Bishop Daniel Kristitch, ON DIVINE PHILANTHROPY FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

BISHOP DANIEL KRISTITCH
ON DIVINE PHILANTHROPY
FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

First Edition
BISHOP DANIEL KRISTITCH
ON DIVINE PHILANTHROPY: FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
REPRINTED FROM “THEOLOGIA”
ATHENS 1983
CONTENTS
Foreword by Bishop Maxim of Western Diocese………………
Contents ................................................................................ 3
Prologue ................................................................................ 7
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 11
Classical Period.......................................................... 11
Hellenistic Age........................................................... 17
Old Testament........................................................... 20
Philo ........................................................................... 24
Problem of feeling .................................................... 31
New Testament ......................................................... 33
Cultual differences in the Biblical Trend................. 37
Second Century ........................................................ 45
St. Ignatius and pseudο-Clement.............................. 47
Pagan Tradition ........................................................ 49
Christisn trend: Justin, Theopilus and Irenaeus...... 54
Third Century: Epistle to Diognetua, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen ................................................... 61
Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus ................................ 71
II. FOURTH CENTURY...................................................... 76
The Christian Trend: Athanasius and the Cappadocians 80
St. Athanasius ........................................................... 80
The Cappadocians ..................................................... 83
III. ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: CHRONOLOGICAL APPROACH
TO HIS USE OF PHILANTHROPIA....................... 109
IV. SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO CHRYSOSTOM’S USE
OF PHILANTHROPIA ............................................ 139
CONCLUSION........................................................... 169
EPILOGUE.............................................................. 170
Bibliography............................................................... 172
PROLOGUE
As far as theological methodology in general is concerned, Paul Tillich sheds some light,
incidentally, on the entire past of Christian thinking, the patristic period included. In contradistinction to
philosophy, which is mainly “structuralist” because preoccupied with being in itself, 1 Τillich underlines the
existential character of Christian theology in its dealing with the very meaning that being has for us.2 He
stressed also the fact that the only ideal verification open to the theologian is an active mystical
participation and not a scientific experience of detached observation. 3
Much closer to our family of Church historians, Georges Florovsky, in his turn, emphatically
teaches that the ultimate purpose of a historical inquiry “is not in the establishment of certain facts... but
in the encounter with living beings.” 4 And like a sobering memento, we hear the implacable witticism,
of Henri-Irénée Marron that “historical truth is only valid for those who desire that truth.” 5 One can even
publicly confess the presence of a corrosive irony in the work of a historian who perceives well the rational
meaning of the historical process, yet is never fully able to grasp it. 6
All this does not minimize in the least the exhilarating possibility of a dutifully elaborated
exercise of critical objectivity. After having paid due consideration to the warning of Pokrovasky’s dictum
(“History is politics backwards”), 7 Rudolph Bultmann nonetheless seems to us quite reassuring when he
asserts that historical study without presupposition is indeed possible if “without presupposition” is taken
to mean that the results of exegesis are not presupposed.” 8 For this purpose, however, a lively empathy is
almost indispensable to any creative historian. As the Rabbinic scholar Herbert Loewe has put it bluntly,
“only an insider can be objective.” 9
Gathering facts produces problems but does not solve them. Challenged to try a promising procedure
of Peter Nemeshegy, who found in Ori gen’s insistence on the paternity of God “la clef d’un système”10 I
had my modest “eureka” experience when discovering that the frequent recurrence of the term
philanthropia in Chrysostom is important not only because it creates an atmosphere of peculiar serenity,
but because unexpectedly it takes on the proportion of a greatest argument for the whole of Chrysostom’s
theodicy.
My task is to make a contribution to the study of Chrysostom by pointing out the peculiar place of
the Antiochene saint in the wider perspective of Christian theology and pagan philosophy, stressing the concept
of φιλανθρωπία.
Since the publication of Χρυσοστομικ ὰ in 1907, a festive volume offered for the occasion of the
sixteenth centennial anniversary of Chrysostom’s death, only the magisterial work of C. Baur 11 represents a
lasting contribution in the field of Chrysostomic studies. But he limited his inqui ry mainly to biographical
1
Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, I (Westminster, Maryland, 1963), 290.
2
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, I (Chicago, 1951), 23.
3
Ibid., p. 44.
4
Georges Florovsky, “The Predicament of the Christian Historian,” Religion in Culture; Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich,
ed. Walter Leibrecht (New York, 1959), pp. 140-56, especially p, 149.
5
Henri-Irénée Marron, The Meaning of History (Baltimore-Dublin, 1966), p. 151.
6
James II, Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York, 1966), p. 590.
7
Cited by Woodford D. Mc CIellan, “Svetozar Markovic and the Origin of Balkan Socialism” (unpublished
dissertation, University of California, 1963), p. 4.
8
Rudolph Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen (1960), cited in Stephen Neilll, The Interpretation of the New Testament
1861-1961 (London, 1964), p. 231, n. 1.
9
C. G. Manlefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (London, 1938), pp. iv-cvi. esp, p. lvi.
10
Peter Nemeshegy, La Paternité de Dieu chez Origène (Tournai, I960), pp. 1-3.
11
C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, trans. Sr. M, Gonzaga (2 vols; Westminster, Maryland, 1959). The
German original appeared in 1929-1930.
data, 12 as did also Anatole Moulard. The latter was even unable, to understand the rigorous apophaticism of
Chrysostom. 13
The principal methodological procedure of my examination of Chrysostom will be, of course, the
philological analysis of his works in order to grasp all semantic shades of the concept of philanthropia
throughout his huge literary output. Dubia and, needless to say, spuria, will not enter into the scope of my
inquiry. 14 The text of Migne is still reliable, although I shall use recent critically edited texts whenever
available.
Secondly I will try to present the synthetic functioning of divine philanthropy in Chrysostom’s
theological “system,” establishing its central dogmatic position.
The third and concluding procedure will be the comparative method, leading to a final evaluation of
Chrysostom as theologian by relating him to his predecessors, especially the Cappadocian Fathers.
Comparison with his colleague Theodore of Mopsuestia will be limited only to the “philanthropic”
implication of his Christology.
If we accept Bailey’s distinction 15 between “dogma” (“a rational statement of a mystery”) and
“doctrine” (“an attempt to enter into an understanding of a dogma...in however small degree”), then we can
say that φιλανθρωπία τοῦ θεοῦ, as well as χάρις are not merely doctrinal but potentially dogmatic notions
since they are found in the scriptures. 16 There were, of course different shades in the charitology and, if I may
coin a new term, in the “philanthropology” among the Fathers and other ancient writers.
We have two lines of observable development of the concept of philanthropia: (I) the classical
development from Aeschylos via Plutarch down to Libanius, Themistius of Byzantium and the Emperor Julian;
and (2) the biblical development, especially from Philo and the New Testament through Origen and the
Cappadocians to Chrysostom.
Only in the guise of a proper introduction to the use of the concept of philanthropy in the patristic
Fourth Century will a survey of its previous history be offered.
Louis Meyer has already stressed “de primat de l’amour” in Chrysostom.17 More recently Auguste
Luneau in a detailed study comes to the conclusion that among all the Fathers Chrysostom is the one who
most emphasizes divine love as the meaning of human history. 18 Neither of these two authors, however,
identified a peculiarly Chrysostomic use of philanthropia.
The whole of patristic literature (Chrysostom included) could be put under the caption of “the
theology of incompleteness.” 19 The Fathers, being truly apophatic thinkers, seem to have known the
incompatibility that exists between kerygmatic theology and any “system”. 20 This by no means excludes an
eventual “idêe-maitresse” in each of these Fathers. As I have discovered, for Chrysostom it is the concept
of divine philanthropy.
While endowing this already prestigious term with a high theological value, Chrysostom is not only
apologetically attempting to surpass Themistius’ “preaching” on philanthropy, but, in fact, was about to
sum up the long effort of preceding Christian “philanthropologists”.
12
Ibid., I, 356.
13
Anatole Moulard, Saint Jean Chrysontume (Paris, 1941), p. 92.
14
In this respect the recent work of Jesuit father de Aldama is very helpful or discerning the pseudo-Chrysostomic
interpolations. See J. A. de Aldama, Repertorium Pseudochrysosiomicum (Paris, 1965), especially pp. 228-38.
15
Charles J. N. Bailey, Groundwork for Comparative Metatheology — A Roadmap for Ecumenical Analytics (Ann
Arbor, 1965), p. 26.
16
Heinrich Petri has recently dealt with this major problem; “Darüber, ob eine Wahrheit, die nur virtuell im
Depositum enthalten ist, als Dogma verkündet werden, kann, herrscht noch keine Einigkeit unter den Theologen
Rahner ist der Meinung, dass das grundsätlich möglich, da Gott alle Implikationen seines’ Wortes übersehen und
somit auch als geoffenbarte Wahrheiten bezeugen kann. ” Exegess und Dogmatik in der Sicht der Katholischen Teologie
(Paderborn, 1966), p. 234.
17
Louis Meyer, Saint Jean Chrysostome (Paris, 1933), p. 64.
18
Auguste Luneau, L’ Histoire du salut chez les Pères de l’ Eglise (Paris, 1964), pp. 193-94.
19
George Huntson Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky: His American Career (1948-1965),” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review, XI, No. 1 (1965), 7-107, especially p. 106.
20
Kenneth Hamilton, The System and the Gospel (New York, 1963), especially p. 106.
By so doing, he was, from the height of the old Antiochene pulpit and, later on, from the
patriarchal throne of Byzantium, in a manner paying homage even to his pagan rivals and teachers,
Libanius and Themistius, who obliged him to rethink for the Christian community the meaning of divine
philanthropy. Ever since Chrysostom, God in Eastern Chris tendom is known primarily as “Friend of
men” (θεὸς Φιλάνθρωπος).
The present Motiv-Forschung in Chrysostom‘s theology must be necessarily meager, since it can
contain only the highlights and must dispense with exuberant illustrative and probative material. Such a
summary, nonetheless, must almost inevitably lead to greater condensation of thought, and this will help, I
hope, to reveal the present study as a coherent and self-explanatory whole.
I. INTRODUCTION
Classical Period
As the philosophers distinguish between the “thing” and the “la bel”, 21 one has, from the beginning, to be
aware of the difference between the Greek word of “φιλανθρωπία”, on one side, and the very reality of benevolence
on the other side.
Since all the attributes of God are, by definition, eternal, the divine philanthropy was therefore a reality
even before man came into existence, just as the practice of humaneness was to be known among men and,
more particularly, among the Homeric Greek even before the fortunate word “φιλανθρωπία” was invented. 22
Luggage and labels are not synonymous, and, despite the undis puted importance of theological labels, the
latter in themselves should not be mistaken for the religious reality they indicate. 23 This is the preliminary
apophatic ablution that every theologian is supposed to undergo before entering the sacred precincts of the oldest
of sciences. I am limiting the scope of my inquiry strictly to the theological career of the concept of
philanthropia. 24
A chronological study proves to be the only fruitful one, since the concrete meaning of the concept
may constantly shift with different accretions in time. 25 For the classical period we have three exhaus tive studies
dealing with the usage of φιλανθρωπία.26 First to win the title of φιλάνθρωπος in Greek literature was the divine
Prometheus.27 Aeschylus felt the rich evocative power in the word and used it unforgettably.28 Even when Prometheus, in open
rebellion against his fellow-gods, dares to love men, he remains, nonetheless, different in kind. And his love has the
character of a metaphysical bridge.29 This initial patronizing attitude imprinted itself so strongly on the term that even much
later, when philanthropia has been transplanted on Latin soil in the guise of its approximative copy of humanitas, it still
retained a strong admixture of condescension.30
Subsequently, we find in Aristophanes’ “Peace” the god Mercury being addressed very solemnly:
... ὦ φιλαθρωπότατε καὶ μεγαλοδωρότατε δαιμόνων
(Pax. ν. 392). 31
In the context of a comedy the word, even though in the superlative, has naturally weaker religious magnetism
than under a tragic Promethean spell. 32 Plato, in his turn, gave the same superlative title, but with much, subtler
discernment, to the god Eros. 33 One should not be too astonished to find out that Plato, who rejected the all-pervading
21
Bailey, op. cit., p. 374, n. 4.
22
Iliad vi. 14: Odyssey viii, 546. See Roger LeDéaut, “Φιλανθρωπία dans la littérature grecque jusqu’au Nouveau
Testament (Tite 111, 4),” Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, I (Citta del Vaticano, 1964), 255-94, especially p. 256, n. 3. And
also the practice of “φιλοξενία”, LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 279.
23
Montefiore and Loewe, op. cit., especially p. lix.
24
Independently from each other, Fr. Demetrios J. Constantelos and I have worked on a similar subject — that of
philanthropy — but our respective studies differ in scope and methodology. Mine is centered on Chrysostom and
theologically oriented, while Fr. Constantelos’ thesis mainly stresses the sociological aspect of philanthropy. See his
“Philanthropy and Philanthropic Institutions in the Byzantine Empire A. D. 330-1204” (unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, Rutgers university, 1965).
25
Ceslas Spicq, “La Philanthropie Hellénistique, vertu divine et royale (â propos de Tit. Ill, 4),” Studia Theologica,
XII (1958), 166-91, especially p. 169.
26
Siegfried Lorenz, “De progressu nationis φιλανθρωπίας” (dissertation inauguralis, Lipsiae, 1914); S. Tromp de Ruiter,
“De vocis quae est φιλανθρωπία significatione atque usu”, Mnemosyne, N.S. 59 (1932), 271-306; LeDéaut, loc. cit.,
255-34.
27
J. Lorenz, op. cit., p. 8; Tromp de Ruiter, loc. cit., p. 272; Le Déaut, loc cit., p. 256.
28
Aeschylus Prom. Desm. vs. 8 ff.
29
LeDéaut writes that “‘la philanthropic’ est le sentiment qui incline à partager les intérêts du groupe opposé," loc.
cit., p. 257.
30
Bruno Snell, The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), p. 252.
31
Tromp de Ruiter, loc. cit., p. 274; LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 258.
32
LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 259.
33
Plato Banquet 189 D, See LeDéaut, loc.cit.
ancient poetry as a dangerous obstacle to intellectual progress, 34 still used the old mythological language for his
philosophical goals. 35 His all-out war against poetry is, according to Hevelo ck, the inevitable climax to the systematic
doctrine of the Republic. 36 It seems that for Plato as long as one surrenders to the poetic spell of the Homeric oral tradition one
is bound to be “a two-aspect man” or a “many-aspect man,” by way of identification.37 And the pupil of Socrates wanted a unified
personality, an autonomous psyche38 capable of dialectic abstract thinking.39 Therefore, when we find such a phrase as ὁ Θεός...
φιλάνθρωπος ὧν in Book Four of The Republic40 we are entitled to see in it a somewhat refined abstract theological statement
in spite of its immediate narrower context referring to the mythical Cronos. 41
The happy combination of these two words (Θεὸς φιλάνθρωπος) had a rare destiny, notwithstanding all later
semantic changes, never to be divorced in this happy language destined to become — through Christianity — the vehicle of
perennial theology.
As an abstract noun φιλανθρωπία first appeared almost simultaneously in Plato (Etuhyphron 3d) and in Xenophon
(Mem. iv. 3, 7) around 390-395.42 M. Croiset translated it, in the first instance of its Platonic usage, as “humeur sociable”.43
Xenophon (Mem. i.2,60,) explicitly ascribes the previously exclusive divine prerogative of philanthropy to Socrates, in the
sense of benevolence between men.44 The now enrichment of the word can be observed in the application it had in
Xenophon’s idealized description of King Cyrus. 45 This kind of Xenophontic extolled virtus regia,46 however, does not go
beyond the circle of the king’s own friends.47 Nonetheless, once put on the horizontal line of interhuman relations, the virtues
of benevolence and generosity, which the word philanthropes was supposed to indicate, started to be acknowledged among
common citizens also.48 Athenians, especially, gloried in their philanthropic way of life, the more so since they considered
themselves, through their sovereign democracy, collectively “king”. 49
A peculiar application of the term is to be found in Ischomachus’ praise of agriculture: “ἡ γεωργία οὕτω
φιλάνθρωπός ἐστι καὶ πραεῖα τέχνη” (Oeconom. xix. 17).50 This farmer’s usage of philanthropy together with that ascribed to the
animals is peripheral and finally destined to disappear.51
Both the prince Evagoras, on account of his philanthropic rule, and the city of Athens for its philanthropic regime,
were offered as examples to be imitated since they managed everything in a way which gods loved and out of love for men,
θεοφιλῶς καὶ φιλανθρώπως,52 It was, however, to be expected that the term “philanthropy”, once it became a fashionable
catchword, was likely to be abused for the purpose of propaganda. Indeed, very soon a conqueror like Philip of Macedon
adroitly manipulated it in his imperial stratagems, for which cause he was immediately and vehemently criticized by
Demosthenes.53 The word could be in some cases rapidly vulgarized to such a point as to mean nothing more than shallow
34
Eric A. Havelock, Preface to Plato (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p. 97.
35
That these goals are never explicitly stated one can see from Plato’s astounding statement in the Seventh Letter
(341c) according to which he has never written about the object of his aspirations and will never du so in the future.
Albin Lesky argues that “the nature of these dialogues explains largely.... why the borders between logos and myth
become vague.” A History of Greek Literature (New York, 1966), p. 514.
36
Havelock, op. cit., p. 203.
37
Ibid., p. 203.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., p. 209.
40
Plato Republic iv. 713d; Tromp, loc. cit.
41
LeDéaut, loc, cit., p. 260.
42
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid., p. 262. Tromp, loc. cit., p. 278, states that with Xenophon “humanitas illa deorum immortalium transiit ad
mortales... hominum principes.”
46
Lorenz, op. cit., p. 16. Lorenz underlines also the importance of Isocarates who contributed much in shaping the
ideal picture of an ideal king, in op. cit., p. 17; cf. LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 267.
47
48
Ibid., p. 264.
49
Lorenz, op. cit., p. 19; LeDéaut, loc. cit., pp. 276-75.
50
Tromp de Ruiter, loc. cit., p. 281. LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 265, added a more extensive translation: “L ’ agriculture est la
plus noble des arts parce qu’ il développe la noblese d’ âme chez ceux qui s’ y adonnent” (Oeconom, xv. 12).
51
Lorenz, op. cit., p. 13; LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 267.
52
politeness,54 or even as an euphemism covering unholy sensual attachment, 55 but in the most frequent acception — as
witnessed by Demosthenes — it acquired new shades of meaning by mirroring also the virtues of good judges and magistrates,
namely mercifulness and pity. 56 It could also mean the popular affection of citizenry toward their meritorious leaders. 57
The main achievement of the golden Fourth Century concerning the word philanthropia was, on the whole, its
semantic broadening and partial change: after the gods it encompassed princes and, finally, all citizens. Thus, the patronizing
aspect of condescension was gradually reduced in the same proportion as it stood for the social virtues of kindliness and
friendliness which were to adorn each and every citizen of the Hellenic city-state. 58 Quite revealing for this new mentality
is the fact that φιλάνθρωπος is often knit together with φιλόπολις.59
Actually, classical heathendom did not include the poor in its philanthropy:
“VOLKSfreundlich” ist φιλάνθρωπος, nicht ARMENfreundlich”.60 Not only had the aristocratic Plato
accepted the institution of slavery61 but he showed himself severer than contemporary Athenian laws regarding slavery.62
Aristotle was not much better, either, in this respect.63 Even theologically, the apparently generous Plato is at least ambiguous:
after having proclaimed God as the Artificer and Father of the universe (Timaeus 27e ff.),64 together with the dogmatic
assertion that “God is good,”65 nevertheless his pregnant conception of the goodness of God loses its meaning since the
phenomenal and the real are separated from each other. 66 Consequently, his intuitive approach to God as to a Philanthropic
Being (Republic iv. 713D) is vitiated by its vaguely speculative bearing since the fundamental dualistic tendency in his
anthropology67 evacuates the Platonic conception of human immortality from any unique individual content. 68 Thus, Plato’s
God69 finally turns out to be without real objects upon whom to exercise his alleged philanthropic inclination. At best, this
Platonic God could be called relatively φιλόψυχος only, not really φιλάνθρωπος, and even in that respect it seems more
cautious to maintain that there is no personal God in Plato’s philosophy,70 as well as that there is no obvious immortality for
the individual soul as such. 71
53
Ibid., p. 270.
54
Ibid., p. 278.
55
Ibid., p. 271.
56
Ibid., p. 273.
57
Ibid., p. 275.
58
Ibid., p. 267.
59
LeDéaut, ibid., p. 268.
60
Hendrik Bolkestein, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht, 1939), p. 110.
61
Copleston, op. cit., p. 239.
62
Ibid., ρ. 240.
63
Ibid., p, 352.
64
Edward Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, I (Glasgow, 1923], 229.
65
Ibid., ρ. 243.
66
Ibid., p. 245; cf. Copleston, op. cit., p. 180 on χωρισμός.
67
Copleston, op. cit., p. 186; cf. also pp. 202-203, 209, 377.
68
Caird, op. cit., p. 247; et. Copleston, op. cit., p. 212.
69
It is outside the scope of my inquiry to go into details of this problem. However, it is noteworthy that Fr.
Copleston implies that “the Demiurge of Timaeus is an hypothesis and that Plato’s ‘theism’ is not to be οverstressed.”
The same author argues also about Plato’s distinction in Ep. 6, 323 d 2-6 between the Demiurge (“God who is captain
of all things present and to come”) and the One (“the Fa ther of that captain and cause.”) But even if we grant that “the
One, the Good and the essential Beauty are the same for Plato, and that the intelligible world of Forms owes its
being... to the One,” still it is not at all clear how concretely these ideas are related to the One and, much less, how
particular beings, the artifacts of the Demiurge, can have any real relation to the Οne. Moreover, it is inferred that “the
phenomenon...stands half-way between being and not-being, and to make things oven more desperate, only a few elect
are capable of bearing about God—from those even fewer in number who succeed in finding “the maker and the father
of the universe” (Tim. 28c, 3-5), op. cit., pp. 176-78.
Aristotle’s God who knows only himself is the very opposite of the Biblical conception of God. Even if the
Aristotelian First Mover be granted, philosophically, the personal character, as Fr. Copleston advocates nonetheless,
it is out of the question for men to attempt any personal intercourse with him, since in the Magna Moralia (1208b 26-
32) Aristotle squarely excluded the possibility of friendship to ward God, for “God could not return our love, and we
could not in any case be said to love God,” op. cit., pp. 316-17.
70
Copleston, op. cit., p. 191.
The happy inconsistency of Plato’s system is crowned with his maturer approximations in the Laws wherein the
aging philosopher showed a deeper insight into the deity by stamping out as heresy the teaching that gods are indifferent to
man.72 Also of undying importance will be Plato’s doctrine of ὁμοίωσις θεῷ.73 Not only because he united it with the supreme
“dogma” of hia theislic humanism, according to which “God will be the measure of all things,) 74 but also because Plato made
friendship with God dependent upon the likeness to God: θεῷ φίλος, ὅμοιος γάρ.75
Hellenistic Age
Albin Lesky argues that strictly speaking the Hellenistic age ends in 30 B.C.76 with the incorporation into the Roman
Empire of the last kingdom of Alexander’s successors, namely, Egypt of the Lagides. 77 But on the other hand, he
recognizes that the culture of the Empire also forms part of this period. 78 Its beginning is usually fixed at the rise of
Alexander the Great.79 The Atticist reaction is a literary sign of break with the Hellenistic Age. 80
M. Détienne reminds us how already the Pythagoreans called the “demons of the golden race” δαίμονες
φιλανθρωπότατοι.81 The explicit doctrine of the unity of mankind, however, was elaborated in the Peripatos.82 The late
compilation of Stobaeus echoes the ancient code of rules concerning the mutual aid among man. 83 A special place is allotted in
it to friendship and philanthropia: φιλία πρὸς πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κοινή τις ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει φιλανθρωπία (ii.7,13).84
We have divided opinions on the problem of who first started to propagate the word philanthropia on the large scale
of popular use between the competitive schools of thought. Max Mühl85 ascribes the spreading of the notion to the Stoics, and,
even Philo, according to his view, could have been influenced by this allegedly Stoic “philanthropy”.
T. A. Sinclair similarly argues that the emergence of philanthropia as a political idea is not due to Jewish influence,
but to that of Panaetius of Rhodes, and he is willing to add only the Cynics. 86 On the opposite side, against the exclusively
71
Even though Copleston may seem favorable to the opinion that Plato’s mythical illustrations imply his eventual
belief in “real, personal immortality,” he finally agrees with C. Ritter: “It cannot be maintained with certainty
that Plato was convinced of the immortality of the soul, as that is taught in the Myths of the Gorgias, the Phaedo
and the Republic.” Ibid. pp. 212-15.
72
Laws 899d5-9O5d3. Cf. Copleston, op. cit., p, 237.
73
See Hubert Merki, ΟΜΟΙΩΣΙΣ ΘΕῼ: Von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottähnlichkeit bei Gregor von
Nyssa (Freiburg in der Schweiz, 1952). Apropos he writes (pp. 1-2) that even the ancient commentators have seen in
this doctrine “einen Kernpunkt der Ethik Platons.”Cf. Copleston, op. cit., p. 218.
74
Plato, Laws, text and trans. R. G. Bury, I (London, 1926), 295.
75
Ibid., p. 296 ( B k . iv. 716d). Merki, op. cit., p. 5, said apropos: “Der Gedanke der Gottesfreundschaft....in Leg. IV
716A-D... mit der Homoiosis-Lehre verbunden wird.”
Endre von Ivànka, Plato Christianius; Übernahme und Umgestaltung des Platonismus durch die Väter
(Einsiedeln, 1964), p. 482, gave a general evaluation of the impact that the two classical philosophical systems had,
respectively in the East and the West: “Nicht zur analysierenden religiösen Durchdringung, wie der Aristotelismus,
sondern zur Meditierenden Entfaltung seiner innern Zusammenhänge ist der Platonismus wie geschaffen. Das alles
erklärt... wieso die östliche Theologie immer die Verbindung mit der Mystik zu bewahren wusste...“
76
Lesky, op. cit., p. 778.
77
Ibid., p. 695.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid., p. 694.
80
Ibid., p. 691.
81
M. Détienne, La Notion de DAIMON dans le pythagorisme ancien (Paris, 1963), p. 102.
82
Bolkestein, op. cit., p. 124; Lorenz, op. cit., p. 36; Lesky, op. cit., p. 653.
83
This list of duties was transmitted through the schools down to Cicero (De Off. i., 16, 51-52) and to Seneca (Ep. 95,
51). LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 281, n 51.
84
LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 28t. A. J. Festugière aptly emphasized in his book Εpicurus and His Gods (Oxford, 1955),
pp. 39-42, that Epicurus, through his doctrine of ataraxia, wanted to make himself the saviour of mankind.
According to the same writer Epicureanism was a spirit much more than a doctrine... a cult of friendship...
Friendship was not only, as it had been in other schools, a stimulus in the course of research, it became the
primary pursuit of the elect.
85
Max Mühl, Die antike Menschheitsidee in ohrer Geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1928), p. 91.
86
T. A. Sinclair, A History of Greek Political Thought (London, 1951), p. 291. Cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations oj Religious
Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, II (Cambridge Mass., 1962), 220.
Stoic merit of promoting the concept of philanthropy, stand R. Hirzel, 87 Tromp de Ruiter,88 and recently Jürgen Kabiersch,
who has noticed that even Marcus Aurelius never used the word philanthropia when describing interhuman relationships.89
Bolkestein,90 Lorenz,91 and LeDéaut92 specifically indicate the Peripatetic School as the seed-bed of the idea of the natural
unity of mankind. Nonetheless, the most eager disseminators of that idea, as well as of the notion of philanthropia, proved to
be the Stoics.93 Theirs is also the classical definition of the term: φιλικὴ χρῆσις ἀνθρώπων.94 Stoicism was not merely the
ethical ideal for the Graeco-Roman élite of the last centuries before Christ, but tended to become a pragmatic ideology of
Hellenistic princes95 emerging from the “melting pot” created by Alexander the Great. The ideal of the “divine monarchy” as
represented by the Διάδοχοι was intended to stimulate among its subjects the desire to imitate god, by following the example
of their king who supposedly was the embodiment of the virtues of the gods. 96 H. I. Bell sees in the philanthropia of the later
inscriptions of the Roman chancelleries, understood as one of the virtue of kindliness and consideration for others, a heritage
of the Ptolemaic age.97 He strongly emphasizes that it is the quality of a king to be φιλάνθρωπος.98 Thus, the initial
connotation of a descending bestowal still remained clearly discernible in the term. 99 But if the royal philanthropia is mainly
rooted in the mild character of the prince, familiarity with the paideia, however, is not less important for the formation of a
good Hellenistic ruler: “Der Herrecherberuf fordert ἦθος χρηστὸν καὶ Παιδείας κεκοινωνηκὸς und dieses ἦθος χρηστὸν stellt
sich heraus als ἐπιεικεία und φιλανθρωπία.”100
Festugière also cautiously denies the Stoics the exclusive credit for the introduction in the official idiom of the
sophisticated concept of philanthropia.101 Very frequently the historian Polybius (ca. 201-120) in his time used the word
philanthropia, but without adding the new semantic strata to its meaning, except in one instance only: Φιλανθρωπία could
mean for him the renewal of the treaty of friendship between states. 102 Thus, during the Hellenistic period the term of
philanthropia became widely popular chiefly under the influence of the Stoics, but its semantic content was not automatically
enriched by that popularization; only its range was extended as to embrace all men. 103
“Tὸ φιλάνθρωπον in the solemn language of royal scribes indicates some gift of the sovereign, 104 but abused by
officialdom, it came merely to designate state taxation, and by this euphemistic debasing of the term we can measure the long
87
Rudolf Hizel, Plutarch (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 28, 45.
88
Tromp de Ruiter, loc. cit., p. 303.
89
Jürgen Kabiersch, Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian (Wisbaden, 1960), p. 33.
90
Bolkestein, op. cit., p. 124.
91
Lorenz, op. cit., p. 36.
92
93
Ibid., p. 281.
94
Hans von Arnim, Stoicorum Vetera Fragmenta, II I, 292 (Leipzig, 1903) 72.
95
A. J. Festugière, La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. II (Paris, 1949), 298.
96
Spicq, loc, cit., pp. 183-84.
97
H. I. Bell, “Philanthropia in the Papyri of the Roman period”, Hommages à Joseph Bidez et à Franz Cumont
(Bruxelles, 1938), pp. 31-37.
98
Ibid.
99
Spicq. loc, cit., pp. 185-86, writes apropos that: “La philanthropie, à l’ époque hellénistique... comporte
formellement une nuance de bonté divine et royale, une générosité descendante”.
100
W. Schubart, “Das Hellenistische königsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri”, Archiv für Papyrusforschuhg, XII
(1936), pp. 1-26, especially p. 5. The same writer deduces the ϊλεος from φιλανθρωιτίο lot. cit., p. 12.
101
Festugière, Hermès Trismêgîste, I I , 305 ff. The same writer argues about some hellenistic inscriptions which
were displaying the word philanthropia: Il ne ne s’ agit, en aucun cas, d’ amour de l’humanité, maïs de la simple
bienbeillance bien connue des Grecs avant toute influence de la philosophie.” Cf. Le Déaut; p. 285. In the concrete
implementation of philanthropy he consideres the Buddhist king Asoka far above the hellenistic rulers.
Festugière, “Les Inscriptions d’ Asoka et l’idéal du Roi hellénistiques”, Mélanges J. Lebreton (Paris, 1951) pp, 13,
31-46. It is noteworthy that already Zarathustra addressed his Wise Lord (Ahura Mazdah) with a moving boldness:
“Speak to me as friend to friend”, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, The Hymns of Zarathustra (Boston, 1963), p. 7.
However according to this author, his doctrine remains different from that of Christianity. “Far from enjoining
forgiveness of trespasses, Zoroaster preaches that it is important, to illtreat the wicked as it is to be good to the
good”.
102
103
Ibid., p. 285.
104
Cf. Marie-Thérèse Lenger, “La Notion de ‘bienfait’ (philanthropon) ro yal et les ordonnances den rois lagides”,
Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio Rutz (Naples, 1953), pp. 483-99.
distance between Aeschylus’ prophetic seriousness and the deliberate ornamentation of the court littérateurs cultivating
Alexandrian Rococo.105
105
Lesky, op. cit, p. 701.
Φιλανθρωπία as Used in the Biblical Trend
Old Testament
At this junction we have to deal with a body of literature strik ingly different in spirit from that I have hereto
surveyed. We turn, namely, to the Old Testament, to Philo the Jew and to the New Testament.
Professor von Campenhausen is right in underlining the common ties that the Church had with Judaism for about a
hundred years in sharing the Old Testament as a common source of authority. 106 However, not to lose historical perspective
one has immediately to add a clarifying statement, that the most important achievement of the Alexan drian age was the
Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. 107 This monumental work started under the reign of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (285-246), for all practical purposes was the Bible of the Hellenistic Judaism, not only in Egypt and Palestine,
but throughout Western Asia and Europe. 108 It created immediately a peculiar language of religion which lent itself to the
service of the nascent church providing her with an authorized version of the Old Testa ment.109 Of the translations, the
Septuagint alone is actually earlier than the received Masoretic text and therefore its witness to the plurality of
the Hebrew archetypes is indeed invaluable.110 H. J. Cadbury, for example, has found one case where both Sirach
and Septuagint agree against the Masoretic text.111 Moreover, the aptness of Swete’s argument concerning the
state of fluidity in Palestinian Judaism, as well as in the Diaspora, seems to be substantiated by the study of
Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. who suggests that there was no such thing as an “Alexandrian canon” of Hellenistic
Judaism that was distinct from a “Palestinian canon.” 112 Rather, in addition to closed collections of Law and
Prophets, a wide religious literature circulated throughout Judaism as holy scripture before Jamnia. It was while
such a condition existed in Judaism that Christianity received and carried over the scriptures from Judaism. 113
But when the Septuagint became the Christian Bible Jewish feelings completely changed regarding it.114
In the scope of my inquiry there come only the so-called Apocrypha115 in which the noun philanthropia,
and its derivatites are to be found. After the temporary depreciation of the Septuagint and especially of its
“apocryphal” books in some quarters of Protestant scholarship 116 our century has witnessed a reaction to it by
very nearly reaching the practical consensus that “a Bible without an Apocrypha is an incomplete Bible”.117
Augustine, by postulating an equal and identical divine inspiration for both the Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek
texts, did not envisage them as competitive but as complementary in authority. 118 In this respect he is in
full accordance with the practice of Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus in the East. 119
106
“So hat die Kirche mehr als 100 Jahre lang mit dem Judentum tin und denselben ‚Kanon‘ bessessen; das Alte
Testament ist ihre früheste völlig ausgeprägte ‚Norm‘.“ Hans von Campenghausen, “Das Alte Testament als Bibel der
Kirche vom Ausgang des Urschristentums bis zur Entstehung des Neien Testamens”, Studiert sur Kirchengeschichte des
ersten undzweiten Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1963), pp, 152-96, especially p. 156.
107
Robert C. Dentan, The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments (Greenwich, Connecticut, 1954), p. 8.
108
Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1902), p, 433. Krister Stendahl
pointed out that the discoveries and research of the past half century have generally confirmed Swete’s position
concerning the agreements between the New Testament and LXX A in The School of St. Matthew (Lund, 1954), p. 172,
cited by Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., The Old Testament of the Early Church (Cambridge, Mass. 1964), p. 93.
109
Swete, op. cit., p. 133.
110
Ibid., p. 440-441. Already Elias Levita contended that the vowel-points were added to the text by the Masoretes as late as A. D. 500. Cf.
Sundberg, op. cit., 13-14.
111
Sundberg, op. cit., p. 47.
112
Ibid., p. 102.
113
Ibid., p. 103.
114
Dentan, op. cit., p. 14; cf. Sundberg, op. cit., p. 45.
115
Dentan, op. cit., p. 11.
116
Swete, op. cit., pp. 436, 438; Denlan, op. cit., pp. 17-19.
117
Dentan, op. cit., p. 2. Sundberg has argued, op, cit., p. 8, that if the canon is to be determined entirely by
subjective judgment, as Luther insinuated i t , then Howorth has appropriately made a pungent remark: “Everybody
must, in fact, either become an infallible Pope to himself or else accept Luther as an infallible
Pope”.
118
Sundberg, op. cit., p. 176.
Among the “Apocrypha”, I Esdras is the earliest. It was translated approximately between 246-198 from
the Hebrew originals written shortly before this time.120 We find in it (8:10) the expression “καὶ τὰ φιλάνθρωπα ἐγὼ
κρίνας” (“in accordance with my gracious decision” — R.S.V.) stemming from the usage of the Hellenistic
chancelleries. A cliché, without any theological consequence.
In the enlarged Greek version of Esther 121 we find only once the term of φιλανθρωπία, again in the
context of royal decree, but this time accompanied by the notion of χρηστότης (Esther 8:121). 122
Of similar tenor is “τὰ... φιλάνθρωπα βααιλικὰ” in II Maccabees 4:11, as well as καὶ τὸν τόπον
ἐφιλανθρώπησεν (13:23): “and showed generosity to the holy place” (R.S.V.). The three other instances of the
word used in the same book (6:22; 9:27; 14:9) do not offer any new connotation or meaning.123
The Wisdom of Solomon, sometimes dated as late as the early first century A.D., 124 represents the first
great attempt to make a synthesis between the discoveries of Greek philosophy and the great truths of Biblical
revelation.125 R.C. Dentan argues that it is “one of the great theological books of the Bible” 126 while H. Kraft, on
the contrary accuses the pseudonymous author of ontologizing the functional Hokhma of the Hebrew Old
Testament.127 I am inclined to agree with Dentan’s general evaluation, when he dares conclude that few would care
to defend the formalistic opinion that Ecclesiastes in the canonical Old Testament, with its essentially sceptical
view of life, is directly inspired by God, whereas Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, full as they are of
fine ethical teaching and God-centered understanding of human life, are not.128
The writer, who, for the first time in the Old Testament literat ure, conceives of God as Author of life
and peace beyond the grave for the righteous souls (Wisdom 3:1-3) 129 could have spontaneously called him
“Philanthropic; “φιλάνθρωπον γὰρ πνεῦμα σοφία (Wisdom 1:6).130
Here for the first time in the Biblical literature the term φιλάνθρωπον rises above the ethical level
into the sphere of theology. On account of its incipient theological application the term has no sentimental
overtones whatsoever, enveloped as it is by the unexpected idea of judgment:
For wisdom is a kindly (Φιλάνθρωπον)
spirit and will not free a blasphemer from
the guilt of his words. (Wisdom 1:6a, R.S.V.). 131
Before one goes deeper into the comparison between the pagan and the Biblical worlds it
would be good to question the appropriateness of comparative methodology.
Richard D. Lambert argues that there are three types of scholars. 132 First, the contrastists,
emphasizing the differences in the cultures compared. 133 The second type comprises the
119
Ibid., p. 147.
120
121
134-104 B.C., Ibid., p. 117.
122
Septuaginta, ed. Alfred Rahlfs (editio quinta; Stuttgart, 1952), I, 968. The combination of these two words will
be not forgotten by the author of Titus 3:4.
123
I-II Maccabees may have been written 104-63 B.C. But even a relative date for these books is pure conjecture. Cf.
Dentan. op. cit., p, 118.
124
Dentan, loc. cit.
125
Ibid., p. 83.
126
Ibid.
127
H. Kraft, Early Christian Thinkers (London, 1964), p. 13.
128
129
Ibid., p. 86. The idea of resurrection, however, begins to appear sporadic ally in post-exilic Biblical literature, and
by the Second Century was a well-established belief. Cf. John Bright, A History of Israel, (Philadelphia, 1959), p.
438.
130
The problem of identification of σοφία with the Divine Spirit will be dealt with later on in this chapter.
131
We shall find a similar non-sentimental approach to philanthropy in Chrysostom (Mt. Hom. XXXIII. P.O. 57,
391, 406 et passim).
132
Richard D. Lambert, “Comparativists and uniquists,” Approaches to Asian Civilisations, ed. W. Theodore de Bary
and Ainslie T. Embree (New York. 1964), pp. 240-45.
133
Ibid., p. 240.
comparativists who deal with a limited number of variables and try to determine whether there are
uniformities or regularities in the distribution of the variables.134 The third group is made up of
uniquists, who, persuaded of the uniqueness of a given culture, are suspicious of any compara tivist’s
work. 135
It is no small comfort to read the conclusion given by Lambert, according to which
“comparativists’ concepts can be... useful as organizing principles.” 136 Otherwise the criticism of the
comparativists by the uniquists is only too often justified... Qui trop embrasse, mal étreint...
Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.)

Whether Philo was actually able to create a philosophically coherent system of thought, as Wolfson
contends,137 or was not able to, as the latest inquiry of Sowers declares,138 is not of primary concern for my study.
What really matters is the undisputable fact that he was a living link between Judaism and Hellenistic culture.
He manages to interpret the Book of Genesis, for example, in terms of the story of creation in Timaeus.139 Völker
has argued that Philo was, “trotz aller Unselbständigkeit,“ an important link between the antiquity and
Christendom, too.140
Philo, it seems, inherited a tradition of Jewish allegorical exegesis in Alexandria, which tried to
elaborate a rational defense of the Scriptures using allegory to show the harmony between Scripture and
philosophy.141 In fact, Philo’s continual use of the technical terminology used by the Greek allegorists links him
unequivocally with the same method of secular philosophy and rhetoric. 142
While in the Palestine of his day faith in the resurreotion of the flesh was prominent, in Philo’s Alexandria
“l’accent fut mis sur l’immortalité de 1’ âme.”143 It is of interest in this connection to notice how Philo handles the
key notion of Biblical anthropology, namely, the εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. First, he excludes the possibility of “image of
God” ever becoming God Himself. 144 Second, he couples it with the notion of ὁμοίωσις which, as it were
opposed to the static εἰκών stands for a dynamic aspiration towards a greater likeness of God. 145 If Philo is
perfectly right in restricting any coarse idea of anthropomorphic confusion by saying that:
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid., p. 242.
136
Ibid., p. 245.
137
Wolfson, op. cit., I, 114.
138
Sidney C. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Intepretation of the Old
Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Richmond, Virginia, 1965), pp. 25-26, n. 46.
139
Harry A. Wolfson, “Extradeical and Intradeical Interpretations of Pla tonic Ideas, Journal of the History of Ideas,
ΧΧII, No. 1 (1961), 3-32, especially p. 6.
140
Weller Völker, Forlschrit und Voltendung bei Philo von Alexandriens: Eine Studie zur Geichichte der Frommigkeit
(Leipzig, 1938), p. 350.
141
Sowers, op. cit., p. 18. According to Wolfson the term allegory as an exegetical term was introduced by Philo.
Before him it was used only as a rhetorical term. Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I
(Cambridge, Mass., 1964), p. 71. As far as the allegorism of the pagan philosophers is concerned, Henri de Lubac,
Catholicism (New York, 1958), p. 84, stresses its absolute disregard for his tory: “‘It does not mean that these things
ever happened,’ said Sallust, Julian the Apostate’s friend.”
142
Sowers, op. cit., p. 20. Because of his fondness for allegory Philo is rather cavalierly dismissed, together with
Barnabas, by R. H. Snape, “Rabbinical and Early Christian Ethics,” A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. C. Q. Montefiore
and H. Loewe (London, 1938), pp. 617-30, especially p. 619.
143
J. Giblet, L’ Homme image de Dieu dans les commentaires littéraux de Philon d’ Alexandrie (Louvain, 1948), p.
106.
144
Ibid., p. 114. Sowers argues in op. cit., p. 104, that the Greek eikon sometimes carried the meaning of “form” in the
sense of a diminuation of the real thing, a “likeness,” and sometimes “form” designated the very “pattern” or
“archtype”. Here, obviously, Philo used it in the first, weaker, sense of a “copy,” although one can occasionally find in
Philo the “Neo-Platonic“ usage, also, wherein the eikon became a synonym for ιδέα and took on the meaning of
“model.” Wolfson established in Philo, I, 238-39, that Philo still applied the term image to things in the visible world,
but, unlike, Plato, Philo describes the ideas as well as the Logos also by the term image. This double use of the
term image reappears in the writings of the Church Fathers.
145
Ibid., p. 114, n. 3. Cf. Irenaeus Adv. haeres. I, V, 5 (P.G. 7, 500).
οὔτε γὰρ ἀνθρωπόμορφος ὁ Θεός,
οὐτε θεοειδὲς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα. (Οpif. 69).146

he is, however, too easily seduced by the pagan dis-incarnational point of view in which the soul is
ultimately divested from the body, in order to achieve its own “perfect image” 147
This kind of bodiless eschatology is, no doubt, what undermines Philo’s otherwise strongly developed
“philanthropology”.
Robert M. Grant has found a few remarkable similarities between the exegetical work of Paul and
that of his contemporary Philo of Alexandria. 148 If both are dependent on the hermeneutical tradition of the
synagogue, nonetheless both differ from the rabbinic exegesis in their outlook, as being both apostles to the
gentiles.149 Yet, according to Grant, “Paul cannot be explained merely in terms of his Jewish and Greek sources.
His whole personality was changed by his experience of conversion.”150
The difference in the vision of God between these two famous Jews will also determine the different
connotations of their respective uses of φιλανθρωπία. To this comparison I shall turn after a brief exposition of
Philo’s and the neotestamental uses of the term we are examining.
Richard A. Norris pionts out traces of a Hellenization of Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures, for
example in the Book of Wisdom, but he adds that: “its most typical and successful expression is to be found in
the writings of Philo of Alexandria...a contemporary of Christ.”151 W. Richardson, for his part, describes the
curious parallelism between Jewish history and Greek philosophy. 152 Much as in Jewish history there had
grown up a fervent expectation and quest for a Messiah, there was also in Greek thought, at least since Plato and
Aristotle, an “equally searching quest forthe perfectly wise man, the sage or philosopher-king... The educated
Jew, Philo, knew and used it.”153 Henceforth, he lavishly displayed his art in depicting Moses as a perfect king
and an insuperable Sage and Lawgiver. 154 L. E. Elliott-Βinns has tried to establish Philo’s source of inspiration,
and wrote the following: “Plato had held that the ‘creation’ was an expression of God’s goodness, a thought
taken up by Philo (Cher. 35).” 155 This statement even though formally credible is utterly one-sided, since,
according to Wolfson, Philo could have known from the native Jewish tradition that God is said to deal with the
world in two ways: by exercising His Goodness or by enforcing His law or punishment, 156 Philo goes even
further, when as if polemicizing with Plato, he says that God is “superior to knowledge, superior to the good itself
and the beautiful itself.” 157 On the contrary, neither Plato nor Aristotle, despite their belief in the immateriality
and simplicity of God, had any conception of the unknowability of God’s essence.158 When Philo posited a
formal distinction between the knowability of God’s existence and the unknowability of His essence, he must have
intended either to present a new interpretation of Plato and Aristotle, or himself as opposed to them.159 Elliott-
146
Philo, ed. P. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (10 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1962), I, 54.
147
Giblet, op. cit., p. 118. “δερματικὸς χιτὼν” of Gen 3:21 is often interpreted in this manner; Leg. Alleg. II. 56; Det.
159.
148
Robert M. Grant, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (London, 1965), p. 28.
149
Ibid.
150
Ibid.
151
Richard A. Norris, God and World in Early Christian Theology: A Study in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Terluliian, Origin
(New York, 1965), p. 9.
152
W. Richardson. “A Motif of Greek Philosophy in Luke-Acts,” Studia Evangelica, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1964), II, 628-
34, especially p. 629.
153
Ibid., p. 629.
154
De vita Mosis i. 148 (Colson-Whitaker, VI, 352), Similarly Abraham was presented also: De Abrahamo 261 (VI, 126).
Cf. De virtut. 216-217 (VIII, 296).
155
L. Ε. Elliott-Binns, “James 1:18: Creation or Redemption?“ New Testament Studies, I I I (1957), 148-61, especially p.
149.
156
Wolfson, Philo, I, 223-24. Also he specifies in Spec. i i . 32, 196 (Colson-Whitaker, VII, 428) that God, through his
“gracious nature... sets forgiveness before chastisement”.
157
Wolfson, Philo, I, 201.
158
Ibid., II, 449.
159
Ibid., I I , 117. Elmer O’Brien, The Essential Plotinus (New York, 1964), p. 15, is of the similar opinion.
Βinns, obviously, must have overlooked the fact that in the same treatise de Cherubim, which he quoted in
support of his, thesis, Philo speaks, very unplatonically, of the intimacy of God’s goodness as of a visitation of
One who is the Creator and
Who, in His tender mercy and lovingkindess
(δι’ ἡμερότητα καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν)
has deigned to visit created being and
come down from the boundaries of heaven
to the utmost ends of earth,
to show His goodness to our race. 160
As Philo’s belief in providence “ultimately rests upon creation,” 161 I would extend the impact of the idea
of creation to his understanding of philanthropia, also. Thus, in spite of all the “concordist” efforts devoted by
Philo to harmonize the Book of Genesis with Plato’s Timaeus,162 the Rabbi in Philo seems stronger than the
Hellenistic philosopher since he makes the option for a God who is “not only a Demiurge, but also a Creator
(κτίστης).”163 Consequently, when we hear someone say that virtue for Philo is of the order of Idea, that it has
an ontological value, 164 we should immediately adduce as an apophatic corrective to this assertion, that for the same
Philo God is “superior to virtue” (Opif. 2,8).165 Henceforth, when he states in his treatise “On the Virtues” that God
is θεὸς φιλάνθρωπος,166 he applies this anthropomorphic epithet to God only on the grounds of its pedagogical
value,167 without, at his best, losing sight of the apophatic perspective of everything pertaining to God, His
powers such as philanthropia included. 168
This apophatic framework of Philo’s thinking gives a new savor to the whole of his aretology, as if
rejuvenating the somewhat too pompous or antiquated vocabulary of the Hellenistic élite of his time. For
example, when Philo intimates that it all depends whether or not men will practice the virtues in order to obtain
good things from God who is “the Lover of virtue and the Lover of what is good and beautiful and also the
Lover of man (φιλάνθρωπος),”169 he introduces into Hellenistic philosophy a new approach to the mystery of free
will by teaching that “the human soul is endowed by God with part of his own power of freedom, to work
miracles in man as He himself works miracles in the world.” 170 And for the Greek philosophers, on the other
hand, there is no such thing as a will free and independent of the competitive forces of reason and the
emotions. 171
After an acquaintance with Philo’s uses of the term philanthropia I can classify them as follows: the
first use, in the age-long sense of the attribute of kings,172 or covering philanthropic legislation.173 Philanthropy
could stand for natural kindness to men, 174 or for the ascetically cultivated attitude of the Essenes. 175 We see
160
Philo, ed. Colson-Whitaker, II, 69.
161
162
Ibid.
163
Ibid., p. 301.
164
R. Arnaldez (ed.), Philon; de Mutatione Nominum (Paris, 1964), p. 11: “La Vertu, pour Philon, est une réalité de l’
ordre de l’ Idée, elle est une valeur ontologique.”
165
166
De virtut. 11 (Colson-Whitaker, VIII, 208).
167
Wolfson, Phiio, II, 128.
168
Ibid., p. 138: “The powers of God in the sense of the property of God to act... are not distinct from the essence of God., and
if the essence of God... is unknowable, then the powers of God are also unknowable.”
169
De Opif. 81 (ed. Colson-Whitaker, 1,66). (Further references to Philo will be to this same edition unless otherwise
stated).
170
Wolfson, Philo, II. 453.
171
Ibid., p. 452.
172
III, 258: X, 34, 36.
173
VII, 370; VIII, 138; IX, 336.
174
II, 414; VII, 366, 570. 572.
175
IX. 58.
philanthropia still used as a rather abstract label for virtue, 176 or, on the contrary, conveying the social concrete
concern, such as gifts of charity, 177 liberation of the slaves, 178 municipal help, 179 or as a virtue opposed to
niggardliness. 180 The exhortation against revenge would fall into the same category. 181 Once I have found a
derogatory connotation to it translated as “untimely generosity.”182
In a few but important instances philanthropia has a theological bearing on a property of God; going
together with ἐπιείκεια,183 or together with the unsentimental punishment of the Sodomites. 184 Once it is
even personified, together with ἀρετή, as one of the two “attendants” of the “gracious nature” of God. 185
Because of its relative importance I have deliberately left for the end of my survey the treatise “On
the Virtues”. In its four chapters four virtues are consecutively treated: courage, philanthropy, repentance and
nobility. The virtue of philanthropy is more extensively dealt with than the other three. 186 And this seems not to
be adventitious in Philo, the Hellenized Jew.
In the chapter on courage 187 we find the term φιλάνθρωπος attached only once to the law. 188 The term
is to be found twice in the chapter on repentance: first as a virtue of Moses 189 and then as an adornment of
proselytes. 190 Only in the chapter on nobility 191 is philanthropia put in a theological context: it is the source of
God’s gift of “reasoning faculty” (λογισμὸς) to men.192
In the chapter entitled “Περὶ φιλανθρωπίας” we again find the customary meaning of the term indicating
the virtue of a lawgiver prohibiting usury,193 or delay in paying wages to the poor. 194 There is philanthropia going
with φιλοξενία,195 as a protection of the slaves 196 or as the reconciling justice of the sabbatic year and of the
Jubilee. Once it is shown that the word philanthropy may, also, be hypocritically abused.197
At the very beginning of the chapter, however, φιλανθρωπία is significantly coupled with ἀσέβεια.198 Later
on aσ εὐσέβεια is opposed to ἀσέβεια in the same way φιλανθρωπία is said to be the opposite of
μισανθρωπία.199 Similarly it is united with ὁσιότης 200 and with ἐπιείκεια.201 And if for Philo φιλοσοφία has
176
II, 112; VI, 454; VII, 270, 288, 372; VIII, 18, 22, 66.
177
72. VII, 170.
178
78. VIII, 16.
179
X, 80.
180
VII, 228.
181
VI, 404.
182
VII, 168.
183
VI, 378.
184
VI, 70.
185
IX, 460-62.
186
VIII, 194-270.
187
VIII, 162-94.
188
VIII, 178.
189
VIII, 270.
190
VIII, 274.
191
VIII, 278-304.
192
VIII, 278.
193
VIII, 210.
194
VIII, 214.
195
VIII, 226.
196
VIII, 234.
197
VIII, 228.
198
VIII, 194.
199
VIII, 220.
200
VIII, 208.
201
VIII, 248.
already acquired the meaning of Judaic piety 202 how much more has philanthropia, since God is explicitly
called φιλάνθρωπος,203 but, to my knowledge, not once φιλόσοφος.
If Philo somewhat rhetorically ways that “piety” and “philanthropy” are queens among virtues, 204 he is
more down to earth when trying to establish that God is “philanthropic” because He is concretely involved by
loving Moses who is, therefore, θεοφιλής.205 By this minimum of historical sobriety Philo, in my opinion, merits to
be accounted among the writers of the Biblical trend.206
Let me add that as in Esther 8-12, we find in Philo, also, the combination of φιλανθρωπία with
χρηστότης or χρηστὸς207 which is not to be forgotten by the author of Titus 3:4. Philo is also the first to coin
the expression χάριτος καϊ φιλανθρωπίας208 which will be so characteristic, later on, of Chrysostom.
After all has been said, I cannot but show, for the sake of a balanced presentation, some of Philo’s
weak points which bear heavily on his “philanthropology.” These weak points may be summarized by the word
“contradictions” in Philo.
Thus, if Ceslas Spicq is right to insist on the classical Athenian philanthropy as being a “synonyme d’ esprit
démocratique, opposé au μισάνθρωπος et àl ὑπερήφανος”209 then Philo is too self-conscious of his excellence in Greek
paideia210 and even haughtily undemocratic as to call unclean all those who have never tasted of the fruits of
education (paideia).211
Also Mühl seems to be either inexact or merely contradicted by a “wavering” Philo, because, after he has
stated that in Philo philanthropy does not know any national boundaries, 212 we find in him quite an
enormous chauvinistic metaphor, sounding like a trumpet that “just as heaven holds kingship in the
universe and is superior to earth, so this (Jewish) nation should be victorious over its opponents in war.”213
But all this is of minor consequence for his “synthetic” view of theology, 214 wherein lies, in my opinion, the
real contradiction. To that terminal remark I shall turn very soon.
Problem of feeling
Before we start to deal with philanthropia in the New Testament we must open a small parenthesis for
the ancient problem of feeling or affect in God.
In contradistinction to the latin humanitas, which rapidly acquired the solemn and even pedantic
meaning of “culture,”215 the classical Greek philanthropia was rather approaching “une attitude affective, un
sentiment.”216 Logically, then — without, however, impairing the qualified simplicity and impassibility of the
divine nature, 217 one should say that God by being Φιλάνθρωπος must also be able to “feel.” Of course, Philo and
Justin Martyr had strictured already any coarse understanding of Biblical anthropomorphism. 218
202
De vita Mosis 216 (VI, 556); De Cherub. 129 (II, 84).
203
VIII, 208.
204
VIII, 220.
205
VIII, 208.
206
Wolfson, Philo, I, 184, argues that there is “no ground for the view that Philo did not believe in the revelation of
the Law as a historical event.”
207
VII, 354, 392, 356.
208
VI, 508.
209
Spicq. loc, cit., especially p. 171.
210
De Legatione ad Gaium 182 (X. 94).
211
Quod omnis probus liber sit 3 (IX, 12).
212
Mühl, op. cit., p. 91.
213
De vita Mosis 1. 217 (VI, 389).
214
Wolfson, Philo I I , 453-57.
215
216
Ibid.
217
Wolfson, Philo, I. 172-73.
218
Jules Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinité, II (Paris, 1928), 668, n. 3. Chrysostom, also, in De consubstant. VII. 4
(P.G. 48, 761), voiced himself very emphatically against any crude analogy since all Biblical language must be
Clement of Alexandria,219 in the East, and Lactantius, in the West, were the first to attack the Stoic ideal
of insensitivity as extended even to God Himself. 220 The most anthropomorphic of all the manifestations of
God was no doubt His wrath. While in the Old Testament the arousing of his divine “passion” developed on the
line of νόμος — παράβασις — ὀργή, in the New Testament it comes from a very different predisposition, namely,
ἐπαγγελία — ἀπιστία — ὀργή.221 The denial of the divine holy anger by so many philosophers, according to W.
Krause, amounted, in Lactantius’ view, to a practical atheism. 222 And H. Kleinknecht, as a Biblical scholar,
writes that the fire of the divine wrath is not otherwise kindled except after “contempt of his holy love in the
Gospel” (Rom. 2:4).223 C. Spicq in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus makes clear that “ce sont les
sentiments et la conduite de Dieu qui sont un exemple pour les croyants.” 224 Indeed, the unanimous witness of
the classical mystics of Christianity is one “of the consciousness of grace, of divine sensibility.”225 According
to H. Wheeler Robinson the mystery of the cross in the everyday life is minimized by “those who imagine the
Atonement simply as declaratory effusion of the forgiving love of God..” 226
In guise of an apophatic conclusion I should quote the insight of Virginia Corwin, who wrote that
“love is deeper than feeling and seems to imply a transformation of the self-centered individual.” 227 I would only
add, for my part, that we human beings can hardly separate love from feelings. And Wheeler Robinson calls
our attention to the impenetrable feelings of the God Incarnate at which “we can but reverently look when His
own hand lifts (the veil) for a moment…in the prayer of Gethsemane, in the cry of the Cross.”228
At this point of my study I would advance as a working hypothesis the traditional insight that it is the
Incarnation of One of the Divine Trinity, His work and His feelings which have replenished the Biblical
language with new power and perfected, among other words, philanthropia, also.
New Testament
Theologically used, φιλανθρωπία...τοῦ…Θεοῦ is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament, found in Titus
3:4. The first problem to be faced, therefore, is that of the authenticity of the Epistle to Titus. Be fore I approach
this thorny problem I should finish with the two other cases in which philanthropia has no theological
implications.
Thus, in Acts 28:2 Conzelmann translates this ancient noun with “Gästlichkeit,“229 while J. B. Smith
prefers to anglicize it, with “kindness.”230 The adverbial form φιλανθρώπως (Acts 27:3) is translated by the same
author with “courteously.”231 One is not in the least astonished that it was someone of Hellenic stock among
understood as a manner of divine condescension: οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνως, ἀλλὰ θεοπρεπῶς.

