No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
At first sight Athenagoras's treatment of Christian ethics in his Supplicatio pro Christianis xi and xii appears to be anti-philosophical. According to Athenagoras the Christian way of life is based on doctrines taught by God and not by man. Ethical precepts are not derived from dialectical exercises, but are Christian dogmas which come from God and through Scripture (xi p. 128, 11 ff.). The basis for his discussion of Christian ethics is a conflation of Mt. v. 44 f. and Lk. vi. 28 (xi p. 128, 14 ff.). This represents a change in his method of argumentation from his earlier theological discussion (vi–x) where he proceeded on the basis of reasoning (λογισμοὐς) which was then confirmed by Scripture (ix p. 126, 29 ff.). Furthermore, for him ethics is motivated by a knowledge of the Trinity (xii p. 129, 17 ff.) and is the following of correct knowledge governed by an expectation of the Judgment (xii p. 129, 3 ff.). However, Geffcken and Ubaldi have shown that Athenagoras uses certain philosophical traditions in this discussion, and that his attack on the sophists was in good philosophical form. This article will examine Athenagoras's method of argument to determine more clearly what philosophical models he did in fact use.
page 1 note 1 References are to the edition of Geffcken, J., zwei grieschische Apologeten, Leipzig-Berlin 1907.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 For the importance of the Judgment for Athenagoras, see Supplicatio xxxi–xxxvi, and De Resurrectione Cadaverum xviii ff. The authenticity of the latter work has recently been challenged by Keseling, P., in ‘Athenagoras’, R.A.C., i (1950), 881–8Google Scholar and Grant, R. M., ‘Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras’, H.T.R., 47 (1954), 121–9Google Scholar. The arguments advanced against its authenticity appear less than cogent. The edition used is that of Schwartz, E., Oratio de Resurrectione Cadaverum (T.U. iv), Leipzig 1888–93.Google Scholar
page 1 note 3 Op. cit., 183 f.
page 1 note 4 Ubaldi, P., La Supplica per i Christiani, Turin 1920, 48.Google Scholar
page 1 note 5 It should be noted that Athenagoras describes his royal readers as philosophers in xi p. 128, 19, a habit he regularly follows when he implicitly represents Christian doctrine as being philosophical. Cf. ii p. 121, 20 ff.; p. 122, 18 ff.; ix p. 126, 31 f.; p. 127, 20 ff.; xvii p. 132, 25 ff.; xviii p. 133, 32 ff.
page 1 note 6 Only the main lines of his argument will be traced here. His language betrays his philosophical background throughout. E.g. with the Christians' purification of themselves (xi p. 128, 24; xii p. 129, 4.22), compare Xenonophon, Symp. i, 4, 5; Epictetus, ii, 21, 15 f.; with the statement that they are escorted through life (xii p. 129, 17) compare M. Aur., ii, 17; with the proverb that tasting even a small portion of whey and honey will suffice to test the whole (xii p. 129, 28 f.) compare Lucian, Hermotimus 58 ff.
page 2 note 1 So reads the paraphrase by Barnard, L. W., ‘The Embassy of Athenagoras’, V.C., 21 (1967), 92Google Scholar. Barnard's criticism of other translations of ξακοστου μετ πολλς κραυγς is justified, but it is another matter as to whether his interpretation supports the view that Athenagoras addressed the emperors face to face.
page 2 note 2 Leg., 626D. Aristotle, An. Pr., 1, 32 uses νγειν for reducing a syllogism to one figure.
page 2 note 3 Cf., e.g. Philop., In Analyt. post, i, 2 (xiii. 3 p. 29, 22–30, 4 Wallies). Clem. Alex., Strom., viii, 2 (G.C.S., iii. 81, 18), passim.
page 2 note 4 It is regularly understood in this way by translators who do not do justice to π in the translation.
page 2 note 5 Cf. Philo, In Flaccum 4, where παρρησα describes someone who shows his mind by actions as well as speech.
page 2 note 6 For a development in the meaning of παρρησα, see H. Schlier, s.v., Theol. Wörterbuch z. N.T., v. 869–84; Peterson, E., ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von παρρησα’, Reinhold Seeberg Festschrift, Leipzig 1929, 283–97Google Scholar; van Unnik, W. C., ‘Parrhesia dans les Homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste’, Melanges offerts à Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmam, Utrecht 1963, 12–22Google Scholar; Hunger, H., ‘Philanthropia. Eine griechische Wortpragung auf ihrem Wege von Aeschylos bis Theodoros Metrochites’, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse, 100 (Jahrgang 1963) Nr. i, 1–20Google Scholar; Scarpat, Giuseppe, Parrhesia: Storia del termine e delle tradizioni in latino, Brescia 1964.Google Scholar
page 2 note 7 Cf. Bernays, J., Lukian und die Kyniker, Berlin 1879, 101 f.Google Scholar
page 2 note 8 E.g. Lucian, Demonax 3; Philo, Quis rer. div. heres., 14; De spec, leg., i, 321.
