View
29
Download
23
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
.
Citation preview
TheTheurgicTurninChristianThought:Iamblichus,Origen,Augustine,andtheEucharist
by
JasonB.Parnell
Adissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophy(ClassicalStudies)
intheUniversityofMichigan2009
DoctoralCommittee:
ProfessorSarahL.AhbelRappe,CoChairProfessorDavidS.Potter,CoChairProfessorVictorCastonAssociateProfessorArthurMfwVerhoogt
JasonB.Parnell
2009
ii
Acknowledgments
ThanksbeyondmeasureareduetoProfessorSaraAhbelRappe,myprincipal
advisor,withoutwhosethoughtfulandtimelyinputthisprojectwouldsimplyhave
failed.Whatcoherenceistobefoundhereislargelyduetoherknowledge,experience
andknackfordispensingjusttherightwisdomatjusttherighttime.Fortheirvery
helpfuladviceonconstructingalargernarrativeaboutintellectualhistory,Iam
indebtedtoProfessorDavidPotterandProfessorVictorCastonastoProfessorArthur
Verhoogtforhispapyrologistseyeforerrorandscrutinizingattentiontokeyideasand
theirproperexplication.ProfessorH.D.Cameronisjustlyacknowledgedaswell,for
believingearlyonthattheprojectwasalivewhenitappearedquitemoribund.
Morebroadly,ImustexpressmygratitudetotheDepartmentofClassical
Studiesasawhole,forpermittingmycompletionofaprojectthatbegan,properly
speaking,in1996.
Amongmypeersingraduateschool,whohavecontributedsomuchcharmand
mayhemtomyyearsatMichigan,ImustacknowledgepreeminentlyRajiMittal,Alex
Conison,AlexAngelov,andAlbertusHorsting,whosecapacitiesforconstructive
idlenessanddistractionastonishinglydwarfevenmyown.Alongwiththem,Mike
Sampson,RobChenault,NateBethell,SanjayaThakur,KathrynSeidlSteed,JennFinn,
ShondaTohm,andthedecidedlyclassicalAlisonByrnes,MFA,werepeerless
contributorstotheconvivialityofmanygooddays.Ishallneveragainraiseatumbler
ofbourbonwithoutrememberingautumnafternoonsspentamongthem,whichisproof
againstallretortoftheinsightinWalkerPercysdeclarationthatbourbondoesforme
whatthatpieceofcakedidforProust.
iii
TableofContents
Acknowledgments ii
ListofAbbreviations v
ChapterI:ChristianThoughtandTheurgy 1
1.TheProblem 1
2.Methodology:Approach,LimitsofStudy,Terminology 6
3.Overview 13
4.SummaryObservation 17
ChapterII:PaganandChristianIntellectualCulture 18
1.TheProblemofComparison:ChristianityandAntiquity 18
2.ChristianityandAntiquity:theModernProblem 21
3.ChristianThinkersintheRomanEmpire:theGreekApologists 30
4.TheCaseofAnatoliusandAlexandrianIntellectualCulture 44
5.AThirdCenturyChristianIntellectual:OrigenofAlexandria 50
ChapterIII:TheIamblicheanSymbolonandtheMetaphysicsofTheurgy 62
1.Introduction:ADisputeoverTheurgyandtheSoulsAscent 62
2.Plato,Plotinus,Iamblichus,andTradition:EmbodimentanditsDiscontents 77
3.IamblichusandPlatonicCosmology 85
4.IamblicheanFirstPrinciplesandtheGoodnessofMaterialReality 88
5.MatterasObstacle,MatterasInstrument:DaemonsandDemiurgicSouls 100
iv
6.DivineMatterandIamblicheanritual 112
7.EikonandSymbolasMeansoftheSoulsAscent 116
ChapterIV:OrigenandtheAdaptationofPaganCult 133
1.Introduction:TheLogos,theRationalCreatureandMaterialCult 133
2.CosmologyandSpiritualAnthropology:CorporealityandRationalBeings 137
3.TheDefenseofMaterialityonPlatonicGround 168
4.TheIncarnationoftheLogos:EncounteringGodintheBody 179
5.ExorcisingtheDaemons:ChristianizingPaganCult 189
ChapterV:TheurgyandEucharisticMediationinAugustine 209
1.Introduction:AugustineandtheTheurgicInheritance 209
2.AugustinesTaxonomyofDaemons 214
3.TheurgyasDaemonicCult 225
4.ChristasPerfectEmbodiedMediation 229
5.EucharistasSign:ASignTheoryofLanguageAppliedtoCult 239
ChapterVI:Conclusion 256
Bibliography 261
v
ListofAbbreviationsAbst. Porphyry,deAbstinentiaagon. Augustine,DeagonechristianoAscl. AsclepiusC.Cels. Origen,ContraCelsumCMAG Cataloguedesmanuscritsalchimiquesgrecscod. Photius,BibliothecaeCodicescommEph Origen,FragmentaexcommentariisinepistulamadEphesioscommJohn Origen,CommentariiinevangeliumJoanniscommMatt Origen,CommentariuminevangeliumMatthaeic.Faust. Augustine,ContraFaustumManicheumCorp.Herm. CorpusHermeticumDCMS Iamblichus,DeCommuniMathematicaScientiaLiberDM Iamblichus,DeMysteriisDeciv.D. Augustine,DeCivitateDeiDeDeoSocrat. Apuleius,DeDeoSocratisDepraescr.haeret. Tertullian,Depraescriptionehaereticorumdial. Origen,dialoguscumHeraclideDiogn. EpistletoDiognetusdiv.qu. Augustine,DediversusquaestionibusoctogintatribusEH Eusebius,EcclesiasticalHistoryench. Augustine,EncheiridiondefidespeetcaritateEnn. Plotinus,EnneadsexProv Origen,ExpositioinProverbiaf.etsym. Augustine,DefideetsymbolofrJohn Origen,FragmentainevangeliumJoannisfrMatt Origen,FragmentainevangeliumMatthaeihaer. Epiphanius,PanarionseuadversuslxxxhaeresesinNic. Iamblichus,InNichomachiArithmeticamIntroductioneminPh. Simplicius,inAristotelisphysicorumlibrosoctocommentariainPrm. Damascius,inParmenideminR. Proclus,inPlatonisRempublicanCommentariiinTi. Proclus,inPlatonisTimaeumCommentariiLg. Plato,Legesmag. Augustine,DeMagistro
vi
Marc. Porphyry,AdMarcellammart. Origen,ExhortatioadMartyriumPhaed. Plato,PhaedoPhaedr. Plato,Phaedrusprinc. Origen,DePrincipiisquant. Augustine,DeanimaequantitateselPs Origen,SelectainPsalmosStrom. Clement,StromateisTi. Plato,Timaeustrin. Augustine,DeTrinitateVP Porphyry,VitaPlotiniVS Eunapius,VitaeSophistarum
1
ChapterI:ChristianThoughtandTheurgy
1.TheProblem
UntilfairlyrecentlyscholarshaveregardedIamblichusdefenseoftheurgyas
littlemorethanathinapologyforthemagicalmanipulationofgodsanddemons.Itwas
famouslytermedamanifestoofirrationalism,afoundingcharterforevery
superstitionopposedtogenuinephilosophicalreasoning.1Thetheurgicturnin
Platonismwastobeunderstoodasanaberrationsymptomaticofdeclineanddecadence,
afallingawayfromthemoresophisticated,rarefiedphilosophyofPlotinusand
Porphyry.ThisviewisinkeepingwiththeargumentsofPorphyryhimself,whose
uneasewiththeurgypromptedhimtowritehisLettertoAnebotochallengeit,provoking
inturnIamblichusresponseinhisDeMysteriis.2Themostrecentscholarshiphas
shownthatthatmorecontemptuousevaluationsofIamblichusrepresentinparta
misperception,andthathisworkismoreaccuratelyreadasagenuineattemptto
vindicatematerialreligiousriteswithintheframeworkofacoherentmetaphysicsand
psychology.3
Becauseofthehistoricallynegativeperceptionoftheurgy,thequestionofits
influenceonlaterChristianthinkersbecomesacomplicatedmatter.Thelongstanding
prejudiceagainsttheurgyasdebasedsuperstitioninfectsapproachestoChristianwriters
1E.R.Dodds,TheGreeksandtheIrrational(1973)28788.2ChapterIII.12willconsiderthebackgroundofIamblichusrelationshiptohisfellowNeoplatonists.3Shaw(1999)summarizesthecaseandcatalogstheessentialbibliography:Trouillard(1972);Dillon(1973);Larsen(1972);Lloyd(1967);Steel(1978);Smith(1974);Sheppard(1982);Shaw(1985,1995);Fowden(1986);Athanassiadi(1993).
2
whoseworksbeartheurgysclearmarkings,andwhoseauthorsareoftenconsidered
suspiciouslypaganasaresult.Ithaslongbeenacknowledgedthattheworksof
PseudoDionysius4openlyadoptsignificantlanguageandcontentfromIamblichus,
mediatedthroughthefifthcenturyAthenianschoolofNeoplatonism.Amongsome
scholars,thisstateofaffairshasoftengivenrisetothequestionofwhetherDionysius,
consideringhisNeoplatonistcommitmentsandtheurgicinfluences,canberegardedas
legitimatelyChristian.5SuchscholarsoftenstrivetoimplicateDionysiusinhisown
pagantheurgy,therebyquarantininghisPlatonismfromauthenticChristianity.
Specifically,Protestantscholarsparticularlyhaveoftenundertakentosanitize
Dionysiusadoptionofthetheurgicsymbola,readingthemasmeresignsofprinciplesto
beintellectuallyapprehended,ratherthanmateriallyefficaciouselementsinreligious
rites.6
Suchapproachesboththosethatsuspecttheurgyitself,andthosethatsuspect
Christianauthorsoftheurgiccorruptionarearguablyrelated,sinceeachseesin
theurgyamenacetobecontained,theformerregardingitasathreattolegitimate
philosophicaldiscourse,thelattertolegitimateChristianity.Insofarasbothapproaches
attemptsuchcompartmentalization,theyarealmostcertainlybothdefective.The
assignmentoftheurgytothecategoryofthemerelysuperstitioushasnowlongbeen
regardedasdeficient;likewise,anxietyovertheurgicinfluenceonthepseudoDionysius
hasbeensomewhatdiminished,orperhapsfinallydeclaredmoot.GregoryShaw,for
instance,specificallynotingDionysiusadoptionofaIamblicheantriadicorderingof
worship,hisadaptationofmaterialsymbola,andhisprescriptionsforadvancementto4late5thearly6thcentury5SeeespeciallythedisputebetweenKennethPaulWesche,ChristologicalDoctrineandLiturgicalInterpretationinPseudoDionysius(1989)andAlexanderGolitzin,OntheOtherHand[AReponsetoFr.PaulWeschesRecentArticleonDionysiusinSt.VladimirsTheologicalQuarterly.](1990).6Rorem,TheUpliftingSpiritualityofPseudoDionysius(1986)134,isconcernedtoavoidtaintingsacraments,asconceivedbyDionysius,withanyideaofmaterial,magicalefficacy.GolitzinTheMysticismofDionysiusAreopagita:PlatonistorChristian(1993)iscriticalofthistendency.OfLuibheidandRoremstranslation(1987)ofthePseudoDionysiancorpus,Shaw(1999)interestinglynotesthatthetranslatorsexcludethetermtheurgiafromtheirtext,despiteitsfortysevenoccurrences(includingcognates)inthecorpus(574,andn.1).
3
higherlevelsofworship,arguesforthelikelihoodthatDionysiussimplyadaptedthe
principlesandsomeoftheterminologyofIamblichuspsychologyandtheurgyto
completehishieraticvisionoftheChurch.Itisdifficult,hefurtherargues,nottosee
DionysiusasakindofChristianIamblichus.7
Asusefulassuchcorrectionshavebeen,theytoosufferfromafundamental
problem:thedefectofviewingtherelationshipbetweentheurgyandChristianthought
inneatlygenealogicalterms,foundedontheassumptionthatIamblichuscodifiedthe
theurgicturninPlatonism,basedonhisreceptiontheoftheChaldeanOraclesandother
influences,andthentransmittedittohisintellectualheirssuchasProclusandthe
Athenianschool.Fromthesesources,Dionysiuscouldadopttheurgicprinciplesasthe
basisforhismystagogyandhisaccountofChristianliturgy.Theproblemwiththis
approachisthatitoffersalineoftransmissionthatissimplytooclean,inthatitregards
ideasastransmittedlineallyandgenealogicallyratherthanlaterally.Butinreality,
ideasdonotexistonlyinphilosophicaltexts,butarerathernegotiatedinabroader
culturalcontext,aplainfactthatpointstothedangerinassumingthatIamblichean
thoughtandlatertheurgyareproductsofanintellectualtraditionthatissomehow
neatlyseparablefromtheculturethatshapedmajorthirdandfourthcenturyChristian
thinkers.Itmightseemthatthisinsightshouldbeobvious,andmoreoftenthannotitis
atleasttheoreticallyacknowledgedinscholarship;butevengivenitsrecognitionin
principle,itisoftennotobservedinpractice,whichresultsinatendencytoassumethat
athinkersstandingaspaganorChristianexcludesprimafaciehisengagementwith
certainideasasifcreedaldifferentiationdictatedcompartmentalizationofthought.
