Oxford Early Christian Texts

Athenagoras
Leaatio
ΑΝΩ

De Resurrectione

Edited and Translated by

W illiaD1 R. Schoedel
 OXFORD EARLY CHRISTlAN TEXTS

General Editor: Dr. Henry Chadwick

Dean of Christ Church, Oxford

The main object of the series is to

provide reliable working texts, with
English translat.ons, of importantworks
by writers of .the patristic period ' ίη
both Greek and Latin. There ννίll be ηο
attempt to make it a, complete patro-
logy, only those works being included
for which it is considered there is a
real need ίη this kind of edition .
Each volume contains an introduc-
tion, text and select critical apparatus,
with English translation en face, refer-
ences to quotations and allusions, and
brief notes οη subject-matter.

ISBN Ο 19 826808 4
Ι n the Legatio Athenagoras deals with
the charge of' atheism' so often levelled
against the early Church ίπ the Roman
Empire. His efforts to re-orient the
social and religious ideas of the Romans
help us to see the situation as many
early Christians must have seen ίΙ and
this makes the work of great importance
to the historian and theologian.
The de Resurrectione is probably not
(despite tradition) from the hand of
Athenagoras. It seems to have emerged
from the Origenist controversies and
stands as an illustration of the way
ίπ which traditional items of faith
WθΓθ defended ίπ the face of Platonist
metaphysics.
OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS
Generαl Editor
DR. HENR Υ CHADWICK
Dean of Christ Church, Oxford

ATHENAGORAS
ATHENAGORAS

Legatio
AND

De Resurrectione

EDITED AND TRANSLATED

ΒΥ

'ιVILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL

OXFORD
ΑΤ ΤΗΕ CLARENDON PRESS
1972
 Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. 1
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
NAIROBI DAR Ε! SALAAM LUSAKA ADDIS ΑΒΑΒΑ
CAPE TOWN IBADAN
DELHI ΒΟΜΒΑΥ CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
PREFACE
KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE HONG KONG ΤΟΚΥΟ

ΑLΤΗΟU GΗ Athenagoras iS not well known and left ηο

deep mark οη the life and thought of the ancient Church,
© OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1972 the two documents which come down to us under his name
may be read as fragments of larger debates and ίη this way
contribute significantly to our understanding of two im-
portant problems that emerged ίη the early period.
Athenagoras' Plea is especial1y noteworthy for the light
which it sheds οη the social problem of Christianity as a
popular re1igious movement ίη the Roman Empire. The
author's careful exploration of the charge of 'atheism' sub-
ordinates traditional polemics to a controlled apologetic aim
and reveals more clearly than other early discussions some-
thing of the underlying difference between Christian and
Graeco-Roman views of 'piety'. Raffaele Pettazzoni and
others have taught us that the clash between Rome and the
Church was ίη part a clash between two distinct types of
religion: first, the ancient religion of city and state-that is,
the type of ΓeΙίgίοη which establisl1es and enshrines the values
of the political and social institutions of this world; and
second, the universal religion with its message of salvation-
that is, the type of religion which (1ike Christianity) orients
men to values that transcend the mundane order of things.
Athenagoras knows as certainly as Vano that there is a
'political religion' which the emperors welcome for the sake of
social stability. He presents Christianity as superior to such
religion and appeals to an authority greater than that of the
state; but he also emphasizes the loyalty of Christians ίη
conventional terms. U nfortunately, the underlying tensions
ίη this marriage of themes and their practical consequences
PRINTED ΙΝ GREAT BRITAIN are not adequately explored. Ιη particular, Athenagoras
ΑΤ ΤΗΕ UNIVERSITY PRESS. OX}<'ORD
ΒΥ νΙΥΙΑΝ RIDLER
fails to realize that the mild 'atheism' of a pagan elite-the
PRINTER ΤΟ ΤΗΕ UΝΙVΕRSΙ1Ύ philosophers-could not properly be compared with the
thoroughgoing 'atheism' of a popular religious movement
νϊ PREFACE
such as Christianity. Rome's tolerance, however broad, had
limits which our apologist cannot fully grasp; consequently,
he neglects the social issues for argumentation (sometimes CONTENTS
superficial and arid) οη theological and metaphysical issues.
The weakness of his work, however, should not be exag- INTRODUCTION ίΧ
gerated as it was by Johannes Geffcken ίη his searing attack xi
Ι. The ΡΙεα
of 1907. Α more balanced view of his achievement is offered χχίίί
Outline of the ΡΙεα
ίη the introduction to this edition.
The second treatise ίn this book, On the Resurrection, Ι ι. Concerning the Resurrection of the Deαd χχν

Outline of the treatise χΧχίίί

apparently comes from another period, despite the tradi-
tional ascription of it to Athenagoras. Reasons are presented ΙΙΙ. The Text χχχν

ίη the introduction for viewing it as a conservative reaction

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS χχχνίί
to the teaching οη the resurrection ίη the school of Origen.
Alternatively, because of the close relation both historically LEGATIO 3
and philosophically between Origen and the later Platonists,
the treatise may be directed against the latter. Ιn any event, DE RESURRECTIONE 89
we have before us a polemic which underscores the difficulties
encountered by Christian theology as it attempted to come to INDEXES OF Ν AMES, TERMS, AND Q.UOTATIONS 151

terms more fully with Platonism.

Ι owe to Robert Μ. Grant my first interest ίη the text of
Athenagoras and the problems of his writing οη the literary,
intellectual, and social side. Subsequently Ι have profited Ι
much from conversations with other American scholars, Ι
Ι

especially Robert L. Wilken and Lloyd G. Patterson. Ι wish ι

Ί
also to recognize Brown University of Providence, R.I., for
summer grants which made the writing of this book possible.
The staff of the Clarendon Press has my warmest thanks,
especially for its close attention to detail ίη the editing of
this volume. Finally, Ι dedicate this work to my father,
G. Walter Schoedel, who would have been pleased, Ι think,
with a book of this kind.
W.R.S. :1

