(Early Christianity in The Context of Antiquity 15) Jakob Engberg, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Jörg Ulrich (Eds.) - in Defence of Christianity - Early Christian Apologists-Peter Lang (2014) PDF

EARLY CHRISTIANITY
ECCA 15
In Defence of Christianity examines the early Christian apologists in their context in
thirteen articles divided in four parts. Part I provides an introduction to apology and
apologetics in antiquity, an overview of the early Christian apologists, and an outline
of their argumentation. The nine articles of Part II each cover one of the early apolo-
IN THE CONTEXT
gists: Aristides, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, the author of the Letter to
Diognetus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Minucius Felix. Part III contextualises
the apologists by providing an English translation of contemporary pagan criticism of
OF ANTIQUITY
Christianity and by discussing this critique. Part IV consists of a single article discussing
Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich (eds.) · In Defence of Christianity

how Eusebius depicted and used the apologists in his Ecclesiastical History.
Edited by David Brakke, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Jörg Ulrich
Jakob Engberg
Anders-Christian Jacobsen
Jörg Ulrich
(eds.)
In Defence of Christianity
Early Christian Apologists
Jakob Engberg is Associate Professor of Church History at the Department of Culture

and Society at Aarhus University (Denmark).
Anders-Christian Jacobsen is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the De-
15
partment of Culture and Society at Aarhus University (Denmark).
Jörg Ulrich is Professor of Church History at the Faculty of Theology at the University
of Halle-Wittenberg (Germany).
ISBN 978-3-631-62383-1
ECCA 15_262383_Engberg_AM_155x230HC PLE.indd 1 28.04.14 12:19

EARLY CHRISTIANITY
IN THE CONTEXT
OF ANTIQUITY
Edited by David Brakke,
Anders-Christian Jacobsen,
Jörg Ulrich
Advisory board:
Hanns Christof Brennecke, Ferdinand R. Prostmeier
Einar Thomassen, Nicole Kelley
Jakob Engberg, Carmen Cvetkovic
Ellen Muehlberger, Tobias Georges
Volume 15
Zu Qualitätssicherung und Peer Review Notes on the quality assurance and

der vorliegenden Publikation peer review of this publication
Die Qualität der in dieser Reihe Prior to publication, the quality

erscheinenden Arbeiten wird vor der of the work published in this
Publikation durch die Herausgeber der series is reviewed by the editors
Reihe sowie durch Mitglieder des of the series and by members of
Wissenschaftlichen Beirates geprüft. the academic advisory board.
Jakob Engberg/Anders-Christian Jacobsen/
Jörg Ulrich (eds.)
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available
in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

In defence of Christianity : early Christian apologists / Jakob Engberg,
Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Jörg Ulrich (eds.). —1 [edition].
pages cm. — (Early Christianity in the context of antiquity,
ISSN 1862-197X ; Volume 15)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-3-631-62383-1
1. Apologetics—History—Early church, ca. 30–600.
I. Engberg, Jakob, 1971– editor of compilation.
BT1115.I5 2014
239'.1—dc23
2014017237
Translated by Gavin Weakley

from J. Engberg/A.-C. Jacobsen/J. Ulrich (eds.),
Til forsvar for kristendommen – tidlige kristne apologeter,
København 2006.
ISSN 1862-197X
ISBN 978-3-631-62383-1 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-653-04643-4 (E-Book)
DOI 10.3726/ 978-3-653-04643-4
© Peter Lang GmbH
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften
Frankfurt am Main 2014
All rights reserved.
Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH.
Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York ·
Oxford · Warszawa · Wien
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any
utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without
the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to
prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions,
translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in
electronic retrieval systems.
This publication has been peer reviewed.
www.peterlang.com
Table of Contents
Apology in Context
Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich VII
Part I: Introduction
Apologists and apologetics in the second century

Jörg Ulrich 1
Part II: The early Christian apologists
Aristides
Nils Arne Pedersen 35
Justin Martyr
Jörg Ulrich 51
Tatian
René Falkenberg 67
Athenagoras
Anders-Christian Jacobsen 81
Theophilus
Jakob Engberg 101
Heaven-borne in the World:
Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus
Anders Klostergaard Petersen 125
Clement of Alexandria
Paganism and its positive significance for Christianity
Jesper Hyldahl 139
Tertullian
Niels Willert 159
Minucius Felix, Octavius
Svend Erik Mathiassen 185
Part III: Contemporary Greco-Roman authors

regarding Christians and Christianity
Condemnation, criticism and consternation

Contemporary pagan authors‘ assessment
of Christians and Christianity
Jakob Engberg 201
VI Table of Contents
The other Side of the Debate 2

Translation of Second Century
pagan Authors on Christians and Christianity
Jakob Engberg / Patrick M. Fritz / Robert B.N. Hansen / John Møller Larsen 229
Part IV: Eusebius‘ use of the early apologists in the Ecclesiastical History
The defenders of Christianity in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius

Marie Verdoner 239
Bibliography Řśř
Apology in Context
The current volume is a translation of an anthology published in Danish and
presents some of the fruits of the collective research project at Aarhus Univer-
sity, Jews, Christians and pagans in antiquity – Critique and apologetics.1 The editors
wish to thank Gavin Weakley for the translation from Danish into English.
They also express their gratitude to Beate Gienke and Nicholas Alexander
Marshall who took care of all the matters of the volume´s completion, including
the layout. The project Jews, Christians and pagans in antiquity – Critique and apolo-
getics investigated the debate between various religious and cultural groups in
antiquity. This exchange involved harsh criticism and heated defence as well as
the conscious or unconscious adoption of those positions and arguments taken
and used by other groups. The apologetic works from the second and early
third century which are presented and analysed in this anthology were central
in the interaction between Christians and pagans and, to a lesser extent, Jews.
The volume contains, apart from this preface, thirteen articles in four parts.
In part I, consisting of one long article, Jörg Ulrich provide an introduction to
the concepts of apology and apologetics in antiquity, an overview of the ear-
ly Christian apologists and their works, and a presentation of their primary
lines of thought and argument. Ulrich highlights the insecure legal position of
Christians, the contemporary religious diversity, and the contemporary philo-
sophical debate and polemic as some of the key reasons for the rise of Christian
apologetic literature. Ulrich shows that later ages (particularly in Protestant
Europe) have often judged the apologists quite negatively. Their writings have
been viewed as ideologically uninteresting because they only touch minorly on
key theological issues, and their aim of defending Christianity in the language
of the world of their day has been seen as illegitimate. Ulrich argues that the
renewed research interest in the apologists, represented by the research project
Jews, Christians and pagans in antiquity – Critique and apologetics, should result in
the realisation that some of the problems addressed by the apologists have the-
ological and social relevance today as the church in Europe again finds itself in
a religious and culturally pluralistic society.

Part II is the main section of the volume and comprises nine articles – each
covering one of the early Christian apologetic works. The articles are pre-
sented in roughly chronological order.
1 J. Engberg / A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich (eds.), Til forsvar for kristendommen – tidlige kristne apo-
logeter, Copenhagen 2006.
VIII Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich
In the first article, Nils Arne Pedersen analyses the oldest surviving Christian
apology by Aristides. Through his analysis of this small apology addressed to the
Emperor, Pedersen shows that from the beginning, Christian apologetics sought
to promote Christianity and not just defend it. Aristides compares, the Christian
way of life and divine worship with that of the Greeks, barbarians and Jews. The
depiction of the Jewish way of life and divine worship is relatively positive, but
Christians are presented as being superior on all points. The apology has a com-
plicated reception history, as it has had both indirect and direct influence on later
ancient and medieval literature in regions as far apart as India and Scandinavia.
Pedersen clearly identifies these fascinating traces from the past to the present.
In the second article, Jörg Ulrich analyses the preserved parts of Justin Mar-
tyr‘s apologetic works, comprising two apologies and a philosophical dialogue.
Justin also wrote other apologetic works, including Address to the Greeks, which
have not been preserved. Justin is described as the most important early Greek
apologist, and Ulrich manages to skilfully explain and focus on the points of
originality in his thinking, theology, Christology, and ethics, while also placing
him in a contemporary philosophical and theological context. Justin Martyr‘s
writings reveal that he had received a philosophical education prior to his con-
version – an education which Ulrich shows he uses actively in his works.
Tatian was a student of Justin Martyr, and like his tutor he also wrote an Ad-
dress to the Greeks – an evangelistic apologetic work addressed to a pagan public.
Tatian‘s work is therefore the earliest preserved example of this type of apologet-
ic work. In the third article, René Falkenberg analyses this work and concludes
that Tatian clearly had great religious and philosophical experience, and was
therefore able to present Christianity using arguments and concepts familiar to
educated outsiders. Falkenberg also discusses Tatian‘s person and personality,
which he characterises as unyielding. Falkenberg suggests that this intransi-
gence may have been one of the reasons that Tatian was regarded and judged by
his Western contemporaries and successors, such as Ireneus, as a heretic.
In the fourth article by Anders-Christian Jacobsen we return to an apol-
ogy addressed to an emperor. Despite the superficial literary similarity with
the apologies of Aristides and Justin, Jacobsen shows that Athenagoras chose
a more ambitious literary form than his predecessors in his apology – a form
which may reflect increasing Christian self-awareness. Jacobsen raises two
questions which are much debated by scholars studying Athenagoras. The first
is whether Athenagoras had a deep or only superficial knowledge of philoso-
phy. The second is whether the work really was submitted to the Emperor, or
whether the address was purely a literary convention. Jacobsen concludes that
Athenagoras was deeply familiar with parts of Plato‘s philosophy and aware of
the contemporary middle Platonism of his day. In terms of the address, Jacob-
sen argues that the work was directed to the Emperor, but that Athenagoras
also had other readers in mind whom he wished to influence.
Theophilus’ three books To Autolycus are the first examples of apologetic
works addressed to a pagan acquaintance. Luke‘s writings dedicated to a per-
Apology in Context IX
son by the same name were clearly known to Theophilus the apologist, who
therefore viewed himself as part of a tradition. Jakob Engberg argues that the
books were evangelistic in relation to the reader, the addressee, Autolycus, and
other non-Christians, but also suggests that Christians would have been able to
find arguments within the works to use in conversation with outsiders. Others
have argued that the books drew on existing catechetical material. Drawing
on this theory, Engberg claims that recently converted Christians may have
used the books. Theophilus actively refers to his own conversion in his com-
munication with the addressee and other intended or actual readers. Engberg
argues that Theophilus uses these references to make his apologetic arguments
credible, as well as to promote identification between himself, as an author
and convert, and the reader. Theophilus‘ example is intended to motivate the
non-Christian reader to be converted, and to confirm the recently converted
reader in the significance of their own conversion.
The sixth article covers a small apologetic work addressed to a pagan col-
league, Diognetus, by an author unknown to us today. In this article, Anders
Klostergaard Petersen recounts the unique survival of this work, from the time
it was purchased at a fish market in Constantinople in 1436, after centuries of
neglect, until it was burnt during the German bombardment of Strasbourg in
1870. Anders Klostergaard Petersen takes us closer to the anonymous author
via the work by demonstrating his rhetorical schooling and the position he and
Diognetus enjoyed in the educated upper social echelon of the Greco-Roman
world. Petersen shows that the author defends Christians against a number of
accusations ranging from promiscuity to political subversiveness and ungod-
liness. The article classifies the genre of the Letter to Diognetus as a protreptic
speech with evangelistic aims. Petersen introduces a model for apologetic lit-
erature ranging from apologetics as a form of consciousness to more formal
apologies, and classifies the Letter to Diognetus as an apologetic work.
Jesper Hyldahl has written the seventh article, which analyses one of the
major early Christian authors, Clement of Alexandria. Hyldahl notes that
Clement is rarely analysed in the context of the apologists, and therefore
discusses whether Clement can be seen as an apologist. Hyldahl concludes,
pointing among other things to Clement’s primary intention, that his works
cannot be classified as belonging to an apologetic genre in a narrow sense,
but notes that they contain a number of traditional apologetic themes. Rather
than defending Christianity from the accusations of the outside world, Clem-
ent strived to demonstrate that Greek education and philosophy had value,
as it could lead a person to Christ. Despite this difference of intent, Hyldahl
offers two reasons which demonstrate convincingly that it is fruitful to ana-
lyse Clement‘s works as apologetic writings, comparable to other apologetic
writings. Firstly, Clement expounds a positive view of philosophy, as was
already evident in the classic apologist, Justin Martyr. Secondly, Clement has
an evangelising and edifying purpose in his writings – a purpose which cor-
responds to many of the other apologists.
X Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich
In the eighth article by Niels Willert we meet an apologist writing in Latin for
the first time. Tertullian wrote two classic apologies – Apologeticum, addressed
to Roman procurators, and, Ad Scapulam, to a procurator in Tertullian‘s own
province, Africa. Tertullian also authored other apologetic works such as Ad na-
tiones. Niels Willert focuses his analysis on Apologeticum, which he places firmly
in its historical context in North Africa in around 200 AD. Niels Willert shows
how Tertullian uses apologetic arguments drawing on common sense, Christi-
an ethics and history to repudiate the by now well known accusations against
Christians – that they are ungodly and superstitious; that they live immorally,
rebel against traditions and authority, and undermine society. Tertullian dif-
fers from Justin Martyr and Clement by his radical rejection of philosophy. Ni-
els Willert shows that this radicalism was typical of Tertullian and contributed
to his sympathy towards the equally radical Christian Montanist movement.
The ninth and final article in part II is by Svend Erik Mathiassen and
focuses on the philosophical and apologetic dialogue, Octavius, written by
Minucius Felix. The work is centred on a dialogue between a pagan oppo-
nent, Caecilius, and the Christian Octavius. The author himself, Minucius
Felix, also a Christian, is a friend of the two dialogue characters and takes on
the role of arbiter. In the introduction to the dialogue, Minucius Felix explains
that he and Octavius converted to Christianity at the same time, while the
dialogue concludes with Caecilius‘ conversion. In the intervening space, Cae-
cilius attacks Christianity using a number of the classic accusations against
Christians, after which Octavius presents equally classic apologetic respons-
es and counter attacks against pagan idol worship and immorality. Mathias-
sen concludes that Minucius Felix in his work has attempted to present Chris-
tianity as the true and rational religion, inspired by God and consistent with
philosophy, and that his target group was potential converts and Christians
who could use the arguments in his work in their own evangelistic conversa-
tions with non-Christian acquaintances.
Together, the nine articles in part II provide a picture of early Christian
apologetics as a richly diverse phenomenon. We find works addressed to em-
perors, Roman officials, named pagan acquaintances of the apologist, and the
general pagan public, as well as philosophical dialogues between Christian,
Jewish and pagan characters. The nine articles also show that despite the de-
velopment of Christianity and Roman society over a century, there was signif-
icant continuity in the defensive and evangelising intent of the apologists and
the content of their arguments. It is striking to note that at least eight of the
nine apologists were converts, as were the majority of Christians at that time.
Upon reading the nine articles one notes that the Christology of the majority of
the apologists was less developed. This factor may have contributed to making
their works less inspiring to later theological debate, where the question of the
relationship between the Father and the Son received the most attention. For
each of the nine modern authors, working with the nine apologists has led to
discussion of the relationship between the various formal addressees of the
Apology in Context XI
apologetic works (emperors, officials, pagan acquaintances, or the pagan pub-

lic) and the intended and actual readers of the same works. The editors note in
this regard that the relatively undeveloped Christology among several apol-
ogists suggests that they were addressing non-Christian readers as potential
converts, and therefore withheld more difficult questions for later.

Part III comprises an article and an appendix. In the article, Jakob Engberg
analyses the surviving statements about Christians and Christianity by sec-
ond century Greco Roman authors. The intent of the article is to investigate
whether the defence apologists give for Christianity corresponds to the actu-
al contemporary attack presented by pagan authors. Bearing in mind that the
surviving judgements do not provide a complete picture because much of the
ancient literature has been lost, including dozens of imperial rescripts about
the Christians, it is concluded that there is a strong correlation between the
criticism of Greco-Roman authors and the defence of the apologists. In other
words, the attacks the apologists defended Christianity against were genuine
and not simply literary constructions intended to give the apologist a ‘reason’
for providing a positive presentation of their own religion.
The appendix in part three contains translations of the passages analy-
sed in the article.
Part IV: Eusebius‘ use of the early apologists in the Ecclesiastical History
In part IV, Marie Gregers Verdoner analyses how Eusebius understood and
used the apologists and their works in his Ecclesiastical History. She argues
that as the first church historian, Eusebius has not only informed us about
the history of early Christianity, he has also influenced the way in which the
period, the church and various early church phenomena have been perceived
by later periods. As Jörg Ulrich pointed out in part I, Eusebius has also helped
to provide later periods with a depiction of Christian apologists and their
writings as a group of authors and works which stand apart from other early
church authors and works.
Verdoner shows that Eusebius cites Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian,
Clement, Theophilus and Tertullian as defenders of Christianity in their gen-
eration, along with authors such as Quadratus, Meliton and Miltiades, whose
works are lost to us. In terms of the works and authors analysed in this an-
thology, Eusebius makes no mention of the Letter to Diognetus, Athenagoras,
or Minucius Felix. According to Verdoner this was probably due to the fact
that Eusebius was unaware of these works.
Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich

Apologists and apologetics in the second century
Jörg Ulrich
Contents
1. The most important factors giving rise to early Christian apologetics
1.1. Christianity‘s claim of absoluteness
1.2. Perceptions of early Christians within Roman society
1.3. The legal status of Christians in the pre-Constantine Roman Empire
2. The beginnings and conditions of early Christian apologetics
2.1. The concepts of apologetics and apology
2.2. The pagan and Jewish roots of early Christian apologetics
2.3. The first traces of early Christian apologetics
3. Apologists and apologetics in the second century
4. The themes and forms of argument of early Christian apologetics
4.1. The specific charges and the attempt to repudiate them
4.2. The positive proofs for the truth of Christianity
in the confrontation with pagans
4.3. The positive proofs for the truth of
Christianity in the confrontation with Jews
4.4. Polemic trends in early Christian apologetics
4.4.1. Anti-pagan polemic
4.4.2. Anti-Jewish polemic
4.5. Early Christian apologetics and contemporary
pagan philosophy and religion
5. Early Christian apologetics in history and in the present
1. The most important factors giving rise to early Christian apologetics

Three different factors should be mentioned with regard to the rise of early
Christian apologetics1. From the beginning, throughout the second centu-
1 Key sources in the literature: M. Fiedrowicz, Apologie im frühesten Christentum. Die Kontroverse
um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Paderborn 22001; G. Bardy,
Apologetik, in: RAC 1 (1950), 533‒543; L.W. Barnard, Apologetik I. Alte Kirche, in: TRE 3 (1978),
371‒411; S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the first two Centuries A.D., ANRW
2/23.2, Berlin 1980, 1055‒1118; C.A. Contreras, Christian Views of Paganism, ANRW 2/23.2,
Berlin 1980, 974‒1022; R.M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the second Century, Philadelphia 1988;
R.L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, New Haven 1984; W. Kinzig, Der “Sitz
im Leben” der Apologie in der Alten Kirche, in: ZKG 100 (1989), 291‒317; W. Nestle, Die Haupt-
einwände des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum, in: J. Martin / B. Quint (eds.), Christentum
und antike Gesellschaft, Darmstadt 1990, 17‒80; A. Wlosok, Christliche Apologetik gegenüber
kaiserlicher Politik bis zu Konstantin, in: E. Heck / E.A. Schmidt (eds.), Res humanae – res di-
2 Jörg Ulrich
ry, and well into the following centuries, Christians had a need to reflect on
and explain Christianity for the purpose of defence and evangelism. Firstly,
the Christian claim of possessing the absolute truth was a central element of
Christian self perception. This self-perception demanded that the new mes-
sage should be made available to everyone and that the message should re-
place all contemporary forms of religion and religiosity. Within the diversity
of religions in the Roman Empire, how could one effectively insist that Chris-
tianity alone possessed unique and exclusive access to God and to the truth?
How could one convert people to this religion?
Secondly, Christians had to relate to outsiders who viewed Christianity as
a new and foreign religion in the Roman Empire. Was criticism by non-Chris-
tians who commented on the Christian religion based on accurate knowl-
edge and understanding of Christianity, or was it based on misunderstand-
ings and misconceptions that the Christians could hope to correct through a
targeted information policy? If so, were misunderstandings explained and
incorrect accusations repudiated? How, and in what fields, was it possible
to change possible negative attitudes towards Christianity, and strengthen
positive attitudes? Which other contemporary perspectives could be drawn
on in such endeavours?
Thirdly, there was a practical reason for writing apologies. How should
one react to the prohibition against being Christian and the associated threat
of martyrdom? Could one demonstrate the foolishness of this prohibition?
And how could one lobby for its abolition? Was it possible to argue that the
Roman Empire and Emperor actually benefited from the new religion and
having Christian citizens, and if so, how? These were key questions in early
Christian apologetics in the time prior to the Constantinian turn.
1.1. Christianity‘s claim of absoluteness
Roman society was characterised by a striking religious pluralism. Howev-
er, with the appearance of Christianity, it was confronted by a phenomenon
which distinguished itself from most other religions by raising the claim of
absoluteness – fundamentally contesting the legitimacy and saving relevance
of the other religions.2 Thus Christianity found itself in fundamental opposi-
tion to Roman society and Roman religiosity from the outset. In the imperium
romanum there were a large number of religions and cults alongside the clas-
sic Roman religiosity with its cult activities. This diversity was partly a nat-
ural consequence of the multicultural nature of the Roman Empire, as some
vinae. Kleine Schriften, Heidelberg 1990, 137‒156; B. Pouderon / J. Doré (eds.), Les apologistes
chrétiens et la culture grecque, Paris 1998; O. Skarsaune, Apologetik IV. Kirchengeschichtlich 1.
Alte Kirche sowie Apologie, literarisch, in: 4RGG 1 (1998), 616‒620 and 630‒632; M. Edwards /
M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians,
Oxford 1999.
2 See H.C. Brennecke, Der Absolutheitsanspruch des Christentums und die religiösen Angebote der
Alten Welt, in: J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus und Identität, Gütersloh 1995, 380‒397.
Apologists and apologetics in the second century 3
of the many religions, such as the Jewish religion, were ethnically defined.
But the spectrum also encompassed a large number of different mystery reli-
gions, redemption religions with their own religiosity and piety. All of these
religions, some of which were Eastern in origin, were not only accepted, they
could be completely identified with Roman and Greek religious ideas and
hence be integrated (interpretatio graeca/romana) – leading not only to identifi-
cation but also harmonisation of the differences. Early Christianity cut itself
off from these trends and the possibility of integration due to its claim of
soteriological absoluteness.
This claim, which is evident in the earliest Christian texts, was main-
tained and even intensified by the second century apologists. Even Justin
Martyr, the author of two of the most important apologies of the second
century – who strove in many ways to connect with pagan thoughts and
forms of expression – firmly maintained that conversion to Christian faith
was the only way to achieve salvation. Rejecting all polytheistic tenden-
cies, and drawing on the monotheistic trends that existed in broad circles of
contemporary philosophy, he and the other second century apologists for-
mulated their teaching as follows: Salvation has come to all people only in
Jesus Christ, who appeared in time and history, and not in a mythos outside
of time and space. All monotheistic, philosophical endeavours are encom-
passed and fulfilled (and ultimately conquered) in faith in the Christian
God and his Logos, who became man in time and history. To the extent
that Christianity builds upon the many models of pagan philosophy, it is
the only true philosophy. This also applies to Judaism, the root from which
Christian religion has grown. In relation to Judaism, Christians also see
their religion as the only means of salvation. The intensity of the convic-
tion of early Christians that salvation is only available to all people in Jesus
Christ is evident from the martyrdom of many of them.
The contemporary religious world perceived this claim of absoluteness
as unprecedented – Celsus, who criticised Christianity in the late second
century, and Caecilius, the pagan interlocutor in Minucius Felix‘s Octavius,
attack it again and again.3 Christianity sprang up in a context where it was
not only incomprehensible but also unacceptable for a religion or cult to
make a claim of absoluteness. The early Christians were therefore a source
of amazement. It is even more surprising how consistently they maintained
this claim. Within early Christianity, this claim of absoluteness appears to
never have been disputed. By adhering to it throughout all the apologetic
attempts to develop a communication culture with the contemporary reli-
gious and philosophical world, Christians hampered their entry into the
Hellenistic religious world of antiquity, yet also protected themselves from
being subordinated to one voice among many in the religious pluralism of
3 For Celsus’ criticism of Christianity and Origen’s response, see R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Ja-
cobsen (eds.), Perspektiver på Origenes’ Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004; for Minucius Felix’
dialogue, see Svend Erik Mathiasen‘s contribution in this anthology.
4 Jörg Ulrich
the day. Against all the attempts to portray Christianity as fantasy and su-
perstition with possible atheistic overtones, or to subordinate it as an inferior
salvation teaching of oriental origins, among other salvation religions in the
religious pluralism and syncretism of the day, the Christian claim of abso-
luteness placed them on the religious and ideological offensive in relation to
incorporation of contemporary intellectual currents. This is the essence of
the peculiarity and the provocation with which the new religion appeared
in its contemporary context. They abruptly claimed, sidelining Judaism in
the process, that salvation had appeared to all people through the historical
Jesus of Nazareth (nothing more than a condemned criminal in the eyes of a
Roman like Tacitus) – and only in him! Christianity not only rejected all oth-
er religious options as demonic, but also (in contrast to Judaism) pushed for
the conversion of all people to this Jesus, thus introducing a basic religious
intolerance. For the people of antiquity this was simply unprecedented.
Christianity consistently refused to be a part of the basic pluralistic culture.
It did not take its place as a redemption religion alongside the many others,
which would not only have been possible, but also acceptable to the outside
world. Since Christianity refused to be a part of the religious pluralism from
the outset, the outside world also rejected Christianity.
1.2. Perceptions of early Christians within Roman society
The surrounding Roman-Hellenistic society only became gradually aware
of Christianity and with some delay. In the beginning the movement was
so small and insignificant that hardly anyone was interested in it. This only
changed late in the first century as Christianity achieved such momentum
through its increasing number of adherents that it could no longer be ignored.
At the time of Emperor Claudius, there was clearly no official distinction as
yet between Jews and Christians. Claudius ejected all the Jews from Rome in
an edict some time after 40 AD, and this eviction also impacted on Christians
(Acts 18:2). Christianity was only recognized as an independent religion by
Roman society in the second half of the first century4. It was initially seen
as one of the countless Jewish sects. Then, followed the no less surprising
acknowledgement that Christians were followers of a person who was cru-
cified in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. Commenting on Emperor Nero‘s
persecution of the Christians in Rome in 64 AD, Tacitus5 recounts that they
were called chrestians (the virtuous), a misunderstanding resulting from
similarity between the Greek word χρηστοί (virtuous) and χριστοί (annoint-
ed). Pliny, the imperial legate in Bithynia, found no evidence of crime in the
early second century among Christians he had interrogated in connection
with certain Christian proceedings. He was much more surprised by their
naiveté. In his view, the Christians‘ convictions were an expression of a mad
4 See Wilken, 1984.

5 Tac., Ann. 15.44,2‒5.
and overblown superstition (superstitio).6 This view was shared by other pa-
gan authors such as Suetonius and Tacitus.
Christians‘ reticence to participate in the normal social fellowship of
Roman society had a different reception. Pliny had already used the word
haeteria,7 to describe Christian unsociability. This is probably best translated
as “political club” or “society”. However, the Christian word ἐκκλησία does
not appear in the early accounts of Christians by outsiders. Using the word
haeteria suggests a suspicion of subversive political activity. These Christian
societies were generally limited to a given region, location-bound and rel-
atively small, but the rumours ran ahead of them, so that they were made
responsible for unrest and division in the towns. Their large numbers and
incomprehensible differences led to them quickly being perceived as polit-
ically suspicious, and the Roman state did everything possible to monitor
them and limit their influence, and most of all, to prevent establishment of
new “societies”. This was a contributing factor to the Romans‘ reserved and
suspicious attitude towards Christians. To pagan observers, Christianity had
the appearance of an unknown, secret sect, relatively innocuous, but unpre-
dictable and therefore feared.
With respect to the actual practices of the Christian religion, interest and
therefore knowledge, was fairly limited. Following his interrogations as gov-
ernor, Pliny stated that the Christians gathered early in the morning, sang
a hymn to Christ as a god, and bound themselves by oath to live according
to certain ethical rules.8 It was only later that pagan authors became more
informed, not least because the early Christian authors increasingly strove
to publicly explain what took place during the Christian service, in order to
present an account but also to counter the persistent and widespread impres-
sion that they represented a secret political society which lived in a supersti-
tious/naive fantasy world.
1.3. The legal status of Christians in the pre-Constantine Roman empire
In a nutshell, the legal status of Christians in the Roman Empire was such
that simply being a Christian, nomen ipsum, without any evidence of a specific
punishable offence, was prohibited under threat of the death penalty. The
accused was sentenced and executed immediately after the legal proceed-
ings in which the Christian confessed to belonging to Christianity. This legal
position is spelled out in the letter mentioned above from Pliny, Governor of
Bithynia, to Emperor Trajan (10.96), and in the imperial rescript from the early
second century. We are justified in assuming that this legal position must
have applied in essence from an earlier date, given that Pliny makes reference
to earlier Christian proceedings. We also know that this legal position must
6 Plin., Ep. 10.96,8. For another interpretation, see J. Engberg‘s contribution in this anthology,
“Condemnation, criticism and astonishment”.
7 Plin., Ep. 10.96,7.
8 Plin., Ep. 10.96,7.
6 Jörg Ulrich
have persisted until the Edict of Galerius in 311 AD, as the procedure we can
reconstruct from the various accounts of martyrdom and other sources up
until the end of the third century is generally very similar to the procedure
Pliny outlines. The explicit Christian persecutions under Decius (249‒251),
Valerian (257‒259) and Diocletian (303‒311), during which the emperors in
question actively turned against the church and took the initiative to perse-
cute Christians, were a deviation from this general situation.
It is apparent from the correspondence mentioned above that Pliny re-
sponded to the reporting of Christians notified to him. The procedure he
followed was such that he repeatedly asked the accused if they really were
Christian. If the accused repeatedly answered the question in the affirma-
tive, the death sentence was passed and execution followed. In cases where
the accused denied that they were Christian, a procedure to demonstrate
innocence was followed whereby the accused had to curse Christ and pres-
ent offerings to the gods and to the image of the emperor to achieve lib-
eration. The procedure outlined by Pliny was affirmed as authoritative in
Emperor Trajan‘s rescript,9 although modified on three points: Pliny should
not take the initiative to track down Christians but only respond to charges
raised, he should not respond to charges raised anonymously, and Trajan
did not explicitly demand cultic worship of his image by the accused in
order to “demonstrate” innocence.
The Christian apologists do not refrain from pointing out the curiosity,
which defies any sense of justice, that an action punishable by death – con-
fessing Christ – is not rooted out by the authorities, despite the fact that they
consistently condemn it when others raise the charge and the accused con-
fesses. Tertullian calls it a paradox that the absence of any active hunt demon-
strates the innocence of the Christians (Apol. 2.8), while their condemnation
during legal proceedings requires that Christians be seen as guilty.
Historical reconstruction of the approach taken in proceedings against
Christians in no way answers the question as to why their legal position was
such. Unfortunately the sources provide no clear reason. Different factors may
have played a role. Various aspects have already been discussed.10 The charge
of superstitio appears in the texts again and again. This refers to an incoher-
ent mixture of bizarre notions and superstitious ideas, as well as signifying
opposition to the Roman religio. The fact that Christians did not participate
in the cult of the Roman gods due to their superstitio could be perceived as
undermining society, given that the welfare of the state and population (salus
publica) in the eyes of the Romans depended on everyone participating in the
public worship of the gods (and participation in several of the many cults
within the Roman Empire was no obstacle to this). The above-mentioned
denigrations of Christians which circulated may have created an atmosphere
9 Plin., Ep. 10.97.

10 See above under section 1.2.
of latent and open hostility towards them, which in turn provided a mental
foundation for legal sanctions against Christians. Experience with Judaism,
which had achieved a certain level of tolerance with its status as religio licita,
yet which had again and again launched opposition against the Roman occu-
pation, may have led to another religion with roots in Judaism being seen as
equally dangerous, making it desirable to suppress this by all means possible.
The nonconformity of the Christians, which was perceived as misanthropy,
may have created the attitude evident, for example, in places in Tacitus‘ writ-
ings, that no-one had compassion for these people when they were disposed
of. A newly formed religion with a claim of soteriological absoluteness must
have seemed fundamentally strange and repulsive. Despite claims to the con-
trary in modern literature, the fact that Christians refused to participate in
the cult of the emperor due to their religious convictions played a relatively
minor role among all these factors, given that this cult is not mentioned in
Trajan‘s rescript and its place within the self-identification of the Roman Em-
pire has been overstated. In any case, it is not possible to find a precise reason
for the fact that, at least from the beginning of the second century, any Chris-
tian who was formally charged as such and who confessed, was condemned
to the death penalty – there may have been many different factors which led
to this legal situation. Whatever the circumstances, it gave the early Christian
apologists an important task: to draw attention to this legal situation, demon-
strate its absurdity, and work towards changing it.
2. The beginnings and conditions of early Christian apologetics
2.1. The concepts of apologetics and apology

The noun ἀπολογία and verb ἀπολογεῖσθαι relate in the classical Greek con-
text to the legal defence speech. According to the rules of rhetoric in antiquity,
ἀπολογία is the forensic counterpart to κατηγορία, the prosecution speech.
The earliest known example of such an apologetic legal speech was by An-
tiphon of Rhamnus, a rhetoric teacher, and dates from the fifth century BC.
He wrote speeches to be used in court by the accused, through which they
could demonstrate their innocence and highlight their integrity. Christian
apology is related to this form of ancient defence speech. Given the exist-
ing legal practice in relation to Christian prosecutions, unlike their classic
forebears, these speeches were not held in court. Accused Christians were
not permitted to provide a thorough defence, but simply required to answer
yes or no to the charge of being Christian. The “Sitz im Leben” for Christian
apologies was therefore different from that of the classic defence speeches.
This may explain why the early Christian apologists probably did not refer
to their texts as apologies, but chose other genre labels such as letter, objec-
tion, application or petition. The first proven use of “apology” with Christian
connotations was in the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesarea, who used
8 Jörg Ulrich
it as a collective description for early texts defending Christianity.11 Howev-

er, this does not detract from the parallels in structure and content between
the Christian defensive works and their pagan and Jewish forbears. Themes
and structures from the classic defence speech were brought back into play
in early Christianity. Alongside the defensive contestation of the accusations
raised, the more offensive component – the positive presentation of one‘s con-
victions – was always included in the early Christian “apologies”. Despite
their diversity, the Christian apologies thus demonstrate their dependence in
this respect also on the original derivation of the concept and phenomenon.
2.2. The pagan and Jewish roots of early Christian apologetics
Christianity was not the first religion in history to have to ward off exter-
nal attack, and Christians were not the first people to face the challenge
of having to defend themselves. Early Christian apologetics has manifold
pagan and Jewish roots. The first works of the early Christian apologists
were nurtured from these roots, without thereby losing their ideological
and conceptual independence.
Socrates’ defence speech by Plato would, without doubt, have to be seen
as the most important of the pagan roots of early Christian apologetics. Jus-
tin Martyr has followed this prototype fairly closely in the structure of his
apology12. The connection to Plato‘s text is less rigid in other early Christian
apologists, but still evident. As was the case in Socrates’ defence speech, the
Christian apologists could also transcend the forensic bounds of the genre
and present their position both defensively and offensively. The ideas ex-
pressed in the text and the fate of the Socrates character provided ample
connections to the early Christians‘ teaching and situation. So much so that
Socrates was essentially viewed as a “Christian before Christ” by some apol-
ogists (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria). There were numerous points of
identification. Like Socrates, Christians were charged with godlessness. Like
Socrates, they attempted to make their convictions plausible to their accusers.
Like Socrates, they saw themselves as representatives of true wisdom, and
were ready to die for their convictions. It was therefore natural for Christian
apologists to draw on the arguments that could be extracted from his famous
defence speech when arguing their own case. The high esteem in which the
figure of Socrates was held by the contemporary pagan world naturally led
the Christians to hope that their parallel arguments and justifications would
strike a chord among the educated.
Yet Christianity could also draw on the rich Jewish apologetic tradition
in its attempts at spiritual-literary self defence.13 Jewish apologetics had de-
veloped since the second century BC in reaction to widespread anti-Jewish
11 Eus., h.e. 4.8,3 and 17.1, cf. Marie Gregers Verdoner‘s contribution in this anthology.
12 J.-C. Fredouille, De l´Apologie de Socrate aux Apologies de Justin, in: J. Granarolo (ed.), Hommage
à R. Braun, vol. 2, Nizza 1990, 1‒22.
13 See J. Hyldahl / A.K. Petersen (eds.), Perspektiver på jødisk apologetik, Copenhagen 2006.
pagan polemic, in which the Jews were accused above all of misanthropy
and atheism – precisely the two key charges facing early Christianity two
centuries later.
Like its ancient pagan forebears, Jewish apologetics had also expanded
the defence of its own case to include a provocative/proselytising presenta-
tion. The Jewish Letter of Aristeas from the late second century BC is an exam-
ple of an impressive attempt, through allegorical interpretation of the Torah,
to present the actual intent of the Old Testament law to pagan readers and
thereby answer their concerns about the Jewish writings. The works by the
great Jewish philosopher and exegete, Philo of Alexandria, written in the first
half of the first century BC, also attempt to weaken the pagan criticism of
the Jewish Bible. To this end, he wrote interpretations of biblical texts aimed
at drawing out their figurative and hence more interesting meaning for
non-Jewish readers. This characteristic allegorical exegesis by Philo of Alex-
andria had a major influence on the way Christians used the Old Testament.
Yet the most important Jewish model for Christian apologies is without
doubt the texts by Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote in the second
half of the first century. Above all, Josephus’ Contra Apionem defence speech
contained many elements which also characterised Christian apologetics.
In addition to answering similar charges of atheism, misanthropy and dis-
loyalty, it also contained positive argumentation, for example, by appealing
to the antiquity of Judaism and hence its precedence over Greek traditions.
This provided the early Christians with a complete arsenal of arguments
which could be applied to their own cause with only minor Christian adap-
tation and reformulation.
These works authored by Jews with apologetic intentions were preserved
exclusively by Christians, and this is the only reason they have survived to
modern times. It was easy for Christians to adapt the arguments of the Jewish
apologists to their own purposes. As a result of the simple adoption of the
thoughts and texts of Philo and Josephus, later Christian generations have
viewed these Jewish thinkers as fellow believers.
2.3. The first traces of early Christian apologetics
The first traces of early Christian apologetics lead back to the texts which
eventually became part of the New Testament canon, in the process of Chris-
tianity’s formation and self identification. The Lucan and Pauline writings
are key in this regard. The verb ἀπολογεῖσθαι is used ten times and the noun
ἀπολογία is used seven times by the two authors. The term has had a double
meaning from the outset, referring to defence against outside attack (Acts 24:10;
25:8), while also hinting at evangelistic preaching of Christian faith (Acts 22:1,
26:1‒2; Phil 1:7,16; 2 Tim 4:16‒17). The basic elements of the later apologists and
the arguments in their works are already present in the Pauline speeches in
Acts, as presented by Luke. The speech in Lystra (Acts 14:11‒17) focuses on
rejection of the pagan belief in many gods, and the possibility for a general
10 Jörg Ulrich
acknowledgement of God, which is open to all people and has been perfected
through the revelation of the gospel. The elements of polemic against those
who definitively reject the message, reaching out to those who might poten-
tially join them, and emphasising what is unique about the gospel, are all
closely linked. Paul’s speech in Athens (Acts 17:22‒31), which contains the
program for the later Greek apologetics in nuce, contains several basic features
of early Christian apologetics woven together in an even more complex form.
With the aim of spreading his own message, Paul seeks to find points of con-
nection with the religious thoughts and forms of expression of his hearers.
He uses these points of connection in two ways. Firstly, he seeks to assimilate
the ancient ways of communicating religion and reshape and integrate them
with the Christian perspective (hence his comment on the altar inscription
regarding the unknown god, Acts 17:23). Secondly, he seeks to find parallels
with Christian thought within pagan culture and use these in his argument
(hence the quote from the Stoic poet, Aratus’ Phaenomena, Acts 17:28). This is
connected with open polemic against the pagan cult (Acts 17:24) and against
idol worship (Acts 17:29). The apologetic approach has thus in no way been
limited to defence since the earliest Christian times. From the outset it has
contained elements of critique of paganism and evangelism aimed at win-
ning new people over to the Christian faith. The arguments were claimed
expressly to be true and reasonable (Acts 26:24‒25). Naturally, the external
threat against early Christians from a hostile pagan world sometimes set
limits on their endeavours to win new fellow believers. Peter’s first epistle
contains the only New Testament use of the word ἀπολογία outside the Lu-
can-Pauline corpus. He called on the congregation, which was under attack,
to give an account (ἀπολογία) to anyone who wanted to know a sensible rea-
son (λόγος) for the Christian hope (1 Pet 3:15). The passage clearly shows the
close connection between apologetics and the sense of reason it capitalises on,
as was also typical in later Christian apologetics. The focus of his exhortation
is to give an account of oneself with gentleness and piety. Polemic gives way
to cautious everyday encounters. Both the defensive and evangelistic impetus
was to be expressed in the example of a blameless life (1 Pet 2:13‒17; 3:8‒10),
rather than through the convincing arguments which were born of the free
interplay between polemic and apologetics.
The recorded reactions to these first forms of Christian apologetics were
varying. Paul’s speech on the Areopagos in Athens appears to have been
met with wonder and amusement by many. Some showed mild interest in
learning more (Acts 17:32), while the speech appears to have had the de-
sired evangelistic effect on yet others (Acts 17:34). However, given the Lucan
ideal which underlies Acts, one should be cautious about assuming a great
evangelistic success from such apologetics. Some direct opposition arose
in response to the early Christians’ defensive/provocative activities, from
both Jews and pagans, as can be seen in Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 7:1‒60)
and Festus’ and Agrippa’s reaction to Paul’s speeches (Acts 26:2‒23). The
Jews reacted to perceived blasphemy against Moses and God in Stephen’s

speech. The pagans saw the teachings as “madness” and incomprehensible
nonsense. These first apologetic endeavours do not appear to have had the
desired mitigating effect on the early Christian persecutions, which would
soon also have a legal foundation.
3. Apologists and apologetics in the second century

The term “apologist” refers to any second century author who focused on
the defensive/provocative presentation of the Christian faith and promoted
this through written works in various genres (apologies, speeches, dialogues,
etc.). However, the term “apology” refers to works of a particular literary gen-
re which were first isolated, collected and given this appellation in the fourth
century by Eusebius of Caesarea.14 These works by Quadratus, Aristides, Jus-
tin Martyr, Melito, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Miltiades, Athenagoras and Ter-
tullian all had the common feature of being addressed to Roman emperors,
provincial officials or the Roman senate. In their literary form they resemble
petitions. They raise a specific matter, make reference to specific legal prac-
tice and attempt to influence the addressee (emperor or official) through de-
tailed arguments, following set formal guidelines to a certain extent, with the
aim of seeing their petition granted. We do not know if any of these apologies
were actually formally treated as petitions by the imperial chancellery (or
by provincial officials). In any case, the demands/petitions in the apologies
do not appear to have been granted on any occasion. It is clearly apparent
that the attempts to refute the accusations raised against Christians and the
arguments presented for the Christian faith were structured in a way that
corresponds to the major respected classical forerunner – Socrates’ defence
speech. Irrespective of how successful this ambitious enterprise is judged to
have been, the general alignment with this famous prototype made it pos-
sible to appeal to the emperor’s perception of himself as a philosopher (An-
toninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius) and hence attract interest in the presented
material. It is therefore easy to see why Christians did not primarily focus
on furthering their apologetic endeavours using the apologetic literary form
following the death of the Stoic “philosopher emperor”, Marcus Aurelius, but
turned instead to other genres. Tertullian’s Apologeticum and Ad Scapulam,
written around the end of the second century, were exceptions to this rule.15
As a result, the circle of early apologists should be viewed as those who
authored apologies in the second century and early third century. Early Chris-
tian apologetics grew from the roots of Christian apologetics in the time of
Christianity’s infancy, but developed this to have a more fundamental char-
acter. When intellectual non-Christians (such as Fronto, Lucian of Samosata
and Celsus) increasingly took a critical stance towards Christianity due to the
14 Eus., h.e. 4.8,3; 17.1; 26.1 etc.

15 See Nils Willert‘s contribution in this anthology.
12 Jörg Ulrich
growing number of Christians and its rising significance, the apologists had
to respond to their questions and objections by carefully presenting and jus-
tifying the merits of the faith and the good example of Christian morals. They
therefore repudiated the accusations and launched a counter attack against
their pagan critics and their positions. However, their primary focus was to
promote their own faith, which they attempted to present as the only true
philosophy (in line with the claim of absoluteness discussed earlier), while
appealing to the Greek philosophical traditions.
One of the early apologists was Quadratus, who is presumed to have lived
in Asia Minor and who wrote an apology to Emperor Hadrian which Eusebi-
us recounts (Eus., h.e. 4.3,1). This apology has only survived in fragments. The
Athenian philosopher, Aristides, also authored an apology addressed to Em-
peror Hadrian (Eus., h.e. 4.3,3), which has survived in its entirety in a Syriac
translation.16 Aristides contrasted three races – barbarians, Greeks and Jews
– whose religions were inadequate, against the fourth race – the Christians –
whose religion possessed the right divine perception and a morality which
was superior to all the others. Aristo of Pella wrote an apologetic style discus-
sion with Judaism in around 140 AD – a dialogue between Jason and Papiscus
regarding Christ.17 Miltiades, a rhetorician who lived in Asia Minor, wrote
his apologetic works in the time of Marcus Aurelius. He wrote two books
against the pagans, and may have written against the Jews.18 Fragments have
survived of a defensive work written by Miltiades against worldly rulers.
Apollinaris of Hierapolis also wrote apologetic texts during the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, some addressed to Jews and Greeks, and one addressed to
the Emperor himself.19 The petition that the Athenian philosopher Athena-
goras wrote to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus for the cause of the Chris-
tians has been preserved.20 It refutes the charge of atheism, which was raised
against Christians, and presents Christian faith in the three persons of God
– Father, Son and Spirit – and the influence of Angels, to counter the charge.
It also expressly highlights the Christians’ exemplary morality. The work
on the resurrection from the dead attributed to Athenagoras is most likely
pseudepigraphical, though the work is also apologetic in nature and seeks to
defend an important basic Christian teaching against pagan criticism.
An apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius, authored by Bishop Melito of
Sardis has only survived in fragments. It appears to have had a major focus
on the beneficial relationship between the Christian church and the Roman
state, which also recieves salvation-historical relevance. Three books, To Au-
tolycus, written by Antiochian bishop Theophilus around 180 AD, have sur-
16 See Nils Arne Pedersen‘s contribution in this anthology.

17 Origen testifies to the existence of this text (Or., Cels., 4.52).
18 This work is only mentioned in a note by Eusebius (h.e. 5.17,5).
19 Eus., h.e. 4.27,1.
20 See the contribution by Anders-Christian Jacobsen to this anthology regarding this work.
vived.21 The works take the form of treatises in which Theophilus presents
the superiority of the Old Testament scriptures and Christian morality and
teaching over both Greek philosophy and pagan religion. The other works
by Theophilus are known by name (Against Marcion, Against Hermogenes) but
have not been preserved. The Letter to Diognetus from the late second century,
by an unknown author, has been preserved. It contains an apologetic pres-
entation of Christianity to Jews and pagans.22 Hermias’ work lampoons the
contradictions in the various philosophies regarding God, the world and the
human soul; picks up a popular theme from early Christian apologetics; and
expands it into a full treatise.
The Nag Hammadi texts also contain apologetic elements which have not
yet been fully appreciated in relation to the holistic perception of the phe-
nomenon of early Christian apologetics. Genuine apologetic material has also
been preserved in the pseudepigraphical apocryphal material from this time,
such as the Sermon of Peter, and Preaching of Peter.
Following this brief overview of early Christian apologetic works and ac-
tors, the content of the forms of thought and argument will now be outlined
systematically.
4. The themes and forms of argument of early Christian apologetics
4.1. The specific charges and the attempt to repudiate them

Specific charges against Christianity are repeatedly refuted in the apologetic
literature. These charges arise from the general popular mood and specific
pagan intellectuals, such as Fronto, Lucian of Samosata and Celsus, as men-
tioned above. Many of the charges have only survived indirectly via the apol-
ogists and are therefore difficult to attribute to a specific person. It also seems
justifiable to assume that many charges became clichés over time.
An important and oft-repeated charge is that of serious and persistent
ethical misconduct. The spectrum ranges from charges of ritual murder,
cannibalism, and cultic promiscuity to every conceivable sexual misdeed.
Some of these charges, such as that of cannibalism, may have arisen from
grossly distorted “knowledge” of Christian communion. The same applies
to the charge of orgies and drinking bouts which the Christians supposedly
organised. One could assume that the persistent charge of sexual libertin-
ism and incestuous relationships may have arisen from misunderstood in-
formation about Christian brotherly and sisterly love. However, there was
also an element of general suspicion towards foreign cults which had been
common since the famous Bacchanalia scandal in 186 BC. The texts show
that the charge against Christians of immorality appears to have persisted
21 See Jakob Engberg‘s contribution in this anthology, Theophilus.

22 See Anders Klostergaard Petersen‘s contribution in this anthology.
14 Jörg Ulrich
up until the Diocletian persecution in the early fourth century.23 One gets the
impression that the apologists were quite happy to address these charges, as
it gave them the opportunity to demonstrate the absurdity of other more seri-
ous charges. Such accusations also presented an opportunity for counter-at-
tack. While repudiating these charges, the apologists were able to strongly
criticise the Homeric pantheon and the entire mythological tradition, which
most non-Christian contemporaries were also very uneasy about in relation
to sexual morality, especially through the influence of Stoicism since early
imperial times.
Another charge directed at Christians focused on their presumed po-
tential for revolution. The Christian hope of Christ’s kingdom could easily
be misunderstood as the hope of establishing an earthly Christian kingdom,
which implied vanquishing the existing power and state structures – i.e. an
attack on the Roman Empire. Such suspicions were nurtured by the Romans’
experience with various Jewish revolts, such as the Jewish War and the Bar
Kochba revolt. To the pagan Romans, Christianity was simply one incompre-
hensible strand among the countless variations of Judaism, and must not only
have seemed suspicious, but also a potential threat to society due to its escha-
tology and apocalyptic forms of thought. It is repeatedly avowed in the sec-
ond century apologetic texts that Christ’s kingdom, which Christians were
waiting for, was not an earthly kingdom but a heavenly one, transcending all
time, and that Christians were loyal subjects who served the current Roman
authority in every respect. The strikingly high number of such assertions in
the surviving texts is enough to justify the conclusion that the charge that
early Christianity was a threat to society must have carried a lot of weight in
the late first and early second century.
The frequently raised charge that the Christians were atheists is linked
to the suspicion that they were disloyal to the state and society.24 Athenagoras
sees the charge of atheism as one of the key objections raised against Chris-
tians.25 He attempts to expose this as a malicious fabrication, and pleads for
imperial support. Given that the Romans perceived that the united worship
of the gods was a guarantee of public well-being, salus publica, the charge of
atheism against the Christians always implied a social element. This brand-
ed the Christians as dishonourable people, who put themselves outside the
religious and political fellowship due to their convictions. Their belief in the
one God and Jesus Christ, together with their denial of the Roman gods put
them in an unique position among the multifaceted Hellenistic religiousness
of the Roman Empire – a position which it seemed fitting to the Romans to
describe as atheism. The religious convictions of the early Christians led
23 Eus., h.e. 9.5,2.

24 N. Brox, Zum Vorwurf des Atheismus gegen die Alte Kirche, in: Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift
75 (1966), 244ff. and W. Palmer, Atheism, Apologetic and Negative Theology in the Greek Apolo-
gists of the Second Century, in: VigChr 37 (1983), 234ff.
25 Athenag., leg. 3.
them to categorically refuse to participate in the sacrifices to the gods which

took place throughout the Roman Empire,26 and to repudiate the ancient mys-
teries.27 However, the charge of atheism must not be reduced to the fact that
the Christians did not participate in the imperial worship of the gods or the
mysteries, or their denial that pagan gods existed. The charge of atheism also
meant that Christians could be grouped with “ungodly” thinkers such as
Epicurus, Theodore of Cyrene and Diagoras of Melos.28 These were all con-
sidered to be prominent and radical deniers of the gods in antiquity, and were
mocked, discredited and sometimes condemned and persecuted following
impiety proceedings. In other words, there was a precedent in the Roman
empire of punishing those who disdained the gods, even prior to the problem
of Christianity arising. The charge of atheism deliberately linked Christians
to a number of hated atheists from the past.
In order to be able to repudiate the charge of atheism, the apologists dis-
tanced themselves from all such variants of philosophical atheism, except
inasmuch as they assimilated its criticism of polytheism. They distanced
themselves expressly from ancient atheism, as expressed by Epicurus etc.,
while admitting that they refused to honour the false pagan gods and instead
followed the one true God and his Logos-Christ.
Another socio-political variant of the charge of atheism was the charge
of hostility towards the Roman tradition. This was a serious charge, as it po-
sitioned Christians from the outset outside Roman society and its inherited
culture and social fellowship. More specifically, Christians were accused of
disrupting the human fellowship and distancing themselves from the com-
mon values of the Roman Empire. The charge of novelty sometimes arises in
this connection also. Christianity was a religion which had only recently aris-
en, and could therefore not appeal to a long tradition like the Roman cult and
the social institutions of the Roman Empire. The reaction to this charge in
the apologetic literature is twofold. The authors attempt to discredit parts of
the Roman tradition, which they reject on moral and objective grounds. They
also attempt to demonstrate that Christianity was highly consistent with the
old traditional values, culminating in the classic argument from antiquity,
πρεσβύθτερον – κρεῖττόν, which the apologists used to emphasise Christian-
ity’s ancient status and counter the charge of novelty. Other important charg-
es in the context of pagan attacks on early Christianity were the charge of
stupidity, and the charge that Christians belonged to the social lower class.
Lucian of Samosata revels in the boundless simplicity of Christians in his
satire, The Death of Peregrinos.29 From Tertullian’s writings it is apparent that

27 E.g. Clem., prot. 2.23,1.
28 Min. Fel., Oct. 8.2.
29 See Jakob Engberg‘s contribution to this anthology, “Condemnation, Criticism and Asto-
nishment.”
16 Jörg Ulrich
Christians were depicted as worshipping a donkey.30 There is epigraphic evi-

dence of this fact in the famous mock crucifix from the Palatine Hill in Rome.31
Celsus, a late second century critic of Christianity claimed polemically that
being stupid, uneducated and under-age was an admission requirement of
Christianity, while educated and intelligent people were denied access to
the Christian religion. With respect to social origins and position, Christians
viewed the pagan criticism as contemptible. The focus was on slaves, minors,
dishonourable women, workers with low status and tradesmen. Celsus rid-
icules Christians for assigning the most unintelligent among their ranks to
teach children.32 Such a polemic is naturally prone to exaggeration, but the
charge that Christians had lower social and intellectual status could not be
denied. The apologists attempted to counter such claims by revealing Chris-
tianity’s philosophical and intellectual equality, even superiority. Tatian ex-
pressly points out that Christians of all ages and all origins take part in the
philosophical discussion of divine doctrine.33 The resolute willingness to face
martyrdom of many Christians, while also a source of fascination, was per-
ceived in many non-Christian circles as an expression of simplicity, madness
and obstinence. The apologists countered by presenting the willingness of
Christians to die as the result of a sensible decision, because participation in
God’s eternal kingdom had a higher value than preserving their earthly life,
which was going to end one day in any event.
The ultimate result of these charges and accusations against Christians
was that they were used as scapegoats for any accident in crisis situations.
Tertullian’s dictum summarises this fact in a stirring manner: If the Tiber rises
to the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky is rainless, if there is an
earthquake, a famine, a plague, immediately the cry arises, ‘The Christians to the
lion!’.34 This scapegoat phenomenon goes hand in hand with the charge of
atheism, as the “false” divine worship by Christians and their failure to par-
ticipate in the Roman cult could be viewed as a threat to the general welfare.
Their religious obstinacy could therefore actually be viewed as the cause of
the natural disasters.
Christianity also had to defend itself against similar charges from Juda-
ism, but the lines of discussion were different from those in the confrontation
with the pagans. Christianity and Judaism were perceived as being fairly close
by the society around them. Both had been relegated to an outsider position
and both were perceived as politically suspicious and foreign to the Roman
spirit to a certain degree. Unlike Christianity, Judaism’s status as a religio licita
30 Tert., Nat. 1.14,1.

31 See C.M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik, Freiburg 1917, 302.
32 Or., Cels. 3.55.
33 Tat., orat. 32.
34 Tert., Apol. 40.2, in Alexander Souter’s translation. – Q. Septimi Florentis Tertullliana Apol-
ogeticus. The text of Oehler, annotated with an introduction, by John E.B. Mayor. With a
translation by Alexander Souter, Cambridge 1917, 117.
provided legal protection against persecution, although Jewish insurrection

against Rome was still firmly, even brutally, put down whenever it arose. The
competition between synagogue and church also appears to have come to
expression in their respective controversies with the Roman state. Jewish par-
ticipation in the polemic against35 and persecution of36 Christians has been
proven beyond doubt. Conversely, Christians supported suppression of the
Jewish revolts and the political consequences, such as the prohibition to enter
Jerusalem, and used these conditions to their advantage in public debate.
However, in the direct Jewish-Christian controversy, more narrowly de-
fined theological questions played a key role, such as the question of whether
Jesus was the messiah, and whether the Mosaic law continued to apply. In
their debates with the Jews, Christians primarily defend themselves against
the charge of misunderstanding the holy scriptures – in that they consistently
understood the prophetic predictions as pointing towards salvation in Jesus
Christ. Support for Christianity based on Old Testament texts also played a
role in the Christian argumentation directed at pagan opponents, yet this
argumentation was much more intense in Christian apologetics targeting the
Jews, because one could assume recognition of the same holy scriptures as a
common base. The Christian apologists approached this controversy by at-
tempting to support the correctness of the Christian interpretation through
detailed exegetical argument, thereby rejecting the Jews’ charge of faulty un-
derstanding of the holy scriptures. Christian apologetics targeted at the Jews
therefore focused on the interpretation of scripture. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew is our most important source for this form of Christian
apologetics in the second century.
in the confrontation with pagans
The aim of the apologists was to establish the Christian faith as a legitimate
religio in the Ciceronian sense, and present it as a sensible religion or philoso-
phy, while repudiating the charge of superstitio. A whole arsenal of argument
patterns and debate strategies were used to this end, the most important of
which will now be reviewed.
The argument from antiquity played a key role. It was adopted from the
Jewish apologetic repertoire and reformulated to fit the Christian context.
This was done most elaborately by Theophilus of Antioch, but also repeatedly
by others as well. The Christian faith, it was claimed, is based on Moses, who
is older not only than all the important philosophers, but even Homer him-
self. The Christian faith is therefore actually the genuine “primeval religion”
which all philosophical monotheism is dependent on, and which Christian-
ity has preserved and fulfilled in the purist sense. Possible and actual over-
laps between Greek philosophy and the ancient Christian/Mosaic tradition
35 Tert., Nat. 1.14,2.

36 Eus., h.e. 4.15,29; Tert., Scorp. 10.
18 Jörg Ulrich
are actually the result of “theft” by the Greeks. The Greeks had discovered
and adopted the most convincing philosophical teaching from Moses, and
presented it, erroneously, as their own invention. The Christian apologists
even attempted to demonstrate the antiquity of Christianity in relation to the
Jews, emphasising that Christianity’s freedom from law means it can not only
claim a link to Moses, but also to the pre-Mosaic, law-free patriarchs, such as
Abraham, and has hence descended from them. It was an uncontested prin-
ciple in antiquity that anything older was generally better, and this is what
the apologists’ appeal to antiquity was founded upon. It also allowed them
to claim that their own religion was venerable, and to refute the charge of
novelty which was raised against them.
A complete logos-theological variant of the appeal to antiquity was the
view that the divine Logos had worked not only in the beginning at the crea-
tion of the world, but also later in world history, for example through revela-
tions, and that the Logos had even given people a part of itself in the form of a
divine seed. According to this view, long before the Logos’ perfect revelation
and incarnation in the person of Jesus, certain people in the Jewish and Greek
traditions had won recognition (i.e. gnosis), which had fallen to them either
through the Logos itself, or through exposition of the portion of Logos they
exhibited. This special degree of knowledge manifested, for example, in the
recognition of monotheism, the criticism of polytheism, the recognition of
the immortality of the soul, and many other points. The Christian faith was
thereby connected very closely with philosophical monotheism. Socrates and
Plato, in particular, could be presented as forerunners of the Christian faith,
since they had at least partially recognised the Logos. The Logos-doctrine
of Christianity therefore became a kind of anachronistic hermeneutic for ac-
knowledging and arrogating the truth of earlier ages, which the apologists
could appeal to in their citation of ancient precedents to Christianity.
The apologists also attempted to prove the divine power with which both
Jesus and the apostles were filled by appealing to miracles. The miracles of
Jesus and the apostles can be traced back to a supernatural, divine causality,
and serve as evidence of God’s existence and providence, as well as of Jesus’
divinity. This brought Christianity into direct competition with various pa-
gan cults which also attributed miraculous events to their respective salva-
tion gods, such as the cult of Aesculapius.37 The insistence of the apologists on
the magnitude and uniqueness of Jesus’ miracles must have been noticed by
the pagan participants in the debate, as we have surviving responses where
opponents of Christianity make fun of Jesus’ miracles and seek to trivialise
them as a diversion tactic. For the pagan critic, Lucian of Samosata, this is one
reason why Christianity is religious folly.
There was even lively debate about the genuineness and legitimacy of
miracles among the various strands of Christianity. For example, Justin Mar-
37 Just., 1 apol. 22.6.

tyr polemicizes Simon Magus and Menander, who had presented themselves
as gods through the use of magic tricks, and had encouraged people to wor-
ship them.38 The “orthodox” apologists attempted to discredit the wonders
which other Christian groups appealed to as delusions performed under the
influence of demons. In the context of the apologists’ appeal to miracles, we
therefore see a regular battle with respect to what can be viewed as true,
genuine, miracles performed by God, in contrast to the presumed false, mis-
leading, diversion tactics effected by demons.
Proof of the truth of Christianity based on the exemplary and virtuous
lives of Christians is also given a high position in second century apologet-
ics. The Christians’ higher standard of ethics is emphasised repeatedly. The
classic ancient perception of the steadfast link between philosophical in-
sight and way of life made it possible to argue backwards to the legitimacy
of their religion from the Christians’ way of life. The Christians’ ethical cri-
teria were completely compatible in this respect with the criteria for Stoic or
Middle Platonic philosophy. The argument of the apologists thus appealed
to the Christian way of life as morally superior to that of non-Christians.
The general agreement on high ethical standards in the second century was
a critical factor in Christian identity development. This self-perception gave
the Christians an irrefutable argument which the apologists repeatedly pre-
sented in their works.39
The battery of arguments also included proof from prediction, through
which the apologists attempted to prove fulfilment of the Old Testament
prophecies in the person and life of Jesus. Many apologetic texts interpret
prophetic passages as if their predictions came to pass in Jesus’ activities.
This line of attack also played a key role in apologetic arguments directed
at pagan opponents, even though it was not possible to appeal to a common
base in the form of mutually recognized holy scriptures, as was the case in
the Christian controversies with the Jews. However, the apologists must have
felt that this method of verifying fulfilment of written prophecies fixed in the
distant past in the specific accounts of Jesus, would sway their addressees, as
they repeatedly utilise this approach.
Historical proof also played a role in the apologetic argument battery,
whereby the apologists attempted to present the temporal and hence ideolog-
ical overlap between Christianity and the Roman Empire – in that Christian-
ity arose at the same time as the Roman Empire. This idea of a salvation-his-
tory parallelism between the rise of the church and the golden age of the
Roman Empire since the time of Augustus is expressed in the second half of
the second century by Melito of Sardis, but the foundation is actually laid in
the gospel of Luke (Luke 2:1).
38 Just., 1 apol. 26.1‒4.

39 Diog. 5.
20 Jörg Ulrich

in the confrontation with Jews
The second century Christian apologists also attempted to prove the truth of
Christianity to the Jews. The argument from prophecy played a key role in
this respect. Historical proof was also used in the discussion,40 as Christians
exploited the political and military defeat of the Jews in their arguments. It
was argued that the destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish war had fall-
en on the Jews due to their mistreatment of God’s son. The decree prohibiting
Jews from entering Jerusalem, which was renamed Aelia Capitolina following
suppression of the Bar Kochba revolt, made it impossible to carry out im-
portant parts of the Jewish ceremonial law. The apologists believed that this
revealed the theological illegitimacy of the ceremonial law, and the legitima-
cy of law-free Christianity. However, it was problematic for the persecuted
church to exploit such arguments from history, and it was far more common
to utilise arguments based on the prophecies in the Jews’ Holy Scriptures,
which the church equally perceived as its legitimate inheritance. Yet there
were specific disputes regarding the interpretation of key passages in Moses
and the prophets. The Christians perceived all Old Testament angelic rev-
elations as logophanies, and all messianic prophecies as referring to Jesus
incarnation or return.41 The methodological basis for such an approach was
allegorical interpretation which Christians were familiar with from its use in
Jewish interpretation (e.g. by Philo of Alexandria), but Christians used it in
line with their own hermeneutic foundation – their Christology. The surviv-
ing texts exhibit a high intellectual vitality, showing engagement from both
sides in the battle for the “correct” understanding of the Holy Scriptures,
which was claimed by both Jews and Christians.
4.4. Polemic trends in early Christian apologetics
Early Christian apologetics also exhibit polemic characteristics, as the intent
of the apologists was to both defend Christianity and arouse interest in it. The
intensity of this polemic varies greatly across the relatively broad spectrum
of second century apologetics, but is basically always present. As the early
Christians defended and argued to support their own religion, they ques-
tioned the plausibility of the competing philosophical and religious alterna-
tives in order to make their own convictions appear more convincing.
4.4.1. Anti-pagan polemic
The apologetic writings targeting pagans often become polemic, as the charges
raised against Christians are thrown back on their opponents. As Christians
counter the charge of atheism, they turn it back on those who have raised it.
Those who do not believe in the one Christian God are atheistic, because the
40 Just., dial. 28.2: “I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and
the inculcation…”.
41 See my chapter on Justin Martyr in this volume.
simple fact that the worship of the gods assumes diverse forms in the various
regions and cultures is evidence that the same gods are not being worshipped
everywhere throughout the empire.42 Those who claim that the Christians are
undermining the public good can themselves be viewed as undermining the
public good because in persecuting Christians they are persecuting the best
and most loyal citizens of the Roman Empire. Those who persecute Chris-
tians to promote what they see as justice are themselves unjust because the
legal position they are defending is unjust through and through. Those who
are unable to acknowledge the common sense arguments in favour of Chris-
tianity are foolish. Rejection of the Christians is based on general stupidity,
characteristic of both pagans and Jews.43 Morality also plays a key role in the
anti-pagan polemic in apologetic literature. In contrast to the Christian way of
life, which is described as exemplary, the ethical reality in the Roman Empire
exhibits significant shortcomings. Justin Martyr polemicises against prostitu-
tion, which the state exploits through taxes to increase its income, and against
the exposure of infants, which clearly must have been common.44 Athena-
goras polemicises against gladiator games and animal contests.45 Charges of
sexual promiscuity, which we have seen were raised against Christians, were
turned against pagan opponents with reference to practices in some of the
mystery cults. The polemic against idols and associated “services” also plays
a key role.46 The pagan mythology also provides the apologists with plenty
of examples of moral and philosophical depravity to polemicise, such as the
exploits of the sons of Zeus. Even an apologist such as Justin Martyr, who par-
ticularly emphasised the overlaps between Christianity and the pagan tradi-
tions, criticises the fact that the Homeric myths were used in the education of
the youth and had a detrimental effect.47
All such polemic from the apologists should be understood in an
eschatological context in relation to the addressees. The counter charges the
polemic raises imply that those responsible will be held accountable after
their death at the eschatological judgement, if they do not change their atti-
tude and behaviour.
4.4.2. Anti-Jewish polemic
The anti-Jewish polemic in the early Christian apologetic works focuses on
the charge of a “false” understanding of the Holy Scriptures and an asso-
ciated superficial exegesis and shortsightedness. The key sticking point is
Christology, in that the Jews have not recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the
messiah, and as God’s son or Logos. The charge that Christians have incor-

43 Diog. 4.
44 Just., 1 apol. 27.1‒5.
47 Just., 1 apol. 21.4.
22 Jörg Ulrich
rectly understood the scriptures is countered with polemic against the Jewish
rituals – in particular those relating to eating regulations, the Sabbath and
circumcision. The strength of the polemic varies in intensity. Whereas Justin
Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew shows respect and a genuine interest
in the Jewish arguments—in particular the issue of exegesis—texts such as
the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Diogenes view Judaism as completely
foreign to Christianity. In such works, the presentation of Jewish religious
customs can take the form of pure caricature. Christians adopt the traditional
pagan anti-Jewish polemic of antiquity in these works without taking a gen-
uinely independent position towards Judaism. The undifferentiated adoption
of anti-Jewish pagan polemic by Christians may be apologetically motivat-
ed, as a common Christian-pagan perception of Judaism, and its rejection by
Christians, could facilitate agreement between Christians and pagans.
4.5. Early Christian apologetics and
contemporary pagan philosophy and religion
The assimilation of various contemporary forms of ancient philosophy was
a key characteristic of second century apologists. Many apologetic works
are religious philosophical discussions with a detailed presentation of the
Christian position and church life. Such a theological line of thought came
naturally to some apologists due to their background, as they had attended
various philosophical schools as part of their education prior to their con-
version to Christianity.48 In addition to the already widespread tendency
to lay claim to the topoi of popular philosophy, many apologists strive for
a synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity, in that they connect the texts of
the Old Testament and fledgling New Testament with Middle Platonism, as
well as elements of Stoic thought. The difference between pagan philosophy
and the Christian religion is never nullified, but some apologists focus on
the points of similarity while others emphasise the antithesis between bib-
lical revelation and Roman-Hellenistic thought, despite the philosophical
influences of their age upon them. While Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, and
particularly Clement of Alexandria49 accept philosophy fairly positively,
Tatian, and in the beginning of the third century, Tertullian, categorically
reject a theological-philosophical synthesis.
The core of the apologists’ argument in the second century is based
on the partial overlap between philosophy and Christian teaching. They
saw the contemporary philosophical endeavours as culminating and being
united in Christianity – in a unity which did not exist among the conflict-
ing philosophers. As such, the Christians laid claim to all the philosophical
declarations of truth, but Christianity was not fully expressed in the sum
of these truths – it went further, beyond them. This is because the Christian
48 The development narrative depicted in chapters 1‒9 of Justin Martyr‘s Dialogue is extreme-
ly typical, irrespective of the historicity of the details in the events outlined.
49 See Jesper Hyldahl‘s contribution to this anthology.
perception is based on revelation – on the Holy Scriptures, which have been

inspired by the divine Logos and used by the Greek philosophers, but only
fully understood by Christians.
The areas of agreement the apologists repeatedly sought to demonstrate
between Christianity and philosophy primarily relate to the issue of aware-
ness of the divine based on reason, and the right moral way of life. With
respect to the awareness of the divine, it quickly becomes clear that some of
the apologists focus on regular philosophical proofs, with roots going back
to Plato, which attempt to prove God’s existence using cosmological and tel-
eological arguments.50 This is also the background for the claim that aware-
ness of the divine can be achieved through reason, which is itself based on
Platonic thinking,51 whereby the opportunity to attain rational recognition
of the truth is only viewed as possible in extremely rare cases. The direct
influences of traditional and contemporary philosophy on Christian apol-
ogetic forms of thought can be seen in relation to statements about God’s
being and characteristics. The “negative” divine predicates the apologists
use to describe God as intangible, immortal, immutable, without passion
and transcendent have close analogies in the contemporary popular Pla-
tonic-Stoic philosophy. The perception that God himself is the standard for
moral good and warns of eternal punishment as a deterrent, while offering
an eternal reward to promote virtuous actions, is compatible with the ideas
of the philosophic tradition – although, as Justin Martyr points out, the ex-
pected punishments in Christianity are more draconian than those in the
Platonic tradition.52
The adoption of contemporary concepts in Christology is seen clearly
in the Christians’ assimilation and use of ‘Logos’, through which Jesus of
Nazareth, understood as God’s son, can be subordinated to God in a meta-
physical sense. The apologists found the concept of Logos in both the Pla-
tonic and Johannine traditions, as well as in Philo of Alexandria, and used it
constructively in Christology and teaching about God. With the help of the
Logos concept, Jesus of Nazareth could be understood as an intermediary
between God and the world, as “another God”, or a “God after God” – a
conception which allowed God’s absolute transcendence and his personal
influence in the world and in history to be harmonised. The well-known
Logos concept of the time helped make the Christians’ reverence for Jesus
as the exceptional carrier of revelation intelligible to the recipient. In this
respect, Jesus Christ is described as the divine Logos – God’s first work and
first creation – who came into being before time began and was involved
in the creation of the world. This allowed the apologists to emphasise dif-
ferent aspects of the relationship between God and the Logos in their var-
ious Christological explanations. While Athenagoras highlights the unity
50 Arist., apol. 1.
51 Athenag., leg. 6; Just. 2 apol. 10.6.
52 Just., 1 apol. 8.4.
24 Jörg Ulrich
between the Father and the Logos Son,53 Justin Martyr focuses on the dif-
ference between God and the Logos when he calls the Son “another God”.54
However, the two statements were not seen as contradictory because the
Middle Platonic mindset made the appearance of a mediator of God’s sub-
stance plausible – a mediator who bridged the infinite difference between
God and the world. Philosophical monotheism permitted a certain elastic-
ity in the conception of God, and it was possible within this framework for
the early apologists to take the first steps towards what later was extended
into a fully developed Christian doctrine of the Trinity. That the divine Log-
os, created by God, “was incarnated, became a man and was called Jesus
Christ”,55 is a specifically Christian teaching and cannot be derived from
the philosophical premises of the time. Following from this, the incarnated,
divine Logos, Jesus Christ, could also be understood as the embodiment of
divine authority and hence the teacher and guarantor of the truth. The fact
that both divinity and humanity were hence attributed to Jesus of Nazareth
began to lead to talk of the divine and human substance revealed in the per-
son of Christ among the apologists, although the formulation was not yet
fixed and no Christological terminology had been developed, as was later
the case during the fifth century Christological debates.
Like all the religions of their day, we also see among the apologists the
perception of a vibrant and active world of intermediate beings between
God and people, and heaven and earth. For Justin Martyr, angels belong
to the heavenly realm. For Tertullian, angels play a vital role in baptism.56
Conversely, the host of evil demons have attempted throughout world his-
tory to trap humans in their power and divert them from the true worship
of God, seducing them to do unrighteous acts, ultimately leading to their
eschatological judgement.
The moral teaching of the early Christian apologists is closely linked
to the statements in the Gospels about Jesus’ teaching, with a special em-
phasis on the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain,57 but also
features Platonic and Stoic elements. The tendency towards asceticism and
the emphasis on chastity and renouncing the world operate within the ba-
sic mindset of contemporary popular philosophy. The great contribution of
Christian citizens to the common good of the Roman Empire is emphasised
again and again. It is yet again of key importance that ethical requirements
are oriented towards common sense criteria which are in principle available
to all people. From this arises the apologists’ universal conception of free
will and human choice, and the idea of individual responsibility – which is

54 Just., dial. 56.
55 Just., 1 apol. 5.4.
56 Just., 1 apol. 6.2; Tert., Bapt. 4‒5.
57 Just., 1 apol. 13‒17.
the basis upon which people will be held accountable when the eschatolog-
ical judgement takes place.
Despite the apologetic eschatology also linked to explicit philosophi-
cal conceptions of the end times and judgement, such as the immortality of
the soul (Plato), judgement and reward (Plato and others) and world confla-
gration images (the Sibyllines, Hystaspes, Stoicism), an element of it which
was extremely foreign to contemporary philosophical thought had also won
widespread recognition in terms of the very controversial Christian teaching
of the bodily resurrection. The apologists accepted the philosophical tenet of
the immortality of the soul, which was easily adapted to Christian teachings,
yet also went beyond it. The apologists argued for the resurrection of the
body, not only by referring to the Holy Scriptures, but also through appeals to
common sense and by drawing on contemporary medical/biological insights
– possibly those developed by Galen the physician.58
Regarding the similarities between the religious ideas of the apologists
and the well-known conceptions of the mystery cults –some of the apologists
strove to draw comparisons in the hope of improving the appeal of Christian-
ity by noting the parallels in the practice of religion, as well as to “prove” the
superiority of Christianity by emphasising the differences. There are points
reminiscent of Christ as the healing God, the vine, and the baptiser in the cult
of Asclepius, the god of healing, and the cults of Dionysus and Mithras. In
the case of the latter two it was also necessary to resolutely distance Christi-
anity, as these cults did not have the best reputation in Roman society. Many
passages in the apologetic works include quotations from and draw compar-
isons with the mythological tradition, but with reservations. The apologists
attempted to highlight the overlaps between Christian doctrines and pagan
mythology, noting Jesus’ ascension and supernatural birth, for example. Yet
the myths regarding the sons of Zeus were viewed as an inferior and morally
problematic parallel to the story of Jesus Christ; and when used for education,
the mythological tradition also served to disorient and seduce the youth. This
aspect was attributed to demons, who seduce humans to do everything evil.
The theological legitimacy of the apologists’ attempts to present Chris-
tian doctrine in philosophical clothing was questioned repeatedly, and
opinion was already divided on this point from the time of the early Chris-
tian apologists, as can be seen, for example, in Tertullian’s criticism of any
synthesis between Christianity and Greek philosophy. In modern times,
the apologists have been accused of “Hellenising” Christianity, primarily
by Adolf von Harnack. Harnack’s accusation resumes a trend of criticism
which existed long before his time, especially within Protestantism.59 In re-
sponse to this tradition of condemnation, which ranges from being critical
to being directly negative, with reference to the modern debate and matters
58 Just., 1 apol. 19.1‒8; Athenag., res. 5‒7.