Underthisflawedconstruction,whileitmightbegrantedthatChristianthinkerscould
adopttherhetoricaltropesandphilosophicalargumentsofhigherGrecoRomanculture,
theyareneverthelesseffectivelyinsulatedfromtheputativelynegativeeffectstheir
borrowingsmighthaveonthesubstanceoftheirChristianity.
Thepresentargumentispremisedonaresistancetotheeasytaxonomyofsucha
perspective,arguingratherthatpaganandChristianthinkersnotonlyspeakthesame
7Shaw(1999)58586.
4
language,butthattheyaresubstantivelycoparticipantsinthesameculture.The
argumentthereforestartsfromtheprinciplethattheboundariesdividingthepagan
fromtheChristianbeforeandafterIamblichusshouldbeseenaslargelyfictional
constructsservingscholarlyconvenience,andgivenillusorystabilitybytherhetorical
natureofChristianpolemicbothancientandmodern.BothChristianityandthe
traditionalreligioussystemsandphilosophicalschoolsoftheRomanEmpireemerge
fromthesameculturalmatrixdefinedbyastoreofsharedideas,practicesand
dispositionsonethatisalreadycharacterizedbyaconstantinteractionthatdefines
bothChristianityandlaterpaganism.Itisnotthecasethatonemerelyinfluencesthe
otherinalinealfashion,butthattheyemergefromthesameculturalworld,andquite
naturallymanifestanalogoustraits.Withintellectualcultureplacedinproper
perspective,weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindtheoreticalsimilaritybetweenChristian
andpaganthought,toincludethephilosophicaltheorizationofritualpractice.
Becausethisperspectiverequiresthatweseeideasasarisingwithinashared
culture,weencounteraspecialdifficulty.Despiteacontextcommontobothpaganand
Christianthinkers,Christianityposesadistinctiveprobleminitsstanceofexclusivity,
whichrequireditsadherentstoadoptarhetoricofdifferentiationinordertodistinguish
themselvesfromthepagancultsthattheyunderstoodasinadequateandgenerally
maleficent.Christianthinkerswereforced,inotherwords,toconceallikenessinthe
interestsofdefiningandmaintainingidentity.Thedifficultiesthatthirdandfourth
centuryChristianthinkerswouldencounterincarryingoutthisrhetoricalprojectare
alreadyevidentinearlierperiods,whenChristianthoughtisfirstassimilatingitself
withinitsGrecoRoman,neareastern,polytheist,andJewishcontext.Oftentherhetoric
employedreflectstheconsciousnessofthesomewhatimperiledplaceofChristianity
withinthecultureandpoliticsoftheempire.Differentstrategiesmightbeemployedas
circumstancesdictated.AphilosopherliketheapologistJustininthesecondcentury
couldpraiseGreekphilosophy,subordinatingittobiblicalwisdomandtherebytaming
itforChristianuse,whilethethirdcenturyNorthAfricanbishopTertulliancould
famouslycallPlatohimselfomniumhaereticorumcondimentarius,spicesuppliertoall
5
heretics,theverysourceofalldoctrinalcorruption.Thesetwostrategiescouldscarcely
bemoredifferent,andyettheyarealikeinthebasicsensethattheyrepresenteffortsat
creatingandpreservingaChristianidentity,whetherbytherhetoricalplunderingof
classicalculture,orbyitsvehementrejection.EvenTertullianscasedoesnotleavethe
questionofChristiandevotiontotherhetoricalandphilosophicalcontentofclassical
cultureparticularlyindoubt.Suchrhetoricaldissimulationswouldpersistintolater
times.InthecaseofbothOrigenandAugustine,weshallencounterasimilarrhetoricof
differentiationworkingtooccludethephilosophicalkinshipoftheirsacramental
thoughttothemagicandtheurgythattheyvocallyreject.
Thebasicquestionthatthisstudyisintendedtoraiseconcernstheextentto
whichOrigenandAugustinesinterrogationsofeucharistareindebtedtothe
vocabularyandconceptualapparatusbestexpressedinIamblicheantheurgy.Thesetwo
particularthinkerswouldbynomeansbeconsideredtheurgictothesamedegreeas
PseudoDionysius,whosewritingsdolittletoconcealtheirsourceintheurgic
Neoplatonism.WhereAugustineandOrigendeploytheurgicthought,theydosomore
subtlyasmustbethecaseespeciallyforOrigen,sincehisdeathlongpreceded
theurgysIamblicheanarticulation.Whatunitesthemisadifferentiatingrhetoricthat
veilstheirownadoptionoftheurgicmechanismsofsacramentalmediationadoptions
thatoccur,asithappens,intheverymidstoftheirfloridrhetoricalrejectionsofthe
magicalandtheurgic.IntheargumentsofOrigenandAugustinewecanthusdiscern
someverypaganprinciplesatwork,maskedineachcasebythesamerhetorical
strategies,andreconfiguredintheirmediatingagenciesandexternalritualforms.Thus
itbecomespossible,evendespiteOrigensdisruptionofaneatchronologicalsequence,
tosuggestthatinthematterofeucharist,PlatonizingChristianthinkersofthethirdand
fourthcenturieswerealreadyexperimentingwithafundamentallytheurgicaccountof
ritualmediation,longbeforePseudoDionysiusengagedinhismoreovert
appropriations.
6
2.Methodology:Approach,LimitsofStudy,Terminology
A.Approach
Theapproachofthisdissertationstemsfromtheconvictionthattheoreticalideas
aboutcultcannotbeseparatedfromtheintellectualculturethatformstheirthinkers.
Whenweconcedetheinvolvementofideasinculture,itfollowsthatwemustalwaysbe
attentivetotherhetoricalcontextwithinwhichideasareframed,andalerttothewaysin
whichsophisticatedChristianthinkersmightsetaboutmaskingtheirassimilationof
paganideas.Thisisespeciallytrueincaseofthetextsthatarecentraltothepresent
study,OrigensContraCelsumandAugustinesOntheCityofGod,sinceineithercasewe
confrontvigorouspolemicagainstsomeofChristianitysmostlearnedopponents
Celsusintheformercase,Porphyryinthelatter.Itfollowsfromthepolemicalnatureof
thetextsthatwemustattuneourreadingtocertaindissimulationsthattheauthorsmay
bepracticinginthecourseoftheirarguments,inordertounderstandhowOrigenand
Augustinemayberedeployingmaterialinthecourseofconfiguringtheirown
eucharistictheories.Wemustlikewiseremainfocusedonthemorestraightforward
intellectualcontentoftheargumentsthattheyrejectandadvance.Centraltothepresent
studyistheconvictionthatbothreadingsarenecessaryonethatrecognizesarhetoric
ofdifferentiation,andonethatissensitivetotheconceptualframeworkwithinwhich
theseearly,experimentalarticulationsofeucharistictheoryaretakingshape.
Itfollowsthatacertainportionofthisstudywillbedevotedtoquestionsof
culturalidentityandrhetoric,andthatattheveryleastthatsuchconcernswillconstitute
asubtextthroughout.Muchoftherestofthestudy,whereallthreesignificantthinkers
areconcerned,willbefocusedonquestionsofmetaphysicalfirstprinciples,thenature
andvirtueofmaterialreality,andcompetinghierarchiesofmediationcomplemented
byquestionsonthenatureofthesoulanditsplacewithinrealitythushierarchically
conceived.Inallthreecases,theintellectualbackgroundiscomplex;buteachthinkers
workisshapedprofoundlybythephilosophicalconcernsofMiddleandNeoplatonism,
7
afactthatisreflectedintheobviousindebtednessoftheirseveralnarrativesof
salvationtotheoriginalPlatonicstoryofthesoulsfallandtheprospectsforits
eventualrepatriation.Allthreethinkers,forinstance,mustformulateanaccountof
whatitmeanstobeanembodiedsoul,oramaterialrationalcreature,anddevise
approachestotheproblemofwhetherthebodyandmaterialrealityconstituteprimarily
hindrancesoraidstotheprocessofthesoulsrepatriation.Allthree,theninamanner
thatrequirestherejectionoftoopronouncedadualismendorsetheideathatmaterial
realitymediatesaccesstoincorporealprinciplesthatrepresentthesoulsproper
template,orthatstandinahealingrelationshiptothesoulsinnerdisorientation,and
arewillingtoembracelanguageandformulationsthatcanbeseenasfundamentally
theurgicintheiraccountsofritualmediationofthesoulsascent.ForOrigenand
Augustine,thismeansthattheyadoptlanguageandassumptionsemployedwithinthe
verysystemsofreligiousmediationthattheyrhetoricallyreject.
B.LimitsofStudy
AlthoughitisreasonabletoarguethatthestudyofancientChristianitycanmore
safelyproceedfromtherecognitionofspecificcommunitiesandtheirvariety,8the
presentstudywillworkformtheassumptionthatnormativeChristianitysengagement
withtheintellectualcultureofthelaterRomanEmpireconstitutesasortoflocalityall
itsown.Forpurposesofthepresentstudy,Ishallarguethatwearejustifiedin
triangulatingthethoughtofOrigen,Iamblichus,andAugustineforanumberofreasons.
First,aswehavealreadynoted,therhetoricalapproachestakenbybothOrigenand
Augustinetotheproblemofmagicandtheurgyinwhichtheirownsubtle
appropriationsaremaskedbyadifferentiatingrhetoric,anddiscussionofeucharistis
abruptlyintrudedinthemidstofrejectionsofpaganritesofmediationservetoalign
8AsHansDieterBetzargues:Thedanger[offalselypositingChristianityandAntiquityasseparate,stableentities]isonlyremovedwhenantiqueChristianityisfirmlyregionalizedandalsoconsideredasconstitutingdifferentgroupswithparticularidentities(1998)8.
8
thetwothinkerswithinaChristiantraditionthatrejectsthemagicalandtheurgicwhile
appropriatingtheircategories.Putsimply,therhetoricalstrategiesofboththinkersare
akin,andineachcasepointdirectlytoanargumentforeucharistthatderivesfroma
distinctivelypagancontext.
Therearefurtherreasons,relatedtothematterofintellectualculture,toconsider
thesethreethinkerstogether.Origen,asweshallseeinChapterII,participatedinthe
sophisticatedintellectuallifeofAlexandria,especiallyasamemberofthephilosophical
circleofAmmoniusSaccas.ThelatterwasPlotinuslongsoughtteacher,afactthat
placesPorphyry,andsubsequentlyIamblichus,withinthesameintellectualtraditionof
thesecondcenturysNeopythagoreanMiddlePlatonism.Iamblichus,furthermore,may
havebeenastudentoftheAlexandrianphilosopherAnatolius,9aswellaslaterof
Porphyryhimself.ItisthusthatwecanseeOrigenandIamblichusviewsonfirst
principles,materiality,theproblemofthesoulsembodiment,andmaterialmediationof
incorporealprinciplesasderivedfromultimatelykindredsources.
AnothercuriousparallelarisesfromthefactthatbothOrigenandIamblichusare
involvedinapolemicwithotherPlatonistthinkerswhoofferaskepticalrejoinderto
theirmoremonistmetaphysicalpositions,whereeachisconcernedtodefendthe
efficacyofmateriallygroundedcultagainsttheclaimsofmoredualist,noetically
orientedphilosophersattemptingtopreservephilosophyforanintellectualelite.
WhereIamblichusmustresistPorphyrysskepticismabouttheurgyasalegitimatesetof
materialpracticesformediatingthesoulsascentandalsoasatheoreticalbasisfor
commonreligionsoOrigenmustresistCelsus,whoissimilarlyrepulsedby
Christianitysembraceofmateriallygroundedincarnationandresurrection,andthe
broadappealofitsculttothecommonrunofmen.OrigenandIamblichus,then,are
thinkersemergingfromacommoncultureofideas,andsharingacommonsetof
concerns.Whatdividesthemisnotprinciple,butratherOrigensneedtodeploya
ChristianrhetoricofidentitytosecurehisChristianityagainstexcessiveassociationwith
paganpractices.