11

The University of Illinois

Summer 1971
 INTRODUCTION

ATHENAGORAS left himself almost without witness ίη the

early Churcll and was recalled from obscurity οηlΥ ίη the
tenth century by Arethas~ archbishop of Caesarea ίη Cappa-
docia. Before that time, one early father, Methodius (d. A.D.
3 Ι ι) alludes to the Pleα (24. 2) and identifies the author as
Athenagoras. 1 Epiphanius and Photius discuss the same
text, but οηlΥ οη the authority of Methodius. 2
One other reference to Athenagoras may be noted, but
it is not encouraging. According to a fourteenth-century
codex,3 'Philip of Side [a fifth-century Christian historian]
says ίη his twenty-fourth book: Athenagoras was the first to
head the school ίη Alexandria. He flourished at the time of
Hadrian [A.D. 117-38] and Antoninus [A.D. 138-61], to both
of whom he addressed his Pleα οπ behαlf of the Christiαns. He
became a Christian while he wore the philosopher's cloak
and was at the head ofthe Academy. Even before Celsus he
was anxious to write against the Christians. He read the
Sacred Scriptures ίη order to aim his shafts more accurately,
but he was so powerfully seized by the Holy Spirit that like
the great Paul he became a teacher rather than a persecutor
of the faith which he was harassing. Philip says that Clement
the writer of the Stromαtα was his disciple and that Pantaenus
[MS. Clement] was the disciple of Clement. Pantaenus
himself was also an Athenian philosopher, of the Pythagorean
school. But Eusebius says the opposite: that Pantaenus was
the teacher of Clement . . .' Disagreement between Philip
and Eusebius οη the school ίη Alexandria prevents us from
concerning ourselves too much about the former's dating of
the Pleα. There is, as we shall see, some difficulty about the
ι De Res. 1.36,37 (ρρ. 277-8 Bonwetsch).
2 Epiphanius, Ραπ. 64. 20-1 (PG χΙί. 1101); Photius, Bibl. cod. 234 (PG ciii.
1109)·
3 Codex Bodl. Baroccianus 142, fo1. 216 (PG νί. 182).
χ
INTRODUCTION
address, but the co-rulership presupposed throughout the
apology is not satisfied by taking up Philip's suggestion.
Antoninus, to be sure, was adopted by Hadrian before the
latter's death; but it was Marcus Aurelius who first set up
a co-rulership. There were, ίη fact, two such joint rules ίη
his reign-one with L. Aurelius Verus (A.D. 161-9) and one
with Commodus. Our text has the latter ίη mind, since the
'kings' addressed are regarded as father and son (ι 8. 2).
We know practically nothing, then, about Athenagoras
apart from the medieval codices which contain his work. The
earliest of these, codex Paris 45 ι, by its own account 'was
written by the hand of Baanes the secretary for Arethas,
archbishop of Caesarea ίη Cappadocia, ίη the year of the
world 6422' (A.D. 914).4 The codex included a number of
'apologetic' writings, among which are two works ascribed
to Athenagoras-the Pleα and On the Resurrection. 5
The reason for the neglect of Athenagoras can only be
conjectured. Ιη some ways the Pleα represents a form of
pleading superior to more famous predecessors such as
Justin and Tatian. But for the same reason there is much
less ίη it that is of use to later generations who had left
apologetic concerns behind and were looking to the 'Fathers'
for authoritative theological statements. It is characteristic
of the ΡΙεα that the incarnation is the subject of only one
obscure remark (2 ι. 4). Ιη the manuscripts from the tenth
to the sixteenth century the treatise On the Resurrection is often
copied without the ΡΙεα, apparently because of its superior
usefulness ίη one department of theology. The possibility
that it had a separate career also before the tenth century
will be discussed below.
It is likely, then, that we owe the preservation of the Pleα
to the cultural renaissance inspired especial1y by Photius,
patriarch of Constantinople, and supported by such em-
perors of the Macedonian dynasty as Leo νι (A.D. 886-9 12),
a pupil of Photius, and Constantine νιι (A.D. 913-59).
4 Fol. 401 v. 5 Fols. 322 v-3 67 v.
INTRODUCTION χί
Arethas, as the range of his library suggests,6 shared the
scholarly ideals of this circle. His recovery of and interest ίη
Athenagoras can best be understood against the intellectual
background for which Photius' Bibliothecα stands.
Codex Paris 45 ι is the first manuscript that embodies the
conception of a corpus of 'apologists'. The recognition of the
existence of such a category of early Christian literature,
refl.ecting a distinctive orientation and purpose, was an
important step ίη the sorting out of the early materials. But
there is also some artificiality inherent ίη the conception, and
it is well to remember the wide diversity of views and
temperaments of the 'apologists' of the second century.
Ι. ΤΗΕ PLEA
The Pleα may be dated between A.D. 176 (the beginning of
the co-rulership ofM. Aurelius and Commodus) and A.D. 180
(the death of Μ. Aurelius) or, more narrowly, between A.D.
176 and A.D. 178 (if we assume that the 'deep peace' of ι. 2
is more than a rhetorical fl.ourish and that ηο such reference
was possible after the resumption of the war against the
Germans ίη A.D. 178). The apology may have been called
forth by the persecution of the Christians ίη Gaul ίη A.D. 177
(Eusebius, Η.Ε. 5. ι. ι ff.), but there is little positive evidence
ίη favour of this (cf. 3. ι).
There is one serious difficulty with the address. Μ. Aurelius
dropped the title 'victor of Armenia' after the death of
his adoptive brother, L. Aurelius Verus, ίη A.D. 169; and
Commodus never had it. Schwartz therefore suggested that
'victors of Germany' be read instead; Harnack suggested
expunging the phrase as an interpolation; and Geffcken
welcomed the confusion as evidence of the unreliability of
the salutation. But Giovanni Porta has shown that ίη
unofficial papyri and inscriptions 'victor of Armenia' wαs a
title used of Μ. Aurelius after the death of L. Verus and that
6 Adolph νοn Hamack, Die Ueberlieftrung der griechischen Apologeten des
;:;weiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter (Texte und Untersuch-
ungen, ί. 1/2, Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1882), ρρ. 36-46.
xίi INTRODUCTION
it was also given to Commodus. 7 We can hardly expect our
author to conform to precise official usage.
It must be admitted, however, that there is something
wrong with the address. Arethas had already remarked οη its
incompleteness ίη the margin of Paris 45 Ι. Ιη orations like
those of Aelius Aristides we sometimes have addresses ίη the
usual epistolary form 'Ν. to Ν., greeting' (Or. 12 and 41).
The address of the Pleα was obviously intended to conform to
this formula. But the name of the sender and the greeting
haνe fallen away. Still, ίη light of the internal eνidence dis-
cussed aboνe, it seems clear that the address is right as far as
it goes. That the sender was Athenagoras is probably correct.
The title which mentions him is old, since it is ίη the hand
