We Have the Prophets”: Inspiration and the Prophets in Athenagoras of Athens
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ZAC 2016; 20(2): 211–242 D. Jeffrey Bingham* “We Have the Prophets”: Inspiration and the Prophets in Athenagoras of Athens DOI 10.1515/zac-2016-0031 Abstract: In contrast to those who argue simply that Athenagoras’s discussion of the prophets and inspiration is Hellenic, sourced in Philo as well as in Plato and Plutarch, this paper claims that there are other sources to consider that are equally informative. Athenagoras manifests alliance and dependence upon the Septuagint, other Jewish sources, the New Testament and second-century Chris- tian sources, especially Ignatius and Justin. Athenagoras is a Christian philoso- pher. We would expect to see such a broad-based platform of resources for his theological construction. A simple classification of Greek, Hellenistic or Philonic for his notion of the inspired prophets is incomplete, unreflective of his own inge- nuity, and fails to adequately account for his Judaeo-Christian heritage. It also minimizes the elegance of this early Christian attempt to theologize about the Jewish prophets in a gentile world. In Athenagoras we have an explanation of the prophets and inspiration that (1) clearly positions them preeminently as rational, doctrinal Christian authorities above the poets, philosophers, and human opin- ions; (2) constructs his community’s theology with an artistic flair that selec- tively and critically weaves together both pagan and Judaeo-Christian sources; so that (3) he might win a hearing from both his imperial and ecclesiastical audience. Keywords: Athenagoras, Prophets, Inspiration, Philo, Plato, Ecstasy, Justin Martyr, Spirit In 1928, Arthur D. Nock penned his classic essay, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background. There, in his opening pages, he oriented his reader to the challenges faced by Christianity as it moved from Palestine into the rest of the world. *Corresponding author: D. Jeffrey Bingham, Southwestern Theological Seminary, 2001 West Seminary Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76115, United States, e-mail: [email protected] 212 D. Jeffrey Bingham In spreading from this well-prepared ground [of Judaism] the Christian movement encoun- tered new tasks. It faced a world which did not know Judaism or which hated and despised it, a world which was unacquainted with the prophets and familiar with cults not pretend- ing to exclusiveness, with mysteries not always requiring a moral standard of their devo- tees, with an unchangeable and unmoral order of destiny determined, or at least indicated, by the stars, with magic of various kinds.1 Early Christians certainly had to make their way into a world that was not familiar with the Jewish prophets. They did not move, however, into a culture that was a tabula rasa in regard to the question of prophets. The world into which they migrated was well acquainted with prophets and prophecy.2 This meant that their missionary efforts and their defensive posture would need to establish grounds for their particular view of prophecy, a task that would involve both apologetic and polemic. My interest here is to study how early Christians went about the task of intro- ducing their concept of the Old Testament prophets to an audience that embraced different perspectives on prophecy. This will, of course, include the related idea of inspiration. Within the New Testament and the second century before Irenaeus and Theophilus, several texts relating the two concerns come to mind. We will interact with some of these below.3 Our focus here is Athenagoras of Athens.4 Two passages from his Legatio pro Christianis, 7,3 and 9,1, are central to our interest: We, however, have prophets (προφήτης) as witnesses of what we think and believe. They have spoken by the inspiration (ἔνθεος) of a divine Spirit (πνεῦμα) about God and the things of God. And you, who excel others in wisdom and in piety toward the true Divinity, would 1 Arthur D. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background (Harper torch- books 111; New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 3. The essay first appeared in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation (ed. Alfred E. J. Rawlinson; London: Longmans, Green, 1928), 51–156. 2 Cf. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background (see note 1), 88. 3 Cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:10–12; 2 Pet 1:20–21; Rev 22:6; Ignatius, Epistula ad Magnesios 8,2; 9,2 (ed. and trans. Andreas Lindemann and Henning Paulsen, Die Apostolischen Väter: Griechisch- deutsche Parallelausgabe [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992], 194,26–196,2; 196,8–10); Epistula ad Philadelphios 5,2 (ed. and trans. Lindemann and Henning, Die Apostolischen Väter [see above], 220,15–20); Justin, 1 Apologia 31,1; 33,2.9; 36; 37,9; 53,6 (PTS 38, 76,1–6; 80,4–7; 81,31–33; 84,1–12; 85,17–18; 107,23–26 Marcovich); Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo 7,1–2; 32,2–3; 48,4; 115,3 (PTS 47, 82,3–83,14; 122,14–23; 149,22–25; 268,18–22 Marcovich). 