By Vladimir Lovyagin
In the inscription to the Apology, which scholars believe belongs to Athenagoras himself, he identifies himself as an Athenian and a Christian philosopher. Unfortunately, history has preserved no further details about the life of this apologist. Only two writers mention Athenagoras: Saint Methodios of Olympus (+ 311) and Philip of Side (+ 431). The former cites a passage from Athenagoras' Apology;* the latter said only a few words, which are highly questionable; Eusebius and Jerome remain silent about this writer.** Philip of Side remarks: "The head of the Alexandrian school was Athenagoras. He lived during the times of Hadrian and Antoninus, and presented his Apology in defense of Christians. He professed the Christian faith even at a time when he still donned the philosopher's toga and was a leader in the academy."
Intending to write against Christianity, in order to more surely achieve his goal, he commenced reading the holy books, and, captivated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, became a preacher of the very doctrine against which he had risen. His pupil was Clement of Alexandria, from whom Pantaenus learned. (See Dodvel. Dissertation on Irenaeus, at the end.) However, this is almost the only evidence, and much of it is contested, because in its private testimonies, it directly contradicts the account of the Church historian Eusebius, who lived before Philip and whose historical writings far surpass the meager compilation of Philip, which is poorly regarded according to the opinions of Socrates (Ecclesiastical History, Book 17, Chapter 27) and Patriarch Photios (Codex XXXV), and is grandly titled the History of Christianity. For instance, Philip incorrectly asserts that Athenagoras was the head of the Alexandrian school; for in that case, it is incomprehensible how the works of such a renowned figure could remain unknown even to Eusebius. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria was not a teacher, but a student of Pantaenus, as clearly indicated by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 10) and Photios (Codex CIX).
The apologist himself, at the beginning of his work On the Resurrection of the Dead, attests that he has written numerous writings which earned him the honorable title of philosopher; however, of all these, only two have come down to us: the Apology and the treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead.
The Apology is the finest work of Athenagoras. It was presented to Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, rather than to Lucius Verus. This opinion finds confirmation within the Apology itself. Thus, Athenagoras (ch. 37) states: "Who could more justly receive the request than we, who pray for your power, so that the son may rightfully inherit from the father the authority of rule..." The phrase: "so that the son may inherit from the father" cannot possibly refer to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: both were adopted by Antoninus, and neither could be the father of the other. Furthermore, in the same Apology, Athenagoras, wishing to somewhat elucidate to the pagans the great mystery of the Son's presence in the Father, employs a very apt analogy, indicating the non-corporeal origin of a royal son from the king. However, this comparison would be utterly incongruous if these very words were directed at Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, two brothers, which Athenagoras, of course, could not have been unaware of. The time of writing the Apology was either in 166 or 177 AD. Prior to that, there was not even a reason for its emergence, for, according to historical accounts, the persecution of Christians existed throughout the entire reign of Marcus Aurelius during these two years. The question of how Athenagoras could present his Apology to the Roman emperor is also of interest. The most convenient opportunity for this was likely in 176 AD when Aurelius undertook a journey to Greece, Syria, and Egypt. Being an Athenian, Athenagoras had the chance to present his Apology in Athens. On the other hand, the devout and fervent zeal for the welfare of his co-religionists may have prompted the courageous apologist to undertake the difficult journey even to Rome itself. But what is truly remarkable is that the Apology was actually presented to the emperors, rather than being written merely in a defensive manner: the very first few lines of the Apology attest to this, where the apologist addresses the rulers, and then in all those places where the author directly or indirectly refers to them with the praises he could afford, without violating the duty of justice.
The entire Apology consists of an introduction and a refutation of the accusations brought against Christians. In the introduction, the apologist, after addressing the emperors, depicts the dire situation of his co-religionists, innocently persecuted by the very sovereigns who are distinguished by their wise tolerance of religion — mostly for simply being called Christians. Following this, Athenagoras refutes the accusation of atheism and, for this purpose, outlines, in broad strokes, the Christian profession of faith, showing that Christians acknowledge one God, the supreme Creator of the universe, who is triune in persons. The philosophers and poets, who only vaguely recognized the unity of God, were not esteemed as atheists; even less can Christians be accused of this, as they base their teaching on the testimony of the prophets. Another serious accusation against Christians was that by avoiding the shameless assemblies of pagans, they secretly formed their gatherings, about which popular rumor spread the most grotesque tales. The apologist, strictly observing the law of the Church not to initiate outsiders into the mysteries of Christian discipline, nevertheless reveals, as much as he finds necessary for his purpose, the inner aspects of the Christian life of his co-religionists.