59 Cf. section 5 below.
26 Jörg Ulrich
of principle it would be more appropriate to say that: If the task of the-

ology is to express Christianity in the contemporary forms of thought of
any given social context, which the theologian also unavoidably belongs
to, one should recognize that the theological endeavours of the early Chris-
tian apologists were not only necessary, but also theologically legitimate,
meaningful and genuinely Christian, and hence avoid implicit or explicit
accusations of heresy.
5. Early Christian apologetics in history and in the present

The works of the authors which are today known as the early Christian
apologists were first published together in 1615 by F. Morel in Paris. The
publication covered genuine, questionable and pseudepigraphical works
by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian and Hermi-
as. J.C.T von Otto’s edition was published in the mid 19th century and is
still viewed as a classic apologist publication. It included fragments from
Quadratus, Aristides, Aristo of Pella, Miltiades, Melito and Apollinaris
of Hierapolis. This group of works and their authors have been known as
the “early Christian apologists” since that time. The “canonisation” which
basically took place with the publication of von Otto’s work was essential-
ly confirmed in 1914 in the edition by E.J. Goodspeed, which is the most
widely used to this day.60
The period from the 16th to the 19th century was in many ways a golden
age for apologetic writers, although efforts focused exclusively on distanc-
ing themselves from the early Christian apologists. The growth of modern
apologetics is linked to the gradual recognition starting in the late 16th cen-
tury that Christianity no longer fitted easily into the prevailing world view.
The most important task of this modern apologetics was to justify Chris-
tianity in the face of new scholarship – firstly science, and then philoso-
phy, which emancipated itself from theology. This broad effort includes the
apologetic work done by Pascal and Deisten, Schleiermacher’s program and
Kierkegaard’s thought, John Henry Newman and Ernst Troeltsch’s theology
and Paul Tillich’s work in the 20th century, to name just a few. However, re-
course to the early Christian apologetic works has at best played only a very
minor role in all these projects. One can, rather, observe a very reserved at-
titude to the apologetic endeavours of early Christianity, especially within
the Protestant world. This reservation is always based on the view that the
early Christian apologists have mixed theology of the Word with philoso-
phy in a way that is impermissible, an attitude which modern apologists
have frequently attempted to distance themselves from (not always to the
benefit of modern apologetics). A few prominent examples can illustrate
this multifaceted criticism of second century apologists by modern theolo-
gians. Gottfried Arnold, the radical pietist, says of Justin Martyr:
60 E.J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen, Göttingen 1984 (1914).
So findet man bey ihm einen feinen schmack von der ersten grav-
ität und lauterkeit, wiewol er manchmal neben anderen eigenen ged-
ancken auch aus der Philosophie etwas untermenget die ihm noch
von seiner heydnischen Wesen her anhinge.61
Enlightenment theologian, Johann Salomo Semler believed that the Platonic
way of thinking had been applied to Christian doctrines, particularly in
Egypt, as well as other regions, but only for “cultivated people”, and there
was no encouragement for general application or obligation. It is going too
far to say that this “learned packaging” has done significant harm to Chris-
tian teachings.62 Albrecht Ritschl accuses Justin Martyr of defending the
“adopted Paulinism” from the First Epistle of Clement. Through the gradual
mixture of philosophy with theology, “dogmatic theology” arises, which is
impermissible because it stands in opposition to biblical theology.63 Frie-
drich Loofs comments that the unique nature of the apologists’ theology
is due to the fact that their Christian faith is pulled down from its original
level, because it assumes the place held by philosophy prior to their conver-
sion. This lays the foundation for the fateful distortion of Christianity to a
revealed set of teachings.64 Karl Barth and early dialectical theology felt the
need to condemn in principle all forms of Christian apologetic:
Apologetik, Sorge um den Sieg der Heilsbotschaft, gibt es nicht. Sie
[die Heilsbotschaft] ist als Aufhebung und Begründung alles Gege-
benen der Sieg, der die Welt überwunden hat. Sie braucht nicht ver-
treten und getragen zu werden, sie vertritt und trägt die, die sie hören
und verkündigen.65
In contrast to these assessments, in recent times there have been attempts to
more carefully evaluate early Christian theologians, and renewed interest
in the thoughts and arguments of early Christian apologetics. In the area of
patristics and related archaeology, there has been an increasing tendency
over the last 20 years to publish thoroughgoing, foundational new litera-
ture for each text. This is evident in the countless publications, translations,
commentaries and research grants and projects. It is difficult at the present
time to predict what interest this work will eventually result in for the fields
of systematic and practical theology, although research projects like the one
initiated in Αarhus, Jews, Christians and pagans in antiquity – criticism and apol-
ogetics, are an important step along the path.
61 G. Arnold, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie. Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments biss
auff das Jahr Christi 1688, Frankfurt 1700, 56.
62 J.S. Semler, Versuch eines fruchtbaren Auszugs der Kirchengeschichte, Band 1: bis 1400, Halle
1773, 31ff.
63 A. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. Eine kirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche
Monographie, Bonn 21957, 298f.
64 F. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, Halle 41906, 114‒129.
65 K. Barth, Der Römerbrief, Zürich 121978, 11.
28 Jörg Ulrich
Given this pleasant new approach to the early Christian apologists, let us con-
clude by considering the issues the work is currently focusing on, or will fo-
cus on in the future – which fundamental questions exist at the moment, and
are being debated intensively in relation to the early Christian apologists? I
believe there are six viewpoints or basic issues:
The first I want to mention is the relationship between apologetics and
protreptic. It is clear and pertinent that προτρεπτικός λόγος is a special lit-
erary phenomenon with a long history prior to the arise of Christian texts of
this nature in the second and third century (Aristotle, Epicurus, Cleanthes
the Stoic, Chrysippos and others, Galen (Protreptikos for the Study of Medi-
cine), and naturally Cicero (Hortensius), and finally Clement of Alexandria
representing Christians). It is also clear that the same is true of the phenom-
enon of apology (for example Socrates’ defence speech and several other
apologies based upon this, including the Christian texts of this nature). I
therefore believe it has become more apparent of late that the convergences
between these two phenomena should be more strongly emphasised than
has previously been the case. Until recently, when perusing the research
into these phenomena, one was often left with the impression that they in-
volved two completely different things. This may be correct in terms of pure
phenomenology, but when one analyses the content it is becoming increas-
ingly clear that many apologies have strong protreptic elements, and many
protreptic texts have extensive apologetic elements. Put briefly: any promo-
tional text for a science, philosophy or religion also has the aim of defending
the object of promotion against existing or expected objections. Alongside
the goal of defending its cause, each apology has the equally high priority of
arousing interest. Justin Martyr’s First Apology can thus be read as a regular
prospectus for Christianity, or even as an evangelistic text. The emperor
addressed in the work is not only exhorted to stop the persecutions and
change the existing legal practice, it is also demonstrated that Christianity
is the “true philosophy” or religion. For Justin Martyr, accepting Christian-
ity is the completely logical consequence of any honest attempt to reach true
philosophy. In other words, apologetic and protreptic elements are woven
together. In the theoretical debate regarding early Christian apologetics one
could consider whether it is possible to describe and understand these in-
termediary and transitional layers more precisely, for example, on the basis
of literary/historical analyses.
The second issue to mention here is the ancient question of to whom Jus-
tin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, etc., were
addressing their apologetic endeavours. This question has been oriented
in various directions and new ways during the last decade. However, care
is needed. It would be nice to be able to provide clear and precise answers
regarding the addressees the apologists have in mind when writing their
texts, and to be able to use these to guide interpretation of the texts, yet I
have found it extremely difficult to focus on a single addressee group in
many of the works I am familiar with. In his book on Justin Martyr’s di-
alogue with Trypho,66 C.D. Allert emphatically argues that the dialogue is
addressing the Jews. He believes the text is an evangelistic work targeting
this group. This position has a lot going for it, but the focus is too narrow.
Naturally the dialogue with Trypho also contains many elements intend-
ed to explain the identity of Christianity (and the Christian perception of
the Old Testament), or which could conceivably serve as argumentation for
Christians who need to defend themselves against Jewish criticism and ob-
jections. Similar problems arise in relation to the apologies. Naturally Justin
Martyr’s first apology is primarily addressed to the Emperor, with the aim
of moving him to change the unjust and absurd legal position the Chris-
tians are confronted with. Yet the long passages comparing religious teach-
ings and interpreting parts of the Old Testament, and the sections on Jesus’
teachings and Christian church services, appear to be targeting a broader
audience than just Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and the imperial chan-
cellery. The work also has the aim of making other people aware of the
advantages of Christianity and the shortcomings of other religions and phi-
losophies, no doubt addressing the pagan intellectual environments which
observed the ancient traditions and participated in the traditional cults. The
apology also implies self-justification in relation to Christianity’s identity,
and hence also targets Christians in this respect.
This means we need to be careful about having a single focus on par-
ticular religious groups or even people as readers. The attempt to assign
the intention of the text to one specific addressee may also indicate a prob-
lematic theological retro-projection of later less ambiguous conditions onto
the earlier time. The better one appreciates how variegated the religious
world was in the second and third century; how fluid the transitions were
between philosophies, religions and cults; how eclectic they were in their
thinking; and how diverse the patterns of behaviour, observation and par-
ticipation appears to have been, the more it seems unreasonable to claim
that the apologetic works were directed exclusively at either “pagans”,
“Jews”, “Christians”, “Gnostics”, or “Asclepius worshippers”, etc. This does
not mean we should blur all the boundaries. Justin Martyr also talks about
“Jews” and “Christians”, so there were distinguishable collective identities.
But the transitional tendencies should be recognized as very virulent, and
this would suggest that we keep the boundaries open regarding the ques-
tion of the addressees.
The third issue relates to the “success” of the apologetic works. What
were the actual readers of these works, and what do we imagine their ef-
fects to have been? If we look alone at the issue of the Christians’ legal po-
sition in the Roman Empire, we have to conclude that neither Justin Martyr
66 C.D. Allert, Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation. Studies in Justin Martyr´s Dialogue with
Trypho, Leiden 2002.
30 Jörg Ulrich
nor Tertullian achieved anything by their works, since there was no change
until the Galerius edict in 311 AD. Yet despite both legal discrimination
and persecution, Christianity achieved incredible growth during the first
three centuries. It is questionable whether this was due primarily to the
apologists’ works – we know too little about how wide an audience showed
any interest in them. On the other hand, the apologetic texts were at least
noticed in the pagan world, and in some cases provoked responses, such
as the writings of Celsus and Porphyry and the fourth century work by
Hierocles, partially reconstructed by Eusebius and Lactantius, which all di-
rectly targeted Christians. Some arguments which the Christians have put
forward in their own defence are taken up in these works and “rebutted”.
This indicates that the authors of these anti-Christian works must have
been aware of the Christian forms of argument, and this can best be ex-
plained by awareness of the apologists’ works (for example, it can be shown
that Celsus very likely was aware of Justin Martyr’s works) – irrespective of
what kind of impression these Christian products made on them and how
much they respected them. Christian evangelism was thus very successful
during the first three centuries, and the apologists played a role in this pro-
cess, inasmuch as their texts kick-started the debate with Christianity in
certain intellectual, academic circles in the Roman Empire, thereby provok-
ing responses. The very fact that the apologetic works provoked these re-
sponses demonstrates that they must have had some level of success, as oth-
erwise such responses would have been unnecessary. On the other hand,
one should not imagine that the effect of this success was very great. The
astonishing evangelistic success of early Christianity was no doubt more
strongly borne by other factors. The relatively few surviving manuscripts
of most of the apologists’ works do not suggest widespread dissemination,
although one must always be wary of this argument in the time prior to
Augustine. Whatever the case may be, the apologists no doubt had a hand
in the success of early Christianity.
The fourth point concerns the independence of the apologists’ thought.
One must approach this issue with care, due alone to the fact that the textual
foundation for many of the apologists is not large enough to justify confi-
dent findings. However, the textual base for a few apologists is relatively
large, allowing conclusions to be drawn with some certainty. I believe that
as we have asked our usual methodical questions of derivation and origin
(why does Justin Martyr have this or that motive, these thoughts, this for-
mulation, use this word?) we have been too used to seeing the apologetic
thinkers as epigons (here is a Platonic element, here is something Stoic, this
is something taken from Socrates’ defence speech, etc.). The observations
reported in the research regarding the apologists’ dependence on particu-
lar concepts, thoughts, figures, and forms of expression are no doubt valid.
What is sometimes lacking is a greater appreciation of and focus on the the-
ologically unique contribution of apologists such as Justin Martyr and others
in the context of the ancient Hellenistic pluralism and identity.67 For, despite
the methodological justification for questions of derivation and origin, one
always encounters a certain limit – and this is precisely where the independ-
ence of the author’s thought or originality comes to expression. Conversely:
it is precisely because the painstaking methodological efforts to reach clarity
regarding questions of origin encounter a limit, or result in heterogeneous
research results, that it is possible to recognize the theological originality of
the apologists in the midst of their spiritual surroundings. Notwithstanding
our rightful enthusiasm for questions of derivation and origin, we should
perhaps be better at assuming and emphasising that some important figures
in early church history simply were original thinkers, who despite all orien-
tation towards tradition and the contemporary spiritual world, should still
be seen and appreciated as independent thinkers – as thinkers who have
expressed their theological convictions within the context of the Christianity
of their day, giving shape to Christianity in the midst of its non-Christian
Hellenistic setting, and putting it on the agenda.
The fifth point I want to mention is the expansion of the traditional
textual basis with respect to understanding early Christian apologetics. The
analysis of apologetics is governed by an implied cannon, basically consist-
ing of the names and titles listed under the term “apologists” in any church
history handbook, and also evident in this work, in line with those Edgar
J. Goodspeed published in his day. The work by Goodspeed has extend-
ed great influence on and focused, but also limited, subsequent research,
in that it (unintentionally) implies that these texts exhaustively account for
apologetics in the ancient church. This assumption is not completely unjus-
tified, since this “canon” comprises highly relevant works in the context of
early Christian apologetics. What I believe we need to learn in order to gain
new insights in our analysis of these texts is that the second century apoc-
ryphal material and early gnostic and gnosticising texts contain apologet-
ic testimony and endeavours from other forms of Christianity which have
made an important contribution to the total phenomenon of apologetics,
and which we should include in our perception and our analysis if we want
to arrive at a total picture of early apologetics.
The sixth and final point is that modern debate about early Christian
apologists appears to be demonstrating a reflection on or interest in the rela-
tive uniformity and extensive cohesion and structures within the apologetic
phenomenon. Points one to three and five above (apologetics and protreptic,
addressees, the success of the apologetic works, and incorporation of apoc-
ryphal and Gnostic material) should also be seen as an attempt in this di-
rection. Naturally the intention is not to blot out the profile of each apologist
(as I argued under point four, the focus should be on determining what is
unique about the thought of each apologist). Yet despite all their diversity,
67 See J. Ulrich, Innovative Apologetik, in: ThLZ 130 (2005), 3‒16.

32 Jörg Ulrich
the early apologists have a common motive – their intent to defend Christi-
anity, improve its legal, political and social position, and to gain new church
members. They also have a common instrument – engaging the spiritual
and social world around them in debate, based on common philosophical
and religious traditions. Against this background, one should in reality once
again seek out the overall phenomenon of early Christian apologetics and
its cohesion. M. Fiedrowicz68 has already laid a good foundation, which now
requires elaboration at various points. Interest in the congruencies in the ar-
gumentation and the discursive approach (or in its diversity, if you think of
the striking differences between Justin Martyr and Tertullian) corresponds
to the observation made earlier that for the first time in many centuries, we
again find ourselves living in a time where Christianity is in the minority,
or on its way to becoming so. The quest arises again today, from a new an-
gle and more urgently, for the possible patterns of thought and argument
to defend or promote Christianity which have accompanied it throughout
history. At first glance, the church in the traditional Christian West is facing
the problem of non-Christian competition. However, one major difference
is the fact that as the pre-Constantine church faced religious competition, it
could not look longingly back upon a disappearing state-sanctioned Chris-
tian culture of unity. In this respect it is not only historically interesting,
but also theologically significant to look into the past. There is widespread
theological helplessness – following one and a half millennia of autocratic
Christian culture – towards the religious pluralism which now competes
aggressively with Christian faith, as well as vagrant religiosity which no
longer feels at home in the organised church and seeks alternatives. It is
therefore necessary to ask how Christianity reacted to similar challenges
during the first three centuries, before it brought an end to pluralism and its
“competition” with the aid of the State following the Constantinian reversal
– benefiting far more than itself alone.
68 Fiedrowicz, 22001.
Aristides
Nils Arne Pedersen
1. Introduction. Eusebius’ information

Aristides’ apology (ἀπολογία) is often considered to be the oldest preserved
Christian apology, and despite its poor literary qualities, this factor justi-
fies careful treatment. It is interesting to note whether analysis of Aristides
highlights certain aspects of that type of texts which have been called early
Christian apologies.
To say that Aristides’ apology has been preserved is only partially true.
The text has only been incompletely preserved in its original Greek language,
there are several textual variants, and unfortunately it is unclear what the
original text should be in several of the work’s most important passages. It is
therefore necessary to explain the complicated problems relating to the text’s
transmission to the reader before launching into discussion of its content.
Aristides’ apology was formerly only known through the works of Euse-
bius of Caesarea (approx. 260‒341 AD) and authors who used Eusebius as a
source. In the second part of his Chronicle, (Eus., chron.) which may have been
written in the late third century,1 Eusebius recounts that Emperor Hadrian
(117‒138 AD) was in Athens, where Quadratus and the Christian philosopher
Aristides of Athens presented him with apologetic writings. After the Em-
peror had also received questions about the Christians from Serenius Grani-
anus, he issued a rescript favourable to the Christians to Minucius Fundanus,
proconsul of Asia2. This is supposed to have happened in the year 2141 after
Abraham, which corresponds to 125 AD3, the time when, as other sources
reveal, the Emperor was in Athens.
1 The second part of Eusebius’ Chronicon consisted of chronological tables and brief histori-
cal notes starting with Abraham’s presumed year of birth. Eusebius’ Chronicon is now only
preserved in its entirety in an Armenian translation, but the second part is also preserved
in Jerome’s Latin translation. Both Jerome and the Armenian version appear to have taken
liberties with Eusebius’ original, but when the two translations agree we can be reasonably
sure they follow Eusebius’, as is basically the case with respect to Aristides’ apology.
2 Eusebius’ source is Hadrian’s rescript (cf. Eus., h.e. 4.9), now preserved in a Greek trans-
lation in Just., 1 apol. 68. Serenius Granianus, i.e. Q. Licinius Silvanus Granianus, was
the former proconsul. His successor, whose real name was Minicius Fundanus, received
Hadrian’s response. However, there is disagreement as to how favourable the Emperor’s
decisions actually were for Christians. However, the rescript makes no mention of Quad-
ratus or Aristides.
3 According to Jerome’s version and one of the Armenian manuscripts. However most of the
Armenian manuscripts refer to 2140 years after Abraham = 124 AD. Regarding Jerome’s
version, see R. Helm (ed.), Eusebius Werke VII. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi Chron-
36 Nils Arne Pedersen
Eusebius returned to the two apologists, Quadratus and Aristides, in his

Ecclesiastical History. In book 4.3,1‒2, Eusebius reports on the apology for
Christianity which Quadratus had dedicated and presented to Emperor
Hadrian, and he adds to this: “It is still extant among many of the brethren
and we have a copy ourselves.” Eusebius also quotes a passage from Quad-
ratus’ work. He then continues:
Aristides too, a man of faith and devoted to our religion, has, like
Quadratus, left behind a defence of the faith addressed to Hadrian.
His writing, too, is still preserved by many.4
Due to the different formulations regarding Quadratus’ and Aristides’ apolo-
gies, most scholars believe Eusebius did not have access to the latter, but only
knew of its existence. This was probably the case, but Eusebius confidently
reports that Aristides’ apology was addressed to Emperor Hadrian. However,
it is noteworthy that Eusebius does not repeat his assertion from the Chronicle
in the Ecclesiastical History that Quadratus’ and Aristides’ apologies were re-
lated to the Emperor’s visit to Athens. Did he drop this out because it was not
purely factual, but simply a theory based on the fact that Aristides’ apology
was reportedly addressed to Hadrian, and the apologist locates himself in
Athens in his work?
2. The transmission of the text

It was believed that Aristides’ apology had been lost, until 1878, when the Me-
chitarists in Venice (a congregation of Armenian monks) published a fragment
of an Armenian translation of Aristides5. However, the critical breakthrough
came when the prominent British syrologist, J. Rendel Harris (1852‒1941), dis-
covered a manuscript containing a Syriac translation of the entire apology
in St. Catherine’s monastery on the Sinai Peninsula in 1889. The manuscript
dated from the sixth or seventh century, and Harris published the text and
a translation soon after in 1891. But this edition contained another bonus.
Harris‘ friend, the New Testament scholar, J. Armitage Robinson (1859‒1933),
discovered (by “one of those happy accidents, as we call them, upon which
progress depends,” as Harris said) that the most of the Greek text of the apol-
icon. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 47 (24 und 34), Berlin
1956, 199, and regarding the Armenian version, J. Karst (ed.), Eusebius Werke V. Die Chronik
aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar, GCS 20, Leipzig 1911, 220.
4 Eus., h.e. 4.3,3: K. Lake (transl.), Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Books I‒V, LCL 153, Lon-
don 2001, 307‒309.
5 Translations to Latin and English 27‒33 in J.R. Harris / J.A. Robinson, The Apology of Aris-
tides on behalf of the Christians, from a Syriac ms. preserved on Mount Sinai. With an appendix
containing the main portion of the original Greek text by J. Armitage Robinson, TaS 1, Cambridge
2
1893. Regarding the Armenian translation, cf. B. Pouderon / M.-J. Pierre (eds.), Aristide.
Apologie. Introduction, textes critiques, traductions et commentaire, SC 470, Paris 2003, 140f.,
with a new edition of all the Armenian fragments on 305‒313.
Aristides 37
ogy had been incorporated into the medieval “novel”, The life of Barlaam and
Ioasaph, and this text was included in an appendix to Harris’ edition6.
This meant that the apology was now available in three forms (A: Arme-
nian, S: Syriac and G: Greek), but the problem remained: Which was closest to
the archetype – the original text?
A, which is just a fragment, is closer to S than G, yet cannot have been
translated from S and must be based on a Greek original. The critical ques-
tion is of course whether G or S (and A) is closest to the original. S is more
lengthy, while G is shorter and more precise. Initially, most scholars therefore
favoured G but sentiment soon changed. Closer examination of many details
suggested that S was generally to be preferred. It was also considered likely
that the Greek text had been edited to make it easy to incorporate into The Life
of Barlaam and Ioasaph.
It may be worth turning our attention briefly to the nature of this remark-
able text. The story takes place in India, where astrologers inform a king that
his son, Ioasaph, will be converted to Christianity. This conflicts with the
father’s plans for his son. He therefore confines him to a palace to prevent
him from discovering the pain and suffering of mortal existence. But the plan
fails. The son witnesses the sick, the blind, the aged and the dying. Serious-
ness comes into his life, and he is then converted to Christianity by Barlaam,
a pious eremite. His father then tries to win him back, but Ioasaph abdicates,
converts his father and all the people, and becomes an eremite himself. He
performs many miracles after his death. It is not difficult to recognize that
this is a Christianised version of the Buddha legend, though transmitted via
many intermediary texts. The Greek text was perhaps composed in Palestine
circa 800; this question, however, is much disputed in scholarship.7 The Greek
6 Harris / Robinson, 21893.

7 Palestine circa 800 was argued by the great Russian-American Byzantinist A. Kazhdan
while other scholars have tried to defend the traditional attributions to St. John of Damas-
cus (circa 675‒749) or Euthymius, a Georgian monk from Mount Athos in Greece (circa
955‒1028); cf. A. Kazhdan, Where, When and by Whom was the Greek Barlaam and Ioasaph
not written, in: W. Will (ed.), Zu Alexander dem Grossen. Festschrift G. Wirth, Vol. 2, Amster-
dam, 1988, 1187‒1209; id., A History of Byzantine Literature (650‒850), The National Hellen-
ic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research. Research Series 2, Athens 1999,
95‒105. It is of course striking that a key Buddhist legend could be used in Christian devo-
tional literature, however, one should note that it is only the narrative framework that is of
Indian origin and not the religious contents. Incidentally, the route by which the Buddha
legend has reached the Byzantine cultural area is also disputed: The name Ioasaph is a
corrupt Arabized form of bodhisattva and an Arabic version of the Buddha legend is also
preserved. Some scholars have argued that Arabic literature received the legend via Man-
ichaean Middle-Persian literature (cf. e.g. J.P. Asmussen, Der Manichäismus als Vermittler
literarischen Gutes, in: Tem. 2, Helsinki 1966, 5‒21) but recently it has been argued that the
source was a Zoroastrian Middle-Persian version (cf. F. de Blois, On the sources of the Barlaam
Romance, or: How the Buddha became a Christian saint, in: D. Durkin-Meisterernst / C. Reck /
D. Weber [eds.], Literarische Stoffe und ihre Gestaltung in mitteliranischer Zeit. Kolloquium an-
lässlich des 70. Geburtstages von Werner Sundermann, Beiträge zur Iranistik 31, Wiesbaden
2009, 7‒26). The Arabic version was translated into Georgian (a version that is also pre-
novel puts most of Aristides’ apology in the mouth of the pagan Nachor, who
is the spitting image of Barlaam and is charged with talking Ioasaph out of
Christianity by pretending to be Barlaam. Nachor is meant to deliver a weak
defence of Christianity which the king’s men can easily rebut. Miraculous-
ly, however, everything Nachor says becomes a brilliant defence of Christi-
anity – i.e. as Armitage Robinson detected, it is a verbatim reproduction of
Aristides’ 850 year older apology, almost throughout! Comparing G and S, it
would now appear that the author deleted material which was too strongly
linked to the distant past, and also updated many formulations in line with
contemporary dogmatics.
An opportunity to resolve the issue of the relationship between S and G
with a bit more certainty arose when two papyrus fragments of Aristides’
original text were found.8 The papyrus fragments generally confirm that S
is to be preferred over G. However, naturally G has preserved the original
vocabulary and style, and it is also evident that S has occasionally adapted
the text to its own culture and environment. Thus although S in the main is
closer to the original text, both S and G contain changes and abridgements
compared to it. Unfortunately, the papyrus fragments do not cover the pas-
sages where G and S have significantly differing text, nor the very prob-
lematic prescript (A and S) containing dedication to one or two emperors,
which is missing in G.
All of the textual material was recently published in an excellent version in
the Sources Chrétiennes series. Aristides’ apology is thus finally gathered in an
accessible form, with an introduction which addresses the research to date.9
When giving the reader an overview of the content of Aristides’ apolo-
gy, it is best to provide a summary of S, the only version of the text which
covers from the beginning to the end. Coming to terms with one of the
served) and maybe also Syriac, and it is not clear which of these two versions it was that
was the source of the Greek text. Regarding Bar. cf. also Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 110‒136;
and the text with English translation and introduction in G.R. Woodward / H. Mattingly /
D.M. Lang (eds.), St. John Damascene. Barlaam and Ioasaph, LCL 34, London 1967.
8 P. Oxy. 15,1778 (incl. P. Heid. inv. G 1013), which contains fragments of Aristides 4.3‒6.2 and
P. Lond. inv. 223 (formerly 2486), which, also with lacunae, contains Aristides 15.4‒16.2. The
fragments have been reedited in Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 294‒303.
9 Pouderon / Pierre, 2003. Anyone who wishes to work with Aristides in the future should
start with this. Among the literature which has been consulted in the preparation of this
article, in addition to what has already been mentioned I would like to highlight: R. van
den Broek, Eugnostus and Aristides on the ineffable God, in: id. / T. Baarda / J. Mansfeld (eds.),
Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans
l’Empire Romain 112, Leiden 1988, 202‒218; K.-G. Essig, Erwägungen zum geschichtlichen Ort
der Apologie des Aristides, in: ZKG 97 (1986), 163‒188; J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten,
Leipzig 1907; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Harlow 1972, 76; G.C. O’Ceallaigh, “Mar-
cianus” Aristides. On the Worship of God, in: HThR 51 (1958), 227‒254; H.-J. Oesterle, Text-
kritische Bemerkungen zur “Apologie” des Aristides von Athen, in: ZDMG 130 (1980), 15‒23; R.
Seeberg, Die Apologie des Aristides untersucht und wiederhergestellt, in: T. Zahn (ed.), FGNK 5,
Erlangen 1893, 159‒414.
Aristides 39
attempts to reconstruct the original text on the basis of G and S would fill
a whole book. Instead, I will conclude by noting the major differences be-
tween S and G. Besides, Aristides’ apology is quite short, both in the longer
S and in the shorter G versions.
3. Content of the work

If we adhere to S, the text is introduced with a “prescript” containing the title
“apology”, the author’s name, and the recipients. However, the preserved text
must contain several errors in this regard which we will return to later.
While he is addressing the Emperor, Aristides begins with a proof of
God’s existence: The fact that the world is ordered must be due to an initia-
tor; in order for there to be movement, there must be a mover. This mover is
God, who created all things for the sake of man. Aristides then narrows down
God’s nature as transcendent and the principle of everything else: God needs
nothing, but everything else needs him (ch. 1). Since the truth is clear, the
question remains how humanity responds to it. Who is participating in the
truth, and who has lost their way?
Aristides then divides humanity into four “races”: Barbarians, Greeks,
Jews and Christians. He explains the origins of each “race”, dwelling particu-
larly on the Christians, who derived their piety from Jesus Christ, called the
Son of God Most High. This is followed by a creed-like summary of Jesus’
history, in which Aristides also encourages the Emperor to follow along in the
gospel in order to understand its power (ch. 2).
The barbarians did not know God and therefore began to worship the
created elements rather than the creator. They made idols and temples, and
their philosophers did not understand that the elements are perishable and
thereby presuppose something else which is imperishable (ch. 3). Aristides
goes on to demonstrate that the elements are perishable and changeable. The
earth is not God, because it can be digged and cultivated. As fired clay, noth-
ing can shoot from it. It is defiled by excrement and corpses (ch. 4). Water is
not God either, because it can change, for example when boiled or frozen. It
can also be defiled, and can be used by people in channels, etc. It has been
created for the sake of men. The same is true of fire which is not God either,
as it can be used by people and can be extinguished. The winds are not God
either. They can increase and decrease in intensity and are clearly controlled
by something else. They have been put here for the sake of men, e.g. to con-
nect the various regions of the world by sailing ships around (ch. 5). It is also
a delusion when people perceive of the sun as God, as it moves – rising and
setting – and is also clearly controlled by something else. The same is true
of the moon and stars (ch. 6). Finally, it is also a delusion when people have
viewed the ancients as gods. Man consists of the four elements, combined
with soul and spirit, and is therefore also perishable. The same is true for
their changeable passions. Aristides concludes that the barbarians have not
perceived who is the true God (ch. 7).
The Greeks are wiser than the barbarians, but have also gone more astray.
They have introduced a number of male and female gods who are adulterers,
murderers and thieves, controlled by vile passions. People have thus been
encouraged to commit the same transgressions, and then fail to understand
that war, famine, captivity, and loss of property strike them due to their error
(ch. 8). Aristides then begins to list examples from Greek mythology, all of
which aim to show that the Greek gods are weak and helpless, morally dis-
reputable and therefore cannot be gods (ch. 9‒11).
Aristides then finds occasion to discuss the Egyptians, who are more
evil and ignorant than all other peoples. The barbarian and Greek worship
of gods was not enough for them, so they also began to worship animals as
gods, even though animals are killed and eaten. But gods such as Isis, Osiris
and Typhon are also weak and helpless (ch. 12).
So the Egyptians have gone more astray than all other peoples, but it is
surprising that the Greeks, who surpass all others in their habits and ration-
ality, worship idols, which can be destroyed. Even their poets and philoso-
phers say they are gods. However, God is invisible, and yet they claim God
receives burnt sacrifices, libations and human sacrifices, and find comfort
in temples, even though God does not need anything. The Greek poets and
philosophers do say that the nature of all their gods is one, but God’s unity
cannot embody internal differences, and the Greek gods persecute and kill
each other, and commit evil acts. The just laws of the Greeks are in conflict
with their perception of the injustice of the gods. If the gods really are like
this, the laws in question must be wrong! The stories about the gods must
be discounted as fables (ch. 13).
The Jewish view of God is closer to the truth than all other nations, for
they teach that God is one, and that only God may be worshipped and not his
works. They also imitate God through love for others, by helping the poor and
prisoners, etc. Yet they too have lost their way. Although they believe they are
serving God, they are actually serving angels by observing Sabbaths, new
moons, Passovers, fasts, circumcision and clean food regulations, and they do
not even perfectly observe these things (ch. 14).
The Christians have sought and found the truth. They are closer to the
truth and accurate knowledge than all other peoples. They know and believe
in one God, the Creator, who has given them commandments which they ob-
serve, in expectation of the future world. Aristides lists the commandments
Christians observe, highlighting their piety, chastity, brotherly love and help
for the weak. Irrespective of ethnicity and position, all become brothers in
the Christian fellowship (ch. 15). Aristides then recapitulates many of these
points and declares that the Emperor can learn their sayings and command-
ments, the glory of their divine worship, and their expectation of future re-
ward or punishment for himself from their scriptures. The Christians are a
Aristides 41
new people, and there is something divine mingled with them. Aristides’
ensuing remarks, where he in line with other apologists presents testimony
about his own conversion, are worthy of quotation.
Take now their writings and read in them, and Lo! you will find that
not of myself have I brought these things forward; nor as their ad-
vocate have I said them; but, as I have read in their writings, these
things I firmly believe, and those things also that are to come. And
therefore I was constrained to set forth the truth to them that take
pleasure therein and seek after the world to come.10
Aristides goes on to declare that he is convinced the world continues to exist
due to the intercession of Christians, since the other peoples are deceived and
deceivers (ch. 16).
In conclusion, Aristides mentions that because the Greeks sleep with
men, and with their mothers, sisters and daughters, they turn the ridicule
of their uncleanness against the Christians, who are honest and pious and
patiently bear over with their error – even going so far as to have compassion
for them and pray for them. Greeks are occasionally converted, and they then
confess to God their sin of previously mocking the Christians’ true knowl-
edge in their ignorance. Aristides closes by exhorting everyone who speaks
empty words and brings accusations against the Christians to be silent and
speak the truth. He exhorts everyone who does not know God to come to
knowledge of him and reminds them of the dreadful judgement which will
come upon all humanity with Jesus Christ (ch. 17).
S can be summarised in this way. With regard to differences from G, there
are significant differences in the composition and content in ch. 2‒13. While S
speaks of four races – barbarians, Greeks, Jews and Christians, G speaks ini-
tially of three races – those who worship the so-called gods, Jews, and Chris-
tians; and then subdivides the false god worshippers into three more races –
Chaldeans, Hellenes (Greeks) and Egyptians. The positive depiction of Jewish
monotheism and morality in S is absent in G, which instead presents the Jews
as persecutors of the prophets, the righteous and God’s Son.
Irrespective of which presentation is the original on these points, nei-
ther G nor S give the impression of great authorship. Aristides often ruins
his own composition, and it is clear that the “second article of faith” in ch.
2 does not fit well with the philosophical concept of God which is the main
argument of the text. However, one should remember that the second cen-
tury apologists did not make great advances as regards the second article of
faith, so if Aristides was one of the first apologists, it would be unreasona-
ble to expect too much of him.
In any case, scholars who propose, based on the extensive inconsisten-
cies, that the work is a Jewish apology which a fourth century Christian has
10 Translation in Harris / Robinson, 21893, 50 (revised by N.A. Pedersen).

interpolated11 appear to me to be completely mistaken. The text can be fully

understood within the context of second century Christianity. The relative-
ly positive depiction of the Jews in S, which is easier to see as more original
than the stereotypical polemic in G, is different from the view of the Jews
we find in many other Christian texts. This situation is not surprising if one
considers second century Christianity as characterised by great diversity,
as is now commonly the case in modern research. The church had not yet
developed common institutions, and uniform and normative attitudes were
more of an ideal than a reality. It is therefore quite reasonable that a particu-
lar author may have had a “softer” attitude to the Jews. Aristides is also an
early example of an author who presents Christians as a new special race
alongside the Jews and various pagan groups, emphasising a discontinuity
in relation to Israel.
4. Aim and genre of the text

As mentioned above, Aristides’ small work is described as an apology in the
prescript, using the Syriac word pair mappaq berūḥ ā, representing the Greek
ἀπολογία. However, this prescript is corrupt, and it is therefore best to ignore it.
When we examine the text, it is striking that it does not refer at the outset
to any charge against the Christians which is to be repudiated, or any per-
secution which Aristides wants the Emperor to halt. Aristides’ purpose is to
demonstrate to the Emperor that Christians are the only race who have found
the truth about God, and this is initially presented on a purely philosophical
foundation. In other words, it is a purely philosophical/theological conflict.
Aristides does not touch on any of the social conflicts between Christians
and non-Christians until chapter 15, where he portrays the moral superiority
of Christians, noting, for example, that they do not sacrifice to idols or eat
meat that has been offered. He also emphasises that the Christians’ wives are
as pure as virgins, and that their daughters are chaste. In this respect he may,
in reality, be repudiating accusations against Christians of “shameful acts”
(flagitia) such as sexual debauchery, known from contemporary literature.
This chapter is also the only place where Aristides mentions persecution of
the Christians, and even here only as an example of the Christians’ excellent
way of life, in that if they hear that one of their number has been imprisoned
or oppressed for the sake of Christ’s name, they meet his needs and free him
if possible. Chapter 15 must be viewed together with chapter 17, where Aris-
tides again rejects the notion that Christians are immoral – it is the Greeks
who are immoral. In chapter 17, Aristides also speaks about those who raise
accusations against Christians.
Yet Aristides does not ask the Emperor to change the legal practice in
relation to Christians in the concluding chapters either. In fact, he does not
11 O’Ceallaigh, 1958 (with qualified support in Van den Broek, 1988 and Essig, 1986); cf. criti-
cism of O’Ceallaigh’s thesis in Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 31. 85‒93.
Aristides 43
petition the Emperor for anything. It is thus clear that Eusebius’ claim that
Aristides’ text is linked to Hadrian’s rescript must be incorrect. As is clearly
apparent throughout the entire text and especially in chapter 16, Aristides’
aim is nothing less than to convert the Emperor to Christianity! The fact that
Aristides dares to entertain this idea and targets the top tier of society is a
good example of the self-confidence that the claim of bearing the truth about
God gave the early Christian authors. Nonetheless, Aristides indisputably
had a wider readership in mind than just the Emperor. The work closes with
an exhortation to the entire pagan world to be converted (ch. 17). Aristides
calls himself a philosopher and gives primary emphasis to the philosophical/
theological disagreement with barbarians and Greeks; this indicates that he
is targeting the better educated elements of the Empire, who would not oth-
erwise have taken him seriously.
Aristides does not to speak of a contemporary persecution, but he as-
sumes it is general knowledge that persecutions occur. He is also indirect-
ly and directly concerned with repudiating the charge of “shameful acts”
against Christians – a charge which must have interfered with his evangelis-
tic intent. It is clear that Aristides is defending Christians, despite his explicit
claim not to be their defender (see the quotation from ch. 16 above, where
senīgerā is actually a borrowed Greek word, συνήγορος, ‘advocate’, ‘defender’).
The best solution for the difficult situation faced by Christians, with accusa-
tions and the constant threat of persecution, would naturally be if the Emper-
or himself converted. Aristides was right about this, and the strategy paid off
in the end, even though it took more than 160 years.
If I am correct in claiming that the appeal for conversion is central to the
work, it could be said to belong to the ancient protreptikos logos genre, an “ex-
hortative discourse”, which was used by Clement of Alexandria later in the
century – the purpose of which was to influence the reader to choose another
way of life.
5. Prescript and dating

Against this background, one can ask when Aristides’ work was written. This
question must be answered in the context of the discussion concerning the
prescript, which is clearly corrupt in the Syriac version, and therefore hot-
ly debated. It would be impossible to present the entire scholarly discussion
here, but by skipping over several intermediate steps I can briefly present
my own view. Please note, however, that unless one concludes that the trans-
mission of the text is so hopelessly corrupted that the threads can never be
unravelled, only complicated solutions exist for the problems.
A contains a prescript like the one we can imagine Eusebius of Caesarea
had in front of him or had heard about when he discussed Aristides’ apology
in his Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History: “To the Autocrat Caesar Hadrianus
from Aristides, Athenian philosopher”.12 The Syriac heading reads as follows:
Again, the apology which Aristides the philosopher made before
Hadrianus the king concerning the worship of God; the omnipotent
Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, the august and merciful ones,
from Marcianus Aristides, philosopher of the Athenians.
This heading is quite problematic. First it clearly addresses Emperor Had-
rian, whose full title was Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus. But
it then immediately addresses his adopted son and successor, Antoninus
Pius (138‒161 AD), who also received the name Hadrian during his adop-
tion. Given that the two adjectives “august and merciful” are in plural form
(which can only be seen in the Syriac text by the fact that two dots, seyāmē,
have been placed above the words), this must mean that the apology was
addressed to both emperors at the same time. However this would be al-
most impossible, as Emperor Hadrian only adopted Antoninus Pius as his
successor and made him co-regent in February, 138 AD, six months before
his death in July the same year. Furthermore, the word for “august” in the
Syriac text, segīdē, singular segīdā, represents the Greek word σεβαστός,
which in turn represents the Latin word augustus. This is a difficulty be-
cause Antoninus Pius only received the title augustus following Emperor
Hadrian’s death.13
However, it is easy to see that there are in fact two different headings
– as the author is mentioned twice. The copyist has understood this, and
has therefore written the first part: “Again, the apology which Aristides
the philosopher made before Hadrianus the king concerning the worship
of God” using ink of one colour, and the remainder with a different colour
ink. However, this must have been his own invention. The whole passage
must have been misunderstood as a single heading in his original manu-
script, as can be seen from two factors: Firstly, the two adjectives are still
in plural form, and secondly (with the help of ink and a punctuation mark)
the copyist has probably made a mistake in linking the Syriac words aḥ īd
kul, which mean “the omnipotent” to the following “Caesar”. These should
properly only be used to translate the Greek word παντοκράτωρ, used of
God, and not αὐτοκράτωρ, “autocrat”, used of emperors and which translat-
ed the Latin word imperator. Elsewhere in the Syriac text the words aḥ īd kul
are used correctly in relation to God, so it is unlikely that the title contains a
translation error. The right solution must be to remove the seyāmē, so that the
adjectives are in singular form, and move the punctuation mark so that the
designation “the omnipotent” is linked to the preceding “God”. This leaves
us with two titles we can choose between:
12 Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 206f.

13 For further detail, see Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 34.
Aristides 45
(1) Again, the apology which Aristides the philosopher made before
Hadrianus the king concerning the worship of God the omnipotent.
(2) [To] Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, the august and merciful
one, from Marcianus Aristides, philosopher of the Athenians.
That there are in fact two different headings in succession may also be indi-
cated by two other factors. Firstly, there is no “and” connecting the two names
of the emperors, and secondly, it is possible that the two adjectives actually
translate titles linked to Emperor Antoninus. It would thus be straightfor-
ward that segīdā, “august”, represents the Greek word σεβαστός, and in turn
the Latin word augustus. The word “merciful” (meraḥ ḥ emānā) is more difficult.
Many want this word to represent the Greek word εὐσεβής, and in turn the
Latin word pius, which was the special epithet Antoninus was given by the
senate shortly after becoming emperor. However there is much debate as to
whether “pious” really can be translated as “merciful” in Syriac.14
It is not difficult now to choose between the two headings. The first
must be secondary, as its form clearly indicates it was a later collector’s de-
scription of the text. It is even possible that the first heading resulted from
someone having read Eusebius’ Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History. Aristides
is unlikely to have called his text an ἀπολογία when he rejects the notion of
being the Christians’ συνήγορος, even if this rejection was only rhetorical
or feigned. Conversely, Eusebius is well-known for grouping many older
Christian works addressed to emperors under the title ἀπολογία. The first
heading is thus secondary, and may never have existed in a Greek original,
as Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and presumably also Chronicle existed in a
Syriac translation.15
Thus only the second heading in S carries any weight, but it is contradict-
ed by the different heading in A. Which of the two is closest to the original?
When S appeared in the 19th century and suddenly bore testimony to Anton-
inus Pius (in its second heading) rather than Eusebius’ Hadrian, most people
concluded that S contained the original text. Since that time, however, most
scholars have returned to the old Eusebian view, and generally assume that
Hadrian was the original addressee. Eusebius’ precise dating to 125 AD is
also now perpetuated in most accounts. However, we should have adhered
to the earlier research conclusion, as no one has rebutted its arguments as far
as I can see: If S has basically preserved the original heading, we can explain
how the text could have been corrupted to end up with the form Eusebius
must have known, and which is basically found in A, whereas it is impossi-
ble to explain how the S text might have developed from A. It is conceivable
that later scribes omitted “Marcianus”, and understood the emperor as being
Hadrian because it had been forgotten that Antoninus Pius also had the name
14 Concerning this problem, see Seeberg, 1893, 259ff.; Geffcken, 1907, 29; Oesterle, 1980, 19f.
15 Cf. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensi-
schen Texte, Bonn 1922, 59. 135. 349.
Hadrian16. Conversely, it is impossible for the names Marcianus, Titus and

Antoninus to have come into the text through abbreviations or transcribing
errors17. If these names are secondary, we should be able to identify a motive
for changing the text by adding them, but it’s difficult to see what that motive
would have been18.
This is already reason enough not to date the work in 125 AD. Fur-
thermore, Aristides’ text is not a petition or related to acute persecution
issues. It therefore has nothing to do with Hadrian’s rescript. Nor do we
need to search for a situation where an emperor was in Athens so that
Aristides could personally present his text to him, as there are several ex-
amples from antiquity where texts dedicated to the Emperor were sent to
him. It has been debated whether the early Christian apologies ever were
presented or sent to the emperors, or whether this element was simply a lit-
erary fiction. Whatever the case, the literary form of the apologies needs to
be understood in a context whereby it was a literary practice in the Roman
Empire to dedicate and send texts to the Emperor. Among the examples
of this practice there are several which attempted to influence the Emper-
or’s behaviour19, and Aristides’ text certainly falls into this category. It is
clear that for Aristides, being a Christian very much involves a particular
behaviour. In this respect he is no different from the other second century
Christian apologists. An appeal exhorting the Emperor to become Chris-
tian is an attempt to influence the Emperor’s behaviour. The existence of
non-Christian and Christian texts addressed to the Emperor shows that
these texts had broader aims. They were intended to influence more than
just the sovereign. Aristides also concludes his text by exhorting everyone
to become Christian.
Two other elements which are sometimes raised in the discussion regard-
ing dating can be mentioned briefly. Since Aristides’ text was not dedicated to
Hadrian, but his successor, we do not need to explain how the text can reject
homosexuality (ch. 17) at the same time as addressing Emperor Hadrian, who
was known for his relationship with Antinous. However, no date naturally
fits with the fact that Aristides dares to speak so positively about the Jews in
a text addressed to the Emperor. If the text is from 125 AD, the major Jewish
revolts in the Diaspora in 115 and 117 would have been in fresh memory. Con-
versely, if it dates from the imperial reign of Antoninus Pius, the Bar Kochba
16 However, one original element must be preserved in A, but lost in S – the word “autocrat”,
imperator.
17 I believe the new edition (Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 34f.) sidesteps the problem too easily by
simply stating there is an error in the Syriac prescript which is due to an ignorant scribe or
translator.
18 An explanation is provided in Grant, 1988, 38f. 45: Aristides’ apology was originally ad-
dressed to Emperor Hadrian, but was later edited and addressed to Antoninus Pius. How-
ever, it is methodologically unhealthy to resolve problems harmonising through doubling
up of events. Cf. the more detailed criticism in Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 35f. 161.
19 See F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC – AD 337), New York 21992, 497f. 556ff.
Aristides 47
revolt in 132‒35 AD would have been strongly imprinted. We have to assume

that a friendly attitude towards the Jews was so natural and obvious to Aris-
tides that he was unwilling to conceal it.
It should be conceded that dating the text during the reign of Antoni-
nus Pius, moving it closer in time to the other preserved apologies, does not
impact much on our understanding of the text. However, it is important for
an unprejudiced approach to the text that Eusebius’ dating and attempt to
place it within an acute persecution context be dropped. It is also important
to understand that Aristides does not petition the Emperor for anything, so
it becomes clear that early Christian texts addressed to the Emperor had very
diverse aims. Given this background, if we still want to maintain that Aris-
tides’ work is the oldest surviving Christian apology, the word apology has
to be defined quite broadly.
6. Later use of Aristides’ apology

How significant was this text? Given that there are only a limited number
of parallels to Aristides in later second century Christian “apologists”, such
as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras and Theophilus, we cannot be certain
that they have drawn on his work. The interesting thing about Aristides in
relation to these authors must therefore be the parallel historical situation.
We need to jump to the fourth century before we become aware of broader
use of Aristides. Eusebius of Caesarea had heard about the text and claimed
that many people still had a copy. Most scholars also want to date the Syriac
translation to the fourth century, and palaeographic dating has placed two
papyri containing the text at this time (cf. note 8). Jerome had access to Aris-
tides during the fifth century, and the Armenian translation may also date
from this time. Aristides’ apology was known in Georgia during the sixth
century, because the work has been used in a martyrdom account from that
time (Eustathius of Mtskheta’s Martyrdom) and possibly also in other ancient
Georgian texts20.
Fragments of two other texts attributed to Aristides (Homily on the peni-
tent thief and Aristides’ Letter to all philosophers) have survived in Armenian.
However, based on its theological content, the first text cannot date from the
second century but is more likely fifth-century, while the second text has
probably been reworked from a passage in Aristides’ apology (the section
on Christ in ch. 2 [S])21. These two fragments demonstrate an awareness of
Aristides’ apology in various ways. For the author of the homily, Aristides
was a known early Christian whose name could be used to legitimise a new
theological account.
Incorporated into The life of Barlaam and Ioasaph, the material from Aris-
tides continued to enjoy a peculiar history. The novel became a medieval
20 See Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 415‒432.

21 Cf. Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 59‒61.
best seller. More than 140 Greek manuscripts have been preserved, and it
was translated into a number of languages from Greek. There are transla-
tions into Armenian and (Christian) Arabic – in turn translated into Ethi-
opian. The text was also translated into Church Slavonic, which was in
turn translated into Serbian, Belorussian and Russian. The Russian ver-
sion became an important religious inspiration for Leo Tolstoy in the 19th
century. The novel was translated from Greek to Latin three times during
the High Middle Ages. Ioasaph became an important saint, whose relics
had naturally been preserved! The novel was translated from Latin to a
number of vernaculars in the Middle Ages: French (including a version
in poetic form), Anglo-Norman, Provençal and Middle High German, as
well as Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish (based in part on the Norwegian
version). Most of Aristides’ apology had therefore already been read in Eu-
ropean vernaculars during the Middle Ages, although the readers had no
idea of the origins of the text!22
7. Conclusion
In closing, some conclusions can be drawn about the intent of Aristides’
text. Aristides was a Christian in Athens who authored a brief work during
the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius. His aim was to convert the Emperor,
as well as any educated reader for whom Greek philosophy was the nor-
mative cultural inheritance. This is why Aristides called himself a philoso-
pher, emphasised that the Greeks were the wisest of all races, and focused
on religious/philosophical argumentation. The latter played the mono-
theistic tendencies of Greek philosophy (e.g. see how Aristides speaks of
the one divine nature in ch. 13), which Aristides identified with Christian
teachings, against non-Christian mythology and philosophy itself, which
Aristides claimed only sought the divine principle among the natural ele-
ments of the world. However, Aristides went beyond this philosophising
explanation. He also highlighted the Christians as a special society – as
a race distinguishable from other human societies due to their superior
morality in the form of brotherly love and chastity. Other ancient sources
appear to confirm that these elements of the Christian way of life were
attractive to many. Yet by mentioning them, Aristides also sought to disa-
vow the many rumours about Christian immorality which had previously
played a part in persecutions. By depicting Christians as a special “race”
alongside not only pagans but also Jews, Aristides profiled Christians in
a new way. There must have been a political interest at that time in being
able to stand clearly apart from the Jews, who had long been involved in
revolt against the Roman Empire. Yet it is very strange that Aristides still
portrays the Jews quite sympathetically. Furthermore one should observe
22 Cf. Woodward / Mattingly / Lang, 1967, xxxii‒xxxiv; H. Mageröy / C.I. Ståhle, Barlaam ok
Josaphats saga, KLNM(D) 1, Copenhagen 1956, 342‒345.
Aristides 49
that precisely when Aristides classifies the Christians as a “new” race it

must have been a provocation for the religiously conservative Romans. So
it seems that neither the sympathizing nor the outpacing attitude of Aris-
tides towards Judaism can be explained as tactical manoeuvres in relation
to the Emperor. An explanation may then partly consist in a reference to
the possibility that Aristides himself was of Jewish origin and partly in a
reference to the alienation between Jews and Christians which was devel-
oping through the first and second centuries.
Justin Martyr
Jörg Ulrich
1. Introduction to Justin Martyr

From a modern perspective, Justin would have to be the most important sec-
ond century apologist. Given the survival of his two apologies (1 apol., 2 apol.)
and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, a relatively comprehensive portion of his
works have been preserved. Several aspects of his thought have had an influ-
ence on theological debate in later times. We know more about his life than
many other second century figures. Justin‘s surviving works make it possible
to reliably reconstruct his thought and teachings.
1.1. Justin‘s life
Justin is assumed to have been born in the early second century to pagan par-
ents in Flavia Neapolis, modern-day Nablus (1 apol. 1.1). He refers to himself
as a Samaritan (dial. 29.1; 120.6), but this label refers more to his homeland
than to his religion, as neither his theology nor philosophy show any signs of
Samaritan influence. The beginning of the dialogue with Trypho contains an
account of his philosophical education and development. Despite its stylised
nature, this account can be used to analyse Justin‘s development, as it corre-
sponds to the typical academic path in his day, and several steps in this de-
velopment are reflected in his later work. According to this account (dial. 1‒9
and 2.3‒6)1 he first sought out a Stoic, then a Peripatetic, and later a Pythago-
rean, before finally finding through a Platonist a philosophy that suited him
and gave him inner peace. His decision to join the Platonic philosophical
school apparently did not prevent him from converting to Christianity. In The
Dialogue (dial. 3‒8) this is attributed to an encounter with an old wise man
who opened up the prophetic books to him. Justin becomes convinced that
the Christians possess the truth. Irrespective of how Justin‘s actual conver-
sion compares to the stylised account, one can assume that it was relatively
abrupt. His conversion, rather than being intellectual, was prepared for by
his personal experience of Christian martyrs‘ bravery and scorn of death. Jus-
tin repeatedly expresses his amazement at this courage (2 apol. 12.1, dial. 7.2).
Following his conversion, Justin must have undergone intensive Chris-
tian education, familiarising himself with the Christian documents and truth
1 For commentary on this key passage, see N. Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum. Eine In-
terpretation zur Einleitung Justins, Copenhagen 1966; J.C.M. van Winden, An early Christian
Philosopher. Justin Martyr´s Dialogue with Trypho, chapters one to nine, Leiden 1971; R. Joly,
Christianisme et Philosophie, Brussel 1973.
52 Jörg Ulrich
traditions. As a Christian, Justin did not give up philosophy, but saw himself
as a Christian philosopher and thereby as a representative of “true philoso-
phy”. He ran his own Christian school of philosophy in Rome. The curricu-
lum of this philosophy school must have influenced Justin‘s authorship, but
we are unable to construct a precise profile of the life and teachings of the
school based on his preserved works. It is clear that he saw Christianity as a
set of teachings which can both be acquired and communicated, and which
constantly impact on one‘s specific way of life. We constantly find in his pre-
served works technical phrases which signal the transition from one topic
to another or the opening of a new discourse. Other elements in the texts
also reflect practical teaching and techniques to help students understand
(1 apol. 12.11): interruptions and questions, compact summaries (dial. 18.1),
enumeration of arguments (1 apol. 24‒26) and reasoned repetitions (dial. 85.5)
all belong to the didactic repertoire of the philosophy teachers of the day, who
communicated their perceptions and arguments on walks and in the auditori-
um. Justin‘s school belonged to precisely this tradition. He calls himself a fol-
lower and teacher of the truth (1 apol. 45.5), by which he is naturally referring
to Christian teachings. There is no information about any specific connection
between his school and the Christian congregation in Rome, although he ap-
pears to be well informed about the Christian liturgy (1 apol. 61‒67). Justin
must have occasionally ventured abroad from his base in Rome. A possibility
which may be supported by the fact that the dialogue with Trypho plays out
in Ephesus (according to Eusebius, h.e. 4.18,6). One occasionally finds glimps-
es in the texts of contemporary historical and ecclesiastical events, such as the
Bar-Kochba revolt, which took place shortly before the time of the dialogue
with Trypho (dial. 1.3 and 1 apol. 31), and the Marcion crisis, which shook the
Christian congregation in the 140s (1 apol. 26.5 and 58.1‒3).
As the salutation in First Apology (1.1) indicates, Justin was active as an
apologist while Antoninus Pius was Emperor (138‒161 AD). In 165 AD, while
Marcus Aurelius was Emperor (161‒180 AD), Justin was sentenced to death
by Rome‘s urban prefect, Rusticus (urban prefect from 163‒167 AD). The ac-
count of his martyrdom (Act. Just.) has been preserved in three liturgically
edited editions (A, B, C). The central elements of these are essentially histor-
ically credible, as the process outlined corresponds to the otherwise known
procedure. According to the account, Justin and some of his followers were
accused of being Christian. The prefect interrogated them, and they were
judged and later executed for holding fast to the Christian faith – not because
of their refusal to sacrifice. It is uncertain whether Stoic philosopher and com-
petitor, Crescens, who Justin and Tatian said was seeking to have them killed
(2 apol. 3.1; Tat., orat. 19.1), prompted the martyrdom by reporting Justin and
his companions as Christians. This claim was first presented in the fourth
century by Eusebius (h.e. 4.16,1), whereas the essentially older accounts of the
martyrdom do not mention Crescens as being Justin’s accuser. Following the
death of Justin and his followers, the martyrs’ body parts were collected “by
Justin Martyr 53
some believers”. This note demonstrates the esteem shown in Rome to Justin
and his followers as part of the typical contemporary cult-like worship of
philosophers and the growing Christian martyr cult.
1.2. Justin’s works
The three of Justin‘s surviving works which are recognized as genuine were
written in the 150s – the apologies in the first half of the decade and dialogue
with Trypho in the second half.2 With respect to the classic question of wheth-
er the first and second apology were originally one text, there is widespread
consensus among scholars today that the current Second Apology must origi-
nally have been part of the First Apology.3
The existing First Apology4 is addressed directly to the Emperor as a peti-
tion. It comprises five main sections: The first of these (1 apol. 1‒12) is itself a
rounded defence which argues that the legal treatment of Christians is absurd
and exhorts the Emperor to acknowledge the Christian movement – even to
join the “true philosophy”. Justin primarily defends Christians against the
charge of atheism and also attempts to show that their high ethical standards
mean they make the greatest contribution to the preservation of society. Justin
actually states at the end of this section that he has said everything that was
on his heart (1 apol. 12.11): He only adds the next sections in order to provide
more detailed argumentation and show greater patience with the opponents
of Christianity, whom he wishes to convince. In First Apology 13‒29 he exam-
ines Jesus’ teachings more extensively, particularly selecting passages from
the gospels containing Jesus’ ethical teachings. Justin highlights similarities
between pagan philosophies and Christian teaching, but also points out dif-
ferences where he believes Christianity shows itself to be superior, such as in
its teaching of the resurrection of the body (1 apol. 19). He traces the unjust
denigration of and attacks against Christians, as well as internal disputes
among Christians (Simon Magus, Marcion), back to the influence of evil de-
2 These datings are based on the following statements in the following passages: Just.,
1 apol. 46.2‒3 states that Christ was born 150 years before “our” time, leading to an approx-
imate date of 145‒155 AD; Just., 1 apol. 29.6 mentions Minatius Felix as Prefect of Egypt;
Minatius held this position from 150‒154 AD; Just., 2 apol. 1.1 mentions Lullius Urbicus as
Urban Prefect of Rome; he held this position from 146‒160 AD. The apologies must there-
fore have been written within a few years following 150 AD. The dialogue with Trypho the
Jew must have been written some time later, as Justin refers in the dialogue (120.6) to First
Apology (26.2‒4). It is not possible, however, to work out more than a relative chronology.
3 Eusebius of Caesarea and John of Damascus assume two apologies, and there are actually
two apologies in the surviving manuscripts. Both these apologies show literary composi-
tional signs of independence. Conversely, there are places in Second Apology, which make
it appear to be an integrated part of First Apology (Just., 2 apol. 4.6; 6.14 and 8.4), and both
apologies are addressed to the same people – Antoninus Pius and his adopted son Marcus
Aurelius. The best way to harmonise both aspects is to view Second Apology as a kind of
appendix or postscript to First Apology, written prior to the publication of First Apology.
4 See H.P. Thyssen, Justins Apologier, Oversættelse med indledning og kommentar, Aarhus 1996
and C. Munier, L’apologie de saint Justin philosophe et martyr, Fribourg 1994.
54 Jörg Ulrich
mons. These demons constantly strive to oppose God‘s will and the victory of
true philosophy, but in vain.
The third section of First Apology (1 apol. 30‒60) contains a number of
Old Testament textual proofs aimed at demonstrating that Jesus actually is
God‘s son, and that his actions and works were predicted by the Old Testa-
ment prophets. The fourth main section (1 apol. 61‒67) presents a description
of Christian baptism and services with the aim of showing that nothing se-
cret or subversive is taking place. Christians can readily provide information
about their cultic practices and teachings as they have nothing to hide. First
Apology closes (1 apol. 68) with the reproduction of a rescript from Emperor
Hadrian to the Proconsul of Asia province concerning Christians.5 Invoking
the name of the well-respected Hadrian and presenting one of his official
public documents adds legal and political weight to the apologetic argument.
What we call the Second Apology builds on the basic ideas from First Apology.
However, it has a striking focus on particular themes—especially the Chris-
tian martyrs (2 apol. 1‒4), the hostility of the demons to God (2 apol. 5), the
Christian conception of the end of the world and punishment of the ungodly
in the eternal fire (2 apol. 7.9), and the doctrine ofthe Logos, according to
which seed from the divine Logos has been sown in every human (2 apol. 8;
10 and 13). Philosophers and rulers of earlier ages have only grasped parts
of this. However, the Logos became fully incarnate in Christ. Thanks to the
grace of the Logos, Christians can fully understand this.
The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew6 comprises 142 chapters. It has not been
preserved in its entirety, as there is a clear gap after 74.3. The text recounts a
polemic discussion between a Jewish teacher, Trypho, and Justin. It consists
of two conversations reported to have taken place on two consecutive days
(dial. 1.1‒74.3 and dial. 74.4‒142.3). There is dispute as to whether the conver-
sation is a literary fiction or recounts a genuine discussion. However, the great
care with which Justin refers to the Jewish positions suggests that the pres-
entation is at least based on genuine conversation sequences, and the actual
manner in which discussions between Christians and Jews took place. The
structure of the dialogue is not particularly tight. It begins with a personal
account of Justin’s own development and conversion (dial. 1‒9) and then hap-
hazardly raises a number of controversial theological topics for which Chris-
tians and Jews adopt different positions. The key issue is the dispute about
the correct interpretation of the Old Testament, which is a common source of
knowledge for Christians and Jews but is interpreted differently. The clash
basically centres on the issues of Christ as the new law (dial. 10‒47) and the
prophesied Messiah (dial. 48‒108) and whether Christians are the true Israel
(dial. 10‒47). The seriousness of the dialogue is heightened by the fact that
5 There is dispute as to whether this rescript has been interpolated by Christians. See Jakob
Engberg’s contribution to this anthology, “Condemnation, criticism and astonishment.”
6 See P. Bobichon, Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon. Édition critique, traduction, commentaire,
Paradosis 47/1 and 47/2, Fribourg 2003.
Justin Martyr 55
Justin links the acceptance or rejection of the Christian faith by Trypho and
his followers with the question of their eschatological salvation or damnation.
One clearly senses the competition between Jews and Christians in relation to
the evangelism of pagans interested in both religions.
The dialogue concludes openly. The parties separate without either hav-
ing converted the other, and Justin therefore insists on formulating a final ap-
peal to Trypho to convert to Christianity (dial. 142.2‒3.). Despite Justin’s zeal
for his own position, the closing scene maintains the intellectual generosity
and urbanity evident throughout the dialogue in the frequent polite phrases
and expressions of mutual respect.
A number of Justin’s works have not survived. This is the case for the
work he calls Treatise against all Heresies (1 apol. 26.8) and the fragmentari-
ly preserved work against Marcion, mentioned by Ireneus (Iren. haer. 4.6,2),
which was likely used by Tertullian in his work against Marcion. Eusebius’
Church History (h.e. 4.18) lists (in addition to the above works): a work called
Refutation, a treatise On the Sovereignty of God, a work entitled Psaltes and fi-
nally a disputation On the Soul (h.e. 4.18,4‒5). It is uncertain whether there is a
connection between the three latter works, and three works with the same ti-
tles which have long been attributed to Justin, but are assumed to be pseude-
pigraphical today. There are ten such “pseudo-Justinian” works.7 These must
all be dated to the fourth century based on style, content and chronology. Of
these, the De monarchia, Oratio ad Graecos and Cohortatio ad Graecos (Ad Grae-
cos de vera religione) treatises and the anonymous Letter to Diognetus are sig-
nificant to the history of Christian apologetic. The former three may have
been attributed to Justin at some point in time to give them a greater weight
through the authority associated with the philosopher and martyr‘s name.
2. Teachings
2.1. Prerequisite for awareness of the divine

For Justin,8 Christianity’s “true philosophy” has awareness of the divine as
its goal and focus. Christianity has this in common with every other real
philosophy. At the same time, he admits that the path involves great effort
(2 apol. 10.6). For Justin, divine awareness is only possible because of the seed
of truth the Logos has sown in people, giving them a kind of natural ability
7 For these works, see C. Riedweg, Iustinus Martyr II, RAC 19 (2000), 848‒873.
8 Regarding Justin’s teachings: S. Heid, Iustinus Martyr I, RAC 19 (2000), 801‒847, and S. Parvis
/ P. Foster (eds.), Justin Martyr and his Worlds, Minneapolis 2007. Monographs worthy of spe-
cial mention: W.J. Chandler, A comparison of the concept of Logos in the teaching of Justin Martyr
and the Gnostics, Louisville 1991; P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton. Der Alterbeweis der jüdischen
und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, WUNT 2/39, Tübingen 1990; U. Neymeyr,
Die christlichen Lehrer im 2. Jahrhundert, Leiden 1989; P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen
in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Tübingen 1987; O. Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy. A
Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-text Tradition, Leiden 1987.
56 Jörg Ulrich
from birth to this end. Prior to the revelation in Christ, this has naturally only
come to expression to any significant extent among exceptional personalities,
such as Socrates, and must be tested and developed in each case with the
aid of the true teachings of Christ, passed on in the Bible. Justin’s focus is on
a Christologically communicated variation of the Platonic conception of the
kinship of the soul with God as a prerequisite for representation of God and
the requirement of acknowledging God.
2.2. God’s nature and Christology
The notion of transcendence is central to Justin‘s teachings about God.
God is the complete other (dial. 4.1), the highest (dial. 32.3) and the one
who is even above the heavenly (dial. 60.2). God is nameless, as no name
can fittingly describe his being (2 apol. 6.1‒2), even though you could as-
sign him various titles based on his actions. Justin adopts countless di-
vine predicates from Middle Platonic negative theology, which express
God’s distance and transcendence and the inappropriateness of every ti-
tle for God: God is un-conceived and immortal, free from suffering, in-
effable and un-namable, etc. God cannot be grasped in spatial categories
(dial. 56.1), but everything is possible for him (1 apol. 19.6, dial. 84.4), for
he is not, as the Stoics claim, subject to the natural laws he has himself
created. God is the creator of the world and all things, and will continue to
provide for them and give people and the world the changing seasons and
the associated fruitfulness and vitality. The first and un-conceived God
is also the demiurge. The world is sustained purely by his will (dial. 5.4).
He is the only true God, the father of righteousness and sobriety and all
the highest virtues, and for him all “other gods” are only “so-called gods”
(1 apol. 6.1). This allows Justin to reject the charge from the Christians‘
opponents that they are ungodly, and even turn these accusations back
on the pagans. The only true God is a God we should not bring sacrifices
to, but to whom we owe thankfulness and veneration (1 apol. 13.1‒2). The
Logos is given second place under this unchangeable and eternal God,
followed in third place by the prophetic spirit (1 apol. 13.4). This tripartite
division in no way excludes for Justin the possibility that communication
between God and the earthly world can also take place through angelic
beings. The creed-like sequences (regula fidei) to God the Father, the Logos
Son and the Holy Spirit repeatedly interwoven throughout Justin‘s works
already frame three articles. These represent the clear beginnings of the
formulations of the great fourth century Christian creeds. Despite the fre-
quent, tripartite and always subordinating formulations, there is no con-
cise doctrine of the trinity, but the move in this direction has undoubtedly
begun. Justin‘s tripartite, subordinated conception of God represents an
usual position in the second century Christian theological spectrum, as
monarchic equality between God and Christ was presumably widespread
Justin Martyr 57
as an attractive theological alternative for many Christians until the early

third century.9
For Justin, Christ is both God‘s first born, and the Logos which all of
humanity has shared in, prior to the incarnation (1 apol. 46,2). Since the
Logos is born of God, he is called the second God following the (first) God
who has generated him. He is the son of the true God. The being and acti-
vity of this Logos son is subordinated to the one true God in every respect
(1 apol. 63.10). The “true philosophy” (Christian teaching) now identifies
this Logos son with a crucified human being. This is a mystery which Justin
exhorts the readers of his apologies and his Jewish dialogue partner, Try-
pho, to grasp, but which the contemporary Greco-Roman world dismisses
as pure “madness” (1 apol. 13.4). The Logos has already been glimpsed in
the Old Testament theophanies, and has since had an intermediary role bet-
ween the transcendent divine and the empirical world. Justin shares this
conviction with Jewish religious philosophers such as Philo. The Logos has
implanted some of itself, and hence the truth, in people from the very be-
ginning. This has made it possible for people to acknowledge part of the
truth (logos spermatikos) even prior to the incarnation. With this conception
Justin is independently passing on Stoic and Middle Platonic perceptions
and abstractions. For Justin, however, the complete revelation of the Logos
first takes place with Jesus‘ incarnation and activity.
2.3. Christ’s ethical reformation of humanity
Through this earthly activity, the “second God”, the Logos Christ, has re-
vealed God’s full will and given humanity the new law and instructions for
living. It is striking how dominant the perception of Christ as a teacher is in
Justin‘s works. However, Christ‘s activity as a teacher is clearly secondary in
relation to his miracles (1 apol. 48). In extension of classic conceptions of the
relationship between philosophy and piety (εὐσέβεια) the complete acknowl-
edgement of God made possible in Christ is accompanied by transformation
towards perfect piety which is pleasing to God. In the beginning of the sec-
ond main section of First Apology Justin argues for the truth and rationality
of Christianity primarily by referring to Christ‘s teachings, which he exhorts
the emperors to test (1 apol. 14.4). Christ the teacher speaks authoritatively
and provides binding ethical instructions, similar to contemporary teachers
of philosophy. He calls to conversion and leads people to turn away from irra-
tional lust towards chastity. Justin also repeatedly emphasises that Christian
ethics is stricter and less flexible than other philosophies: Christian men and
women who have followed the instructions of the teacher from the beginning
have remained chaste up to the age of 60 or 70. Justin makes it expressly clear
that based on their teacher‘s instructions: Christians are obligated to show
general benevolence; forbearance and patience are at the heart of Christian
9 R. Hübner has repeatedly drawn attention to this issue, which is still widely ignored. See
Der Paradox. Eine antignostischer Monarchianismus im 2. Jahrhundert, Leiden 1999.
58 Jörg Ulrich
living; and Christians are unconditionally obligated to speak the truth, to

behave in accordance with their heavenly father‘s will, to pay taxes and du-
ties, and to be loyal to the state, which they actually help preserve. All of
these statements are naturally intended to weaken the pagans‘ denigration
of Christians. These ethical choices are based directly on the preaching of
Christ the teacher, with the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Mat-
thew in general playing a dominant role. It is characteristic for Justin to see
acknowledgement of Christ‘s instructions for living and the associated life
transformations as the essential criteria for being Christian. Those who do
not follow the teacher‘s instructions and only confess him in speech cannot
be recognized as Christians (1 apol. 16.8). Justin even encourages the Roman
authorities to judge such Christians as evil (1 apol. 16.14). Justin distinguish-
es widely between Christians and non-Christians based on ethical criteria,
but also rejects the possibility that true Christians are involved in the case
of major dogmatic aberrations (1 apol. 26,6). Such people are rather godless
heretics who promote blasphemous and foolish teaching (dial. 80,3). This is
true of heretics who deny the teaching of the resurrection or mock the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (dial. 80,3). This holds especially true, says Jus-
tin, in the case of Marcion, who believes in another god who is superior to
the creator of the world; but it also applies to people who see themselves as
gods, such as Simon Magus and his disciple Menander, who attract honour
in Rome and Antioch respectively on a false foundation using magic tricks,
and see themselves as immortal. The brief presentation in First Apology 26 and
the reference there to the treatise (which has been lost) against all heresies,
demonstrate the increasing development of numerous “christianities”, which
Justin strives to combat by defining the “great church”, a particular morality
and a rule of faith (regula fidei) with fixed confessions, as the true Christianity.
However, one should not overlook the fact that Justin sees it as natural in con-
nection with other dogmatic issues for Christians in the same church to have
different attitudes, as demonstrated, for example, by the various opinions on
the issue of Chiliasm (dial. 80.2).
2.4. The Christians’ opponent(s)
Justin sees the fact that Christianity, characterised by consistency between
morality and faith, is troubled by other false forms of Christianity as one
of countless illustrations that the false and evil demons are attempting to
counter the healing activities of God and his Logos son. This was the case
even before the incarnation of the Logos, with Justin citing the execution of
Socrates as an example (1 apol. 5.3). Demons are also responsible for the un-
reasonable approach taken by Roman emperors and the Roman authorities
towards innocent Christians (1 apol. 5.1). They put irrational, foolish religious
ideas into the hearts of people (1 apol. 25.3). They imitate Christian rituals
with inferior idol worship and the Biblical miracles with miserable conjurer’s
tricks, to side track people already on the right path towards the true religion
Justin Martyr 59
(1 apol. 54; dial. 69.1‒3). They lead to divisions within Christianity due to false
teachers (Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion) (1 apol. 26). Demons are behind
every event which is unaffected by or resistant to the influence of the Logos.
Justin’s teaching on demons stands in tension with both his defence of the
omnipotence of the only God, and his consistent emphasis on human free
will. Justin solves that problem as follows: The idea of free will is necessary
in order to be able to justify virtuous action and to learn. Each person is re-
sponsible for their own actions and justly rewarded with salvation for doing
good, and condemnation for doing evil (1 apol. 42.2‒3.). Yet at the same time,
human scope for action is framed by divine providence. This divine provi-
dence is exercised by the one true God himself. At the earthly level it has been
delegated to the angels, and subordinately to the evil demons, who give rise
to the negative, foolish powers in the world in opposition to God. This three-
way perception of providence has Middle Platonic origins (dial. 1.3). Humans,
with their free will, are always capable of opposing the control of demons
through reason and by doing God’s will, as implanted in and revealed to
humanity. This is one of the theological reasons why Justin writes apologies.
He assumes that insight into rationality corresponding to the Logos is capa-
ble of halting the demons’ activities in opposition to God. On the other hand,
negative and ungodly human acts result from the influence of demons. These
negative results of human thoughts and decisions are never seen by Justin as
“dualistic” (despite the influence of the demons), and never as “autonomous”
(despite the idea of free will), but are always subsumed in the providence of
the one true God. In one perspective, the demons exert their own power, ex-
ploiting the free will of humans and the fact that there are ungodly thoughts
and actions in the world. In the other perspective, the demons only imple-
ment the negative consequences resulting from people using their free will to
follow false teachings and live immorally.
Overall, however, this neither threatens nor casts doubt on the eternal
salvation ordained by the only God for all those who believe in him and fol-
low his Logos reason. Justin’s Christianised doctrine of demons, which plays
a major role in the apologies, combines elements from popular belief with
Middle Platonic and Jewish teachings. Justin adopts concerns from the school
of philosophy, putting the blame for the sometimes negative behaviour of the
Greek gods seen in Homer onto demons (1. apol. 21.6, 23.3, 54.1‒3, and 56.1),
thereby carrying on Plato’s criticism of poetry.
While Justin extends this to unambiguously attribute ungodliness to de-
mons, the Platonic school of philosophy is split on the issue, as is evident by
the fact that demons play a fairly positive role in Socrates’ apology.
2.5. Eschatology
As to whether a person surrenders to the mastery of the Logos reason or
allows themselves to be exploited by evil demons, Justin believes that each
person makes their own decision about their eschatological salvation or dam-
60 Jörg Ulrich
nation. Justin’s conceptions of the Day of Judgement and its dual outcomes
extend the Platonic conceptions of punishment and law. Yet his Christian un-
derstanding differs from Platonism on two points: Christ is the judge rather
than Radamanthys, and the punishment is eternal rather than “only” lasting
a thousand years, as in Plato (1 apol. 8.4). Justin’s interest in harsh punishment
for the ungodly at the end of the ages is inordinate. A terrible eschatological
judgement and punishment awaits the demons and everyone who has fol-
lowed them (1 apol. 54‒55). This also explains his efforts to protect as many
of his contemporaries as possible from such eschatological punishments, in-
cluding his Jewish dialogue partner Trypho, whose attention he attempts to
draw to Christianity (dial. 142.3). Even the Emperor, praised in the apologies,
risks facing God’s judgement in the end times in Justin’s mind. God’s judge-
ment will be one of punishment if the Emperor does not do what is right
(1 apol. 3.5), i.e. halt the persecution of Christians (1 apol. 68.2, 2 apol. 15.5)
and embrace the true philosophy. His strong conceptions of judgement and
of reward and punishment are a major focus of his ethical argumentation:
The impetus for moral conduct consists in the expectation of reward and the
fear of punishment. Justin even deals with the issue of the resurrection of
the body within the context of eschatological punishment. If complete insen-
sibility was the consequence, death would be an advantage to the evildoer,
who would thereby escape judgement (1 apol. 18.1‒2). The resurrection of the
soul – and even more – the Christian conception of the resurrection of the
body, ensures it is possible to punish people after death, and hence allows the
consummation of God’s justice. Justin also describes the reward which awaits
the true Christians after death. He writes that they will be made worthy to be
with God, and will rule in fellowship with God, once they have become im-
mortal and free of suffering (1 apol. 10.2). The setting in which this fellowship
with God takes place is the millennium in the divine Jerusalem (1 apol. 11.1‒2
and dial. 80.5, 81.2). Justin thus advocates a Christian chiliasm. His vision of
a divine Jerusalem connects with contemporary expectations of the future,
yet runs contrary to Jewish hopes of restitution and conceptions from the
pagan tradition. In the dialogue with Trypho, Justin admits (dial. 80.2), that
the millennial expectation is not shared by all Christians of his day. Yet ex-
pectations of eschatological punishment and reward are central in second
century Christian theology, and gain even greater significance in connection
with the theological interpretation of persecution and martyrdom. Since the
eschatological perspective is what is important, Christians do not fear their
tormentors, because they do not set their hopes on the present (1 apol. 11.2).
2.6. Martyrdom
The possibility and reality of Christian martyrdom plays a major role in
Justin’s theology and ultimately prompts him to write his apologies. Justin’s
approach in discouraging the Emperor from persecuting Christians is to
appeal to reason: He aims to demonstrate that the prevailing legal situa-
Justin Martyr 61
tion which sanctions judgement based on nomen ipsum without considering

deeds is irrational and unprofessional. Justin felt acutely threatened by the
prospect of his own imminent martyrdom (2 apol. 3.1) but always empha-
sised that martyrdom was no barrier to proper life with God, and was there-
fore no real tragedy (1 apol. 2.4). The fact that some people openly confessed
the Christian faith during interrogation by the Roman authorities, despite
the option of winning their freedom by denying it, and knowing that the
penalty was death, was both unsettling and fascinating to the pagan ob-
servers. The readiness of Christians to suffer martyrdom and their scorn of
death is repeatedly mentioned in the texts (1 apol. 8.2; 2 apol. 2 and 4.4). Yet,
one should also note that the schools of philosophy were characterised by
a scorn of death among their founders and members, and that there was a
widespread staunchness among the Jews towards tyrannical threats, which
they met with steadfast obedience to their laws. In connection with the
Christian scorn of death and readiness to face martyrdom, however, Justin
attempts in his apology to show the meaninglessness of such martyrdoms,
by demonstrating that the traditional charges against Christians (atheism:
1 apol. 6.1; high treason: 1 apol. 11.1; and folly: 1 apol. 13.4) are unfounded,
and by exhorting the judges to look at the actual deeds of those accused.
He insists that by maintaining the existing legal status towards Christians,
the Roman state is actually ridding itself of its best and most loyal citizens.
Justin repeatedly criticises the judges regarding nomen ipsum and demands
a reasonable and open examination of the particulars of each case at any
given time (1 apol. 2.3). He encourages unreserved and unlimited open-
ness among Christians, exhorting them to boldly provide information about
every aspect of their teachings and actions (1 apol. 3.4 and 1 apol. 61.1ff.).
There is absolutely no hint in Justin that Christians had undertaken to keep
their teachings and rituals secret. The conception of Christian dogma and
rites as arkana (secret) is predominantly foreign to the early Church.
2.7. Justin’s teachings and contemporary context.
During any attempt to place Justin and his theology in the context of con-
temporary philosophy and religion, one immediately notices compatibility
with various trends and forms of thought. Yet we should note that Justin sees
himself as belonging exclusively to the Christian tradition, which he has ap-
parently been thoroughly briefed in following his conversion. He strongly
emphasises that the Christian teachings simply need to be continually com-
municated in new ways. He uses the image of a mathematics teacher who
only answers “four” to the question of what “two plus two” is, and nothing
else (dial. 85.5). In Justin’s time, a Christian tradition already exists which
makes it possible to categorise certain statements as belonging to the consen-
sus, while also setting certain outer boundaries for Christianity (for example,
Marcion and his theology is excluded). With regard to this positive tradition,
Justin speaks of the “apostles’ recollections” (1 apol. 66.3, 67.3, on numerous
62 Jörg Ulrich
occasions in the dialogue). He was probably not referring to a fixed, fully

developed, canon of “new testament” writings, but rather a collection of state-
ments about Jesus teachings, etc. Luise Abramowski has argued convincingly
that these were nothing other than the current gospels.10 The Old Testament
was also recognized as the church’s holy scriptures, and this status was ce-
mented through the recent exclusion of Marcion.
Based on the available range of Christian traditions, Justin seeks to com-
municate using images and symbols which his pagan and Jewish contempo-
raries were familiar with. His aim is to break down the feeling of alienation
from Christianity, and place the new religion within the context of other reli-
gions, while also presenting it as the best and only true religion (1 apol. 24.1).
By following this approach, Justin demonstrates that he has been influenced
by the philosophical streams around him, which also correspond to his own
personal development ahead of his conversion. One could say that from a
historical perspective, Justin’s Christianity assumes a new and more philo-
sophical form, without representing a substantial change in relation to the
“apostles’ recollections”. However, his goal is not to unite Christian theology
and Greek philosophy. He is resolute on Christianity’s claim to absoluteness
(1 apol. 13) and reinforces this by constant comparison with pagan percep-
tions of the world. In order to make the Christian claim of absoluteness clear,
he takes every opportunity to make apologetic connections to the partial
truths of philosophy and the available philosophical trends (2 apol. 13.2). This
makes Justin one of the first people in the history of Christianity to contrib-
ute to the process whereby – under completely different political conditions
following the Constantinian reversal – independent, pagan, philosophical
teachings later came to be overshadowed by and adopted into the Christian
education system as a propaedeutic activity. Justin’s apologetic borrows ex-
tensively from the intellectual methods of argument of the Jews and the pa-
gan philosophy schools. His thinking is clearly influenced by Middle Platon-
ic philosophy, which is also consistent with the intellectual development he
describes in his dialogue with Trypho. Typical Middle Platonic themes such
as creation of the world, providence, immortality of the soul and judgement
following death also play a central role in Justin’s Christian philosophy. The
close connection between philosophical thought and practical living is also
congruent in this context. Yet as a Christian, Justin rejects Platonism as a com-
mon philosophical system (dial. 8.1 and 2 apol. 12.1), as he ultimately sees it
as inferior to Christianity. Justin exhibits the influence of basic Stoic thought
in his ethics, although he distances himself critically from Stoic materialism
and determinism, which may be one of the reasons for the conflict with the
Stoic philosopher Crescens. Justin builds on existing Christian testimonial
collections in his understanding and exegesis of the Old Testament. Yet his
10 See L. Abramowski, Die Erinnerungen der Apostel bei Justin, in: P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das
Evangelium und die Evangelien, Tübingen 1983, 241‒353.
Justin Martyr 63
understanding of the Old Testament and his designation of Moses’ theology

as the oldest and best “school philosophy” compared to Plato (1 apol. 59.5
and 60.1), has been borrowed from Jewish apologetic and exegesis, with Philo
playing a leading role. Overall, it is striking how eclectic Justin is in relation
to the various contemporary philosophical systems. He cannot be pinned to
a particular school, but integrates elements with various origins into his own
system. He was thus relatively innovative and original in the development of
his own Christian systematics and in his perception and independent refor-
mulation of particular thoughts and idioms.
2.8. Justin’s background
Justin’s works paint a picture of an author with a good general education and
considerable knowledge of philosophical sources. This does not mean that Jus-
tin acquired this knowledge through a reading of primary texts. While we can
assume that many of the quotes from Platonic texts (Apology, Gorgias, Phaido,
Phaedrus, Philebus, Protagoras, The Republic, Symposium, Timaeus) are based
on a reading of the sources, as such reading was typical in the academic process
of Justin’s day, the other textual quotes are best explained by the use of hand-
books and excerpts. Yet even the latter testifies to an extensive knowledge of
anthologies. By constantly referring to Greek poetry and the entire mythologi-
cal spectrum in his argumentation, Justin demonstrates that he is a skilled con-
versation partner. His knowledge of the diversity of pagan idol worship is im-
pressive. He was probably familiar with this idol worship not only from stories
and discussions but also first-hand observance of Rome’s great religious and
extraordinary cultural diversity. Justin is therefore one of the first Christians to
participate in contemporary scientific and religious discourse on its own terms,
and his education can be seen as equal to that of the pagan and Jewish readers
of his works. From his dialogue with Trypho it is apparent that Justin’s relation-
ship with Judaism was characterised by respect, but also staunch opposition
regarding Jesus’ status as the Messiah and whether the commands of the Torah
still needed to be followed. For Justin, Christ is the promised Messiah and the
giver of the new law – actually embodies the new law – and the church, as the
true Israel, has taken over the traditions of God’s ancient people. The decision
to accept or reject Christ has eschatological significance to Justin. He therefore
emphatically exhorts Trypho and his companions to accept Christianity. How-
ever, the frequent discussions in the text regarding the church as the true Israel
cannot be taken as evidence of an anti-Jewish replacement model. These are
better understood in the context of the internal “catholic”/Marcionite discus-
sion of whether the Old Testament and Israel’s salvation history continued to
have validity for the Christian Church.
2.9. Justin’s contemporary influence
Overall, Justin the philosopher and martyr is an impressive figure in early
Church history, who consciously makes the Christian religion his own and
defends it (1 apol. 1.1). His courage and dedication in bringing his concerns
64 Jörg Ulrich
to the attention of the emperors themselves deserves acknowledgement. Did

his defence of Christianity succeed in winning followers as intended, and
did his dialogue with Trypho the Jew set new boundaries for Jewish-Chris-
tian argument with respect to Old Testament exegesis? The major textual
focus in his works makes it possible to slot him relatively homogeneously
into the Christian traditions, which he expanded and passed on. Yet we
must also admit that we do not know a lot about the traditions that existed
prior to Justin, and any attempts at reconstruction are constantly hampered
by the limitations of the surviving texts. The breadth of the traditions he has
incorporated have given him a well-developed ability to communicate with
his audience. The eclecticism we repeatedly observe in his works highlights
his conceptual independence.
Following this homage to Justin’s theology, we can ask whether his texts
achieved the goals he set himself. The answer is both yes and no. First of
all, he apparently did not succeed in getting the Roman state to suspend
legal proceedings against Christians, whereby the primary intention of the
apologies failed. The legal situation Justin criticises continues unchanged
until Galerius’ edict of tolerance in 311 AD. Neither does the impression
Justin’s argumentation must have made on potential Jewish and pagan dis-
cussion partners appear to have triggered mass conversions to Christianity.
On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that Justin succeeded
through his works – and perhaps even more through his teaching activi-
ties in the Christian philosophy school in Rome – in bringing the youthful
Christianity of his age, subject to a range of denigrations, into debate among
contemporary intellectuals and sustaining this debate over a long period.
Arguments by Celsus, a critic of Christianity, at the end of the second cen-
tury indicate awareness of, if not Justin’s works, then at least the Christian
argumentation used, which the new criticism of Christianity is no longer
able to ignore. Many of the later apologists also pick up themes in their
argumentation which we know from Justin. This naturally leads into the
question of Justin’s influence on history.
3. Justin’s influence on posterity

