279
The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist by Jason B. Parnell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in the University of Michigan 2009 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sarah L. Ahbel‑Rappe, Co‑Chair Professor David S. Potter, Co‑Chair Professor Victor Caston Associate Professor Arthur Mfw Verhoogt

The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Jason B. Parnell A ...deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/64788/jasonbp_1.pdf · Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist

  • Upload
    lamnhi

  • View
    218

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • TheTheurgicTurninChristianThought:Iamblichus,Origen,Augustine,andtheEucharist

    by

    JasonB.Parnell

    Adissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

    DoctorofPhilosophy(ClassicalStudies)

    intheUniversityofMichigan2009

    DoctoralCommittee:

    ProfessorSarahL.AhbelRappe,CoChairProfessorDavidS.Potter,CoChairProfessorVictorCastonAssociateProfessorArthurMfwVerhoogt

  • JasonB.Parnell

    2009

  • ii

    Acknowledgments

    ThanksbeyondmeasureareduetoProfessorSaraAhbelRappe,myprincipal

    advisor,withoutwhosethoughtfulandtimelyinputthisprojectwouldsimplyhave

    failed.Whatcoherenceistobefoundhereislargelyduetoherknowledge,experience

    andknackfordispensingjusttherightwisdomatjusttherighttime.Fortheirvery

    helpfuladviceonconstructingalargernarrativeaboutintellectualhistory,Iam

    indebtedtoProfessorDavidPotterandProfessorVictorCastonastoProfessorArthur

    Verhoogtforhispapyrologistseyeforerrorandscrutinizingattentiontokeyideasand

    theirproperexplication.ProfessorH.D.Cameronisjustlyacknowledgedaswell,for

    believingearlyonthattheprojectwasalivewhenitappearedquitemoribund.

    Morebroadly,ImustexpressmygratitudetotheDepartmentofClassical

    Studiesasawhole,forpermittingmycompletionofaprojectthatbegan,properly

    speaking,in1996.

    Amongmypeersingraduateschool,whohavecontributedsomuchcharmand

    mayhemtomyyearsatMichigan,ImustacknowledgepreeminentlyRajiMittal,Alex

    Conison,AlexAngelov,andAlbertusHorsting,whosecapacitiesforconstructive

    idlenessanddistractionastonishinglydwarfevenmyown.Alongwiththem,Mike

    Sampson,RobChenault,NateBethell,SanjayaThakur,KathrynSeidlSteed,JennFinn,

    ShondaTohm,andthedecidedlyclassicalAlisonByrnes,MFA,werepeerless

    contributorstotheconvivialityofmanygooddays.Ishallneveragainraiseatumbler

    ofbourbonwithoutrememberingautumnafternoonsspentamongthem,whichisproof

    againstallretortoftheinsightinWalkerPercysdeclarationthatbourbondoesforme

    whatthatpieceofcakedidforProust.

  • iii

    TableofContents

    Acknowledgments ii

    ListofAbbreviations v

    ChapterI:ChristianThoughtandTheurgy 1

    1.TheProblem 1

    2.Methodology:Approach,LimitsofStudy,Terminology 6

    3.Overview 13

    4.SummaryObservation 17

    ChapterII:PaganandChristianIntellectualCulture 18

    1.TheProblemofComparison:ChristianityandAntiquity 18

    2.ChristianityandAntiquity:theModernProblem 21

    3.ChristianThinkersintheRomanEmpire:theGreekApologists 30

    4.TheCaseofAnatoliusandAlexandrianIntellectualCulture 44

    5.AThirdCenturyChristianIntellectual:OrigenofAlexandria 50

    ChapterIII:TheIamblicheanSymbolonandtheMetaphysicsofTheurgy 62

    1.Introduction:ADisputeoverTheurgyandtheSoulsAscent 62

    2.Plato,Plotinus,Iamblichus,andTradition:EmbodimentanditsDiscontents 77

    3.IamblichusandPlatonicCosmology 85

    4.IamblicheanFirstPrinciplesandtheGoodnessofMaterialReality 88

    5.MatterasObstacle,MatterasInstrument:DaemonsandDemiurgicSouls 100

  • iv

    6.DivineMatterandIamblicheanritual 112

    7.EikonandSymbolasMeansoftheSoulsAscent 116

    ChapterIV:OrigenandtheAdaptationofPaganCult 133

    1.Introduction:TheLogos,theRationalCreatureandMaterialCult 133

    2.CosmologyandSpiritualAnthropology:CorporealityandRationalBeings 137

    3.TheDefenseofMaterialityonPlatonicGround 168

    4.TheIncarnationoftheLogos:EncounteringGodintheBody 179

    5.ExorcisingtheDaemons:ChristianizingPaganCult 189

    ChapterV:TheurgyandEucharisticMediationinAugustine 209

    1.Introduction:AugustineandtheTheurgicInheritance 209

    2.AugustinesTaxonomyofDaemons 214

    3.TheurgyasDaemonicCult 225

    4.ChristasPerfectEmbodiedMediation 229

    5.EucharistasSign:ASignTheoryofLanguageAppliedtoCult 239

    ChapterVI:Conclusion 256

    Bibliography 261

  • v

    ListofAbbreviationsAbst. Porphyry,deAbstinentiaagon. Augustine,DeagonechristianoAscl. AsclepiusC.Cels. Origen,ContraCelsumCMAG Cataloguedesmanuscritsalchimiquesgrecscod. Photius,BibliothecaeCodicescommEph Origen,FragmentaexcommentariisinepistulamadEphesioscommJohn Origen,CommentariiinevangeliumJoanniscommMatt Origen,CommentariuminevangeliumMatthaeic.Faust. Augustine,ContraFaustumManicheumCorp.Herm. CorpusHermeticumDCMS Iamblichus,DeCommuniMathematicaScientiaLiberDM Iamblichus,DeMysteriisDeciv.D. Augustine,DeCivitateDeiDeDeoSocrat. Apuleius,DeDeoSocratisDepraescr.haeret. Tertullian,Depraescriptionehaereticorumdial. Origen,dialoguscumHeraclideDiogn. EpistletoDiognetusdiv.qu. Augustine,DediversusquaestionibusoctogintatribusEH Eusebius,EcclesiasticalHistoryench. Augustine,EncheiridiondefidespeetcaritateEnn. Plotinus,EnneadsexProv Origen,ExpositioinProverbiaf.etsym. Augustine,DefideetsymbolofrJohn Origen,FragmentainevangeliumJoannisfrMatt Origen,FragmentainevangeliumMatthaeihaer. Epiphanius,PanarionseuadversuslxxxhaeresesinNic. Iamblichus,InNichomachiArithmeticamIntroductioneminPh. Simplicius,inAristotelisphysicorumlibrosoctocommentariainPrm. Damascius,inParmenideminR. Proclus,inPlatonisRempublicanCommentariiinTi. Proclus,inPlatonisTimaeumCommentariiLg. Plato,Legesmag. Augustine,DeMagistro

  • vi

    Marc. Porphyry,AdMarcellammart. Origen,ExhortatioadMartyriumPhaed. Plato,PhaedoPhaedr. Plato,Phaedrusprinc. Origen,DePrincipiisquant. Augustine,DeanimaequantitateselPs Origen,SelectainPsalmosStrom. Clement,StromateisTi. Plato,Timaeustrin. Augustine,DeTrinitateVP Porphyry,VitaPlotiniVS Eunapius,VitaeSophistarum

  • 1

    ChapterI:ChristianThoughtandTheurgy

    1.TheProblem

    UntilfairlyrecentlyscholarshaveregardedIamblichusdefenseoftheurgyas

    littlemorethanathinapologyforthemagicalmanipulationofgodsanddemons.Itwas

    famouslytermedamanifestoofirrationalism,afoundingcharterforevery

    superstitionopposedtogenuinephilosophicalreasoning.1Thetheurgicturnin

    Platonismwastobeunderstoodasanaberrationsymptomaticofdeclineanddecadence,

    afallingawayfromthemoresophisticated,rarefiedphilosophyofPlotinusand

    Porphyry.ThisviewisinkeepingwiththeargumentsofPorphyryhimself,whose

    uneasewiththeurgypromptedhimtowritehisLettertoAnebotochallengeit,provoking

    inturnIamblichusresponseinhisDeMysteriis.2Themostrecentscholarshiphas

    shownthatthatmorecontemptuousevaluationsofIamblichusrepresentinparta

    misperception,andthathisworkismoreaccuratelyreadasagenuineattemptto

    vindicatematerialreligiousriteswithintheframeworkofacoherentmetaphysicsand

    psychology.3

    Becauseofthehistoricallynegativeperceptionoftheurgy,thequestionofits

    influenceonlaterChristianthinkersbecomesacomplicatedmatter.Thelongstanding

    prejudiceagainsttheurgyasdebasedsuperstitioninfectsapproachestoChristianwriters

    1E.R.Dodds,TheGreeksandtheIrrational(1973)28788.2ChapterIII.12willconsiderthebackgroundofIamblichusrelationshiptohisfellowNeoplatonists.3Shaw(1999)summarizesthecaseandcatalogstheessentialbibliography:Trouillard(1972);Dillon(1973);Larsen(1972);Lloyd(1967);Steel(1978);Smith(1974);Sheppard(1982);Shaw(1985,1995);Fowden(1986);Athanassiadi(1993).

  • 2

    whoseworksbeartheurgysclearmarkings,andwhoseauthorsareoftenconsidered

    suspiciouslypaganasaresult.Ithaslongbeenacknowledgedthattheworksof

    PseudoDionysius4openlyadoptsignificantlanguageandcontentfromIamblichus,

    mediatedthroughthefifthcenturyAthenianschoolofNeoplatonism.Amongsome

    scholars,thisstateofaffairshasoftengivenrisetothequestionofwhetherDionysius,

    consideringhisNeoplatonistcommitmentsandtheurgicinfluences,canberegardedas

    legitimatelyChristian.5SuchscholarsoftenstrivetoimplicateDionysiusinhisown

    pagantheurgy,therebyquarantininghisPlatonismfromauthenticChristianity.

    Specifically,Protestantscholarsparticularlyhaveoftenundertakentosanitize

    Dionysiusadoptionofthetheurgicsymbola,readingthemasmeresignsofprinciplesto

    beintellectuallyapprehended,ratherthanmateriallyefficaciouselementsinreligious

    rites.6

    Suchapproachesboththosethatsuspecttheurgyitself,andthosethatsuspect

    Christianauthorsoftheurgiccorruptionarearguablyrelated,sinceeachseesin

    theurgyamenacetobecontained,theformerregardingitasathreattolegitimate

    philosophicaldiscourse,thelattertolegitimateChristianity.Insofarasbothapproaches

    attemptsuchcompartmentalization,theyarealmostcertainlybothdefective.The

    assignmentoftheurgytothecategoryofthemerelysuperstitioushasnowlongbeen

    regardedasdeficient;likewise,anxietyovertheurgicinfluenceonthepseudoDionysius

    hasbeensomewhatdiminished,orperhapsfinallydeclaredmoot.GregoryShaw,for

    instance,specificallynotingDionysiusadoptionofaIamblicheantriadicorderingof

    worship,hisadaptationofmaterialsymbola,andhisprescriptionsforadvancementto4late5thearly6thcentury5SeeespeciallythedisputebetweenKennethPaulWesche,ChristologicalDoctrineandLiturgicalInterpretationinPseudoDionysius(1989)andAlexanderGolitzin,OntheOtherHand[AReponsetoFr.PaulWeschesRecentArticleonDionysiusinSt.VladimirsTheologicalQuarterly.](1990).6Rorem,TheUpliftingSpiritualityofPseudoDionysius(1986)134,isconcernedtoavoidtaintingsacraments,asconceivedbyDionysius,withanyideaofmaterial,magicalefficacy.GolitzinTheMysticismofDionysiusAreopagita:PlatonistorChristian(1993)iscriticalofthistendency.OfLuibheidandRoremstranslation(1987)ofthePseudoDionysiancorpus,Shaw(1999)interestinglynotesthatthetranslatorsexcludethetermtheurgiafromtheirtext,despiteitsfortysevenoccurrences(includingcognates)inthecorpus(574,andn.1).