219
Clement of Alexandria, Le pédagogue. Livre I, 74, 3-4, ed. Henri-Irenée Marron and Marguerite Hart (Paris,
1960), 242, Cf. p. 243, n. 2.
220
Div. int. VI. 10, cited by Hans von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta, III (Leipzig, 1903), 109. A propos F.
Sierksma writes in Tibet’s Terrifying Deities (The Hague, 1966), p. 36, that except the “nirvanized” Buddhists
“mystics are always confronted with something or someone, and it is this relation which af fords scope for the
sublimated affect of love.”
221
H. Kleinknecht, et al., Wrath, Bible Key Words , ed. Gerhard Kittel (London, 1964), p. 124.
222
Wilhelm Krause, Die Stellung der frühchristlichen Auteren zur heidnischen Literatur (Vienna, 1958), p. 248.
223
Kleinknecht, op. cit., p. 124. Leon Shestov wrote, ironically, on the same subject in Athens and Jerusalem (Ohio
University Press, 1966), p. 309: “But, of course, one cannot demand of a learned man that he believe all these
stories, just as one cannot demand of him that he accept the God of the Bible who rejoices, be comes angry, regrets...
transforms water into wine, multiplies loaves of bread, leads the Jews across the Red Sea, etc. All this must be
understood allegorically or metaphorically.”
224
Ceslas Spicq, Saint Paul: Les Epîtres pastorales (Paris, 1947), p. 275.
225
Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God (London, 1963), p. 92.
226
H. Wheeler Robinson, The Cross in the Old Testament (London, I960), p. 191.
227
Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven, 1960), p. 266.
228
Robinson, op. cit., p. 192.
229
D. Hans Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeshichte (Tübingen, 1963), p. 146.
230
J. B. Smith, Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament (Scottdale, Pa., 1955), p. 366.
231
Ibid. Conzelmann added, op. cit., p. 141, a short notice: “φιλανθρώπος χρᾶσθαι und ἐπιμελείας τυγχάνει sind
geläufige Wendungen.”
evangelists who naturally used the already common word philanthropia, as Luke did twice — the man “who wished
to commend Christianity both to educated Greek or Roman and to the proletariat.” 232 But he did not place the
term in a theological context as did the author of Titus 3:4.
Concerning the problem of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, and the Epistle to Titus
in particular, opinions greatly differ. If we needed proof that the cold intellect is not the highest capacity in
man, we could find it, once more, in the case of the two ri val schools of hermeneutics, both using tools of the
modern method of Biblical criticism, and nonetheless reaching opposite conclusions. The best labels for these
two schools of interpretation, in my opinion anyway, would be the “traditionalist” and the “anti-traditionalist”
schools.233 Taking in consideration the main authorities in the field I would venture to say that, independently of
the problem of authorship, as far as my intuition goes, there is a special kind of self-authenticating ring about
all the New Testament writings, the Pastoral Epistles included. Of course, this intuitional argument may be
derided as so subjective as to almost ask for the sacrificium mentis.234 Therefore, I would propose the psychological
reason οf plain common sense that St. Paul, genius as he obviously was, indeed could have developed his
vocabulary and frame of mind up to his last years. Of the same psychological provenience is my last remark
on authenticity: Should there be any “pseudo-Paul,” he would have to copy rather slavishly at least the
vocabulary of the author he was supposed to plagiarize, which is not the case. Therefore I am in agreement
rather with the arguments of traditionalist erudition which considers St. Paul as the author of the Epistle to
Titus.
But even if it be proven in the future by an eventual discovery of documents that St. Paul was not the
author of it, my research bearing on the notion of philanthropia would not be impaired at all, because whoever
wrote the “philanthropic” Epistle was recognized as an authority equal to St. Paul by the very fact that his
writings received the universal endorsement of the Apostolic Church. And that is what, finally, matters for my
study. Namely, that the old term φιλανθρωπία once transplanted into the New Testament acquired in this new
Biblical soil a new semantic power. We now have to look more closely at this contextual change.
N.N. Glubokovsky saw in the terminological inventiveness of St. Paul a proof of his more than average
versatility in the Greek paideia,235 although he did not care to display a high Attic style, completely incongruous with
his purpose.236
232
Richardson, loc. cit., pp. 628-34, esp. p. 630.
233
The point of view of the latter has recently been elegantly presented by Professor H. Köster, “Pastoral Epistles,”
Encyclopedia Britanica, XVII (1966), 444-46. Fr. Schleiermacher was the first to deny the authenticity of the I
Timothy, mainly by adducing the prevalence of non-Pauline terminology (p, 444, col. 1). Friedrich Christian Baur
extended this doubt to all the Pastoral Epistles, arguing that since they are involved in anti-gnostic controversy, they
must be of post-Apostolic age (p. 444, col. 2). Professor Kösler concluded that critical scholarship, endorsing the
hypothesis of Schleiermacher and Baur, “has established their non-Pauline authorship almost beyond doubt.”
I will now quote a few authorities of the opposite conviction. Martin Dibelius, die Pastoralbriefe, Handbuch
zum Neuen Testament, 13 (Tübingen, 1955), p. 110, for example, was inclined lo believe that “Paulus müssle sich
seiner originaler Art zu reden im Alter entäussert und weltförmigere Ausdrücke angenommen haben.”
The late Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazoff), Christ and the First Christian Generation (Paris, 1950), p. 248, in
Russian, stood for the authenticity of all the Pastor al Epistles. Cf. Ceslas Spicq. Saint Paul: Les Epitres pastorales,
p. xxv. He argues (p. 261), that with the Church’s advancement into the milieu of the Gentiles, St. Paul put aside the
typically Jewish style of expression and tried lo communicate in a language more easily accessible to the new
converts.
234
The most recent commentary on Titus 3 tries to explain the influx of new terms of Hellenistic royal style,
such as φιλανθρωπία and ἐπιφάνεια, by way of citation. Joachim Jeremies and Herman Strathmann, Die Briefe an
Timotheus und Titus: Der Brief an die Hebraer (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 66-67. The official standpoint of the Roman
Pontifical Bible Commission is quoted by Alfred Wikenhauser in New Testament Introduction (New York, 1963), p. 438.
“I n morals and religion no purely objective evidence is obtainable,” says C. H. Dodd in his book The Authority of the
Bible (New York, 1958), p. 297, n. 1. Leaving completely aside the general Christian claim of participation into the
divine infallibility (“We have the mind of Christ.” 1 Cor 2:16; cf. John 16:13), I should quote here, rather approvingly,
L. C. Knights’ conclusion to his Explorations, p. 111, cited by E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley,
1963), p. 269, n. 108; “We need... not to abandon reason, but simply to recognize that reason in the last three
centuries has worked within a field which is not the whole of experience, that it has mistaken the part for the
whole, and imposed arbitrary limits on its own working”.
235
Ν. Ν. Glubokovsky, The Message of St. Paul, its Origin and Essence, in Russian, II (St. Petersburg, 1910) 966-
67, 974, 980.
236
Ibid., p, 969.
The “traditionalist” scholar C. Spicq acknowledges that the catalogues of duties and virtues in the
Pastoral Epistles were borrowed from Hellenism,237 but in a special book on St. Paul he came to the conclusion
that “la morale paulinienne est de structure trinitaire”.238
G. Holtz calls attention to the fact that in the next verse (Tit. 3:5) baptism is looked at uni-personally:
“Darauf blickend konnte wohl von der φιλανθρωπία Jesu gesprochen....werden.“239 Still, in my opinion, Spicq is
closer to the truth when he sees in Tit. 3:4-7 “un résumé de l’ Evangile,”240 not only because the salvation therein is
a pure mercy and grace received through baptism, 241 but, what is of paramount theological importance, that
this salvation is brought about by the Three Divine Persons.242 And the very motivation and cause of that
salvation is “l’ amour de Dieu,”243 namely, the divine philanthropy.
Almost without any particular guidance from a specialist one can easily recognize in the “God the
Saviour” of verse 4 the Father, and in “Jesus Christ the Saviour” (vs. 6), the Son,244 as well as the Third Person in
the Holy Spirit of verse 5. 245
If this exegesis is right, then we are entitled to speak not only of Jesus’ philanthropy, like G. Holtz, 246 but
of the Trinity’s philanthropy, as well.
The baptismal trinitarian context of the pericope is enlarged by the two richly evocative word
παλιγγενεσία and ἀνακαὶνωσις (vs. 5). According to Bishop Cassian’s interpretation παλιγγενεσία is an
eschatological notion.247 Spicq, in his turn, explained them as follows: “La palingénésie était... statique... l’
ἀνακαὶνωσις est dynamique. C’ est une croissance dans la vie surnaturelle.” 248 In the same passage (3:4-7) we
can see also that φιλανθρωπία (vs. 4), as an attribute of God, goes together with the divine ἔλεος (vs. 5) and
His χάρις (vs. 7). Also we can deduce from the main data of the passage that moral renewal de pends on the
sacrament of baptism (διὰ λουτροῦ), which is, in its turn, dependent on the philanthropic “epiphany” of the
Trinity.249
Cultural differences in the Biblical Trend
Only now, after having given a survey of the three different theological uses of the term philanthropia,
may I try to show their specific meaning as conditioned by the different idea of God, peculiar to each of the
three authors in question.
237
Spicq, Pastorales, p. 260.
238
Spicq, Vie morale et Trinité Sinte selon Saint Paul (Paris, 1962), p. 70.
239
Gottfried Holtz, Die Pastoralbriefe, 13 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1965), p. 233.
240
Spicq, Pastorales, p. 281.
241
Ibid.
242
Ibid., p. 280.
243
Ibid., p. 284.
244
A propos of σωτὴρ ascribed to both Persons, Spicq wrote in Pastorales, p. 283, that “Paul a coutume d’appliquer
au Fils tout ce qui appartient au Père et réciproquement.”
245
The only help we needed, and I think that Spicq has offered us correctly (Pastorales, p. 280), is the elucidation of
the relative pronoun οὖ which “ne se rapporte pas à λαυτροῦ, mais à πνεύματος ἁγίου par attraction, au lieu deö.”
246
Holtz, op. cit., p. 233.
247
Cassian Bezobrazoff, op. cit., p. 251.
248
Spicq., Pastorales, p. 287; cf. p. 278.
249
It is beyond the scope of this inquiry to investigate the important theme of ἀνακαὶνωσις or καινὴ κτίσις as having
an immediate effect on salvation, especially obvious in the sacramental life of the Church. See Heinrich Schlier, Der
Brief an die Galater (Gotlingen, 1951), p. 208, n. 2: “Wie es auch mit der Herkunft des Begriffes καινὴ κτίσις ‫חדשה‬
‫( בריאה‬Strack-Billerbeck III 519; II 421f.) sein mag... diese messianische Neuschöpfung hat für Paulus mit
Christus und dem Pneuma begonnen.” Bernard Rey, in his book entitled Créés dans Christ Jésus; La Nouvelle création
selon Saint Paul, (Paris, 1966), p. 234, argues that “l’ Apotre voit dans le corps ressuscité du Christ un être nouveau...
devenu étranger à l’ ancienne création.” I will only occasionally indicate the impact of this great theme on the
thinking of Chrysostom.
Indeed, we must expect religious language to be appropriately odd, and to have a distinctive logical
behavior. 250 J. Schrijnen believes in the existence of a Christian “Sondernsprache” 251 in which is reflected the
opposition between the old and the new conception of life.252
Some may doubt that there has been any renewal of the Biblical language accomplished in the New
Testament, but no one can deny the unique view of God, animating the neotestamental literature. My contention
is that only this new vision of God fills the term divine philanthropy with a particular soteriological meaning.
From the idea of God the concrete understanding of the divine attributes, of which the philanthropia is one,
depends also. Therefore, it is time to present my insight concerning the three different experiences of God, by
merely sketching the essential lines: while the Platonic God is impersonal, God in the Wisdom of Solomon is, as
in all the Old Testament, unipersonal. God in Philo is both unipersonal and impersonal, while God in Titus 3:4-
7 is one but Tri-Personal.
The juxtaposition speaks for itself, nonetheless I should briefly develop the corresponding conclusions.
I have already presented the debate on the impersonal character of the Platonic deity. 253 In Menander’s
self-exaltation as confessed in his verse: Βροτοῖς ἅπασιν ἡ συνείδησις θεὸς (Monostichoi 654) C. Η. Dodd saw
only “the anarchic individualism of the Hellenistic Aufklärung.”254 Indeed, personalism is theologically and
ethically thinkable only in the framework of a revealed personal God. 255 One can hardly love or imitate the
impersonal Fatum;256 therefore, according to Festugière, the Greco-Roman élite of the two first centuries of the
Christian era, out of boredom (ennui), could have looked only to magic and mystery religions for an escape from
implacable Fate. 257
The philanthropic character of the Platonic deity is therefore as vague as its personal character might
be.
The author of the Wisdom of Solomon, even though influenced by the language of his time, nonetheless,
according to Verbeke: “expose des idées qui ne sont pas empruntées à la philosophie hellénistique, mais qui
constituent l’ âme de sa pensée religieuse.” 258 One could too easily imagine that the parallelism between the
Temple of Zion and the “holy tent which thou didst prepare from the beginning” (9:8), would be a proof of his
enslavement to Plato, but, according to Wolfson “it was rather an old Semitic belief.” 259 The same writer argues
that σοφία in the Wisdom of Solomon has three stages of existence: (1) as a property of God, (2) as a being
created by God prior to the creation of the world, and (3) as a being immanent in the world.260 This means that the
250
Ian T. Ramsey, Religious Language; An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases (New York, 1963), p. 56.
251
Professor Kai Nielsen, committed to linguistic analysis as he is, cate gorically asserts in “Can Faith Validate
God-Talk?” New Theology, No. 1, ed. Martin B. Marty and Dean O. Peerman (New York, 1964), pp. 131-49,
especially p. 133: “There is, of course, no special Christian language”.
252
J. Schrijnen, Charakteristik des altkirchlichen Latein, p. 8, quoted by Hélène Pétré, Caritas: Etude sur Vocabulaire
latin de la charité chretienne (Louvain 1948), pp. 5-6.
253
Above, pp. 17-18. Festugière argues in Epicurus, p. 8, that in the Hellenistic age there are two opposed forces:
the civic religion, more and more losing its hold over the élite, and the personal religion, that is the Platonic religion
of a cosmic God which Alexander the Great helped disseminate. The “personalness” of this Platonic religion is only a
human phenomenon — and valid only by comparison with the previous collective character of the civic religion —
but without any idea of a transcendent divine person, as its justification and a point of reference. Cf. G, H. Dodd,
The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1964), p. 1.
254
Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, p. 6.
255
Vinzenz Hüfner, “Der Personalismus: Kritik und Überwindung des Exi stentialismus”, Moral zwischen Anspruch
und Verantwortung: Faslschrift für Werner Schollgen, ed. Franz Böckle and Franz Gorner (Düsseldorf, 1964), pp. 404-
27; “Nimmtman den Begriff (Personalismus) im weiteren Sinne, so haben schon Augustinus, Thomas von Aquin und
Duns Scotus die hohe Bedeutung des Personenseins.” I think one should look even beyond Augustin in this matter,
Cf. Lossky, The Vision of God, p. 167.
256
E. R. Dodds, in The Greeks and the Irrational, p. 246, explains the famous amor fati by describing the Hellenistic
individual as afraid of his own intellectual freedom and ready to say to himself “better the rigid determinism of the
astrological Fate than that terrifying burden of daily responsibility.”
257
A. J. Festugiére, L’Enfant d’Agrigente (Paris, 1950), p, 119.
258
G. Verbeke, L’Evolution de la doctrine du pneuma du Stoïcisme à St. Augustin (Paris, 1945), p. 238.
259
Wolfson, Philo, 1, 184.
260
Wolfson, Philo, I, 287-88. A. Feuillet writes, in Le Christ Sagesse de Dieu d’après les épures pauliniennes (Paris,
1965), p. 35; “Dans l’ Ancien Testament la personification de la Sagesse est poussée très loin, si bien que nombre
oneness of God and His vetero-testamental character of One Person remained traditional in the Wisdom of
Solomon.261 And all that, despite the fact of sophia’s being called “a breath of the power of God” (7:25), or “an
initiate in the knowledge of God and an associate in his works” (8:4 R. S.V.).
If the divine Wisdom is “philanthropic” (Wisdom 1:6), one is not astonished to find thereafter its normal
anthropological corollary, also: “Thou hast taught thy people that the righteous man must be kind (φιλάνθρωπος)
(Wisdom 12:19). This mimetic connection is based, in my view, on the fundamental commandment of the Old
Testament: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2 R.S.V.).
One can also gather that this philanthropic character of both God and His righteous man is, indeed,
rooted in the Old Testament, simply by visualizing the notions surrounding philanthropia, namely, ἔλεος
(12:22), which is a usual rendering of ‫חסד‬,262 and δικαιοσύνη (12:16), standing for the Hebrew term SEDAKAH,
i.e., “justice and Philanthropy”.263
It remains to make a final comparison between Philo and St. Paul. A short preliminary remark on the
general distinction between cult and culture should illustrate the distinct character of the creativ ity of these
two men. Vladimir Weidle strongly opposes religion and culture, by emphasizing the self-sufficiency of
religion,264 as well as the dependency of culture vis-à-vis religion.265 I think it is better, for the sake of clarity, to
replace the vague concept “religion” with the more concrete concept “cult”, since in that way one can more easily
perceive the derivative character of culture as being a “secretion of the cult” 266 and the revelational,
unconditional provenience of the Mosaic or Christian cult.
No doubt, cult is something more than the visible ritual, namely, the Passover, for the Old Israel and
Easter Day, for the new Israel. 267 I understand by cult, essentially, the coming in touch with the divine reality
and responding to it, “the contemplation of the divine light.” 268 Now, if that difference is conceded, we can grasp
the opposition between cult and culture as an opposition between the creativity depending, predominantly, on the
uncreated energies of God, and the creativity relying mainly on the natural resources of men. Roughly speaking,
then, achievement on the cultual level of creativity is recognized by a “canonization,” and fruitfulness on the level
of culture is crowned by an undying fame.
In practice, however, it is almost impossible to draw a border line between cult and culture.269 But one
can immediately recognize the difference, in our case, just by comparing the historical facts: the literary creations
of both the author of the Wisdom of Solomon and of St. Paul were deemed worthy of the supreme canonization in
the New Testament Church. Totally different is the place of Philo’s literary output: his own kindred silently
disavowed him270 and as far as Christians were concerned, Philo was readable, but not canonisable. The reason
is, in my opinion, that Philo was not simply a witness of “intertestamental” piety,271 but, above “intercultural”,
and, as such, heavily syncretistic.
I should now adduce my proofs.
According to H. Kraft, Philo loses himself in contradictions when trying to “nake a compromise between the
mutually excluding views.”272 I am ready to accept Wolfson’s evaluation of Philo’s orthodox use of Greek
d’auteurs... ne craignent pas de parler d’ hypostase proprement dite”. I do not feel competent to go into this
intricate problem.
261
See especially 9:1-4.
262
263
Wolfson, Philo, II, 220, Both C. H. Dodd and Nelson Glueck agree in translating ‫ חסד‬the first as: “kindness of men
towards menu in Τhe Bible and the Greeks, p. 59, das wort Hesed im altlentamentlichen Spraebgebrauche als
menschliche und gottliche Gemeinschaftgemasse Verqhaltungwesse (Berlin, 1961), p. 34.
264
Vladimir Weidle, “Religion and Culture”, Le Messager no. 79 (1965), pp. 14-21, especially p. 14. (In Russian).
265
Weidle, loc. cit., p. 19.
266
Ibid. p. 14.
267
Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London, 1957), p. 247.
268
Ibid.
269
Weidle, loc. cit., p. 19.
270
Montefiore and Loew, op. cit., pp. 615-39, especially p. 619.
271
He wrote for example, in Leg. ad Gaium 118, X, 59, such a quasi-Christian statement: “Sooner could God
change into a man than a man into God.” He tries, also, in Leg Alleg. I II 196, I, 418, to interpret the famous saying
“Not on bread only shall men live, but on every utterance that goeth through the mouth of God.”
mythology,273 but I do not see sufficient grounds for making out of Philo, by implication, a synthetic thinker. This
is, nevertheeless, the main conclusion to which Professor Wolfson has come. 274
The first contradiction of great theological consequence is his failure to be thoroughly apophatic. The
unknowability of the divine essence is finally denied by such a statement as this; “The mind of God in which
the ideas... were conceived... (is) identical with the essence of God.”275 Such an equation makes indeed, his
usual apophatic allegations sound like mere lip-service.
The notion of “synthesis” may sometimes mean mere “syncretism.”276 Therefore, to escape all ambiguity, I
have chosen to characterize Philo rather as a syncretistic thinker. The latter epithet has a less laudatory
connotation.
The second instance of Philonic oscillation one can see in Philo’e contradictory assertions: on the one
hand, that the body is the “temple de l’image sacrée et divine”277 and on the other, that the same body “doit être
dépouillé lorsque viendra l’état de la plénitude.” 278 Paul, on the contrary, eschatologically self-conscious,279
centered his vision of salvation on the Resurrected Messiah 280 and on the general resurrection of the body. 281 This
expectation gives a concrete meaning to his “hope of the eternal life,” which is the “transformation and
glorification of the body from baptism onwards.” 282
The main contradiction in Philo’s idea of God was pointed out by C. H. Dodd, who noticed that, on the
one hand, Philo’s writings gave evidence of a personal piety which was true to the Jewish heritage, 283 but that on
the other, he did not escape the philosophic tendency to a depersonalizing of the God of the Old Testament; hence,
“in very many passages θεός is used interchangeably with neuter expressions like τὸ ὄν, τὸ ὄντως ὄv. 284 The
same writer argues further that St. Paul enriched the bald and abstract monotheism of Hellenistic philosophy
with expressions about God closely similar to those of Hellenistic philosophy, and yet he “leaves his reader in no
doubt that he thinks of God always in vividly personal terms.” 285
The main dividing line between these two Jews is, no doubt, their different faith-commitment related
to the personal aspect of God: for Philo “Being-Alone is identical with God” 286 and for St. Paul God is Tri-
Personal.287 If Christian anthropology is linked with Christology288 it should also be inseparable from triadology, since
272
Exactly, according to H. Kraft, Early Christian Thinkers (London, 1964), p. 22, “he cannot unhesitatingly affirm
that the created world is good.”
273
Wolfson, Philo, I, 38, 41-43. Although, for a Jew, Philo is somewhat too accommodating with Hermes and Apollo.
Cf. Leg. ad Gaium 100-103, X, 50.
274
Wolfson, Philo, II, 457, 453-54.
275
Ibid., I, 232.
276
C. H. Dodd uses it in such a negative sense in The Bible and the Greeks, p. 248.
277
J. Giblet, op. cit., p. 117.
278
Ibid., p. 118; cf. De Vin. 78, VIII, 208.
279
Anton Fridrichen, The Apostle and his Message (Uppsala, 1947), p. 3.
280
N. Glubokovsky, op. cit., p. 844.
281
John A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (London, 1964), p. 80.
Titus 3:6 (“κατ’ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου”).
282
John Α. Τ. Robinson, op. cit., p, 81; cf. p. 75, n. 1.
283
C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, p. 7; cf. Wolfson, Philo, II, 120.
284
285
Ibid.
286
De legum allegoria 2:2-3, trans. Η. Kraft, op. cit., p. 18.
287
II Cor. 13:13; Tit. 3:4-7. G, Spicq, Vie morale et Trinité Sainte selon Saint Paul (Paris, 1963), p. 71. G. Verbeke
contends in op. cit., p. 427, that the terms Logos and Pneuma are not exactly differentiated as the Second and the
Third Person of the Trinity even as late as Justin Martyr. Nonetheless, Verbeke agrees with Jules Lebreton’s opinion,
op. cit.. Il, 471-80, that the primitive Christian community lived in a trinitarian frame of piety. Cited by G. Verbeke,
loc. cit.
288
Karl Rahner, “Theology and Anthropology”, The Word in History, The St. Xavier Symposium, ed. T. Patrick
Burke (New York, 1966), pp. 1-23, especially p. 2.
“finally, God makes Himself known in the fulness of His Being – the Holy Trinity.”289 This Tri-Personal revelation of
God290 has through the doctrine of the imago Dei a direct social, more exactly ecclesiological relevancy: “God who is
personal and... is not a person confined in his own self” 291 is a mysterious “model” for the plurality of co-equal and
unique human persons, as well as for their consubstantial Adamic unity of nature. Since there is a perfect love
between the Three Divine Persons, there should, ideally, reign among men also, by way of the imitation of God,
the same perfect love.”292 All that is summed up by Vladimir Lossky’s definition: “The Church is an image of
the Holy Trinity.”293
Philo has a different perspective with his experience of an impersonal or “lonely” God. Such a view of
God, according lo Henri de Lubac, leads to an “individualistic mysticism.” 294
After this brief comparison we are now in a position to measure the distance between Philo and St. Paul
even as far as their understanding of the divine philanthropy is concerned. Paul’s God in contradistinction to the
God of Philo, offered universal salvation concretely as “la philanthropie de Dieu à l’Incarnation.”295 Still, as the
“new creation is not a fresh start, but the old made now,” 296 so, in the same manner, through contextual
immersion, the old Hellenic and Septuagintal and Philonic philanthropie, was “baptized” by St. Paul into the
new trinitarian transsignification.297 It logically follows that the human language, as a part of human nature, had
to be changed, “crucified and glorified” by the sole impact of the “Hominisation” of the Divine Logos. This
renewal is accomplished, as there is no need to stress, only on the level of the Christian cult. The classical Greek
and the later Philonic uses of philanthropia have their proper place and value on the level of the culture in which
they grew and developed. Philonic philanthropia has even acquired a new accent as a result of the cross-fertilisation
between the Hellenistic and Judaic cultures.298 Indeed Philo reaches greatness when pointing to the holiness of
the vetero-testamental cult. 299
The cultual renewal of the words in the New Testament 300 which I have put forward as a working
hypothesis is, of course, not provable to “outsiders,” yet it is, supposedly, perceivable to those who believe301 that
there is such a thing as the New Covenant in the God-Man Jesus 302 and that the very teaching of the Messiah is
couched in the canonical writings of the New Testament. 303 Once this faith is granted one can conclude that the
289
Lossky, Theology, p. 246.
290
René Latourelle, Théologie de la révélation (Bruges, 1963), p. 79.
291
Lossky, Theology, p. 48.
292
„L’Agapé n’est pas moins active dans les relations avec Dieu qu’ entre los frères. Enfin, le chrétien est introduit
vitalemont dans l’unité de la Trinité Sainte”. Spicq, Agapé dans le Nouveau Testament Analyse des textes III (Paris,
1959), p. 268.
293
Lossky, Theology, p, 176.
294
Henri de Lubac, op. cit., p. 84.
295
Spicq, Pastorales, p. 277. This universal character of Christianity is underlined by Karl Kundsin, “Primitive
Christianity in the Light of Gospel Research,” Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research by Rudolf
Bitllmann and Karl Kundsin (Now York, 1966), pp. 79-161, especially p. 133. The distance between Philo and St.
Paul is seen also in their respective uses of the classical fable, which describes an imaginary discussion between the
members of the body. Cf. Philo De praem. e t Poen. 19 (114). 29 (125); de Virt. 20 (103) and St. Paul, I Cor. 12:12;
cf, John A. T, Robinson, op. cit., p. 59, n. 1.
296
Ibid., p. 82.
297
Titus 3:4-7.
298
Philo, who believed that the best of the Hellenic philosophy was copied from Moses anyway (E. Zeller, die
Philosophie der Griechen, Leipzig, 1908, HI 2,2, 344) easily linked the ὁμοίωσις Θεῷ theme with the commandment of
holiness in Lev. 19:2, Cf. Hubert Morki, op. cit., p. 35. According to Bolkestein, op. cit., p. 427, it was Philo who
started to shift φιλανθρωπία toward the meaning of caritas.
299
Philo, De Decalogo 67-74 (VII, 40-42); De Cherubim 105-12 (II, 72-74); Leg. ad. Gaium 360-71 (X. 178-84).
300
Thomas J. J. Altizer, in his article “Nirvana and Kingdom of God,” New Theology No. 1, pp. 150-68, especially p.
166, speaks of the “reversal” effected by the appearance of the Kingdom.
301
Amos N. Wilder, New Testament Faith for Today (New York, 1955), p, 180.
302
C. H. Dodd, Authority of tht Bible, p. 221. Cf. Bishop Gore’s opinion in Kenneth Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 20-21.
Oscar Cullmann, against Bultmann’s thesis, refuses to dismiss the extraordinary revelational events in the life of Jesus.
D. H. Wallace, “Historicism and Biblical Theology,” Studia Evangelica, III, 223-27, especially p. 227.
303
Dodd, Authority of the Bible, pp. 240-41.
supra-mundane light enveloping Christ’s declarations as a new semantic “halo”, falls even on such trivial
phrases as “I am thirsty”, since He said it on the Cross; 304 or “you are my friends”, since He said φίλοι μου
ἐστέ;305 or “so and so is of philanthropic inclination,” since φιλανθρωπία par excellence was ascribed to the
Trinity.306
The last but not the least neo-testamental argument for the re newal of all the languages — Greek language
included — is their pentecostal elevation into the Eschaton of the Messianic liturgy. Implicitly, this transformation
of all the tongues of the earth is postulated by A. Schmemann’s description of the Eucharist, which was
traditionally always multilingual, “pentecostal.” 307
In my judgment, this rapid “flight” over the borderline between Church history, Biblical exegesis and
theology was more than necessary in order to comprehend the later patristic approach to the same ground of
faith,
Christopher Dawson advised us to go back to St. Paul if we would to understand patristic
thought. 308
304
John 19:28.
305
John 15-14.
306
Titus 3:4-7.
307
Alexander Schmemann, “The Liturgical Revival and the Orthodox Church,” The Eucharist and Liturgical Renewal,
ed. Massey Hamilton Shepherd, Jr. (New York, 1960), pp. 115-32, especially p. 130.
308
Christopher Dawson, Progress and Religion: An Historical Enquiry (London. 1929), p. 159.
Second Century
Plutarch (50-120 A.D.) and Epictetus (50-138 A.D.)
Back to earth, on the level of Hellenistic culture, we cannot bypass two important figures who were
deeply responsive to the classical Hellenic tradition of philanthropia, namely, Plutarch and Epictetus.
While the term philanthropie, does not appear from the pen of the Apostolic Fathers even once, 309
Tromp de Ruiter writes that the use of the word philanthropia “frequentissimus est apud Plutarchum.”310
Hirzel sees in the philanthropic character of Plutarch a general trait of his period. 311 Plutarch even
became an historian out of philanthropy.312 His warm understanding of humanity and a likeable moral optimism
give their character to the Lives. 313
Together with the Stoics he believes in the philanthropy of the gods,314 emphasizing that the deity is
neither φίλιππον nor φίλορνιν but φιλάνθρωπον.315 Still, be it understood, Plutarch’s deity is rather an impersonal
divine principle.316 Exalted as he was in the twin priesthood of Delphi,317 he justified his high position by
appropriate words expressing his faith in a philanthropic deity. 318 Nonetheless, he could also easily attach the
same high-sounding epithet to a generous quality of wine or to a pleasant amusement. 319
Without penetrating to the final depths of the problems he courageously confronted,320 Plutarch did,
however, succeed in putting “the stamp of his personality... on the vast mass of the tradition which he used.”321
G. Faggin calls our attention to the fact that Plutarch, both as a philosopher and as a Delphic priest, tried to
comprehend the profound and pure joy that overcomes the soul in cultual adoration. 322
LeDéaut has concluded that one can find in Plutarch’s uses of philanthropia all the shades of
meaning previously attested in the Hellenic literature, as well as the confirmation of a wide currency of the
term toward the end of the First century. 323
309
Heinrich Kraft, Clavis patrum apostolicorum (Munich, 1963), p. 446.
310
S. Tromp de Ruiter, loc. cit., especially p. 295.
311
Hirzel, op. cit., p. 23; “Indem Plutarch Philanthrop war, war er nur der Mann seiner Zeit, der Kaiserzeit”. But
the same writer adds as a corrective to h i s description of the mores of the imperial Rome (p. 27): Das Gerfühl des
hellenischen Philanthropen empört sich gegen die rohen... Gladiatoren und Tierkämpfe der Römer.”
312
Ibid., p. 27.
313
Albin Lesky, op. cit., p. 824.
314
LeDéaut, loc. cit., p, 289.
315
Ibid.
316
A. Feuillet, op. cit., p. 70, writes that the pagan Hellenistic conception of the deity as the basis for the cult of the
divinized ruler was far from being unified. He sees two directions of development: “L’une, représentée... par Apulée
(Mat. XI, 2 et 25, 3) et les oracles Sybillins (I II, 11), accorde, à un dieu la prééminence sur les autres; l’autre, qui
s’exprime... dans Plutarque (Isis et Osiris, 57)... et dans Maxime de Tyr (Phil. II, 10a) se rattache au syncrétisme, et
fusionne les diverses divinités en un seul principe divin.”
317
318
“οὐ γὰρ ἀθάνατον καὶ μακάριον μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπων... νοεῖσθαι τὸν θεόν”. De comm. not. 1075Ε, quoted by
Tromp de Ruiter, loc. cit., p. 296.
319
LeDéaut, loc. cit., p. 290. Trump de Ruiter, loc. cit., p. 298, adduces such examples: ἡδονὴ φιλάνθρωπος (Numa
64Ε). “Ἑστία, κρατῆρες, ὑποδοχαί, ξενισμοὶ appellantur φιλανθρωπότατα.”
320
Lesky, op. cit., p. 821. Antonio Quacquarelli, La concezione della Storia nei Padri prima di S. Agostino (Roma,
1955), p. 13, contends that the classical historians, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius and Plutarch did not
recognize free creativity of men in shaping history. Only Christianity has succeeded “a dare un valote veramente
umano alla storia, con la tesi della resurrezione della carne.”
321
322
Giuseppe Faggin, Porfirio; La Lettera ad Anebo; La Lettera a Marcella (Firenze, 1954), pp. 9-30. especially, ρ.
12.
323
LeDéaut, loc. cit.
If we do not find the notion of φιλανθρωπία in Epictetus’ “Manual”, in the lectures of his maturity, 324 we
do, however, find a few sincere expressions adorned with the word philanthropie.
In the Gnomologium Epicicteum of Stohaeus we read: “Οὐδὲν κρεῖσσον μεγαλοφροσύνης καὶ
ἡμερότητος καὶ φιλανθρωπίας.”325 In the context of praises to his great masters, Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope, Epictetus recommends: “φιλάνθρωπος λαλήσῃ” (Diatrib. 4,6).326
The teacher of Nicopolis in Epirus taught that the virtues of philanthropy and nobility proceed from
Zeus327 But, on the whole, Epictetean philanthropy should be taken at its face value, at least, as
emotionless and purely intellectual, since he prohibits any admix ture of the emotions, which are to be
stamped out as “contrary to nature.” 328
In spite of this rigidity of the Stoic framework, Epictetus is famous for his accents of true love for
mankind — so much so, that attempts have been made to detect Christian elements in his legacy, 329 Indeed, he
proclaims that “all men have God for Father and are brothers by nature,”330 still, G. Germain rightly reminds us
that all this is said in a pantheistic frame of mind331
Let me conclude with a real pearl of Epictetus, who showed the unmistakable authenticity of his
philanthropic by enjoying the view of crowds of men; “Τί γὰρ ἐστιν ἥδιον θέαμα τῷ φιλανθρώπῳ ἢ
ἄνθρωποι πολλοί;” (Diatrib. 4,4).332
St. Ignatius and pseudo-Clement

Second bishop of Antioch, a most powerful theologian and Church leader, Ignatius suffered a spectacular
martyrdom in Rome, under the reign of Trajan, around the year 110. 333 Even though he prefers to use the
concepts of ἀγάπη and ἀφθαρσία 334 Ignatius could not be suspected of any lack in philanthropic insight or
disposition simply because he never used the word philanthropia in his extant letters.
C. Spicq, in a special work on Agape, argues for the closeness of meaning between ἀγάπη and
φιλανθρωπία already in the context of the New Testament. 335 If this semantic rapprochement between the two
terms is real, then we could say that, in practice, the use of ἀγάπη in Smyrn. VI336 is almost identical with the
philanthropic Church relief organization for the needy.
Once, however, we find the term chrestotes (benignitas) in Smyrn. VI337 which is the twin concept to
philanthropia in Titus 3:4, and we see, moreover, that it is theologically used as an attribute of the Father who
raised the flesh of Christ. 338
324
Gabriel Germain, Epictète et ta spiritualité stoïcienne (Paris, 1964), p. 70.
325
Epicteti Dissertationen ab Arriano digestae,ed. Henricus Schenkl (Leipzig, 1916), p. 488.
326
Ibid., p. 422. Διογένης... οὔτως ἥμερος ἧν καὶ φιλάνθρωπος (ibid., ρ. 333).
327
Ibid, p. 430.
328
Germain, op. cit., p. 116.
329
330
Fr. Copies ton, op. cit., p. 434.
331
Germain, op. cit., p. 111. The same author, nonetheless, op. cit., p. 89, calls Epictetus’ Dissertationes “un livre
de piété.”
332
Schenkl, op. cit., ρ, 398.
333
Helmut Kösler, “St. Ignatius”, Encyclopedia Britanniea (1965), XI, 1070, col. 1: cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology
(Westminster, Maryland, 1950), I, 63.
334
Ignace d’ Antioche-Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres, ed. P. Th. Camelot (Paris, 1051), p. 279.
335
Spicq, Agape, p. 22: “Χρηστότις et φιλανθρωπία sont deux formes de la révélation de l’agapè divine” (cl. Rom,
5:18). The same author writes in his article “La Philanthropie Hellénistique” , especially p. 178, n. 3, “Il est certain que
l’ identification de la φιλανθρωπία et de l’ ἀγάπη vient du Christianisme, notamment de Gal. 3:28.”
336
PG 5, 712BC.
337
PG 5, 713A.
338
Raymon Laflamme writes in his article “Nature de la bénignité divine, ” Etudes Théologiques (Quebec, 1963),
pp. 22-48, especially p. 34: “Bénignité est un agapé tourné vers le prochain. Bonté est de l’ordre de l’intention,
bénignité est de l’ordre de l’exécution.
This particular use of chrestotes was otherwise perfectly fit to signify, by extension, the union of flesh and
spirit, divinity and humanity in Christ, both before and after the resurrection, which was the central issue in
Ignatius’ polemics with his Docetic opponents. 339
The first link between the neo-testamental and the later subapostolic use of philanthropia I have found
in the pseudo-Clementine Epistle of the middle Second century. 340
The meaning of philanthropies, in the first instance, ie still very close to the old hospitality. 341
Afterwards, the author sharply contrasts φιλία and φιλανθρωπία, saying that φιλία is motivated by the
expectation of remuneration. 342 On the same premise, according to the self-appointed substitute of St. Clement,
Erôs also is opposed to φιλανθρωπία as being selfish.343
Very strange and daring, indeed, is the definition — much to the taste of psychology nowadays —
according lo which φιλανθρωπία would be a bi-sexual virtue.344 Its “female” constituent would be the disinterested
mercifulness (ἐλεημοσύνη), while the ἀγάπη πρὸς τὸν πλησίον should constitute its “male,” active
part.345 This ambiguous simile is, however, perfectly unambiguous as far as the semantic incorporation of agape
into the concept of philantropia is concerned. That the assimilation between these two Biblical terms has been
achieved at least in the mind of this unknown author, we can see by his placing of philanthropia where the agape
was usually found: φιλάνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ καὶ ἐχθροὺς ἐυεργετῶν.346
In the context of “love your enemies” theme, pseudo-Clement adroitly connects the concept of
philanthropia with the theme of the imitation of God, since God is philanthropos who does good to both the just
and the unjust. 347 Nonetheless, according to the same author, the divine philanthropia does not abolish the divine
justice.348
We will have to wait almost two centuries in order to find statements similar to that of pseudο-Clement.
Pagan tradition
As we have to choose only the most prominent writers on the pagan side, we shall limit our study to
Numerius of Apamea, Albinus, Marcus Aurelius, Celsus and Aelius Aristides.
The Middle Platonist Numerius 349 impressed Plotinus with his original theory of divine giving, which
takes nothing from the giver. 350
Specifically from the point of view of my research, Numerius is of some interest when he reaffirms,
following in this the Platonic tradition, the goodness of the deity, which is for him threefold and one. 351
In fact, not once did he apply the epithet φιλάνθρωπος to the Godhead, but, at least, he did attach it to his
master Plato, whose philanthropic mood he opposed to the severity of Pythagoras and the irony of
Friederich Augustus Schilling in his thesis The Mysticism of Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia, 1932),
underlined Ignatius‘ “deep indebtedness to St. Paul‘s religious thought” (p. 7) in fighting the “Christless Christianity—
Judaism” (p. 24), prophetically aroused, at times, to a point of “letting truth surge into poetry” (p. 39).
339
H. Köster, op. cit., XI, 1070, col. 2.
340
Concerning the date of the Epistle see J. Quasten, Patrology, I, 54.
341
De praedicationibus Petri inter peregrin, epitome Hom. XXV OG 2, 320C.
342
PG 2, 321A.
343
PG 2, 321B.
344
“masculofemina”. PG 2, 322C.
345
PG 2, 321C; cf. 328B.
346
PG 2, 321C.
347
PG 2, 321D.
348
PG 2. 324A.
349
I do not have to decide here whether Kenneth S. Guthrie was right or wrong when he adorned the Middle
Platonist Numenius with the title of the Father of Neo-Platonism in Numerius of Apamea; The Father of Neo-
Platonism Works, Biography, Message, Sources and Influence (London, 1917), pp. 97-98, but it seems very plausible
that he, indeed, was “the first explicit champion of a return to Plato” (Ibid., p. 193).
350
Ibid., p. 192.
351
Περὶ ταγαθοῦ Liber V, XXV-XXVI in Ibid., p. 27. Noteworthy is the “participation” of the Second and Third Divinity in
the essential goodness of the “πρῶτος θεός.”
Socrates. 352 One should not exaggerate the importance of this finding, but neither should anyone exclude the
eventual echo of this appealing term in Numenius’ readers, especially in such attentive readers and writers
as were Clement of Alexandria. Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, who explicitly quoted him. 353
Albinus florished under the Antonine dynasty. 354 According to John G. Milhaven, Albinus’ main direction
of thought followed the platonic pattern, namely that “die Idee des Guten ist an sich die erste Gottheit und der
erste Nous, dessen Gedanke die Realität der anderen Ideen konstituieren.”355
In one respect Albinus might be original when he propounded an infinite ascent of the mind on its way
in contemplation of the transcendence.356
For R. E. Witt, Albinus is an orthodox Platonist of the Second century, 357 but M. Gary points out that
his works contain an amalgam of Platonism with Peripatetic and Stoic elements; specifically Neoplatonic
doctrines are merely hinted at. 358
In chapter XXX-XXXII of his Διδασκαλικός, dedicated to virtues, the concept of philanthropia is
found only once, combined with ἔλεος, and again opposed to μισανθρωπία.359
Marcus Aurelius was praised by posterity more as a philosopher than as a wise ruler. 360 His dramatic
breach with mere rhetoric, in order to follow the Stoic philosophy had the ring of a conversion. Ever since, his
life has been the noblest commentary on the precepts of Zeno. 361 Junius Rusticus introduced his friend and pupil
to the teaching of Epictetus.362 Stoicism, indeed, was the most popular school of philosophy in his time.363
In the Meditations the concept of philanthropy is found only once, but in a decisive fragment dealing
with the thorny problem of theodicy. The philosopher in purple is questioning the good and philanthropic
(καλῶς καὶ φιλανθρώπως) order imposed by the gods, in which even devout men have to die and never
again to come into being. 364 Before this mystery Marcus Aurelius humbly bows in calm resignation: “ I f indeed
it is so, be ceitain of this that, if it ought to have been otherwise, the gods would have made it so.” 365
Nonetheless, his philosophical reticence dares to express itself by asking tragically, and still with
restraint; “if indeed it is not so.” 366 This clause, however, does not break the submissive tone of his conclusion
that “we should not be debating thus with the gods.” 367
352
Περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀκαδημαϊκών πρὸς Πλάτωνα διαστάοεως Ι, 9 Ibid., ρ, 67.
353
Ibid., pp. 214-215.
354
John G. Milhaven, Der Aufstieg der Seele bei Albinus (Munich, 1962), p. VII.
355
Ibid., p. 157.
356
Ibid., p. 158. Albinus could be taken as a forerunner of Gregory of Nyssa‘s vision of the soul’s perpetual progress
in sanctity. Cf. From Glory to Clory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical writings, selected and with an
Introduction by Jean Danielou, Irans, and ed. Herbert Musurillo (New York, 1961), p. 46. The same theme of the
mystical ascent as unending, never static, is found in Philo and, later on, in Origen. Cf. Henry Chadwick, Early
Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen (Oxford, 1966), p, 169, n. 100.
357
R. E. Witt. Albinus and the History of Middle-Platonism (Cambridge, 1937), p. 124.
358
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. M. Cary, et al, (Oxford, 1964), p. 28. Niels Hyldahl gave a rather fair
presentation of the general situation in his book Philosophie und Christentum : Eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum
Dialog Justins (Kopenhagen, 1966), p. 291: „Der mittlere Piatonismus will weder Mystik noch Gnostizismus, sondern
reines Denken sein. Seine rationale Theologie war wahrlich nicht reisvoll... Christliche Denker wie Justin, Tatian
(Orat, 5, i f.) und Klemens können sich bei weitem mit (Albinos und Attikos) messen.”
359
Appendix Platonica continens Isagogas vitasque antiquas, Scholia, Timaei Glossarium, Indices. Cura et studio Caroli
Friderici Hermanni (Leipzig, 1875), p. 186.
360
ΜΑΡΚΟΥ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ — ΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ, The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus
Antoninus, ed. with translation and Commentary by A. S. L. Farquharson (2 vols.; Oxford, 1944), I, ix.
361
Ibid., I. 265.
362
Ibid., I, 260.
363
Verbeke, op. cit., p. 428.
364
Meditations, XΙΙ, 5 in Farquharson, op. cit., I, 238.
365
Ibid., I, 239.
366
Ibid.
367
Ibid.
In spite of all Stoic self-mastery and all imperial pride, here breathes an air of natural sadness, as if
coming from a deep-seated doubt in the philanthropy of his gods, in which there is no life eternal for men,
not even for good ones. 368
Celsus was a Platonist pagan intellectual, 369 the first conspicuous literary antagonist of the Church,
writing in the days of Marcus Aurelius.370 Origen, in his old age, composed an answer to Celsus. 371
Even though one cannot find in the extant fragments the use of philanthropic we see therein such
close notions as εὔνοια372, χρηστοὶ 373 or πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἐυεργετεῖν.374
I shall try to indicate, in the conclusion of this chapter, the importance of Celsus in the “cold war” as
waged between pagan culture and the Christian cult.
The best representative of the Second Sophistic, Aelius Aristides, was rather an artist 375 and showman
than historian of political theorist.376 However admirable the period was, it did not produce first-rate
literature. 377 His Oration to Rome, is evaluated as still the greatest literary achievement in existence. 378 With
gross but skillful adulation, Aristides extolled the old theory that Rome has a mixture of democracy,
aristocracy and monarchy 379 and forcing the tone of official optimism, he sees “the whole world, as on a
holiday.”380 The cause of this universal happiness would be, according to Aristides, the impartial generosity
(φιλανθρωπία) of the Romans to all. 381
The concept of philanthropia is used twice again, always referring to the mild or humane aspect of the
Roman imperial régime.382
Theologically, φιλανθρωπία is ascribed to almost all the deities Aristides has praised in his “hymns.” Thus,
Athena is “φιλανθρωποτάτη,”383 Dionysus is “φιλάνθρωπος,”384 as well as Asclepius.385 According to Friedrich
368
Ιf I have spotted here the weakness of the Stoic panacea, namely, the ethical teaching of ataraxia (which is,
according to A. J. Festugière, Epicurus, p. 87, rooted in Timaeus 90 d-e and Laws X 903 b-d), yet, I have no reason
to doubt Marcus Aurelius’ sincerity in aspiring to be a Stoic Sage. And according to his creed “ the Sage did not seek to
ignore the world order or to escape from the meshes of Destiny... it was precisely because he understood this order
and submitted to it that he enjoyed an immutable peace.”
However, in Leon Shestov’s Athens and Jerusalem, pp. 307-309, one can find an inspired repudiation of any
worship of the philosophical “eternal truths,” as being an idolatrous worship of impersonal Necessity. “One cannot
persuade the eternal truths, one cannot move them to pity.”
369
Robert Bader, Der Ἀληθής Λόγος des Kelsos (Stuttgart, 1940), p. 4.
370
Amos Berry Hulen, Porphyry’s Work Against the Christians:An interpretation (Scotdale, Pa., 1933), p. 36.
371
Bader, op.cit., p. 5.
372
Celsi, Ἀληθὴς Λόγος, ed., Otto Glöckner (Bonn, 1921), p. 8.
373
Ibid., p. 22.
374
Ibid., p. 9.
375
Friedrich Walter Lenz, Aristeidestudien gemeinsam (Berlin, 1964), p. 237. E, R. Dodds, in The Greeks and the
Irrational gave the shadowy side ol the portrait by writing with his blackest ink: “...another interesting neurotic,
Aelius Aristides.”
376
Aelius Aristides, ΕΙΣ ΡΩΜΗΝ: To Rome, translated with notes and introduction by Saul Levin (Glencoe,
Illinois), 1950), p. 8.
377
Ibid., p. 5.
378
Ibid.
379
Chap. 90. James H. Olivier, The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ Though
the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 989. The same writer remarks in op. cit. p. 894, “Unlike
Polybius, Aristides is never on the defensive in his admiration of Rome, and he repudiates the Polybian expectation of the
eventual decay of the Roman government.”
380
B. Levin, op. cit., p. 29.
381
Chap. 98, J. Oliver, op. cit., p. 990; cf. Levin, loc. cit.
382
Oliver, op. cit., p. 986 and chap. 66, p. 987.
383
Aristides Ex recensione, od. Guilielmi Dindorfii, I (Leipzig, 1829), 30.
384
Ibid., p. 51.
385
Ibid., p. 68.
Walter Lenz the two “hymns” dedicated to Zeus and to Sarapis are the most successful in revealing the specific
religiosity of the Second century, as well as the inner development of this rare man. 386
For Aristides Zeus is a self-created god,387 father of all and benefactor of all,388 but, strangely enough, he is
never acclaimed as philanthropos. Sarapis, on the other hand, is addressed not only as the
“φιλανθρωπότατος.... θεῶν” but also as “the most awesome one” (φοβερώτατος).389 Still, the term
philanthropia is most frequently to be found in his oration To the Emperor, wherein the ruler is glorified as “divine
and philanthropic,”390 whose phitanthropia is rhetorically accompanied by all other traditional virtues, such as
δικαιοσύνη, εὐσέβεια, πραότης;391 ἐλευθερία,392 ἡμερότης, ἐπιείκεια, εὔνοια;393 ἀνδρεία.394 Of
course, he could not forget to require from an ideal emperor versatility in paideia also. 395 Finally, philanthropia
occurs twice in Aristides’ rhetoric exercises as the professional virtue of judges. 396
Christian trend: Justin, Theophilus and Irenaeus