Justin’s influence was significant up until the fourth century. His theology
was greatly respected in the early Church. His martyrdom gave his texts
great authority. Late in the second century, Ireneus and Tertullian valued
his efforts to combat heresy and particularly Marcion (Iren., haer. 4.6,2 and
Tert., Val. 5.1), so Justin’s works against heresies and against Marcion (which
have not been preserved) have very likely influenced Ireneus’ and Tertul-
lian’s anti-heretical works. From passages in Celsus’ work against Chris-
tians, preserved as quotations in Origen’s Contra Celsum, it is apparent that
Justin’s arguments were known and discussed by critics of Christianity in
the late second century.
Justin Martyr 65
From the third century, awareness of Justin’s works in the West declines
as Latin becomes predominant, at the expense of Greek. However, he con-
tinued to be read and used in the East, and his Logos teaching which was
relatively isolated in the second century across the entire Christian spec-
trum, achieved prominence via Clement of Alexandria, and particularly
Origen and Eusebius. Although modified, it came to be a clear milestone
on the path to a precise formulation of Trinitarian and Christological dog-
ma. During the Arian dispute, both Arius and his opponent Alexander of
Alexandria, as well as the “Eusebian centre party”, based their views on
the form of Logos perception which Justin founded and Origen refined. In
Christian apologetic in the West, despite basic differences, Tertullian picks
up a number of Justin’s arguments in his Apologeticum, although direct li-
terary dependence cannot be proven. The later Western apologetic authors,
from Minucius Felix to Lactantius, Arnobius and Augustine do not draw on
Justin. But in the East, his apologetic retains its influence throughout the se-
cond (Athenagoras; Theophilus), third (Clement of Alexandria, Protreptikos;
Origen, Contra Celsum) and fourth centuries (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangeli-
ca). His dialogue with Trypho serves not only as a source for Judeo-Chris-
tian controversies in his day. It also influenced the later Christian literary
confrontation with Judaism to the fourth century and found resonance and
provoked a reaction among Jews.
Eusebius described Justin even in the fourth century as “genuine lover of
the true philosophy” (h.e. 4.8,3). He praised Justin’s mind as “educated and
practiced in divine things” (h.e. 4.18,1) and recommended that readers of his
Church History should read Justin’s works eagerly (h.e. 4.18,10).
After the fourth century, interest in Justin’s works declined significantly.
They were mostly accessed secondarily via Eusebius’ Church History in the
East, and Rufinus’ Latin counterpart in the West. In the Byzantine Empire
John of Damascus and Photius appear to be familiar with Justin’s primary
text. Much research remains to be done in this area, which may support and
expand earlier research results. If nothing else, the fact that later works could
be passed on in Justin’s name demonstrates his continuing authority as a the-
ologian and Martyr.
No great interest was shown in Justin during the Middle Ages, as is in-
dicated by the very few surviving handwritten copies of his texts. The re-
discovery of ancient texts by the humanists of the late Middle Ages helped
pave the way for a modest rise in interest in early modern times. The first
attempts to publish his works date to the second half of the 16th century,11
although they still failed to attract much attention. A predominantly negative
critique of Justin’s theology and apologetic efforts has been prevalent in mod-
ern times, particularly among protestant theologians. This critique needs to
11 R. Estienne (Stephanus) (ed.), Iustini opera omnia, Paris 1551 and F. Sylburg, Iustini opera,
Heidelberg 1593.
66 Jörg Ulrich
be understood in the context of the persistent, fundamental, reserved attitude

towards the apologists in general, which is discussed in my other chapter in
this book. Yet like the apologists, a renewed interest is being shown in Jus-
tin the philosopher and martyr and his thoughts and arguments, and efforts
are being made to make a more thoughtful appraisal. This is apparent in the
narrow scientific context, as well as among a broader circle of academics with
an interest in antiquity and late antiquity, as well as among the many adher-
ents of Christianity in our day with an interest in intellectual matters. At a
time when Christianity seems to be becoming more marginalised in many
societies of the world, and apologetic activity is therefore more dangerous
than ever, there is great value in studying Justin’s works for the defence and
promotion of Christianity.
Tatian
René Falkenberg
1. Introduction
Tatian may not be the most important of the early apologists, but there has
been much controversy surrounding him – in his day and afterwards. This
is primarily because he came to be viewed as a heretic from an early stage by
Christians in the Western Roman Empire. In the East however, Tatian was
seen as a significant theologian due to his Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron,
being the first person to weave the four Gospels of the New Testament into
one single account. Many of the Eastern churches used the Diatessaron as their
standard Gospel up until the fifth century. Although Tatian was called a her-
etic in the West from the second century, we do not find similar statements in
the East prior to the tenth century.1
There is little surviving biographical information about Tatian, but
based on the descriptions of his life by other church fathers and his liter-
ary activity, it is assumed that he was born around 120 AD and died be-
tween 180‒190.2 In his Address to the Greeks (Oratio ad Graecos), he mentions
that he was born in Assyria (orat. 42.1) into a wealthy family (orat. 11.1). He
was educated in rhetoric, travelled a lot, and was known for his pointed
philosophical and religious attitudes (orat. 35.1‒2).3 During his travels he
gained detailed knowledge of Greek philosophy and religion, and was
initiated into the mystery cult (orat. 29.1). He visited Rome (orat. 29.1; 35.1),
where he became acquainted with Justin Martyr; Tatian respected Justin
(orat. 18.2) and says that the Roman Cynic, Crescens, sought to have them
both killed (orat. 19.1).4 Given that Justin’s martyrdom is not yet mentioned
by him, Tatian’s Address to the Greeks may have been written in the years
prior to the death of Justin in 165 AD.5 Irenaeus also reports that Tatian
was a student of Justin, but became a conceited teacher and heretic follow-
ing his martyrdom.6 Eusebius refers to Tatian’s excommunication from the
Roman congregation in 172 AD, which may be confirmed by Epiphanius,
1 W.L. Petersen, Tatian the Assyrian, in: A. Marjanen / P. Luomanen (eds.), A Companion to
Second-Century Christian “Heretics”, VCSup 76, Leiden 2005, 125‒158 (153).
2 W.L. Petersen, 2005, 133f.; E.J. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century. The Case of Tatian,
London 2003, 1.
3 Also Eus., h.e. 4.16,7.
4 Justin refers to the conflict with Crescens himself in 2 apol. 3.1‒7.
5 Hunt, 2003, 3.
6 Cf. Iren., haer. 1.28,1. This passage will be analysed below.
68 René Falkenberg
who reports that Tatian established his own school in Mesopotamia the
same year.7
With respect to the bibliography of Tatian, his Address to the Greeks is the
only work which has survived in its entirety. No cohesive original version
of the Diatessaron has survived, but much of the text can be reconstruct-
ed, for example, using quotations from the Syriac Gospel commentaries of
Ephraim and Aphrahat.8 With respect to works now lost, Tatian himself re-
fers to On Animals, which describes how humankind can ascend to God due
to its creation in the divine image (orat. 15.2). He may also have written To
Those who Have Propounded Ideas about God, which was planned to refute the
Greeks’ critique of the Christians (orat. 40.1‒2). Regarding his remaining
works, only titles and short extracts have been preserved by other church
fathers. Clement of Alexandria quotes from On Perfection According to the
Saviour, in which Tatian speaks against the fleshly union of man and wom-
an.9 According to Eusebius, Tatian’s student, Rhodon, refers to a work called
On Problems, where Tatian presents difficult passages and secrets of the Bi-
ble, and to On the Six Days of Creation, which is not further elaborated; but to
Eusebius it was Tatian’s Address to the Greeks that seemed the most beautiful
and important of his works.10
Tatian’s literary productivity and his extensive travels in the Greco-Ro-
man world bear witness to a man with great religious and philosophical ex-
perience. Yet intellectually he finds these experiences contradictory and inad-
equate. Against this background, he reads the Bible which makes a profound
impression on him:
While I was engaged in serious thought I happened to read some bar-
barian (βαρβαρικαῖς) writings (the Bible), older by comparison with
the doctrines of the Greeks, more divine by comparison with their
errors. The outcome was that I was persuaded by these because the
lack of arrogance in the wording, the artlessness of the speakers, the
easily intelligible account of the creation of the world, the foreknowl-
edge of the future, the remarkable quality of the precepts and the
doctrine of a single ruler of the universe (orat. 29.1‒2).11
Tatian’s conversion appears not to be due to some charismatic event, but
rather the result of an energetic, intellectual quest (“I was engaged in serious
thought”).12 This quest is evident throughout his Address to the Greeks, where
a razor sharp confrontation with Greek culture is the central theme of the
7 Cf. Eus., chron. ad ann. cit.; Epiph., pan. 46.1,6.

8 W.L. Petersen, 2005, 127.
9 Cf. Clem., str. 3.12,81.
10 Cf. Eus., h.e. 4.29,7; 5.13,8.
11 All translations and Greek text of the Address to the Greeks are taken from the critical edition
of M. Whittaker, Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos and fragments, OECT, Oxford 1982.
12 W.L. Petersen, 2005, 132; Whittaker, 1982, xv.
Tatian 69
apology. Two more factors should be highlighted in the description of his

conversion. Tatian mentions “the easily intelligible account of the creation
of the world” (cosmogony), because the theology of creation is important to
his apologetic project, and “the doctrine of a single ruler of the universe”
(monotheism), which is likewise significant for his philosophical approach to
Christian theology.
2. Tatian as a philosophical apologist

Given that there has been so much controversy about the orthodoxy of Tatian,
it is surprising that his Address to the Greeks has been preserved for posterity.
This is most likely because his apology contains an intricate presentation of
the Jewish and Christian argument from antiquity (Altersbeweis), whereby he
at length seeks to demonstrate that Moses and the Pentateuch are older than
the Homeric literature (orat. 31.1‒41.4).13 In Antiquity, the Homeric works of
poetry had status as the finest and oldest works Greek culture could muster,
and given that age was associated with high status at that time, Homer was
a well-chosen starting point for Tatian’s argument (orat. 31.1).14 The argument
from antiquity is his crowning apologetic argument to justify the Christian
faith in the Hellenistic world. This chronological argument for the antiquity
of the Pentateuch demonstrates as such that all Greek thought and literature
flows out of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, albeit in a distorted form:
Moses is older than heroes, cities, demons. We should believe one
who has priority in time in preference to Greeks who learned his doc-
trines at second hand. For with much labour their sophists tried to
counterfeit all they knew from Moses’ teaching and from those who
philosophized like him, first in order to gain a reputation for origi-
nality, and secondly in order that by concealing their ignorance in a
cloak of bogus verbiage they might distort the truth as mythology
(orat. 40.1).
The Christian apologists normally employ the argument from antiquity to
demonstrate that Christianity is an ancient religion. Tatian has a different
purpose, presenting it to support his philosophical understanding of the cre-
ation. Since he considers the Old Testament creation account the oldest, all
other cosmogonic accounts of later writers must be plagiarisms, in that the
Greeks “counterfeit all they knew from Moses’ teaching” and “learned his
doctrines at second hand.”
Any apology presupposes a previously presented charge raised by an
opponent. Tatian says that the explicit accusation raised against him is: “Ta-
tian is going one better than the Greeks and the countless hordes of philoso-
13 Hunt, 2003, 2. Other church fathers praise Tatian’s argument from antiquity, cf.
Clem., str. 1.21,1; Eus., h.e. 4.29,7.
14 Pilhofer, 1990, 253‒260.
70 René Falkenberg
phers with his newfangled doctrines (δόγματα)!” (orat. 35.2). He counters this
charge by demonstrating, using the argument from antiquity, that the phi-
losophy of the barbarians is not new, but actually the oldest philosophy and
therefore the foundation for all Greek thought. Despite his heated confronta-
tion with philosophy (e.g., orat. 2.1‒3.3) he is still content to take over Greek
philosophical concepts in his creation theology, because he believes they are
originally present in the biblical accounts. This apologetic agenda is already
revealed in the introduction of the apology: “Do not maintain a totally hos-
tile attitude to foreigners (βαρβάρους), men of Greece, nor resent their beliefs
(δόγμασιν)” (orat. 1.1). And it is emphasised throughout the remainder of the
first chapter, in which the Greeks are lambasted for having impersonated and
adopted conceptions from other cultures (orat. 1.1‒3).
In addition to the argument from antiquity, other apologetic themes
are evident in Tatian. For example, he argues that Christians should not
be persecuted and emphasises that he pays tax as a good citizen and sub-
mits to the commands of the Roman authorities, although with the proviso
that he is not willing to deny his God (orat. 4.1). With a hidden reference to
communion, he says that the Christians are falsely accused of cannibalism
(orat. 25.3). In a longer passage (orat. 32.1‒33.4), which probably addresses
society’s criticism of the Christian congregational structure, Tatian defends
the Christian ideal of equality: Everyone, irrespective of gender, age, ap-
pearance and social status, has access to the Christian philosophy. Greek
citizens seem to have particularly taken exception to the fact that women
had relatively high status in the Christian gatherings (orat. 33.2‒4). Tatian’s
portrayal of the Christian teachings is based on the perception of them as a
pedagogic discipline (παιδεία) which is always superior to its Greek coun-
terpart.15 This is a theme, which implicitly presents Christians as the best
Roman citizens throughout the entire apology.
It is striking that beyond mentioning Moses, Tatian does not use the Old
Testament in connection with his argument from antiquity.16 He does dis-
cuss the prophets, but only a few times and without naming any (orat. 20.2;
36.2). Nor does he use the name ‘Christian’ anywhere. He labels Christians
as “foreigners/barbarians” (orat. 1.1; 30.2); the Bible as “barbarian writings”
(orat. 29.1); the Christian teaching as “barbarian wisdom” (orat. 31.1) or “the
philosophy which you (Greeks) consider barbarous” (orat. 35.1). Tatian pre-
sumably consciously avoids using the name ‘Christian’ or discussing the
Jews in his apology. As a rhetorical strategy, he has chosen to maintain the
15 E. Norelli, La critique du pluralisme grec dans le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien, in: B. Pouderon /
J. Doré (eds.), Les Apologistes chétiens et la culture grecque, ThH 105, Paris 1998, 81‒120 (119f.);
J.E. Fojtik, Tatian the Barbarian. Language, Education and Identity in the Oratio ad Graecos, in:
J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen / M. Kahlos (eds.), Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian
Apologetics, ECCA 5, Frankfurt 2009, 23‒34 (31‒34).
16 In contrast, for example, to Theophilus of Antioch, who uses the Old Testament genealo-
gies and historical books in his argument from antiquity, cf. Thphl. Ant. 3.24‒25.
Tatian 71
polarity between “the barbarians” (the Christians) and “the Greeks” (the oth-
ers) throughout his entire work. Tatian only touches briefly on ethnicity, and
basically ignores Christology. He only refers to the passion in an aside: “the
suffering God” (orat. 13.3), and likewise the incarnation: “we declare that God
has been born in the form of man” (orat. 21.1). Tatian does not make use of any
Christological titles, such as Christ, Son of Man, Saviour, or anything similar,
anywhere in his apology. Even though God is often called “Father” (orat. 4.2;
5.1‒2; 7.1; 32.1), Tatian does not develop a Christology of the Son of God. He
connects his description of the resurrection of the dead (orat. 6.1‒2) and the
day of judgement (orat. 6.1; 12.4; 18.2; 25.2) with God alone, without mention-
ing Christ or his second coming.
Why this conscious omission of biblical and Christological concepts? The
answer is not clear, but it is probably linked to the presumed audience of Ta-
tian. It would appear that he is targeting non-Christian readers, rather than
those who are already Christian.17 Given that his pagan readers are not aware
of any concept of a Christian Saviour, he downplays Christology and empha-
sises a theology of creation, which is closer to contemporary philosophy than
the Christian teachings.
When Tatian demonstrates via his argument from antiquity that the
biblical creation account is older than all Greek speculation, he nevertheless
links his descriptions of the creation of the world and humanity closely
to Greek philosophy, since he considers all Greek thinking a reminiscence
of biblical conceptions. In terms of apologetics, these descriptions of crea-
tion play a central role in Tatian, who uses them to respond to the criticism
that it is illegitimate to present Christian teaching with the aid of philos-
ophy (orat. 35.2). In this connection, he adopts the Middle Platonic con-
ception of the transcendence of the highest Being in relation to the world.18
He thus combines the idea of this Being’s absolute transcendence with the
Judaeo-Christian idea of monotheism, by describing God as transcend-
ent in relation to his created world. However, Tatian’s assimilation of this
conception is not without problems. In this form of Platonism, the classic
transcendence problem arises, whereby one has to explain how a higher,
transcendent Being can be connected with a lower, sense-perceptible world.
For Tatian the question becomes: Given that God is so different from the
world, how has he communicated with it, much less created it? He responds
to this problem in his portrayal of the creation:
17 Hunt, 2003, 70. For the opposite view, namely that most apologies have an in-group pur-
pose for Christians, cf. F. Young, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, in: M. Edwards / M.
Goodman / S. Price / C. Rowland (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and
Christians, Oxford 1999, 81‒104 (85).
18 Tatian’s use of Middle Platonic termini technici has been noticed by Hunt, 2003, 104f.: God
is predicated negatively: “without beginning (ἄναρχος)” (orat. 4.1), “invisible and impal-
pable (ἀόρατός τε καὶ ἀναφής)” (orat. 4.2) and “ineffable (ἀνωνόμαστον)” (orat. 4.3); “the
nature of the good (ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν) is God’s alone” (orat. 7.1) and he is characterised as
“Being itself (αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν)” (orat. 15.2).
72 René Falkenberg
God ‘was in the beginning’ (cf. John 1:1) and we have received the tra-
dition that the beginning was the Logos power (λόγου δύναμιν).19 The
Lord of all things who was himself the foundation of the whole was
alone in relation to the creation which had not yet come into being.
In so far all power over things visible and invisible was with him, he
with himself and the Logos which was in him established all things
through the Logos power. By his mere will the Logos sprang forth
and did not come in vain, but became the ‘firstborn’ (πρωτότοκον)
(cf. Col 1:15) work of the Father. We know it (the Logos) was the begin-
ning of the universe (orat. 5.1).
Tatian has been inspired here by the first verses of the Gospel of John.20 Be-
cause he is addressing non-Christian readers, he does not develop the Logos
Christology of the Johannine prologue, but rather a Logos theology aimed at
overcoming the transcendence problem. Tatian therefore does not want to
portray God himself as the creator of the world, but instead presents his Log-
os as the demiurgic instrument of creation. Because God himself does not
actively participate in bringing forth the material world, Tatian maintains the
concept of divine transcendence.
God’s disconnection from the world is highlighted by the fact that God
“was in the beginning,” but is himself “without beginning” (orat. 4.1). Tatian
calls the beginning the “Logos power (λόγου δύναμις).” This power corre-
sponds to the capability and saving will of God; it drives out demons by heal-
ing the sick (orat. 16.3; 18.2) and aims to prevent evil by placing prohibitions
on people (orat. 7.2). However, λόγου δύναμις also has another meaning: in
rhetoric, it expresses a reasonable speaker’s potential capability to convince
his audience.21 When Tatian describes “the Logos which was (potentially)
in him” as coming into being “through the Logos power,” divine capability
(λόγου δύναμις) as a precondition for the creating Word of God (the Logos)
corresponds directly to the rhetorician’s ability to speak convincingly as a
precondition for his articulated speech.22 The fact that Tatian connects his
theology with rhetoric here has consequences for his consideration of the
Logos. When he says the Logos “became the ‘firstborn’ (πρωτότοκον) work
of the Father,” he is presumably referring to Christ (cf. Col 1:15‒16). But his
non-Christian readers are unlikely to understand it this way. For his intended
readers, Tatian presents the cosmogony in such a way that the Logos is not
19 Here and in the rest of the Address to the Greeks, λόγου δύναμις is translated differently
from M. Whittaker (“the power of the Word”), cf. the analysis below. Since the Logos seems
more like a concept than a person, pronouns referring to the Logos are translated imper-
sonally (“it”) instead of personally (“he”).
20 There are only a few biblical references in the apology. The passage of John 1:1‒5 is the
exception, since it is partially quoted three times (orat. 5.1; 13.1; 19.4).
21 Developed by Isocrates and later Aelius Aristides, who were Tatian’s contemporary, cf. D.
Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos. Rhetoric and Philosophy/Theology, Lund 2003, 34f..
22 Karadimas, 2003, 37f.
Tatian 73
developed christologically, but rather theologically, by serving as the divine

instrument of creation. The purpose and content of this instrument is ulti-
mately determined by Tatian’s elaboration of a rhetorical technical term: the
Word (the Logos) brought forth by divine ability (λόγου δύναμις) really cre-
ates what it says. Tatian continues with the following discourse concerning
his theological and rhetorical concept of the Logos:
It (the Logos) came into being by partition, not by section, for what is
severed is separated from its origin, but what has been partitioned
takes on a distinctive function and does not diminish the source
from which it has been taken. Just as many fires may be kindled
from one torch, but the light of the first torch is not diminished
because of the kindling of the many, so also the Logos coming forth
from the (Logos) power of the Father does not deprive the begetter
of the power of rational speech.
I speak and you hear: yet surely when I address you I am not myself
deprived of speech (τοῦ λόγου) through transmission of speech, but
by projecting my voice my purpose is to set in order the disorderly
matter in you. Just as the Logos begotten in the beginning in turn
begot our creation by fabricating matter for itself, so I too, in imita-
tion of the Logos, having been begotten again (ἀναγεννηθεὶς) and
obtained understanding of the truth am bringing to order the confu-
sion in kindred matter. For matter is not without beginning like God,
nor because of having beginning is it also of equal power with God;
it was originated and brought into being by none other, projected by
the sole creator of all that is (orat. 5.1‒3).
To counter the problem of transcendence, Tatian again describes the relation-
ship between the Father and his firstborn Logos. To this end, Tatian recounts
a torch and speech parable: Just as the light from a torch is not weakened by
igniting other torches, neither does the Logos weaken the Father by “coming
forth from the (Logos) power of the Father” like speech.23 Thus God remains
undisturbed in his transcendent being.
While describing the unity of being between the Father and the Logos,
Tatian suddenly addresses his readers directly, connecting the theology
with his current rhetorical situation (“I speak and you hear”). Just as di-
vine articulated speech (the Logos) has “begot our creation by fabricating
matter for itself,” Tatian seeks through his preaching or “speech (λόγου)”
to bring order to “the disorderly matter in you,” that is in his readers.
Thus Tatian’s own λόγος is attributed the same function as the demiurgic
Logos of God. The fact that his articulated speech is consistent with the
Logos is because he “in imitation of the Logos” has “been begotten again
(ἀναγεννηθεὶς) and obtained understanding of the truth,” which is most
23 Also used, for example, by Justin Martyr (dial. 61.2), cf. Hunt, 2003, 69f.
74 René Falkenberg
likely referring to his Christian baptism.24 It is interesting that Tatian un-

derstands the Logos of God as the ultimate principle of order for both the
material world (cosmology) and “the disorderly matter” of humanity (an-
thropology). All cosmological and anthropological material is thus subor-
dinate to God and his Logos.
The pericope quoted above is significant in relation to the history of doc-
trine, as this is the first time the idea of creatio ex nihilo is developed in a
Christian context: “For matter is not without beginning like God,” since “it
was originated and brought into being by none other, projected by the sole
creator of all that is.” The conception of ‘creation from nothing’ is tradition-
ally perceived as a Judaeo-Christian revolt against Greek cosmology, which
maintains the eternity of primeval matter.25 Polemic against Hellenistic cos-
mology certainly plays its part in Tatian, but his use of the idea of creatio ex ni-
hilo appears to be more related to the transcendence problem than a confron-
tation with Greek cosmology. The finiteness of the material world highlights
the infiniteness of God, and hence his transcendence in relation to the world;
that matter is finite makes it perishable in relation to God. The material world
therefore needs God to bring order to it, and this is what the Logos does dur-
ing the creation of the world.
The Logos also brings a corresponding order to anthropological matter
during the same creation:
The celestial Logos […] made man an image of immortality, so that
just as incorruptibility belongs to God, in the same way man might
share God’s lot and have immortality also. (orat. 7.1)
However, in the time of Tatian, human material nature has changed status to
become “disorderly matter” (orat. 5.2). Tatian therefore seeks to bring order
to “the confusion in kindred matter” (orat. 5.3) using Christian preaching,
i.e., presenting divinely inspired speech (λόγος) to the reader. The fact that in
Tatian’s time the Logos again needs to bring order to the anthropological mat-
ter suggests that humankind have previously fallen from their Logos-created
state, to their current state of disorder:
Then came one who was cleverer than the rest because he was
first-created (πρωτόγονον),26 and men and angels followed along
with him and proclaimed as god the traitor to God’s law, and so the
Logos power banished the arch-rebel and his followers from life with
him. The creature made in the image of God, when the more power-
ful spirit departed from him, became mortal (orat. 7.2‒3).
24 For a similar use of ἀναζεννάω, cf. 1 Pet 1:3.23.

25 G. May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts. Die Entstehung der Lehre von der creatio ex nihilo, AKG 48,
Berlin 1978, 151‒182.
26 M. Whittaker’s translation of πρωτόγονον (“firstborn”) is changed here, since this entity is
not identical with the Logos earlier designated “firstborn (πρωτότοκον)” (orat. 5.1).
Tatian 75
This section is most likely based on the account of the fall (Gen 3), where the
first humans were seduced by the cunning serpent and thrown out of the
Garden of Eden. The “first-created (πρωτόγονον)” presumably transgresses
against “God’s law,” because he is viewed “as god,” and both he and his an-
gels are therefore excluded from God’s presence and thereafter become de-
mons (orat. 7.3). When the first humans, “made in the image of God,” follow
“the traitor to God’s law,” they are also punished, losing their immortality,
as “the more powerful spirit” abandons their soul.27 For Tatian, salvation is
therefore conditional upon the soul being reconnected with the lost spirit:
“Well then, we ought now to search for what we once had and have lost, and
link the soul to the Holy Spirit and busy ourselves with the union ordained
by God” (orat. 15.1). But how can humanity re-acquire the spirit and achieve
salvation? Tatian has a specific answer to this:
Now the Logos before it made man created angels, and each of the
two forms of creation has free will (αὐτεξούσιον), but not the very
nature of the good which is God’s alone (though man can achieve
it through his own free choice). This was in order that the bad man
might be justly punished, since he had become depraved through his
own fault, and the good man deservedly praised for his good works,
since in the exercise of his free will he had not contravened God’s
purpose (orat. 7.1‒2).
Humanity was originally created, in the image of God, with the ability to
freely choose good or evil. Given that “the very nature of the good” belongs
only to God, humanity had to be bound to him and his spirit in order to
choose good. Humans lost this ability during the fall, and have only been
able to choose evil since that time. Only by being “begotten again” (orat. 5.3)
and thereby regaining the spirit, formerly lost in paradise, do humans have
the opportunity to be reconnected with God (orat. 15.1). However, for Tatian,
this does not mean that the baptised Christian, re-generated by the Logos, is
necessarily able to choose good. Given that the first humans, initially pos-
sessing the divine spirit but making the wrong choice anyhow (orat. 7.2‒3),
Christians are still exposed to a similar risk. On this background Tatian de-
velops an intellectual soteriology which has a strong emphasis on free will.
Human “free will (αὐτεξούσιος)” thus becomes the critical salvation criteria
for Tatian – not just that one chooses to become Christian, but equally im-
portantly, that as a Christian one always chooses to follow “the very nature
of the good” and thus fulfil “God’s purpose” with humankind (orat. 7.1‒2).
Tatian’s soteriology therefore becomes particularly dependent on Christian
pedagogic discipline (παιδεία): Constant moral and intellectual training ac-
27 This scene where divine spirit leaves the first human beings is mentioned later: “So the
spirit became originally the soul’s companion, but gave it up when the soul was unwilling
to follow it” (orat. 13.2).
76 René Falkenberg
cording to this παιδεία enables Christians to keep the consequences of the

fall (sin) out of their lives.
3. Tatian as a heretic?
More than ten years after Tatian’s excommunication from the Roman con-
gregation, Irenaeus of Lyon was the first to write about him and his idea that
there was no salvation for Adam:
A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He
was a hearer of Justin’s, and as long as he continued with him he
expressed no such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from
the Church, and, excited and puffed up by the thought of being a
teacher, as if he were superior to others, he composed his own pecu-
liar type of doctrine. He invented a system of certain invisible aeons,
like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus,
he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and for-
nication. But his denial of Adam’s salvation was an opinion due en-
tirely to himself.28
Tatian is criticised by Irenaeus on four points: Firstly, Tatian felt he was “su-
perior to others” and was therefore a conceited teacher. Secondly, his teaching
about aeons was similar to that of the Valentinian system of thought. Thirdly,
he felt marriage was destructive and indecent. Fourthly, he denied that Adam
achieved salvation.
As for Irenaeus’ first point of criticism, Tatian is not accused of heresy,
but of being conceited. There is much to suggest that Irenaeus is right here,
since Tatian’s entire Address to the Greeks appears to display his explicit revolt
against Greek culture on a broader scale.29 If Tatian became just as irreconcil-
able and bitingly polemic towards some of his fellow Christians as he was
towards the Greeks in his apology, it is no surprise that he was thrown out of
the congregation in Rome; his argumentative nature may have been the main
reason for his excommunication.
According to the second point, Tatian was guilty of following the Valentin-
ian teaching regarding “certain invisible aeons.” The Valentinian aeons are
basically divine entities emanating from the highest God. As such, they have
personality. In the two instances where αἰών is used in the Address to the
28 Cf. Iren., haer. 1.28,1. Translation from A. Roberts / J. Donaldson / A.C. Coxe (eds.), The
Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, New York
2
2007 (1885), 353.
29 E.g., orat. 2.1‒2; 11.1; 22.1‒3; 32.1‒2. “Tatian seems unable to modulate his tone.” He is in
“attack mode” all the time. No quarter is given. Everything is black or white: Tatian is
correct, while everyone else – Diogenes, Plato, Aristotle – is wrong and bound for damna-
tion. “[…] It is worth noting that his certainty and intolerance may have brought him into
conflict with other equally-ardent Christians in Rome, whose views might have differed”
(cf. W.L. Petersen, 2005, 135‒136). For a similar view, cf. Whittaker, 1982, xiv‒xv.
Tatian 77
Greeks, they do not describe divine entities, but times and places.30 In fact, his
apology does not seem to have any particular connection to Valentinianism.31
However, his brief description of the fall from paradise (orat. 7.2‒3) seems to
witness some influence of Sethianism: When “the first-created” is viewed “as
god” and “banished […] from life with” God (orat. 7.2), this may correspond
to the Sethian description of Sophia’s first creation, Ialdabaoth, who declares
himself to be the only God and is therefore stripped of his divine status.32 But
given that Tatian’s description of the fall is quite brief, the parallel is uncer-
tain. Additionally it has been suggested that Tatian was a Gnostic because
he operates with a demiurgic mediator (Logos) between God above and the
world below.33 But first of all, the term ‘Gnostic’ is problematic, as it had both
a positive and negative use among the Church fathers; in fact, even today its
definition is disputed, since no scholarly consensus has been reached at the
moment.34 Secondly, Tatian is not influenced by Gnosticism, because he intro-
duces the Logos as the demiurgic instrument of God.35 As mentioned above,
his primary intent is to resolve the Middle Platonic transcendence problem.
So Tatian is not a Gnostic, but rather a Christian Platonist. According to the
third point of criticism, Tatian was supposedly against marriage. There is no
explicit rejection of marriage in his Address to the Greeks, but regarding the
Greek gods he writes that they “marry, and seduce boys, and commit adul-
tery” (orat. 8.1). Marriage is thus grouped with pederasty and adultery, which
may reveal Tatian’s negative attitude towards it.36 The same reticence may be
evident in some variants in his Diatessaron.37
Irenaeus’ fourth point of criticism regards Tatian’s denial of the salvation
of the first human being. Adam is not named in the apology, but in connec-
30 “When our age (αἰώνων) has been brought to an end, the resurrection will take place once
and for all” (orat. 6.1); “For heaven, O man, is not infinite, but bounded and within a limit;
and above this one are better worlds (αἰῶνες) which have no change of season” (orat. 20.2).
31 R.M. Grant, The Heresy of Tatian, in: JTS 5 (1954), 62‒68 has been criticised by Hunt, 2003,
21‒36 who concludes: “I consider the Oration to belong to a non-gnostic stream of Chris-
tianity, which was later erroneously labelled ‘Valentinian’” (36). Likewise the claim of
Clement of Alexandria, that Tatian – like the Marcionites – viewed the Jewish Law as
the work of a lower god (str. 3.82,2), finds no evidence in the apology of Tatian, cf. Hunt,
2003, 179f.
32 E.g., the Apocryphon of John, NHC II 10.19‒11.22; the Hypostasis of the Archons NHC II
94.14‒95.13.
33 W.L. Petersen, 2005, 146‒148.
34 M.A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category,
Princeton 1996, 263‒266; K.L. King, What is Gnosticism?, London 2003, 4‒19.
35 Both Philo of Alexandria and Justin Martyr used Logos as divine mediator between God
and the world, cf. D. Brakke, The Gnostics. Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity,
Cambridge 2010, 59‒61.
36 Clement of Alexandria attests Tatian’s warning against sexual intercourse, but not against
marriage as such, cf. str. 3.12,81.
37 In Matt 1:24 Joseph took Mary as his wife, whereas the Diatessaron says that he protected her,
to avoid the marriage connotation. In Luke 2:36 we hear that Anna lived with her husband
seven years after her marriage, whereas the Diatessaron says that Anna remained virgin sev-
78 René Falkenberg
tion with the fall Tatian mentions the “creature made in the image of God”
(orat. 7.3). Created in the image of God corresponds to being created with the
spirit of God.38 And it is this spirit which is lost when the first humans join
with the “the first-created” and view him “as god” (orat. 7.2‒3). Free will plays
an important role in Tatian’s intellectual soteriology, but a free choice is only
possible when soul and spirit are reconnected. Adam was therefore originally
capable of choosing freely (orat. 7.1), but even though his soul was connected
with the spirit of God prior to the fall, he made the wrong choice anyhow
and became guilty of the fall of humanity. Adam had the best conditions for
choosing rightly, but failed to do so. This is very likely to be the reason that
Tatian believed he could not be saved.39 Irenaeus’ criticism thus appears to be
justified on this point too.
4. Conclusions
Among the early Christian apologists, Tatian is the one who had the most
radical showdown with Greek religion and culture. He basically renounces
everything not related to his new-found, barbarian philosophy.
The most important apologetic theme in his Address to the Greeks is the
argument from antiquity – Moses is older than Homer. From Tatian’s point
of view, the testimony of the Bible is therefore not only older and better
than all Greek thought and literature, but also the original foundation for
all Greek culture. He therefore feels free to borrow from contemporary phil-
osophical conceptions in his theology, because they have arisen from the
Bible. His theology connects Judaeo-Christian monotheism with the Middle
Platonic conception of an absolutely transcendent Being, and with rhetoric.
Tatian seeks to solve the Middle Platonic transcendence problem through
his Logos theology, whereby the Logos power (a rhetorical term) is an ex-
pression of God’s capability in the world, while the Logos is God’s articu-
lated and creative Word, which acts as his demiurgic instrument in order to
safeguard divine transcendence.
Since Tatian’s goal has been to preach the Christian message among
Greco-Roman citizens, he has had to employ a philosophical mindset which
was not foreign to his readers. He therefore deemphasizes Christology. As
a rhetorician he was probably conscious of not biting off too much, and has
assumed that Christology would have been unintelligible for his readers at
the initial stage.
Was Tatian a heretic? It is too difficult today to determine precisely what
heresy and orthodoxy meant when Tatian wrote his Address to the Greeks in
en years with her husband, that is married but without carnal relations, cf. W.L. Petersen,
2005, 145f.; Hunt, 2003, 146f.
38 “We have knowledge of two different kinds of spirits, one of which is called soul, but the
other is greater than the soul; it is the image and likeness of God” (orat. 12.1).
39 W.L. Petersen, 2005, 150f.
Tatian 79
the later half of the second century. There were many different and strongly
divergent conceptions of what Christianity was at that time. It is easier to
characterise the general situation at that time as heterodox, in that Christian-
ity only began to assume more rigid confessional and organisational forms in
the following centuries. It was only at this later time that it became possible to
reach broader unity regarding who was orthodox and who was a heretic. One
should keep this in mind when considering Irenaeus’ description of Tatian as
a heretic in the late second century.
According to Irenaeus, Tatian had connections to Valentinianism, but
it has not been possible to establish any clear-cut connection to this or any
other strands of Gnosticism in the current investigation. However, Irenae-
us is on firmer ground when he accuses Tatian of rejecting marriage, since
Tatian groups it with pederasty and adultery, thus something for Christians
to avoid. Also Irenaeus’ claim that Tatian denies Adam’s salvation: The in-
tellectual soteriology Tatian develops in his Address to the Greeks places great
emphasis on free choice, and the fact that Adam chose to reject God in the
time of paradise has presumably led Tatian to assume that the first human
being must bear the guilt for his poor choice for eternity. Since anthropology
and Adam’s salvation have a prominent place in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies
(esp. Book 5), it is natural that he highlights this particular criticism of Tatian.
However, this was not a key theological point at the time, and is therefore
unlikely to be the reason for Tatian’s excommunication in 172 AD. Thus even
though Irenaeus accuses Tatian of heresy, he was no major heretic. In any
case, he was not viewed as such in the Eastern churches, where his Gospel
harmony, the Diatessaron, was highly esteemed and widely used.
But let us return to Irenaeus’ first charge against Tatian, which only has
little to do with heretic doctrines. He accuses Tatian of being an arrogant
teacher. This impression is rather clearly confirmed when one reads his Ad-
dress to the Greeks. It is possible that some fellow Christians did not share
Tatian’s view of Christian doctrine. If he rebutted their argumentation in
the same fractious manner as he does in his apology, this may have ulti-
mately led to him being thrown out of the Roman congregation and later
perceived as a heretic. If this was the case, Tatian may literally have been
his own worst enemy.
Athenagoras
This article focuses on the apologetic themes and strategies in Athenagoras’

work, Legatio pro Christianis (hereafter referred to as Legatio).1 However, I will
start by commenting on Athenagoras’ person, education and literary output,
as well as on the content and structure of his Legatio.
1. Who was Athenagoras?

Athenagoras’ identity is uncertain because neither his own works nor other
ancient sources provide any information about him. The oldest manuscript
containing Athenagoras’ works, Codex Parisinus 451 from 914 AD, states that
Athenagoras was a philosopher from Athens. A later 14th-century manu-
script includes a text from historian, Philip of Side, who lived in the fifth
century, which states that Athenagoras was the first head of the Catechist
School in Alexandria. However, Philip is often an unreliable source. The year
of Athenagoras’ birth and death are also unknown.2
Legatio shows signs of the author’s relatively high level of education. He
reveals close familiarity with classical philosophy, especially the Platon-
ic tradition. The manuscript’s remark that Athenagoras was a philosopher
is probably based on the scribe’s assessment of the philosophical content of
his works. Athenagoras most likely had some form of philosophical train-
ing. Scholarly assessment of his philosophical ability ranges from the view
that he was simply familiar with a few philosophical compendia, to the view
that he followed a systematic curriculum and had independent philosophical
thought.3 I believe Athenagoras had deeper familiarity with parts of Plato’s
philosophy, and that he was very comfortable in the Middle Platonic tradition
1 I have used the following edition of the text: W.R. Schoedel (ed.), Athenagoras. Legatio and De
Resurrectione, Oxford 1972. The English translations are also quoted from this version.
2 Regarding Athenagoras’ identity, see Schoedel, 1972, IX‒XI; C. Kannengiesser, Handbook of
Patristic Exegesis, Vol. 1 , Leiden 2004, 441f.
3 L.W. Barnard believes Athenagoras is very familiar with the philosophical tradition –
especially middle Platonism, and that he is able to exploit his philosophical skill in his
apologetic project. In the article The Philosophical and Biblical Background of Athenagoras, in:
J. Fontaine / C. Kannengiesser (eds.), Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques offertes au cardinal Jean
Daniélou, Paris 1972, 3, Barnard says: “The earliest tradition concerning Athenagoras,…,
states that he was a philosopher who, at some stage in his career, had embraced Chris-
tianity. It is then no surprise that he adapted current philosophical ideas, in particular
those of Plato as understood by contemporary philosophers, to serve the aims of Chris-
tian apologetic. This he accomplished in a subtle and convincing manner which did not
compromise his integrity as a Christian thinker”.
82 Anders-Christian Jacobsen
of his age.4 This view is based on my overall impression of the way he applies
Platonic philosophy in Legatio. I would particularly like to highlight the role
Plato’s Timaeus plays in Athenagoras’ argument. In Legatio 4.2, where he in-
troduces his argument for monotheism, Athenagoras refers to the Christian
belief in an uncreated creator who stands above everything created. He sup-
ports this with the formulation, “it is not that which exists which comes into
being, but that which does not exist”. This is a reference to Timaeus 27. Ath-
enagoras also makes reference to the same place in Timaeus in Legatio 15.1‒4
and 19.2. In his philosophical argument for monotheism in Legatio chapters 5
and 6, Athenagoras again quotes from Timaeus – this time from 28. Although
Athenagoras explicitly states in the latter case that he is using a philosophical
compendium, his widespread use of Timaeus demonstrates in my opinion that
he had first-hand knowledge of this work. His use of Timaeus also shows that
he is well placed in the Middle Platonic tradition, where Timaeus had great
significance.5 However, this does not rule out the possibility that Athenago-
ras, like his contemporaries, has also made widespread use of philosophical
compendia and handbooks.6
Legatio also reveals that Athenagoras has some familiarity with Greco-Ro-
man literature and poetry, and the mythology expressed therein. This is ev-
ident, for example, in the way he refers to Greek literature and mythology in
connection with his argument for monotheism. This familiarity with Greek
4 Barnard, 1972 argues throughout the first section of his article that Athenagoras’ philosophi-
cal background is middle Platonism. A.J. Malherbe argues convincingly that Athenagoras’
Legatio has the same three-part structure as the middle Platonic philosopher Albinus’ work,
Didaskalikos, which is the best preserved middle Platonic philosophical handbook. See A.J.
Malherbe, The Structure of Athenagoras, “Supplicatio pro Christianis”, in: VigChr 23 (1969), 1‒20.
5 See Malherbe, 1969, 6‒12, regarding Athenagoras’ use of Timaeus.
6 The familiarity of many Christian authors with quotations from the philosophers is based
on such collections. What is unusual about Athenagoras is that he expressly states that this
is true in his case. In Athanag., leg. 6.2, where he quotes Plato, Athenagoras makes the fol-
lowing comment: “Plato and Aristotle – and note that it is not as one who intends to give an
exact account of the doctrines of the philosophers that I run through what they say concern-
ing God; for I know that you are as much superior to all men in an exact understanding of
the whole range of learning as you exceed them in the wisdom an power of your rule, and
that you can boast of having accomplished in every branch of learning what not even those
who have specialized in one can lay claim to; but since it is impossible to show without
mentioning names that we are not alone in insisting on the oneness of God, we have turned
to the Opinions (δόξας) – so then Plato says:…” The “opinions” Athenagoras is referring
to are philosophical compendia (doxographies). Athenagoras is well aware that his readers,
whether they are the Emperors or others, can see that he has not consulted the philosophers’
original works. This is why he makes this explanatory comment. This common practice of
using philosophical compendia makes it more difficult for modern readers to get a precise
impression of how familiar a given author was with classical philosophy. However, this is
no major problem in our present context, as our aim is not to trace Athenagoras’ awareness
of philosophy, but rather to determine how much he has used philosophy in his apologetic
argument. This is clearly apparent in the chapters which follow. With regard to Athenago-
ras’ use of philosophical compendia versus the original works of Plato and other classical
philosophers, Barnard says: “The above examples will have shown that Athenagoras drew
Athenagoras 83
literature, poetry and mythology is undoubtedly a result of Athenagoras’

normal schooling and education process. Literature and poetry was simply
what was taught in the schools. Familiarity with the classical literature was
therefore an inevitable background for people who, like Athenagoras, had
undergone contemporary schooling.7
Finally, Athenagoras’ relationship to the biblical texts should be considered.
It is striking that Athenagoras rarely quotes or makes references to the biblical
texts. Legatio contains a few quotes from the Old Testament texts, especially the
prophets (Legatio 9; 10). He also only quotes from New Testament texts in a few
places (Legatio 11; 12; 32; 33; 37). However, L.W. Barnard notes that Athenagoras
has deeper familiarity with the New Testament texts than the number of quo-
tations suggests. This is apparent from passages, such as Legatio 15, where he
discusses themes from Paul’s Areopagos Speech. Barnard concludes that Ath-
enagoras’ very limited direct use of the biblical texts in the form of quotations
and direct references is not due to limited or poor knowledge of these texts,
but rather to his apologetic purpose. In order to achieve his apologetic aim of
convincing his philosophically educated contemporaries of the truth of Chris-
tianity he could only argue on the basis of common philosophy.8
2. Athenagoras’ authorship
Athenagoras’ name has been linked to two preserved works – Legatio and
De resurrectione. Both works are found in Codex Parisinus 451. This arti-
cle focuses on the apologetic work, Legatio pro Christianis. De resurrectione,
as the name suggests, is about the resurrection. The arguments to support
the resurrection used in the work suggest that it postdates Origen’s work,
which set a new foundation for this discussion in many ways. Many there-
fore view De resurrectione as not being the work of Athenagoras. However,
we shall not be concerning ourselves with this question any further.9
3. Legatio – form and intended audience

There are a number of difficulties associated with precisely determining
the ‘genre’ of the work.10 In the title in Codex Parisinus 451, the work is
on collections of texts from classical writers and philosophers which were used as source
material in the Hellenistic schools of philosophy. However it is also possible that he used the
works of the classical authors directly” (Barnard, 1972, 6).
7 Concerning the schooling and educational system at Athenagoras’ time, see K.O. Sandnes,
The Challenge of Homer. School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity, London 2009.
8 “The reason why Athenagoras quotes the scriptures so rarely lies in his apologetic purpose
of presenting the Christian tradition in a philosophical way without recourse, in the main,
to traditional scriptural exegesis (Barnard, 1972, 12f.).
9 Regarding De resurrectione, see Schoedel, 1972, XXV‒XXXIV.
10 The single quotes around the word genre signal that there is no consensus among scholars
as to whether a literary genre denoted as apologetic even exists. The second century works
normally ascribed to this ‘genre’ are so different from one another that it is difficult to
described as a πρεσβεία (Latin: Legatio), which means a prayer or request.

Under the Roman administration, there was an institutionalised practice by
which one was permitted to submit requests, both major and minor, to the
Emperor. Minor cases and very simple requests from normal citizens were
called libelli (small books). The response was written under the request (sub-
scriptio) and publicly displayed, but not sent directly to the enquirer. More
major cases and fundamental requests were called πρεσβεία / legatio. These
could be conveyed either orally or in writing to the Emperor. Athenagoras
may have had the opportunity to meet the Emperor personally, as Marcus
Aurelius and Commodus travelled to Greece and further east in September
176, where they were initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries.11 This means
that they visited Athens during this year. However, there is intensive debate
among scholars as to whether Athenagoras’ Legatio is a genuine example of
a petition which really had been presented to the Emperors.12 Many scholars
believe this to be the case. W.R. Schoedel supports this view in an article
from 1989.13 Schoedel examines a number of similar texts, and statements in
literary and rhetoric handbooks on the genre of petitions. He finds parallels
with Athenagoras’ Legatio in Philon’s Legatio ad Gaium and in the Jewish
petitions, which Josephus recounts (Antiquitates 14.301‒305).14 On this basis,
Schoedel concludes that Athenagoras’ Legatio combines two literary genres
– petition and apology. Although Legatio is not ‘pure’ petition in terms of
genre, Schoedel sees no reason why the work or speech could not have been
presented to the Emperor.15
However, it is also possible that Athenagoras structured his text in the
form of a petition without ever presenting the work to the Emperors. This
view is supported by P.L. Buck, among others, in a 1996 article16 in which he
speak of any common literary form. What unites these works is not so much their liter-
ary form, as their common aim of arguing the not yet accepted case for Christianity, both
among Christians and non-Christians. Regarding this debate, see M. Edwards (eds.), Apol-
ogetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford 1999, 1‒13; Young, 1999, 82‒92; A. Cameron, Apologetics in
the Roman Empire – A Genre of Intolerance, in: J.-M. Carrié / R.L. Testa (eds.), “Humana Sapit”
Études d’Antiquité tardieve Offerts à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout 2002, 219‒227; A.-C. Jacob-
sen, Apologetics in Origen, in: A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich (eds.), Three Greek Apologists. Origen,
Eusebius, and Athanasius, ECCA 3, Frankfurt 2007, 11‒47 (11‒16); id., Main Topics in Early
Christian Apologetics, in: A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich / D. Brakke (eds.), Critique and Apologetics.
Jews, Christians and Pagans in Antiquity, ECCA 4, Frankfurt 2009, 85‒110; id., Apologetics and
Apologies –Some Definitions, in: J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen / M. Kahlos (eds.), Continuity and
Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics, ECCA 5, Frankfurt 2009, 5‒21.
11 T.D. Barnes proposes this theory. See T.D. Barnes, The Embassy of Athenagoras, in: JTS 26
(1975), 114.
12 Much of this debate is based on F. Millar’s book, The Emperor in the Roman World 31 BC – AD
337, London 1977. Millar discusses Athenagoras’ Legatio on 564f.
13 W.R. Schoedel, Apologetic Literature and Ambasadorical Activities, in: HTR 82 (1989), 55‒78.
14 Cf. Schoedel, 1989, 61‒69.
15 See Schoedel, 1989, 70‒78. Schoedel’s view is shared by Barnes, 1975, 111; Grant, 1988, 100.
16 P.L. Buck, Athenagoras’s Embassy. A Literary Fiction, in: HTR 89 (1996), 209‒226.
Athenagoras 85
attempts to refute W.R. Schoedel’s argument point by point. Buck naturally

considers the examples of petitions and other material which Schoedel bases
his argument upon. In other words, the different views of Buck and Schoedel
are not due to the fact that they have considered different works, but rather
because they assess the same material in quite different ways. Put briefly,
Schoedel does not consider Legatio’s deviations from the petition genre and
from the other known contemporary examples of petitions as enough to deter
his conclusion that Athenagoras’ Legatio is a form of petition which has been
presented to the Emperor. Whereas Buck considers these deviations to be so
significant that Legatio cannot be considered a petition, in the same category
as other contemporary petitions. As a result, Buck believes the work is not
likely to have been presented to the Emperor. Buck therefore concludes that
Athenagoras styled his work in the form of a petition for rhetorical reasons,
and sought to draw attention to it by addressing it to Marcus Aurelius and
Commodus, who were travelling in Greece at the time of composition. The
Emperors were not the intended recipients, but rather Christians, whom he
sought to confirm in the truth and superiority of Christianity above other re-
ligions, and Jews and pagans who were interested in more closely examining
Christianity (Buck, 1996, 11).
It is difficult to discern which of these two views is correct. I am person-
ally inclined to believe that Legatio’s frequent and very explicit supplications
to the Emperors make it unlikely that Athenagoras had no intention of pre-
senting his demands to the Emperors, either in oral or written form. Further-
more, I feel that Buck’s arguments draw too heavily on the basic argument
that it is not possible that Athenagoras’ work could have been addressed to
the Emperor, given that we are not aware of any equivalent contemporary
work which was addressed to the Emperor. There have no doubt been formal
and informal, literary, rhetorical and legal conventions governing how peti-
tions to the Emperors should be formulated, their length, who was permitted
to present such petitions, etc., but it is also very likely that there have been
petitions which broke with these conventions in various ways. Athenagoras’
Legatio may well have been such a convention-breaking work.
Assuming Athenagoras did address and present or send his petition to
the Emperors, this does not exclude the possibility that the work may also
have had other intended readers, such as other learned pagans or even Chris-
tians. It is therefore quite possible that Athenagoras may have assumed that
other learned pagans might be influenced by the same arguments as might
sway Marcus Aurelius, with his interest in philosophy. Athenagoras’ inter-
est in influencing these learned pagans is due to the fact that conditions for
Christians in the Roman Empire were not just a matter between the Emper-
ors and the Christians, but also involved educated non-Christians with an
influence in the administration, in connection with the civic cult, etc. Most of
the problems facing Christians in the second century were due to local condi-
tions, and not the Emperors.
However, it can be more difficult to see how the work might have been
of interest to Christians themselves. Did they need to be convinced of the
philosophical and moral superiority of Christianity over contemporary al-
ternative religions? Yes, they did. Many second century Christians – both
educated and not educated – were not very well grounded in the theoretical
basis of Christianity. They therefore had a great need to be provided with
cohesive arguments justifying Christianity, and for its philosophical and
moral superiority. It may therefore well have been Athenagoras’ intention
that Christians should read his Legatio. The question of the intended reci-
pients of the work is therefore very complicated. The two views about Lega-
tio’s recipients outlined above are therefore not necessarily conflicting, but
rather supplement each other.
4. Dating
The question of the recipients also bears on the dating, as Marcus Aurelius
and Commodus only shared imperial power between 176, when Commodus
became co-regent, and 180, when Marcus Aurelius died. Furthermore, if you
take the comment about ‘deep peace’ reigning in the Empire in Legatio 1.2 at
face value, one has to assume that Athenagoras wrote Legatio prior to 178,
when war was resumed with the Germans. The work must therefore have
been written between 176 and 178. Furthermore, if we assume, with Schoedel
and Grant, that Legatio was delivered to or read for the Emperors during their
visit to Athens, the work may be dated precisely to 176.17
5. Themes of the work

Athenagoras responds to three main charges against Christians, the first of
which he most likely considers to be the most important: a) atheism, b) incest
and promiscuity, and c) cannibalism (cf. Legatio 1.3). According to Athenago-
ras, these charges are put forward by people who persecute Christians using
slander and lies (Legatio 1.3). It is not immediately clear whom Athenagoras
is specifically thinking of. However, he is probably referring to people who
raise false charges against Christians with the Roman judiciary. Athenago-
ras’ claim of false charges indirectly accuses the Roman authorities of not
handling the charges raised against Christians thoroughly enough. If they
did, it would be revealed that the charges were false. Instead, Christians are
judged purely on the basis of being labelled as Christians (Legatio 1.3). The
people raising these charges might have had several motives for doing so. It
is most natural to believe that the charges are raised by people who oppose
Christians, because they are Christians. This is suggested by the observation
17 Regarding dating, see Schoedel, 1972, XI. See also Jakob Engberg’s article on Theophilus in
this book, which discusses the problems of dating Christian works based on Commodus’
various imperial titles.
Athenagoras 87
that the Christians are condemned purely on the basis of bearing the name
Christian. However, other factors may apply. According to Roman legal prac-
tice, the person who raised a charge was able to share in the property of the
accused in certain cases if the accused was condemned. In other words, there
may have been an economic motive for raising charges against Christians. If
it was common practice that Christians could be condemned if they simply
confessed Christ, this would have paved the way for people to seize their
property simply by bringing charges against them.18
The three charges named above structure the work:
Introduction (1)
The charge of atheism
Theoretical: Christianity does not assert atheism but monotheism (2‒12)
Practical: This is why the Christians cannot worship the Greco-Roman (civic)
gods (13‒30)
The charge of cannibalism and incest/promiscuity (31‒36)
Conclusion (37)
Thus the work has a clear structure and cohesive themes.19
6. Athenagoras’ apologetic strategies and instruments

Athenagoras uses various apologetic strategies in his work. I will describe
these strategies in more detail below as I examine Athenagoras’ response to
the charges raised. At this point I will simply draw attention to some of the
strategies and instruments Athenagoras uses.
Athenagoras attempts to create strategic alliances with various involved
parties. For example, he always speaks about the Emperors positively, as wise
and upright rulers.20 He also tries to ally himself with the philosophers of the
Greek tradition. A good example of this is the long passage in Legatio 18‒30
where Athenagoras discusses the use of images and statues of the gods in the
cults of the Greek traditions. During this long discourse, Athenagoras repeat-
edly expresses his agreement with the philosophers, who like himself, reject
the notion that the gods can have material forms.21 In the same pericope, we
see this alliance with the philosophers turned against the Greek poets, whom
Athenagoras blames for mythology’s representation of the gods in material
18 Reference to this element of Roman legal practice is due to my colleague, Jakob Engberg,
who also referred me to H. Steven, Imperial Inquisitions. Persecutors and Informants from Ti-
berius to Domitian, Florence 2001. On 35‒44, Steven discusses the issue of ‘delatores’ who
served as accusers in the Roman legal system and who received part of the property of
the accused if the accused was condemned. However, I have been unable to give further
coverage to Steven’s discussion of the topic.
19 A more detailed division of the structure is presented in Schoedel, 1972, XXIII‒XXV.
20 For example, see the address at the beginning of the work, and Athanag., leg. 16.2; 17.1;
18.1‒2; 24.1.
21 See Athanag., leg. 20.2. Another example of an alliance with the philosophers can be seen
in Athanag., leg. ch. 6.
and human form (e.g. Legatio 22.1). Thus Athenagoras’ strategy involves ally-
ing himself with part of the Greek tradition, against another part of the same
tradition. However, there was nothing new in this conflict between the phi-
losophers’ and poets’ conception of the gods, which had already had a long
history within the Greek tradition at the time of Athenagoras.
Another popular strategy employed by Athenagoras and other apolo-
gists is to claim that the accusers engage in the same activities as the Chris-
tians are accused of – but in a much worse form. This strategy plays a ma-
jor role in Athenagoras’ rejection of the charges of incest and cannibalism
against Christians (cf. Legatio 32‒35). The point of this strategy is to show
that the accusers are themselves guilty of something worse. Thus a ‘them
versus us’ situation is established, drawing heavily on contrasts, exaggera-
tions and caricatures.
Athenagoras also employs the tactic of equating the persecution and
execution of Christians with the persecution of great champions of the truth
within the Greek tradition itself. For example, in Legatio 31.2, the persecution
of Christians is compared to the persecution and execution of Pythagoras
and Socrates. Christians are confessors of the truth who are suffering un-
justly, and although they are being executed now, they will be recognized
for what they are in later times.
Finally, Athenagoras occasionally includes positive explanations of
Christian teachings in his apologetic argument. This is evident, for exam-
ple, in Legatio 24.2‒6, where Athenagoras explains his understanding of the
Christian conception of God and the relationship of the angelic powers to the
only God. In this passage we actually witness one of the earliest theological
accounts of the Trinity.
Overall, we can conclude that Athenagoras uses a broad range of apolo-
getic strategies and instruments – all of which can be seen in the other Chris-
tian apologists of the period.
7. Athenagoras’ defence of Christians

Based on Athenagoras’ work, what can one say about his own perception of
the charges apparently being raised against Christians, and the manner in
which he responds to these charges? I will start by investigating Athenago-
ras’ description of the charge of atheism, and his defence against this charge. I
will then, more briefly, investigate the charges against Christians of immoral
living, and Athenagoras’ defence against these charges.
7.1. Atheism
As presented in the outline of contents above, the first major theme Athena-
goras takes up is the issue of the difference between atheism and monothe-
ism. According to Athenagoras, Christians were accused of being atheists.
Athenagoras is undoubtedly correct in stating that this charge was raised
against Christians in the second century. In one sense, the word atheism
Athenagoras 89
basically had the same meaning in the second century as it has in our mod-
ern context – the view that there is no divine being who exists outside of
humanity and the world and who directly or indirectly maintains and con-
trols humanity and the world. In another sense, the word had a specific
meaning in the second century which was different to its modern meaning,
and this was associated with a number of issues which had major religious
and socio-political significance. Being an atheist in the Roman Empire in
the second century was viewed as detrimental to society. We can therefore
see that Christians were accused of being asocial at the same time. This
perception of the consequences of atheism followed from the belief that the
correct worship of the gods was essential for the ongoing survival of soci-
ety. This applied to both the Empire and local society. If some members of
society withdrew from worshipping the gods, they were considered to be
asocial, and therefore a threat to the welfare and survival of society. Being
an atheist in the second century was therefore significantly different to be-
ing an atheist in modern times. For this reason, the charge of atheism had a
major influence on the situation of Christians.
It is very clear from Athenagoras’ petition to the Emperors that the Chris-
tians he wishes to defend have faced this charge of being atheists. In Legatio 3.1
where Athenagoras lists the key charges against Christians, he mentions the
charge of atheism as the first – and one would assume – most important. He
states: “They bring three charges against us: atheism, Thyestean banquets (i.e.
cannibalism), and Oedipean unions”. In Legatio chapters 2‒12 Athenagoras ar-
gues that Christians are not atheists, but monotheists. According to Athenago-
ras, Christians assert that there is only one God, who has created everything,
but was not himself created:
But surely it is not rational for them to apply the term atheism to
us who distinguish God from matter and show that matter is one
thing and God another and the difference between them immense;
for the divine is uncreated and eternal and can be contemplated only
by thoughts and reason, whereas matter is created and perishable
(Legatio 4.1).
Athenagoras’ point is that it is a fallacy for non-Christians to believe that
the Christians’ refusal to worship created, material gods is the same as not
worshipping or recognising any divine power. Christians reject the notion
that the created can be divine, but not the existence of something divine
which stands above the created, as the creator of the created. Just prior
to the above quotation, Athenagoras mentions the Athenians who con-
demned Diagoras for atheism. Athenagoras sees this as justified, because
he not only exposed humanly devised mysteries and heat his dinner using
wood from a statue of Hercules, but also denied unequivocally that there
was any God (Legatio 4.1). Christians are similar to Diagoras on the first
count, but not on the second count. Athenagoras’ distinction between the
created and the uncreated should be understood against the background

of both the Old Testament and Platonic traditions. In the Old Testament
creation accounts and a number of other Old Testament traditions there
is a fundamental distinction between God the Creator, and the created
order. Although Athenagoras makes no reference to this Old Testament
tradition, one may assume it played a role in his consciousness. However,
Athenagoras refers to Plato’s Timaeus, which he interprets as expressing the
fact that the Platonic tradition also distinguishes between the created and
the creator. The reason Athenagoras chooses to refer to Timaeus and not to
the Old Testament is due to his apologetic strategy: he needs to convince
his recipients, who belong to the Greco-Roman tradition, using arguments
from their own tradition. The fact that Athenagoras was most likely more
familiar with Plato than with Moses may naturally also have played a role.
This distinction between the created and the uncreated was reinforced in
early Christianity because Christians thought within the framework of the
dominant Platonic philosophy of the time – Middle Platonism – which em-
phasises the transcendence of the divine above the material world.22 Ath-
enagoras’ apologetic strategy involves pointing out what is distinctive for
Christians, thereby correcting the critics’ misunderstandings of Christian-
ity, and seeking points of overlap between Christianity and the traditions
of the non-Christian critics.
Athenagoras follows the latter element of this strategy in Legatio chapters
5‒12, where he attempts to demonstrate that the Christian conception of God
has long been partially acknowledged among educated pagan philosophers
and poets. Thus Christians are not raising anything new, but understand and
explain what others have long been thinking and speaking about in vague
terms (cf. Legatio 7.1‒10.1).
Athenagoras’ first reference is to Euripides (485/480‒406 BC), who was
one of the greatest classic Greek playwrights and poets. Athenagoras quotes
the following from Euripides:
Do you see aloft the boundless ether,
Encircling the earth in its damp folds?
This esteem Zeus! This consider God!
Athenagoras’ comment on this quotation indicates that he views it as an
expression of Euripides’ perception of the divine. Thus, in Athenagoras’
interpretation, Euripides expresses that one cannot see or perceive the ex-
istence and reality underlying what one called ‘gods’ in everyday speech.
Athenagoras believes, rather, that Euripides deduces what cannot be seen
from what can be seen, the invisible creator from the visible creation
(Legatio 5.2). In Athenagoras view, Euripides hereby expresses a Christian
22 Cf., for example, Alcinous, The Handbook of Platonism, ch. 10. See also J. Dillon’s comment on
the chapter in J. Dillon, Alcinous. The Handbook of Platonism, Translated with an Introduction
and Commentary, Oxford, 1993, 100‒111.
Athenagoras 91
conception of creation – as yet unacknowledged – that the invisible creator

is the Christian God.
Athenagoras goes on to provide examples of how significant represent-
atives of classical Greek philosophy have promoted ideas about the divine
which are similar to what Christians claim and are being persecuted for
(Legatio ch. 6). He thus cites Plato’s famous statement that it is a difficult
task to find the creator and father of the universe, and if you find him, it is
impossible to explain him to everyone (Timaeus 28c). Naturally Athenagoras
also takes this statement as an expression of Plato’s claim that there is one
God who has created the world (cf. Legatio 6.2). According to Athenagoras,
the Aristotelians claim that God is one, and consists of body and soul. God’s
body is the ether (the fifth element), the planets and the fixed stars, which
all move in circular patterns. God’s soul is what sets this movement in mo-
tion, without itself moving (Legatio 6.3). Finally, in Athenagoras’ view, the
Stoics basically believe that there is only one God, even though they use
many names for the divine. This is the fire from which the Stoics believe the
world arises again after the world conflagration (Legatio 6.4). Athenagoras
bases this brief review of the philosophers’ view of the divine on various
philosophical compendia or ‘doxographies’, which were widely used in Ath-
enagoras’ day.23
Athenagoras then asks his readers why Christians should be punished for
advancing a conception of the divine which was promoted and well-known
among the poets and philosophers who were esteemed at the time, and which
the Emperors themselves admired and had studied. According to Athenago-
ras, these poets and philosophers have asserted the same conceptions of the
divine as Christians, without being punished for doing so (Legatio 5.1; 7.1).
Athenagoras summarises the issue as follows in Legatio 7.1:
Seeing, then, that by and large all admit, though reluctantly, when
they get down to the first principles of everything, that the divine
being is one, and since we insists that he who ordered our universe
is God, why is it that they enjoy the licence to speak and write what
they want concerning the divine being, whereas a law has been im-
posed upon us who can establish with compelling proofs and argu-
ments the correctness of what we think and believe – that God is one?
According to Athenagoras, the monotheism of the Christians is nothing new,
but rather a well-known and accepted phenomenon among past and contem-
porary philosophers and poets. Athenagoras’ attempt to present the Chris-
tian conception of the divine as being fundamentally identical with that of
Greek philosophy is a conscious apologetic strategy. It aims to get the phil-
osophically educated Emperors and other readers to realise that in a society
based on the rule of law, you cannot introduce harsh punishments against
23 See note 5 above.

a particular group of people simply because they support a point of view

which has previously been fully accepted.
While Athenagoras’ apologetic strategy is clear, the above quotation con-
tains a statement which causes problems for contemporary readers. Athena-
goras makes reference to legislation against Christians. We have, however, no
knowledge of such a specific law or laws against Christians.24
It naturally has key theological significance for Athenagoras to main-
tain that Christianity is monotheistic, rather than atheistic. However,
Athenagoras’ designation of Christians as monotheists and not atheists
primarily serves as an apologetic argument in this context. This designa-
tion has major significance for positioning Christians within the religious,
philosophical, social and political terrain of the second century. Firstly,
Christians are designated as people who believe in a positive, creating,
nurturing and controlling power outside of people and the world. One
could also express it using one of the terms of the time: Christians be-
lieve in providence (πρόωοια). According to the Christians themselves,
this means that they can make a positive contribution to maintaining
and developing society through the practise of their religion, because the
Christian God, who answers the prayers of the Christians, can contribute
to the survival and welfare of society. However, designating Christians
as monotheists also has a number of implications for how Christians can
act in relation to the religious and social norms and traditions of the sur-
rounding society. Athenagoras explores this in the large section of Legatio,
chapters 13‒30.
Before Athenagoras turns to the significance of Christian monotheism
for their attitude to a number of social arrangements, he provides a more
detailed account of the Christian concept of monotheism and arguments
to support this in Legatio chapters 7‒12. He cites arguments for monothe-
ism both from the prophetic writings, i.e. revealed knowledge, and from
rational deduction. Christian knowledge of the divine exceeds that of the
non-Christian philosophers because Christians have access to revealed
knowledge about God. Athenagoras also discusses the Christian conception
that God has a son, and how this conception can be consistent with mono-
theism (Legatio 10.2‒5). We shall not concern ourselves with these detailed
accounts any further here. It should simply be noted that Athenagoras,
like other second century Christian apologists, includes thorough, positive
explanations of Christian teachings as an important part of his apologet-
ic discourse. The notion that the early Christian apologists only presented
a sterile criticism of their critics, in which they misrepresent their critics’
positions, is therefore unfounded. Athenagoras summarises the aim of his
detailed justifications for the conception of God as follows:
24 Regarding the legislation of the Roman authorities against Christians, see the section on
this topic in Jörg Ulrich’s leading article in this book.
Athenagoras 93
Do not be surprised that I go through our teaching in detail. I am

making my points carefully to prevent you from being carried away
by low and irrational opinion and to put you in a position to know
the truth. For we can persuade you that you are not dealing with
atheists precisely through the doctrines which we hold – doctrines
not man-made but ordained and taught by God (Legatio 11.1).
7.2. The practical consequences of monotheism

