Monday, May 09, 2005
To what extent were the Apologists successful?
This is one of the mini-summaries I wrote to prepare for the Church
history exam. Some more detailed info may be present in other posts
(see the Topical Index).
To what extent were the Apologists successful?
First of all, define who we consider to be the Apologists, and "successful" in relation to what. Which objections did they try to answer? See here the notes on why Christians were persecuted.
How do we judge "successfulness" then? For example, from the standpoint of the validity of their arguments? From the standpoint of subsequent history of development of Christianity?
Initially, we ought to make a distinction between arguing for Christianity negatively (rebutting charges) or positely (discussing the truth of Christian beliefs and rejecting competing thoughts). Then we want to note that apology in the second century can take several forms: To Diognetus and Theophilus' To Autolycus are open letters to an inquirer; Justin's Apologies are letters to emperors; Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is a maybe fictitious (similar perhaps to the fiction of Plato's Apology) debate with a Jew.
In general, for what regards the contribution of the Apologists, it is worthwhile to note that John Gager pointed out that it was also through them that the early church maintained internal cohesion. In particular, Moreland says that it is through philosophical apologetics that the dominant culture could be penetrated. The risk could have been for Christianity to get completely ridiculized and emargined, if this had not happened: see Celsus' objections for an example.
The motivation for apology is first and foremost dictated by an agenda of survival. We are not at the point where Christianity could offer elaborated theologies: it just had to survive.
Then remember the main themes:
Now, let's briefly consider Justin's Logos theology. What were its advantages and disadvantages?
One obvious characteristics of Logos theology is that it encouraged philosophical treatment of faith. An easy conclusion is that this led to the Hellenization of traditional doctrines, and probably contributed to the "parting of the ways" and to the dissolvment of Jewish Christianity. On the other hand, the identification of the Logos of the philosophers and the Christ of faith greatly helped the spread of Christianity within Hellenistic intellectual circles; and the monotheism of Christianity was somewhat made more acceptable in Justin by his insistence on angelology (a form of deistic pantheon, to some extent). A direct conseguence of Logos theology is Origen's view of the immortal soul of Christ, and hence the problems caused by a monarchian view. At the other extreme, another immediate problem raised by Logos christology was the set up of some form of ditheism. Hence, we soon have some difficulties in properly defining Trinity, also in relation to the fact that Justin's theology (and the theology of the second century Apologists in general) seems more binitarian than trinitarian. Another important thing to note is that Justin seems to explicitly use his Logos theology mostly when dealing with outsiders; when describing the Eucharist, for example, he uses biblical rather than philosophical language. This is an important didactic characteristic of adaptation to different hearers, which we have seen already in his Dialogue with Trypho.
Notes on Price, "Hellenization" and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr (1998):
The above is stock treatment of Justin's Logos theology. But there is another important point that we need to consider, and that is that Justin himself tried to underline commonalities between Hellenistic and Jewish ways of thought, rather than marking a divide between them. The question is, is our sharp distinction between Judaism and Hellenism truly historical? Think, on the one hand, of the hellenization process of Judaism and, on the other, of the mutual influences between mediterranean cultures. The idea of Justin contrasting Hellenism and Judaism could be seen, from some Christian point of view, as a forced hegelian attempt toward a synthesis of thesis and antithesis (embodying the abstract categories of reason and revelation).
But which hellenistic doctrines did Justin employ? The standard answer is that he used the Logos doctrine of Middle Platonism. Now, it is known that Platonism did not employ the term "Logos" to mean the Divine Power (hence NT scholars maintain that the Logos in John 1 did not originate because of Greek philosophy). Price maintains that Justin derived the term Logos rather from the Septuagint, when it deals with the "word of God". Further, no clear evidence of the theory of the Logos spermatikos have been found in either Stoicism or Platonism. We find it instead in the unhellenistic Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. Also, contemporary platonists were more determined than Justin in distinguishing sharply between the "Good" and the "Demiurge" (i.e. the Son and the Father). In summary, Justin seems to draw more from Hellenistic Judaism (like Josephus' Contra Apionem) than from hellenistic philosophy. Price concludes saying that it is this derivation that could explain for the failure of the Apologists to "give specifically Christian themes such as the Incarnation or the doctrine of grace sufficient emphasis." The Apologists (Justin included) are, in particular, denied much of the originality sometimes traditionally assigned to them.
A very good advice seems to me the exhortation to consider the "subtle and undramatic gradations of the terrain". This is probably in accordance also with the predominant binitarian characteristic of the Apologists.
To what extent were the Apologists successful?
First of all, define who we consider to be the Apologists, and "successful" in relation to what. Which objections did they try to answer? See here the notes on why Christians were persecuted.
How do we judge "successfulness" then? For example, from the standpoint of the validity of their arguments? From the standpoint of subsequent history of development of Christianity?
Initially, we ought to make a distinction between arguing for Christianity negatively (rebutting charges) or positely (discussing the truth of Christian beliefs and rejecting competing thoughts). Then we want to note that apology in the second century can take several forms: To Diognetus and Theophilus' To Autolycus are open letters to an inquirer; Justin's Apologies are letters to emperors; Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is a maybe fictitious (similar perhaps to the fiction of Plato's Apology) debate with a Jew.