For his own times, Justin was a prominent lecturer in philosophy and a serious pioneer in theology.” 397 A.
Hamman gives him credit for being the fist intellectual figure able to acquire the “droit de cité” for Christian
thought.398 More familiar with the Bible than with Demosthenes or Isocrates, his style is rather lacking in
correctness. 399 But, as he sincerely believed that all good pagan philosophers were illumined by the same
Logos,400 he was therefore appreciative enough to use their lexical heritage.401 There is also, among others, the
age-long term philanthropia, which he linked — as a professional “philosopher” — with the theme of the
imitation of God 402
In spite of a subordinationist flavor in his triadology and the cosmological limitations of his Christology,
Justin nonetheless had an “idée de génie” in making Platonism and Philonism serve the truth of Christianity. 403 He
felt not only fervent love toward the prophets who were χριστοῦ φίλοι404 but toward all men, regardless of
their race, if they receive — through Christ — a new circumcision, which will make each of them a friend of
God. 405
I am not in the least astonished that such a man was the first among the Apologists to quote explicitly
the hapex legomenon “philanthropia” in the New Testament, namely Titus 3:4.406 God is said to be ἐλεήμων
386
F. W. Lenz, op. cit., p. 234.
387
Dindorfii, op. cit., p. 2.
388
Ibid., p. 10.
389
Ibid., p. 93. Anton Ηöfler, in his book Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides (Stuttgart, 1935), p. 90, interprets
this latter epithet as follows: “Vielleicht knüpft an diese Vorstellung auch die Tatsache an, dass in Smyrna Sarapis
und Isis mit den Rachegötlineng emeinsam verehrt wurden.“
390
Dindorfii, op. cit., p. 98.
391
Ibid., p. 101; cf. pp. 103, 104.
392
Ibid., p. 105.
393
Ibid., p. 106.
394
Ibid., p. 108.
395
Ibid., p. 102 H. I. Marrou defined the “civilisation hellenico-romaine comme une civilisation de la παιδεία,” in his
Clement d’Alexandrie: Le Pédagogue, introduction, pp. 7-97, especially p. 67, n. 1.
396
Aristides, Libri rhetorici II, ed. W. Schmid (Leipzig, 1926), p. 16.
397
La Philosophie passe au Christ : L’Oeuvre de Justin, ed. Adalbert Hamman (Paris, 1958), p. 22.
398
Ibid., p. 20.
399
Ibid., p. 21.
400
Ibid., p, 34; cf. Philo, VIII, 203.
401
Cf. the index drafted by Louis Pautigny (ed.), Justin, Apologies, texte grec, traduction française, Introduction et
index (Paris, 1904), pp. 183-98.
402
I Apol. X, ibid., p. 16; cT. Merki, op. cit., p. 44.
403
Hamman, op. cit., p. 26.
404
Trypho VIII, 1 in Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon, éd. Georges Archambault, I (Paris, 1909), 40.
405
Trypho XXVIII, 4, ibid., p. 126.
406
Trypho XLVII, 5, ibid., p. 212.
καὶ φιλάνθρωπος407 because He spared Nineveh. Philanthropia is also a gift from the Father — through the
Crucified One — together with piety, justice, faith and hope. 408
Henry Chadwick sees a providential interference in the fact that the New Testament writers did not
philosophize, thus keeping the gospel independent of all the intricacies of the First century metaphysical
structure. 409 When evaluating the contribution of Justin, he greets in him a daring thinker, who is, among the
early Christian theologians, “the most optimistic about the harmony of Christianity and Greek philosophy.”410
Theophilus of Antioch, even though less acquainted with the Greek paideia than Justin,411 seems, in the
view of Gustave Bardy, a weightier witness of growing Orthodoxy, simply by the fact that he was vested with the
dignity of a bishop. 412
In his Apology philanthropia appears only once, but in an important passage which emphasizes the mystery
of free will as the way to deification.413
Behind the latin version of St. Irenaeus’ phrase, “misericors Dominus et amans humanum genus” (Adv.
haeres. I I I , 18, 6-7), the editor F. Sagnard saw the quotation of the philanthropic verse of Titus 3-4 414, The
context is that of the economy of salvation.
My attention has been, especially, attracted by the phrase: εἰς φιλίαν ἀποκατέστησεν ἡμᾶς ὁ
Κύριος διὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκώσεως.415 Under the all-embracing notion of apocatastasis the divine
φιλία here seems very much akin to the divine philanthropy, since it has been found in the clearly
soteriological context of Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation, which is, according to Gustaf Wingren, oriented
toward the victorious parousia.416
While on the scene of Second century theologizing, Marcionite and Valentinian doctrine developed, as
it seems, in the direction of hostility toward the Creator and the Creation 417 (and the Creation is the basic
presupposition of a dynamic culture), Christian thought, especially in Justin, dared to tackle the problem
of the relationship between the new cult and the old culture. Justin feels so confident as to claim that
Christianity is the primeval philosophy newly rediscovered.418
In spite of this ambiguous identification of Christianity with the aboriginal philosophy, which would make
the intermediary Greek philosophy completely superfluous, 419 in fact there was going on the slow process of the
Christianization of certain Hellenistic notions. 420
407
Dialogue CVII, 2. ibid.. II, 156.
408
Dialogue CXXXVI, 2, ibid., p. 290.
409
Henry Chadwick, op. cit., pp. 4-5.
410
Ibid., p. 10.
411
Gustave Bardy (ed.), Théophile d’ Antioche, Trois livres à Autolycus,trans. Jean Sender (Paris, 1948), p. 11.
412
Ibid., p. 7.
413
Ibid., p. 164.
414
Irenaeus, Contre les hérésies, Livre I I I , ed. F. Sagnard (Paris, 1952), pp. 324-25. Behind the twice used
“miséricorde” in Irenaeus’ Démonstration 60, one, at least, may have been philamhropia or chresotes, Irénée de Lyon,
Démonstration de la prédication apostolique, nouvelle traduction de 1’ arménien par L. M. Froidevaux (Paris, 1959), p.
125.
415
Bruno Reynders, Fragments grecs; Lexique comparée du texte grec et syriaque de l’ “Adversus haereses”de Saint
Irénée (Louvain, 1954), p. 32.
416
Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theol ogy of Irenaeus (Philadelphia, 1959), p.
193.
417
R. M. Grant., Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York, 1959), p. 137.
418
Niels Hyldahl, op. cit., p. 234: “Das Christentum ist... die wiedergefundene Urphilosophie.”
419
Ibid.
420
Ibid., p. 251, Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (Boston, 1965), pp. 24-25, argues that the Early
Catholicism, as opposed to the eschatologically aroused Apostolic age, is the product of de-eschatologizing and of
Hellenization. He proposes his theory of “Consistent-Eschatology” as the key to the com prehension of Primitive
Christianity p. (35). Werner’s theory of “Consistent-Eschatology” is seriously criticized by Oscar Cullmann in Christ
and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (London, 1962), p. 87. H. E. W. Turner in The
Pattern of Christian Truth (London, 1954), pp. 23-27, also criticizes Werner’s exaggerations.
On the side of the pagan thinkers it has become crystal clear that they must uphold the inherited Helleno-
Roman culture as inseparable from their pagan cult, since Justin claimed that they are separable. 421
Here there is an important correction to the basically valid insight of V. Weidle 422 that I find in Marrou’s
statement; “Le Christianisisme ne crée pas les civilisations ... il les pénètre, les assume... et les modèle
conformément à la perspective.” 423 Thus, the newly revealed divine cult would not be so much culture-
producing as culture-orienting. This aspect of the disparity between cult and culture will be even more obvious
with the deeper incrustation of Christianity by classical culture, as took place in the works of Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and, later on, in the Cappadocian Fathers.
On the other hand, the intolerant attitude that Tatian took in rejecting Greek culture en bloc424 was facile
oversimplification resulting in the reduction of Christianity to a more authentic paideia, allegedly poesessed by the
Barbarians in contradistinction to the pseudo-paideia of the Greeks.425 Such a “cutting-off” solution as is found
in Tatian’s Oration (42, 1;35, i;29) is ironically enough, inspired by the best Greek tradition of Cynicism.426 Justin,
on the contrary, by refusing the simplistic exclusivism of the Cynics’ evaluation of what is false or true paideia427
was able to conceive of Christianity as an entirely new tertium genus, superior to the Gentiles and the Jews. 428
Irenaeus. in turn, appealed to reason and solid argument. 429 H. Chadwick argues that the “church
rejected the Gnostics because they used reason too little, rather than because they used it too much.” 430
If Justin rejects all pagan invitations to a religious syncretism, 431 he is, nonetheless, willing to
acknowledge that the higher philosophical truths about God were not acquired through any diabolical agency,
but that they came either through copying the writings of Moses or through divinely given reason.” 432
The main characteristic of the Church in the Second century, according to Robert M. Grant, is variety in
thinking,433 “except the uniformity or the solidarity of Christianity fighting the heathen world.”434
Celsus rejects primarily the apologists doctrine of Christ as the true Logos. 435 He thinks that the ancient
divine Logos is to be found exclusively in the great intellectual achievements of the Greek genius, and not in
this new-fangled Christianity. 436 He reverses Justin’s arguments and asserts that Noah’s flood is borrowed from the
myth of Deucalion,437 and frontally attacks the idea of the passible, man-befriending God of the Old and New
Th. G. Chifflot writes in Approches d’une théologie de l’histoire (Paris, 1960), p. 19, that Albert Schweitzer and
Martin Werner:
ont eu raison d’instister sur le fait que le salut chrétien est lié au temps, et sur l’espérance eschatologique des
premiers chrétiens. Mais ils n’ ont pas vu que cette espérance... est désormais, depuis Pâques, fondée sur la
foi à un évènement, du passé. Dès lors, la prolongation des “derniers Jours” n’en change aucunement le
caractère.
421
Chadwick, op. cit., p. 3D.
422
See above, p. 57.
423
Marrou, op. cit., p. 66. The difference and tension between cult and culture was emphasized by Prince Nicholas S.
Troubétzkoy in his article “The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues,” Evraziyskiy Vremennik, in Russian
(Berlin, 1923), pp. 107-124, especially pp. 120-21.
424
Quasten, op. cit., 1, 220.
425
Hyldahl, op. cit., p. 246.
426
Ibid.
427
Ibid., p. 247.
428
Dial, 8,1-2. Cf. ibid., p. 243.
429
Chadwick, op. cit., p. 9.
430
Ibid. He adds that “ i n rejecting the gnostic way the Christians thereby rejected as an inauthentic adulteration...
any theology of pure revelation teaching salvation by an arbitrary predestination of the elect and the total depravity
of the lost, possessing no criteria of rational judgment.”
431
Ibid., p. 13.
432
Ibid.
433
Robert M. Grant. Second-century Christianity·, A Collection of Fragments (London, 1046), p. 12.
434
Ibid., p. 13.
435
Kraft, op. cit., p. 59.
436
Ibid.
437
Testaments,438 by insisting that God does not love man any more than dolphins, 439 and that he is impersonal,
anyway.440 No doubt Celsus writes with an uneasy conscience, since he is a polytheist who knows he ought not to
be one.441
The issue at stake was, then, to see and to prove in action whether the divine power is behind the
official cult of the gods of the Empire, or in the cult of the Church. The persecutions only dramatized the choice
between the pagan pantheon as the final point of stability in a world of apparently senseless change, on the
one hand, and the Christian God, the initiator of significant change in history, on the other hand. 442
Celsus fumed with an angry zeal to persecute the Christians, 443 since for him Christianity was not
merely a religious revolution with profound social and political consequence, but essentially a movement hostile
to all cherished cultural values. 444
Indeed, after the outbreak of mob-violence against the Christian communities of Lyon and Vienne in
Gaul, Marcus Aurelius replied that the law must take its course in regard to subduing the religious disobedience
of the Christians.445 His persecution of 177-180 is characterized by Henri Grégoire as “la première... qu’ on puisse
qualifier de générale.”446 This pitiless move could have been made by the Emperor-Philosopher only in the
name of a total cultual commitment as he saw it in the given situation. 447 Festugière has noticed that
Marcus Aurelius was a kind of mystic, dedicated to upholding the Stoic cosmic religion. 448 The Stoic Emperor
sensed that Christians by accepting their Christ as the only Son of God rejected the claim to divinity put
forward on behalf of the “virtue” and “fortune” of Caesar. 449 Charles Norris Cochrane saw the core of the clash
between the two religions in the fact that the Christians dissociated themselves “from the hopes and fears
embodied in the Augustan empire.” 450
Niels Hyldahl pointed out that in Justin’s use “βίος” means “culture” or “civilization,” 451 and I think
that μυστήριον stands for “cult”, which is a higher sacramental level of life. 452 This “mysterial”, cultual
orientation in Justin’s use of the Middle Platonic terminology explains the infusion of a new Christian content
into it.453 Aelius Aristides, from the opposite camp, bears witness to a cultual meaning of the pagan ritual meal
in the temple of Sarapis,454 and, in general, to a vitality of the old culture.
Neither should we overlook the opposition between the aristocratic stamp of the pagan cult, embodied,
at its best, in the “chapels” of the traditional “sects” of philosophers and the mystery sodalities, open to the
438
Celsi, Ἀληθὴς Λόγος, op. cit., p. 28: „Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Χριστιανοί μέντοι ἀνθρώπινα πάθη προσάπτουσι τῷ θεῷ.”
439
440
Ibid.
441
Ibid.
442
R. A. Norris, op. cit., p. 39.
443
Henri Grégoire, Les Persécutions dans l’Empire Romain (Brussels, 1964), p.185.
444
445
Farquharson, op. cit., I, 267.
446
Grégoire, op. cit., p. 247 Farquliarson, ibid., on the contrary, thought that it was a local persecution. Gabriel
Germain, in op. cit., p. 157, finds a reason for being cruel in the imperial purple itself. For the Christian Emperors, as
well. This explanation seems to me unfair both toward the pagan and the Christian Emperors of Rome, who were
not persecutors.
447
G. Germain, loc. cit., argues that for Marcus Aurelius Christians seemed to be against the universal Reason he
worshipped.
448
Festugière, Epicurus, p. 88.
449
Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (New York, 1944-1957), p. 225.
450
Ibid.
451
452
Dial. LXXXV7, Justin Dialogue avec Tryphon, op. cit., I I , 60: “τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πάλιν γενέσεως ἡμῶν”. Cf. pp.
110, 150, 2, 6, 4 et passim.
453
454
Anton Höfler, op. cit., p. 95: “Das Sarapismahl selbst ist ohne Zweifel eine sakrale Begehung (Kultmahl).”
Michael I. Rostovtzeff in his The Mentality of the Hellenistic World and the After-Life, Ingersoll Lecture for the
Academic Year 1937-1938 at Harvard University, argues that “the cult of Sarapis was a state religion. Its Egyptian
counterpart, the religion of Osiris, was never a mystery cult. ...The Oriental religions were transformed into mystery
religions by Greeks... not by Orientals”, (pp. 23-24).
happy few,455 and the Christian cult, incarnate in the Church, which is, according to Justin, the primeval
philosophy now accessible to all.456 Amos Berry Hulen concluded, rightly in my view, that Celsus’ contempt for
the common people disqualified him for judgments of a purely religious character, which are entirely independent
of formal education.457
An authority on the Second century, Robert M. Grant, gives the appropriate over-all conclusion
when he says that “the speculations of the Alexandrians before Clement had little influence elsewhere, and
indeed we see Christianity at its best not in Egypt with the philosophers, but at Rome, at Smyrna and Scilli,
with the martyrs.” 458
455
Celsi, Ἀληθὴς Λόγος, op.cit., p. 41.
456
Hyldahl, op. cit., p. 234, Cf. Ragnar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to
St. Justin’s Apologies,” Studia Theologica, XII (1958), 167-68.
457
Hulen, op. cit., p. 37.
458
Grant, Second-century Christianity, p. 17.
39
Third Century
Epistle to Diognetus, Clement of

Alexandria, Origen
Roger Rémondon argues that during the reign of the Severian dynasty (198-
235) it was religious syncretism which was used as the means of unifying the
Empire.459 He says explicitly that Elagabalus wanted to impose “un syncrétisme...
sous la suprématie du dieu soleil Baal d‘ Emèse... pour que le sacerdoce d‘
Elagabal possède le secret de toutes les religions.460 Toleration is offered to the Jews
and the Christians only at the price of stopping any attempt of proselytism. 461 But
that was inacceptable, at least for the Christians, who were rapidly gaining converts
not only among the masses, but among the elite also, even among the Emperors
themselves, 462 The relative freedom that the Christians have enjoyed since the
reign of Septimius Severus was disrupted by the persecution intermittently launched
first under Maximinus the Thracian and Decius, then under Valerian, Aurelian,
Tacitus and Probus. 463
According to J. Tondriau, some leaders imagined they could solve the
terrible crisis of the third century by the desperate means of persecutions. 464
Philosophy having abjured her secular task, the duty of leadership was left to the
rough men of the camp. 465 The Emperor is not satisfied with absolute, political
459
Roger Rémondon, La Crise de l’Empire Romain de Marc-Aurèle à Anastase (Paris,
1964), p. 96.
460
Ibid.
461
Ibid.
462
H. Grégoire, op. cit., p. 13. The same writer asserts, pp. 9 and 28, that the Emperor
Philip the Arabian (244-249) was Christian, as well as Marcia, the mistress of
Commodus.
463
Ibid., p. 63.
464
L. Cerfaux et J.. Tondriau, Le Culte des souverains dans la civilisation Gréco-
Romaine (Tournai, 1957), p. 407.
465
4 Cochrane, op. cit., p. 174. 40
power; he even has the presumption to subordinate all cults to his own person as
well,466 In such a situation a clash, according to Rémondon, was inevitable, since “le
prosélytisme des chrétiens transforme leur rejet des dieux établis en profession
d’athéisme asocial et rend inacceptable leur Dieu, à la fois exclusif et universel.”467
Pierre de Labriolle, however, has perceived that the pagans not only had
brute force to oppose against rising Christianity, but that their philosophers
could counterbalance Christian “charity” with their own “philanthropy”, the
principles of which they taught in their schools.468 Few of them did so, as we
shall see after a survey of the Christian camp.
The Epistle to Diognetus was written, according to Marrou, around the year
200 by Pantaenus. 470
469
The epithet φιλάνθρωπος (VIII, 7)471 underlines the well-intentioned character

οf the Creator. The second appearance of the concept, in its substantive
solemnity, is found in a context echoing the pericope of Titus 3:4-5. 472 The
apophatic character of the divine philanthropia is made more explicit by the
adjective “ὑπερβάλλουσα” attached to it.473
How overzealous Clement of Alexandria was in appropriating Hellenic
philosophy for Christianity can be gathered, according to W. Richardson, from the
fact that his basic concept is that of the “Νόμος ἔμψυχος” which he inherited from the
Νeo-Pythagorean and Stoic-Chrysippian tradition through Philo of Alexandria. 474
466
Grégoire, op. cit., p. 61, writes apropos: “Aurélien permit même qu’ on identifiât”...
avec son dieu et il est le premier empereur romain qui, de son vivant ait été qualifié de
Deus et de Dominus.
467
S. R. Rémondon, op. cit., p. 93.
468
Pierre de Labriolle, La Réaction paienne: étude sur ta polémique antichrétienne du I
au VI siècle (Paris, 1934), p. 60.
469
A. Diognète, introduction, édition critique, traduction et commentaire de Henri
Irénée Marrou (Paris, 1951), p. 263.
470
Ibid., p. 266.
471
Ibid., p. 70.
472
Ibid., IX. 2, ρ, 74.
473
The same adjective is attached to philanthropia by Ciement of Alexandria in Protrept
4IX, 82, 2 GCS Clemens Alexandrinus, ed. Otto Stählin, 1 (Leipzig 1905),41
62.
After Justin, Clement is the second explicitly to quote Titus 3:3-5. 475 But he was
acquainted also with Aeschylus’ “Prometheus.” wherein the word φιλάνθρωπος
first appeared. 476
Next to Plato, as far as the number of quotations is concerned, 477 come
Chrysippus478 and Plutarch,479 both of whom have been, on the side of pagan
phiiosophers, the greatest propagators of the concept of philanthropy. But Philo seems
even more influential in this matter, since the unmistakable acquaintance with his
treatise On the Virtues by Clement is extensively attested by Otto Stählin. 480
Philanthropia for Clement has both ethical 481 and theological connotations. The
latter is seen in that the Old Testament is qualified as “philanthropic,”482 and that God
is eminently φιλάνθρωπος and just by offering to all the possibility of salvation
through faith,483 Clement entitled a whole chapter of his Paedagogue “ὅτι φιλάνορωπος ὁ
παιδαγωγός”484 in which he offers a somewhat one-sided explanation, according to
which φιλάνθρωπος would mean “φίλος ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ.”485 But his distasteful
metaphorical expressions wherein the “paternal nipples of philanthropy” are spoken
474
W. Richardson, “Νόμος Ἔμψυχος: Marcion, Clement or Alexandria, Luke” Studia
Patristica, VI (Berlin, 1962), 188-196, especially p. 191.
475
Protrept. 1, 2, 4 GCS Stählin (Leipzig, 1936), I, 5.
476
Ibid., IV 30.
477
Ibid., 50-53.
478
Ibid., 34-36.
479
Ibid., 53-54.
480
Ibid., 49. Claude Mondésert, in Essai sur Clément d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1944), p, 166,
however, points out the difficulty in drawing limits between the in fleuence of Philo and
that of Chrysippus.
481
His “gnostic” is naturally “philanthropos” and generous, GCS Stählin I I I , 14; or
philanthropia may be equated with philadelphia, GCS Stählin, II, 135. Philanthropia
goes together with the continence of the gnostic, II, 160, with almsgiving I, 259, and
social relief, I I , 151.
482
Ibid., 156.
483
Ibid., I, 108.
484
Chap. I Ι Ι , Ibid,, pp, 94-96.
485
4 Ibid., p. 94. 42
of486 or that the Father became mother in order to bear the Logos,487 are, fortunately,
rare unpalatable pearls of rhetoric. Otherwise, we find again the apophatic nature of
the divine philanthropy properly emphasized, now with, the epithet ἄρρητος,488 and that
the Logos shows His philanthropy especially through His paedagogy. 489 Clement is
capable, also, of producing a terse definition like that in which he stated that we
have received adoptive sonship to God through our “holy God Jesus”, who is “our
Paedagogue” and the “Philanthropic God” in person.490 His best use of the term is
found in expressing the whole economy of Incarnation as the “overpowering
philanthropy” of the Logos, ὅς γε διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν φιλανθρωπίαν σαρκὸς
ἀνθρωπίνης εὐπάθειαν οὐχ ὑπεριδὼν” (Strom. VII, 8.1).491 Claude Mondésert
appropriately concluded that Clement wanted to show how „toute l’action du Logos
est inspirée par l’amour des hommes, par cette philanthropie, que les Pères grecs ont...
revendiquée comme une prérogative divine.”492
This bold advance into the foreign land of Hellenism was, however, paid for by
Clement too dearly.
It was, according to Henri de Lubac, the dangerous definiteness of Origen’s system
that Rufinus endeavoured to obscure in his translation.493 Otherwise, excerpts from his colossal
work were used with enthusiasm by many generations of theologians. 494
In one of his happier moments of saintly elation Origen sharply opposed the Hellenic
rationalism495 of Celsus, by positing divine philanthropy and divine grace as the only God-given
486
Ibid., p. 117; “αἱ πατερικαὶ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας θηλαί”.
487
Ibid., Ill, 184.
488
Protrept. X, 104, 3, ibid., I. 75.
489
Ibid., p. 91.
490
Ibid., p, 123: “ὁ... ἡμέτερος παιδαγωγωγὸς ἅγιος Θεὸς Ἰησοῦς… αὐτὸς ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεός
ἐστι.”
491
Ibid., III, 7.
492
Mondésert, op. cit., p. 196. Cf. H. I. Marrou’s edition of Le Pédagogue Livre I, pp. 35-36.
According to the same writer, op. cit., pp. 47-48, Clement uses the optimistic notion of
philanthropia against the pessimism of the Gnostics.
493
See de Lubac’s introduction to G. W. Butterworth’s Origen On First Principles (New York,
1966), pp. i-lxiv, esp. p. li.
494
The most famous compilation being that of St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen, entitled
4“Philocalia.” 43
cognitive bridges leading to knowledge of God. 496 For P. de Labriolle, Origen is “presque
obsédé par cette idée de ‘philanthropie.’”497 One thing is beyond any doubt, that Origen,
assiduous exegete498 of the Holy Writ as he was, could not have failed to notice, independently
of secular literature,499 the evocative term of philanthropia in the Scriptures themselves. One can
see that on two occasions he made masterly use of the verse of Titus 3:4. 500
Any study of Origen poses inevitably the problem of the reliability of his taxt, handed
down in a Latin translation.501 Philanthropia is currently translated by misericordia:502 the heavy
Latin circumlocution “misericordia circa genus humanum”is unmistakably trying to convey the
Greek philanthropia.503 Therefore, whenever we find in the extant translations one of these terms,
namely, misericordia or benig-nitas, and more specifically when they appear together, 504 one may
surmise with great probability that they stand at least for the content of Titus 3:4, if not always
for the term of philanthropia.
The extant Greek original, however, offers by itself a sufficient amount of evidence
that Origen had his own strongly developed philanthropology.
495
Useful clarification is offered by Henri Crouzel in Origéne el la“Connaissance Mystique”
(Toulouse, 1961), p. 553, n. 2: “La notion de raison pure au sens kantien est étrangère à la
pensée antique. ...Le νοῦς origénien est plus proche de l’intuition bergsonienne ou du coeur
pascalien.”
496
C. Celsum VII, 44, GCS (Koetschau) II (Leipzig, 1899), 195.
497
“Les Humanités”(1932), pp. 483-484, cited by Hélène Pélré, op. cit., p. 209.
498
J. Daniélou, Le IIIème siècle: Origène, notes prises au cours par les élèves (Institut
Catholique de Paris, 1963), pp. 100-117.
499
He quoted Plutarch, for example, the eminent “philanthropologist”on the pagan side. Cf. C.
Celsum, V, 57, GCS (Koetschau), II, 60.
500
Jerem. Hom. I, 1,1, GCS (Klostermann) III (1901), 2 and Matthäuserklärung, Comm. ser. 8,
GCS (Klostermann) XI (1933), 13.
501
Henri de Lubac in his introduction of Origen’s On First Principles, p. 1.
502
E. g. Mtthäuserklärung XIII, 8, GCS (Klostermann) X (1935) 202; cf. GCS (Klostermann
and L. Friüchtel) XII, 2 (Berlin, 1935), 372.
503
Mtthäuserklärung, Comm. ser. 75, GCS (Klostermann), XI (1933), 176. The twin-term of
philanthropia χριστότις might also, sometimes, be translated with the same word misericordia,
as in GCS (Klostermann) X, 262, 265. Still, it is usually rendered by “Benignitas”: GCS
(Klostermann) XI, 13; Origenes in Lucam Hom. XVI, GCS (M. Rauer) IX (Berlin, 1959), 97:
Ludwig Früchtel’s index in GCS XII, 2 (Ber lin, 1955), 379
504
E. g. “Vide quam multa misericordia et benignitas Dei est.” In Leviticum Hom. V, 2, GCS
4(Baehrens) VI (Leipzig, 1920), 337. 44
A tireless teacher himself, Origen adorned the Christian teachers, in the first instance,
with the title of philanthropy, 505 but in reality, God is the only Philanthropos, since His
philanthropia is the cause of the sacrifice of His own Son for the purification of the world. 506
One could indeed make out of Origen’s many quotations containing the term
philanthropia a golden chain of patristically sound apophthegms. Yet we cannot minimize the
overwhelming confusion that his system has caused, since “Platonism was inside him, malgré-
lui”, according to H. Chadwick.507
505
C. Celsum III, 54, GCS (Koetschau) I (Leipzig, 1899), 250: “φιλανθρώπως...πράττομεν.“
506
Johanneskommentar VI, 53, GCS (Preuschen) IV, 162.
507
Chadwick, op. cit., p. 122. Jean Daniélou argued, rather persuasively, in IIIèmeLe siicle:
Origène, p. 119, for the perennial value of Origen’s typological exegesis. But he is less
convincing when trying to whitewash Origen’s doctrine on the Eucharist (p. 54).
4 45
The first range of Origen’s uses of philanthropia falls into the category of its Classical
meaning of social virtues.508 The second range lias a higher, theological significance.
Developing the traditional Ireanean vision of the unity of the two Testaments, 509 Origen was
able to discern as one and the same the providential stream of divine philanthropy throughout
both dispensations.510 God is acknowledged as the Pltilanthropos toward all, “outsiders”
included.511 His Only-Begotten has the same character. 512 Even His kenotic humility is an aspect
of the same power.513 Philanthropia is given as the ultimate reason of His death: “διά τὴν
φιλανθρωπίαν αὐτόν ἐχρρ͠η ἀποθανερ͠ιν. “514
The only limitation to Origen’s philanthropic universaliam seems, to be his aristocratic
isolation,515 which, indeed, could be merely an echo of the ancient disciplina arcani. In fighting
Celsus, Origen showed how skillful he could be, when necessary, in ringing the bells of
Christian equality and universality.516
More disturbing is his theodicy, which is, according to Daniélou, purely
philosophical.517 But his eschatology is the weakest point in his system. 518 Even if we are
508
As justice: C. Celsum IV, 26, GCS (Koetschau) I, 295, 209; as virtue of the king:
Mtthäuserkl. XIV, 13, GCS (Klostermann) (1935), 312; as medical art: C. Celsum III, 73
(Koetschau) I (1899) 265, 285, 209: as care for the poor: In Lucam Hom. XXIII, GCS (Rauer)
IX (Berlin, 1959), 143; as concern for the neighbor: Mtthäuserkl, XV, 18, GCS (Klostermann)
X, 400.
509
Daniélou, Le IIIème siècle: Origène, p. 122.
510
In Jerem. Hom. I, GCS (Klostermann) III, 2, 3; De Princ. V, I, GCS (Koetschau), V, 133.
511
C. Celsum VII, 46, GCS (Koetschau), II, 198.
512
Ibid., p. 34; cf. Mtthäuserkl. XVI, 15, GCS (Klostermann) X, 524; Johanneskomm. II, 31,
GCS (Preuschen) IV, 88.
513
Johanneskomm. VI, 57, GCS (Preuschen), IV, 165; cf. (Koetschau) II, 163.
514
Johanneskomm. 1, 20, GCS (Preuschen) X, 25; cf. ibid., p. 83. Also: “crucifixus propter
misericordiam,”GCS (Klostermann) XI, 170. It is noteworthy that, according to Origen, the sole
name of Jesus is endowed with the power to effect the ecstasis in the minds of men, as well as
to create within their souls the disposition of humbleness and philanthropy. C. Celsum I, 67.
GCS (Koestschau) I, 121.
515
In Jesu Nave Hom. Ill, 5, GCS (Baehrens), VII, 306: “Videtis quam multa benignitatis
Domini, quam abscondit et occultat ab auribus vulgi.”
516
C. Celsum I, 27, GCS (Koetschau) I, 79, and ibid. VII, 41, GCS II, 192.
517
Le IIIème siècle: Origène, p. 183.
518
Ibid., p. 153.
willing to accept the thesis of Myra Lot-Borodine 519 according to which Origen’s gnosticism
would be rather of Pauline than heterodox inspiration, nonetheless the reckless orientation of
Origen’s disembodied apocatastasis520 is anything but Pauline.
Thus, even with the acceptable idea of divine wrath and chastisement as being only the
enactment of divine philanthropy,521 as well as the emphatically protected mystery of free
will,522 all is ultimately dissolved in Origen’s perspective of an innumerable succession of
worlds until the much desired primordial standstill of pure spirits is reached. 523 Even though
Origen may sometimes masterfully hit rare strings, as, for example, when speaking about the
two kinds of philanthropia-misericordia, namely, that of Christ and the other of the Antichrist, 524
nevertheless, his philanthropy is weakened by his inconsistent eschatology and
“archaeology.”525
It remains to be seen where Clement and Origen stand in the lar ger scene of the
confrontation between Christian cult and Hellenic culture.
Theophilus’ mockery of the pointless oaths of the dying Socrates, 526 or any other
standard critique of Greek philosophy, would not by itself be sufficient to stamp all who used it
as anti-intellectual. In my opinion — contrary to that of H.E. W. Turner 527 — even Tatian
519
“L’Aridité dans l’antiquité chrétienne,“ Etudes Carmélitaines (October, 1937), p. 196, cited
by Henri Crousel, op, cit., p. 535, n. 4.
520
De Princ. II, 10, 8, GCS (Koetschau) V (Leipzig, 1913), 183. Franz Heinrich Kettler writes,
in Der ursprüngliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes (Berlin, 1966), pp. 48-51, that; “etwa der
Körperlosigkeit der λογικά nach der Apokatastasis und vor dem Fall, von der (Origenes) sicher
felsenfest überzeugt gewesen ist.”
521
Johanneskomm. VI, 58, GCS (Preuschen) VI, 167; cf. GCS (Baehrens) 482; GCS (M.
Rauer) IX, 216.
522
Daniélou, Le IIIème siècle: Origène, p. 183.
523
De Princ. III, 5, 3, GCS (Koetschau) V, 273, Crouzel, op. cit., p. 259, writes; “Certains
textes ... semblent bien évacuer le mystère: la colère de Dieu est assimilée aux feintes du
pédagogue.”
524
Matthàuserkl, Comm. ser. 33, GCS (Klostermann), (Leipzig, 1933), 33.
525
Daniélou, Le IIIème siècle: Origène, p. 182. A. Harnack wrote, in History of Dogma, trans.
Neil Buchanan (New York, 1961), p. 351, that in Origen’s eyes “goodness and justice are not
two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in God side by side; but as virtues they are to
him identical.” Here there is one more proof of Origen’s philosophical approach to God’s
simplicity by which the apophatic tension between the different energies of God is ignored or
denied.
526
H. E. W. Turner, op. cit., p. 405.
527
. Ibid., p. 407.
himself was not basically an anti-intellectual, but an “enfant terrible” of Helleno-Roman
culture, who, out of national pride, confused the Judaeo-Christian cult with Near-Eastern
Semitic culture. In this proud fusion of the revelation with his own native culture, in which this
revelation appeared, I see the reason for Tatian’s discarding so cavalierly the whole of Hellenic
culture. That Tatian otherwise was intellectually daring, 528 his “digest” of the four gospels will
abundantly prove the point.529
On the other hand, Tatian, in his exclusive passion for barbaric “philosophy,” 530
overlooked the fact that Christianity irrevocably entered Hellenistic world culture ever since it
had adapted its language as the main vehicle of the Church’s cultual expression. 531
No one would accuse St. Irenaeus, either, of being an anti-intellectual for his
unfavorable attitude in regard to the cosmological speculations of the Apologists.532 On the
contrary, he was probably more aware of the apophatic “seal” set upon each and every mind
admitted into the conscious adoration of the Trinity, than were Clement and Origen. 533
The internal tension in expanding Christianity from the second century on was not,
primarily, that of a fideistic orthodoxy versus Hellenic reason, as Turner contends534 since he
himself admits that the New Testament already makes a few rudimentary and tentative efforts
to apply Greek thought for the defence of the revelation. 535 The problem was that of finding a
criterion for thinking theologians by which they could be sure, in their missionary work, of
gradually “baptizing” the ancient values of pagan culture without ever losing from their sight
the cult pointing to the apophatic maximum, and meanwhile constantly developping and up-
dating the doctrinal aspect of the cataphatic minimum of the Rule of faith. 536 Irenaeus
cautiously recommended one not to venture into speculations on matters which lie outside the
Rule ol faith537 but, obviously, he was not much heeded.
528
Regardless whether his daring was rationally praiseworthy or incongruous.
529
J. Quasten, op. cit., pp. 224-225, It seems, however, that even his concoc tion of the
“Diatessaron” was made first in Greek, and then translated into Syrian.
530
Discourse to the Greeks, chap. 42 ANF 2, 81/2. Cf. ibid., p. 223.
531
Therefore, even Eusebius of Caesarea was scandalized by Tatian’s pretention to “paraphrase
some words of the Apostle (Paul), as though correcting their style,”(Hist. Eccl. 4, 29, 6, quoted
in ibid., p. 225).
532
H. E. W. Turner, op. cit., p. 412.
533
Irénée de Lyon Démonstration de la prédication apostolique, ed. L. M. Froidevaux, p. 170;
cf. pp. 169, 107.
534
Turner, op. cit., p. 404.
535
Ibid., p. 414.
536
Ibid., p. 475.
537
Ibid., p. 411
48
Clement was soberer than Origen when he maintained that simple faith and rational
faith are both alike roads to salvation. 538 Origen, however, following his rationalizing impulses,
argued that to believe through knowledge is superior to a simple faith. 539 This difference
between them is, finally, of secondary importance, since both are in danger of paying more
attention to the surrounding culture than to the Church’s cult of the Trinity. Only a man
fascinated by Greek “a-historical” culture540 would put the Greeks on the same level of the
economy of salvation as the Hebrews and the Christians. 541
Origen, even more, was prone to rationalize the impenetrable mystery, as when,
occasionally, he opines that evils also come from God in the way that: “builders may seem to
cause the mess that lies beside buildings, such as the dirt that falls off the stones and the
plaster.”542 A. Harnack concluded in this regard: “Celsus also might have written in this
strain.”543 Thus, Origen found himself, though unadmittedly, in a difficult predicament when
Celsus attacked the new Christian doctrine as one that exclusively insisted on a faith which not
only had not succeeded in justifying itself before reason, but even pretended insolently to do
without this justification.544 Not sobered by the apophatic humility of mind, almost “blinded by
Greek paideia,”545 Origen indulged in a much too conciliatory attitude toward the rationalist
inclination of Hellenism546 when imagining that: “Platonic ways of thinking about God and
soul are necessary to him if he is to give an intelligible account of his Christian beliefs.” 547
538
H. Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 126.
539
In Ioan. XIX, 1, PG 14, 529C, quoted by Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 106.
540
Pierre Thévenaz, “Evénement et Historicité,” L' Homme et l’histoire, Actes du Vie Congrès
des sociétés de philosophie de langue française (Paris, 1952), pp. 217-225: “Quoi d’étonnant...
si la philosophie grecque, soucieuse de découvrir raison, nécéssité et ordre, soit venue se
heurter au scandale de l’événement... La philosophie grecque restera an-historique par essence.”
541
Turner, op. cit., p. 418.
542
Contra Celsum VI 55, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1965), p. 372. The same writer
points out the Stoic origin of this argumet (op. cit., p. 372, n. 1).
543
Harnack, op. cit., p. 343, n. 2.
544
Shestov, op. cit., p. 304.
545
H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, p. 100.
546
Harnack, op. cit., II, 344-345.
547
Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, p. 122.
49
The subordinationist misconception of the trinitarian mystery, it seems to me, 548 incited
Origen even to attack frontally the cultual tradition of praying directly to Christ. 549 On the other
hand, he did not think it was necessary to reject the basic pagan tradition of reincar nation.550
Thus, even the very many good points of Origen, 551 of which the most inspiring was his
invention of a “new form of Christian selfexpression, Systematic Theology,” 552 are
undermined, according to Georges Florovsky, by Origen’s subservience to a cosmologically
oriented Hellenism.553 The latter determined also his doctrine of God as the παντροκράτωρ,
who, ultimately, is considered responsible for the unproductivity of time and history. 554
H. Kraft has noticed the fact that despite all the enthusiastic epithets attributed to the
Church by Clement of Alexandria, his true “gnostic” is an individualist. 555 And even so
sympathetic a reader of Origen as St. Basil the Great was sufficiently moved by Epiphanius’
verdict to declare that Origen’s basic opinions were heretical. 556 What A. Harnack wrote
concerning Origen’s notion of the eschatological judgment I would only extend to the term of
divine philanthropia, also: “the name is not wanting in Origen’s system, but the thing had
disappeared. Inspite of all the emphasis laid on freedom, nothing exists but a cosmic process.”
So heavily burdened whith the old philosophical presuppositions as he was, Origen could not
have had any feeling for the Church on earth as being the veiled cult of the transcendent glory
548
Johanneskomm., GCS (Preuschen) IV, 54: God the Father is the “αὐτόθεος” while that
Logos is only a “θεός”.
549
R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 140.
550
H. Chadwick, op. cit., p. 116. Cf. A. des Georges La Réincarnation des âmes selon les
traditions orientales et occidentales (Paris, 1966), p. 181.
551
Against Celsus Origen stoutly defended the anthropocentrical view of the cosmos. C.
Celsum IV, 23, GCS (Koetschau) 292-293.
552
H. E. W. Turner, op. cit., p. 470
553
Diskussions-Beiträge zum XI Byzantinisten-Kongress, ed. Franz. Dölger and Hans-Georg
Beck (Munich, 1958), pp. 38-40, csp. p. 39.
554
Ibid., pp. 39-40.
555
Kraft, op. cit., p. 41.
556
Chadwick, op. cit., p. 122. The same author argues further (op. cit., p. 121), that. “Origen is
not vindicated by arguments which only go to show that Koetschau’s Berlin Corpus edition of
the De Principiis is open to serious criticism.”
50
already here in the flux of time. 557 Therefore, as far as cultural recognition goes, both
Clement558 and Origen559 finally failed.560 On the level of the cultural apologetics of the Church,
however, they are the unforgettable pioneers and victims.
Richard A. Norris concluded with perspicacity that: “the early Church in
fact failed — or refused — to make a perfect adjustment to the thought forms of
the culture in which it existed; and the intellectual imbalance... was salutary... as
the seed of future creative development.”561
Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus

It seems that Philostratus started, in the beginning of the third century,
the literary fashion of imitating the Christian Scriptures 562 with the undeclared
desire to produce some sort of “Life” of a pagan saint or even god, from the
legendary life of Apollonius of Tyana, by so aggrandizing him as to be, if
possible, equal in stature with Christ.563 Philostratus never explicitly mentioned
Christianity, but Apollonius was depicted as one who had been battling for a
purified paganism which would accept a philosophical monotheism and still
tolerate the cult of many gods. 564· Later on Porphyry and Iamblichus will try to
produce similar propaganda writings with the life of Pythagoras. 565
We have to deal, however shortly, with Plotinus (floruit 250- 270),
although he did not use the term of philanthropia in this Enneads even once.566 By
557
F. H. Kettler, op. cit., pp. 48-51, stated that Origen “lebte für die himmlische, in der
Apokatastasis gipfelnde Kirche, während er in der irdischen Kirche... eine Elementarschule
sah... ohne sich allerdings von ihr zu trennen.”
558
Turner, op. cit., p. 402: “Despite his services to Christian spirituality Clement is rightly not
included among the doctors of the Church.”
559
Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, p. 120; cf. J. Daniélou, IIIème siècle: Origène, p. 183.
560
Harnack, op. cit., Il, 336, said: “As an idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole
content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas.”
561
Norris, op. cit., p. 170.
562
P. de Labriolle, La Réaction paienne, p. 185.
563
Ibid., p. 188.
564
Ibid., p. 187.
565
Ibid., p. 189, n. 2.
566
Enneades VI 2, texte établi et traduit par Émile Bréhier (Paris, 1953), p. 240.
51
himself alone, he represents, indeed, the glorious sunset of Hellenic
philosophy567 which was, according to Éimile Bréhier:
“à la fois religeuse et rationaliste... profondément rebelle à la pensée chrétienne.” 568
This great thinker, who led the ascetic life of a saint, 569 taught to his pupils, according
to Maurice de Gandillac, “une sorte de ‘salut’, mais par des voies purement philosophiques.”570
Even his much-desired and rarely attained ecstasis, which would interrupt all the diacritical
functions of the soul, paradoxically should never abolish the highest life of the spirit, wherein
the vigorous discipline of apophaticism reaches the coincidence of the opposites: perfection of
the intelligible and pure mystery.571
Nonetheless, the greater the success of Plotinus’ ecstatic union with the One, all the
more is his metaphysically concocted escapism into the timeless impersonalness uncovered,
since, in his system, time is a pure dispersion which is allegedly transcended by philosophical
concentration, as well as through reincarnational “ascensions.” 572
That it actually means a sinking into the impersonal “translucidity boyond any
awareness of the self”573 one can deduce from Plotinus’ conception of the First Principle, which
is very similar to the self- sufficient pure act of Aristotle which has no need either of obedience
or of the freedom of creatures.574
567
E. R. Dodds, op. cit., p. 252, argues that the downfall of Classical Hellenism was caussd by
both intellectual and economic factors, but the most destructive, since unconscious, was the
“fear of freedom,” the acceptance of astral determinism.”
568
Maurice de Gandillac, La Sagesse de Plotin (Paris, 1966). p.17. Ninian Smart, in World
Religions: A Dialogue (New York, 1066), p. 135, noticed that we have to face the “old collision
between monotheism and monism, as well as the scandalous particularity of Christianity.”
569
M. de Gandillac, op. cit., p. 53.
570
Ibid., p. 59; cf. pp. 264-65.
571
Ibid., p. 261.
572
Ibid., p. 265.
573
Ibid., p.. 267.
52
How far Plotinus may have been influenced by Origen 575 or how deeply indebted to
Plotinus Christian thinkers may be, 576 is not to be examined here, but I have at least to state the
fact that the evaluation of the neoplatonie epigoni is possible only through comparing them
with their master, who summed up himself in his last words: “Ι am striving to give back the
divine which is in me to the divine in the universe.”577
Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 233-304) was, according to E. R. Dodds, a learned and lovable
man, but no consistent or creative thinker. 578 Religious by temperament, he had “an incurable
weakness for oracles.579 His greatest contribution to philosophy was the redaction and
publication of his master’s Enneads,580 but he had won a considerable fame on the purely
religious level by his polemical work against Christianity 581 which was grounded upon “a
thorough historical and literary acquaintance with his subject and... a fanatical religious
conviction of his own.”582 He demanded conformity to the religion of the State and obedience
to the Emperor.583
Porphyry upheld, in general, the same Plotinian monism584 in which the self-knowledge
of the soul is posited as being identical with the knowledge of God, 585 thus, according to
Heinrich Dörrie, for Porphyry, also, “die Seele... ist Funcktion des Einen.”586 In his Sententiae
XXXII, especially, he developed the doctrine of the virtues which by ascending degrees
575
H. Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 203.
576
577
Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 2, cited by E. Bréhier, in The Philosophy of Plotinus, p. 197.
578
E. R. Dodds, op. cit., pp. 286-287.
579
Ibid., p. 287.
580
581
P. de Labriolle, La Réaction païenne, p. 279.
582
A. Hulen, op. cit., p. 31.
583
Ibid., p. 38. P. de Labriolle, in La Réaction, p. 240, wrote that “Plotin et Porphyre purent
croire qu’ une attaque savamment conduite sur le terrain intellectuel paracheverait les resultats
obtenus par les rigueurs de la politique.”
584
Although a dualist tendency, also, is noticed by G. Mau, “Iamblichos,”Pauly-Wissowa
Realencyclopaedie (Stuttgart, 1914), cols, 645-651, esp. col. 649.
585
R. Beutler, “Porphyrios.”Pauly-Wistoiv Realencyd., cols. 275-313, esp. col. 307: “Diese
γνῶσις zu lieben und sich selbst zu lieben ist eins: ἑαυτῶν φιλία.”
586
Porphyrios’ “Symmikta Zetemata” (München, 1959), p. 177.
53
culminate in self-deification.587
587
Porphyrii Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes, ed. B. Mommert (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 18-22,
G. Faggin, in Porfiorio: Lεttera ad Anebo — Lettera a Marcella, p. 26, stresses the
individualistic character of neoplatonic mysticism: “L’ individualismo etico maturato nelle
dottrine stoiche ed epicuree dopo la morte della πόλις, si risolveva, in soliloquio mistico...
neoplatonico.”
54
As far as philanthropia is concerned, it is not to be found in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus,588
or any other extant work, but only once in the Letter to Marcella which was captioned, not
without some exaggeration, “il testamento morale dell’ antichitá.” 589 In this moving letter
where we find, almost inevitably, the venerable theme of ὁμοίωσις Θεῷ590 together with
Porpyry’s theodicy,591 the very last word is philanthropia.592 One should not exaggerate in the
hypercritical pedestrian direction, as to completely discard the possibility that the staunch
adversary of Christianity may have insinuated by his last word the warcry his followers should
use when facing the evangel of agape.
With Iamblichus of Chalkis (died ca. 330) the dualist accents are even more pronounced
than in Porphyry’s thought593 and the neoplatonism in his hands became an outright “Counter-
religion against Christianity.”594
His responsiveness to the appeal of the notion of philanthropia, in comparison with
Porphyry, was much greater. Thus, in his Life of Pythagoras Iamblichus qualified the old
mystagogue — even in his supreme “daemonic apotheosis — as being “the most
philanthropic.”595 According to Iamblichus, Pythagoras, already, has preached about love
towards one’s own enemies (πρὸς ἄλλους φιλανθρωπία).596 In the context of such classical
notions as καλοκἀγαθία and ἐπιείκεια, Iamblichus, very much in the line of the Hellenic
tradition, glorifies the gods Apollo and Erοs as the “most philanthropic among the gods”
(φιλανθρωποτάτους τῶν θεῶν)597· For a man who, deadly serious about his deities, wrote De
Mysteriis this title claimed for the Olympians could have meant in the context only a conscious
588
Vita di Plotino, ed. Gaetano Macchiaroli (Naples, 1946), φίλος occurs on pp. 19, 20, 21, 29;
“ἔρως ἀθάνατος” with the lofty leaning of “eternal life”on p. 48.
589
G. Faggin, op. cit., p. 24.
590
Ibid., Ad Marcellam XIII, p. 100.
591
Ibid., XXIV, p. 114: “κακῶν ἀνθρώπῳ οὐδείς θεὸς αἴτιος, ἀλλά αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ὁ ἑλόμενος.”.
592
Ibid., XXXV, ρ. 130.
593
G. Mau, loc. cit., col. 649.
594
Ibid.
595
“Καὶ μετά τῶν θεῶν τὸν Πυθαγόραν... κατηρίθμουν ὡς ἀγαθόν τινα δαίμονα καὶ
φιλανθρωπότατον.”Ιamblichi, De vita Pytliagorica, 6, 30, ed. Ludovicus Deubner (Leipzig,
1937), p. 18. In this “Life” philia is found many times (pp. 23, 29, 55, 128 et passim). On p.
39, philia towards all men. Even kindness towards animals is upheld (p. 33).
596
Ibid., 8, 40, p. 23.
597
Ibid., 10, p. 28.
55
commitment to the pagan cult.
The most influential polytheistic apologetics in the fourth century, and beyond it, was
produced by Iamblichos, who developed the theory that the key to salvation is “not in the
Plotinian θεωρία, but in θεουργία, a form of ritualistic magic.”598
Later on, when about to evaluate Iamblichus’ influence on the Emperor Julian, I will be
in a better position to describe the importance of this most militant representative not only of
the cultural, but even more of cultual self-consciousness of late Hellenism.
598
E. R. Dodds, Proclus: The Elements of Theology, pp. XX-XXI. “Theurgy is, doubtless, the
same as the ‘Magic of Zoraster,’ which was no ‘black art,’ but a peculiar mode of worship.” Cf.
Theurgia or The Egyptian Mysteries by Iamblichos, trans. Alexansder Wilder (London, 1911),
p. 49, n. 2.
56
II. FOURTH CENTURY
Brooks Otis characterized the Fourth century as “the most interesting

of ancient centuries and the most relevant to our own.” 599 This indeed
memorable era witnessed a dramatic reorientation of the whole Graeco-
Roman world when, only a decade after Diocletian’s persecution in 303600,
through Constantine’s conversion601 Christianity suceeded in imposing itself
so unequivocally as to seal its final victory, at least on the political level,
with Theodosius’ quenching of the last pagan mutiny at the battle of the
Frigidus in 394.602 For what was to be more than a millenium, Theodosius I
established Christianity in its catholic form as the State religion. 603 He was
also instrumental in putting the Empire on the road to the gradual
incorporation of genuine Christian humanitas or philanthropia in its
legislation.604 Ultimately that became feasible, after the fall of Diocletian,
599
“An Essay on St. Gregory of Nazianzus,” Classical Journal, LV1 (1961), 146-
65, esp. p. 146.
600
According to Henri Grégoire, op. cit., p. 77, “la persécution de 303 fut
moralement préparée par le philosophe païen Porphyre.”
601
A. H. M. Jones, in “The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism
and Christianity,” The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth
Century, ed. Arnaldo Momigliano (Oxford, 1963), pp. 17-33, esp. pp. 33-34,
contends that
when Constantine staked his faith on the God of the Christians in 312, he
was... making a very rash venture... The army was overwhelmingly pagan.
The Senate was pagan. So too... was the bulk of the provincial
aristocracy... and this is incidentally... an important piece of circumstantial
evidence in favour of the view that Constantine’s conversion was... the
fruit of a genuine if crude religious conviction.
602
N. Q. King, The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity
(London, 1961), pp. 87-89.
603
H. I. Marrou, “De la persécution de Dioclétien à la mort de Grégoire le Grand
(303-604),” Nouvelle Histoire de l Eglise I, ed. Jean Daniélou and Henri Marrou
(Paris, 1963), p. 361.
604
N. Q. King op. cit., pp. 109, 113, 118. Richard Honig points out in Humanitas
4 und Rhetorik in spätrōmischen Kaisergesetzen (Göttingen,571960), pp. 35-36, that
in the Codex of Theodosius II “die Humanitas wird... zum Leitmotiv für eine
only because the Church had inspired the leaders of the Empire (one
exception apart) with her own ideals through the exemplary way of life of
such bishops as “Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus...
Basil of Caesarea... Ambrose... almost all born rulers.” 605 Julian’s return to
paganism was but a feeble and romantic reaction to the irresistible advance
of Christianity.606 The vitality of Fourth century Christianity is apparent to
anyone who will turn from the rather imitative orations of Libanius to the
energetic productions of Athanasius, Basil and Chrysostom. 607 I should
immediately add that, culturally speaking, pagan and Christian leaders were
peers,608 but my main contention would be that the Christian thinkers of that
particular period of confrontation proved to be superior on the level of cult,
and thus being aglow cultually they irradiated a peculiar warmth of
enthusiasm even in their literary activity. Still, despite the imperial legal
restrictions, the bulk of the pagans remained faithful to their ancestral
beliefs.609 Moreover, against the Christian escalation Iamblichus stood up as
a vigorous defender of the old religion by stressing that the way to salvation
was to be found in a form of ritualistic magic. 610
Gerechtigkeit.”
Th. G. Chifflot, op. cit., pp. 67-68, courageously resists lightminded irony
at the expense of the “Constantinian” Christians or “social Christians,” which at
least tried to make a world such that the Gospel would be audible. He formulates,
in my view, balanced judgement on the matter: “Sans adhérer... à leur ‘mystique
de l’Incarnation,’ nous pouvons recevoir d’eux le souci concret de ce monde que
notre témoignage ne doit pas déserter.”
605
Arnaldo Momigliano, “Christianity and the Decline of the Homan Empire,”
The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, pp. 1-16,
esp. p. 9.
606
B. Otis, loc. cit., p. 147.
607
Ibid.
608
Thomas Špidlik, Orienlalia Christiana Periodica, XXIX, Fasciculus 1 (1963),
alia scrip ta ad nos missa, 300-301, esp. p. 301., maintains the possibility that the
correspondence between St. Basil and Libanius may be in part authentic.
609
Pierre de Labriolle, op. cit., pp. 469-70.
610
Proclus: The Elements of Theology, ed. E. R. Dodds, p. XX.
Oliver Madox Hueffer, in The Book of Witches, (London, 1908), p. 131,
specifies that tin contradistinction to the magician, the witch was in league with
58
The struggle between paganism and Christianity had come to be, by
that time, essentially a cultual one, since ancient culture, appropriated by
both rivals equally, had become mainly a neutral battlefield.
The Church moreover, was beset by heresiarchs from inside: Arius,
Apollinaris, Marcellus... As far as the integrity of the cult was concerned the
latter danger was of greater proportions than the rivalry with the pagans,
especially since the emperors were oftentimes in league with the heretics. 611
Before we turn to consider the role of Athanasius and the Cappadocians of
the central, dogmatic, front, I should at least mention Eusebius of Caesarea
and Cyril of Jerusalem.
Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) lived in a period when “the church had to

defend itself from Porphyry’s criticism, and when it expected to win the day by
expounding the text of the Bible philologically and by using a scholarly
chronology.”612 His main objective was to prove that the victory of Christianity
“did not imply a loss of culture, but, rather, smoothed the way towards the
elevation of the entire life of the spirit.” 613 Hence, he could so earnestly give
sanction to the Hellenistic principle that a ruler should be a copy of God’s
perfection.614 According to Eusebius’ political theology, Constantine “reflects as
in a mirror the radiance of God’s virtues... and imitates His divine philanthropy
by his imperial acts.”615 With his low Christology Eusebius could have easily
“compared Christ and Constantine as alike instruments and manifestation of the
one Eternal Logos.”616 Basically preoccupied with the old problem of polytheism,
all Eusebius could see was Constantine’s monarchy as “the earthly copy of the
the demons.”
611
Thus, according to Hans Lielzmann in From Constantine to Julian: A History
of the Early Church, III, trans. Bertram Lee Woolf (London, 1953), 190,
“Constantius, without noticing what he was doing, allowed himself to become the
instrument for carrying out the wishes of Eusebius (of Constantinople).”
612
Ibid., p. 165.
613
Ibid., p. 169.
614
Francis Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy
(Washington, D. C., 1966) II, 616.
615
De laudibus Const. 2 GCS 7, 200, PG 20, 1328, quoted by Francis Dvornik,
op. cit., p. 619.
616
George Huntston Williams, “Christology and Church: State Relations in the
Fourth Century,” Church History, XX (1951), 3-33, esp. 17.
59
divine rule over the world, the refutation of every polytheistic error.” 617
Henceforth the Arian danger was for him practically non-existent, 618
What is more astonishing is the fact that such a great erudite, who did net
hide his admiration for Plato619 nor his familiarity with Plutarch620 and Philo of
Alexandria,621 was rather irresponsive to the notion of philanthropia.622 Even
though Eusebius attacked the prodigious performances of the pagan magicians,623
he did so all too discretely, to the point of being glad to be able to make a sort of
concord between pagan and Christian views concerning the demons. 624 However,
this feature of cultual timidity cannot be deduced from Eusebius’ oversaturation
with classical culture, since other bishops will follow his path of scholarship
without being at all cowed in their total dedication to the Christian cult.
There is an agreement between G. H. Williams, in ibid., p. 14, and Raffaele