Following his theoretical explanation in Legatio chapters 4‒12 of the differ-
ence between atheism and monotheism, and of Christian monotheism, Ath-
enagoras goes on to explain the impacts of Christian monotheism on their
view of participation in other religious activities, and in particular the official
cult of the cities and the Empire. He covers justifications for – and the conse-
quences of – Christians not sacrificing to or worshipping idols, and considers
theoretical aspects of the nature of idols at length.
7.3. Christian refusal to sacrifice
Athenagoras’ basic premise is that those who criticise and persecute Chris-
tians do not possess any form of theological or natural knowledge of the divine.
Rather they measure piety based on the quantity of sacrifices (Legatio 13.1).
They are mistaken in this, according to Athenagoras, because the only true
God is not interested in bloody sacrifices, but in people knowing the Creator
and the Creator’s will (Legatio 13.2‒4). According to Athenagoras, divine wor-
ship equates to awareness of the divine. In this Athenagoras reveals himself
as belonging to a new philosophically educated element among Christians.
This change in social status among Christians had a major impact on the de-
velopment of Christian teachings, as it led to the very strong and significant
alliance between theology and philosophy which provided the foundation
for the development of Christian dogmatics. It is also clear that through their
one-sided focus on rational theology, Athenagoras and his peers attempted
to push formative Christianity in a direction which was not ultimately sus-
tainable. The cult, rituals, etc., proved indispensable, and therefore received
Christian expression from the earliest times.
7.4. Christian refusal to worship the civic and imperial gods
The next question Athenagoras takes up is why Christians would not rec-
ognize and worship the civic gods. The fundamental reason for this was
naturally the Christian insistence on monotheism – that there is only one
God who is the creator of the world and humanity. This means that all the
other ‘gods’ are either make-believe gods, or something other than gods.
Furthermore, so many different gods were worshipped within the Roman
Empire that, according to Athenagoras, this fact alone makes it meaningless
to charge Christians with atheism because they worship a particular god
and refuse to worship others. Everyone else worships their own gods as
well (cf. Legatio 14). However, this is not Athenagoras’ primary argument
against the charges of atheism and the resultant persecution of Christians.
His primary argument is the claim that the Christian God is the only true
God, and the following arguments are therefore based on this claim. Ac-
cording to Athenagoras, what the non-Christians call gods are not gods, but
creatures. Athenagoras basically views these creatures as either being ‘dead’
things such as idols, or living beings such as demons. Athenagoras protests
against Christians – who distinguish between the created and the uncreat-
ed, between God and matter – being forced to worship created beings. The
fundamental error of the non-Christians is their failure to acknowledge and
recognize this distinction between creator and creation. They therefore fall
into worshipping false gods – that which is created.
Since the crowd, in its inability to distinguish what is matter, what is
God, and what a gulf there is between them, reverently approaches
material images, are we on their account also to draw near and wor-
ship statues – we who do distinguish and divide the uncreated from
the created, being from non-being, the intelligible from the percep-
tible, and who give each of them its proper name? (Legatio 15.1).
This quotation is reminiscent of Paul’s description and criticism of the
pagan worship of false gods in Romans 1:23‒25. In the subsequent section
of Legatio (chapters 15‒16), Athenagoras presents his view of the differ-
ence between the Creator and the created using words and phrases which
bring to mind both the biblical and Platonic traditions. God is the artist
who shapes his material into a work of art, the potter who forms the clay
into jars, and the goldsmith who forges the gold to make jewellery. The
creating artist is a picture we know from both the biblical and Platonic
traditions. The image of the potter and clay can be found in Isa 29:16; 64:7
and Rom 9:19‒23. In Legatio chapter 16, Athenagoras directly cites Plato,
who says that the world is the creator’s edifice (Timaeus 33c). Athenago-
ras was familiar with both the biblical and Platonic traditions, and has
undoubtedly felt that there was agreement between the two traditions on
this point, as on many others.
Regarding the idols, Athenagoras points out two things: The people
who ‘invented’ the names of the gods, and the times at which these names
were invented, are known from the Greeks’ own tradition (Legatio 17.1‒2;
18.3‒6). The originators of painting and sculpture and their times of origin
are also known according to Greek tradition, and we can assume that the
images and statues did not come into existence before these artistic disci-
plines were invented. Many of the names of the artists who have created
idols and statues are even known (Legatio 17.3‒4). This leads Athenagoras to
conclude as follows:
Athenagoras 95
To put it in a word, not one of their images eludes identification as

the work of a man. If, then, they are gods, why were they not so from
the beginning? Why are they more recent than those who have made
them? Why did they need human craftsmanship for their existence?
They are earth, stones, matter, and futile craftsmanship (Legatio 17.5).
Earth, stone, matter and artworks belong to the created. These things must
therefore also perish. This is a basic principle of Platonic philosophy, which
Athenagoras completely subscribes to on this point. According to this tradi-
tion, things that are created and perish do not belong to the divine, because
the divine is eternal and unchangeable (Legatio 19.2‒4). Thus Athenagoras
has no problems accepting this basic Platonic conception of being and be-
coming (cf. Legatio 19.2). However, there are other more mythological el-
ements in the Greek tradition which are not consistent with the Platonic
point of view. These mythological elements underlie the worship of gods
within the Greek tradition. According to the tradition, the many different
gods depicted by the images and statues had human, animal or monster
forms (Legatio 20‒22). This underlying belief is why the Greeks produced
images of their gods. However, Athenagoras claims that if you follow this
line of thought you lose the opportunity to recognize the one true God, as
this God can only be recognized through reason. According to Athenagoras,
a break with the material conceptions of the divine held by the Greek poets
and some Greek philosophers is therefore inevitable (Legatio 22). Christians
cannot compromise on this point. The Greek manner of worshipping gods
inhibits awareness of the one true God. This is why Christians do not sim-
ply worship the civic gods they do not believe in for the sake of peace, like
the adherents of so many other religions.
However, Athenagoras does not completely reject the possibility that
there could be realities behind the idols and statues of Greek tradition. The
statues could represent demonic powers, which Athenagoras sees as a re-
ality, in line with his contemporaries (Legatio 23:1). The reason Athenago-
ras addresses this subject is because he recognizes that certain statues and
idols have both positive and negative effects on those who approach them.
However, Athenagoras believes that the demonic powers which have taken
over certain statues are not divine powers but created powers which are in
opposition to God (cf. Legatio 23.1‒2). Again we see Athenagoras appeal to
the philosophers for support. According to Athenagoras, the philosophers
also distinguish between gods and demons. This was the case for Thales
and Plato, although the latter refrained from going into detail about the
nature of demons (Legatio 23.3‒10). Thus Athenagoras sees demons not as
equal rivals of God, but as God’s creations which have fallen away from
God. Athenagoras explains this by referring to the legends about fallen an-
gels who violated the daughters of men, giving rise to the birth of ‘giants’
(Gen 6:1‒4). Demons are the souls of these giants, which wander the earth
(Legatio 25.1). Athenagoras’ description of the origins and nature of these
demons is therefore dependent on Jewish, Christian and Greek traditions.25

These demons possess the statues and lead weak people to believe that the
movements demons create in the souls of the weak are an expression of the
divinity and power of the statues (Legatio 26‒27).
Athenagoras’ apologetic approach in this long section on the charges
of atheism against Christians attempts to unite the Greek philosophical
tradition with the Christian conception of God and the world, and to show
that the conception of God and the world in Greek – especially Platonic
– philosophy is perfected in Christianity. One can debate whether Ath-
enagoras’ presentation reaches a theological and philosophical level suf-
ficient to convince the philosophers and other educated people of his day.
It would appear he was unable to convince everyone. A more important
question might be whether his entire defence of Christian monotheism was
a wise choice as an apologetic theme, if this work was written for Marcus
Aurelius and Commodus. Marcus Aurelius may well have had an interest
in philosophy, but would he permit Christians to withdraw from the offi-
cial worship of the gods in the cities and Empire on philosophical reasons
alone? This is not likely. A number of Marcus Aurelius’ decisions and laws
in the area of religion and cult show that he tended to allow tradition and
the maintenance of social and political order to guide his decisions, even
if these were in conflict with theoretical philosophical considerations. Var-
ious conclusions can be drawn from this. One could conclude that Ath-
enagoras was not sufficiently versed in the political reality of his day, and
therefore makes mistakes in the presentation of his apologetic argument.26
Alternately, one could conclude that Athenagoras is not in reality writing
to the Emperors, but rather to his philosophically educated contemporaries
in Athens and the region. This again gives rise to the question of the in-
tended audience of the work.
25 In Philo’s treatise, De Gigantibus 6 and 16, the relationship between demons, angels and
souls is defined in the same way as by Athenagoras. However, in Albinus, who rep-
resents Middle Platonism, demons are not necessarily negative beings, but are viewed
as intermediaries between God and created beings, cf. Albinus, Didaskalikos ch. 15‒16.
This is a characteristic trait of the conception of demons within the Greek tradition, cf.
L. Albinus, The Greek daimon between Mythos and Logos, in: A. Lange / H. Lichtenberger
/ K.F.D. Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und früh-
christlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, Tübingen 2003, 425‒447. Regarding teachings
on angels and demonology in general in Athenagoras, see F. Andres, Die Engellehre der
griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts und ihr Verhältnis zur griechisch-römischen
Dämonologie, Paderborn 1914, 66‒96.
26 W.R. Schoedel has written an interesting article on this issue, in which he reviews a
number of examples of how Marcus Aurelius dealt with religious matters. Schoedel
concludes that Athenagoras did write to the Emperors, but has been so unversed
in Roman political reality that he has based his apology on useless arguments. See
W.R. Schoedel, Christian “Atheism” and the Peace of the Roman Empire, in: Church History
(1973), 309‒319.
Athenagoras 97
7.5. Immoral living

The heading ‘immoral living’ is actually a euphemism. In Legatio chap-
ters 31‒36, Athenagoras defends Christians against the charges of canni-
balism and sexual promiscuity, including incest in particular. Athenago-
ras’ response therefore suggests that serious charges were raised against
Christians. These charges are summarised in the single charge against
Christians that they held Thyestean feasts and were involved in Oedipean
relationships.27 These expressions refer to the well-known myth about
Oedipus’ relationship with his mother28, and to one of the lesser-known
stories of antiquity about Thyestes. According to Greek mythology, Thyes-
tes was the son of Pelops and Hippodamia. His brother was Atreus, king
of Mycenae. Atreus exiled his brother Thyestes because he had seduced
Atreus’ wife. After some time, Atreus pretended to seek reconciliation
with Thyestes, and called him back to the court. When Thyestes returned,
Atreus served him a meal which turned out to have been prepared from
his sons, whom Atreus had murdered. Atreus later married one of Thyes-
tes’ daughters, Pelopia. After having partaken of his own sons, Thyestes
sought advice from Apollo on how to take revenge against his brother.
Apollo’s answer was that the avenger should be born through a new act of
violence. Thyestes therefore raped his daughter Pelopia, who bore a son,
Aegisthus. He was raised by Atreus as his son. Atreus sent Aegisthus to
murder Thyestes. However, Aegisthus discovered that Thyestes was his
real father, and therefore murdered Atreus instead, and also avenged him-
self against Atreus’ son Agamemnon.29 When Christians are accused of
holding Thyestean feasts, they are therefore being charged with cannibal-
ism and the worst forms of sexual debauchery. Treatment of the theme by
Greco-Roman mythology and literature shows that it has been both allur-
ing and detestable at the same time. Understood in this way, the accusa-
tion of holding Thyestean feasts was no doubt a fairly precise description
of how many contemporaries viewed Christians. There was something
both alluring and repulsive about Christians and their fellowships and
gatherings, which most people only had superficial knowledge of.30 This
lack of knowledge may have been due in part to the fact that the Eucha-
ristic element of Christian services was not open to everyone, not even
to the catechumens who were receiving teaching on baptism. Given this
background, rumours may easily have arisen about the ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’
27 Cf. the introductory formulation of the charges against Christians in Athanag., leg. 3.1.
28 Oedipus is discussed as far back as by Hesiod and Homer. In the fifth century BC, Sopho-
cles wrote several tragedies which deal with aspects of the Oedipus myth.
29 This myth or fragments of it can be found in various antique sources, including the Odys-
sey and the Aeneid. The Roman poet, Varius Rufus, also staged a tragedy entitled Thyestes
in 29 BC, and Seneca wrote a tragedy by the same name.
30 Cf. Pliny’s Letter to Trajan, in which it is apparent that Pliny had quite limited knowledge of
the Christians and their gatherings.
which participants partake of in this ceremony. Athenagoras also sug-

gests that the greeting, in the form of a kiss on the cheek, associated with
the services had raised concern among outsiders. He thus insists that the
Christians intervene if someone kisses the same person twice during the
services. It is therefore unclear whether the charge of holding Thyestean
feasts should be understood as a charge of eating children and committing
incest, or simply as an expression that outsiders felt Christians and their
social conventions were mysterious and suspicious. Athenagoras takes the
charges at face value and seeks to counter them.
The first argument Athenagoras presents in defence against the charge
of immorality is a reference to the Christian concept of judgement and res-
urrection. Christians are convinced that this life is not the end, but that
an afterlife awaits all people. Whether this will be a life of bliss – a life in
which you have a body but feel no pain from it – or a life of torment in a
place worse than the world we now live in, will be decided by how people
live their lives in this world. Given that Christians know this is going to
happen, it is unthinkable that they would do evil and thereby surrender
themselves to the coming punishment (cf. Legatio 31.3‒4; 36). In Legatio 31.3,
Athenagoras assumes that the Emperors are familiar with the Christian
concept of judgement, and are therefore able to easily follow his argument.
However, this is unlikely to have been the case.31 This passage may there-
fore suggest that Athenagoras’ frequent direct appeals to the Emperors
are a fiction, intended to convince his actual target audience as follows: ‘If
these wise philosopher-Emperors know about this concept of judgement,
you should also believe it’. Athenagoras’ use of ‘dogmatic’ arguments thus
suggests that in reality he is writing to Christians, or at least to people who
are familiar with Christianity.
In Legatio chapters 32‒35 Athenagoras continues his argument against the
charge of immorality. As the apologists often do, he now turns the accusa-
tions back on the accusers. The Greeks have no place criticising Christians
for immorality, because they and their gods are highly immoral themselves.
Zeus had children by both his mother and his daughter, and was married
to his sister. Thus the Greek gods are known for their incestuous relation-
ships. Nor do the Greek people refrain from promiscuous sexuality. They
earn money running brothels, and do not even hold back from male pros-
titution. When they criticise the Christians’ sexual morality, it is therefore
like a prostitute admonishing the chaste (Legatio 32.1; 34.1‒2). According to
Athenagoras, it is therefore not surprising that they invent the same accu-
sations against Christians (cf. Legatio 32.1). However, the opposite is true of
Christians. Christians have laws which prohibit them from even looking lust-
31 However, Marcus Aurelius did decree that people who frightened others with supersti-
tions should be banished to an island, Dig. 48.19,30. From P. Guyot / R. Klein (eds.), Das
frühe Christentum bis zum Ende der Verfolgungen, Vol. 1, Darmstadt 1993, 48f.
Athenagoras 99
fully at women.32 Athenagoras also mentions that Christians see each other
as brothers and sisters, children and parents; that they protect their ‘family’
from bodily harm (Legatio 32:4‒5). Christians only have sexual intercourse
with their spouses and only for the purpose of procreation. There are even
many who refrain from marrying and live their whole lives in celibacy, in
order to get even closer to God. Divorce is not permitted among Christians,
and even widows are not allowed to remarry (Legatio 33). According to Ath-
enagoras, sexuality is not the only area in which Christian morality surpasses
that of non-Christians. Christians also refrain from watching executions and
attending gladiator battles. They see these activities as participation in mur-
der. Nor are Christians permitted to undergo abortion or abandon newborn
children. Christians also see this as murder (Legatio 35.4‒6). These things are
otherwise permitted among Greeks and Romans. In fact, gladiator battles are
popular entertainment.
Athenagoras is no doubt correct that a very strict morality was often
upheld among second century Christians – particularly in terms of sexual
morality. He is also no doubt correct in claiming that the Greco-Roman cul-
ture was characterised by a more tolerant sexual morality. We also know that
gladiator battles were popular in Roman times, and that Christians were not
permitted to participate. However, Athenagoras’ description of both Chris-
tians and the non-Christian population is a generalisation. The non-Chris-
tians were not murderers and sexual libertines. Nor were the Christians a
paragon of moral virtue. This is apparent from the many exhortations from
contemporary Christian authors who attempt to raise the level of Christian
morality. It is therefore clear that Athenagoras is overstating the case in order
to make his argument clearer. This is a well-known apologetic strategy. It is
also possible that Athenagoras is actually writing to Christians, in which case
his account of the Christians’ high morals should rather be seen as an exhor-
tation to live up to the moral ideal he describes.
8. The outcome
It is not easy to answer the question as to whether Athenagoras’ work
achieved its goal, as this assessment depends on what that goal actually
was. Did he want the Emperor to change the way the authorities viewed
and treated Christians in relation to the cases being brought against them;
was the work written for a broader public, in order to change the public
perception of Christians; or was the work actually addressed to Christians,
32 The rules Athenagoras is referring to vary in nature. The prohibition against looking lust-
fully at women is a New Testament prohibition. This shows that parts of the New Testament
(Matt 5:28 in this case) were used in Athenagoras’ congregation as regulations governing
the congregation members’ way of life. However, the prohibition against overzealous kiss-
ing mentioned above does not derive from the New Testament and must therefore be a rule
which arose among or was adopted by Athenagoras’ congregation.
to strengthen them in their dealings with the non-Christian Greco-Roman

society they lived in? If the first alternative was his intention, fortune clear-
ly did not favour him. There were no changes to conditions for Christians
during the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Christianity was not
accepted by the Roman authorities for about another 150 years. However, if
Athenagoras’ intent was to improve the standing of Christianity and Chris-
tians among educated people of his and subsequent generations, one cannot
deny him some success in this endeavour. Yet it is not possible to say wheth-
er Athenagoras’ work had any direct influence on the accelerated growth of
the church which occurred in the late second and third centuries. It is also
possible, though not certain, that Athenagoras’ apology helped Christians
in their efforts to maintain and develop their own identity as Christians
within the Roman Empire.
Theophilus
Jakob Engberg
And I pray for favour from the only God, that I may accurately speak
the whole truth according to His will, that you and every one who
reads this work may be guided by His truth and favour.1
Thus wrote Christian convert and apologist, Theophilus, shortly after 180
AD, in the last of the three books he addressed to his pagan friend Autolycos.
1. Aim of the article and previous scholarship
1.1. Previous scholarship – is the silence of the hound the key?

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle‘s novel, the Hound of the Baskervilles, Dartmoor in
Devonshire is visited by a mysterious howling dog. It is believed that the
hound haunts the area because there is a curse on the Baskervilles. The main
character of the novel, Detective Sherlock Holmes, undertakes to solve the
mystery of the death of Sir Charles Baskerville, the latest victim of the curse.
Holmes‘ breakthrough comes when he focuses his investigation on the times
when the hound is not howling.
In the novel, the mysterious dog causes much agitation in and around
the fictional village of Grimpen. In contrast, Theophilus‘ three apologetic
books have not given rise to extensive scholarly debate, and when they have
been analysed, the approach followed has often been reminiscent of Sherlock
Holmes: Several scholars have been more interested in discussing what The-
ophilus did not write and why he did not write this or that, than in analys-
ing what he wrote and why. This can be illustrated by a quote from patristic
scholar, Robert M. Grant:
The most surprising feature of Theophilus’ theology is his re-
markable silence in regard to Jesus, Christ, the incarnation, and
the atonement.2
Robert M. Grant could be considered the leading modern authority on The-
ophilus.3 Between 1947‒1959 he published four journal articles focusing on
1 See Thphl. Ant. 3,23. This and the following translations are from R.M. Grant, Theophilus of
Antioch. Ad Autolycum, Oxford 1970.
2 See Grant, 1988, 165.
3 For a similar assessment of Grant as the leading Theophilus authority, see W.R. Schoedel,
Theophilus of Antioch. Jewish Christian?, in: Illinois classical studies 18 (1993), 279‒297. This
and the following, see R.M. Grant, The Decalogue in Early Christianity, in: HThR 40 (1947),
1‒17; id., The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch, in: JBL 66 (1947), 173‒196; id., Theophilus of Antioch
102 Jakob Engberg
Theophilus, and four articles in which Theophilus was discussed in consid-

eration of wider issues. Grant followed up on his earlier works in the 1970s
by publishing a text-critical edition of Ad Autolycum with an introduction,
comments and English translation4, and yet another article. Finally, in 1988 he
published, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, an overview work which de-
voted four chapters to Theophilus.5 Giving such high priority to Theophilus
is unusual. For example, the first monograph dealing with Theophilus in the
post-war period was only published in 2000.6
This monograph by R. Rogers is similarly focused on discussing an is-
sue which Grant was much occupied with, and which was central to an
important journal article from 1975 by J. Bentivegna of Italy: Why doesn‘t
Theophilus discuss Jesus more explicitly?7 Grant explains Theophilus‘ “si-
lence” by presenting him as a representative of an otherwise unknown sec-
ond-century Judaeo-Christian movement which supposedly distinguished
itself from all other Christian and Judaeo-Christian movements by not plac-
ing much emphasis on Jesus‘ work of salvation – a Christianity with an
adoptionist Christology.8 Bentivegna‘s explanation is very similar, differing
only in minor details. In opposition to Grant and Bentivegna, Rogers has
challenged the idea that Theophilus could represent such a different, unor-
thodox and adoptionist Christianity.9 As we shall return to later, Theophilus
is discussed and used positively by orthodox Christians such as Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Novatian, Lactantius, Eusebius and Jerome. Rogers is correct in
noting that none of these authors – who are perceived by their contemporar-
ies and perceived themselves as orthodox Christians – attack Theophilus‘
theology or Christology. Rogers therefore argues that Theophilus‘ theology
to Autolycus, in: HThR 40 (1947), 227‒256; id., The Early Antiochene Anaphora, in: ATR 30
(1948), 91‒94; id., Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture, in: HThR 42 (1949), 41‒51; id., Patristica, in:
VigChr 3 (1949), 228; id., The Problem of Theophilus, in: HThR 43 (1950), 179‒196; id., Scripture,
Rhetoric and Theology in Theophilus, in: VigChr 13 (1959), 33‒45; Grant, 1970; id., Jewish Chris-
tianity at Antioch in the second century, in: RecSR 60 (1972), 97‒108 and id., Greek Apologists of
the Second Century, London 1988.
4 This text-critical edition has been used for the preparation of this article. A newer
text-critical edition has been published, but Grant’s has been preferred, his familiarity
with Theophilus due to his devotion to the study of his text and context has motivated
this preference.
5 By comparison, Justin Martyr, Tatian and Athenagoras are given three chapters, two chap-
ters and one chapter, respectively. Grant also discusses Theophilus in: Jesus After the Gos-
pels. The Christ of the Second Century, Louisville 1990, 77‒79.
6 R. Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch. the life and thought of a second-century bishop, Lanham 2000.
For some observations on the relatively limited debate regarding Theophilus compared
to the other apologists, see Rogers, 2000, 3 and 9 note 1. According to Grant, there was no
extensive debate about Theophilus’ work and significance prior to WWII either, see Grant,
Theophilus to Autolycus, 1947, 255.
7 Rogers, 2000, 119‒186. J. Bentivegna, A Christianity without Christ by Theophilus of Antioch, in:
TU 13 (1975), 107‒130. Note the title.
8 Cf. Grant, 1990, 77‒79, Grant, 1988, 171‒173, Grant, 1972, 105‒108, Grant, 1950, 188‒196.
9 This and the following, see Rogers, 2000, 164‒167.
Theophilus 103
and Christology was not seen as radically different. However, Rogers‘ own
explanation of the “silence” is less convincing. He argues that Theophilus’
“silence” on Jesus‘ work of salvation in Ad Autolycum is due to what he calls
“an ecclesiastical theology”, focusing on the salvation-history mission of the
congregation, and justification through observing God‘s law (νόμος).10 In
other words, Grant, Bentivegna and Rogers all feel compelled to explain
what they see as peculiar omissions by constructing their own hypotheses
concerning a divergent theology. The theory by Grant and Bentivegna even
involves a theology which has not been demonstrably developed and for-
mulated actively. However, there is no evidence of polemic by Theophilus
towards orthodox contemporary theology or Christology. Theophilus‘ po-
lemic is, as will be elaborated below, consistently directed at pagan percep-
tions of God, Greek myths, pagan cults and Greek literature. If Theophilus‘
theology really is divergent and seen as such, it is also mysterious that there
is no contemporary or later polemic towards it. Rogers‘ main thesis is that
the real aim of the three books – in accordance with their explicit aim –
was evangelistic.11 A narrower focus on this thesis, and on what Theophilus
wrote and why he wrote it, would be more likely to yield an explanation for
Theophilus‘ silence which can be defended methodologically.
In articles from 1988 and 1993, Carl Curry and William R. Schoedel focus
on what Theophilus actually wrote.12 Their primary intent is not to discuss
Theophilus‘ silence, and this enables them in their conclusions to provide
some less imaginative and more balanced reasons for what modern scholars
have viewed as Theophilus‘ mysterious “omissions”.13
1.2. Aim of this article
Like Curry, in this article I will focus primarily on what Theophilus wrote,
the context in which he wrote it, and his occasion for writing. Only after do-
ing this will it be possible and relevant to move on to a discussion of why he
wrote as he did, and secondarily, why he did not write the things many mod-
ern scholars find it peculiar that he did not write.
10 This and the following, see Rogers, 2000, 167‒183. In support of Rogers‘ thesis, we find
many passages in Ad Autolycum with an emphasis on God‘s law, Christian ethics and
the salvation-history significance of the congregation (e.g. 2.14; 3.4 and 3.9‒15). However,
giving such priority to ethics and the Christian fellowship was hardly divergent in the
contemporary period (as Rogers himself touches on). In the given context it can probably
best be explained as an apologetic rebuttal of the accusations by contemporary oppo-
nents that Christians were immoral and that their gatherings centred around perverse
rituals (see below).
11 See Rogers, 2000, 21. 166f. 182f.
12 C. Curry, The Theogony of Theophilus, in: VigChr 42 (1988), 318‒326 (324f.); W.R. Schoedel,
“Theophilus of Antioch: Jewish Christian?”, Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993), 279‒297.
13 Cf. the passages on Theophilus in M. Fiedrowicz, Apologie im frühen Christentum. Die Kon-
troverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Paderborn 2000; J.
Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 1, Utrecht 21962 (1953) and Young, 1999, 1‒104.
104 Jakob Engberg
2. Theophilus’ life and works
2.1. Early references to Theophilus and his works

According to Eusebius, Theophilus was the 6th bishop (after the apostles)
in Antioch, in 169‒177 AD. Eusebius was aware of both anti-heretical and
catechetical works by Theophilus, and three books addressed to Autolycus.14
According to Eusebius, his anti-heretical works included a work against Her-
mogenes and a work against Marcion. Modern research has shown that the
work against Hermogenes was used by Tertullian when he wrote a similar
work, and it has been proposed that Irenaeus made use of the work against
Marcion.15 Eusebius characterised the three books for Autolycus, slightly con-
descendingly, as “elementary”, and reports that Theophilus used the book of
Revelation to refute Hermogenes. Jerome only adds that he has also read com-
mentaries on the gospel and on Proverbs, which others attribute to Theophi-
lus. Jerome casts doubt on the origins of these commentaries, as he claims
that the language and style do not correspond to the elegant language and
expressive style in Ad Autolycum.
Lactantius quotes explicitly from Theophilus’ third book to Autolycus and
specifies the title of the work (or book) as On time (De temporibus).16 Others also
argue that a passage in Novatian‘s On the Trinity (De Trinitate) 2 is dependent
on a similar passage in Ad Autolycum 1.3. A few passages in Ad Autolycum can
be interpreted as an indication that Theophilus had also written a historical
work, On history (περὶ ἱστοριὥν), starting with Adam (2.29‒30).17 However
neither Eusebius nor Jerome have been aware of this work, if it existed. If the
given interpretation is correct, it is possible that Theophilus of Antioch can be
identified with an otherwise unknown historian named Theophilus whose
historical work is extensively referred to in John Malala‘s chronology from
565 AD.18 I argue that the following observations support this interpretation:
1. Malalas, like Theophilus the apologist, has links to Syria.
2. In his first 10 books covering the period from Adam to Emperor Tra-
jan, Malalas frequently cites Theophilus the historian as his source, but
14 See Eus., h.e. 4.20 and 4.24 and chron. in R. Helm (ed.), 205‒207.
15 Tertullian: see Grant, Patristica, 1949, 228f. and Grant, 1988, 188. 237 note 50‒51 (in the latter
work, Grant also refers to further evidence in an article from 1979 by Italian theologian,
F. Bologiani). Irenaeus: see Grant, 1950, 196 (Grant refers here to the German patristic schol-
ar, F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiohcien Adversus Marcionem, Leipzig 1930), but many, such as
Quasten, 21962, 239 reject the validity of this thesis.
16 Lact., Inst. 1.23. Lactantius quotes from Thphl. Ant. 3.29. For Lactantius’ use of Theophi-
lus’ chronology, cf. O.P. Nicholson, The source of the dates in Lactantius’ Divine Institutes, in:
JThS 36 (1985), 291‒310.
17 Cf. Quasten, 21962, 238.
18 John Malalas: 5, 18, 29, 59, 85, 143, 157, 195, 220, 228, 252 and 428 in L. Dindorf (ed.), John Mal-
alas, Chronographia, Corpus Scriptorum Byzantinae Historiae, Bonn 1831. Taken here from
E. Jeffreys / M. Jeffreys / R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas – A Translation, Melbourne 1986.
Theophilus 105
makes no reference to Theophilus in the subsequent eight books covering

the period up to 565 AD.19
3. Theophilus the apologist had a clear interest in chronology.
2.2. The books addressed to Autolycus, their date and geographical placement
Of Theophilus’ works, only the three apologetic books, Ad Autolycum, survive
today.20 The third of Theophilus‘ books contains a chronology up until the
death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in March, 180. It is therefore quite possi-
ble that the book was written in this year. The three books are independent
works. There is therefore no reason why the first and second books could
not have been composed a few years earlier. However, it is common among
modern scholars to believe that at least three years passed from the time The-
ophilus wrote his second book, until he wrote the third book.
In his second book, Theophilus argues that there is only one God, that
he alone should be worshipped, and that one should not worship the em-
peror as a god but be content to simply honour him. Theophilus argues
using the analogy that just as the Emperor does not allow any of his subor-
dinates to call themselves Emperor, God does not allow any of his subor-
dinates to call themselves “god”. Grant has used his passage to argue that
the second book must have been written during a period where Emperor
Marcus Aurelius had no co-regent. Grant identifies the period 169‒177 AD
– the years between the death of Marcus Aurelius’ co-regent Lucius Verus
(February, 169) and the exaltation of Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus to
co-emperor. Given that this exactly matches Eusebius‘ dating of Theophi-
lus’ activity, Grant argues that Eusebius had only read the first and second
book of Ad Autolycum (if he had read the third book, he would have known
that Theophilus was also alive and writing in 180 AD), and that he used pre-
cisely this passage to date the work. This would make Eusebius‘ statement
a secondary source – a source with no value as a witness. However, Grant‘s
argument is based on three false assumptions:
1. The context of the passage does not suggest that Theophilus is talking
about Emperor Marcus Aurelius‘ relationship to any co-regents, but rath-
er about the Emperor in relation to subordinate civil servants, prefects,
consuls, proconsuls, praetors, propraetors, legates, procurators, etc. If he
19 There is a reference on p. 428 where Theophilus and other historians are credited with
calculating that there are 6497 years from Adam up until the second consulship of
Justinian (528/529 AD). However, Malalas uses two “sub-intervals” (from Adam to Au-
gustus, and from Augustus to Justinian) and also credits Eusebius (who naturally died
long before 528 AD) for the dating. It is thus possible that Theophilus, Eusebius, and
several other “sources” are only being credited for dating the difficult period from
Adam to Augustus, while the dating for the period from Augustus to Justinian is as-
sumed to be well-known.
20 For this and what follows, see Quasten, 21962, 236‒239, Grant, 1970, IX‒XI, Grant, 1988, 143,
Fiedrowicz, 2000, 54 and Rogers, 2000, 3‒29.
106 Jakob Engberg
was talking about the Emperor in relation to co-regents, the desired anal-
ogy to God would be far from clear.21
2. It is not completely clear to us, and was certainly not clear to the popula-
tion of the Roman Empire, that (or whether) Marcus Aurelius ruled alone
in the years 169‒177 AD. The language in the passage in Ad Autolycum
is general. The Emperor is simply referred to as king, básileús, there is
no reference to imperator (αὐτοκράτωρ), Caesar (Καίσαρος), Augustus
(Αὔγουστος or σεβαστός), Father of the Fatherland (latin: pater patriae) or
tribune authority (latin: tribunicia potestas). It is true that most of Commo-
dus‘ imperial titles were only bestowed in November 176, but he did re-
ceive some earlier. The first, Caesar (Καίσαρος), as early as 166 AD (even
before Lucius Verus’ death). It is therefore possible that the population of
the Roman Empire at that time viewed Commodus as Marcus Aurelius‘
co-regent long before 177 AD.
3. It is unlikely that Eusebius would have employed such a complicated
dating methodology when he had access to and wished to pass on a
church tradition.
There is generally reason to be sceptical about the oldest parts of Eusebius‘
bishop lists. But we must maintain that he did not base the dating of Theophi-
lus‘ work to 167‒177 AD on passages from Ad Autolycum – passages which we
also have access to and can interpret. Eusebius is thus a primary source in
relation to the approximate dating of Theophilus‘ activity, as he provides in-
formation which cannot be derived from the works of Theophilus. Eusebius‘
approximate dating confirms what the chronology in Theophilus‘ third book
led us to assume, that the last of the three books was most likely completed
shortly after 180 AD. Having rejected Grant‘s criteria for dating the first and
second books prior to 177 AD, there is no longer any reason to follow the
dominant scholarly opinion, which assumes an interval of several years be-
tween the composition of these two books and the third book.
Geographical placement based on the statements within the work itself is
uncertain, but is fully compatible with Eusebius‘ indication of Antioch. While
reviewing the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden, Theophilus explicitly as-
sumes that his readers are more familiar with the Euphrates and Tigris rivers
than the Nile, because the former border on our region (ἡμετέρον κλιμάτον).22
2.3. Theophilus’ conversion.
It is clear from several passages in Ad Autolycum that Theophilus did not grow
up in a Christian family, but had converted to Christianity as an adult (1.14;
21 Grant assumes, without realising it, a vague argument something to this effect: Right now
the Emperor will not permit anyone else to be called emperor, although he did allow this
recently, we should therefore never honour anyone other than God as divine.
22 2.24. Since the Nile naturally has been/is at least as well-known as the Euphrates and
Tigris, it is clear that Theophilus assumes his readers have first-hand knowledge of the
Euphrates and Tigris.
Theophilus 107
2.9; 2.33‒34). His comments on this conversion and the way he uses these
comments in his apologetic argument will be analysed below. We will be con-
tent for the moment to note that, like Theophilus, the great majority of early
Christian apologists were converts, and this is not surprising given that the
church grew so rapidly during the first three centuries that the majority of
members in each generation had to be converts.23
3. Addressee and aim of the books
3.1. Ad Autolycum – an apology for a pagan friend.24

In the brief “prayer” I quoted in the introduction to this article, Theophi-
lus asks for God‘s help in speaking the truth. He also makes it clear that the
aim of the work is to help the reader towards a similar relationship to God,
such that the reader is guided directly by God‘s truth and grace. As the title
indicates, the books were addressed to Autolycus. From the contents of the
books it is apparent that Autolycus was a pagan acquaintance of Theophilus,
that they had discussed Christianity, and that the books were written as a
response to the problems which had arisen during these discussions.25 The-
ophilus‘ books thus represent a new variant of apologetic literature. Up to
this point, we have seen apologetic literature in the form of works addressed
to emperors and to the general pagan public, and a philosophical dialogue
between a Jew and a Christian. In the subsequent chapters of this anthology
we will encounter apologetic works addressed to Roman governors and to a
named convert, Diognetus, and we will see an example of an apologetic work
in the form of a dialogue between two friends – one a Christian, and the other
a pagan. But what we see here is an example of an apologetic work addressed
to a named pagan friend of the author.
Yet even though the work appears original in nature to us,26 there is no
doubt that Theophilus believed he stood in a tradition. Luke had dedicat-
ed his works to another highly honoured Theophilus, with the aim, as Luke
23 For conversion accounts of the apologists, see J. Engberg, ’From among You are We. Made,
not Born are Christians’. Apologists‘ Accounts of Conversion, in: J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen /
M. Kahlos (eds.), Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics, ECCA 5, Frankfurt
2009, 49‒79 and id., The Education and (Self-)Affirmation of (Recent or Potential) Converts. The Case
of Cyprian and the Ad Donatum, in: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 16 (2012), 129‒144. For
an estimate of the growth of Christianity, see R. Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Princeton 1996.
24 The relationship between Theophilus and Autolycus and the three books as testimony to
the Christianization process of Syria is discussed in a forthcoming article, many points
and arguments from this article are repeated here; J. Engberg, Conversion, apologetic argu-
mentation and polemic (amongst friends) in second century Syria. Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum, in:
M. Blömer / A. Lichtenberger / R. Raja (eds.), Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander
to Muhammad, Vol. 4, Turnhout 2014.
25 Thphl. Ant. 1.1; 1.14; 2.1; 2.38; 3.1; 3.4 and 3.23. Cf. Bentivegna, 1975, 107.
26 Cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 52‒56, who discusses Theophilus and other apologists of the period
under the title, Neue Formen der Christlichen Apologie.
108 Jakob Engberg
writes, that he might be assured of the reliability of the things he has been
taught.27 Given Theophilus‘ knowledge of the biblical scriptures and his view
of the gospels as divinely inspired works,28 we can assume that he was aware
of his highly honoured namesake, and that his dedication to Autolycus draws
a deliberate parallel with Luke‘s dedication and declared aim (1.1; 1.14; 2.1;
2.38; 3.1; 3.4 and 3.23).
Theophilus‘ work is thus related to other Christian works with apologetic
characteristics. The author‘s explicit intention corresponds to that of Luke,
and the author of the Letter to Diognetus. The books are most similar in the
genre to the Letter to Diognetus, but make reference to dialogue between a
Christian and a non-Christian, and therefore have similarities to Justin Mar-
tyr‘s dialogue with Trypho and Minucius Felix‘ later work, Octavius, which
are both in the form of dialogues.
3.2. Theophilus‘ works as a follow-up to conversations
between the author and Autolycus
Eusebius characterises Theophilus‘ three books as quite elementary, and
this slightly condescending tone is reflected among modern scholars such
as Fiedrowicz and Grant, who even criticise Theophilus for poor structure.29
Both Grant and Fiedrowicz agree that Theophilus’ first book may contain
passages taken from existing catechetical works. They also agree that the al-
legorical interpretation of the creation account, which is the core of book two
(2.11‒32), must have existed in independent form. Theophilus writes in a pas-
sage in this section that there is much to say about Satan, but he will let the
topic rest because teachings about him are provided elsewhere (2.28).
Grant and Fiedrowicz do not make use of this passage in their argument,
but given that Theophilus does not write in more detail about Satan anywhere
else in the three books, it makes sense to assume that either this section has
been taken from a context where Satan was discussed, or that Theophilus
knew he and the reader had access to such material elsewhere. The fact that
Theophilus also uses the first person plural to address the target group for
this (to us unknown) discussion of Satan, suggests that this passage was orig-
inally written for internal use among Christians.
Fiedrowicz argues that the poor organisation in the first and second
books and their juxtaposed structure is due in part to them being edited and
combined in a short time, over a period of a few days. According to Fiedrow-
icz this suggests, as Theophilus himself claims, that the books were compiled
as a follow-up to conversations between the author and his pagan acquaint-
ance, Autolycus. In his introduction to the second book, Theophilus writes
27 See Luke 1:3‒4 and Acts 1:1. Luke‘s works are also often analysed with a focus on their
apologetic elements.
28 See 2.22 and 3.12‒14. Cf. Grant, 1970, XIII‒XIV, Grant, Bible, 1947, 183‒189 and Quasten,
2
1962, 239.
29 This and the following, see Grant, 1970, IX‒XI, Grant, 1988, 144 and Fiedrowicz, 2000, 54.
Theophilus 109
that Autolycus was initially negative towards Christians because he viewed

their teachings as foolish (2.1). Theophilus goes on to write that Autolycus
had asked him about his God during a recent debate, and he had talked to
Autolycus about his religion (θεοσέβειας). They then parted as friends, and
Autolycus asked for further information about Theophilus‘ views in writing.
Theophilus expresses hope that through his work, Autolycus will come to
better understand the cult (θρεσκείαν), which Theophilus believed Autolycus
was captive to. In other words, that he would be freed from superstition by
reading. The second book concludes by exhorting Autolycus to meet with
Christians more often, so that he can learn the truth listening to a living voice
(2.38). The introduction to the third book ties in with this conclusion and as-
sumes that Autolycus has met with Christians, but that he continues to look
down on their scriptures as new and modern (3.1 and 3.4).
If we only had Theophilus‘ “account” that the books to Autolycus were
written as a follow-up to conversations between the two, it would be impos-
sible to determine whether this account was true, or simply a literary fiction.
However, when Fiedrowicz argues based on the structure and composition
of the first two books, and finds confirmation for Theophilus‘ account of the
conversations, he uses the source as a ‘relic’ (although Fiedrowicz does not
explicitly use historical-critical terminology). The structure of the work, as
analysed by Fiedrowicz, thus provides a reliable indication that Theophilus
and Autolycus actually conversed about Christianity.30 This is not to say how-
ever that Theophilus‘ only intended audience was Autolycus, he likely would
have intended others to read it.
3.3. Wider target group/audience for Theophilus‘ three books
In an earlier chapter, Jörg Ulrich analysed Justin Martyr‘s dialogue with Trypho
the Jew, as portrayed in the work by the same name. In the first eight chapters of
this work, Justin recounts for Trypho how he conversed with an old man he had
met at the sea while he was still a pagan. Justin‘s portrayal of both the conver-
sation with the old man and his conversation with Trypho have been idealised
and written into the framework of a philosophical dialogue genre.31 A contem-
porary Christian reader might view these dialogues as “ideal” examples of con-
versations between Christians and non-Christians – examples from which the
Christian reader could learn how to converse with a non-Christian and defend
Christianity or seek to lead non-Christian relatives to conversion. The apolo-
getic works analysed in this anthology could be used by Christian readers as
a source of arguments and accounts they could draw on in such conversations.
However, in the case of Theophilus these conversations are more firmly
anchored between a pagan and a Christian, as the works – as Fiedrowicz has
demonstrated – are a direct reaction to such specific conversations. The works
are therefore a specific example of a Christian writing (editing) apologetic
30 This is also the main conclusion in Rogers, 2000. For a similar view, cf. Curry, 1988, 325.
31 Cf. Not least Socrates and Diotyma in Plato, Symposion.
110 Jakob Engberg
books with the express purpose of influencing a pagan conversation partner,

as well as the likely implicit aim of reinforcing converts in the significance of
their own conversion and providing arguments for Christian readers to use
in their conversations with outsiders. Theophilus‘ books thus bring us close
to one of presumably thousands of evangelistic and apologetic conversations
between Christians and non-Christians which may have provided a signifi-
cant backdrop for the apologetic literature.
Fiedrowicz is naturally aware that the works were not exclusively written
and published for the sake of Autolycus. Fiedrowicz also refers to the 23rd
chapter of the third book, where Theophilus expressly addresses both Au-
tolycus and other non-Christian readers (as quoted earlier). Given that The-
ophilus felt he could use this work in relation to a non-Christian acquaint-
ance, there is reason to believe that other Christians might feel that their
non-Christian acquaintance would benefit from it. By extension, one can also
imagine Christians have felt they could benefit from reading the books (or
hearing them read), to be equipped with arguments they could use in conver-
sations with their non-Christian acquaintances. Finally: Given that Theophi-
lus believed his arguments could make an impression on a person with some
knowledge of Christianity, and hoped they could encourage such a person
to be converted, it is also reasonable to assume some Christians viewed the
works as fitting material for new converts who needed to be confirmed and
strengthened in their recent conversion. If Grant and Fiedrowicz are correct
in saying that Theophilus’ first book to Autolycus was largely composed of
pre-existing catechetical material, this would confirm that there was little if
any gap between materials intended to lead a pagan acquaintance to conver-
sion, and materials intended to encourage and confirm a new convert.
In any case, despite the fact the books were seen to be simple by Eusebius,
there are signs in later Christian literature that they were read by Christians.
The work was quoted and consulted by a number of Christian authors in
antiquity, as discussed earlier. According to Grant, it was later excerpted by
Procopius of Gaza (5‒6th century) and John of Damascus (8th century). 32
4. Overview of contents
As mentioned above, Theophilus’ work is criticised in most modern analyses
for being disorderly arranged,33 in particular the first and second book.
4.1. Contents – book one
Grant provides the following overview of the contents of the first book:
1: The name “Christian”.
2: Seeing God.
3‒4: God’s nature.
32 Grant, 1970, XIV, and regarding the first book, Grant, Theophilus to Autolycus, 1947, 229‒234.
33 See above and Fiedrowicz, 2000, 54 and Grant, 1970, X‒XI.
Theophilus 111
5: God’s invisibility.
6‒7: God the creator.
8: Resurrection and faith.
9‒11: Idol worship and the emperor cult.
12: The name “Christian” (continued from chapter 1).
13‒14: Resurrection and faith (continued from chapter 8).
Compared to other modern scholars, Grant’s criticism of the structure of the
first book is the most detailed and systematic. He goes so far as to propose
an alternative, and in his view more logical, structure: 2, 5, 3‒4, 6‒7, 9‒11, 8
and 13‒14, 1 and 12.34
There is no doubt that the modern critics have a point. Theophilus’ work
in general, and the first book in particular, is poorly arranged. However, fo-
cusing on Theophilus’ stated purpose in chapters 1‒2 of the first book, it is
possible to present a more logical overview of the content, without changing
the order of the subsequent chapters:
1‒2: Introducing the aim of the work. Autolycus boasts about his gods and
derides Theophilus for bearing the name Christian, as if it were
something evil. Theophilus rejoins by describing Autolycus’ gods
as stone and wood made by human hands, and introduces Christ’s
name as God’s name. If Autolycus should respond by saying: “Show
me your God!” (2) – Theophilus would reply that Autolycus must
first know himself as a human and as a sinner, as his sin makes it
impossible for him to see God. But Theophilus also gives Autolycus
hope of purification.
3‒7: God’s nature and how this is perceived through his work of creation. In
response to the initial portrayal of Autolycus as incapable of see-
ing God, Theophilus puts these words into Autolycus’ mouth: “Since
you can see, describe God’s form to me!” (3). Theophilus draws on
negative theology and emphasises the inadequacy of his own words
for describing God (3), yet still presents a positive picture of his view
of God (4‒7).
8: Resurrection and faith, with a challenge to believe. In this chapter, The-
ophilus applies and hammers home the problem he presented in the
introduction to the work. Autolycus does not believe in the resurrec-
tion, but will of necessity come to faith (πίστις) at the resurrection.
This will be too late, however, so his faith will be counted as unbelief
(ἀπιστίαν λογισθήσεται). He should therefore surrender himself to
God now (as a sick person surrenders to the doctor, as the farmer sur-
renders the seed to the soil, etc.), as God already entered into a cove-
nant with Autolycus by creating him. As one of the last sentences in
this chapter, Autolycus’ unbelief in the face of this unmistakable sign
34 Grant, 1970, X‒XI.

112 Jakob Engberg
from God is contrasted with his foolish faith that statues made from
human hands are gods and can perform miracles. This leads into the
next section of the book.
9‒11: Idol worship and the emperor cult. These chapters contain the negative
rebuttal of Autolycus’ view of God. Several arguments are used which
are well-known from other early Christian apologies. Autolycus’ ‘gods’
are really names of dead and immoral people. According to Theophi-
lus, this is apparent from the myths, the historians and the poets (9).
The Egyptians worship animals, while Greeks and other nations wor-
ship stone and wood (10). Theophilus wants to honour the Emperor as
the Emperor, with legitimate honours. He will pray for him, but not
worship him (11).
12: The name “Christian”: Theophilus has thus presented God positive-
ly and refuted Autolycus’ view of God. In relation to the aim of the
work, he still needs to respond to Autolycus’ derision of the name
Christian. Autolycus is presented as ignorant, and Theophilus argues
using a play on words, that what has been anointed (χριστόν), is use-
ful (χρηστόν).35
13‒14: Concluding exhortation to have faith in the resurrection, with Theophilus
serving as an example of conversion. Theophilus responds to a hypothet-
ical challenge from Autolycus: “Show me just one person who has
been raised from the dead, so that by seeing I may believe.” Theophi-
lus argues that God has given many signs of the resurrection, and
is worthy of faith. Theophilus recounts, as we will analyse in depth
below, that he did not believe in the resurrection once, but became
convinced by reading prophesies in the holy scriptures. He then en-
courages Autolycus to read these scriptures as well, as he can escape
eternal punishment by doing so. Theophilus concludes that he has
described God in response to Autolycus’ challenge, and advises Au-
tolycus to fear and have faith in God.
4.2. Contents – book two
The contents of book two can be summarised as follows:
1: Presenting the aim of the work. Theophilus addresses Autolycus, remind-
ing him of their recent conversation in which Autolycus had asked
Theophilus who his God was. According to Theophilus, Autolycus
had been negative towards Christians and seen their teachings as folly.
Theophilus introduces the work as having been written in response
to Autolycus’ challenge, and introduces the topic as refutation of the
superstition Autolycus is captive to.
35 According to both Tac., Ann. 10.44 and Tertullian, Christians were sometimes erroneously
called chrestians (brave, honourable, useful). Like Theophilus, Tertullian is naturally able
to exploit this apologetically.
Theophilus 113
2‒3: Criticism of idol worship and mythology. Theophilus presents it as ab-

surd to worship idols made by craftsmen (2). He argues, referring
to the Sybil, that the idea that immortal gods can bear children is
ridiculous: If this was true, there would be more gods than people.
The gods would be so numerous that mortals would have no place
to stand (3).
4‒8: Criticism of the presentation of the gods and their nature in pagan literature:
philosophers, poets, and historians. The criticism is presented in the or-
der shown, and concludes by returning to the poets for a closer ex-
amination of how they contradict each other (8). The false testimony
of the poets about God is blamed on the influence of demons. The de-
mons confess their destructive influence on the poets when they are
exorcised in the name of the true God. In rare cases, the poets speak
the truth about God’s omnipotence and authority to judge.
9‒10: Comparison of the contradictions of the poets and the consistency of the
prophets, Theophilus’ conversion influenced by the same. In contrast, the
Holy Spirit spoke accurately about God, the creation of the world
through his Logos, and the fulfilment of the ages. Among the He-
brews, the Holy Spirit, God’s Logos and his Sophia spoke through
prophets, and among the Greeks, through the Sibyl. The prophets and
the Sibyl spoke in agreement, and predicted events which have now
been fulfilled. When Theophilus discovered this, he came to believe
that the future would also unfold as predicted.
11‒32: Exegetical review of Genesis 1‒11. These chapters quote long passages
from Genesis. Although Theophilus claims that no-one can give a
fitting and adequate exegesis of these accounts (12), he attempts ex-
tensive exegesis of the text, often with an allegorical and prophetic
interpretation. For example, the creation of plants is interpreted as
a prophecy about the resurrection (14), the appearance of dry land
as a prophecy about the formation of congregations, and the bless-
ing of marine life as a prophecy about conversion and absolution in
baptism (16). In the Garden of Eden, God wanted people to mature
and rise towards heaven (24). The tree of the knowledge of good and
evil did not contain death, and nor did the fruit contain knowledge
(25). Knowledge followed from the command (not to eat of it) and
death followed breaking the command. God did not banish people
from the tree of life as a punishment to hurt people. Rather it was
to benefit sinful people, sparing them from being condemned to
live in eternal sin, and giving them the opportunity for purification
and a new call from God (26). Theophilus discusses Eve, Cain, Abel,
Noah, etc., and follows the Genesis account up to the story of the
Tower of Babel, and how humanity subsequently spread around the
world (27‒32).
114 Jakob Engberg
33‒35: Conclusion regarding the unreliability and contradictions of the poets, in

contrast to the trustworthiness and agreement of the prophets. The so-called
wise men, prophets and historians lived long after these events and
have therefore been ignorant of them and unable to describe them.
Only the Christians, taught by the Holy Spirit and with the testimony
of the prophets, have been able to hold on to the truth (33). Through
the prophets, the Holy Spirit also taught Christians to refrain from
idol worship and immorality, and they have spoken about this in con-
sistency with themselves and each other (34‒35).
36‒38: The agreement of the Sibyl and some Greek poets with the prophets,
and a final exhortation to find the truth among the Christians. In these
chapters, Theophilus quotes long passages which he attributes to
the Sibyl, and shorter passages from other Greek literature (such as
Sophocles). He presents these passages as confirmation of the view
of God which the prophets communicated, and tells Autolycus that
this will be understood by anyone who seeks God’s wisdom and
aim to please God through faith, righteousness and good works (38).
The work concludes by exhorting Autolycus to meet more frequent-
ly with Christians, so that he may learn the truth by listening to a
living voice.
The logical connection between the content of chapters 4‒10 and 33‒35 is
broken by the long exegetical review of Genesis 1‒11. Based on this obser-
vation, Grant argues that this review “must have existed separately”,36 and as
we have already seen and will see another example of below, there are for-
mulations in chapters 11‒32 which Grant has not considered which seem to
confirm this.
4.3. Overview of contents – book three
The contents of book three can be summarised as follows:
1 and 4: Purpose of the work: Autolycus has met with Christians but con-
tinues to see their scriptures as new and modern (and hence not respectable).
Theophilus therefore wishes, with God’s help, to demonstrate to Autolycus
that the Christian Scriptures are actually ancient. In chapter 4, Theophilus
returns to a description of Autolycus’ view of Christians, writing that he has
been led astray by godless rumours which accuse Christians of living pro-
miscuously, and their scriptures and teachings of being novel and foolish.
2‒3 and 5‒8: The Greek poets, historians and philosophers contradict themselves
and promote immorality and ungodliness. Theophilus makes the claim that only
an eyewitness or someone who has heard directly from eyewitnesses can
write truly and accurately about something (2). He therefore rejects the Greek
literature because the authors neither know the truth nor encourage others to
seek it (3). Instead, Greek literature promotes ungodliness and immorality (3).
36 Grant, 1970, X.
Theophilus 115
This leads into chapter 4’s more detailed explanation of the aim of the work,
which is to refute false accusations against Christians. Theophilus turns
these charges around and accuses Greek literature of promoting immorality,
cannibalism, incest and ungodliness (5‒8).
9‒15: In contrast, the law, the prophets and the gospels are in agreement, and
God uses them to lead humanity to conversion, morality and piety. Christians
actually recognize one God who created heaven and earth. He teaches
Christians piety and to be righteous in both thoughts and deeds through
the prophets and the gospels (9‒11). Christian teaching on such things as
righteousness and virtue is also exemplary and internally consistent (12‒14).
Given these teachings, the accusations against Christians cannot possibly
be true, and in reality they live virtuous lives (15).
16‒28: The main section of the book, in which Theophilus argues for the antiq-
uity of the Christian teachings and scriptures. He compares “our” accounts of
the flood (16‒19), the Jewish exodus from Egypt (20‒21), and the construc-
tion of Solomon’s Temple (22) with the Greeks’ accounts, and argues that the
law of Moses is older than the laws of other nations (23). With the prayer I
quoted in the introduction to this article, he reminds the reader of the evan-
gelistic aim of the work. He then proceeds to construct a chronology for the
history of the world, from Adam to Cyrus I the Persian king, based on the
Old Testament scriptures (24‒26). He ties this in with Roman chronology
(27) and concludes that it has been 5695 years from the creation of the world,
to the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (28).
5. Theophilus’ apologetic argument37
5.1. Theophilus’ own conversion as an example for the reader.

Theophilus outlined his own conversion separately in a passage in the first
book, and also makes a few references to conversion using the first person
plural (1.14; 2.9; 2.33‒34).
In his personal account of his conversion he claims that he converted
under the influence of Jewish prophets. He explains that, like Autolycus,
he once did not believe in the resurrection (1.14). However, he then became
familiar with the prophetic writings. In these writings, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, the prophets had predicted past events as they in fact happened, cur-
rent events as they were happening, and future events as they were going to
happen. Theophilus came to faith in obedience to God because he saw that
the prophets were being and had been fulfilled, as predicted. We find simi-
lar reasons given for conversion under the influence of the Jewish prophets
among several of the early apologists, such as Aristides, Justin Martyr in his
dialogue, and Tatian.
37 Regarding the use of his conversion account in the apologetic argument, Engberg, 2009 and
id., 2012.
116 Jakob Engberg
5.2. The function of Theophilus’ conversion account in his apologetic work:

Theophilus as a witness
This and the other conversion accounts have a central place in the argu-
ment in the apologetic work. There is much to suggest that when outsiders
encountered the Christian belief in resurrection they viewed it as foolish. It
therefore presumably required significant teaching to get converts to accept
this particular doctrine. This can be seen, for example, when Paul argues
for it in the first letter to the Corinthians, when apologists Athenagoras and
Origen devote entire apologetic works to the topic, and when Origen regu-
larly quotes and counters criticism of the belief by the pagan, Celsus.38 Giv-
en the indignation regarding the Christians’ belief in the resurrection of the
dead, the purpose of the conversion account was to make the message cred-
ible. Theophilus discusses the issue of the resurrection in chapters 8 and
13. In the latter chapter, and leading up to the conversion account, Theophi-
lus puts words into the mouth of Autolycus. He has Autolycus claim that
seeing is the same as believing, and state the following challenge: “Show
me just one person who has been raised from the dead, so that by seeing I
may believe”. Theophilus responds to this hypothetical challenge by saying
that even if he showed him someone who had been raised from the dead, it
would not necessarily be enough.39 He then presents a few examples from
nature to illustrate the resurrection. Even more importantly, Theophilus en-
courages Autolycus to identify with him by recounting his own movement
from doubt to faith. Autolycus is encouraged to undergo a similar transi-
tion, and Theophilus explicitly exhorts him not to doubt, but believe. This
is reminiscent of how Paul argued for the resurrection of the dead in his
writings to the church in Corinth by recounting his own conversion and
claiming that he had seen the risen Christ.40 Despite the similarity, there is a
critical difference. Paul’s conversion account was included in the argument
in a theological debate internal to the Christian community, whereas there
is no suggestion of this in Theophilus case.
Theophilus’ testimonial has a different and broader function. It makes
it possible for Autolycus (and non-Christian readers or converts) to identify
with Theophilus, who also once had doubts. Theophilus’ testimony that the
prophets led him to faith is intended to motivate Autolycus to read them also.
Theophilus also explicitly encourages him to do so with the promise that
they will lead him to eternal blessings from God (1.14). Theophilus thus saw
nothing unique about his conversion, but used it as an example for others
to follow. This is also apparent in the collective conversion accounts in the
second book, where he cites the testimony of the prophets as the reason for
38 See 1 Cor 15, Athenag., res. (see article by A.-C. Jacobsen in this anthology), Or., Cels. 2.5;
2.16; 4.57‒58; 5.14‒15; 7.32; 8.49‒50. Origen’s two books and two dialogues on resurrection
have been lost, but are known due to references in Or., princ. 2.10,1 and Cels. 5.20.
39 Compare with the parable about Lazarus in Luke 16:20‒25.
40 See 1 Cor 15.
Theophilus 117
conversion (2.9 and 2.33‒34). It is also evident that Theophilus viewed and
portrayed conversion as:
1. Establishing contact with God.
2. A transition from immorality and idol worship to morality and piety.
Theophilus thus writes that “we” Christians have been taught by the Holy
Spirit, who spoke through the prophets. The Holy Spirit and the prophets
taught “us” (Christians) to refrain from idol worship, adultery, murder, forni-
cation, theft, greed, perjury, anger and all impurity and immorality, because
God alone may be worshipped (2.33‒35). The prophets undertook this train-
ing task – which the wise men of the world were unable to manage – despite
being uneducated and poorly read shepherds. This in turn demonstrates
God’s power which worked in them.
Theophilus writes as a person who has experienced what he is writing
about. He has personal experience of living without contact with God. He
has lived in sin, ignorance and slavery, but found freedom in contact with
God, who led him to confession and righteousness through the prophets. As
someone who knows the way, he can write a proper guide for Autolycus, in
contrast to the pagan philosophers. For as Theophilus writes, authors should
be eyewitnesses to the events they recount, or at least have learned precise
details from the people who witnessed them.41 According to Theophilus, the
Greek authors, poets, historians and philosophers did not know the truth
themselves, and were therefore unable to lead others to it. Instead, their poet-
ry, histories and philosophy promoted immorality (3.2 and 3.16).
5.3. Prophecy as a motive for Theophilus’ conversion
and as a “proof” to convince the reader
Like Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, Theophilus used an account of his
own conversion to make the message about the resurrection of the dead cred-
ible. Unlike Paul, who reported that he was converted after seeing a vision,
Theophilus was converted as a result of the prophetic writings. This differ-
ence may confirm the old theory that the interpretation of scripture and the
ability to interpret scripture gradually became a more significant source of
authority in the churches than charismata during the second century.42 How-
ever, this shift should be viewed as relative, and so slow that identification
with the older Christian tradition remained living and vital. Firstly, Theophi-
lus was aware of the account in Acts of Philip and the scripture-motivated
conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. Secondly, there is no doubt that The-
ophilus would have failed to understand why anyone would put charisma in
opposition to scripture, since scripture was valuable to Theophilus precisely
because it was “charismatically” inspired by God’s spirit (3.12). Theophilus
41 See Thphl. Ant. 3.2. Cf. Luke 1:2‒3 and Jos., Ap. 1.53.
42 Cf. H. Holmquist / J. Nørregaard, Kirkehistorie. Bind I. Oldtid og Middelalder, Copenhagen
3
1946, 28‒33 and 66‒76.
118 Jakob Engberg
also claims, for example, that in relation to God, idols are powerless demons,
and the demons confess as much when they are driven out of possessed peo-
ple in the time of Theophilus and his readers. Such an argument is also found
in other early Christian apologists.43
5.4. Proof from morality
In a (presumably) more figurative sense, Theophilus believed he could offer
Autolycus a glimpse of God by giving him a glimpse of himself. Accord-
ing to Theophilus, all souls, including the readers’, are potentially capable
of seeing God. However, sin, immorality and ungodliness have closed the
eyes of many. However there is hope, for the reader also, and Theophilus
again uses a conversion account to show that anyone can be purified from
sin and come to see God (1.2). Everything will be understood by anyone
who seeks God’s wisdom and pleases God through faith, righteousness
and good works (2.38). Theophilus tells Autolycus directly that he does not
know God, and that he therefore has a blind soul and heart. Yet Autolycus
can be healed. Healing will come through contact with God, who will op-
erate on his soul and heart like a surgeon. Anyone who recognizes this and
lives in purity, holiness and righteousness can come to see God. Contact
with God thus depends on insight and a righteous life, faith and piety. The-
ophilus promises the reader that this will lead to the resurrection of both
the body and the soul (1.7). We see again how vital contact with God is, but
Theophilus also emphasises that this contact provides insight and leads to a
moral life which honours God alone.
This emphasis on conversion as a moral transformation appears in a
context where Theophilus is striving to convince the reader that Christians
are not immoral or promiscuous and do not practise incest or cannibalism
(3.4 and 3.14‒15). Theophilus quotes some Pauline exhortations (Rom 13:1‒8
and 1 Tim 2:1‒2) and says:
Consider, therefore, whether those who teach such things can possi-
bly live indifferently, and be commingled in unlawful intercourse, or,
most impious of all, eat human flesh (3.15).
Thus Theophilus finds it necessary to defend against the same rumours about
Christian morality, cannibalism and incest that we have already seen Aris-
tides, Justin Martyr and Tatian counter – and like them, he presents his de-
fence by pointing to Christian ethics.44
5.5. Proof from antiquity
Theophilus stated that the aim of his third book was to convince Autolycus
that Christian teachings and scriptures are neither new nor modern, but rath-
43 Cf, Tert., Apol. 23.4‒18; 27,6; Tert., An. 3; Min. Fel., Oct. 27.5‒8.
44 See the contributions to this anthology by Nils Arne Pedersen, Jörg Ulrich and René Fal-
kenberg. Cf., Fiedrowicz, 2000, 182‒189.
Theophilus 119
er ancient and respectable (3.1 and 3.4). In antiquity there was a general re-
spect for traditions and a tendency to view anything new with suspicion or
contempt. That is why this book recounts how the various apologists argued
that Christianity was not new, but was based on ancient Jewish prophecy and
wisdom. Theophilus’ argumentation in this respect is quite comprehensive
and systematic. The issue is raised in both the first and second book (1.14 and
2.33‒35), and occupies the majority of the third (3.16‒28).
6. Conversion as a process or event? 45

Theophilus gives us no indication whether his own conversion was a sud-
den event or a drawn out process. It is natural to assume that conversion as
a result of studying the prophetic writings must necessarily have taken time
and is therefore being portrayed as a process. However, we already touched
on Luke’s account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. This conver-
sion is depicted as sudden, despite being motivated by the explanation of
a prophetic text. It is therefore not a given that an author who viewed the
study of the scriptures as a path to conversion also necessarily believed that
such study should be over a long period, and presented it as such. However,
it is apparent that Theophilus believed Autolycus would benefit from con-
tact with and being taught by Christians over a longer period. Theophilus
encourages Autolycus to strive to meet more frequently with Christians,
so he might learn the truth by hearing a living voice (2.38). Despite his
emphasis on a direct relationship between God and the convert (3.14‒15),
conversion is solidly placed within a social context. Theophilus makes ref-
erence to the statement in the creation account that God gathered the dry
land in the middle of the sea. He writes that God similarly gave the world,
which is plagued by sin, some gatherings (συναγωγάς), called holy assem-
blies (ἐκκλησία ἅγίας). According to Theophilus, the truth can be found at
these gatherings, and everyone who loves the truth and wants to be saved
and escape God’s judgement will seek refuge in them (2.14). Theophilus
also emphasises responsibility for mission, writing that the prophets and
evangelists, inspired by God’s word, have repeatedly exhorted people to
be converted, because God always wants to give people the opportunity of
conversion (3.11‒12).
Theophilus also describes the significance of baptism in connection
with conversion (baptism serves as the rite of transition between the old
godless life and the new life with God). Theophilus interprets God’s bless-
ing of the creatures of the sea in the creation account allegorically and pro-
phetically as foreshadowing that God will also bless those who are convert-
ed and receive forgiveness for their sins through water and the washing
of rebirth.46 This passage also appears to confirm Fiedrowicz’ and Grant’s
45 See Engberg, 2009 and id., 2012.

46 See Thphl. Ant. 2.16. Baptism as the washing of rebirth, see Tit 3:5.
120 Jakob Engberg
theory that large parts of book two (chapters 11‒32) were “recycled” from a
catechetical work, as teaching about the significance of baptism would be
expected in such a work.
7. Conclusion – and the modern debate regarding

the “lack” of explicit reference to Jesus
7.1. Conclusion
Theophilus’ works were most likely compiled in response to conversations
with his pagan acquaintance, Autolycus, with the aim Theophilus explicit-
ly states of motivating Autolycus to reject pagan cults, and countering what
Theophilus perceived as Autolycus’ prejudice towards Christians and Chris-
tianity. There is also much to suggest that Theophilus did not only write for
Autolycus, but that he and other contemporaries hoped and believed the
works could be used evangelistically in relation to other potential converts.
Theophilus was himself a convert, as presumably were the majority in the
congregation he belonged to. Modern studies of conversion to modern reli-
gious movements (including Christianity) show that it is more appropriate
to see conversion as a process than as an event47 – Theophilus’ picture of
conversion, as he communicates it in the three books, is consistent with this.
If modern scholars such as Fiedrowicz and Grant are correct in claiming that
a significant portion of the first two books is taken from existing catechetical
works presented in a new apologetic context, it becomes clear that the three
books must also have been useful and viewed as such in relation to new con-
verts seeking confirmation.
7.2. Theophilus’ silence
We must consider the circumstances in which the work came into being and
these explicit and implicit target groups and readers in order to address the
issue of why Theophilus did not write something different.
Even raising the question of why an author in antiquity did not write
about this or that is methodologically precarious. There is naturally a sig-
nificant risk of introducing anachronisms with this type of question. Who
is to say that the issues which modern scholars see as so central that they
should have been discussed by the author, really were this central in the time
of the author and in the situation in which he was writing. With regard to
Theophilus, going so far as to base hypotheses about an otherwise unknown
Judaeo-Christian sect or “an ecclesiastical theology” on his “silence” regard-
ing certain theological questions one feels he ought to have discussed is even
more indefensible. We also know that only a small portion of his works has
survived. We therefore cannot know whether his Christology or his discus-
47 For an overview of this debate, cf. Engberg, 2009 and id., 2012.
Theophilus 121
sion of Jesus as a person and saviour were more explicit and developed in his
anti-heretical or catechetical works.
If we take the apparent purpose of his books to Autolycus seriously, the
most obvious explanation for his “silence” is that his conversations with Au-
tolycus simply raised other problems and questions, which Theophilus there-
fore responds to. This unsensational interpretation is confirmed if we com-
pare the “silence” of Theophilus’ works with the most closely related works of
others – first of all with the Letter to Diognetus and the Octavius dialogue, and
secondly with the other contemporary apologetic works. Such a comparison
is lacking among the authors who have presented complicated hypotheses to
explain Theophilus’ “silence”.48
As will be discussed in Anders Klostergaard Petersen’s contribution on
the Letter to Diognetus, we find a similar “silence” in this letter with regard
to a developed Christology and Jesus as a person and saviour. However, this
similar “silence” cannot be used to support Grant’s hypotheses of a unique Ju-
daeo-Christian variant, which the author of the Letter to Diognetus would also
have to be an exponent for. This is because, as Anders Klostergaard Petersen
notes in his article, the Letter to Diognetus is characterised by a harsh polemic
against Judaism (1.1 and 3.2‒4.6).49 The differences between the view of Ju-
daism held by Theophilus and the author of the Letter to Diognetus are most
likely due to real differences in their perception of the relationship between
Christianity and Judaism. Given what we know about the internal Christian
debate concerning the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in the
second century, there is nothing surprising about this. Nor should it be sur-
prising that an author such as Theophilus, who authored an anti-heretical
work against Marcion, communicated a positive view of Christianity’s Jewish
foundation. The best logical explanation for the similar “silence” of Theophi-
lus and the author of the Letter to Diognetus is therefore to be found in their
common apologetic and evangelistic intention. The authors have not felt that
a systematic development of a complicated Christology served this purpose.
Autolycus viewed the Christians as immoral, so Theophilus explained the
Christian ethics. Autolycus considered Christianity to be novel, so Theophi-
lus presented it as the fulfilment of ancient Jewish prophecies. Theophilus
also felt it was necessary to explain that Christians were loyal to the Em-
peror and sought to honour him as Emperor, even though they refused to
make sacrifices to him. Autolycus viewed Christianity as superstitious folly.
Theophilus responded with an exegesis of the creation account in Genesis,
which he believed would demonstrate the wisdom and truth of the Christian
scriptures (2.11‒31). In the given context, it is not that surprising that The-
ophilus did not feel it was opportune to recount in detail about a man who
48 Grant is aware of the problem but does not perform such a comparison, and simply defends
his primary thesis by proposing yet another unsubstantiated thesis: That Ad Diognetum
was written as a response to Ad Autolycum, see Grant, 1950, 191.
49 Cf. also Young, 1999, 88.
122 Jakob Engberg
was recently executed as a criminal or revolutionary by the Roman authori-

ties in Judea, and provide a systematic theological explanation of where this
man stood in relation to the creator of heaven and earth. Theophilus assumed
and declared that Autolycus would require more in-depth teaching later, and
confined himself to the Logos Christology, which was easier to defend phil-
osophically – like the author of the Letter to Diognetus and Justin Martyr
before him (2. apol. 8, 10 and 13).50
Roger’s main conclusion was that Theophilus had an evangelistic aim
with Ad Autolycum.51 He therefore did not need to construct a second alter-
native explanation for the silence, in the form of his hypothetical “ecclesi-
astical theology”. This hypothetical ecclesiastical theology is also unable to
explain the similar silence in the Letter to Diognetus. As Anders Klostergaard
Petersen notes in his chapter, modern scholars find it strange that the author
of the Letter to Diognetus has not discussed the Christian church or its offices
or rituals.52
In the Octavius apologetic dialogue between the Christian Octavius and
the pagan Caecilius, Octavius does not develop a systematic Christology,
and nor does he provide Caecilius with an explicit and detailed presenta-
tion of Jesus as a person and saviour. As Svend Erik Mathiassen notes in his
contribution to this anthology, this has also led to creative hypotheses to
explain the “silence”. Fortunately, no-one has attempted to explain this by
assuming that Minucius Felix and Theophilus were representatives of the
same type of divergent Christianity, as the two authors were far apart in
terms of geography, language and chronology. The primary link between
the two authors is the apologetic and evangelistic aim of their works. If we
are to believe the two authors, there was a climate of heated debate during
the religious meetings of antiquity. Autolycus did not hold back from mock-
ing Theophilus’ religion, Theophilus did not refrain from deriding Autol-
ycus, and Octavius and Caecilius likewise derided each other’s religions.
Such derision is cited as the reason for Theophilus’ second book, and as the
reason for Minucius Felix’ dialogue.
7.3. Must the hound always howl?
Sherlock Holmes’ inferences are legendary and ingenious, and inevitably
lead to the crime being solved and the villain’s demise. However, they are
also so extravagant that any real detective who chose to base his investiga-
tion on similar inferences would very likely end up accusing many innocent
50 See the chapter on Justin Martyr by Jörg Ulrich and on the Letter to Diognetus by Anders
Klostergaard Petersen. See the introduction to this anthology by Jörg Ulrich regarding
Logos Christology as a general apologetic approach to make Christianity comprehensible
and acceptable to the surrounding world.
51 See Rogers, 2000, 21. 166f. 182f.
52 The congregation is discussed in chapter 11 of the letter, but most scholars see chapters
11‒12 as later additions to a shorter original work, based on linguistics and content.
Theophilus 123
people, and be unable to produce evidence against the guilty parties. As a

historian pursuing a scientific approach, it is similarly indefensible to focus
one’s investigation on something the sources do not say, and base your con-
clusions on expectations of what they ought to have said.
The works by Theophilus and the other early Christian apologists are
often viewed as less interesting by theologians.53 This is partly because this
type of defence and argumentation for Christianity is now seen as tasteless,
and partly because Christology and other issues which have since been seen
as vitally important are rarely discussed by the apologists, and never sys-
tematically and exhaustively. Aristides, Athenagoras and Tatian are actual-
ly just as relatively silent with respect to Jesus in their apologetic works as
Minucius Felix, Theophilus and the author of the Letter to Diognetus.54
What then? Was the Christianity of the apologists divergent from the
Christianity of other early Christian authors? Or should we take the apol-
ogists’ stated addressees seriously and conclude that the apologies really
were targeted at outsiders, opponents, and potential and new converts?
Fiedrowicz concludes:
In ihrem Bemühen, das Christentum innerhalb eines fremden Denk-
horizontes verständlich zu machen, stellten die Apologeten vielfach
nur jene Aspekte der eigenen Religion dar, die heidnischen Vorstel-
lungen nahelagen.55
Analysis of Theophilus’ three books suggests that these works were written
with such readers in mind, and therefore deal with issues which Theophi-
lus felt would best present Christianity in a way that was intelligible and
acceptable to Autolycus.56 The omissions therefore do not reflect the fact
that Theophilus (and the other apologists) saw Christ’s saving work and his
life as unimportant,57 but simply that he (they) found it expedient to delay
teaching on this until the addressee was more strongly linked to the Chris-
tian fellowship (2.38).
As Curry rightfully reminds us, Theophilus (and the other early Chris-
tian apologists) wrote: “before the great Christological debates occurred.
Christology was not a major concern of the second century.”58 It is interesting
and relevant to search for rudiments and initial formulations of systemat-
53 For this observation with respect to the apologists in general, see the introduction to this
anthology by Jörg Ulrich. For a similar observation with respect to Theophilus, see Curry,
1988, 324.
54 Cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 155.
55 Fiedrowicz, 2000, 155.
56 Cf. Curry, 1988, 324: “Theophilus was trying to offer an explanation of the relationship
between the Logos and God that could be understood by Autolycus”.
57 Theophilus saw the words of the gospels as being on par with those of the prophets, see
note 25.
58 Curry, 1988, 324. See, for example, Schoedel, 1993, 293.
124 Jakob Engberg
ic Christology in the second century,59 but it is anachronistic to expect this

Christology to be fully developed, or compare these rudiments with a later
orthodoxy and use this comparison as a basis for hypotheses about a diver-
gent and unknown Christianity in that period.
We do not know whether Theophilus’ efforts to make Christianity intel-
ligible to Autolycus and link him into Christian fellowship bore fruit, but we
know that in their day, year by year, more and more people did as Theophi-
lus had done and converted to Christianity.60 All the evidence suggests that
Theophilus wrote these books to make a contribution to the Christianisation
of the world he knew.
59 Cf. Jörg Ulrich‘s chapter on Justin Martyr.

60 Cf. Stark, 1996.
Heaven-borne in the World:
Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus1
Anders Klostergaard Petersen
1. From Fish to Pearl – the Whims of Fate

Working with the Letter to Diognetus inevitably brings to mind the old story
theme of the fish and the pearl. As many commentators have noticed through-
out the years2, the work is a pearl among early Christian literature. Yet it is a
treasure which has only survived due to the strange whims of fate. We have
no knowledge of the work from ancient times. The church fathers neither
name nor make reference to it. For 1200 years it languished in neglect, until it
turned up in 1436 at a fish market in Constantinople as part of a stack of pa-
pers used to wrap fish.3 Today we can thank the whims of fate for its surviv-
al. Thomas d’Arezzo, a young Italian clergyman, purchased the manuscript
for a modest sum shortly after its appearance at the fish market. It was part
of a larger codex, Kodex Argentoratensis Graechus 9, presumably from the 13th
or 14th century, which contained 21 early Christian works in addition to the
Letter to Diognetus.4 The work was grouped with four other pseudo-Justinian
texts which made up the first five works in the codex: 1) By St. Justin, philoso-
pher and martyr,On the Sole Government of God; 2) By St. Justin, philosopher
and martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks; 3) By St. Justin, philosopher and
1 This chapter came into being during a research visit to the Institut für Neues Testament,
Philipps-Universität, Marburg. I am thankful to the Theological Faculty at Aarhus Univer-
sity for financing the secondment, and to my good friend Professor Dr. Friedrich Avemarie
for organising the practical details of the visit and for many stimulating and inspiring con-
versations over the years. In deep sorrow, I now dedicate this essay to my friend of blessed
memory († 13.10.2012).
2 As can be seen, for example, in the titles of two earlier works by I.M. Sailer (ed.), Der Brief
an Diognetus, eine Perle des christlichen Altherthums, in: Briefe aus allen Jahrhunderten der christ-
lichen Zeitrechnung, Vol. 1‒5, Munich 1800‒1804, and W. Heinzelmann, Der Brief an Diognet,
Erfurt 1896. The pearl metaphor is also used by Fiedrowicz, 2000, 55, and C.C.J. Bunsen,
Hippolytus und seine Zeit. Anfänge und Aussichten des Christentums und der Menschheit. Erster
Band. Die Kritik, Leipzig 1852, 138, describes the work using the related term, “jenes patris-
tischen Edelsteins”.
3 The most comprehensive presentation of the history and background of the work is found
in H.I. Marrou, A Diognete. Introduction, SC 33, Paris 1951, which also contains the most ex-
tensive commentary on the work. I am using the translation of Bart Ehrman found in The
Apostolic Fathers II. Epistle of Barnabas. Papias and Quadratus. Epistle to Diognetus. The Shepherd
of Hermas. Edited and Translated by Bart D. Ehrman, LCL 25, London 2003. When referring
to the Greek text I am using the Greek text in the edition of Marrou In my outline of the
history of the work I have drawn on Marrou‘s presentation.
4 For a complete overview of the 22 works in the codex, see Marrou, 1951, 12‒17.
126 Anders Klostergaard Petersen
martyr, An Exposition of True Faith or On Trinity; 4) By the same, The Discourse

to the Greeks; 5) By the same, Letter to Diognetus.5
Shortly after the purchase, d’Arezzo left with three brothers of the Do-
minican order to missionise among Muslims. He therefore transmitted the
work to another Dominican, the later Cardinal Johannes of Ragusa, who was
in Constantinople at the same time as a delegate for the Basel Council, and
who owned a significant manuscript collection. After his death in Basel in
1443, Johannes Reuchlin, uncle to renaissance humanist, Philipp Melanch-
thon, acquired the manuscript. An inscription on the back page of the codex
indicates that Reuchlin must have worked with it. It is unclear what happened
to the codex after Reuchlin’s death in 1522, but at some point in the second
half of the 16th century it was passed on to Marmoutier Abbey in Alsace, and
from there to the national library in Strasbourg in the late 18th century. How-
ever, fate again intervened capriciously. When Strasbourg was hit by cannon
fire during the Prussian siege on 24 August 1870, much of the national li-
brary went up in flames, including – unfortunately among other irreplaceable
treasures – the codex to which the Letter to Diognetus belonged. An original
manuscript, therefore, no longer exists. Fortunately three transcriptions of
the original codex and collations and several precise palaeographical obser-
vations and descriptions exist, but the text situation undeniably makes the
work of textual criticism more difficult. This is not improved by the fact that
there are gaps in three places in the text (6.6; 10.1,8), which, due to these prob-
lems of transmission, cannot be reconstructed.
2. The Letter to Diognetus as a Historical Work:

Author and Date of Authorship
In the original codex, of which the Letter to Diognetus was the fifth work, the
letter was attributed to Justin Martyr along with four other works. However,
no modern scholars see him as the author of any of the five works.6 They are
considered to be pseudo-Justinian, but this raises the questions of who au-
thored the Letter to Diognetus, the date of authorship, its intended recipients
and genre, and the circumstances under which it came into being. Examining
the history of scholarship, it becomes apparent that our understanding of the
work reflects its fateful appearance as a pearl in fish wrapping paper. We
5 Cf. section 1 in Jörg Ulrich’s article on Justin Martyr. A. von Harnack argues in Die Überlie-
ferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter,
Leipzig 1883, 85, and in Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Zweiter Theil. Die
Chronologie. Erster Band. Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenäus nebst einleitenden Untersu-
chungen, Leipzig 1897, 513, that the initial five works attributed to Justin Martyr originally
comprised a separate Justin collection which was appended to the other 17 works of the
codex at a later date by an editor, sometime between the 4th and 10th century.
6 Cf. H.G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus. The Greek Text with Introduction Translation and
Notes, Manchester 1949, 61f. and E. Molland, Die litteratur- und dogmengeschichtliche Stellung
des Diognetbriefes, in: ZNW 33 (1934), 289‒312 (292).
Heaven-borne in the World: Α Study of the Letter to Diognetus 127
neither know its origin nor its date of authorship, and we have only a vague
sense of the circumstances under which it came into being. Throughout the
ages, many have conjectured about famous people from antiquity as potential
authors, or have attempted to anchor the letter in a particular geographical
environment,7 but such attempts have always been guesswork. We only have
the transcript, and yet we are capable of saying something approximate about
the historical situation behind its authorship, since the text at a number of
points exhibits notable similarities with other works about which we have
a greater knowledge concerning the historical background. To be fair, such
parallels have provided the basis for various scholarly attempts to link the
letter to famous people and particular locations in early Christianity. How-
ever, we will never be in a position to say to whom the work was directed,
who the exact author was, or how it came into being, but we may make some
justified claims about the cultural and social environment which the work
reflects. There are several similarities between Aristides, the Kerygma Petrou,
Clement of Alexandria’s Protreptikos and the Letter to Diognetus; and it shares
several characteristics with the other second-century apologetic works. It also
reflects a phase in early Christianity where in certain contexts it had become
possible to perceive Christianity as an independent religion with respect to
Judaism (ch. 1 and 3–4).8
Based on these and other considerations, it seems reasonable to date the
work to sometime during the late second century or first half of the third
century, in a Christian environment clearly set in a Greco-Roman, Chris-
tian, culturally elitist context, where Judaism was viewed with great mis-
trust. The author had no background in Judaism, but was a former pagan
who addresses other pagans interested in Christianity, encouraging them to
convert. The work shows no indications of having been written in a social
context where a more Judaising form of Christianity represented a threat to
the author‘s world-view. The Judaism he feels compelled to combat does not
appear to have won a foothold in the circles to which he belongs. Rather, it
appears as if the author, in line with the argument of 1 Cor 1:20‒25, has ste-
reotypically divided the world into three ethnic/religious classes: Greeks,
Jews and Christians. Possibly, one may come closer to determining a time
and place of the Letter to Diognetus when one takes particular characteristics
of the work into consideration.
Contrary to other apologetic literature, not just from the second centu-
ry but the subsequent centuries as well, it is unusual that the text does not
refer to the Old Testament. We do find a pronounced polemic against Jew-
7 See Marrou, 1951, 242f.

