ
gerated as it was by Johannes Geffcken ίη his searing attack
of 1907. Α more balanced view of his achievement is offered Ι. The ΡΙεα xi
Outline of the ΡΙεα χχίίί
ίη the introduction to this edition.
The second treatise ίn this book, On the Resurrection, Ι ι. Concerning the Resurrection of the Deαd χχν
apparently comes from another period, despite the tradi Outline of the treatise χΧχίίί
tional ascription of it to Athenagoras. Reasons are presented ΙΙΙ. The Text χχχν
ίη the introduction for viewing it as a conservative reaction
to the teaching οη the resurrection ίη the school of Origen. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS χχχνίί
Alternatively, because of the close relation both historically
LEGATIO 3
and philosophically between Origen and the later Platonists,
the treatise may be directed against the latter. Ιn any event, DE RESURRECTIONE 89
we have before us a polemic which underscores the difficulties
encountered by Christian theology as it attempted to come to INDEXES OF Ν AMES, TERMS, AND Q.UOTATIONS 151
terms more fully with Platonism.
Ι owe to Robert Μ. Grant my first interest ίη the text of
Athenagoras and the problems of his writing οη the literary,
intellectual, and social side. Subsequently Ι have profited Ι
much from conversations with other American scholars, Ι
Ι
especially Robert L. Wilken and Lloyd G. Patterson. Ι wish ι
Ί
also to recognize Brown University of Providence, R.I., for
summer grants which made the writing of this book possible.
The staff of the Clarendon Press has my warmest thanks,
especially for its close attention to detail ίη the editing of
this volume. Finally, Ι dedicate this work to my father,
G. Walter Schoedel, who would have been pleased, Ι think,
with a book of this kind.
W.R.S.
:1
11
The University of Illinois
Summer 1971
INTRODUCTION
ATHENAGORAS left himself almost without witness ίη the
early Churcll and was recalled from obscurity οηlΥ ίη the
tenth century by Arethas~ archbishop of Caesarea ίη Cappa
docia. Before that time, one early father, Methodius (d. A.D.
3 Ι ι) alludes to the Pleα (24. 2) and identifies the author as
Athenagoras.1 Epiphanius and Photius discuss the same
text, but οηlΥ οη the authority of Methodius.2
One other reference to Athenagoras may be noted, but
it is not encouraging. According to a fourteenth-century
codex,3 'Philip of Side [a fifth-century Christian historian]
says ίη his twenty-fourth book: Athenagoras was the first to
head the school ίη Alexandria. He flourished at the time of
Hadrian [A.D. 117-38] and Antoninus [A.D. 138-61], to both
of whom he addressed his Pleα οπ behαlf of the Christiαns. He
became a Christian while he wore the philosopher's cloak
and was at the head ofthe Academy. Even before Celsus he
was anxious to write against the Christians. He read the
Sacred Scriptures ίη order to aim his shafts more accurately,
but he was so powerfully seized by the Holy Spirit that like
the great Paul he became a teacher rather than a persecutor
of the faith which he was harassing. Philip says that Clement
the writer of the Stromαtα was his disciple and that Pantaenus
[MS. Clement] was the disciple of Clement. Pantaenus
himself was also an Athenian philosopher, of the Pythagorean
school. But Eusebius says the opposite: that Pantaenus was
the teacher of Clement . . .' Disagreement between Philip
and Eusebius οη the school ίη Alexandria prevents us from
concerning ourselves too much about the former's dating of
the Pleα. There is, as we shall see, some difficulty about the
ι De Res. 1.36,37 (ρρ. 277-8 Bonwetsch).
2 Epiphanius, Ραπ. 64. 20-1 (PG χΙί. 1101); Photius, Bibl. cod. 234 (PG ciii.
1109)·
3 Codex Bodl. Baroccianus 142, fo1. 216 (PG νί. 182).
χ INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION χί
address, but the co-rulership presupposed throughout the Arethas, as the range of his library suggests,6 shared the
apology is not satisfied by taking up Philip's suggestion. scholarly ideals of this circle. His recovery of and interest ίη
Antoninus, to be sure, was adopted by Hadrian before the Athenagoras can best be understood against the intellectual
latter's death; but it was Marcus Aurelius who first set up background for which Photius' Bibliothecα stands.