Farina, in L'impero e l’imperatore christiano in Eusebio di Cesarea: La prima
teologia politica del Christianesimo (Zurich, 1966), p. 261, according to which
the imperial ideology of Eusebius is “come la confluenza delle concezioni della
Regalitâ dell’ Oriente, dell’ Ellenismo e del Christianesimo anteniceno.”
617
H. Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 170.
618
Ibid.
619
Pracparatio evangelica GCS 8, 2, ed, Karl Mras (Berlin, 1956), p. 491.
620
Ibid., pp. 458-59.
621
Ibid., p. 454.
622
There appears only once the verbal form φιλανθρωπεύεσθαι. in Eusebius
Kirchengeschichte X, 8, 11 GCS II, 2, ed. Eduard Schwartz (Leipzig, 1908), 896.
Also once in De Laude, II, 5, cited by G. H. Williams in “Christology and
Church,” loc. cit., p. 18. Four times in Vita Constantini, ed. Ivar A. Heikel
(Leipzig, 1902), pp. 11, 15, 33, 49.
The problem of the authenticity of the latter work of Eusebius has not yet
been finally clarified. On this point see F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 747, n. 115.
623
Jean Sirinelli, Les Vues historiques d’Eusèbe de Césarée durant la période
prénicéene (Dakar, 1961), pp. 378-79.
624
Ibid., p. 321. Eusebius’ cultual timidity is specially apparent when he calls the
pagan deities to witness about Christ’s celestial provenience; “Vous voyez... que
loin de passer pour un magicien et un charlatan, notre Sauveur Jésus, le Christ de
Dieu, est reconnu comme rempli de piété... et comme un habitant des célestes
60
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386) was a man of predominantly pastoral
concerns and essentially practical. 625 Frank Leslie Cross wrote apropos of St.
Cyril: “we miss in him the theological penetration of the Cappadocians or even
the dogmatic concern of an Athanasius.626
In his famous Baptismal Catecheses, delivered in about 348, 627 God is
characterized as being, in spite of His justice, philanthropic. 628 In the Mystagogical
Catecheses629 the accent put on philanthropia is more perceptible.630
St. Athanasius (395-373)

The greatness of Athanasius has been seen to lie in his ability to
overcome the contradictions of the classical way of thinking. 631 He indeed fought
heroically for the semantic christening of the word homousios which was chosen
to summarize the terminological intuition of the Nicene Fathers concerning the
identity in the divine nature of both the Father and the Son. 632 Against Aetius’
contention that councils are futile since the Scripture is sufficient, Athanasius
demeures.”Demonst. Evang, III, 7 (Heikel, p. 140), cited by P. de Labriolle, op.

cit., p. 236.
625
Frank Leslie Cross, St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian
Sacraments: The Procatechesis and Five Mystagogical Catecheses (London,
1960), p. xxxiii.
626
Ibid., p. xxxiv.
627
Josef Andreas Jungmann, Handing on the Faith: A Manual of Catechetics
(Freiburg, 1959), p. 5.
628
PG 33, 389B; cf. 392A.
629
Whether this work belongs to St. Cyril or to John II of Jerusalem is of
secondary importance for the present study. See Cyrille de Jérusalem, Catechèses
Mystagogiques, introduction, texte critique et notes de Auguste Piédagnel (Paris,
1966), p. 40.
630
Ibid., pp. 114, 146, 160, 164.
631
A. Tuilier, Studio Patristica, III, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1961), 421-28, esp.
428; “La puissance dialectique de saint Athanase... réside surtout dans son
aptitude à dépasser les contradictions de la pensée antique.”
632
Bernhard Lohse, Epochen der Dogmengeschichte (Stuttgart, 1963), p. 65.
61
replied that the fathers of the Council of Nicea merely redefined the cult of Christ
which is already in the Scriptures.633
He looked at the problem of redemption as the kernel of Christianity.634
But the proper soteriological perspective is possible only after the Athanasian
clarification that there is an absolute difference between the intra-trinitarian
generation and the extra-trinitarian creation. 635 It seems that Arius was rightly
accused of being tainted with Jewish monotheism, since for him “God was alone
(μόνος), and the Word as yet was not.”636 Even without a clear-cut terminology
Athanasius upheld the ecclesiastical teaching of trinitarian monotheism” 637 so
thoroughly as to use the notion of the “Image of God” exclusively for the purpose
of designating the Logos as the only and unique Image of the Father. 638 He even
went so far as to distinguish in the Logos as God His energy and providence,
called “powers” (δυνάμεις), which sustain the whole of creation, from His
“essence” (οὐσία), in respect to which He is outside of everything created. 639 This
633
De Synodis 6. R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Philadelphia,
1962), p. 179.
634
H. Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 248.
635
Régis Bernard, L'Image de Dieu d’après St. Athenase (Paris, 1952), p. 144. In
this line of thinking the difference between the essential Sonship of the Logos and
the adoptive sonship by grace of all others is to be understood: “ὁ Υἱὸς κατ’
οὐσίαν, ἡμεῖς oἱ κατὰ χάριν-.. υἱοί.”Apol. C. Arianos, PG 25, 456C.
636
Oral. cont. Arian. I, 5 PG 26, 21A. H. A. Wolfson, “Philosophical implications
of Arianism and Apollinarianism”, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays
(Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 126-57, esp. p. 156, supports this surmise as a
valid one, since “Arianism was a revival of the Philonic conception of the
absolute unity of God.”
Athanasius at least made a definite demarcation line between the Jews and
the godless pagans: “oἱ Κυρίοκτόνοι Ἰουδκῖοι καὶ oἱ ἄθεοι ἐθνικοὶ”Epistola
encycl. PG 25, 229A; cf. Ad. Serapion I, 28 PG 596B.
637
“Ἀδιαίρετος γὰρ ἡ Τριάς, καὶ μία ταύτης ἡ Θεότης.”Ad Serapion. IΙΙ, 6 PG
26, 633C.
638
R. Bernard, op. cit., p. 140.
639
“ἐκτός μέν ἐστι τοῦ παντὸς κατ’ οὐσίαν.” “De incarnat. Verbi 17
PG 125A.
62
is perfectly in line with his apophatic approach to God.640 The divinity of the
Holy Spirit, however, is justified by a soteriological reasoning: were the Holy
Spirit only a creature we would not have any participation in the Godhead. 641
All that I have briefly indicated here, helps to disclose the deep dogmatic
awareness that Athanasius had of the cultual all-inclusiveness of Christianity.
Pragmatic as he was, he did not disdain the lower regions wherein cult and
culture meet, namely, apologetics.
Taking for granted the Stoic teaching on the world as being a “great
body” (σῶμα μέγα)642 he immediately asks of the Greek pagan philosophers a
seemingly impertinent question: if the divine Logos abides in the “cosmic body”
why not in the human body, too?643
Humanly speaking, it was to be expected that the pagans would
maliciously enjoy the evident disunity among the Christians themselves, 644 but
Athanasius, even though so deeply involved in struggling against Arianism, did
not remain inactive on the less tumultuous front against the heathen. He is out to
mock the anthropomorphism645 of the pagan philosophers who mythologize rather
than theologize.646 It may also appear that Athanasius found the game all too easy
when he was about to oppose the voluptuous and perverted Olympian gods to
Christ’s supernatural doctrine of virginity.647
In conclusion, I turn to Athanasius’ use of philanthropia.
Fr. Georges Florovsky argued — against the view of Endre von

Ivânka — that the distinction between the “Being” and “Acting” in God was
for Athanasius a real and ontological one, not merely a mental or logical
distinction. See “The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius” Studia
Patristica, VI, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1962), 36-57, esp. pp. 56-57.
640
Cf. Orat. contra gentes PG 25,5C.
641
Ad Serapion I, 24 PG 26, 585B; ibid., 7 PG 26, 636B.
642
De incarnat. Verbi 41, PG 25, 168D.
643
Ibid. PG 25, 168D-169A.
644
L. P. Karsavin, Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church (Paris, n. d.). p. 133
(in Russian).
645
Oratio contra gentes 22 PG 25, 44B.
646
Ibid. 19 PG 25, 40C.
647
De incarnat. Verbi 51, PG 25, 185D-188A; cf. Oratio contra gentes PG 25,
25A; PG 25, 49C et passim.
63
First of all, there is the ancient imperial titulation by now firmly attached
to the Christian rulers648 and even politely extended to the bishops, also. 649 The
most frequent usage, however, is the theological one. Thus, the Logos who
became incarnate in order to liberate men from the false gods is called
philanlhropos.650 However, in spite of the goodness and philanthropy of God, men
vanquished by their passions did not receive the proffered knowledge of God. 651
Athanasius admires the Word’s philanthropy after He has brought dishonour upon
Himself in order that we may recover our dignity. 652 He condescended to manifest
to us His divine character and His love for mankind 653 by re-creating
everything.654 We men were not only the cause of His descent (καθοδος), since
our transgression provoked the Logos’ philanthropy, 655 but our very coming into
being witnesses to the Word’s philanthropy. 656 Through the Incarnation two gifts
of the philanthropic activity of God are imparted to men: the destruction of death
and the renovation of mankind.657
The Philanthropic God calls back the sinner gone astray, 658 in the context
of grace659 and mercy.660 He condescends even to the animals in His care. 661 But
the divine philanthropy was supremely shown when He contained His wrath
648
φιλανθρωπότατε Αὔγουστε in Apol. contra Arianos PG 25, 600A, 609D
629A, 632B-C, 641; cf. Apol. ad Const, imp. PG 25, 592A. 597A-D.
649
De decretis Nic. synod. PG 25, 428C, 601A, 605C,
650
De incarnat. Verbi PG 25, 121D.
651
Ibid., PG 25, 117C.
652
Ibid. PG 25, 153D.
653
De incarnat. Verbi 8 PG 35, 109A.
654
Ibid. PG 25, 104B.
655
Ibid. PG 25, 104A.
656
Ibid. PG 25, 104B.
657
Ibid. PG 25, 124D-125A.
658
Expositio in psalm. PG 27, 320A; cf. Fragm. in Matthaeum PG 27, 353D,
381C, 520A.
659
PG 27, 332C.
660
PG 27, 353D, 381C, 520A.
661
PG 27, 528B.
64
against the crucifiers of the Son of God, offering thus a time for repentance. 662
And the philanthropic name of God in itself saves from the Devil. 663
Rarely is philanthropia used to signify the charitable works of men. 664 Its
divine quality appears the more eloquently since the emphasis put on the reality
of the human body in the Incarnate Logos 665 adds a particular “God-appeal” to
Athanasius’ doctrine of salvation as deification.666
I have found only once in a letter the formula “χάριτι καὶ φιλανθροπίᾳ.”667
As Athanasius concentrated in fighting subordinationism and tritheism he
did not sufficiently stress the distinctness of the Divine Hypostases.668 Hence the
terminological clarification about to be supplied by the Cappadocians was the
662
PG 27, 393A. When interpreting verse 13 of Psalm 84 Athanasius interpreted
it laconically with one word “φιλάνθρωπος.”De titulis psalm PG 27, 1016C; cf.
PG 27, 1025D. 1245B.
663
PG 27, 1112C.
664
PG 27, 1388A.
665
“ὄμως κατὰ φιλανθρωπίαν... τοῦ ἐαυτοῦ Πατρὸς ... ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῳ σώματι ἡμῖν
πεφανέρωται.”PG 25, 97C; cf. PG 25, 104Α, Ad Serapion PG 26, 657B.
The early tendency of quasi-angelic spiritualism in Athanasius’
anthropology is overcome. See R. Bernard, op. cit., pp. 134-35.
666
De incarnat. Verbi PG 25, 192B: “The Logos became Man in order that we
may be deified.”St. Antony who practically confirmed this doctrine, urged earthly
Kings to be philanthropic as the only true King wants them to be. Via S. Antonii
PG 26, 957A.
G. H. Williams, in “Christology and Church,” loc. cit., esp. p. 18, has
underlined the difference from Eusebius of Caesarea, for whom salvation is rather
the recovery of truth and order established by the power of a godly emperor, while
for Athansius it is the recovery of immortality through communion in the
Eucharistic cult.
The “physical”orientation of Athanasian soteriology has been recognized
also by Bernhard Lohse, op. cit., p. 66, as well as by Arch. Cyprian Kern,
Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas (Paris, 1950), p. 144 (in Russian). The latter
argues that Athanasius only developed Irenaeus’ idea of deification (p. 101).
667
Epistola 44 PG 26, 1441A.
668
L. P. Karsavin, op. cit., p. 154.
65
greatest need of the century.669
669
B. Lohse, op. cit., p. 65.
66
r
The Cappadocians:
St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-379). St. Gregory the Theologian (330-ca. 390). St. Gregory
of Nyssa (ca. 335-394)
It is true that Hellenism is the common basis and background of all Christian culture. 670
It is not less true that the Cappadocians were “first and primarily Christians and only
secondarily and subsequently Platonists,”671 More precisely, they were highly sensitive
eclectics672 whose intellectual independence from, ancient culture one can perceive in the fact
that they — contrary to Origen — strongly underlined the difference between time and eternity
in their view of creation.673
Eunomus of Cyzicus, with his pretension to having adequately described and grasped
the essence of God by the word agennesia (ungenerateness), was in the eyes of the Cappadocians
not a noetically humble theologian but merely an over-bearing “technologian” 674. St. Basil was
very much to the point when he wrote that there is even “the obscurity used by the Scripture, in
order to make it difficult to gain understanding of the teachings, for the profit of readers,” 675 but
all three luminaries of Cappadocia equally emphasized the axiomatic incomprehensibility of the
divine nature.676 Even if the wording of the trinitarian dogma (the three hypostases in one ousia)
670
G. Florovsky, “The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement,” Theology
Today, VII, No. 1 (April 1, 1950), 68-79, esp. p. 74.
671
B. Otis, “Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XII
(Cambridge, Mass., 1958), 95-124, esp. p. 124.
672
Georges V. Florovsky, Fourth Century Fathers of the East (Paris, 1931), p. 77 (in Russian).
John S. Romanides, “St. Cyril’s ‘One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate’
and Chalcedon “The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,” X, No. 2 (Winter 1964-65), 82-107,
esp. p. 103, has noted rightly that: “the term ousia as applied to the Holy Trinity by the
Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers is neither a Platonic supers trat al genus, nor an
Aristotelian substratal material in which the hypostases or persons of the Holy Trinity
participate” but an “undefinable and perfect... reality.”
673
B. Otis, “Cappadocian Thought,”p. 121.
674
G. Florovsky, Fourth Century Fathers, p. 71.
675
De Spiritu Sancto PG 32, 189BC, quoted by Vladimir Lossky, “Tradition and Traditions”,
The Meaning of Icons, by Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky (Olten, Switzerland, 1952),
pp. 13-24, esp. p. 17.
676
In St. Basil: PG 29, 520C. 534C, In Gregory of Nazianzus: PG 36, 25-72. In Gregory of
Nyssa: PG 45, 932f.
67
came from the Homoiousians, 677 nevertheless much work had to be done, especially by Basil,
before the notion of hypostasis could replace or modify that of prosopon (persona).678 Of course
they were keenly aware of their task, namely, not to find the expression of the inexpressible, but
terms which will point exactly in the direction of the ineffable. 679 And Basil offered the
definition of the personal proprieties in the Godhead as being “paternity”, “filiality” and
“sanctity.” But , since the latter notion could designate all of the Three Divine Persons equally,
Gregory of Nazianzus won his title of “Theologian” by giving the more adequate “relational”
terms of “ungenerateness,” “generateness” and “procession” (ἀγεννησία, γέννησις,
ἐκπόρευσις).680
Once the doctrine of the one common nature in the Tri-Personal God was elaborated, 681
then every mediatorial act of the Logos or of the Holy Spirit could only be “a gratuitous act of
condescension which does not... affect God’s nature.” 682 From this an important consequence for
anthropology follows, namely the classical doctrine of ὁμωίωσις (assimilation to God) is
completely Christianized, since Nyssa took it from the Platonists only after having rejected their
corollary of an essential or natural kinship of man and God. 683· The newly acquired precision of
677
B. Otis, “Cappadocian Thought,”p. 118.
678
Johannes Quasten, Patrology, III, 229. Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London,
1958), pp. 263-69.
In contrasdistinction to Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus used “τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις”, or “τρία
πρόσοπα” interchangeably, presumably in order to harmonize his terminology with that of the
West. See G. V. Florovsky, Fourth Century Fathers, p. 111. And Nyssa, also, occasionally used
prosopon for the same purpose: Ad Graecos (W. Jaeger III, I, 20-21).
679
L. Karsavin, op. cit., p. 166.
680
G. V. Florovsky, Fourth Century Fathers, p. 111.
681
Jean Plagnieux, Saint Gregoire de Nasianze Théologien (Paris, 1951), p. 439, wrote quite
pertinently that in the Irenaean line of theologizing the Cappadocians saw the unity, of the
Trinity “comme réalisée essentiellement dans le Père.” By this lie added an important correction
to the basically true statement of Théodore de Régnon, Etudes de théologie positive sur la
Sainte Trinité, Première série (Paris, 1892), p. 434: “L’ unité de substance divine: voilà qui est
clair pour la Latin... Chaque personne est Dieu: voilà pour le Grec ce qui ressort clairement de la
révélation.”
682
B. Otis, “Cappadocian Thought,” p. 107.
68 John M. Rist, Eros and Psyche: Studies in Plato, Plotinus and Origen (Toronto, 1964), p.
.683
218.
the term hypostasis gave a clue for the anthropological recognition of man as a person. 684 There
could no longer be a shadow of pantheistic ambiguity when the Cappadocians boldly spoke of
the θέοσις (deification) of men.685
Against the intellectual pessimism of Apollinaris, Gregory of Nazianzus brought forth
the famous definition “τό γὰρ ἀπρόσιλιπτον ἀθεράπεαυτον” (what is not assumed, cannot be
healed)686 which ultimately became the cornerstone of traditional Christology. 687
One can see in Basil’s synergistic limitations of the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit that
in his vision there was no somber cloud of predestination hanging over the genuine freedom of
men.688 His idea that in our intellect (νοῦς) we possess a criterion of truth689 was overempha-
sized by Gregory of Nyssa to such a degree that the latter lost sight of the difference between
the will and the intellect.690 It seems that the only outlet he eventually left open for the display
of the spontaneity of the will is an infinite ascensional progress in creativity. 691
The strong accent on the mystery of free will was practically applied by St. Basil, the
leader of the Cappadocians, in his ecclesiastical policy of the spiritual independence of local
churches, particularly against the encroachments of the autocratic emperor Valens, 692 as well as
St. Basil is careful to underline the basic difference between the Creator and creature and
only afterwards to speak about “ὁμωίοσις... τοῦ κτίσαντος.”PG 31, 216B. See Hans Dehnhard,
Das Problem der Abhängigkeit des Basilius von Plotin (Berlin, 1964), p. 73.
684
Archimandrite Cyprian Kern, op. cit., pp. 138-39.
685
Gregory of Nazianzus: Orat. 4, 124 PG 35, 664C. Gregory of Nyssa: Orat.5 PG 44, 1177D-
1180A; Beat. 7 PG 44, 1280C.
686
Oral. 45, 9 PG 36, 633C; cf. PG 37, 1071.
687
Archimandrite Justin Popovich, Orthodox Dogmatics, II (Belgrade, 1935), 79-80 (in
Serbian). Pietro Parente, L' Io di Cristo (Brescia, 1955), p. 67, points out the clairvoyance of
Gregory of Nazianzus in his emphasis on the personal unity of Christ.
688
Hermann Dörries. De Spiritu Sancto: Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des
trinitarischen Dogmas (Göttingen, 1956), p. 184.
689
Thomas Špidlik, La Sophiologie de S. Basile (Rome, 1961), p. 44, underlined as important
Basil’s phrase “Il nous est donné τὸ τοῦ νοῦ κριτήριον εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
690
Jérοme Gatth, La Conception de la liberté chez Grégoire de Nysse (Paris, 1953), p. 205, wrote
that la liberté est devenue également plénitude de connaissance.”
691
Ibid.: “L’ expérience de 1’ infini ne peut plus être qu’ un movement ascensionnel créateur.”
692
Hans Lietzmann, op. cit., IV, 20. Cf. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek
Church, trans. Stanley Godman (New York, 1959), p. 87.
69
against the incipient papal claims of Damasus. 693 Basil did not even try to conceal his lack of
appreciation for the mediocirity of Damasus. 694 The harbinger of modern subjective lyric peotry,
Gregory of Nazianzus,695 also became the target for the attacks of the same Roman pope
because he also had been the friend of Meletius of Antioch. 696 At the Second Ecumenical
Council (381) however, where all the Cappadocians were present (theologically, Basil too) the
superiority in theological leadership of the Eastern bishops was manifested not only in that they
formulated the Church’s Creed without any legates from the West, but also in their decision to
reject the innovation of the ultimate appeals to Rome decreed by the council of Sardica (344), 697
as well as to give purely practical reasons for the honorific priorities of the old and new
Rome.698
As far as their eschatology was concerned, among the Cappadocian Fathers Basil
proved himself sober indeed when he made his eschatological expectation to be concretely
prefigured by monastic communities of selfless love, 699 while Gregory of Nazianzus daringly
693
Henry Edward Symonds, The Church Universal and the See of Rome (London, 1939), p. 86.
Cf. I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople (Paris, 1963), pp. 209-210.
694
Η. E. Symonds. loc. cit., Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, “Basile de Cesarée et Damase de
Rome: Les causes de 1’ échec de leurs négotiations”, Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory
of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg, 1963), pp. 122-66, esp. p. 135, wrote appropos of the lack of
confidence toward the Western bishops among their Eastern colleagues: “Partisans... d’ une
politique ecclésiastique assez formelle, et essentiellement pratique, les Occidentaux... jugent
plus sûr d’adhérer... à la lettre du symbole de Nicée. Le danger que recèle cette attitude... est qu’
on en vienne à admettre... qu’ une union extérieure et formelle ... soit en fait... 1’ unique
condition qui garantisse 1’ orthodoxie.”
695
Βασίλειος Τατάκης, Ἡ συμβολὴ τῆς Καππαδοκίας στὴ Χριστιανική σκέφη (Athens,
I960), p. 200.
696
H. E. Symonds, op. cit., p. 87.
H. Dörries, op. cit., p. 176 wrote: “Basilius zwischen den Synoden... er will von keinem
neuen Bekenntnis wissen und bereitet doch die kommende Entscheidung vor.”
697
H. E. Symonds. op. cit., p. 87.
698
Herduin, I 809, cited in ibid., p. 87, n. 6. I. Ortiz de Urbina, op. cit., wrote: “Les évêques
réunis à Constantinople ne disent pas qu’ on ait envoyé à Rome les écrits dogmatiques du
concile ‘oecuménique’dans l’intention de les faire approuver, mais bien pour les communiquer
fraternellement” (p. 234).
699
Peter Nagel, Die Motivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der Ursprung des
Mönchtums (Berlin, 1966), p. 107: “Der von Basilius dem Grossen geprägte Typus des
70
spoke of a purgative baptism of fire and 700 Gregory of Nyssa, by his over-optimistic idea of
apocatastasis (restoration of all things), revealed only his incapacity to apprehend the difference
between intellect and will in man.701
With this sketchy background the use of the term philanthropia in the works of the three
Cappadocians may be more clearly seen.
The Nicene-Origentistic tradition of Cappadoeia 702 revealed itself as propitious soil for
the further growth of Christian “philanthropology.”703
In order to escape repetitions I will offer first a general use of philanthropia common to
all three theologians presently under consideration, and afterward, the specific expressions
characteristic of each of them in particular.
Inescapably, there is philanthropia addressed as a flattering title to a magistrate or
ruler,704 as well as generally indicating the virtue of compassion. 705 Oftentimes it is found in the
koinobitischen Mönchtums sucht als Abbild des Leibes Christi in der Erfüllung des
Liebesgebotes und in der Gemeinschaft des Geistes bereits in dieser Zeit die eschatologische
Zukunft zu präfigurieren.”
700
G. V. Florovsky, Fourth Century Fathers, p. 187.
701
Ibid., pp. 187-88. Jean Daniélou, Origène (Paris, 1948), p. 282, argues that Gregory of Nyssa
was free from Origenistic apocatastasis.
702
H. von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 87.
703
The Philocalia of Origen proves even publicly in what high esteem Origen was held by St.
Basil and Gregory the Theologian, and the absence in it of the term philanthropia seems to me a
matter of pure accident. Cf. The Philocalia of Origen, text revised by J. Armitage Robinson
(Cambridge, 1893), p. 277.
704
Basil; Epist. 110 PG 32, 520C; 521A. Nazianzus: PG 35, 549C; 557B; 561B; 565ACD;
573A; 629C. Nyssa: In Flacillam (W. Jaeger), IX 479, 480.
705
Basil: Epist. 88 PG 32, 469A. Nazianzus: PG35, 564B; 577B; 585A; 625B; 628A; 635B;
641-A-B; 648C; 681C; 693A; 700A; 712C; 724B; 741B; 800A; 824B; 868B; 1016A; 1024B-C;
1097B; 1125B; 1141D; 1204C; 1212B; 1240B. PG 36, 357B; 369A; 385C; 461B; 465C. PG 37,
97C; 148B-C; 152C; 162C; 205C; 240B; 244C; 261A; 320C. Nyssa: PG 46, 785B. C.
Eunomium libri, ed. Werner Jaeger (Leiden 1960), I, 59. (Critically edited works of Gregory of
Nyssa will be designated as “W. Jaeger.”) VIII, II (W. Jaeger), 6.
71
company of other virtues706 especially with chrestotes.707 Philanthropy by itself could mean the
renunciation of anger,708 the quality of a physician,709 humility710 or simply polished urbanity.711
It is the very opposite of the greedy misanthropia of usurers.712 Rarely is it found with a
negative connotation,713 but more often with the meaning of practical almsgiving 714 or as
invitation to imitate God, the supreme Philanthropos.715
Theologically, philanthropia stands for the steady attribute of God’s benevolence
regardless of human attitudes toward Him, 716 but it is more particularly attributed to Christ.717
God is philanthropic when warning before punishment 718 as well as in punishment itself. 719 He is
philanthropic in judgment,720 especially since He establishes a balance between trials and
joys.721 The divine philanthropy means above all the pardon of sins, 722 or time for repentance.723
706
Basil; PG 31, 1353C. Nazianzus: PG 35, 864B-C. After having called for witnesses Paul and
Christ Himself that the greatest virtue is ἀυάπη, Gregory deduces from it φιλοπτοχία,
συμπάθεια, ἔλεος and φιλανθροπία, PG 35, 977A-C; 1017B. PG 36, 445B.
707
Basil: PG 32, 461A; 524A-B. Nazianzus: PG 35, 881B-C; 1061B; 1064B.
708
Basil: PG 30, 160C.
709
Basil; PG 29, 332B; PG 32, 684C. Nyssa: III, I (W. Jaeger), 3.
710
Basil: PG 31, 537B; 553B. Nazianzus: PG 36, 20SB.
711
Basil: PG 30, 664B. Nazianzus: PG 35, 941D; 1176C. PG. 36, 304B.
712
Basil: PG 29, 280A-B. Nyssa: V (W. Jaeger), 345; IX (W. Jaeger), 202. Devil is called
misanthropic in PG 46, 844A.
713
Basil: PG 30, 209B as unreasonable laxity. Nyssa: V (W. Jaeger), 329, IX (W. Jaeger), 197.
714
Basil: PG 31, 276A; 300C; 325A. PG 32, 593A. Nazianzus: PG 35, 896A-C; 904C; 908B-C.
PG 36, 241B; 376A.
715
Basil: PG 31, 648B; PG 32, 645A. Nazianzus: deplores the lack of imitation of God’s
philanthropy in PG 35, 949C; cf. PG 35, 952B-C and 35, 976C. The greatest and most
philanthropic thing is the inclination toward God and appropriation of Him (PG 35, 1086A) or to
imitate Christ’s passion (PG 36, 232C). Nyssa: used only the vague term ἀρετὴ as the way to
ὁμοίωσις (PG 44,1200C).
716
Nazianzus: PG 35, 965A. PG 36, 388B; 404B; 412A. Nyssa: PG 46, 484B. Vol. I (W.
Jaeger), p 348, 350; VI (W. Jaeger), 46; IX (W. Jaeger), 100.
717
Basil: PG 29, 524D. PG 31, 933B. Nazianzus: PG 35, 876B. PG 36, 109D. Cf. Gregory von
Nazianz, Die fünf theologischen Reden, ed. Joseph Barbel (Düsseldorf, 1963), p. 198. The rare
72
It could mean also, the humility and longsuffering of God,724 as well as the healing power of
God.725 Also it is manifested as the salvation or consolation of sinners. 726 Divine philanthropia
significantly appears together with the term oikonomia,727 it is apophatic in its magnitude 728 and
the source of divine reward.729 Moreover, it is the miraculous self-expression of God through
His work in the Incarnation.730
Only St. Basil qualified epistolary activity as philanthropic731 the grace as
φιλανθρωποτάτη732 and the Holy Spirit as Philanthropos733. He saw a mark of philanthropy in
God’s manner of speaking in riddles concerning punishment and reward, 734 as well as in
dividing mankind in two parts: those who are married and those who live in virginity. 735 St.
Basil’s Shorter monastic Rule opens with the praise of God’s philanthropic attributes: “ὁ
φιλάνθρωπος Θεός, ὁ διδάσκων ἄνθρωπον γνῶσιν.736 According to him the Only-Begotten
Son appears to the creation as its philanthropic father and good intercessor.737 For St. Basil
there is philanthropy even in God’s use of known human words in order to indicate the truth
verbal form is in PG 36, U8C (J. Barbel), p. 242. Nyssa: VIII, II (W. Jaeger), p. 10.
718
Basil: PG 30, 352C; 576D. Nazianzus: specifies that God’s philanthropy may induce some
into carelessness, henceforth the divine chrêstotés is refused to such a sinner (PG 35, 1013C).
Nyssa: God is reducing his punishment. See Grégoire de Nysse, La Vie de Moise, ed. Jean
Daniélou, p. 98.
719
Basil: PG 30, 613D. Nazianzus: PG 35, 1061A; 1181B.
720
Basil: PG 29, 489A. PG 30, 352A. Nazianzus: PG 37, 148C. Cf. PG 35, 888 B-C. Nyssa: PG
44, 593A.
721
Basil: PG 32, 553B. Nyssa: I (W. Jaeger), 350.
722
Basil: PG 32, 957A. PG 31, 1260 A-B. Saint Basile, Lettres, II, ed. Yves Courtonne (Paris,
1961), 2J3. Nazianzus: PG 36, 368C. Nyssa: V (W. Jaeger), 298.
723
Basil: PG 32, 576A. PG 31, 1089C. Nyssa: PG 44, 460A.
724
Basil: PG 30, 140A. PG 31, 933B. Nazianzus: PG 34, 953A.
725
Basil: PG 29, 485C; cf. PG 30, 448C; 576B; PG. 32, 921C. Nyssa: V (W. Jaeger), 298.
726
Basil: PG 32,192C. PG 31, U72C; cf. PG 32, 253C. Nazianzus: PG 36, 384A; cf. PG. 37,
304B.
727
Basil: PG 32, 812B. Nazianzus: PG 35, 433A. PG 37, 208B. Nyssa: III, I (W, Jaeger), 171.
the term κατάβασις; is practically synonymous with οἰκονομία in VI (W. Jaeger), 304.
728
Basil: PG 32, 240C. Nyssa: sees it in the context of an ineffable joy: VIII, II (W. Jaeger), 20.
729
Basil: PG 32, 405C; 456B. Nazianzus: PG 35, 908B; cf. 1052D. Nyssa: VIII (W. Jaeger), 88.
73
of the secret ritual “dogmas.”738 He stressed not only the practical value of the divine
philanthropy as being the basis of the prohibition of usury, 739 but even on the highest level of
theologizing Basil discerned the reality of philanthropia as being the divine power different
from His judicial, creative, or prognostic powers — all these being not the names of the
simple essence, but of the manifold divine energies which are partially knowable, in
contradistinction to the ousia which is entirely unknowable.740
Proper only to Gregory of Nazianzus is his interpellation of the servant of Christ as
“φιλόθεε καὶ φιλάνθρωπε”741 and the invention of the word autophilanthropia. “Philanthrophy
itself”, closely knit with ἀγάπη.742 However, the poet among the three Cappadocians did not
see any poetical value in the word philanthropia.743
A particular feature of the “philanthropology” of Gregory of Nyssa is the clear
assertion that the divine philanthropy gives meaning to the whole creation.744 The gift of
730
Basil: PG 31, 1356A. Especially in the wonder of perpetuating the succession of bishops, PG
32, 629A. Nazianzus: PG 35, 860C; “καλόν ἡ φιλανθρωπία καὶ μάρτυς αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς...
γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος,”Nyssa: PG 45, 860Α; cf. PG 45, 889A. Ill, I (W. Jaeger), 15.
731
PG 32, 277 D.
732
PG 32, 1017 B.
733
PG 29, 361 D; cf. PG 32, 100 A. The height of ingratitude is to disappoint the philanthropy
of the Divine Benefactor: PG 32, 160 B.
734
PG 30, 52A. There is an equilibrium in such a phrase of Basil: “φοβήθητε αὐτοῦ τὸ ἰσχυρόν,
καὶ μὴ ἀπογνῶτε αὐτοῦ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας”(PG 29, 481C).
735
PG 31, 628 Β.
736
PG 31, 1080,
737
PG 29, 392 Α.
738
PG 31, 1144 Α.
739
PG 29, 277 C.
740
Saint Basil, The Leiters, III, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Loeb), Letther 234, 372-73.
741
PG 35, 893C.
742
PG 35, 1152 B. Donald Farlow Winslow emphasized the use of philanthropia in Gregory’s
writings in his “The Concept of Salvation in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus” (unpublished
dissertation, Harvard University, 1967), pp. 138-39, 142, 147.
74
virginity comes from the same source.745 Also in the anthropological design of God, Nyssa
was able to see the blueprint of divine philanthropy.746
Thus in the hands of great theologians the term philanthropia became finally a
theological notion indicating one specific attribute of God.
743
It is not found in Gregory’s Poemata moralia (PG 37, 521-968), neither in his Poemata
historien (PG 37, 969-1600).
744
(W. Jaeger), 162.
745
Grégoire de Nysse, Traité de la virginité, ed. Michel Aubineau (Paris, 1966), p. 266, n. 2. Cf.
VIII, I (W. Jaeger), 254.
746
VIII, I (W. Jaeger), 195.
75
The Pagan Trend: Emperor Julian (ca. 325-363)
Libanius (314-ca. 393). Thcmistius (ca. 317-388)
For the last offspring of the Emperor Constantine, philosophy and religion were
militantly inseparable.747 What proved to be even more explosive was his belief that, as the
Johanine Logos was in the beginning with God, Asklepios, too, was from the beginning
with Helios.748 However, Julian’s religious outlook was not simply a whimsical opposition
to Christianity, but had its undergirding principles in Neoplatonic philosophy.749 He
attempted’ to monopolize the wealth of classical culture for the pagan cult exclusively by
prohibiting Christians from teaching in the schools, since they could not properly interpret
ancient Greek literature (equated with the holy scriptures of Hellenism) if they did not
believe in the old gods.750 Such zeal was not to the taste even of the pagan writer
Ammianus Marcelinus.751
Under the influence of Libanius 752 and Themistius,753 Julian was in an excellent
position to become acquainted with the pagan tradition of philanthropia.754 He used the
747
Hans Raeder, “Kaiser Julian als Philosoph und religiöser Reformator, Classica et
Medievalia, VI, fasc. 1-2 (1944), 179-93, esp. p. 182.
748
Ibid., p. 185. A. J. Festugière, Anlioche, pp. 71-72, has tried to explain the apostasy of
Julian: Il apparaît... qu’ aucun homme vraiment spirituel ne prit soin de l’ âme de Julien au
temps où cette sollicitude lui eût été nécessaire. Georges de Cappadoce... n’ était qu’ un
aventurier... si quelque prêtre... lui avait ouvert un coeur de père, il serait bien étonnant que
plus tard... il n’y eût jamais fait allusion... Julien ne fut jamais un ingrat.
749
Ibid.
750
H. Raeder, loc. cit., p. 189, wrote: “Er (Julian) betrachtete die griechischen
Literaturwerke... als Religionsurkunden, deren Erklärung nur solchen Lehrern anvertraut
werden durfte, die selbst in einem positiven Verhältnis zur alten Religion standen.”
751
He wrote (XXV, 4,17) about Julian: “Superstitiosus magis quam sacrorum legitimus
observator.”Quoted by H. Raeder, loc. cit., p. 189, n. 5.
752
Giuseppe Rissioti, Julian the Apostate, trans. Joseph Castelloe (Milwaukee, 1960), p.
27f.
753
J. Bidez, in L’ Empereur Julien: Oeuvres complètes, I, I (Paris, 1932), 112, wrote
apropos: “Thémistius est au nombre de ceux qui ont fourni à Julien son érudition.”
754
Cf. especially ibid. I, II, 156, 158 et passim.
76
term, however, much less frequently than Themistius, 755 and narrowed it down so as to
mean, in judicial practice, only clementia (mercifulness)756. His endeavor was, also, to link
philanthropy with pagan piety in the context of the ancient doctrine of ὁμοίωσις Θεῶ.757
By attempting to promote his philanthropia as liberalitas in social institutions, Julian secretly
competed with Christianity, while in his public propaganda he insisted on the restoration of
the ancient Hellenic and, particularly, Athenian virtue of φιλανθρωπία.758
Even though a bookish person,759 Julian knew' how to fight for his beliefs. Obedient
to his deity he attacked the Church, but died young, allegedly with the cry of despair:
“Helios, thou hast ruined me!”760
That he had made a deep impression not only on his own age, one can see from the
fact that Christians felt it necessary to write against Julian even in the next century.761
*
According to Glanville Downey, Julian’s friend Libanius looked upon philanthropia
“as one of the greatest qualities which both the emperor and his subjects might possess. ”762
Before I turn to the imperial aspect of philanthropy I should present the other minor uses of
the term.763
Philanthropia in Libanius’ work stands vaguely for a well-intentioned disposition764
755
Jürgen Kabiersch, Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian
(Wiesbaden, 1960), p. 19.
756
Ibid., p. 20.
757
Ibid., p. 53.
758
Ibid., p. 89.
759
Glanville Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, 1963), p. 174.
760
C. Riccioti, op. cit., p. 259.
761
St. Cyril of Alexandria PG 76, 508. Cf. André de Ivanka, “But et date de la composition
du ‘Corpus Areopagiticum’”(résumé), Actes du VI Congrès International d’ Études
byzantines, I (Paris, 1950), 239-40.
762
G. Downey, “'Philanthropia’ in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century after
Christ,” Historia, IV (1955), 199-208, esp. p. 204.
763
I have used the critical edition of Richardus Foerster, Libanii Opera (Leipzig, 1903-
1921; II vols.).
764
Or. 11 I, fasc. 2, 522; Or. 20 VI, 296. Cf. Or. 23 VI, 403, 406; Or. 29 VI, 609; Or. 34
VII, 123; Or. 45 VII, 534; Or. 49 VII, 675; Progymnasmata 6 VIII, 147.
77
or a diffuse mentality of the people. 765 It may mean the hospitality of the city of Antioch, 766
the very opposite of wrath,767 organizing public amusements,768 or an ingredient of good
oratory.769 It is ascribed to the magistrates770 or judges,771 but above all to the emperors. He
praised Julian for his philanthropic inclination toward the less fortunate,772 and exhorted his
royal pupil to follow only his inborn philanthropia,773 a law for rulers 774 who with it crown
their victories by pardoning their enemies.775 After the famous riot of 387 the pagan
spokesman of Antioch thought it appropriate to invite the Emperor Theodosius to practice
philanthropia toward Antioch,776 since no normal man would beat the mad.777 In another
oration Libanius encouraged him to imitate the philanthropy of Philip of Macedon toward
Athens,778 for, says he, great is the distance between fear and philanthropia.779 On the list of
virtues philanthropy has first place, 780 because emperors are expected to judge rather
according to philanthropy than according to the strict legality.781
Libanius’ theological use of philanthropia is rather meagre. Diana, for example,
765
Or. 50 VII, 710. Cf. Or. 29, III, 74; Or. 36, III, 231; Or. 57 IV, 161. Going together with
ἐπιείκεια in Declamatio 13 VI, 74 or with εὔονια in Declamatio 15 VI, 116. Also, as a
reminiscence of the philanthropic virtue of the Athenians: Declamatio 14 VI, 99 and
Declamatio 21, VI, 324.
766
Or. 11, I, fasc. 2, 488. Cf. Declamatio 3 V, 206.
767
Declamatio 4 V, 281.
768
Or. 10 I, fasc. 2, 410.
769
Or. 11 I, fasc. 2, 492. Cf. Declamatio 48 VII, 628.
770
Or. 22 II, 480. Cf. Or. 33 III, 175.
771
Or. 27 III, 26.
772
Or. 15 II, 134.
773
Ibid., p. 135.
774
Ibid., p. 137.
775
Ibid., p. 150.
776
Or. 19 II, 394.
777
Ibid., p. 388.
778
Or. 20 II, 431.
779
Ibid., p. 432. Cf. pp. 439, 444. Also Or. 27 III, 34; Or. 33 III, 181.
78
showed her philanthropic pity by punishing a deer instead of a guilty girl. 782
Philanthropy is found in the shadow of Zeus,783 and all the gods are
(φιλανθροπόποτεροι).784 There is a somewhat vague inference that Hellenic
philanthropia rests on piety toward the gods.785 The clearest indication of his
theological awareness concerning philanthropy is the instance wherein he asserts that
Julian’s attraction to philanthropia is explainable only because the gods cohabit with
him.786
I shall soon compare his attitude with Themistius’ more impressive use of
philanthropia.
*
Themistius of Byzantium787 aspired to be recognized as a philosopher in his own
right, but his opponents rated him much lower — as nothing more than a sophist.789 The
788
professional jealousy Libanius had of Themistius goes hand in hand with the rivalry
between Antioch and Constantinople.790 However, Themistius’ works, as well as the
games of the hippodrome, are almost the only signs that Constantinople — the upstart
780
Or. 30 III, 114. Cf. Ibid., p. 88. It is qualified with “ὑπερβολὴ”in Or. 45ΙΙΙ, 360. There
is, also, the superlative exclamation “ὦ φιλανθροπάτατε βασιλεῦ”in Or 48 III, 471; 485.
781
Laudatio Constanii el Consiatnis 49 IV, 290-91.
782
Or. 5 I, fasc. 1, 316.
783
Or. 26 III, 8.
784
Declamatio 13 VI, 25.
785
Or. 47, III 413.
786
Or. 14 II, 130.
787
I am using his works in the critical edition: Thεmistii Oratones quae super sum, ed. II.
Schenkl and G. Downey, 1 (Leipzig 1965) in my abbreviation designated as “G. Downey”:
and Themistu Orationes, ed. Guilielmus Dindorfius (Leipzig, 1832), which will be
designated as “Dindorfii.”
788
Or. 11 (G. Downey), p. 220; cf. Or. 21 (Dindorfii), p. 296.
789
Peter Wolf, Vom Schulivesen der Spätantike, Studien zu Libanius (Baden- Baden, 1952),
p. 13. Already since Carneades’ times (Second century B.C.) the philosophers had opposed
the rhetoricians for the curriculum. See George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece
(London, 1963), p. 324.
790
Paul Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale au IVe siècle après J. -C. (Paris, 1955), pp. 167-
68.
79
new capital — had a soul.791
Themistius focused his attention almost exclusively on the royal art of leadership
and on its loftiest ideal, classical philanthropia. In a few instances, however, he did use the
term with connotation other than that of imperial virtue. Thus, philanthropy stands for
hospitality792 or the pleasant spectacle of a jeering assembly.793 But the most important
semantic change seems to be in the tendency to use philanthropia instead of agape.794 In his
flowery lectures given to the successors of Constantine, Themistius tried to impress on their
mind the highest moral ideal of Hellenism. When someone has a royal soul, he would
declaim, and gathers into it all the good traits of an upright character, he can show himself
as having the virtue of philanthropia.795 The ruler must rule over himself first, and his
inborn philanthropy is the source of all other virtues.796 The second in order is courage. 797
Then follow justice and moderation. But each and all of these virtues may adorn every
commoner. To become really royal they must be sealed with the golden seal of
philanthropy798 One can see then, that according to Themistius’ ideology, philanthropia is
more sublime than all other virtues by the sole fact that the King of heaven is not called
patient or courageous, but philanthropic,799 since that august notion reveals something of
the divine propriety.800 In the heat of rhetorical exaggeration he might give the wrong
impression, as if saying that only the emperor could imitate the divine virtue.801 Sometimes
791
Ibid., p. 173.
792
Or. 24 (Dindorfii), p. 362. Once it is used together with κηδεμονία, Or. 15 (G. Downey),
p. 285, or with εὔνοια, Or. 3 (G. Downey), p. 65.
793
Or. 23 (Dindorfii), p. 343.
794
G. Downey, “Themistius and the Defence of Hellenism in the Fourth Century,“ Harvard
Theological Review, L (1957), 259-74, esp. p. 271, wrote: “In some cases it seems actually
to have replaced agape.”Cf. Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 24.
795
Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 8, There is the list of royal virtues: τὸ πρᾷον, τὸ ἐπιεικές, τὸ
ἥμερον (ibid).
796
Ibid.
797
Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 9.
798
Ibid.
799
Ibid., p. 11.
800
Ibid., p. 12.
801
Thus in Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 12, “μακάριος ἄνθρωπος ὄντως ἐκεῖνος, ὁς μόνος δύναται
τῷ Οεῷ κοινωνεῖν ἀρετῆς.”
80
he knows bow to coin a happy laconic definition: “θεοφιλὴς Βασιλεὺς ὁ φιλάνθρωπος”
(“The friend of man is an emperor dear to the gods.”)802 A philanthropic emperor is not
unrestrained in handling men, since he loves them. 803 How infinitely more becoming to an
emperor, is the title lover of mankind (philanlhropos) than that of lover of wine (φίλοινος)
lover of pleasure (φιλήδονος), lover of gold (φιλόχρυσος) or lover of money
(φιλάργυρος).804
Agesilaos, king of Sparta, was too deficient in the virtue of philanthropia to be a
true king.805 And there follows the inevitable reminiscence of Xenophon.806 In the same
breath Themistius glorifies Diogenes of Sinopa, a real philosopher, who was not only a
preacher but also a doer of philanthropy.807 Homer also called the pure and godlike love of
men (φιλότης ἀνθρώπων) the inward beauty of kingship. This love according to
Themistius, has the synthetic name philanthropia.808 It is rather the wishful thinking of a
courtier than a reality when Themistius proclaims the Roman emperors to be capable of
containing their anger through being pious and philanthropic. 809 Nonetheless, he tried his
best to give to the rulers of the Roman world the best education available.810 Flattered by
Valens’ attention to his speeches, Themistius would praise him with enthusiasm: “I have
often reflected that there is no other cause for that love of mankind (philanthropia) of
yours... than love of literature (philologia)”.811
At first glance it would seem that Themistius, well remunerated by his august
audience, tastelessly flatters his sovereign when he says that Valens is equal to Alexander
the Great, even to the point of puzzling the common people as to whether he is a god or a
802
Ibid., p. 13.
803
Ibid., pp. 17-18.
804
Ibid., p. 18.
805
Or. 2 (G. Downey), p. 33.
806
Ibid., pp. 33-34.
807
Ibid., p. 39.
808
Ibid. p. 74.
809
Or. 7 (G. Downey), p. 133. C. Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 8.
810
G. Downey, “Education and Public Problems as seen by Themistius, Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association, LXXXVI (1955), 291-307, esp. p.
298.
811
Or. 11 (G. Downey), p. 221. G. Downey’s translation in “Education and Public
Problems,” p. 301.
81
man.812 In fact, if one replaces Persia by the African possessions of the New Rome, Valens’
empire then was not much smaller than that of Alexander. As far as the numinous character
of Valens is concerned, again Themistius has to be taken seriously. For him the emperor is,
indeed, an offspring of Zeus, a royal image on earth of the King above.813 The Arians, also,
maintained a similar idea of the perfect harmony between the earthly Roman monarchy and
the heavenly divine monarchy.814 The Cappadocians fought against this analogy, especially
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who ended the controversy by concluding that “the divine
monarchy in the Trinity had no equivalent on earth.” 815 We see time and again how
everything we touch especially in the Fourth century, is ultimately motivated by the cult.
Therefore, in dealing with Themistius’ emperor-worship and its central notion of
philanthropia, we ought to search out his own theology, which undergirds his political
theory.
When Iamblichus is said to have gone away from Plotinus’ austere philosophy in
the direction “of what would nowadays be called spiritualism and theosophy ,”816 this sounds
to me slightly anachronistic, since Iamblichus still had around him a living pagan tradition
and his choice to go to the roots of the pagan cult could not have much in com mon with
the rather amateurish and outlandish theosophy of modern days .817 If to the ancients the
essence of religion was the rite, 818 and if in their sacrifices they found “their shelter from
the mercilessness and meaninglessness of mechanical causation ,”819 then Iamblichus’
theurgy was, for a believing polytheist ,820 the only available means of mystical liberation
from fate. In this connection he set forth a very cogent argument, if seen from the point of
view of his belief: “With good reason, therefore, do we perform to the gods every holy rite
812
Or. 7 (G. Downey), p. 147.
813
Or. 11 (G. Downey), p. 217; cf. Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 13.
814
F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 728.
815
Ibid., p. 728.
816
M. L. W. Laistner, Christianity and Pagan Culture in the later Roman Empire (Ithaca, N.
Y., 1951), p. 24.
817
The Theosophy of E. P. Blavatzky edited in eleven fascicles (Asuncion, Argentina, 1958-
1966). In Russian.
818
A. D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford, 1933), p. 161.
819
Martin P. Nilsson, Religion as Man’s Protest against the Meaninglessness of Events
(Lund. 1954), p. 28.
820
A. Brelich wrote in ”Der Polytheismus,” Numen, VII (1960), 123-36, esp. p. 133: “Der
Polytheismus... vor allem für die sogenannten höheren Kulturen und nicht für die
sogenannten primitiven charakteristisch ist.”
82
in order that they may deliver us from the evils... as they alone, through the moral power of
persuasion, have rule over necessity (ἀνάγκη).”821 In order to understand what kind of
literature we have in our hands, 822 I must make a new step so that I may re-examine from a
new standpoint the problem of the impersonal and personal character of deity as
understood by the pagans.
First, there remains as firmly established the philosophical Hellenic “dogma”
that god is utterly simple and without diversity, 823 as well as impersonal. 824 But below
this highly sophisticated doctrine we find that in the traditional pagan religion “the
Olympian gods were not felt to transcend the world in the sense of existing somehow
apart from it”.825 Anthropomorphically, they were believed to be persons.826 But, by
definition, the plurality of the gods excludes the personal omnipotence of any one of
them.827 Hence, their devotee strives to establish a relationship with all of them if
possible, as in the case of Iamblichus who sees how “in the presence of the greater gods”
821
Iamblichos: Theurgia or the Egyptian Mysteries, trans. Alexander Wilder (London
1911), p. 260.
Jane E. Harrison wrote in Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge,
1922): “Greek religion contained two diverse, even opposite, factors: on the one hand the
element of service (therapeia), on the other the element of aversion (apotrope). The rites
service were connected... with the Olympians... The rites of aversion with ghosts, heroes
and underground divinities.”Cited by Royden Keith Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman
Religions and Early Judaism (New York, 1952), p. 53.
822
M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, II (Munich, 1950), 429, wrote
apropos of Iamblichus; “De mysteriis” that it is “Grundbuch der spätantiken Religion.”Cited
by Martin Sicherl, Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen von Iamblichos De
Mysteriis: Eine kritischhistorische Studie (Berlin, 1957), p. XVIII.
823
Richard H. Overman, Evolution and Christian Doctrine of Creation: A Whiteheadian
Interpretation (Philadelphia, 1967), p. 249.
824
See above, p. 15, n. 49..
825
R. Overman, op. cit., pp. 245-46.
826
A. Brelich, loc. cit., p. 127. The teacher of Iamblichus, Porphyry, according to Pierre
Benoit, Exégèse et théologie (Paris, 1961), II, 436, wrote against the Christians: “Si les
Chrétiens avaient une idée saine de la ‘monarchie’ divine, ils comprendraient qu’elle
comporte, non 1’ unicité absolue de Dieu, mais seulment sa suprematie... par rapport aux
puissances célestes qui préside... au gouvernement du monde.” But, also, he is deadly
serious about the oracle of the goddess Hecate saying that Christians are polluted, impure,
fallen into the pitfall of error” (ibid. p. 435).
83
(“τῶν κρειττόνων παρόντων) the evil spirits (κακά πνεύματα) disappear.828 Such an
experience ought to be taken seriously since it comes from a serious man. If nowhere
else, there at least we have converging pieces of evidence which both pagan and
Christian mystics have left us in literary documents whose authenticity no one questions,
namely that they had known by experience the daemonic or demonic world.829 In the
Fourth century, however, the issue was not simply an opposition between Christian
fideism and Hellenic rationalism830 nor between Christian cult and pagan culture, but
was, rather, a fight between these two cults, two faiths, both equally using rational
arguments taken from the same Hellenic culture in order to protect their respective
mysteries.831 On the pagan side we have two types of religious leaders: one bent rather
on theurgic practices — Iamblichus832 and Julian.833 And the other, less mystically
concerned, which stressed more the values of paideia, represented by Libanius and
Themistius.834 The second, soberer line had also greater use for the notion of
philanthropia. The reason for this I will give toward the end of this study.
Except for Gregory of Nazianzus, the Cappadocians were, in comparison with
Athanasius, less preoccupied with the problem of paganism, as if they realized that with the
pacification of the internal war in the Church all other external rivals would be overcome
painlessly.
While highly appreciative of ancient paideia,835 Gregory of Nazianzus was very
severe toward the pagan cult. He followed the example of Athanasius and not that of
828
Jamblique, Les Mystères d’ Egypte, texte établi et traduit par Edouard des Places (Paris,
1966), p. 116.
829
Beside Iamblichus’ testimony we have another in Book XI of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.
Cf. A. D. Nock, op. cit., pp. 138-55, esp. p. 145. From the Christian side, the classical Vita
Antonii of St. Athanasius (PG 26, 876 et passim).
830
There was also a pagan πίστις. Cf. J. Rist, op. cit., p. 220.
831
Bernard Kötting, Christentum und heidnische Opposition am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts
(Münster, 1961), p. 22. wrote: “Die Widerstandskraft der heidnischen Religiosität
verschanzte sich bei den Mysterien.” Apropos of the Christian disciplina arcani see
Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta. The “Unwritten” and “Secret”, Apostolic Traditions in the
Theological Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 4-5.
832
J. Bidez, L’Empereur Julien: Lettres et Fragments (Paris, 1960), p. 129
833
Ibid., p. 130.
834
The Latter, for example, insisted on the identity of virtue and knowledge. See G.
Downey, Themistius and the Defence of Hellenism, p. 265.
84
Origen, who was more lenient in this respect.836 He drew a very sharp line of demarcation
between the major cults, according to their respective doctrines on the God-head: “There
are neither three principles, which would mean paganism or polytheism, nor one Judaic
principle, somewhat narrow, selfish and impotent.” 837 His positive teaching is found in the
exhortation to Maximus the Philosopher wherein he proclaims his cultual commitment to
the “unity in Trinity worshipped in unity, which has in an admirable way both (per sonal)
distinctness and (natural) oneness.”838
Gregory of Nyssa, in his short address Ad Graecos, writes cooly that “God” is the
common name for essence, not for the Divine Persons.839 J. Daniélou has noticed that Nyssa
held the pagan philosophy to be sterile, while only the Church was the fruitful Mother. 840
Nonetheless, Nyssa tended to some comprehensive Christian view in wluch he could
incorprate — all error excluded — the Jewish element of the unity of the divine nature, as
well as the pagan element of distinguishing the hypostases. 841
It seems, however, that Gregory of Nazianzus’ exclusive view prevailed because he
knew how to impress people with his vivid description of the “impure sacrifices” offered
by the Emperor Julian.842
I shall now briefly indicate the cultual involvement of Libanius and Themistius.
Libanius did not even try to appear “monotheistic ”.843 He unabashedly confesses his
faith in Diana who helps in war .844 She is proclaimed by him to be philanthropic and
philhellenic because she abolished human sacrifices in her honor .845 On another occasion he
laments the decrease of the sense of sacredness at the opening ceremony of the Olym pic
games846 and in a better mood he enjoys retelling the purely Antiochene, home-made,
836
J. Plagnieux, op. cit., p. 318, n. 149.
837
Or. 25 PG 35, 1220 C-1221A.
838
Or. 25 PG 35, 1221 D.
839
III, I (W. Jaeger), 19-33, esp. pp. 19-20.
840
Grégoire de Nysse, La Vie de Moïse, ed. Jean Daniélou, p. XXVI.
841
Orat. catech. magna PG 45, 20A.
842
Or. 4 PG 35, 533.
843
He did use, but rarely, θεὸς (in the singular): IV, 318; VI, 371. Also τὸ θεῖον; V, 30 et
passim. More often, however, θεοί: Or. 18 II, 369; Or. 24 II, 528; Or. 47 III, 405, 413; Or.
57 IV, 166 et passim.
844
Or. 5 I, I, 309.
845
Ibid., p. 314.
846
Or. 10 1, 2, 405.
85
mythology about the tragic love of Apollo for the aloof Daphne, who was, as the story
goes, vindictively, if esthetically, changed into the laurel tree .847 He feared, also, the magic
incantations over the dead chamaeleon found in his classroom ,848 but was bold in defending
the pagan temples from destruction 849 and in asking of Theodosius that the pagan sacrifice
of incense remain legal.850
In his address to Julian, Libanius was proud to announce that in Nicomedia, where
Julian came to profit from his teaching, he found also “an oracular sparkle,” and there, says
he, the future emperor was healed from his hatred of the gods .851 Julian meant for him the
resurrection of the dead and the re-confirmation of the good old fame of the Empire. 852 In
his presence the elated rhetorician was overjoyed at being in a position to assert, his faith
publicly: “Now is the time to want to live, a time of sacrifices for longevity. Now, indeed,
one can truly live... when the fire mounts upon the altars and the air is purified by the
sacred smoke: when daemons dwell with men and men converse with daemons .”853 Here we
can feel Libanius’ faith inspiring this quasi-liturgical hymn. His “monody” on the destroyed
temple of Apollo in the suburb of Antioch854 reveals a deep attachment to the local shrine. 855
Taking into account all the professional grandiloquence of a “docteur ès beaux
gestes,” Libanius nonetheless must have been genuinely distressed by the death of Julian in
order to meditate suicide.856
His struggle to preserve the social structure of thie Hellenistic polis was dominated by the
847
Or. 11 I, 2, 467.
848
Or. 26 III, 228. The Christians also believed in the existence of the magic arts; not to do
so would mean disbelieving the old and the New Testaments. See. A. A. Barb, “The
Survival of Magic Arts,”Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth
Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963), pp. 100-125, esp. p. 115.
849
Or. 30 III, 110.
850
Ibid., pp. 104-105.
851
Or. 13 II, 67.
852
Ibid., p. 78.
853
Ibid., p. 80.
854
Or. 60 IV, 311-21.
855
Ibid., p. 314.
856
R. Foerster-Mülnscher’s article on Libanius in Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der
Classischen Altertumsivissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1924) K-L, col. 2499. He suspected the
Christians of having killed the emperor. See J. Misson, Recherches sur le paganisme de
Libanius (Louvaiii, 1914), p. 91, n. 4.
86
will to oppose Christianity.857 One could detect in the following fragment, which is a jewel
of oratory, almost a secret challenge to Christianity: as if Libanius was saying: do not we
Greeks have in Socrates someone at least as moving as your Christ?
Let Socrates now philosophize, but for me let him also prophesy; swans sing before
their death, and give up their soul — musical is the death of a musical bird. But even the
Attic nightingale and the swan were suffered to sing. Socrates is a fellow-slave of theirs,
and himself is sacred to Apollo. Thou didst once proclaim, 0 Pythian: “Of all men, Socrates
is wisest.” But now the wisest is foolishly told to die.858
In the realm of philosophy Themistius was renowned for his paraphrases of
Aristotle,859 but on purely religious ground he submitted to the authority of Homer 860 to such
a degree as to give Libanius the right to praise him in this revealing fashion: “σοὶ φίλοι μὲν
οἱ καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς, ἐχθροὶ δὲ οἱ καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς” (“Your friends are also the friends of the gods,
as your enemies are the enemies of the gods ”).861 Indeed, one can discern a cultual nostalgia,
In my opinion, A. J. Festugière is all too prone to minimize Libanius’ religious

