Legatio Pro Christianis 9783110857290, 0899256899, 3110118815, 9783110118810

Citation preview

ATHENAGORAS LEGATIO PRO CHRISTIANIS

w DE

G

PATRISTISCHE T E X T E UND STUDIEN IM A U F T R A G DER

PATRISTISCHEN KOMMISSION DER AKADEMIEN DER WISSENSCHAFTEN IN DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

K. ALAND UND E. MÜHLENBERG

BAND 31

WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN • NEW YORK 1990

ATHENAGORAS L E G A T I O PRO CHRISTIANIS

EDITED BY

MIROSLAV MARCOVICH

WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK 1990

Published with the support of the University of Illinois/USA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication

Data

Athenagoras, 2nd cent. [Apologia pro Christianis] Legado pro Christianis / Athenagoras ; edited by Miroslav Marcovich. p. cm. - (Patristische Texte und Studien, ISSN 0553-4003 ; Bd. 31) Text in Greek; notes in English. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-89925-689-9 (U.S.) : $72.00 (est.) 1. Apologetics—Early church, ca. 30-600. I. Marcovich, Miroslav, II. Title, III. Series. BR65.A3883A74 1990 239',1 —dc20 89-77139 CIP

Deutsche Bibliothek Cataloguing in Publication

Data

Athenagoras (Atheniensis^: Legatio pro christianis / Athenagoras. Ed. by Miroslav Marcovich. — Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1990 (Patristische Texte und Studien ; Bd. 31) Einheitssacht.: Apologia pro christianis ISBN 3-11-011881-5 NE: Marcovich, Miroslav [Hrsg.]; GT

ISSN 0553-4003 © Copyright 1990 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 All rights reserved, including those of translation book may be reproduced or transmitted in any mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any without permission in writing

into foreign languages. No part of this form or by any means, electronic or information storage and retrieval system, from the publisher.

Printed in Germany Typesetting and printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin

CURTO ALAND DDD

PREFACE Athenagoras' learned and eloquent Plea for Christians (ca. A.D. 177) stands apart from the rest of Greek and Latin Christian apologies. Doubtless, it is the most philosophical and, at the same time, the most controversial one. For example, Athenagoras' Athenian platonism drove him to claim that Plato had recognized the Judeo-Christian God under the name of "the almighty Zeus" (c. 23.46, εστί y à p εν τ ο ύ τ ω όνομα τ ώ ποιητή τ ω ν δλων). And Athenagoras' zeal to come to terms with the Roman Empire forced him to compare the corulership of Marcus Aurelius and his boy-son Commodus to the heavenly kingdom of God the Father and God the Son (c. 18.10—14). The key tenet of Christian doctrine, the incarnation of the Word, is being hinted at incindentally only (c. 21.41—43) — "for tactical reasons." However, Athenagoras' Plea is of great apologetic significance, and his Atticistic style1 is in line with "the Second Sophistic." And nevertheless, the treatise has not yet found a satisfactory critical edition. Apparently, there are three reasons for such a situation. First, Athenagoras' trend of ideas is not always clear and easy to follow. His exposition is ill-organized, and he is fond of showing off his rhetorical skill by introducing parenthetic sentences miles long. No wonder then that uneducated medieval scribes had misunderstood and mishandled his text. Second, the Plea is preserved in a single manuscript — the Parisinus gr. 451 ( = A) —, copied in A.D. 914 by Baanes for Arethas (= a), the archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. In this codex, the text of the Plea is very lacunose and corrupt. And third, on top of that, the owner of this expensive codex, Arethas, had engaged in extensive erasure of the text copied by Baanes, in order to introduce {in rasura) his own emendations, which however in most cases prove to be unfounded. Now, the hands of Baanes (A) and Arethas {a) are very similar, and they both use the same brown ink, so that sometimes it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish between their hands. Such a distinction, however, is crucial for a genuine critical edition. Back in 1891, Eduard Schwartz had made a great effort to distinguish between the hands of Baanes and Arethas. As a result, his edition of the Plea offers the best critical text so far. But it is far from being satisfactory. For one thing, Schwartz stood under the spell of the great Ulrich von 1

Compare J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische

Apologeten

(Leipzig und Berlin, 1907) 163 — 167.

Vili

Preface

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "quem et Athenagorae alteram editor em dicere debeo."2 As a result, Schwartz too readily accepted some radical (and even violent) emendations suggested by Wilamowitz. However, all subsequent editions of the Plea relied on Schwartz's collations of A, and on his judgment — notably, those prepared by Johannes Geffcken (Leipzig, 1907), Paolo Ubaldi (Turin, 1920; 19332; 19473), William R. Schoedel (Oxford, 1972).3 The present edition makes a fresh start by offering a reasonably critical text of the Plea. It tries to achieve this, (1) through a more careful and meticulous study of the Arethas codex (especially the distinction between the hands of Baanes and Arethas); (2) through a Quellenforschung on the Plea (going beyond Geffcken's monumental work); (3) finally, through a more sensitive and cautious textual criticism. The edition is dedicated to Professor K U R T A L A N D in gratitude and admiration, as a small token of my appreciation of his enormous scholarly merits, resulting particularly in a better understanding of the history of text of the New Testament. Urbana, October 1987

2

3

M. M.

Athenagorae Libellus pro Christianis ... ree. Ed. Schwartz (T.U. IV. 2, Leipzig, 1891), Praefatio, p. X X X . Schoedel honestly states: "The present edition is based on photographs of the Arethas codex." Athenagoras, Legatio and De Resurrectione (Oxford, 1972), Introduction, p. X X X V .

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations Introduction

VII XI 1

Legatio pro Christianis Codicis A Scholia in Legationem

21 114

Indices Index locorum Index nominum Index verborum

117 120 124

ABBREVIATIONS SIGLA A

Arethae codicis Parisini gr. 451, a.D. 914 a Baane exarati, fol. 322 v —348' codicis A apographa

η ρ s

cod. Mutinensis Misc. gr. 126: a.S.5.9 (olim III D 7), saec. XI, fol. 2 3 8 v - 2 6 5 v cod. Parisini gr. 174, saec. XII, fol. 1 3 2 ' - 1 5 3 v cod. Argentoratensis gr. 9, saec. XIII vel XIV, nunc deperditus

BREVIATA A A a c· Ap c a Am ' α * < * ¡> t αβγ f [ αβγ ] < αβγ >

manus Baanis Baanes ante correctionem Baanes post correctionem manus Arethae quaevis manus post aetatem Baanis et Arethae rasura unius litterae in A littera in rasura scripta, sive a Baane (A), sive ab Aretha (a) textus periit: lacuna in A lacunam in textu coniecere viri docti vox corrupta vox delenda vox addenda

EDITIONUM A B B R E V I A T I O N S Dechair

Ducaeus

Geffcken Gesner

Sancti Athenagorae ... Legatiopro Christianis ... Eiusdem De resurrectione mortuorum ... cura et studio Eduardi Dechair, Oxoniae, e theatro Sheldoniano [impensis S. et J. Sprint], 1706 Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, seu Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, tomus I, Auctarium Graecolatinum, cum notis Frontonis Ducaei (Le Duc), Parisiis (per Sonnios fratres et Hieronymum Drovardum), 1624. \Legatio pp. 50—80; De resurrectione pp. 81 — 104; Ducaei Notae pp. 38 s.] Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, Leipzig und Berlin, Teubner, 1907 [Aristides; Athenagorae Legatio] v. Stephanum et Conradi Gesneri Annotationes in Apologiam ap. Stephanum, Parisiis, 1557, pp. 1 3 1 - 1 5 4