a co-rulership. There were, ίη fact, two such joint rules ίη Codex Paris 45 ι is the first manuscript that embodies the
his reign-one with L. Aurelius Verus (A.D. 161-9) and one conception of a corpus of 'apologists'. The recognition of the
with Commodus. Our text has the latter ίη mind, since the existence of such a category of early Christian literature,
'kings' addressed are regarded as father and son (ι 8. 2). refl.ecting a distinctive orientation and purpose, was an
We know practically nothing, then, about Athenagoras important step ίη the sorting out of the early materials. But
apart from the medieval codices which contain his work. The there is also some artificiality inherent ίη the conception, and
earliest of these, codex Paris 45 ι, by its own account 'was it is well to remember the wide diversity of views and
written by the hand of Baanes the secretary for Arethas, temperaments of the 'apologists' of the second century.
archbishop of Caesarea ίη Cappadocia, ίη the year of the
world 6422' (A.D. 914).4 The codex included a number of Ι. ΤΗΕ PLEA
'apologetic' writings, among which are two works ascribed
The Pleα may be dated between A.D. 176 (the beginning of
to Athenagoras-the Pleα and On the Resurrection.5
the co-rulership ofM. Aurelius and Commodus) and A.D. 180
The reason for the neglect of Athenagoras can only be
(the death of Μ. Aurelius) or, more narrowly, between A.D.
conjectured. Ιη some ways the Pleα represents a form of
176 and A.D. 178 (if we assume that the 'deep peace' of ι. 2
pleading superior to more famous predecessors such as
is more than a rhetorical fl.ourish and that ηο such reference
Justin and Tatian. But for the same reason there is much
was possible after the resumption of the war against the
less ίη it that is of use to later generations who had left
Germans ίη A.D. 178). The apology may have been called
apologetic concerns behind and were looking to the 'Fathers'
forth by the persecution of the Christians ίη Gaul ίη A.D. 177
for authoritative theological statements. It is characteristic
(Eusebius, Η.Ε. 5. ι. ι ff.), but there is little positive evidence
of the ΡΙεα that the incarnation is the subject of only one
ίη favour of this (cf. 3. ι).
obscure remark (2 ι. 4). Ιη the manuscripts from the tenth
There is one serious difficulty with the address. Μ. Aurelius
to the sixteenth century the treatise On the Resurrection is often
dropped the title 'victor of Armenia' after the death of
copied without the ΡΙεα, apparently because of its superior
his adoptive brother, L. Aurelius Verus, ίη A.D. 169; and
usefulness ίη one department of theology. The possibility
Commodus never had it. Schwartz therefore suggested that
that it had a separate career also before the tenth century
'victors of Germany' be read instead; Harnack suggested
will be discussed below.
expunging the phrase as an interpolation; and Geffcken
It is likely, then, that we owe the preservation of the Pleα
welcomed the confusion as evidence of the unreliability of
to the cultural renaissance inspired especial1y by Photius,
the salutation. But Giovanni Porta has shown that ίη
patriarch of Constantinople, and supported by such em
unofficial papyri and inscriptions 'victor of Armenia' wαs a
perors of the Macedonian dynasty as Leo νι (A.D. 886-9 12),
title used of Μ. Aurelius after the death of L. Verus and that
a pupil of Photius, and Constantine νιι (A.D. 913-59).
6 Adolph νοn Hamack, Die Ueberlieftrung der griechischen Apologeten des
;:;weiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter (Texte und Untersuch
4 Fol. 401 v. 5 Fols. 322 v-367 v. ungen, ί. 1/2, Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1882), ρρ. 36-46.
xίi INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION χίίί
it was also given to Commodus.7 We can hardly expect our Should we wish to imagine a somewhat more likely official
author to conform to precise official usage. setting ίη which the Pleα could have figured, we may follow
It must be admitted, however, that there is something Ehrhardt's suggestion concerning Justin's Apologiesl2 (which
wrong with the address. Arethas had already remarked οη its Athenagoras knewl3) and suppose that such a document
incompleteness ίη the margin of Paris 45 Ι. Ιη orations like would haνe been sent to the imperial department αb epistulis.14
those of Aelius Aristides we sometimes have addresses ίη the But since Athenagoras poses as a speaker, this also seems
usual epistolary form 'Ν. to Ν., greeting' (Or. 12 and 41). unlikely. We are driνen to the conclusion that he was con
The address of the Pleα was obviously intended to conform to structing an oration ίη the forensic style ίη obedience to the
this formula. But the name of the sender and the greeting rules of rhetoric.