  • 3

    higherlevelsofworship,arguesforthelikelihoodthatDionysiussimplyadaptedthe

    principlesandsomeoftheterminologyofIamblichuspsychologyandtheurgyto

    completehishieraticvisionoftheChurch.Itisdifficult,hefurtherargues,nottosee

    DionysiusasakindofChristianIamblichus.7

    Asusefulassuchcorrectionshavebeen,theytoosufferfromafundamental

    problem:thedefectofviewingtherelationshipbetweentheurgyandChristianthought

    inneatlygenealogicalterms,foundedontheassumptionthatIamblichuscodifiedthe

    theurgicturninPlatonism,basedonhisreceptiontheoftheChaldeanOraclesandother

    influences,andthentransmittedittohisintellectualheirssuchasProclusandthe

    Athenianschool.Fromthesesources,Dionysiuscouldadopttheurgicprinciplesasthe

    basisforhismystagogyandhisaccountofChristianliturgy.Theproblemwiththis

    approachisthatitoffersalineoftransmissionthatissimplytooclean,inthatitregards

    ideasastransmittedlineallyandgenealogicallyratherthanlaterally.Butinreality,

    ideasdonotexistonlyinphilosophicaltexts,butarerathernegotiatedinabroader

    culturalcontext,aplainfactthatpointstothedangerinassumingthatIamblichean

    thoughtandlatertheurgyareproductsofanintellectualtraditionthatissomehow

    neatlyseparablefromtheculturethatshapedmajorthirdandfourthcenturyChristian

    thinkers.Itmightseemthatthisinsightshouldbeobvious,andmoreoftenthannotitis

    atleasttheoreticallyacknowledgedinscholarship;butevengivenitsrecognitionin

    principle,itisoftennotobservedinpractice,whichresultsinatendencytoassumethat

    athinkersstandingaspaganorChristianexcludesprimafaciehisengagementwith

    certainideasasifcreedaldifferentiationdictatedcompartmentalizationofthought.

    Underthisflawedconstruction,whileitmightbegrantedthatChristianthinkerscould

    adopttherhetoricaltropesandphilosophicalargumentsofhigherGrecoRomanculture,

    theyareneverthelesseffectivelyinsulatedfromtheputativelynegativeeffectstheir

    borrowingsmighthaveonthesubstanceoftheirChristianity.

    Thepresentargumentispremisedonaresistancetotheeasytaxonomyofsucha

    perspective,arguingratherthatpaganandChristianthinkersnotonlyspeakthesame

    7Shaw(1999)58586.

  • 4

    language,butthattheyaresubstantivelycoparticipantsinthesameculture.The

    argumentthereforestartsfromtheprinciplethattheboundariesdividingthepagan

    fromtheChristianbeforeandafterIamblichusshouldbeseenaslargelyfictional

    constructsservingscholarlyconvenience,andgivenillusorystabilitybytherhetorical

    natureofChristianpolemicbothancientandmodern.BothChristianityandthe

    traditionalreligioussystemsandphilosophicalschoolsoftheRomanEmpireemerge

    fromthesameculturalmatrixdefinedbyastoreofsharedideas,practicesand

    dispositionsonethatisalreadycharacterizedbyaconstantinteractionthatdefines

    bothChristianityandlaterpaganism.Itisnotthecasethatonemerelyinfluencesthe

    otherinalinealfashion,butthattheyemergefromthesameculturalworld,andquite

    naturallymanifestanalogoustraits.Withintellectualcultureplacedinproper

    perspective,weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindtheoreticalsimilaritybetweenChristian

    andpaganthought,toincludethephilosophicaltheorizationofritualpractice.

    Becausethisperspectiverequiresthatweseeideasasarisingwithinashared

    culture,weencounteraspecialdifficulty.Despiteacontextcommontobothpaganand

    Christianthinkers,Christianityposesadistinctiveprobleminitsstanceofexclusivity,

    whichrequireditsadherentstoadoptarhetoricofdifferentiationinordertodistinguish

    themselvesfromthepagancultsthattheyunderstoodasinadequateandgenerally

    maleficent.Christianthinkerswereforced,inotherwords,toconceallikenessinthe

    interestsofdefiningandmaintainingidentity.Thedifficultiesthatthirdandfourth

    centuryChristianthinkerswouldencounterincarryingoutthisrhetoricalprojectare

    alreadyevidentinearlierperiods,whenChristianthoughtisfirstassimilatingitself

    withinitsGrecoRoman,neareastern,polytheist,andJewishcontext.Oftentherhetoric

    employedreflectstheconsciousnessofthesomewhatimperiledplaceofChristianity

    withinthecultureandpoliticsoftheempire.Differentstrategiesmightbeemployedas

    circumstancesdictated.AphilosopherliketheapologistJustininthesecondcentury

    couldpraiseGreekphilosophy,subordinatingittobiblicalwisdomandtherebytaming

    itforChristianuse,whilethethirdcenturyNorthAfricanbishopTertulliancould

    famouslycallPlatohimselfomniumhaereticorumcondimentarius,spicesuppliertoall

  • 5

    heretics,theverysourceofalldoctrinalcorruption.Thesetwostrategiescouldscarcely

    bemoredifferent,andyettheyarealikeinthebasicsensethattheyrepresenteffortsat

    creatingandpreservingaChristianidentity,whetherbytherhetoricalplunderingof

    classicalculture,orbyitsvehementrejection.EvenTertullianscasedoesnotleavethe

    questionofChristiandevotiontotherhetoricalandphilosophicalcontentofclassical

    cultureparticularlyindoubt.Suchrhetoricaldissimulationswouldpersistintolater

    times.InthecaseofbothOrigenandAugustine,weshallencounterasimilarrhetoricof

    differentiationworkingtooccludethephilosophicalkinshipoftheirsacramental

    thoughttothemagicandtheurgythattheyvocallyreject.

    Thebasicquestionthatthisstudyisintendedtoraiseconcernstheextentto

    whichOrigenandAugustinesinterrogationsofeucharistareindebtedtothe

    vocabularyandconceptualapparatusbestexpressedinIamblicheantheurgy.Thesetwo

    particularthinkerswouldbynomeansbeconsideredtheurgictothesamedegreeas

    PseudoDionysius,whosewritingsdolittletoconcealtheirsourceintheurgic

    Neoplatonism.WhereAugustineandOrigendeploytheurgicthought,theydosomore

    subtlyasmustbethecaseespeciallyforOrigen,sincehisdeathlongpreceded

    theurgysIamblicheanarticulation.Whatunitesthemisadifferentiatingrhetoricthat

    veilstheirownadoptionoftheurgicmechanismsofsacramentalmediationadoptions

    thatoccur,asithappens,intheverymidstoftheirfloridrhetoricalrejectionsofthe

    magicalandtheurgic.IntheargumentsofOrigenandAugustinewecanthusdiscern

    someverypaganprinciplesatwork,maskedineachcasebythesamerhetorical

    strategies,andreconfiguredintheirmediatingagenciesandexternalritualforms.Thus

    itbecomespossible,evendespiteOrigensdisruptionofaneatchronologicalsequence,

    tosuggestthatinthematterofeucharist,PlatonizingChristianthinkersofthethirdand

    fourthcenturieswerealreadyexperimentingwithafundamentallytheurgicaccountof

    ritualmediation,longbeforePseudoDionysiusengagedinhismoreovert

    appropriations.

  • 6

    2.Methodology:Approach,LimitsofStudy,Terminology

    A.Approach

    Theapproachofthisdissertationstemsfromtheconvictionthattheoreticalideas

    aboutcultcannotbeseparatedfromtheintellectualculturethatformstheirthinkers.

    Whenweconcedetheinvolvementofideasinculture,itfollowsthatwemustalwaysbe

    attentivetotherhetoricalcontextwithinwhichideasareframed,andalerttothewaysin

    whichsophisticatedChristianthinkersmightsetaboutmaskingtheirassimilationof

    paganideas.Thisisespeciallytrueincaseofthetextsthatarecentraltothepresent

    study,OrigensContraCelsumandAugustinesOntheCityofGod,sinceineithercasewe

    confrontvigorouspolemicagainstsomeofChristianitysmostlearnedopponents

    Celsusintheformercase,Porphyryinthelatter.Itfollowsfromthepolemicalnatureof

    thetextsthatwemustattuneourreadingtocertaindissimulationsthattheauthorsmay

    bepracticinginthecourseoftheirarguments,inordertounderstandhowOrigenand

    Augustinemayberedeployingmaterialinthecourseofconfiguringtheirown

    eucharistictheories.Wemustlikewiseremainfocusedonthemorestraightforward

    intellectualcontentoftheargumentsthattheyrejectandadvance.Centraltothepresent

    studyistheconvictionthatbothreadingsarenecessaryonethatrecognizesarhetoric

    ofdifferentiation,andonethatissensitivetotheconceptualframeworkwithinwhich

    theseearly,experimentalarticulationsofeucharistictheoryaretakingshape.

    Itfollowsthatacertainportionofthisstudywillbedevotedtoquestionsof

    culturalidentityandrhetoric,andthatattheveryleastthatsuchconcernswillconstitute

    asubtextthroughout.Muchoftherestofthestudy,whereallthreesignificantthinkers

    areconcerned,willbefocusedonquestionsofmetaphysicalfirstprinciples,thenature

    andvirtueofmaterialreality,andcompetinghierarchiesofmediationcomplemented

    byquestionsonthenatureofthesoulanditsplacewithinrealitythushierarchically

    conceived.Inallthreecases,theintellectualbackgroundiscomplex;buteachthinkers

    workisshapedprofoundlybythephilosophicalconcernsofMiddleandNeoplatonism,

  • 7

    afactthatisreflectedintheobviousindebtednessoftheirseveralnarrativesof

    salvationtotheoriginalPlatonicstoryofthesoulsfallandtheprospectsforits

    eventualrepatriation.Allthreethinkers,forinstance,mustformulateanaccountof

    whatitmeanstobeanembodiedsoul,oramaterialrationalcreature,anddevise

    approachestotheproblemofwhetherthebodyandmaterialrealityconstituteprimarily

    hindrancesoraidstotheprocessofthesoulsrepatriation.Allthree,theninamanner

    thatrequirestherejectionoftoopronouncedadualismendorsetheideathatmaterial

    realitymediatesaccesstoincorporealprinciplesthatrepresentthesoulsproper

    template,orthatstandinahealingrelationshiptothesoulsinnerdisorientation,and

    arewillingtoembracelanguageandformulationsthatcanbeseenasfundamentally

    theurgicintheiraccountsofritualmediationofthesoulsascent.ForOrigenand

    Augustine,thismeansthattheyadoptlanguageandassumptionsemployedwithinthe

    verysystemsofreligiousmediationthattheyrhetoricallyreject.

    B.LimitsofStudy

    AlthoughitisreasonabletoarguethatthestudyofancientChristianitycanmore

    safelyproceedfromtherecognitionofspecificcommunitiesandtheirvariety,8the

    presentstudywillworkformtheassumptionthatnormativeChristianitysengagement

    withtheintellectualcultureofthelaterRomanEmpireconstitutesasortoflocalityall

    itsown.Forpurposesofthepresentstudy,Ishallarguethatwearejustifiedin

    triangulatingthethoughtofOrigen,Iamblichus,andAugustineforanumberofreasons.

    First,aswehavealreadynoted,therhetoricalapproachestakenbybothOrigenand

    Augustinetotheproblemofmagicandtheurgyinwhichtheirownsubtle

    appropriationsaremaskedbyadifferentiatingrhetoric,anddiscussionofeucharistis

    abruptlyintrudedinthemidstofrejectionsofpaganritesofmediationservetoalign

    8AsHansDieterBetzargues:Thedanger[offalselypositingChristianityandAntiquityasseparate,stableentities]isonlyremovedwhenantiqueChristianityisfirmlyregionalizedandalsoconsideredasconstitutingdifferentgroupswithparticularidentities(1998)8.

  • 8

    thetwothinkerswithinaChristiantraditionthatrejectsthemagicalandtheurgicwhile

    appropriatingtheircategories.Putsimply,therhetoricalstrategiesofboththinkersare

    akin,andineachcasepointdirectlytoanargumentforeucharistthatderivesfroma

    distinctivelypagancontext.

    Therearefurtherreasons,relatedtothematterofintellectualculture,toconsider

    thesethreethinkerstogether.Origen,asweshallseeinChapterII,participatedinthe

    sophisticatedintellectuallifeofAlexandria,especiallyasamemberofthephilosophical

    circleofAmmoniusSaccas.ThelatterwasPlotinuslongsoughtteacher,afactthat

    placesPorphyry,andsubsequentlyIamblichus,withinthesameintellectualtraditionof

    thesecondcenturysNeopythagoreanMiddlePlatonism.Iamblichus,furthermore,may

    havebeenastudentoftheAlexandrianphilosopherAnatolius,9aswellaslaterof

    Porphyryhimself.ItisthusthatwecanseeOrigenandIamblichusviewsonfirst

    principles,materiality,theproblemofthesoulsembodiment,andmaterialmediationof

    incorporealprinciplesasderivedfromultimatelykindredsources.

    AnothercuriousparallelarisesfromthefactthatbothOrigenandIamblichusare

    involvedinapolemicwithotherPlatonistthinkerswhoofferaskepticalrejoinderto

    theirmoremonistmetaphysicalpositions,whereeachisconcernedtodefendthe

    efficacyofmateriallygroundedcultagainsttheclaimsofmoredualist,noetically

    orientedphilosophersattemptingtopreservephilosophyforanintellectualelite.