In comparing the Apology of Athenagoras with a similar work by another renowned Christian writer, Justin, we find several quite similar positions articulated by both. Thus, both unanimously and openly testify that Christians are accused solely for their name; both therefore demand equal treatment in court for Christians from rulers, akin to that afforded to Roman subjects of all faiths. The source of the pagans' hatred towards Christians and the subsequent persecution, according to both apologists, lies in the eternal, irreconcilable enmity between vice and virtue. The extraordinary courage of Christians in the face of torment, which astonished even their torturers, is explained by both apologists as the unshakeable hope of Christians in God and their unwavering confidence in the blessed eternal life beyond this one. Further, we also observe considerable similarity in certain personal opinions of Justin and Athenagoras, for instance, regarding the Christian doctrine of the fall of angels. However, one cannot help but notice the differences in the works of these two writers. Aiming for the same goal, they did not take the same path. Compared to Saint Justin, Athenagoras cites very few references from the prophetic sacred texts, instead striving through strict, impartial reasoning to lead his educated readers to the conviction of the futility of pagan beliefs. Additionally, he attempts to present many Christian opinions as just, using the own words of pagan philosophers and poets, well known to judges and rulers, while depicting many pagan beliefs as absurd. This direction of his entire composition has also led to another external feature. In Athenagoras's speech, one hears an educated orator, selective in words, striving to influence not only the intellect of his readers with the strength of thought but also their ears with the harmony and pleasantness of speech; one hears an orator who is well aware of the techniques that the ancient verbal art recommended to its adepts for gaining the goodwill of their listeners or readers.
Another work by Athenagoras reveals the greatest truth that death is the end of suffering, not the end of human existence, and that there will come a time when all shall be resurrected, living eternally with bodies. The author first dispels doubts and refutes objections that were raised in his time, both from the enemies of the Christian doctrine of resurrection and from the very souls of the believers. Following this, he positively elucidates the truth of the resurrection of bodies, indicating the purpose for which man was created, his nature, and ultimately the necessity of due retribution for good and evil deeds, which, however, remains unseen in this present life. But this is only possible on the condition that the souls of the deceased are reunited with their bodies, that is, through resurrection. Considering the purpose and the motivation behind the writing of the treatise on resurrection, one might think that the interval of time separating the publication of the two works by Athenagoras was quite brief, although it is not possible to determine the year of composition with precision.
The authenticity of the Apology and the treatise On the Resurrection has not been questioned. Both of these works have survived to our time in several manuscripts – some separately, some included with the writings of other authors, such as Justin. They have also been published in the same form: sometimes in two languages – Greek and Latin, and at times in one of these languages.***
Notes:
* Apology, chapter 24. See in Epiphanios, Haereses XLIV, 21, and in Photios, Bibliotheca, Codex 234.
** Some (Baronius, ad. d. 18 Jan., Tillemont, et al.) consider Athenagoras to be the same person as the martyr Athenogenes, who, according to the testimony of Saint Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 29), composed a hymn in honor of the third person of the Holy Trinity and entrusted it to his disciples when he was condemned to be burned. This association is based solely on a certain resemblance of the two names – Athenagoras and Athenogenes – and on a merely presumed error made by the copyists of the works of Athenogenes. This martyr suffered in Sebaste, in Armenia, along with others, during the reign of Diocletian.
*** The latest editions of the works of Athenagoras are included in 6 volumes of the Patrologiae Cursus Completus and in the Corpus Apologeticum Christianorum saeculi secundi edited by Johann Karl Theodor von Otto. The Apology has only been translated into Russian (in the magazine Christian Reading from 1843), and even then with significant abridgments.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