haνe fallen away. Still, ίη light of the internal eνidence dis Despite this artificiality the peculiar mark of the Pleα
cussed aboνe, it seems clear that the address is right as far as among the Apologies of the second century is its controlled
it goes. That the sender was Athenagoras is probably correct. apologetic aim. Exposition of Christian teaching occurs only
The title which mentions him is old, since it is ίη the hand to rebut false charges (see the outline below).ls Athenagoras,
ofthe scribe Baanes.8 Methodius, moreoνer, knew the Pleα as then, seems not to be writing for himself and other Christians.
a work of Athenagoras. Our apologist could also haνe been As Monachino suggests,16 the Pleα looks like an 'open letter'
an Athenian as the title claims; and he had as much right to to the emperors destined for the general public. It represents
the name 'philosopher' as many others of his day.9 an elaboration of the sort of thing that Christians of an irenic
The title may be translated 'embassy' as well as 'plea'. bent said before tribunals (cf. Eusebius, Η.Ε. 7. Ι ι. 8). The
The former translation is adopted by those who see ίη the political and legal issues inνolνed ίη declining to participate
Pleα an address intended to be deliνered before the emperors ίη forms of pagan piety are not directly faced; instead the
ίη person. And it must be admitted that Athenagoras writes appeal is to a higher law felt to exonerate Christians. This
as though he were actually addressing them (2. 6). Moreoνer, 12 'Justin Martyr's Two Apologies',]ournαl ΟΙ Ecclesiαstical History, 4 (1953),
Philo'sEmbαs-D' (162 ff.) and the 'Acts ofthe Pagan Martyrs'IO 1-12.
show that emperors did receiνe embassies and deal with them 13 Note especially the discussion about suffering simply because of the 'name'
(1.3-2.5). Cf.Justin,Ap. 1.3. ι; 1.4. Ι.
ίη a loose judicial manner οη matters touching whole seg 14 'In the second century, the con trol of the Greek section [of the Secretariate]
ments of the population. But such action had some concrete seems το haνe been the ambition of the Greek rhetors and sophists ίη a quite
situation as its focus (Athenagoras is studiously νague); and remarkable degree' (Ludwig Friedlaender, Romαn Life and Mαnners Ε.Τ. from
ed. 7 [London, George Routledge & Sons, 1914], ρ. 55). They were, inshort, men
ηο formal apology of the length of the Pleα was ίη order.II like Athenagoras. For an example of a request of a political nature made to the
emperor through the Secretariate see Josephus, Ant. 20. 183. Here Syrians bribe
7 'La dedica e la data della Πp€σβ€ία di Atenagora', Didαskαlion, 51 1-2 (ι 9 ι 6), the secretary to gain a rescript from Nero to depriνe the Jews of Caesarea of
53-70. tlleir political rights. Again, howeνer, the object of the request is quite specific.
s Oscar νοη Gebhardt, Der Arethαscodex Pαris Gr. 451 (Texte und Unter IS Michele Pellegrino, Studi su l'antica αpologeticα (Rome, Edizioni di 'storia
suchungen, ί. 3; Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1883), ρρ. 183-5. e letterature', 1947), ρρ. 46-85, also stresses the apologetic intent. He allows,
9 Η. Ι. Marrou, Α History ΟΙ Educαtion ίπ Antiquity (New York, Sheed & Ward, howeνer, for 'protreptic' elements as well (ι ι. 3-4: our teachings, unlike
1956), ρρ. 287-90. dialectic, proνide happiness and profit eνen the uncultured); but he regards
10 Η. Α. Musurillo, The Acts ofthe Pαgαn Mαrtyrs: Acta Alexαndrinorum (Oxford, protreptic as an extension of apologetic (the pursuit of philosophy, medicine,
Uniνersity Press, 1954). and music were commended, and thereby defended, ίη protreptic treatises).
ΙΙ Ιη formal trials before emperors point-for-point inνestigation had replaced He rejects Ubaldi's category of 'propaganda' as a description of the ΡΙεa.
long set speeches since the time of Nero (Max Kaser, Dαs Romische ΖίυίΙ­ 16 'Intento pratico e propagandistico nell'apologetica Greca del ΙΙ secolo',
prozessrecht [Mίinchen, C. Η. Becker, 1966], ρ. 352 n. 3 ι . Gregorianum, 32 (1951),3-49·