ofthe scribe Baanes. 8 Methodius, moreoνer, knew the Pleα as
a work of Athenagoras. Our apologist could also haνe been
an Athenian as the title claims; and he had as much right to
the name 'philosopher' as many others of his day.9
The title may be translated 'embassy' as well as 'plea'.
The former translation is adopted by those who see ίη the
Pleα an address intended to be deliνered before the emperors
ίη person. And it must be admitted that Athenagoras writes
as though he were actually addressing them (2. 6). Moreoνer,
Philo'sEmbαs-D' (162 ff.) and the 'Acts ofthe Pagan Martyrs'IO
show that emperors did receiνe embassies and deal with them
ίη a loose judicial manner οη matters touching whole seg-
ments of the population. But such action had some concrete
situation as its focus (Athenagoras is studiously νague); and
ηο formal apology of the length of the Pleα was ίη order. II
7 'La dedica e la data della Πp€σβ€ία di Atenagora', Didαskαlion, 51 1-2 (ι 9 ι 6),
53-70.
s Oscar νοη Gebhardt, Der Arethαscodex Pαris Gr. 451 (Texte und Unter-
suchungen, ί. 3; Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1883), ρρ. 183-5.
9 Η. Ι. Marrou, Α History ΟΙ Educαtion ίπ Antiquity (New York, Sheed & Ward,
1956), ρρ. 287-90.
10 Η. Α. Musurillo, The Acts ofthe Pαgαn Mαrtyrs: Acta Alexαndrinorum (Oxford,
Uniνersity Press, 1954).
ΙΙ Ιη formal trials before emperors point-for-point inνestigation had replaced
long set speeches since the time of Nero (Max Kaser, Dαs Romische ΖίυίΙ­
prozessrecht [Mίinchen, C. Η. Becker, 1966], ρ. 352 n. 3 ι .
INTRODUCTION χίίί
Should we wish to imagine a somewhat more likely official
setting ίη which the Pleα could have figured, we may follow
Ehrhardt's suggestion concerning Justin's Apologies l2 (which
Athenagoras knew l3 ) and suppose that such a document
would haνe been sent to the imperial department αb epistulis. 14
But since Athenagoras poses as a speaker, this also seems
unlikely. We are driνen to the conclusion that he was con-
structing an oration ίη the forensic style ίη obedience to the
rules of rhetoric.
Despite this artificiality the peculiar mark of the Pleα
among the Apologies of the second century is its controlled
apologetic aim. Exposition of Christian teaching occurs only
to rebut false charges (see the outline below).ls Athenagoras,
then, seems not to be writing for himself and other Christians.
As Monachino suggests,16 the Pleα looks like an 'open letter'
to the emperors destined for the general public. It represents
an elaboration of the sort of thing that Christians of an irenic
bent said before tribunals (cf. Eusebius, Η.Ε. 7. Ι ι. 8). The
political and legal issues inνolνed ίη declining to participate
ίη forms of pagan piety are not directly faced; instead the
appeal is to a higher law felt to exonerate Christians. This
12 'Justin Martyr's Two Apologies',]ournαl ΟΙ Ecclesiαstical History, 4 (1953),
1-12.
13 Note especially the discussion about suffering simply because of the 'name'
(1.3-2.5). Cf.Justin,Ap. 1.3. ι; 1.4. Ι.
14 'In the second century, the con trol of the Greek section [of the Secretariate]
seems το haνe been the ambition of the Greek rhetors and sophists ίη a quite
remarkable degree' (Ludwig Friedlaender, Romαn Life and Mαnners Ε.Τ. from
ed. 7 [London, George Routledge & Sons, 1914], ρ. 55). They were, inshort, men
like Athenagoras. For an example of a request of a political nature made to the
emperor through the Secretariate see Josephus, Ant. 20. 183. Here Syrians bribe
the secretary to gain a rescript from Nero to depriνe the Jews of Caesarea of
tlleir political rights. Again, howeνer, the object of the request is quite specific.
IS Michele Pellegrino, Studi su l'antica αpologeticα (Rome, Edizioni di 'storia
e letterature', 1947), ρρ. 46-85, also stresses the apologetic intent. He allows,
howeνer, for 'protreptic' elements as well (ι ι. 3-4: our teachings, unlike
dialectic, proνide happiness and profit eνen the uncultured); but he regards
protreptic as an extension of apologetic (the pursuit of philosophy, medicine,
and music were commended, and thereby defended, ίη protreptic treatises).
He rejects Ubaldi's category of 'propaganda' as a description of the ΡΙεa.
16 'Intento pratico e propagandistico nell'apologetica Greca del ΙΙ secolo',
Gregorianum, 32 (1951),3-49·
Χίv INTRODUCTION
flight to 'philosophy'. and theology caused Geffcken to
declare that the Pleα was 'pure book literature without
direct practical purposes'. 17 And Athenagoras, as we shall
see, is a bookish man. But the judgement seems too strong ίη
light of the careful elimination of materials not apologetic ίη
character. Athenagoras was not simply providing comfort
for his co-religionists. The reason for the failure to confront
the practical issues more directly is that this was impossible:
there was an irreconcilable clash of values. It is a mark of
Athenagoras' grasp of the situation that he saw the need to
redefine 'atheism' -that is, to re-orient the social and reli-
gious ideas of the cultivated-if Christians were to remain
Christian and yet continue to live ίη the Roman empire.
This effort to re-orient conventional views οη society and
religion was called forth by three charges levelled against
the Christians: (ι) atheism, (2) Thyestean banquets, and
(3) Oedipean intercourse (3. ι). It is the first that occupies
Athenagoras most fully. 'Atheism' ίn the Roman empire
was understood primarily as a refusal to recognize the gods
of the 'cities' and to participate ίη the traditional rites. Dio
Cassius (67. 14. 2) knew of capital punishment for atheism
already ίn the reign ofDomitian. But the underlying reasons
for the action are unclear. Apparently Christians were
suspect not because they taught a new theology but because
they rejected the old ways (1.1-2; cf. Eusebius, Η.Ε. 7.11.
6-1 ι). As men without an ancient heritage and a national
home they could not claim the immunities enjoyed by the
Jews (cf. Origen, Contrα Celsum 5.25). It seems unlikely, then,
that 'atheism' was a charge with a clearly definable legal
significance. But by Athenagoras' time hostile popular
sentiment may have forced governors to take the profession
17 Johannes Geffcken, Zwei Griechische Apologeten (Leipzig, Β. G. Teubner,
1907), ρ. 99 n. ι. Geffcken regards the beginning of chap. 37 ('1et our teaching
concerning the resurrection be set aside for the present') as final proof of the
artificiality of the whole treatise. Again, however, the remark is motivated by
a desire to avoid introducing materials that have litt1e to do with the apologetic
task. lt is enough for pagans to l"ealize that Christians are harmless even though
they may be foolish.
INTRODUCTION χν
of Christianity as proof ίη itself of behaviour inimical to good
social order and dangerous to the state. And the Christians'
refusal to perform honours to the emperors of a sacral
nature may often have led to the more specific charge of
treason. 18