XII Lindner

Maran

Otto Paul Petri

Schoedel Schwartz Stephanus

Ubaldi

Wilamowitz

Abbreviationes Sancii Athenagorae Atheniensis philosophi Deprecationem (vulgo Legationem) pro Christianis edidit M. Io. Gottlieb Lindner ..., Longosalissae (sumptibus Io. Chr. Martini), 1774 in Iustini Opera quae exstant omnia, opera et studio unius ex monachis Congregationis S. Mauri [i. e. Prudenti! Marani], Parisiis (sumptibus Caroli Osmont), 1742 = P. G. VI, Parisiis, 1857 = 1884, pp. 8 8 9 - 9 7 2 Athenagorae philosophi Atheniensis Opera, ree. Ioann. Carol. Theod. Otto (Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi, VII), Ienae, 1857 [Reprint 1969] Athenagorae Atheniensis ... Supplicatio pro Christianis, cura et studio Ludwig Paul, Halis, 1856 Athenagorae Atheniensis philosophi Apologia vel Legatio, vel potius Supplicatio pro Christianis ... a Suffrido Petro [i.e. Sjurd Peeters] Leovardiense Frisio in Latinum ex Graeco translata ..., Coloniae (apud heredes Arnoldi Birckmanni), 1567, pp. 393 [14.5 χ 9 cm] Athenagoras Legatio and De Resurrectione. Edited and translated by William R. Schoedel (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, 1972 Athenagorae Lihellus pro Christianis, Oratio de resurrectione cadaverum, recensuit Eduardus Schwartz (T.U. IV.2), Leipzig, 1891 Athenagorae Atheniensis philosophi Christiani apologia pro Christianis, ad imperatores Antoninum et Commodum. Eiusdem, de resurrectione mortuorum. Ex antiquis exemplaribus libellus ille nunc primum profertur, hie autem castigador quam antea editur. Uterque graece et latine. Ex officina H. Stephani [Henri Estienne], [Parisiis], 1557, pp. 208 [15.5 χ 9.5 cm], [ A p o l o g i a graece pp. 3—44; De resurr. graece iuxta Nannii editionem [Lovanii, 1541], pp. 45 — 77; Apologia latine Gesnero interprete, pp. 81 — 129; Gesneri Annotationes in Apologiam, pp. 131 — 154; De resurr. latine Petro Nannio interprete, pp. 157 — 189; Henrici Stephani Annotationes in utrumque Athenagorae librum, pp. 191—208] Atenagora, La Supplica per i Cristiani. Testo critico e commento di Paolo Ubaldi, Torino, [1920], 2nd ed., Torino, 1933; 3rd ed. by Michele Pellegrino, Torino (Corona Patrum Salesiana, ser. Gr. 15), 1947 Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff ap. Ed. Schwartz

INTRODUCTION 1. THE DATE OF THE

PLEA

Athenagoras' Plea for Christians is addressed to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Lucius Aurelius Commodus (inscription). Commodus was officially proclaimed imperator on 27 November 176. Consequently, the Plea must have been composed after that date. On the other hand, Athenagoras states (1.19 — 20) that at present "the entire Empire is enjoying a profound peace thanks to your wisdom." And the Roman Empire enjoyed such a brief period of peace between 176 and 3 August 178, when Marcus Aurelius and Commodus left Rome to embark on the Second Germanic expedition. That would leave the year 177 — with pax aeterna inscribed on the coins issued during that year — as the most likely date for the composition of the Plea, as it had been seen already in 1639.1 Recently, T. D. Barnes, 2 followed by R. M. Grant, 3 advanced the suggestion that Athenagoras "either delivered or intended to deliver his apology before the emperors when they were in Athens. The date will be September 176." As a matter of fact, Marcus and Commodus (then fourteen) had visited Athens in the late summer of 176 and were initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries by L. Memmius in September of that year. 4 But the point is that Commodus was promoted to imperator only in November of 176. We would have then to assume that Athenagoras "had anticipated" this promotion taking place in Rome some three months later, an assumption not likely to me when dealing with an obscure teacher of philosophy living at Athens. Hence my preference for the year 177. The fact that Athenagoras' Plea was composed around 177 is of historical significance. First, it coincides with a second wave of persecutions of the Christians during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, witnessed to both by Celsus (writing his Αληθής λόγος around 178) and by the martyrdoms of 1

2 3

4

Aub. Miraeus, Btbl. ecclesiastica (Antwerp, 1639) 180; esp. Io. Laur. Mosheim, "Dissertano de vera aetate Apologetici Athenagorae pro Christianis," Bibl. Bremensis Cl. II, Fase. 1 (Bremen, 1718) 853ff.; Karl Otto, Athenagorae Opera (C.A.C., VII, Jena, 1857; Reprint, 1969), pp. LXVI n. 2; LXXIV and nn. 2 - 3 ; Adolf Harnack, Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten usw. (T. U. 1.1 — 2, Leipzig, 1882) 182 (leaving the possibility for the first half of 178 as well); and many others. "The Embassy of Athenagoras," /. T.S. N. S. 26 (1975) 1 1 1 - 1 1 4 . "Four Apologists and Marcus Aurelius," paper presented at the Tenth Internat. Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, 27 August 1987). Cf., e.g., A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (Boston, 1966) 267f.; Barnes, o.e., 114 n. 1.

2

Introduction

Lyons of 177 (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5 Introduction and 5.1.1—5.4.3). The latters were most probably caused by Marcus' unfortunate legislation from the beginning of 177 — the senatus consultum de pretiis gladiatorum minuendis —, granting the councils of the Tres Galline the right to purchase criminals condemned to death for use as gladiators, "on the cheap." 5 There is, however, no evidence that Athenagoras knew of these events in Gaul when writing his Ρ lea.6 Secondly, the Plea coincides in time with the apologies of Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, both being addressed to Marcus Aurelius and both being composed around 175. 7 Add to this Miltiades' lost "Apology for Christian Philosophy to the Cosmic Rulers" (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.17.5), where the cosmic rulers (cf. J o 12:31) are either Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 — 169) or Marcus and Commodus (176—180), and the extant apology of Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, composed probably around 181 A . D . (cf. 3.28). In brief, this increased apologetic activity around the year 177 seems to be a direct consequence of the intensified persecutions of the Christians at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. In this respect, Athenagoras' learned and eloquent Plea stands unique among the extant Greek and Latin apologies. For our "Philosopher and Christian" employs the full range of his philosophical (Platonic, Middle-Platonic, Stoic) erudition and Christian education, and the full force of his rhetorical skill to convince 5

6

7

Cf. J . H. Oliver and R. E. A. Palmer, "Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate," Hesperia 24 (1955) 320—349; M. Sordi, "I nuovi decreti di Marco Aurelio contro i cristiani," Studi Romani 9 (1961) 3 6 5 - 3 7 8 ; Birley, o.e., 2 7 6 - 2 7 8 ; 3 2 8 - 3 3 1 ; P. Keresztes, "The Massacre at Lugdunum in 177 A . D . , " Historia 16 (1967) 75 — 86; Idem, "Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?," Harvard Theol. Review 61 (1968) 3 2 1 - 3 4 1 . The recurrence of the picturesque expression, θυέστεια δεπτυα και Οιδιπόδειοι μίξεις, "the Thyestean banquets and Oedipean intercourses," as referring to the charges of cannibalism and incest often brought against the Christians, at Legatio 3.1—2 and Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.1.14, is best explained as deriving independently from the same source: compare the same expression at Tertullian Ad nat. 1.7.27, and Pliny may well have had in mind the charge of "Thyestean banquets" when defending the Christian agape as "food of an ordinary and innocent kind" (Letters 10.96.7, ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium). Compare A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966) 707 f. — In addition, the Letter of the churches at Lyons and Vienne in Gaul to the Christian communities in Asia and Phrygia (Euseb. 5.1.14) agrees with Justin (2 Apol. 12.4) in asserting that slaves sometimes did indeed bring witness against their Christian masters, while Athenagoras categorically denies such cases {Leg. 35.6 — 7), άλλα και τούτων ουδείς καθ' ήμών τα τηλικαΟτα ούδέ κατεψεύσατο. Compare also R. Μ. Grant, "The Chronology of the Greek Apologists," Vig. Christ. 9 (1955) 2 5 - 3 3 (esp. 29); L. W. Barnard, Vig. Christ. 21 (1967) 8 8 - 9 2 ; Latomusl\ (1972) 4 1 3 - 4 3 2 . Cf. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 4.26.1 — 10, as for Melito (esp. 4.26.7, ου συ διάδοχο; ευκταίος yéyovás τε και εση μετά του τταιδός), and 4.26.1; 4.27.1, as for Apollinaris; Grant, o.e., 26 f.