    WhereIamblichusmustresistPorphyrysskepticismabouttheurgyasalegitimatesetof

    materialpracticesformediatingthesoulsascentandalsoasatheoreticalbasisfor

    commonreligionsoOrigenmustresistCelsus,whoissimilarlyrepulsedby

    Christianitysembraceofmateriallygroundedincarnationandresurrection,andthe

    broadappealofitsculttothecommonrunofmen.OrigenandIamblichus,then,are

    thinkersemergingfromacommoncultureofideas,andsharingacommonsetof

    concerns.Whatdividesthemisnotprinciple,butratherOrigensneedtodeploya

    ChristianrhetoricofidentitytosecurehisChristianityagainstexcessiveassociationwith

    paganpractices.

    9AnatoliuscareerandpossiblerelationtoIamblichusareconsideredinChapterII,pp.4450.

  • 9

    WhenwecometothematterofAugustine,weconfrontathinkerwhoistosome

    degreealienatedbytimeanddistance,butwhoisneverthelessavoluntaryparticipantin

    thethirdcenturysdebates.InhisOntheCityofGod,whenheopenlytakesupthe

    questionoftheurgy,hedirectlyexploitsPorphyrysownhesitationsoverthematter,

    turningthelattersownambivalenceagainsthiminakindofliterarytorsion.

    Porphyryssuspicionsoftheurgy,expressedinhisLettertoAneboandelsewhere,

    promptedIamblichuselaboratereplyinitsdefense;andAugustine,fromsomeremove,

    isdelightedtoadoptPorphyrysmoreskepticalpositions,simplyaccusinghimoffailure

    totakethefurtherstepofacknowledgingthesuperiorityofChristianityasasystemof

    mediation.Therelationofthesethinkersmightthusbebestexpressedintermsofa

    sharedresistancetoapositionontheurgytakenbyPorphyry,withOrigenand

    AugustinedistinguishedfromIamblichusprincipallybyadissemblingrhetoricthat

    enablestheirretentionofcoretheurgicprincipleswhilerejectingparticulartheurgic

    hierarchiesandrites.

    BothOrigenandAugustine,then,canbeseenasnotonlymenofeliteeducation

    andPlatonistdisposition,butasdirectparticipantsintheverysamedebatewith

    Porphyrysanxietyovertheurgyservingassomethingofatangiblelinkbetweenthem.

    WhenweaddtotheseconsiderationsthefactthatAugustinesresponsetotheclaimsof

    theurgyconspicuouslymirrorsOrigenstoincludehisrhetoricalinsinuationof

    Christianeucharistintheverymidstofhisrejectionofpaganritesitbecomesentirely

    plausibletoviewthesethreethinkersaspreoccupiedwiththesamebasicproblems,and

    toseeOrigenandAugustineas,insomesense,Christiantheurgists.

    NoconclusionsaboutthedevelopmentofabroaderChristiansacramental

    discoursefollowfromsuchanassertion,althoughotherChristianpractices,suchas

    baptismandthevenerationofrelics,mightbemadetoconformtothesame

    endorsementsofmaterialmediation.Suchambitionsexceedthescopeofthisstudy,as

    theyplainlyliebeyondtheinterestsofOrigenandAugustinethemselvesinthecontext

    oftheirconfrontationwiththemagicalandtheurgicastheyfindthemintheworksof

    theirintellectualopponents.Astheydeveloptheirresponsestopaganritesofmediation

  • 10

    conceivedtheurgically,theyinvokeinstrikinglysimilarwayspreciselytheeucharist

    astheuniquesolutiontotheproblemposedbythebroadsystemofdaemonicmediation

    posedbypagantradition.Theyappeartosharearecognitionoftheimplicationsofthe

    thoughtthattheyconfront,particularlyaninsightintothethreatthatpaganreligion

    posestothemorenarrowlyconceivedsystemofdivinemediationrepresentedbythe

    eucharisticpracticeofthenormativechurchthechurchsdailysacrifice,as

    Augustinedescribesit.ForChristians,thecosmictempleoftheurgyandmagic,wherein

    myriadsubstancesintheworldareassertedasmediatorsoftranscendence,couldnotbe

    allowedtostandalongsidetheexclusivesystemofmediationbyanincarnateLogosseen

    ascontinuouswithmaterialritescelebratedwithintheChristiancommunity.Origen

    andAugustinearethusconfrontingthesameproblem,thoughindifferenttimesand

    places,andtheyaredoingsowithbymeansofthesamerhetoricalapproach,conceived

    withintheveryphilosophicaltraditionthatproducestheurgyitself.

    AlthoughtheattempttotriangulatethethoughtofOrigenandAugustinewith

    thatofIamblichusmayappearinadequatelylocalandthereforesomewhatarbitrary,it

    isreallydefinedbythelimitedambitionofpositingarelativesimilaritybetweenthe

    philosophicalandrhetoricalresponsesoftwoChristianparticipantsinGrecoRoman

    philosophicalculture.TwothinkersofPlatonizingtendencyarerespondingto

    traditionalwaysofdescribingthefunctionalityofreligiousriteswaysthatarefinally

    codified,totheextentthatsuchispossible,inthesystemofthoughtpresentedby

    Iamblichus.ItisIamblichusthought,then,andthearticulatedversionoftheurgythatit

    represents,thatenablesustoperceivethatOrigenandAugustinearequietly

    assimilatingthatfromwhichtheydistancethemselvesrhetoricallyandwhichwould

    bemoreopenlyadoptedinlatercenturiesbyChristianthinkerssuchasPseudo

    Dionysiusaspartofasystematicexplanationofsacramentalefficacy.

    C.Terminology

  • 11

    Despitethegoodreasonsforusingthetermpolytheistratherthanpagan,I

    shallusethetermsmoreorlessinterchangeably.10Polytheist,asithappens,isnot

    alwaystheperfectlydistinguishingterm,sinceintheintellectualconflictover

    Christianityinthe3rdcentury,divisionwasnotalwaysseenintermsofpolytheism

    andmonotheism.WhenpaganthinkersinclinedtoattackChristianity,itwasnot

    generallythefirstprinciplesofChristianthinkersthattheytargeted.Christiandivine

    hierarchieshadcomeincreasinglytomirrorthoseofthePlatonismofthattime,which

    wereinturngivenovertotheirownvariantsofwhatappearedtobetrinitarianism.11To

    theextentthatsuchnomenclatureisrequiredatallanditobviouslyisacertain

    amountofcarefulattentionforthecontentofthoughtcansurelyexcusethesomewhat

    casualemploymentoftraditionalterms.

    Theurgy,andespeciallytheclaimthatmajorthirdandfourthcenturyChristian

    thinkersarequietlyassimilatingitsideas,isanothermatter.Iamblichususesafairly

    complicatedsetoftermstodenotethematerialobjectsthatmaybeunderstoodto

    mediateincorporealprinciple.Eikondesignatesthevisiblemanifestation,thematerial

    surfaceofanysuchmediatingelement.Symbolonandsynthemasomewhat

    interchangeablydesignateeithertheinvisibleprincipleorformunderlyingthematerial

    element,ortheelementitself.Symbolonasatermdesignatingsuchformisattestedin

    thetheurgicChaldeanOracles,thoughIamblichusseemstousetheterminadouble

    edgedway,indicatingboththeobjectofcultattentionandtheinvisiblerealitiestowhich

    itsuppliesalinkausagethatemphasizesthemediatingorbridgefunctionofthe

    symbolonincult,andmakingofthesymbolonbothanoutwardsignandaninward

    mystery.Origenappropriatesthisterminthecourseofrejectingmagicalritesand

    defendinghisratherabruptlyintroduceddiscussionofeucharistinthecourseofhis

    argument.12ThatOrigenwouldinvokethisterm,whichwouldlaterbecentralto

    10ThereasonsareexplainedbyFowden(2005)521522.11SeeFrede(1997)22829.12ThatOrigendoesnottroubletodistinguishmagicandtheurgyisnomatter;refusaltodosowouldhavebeenstandardprocedureforanyChristianpolemicist,asAugustinesargumentin

  • 12

    Iamblichusdiscussionoftheurgy,isnotinitselfanargumentthatOrigenisoperating

    withinatheurgictradition.Whatcompelsattentionisnotamerephilologicalparallel,

    butratherthetermsrhetoricalcontext.AtpreciselythemomentthatOrigendeclares

    theillegitimacyofpaganmagicalpracticesthatinvokeanynumberofobjectsassymbola,

    employingasharp,dismissiverhetorictodistinguishillicitpaganpracticesfrom

    acceptableChristianrites,heabruptlyadoptsthetermhimself,arbitrarilytransferringa

    keypieceofterminologyfromapagantoaChristiandiscourse.Thus,asIhaveargued

    above,itisnotmerelysubstantiveargument,orinthiscasephilologicalparallel,that

    shoulddetermineourreadingofaChristianthinkersrelationtomagicandtheurgy,but

    rathertherhetoricalcontextofhisargument,inwhichanefforttowarddifferentiation

    mayconcealfurtiveassimilations.

    Augustinepresentsacuriouslysimilarcase,andperhapsthemorefascinating

    one,sinceasalaterthinkerhecouldengagetheurgyasamoredevelopedsystem.

    Books810ofOntheCityofGodarecomposedwiththeaimofrejectingpagansystemsof

    daemonicmediation,whichAugustineidentifieswiththeurgyandmagic.Muchlike

    Origen,heabruptlyintrudesajustificationofChristianeucharistinthemidstofhis

    dismissalofmoreancientmediatinghierarchiesandrites.Thetheoreticalframework

    thatAugustineappliesinitsdefensecentersonthetermsignum,orsign.Itisnot

    adequatetoarguethatAugustineismerelytranslatingthetheurgicsymbolonintoaLatin

    signum,andtosuggestonthebasisofphilologicalechothathe,likeOrigen,isacrypto

    theurgist;butasinOrigenscase,therhetoricalcontext,wheretheprincipalaimis

    rejectionofdaemonicmediation,suggestsstronglythatAugustinemeanstointerpolate

    hisownsystemwithinapreexistingpagantemplate.Whenwefurthernotehowhe

    shiftsthemeaningofthetermsignumoverthecourseofhisargument,movingquietly

    fromanotionofsacrificeasametaphoricalsignoftransformedinnerdisposition,toa

    notionoftheeucharisticsacrificeasasigninwhatmustplainlybeadeepersense

    requiringthatthesignumfunctionasavehiclemanifestingsubstantiveinnerrealitiesto

    OntheCityofGodmakesplain.EvenIamblichushimselfwouldstruggletomaintainthedistinctionagainstintellectualoppositionlongafterOrigensdeath.

  • 13

    thevotarythenitbecomesclearthatAugustine,too,isinvokingnotionsofmediation

    thatarecharacteristicofthetheurgicsystemsheattacks.Asbefore,rhetoricalcontextis

    thedecisivefactorinidentifyingthepossibilityofanalogyinthought.

    3.Overview

    TheaimofChapterIIistosuggestwaysofapproachingChristianthinkersinthe

    secondandthirdcenturiesasparticipantsinaworldofsharedintellectualassumptions

    aculturemarkedbycommonaccesstointellectualcircles,thesamephilosophicaland

    rhetoricalschools.Whentheintellectualcultureofantiquityissoviewed,itbecomes

    possibletoseethethoughtofdifferentthinkers,themselvesvariouslypaganor

    Christian,asindebtedtoacommontradition.Thecrucialpointintheargumentisthat

    cultureitselfisshared;Christiansdonotmerelyengageinmimicry,butrather

    participateinintellectualculturealongsidetraditionalists,suchthattheyarepredictably

    absorbedbythesamequestions,andunsurprisinglyworkoutsolutionstoproblems

    describedwithinthesameconceptualparameters.Suchanunderstandingisconducive

    toaproperapproachtothethoughtofIamblichus,Origen,andAugustineinsubsequent

    chapters.Inthecourseofthisargument,weshallconsiderfirstsomeofmodernitys

    deficientmodelsfordefiningtherelationshipbetweenChristianityandAntiquity,

    manyofwhicharefoundeduponanerroneousideaoforigins,thattendedtoposita

    pureChristianitystandingpriortothecorruptionsoflaterperiods.Alsounder

    considerationwillbetherelativebenefitofmakingcomparisonsinanalogicalrather

    thengenealogicalterms.ThenextsectionwillconsiderthewaysinwhichChristian

    apologistsofthesecondcenturymaybefruitfullyconsideredastheearliestinstancesof

    arhetoricofdifferentiationthatstrugglestofindwaysofsituatingChristianthought

    withinGrecoRomanculture.Theapproachesoftheapologistsdifferwidely,butin

    eachcase,whethertheirintentionisoppositionorintegration,theapologistsemergeas

    definitivelyGrecoRomanfigures,deployingtropesandargumentsthatrevealthemas

    specimensofclassicalculture,whethercomfortablysoornot.Theargumentwillthen

  • 14

    proceedtotheintellectualcultureofthethirdcentury,citingevidenceforwhatweknow

    ofChristianparticipationinthesophisticatedphilosophicalcultureofAlexandria.