Ιη his reply to this charge, Athenagoras associates himself
with the philosophical tradition against popular religion and
seeks to show that Christians are ίη harmony with the best
that had been thought and said. U nfortunately his train of
ideas is not always clear, and his command of materials is
not secure. Α striking example is the argumentation ίη
chapter eight where a 'topological' proof for monotheism is
offered. So obscure is the line of thought that Eduard
Schwartz felt compelled to bracket many sentences as inter-
polations. ΜΥ notes ση that passage illustrate the difficulty of
understanding its logic. The background of philosophical and
theological motifs is equally clouded. Some of the language
about the One is reminiscent of the doctrine of the Eleatics I9
which could have been known to Athenagoras ίη a revised
Hellenistic form. 20 The talk about the 'place' of God may
have been borrowed from the Church's anti-Gnostic debate. 21
And inevitably Stoic and Platonic (or Philonic) themes may
be identified. 22 Yet the controlling argument is the biblical
emphasis οη God's power-an argument that renders much
else ίη the chapter irrelevant. Such a medley of ideas would
hardly have commended itself to the pagan intellectual. Υ et
the apologetic point is made, however confusedly, that, ίη
view of the soundness of monotheism, Christians are not
atheists.
18 Ο. Sild, Dαs αltchristliche Mαrtyrium ίπ Berίicksichtigung der rechtlichen Grund-
lαge der Christenverfolgung (Dorpat, 1920).
19 Karl F. Bauer, Die Lehre des Athenαgorαs υοπ Gottes Einheit und Dreieinigkeit
(Bamberg, Linotype-Druck der Handels-Druckerei, 1902), ρ. 22.
20 Robert Μ. Grant, ΤΜ ΕατΖΥ Christiαn Doctrine oJ God (Charlottesville,
The University Press of Virginia, 1966), ρρ. 105-10.
21 Grant, Doctrine of God, ρρ. 109-10.
22 Bauer, Gottes Einheit und Dreieinigkeit, ρρ. 4-33; cf. Ludwig Richter,
Philosophisches ίπ der Gottes- und Logoslehre des Apologeten Athenαgorαs αus Athen
(Meissen, C. Ε. Klinkicht & Sohn, 1905).
8268084 b
χνί INTRODUCTION
Such a theoretical view of the issue could not have inter-
ested the Roman emperors deeply. Few men desired to be
counted with Diagoras the 'atheist' (4. ι) ;23 but such atheism
was relatively harmless. With the Christians it was otherwise.
The ορίηίοn of the majority was that they were guilty of
'hatred against mankind' (Tacitus, Annαls 15. 44), and the
depth of the antipathy was symbolized by the charges of
illicit sexual practices and cannibalism-charges possibly
occasioned by the emphasis οη universal love and by dis-
torted views of the Eucharist. Athenagoras obsequiously
proclaims the loyal ty of the Christians (ι. 1-2; 2. 1-3; 2. 6;
6. 2; 16. 2; 18. 2; 37) ίη the exaggerated language of the
rhetorical schools. 24 He has nothing ίη common with the
hostile Tatian, is even more irenic thanJustin, and probably
would have felt comfortable with Melito's suggestion that by
divine providence the destinies of Church and Empire were
intertwined (Eusebius, Η.Ε. 4. 26. 7-1 ι).
Considerable adjustment was necessary, however, before
this happy state could be realized. For 'loyal' as men like
Athenagoras ηο doubt were (ι. 3), their 'philosophy' was
interpenetrated by ideas that had already led to a with-
drawal of Christians from full participation ίη the life of the
'cities'. This withdrawal seemed antisocial.
23 Adolph νοη Harnack, Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jαhr­
hunderten (Texte und Untersuchungen, χχνίίί. 4; Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1905),
ρρ.II-14·
24 Especially important are the directions set do\vn by Menander (C. Walz,
Rhetores Grαeci, ίχ [Stuttgart, J. G. Cotta, 1836],213-31). The points that stand
out are these: praise can hardly be too great for a king (213.5-6); we are to say
that kings are 'sent from god', are his 'effiuences', and come 'from heaven'
(217. 13-218. 1); they should be praised for their 'love of learning, their
brilliance, their eagerness for studies, their easy grasp of what ίΒ taught them'
(220. 1-2); ifthey are philosophical, that should be exploited (220. 3); one ίΒ to
say that they surpassed their contemporaries (220. 6-7); οη the practical side,
deeds done ίη the pursuit of 'peace' are especially admirable (226. 3, 9); they
are to be commended especially for their 'gentleness' and 'affection for men'
(226. 5-7) and for their 'justice' (225. 9-13); they are to be lauded for being
easy to approach (226.7); finally 'prayer' ίΒ to be offered that god would grant
them a long reign and that they be succeeded by their ΒοηΒ (230. 19-231. 2).
Athenagoras cites biblical passages to support some of these themes; but the
inspiration ίΒ clearly rhetorical.
INTRODUCTION χνίί
Most important of these ideas was the emphasis οη the
untrammelled power of the Creator and his care for the
world (ι 3. 2). Here was a monotheism that was more radical
and therefore more exclusive than any philosophical theism
of the time. ΟηΙΥ this God was to be worshipped (16. ι, 3);
and Christians were willing to give υρ their lives for his sake
(3. 2). The Christian ethic was equally uncompromising.
Popular pleasures like the gladiatorial and animal fights were
rcjected (35. 4-5). The requirements for purity of life were
severe (ι 1.2-4; 12. ι; 12.3; 32. 2-34. 3). The emphasis οη
requital ίη another world (31. 4; 36. 1-3) turned Christians
[rom things below and contributed to that stubbornness
which outraged Roman officials (ΡΙίηΥ, Ερ. 10.96). The very
clarity of the ethical imperative, based as it was οη the
prophetic voice of Scripture and the words of J esus (ι ι. ι;
32. 4), brought a certainty which must have looked more like
nαί"vetrJ than integrity to many. The Christians were fully
conscious that it was the all-knowing God, not some shadowy
mythological personages, before whom men will ultimately
stand for judgement (ι 2. 2). The uncluttered distinction
between good and evil appears ίη another form ίn Athena-
goras' demonology (chaps. 24-5), which echoes traditional
Christian 25 andJewish 26 themes rather than the less dualistic
doctrines of the Greeks. Athenagoras is confident that God's
providence guides the righteous through all difficulties. 27
25 Justin, Αρ. 2. 5. 3 (cf. Enoch 6); 2. 7.5 (cf. Tatian 7).
26 Cf. Friedrich Andres, Die Engellehre der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten
Jαhrhunderts und ihr Verhiiltnis zur griechische-rDmischen Diimonologie (Paderborn,
Ferdinand Schoningh, 1914).
27 Similar ideas about providence may be found ίη Plato (Tim. 41 a) and, ίη
greater detail, ίη Ps.-Plutarch (De Fαto 9). But Athenagoras' view of particular
providence and his explanation of disorder are Christian rather than pagan.
Cf. Salvatore Pappalardo, 'La teoria degli angeli e dei demoni e la dottrina
della providenza ίη Atenagora', Didαscαlion, N.S. 2/3 (1924), 67-130. The
following scheme may be suggested: (1) There is a general providence of God