3

The date of the Plea

by reasoning his imperial fellow-philosopher Marcus Aurelius. Needless to say, his effort was wasted: in referring to the "sheer fanaticism, partisanship or obstinacy" of the Christians in his Meditations (11.3, κ α τ ά ψ ι λ ή ν τταράταξιν), Marcus only followed the traditional trend established by Pliny ( L e t t e r s 10.96.3, pertinacia et inflexibilis obstinatid) and others. 2. THE CONTENT OF THE

Introduction

PLEA8

(1.1 — 2.40)

Point

Possible

Source''

1.1 — 11:

The Roman Empire honors traditional religious practices of every city or people of the Empire, however ridiculous they may be (examples follow).

Apollodorus, Περί θεών, through a Hellenistic intermediary

1.12—15:

Only Atheism is not permitted, and rightly so. For, first, it is impious, and, second, it leads men to committing crimes out of a lack of fear for the divine.

Cf. Cicero N.D. 1.118

1.17 — 20:

As a consequence, every individual and city of the Roman Empire enjoys equality before the law and a profound peace — thanks to the gentleness, love of peace, philanthropy, and political wisdom of your majesties.

1.77;

The following introductory and synoptic Outline of the Plea tries to ascertain probable or possible sources of inspiration for Athenagoras. It much owes to Geffcken's pioneering Quellenforschung on the Legatio — Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig, 1907). For social and philosophical background of the Plea compare also: V. Monachino, "Intento pratico e propagandistico nell' apologetica Greca del II secolo," Gregorianum 32 (1951) 3 — 49; A. J. Malherbe, "The Structure of Athenagoras, Supplicatio pro Christianis," Vig. Christ. 23 (1969) 1—20; Idem, "Athenagoras on the Poets and Philosophers," in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, I (Münster, 1970), 214—225; R. L. Wilken, "Toward a Social Interpretation of Early Christian Apologetics," Church History 39 (1970) 437—458; L. W. Barnard, Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic (Théologie Historique, 18; Paris, 1972); Idem, "The Philosophical and Biblical Background of Athenagoras," Epektasis: Mélanges Jean Daniêlou (Paris, 1972) 3 — 16; W. R. Schoedel, Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione (Oxford, 1972) XI —XXV; Idem, "Christian 'Atheism' and the Peace of the Roman Empire," Church History 42 (1973) 309 — 319; Idem, "In Praise of the King: Athenagoras," in Disciplina nostra: Essays in Memory of R. F. Evans, ed. D. F. Winslow (Patristic Monogr. Series, 6; Cambridge, Mass., 1979) 69 — 93. — Still of great value is Aimé Puech, Les apologistes grecs du IP siècle de notre ère (Paris, 1912) 172-206. Space allows only for a selection of sources. Authors posterior to Athenagoras' Plea (A. D. 177) are mentioned to indicate either that both Athenagoras and the given passage may well derive from the same (lost) source or that the later author is dependent on Athenagoras.

4

Introduction

1.21-40:

Alas! With the only exception of us, the Christians. Out of all people we are the most pious and righteous both toward the divine and toward your rulership. And nevertheless, we are being abused, robbed, persecuted and slaughtered by the crowds — because of our name alone.

2.1-9:

Yes, the unfounded rumors of the populace charge our name alone, for no Christian has yet been convicted of any crime. Therefore, it is your imperial duty to bring to an end by law false informations against us alone.

2.10-16:

Your sense of justice must no longer tolerate your judges, who do not inquire whether a Christian is guilty of any crime. No, his mere name is sufficient for conviction. But no name is to be judged good or bad in and of itself, only good or bad deeds committed under that name.

2.17-27:

Your wisdom and justice are well known to everyone, particularly to those who are defendants before you. Apply the same equity of yours to us, the Christians. Judge us on the ground of our deeds, not our name.

2.28-34:

Take the lawsuits against philosophers. Their philosophy is blameless, it is their deeds that is to be judged. Accordingly, examine our conduct and leave our name alone.

2.35-40:

As I begin my defense, greatest emperors, I must ask you to be impartial and not prejudiced by the unfounded rumors of the crowds.

3.1-15:

They bring three charges against us: Atheism, "Thyestean banquets, Oedipean intercourses." Who would believe this? Even the animals do not behave this way. But just examine our way of life, our teachings, our deep esteem for and obedience to your family and the Empire! Grant us the same favor which is enjoyed by our persecutors! And we shall win.

Christians are not guilty of Atheism 4.1-11:

Cf. 1 P i 4:15 —16; Pliny Ep. 10.96.2; Justin 1 Apol. 4.1 — 4

Cf. Justin 1 Apol. 3.1 Cf. Justin 1 Apol. 6.1 and 26.7; Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.1.14

(4.1—30.38)

What is Atheism? Diagoras was justly called atheist, for he openly declared that there is no God at all. But how can we be called atheists when we make a clear distinction between God

5

The content of the Plea and matter, between the uncreated and eternal divine principle (which can be grasped by reason alone), and the created and perishable matter.

Justin Dial. 3.7-, Albinus Didasc. 10.4

4.12—19:

Why, the perfect order and harmony of the universe witnesses to the existence of one eternal God, the Creator of this universe.

Aetius 1.6.2; Aristot. Fr. 12 Rose; Cicero N. D. 1.100; 2 . 1 5 - 1 7 ; 2.95

5.1 — 21:

Pagan poets too were not regarded as atheists when speaking of one God, who can be known by reason alone. As, for example, Euripides (Fr. 941 Nauck). He recognized God from His works, since "the visible phenomena are an aspect of what is invisible."

Anaxagoras Β 21a; Ps. Aristot. De mundo 399 b 21; Rm 1 : 1 9 - 2 0

6.1—8:

The same is true of pagan philosophers. Philolaus spoke of one God, superior to the matter. Lysis and Opsimus envisaged God as Monad.

6.9—24:

Plato too understood one, uncreated and eternal God, the Creator of the universe {Tim. 28 c 3—5). And he was not called atheist.

6.25 — 30:

Aristotle believed in one God, a living being consisting of body and soul. His body are the moving celestial bodies, his soul is the unmoved reason, the cause of the body's motion.

6.31 — 38:

The Stoics as well considered God to be one, whatever his name may be (Fire, Zeus, Hera, etc.).

7.1—7:

In conclusion, if both pagan poets and philosophers, and we, the Christians, coincide in believing in one God, why is it that they enjoy the freedom of speaking and writing about the divine being as they want, while a law has been imposed upon us?

7.8—20:

But pagan poets and philosophers have come to the idea of one God by guesswork and approximation only. We have been guided, however, by the prophets, inspired by the Spirit coming from God, who moved their mouths just like a musical instrument.

8.1 — 7:

We can prove by reasoning that God is one from the beginning. For if there were two or more gods from the beginning, they either would be in one and the same category (place) or each of them would stand separately. But they could not belong to one and the same category, for, being uncreated, they of necessity must be dissimilar.

Cf. Aetius 1.7.32

Plut. De d e f . orac. 436 F; Philo Quis rerum dip. heres 259; De spec. legg. 1.65

6

Introduction For only created things are similar to their paradigms (ideas), while the uncreated ones are not.

1.8—12:

1.13 — 27:

If, on the other hand, somebody would suggest that God is one but composite (just as the human body is, consisting of such parts as hand, eye, foot), that would be equally impossible. For, unlike mortal men, God is uncreated, not subject to any change, indivisible: He then does not consist of any parts. If, however, each god were in a separate place, and assuming that the God Creator of this world is above and around His creation, where would the other god or gods be? Above this world and its God, in or around another world? If so, then (1) he does not concern us at all; and (2), he cannot be powerful (for he would be in a circumscribed place). It follows that he does not exist at all.

8.28—34:

Can such a god create anything, can he exercise providence? He can neither. Therefore, God the Creator of this world is from the beginning one and alone.

9.1 — 17:

What is more important, the voices of the inspired prophets confirm our reasoning about one and omnipotent God (Bar 3:36; Is 44:6; 4 3 : 1 0 - 1 1 ; 66:1).

10.1—5:

In brief, we cannot be atheists, since we believe in one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, unchangeable, incomprehensible, infinite (who can be apprehended by mind and reason alone). He is encompassed by light, beauty, spirit and an indescribable power. Through the Word that issues from Him, He has created the universe, and now rules over it.