9AnatoliuscareerandpossiblerelationtoIamblichusareconsideredinChapterII,pp.4450.
9
WhenwecometothematterofAugustine,weconfrontathinkerwhoistosome
degreealienatedbytimeanddistance,butwhoisneverthelessavoluntaryparticipantin
thethirdcenturysdebates.InhisOntheCityofGod,whenheopenlytakesupthe
questionoftheurgy,hedirectlyexploitsPorphyrysownhesitationsoverthematter,
turningthelattersownambivalenceagainsthiminakindofliterarytorsion.
Porphyryssuspicionsoftheurgy,expressedinhisLettertoAneboandelsewhere,
promptedIamblichuselaboratereplyinitsdefense;andAugustine,fromsomeremove,
isdelightedtoadoptPorphyrysmoreskepticalpositions,simplyaccusinghimoffailure
totakethefurtherstepofacknowledgingthesuperiorityofChristianityasasystemof
mediation.Therelationofthesethinkersmightthusbebestexpressedintermsofa
sharedresistancetoapositionontheurgytakenbyPorphyry,withOrigenand
AugustinedistinguishedfromIamblichusprincipallybyadissemblingrhetoricthat
enablestheirretentionofcoretheurgicprincipleswhilerejectingparticulartheurgic
hierarchiesandrites.
BothOrigenandAugustine,then,canbeseenasnotonlymenofeliteeducation
andPlatonistdisposition,butasdirectparticipantsintheverysamedebatewith
Porphyrysanxietyovertheurgyservingassomethingofatangiblelinkbetweenthem.
WhenweaddtotheseconsiderationsthefactthatAugustinesresponsetotheclaimsof
theurgyconspicuouslymirrorsOrigenstoincludehisrhetoricalinsinuationof
Christianeucharistintheverymidstofhisrejectionofpaganritesitbecomesentirely
plausibletoviewthesethreethinkersaspreoccupiedwiththesamebasicproblems,and
toseeOrigenandAugustineas,insomesense,Christiantheurgists.
NoconclusionsaboutthedevelopmentofabroaderChristiansacramental
discoursefollowfromsuchanassertion,althoughotherChristianpractices,suchas
baptismandthevenerationofrelics,mightbemadetoconformtothesame
endorsementsofmaterialmediation.Suchambitionsexceedthescopeofthisstudy,as
theyplainlyliebeyondtheinterestsofOrigenandAugustinethemselvesinthecontext
oftheirconfrontationwiththemagicalandtheurgicastheyfindthemintheworksof
theirintellectualopponents.Astheydeveloptheirresponsestopaganritesofmediation
10
conceivedtheurgically,theyinvokeinstrikinglysimilarwayspreciselytheeucharist
astheuniquesolutiontotheproblemposedbythebroadsystemofdaemonicmediation
posedbypagantradition.Theyappeartosharearecognitionoftheimplicationsofthe
thoughtthattheyconfront,particularlyaninsightintothethreatthatpaganreligion
posestothemorenarrowlyconceivedsystemofdivinemediationrepresentedbythe
eucharisticpracticeofthenormativechurchthechurchsdailysacrifice,as
Augustinedescribesit.ForChristians,thecosmictempleoftheurgyandmagic,wherein
myriadsubstancesintheworldareassertedasmediatorsoftranscendence,couldnotbe
allowedtostandalongsidetheexclusivesystemofmediationbyanincarnateLogosseen
ascontinuouswithmaterialritescelebratedwithintheChristiancommunity.Origen
andAugustinearethusconfrontingthesameproblem,thoughindifferenttimesand
places,andtheyaredoingsowithbymeansofthesamerhetoricalapproach,conceived
withintheveryphilosophicaltraditionthatproducestheurgyitself.
AlthoughtheattempttotriangulatethethoughtofOrigenandAugustinewith
thatofIamblichusmayappearinadequatelylocalandthereforesomewhatarbitrary,it
isreallydefinedbythelimitedambitionofpositingarelativesimilaritybetweenthe
philosophicalandrhetoricalresponsesoftwoChristianparticipantsinGrecoRoman
philosophicalculture.TwothinkersofPlatonizingtendencyarerespondingto
traditionalwaysofdescribingthefunctionalityofreligiousriteswaysthatarefinally
codified,totheextentthatsuchispossible,inthesystemofthoughtpresentedby
Iamblichus.ItisIamblichusthought,then,andthearticulatedversionoftheurgythatit
represents,thatenablesustoperceivethatOrigenandAugustinearequietly
assimilatingthatfromwhichtheydistancethemselvesrhetoricallyandwhichwould
bemoreopenlyadoptedinlatercenturiesbyChristianthinkerssuchasPseudo
Dionysiusaspartofasystematicexplanationofsacramentalefficacy.
C.Terminology
11
Despitethegoodreasonsforusingthetermpolytheistratherthanpagan,I
shallusethetermsmoreorlessinterchangeably.10Polytheist,asithappens,isnot
alwaystheperfectlydistinguishingterm,sinceintheintellectualconflictover
Christianityinthe3rdcentury,divisionwasnotalwaysseenintermsofpolytheism
andmonotheism.WhenpaganthinkersinclinedtoattackChristianity,itwasnot
generallythefirstprinciplesofChristianthinkersthattheytargeted.Christiandivine
hierarchieshadcomeincreasinglytomirrorthoseofthePlatonismofthattime,which
wereinturngivenovertotheirownvariantsofwhatappearedtobetrinitarianism.11To
theextentthatsuchnomenclatureisrequiredatallanditobviouslyisacertain
amountofcarefulattentionforthecontentofthoughtcansurelyexcusethesomewhat
casualemploymentoftraditionalterms.
Theurgy,andespeciallytheclaimthatmajorthirdandfourthcenturyChristian
thinkersarequietlyassimilatingitsideas,isanothermatter.Iamblichususesafairly
complicatedsetoftermstodenotethematerialobjectsthatmaybeunderstoodto
mediateincorporealprinciple.Eikondesignatesthevisiblemanifestation,thematerial
surfaceofanysuchmediatingelement.Symbolonandsynthemasomewhat
interchangeablydesignateeithertheinvisibleprincipleorformunderlyingthematerial
element,ortheelementitself.Symbolonasatermdesignatingsuchformisattestedin
thetheurgicChaldeanOracles,thoughIamblichusseemstousetheterminadouble
edgedway,indicatingboththeobjectofcultattentionandtheinvisiblerealitiestowhich
itsuppliesalinkausagethatemphasizesthemediatingorbridgefunctionofthe
symbolonincult,andmakingofthesymbolonbothanoutwardsignandaninward
mystery.Origenappropriatesthisterminthecourseofrejectingmagicalritesand
defendinghisratherabruptlyintroduceddiscussionofeucharistinthecourseofhis
argument.12ThatOrigenwouldinvokethisterm,whichwouldlaterbecentralto
10ThereasonsareexplainedbyFowden(2005)521522.11SeeFrede(1997)22829.12ThatOrigendoesnottroubletodistinguishmagicandtheurgyisnomatter;refusaltodosowouldhavebeenstandardprocedureforanyChristianpolemicist,asAugustinesargumentin
12
Iamblichusdiscussionoftheurgy,isnotinitselfanargumentthatOrigenisoperating
withinatheurgictradition.Whatcompelsattentionisnotamerephilologicalparallel,
butratherthetermsrhetoricalcontext.AtpreciselythemomentthatOrigendeclares
theillegitimacyofpaganmagicalpracticesthatinvokeanynumberofobjectsassymbola,
employingasharp,dismissiverhetorictodistinguishillicitpaganpracticesfrom
acceptableChristianrites,heabruptlyadoptsthetermhimself,arbitrarilytransferringa
keypieceofterminologyfromapagantoaChristiandiscourse.Thus,asIhaveargued
above,itisnotmerelysubstantiveargument,orinthiscasephilologicalparallel,that
shoulddetermineourreadingofaChristianthinkersrelationtomagicandtheurgy,but
rathertherhetoricalcontextofhisargument,inwhichanefforttowarddifferentiation
mayconcealfurtiveassimilations.
Augustinepresentsacuriouslysimilarcase,andperhapsthemorefascinating
one,sinceasalaterthinkerhecouldengagetheurgyasamoredevelopedsystem.
Books810ofOntheCityofGodarecomposedwiththeaimofrejectingpagansystemsof
daemonicmediation,whichAugustineidentifieswiththeurgyandmagic.Muchlike
Origen,heabruptlyintrudesajustificationofChristianeucharistinthemidstofhis
dismissalofmoreancientmediatinghierarchiesandrites.Thetheoreticalframework
thatAugustineappliesinitsdefensecentersonthetermsignum,orsign.Itisnot
adequatetoarguethatAugustineismerelytranslatingthetheurgicsymbolonintoaLatin
signum,andtosuggestonthebasisofphilologicalechothathe,likeOrigen,isacrypto
theurgist;butasinOrigenscase,therhetoricalcontext,wheretheprincipalaimis
rejectionofdaemonicmediation,suggestsstronglythatAugustinemeanstointerpolate
hisownsystemwithinapreexistingpagantemplate.Whenwefurthernotehowhe
shiftsthemeaningofthetermsignumoverthecourseofhisargument,movingquietly
fromanotionofsacrificeasametaphoricalsignoftransformedinnerdisposition,toa
notionoftheeucharisticsacrificeasasigninwhatmustplainlybeadeepersense
requiringthatthesignumfunctionasavehiclemanifestingsubstantiveinnerrealitiesto
OntheCityofGodmakesplain.EvenIamblichushimselfwouldstruggletomaintainthedistinctionagainstintellectualoppositionlongafterOrigensdeath.
13
thevotarythenitbecomesclearthatAugustine,too,isinvokingnotionsofmediation
thatarecharacteristicofthetheurgicsystemsheattacks.Asbefore,rhetoricalcontextis
thedecisivefactorinidentifyingthepossibilityofanalogyinthought.
3.Overview
TheaimofChapterIIistosuggestwaysofapproachingChristianthinkersinthe
secondandthirdcenturiesasparticipantsinaworldofsharedintellectualassumptions
aculturemarkedbycommonaccesstointellectualcircles,thesamephilosophicaland
rhetoricalschools.Whentheintellectualcultureofantiquityissoviewed,itbecomes
possibletoseethethoughtofdifferentthinkers,themselvesvariouslypaganor
Christian,asindebtedtoacommontradition.Thecrucialpointintheargumentisthat
cultureitselfisshared;Christiansdonotmerelyengageinmimicry,butrather
participateinintellectualculturealongsidetraditionalists,suchthattheyarepredictably
absorbedbythesamequestions,andunsurprisinglyworkoutsolutionstoproblems
describedwithinthesameconceptualparameters.Suchanunderstandingisconducive
toaproperapproachtothethoughtofIamblichus,Origen,andAugustineinsubsequent
chapters.Inthecourseofthisargument,weshallconsiderfirstsomeofmodernitys
deficientmodelsfordefiningtherelationshipbetweenChristianityandAntiquity,
manyofwhicharefoundeduponanerroneousideaoforigins,thattendedtoposita
pureChristianitystandingpriortothecorruptionsoflaterperiods.Alsounder
considerationwillbetherelativebenefitofmakingcomparisonsinanalogicalrather
thengenealogicalterms.ThenextsectionwillconsiderthewaysinwhichChristian
apologistsofthesecondcenturymaybefruitfullyconsideredastheearliestinstancesof
arhetoricofdifferentiationthatstrugglestofindwaysofsituatingChristianthought
withinGrecoRomanculture.Theapproachesoftheapologistsdifferwidely,butin
eachcase,whethertheirintentionisoppositionorintegration,theapologistsemergeas
definitivelyGrecoRomanfigures,deployingtropesandargumentsthatrevealthemas
specimensofclassicalculture,whethercomfortablysoornot.Theargumentwillthen
14
proceedtotheintellectualcultureofthethirdcentury,citingevidenceforwhatweknow
ofChristianparticipationinthesophisticatedphilosophicalcultureofAlexandria.
