Greek Apologists

En este trabajo de clase estudio la primera mención de la palabra “trinidad” en la literatura cristiana, así como ver si la temprana concepción de Dios y de esa “trinidad” que éste padre apologista de la segunda mitad del siglo II d.C. presenta en sus tres libros “A Autólico”, es o no es acorde con la posterior formulación Niceno Constantinopolitana que constituye una versión oficial y ortodoxa de la doctrina de la Trinidad tal cual la entienden la inmensa mayoría de los cristianos hasta hoy.

In this article, I investigate Jean-Luc Marion’s early interpretation of Christian apophaticism with special reference to his reading of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. I observe that the most remarkable, but rarely noted, aspect of this interpretation is Marion’s avoidance of the typical derivation of Dionysius’ negative theology from the Platonic tradition. Instead, he places him in the tradition of the critique of idols in the Old Testament. I argue that this intuition should not be lightly dismissed as early Christian apophaticism was at least partly developed in the context of Christian polemic against pagan idolatry. If Christian apophaticism is understood against this background, Marion’s claim that it foreshadows the modern and postmodern critique of theism appears more plausible than his detractors have been willing to admit.

Approximately one-third of the Oration to the Greeks composed by Tatian the Assyrian is devoted to exposing the origin and current activity of demons in human affairs. The primary goal of the present article is to elucidate the source and logic of Tatian’s demonology, specifically as it relates to astrological fate and pharmacology, the two “hostile devices of the demented demons” that he denounces. I argue, first, that his focus upon these two areas is not by chance, but is due to the influence of 1 Enoch, since, like 1 Enoch, he holds that these domains of human expertise derive from malevolent heavenly beings. I argue, second, that Tatian’s criticisms of both astrology and pharmacology are structurally analogous insofar as he claims both are purely the product of demonic contrivance. As a result, these seeming areas of knowledge are in fact based upon nothing real or natural about the world but are instead arbitrary and nonsensical. Moreover, Tatian’s emphasis upon demonic delusion serves the polemical goal of his Oration in an additional way, since it casts the demons as a foil for Tatian himself. Unlike the demons, whom he compares to bandits, Tatian speaks as a representative of the true world order and its one legitimate ruler, and he offers his own Oration as a kind of harsh logotherapy that can accomplish the very thing the demons mendaciously claim to be able to effect through astrology and pharmacology.

Greek gods and polytheism as a distinctive feature of Graeco-Roman culture and religion were favourite themes among the Christian apologists of the second century. In an attempt to promote monotheism as characteristic of Christian religion, the apologists not only presented pagan religion as a typically polytheistic belief, but also established the 'disarmingly simple model . . . according to which mankind . . . had progressed from polytheism to monotheism under the catalytic action of Christianity'. 1 This idea was pushed so far that the evolutionary model was altered and polytheism presented as a temporary involution: as a corruption of the original monotheism, polytheism had its roots in the transgression committed by Adam and Eve. Since then human beings had surrendered to externalities and sensualism, as a result of which polytheism and its concomitant idolatry established itself as the way, par excellence, to channel human religious experience. 2 Strange though it may seem, these conceptions are not confi ned to antiquity and the Middle Ages, however. On the one hand, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), at the end of the eighteenth century, and the philosopher Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854), in the middle of the nineteenth, are both representatives of the evolutionary model. 3 On

Much of the scholarly discussion pertaining to epistemological assumptions regarding the earliest Christian authors has been framed by a series of dichotomies, placing "faith" and "religion" on one side and "reason" and "philosophy" on the other. I argue in this paper that uncritical use of these hard-to-define and overly general concepts as blanket categories to analyse Christian writings from the first three centuries CE inevitably causes major methodological issues and could be seen as heuristically unjustified. I suggest that a more frugal approach may be initiated by reconceptualizing the traditional "faith" vs. "reason" dichotomy in terms of the concept of personal and impersonal epistemic justification.

On the basis that Christian Sunday morning observance was a transfer from a gathering on Saturday evening (at the conclusion of the Sabbath) I ask whether a newly discovered fragment of Aristo of Pella casts light on this transfer, and its timing.

This paper wants to be a reading on the works of Justin (martyr and apologist of II century BC) and the assimilation of the classical culture, giving emphasis to Socrates as a factor of union between the classical 'paideia' and the message of Jesus. Furthermore, the paper makes explicit the background of classical readings and the sources of the first apologists, in which Plato and his works were essential.

Jorge CUESTA FERNÁNDEZ 1 Universidad de Murcia RESUMEN: Nerón y Domiciano han sido considerados como los emperadores que inauguraron las persecuciones del Imperio Romano contra el cristianismo primitivo. Esta tradición tiene su origen en la Apología de Melitón de Sardes, las obras de Tertuliano, principalmente en el Apologeticum y en el Ad Nationes (s. II-III d.C.), así como las obras de Eusebio de Cesarea, Lactancio, Orosio y Sulpicio Severo. En las fuentes literarias cristianas redactadas desde sus reinados hasta el año 170, encontramos un silencio sobre estas persecuciones y sus autores. Nuestros objetivos son presentar los resultados obtenidos en nuestro trabajo de investigación "El cristianismo primitivo ante la civilización romana, ¿culpable o víctima del enfrentamiento entre ambos? (64-268)" sobre dicha cuestión, analizar la transformación que experimentan estos emperadores por parte de los primeros escritores cristianos y presentar las hipótesis que expliquen el silencio con respecto a la actuación de Nerón y Domiciano contra los cristianos en las fuentes literarias cristianas más antiguas.