connected with the 'law ofreason', extending (α) over the whole material world
and (δ) over men as physical organisms. (2) There ίΒ a restricted providence
delegated to angels who have been set over aspects of creation; Some of these
angels, including the prince over matter, exercised their freedom and violated
their office: the angels, with their offspring the demons, move men to folly;
χνίii INTRODUCTION
And his belief ίη the resurrection of the body (31. 4; 36.
1-3) illustrates the completeness of his reliance οη God's
power.
Athenagoras' doctrine of God culminates ίη Trinitarian
theology (10. 2-5; cf. 4. 2; 6. 2; 12. 3; 18. 2). For apologetic
reasons, howeνer, he aνoids its most controνersial feature-
the doctrine of the incarnation (cf. 21. 4). Also for apologetic
reasons he matches the emphasis οη the unity of God by an
insistance οη the reality of the three and the mutuality of
their interrelation. Ιη this connection he also presupposes
(somewhat more cautiously than Justin) the νeneration of
angels. 28 What he is arguing is this: it is especially ridiculous
to charge the Christians with atheism when their theology
bears witness to a plural conception of deity (10. 5). That is
why Athenagoras anticipates later 'orthodox' teaching ίη his
emphasis οη the distinctions within the godhead and the
eternity of the Word; yet ίη harmony with his contemporaries
the 'generation' of the Son is still bound ιιρ with his emission
for the purpose of creation, and 'Father' is still primarily a
title for God as author of all that is. Ιη any eνent, Athena-
goras concentrates οη an aspect of Trinitarian thought which
prepares the ground for a theology capable of uniting the
biblical emphasis οη God as Creator, the Greek fascination
with a world interpenetrated by Logos, and a doctrine of
prophetic authority rooted ίη the actiνity of the Spirit who
tonches the deepest recesses of the human intellect.
It is with some justification, then, that Athenagoras makes
use of the resources of Hellenism to express Christian truth.
He not οηlΥ aligns himselfwith the best that had been thought
and said by the Greeks, but he also seeks to express himself
ίη a form that would commend his message to the cultured.
His organization ofmaterials is orderly. His style is AtticistiC. 29
the prince over matter creates disorder ίn human affairs. (3) There is a particular
providence ofGod 'over the worthy'. This is not the Middle Platonic hierarchy
with particular providence ίn the hands of the demons.
28 10.5; cf.Justin, Αρ. 1.6.2.
29 Geffcken, Zwei Griechische Apologeten, ρρ. 163-6.
INTRODUCTION χίΧ
Despite weaknesses ίη structure,30 the Pleα projects an atmo-
sphere of the 'refinement' sought after by deνotees of the
'second sophistic'.
Athenagoras' command of Greek philosophy and literature
reflects the learning that characterized this set of writers.
The apologist himself remarks that he has recourse to the
Hellenistic Doxographies (6. 2) ίη his account of Greek
philosophy-though there iS a hint that he could haνe said
more had the occasion demanded. There are two quotations
[rom Empedocles,3 1seνen from Plato. 32 Athenagoras probably
had read some Plato; but the quotations represent principal
texts used and reused in the Graeco-Roman period. The
close relation between Athenagoras' account of other philo-
sophers and the summaries of their teaching ίη the doxo-
graphies indicates reliance οη these superficial manuals. 33
Athenagoras' acquaintance with literature and mythology
iS somewhat more profound. He quotes Homer eigllteen
times,34 Hesiod twice,35 Pindar once,36 Aeschylus once 37 (ίη
a form deriνed from Plato), Euripides seνen times,38 Calli-
machus once. 39 There are four qnotations from tragedies of
unknown authorship;40 there iS one SpllriOUS fragment of
Sophocles ;41 Orphic νerses are cited ;42 and the Sibyl iS
qlloted. 43 Of prose works, his eight qllotations [rom Herodo-
tns stand ont. 44 He also refers to a spnrions letter of Alexander
the Great,45 to Hermes Trismegistus,46 to Ktesias,47 and to
30 Τοο many 'footnotes' get into the text, and Athenagoras has trouble
fully integrating some materials (such as his discussion of the 'names' of the
gods).
31 22. Ι, 2.
32 6.2; 16.4; 19.2; 23. 5, 7,9 (Plato is also referred to ίn 12. Ι; 16.3; 30. ι;
36·3)·
33 Thales (23. 4); Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, Socrates (3 ι. 2);
Pythagoras (36. 3) and Pythagoreans (6. Ι); Aristotle (6. 3; 25. 2) and Peri-
patetics (16. 3); Stoics (6. 4; 19· 3; 22·4-5)·
34 13.4; 18. 1,3; 21. 2, 3, 4, 5; 26. 4; 29. Ι.
35 24.6; 29. 2. 36 29. 2. 37 21. 5.
38 5. Ι, 2; 2 Ι. 5; 25. Ι, 2; 29· 3. 39 30. 3.
40 25.2; 26. 2; 29.4. 41 5· 3. 42 18. 3, 6; 20. 4.
43 30. Ι. 44 17.2; 28. 2, 3,4,6,8,9, 10. 45 28. Ι.
46 28.6. +7 30. ι.
χχ INTRODUCTION
Apollodorus' treatise Όη the Gods'. 48 Geffcken has shown ίη
his commentary tlIat many of these quotations were also
derived from secondary works. Yet he grants the relative
exccllence of Athenagoras' use of lίterary and mythological
sources and tlle wide range of his information. There are
even a number of notices, particularly ίη the sphere of
mythology and pagan religion (οη Helen and Metaneira ίη
ι. ι and 14. ι; οη Neryllinus ίη 26. 3), which are attested
οηlΥ by Athenagoras. Νίηο Scivoletto has further pressed the
importance of the enrichment of traditional materials by
Athenagoras himself. 49 He finds evidence for it particularly
ίη the mythological notes ίη chapters one and fourteen; and
he shows that Athenagoras' knowledge was probably derived
from the detailed commentary that accompanied the great
works of Greek culture studied at the 'secondary school'
level-especially Homer's Iliad. He buttresses these con-
clusions by noting that Athenagoras is familiar for the most
part with those authors recommended to the budding
scholar. 50 Scivoletto does not chal1enge Geffcken's con-
clusions about Atllenagoras' knowledge of philosophy, but
his analysis suggests a somewhat wider breadth of literary
interest and some ability ίη correlating materials useful to his
purpose. 1t may be added here that Athenagoras' infor-
mation οη the history of art, though not profound, is also
generally reliable. SI
The appeal to such authorities arises from Athenagoras'
desire to expose the weakness of polytheism and to show the
agreement of the best minds οη monotheism. Το carry out
the attack οη the gods Athenagoras adopts methods already
worked out by Sceptics and Epicureans. One important
example of this is the rejection of the Stoic defence of
polytheism by means of 'physical al1egory' (5. 2; 6. 4; 22.
28. 7.
48
'Cultura e scoliastica ίn Atenagora', Giornale Italiano di Filologia, 13 (ι 960),
49
236-48.
so Cf. Marrou, Α History of Education, ρρ. 224-8.
si Giuseppe Botti, 'Atenagora quale fonte per la storia dell'arte', Didaskalion,
4/3-4 (1915),395-417·
INTRODUCTION χχί