4 The critical editions consulted include Bernard Pouderon, ed., annot. and trans., Athénagore: Supplique au sujet des chrétiens et sur la résurrection des morts: Introduction, texte et traduction (SC 379; Paris: Cerf, 1992); Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Athenagoras: Legatio pro Christianis (PTS 31; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990); William R. Schoedel, ed. and trans., Athenagoras: Legatio and De resurrectione (OECT; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). “We Have the Prophets” 213 admit that it would be absurd for us to abandon our belief in the Spirit (πνεῦμα) of God, which moved (κινέω) the mouths of the prophets (προφήτης) like instruments (ὄργανον), and to pay attention to human opinions.5 If we were content with such considerations, one could imagine that our doctrine was human. But the voices of the prophets (προφήτης) confirm our arguments (λογισμός). And I suppose that you, who are so curious and so learned, are not without knowledge of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets (προφήτης). Who, in accordance with the ecstasy (ἔκστασις) of their reason (λογισμός), as the divine Spirit (πνεῦμα) moved (κινέω) them, proclaimed the things that they were inspired (ἐνεργέω) to say, the Spirit (πνεῦμα) using them just as a piper (αὐλητής) blows (ἐμπνέω) into a pipe (αὐλός).6 Previous scholarship on these two passages has largely taken two paths. First, it has either noted Athenagoras’s contrast between the philosophers and proph- ets on the basis of the means of their inspiration or described the commonality between them. The philosophers, Abraham Malherbe noted, were moved only by the divine breath (πνοή), while the prophets were informed by the divine Spirit (πνεῦμα).7 David Rankin, on the other hand, argues that by “breath,” Athenago- ras “obviously means the Spirit.”8 The philosophers and prophets, in different measure, both receive knowledge of God from the same Spirit. Second, scholar- ship has been quick to assert the classical and Hellenistic background for Athena- goras’s concept of inspiration and the prophets. The favored sources are Plato, Philo, and Plutarch. Malherbe, for instance, claims that the apologist described the prophets in “general hellenistic terms” and “in terms customary among philosophers.”9 Leslie W. Barnard locates the original source for Athenagoras’s 5 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 7,3 (SC 379, 92,17–94,23 Pouderon): ῾Ημεῖς δὲ ὧν νοοῦμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν ἔχομεν προφήτας μάρτυρας, οἳ πνεύματι ἐνθέῳ ἐκπεφωνήκασι καὶ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ. Εἴποιτε δ’ ἂν καὶ ὑμεῖς συνέσει καὶ τῇ περὶ τὸ ὄντως θεῖον εὐσεβείᾳ τοὺς ἄλλους προὔχοντες ὡς ἔστιν ἄλογον παραλιπόντας πιστεύειν τῷ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεύματι ὡς ὄργανα κεκινηκότι τὰ τῶν προφητῶν στόματα, προσέχειν δόξαις ἀνθρωπίναις. 6 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 9,1 (98,1–10 P.): Εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῖς τοιαύταις ἐννοίαις ἀπηρκούμεθα, ἀνθρωπικὸν ἄν τις εἶναι τὸν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐνόμιζεν λόγον· ἐπεὶ δὲ αἱ φωναὶ τῶν προφητῶν πιστοῦσιν ἡμῶν τοὺς λογισμούς—νομίζω <δὲ> καὶ ὑμᾶς φιλομαθεστάτους καὶ ἐπιστημονεστάτους ὄντας οὐκ ἀνοήτους γεγονέναι οὔτε τῶν Μωσέως οὔτε τῶν Ἠσαΐου καὶ Ἱερεμίου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν προφητῶν, οἳ κατ’ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν, κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ θείου πνεύματος, ἃ ἐνηργοῦντο ἐξεφώνησαν, συγχρησαμένου τοῦ πνεύματος, ὡς εἰ καὶ αὐλητὴς αὐλὸν ἐμπνεύσαι. 7 Abraham J. Malherbe, “Athenagoras on the Poets and Philosophers,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten 1 (ed. Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungman; Münster: Aschendorff, 1970), (214–225) 222. 8 David I. Rankin, Athenagoras: Philosopher and Theologian (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 29, 79, 137. 9 Malherbe, “Athenagoras on the Poets and Philosophers” (see note 7), 222. 214 D. Jeffrey Bingham musical image concerning the prophets in a different Platonic metaphor concern- ing the philosophers.10 Joseph Crehan argues for indebtedness to Philo to “some extent,”11 but also allows for independence. Johannes Geffcken, citing Plato, had already set forth the thesis that for Athenagoras, the prophets (μάντις), in ecstasy under inspiration, were merely God’s passive, ignorant instruments. Here he saw a thoroughgoing Hellenism.12 Readers have appealed to three specific sets of similarities that Athenagoras had with classical Greek and Hellenistic mate- rial. Malherbe showed a Philonic similarity with Athenagoras’s language that differentiates philosophers from prophets on their association with divine breath (πνοή) or Spirit (πνεῦμα).13 Many argue that his language and thought concerning spiritual inspiration and ecstasy has parallels with Plato, Philo, and Plutarch.14 10 Cf. Leslie W. Barnard, “The Philosophical and Biblical Background of Athenagoras,” in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (ed. Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser; Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), (3–16) 15 (note 48); eadem, Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic (Théologie historique 18; Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 77 (note 16); eadem, “Athenagoras and the Biblical Tradition,” in Studia Evangelica 6: Papers presented to the Fourth International Congress on New Testament Studies held at Oxford 1969 (ed.