10.6 — 13:

We believe also in a Son of God. He is the Word of the Father — in form and energy. From Him and through Him all things came into being ( J o 1:3; 1:10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15-17), as the Father and the Son are one ( J o 10:30; 17:11). The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son ( J o 10:38) through the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God being the mind and reason of the Father.

Philo Legum alleg. 2.2; Albinus Didasc. 10.4

(1) A Stoic criticism of Epicurean theology: cf. Cicero N. D. 1.101; 1.115 (2) Philo Quod deus sit immut. 57 Cf. Nemesius De nat. hom. p. 347 M.

Cf. Aristid. Apol. 1.4

Cf. 1 Cor 1:24; Sap 9:9; Prv 8 : 2 2 - 2 5 ; Justin Dial. 61.1; Theophil. Ad Autol. 2.10; 2.22; Clem. Strom. 7.7.7

7

The content of the Plea 10.14—19:

10.20—26:

God is eternal mind, having in Himself the Word or Reason from the beginning. He issued His Word as the first-begotten of the Father (Col 1:15), to serve as form and energy for the shapeless and chaotic matter. The prophetic Spirit confirms this: Prv 8:22. As for this Holy Spirit, we regard it as an effluence of God, just as a ray of the sun. In conclusion, if we believe in God the Father, God the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; if we show both their power in the unity and their distinction in rank, how possibly can we be called atheists?

10.27—31:

On top of that, we believe in a host of angels, posted by God the Creator throughout the universe to watch over the elements, the heavens, and the world, keeping them in good order.

11.1 — 23:

Take one of our guiding principles: "Love your enemies ..." (Mt 5 : 4 4 - 4 5 and Lc 6 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) . Now, tell me, which of those learned theorists and logicians exercise love of their enemies in their practical life?

11.24—29:

In our ranks, however, you will find common men, artisans, and old women demonstrating by deeds (not words) their love for everyone, including their enemies (Mt 5:39—40; 5:42; 19:19).

12.1 — 11:

The purity of our life depends directly on our belief in God. For we are convinced that, after our death, we shall render an account to our Maker and the Supreme Judge, and that we shall be rewarded for our piety.

12.12—25:

How then can be credited with belief in God those men who think that there is no life after death: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die!" and "Death is but a twin brother of Sleep"? While, at the same time, n>e are considered atheists? We who regard the life here below as being of little value. We who are being guided by the knowledge of the true God, of His SonWord, of the Spirit, of the unity and distinction between these three powers. We who believe in a far better life after death if we remain pure; we who show love for every man, including our enemies (Lc 6:32 and 34).

12.26 — 28:

This is then the summary of our doctrine.

Cf. Philo De o p i f . mundi 22; Aetius 1 . 9 . 4 - 5 Sap 7:25; Justin 61.2; 1 2 8 . 3 - 4

Dial.

Justin 1 Apol. 13.3

Seneca Ep. 4 5 . 6 - 1 0 ; Cicero Τ use. 2.11; Lucian Hermot. 79 1 Cor 1:26; Justin 1 Apol. 16.8; 60.11; 2 Apol. 10.8

Is 22:13; 1 Cor 15:32; Athenagoras Resurr. 19.3 Iliad 16.672; Athenag. Resurr. 16.5

8

Introduction

Why the Christians do not recognise the same gods as the cities do and refuse to venerate the images? (13.1-30.38)? 13.7 — 22:

14.1—20:

15.1—23:

Why do we refuse to offer sacrifices to the gods? The Creator of this universe needs no blood, fat, or the fragrance of flowers and incense. For He himself is the pure fragrance. And He is in need of nothing at all. Then, the best sacrifice to Him is for us to acknowledge Him. No bloody hecatomb is needed, our spiritual worship is the best sacrifice ( R m 12:1).

Why do we not worship the traditional gods of the cities? For the pagans themselves cannot reach an agreement about what divinity to worship, to the extent that every Greek city has its own god (a long catalogue follows). As for the Egyptians, they worship even dead men (like Osiris) and animals. So if we are irreligious, so are all cities and peoples. Why do we not worship material images and statues? For we make a clear distinction between God and matter, between the Potter and the clay. The eternal Artificer is to be praised, not the perishable matter.

16.1 — 11:

The universe is beautiful indeed. And yet we do not worship it but its Maker. Just as your visiting subjects admire the splendor of your imperial palace, but it is you whom they glorify.

16.12—32:

Thus if the world is a harmonious musical instrument, I do not worship the instrument but its Player ... In brief, we do not worship powerless and poor elements (Gal 4:9), but rather their Maker and Ruler. Plato agrees with this (Polit. 269 d 7—e 1). How then can I call the perishable statues gods when I know that they have been made by men?

17.1 — 11:

Both the names and the images of the pagan gods were made yesterday only. That Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod had given names to the gods is attested by Herodotus (2.53).

Hos 6:6; Is 1 : 1 1 - 1 3 Cf. Iren. Adv. haer. 4.14.3 Ps 49 (50): 12; Act 17:25; Aristid. Apol. 1.4; Justin 1 Apol. 10.1; 1 2 . 1 - 2 ; 13.1; Dial. 117.1 Philo De plant. 126; Cicero N. D. 2.71

Cf. Plut. Amat. 763 D; Heracliti Fr. 119 Marcovich Jr 18:8; Sap 15:7; Äw9:21; Dio Chrysost. Or. 12.82-83 Sap 1 3 : 1 - 2 ; Philo De decalogo 69; Justin 1 Apol. 20.5

Maxim. Tyr. 13.3 g

9

The content of the Plea 17.12—36:

As for their images, no image was in use before the discovery of painting, relief modeling, molding and sculpture. And that took place in the recent past only ... To put it in one word, no image of a god is older than its sculptor.

18.1 — 14:

Now, some say that their processions and sacrifices to the images are offered to the gods those images represent. And they refer to the miraculous power attributed to some statues of the gods. I beg you now, greatest of the sovereigns, to excuse me for employing unusual arguments. It is not my intention to condemn images as such, only to defend our religious persuasion from slanders. You can easily understand "the heavenly kingdom" from yourselves: as all things have been subjected to you, a father and a son (since you have received your kingdom from above), so also all things have been subordinated to the one God and the Word that issues from Him, His inseparable Son.

18.15 — 37:

The gods of myth are not eternal but rather each of them has been born. Orpheus and Homer agree that Ocean was the origin of all gods {Iliad 14.201; 14.246). Their genealogy goes like this: First Water, then Slime, out of both a serpent called Heracles or Chronos; then the cosmic Egg; hence Heaven, Earth, and Phanes. Finally the Titans.

19.1-9:

But we know from Plato {Tim. 27 d 6; 28 b 6) that whatever has a beginning must also have an end, be perishable.

19.10—22:

How can water, a material element, be the origin of all things? All material is perishable, even the entire world, according to the Stoic theory of the world conflagration {ecpyrosis). In brief, the passive matter badly needs an active Craftsman, i. e., God.

20.1—38:

The traditional theology goes on to attribute bodies of animals and monsters to the pagan gods: Heracles is a coiled serpent; Core is a monster; others are Hundred-handed. In addition, their gods commit atrocities: Cronus cuts off the genitals to his father Uranus, and then devours his own sons; Zeus throws his father Cronus into the Tartarus, fights with the Titans, sleeps with his own mother Rhea (both in the

Cf. Ps. Clem. Horn. 11.4.1; Ree. 5.23.1

Rm 1 3 : 1 - 2 ; Prv 21:1

Cf. Orph. Fr. 57 Kern

Cf. Lucret. 5.235-246; Cicero Ν. D. 1.68

An Orphic theogony. Cf. Aristid. Apol. 9 . 3 - 4 ; Tatian Orat. 8 . 3 - 4 ; 9.3; 10.1; 25.3; Clem. Protr. 1 6 . 1 - 2 ; Cicero N.D. 2.63; 3.58; 3.62 et alibi

10

Introduction form of serpents), and begets the son Dionysus by his own daughter Persephone. The first-born of the gods Phanes begets a Viper, and is himself being devoured by Zeus. In brief, if their gods differ in no way from the vilest beasts, they are not gods.