1-12). Another is found ίη chapters one and fourteen where
Athenagoras extends the sceptical complaint against diversity
of ορίηίοη (cf. 7. 2) to mythological lists not original1y
intended for this purpose. Euhemerism is also an obvious
feature of his method (28. 1-30. 6).
At the same time Athenagoras makes positive use of
monotheistic expressions of poets, Stoics, and dogmatic
philosophers ίη general. ΑΙΙ such materials are here pulled
into the orbit of the mixture of Platonic and Stoic motifs
that characterizes the philosophy of the period. The emphasis
οη the primacy of the immaterial (ι 5. ι; 19. 2; 36. 3) and οη
God's goodness (23.7; 24. 2) points to Platonism as the prime
source for Athenagoras' ontology. The clear link between
God and the Good was a relatively recent development
within that tradition. 52 With Athenagoras, however, God is
not related to the Good ίη such a way that he communicates
himself inevitably to the world; contrary to the explicit
teaching of some Platonists,53 the Good, though inseparable
from God, is thought of as an attribute ΟΓ 'accident' οηlΥ;
the power of God remains the decisive factor. The list of
philosophical issues ίη 7. 2-God, matter, forms, world-
reads like an outline of a Middle Platonic system. But it is
a significant shift when God rather than the 1deas are con-
nected with Being (4.2; 7.2); and it is an important event
ίη religious philosophy when the created and uncreated are
related as non-being to Being (4. 2; 15. ι). Athenagoras
expresses these doctrines with little awareness of the diffi-
culties involved: it is 'God' who stands over against 'matter'
(4. ι; 6. ι; 15. ι); and apparently matter is stil1 conceived as
pre-existent (cf. 10.3; 15.2; 19.4). Later Christian theology
was to realize that the immaterial and the divine do not ίη
all cases (e.g. angels, souls) coincide;54 and matter was put
more securely under God's control. Athenagoras' view that
God can be apprehended by mind and reason alone (22.9,
S2Cf. Albinus, Epit. 10. 3. S3 Albinus, Epit. 10. 4.
54Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium ι. 22 (Justin, Dial. 4-6, had already
shown the way).
χχίί INTRODUCTION
12; 23. 7) leaves the way open for over-exalted views of the
soul; and his willingness to point to the νeneration of angels
to illustrate Christian theism prcsupposes suspiciously broad
views of the divine. Υ et the treatise stands as a striking
example of how Christian theology came to modify Platonic
metaphysics from the point of view of biblical ideas.
Aspects of Stoic 'monotheism' are also absorbed. The
proof for the existence of God from the harmony of the
cosmos refiects Stoic language (4. 2; 5. 3; ι 6. ι). More neo-
ΡΥthagΟΓeaη ίη character is the view of the cosmos as an
enclosed sphere moving ίη rhythm (ι 6. 3). But all such
materials are given an interpretation that brings them
closely ίη line \vith the biblical emphasis οη the oneness of
God (9. 2).
When Christians like Athenagoras placed the Creator ίη
the centre of their 'philosophy', it was inevitable that they
would also emphasize the importance of man and his free
decisions (cf. 24. 4-5; 25. 4); a characteristic point is made
when human destiny is radically distinguished from that of
animals (31. 4). Ιη the philosophical tradition οηlΥ Stoicism
appl'Oached this conception of human nature; and οηlΥ
Stoicism distinguislled as sharply between men and animals.
There are other traces of Stoic thought ίη the contrast
drawn between men's vices and the natural life of beasts
(3. ι); ίη the emphasis οη the production of children as the
purpose of marriage (33. 1-2) ;55 and ίη the psychological
explana tion given for visions (27. 1).56 Bu t, as Α thenagoras
observes, Christianity unlike philosophy demonstrates its
55 Konrad Graf Preysing, 'Ehezweck und zweite Ehe bei Athenagoras',
Theologische Q,uartalschrift, 110 (1929),85-110. The attempt to find Stoic paral1els
to Athenagoras' rejection of second marriage (33. 6), however, fails. This need
not be a Montanist feature (cf.Jerome, Ερ. 41.3; Tertullian, Ad Uxor. Ι; De
Exh. Cast. 9). Such rigorist ideas were probably about ίn many circles of the
Church. Letters of Jerome (Ερρ. 54, 79, 123) illustrate how suspect second
marriage remained even when it was officially condoned. Canon 7 of the
Council of Neocaesarea (c. A.D. 314-325) forbids a presbyter to join in the
celebration of a marriage of 'digamists' since 'the digamist requires repentance
(penance)'. The Ν ova tians were also rigoristic οn this point (Gregory Ν azianzen,
ΟΤ. 39. 18). 56 Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Log. ι. 249.
Ι
INTRODUCTION ΧΧίϊί
power by touching the lives of men of all classes (1 1. 3-4).
lt is not the dignity of man and the nobility of rational
behaviour but the answerability of man before his Maker
(12. ι) that is the guarantee ofclarity ίη theology and purity
ίη life.
Athenagoras, then, assumes the correctness of many of the
theological views of paganism. The poets and philosophers
spoke as men whose souls had been touched by the 'breath'
of God. But they were guilty of trusting to themselves rather
than learning of God from God. This accounts for the
diversity of pagan beliefs. Το the poets and pltilosophers
Athenagoras opposes the prophets who wrote under divine
inspiration. The sharpness of this opposition is somewhat
mitigated by the description of inspiration ίη a figure of
speech-'as ifthey were musical instruments'-which has a
Hellenic ring. lt is clear, nevertheless, that the prophets do
not give expression to merely human opinions (chap. 7). lt is
characteristic of Athenagoras that he follows this statement
about revelation with an exposition of the rational reasons
for the oneness of God (chap. 8). Revelation is the more sure
guide; but 'our faith' is not devoid of rational grounds.
Athenagoras' philosophical theology, then, bears witness to
the desire of a segment of Christians ίη the second century to
exploit the most prestigious elements of Greek culture. This
intellectual orientation has a social corollary; for Athenagoras
finds ηο fundamental confiict between the Church and the
Empire. The suggestion that the Church could play a role ίη
securing the stability of the Empire is not far from his mind.
ΟηΙΥ the ignorant and prejudiced, as he sees it, can regard
Christianity as atheistic and immoral.
Outline of the Plea
1. lntroduction (ι. 1-2.6)
11. Defence of the Christians against charges of atheism
and immorality (3. 1-36. 3)
ΧΧίν INTRODUCTION
(Α) Division of topics (3. 1-2)
(Β) Defence against the charge of atheism (4. 1-30. 6)
( ι) Christians not guil ty of theoretical a theism (4. 1-
12. 4)
(a) The Christian doctrine of God (4. 1-10. 5)
(ί) Introductory remarks: Christians and Diagoras
(4. 1-2)
(ίί) Enlightened pagan views (5. 1-6. 4)
(α) Poets (5. 1-3)
(b) Philosophers (6. 1-4)
(ίίί) Christian views (7. 1-10. 5)
(α) Revelation (7. 1-3)
(b) Rational arguments (8. 1-8)