    Centraltothisstorywillbethecareerssomewhatspeculativelyreconstructedofthe

    peripateticphilosopherandChristianconvertAnatolius,whohimselfmayhavehad

    connectionstoIamblichusandPorphyry,andthatofOrigen,whoseparticipationinthe

    moreeliteintellectualcirclesemergesclearlydespiteEusebiustendentious

    hagiography.Thisculturalpictureshouldinformthewayweconsultthetextsofboth

    paganandChristianthinkersinourattemptsdefinewhat,intheirseveralviews,

    accountsfortheefficacyofreligiousritesofmediation.

    ChapterIIIwillstepawayfromthelivesofChristianthinkers,andfocusrather

    onIamblicheantheurgy.ItwillbeginwithsomebackgroundonIamblichus

    developmentofaphilosophicallygroundedtheurgyasastudiedresponsetothe

    deficienciesthatheperceivedinthePlatonismofhisday,andasalegitimate

    philosophicaloutlookfoundedonamorefaithfulreadingofthePlatonictradition.It

    willspecificallyengageIamblichusconflictwiththePlatonisttraditionofhistime,

    especiallyhisoppositiontowhatheseesasdistortionsofPlatonicthoughtinthework

    PlotinusandPorphyryonsuchmattersastheundescendedsoul,thenproceedto

    Iamblichusowncosmology,inwhichthematerialcosmosisamanifestationof

    transcendentreality,sothatthesoulsrepatriationmaybeunderstoodasmediatedbya

    materialworldconceivedintermsofIamblichusfundamentalmonism.Iamblichus

    metaphysicsareNeopythagoreaninoriginandaffirmthegoodnessofmaterialrealityas

    amanifestationofeternalcosmicproportions.HetherebyresolvesthePlatonic

    traditionsambivalenceoverthesoulsrelationtomatter,finallyassertingmatterasboth

    disorientinghindranceandnecessaryinstrument,andassertingthattheproperly

    repatriatedsoulparticipatesinthedemiurgicorganizationofthematerialcosmos

    throughcultthatproperlyalignsitwiththedemiurgesdaemonicfunctionaries.Since

    suchanapproachvindicatesmaterialreligiouscult,theargumentwillconsiderfinally

    theIamblicheantheoryofthesymbolonasexpressedthroughthecomplexofterms

    symbolon,synthema,andeikonthearcanesignsandimprintsdispersedthrough

  • 15

    materialnature,servingasthetheurgistsportaltotheinvisibledemiurgicworldofgods

    anddaemons.Iamblichusthoughtonthesesymbolaiscrucialtounderstandingthelinks

    connectingChristianthinkerswithatheurgicworldviewlinksthatarestrongly

    suggestedintheembraceofsuchlanguageandconceptsbyChristians,evenwhen

    rhetoricallydissimulated.

    InawaythatlooselymirrorstheconsiderationofIamblichusinChapterIII,

    ChapterIVwillconsiderOrigenscosmologyandspiritualanthropologyhisvarianton

    thetraditionalnarrativeofthefallofthesoulandhisChristianresponsetotheissueof

    embodiment,whichforhim,asforIamblichus,requiresthemediationofmaterialcultas

    partofaremedy.ItwilladvancetheargumentthatOrigen,thoughoftenhandledasif

    hewereafirmdualist,isactuallylesssothanonemightthink,andthathismoremonist

    metaphysics,andhisembraceofanideaoftheuniversalityofembodiment,preparesthe

    wayforatheoryoftheincarnateLogoswhomediatesdivinelifeforallrational,

    embodiedcreatures,andwhoserationaleiscontinuouswiththeoreticaljustificationof

    materialsacrament.NotunlikeIamblichus,Origenundertakestodefendembodiment

    ontraditionalPlatonicground,accusinghisinterlocutor(Celsus)offailingtograspthe

    vindicationsofmaterialrealitythatthePlatonictraditioncontains.Hisviewsof

    spiritualanthropologyanddivineincarnation,enableOrigentoreplacetraditional

    religiousformsadvocatedbyCelsuswithaChristianvariant,parallelinits

    conceptualization,butconceivedasanextensionoftheincarnationoftheLogos,whose

    mediationthoroughlyreplacesthatofgodsanddaemonsinthepaganpantheon.In

    connectionwiththisdisplacementIshallarguethatOrigensexplicitrejectionofmagical

    andtheurgicactsisactuallyaccompaniedbytheretentionofmuchoftheintellectual

    frameworkattendingsuchacts,asmarkedespeciallybythelanguageofsymbolon,which

    heappropriatesexplicitlyfromapaganreligiouscontext.

    ChapterVisintendedtofunctionastheAugustiniancodatotheargument.It

    contendsthatAugustine,too,mustconfrontthequestionoftheurgyanddaemonically

    mediatedcult,andthathedoessoinamannerthatcanbemorepreciselyobservedand

    measuredsincehelivedlongafterIamblichus,inanageinwhichtheclaimsoftheurgy

  • 16

    hadlongbeenanobjectofseriousintellectualdispute.Withoutreconstructing

    Augustinianfirstprinciplesandcosmology,stilllessanAugustiniantheoryofthesoul,

    itispossibletomarkthewaythatAugustinesargumentinOntheCityofGodfollows

    sometrajectoriessimilartoOrigens.He,too,mustdismisstraditional,pagan

    hierarchiesofgodsanddaemons,consigningthemtotheemptycategoriesofmagic,

    witchcraft,andtheurgy,whichconsistentirelyofencosmicmanipulationsthatonly

    entrapthesoulmoredeeplyinashifting,illusorymaterialworld.Hereplacestheurgic/

    daemonicmodelsofmediationwithaChristianmodelthatisconspicuouslyadaptedto

    theverytermsoftranscendentmediationcharacteristicofApuleiusaccountofthe

    daemonic,andthatispredicatedonthesuperiormediatingcapacitiesoftheincarnate

    Christ,makingChristthepreciseremedyforthedefectsidentifiedintheApuleian

    system.Augustinelikewisemustovercomehisownpenchantfordualism,eventually

    clarifyinghisviewofmatterasaneutralsubstrateforthemediationofcontactwitha

    divineprincipium(theincarnateLogos).WhileAugustinesengagementwiththeurgyis

    moredirect,hisappropriationsofitsthoughtandlanguageissomewhatmoresubtle.

    Ratherthansimplyappropriatingthelanguageofsymbolon,Augustineapplieshisown

    signtheoryoflanguageasamodelforexplainingcultmediation,developingtheidea

    thatatangiblesacramentalsigncanmediateasubstantiveparticipationbybelieversin

    thesacrificeofChrist.Thisargumentisinitiallyobscuredbytherhetoricaldistancingof

    Christianritesfromtheirpagancounterparts,inwhichthetermsignum,asitappliesto

    cult,isquarantinedfromassociationwithmagicandtheurgy;however,asAugustine

    applieshissigntheoryoflanguageasananalogytocultefficacy,itbecomesclearthat

    forhimtheeucharistisavisiblesignthatconveysinasubstantialwaythecontentof

    thechurchsinvisiblesacrifice[sacrificium]toparticipatingbelievers.Augustines

    engagementwiththeurgy,then,maybeobservedtocommencefromapretended

    dualistrejectionofmatteranddaemonicworship,andtoproceedtoanembraceof

    materialmediationinwhichpaganritesarefurtivelydisplacedbyChristianpractice

    whosedefiningdifferenceistheagentofmediation,theincarnateLogos,whosehealing

    efficacyisdescribedintermsofatheoryofsign.Augustinesapproachthuspreserves

  • 17

    anideaofmaterialrealityasamediatoroftranscendentprinciple,whichcreates

    conceptualspaceforanincarnateWordandmaterialritualswhosesignificationis

    coterminouswiththeireffects.

    4.SummaryObservation

    Atthecenterofmyapproachtotheproblemoftherelationshipofthirdand

    fourthcenturyChristianthinkerstotheurgyareseveralbasicgoverningconvictions.

    First,thatthehistoryofintellectualcultureshowsthatthetransmissionofideasshould

    notbeunderstoodintermsofstraightforwardlinealdescent.Asenseofthepossibilities

    forlateralcommunicationofideasacrosscreedalboundariesshouldbenormativeinany

    discussionofChristianthinkers.Inarelatedmatter,weshouldbeattunedtotheways

    inwhichtherhetoricemployedbysophisticatedChristianthinkersorbymodern

    scholarscanactuallyservetoobscureoursenseoflateraltransmission.Thus,our

    graspofthefirstpointthatpagansandChristianlivewithintheconfinesofshared

    traditioncanbeimpairedbythevigorousrhetoricofexclusionandselfdefinitionthat

    Christianthinkersoftenapplyintheirpolemics,orbythetermsappliedbymodern

    scholarshipthatmayisolateChristianthinkersfromtheirpagancontemporaries.The

    rhetoricofdistinctiveidentitycaneasilybecomeanobstacleinthewayofrecognizing

    thecriticalappropriationsthatChristianthinkersmake,justasitservestomaskthose

    associationsfromtheirpaganinterlocutors.Intheend,ifwescrutinizetheengagement

    withwhatisessentiallytheurgicthoughtintheworksofOrigenandAugustine,we

    discernthatboththinkers,insurprisinglysimilarways,constructprovisionalsystemsof

    Christiansacramentalmediation,shapedbyatheologyoftheincarnateLogos,and

    conceptuallyparalleltothetheurgicsystemsofhierarchicmediationwhosevalidity

    theirworkstrivestodeny.

  • 18

    ChapterII:PaganandChristianIntellectualCulture

    1.TheProblemofComparison:ChristianityandAntiquity

    QuidergoAthenisetHierosylemis.13Tertulliansquestionremainsanexpressionof

    thecentralprobleminthestudyofChristianityinitsrelationtotheintellectualand

    culturalworldoftheGrecoRomanworld.PerhapsbecauseTertullianwasnotthemere

    antiintellectualfideistthatsuchrhetoricmightsuggest,14neatlysequesteringfaithfrom

    rationalreflection,hisquestionremainsparticularlyimportantasaspecimenofthe

    rhetoricalattempttoseparatewhatareassumedtobetheneatlyseparable

    faithandreason.Plainly,though,therhetoricalposturethatTertulliandisplayscan

    scarcelyconcealnow,asitcouldhardlycheckthen,thebroadandsignificantinfluence

    ofaGrecoRomanphilosophical,rhetorical,andreligiousinheritanceontheformation

    ofnormativeChristianity.AthenshasmoretodowithJerusalemthanwecaneasily

    measure,orthanTertullianmayhavealwaysbeenpreparedtocontemplate.His

    questionramifiesintoahostofothers,notonlyonhowphilosophyaffectedtheshapeof

    theologicaldebatesinantiquity,butonhowabroadrangeofcultural,intellectual,and

    religioushabitscharacteristicofthelateRomanEmpireinfluencedandshapedaspects

    ofemergentChristianityorperhapsmadeChristianity;andinturn,howChristian

    formsofthoughtandworshipmayhaveexertedinfluenceoftheirown.Inshort,the

    questionraisestheproblemsofinfluence,reception,andcomparison,withallofthe

    methodologicalproblemsforthestudyofancientreligionthatsuchtermsentail.Inthe

    13Depraescr.haeret.7.914Thisisoftensuggested,basedonhisothernotableapothegm,credibileest,quiaineptumest.SeeSider(1980)417.

  • 19

    caseofChristianity,theproblemsofreceptionandcomparisonarecomplicatedeven

    morebythediffusenatureofthephenomenaatissue.TheformsofChristianityin

    antiquityrepresentmorethansimplecreedandpracticethathappenedtoabsorbthe

    termsofGreekphilosophy;theyrepresentfirstofallparticularcultsandcommunitiesof

    considerablevariety,whichsuggeststhatthecategoriesofreceptionandinfluence

    mustbespaciousenoughtoincludearangeofculturalandreligiousassumptionsand

    practices,andthattheprojectofcomparisonisreallyopenended.Sucharecognition

    mayevenraisetheprospectofcollapsingthedistinctionbetweenpolytheistand

    Christianinsomeofitsaspects,assumingthatpolytheistandChristiancultdraw

    uponasharedculturalstoreofreligiousbeliefs,assumptions,andpractices,sothata

    trulyfullconsiderationoftherelationshipofAthenstoJerusalem,ofpaganto

    Christian,wouldentailavirtuallyopensetofculturalfactors,philosophicalcastsof

    mind,tendenciesinliterarycriticismandexegesis,aswellasavarietyofreligiousand

    culticassumptions.Inshort,whenconsideringthepolytheistandtheChristianinthe

    abstract,thereisvirtuallynospacewithintheintellectualandreligiouslifeofthelate

    RomanEmpirewherethetwocanbeeasilyextricatedonefromtheanother.