engagement. See his Antioche païenne et chrétienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines
de Syrie (Paris, 1959), p. 230. A scholar for whom “Eschyle et le livre de Job sont sur le
même plan” (ibid.) will hardly be able to discern the dynamic influx of cult in and through
the works of culture.
857
G. Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, 1063), p. 196.
858
De Socratis silentio 27 (Foerster) Declamatio 2 V, 140-41. There is also the “pagan
passion”of Prometheus who suffered “for having loved men too much”. Aeschylus’
“Prometheus Bound,” vs. 123. Cited by E. des Places, “Un Thème platonicien dans la
tradition patristique: Le Juste crucifié (Platon, République 361e4- 362a2),” Studia
Patristica, IX, III, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1966), 30-40, esp. p. 38.
859
Herman F. Bouchery, Themistius in Libanius’ Brieven Critische uitgaoe van 52 brieven,
voorzien van een historisch commentaar en tekslverklarende nota’s (Antwerp, 1936), p. 37.
wrote: ”bewondering voor Themistius’ Paraphrases van Aristoteles zoo grot was, dat hij zijn
eigen leerlingen uit alle kracht sansppoorde, naar het woord van den meester te
Constantinopel te gaan luisteren; het orakel van Apollo, dat hij liet raadplegen, zou
Themistius zelfs genoemd hebben: ’Een tweede Socrates, de wijste aller Hellene’.”
860
In Homer he found the valid description of the deity as being the friendly one, the
saviour, whose are all the titles of philanthropy. Or. 6 (G. Downey), p. 118. He explicitly
stated that Homer is worthy of belief, since he offers truth and not mere poetic inventions.
Or. 1l (G. Downey), p. 223, Even Pindar’s pantheistic verse is welcomed. Or. 6 (G.
Downey), p. 115.
861
Ep. 402 (404) in the critical edition of H. Bouchery, p. 36.
87
not merely a literary reminiscence, when
Themistius imagines seeing in the delegates (probably Christians, by majority)
gathering in Constantinople to be seeing the pilgrims (θεωροί) to Delos.862 In the oration
dedicated to his father, Themistius names the judges of the after-life Rhadamanthys and
Minos, and uses the technical mystery-language of the initiation such as: “approaching the
adyta of awe, filled with dizzy agitation of mind.”863
Presently I must try to give an answer to the question of whether Themistius did or
did not have a monotheistic vision of the Godhead.864 No doubt, from the Second century
on in the eyes of many pious pagans even the gods of Greek mythology were “no more
than mediating daemons, satraps of an invisible supramundane King.” 865 And Themistius
does use philosophical language that leads one to believe that he is a monotheistically
oriented thinker: God is omnipresent, says he, 866 totally independent and unhindered,
governing the universe.867 The very holiness of the divinity (ἡ Θεότης) is verified not
otherwise than by its taking the initiative in philanthropy.868 The three distinctive attributes
of Themistius’ god are eternity of life, the possession of power, and the never-ceasing
activity of a benefactor to men. 869 He indeed most frequently uses the notion “god” (θεός)
in the singular.870 However, he did not shrink from using not only literarily permissible
mythological adornents,871 but even the outright plural: “the gods” (θεοί).872 All this allows
862
Or. 4 (O. Downey), p. 78. Or. 20 (Dindorfii), p. 287.
863
Ibid.
864
This is the contention of G. Downey, “Education and Public Problems,”p. 299, and of A.
D. Nock, op. cit., p. 159.
865
E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an age of Anxiety, p. 38.
866
Or. 15 (G. Downey), p. 283.
867
Ibid, He knows no appophatic flight into the incomprehensibility of the Godhead,
although he once uses the expression “οὐσία ὑπερούσιος”in Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 12.
868
Or. 6 (G. Downey), p. 116.
869
Ibid.
870
Themistii Orationes I (G. Downey), pp. 5, 12, 55, 60, 72, 73, 82, 93, 94, 99,101, 108,
109, 116, 117, 135, 136, 139, 130, 185, 202, 216, 223, 228, 262, 274, 276, 333. Also τὸ
θεῖον: pp. 71, 98, 100, 109.
871
Ibid., pp. 66, 70, 109, 138 271-272.
872
Ibid., pp. 33, 37, 47, 115, 131, 135, 137, 168, 201, 220. Also in the famous Or. 26, ed.
Hubert Kesters, Plaidoyer d'un socratique contre le Phèdre de Platon; XXVe discours de
Themistius (Louvain-Paris, 1959), p. 264. Both Plato and Aristotle are qualified as “divine”
88
me to conclude that Themistius cannot be taken for a monotheist.873 And Gregory of
Nazianzus, so cultually over-sensitive, who is a rather reliable witness in the matter, did not
know of the challenging existence of any sort of pagan monotheism running parallel with
that of Jewish monotheism.874 Hence, when Themistius speaks of universal salvation, since
all schools of philosophy, with more or less circumambulation, finally reach the same
goal,875 he is in reality competing with Christianity on behalf of the traditional Hellenic
religion of polytheism. It is for this reason, in my opinion, that he can so casually speak of
Plato’s ἱερουργία (sacrificial ministry), as well as of the intititatic apparitions of Venus and
the Graces.876 The competition with Christianity is even more conspicuous when
Themistius cooly insinuates that there have been many incarnations: at the predetermined
times, says he, “the divine powers... descend from heaven... clothing themselves with the
bodies similar to ours... for the sake of communion with us.”877 This can be understood only
as an unambiguous credal statement on the part of a cultually aware polytheist.
By now it should have become even clearer that my notion of cult comprises not
only the exteriorizations of concrete historical piety as manifested in paganism, Judaism
and Christianity, but also the reality to which these different types of piety are only the
response — namely the presence of God, and of the gods or demons. In this perspective,
we can understand why Gregory of Nazianzus denied the character of philanthropia
claimed for the pagan gods: by doing so he was simply denying that they were divine .878
The same Gregory who praised Julian’s great intellect 879 mocked the Julian who had
yearned after initiations administered in darkness by subterranean demons,880 but when
overwhelmed by their fearful apparitions, had presumably made the sign of the cross.881
Only in the light of the serious cultual commitment of these writers can we properly
understand what they lived for and what they wrote about. The canonization of the three
Cappadocians is so universally accepted in the Church because they gave in their writings
(θεῖος). Or 2 (G. Downey), pp. 42, 274 and 286.