Centraltothisstorywillbethecareerssomewhatspeculativelyreconstructedofthe
peripateticphilosopherandChristianconvertAnatolius,whohimselfmayhavehad
connectionstoIamblichusandPorphyry,andthatofOrigen,whoseparticipationinthe
moreeliteintellectualcirclesemergesclearlydespiteEusebiustendentious
hagiography.Thisculturalpictureshouldinformthewayweconsultthetextsofboth
paganandChristianthinkersinourattemptsdefinewhat,intheirseveralviews,
accountsfortheefficacyofreligiousritesofmediation.
ChapterIIIwillstepawayfromthelivesofChristianthinkers,andfocusrather
onIamblicheantheurgy.ItwillbeginwithsomebackgroundonIamblichus
developmentofaphilosophicallygroundedtheurgyasastudiedresponsetothe
deficienciesthatheperceivedinthePlatonismofhisday,andasalegitimate
philosophicaloutlookfoundedonamorefaithfulreadingofthePlatonictradition.It
willspecificallyengageIamblichusconflictwiththePlatonisttraditionofhistime,
especiallyhisoppositiontowhatheseesasdistortionsofPlatonicthoughtinthework
PlotinusandPorphyryonsuchmattersastheundescendedsoul,thenproceedto
Iamblichusowncosmology,inwhichthematerialcosmosisamanifestationof
transcendentreality,sothatthesoulsrepatriationmaybeunderstoodasmediatedbya
materialworldconceivedintermsofIamblichusfundamentalmonism.Iamblichus
metaphysicsareNeopythagoreaninoriginandaffirmthegoodnessofmaterialrealityas
amanifestationofeternalcosmicproportions.HetherebyresolvesthePlatonic
traditionsambivalenceoverthesoulsrelationtomatter,finallyassertingmatterasboth
disorientinghindranceandnecessaryinstrument,andassertingthattheproperly
repatriatedsoulparticipatesinthedemiurgicorganizationofthematerialcosmos
throughcultthatproperlyalignsitwiththedemiurgesdaemonicfunctionaries.Since
suchanapproachvindicatesmaterialreligiouscult,theargumentwillconsiderfinally
theIamblicheantheoryofthesymbolonasexpressedthroughthecomplexofterms
symbolon,synthema,andeikonthearcanesignsandimprintsdispersedthrough
15
materialnature,servingasthetheurgistsportaltotheinvisibledemiurgicworldofgods
anddaemons.Iamblichusthoughtonthesesymbolaiscrucialtounderstandingthelinks
connectingChristianthinkerswithatheurgicworldviewlinksthatarestrongly
suggestedintheembraceofsuchlanguageandconceptsbyChristians,evenwhen
rhetoricallydissimulated.
InawaythatlooselymirrorstheconsiderationofIamblichusinChapterIII,
ChapterIVwillconsiderOrigenscosmologyandspiritualanthropologyhisvarianton
thetraditionalnarrativeofthefallofthesoulandhisChristianresponsetotheissueof
embodiment,whichforhim,asforIamblichus,requiresthemediationofmaterialcultas
partofaremedy.ItwilladvancetheargumentthatOrigen,thoughoftenhandledasif
hewereafirmdualist,isactuallylesssothanonemightthink,andthathismoremonist
metaphysics,andhisembraceofanideaoftheuniversalityofembodiment,preparesthe
wayforatheoryoftheincarnateLogoswhomediatesdivinelifeforallrational,
embodiedcreatures,andwhoserationaleiscontinuouswiththeoreticaljustificationof
materialsacrament.NotunlikeIamblichus,Origenundertakestodefendembodiment
ontraditionalPlatonicground,accusinghisinterlocutor(Celsus)offailingtograspthe
vindicationsofmaterialrealitythatthePlatonictraditioncontains.Hisviewsof
spiritualanthropologyanddivineincarnation,enableOrigentoreplacetraditional
religiousformsadvocatedbyCelsuswithaChristianvariant,parallelinits
conceptualization,butconceivedasanextensionoftheincarnationoftheLogos,whose
mediationthoroughlyreplacesthatofgodsanddaemonsinthepaganpantheon.In
connectionwiththisdisplacementIshallarguethatOrigensexplicitrejectionofmagical
andtheurgicactsisactuallyaccompaniedbytheretentionofmuchoftheintellectual
frameworkattendingsuchacts,asmarkedespeciallybythelanguageofsymbolon,which
heappropriatesexplicitlyfromapaganreligiouscontext.
ChapterVisintendedtofunctionastheAugustiniancodatotheargument.It
contendsthatAugustine,too,mustconfrontthequestionoftheurgyanddaemonically
mediatedcult,andthathedoessoinamannerthatcanbemorepreciselyobservedand
measuredsincehelivedlongafterIamblichus,inanageinwhichtheclaimsoftheurgy
16
hadlongbeenanobjectofseriousintellectualdispute.Withoutreconstructing
Augustinianfirstprinciplesandcosmology,stilllessanAugustiniantheoryofthesoul,
itispossibletomarkthewaythatAugustinesargumentinOntheCityofGodfollows
sometrajectoriessimilartoOrigens.He,too,mustdismisstraditional,pagan
hierarchiesofgodsanddaemons,consigningthemtotheemptycategoriesofmagic,
witchcraft,andtheurgy,whichconsistentirelyofencosmicmanipulationsthatonly
entrapthesoulmoredeeplyinashifting,illusorymaterialworld.Hereplacestheurgic/
daemonicmodelsofmediationwithaChristianmodelthatisconspicuouslyadaptedto
theverytermsoftranscendentmediationcharacteristicofApuleiusaccountofthe
daemonic,andthatispredicatedonthesuperiormediatingcapacitiesoftheincarnate
Christ,makingChristthepreciseremedyforthedefectsidentifiedintheApuleian
system.Augustinelikewisemustovercomehisownpenchantfordualism,eventually
clarifyinghisviewofmatterasaneutralsubstrateforthemediationofcontactwitha
divineprincipium(theincarnateLogos).WhileAugustinesengagementwiththeurgyis
moredirect,hisappropriationsofitsthoughtandlanguageissomewhatmoresubtle.
Ratherthansimplyappropriatingthelanguageofsymbolon,Augustineapplieshisown
signtheoryoflanguageasamodelforexplainingcultmediation,developingtheidea
thatatangiblesacramentalsigncanmediateasubstantiveparticipationbybelieversin
thesacrificeofChrist.Thisargumentisinitiallyobscuredbytherhetoricaldistancingof
Christianritesfromtheirpagancounterparts,inwhichthetermsignum,asitappliesto
cult,isquarantinedfromassociationwithmagicandtheurgy;however,asAugustine
applieshissigntheoryoflanguageasananalogytocultefficacy,itbecomesclearthat
forhimtheeucharistisavisiblesignthatconveysinasubstantialwaythecontentof
thechurchsinvisiblesacrifice[sacrificium]toparticipatingbelievers.Augustines
engagementwiththeurgy,then,maybeobservedtocommencefromapretended
dualistrejectionofmatteranddaemonicworship,andtoproceedtoanembraceof
materialmediationinwhichpaganritesarefurtivelydisplacedbyChristianpractice
whosedefiningdifferenceistheagentofmediation,theincarnateLogos,whosehealing
efficacyisdescribedintermsofatheoryofsign.Augustinesapproachthuspreserves
17
anideaofmaterialrealityasamediatoroftranscendentprinciple,whichcreates
conceptualspaceforanincarnateWordandmaterialritualswhosesignificationis
coterminouswiththeireffects.
4.SummaryObservation
Atthecenterofmyapproachtotheproblemoftherelationshipofthirdand
fourthcenturyChristianthinkerstotheurgyareseveralbasicgoverningconvictions.
First,thatthehistoryofintellectualcultureshowsthatthetransmissionofideasshould
notbeunderstoodintermsofstraightforwardlinealdescent.Asenseofthepossibilities
forlateralcommunicationofideasacrosscreedalboundariesshouldbenormativeinany
discussionofChristianthinkers.Inarelatedmatter,weshouldbeattunedtotheways
inwhichtherhetoricemployedbysophisticatedChristianthinkersorbymodern
scholarscanactuallyservetoobscureoursenseoflateraltransmission.Thus,our
graspofthefirstpointthatpagansandChristianlivewithintheconfinesofshared
traditioncanbeimpairedbythevigorousrhetoricofexclusionandselfdefinitionthat
Christianthinkersoftenapplyintheirpolemics,orbythetermsappliedbymodern
scholarshipthatmayisolateChristianthinkersfromtheirpagancontemporaries.The
rhetoricofdistinctiveidentitycaneasilybecomeanobstacleinthewayofrecognizing
thecriticalappropriationsthatChristianthinkersmake,justasitservestomaskthose
associationsfromtheirpaganinterlocutors.Intheend,ifwescrutinizetheengagement
withwhatisessentiallytheurgicthoughtintheworksofOrigenandAugustine,we
discernthatboththinkers,insurprisinglysimilarways,constructprovisionalsystemsof
Christiansacramentalmediation,shapedbyatheologyoftheincarnateLogos,and
conceptuallyparalleltothetheurgicsystemsofhierarchicmediationwhosevalidity
theirworkstrivestodeny.
18
ChapterII:PaganandChristianIntellectualCulture
1.TheProblemofComparison:ChristianityandAntiquity
QuidergoAthenisetHierosylemis.13Tertulliansquestionremainsanexpressionof
thecentralprobleminthestudyofChristianityinitsrelationtotheintellectualand
culturalworldoftheGrecoRomanworld.PerhapsbecauseTertullianwasnotthemere
antiintellectualfideistthatsuchrhetoricmightsuggest,14neatlysequesteringfaithfrom
rationalreflection,hisquestionremainsparticularlyimportantasaspecimenofthe
rhetoricalattempttoseparatewhatareassumedtobetheneatlyseparable
faithandreason.Plainly,though,therhetoricalposturethatTertulliandisplayscan
scarcelyconcealnow,asitcouldhardlycheckthen,thebroadandsignificantinfluence
ofaGrecoRomanphilosophical,rhetorical,andreligiousinheritanceontheformation
ofnormativeChristianity.AthenshasmoretodowithJerusalemthanwecaneasily
measure,orthanTertullianmayhavealwaysbeenpreparedtocontemplate.His
questionramifiesintoahostofothers,notonlyonhowphilosophyaffectedtheshapeof
theologicaldebatesinantiquity,butonhowabroadrangeofcultural,intellectual,and
religioushabitscharacteristicofthelateRomanEmpireinfluencedandshapedaspects
ofemergentChristianityorperhapsmadeChristianity;andinturn,howChristian
formsofthoughtandworshipmayhaveexertedinfluenceoftheirown.Inshort,the
questionraisestheproblemsofinfluence,reception,andcomparison,withallofthe
methodologicalproblemsforthestudyofancientreligionthatsuchtermsentail.Inthe
13Depraescr.haeret.7.914Thisisoftensuggested,basedonhisothernotableapothegm,credibileest,quiaineptumest.SeeSider(1980)417.
19
caseofChristianity,theproblemsofreceptionandcomparisonarecomplicatedeven
morebythediffusenatureofthephenomenaatissue.TheformsofChristianityin
antiquityrepresentmorethansimplecreedandpracticethathappenedtoabsorbthe
termsofGreekphilosophy;theyrepresentfirstofallparticularcultsandcommunitiesof
considerablevariety,whichsuggeststhatthecategoriesofreceptionandinfluence
mustbespaciousenoughtoincludearangeofculturalandreligiousassumptionsand
practices,andthattheprojectofcomparisonisreallyopenended.Sucharecognition
mayevenraisetheprospectofcollapsingthedistinctionbetweenpolytheistand
Christianinsomeofitsaspects,assumingthatpolytheistandChristiancultdraw
uponasharedculturalstoreofreligiousbeliefs,assumptions,andpractices,sothata
trulyfullconsiderationoftherelationshipofAthenstoJerusalem,ofpaganto
Christian,wouldentailavirtuallyopensetofculturalfactors,philosophicalcastsof
mind,tendenciesinliterarycriticismandexegesis,aswellasavarietyofreligiousand
culticassumptions.Inshort,whenconsideringthepolytheistandtheChristianinthe
abstract,thereisvirtuallynospacewithintheintellectualandreligiouslifeofthelate
RomanEmpirewherethetwocanbeeasilyextricatedonefromtheanother.