    Theproblemisdaunting,andperhapsevenmoresowhenwefocusonparticular

    areaswheresharprhetoricaldifferentiationclearlybenefitsChristianapologists,asis

    decidedlythecaseforOrigenandAugustine,whodeployalivelyrhetoricofrejectionof

    magicalandtheurgicpractices,whilequietlyadaptingChristianculttotheirtheoretical

    norms.Thetwocertainlyrealizethatarhetoricofselfdefinitionisalwaysmorepotent

    whenitassertsboundariesclearly,andperhapsthemorenecessarywhenthose

    boundariesaremoreapparentthanreal,suchthatrhetoricisdirectedprimarilytoward

    obscuringactualaffinities.Theprojectofcomparison,then,isrenderedmore

    complicatedbythisrhetoricofdifference.

    Thepurposeofthepresentchapteristosuggestawayofthinkingabout

    Christianthinkersinthesecondandthirdcenturiesthatwillenableaproperapproach

    tothethoughtofIamblichus,Origen,andAugustineinsubsequentchapters.Ifweview

    theworldofpagansandChristiansasaculturemarkedbycommonaccessto

  • 20

    intellectualcircles,withinwhichthinkersofvariouscommitmentscouldresorttothe

    samephilosophicalandrhetoricalschoolsfortheirformation,thenitbecomespossible

    toseethethoughtofdifferentthinkers,themselvesvariouslypaganorChristian,as

    indebtedtoasharedsetofassumptionsandideas.Thecrucialpointinthisargumentis

    thatintellectualcultureisshared.MoresophisticatedChristianthinkersdonotmerely

    mimicclassicalrhetoricalstyle,orliftjargonfromphilosophicalhandbooks;rather,they

    participateinintellectualculturealongsidetraditionalpolytheists,suchthattheyare

    predictablyabsorbedbythesamequestions,justastheyunsurprisinglyworkout

    solutionsdescribedwithinthesameconceptualparameters.Aspartofestablishingsuch

    aviewofChristianityandantiquity,thepresentchapterwillsurvey:(2)thewaysin

    whichmanymodernthinkers,intheorizingancientChristianity,haveproceededfrom

    theassumptionofChristianityasanisolatedphenomenoninantiquity,essentialand

    unique,andsetagainstanentirelyseparatepaganworldwhoseinfluenceson

    Christianitywereunderstoodtoberesistedateveryturn.Suchanapproachisfinally

    rootedinanerroneousideaoforigins,andderivesmuchofitsinitialenergyfrom

    Reformationattemptstopositanoriginal,pureChristianitythatstandspriortothe

    corruptionsoflaterperiodswhethercharacterizedintermsofmysterycultor

    RomanCatholicism.Suchanoutlooktendstoseerelationshipsbetweenreligious

    phenomenaonlyingenealogicalterms,whereChristianityisgenerallyshowntobe

    resistingtheperniciouseffectsofpaganisminthecourseofitsproperorganic

    development.Againstthisapproach,thepresentargumentwillproceedratherfrom

    analogicalprinciples,assumingthatvariouspaganandChristianphenomenadevelop

    alongsimilarlinesbecausetheyarepartofasharedculture.Section(3)willconsiderthe

    secondcenturyChristianapologistsasearlyattemptstosituateChristianidentitywithin

    anestablishedGrecoRomanculture.Thesethinkersadoptedvariousrhetorical

    posturesintheirattemptstodefineChristianitysdifferenceortoassertitscapacityfor

    assimilationintoaRomanworld.Allsuchcases,whethertherhetoricalobjectiveis

    oppositionorintegration,pointtotheconclusionthatalltheapologistsarealready

    definitivelyandconsciouslyGrecoRoman,astheirphilosophicalandrhetoricaltropes

  • 21

    reveal,andthattheirtextsrevealthevariousposturesthatonemighttakeinnegotiating

    apositionwithinGrecoRomanintellectualculture,andinassertingwhatisalreadya

    largelyGreekintellectualidentity.Section(4)examinesbrieflywhatweknowofthe

    thirdcenturyperipateticandChristianconvertAnatolius,invokinghiscaseasprelude

    tothinkingaboutthemoreadvancedChristianintellectualcultureofAlexandriaatthat

    time.ThecityofAlexandria,Ishallargueinsection(5),alwaysthevenueofan

    impressiveintellectualculture,providesaccesstoseriousintellectualformationforboth

    pagansandChristians.ThecareerofOrigen,despitethetendentioussuppressionand

    deferralofinformationcharacterizingtheaccountofEusebius,revealsacultureinwhich

    pagansandChristiansapparentlyassociatedfreelywithinsomeofthecitysmoreelite

    culturalcircles.ThecareerofOrigenhimself,aswellasthecareersofhispredecessors

    andcontemporaries,bearswitnesstoacommonphilosophicalculturethatshapedthe

    thoughtandidentitiesofpagansandChristiansalike.Thisculturalpictureshould

    informthewayweapproachthetextsofbothpaganandChristianthinkersinour

    attemptsdefinewhat,intheirseveralviews,accountsfortheefficacyofreligiouscult.

    2.ChristianityandAntiquity:theModernProblem

    Formoderns,anyconsiderationoftheinteractionbetweenChristianthinkers

    andtheirsurroundingworldofbeliefs,philosophiesandculturalforms,mustbe

    markedbytheawarenessthatthedominanttendencyonsuchquestionsovertime,with

    rootsinthereligiouspolemicofearlymodernity,presumedtolocateastable,well

    definedChristianity,whoseclashorconfrontationwithasimilarlystablepagan

    antiquity,couldbemeasuredandevaluated.AsJonathanZ.Smithhasshown,this

    tendencyhastheReformationasanearlysource,wherethedominantrhetoricalmode

    soughthistoricalvindicationforapristineChristianityuntaintedbyPlatonismor

  • 22

    Popery.15VeryoftensuchthinkersemployedPlatonismasafavoredtermof

    vilification,findinginJustinMartyrtheeasiestearlytargetfortheirdisapproval.16To

    besure,thetermPlatonistisalmostinfinitelyplasticinsuchcontexts,shadinginto

    othercategoriesofinvectivesuchasheathen;however,asSmithnotes,thisearly

    modernscholarshipmayperhapsbebettertakenas

    comparingChristianitywithitself,ormoreprecisely,withanidealizedversionofitself(thesimplegospel).Anyremainderwasconsideredacorruptionforwhichthecoveringtermwas,mostfrequently,Platonism.

    Platonism,rhetoricallysynonymouswithcorruption,mustbepeeledawaytoreveal

    thepristineChristianitypresumedtoliebehinditthesimplefaiththatis

    straightforwardlypositedbythesescholars.Remarkably,theinfluenceofthisapproach

    doesnotendwiththegradualreductionofovertantiCatholicsentimentovertime.This

    isamongSmithsmoreimportantpoints:thetreasuredideaofapureearly

    ChristianityuntaintedbyPlatonism,paganism,orpoperyremainsintactinmuch

    laterscholarship,withonlythecoveringlanguagealtered.Wherepoperyhadearlier

    functionedasagenericcategoryforcorruptinginfluence,servingtoisolateandinsulate

    theuntaintedoriginal(Protestant)Christianity,nowlateantiquereligionwoulddo

    thesame.Scholarsshedtheanimus,butretainedtheimpliedmethodandprinciplesof

    theirmoreferventlyProtestantforbears.17

    15SmithslecturesinDrudgeryDivine(1990),particularlyOntheOriginofOrigins,economicallytracethegenealogyofthemythofstableChristianorigins,sketchingantiTrinitarian,antiPlatonicthinkersfromthesixteenthtotheeighteenthcenturies.InparthesummarizesWalterGlawesDieHelenisierungdesChristentums(1912)intracingthislineofthoughtfromHeinrichBullingersassaultonculticinfiltrationsinCatholicism(152829)andMathiasFlaciusIllyricussMagdeburgCenturies,withtheiremphasisonthediabolicalwellspringsofpopery,throughMichaelServetus(Trinity,1531)andthemoreexplicitlyUnitarianthinkersoftheseventeenthcentury,suchasJosephBiddle(ConfessionofFaithConcerningtheHolyTrinity,1648),whointurninfluencedsucheighteenthcenturyantiTrinitariansasJosephPriestley.16ThisistrueofbothBiddle(1648)andZwicker(1648),andtosomeextent,N.Souverain,LePlatonismevoile:ouEssaitouchantleVerbePlatonicien(Cologne,1700).OnlySouverainseemstorecognizeJustinscontext,andtodistinguishbetweenPlatonism,conventionallyspeaking,anditsadaptationsbyChristianthinkers.CitedinSmith(1990)1618.17Thesamepresuppositions,thesamerhetoricaltactics,indeed,inthemain,theverysamedataexhibitedintheseearlyeffortsunderliemuchofourpresentdayresearch,withoneimportant

  • 23

    Latermodernscholarshipbearswitnesstothistendency.Theworkofthegreat

    historianFranzJosephDlger(18791940)implicitlyenvisionsChristianityasasingle,

    coherententityorphenomenonconfrontingtheelementsofanambientpaganculture:

    WiththecrossingoftheborderofPalestineChristianityenteredtheareaofantiqueandpaganculture,everywheretherewasevidenceofprofaneandreligiouslifewhichhadtobeanalysed.18

    ThelanguagethatDlgeruseshereandelsewheresuggestsconfrontation,evenclash

    betweenChristianityandpolytheistculture,butforhimitisaproductiveengagement,

    characterizedbybothrejectionandadjustmentcontributingtoChristianitysproper

    developmentaprocessinwhichessentialChristianitywastobefoundinviolate

    evenbeneathcenturiesofdogmaticdevelopment.19Thispositionrunssharplycounter

    tothecelebratedviewofAdolfvonHarnack(18511930)thatapure,originalgospelwas

    vitiatedbyHellenismfromthesecondcenturyonward,inaprocesscharacterizedby

    theworkofthespiritofadecadentantiquityonthesoiloftheGospel.Catholicism

    itselfwas,forvonHarnack,theproductoftheinnermostfusionofChristianitywith

    Antiquity.20ForDlger,Christianityabsorbs,adapts,butnonethelessresists;forvon

    Harnack,itiscorrupted.ItisperhapsnoaccidentthatDlgerwasaCatholicandvon

    HarnackaProtestant.Theirapproachesarethusopposed,butneverthelessshareabasic

    similarityinoutlook,inwhichnormativeChristianityisconstructedasamoreorless

    stable,separateentitythatcanbequalifiedoverandagainstambientpaganism:

    HarnackcontrastedanormativelyconstructedChristianityasastaticentitywithapaganworldsurroundingit,withthesurroundingworld

    alteration,thatthecharacteristicsattributedtoPopery,bytheReformationandpostReformationcontroversialists,havebeentransferred,wholesale,tothereligionsofLateAntiquity.Smith(1990)34.Seeespeciallyn.58,whereheannotatesatgreatlengththescholarlytendencytoassignRomanCatholicterminologytophenomenaobservedinancientmysteryreligions,whilerefrainingfromdoingsotoearlyChristiansacraments.18F.J.Dlger,ZurEinfhrung,AuC1(1929),Vf.(V),quotedinMarkschies(2006)whonotesfurtherthatforDlgerthepagancultureofantiquitydividedintonumerousindividualelementsofevidencewhichastronger,monolithicChristianityhadtoanalyse(19).19Markschies(2006)2021.20A.Harnack,LehrbuchderDogmengeschichtevol1.DieEntstehungdesKirchlichenDogmas,SammlungTheologischerLehrbcherII/I,Tbingen1886,253f.(=1909,346),quotedinMarkschies(2006)21.

  • 24

    dominatingtheoriginal(ur)simpleChristianityofJesusofNazareth,whereasforDlgerChristianitywasinculturatedthroughrejectionaswellasadjustmentandsothestruggleagainstpaganismcontinuedwithnolossofessence.21

    Morerecentscholarshiphasbeenlessinclinedtopositfixitiesfromwhichchangecanbe

    observedanddescribed.AsHansDieterBetzputsit,inanattempttomoveawayfrom

    suchthinking,AntiquityandChristianitydonotsimplystandinoppositiontoeach

    otherasmonolithicblocksbutasentitiessubjecttomutualhistoricalchange.22In

    accordancewiththisview,therelevantdatafromthepast,

    phenomenacoveredbytheconceptofantiquityandChristianity,appearduringthecourseofhistoryaseverchangingconfigurationsofdiscontinuityandcontinuity,destructionandconservation,andretroversionandprogress.

