Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:43:24.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Richard Jungkuntz
Richard Jungkuntz*
Affiliation:
Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A commonplace which arises early and persists long in patristic literature is that doctrinal aberrations are generally traceable to the influence of Greek philosophical schools. But particularly in Epicureanism do the Fathers find a useful club with which to beat an astonishing variety of heretics.

It will be convenient to mention at the outset the way in which Origen ascribes to Epicurean influence the unorthodox views of his pagan opponent, Celsus. The opinions of Celsus in which Origen claims to detect latent Epicureanism concern a variety of topics.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , April 1966 , pp. 3 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 3 note 1 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., ii. 14. 3; Tertullian, De An., iii. i; xviii. 3 f., 12; xxiii. 5 f. Adv. Hem., viii; Adv. Marc., i. 13; De Praescr., vii. 4ff.; Apol., xlvii. 9; Jerome, Ep., cxxxiii. 2. 1.

page 3 note 2 Whether Celsus was in fact an Epicurean or not, is a question still debated. Among the older commentators, Keim and Geffcken support the pro and con views respectively; more recently, DeWitt holds for the affirmative, while Chadwick denies it. In any case, the question is not material to this investigation, for the relevant point is that Origen does call him an Epicurean.

page 5 note 1 For a recent evaluation, see Otto A. Piper's review of The Secret Sayings of Jesus, Robert M. Grant in collaboration with Freeman, David Noel, in Theology Today, xvii (1960), 408.Google Scholar

page 5 note 2 Cf. Schneider, Carl, Geistesgeschichte des antiken Christentums, München 1954, i, 268Google Scholar. An alternative view contending for an ‘autonomous essence’ of Gnosticism is well argued by Jonas, Hans, The Gnostic Religion, Boston 1958, 33.Google Scholar

page 5 note 3 Irenaeus places Marcion slightly later than Valentinus in Adv. Haer., iii. 4. 3.

page 5 note 4 Lk. vi. 26.

page 6 note 1 Actually this too is an old Epicurean, as well as Academic, argument against providence; cf. Lucretius, v. 195–220; Cicero, Academ., ii. 38, 120.

page 6 note 2 Josephus, Ant., xiii. 5. 9; xiii. 10. 6; xv 10. 4; xviii. 1. 3; Bell. ii. 8. 11–14; Vita 2. For a more orthodox Jewish estimate of the relation between Sadducees and Epicureans, cf. Hamburger, Realencyklopädie jür Bibel und Talmud, Supplementband, Leipzig 55 ff. For the conventional Christian view, cf. Acts xxiii. 8; Hippolytus, Ref., ix. 24; Epiphanius, Rescr. ad Ac. et Paul., 172.

page 6 note 3 Cf. Mt. xxii. 23–33.

page 7 note 1 Jovinian was condemned by local synods at Rome and Milan under the presidency of pope Siricius and Ambrose respectively.

page 7 note 2 For Julian's side of the debate see below, 145–6.

page 7 note 3 Gregory argues that the existence of the Father is implicitly denied by the statement that the Son was not before he was begotten, because the Scripture calls the Son ‘the brightness of his glory’ (Heb. i. 3), and non-existence of the brightness logically involves non-existence of the glory.

page 8 note 1 Acts xvii. 18.

page 8 note 2 An Oxyrhynchus papyrus (ii. 215) preserves an Epicurean fragment in which the same Greek phrase occurs: τῇ τν νμων συμπɛριϕορᾷ; Clement, τῇ το νμου σνμπɛιϕορᾷ. Cf. also Sent. Vat., li.

page 8 note 3 Ellspermann, G. L. (The Attitude of the Early Christian Writers toward Pagan Literature and Learning, Washington 1949, 119)Google Scholar misunderstands the key sentence in this passage (‘Since then philosophy has disowned these men, is the Church not to exclude them?’), in which ‘philosophy’ clearly refers to Epicurus himself, and ‘these men’ to the renegade monks; not, as Ellspermann would take it, that ‘philosophy’ means the rest of pagan, non-Epicurean philosophy.

page 9 note 1 Cf. Lucian, Alex., 25, 38; Peregr., 11.

page 9 note 2 Simpson, A. D., ‘Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, lxxii (1941), 379.Google Scholar

page 9 note 3 There seem to be no Epicurean implications, however, in the charges of gross debauchery that were brought against Christians with reference to their secret worshipservices. Cf. Min., Fel., Oct., ix. 1–7; Tertullian, Apol., viii. 3.

page 9 note 4 Cf. Cicero, D.N.D., i. 18. 49.

page 10 note 1 W. R. Inge, Origen (Proceedings of the British Academy, xxxii), 125.