873
J. Kabiersch, op. cit., p. 15: “Themistius hat sein Heidentum nie verleugnet.”
874
Or. 25 PG 35, 1220 C-1221 A.
875
Or. 16 (G. Downey), p. 289.
876
Or. 16 (G. Downey), p. 289.
877
“Θεῖαι δυνάμεις ... ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατιοῦσαι... σώματα ἠμφιεσμέναι, παραπλήσια τοῖς
ἡμετέροις ... ἔνεκεν τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς κοινωνίας.”Or 7 (G. Downey), p. 137.
878
Or. 4 PG 35, 656A.
879
PG 35, 532.
880
Or. 4 PG 35, 577C.
881
Ibid., p. 580A.
89
the evidence of their apprehension of the ineffable perfection of the Christian cult. Out of
respect for their theology the Orthodox Church has also accepted St. Basil’s liturgy as one
of her most festive solemnities, 882 and adorned Gregory of Nazianzus with the very rare title
of “the Theologian” par excellence.883 Gregory of Nyssa, however, despite his
acknowledged good name, was not so popular, it seems, because of his somewhat
exaggerated attachment to Origen.884
From the point of view of my study the three Cappadocians represent a significant
development in Christian “philanthropology”: they firmly introduced the notion of the
divine philanthropy into their theological system, and thereby offered a model John
Chrysostom could later imitate and develop.
When we turn to the pagan side using my criterion of cultual commitment, we can
also compare more meaningfully the places which Libanius and Themistius occupy
respectively. One may agree that Libanius, from the literary point of view, is a greater artist
than Themistius.885· But when their cultual awareness and capacity are compared, then the
superiority of Themistius, in my view, is undeniable. He seems to have been the most
intelligent leader among the worshippers of the gods in the Fourth century. While Libanius
presents a narrow-minded picture of the emperor’s being philanlhropos merely because he
is Greek and ruler over the Greeks.886 Themistius, on the other hand, offers a universal
vision of the emperor’s philanthropia as comprising not only the Romans but the Scythians
and other barbarians as well.887 Thus, Themistius showed the alertness in up-dating his faith
so as to make it presentable in facing Christianity. He may even have nurtured some higher
interests than his personal advancement by trying to be around the emperors: a secret hope
that another, wiser, Julian might reappear...
Even from the point of view of pagan use of philanthropia, Themistius is more
important than Libanius. While Libanius addressed many orations to the emperors in
which the notion of philanthropia is never mentioned,888 Themistius, in spite of the
882
J. Quasten, Patrology, III, 226-27.
883
G. V. Florovsky, The Fathers of the East, p. 107. The opening lyrical exordium of
Gregory’s Oration I In sanctum Pascha is still sung in the liturgy of the Eastern Church;
“’Ἀναστάσεος ἡμέρα”(PG 35, 396). Apropos I may adduce here what my Parisian teacher
Vladimir Lossky liked to say — that he would agree that the Orthodox Church should be
called “Eastern only in English, and there only as an adjective of “Easter”.
884
Ibid., p. 188.
885
H. Lietzmann, op, cit., Ill, 243.
886
Or. 15 (Foerster), p. 128. He openly staτed that the barbarians imitate the beasts. Or. 15
(Foerster), p. 129.
887
Or. 10 (G. Downey), pp. 200-201.
90
similar situations to be found among his orations,889 knew how to make out of a few of
his orations almost formal treatises on philanthropia.890 He especially knew how to insist
on the pagan theological aspect of emperor-worship. Thus the emperor’s likeness to the
godhead is, according to Themistius, perceptible from the fact that in the ritual
invocations of god during the ceremony of the emperor’s triumphal march one does not
acclaim the victorious ruler as “Germanicus”, or “Scythicus” but as “philanthropos”,
“pious” and “saviour”.891 Only the philanthropic emperor, knowing the weakness of the
letter of the law, is able to heal its impotence by adding his own intuition, since he is the
law himself and even above all laws.892
For Themistius, however, in contradistinction to Julian, the royal philanthropia does not
mean only clementia but aeguitas also.893 His universalism appears clearly in his
imperial “theology”, also. Here is a good example of it: Cyrus was entitled to be called
only persophile, Alexander only macedonophile, Augustus, in his turn, only
Romanophile, but the title of being simply philanthropos fits only an emperor who
would not exclude any man from his protection. 894 The imitation of the emperor’s
philanthropy and πραότης is recommended to all by Themistius.895 But his view of the
divine πρόνοια (providence) as being equivalent to ἀνάγκη (necessity) makes his
theology — even in comparison with that of Iamblichus — gloomy indeed. Especially
when the emperor as the “offspring of Zeus” had to be taken for the embodiment of
Zeus’ necessity. This is the somber conclusion one is entitled to draw from Themistius’
theological equation that πρόνοια is ἀνάγκη.896 This may also be the clue to the
understanding of his personal loyalty even to the Christian emperors. According to his
own theology he had no other choice.897
The last problem I must briefly discuss in this chapter is the alleged “republicanism”
888
Or. 12 (Foerstcr) II, 9-45; Or. 13 (Foerster) II, 63-82; Or. 14 (Foerster) 87-113; Or. 49
(Foerster) III, 452-68.
889
Themistii Orationes, ed. O. Downey: Or. 3; Or. 6; Or. 9; Or. 13; Or. 16; Or. 18.
890
Or. 1; Or. 6; Or. 19 (G. Downey), pp. 4-25, 106-125 and 328-39.
891
Or. 19 (G. Downey), p. 333.
892
Or. 1 (G. Downey), p. 21. In Or. 2, p. 59 Constantius is invoked as “θειότατε
αὐτοκράτορ.”Cf. Or. 3, p. 65: “O, divine head.” We practically have here the classi cal
theory of Nomos Empsychos. Cf. J. Kabiersch, op. cit., p. 20.
893
J. Kabiersch, op. cit., p. 20.
894
Or. 10 (G. Downey), p. 201.
895
Or. 17 (G. Downey), pp. 308-309.
896
Or. 7 (G. Downey), pp. 128-29.
91
of Julian and Libanius as opposed to the monarchist ideology of Themistius, on the one
hand, and the Cappadocians on the other. F. Dvornik, by stressing that Themistius is the
pagan parallel of Eusebius,898 and that Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were
only repeating the ideas of Eusebius’ imperial theology, 899 has not seen the basic cultual
borderline separating these bishops from the pagan philosopher, nor that their cultural, and,
more specifically, political, similarities are secondary, since they are put in theological
systems excluding each other. F. Dvornik has misrepresented the meaning of Julian’s
romantic dreaming about the constitutional Roman Principate 900 and his scant regard for the
imperial purple and diadem.901 In my opinion all Julian’s political and social effort was
motivated by his cultual commitment to the gods whose voices he obeyed.902 He was a man
serious enough to disparage the trifles of regalia, but that only shows even more clearly
what he did prize as his highest power, namely, that of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme
high-priestly office of the Roman Emperor.903 The military and political powers were only
means in the hands of a “Kirchenvater des Hellenismus” 904 who had good reasons for
having to persecute Athanasius.905
Themistius, in spite of his monarchist outloook, which was then a common political
world-view, distinguished well between a ruler of divine calling and a tyrant: he praised
Plato for not having associated with the tyrant of Syracuse.906 And if he did not have
Libanius’ Athenian democratic taste,907 they shared a more important link: their common
897
J. Kabiersch, op. cit., p. 55, has not realized this somber character of Themistius’
εὐσεβέια which undermines, also, his notion of φιλανθροπία.
898
F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 623.
899
Ibid., pp. 685 and 689.
900
Ibid., p. 660.
901
Ibid., p. 665.
902
G. Riccioti, op. cit., p. 203. R. Rémondon, op. cit., p. 166: “Son idée de 1’ empereur
sacré descandant du Soleil... ayant en lui 1’ âme d’Alexandre... est incompatible avec 1’
idéal du Princeps rεpublicain auquel il veut revenir”.
903
L’ Empereur Julien: Lettres, ed. J. Bidez, p. 98f. R. Rémondon, op. cit., p. 167: “Il est le
grand pontife d’un clergé hiérachisé à l’imitation du clergé chrétien.”
904
H. Raeder, loc. cit., p. 192.
905
J. Bidez, L’ Empereur Julien: Lettres, p. 123.
906
Or. 34 (Dindorfii), p. 460.
907
Or. 44 (Foerster), p. 482.
92
faith in the gods of Hellenism.908 Regarding the praise given to Constantius by
Themistius909 and Libanius,910 as well as by Gregory of Nazianzus,911 this is again
understandable only from their respective cultual “economy”. Themistius and Libanius
were loyal even to the Christian emperors since their allegiance to the Roman Empire as
such was of a religious character. Gregory, on the other hand, magnanimously praised
Constantius as the most philanthropic ruler because he preserved Julian and Gallus from the
praetorian extermination.912 Also, in comparison with Julian, even the Arianizing
Constantius was considered by the theologian from Nazianzus as a kind of Christian. The
intractable Ambrose did the same 913 and he is, like Athanasius, above any suspicion of
emperor-worship.914
John Chrysostom, to whom we finally turn, will be even sharper in drawing
boundaries between the cults existing in the then Mediterranean world.
908
J. Kabiersch, op. cit., p. 15, n. 43.
909
Themistii Orationes (G. Downey), Or. 1 and 2, pp. 4-56.
910
Laudatio Constantii et Constantia 59 (Foerster) IV, 209-96.
911
Or. 4 PG 35, 535.
912
PG 35, 549.
913
PG 35, 529-530.
914
Nonetheless, St. Athanasius has praised the philanthropy of Constantius: Apologia ad
Constantium Imp. 10 PG 25, 608.
93
III. ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: CHRONOLOGICAL APPROACH TO HIS USE OF
PHILANTHROPIA
Chrysostom was fortunate in having received the best education of the day in his
native Antioch under Libanius915 and Diodorus (†394), later to be bishop of Tarsus.916 In this
highly sophisticated capital of Graeco-Roman Syria, Christians and pagans “did in fact share
the same culture, but this common possession would itself serve to accentuate the differences
between them.”917
Before I start my chronological inquiry into Chrysostom’s use of philanthropia, it is
desirable that I should present at least the general framework of his life.
Chrysostom was born during the reign of Constantius (337-361), between 344 and
354, the latter date being held the more probable .918 Still a boy under the short reign of Julian
the Philosopher (361,363) he lived through his adolescence and youth under Valens (363-
378), grew into adult manhood during the rule of Theodosius I (379-395) and reached full
maturity while Arcadius (395-408) reigned in Constantinople.919
Before makting any comparison with other contemporary thinkers I must explore the
internal significance of the term of philanthropia for Chrysostom himself, as it was used during
the many years of his literary activity.
The former pupil of Libanius920 and the enthusiastic novice in Diodorus’ exegetical
921
school was indeed well-prepared to intertwine the multiple threads of both pagan and
Christian philanthropology. Even though it seems that Diodorus himself did not very often use
the word philanthropia,922 he must have inculcated in the impressionable mind of Chrysostom
915
A. J. Festugière, Antioche, p. 181.
916
H. von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek Church, p. 132.
917
G. Downey, Ancient Antioch, p. 198.
918
Baur, op. cit.. I, 3.
919
For more details on chronology, A. J. Festugière, Antioche, pp. 412-14 et passim.
920
G. Downey, Ancient Antioch, p. 193. Cf. Paul Petit, Les Etudiants de Libanius (Paris,
1957), p. 41, n. 129.
Caius Fabricius wrote in Zu den Jugendschriften des Johannes Chrysostomus:
Untersuchungen zum Klassizismus des vierten Jahrhundertes (Lund, 1962), p. 199: “Johannes
Chrysostomus mehrfach kräftig Libanios imitiert.”
921
Chrysostom was eighteen years old when he met Diodorus. See Socrat, H. E. VI, 3 PG 67,
94
665 B, cited by A. J. Festugière, Antioche, p. 71.
his own exegetical method according to which one must have a historical flair and respect for
every single word in the Scriptures, philanthropia included.923 But the greatest service Dio-
dorus did for his pupil was to introduce him to the literature of his younger fellow alumni
from the university of Athens — the Cappadocians924 — so important, as we have seen, for the
fixation of theological terminology in general and that of philanthropia in particular.
I am using the text of Migne, as mentioned above, and recent critically edited works
whenever available.925 Dubia and, needless to say, spuria, do not enter into the scope of my
inquiry.926
Auguste Comte liked to say that one knows generalities better than details.927 This is
especially true in the case of Chrysostom who was rather restrained in disclosing other
secrets than those of his religious life. He did not spell out the name of his own mother
even though he spoke of her so movingly. 928 Hence the approximative value of the dating
923
Quasten, op. cit., III, 398-99. It is not known by whom Chrysostom was baptized in 372.
Cf. A. Wenger (ed.), Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites (Paris, 1957), p. 39.
924
C. Baur, op. cit., 1, 96.
925
Madame Anne-Maria Malingrey has recognized the great achievement of the edition of Sir
Henry Savile (Eaton, 1612) upon which all later editions are firmly based. See “Vers une
édition critique des oeuvres de Saint Chrysostome,” Studia Patristica, III, ed. F. L. Cross
(Berlin, 1961), 81-84, especially p. 84.
The critically edited works of Chrysostom are the following:
De Sacerdotio, ed. J. Arbuthnot Nairn (Cambridge, 1906);
Sur l’ incompréhensibilité de Dieu, ed. Ferdinand Cavallera and Jean Daniélou (Paris,
1951);
Les Cohabitations suspectes and Comment observer la virginité, ed. Jean Dumortier
(Paris, 1955);
Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, ed. Antoine Wenger (Paris, 1957);
Sur la Providence de Dieu, ed. Anne-.Marie Malingrey (Paris, 1961);
Lettre d’exile — A Olympias et à tous les fidèles (Quod nemo laeditur), ed. Anne-
Maria Melingrey (Paris, 1964);
A Théodore, ed. Jean Dumortier (Paris, 1966);
La Virginité, ed. Herbert Musurillo and Bernard Grillet (Paris, 1966);
926
Of great help, in this respect, is the recent work of J. A. de Aldama: Repertorium
Pseudochrysostomicum (Paris, 1965), especially pp. 228-38.
927
Cited by Raymond Aron, L’ Histoire et ses interprétations: Entretiens autour de Arnold
Toynbee sous la direction de Raymond Aron (Paris-Laffaye, 1961), p.131.
928 95
De Sacerdotio I, I (Nairn), pp. 5-6.
of the majority of his works, as well as the rather hypothetic character of my assumptions
concerning Chrysostom’s antagonistic attitude toward Themistius’ use of philanthropia
and toward Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Christology.929
In the earliest work of Chrysostom, Ad Theodorum lapsum (To the Fallen
Theodore),930 we find a few but significant uses of philanthropia. Since the addressee of
the letter — allegedly the young Theodore of Mopsuestia 931 —had to be moved to
repentance in order to persuade him to return to the monastery he had quitted, Chrysostom
warned him that a misunderstood human philanthropy can be sacrilegious. Saul’s
sentimental philanthropy in the act of sparing a king made prisoner was condemned as the
betrayal of God’s plan; while, on tne other hand, the murder of Phineas was accounted as
praiseworthy.932
When the divine philanthropy appears for the first time it is, also, disturbingly
stern: the Godhead being by definition passionless (ἀπαθές), when it punishes and
chastizes, it does not do so out of wrath, but out of philanthropy and concern (κηδεμονία),
therefore one may be confident of the efficacy of the penitence. 933 On another occasion,
God is called philanthropic because He has frightened the proud king of Babylon with His
miracle of the three youngsters in the furnace. 934
929
For the chronology of Chrysostom’s works still the most useful is Louis Mayer, op. cit.,
esp. pp. xv-xxxviii. Also, H. Lietzmann, “Johannes Chrysostomus,” Kleine Schriften, I (Berlin,
1958), 326-47, esp. pp. 327-38. Cf. Berthold Altaner, Patrologie (7th ed.; Freiburg-Wien,
1966), pp. 322-28.
930
According to J. Dumortier (Cohabitations, p. 15), it was written in 372- 374. The same
author in A Théodore, p. 10, n. 2, came to the conclusion that it is even earlier, namely from
367-368. A. J. Festugière, Antioche, p. 192, thinks it is of much later date: 383-386.
931
J. Dumortier, A Théodore, p. 23.
932
Ibid., p. 62.
933
Ibid., p. 96.
934 96
Ibid., p. 102.
But there is, also, a sweet example of God’s philanthropy seen in the eternal bliss given by
God for man’s struggle on earth of a short duration.935
There is an obvious opposition between misanthropy and philanthropy,936 but the main
message in this work of Chrysostom is the optimistic message that the nature of divine
philanthropy consists in never refusing sincere repentance. 937
After the period of his monastic seclusion (375-381)938 Chrysostom became deacon in
381, being ordained by Meletius.939 Here belong a group of writings overlapping the period
spent in the monastery and his early diaconate in Antioch: De Compunctione I-II (On
Compunction), Ad Stagirium (To Stagirius), Ad Stelechium (To Stelechius), Ad viduam
juniorem (To a young widow), De non iterando conjugio (On not remarrying), De virginitate
(On virginity), Adversus oppugnatorem vitae monastieae (Against those who oppose
monastic life), Contra eos qui subintroductas habent virgines (Against the celibate clergy
cohabiting with consecrated virgins) and Quod regulares feminae viris cohabitare non
debeant (That nuns ought not cohabit with men). 940 The underlying theme in these early
writings is the enthusiastic predilection for the ideal of virginity as seen by the contemporary
Syrian ascetics.941 The young monk and deacon did not, however, forget the literary
craftsmanship taught in the classroom of Libanius, and is considered one of the best
representatives of the Second Sophistic. 942 First, we have an exclamatory expression of
thanksgiving to God who is qualified as philanthropic 943 and, later on, the statement that there
is an excess (ὑπεβολὴ) of divine philanthropy. 944 Theologically of greater importance is a
935
Ibid., p. 134.
936
Ibid., p. 232.
937
“Toιαύτη γὰρ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ φιλαντρωπία· οὐδέποτε μετανοίας…ἀποστρέφεται.” Ibid., p.
106. Cf. ibid., pp. 224 and 232.
938
A. J. Festugière, Antioche, p. 329.
939
Ibid.
940
L. Meyer, op. cit., pp. xvii-xxi. Cf. J. Dumortier, Cohabitations, p. 15, and B. Grillet, La
virginité, p. 21.
941
Arthur Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, I (Louvain, 1958), 90-92.
942
J. Dumortier, A Théodore, p. 25. C. Fabricius, op. cit., p. 131, wrote apropos: “Johannes
Chrysostomus weist also einen unverkennbaren klassizistischen Einschlag in Form von
Nachahmung klassischer Wendungen, Phrasen und Stellen auf.”
943
Ad Stagirium, I, 1 PG 47, 426.
944 97
Ad Stagirium, I, 3 PG 47 432.
balanced view that not only the promise of the Kingdom of heaven, but the threat of hell,
also, is motivated by divine philanthropy, since there is nothing else, except fear, which
would incite the careless to practicing virtue.945 Elsewhere, salvation is said to proceed from
φιλανθρωπία του Θεοῦ.946 As an example of human philanthropy we have Esau who treated
his hated brother Jacob “χρηστῶς καὶ φιλανθρώπως” (kindly and humanely).947 The meekest
David, however, glorified the philanthropy of God which consists in His forgiving our sins. 948
But, without a shadow of sentimentalism, Chrysostom prefers to juxtapose the two extremes
in order to safeguard the mystery: God is a terrible Master because offended by our great and
many sins;949 however, He is not cruel — on the contrary, He is meek and philanthropic —
but because of the excess of our sins sins He, being kind and merciful, does not pardon
easily.950 The calling to heavenly honors, offered through the divine philanthropy, is in dan ger
of being jeopardized by our indolence (ῥαθυμία).951 This indolence comes from the love of
the world (τοῦ κόσμου φιλία).952 Even almsgiving, materially given, is nothing in the eyes of
God if it is not effected by genuine mercy and philanthropy. 953
For the first time we see the concluding doxology “χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ
Κυρίου ἡμῶν ʼIησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μεθ’ οὗ τῷ Πατρί, ἅμα τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, δόξα…”954 which
will become, later on, a sort of homiletic “signature” of Chrysostom.955
945
“τής γάρ Βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἡ τῆς γεέννης ἀπειλὴ παρίστησι τήν
φιλανθρωπίαν αὐτοῦ... Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ μόνη ἡ τῶν χρηστῶν ἐπαγγελία πρoτρέψαι πρὸς
ἀρετήν, μὴ καὶ τοῦ φόβου τῶν δεινῶν ὠθοῦντος τούς ραθυμότερον πρὸς ἐκείνην
διακειμένους.”Ad Stagirium, I, 3 PG 17, 430.
946
De compunct. Ad Stelech. II, 5 PG 47, 417.
947
Ad Stagirium, II, 11 PG 47, 467.
948
Ad Stagirium, I, 5 PG 47, 436.
949
La Virginité (Musurillo-Grillel), p. 194
950
Ibid., p. 196.
951
Quod reguläres jeminae (Comment observer la virginité) 3 (Dumortier), p. 104. There is
also “φιλάνθρωπος Θεός,” ibid., p. 103.
952
Ibid.
953
Contra eos qui subintroductas (Les Cohabitations) 7 (Dumortier), p. 68.
954
Ibid., p. 94.
955
Such a “signature”is not yet to be found in Ad Theodorum PG 47, 308 (Dumortier), p. 78
and PG 47, 316 (Dumortier), p. 218, nor in the following early writings: Adversus
98
oppugnatores (PG 47, 332; 348; 386); Ad viduam juniorem (PG 48,610); De non iterando
In the year Chrysostom was ordained priest (386) by Patriarch Flavian 956 he composed
De sacerdotio (On Priesthood), “one of his most beautiful compositions,”957 and preached the
theologically most important sermons on the unknowability of God (De incomprehensibili I-
V).
In spite of the fact that the intrigues around the election of a bishop deserve gehenna,
nevertheless, Christ who patiently awaits the conversion of a sinner offers him His
philanthropy.958 A few lines further on, after having indicated repentance as the only exit for a
sinner, Chrysostom exclaims as one amazed on contemplating the bottomless abyss of
Christ’s philanthropia.959
Saul in trying to excuse his sins as if they were inseparable from kingship, actually
dared to say that God’s philanthropy — by which he became the first king of Israel —would
be the ultimate cause of his sins.960
The central event in the eucharistic service, felt like a sort of liturgical eestasis
because of the tangible presence of the Lord on the altar, is punctuated by a few words which
in fact reveal Chrysostom’s ultimate verbal means when saluting the ineffable: ώ τοῦ
θαύματος, ᾢ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίας, (oh, wonder! oh, divine philanthropy!).961
Here we have a confirmation of Chrysostom’s apophatic teaching of the year 386
when he asked his Arian opponents: If the riches of God are unsearchable, how much more is
the Giver of the riches unsearchable?962
In praising the virtue of humility, Chrysostom points out the humility of God who is
ready — in His ineffable philanthropy — to receive anyone, not only the humble, whoever
generously acknowledges his own sins.963 Hence the victory of the tax-collector over the
Pharisee: by a few words of humblemindedness he became an object of divine philanthropy
(ἐφιλανθρωπεύσατο).964
Ending the second homily Chrysostom prays to the philanthropic God who wishes that
conjugio (PG 48, 620); De virginitate (PG 48, 596, Dumortier, p. 394); De compunctione (PG
47, 410; 422) and Ad Stagirium (PG 47, 448; 472; 494).
956
C. Baur, op. cit., I, 180.
957
Ibid., p. 181.
958
De sacerdotio III, XV (Nairn), p. 80.
959
Ibid., p. 81.
960
Ibid., p. 99.
961
Ibid., p. 52.
962
De incomprehens. IV (Flacellifere), p. 218.
963
Ibid., p. 296.
964 99
Ibid., p. 300.
all men be saved by coming to the light of knowledge which is in the Trinity .965
In the homily On St. Pelagia, however, the term of philanthropia is absent,966 while in
the homilies On Christmas and On St. Ignatius the only time it appears is in the closing
doxology.967 Out of five homilies On the unknowability of God four terminate with the
doxology beginning with “χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ” (by grace and philanthropy).968
Toward the end of the same year Chrysostom started to preach his series of homilies
Against the Jews (Adversus Judaeos).969
In the first homily philanthropia appears only once, as the closing formula.970 In the
second, both grace and philanthropy are described as δωρεά (gifts).971 Once, in the line of
Hellenistic ruler-worship, philanthropy is qualified as βασιλική (royal).972 God’s philanthropy,
moreover, is manifested even in His permission for granting divorce, 973 but more commonly in
His dealing with repentant sinners,974 as well as in His acts of punishment.975
David, who through his prophetic clairvoyance has foreseen the conversion of the
nations and even of the less sophisticated Jews to Christian “philosophy”, had a glimpse also
of the ineffable divine philanthropy which surpasses any understanding,976 and was astonished
by the new sacrifice of Christ’s Body for the whole universe. 977
Soteriologically important is the assertion that no one would be saved were it not for
the fact that God is φιλάνθρωπος καὶ ἥμερος (philanthropic and gentle), by this showing His
great providence (πρόνοια) in helping men after the fall. 978 It is understandable, then, why the
965
Ibid., p. 160.
966
In S. Pelagiam PG 50, 579-584.
967
In diem natalem PG 49, 362. In S. Ignatium PG 50, 596.
968
(Flacellifere), pp. 110, 204.
969
L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxiv.
970
PG 48, 856.
971
PG 48, 858.
972
PG 48, 860.
973
Ibid.
974
PG 48, 916.
975
PG 48, 874.
976
“τὴν ἀφάτου τοῦ Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίαν τὴν ὑπερβαίνουσαν ἅπαντα νοῦν” PG 48, 918.
977
PG 48, 918.
978 100
PG 48, 929.
Samaritan is also said to have been philanthropic and gentle.979
The eventful year of 387 which saw the famous insurrection of Antioch was for
Chrysostom rich in the outpouring of creativity. 980 Before I examine the Jewel of
Chrysostomic oratory, the homilies addressed to the people of Antioch in distress, I should
examine other works of shorter length.
It is significant for Chrysostom’s self-understanding that for him God, who invests the
preacher with the ministry of spreading His good news, is defined as the philanthropic God.981
In the exegetical sermon on the parable of the debtor, Peter is represented as having
well understood that his Master’s inclination is that of philanthropy,982 but he did not yet
grasp that our human goodness, our readiness to pardon seven times, is nothing in comparison
with the ineffable philanthropia of God.983 The paedagogical strictures of God proceed from
His philanthropy.984 And the word ἀπάνθρωπος (inhumane) is opposed to St. Paul, one who
experienced the ineffable divine philanthropia.985 Contrition, which comes from the
remembrance of our sins, is the only precondition for being sensitive to the divine
philanthropy, as St. Paul was, while, on the contrary, to be forgetful of our remitted sins
means to lose all we have received from the divine philanthropy. 986
In the renowned series of exhortations entitled Ad populum Antiochenum (To the
people of Antioch), of twenty-one homilies one is dubious,987 and only one is without the term
philanthropia.988 Otherwise, the affixing of Chrysostom’s homiletic “signature” is almost
standard. Of twenty homilies here, seventeen have the closing doxology with the steady
introduction “χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ”, and only three are “irregular”, of which the very last
has in its conclusion philanthropia alone, without its usual correlated term of χάρις.989
979
PG 48, 932.
980
L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxvii.
981
De Lazaro concio I PG 48, 963. There, also, is the opposition of φιλάνθρωπος to
ἀπάνθρωπος. PG 48, 990.
982
In parabolom debitoris PG 51, 20.
983
Ibid.
984
Ibid., PG 51, 25.
985
Ibid., PG 51, 27.
986
Ibid.
987
J. A. de Aldama, op. cit., p. 84.
988 101
The XVIIth—PG 49, 171-180.
Putting aside the homilies in which the term occurs only in the closing doxology 990 we
still have a rich harvest on our hands: fourteen instances where philanthropy designates human
virtue and twenty-five cases where it is a divine attribute.
Divine φιλανθρωπία is made to sound almost synonymous with κηδεμονία and
άγαθότης991 and in the case of God’s friendly behaviour toward King Saul, His philanthropy is
coupled with ἐπιείκεια.992
In the story of Job, Chrysostom judged his philanthropic care of the poor and needy as
relatively easy, since it meant only giving up the surpluses of his rich household, 993 but he
dubbed him a philosopher for being able to thank God even after having heard that all of his
progeny had been killed.994
Jonas in his turn, through his maritime trials and tribulations nonetheless remained
φιλάνθρωπος καὶ ἥμερος (lovingkind and gentle) toward all, the sea included.995
The most conspicuous aspect of human philanthropy is, no doubt, the imperial one. In
the imaginary pleading which Bishop Flavian was supposed to have addressed to Theodosius
on behalf of the rebellious Antioch, the Emperor is exhorted to show his philanthropia toward
his own co-servants so as to have, in return, God as a mild judge toward him in the Last
Day.996 There is the Hellenistic courtly way of addressing the Emperor as “your
philanthropy”,997 and the inevitable flattery —or wishful thinking — according to which the
Emperor Theodosius is a living example of philanthropic behaviour, 998 especially since he has
refrained from capital punishment in consideration of his impotence to resurrect the executed
again afterward.999 Immediately there follows Flavian’s request that he apply, here and now,
his royal philanthropy to the fearstricken Antioch for the sake of the imminent Easter
festivities and because the Emperor himself will be in need of the divine philanthropy in the
989
XXI PG 49, 222. Cf. PG 39, 136.
990
Homilies VIII, IX, X, XIII, XV, XVI, XVIII, XX
991
VII PG 49, 93.
992
XIV PG 49, 129.
993
Cf. Mark 12:44.
994
I PG 49, 29.
995
V PG 49, 78.
996
III PG 49, 48.
997
XXI PG 49, 217.
998
VI PG 49, 84.
999 102
Ibid.
Day of Judgment.1000
However, after this improvisation, Chrysostom flatly enjoins all to trust in God’s
mercy more than the philanthropy of the Emperor.1001
Another example showing that the philanthropy of God is not sentimental is the
emphasis on the philanthropic character of the sacrifice of Jephtah’s daughter, since this divine
permission, once given, excluded all human sacrifices forever. 1002 In any case, this permission
was not according to the will of God, 1003 and that He does not care for such horrible things one
can see from the story of Isaac.1004
The liberating impact of Christ’s philanthropy is felt in the ethical life wherein
physical weakness is no impediment for keeping the essential commandment, 1005 and above all
in the gracious fact that God’s philanthropy covers the inadequacy of our repentance. 1006
The Ninevites also experienced God’s philanthropia,1007 and, later on, that was the
content of Paul’s kerygma.1008 Hence whenever Chrysostom is in the mood to give thanks to
God, he praises Him as philanthropos,1009 even though he may be in the midst of trials.1010
During the years 388-389 Chrysostom reached his zenith in the development of his
philanthropology. His main achievement is to be found in the homilies on Genesis.1011
In the short homily dedicated to the memory of the martyrs Juventinus and
Maximinus, two soldiers executed at the order of Julian,1012 it is said that we have a
1000
Ibid.
1001
“Καὶ πρὸ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας τοῦ βασιλέως, τῷ ἐλέει θαρροῦμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ.”III PG 49, 49.
1002
XIV PG 49, 47.
1003
Ibid.
1004
Ibid.
1005
XX PG 49, 198.
1006
VI PG 49, 83.
1007
V PG 49, 76-77.
1008
ΧΠΙ PG 49, 127.
1009
“Εὐχαριστῶμεν τῷ φιλανθρώπῳ Θεῷ, καὶ θαυμάζωμεν αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν
φιλανθρωπίαν.”XXI PG 49, 211. Cf. PG 49, 220.
1010
XI PG 49, 126.
1011
L. Meyer, op. cit., pp. xxvii-xxxi.
1012
P. Peeters, in “La Date île la fête des SS. Juventin et Maximin,”Analecta Bollandiana,
103
XLII (1924), 77-82, especially p. 77, wrote: “Personne n’ élève de doute sur 1’ existence
philanthropic Lord who, by once offering the sacrifice, reconciled the whole universe. 1013 The
martyrs, in their turn, when they see churches destroyed and all the faithful fleeing then offer
themselves to their Lord, thus imitating His philanthropic selfoffering. 1014 On the purely
human level, Lazarus the beggar was a good occasion for the rich man to exercise his
philanthropy.1015 And Chrysostom draws the conclusion that one should give without
examining the worthiness of the beggar, in order that “we unworthy may receive — as beggars
— of God’s philanthropy.”1016
God as a philanthropic agonothetês permits even the untrained newly baptized to enter
the spiritual Olympic games all because of His philanthropy. 1017 Some did receive great gifts,
even the power to work miracles, not because of their saintliness, but because of the divine
philanthropy.1018 Φιλανθρωπία is, as usual, opposed to ἀπανθρωπία, and what is more
important, logically philanthropy as a virtue precedes that of ἐλεημοσύνη (almsgiving).1019
Opposed to the natural birth, there is a spiritual one — baptism: “a birth out of the
grace and philanthropy of God.”1020
The Crucified Christ has manifested His philanthropy by overlooking the outcry of the
Jews (Mt 27:25), because everything He did was circumscribed by the divine ineffable
philanthropia.1021
Chrysostom drafted a map of virtues for the newly-baptized by specifying that
philanthropia comes after σωφροσύνη (chastity), σεμνότης (modesty) and between
ἐλεημοσύνη (almsgiving) and ἀγάπη (love).1022 Semantically this precision is indeed valuable.
Here also he is spurring on the attention of the youngsters by declaiming solemnly: “Take a
historique de ces deux soldats martyrisés à Antioche, sous Julien, vers le début de 1’année
363.”
1013
In S. martyres Juventinum et Maximinum PG 50, 571-578.
1014
Ibid.
1015
De Lazaro concio II PG 48, 987.
1016
Ibid. PG 48, 990. Chrysostom insists three times in that one column that philanthropy
comes from above (ἄνωθεν).
1017
In inscriptionem altaris ct in principium Aclorum PG 51, 76.
1018
In inscriptionem Actorum II PG 51, 81.
1019
Ibid. PG 51, 85.
1020
De Militate lectionis Scripturarum. In princip. Act. III PG 51, 97.
1021
Cur in Pentec. at fa etc. In princip. Act. IV PG 51, 111-112.
1022 104
Ad illuminandos cateckesis II PG 49, 238.
look at divine philanthropy.”1023
The homilies on Genesis (Homiliae in Genesin)1024 constitute the masterpiece of
Chrysostomic philanthropology. Philanthropia is to be found in almost every column, but in a
few of them the notion occurs up to four or five times.1025 Frequently we find the term used in
a rhetorical way with the purpose of introducing a new development of thought or as the
conclusion of a long pastoral exhortation.1026 However, the importance of the term used here is
not obtained by regarding the simple numerical frequency. Chrysostom seems to be in such
full possession of all his talents that he is able to elevate himself above the minutiae of a
pedestrian exegesis. Of course, there are still the inevitable ethical exhortations, but they are
put in the larger framework of the divine philanthropy. 1027
He assures all and everyone that through fasting and abstinence from evil, one
acquires more daring (παῤῥησία) and is enabled to participate more abundantly in the divine
philanthropia both in this life and in the day of the terrible judgment to come. 1028
The soteriological connotation of the term divine philanthropy1029 appears particularly
clear in the passages wherein the theme of metanoia (repentance) is developed. Thus, Noah's
generation could have averted the cataclysm if only they had repented. 1030 God warned them
in advance1031 and mixed His rebuke with His philanthropy,1032 but they abused the latter,1033
provoking His wrath even more.1034 Their case proves that God is ready to bestow His
philanthropy upon the least good movement of the heart of man.1035 Therefore, Noah’s
1023
“Καὶ σκόπει Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίαν.”Ibid. PG 49, 239.
1024
A Wenger, op. cit., p. 64, contends that only the first thirty-two of them are genuine: PG
53, 21-305.
1025
PG 53, 86; 138; 233; 244
1026
PG 53, 151; 171; 190; 196; 221; 229; 235; 239; 244; 249; 253; 254; 255; 277; 301.
1027
PG 53, 56; 274.
1028
PG 53, 81.
1029
PG 53, 261.
1030
PG 53, 222.
1031
PG 53, 221.
1032
PG 53, 192.
1033
PG 53, 193.
1034
PG 53, 190.
1035 105
PG 53, 198. Cf. PG 53, 208; 220
growing thankfulness to God was honored with the greater philanthropy of God. 1036 There
follows a non-sentimental peroration above the diluvian grave of the wicked generation,
namely, that the Flood was motivated by the philanthropy of God, who wanted to cut off
incurable evil.1037 Strictly speaking He applied His philanthropy equally to the good and to the
evil.1038
The same man-befriending (φιλάνθρωπος) God gradually introduced time for
repentance according to the need of the Ninevites and the brigands crucified with Christ.1039
The time of Lent is accorded for reconciliation with the divine philanthropy. 1040 And the
philanthropic God is ready to reward even a more good intention, not works, as He praised
Job even before his exploits.1041 Only a merciless man who keeps a grudge against his fellow
is, according to Chrysostom, deprived of the divine lovingkindness. 1042
Noteworthy is the emphasis put on theodicy, 1043 but Chrysostom’s greatest attention
was given to the anthropological problem in the context of creation.1044 The fundamental
theme in these homilies, in my opinion, is the optimistic vision of man’s central position
among all visible creatures, since that is the way God willed it in His pre-eternal philanthropy,
as well as in His historical plan of salvation.1045
On the crucial question Cur creatio our author answers confidently with his own
digest of the Gospel: “Recognize the philanthropy of the Master in that before the creation
and before bringing man (into being), He prepared for him millions of good things, thus
showing what kind of providence is put into action for the sake of our race, since He wants to
1036
PG 53, 233; 237.
1037
PG 53, 253. Cf. PG 53, 79.
1038
PG 53, 185-186.
1039
PG 53, 247.
1040
PG 53, 217.
1041
PG 53, 202.
1042
PG 53, 248.
1043
PG 53, 133; 138-139; 141; 144 et passim.
1044
PG 53, 66; 170. Cf. PG 53, 60.
1045
“8ιὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν κτίσιν ταύτην ἅπασαν παρήγαγε, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐδημιούργησεν, οὐχ
ἵνα ἀπολώμεθα... ἀλλ’ ἵνα σώσῃ, καὶ τῆς ... βασιλείας τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ἡμῖν δωρήσηται.”In
106
Genes. Ill PG 53, 36.
save all.1046 Immediately after that theological flight Chrysostom lands on the ground of
ethical application: since we have such a Lord, so philanthropic, so good, so meek, we ought
to care for our salvation, as well as for that of our brothers.1047
Chrysostom keeps the balance by asserting the self-sufficiency of God, who needed
nothing, but if He decided to create at all, did so because of some mysterious love toward
mankind and because of His goodness, (“ἀλλα φιλανθρωπίᾳ τινί, καὶ ἀγαθότητι τά πάντα
ἐτεκτήνατο”).1048 Like a tireless drummer, he beats over and over the same message: “What I
have already said, I say now and I will not stop saying continually, that the philanthropy of
our common Lord toward our race is great and ineffable.” 1049
Chrysostom noticed a characteristic of God’s behavior rarely emphasized by other
theologians, namely the divine politeness as an aspect of God’s philanthropy: He did not give
orders to Adam, He entreated him.1050 Not less disarming is the remark of Chrysostom that
God, in his manner of creating Eve, was the first practitioner of anaesthetic surgery.1051
In this relatively short series of homilies the term philanthropia appears not less than
two hundred sixty times.
In the year 390 Chrysostom preached his ninety homilies on the Gospel of
Matthew,1052 and eight catechetical orations.1053
In his exegesis of the First Gospel Chrysostom underlined the “crucified” aspect of the
divine philanthropy: Christ died a shameful death in having been crucified, but the more
shameful is death, the more evident is His philanthropy. 1054
The greatness of God’s philanthropy is also seen in His readiness to accept
repentance.1055 Still, the weeping of those who mourn for their sins has no value in itself, but
1046
“Ὅρα φιλανθρωπίαν Δεσπότου, ὅπως καὶ πρὸ τῆς δημιουργίας, καὶ πρὶν ἢ παραγαγεῖν
τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὰ μυρία αὐτῷ ἀγαθὰ ηὐτρέπτσε, δεικνύς ὅσην πρόνοιαν ποιεῖται τοῦ γένους
τοῦ ἡμετέρου, καὶ ὅτι πάντας βούλεται σωθῆναι.”Ibid.
1047
Ibid.
1048
In Genes. Ill PG 53, 35. Cf. PG 53, 60; 66; 254.
1049
PG 53, 105. Cf. PG 53, 106; 108; 240,
1050
In Genes. XIV PG 53, 114.
1051
PG 53, 120.
1052
L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxxi.
1053
A. Wenger, op. cit., pp. 63-65.
1054
Comment. in Matthaeum III PG 57, 34.
1055 107
Ibid. PG 57, 69.
only because of the divine philanthropy.1056 Even more stern is Chrysostom’s warning that
God’s will is co-extensive with His philanthropia and His Kingdom, while hell depends
entirely on our indolence (ῥαθυμία).1057
Non-resistence to evil (Mt 5:39a) is understood in a personalist way as non-
ρesistence to the Evil one, since only a personal agent can be a “mover” in the sphere of the
ethical life of human persons.1058 And not to resist the Evil one means, of course, not to
resist him on his own terms, because fire cannot be extinguished by fire, but by water.
Again, this whole passage is understandable only in the larger context that ultimately God’s
justice is mysteriously moderated by His philanthropy and that man’s strength is measured
by his capacity to endure evils.1059
The divine philanthropy is inseparable from the Church, since the remission of sins
after baptism is the work of the exceeding philanthropy of God.1060 Even human paternal love
is nothing in comparison with the overflowing divine philanthropy. The greatest proof of this
is the fact that God gave His own Son for men’s salvation. 1061
The philanthropia of Jesus is palpably revealed in His miraculous healing.1062
However, the prerequisite disposition necessary for enjoying Christ’s philanthropy is active
faith, otherwise all would be automatically saved. 1063 Repentant whores and debauched men
deny the fatalistic error of the Manichaeans by their change. 1064 As far as Christ is concerned,
He makes salvation to be rather easy. 1065 As a good and philanthropic God He is ready to
pardon not seven times only but infinitely.1066
However, there is a clear-cut cleavage between φιλοχρήματοι (lovers of money) and
φιλάνθρωποι (lovers of mankind),1067 and the “sword” of God separates even families for the
1056
Ibid. PG 57, 226.
1057
Ibid. PG 47, 249.
1058
Ibid. PG 57, 265; PG 57, 282.
1059
Ibid.
1060
Ibid. PG 57, 280.
1061
Ibid. PG 57, 313.
1062
Ibid. PG 57, 337. Cf. PG 57, 364; 468; 469.
1063
Ibid. PG 57, 377.
1064
Ibid., 57, 340.
1065
Ibid. PG 58, 474.
1066
Ibid. PG 58, 589. Cf. PG 58, 593.
1067 108
Ibid. PG 57, 440.
sake of His terrifying unsentimental philanthropy. 1068 In this perspective, awareness of having
offended Christ is worse than any hell. But if one escapes such a sin, one is saved also from
hell, because of the grace and philanthropy of Christ. 1069 Therefore, in interpreting the parable
of the wedding of the king’s son Chrysostom exhorts us to revere the philanthropy of the
Inviter.1070 In the parable of the ten virgins the oil of the wise virgins is interpreted as being
their philanthropy.1071 But the Lord also is philanthropοs, and in contradistinction to the Devil,
His royal characteristics are not arms and weapons, but modesty and meekness (ἐπιείκεια καὶ
πραότης).1072 That Christ was especially philanthropic toward the Jews of Jerusalem is clear,
according to Chrysostom, from the fact that He did not take into account their furious self-
condemnation by taking His blood upon themselves and their children. 1073
In this longer series of homilies I have found the term philanthropia used a hundred
fifty-nine times, which represents a slight decrease in comparison with the homilies on
Genesis.
The recently-discovered and published Eight catechetical orations of Chrysostom1074
offer a few but important theological uses of the notion of philanthropia.
The infinite and ineffable philanthropy of the Bridegroom of the Church is visible in
the fact that He does not fall in love only with the beauty of the young candidates for baptism,
but even with the ugly sinners.1075
In a short commentary on the Creed, in the first article ahout God the Father,
Chrysostom emphasizes His apophatic nature and also the philanthropic purpose of His
creation.1076 The philanthropia of the Lord washes even unmentionable sins completely
away.1077 On our part, we should preserve all the gifts of baptismal purity received from the
lovingkindness (φιλανθρωπία) of God.1078
One becomes Christian through the philanthropy of God and one keeps this
1068
Ibid. PG 57, 406.
1069
Ibid. PG 57, 420.
1070
Ibid. PG 58, 651. Cf. PG 58, 655.
1071
Ibid. PG 58, 712.
1072
Ibid. PG 58, 715.
1073
Ibid. PG 58, 766.
1074
A. Wenger, op. cit., pp. 7-21.
1075
Ibid., p. 110; cf. ibid., p. 111.
1076
Ibid., p. 119.
1077 109
Ibid., p. 121.
philanthropy through vigilant daily confession to the philanthropic God. 1079 His reward is
adoption in baptism.1080 One is bound to glorify Him even though His divine philanthropy
surpasses every understanding.1081 Even when He has imposed misery upon the unbridled
human race, that, also, was done in His philanthropy. 1082
If there are no cosmetics efficient enough to re-capture the pristine beauty of our body,
with the divine philanthropy the beauty of our soul can be recovered through serious
repentance.1083 And he concludes on a joyous note: God, who created us out of nothing for the
sake of His philanthropia, will not refuse us His providential care.1084
The commentary on the Gospel of St. John appeared in 391. 1085 John Chrysostom
adroitly opens the series of eighty-seven homilies by arousing the curiosity of his audience
about Johannine revelations of which even the angels were ignorant. 1086 He insists on the fact
that this Gospel could not be the work of a fisherman or of a rhetorician trained in the worldly
paideia.1087
Except in the closing formula, the term philanthropia is used for the first time as the
presupposition of almsgiving.1088 Theologically more important is the deduction of the
freedom of men from God’s philanthropy, since He does not force anyone to be His, by the
very fact of His being philanthropic.1089 The philanthropia of God is graciously given by the
Holy Spirit together with faith and the equality of all in the same faith. 1090 Stephen the martyr,
1078
Ibid., p. 260. There are cases where philanthropia serves as an introductory stimulant, a
kind of captatio benevolentiae: Ibid., pp. 133; 135. Cf. pp. 185; 229.
1079
Ibid., p. 257
1080
Ibid., p. 188. Cf. pp. 212; 244.
1081
Ibid., p. 183.
1082
Ibid., p. 208.
1083
Ibid., p. 213. Cf. p. 258.
1084
Ibid., p. 258.
1085
1086
In Joannem I PO 59, 26.
1087
Ibid. PG 59, 30.
1088
Ibid. PG 59, 65.
1089
Ibid. PG 59, 73.
1090 110
Ibid. PG 59, 75.
for example, rejoiced because he saw the philanthropy of God and His chrêstotês in all.1091
Whenever something great and exalted about God needs to be said, than He is called
χρηστὸς και φιλάνθρωπος (kind and philanthropic) because He takes upon Himself the sins of
the world and saves gratuitously.1092 We should all be ashamed before God’s love (ἀγάπη) and
philanthropia, since He gave up His Only Son for us, when we are not ready to sacrifice even
such a small thing as our money.1093
The question is raised: where are the proofs of God’s philanthropy, if we are to
receive punishment for our sins as they deserve? 1094 The answer follows: the evidence of
His abundant philanthropy is in the fact that God not only gave His own Son, but He also
postpones the
time of the judgment, in order that sinners and unbelievers might have an opportunity to
repent.1095.
The worst kind of cruelty and ἀπανθρωπία (inhunianeness), however, may be
committed by those who go unworthily to the communion.1096
The miracles of Christ are for Chrysostom of the essence of philanthropy.1097
In 392 Chrysostom explicated the main Pauline epistles: To the Romans; First and
Second to the Thessalonians; to the Galatians. 1098
For some, the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is a great success on
Chrysostom’s part.1099
The imperial philanthropia is mentioned as saving men from punishment 1100 or as a
social virtue.1101
The divine χρηστότης and φιλανθρωπία precede the threat of chastizement. 1102 Even
1091
Ibid. PG 59, 74.
1092
Ibid. PG 59, 115.
1093
Ibid. PG 59, 160.
1094
Ibid. PG 59, 161.
1095
Ibid. PG 59, 161.
1096
Ibid. PG 59, 334.
1097
Ibid. PG 59, 334.
1098
1099
B. Altaner, Patrologie, p. 326.
1100
In Romanos II PG 60, 409.
1101
Ibid. PG 60, 594.
1102 111
Ibid. PG 60, 424.
the divine philanthropy toward the Jews is genuine, regardless of their unbelief.1103
The tremendous greatness of the divine philanthropy obliges us to return to our
pristine nobility, especially since God, despite our sinfulness, lets us enjoy the whole of His
creation.1104 God’s philanthropia is realized in the consolation of the fallen man, 1105 mainly
in the fact that He spoke to them directly Himself 1106 and, above all, in salvation.1107
In facing the thorny problem of the free will (αὐτεξούσιον) in Rom. 9:19-24,
Chrysostom recommends first that the analogy of the potter and the clay be not pressed so
as to draw exhaustive conclusions from it. 1108 Pharaoh, for example, by remaining
incorrigible after so long a show of patience on the side of God, cannot blame anyone but
himself for his lot, since he also was the object of the divine kindness (chrêstotês).1109
Chrysostom did not miss the occasion to emphasize that it depends entirely on the
deliberate choice (προαίρεσις) of men to be either “vessels of mercy” or to be “vessels of
wrath”, while God exercises His kindness (χρηστότης) on both equally.1110
In the same column φιλανθρωπία is equated with χάρις,1111 and the glory of those
who shall be glorified is the main concern of the divine philanthropy. 1112 Even the
foreknowledge of God is “crucified” between the little something that men are expected to
contribute in their cooperation with God 1113 and the great dependence of men on the steady
philanthropy of God.1114 With such a style of thinking Chrysostom could remain an
apophatic theologian by wisely asserting the parallelism of the divine and of human
1103
Ibid. PG 60, 438.
1104
Ibid. PG. 60, 492.
1105
Ibid. PG 60, 530.
1106
Ibid. PG 60, 534.
1107
Ibid. PG 60, 536.
1108
Ibid. PG 60, 559. Otherwise, a coarse dealing with this imagery would imply that God
prejudged everything at the outset of creation.
1109
Ibid. PG 60, 560.
1110
Ibid. PG 60, 561.
1111
Ibid. PG 60, 561. Cf. PG 60, 650.
1112
Ibid. PG 60, 561.
1113
“εί γὰρ καὶ τό πλέον ἐστί τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὅμως καὶ αὐτοί τι μικρὸν εἰσήνεγκαν.”In
Romanos XVI PG 60, 561.
1114
“δεῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ θέλειν καὶ τρέχειν, θαρρεῖν δὲ μή τοῖς οἰκείοις πόνοις, ἀλλά τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ
112
φιλανθρωπία.”PG 60, 561.
freedom, without rationalizing the mystery of their cooperation. He thus preserves joy as
the hallmark of the Epistle to the Romans, according to which, God channelizes His
kindness (chrêstotês) and His love toward mankind (philanthropia) through all. The only
shadow that remains is the eventual refusal of some to respond to the grace of the
philanthropic God, who forces no one.1115
Since the main message of the Epistle to the Romans is salvation by grace,1116 on
the one hand, and the grace became identified with philanthropia,1117 I am entitled to
conclude that this commentary is also a commentary on the divine philanthropy. In this
respect, it is second only to the philanthropological commentary on Genesis.
The identity between the divine philanthropy and grace is asserted also in the
commentary on I Corinthians.1118
The warning is given again: even if God is the philanthropes, He is not, therefore,
sentimental.1119 Chrysostom is, naturally, stressing the less puzzling side of God’s activity,
which even the human mind partially discerns as the unique glory belonging to the One
who is Philanthropοs par excellence.1120 Implicitly, there is the idea of mimesis (imitation)
of God, since it is said: it behooves Christians to behave philanthropically
(φιλανθρωπεῦσαι) toward a brother.1121
The commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians re-echos St. Paul’s humble
teaching that all is grace.1122
The main theme is: Christ has liberated us from the sentence to death, and indeed,
from death itself. All this because of love and in the context of κηδεμονία (care,
concern).1123
Here we find clearly indicated for the first time that human philanthropia is not
meant to be applied in an ethically limited area, but on a world-wide scale. 1124
1115
In Romanos XIII PG 60, 579.
1116
PG 60, 441; 445; 476; 579 et passim.
1117
In Romanos XVI PG 60, 561.
1118
In Epist. I ad Cor. PG 61, 13.
1119
Ibid. PG 61, 135.
1120
Ibid. PG 61, 343. Cf. PG 61, 389.
1121
In Epist. II ad Cor. XIV PG 61, 501.
1122
In Calatos PG 61, 634.
1123
Ibid. PG 61, 646.
1124 113
Ibid. PG 61, 677.
In 394 Chrysostom interpreted the minor Pauline Epistles. 1125
The commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, by repeating that salvation is not
from works but from the grace and philanthropy of God, only re-asserts tho identity of
these two notions.1126
Salvation is the greatest proof of God’s philanthropy. 1127 Thus, concretely, the
intervention of God for St. Paul in prison is the sign of divine philanthropia.1128 Also, on
the Judgment Day we will experience divine philanthropy if we are now just to one
another.1129 We dare to call God our Father neither because we are of the same nature with
Him, nor by any virtue of our own, but only if we have in us philanthropy and mercy. 1130
In the commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians the Incarnation is explicitly
motivated by divine philanthropia.1131
Nothing pleases God so much as almsgiving. The symbol of God’s φιλανθρωπία was
oil, which is in its turn the symbol of mercy. 1132 God always acts philanthropieally
(φιλανθρωπεύεται)1133 and J esus’ philanthropy will be sealed by His Second coming. 1134
In the shorter commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy the greatness of God’s
φιλανθρωπία and κηδεμονία is enhanced by the fact that it is exercised over the sinners. 1135
One can be responsible for others, also, only if one wants to be “ordained” by the
divine philanthropy and the fear of God.1136
God is philanthropic with all His threats of the Last J udgment. 1137 When one examines
the commentary on the Epistle to Titus one is rather disappointed to see that Chrysostom, after
having quoted the New Testament hapax of divine philanthropy, (Tit. 3:4) pays no attention to
1125
1126
In Ephesios Comment. PG 62, 34.
1127
Ibid. PG 62, 37. Repeated twice.
1128
Ibid. PG 62, 60.
1129
Ibid. PG 62, 96.
1130
Ibid. PG 62, 104. Cf. PG 62, 116; 176.
1131
In Philipp. Comment. PG 62, 182.
1132
Ibid. PG 62, 210. Φιλοπτωχία: ibid. PG 62, 216.
1133
Ibid. Cf. PG 62, 212.
1134
Ibid. PG 62, 286.
1135
In I ad Timolh. Comment. PG 62, 521.
1136
Ibid. PG 62, 574.
1137 114
In II Timolh PG 62, 615.
it but skips over it. 1138 The sixth homily, however, opens with the notion of divine
philanthropy, κηδεμονία being added to it instead of the Scriptural χρηστότης.1139 Twice these
two terms are linked together as a practical invitation to apply them in almsgiving. 1140
Once divine philanthropia is apophatically qualified with the epithet ὑπερβάλλουσα
(exceeding).1141
In the homily Habentes eumdem spiritum, where almsgiving is a chance given to those
who became rich by unjust devices, 1142 we find a reminiscence of Titus 3:4: “Ὅρα πόση
φιλανθρωπία τοῦ Δεσπότου, πόση χρηστότης”.1143
Nonetheless, it is a fact that in the latter years of Chrysostom’s Antiochene period
(386-398), the notion of the divine philanthropy became less frequent in his writings.
Once elevated to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople (398-404), 1144 Chrysostom
wisely reduced the superfluous banquets on the busy schedule of the first among the bishops in
the East and dedicated his evenings to his literary activity. 1145 Nonetheless, his productivity, in
comparison with that of his priestly days in Antioch, is somewhat decreased.
There are a few shorter homilies of this period that do not contain the notion of
philanthropia at all.1146 And two of them which have it only in the closing doxology. 1147 His
attachment to the notion of philanthropia remained still the same as in the later period of his
Antiochene activity, and the oratorical spell of Chrysostom did not weaken, since the crowds
applauded him in Constantinople 1148 as they did in Antioch. 1149 Chrysostom, no doubt, was a
1138
In Titum Comment. PG 62, 694.
1139
Ibid. PG 62, 695.
1140
Ibid. PG 62, 695.
1141
Ibid. PG 62, 695.
1142
Ibid. PG 51, 299.
1143
Ibid.
1144
C. Bauer, op. cit., II, 1-14.
1145
Ibid., p. 93.
1146
Contra ludos et theatra PG 56, 263-270, Filius ex se nihil facit PG 56, 247-256 and
Pater meus… operatur PG 63, 511-516.
1147
Postquam presb.Ghotus PG 63, 499-510. Postquam reliquae martyr. PG 63, 467-472 and
Messis Quidem PG 63, 515-524.
1148
C. Bauer, op. cit., p. 85.
1149 115
Ibid. I , 231, 207.
preacher by the grace of God. “Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus... sat longer at the feet
of rhetoricians, and even attended the higher schools of Athens; but Chrysostom far surpassed
them as a pulpit orator.”1150
The Emperor Arcadius would only confirm the popularity of Chrysostom by coming
in person to listen to his sermons. 1151 However, in the presence of the son of Theodosius I
Chrysostom was even more parsimonious in proffering the ancient attributes of the Hellenistic
ruler than he was in Antioch. He did not call him philanthropes at all, but only a “benefactor
of the universe” who comes to the church to honor greater benefactors than himself, namely,
the martyrs.1152 Philanthropia, as if jealously safeguarded for higher theological use, appeared
later on: the fall of Adam was corrected by the divine philanthropia and not merely corrected,
but through it God has led Adam into an even higher status, from paradise into heaven. 1153
In the commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, 1154 the term philanthropia appears
four times as a human virtue, 1155 and twice as the theological notion indicating the divine
reality by which the sacrifice of the Son of God is ultimately motivated. 1156
Elsewhere, Chrysostom used it in an eschatological context: if we do not suffer from
the Pharisaic disease, we can find pardon and philanthropy at the judgment seat of God. 1157
The divine philanthropy and ineffable goodness were known to Moses, 1158 while Peter,
who is supposed to help his brothers, must practice great philanthropy.1159
On 17th of August 399 Chrysostom preached the memorable sermon On Eutropius,1160
wherein his point on the vanity of all earthly achievements happened to be dramatically
confirmed by the imploring attitude of the once all-powerful consul Eutropius. Chrysostom
proclaims the strength of the Church which patiently endured the attacks of the same courtier
before his downfall, as well as the philanthropy of the Church toward her persecutor now
1150
Ibid. p. 210.
1151
Thus, in 398: Praesente Imperatore. PG 63, 473-478.
1152
Ibid. PG 63, 473.
1153
Ibid. PG 63, 474.
1154
According to L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxxvi, written in 399.
1155
In Coloss. Comment. PG 62, 307; 372.
1156
Ibid. PG 62, 311, Cf. PG 62, 313.
1157
Adv. calharos, PG 63, 494.
1158
Quod frequenter conveniendum PG 63, 465.
1159
Ibid. PG 63, 466.
1160 116
L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxxiv.
begging for her protection. 1161 Chrysostom is ready to intercede for him before the emperor,
even more, to pray the philanthropic God to quench the wrath of the ruler. 1162
Here we have before us not only a masterpiece of ecclesiastical oratory, but also a
mature conception of hierarchically structured philanthropy. On the top of this invisible
pyramid is the philanthropic God; beneath Him stands the emperor, and below him all the
others, together with the imperial city of Constantinople also, collectively taken. 1163 In this
relatively shorter sermon, the term philanthropia is used ten times and in a theologically
significant way.
The year 400 was astonishingly fertile in long commentaires. 1164 In the one on the First
and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 1165 we read that God’s philanthropy is everywhere, 1166
and that the glory of the philanthropic God is in the multitude of the saved. 1167
In the commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1168 the term philanthropia as used to
designate human virtue, does not acquire any new semantic connotation, 1169 except in one case
where it is affirmed that the barbarians also, through hospitality, have proved to know about
philanthropy.1170
Theologically, philanthropia is again identified with grace.1171 One is earnestly warned
not to expect everything from the divine philanthropy, but to contribute something of his
own.1172
The hero of faith, Abraham, enjoyed the great philanthropy of God, 1173 as well as
1161
In Eutropium PG 52, 393-394.
1162
Ibid. PG 52, 395.
1163
Ibid. PG 52, 396.
1164
L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxxvi.
1165
In I ad Thessal. Comment. PG 62, 391-468; In II ad Thessal. Comment. PG 62, 467-500.
1166
Ibid PG 62, 446.
1167
Ibid. PG 62, 488; “δόξα γὰρ τοῦ φιλανθρώπου Θεοῦ τὸ πολλοὺς εῖναι τοὺς σῳζομένους.”
1168
In Acta Apostol. I-LV PG 60, 13-384.
1169
Ibid. PG 60, 53; 147.
1170
Ibid. PG 60, 375.
1171
Ibid. PG 60, 23.
1172
Ibid. Here in just one column the term is used nine times.
1173 117
Ibid. PG 60, 123.
Moses by way of His many theophanies.1174
St. Paul presented his missionary successes to the pillars of the Mother Church of
Jerusalem as the work of the philanthropy of God. 1175 Chrysostom is eager to interpret the
Cross and the Resurrection as being acts of the divine philanthropy. 1176
In the commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1177 philanthropy is inseparable from
1178
justice.
Theologically, there are two significant texts. The creation through the Son is the work
of the Father’s philanthropia which made it possible for the Son to become a model for
others, as well as the cause of salvation. 1179 A genuine apophatic thought follows: to create the
world out of nothing was indeed the act of divine philanthropy, but that the Son would assume
flesh in order to suffer as He did, this is something even greater. 1180 Here we have a fine
incarnational supplement to the philanthropia of the commentary on Genesis which was,
naturally, creation-oriented.
The commentary on the Epistle to Philemon 1181 tackles the problem of a sentimental
conception of philanthropy. One Marcionite maintained that God would have been really good
and philanthropic only if He were about to save all men. 1182 As an answer to him, Chrysostom
develops his passionate theodicy. First, punishments coming from God are the sign of His
philanthropy and goodness. If we had nothing to fear from the coming Judgment, life itself
would degenerate into bestiality: like fishes we would swallow each other, 1183 we would
surpass in rapacity even wolves and lions, so that the mythical labyrinth would be nothing in
comparison with the universal disorder. Who would respect his father? Who would pity his
mother? Who would contain self-indulgence and bridle evil? 1184 Hence, the idea of an ill-
1174
Ibid. PG 60, 130.
1175
Ibid. PG 60, 121.
1176
Ibid. PG 60, 52.
1177
Posthumously edited by the priest Constantine. See L. Meyer, op. cit., p. xxxvi.
1178
In Hebraecos XXXVII PG 63, 186.
1179
Ibid. PG 63, 40.
1180
Ibid.
1181
In Philemonem PG 62, 701-720, was also written in 400 A.D. See J. Dumontier, Les
Cohabitations, p. 20.
1182
Ibid. PG 63, 717.
1183
Ibid.
1184 118
Ibid. PG 62, 718.
timed, anarchist goodness would not be worthy of God. Therefore, not to punish the
unrepentant sinner would mean that God Himself was in connivance with evildoers.All that
precedes gave Chrysostom the basis for his non-sentimental conclusion: exactly because God
is good He has prepared gehenna.1185
Chrysostom closed the commentary with the optimistic exhortation: if we do fear the
warnings from above, we will never experience them. And then he prayed the philanthropic
God that all may be thinking so soberly, in order to be deemed worthy of the ineffable good
things through the grace and philanthropy of the Trinity.1186
After the mock-trial in 403 presided over by Theophilus, pope of Alexandria — held
on the instigation of the Court outside the city gates in a monastery by an oak tree—
Chrysostom was recalled from his first banishment. However, he did not use this second
chance, helpless as he was in the face of the intriguers. 1187
On Easter of the year 404, the empress Eudoxia, duped as she was by the enemies of
Chrysostom,1188 unwittingly won the title of a new Herodias 1189 by forcing the prophetically
indomitable bishop John to go on his way to martyrdom.1190
In such a tragic predicament the uncanonically ousted archbishop of Constantinople
turned for the moral support of his colleagues in the West: Innocent, pope of Rome, Venerius,
bishop of Milan and Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia.1191
In his letter to Bishop Innocent,1192 God who gives eternal crowns is described as
philanthropos.1193
First in Cucusus in Armenia, “the most forsaken corner of the earth” 1194 and afterward
in a small frontier town of Arabissus,1195 Chrysostom spent his three years of exile. He was
1185
Ibid. PG 62, 718.
1186
Ibid. PG 62, 720.
1187
1188
C. Bauer, op. cit., II, 357.
1189
1190
Ibid. p. 142.
1191
1192
J. Dumontier, in Les Cohabitations, p. 20, gave an approximate date of this letter: “Peu
après la Pâque de 404.”
1193
Ibid. PG 52, 536.
1194
“ἐριμότατος”:Epist. 87, PG 52, 654 et passim.
1195 119
even able to receive visitors, especially many from Antioch.1196 The indefatigable churchman
was concerned in helping the missions in Scythia, Phoenicia and Syria, as well as among the
Gothic tribes.1197
The monotonous existence, however, was filled with epistulary preaching. That was
the swan song of Chrysostom.1198
The notion of philanthropia appears twenty-eight times only in the correspondence of
the exiled bishop. In a few instances the notion is theologically quite important.
On the level of human virtue, philanthropy is recommended to a provincial magistrate
Gemellus1199 and praised in bishop Kyriakus. 1200 In the letter to deaconess Olympias it carries
the meaning of mercifulness1201 and of the generôsity of Job.1202
Bishop Aurelius of Carthage is assured in a letter of Chrysostom’s that the
philanthropic God will adorn him with greater crowns for having troubled himself about the
welfare of the churches throughout the universe.1203
Olympias is exhorted to bear all humbly and to glorify the philanthropic God,1204 since
trials come from Him.1205 Greater are the rewards than the pains endured by those persecuted
for God’s name. This is the reason why the philanthropic God did not grant Paul healing when
he asked it.1206 Malchus is similarly exhorted to look forward to the reward from the
philanthropic God.1207
Theologically, the divine philanthropy stands here for the gratuitous remission of sins,
1196
Ibid., p. 383.
1197
Ibid., 387; 92.
1198
Anne-Marie Malingrey, in Lettre d’ exile, p. 32, admires “son optimisme, son goût de la
lute jusqu’ à l’ héroïsme… en ces temps de persécution. ”
1199
PG 52, 648, Cf. ibid. 701; 703; 704; 705; 706; 707; 708; 709.
1200
PG 52, 644; cf. 672; 699.
1201
PG 52, 554.
1202
Ibid., 578; cf. A. -M. Malingrey, Lettre d’ exile, pp. 86, 94.
1203
PG 52, 700.
1204
PG 52, 621.
1205
Ibid., 620.
1206
Ibid., 582.
1207 120
Ibid., 648; Cf. PG 52, 656; 657; 669; 670; 675; 698; 700; 719; 726.
as the opposite of human vengefulness.1208
In the very last writing of Chrysostom, De Providentia Dei,1209 we can see the
unbroken continuity of the theme of divine philanthropy up to the very end of his life. As if
sealing both periods of his philanthropological vision of theology, one in Antioch and the
other in Constantinople, Chrysostom sums himself up in a phrase with an apophatic openness
toward new divine surprises: “Διά φιλανθρωπίαν δὲ μόνην ἡμᾶς παρήγαγε καὶ ἅπαντα ταῦτα
ἐποίησε δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἔτι πολλῷ πλείονα τούτων.”1210 His very definition of the God who
rewards all the persecuted much more than their sufferings require is that incisive, humbly
colloquial definition: “τοιοῦτος γὰρ ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεός.”1211
The writer of such simple and optimistic definitions knew how to die in simplicity and
confidence. On the road from Cumane to Pithyonte, near the chapel of St. Basiliscus,
Chrysostom distributed the last possessions he had, his clothes, put on the white vestment and
prayed calmly in expectation of his death. 1212
In lieu of a formal conclusion to this chapter I shall compare the notion philanthropia
with other more or less synonymous terms.
First of all, there may be the reality of the concept of philanthropy without the explicit
appearance of the term.
As the notion of divine philanthropy covers mainly the reality of salvation, 1213 it is
obvious that the term “fiery lover” (ἐραστής), when applied to God is interchangeable with
philanthropos, since God’s desire for our salvation is compared with the desire of man in
love.1214
Philanthropia is also close to the meaning of the notion πρόνοια (Providence).1215
1208
A. -M. Malingrey, Lettre d’ exile, p. 106.
1209
A. -M. Malingrey, Sur la providence, p. 7, specifies that, probably, it was written in
Cucusus, early, in the year of 407.
1210
“He brought us into being exclusively on account of His philantrophy, and He created all
these things for us and even much more than these.” De Providentia Dei VII 38 (Malingrey),
p. 130.
1211
“Such is indeed the philantrophic God.” De Providentia Dei XXIV, 8 (Malingrey), p. 276.
1212
J. H. Gruninger, “Les Dernières annuées de Saint Jean Chrysostomoe: 404-407,” Proche
Orient Chrétien (1956), 3-10, especially p. 10.
1213
In Romanos XVI PG 60, 560 et passim.
1214
Ad Theodorum lapsum 14 PG 47, 296 (Dumortier), p. 162.
1215
Adversus oppugnat vitae monast. III PG 47, 365, Cf. ibid. PG 47, 392. De Providentia
121
Dei VII, 38 (Malingrey), p. 130. Also at the dubious treatise Comparatio regis et monachi. PG
On the human level, the behaviour of the Emperor Constantine who did not punish
those who maltreated his ststue, could be described as philanthropic. To the amazement of
all, the first Christian emperor while examining his forehead jokingly retorted; “I do not
feel any injury on my face.”1216
In the struggle against the Devil, God is called σύμμαχος (fellow warrior),1217 which
is close to philanthropos in the context of struggle. The habit of God is, according to
Chrysostom, to change human tragedy into man’s triumph over the Devil.1218 The notion of
the philanthropy of God is practically interchangeable with the concept that God wants all
men to be saved.1219
Philanthropia already appears along with chrêstotés in Titus 3:4. In Chrysostom’s
use they are synonymous.1220
Κηδεμονία (care, solicitude, concern) also partially reflects the rich meaning of
divine philanthropia.1221 In the permission given to divorce a prostituted wife both terms
appear together.1222 Also in the context of the forgiveness of sins.1223
Ἀγαθότης (goodness) runs parallel with philanthropia and kedemonia, easily
replacing them.1224
Practically synonymous, agape and philanthropia, on the theological level, are closely
knit together.1225 St. Paul is said to have gone higher than the heavens in order to search after
the agape of Jesus.1226
47, 392.
1216
Ad poput. Ant. XXI PG 49, 216.
1217
De Lazaro concio I PG 50, 610.
1218
In S. Romanum mart. I PG 50, 610.
1219
In Genes. XXIX PG 53, 267.
1220
In Joannem X PG 59, 74. In Romanos XIX PG 60, 590. Ad Stagirium I PG 47, 432. In
Romanos V PG 60, 424.
1221
Ad Theodorum lapsum 4 PG 47, 281 (Dumortier), p. 96.
1222
Adversus Jud. II PG 48, 860.
1223
In Genesin XXXII PG 53, 295. Cf. ibid. XX PG 53, 169. Also In Romanos XX PG 60,
595; Huit catéchèses baptismales (Wenger), p. 112. In Joannem XV PG 59, 100 et passim.
1224
Ad popul. Ant. VII PG 49, 93-94. Cur in Pentec. acta ...In princip. Act. IV PG 51, 111. Cf.
In Genes. XVIII PG 53,152; Huit catéchèses baptismales (Wenger), p. 122.
1225
In Joannem XXII PG 59, 160.
1226 122
De laud. S. Pauli I PG 50, 475.
On the level of human virtue philanthropia in some cases has actually replaced
agape.1227 However, “by the limitations of its etymology it is able to serve as a substitute for
agape only in respect to the love of God for men and to the love of men for one another. The
love of man for God was one aspect of agape which philanthropia could not replace.”1228
This is undeniable, but Chrysostom would instead use φιλόθεος or “friend of God” for
this specific God-oriented aspect of agape.1229 The friendship which Peter and Paul have
toward Christ is proven by their pastoral care for Christ’s followers, 1230 and in the case of
martyrs by their death. 1231 In the instance of friendship (philia) we have a name for the
astounding divine condescension so deep as to see God intermingling with men on terms of
informal equality.1232 Each and every baptized person becomes through his regeneration a
friend of the Lord.1233 However, there is one case in which philia is used in a negative way, 1234
which is never the case with philanthropia. Chrysostom even specifies that friendship and
peace among men depends on the grace and philanthropy of Christ. 1235
Philia is used in the same way as erôs1236 and agapê,1237 Chrysostom has been called,
and rightly, the prophet of agapê.1238 This love, in Chrysostom’s understanding, is socially
oriented to a marked degree: everything in this world, except the good deeds of men, belongs
1227
G. Downey, “Themistius and the Defence”p. 271.
1228
G. Downey, “ʿPhilanthropia’ in the Fourth Century,” p. 200.
1229
De Lazaro concio III 5 PG 48., 1002. As philia could replace agapê (In Math. LX PG 58,
588). Then the notion of a friend of God had practically the same meaning as philotheos. Cf.
Contra eos qui subintroductas. Pg 47, 506. In S. Ignatium PG 50, 587; In Genes. XIV PG 53,
114 et passim. St. Paul is said to have a philotheos psychê. PG 53, 96; cf. PG 60, 545-547.
1230
De beato Philogonio VI PG 48, 752.
1231
De ss. mart. Bernic. Prosdoc. el Domnina PG 50, 640.
1232
Τὸ δὲ φιλεῖν, τοῦτο κοινὸν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. De laud. S. Pauli III PG 50, 483.
W. Schubart, lok. cit., p. 12, wrote that “φιλία, ein Verhältnis unter gleichen… ausdrücken.”
1233
In utilit. lectionis Script. In princ. Act. III PG 51,98.
1234
In Matth. XVIII PG 57, 265.
1235
PG 51,98.
1236
PG 60, 621.
1237
PG 60, 618-619; 60, 647. Chrysostom does not hesitate to call the love of God a pure
hedonism. PG 60, 622.
1238
George Florovsky, “Ὁ ἅγιος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος :ὁ προφήτις τῆς ἅγάπις,”ΑΚΤΙΝΕΣ,
123
Νο 156 (January, 1955), pp. 5-10, especially p. 9.
to God exclusively. Hence genuine love (agapê) ought to be proved by the social equality of
all.1239 Eberhard F. Bruck1240 underlined the radical attitude of Chrysostom when he
recommends giving up one’s whole property to the poor. 1241 Chrysostom, discreetly, leaves to
every donor full freedom to decide for himself what percentage he wants to give to the
poor.1242
After an examination of my selective examples of Chrysostom’s use of philanthropia,
one should come to the conclusion that this notion, in both its ethical and theological bearing,
plays a central role in Chrysostom’s vocabulary.
My chronological study, it seems, does not justify any particular scheme of evolution
in Chrysostom’s predilection for the term φιλανθρωπία. There are, at the most,
philanthropological “seasons” in his creative life, but these are without discoverable
explanation.
The documents prove abundantly that regardless of the differences between the
literary genres used by Chrysostom the divine philanthropia appears in almost all his writings
as a key notion in his theology. The reason for its importance, in my view, can be partially
explained in the light of the confrontation between paganism and Christianity.
The all-inclusive semantic wealth of Chrysostom’s notion of divine philanthropia will
be dealt with in the conclusion of the next chapter.
1239
Ibid., p. 8. Amaterialistic communism, however, is not endorsed by Chrystostom, since for
him God id the only legitimate owner of everything (p. 9), and monastic communities were
dedicated to prove that this is the evangelistic norm of social life.
1240
Kirchnväter und Soziales Erbrecht (Berlin, 1956), p. 23.
1241
Cf. PG 58, 708.
1242
E. F. Bruck, op. cit., p. 26. The same writer, in “Die Gesinnung des Schen- kers bei
Johannes Chrysostomus,” ΜΝΗΜΟΣΥΝΑ ΠΑΠΠΟΥΛΙΑ, pp. 65-83, especially p. 80,
opposes Cicero’s approval of public liberality displayed for the sake of fame to Chrysostom’s
124
recommendation of secrecy in almsgiving.
III. SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO CHRYSOSTOM’S
USE OF PHILANTHROPIA
There is a paradoxical definition according to which “Chrysostom was
no theologian, but he possessed a theology.” 1243 This witty judgment is,
however, impaired by its anachronistic evaluation of the man, since by classical
patristic standards Chrysostom was a most impressive theologian by virtue of
his being the most acclaimed interpreter of Scriptures. 1244 Indeed even
Chrvsostom’s enormous literary output could be put under the caption of the
theology of incompleteness,”1245 since he also, like all Biblically-minded
writers, would “leave completeness to the Holy Spirit through the building up
of the Church as the Body of Christ. The schizoid intellectual’s security
demands completeness.”1246
In order to situate Chrysostom as a theologian, we must also know what
position he held in the long struggle for exegetical supremacy between the rival
schools of Antioch and Alexandria. 1247 Educated in the Antiochene tradition of
anti-allegorical hermeneutics, Chrysostom, however, overcame the all too
exclusive bias of his elders and dared to use allegories. 1248 Thus, by combining
the two rather complementary methods he was more able to search after the
unity of the inspiration in the Scriptures. 1249 The superficial Antiochene
analogies often seem short-sighted in comparison with the Alexandrian intuition
of deep typological connections.1250 The Patristic use of allegory is justified
1243
Clow, Expositor 23 (1922), p. 362. Cited by C. Baur, op. cit., I, 356.
1244
H. de Lubac, Exégèse médévale, I (Paris, 1951) 38; “I1 n' éxistait pas de
théologie systématique; toute l’ érudition théologique se concentrait dans l’
éxegesè.” Cf. also, Z. Alszeghy, Nova creatura: La Nozione della grazia nei
commentary medievali di S. Paolo (Rome, 1953), p. 4.
1245
G. H. Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky”, loc. cit.
1246
Frank Lake, Clinical Theology: A Theological and Psychiatric Basis to
Clinical Pastoral Care (London, 1966), p. 591.
1247
Eustathius of Antioch was vehemently opposed to Origen’s allegorizing. See
De engastrornytho-Contra Origenem PG 18, 656-657.
1248
In Matt. Comment. Hom. 52, 1 PG 57, 519; In loannem Hom. 85, 1 PG 59,
461. Henri de Lubac wrote in “ʻTypologie’ et ʻAlligorisme’,” “Recherches de
science religieuse 34 (1947), pp. 180-226, especially p. 196, “Le scrupule relalif à
1’ allégoria est chose tout à fait récente”. For example K. J. Woollcombe, “The
Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology, “Essays on Typology by
G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe (London, 1957), pp 39-75, especially p.
57, n. 1, wrote: “Chrysostom occasionally incorporates a piece of allegorism into
his homilies, but makes it plain that he has borrowed it from another source.”
1249
Jacques Guillet, “Les Exégèses d’ Alexandrie et d’ Antioche, conflit ou
125
malentendu?” Recherches de science religieuse 34 (1947), pp. 257-302, esp. p.
296.
1250
Ibid., pp. 291-292.
since it appears almost exclusively in homiletical “applied theology.” 1251
Nonetheless, Chrysostom is famous for his sober historical and psychological
method in the art of interpreting the main source of theology—Holy Writ. 1252 He
did invoke the authority of the oral tradition, too, 1253 but the more conspicuous
aspect of the revelation was for Chrysostom as for all the Fathers mainly to be
found in the Scriptures.1254
Following the example of apophatic thinking given by the Cappadocians
and Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom also insisted, against the Anhomoians, that
God, even revealed, remains incomprehensible. 1255 The perfect knowledge of God
the Father is the exclusive privilege of the Son and the Holy Spirit. 1256 If we
know anything about God, this is only because the Revealer of the divine secrets,
Jesus of Nazareth, is not only man, but also God. 1257 His heavenly doctrine is
given to us in order that we may imitate our Teacher according to the personal
capacity of each.1258
As the Cappadocian Fathers made a distinction between the essence of
God and His energies,1259 so did Chrysostom between the absolutely unknowable
divine οὐσία (essence) and the partially cognizable divine οἱκονομία!
1251
Georges Florovsky, “Revelation and Interpretation”, Biblical Authority for
Today, ed. Alan Richardson and W. Schweitzer (London and Philadelphia, 1951),
pp. 163-80, esp. p. 180.
1252
Adolf Smitmans, Das Weinwunder von Kana: Die Auslegung von Jo 2,1-11
bei den Vätern und heute (Tubingen, 1966), p. 270.
1253
For Chrysostom the Apostles are, personally, at once, “βφλία καὶ νόμοι”. “In
Matth. Hom. I, 1 PG 57, 15; cf. PG 62, 361.
1254
H. de Lubac, Exégèse médévale, p. 56, pointed out: “que l’Ecriture contienne
toute la révélation, ce fut... la thèse à peu près unanime jusqu’ a la veille de la
réforme.” Vladimir Lossky gives a balanced appreciation of the problem: “Whilst
the Protestant doctrine of the ‘sufficiency of Scripture’ received a negative
meaning, by the exclusion of all that is ‘Tradition’, the defenders of Tradition saw
themselves obliged to prove the necessity of union between two juxtaposed
realities, each of which remained insufficient alone. (However) if the two are
‘fulness,’ there could be no question of two ‘pleromas’ opposed to one another,
but of two modalities of one and the same fulness of the Revelation
communicated to the Church.” See “Tradition and traditions,” p. 13.
1255
Rene Latourelle, op. cit., p. 132.
1256
In Joannem Hom. 15,2 PG 59, 98-100.
1257
In Collos. Hom. 5,2 PG 62, 331-333. In Romanos Hom. 27,1 PG 60, 643-
644.
1258
In Joannes Hom. 15, 3 PG 59, 100.
1259
126
Basil, Ad Amphilockium Ep. CCXXXIV PG 32, 868G; Gregory of Nazianzus,
In Theophaniam VII PG 36, 317: Gregory of Nyssa, In Ecclesiast. VII PG 732;
(W. Jaeger), V, 415.
(dispensations).1260 Following more particularly St. Basil’s subtle insight, 1261
Chrysostom differentiates the power of God (δύναμις), by which He punishes,
from philanthropia and chrêstotés by which those that repent are saved.1262
It is high time to illustrate with concrete examples my contention that the
notion of divine philanthropy links together all the aspects of Chrysostom’s
cataphatic theology.
After having appropriated the Cappadocian theological formula: God in
one essence and Three Hypostases, 1263 Chrysostom ascribes the attribute of
philanthropia distinctly to all Three Divine Persons: God (the Father) is the source
of philanthropy;1264 the philanthropy of Christ is attested several times,1265 while
that of the Holy Spirit, explicitly, is attested only once. 1266 The Trinity is invoked
after the closing formula “χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ”, more often than Christ
alone.1267 This predilection for the Trinitarian ending makes it even clearer that
for Chrysostom philanthropia is the property of the Three Divine Persons.
That God is in want of naught (ἀνενδεής)1268 proves the contingency of
the creation, which came into being sheerly out of divine philanthropy.1269 Even
the impassibility of God is paradoxically juxtaposed with His philanthropy. 1270
Moreover, Chrysostom expressed his view that God can “feel” by emphasizing
His intense “erotic” love toward us, even though the balance is preserved by a
theological oxymoron — “ἔρωτα ἀπαθῆ” (impassible erôs).1271
1260
De Incomprehens. I PG 48, 706D; (Flacellifère), pp. 98-100. Cf. In Romanos
Hom. 27, 1 PG 60, 644-645. Cf. PG 52, 404: “ὁλίγοv τῆς θεότητος”.
1261
Saint Basil, The Letters, trans. R. Deferrari, III, 372-73
1262
1263
Huit catéchèses baptismales I, 21, (Wenger), p. 119. Cf. In Joannem IV PG
59,49.
1264
“πηγή γὰρ ἐστι τῆς φιλανθρωπίας.” In Genes. XXVI PG 53, 238.
1265
Cur in Pentec. acta etc. In princip. Act. IV PG 51, 97; Comment in
Matthaeum III PG 57, 34; PG 57, 337; 364; 468; 469; In Philipp. Comment. PG
62, 286.
1266
PG 59,75. The philanthropia of the Holy Spirit is indirectly indicated through
the satellite notion of κηδεμονία: “Καὶ γάρ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον σφόδρα ἡμῶν
κήδεται.”In Romanos XV PG 60, 5J0 His philanthropy appears even more clearly
through His presence in baptism, which is characterized as an action of divine
philanthropy. In Romanos XVI PG 60, 554.
1267
I have found 379 homilies with a closing Trinitarian doxology, and only 135
with a Christological conclusion.
1268
Ad Stagirium I PG 47, 428.
1269
Above, “Θεολογία” 54 (1983) pp. 138, 135.
1270
“ἀπαθὲς τό Θεῖόν ἐστι, κἂν κολάζη... οὐ μετ’ ὀργῆς τοῦτο ποιεῖ. ἀλλὰ μετὰ
φιλανθρωπίας.”Α Theodoré (Dumortier), p. 96.
1271
127
De Providentia Dei VI, 1 (Malingrey), p. 94. Bowman L. Clarke pointed out,
in Language and Natural Theology, (Hauge-Paris, 1966), p. 107, this general
principle: “If God is to include all actul value, he must be universally and
Συγκατάβασις (divine condescension), an associate of philanthropia,
mainly signifies the verbalized Scriptural expression which permits us to have a
glimpse of the constant divine πρόνοια (providence), as well as of the abyss of
God’s philanthropy, which cannot be verbalized.1272
For Chrysostom’s Christology the basic assumption is that “the unknown
God is none else but Christ.”1273 He was baptized neither by Judaic nor by
Christian baptism, but only by the Johannine baptism of repentence, and that
only in order to manifest Who He really was. 1274 He had to reveal His divinity to
the Apostles only gradually, taking into account their Old Testament idea of
monotheism as being of a monohypostatic Godhead. 1275 At the Incarnation,
without changing His divine nature, Christ really assumed human flesh. 1276 And
this mystery, foretold by Isaias, is, according to Chrysostom, “the ocean and
abyss of the philanthropy of God.”1277
Here I have to open a short parenthesis on Theodore of Mopsuestia (†
428), the famous contemporary and compatriot of Chrysostom. 1278
Indeed, it is from a right understanding of Theodore’s Christology that
the meaning of his use of the divine philanthropia will depend also.
Against the older attempts to completely whitewash Diodorus of
Tarsus1279 more recent studies justify the traditional disrepute of his
Christology.1280 He has in fact rejected not only the errors of the Apollinarists, but
also the unity of person which they were trying, in their own mistaken fashion, to
perfectly sensitive to all creatures.”