(c) The voice of the prophets (9. 1-3)
(d) The Cllristian God (ι ο. 1-5)
(ί) Pure monotheism (ι ο. ι)
(ίί) Α rich conception of the divine: t11e
trinity and angels (ι ο. 2-5)
(b) Christian morality presupposes theism (ι ι. 1-
12·4)
(2) The practical atheism of Christians ίη proper
perspective (ι 3. 1-30. 6): the refutation of pagan-
ism is undertaken to show that Christians are not
atheists simply because they
(α) do not sacrifice (13. 1-4),
(b) do not recognize national gods (14. 1-3),
(c) do not venerate images (ι 5. 1-30. 6); for
(ί) idols are material and made by men (15. 1-
17· 5), and
(ίί) their power is demonic (ι 8. 1-30. 6); since
(α) the 'gods' of myth are perishable (18. 3-
19· 4),
INTRODUCTION χχν
(b) have bodies and passions (20. 1-21.5),
(c) cannot be successfully allegorized (22. 1-
12) ;
(d) hence demons, not gods, possess the images
(23. 1-2 7. 2):
(ί) philosophers οη demons (23. 1-10),
(ίί) Christians οη demons (24. 1-6),
(ίίί) demonic activity (25. 1-27. 2);
(e) and the divine 'names' have ηο power:
ΕuhemeΓίstίc explanations (28. 1-30. 6).
(C) Defence against charges ofimmorality (31. 1-36.3)
(ι) Overview (3 ι. 1-4)
(2) The charge of incest (32. 1-34· 3)
(3) The charge of cannibalism (35. 1-36. 3)
111. Conclusion (37. 1-3)
ΙΙ. CONCERNING ΤΗΕ RESURRECTION OF ΤΗΕ
DEAD
The treatise οη the resurrection must be dealt witlt sepa-
rately from the Pleα both because of the subject-matter and
because ofthe doubt that has been cast οη its authorship.
We owe its preservation also to Arethas. But there can be
ηο doubt that a different textual tradition is presupposed.
For the text of the treatise οη the resurrection has by ηο
means suffered the ravages which are evident ίη the Pleα.
Even allowing for the greater difficulty ίη transcribing a text
like the Pleα filled with names and quotations we can hardly
avoid the conclusion that these writings had a separate
history some time prior to their inclusion ίη codex Paris
451.
Ιη favour of the traditional view of authorship is the fact
that there is apparently ηο fundamental difference between
the vocabulary and style of the two treatises and the fact
that near the end of the Pleα (37. ι) Athenagoras sets aside
χχνί INTRODUCTION
the problem of the resurrection-presumably for some other
occasion. There is also the striking appearance ίη both
treatises of the Homeric tlleme concerning death as the twin
brother ofsleep and the citation of ι Cor. 15: 32 ('Let us eat
and drink, for tomorrow we die'). What is more natural than
to think that the treatise whicll follows is Athenagoras'
fulfilment of his promise?
1f, however, there are good reasons for doubting tlle
traditional view of authorship, the announcement at the end
ofthe Plea may simply have prompted thejoining ofthe two
treatises. 1t is significant that when Methodius looked for
authorities οη the resurrection he could find οηlΥ the few
words of Athenagoras ίη the Plea. There is, then, ηο trace of
the treatise οη the resurrection precisely where one would
most expect to find it. The form of the title 'by the same ... '
reflects the critical ορίηίοη of a scholar rather than the
editorial work of the author himself; Athenagoras' name
occurs ίη the subscription, but that is ίη Arethas' hand. S7
Robert Μ. Grant has argued vigorously for the view that
the treatise οη the resurrection is not by Athenagoras,S8 and
vve present his most important arguments here. 1η addition
to the problems raised by the manuscript tradition and the
title of the treatise the most important single argument
against the traditional view of authorship is the appearance
of the 'problem of chain-consumption' (4. 3-4). This argu-
ment does not yet occur ίη Celsus' attack οη the Christian
view of the resurrection; and Tertullian οηlΥ alludes to the
problem of bodies being eaten by fisll, animals, and birds
(De Res. Carn. 32). Origen seems to have raised the further
point that such creatures may ίη turn be eaten by mell. His
57 Stahlin (ίη Adolph νοη Harnack, Die altchristliche Literatur bis Eusebius, ίί/2
[Leipzig,]. C. Hinrichs, 1897], ρ. 317 η. 4) says thatArethas was alsoresponsible
for the words 'by the same' ίη the title. One cannot be sure about that; but if
Stahlin is right, arguments against the traditional view are even stronger.
Gebhardt, Der Arethascodex, ρρ. 183-5, regards the whole title as written by
Baanes.
58 'Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras', Harvard Theological Review, 47
(1954), 121-9·
INTRODUCTION χχνίί
views are preserved ίη an epitome of his commentary οη the
first psalm quoted by Methodius, a foe of Origenism (Res. ι.
20-4). The epitome also attacks the use of the verse 'every-
thing is possible for God' (Luke 18: 27)-and our treatise
appeals to it for support (9. 2). Not οηlΥ the possibility but
also the worthiness of the idea of the resurrection is discussed
ίη the epitome as wel1 as ίη our treatise (2. 3; 10. ι, 6; ι ι.
1-2). 1t is probably significant that the appeal ίη the Plea to
Plato and Pythagoras ίη support of the resurrection (36. 3;
cf. Tertullian, De Res. Carn. ι) plays ηο role ίη the treatise οη
the resurrection.
1t is not at all clear, hσ\vever, that there is any fundamental
distinction between thc view of thc resurrection as sketched
ίη the ΡΖεα and as developed ίη the treatise οη the resurrec-
tion. The Plea's remark that ίη the resurrection we sllall 'not
be as flesh but as heavenly spirit' (31. 3) may mean ηο more
than that the resurrected body will exchange corruption for
incorruption (De Res. 12.6; 12.8-9; 13. ι; 16. 1-17.4). And
the Aristotelian parallels to the treatise brought forward by
Pohlenz aΓe too weak to build a case against common author-
Ship.S9 Ν evertheless, the arguments advanced by Grant are
sufficiently strong to [aise serious doubts about the traditional
Vlew.
Το these may be added other considerations. 1η the notes
to this edition we have drawn attention not οηlΥ to [elevant
parallels ίη Methodius but also ίη Gregory of Nyssa and
Galen. Gregory, a 'catholic' Origenist, faced the argument
59 'Die griechische Philosophie im Dienste der christlichen Auferstehungs-
lehre', Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 47 (1904), 241-50. Pohlenz draws
attention to such elements as the following: man is a 'composite' (tlIere are
parallels ίη Alexander of Aphrodisias, though it is granted that the term (το
συναμΦόΤεΡον) derived from Plato, Symp. 209 b, and its use by Churcll fathers
is noted); the affections are ascribed to man as a whole; resllrrection of the
body is a logical concomitant of the Ari3totelian doctrine that the soul, as form
of the body, cannot be immortal-that is, since Athenagoras assumes the im-
mortality of the soul, the body must also be immortal. Our treatise, however,
does not work with the Aristotelian notion of the soul as tlle form of the body;
and the emphasis οη man as a psycho-physical unity is illustrated more
