History of Dogma Volume II Part 15

[Footnote 385: See my treatise "Tatian's Rede an die Griechen ubers."

1884 (Giessener Programm). Daniel, Tatia.n.u.s, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre des Tatian, 1893.]

[Footnote 386: But see Orat. 4 init., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init.]

[Footnote 387: He not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than Justin, but insisted more energetically than that Apologist on the necessity of viewing the practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see Orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. Nevertheless Socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). With regard to other philosophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip.]

[Footnote 388: Orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29).]

[Footnote 389: Orat. 12: [Greek: ta tes hemeteras paideias estin anotero tes kosmikes katalepseos]. Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist made such bold a.s.sertions.]

[Footnote 390: See Orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), 15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.).

The section cc. 12-15 of the Oratio is very important (see also c. 7 ff); for it shows that Tatian denied the natural immortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals in respect of their inalienable natural const.i.tution as only one of degree. According to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments: but in the union of the human soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed he was planned. But, in Tatian's opinion, man lost this union by falling under the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of G.o.d has left him, and consequently he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man's task to unite the Spirit again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related to the "Gnostic" theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: [Greek: anthropon lego ton porro men anthroptetos pros auton de ton Theon kech.o.r.ekota]. But with Tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he a.s.sumes that the Spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., 15 fin.) So it is after all a mere a.s.sertion that the natural man is only distinguished from the beast by speech. He is also distinguished from it by freedom. And further it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the "Spirit" is a _donum superadditum et supernaturale_. For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently the realisation of man's destination depend on human freedom. That is, however, the proposition which all the Apologists maintained. But indeed Tatian himself in his latter days seems to have observed the inconsistency in which he had become involved and to have solved the problem in the Gnostic, that is, the religious sense. In his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of Christians the following holds good (c. 32): [Greek: logou tou demosiou kai epigeiou kechorismenoi kai peithomenoi theou parangelmasi kai nomo patros aphtharsias hepomenoi, pan to en doxe keimenon anthropine paraitoumetha].]

[Footnote 391: C. 31. init.: [Greek: he hemetera philosophia]. 32 (p.

128): [Greek: hoi boulomenoi philosophein par' hemin anthropoi]. In c.

33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated [Greek: hai par hemin philosophousai]. C. 35: [Greek: he kath' hemas barbaros philosophia]. 40 (p. 152): [Greek: hoi kata Mousea kai h.o.m.oios auto philosophountes]. 42: [Greek: ho kata barbarous philosophon Tatianos]. The [Greek: dogmata] of the Christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), 27 (p.

108), 35 (p. 138), 40, 42. But Tatian pretty frequently calls Christianity "[Greek: he hemetera paideia]", once also "[Greek: nomothesia]" (12; cf. 40: [Greek: hoi hemeteroi nomoi]), and often [Greek: politeia].]

[Footnote 392: See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us [Greek: ouch hoper me elabomen, all' hoper labontes hupo tes planes echein ekoluthemen].]

[Footnote 393: Tatian gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. The demons have fixed the laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere.]

[Footnote 394: Tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the prophets and through Christ. See the description of his conversion in c. 29. where only the Old Testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin.. 12 (p. 54) etc.]

[Footnote 395: Knowledge and life appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, e.g., c. 13 init.: "In itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, that it may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. On the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped with the knowledge of G.o.d."]

[Footnote 396: Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are [Greek: ta ton barbaron dogmata] (c. 1): [Greek: kath' hemas barbaros philosophia] (c.

35); [Greek: he barbarike nomothesia] (c. 12); [Greek: graphai barbarikai] (c. 29); [Greek: kainotomein ta barbaron dogmata] (c. 35); [Greek: ho kata barbarous philosophon Tatianos] (c. 42); [Greek: Mouses pases barbarou philosophias archegos] (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. In Tatian's view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.]

[Footnote 397: See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff.]

[Footnote 398: C. 30 (p. 114): [Greek: touton oun ten katalepsin memuemenos].]

[Footnote 399: Tatian's own confession is very important here (c. 26): "Whilst I was reflecting on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. And it chanced that they convinced me through the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of all kinds under one head. My soul was instructed by G.o.d and I recognised that those Greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence of error."