1272
In Genes. X PG 53, 89. But, elsewhere, σινγκατάβασις and φιλανθρωπία
follow each other as if they were synonymous (In Genes. PG 53, 99; PG 53, 114;
PG 53, 209; Huit catéchèses baptismales, Wenger, p. 123; In Epist. I ad Cor. III
PG 61, 24-25), howerer, when it is said “διά τῶν ρημάτων συγκατάβασεως” (In
Genes. XIII PG 53, 106) in contradistinction to the ἄφατος philantropia, (In
Genes. XIII PG 53, 105; PG 53, 113. Cf. In Matth. LXXI PG 58, 664) it is
permissible to say that the term synkatavasis stands for the concrete expressions
of the ineffable philantropia.
1273
In inscript. altar. et in princip Act. I PG 51, 73.
1274
De baptismo Christi PG 49, 367-368.
1275
In Matth. LXXI PG 58, 662.
1276
In Joannem XI PG 59, 79.
1277
In Matth. V PG 57, 56.
1278
J. Quasten, op. cit., III 401.
1279
Nickolai Fetissov, Diodor Tarsiky (Kiev, 1915) p. 231 (in Russian), asserted
that Diodorus was “Athanasius of Antioch.”And L. Mariés, Etudes préliminaires
ά l’ édition de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes (Paris, 1933), p. 163, defended
“l’ orthodoxie même de Diodore.”
1280
Pietro Parente, op. cit., p. 65, wrote: “Diodore contrappone le sue idee sull
’unione ipostatica, che presentano constantemente in Cristo due soggetti, due 128
io.”
Günter Koch, Die Heilsvertwirklichung bei Theodor von Mopsuestia (Munich,
1965), p. 240, argues that “So kommt bei Diodor... die Wirklichkeit der
Menschwerdung in Gefahr”.
defend.”1281 Such a trenchant solution led him to nothing less than “a denial of the
reality of the incarnation.”1282
In spite of the minor positive contributions effected by Theodore in his
fight against Apollinaris, Eunomius and Macedonius, 1283 his major Christological
doctrine is more than questionable, not merely from the point of view of the later
Chalcedonian orthodoxy, but from a simple comparison with his contemporary
and schoolmate, John Chrysostom. Their respective use of the notion of
συνάφεια (conjunction) reveals a striking difference.
Theodore may occasionally speak of the “exact conjunction” of the two
natures in one Son of God,1284 but he cannot be more explicit as to what he really
thinks by his “synaphic” or “conjunctional” union, than when he says: “If this
conjunction be abolished, then what was assumed (by the Logos) would become
nothing more than a simple man like ourselves.”1285
For Chrysostom, on the other hand, “conjunction” (συνάφεια) serves
mainly to designate the union of the married couple 1286 or of Christ and the
Church,1287 but even when he applies it to the mystery of the Incarnation
Chrysostom is careful to stress the fact that the unique personal bearer of the two
realities is the Logos.1288
If Theodore can think that the two persons (the Logos and the man
assumed) can be said to be one, because they are of two totally different natures
— although this “oneness” is merely an operation “dans notre penséen1289 — all
the dangers of Apollinarianism could not excuse him for speaking as if he had
never read the Fourth Gospel: “In fact this is not God who became the flesh.” 1290
1281
Francis A. Sullivan, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Rome,
1956) p. 188.
1282
Ibid., pp. 188-189.
1283
Robert Devreesse, Essai sur Theodore de Mopsuestia (Città del Vaticano,
1948), p, 97.
1284
“Naqipûtâ hatitâ, la conjonction exacte des deux natures.” Les Homélies
catéchèses de Théodore de Mopsueste, traduction, introduction, index par
Raymond Tonneau et Robert Devreesse (Cità del Vaticano, 1949), p. 67.
1285
Ibid., p. 135.
1286
In Matth. LXII PG 58, 597: A Théodore (Dumortier), p. 60; Ad viduam
juniorem 7 PG 48, 610.
1287
Huit catéchèses baptismales (Wenger), p. 161; Cf. De Sacerdotio, III, V
(Narin), p. 55.
1288
“Τῇ ἑνώσει καὶ τῇ σιναφείᾳ ἕν ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸσ Λόγος καὶ ἡ σὰρζ” (Ιn Joanem
Hom. XI, 2 P 59, 79-80). “Σινάπτων τὴν θείαν φύσιν τῇ ἀνθρςπίνῃ, τὰ αὐτοῦ τοῖς
ἡμετέροις.“ In Matth. II PG 57, 26.
1289
Huit catéchèses baptismales (Tonneau-Devreesse), p. 209.
1290
Ibid. When J. Turmel, Histoire des dogmes, II (Paris, 1932), 318, tried to
129
make out of Chrysostom a good pupil of Diodorus, by quoting his “two persons”
passage (In Hebr. 3), Camillus Hay, “St. John Chrysostom and the Integrity of the
Human Nature in Christ,“ Franciscan Studies, XIX (September-December, 1959),
298-317, especially p. 314, p. 73, pointed out that this expression is found in a
Chrysostom knew also how to speak eloquently on the two natures in
Christ,1291 but he never lost from sight the unity of the Incarnate Divine Person:
“To believe in One born from Mary... in One who was buried and resurrected...
The One who said 'Let there be heaven.’ [This] is the Same who planted these
churches.”1292
On the contrary, in Theodore’s Christology the Word and the assumed
man formally unite in one prosôpon, but this “person” is not the Divine Person of
the Word.1293 When we see that “typically Antiochene difficulties in the
interpretation of the unity in Christ do not exist for Chrysostom,” 1294 and take into
consideration the classical politeness of not naming explicitly a person who is
criticized,1295 we are entitled to suspect a tacit opposition between these two most
prolific exegetes of Antioch.1296
Theodore’s distorted Christology has for its invalidating consequence the
reduced effusion of the divine philanthropy as limited to the creature, the homo
assumptus.1297
Chrysostom puts his anthropology in a Trinitarian framework by insisting
that the plural of “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26) is explainable only by the
plurality of the Divine Persons. 1298 Man created in the image of God is, however,
not of the same essence.1299 Being in the image means that God gave him
dominion over all the earth, not as a reward for any works, however, but out of
commentary which was posthumously published by an Antiochene priest, on the

basis of notes.
1291
In I ad Timoth. VII, 2 PG 62, 536-537.
1292
Contra Judaeos et Gentiles XIII PG 48, 851.
1293
Fr. A. Sullivan, op. cit., p. 282. Cf. P. Parente, op. cit., p. 70 and Milton V.
Anastos, “The Immutability of Christ and Justinian’s Condemnation of Theodore
of Mopsuestia,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 6 (1951), pp. 123-60.
After reading It. A. Norris’ book Manhood and Christ: A Study in the
Christtology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Oxford, 1963), especially pp. 235-61, I
can only say that it was reckless for Theodore to play at being self-styled
psychoanalist of Christ’s manhood without being first a qualified theologian, in
the patristic sense, an intimate of the Trinity.
1294
Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to
Chalcedon (451), trans. J. S. Bowden (New York, 1965), p. 338.
1295
As for example Diodorus did not name Origen’s name while attacking his
exegesis: L. Maries, op. cit., p. 132.
1296
It is revealing that in the Nestorian school of Nisibis Henana Adiabenus
(†610) dared to prefer John Chrysostom to the officially endorsed Theodore of
Mopsuestia. See Mauricius Gordillo, Theologia orientalium cum Latinorum
comparata: Commentatio historica I (Rome, 1960), 66-67. Cf. J. B. Chabot,
Littfrature syriaque (Paris, 1934,), p. 58.
1297
Divine philanthropy is mentioned in Comment. in Jonae IV PG 66, 314 C;
130
Nahumi 1 PG 66, 405 B; Zachariae XII PG 66, 584 A; Malachiae I PG 66, 601;
In Matth, PG 66, 705 B; 709 A; In Joannem PG 66, 732B.
1298
In Genes. VIII PG 53, 71-72.
sheer philanthropy.1300 It is noteworthy that the original sin of man was to pretend
to be of the same essence with God.1301 Chrysostom considers as a sign of the
unflinching philanthropy of God the fact that He did not completely take away
the dignity of man alter he had totally broken the commandment, but, being
Philanthropos, spared the transgressor and left him a part of his initial sovereignty,
namely, the power over animals. 1302 The rationality adorning the human soul is
also from the divine philanthropia.1303 It was the Philanthropic God who was the
first to tailor fur coats for men in order to cover their shame after the Fall. 1304
Only Christ is called “the very man” (αὐτοάνθρωπος), because He is also
God.1305
The Devil was envious of man’s felicity in paradise, while God in His
philanthropy does everything for men.1306 The arch-evil demon, because of the
wickedness of his deliberate choice (προαίρεσις), fell from the rank of the angelic
powers, trying with all possible machinations to strip from man all the good
things he had received from the divine philanthropy.1307 He is behind the
seduction of the serpent. 1308 However, he acts only through the permission of
God.1309 Adam sinned in paradise by indolence. 1310 In fact, our indolence is the
opposite of the divine philanthropy.1311 Chrysostom, then, draws the triangle of
freedom; God is unchangeably recognized by His divinely steady philanthropy;
the Devil makes himself known by envy, and man is defined, here, by indolence
(ῥαθυμία).1312 The expulsion from paradise is a paedagogical punishment inspired
by the divine philanthropy.1313
In the case of Enoch’s miraculous transfer to heaven, however, we can see
that God did not want to see men dying at all, but, out of His philanthropy, He
left the fear of death as a sobering lesson to fallen mankind. 1314
Sins are destroyed by the grace and philanthropy (χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ)
1299
Ad popul. Ant. Ill PG 49, 57.
1300
Ibid. VII PG 49, 93.
1301
Ibid. XI PG 49, 122.
1302
In Genes. IX PG 53, 79.
1303
Ibid. XII PG 53, 103,
1304
Ibid. XVIII PG 53, 150.
1305
De laud S. Pauli V, PG 50, 498.
1306
Huit catéchèses baptism. (Wenger), p. 136. Cf. In Genes. XXII PG 53,188.
1307
In Genes. XVI PG 53, 126.
1308
Ibid. XXVII PG 53, 240.
1309
Fragm. In Job PG 64, 549 B. Cf. In Romanos III PG 60, 414.
1310
Ad popul. Ant. IV PG 49, 66.
1311
In Genes. VI PG 53, 151.
1312
Ibid. XV PG 53, 124. 131
1313
Ibid. XVIII PG 53, 151.
1314
Ibid. XXI PG 53, 180.
of the crucified Christ.1315
The mystery of free will is tenaciously defended by Chrysostom, always in
the context of divine philanthropy.1316 All the opponents of free will in man he
stamps out as Manichaeans.1317 He emphasizes the greatness of our potential
betterment, and that only if we wish (ἐὰν βουλώμεθα), through the divine
philanthropy we can overcome our indolence and quickly return to the initial
abundance.1318 Chrysostom is fond of drawing the metaphysical triangle of
freedom, namely, God on the top and the Devil and man at the base. God is
always recognisable by His philanthropy, man (a martyr, in this case) by his
endurance, and the devil by his malevolence.1319
The self-controlling power (αὐτεξούσιον) is implanted in our nature by
God, who in His philanthropy left to man the capacity to decide for himself. 1320
The “involution” of the cosmos culminates, for Chrysostom, with the
creation of man, and all things came into being by the ineffable philanthropy of
God in order to honor man. 1321· Only in this perspective may the divine
tenderness extended downward upon the animals be meaningfully called the
divine philanthropy.1322
Soteriology also is under the sign of divine philanthropia

God, who wishes that all man should be saved (1 Tim 2:4), is defined as
the philanthropic God.1323 If “few are saved” it is only because few give the half
of their possessions to the poor, indeed not even a tenth of their riches. 1324
However, Chrysostom is quick to re-assure the businessmen of his audience and
to show that he knew well the “theology of the things of this world,” and
therefore1325 he would exclaim: “Let us not despise the concern for this wordly
1315
De sancta Pentecoste PG 50, 463. Ludovic Robberechts, Le Mythe d’ Adam
et le péché original (Paris, 1967), pp. 25-26, writes in this regard: “La croyance
en une certaine liberté et l’ espérance en une suppression possible du mal peuvent
suffire pour l’ intelligence… Si elle ne résout pas le problem du mal, la Bible est
tout entire une résponse à celui-ci, une response valuable et, à nos yeux, la plus
valuable.”
1316
In Genes. XIII PG 53, 109.
1317
In Joannem XLVI PG 59, 257.
1318
In Genes. VII PG 53, 56. Cf. Adv. Jud.VIII PG 48, 928; In Romanos III PG
60, 416 et passim.
1319
In Romanum mart. I PG 50, 608.
1320
In Genes. XIX PG 53, 158; Huit catéchèses baptism. (Wenger), p. 1113.
Parrhésia is also given in the context of the divine philanthropy. See De beato
Philogonio VI PG 48, 754.
1321
In Genes. VII PG 53, 66.
1322
Ibid. XXVIII PG 53, 254.
1323 132
De incomprehens. II (Flacciére), p. 160. Cf. Ad Stagirium I, 5 PG 47, 437.;
II, 7 PG 47, 460.
1324
In Matth. LXIV PG 58, 615.
life.”1326 And almsgiving is always there to express the soul’s philanthropic
bent.1327 But, if God rebuked even Moses, saying that it was not his business to
know which are to enjoy His philanthropy, much less are we entitled to scrutinize
this mystery.1328
For Chrysostom, the Cross is the sign of joy, because it opened the gates
of heaven.1329 Hence, we do not feel sorrow because of the Cross, far from it, but
because of our sins.1330 Through the Cross there came about the salvation of
all.1331 “And the Cross is, indeed, the act of the ineffable philanthropy towards
us.1332 Moreover, Chrysostom ascribes the accomplishment of the Cross to the
Trinity as a whole.1333 To create the world out of nothing was an act of divine
philanthropy, but to see the Son assuming the flesh in order to suffer — this fact
transcends the divine philanthropy itself.1334
Grace and philanthropy are for Chrysostom interchangeable notions.1335
Therefore, whatever is said on the problem of grace touches the notion of the
divine philanthropia also.
Stoyan Goshevich has discovered three different stages in Chrysostom’s
theology that expressly involve the Three Divine Persons in the gradual process
of imparting grace to men.1336
For Chrysostom there is no such thing as irresistible grace, which could
only mean a metaphysical rape of the soul;1337 however, he is in no way a
1325
Cf. Gustave Thils, Theologie der irdischen Wirklichkeiten (Salzburg, n. d.),
especially pp. 32-34.
1326
In Matth. LXIV PG 58, 615; cf. In Romanos XV PG 60, 547-548.
1327
Ibid.
1328
1329
Ad Jud. III PG 60, 558.
1330
Ibid. PG 48, 868.
1331
Ibid. VI PG 48, 910.
1332
“Καὶ γὰρὁ σταυὸς δι’ ἡμᾶς τὸ τῆς ἀφάτυ φιλανθρωπίας ἔργον.” Ιn Romanos
VI PG 60, 408.
1333
Peter Stockmeier, Theologie und Kult des Kreuzes bei Johannes
Chrysostomus (Trier, 1966), p. 62. He added: “Mit dieser Einordung etnziehet
Johhanes Chrysostomus Leiden und Sterben des Herrn jedem verengenden
Rahmen, und nicht zueltz einer sentimentalen Missdeutung.”
1334
In Hebreos PG 63, 40.
1335
In one instance he says that one does nothing by his own strnegth, but by the
grace of God. (See Ad Stagirium I, 9 PG 47, 445-446). Elsewhere he says:
salvation is not from our own achievement, but from the philanthropy of God.
(See De compunct. II, PG 47, 417; cf. In Genes. XXIV PG 53, 212; 245, 252 et
passim.)
1336 133
St. Johannem Chrysostomos’s Doctrine on Divine Grace (Athens, 1956), p.
64, In Greek).
1337
De laud. S. Pauli IV PG 50, 487.
harbinger of Pelagianism. 1338 He can say, to keep the balance, that our race is
justified not by our own works, but by grace alone.1339
The Jews also are saved by grace like the whole of mankind. All this is
the proof, for Chrysostom, of the ineffable philanthropy of the Creator. 1340
However, Chrysostom is aware of the apophatic character of the two
wills encountering each other in the act of synergism: “When you hear grace
spoken of, do not imagine that the reward of deliberate human choice
(προαίρεσις) is denied by it. To say grace does not mean that the effort of human
choice is disappreciated, but only that the arrogance of rebellion is cut off.”1341
Anthony Kenny tries to stricture Chrysostom for having “reduced predestination
to mere prescience,”1342 which concretely means that “God’s” foreknowledge is
not the cause of sin, nor of virtue.” 1343 The same writer has pointed out that the
theologians of Marseilles, the opponents of Augustine of Hippo, “were afraid that
Augustine’s doctrine might cause negligence or despair in the faithful.”1344 Some
modern authors, coming from widely different cultural horizons, would agree
that the Bishop of Hippo was in error on some cardinal points of the doctrine. 1345
1338
Georges de Plinval, Pélage, ses écrits, sa vie el sa r éforme (Paris, 1943), p.
134. wrote apropos: “On ne peut pas dire qu’ en aucun point de son commentaire
Pélage suive réellement tel ou tel auteur, pas plus Origfène que Jean
Chrysostome.”
1339
Adv. Jud. VII PG 48, 919.
1340
In Joannem XIV PG 59, 94.
1341
In Romanos II PG 60, 404. Elswhere, he says: “The zeal of man has no
sufficiency but itself, unless he receives an influence from above; similarly, the
heavenly influence is of no benefit to us, unless zeal be present… Virtue is woven
out these two together.” PG 58, 742.
1342
“Was Chrysostom a semi-Pellagian?” Irish Theological Quarterly, XXVII
(1960), 16-29, especially p. 26.
1343
Ibid., p. 27. Chrysostom could not be more explicit in defending the honesty
of God and the freedom of men, but by teaching that since Christ died for all men,
the only thing which makes a difference between those who will be saved and
those who will not, is human good or ill will. In Romanos XVI PG 60, 554.
1344
A. Kenny, loc. cit., p. 27.
1345
First there is a general exegetical clarification from
Gerhard Kittel: “the New Testament knows of no rigid predestination to eternal
perdition” (See Warth, Bible Key Words, pp.88-89). Joannes Baptista Pighi in
considering Augustine’s handling of the trony problem of evil and predestination
stressed that when it came to composition “the artist in Augustine… tended to
take over from the theologian.” See Mélanges Christine Mohramann, pp. 252-
269, especially p. 255.
Augustine is presumably quilty of having loaded the doctrine of original
sin with gloomy juridical connotations. See John S. Romanides, Original134 Sin
(Athens, 1957), pp. 25-26; 76; 112. n. 2. (in Greek), and Julious Gross,
Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbündendogmas (Munich, 1960), I. 375: “Mit seiner
[Augustins] Erbündeneuerung hatte einen eklatanten Sieg errungen — aber nicht
Chrysostom’s evangelical understanding of freedom before God is
refreshing because his vision of God is genuinely an optimistic one. He would
encourage his audience by saying: if we contribute only a small portion God will
add from above — and, thus, our salvation is ready— because of the ocean of
philanthropia of the Lord.1346
Since, for Chrysostom, the Church “begins with God and ends and finds
rest in God,”1347 it is not astonishing that he should give her the divine attribute of
philanthropia: “δύναμ,ις καὶ φιλανθρωπία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.”1348
Since the supreme ruling principle resides in the Trinity, 1349 the Apostles,
on earth, are collectively invested with the pastoral rule and care of the whole
universe.1350 The power of the keys was given to all of them, not only to Peter. 1351
Paul, because of his humility, became the first among all and Peter in his turn the
foundation of the Church.1352
It is noteworthy that in the majority of cases, whenever Chrysostom
speaks of the two supreme Apostles, he gives the precedence to Paul. 1353 He
noticed, also, that Paul did not wait for Peter, neither did he ask James’ approval,
but moved by his own zeal started to preach in Damascus. 1354
The priority among the Apostles, according to Chrysostom, is not of the
kind that this-worldly men fight for. The three supreme Apostles, Peter, John and
James were healed from their rivalry and retired from their priority. 1355 He takes
über… Menschhlichkeit.”
Jacques-François Tommas writes in Saint Augustins’ est il trompé? Essai
sur la prédestination (Paris, 1959): “Les Grecs ont miuex su garder la confidance
en Deu que Saint Augustin.” (p.80). “Ainsi, reconnainssons qu’ il s’ est tout de
même trompé... c’ est le moment de lui appliquer la sagesse du proverbe: ‘Amicus
Plato, sed magis arnica veritas.’” (p. 93).
1346
De poenitentia III PG 49, 299.
1347
John Karmiris, “The Echleclesiology of Three Hierarchs,” The Greek
Ortodox Theological Review, VI, No. 2 (Winter, 1960-1961), 135-185, especially
p. 182.
1348
PG 52, 393-394.
1349
Constantinos D. Mouratides, Essence and Structure of the Church according
to the Teaching of John Chrysostom (Athens, 1958), p. 139, (in Greek). Cf.
Athanasiye M. Yeftich, Ecclesiology of St. Paul according to St. Chrysostom
(Athens, 1967), (in Greek).
1350
In utilit. led ion is Script. In princip. Act. Ill PG 51, 93.
1351
In Malt. XXIII PG 57, 308.
1352
Ibid. III PG 57, 38. Cf. In Joannem LXXXVII1 PG 59, 477-479.
1353
A. Théodore (Dumortier), p. 90. Ad popul. Ant. I PG 49, 24; De S. Babyla 3
PG 50, 538; La Virginité (Musurillo-Grillet), p. 382 et passim. There are
exceptions: In S. Ignatium PG 50, 593; De Lazaro concio V PG 48, 1021; In illud:
in faciem Petro PG 51, 375. 135
1354
De laud. S. Pauli VII PG 50, 510.
1355
In Matht. LVIII PG 58, 568.
for granted that no one stands above Paul, 1356 and that the lust for primacy is in
any case proper only to the pagans.1357
Chrysostom endorses the liturgical equality of all the national tongues, 1358
and emphasizes that Paul treated the Romans as equal to other ethnic groups. A
proud Antiochene, Chrysostom recalls that the Syrians were teachers of the
Romans.1359
The highest enactment of the divine philanthropy in the Church, however,
is the Eucharist.1360 For the sake of the most realistic expression of the belief in
the sacramental presence of Christ on the altar, Chrysostom is sometimes called
“Doctor Eucharistiae”.1361 He sees the kernel of the mystery in an “essentially
supernatural structure of the reality of salvation, which comprises a co-related
understanding of it and a definite prerequisite ethos.” 1362 The theme of the new
creation (2 Cor 5:17), understood by Chrysostom as the sacramental
independence which the believers of the New Testament have in regard to space
and time, is linked with the Eucharistical partaking of the cup of Christ. 1363 In
general, all those who search the new things of incorruption in the context of
grace will enjoy the peace and philanthropy of God and will be deemed worthy
to be called by the name of Israel.1364
Moreover, God’s philanthropy is experienced not only through His gifts,
but also through chastizement.1365 He warns his audience that the destruction of
Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus “will apply both against the Marcionites and
against thoso who do not believe that there is a hell.” 1366 And he adds: “Once
more, I am compelled to seem harsh, disagreeable, stern... For we do good, not
by the pleasure we give, but by the pain we inflict. So it is also with the
physician.”1367 Nonetheless, he has also a sweet medicament, when he says: only
if we want to be φιλάνθρωποι, we shall then see Jesus in glory and hear Him tell
us “Rejoice, come ye blessed ones of My Father.”1368
Chrysostom has elaborated a typology according to which the Ark of
1356
Ibid. LXV PG 58, 612.
1357
Ibid. PG 58, 622.
1358
De studio praesentium PG 63, 487.
1359
In Romanos I PG 60, 399-401.
1360
De Sacerdotio III, IV (Nairn), pp. 51-52.
1361
Gustave Bardy, “St. Jean Chrysostome,” Dictionaire de Théologie
Catholique, Vol. VIII, cols. 660-690, esp. col. 680.
1362
G. Fittkau, Der Begriff des Mysteriums bei Johannes Chrysostomus (Bonn,
1953), p. 84.
1363
De regressu Joannis ex Asia PG 52, 423.
1364
In Galathos VI PG 61, 679.
1365
Ad popul. Ant. VII PG 49, 93; In Genes. XXV PG 53, 230-232.
1366
Homilies on the Acts of the Apostoles Vol. XI of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1956), Hom. V, p. 35. 136
1367
Ibid.
1368
In Matht. LXXXIX PG 58, 784.
Noah is the Church, Noah prefiguring the Christ; the dove standing for the Holy
Spirit, and the branch of olive for the philanthropy of God.1369
Chrysostom teaches loyalty to the State, especially when the emperor is a
philanthropic ruler.1370 But Flavian is, for him, also a sort of a ruler, even more
august than the emperor,1371 “since bishops have received “nothing less than the
whole authority of heaven.”1372 The greatness of the royal philanthropy lies in the
fact that it can be compared with the philanthropy of God. 1373
Chrysostom knew well that the relationship between the Church and the
Empire ought not be one of mere legality or power, but one of mutual
confidence.1374 However, he found himself in a situation such that he had to
reprimand the Empress1375 and to give the following ultimatum to Arcadius of
Constantinople, his first parishioner: “From God the Saviour have I received this
church with a charge to secure the salvation of this people, and I cannot abandon
her. If you desire so (even though the City is of a different opinion) you must
expell me by force, that I may have for excuse of my desertion your
absolutism.”1376
After such clear teaching and heroic practice it is puzzling why F.
Dvornik should write a sweeping judgment like this: “The idea of the superiority
of spiritual power over the temporal... the East was never able to
comprehend.”1377 I see here an unpreparedness properly to evaluate the attitude
of the Byzantine episcopate, which practically never condescended to compete
with rulers on the level of the old creation, because they felt almost beyond the
reach of the emperors on their level of the Church’s sacramental Kingdom,
which is not of this world. For this reason it seems to me, Per Beskow has more
adequately described one aspect of the relationship between the Church and the
Empire in the nascent Byzantium saying: “When the Kingship of Christ is
considered to be realized above all in the cult, the areas of conflict diminish
accordingly.”1378 Chrysostom did emphasize that Christians are “soldiers of the
heavenly King,1379 but he did not forget to underline the spiritual character of the
1369
De Lazaro concio VI 7 PG 48, 1037.
1370
Ad popul. Ant. IV PG 49, 66.
1371
Ibid. III PG 49, 50.
1372
De Sacerdotio III, V (Nairn), p. 54. Graham Noville (trans.), Saint John
Chrysostom: Six Books on the Priesthood (London, 1964), p. 72.
1373
In Hebraeos XIII PG 63, 108.
1374
Stephan Verôsta, Johannes Crysostomus Staatsphilosoph und
Geschtstheologe, (Graz, 1960), p. 338.
1375
Ad imperaticem Eudoxicam PG 64, 493 A.
1376
Palladius, Vita Chysostomi PG 47, 32.
1377
Francis Dvornik, Byzantiium and the Roman Primacy (New York, 1966), p.
19.
1378
137
Rex Gloriae: The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Stockholm, 1962),
p. 327.
1379
P. van der Aalst, Christus Basileus bij Johannes Chrysostomus (Utrecht,
1966), p. 12.
kingship of Christ.1380
While the Papacy developed the Hellenistic ideal of a priestly king, 1381 the
successor of Chrysostom in the chair of Constantinople, Germanus, was to start a
resistence movement against the iconoclastic emperors encroaching even on the
dogmatic level of the priestly office. 1382 For Chrysostom the royal power of
Christ is manifested especially in the Eucharist and the Eucharist is the
“invisible” heavenly cult. In it was the only valid place where the superiority of
spiritual power over the temporal could and should be realized. This “detail” of
history, therefore, invalidates the generalization of F. Dvornik.
In his spirituality, Chrysostom advocated the unity of dogmas and

everyday life,1383 as he tried to unite harmoniously the two ideals — the monastic
and the sacerdotal.1384 The notion of philosophia reflects mainly the ideal of
ascetic exploit1385 and virginity,1386 while voluntaristic optimism1387 and
philanthropically inspired activity were to his priestly liking. 1388 The Imitation of
Christ, however, was the unifying principle of his ethics, 1389 because regardless of
marital or monastic status, all equally are exhorted to become imitators of the
Lord’s philanthropy.1390 That He is really philanthropic one can see from the fact
that He made the virtuous life easy. 1391 Chrysostom differs from the Stoics in that
he believes that all — women, children, priests, barbarians — can equally lift
1380
Ibid., p. 81.
1381
Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages
(London 1962), p. 26 f.
1382
George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan Hussey
(Oxford, 19S6), p. 145. The Byzantine court ceremonial and the imperial
absolutism had also their roots in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds (p. 29), but
the emperor never succeeded in uniting in his hands both imperial and sacerdotal
powers — all to the contrary, the imperial authority received its most severe
setback from the Orthodox Church of Byzantium (p. 28). Anyway, humanly
speaking, the abuses of the political power are always more easily to be pardoned
in a layman, than in a priest. Is not there also a divine reason for this?
1383
In Genes. III PG 53, 31.
1384
Bruno H. Yandenberghe, Saint Jean Chrysoatome et la parole de Dieu (Paris,
1961), p. 44.
1385
G. J. M. Bartelnik, “‘Philosophie’ et ‘philosophe’ dans quelques oeuvres de
Jean Chrysostome,” Reviue d’ ascétique et de mystique, XXXVI (1960), 486-492,
especially p. 492.
1386
De Sacerdotio III XVII (Narnin), p. 89.
1387
“Ἀρκεῖ θελῆσαι, μόνον, καὶ τὸ παν γέγονεν.” In Matth. XVII PG 57, 263.
1388
Ibid. L PG 58, 509.
1389
Adv. Jud. IV PG 48, 881; De Anna IV PG 54, 666; In Genes. XVII PG 53,
138. 138
1390
In Genes. XXX PG 53, 274.
1391
In Matth. XVI PG 57, 254.
themselves to the high level of spiritual activity. 1392
If someone is too weak to keep the strict rules of Lent, no one will blame
him for taking food, since we have a meek and philanthropic Lord.1393 Elsewhere,
however, he will extol the strictness of the New Testament commandments. 1394
Concupiscence (ἐπιθυμία) between the oposite sexes is not frowned upon
by Chrysostom.1395 Pleasure, obviously, can be of pure or sinful inspiration. 1396
Sexual life in the purity of marriage is a gift of the philanthropic God. 1397
Chrysostom’s defense of unprocreative intercourse does not, however, endorse
contraception, which is for him worse than homicide, a mutilation of nature. 1398
He passionately denounced the savagery which the proprietors of the
estates displayed toward their serfs. 1399 However, he considered that not the work
in itself is the punishment for sin, but the pain attached to it.1400
There is nothing more pleasurable, according to Chrysostom, than having
a pure conscience.1401 And the most desirable deification may be ultimately
achieved through the Eucharist. 1402 The unity of men and angels is sealed in the
body of the Incarnate Lord, the divine philanthropy made tangible, which the
angels carry in the procession of the Church’s liturgy, praying for their
concelebrants on earth.1403
On high, hosts of angels chant the divine doxology; below, men
standing in choir in the Churches are their faithful imitators with the same
doxology. On high, the Seraphim cry aloud the Triholy hymn; below, a
multitude of men raise up the same hymn. A solemn celebration common
to heavenly and earthly creatures alike is knit together into one single
1392
Ivo auf der Maur, Mönchtum und Glaubensverküdigung in den Schriften des
hl. Johannes Chrysostomus (Freiburg, 1959), p. 89.
1393
In Genes. X PG 53, 82.
1394
In Matth. XVI PG 57, 248; 258.
1395
In Romanos IV PG 60, 418.
1396
De Lazaro concio I PG 48, 979 “ἡδονὴ καθαρά”: In Matth. XXXIV PG 57,
404; In Joannem I PG 59, 27.
1397
In Genes. XVIII PG 53, 154.
1398
John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 79.
1399
Roger A. Pack, “Studies in Libanius and Antiochene Society under
Theodosius” (unpublished dissertation, University of Micigan, 1935), p. 29. Cf.
In I ad Cor. XXVII PG 61, 229.
1400
Lucien Daloz, Le Travail selon Saint Jean Chrysostome (Paris. 1959), p. 74.
1401
De studio praesentium PG 63, 485.
1402
A. Theodorou, On the Deification of Man: Teaching of the Greek Fathers of
the Church till John of Damascus (Athens, 1956), p. 91. (In Greek).
“Ἐγένετο γὰρ Υίὸς ἀνθρώπου, Θεοῦ γνήσιος ὢν Υίὸς, ἵνα τοὺς τῶν
139
ἀνθρώπων υἱοὺς τέκνα ποιήσῃ Θεοῦ.” In Joannem XI PG 59, 79.
1403
This analogy can be deduced from De incomprehens. III PG 48, 726 D
(Flacelière), p. 202.
thanksgiving, one single rejoicing, one single festal standing-in-choir. For
the ineffable condescension of the Master has forged it together; the Holy
Spirit has woven it together; the harmony of its voices has been fitted
together with the Father’s good-will. The beautiful timing of its parts it
obtains from on high; and being set in motion by the Trinity as by a kind
of plectrum, it intones its exultant and blessed choric hymn, its angelic
song, its incomprehensible symphony.1404
Among all those in heaven and on earth, Chrysostom most liked one who
is for him the greatest here below and the best acquainted with the reality on high
— St. Paul, “an earthly angel and heavenly man”, 1405 into whose mouth he puts
his own characteristic utterance — the inseparableness of grace and philanthropy
— even so as to spontaneously insert in Paul’s saying (1 Cor. 15:10a) the
“missing” notion of philanthropy: “χάριτι αὐτοῦ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ εἰμὶ ὂ
εἰμί...”1406.
This saying, in my opinion, fitly applies to the Antiochene imitator of
Paul, too.
In the cultual confrontation of his own times Chrysostom had to deal with
three different kinds of opponents, namely, heretics, Jews and pagans.
The most dangerous to the Church, according to Chrysostom, were the
heretics.
There is every reason to fear that, while trying to aim a blow at
one enemy, you will be struck by the other. If someone says that the
Godhead is one, Sabellius distorts the expression at once, to favour his
own madness. If, on the other hand, someone makes a distinction and
says that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another,
up gets Arius, twisting the distinction of Persons into a difference of
Substance. We must shun and avoid the impious confusion of the one
party and the mad division of the other by confessing that the Godhead of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, but adding that there
are three Persons.1407
The worst of all are Manichaeans and other gnostic dualists. Chrysostom
would say that Plato and the pagans had the knowledge of God’s goodness, 1408
and the Jews also would reject their horror of marriage.1409 The pagans are much
better off than those dualists who en force virginity. 1410
However in another situation where the pagans are the main adversaries
Chrysostom will side with the heretics because they still worship the Crucified
from Palestine.1411 That attitude is not merely a kind of diplomacy, but one of
1404
Il ilud “Vid. Domin.” I, 1 PG 56, 97-98.65.
1405
De poenitentia II PG 49, 290.
1406
In Genes. XXXI PG 53, 285.
1407
De Sacerdotio IV, IV (Nairn), pp. 115-16. G. Neville (trans.). Six Books on
Priesthood, p. 118.
1408
Im Virginité (Musurillo-Grillt), p. 116.
1409
Ibid., pp. 114-116.
140
1410
Ibid., p. 102.
1411
De laud. S. Pauli IV PG 50, 489.
philanthropic patience even on the level of dogma.
Some would question the sincerity of Chrysostom’s practice of
philanthropy by imputing to him anti-semitism. Thus Leon Poliakov 1412 and A. J.
Visher1413 have attacked him as a forerunner of Nazi racism. This is, however,
anachronistic. Marcel Simon has established the fact that Chrysostom, for his
own time, kept the “via media”.1414
If Chrysostom hates the Synagogue, this is motivated by dogmatic
reasons: because it disbelieves the predictions of the prophets fulfilled in
Christ,1415 and because it is there that God in the Trinity of the Divine Persons is
blasphemed.1416 “Since they have disowned the Father, crucified the Son, and
rejected the Spirit’s help, who would dare to assort that the synagogue is not a
home of demons.1417 Exclusivenes of a cultual nature is bluntly unleashed when
Chrysostom says: “if the cult of the Jews is holy and great, ours must be
false.”1418
Using prophetic and Pauline language, Chrysostom did call both Jews
and unruly Christians dogs.1419 Obviously, the memory of the alliance between
the Emperor Julian and Jews who were trying to rebuild their Temple must have
lingered in Chrysostom’s mind.1420 However, he did not think that all the Jews
were collectively guilty of the blood of Jesus, but only conscious individuals. 1421
1412
Histoire de l’ antisémitisme (Paris, 1955), I, 41.
1413
“Johannes Chrysosomus als anti-joods polemicus,” Nederlands Arehiev for
Kerkegeschiedenis (1954). pp 192-206, especially p. 197-
1414
Recherches d' hisloire Judéo-Chrrétienne (Paris, 1962), p. 153. Chrysostom,
according to M. Simon, is forced to “faire front de deux côtés á la fois: d’ un côté
contre ceux qu’ égare le mal judaïque, de 1' autre contre ceux qu’ aveugle une trop
rigide aversion pour les choses juives.”
1415
Adv. Jud. I PG 48, 850.
1416
Ibid. PG 48, 852.
1417
Ibid. PG 48, 850-852. Translated by Gregory Baum in Is the New Testament
anti-Semitic? (Glen Rock, N. J., 1965), p. 18.
1418
Adv. Jud. I PG 48, 852. It is probable that Chrysostom could have overheard
from the Jews in Antioch the provocative interpretation of the opening verse of
“Pirkê Abbot”: “The expression Kal Yisrael is to emphasize that every Israelite,
no matter how sinful he may be, eventually has a share in the world to come.”See
Ethics of the Fathers, annotated and translated by Hyman E. Goldin (New York,
1962), p. 1, n. 1.
While Hans Joachim Schoeps, The Jewish-Christian Argument: A History
of Theologies in Conflict (London 1965), p. 6, is rather optimistic concerning the
eschatological union of the Jews and the Christians. Jakob Jocz, The Jewish
People and Jesus Christ: A Study in the Controversy between Church and
Synagogue (London, 1962), p. 96, on the contrary, asserts that “Church and
Synagogue can only exist in eternal challenge to each other.”
1419 141
Adv. Jud. 1 PG 48, 845 and De coemeterio et cruce PG 49, 398.
1420
Adv. Jud. V PG 48, 900-901; cf. In Matth. V PG 57, 41.
1421
Cur in Penlec. acta. In princip. Act. IV PG 51, 111.
He admired the Christian Jew, Paul, for being concerned to save all his kinsfolk,
which is, at the same time, a sign of Chrystostom’s eschatological sympathy for
the Jews.1422 Chrysostom sees the ineffable philanthropy of God in that He uses
the Jewish minority in order to arouse the Gentile Christian majority to
thankfulness.1423
In the heat of vehement orations against the Jews, Chrysostom enunciated
the most humanitarian maxim, as if to indicate that he had no base pogromic
intentions: “καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς τιμιώτερος.”1424 He was
outspokenly against the use of force in fighting religious error. 1425 And he proudly
insisted on the philanthropy of the Crucified toward the Jews when lie
everlooked their self-condemnatory outcry.1426
Gregory Baum has concluded that the Fathers “were not inspired by a
human dislike of the Jews; it was simply the concern for the Church... that
prompted them to use such language.” 1427 The problem of the balance between
zeal and philanthropy in Chrysostom, as part of a more complex Jewish problem,
will continue to be hotly debated until the end of the world.
A. J. Festugiere is only partially right when he says: “The historian
knows only what he is told; he cannot penetrate the secrets of the heart.” 1428 A
historian, however, has the right and the duty to compare similar phenomena and
to try to find reasons for their similarity and eventual opposition. To say that two
things in the realm of the same culture are similar merely by coincidence — if
not proven beyond any doubt — means nothing less than the capitulation of the
mind.
The problem we face is the external similarity between Themistius and
Chrysostom, for both of whom the notion of philanthropia is central.
It seems that since Clement of Alexandria and Origen, philanthropia had
acquired a great prestige among the Christian elite; nonetheless, I think it is
permissible to make an inference from the fact that if Chrysostom was so
sensitive as to respond to the criticism of Porphyry1429, he ought to have reacted
with greater zest against a contemporary camouflaged opponent of his faith,
Themistius. “It is plain from his writings that (Themistius) was fighting for the
survival of Hellenism, and was attempting to show that paganism could supply
1422
De laud. S. Pauli I PG 50, 477.
1423
Cur in Pentec. acta. PG 51, 112.
1424
“Indeed, man is more precious then whole of the cosmos.” Adv. Jud. VII, 7
PG 48, 916.
1425
De S. Babyla, contra Julianum et Gentiles PG 50, 573. I agree with Fr.
Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, II, 785, and J. A. de
Aldama, op. cit., p. 229, that this work is authentic.
1426
Cur in Pentec. Acta. PG 51, 110. D. Judant, Les Deux Israël (Paris, 1960), p.
180, n. 1, translated a balanced thought of Chrysostom: “L’ Apôtre éloigne en
même temps les Juifs du désespoir et les Gentils de l’ orgueil.”
1427
G. Baum, op. cit., p. 19.
1428
Hermés Trismégiste, IV, 267. Cited by E. R. Dodds, Pagan 142
and Christian, p.
83.
1429
“For he, who wrote against us the treatise On Matter, confuted himself.” In
Joannem LXVI PG 59, 370.
everything that Christianity could offer.” 1430 Themistius, after seeing the faillure
of the theurgical leaders of paganism, 1431 as well as Libanius’ traditional academic
seclusion,1432 decided to be a philosopher engaged in politics. 1433 It was something
new and daring to speak to the crowds about philosophy. 1434 But this move was
probably planned in order to attract as many as possible, by way of culture, to the
pagan cult. He even publicly invokes the Pythian Apollo, who supposedly helps
not only individuals, but crowds also.1435 His insistence on the imperial phi-
lanthropia has unmistakenly in view the old pagan cult.1436
Chrysostom, in his turn, could recognize that kings are made by divine
philanthropy.1437 However, in him there is no trace of fatalistic submissiveness to
the emperor. On the contrary, he claims that if in Christ there is no more
difference between slave and free, even less is there a chasm between an earthly
king and the commoner.1438 The relationship between Chrysostom’s
understanding of the imperial philanthropia and the ancient Hellenistic
philanthropy ascribed by the pagans to the divine ruler, represented latterly by
Themistius, was a relationship of contrast and outright opposition. Chrysostom,
obviously, has an altogether different ground upon which to build his freedom
and independence from the emperor cult, when he proclaims that the Church is
not established by the pax regia, but on the power of God.1439 My long
introduction1440 is justified only if seen as the ideological background to which
Chrysostom opposes his own world-view. Indeed, Chrysostom might say along
with the pagans that the greatness of the royal philanthropia consists in the very
fact that it is comparable to the philanthropy of God, 1441 and he might, also,
similarly use the classical theme of imitation of the philanthropic God; 1442
nonetheless Chrysostom’s perspective is entirely different from that of the
1430
G. Downey, “Education and Public Problems,”pp. 291-307, especially p.
292. Herman F. Bouchery, Themistius in Libanius’ Brieven, p. 42, spoke about
Themistius’ “principieele neutraliteet” in things religious. In my opinion, he was
mistaken.
1431
Even such a zealous missionary as Julian could show his aristocratic
contempt for Christianity as “a religion for farmers.” J. Quasten, op. cit., III, 397.
1432
H. F. Bouchery, op. cit., pp. 118-119.
1433
Hubert Kesters, Plaidoyer d’ un Socratique contre le Phèdre de Platon, p.
264.
1434
Ibid., p. 248.
1435
Ibid., p. 276.
1436
See above p. 74.
1437
De Sacerdotio IV, I (Nairn), p. 99.
1438
In Romanos I PG 60, 399.
1439
Adv. Jud. V PG 48, 886. 143
1440
See above “Θεολογία” 53 (1982), pp. 95-128, 460-475 and 612-627.
1441
In Hebraeos XIII PG 63, 108, Cf. PG 49, 84; PG 48, 860; PG 60, 409.
pagans, since for him the priesthood is mystically higher than Christian
royalty.1443 Henceforth, it is to be understood that the priestly philanthropy
manifested chiefly through the administration of the heavenly sacraments is
incomparably higher than the temporal earthbound philanthropy of kings here
below.1444 The latter, however, is far from being overlooked or underestimated by
the indefatigable preacher of almsgiving.1445 Nevertheless, we discern here a new
scale of values that enters into Chrysostom’s appraisal of the Christian emperor.
In the very presence of Arcadius, for example, Chrysostom managed to deprive
the Emperor of the usual title of philanthropos, which he programmatically
ascribed only to the martyrs, the bearers of the heavenly crown. 1446 The difference
in the political evaluation of kingship and royal philanthropy which existed
between Chrysostom and Themistius only uncovers a deeper oposition on the
level of their respective irreconcilable theologies. 1447 This is the reason why
Chrysostom’s notion of the divine philanthropy, also, is as much richer than the
same notion used by Themistius, as Chrysostom’s idea of God is theologically
richer than Themistius’ idea of the divinity. The ideological struggle between the
two champions of philanthropia was engaged in not only on the level of culture,
but on the higher cultual level as well. Behind the obvious “Kulturkampf” there
was a hidden “Kultuskampf.”
With such a perspective we can understand why Chrysostom was so harsh
toward classical pagan culture. For him it is an obvious sign of the divine power
working in Matthew that an unlearned man such as he can "philosophize” better
than Plato.1448 This does not mean, however, that he rejected the cultural values of
the Classical polis with its particular ideal of philanthropia.1449 But he abhorred
the reverse side of the medal: the worship of the demons in the pagan cult. 1450
1442
In Epist. II ad Cor. XIV PG 61, 501; cf. PG 53, 274.
1443
Ad popul. Ant. III PG 49, 50.
1444
De Sacerdotio III, V (Nairn), p. 54.
1445
Eberhard F. Bruck, in “Estetics vs. Laws: St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church
and the ‘cheerful giver’ in Roman Law,” Traditio, II (1944), 97-121, especially p.
108, wrote that Chrysostom was the unflinching champion of the
underpriviledged who developed the theory of the proper attitude of mind in
giving better then did the Cappadocians themselves.
1446
Praesente Imperatore PG 63, 473
1447
To the Roman emperor, who was considered by the pagans as equal to God,
Chrysostom opposes the Christ who comes as a humble carpenter and pours out
his ineffable philanthropy on the Cross. In Romanos II PG 60, 408.
1448
In Matth. I PG 57, 18. Many of Plato’s inventions being against nature,
according to Chrysostom, are inspired by the demons (In Matth. I PG 57, 19).
1449
This was the contention of Arch. Cyprian Kern, op. cit., p. 174, although he
admitted, at least, that Chrysostom emphasized ethical creativity on the ascending
way toward perfection.
J. Daniélou, in the preface to Henri Maurier’s Essay d’144
1450
une thélogie du
paganisme (Paris, 1965), p. 9, wrote: “Les Pères de l’ Église… soulignent que la
grâce n’ a jamais abandonné… les païens eux-memes, mails ils insistent… sur le
fait que les cultes païens… sont inspirés par les démons.”
Therefore he could pugnaciously ask a question such as this: “And what... is that
Athena of theirs, and Apollo, and Juno? They are different kinds of demons.” 1451
The divine philanthropia of Jesus is manifested in the fact that Christ liberated not
only His believers, but the unbelievers as well, from the tyranny of the ancient
error.1452
Chrysostom was aware of the crucial importance of education, 1453
although he stressed the priority of moral upbringing as being independent from
and superior to literary training. 1454 His very cultural behaviour and literary
creativity followed the best Hellenic tradition of Demosthenes.1455 However,
Chrysostom’s refusal to take classical literature as the unsurpassable “holy
scriptures of Hellenism” gave him the advantage of being above the slavish
imitative attitude of Libanius and even Themistius. A relative internal peace on
the dogmatic front of the Church, enjoyed at the end of the Fourth century, 1456
was used by Chrysostom to penetrate more deeply into the somewhat lower
regions of cultural life by his Christianized notion of the ancient philanthropia,
which was able to rally the rising Christian intelligentsia to a greater enthusiasm
than the homely and not very aristocratic agape or charis could.1457 He felt free to
take from classical models what he considered fit for his homiletic purpose. At
any rate he placed, like the old masters, thought above the form of the
language.1458 Such an attitude is much closer to that of the modern man than the
over-enthusiastic idolizing of the Hellenic achievement by certain leaders of the
Renaissance.1459 But Chrysostom also knew the tension between the
eschatological overlooking of everything in this world 1460 and cultural
involvement on earth. After all, he was proud of being a citizen of Antioch, a
man-made center of civilization, loyalty to which was so compelling that even a
Christian like Chrysostom might cherish its ancient ideal alongside his own
loyalty to the heavenly citizenship.1461
I should not omit a small parenthesis on Chrysostom’s attitude in the
important skirmish between Theophilus of Alexandria and the “Origenistic”
1451
Philip Schaff (ed.), Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 30-31.
1452
De S. Babyla, contra Julianum et Gentiles PG 50, 535. He calls the pagan
cult requiring human sacrifices “bestial liturgies”.
1453
G. Downey, “Education and Public Problems,” p. 306. See Chrysostom’s
Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring up their Children, in
M. L. Laistner’s Christianity and Classical Culture (Ithaca, 1951), appendix.
1454
Adv. oppugnat vit. monast. III, 11 PG 47, 367. The palm of wisdom is
humbly given to the Apostles (PG 47, 368).
1455
Cains Fabricius, op. cit., p. 131.
1456
Huit catéchèses baptis. (Wenger), p. 120, n. 1.
1457
G. Downey, “Themistius”, p. 271.
1458
G. Baur, op. cit., I, 313, n. 15.
1459
F. Copleston, op. cit., Ill, 212 et passim.
1460 145
Cf. La Virginité (Masurilio-Grillet), p. 350; Sur la Providence (Malingrey), p.
274.
1461
G. Downey, Ancienct Antioch, p. 199.
monks of Egypt.
If Chrysostom gave shelter and protection to the persecuted hermits
known as the Long Brothers, 1462 that action could have been motivated by sheer
philanthropic — and perhaps political — reasons. It is revealing that once
Chrysostom was deposed from the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, his
opponent, the pope of Egypt, suddenly was not concerned any longer for the
dogmatic charges he had raised against the Long Brothers and smoothly
reconciled himself with them.1463
It is true that Chrysostom wrote against the anthropomorphic
understanding of the image of God in man, 1464 and that he urged that one must go
beyond all images and reasonings;1465 nevertheless he did recognize the value of
the biblical images as reflecting the inaccessible mysteries of God. 1466 Even
Epiphanius of Cyprus was cautious enough to condemn both the crude
“anthropomorphite” literalism of the imago Dei and the vagaries of Origenistic
spiritualism.1467
The emphatic realism of Chrysostom’s Eucharistic piety, more than
anything else, elevates Chrysostom above any suspicion of a deehristologized
“Origenistic” spirituality.1468
If Theophilus, before his “conversion” to anti-Origenism, could invoke
the shape of an Ethiopian (he had in mind the distinctive physical traits of the
Negro race), as “proof” that man’s body has nothing to do with the image of
God,1469 then Chrysostom can easily be justified as having nothing to do with
“Origenistic” racially argued pseudo-theology. First, as a younger follower of the
Cappadocians he probably had read Gregory of Nazianzus saying clearly that
what counts in the sacramental life is man’s spiritual side: “Be baptized... be
saved, and though you be an Ethiopian in body, be made white in soul.” 1470
However, more convincing material is given by Chrysostom himself: he
emphatically rejected the idea that the election of Isaac and rejection of Ishmael,
born from an Egyptian slave woman, has anything to do with their social or,
ultimately, racial, provenience. The election depends strictly on goodness or
badness of character as foreknown by God. 1471 Moreover, barbarians — a notion
1462
C. Baur, op. cit., II, 192-93.
1463
Antonine Gullaumont, Les Kephalaia Gnostica’ d’ Evagrele Pontiqueet l’
historie de l’ Origénisme chez les Syriens (Paris, 1962).
1464
In Genes. VIII PG 53, 72-73.
1465
Sur la Providence (Malingrey), p. 140.
1466
Ibid., p. 74.
1467
G. Florovsky, “Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Ahou of Pmedje,” Harry
Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 276-310, especially p. 301.
1468
G. Florovsky, “The Anthropomorphites in the Egyptian Desert,”Ahten des XI
Internationalen Byzantinisten kongresses 1958 (Munich, 1960), pp. 154-59,
especially p. 157.
1469 146
G. Florovsky, “Theophilus of Alexandria”, p. 300,
1470
In sanctum baptisma XXVI, PG 36, 384.
1471
without a derogatory connotation for Chrysostom1472 — were qualified by
Chrysostom as having been philanthropic toward Greek soldiers lost in a foreign
land.1473
This is conclusive evidence that Chrysostom did not suffer from
“Origenistic” misconceptions, either racially or spiritually.
The most conspicuous recognition of Chrysostom’s perfect orthodoxy
was the fact that the Church accepted as her main liturgical expression the ordo
named after him.1474
My concluding remarks will bear on Chrysostom’s use of the divine
philanthropia as the central notion of his “theodicy”.
On the excruciating question, “Whence evil?” in the realm of human life,
Chrysostom replies that it comes neither from nature nor from God, but from our
own will, from our indolence. 1475 He is not satisfied with the rational and moral
explanation traditionally given as the explanation of children’s suffering; 1476
therefore he added that there must be another, apophatic, reason for it, which
only the Creator Himself knows.” 1477 The reasons of divine justice are also
impenetrable.1478 Everything is ultimately motivated by some divine reason and
His philanthropy (λόγῳ τινὶ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ ).1479
The mystery of the free acceptance or refusal of the divine philanthropy
is at the very center of Chrysostom’s view of salvation, since in His philanthropy
God is too polite to use constraint.1480
To those who wish to cover their basic indifference with such a phrase as
“God is philanthropic anyway,” Chrysostom, at his wits end, somewhat
impatiently retorts:
I do not simply say that God is philanthropic, but that there is nothing
more philanthropic than He Himself... The Scripture is an abyss of
problems. If we solve one, we have not solved it completely. But
according to human understanding the proper solution of these problems
is faith through which we know that God acts justly, philanthropically
and usefully.1481
He calmly recommends: “Do not try to be more philanthropic than God Himself,
1472
A. Weneger, Huit catéchèses, 60, n. 3.
1473
De S. Babyla, contra Julianum et gentiles PG 50, 569.
1474
See Hans-Joachim Schulz, Die byzantinische Liturgie (Freiburg im Breisgau,
1964), pp. 36-39. I have found a phrase of Chrysostom exactly reproduced in the
“Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom”: “Ὁ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εῖναι ...
παραγαγών.” Huit catéchèses (Wenger), p. 258. Cf. also In Genes. II PG 53, 28
1475
In Matth. LIX PG 58, 577.
1476
Ad Stagirium I, 8 PG 47, 445.
1477
Ibid.
1478
In Romanos VI PG 60, 439.
1479
In Genes. X PG 58, 88.
147
1480
De ferend. Reprehens. et de mutat. nomin. Ill PG 51, 144. Cf. In Genes. XVII
PG 53, 140.
1481
In Act. XXIV PG 60, 183.
after you have suffered a thousand evils. Furthermore, even if you wanted to, you
could not do so in the least, because ‘as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
are My counsels higher than your counsels’”.1482
The ultimate justification of God Chrysostom sees in the sacrifice of His
Only Son Who suffered ignominiously for our sake. 1483 Finally, even the notion
of divine philanthropia is inadequate to verbalize the ineffable reality which is in
God.1484 Therefore Chrysostom used to underline the apophatic dimension of the
divine philanthropy by saying that it is “superabundant” 1485 or “ineffable.”1486
Chrysostom is keenly aware of the difference between ἀτιόφασις (sentence,
assertion) and ἀπόδειξις (demonstration),1487 hence, also, of the fact that human
syllogisms are incomparably less illuminating than the conclusive assertions of
faith. And God cares for all equally by giving all the gift of faith which is the
source of all good things.1488 However, Chrysostom did not try to hide the fact
that there is a logical antinomy in the revelation of the divine philanthropy which
is disturbingly inseparable from the divine justice (δικαιοκρισία).1489 For him it
would be unjust for Nero and Paul to share the same lot. 1490 The divine
philanthropy would be emptied of its meaning, for Chrysostom, if Paul and the
Devil should be equally crowned. 1491 And he calmly rejects the accusation that he
cares more for the glory of God than God Himself.1492
Themistius, from the opposite camp, did not save paganism from its
decay by preaching his doctrine of automatic salvation for all. 1493 In the strict and
honest faith of Christianity, however, God is justified by his gift of free will
which is given to all.1494 And Chrysostom can only assure everyone that as far as
1482
Ibid. L PG 60, 350.
1483
In Romanos XIV PG 60, 534.
1484
Demones non gubernare mundum PG 49, 248.
1485
In Genes. XXI PG 53, 180; VII PG 53, 67; PG 53, 80; PG 53, 113-114; PG
53, 123; In Matth. XVI PG 57, 250; Huit catéchèses (Wenger), p. 111 et passim.
1486
In Genes. XXI PG 53, 175; 181; 221; 243; 249. In Matth. XIII PG 57, 215;
482. Huit catéchèses(Wenger), p. 110, 112. Cf. In Romanos XIV PG 60, 530; De
poenitentia I PG 49, 280.
1487
In Romanos III PG 60, 412.
1488
PG 60, 600. Hell is there only because of the unbelivers. PG 60, 674.
1489
PG 60, 634; cf. PG 53, 190. PG 57, 243.
1490
PG 60, 636.
1491
PG 60, 637.
1492
PG 60, 553.
1493
Or. 16 (G. Downey), p. 289.
1494
PG 60, 425. From our choice of behavior depends whether we will earn
148philanthropy.
condemnation to ourselves or will be deemed worthy of the divine
PG 53, 69.
Already Clement of Alexandria was aware of the danger of a sentimental
distortion of the love of God. See A. Mehat, “Θεὸς Ἀγάπη: Une hypothèse sur l’
God is concerned he is philanthropic even in applying punishment. 1495 He
recommends, even, optimistically, that we should never despair of the salvation
of the pagans.1496
According to Chrysostom heresy originates either from ignorance of the
sacred texts or from an arbitrary choice of them. 1497 Anders Nygren, for example,
chose to define God as agape only.1498 Agape is for him the center of
Christianity.1499 For Chrysostom, however, agape is only one among the many
attributes of God, and, on the human level, it is only the prerequisite disposition
without which the Trinity cannot take up its abode in the believer. 1500
Obviously, then, for Chrysostom the center of Christianity is the very
Person of Christ, not any particular attribute of God arbitrarily isolated; and he
stresses furthermore that where one Person of the Trinity is present, there is, also,
the whole Trinity.1501 Thus, in order to escape from falling into the sin of
arbitrariness, Chrysostom dares to acknowledge both the meek and the strict side
of the divine attributes. As far as I can see, if God is, for Chrysostom, the pre-
eternal philanthropes, and he still goes on chastizing and threatening with hell,
then his philanthropy must be taken as it is revealed, namely, as both meek and
terrifying. But Chrysostom is very explicit in ascribing the responsibility for hell
entirely to men.1502 His very last argument would be that God’s philanthropia
existed before the creation in his willingness to save all. 1503
From an unsystematic preacher like Chrysostom, it is astonishing to find a
detailed map of virtues;1504 in it we see how the intermediary place between agape
and almsgiving is assigned to human philanthropy. This is so, in my opinion
because agape is higher, on the human level, since it is open in both directions:
toward God and toward man; while philanthropy offers only one-way
relationship with God, namely, through the interposed persons of the poor.
However, since agape, erôs, philia, and philanthropia are indivisible in the
incarnate God, they must be for Chrysostom, practically synonymous on the
human level also. Thus, philanthropia is assimilated to agape,1505 agape, in its turn,
to erôs,1506 and erôs to philia,1507 but because only philanthropia is promoted by
objet de la gnose orthodoxe,” Studia Patristica, IX, Part III, ed. F. L. Cross
(Berlin, 1966), 82-86, especially p. 85.
1495
PG 60, 424 et passim.
1496
PG 53, 68.
1497
Argum. In Romanos PG 60, 391.
1498
Agape and Erôs, trans. Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 47.
1499
Ibid., p. 48.
1500
In Romanos VIII PG 60, 464.
1501
PG 60, 519.
1502
PG 60, 568. Evil occurs only on God’s permission. PG 60, 583.
1503
PG 53,36. God’s philanthropy is perfectly unselfish. PG 53,35.
1504
Ad illuminandos catechesis II PG 49, 238.
1505
149
In Joannem XXII PG 59, 160.
1506
Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt PG 52, 490. Cf. PG 49, 72.
1507
In illud: Hoc scitote PG 49, 275. Cf. De beato Philogonio XI PG 48, 753.
Chrysostom’s use as a synonym for grace (χάρις) which, in its turn, is the
common name for all of God’s attributes,1508 philanthropia alone is the term which
mirrors the opposing attributes of God such as justice-love and election-
freedom.1509 By this antinomic distinction between the two aspects of meek and
stern philanthropy Chrysostom only safeguarded the mystery of the dogma of
freedom,1510 and succeeded in expressing the data of the biblical revelation with
this ancient and prestigious notion of divine philanthropia. Nevertheless, the
center of Christianity for Chrysostom is the Divine Trinity, to whom his
“equation” of grace and philanthropy (“χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ”) is finally
ascribed. Because of the fundamental freedom offered to mankind one is entitled
to conclude that in spite of the dialectical tension between the stern aspect of the
divine justice and the meek loving-kindness of God running parallel to each
other, the message of Chrysostom resounds with the ringing of the paschal bell of
joy. In his last work Chrysostom wrote: “Inexplicable indeed is the providence of
God and incomprehensible His concern; His goodness is beyond words and
unsearchable His philanthropy.”1511
It is not by chance that the divine philanthropia is the last word in this
careful construction.1512
Despite the synonymous interchangeability of such terms as
philanthropia, agape erôs, pronoia, philia, charis, kêdemonia, agathotês, the first of
these terms, philanthropia, gained supremacy over the others for polemical and
esthetic reasons, indeed so much so as to become a structuring element, not only
in Chrysostom’s homiletic achievement, but even more, a unifying concept
conveying the maximum coherence to his theological understanding of himself
and of the Tri-Personal God. For anyone insensitive to the irrational dimension of
freedom in both God and man, the double aspect of divine philanthropy, as
expounded by Chrysostom, will, of course, remain a book closed with seven
seals. The concept of the divine philanthropia has, indeed, a disturbing wealth of
meaning. It contains in itself the entire mystery of the dispensation of God.
1508
V. Lossky, Theology, p. 86.
1509
In Hebraeos XXXVII PG 63, 186. In Epist. I ad Cor. PG 61, 13. Cf. 62, 718.
1510
The election is made by the divine foreknowledge (PG 60, 557), through
which God elects not on the basis of the external facts: since David was guilty of
murder and adultery and the Pharisee, on the contrary, a keeper of the Law (PG,
60, 558), but on account of the internal disposition of the doer (PG 60, 558-560).
1511
Sur la Providence VIII, 12 (Malingrey), p. 140. 150
1512
On the last page of Chrysostom’s farewell treatise we read such a definition
of God: “Τοιοῦτο; γὰρ ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεός.” Sur la Providence XXIV,
(Malingrey), p. 276
CONCLUSION
We have detected in our meandric study the semantic changes and
enrichment of the notion of divine philanthropia — from Aeschylus and Plato,
through Philo the Jew and later pagan and Christian writers, down to Themistius
of Byzantium and Chrysostom. The cultual and cultural tension between Graeco-
Roman paganism and Christianity is the background against which the
competitive insistance on divine philanthropy becomes understandable.
Chrysostom victoriously completed the “Kulturkampf” that started with Justin,
Clement of Alexandria and Origen, in which the Cappadocians, before
Chrysostom, had best embodied the Church’s power to transform culture.
In the hands of Chrysostom the reality of the divine philanthropia has not
been philosophically trimmed so as to become a smooth, classifiable notion.
Whatever pertains to God is mysterious and Chrysostom excelled in the effort to
make us aware of that immense divine mystery in which he caught a glimse of
the concomitance of logically clashing attributes, as well as a supralogical
consonance of opposites in one particular divine attribute like philanthropia. He
was indeed thoroughly consistent in practicing the “negative” way of thinking
which “forbids us to ... form concepts which would usurp the place of spiritual
realities.”1513 However, in order to have become accepted as an apophatic thinker,
Chrysostom, of course, had to have asserted first the traditional cataphatic
teaching of the Church. Without the positive revelation of the divine
philanthropy, which is really, even though partially, knowable, his apophaticism
would have collapsed into being merely another name for agnosticism.
Chrysostom’s unsystematic theological work becomes a serene and
meaningful whole if we perceive these three assumptions as forming the basis of
his “philanthropology”; absolute epistemological humility before the
unknowability of the essence of God; knowledge through faith that He is
philanthropic in His activity, and that suffering is permitted and endured by God
Himself as the proof, beyond human understanding, of His philanthropy.
Since Chrysostom, not only the cult but also the culture of Eastern
Christendom has been built upon the notion of God the Philanthropic (θεὸς
φιλάνθρωπος).
EPILOGUE
There is a modern ring in Chrysostom’s attempt to prove that we are
loved — no matter who and where we are — and even infinitely loved, since our
Friend and Lover is the infinite Triune God.
On the other hand, not being narrow-minded in his vision of salvation,
Chrysostom was against a purely sentimental fraternalization without a lasting
unanimity rooted in the dogmas of piety. Therefore, as the poet of divine
philanthropy, he could jealously complain: “Today the contrary happens... we
choose friends rather from among the Jews and pagans than from among the
children of the Church.”1514 However, as interpreter of the paradoxical texts of the
Gospel, Chrysostom could not help being paradoxical himself. Thus, a few days
later he would stress that Christ in His love beyond words prayed for those who
1513
V. Lossky, Theology, p. 42.
1514
In Matth. LIX PG 58, 581.
crucified him.1515 A contemporary writer who dares to be optimistic has said that
Chrysostom is one who a thousand years in advance prepared the antidote to
Machiavelli’s doctrine, as well as to the fallacies of modern dictatorial
ideologies. Chrysostom is expected by him to be the great and humble helper on
the way of mankind’s moral regeneration.1516
The heresy of our days is the vulgar complacency in the adequacy of
human reason. Eunomius of Cyzicus, an opponent of Chrysostom, tried in his
vanity at least “to think really big”: he imagined that he had grasped the very
essence of God. The Eunomiuses of today are puffed up on account of
incomparably smaller pretensions, merely by thinking that they are about to
comprehend our little cosmos.
In this respect, Chrysostom’s prescription of faith as a tonic for man’s real
grandeur under God is as valid today as in his own times:
For since what God gives transcends reasoning entirely, it is but reason
that we need faith... For reasonings... are like some labyrinth, or puzzles
which have no end to them anywhere, and do not let the reason stand
upon the rock.1517
Chrysostom also had a good sense of the natural tendency to self-respect