    Thisisanappealingfluidity;Betzgoesontosay,however,thatphasesinthisprocess

    canbediscerned,eachmarkedbyhighlyintenseencountersbetweenantiquityand

    Christianity.23Perhapstherequirementsofdiscoursecannotendureapictureof

    differentiationandflux,anddictatearetrenchmenttothelinguisticconventionsof

    ChristianityandAntiquityasreasonablyfixedquantitiesthatcanbeobservedin

    highlyintenseencounters.Therelativelynebulousdiscontinuityandcontinuity

    destructionandconservationcanquicklybecomequicklythepolesinabalanced

    dialectic,whereChristianityandAntiquityconfrontusyetagain,eachwithitsstrange

    21Markschies(2006)22,whogoesontoshowthevagarythathasoftenattendedsubsequentattemptstodefinetherelationshipbetweenthecategories,AntiquityandChristianity.ForLeopoldZscharnack(18771955),theyaretwobasicelementsthathavefreelymergedsoastobecomeinseparable(L.Zscharnack,AntikeundChristentum,in2RGG1[1927],378390[378]).ForHeinrichKraft,ChristianityexperiencedaradicalchangeinitsconfrontationwithAntiquity:ithasitselfbecomeantiquity.(H.Kraft,AntikeundChristentum,in1RGG1[1957],436449[436]).22AdoptingthelanguageofJacquesFontaine,ChristentumistauchAntike,JAC25(1982)527,heobservesthattheprocessofinteractionmustbeunderstoodnotonlyasAuseinandersetzung,thatis,asoppositionandconfrontationbetweenthecultureoftheGrecoRomanworldandChristianity,butalsoastheirIneinandersetzung,thatis,asintraposition,integrationandnewcreation(1998)6.23Betz(1998)7.

  • 25

    insistenceonsingularity.24Itmaybedifficultattimestodifferentiate,ontheonehand

    mergingwithorbecomingAntiquityofferedbysomescholars,25and,ontheother

    hand,BetzsbroadconceptofAntiquityandChristianitythatseemsintentonfusing

    thetwocategories.Inlikemanner,itmaybehardtodistinguishbetweenDlgers

    rejectionandadjustmentandBetzsdestructionandconservation.Butthen

    again,merelytosubmergeBetzsthoughtinthatofhisforbearsmaybeunfair.Surely

    heisinnocentofpositingorassumingaprimordialpureChristianitysusceptibleto

    vonHarnackscorruptionsortoDlgersconstructiveengagement,justasheseemsto

    recognizethatthenotionofChristianitybecomingAntiquityrunstheriskofbanality.

    CertainlyBetzcanbetakentomeanthatinsofaraswemustemploythetermsandwe

    mustweoughttodosoinamodestway,guardingagainstthedangersof

    hypostasizingChristianityorAntiquityasstableentities,andnotingcarefullywhere

    wecandiscernparallelphenomena,apparentsimilarity,consciousorunconscious

    difference;wemayseeChristianityasacomplicationthatentersintotheMediterranean

    world,andinpartexplicableintermsofAuseinandersetzungandIneinandersetzung,

    discontinuityandcontinuity,destructionandconservation.

    Betzdoesinfactattempttoillustratesomethingverylikethisapproach,showing

    thattheearliestidentifiableChristianityemergesfromwithinapreexistentengagement

    ofJudaismandHellenism,whereJohntheBaptistandJesusofNazarethareJews

    concernedaboutthetheologicalandpracticalintegrityofobediencetowardthewillofGodasrevealedintheTorah,concernsheightenedinviewoftheexternalandinternalprovocationsandchallengesbythecultureintheheartlandoftheJews.

    24ThisisessentiallythecritiqueofBetzofferedbyMarkschies(2006)23,whoseeshisapproachasfundamentallydifferinglittlefromthatofhisforbears.ItmaybedifficultattimestodiscernthedifferencebetweenZscharnacksmergingwithorKraftsbecomingAntiquityontheonehand,andBetzsbroadconceptofAntiquityandChristianitythatseemsintentonblendingthem.Inlikemanner,itmaybehardtodistinguishbetweenDlgersrejectionandadjustmentandBetzsdestructionandconservation.Tobefair,Markschiesdoesacknowledgetheubiquitousneedforreducingtheeternalrichnessofalifelivedtotypesfordidacticalpurposes(32):howsoeverconsciousofreductionwemaybe,wewillinevitablylapseintousingthem.25ZscharnackandKraftsterms,respectively.

  • 26

    Inthistelling,Christianitydoesnotsimplyappear,andthenvariouslyresistor

    assimilateaspectsofsurroundingpolytheism.TheJewsarealreadysoengagedwiththe

    GrecoRomanworld,andtheteachingsandactivities[ofJesus]occurredashis

    responsetothequestionofhowthekingdomofGodcouldbemanifestinthemidstof

    theRomanoccupationandundertheinfluenceofpaganlifeinPalestine.26Tobesure,

    ChristianityrapidlymovesbeyondaparticularrabbiscontributiontotheJewish

    engagementwithRomanpoliticalandculturalhegemony,inasmuchasitsfocusshifts

    fromsuchpreoccupationstothepersonofJesushimself.ThismuchBetzreadilygrants;

    butsurelyvalidishisargumentthatfromitsshadowyoriginsChristianityisalreadya

    variationonatheme,aphaseinprovincialresponsetodiverseculturalphenomenathat

    mayreasonablybeclassedasGrecoRomanAntiquity.Inotherwords,pace

    Markschies,itisnotclearthatBetzisasguiltyofisolatingAntiquityandChristianity

    astwostableandoriginallyindependententities.HisChristianityishardlystable,

    evenfromitsinception.Andperhaps,finally,hisapproachisnotatoddswiththe

    admonitionthatthedanger[ofpositingChristianityandAntiquityasseparate,stable

    entities]isonlyremovedwhenantiqueChristianityisfirmlyregionalizedandalso

    consideredasconstitutingdifferentgroupswithparticularidentities.27Betzsintricate,

    ifbriefaccountofaJewishpreChristianityinPalestineissurelyconsistentwithsucha

    program;andtosuchaprogramthereissurelynoalternativeifwearetodojusticeto

    Christianityinallofitslocaldiversity,avoidingexcessivegeneralization.

    Whateverconstructionwechoose,wemustretainabasicawarenessthatwould

    isolateChristianityasauniquephenomenontendstoparalyzecomparison,tainting

    scholarshipwithafalsenotionofwhatcomparisoninvolves.Wehavealreadyseenhow

    manyearlierattemptsatcomparingChristianitywithambientreligionsreallyinvolved

    theprojectofcomparingChristianitywithitself,thatis,ofcomparingitwith,andby

    definitionisolatingitfrom,itsownlatercorruptforms,whicharethemselveseither

    Catholicorinfluencedbypaganreligiousforms.Thistendencyremainsprominent

    26Betz(1998)8.27ibid.30.

  • 27

    inlaterscholarship,wheretheprimarymotivationsarenolongerantiCatholic,but

    wherethegoverningassumptionsstillworktoprotectChristianityfromassociation

    withmysteryreligionsoflateantiquity.Thismodernapproachblendsanabsolute

    ontologicalclaimfortheincomparabilityoftheChristevent,definedasthedeathand

    resurrectionofJesus,withanhistoricalclaimfortheincomparabilityoftheChristian

    kerygmaitself,ashiftdescribedbySmithasanillicittransferofatheological

    affirmationofabsoluteuniquenesstoanhistoricalstatementthat,standingalone,could

    neverassertmorethanrelativeuniqueness,thatistosay,aquiteordinarypostulationof

    difference.28TheProtestantpolemicsaregone,butagenuinecomparativeexerciseis

    paralyzedbyplacingnotonlyprimordialChristianity,butallofitssubsequent

    articulations,behindaredoubtofuniquenessthatisessentiallyacategoryof

    incomparability.Identificationandassessmentofordinary,relativedifferenceis

    simplyswallowedbysuchassumptions.Withintheparametersofsuchanapproach,

    theonlypossibilitiesforutilizingcomparisonsaretomakeassertionsregarding

    dependence,29whereChristianityisgenerallyassertednottobedependentonsome

    otherreligiousform.Thecentralcategoryinthisdiscussionisgenealogicalrelationship,

    whichispositedinordertobedenied,sothatChristianitymaybepreservedfreefrom

    pollution.30Thequestionsposedare,doesChristianityborrow?Isitdependent?The

    28Smith(1990)39.29ibid.47.30AnintriguingandsomewhatbenignexampleissuppliedbyPaulBradshawsreadingoftheliturgicalmaterialintheapocryphalActsofThomas.HerejectstheargumentthattherepeatedinvocationsofdivineagenciesintheepiclesisderivefromGreekmagicalformulae,arguingratherthatsuchinvocationsmorelikelystemfromtheAramaicformulamaranatha,OurLord,come!attestedtwiceintheNewTestamentandonceintheDidache.Bradshawgrantsthepossibilityofmagicsinfluence,butassertstheChristianformulaasthemostlikelyantecedent(2004,126).Hecitesnoreason,thoughtheargumentthatChristiancommunitieswouldgrantprioritytoChristiantextsisimplied;butthisgetsusnowherewhenweconsiderthatChristiantexts,too,areinsomesenseaproductoftheGrecoRomanreligiousimagination.TheformativeinfluencesbehindaChristiantextorbehindaninvocationlikemaranathamayliealsobehindotherdocuments.BradshawsapproacharguablyreflectstheinstinctivetendencyamongmanyscholarstoisolatetheChristianandthepaganfromoneanother,preciselyintheinterestofprotectingChristianityfromgenealogicalassociationwithinfluencesthatarenotChristian.Bradshawacknowledgesthattheargumentaboutmagicmayhavesomemerit,butprefersthe

  • 28

    answerspresumeabsolutedifference,andthesingularityofChristianity.31Butonlythe

    ideaofrelativedifference,conceivedaspartofanapproachthatregardsChristianityas

    differentfromotherphenomena,butwhichguardsagainstattemptstoconsignittothe

    categoryofuniqueness,opensupthepossibilityofactualcomparison.

    Theaversiontoanalogicalcomparison,andtheembraceofgenealogical

    comparisonifonlytodenyitsplausibilityinthecaseofChristianity32workonthe

    falseassumptionthatcomparisonisnatural,thatitworkstounfoldthetruerelations

    betweenthings.Likenessisassumedtoresidewithinthethingsthemselves,rather

    thanwithinthemindofthescholar;butasSmithpointsout,whenevercomparisonsare

    made,theobserverisalwaysimplicitlyincludingatertiumquidathird,lesssimilar

    elementthatalsostandsinsomerelationtowhatevermaybethescholarsinterest.As

    heputsit,thescholarneverobservestrulythatxresemblesy,asiftheelementsxand

    ysubsistedinavacuum.Infact,sincexandysubsistamongmanyotherthings,the

    scholarisreallysayingthatxresemblesymorethanzwithrespectto.Inother

    words,thedrawingtogetherofxandyinthescholarsmindisanintellectualexercise

    determinedbyanantecedentscholarlyinterest.Xandyarejuxtaposedbecausecertain

    oftheiraspectsservealargertheoreticalinterest,tocastlightuponaparticularitemthat

    ispositedasinteresting.InthecaseoftheurgicritualandChristiansacrament,say,we

    mightassertalikenessbetweencertainaspectsofthetwonotnecessarilybecausethey

    aregenealogicallyconnected,butbecausetheymanifesttraitsthatcanbetakento

    supportanargumentforagraduallegitimizationoftheideaofmaterialmediationof

    transcendenceinthelatethirdandearlyfourthcentury.Inrespecttosuchaninterest,

    Christiancultpracticeinthelatethirdcentury(x)maybemoreliketheurgy(y)thanthe

    impliedreasoningthatanythingChristianmaybebestexplainedbyappealingtosafelyChristiantexts.31Alsointerestingisthesuggestionthatthisstrategyisasoldastherecordedhistoryofreligiouscomparison.ItisthenotionofautochthonyaspresentinHerodotus.There,Egyptianpracticesconstituteapristineoriginal,indebtedtonoexternalsourceorinfluence.GreeksborrowfromtheprestigiousEgyptians;Persiansindiscriminatelyfromeveryone(4748).32AsSmithputsthematter,Thethoughtappearstobethat,fromthestandpointofprotectingtheprivilegedpositionofearlyChristianity,itisonlygenealogicalcomparisonsthatareworthyofnote,ifonly,typically,insistentlytobedenied(1990)4748.