21.1—67:

In addition to their corporeality, the pagan gods display the passions of rage, anger, lust, desire, grief, pain etc., as ample examples from the Iliad and Odyssey demonstrate. Their gods even die (like Styx). They appear as servants to mortals (like Apollo to Admetus). And "the wise seer" Apollo kills his beloved friend Hyacinth! ... And yet, if a god assumes flesh by divine dispensation, it does not mean that he must become a slave of lust (21.42 f.).

22.1 — 19:

What about the theory that the gods are but allegori^ations of physical forces? As in Empedocles: Zeus represents fire, Hera earth, Aidoneus air, Nestis water. If so, then his gods are no more than material elements, subject to two higher and active principles, Love and Strife.

22.20 — 32:

As for Stoic allegorization of natural forces, it suffices to say: You say that your supreme God permeates the matter as a Spirit, and that he is called Zeus, Hera, Poseidon in accordance with the permutations of the species of matter. If so, then (1) these species of matter will become the body of the God; and (2) with the final destruction of these elements in the world conflagration the names of the traditional gods will perish along, with the only exception of the Spirit of God. It follows that the traditional gods are no gods at all.

22.33—47:

And to your theory that Cronus is time (cbronos), Rhea earth, etc., our answer is: if he is time, he must change, but God is unchangeable.

22.48—74:

The same is true of the rest of allegorizations (Athena is the all-pervading mind; Isis is the mother of the aeon; Osiris is the sowing of grain). All they are doing is divinizing the elements and parts of the universe, while failing to grasp its Creator.

Apollodorus Περί θεών, through a Hellenistic intermediary. Cf. Aristid. Apol. 10.7; 11.3; 14.3

Cf. Origen c. Cels. 1.21; Alexander Aphrodis. De mixtione p. 226.10 ff. Bruns

Cf. Aristid. Apol. 12.2; Plut. De Iside 358 A; 359 Β; 359 C; 366 F; 372 E; 373 A; 377 Β Rm 1:25; Sap 1 3 : 1 - 3

11

The content of the Plea

Demonology (23.1-27.19) 23.1 — 10:

The question is now: If the pagan gods do not exist, why is it then that some of their statues display miraculous power? We do not deny such cases of power. But we believe that they are caused, not by the gods, but by the demons, who usurp the name of a given image.

23.11 —42:

Thaies was the first to distinguish between God, demons, and heroes. Plato too made a clear distinction between the one uncreated God, the gods created by Him, and demons {Tim. 40 d 6 - 4 1 a 3; Ep. 2, 321 e 1 - 4 ) .

Aerius 1.7.11; 1.8.2

23.43 — 53:

Incidentally, when Plato in Phaedrus 246 e 4—6 speaks of the supreme Zeus, and a host of gods and demons, he has in mind the Maker of the universe by calling Zeus "great or highest."

Xenocrates Fr. 18 Heinze

24.1—25:

In addition to our belief in one God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit, we also recognize other powers, concerned with matter. One of them is a spirit opposed to God's goodness. He was created by God, along with the rest of the angels, and entrusted with the administration of the species of matter, just as other angels were.

24.26 — 43:

All these angels enjoyed freedom of will, granted by God. Now, some of them remained faithful to their tasks, while others, guided by "the Ruler of matter" ( J o 12:31), betrayed their office and fell to lust after maidens, begetting sons by them called giants (Gn 6:1—4) — I mean giants according to "the divine wisdom" (1 Cor 1:21), not those according to "the worldly wisdom" (1 Cor 1:20).

Papiae Fr. 4; Justin 2 Apol. 5.2 Justin 2 Apol. 7.5; Dial. 88.5; Tatian Orat. 7.1

Justin 2 Apol. 5.5

25.1 — 17:

These fallen angels, then, along with the souls of the giants, are the demons who wander about the world and produce impulses, while "the Ruler of matter" directs things in a way directly opposed to God's goodness (Eurip. Fr. 901; Trag. Fr. Adesp. 99).

Cf. Philo De gigantibus 6 - 7 ; Origen c. Cels. 4.92

25.18—40:

That is why Aristotle said that things below heaven are not guided by Providence. However, it is because of these demonic impulses and attacks of the hostile spirit that some philosophers [like Epicurus] have thought that this universe is being driven and carried away by an

Aerius 2.4.12; Epiphan. De fide 9.35 et alibi

Aetius 2.3.2

12

Introduction irrational chance. They have failed to recognize the ultimate and common Reason both in nature and man. Justin 1 Apol. 12.5; 2 Apol. 5.4; Tertull. Apolog. 22.6; 23.14; Min. Fei. Oct. 2 7 . 1 - 2 ; Orig. c. Cels. 3.29; 8.60; Apul. Asclep. 37

26.1 — 13:

To come back to the images: it is these demons who drag men to the images, greedy for the blood from the sacrifices. The gods who have given the name to an image were once men. It is the demons who usurp their names and drive the devotees, say, of Rhea to castrate themselves, of Artemis to slaughter strangers.

26.14—32:

The statues of Neryllinus at Alexandria Troas, and those of Alexander-Paris and Proteus at Parium are believed to give oracles and heal the sick. But neither those men nor the material statues possess such power, only the demons who usurp their names.

27.1 — 19:

The explanation is simple. When the human soul becomes detached from heaven and God and attached to earthly things (no longer pure spirit, but now mere blood and flesh), it creates false opinions and illusory fantasies through irrational movements and impulses. Now, such a weak and docile soul becomes an easy prey for the demons linked to matter, who flood it with illusory images about the statues of the gods.

28.1 — 54:

And what about the origin of the names of pagan gods? Both Herodotus (2.144 et alibi) and Alexander son of Philip had learned from Egyptian priests that the gods were once men. Some of them were kings, and were proclaimed "gods" by their subjects out of gratitude for their good rule.

Apollodorus, Περ'\ θεών (quoted at 28.38); cf. Diodorus 1.11.1; 1.13.1 and 5; Plut. De Iside 359 D; Philodem. De pietate 2 . 3 3 - 3 . 1 3 Henrichs; Cicero N.D. 1.38

29.1 —28:

Greek poets and historians confirm the fact that their gods were once men. Take the examples of Heracles, Asclepius, Castor, Polydeuces, Amphiareus, Ino, Palaemon.

Aristid. Apol. 10.5 — 6; 10.9; Justin 1 Apol. 21.2

30.1—5:

Even such a lecherous and murderous woman like Semiramis was proclaimed goddess by the Syrians.

Ctesias Fr. 1 m; Dino Fr. 7; Diodorus 2.4.4 — 5; 20.20.2-5

30.6 — 27:

No wonder then that the first rulers were proclaimed gods by their subjects, as Sibyl witnesses (Orac. Sib. 3.108 — 113): Uranus, Ge, Cronus, Titan, Iapetus. In addition, some were called gods because of their strength (like Heracles and Perseus), and others again because of their skill

Justin 1 Apol. 21.2; 22.5; 54.8

13

The content of the Plea (like Asclepius). As for Antinous, he was thought a god thanks to the love of your ancestors toward their subjects. Callimachus offers a good example of the predominant lack of religious criticism: he believes in the birth of Zeus, but does not believe in his death and tomb in Crete {Hymn, in Iovem 8—9). 30.28-38:

In conclusion, (to use Plato) the pagan gods never belonged to the realm of being. As for us, the Christians, I did my best to convince you that we cannot be called atheists when we believe in God the Maker of the universe and in the Word that issues from God.

31.1-14:

The unfounded charges of cannibalism and incest brought against us by the crowds is nothing new. It is a natural law and divine principle that evil should fight against virtue. That is why Pythagoras (along with three hundred companions) was burned to death; that is why Socrates was condemned to death, why Heraclitus and Democritus were banished from their native cities ...

Charges of cannibalism and incest

31.15-31

32.1-8:

32.8-27:

Justin 1 Apol. 29.4; Tatian Orat. 10.2; Clem. Protr. 4 9 . 1 - 3 ; Theophil. Ad Autol. 3.8

Clem. Protr. 37.4

(31.1—36.26)

Just look at our pious way of life, directed to heaven, not earth! We believe in God as the supreme Judge of our deeds; we believe in a far better life after death; and we know that God sees everything in our hearts {Prv 24:12). How then we, who refuse to serve to flesh and blood, could ever be accused of such heinous crimes? Remember that God did not create us as beasts but as men.