8 In, A.K. Petersen, At the End of the Road – Reflections on a Popular Scholarly Metaphor, in:
J. Ådna (ed.), The Formation of the Church. Papers from the Seventh Nordic New Testament Con-
ference in Stavanger 2003, Tübingen 2005, 45‒72 (56‒58), I have discussed in detail the ge-
neral issues surrounding the establishment of Christianity as a separate and independent
religion with respect to Judaism.
ish and pagan idol worship in chapter 2, which constitutes a textual patch-
work of Old Testament themes and images against idol worship (Deut 4:28;
Ps 115:4‒7; Isa 44:9‒20; Wis 13:10‒16; 15:4‒17; JerBr 2‒70). In chapter 12, the
goal for the newly converted pagans is described by the use of images
drawn from Gen 2. God makes those who love him in the right way into a
garden paradise, and each one becomes a fertile tree, bearing all kinds of
fruit. However, there is uncertainty as to whether chapters 11‒12 are part
of the original work. There are many indications that the two chapters have
been added by a later editor who wanted to anchor the work in a more
‘orthodox’ form of Christianity.9 By emphasising Christ as the Word, the
two chapters fulfil a perceived christological deficiency in the preceding
section of the work, and they connect the teaching of the letter institution-
ally to the church. It is a characteristic of the work that the author does
not relate his understanding of Christians and Christianity as a novum to
the Old Testament. This is not an element in his understanding of history.
Marcion naturally comes to mind, who distanced himself from the Old
Testament Creator God and the Jewish Bible as the foundation for the New
Testament10 – but one needs to be wary of this connection for two reasons.
First, the work contains no Marcionite polemic against the Old Testament.
Second, the idea of creation plays an important role throughout the work.
At several places, God is emphasised as the creator of the universe (7.2; 8.7).
We can simply observe that references to the Old Testament narrative and
promises have no part to play in the text.11 Judith Lieu, therefore, makes the
succinct point that:
9 Although most interpreters see chapters 11‒12 as a later addition, some scholars argue
that the work in its present form functions as a whole. See D.P. Andriessen, The Author-
ship of the Epistula ad Diognetum, in: VigChr 1 (1947), 129‒136 (135); Marrou,1951, especi-
ally 219‒227; Fiedrowicz, 2000, 57; M. Rizzi, La questione dell’unità dell’ “Ad Diognetum”,
SPMed 16, Milano 1989. For the secondary nature of the chapters, see K. Wengst, Di-
dache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet, Darmstadt 1984,
283‒356 (287‒290), where Wengst provides a number of clear arguments for viewing
ch. 11‒12 as a later addition. He notes that: “Damit dürfte deutlich sein, dass es sich bei
den Kap. 11f. um einen sekundären Nachtrag handelt, der von einem anderen als dem
Autor der Kap. 1‒10 verfaßt worden ist.”
10 Cf. A. von Harnack, Beilage V. Die Antithesen Marcions (nach Zitaten und Referenzen), in:
Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Darmstadt 1960 (21924), 256‒313, and Me-
echam, 1947, 37f.: “Our author’s temper is Marcionite in its ignoring of the historical link
between Judaism and Christianity.” Two earlier scholars have gone as far as claiming
that Marcion was the author of the Letter to Diognetus. See Bunsen, 1852, 138: “In der
Ausgabe, welche ich von dieser Reliquie vorbereitet habe, glaube ich bewiesen zu haben,
dass der Brief an Diognet ein verlorner Brief Marcion’s aus seiner frühesten Zeit ist.”; E.
Buonaiuti, Lettera a Diogneto. testo, traduzione e note, Rom 1921, 18f: “Nulla v’è in essa (sc.
the text) che Marcione non avrebbe potuto scrivere: molto v’è che nessuno, se, non lui,
avrebbe potuto dettarre.”
11 Cf. Harnack, 1960 (19242), 203f. — this observation had not yet been made in the first edition
from 1921, 236.
The ad Diognetum is unusual in the second century in not finding

any such [Old Testament] history; consistent this may be, yet ulti-
mately it was to prove unsatisfactory, and the denial of history, as
implied by Marcion’s rejection of the Creator God of the Jews, was
excluded as heretical.12
Another peculiarity is the absence of references to, or even the impression
of Christianity as an institutionalised religion with a developed cult and
specific rituals and a concomitant structure. It is odd that one does not find
traces of the ‘established’ Church in a work from the late second century
or the first half of the third century. Chapter 11:5‒6, however, is a striking
exception, but these verses should probably be seen as a later editor‘s at-
tempt to compensate for the lack of institutional links in the original work.
Despite parallels to other apologetic literature, much suggests that the text
was written in the context of an extremely independent Christian group –
virtually an enclave – which pursued and radicalised certain traditions of
the Pauline literature.13 Gospel material is also strikingly absent. One could
almost see the work as a bridge or stepping stone towards more Gnostic
forms of Christianity.14 However, interpretations reflected by the Letter to
Diognetus may help us understand how and why Marcionism and Gnostic
forms of Christianity were able to perceive themselves as valid and true
stewards of the Christian traditions.
The work is written in stylistically elegant and flawless Greek.15 There
is no doubt that the author had undergone extensive rhetorical schooling,
which suggests that the work was written at a stage of early Christianity
where it had gained a footing in educated and socially higher circles of the
Greco-Roman world, and could be formulated in philosophical categories.
Although the author emphasises God‘s revelation, and in contrast to others
such as Justin Martyr, writes off philosophy as “illusions and the deception
of tricksters (ταῦτα μὲν τερατέια καὶ πλάνη τῶν γοήτων)” (8.4), he clearly
12 J. Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity, London 2002, 189.
13 In light of these considerations, I am sceptical about Charles Hill’s recent attempt to argue
that the author of the Letter to Diognetus was Polycarp of Smyrna. Apart from the fact that it
is an impossible thesis to prove, the conjecture falters on the ground that remarkable differ-
ences exist between the Letter to Diognetus and the only extant text of Polycarp, that is, his
Letter to the Philippians. See C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. Identifying Irenaeus’
Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum, Tübingen 2006, 128‒165.
14 S. Petrement, Valentin est-il l’auteur de l’épître à Diognète?, in: RHPhR 46 (1966), 34‒62, has
argued that the work was written by the Christian Gnostic, Valentine, but this seems ext-
remely doubtful given the creation theology themes in the text. Cf. R. Brändle, Die Ethik der
„Schrift an Diognet“. Eine Wiederaufnahme paulinischer und johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang
des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Zürich 1975, 228, and Harnack, 1897, 514.
15 E. Norden claims in Die antike Kunstprosa, Vol. 2, Darmstadt 1958, 513, that: “von den an
einzelne Personen gerichteten apologetischen Schriften… der Brief nach Diognet nach al-
len diesen Gesichtspunkten (sc. content, level of style, and language) zu dem glänzendsten
gehört, was von Christen in griechischer Sprache geschrieben ist.”
belongs to the Middle Platonic tradition.16 The Christology of the work also
indicates an advanced stage in the history of early Christianity. Christ and
Jesus are not mentioned. Rather, Christ is portrayed as the truth and the
holy incomprehensible word (7.2); the Son (9.2; 9.4; 10.4); the Son (παῖς 8.9;
8.11; 9.1);17 saviour (9.6); and Lord (7.7). The absence of references to New
Testament christological concepts (Jesus, Christ, son of David, son of man,
etc.) must be seen in light of the author‘s wish to avoid linking the Christ
event with Old Testament narratives and the earthly Jesus. However, the
author emphasises the purpose of Christ in terms of a theology of creation
to an extent that is only matched by other contemporary works. God sent
Christ who is:
The craftsman and maker of all things himself, by whom he created
the heavens, by whom he enclosed the sea within its boundaries,
whose mysteriums all the elements of creation guard faithfully,
from whom the sun was appointed to guard the courses that it runs
during the day, whom the moon obeys when he commands it to
shine at night, whom the stars obey by following the course of the
moon, by whom all things are set in order and arranged and put
into subjection, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth
and the things in the earth, the sea and the things in the sea, fire,
air, the abyss, creatures in the height, creatures in the depths, and
creatures in between–this is the one he sent to them (7.2).
Another argument for dating the work to the late second or early third
century is a number of references to martyrdom ([1.1]; 5.11f; 6.5f; 6.9; 7.7‒9;
10.7f.). They almost have the character of an independent martyr ideology,
which has its closest parallels in other works from around the end of the
second century. For example, the reader is encouraged in 7.8f. to consider
the correlation between the death of the martyrs and the growth of Chris-
tianity: “Do you not see that the more the multitude is punished, the more
others increase their numbers. These are the powers (ταῦτα δύναμίς) of
God; these are the proofs of his coming.”It is also notable that the particu-
lar Christian ethos the work is at pains to emphasise at several places is
closely linked to martyrdom.
In light of these considerations, it is not unreasonable to view the Let-
ter to Diognetus as a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity
dating to the late second or early third century,18 with a Pauline focus,19 but
untouched by the ritualised and institutionalised form of Christianity or
by the Old Testament narrative, and representative of a protreptic discourse
16 Cf. Wengst, 1984, 304f.

17 It is clear from 8.11 and 9.4–5 that παῖς and υἱός are used synonymously in the work, so
παῖς means son here and not servant.
18 Cf. Harnack, 1897, 515.
19 Cf. Molland, 1934, 310.
employed to mark out the path by which pagans (cf. 5.4) are exhorted to
convert to Christianity. This is a further argument to support the second-
ary nature of chapters 11‒12, since these two chapters presuppose a Chris-
tian audience.
3. The Letter to Diognetus as an Apologetic Work:

Determining the Genre, Structure and Content
In what sense is the Letter to Diognetus an apologetic work? If it is an idiosyn-
cratic radicalisation of certain Pauline traditions dating to the late second or
early third century, one has to ask whether it can be meaningfully classified
in the context of other apologetic works. The more distinctive one makes the
work, the further one removes it from other comparable literature. This is
self-evident, but we also find patterns in the work which connect it with other
apologetic works. Before discussing the text as an apologetic work, however,
I will first consider its genre, structure and content.
I have certain reservations about using the title, Letter to Diognetus,
since the work is not in the genre of a letter. It lacks the features which
would justify such a classification. It is also a modern designation which
can be traced back to the work‘s first publisher, Henricus Stephanus Justini
philisophi et martyris Epistula ad Diognetum et Oratio ad Graecos “The philoso-
pher and martyr Justin’s Letter to Diognetus and The Discourse to the Greeks”
(Paris 1592). Inevitably, this raises the question what kind of work is it? I
will draw here on Jörg Ulrich‘s musings in the introduction regarding the
relationship between apologetic and protreptic works. I can only concur
with his conclusion that there is a great need to group protreptic discours-
es with the classic apologies. This is the more so, since it makes no sense
to categorise the Letter to Diognetus as an apology sensu stricto, but rather
as a protreptic speech which may also be described as an apologetic work.
This is not to say that every protreptic discourse, therefore, is an apologetic
work. The claim being made is simply that apologetic texts may well be
protreptic in terms of genre, cf. figure 1.20 The Letter to Diognetus lacks the
characteristics that would make it natural to classify it as an apology in
terms of both genre and function. Rather, it belongs to the more diffuse and
fuzzy category of ‘apologetic works’, which are not apologies in the narrow
genre sense, but may be classified as apologetic because their nature, con-
tent, and rhetoric have a predominantly apologetic character. Given that
we may also characterise the genre of the work as protreptic, we should
consider the implications of such a categorisation.
20 For a detailed elaboration of the figure, see my article A.K. Petersen, The Diversity of Apol-
ogetics. From Genre to a Mode of Thinking, in: A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich / D. Brakke (eds.),
Critique and Apologetics. Jews, Christians and Pagans in Antiquity, ECCA 4, Frankfurt 2009,
15‒41 (23‒39).
Intentionality
Emic perspective
Apologies proper
Deliberative Forensic
Etic perspective Fictive court speech Court speech
Cluster of apologetic
motifs
Apologetic strategy
Apologetic mode of Logos protreptikos
interpretation Letter to Diognetus
Apologetic texts
As a general mode Specificacity

of thinking
Argument
Agōn For instance, writing
Persuasio of history
Communication
Figure 1
In the mid-1980s Stanley Stowers introduced a heuristic distinction be-

tween paraenetic and protreptic texts. Both were exhortative in nature,
but the paraenetic works were aimed at followers who had already en-
rolled on the right path and needed encouragement in order to remain on
it, whereas protreptic was used with regard to exhortative works with the
aim of calling followers to a new and different way of life. In other words:
Paraenetic works were directed towards insiders – adherents to a certain
philosophy in need of strengthening in an ideal practice corresponding
to that philosophy – while protreptic speeches targeted outsiders as con-
version literature.21 However, this distinction has recently received strong
criticism. In an essay on paraenesis in light of protreptic speech, Diana
Swancutt argues that Stowers‘ distinction is based on a false opposition,
resulting from earlier German scholarship.22 Neither paraenesis nor pro-
21 S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986, 92.

22 D.M. Swancutt, Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy, in:
J. Starr / T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, Berlin 2004, 113‒153
(113‒121).
treptic speech represented independent genres in antiquity, but rather

parallel textual layers with different social connotations which could be
invoked in particular situations. Paraenesis and protreptic speech are sim-
ilar in content and may, therefore, also be used for parallel purposes with
identical audiences in mind, but they are derived from different cultural
and social environments:
Hence, paraenesis employs traditional, elite, hortatory precepts and
examples whereas the λογός προτρεπτικός is usually a discourse or
dialogue including several, major structural elements: a censure of
rivals; an exhortation to the Good; a demonstration of truth claims;
a description of goals; a discussion of politics; and sometimes, epit-
omized, paraenetic urgings to virtue and dissuasions from vice
(Swancutt, 2004, 152).
It is reasonable, as several scholars have noted,23 to view the Letter to Diognetus
as a λογός προτρεπτικός, the goal of which – in terms of the original work
in chapters 1‒10 – was to exhort interested pagans to convert to Christianity.
However, one should also consider whether it is unthinkable that the work
was also used internally, given the addition of chapters 11‒12. As Jörg Ul-
rich touched on in his introduction, the question of audience has troubled
the study of apologetics since early times. On the surface apologetic works
present themselves as addressing the Greco-Roman non-Christian world, but
one cannot deny – despite all the internal differences – that they have had a
significant, possibly primary, internal function as part of the formation, con-
solidation and ongoing confirmation of the internal Christian identity.24 The
Letter to Diognetus is a work which strikingly demonstrates how identity is
constructed through a strategy of radical distancing from other cultural and
social constructs.25 In the world of the text, only three groups exist: Greeks,
Jews and Christians, the latter of which act in response to God‘s direct com-
mission and in consistency with the heavenly world. Christians are heav-
en-borne in a world full of sin and defilement. They are defined negatively
in opposition to Greeks and Jews and positively by the emphasis on their
particular moral character. As figure two shows, Christians represent a kind
of meta-identity which transcends the usual ethnic differentiations in the
world.26 Christians are in the world, where they follow the moral practices,
23 Wengst, 1984, 293: “Daher läßt sich die Schrift an Diognet am ehesten als apologetisch-pro-
treptisches Schreiben kennzeichnen, wobei das protreptische Element den stärkeren Ak-
zent hat.” Cf. Marrou, 1951, 92f.; Brändle, 1975, 14f.; Stowers, 1986, 122.
24 A.K. Petersen, Paulus som apologet, in: A. Pilgaard (ed.), Apologetik i Ny Testamente, Frederiks-
berg 2005, 15‒37 (23f.).
25 A.K. Petersen, Creating the ‛Others’ in Book of Mysteries and 1 Corinthians 1‒2, in: C. Hempel
/ A. Lange / H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of
Sapiential Thought, Leuven, 2002, 405‒432 (410‒415), where I discuss differentiation strategy
as an inevitable element in all identity construction.
26 Cf. Lieu, 2002, 179.
but as the work emphasises, they live in the world as heaven-borne souls,
who have their true citizenship in heaven:
They inhabit both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot
assigned to each. And they show forth the character of their own
citizenship (καὶ ὁμολουγέμενως παράδοξον ἐκδέικνυται τὴν
κατάστασιν τῆς ἑαυτῶν πολιτέιας) in a marvelous and admitted-
ly paradoxical way by following local customs in what they wear
and what they eat and in the rest of their lives. They live in their
respective countries, but only as resident aliens (ἀλλ᾿ ὡς πάροικοι);
they participate in all things as citizens (ὡς πολῖται), they share in
all things with others, and they endure all things as foreigners (ὡς
ξένοι). Every foreign territory is a homeland for them every home-
land foreign territory. They marry like everyone else and have chil-
dren, but they do not expose them once they are born. They share
their meals but not their sexual partners. They are found in the flesh
(ἐν σαρκὶ), but do not live according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα). They
live on earth but participate in the life of heaven (ἀλλ᾿ ἐν οὐρανῷ
πολιτεύονται) (5.4‒9).
The construction of the world in the Letter to Diognetus
The heavenly world
Love Christians
Righteousness
The earthly world
Sin
Jews Greeks
Unrighteousness
Figure 2
The work has a clear structure. It consists of five major parts. Following a
brief introduction which outlines the structure of the work, it contains four
large blocks: 1) A polemic against Greek and Jewish religion (ch. 2‒4); 2) an
account of the Christian way of life (ch. 5‒6); 3) a positive presentation of the
Christian conception of God in contrast to the description of Greek and Jew-
ish idolatry in chapters 2‒4 (ch. 7‒9); and 4) a closing exhortation (ch. 10 and
11‒12). Another important element can be added to this structure—the series
of questions the author has put into the mouth of his addressee, Diognetus
(see 1.1): 1) What is the Christian God like? (answer: ch. 7‒9); 2) How do they
worship their God? (answer: ch. 6); 3) Why are they indifferent toward the
world? (answer: ch. 5‒6); 4) Why are they not afraid of death? (answer: ch. 6.5;
6.9‒10; 7.7‒9); 5) Why do they not recognise the Greek gods? (answer: ch. 2); 6)
Why do they see Judaism as superstition? (answer: ch. 3‒4.5); 7) What kind of
love do Christians have for each other? (answer: ch. 10.4‒8); 8) Why have
Christians and the Christian way of life only arisen at such a late point in
history? (answer: ch. 8.7‒9.2).27
Finally, it is worth considering the name of the addressee. It is unlikely
that the recipient of the work can be related to a known person from an-
tiquity, as Marrou and others have attempted over the years. One should
rather consider whether the name Diognetus (scion of Zeus or the gods)
has a symbolic meaning. This would make sense, as the work targets pa-
gans who see Zeus as their father. Diognetus, therefore, is a reflection of
that part of the human race the work is addressing. What Diognetus has to
learn through the work microcosmically reflects God‘s instruction of the
human race (9.6ff.). The aim is for Diognetus or the pagan to be moved to-
wards becoming a Christian while reading, through an unfolding move-
ment of acknowledgement.28 Through insight into the mystery (cf. 4.6; 7.1;
8; 11.2) the work reveals,29 the aim is for the pagan to come to acknowledge
the father (10.1) and thereby be led towards ethical perfection by imitating
God (10.4,6). The divine mimicry the pagan achieves through conversion to
Christianity is expressed in brotherly love and in admiration for the will-
ingness of martyrs to disdain the world rather than deny God.
4. The Letter to Diognetus as an Apologetic Work:

Cluster of Apologetic Themes
Turning our attention to the Letter to Diognetus as an apologetic work, it is
natural to begin by examining a number of the points Jörg Ulrich high-
lights as key to apologetics in his introduction to this volume. Although
it may lack the features that would permit it to be classified narrowly in
the apology genre, the Letter to Diognetus is still undeniably an apologet-
ic work. It is an exhortative, encouraging, instructional, protreptic work
aimed externally at leading pagans to Christianity, while internally assur-
ing Christians of their special identity and moving them to live a Chris-
tian life consistent with the work‘s perception of ideal Christian practice:
27 The structure outlined is yet another indication of the secondary nature of chapters 11‒12,
given that the answers to the questions raised do not cover the last two chapters.
28 Cognitive terms play a key role in the original work: 1.2; 2.1,6f.10; 3.3‒5; 4.6; 5.3; 7.1f.; 8; 9.6; 10.
29 I.W. Eltester, Das Mysterium des Christentums. Anmerkungen zum Diognetbrief, in: ZNW 61
(1970), 278‒293, contains a specific discussion of the work‘s particular use of the concept of
mystery or secret.
Brotherly love and martyr ideology. Yet this positive presentation unfolds
through an assimilation of a number of genre themes familiar to us from
more narrowly defined apologetic literature – i.e. the actual apologies (cf.
figure 1). The ‘sales catalogue’ listing the many merits of Christianity also
serves as an apology in response to a number of the contemporary charges
raised against Christianity.
In sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of his introduction, Jörg Ulrich discusses an-
ti-pagan and anti-Jewish polemic in Christian apologetic literature. Chap-
ters 2‒4 of the Letter to Diognetus are a very illustrative example of what Ul-
rich is discussing in these two sections. Building on Old Testament themes
of idolatry and Greco-Roman philosophical traditions directed against tra-
ditional religious ideas, the author of the Letter to Diognetus is able to lam-
bast Greek and Jewish religion. Both Jews and Greeks make sacrifices to
lifeless and stupid things (3.3), thereby, demonstrating their religious sim-
plicity, if not foolishness. In section 4.1 of his article, Ulrich also mentions
five charges raised against Christians in antiquity, the sting of which they
attempted to remove through apologetic texts of various kinds: 1) Chris-
tians as promiscuous or morally reprehensible; 2) Christians as potentially
politically dangerous; 3) Christians as atheists who did not recognise the
Greco-Roman gods; 4) Christians as a new and dangerous social element
which broke away from the traditional Roman principles and customs; 5)
Christians as a potentially politically disruptive social element comprising
dubious social groups (slaves, women and others with low social status in
the Roman Empire).
As already discussed above, the Letter to Diognetus reacts to all these
charges. Christians are portrayed in chapters 5‒6 as people who follow the
set local laws in all respects, and whose way of life surpasses these laws –
who like the soul of the world, give spirit to the body of the earth. This por-
trayal serves to take the sting out of these charges. Despite their conception of
God, Christians present no danger to the Roman Empire. On the contrary, the
Roman Empire should be thankful to them, because in a world full of sin and
unrighteousness, Christians add spirit and righteousness to the body of the
earth, like its soul. Parallel to this emphasis, it is stressed in several places that
Christian teachings are neither false nor atheistic. On the contrary, Christian
teaching is not false, but should be understood as a revelation received from
God himself, cf. 5.3; 7.1ff.
In section 4.2 Ulrich discusses a number of positive arguments which have
been used in apologetics to prove the truth of Christianity: 1) The argument
from antiquity, 2) the argument from miracles, 3) the argument from ethics, 4)
the argument from covenant promises, 5) the argument from history. However,
the Letter to Diognetus stands out as different on this point, which should come
as no surprise. The work‘s deliberate silence with respect to the Old Testament
narrative, the covenant promises, the gospel literature and the earthly Jesus
make it impossible for the author to positively exploit points 1, 2, 4 and 5. With
respect to point 3, already in the previous section we have seen how the au-
thor uses the Christians‘ particular ethos as evidence for the exemplary role of
Christianity in the world and as an expression of its superior truth.
One could claim that the work is mired in problems in relation to the
four other points, because it has deliberately cut off the possibility of argu-
ing for the antiquity of Christianity.30 Thus again, chapters 11‒12 may be
seen as an attempt by a later editor to compensate for perceived ‘orthodox’
deficiencies in the original text, cf. 11.4. Instead, the work accentuates Chris-
tianity in several places as a new development on the world stage, cf. 1.1; 2.1.
This does not constitute a problem, since the author has a fundamentally
timeless and vertical perception of reality. His world is not constricted to
a horizontal historical axis, connecting past, present and future. It is true
that there is a future perspective involved, and the spread of Christianity in
both Greek and non-Greek towns has a horizontal geographical character
(5.5; 6.2), but the basic orientation of the work is an apocalyptic, vertical,
timeless, spatial axis connecting heaven and earth. Christians live in the
world as foreigners because their real citizenship is in heaven (5.5). This ver-
tical structure is supplemented by an axis of depth between inner and outer,
soul and body. Christians are to the world as the soul is to the body: “The
soul lives in the body, but it does not belong to the body; Christians live in
the world but do not belong to the world. The soul, which is invisible, is put
under guard (ϕρουρεῖται) in the visible body; Christians are known to be in
the world, but their worship of God remains invisible” (6.3‒4).
As heaven relates to earth on the vertical axis, so the soul relates to the
body on the axis of depth. The relationship between Christians and Jews/
Greeks in the world corresponds to these two relationships. In other words,
the Letter to Diognetus is based around a very simple structure:
Heaven::earth
≈
Soul::body
≈
Christian::world (Greeks and Jews), cf. figure 3.
It is this structure which provides orientation for the various findings of the
work, and bequeaths the text with its unique character in comparison to other
early apologetic literature. The work is protreptic and apologetic in nature,
30 For a discussion of the significance of the argument from antiquity and the problems
it creates among a number of early Christian authors, see my article, A.K. Petersen, Be-
tween Old and Novelty. The Problem of Acculturation of Early Christianity Illustrated by the
Use of the Phoenix Motif, in: F. Garzía Martínez / G.P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alex-
andria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, Leiden 2003,
147‒164 (151‒154). For a more detailed discussion of the significance of the argument
from antiquity in ancient thought and a collocation of relevant sources, see Pilhofer,
1990, 253‒260.
but also stubbornly maintains an apocalyptic structure inherited from early

Christianity, in contrast to the other apologetic literature which shares a basic
structure defined in historical categories.31
The basic spatial structure of the Letter to Diognetus
Heaven +
Interior +
Christians + Exterior ÷
Earth - Present Future +
Jews and Greeks -
The values assigned to the various positions
are marked by plus and minus
Figure 3
31 In a number of publications, H. Tronier has had an eye for this structure for understanding
Paul. For example, H. Tronier, Transcendens og transformation i Første Korintherbrev, Copen-
hagen 1994, 139‒143; id., Virkeligheden som fortolkningsresultat – om hermeneutikken hos Filon og
Paulus, in: M. Müller / J. Strange (eds.), Det Gamle Testamente i jødedom og kristendom, Copen-
hagen 1993, 151‒182 (173‒177), where the same structure is derived from 2 Cor 3, with the
difference here being a contrast between past and present.
Clement of Alexandria
Paganism and its positive significance for Christianity
Jesper Hyldahl
1. Clement of Alexandria and apology
1.1. Clement of Alexandria as an apologist

Clement of Alexandria is rarely included in modern studies of the early
Christian apologists and Christian apologetics.1 This significant person in
the early church is passed over due to the formal observation that no proper
apology or apologetic work written by Clement has survived. Nor are there
any ancient witnesses indicating that he has written such works. Having
made this formal decision, one does not have to deal with the extensive,
complex and difficult works of this author. Unfortunately this comes at
a price. There is a risk that important aspects of early church apologetics
will be left unnoticed. By avoiding Clement, early Christian apologetics is
mostly presented as Christianity‘s defence against allegations and opposi-
tion from the pagan world around it – dominated by Greco-Roman culture.
This defence was often turned into a severe critique against pagan customs
and conceptions.
But this is too simple. Although these traditional apologetic themes are
found in Clement‘s writings, he had a different general purpose. Clement ful-
ly implements a trend, the rudiments of which were already evident in Justin
Martyr (cf. Jörg Ulrich‘s contribution). Clement‘s general apologetic aim was
not a defence of Christianity, but a defence of paganism. On the following
pages we will examine what this – at first glance almost absurd – form of
Christian apology involved.
Taking a traditional approach to apologetics and apology – investigat-
ing apologetic literature with a distinct form of genre – one can with good
reason say that there is no work by Clement which would justify including
him among the Greek apologists. This genre-defined approach to apolo-
getics focuses on the fact that apologetic works are formally addressed to
someone who is hostile to Christianity. To avoid what the Christians saw as
unreasonable and unjustified persecutions and accusations, the apologist
1 One exception is Fiedrowicz, 2000, and in part, J. Bernard, Die apologetische Methode bei
Klemens von Alexandrien, Leipzig 1968.
140 Jesper Hyldahl
appeals to the authorities (possibly the Emperor) or the persons who are
accusing and attacking them.
However, there is much to suggest that this external addressee has in
many cases simply been a literary device, a well-known stylistic feature the
author uses to present his case – not to the persecutors and critics of Chris-
tianity –but to the people experiencing the opposition. The apologies mostly
circulated internally. The actual readers were primarily Christians of whom
some were in danger of abandoning their faith and renouncing Christianity,
either due to the hardships of the persecutions or due to weighty philosophi-
cal arguments against the Christian faith. Or they may have been non-Chris-
tians who were fascinated by Christianity but reluctant to join the Christian
faith – either because of the social costs associated with being Christian, or
because they were uneager to replace their philosophical and cultural learn-
ing with the Christian faith. The apologetic works have therefore had an
evangelistic aim, as the authors have attempted to encourage those experi-
encing doubts, and potentially win over more converts to Christianity, at a
time when Christians were being attacked on all sides.
If we focus on the intention and function of the apologetic works as the
primary aspect and downplay questions of form and genre (emphasise the
actual rather than formal recipients), Clement stands as a pillar of Christian
apologetics.
1.2. The life and work of Clement of Alexandria
Titus Flavius Clemens lived around 150‒220 AD. He was of pagan descent,
and presumably from Athens. He received a literary and philosophical ed-
ucation and was familiar with contemporary Greek poetry and philosophy
of the Stoic and Platonic school. In the Egyptian city of Alexandria – the cen-
tre of learning in that age – he met the Christian philosopher, Pantaenus,
around 185 AD. Inspired by Pantaenus, Clement joined the Christian faith,
even though he at no point lost his fascination for the values and insights of
Greek culture. He remained and worked in Alexandria until persecutions in
202 AD forced him to flee to Cappadocia. According to Eusebius, Clement
was attached to a Christian teaching institution known as the catechetical
school. Clement was a productive author of theological literature. Many of his
works have apparently been lost. However, what we view as his three major
works have been preserved – Exhortation to the Greeks (Protreptikos), from circa
195‒197 AD, Instructor (Paedagogos), written shortly afterwards, and the very
comprehensive Miscellanies (Stromateis). The latter appears to have been writ-
ten over a period stretching from 194‒202 AD, when Clement abandoned his
work and left Alexandria, leaving an unfinished manuscript.2
2 Stromateis consists off a total of eight books today. The final and eighth book, which con-
sists primarily of interim notes, appears not to have been intended to form part of Stro-
mateis, but was only attached to the other books after Clement left Alexandria. At the end
of the seventh book Clement mentions that he expects to write more.
Clement of Alexandria 141
These three works have traditionally been seen as comprising a trilo-

gy, corresponding with a tripling of the economy of salvation initiated
by the divine Logos. As Clement explains in the beginning of Paedagogos
(1.1,1,1‒3,3), the same Logos, Christ, first as an exhorter (προτρεπτικός)
challenges the Greeks to abandon Greek customs and accept the Christi-
an faith, then as a pedagogue (παιδαγωγός) teaches believers Christian
ethics and the right way to live, and finally as a teacher (διδάσκαλος) th-
rough instruction and guidance, leads the believer to the perfect contem-
plation of truth, i.e. the Christian God. Scholars have been in agreement
that the first two major works, Protreptikos and Paedagogos, must corres-
pond to the first two functions of the Logos. However, due in part to the
title and special literary character of the third work, some scholars contest
whether Stromateis corresponds with the Logos in its teaching role.3 Yet
the traditional position, which views Stromateis as the third step, has been
the most tenacious.4
Given that the idea of a salvation historical trilogy of works seems plau-
sible, an apologetic perspective should focus on the relationship between
Protreptikos, Paedagogos and Stromateis. The shift that takes place from Protrep-
tikos to Stromateis in relation to the assessment of Greek culture should be
investigated. Paedagogos is less significant in this respect. The first impression
one gains in Protreptikos is that Clement opposes and accuses Greek culture,
whereas in Stromaties Clement appears to defend Greek culture. However,
this dialectic is not by chance.
2. Defence of Christianity and criticism of Greek culture

Protreptikos aims to win over to the Christian faith people who have so far
based their lives on Greco-Roman norms. Clement writes as part of an apol-
ogetic tradition, using various arguments (already used in earlier apologies
and repeated in later ones) to emphasise the superiority of Christianity in
relation to traditional Greek culture. It has been rightly claimed that the argu-
ments and themes in Protreptikos indicate that Clement has read Celsus’ work
against Christians, The True Doctrine (preserved only partly as quotations in
3 E. de Faye, Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris 21906, 116‒121; J. Munck, Untersuchungen über Kle-
mens von Alexandria, Stuttgart 1933, 111; F. Quatember, Die christliche Lebenshaltung des
Klemens von Alexandrien nach seinem Pädagogus, Wien 1946, 29‒32; K. Heussi, Die Stromateis
des Clemens Alexandrinus und ihr Verhältnis zum Protreptikos und Pädagogos, in: ZWTh 45
(1902), 465ff.
4 E. Osborn, Teaching and Writing in the first Chapters of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria,
in: JThS 10 (1959), 341ff.; W. Völker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus, Ber-
lin 1952, 33; A. Méhat, Étude sur les “Stromates” de Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris 1966, 71‒114;
U. Schneider, Theologie als christliche Philosophie, Berlin 1999, 145; J. Hyldahl, Sproget som
symbol hos Klemens af Alexandria, in: Patristik 2 (2004), 1‒18 (www.patristik.dk); J.L. Kovacs,
Divine Pedagogy and the Gnostic Teacher according to Clement of Alexandria, in: Journal of Early
Christian Studies 9/1 (2001), 3‒25.
142 Jesper Hyldahl
Origen’s Contra Celsum).5 Thus Protreptikos anticipates Origen‘s later apology

in many ways. However, Clement‘s work does not take the form of an apol-
ogy. Due to the nature of this and the other two works, Clement does not al-
ways specifically counter the various accusations against Christianity. There
is often only a suggestion of these accusations in the discourse, even though
they play an important role as the background for the arguments defending
Christianity. In other words, the genre-based discourse which mimics the
legal speech and is the literary pattern which characterises apologies (alter-
nating between accusations and defence) is not part of Clement‘s discourse.
However, in Protreptikos, and to a lesser extent in Stromateis, the well-known
types of defence – which also include counter accusations against Greek cul-
ture – are framed such that Greek culture, rather than Christianity, is on tri-
al.6 These charges against Greek culture, which also argue for the superiority
of the Christian faith, are linked to the following apologetic themes: (1) moral
behaviour, (2) accusations of atheism, (3) of novelty and proof of age, (4) uno-
riginality, (5) the literary style of the gospel and (6) irrational faith.
2.1. The charges of non-independent ethics and reprehensible morality
The relationship between teachings and life, between theory and practice, is
a well-known apologetic theme. The truth of a teaching should be measured
by whether life is lived in accordance with it. Whether there is consistency be-
tween words and deeds. According to the Platonic philosopher Celsus, Chris-
tian moral teaching contains nothing new in relation to philosophy (Origen,
Cels. 1.4). The Christian apologists counter by saying that the philosophers
often stop at words and speculation, while Christians actually live in con-
sistency with their teachings. Earlier in Protreptikos, Clement suggested the
philosophers do not live in accordance with this ideal (prot. 4.63,4), and at the
end of the work he emphasises that there is a harmony between theory and
practice among Christians:7
For it is us, he has adopted, and of us alone he wishes to be called
father, not of those who do not believe. Such it is almost with us who
are the attendants of Christ: As men’s wishes are, so are their words;
5 J.-M. Vermander, De quelques répliques à Celse dans le Protreptique de Clément d’Alexandrie, in:
REAug 23 (1977), 3‒17. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 59, claims that Clement‘s entire work was a re-
sponse to Celsus‘ proclamation of the irreconcilable opposition between Greek rationality
and Christians’ irrational and anti-education mentality.
6 When we speak of culture we must make our position clear. As modern historians, we
cannot maintain a clear distinction between, for example, Greek culture and Christian
culture. Such a distinction would be both anachronistic and loaded. It does not correspond
to reality. Cultural phenomena in antiquity were interwoven to a large extent. The distinc-
tion nonetheless maintained between what is Christian and what is Greek in what follows
reflects a mindset which is part of Clement‘s own set of values.
7 The translations here and in the following are modified versions from Ante-Nicene
Fathers. Critical edition: O. Stählin (ed.), Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
Jahrhunderte, Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 1. Protrepticus und Paedagogus, Leipzig 1905; O. Stäh-
as their words are, so are their deeds; as their works are, such is their
life. Good (χρηστός) is the whole life of those who have known Christ
(prot. 12.123,1).
These words forge a link to the next work in the trilogy, Paedagogos, which has
the overall theme of setting forth a disciplined Christian way of life.
The moral teaching is public, as it follows Jesus’ words and teachings as
presented in the holy scriptures (str. 1.10,46‒47). The Christian way of living
and behaviour, which is consistent with this teaching, is therefore also pub-
lic. Thus the frequently raised charge that Christians hold secret meetings
with rituals so inhuman and abominable that they cannot bear the light of
day is nonsense. Christians have nothing to be ashamed of, but live in a way
that pleases God and only works for the good. Clement, considering the ru-
mours of the Christians’ immorality at their meetings (paed. 3.11,81‒3), turns
the charge against his opponents and does not hesitate to mention the god-
less, meaningless, shameful and ridiculous things that take place within the
Greek mystery cults (prot. 2.11‒22). Using the Platonic concept of the good
life, Clement also turned something vitally important to philosophical eth-
ics against philosophy itself. In order to realise the good life, it is necessary
to follow and imitate the good oneself – not as an abstract concept, but as
demonstrated to humanity in the person of Jesus: “Indeed, I say, the word
of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become
God” (prot. 1.8,4). As the divine word, Jesus did not stop simply at teaching,
but showed humanity by his own example how the person who seeks to be
united with God must live their life (paed. 1.12,98‒100). The philosophers,
who base their moral teaching exclusively on contemplation, are completely
unable to fulfil this ideal of imitation.
2.2. The charges of atheism
Defence against the charge that Christians were atheists is another well-
known apologetic theme. The Christian monotheism naturally involved
rejection of and prohibition against participation in the official religious
activities of the Roman Empire. Many attempted to live up to this ideal. Due
to their low esteem for the Greco-Roman array of gods, Christians were
called atheists (a derogatory word at the time). The apologists have tradi-
tionally turned this charge against their opponents, accusing them of athe-
ism because they do not recognize the one true God. Clement refers in a
few passages to the charge against Christians of impiety, emphasising that
Christians are the only ones who are truly pious (str. 7.1,1,1; 7.9,54,2‒3). Con-
versely, he polemically accuses Greek religion of atheism. After having re-
counted a number of traditional Greco-Roman cult activities in Protreptikos,
Clement writes:
lin / L. Früchtel (eds.), Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 2. Stromata Buch I‒VI, Berlin 31960; O. Stäh-
lin / L. Früchtel (eds.), Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 3. Stromata Buch VII‒VIII, Berlin 31970.
144 Jesper Hyldahl
Such are the mysteries of the Atheists. And with reason I call those
Atheists who know not the truly existent God, but pay shameless
worship to a boy torn in pieces by the Titans, and to a woman in
distress, and to small parts of the body that in truth cannot be men-
tioned for shame. They held fast in the double impiety, first in that
they know not God, not acknowledging the truly existent God; and
second in the error of regarding those who exist not, as existing and
calling those gods that have no real existence, or rather no existence
at all, who have nothing but a name (prot. 2.23,1).
The Greeks do not know the true God “for the extremes of ignorance are
atheism and superstition” (prot. 2.25,1). Clement is therefore convinced that
instruction will lead to recognition of the frauds this ignorance has fostered.
The aim of Protreptikos is therefore to get the reader to realise their earlier
mistakes and convert to the true faith:
For, not understanding that it is God that does us good, they have in-
vented some saviors in the persons of the Dioscuri, and Heracles the
averter of evil, and Asclepius the healer. These are the slippery and
hurtful deviations from the truth which draw man down from heav-
en, and cast him into the abyss. I wish to show thoroughly what these
gods are like – if anything at all – that now at length you may abandon
your delusion, and speed your flight back to heaven (prot. 2.26,7‒27,1).
Through a number of critical accounts of Greek religion and cult practices
Clement hopes in the following section to help the reader to understand that
Greek religion and religiosity must necessarily arouse offence and disdain
among reasonably minded people. The first example Clement points out is
that the morality and behaviour of the Greek gods is not worthy of gods
(prot. 2.32,1‒41,4). The gods have become the victims of their own passions
(prot. 2.35,1). Secondly, Clement criticises the cult of sacrifice and claims
that only inhuman and hostile demons would find human sacrifices pleas-
ing (prot. 3.42,1‒45,5). Thirdly, he criticises idolatry, the making of idols, and
the fact that men honour meaningless artefacts as gods and attribute divine
power to humanly created art. They do not honour the creator, but rather
the created lifeless matter, animals and planets (prot. 4.46,1‒63,5). Clements
claims that the gods are nothing more than a projection of humanity’s own
feelings and passions (prot. 2.26,4; 3,44,2) thereby anticipating modern phil-
osophical criticism of religion.
Alongside such arguments, Clement advances another common apolo-
getic theme, also related to the issue of atheism. Despite the animosity, pro-
hibition and persecutions against the Christian faith, Christianity has par-
adoxically seen constant growth. According to Clement, the survival and
advancement of Christianity is due to the fact that God guarantees its growth
and for that matter opposes the worldly authorities.8 He contrasts Christian
faith with Greek philosophy on this point:
And if any one ruler whatever hinders (κῶλύειν) the Greek philoso-
phy, it vanishes forthwith. But our doctrine on its very first procla-
mation was hindered (κῶλύειν) by kings and tyrants together, as well
as particular rulers and governors, with all their mercenaries, and in
addition by innumerable men, warring against us, and endeavoring
as far as they could to exterminate it. But it flourishes the more. For
it dies not, as human doctrine dies, nor fades as a fragile gift. For no
gift of God is fragile. But it remains unhindered (ἀκώλῠτος), though
prophesied as destined to be persecuted to the end (str. 6.18,167,4‒5).
2.3. The charge of novelty and the proof of age

The Christian faith was accused of being a new sect. New religious move-
ments were viewed with distrust, whereas older, traditional religions which
could demonstrate antiquity enjoyed respect and recognition. In response
to this serious criticism, the apologists appealed to the Jewish scriptures,
claiming to be the true heirs and interpreters of the Old Testament laws and
prophecies. Since the apologists claimed that Greek poetry (e.g. Homer) and
philosophy (e.g. Plato) had both learned from Moses, they could demon-
strate that Christianity was very ancient, possibly the most ancient of all
known religions.
Clement thus argues that the Jewish philosophy, as expressed in Mo-
ses, is older than all other wisdom, and Moses lived before the founders of
other religious practices (str. 1.21,101‒147). This means that Greek philoso-
phy is not original, but springs from what Clement calls barbarian customs,
including Judeao-Christian wisdom (str. 1.15,66‒73), which he confident-
ly calls the highest and truest barbarian philosophy (str. 5.9,56,2).9 If the
Christian faith is a continuation and development of a branch of Judaism,
some have criticised the fact that Christians appear to break with tradi-
tion and subvert the ancestral customs (prot. 10.89,1).10 Clement responds
that everything has its time and place. His reference to Paul’s image of the
distinction between milk and solid food in 1 Corinthians 3:1f. (a common
image in Clement) in his response implies that just as milk is beneficial
for nurturing a child, the ancestral customs have been relevant prepara-
tion prior to the new age heralded in Christ. Humanity has been brought
back to the truth. It has reached adulthood and no longer needs a mother’s
nurturing milk. To the untrained eye, this break with past practices makes
the Christian faith appear to be something new. But Christianity is not just
8 Cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 222f.

9 Cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 212‒215.
10 For example, Celsus (Cels. 2.1; 5.25).
146 Jesper Hyldahl
older than other religions and cultures, it is also older than Judaism. Chris-
tians actually exist in God’s thoughts even before the creation of the world:
You have, then, the gospel; you have the love; you have become par-
taker of grace. Thus, you will not suppose the song of salvation to
be new, as a vessel or a house is new. For it was “before the morn-
ing star” (Ps 110:3) and “in the beginning was the word, and the
word was with God, and the word was God” (John 1:1). Error seems
old, but truth seems a new thing. Whether, then, the Phrygians are
shown to be the most ancient people by the goats of the fable, or, on
the other hand, the Arcadians by the poets, who describe them as
older than the moon, or, finally, the Egyptians by those who dream
that this land first gave birth to gods and men, yet none of these at
least existed before the world. But we existed before the foundation
of the world; we who pre-existed in God before, because we were
destined to be in him. We are the rational creatures (πλάσμα) of the
word of God, on whose account we exist from the beginning; for “in
the beginning was the word” (John 1:1). Well, inasmuch as the word
was from the first, he was and is the divine source of all things. But
inasmuch as he has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of
old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the new song
(prot. 1.6,3‒5).
The reason the “new song” only made its appearance at the time of Christ’s
incarnation is due to a long and necessary preparation time. The time is now
ripe for the gospel, just as it was previously ripe for the Jews to be able to
receive the law and the prophets, the Greeks their philosophy (str. 6.6,44,1).11
Not only is the Jewish tradition justified, in that it was useful as preparation
for the gospel, even Greek philosophy is involved in God’s plan of salvation
as it prepares the Greeks prior to Christ’s incarnation:
Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was neces-
sary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to
piety, being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith
(πίστις) through demonstration (ἀπόδειξις). “For thy foot,” it is said, “will
not stumble (Prov 3:23), if you refer what is good, to providence, whether
belonging to the Greeks or to us. For God is the cause of all good things.
But something comes first in rank, as for instance the old and the new cov-
enant, and other things follow, as for instance philosophy. Perchance, too,
philosophy was given to the Greeks from the beginning, until the Lord
should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic
mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ (cf. Gal. 3:24). Philosophy, there-
fore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ
(str. 1.5,28,1‒3).
11 Regarding Greek philosophy as praeparatio evangelica, cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 221f.

2.4. The charge of unoriginality

By claiming that others – including the Greek philosophers – are dependent
on Judaeo-Christian culture, the apologists were able to refute the oft-repeat-
ed charge that Christianity is not itself original, but simply drew on ideas
from elsewhere.12 As he does with several other charges, Clement, like the
other apologists, turns this charge against the critics, claiming that they are
dependent and have borrowed from the eternally true philosophy, that is,
Christianity (str. 5.14,92,1‒2). Clement thus exploits a well-known argument
from Jewish apologetics, and his references to Artapanos (str. 1.23,154,2‒3),
Aristobul (str. 1.22,150,1) and Philo (str. 1.23,153,2) show he is aware of this.13
Clement went as far as to describe this as theft:
As Scripture has called the Greeks pilferers of the Barbarian phi-
losophy, it will next have to be considered how this may be briefly
demonstrated. For we shall not only show that they have imitated
and copied the marvels recorded by us, but we shall also prove that
they have plagiarized and falsified the key doctrines, as our writings,
as we have shown, is older (str. 2.1,1,1).14
2.5. Criticism of the gospel’s simple style

From a philosophical perspective, critics have expressed contempt for the
gospel’s simple style and lack of rational argument.15 However, Clement
sees the preaching language as a result of the fact that Jesus has not only
targeted intellectuals. Turning this against philosophical elitism, Clement
notes that others who lack sufficient wisdom need the Christian faith to
be communicated in the down-to-earth language which characterises the
gospel. A speech which only gratifies the ears is not always beneficial to
the listener (str. 1.10,48,5). Clement allegorically compares divine awareness
with pure water, using an image to claim that a majority of Christians, like
pigs, are happiest with dirt – i.e. something in which true recognition is
mixed up and hidden:
And if knowledge belong not to all (set an ass to the lyre, as the
proverb goes), yet written compositions are for the many. “Swine,”
for instance, “delight in dirt” more than in clean water. “Where-
fore,” says the Lord, “I speak to them in parables, because seeing,
they see not, and hearing, they hear not, and do not understand.”
(Matt 13:13) (str. 1.1,2,2)
12 For example, Celsus (Or., Cels. 4. passim). Cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 215‒217.
13 Cf. contributions in K. Fuglseth / J. Hyldahl / A.K. Petersen (eds.), Perspektiver på jødisk apo-
logetik, Copenhagen 2006.
14 Cf. str. 1.17,81,4; 1.17,87,1‒3; 1.24,160,3; 2.5,20,1; 5.14,140,1 and prot. 7.74,7.
15 For example, Celsus (Or., Cels. 6.2) and Galen (cf. Jakob Engberg’s article in this volume).
148 Jesper Hyldahl
Clement believes that what is written cannot adequately describe absolute

truth. The truth about God surpasses language. If you attempt to do so
in spite of this, an outsider might easily suffer loss and misunderstand
the message. The literary style of the scriptures thus takes into account
Christians who, unlike the chosen few, are not yet able to stand face to
face with the truth. The unique style of the scriptures enables the majority
of Christians to find comfort in the narrative itself, while also conceal-
ing the crucial insight which is available to wise Christians. Unlike the
philosophers, in its universal love, the gospel is also aimed at the mass of
uneducated people, not just intellectuals. To emphasize the fact that Jesus
speaks in the gospel to both weak and strong, high and low, educated and
uneducated, Clement allegorically interprets a narrative concerning how
two people – Jesus son of Nave, and Caleb – saw Moses in different ways
during ascension to heaven. Clement interprets the fact that these two
people were raised up to different degrees and therefore did not witness
the same thing such that one operates at the literal level, while the other
operates at a higher level of meaning:16
For speech conceals much. Rightly, therefore, Jesus the son of Nave
saw Moses, when taken up, double, ‒ one Moses with the angels,
and one on the mountains, honored with burial in their ravines.
And Jesus saw this spectacle below, being elevated by the spirit,
along also with Caleb. But both do not see similarly. But the one
descended with greater speed, as if the weight he carried was great;
while the other, on descending after him, subsequently related the
glory which he beheld, being able to perceive more than the other
as having grown purer. The narrative, in my opinion, shows that
knowledge is not the privilege of all, since some look at the body
of the scriptures, the expressions (λέξις) and the names (ὀνόματα)
as to the body of Moses, while others see through to the meaning
(διάνοια) and what it is signified by the names, seeking the Moses
that is with the angels (str. 6.15,132,1‒3).
2.6. The charge that faith is irrational

In Christian apologetics, faith is raised to a contemporary philosophical level.
The apologists do not ignore the philosophical criticism that faith involves
compromising rationality. Clement sees nothing odious about the fact that
Christianity emphasises faith (πίστις).17 It has been philosophically demon-
strated that knowledge of the first cause does not come from argumentation
16 Regarding Clement’s theory on language and interpretation, see M. Irvine, Interpretation

and the semiotics of allegory in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, in: Semiotica
63.1/2 (1987), 40ff.
17 See Fiedrowicz, 2000, 166f.
(ἀπόδειξις), but from faith (πίστις) (str. 2.5,24,2). Even Pythagoras’ followers
do not always provide the knowledge of the truth” (str. 7.16,95,6).
Clement even ranks all other philosophy below the true Christian phi-
losophy (str. 6.8,67,1). He turns evidence, but simply state the justification
that he said so himself (ipse dixit) (str. 2.5,24,3). Faith is also just one part
of the Christian’s religious education. The Logos’ threefold functions of
προτρεπτικός, παιδαγωγός and διδάσκαλος, imply that the wise Christian
(which Clement designates the Gnostic)18 moves from faith, in an as yet unk-
nown object, to a position (following teaching from the Logos itself) where
faith leads to “knowledge of things divine and human” (str. 1.6,35,2‒3). He
expresses it similarly elsewhere: “Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by
faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from
the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle,
we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to philosophy’s own weapons –
such as logic and argument – against philosophy itself, arguing that Chris-
tian philosophy is superior to Greek philosophy in both its thought and
its quest for the truth. He rejects the validity of all other philosophy as the
absolute focal point for existence:
But if philosophy contributes remotely to the discovery of truth,
by reaching, by diverse essays, after the knowledge which touch-
es close on the truth, the knowledge possessed by us, it aids him
who aims at grasping it, in accordance with the word, to apprehend
knowledge. But the Hellenic truth is distinct from that held by us
(although it has got the same name), both in respect of extent of
knowledge, certainly of demonstration, divine power, and the like.
For we are “taught of God” (1 Thes 4:9), being instructed by the son
of God in the truly “sacred scriptures” (2 Tim 3:15) (str. 1.20,98,3‒4).
In contrast to the Christian, the philosopher has only acknowledged a hint
of the truth. Christian philosophy is therefore superior to Greek philosophy
on this point.19 Although each of the non-Christian philosophies imagine
they have a share of the whole truth, each has only seized a fragment of
the truth (str. 1.13,57,1). They also disagree and stand apart from each other,
and they achieve their results through human contemplation and logical
deduction (str. 1.20,100,5). The insights of philosophy are due to learning
and practice. They only resemble the truth as a reflection of the truth itself
which, in contrast to the techniques of philosophy, arises from power and
faith (str. 1.7,38,4). The Logos can therefore only be fully contemplated when
these partial truths are combined:
18 Clement uses ‛gnostic‘ as a legitimate and positive expression for the perfect Christian.
He thus distances himself from what he views as illegitimate use of the expression, i.e. the
usage found among Gnostic heresies.
19 Cf. Fiedrowicz, 2000, 293f.
150 Jesper Hyldahl
So, then, the barbarian and Hellenic philosophy has torn off a frag-
ment of eternal truth not from the mythology of Dionysus, but from
the theology (θεολογία) of the ever-existing word (λόγος). And he
who brings again together the separate fragments, and makes them
one, will without peril, be assured, contemplate the perfect word
(λόγος), the truth (str. 1.13,57,6).
This means that only the wise Christian, who shares in the Logos, has
access to absolute truth, in contrast to the non-Christian philosophers
(str. 1.13,58,2). One of Clement’s aims in Stromateis is therefore to eclectically
synthesise all the sub-elements of truth flourishing in the different philo-
sophical strands, giving the reader access to the whole truth (str. 1.7,37,6). As
will be further demonstrated below, Clement thereby concedes that philos-
ophy has a certain value. For Clement, philosophy is a necessary element in
God’s plan of salvation (str. 6.17,153,1). Compared to many other apologists,
he thus rehabilitates Greek philosophy.
3. Defence of Greek culture.

Despite all the hints of criticism of Greek culture, Clement’s general apologet-
ic aim is to defend, legitimise and maintain the best in Greek culture. Despite
pronounced opposition to non-Christian culture, Clement’s earlier work, Pro-
treptikos, also contains a concession to both Greek philosophy (prot. 6) and
Greek poetry (prot. 7). Although philosophy and poetry have not attained the
full extent of the truth, they have witnessed to the truth. This is particularly
true of Plato, but also other divinely inspired philosophers such as Antistenes
and Xenophon, the Stoic Cleanthes and the Pythagoreans. It is particularly
true of poets such as Hesiod, Euripides, Sophocles, Orpheus and not least,
Homer. As a reader of Protreptikos, the impression one is left with is that it is
not Greek culture as such which should be rejected. What Christians must
distance themselves from, is the way in which Greek philosophy and poetry
is used. It is the customs and rituals linked to the literary inheritance of the
Greeks which Clement believes should be rejected. The literature has unfor-
tunately fostered such strange customs. But this is only because the texts are
read incorrectly and understood too literally.
This impression is later confirmed by Stromateis, which has the aim of
explaining how such a literary inheritance should be read and understood,
and using which sophisticated hermeneutic techniques. With the aid of al-
legorical principles of interpretation, Clement is able to legitimise the Greek
cultural inheritance and put it in the context of Christianity. He disputes the
belief that accepting the Christian faith necessarily excludes recognizing and
interacting with the Greek culture of the surrounding world.
But he opposes what he sees as illegitimate forms of Christianity – those
he calls Gnostic heresies. In order to fully understand Clement’s aim, we
need to take into account that Christianity developed in various directions
during the second century. This development was in many ways a problem
for the unity of the church. It led to disagreement about many factors, in-
cluding the degree to which one could justly explain the Christian message
with the help of Greek cultural values. Should Christianity be seen as in
conflict with the Greek culture, or could points of intersection be found?
The Christian groups the church fathers associated with the Gnostic here-
sies were attracted by a more speculative form of Christianity and sought
alliance with Greek philosophy, especially Platonism. The use of Greek phi-
losophy by these Gnostic Christians was presumably one of the reasons
why other Christians distrusted philosophy and claimed it was the inven-
tion of the devil to promote heresies.
Clement provides little information regarding how these Gnostics
made use of Greek philosophy. He is more interested in rejecting what he
sees as their illegitimate interpretation of the Biblical scriptures. Yet he
does mention that the heretics unjustly appeal to Plato (str. 4.4,18,1), that in
their fervour for knowledge they only resemble but are not philosophers
(str. 7.16,98,1), and that their fall from the truth is the result of having unit-
ed human teaching (i.e. philosophy) with divine revelation (str. 7.16,103,5).
Their quest for wisdom has therefore come at the expense of the true mean-
ing of the Scriptures.
The contrast between alliance with Greek philosophy by some Chris-
tian groups and rejection of Greek philosophy by other groups (a contrast
made more extreme by the speculation, mythology and dogmatic results of
the former) is precisely the situation Clement wants to avoid. He therefore
creates room for his own theological position by correcting two opposing
trends:20 that Christianity excludes acknowledgement of Greek culture (1);
and that interaction with Greek culture comes at the expense of the truth of
the Christian faith (2).
3.1. Criticism of the rejection of Greek culture by some Christians
Clement attempts to combat the widespread perception among Christians
that philosophy is the invention of the devil (str. 1.16,80,5), and the ruin of
Christians. For Clement, Christianity does not exclude acknowledgement of
Greek culture, but assumes it and integrates it into the development of the
Christian person.21 Clement explicitly states as an aim in Stromateis that he
will defend philosophy among Christians as something not to be rejected
but rather viewed as a good and necessary gift of God:
The Stromateis will contain the truth mixed up in the dogmas of phi-
losophy, or rather covered over and hidden, as the edible part of the
nut in the shell. For, in my opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth
20 E.g. D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria, Oxford 1992,
183‒234.
21 Cf. Bernard, 1968, 43‒80.
152 Jesper Hyldahl
be kept for the husbandmen of faith, and no others. I am not affected

of what is babbled by some, who in their ignorance are frightened at
every noise, and say that we ought to occupy ourselves with what is
most necessary, and which contains the faith, and that we should pass
over what is beyond and superfluous, which wears out and detains
us to no purpose, in things which conduce nothing to the great end.
And besides, they think that philosophy was introduced into life by
an evil influence, for the ruin of men, by an evil inventor. But I shall
show, throughout the whole of these Stromateis, that evil has an evil
nature, and can never turn out the producer of what is good, thereby
indicating that philosophy is in a sense a work of divine providence
(str. 1.1,18,1‒4).
This positive perception of the significance of Greek culture for Christianity
should be seen in the light of the general purpose of Stromateis – to help edu-
cate, form and perfect Christians. The work aims to lead Christians from faith
to knowledge of and likeness with God. In order to understand these connec-
tions we need to look more closely at Clement’s concept of text. The substance
of Clement’s theological thinking is based on a sophisticated semiotics which
seems surprisingly modern.
In the cognitive movement from faith to knowledge, the limits of lan-
guage are exceeded. Clement has also consciously written his work in a
literary discourse which seems unique among pre-modern literature. The
style is enigmatic. Themes are constantly interrupted, and the natural cor-
relation and transition between sections – and often between individual
sentences – is obstructed. There is no real logical or narrative develop-
ment in the work. Clement’s aim is for the reader not to be lured by a
well-written text, without contemplating what insights the text wishes to
communicate beyond what can be read directly from its literary surface
(str. 1.10,48,1‒49,3). The intent of the unusual style is to force the reader
into dialogue with the text, and into interpreting what message the text
wishes to communicate, without being able to explain it directly. The aim
of the text and its language is to lead the reader beyond the language to
recognition of the truth the language is unable to take up and explain ad-
equately – the perfect truth to be found in a hidden layer of the text. One
should properly remain silent towards this truth, but for the sake of com-
munication, it can only be referred to metaphorically through parables,
riddles, symbols, analogies, etc.
This truth is the Logos. God has communicated himself to human-
ity through the Logos – not only in Jesus’ own speech, which has since
been interpreted by the gospel writers and communicated in the gospel
literature, but also earlier through Greek philosophy, in poetry and the
biblical prophecies, as well as in later texts such as Clement’s own works
(str. 5.4,21,4). The most important subject of philosophy – knowledge of the
first principle or truth (important because it promotes the salvation of the
soul) – is thus not only imprinted in the biblical texts, but in all kind of
written communication. This takes place through an allegorical composi-
tion. Even though the truth of the Logos is more clearly present in Chris-
tian works than all others, not even the gospel can be identified with the
truth. All texts, including those of the New Testament, are relativized due
to a semantic distinction between meaning and expression – between the
thing itself and the linguistic expression of it. In this broad spectrum of
allegorical compositions, language covers the truth and conceals it under
its direct appearance:
All then, in a word, who have spoken of divine things, both Barbar-
ians and Greeks, have veiled the first principles of things, and deliv-
ered the truth in enigmas, and symbols, and allegories, and meta-
phors, and such like tropes (τρόπος) (str. 5.4,21,4).
The Logos has imprinted itself in a range of different and apparently unrelat-
ed texts. This means that texts which seemingly appear unrelated are actual-
ly connected and serve a common purpose (str. 1.13,57,6).
Wise Christians have the privilege of being able to perceive this
(str. 6.11,92,3). The Greek philosophers were unable to do so. In order for the
reader to be able to uncover the truth or Logos in a text through allegorical
interpretation, they must possess the right interpretation code. And this code
is the Logos itself. As a result, the only legitimate interpreter of the Logos, is
the Logos itself.22 Although some foreign philosophers have been inspired by
the Logos and were therefore able to testify to the truth, unlike Christians
they have not shared in the truth:
There is a difference between declaring God, and declaring things
about God. And to speak generally, in everything the accidents
(συμβεβηκότα) are to be distinguished from the essence (οὐσία).
Suffice it for me to say, that the Lord of all is God; and I say the Lord
of all absolutely, nothing being left by way of exception (ἐξαίρεσις).
Since, then, the forms of truth are two—the names (ὀνόματα) and
the things (πράγματα)—there are on the one hand those who men-
tion the names, occupying themselves with the beauties of words;
such are the Greek philosophers. But on the other hand are we, the
Barbarians, who have the things (str. 6.17,150,7‒151,2).
Using the Aristotelian distinction between accident and essence in these
thoughts, Clement claims that the Christian faith – in contrast to all other
philosophy – has the truth. Despite having joined the Christian faith, he
never abandons the Greek cultural inheritance which has been so crucial to
his own development. However, he allows the true Christian philosophy to
usurp all other insights. In order to preserve Greek culture he claims that
22 Str. 1.20,97,2‒98,4; 1.26,169,4; 5.13,87,1 and 7.16,95,6.

154 Jesper Hyldahl
it has been given by God himself (str. 1.7,37,1) and has an important propae-
deutic function to fulfil:
We merely therefore assert here, that philosophy is characterized by
investigation into truth and the nature of things (this is the truth of
which the Lord Himself said, “I am the truth”) and that, again, the
preparatory training for rest in Christ exercises the mind, rouses the
intelligence, and begets an inquiring shrewdness, by means of the
true philosophy, which the initiated possess, having found it, or rath-
er received it, from the truth itself (str. 1.5,32,4).
Unlike the Christians who believe philosophy is harmful, and that one
should avoid contact with what they see as non-Christian values, Clement
rejects this form of Christian particularism in favour of universality. Using
his concept of text, he writes all culture into a Christian salvation univer-
salism, which implies that God has had a hand not only in the history of
the Jews, but also in other cultures. Clement has felt no need to abandon his
classical education in favour of the Christian faith, but has united the two.
He has realised that if Christianity is to appeal to Greek intellectuals, it will
need to be recognizable in relation to the education and the value set such
non-Christians have been defined by.23 He thereby shows responsibility to-
wards his non-Christian fellow human beings, and brings Christianity into
apologetic dialogue with the surrounding world as part of the Christian
mission.24 As an apologist, Clement defends Greek culture against attack
from other Christians who feel the need to categorically reject its legitimacy.
Clement differs from earlier apologists particularly in this regard. Guided
by Christian interpretation, his semiotic distinction between literary ex-
pression and the (hidden) textual meaning allows him to apologetically and
positively assimilate non-biblical truths from the surrounding world into
the Christian faith.
3.2. Criticism of the way other Christians embraced Greek culture
‒ False Gnosis
Viewing Clement’s defence of Greek culture purely as a response to believers
who see the non-biblical testimony as harmful would present a one-sided
picture of his apologetic activity. His defence is equally directed at a very
different group of believers. As Clement mentions at the end of book 7 of
Stromateis, which is the end of the work in its unfinished form, one of his aims
has been to target the heresies:
I have adduced these things from a wish to avert those, who are eager
to learn, from the liability to fall into heresies, and out of a desire to
stop them from superficial ignorance, or stupidity, or bad disposition,
23 Cf. Völker, 1952, 343.

24 Bernard, 1968, 4.
or whatever it should be called. And in the attempt to persuade and

lead to the truth those who are not entirely incurable, I have made use
of these words (str. 7.16,102,6).
We call these heretics the Gnostic Christians. The church fathers called them
the false Gnostics, and called their teaching false gnosis. The church fathers
felt that their opponents’ way of uniting Greek wisdom and Christian faith
came at the expense of the key elements of Christian teaching. Central points
such as God as the creator, the goodness of the world, Christ’s suffering na-
ture and the reality of the resurrection appeared to move in an unacceptable
direction in Gnostic mythology.
Clement had contact with several of the Gnostic strands in the Alex-
andrian environment, especially those inspired by Valentinus’ teachings.
A major part of Stromateis is therefore polemically addressed to these her-
etics. Even though the attempt by the Gnostics to bring Christian faith into
dialogue with Greek culture must have been commendable in Clements
eyes, they were mistaken. They abandoned the Christian faith as the guid-
ing principle of interpretation and allowed philosophical speculation to re-
define and subvert Christian teaching. In the final chapters of book 7 of
Stromateis, Clement explicitly passes on a philosophical and Jewish charge
against Christianity – that the Christian faith is unreliable and untrue be-
cause it has been expressed in conflicting doctrines (str. 7.15,89,1‒2). Clem-
ent defends himself by noting that disagreements and the formation of sects
are not unknown among Jews and in Greek philosophies. He also argues
that Christianity is homogeneous and still the truth, because the heresies
can no longer be called Christian. As representatives for untruth they have
abandoned the real truth and put themselves outside the Christian com-
munity (str. 7.16,97,3‒4). They have disregarded God’s revelation in favour
of human invention (str. 7.16,99,5). In their endeavours they have misused
scripture without noting the texts true meaning:
And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of
the prophetic scriptures, in the first place they will not make use of
all the scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as
the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambigu-
ous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions (δόξα), gath-
ering a few expressions here and there, not looking to the meaning
(σημαινόμενον), but making use of the mere expressions (λέξις). For
in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they at-
tend to the names (ὀνόματα) alone, while they alter the meanings
(σημαινόμενα), neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quo-
tations they adduce, according to their true nature (str. 7.16,96,2‒3).
Furthermore, in addition to misusing Scripture, they have negatively and
falsely made use of Greek insights. The heretics represent a misinterpre-
tation of the ancient literature. For example, Clement claims that Marcion
156 Jesper Hyldahl
has misunderstood Plato (str. 3.3,21,2). Using an allegorical interpretation

of certain passages in Proverbs, Clement shows that the Logos itself has
stressed that the heresies have distanced themselves from both philosophy
and the teachings of the Church. The heresies are separated polemical-
ly from philosophy. Conversely, philosophy is linked to the Christianity
which Clement represents:
As if making comparison of those addicted to philosophy with those
called heretics the word (λόγος) most clearly says: “Better is a friend
that is near, than a brother that dwells afar off” (Prov 27:10). “And he
who relies on falsehoods, feeds on the winds, and pursues winged
birds” (Prov 9:12a LXX). I do not think that the word (λόγος) di-
rectly declares philosophy, although in many instances philosophy
attempts and persuasively teaches us probable arguments. But it at-
tacks the heresies. Accordingly it is added: “For he hath forsaken the
ways of his own vineyard, and wandered in the tracks of his own
husbandry” (Prov 9:12b LXX). Such are the sects which abandoned
the original church (str. 1.19,95,4‒6).
Clement attacks both those Christians who refuse to believe Greek culture
can make a positive contribution to Christian faith, and Gnostic Christians
who add to the negative assessment of Greek culture by supporting Greek
speculation. We need to understand the aim of Clement’s theology as a bal-
ance between these two extremes. His theological thought involves the le-
gitimate use of Greek culture, within the bounds of the Christian message.
This mediation of Christianity and Greek culture not only helps Clement
– trained in the tradition of classical education – to accept the Christian
faith, it also makes the transition to Christianity smoother for Greek intel-
lectuals, as joining Christianity does not necessarily require rejection of
earlier learning.
4. Conclusion
In contrast to Gnostic Christians, Clement is able to achieve a sensible dia-
logue between Christianity and Greek culture which is not subversive to the
Christian truth. Unlike most Christian apologists, he feels it is necessary to
defend and elevate Greek culture. However, Clement can only achieve this by
relativizing and subjecting all written testimonies (the Bible, his own works,
Plato’s dialogues, classic poetry, etc.) to a semantic distinction between text
and meaning. While the hidden meaning points towards a common purpose,
a superficial reading of the text may assume a variety of forms. Clement fo-
cuses on the allegorical interpretation tradition, which is able to look under-
neath the text to the meaning of the text. This places him in the company of
a number of primarily Stoic philosophers and other literary experts, among
whom criticism of myths was gaining ground and for whom the contrast be-
tween the canon of classical education (Homer and Hesiod) and progress in
thought and science was becoming more and more obvious. However, the
learned philosophers managed to legitimise the use of classical literature
through parameters of allegorical interpretation, saving it from annihilation
by the myth critics. Such interpretation makes it possible to get the ancient
myths to harmonise with and confirm new insights.
Using a similar interpretation method, Clement is able to get otherwise
unrelated and contradicting texts, derived from apparently distinct cultures,
to relate in unique ways to the divine truth, expressed in the “new song” of
revelation.
Tertullian
Niels Willert
1. Introduction
Tertullian (c. 160‒220 AD) takes us to Carthage. In addition to Apologeticum he
wrote many books which provide a vibrant picture of a variegated Christian-
ity in the North African Church at the turn of the second century.1 There are
31 surviving works by Tertullian. They bear testimony to his dynamic and
fiery commitment to defending the Christianity which he sees as not only the
true Christianity, but also the true view of life, in contrast to the religiosity
and philosophy of the Roman society of the day.2 In addition to defending
Christianity and breaking with Greco-Roman religion, Tertullian polemi-
cised against various forms of Christianity – in particular Gnosticism and
Marcionism. Tertullian belonged to the catholic church, but it appears that
early third century Montanist Christianity appealed to him. It is not known
whether he actually left the catholic church to join this apocalyptic revival
movement, but its uncompromising demand to observe Christianity‘s ethical
norms, based on the expectation of Christ‘s imminent return, clearly made an
impression on him.3
Not surprisingly, the influence of Montanism on Tertullian is reflected
in his works, which can be divided into what he wrote before and after this
influence was manifested. Yet one also needs to be aware that there is an
internal consistency behind Tertullian‘s development which is clearly appar-
ent in his apologetic works. Apologeticum, written early in his writing career
around 197 AD, presents a defence of Christians to the Roman governors. He
has a similar aim in his work, Ad Scapulam (212 AD), addressed to the Roman
Governor in Carthage, Scapula.4
The latter not only shows that Tertullian maintained the apologetic line
laid out in Apologeticum, but in this brief occasional work he was also able to
utilise the comprehensive material previously developed in Apologeticum. Ter-
1 The best manuscripts bear the Latin title, Apologeticum (neuter form). Yet some prefer the
Hellenistic title, Apologeticus, (Greek: apologetikos) as this hints at the genre link back to
the Greek apologies. See S.R.F. Price, Latin Christian Apologetics: Minucius Felix, Tertullian,
Cyprian, in: M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire.
Pagans, Jews and Christians, Oxford 1999, 115‒116. Regarding Tertullian and the North Afri-
can church, see T.D. Barnes, Tertullian. A Historical and Literary Study, Oxford 1971, 60‒84.
2 Cf. M. Spanneut, Tertullien et les premiers moralistes africains, Paris 1969.
3 See Barnes, 1971, 130‒142; D. Wright, Tertullian, in: P.F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian World,
London 2000, 1027‒1047 (1028‒1029).
4 See Barnes, 1971, 166f.
160 Niels Willert
tullian‘s apologetic focus is also evident from the fact that prior to Apologetic-
um he had already composed a work with the title Ad nationes, which targeted
non-Christian people of the Roman Empire in general. This work consists of
two books. The first refutes various accusations raised against Christians,
while the second challenges the view of religion held by Varro, the Roman
universal historian, and Greco-Roman religion in general. 5
Ad nationes can be viewed as a draft for Apologeticum, which appears to
have been refined many times by the author.6 In Ad nationes, Tertullian picked
up the threads of Greek apologetics, and in Apologeticum he used his rhetor-
ical talents to refine the style and content of apologetics. In Ad Scapulam he
later re-used the apologetic material for a more practical purpose.
Our focus here will be on Apologeticum. Firstly, we will look at the work‘s
historical background and occasion, and at the author and his understanding
of Christianity as expressed in the work. The structure and context of the
work will then be examined, focusing on the initial and closing chapters, as
the author‘s intentions are likely to be particularly evident within this frame.
Finally, we will look at the various arguments Tertullian exploits in his de-
fence of Christianity. We find various forms of apologetic argument in Apol-
ogeticum which make it comparable with the other apologetic works of the
early church. Like other apologists, Tertullian not only defends Christianity
but also polemicizes against Greco-Roman culture, which he distances Chris-
tianity from.
1.1. Historical background
Tertullian wrote Apologeticum at the end of the second century, following a
period of political turmoil and civil war in the wake of the murder of the in-
ept Emperor Commodus in 192 AD. The Senate attempted to install an elder-
ly senator, Helvius Pertinax, as Emperor, but the Praetorian Guard rebelled
shortly afterwards and installed Didius Julianus. This in turn led several
army legions to revolt, and no less than three military provincial governors
stepped forward as imperial candidates: Septimius Severus in Pannonia,
Clodius Albinus in Britannia, and Pescennius Niger in Syria.
Septimius Severus, from Leptis Magna in North Africa, finally claimed
absolute rule following a destructive civil war. He came to Rome in 193 AD
and was recognized as Emperor, with Clodius Albinus as his co-regent. Pe-
scennius Niger suffered defeat in 194 AD in a battle near Issos in Asia Minor.
Clodius Albinus was then declared an enemy of the state with the approval of
the Senate, and was defeated in battle near Lyon in 197 AD, leaving Septimius
Severus to rule alone (197‒211 AD).
Not surprisingly, the central administration was purged of supporters of
the other emperors in the aftermath. Septimius Severus and his successors in
5 Tertullian’s apologetic works are discussed in J. Lortz, Tertullian als Apologet I‒II, Münster
1927/1928 and T. Georges, Tertullian, Apologeticum, Freiburg 2011. Cf. Price, 1999, 105‒129.
6 See C. Becker, Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung, Munich 1954.
Tertullian 161
the Severan dynasty (193‒235 AD) largely retained their position of power by
favouring the army.
Developments in religion during this time are characterized by attempts
to re-establish traditional Roman worship of the gods, as well as an interest
in incorporating oriental mystery religions into the official practices. Com-
modus had participated in the cults of Cybele, Mithras, Isis and Serapis, offi-
cially assimilating these Middle Eastern gods into the Roman pantheon. Sep-
timius Severus continued along the same path, and even though the Senate
condemned Commodus after his death, Septimius Severus allowed him to
be deified. He also continued to favour the oriental cults, and it is said that
Empress Julia Domna worshipped Elagabal, the Syrian sun god. She was the
daughter of the Priest-King of Emesa, and aroused interest at the palace in re-
ligiously and philosophically establishing a religious syncretism which could
create the cohesion necessary to hold the Empire together through the wor-
ship of a higher deity. Integration of the oriental mystery cults undoubtedly
weakened the traditional Roman religion, yet strengthened the Emperor cult,
as the Emperor could be seen as the one who mediated the divine powers
necessary for society through his religious policy.
Septimius Severus’ reign had no impact on the status of Christians.7 They
continued to represent a religious minority which was occasionally persecut-
ed by the local population in various places. However, the Emperor did not
initiate any major Empire-wide persecutions.8 It therefore does not appear
that the rise of Septimius Severus led to a new situation for the Christians
which would have pushed Tertullian to defend Christianity. What then was
the reason that he so diligently applied himself to this task?
1.2. Occasion of the work
Apologeticum is usually dated to 197 AD for the following reasons: The state
of civil war in the years prior to this date with competing emperors seems
to be reflected in Apologeticum 35.6‒11, which mentions Niger and Albinus.
Apologeticum must therefore have been written after these events. Like his
immediately preceding work, Ad nationes (1.17,4), Apologeticum (4.8) assumes
7 See Barnes, 1971, 143‒163. Presumably the practice continued to apply which was affirmed
in Trajan‘s response to Pliny, whereby Christians were not to be hunted down, but were
condemned if they were accused and did not recant (Plin., Ep. 10.96‒97). When Tertullian
refers in Apol. 4.2 to a regulation stating “You are not permitted to exist”, he is not refer-
ring to a specific law but either a general regulation that limits the freedom of assembly
(cf. Apol. 38‒39), or a practice similar to what Trajan affirmed. The reference to “institutum
Neronianum” in Ad nationes 1.7 is likewise not a reference to a law against the Christians
under Nero, but rather a practice during his reign (cf. Apol. 5.3; 21.25).
8 However, sometime after Apologeticum was written, it appears that Septimius Severus
attempted to prevent the spread of Christianity through an edict in 203 AD prohibiting
proselytism. Persecution appears to have been particularly common in North Africa. See
E.A. Isichei, Political thinking and Social Experience. Some Christian Interpretations of the Roman
Empire from Tertullian to Salvian, New Zealand 1964, 28. The account of the martyrdom of
Perpetua belongs in this context.
162 Niels Willert
Septimius Severus as the sole ruler, which was only the case from 197 AD.
Yet since the Parthians are presented as enemies in 37,4 we may assume the
work was written prior to their defeat the following year. It therefore appears
justified to date Apologeticum to late 197 AD.9
There may also be other grounds for such a dating. If a new situation
had arisen with Septimius Severus as sole Emperor, Tertullian may have had
good reason to choose this particular time to write a work which might indi-
rectly be able to influence him. Given that the imperial palace was generally
more open to Middle Eastern religions during this period, it was an obvious
time to approach the Roman authorities.
Apologeticum is addressed to the Roman governors (1.1; 9.6; 30.7; 44.2; 45.7;
49.4; 50.12), but this does not exclude the possibility that Tertullian intended
to reach a broader audience – and like other apologists he may also have in-
directly targeted the Emperor.10 The formal address to governors is primar-
ily because these were the regional representatives who were confronted by
Christians, when they were accused of being Christians by the local popu-
lation. The person Tertullian is most interested in influencing with his work
is the governor of North Africa. The correspondence of an earlier governor,
Pliny, with Emperor Trajan, mentioned in 2.6‒9, also illustrates the need a
governor might have for greater insight into what the Christian religion in-
volves. Tertullian‘s aim with Apologeticum may have been to fulfil this need.
But Tertullian may also have considered the newly inaugurated Emperor.
The imperial power is actually discussed very positively in Apologeticum.
In 4.8 Septimius Severus is praised for having repealed some old laws which
are no longer relevant. Later in 5.2‒8 a number of emperors are mentioned.
Some, such as Tiberius and Marcus Aurelius are praised, while others such
as Nero and Domitian are spoken of negatively. He makes a special point of
illustrating the overlap between each emperor‘s positive or negative attitude
towards Christians and their designation in historical memories as good or
bad. It is also interesting that Tertullian later claims that Pontius Pilate, whom
he believes was a Christian at heart (21.24), approached Tiberius. Tertullian
explains the fact that this emperor did not convert to Christianity by noting
that it is impossible to unite Christianity and imperial power. As he writes:
“Yes, and the emperors too would have believed on Christ, if either the em-
perors had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been
emperors”.11 When Tertullian later refutes accusations against Christians for
9 Cf. Becker, 1954, 276‒306.