In general, for what regards the contribution of the Apologists, it is worthwhile to note that John Gager pointed out that it was also through them that the early church maintained internal cohesion. In particular, Moreland says that it is through philosophical apologetics that the dominant culture could be penetrated. The risk could have been for Christianity to get completely ridiculized and emargined, if this had not happened: see Celsus' objections for an example.
The motivation for apology is first and foremost dictated by an agenda of survival. We are not at the point where Christianity could offer elaborated theologies: it just had to survive.
Then remember the main themes:
- counter-argument that position that Christians do not know what they are talking about (so Celsus). Cf. 1 Pt 3:15.
- provide a credible historical framework to the faith. Cf. Quadratus, who explicitly tells us that the works of Jesus were "real" and witnessed by those who were present and that continued to testify to them even after Jesus' departure.
- define the role of Christians in the world (Diognetus); this counters the charges of disengagement and the worry that Christianity posed a threat to Roman authority (not a new charge: cf. the Jews before Pilate).
- prove that Christianity is not barbarous (against Celsus); on the contrary, it is superior to Greek philosophy (cf. Tatian and his Address to the Greeks).
- re-definition of the terms: e.g. when the Greeks says that resurrection is absurd, Tatian answers that it is Greek philosophy that it is absurd, with its meaningless cycles of production/destruction. Or Justin saying that "atheist" is not something that can be predicated of Christians, since atheism is not recognizing the one true God (so atheists are really those who call Christians atheists).
- bridge the gaps between Greek philosophy and Christianity. Here
the Oriental and in particular Alexandrian school shines (e.g.
Clement). Cf. Athenagoras looking at Greek mythology as pointing toward
Christianity, Socrates as a pre-Christian sage (so also Justin).
Rapprochment between Greek philosophy and Christianity seems to become
less of an urgence the more we move away from the second century; so
for example remember Tertullian's attitude to philosophy, or Origen's
view of Plato as an idolater (on the other hand, Origen is to some
extent a kind of greek philosopher himself).
- a desire to be judged according to facts, not to "names" or
rumours (Justin, Athenagoras). And when one goes beyond name calling,
one would see that persecuting Christians is unfair.
- rebuttal of the charge of politheism (Athenagoras).
Now, let's briefly consider Justin's Logos theology. What were its advantages and disadvantages?
One obvious characteristics of Logos theology is that it encouraged philosophical treatment of faith. An easy conclusion is that this led to the Hellenization of traditional doctrines, and probably contributed to the "parting of the ways" and to the dissolvment of Jewish Christianity. On the other hand, the identification of the Logos of the philosophers and the Christ of faith greatly helped the spread of Christianity within Hellenistic intellectual circles; and the monotheism of Christianity was somewhat made more acceptable in Justin by his insistence on angelology (a form of deistic pantheon, to some extent). A direct conseguence of Logos theology is Origen's view of the immortal soul of Christ, and hence the problems caused by a monarchian view. At the other extreme, another immediate problem raised by Logos christology was the set up of some form of ditheism. Hence, we soon have some difficulties in properly defining Trinity, also in relation to the fact that Justin's theology (and the theology of the second century Apologists in general) seems more binitarian than trinitarian. Another important thing to note is that Justin seems to explicitly use his Logos theology mostly when dealing with outsiders; when describing the Eucharist, for example, he uses biblical rather than philosophical language. This is an important didactic characteristic of adaptation to different hearers, which we have seen already in his Dialogue with Trypho.
Notes on Price, "Hellenization" and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr (1998):
The above is stock treatment of Justin's Logos theology. But there is another important point that we need to consider, and that is that Justin himself tried to underline commonalities between Hellenistic and Jewish ways of thought, rather than marking a divide between them. The question is, is our sharp distinction between Judaism and Hellenism truly historical? Think, on the one hand, of the hellenization process of Judaism and, on the other, of the mutual influences between mediterranean cultures. The idea of Justin contrasting Hellenism and Judaism could be seen, from some Christian point of view, as a forced hegelian attempt toward a synthesis of thesis and antithesis (embodying the abstract categories of reason and revelation).
But which hellenistic doctrines did Justin employ? The standard answer is that he used the Logos doctrine of Middle Platonism. Now, it is known that Platonism did not employ the term "Logos" to mean the Divine Power (hence NT scholars maintain that the Logos in John 1 did not originate because of Greek philosophy). Price maintains that Justin derived the term Logos rather from the Septuagint, when it deals with the "word of God". Further, no clear evidence of the theory of the Logos spermatikos have been found in either Stoicism or Platonism. We find it instead in the unhellenistic Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. Also, contemporary platonists were more determined than Justin in distinguishing sharply between the "Good" and the "Demiurge" (i.e. the Son and the Father). In summary, Justin seems to draw more from Hellenistic Judaism (like Josephus' Contra Apionem) than from hellenistic philosophy. Price concludes saying that it is this derivation that could explain for the failure of the Apologists to "give specifically Christian themes such as the Incarnation or the doctrine of grace sufficient emphasis." The Apologists (Justin included) are, in particular, denied much of the originality sometimes traditionally assigned to them.
A very good advice seems to me the exhortation to consider the "subtle and undramatic gradations of the terrain". This is probably in accordance also with the predominant binitarian characteristic of the Apologists.
