Athenagoras: Embassy for the Christians, the Resurrection of the Dead

PATRISTISCHE TEXTE UND STUDIEN #31

by Athenagoras of Athens, Joseph Hugh Crehan SJ (Translator)

These treatises date from the last third of the second century. Athenagoras of Athens belonged to that select group of Christian laymen known as the Apologists, who supported the successors of the Apostles in the ministry of the faith by defending that faith and pleading for a just hearing before the pagan majority and pagan overlords.

Genres: Religion, Theology

200 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1956

About the author

Athenagoras (c.133 - c.190 AD) was a Father of the Church, an Ante-Nicene Christian apologist who lived during the second half of the 2nd century of whom little is known for certain, besides that he was Athenian (though possibly not originally from Athens), a philosopher, and a convert to Christianity. In his writings he styles himself as "Athenagoras, the Athenian, Philosopher, and Christian". There is some evidence that he was a Platonist before his conversion.

Athenagoras' feast day is observed on 24 July in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Reviews

[Evan Leach · Rating 3 out of 5]

Athenagoras was one of the second century Christian apologists - authors who sought to defend Christianity against its detractors through their writings. Compared to the other apologists of his era, there is reason to believe that Athenagoras had more formal philosophic training than his peers; it seems possible that Athenagoras followed the traditional philosopher's career path before converting to the Christian faith later in life, giving his writings a slightly different flavor than the other early apologies. Just two of his works survive:

Embassy for the Christians: A carefully written plea for justice for the Christians, on philosophical grounds, presented to the emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Athenagoras first complains of the illogical and unjust discrimination against the Christians and of the unfair treatment they suffer, before taking on the (commonly raised) charge of atheism. A technically strong piece with a sound logical foundation, although Athenagoras doesn’t really add a lot of new material to the apologies that came before it.

On the Resurrection of the Dead: The first complete exposition of the resurrection doctrine in Christian literature. Written later than the Apology, to which it may be considered sort of an appendix. After dealing with the standard objections, Athenagoras seeks to prove the logical possibility of a resurrection in view of either the power of the Creator or of the nature of human bodies. Going further, he argues that the nature and end of man demand a perpetuation of the life of body and soul. I didn’t find this to be particularly convincing as argued. OK, but significantly less interesting to me than the Embassy.

Overall these essays are good examples of the early apologetic genre, and Athenagoras’ clinical, philosophic style (compared to the more emotional style of some other earlier apologetic writers) helps them stand out. Recommended for readers interested in the early church. 3 stars.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

An early Christian apologist making the case for Christianity. Really remarkable to see such a developed trinitarian theology so early. Wonderful, short read.

[Samuel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Athenagorasa som čítal kvôli predmetu o prednikájskej ranokresťanskej filozofii. Kritická edícia obsahuje dve diela, pričom Legatio je obhajobou kresťanov pred Marcom Auréliom a Commodom a de Resurrectione zrejme ani nie je Athenagorasovo dielo, ale tradícia mu ho pripisuje. Nechcem sa veľmi zaoberať tým druhým, aj keď je celkom vtipné, hlavne keď popisuje, ako je možné, že Boh dokáže skriesiť ľudské telo, aj keď mu odhryzne ruku zviera, ktoré neskôr zje iný človek a podobne zábavky. Môj hlavný študijný záujem smeroval k Legatio.

Je to dielo, ktoré pomáha poukázať na problémy, ktorým kresťania čelili ako nechcená minorita v Rímskej ríši. Poukazuje na rozdiel medzi tým, ako tieto dve kultúry rozdielne vnímali zbožnosť. Komentátori taktiež popisujú dôležitosť rozdielu medzi štátnym náboženstvom, náboženstvom mesta, politickým náboženstvom a náboženstvom univerzálnym, akým je kresťanstvo. Rozdiel je aj v tom, čo politické náboženstvo vnímalo ako "ateizmus" a čo ako ateizmus vníma Athenagoras, ktorý sa snaží vyvrátiť, že kresťania určite nie sú ateisti. Ešte predtým, ako sa pustíme do rozboru diela, treba povedať, že Athenagoras bol vzdelaný a veľmi distingvovaný, neútočí bez argumentov, skôr diskutuje a predkladá problém a vyvracia argumenty problémov. Dodáva mu to na vážnosti, ale niekedy aj na nudnosti a trochu zmätočnosti.

Otázku, ktoré vo mne dielo otvorilo, môžeme zhrnúť ako otázku, aký je rozdiel medzi Bibliou ako náboženskou knihou kresťanov a prácami Homéra či Hesióda. Čím to je, že jedna je bez pochyby považovaná za božsky inšpirovanú a druhé za jasne človekom vymyslené. Athenagoras sa na túto otázku snaží odpovedať, ale nedokážem jeho odpoveď uchopiť.

Athenagoras rieši podobné problémy ako pred ním Justin Mučeník či Tatián. Snaží sa primäť cisára, aby netrestal kresťanov len preto, že sú kresťania, ale len preto, ak robia niečo, čo je proti právu. Svojím dielom sa chce Athenagoras zaslúžiť o to, aby sa ukončili nespravodlivé konania voči kresťanom. "Let no mere name be subject to accusation."