Here the whole theology of the Apologists is contained _in nuce_; see Justin, Dial. 7-8. In Chaps. 32, 33 Tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the Christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see Justin, Apol. II. 10; Athenag. 11 etc.]

[Footnote 400: The unknown author of the [Greek: Logos pros Ellenas]

also formed the same judgment as Tatian (Corp. Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian translation, greatly amplified, is found in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658. It was published by Cureton, Spic.

Syr., p. 38 sq. with an English translation). Christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the Logos himself.

"It produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it makes mortals immortal and men G.o.ds, and leads them away upwards from the earth into super-Olympian regions." Through Christian knowledge the soul returns to its Creator: [Greek: dei gar apokatatathenai othen apeste].]

[Footnote 401: Nor is Plato "[Greek: ho dokon en autois semnoteron pephilosophekenai]" any better than Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6).

Correct views which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others ([Greek: ho dokon h.e.l.lenon sophoteros gegenesthai]), did not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (III. 16).

Although he knew that the full truth can only be learned from G.o.d himself through the law (III. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning of history. But where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (III. 16: [Greek: ei de eikasmo, ouk ara alethe estin ta hup' autou eiremena]).]

[Footnote 402: Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: [Greek: kai gar ego epistoun touto esesthai, alla nun katanoesas auta pisteuo, hama kai epituchon hierais graphais ton agion propheton, hoi kai proeipon dia pneumatos Theou ti progegonota o tropo gegonen kai ta enestota tini tropo ginetai, kai ta eperchomena poia taxei apartisthesetai. Apodeixin oun labon ton ginomenon kai proanapephonemenon ouk apisto]; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III.

10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32).]

[Footnote 403: See II. 8: [Greek: hupo daimonon de empneusthentes kai hup' auton phusiothentes ha eipon di' auton eipon].]

[Footnote 404: The unknown author of the work _de resurrectione_, which goes under the name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. ([Greek: O men tes aletheias logos estin eleutheroste kai autexousios, upo medemian basanon elegchou thelon piptein mede ten para tois akouousi di' apodeixeos exetasin hupomenein.

To gar eugenes autou kai pepoithos auto to pempsanti pisteuesthai thelei]). He inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since G.o.d himself and G.o.d alone is the truth. Christ revealed this truth and is for us [Greek: ton olon pistis kai apodeixis]. But it is far from probable that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries "armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered" (c. 1, p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about G.o.d and matter, held by the "so-called sages,"

Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics, the a.s.sumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul.

But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, "for if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?" (c.

10, p. 246.) This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol.

VIII., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately rea.s.signed to Justin himself the fragment de resurr. His argument, though displaying great plausibility, has nevertheless not fully convinced me. The question is of great importance for fixing the relation of Justin to Paul. I shall not discuss Hermias' "Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum," as the period when this Christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito's "Oratio ad Antoninum Caesarem"

(Otto, Corp. Apol. IX., p. 423 sq.). This book is preserved (written?) in the Syrian language and was addressed to Caracalla or Heliogabalus (preserved in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658). It is probably dependent on Justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his Apology.]

[Footnote 405: Ma.s.sebieau (Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1887, Vol.

XV. No. 3) has convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use of his works.]

[Footnote 406: Cf. the plan of the "Octavius." The champion of heathenism here opposed to the Christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle Academy. This presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the defence of the Stoical position.

See, besides, the corresponding arguments in the Apology of Tertullian, e.g., c. 17, as well as his tractate: "de testimonio animae naturaliter Christianae." We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Cicero's book, "de natura deorum." In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian.]

[Footnote 407: In R. Kuhn's investigation ("Der Octavius des Min.

Felix," Leipzig, 1882)--the best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point of view of the history of dogma--based on a very careful a.n.a.lysis of the Octavius, more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius and the Greek Apologists. The author's exposition requires to be supplemented in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6).]

[Footnote 408: C. 20: "Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum....

ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos."]

[Footnote 409: See Minucius, 31 ff. A quite similar proceeding is already found in Tertullian, who in his _Apologetic.u.m_ has everywhere given a Stoic colouring to Christian ethics and rules of life, and in c.

39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity of the Christian societies.]

[Footnote 410: Tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see Apolog.

