Davide's Notes

From Philosophical Apologetics, the Church, and Contemporary Culture, by J.P. Moreland:

Social historian John Gager has pointed out that even though the early church was a minority movement that faced intellectual and cultural ridicule and marginalization, the early church maintained internal cohesion and a courageous witness thanks in no small measure to the powerful role in the broader Christian community of the philosophically trained apologists in the first centuries of the Christian faith.

Moreland then maintains that philosophical apologetics is an effective mean to "penetrate effectively our culture and proclaim Christ and a Christian world view to outsiders and to our own brothers and sisters". I would not extend this to mean that it is because of the apologists that the Christian faith got so widespread in the first two-three centuries, though. But the ability to give a philosophical background to the faith must have weighted in when it came to present it in front of the learned of the time. Conversely, I am quite prepared to accept Moreland's point that, if a philosophical background and broad knowledge of philosophy is missing or not perceivable (e.g. in evangelists, laymen and priests alike), then religious talk and doctrine is likely to be perceived as weak, insignificant, or meaningless. I think this is a point that the early apologists urge us to consider.

The model adopted by the early apologists is likely Paul, who consistently used the categories of thought typical of his audience, while making clear (1 Cor 2:2) that his only interest is to know nothing "except Jesus Christ and him crucified". So, when speaking of Jesus to Jews, he started with the OT (Acts 17:2-3); when speaking to people of Lystra, used to pagan worship (Acts 14:8-18), he started with the presence of God in nature; when speaking to Greek thinkers in Athens (Acts 17:24ff), he used philosophical concepts.

In the first apologists the main reasons why they do apologetics are:

• in general, defend the Christian movement from attacks. Before the apostolate and the care to reach out "for the hungry and the fallen", we have here an agenda of survival.
• counter-argument the position that Christians do not really know what they talk about (Celsus: they are not able to explain "at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived"). This is in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15: "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have". This gives more overall credibility and acceptance to the proponents of the Christian faith.
• provide a credible historical framework to the Christian faith. Cf. for example the fragments of Quadratus, telling us that the works of Jesus were "real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth, but also a considerable time after His departure; and, indeed, some of them have survived even down to our own times."
• reassure that Christians do have a role in the world, although they are not of the world. The Epistle to Diognetus makes this explicit: "To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world" (Diognetus VI). This counters the charges of disengagement and rejection of worldly powers. The early church soon enough condemned idealistic stances (and the idealization of martyrdom). Apologists are working here in continuity with Acts and his concern to state that Christianity posed no threat to Roman authority.
• the desire to prove that the Christian faith is superior to Greek philosophy (against e.g. Celsus' claim that Christianity was barbarous in origin), the fashionable way of thinking at the time. See, for example, Tatian and his Address to the Greeks. This apology is quite interesting: Tatian encourages Greeks not to consider themselves as the superior race, but rather ponder how many of their institutions, customs and discoveries really derive from the "barbaric world". Beyond the actual value of Tatian's arguments, it seems a modern way of approaching and discussing issues (in this case, the superiority of Greek philosophy) that are sometimes taken for granted just because everybody is accustomed to think so. In order to do this, one of course needs to address and answer the most direct charge that the Christian religion is unreasonable and meaningless. Think of the problematic topic of the resurrection from the dead here: Tatian addresses it showing that it is the Greek philosophy, with its beliefs that things are "produced and destroyed for no useful purpose [...] according to the return of certain cycles", that is unreasonable. This is an example of revertings a charge against those who propose it  by better or altered definition of the terms: so also for instance Justin when he claims that yes, Christians are atheists, but in the sense they do not adore idols or false gods (hence, the real atheists are those who do not recognize the one and true Christian God).
• the desire to reconcile (rather than replace, as above) Greek thought with Christian theology. Clement of Alexandria is the symbol of a synthesis between Greek and Christian thought; Athenagoras makes abundant use of Greek philosophical categories while making his point, and sees Greek mythology as pointing toward Christianity. Here we have the adoption of what can be adopted from the opposition, and even the appropriation of important symbols: so, for instance, Socrates is often shown as a pre-Christian sage, telling his own people to move away from idolatry and false doctrines. Cf. for example Justin: "We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious." (First Apology, XLVI)
• the desire to provide a foundational theology that derives Christian doctrine from the Jewish tradition. Justin, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, interprets Christian teachings as derived from the "previous law", but with a universal validity, and without the now needless cerimonial rulings ("the very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented"). The Jewish theology of the election is then reinterpreted accordingly to explain what was the real meaning of circumcision, fasting, food laws, sacrifices, Sabbath ("God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath [...] on account of your unrighteousness"), etc. Law, prophets and writings, the whole of TaNaK, really speak of and point to Jesus.
• the desire to have fair debates about what is really being discussed, and not being condemned just "because of the name" (so Athenagoras and Justin) or on the basis of rumours. Beyond the "name", Christians exhibit impeccable moral behavior (note how much space is devoted to the topic of explaining Christian moral principles). They have nothing to do with the charges of cannibalism and incest: on the contrary, these charges are the fruit of a pagan way of thinking.
• the need to better define important doctrinal points. Think here of the evolving concept of the nature of God. Hall maintains that the theology of the first apologists is "binitarian" rather than "trinitarian" (I should consider this better, cf. for example The Development of Trinitarianism In the Patristic Period). Other theological advancements happen because of the "forced" debate between apologists and their opponents (including movements that will end up being labeled as "heretics"), which reminds us of the importance of debate and confrontation in all human activities. Another example: the charge of being a sectarian and secret movement forced Christian theologians to expound (and therefore, better define) their liturgy to dispel suspicions about what was happening at their gatherings.

---

Categories: Church_History