10 It is argued that Tertullian‘s hidden addressee was the Emperor in P. Keresztes, Tertullian’s Apol-
ogeticus. A Historical and Literary Study, in: Latomus 25 (1966), 124‒133. Keresztes is undoub-
tedly correct in involving the Emperor, but places too much weight on the imperial power
as the intended reader and overlooks the regional authority of the governor to make de-
cisions in cases involving Christians. The fact that Tertullian later addresses Proconsul
Scapula suggests that Apologeticum is primarily addressed to governors (cf. note 4).
11 Quotations from Apologeticum and other writings of Tertullian are from my own translation.
Tertullian 163
not worshipping the Emperor (ch. 28‒35), it is only deification of the Emper-
or he rejects. He views the imperial position as a divine appointment. Only
God stands above the Emperor, and Christians are actually his most faithful
supporters who pray to their God for his well-being. Tertullian thus not only
defends Christians against the charge of failing to participate in the cult of
the Emperor, he also makes an appeal for a change of attitude towards them
– they are actually the Emperor‘s most useful and loyal citizens and the only
ones who can ensure the continued survival of the Empire.
Against the background of this political reality it is worth considering
whether Tertullian‘s direct address to the governors is not also an indirect
appeal to the Emperor, as the only person who can give Christians the re-
ligious freedom enjoyed by other religions and philosophies. He complains
in 24.6‒10 that only Christians are not accorded this freedom – in a society
where, as he says, everyone is permitted to worship anything at all, apart
from the true God (24.10). He marvels in 46.3 at the fact that Christians do not
have the same freedom as the philosophers, especially given the claim that
there are no major differences between Christians and philosophers.
The unjust treatment of Christians is a recurring theme in Apologeticum,
and something the governors are responsible for at the regional level. Tertul-
lian‘s aim is therefore to demonstrate these conditions, paving the way for a
change in attitude towards Christians. But as he shows that Christians are not
guilty of the charges against them, his intention is also to present Christian-
ity as the true religion. The purpose of the work is therefore both defensive
and offensive. It is formally addressed to the governors, but the imperial pow-
er and pagans in general are presumably also among the intended audience.
One of the aims of the work has been to not only give the state insight into the
unjust treatment of Christians, but also to broadly promote a transition from
paganism to Christianity among the people.
Tertullian was himself formerly a pagan, and converted to Christianity
at some point. He says that he was among those who ridiculed Christianity
(18.4), adding that: “men are made, not born, Christians”. The willingness
of Christians to suffer martyrdom may have been one of the reasons Ter-
tullian became a Christian. He is certainly convinced that when Christians
are martyred, even more people become Christians. As he writes in (50.13):
“The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the
blood of Christians is seed.”
Although Tertullian encourages the State to change its attitude towards
Christians, their acquittal is not his primary goal. He is primarily address-
ing his pagan fellow citizens in the hope that they will follow him. He there-
fore needs to explain the religion he now belongs to. While perhaps not
very detailed, Apologeticum contains a clear and condensed presentation of
Christianity, which attempts to rectify the audience‘s ignorance of Christi-
anity. We will now look more closely at the author and his Christianity, as
presented in Apologeticum.
164 Niels Willert
1.3. Tertullian and his perception of Christianity

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus lived in North Africa, where he was
born in Carthage around 160 AD. He may have been the son of a Roman
centurion and thereby belonged to the higher levels of society. Neither of his
parents were Christian, and Tertullian presumably only converted to Chris-
tianity himself in the early 190s. Prior to this he studied languages, literature,
rhetoric and law, and may have lived in Rome and worked as a lawyer before
returning to Carthage.12 He was involved in the church here and appears to
have been responsible for teaching baptism candidates.
Tertullian‘s perception of Christianity as a whole encompasses his con-
frontation with Gnosticism and Marcion, and a special emphasis on ethics in
Christian living. Although the aim of Apologeticum is not to confront other
forms of Christianity, there is so much theological material in this work that
it is possible to distil a picture of Tertullian‘s perception of Christianity.
Apologeticum 17.1ff. introduces a presentation of faith in the one God who
has created everything. He writes:
The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His command-
ing word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth
from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of ele-
ments, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also the
Greeks have bestowed on it the name of Κόσμος.
Tertullian unites the biblical creation thought with general Greek phil-
osophical thought, whereby the world is held together by an underlying
rational control. The world was created from nothing, not only by God‘s
word of command, but also by his ordering rationality and divine power.
Behind Tertullian‘s formulation lies not only the Stoic idea of the Logos as
the world‘s rationality, but also the prologue of the Gospel of John with its
Logos Christology, where the concept of Logos encompasses both the spo-
ken word and rationality.
Every person is able to recognize the one creator God. This is not only due
to the work of creation and passage of history, which people can sense and
recognize as God‘s work, but also the human soul. In reality, says Tertullian,
the soul is Christian by nature. God‘s existence can be demonstrated from the
testimony of the soul when people consciously or unconsciously make use
of the name of God in their language (17.4‒6).13 Tertullian sees the soul as a
subtle material substance, which along with reason, not only enables people
to recognize God, but also means that people are without excuse before God.14
Every person is capable of recognizing God. Furthermore, Tertullian sees
12 Regarding this question see Barnes, 1971, 243f.

13 This subject is further explored in another apologetic work, On the Testimony of the Soul (De
testimonio animi). See Price, 1999, 110.
14 Tertullian may have been influenced by Paul (cf. Rom 2:1ff.).
Tertullian 165
three paths to such recognition. Firstly, God has revealed himself in the Bib-
lical scriptures through the written testimony, having communicated his will
and decisions through the prophets from the beginning of history (18‒20).
Secondly, God has revealed himself by becoming human in Jesus Christ (21).
Thirdly, the demons also reveal God‘s existence through their indirect testi-
mony about God and Christ (22‒23).
1.4. Tertullian‘s Christology.
Tertullian‘s Christology is developed in chapter 21, where he emphasizes that
God is known through his son Christ, who is worshipped by Christians, not
as a normal human, but as a God. Tertullian explains how the ancient Jewish
scriptures predicted long ago that Christ would come and renew, enlight-
en, judge, and teach humanity. He needs to carefully explain Christ‘s special
birth, as this cannot be compared with what is said of the Roman gods. He
does this by further explaining Christ‘s being. Tertullian again makes use
of the Stoic idea of the Logos as the universal reason, and the spirit which
permeates everything (21.10ff). This Logos, through which God created the
world, was born of God. As he writes in (21.11):
We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that
procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called
God from unity of substance with God.
This special relationship between God and Christ is illustrated metaphori-
cally. Christ is like a ray of sunlight emitted by the sun which is part of the
totality of the sun (21.12). Christ ranks below God, but in terms of his being he
is like God. It is only through Christ that God can be fully recognized, just as
the sun can only be known through the rays it emits. He goes on to say (21.14):
this ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, de-
scending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His
birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished,
grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ.
In connection with his presentation of Christ, Tertullian touches on the issue
of the relationship of the Jews to Christianity several times. The Jews con-
demned Christ as a normal human being (21.3). The Jews later persecuted
Christians (21.25). Tertullian claims that it is evident they made a mistake in
doing so by the fact that they were later punished. He writes:
But how deeply they have sinned, puffed up to their fall with a false
trust in their noble ancestors, turning from God’s way into a way of
sheer impiety, though they themselves should refuse to admit it, their
present national ruin would afford sufficient proof. Scattered abroad,
a race of wanderers, exiled from their own land and clime, they roam
166 Niels Willert
over the whole world without either a human or a heavenly king, not
possessing even the stranger’s right to set so much as a simple foot-
step in their native country.
Tertullian is referring to the fact that the Jews were banned from their for-
mer homeland following the Bar Kochba rebellion against the Romans in
132‒135 AD.
1.5. Tertullian‘s ethics and view of God‘s punishment and reward
The above reference is in line with a key idea of Tertullian‘s that people
and nations are rewarded or punished for their actions. Guilt and fate are
closely linked in Tertullian‘s perception of the events of history and the per-
sonal lives of people. God has laid down in advance what is good and evil,
so that people can earn the reward of eternal life (18.3). Man, as created and
equipped with reason, was intended to do good and imitate God. Equipped
with a free will, people contribute to their own salvation. Tertullian has
a major focus on presenting Christian ethical behaviour, and in connec-
tion with this, the expectations which motivate Christians to act in accord-
ance with God‘s will. While he defends Christians as pillars of society in
ch. 36‒45, in the subsequent and final section in ch. 46‒50 he explains the
Christian conceptions of resurrection and judgement day. Yet usefulness to
society also plays a part here. He writes (49.2):
But let things which are the defense of virtue, if you will, have no
foundation, and give them duly the name of fancies, yet still they are
necessary; let them be absurd if you will, yet they are of use: they
make all who believe them better men and women, under the fear of
never-ending punishment and the hope of never-ending bliss.
By comparing the conceptions of resurrection and judgement day in Chris-
tianity and Greco-Roman religion, Tertullian not only demonstrates that the
latter has borrowed from the former, but also how Christian conceptions
are ridiculed while people take similar perceptions in their own religion
seriously (47.12ff). Christianity actually involves a quite different concep-
tion of what happens to people after death. While the Pythagoreans, for ex-
ample, teach the transmigration of souls, with the possibility that a person
may become an animal, Christians teach that the same specific person rises
again (48.1). People are resurrected as the same person with a body and soul,
which must be the case given that it is the person who has lived an earthly
life who will be held accountable before God on the day of judgement at the
resurrection. He thus says about the restoration (48.4):
Precisely because the foundation for the restoration is the prede-
termined judgement, the exact person who has previously existed
must also be the one who is led forward to receive God‘s judgement
on his good or evil actions. Bodies must of necessity also be raised
Tertullian 167
up as no soul can suffer without an ongoing material substance,

and this is the flesh. What the souls should suffer from God‘s judge-
ment has also been earned in the flesh, within which all actions
have been exercised.
As to what kind of body will be raised up, Tertullian answers (following
Paul’s explanation in 1 Cor 15:35ff) that just as God created the world with all
its diversity from nothing and daily maintains and renews it, humanity will
be recreated. In his own words (48.12f.):
Then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues
meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil,
and thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages
of eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated
resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still un-
changed—the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the
proper substance of eternity.
1.6. Tertullian‘s view of history and politics

In line with biblical thought, Tertullian‘s perception of history is linear – not
cyclical as is the case among the Stoics, whom he polemicizes against. He
views history as moving from the creation towards the end of the world.
What impact does this have on his view of Roman power?
In a long section (28‒35) he explains the Christians‘ reasons for not wor-
shipping the Emperor as a god, but rather praying to their own God for the
Emperor. He writes (32.1): “For we know that a mighty shock impending over
the whole earth – in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes
– is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire”. The idea
that the Roman Empire is delaying the end of the world should be seen as an
interpretation of Paul‘s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:6‒7 that the end of the
world is being held back by something. Tertullian’s view that this refers to the
Roman Empire and Emperor (the one holding it back) should be seen as a pos-
itive statement about the Roman state. It has been established by God, and its
great size and order serves the purpose of allowing the spread of Christianity
and hence the salvation of humanity.15
Since the survival of the Roman Empire is due to God, and in line with
the biblical commands (1 Tim 2:2; cf.1 Clem 61), Christians should pray
for the Emperor and the Empire (30.31). This obedience towards the state
springs not only from the fact that God has commanded it, but also the per-
ception that in reality it is the creator God who is being obeyed. It is also an
obedience founded on the awareness that there exists no other divine power
than this creator God. Christians can therefore not allow themselves to be
15 Regarding Tertullian’s relationship to the Roman state, see R. Klein, Tertullian und das rö-
mische Reich, Heidelberg, 1968.
168 Niels Willert
forced to worship gods which do not exist, including the Emperor, who is
only a man. Obedience does not spring from coercion, but rather an aware-
ness of what is divine. Tertullian‘s attitude to the Roman state is therefore
only positive to a relative degree. The survival of the Empire is for a limited
time only, and by showing that no one is divine apart from God, Tertullian
questions the entire religious order upon which the Empire is founded. The
state is only a worldly arrangement.
Christian obedience is directed towards what is revealed in the divine
scriptures and Christ‘s teachings. It is radically expressed in martyrdom,
where the Christian conviction of what is true does not submit to the State‘s
demand of obedience. Apologeticum concludes with the confident words that
Christians are forgiven all their mistakes when they meet death for the sake
of their God (50.16). They can therefore thank the Roman governors for their
judgement, as he writes: “As the divine and human are ever opposed to each
other, when we are condemned by you, we are acquitted by the Highest”. Ter-
tullian’s willingness to face martyrdom is not only an expression of radical
obedience to God, but also of the conviction that life is ultimately about endless
fellowship with God, where people will live without sin as they did in paradise
at the beginning of creation. Tertullian was fully aware of the reality of sin in
the world, and therefore looked forward to the arrival of God‘s kingdom all
the more. It is therefore understandable that the Montanist zealous-apocalyptic
renewal movement appealed to him. This movement gave a special focus to
Christians doing penance and leading a strict moral life, borne by the Holy
Spirit. Not surprisingly, willingness to face martyrdom also played a greater
role in a movement which rediscovered the imminent expectation of the arrival
of God‘s kingdom seen in early Christianity. It is also given great importance
in Apologeticum, which contains a clearly formulated expectation of another
world, even if it is not quite as zealous. The work says of truth at the outset
(1.2), that “She knows that she is but a sojourner on the earth”. At the end (50.2),
regarding the victory Christians win by suffering martyrdom, it says: “This
victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal”.
The work is thus framed by this conviction of salvation.16 We will now look
more closely at how Tertullian structured his defence.
2. Structure and contents of the work
2.1. Structure and context

With a clear composition and stylistic virtuosity, Tertullian has based his
work on the rhetorical ideals of antiquity for the content and structure of a
legal speech.17 The work refutes the charges raised against Christians of not
16 See Isichei, 1964, 38‒40.

17 Regarding rhetorical issues, see R. Heinze, Tertullians Apologeticum, Leipzig 1910; L.J. Swift,
Forensic Rhetoric in Tertullian’s Apologeticum, in: Latomus 27 (1968), 864‒877.
Tertullian 169
worshipping the Roman gods or sacrificing to the Emperor (cf. 10.1), while
also explaining how the religious faith and moral behaviour of Christians is
different to non-Christian religiosity and moral behaviour.
If you look more closely at the composition of the work, you discover that
it follows the basic structure of a classic forensic speech. This structure gen-
erally comprised of exordium (introduction), narratio (description of the case),
propositio (topic list), argumentatio (argumentation), including confirmatio (evi-
dence) and confutatio (counter-evidence) and peroratio (close).
In addition to an introduction (1‒3) and conclusion (46‒50), Apologeticum
contains a large main section (7‒45). In this section he first defends Christians
against the charge of secret transgressions (7‒9), and then the charges of not
worshipping the gods (10‒16) and not sacrificing to the Emperor (28‒35). This
defence also contains an explanation of what Christianity is about (17‒27) in-
terwoven with and indirectly relating to the rejection of the two accusations
of transgressing against religion and high treason.
Following the introduction (1‒3), Tertullian presents the legal basis for
persecuting Christians (cf. 4.4) in chapters 4‒6 before beginning his prima-
ry defence. In chapters 17‒27, Tertullian explains what Christianity is about.
After rejecting the accusation of high treason (28‒35), he goes on to defend
Christians as model citizens (36‒45) before comparing Christianity and phi-
losophy in his conclusion (46‒50).
While the overall structure of the work appears to be based on a forensic
speech, there are further characteristics in the presentation which also sug-
gest an underlying forensic rhetoric. A good speech should not only be in-
structive but also moving, and ideally entertaining. A forensic speech is also
expected to arouse indignation. Tertullian‘s defence fulfils these criteria as
Apologeticum is not only informative about Christianity but is also frequently
light-hearted through its use of sarcasm. The work is also intended to arouse
indignation in the reader by revealing the unjust proceedings, the ignorance
of the non-Christians, and the absurdity of persecuting the only true religion,
which is essential to the survival of the Empire.
One more rhetorical characteristic can be mentioned: Tertullian not only
defends Christianity, he also compares it repeatedly with what non-Chris-
tians believe, and counter-attacks Greco-Roman religiosity and non-Chris-
tian moral behaviour. The work is filled with comparisons and antithetical
statements as part of the defence, while also distinguishing Christianity
from every other religion and philosophy. Before turning to examine the
content and flow of argument, it is useful to present an overview of the
composition of the work:
Ch. 1‒3: Introduction
Ch. 4‒6: Criticism of Roman legislation
Ch. 7‒9: Refutation of accusations against Christians for secret transgressions
Ch. 10‒16: Defence against the charge that Christians do not worship the gods
170 Niels Willert
Ch. 17‒27: Presentation of the Christian worship of God and Christ, and
demonstration that the gods are actually demons
Ch. 28‒35: Defence against the charge that Christians do not worship the
Emperor
Ch. 36‒45: Account of Christian moral behaviour
Ch. 46‒50: Explanation of the difference between Christianity and philosophy
2.2. Content
In his introduction (1‒3), Tertullian raises the unreasonable situation that
Christians are persecuted by people who have no idea what they are perse-
cuting. If this ignorance was replaced by knowledge, the persecution would
cease. Tertullian calls for the same legal practice to be followed that applies to
other criminals, where judgement is based on knowledge of what the charge
entails, rather than a hatred of what is unknown.
He then criticizes Roman legislation (4‒6). Firstly, he notes that legislation
is often not for the benefit of people. Secondly, he charges that it is unjust for
governors to simply state that Christians may not exist, rather than investi-
gating the cases thoroughly. They address the name but not the substance.
Tertullian then begins to refute the accusations raised against Chris-
tians. Firstly (7‒9), he refutes the charge that Christians have committed
secret transgressions, such as infanticide and incest. There is no evidence
of this, only circulating rumours. But even though such actions defy com-
mon sense, they are nonetheless committed by various peoples within the
Roman Empire. They occur among both people and gods, consciously and
unconsciously. Christians, conversely, tolerate neither abortion nor the con-
sumption of animal blood.
The next large section (10‒16) deals with the unconcealed crimes Chris-
tians are accused of. Tertullian refutes the accusations of not worshipping the
gods by pointing out that they actually do not exist, and therefore cannot be
worshipped. He shows that the oldest Roman god, Saturn, was really a human
being, and hence his descendants must be human and not gods. Tertullian goes
on to note that it is unreasonable to exalt to divinity certain people to whom li-
centious lifestyle is attributed. The numerous idols are actually also an insult to
the so-called gods, given how ham-fisted the artists are in their renditions. The
Romans treat their gods without dignity in many other ways, either by differ-
entiating between them, exploiting them financially, or making them objects of
ridicule. Finally, he points out that Christians do not worship such things – or a
donkey‘s head, or cross, or the sun. They worship the truth.
This paves the way for him to present the Christians‘ divine worship
(17‒27). This primarily involves the worship of the one Creator God, and
Christ alongside, who is God and man at the same time. This distinguishes
the Christians from the Jews, who see Christ as only a man. He goes on to
claim that anyone who has recognized Christ‘s divinity will also realize that
the gods are actually demons. He explains this in more detail, and how these
Tertullian 171
beings attempt to harm humans. Tertullian links back to the previous section
where he showed that Christians cannot be accused of not worshipping the
gods when they do not exist. He goes on to explain that seductive demons
hide behind the names of the gods. There is therefore no divine worship
which the Christians can be accused of avoiding. The same cannot be said of
the Romans, who do not worship the one God as Christians do. There is every
reason for them to do so, given that this one God is the only reason for the
greatness of the Roman Empire.
Having refuted the first accusation of not worshipping the gods, Tertul-
lian goes on to refute the accusation of not worshipping the Emperor (28‒35).
He does this by first showing that the failure of Christians to worship the
gods is not detrimental to the Emperor given that these gods do not exist.
Conversely, it is to the benefit of the Emperor that Christians worship the one
God who has installed him. Christians pray to this God, thereby contributing
to the ongoing survival of the Empire and the Emperor. If they worshipped
the Emperor as divine, they would actually incite the wrath of the one God.
They are therefore the best supporters of the Emperor, while the Romans are
his enemies due to their worship of both the gods and the Emperor.
Not only are Christians upright towards the Emperor, they are upright
towards everyone in the Empire. The next section (36‒45) focuses on the
Christians‘ moral behaviour, which is presented as being highly beneficial
to the Empire. Not only are they peaceful, refraining from hatred and venge-
ance, they also comprise fellowships which bind them together in mutual
support and love. Given how widespread Christianity is, these fellowships
also help to hold the Roman Empire together. Natural disasters and political
misfortunes are not the fault of Christians, but are due to the fact that the
Romans do not worship the one God, who therefore reveals his wrath. How-
ever, Christians can influence this through their divine worship. Persecuting
Christians is therefore detrimental to society.
In the final section (46‒50), Tertullian expresses wonder that Christians
are not treated like the philosophers, with whom they share a common vir-
tuous behaviour. Yet he points out that Christianity is not a philosophy. It
is actually superior to philosophy in several respects. Christianity‘s basis in
the ancient Jewish scriptures makes it older than philosophy, which like lit-
erature, has been influenced by these scriptures. Nor is philosophy able to
match Christianity in terms of either knowledge or behaviour. The inferiority
of philosophy compared to Christianity is illustrated by the latter‘s teaching
on the resurrection and day of judgement – teachings which the philosophers
have attempted to imitate, without success.
Finally, Tertullian claims that the teaching on the resurrection is useful
as it motivates Christians to act with integrity. This teaching also motivates
Christians to face death fearlessly during persecution, in the sure knowl-
edge that they are acquitted by God at the same instant as they are con-
demned by worldly courts.
172 Niels Willert
2.3. Framework of the work

Before looking at the various apologetic characteristics which make the work
an apology, it is appropriate to quickly look at the way Tertullian frames his
work with an introduction and conclusion.
In the first paragraph of the introduction (1.1), Tertullian leaves the
reader in no doubt as to why he is writing this work. He appeals to the
governors to allow the truth to pave its way “by the secret pathway of
a noiseless book”. This is necessary because various conditions have put
barriers in its path. Expressed using a thrice-repeated conditional conjunc-
tion (si in Latin), the conditions do not permit an oral defence. Firstly, the
governors are not able “openly to inquire into and sift before the world the
real truth in regard to the charges made against the Christians”, second-
ly, “they are ashamed more closely to exercise their authority in making
public inquiry with the carefulness of justice”, and thirdly, an overbearing
hatred of Christians “stand[s] in the way of our being permitted to defend
ourselves before you”.
Behind these introductory words one senses the author‘s portrayal of
a courtroom, where the governors are pressed to make a decision while
the people throng around them with their accusations against and hatred
of the Christians. This is precisely what the following section responds
to, raising as the first charge against the governors, “their unjust hatred
to the name of Christian” (1.4).18 It is unjust because it is not based on
knowledge of what lies behind the name. This is what the work intends
to rectify. Before Tertullian launches into his defence proper, he expresses
his surprise in the introduction that people are unable to see the connec-
tion between someone becoming a Christian and their moral improve-
ment (3.1‒4). People hate a movement without knowing what it involves
(3.5‒8). Tertullian exhorts them to investigate the movement. Hence his
criticism of the practice –also reflected in Pliny‘s correspondence with Tra-
jan – whereby Christians are judged for bearing a name, without giving
them the opportunity to defend themselves (2.1‒13).19 This appears to be
the practice Tertullian refers to in his introduction when he explains why
he has resorted to the pen.
But behind the hatred, ignorance and inappropriate legal practice,
there is a deeper explanation for the persecution of Christians. Tertullian
already presents this in the introduction when he provides a mythical ex-
planation in 2.14:
18 His emphasis on hatred of Christians and the truth they represent is presumably influen-
ced by the theme of the world‘s hatred of Christians in the Gospel of John (cf. John 3:20; 7:7;
15:18‒19.23‒25; 17:14).
19 Tertullian also criticizes the stipulation in Trajan‘s response to Pliny that Christians should
not be hunted down. This makes no sense – if one sees them as guilty a priori, one should
also hunt them down. It also seems peculiar that torture is used to compel Christians to
recant, when it is normally used to get people to confess.
Tertullian 173
Let this perversity of yours lead you to suspect that there is some
hidden power in the case under whose influence you act against the
forms, against the nature of public justice, even against the very laws
themselves.
It is actually the demons who are behind it (cf. 2.18). Concerning these demons
and their activities, Tertullian will later show in chapters 22‒27 that they are
identical with what people see as gods, that they lose their power simply by
invoking the name of Christ, and that they are jealous of Christians, to whom
God shows grace (27.4).
Tertullian anchors the reader in the courtroom setting throughout the
entire work by repeatedly addressing the governors directly.20 He also does
this in the conclusion of the work (50.12). In the final section (46‒50), where
Christians are compared to philosophers, the reader is gradually led towards
a confrontation between two types of court – the divine court on the day
of judgement, and the governors‘ court. He builds up rhetorically to the cli-
mactic statement which closes the work, claiming that when Christians are
condemned by the governors, they are acquitted by God (50.12‒16). This is not
only a statement about the beneficial effect of the blood of martyrs in leading
more people to become Christians. It is also a judgement pronounced against
the governors, who by condemning Christians are actually condemning
themselves. Tertullian concludes his defence by appealing to the governors to
not only listen to the silent letters, but also be moved by them.
3. Apologetic characteristics in the work21
3.1. Refutation of the accusations against Christians

Rejection of accusations against Christians for secretly committing crimes
such as infanticide and incest at their meetings is a common theme among
the apologists. Tertullian deals with this in chapters 7‒9 of Apologeticum,
countering the accusations by noting that the matter has not been investi-
gated and is purely based on rumours. When people claim that Christians
hide themselves, knowledge of their meetings must therefore derive from ru-
mours. And the author notes at length (7.8‒14) that it is the nature of rumours
to add to or subtract from the truth. Tertullian also argues (8) that it is absurd
to imagine people committing such acts, which go against human nature,
whether Christian or not.
Finally, Tertullian uses a rhetorical technique called retorsio, defending
himself by turning the same accusations against the accuser (9). He gives
examples of child sacrifices, including an account of children being offered to
Saturn in North Africa, citing soldiers as witnesses (9.1‒4). In contrast to the
rumours about Christians, he provides evidence. He goes on to provide fur-
20 Cf. in addition to 1.1 also 9.6; 30.7; 44.2; 45.7; 49.4; 50.12.
21 For a determination of apologetic characteristics, see Fiedrowicz, 2000, 147‒181.
174 Niels Willert
ther examples, while also highlighting that Christians do not perform abor-
tion (9.8) or permit the consumption of animal blood (9.13).
He is also able to counter the accusation of incest with a retorsio, citing Ju-
piter as the figure who must have taught others to have sexual relations with
close relatives (9.16). And as he notes, the Romans‘ exposure of infants must
inevitably lead to incest (9.17‒18). The reader is again made aware how unthink-
able such things are among Christians, who are protected from both fornica-
tion and incest because of their chastity (9.19). Common sense should cause the
accusers to realize the accusations are untenable. They are twice blind when
they can neither see their own guilt, nor the innocence of others (9.20).
While not much space is needed to refute the accusations of secret crimes,
Tertullian goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Christians are not guilty of
the open crimes of not worshipping the gods, and not sacrificing to the Emper-
or. These two charges are dealt with in chapters 10‒16 and 28‒35, respective-
ly. Again, Tertullian‘s defence not only refutes the accusations, but also turns
them back on the accusers. As a result, his defence becomes a confrontation
with Greco-Roman religiosity. We will first examine how Tertullian defends
Christians against the charge of not worshipping the Greco-Roman gods.
Tertullian argues for the Christian premise that the gods do not exist
by drawing on the teachings of the Greek author, Euhemeros – that all gods
were originally people. Tertullian goes back to Saturn, who is said to have
been the first of the gods (10). By demonstrating that he was simply a human,
Tertullian exposes all other worship of the gods as false. The gods are people
who were exalted and worshipped as gods after their death. Once it has been
admitted that the gods were originally people, it must also be conceded that
only a god can have made these people divine (11). Yet this makes no sense.
Such a god is perfect. What need would he have for assistance, especially
from dead people! Nor does it make sense that the necessities of life were
invented by gods, given that they have existed from the beginning. Finally,
given the immoral behaviour of the gods, it cannot be true that certain people
were rewarded by making them divine. If so, it would have been more fitting,
for example, to deify Socrates!
Tertullian then goes on to show that it is idols manufactured from raw
materials which are the objects of worship (12). The manufacture of these
idols not only shows their impotence, but also the lack of respect which char-
acterizes the worship of gods, and which is not very different from the way
deceased people are honoured (13). Tertullian again makes use of a retorsio,
accusing the accusers of worshipping their gods disrespectfully (14‒15), and
of showing disrespect for Jewish and Christian worship (16). Tertullian dis-
cusses how Jews and Christians have been ridiculed, first by the depiction of
the Jews as donkey worshippers by the Roman historian, Tacitus, and then by
an offensive image of the Christians‘ God with a donkey head and inscrip-
tion. This concludes his refutation of the accusations of religious offences for
Tertullian 175
the moment. Tertullian goes on to present what Christians believe, but in a

way which continues to refute the accusation (17‒27).
Chapters 28‒35 bring us to his refutation of the other accusation of high
treason. Here again he refutes the accusation as well as employing a retorsio,
showing that it is the Romans rather than the Christians who are guilty of
dereliction of duty towards the Emperor. But the charges of religious offence
and high treason are linked. Having shown that the gods do not exist, it is
also clear that the Christians cannot be viewed as enemies of the state, giv-
en that its power is not founded on the correct worship of the gods (29). He
provides evidence that the State is rather upheld by the one creator God, and
shows that by worshipping this one God, the Christians are the only ones
who are genuinely loyal to the Emperor (30‒35). They pray to God for the
welfare of the Emperor and the continued survival of the Empire (30‒32). The
Emperor is shown respect as a man who has been appointed by God, who
alone can bear that name. To deify the Emperor would be to deny him as Em-
peror (33‒34). The loyalty of the Christians to the Emperor is contrasted with
the hypocritical flattery and intrigues of the Romans, making reference to the
political unrest in the very recent past (35). Tertullian seems to be suggesting
that if the Emperor‘s power is ever threatened, he can certainly count on the
loyalty of the Christians.
3.2. Reason as an apologetic argument
Tertullian justifies his claim that Christianity is the true religion using rea-
son. In chapters 17‒27 he continues on from his argument that the gods do not
exist, introducing his explanation of Christianity by proving the existence of
God. He can be seen and perceived by the senses (17.1‒3), and in Tertullian’s
words it is: “the crowning guilt of men, that they will not recognize One, of
whom they cannot possibly be ignorant” (17.3). He also demonstrates his ex-
istence by his works, through which humanity is preserved.
Everyone can recognize his existence, because the human soul is Chris-
tian by nature (17.4‒6). In this respect Tertullian has been influenced by the
Stoic idea of natural recognition, whereby man is born with the ability to use
reason. Just as it defies reason to worship gods which are only people or de-
mons, it is only reasonable to worship the one God, who created everything
and continues to uphold a world based on principles of reason.
Tertullian continues his explanation in chapter 18 by showing how since
the dawn of time, God has made use of human tools in the form of messengers
who preached about him and his righteous judgement, whereby he rewards
or punishes people as they deserve. This is all set forth in the documents
written by the Jews, and translated from Hebrew into Greek. The fact that this
is ancient testimony is another argument for its truth (19). More on this later.
If human reason is able to recognize God‘s existence based on the sensible
ordering of nature, the same reason can recognize from the sensible progres-
sion of history how God stands behind the historic events, which he sends
176 Niels Willert
his messengers to predict (20). The fulfilment of these predictions testifies to

their truth. He writes:
Well, the truth of a prophecy, I think, is the demonstration of its being
from above. Hence there is among us an assured faith in regard to
coming events as things already proved to us, for they were predicted
along with what we have day by day fulfilled (20.4).
Christianity is a rational religion, the truth of which can be recognized
through reason. Tertullian‘s admission to the reader in an aside that he once
laughed at the conceptions of Christianity prior to his conversion, is intend-
ed to show that he has now come to his senses and recognized the rational
substance behind the religion‘s conceptions. He also uses reason in chap-
ter 21 when explaining how Christ is both a divine and human being at the
same time. He not only refers to the predictions which have been fulfilled in
Christ‘s appearance (21.4‒9), he also links back to the Logos reason through
which God created the world (21.10‒14). The Logos is the spoken word, and
the divine reason which has been incarnated, at the same time.
The fact that the Jews rejected Christ as God‘s son and saw him purely
as a man (21.3) is due to the fact that they did not understand the correlation
between prediction and fulfilment (21.15‒16). Due to their lack of reason, they
rejected Christ and are still waiting for the fulfilment of what has been pre-
dicted in their scriptures. They saw Christ as a sorcerer, but his supernatural
abilities actually prove that he was the Logos (21.17‒18). It is also confirmed
by the events surrounding and after his death.
“We worship God through Christ”, says Tertullian, indicating that it is
through him and in him that God wants to be recognized and worshipped
(21.28). This point is vital to his differentiation from Judaism. Yet while they
rejected Christ and handed him over to Pilate, the latter realized that Christ
was divine and wrote about this to Emperor Tiberius (21.24). According to
Tertullian, Pilate was already “in fact a Christian in his own convictions”. Ter-
tullian uses the Latin word conscientia (conscience), which indicates that the
governor had recognized Christ‘s divinity with his reason. He wrote earlier
that Tiberius, upon receiving the message from Pilate about Christ, attempted
to convince the Roman Senate to convert to Christianity (5.2). It is of no minor
significance in an apology addressing governors, and presumably indirectly
aimed at influencing the Emperor, that Tertullian emphasizes that the first
Roman governor and Emperor who were confronted with Christ recognized
his divinity. This reference makes a hidden appeal to the political power.
Presenting Christianity as a religion of reason also paves the way for
the later description of Christian fellowship and ethical behaviour. In line
with Stoic thought, Tertullian notes in 38.3 that “we acknowledge one all-em-
bracing commonwealth—the world”. Tertullian makes a similar comment in
chapter 39, where he explains what the Christian “organisation” is involved
in (39.1): “We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profes-
Tertullian 177
sion, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope”. Having ex-
plained what is special about Christian community, Tertullian goes on to say:
“But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature,
though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind”. All men are broth-
ers, and in Christian language this is tantamount to saying everyone has God
as their ultimate father. Based on creation, Tertullian is able to view humanity
as united. But this formulation is also based on the Stoic idea that despite eth-
ical, social and biological differences, all people are the same due to reason.
Christianity is particularly suited to bringing about a worldwide com-
munity due to the incarnation, whereby the divine Logos became human in
Christ. Christ is the divine Logos, intended to renew, inform, teach and judge
mankind (21.7). The ethical behaviour of Christians is founded on this, but
his presentation of the same also hints at the Stoic ideal of living in accord-
ance with nature. This is a fundamental idea in ancient moral philosophy,
whereby mankind should allow reason to guide its ethical choices. Humanity
should live in accordance with its reason, which is part of the universal rea-
son, Logos, through which the world has been ordered. We will turn now to
ethics as an apologetic argument.
3.3. Ethics as an apologetic argument22
In chapters 36‒45, Tertullian explains what is unique about Christian eth-
ical behaviour. This common theme of early church apologetics had a spe-
cial place in Tertullian‘s writings, as he was convinced that a strict and dis-
ciplined way of life was not only of benefit to society, but also a sign of what
differentiates Christianity from other religions and philosophy.
One of the major differences between Christians and others is their love
for their enemies, already raised in 31.2, where Tertullian refers to the com-
mand to love one‘s enemies in the sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:43‒48; cf.
Luke 6:35) while discussing the Christians’ loyalty to the Emperor. That this
applies not only to the Emperor but to everybody is noted at the beginning of
the section (36‒45) on Christian ethical behaviour (36.4):
We are the same to emperors as to our ordinary neighbors. For we
are equally forbidden to wish ill, to do ill, to speak ill, to think ill of
all men.
This prohibition is not limited to outward demonstrable actions – there is
consistency between thoughts and actions among Christians.
Chapters 37‒38 follow up on the significance of the Christian‘s love for
their enemies. He writes in 37.1: “If we are enjoined, then, to love our ene-
mies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate?” He argues that it
is foreign to the nature of Christians to hate, noting that they prefer to suf-
22 See N. Willert, The Reception of Biblical and Graeco-Roman Ethics in the Apologetics of the Early
Church, in: D. Brakke / A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich (eds.), Beyond Reception. Mutual Influences
between Antique Religion, Judaism, and Early Christianity, ECCA 1, Frankfurt 2006, 89‒116.
178 Niels Willert
fer injustice than take vengeance (37.1‒3). He also notes that given the large
number of Christians spread across the Empire, they would be capable of
revolting against it (37.4‒7). Given this love for their enemies, both in thought
and action, it is absurd to call them enemies of humanity (37.8‒10). Their con-
gregational community – although outlawed by the State – does not justify
this charge either (38).
One should rather notice that their organisation is a community charac-
terized by solidarity and unity (39). Christians see each other as brothers and
are committed to loving fellowship, where they share everything except their
wives, as Tertullian sarcastically notes (39.12). Their fellowship meals are not
feasts, and are not a setting for sexual debauchery, but are characterized by
modesty and care for the poor (39.14‒21).
Tertullian is at pains to point out how useful Christians are, and how
meaningless it is to prohibit the Christian congregation and place it in the
company of other illegal organisations. The usefulness of Christians is also
noted in the subsequent section, which argues how erroneous it is to link
them to accidents and disasters in the Empire (40). Tertullian notes that Chris-
tians are blamed for every misfortune. When the Tiber or the Nile break their
banks, the people immediately cry: “Away with the Christians to the lion”
(40.2). There were natural disasters before the rise of Christianity (40.3), and
people have always done things deserving of God’s punishment. He also
does not refrain from noting that there have been fewer disasters since the
appearance of Christianity, hinting at how good it would be for the Empire if
everyone converted to Christianity. In other words, it is the non-Christians,
not the Christians, who are detrimental to the Empire (42).
Against the claim that Christians are useless in business life, Tertullian
emphasizes how useful they are in daily life, in trade, in shipping and in
various crafts (42). They are productive members of society, and he sarcasti-
cally adds that if they are unproductive, it is only within occupations such as
prostitution, astrology and taking auguries (43). Christians are respectable
citizens who get married, have children whom they do not expose, work like
everybody else, and are apparently never found engaging in common crimes
such as theft and murder (44).
Tertullian began his account of Christian ethical behaviour with love for
one‘s enemies – expressed both in thought and deed. He refers again to the
ethics of the Sermon on the Mount in the final chapter of the section (45), cit-
ing its antitheses (Matt 5:21‒26; 5:27‒30; 5:38‒42). These passages amplify the
commandments not to steal, not to commit adultery, and not to take venge-
ance. They focus on the difference between external and internal action, and
Tertullian uses them to once again demonstrate how radical Christian inno-
cence is. Not only do they not kill, they do not even get angry. Not only do
they not commit adultery, they do not lust either. They refrain not only from
evil actions, but also evil speech. Christians are highly motivated to think
Tertullian 179
and act in accordance with the divine law due to the connection between eth-
ics and their perception of God and judgement. As he concludes:
We, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God,
and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin,—we
alone make real effort to attain a blameless life (45.7).
In contrast, the Romans’ talk of innocence is only based on a human authority
(45.2). Tertullian thereby concedes that there are Roman laws which have the
aim of promoting innocence, but this is because these laws were borrowed
from the divine law, which is more ancient (45.4). Tertullian makes use here
of the argument from antiquity, reminding the reader of his earlier discussion
of Moses’ historic precedence (cf. 19.3). This leads to the next apologetic char-
acteristic – a focus on history.
3.4. History as an apologetic argument
We have already seen that Tertullian highlights how widespread Christi-
anity is throughout the Empire. He does this for several reasons. Firstly,
demonstrating the cohesive force of universal acceptance of a peaceful re-
ligion has apologetic weight. His presentation of Christian fellowship in
chapters 37‒39 points in this direction. Secondly, it is also significant to
show that this universal dissemination has taken place within a short his-
torical time frame. He thus says in 37.4: “We are but of yesterday, and we
have filled every place among you”. He also raises this at the beginning of
the work in 1.6‒7, stating that there are Christians throughout the Empire,
and at all levels of society – something that their opponents bewail. In this
context he notes that hatred of Christians springs from an ignorance which
needs to be rectified, given that so many have become Christians. Their
large numbers might also suggest that there is something good at the core
of Christianity (1.8).
Tertullian makes no effort to hide the fact that Christianity appeared
historically during the reign of Tiberius (5.2; 7.3; 21.1; 21.24; 40.3). He there-
fore feels a pressing need in his description of Christianity to show its an-
tiquity, despite the obvious fact that it is a relatively new religion.23 He does
this in chapter 19, where he appears to be initially making a case for the an-
tiquity of Judaism. Prior to this in chapter 18 he explained how the ancient
Jewish scriptures came into being and were translated into Greek. Chapter
19 strives to demonstrate that Moses is more ancient even than Homer (19.3).
“Everything is less ancient than the work of a single prophet, in whom you
have the thesaurus of the entire Jewish religion, and therefore too of ours”,
writes Tertullian (19.2). He then goes on to argue that the other prophets,
who are later than Moses, are still more ancient than the Greco-Roman phi-
losophers, legislators and historians.
23 Regarding the significance of the appeal to antiquity, see Pilhofer, 1990, 274‒280.
180 Niels Willert
Tertullian is at pains to show how Christianity is linked to these early scrip-

tures, and therefore endowed with the antiquity it was important to demons-
trate in a Greco-Roman culture where antiquity served as a criterion of truth.
He writes (21.1):
But having asserted that our religion is supported by the writings of
the Jews, the oldest which exist, though it is generally known, and we
fully admit that it dates from a comparatively recent period—no fur-
ther back indeed than the reign of Tiberius—a question may perhaps
be raised on this ground about its standing
His subsequent demonstration of the divine origins of Christ primarily serves
to show that the ancient Jewish scriptures were only properly consummated
with Christ. God‘s incarnation was prepared from the time of creation, and
this must mean that Christianity is not only older than Judaism, but every
other religion. The God who created the world and controls nature and the
flow of history is only fully known through Christ (21.28).
Given the antiquity of Christianity, all other facets of religion and phi-
losophy which are similar to Christianity must have stolen these ideas from
the Christians and their scriptures, which also encompass the ancient Jewish
scriptures. We have already seen that 45.4 points out that the Roman laws
to promote innocence must have been drawn from the divine law. We will
now see that the similarities between Christians and philosophers can be ex-
plained in the same way.
3.5. True Christianity and philosophy
In the last major section (46‒50), Tertullian compares Christians and the
philosophers. He writes that even though the pagans are forced to concede
what is good about Christian behaviour, they view the Christian movement
as a kind of philosophy rather than as divine (46.2). This is because the same
virtues, such as innocence, righteousness, patience, sobriety and chastity are
practised among Christians and philosophers.24 Given that Christians are
suspected of having taken these virtues from the philosophers, Tertullian is
amazed that they are not treated like the philosophers (46.3). His explana-
tion goes on to show that the reverse is actually true – philosophers have
borrowed these virtues from Christians. However, he cites several examples
to show that Christians are far better at living up to virtues such as chasti-
ty, temperance, equanimity, faithfulness and honesty (46.8‒17). In a nutshell,
they do not have much in common.
24 It makes sense for Tertullian to point out the similarities between Christian ethics and
Greek moral philosophy – especially Stoicism – in the context of these closing chapters
where he is demonstrating the superiority of Christianity to the philosophers. The virtues
he names derive from Greek moral philosophy. It is for good reason that Tertullian high-
lights Christian chastity and sexual morality, to not only demonstrate their moral integrity,
but also that they fulfil the Stoic ideal of apathy (46.2, cf. 9.19; 39.2; 45.3; 46.10‒11).
Tertullian 181
This leads Tertullian to round off his comparison for the moment with
these words:
So, then, where is there any likeness between the Christian and the
philosopher? Between the disciple of Greece and of heaven? Between
the man whose object is fame, and whose object is life? Between the
talker and the doer? Between the man who builds up and the man
who pulls down? Between the friend and the foe of error? Between
one who corrupts the truth, and one who restores and teaches it? Be-
tween its chief and its custodian?25
Indeed, Christianity and philosophy are two different entities, and simi-
larities between their moral teaching can be explained by the fact that one
party has stolen from the other. Tertullian does not consider the question of
the relationship between Christianity and philosophy at depth. This is be-
cause Christianity and philosophy have nothing in common beyond ethical
behaviour, and this is found to be quite different on closer examination. Yet
Tertullian goes on to compare the conceptions common to both Christian-
ity and the philosophers. His starting point is that Christianity, as already
demonstrated, is older than all else (47.1), which means that “truth has been
a treasury for all later wisdom” (47.1). The philosophers have stolen all their
ideas from Christianity (47.2‒8), and they have also influenced heretical
Christians (47.9‒11).
Tertullian then demonstrates that the philosophers have borrowed ide-
as from Christians by discussing Christian conceptions such as resurrection
and judgement, hell and paradise, and comparing these with similar con-
ceptions among the philosophers (47.12‒49.3). He claims that these have been
borrowed from Christianity, the antiquity of which has already been argued
(47.14). However, the critical difference between the philosophers and Chris-
tianity comes to the fore in his presentation of the resurrection (48.1‒9), as
the difference between the doctrines of reincarnation and resurrection of the
body. Tertullian marvels at the fact that one teaching is accepted, while ad-
herents of the other are persecuted (48.1), and he presents the resurrection as
a teaching which, like creation, can be understood with the help of reason
(48.2‒9). The idea of judgement, with its distinction between good and evil,
is also seen from the perspective of reason. It is self-evident that people will
25 There is a similar formulation in Tertullian‘s anti-heretical work, De praescriptione haer-

eticorum 7 (circa 200 AD): “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord
is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?
Our instruction comes from ‘the porch of Solomon,’ Because in the beginning of the
church the apostles taught in Solomon’s porch, who had himself taught that ‘the Lord
should be sought in simplicity of heart.’ Away with all attempts to produce a mottled
Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious dispu-
tation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our
faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing
which we ought to believe besides”.
182 Niels Willert
arise to face a judgement, once and for all, which will determine whether they
are sent to hell or paradise. Transitory time will be replaced by eternity – the
eternal fire which burns in hell and eternal life in paradise, where there is no
more death (48.10‒15).
Tertullian discusses these topics in order to compare Christianity and
philosophy, and he demonstrates the superior age and rationality of the for-
mer. He also aims to defend Christianity as a religion which is beneficial
to society. He therefore concludes his discussion by noting the motivational
effect of the idea of judgement on ethical behaviour (49.1‒3), and notes that
Christians stand firm of their own free will when they choose to be con-
demned rather than fall from God‘s favour (49.4‒6).
Tertullian’s demonstration of the ethical value of the Christian concep-
tions of resurrection and judgement is not the only thing which shows how
important a role ethics plays. It is also evident from the fact that Tertullian
both introduces and concludes the last section of the work by comparing the
ethical behaviour of Christians and philosophers. He compares the willing-
ness of pagans to face death for the fatherland, the Empire or a friend, with
the Christians‘ willingness to face martyrdom. Christians die with the hope
not of being remembered (like the pagans), but of rising again (50.1‒11). They
stand firm, and their stubbornness arouses annoyance, even though a similar
stubbornness is valued among philosophers such as Cicero and Seneca. It
also causes more and more people to convert to Christianity – which is not
the case when the philosophers exhort people to stubbornly withstand pain
and death (50.12‒16).
Tertullian‘s defence has now reached its end. He felt it was appropriate
to make a final comparison between Christianity and philosophy, yet even
more fitting to conclude his defence with a triumphant reference to the ul-
timate court at the end of time. This will distinguish not only between the
persecutors and the persecuted, but in Tertullian‘s own words, also “between
the philosopher and the Christian, the disciple of Greece and of heaven”.
4. Conclusion
There are elements in Tertullian’s works which make it difficult to deter-
mine whether he became a Montanist at some point. However, these ele-
ments also show that the question is not decisive, given that Montanism in
no way changed his basic points of view. His Christianity was character-
ised by strict morality and consistency from the beginning, and he distin-
guished sharply between Christianity and the religiosity and philosophy of
Greco-Roman culture. Apologeticum, one of his earlier works, provides clear
evidence of this, not least in the demarcation between Christianity and phi-
losophy in the closing chapters.
Tertullian goes further than any other early Church apologist in sepa-
rating Christianity and Greco-Roman culture, but we must not forget that
Tertullian 183
he belonged to this culture, and his defence of Christianity helped influence

the same culture over the longer term. In reality, rather than a conflict of cul-
tures, we see a contrast between a way of life characterized by the awareness
of belonging to another world, and a way of life linked to the obligation to
maintain the existing world order.
The willingness of Christians to face martyrdom was presumably a sig-
nificant factor in Tertullian‘s conversion to Christianity. Alongside Christian
ethics, to which Tertullian attributes major significance, martyrdom played a
key role in giving Christianity an identity separate from other religious and
philosophical ways of life. There were no empire-wide persecutions of Chris-
tians during the reign of Septimius Severus, but it is likely that North Africa
was particularly affected by persecutions during Tertullian’s time. This may
have increased Tertullian’s focus on the significance of martyrdom as a rad-
ical expression of the Christian awareness of belonging to a divine world,
which was expected to be manifested in the near future. Against this back-
ground it is understandable that Montanism appealed to Tertullian.
Minucius Felix, Octavius
Svend Erik Mathiassen
1. Introduction to the apologetic dialogue “Octavius”

Octavius is the main character in a short Christian apologetic work in Latin by
Minucius Felix. Hence the title. There are no other known works by this author.
1.1. What is known about Minucius Felix
and the preservation of the “Octavius”
The existence of Minucius Felix as an author and his work were only
known through some very brief references in a few church fathers, until
1560, when François Baudouin of France showed that Octavius had been
mistakenly preserved as an eighth book appended to Adversus Nationes
by Arnobius. Lactantius mentions Octavius twice in Divinae Institutiones.
Once in 5.1,21ff., where he reservedly states that Minucius Felix could
have been an excellent advocate for the truth, i.e. Christianity, if he had
fully dedicated himself to the task. Jerome mentions Minucius Felix spo-
radically six times. One such case refers to a work titled De Fato, which
was apparently preserved under Minucius Felix’ name. Jerome believed it
was not by the same author as Octavius due to differences in style. Unlike
Lactantius, Jerome is thoroughly positive about Octavius and it is through
him we have references to other contemporary scholars who apparently
knew Octavius quite well. Finally, Eucherius, Bishop of Lyon in the fifth
century, mentions Minucius together with Firmianus, Cyprian and Am-
brose, all famous for their oratory skills.
The prominent church father, Augustine, makes no mention of Octavius.
We can therefore fairly safely assume he was not aware of it, as his writings
are otherwise brimming with references to what he has read among the liter-
ature available to him. Octavius may therefore have been slipping into obscu-
rity even in antiquity. Since the work is very brief, and also unusual within
the genre, it has not achieved the same dissemination as the works of more
prolific authors. This also explain how it was possible for the misunderstand-
ing to arise – at an early stage in its history – that the work belonged to anoth-
er author, under whom it lay hidden throughout the entire Middle Ages. It is
basically through a stroke of luck that we can read Octavius today.
Its survival is based on a single manuscript (Codex Parisinus 1661), which
also poses numerous text-critical difficulties. The available editions of the
text can therefore be quite divergent, as can the translations into around 60
186 Svend Erik Mathiassen
different modern languages which have been published since Octavius was
separated out as an independent work.
The work has attracted a lot of attention over the centuries, and has been
highly esteemed by 19th and 20th-century scholarship. It has been called
“Perle der apologetischen Literatur” and “Juvel der frühchristlichen Litera-
tur”. This “little golden work” aurum opusculum, as it has also been described,
has at last been the subject of some monographs and articles.1 Still it remains
overshadowed by Tertullian‘s contemporary and more extensive Apologetic-
um, with which it has many characteristics in common. As we shall see, how-
ever, there are many good reasons not to leave this small apology out of the
picture. It should be noted that the work has the reputation of featuring the
most notorious and grotesque charges against Christians: infanticide, canni-
balism, incest, worshipping a donkey head as god, worshipping a criminal
condemned to execution on a cross, etc., even so few seem to have read it, let
alone are aware of the circumstances surrounding it. The work offers much
reading pleasure and is structured as a short story in dialogue form and deals
with a wide range of common human problems, which modern readers will
find surprisingly contemporary. The present article can obviously not pro-
vide an exhaustive treatment of Octavius, but will simply describe the main
apologetic features of the work.
1.2. Time and location of the author and work
Extremely little biographical information is available about Minucius Felix. It is
stated in Octavius that the narrator is a practising lawyer in Rome, and that he
converted to Christianity at some point in his adult life. Beyond this we know
nothing. He is not mentioned in any ancient sources apart from the church fa-
thers already mentioned, who simply state that he is a lawyer, no doubt based
on his own statement. However, they must have been independently aware of
the author‘s name, as this is not mentioned in the work itself, where he is sim-
ply addressed using his first name, Marcus. Yet even the veracity of this fact is
based on the degree of authenticity we attribute to the work as a whole. If the
entire narrative frame is pure fiction, the identities of both the narrator and the
dialogue partner may be made up. However, we can conclude from the very
learned contents of the entire work that the author – whether a lawyer or not –
belonged to the particularly well-educated upper class, and was firmly ground-
ed in rhetoric, philosophy, literary history and religion – both the traditional
Roman and more Hellenistic-oriented forms. His schooling in Christianity ap-
pears to be philosophically oriented, which we will return to later.
There has been speculation that Minucius Felix came from North Africa.
The fact that Latin was more predominant here than Greek as a written lan-
guage, and that Minucius Felix, like others from this region such as Tertul-
lian, Cyprian and Augustine, wrote in Latin, has been advanced to support
1 B. Kytzler, Minucius Felix. Octavius, Munich, 1965 (text edition with parallel translation).
The introduction, 11‒39, refers to the appellations mentioned.
Minucius Felix, Octavius 187
this assumption. The comment about rhetor and author Fronto, whom Caecil-
ius calls “our (friend or countryman) from Cirta”, might suggest a connection,
as Cirta lay in Numidia in North Africa. The observations that the name Felix
appears to be more prevalent in inscriptions in North Africa than in other
parts of the Roman Empire, and that some characteristics in Octavius seem to
reflect certain conditions in the Donatist church are probably nothing more
than speculation. It is quite possible that the names of the characters have
been invented and have symbolic meanings. It is certainly striking that the
pagan to be converted is called Caecilius Natalis. The first name is linked to a
root word which means “blind”, and the root, Nat-, in the second name has
something to do with “birth”. Octavius, the Christian apologist, also bears
the name Januarius, which suggests a meaning such as “door opening” or
“door opener”. This fits very well with the fact that he is the one who opens
the door to Christianity for the previously blind pagan, who can now be born
into a new life in Christianity. Although the narrator’s name, Felix, which
means “the happy one” or “fortunate”, is not used directly in the work (he is
called by his first name, Marcus), it seems fitting for someone who is a con-
tented, convinced Christian. The person we can glimpse through the work
also appears to live a harmonic and happy life.
When attempting to date the work, we are similarly limited almost ex-
clusively to internal criteria. The issue of the timing of the authorship of the
work has previously been heatedly debated.2 Only a small sample of the prob-
lems involved will be raised here. One anchor point for establishing a ter-
minus post quem is the aforementioned comments about Fronto (oratio nostri
Circensis in chapter 9, in which the Christians are accused of dissipation, and
the rejection of these accusations in chapter 31, where Octavius calls him tuus
Fronto). This Fronto lived around 100‒175 AD. Octavius must therefore have
been written during the period of his career – approximately 130‒175. Lactan-
tius and Jerome, from the early and late fourth century respectively, naturally
provide a terminus ante quem – an upper limit for the dating of Octavius. One
can also add that the way they discuss Minucius Felix suggests he pre-dates
them by a wide margin. Cyprian‘s works have been used to argue that Mi-
nucius Felix must have written earlier than him. It has been claimed that trac-
es of influences from Octavius are evident throughout Cyprian‘s writings,
both in minor details and in slightly longer passages.3 One argument used
to support the view that Cyprian (who died in 258 AD) borrowed from Mi-
nucius Felix and not vice-versa is that it is more likely that a prolific author
with more numerous and larger works would borrow from a minor source
and allow these fragments to be sporadically visible, than that a major set of
writings would appear in more condensed form in a smaller work. Minucius
2 For further details regarding this discussion, see G.W. Clarke, The Octavius of Marcus Mi-
nucius Felix, New York, 1949. In addition to a good translation, this monograph contains
elaborate references to historical scholarship and ancient literary history.
3 See Clarke, 1949, 10f. 138f.
Felix must therefore pre-date Cyprian. Whether such an assumption can be

called a dating method is doubtful, and the direct opposite – that the minor
author would be inclined to borrow from the major author – has also been
claimed. The latter has been used to argue that Octavius was written after
Tertullian‘s Apologeticum from 197 AD, which is more extensive, and has such
striking similarities, point by point, that internal dependence is indisputable.
It had been common to place Octavius earlier than Apologeticum until 1941,
when B. Axelson argued convincingly for the priority of Tertullian in Das
Prioritätsproblem Tertullian-Minucius Felix. Since then, most scholars have fa-
voured the view that Octavius was written after Apologeticum, which would
push Minucius Felix into the third century. Yet as recently as 1999, Earl Do-
herty4 has argued for Octavius’ priority, claiming that the later author would
expand his work based on what he borrows from an earlier author. Thus Oc-
tavius, as the smaller work, would be the earliest. Compared with Tertullian‘s
works overall, Octavius seems incomplete, especially in terms of Christology
and dogmatics. If this is a valid criterion for assessing which of the works is
earliest, it would appear most likely that Minucius Felix wrote his work ear-
lier than Apologeticum. There is no reason why Tertullian could not have read
Octavius with interest and elaborated on some of the points which he found
were suited to his purpose.
Finally, some scholars have attempted to work out which Christian per-
secutions under which emperors are referred to in Octavius. This has not
been possible either. However, the persecutions do not seem to have impact-
ed directly on the characters participating in the dialogue. Some scholars
believe the entire tone of the work suggests it was written during a rela-
tively peaceful period for Christians, and can therefore be dated during the
Severan Dynasty (193‒235 AD). This method is, however, just as doubtful as
all the others, and it remainsimpossible to precisely date the work or glean
information about the author with confidence. Given that it is unlikely new
sources will surface, we will simply need to accept the almost total uncer-
tainty that exists in this area.
2. Structure and content of the work

The work consists of 40 chapters, which vary greatly in size. In some editions,
however, the last two chapters are merged. One needs to remember that the
division into chapters does not derive unambiguously from the manuscript,
but has been added later based on assessment of its contents. Unsurprisingly,
4 E. Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, Ottawa 1999. Doherty uses Octavius to argue that no historical
Jesus existed – that he is a completely mythological construction. He cites the lack of Chris-
tology in the work to support this claim, but fails to consider other important questions.
For example: Why does Minucius Felix use the christiani appellation if he knows nothing of
the person of Christ? And how do the persecutions of Christians, which Minucius discuss-
es in significant detail, fit into the picture?
the Christian dialogue partner is given the majority of speaking parts, but the
structure of the work is nonetheless thoroughly symmetrical. The 40 chapters
can be grouped into five sections, which also vary in length. The speech by
the pagan5 Caecilius, is framed by a lengthy introduction (1‒4) and a middle
section (14‒15), while Octavius‘ defence of Christianity is framed by the mid-
dle section and closing chapters (39 and 40). The content from each of the di-
alogue parties is closely related, such that the Christian Octavius refutes the
accusations and charges Caecilius raises against Christians point by point.
2.1. Introduction by Minucius Felix
Chapters 1‒4: Minucius Felix takes the stage here as the narrator. He recalls
his good friend and fellow believer, Octavius, whom he portrays with warmth
and sensitivity. It is not absolutely clear whether Octavius is dead – most
translations interpret it this way – or has simply travelled far way. Octavius
was the first of the two to become a Christian, and has apparently played a
role in Minucius‘ conversion. He also recalls the time the two friends, along
with a third, Caecilius, went on an idyllic walk from Rome to Ostia, when
Octavius had visited in connection with business and they had a few days
off from their legal practice in connection with the autumn holiday. It was
on this occasion that Caecilius was converted to Christianity. Along the way
they saw a statue of Serapis. Caecilius blows a kiss as a sign of worship, lead-
ing Octavius – a bit too frivolously – to make some ridiculing and hurtful re-
marks about the stupidity of pagans. As a reader, one almost feels sympathy
for Caecilius, who has done nothing other than to observe a religious custom
in good faith. He becomes more and more dejected and sullen, and falls back
slightly from the others, until Minucius Felix notices and asks him: “What is
the matter? Wherefore do I not recognise, Caecilius, your usual liveliness?”6
Caecilius responds by freely expressing his resentment and asks to clear the
air with Octavius, with Minucius serving as an impartial intermediary. He
assigns Minucius the role of just judge in an oral dispute, noting that: “You
have been carefully informed in both kinds of life”. The three friends then sit
down to commence the rhetorical contest.
2.2. The speech by pagan Caecilius
Chapters 5‒13: Caecilius begins his speech, which takes the form of an apol-
ogy for traditional Roman religion, followed by sharp criticism of Christian-
ity. He attacks Christians for being uncultivated and ignorant. He describes
their faith in harsh terms as foolish, and raises suspicion by referring to what
everyone knows – that during their sinister rituals they commit incest and
infanticide, and practice cannibalism. His attack escalates to the greatest
vehemence, and the reader is left wondering how this cultivated pagan can
5 I have chosen to use this expression even though many scholars see its use in the literature
as loaded and therefore problematic.
6 Here as elsewhere the translations from Latin are by the author.
stomach the company of his Christian friends, Minucius and Octavius, when
he credits them with such outrages as he describes (this is one of several small
rifts in the inner logic of the narrative, which the modern reader must bear
with). Caecilius is outraged and indignant that such ignorant and intellectu-
ally backward people as the Christians dare to have an opinion about such
complicated issues as “the divine”, when philosophers of all ages have pon-
dered these things in vain. He recommends that the Christians observe the
famous “know thyself” from the oracle of Delphi. If the Christians – with
their limited spiritual insight – insist on philosophising, they should follow
Socrates’ example, who recognized that he knew nothing and reportedly
said: “what is above us, does not concern us” (quae supra nos, non ad nos). There
is nothing to suggest that there exists a providentia, a divine providence that
controls the world and the fate of humans. Even fate strikes good and evil
people indiscriminately. Natural disasters, violent weather which destroys
crops, thunder, lightning and fire, shipwrecks and all kinds of accidents rage
everywhere without consideration or making a distinction between rich or
poor, good or evil. Moral purity and a decent life is not rewarded by any di-
vine power, and it is foolish to imagine resurrection of the body and life after
death. Christians are fearful of what we know nothing about – our future
after death – but are not afraid to die in the present life.
Caecilius’ position with regard to religion is that of an academic scep-
tic. Like most well-educated and culturally informed Romans, he is an ag-
nostic. Yet he and others like him did not reject religion. On the contrary,
they continued to be extremely traditional, and were fully convinced of the
value of religion for preserving society. Caecilius therefore sees the Roman
religion and the piety passed down from their forefathers as the direct and
clear reason for the fortune and progress of the Roman society and state.
Caecilius considers the fact that the Romans adopted the gods of other
peoples and nations in connection with their conquests, and gave them a
new home in Rome, as an indication of the greatest piety and deference
towards these gods, and as evidence that the Romans are entitled to rule
the entire world, given that all the gods have given their approval. Caecilius
manifests the characteristics of traditional Roman religiosity – not based
on any personal faith in gods, or any dogmatic, theological system. Rather,
Roman religiosity was about preserving a deep respect for and honouring
the “forefathers’ customs”, mores majorum, especially the rituals, which were
part of all activities, at all levels, both privately and socially. By not oppos-
ing these inherited values, one demonstrated that one was religiosus or pius
(“religious” and “pious”). Caecilius therefore also feels the need to criticise
Christians for not being interested in participating in public life. In the eyes
of the pagans this was naturally the expression of some kind of stupidity
or laziness, and even worse – they were socially irresponsible, not making
their due contribution to the well-being of society.
2.3. Middle section – Minucius Felix’ comments

Chapters 14‒15: Caecilius now concludes his speech, almost gloatingly. He ap-
pears to assume he is already the sure winner of this contest of words. Minucius
warns him against this arrogance and points out that even the cause of truth
should not be dimmed by excessive sophisticated oratory aids. Even a lie can
be made to look plausible by a gifted speaker, whereas the truth may seem in-
credible in its simplicity. It can thus be difficult to distinguish between what is
true and false. Caecilius protests against these observations, which he sees as
misplaced and partisan. But Minucius maintains that they are directed at both
parties, so that no one is seduced by eloquence.
This interlude – despite its brevity – is a cardinal point in the entire work
and should be seen as quite significant. Firstly, it is the author himself speak-
ing. Secondly, the criticism of rhetoric and its methods which is presented
here targets the well-known points of criticism raised by learned Romans
against Christian literature and the Biblical scriptures in particular. Educated
Romans expressed their aversion to Christian literature, with its lack of liter-
ary qualities and stylistic elegance. They held the view that it was reading for
simple people, and therefore lacking in the power of conviction. Educated Ro-
mans also demanded an aesthetic experience. They had no interest in wast-
ing their time on substandard literature. Minucius Felix’ subtle opposition to
the finicky taste of the cultural elite for flourishing and sophisticated speech
puts him in the company of several other apologists, not least Jerome, who
said that if you were going to write for people who wanted to get to know
the holy scriptures, you should not write for refined and pampered readers,
who would criticise every detail which did not appeal to them.7 Even though
this passage ostensibly serves simply as a transition to the apology for Chris-
tianity which Octavius goes on to provide, it could be called an “apology
within the apology”. And even though Minucius avows his impartiality as
an arbitrator, this section naturally has the subtle effect of causing the read-
er to begin to distance himself from the overly self-confident Caecilius, and
look forward to the next speech with anticipation. It becomes apparent in
what follows that Octavius excels no less at rhetoric than Caecilius. However,
Minucius Felix does not criticise him for this when he concludes his speech
after chapter 38. He rather praises him, claiming in chapter 39 that Octavius
has succeeded in having adorned those things which it is easier to feel than
to say, “both by arguments and by examples, and by authorities derived from
reading”8; and that he had repelled the malevolent objectors with the very
7 This passage can be found in one of the testimonies about Minucius Felix by Jerome refer-
red to in Clarke, 1949, 2f., where Minucius – oddly enough given our present context – is
recommended along with Tertullian and Cyprian as a Christian author who demonstrates
the same elegance as classic rhetoricians such a Cicero and Quintilian, and which anyone
who insists on refined style in Christian literature can read.
8 Argumentis et exemplis et lectionum auctoritatibus adornasset.
weapons of the philosophers with which they are armed, and had moreover
shown the truth not only as easy, but also as agreeable.
2.4. The speech by the Christian Octavius
Chapters 16‒38: Octavius introduces his speech by declaring that he aims
to dilute the very offensive strain of recriminations in the river of veracious
words, a very eloquent formulation. He then marvels at Caecilius’ self-contra-
dictory speech, which has left him confused as to whether Caecilius believes
in gods or not – a confusion contemporary readers can easily share, given the
whole attitude of the ancient Romans to religion. Octavius rejects the notion
that philosophising and having an opinion on “heavenly things” is reserved
for the particularly well-educated and learned upper class. The truth is not
dependent on wealth and prosperity, and anyone can have reason, whatever
their status. Humans are created with it. To “know thyself”, and know how
the world is ordered is of benefit to people, but it is even more important to
understand the divine order in the world. Octavius then introduces his argu-
ment that there is a providence with creative power which has ordered the
world in the best possible way – a kind of proof from nature or the cosmos9
which is still relevant today. In its essence, it involves looking at the world
around you and observing how beautifully and wisely ordered everything
is. One will then be convinced that there is a creator, and one alone, and that
he upholds the providence for the fate of people and the world. Octavius ob-
serves that humans walk upright and look to the heavens, unlike the animals
which look down at the ground. Humans were created with the ability to
speak and think. They can recognize, perceive and imitate God (the expres-
sion is: deum imitare, which is almost equivalent to the statement that we are
“created in God’s image”). Octavius goes on to describe, very poetically, the
firmament, the stars at night and the sun during the day, the changing sea-
sons, the moon which divides the year into months, the day and night. The
seas and mountains, fields and rivers, trees, flowers, fruit and crops – all these
things have been created and are maintained by an exulted divine reason,
without which they could not exist. Animals with their diverse ways of de-
fending themselves – claws, teeth, horns, spikes, or wings which they can use
to flee – testify to God as creator and provider. But people in particular, and
the way they have been created, are evidence of God’s greatness. Everything
about people has been created either for beauty or utility. The drive to pro-
create (cupido generandi), gestation and birth, the milk in the mother’s breast,
which nurtures the child – are ordered by God and confirm his greatness. By
using humanity as his starting point and conclusion in a proof of God based
on the argument from nature, Minucius Felix has created a “framework nar-
rative within a framework narrative” – a strong stylistic element. He thus em-
9 This is called the “argument from design”, see T.R. Glover / G.H. Rendall, Tertullian, Apo-
logia, De Spectaculis. Minucius Felix. Octavius, with an English Translation, LCL 250, London
4
1966 (1931), 310.
phasises the special position of humanity in the created order, and its close,
categorical relationship to God. As a transition to the next series of arguments
he uses a house as an image. When you see a well-designed house, you assume
that the one who built it is greater than what he has created. In the same way
we can assume that God is greater than the ordered world he has created.
Such are the proofs of God’s existence.
Argumentation for there being only one God follows from about the
middle of chapter 18. This is also drawn from the perceivable cosmos, more
precisely, from both recent and more distant history at the time of the au-
thor. Octavius asserts that it has never been possible for a state to be led by
more than one person without resulting in bloodshed and chaos. Suprema-
cy, by its very nature, cannot be shared and this also applies to the Roman
Empire. The “twins” – a reference to Romulus and Remus, Rome’s founder-
sand Romulus’ fratricide so as to rule alone – are cited as examples. He men-
tions war between father-in-law and son-in-law, a reference to the civil war
between Caesar and Pompeii in the final years of the Roman republic. The
same is true of the animal kingdom. Among bees, in a herd of sheep, and in
horned cattle, there is only one leader. He emphasises that God is infinite
and that his greatness is unfathomable. The words and phrases Octavius
uses in this section bear a striking resemblance to the Athanasian creed
and Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological proof of God, which they naturally
have no connection with apart from the actual subject material: “He is too
great to be sensed, infinite, immense” (sensibus major est, infinitus, immensus).
He also says: “Anyone who thinks he knows the greatness of God dimin-
ishes him. Who does not diminish him, does not know him”. By the latter,
slightly cryptic, sentence he naturally means that even if you acknowledge
God’s greatness, you cannot avoid reducing it in thought and speech, as it is
simply inexpressible (cf. Anselm: “God is that, than which anything greater
cannot be thought of”, Proslogion 2).
To further support the doctrine that God is one, Octavius refers to “the
natural speech of the ordinary people” (vulgi iste naturalis sermo). Even the
religious adherents of polytheism actually assume one supreme God when
they call upon gods, because they use the word deus in the singular in ex-
pressions such as “god is great”, “god is true” or “if god so wills”. He goes
on to cite a series of philosophers – from natural philosophers, to Plato to the
Stoics – claiming that on closer analysis, their view of the divine was in real-
ity monotheistic, and that there is one God behind all the different names of
God in the philosophical theories. Christians, who have fully acknowledged
that there is only one God, must therefore be the true philosophers, or the
philosophers must have been Christians. This thought is popular among the
apologists and generally in the Christian perception of history – that many of
the pagan philosophers and poets (Plato and Virgil are especially prominent)
were some kind of Christian soothsayers. This is a very powerful argument,
as it endows Christianity with an eternal timelessness from the dawn of the
ages,10 and together with the Old Testament prophecies comprises an over-
whelming argument for its truth. It is in line with this theory that Tertullian
formulated his famous “proof that the human soul by nature is Christian”
(testamentum animae naturaliter christiana).
From chapter 20 onwards, Octavius increasingly formulates his defence
of Christianity as a counter-attack against the old-fashioned perceptions of
the gods and the cultic practice through which they were worshipped. He
subscribes to a theory which was not foreign in his time, having been ad-
vanced by the the third century BC Greek philosopher Euhemerus, that in
reality the gods were particularly deserving kings or great men who had
been deified following their deaths. Octavius cites the example of Saturn, for
whom this demonstrably appears to be the case when one considers the sur-
viving legends. He therefore sees it as ridiculous and pitiful to worship such
“gods”. Nor can these figures take any credit for the greatness of Rome, which
is purely due to man’s raw exercise of power.
If these gods have occasionally appeared to be active in oracles and the
interpretation of omens, this is due to the actions of demons. From chapter
25 and on it becomes clear that the conception of demons – some kind of un-
clean spirits which roam around wreaking havoc – was very prominent in
Octavius’ religious universe. Throughout one lengthy passage he actually
develops a regular demonology. Demons are not only the reason for error
with respect to the incorrect worship of gods, they are also the active force
behind the accusations and persecutions against Christians, as they spread
lies and false rumours.
Octavius continues in the final section of his apology by refuting the
more specific accusations one by one. He shows that each charge pagans raise
against Christian society can be more reasonably raised against themselves.
Christians distinguish themselves by living morally pure lives. He praises
the martyrs and claims that the accusations of crimes are in reality simply a
sign of jealousy. To Caecilius’ claim that the impotence of the one “almighty”
God can be seen by the fact that he was unable to rescue his chosen people,
the Jews, from Roman power, Octavius rejoins that this is no expression of
impotence, as the Jews had already turned their backs on God.
It is not impossible for God to raise people up again after death, and
the world is not eternal but will pass away. He again raises “proof from
the cosmos” in support for the former claim, as one can see that life arises
from death throughout nature. He cites the philosophers again as witness-
es regarding the latter point, as they have spoken of the end of the world
and its dissolution in fire. This does not mean that Christians follow in the
footsteps of these philosophers, as their conceptions were incomplete and
mixed up with untruths.
10 This fits in well with the “argument from antiquity”, whereby people in antiquity attemp-
ted to justify preference for a religion based on its old age.
Octavius also rounds off his speech with a reference to Socrates and philo-
sophers of the sceptic persuasion – not as witnesses to the truth but as cont-
emptible hypocrites who do not know the truth and who lead an immoral life.
They are contrasted with the Christians who are thankful for having found
the truth and attained wisdom, and that they live at a time when this truth
has been fully revealed: the truth of divinity has ripened in the age of our
time” (veritas divinitatis nostri temporis aetate maturuit).
2.5. Close. Minucius Felix’ verdict, Octavius’ victory and Caecilius’ conversion
Chapters 39‒40: Minucius expresses admiration for Octavius’ speech, saying
“which it is easier to feel than to say”, and his refutation “that he had repelled
the malevolent objectors” (malevolos), with their own weapons. Caecilius an-
nounces his conversion. He also feels he is victorious because he has come to
the right faith. It all ends blissfully:
After these things we departed, glad and cheerful: Caecilius, to re-
joice that he had believed; Octavius, that he had succeeded; and I, that
the one had believed, and the other had conquered.
However, many questions remain which they must postpone to the following
day, as it is close to sunset.
3. Position of the work in relation to ancient literature

and early Christian apologetics
3.1. Inspiration and literary precursors

Of all the Christian apologetic works, only Octavius exists in dialogue form,
excluding isolated others such as Aristo of Pella’s dialogue between a Chris-
tian and a Jew (circa 140 AD), Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho, and the
fact that Origen’s Contra Celsum can be said to have a dialogue structure. Oc-
tavius also stands apart from a large number of other apologies due to the
fact that it has no direct addressee in the form of an emperor or other public
officials. If one looks for sources of inspiration for the work, other ancient di-
alogues in Latin are obvious choices, such as Aulus Gellius’ dialogue with Fa-
vorinus in Noctes Atticae from the mid second century, but especially Cicero’s
De Divinatione, in which Cicero debates with his brother Quintus whether it
is reasonable to believe in oracles and auspices. The losing party in this work,
Quintus, who champions the view that there is great reality and truth in the
religious oracles, speaks first, and is then refuted by Cicero. Minucis Felix
inserts Caecilius and Octavius in place of Quintus and Marcus in his work.
There is much overlap in the content of the two works, right down to a num-
ber of details. Chapter 26, in which Octavius deals with divination – religious
fortune-telling – is basically modelled on Cicero’s treatment of the subject.
Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, which, like Octavius, is a conversation about reli-
gious and philosophical questions, has also clearly inspired Minucius Felix.
Cicero’s work involves three parties, one from the academic school, a Stoic
and an Epicurean. A large number of topics, such as the “philosopher cata-
logue” in chapter 19, have been drawn from chapter 2 of De Natura Deorum,
and the argument from nature and cosmos, that providence exists, is used
in Cicero’s work. The philosopher, Seneca, has also used such arguments in
his works, and must undoubtedly be Minucius Felix’ second major source of
inspiration. His influence is particularly clear in chapters 36‒37, where the
topic is fatum (fate), and a discussion about determinism and predestination
develops. Octavius is answering Caecilius’ accusation in chapter 11 that if
the Christian’s God and not fatum determines everything, then it is not free
will which decides whether one becomes a Christian and attains salvation to
eternal life after death. But this would mean the Christians have been chosen
by God beforehand, making the Christian God an unjust judex (judge), for
punishing people’s fatum, and not their voluntas (will). Octavius – like other
Christian apologists – insists on free will, and bases his answer in chapter 36
on God’s foresight (qui… possit praescire …). These issues are closely related to
Seneca’s De Providentia 5.9. There is also material from Seneca in the response
to the accusation of paupertas (poverty, which Christians are accused of tak-
ing an asocial pride in), which Caecilius presents in chapter 12, and Octavius
answers in chapter 35. Seneca writes in Epistula 2.6: “not he, who owns little,
but who desires more, is poor” (Non qui parum habet, sed qui plus cupit, pauper
est). Minucius Felix writes: “he is poorer, who desires more, though having
much” (magis pauper ille est, qui cum multa habeat, plura desiderat).
The dialogue form as used here by Minucius Felix is very systematic,
almost pedantic. The smallest details raised by the critic, Caecilius, are coun-
tered by the same details in the speech of the defender, Octavius. In addi-
tion to the literary sources we have identified, it is quite likely that this form
is based on something more commonplace, i.e. school exercises of this type
which were used as practise when training to be a rhetor, lawyer or civil serv-
ant – i.e. for participation in the legal arena. There were various types of such
exercises, persuasion exercises (suasoriae) and controversies (controversiae);
and Seneca the Elder, also called Rhetor, provided such a collection of exercis-
es for his sons to use in their education. We also know about such exercises
from Quintilian, including one with the title, An providentia mundus regatur (Is
the world governed by providence?).
3.2. Characteristics of the dialogue
Could it be possible that Octavius is purely some kind of writing exercise
within this genre? The question is a pressing one, as despite all the literary
and rhetorical qualities of the work, there are many unanswered questions
associated with it, making it difficult to place it within a Christian apologetic
context. One key issue is the nature of the Christianity which Minucius Felix
presents to us through Octavius. Inspiration drawn from Seneca is linked
to this issue. We can generally note that Octavius’ Christianity is very phil-
osophical, and almost identical with Stoicism in terms of its ideas of provi-
dence cosmology. There are naturally different views on the issue of deter-
minism in Christian philosophy and Stoicism, but the monistic perception
of God and the world is strongly related in the two schools of thought. It is
also a characteristic of the work that it approaches dogmatic questions on the
terms of classical philosophy, whether it be Platonism or Stoic or Epicurean
deism. Naturally this is partially explained by the form of the work, featur-
ing an attack from an opponent of this persuasion. A further characteristic
of Octavius, is a complete absence of Christology. The name Jesus Christ is not
mentioned a single time anywhere in the dialogue. He is not even mentioned
in connection with faith in the resurrection and life after death. This would
have been logical, given that Caecilius was scouring for an example where
any human has ever risen from the dead. When refuting the accusations that
Christians worship a criminal who was executed on a cross, in defiance of
common sense, Octavius never hints that there is actually some truth in this.
Most interpreters believe that by his straight-out denial of the charge, Oc-
tavius simply means that Christ was not a criminal. There is no discussion
of the Holy Spirit, no trace of Paul’s teaching on justification, and no hint of
the Church as an institution, apart from Caecilius’ accusatory discussion of
the sinister assemblies, which Octavius refers to in his response as the saints’
assemblies of brothers and sisters. A similar reticence to deal with the most
difficult or perhaps the most offensive questions, such as Christ’s substitu-
tionary death on the cross, can be seen in other apologists. The common ex-
planation presented for this has been that the defenders of Christianity have
not wanted to scare off potential converts in advance. At the end of Octavius
it is also acknowledged that not everything has been discussed, and some
things must wait for the following day. Are we to imagine that the entire
Christology is to be explained to the convert subsequently, bit by bit, to avoid
him taking too much offence at it? And is there to be a baptism? If there has
been any influence from Jewish apologetics,11 this may also partly explain the
absence of any real Christology. The answers to these questions remain un-
certain for the time being.
4. Purpose of “Octavius”
One could be forgiven for suspecting that the work has been intentionally
written so that any references which might reveal associations with time,
place or any recognizable Christian environments have been carefully omit-
ted. It is difficult to say what the reason for this would be, except perhaps that
the aim was to write an apology which could appeal broadly to many, with-
out insurmountable barriers to understanding. However, this is contradicted
by the fact that the particularly un-Roman and unpatriotic tone in Octavius’
speech would unavoidably have aroused great opposition among the oppo-
11 See the introduction to this anthology by Jörg Ulrich.