46 (and de praescr. 7.)]

[Footnote 411: Tertull., de testim. I.: "Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quae scholis formata, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impoliitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent... Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulae peritiae tuae nemo credit."]

[Footnote 412: Tertull., Apol. 46: "Quid simile philosophus et Christianas? Graeciae discipulus et coeli?" de praescr. 7: "Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiae et ecclesiae?" Minuc. 38.5: "Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus... nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente praeferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quaesiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid n.o.bis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis aelate maturuit?"]

[Footnote 413: Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). He also viewed Christianity as the teaching of the Prophets; whoever acknowledges the latter must of necessity adore the crucified Christ. Tertullian was accordingly the first Apologist after Justin who again considered it necessary to give a detailed account of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos (see the 21st chapter of the Apology in its relation to chaps. 17-20).]

[Footnote 414: Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work "de Monarchia," which bears the name of Justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. He is therefore most akin to Minucius (see chap. I.). Here monotheism is designated as the [Greek: katholike doxa] which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for [Greek: tes anthropines phuseos to kat' archen suzugian suneseos kai soterias labouses eis epignosin aletheias threskeias te tes eis ton hena kai panton despoten.] According to this, then, only an awakening is required.]

[Footnote 415: But almost all the Apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed prophets. They recognise these in the Sibyls and the old poets. The author of the work "de Monarchia" expressed the most p.r.o.nounced views in regard to this. Hermas (Vis. II. 4), however, shows that the Apologists owed this notion also to an idea that was widespread among Christian people.]

[Footnote 416: See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc.]

[Footnote 417: See Tatian, c. 31 ff.]

[Footnote 418: In the New Testament the content of the Christian faith is now here designated as dogma. In Clement (I. 11.), Hermas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all; yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature [Greek: ta dedogmatismena hupo Theou].

In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: [Greek: spoudazete oun bebaiothenai en tois dogmasin tou kuriou kai ton apostolon], but [Greek: dogmata] here exclusively mean the rules of life (see Zahn on this pa.s.sage), and this is also their signification in [Greek: Didache] XI.

3. In the Epistle of Barnabas we read in several pa.s.sages (I. 6: IX. 7: X. 1, 9 f.) of "dogmas of the Lord;" but by these he means partly particular mysteries, partly divine dispensations. Hence the Apologists are the first to apply the word to the Christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. They are also the first who employed the ideas [Greek: theologein] and [Greek: theologia]. The latter word is twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of "aliquem nominare deum." In Dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of "to make religio-scientific investigations." Tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the contrary he ent.i.tled a book of which he was the author "[Greek: pros tous apophenamenous ta peri Theou]" and not "[Greek: pros tous theologountas]". In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of G.o.d and of all beings to whom the predicate "Deity"

belongs (see also 20, 22). That is the old usage of the word. It was thus employed by Tertullian in ad nat. II. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in II. 2, 3 the expression "theologia physica, mythica" refers to this); Cohort, ad Gr. 3, 22. The anonymous writer in Eusebius (H. E.

V. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. Brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word "theology" are found in Natorp, Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik (Philosophische Monatshefte, 1887, Parts I and 2, pp. 55-64). The t.i.tle "theology," as applied to a philosophic discipline, was first used by the Stoics; the old poets were previously called "theologians," and the "theological" stage was the prescientific one which is even earlier than the "childhood" of "physicists" (so Aristotle speaks throughout). To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still [Greek: hoi palaioi theologoi]. But side by side with this we have an adoption of the Stoic view that there is also a philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the G.o.ds conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. In the Stoa arose the "impossible idea of a 'theology' which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty." The Apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a [Greek: kosmike] and [Greek: theologike sophia.]]

[Footnote 419: Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as [Greek: logos]; (2) as [Greek: nomos, nomothetes], and [Greek: krites]; (3) as [Greek: didaskalos] and [Greek: soter].]

[Footnote 420: In the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have preferred to follow Justin; but here they have constantly overlooked the fact that Justin was the most Christian among the Apologists, and that the features of his teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the others at all (with the exception of Tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. It is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the Apologists in the foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to Justin as such, so far as it agree with New Testament teachings or contains an antic.i.p.ation of the future tenor of dogma.]