Theproblemisdaunting,andperhapsevenmoresowhenwefocusonparticular
areaswheresharprhetoricaldifferentiationclearlybenefitsChristianapologists,asis
decidedlythecaseforOrigenandAugustine,whodeployalivelyrhetoricofrejectionof
magicalandtheurgicpractices,whilequietlyadaptingChristianculttotheirtheoretical
norms.Thetwocertainlyrealizethatarhetoricofselfdefinitionisalwaysmorepotent
whenitassertsboundariesclearly,andperhapsthemorenecessarywhenthose
boundariesaremoreapparentthanreal,suchthatrhetoricisdirectedprimarilytoward
obscuringactualaffinities.Theprojectofcomparison,then,isrenderedmore
complicatedbythisrhetoricofdifference.
Thepurposeofthepresentchapteristosuggestawayofthinkingabout
Christianthinkersinthesecondandthirdcenturiesthatwillenableaproperapproach
tothethoughtofIamblichus,Origen,andAugustineinsubsequentchapters.Ifweview
theworldofpagansandChristiansasaculturemarkedbycommonaccessto
20
intellectualcircles,withinwhichthinkersofvariouscommitmentscouldresorttothe
samephilosophicalandrhetoricalschoolsfortheirformation,thenitbecomespossible
toseethethoughtofdifferentthinkers,themselvesvariouslypaganorChristian,as
indebtedtoasharedsetofassumptionsandideas.Thecrucialpointinthisargumentis
thatintellectualcultureisshared.MoresophisticatedChristianthinkersdonotmerely
mimicclassicalrhetoricalstyle,orliftjargonfromphilosophicalhandbooks;rather,they
participateinintellectualculturealongsidetraditionalpolytheists,suchthattheyare
predictablyabsorbedbythesamequestions,justastheyunsurprisinglyworkout
solutionsdescribedwithinthesameconceptualparameters.Aspartofestablishingsuch
aviewofChristianityandantiquity,thepresentchapterwillsurvey:(2)thewaysin
whichmanymodernthinkers,intheorizingancientChristianity,haveproceededfrom
theassumptionofChristianityasanisolatedphenomenoninantiquity,essentialand
unique,andsetagainstanentirelyseparatepaganworldwhoseinfluenceson
Christianitywereunderstoodtoberesistedateveryturn.Suchanapproachisfinally
rootedinanerroneousideaoforigins,andderivesmuchofitsinitialenergyfrom
Reformationattemptstopositanoriginal,pureChristianitythatstandspriortothe
corruptionsoflaterperiodswhethercharacterizedintermsofmysterycultor
RomanCatholicism.Suchanoutlooktendstoseerelationshipsbetweenreligious
phenomenaonlyingenealogicalterms,whereChristianityisgenerallyshowntobe
resistingtheperniciouseffectsofpaganisminthecourseofitsproperorganic
development.Againstthisapproach,thepresentargumentwillproceedratherfrom
analogicalprinciples,assumingthatvariouspaganandChristianphenomenadevelop
alongsimilarlinesbecausetheyarepartofasharedculture.Section(3)willconsiderthe
secondcenturyChristianapologistsasearlyattemptstosituateChristianidentitywithin
anestablishedGrecoRomanculture.Thesethinkersadoptedvariousrhetorical
posturesintheirattemptstodefineChristianitysdifferenceortoassertitscapacityfor
assimilationintoaRomanworld.Allsuchcases,whethertherhetoricalobjectiveis
oppositionorintegration,pointtotheconclusionthatalltheapologistsarealready
definitivelyandconsciouslyGrecoRoman,astheirphilosophicalandrhetoricaltropes
21
reveal,andthattheirtextsrevealthevariousposturesthatonemighttakeinnegotiating
apositionwithinGrecoRomanintellectualculture,andinassertingwhatisalreadya
largelyGreekintellectualidentity.Section(4)examinesbrieflywhatweknowofthe
thirdcenturyperipateticandChristianconvertAnatolius,invokinghiscaseasprelude
tothinkingaboutthemoreadvancedChristianintellectualcultureofAlexandriaatthat
time.ThecityofAlexandria,Ishallargueinsection(5),alwaysthevenueofan
impressiveintellectualculture,providesaccesstoseriousintellectualformationforboth
pagansandChristians.ThecareerofOrigen,despitethetendentioussuppressionand
deferralofinformationcharacterizingtheaccountofEusebius,revealsacultureinwhich
pagansandChristiansapparentlyassociatedfreelywithinsomeofthecitysmoreelite
culturalcircles.ThecareerofOrigenhimself,aswellasthecareersofhispredecessors
andcontemporaries,bearswitnesstoacommonphilosophicalculturethatshapedthe
thoughtandidentitiesofpagansandChristiansalike.Thisculturalpictureshould
informthewayweapproachthetextsofbothpaganandChristianthinkersinour
attemptsdefinewhat,intheirseveralviews,accountsfortheefficacyofreligiouscult.
2.ChristianityandAntiquity:theModernProblem
Formoderns,anyconsiderationoftheinteractionbetweenChristianthinkers
andtheirsurroundingworldofbeliefs,philosophiesandculturalforms,mustbe
markedbytheawarenessthatthedominanttendencyonsuchquestionsovertime,with
rootsinthereligiouspolemicofearlymodernity,presumedtolocateastable,well
definedChristianity,whoseclashorconfrontationwithasimilarlystablepagan
antiquity,couldbemeasuredandevaluated.AsJonathanZ.Smithhasshown,this
tendencyhastheReformationasanearlysource,wherethedominantrhetoricalmode
soughthistoricalvindicationforapristineChristianityuntaintedbyPlatonismor
22
Popery.15VeryoftensuchthinkersemployedPlatonismasafavoredtermof
vilification,findinginJustinMartyrtheeasiestearlytargetfortheirdisapproval.16To
besure,thetermPlatonistisalmostinfinitelyplasticinsuchcontexts,shadinginto
othercategoriesofinvectivesuchasheathen;however,asSmithnotes,thisearly
modernscholarshipmayperhapsbebettertakenas
comparingChristianitywithitself,ormoreprecisely,withanidealizedversionofitself(thesimplegospel).Anyremainderwasconsideredacorruptionforwhichthecoveringtermwas,mostfrequently,Platonism.
Platonism,rhetoricallysynonymouswithcorruption,mustbepeeledawaytoreveal
thepristineChristianitypresumedtoliebehinditthesimplefaiththatis
straightforwardlypositedbythesescholars.Remarkably,theinfluenceofthisapproach
doesnotendwiththegradualreductionofovertantiCatholicsentimentovertime.This
isamongSmithsmoreimportantpoints:thetreasuredideaofapureearly
ChristianityuntaintedbyPlatonism,paganism,orpoperyremainsintactinmuch
laterscholarship,withonlythecoveringlanguagealtered.Wherepoperyhadearlier
functionedasagenericcategoryforcorruptinginfluence,servingtoisolateandinsulate
theuntaintedoriginal(Protestant)Christianity,nowlateantiquereligionwoulddo
thesame.Scholarsshedtheanimus,butretainedtheimpliedmethodandprinciplesof
theirmoreferventlyProtestantforbears.17
15SmithslecturesinDrudgeryDivine(1990),particularlyOntheOriginofOrigins,economicallytracethegenealogyofthemythofstableChristianorigins,sketchingantiTrinitarian,antiPlatonicthinkersfromthesixteenthtotheeighteenthcenturies.InparthesummarizesWalterGlawesDieHelenisierungdesChristentums(1912)intracingthislineofthoughtfromHeinrichBullingersassaultonculticinfiltrationsinCatholicism(152829)andMathiasFlaciusIllyricussMagdeburgCenturies,withtheiremphasisonthediabolicalwellspringsofpopery,throughMichaelServetus(Trinity,1531)andthemoreexplicitlyUnitarianthinkersoftheseventeenthcentury,suchasJosephBiddle(ConfessionofFaithConcerningtheHolyTrinity,1648),whointurninfluencedsucheighteenthcenturyantiTrinitariansasJosephPriestley.16ThisistrueofbothBiddle(1648)andZwicker(1648),andtosomeextent,N.Souverain,LePlatonismevoile:ouEssaitouchantleVerbePlatonicien(Cologne,1700).OnlySouverainseemstorecognizeJustinscontext,andtodistinguishbetweenPlatonism,conventionallyspeaking,anditsadaptationsbyChristianthinkers.CitedinSmith(1990)1618.17Thesamepresuppositions,thesamerhetoricaltactics,indeed,inthemain,theverysamedataexhibitedintheseearlyeffortsunderliemuchofourpresentdayresearch,withoneimportant
23
Latermodernscholarshipbearswitnesstothistendency.Theworkofthegreat
historianFranzJosephDlger(18791940)implicitlyenvisionsChristianityasasingle,
coherententityorphenomenonconfrontingtheelementsofanambientpaganculture:
WiththecrossingoftheborderofPalestineChristianityenteredtheareaofantiqueandpaganculture,everywheretherewasevidenceofprofaneandreligiouslifewhichhadtobeanalysed.18
ThelanguagethatDlgeruseshereandelsewheresuggestsconfrontation,evenclash
betweenChristianityandpolytheistculture,butforhimitisaproductiveengagement,
characterizedbybothrejectionandadjustmentcontributingtoChristianitysproper
developmentaprocessinwhichessentialChristianitywastobefoundinviolate
evenbeneathcenturiesofdogmaticdevelopment.19Thispositionrunssharplycounter
tothecelebratedviewofAdolfvonHarnack(18511930)thatapure,originalgospelwas
vitiatedbyHellenismfromthesecondcenturyonward,inaprocesscharacterizedby
theworkofthespiritofadecadentantiquityonthesoiloftheGospel.Catholicism
itselfwas,forvonHarnack,theproductoftheinnermostfusionofChristianitywith
Antiquity.20ForDlger,Christianityabsorbs,adapts,butnonethelessresists;forvon
Harnack,itiscorrupted.ItisperhapsnoaccidentthatDlgerwasaCatholicandvon
HarnackaProtestant.Theirapproachesarethusopposed,butneverthelessshareabasic
similarityinoutlook,inwhichnormativeChristianityisconstructedasamoreorless
stable,separateentitythatcanbequalifiedoverandagainstambientpaganism:
HarnackcontrastedanormativelyconstructedChristianityasastaticentitywithapaganworldsurroundingit,withthesurroundingworld
alteration,thatthecharacteristicsattributedtoPopery,bytheReformationandpostReformationcontroversialists,havebeentransferred,wholesale,tothereligionsofLateAntiquity.Smith(1990)34.Seeespeciallyn.58,whereheannotatesatgreatlengththescholarlytendencytoassignRomanCatholicterminologytophenomenaobservedinancientmysteryreligions,whilerefrainingfromdoingsotoearlyChristiansacraments.18F.J.Dlger,ZurEinfhrung,AuC1(1929),Vf.(V),quotedinMarkschies(2006)whonotesfurtherthatforDlgerthepagancultureofantiquitydividedintonumerousindividualelementsofevidencewhichastronger,monolithicChristianityhadtoanalyse(19).19Markschies(2006)2021.20A.Harnack,LehrbuchderDogmengeschichtevol1.DieEntstehungdesKirchlichenDogmas,SammlungTheologischerLehrbcherII/I,Tbingen1886,253f.(=1909,346),quotedinMarkschies(2006)21.
24
dominatingtheoriginal(ur)simpleChristianityofJesusofNazareth,whereasforDlgerChristianitywasinculturatedthroughrejectionaswellasadjustmentandsothestruggleagainstpaganismcontinuedwithnolossofessence.21
Morerecentscholarshiphasbeenlessinclinedtopositfixitiesfromwhichchangecanbe
observedanddescribed.AsHansDieterBetzputsit,inanattempttomoveawayfrom
suchthinking,AntiquityandChristianitydonotsimplystandinoppositiontoeach
otherasmonolithicblocksbutasentitiessubjecttomutualhistoricalchange.22In
accordancewiththisview,therelevantdatafromthepast,
phenomenacoveredbytheconceptofantiquityandChristianity,appearduringthecourseofhistoryaseverchangingconfigurationsofdiscontinuityandcontinuity,destructionandconservation,andretroversionandprogress.