nents of Christianity. We are thus unable to draw many conclusions with con-
fidence. We can simply note that the main focus of Octavius is on the ethical
and philosophical elements of Christianity, and that the style Minucius Felix
has used has targeted an educated audience.
While the work may be mysterious at many points, there are also sev-
eral statements which unambiguously declare its intentions. It is clear that
the author has wanted to distance himself from the traditional, old-fashioned
form of worshipping the gods. He has sought to position himself within a
new form of philosophical conviction, the Christian one, which he claims is
rational and an expression of the truth (veritas, vera religio). Two passages from
the close provide a fitting declaration of the intention of the work. The first,
in chapter 39, where Minucius expresses his admiration for how Octavius has
so convincingly presented his speech,12 and a similar passage in chapter 40:
“He has an illustrious reward from God, inspired by whom he has pleaded,
[…]” (habet dei munus eximium a quo ¼ inspiratus oravit). Finally, one can assume
that the aim of this work, like that of other apologies, has been to provide
arguments to other Christians, in a very direct manner, who have faced the
situation of having to defend themselves from verbal attack from opponents,
or been involved in missionary activities towards possible converts.
12 See above.
Condemnation, criticism and consternation
Contemporary pagan1 authors‘ assessment
of Christians and Christianity
Jakob Engberg
1. Aim of the article and source material
1.1. Assessment by pagan authors of Christians

– correlation with Christian apologetics?
The apologetic works covered by this anthology provide direct access to
how Christians in the second century and early third century wanted to
present Christianity to the outside world. An analysis of the positions the
apologists defend also provides indirect access to the prejudices of the
outside world towards Christians and Christianity, and what criticisms
were raised.
Naturally there was not always consistency between how the apologists
wanted to appear, and how the outside world actually perceived Chris-
tians and Christianity – as the very fact that the apologists mount a defence
against accusations demonstrates. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the
apologists‘ indirect testimony about the hostility towards Christianity from
parts of the outside world provide an accurate picture of this hostility. It
was common then (as now) to distort an opponent‘s points of view and mo-
tives in order to more easily counter or impugn them. If we only had access
to the apologetic works, we would not know whether the apologists had
“invented” a given attack in order to make it easier to evangelise and spread
their message.
However, a number of statements about Christians and Christianity by
Pagan authors who were contemporaries of the Christian apologists have
survived. The purpose of this article is to present this material and discuss
1 “Pagan” is used simply to refer to non-Christians and non-Jews. Comments by contem-

porary Jewish authors on Christians and Christianity are outside the scope of this article.
For Jewish opinions, see Jos., Ant. 18.3,3, 18.5,2 and 20.9,1 and R.T. Herford, Christianity in
Talmud and Midrash, New York 1903. For a discussion of the opposition to Christianity in
the Roman Empire AD 50‒250, see J. Engberg, Impulsore Chresto. Opposition to Christianity
in the Roman Empire c. 50‒250 AD, ECCA 2, Frankfurt 2007. Some of the sources discussed
in this article, the texts of Trajan, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian and Marcus Aurelius
are also discussed here, 173‒229 and 255‒257.
202 Jakob Engberg
the outside world‘s perceptions and knowledge of Christianity and Chris-

tians – and whether the pagan material confirms or alters the picture of
hostility towards Christians and Christianity which the apologists present.
We need to remember: Firstly, that the pagan authors may have correspond-
ingly presented the Christian points of view and motives in a polemic form
in order to combat Christianity and impugn Christians. Secondly, that the
apologists analysed in this anthology (with one possible exception) were
converts and hence ex-pagans.2 They were familiar with life as a pagan and
life as a Christian, and the apologies may therefore also be seen as their self
justification for having converted.
1.2. Pagan material on Christians and Christianity
– general introduction
Discussion of Christians by 12 different pagan Greco-Roman authors from
the second century has survived. Among seven of these authors, Christians
are simply mentioned in passing as part of moral, philosophical, or scientific
musings, or as part of a larger historical, biographical or satirical narrative.
These seven authors are historians Tacitus, Suetonius and Phlegon, satirist
and philosopher Lucian, physician and philosopher Galen, philosopher Epic-
tetus (Arrian) and philosophical emperor, Marcus Aurelius.
In other cases, the Christians gave rise to independent works. This is the
case for the surviving examples of correspondence by the Roman authori-
ties regarding the prosecution of Christians – letters by Governor Pliny and
Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. There are also two fragmentary surviving
examples showing that at least two polemic works against Christians and
Christianity were written during the period – a work by a prominent Roman
politician and imperial teacher, Cornelius Fronto, and a work by the other-
wise unknown philosopher, Celsus.
The polemics against Christians by Fronto and Celsus are only known be-
cause two Christian authors quoted parts of them. One of the characters in
Minucius Felix’ apologetic dialogue, Octavius,3 briefly quotes Fronto, while Ori-
gen so frequently quotes Celsus’ work that these quotations are more extensive
than all the other source material of relevance to this article combined. For this
reason Celsus’ criticism of Christianity will not be discussed in this article.
2. Imperial rescripts about Christians

Regarding the Roman jurist Ulpian, the apologist Lactantius wrote:
Ulpian collected the emperors‘ shameful rescripts in his seventh
book On the office of a proconsul (De officio proconsulis) in order to
2 We know this from the testimony of the apologists themselves in their own works, see Eng-
berg, 2009, 49‒79 and id., 2012. Athenagoras is the only apologist reviewed in this volume
who has not written about his own conversion.
3 Cf. the article by Svend Erik Mathiassen.
Condemnation, criticism and consternation 203
inform what punishments should be applied to those who confessed

that they worshipped God.4
When magistrates or individuals wanted to know the Emperor‘s will on
a matter, they could present it to him in writing.5 The response from the
Emperor was typically in the form of a rescript. The title of Ulpian‘s work
shows that the imperial rescripts in this collection were addressed to gov-
ernors – the most senior Roman provincial magistrates. From Eusebius‘ dis-
cussion of Melito, a second-century Christian apologist, we know that Em-
peror Antoninus Pius also wrote to several cities about Christians.6 These
imperial notes were no doubt also rescripts – responses to petitions about
Christians from city officials.
The content of the local messages to the emperors and the emperors‘ re-
scripts are unfortunately not known. Ulpian‘s work on provincial governors
has also been lost. However, two imperial rescripts to governors have been
preserved by other means:7 Trajan‘s rescript to Pliny, Governor of Bithynia,
from 112 AD, and Hadrian‘s rescript to Minucius Fundanus, Proconsul to the
province of Asia in 124/125 AD.
2.1. Correspondence between Pliny and Trajan about the Christians
In 110 AD, former Roman Consul, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, was
sent as legate to the province of Bithynia at the Black Sea by Emperor Tra-
jan. He is presumed to have died there in 112 AD. A collection of letters ex-
changed with Trajan during his time as Legate has been preserved (Ep. 10),
which was published about ten years after his death. In the longest of these
letters, sent from Pontus in the east of the province, Pliny reported on his
prosecution of Christians to date, and asked Trajan for advice about the on-
going procedure. Trajan responded in the form of a rescript (10.97).8
4 See Lact., Inst. 5.11,19. Cf. A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social
Commentary, Oxford 1966, 783; G.E.M. de Ste Croix, Why were the early Christians persecuted?,
in: PaP 26 (1963), 6‒38 (14); Millar, 1977.
5 Correspondence addressed to the emperor could take three literary forms: Letter, libel-
lus or legatio. Acquaintances of the emperor generally wrote letters. People who did not
know the emperor used one of the other two forms. Individuals or magistrates with a
high assessment of their own status or the importance of the subject could write a legatio,
while more humble magistrates, individuals and associations generally wrote libelli. For
the best modern presentation of imperial administration, see Millar, 1977. Several libelli by
second-century Christian apologists have survived, but only one legatio, by Athenagoras
(see the article in this anthology by Anders-Christian Jacobsen).
6 See Eus., h.e. 4.26,10 – Melito also discusses an imperial rescript to a koinon. Cf. Millar, 1977,
559f.; T.D. Barnes, Legislation against the Christians, in: JRS 58 (1968), 32‒50 (37f.); and the
chapter in this anthology by Marie Verdoner.
7 Thanks to the contemporary account of martyrs in Lyon transcribed by Eusebius in book 5
of Ecclesiastical History we know of the existence, but not the content, of yet another imperi-
al rescript to a governor about the Christians. See Eus., h.e. 5.1.
8 These letters are taken to be authentic, cf. Sherwin-White, 1966, 691f. and M. Sordi, The
Christians and the Roman Empire – Translated by Annabel Bedini, London 1988, 59.
204 Jakob Engberg
In his introduction, Pliny explains “I have never taken part in prosecutorial

interrogations of Christians (Christiani).” 9 Pliny offers no further explana-
tion of what he meant by “Christians”, so from this introduction we can
conclude: Firstly, that Pliny assumed that this designation was enough for
Trajan to know whom he was writing about. Secondly, that Pliny was aware
(and assumed Trajan was also aware) that there had been earlier cases of
Christians being prosecuted.
Pliny had already executed several Christians when he wrote to Trajan.
Pliny writes (10.96,2‒3):
So far I have done as follows in regard to those who were brought
before me accused of being Christians. I have personally asked them
whether they were Christians. Those who confessed I asked a second
and third time while threatening them with punishment. Those who
persisted were led away to be executed.
It is apparent from these observations: Firstly, that the initiative for the
prosecutions emanated from at least one local accuser – delator.10 Secondly,
that this person or these persons simply accused the defendants of being
Christians. Thirdly, that the charge of bearing the name Christian was tak-
en seriously by Pliny. He investigated whether the accused were Christians,
and judged them accordingly if he found this to be the case.
Several of these observations strike a chord with the second-century
apologetic works. According to the apologists, it was not only the authori-
ties who were hostile towards Christians, and Christians were condemned
simply for being Christian.11
Pliny‘s question and Trajan‘s rescript shed no light on the motives or
identities of the local accusers. Both Trajan and Pliny are silent on this.12
However, it is apparent that the accuser(s) hoped or assumed that Pliny
would punish the accused if it could be proven that they were Christians.
The local accusers were not to be disappointed – Pliny ordered the stubborn
Christians to be executed.
When Pliny‘s conviction of Christians became known in the province, it
led people to accuse even more. Pliny writes (10.96,4):
Accusations soon spread because of the proceedings themselves, as is
usually the case, and different sorts of the crime have become apparent.
9 Plin., Ep. 10.96,1. All the quotations in this article are taken from article III.2 “The other
Side of the Debate 2: Translation of Second Century pagan Authors on Christians and
Christianity.”
10 Cf. Sherwin-White, 1966, 697 and 778; Benko, 1980, 1055‒1118 (1070) and H. Nesselhauf,
Hadrians Reskript an Minucius Fundanus, in: Hermes 104 (1976), 348‒361 (350).
11 For example, see Arist., apol. 17.2‒4, Just., 1 apol. 4, and 2 apol. 2 and Tert., Apol. 2 and 7.3‒4.
12 This has not deterred modern scholars, Sherwin-White, Robert Wilken and Stephen Benko,
from speculating about commercial interests behind these accusations. See Sherwin-White
1966, 697; Wilken, 1984, 15f. and Benko, 1980, 1070.
During this second phase, Pliny received an anonymous list containing many
names. He predicts to Trajan that even more people of every age and rank and
both sexes will be accused. In his proceedings against this second group of
accused, Pliny worked out a new “test”: He explains (10.96,5):
I thought it right to acquit those who denied being Christians or hav-
ing ever been Christians, and while I dictated the words for them,
they called upon the gods and sacrificed incense and wine to your
image, which I had ordered to be brought for this very purpose, while
also cursing Christ – it is said that true Christians cannot be forced
to do any of this.13
Throughout the letter it is apparent that Pliny wanted to distinguish between
stubborn Christians who should be punished and sober-minded former
Christians who could be granted forgiveness.
Trajan approved Pliny‘s basic approach, writing:
you have acted as you should in regard to the prosecution of the cases
against those, who were brought to you accused of being Christians.
It is not possible to establish a common rule, which has a firm form.
They should not be sought out, but if they are led forward and ac-
cused, they must be punished. But only so that one, who denies being
a Christian and makes this manifest through action, that is by wor-
shipping our gods, should be forgiven by his repentance even if he is
suspicious in regard to his past.
However, Trajan makes it clear to Pliny that people should not be sought
out, and that charges brought anonymously should have no place in the
prosecutions (10.97).
Church historian, Robert Wilken, has interpreted this reprimand as moti-
vated by Trajan‘s concern for the Christians.14 This is a misunderstanding. Tra-
jan explains the restrictions by saying that anonymous accusations is setting
a bad example and “does not correspond with our time.”15 There is nothing in
Pliny‘s letter or Trajan‘s rescript to indicate that either of them was concerned
about stubborn Christians. Trajan is very clear and laconic on this point: “if
they are led forward and accused, they must be punished” – but why?16
13 Such a test of disposition had precedence from the occasional persecution of Jews by Greek
magistrates – cf. W.H.C. Frend, The Persecutions. some Links between Judaism and the Early
Church, in: JEH 9/2 (1958), 141‒158 (146) and Schoedel, 1973, 309‒319 (310). For an example
where Roman soldiers observe, see Jos., Bell. 7.3,3.
14 See Wilken, 1984, 28.
15 10.97. Trajan is aligning himself here with the contemporary topos of “the good emperor”.
Nerva and Trajan needed to legitimise their new imperial dynasty. This was partly done by
distancing themselves from the last emperor of the previous Flavian dynasty, Domitian.
16 Cf. O.F. Robinson, Repressionen gegen Christen in der Zeit vor Decius. Noch immer ein Rechts-
problem, in: ZSRG.R (1995), 352‒369 (355).
206 Jakob Engberg
Pliny‘s test and Trajan‘s approval show that they both saw the Christian‘s
stubborn refusal to worship the gods and their fanatical allegiance to Christ
as central characteristics of Christianity.
The second-century apologists often defend themselves against the
charge that Christians are ungodly.17 From Pliny‘s test it is clear that both
Pliny and Trajan viewed the Christians as impious. But was the ungodliness
of the Christians what motivated Pliny and Trajan to punish them? Or was
the test of disposition simply a practical way to prove that the sober-minded
had had a change of heart, with the stubborn Christians being punished for
other reasons?18 The conclusion of Pliny‘s letter shows that he viewed the un-
godliness of the Christians as a threat to worship of the gods in the province,
and was motivated in his persecution of Christians by the fact that this perse-
cution promoted cultic worship.19 After complaining about how widespread
Christianity was in the province, he writes:
but it seems possible to contain and heal it. It is certain that temples,
which were almost abandoned, are once again being visited and sac-
rificial acts, which have long been forsaken, are once again being tak-
en up, and the flesh of sacrifices, which it was rare to find a buyer for
until now, is once again being sold. From this it is easy to see, what
great numbers of people it is possible to improve if there is room for
repentance.20
By including this justification for action against the Christians in his letter to
Trajan, Pliny shows that he expected Trajan to share his view. Pliny‘s other
correspondence with Trajan also suggests that both were interested in the
favour of the gods, and Pliny in Trajan‘s (10.100‒103).
So far in this article, all the attention surrounding Pliny‘s test has been
on the requirement to make a sacrifice. This reflects the attention the test has
received from scholars.21 But this represents only a half reading of Pliny‘s test,
because it also included the requirement that those who claimed that they
were not Christians should prove so by cursing Christ. Regarding those who
confessed to a Christian past but pleaded that they were no longer Christians,
Pliny writes (10.96,6‒7):
All these too venerated your image and those of the Gods, and they
cursed Christ. They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error
had been to meet before dawn on a certain day and to sing a hymn to
Christ as to a god.
17 See, for example, Justin, 1 apol. 6 and Tert., Apol. 10‒17 and 24‒35.
18 Cf. Sherwin-White, 1966, 700f.
19 See Ste Croix, 1963, 19.
20 10.96,9‒10. Cf. Ste Croix, 1963, 19; Wilken, 1984, 48‒67 and A.S. Christensen, Kristenforfølgel-
serne i Rom indtil år 250, Copenhagen 1977, 55.
21 See Schoedel, 1973, 310.
It was no coincidence that the test included a requirement to curse Christ.22 In

Pliny’s summary of what the interrogation of the former Christians revealed
Pliny designates their former allegiance to Christ, their worship of him quasi
deo as (if he was) a god, as their culpae, guilt/offence, and erroris, error. Despite
their official character, the language in Pliny‘s letters to Trajan, including the
letter we are examining (10.96), is more literary than legal according to the
leading expert on Pliny‘s letters – Sherwin-White.23 Pliny‘s comment here on
the sum and substance (summam) of the guilt (culpae) of the accused is an
exception. Sherwin-White calls this: “Lawyer’s language”.24 This means that
Pliny sees this as the core of the matter: the offence of the Christians was
their fanatical allegiance to Christ. This had been explained to Pliny at the
beginning of the matter, and his interrogation of the penitent had confirmed
it (10.96,5). It was also abundantly confirmed when Pliny interrogated two
Christian slave women. Pliny writes:
Therefore, I found it even more necessary to interrogate two female
slaves, who were called servants, under torture to find out what was
true. I found an evil and boundless superstition and nothing else.25
Today, superstition is often viewed with tolerance as a phenomenon which, at
the very worst, is harmful to the superstitious person.26 However, the charges
Pliny raises against Christians are far more serious. To a Roman, superstitio
was anything but harmless – it was the direct opposite and enemy of religio, it
was a danger to peace with the gods.27 When superstition is also called “pra-
vam et immodicam” it is evil/depraved and boundless. Pliny was in doubt about
many things in relation to the Christians and to apostates which is presum-
22 Referring to 1 Cor 12:3, S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the early Christians, Bloomington 1984, 10
has argued that this part of Pliny‘s test had been used by the Roman authorities in Paul‘s
time. The passage does not decisively support this contention, and given that Pliny com-
plains of unfamiliarity with earlier proceedings against Christians, it is most likely that
he “invented” this part of the test himself. Pliny’s motives for doing so are a question of
central interest.
23 See Sherwin-White, 1966.
24 See Sherwin-White, 1966, 702, Sherwin-White provides several examples from Roman
legal sources.
25 10.96,8. Cf. R.L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them, in:
E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Vol. 1, Philadelphia 1980, 100‒125 (105).
26 For a similar misunderstanding of what Pliny means by superstitio see J. Molthagen, Der
römische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert, Göttingen, 1970, 18f. and
31f.; and Guyot / Klein, 1993, 323.
27 See M. Beard / J. North / S.R.F. Price, Religions of Rome, Vol. 1. A History, Cambridge, 1998,
92‒96 and 213‒227; J. Scheid, Religion et superstition à l’époque de Tacite. Quelques reflexions,
Cádiz 1985, 24f.; J.B. Kätzler, Religio. Versuch einer Worterklärung, in: 20. Jahresbericht des
Bischöflichen Gymnasiums Paulinum in Schwaz (1952/3), 1‒18 (7‒11); D. Grodzynski, Su-
perstitio, in: REA 76 (1974), 36‒60 (36‒40. 53); A.K. Michels, The versatility of Religio, in: The
Mediterranean World. Papers Presented in Honour of Gilbert Bagani, Peterborough 1976, 36‒77
(66‒72); M. Sachot, Religio/superstitio. Historique d’une subversion et d’un retournement, in:
RHR 208/4 (1991), 355‒394 (364‒367). Cf. Tac., Hist. 4.54,4; Ann. 12.59; 14.30, Cic., Flac. 28.67,
208 Jakob Engberg
ably why he wrote to Trajan (10.96,1). But Pliny was in no doubt that Chris-
tianity was harmful and superstitious, that persevering Christians ought to
be punished and that given the seriousness of the crime, the large number of
Christians, and the many cases before him the matter was serious enough to
bring before the Emperor. Pliny writes (10.96,9):
The case seemed to me to be worth a consultation, especially because
of the number of people implicated; many people of every age and
every class, even of both genders are accused, and will be accused.
For this contagious superstition has not only spread in the cities but
also in the villages and in rural areas.
Thus this superstition was contagious and spreading, and should (and could)
be controlled and stopped. Pliny believed he had worked out how: Deterrence
(whoever acknowledges Christ must be executed) and lenience (forgiveness
for those who renounce their allegiance).28
However, it is apparent from Pliny‘s enquiry that there were several com-
plaints against Christians in that period. Pliny asked “whether the name it-
self, if it is free from foul deeds, should be punished, or whether the crimes
connected to the name should be punished (10.96,2)?” Later in his letter Pliny
writes that he had learned from the repentant that it was their practice at their
meetings to (10.96,7):
to swear an oath, not to commit a crime, but to abstain from stealing,
robbery, adultery, not to break a given word, not to refuse giving back
goods, which one has been entrusted. Afterwards, it had been cus-
tom to separate and meet again later in order to eat a meal, though a
normal and innocent one, but even this they had given up according
to my edict, whereby I, following your order, had forbidden the exist-
ence of associations.
Pliny was able to subsequently confirm all this by torturing two Christian
slave women.
The unusual negation, “non in scelus”, by which Pliny emphasised that
the Christians did not make an oath to commit crimes shows that Pliny seems
to have expected the Christians to be associated with criminal deeds.29 The
fact that Pliny reports this to Trajan shows that he assumed Trajan would
also have expected the interrogation to have brought such matters to light.
Pliny‘s emphasis on the fact that the food the Christians consumed was or-
dinary (promiscuum) and innocent (innoxium) is also striking. Pliny‘s assurance
N.D. 2.28 and 2.71. Cf. Sordi, 1988, 60; L.F. Janssen, Superstitio and the Persecution of the Chris-
tians, in: VigChr 33 (1979), 131‒159 (133f.) and D. Lührmann, Superstitio – die Beurteilung des
frühen Christentums durch die Römer, in: ThZ 42 (1986), 193‒213.
28 See Lührmann, 1986, 201.
29 Regarding this and the following, cf. Wilken, 1984, 17 and H. Chadwick, Justin’s defence of
Christianity, in: Studies in Early Christianity 8 (1993), 23‒45 (27).
would be unnecessary if he (and Trajan) had not nurtured the suspicion prior
to the hearings that the Christians‘ gatherings focused around unusual and
harmful meals. This is a clear indication that comments by pagan authors
on Christians are best understood when read in the context provided by
Christian apologetic works. The apologists often defend Christians against
the accusation of being cannibals.30 The fact that Pliny emphasises that the
Christian meals were harmless suggests he had heard rumours of Christian
cannibalism – rumours which he assumed Trajan was also aware of.31
Pliny‘s investigation had convinced him that the Christians were not
guilty of ritual cannibalism. In a hypothetical clause in his introduction Pliny
even hints that he might believe some of the accused bore the name Christian
without being guilty of the normally associated disgraces.32 Yet this same in-
troduction also shows that even after his investigation, Pliny still assumed
that disgraces were linked to the name Christian.33 Pliny describes Chris-
tians, Christianity and his own measures to counter them using pathologi-
cal and medical phrases and metaphors.34 It is therefore apparent that Pliny‘s
investigations have not led him to view Christians as persecuted innocents.
Pliny‘s opposition towards Christians and his willingness to punish those
accused of being Christian were due to the fact that he viewed Christianity
as a particularly pernicious and contagious superstition. People who became
Christians ceased to honour and obey those to whom they owed honour and
obedience – firstly the gods, but also Pliny himself, to his further annoyance.
They instead honoured Christ without limit – even though he was not a god.35
2.2. Hadrian‘s rescript
Emperor Hadrian‘s rescript to Minucius Fundanus was written in response
to an enquiry from his predecessor as proconsul in Asia, Q. Licinius Silvanus
Granianus, 123/124 AD. 36
The transmission of Hadrian‘s rescript is complicated. Eusebius repro-
duces the rescript in Greek in his Ecclesiastical History, and notes that he has
translated it into Greek based on the original Latin text which Justin Martyr
reportedly reproduced in his apology.37 Unfortunately, in the surviving man-
uscripts of Justin Martyr‘s First Apology the rescript is reproduced in Greek,
directly transcribed from Eusebius. Rufinus translated Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
30 For example, see Arist., apol. 17; Just., 1 apol. 5‒6; 26; 2 apol. 12 and dial. 10; Athanag.,
leg. 31‒36; Thphl. Ant. 1.9‒11 and 3.4; Tat., orat. 25.3‒28,1 and 33.1‒2 and Tert., Apol. 4 and 7‒9.
31 Cf. Sherwin-White, 1966, 707; Guyot / Klein, 1993, 322 and Benko, 1980, 1089.
32 nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat. Plin., Ep. 10.96,2.
33 an flagitia cohaerentia nomini See Plin., Ep. 10.96,2.
34 See Plin., Ep. 10.96,2‒3 and 10.96,8‒10. Cf. Lührmann, 1986, 200f.
35 See Plin., Ep. 10.96,7. Cf. G.E.M. de Ste Croix, Why were the early Christians persecuted? A Re-
joinder, in: PaP 27 (1964), 28‒33 (29); Wilken, 1984, 60; Wilken, 1980, 106 and Sherwin-White,
1966, 785 note 2.
36 See Eus., h.e. 4.9,1.
37 Regarding this and what follows, see Eus., h.e. 4.8,7 and Just., 1 apol. 68.
210 Jakob Engberg
History to Latin in the late fourth century. Hadrian‘s rescript is (naturally) also
reproduced in Latin. Some scholars argue that this text has not been re-trans-
lated from Eusebius, but that Rufinus had access by other means (possibly
from a version of Justin Martyr‘s work which corresponded to the one Eusebi-
us used) to the original Latin text.38 Others argue that Rufinus’ reproduction
of the rescript is simply a loose re-translation of Eusebius‘ Greek translation,
and therefore has no value as an independent source.39 The latter case is well
argued so the Greek text of Eusebius is preferred here and in the subsequent
article with the translation, but because the matter is unresolved, I will con-
sider in the argumentation both Eusebius‘ Greek text and Rufin‘s Latin text.
It is apparent from Hadrian’s rescript that the initiative to prosecute Chris-
tians in Asia was taken by local informants and accusers who approached
the Governor, and he in turn asked the Emperor for advice. However, only
the Emperor’s response has been preserved, and the rescript is therefore best
suited to giving insight into the Emperor’s response and motives.
Hadrian’s rescript has been interpreted in two ways.40 One school claims
that Hadrian affirmed Trajan’s guidelines. Christians could be judged and
executed for being Christian, as long as this was done according to proper
procedure.41 The only provision which improved the position of Christians
was that Hadrian stressed that a person who accused innocent people should
be punished.42 The other school claims, conversely, that Hadrian changed the
legal status of Christians such that they could no longer be prosecuted for
being Christian, but only for normal criminal actions.43 The latter interpreta-
tion of the rescript has led some scholars to contest its authenticity, given that
the Christian accounts of martyrdom and apologies contain no hint of such
a change in the legal position of Christians during and after Hadrian’s reign.
The key passage from Hadrian’s rescript in relation to this debate (based
on a translation of Eusebius’ Greek text) is as follows:
If someone brings a charge to bear and shows that they are acting
against the law, you should judge according to the law.44
38 Cf. Thyssen, 1996, 138f. note 252 and W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and political oppression, in:
P.F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian World, London 2000, 815‒839 (822 and 836 note 17).
39 Cf. Guyot / Klein, 1993, 325; Nesselhauf, 1976, 348; P. Keresztes, Imperial Rome and the Chris-
tians, Vol. 1, Lanham 1989, 121 note 3 and Barnes, Legislation, 1968, 37 note 55.
40 Cf. Keresztes, 1989, 121.
41 Cf. J. Moreau, Die Christenverfolgung in Römischen Reich, Berlin 1971, 46f.; Barnes, Legislation,
1968, 37 and note 59 on the same page; H. Chadwick, The Early Church, London 31993 (1967),
28 and Molthagen, 1970, 34f. and notes 104f. on the same pages.
42 See Eus., h.e. 4.9,3.
43 Cf. T. Mommsen, Der Religionsfrevel nach römischem Recht, in: HZ 64 (1890), 414f., K. Bang,
Eusebs Kirkehistorie, oversat, Copenhagen 1945, 174f. note 4; J. Speigl, Der römische Staat und
die Christen. Staat und Kirche von Domitian bis Commodus, Amsterdam 1970, 105; P. Keresztes,
The Emperor Hadrian’s Rescript to Minucius Fundanus, in: Phoe. 21 (1967), 120‒129; Keresztes,
1989, 125‒130, Nesselhauf, 1976, 352‒354 and Guyot / Klein, 1993, 326 note 34.
44 See Eus., h.e. 4.9,3.
Rufin’s Latin text does not deviate materially from this.45 The German schol-
ar, Nesselhauf, argues from this that it could not have been punishable for
the accused to simply be a Christian, as it would make no sense to differ-
entiate the penalty in this case.46 This argument is based on the possible
theological truth but in this case doubtful premise that it is not possible to
differentiate the degree of a person’s Christianity or “Christianness”. Thus
Nesselhauf assumes that an accused cannot have been more or less of a
Christian in the eyes of Hadrian or the judge – in contrast to other types of
criminality, where a thief can naturally be guilty of a varying number of
offences of varying severity.
The scholars who interpret the passage such that Hadrian changed the le-
gal position of Christians so that they could no longer be accused of the name
Christian alone, also argue based on Justin Martyr. Justin writes to Emperor
Antoninus Pius in chapter 68 of his First Apology that based on Hadrian’s re-
script, Christians could demand that legal hearings proceed in the manner
that “we” have seen as appropriate to demand. According to the scholars of
this school, this formulation shows that Justin Martyr wanted Christians to
be charged for normal criminal actions, rather than bearing the name Chris-
tian. Justin expresses this wish in chapter 4 of the work, based on the assump-
tion that Christians would be acquitted if they were charged for being normal
criminals. But he does not return to this issue in all the intervening chapters.
If he is making a reference to this passage in chapter 68 it would require
(which no scholars explicitly admit) that Justin is placing great demands on
Emperor Antoninus’ memory. This seems unlikely, and Justin’s criticism of
the Roman authorities’ procedure for prosecuting Christians in chapter 4 of
the work clearly shows that Christians in Justin’s time were accused and pun-
ished for bearing the name Christian.
In order to clarify what Hadrian meant, the context of the quoted pas-
sage must be analysed. Hadrian explains here why he wrote to Minucius
Fundanus regarding matters his predecessor had enquired about. According
to Rufin’s Latin text, Hadrian is explicit that it is his motive that “the innocent
should not be harassed” and that “informers” should be deprived of an op-
portunity for conducting villainy. The Greek text is less explicit concerning
the care for the innocent but equally concerned with the misdeeds of inform-
ers. According to Eusebius’ text, Hadrian wrote: “in order that people should
not be confused and the informers should not be encouraged to misdeeds.”
Even from this formulation it is implicitly clear that Hadrian’s response
is not motivated by any concern for those of the accused who genuinely
were Christian. From the rest of the rescript it is apparent that the charg-
es had been presented inappropriately through outcry, and that Hadrian
prohibited this and, like Trajan, referred the informers to proper legal pro-
45 Cf. J.C.T. Otto (ed.), Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, Vol. 1, Dufft 1876, 192.
46 See Nesselhauf, 1976, 352.
212 Jakob Engberg
ceedings. Using these formulations, Hadrian presents himself as a good,

non-despotic Emperor in accordance with the ideals of the time. It is also
apparent from what has been quoted above and the conclusion of the re-
script that Hadrian suspected some accusers of having impure motives and
being professional informants, who presented accusations with the aim of
profiting from them. Hadrian was therefore concerned about the innocent
(non-Christian) residents and peace and order in the province, and his own
reputation, but not about the Christians who were accused and punished
for being Christian.47 In Roman legal cases it was normal for the accuser to
be assigned part of the accused’s estate if they were condemned. Greedy
informants accused a large number of Senators in Rome under Tiberius
(and Sejanus) of laesae maiestatis. Perhaps Hadrian’s rescript was intended
to bring an end to similar abuses. Not out of concern for Christians, who
could still be condemned for being Christian, but rather for his own reputa-
tion and the many provincials, both innocent and criminal, plagued by the
charge (primary or secondary) of being Christian.
There is thus no reason to doubt the authenticity of the rescript simply
because a review of later source material shows that Christians were not
treated in accordance with a particular, controversial interpretation of it.48
Especially given that the above analysis has shown that the alternative in-
terpretation of the rescript as confirming the approach prescribed by Trajan
seems more probable.
2.3. Motives for persecuting Christians according
to the correspondence of Roman officials
The two surviving examples of official correspondence regarding Christians
show that their legal prosecution by the authorities was motivated by an ac-
curate awareness of the key aspects of Christianity: the Christians’ fanatical
worship of Christ and their resulting abstinence from worshipping the gods.
The legal prosecution was not the result of a tragic misunderstanding, which
the apologists could hope to correct. The only way they could bring an end
to the persecution was if they could convince the authorities that their wor-
ship of Christ was not superstitious, because he was the son of the only God,
and that their failure to worship the gods was not ungodliness, because these
gods were not real gods. Against this background, it is not surprising that key
passages in the apologetic works are often offensively evangelistic. Following
Paul’s example, many apologists no doubt (accurately) believed that the perse-
cutions could only be stopped if the persecutors were converted.49
47 See Barnes, Legislation, 1968, 37 and note 58 and 59.

48 Cf. W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. From the Maccabees to Dona-
tus, Cambridge 1965, 224f. and Frend, 2000, 822f.
49 Regarding the apologists‘ attempts to lead opponents to conversion, see the contributions
in this book by Nils Arne Pedersen, Niels Willert, Jörg Ulrich, Svend Erik Mathiassen and
myself.
3. References to Christians in historical and biographical works

In the surviving parts of the historical, biographical and satirical second-cen-
tury pagan literature, Christians are mentioned as minor characters in the
narratives of others. Tacitus and Phlegon authored historical annals. Only
fragments of both works survive, but in the parts of the works we have access
to, Christians are mentioned once by each author.
Suetonius’ biographies of emperors are well preserved. Suetonius men-
tions Christians in his biography of Emperor Nero. There is debate as to
whether a passage in the biography of Emperor Claudius, where Claudius
banishes the Jews from Rome because they are (constantly) agitated over
Chresto, refers to disquiet among Jews in Rome due to the preaching of (Jew-
ish) Christians. I have elsewhere argued that this was the case.50 Even so, this
passage is outside the scope of this article; because even if the passage does
refer to Christians, Suetonius’ formulation shows that he is not aware of this
fact. Nor does Suetonius make any connection between these disturbances
and the group he calls Christians in his Nero biography. Thus the passage in
his Claudius biography does not give any insight into Suetonius’ appraisal of
Christians and Christianity. It cannot even be said to refer to events which
provided a foundation for Suetonius’ appraisal.
3.1. Tacitus and Suetonius51
Tacitus and Suetonius were acquaintances of Pliny and held official Roman
positions of responsibility for much of their lives – Tacitus at the highest level
of the state, Suetonius at a somewhat lower level, although he was responsible
for the Imperial office for correspondence for a period of time, during which
he had access to excellent source material.52
Both Tacitus and Suetonius discuss Christians in relation to Nero. In a
summary of various undertakings from Nero’s reign, Suetonius writes lacon-
ically: “The Christians, a kind of people infected with a new and mischievous
superstition, were severely punished” (Nero 16.2).
Tacitus also described Christianity as a superstition, but his account is
significantly longer, and he links Nero’s persecution of Christians to the fire
in Rome in July 64 (15.44,2‒5).
50 Engberg, 2007, 81‒106.

51 See Tac., Ann. 15.44 and Suet., Nero 16.2. It has occasionally been claimed that Tacitus
discusses an otherwise unknown anti-Roman sect of Chrestiani, which was supposed-
ly not Christian, e.g. see E. Laupot, Tacitus’ Fragment 2. The Anti-Roman movement of the
Christiani and the Nazoreans, in: VigChr 54 (2000), 233‒247 and E. Koestermannn, Ein fol-
genschwerer Irrtum des Tacitus (Ann. 15,44,2ff), in: Hist. 16 (1967), 456‒469. This article
assumes, in line with the majority of scholars, that Tacitus is referring to Christians.
The “erroneous” spelling, Chrestiani, was familiar to contemporary Christians, cf. Just.,
1 apol. 4.1‒5 and Tert., Apol. 3.5. Cf. Thyssen, 1996, 122 note 11; Benko, 1980, 1057 and
Lührmann, 1986, 202.
52 See A. Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius the scholar and his Caesars, London 21995, 1‒98.
214 Jakob Engberg
These statements offer us two possibilities. We can either use them as a sour-
ce for the events under Nero (as an account), or we can use them as a source
for the author’s own time (as a relic). While there are no problems in using
Suetonius and Tacitus as sources for the actual event that Christians were
persecuted by Nero, it is problematic to indiscriminately assume that the
two authors’ assessments of Christians reflect how Christians were seen in
Nero’s time by Nero and others.53 An examination of the statements by the
two authors on Christians also suggests that this appraisal of Christianity
is their own. In both Tacitus and Suetonius, their appraisal is presented as a
parenthetical interjection,54 whereby the two authors explain to the readers
who Christians are and how they should be perceived. Taken strictly, these
interjections are superfluous to Tacitus account and Suetonius’ summary of
imperial initiatives. The fact that both Tacitus and Suetonius felt it was neces-
sary, in around 120 AD, to explain about Christians to the reader in such
interjections shows that some of their audience were still relatively ignorant
of Christians and Christianity.
Both Suetonius and Tacitus attempt to do something about this igno-
rance. Tacitus does so in particular by providing a brief historical review of
Christianity’s confrontation with the Roman authorities (15.44,3). According
to Tacitus, Christ was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, there-
by suppressing a pernicious superstition for a time. Tacitus thereby informs
the reader that Christians were followers of a criminal who – in the not too
distant past, for good reason and to good effect – was executed by the Roman
authorities.55 In contrast to too much modern research which has simply ac-
cepted Tertullian’s apologetically motivated claim that Nero was the first per-
secutor of Christians,56 Tacitus dates persecution of Christians by the Roman
authorities to earlier times. This puts Tacitus in agreement with Paul, who
saw persecution of Christians by the authorities as a natural continuation of
their execution of Christ.57 While the latter was intended to comfort contem-
porary Christian readers, it is clear that Pilate’s execution of Christ makes his
followers suspicious in the eyes of Tacitus, and he wishes to communicate
this picture to his readers.58
Tacitus’ and Suetonius’ assessment of Christianity as a harmful and per-
nicious superstition corresponds to Pliny’s appraisal. Pliny was concerned
about the spread of Christianity in his province, while Tacitus complained
53 For an identification of the methodological problems entailed with respect to Tacitus, see
F.W. Clayton, Tacitus and Nero’s persecutions of the Christians, in: CQ 41 (1947), 81‒85; Benko,
1980, 1063 and Wilken, 1984, 49.
54 In Tac., all of 15.44,3. Cf. Molthagen, 1970, 32.
55 It is a mystery why these statements are rarely used in the countless books about the histo-
rical Jesus.
56 For an analysis of how Tertullian uses this claim apologetically, see Niles Willert‘s contri-
bution to this anthology.
57 See 1 Thess 2:14‒16.
58 Cf. Lührmann, 1986, 203.
that it was not only widespread in Judea, but like everything else abominable
and shameful, had found adherents in Rome.
In order to understand what Tacitus and Suetonius mean when they de-
scribe Christianity as a superstition, we can note how they otherwise use the
term superstitio (and derived terms). Firstly it is striking that the Jews, from
whom Tacitus at least was well aware Christians derived, were also viewed
as superstitious.59 According to both Tacitus and Suetonius, the superstition
of the Jews and of several of their own countrymen (such as emperors Nero
and Domitian) went hand-in-hand with godlessness and immorality. For
both Tacitus and Suetonius, superstition and ungodliness also often lead to
the negative consequence of the gods becoming angry and punishing society,
while superstition and immorality also disturb the social order. Superstition
was antisocial and egoistic in relation to both the gods and people.60 Against
this background it is understandable that Tacitus, even though he did not
believe the Christians were guilty of firing the city in 64 AD, and claims that
Nero executed them because of his own cruelty and to save his own skin,
hints that the Christians were “guilty and deserving the harshest punish-
ments” and that it might hypothetically have been possible to have executed
them “for the public good.”
This brings us closer to understanding – if not the events of 64 AD – then
Tacitus’ perception of these. Rome was burnt out, the gods were angry, and
nothing seemed to be able to appease them (15.44,1). In this situation it was
rumoured that the fire had been started at Nero’s command. Tacitus goes on
to describe the cruel stunts by which Nero shamefully punished the Chris-
tians in order to divert attention from himself. Tacitus then writes about the
Christians:
For that reason pity arose with these people, who were guilty and
deserving the harshest punishments since it was thought that they
did not die for the public good but on account of the cruelty of a
single person.
Tacitus’ conclusion, where he makes it clear that the Christians deserved to
die, if only it had happened “for the public good”, can be understood as fol-
lows: The Christians were not guilty of arson, but may well have been to
blame for the wrath of the gods. According to Tacitus, there would therefore
have been good reason to punish the Christians to propitiate the gods and
benefit everyone. Tacitus depicts Nero as a superstitious person and an ene-
my of true religion.61 If Tacitus had portrayed Nero as executing Christians
in an orderly manner driven by pious motives, in order to appease the gods,
for the public good, this would have been to allow Nero to act out of charac-
59 See Tac., Hist. 5.8 and Ann. 2.85. For Tacitus‘ awareness of the relationship between Chris-
tians and Jews, see Tac. 15.44,3.
60 See Beard / North / Price, 1998, 215‒219 and 242; Janssen, 1979, 134‒150.
61 See Benko, 1980, 1065.
216 Jakob Engberg
ter. He therefore supplements this motive with the suspect motive that Nero
wanted to divert suspicion from himself. He also depicts Nero in the role
of despotic Emperor, who allows accusations to strike indiscriminately and
punishes in order to satisfy his own cruel nature.
Suetonius arranged the material in his imperial biographies thematically.
An emperor’s good actions and characteristics are described in one section,
the bad in another. Nero’s attack on Christians is mentioned among Nero’s
good sovereign actions. Thus both Tacitus and Suetonius believed that Nero
could have had good reason for punishing Christians. In Tacitus’ account,
this good reason is the wrath of the gods and concern for the public good.
This interpretation may explain why, according to Tacitus, Christians
were executed for “hatred for the human race”, and because they “confessed”,
but not for arson. It seems likely that Tacitus meant that the Christians con-
fessed to being Christian,62 given that they did not confess to arson. This in-
terpretation is supported by the fact that it was those who were called Chris-
tians who were affected, and it was precisely for being Christian that the
Christians in Tacitus’ time were accused and prosecuted. Tacitus is again a
better source for his own time than the time of Nero.63 In other words, this
interpretation of Tacitus does not necessarily mean that Christians were pun-
ished in 64 AD on the charge of bearing the name Christian and motivated
by the fact that they were viewed as superstitious and blamed for the wrath
of the gods, but rather that such a charge and motive seemed plausible and
good to Tacitus (and his readers) almost 60 years later.64
3.2. Phlegon
In Suda, the most comprehensive surviving Byzantine encyclopaedia (from
the 10th century), we read of Phlegon that he came from the city of Tralles,
was Emperor Hadrian’s freedman, and authored the following works:65 An
annalistic work, Olympiads, covering the period from the first to the 229th
Olympiad (776 BC to 137‒140 AD) in 16 books, a summary of this in eight
books, a description of Sicily, a work on long-lived people, a work on marvels,
three books on Roman festivals, a work on Rome’s topography, and finally a
selection from the Olympic victor lists.
One of the most important surviving sources for the life and reign of
Emperor Hadrian is, Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ, Vita Hadriani. The author of
this fourth-century imperial biography reports that Hadrian allowed works
he had written himself to be published in the names of his freedmen, adding
62 Cf. Benko, 1980, 1065.

63 In contrast to Frend, 2000, 820f., who uses Tacitus to argue for similar pious motives for the
punishment of Christians in 64 AD.
64 Cf. Tac., Ann. 11.15: externae supersttiones valescant.
65 Suda see A. Adler (ed.), Suidae Lexicon 1‒5, Vol. 1, pars. 4, Lipsiae 1928‒1938, 744f. Cf.
K. Brodersen, Phlegon von Tralleis. Das Buch der Wunder. Eingeleitet, herausgegeben und über-
setzt, Darmstadt 2002, 10f.
specifically that works bearing Phlegon’s name were written by Hadian (16,1).
However, there are not many scholars (if any) who give any credence to this
“information” today. Of Phlegon’s works, relatively complete manuscripts
have survived of the work On marvels and the work On long-lived persons. The
contents of the other works have only survived fragmentarily, in quotations
and paraphrases among authors such as Origen, Eusebius, Photius (the patri-
arch), Stephanus Byzantinus and Syncellus.
Origen refers three times to Phlegon’s long annalistic work in Contra Cel-
sum (2.14; 2.33 and 2.59). Origen refers in the three passages to “the 13th or
14th book”, which indicates that he was not sitting with Phlegon’s work rolled
out in front of him, but that he (as was far more common) recited freely from
memory. The last two of these references relate to a solar eclipse during the
time of Tiberius, which Origen here and elsewhere identifies with the solar
eclipse at the time of Jesus’ death.66 However, it is important to note that it
is Origen and not Phlegon making this identification. Thus we do not know
whether Phlegon mentioned Jesus’ death. Thanks to Origen’s first reference
to Phlegon’s annalistic work, we do however know that Phlegon mentioned
both Jesus and Peter in relation to a number of prophecies which Phlegon
believed had been subsequently fulfilled.
Origen is critical of Phlegon, claiming that he has mixed things up, cit-
ing Peter as the source of some prophecies which Origen believes should be
attributed to Jesus. Any attempt to reconstruct which prophecies Phlegon
mentioned (prophecies Origen was also aware of) would necessarily be pure
guesswork. However, it seems probable that Phlegon’s discussion of Jesus
and Peter was not based on an interest in Christians and Christianity, but
rather the fact that the prophecies were in some way relevant to Roman histo-
ry in general, or possibly even to Phlegon’s master, Hadrian. One such guess
might be the early Christian tradition that Jesus predicted the destruction of
the temple (with no stone left standing on another). This prophecy might have
seemed relevant to Phlegon in connection with Hadrian’s re-establishment
of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina (and his construction work at and around the
temple site), and his suppression of the Jewish uprising in 132‒135 AD.67
66 See Or., Cels. 2.33; 2.59, comm. ser. in Mt. 40 and 134. We find a similar identification bet-
ween the solar eclipse mentioned in Philo and in the gospels in Eusebius and the third-cen-
tury Christian historian, Sextus Julius Africanus (Eusebius, Chronic. see R. Helm [ed.], 1956;
Africanus see F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923‒1994, 257 F16),
an identification supported by the fact that Phlegon apparently reported that the eclipse
took place at the sixth hour (this detail is only explicitly reported by Eusebius and Afri-
canus). According to Africanus, the pagan first-century historian, Thallos, also mentioned
this solar eclipse (Jacoby, 1923‒1994, 256 F1).
67 For Jesus‘ prophecy, see Matt 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6. For Hadrian‘s re-establishment
of Jerusalem, his temple construction at the temple site and the Jewish uprising, see SHA,
Hadr. 12‒14. The author of this imperial biography is also interested in noting that the Jew-
ish people were warned of this destruction in advance and we might speculate that Phle-
gon was here the source, since he was, at other places, used as a source in SHA, Hadrian.
218 Jakob Engberg
4. Christian immorality – Cornelius Fronto and Marcus Aurelius

As we have seen, Pliny’s investigation had satisfied him that the Christian
rituals did not involve cannibalism. Yet Christian apologists continued to
deny such rumours throughout the entire second century. Do these repeated
denials really mean – despite the results of Pliny’s investigations – that Chris-
tians continued to face such charges and accusations, or did the apologists
raise out-of-date accusations which were no longer credited in order to use
these (easily refuted) accusations as a launch pad for presenting the excellent
morality of the Christians? As has been shown in the other chapters of this
anthology, the apologists often “proved” the truth of Christianity by high-
lighting the Christians’ excellent morality.
In order to shed light on this question we can turn to two other prom-
inent Romans who wrote about Christians in the second century, Emperor
Marcus Aurelius, and his teacher, Cornelius Fronto.
4.1. Cornelius Fronto
Marcus Cornelius Fronto was born in Cirta in Numidia in the early second
century and died in 175 AD or shortly thereafter.68 He was educated by philos-
opher Athenodotos and rhetor Dionysius Tenuior. According to Roman histori-
an, Dio Cassius, Fronto was hailed as the leading lawyer in Rome from as early
as the 130s (69.18,3). He was also given responsibility for educating future em-
perors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, during this period.69 He must have
discharged this responsibility admirably, as he later taught Marcus Aurelius’
son, the future Emperor Commodus. Fronto’s life in public office was also glori-
ous. He was Consul in 143 AD and later Governor of the province of Asia. Much
of Fronto’s correspondence was published and survives. It is apparent from this
that Fronto also authored and published many speeches.70 Only fragments of
these have survived as quotations in other literature. One such fragment has
been preserved in the Christian apologetic dialogue, Octavius (9). In this work,
the apologist Minucius Felix has one dialogue character – the pagan Caeci-
lus Natalis – quote (or refer to) Fronto’s Speech Against the Christians. The pas-
sage quoted is a graphic depiction of ritualised cannibalism and incest during
Christian gatherings. It is clear from this quotation that Pliny’s investigations
had not brought an end to such rumours, and that the apologists were therefore
fighting against current accusations. Rumours can rarely be decisively quelled.
Given that Fronto, who had been Marcus Aurelius’ teacher and also
taught his son Commodus, viewed and condemned Christians as a religious
association with barbaric and shameful rituals, it makes sense to investigate
whether this attitude influenced Marcus Aurelius’ perception of Christians
and his imperial policy towards them.
68 See SHA, Marc. 2.5.

69 Dio Cassius 71.35,1, Hier., vir.ill. 24 and SHA, Ver. 2.5.
70 SHA, Marc. 2.1,1 and SHA, Ver. 2.9,1.
4.2. Marcus Aurelius

Emperor Marcus Aurelius was one of the emperors who wrote (at least
one) rescript concerning Christians.71 The rescript has not been preserved,
but we know of its existence and can draw some conclusions about its
contents from an account of Christian persecution in Lyon in 177 AD (pre-
served in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History), which the Christian congrega-
tions in Gaul wrote and sent to their brethren in Asia Minor. In Lyon (as in
Pontos in 112 AD and Asia in 123/124 AD) the initiative for the persecution
of Christians was taken by (parts of) the local population. They involved
the local authorities, who in turn involved the Governor and the Roman
garrison in actively hunting down local Christians. According to the ac-
count, the Christians here were also charged and condemned for being
Christian, but the accusations that they practised incest and cannibalism
also played a major role. Possibly motivated by this, the Governor did not
acquit the repentant Christians, but executed them together with the reso-
lute. At some point during this persecution the Governor wrote to Marcus
Aurelius asking for advice.
We can conclude from the account that Marcus Aurelius confirmed that
Christians should be executed (tormented to death), but that he made it clear
that deniers should be released.72 Marcus Aurelius’ guidelines were subse-
quently followed.73
What were Marcus Aurelius’ motives for responding in this way and how
did he view Christianity? We can turn to Marcus Aurelius’ surviving work,
Meditations, for insight. In a context where Aurelius discusses the fact that
the soul must be prepared to be separated from the body, Aurelius criticises
Christians for the fact that their preparedness springs from “pure opposition
(ψιλὴν παράζιν),” and not, as it should, from reasoned and sober consider-
ation.74 Sherwin-White has used this passage to support his theory that the
authorities often punished Christians for being insubordinate.75 However,
the context is not one of explaining the motives behind the legal prosecution
of Christians, but a discussion of central Stoic positions. Taking this context
71 Another rescript to the province of Asia‘s Koinôn (commonwealth) is attributed to Marcus

Aurelius by Eusebius, but this must be a forgery given its content (e.g. Christ is called the
immortal).
72 See Eus., h.e. 5.1.44 and 47. Cf. Guyot / Klein, 1993, 348 note 173 and R.M. Grant, Five Apolo-
gists and Marcus Aurelius, in: Studies in Early Christianity 8 (1993), 47‒63 (56). Grant believes
that this release was only to apply to Roman citizens. He thereby assumes that all those in
prison mentioned in h.e. 5.1,44, like a certain Attalus, were Roman citizens. This is a pos-
sible interpretation of the given passage alone, but cannot be maintained when one reads
5.1,47, where the Governor distinguishes between citizens (who had their throats cut) and
non-citizens (who were thrown to the wild beasts) during sentencing.
73 See Eus., h.e. 5.1,48. With the modification that the Governor allowed the Roman citizens to
have their throats cut rather than be tormented to death.
74 See Marcus Aurelius, Ad se ipsum 11.3
75 See Sherwin-White, 1966, 784.
220 Jakob Engberg
into account, we must be content to conclude that the Christians’ courage

and defiance amazed and annoyed Marcus Aurelius, and motivated him to
denounce them philosophically in writing (in an aside). We will never know
how great a role this annoyance played in his willingness to sanction the local
persecution of the stubborn Christians in Lyon, which the regional Roman
authority participated in.
Another passage in Marcus Aurelius’ meditations is also sometimes seen
as a reference to Christians (3.16). In this passage, Marcus Aurelius notes that
thoughts can lead one astray to wickedness, and cites as an example that this
happens among the ungodly who forsake their fatherland and engage in all
kinds of shameful behaviour behind closed doors. As we have seen, these
accusations correspond closely to those faced by Christians, and which the
apologists defend themselves against. It is therefore plausible that Marcus
Aurelius has Christians in mind here.
This interpretation is supported by the fact that it would bring Marcus
Aurelius’ condemnation of Christians in line with the criticism by his teacher,
Fronto. However, it raises problems in relation to Marcus Aurelius’ reaction
to the enquiry about Christians by the Governor in Lyon. As we have seen,
Marcus Aurelius intervened here and prescribed that the penitent should be
released. This correction to the previous approach taken by the provincial
authority would be hard to reconcile if Marcus Aurelius believed that the
earlier misdeeds of the penitent included cannibalism – a cannibal would be
unlikely to be forgiven by the court after simply promising not to eat human
flesh in the future. Yet it is impossible to date books 3 to 12 of Marcus Aure-
lius’ Meditations more precisely than to the period between 172 and 180 AD.
We therefore cannot rule out the possibility that Marcus Aurelius wrote this
passage sometime other than 177 AD, and that he changed his opinion con-
cerning Christians on this point in the time between writing this passage
and his reaction to the enquiry from Lyon. Another possibility is that the
difference between his guidelines for the prosecution of Christians in Lyon
and his hostile denunciation of Christians in Meditations was simply due to
the fact that as Emperor he had other considerations concerning the objectiv-
ity of legal cases and peaceful conditions in the provinces, than when he was
contemplating philosophy.
In any case, it is interesting that Marcus Aurelius felt challenged to dis-
tance himself from and debate Christianity, not only as Emperor, but also as
a philosopher.
5. Christianity as a naive philosophy – Epictetus, Galen and Lucian

Marcus Aurelius was neither the first nor the last among pagan philosophers
to write about Christianity. At least four other second-century pagan phi-
losophers wrote about Christians. Most notably Celsus, who wrote an entire
philosophical work for the sole purpose of refuting Christianity, as well as
Epictetus, Galen and Lucian (although Lucian did not write on the issue in
any of his philosophical works). According to the apologists Justin Martyr
and Tatian, the (otherwise unknown) philosopher, Crescens of Rome, was
also an avid critic of the Christians.76 Justin Martyr reports that he accused
Christians in public speeches of ungodliness and godlessness, while Tatian
reports that he played a part in Justin’s martyrdom, serving as Justin’s prose-
cutor. Nothing from Crescens’ own hand has survived.
It is striking in itself that several philosophers of the time found it rel-
evant to discuss Christians and Christianity, but let us now turn to each of
them in turn to investigate their appraisal.
5.1. Epictetus (Arrian)
Epictetus was born in Hierapolis in Phrygia in around 55 AD and died
around 130 AD. He came to Rome as a slave of Emperor Nero’s freedman,
Epaphroditus. Epictetus received instruction from the famous Stoic philoso-
pher Musonius Rufus and was himself freed by Epaphroditus sometime in
the 80s. Following Musonius’ death in 81 AD, Epictetus succeeded him as the
leader of his philosophy school and was therefore banished from Rome in
89 AD when Domitian ejected all philosophers from the city. Epictetus then
took up residence in Nicopolis in Epirus, where he apparently taught stoicism
up until his death. There are no surviving works by Epictetus himself.
However, Epictetus had a student named Arrian around 110‒115 AD.77
Flavius Arrianus was born in Nicomedia in Bithynia in the late first centu-
ry and died around 175 AD. He had a significant political career, including
serving as Governor of Cappadocia between 131‒137 AD. However, he is best
known for his literary proliferance as a historian and philosopher, and it was
his declared aim to become a new Xenophon. His philosophical writings in-
clude two partially preserved works which supposedly communicate Epicte-
tus’ teachings and conversations, Diatribaí and Encheirídon (Handbook) just as
Xenophon (and Plato) communicated Socrates’ teachings.
Few would dare to automatically assume that the works of Xenophon
and Plato in which Socrates takes centre stage reproduce verbatim what
Socrates actually said. For this reason, there is fortunately no tradition of dis-
cussing and cataloguing these works by these two authors under Socrates’
name. It is therefore hard to understand why there has been a tradition
of cataloguing the two works by Arrian, Diatribaí and Encheirídon, under
Epictetus’ name rather than the author’s. When studying these works one
(therefore) frequently encounters the naive belief that the teaching in these
works can be directly attributed to Epictetus and not Arrian. This tendency
is evident, for example, in Stephen Benko’s analysis of Epictetus’ (Arrian’s)
76 Regarding this and the following, see Just., 2 apol. 3 and Tat., orat. 19.1. Cf. Benko, 1980,
1078.
77 Regarding this and the following, see A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Bern
2
1963, 903f.
222 Jakob Engberg
statements about Christians. Benko feels it is important to argue in detail

that Epictetus could have met Christians both in Rome and Nicopolis, but
apparently fails to consider where Arrian might have met them.78 In con-
trast, in the following section statements by “Epictetus” about Christians
will be treated more as belonging to Arrian, and just as much considera-
tion will be given to whether Arrian might have met Christians in Bithynia,
Nicopolis, Cappadocia and Rome.79
In Diatribaí there is an unmistakable reference to Christians in 4.7,80
where Arrian mentions that the “Galileans” have been freed from fear of
death and are unconcerned about daily necessities. Among the Galileans
it is “custom” which has led to this attitude. Arrian’s point is that it should
be much easier for a man to learn this through reason and example. Arrian
was thus aware of the courage of Christian martyrs and the fact that Chris-
tians had a unconcerned attitude towards material goods, and he assumed
that his readers would be able to recognize such factors as characteristic of
Christians. It is interesting that Epictetus assumes that the Christians ex-
hibit a courage and morality which puts decent people to shame and should
animate them to surpass Christians on this point, driven by reason. As has
been covered in the chapters in this anthology on the apologists, it was a
common apologetic argument that the moral lifestyle of even simple Chris-
tians was evidence of the truth of the Christian message.
5.2. Galen
Galen was born in Pergamon in 129 AD.81 He moved to Rome in 162 AD, where
he lived until his death in 199 AD, apart from one 3-year interlude. In his day,
Galen was renowned equally as a physician and a philosopher, whereas pos-
terity has placed greatest emphasis on his medical works. Galen’s surviving
works are very fragmentary, and much is only known in Arabic translation,
or through quotations in other Arabic literature.
Within this fragmentary and unwieldy corpus, R. Walzer has identified
four references to Christians and Christianity from three different works –
two philosophical and one medical.82 Christians are not the focus of any of
78 See Benko, 1980, 1077‒1078. With respect to Christians in Nicopolis, Benko refers, for ex-
ample, to Tit 3:12.
79 See Plin., Ep. 10.96‒97, Rom, 1. Pet 1:1; and Tit 3:12.
80 Scholars sometimes argue that 2.19‒22 (interesting because it discusses proselyte baptism
into Judaism) might contain a reference to Christians: Some who pretend to be Jews with-
out actually being so. The point in context is a warning against wavering between two
different philosophical schools. The person who pretends to be a Jew is compared to some-
one who has become a real Jew through baptism. Given this background it seems more
probable to assume that someone who “sympathises” with Judaism, someone “devout” is
being compared with a genuine proselyte.
81 Regarding this and what follows, see R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians, Oxford 1949,
6‒10 and 75.
82 Walzer, 1949. Walzer was associate professor in Hebrew and Arabic medieval philosophy
at Oxford University.
these three works. Galen only refers to them (and the Jews) to use their behav-
iour to illustrate points he wishes to emphasise.
Galen refers to Christians (and Jews) twice in the surviving Greek
medical work, On the pulse (De pulsuum), which can be dated to the pe-
riod 176‒192 AD.83 Galen’s purpose in both passages is to criticise a con-
temporary physician named Archigenes. In the first passage, Galen com-
plains that Archigenes offers no proof or satisfactory justification for his
tenets. He compares Archigenes with the “school (διατριβή)” of Christ
(and Moses), where Galen claims one (also) hears “unproven laws (νόμον
ἀναπόδεικτον)”. In the context of the second passage, Galen accuses Archi-
genes and like-minded physicians of holding so stubbornly to their own
school that it is impossible to teach them anything new. His point is that it
is easier to teach something new to the disciples of Christ (and Moses), than
it is to teach anything new to the physicians and philosophers who hold
stubbornly to their own school.
It is presumably an insult for Archigenes and other such physicians and
philosophers to be compared to Christians (and Jews) – their non-receptive-
ness to new arguments and (as Galen sees it) blind faith in their own laws is
assumed to be well-known. It is also noteworthy that Galen criticises Chris-
tianity and Judaism as philosophical schools, using philosophical argu-
ments. He thereby implicitly places Christianity in a philosophical context.84
In a third passage which survives only as a quotation in Arabic trans-
lation, we find a similar criticism of Christianity as an inadequate philos-
ophy without proper definitions, in which students are ordered to accept
everything in faith.85 Galen uses Christians and Jews as an example here to
distance himself from the poor manner in which others philosophise, and
Galen’s own well-founded method.
The longest of Galen’s references to Christians is found in an Arabic
translation of his summary of Plato’s Republic, a work which Galen wrote
in 180 AD.86 In this passage, Christians are again criticised for having a
faith which is not well founded. This time he takes exception to the fact
that it is based on parables and miracles. While it has been Galen’s aim to
criticise other philosophers by comparing them to Christians in the other
passages, his intention here is actually to present Christians as a positive
example. Despite the fact that the Christians’ faith is poorly founded, their
sexual morality, self-discipline, self-control and scorn of death is admirable,
according to Galen – and is even comparable to what can be attained by
devoting oneself to genuine philosophy. Galen even praises the morality of
83 See Galen, De Puls. 2.4 and 3.3 and Walzer, 1949, 13‒15.
84 Cf. Walzer, 1949, 43, who claims that Galen is the first person to do this. Given the uncer-
tainty surrounding the dating of Celsus‘ work against Christians, and the dating of Galen‘s
work, it is safest to say Galen was one of the first to do so.
85 See Walzer, 1949, 14f. and 87f.
86 See Walzer, 1949, 15f.
224 Jakob Engberg
Christian women. This praise of Christians is intended to encourage genu-

ine philosophers with a well-founded faith to live a moral life in self-control
and without fear.
5.3. Lucian
Lucian was born around 120 AD in Samosata. He had no career in the impe-
rial administration, and we therefore know him primarily from his literary
works, which were philosophical and satirical. He mentions Christians in
two of his satirical works, Perigrinos and Alexander, the latter being written
shortly after 180 AD (Periginos 11‒16 and Alexandros 25 and 38). In both works,
the Christians are mentioned in passing in connection with a satire about two
contemporary charlatans.
In the account of Perigrinos, Christians are the naive victims of Perigri-
nos’ deceit, while in the story of Alexander they are introduced by Alexander,
who publicly accused them to distract attention from the embarrassing fact
that he had been exposed himself as a religious charlatan.
According to Lucian, Perigrinos had achieved such high status among
the Christians through deception that they even honoured him as a god and
saw him as their master, lawgiver and protector. According to Lucian’s de-
scription, Perigrinos’ status among the Christians is only surpassed by their
veneration and worship of the crucified figure from Palestine (Jesus). Lucian
later explains that the Christians’ worship of this crucified person lead them
to renounce the Greek gods.
From Lucian’s depiction of Alexander’s exploits we also learn that Chris-
tian ungodliness was well known, and could incite crowds to stone Christians
and other godless people in order to ensure the favour of the gods. Accord-
ing to Lucian, when Alexander was about to be exposed, he proclaimed that
Pontus was full of ungodly people and Christians who had the presumption
to deride him. Alexander also ordered that the Christians and the ungodly
should be stoned, if the people wanted to attain divine blessing. Alexander
(like Nero in Tacitus’ account) must have assumed that many people in Pon-
tus were already (potentially) hostile towards Christians and other ungodly
people, as otherwise he could not have expected his proclamation to distract
attention from his own offence. According to Lucian, Alexander was not dis-
appointed in these expectations. Lucian later depicts how during the initia-
tion of mysteries he made admonishing pronouncements against atheists (in-
cluding Christians), and that he himself raised the shout: “Away Christians”,
to which the crowd responded: “Away epicureans.”
Lucian thus bears witness to a popular hostility towards Christians (and
Epicureans), motivated by a perception of Christians as ungodly. This hos-
tility and its motivation corresponds to the hostility and motivation we have
previously noted among Pliny, Trajan, Hadrian Suetonius and Tacitus. A sim-
ilar hostility may have motivated the (to us) unidentified accusers in Pontus
and Asia who are implied by the rescripts from Trajan and Hadrian a gener-
ation earlier.
Like Pliny, Trajan and Suetonius, Lucian judged the Christians as super-
stitious (in relation to “he who was crucified in Palestine”) and ungodly (in
relation to the gods), yet took a different stance. There is nothing to indicate
that Lucian wanted Christians executed – the context rather suggests that
he disapproved of the pogrom of Alexander and the people against Epicu-
reans and Christians. Lucian’s judgement of Christians is more condescend-
ing and tolerant than actually hostile.
He writes about them:
The wretches are convinced that they will become completely im-
mortal and that they shall live forever; therefore, they despise death
and for the most part give themselves over (to the authorities) vol-
untarily. Furthermore, their first lawgiver has convinced them that
they are all brethren, once they have converted and denied the Greek
gods, worshiping this crucified sophist instead and living according
to his commandments. They also despise all possession and consider
it to be common property – after having adopted such opinions with-
out precise evidence.
6. Summary comparison of pagan criticism

of Christians with the apologists’ defence
It is instructive to compare Arrian’s, Galen’s and Lucian’s depiction of
Christians and Christianity with that of the apologists. We will focus here
on three points:
1. The attitude of Christians towards persecution, martyrdom
and death in general.
2. Christian fellowship and way of life.
3. The relationship of Christianity to philosophy.
Regarding point 1: Tertullian famously claimed that the martyring of Chris-
tians helped to promote Christianity (Apol. 50.13), while Justin Martyr claimed
that he before his conversion was himself impressed by the courage of the
Christian martyrs (2. apol. 12‒13). Arrian, Galen, Marcus Aurelius and Lucian
confirm that the courage of the martyrs caused agitation and astonishment.87
On the other hand, they also show that this astonishment frequently did not
lead to conversion. The pagan authors arrived at various explanations for the
courage of the martyrs: For Arrian it was a habit for Christians to be coura-
geous; for Galen Christians had found the courage they “daily” demonstrated
87 J. Engberg, Martyrdom and Persecution. Pagan Perspectives on the Prosecution and Execution of
Christians c. 110‒210 AD, in: id. / U.H. Eriksen / A.K. Petersen (eds.), Contextualising Early
Christian Martyrdom, ECCA 8, Frankfurt 2011, 93‒117.
226 Jakob Engberg
in parables and miracles; for Marcus Aurelius this courage was an expression
of reprehensible stubbornness; while Lucian explained it as springing from an
unfounded and naive Christian faith in eternal life.
Regarding point 2: When the apologists defended themselves against
accusations that Christians practised cannibalism, they often claimed that,
on the contrary, Christians were exceptionally moral. As we have seen, the
Christian way of life had made an impression on Arrian, Galen and Lucian.
The Christian apologists often cited the Christians’ reciprocal help when
dealing with this issue. This helpfulness had also made an impression on
Lucian, in particular because he felt it provided fertile soil for charlatans such
as Perigrinos. Lucian wrote (Perigrinos):
When a charlatan and trickster who understands how to exploit the
situation comes to be among them, he quickly becomes rich by ex-
ploiting the situation, by making a mockery of simple people.
It is also apparent from Lucian’s portrayal of Christians that they had estab-
lished various offices, such as ministers, prophets and scholars. According to
Lucian, the Christians emphasised the interpretation and authoring of their
own Scriptures, including laws and special regulations for forbidden and
permitted foods.
Regarding point 3: Several of the contemporary Christian apologists
strove to present Christianity as the true philosophy. Were Arrian, Galen,
Marcus Aurelius or Lucian aware of these efforts? Lucian was being sar-
castic when he mentioned the wisdom of the Christians, and claimed that
they treated the charlatan Perigrinos as a new Socrates. It is therefore likely
(although not definite) that Lucian is being similarly sarcastic when he de-
scribes Jesus as a lawgiver. According to Lucian, Jesus gave the Christians
laws and taught them that they would live eternally and that they were
brothers. The Christians had supposedly accepted these opinions without
adequate proof. The latter corresponds, as we have seen, to Galen’s philo-
sophical criticism of Christianity and Judaism. Lucian’s sarcasm and Ga-
len’s criticism demonstrate that if they were aware of the apologists’ efforts
in this regard, they were a long way from adopting their view of Christiani-
ty as the true philosophy. However, both Lucian’s sarcasm and Galen’s criti-
cism assume and communicate a view of Christianity as an (inadequate and
naive) school of philosophy with a founder, Christ (disdained by Lucian),
and its own (unfounded) teachings. We will never know for certain whether
Lucian and Galen were aware of the apologists’ efforts,88 and if Lucian was
making fun of these. Using a metaphor from the sporting world, their crit-
icism shows in any case that the apologists were playing on the same field
as some of the contemporary philosophers. While the apologists presented
88 Regarding the possibility that Galen was aware of Christian apologetic works, see Walzer,
1949, 43.
Christianity as the true philosophy, there were opponents who presented it

as a naive and inadequate philosophy. Why did authors like Arrian, Galen,
Marcus Aurelius, Lucian and here we could also include Fronto and Celsus
present the way of life of the Christians as either morally corrupt or on the
surface admirable but based on an inadequate foundation? If we read them
“against the grain” then their polemic is a testimony that they feared that
some of their readers might think well of the Christians.
In conclusion the analysis of the contemporary pagan author’s criticism
of Christians and Christianity clearly indicates that the second-century
Christian apologists defended themselves against criticism and accusations
that was voiced by “real” opponents and that they contributed to a (often
harsh) debate which was occasionally able to move, influence and convince
on “both sides”. The apologists argued that the Christians were not im-
moral and engaged in scandalous rituals, not disobedient to authorities, not
superstitious and not ungodly, on “the other side” all these accusations are
in evidence in the sample of second century pagan authors who wrote about
Christians which is preserved.
The other Side of the Debate 2
Translation of Second Century
pagan Authors on Christians and Christianity
Jakob Engberg / Patrick M. Fritz /

Robert B.N. Hansen / John Møller Larsen
Introduction
The sources translated below are all discussed in the article “The other Side
of the Debate 1: Contemporary pagan Author’s Perceptions of Christians
and Christianity”. These sources have for long been available in English
translation, and most of them have in fact been translated many times. We
have nevertheless decided to translate them anew for the following reasons:
Firstly to gather in one place all, save one,1 of the preserved parts of those
references that were made in 2nd Century Greco-Roman pagan literature
to the Christians and Christianity, to our knowledge no such collection is
available. Secondly all translations are interpretations, a common transla-
tion of all the passages allows for consistency in how key terms are trans-
lated and a new translation gives congruence between the interpretations
offered in these translations and the arguments made in the article above.
Thirdly the Arabic fragments of Galen have not been translated to English
and published since 1949.
Plin., Εp. 10.96 to the Emperor Trajan

It is my custom, majesty, to bring everything about which I am uncertain
to your attention. For who is better to guide my hesitation or instruct my
ignorance?
I have never taken part in prosecutorial interrogations of Christians,
therefore I do not know how or to what extent one usually punishes or in-
terrogates. 2. I have also been in not a little doubt as to whether one should
distinguish between different ages or whether the very young should be
treated just like those who have progressed further in age. Should those
1 The quotations from Celsus, preserved in Origen’s Contra Celsum, they are so lengthy that
they could not be printed as part of this book. See instead J.R. Hoffmann, Celsus On the True
Doctrine. A Discourse Against the Christians – Translated, Oxford 1987 (the Celsus passages
translated), and H. Chadwick, Origen. Contra Celsum – Transleted with an Introduction and
Notes, Cambridge 1980.
230 Jakob Engberg / Patrick M. Fritz / Robert B.N. Hansen / John Møller Larsen
who repent be forgiven or is it of no use for someone who has once been
a Christian but has ceased to be one? Should the name itself, if it is free
from foul deeds, be punished, or should the crimes connected to the name
be punished?
So far I have done as follows in regard to those who were brought before
me accused of being Christians. 3. I have personally asked them whether they
were Christians. Those who confessed I asked a second and third time while
threatening them with punishment. Those who persisted were led away to
be executed. For I did not doubt that whatever they confessed, their stub-
bornness and inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment. 4. There were others
equally out of their mind, who I registered to be sent to Rome because they
were Roman citizens.
Accusations soon spread because of the proceedings themselves, as is
usually the case, and different sorts of the crime have become apparent. 5. A
small anonymous collection of writings, which accuses many named indi-
viduals, was placed before me. I thought it right to acquit those who denied
being Christians or having ever been Christians, and while I dictated the
words for them, they called upon the gods and sacrificed incense and wine
to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this very purpose,
while also cursing Christ – it is said that true Christians cannot be forced
to do any of this. 6. Others, who were named in the indictment, confessed
to being Christians, but shortly thereafter they denied it. They had been
Christians, but had stopped [being Christians], some three years ago, some
several years ago – some even twenty years ago. All these too venerated
your image and those of the Gods, and they cursed Christ. 7. They affirmed
that the whole of their guilt or error had been to meet before dawn on a
certain day and to sing a hymn to Christ as to a god and to swear an oath,
not to commit a crime, but to abstain from stealing, robbery, adultery, not
to break a given word, not to refuse giving back goods, which one has been
entrusted. Afterwards, it had been custom to separate and meet again later
in order to eat a meal, though a normal and innocent one, but even this they
had given up according to my edict, whereby I, following your order, had
forbidden the existence of associations. 8. Therefore, I found it even more
necessary to interrogate two female slaves, who were called servants, under
torture to find out what was true. I found an evil and boundless supersti-
tion and nothing else.
9. Therefore I have postponed the case and hastened to seek your council.
The case seemed to me to be worth a consultation, especially because of the
number of people implicated; many people of every age and every class, even
of both genders are accused, and will be accused. For this contagious super-
stition has not only spread in the cities but also in the villages and in rural
areas, but it seems possible to contain and heal it.
10. It is certain that temples, which were almost abandoned, are once again be-
ing visited and sacrificial acts, which have long been forsaken, are once again
The other Side of the Debate 2 231
being taken up, and the flesh of sacrifices, which it was rare to find a buyer for
until now, is once again being sold. From this it is easy to see, what great num-
bers of people it is possible to improve if there is room for repentance.
Trajan’s answer 10.97

Dear Pliny, you have acted as you should in regard to the prosecution of the
cases against those, who were brought to you accused of being Christians.
It is not possible to establish a common rule, which has a firm form. They
should not be sought out, but if they are led forward and accused, they must
be punished. But only so that one, who denies being a Christian and makes
this manifest through action, that is by worshipping our gods, should be
forgiven by his repentance even if he is suspicious in regard to his past.
Written accusations which are handed in anonymously should not be re-
garded in any case, for it is a bad example to set, and it does not correspond
with our time.
The Emperor Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus

(Euseb, Ecclesiastical History 4.9,1‒3)
To Minucius Fundanus. I received a letter written to me by your predeces-
sor, Serennius Granianus, a man of senatorial rank. I find it right not to
leave the matter without inquiry, in order that people should not be con-
fused and the informers should not be encouraged to misdeeds. If the pro-
vincials can support their case against the Christians with good reasons,
so that they will appear before court, let them do that, and let not opinions
and mere screaming be enough. For it is much more appropriate if some-
one wants to bring a charge to bear that you examine the case. If someone
brings a charge to bear and shows that they are acting against the law, you
should judge according to the crime, but if, by Hercules, someone brings an
accusation forward just to be an informer, hold him responsible and make
sure to punish him.
Tacitus, Annales 15.44,2‒5 (writing about events in 64 AD,

when Rome was subjected to a major disaster in the form of a fire)
But neither the work of humans, nor the generosity of the regents, nor the
placating of the gods could make the evil rumor that the fire had been or-
dered go away. Therefore, in order to dissipate the rumor, Nero substituted as
culprits and penalizing them with the most exceptional punishments, those
people, whom the crowd call Christians and who are hated because of their
shamefulness. The name can be traced back to Christ, who, during the reign
of Tiberius, suffered the death penalty at the hands of the procurator Pontius
Pilate. Thereby this destructive superstition was suppressed for a moment
only to erupt, not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but in the capital
itself, where all despicable and shameful things from every place gather to-
gether and are celebrated. First, those who confessed [to being Christians],
were seized. Then, following their indications a vast number of people, they
were not so much found guilty of arson, as of a hatred for the human race.
Mockery was added to condemnation, they were covered with animal skins
and ripped apart by dogs, or nailed to crosses in order to serve as lights in
the night when day was gone. Nero had opened his gardens for this spectacle
and celebrated games in the circus, where he mixed with the common people
dressed as a charioteer or standing on a wagon. For that reason pity arose
with these people, who were guilty and deserving the harshest punishments
since it was thought that they did not die for the public good but on account
of the cruelty of a single person.
Suetonius, Nero 16.2

The Christians, a kind of people infected with a new and mischievous super-
stition, were severely punished.
Epictetus, Discourses 4.7 (writing about fearlessness in regard

to loss of life, fortune, wife, children and bodily health)
If madness should incline anyone to these things and the Galileans from
mere habit, should not reason and demonstration be able to learn that god
made everything in the world [and from that be able to quietly await whatev-
er may happen and bear with content what has happened]
Cornelius Fronto, Speech against the Christians

(quoted in Minucius Felix, Octavius 9.6)
On a holyday they [the Christians] gather for a banquet together with all their
children, sisters and mothers, people of every age and sex. There, flushed af-
ter many courses, they begin to burn with incestuous lusts because of drunk-
enness. They provoke a dog, which is tied to a lampstand, to leap forward
and pull on the chain, with which it is tied, by throwing scraps of meat at
it outside the reach of its chain. In this way, the light of conscionableness is
overturned and extinguished in shameless darkness; with unspeakable lust
they copulate in random unions. Though they do not all commit incest at
each such occasion, they are all guilty, since what is done individually is the
common wish and desire of all.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 3.16

Those who do not believe in gods, who fail their fatherland, and who do all
kinds of (wicked) things behind closed doors.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.3

What a soul is, the prepared one (soul), when it is ready to be released from
the body, either to be extinguished or dissipated or remain together, but the
readiness must come from its own judgment, not from pure opposition as
is the case with the Christians, but according to sensible deliberation and
seriousness.
Lucian (writing about a charlatan Proteus Peregrinus),

On the Death of Peregrinus 11‒16
At that time he learned the strange wisdom of the Christians, since he associ-
ated with their priests and learned men in Palestine. And what else? In a short
time he made them appear as children in comparison with him; he became
their prophet and leader of their religious gatherings, leader of their syna-
gogue, all by himself. Some of their books he interpreted and explained, and
many others he himself wrote. And they honored him like a god and made
him make laws and made him cult-leader, after he whom they still honor,
namely he who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced these new
mysteries to the world.
Then, Proteus was also apprehended because of this matter and thrown
into jail, which gave him no little reputation in itself, (which proved an
asset) for his future life and the charlatanism and hounding for a career,
which he liked. When he had been thrown into prison, the Christians took
this near to heart, they did everything in order get him freed. When this
proved impossible, all other forms of attention were shown to him. And
from early morning one could see widows and orphans wait at the jail, and
their officials slept inside together with him after having bribed the guards.
Thereafter, rich meals were brought in, and their holy writings were read
aloud. And excellent Peregrinus, for so he was known, was called the “new
Socrates” by them.
Even from certain cities in the province of Asia did people come. They
were sent by the Christians in the name of their community in order to
help the man, to defend him before court and to encourage him. They show
an incredible speed, when something that affects their entire community
happens, they spare no effort. Much money was sent to Peregrinus on ac-
count of his imprisonment, and his income from this was no small matter.
The wretches are convinced that they will become completely immortal and
that they shall live forever; therefore, they despise death and for the most
part give themselves over (to the authorities) voluntarily. Furthermore, their
first lawgiver has convinced them that they are all brethren, once they have
converted and denied the Greek gods, worshiping this crucified sophist
instead and living according to his commandments. They also despise all
possession and consider it to be common property – after having adopt-
ed such opinions without precise evidence. When a charlatan and trickster
who understands how to exploit the situation comes to be among them, he

quickly becomes rich by exploiting the situation, by making a mockery of
simple people.
[Perigrinus is freed from prison and the narrative continues]
For the second time he took off on his aimless wanderings, he had ample
funds in the Christians. They formed a bodyguard so he lived in great pros-
perity. For a time he lived in such a manner, but then he also transgressed
against them (I believe he ate one of the foods which is forbidden to them),
and they no longer wanted to have anything to do with him.
Lucian (writing about another charlatan, Alexander), Alexander 25

Then, in order to scare his adversaries, he let it be known that Pontos was
filled with atheists and Christians, who had the audacity to blaspheme grave-
ly against him, and he commanded that they should be stoned, if one wanted
the blessings of the god.
Lucian, Alexander 38
If any atheist, Christian or epicurean has come to spy upon the rites, let him
flee away, but those who are with the god let them celebrate the mysteries in
order to receive goodness, At the beginning of the celebration, there was an
expulsion in which he took part, saying: “Away Christians.” And the multi-
tude answered saying: “Away epicureans.”
Galen, De Pulsum 2.4

…so that one should not straight from the beginning, as if having come into
the school of Moses or Christ, hear of undemonstrable laws.
Galen, De Pulsum 3.3

It is easier for a person to teach new things to the followers of Moses or Christ
than to the doctors or philosophers, who are firmly attached to their schools.
Galen, a quotation in Arabic from an unknown work

preserved in Arabic translation2
If I had intended such people who teach their pupils like the followers of Mo-
ses and Christ do – for they command them to accept everything faithfully – I
would not have presented you with a definition.
2 Walzer, 1949, reference 5. The translation of references 5 and 6 is based on R. Walzer’s

Arabic version (1949). The main source for the text is the historian Abū l-Fidā᾿ (d. 1331), but
Waltzer also indicates variant readings from other sources.
Galen, from On Plato’s Republic, in Arabic translation3

Most people are unable to understand the progression in demonstrative argu-
ments, and consequently, they come to need allegories from which they may
benefit (by “allegories” he means stories of reward and punishment in the
hereafter). In this manner, we now see that the people who are called Chris-
tians draw their faith from allegories and miracles,4 but at times the deeds of
the real5 philosophers take place among them. That is to say, their fearlessness
of death and what they will meet after it6 is something we may all7 see every
day —not unlike their abstinence from sexual intercourse. For among them
there are people, not only men but also women, who have refrained from
sexual intercourse all the days of their life. And among them there are people
whose self-control is in their moderation8 with food and drink9 and whose
strong desire for justice has reached such a degree that they do not fall short
of the real philosophers.
3 Walzer, 1949, reference 6.