Algunos elementos de la filosofía platónica establecidos en tratados apologéticos de muchos escritores cristianos entre los cuales se encuentra el ateniense Atenágoras y su conocida obra πρεσβεία περὶ χριστιανῶν, cuya versión del helenista y teólogo español Daniel Ruiz será el objeto de estudio en el presente texto, demuestran un especial interés por la exposición de la cosmología. Si bien esta temática hace las veces de un intento por demostrar racionalmente la trascendencia de lo divino y la seguida generación del universo por causa del designio y poder de Dios, no se trata de una exposición meticulosa de las ideas de filósofos que el mismo Atenágoras cita sino más bien de una exégesis cristiana acerca de Platón en la que pareciese que incurrieran tales escritores, al menos por ser este uno de los autores que abogan por la filosofía griega, para realizar una reflexión profunda sobre la fe.

Der Artikel untersucht die Funktion der Verweise auf frühchristliche Berichte in der Apologie des Quadratus von Athen (ca. 117–125 n. Chr.) und im Brief des Dionysius von Korinth an die Athener (ca. 170 n. Chr.). Augenzeugenberichte über die Wunder Jesu und die Erzählung aus Apg 17 werden in diesen Texten zur defensiv und kon- struktiv angelegten Identitätsbildung verwendet, um der athenischen Kirche zu helfen, auf äußere Widerstände und die damit verbundenen Probleme zu reagieren. Die Analyse dieser Texte erlaubt außerdem einen Einblick in die Veränderungen, die die athenische Kirche im 2. Jahrhundert erlebt hat.

This article explores the function of references to early Christian accounts in the Apology of Quadratus of Athens (c. 117–125CE) and Dionysius of Corinth’s letter to the Athenians (c. 170s CE). Eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ miracles and the Acts 17 narrative are utilised in these texts for defensive and constructive identity formation to help the Athenian church to respond to external opposition and the problems it caused for the Christian community. The analysis of these texts also allows some insight into the transition the Athenian church went through in the second century CE.

The belief that the philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by Christian Apologists of Gentile background that lived in the first four centuries of Christians. Three key figures who presented this theses are Justin Martyr “The most important second-century apologist” (Grant 1973, p.50), Titus Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria  “the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher” (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens (Epip. Haer, xxii.6). Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of Caeserea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is to explore one example given of the theft given by Justin Martyr.

Overview on the second century apologist Tatian with a focus on his reuse of philosophy and later status as Christian heretic. Earlier scholarship that deemed Tatian a Gnostic is countered since his opinions rather align with other Platonic and ascetic Christians of the period.

Le problème classique des « origines » du concept de Trinité conduit traditionnellement ou bien à des approches confessionnelles qui supposent l’existence de ce concept déjà dans le texte biblique, ou bien, au contraire, à la recherche d’influences extérieures à la tradition juive ou chrétienne, dans les « triades » polythéistes. En réalité, les premiers textes chrétiens dans lesquels s’élabore réellement la doctrine trinitaire – ceux des « apologistes » du iie siècle – montrent que 1) la source essentielle est philosophique : les premiers développements de théologie trinitaire s’inscrivent dans une tradition médioplatonicienne de lecture de la « Lettre 2 » attribuée à Platon, et les affirmations de l’Écriture sont relues à la lumière de la triade platonicienne ; 2) l’idée de Trinité n’est pas apparue dans la tradition patristique comme un « mystère », mais au contraire comme une doctrine parfaitement rationnelle, et supposée même démontrer, parmi d’autres arguments, le caractère philosophique des croyances chrétiennes. La « mystérisation » de cette doctrine est un développement ultérieur.

The classical problem of the « origins » of the concept of Trinity traditionally leads either to confessional approaches, which take for granted the existence of this concept already in the biblical text, or, on the contrary, to the research for influences, outside the Jewish of Christian tradition, in the polytheistic « triads ». In fact, the first Christian texts, in which the doctrine of the Trinity really starts to be elaborated – those of the 2nd century « apologists » – show that 1) the fundamental source is philosophical : the first Christian passages dealing with trinitarian theology belong to a middle-platonist tradition of interpretation of Plato’s supposed « Letter 2 », and the statements of Scripture are re-read in the light of the platonist triad ; 2) the idea of Trinity did not appear in patristic tradition as a « mystery », but, on the contrary, as a perfectly rational doctrine, supposed to demonstrate, among other arguments, the philosophical character of Christian creeds. The « mysterization » of this doctrine is a later process.

In his Apology, Justin Martyr avoids referring to Christians with ethnical terms and define believers primarily as individuals rather than as a fixed community. In the Dialogue, this tendency is reversed; in this text Justin clearly advances the thought of Christians as a people. This article explores this difference and argues that it rises from the
writer’s shifting apologetic needs.