Thisisanappealingfluidity;Betzgoesontosay,however,thatphasesinthisprocess
canbediscerned,eachmarkedbyhighlyintenseencountersbetweenantiquityand
Christianity.23Perhapstherequirementsofdiscoursecannotendureapictureof
differentiationandflux,anddictatearetrenchmenttothelinguisticconventionsof
ChristianityandAntiquityasreasonablyfixedquantitiesthatcanbeobservedin
highlyintenseencounters.Therelativelynebulousdiscontinuityandcontinuity
destructionandconservationcanquicklybecomequicklythepolesinabalanced
dialectic,whereChristianityandAntiquityconfrontusyetagain,eachwithitsstrange
21Markschies(2006)22,whogoesontoshowthevagarythathasoftenattendedsubsequentattemptstodefinetherelationshipbetweenthecategories,AntiquityandChristianity.ForLeopoldZscharnack(18771955),theyaretwobasicelementsthathavefreelymergedsoastobecomeinseparable(L.Zscharnack,AntikeundChristentum,in2RGG1[1927],378390[378]).ForHeinrichKraft,ChristianityexperiencedaradicalchangeinitsconfrontationwithAntiquity:ithasitselfbecomeantiquity.(H.Kraft,AntikeundChristentum,in1RGG1[1957],436449[436]).22AdoptingthelanguageofJacquesFontaine,ChristentumistauchAntike,JAC25(1982)527,heobservesthattheprocessofinteractionmustbeunderstoodnotonlyasAuseinandersetzung,thatis,asoppositionandconfrontationbetweenthecultureoftheGrecoRomanworldandChristianity,butalsoastheirIneinandersetzung,thatis,asintraposition,integrationandnewcreation(1998)6.23Betz(1998)7.
25
insistenceonsingularity.24Itmaybedifficultattimestodifferentiate,ontheonehand
mergingwithorbecomingAntiquityofferedbysomescholars,25and,ontheother
hand,BetzsbroadconceptofAntiquityandChristianitythatseemsintentonfusing
thetwocategories.Inlikemanner,itmaybehardtodistinguishbetweenDlgers
rejectionandadjustmentandBetzsdestructionandconservation.Butthen
again,merelytosubmergeBetzsthoughtinthatofhisforbearsmaybeunfair.Surely
heisinnocentofpositingorassumingaprimordialpureChristianitysusceptibleto
vonHarnackscorruptionsortoDlgersconstructiveengagement,justasheseemsto
recognizethatthenotionofChristianitybecomingAntiquityrunstheriskofbanality.
CertainlyBetzcanbetakentomeanthatinsofaraswemustemploythetermsandwe
mustweoughttodosoinamodestway,guardingagainstthedangersof
hypostasizingChristianityorAntiquityasstableentities,andnotingcarefullywhere
wecandiscernparallelphenomena,apparentsimilarity,consciousorunconscious
difference;wemayseeChristianityasacomplicationthatentersintotheMediterranean
world,andinpartexplicableintermsofAuseinandersetzungandIneinandersetzung,
discontinuityandcontinuity,destructionandconservation.
Betzdoesinfactattempttoillustratesomethingverylikethisapproach,showing
thattheearliestidentifiableChristianityemergesfromwithinapreexistentengagement
ofJudaismandHellenism,whereJohntheBaptistandJesusofNazarethareJews
concernedaboutthetheologicalandpracticalintegrityofobediencetowardthewillofGodasrevealedintheTorah,concernsheightenedinviewoftheexternalandinternalprovocationsandchallengesbythecultureintheheartlandoftheJews.
24ThisisessentiallythecritiqueofBetzofferedbyMarkschies(2006)23,whoseeshisapproachasfundamentallydifferinglittlefromthatofhisforbears.ItmaybedifficultattimestodiscernthedifferencebetweenZscharnacksmergingwithorKraftsbecomingAntiquityontheonehand,andBetzsbroadconceptofAntiquityandChristianitythatseemsintentonblendingthem.Inlikemanner,itmaybehardtodistinguishbetweenDlgersrejectionandadjustmentandBetzsdestructionandconservation.Tobefair,Markschiesdoesacknowledgetheubiquitousneedforreducingtheeternalrichnessofalifelivedtotypesfordidacticalpurposes(32):howsoeverconsciousofreductionwemaybe,wewillinevitablylapseintousingthem.25ZscharnackandKraftsterms,respectively.
26
Inthistelling,Christianitydoesnotsimplyappear,andthenvariouslyresistor
assimilateaspectsofsurroundingpolytheism.TheJewsarealreadysoengagedwiththe
GrecoRomanworld,andtheteachingsandactivities[ofJesus]occurredashis
responsetothequestionofhowthekingdomofGodcouldbemanifestinthemidstof
theRomanoccupationandundertheinfluenceofpaganlifeinPalestine.26Tobesure,
ChristianityrapidlymovesbeyondaparticularrabbiscontributiontotheJewish
engagementwithRomanpoliticalandculturalhegemony,inasmuchasitsfocusshifts
fromsuchpreoccupationstothepersonofJesushimself.ThismuchBetzreadilygrants;
butsurelyvalidishisargumentthatfromitsshadowyoriginsChristianityisalreadya
variationonatheme,aphaseinprovincialresponsetodiverseculturalphenomenathat
mayreasonablybeclassedasGrecoRomanAntiquity.Inotherwords,pace
Markschies,itisnotclearthatBetzisasguiltyofisolatingAntiquityandChristianity
astwostableandoriginallyindependententities.HisChristianityishardlystable,
evenfromitsinception.Andperhaps,finally,hisapproachisnotatoddswiththe
admonitionthatthedanger[ofpositingChristianityandAntiquityasseparate,stable
entities]isonlyremovedwhenantiqueChristianityisfirmlyregionalizedandalso
consideredasconstitutingdifferentgroupswithparticularidentities.27Betzsintricate,
ifbriefaccountofaJewishpreChristianityinPalestineissurelyconsistentwithsucha
program;andtosuchaprogramthereissurelynoalternativeifwearetodojusticeto
Christianityinallofitslocaldiversity,avoidingexcessivegeneralization.
Whateverconstructionwechoose,wemustretainabasicawarenessthatwould
isolateChristianityasauniquephenomenontendstoparalyzecomparison,tainting
scholarshipwithafalsenotionofwhatcomparisoninvolves.Wehavealreadyseenhow
manyearlierattemptsatcomparingChristianitywithambientreligionsreallyinvolved
theprojectofcomparingChristianitywithitself,thatis,ofcomparingitwith,andby
definitionisolatingitfrom,itsownlatercorruptforms,whicharethemselveseither
Catholicorinfluencedbypaganreligiousforms.Thistendencyremainsprominent
26Betz(1998)8.27ibid.30.
27
inlaterscholarship,wheretheprimarymotivationsarenolongerantiCatholic,but
wherethegoverningassumptionsstillworktoprotectChristianityfromassociation
withmysteryreligionsoflateantiquity.Thismodernapproachblendsanabsolute
ontologicalclaimfortheincomparabilityoftheChristevent,definedasthedeathand
resurrectionofJesus,withanhistoricalclaimfortheincomparabilityoftheChristian
kerygmaitself,ashiftdescribedbySmithasanillicittransferofatheological
affirmationofabsoluteuniquenesstoanhistoricalstatementthat,standingalone,could
neverassertmorethanrelativeuniqueness,thatistosay,aquiteordinarypostulationof
difference.28TheProtestantpolemicsaregone,butagenuinecomparativeexerciseis
paralyzedbyplacingnotonlyprimordialChristianity,butallofitssubsequent
articulations,behindaredoubtofuniquenessthatisessentiallyacategoryof
incomparability.Identificationandassessmentofordinary,relativedifferenceis
simplyswallowedbysuchassumptions.Withintheparametersofsuchanapproach,
theonlypossibilitiesforutilizingcomparisonsaretomakeassertionsregarding
dependence,29whereChristianityisgenerallyassertednottobedependentonsome
otherreligiousform.Thecentralcategoryinthisdiscussionisgenealogicalrelationship,
whichispositedinordertobedenied,sothatChristianitymaybepreservedfreefrom
pollution.30Thequestionsposedare,doesChristianityborrow?Isitdependent?The
28Smith(1990)39.29ibid.47.30AnintriguingandsomewhatbenignexampleissuppliedbyPaulBradshawsreadingoftheliturgicalmaterialintheapocryphalActsofThomas.HerejectstheargumentthattherepeatedinvocationsofdivineagenciesintheepiclesisderivefromGreekmagicalformulae,arguingratherthatsuchinvocationsmorelikelystemfromtheAramaicformulamaranatha,OurLord,come!attestedtwiceintheNewTestamentandonceintheDidache.Bradshawgrantsthepossibilityofmagicsinfluence,butassertstheChristianformulaasthemostlikelyantecedent(2004,126).Hecitesnoreason,thoughtheargumentthatChristiancommunitieswouldgrantprioritytoChristiantextsisimplied;butthisgetsusnowherewhenweconsiderthatChristiantexts,too,areinsomesenseaproductoftheGrecoRomanreligiousimagination.TheformativeinfluencesbehindaChristiantextorbehindaninvocationlikemaranathamayliealsobehindotherdocuments.BradshawsapproacharguablyreflectstheinstinctivetendencyamongmanyscholarstoisolatetheChristianandthepaganfromoneanother,preciselyintheinterestofprotectingChristianityfromgenealogicalassociationwithinfluencesthatarenotChristian.Bradshawacknowledgesthattheargumentaboutmagicmayhavesomemerit,butprefersthe
28
answerspresumeabsolutedifference,andthesingularityofChristianity.31Butonlythe
ideaofrelativedifference,conceivedaspartofanapproachthatregardsChristianityas
differentfromotherphenomena,butwhichguardsagainstattemptstoconsignittothe
categoryofuniqueness,opensupthepossibilityofactualcomparison.
Theaversiontoanalogicalcomparison,andtheembraceofgenealogical
comparisonifonlytodenyitsplausibilityinthecaseofChristianity32workonthe
falseassumptionthatcomparisonisnatural,thatitworkstounfoldthetruerelations
betweenthings.Likenessisassumedtoresidewithinthethingsthemselves,rather
thanwithinthemindofthescholar;butasSmithpointsout,whenevercomparisonsare
made,theobserverisalwaysimplicitlyincludingatertiumquidathird,lesssimilar
elementthatalsostandsinsomerelationtowhatevermaybethescholarsinterest.As
heputsit,thescholarneverobservestrulythatxresemblesy,asiftheelementsxand
ysubsistedinavacuum.Infact,sincexandysubsistamongmanyotherthings,the
scholarisreallysayingthatxresemblesymorethanzwithrespectto.Inother
words,thedrawingtogetherofxandyinthescholarsmindisanintellectualexercise
determinedbyanantecedentscholarlyinterest.Xandyarejuxtaposedbecausecertain
oftheiraspectsservealargertheoreticalinterest,tocastlightuponaparticularitemthat
ispositedasinteresting.InthecaseoftheurgicritualandChristiansacrament,say,we
mightassertalikenessbetweencertainaspectsofthetwonotnecessarilybecausethey
aregenealogicallyconnected,butbecausetheymanifesttraitsthatcanbetakento
supportanargumentforagraduallegitimizationoftheideaofmaterialmediationof
transcendenceinthelatethirdandearlyfourthcentury.Inrespecttosuchaninterest,
Christiancultpracticeinthelatethirdcentury(x)maybemoreliketheurgy(y)thanthe
impliedreasoningthatanythingChristianmaybebestexplainedbyappealingtosafelyChristiantexts.31Alsointerestingisthesuggestionthatthisstrategyisasoldastherecordedhistoryofreligiouscomparison.ItisthenotionofautochthonyaspresentinHerodotus.There,Egyptianpracticesconstituteapristineoriginal,indebtedtonoexternalsourceorinfluence.GreeksborrowfromtheprestigiousEgyptians;Persiansindiscriminatelyfromeveryone(4748).32AsSmithputsthematter,Thethoughtappearstobethat,fromthestandpointofprotectingtheprivilegedpositionofearlyChristianity,itisonlygenealogicalcomparisonsthatareworthyofnote,ifonly,typically,insistentlytobedenied(1990)4748.