4 Abū l-Fidā᾿ omits “and miracles”.
5 Only Abū l-Fidā᾿ includes “real”.
6 Abū l-Fidā᾿ omits “and what they will meet after it”; Walzer prefers this omission.
7 Only Abū l-Fidā᾿ includes “all”.
8 The Arabic word given as “moderation” is actually tadbīr, which properly means “conside-
ring”, “planning”, “managing”.
9 Abū l-Fidā᾿ omits “in matters of food and drink” (Walzer does not give this variant in the
Arabic text, but see p. 65, note 2).
Part IV: Eusebius‘ use of the
early apologists in the Ecclesiastical History
The defenders of Christianity
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius
Marie Verdoner
1. Introduction
This article will discuss how the early apologists were perceived, presented
and used in Eusebius of Caesarea‘s Ecclesiastical History (historia ecclesiastica,
h.e.). Eusebius has been called the first church historian or the ‘father of church
history’,1 and his work still stands as one of the primary sources for early
church history, including the early apologists. Due to its status as a primary
source, the Ecclesiastical History has come to serve as a kind of prism through
which early church history has been read and understood. History writing
processes the past and gives it a form and structure that makes it recogniza-
ble to the reader. The historian draws out elements and establishes patterns
which delimit and subdivide the stream of past occurrences, allowing them
to appear as parts of a relatively closed sequence of events. History writing
thereby helps to relate the past to the present, and the patterns it helps estab-
lish can become part of a collective consciousness of the past. History writing
thus also influences the future, as consciousness of who ‘we’ were and are
also influences the direction ‘we’ wish to take. Seen in this light, Eusebius‘
Ecclesiastical History has not only provided specific information about early
Christianity, but has also fundamentally influenced the way the period cov-
ered by the work has been perceived. It can even be said to have influenced
the way the church as a historical phenomenon has been understood.
It is therefore important to examine how the early Christian apologists
are used in this work. This article will first provide a brief introduction to
Eusebius‘ life and work, focusing on his Ecclesiastical History, then a presenta-
tion of the apologists as described in the work, and finally a discussion of the
context of the apologists.
2. Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius lived around 260‒340 AD. Information about his origins and child-
hood is scarce, but it is probable that he was raised as a Christian, rather than
converting later in life.2 As a youth, Eusebius became a co-worker of Pamphi-
1 E.g. H. Doergen, Eusebius von Caesarea, der Vater der Kirchengeschichte, in: ThGl 29 (1937),
446‒448.
2 Regarding Eusebius‘ life, see F. Winkelmann, Euseb von Kaisareia. Der Vater der Kirchenge-
schichte, Berlin 1991.
240 Marie Verdoner
los, leader of the renowned Christian library at Caesarea.3 This library was
founded by Origen, who spent much of his life in the city, and contained a
significant collection of primarily Christian and Greek philosophical works.4
The library was heavily involved in text critical studies, primarily of the bib-
lical works, and this is no doubt where Eusebius laid the foundation for his
Ecclesiastical History work. His work at the library is evidenced by the fact that
his signature has survived on several texts he has reviewed and edited.5 It
is also tangible in his partiality for quoting both Christian and Greek philo-
sophical works at length.
When Pamphilos was martyred during the Diocletian persecutions in the
early fourth century, Eusebius took over the leadership of the library, and
also became leader of the congregation in Caesarea a few years later. He took
in the Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, when he was thrown out of Alexandria
in 318 AD, during the first phase of the Arian disputes. Eusebius thus took
the side of Arius in the dispute, but managed to avoid being condemned as a
heretic at the Council of Nicaea in 325 by acknowledging the Nicene Creed.
Perhaps Eusebius saw the theological quarrel with the congregation in Alex-
andria as a parallel to Origen‘s dispute with the same congregation approxi-
mately 90 years earlier, and wanted to support Arius for this reason also. Eu-
sebius was not only fundamentally influenced by Origen‘s theology, but also
admired him as a person. This is evident from the special position enjoyed by
Origen in the Ecclesiastical History, and the fact that Eusebius and Pamphilos
jointly authored an apology in his defence.6 However, Eusebius‘ Origenistic
or Arian theology is not predominant in the preserved works, where his po-
litical theology is more evident instead. Eusebius characteristically attributes
great significance to Constantine as a Christian ruler, on par with figures
such as Moses, and Jesus Christ.7 Against this background, Constantine ap-
pears as more than just a powerful protégé for the church. Rather his rule
appears to assume the form of the expected eschatological reign of peace, be-
coming comparable with the contemporary conceptions of the eternal Rome.8
3 The standing of the library in antiquity can be seen by the fact that Constantine ordered
50 deluxe bibles to be made in Caesarea in connection with construction of a church in
Constantinople (Vita Constantini 4.36).
4 Regarding the library‘s collection, see A.J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Lei-
den 2003, 299‒315. “The most striking characteristics of Eusebius’ library are its wealth of
religious literature, its dearth of classical history, poetry, and oratory, and its strength in
Middle Platonic works,” 311.
5 See Winkelmann, 1991, 31.
6 Eus., h.e. 6. The apology has not been preserved, but its content is presumably reflected at
least partially in the description of Origen in the Ecclesiastical History.
7 See Eusebius‘ panegyric works, Vita Constantini and De laudibus Constantini, and Ecclesiasti-
cal History 9.9 and 10.9.
8 Eusebius‘ opposition to Revelation and related perceptions of the millennium are well-
known, cf. F. Thielman, Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea, in: VigChr 41
(1987), 226‒237.
241
Eusebius‘ works (exegetical, panegyric, apologetic and historical) are all fun-
damentally influenced by his schooling as a research librarian. The division
into these categories is also difficult to maintain as the works contain exten-
sive cross-cutting themes. Thus even his historical works, and especially the
Ecclesiastical History, contain elements which are more panegyric or apolo-
getic than historical.9 This work was undoubtedly written over an extended
period. It was presumably commenced at the end of the third century, but
not finally completed before 324 AD when Constantine the Great became
sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire.10 The compilation of the work thus
spans a period which began with the end of an extended period of peace for
Christians. This was followed by the Diocletian persecutions, which were
particularly violent in the eastern Roman Empire, where they extended for
a period of 10 years. The end of this period saw Constantine rise to power,
first in the west and later in the east, and the associated legitimisation and
favouring of Christianity. The extended compilation process means that the
work was contemporaneous with a number of events of major significance to
Christians, both in terms of their position in society and in terms of their self
perception. The work consists of 10 books covering the history of the church
from the time of Jesus until Constantine‘s assumption of power in 324 AD.
It focuses primarily on church history in the Greek speaking areas of the
Roman Empire and major Christian authors writing in Greek. This clearly re-
flects the sources Eusebius had available to him, as the collection in Caesarea
consisted primarily of works by Greek speaking authors.11 Nonetheless, this
focus can also be seen to express a prioritisation, especially in relation to the
focus given to ecclesiastic works.
Eusebius‘ theological views led to him later being discredited, but this
did not affect his Ecclesiastical History.12 This work was extremely successful,
as is evident from the numerous translations of the work which were made
during the ensuing centuries. The work continued to be used long after the
period of antiquity, and continues to serve today as the primary source for
early church history.
9 See L. Perrone, Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer, in: A. Raban / K.G. Holum (eds.),
Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after two Millenia, Leiden, NewYork 1996, 515‒530. Re-
garding the difficulties associated with classifying only a small part of Eusebius‘ works as
apologetic, see M. Frede, Eusebius‘ Apologetic Writings, in: M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.
Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1999, 223‒250. 223f.
10 The redaction history of the work is one of the most debated topics in 20th-century Eusebi-
us research. Cf. T.D. Barnes, The Editions of Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, in: GRBS 21 (1980),
191‒200 or A. Louth, The date of Eusebius‘ Historia Ecclesiastica, in: JThS 41 (1990), 111‒123.
11 Eusebius presumably also had access to the small library in Jerusalem, although this col-
lection, primarily of church correspondence, is unlikely to have served as more than a
supplement to the comprehensive Caesarean collection. See Carriker, 2003, 69‒74.
12 For example, see Decretum Gelasium, a catalogue of orthodox and unorthodox works which
is traditionally dated to the sixth century. Despite strong reservations about Eusebius, the
Ecclesiastical History is listed under the recommended works.
242 Marie Verdoner
3. The early apologists in Eusebius‘ Ecclesiastical History

The apologists covered in the previous chapters in this book are, with a few
exceptions, all discussed in the Ecclesiastical History. Aristides, Justin Mar-
tyr, Tatian, Clement, Theophilus and Tertullian are all mentioned. It is not
surprising that Minucius Felix is not mentioned, given the focus of the Cae-
sarean library on Greek works. It is understandable that Eusebius was not
aware of this author. However, it is more surprising that neither the Letter
to Diognetus nor Athenagoras are mentioned in the work, especially given
his focus on discussing prominent works. Given the thoroughness which is
characteristic of the work in relation to its coverage of Christian authors, it is
unlikely that these two works were part of the library collection. However, a
number of other authors are mentioned in the work that are all classified as
authors of apologies, and hence will be covered here also.13 The first time an
apologist is mentioned is in the beginning of the fourth book:
When Trajan had ruled for six months short of twenty years Aelius
Hadrianus succeeded to the throne. To him Quadratus addressed
and sent a pamphlet which he had composed in defence of our reli-
gion, because unscrupulous persons were trying to get our people in
trouble. Many of the brethren still possess copies of this little work;
indeed, I have one myself. In it can be found shining proofs of the
author’s intellectual grasp and apostolic correctness […]. Aristides
again, a loyal and devoted Christian, has like Quadratus left us a
Defense of the Faith addressed to Hadrian. Many people still preserve
copies of his work also.14
As can be seen, the occasion for these references is a change of Emperor. The
two apologists are thus classified under the discussion of Hadrian, and are
both characterised in a largely parallel fashion. Eusebius comments on the
time of their activity (by specifying the ruling Emperor), their faith, the na-
ture or genre of their work (apology addressed to the Emperor), and its pop-
ularity. These points are characteristic not only of the references to the other
apologists, but also to other ecclesiastic authors presented. This initial, quite
laconic, reference to two authors of apologies therefore provides some kind of
indicator as to what Eusebius, as narrator of the history of the church , consid-
ers to be sufficient and relevant for his audience to know.
A parallel construction can be found in the reference to the apologists
Melito and Apollinaris. In the first reference to Melito he is described as
“…the eminent Bishop of Sardis at that time” (4.13,8) and later on:
13 The apologies noted in the Ecclesiastical History are primarily written works, but a number
of oral defences are also mentioned (e.g. 2.22; 4.15,47; 5.21; 8.13,2 and 9.6,7). These oral de-
fences will generally not be considered in this article.
14 Eus., h.e. 4.3. Quotes from the Ecclesiastical History is cited after A. Louth (ed.), Eusebius. The
History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, translated by G.A. Williamson, London 1989.
243
Contemporary with them were Bishop Melito of Sardis and Bishop

Apolinarius of Hierapolis, who were at the peak of their fame, and
who without reference to each other addressed defences of faith to
the Roman emperor of the time. (h.e. 4.26)
This is followed by a lengthy quotation from Melito‘s apology containing the
famous thesis of a correlation between the growth and well-being of the Ro-
man Empire and the advance of Christianity. However, Apollinaris is only
mentioned briefly (in 4.27), simply listing the books he has authored and the
way they were received. Although comments on the authors‘ faith have been
replaced by comments on how they are viewed by their contemporaries, the
elements present are typical of the pattern already mentioned. This is also the
case when authors such as Tertullian are not treated separately, but are used
exclusively as sources in other contexts.15
The quotations used in the work often serve to present the relationship
between Christianity and the Roman Empire as fundamentally positive. This
is true of the Melito quotation found above, and the quotations from Tertul-
lian where he describes Tiberius‘ positive reception of the gospel and uses
Pliny‘s correspondence with Trajan to show Trajan‘s basic mildness towards
Christians. Justin Martyr‘s Apology is used in a similar fashion as evidence for
Hadrian‘s positive attitude towards Christians (4.8). In this context Eusebius
says of Justin that he was “[…] a genuine lover of the true philosophy, […]”
(4.8,3), but provides a more detailed description of him later in his account of
Antoninus Pius‘ reign. He writes:
At their time Justin was at his most active, wearing the garb of a
philosopher he proclaimed the divine message, and contended by
means of his writings on behalf of the Faith. In a pamphlet which
he wrote against Marcion, […]. Justin, in addition to his admirable
work Against the Greeks, addressed other compositions containing A
Defense of our Faith to the Emperor Antoninus, surnamed Pius, and
to the Roman Senate. (h.e. 4.11)
He discusses Justin in greater detail than the other apologists, but follows
basically the same pattern. His main priorities are to provide a chronological
setting for each author, comment on their orthodoxy and significance (often
by referring to their contemporary standing), list and categorise their works,
and finally, comment on how they were received. It is interesting to note in
the quotation above that Eusebius states that Justin fought for faith in works
written against heretics (in this case against Marcion) or addressed to the
Greeks, and in his apologies for Christianity. Thus even though Justin is said
15 Tertullian is used as a source when recounting the history of the early church, and espe-
cially early persecutions of Christians, and is identified as such in the chapter summaries
prefacing book 2. Cf. also 2.2,4; and 2.24,4 on Nero as a persecutor, 3.20,7 on Domitian as a
persecutor, and on Pliny in 3.33,3, regarding persecutions under Marcus Aurelius.
244 Marie Verdoner
to have fought on several fronts, only some of his works are characterised as
apologies. This distinction is evident again in Eusebius‘ comments on Milti-
ades, where he writes:
Let us now turn to Miltiades, who was referred to in one of these pas-
sages. He, too, has left us reminders of his own zeal for the oracles of
God, in the works that he composed, Against the Greeks and Against the
Jews, each subject being discussed separately in two books. In addi-
tion, he wrote a Defense before the Rulers of this World of the philosophy
which he followed. (h.e. 5.17)
It is clear from this quotation that he distinguishes between works addressed
to Jews or Greeks, and apologies, which appear to always be addressed to the
Roman rulers. The same is true of Apollonius‘ apology which he addresses
to the Senate after being accused of being Christian (5.21,4‒5).16 After Apol-
lonius he does not mention any further apologies, except for the references to
Eusebius‘ own apology for Origen in 6.23,4; 6.33,4 and 6.36,4.
The perception of an apology exclusively as a work addressed to Romans
may partly explain why a number of the apologists discussed in this book or
traditionally viewed as apologists are not mentioned as authors of apologies
in Eusebius‘ Ecclesiastical History. This is true of Theophilus, who is not re-
ferred to as an apologist but as the author of the works addressed to Autoly-
cus (4.24), Tatian, referred to as the author of the work To the Greeks, described
as the most beautiful and beneficial of all his writings (4.29,7),17 and Hege-
sippus, whose five books are regularly referred to in the first books of the
Ecclesiastical History, and categorised as memoirs (hypomnemata).18 The work by
Clement of Alexandria is also among the sources for Ecclesiastical History, but
is used differently to e.g. Hegesippus‘ work, as it is assumed that Clement‘s
authority is well-known whereas Hegesippus‘ apostolicity has to be repeat-
edly emphasised. Clement is not mentioned as the author of any apology.19
The categorisation of the various authors is thus linked to a relatively
narrow concept of apology, and this observation is a good starting point for
further narrowing the criteria for apologetic and apologists used in Euse-
bius‘ Ecclesiastical History. Today’s discussions of early Christian apologetic
16 Apollonius’ apology is counted among the oral apologies, which also all address the Ro-
man rulers. The reason this apology is mentioned here is because Eusebius claims to have
the speech in written form.
17 Cf. 4.16,7.
18 Hegesippus is mentioned in 2.23; 3.11.16.20.32; 4.8.11 and 22. 4.22 introduces him in more
detail. Hegesippus‘ work only survives in fragmentary form but is included among the
‘canonical’ apologetic works.
19 Clement is mentioned in 1.12; 2.1.9.15.23; 3.23.29.30; 4.26; 5.11; 6.6.13. A number of his works
are used as sources, but especially Hypotyposeis, which survives in fragments. Clement is
not one of the authors traditionally seen as an apologist, but see 5.28,4, where he is listed in
a quotation together with Justin Martyr, Miltiades and Tatian as authors of works “written
to defend the truth against both pagan criticism and current heresies.”
245
often focus on how apologetic can be defined. It turns out that there are a
range of possible and obvious conceptions. It is possible to understand the
concept narrowly as an extension of the ancient rhetorical tradition, whereby
an apology is a forensic type of speech, belonging in a courtroom setting and
addressed to a judge.20 The concept can be understood more broadly as a rhe-
torical strategy or discourse, and finally, in its broadest sense, it can be used
to refer to a form of consciousness.21 Against this background it is possible to
distinguish between apology and apologetic, such that the former refers to
the narrow conception of the phenomenon – apology as a type of speech, and
in the Christian context, as a more or less rigid literary genre – and the latter
refers to the broader discourse.22 There is no doubt that in Eusebius‘ Ecclesi-
astical History the concept of apology is linked to a certain genre, but is not
exclusively limited to works whose Sitz im Leben is the court room or a simi-
lar situation, even though his comments on the oral defences of Christianity
clearly point to the original legal application of apologies. The classification
of the works as apologies does also not appear to derive from the works them-
selves, which do not all present themselves as such.23 The concept of apology
which applies to the Ecclesiastical History thus appears to neither be based on
the works‘ own self perception nor on a narrow conception of apology as a
legal speech. Yet nor can it simply be categorised as belonging to the modern
perception of apologetic as a form of discourse with a basic defensive charac-
ter or purpose,24 characterised by a number of recurrent elements.25
Not all the works discussed above under the theme of apologetics are
called apologies in Eusebius‘ Ecclesiastical History, but only works reported-
20 Cf. Arist., Rh. 1.3.

21 See e.g. A.-C. Jacobsen, Apologetik ‒ et forsøg på en definition, in: R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Jacob-
sen (eds.), Perspektiver på Origenes‘ Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004, 13‒26; A.K. Petersen,
Contra Celsum som apologi, in: R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Jacobsen (eds.), Perspektiver på Origenes‘
Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004, 49‒68, and id., Apologetik og kritik ‒ et Århusprojekt, in:
Præsteforeningens Blad 8 (2006), 138‒145.
22 Cf. Jörg Ulrich‘s distinction between apologies and apologetic in his introduction to
this book.
23 However, efforts to determine how the apologies perceive themselves are hampered by
their often fragmentary preservation. Cf. Frances Young‘s study of the genre of Greek apol-
ogies, Young, 1999, 81‒104, especially 82‒99.
24 Cf. M. Edwards, M. Goodman, S.R.F. Price and C. Rowland‘s working definition of the
phenomenon: “Apologetic is thus the defence of a cause or party supposed to be of para-
mount importance to the speaker. It may include Apologia in the sense of Plato’s Apology,
the defence of a single person, but is distinguished from polemic (which need not assume
any previous attack by the opponent) and from merely epeideictic or occasional orations.”
M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price / C. Rowland, Introduction. Apologetics in the Roman
World, in: M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire,
Oxford, 1999, 1‒13, 1. Michael Fiedrowicz defines apology broadly as “die argumentative
Darlegung der eigenen Überzeugungen angesichts von Skepsis, Kritik oder Polemik” Fied-
rowicz, 2000, 11.
25 Cf. Jörg Ulrich‘s introduction to this book or Fiedrowicz‘ systematisation of the early Chris-
tian apologies, Fiedrowicz, 2000, 182‒299.
246 Marie Verdoner
ly addressed to the Roman authorities. This means that the work‘s concept
of apologetic can no doubt be further clarified by examining the issue of
formal/intended recipients. For a theoretical consideration of apologetic as
discourse it is possible to develop a typology based on an examination of
the works‘ intended readers. According to Loveday Alexander, seen as an
apologetic work, Acts may be viewed as targeting internal church oppo-
nents, Jews, Greeks, Romans, and finally, its own adherents.26 In relation
to the conception of apology in the Ecclesiastical History, it is clear that only
works targeting a very limited cross-section of the intended readers Alex-
ander lists are classified as apologies. Works targeting internal church op-
ponents and heretics are not described as apologies, but as refutations. Nor
is it sufficient for a work to have been written as a contribution to a heated
debate targeting external opponents: Thus works written against the Jews
– and the Jews are clearly to be understood as external opponents within
the framework of the Ecclesiastical History – are not classified as apologetic,
and nor are those works reportedly addressed to Greeks. Finally, not even
Origen’s Contra Celsum – a defence of Christianity against philosophical at-
tack – which calls itself an apology,27 is labelled as such in the Ecclesiasti-
cal History. The term apology is often used regarding works (and speeches)
addressed to the Roman authorities, such that the term specifically covers
political apologetic. It is also a characteristic of the works labelled as apolo-
gies that all are said to have been written for something (Christianity) and
to someone. Thus it is not works targeting opponents, but works addressed
to a judge, aimed at explaining and defending a cause.
It is thus clear that if a work is to be categorised as an apology in the
Ecclesiastical History, it must first of all be addressed to external authorities.
This interpretation of the term appears to be based on the classic definition
of apology as a sub-genre of forensic speech, and this is supported by the fact
that the term is actually used in the classical sense of a defence speech. A
key element of a forensic speech is that it is addressed to a judge, and the for-
mal addressee of the works is also the Roman authorities, which are seen to
have judicial authority over Christians.28 Yet the term has also been expand-
ed beyond the classic legal speech to apply to defence situations outside the
court room – a genre which would more likely have been formally classified
in antiquity as a petition (lat. libellus) than an apology.29 The term apology
26 The five types are identified as: 1. internal apologetic, 2. sectarian apologetic, 3. apologia
as propaganda/evangelism, 4. as self-defence in relation to Rome and 5. as legitimation/
self-definition, L. Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text, in: M. Edwards
/ M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1999, 15‒44
(16‒18). The typology is repeated and discussed in Aage Pilgaard‘s discussion of Acts as
apologetic, A. Pilgaard, Apostlenes Gerninger som apologetisk skrift, in: id. (ed.), Apologetik i Det
Nye Testamente, Copenhagen, 2005, 85‒96 (91‒95).
27 See Or., Cels. pref.
28 Even though it is doubtful that the Senate had such authority in reality.
29 See Wolfram Kinzig‘s musings, W. Kinzig, 1989, 291‒317 (302).
247
seems to be used quite unequivocally in the Ecclesiastical History to refer to a

particular genre, separate from other rhetorical genres – those of a polemic
nature as well as defensive works responding to charges raised by opponents
which cannot be attributed any form of judicial authority in relation to Chris-
tians. The exception to this unequivocal use of the term apology is Eusebius‘
own apology for Origen (h.e. 6.23,4). This exception breaks the boundaries
of the narrow definition, making it clear that even though the term is used
consistently in relation to a particular type of Christian work, this is not the
only meaning for the term which Eusebius knows and uses.30 This situation
might be attributed to the classification of the works in the library. It may not
be Eusebius‘ own use and perception of the term apologetic which is reflected
in the Ecclesiastical History. He may simply be mechanically transferring titles
that had already been assigned to the works.31 This highly possible scenar-
io would indicate that a clear perception of certain works as belonging to
a special apologetic genre had already crystallised prior to Eusebius.32 The
existence of the works at the library in Caesarea also indicates that they – not
surprisingly – have been in circulation far from the formal recipients of the
works, and from Eusebius‘ comments on their reception we can see that they
have largely been in general use. They have therefore not been among the
rarest books in the library.33
The concept of apologetics used as a basis for this collection of articles is
based on a modern canonisation of a number of primarily Greek second-cen-
tury authors as apologists.34 The apologies in the Ecclesiastical History, how-
ever, are exclusively understood as defences of Christianity addressed to Ro-
man authorities, while works addressed to other types of opponents are not
assigned to this category. The difference between the classification of apol-
ogies in Eusebius’ work and the more recent conception has no bearing on
works against heterodox Christian groups, as these ‘anti-heretical’ works are
not considered apologetic in modern times either. The difference is therefore
exclusively related to works addressed to Jews and Greeks. Despite this dif-
ference, there is no doubt that Christianity is often portrayed in the Ecclesi-
astical History as being involved in a battle, and often in a defensive position.
The following section will therefore provide a more general description of the
30 Michael Frede writes in this regard about “the unsurprising fact that Eusebius, following
Greek usage, is willing to use the term apologia in a whole variety of familiar and estab-
lished ways.” Frede, 1999, 225.
31 Cf. Kinzig, 1989, 315, who comments on why the works may have been grouped under the
name apologies.
32 Apology is a sub-classification under forensic speech, and did not constitute a specific
genre in antiquity. Apology as an independent literary genre can therefore be viewed as
a particularly Judaeo-Christian phenomenon, dependent on the forensic classification. Cf.
Petersen, 2004, 57.
33 Cf. J. Ulrich‘s introduction, where he discusses the modest or fragmentary preservation of
the works, in contrast to this observation.
34 See Jörg Ulrich‘s introduction.
248 Marie Verdoner
picture of second century Christianity – the main period of the apologists –

we find in the Ecclesiastical History.
4. Second century Christianity in the Ecclesiastical History

In his introduction to the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius declares his aim to
write about those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word
either orally or in writing (1.1,1). He keeps his promise so diligently that
the Ecclesiastical History reads more like a ‘church literature history’. The
ecclesiastic authors are given such a high profile that they carry the entire
history. The apologists also belong among these men of renown who are
fighting for Christianity (e.g. see 4.21). The intention seems to be to preserve
and pass on the divine word unchanged, in a situation which can basically
be described as defensive. The distinguished men are therefore drawn on
to defend not only against hostile peoples (pagans), but also the heretics’
distortion of Christianity and the Jews’ steady attacks against the people of
the church (cf. 1.1). However, the defensive situation diminishes as history
advances. As outlined above, the apologies in Church History are primarily
referred to in books 4 and 5. The delimitation of the work’s concept of apol-
ogy carried out above could therefore be supplemented by a sharp periodic
delimitation: Apologies were written from the time of Hadrian, through
to the time of Commodus reign. Following this, there are no examples of
Christians responding in writing to the persecuting authorities. An obvi-
ous interpretation of this is that following this period the Christians simply
stopped writing apologies formally addressed to the Roman authorities and
instead targeted other rhetorical strategies when explaining and defending
their faith.35 Eusebius therefore had no sources available to him which could
be categorised as apologies when writing the later books of the Ecclesiastical
History. However, in part due to the long period of time over which Church
History was written, we can assume that Eusebius has not lamented the
scarcity of sources in the form of apologies. During this period – and espe-
cially in connection with the Diocletian persecution – Eusebius may well
have developed a theology, which placed greater emphasis on martyrdom
as the right answer to accusations and persecutions.36 There is also the pos-
sibility that Eusebius wanted to downplay any conflict between the Roman
empire and Christianity for political reasons – especially after the break-
35 “During the reign of Commodus the bishops and teachers of the church gradually moved
away from writing treatises like the earlier apologies. They stopped presenting petitions to
the emperors and turned back to address the Christian communities themselves.” Grant,
1988, 182. Cf. Jörg Ulrich‘s introduction to this book, where he states that apology under-
stood as a genre ceased to be a relevant form of communication for Christians following
the death of the philosopher Emperor, Marcus Aurelius.
36 See Anders-Christian Jacobsen‘s account of Origen’s reason for refusing to write an apolo-
gy, A.-C. Jacobsen, Kelsos og Origenes, in: R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Jacobsen (eds.), Perspektiver
på Origenes‘ Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004, 27‒48 (43f.). In the account of the martyrs in
249
through of tolerance policy.37 While Eusebius presents Christianity in the

first books of his work as basically compatible with the Roman empire, the
existence of persecutions and apologies makes it clear that this relationship
was not harmonic. However, in the final books of the work, Eusebius allows
the image of the church as responding in writing to the persecuting Roman
authorities to disappear completely, and even portrays the persecutors as
un-Roman (10.8). The historical explanation as to why no apologies appear
in the final books of the Ecclesiastical History can thus be supplemented by
a hypothesis about the influence of historical developments on Eusebius’
theological position.38 Another explanation touches on a feature of the Ec-
clesiastical History which in many ways can be said to preclude a defensive
position on the other side of the second century. This feature – based on a
literary reading of the Ecclesiastical History – should not be seen as an alter-
native explanation for why no apologies appear in the final books of the
work, but can rather supplement and refine the picture of apologetics and
second century Christianity presented in the work.
Just as the apologies basically disappear from the work after book 5, the
same phenomenon can be observed when one considers the church more
broadly as being involved in a defensive struggle. The defensive situation
whereby the church is primarily seen as being involved in a battle on several
fronts, and defending itself through countering works, simply seems to cease
as the work advances. This is because the depiction in the Ecclesiastical His-
tory of the Church (understood as the sum of men of renown) in battle with
Judaism, heresy and persecution at the hands of the people, is accompanied
by a narrative of the victory of the church over these groups. It is not only
claimed that Judaism is completely eliminated (3.5), but also that heresies and
persecutions cease (4.7; 10.1). This diachronic development, which constitutes
a kind of Christianity success story, points forward to Constantine’s assump-
tion of power in 311/324 CE, which is portrayed with eschatological overtones.
This striking salvation historical perspective effectively precludes a portrayal
of the church as existing in a fundamentally defensive position in the final
books of the work.
However, the salvation historical, progressive element is interwoven with
a narrative of decline. While heresy is held back during the apostolic and
post-apostolic period, things are different later when Christian morality is
weakened and internal divisions arise (8.1). The black-and-white presentation
Lyon, martyrdom can be seen as a defence of the faith, just as Lucian, a presbyter in An-
tioch, is said to have defended himself both in speech and, via martyrdom, in deed (Eus.,
h.e. 5.1,10; 8.13,2).
37 Without necessarily perceiving Eusebius as having developed his political theology oppor-
tunistically following or at the time of Constantine‘s rise to power. For a critical discussion
of Eusebius‘ opportunism, see M.J. Hollerich, Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius.
Reassessing the First “Court Theologian”, in: ChH 59 (1990), 309‒325.
38 See W. Tabbernee, Eusebius’ “Theology of Persecution”. As Seen In the Various Editions of his
Church History, in: Journal of Earl Christian Studies 5 (1997), 319‒334.
250 Marie Verdoner
of a single church facing a number of well-defined opponents which is pre-

dominant in the early books of the work later disintegrates, and the boundary
between heresy and Christianity in particular becomes unclear. In the final
books of the work, the ‘men of renown’ therefore no longer have such a clear
role to play as defenders of the one, well-defined church. Instead, Constan-
tine takes over the stage. Just as Moses led his people out of Egypt, he frees
his Roman and Christian subjects from the grip of tyranny and brings peace.
The consequence of these interwoven elements is that the second century
in particular becomes the century of struggle and defence, where the men of
renown defend the one church against a series of well-defined opponents. In
the later books of the work, Christianity no longer exists in a fundamentally
defensive situation, and the relationship between the church and the sur-
rounding world has become far more complicated.
Closing remarks
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History can be perceived as an apologetic work in
many ways. Many of the strategies used by the early Christian apologists are
reflected in the work, but the apologetic tradition is also displaced as the posi-
tive relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire is emphasised,
and this is also clear from the way the early Christian apologies are used. The
narrative of the history of the Church in the first three centuries presented in
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History develops as a success story which transcends
the basic defensive modus of apology and proclaims the victory of Christian-
ity over its opponents, particularly as expressed in Constantine’s rise to be-
come the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Yet at the same time as the church
is generally presented as conquering all resistance, the story of the church’s
decline following the apostolic period is also told. Second century Christian-
ity is also presented as a period of extreme struggle, with the church battling
on several fronts, particularly against heretics and persecutions, and to a less-
er extent against Jews and Greeks. The church’s participation in the battle is
always in writing, and the Christian authors are primarily defensive. This is
the golden age of the men of renown, as it is followed by moral decline and
internal disputes.39
From a historical perspective there can be good reasons for assigning the
second century special status in church history and calling it the century of
the apologists, but the picture in the Ecclesiastical History of the second cen-
tury as a critical time where Christianity is under attack from both external
and internal opponents is presented in part as a consequence of the salvation
historical perspective contained in the work. It is interesting to note that even
39 Eusebius‘ Praeparatio Evangelica (1.3,6,5, 2) quotes 1 Pet 3:15, where the word apology is
used as part of an exhortation to Christians to defend or explain themselves. Eusebius sees
not only the later apologies but virtually all later Christian works as a response to this
exhortation, and thereby presents the Christian literature as defensive. See Frede, 1999,
228f. For a discussion of 1 Pet, see E.J. Christiansen, Apologetiske træk i 1. Petersbrev, in:
A. Pilgaard (ed.), Apologetik i Det Nye Testamente, Copenhagen, 2005, 97‒121.
251
though modern church historians may not have maintained the salvation his-
torical element, the picture of the second century presented in the Ecclesias-
tical History has been strikingly pervasive and is also present in a number of
recent presentations. Even though the perception of apologetic found in the
Ecclesiastical History does not correspond to the modern broader perception of
the term, it is conceivable that the presentation of the second century as the
heyday of the apologists is still based on the portrayal of the second century
we find in the work.
Bibliography
Abramowski, L., Die Erinnerungen der Apostel bei Justin, in: P. Stuhlmacher
(ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, Tübingen 1983, 241‒353.
Adler, A., (ed.), Suidae Lexicon 1‒5, Vol. 1, pars. 4, Lipsiae 1928‒1938.
Albinus, L., The Greek daimon between Mythos and Logos, in: A. Lange /
H. Lichtenberger / K.F.D. Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen. Die Dämonolo-
gie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer
Umwelt, Tübingen 2003.
Alexander, L., The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text, in: M. Edwards /
M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford,
1999, 15‒44.
Allert, C.D., Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation. Studies in Justin Martyr´s
Dialogue with Trypho, Leiden 2002.
Andres, F., Die Engellehre der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts
und ihr Verhältnis zur griechisch-römischen Dämonologie, Paderborn 1914.
Andriessen, D.P., The Authorship of the Epistula ad Diognetum, in: VigChr 1
(1947), 129‒136.
Arnold, G., Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie. Vom Anfang des Neuen Te-
staments biss auff das Jahr Christi 1688, Frankfurt 1700.
Asmussen, J.P., Der Manichäismus als Vermittler literarischen Gutes, in: Tem. 2,
Helsinki 1966, 5‒21.
Bang, K., Eusebs Kirkehistorie, oversat, Copenhagen 1945.
Bardy, G., Apologetik, in: RAC 1 (1950), 533‒543.
Barnard, L.W., Apologetik I. Alte Kirche, in: TRE 3 (1978), 371‒411.
‒ The Philosophical and Biblical Background of Athenagoras, in: J. Fontaine /
C. Kannengiesser (eds.), Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques offertes au cardinal
Jean Daniélou, Paris 1972.
Barnes, T.D., Legislation against the Christians, in: JRS 58 (1968b), 32‒50.
‒ Tertullian. A Historical and Literary Study, Oxford 1971.
‒ The Editions of Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, in: GRBS 21 (1980), 191‒200.
‒ The Embassy of Athenagoras, in: JTS 26 (1975).
Barth, K., Der Römerbrief, Zürich 121978.
Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-pa-
lästinensischen Texte, Bonn 1922.
Beard, M. / North, J. / Price, S.R.F., Religions of Rome, Vol. 1. A History, Cam-
bridge, 1998.
Becker, C., Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung, Munich 1954.
Benko, S., Pagan Rome and the early Christians, Bloomington 1984.
‒ Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the first two Centuries A.D., ANRW
2/23.2, Berlin 1980.
Bentivegna, J., A Christianity without Christ by Theophilus of Antioch, in: TU 13
(1975), 107‒130.
Bernard, J., Die apologetische Methode bei Klemens von Alexandrien, Leipzig 1968.
254 Bibliography
Bobichon, P., Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon. Édition critique, traduction,
commentaire, Paradosis 47/1 and 47/2, Fribourg 2003.
Brakke, D., The Gnostics. Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity, Cam-
bridge 2010.
Brennecke, H.C., Der Absolutheitsanspruch des Christentums und die religiösen
Angebote der Alten Welt, in: J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus und Identität,
Gütersloh 1995, 380‒397.
Brodersen, K., Phlegon von Tralleis. Das Buch der Wunder. Eingeleitet, herausgege-
ben und übersetzt, Darmstadt 2002.
Brox, N., Zum Vorwurf des Atheismus gegen die Alte Kirche, in: Trierer Theologis-
che Zeitschrift 75 (1966).
Brändle, R., Die Ethik der „Schrift an Diognet“. Eine Wiederaufnahme paulinischer
und johanneischer Theologie am Ausgang des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Zürich 1975.
Buck, P.L., Athenagoras’s Embassy. A Literary Fiction, in: HTR 89 (1996), 209‒226.
Bunsen, C.C.J., Hippolytus und seine Zeit. Anfänge und Aussichten des Christen-
tums und der Menschheit. Erster Band. Die Kritik, Leipzig 1852.
Buonaiuti, E., Lettera a Diogneto. testo, traduzione e note, Rom 1921.
Cameron, A., Apologetics in the Roman Empire – A Genre of Intolerance, in:
J.-M. Carrié / R.L. Testa, (eds.), “Humana Sapit” Études d’Antiquité tardieve
Offerts à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout 2002, 219‒227.
Carriker, A.J., The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Leiden 2003.
Chadwick, H., Justin’s defence of Christianity, in: Studies in Early Christianity 8
(1993), 23‒45.
‒ Origen. Contra Celsum – Transleted with an Introduction and Notes, Cam-
bridge 1980.
‒ The Early Church, London 31993 (1967).
Chandler, W.J., A comparison of the concept of Logos in the teaching of Justin Mar-
tyr and the Gnostics, Louisville 1991.
Christensen, A.S., Kristenforfølgelserne i Rom indtil år 250, Copenhagen 1977.
Christiansen, E.J., Apologetiske træk i 1. Petersbrev, in: A. Pilgaard (ed.), Apologe-
tik i Det Nye Testamente, Copenhagen, 2005, 97‒121.
Clarke, G.W., The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix, New York, 1949.
Clayton,F.W., Tacitus and Nero’s persecutions of the Christians, in: CQ 41 (1947), 81‒85.
Contreras, C.A., Christian Views of Paganism, ANRW 2/23.2, Berlin 1980, 974‒1022.
Curry, C., The Theogony of Theophilus, in: VigChr 42 (1988), 318‒326.
Dawson, D., Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria, Ox-
ford 1992.
de Blois, F., On the sources of the Barlaam Romance, or: How the Buddha became a
Christian saint, in: D. Durkin-Meisterernst / C. Reck / D. Weber (eds.), Liter-
arische Stoffe und ihre Gestaltung in mitteliranischer Zeit. Kolloquium anlässlich
des 70. Geburtstages von Werner Sundermann, Beiträge zur Iranistik 31,
Wiesbaden 2009, 7‒26.
de Faye, E., Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris 21906.
Bibliography 255
de Ste Croix, G.E.M., Why were the early Christians persecuted? A Rejoinder, in:
PaP 27 (1964), 28‒33.
‒ Why were the early Christians persecuted?, in: PaP 26 (1963), 6‒38.
Dillon, J., Alcinous. The Handbook of Platonism, Translated with an Introduction
and Commentary, Oxford, 1993.
Dindorf, L., (ed.), John Malalas, Chronographia, Corpus Scriptorum Byzantinae
Historiae, Bonn 1831.
Doergen, H., Eusebius von Caesarea, der Vater der Kirchengeschichte, in: ThGl 29
(1937), 446‒448.
Doherty, E., The Jesus Puzzle, Ottawa 1999.
Edwards, M. / Goodman, M. / Price, S.R.F. / Rowland, C., Introduction. Apologet-
ics in the Roman World, in: M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.),
Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1999, 1‒13.
Edwards, M. / Goodman, M. / Price, S.R.F., (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Em-
pire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Oxford 1999.
Ehrman, B., The Apostolic Fathers II. Epistle of Barnabas. Papias and Quadratus.
Epistle to Diognetus. The Shepherd of Hermas. Edited and Translated by Bart D.
Ehrman, LCL 25, London 2003.
Eltester, I.W., Das Mysterium des Christentums. Anmerkungen zum Diognetbrief,
in: ZNW 61 (1970), 278‒293.
Engberg J., / Jacobsen, A.-C. / Ulrich, J., (eds.), Til forsvar for kristendommen –
tidlige kristne apologeter, Copenhagen 2006.
Engberg, J., Conversion, apologetic argumentation and polemic (amongst friends)
in second century Syria. Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum, in: M. Blömer / A. Licht-
enberger / R. Raja (eds.), Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to
Muhammad, Vol. 4, Turnhout 2014.
‒ Impulsore Chresto. Opposition to Christianity in the Roman Empire c. 50‒250
AD, ECCA 2, Frankfurt 2007.
‒ Martyrdom and Persecution. Pagan Perspectives on the Prosecution and Exe-
cution of Christians c. 110‒210 AD, in: J. Engberg / U.H. Eriksen / A.K. Pe-
tersen (eds.), Contextualising Early Christian Martyrdom, ECCA 8, Frankfurt
2011, 93‒117.
‒ The Education and (Self-)Affirmation of (Recent or Potential) Converts. The
Case of Cyprian and the Ad Donatum, in: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christen-
tum 16 (2012), 129‒144.
‒ ’From among You are We. Made, not Born are Christians’. Apologists‘ Accounts
of Conversion, in: J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen / M. Kahlos (eds.), Continuity and
Essig, K.-G., Erwägungen zum geschichtlichen Ort der Apologie des Aristides, in:
ZKG 97 (1986), 163‒188.
Estienne, R., (Stephanus) (ed.), Iustini opera omnia, Paris 1551.
Falkenberg, R. / Jacobsen, A.-C., (eds.), Perspektiver på Origenes’ Contra Celsum,
Copenhagen 2004.
256 Bibliography
Fiedrowicz, M., Apologie im frühen Christentum. Die Kontroverse um den christli-

chen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Paderborn 22001 (2000).
Fojtik, J.E., Tatian the Barbarian. Language, Education and Identity in the Oratio
ad Graecos, in: J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen / M. Kahlos (eds.), Continuity and
Frede, M., Eusebius‘ Apologetic Writings, in: M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.
Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1999, 223‒250.
Fredouille, J.-C., De l´Apologie de Socrate aux Apologies de Justin, in:
J. Granarolo (ed.), Hommage à R. Braun, vol. 2, Nizza 1990, 1‒22.
Frend, W.H.C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. From the Macca-
bees to Donatus, Cambridge 1965.
‒ Martyrdom and political oppression, in: P.F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian
World, London 2000, 815‒839.
‒ The Persecutions. some Links between Judaism and the Early Church, in:
JEH 9/2 (1958), 141‒158.
Fuglseth K., / Hyldahl, J. / Petersen, A.K., (eds.), Perspektiver på jødisk apologetik,
Copenhagen 2006.
Geffcken, J., Zwei griechische Apologeten, Leipzig 1907.
Georges, T., Tertullian, Apologeticum, Freiburg 2011.
Glover, T.R. / Rendall, G.H., Tertullian, Apologia, De Spectaculis. Minucius Felix.
Octavius, with an English Translation, LCL 250, London 41966 (1931).
Goodspeed, E.J., Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen, Göttin-
gen 1984 (1914).
Grant, R.M., Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius, in: Studies in Early Christian-
ity 8 (1993), 47‒63.
‒ Greek Apologists of the Second Century, London 1988.
‒ Greek Apologists of the second Century, Philadelphia 1988.
‒ Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture, in: HThR 42 (1949), 41‒51.
‒ Jesus After the Gospels. The Christ of the Second Century, Louisville 1990.
‒ Patristica, in: VigChr 3 (1949).
‒ Scripture, Rhetoric and Theology in Theophilus, in: VigChr 13 (1959), 33‒45.
‒ The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch, in: JBL 66 (1947), 173‒196.
‒ The Decalogue in Early Christianity, in: HThR 40 (1947), 1‒17.
‒ The Early Antiochene Anaphora, in: ATR 30 (1948), 91‒94.
‒ The Heresy of Tatian, in: JTS 5 (1954).
‒ The Problem of Theophilus, in: HThR 43 (1950), 179‒196.
‒ Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus, in: HThR 40 (1947), 227‒256.
‒ Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum, Oxford 1970.
Grodzynski, D., Superstitio, in: REA 76 (1974), 36‒60.
Guyot, P. / Klein, R., (eds.), Das frühe Christentum bis zum Ende der Verfolgun-
gen, Vol. 1, Darmstadt 1993.
Harnack, A. von, Beilage V. Die Antithesen Marcions (nach Zitaten und Referen-
zen), in: Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Darmstadt 1960 (21924).
Bibliography 257
‒ Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der

alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, Leipzig 1883.
‒ Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Zweiter Theil. Die Chro-
nologie. Erster Band. Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenäus nebst einleiten-
den Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1897.
Harris, J.R. / Robinson, J.A., The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians,
from a Syriac ms. preserved on Mount Sinai. With an appendix containing the
main portion of the original Greek text by J. Armitage Robinson, TaS 1, Cam-
bridge 21893.
Heid, S., Iustinus Martyr I, RAC 19 (2000), 801‒847.
Heinze, R., Tertullians Apologeticum, Leipzig 1910.
Heinzelmann, W., Der Brief an Diognet, Erfurt 1896.
Helm, R., (ed.), Eusebius Werke VII. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi
Chronicon. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 47
(24 und 34), Berlin 1956.
Herford, R.T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, New York 1903.
Heussi, K., Die Stromateis des Clemens Alexandrinus und ihr Verhältnis zum
Protreptikos und Pädagogos, in: ZWTh 45 (1902).
Hill, C.E., From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Pres-
byter and the Author of Ad Diognetum, Tübingen 2006, 128‒165.
Hoffmann, J.R., Celsus On the True Doctrine. A Discourse Against the Christians
– Translated, Oxford 1987.
Hollerich, M.J., Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius. Reassessing the
First “Court Theologian”, in: ChH 59 (1990), 309‒325.
Holmquist, H. / Nørregaard, J., Kirkehistorie. Bind I. Oldtid og Middelalder,
Copenhagen 31946.
Hunt, E.J., Christianity in the Second Century. The Case of Tatian, London 2003.
Hyldahl J., / Petersen, A.K., (eds.), Perspektiver på jødisk apologetik, Copenha-
gen 2006.
Hyldahl, J., Sproget som symbol hos Klemens af Alexandria, in: Patristik 2 (2004), 1‒18.
Hyldahl, N., Philosophie und Christentum. Eine Interpretation zur Einleitung Justins,
Copenhagen 1966.
Hübner, R., Der Paradox. Eine antignostischer Monarchianismus im 2. Jahrhundert,
Leiden 1999.
Irvine, M., Interpretation and the semiotics of allegory in Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Augustine, in: Semiotica 63.1/2 (1987).
Isichei, E.A., Political thinking and Social Experience. Some Christian Interpreta-
tions of the Roman Empire from Tertullian to Salvian, New Zealand 1964.
Jacobsen, A.-C., Main Topics in Early Christian Apologetics, in: A.-C. Jacobsen
/ J. Ulrich / D. Brakke (eds.), Critique and Apologetics. Jews, Christians and
Pagans in Antiquity, ECCA 4, Frankfurt 2009, 85‒110.
‒ Apologetics and Apologies –Some Definitions, in: J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen /
M. Kahlos (eds.), Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics,
ECCA 5, Frankfurt 2009, 5‒21.
258 Bibliography
‒ Apologetics in Origen, in: A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich (eds.), Three Greek Apol-
ogists. Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius, ECCA 3, Frankfurt 2007, 11‒47.
‒ Apologetik ‒ et forsøg på en definition, in: R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Jacobsen (eds.),
Perspektiver på Origenes‘ Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004, 13‒26.
‒ Kelsos og Origenes, in: R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Jacobsen (eds.), Perspektiver på
Origenes‘ Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004, 27‒48.
Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923‒1994.
Janssen, L.F., Superstitio and the Persecution of the Christians, in: VigChr 33
(1979), 131‒159.
Jeffreys, E. / Jeffreys, M. / Scott, R., The Chronicle of John Malalas – A Translation,
Melbourne 1986.
Joly, R., Christianisme et Philosophie, Brussel 1973.
Kannengiesser, C., Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, Vol. 1 , Leiden 2004.
Karadimas, D., Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos. Rhetoric and Philosophy/Theology,
Lund 2003.
Karst, J., (ed.), Eusebius Werke V. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit
textkritischem Commentar, GCS 20, Leipzig 1911.
Kaufmann, C.M., Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik, Freiburg 1917.
Kazhdan, A., A History of Byzantine Literature (650‒850), The National Hellenic
Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research. Research Series 2,
Athens 1999, 95‒105.
‒ Where, When and by Whom was the Greek Barlaam and Ioasaph not written,
in: W. Will (ed.), Zu Alexander dem Grossen. Festschrift G. Wirth, Vol. 2, Am-
sterdam, 1988, 1187‒1209.
Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Creeds, Harlow 1972.
Keresztes, P., Imperial Rome and the Christians, Vol. 1, Lanham 1989.
‒ Tertullian’s Apologeticus. A Historical and Literary Study, in: Latomus 25
(1966), 124‒133.
‒ The Emperor Hadrian’s Rescript to Minucius Fundanus, in: Phoe. 21 (1967),
120‒129.
King, K.L., What is Gnosticism?, London 2003.
Kinzig, W., Der “Sitz im Leben“ der Apologie in der Alten Kirche, in: ZKG 100
(1989), 291‒317.
Klein, R., Tertullian und das römische Reich, Heidelberg, 1968.
Koestermannn, E., Ein folgenschwerer Irrtum des Tacitus (Ann. 15,44,2ff), in:
Hist. 16 (1967), 456‒469.
Kovacs, J.L., Divine Pedagogy and the Gnostic Teacher according to Clement of Alex-
andria, in: Journal of Early Christian Studies 9/1 (2001), 3‒25.
Kytzler, B., Minucius Felix. Octavius, Munich, 1965.
Kätzler, J.B., Religio. Versuch einer Worterklärung, in: 20. Jahresbericht des Bi-
schöflichen Gymnasiums Paulinum in Schwaz (1952/3), 1‒18.
Lake K., (transl.), Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Books I‒V, LCL 153, Lon-
don 2001.
Bibliography 259
Lampe, P., Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Tü-
bingen 1987.
Laupot, E., Tacitus’ Fragment 2. The Anti-Roman movement of the Christiani and
the Nazoreans, in: VigChr 54 (2000), 233‒247.
Lesky, A., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Bern 21963.
Lieu, J., Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity, London 2002.
Loofs, F., Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, Halle 41906.
‒ Theophilus von Antiohcien Adversus Marcionem, Leipzig 1930.
Lortz, J., Tertullian als Apologet I‒II, Münster 1927/1928.
Louth, A., (ed.), Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine,
translated by G.A. Williamson, London 1989.
Louth, A., The date of Eusebius‘ Historia Ecclesiastica, in: JThS 41 (1990), 111‒123.
Lührmann, D., Superstitio – die Beurteilung des frühen Christentums durch die
Römer, in: ThZ 42 (1986), 193‒213.
Mageröy H. / Ståhle, C.I., Barlaam ok Josaphats saga, KLNM(D) 1, Copenhagen
1956, 342‒345.
Malherbe, A.J., The Structure of Athenagoras, “Supplicatio pro Christianis”, in: Vig-
Chr 23 (1969), 1‒20.
Marrou, H.I., A Diognete. Introduction, SC 33, Paris 1951.
May, G., Schöpfung aus dem Nichts. Die Entstehung der Lehre von der creatio ex nihilo,
AKG 48, Berlin 1978.
Meecham, H.G., The Epistle to Diognetus. The Greek Text with Introduction Trans-
lation and Notes, Manchester 1949.
Michels, A.K., The versatility of Religio, in: The Mediterranean World. Papers Pre-
sented in Honour of Gilbert Bagani, Peterborough 1976.
Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC – AD 337), New York 21992
(London 1977).
Molland, E., Die litteratur- und dogmengeschichtliche Stellung des Diognetbriefes,
in: ZNW 33 (1934), 289‒312.
Molthagen, J., Der römische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhun-
dert, Göttingen, 1970.
Mommsen, T., Der Religionsfrevel nach römischem Recht, in: HZ 64 (1890).
Moreau, J., Die Christenverfolgung in Römischen Reich, Berlin 1971.
Munck, J., Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandria, Stuttgart 1933.
Munier, C., L’apologie de saint Justin philosophe et martyr, Fribourg 1994.
Méhat, A., Étude sur les ”Stromates” de Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris 1966.
Nesselhauf, H., Hadrians Reskript an Minucius Fundanus, in: Hermes 104 (1976),
348‒361.
Nestle, W., Die Haupteinwände des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum, in:
J. Martin / B. Quint (eds.), Christentum und antike Gesellschaft, Darmstadt
1990, 17‒80.
Neymeyr, U., Die christlichen Lehrer im 2. Jahrhundert, Leiden 1989.
Nicholson, O.P., The source of the dates in Lactantius’ Divine Institutes, in: JThS 36
(1985), 291‒310.
260 Bibliography
Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa, Vol. 2, Darmstadt 1958.

Norelli, E., La critique du pluralisme grec dans le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien,
in: B. Pouderon / J. Doré (eds.), Les Apologistes chétiens et la culture grecque,
ThH 105, Paris 1998, 81‒120.
Oesterle, H.-J., Textkritische Bemerkungen zur “Apologie” des Aristides von Athen,
in: ZDMG 130 (1980), 15‒23.
Osborn, E., Teaching and Writing in the first Chapters of the Stromateis of Clement
of Alexandria, in: JThS 10 (1959).
Otto, J.C.T., (ed.), Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, Vol. 1, Dufft 1876.
O’Ceallaigh, G.C., “Marcianus” Aristides. On the Worship of God, in: HThR 51
(1958), 227‒254.
Palmer, W., Atheism, Apologetic and Negative Theology in the Greek Apologists of
the Second Century, in: VigChr 37 (1983).
Parvis, S. / Foster, P. (eds.), Justin Martyr and his Worlds, Minneapolis 2007.
Perrone, L., Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer, in: A. Raban / K.G. Holum
(eds.), Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after two Millenia, Leiden, NewYo-
rk 1996, 515‒530.
Petersen, A.K., Apologetik og kritik ‒ et Århusprojekt, in: Præsteforeningens
Blad 8 (2006), 138‒145.
‒ At the End of the Road – Reflections on a Popular Scholarly Metaphor, in:
J. Ådna (ed.), The Formation of the Church. Papers from the Seventh Nordic
New Testament Conference in Stavanger 2003, Tübingen 2005, 45‒72.
‒ Between Old and Novelty. The Problem of Acculturation of Early Christianity
Illustrated by the Use of the Phoenix Motif, in: F. Garzía Martínez / G.P. Luttik-
huizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interac-
tion in Honour of A. Hilhorst, Leiden 2003, 147‒164.
‒ Contra Celsum som apologi, in: R. Falkenberg / A.-C. Jacobsen (eds.), Per-
spektiver på Origenes‘ Contra Celsum, Copenhagen 2004, 49‒68.
‒ Creating the ‛Others’ in Book of Mysteries and 1 Corinthians 1‒2, in: C. Hem-
pel / A. Lange / H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and
the Development of Sapiential Thought, Leuven, 2002, 405‒432.
‒ Paulus som apologet, in: A. Pilgaard (ed.), Apologetik i Ny Testamente, Frede-
riksberg 2005, 15‒37.
‒ The Diversity of Apologetics. From Genre to a Mode of Thinking, in: A.-C. Ja-
cobsen / J. Ulrich / D. Brakke (eds.), Critique and Apologetics. Jews, Christians
and Pagans in Antiquity, ECCA 4, Frankfurt 2009, 15‒41.
Petersen, W.L., Tatian the Assyrian, in: A. Marjanen / P. Luomanen (eds.), A Com-
panion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”, VCSup 76, Leiden 2005, 125‒158.
Petrement, S., Valentin est-il l’auteur de l’épître à Diognète?, in: RHPhR 46 (1966),
34‒62.
Pilgaard, A., Apostlenes Gerninger som apologetisk skrift, in: A. Pilgaard (ed.),
Apologetik i Det Nye Testamente, Copenhagen, 2005, 85‒96.
Pilhofer, P., Presbyteron kreitton. Der Alterbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen
Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, WUNT 2/39, Tübingen 1990.
Bibliography 261
Pouderon, B., / Doré, J., (eds.), Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque,
ThH 105, Paris 1998.
Pouderon, B., / Pierre, M.-J., (eds.), Aristide.Apologie. Introduction, textes cri-
tiques, traductions et commentaire, SC 470, Paris 2003.
Price, S.R.F., Latin Christian Apologetics: Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Cyprian, in:
M. Edwards / M. Goodman / S.R.F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman
Empire. Pagans, Jews and Christians, Oxford 1999, 115‒116.
Quasten, J., Patrology, Vol. 1, Utrecht 21962 (1953).
Quatember, F., Die christliche Lebenshaltung des Klemens von Alexandrien nach
seinem Pädagogus, Wien 1946.
Riedweg, C., Iustinus Martyr II, RAC 19 (2000), 848‒873.
Ritschl, A., Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. Eine kirchen- und dogmenge-
schichtliche Monographie, Bonn 21957.
Rizzi, M., La questione dell’unità dell’ “Ad Diognetum”, SPMed 16, Milano 1989.
Roberts, A. / Donaldson, J. / Coxe, A.C. (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I.
The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, New York 22007 (1885).
Robinson, O.F., Repressionen gegen Christen in der Zeit vor Decius. Noch immer
ein Rechtsproblem, in: ZSRG.R (1995), 352‒369.
Rogers, R., Theophilus of Antioch. the life and thought of a second-century bishop,
Lanham 2000.
Sachot, M., Religio/superstitio. Historique d’une subversion et d’un retournement,
in: RHR 208/4 (1991), 355‒394.
Sailer, I.M., (ed.), Der Brief an Diognetus, eine Perle des christlichen Altherthums,
in: Briefe aus allen Jahrhunderten der christlichen Zeitrechnung, Vol. 1‒5, Mün-
chen 1800‒1804.
Sandnes, K.O., The Challenge of Homer. School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity,
London 2009.
Scheid, J., Religion et superstition à l’époque de Tacite. Quelques reflexions, Cádiz 1985.
Schneider, U., Theologie als christliche Philosophie, Berlin 1999.
Schoedel, W.R., (ed.), Athenagoras. Legatio and De Resurrectione, Oxford 1972.
‒ Apologetic Literature and Ambasadorical Activities, in: HTR 82 (1989), 55‒78.
‒ Christian “Atheism” and the Peace of the Roman Empire, in: Church History
(1973), 309‒319.
‒ Theophilus of Antioch. Jewish Christian?, in: Illinois classical studies 18
(1993), 279‒297.
Seeberg, R., Die Apologie des Aristides untersucht und wiederhergestellt, in:
T. Zahn (ed.), FGNK 5, Erlangen 1893, 159‒414.
Semler, J.S.,Versuch eines fruchtbaren Auszugs der Kirchengeschichte, Band 1: bis
1400, Halle 1773.
Sherwin-White, A.N., The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary,
Oxford 1966.
Skarsaune, O., Apologetik IV. Kirchengeschichtlich 1. Alte Kirche sowie Apologie,
literarisch, in: 4RGG 1 (1998), 616‒632.
262 Bibliography
‒ The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-text Tradition,

Leiden 1987.
Sordi, M., The Christians and the Roman Empire – Translated by Annabel Bedini,
London 1988.
Spanneut, M., Tertullien et les premiers moralistes africains, Paris 1969.
Speigl, J., Der römische Staat und die Christen. Staat und Kirche von Domitian bis
Commodus, Amsterdam 1970.
Stark, R., The Rise of Christianity, Princeton 1996.
Steven, H., Imperial Inquisitions. Persecutors and Informants from Tiberius to
Domitian, Florence 2001.
Stowers, S.K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986.
Stählin, O., (ed.), Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunder-
te, Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 1. Protrepticus und Paedagogus, Leipzig 1905.
Stählin, O., / Früchtel, L., (eds.), Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 2. Stromata Buch I‒
VI, Berlin 31960.
Stählin, O. / Früchtel, L., (eds.), Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 3. Stromata Buch VII‒
VIII, Berlin 31970.
Swancutt, D.M., Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy,
in: J. Starr / T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context,
Berlin 2004, 113‒153.
Swift, L.J., Forensic Rhetoric in Tertullian’s Apologeticum, in: Latomus 27 (1968),
864‒877.
Sylburg, F., Iustini opera, Heidelberg 1593.
Tabbernee, W., Eusebius’ “Theology of Persecution”. As Seen In the Various Editions
of his Church History, in: Journal of Earl Christian Studies 5 (1997), 319‒334.
Thielman, F., Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea, in: VigChr 41
(1987), 226‒237.
Thyssen, H.P., Justins Apologier, Oversættelse med indledning og kommentar, Aar-
hus 1996.
Tronier, H., Transcendens og transformation i Første Korintherbrev, Copenhagen 1994.
‒ Virkeligheden som fortolkningsresultat – om hermeneutikken hos Filon og Pau-
lus, in: M. Müller / J. Strange (eds.), Det Gamle Testamente i jødedom og kri-
stendom, Copenhagen 1993, 151‒182.
Ulrich, J., Innovative Apologetik, in: ThLZ 130 (2005), 3‒16.
van den Broek, R., Eugnostus and Aristides on the ineffable God, in: id. / T. Baarda /
J. Mansfeld (eds.), Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, Études prélim-
inaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire Romain 112, Leiden 1988, 202‒218.
van Winden, J.C.M., An early Christian Philosopher. Justin Martyr´s Dialogue with
Trypho, chapters one to nine, Leiden 1971.
Vermander, J.-M., De quelques répliques à Celse dans le Protreptique de Clément
d’Alexandrie, in: REAug 23 (1977), 3‒17.
Völker, W., Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus, Berlin 1952.
Wallace-Hadrill, A., Suetonius the scholar and his Caesars, London 21995.
Walzer, R., Galen on Jews and Christians, Oxford 1949.
Bibliography 263
Wengst, K., Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift

an Diognet, Darmstadt 1984.
Whittaker, M., Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos and fragments, OECT, Oxford 1982.
Wilken, R.L., The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them, in:
E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Vol. 1, Philadelphia
1980, 100‒125.
‒ The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, New Haven 1984.
Willert, N., The Reception of Biblical and Graeco-Roman Ethics in the Apologetics
of the Early Church, in: D. Brakke / A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich (eds.), Beyond
Reception. Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism, and Early
Christianity, ECCA 1, Frankfurt 2006, 89‒116.
Williams, M.A., Rethinking “Gnosticism”. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubi-
ous Category, Princeton 1996.
Winkelmann, F., Euseb von Kaisareia. Der Vater der Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1991.
Wlosok, A., Christliche Apologetik gegenüber kaiserlicher Politik bis zu Konstantin,
in: E. Heck / E.A. Schmidt (eds.), Res humanae – res divinae. Kleine Schriften,
Heidelberg 1990, 137‒156.
Woodward, G.R. / Mattingly, H. / Lang, D.M., (eds.), St. John Damascene. Bar-
laam and Ioasaph, LCL 34, London 1967.
Wright, D., Tertullian, in: P.F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian World, London
2000, 1027‒1047.
Young, F., Greek Apologists of the Second Century, in: M. Edwards / M. Goodman
/ S. Price / C. Rowland (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews,
and Christians, Oxford 1999.
Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity
Edited by David Brakke, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and Jörg Ulrich
The series ECCA (Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity) seeks to publish monographs and
edited volumes that take as their theme early Christianity and its connections with the religion(s) and
culture(s) of antiquity and late antiquity. Special attention is given to the interactions between religion
and culture, as well as to the influences that diverse religions and cults had on one another. Works
published in ECCA extend chronologically from the second century B.C.E. to the fifth century C.E. and
geographically across the expanse of the Roman empire and its immediate neighbors.
Die Reihe ECCA (Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity) zielt auf die Publikation von Monogra-
phien und Sammelbänden, die sich thematisch mit dem frühen Christentum und seinen Beziehungen
zu Religion(en) und Kultur(en) der Antike und Spätantike befassen. Dabei gilt das besondere Augen-
merk den Wechselwirkungen, die Religion und Kultur aufeinander ausüben, sowie den Einflüssen, die
die verschiedenen Religionen und Kulte aufeinander hatten. Zeitlich erstrecken sich die in ECCA pu-
blizierten Arbeiten auf das 2. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 5. Jh. n.Chr., geographisch auf den Raum des Impe-
rium Romanum und seiner unmittelbaren Nachbarn.
Vol. 1 David Brakke / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich (eds.): Beyond Reception. Mutual
Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism, and Early Christianity. 2006.
Vol. 2 Jakob Engberg: Impulsore Chresto. Opposition to Christianity in the Roman Empire c. 50-
250 AD. 2007.
Vol. 3 Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich (eds./Hrsg.): Three Greek Apologists. Drei griechi-
sche Apologeten. Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. Origenes, Eusebius und Athanasius.
2007.
Vol. 4 Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich / David Brakke (eds.): Critique and Apologetics.
Jews, Christians and Pagans in Antiquity. 2009.
Vol. 5 Jörg Ulrich / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Maijastina Kahlos (eds.): Continuity and Disconti-
nuity in Early Christian Apologetics. 2009.
Vol. 6 Blossom Stefaniw: Mind, Text, and Commentary. Noetic Exegesis in Origen of Alexandria,
Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius Ponticus. 2010.
Vol. 7 Anna Tzvetkova-Glaser: Pentateuchauslegung bei Origenes und den frühen Rabbinen.
2010.
Vol. 8 Jakob Engberg / Uffe Holmsgaard Eriksen / Anders Klostergaard Petersen (eds.): Contex-
tualising Early Christian Martyrdom. 2011.
Vol. 9 Marie Verdoner: Narrated Reality. The Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea.
2011.
Vol. 10 Doris Sperber-Hartmann: Das Gebet als Aufstieg zu Gott. Untersuchungen zur Schrift de
oratione des Evagrius Ponticus. 2011.
Vol. 11 Jörg Ulrich / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / David Brakke (eds.): Invention, Rewriting, Usur-
pation. Discurse Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity. 2012.
Vol. 12 Jan Dochhorn (ed.): “For it is Written”. Essays on the Function of Scripture in Early Juda-
ism and Christianity. With the Assistance of Malte Rosenau. 2011.
Vol. 13 Finn Damgaard: Recasting Moses. The Memory of Moses in Biographical and Autobio-
graphical Narratives in Ancient Judaism and 4th-Century Christianity. 2013.
Vol. 14 Nicole Hartmann: Martyrium. Variationen und Potenziale eines Diskurses im Zweiten Jahr-
hundert. 2013.
Vol. 15 Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich (eds.): In Defence of Christianity.
Early Christian Apologists. 2014.
www.peterlang.com
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
ECCA 15
In Defence of Christianity examines the early Christian apologists in their context in
thirteen articles divided in four parts. Part I provides an introduction to apology and
apologetics in antiquity, an overview of the early Christian apologists, and an outline
of their argumentation. The nine articles of Part II each cover one of the early apolo-
IN THE CONTEXT
gists: Aristides, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, the author of the Letter to
Diognetus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Minucius Felix. Part III contextualises
the apologists by providing an English translation of contemporary pagan criticism of
OF ANTIQUITY
Christianity and by discussing this critique. Part IV consists of a single article discussing
Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich (eds.) · In Defence of Christianity

how Eusebius depicted and used the apologists in his Ecclesiastical History.
Edited by David Brakke, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Jörg Ulrich
Jakob Engberg
Jörg Ulrich
(eds.)
Jakob Engberg is Associate Professor of Church History at the Department of Culture

and Society at Aarhus University (Denmark).
Anders-Christian Jacobsen is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the De-
15
partment of Culture and Society at Aarhus University (Denmark).
Jörg Ulrich is Professor of Church History at the Faculty of Theology at the University
of Halle-Wittenberg (Germany).
ECCA 15_262383_Engberg_AM_155x230HC PLE.indd 1 28.04.14 12:19

(Early Christianity in The Context of Antiquity 15) Jakob Engberg, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Jörg Ulrich (Eds.) - in Defence of Christianity - Early Christian Apologists-Peter Lang (2014) PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

(Early Christianity in The Context of Antiquity 15) Jakob Engberg, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Jörg Ulrich (Eds.) - in Defence of Christianity - Early Christian Apologists-Peter Lang (2014) PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich (eds.) · In Defence of Christianity

Jakob Engberg is Associate Professor of Church History at the Department of Culture

ECCA 15_262383_Engberg_AM_155x230HC PLE.indd 1 28.04.14 12:19

Zu Qualitätssicherung und Peer Review Notes on the quality assurance and

Die Qualität der in dieser Reihe Prior to publication, the quality

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Translated by Gavin Weakley

Apologists and apologetics in the second century

Part II: The early Christian apologists

Part III: Contemporary Greco-Roman authors

Condemnation, criticism and consternation

The other Side of the Debate 2

The defenders of Christianity in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius

Part II: The early Christian apologists

apologetic works (emperors, officials, pagan acquaintances, or the pagan pub-

Part III: Contemporary Greco-Roman authors

Jakob Engberg / Anders-Christian Jacobsen / Jörg Ulrich

1. The most important factors giving rise to early Christian apologetics

4 See Wilken, 1984.

9 Plin., Ep. 10.97.

2. The beginnings and conditions of early Christian apologetics

2.1. The concepts of apologetics and apology

it as a collective description for early texts defending Christianity.11 Howev-

Jews reacted to perceived blasphemy against Moses and God in Stephen’s

3. Apologists and apologetics in the second century

14 Eus., h.e. 4.8,3; 17.1; 26.1 etc.

16 See Nils Arne Pedersen‘s contribution in this anthology.

4. The themes and forms of argument of early Christian apologetics

4.1. The specific charges and the attempt to repudiate them

21 See Jakob Engberg‘s contribution in this anthology, Theophilus.

23 Eus., h.e. 9.5,2.

them to categorically refuse to participate in the sacrifices to the gods which

26 Athenag., leg. 13.

Christians were depicted as worshipping a donkey.30 There is epigraphic evi-

30 Tert., Nat. 1.14,1.

provided legal protection against persecution, although Jewish insurrection

35 Tert., Nat. 1.14,2.

37 Just., 1 apol. 22.6.

38 Just., 1 apol. 26.1‒4.

4.3. The positive proofs for the truth of Christianity

42 Athenag., leg. 14.

perception is based on revelation – on the Holy Scriptures, which have been

53 Athenag., leg. 10.

58 Just., 1 apol. 19.1‒8; Athenag., res. 5‒7.

of principle it would be more appropriate to say that: If the task of the-

5. Early Christian apologetics in history and in the present

67 See J. Ulrich, Innovative Apologetik, in: ThLZ 130 (2005), 3‒16.

1. Introduction. Eusebius’ information

Eusebius returned to the two apologists, Quadratus and Aristides, in his

2. The transmission of the text

6 Harris / Robinson, 21893.

3. Content of the work

10 Translation in Harris / Robinson, 21893, 50 (revised by N.A. Pedersen).

interpolated11 appear to me to be completely mistaken. The text can be fully

4. Aim and genre of the text

5. Prescript and dating

12 Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 206f.

Hadrian16. Conversely, it is impossible for the names Marcianus, Titus and

revolt in 132‒35 AD would have been strongly imprinted. We have to assume

6. Later use of Aristides’ apology

20 See Pouderon / Pierre, 2003, 415‒432.

that precisely when Aristides classifies the Christians as a “new” race it