Max. Tyr. 16.4 b; Justin 1 Apol. 5 . 3 - 4 ; 46.3; M. Aurel. 3.3; 6.47; 8.3

Justin 1 Apol. 43.8

Strange thing that the crowds ascribe to us the very stories they attribute to their own gods! Zeus begets children by his mother Rhea and daughter Core; and he has his sister Hera to wife. He is worse than the incestuous Thyestes.

Aristid. Apol. 8.2 s. f.; 17.2

Our religion, however, prohibits that we even look at a woman with lust, calling it an adultery in our heart (Mt 5:28). And to love our neighbors is a law for us (Mt 22.39—40). That is why we regard our neighbors as our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, whose bodies we keep inviolate, sacred and pure. Our kiss is a sign of reverence, not of lust.

Rm 12:12; Clem. Paed. 3.81.2-4

14

Introduction

33.1 — 19:

Hoping for eternal life, we despise the earthly pleasures. We marry to procreate children, not to lust. And we marry once only: a second marriage is but a gilded adultery (Hermas, Mand. 4.1.6; Mc 10:11).

34.1 — 11:

"A harlot preaches to a chaste woman!" They who traffic in prostitution (both male and female), violating the beauty of the human body created by God, they accuse us — living either in celibacy or in a single marriage — of the vices which they themselves commit and which they attribute to their gods.

34.12—20:

35.1 — 14:

These adulterers and pederasts themselves live in accordance with the law of fish: the stronger one swallows up the weaker. And let me tell you what it really means "to feed on human flesh:" to persecute innocent men against the laws established by you and your ancestors. None of our accusers can witness to seeing us engage in "feeding on human flesh," naß even our slaves.

Aristid. Apol. 15.4; 15.6; Justin 1 Apol. 15.1—6; 29.1; Clem. Paed. 2.83.1; 2.102.1; Strom. 3.58.2; Muson. Ruf. 12 (p. 61.17 Hense) Justin 1 Apol. 27.1; Tatian Orat. 28.1; Clem. Protr. 49.2; Paed. 3 . 1 . 1 - 4 ; 3.26.2

Cf. Euseb. Hist. 5.1.52

eccl.

Cf. Justin 1 Apol. 1.26.7; 2 Apol. 12.2; 12.4; Tatian Orat. 25.3; Euseb. Hist, eccl. 5.1.14

For who could accuse us of murder and cannibalism when our religion prohibits us even from watching the slaying at gladiatorial games and animal fights?

Tatian Orat. 2 3 . 1 - 2 ; 25.3; Theophil. Ad Autol. 3.15

35.15—21:

And how can we be called murderers when we condemn women either practicing abortion or exposing their child?

Justin 1 Apol. 27.1; 29.1; Didache 2.2; 5.2; Bp. ad Diogn. 5.6

36.1—26:

Furthermore, how anybody can accuse us of cannibalism when we believe in the resurrection of the body and in life everlasting? And if somebody finds it ludicrous to believe in the resurrection of decayed and decomposed bodies, let him call us foolish — along with Pythagoras and Plato —, but not criminals.

Cf. Athenag. De 4 . 1 - 4 ; 20.2; 21.2

resurr.

Justin 1 Apol. 8.5; 68.1

Conclusion 37.1 — 11:

But let our teaching about the resurrection be postponed for now. As for you, your majesties, accept my defense! For who would more justly deserve to receive what he asks for than we who pray for every success of your reign and for happy succession of the kingdom from father to son.

1 Tm 2:2; Justin 1 Apol. 17.3

15

The transmission of the Plea 3. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE

PLEA

Methodius of Olympus (died in A. D. 311) is the only Church father to make use of the Plea (24.19—25) and to mention Athenagoras by name {De resurrectione 1.37.1—2, pp. 277.13 — 278.8 Bonwetsch). That does not mean that other authors have not done the same without mentioning Athenagoras by name (compare apparatus).10 The Plea, along with Athenagoras' treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead, is preserved in a monumental parchment codex, actually a first corpus of Greek apologetic literature. It is the Arethas codex ( = A), Parisinus graec. 451, copied between September 913 and August 914 by the notarios Baanes for Arethas, the archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, as the owner of the codex Arethas, rather than Baanes,11 attests on fol. 401 v : έγράφη χειρί βαάνους νοτ(αρίου) | άρέβα άρχ(ι)ε·π·ισκ(ό)·π·(ω)12 καισαρεί(ας) | καττπαδοκί(ας). ετει κόσμου | ,ςϋκβ + "copied by the hand of Baanes, the notarios [i. e., either secretary or scribe], for Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in the year of the world 6422 [ = A . D . 913 — 914]." The same hand (Arethas) adds that the cost of the copying was twenty νομίσματα (solidi aurei), and that of the parchment,

10

11

12

13

The testimony of Philip of Side about Athenagoras in cod. Bodl. Baroccianus 142 (fol. 216) is better left alone here, for being controversial. The text is in Maran's Introduction to the Works of Justin (P.G. 6, p. 182 B—C). Cf., e.g., A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, II.l: Die Chronologie (Leipzig, 1897) 318; Schoedel, Athenagoras, p. IX f. To judge by the remark in another Arethas codex, the Bodleianus d'Orville 301, containing Euclides, which on the last folio has: έγράφη χειρί στεφάνου κληρικού κτλ. | έκτησάμην άρέθαζ πατρεύς τ ή ν τταροϋσαν βίβλον νο(μισμάτων) ι8. Apparently, the last codex copied for Arethas is the Mosquensis Musaei histor. VI 231 (394), copied in April of 932. It has this remark: στυλιανός διάκονος έ γ ρ α ψ α άρέθαι άρχιετπσκό-| π ω ι Καισαρείας Καππαδοκίας κτλ. In view of this it seems preferable to understand the abbreviation of A as a dative ("for Arethas"), than as a genitive — άρχιεπισκόπ(ου) ("Baanes, the notarios of Arethas"). But one cannot be sure enough. On Arethas and the manuscripts copied for him compare A. Harnack, Die Überlieferung der griech. Apologeten etc. (T. U. 1.1—2, Leipzig, 1882) 38—46; E. Maass, "Observationes palaeographicae," in Mélanges Graux (Paris, 1884) 749 — 766; S. Β. Kougéas, Ό Καισαρείας Άρέθας και τ ό έργον αύτοΟ (Athens, 1913) 97 — 138; J. Bidez, "Aréthas de Césarée, éditeur et scholiaste." By^antion 9 (1934) 391—408; E. Zardini, "Sulla biblioteca dell'arcivescovo Areta di Cesarea (IX — X secolo)," in Akten des XI. Internat. By^antinistenkongresses. München 1958 (Munich, 1960) 671—678; esp. Paul Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin: Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à By\ance des origines au X' siècle (Paris, 1971) 205 — 241; E. Follieri, Archeologia classica 2 5 - 2 6 ( 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 ) 2 6 2 - 2 7 9 ; Β. L. Fonkic, "Scriptoria bizantini: risultati e prospettive della ricerca," Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici N. S. 17 — 19 ( 1 9 8 0 - 8 2 ) 9 9 - 1 0 8 ; Nigel G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London, 1983) 1 2 0 - 1 3 5 .

16

Introduction

The codex A (fol. 401 + 2) measures 24.5 χ 18.5 cm, with ample margins for scholia and a writing space of 14.5 χ 11 cm. There are twenty-six lines per page. Thanks to its rich content and great importance, A has been the object of special attention by modern scholars — by Karl Otto (1879), 14 Adolf Harnack (1882), 15 Oscar Gebhardt (1883), 16 Eduard Schwartz (1891)," Otto Stählin (1905), 18 Karl Mras (1954), 19 and others. 20 As Stählin (p. XVII f.) had pointed out, the codex is badly mutilated. It consists today of a total of 393 (not 403) leaves, 21 while it originally had no less than 476: no less than 83 leaves have been torn away. A comprises today the following treatises: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f. l r —56 v 57r—154v 155r—163v 163v—187v 188r—322r

(6) ('7) (8) (9)

322v—348r 348v — 367v 368r —401v 402-403

Clement, Protrepticus Clement, Paedagogus (beginning with 1.96.1) Ps. Justin, Epistula ad Zenam et Serenum Ps. Justin, Cohort atio ad Graecos (interrupts at c. 36) Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica I —V (beginning with 1.3.5) Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis The same, De resurrectione mortuorum Eusebius, Contra Hieroclem A scholion of Arethas on Clem. Paedag. 1.15.3 (Stählin, pp. XXIII and 321-323).