29
religioustheorizingofPorphyry(z)isliketheurgy(y)withrespecttothewaysinwhichthe
divinemaybemediatedtothehuman.Suchacomparisonassertsnothingcausalor
genealogical;infact,onetendstofindevidencefortheovertadoptionoftheurgictheory
onlyinmuchlaterChristianthought.Theclaimoflikenessworksintheserviceofa
largerend,withneithertheprotectionofpureChristianitynorassertionsofmere
syncretism(coverlanguageforcorruption)inview.AsSmithputsit,comparison
doesnotnecessarilytellushowthingsare(thefarfromlatentpresuppositionthatliesbehindthenotionofthegenealogicalwithitsquestforrealhistoricalconnections);likemodelsandmetaphors,comparisontellsushowthingsmightbeconceived.Acomparisonisadisciplinedexaggerationintheserviceofknowledge.Itliftsoutandstronglymarkscertainfeatureswithindifferenceasbeingofpossibleintellectualsignificance,expressedintherhetoricoftheirbeinglikeinsomestipulatedfashion.Comparisonprovidesthemeansbywhichwerevisionphenomenaasourdatainordertosolveourtheoreticalproblems.33
Suchanapproachisabsolutelynecessaryifwearetoprotectourselvesfrom
methodologieswithlatenttendenciestowardattackingordefendingChristianityinits
variousancientforms.Theagendamustbetoassertsomethingaboutcultpracticeor
religiouscultureinthelateantiqueworld,whereamatrixofideas,beliefsandpractices
giverisetoboththetheurgicstrainofNeoplatonismandanemergentChristian
sacramentalsystem.Thatistosay,thecomparisonmademustbeanalogical,where
analogyisnotseenasamenacetotheuniquenessofChristianity.Inthepresentcase,
thepurposeoftheanalogicalcomparisonmustbetoilluminatethetheurgicaspectof
lateantiqueintellectualculturethatvindicatedmaterialcultinthefaceofphilosophical
abstraction,andthatlikewisemayhaveenabledsomethirdandfourthcenturyChristian
interrogationsofeucharist.
Suchanapproachdoesnotnecessarilyrequirethedevotiontoparticularitythat
Betzprescribes.ThereisnodoubtthatChristianityischaracterizedbyconsiderable
diversityateverypointinitsearlydevelopment,buteveninlightofthisfactweare
33Smith(1990)52.
30
surelynotcompelledtoregardonlythosestudiesaslegitimatethatfocusonthe
archaeologyoflocalcommunities.Thereisplentyofevidence,eveninthesecond
century,bothforadesiredunityamongChristians,andforadesiredassimilationinto
theintellectualcultureoftheGrecoRomanworld.Ifthereisparticularity
emphasizedinthispresentstudy,itistobefoundinmyfocusontwoparticular
intellectualsOrigenandAugustinewhosethoughtcannotbetakenotherwisethanas
abroadengagementwithapaganintellectualworld.Itispreciselytheirmilieuthat
mayhelpustounderstandtheirparticularrhetoricandarguments.Observationsofa
generalkindaboutChristianengagementwithintellectualculturemaythusbemade,
notsothatwemaysimplyleveltheparticular,butrathersothatwemayunderstandit
initslargercontext.ChristiansintellectualsintheRomanEmpireisnotanillegitimate
category,asthepatternsuggestedbythesecondcenturyChristianapologistssuggests.
Theworksoftheapologistsareworthyofsummaryconsiderationnotsimplyon
groundsoftheirintellectualcontent,butratherbecausetheirattemptstolegitimize
Christianthoughtwithinthecontextofpaganlearninggivesrisetoatensionbetween
rhetoricandactualitythatwillcharacterizeagreatdealofsubsequentChristian
discourse,givingriseto,amongotherthings,Tertullianscelebratedrhetoricalquestion.
Thistensionemergesastheproductofaneedtomaintaintheappearanceofdifference
ofChristianitysuniquenesswhilesimultaneouslylayingclaimtotheintellectual
traditionsofantiquity.WhenwemovetoconsidertheworkofOrigenandAugustine,
weshallnotethesametendency:astrategyofassertingradicaldifferencewhilequietly
developingatheoryofeucharisticmediationthatfunctionsanalogouslytotheurgy.
3.ChristianThinkersintheRomanEmpire:theGreekApologists
ExtensiveanalysisoftheapologistsindebtednesstoformsofGreekthoughtand
cultureishereunnecessary.TheirtextsplainlytaketheirformfromGreekrhetorical
conventionsandtheirintellectualcontentfromStoicismandMiddlePlatonistthought.
Ofgreatestimportancetothepresentargumentistheirtendencytoassumerhetorical
31
posturesthatvariouslyassertorconcealtheirengagementwithGreekcultureintheir
attempttomakeChristianityalegitimatepartofaGrecoRomanworld.Initially,
circumstancemightwellhavedictatedarhetoricalstrategyemphasizingassimilation
ratherthandifference.PrejudiceagainstChristianshadincreasedinAsiaafterthereign
ofHadrian,andevidencesuggeststhattheAntonineemperorswerebeingurgedto
reverttothemoremeasuredpoliciesoftheirpredecessors.34Internalandexternal
threatstotheempireduringtheAntonineeraperhapsexacerbatedtheproblem.
Militaryinstabilityonthenorthernfrontier,revoltinEgypt,plague,theBarKochba
rebellioninPalestine,theriseofMontanistextremisminAsiaallcreatedasituationin
whichChristianthinkerswhosharedintheempiresculturalandintellectualheritage
wouldexperienceanaturalenoughimpetustoworktowardChristianitys
normalization.35EventssignificantforChristians,suchasthemartyrdomofPolycarp(c.
156)andtheimperiallysanctionedmassacreofChristiansatLyons(177)wouldsurely
haveaddedurgency.TheriseofamoreintegratedintellectualresistancetoChristianity
wasdoubtlessafurtherstimulant,withCelsusasitsmostarticulateandthoughtful
representative.36
Theapologistswerethusuncomfortablyrequiredtoingratiatethemselveswith
authoritywhileoftenbrusquelyclaimingamorevenerableculturalpedigreefor
Christianity.SomewouldexoticallyclaimthattheemergenceofChristianitywaseven
34Fromacertainpracticalperspective,arhetoricalstrategyemphasizingassimilationratherthandifferencemightseemmostreasonableforsuchmen.PrejudiceagainstChristianshadincreasedinAsiaafterthereignofHadrian,andevidencesuggeststhattheAntonineemperorswerebeingurgedtoreverttothemoremeasuredpoliciesofTrajanandHadrian.Justinsmission,inpart,wastopersuadetheimperialauthoritytoreverttoformerpolicies,whichweresomewhatlessprejudicialtoChristians.FortheclassificationofJustinsfirstApologyasjustsuchapieceofdeliberativerhetoric,seeKeresztes(1965).35Norris(2004)40.36CelsusisdevotedtotheaccusationthatChristiansmayconstituteaseriousthreattothestabilityoftheEmpiressocialandpoliticalorder.WereotherstofollowtheChristiansanarchiclead,therewouldbenothingtoprevent[theemperor]frombeingabandoned,aloneanddeserted,whileearthlythingswouldcomeintothepowerofthemostlawlessandsavagebarbarians,andnothingmorewouldbeheardamongmeneitherofyourworshiporofthetruewisdom(C.Cels.8.68.Trans.Chadwick[1953]AllsubsequenttranslationsofContraCelsumareChadwicksunlessotherwisenoted).TextcitedinNorris2004(41).
32
providentialfortheempire,whileotherscombativelyrejectedGreekphilosophicaland
literarycultureasexhaustedandmoribund,assertingthesuperiorityofabarbarian
wisdomallwhileremainingindefatigablywithinaGreekidiom.Butwhatever
rhetoricalstanceweencounter,suchthinkersarealwaysengagedintheformulationofa
placeforChristianitywithintheGrecoRomanculturaltopography.Whetherone
arguesthatChristianityrepresentstheintellectualapogeeofHellenisticculture,orthe
entirelyappropriaterejectionofthatculture,oneisreallydoingthesamething,sincefor
thissetofthinkersChristianityisalreadyincorrigiblyGreek,andmanifestsitselfasa
functionoftheRomanworld.Thisconclusionistrueregardlessofthinkerand
regardlessoflocale,whetherMelitoofSardisorTatianofAssyria.Ineithercase,we
confronttheenlistmentofaHellenisticrhetoricinthecauseofChristianselfdefinition,
accommodationistintheformercase,rejectionistinthelatter,butfinallyanassimilation
ofChristianitytoHellenisticcultureforboth.
Theearliestfigurestraditionallygroupedwiththesecondcenturyapologistsfall
roughlyinthereignofHadrian,whohadinheritedTrajansdifficultieswithChristians
intheprovinceofAsia.37AssociatedwiththisperiodareQuadratusandAristides.38The
argumentofthelatterisofgreaterinterest,sinceheisconcernedtoplaceChristians
alongsideJewsandpagansasathirdgenos.39Hecriticizespagansfortheirworshipof
37HisrescripttoMiniciusFundanus,governoroftheprovincein122/123,suggestshisdesiretocontinueamoderate,disciplinedapproachtotheproblem,primarilyemphasizingtheavoidanceofmobactionandfalseaccusationsmovedbymaliciousinformers.JustinquotestheletteratApology1.68;Eusebiusat4.9.MelitoofSardisalsoappealedtoit,afactknowntousonlythroughEusebius(4.26.10).MelitoalsoclaimstohavelettersfromAntoninusPiusorderingthecontinuationofthesamecautiouspolicies.(Grant[1988]3435).38TheChronicleofEusebiusmentionsthetwoapologistsinthecontextofHadriansvisittoEleusis.AllegedlyhewaspresentedwithworksofthesetwomenwhileinAthens.Thoughprecisemotivesaredifficulttodiscern,therewasperhapsaninterestinextractingfurtherconcessionsfromanemperoralreadyconcernedtoretainthemoderatepolicyofhispredecessor.Grant(1988)135.OnlyonefragmentofQuadratussurvives,concernedwiththerealityofthesaviorsmiracles(EH4.3.2).39AGreektext,andsomeArmenianfragments,aredefensiblydatedtothereignofHadrian;alongerSyriacversionisaddressedtoAntoninusPius.AsuperscriptionintheSyriactextidentifiestheauthorasAristides,anAthenianphilosopher.TheworkisinitiallyoccupiedwithaconciseexpositionofsomemiddlePlatonisttheology;buttheauthorsmorepressingconcerns,whichwilloccupyhimformuchoftheworkslength,quicklyemerge.Hepositsfourracesof
33
idolsandtheelements,ridiculestheimmoralityofthegodsinconventionalmanner,
andunderminespaganattemptstofindtranscendentunitybeneaththeviolentsurfaces
ofmyth.Jewishmonotheismisabetteroption,asisJewishmorality;Jewishdeficiency
liesintheircomplicityinJesusexecution.40TheassertionofChristiansuperiorityis
curiouslybasedonadherencetoamoralcodethatis,infact,profoundlyJewish,asif
ChristiansareuprightpeoplewhoarenotJewsperhapsanimportantpointconsidering
theJewishrevoltsacrosstheempire(114117)quelledatthebeginningofHadrians
reign.NoharmcouldthusfollowfromassertingsuperioritytoJews,andasforpagans,
theapologysdismissivetonemightclassitasaconventionalattackontraditionalpagan
mythandpiety,andthereforenotespeciallyoffensiveespeciallyintheculturalcontext
thatproducedaseriesofworksinancientcomparativereligion,suchasPlutarchsOn
IsisandOsiris,andPallaslostOntheMysteriesofMithras.41Viewedthus,Aristides
apologyappearstantamounttoaclaimtogoodcitizenshipbasedonanargumentfor
superiortribalaffiliation.42AristidesChristianityisathirdgenos,anewracethatcan
standalongsideothers,claimingagenealogymuchastheydo.Suchapositioningof
Christianityenablestheplacementofitsfounderalongsideother,traditionalfounders
ofpaganandJewishreligiouscultureasaparallelcasewithinafamiliarwebofideas.