page 2 note 9 See Kaerst, J., Geschichte der hellenistischen Zeiltalters, Leipzig-Berlin 1909, 118 ff.Google Scholar
page 2 note 10 Cf. Gerhard, G. A., Phoinix von Kolophon, Leipzig-Berlin 1909, 33 f., 36, 39.Google Scholar
page 2 note 11 See especially the case of Demonax in Lucian, Demonax 11 f.; Diog. Laert., vi, 39; Helm, R., Lucian und Menipp, Leipzig-Berlin 1906, 71Google Scholar; Scarpat, op. cit., 64 f.
page 3 note 1 Cf. Lucian, Menippus 21; Helm, op. cit., 37 f.
page 3 note 2 The criterion for judging a Cynic was the agreement between his teaching and his life: Lucian Hermotimus 18; Fug., 15; Plutarch, De Alex, magni fortuna aut virtute 328A ff. Cf. Funk, K., ‘Untersuchungen über die Lucianische Vita Demonactis’, Philologus, Supplementband x (1905–1907), 592.Google Scholar
page 3 note 3 Cf. above, 2. n. 5.
page 3 note 4 Accepting Maran's reading, αυτοῖς.
page 3 note 5 Cf. also πιδεικνυμνους and πιδεικνουσιν (p. 128, 34).
page 3 note 6 ἆρα τονυν; Suppl. xii p. 129, 3.
page 3 note 7 On φιλανθρωπα, see Hirzel, R., Plutarch, Leipzig 1912, 23–32Google Scholar; Lorenz, S., De progressu rationis φιλανθρωπα, Diss. Leipzig 1914Google Scholar; Bolkestein, H., Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht 1939Google Scholar; Festugière, A. J., La révélation d'Hermes Trismégiste, ii, Paris 1949, 301–9.Google Scholar
page 3 note 8 On the Cynic attitude towards death and its relation to the Cynic way of life, see Funk, op. cit., 601 ff.
page 3 note 9 Geffcken, op. cit., 185.
page 3 note 10 For the tradition, see Geffcken, ibid.
page 4 note 1 E.g. Plato, Euthypkro 3D; Plutarch, De genio Soc., 593A; De comm. not., 32 1075E.
page 4 note 2 Plutarch, De. rep. Stoic., 38 1051E.
page 4 note 3 Cf. Sternbach, L., ‘De gnomologio Vaticano inedito’, Wiener Studien, ix (1887), 199 f.Google Scholar
page 4 note 4 Non. posse suav. vivi sec. Epic., 17, 1098DE. For a different assessment of Epicurus's φιλανθρωπα, see Diog. Laert., x, 10.
page 4 note 5 De sera num. vindicta, 18, 560F. See also Atticus, ap. Eusebius, P.E., xv 798c, 799b.
page 4 note 6 De rep. Stoic., 38, 1051E.
page 4 note 7 De sera num. vindicta, 1, 548C ff. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att., vii. 14. 5, also informs us that the reasons for punishment were a topic of concern among Platonists, and that Calvisius Taurus had treated the subject in his commentary on Plato's Gorgias.
page 4 note 8 De sera num. vindicta, 18, 560F.
page 4 note 9 See Malherbe, Abraham J., ‘The Beasts at Ephesus’, J.B.L., 87 (1968), 71–80.Google Scholar
page 5 note 1 De Res., xviii p. 69; 30 ff.; xix p. 71, 21 ff. Cf. Fischer, J. A., Studien zum Todesgedanken in der alten Kirche, Munich 1954, 18Google Scholar; ‘Athenagoras discards the nihilistic view death, since continued life after death is for him a requirement of his belief in providence and morality, a basis which he also finds in Plato’.
page 5 note 2 Cf. also Plato, Apol., 40C.
page 5 note 3 See Puech, A., Les apologistes grecs du IIe siècle de notre ère, Paris 1912, 182 f.Google Scholar; Crehan, J. H., Athenagoras (A.C.W., xxiii), Westminster-London 1956, 7, 15–21.Google Scholar
page 5 note 4 See Merki, H., Ὁμοωσις θɛῷ. Von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottähnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa, Freiburg 1952.Google Scholar
page 5 note 5 See, for example, Albinus, Didask., xxviii, 4 ff.
page 5 note 6 Strom., iv. 14. The idea is developed further in Strom., vii. 3, where Clement describes the true Gnostic's assimilation to God.
page 5 note 7 Cf. Kabiersch, J., Untersuchungen zum Begriff φιλανθρωπα bei dem Kaiser Julian, Wiesbaden 1960.Google Scholar