  • 29

    religioustheorizingofPorphyry(z)isliketheurgy(y)withrespecttothewaysinwhichthe

    divinemaybemediatedtothehuman.Suchacomparisonassertsnothingcausalor

    genealogical;infact,onetendstofindevidencefortheovertadoptionoftheurgictheory

    onlyinmuchlaterChristianthought.Theclaimoflikenessworksintheserviceofa

    largerend,withneithertheprotectionofpureChristianitynorassertionsofmere

    syncretism(coverlanguageforcorruption)inview.AsSmithputsit,comparison

    doesnotnecessarilytellushowthingsare(thefarfromlatentpresuppositionthatliesbehindthenotionofthegenealogicalwithitsquestforrealhistoricalconnections);likemodelsandmetaphors,comparisontellsushowthingsmightbeconceived.Acomparisonisadisciplinedexaggerationintheserviceofknowledge.Itliftsoutandstronglymarkscertainfeatureswithindifferenceasbeingofpossibleintellectualsignificance,expressedintherhetoricoftheirbeinglikeinsomestipulatedfashion.Comparisonprovidesthemeansbywhichwerevisionphenomenaasourdatainordertosolveourtheoreticalproblems.33

    Suchanapproachisabsolutelynecessaryifwearetoprotectourselvesfrom

    methodologieswithlatenttendenciestowardattackingordefendingChristianityinits

    variousancientforms.Theagendamustbetoassertsomethingaboutcultpracticeor

    religiouscultureinthelateantiqueworld,whereamatrixofideas,beliefsandpractices

    giverisetoboththetheurgicstrainofNeoplatonismandanemergentChristian

    sacramentalsystem.Thatistosay,thecomparisonmademustbeanalogical,where

    analogyisnotseenasamenacetotheuniquenessofChristianity.Inthepresentcase,

    thepurposeoftheanalogicalcomparisonmustbetoilluminatethetheurgicaspectof

    lateantiqueintellectualculturethatvindicatedmaterialcultinthefaceofphilosophical

    abstraction,andthatlikewisemayhaveenabledsomethirdandfourthcenturyChristian

    interrogationsofeucharist.

    Suchanapproachdoesnotnecessarilyrequirethedevotiontoparticularitythat

    Betzprescribes.ThereisnodoubtthatChristianityischaracterizedbyconsiderable

    diversityateverypointinitsearlydevelopment,buteveninlightofthisfactweare

    33Smith(1990)52.

  • 30

    surelynotcompelledtoregardonlythosestudiesaslegitimatethatfocusonthe

    archaeologyoflocalcommunities.Thereisplentyofevidence,eveninthesecond

    century,bothforadesiredunityamongChristians,andforadesiredassimilationinto

    theintellectualcultureoftheGrecoRomanworld.Ifthereisparticularity

    emphasizedinthispresentstudy,itistobefoundinmyfocusontwoparticular

    intellectualsOrigenandAugustinewhosethoughtcannotbetakenotherwisethanas

    abroadengagementwithapaganintellectualworld.Itispreciselytheirmilieuthat

    mayhelpustounderstandtheirparticularrhetoricandarguments.Observationsofa

    generalkindaboutChristianengagementwithintellectualculturemaythusbemade,

    notsothatwemaysimplyleveltheparticular,butrathersothatwemayunderstandit

    initslargercontext.ChristiansintellectualsintheRomanEmpireisnotanillegitimate

    category,asthepatternsuggestedbythesecondcenturyChristianapologistssuggests.

    Theworksoftheapologistsareworthyofsummaryconsiderationnotsimplyon

    groundsoftheirintellectualcontent,butratherbecausetheirattemptstolegitimize

    Christianthoughtwithinthecontextofpaganlearninggivesrisetoatensionbetween

    rhetoricandactualitythatwillcharacterizeagreatdealofsubsequentChristian

    discourse,givingriseto,amongotherthings,Tertullianscelebratedrhetoricalquestion.

    Thistensionemergesastheproductofaneedtomaintaintheappearanceofdifference

    ofChristianitysuniquenesswhilesimultaneouslylayingclaimtotheintellectual

    traditionsofantiquity.WhenwemovetoconsidertheworkofOrigenandAugustine,

    weshallnotethesametendency:astrategyofassertingradicaldifferencewhilequietly

    developingatheoryofeucharisticmediationthatfunctionsanalogouslytotheurgy.

    3.ChristianThinkersintheRomanEmpire:theGreekApologists

    ExtensiveanalysisoftheapologistsindebtednesstoformsofGreekthoughtand

    cultureishereunnecessary.TheirtextsplainlytaketheirformfromGreekrhetorical

    conventionsandtheirintellectualcontentfromStoicismandMiddlePlatonistthought.

    Ofgreatestimportancetothepresentargumentistheirtendencytoassumerhetorical

  • 31

    posturesthatvariouslyassertorconcealtheirengagementwithGreekcultureintheir

    attempttomakeChristianityalegitimatepartofaGrecoRomanworld.Initially,

    circumstancemightwellhavedictatedarhetoricalstrategyemphasizingassimilation

    ratherthandifference.PrejudiceagainstChristianshadincreasedinAsiaafterthereign

    ofHadrian,andevidencesuggeststhattheAntonineemperorswerebeingurgedto

    reverttothemoremeasuredpoliciesoftheirpredecessors.34Internalandexternal

    threatstotheempireduringtheAntonineeraperhapsexacerbatedtheproblem.

    Militaryinstabilityonthenorthernfrontier,revoltinEgypt,plague,theBarKochba

    rebellioninPalestine,theriseofMontanistextremisminAsiaallcreatedasituationin

    whichChristianthinkerswhosharedintheempiresculturalandintellectualheritage

    wouldexperienceanaturalenoughimpetustoworktowardChristianitys

    normalization.35EventssignificantforChristians,suchasthemartyrdomofPolycarp(c.

    156)andtheimperiallysanctionedmassacreofChristiansatLyons(177)wouldsurely

    haveaddedurgency.TheriseofamoreintegratedintellectualresistancetoChristianity

    wasdoubtlessafurtherstimulant,withCelsusasitsmostarticulateandthoughtful

    representative.36

    Theapologistswerethusuncomfortablyrequiredtoingratiatethemselveswith

    authoritywhileoftenbrusquelyclaimingamorevenerableculturalpedigreefor

    Christianity.SomewouldexoticallyclaimthattheemergenceofChristianitywaseven

    34Fromacertainpracticalperspective,arhetoricalstrategyemphasizingassimilationratherthandifferencemightseemmostreasonableforsuchmen.PrejudiceagainstChristianshadincreasedinAsiaafterthereignofHadrian,andevidencesuggeststhattheAntonineemperorswerebeingurgedtoreverttothemoremeasuredpoliciesofTrajanandHadrian.Justinsmission,inpart,wastopersuadetheimperialauthoritytoreverttoformerpolicies,whichweresomewhatlessprejudicialtoChristians.FortheclassificationofJustinsfirstApologyasjustsuchapieceofdeliberativerhetoric,seeKeresztes(1965).35Norris(2004)40.36CelsusisdevotedtotheaccusationthatChristiansmayconstituteaseriousthreattothestabilityoftheEmpiressocialandpoliticalorder.WereotherstofollowtheChristiansanarchiclead,therewouldbenothingtoprevent[theemperor]frombeingabandoned,aloneanddeserted,whileearthlythingswouldcomeintothepowerofthemostlawlessandsavagebarbarians,andnothingmorewouldbeheardamongmeneitherofyourworshiporofthetruewisdom(C.Cels.8.68.Trans.Chadwick[1953]AllsubsequenttranslationsofContraCelsumareChadwicksunlessotherwisenoted).TextcitedinNorris2004(41).

  • 32

    providentialfortheempire,whileotherscombativelyrejectedGreekphilosophicaland

    literarycultureasexhaustedandmoribund,assertingthesuperiorityofabarbarian

    wisdomallwhileremainingindefatigablywithinaGreekidiom.Butwhatever

    rhetoricalstanceweencounter,suchthinkersarealwaysengagedintheformulationofa

    placeforChristianitywithintheGrecoRomanculturaltopography.Whetherone

    arguesthatChristianityrepresentstheintellectualapogeeofHellenisticculture,orthe

    entirelyappropriaterejectionofthatculture,oneisreallydoingthesamething,sincefor

    thissetofthinkersChristianityisalreadyincorrigiblyGreek,andmanifestsitselfasa

    functionoftheRomanworld.Thisconclusionistrueregardlessofthinkerand

    regardlessoflocale,whetherMelitoofSardisorTatianofAssyria.Ineithercase,we

    confronttheenlistmentofaHellenisticrhetoricinthecauseofChristianselfdefinition,

    accommodationistintheformercase,rejectionistinthelatter,butfinallyanassimilation

    ofChristianitytoHellenisticcultureforboth.

    Theearliestfigurestraditionallygroupedwiththesecondcenturyapologistsfall

    roughlyinthereignofHadrian,whohadinheritedTrajansdifficultieswithChristians

    intheprovinceofAsia.37AssociatedwiththisperiodareQuadratusandAristides.38The

    argumentofthelatterisofgreaterinterest,sinceheisconcernedtoplaceChristians

    alongsideJewsandpagansasathirdgenos.39Hecriticizespagansfortheirworshipof

    37HisrescripttoMiniciusFundanus,governoroftheprovincein122/123,suggestshisdesiretocontinueamoderate,disciplinedapproachtotheproblem,primarilyemphasizingtheavoidanceofmobactionandfalseaccusationsmovedbymaliciousinformers.JustinquotestheletteratApology1.68;Eusebiusat4.9.MelitoofSardisalsoappealedtoit,afactknowntousonlythroughEusebius(4.26.10).MelitoalsoclaimstohavelettersfromAntoninusPiusorderingthecontinuationofthesamecautiouspolicies.(Grant[1988]3435).38TheChronicleofEusebiusmentionsthetwoapologistsinthecontextofHadriansvisittoEleusis.AllegedlyhewaspresentedwithworksofthesetwomenwhileinAthens.Thoughprecisemotivesaredifficulttodiscern,therewasperhapsaninterestinextractingfurtherconcessionsfromanemperoralreadyconcernedtoretainthemoderatepolicyofhispredecessor.Grant(1988)135.OnlyonefragmentofQuadratussurvives,concernedwiththerealityofthesaviorsmiracles(EH4.3.2).39AGreektext,andsomeArmenianfragments,aredefensiblydatedtothereignofHadrian;alongerSyriacversionisaddressedtoAntoninusPius.AsuperscriptionintheSyriactextidentifiestheauthorasAristides,anAthenianphilosopher.TheworkisinitiallyoccupiedwithaconciseexpositionofsomemiddlePlatonisttheology;buttheauthorsmorepressingconcerns,whichwilloccupyhimformuchoftheworkslength,quicklyemerge.Hepositsfourracesof

  • 33

    idolsandtheelements,ridiculestheimmoralityofthegodsinconventionalmanner,

    andunderminespaganattemptstofindtranscendentunitybeneaththeviolentsurfaces

    ofmyth.Jewishmonotheismisabetteroption,asisJewishmorality;Jewishdeficiency

    liesintheircomplicityinJesusexecution.40TheassertionofChristiansuperiorityis

    curiouslybasedonadherencetoamoralcodethatis,infact,profoundlyJewish,asif

    ChristiansareuprightpeoplewhoarenotJewsperhapsanimportantpointconsidering

    theJewishrevoltsacrosstheempire(114117)quelledatthebeginningofHadrians

    reign.NoharmcouldthusfollowfromassertingsuperioritytoJews,andasforpagans,

    theapologysdismissivetonemightclassitasaconventionalattackontraditionalpagan

    mythandpiety,andthereforenotespeciallyoffensiveespeciallyintheculturalcontext

    thatproducedaseriesofworksinancientcomparativereligion,suchasPlutarchsOn

    IsisandOsiris,andPallaslostOntheMysteriesofMithras.41Viewedthus,Aristides

    apologyappearstantamounttoaclaimtogoodcitizenshipbasedonanargumentfor

    superiortribalaffiliation.42AristidesChristianityisathirdgenos,anewracethatcan

    standalongsideothers,claimingagenealogymuchastheydo.Suchapositioningof

    Christianityenablestheplacementofitsfounderalongsideother,traditionalfounders

    ofpaganandJewishreligiouscultureasaparallelcasewithinafamiliarwebofideas.