There are five major losses in A. (1) Five quires ( = 40 leaves), η' —ιβ', are missing between fols. 56 and 57, containing the beginning of Clement, Paedagogus (up to 1.96.1). (2) At least two leaves are missing from quire κε' (between fols. 153 and 154). (3) Four quires ( = 32 leaves), λ ' - λ γ ' , are missing between fols. 187 and 188, as a hand from XIV —XV century had marked on f. 187v (ένταΰθα ελλείττουσι τετράδια 5'). These four quires 14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

Io. Car. Th. eques de Otto, Iustini Opera, II (Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi, III), 3rd ed. (Jena, 1879), pp. V I I - X . Die Uberlieferung (supra, n. 13), pp. 24—36. Zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung der griech. Apologeten. 1. Der Arethascodex, Paris. Gr. 451 (T.U. 1.3, Leipzig, 1883) 1 5 4 - 1 9 6 . Athenagorae Libellus pro Christianis. Oratio de resurrectione cadaverum. Ree. Ed. Schwartz (T.U. IV.2, Leipzig, 1891), p. III ff. Clemens Alexandrinus Werke, I (G. C. S. 12, Leipzig, 1905; 19362; Berlin, 19723), pp. XVI-XXIII. Eusebius Werke, VIII. Praeparatio evangelica I - X (G. C. S. 43.1, Berlin, 1954), pp. XIII-XVIII. Compare also Kougéas (supra, n. 13), p. 100 n. 2; Zardini (supra, n. 13), p. 674 n. 23; E. Gamillscheg, "Autoren und Kopisten ..."fahrbuch der Österreichischen By^antinistik 31 (1981) 3 7 9 - 3 8 4 . There are two folios numbered 106, 244, 360, while the numbers 126, 184, 315, and 370 — 378 have been omitted. Hence the total of 393 leaves.

The transmission of the Plea

17

comprised the end of Ps. Justin's Cohortatio (cc. 36 — 38), Tatian's Oratio ad Graecos, and the beginning of Eusebius' Praep. ev. (up to 1.3.5), as Harnack had seen.22 (4) The quire λθ' ( = 8 leaves) is missing between fols. 227 and 228, comprising Praep. ev. 2.3.12-2.6.20. (5) Finally, the last quire of the codex, ξ', has now only seven leaves: one leaf is missing after fol. 403. Leaving apart the marginal scholia, in the Grundtext of A the hands of Baanes and Arethas are very similar, and they both use the same brown ink, so that sometimes it becomes difficult to distinguish between their hands. As for the text of the Plea, however, this distinction is crucial. For Arethas engages in frequent erasures of the text copied by Baanes, in order to introduce in rasura his own corrections and emendations, which in most cases prove to be arbitrary. Here is an example of this difficulty. The title of the Plea in A is by the hand of Baanes (f. 322v): άθηναγόρου αθηναίου φιλοσόφου χριστιανού | πρεσβεία περί χριστιανών |. But the subscriptio to the Plea is by the hand of Arethas (f. 348Γ): άθηναγόρυ (sic) πρεσβεία (sic). As for the treatise De resurrectione, its title reads (f. 348v): τοΰ αύτοϋ περί αναστάσεως νεκρών, where the words, του αύτοϋ, are an evident later addition. Doubtless, περί αναστάσεως νεκρών is by the hand of Baanes; as for the addition, του αύτοϋ, Stählin (Clemens, I, p. XVII n. 1) thought it was added by Arethas, while I would not rule out Baanes. As for the subscriptio (f. 367v) — άθηναγόρου περί αναστάσεως — it is most probably by the hand of Arethas. 23 It is a merit of Harnack 24 to having recognized that all extant manuscripts of the Plea derive directly or indirectly from A. There are some two dozens of such direct or indirect apographs of A, ranging from XI to XVI century.25 Their only importance is in having anticipated modern scholarship (since 1557) by correcting a scribal error of A . I find that three of them will do for such a task. They are: η

22 23

24 25

26

cod. Mutinensis Misc. graec. 126: a.S.5.9 (previously III D 7), parchment, 25.5 χ 17 cm (writing space 19 χ 10 cm), 31 lines per page, fol. 295. Legatio·. fols. 238 v -265 v , saec. XI. (Fols. 238 r -288 v , comprising the end of Tatian's Oratio, and both treatises by Athenagoras, are copied by the same hand = M 2 , saec. XI). 2 6 Die Überlieferung, p. 25 f. Differently Gebhardt (supra, n. 16) 184. Die Überlieferung, pp. 8 6 - 8 8 . They are listed in Otto, C.A.C. VII (Jena, 1857), pp. X I I I - X X X . Most of them have been collated by Ed. Schwartz, T. U. IV.2 (Leipzig, 1891), pp. V I I - X X X . The bulk of the Mutinensis, however, fols. 2—237v, is written by a different, slightly older, hand, from the beginning of the Xlth century ( = M 1 ). This part comprises: Clement, Protrepticus and Paedagogus·, Ps. Justin, Epistula ad Zenam et Serenum and Cohortatio·, Tatian,

18 p s

Introduction

cod. Parisinus graec. 174, parchment, 23 χ 18.5 cm (writing space 1 8 - 1 9 χ 12 cm), 29 lines per page, fol. 190. Legatio: fols. 1 3 2 r - 1 5 3 v , saec. XII. 27 cod. Argentoratensis graec. 9, fol. 260, saec. XIII vel XIV, nunc deperditus (perished in the fire of the Stadtbibliothek Strasbourg on 24 August 1870). We have to rely on the collation made by Eduard Cunitz (in 1842) for Otto. Cunitz states that it was a "codex bombycinus, sive in 'charta gossypina' scriptus, in fol. min.," and gives its contents.28 According to Schwartz (Atbenagoras, p. VIII), s is an apograph of n.29

Another apograph of A should be mentioned here. It is the famous cod. Parisinus graec. 450, fol. 461, copied in 1364 — the only extant manuscript of the genuine works of Justin Martyr (= Otto's C; Schwartz's c). It contains Legatio on fols. 433 v — 461 r , and it is a sheer coincidence that its corrections of A have been anticipated by n, p or s (this is the reason why it is not mentioned in my apparatus).30 The editto princeps of the Plea appeared in 1557 with Henricus Stephanus in Paris (not with Conrad Gesner in Zurich, as some scholars have it).31