in the human race; only he wanted to place it in the fruitful perspective of an
eternal growth: in the infinite framework of the divine philanthropy. No one is
more of a Humanitarian than God, he says, and He proved His point by becoming
human (Man) Himself. This is the supra-mundane light which enables
Chrysostom to have the exhilarating vision that he summed up in two words:
Theos Philanthropos.
One who has read at least the masterpieces of Chrysostom and still has
not acquired the humility of faith, has missed the wonderful “space-craft”
heading for Jerusalem in heaven.
But the indefatiguable Chrysostom gives us a second chance, and one can
always re-read his golden pages on the ineffable philanthropy of God.
It was chiefly because of Chrysostom’s contribution that the culture of
Byzantium was the greatest in Christendom and almost never-aging, because he
himself shone in it with rays of the uncreated warmth which he liked to call
divine philanthropy.
1515
Ibid. LXI PG 58, 588.
1516
Peter Mar, Orthodox Russia, No. 872 (August, 1967), pp. 7-8, (In Russian).
1517
In Romanos II PG 60, 409. Translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
ed. Philip Schaff, Vol. IX (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1956), p. 349.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Christian Primary Sources
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. Patrologia Graeca (PG). Vols. XLVII-LXIV.
—. A Théodore. Edited by J e a n D u m o r t i e r . Paris, 1966.
— Les Cohabitations suspecles and Comment observer la virginiteé. Edited by
Jean Dumortier. Paris 1955.
—. Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites. Edited by A n t o i n e W e n g e r .
Paris, 1957.
—. Lettre d' exile: A Olympias et ά tous les fideles (Quod nemo laeditur). Edited
by A n n e - M a r i e M a 1 i n g r e y. Paris, 1964.
—. D e Sacerdotio. Edited by J. A r b u t h n o t N a i r n . Cambridge, 1906.
—. Sur l’ incompréhensibilité de Dieu. Edited by R o b e r t F l a c e 1 i é r e.
Introduction by F e r d i n a n d Cavallera and Jean
D a n i é l o u . Paris, 1951.
— Sur la Providence de Dieu. Edited by A n n e - M a r i e M a1 i n g r e y.
Paris, 1961.
— La Virginité. Edited by H e r b e r t M u s u r i l l o a n d B e r n a r d
G r i l l e t. Paris, 1966.
A DIOGNETE. Edited and Translated by H e n r i - I r é n é e M a r r o u ,
Paris, 1951.
ATHANASIUS. Patrologia Graeca. Vols. XXV-XXVII.
BASIL OF CAESAREA. Patrologia Graeca. Vols. XXIX-XXXII.
— Lettres. Edited by Y v e s C o u r t o n n e . Vols. I-II. Paris, 1961.
—. The Letters. Translated by Roy J. D e f e r r a r i . (The Loeb Classical
Library.) Vols. I-III.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Le Pédagogue. Livre I. Edited by H e n r i
- I r é n é e M a r r o u a n d M a r g u e r i t e H a r l . Paris,
1960.
—. Protrepticus. Edited by O t t o S t ä h l i n . Vol. I. Leipzig, 1905.
CYRILL OF JERUSALEM. Calhécheses Mystagogiques. Edited by A u g u s t e
P i é d a g n e l . Paris, 1966.
—. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments: The
Procalechesis and Five Mystagogical Catecheses. Edited by F r a n k
L e s l i e C r o s s . London, 1960.
EUSTATHIUS OF ANTIOCH. De engastromytho— Contra Origenem.
Patrologia Graeca. Vol. XVIII.
.153 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS. Patrologia Graeca. Vols. XXV- XXXVIII.
—. Die fiinf theologischen Reden. Edited by J o s e p h B a r b e l .
Diisseldorf, 1963.
GREGORY OF NYSSA. Patrologia Graeca. Vols. XLV-XLVI.
—. Edited by W e r n e r J a e g e r . Vols. I-IX. Leiden, 1960-1967.
—. From Glory to Glory. Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings.
Translated and edited by H e r b e r t M u s u r i 11 o.
Introduction by J e a n D a n i e l o u . New York, 1961,
—. Traité de la virginité. Edited by M i c h e l A u b i n e a u. Paris, 1966.
—. La Vie de Moïse. Edited by J e a n D a n i é l o u . Paris. 1955.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. Lettres. Edited by T h. C a m e 1 o t. 3rd ed. Paris,
1958.
IRENAEUS. Contre les hérésies. Livre III. Edited by F. S a g n a r d. Paris,
1952.
—. Démonstration de la prédication apostolique. Translated from the Armenian by
L. M. F r o i d e v a u x . Paris, 1959.
JUSTIN. Apologies. Edited by L o u i s P a u t i g n y . Paris, 1904.
— . Dialogue avec Tryphon. Edited by G e o r g e s A r c h a m b a u l t. Vol. I.
Paris, 1909.
ORIGEN. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. 12 vols. Leipzig, 1897 ff.
—·. Contra Celsum. Translated by H e n r y C h a d w i c k . Cambridge,
1965.
—. On First Principles. Translated by G. W. B u t t e r w o r t h .
Introduction by H. d e L u b a c . New York, 1966.
—. The Philocalia. Edited b y J . A r m i t a g e R o b i n s o n . Cambridge,
1893.
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. Les Homélies catéchètiques de Théodore de
Mopsueste. Translation, introduction and index by R a y m o n d
T o n n e a u a n d R o b e r t D e v r e e s e . Città del Vaticano,
1949.
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. Trois livres à Autolycus. Edited by
G u s t a v e B a r d y . Translated J e a n S e n d e r . Paris, 1948.
2. Pagan Primary Sources.

ALBINUS. Appendix Platonica continens Isagogas vilasque antiquae, Scholia,
Timaei Glossarium, Indices, Cura et studio C a r o l i F r i d e r i c i
H e r m a n n i . Leipzig, 1875.
ARISTIDES. Εἰς Ρώμην. To Rome. Translated with notes and introduction by
S a u l L e v i n . Glancoe, 111., 1950.
—. Ex recensione. Edited by G u i l i e l m i D i n d o r f i i . Vol.
I. Leipzig, 1829.
—. Libri rhetorici II. Edited by W. S c h m i d . Leipzig, 1926.
CELSUS. Der Ἀληθὴς Λόγος des Kelsos. Edited by R o b e r t B a d e r .
154
Stuttgart, 1940.
—. Ἀληθὴς Λόγος. Edited by O t t o G l o c k n e r . Bonn, 1924.
EPICTETUS. Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae. Edited by H e n r i c u s
S c h e n k 1. Leipzig, 1916.
IAMBLICHUS. Les Mysteres d' Egypte. Edited and translated by E- d o u a r d
d e s P l a c e s . Paris, 1966.
—. Theurgia or the Egyptian Mysteries. Translated by A l e x a n d e r
W i l d e r . London, 1911.
—. De vita Pythagorica. Edited by L u d o v i c u s D e u b n e r . Leipzig,
1937.
JULIAN. Lettres et Fragments. Edited by J. B i d e z. Paris, 1960.
—. Oeuvres complétes. Edited by J. B i d e z . Paris, 1932.
LIBANIUS. Opera. Edited by R i c h a r d u s F o e r s t e r . 11 vols.
Leipzig, 1903-1921.
MARCUS AURELIUS. Τὰ εἰς Εαυτόν. The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus
Antoninus. Edited with translation and commentary by A. S. L.
F a r q u h a r s o n . 2 vols. Oxford, 1944.
PLOTINUS. Enneades. Edited by E m i l e B r é h i e r . Paris, 1958.
PORPHYRY. La Lettera ad Anebo; La Lettera a Marcella. Florenze,
1954.
—. Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes. Edited by B. Μ o m m e r t. Leipzig,
1907.
—. Vita di Plotino. Edited by G a e t a n o M a c c h i a r o l i . Naples, 1946.
PROCLUS. The Elements of Philosophy. Translated by E. R. D ο o d s. Oxford.
1963.
155
THEMISTIUS. Orationes quae supersunt. Edited by H. S c h e n k 1 and G.
D o w n e y . Vol. I. Leipzig, 1965.
—. Orationes, Edited by G u i l i e l m u s D i n d o r f i u s . Leipzig, 1832.
—. Plaidoyer d'un socratique contre le Phédre de Platon: XXVie discours de
Thémistius. Edited by H u b e r t K e s t e r s . Louvain-Paris, 1959.
—. Themistius in Libanius' Brieven ; Critische uitgave van 52 brieven, voorzien
van een historiseh commentar en tekstverklarende nota’s. Edited by
H e r m a n F . B o u c h e r y . Antwerp,
1936.
3. Jewish Primary Sources.

PHILO. Translated by F. H. C o l s o n and G. H. W h i t a k e r. (The Loeb
Classical Library). 10 vols. Cambridge, Mass., 1962.
—. De Mutatione Nominum. Edited by R. A r n a 1 d e z. Paris,
1964.
4. Secondary Sources.
Aalst, P. van der, Christus Basileus bij Johannes Chrysostomus. Utrecht, 1966.
Aldama, J. A. de, Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum. Paris, 1965.
Alszeghy, Z., Nova creatura: La Nozione della grazia nei commentari medievali
di S. Paolo. Rome, 1953.
Altaner, Berthold, Patrologie. 7th ed. Freiburg - Wien, 1966.
Altizer, Thomas J. J., “Nirvana and Kingdom of God”, New Theology No. 1, pp.
150-68.
Anastos, Milton V., “The Immutability of Christ and Justinian’s Condemnation of
Theodore of Mopsuestia”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 6 (1951), pp.
123-60.
Arnim, Hans von, Stoicorum Vetera Fragmenta. Vol. III. Leipzig, 1903.
Aron, Raymond, L’ Histoire et ses interprétations: Entretiens autour de Arnold
Toynbee sous la direction de Raymond Aron. Paris-La Haye, 1961.
Bailey, Charles, J. N., Groundwork for Comparative Metatheology: A Roadmap
for Ecumenical Analytics. Ann Arbor, 1965.
Barb, A. A., “The Survival of Magic Arts”, Conflict between Paganism and
Christianity in the Fourth Century. Edited by A. Momigliano. Oxford,
1963.
Bardy Gustave, “St. Jean Chrysostome”, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique.
Vol. VIII, cols. 660-690.
Bartelink, G. J. M., “‘Philosophie’ et ‘philosophe’ dans quelques oeuvres de Jean
Chrysostome”, Revue d’ ascetique et de mystique, XXXVI, 486-92.
Baum, Gregory, Is the New Testament anti-Semitic? Glen Rock, N. J.,
156
1965.
Baur, C., John Chrysostom and his Time. Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga. 2 vols.
Westminster, Md., 1959, (The German original appeared in 1929-1930).
Bell, H. I., “Philanthropia in the Papyri of the Roman Period.” Hommages à
Joseph Bidez et à Franz Cumont. Brussels, 1938.
Benoit, Pierre, Exégèse et théologie. Paris, 1961.
Bernard, Régis, L’ Image de Dieu d’ après St. Athanase. Paris, 1952.
Beskow, Per., Rex Gloriae: The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church.
Stockholm, 1962.
Beutler, R., “Porphyries”, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopedie. Stuttgart, 1914.
Bezobrazoff, Bishop Cassian, Christ and the First Christian Generation. Paris,
1950. (In Russian).
Billington, James H., The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretative History of Russian
Culture. New York, 1966.
Bolkestein, Hendrik, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum.
Utrecht, 1939.
Bréhier, Emile, The Philosophy of Plotinus. Chicago, 1958.
Brelich, A., “Der Polytheismus,” Numen, VII (1960), 123-36.
Bright, John, A History of Israel. Philadelphia 1959.
Bruck, Eberhard F., “Die Gesinnung des Schenkers bei Johannes Chrysostomus,”
ΜΝΗΜΟΣΥΝΑ ΠΑΠΟΥΛΙΑ, pp. 65-83.
—, “Ethics vs. Law: St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church and the ‘cheerful giver’
in Roman Law,” Traditio, II (1944), 97-121.
—, Kirchenväter und soziales Erbrecht. Berlin, 1956.
Caird, Edward, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers. Vol. I.
Glasgow, 1923.
Campenhausen, Hans von, “Das Alte Testament als Bibel der Kirche vom
Ausgang des Urchristentums bis zur Entstehung des Neuen Testaments,”
Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts.
Tubingen, 1963.
—, The Fathers of the Greek Church. Translated by Stanley God- man. New
York, 1959.
Cerfaux, L. and Tondriau J., Le Gulte des souverains dans la civilization Greco-
Romaine. Tournai, 1957.
Chabot, J. B., Litterature syriaque. Paris, 1934.
Chadwick, Henry, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in
Justin, Clement, and Origen. Oxford, 1966.
Chifflot, Th. G., Approches d’ une theologie de 1’histoire. Paris, 1960.
4 157
Clarke, Bowman, L., Language and Natural Theology, The Hague-Paris, 1966.
Cochrane, Charles Norris, Christianity and Classical Culture. New York, 1944-
1957.
Constantelos, Fr. Demetrios J., “Philanthropy and Philanthropic Institutions in the
Byzantine Empire A. D. 330-1204.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Rutgers University, 1965.
Conzelmann, D. Hans, Die Apostelgeschichte. Tubingen, 1963.
Copleston, Frederick, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 1. Westminster, Md., 1963.
Corwin, Virginia, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. New Haven, 1960.
Crouzel, Henri, Origene et la “Connaissance Mystique.” Toulouse, 1961.
Cullmann, Oscar, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time
and History. London, 1962.
Daloz, Laden, Le travail selon Saint Jean Chrysostome. Paris, 1959.
Daniélou, Jean, Origene. Paris, 1948.
—, (introduction). From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical
Writings. Translated and edited by Herbert Musurillo. New York, 1961.
Dawson, Christopher, Progress and Religion: An Historical Enquiry. London,
1929.
Denhard, Hans, Das Problem der Abhängigkeit des Basilius von Plotin. Berlin,
1964.
Dentan, Robert C., The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments. Greenwich, Conn.,
1954.
Détienne, M., La Notion de DAIMON dans le pythagorisme ancien. Paris, 1963.
Devreesse, Robert, Essai sur Théodor de Mopsueste. Cità del Vaticano, 1948.
Dibelius, Martin, Die Pastoralbriefe. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 13.
Tubingen, 1955.
Diskussions-Beitrage zum XI. Byzantinisten-Kongress. Edited by
4 158
F r a n z D ö l g e r a n d H a n s G e o r g B e c k , Munich,
1958.
Dodd, C. H., The Authority of the Bible. New York, 1958.
—, The Bible and the Greeks. London, 1964.
Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley, 1963.
—, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. London, 1965.
Dörries, Hermann, De Spiritu Sancto: Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Ahschluss
des trinitarischen Dogmas. Gottingen, 1956.
Downey, Glanville, Ancient Antioch. Princeton, 1963.
—, “Education and Public Problems as seen by Themistius”, Transactions and
Proceedings of the Americn Philological Association, LXXXVI (1955),
291-307.
—, A History of Antioch in Syria. Princeton, 1961.
—, “‘Philanthropia’ in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century after
Christ,” Historia, IV (1955), 199-208.
—, “Themistius and the Defence of Hellenism in the Fourth Century,” Harvard
Theological Review, L (1957), 259-74.
Duchesne-Guillemin Jacques, The Hymns of Zarathustra. Boston, 1963.
Dvornik, Francis, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York, 1966.
—, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. 2 vols. Washington, D.
C., 1966.
Elliot-Binns, L. E., “James 1: 18: Creation or Redemption?” New Testament
Studies, III (1957), 148-61.
Fabricius, Caius, Zu den Jugendschriften des Johannes Chrysostomus:
Untersuchungen zum Klassizismus des vierten Jahrhunderts. Lund, 1962.
Farina, Raffaele, L’ impero e 1’ imperatore Cristiano in Eusebio di Cesarea. La
prima teologia politica del Christianesimo. Zurich, 1966.
Festugiére, A. J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les
moines de Syrie. Paris, 1959.
—, L’ Enfant d’ Agrigente. Paris, 1950.
—, Epicurus and His Gods. Oxford, 1955.
—, La Révélation d’ Hermès Trismégiste. Vol. II. Paris, 1949.
Fetissov, Nickolai, Diodor Tarssky. Kiev, 1915. In Russian.
Florovsky, Georges, “The Anthropomorphites in the Egyptian Desert, Akten des
XI. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongresses 1958. Munich, 1960, pp.
154-59.
—, “The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius,” Studia Patristica. Vol. VI.
Edited by F. L. Cross. Berlin, 1962.
—, “The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement,” Theology
Today, VII, No. 1 (April 1, 1950), 68-79.
159
—, Fourth Century Fathers of the East. Paris, 1931. (in Russian).
—, “The Predicament of the Christian Historian,” Religion in Culture: Essays in
Honor of Paul Tillich. Edited by Walter Leibrecht. New York, 1959, pp.
140-56.
—, “Ό ἄγιος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος: ὁ προφήτης τῆς ἀγάπης,” ΑΚΤΙΝΕΣ,
No 156 (January, 1955), pp. 5-10.
—, “Revelation and Interpretation,” Biblical Authority for Today. Edited by
Alan Richardson and W. Schweitzer. London and Philadelphia, 1951, pp.
163-80.
—, “Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Aphou of Pemdje,” Harry Wolfson
Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem, 1965. pp. 276-310.
Foerster and Münscher, “Libanius,” Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der Classischen
Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1924.
Fridrichsen, Anton, The Apostle and his Message. Uppsala, 1947.
Gaïth, Jérome, La Conception de la liberté chez Grégoire de Nysse. Paris, 1953.
Gandillaç, Maurice, de, La Sagesse de Plotin. Paris, 1966.
Georges, A. des, La Reincarnation des âmes Selon les traditions orientates et
occidentales. Paris, 1966.
Germain, Gabriel, Epictète et la spiritualité stoïcienne. Paris, 1964.
Giblet, J., L’ Homme image de Dieu dans les comentaires littéraux de Philon d’
Alexandrie. Louvain, 1948.
Glubokovsky, N. N., The Message of St. Paul, its Origin and Essence. Vol. II. St.
Petersburg, 1910. (In Russian).
Glueck, Nelson, Das Wort Hesed im alttestamentlichen Sprachge- brauche als
menschliche und göttliche gemeinschaftsgemässe Verhaltungweise.
Berlin, 1961.
Goldin, Hyman E., (ed.), Ethics of the Fathers. New York, 1962.
Gordillo, Mauricius, Theologia oriantalium cum latinorum comparata
commentatio historica. Vol. 1. Rome, 1960.
Goshevich, Stoyan, St. John Chrysostom’s Doctrine on Divine Grace. Athens,
1956. (In Greek).
Grant, Robert M., Second-century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments.
London 1946.
—, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. London, 1965.
—, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. New York, 1959.
Grégoire, Henri, Les Persécutions dans l’Empire Romain. Brussels,
1964.
Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to
Chalcedon (451). Translated by J. S. Bowden. New York,
1965.
160
Gross, Julius, Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsündendogmas. Vol. I. Munich,
1960.
Gruninger, J. H., “Les Dernières années de Saint Jean Chrysostome: 404-407”,
Proche Orient Chrétien 6 (1956), 3-10.
Guillaumont, Antoine, Les ‘Kephalaia Cnostica’ d’ Evagre le Pontique et 1’
histoire de l’Origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens. Paris, 1962.
Guillet, Jacques, “Les Exégèses d’ Alexandrie et d’ Antioche, con flit ou
malentendu?” Recherches do science religieuse, XXIV (1947), 257-301.
Guthrie, Kenneth S., Numerius of Apamea: The Father of Neo-Platonism: Works,
Biography, Message, Sources and Influence. London, 1917.
Hamilton, Kenneth, The System and the Gospel. New York, 1963.
Hamman, Adalbert, (ed.), La Philosophie passe au Christ: L’ Oeuvre de Justin.
Paris, 1958.
Hanson, R. P. C., Tradition in the Early Church. Philadelphia, 1962,
Harnack, A., History of Dogma. Translated by Neil Buchanan. 4. Vols. New York,
1961.
Harrison, Jane E., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Cambridge,
1922,
Havelock, Eric, A., Preface to Plato. Cambridge, Mass., 1963.
Hay, Camillus, “St. John Chrysostom and the Integrity of the Human Nature in
Christ,” Franciscan Studies, XIX (September-December, 1959), 298-317.
Hirzel, Rudolf, Plutarch. Leipzig, 1912.
Hofler, Anton, Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides. Stuttgart, 1935.
Holte, Ragnar, “Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy
according to St. Justin’s Apologies,” Studia Theologica, XII (1958), 167-
68.
Holtz, Gottfried, Die Pastoralbriefe. 13. Theologiseher Handkommentar zum
Neuen Testament. Berlin, 1965.
Honig, Richard, Humanitas und Rhetorik in spatromischen Kaisergesetzen.
Gottingen, 1960.
Hulen, Amos Berry, Porphyry’s Work Against the Christians: An Interpretation.
Scotdale, Pa., 1933.
Hyldahl, Niels, Philosophie und Christentum: Eine Interpretation der Einleitung
zum Dialog Justins. Kopenhagen, 1966.
Ivànka, Endre von, Plato Christianus: Übernahme und Umgestaltung des
Platonismus durch die Väter. Einsiedeln, 1964.
—, “But et date de la composition du ‘Corpus Areopagiticum’” (résumé), Actes
du VI Congres International d’ Études Byzantines. I. Paris, 1950, 239-40.
Jeremias, Joachim and Strathmann, Hermann, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus:
Der Brief an die Hebräer. Göttingen, 1963.
161
Jocz, Jakob, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ: A Study in the Controversy
between Church and Synagogue. London, 1962.
Jones, A. Η. M., “The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and
Christianity in the Fourth Century. Edited by Arnaldo Momigliano.
Oxford, 1963, pp. 17-33.
Judant, D., Les deux Israël. Paris, 1960.
Jungmann, Joseph Andreas, Handing on the Faith: A Manual of Catechetics.
Freiburg, 1959
Kabiersch, Jürgen, Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser
Julian. Wiesbaden, 1960.
Karmiris, John, “The Ecclesiology of the Three Hierarchs.” The Greek Orthodox
Theological Review, VI, No 2 (Winter, 1960-1961), 135-85.
Karsavin, L. P., Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Paris, n. d. (In Russian).
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines. London, 1958.
Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece. London, 1963.
Kenny, Anthony, “Was Chrysostom a semi-Pelagian?” Irish Theological Quarterly,
XXVII (1960), 16-29.
Kern, Arch. Cyprian, Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. Paris,
1950. (In Russian).
Kettler, Franz Heinrich, Der ursprüngliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes.
Berlin, 1966.
King, N. Q., The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity.
London, 1961.
Kleinknecht, H. et al., Wrath, Bible Key Words. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. London,
1964.
Koch, Günter, Die Heilsverwirklichung bei Theodor von Mopsuestia. Munich,
1965.
Koester, Helmut, “St. Ignatius,” Encyclopedia Britannica, XI (1965), cols. 1070-
71.
—, “Pastoral Epistles,” Encyclopedia Britannica, XVII (1966), cols. 444-46.
Kötting, Bernard, Christentum und heidnische Opposition am Ende des 4.
Jahrhunderts. Munster, 1961.
Kraft, H., Early Christian Thinkers. London, 1964.
—, Clavis patrum apostolicorum. Munich, 1963.
Krause, Wilhelm, Die Stellung der frühchristlichen Autoren zur heidnischen
Literatur. Vienna, 1958.
Kundsin, Karl, “Primitive Christianity in the Light of Gospel Research”, Form
Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research by Rudolf Bultmann
and Karl Kundsin. New York, 1966.
Labriolle, Pierre, de, La Réaction païenne: etudé sur la polémique antichrétienne
162
du I au VI siècle. Paris, 1951.
Laflamme, Raymond, “Nature de la bénignité divine,” Etudes Théologiques.
Quebec, 1963.
Laistner, M. L. W., Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire.
Ithaca, N. Y., 1951.
Lake, Frank, Clinical Theology: A Theological and Psychiatric Basis to Clinical
Pastoral Care. London, 1966.
Lambert, Richard D., “Comparativists and Uniquists,” Approaches to Asian
Civilizations. Edited by W. Theodore de Bary and Ainslie T. Embree.
New York, 1964.
Latourelle, René, Théologie de la révélation. Bruges, 1963.
Lebreton, Jules, Histoire du dogma de la Trinité. Vol. II. Paris, 1928.
Le Dtaut, Roger, “Φιλανθρωπία dans la littérature greque jusqu’ au Nouveau
Testament (Tite III, 4,)” Melanges Eugene Tisserant. I. Citta del Vaticano,
1964, 255-94.
Lenz, Friedrich Walter, Aristeidesstudien. Berlin, 1964.
Lessky, Albin, A History of Greek Literature. New York, 1966.
Lietzmann, Hans, A History of the Early Church. Vol. III: From Constantine to
Julian. Vol. IV: The Era of the Church Fathers. Translated by Betram Lee
Woolf. London, 1953.
—, “Johannes Chrysostomus,” Kleine Schriften. Vol. I. Berlin, 1958, pp. 326-47.
Lohse, Bernhard, Epochen der Dogmengeschichte. Stuttgart, 1963.
Lorenz, Siegfried, “De progressu notionis φιλανθρωπίας.” Dissertatio inauguralis,
Leipzig, 1914.
Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. London, 1957.
—, “Tradition and Traditions”, The Meaning of Icons, by Leonide Ouspensky
and Vladimir Lossky.
—, The Vision of God. London, 1963.
Lubac, Henri de, Catholicism. New York, 1958.
—, Exégèse médiévale. Vol. I. Paris, 1959.
—, “'Typologie’ et ‘Allegorisme,’” Recherches de science religieuse, XXXIV
(1947), 180-226.
Luneau, Auguste, L’ Histoire du salut chez les Peres de 1’ Église. Paris,
1964.
Malingrey, Anne-Marie, “Vers une édition critique des oeuvres de Saint Jean
Chrysostome,” Studia Patristica. Vol. III. Edited by P. L. Cross. Berlin,
1961.
Mar, Peter, Orthodox Russia, No. 872 (August, 1967), pp. 7-8.
Mariés, L., Etudes préliminaires à 1’ édition de Diodore de Tarse sur les
Psaumes. Paris, 1933.
163
Marrou, Henri-Irénée, The Meaning of History. Baltimore-Dublin, 1966.
—, “De la persécution de Dioclétien à la mort de Grégoire le Grand (303-604),”
Nouvelle Histoire de l’ Eglise I. Edited by Jean Danidlou and Henri
Marrou. Paris, 1963.
Maur, Ivo auf der, Mönchtum und Glaubensverkimdigung in den Schriften des
hl. Johannes Chrysostomus. Freiburg, 1959.
Maurier, Henri, Essai d’ une théologie du paganisme. Introduction by J.
Daniélou. Paris, 1965.
Mau, G., “Iamblichus” Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopedie. Stuttgart, 1914.
Méhat, A., “Θεὸς Ἀγάπη: Une hypothèse sur l’ object de la gnose orthodoxe,”
Studia Patristica, Vol. IX, Part III. Edited by F. L. Cross. Berlin, 1966:
pp. 82-86.
Mendieta, Emmanuel Amand, de, “Basile de Cesarée et Damase de Rome: Les
causes de 1’ échec de leurs négotiations,” Biblical and Patristic Studies in
Memeory of Robert Pierce Casey. Freiburg,
1963, pp. 122-66.
—, The “Unwritten” and “Secret” Apostolic Tradition in the Theological
Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea. Edinburgh, 1965.
Merki, Hubert, Ὁμοίωσις Θεῷ: Von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur
Gottähnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa. Freiburg in der Schweiz, 1952.
Meyer, Louis, Saint Jean Chrysostome. Paris, 1933.
Milhaven, John G., Der Aufstieg der Seele bei Albinus. Munich, 1962.
164
Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire”, The
Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century.
Oxford, 1963.
Mondésert, Claude, Essai sur Clément d’ Alexandrie. Paris, 1944.
Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, II., A Rabbinic Anthology. London, 1938.
Moulard, Anatole, Saint Jean Chrysostome. Paris, 1941.
Mouratides, Constantines D., Essence and Structure of the Church acording to the
Teaching of John Chrysostom. Athens, 1958, (In Greek).
Mühl, Max, Die antike Menschheitsidee in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung.
Leipzig, 1928.
Nagel, Peter, Die Motivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der Ursprung
des Mönchtums. Berlin, 1966.
Neill, Stephen, The Interpretation of the New Testament. London. 1964.
Nemeshegy, Peter, La Paternité de Dieu chez Origène. Tournai, 1960.
Neville, Graham (transl.). Saint John Chrysostom: Six Books on the Priesthood.
London, 1964.
Nielsen, Kai, “Can Faith Validate God-Talk? New Theology, No I. Edited by
Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman. New York,
1964.
Nilsson, Martin P., Religion as Man’s Protest against the Meaninglessness of
Events. Lund, 1954.
Nock, A. D., Conversion. Oxford, 1933.
Noonan, John T., Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
Norris, Richard A., God and World in Early Christian Theology: A Study in Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, New York,
1965.
—, Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Oxford, 1965.
Nygren Anders, Agape and Erôs. Translated by Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia,
1953.
O'Brien, Elmer, The Essential Plotinus. New York, 1964.
Oliver, James H., The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second
Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides.
Philadelphia, 1953.
Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State. Translated by Joan Hussey.
Oxford, 1956.
Otis, Brooks, “Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers. XII. Cambridge, Mass., 1958, 99-124.
—, “The Throne and the Mountain: An Essay on St. Gregory of Nazianzus”,
165
Classical Journal, LVI (1961), 146-65.
Overman, Richard H., Evolution and Christian Doctrine of Creation: A
Whiteheadian Interpretation. Philadelphia, 1967.
Pack, Roger. A., “Studies in Libanius and Antiochene Society under Theodosius.”
Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, 1935.
Parente, Pietro, L’ Io di Cristo. Brescia, 1955.
Peeters. P., “La Date de la fête des SS. Juventin et Maximin”, Analecta
Bollandiana. XLII (1924), 77-82.
Petit, Paul, Libanius et la vie municipale au IVe siécle aprés J.-C. Paris,
1955.
—, Les Etudiants de Libanius. Paris, 1957.
Pétré, Hélène, Caritas: Etude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne.
Louvain, 1948.
Petri, Heinrich, Exegese und Dogmatik in der Sicht der katholischen Theologie.
Paderborn, 1966.
Places, Edouard des, “Un thème platonicien dans la traditions patristique: Le Juste
crucifié (Platon, Republique 361e4-362(a2)”. Studia Patristiea. IX, Part
III. Edited by E. L. Gross. Beilin, 1966, 30-40.
Plagnieux, Jean, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze Théologien. Paris, 1951.
Plinval, Georges de, Pélage, ses écrits, sa vie, et sa réforme. Paris, 1943.
Poliakov, Lion, Histoire de 1’antisémitisme. Paiis, 1955.
Popovich, Archimandrite Justin, Orthodox Dogmatics. Vol. II. Belgrade, 1935. (In
Serbian).
Quacquerelli, Antonio, La concezione della Storia nei Padri prima di S. Agostino.
Rome, 1955.
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology. 3 vols. Westminster, Md., 1951.
Raeder, Hans, “Kaiser Julian als Philosoph und religiöser Reformator,” Classica
et Medievalia, VI, fasc. 1-2 (1944), 179-93.
Rahner, Karl, “Theology and Anthropology,” The Word in History. The St. Xavier
Symposium. Edited by T. Patrick Purke. New York,
1966.
Ramsy, Ian T., Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases.
New York, 1963.
Régnon, Théodore de. Etudes de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité. Première
série. Paris, 1893.
Rémondon, Roger, La Crise de l’Empire Romain de Marc-Aurèle à Ana- stase.
Paris, 1964.
Rey, Bernard, Créés dans Christ Jesus: La Nouvelle création selon Saint Paul.
Paris, 1966.
Riccioti, Giuseppe, Julian the Apostate. Translated by Joseph Castelloe.
166
Milwaukee, 1960.
Richardson, W., “Α Motif of Greek Philosophy in Luke-Acts,” Studia Evangelica.
II. Edited by F. L. Cross. Berlin, 1964, 628-34.
—, “Νόμος Ἔμψυχος: Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Luke,” Studia
Patristica, VI, Berlin, 1962, 188-96.
Rist, John M., Eros and Psyche: Studies in Plato, Plotinus and Origen. Toronto,
1964.
Robberechts, Ludovic, Le Mythe d’ Adam et le péché originel. Paris,
1967.
Robinson, H. Wheeler, The Cross in the Old Testament. London. 1963.
Robinson, John A. T., The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. London, 1964.
Romanides, John S., Original Sin. Athens, 1957. (In Greek).
—, “St. Cyrill’s ‘One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate’ and
Chalcedon,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, X, No. 2 (Winter
1964-1965), 82-107.
Rostovtzeff, Michael I., The Mentality of the Hellenistic World and the After-Life.
Ingersoll Lecture for the Academic Year 1937-1938 at Harvard
University.
Rüfner, Vinzenz, “Der Personalismus: Kritik und Überwindung des
Existentialismus,” Moral zwischen Anspruch und Verantwor- tung:
Festschrift für Werner Schöllgen. Edited by Franz Bockle and Franz
Gorner. DUsseldorf, 1964, pp. 404-27.
Schaff, Philip (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. XI: Homilies on the
Acts of the Apostles. Homilies on the Letter to the Romans. Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1956.
Schilling, Friederich Augustus, The Mysticism of Ignatius of Antioch.
Philadelphia, 1932.
Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater. Göttingen, 1951.
Schmemann, Alexander, “The Liturgical Revival and the Orthodox Church,” The
Eucharist and Liturgical Renewal. Edited by Massey Hamilton Shepherd,
Jr. New York, 1960, pp. 115-32.
Schoeps, Hans Joachim, The Jewish-Christian Argument: A History of Theologies
in Conflict. London, 1965.
Schubart, W., “Das hellenistische Königsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri,”
Archiv für Papyrusforschung, XII (1936), 1-26.
Schulz, Hans-Joachim, Die byzantinische Liturgie. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1964.
Shestov, Leon, Athens and Jerusalem. Ohio University Press, 1966.
Sicherl, Martin. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen von
Iamblichos’ De Mysteriis: Eine kritisch-historische Studie. Berlin, 1957.
Sierksma, F., Tibet’s Terrifying Deities. The Hague, 1966.
167
Simon, Marcel, Recherches d’ histoire Judéo-Chrétienne. Paris, 1962.
Sinclair, T. A., A History of Greek Political Thought. London, 1951.
Sirinelli, Jean, Les Vues historique? d’ Eusébe de Césarée durant la période
prénicéenne. Dakar, 1961.
Smart, Ninian, World Religions: A Dialogue. New York. 1966.
Smitmans, Adolf, Das Weinwunder von Kana: Die Auslegung von Jo 2.1-11 bei
den Vätern und heute. Tübingen, 1966.
Snape, R. H., “Rabbinical and Early Christian Ethics,” A Rabbinic Anthology.
Edited by C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe. London, 1938.
Snell, Bruno, The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European
Thought. Cambridge, Mass., 1953.
Sowers, Sidney G., The Hermeneutics of Philio and Hebrews: A Comparison of
the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Richmond, Virginia, 1965.
Spicq, Ceslas, Agapé dans le Nouveau Testament: Analyse des textes, III. Paris,
1959.
—, “La Philanthropie Hellénistique, vertu divine et royale (à propos de Tit. Ill,
4),” Studia Theologica XII (1958), 169-91.
—, Saint Paul: Les Epitres pastorales. Paris, 1947.
—, Vie morale et Trinité Sainte selon Saint Paul. Paris, 1962.
Špidlik, Thomas, Orientalia Christiana Periodica. XXIX, Fasciculus 1 (1963).
—, La Sophiologie de S. Basile. Rome, 1961.
Stendahl, Krister, The School of St. Matthew. Lund, 1954.
Stockmeier, Peter, Theologie und Kult des Kreuzes bei Johnnes Chrysostomus.
Trier, 1966.
Sullivan, Francis A., The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rome,
1956.
Sundberg, Albert C., Jr., The Old Testament of the Early Church. Cambridge,
Mass., 1964.
Swete, Henry Barclay, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek.
Cambridge. 1902.
168
Symonds, Henry Edward, The Church Universal and the See of Rome. London
1939.
Tatakis, Basilios, The Contribution of Cappadocia to Christian Thought.
Athens, 1960. (In Greek).
Theodorou, A., On the Deification of Man: Teaching of the Greek Fathers of the
Church till John of Damascus. Athens, 1956. (In Greek).
Thévanaz, Pierre, “Evénement et Historicité,” L’Homme et l’histoire. Actes du
Vie Congrès des sociétés de philosophie de langue française. Paris, 1952,
pp. 217-25.
Thils, Gustave, Theologie der irdischen Wirklichkeiten. Salzburg, n. d. Thomas,
Jacques-Francois, Saint Augustin s’ est-il trompé? Essai sur la prédestination.
Paris, 1959.
Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology. Vol. I. Chicago, 1951.
Tromp de Ruiter, S., “De vocis quae est φιλανθρωπία significatione atque usu,”
Mnemosyne, N. S. 59 (1932), 271-306.
Troubétzkoy, Prince Nicholas S., “The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of
Tongues,” Evraziyskiy Vremennik. Berlin, 1932, pp. 107-24. (In
Russian).
Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages.
London, 1962.
Urbina, I. Ortiz, de, Nicée et Constaninople, Paris, 1963.
Vandenberghe, Bruno H., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la parole de Dieu. Paris,
1961.
Verbeke, G., L. Evolution de la doctrine du pneuma du Stoïcisme à St.
Augustin. Paris, 1945.
Verosta, Stephen, Johannes Chrysostomus. Staatsphilosoph und
Geschichtstheologe. Graz, 1960.
Visser, A. J., “Johannes Chrysostomus als anti-joods polemicus,” Nederlands
Archiev for Kerkegeschiedenis (1954), pp. 192-206.
Volker, Walter, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien: Eine Studie
zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit. Leipzig, 1938.
Voobus, Arthur, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Vol. I, Louvain, 1958.
Wallace, D. H., “Historicism and Biblical Theology,” Studia Evangelica. III, 223-
27.
Weidle, Vladimir, “Religion and Culture,” Le Messager, No 79 (1965), pp. 14-21.
(In Russian).
169
Werner, Martin, The Formation of Christian Dogma, Boston, 1965.
Wikenhauser, Alfred, New Testament Intioduction. New York, 1963.
Wilder, Arnos N., New Testament Faith for Today. New York, 1955.
Williams, George Huntson, “Christology and Church - State Relations in the Fourth
Century,” Church History, XX (1951), 3-33.
—, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky: His American Career (1948- 1965),” Greek
Orthodox Theological Review, XI, No. 1 (1965), 7-107.
Wingren, Gustaf, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of
Irenaeus. Philadelphia, 1959.
Witt, R. E., Albinus and the History of Middle-Platonism. Cambridge, 1937.
Wolf, Peter, Vom Schulwesen der Spätantike: Studien zu Libanius. Baden-Baden,
1952.
Wolfson, Harry Austryn, “Extradeical and Intradeical Interpretations of Platonic
Ideas,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XXII, No. 1 (1961), 3-32.
—, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass., 1962.
—, “Philosophical Implications of Arianism and Apollinarianism,” Religious
Philosophy: A Group of Essays. Cambridge, Mass., 1951.
—, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass., 1964.
Woollcombe, K. J., “The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology,”
Essays on Typology, by G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe. London,
1957, pp. 39-75.
Yeftich, Athanasiye M., Ecclesiology of St. Paul according to St. Chrysostom.
Athens, 1967. (In Greek).
Yerkes, Royden Kaith, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism.
New York, 1952.
Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen. Leipzig, 1908.
170
171
172

Bishop Daniel Kristitch, ON DIVINE PHILANTHROPY FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bishop Daniel Kristitch, ON DIVINE PHILANTHROPY FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BISHOP DANIEL KRISTITCH

FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

BISHOP DANIEL KRISTITCH

ON DIVINE PHILANTHROPY: FROM PLATO TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

REPRINTED FROM “THEOLOGIA”

Foreword by Bishop Maxim of Western Diocese………………

Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.)

οὐτε θεοειδὲς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα. (Οpif. 69).146

understood as a manner of divine condescension: οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνως, ἀλλὰ θεοπρεπῶς.

Cultural differences in the Biblical Trend

St. Ignatius and pseudo-Clement

Christian trend: Justin, Theophilus and Irenaeus

Epistle to Diognetus, Clement of

The epithet φιλάνθρωπος (VIII, 7)471 underlines the well-intentioned character

Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus

Brooks Otis characterized the Fourth century as “the most interesting

Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) lived in a period when “the church had to

There is an agreement between G. H. Williams, in ibid., p. 14, and Raffaele

St. Athanasius (395-373)

demeures.”Demonst. Evang, III, 7 (Heikel, p. 140), cited by P. de Labriolle, op.

Fr. Georges Florovsky argued — against the view of Endre von

Philanthropia in Libanius’ work stands vaguely for a well-intentioned disposition764

In my opinion, A. J. Festugière is all too prone to minimize Libanius’ religious

(θεῖος). Or 2 (G. Downey), pp. 42, 274 and 286.

perfectly sensitive to all creatures.”

commentary which was posthumously published by an Antiochene priest, on the

Soteriology also is under the sign of divine philanthropia

In his spirituality, Chrysostom advocated the unity of dogmas and

Chrysostom also had a good sense of the natural tendency to self-respect

2. Pagan Primary Sources.

3. Jewish Primary Sources.

S-ar putea să vă placă și