    Agenerationlater,JustinMartyrmakesaconsiderablymoreelaborateattemptat

    claimingashareofGreekcultureforChristians.43Openlyassumingthepostureofa

    men:barbarians,Greeks,Jews,andChristians.TheGreektextreducesthetaxonomytothreeraces,essentiallypagans,JewsandChristians,withthepagansfurthersubdividedintoChaldeans,Greeks,andEgyptians(Grant[1988]3537).40IncludedalsoistheinterestingclaimthatinmanyoftheirobservancestheJewsworshipangelsratherthanGod,apointthatAristidesdoeslittletoexplain.41Grant(1988)37.42Initsperoration,theSyriactextdoesmakereferencetothosewhouttervanityandharasstheChristians,thoughitmaybedifficulttosituatesuchareferenceinthereignofHadrian.Inanycase,theSyriactextsisaddressedtoAntoninusPius,andinternalreferencesmayreasonablyplaceitduringthatlaterreign(Grant[1988]3839).43HehimselfwasofHellenizedbackgroundintheeasternpartoftheempire,FlaviaNeapolis(Shechem)inSamaria.Hisapology,dividedinthemanuscripttraditionintoafirstandsecondthatdonotappeartocorrespondneatlytothetwoapologiesnotedbyEusebius,wasprobablywritteninRomearound156or157(Foradefenseofthisdating,seeGrant[1988]5253),andmayhavebeenoccasionedbythemartyrdomofPolycarpatSmyrna.Themobaction

  • 34

    philosopher,headdresseshimselftoAntoninusPiusandhistwoadoptedsons,Marcus

    AureliusandLuciusVerus,addressingthelattertwospecificallyasphilosophers,a

    gesturepredicatedontheassumptionofsharedculture.44LikeAristides,Justinsupplies

    theconventionalrebuketopaganworship,givenforcebymeansofalitanyoffarcical

    examples.45Hearguesthatevildemonsaretoblamefortheprosperityofsuchbeliefs,

    asforthepersecutionofChristians,whopromisetocommitnoinjustice,andarenot

    atheistsassomephilosophersscandalouslyare.Blamingdaemonicpowersfor

    persecutionisperhapsawayofdeflectingcensurefromrulerswhomheisreadyto

    regardaspiousphilosophersandguardiansofjustice.46Howevermuchhemay

    attacktraditionalcultureordecrytheirrationalityandinjusticeofRomanlegalpractice,

    attendingPolycarpssummarytrialandexecutioncouldhavepromptedanapologistsresponse,particularlyoneurgingareturntothemoremeasuredandjudiciouspoliciesofTrajanandHadrian.TheMartyrdomindicatesthattheoldmanhadbeenthetargetofasearch,andthevictimofmobactionbothofwhichpracticeswererepudiatedbypreviousemperors(MartyrdomofPolycarp67;12.CitedinGrant[1988]5354).ThattheopeningchaptersoftheFirstApologypresentadirectclaimagainstRomanjudicialabuses,particularlythecondemnationofChristiansonotherchargesmerelybecausetheyconfesstothenameofChristian,suggeststhatsuchtendenciesweretroublingChristiancommunities.(FirstApology14).44Athenagoraswork,anembassyorplea,(),isaddressedtoMarcusAureliusduringhiscorulershipwithCommodus,(Schoedel[1972]x).Imperialtitulatureand,conquerorsofArmeniaandSarmatia(MommsenandSchwartzproposedfortheformer.[Schoedel(1972)xi.];issecondarytotheemperorspreeminentstandingasphilosophers().Athenagorashimselfisdescribedintheworkstitle,muchlikehispredecessorAristides,asanAthenianphilosopher.Inantiquity,onlyMethodiusknowshiswork(DeRes.I.36,37);EpiphaniusappearstoknowitonlythroughMethodius.(Schoedel[1972]ix).LikeMelitoofSardis,heproteststheloyaltyofChristiansascitizensoftheEmpire,andoftenwithfloridrhetoric:Legatio1.12;2.13;2.6;6.2;16.2;18.2;37(Schoedel[1972]xvi).Principally,though,heisconcernedtoexonerateChristiansfromthechargeofatheism,arguingthatalthoughtheyrejectmuchthatwasconventionalinRomanreligion,theirthoughtdrawsdeeplyuponphilosophy.HearguesthatinsofarasChristiansembracemonotheism,theycanclaimaseriousintellectualpedigreeandformameaningfulpartoftheintellectualtraditionoftheempire.Attheveryleasttheyshouldnotbesingledoutforabuseinanempirethatcouldboastmorethanenoughdistinctivereligiousforms(Legatio1).45weconsecrateourselvestotheunbegottenandimpassibleGod,who,weknow,neverdescendedwithsexualdesireuponAntiope,orothersuchwomen,orGanymede;norwasheliberatedbyahundredhandedgiantwhoseassistanceThetisobtained;norwashesolicitous,inreturnforsuchaid,thatAchilles,thesonofThetis,becauseofhisconcubineBriseis,shouldslaughtersomanyGreeks.Wefeelsorryforthosewhobelievethesethings.(FirstApology25,Fallstrans.)46FirstApology2.2

  • 35

    hisentiredefensemustrestupontheassumptionofsharedintellectualcultureand

    idiom.Imperialphilosophersmustbecoparticipantsinthissharedcivilization.Such

    apostureissensiblegivenJustinsprimaryassertionofChristianityasbothsourceand

    culminationofGrecoRomanintellectualtradition.47Itculminatesthetradition,since

    ChrististhelatterdaymanifestationoftheLogosofGreekphilosophy;itprecedesthat

    tradition,inasmuchastheHebrewprophetsofgreaterantiquitythanGreekthinkers48

    foretoldChrist,graspingtheLogosbeforeanyGreekphilosopherhadapproachedit.49

    PlatocomprehendstheworkingsofGodonlythroughMosesandtheotherprophets,

    throughwhomtheLogosandthepropheticspiritoriginallyspeak.

    AppropriationoftheGreekphilosophicaltraditionisfurtherevidentinJustins

    DialoguewithTryphotheJew.Thedialogueisalreadyanormativeliteraryform,andhere

    Justinexploitsitbyassumingthefamiliarpostureandrhetoricalgestureofa

    philosopher,castinghimselfintheroleofaphilosopherwhoisapproachedbyTrypho,a

    HellenizedJew,whogreetsJustinoutofdeferencetohisphilosopherspallium.In

    responsetoTryphosrespect,Justinaskswhyhe,asaJew,cannotseethathisown

    traditionslawgiverandprophetsaresuperiortowhatcompetingschoolsof

    philosophycanoffer.50Justinthenrecountshisownconversionintermsofapassage

    throughStoic,Peripatetic,andPythagoreanschoolsuntilhisexposuretoaPlatonist

    teacher,probablyatEphesus,provedenormouslyfruitful.51Hisdailyadvancein

    studiesledhimfinallytoperceptionofincorporealsandthecontemplationofideas

    thatgavewingstohissoul.52HeconvertstoChristianityafteranexchangewitha

    47SeeNorris(2004)39.48FirstApology44.49TheLogosworksthroughtheprophetsourteacherstoinspirelaterphilosophicalreflection:SothatyoumayunderstandthatitwasfromourteachersImeanfromtheLogosspeakingthroughtheprophetsthatPlatotookhisassertionthatGodmadetheworldbyworkinguponformlessmatter,listentotheactualwordsspokenbyMoses,thefirstprophetandolderthanalloftheGreekwriters,throughwhomthepropheticspiritrevealedhowandfromwhatGodfirstcraftedtheworld.(FirstApology58.1).50AssertingthepriorityoftheHebrewtradition,asintheFirstApology(Dialogue1).51Thepatternofmovingfromoneschooltoanother,untilasatisfyingtruthisfound,canalsobediscernedinGalenandLucian.SeeGrant(1988)51.52Dialogue2.6,withlanguageplainlyderivedfromPhaedrus249D.

  • 36

    Christianholyman,whoelucidatesthefailuresandinternalcontradictionsof

    Platonism,53andtoutstheHebrewprophetsasblessedmenwhowerejustandloved

    byGod[who]aloneknewthetruthandcommunicatedittomen.Whoeverreads

    themrightlywillprofitgreatlyinhisknowledgeoftheoriginandendofthings,andof

    anyothermatterthataphilosophershouldknow.54AsintheApologies,Judaismstands

    asthesourceofwisdom,priortoGreekelaborationsofphilosophyaclaimvindicated

    bytheevidentholinessandaccuracyoftheprophets.

    Beyondthesubstantiveclaimsofphilosophy,JustinsApologiesimplicitlyinvoke

    thecanonsofrhetoric,presentinghisargumentsintheappropriate,conventionalidiom

    ofaprosphonesis,55asbefitsavenerable,sharedintellectualculture.Thisrhetoricalgenre

    isexplainedindetailbytherhetoricianMenanderinthelatethirdcentury.56Justin

    followssuchtacticsasMenanderwouldlaterprescribe,suggestingthatafailureto

    addressinjusticesagainstChristiansmightundermineimperialclaimstoprobity,

    taintingtheauthoritieswithchargesofviolenceandtyranny,57thequalitiesopposite

    thosedesignatedforpraiseintherhetoricaltradition.Justinwillelsewhereemploy

    differentrhetoricalterminology,referringtohisworkasanenteuxis,petition,andto53Justincontendsthatcorruptionanddegenerationhavetaintedthedevelopmentofphilosophicalschools;otherwisedifferentschoolsneverwouldhaveemerged.Properlyconceived,philosophyisapristinewholethathasfracturedonlybecauseofdisloyaltytoaninitialdepositortradition(Dialogue2).ThisprinciplefindsitsprobablerootsinthelostworkofNumenius,OntheInfidelityoftheAcademytowardPlato,afragmentofwhichassertsthatPlatossuccessorsdidnotholdtotheprimitiveheritagebutrapidlydivided,intentionallyornot(Frg.24DesPlaces=EusebiusPraeparatioEvangelica14.5.1.CitedinGrant[1988]51).Justinhimselfwouldproduceaworkinthesoontobeverypopulargenreofheresiology,withhisprinciplesderivedinpartfromthispagansource.ChristianityappealstoJustinasawayoftranscendingsuchproblemsthoughironically,therhetoricofcensurerepresentedbyNumeniustractwouldbeborrowedbyapologistslikeJustinandother,moresystematicChristianthinkers,andwouldmarkthemascoparticipantsintheirownworldofcompetingschools.54Dialogue7.55FirstApology1.1.Eusebiusalsotermsitalogosprosphonetikos(EH4.18.2).SeeGrant(1988)5455forreferencesanddiscussion.56Menandersmodelrecommendsthatpraiseofthesubjectsactionsshouldfallunderthecategoriesofwisdom,justice,temperance,andcourage.Undertheheadingofjustice,heurges:youshouldincludehumanitytosubjects,gentlenessofcharacterandapproachability,integrityandincorruptibilityinmattersofjustice,freedomfrompartialityandfromprejudiceingivingjudicialdecisions.MenanderRhetor,RussellandWilson(1981)167.57FirstApology3.2.

  • 37

    portionsofitasexegesis,explanation,andapodeixis,demonstrationallfamiliar

    nomenclatureforadicasticspeech.58

    Justin,then,asaselfdescribedphilosopherandapracticedrhetorician,asaman

    whoneverrejectedthepalliumthathedonnedatthetimeofhisfirstconversionto

    philosophy,seeksopenlytoassimilateGreekculturewithinaChristianvision,

    appropriatingeventheiconicSocrates,forwhosedeathevildemonsaretoblame.

    Socratesemployedreason(logos)todissuadepeoplefrombeliefinfalsegods,justsothe

    Logositself,havingassumedtheformofaman,didthesamefornonGreeks.59Justinis

    urgenttoaligntheChristianLogoswiththelogosofpaganlearning,thathewilleven

    assertthatmanyancientthinkerswereinpointoffactChristianspriortotheincarnation

    oftheLogos:

    WehavebeentaughtthatChristwasthefirstbegottenofGodandwehaveindicatedabovethatheistheWordofwhomallmankindpartakes.ThosewholivebyreasonareChristians,eventhoughtheyhavebeenconsideredatheists:suchas,amongtheGreeks,Socrates,Heraclitus,andotherslikethem.

    ThosewholivedbyreasonincludeAbraham,Elias,Ananias,Azarias,Misael,and

    manyothers.60TheprophetsandsagesofHebrewtradition,then,aretheprimordial

    possessorsofthelogos;Greeks,suchasSocratesandothersages,aretheirepigones;

    Christiansarethosewhohaveembracedthelatterdayformofwhatthoseprophetsand

    philosophersalwaysknew:theLogosofGod,nowmadeflesh.Justinsassertionofthe

    universalityoftheLogosenablestherhetoricalgestureofassimilatingbothJewishand

    GreeksagesintoaChristianpantheon.Thehallmarkofthisstrategyisthatan

    apologeticassertionofdifferenceindeed,ofsuperiorityisalsointegrative.

    Christianityiscastasthesuperiorwisdomtraditionsimplybyassertingitspriorityto

    Hellenism.

    58SeeKeresztes(1965).59Dialogue560Dialogue46.

  • 38

    JustinspupilTatian,aChristianofAssyrianorigins,adoptsafarmore

    combativepositionthanhismaster.61Hisparticularlyhostiletonemayderivefromthe

    imperiallysanctionedslaughterofChristiansatLyonsin177.62Attimeshissurviving

    apologeticwork,AddressAgainsttheGreeks()suffersfromwhatseemsan

    excessofinvectiveagainstHellenism,ascornfullitanywithdesignsonpersuasion

    merelybydintofcumulativeforce.HereistheobviouslyHellenizedmanwhobecomes

    analientobothmainstreamChristianityandtheintellectualtraditionsoftheempirea

    religiousextremist,inshort,aHellenizedbarbarianturnedfringezealot.Goingfar

    beyondJustinstreatmentoftheproblemofdiversityanddisagreementinphilosophy,

    heindulgeshiscontemptfortraditioninaparodiststreatmentofphilosophical

    hypocrisy:

    Whatareyourphilosophersdoingofanysignificanceornote?Theyle