Proti kresťanom však vystávajú tri obvinenia od ostatného sveta. To, že sú ateisti, kanibali ("Thyestean banquets") a smilníci ("Oedipean unions"). Athenagoras vyvracia hlavne prvé obvinenie, kedy hovorí, že kresťania sú monoteisti, že viera v jedného Boha je jediná správna, že grécky polyteizmus je mylný a že je výmyslom ľudí, že aj mnohí filozofi podporovali monoteizmus. Cituje Platóna, ale aj Aristotela. Boh pre kresťanov taktiež nie je len hmotou, ale Boh je strojcom všetkého. A ako pri krásnej keramike obdivujeme hrnčiara, tak aj pri stvorenom svete obdivujeme stvoriteľa. Z toho však nevyplýva, že je Boh len jeden. Prečo teda je? Prečo je Boh jeden? Pretože ak spĺňa podmienky božstva, musí byť jeden, lebo je všade. Iný Boh sa tu nezmestí. Aké sú to vlastnosti? Boh je nestvorený, večný, neviditeľný, nepriechodný, nepochopiteľný a nekonečný, zato však uchopiteľný mysľou a rozumom.

Zaujímavé je, akým spôsobom sa Athenagoras prihovára známemu "filozofovi na tróne", kde jeho múdrosť pozná, spomína a očakáva od neho, že cisár zas pozná to, čo hovoria proroci. Hovorí mu, že kresťanov sa netreba báť, lebo oni sa o svet až tak nezaujímajú a určite budú poslúchať to, čo chce cisár. Je pravda, že odmietajú dávať obete rímskym bohom, ale tak príde mu nefér, že náboženstvá iných uznávajú a kresťanstvo nie.

Vyvracia tiež kanibalizmus, ktorý nedáva zmysel, keďže kresťania veria aj vo vzkriesenie tela. Oni len symbolicky jedia telo Kristovo. A odmieta tiež necudnosť a smilstvo, pretože kresťania si buď ženy (mužov) nehľadajú a ak aj áno, tak len jedného na celý život. Zaujímavé je, že Athenagoras zakazuje vdovám (vdovcom), aby si brali ďalších mužov (ženy). Čiže jedna žena a dosť. Zaujímavé je tiež, že rázne odmieta potraty argumentmi, ktoré žijú do dnes. Žena, ktorá podstupuje potrat, je vrahyňa, pretože:

"Again, what sense does it make to think of us as murderers when we say that women who practice abortion are murderers and will render account to God for abortion? The same man cannot regard that which is ίη the womb as a liνing being and for that reason an object of God's concern and then murder it when it has come into the light. Neither can the same man forbid exposing a child that has been born on the grounds that those who do so are murderers and then slay one that has been nourished. Οn the contrary, we remain the same and unchanging ίn every way at all times: we are servants of reason and not its masters."

Nevravím, že je to správne, vravím len, že je to tam, už niekedy v druhom storočí a že to znie povedome. Každopádne, čítanie je to trochu náročné, zaujímavé hlavne z dôvodu, že prináša svetlo na počiatok kresťanského zmýšľania a ukazuje, s čím mali kresťania problém, ako sa formovala doktrína, aké podmienky v Rímskej ríši spočiatku mali, čo s tým robili a podobne. Určite by som si to neprečítal len tak z voľnej chvíle, hlavne keď ide o dvojjazyčnú kritickú edíciu, ktoré nie je určená pre bežného čitateľa. 3/5 aj preto, že aj keď je to argumentačne kvalitné, čo sa týka kritických zhanení, tie tam chýbajú a v tomto smere bol Titian zábavnejší.

[Matt Pitts · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe it was me, or maybe it was the translation, or maybe it was just Athenagoras himself, but I didn’t really get into this one. I enjoyed the Embassy more than the work on resurrection, but on the whole I came away a bit disappointed.

[Brian Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the Embassy Athenagoras address Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus to refute common accusations against Christians: that they were atheists, cannibals, and licentious. In the Resurrection Athenagoras defends the resurrection from the dead. He first answers objections to the idea. He notes that if one believes that God created all things, he should have no difficulty believing that God can resurrect people. He notes the objection that humans who decay are eaten by creatures and therefore cannot be reconstituted. He notes that not all that is eaten becomes part of the creature; some passes through. And even what is eaten does become part of another creature it does not become so permanently. Finally, he argues that it is not unjust for bodies to be raised. It is unclear why he thinks some consider resurrection unjust. Athenagoras then moves to positive arguments for resurrection. First, God's motive for creating man argues for the resurrection. Athenagoras denies that God made man for his own needs, for he has no needs, nor did he make man for the needs of other creatures, for man stands at the pinnacle of creation. Rather God made man so His goodness and wisdom would :be manifest upon the face of all His handiwork." This purpose argues for an eternal existence for God's image bearers. Second, man's nature argues for the resurrection. Man is comprised of both an immortal soul and a body. Since God created man with these two parts, the body must be raised, for it would be inappropriate to man's nature for the soul to exist alone for eternity. Third, Athenagoras notes that justice is clearly not meted out in this life. Thus, for the whole man, body and soul, to receive justice either in reward or judgment the body must be raised.

[Dorotheos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contains important Orthodox teachings, including a chapter on Trinity.

[Emily Strom · Rating 3 out of 5]

if I were more philosophical and less tired I probably would have enjoyed this

[Lauren Green · Rating 5 out of 5]

Athenagoras used philosophical arguments of the day to petition the Emperor and seek just treatment of the early Christians. The early Christian church was being accused of being atheists, among other things. Athenagoras was a Christian philosopher, and took to writing the emperor to explain why Christians were not atheists and should be treated fairly.
A fascinating read- and a great example of a Christian thoughtfully presenting an argument to impact the culture.