27 28

29

30

31

Oratio; Ps. Justin, Expositio rectae fidei. See O. Stählin, Clemens, I, pp. XXV—XXVII. Differently Ed. Schwartz, Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos (T. U. IV. 1, Leipzig, 1888), p. Ill f. Compare Harnack, Die Überlieferung, pp. 1—3; Schwartz, Tatian, p. IV. Compare Otto, Iustini Opera, II (C.A.C. III, 3rd ed., Jena, 1879), pp. X I I I - X X V I ( = F); Idem, Athenagorae Opera (C.A.C. VII, 1857), p. XV; Harnack, Die Überlieferung, pp. 69 n. 170; 7 9 - 8 5 . In addition, five late apographs are used occasionally only. They are: (1) cod. Lubanensis 8, chartaceus, fol. 103, saec. XVI. Contains Legatio only (Otto, C.A.C. VII, p. X X V f . ; Schwartz, p. XXIX). I have used the collation made by H. Ed. Kaiser, "De cod. Lubanensi," in Progr. Gymn. Brieg, 1833, pp. 5 — 14. — (2) cod. Monacensisgraec. 81, chartaceus, fol. 520, saec. XVI. Legatio·. fols. 459'—479' (copied and corrected by Michael Sophianus; cf. Otto, p. XXVI f.; Schwartz, p. XXIX). — (3) cod. Bodleianus graec. Baroccianus 98, chartaceus, fol. 160, saec. XV. Legatio·. fols. 49 — 78 (cf. Otto, p. XXII f.; Schwartz, p. X = β). — (4) cod. Bodleianus graec. Baroccianus 145, membranaceus, fol. 279, saec. XV. Legatio·. fols. 2 1 - 4 1 (cf. Otto, p. XXIII; Schwartz, p. X = γ ) . - Finally, (5) cod. Etonensis Coll. 100 (Bl. 1. 9), copied in 1534 by the prolific scribe Valeriano Albini (cf. Otto, p. XVII f.; Schwartz, p. Χ = δ). Incidentally, the same Albini had copied the Legatio in cod. Bodleianus misc. 212 (in 1532); cod. Neapolitanus II A a 13 (in 1534); cod. Angelicanus 96 (olim Β. 1. 10); cod. Bononiensis B. U. 1497 (cf. Schwartz, p. IX f.). Compare E. Gamillscheg—D. Harlfinger, Repertorium der griech. Kopisten: 800—1600. Vol. I: Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Großbritanniens·, A: Verzeichnis der Kopisten (Wien, Verlag der Österr. Akad. der Wiss., 1981), p. 172 f.; Martin Sicherl, "Die Vorlagen des Kopisten Valeriano Albini," Illinois Class. Studies 7 (1982) 3 2 3 - 3 5 8 , esp. 330f. - According to Schwartz (pp. IX —XI), β γ δ are indirect apographs of p. Compare Otto, Iustini Opera, I (3rd ed., Jena, 1876), pp. XXI —XXIII; II (3rd ed., 1879), p. XI f.; Schwartz, p. V l l f ; Harnack, Die Überlieferung, pp. 73 — 85; 88. E.g., Otto, Athenagorae Opera, p. XVIII ("Idem haud dubie est codex [i.e., Bononiensis B. U. 1497], quem in editione Supplicationis principe (Tiguri 1557) Gesnerus typis exscriben-

The transmission of the Plea

19

The edition was prepared by Gesner, who used either the Bononiensis B. U. 1497 (cf. Otto, pp. XVIII; XXXIII) or a manuscript close to the Monacensis 81 (cf. Schwartz, p. IX). The Greek text (pp. 3—44) is accompanied by a Latin translation made by Gesner (pp. 81 —129) and by his Textual Notes (pp. 131 — 154). In his part, Henri Estienne contributed his own Textual Notes (pp. 191—208), being helped by a Roman manuscript of the Plea sent to him by Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (p. 190). Other major editions of the Plea are listed in Abbreviations, the one prepared by Eduard Schwartz (T. U. IV.2, Leipzig, 1891) being by far the best.32 Unlike Athenagoras' treatise De resurrectione, his Legatio was not the object of a special attention on the part of Arethas, hence only a few scholia in A.33 I have studied and collated A three times in Paris, in addition to its apographs η p c. For the rest of the apograpba I have relied upon Schwartz and Otto.

32

33

dum curavit ..."); Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 2nd ed. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1913), p. 293; Encliclopedia Italiana, V (1930-38), 169; G. Bardy, Sources chrétiennes, vol. 3 (Paris, 1943), p. 67. — Apparently, Conrad Gesner himself had contributed to this mistake when writing in 1562: "Veterum aliquot theologorum Graecorum orthodoxorum libri Graeci, et ijdem Latinitate donati e regione: quorum plerique partim Latine, partim Graece antehac non sunt editi, nostra plerique cura excusi, Tiguri apud Andream patruelem anno 1552, in fol. chartis 104 ... (3) Athenagorae Atheniensis philosophi Christiani Apologia, vel legatio pro Christianis, ex nostra interpretatione cum annotationibus nostris. Eiusdem de mortuorum resurrectione liber, Petro Nannio interprete, cum Hen. Stephani typographi doctissimi (qui hos duos Athenagorae libellos seorsum prius excudit Genevae) in Graecum simul contextum et Nannij versionem Annotationibus" (Conradi Gesneri ... De libris a se editis Epistola ad Guilielmum Turnerum ..., Tiguri, apud Christophorum Froschouerum, 1562, No. 38). — As a matter of fact, Andreas Gesner had reprinted Stephanus' edition of 1557 in his Theologorum aliquot Graecorum veterum orthodoxorum libri Graeci et iidem Latinitate donati [Tiguri], 1559, and Conrad Gesner (in 1562) himself admits that Stephanus' edition had appeared earlier (in 1557). For a sound criticism of Schwartz's edition compare Erwin Preuschen, in Theologische Literatur^eitung (Leipzig) 17 (1892) 543 — 546. Compare O. Gebhardt, T. U. 1.3 (Leipzig, 1883), pp. 1 8 5 - 1 9 6 ; Idem, ap. Ed. Schwartz, T. U. IV.l (Leipzig, 1888), pp. 44 - 47; O. Stählin, Clemens, I (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 2 9 3 - 3 4 0 ; K. Mras, Eusebius, VIII.2 (Berlin, 1956), pp. 427 - 430; L. G. Westerink, Arethae Scripta minora, II (Bibl. Teubneriana, Leipzig, 1972), p. XII f.

TEXT ΑΘΗΝΑΓΟΡΟΥ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΥ ΠΡΕΣΒΕΙΑ ΠΕΡΙ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ Αύτοκράτορσιν Μάρκω Αύρηλίω Άντωνίνω και Λουκίω Αύρηλίω Κομόδω Άρμενιακοΐς Σαρματικοΐς, τό δέ μέγιστον φιλοσόφοις.

s

Ή υμετέρα, μεγάλοι βασιλέων, οικουμένη άλλος άλλοις εθεσι χρώνται ι 1 και νόμοις, καί ουδείς αυτών νόμω και φόβω δίκης, καν γελοία ή, μη στέργειν τά πάτρια είργεται, άλλ' ό μέν Ίλιεύς θεόν "Εκτορα λέγει καί την Έλένην Άδράστειαν έπιστάμενος προσκυνεί, ó δέ Λακεδαιμόνιος "Αγαμέμνονα Δία καί Φυλονόην την Τυνδάρεω θυγατέρα νοεΐν: cf. Mt 5:28; Athen. Leg. 31.18 μηδ' εις Ιννοιάν ποτέ; 32.14 μέχρις έννοιας κριθησομένοις; 33.9 — 10 ών τάς εννοίας φεύγομεν; Theophili Ad Autol. 3.13 Καί περί σεμνότητος ου μόνον διδάσκει ή μας ό άγιος λόγος τό μή άμαρτάνειν εργω, άλλά καί μέχρις έννοίας; Iustini 1 Apol. 15.5 ... ώς ού των έργων φανερών μόνον τ ω θεώ, άλλα καί τών ενθυμημάτων; Min. Fei. Oct. 35.6 vos scelera admissa punitis, apud nos et cogitare peccare est-, Tertull. Apolog. 36.4; luven. 13.209 Nam scelus intra se taciturn qui cogitât ullum / facti crimen habet (et I. Mayor ad loc.); Aeliani Var. hist. 14.28 Où γ α ρ μόνον ó άδικήσας κακός, άλλά καί ó έννοήσας άδικήσαι; Aristoph. Fr. 691 δύναται γάρ ίσον τ ω δράν το νοεΐν et alibi 12—13 της ττρός... τήν βασιλείαν σπουδής: cf. ce. 18.11 — 12; 37.6 — 9 15 άόκνως καί τάς ψυχάς έπιδιδόντες: cf. Iustini 1 Apol. 57.2; 2 Apol. 4.1; Ep. eccl. Lugdm. et Viennensis ap. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.1.63 έτοιμοι καί μετά χαράς ήκοντες èttì tòv θάνατον; Tertull. Apolog. 50.1; Ad Scapulam 1.1; Min. Fel. Oct. 8.5; Epicteti Diss. 4.7.1; M. Aurelii Meditat. 11.3; Celsum ap. Orig. c. Cels. 8.49; Luciani De morte Peregrini 13

11 ήμεις Geffcken: Ομεϊς A: ύμεΐς Schwartz 11 — 12 μή όμονοεΐν A: corruptum, δμο άλλαγή coniec. Geffcken 28 του θεού post τής ύλης A, hue transtuli 32 πιστεύσαι Α | είναι addidi coni. c. 20.23

Legatio 2 2 . 2 - 3

71

πάντων νομίζεται), τον δέ γεννώντα καί καταναλίσκοντα· | και είναι την μεν τομήν των αναγκαίων