Agenerationlater,JustinMartyrmakesaconsiderablymoreelaborateattemptat
claimingashareofGreekcultureforChristians.43Openlyassumingthepostureofa
men:barbarians,Greeks,Jews,andChristians.TheGreektextreducesthetaxonomytothreeraces,essentiallypagans,JewsandChristians,withthepagansfurthersubdividedintoChaldeans,Greeks,andEgyptians(Grant[1988]3537).40IncludedalsoistheinterestingclaimthatinmanyoftheirobservancestheJewsworshipangelsratherthanGod,apointthatAristidesdoeslittletoexplain.41Grant(1988)37.42Initsperoration,theSyriactextdoesmakereferencetothosewhouttervanityandharasstheChristians,thoughitmaybedifficulttosituatesuchareferenceinthereignofHadrian.Inanycase,theSyriactextsisaddressedtoAntoninusPius,andinternalreferencesmayreasonablyplaceitduringthatlaterreign(Grant[1988]3839).43HehimselfwasofHellenizedbackgroundintheeasternpartoftheempire,FlaviaNeapolis(Shechem)inSamaria.Hisapology,dividedinthemanuscripttraditionintoafirstandsecondthatdonotappeartocorrespondneatlytothetwoapologiesnotedbyEusebius,wasprobablywritteninRomearound156or157(Foradefenseofthisdating,seeGrant[1988]5253),andmayhavebeenoccasionedbythemartyrdomofPolycarpatSmyrna.Themobaction
34
philosopher,headdresseshimselftoAntoninusPiusandhistwoadoptedsons,Marcus
AureliusandLuciusVerus,addressingthelattertwospecificallyasphilosophers,a
gesturepredicatedontheassumptionofsharedculture.44LikeAristides,Justinsupplies
theconventionalrebuketopaganworship,givenforcebymeansofalitanyoffarcical
examples.45Hearguesthatevildemonsaretoblamefortheprosperityofsuchbeliefs,
asforthepersecutionofChristians,whopromisetocommitnoinjustice,andarenot
atheistsassomephilosophersscandalouslyare.Blamingdaemonicpowersfor
persecutionisperhapsawayofdeflectingcensurefromrulerswhomheisreadyto
regardaspiousphilosophersandguardiansofjustice.46Howevermuchhemay
attacktraditionalcultureordecrytheirrationalityandinjusticeofRomanlegalpractice,
attendingPolycarpssummarytrialandexecutioncouldhavepromptedanapologistsresponse,particularlyoneurgingareturntothemoremeasuredandjudiciouspoliciesofTrajanandHadrian.TheMartyrdomindicatesthattheoldmanhadbeenthetargetofasearch,andthevictimofmobactionbothofwhichpracticeswererepudiatedbypreviousemperors(MartyrdomofPolycarp67;12.CitedinGrant[1988]5354).ThattheopeningchaptersoftheFirstApologypresentadirectclaimagainstRomanjudicialabuses,particularlythecondemnationofChristiansonotherchargesmerelybecausetheyconfesstothenameofChristian,suggeststhatsuchtendenciesweretroublingChristiancommunities.(FirstApology14).44Athenagoraswork,anembassyorplea,(),isaddressedtoMarcusAureliusduringhiscorulershipwithCommodus,(Schoedel[1972]x).Imperialtitulatureand,conquerorsofArmeniaandSarmatia(MommsenandSchwartzproposedfortheformer.[Schoedel(1972)xi.];issecondarytotheemperorspreeminentstandingasphilosophers().Athenagorashimselfisdescribedintheworkstitle,muchlikehispredecessorAristides,asanAthenianphilosopher.Inantiquity,onlyMethodiusknowshiswork(DeRes.I.36,37);EpiphaniusappearstoknowitonlythroughMethodius.(Schoedel[1972]ix).LikeMelitoofSardis,heproteststheloyaltyofChristiansascitizensoftheEmpire,andoftenwithfloridrhetoric:Legatio1.12;2.13;2.6;6.2;16.2;18.2;37(Schoedel[1972]xvi).Principally,though,heisconcernedtoexonerateChristiansfromthechargeofatheism,arguingthatalthoughtheyrejectmuchthatwasconventionalinRomanreligion,theirthoughtdrawsdeeplyuponphilosophy.HearguesthatinsofarasChristiansembracemonotheism,theycanclaimaseriousintellectualpedigreeandformameaningfulpartoftheintellectualtraditionoftheempire.Attheveryleasttheyshouldnotbesingledoutforabuseinanempirethatcouldboastmorethanenoughdistinctivereligiousforms(Legatio1).45weconsecrateourselvestotheunbegottenandimpassibleGod,who,weknow,neverdescendedwithsexualdesireuponAntiope,orothersuchwomen,orGanymede;norwasheliberatedbyahundredhandedgiantwhoseassistanceThetisobtained;norwashesolicitous,inreturnforsuchaid,thatAchilles,thesonofThetis,becauseofhisconcubineBriseis,shouldslaughtersomanyGreeks.Wefeelsorryforthosewhobelievethesethings.(FirstApology25,Fallstrans.)46FirstApology2.2
35
hisentiredefensemustrestupontheassumptionofsharedintellectualcultureand
idiom.Imperialphilosophersmustbecoparticipantsinthissharedcivilization.Such
apostureissensiblegivenJustinsprimaryassertionofChristianityasbothsourceand
culminationofGrecoRomanintellectualtradition.47Itculminatesthetradition,since
ChrististhelatterdaymanifestationoftheLogosofGreekphilosophy;itprecedesthat
tradition,inasmuchastheHebrewprophetsofgreaterantiquitythanGreekthinkers48
foretoldChrist,graspingtheLogosbeforeanyGreekphilosopherhadapproachedit.49
PlatocomprehendstheworkingsofGodonlythroughMosesandtheotherprophets,
throughwhomtheLogosandthepropheticspiritoriginallyspeak.
AppropriationoftheGreekphilosophicaltraditionisfurtherevidentinJustins
DialoguewithTryphotheJew.Thedialogueisalreadyanormativeliteraryform,andhere
Justinexploitsitbyassumingthefamiliarpostureandrhetoricalgestureofa
philosopher,castinghimselfintheroleofaphilosopherwhoisapproachedbyTrypho,a
HellenizedJew,whogreetsJustinoutofdeferencetohisphilosopherspallium.In
responsetoTryphosrespect,Justinaskswhyhe,asaJew,cannotseethathisown
traditionslawgiverandprophetsaresuperiortowhatcompetingschoolsof
philosophycanoffer.50Justinthenrecountshisownconversionintermsofapassage
throughStoic,Peripatetic,andPythagoreanschoolsuntilhisexposuretoaPlatonist
teacher,probablyatEphesus,provedenormouslyfruitful.51Hisdailyadvancein
studiesledhimfinallytoperceptionofincorporealsandthecontemplationofideas
thatgavewingstohissoul.52HeconvertstoChristianityafteranexchangewitha
47SeeNorris(2004)39.48FirstApology44.49TheLogosworksthroughtheprophetsourteacherstoinspirelaterphilosophicalreflection:SothatyoumayunderstandthatitwasfromourteachersImeanfromtheLogosspeakingthroughtheprophetsthatPlatotookhisassertionthatGodmadetheworldbyworkinguponformlessmatter,listentotheactualwordsspokenbyMoses,thefirstprophetandolderthanalloftheGreekwriters,throughwhomthepropheticspiritrevealedhowandfromwhatGodfirstcraftedtheworld.(FirstApology58.1).50AssertingthepriorityoftheHebrewtradition,asintheFirstApology(Dialogue1).51Thepatternofmovingfromoneschooltoanother,untilasatisfyingtruthisfound,canalsobediscernedinGalenandLucian.SeeGrant(1988)51.52Dialogue2.6,withlanguageplainlyderivedfromPhaedrus249D.
36
Christianholyman,whoelucidatesthefailuresandinternalcontradictionsof
Platonism,53andtoutstheHebrewprophetsasblessedmenwhowerejustandloved
byGod[who]aloneknewthetruthandcommunicatedittomen.Whoeverreads
themrightlywillprofitgreatlyinhisknowledgeoftheoriginandendofthings,andof
anyothermatterthataphilosophershouldknow.54AsintheApologies,Judaismstands
asthesourceofwisdom,priortoGreekelaborationsofphilosophyaclaimvindicated
bytheevidentholinessandaccuracyoftheprophets.
Beyondthesubstantiveclaimsofphilosophy,JustinsApologiesimplicitlyinvoke
thecanonsofrhetoric,presentinghisargumentsintheappropriate,conventionalidiom
ofaprosphonesis,55asbefitsavenerable,sharedintellectualculture.Thisrhetoricalgenre
isexplainedindetailbytherhetoricianMenanderinthelatethirdcentury.56Justin
followssuchtacticsasMenanderwouldlaterprescribe,suggestingthatafailureto
addressinjusticesagainstChristiansmightundermineimperialclaimstoprobity,
taintingtheauthoritieswithchargesofviolenceandtyranny,57thequalitiesopposite
thosedesignatedforpraiseintherhetoricaltradition.Justinwillelsewhereemploy
differentrhetoricalterminology,referringtohisworkasanenteuxis,petition,andto53Justincontendsthatcorruptionanddegenerationhavetaintedthedevelopmentofphilosophicalschools;otherwisedifferentschoolsneverwouldhaveemerged.Properlyconceived,philosophyisapristinewholethathasfracturedonlybecauseofdisloyaltytoaninitialdepositortradition(Dialogue2).ThisprinciplefindsitsprobablerootsinthelostworkofNumenius,OntheInfidelityoftheAcademytowardPlato,afragmentofwhichassertsthatPlatossuccessorsdidnotholdtotheprimitiveheritagebutrapidlydivided,intentionallyornot(Frg.24DesPlaces=EusebiusPraeparatioEvangelica14.5.1.CitedinGrant[1988]51).Justinhimselfwouldproduceaworkinthesoontobeverypopulargenreofheresiology,withhisprinciplesderivedinpartfromthispagansource.ChristianityappealstoJustinasawayoftranscendingsuchproblemsthoughironically,therhetoricofcensurerepresentedbyNumeniustractwouldbeborrowedbyapologistslikeJustinandother,moresystematicChristianthinkers,andwouldmarkthemascoparticipantsintheirownworldofcompetingschools.54Dialogue7.55FirstApology1.1.Eusebiusalsotermsitalogosprosphonetikos(EH4.18.2).SeeGrant(1988)5455forreferencesanddiscussion.56Menandersmodelrecommendsthatpraiseofthesubjectsactionsshouldfallunderthecategoriesofwisdom,justice,temperance,andcourage.Undertheheadingofjustice,heurges:youshouldincludehumanitytosubjects,gentlenessofcharacterandapproachability,integrityandincorruptibilityinmattersofjustice,freedomfrompartialityandfromprejudiceingivingjudicialdecisions.MenanderRhetor,RussellandWilson(1981)167.57FirstApology3.2.
37
portionsofitasexegesis,explanation,andapodeixis,demonstrationallfamiliar
nomenclatureforadicasticspeech.58
Justin,then,asaselfdescribedphilosopherandapracticedrhetorician,asaman
whoneverrejectedthepalliumthathedonnedatthetimeofhisfirstconversionto
philosophy,seeksopenlytoassimilateGreekculturewithinaChristianvision,
appropriatingeventheiconicSocrates,forwhosedeathevildemonsaretoblame.
Socratesemployedreason(logos)todissuadepeoplefrombeliefinfalsegods,justsothe
Logositself,havingassumedtheformofaman,didthesamefornonGreeks.59Justinis
urgenttoaligntheChristianLogoswiththelogosofpaganlearning,thathewilleven
assertthatmanyancientthinkerswereinpointoffactChristianspriortotheincarnation
oftheLogos:
WehavebeentaughtthatChristwasthefirstbegottenofGodandwehaveindicatedabovethatheistheWordofwhomallmankindpartakes.ThosewholivebyreasonareChristians,eventhoughtheyhavebeenconsideredatheists:suchas,amongtheGreeks,Socrates,Heraclitus,andotherslikethem.
ThosewholivedbyreasonincludeAbraham,Elias,Ananias,Azarias,Misael,and
manyothers.60TheprophetsandsagesofHebrewtradition,then,aretheprimordial
possessorsofthelogos;Greeks,suchasSocratesandothersages,aretheirepigones;
Christiansarethosewhohaveembracedthelatterdayformofwhatthoseprophetsand
philosophersalwaysknew:theLogosofGod,nowmadeflesh.Justinsassertionofthe
universalityoftheLogosenablestherhetoricalgestureofassimilatingbothJewishand
GreeksagesintoaChristianpantheon.Thehallmarkofthisstrategyisthatan
apologeticassertionofdifferenceindeed,ofsuperiorityisalsointegrative.
Christianityiscastasthesuperiorwisdomtraditionsimplybyassertingitspriorityto
Hellenism.
58SeeKeresztes(1965).59Dialogue560Dialogue46.
38
JustinspupilTatian,aChristianofAssyrianorigins,adoptsafarmore
combativepositionthanhismaster.61Hisparticularlyhostiletonemayderivefromthe
imperiallysanctionedslaughterofChristiansatLyonsin177.62Attimeshissurviving
apologeticwork,AddressAgainsttheGreeks()suffersfromwhatseemsan
excessofinvectiveagainstHellenism,ascornfullitanywithdesignsonpersuasion
merelybydintofcumulativeforce.HereistheobviouslyHellenizedmanwhobecomes
analientobothmainstreamChristianityandtheintellectualtraditionsoftheempirea
religiousextremist,inshort,aHellenizedbarbarianturnedfringezealot.Goingfar
beyondJustinstreatmentoftheproblemofdiversityanddisagreementinphilosophy,
heindulgeshiscontemptfortraditioninaparodiststreatmentofphilosophical
hypocrisy:
Whatareyourphilosophersdoingofanysignificanceornote?Theyle
Recommended