adequately from other sources as we shall see shortly.
xxviii INTRODUCTION
based οη the problem of 'chain-consumption' and rejected
it. Gregory also shows familiarity with the medical theories
of Galen-theories which are brought into the discussion
of the resurrection both by Methodius and by our treatise.
These connections seem to proνide eνidence of the most
natural milieu for the debate. Το illustrate, attention may
also be drawn to Gregory's sermon Ιπ Sanctum Pascha 60 which
brings together many ofthe same points found ίn our treatise:
the problem of the fate of parts of the body deνoured by
animals, birds, fish, and worms; medical theory deriνed
from Galen; discussion of God's power ίη comparison with
that of man; the argument from the purpose of man's
creation; the truth and worthiness of the idea of the bodily
resurrection; the comparison of death and sleep ίη Homeric
terms; the quotation of 1 Cor. 15: 32; the interdependence of
soul and body ίη performing deeds for which man is to be
judged by God; the polemical tenor of the sermon. Eνen
more important is the reference to man, the psycho-physical
unity, as a 'composite'.61 Both Gregory and our treatise use
the ter'm ίη connection with the theme of judgement. lt is
less at home ίη the Aristotelian framework imagined by
Pohlenz. Either Athenagoras anticipated ίη a remarkable
way the theological deνelopments of a later period, or the
treatise is not by Athenagoras. lt seems more likely that
the treatise is to be understood against the background of
the debate oνer Origen's νiew of the resurrection. The ex-
tended life of that debate makes it unwise to attempt a more
precise dating.
Ιη addition to all this, there is little or nothing that com-
pels the reader to think of pagan (or Gnostic) opponents.
Ν ear the beginning (1. 5) the author apparently turns from
outright deniers of the resurrection (pagans) to Christians-
both those who dispute the doctrine and those who are
60 Edited by Ε. Gebllardt, ίη Gregorii Nysseni Ορετα: Sermones, Pars Ι, general
editors, W. Jaeger and Η. Langerbeck (Leiden, Ε. J. Brill, 1967), ρρ. 251-70.
Ι owe this reference to Prof. Robert Wilken of Fordham University.
61 ρ. 266. 20; cf. Methodius, De Res. ι. 54. 3; ι. 55· 4.
INTRODUCTION ΧΧίΧ
shaken by these disputes. Ιη another passage (3. 3) there
seems to be a reference to the dispu ters of the doctrine-
that is, men 'admired for their wisdom' (like Origen?) yet
oνercome by the prejudices of 'the crowd' (pagans?). The
treatise as a whole can be readily understood as directed
against such doubters. Certainly the way ίη which the
author appeals to the Law (23. 2), the Gospel (9.2), and 'the
Apostle' (18. 5) suggests an intramural debate. lt is also
possible, as Grant has obserνed, that he is improνing οη
traditional Christian themes (cf. Tertullian, De Res. Carn.
14-15) when he criticizes those who stress the judgement
as the primary defence of the resurrection (14. 6)-though
his own long deνelopment of the argument (18. 1-23. 6)
suggests that he is speaking to people who share his pre-
suppositionS. 62
Some difference ίn style is also discernible. Our treatise is
characterized by long periods which flow smoothly and
eνenly and is not ornamented by the artifices (interruptions,
quotations, the heaping up ofsynonyms, antithesis, anaphora,
etc.) which are found ίη the Plea. 63 Arguments are marshalled
ίn an orderly fashion and find their mark with fewer diνer­
sions than is the case with the Plea.
The treatise οη the resurrection, like the Plea, is ίη the form
of an address (23. 6); but it serνes a rather different purpose.
Our author's rhetorical training has equipped him well for
a polemical situation of the kind that we haνe imagined.
The structure of the treatise is determined by a distinction
6Ζ It should also be noted that Porphyry (A.D. 233-c. 301) raised tlle problem
of chain-consumption against the Christian doctrine of the resurrection and
rejected the appeal to the power ofGod (frg. 94 Harnack). Ιη view ofthe atten-
tion which Porphyry gave to Origen (Eusebius, Η.Ε. 6. 19. 5-8) it is not im-
possible that he learnt to attack Christians with weapons provided by the
Alexandrian theologian. If the defence of the resurrection ίη our treatise is
directed against Origenists, then followers ofPorphyry may be the pagans whom
the author sees as exerting a baleful influence οη Christian theology. Alterna-
tively, our treatise may be directed against such Platonists themselves. Ιη any
event, the discussion seems to belong to a later period than that of the apologist
Athenagoras.
63 Schwartz, Athenαgorae Libellus, ρ. 92.
χχχ
INTRODUCTION
between arguments 'ση behalf 0[' the truth and arguments
'concerning' the truth (Ι. 3 ff.). The former serve for the
refutation of error, tlle latter for the confirmation of truth
among those 'well disposed to receive' it (cf. Ι ι. 3-6).
The text implies that refutation employs a less rigorous
method, yet one tllat is more 'useful' for this purpose. 1t
looks very much like a school tradition rooted ίη the dis-
tinction that Aristotle draws between the requirements of
rhetoric and those of constructive philosophical statements
(cf. Rhet. ι. ι, Ι 355a 4). This impression iS confirmed by a
description ofthe tradition ofthe 'schools' ίη one of]erome's
letters (Ερ. 48. 13). There ]erome speaks of the 'precepts of
Aristotle' and distinguishes between rhetorical exercises
intended to confute opponents-'those who are without'-
οη their own grounds and less artful approaches intended to
convince disciples-'those who are within'. With] erome there
is greater emphasis οη the liberty that the polemical situ-
ation provides to 'argue as one pleases, saying one thing
while one means another' -doing, ίη short, whatever is
'needful'; but tllat seems to be an excuse for his own ex-
treme style ίη attacking ]ovinian. 1η any event the distinc-
tion warns us that our author regarded the arguments ίη the
first part (with its emphasis οη things like medical theory) as
less final than the logical considerations of the second part.
The parallel Wllich Schwartz brings forward from Albinus
(Isαg. 6; cf. Plato, Soph. 230 c; Philo of Larissa, ίη Stobaeus,
Ecl. 2. 7) shows that a like tradition was alive ίη philosophical
circles: the philosopher, like the physician, must first remove
diseased opinions to bring health to the understanding.
Οη the philosophical side, the author of our treatise shared
with his opponents a belief ίη body and soul as separate
substances. Elaborating an aspect of the view that had
been worked out ίη the debate with Gnosticism (1renaeus,
Adv. Hαer. 5. 6. ι) he insists that body as well as soul is
required for a definition of man as he is and as he is intended
to be. Yet the impact of the philosophical concept of soul
has as one of its most apparent consequences the emphasis
INTRODUCTION xxxi
οη the need for a transfornlation of the body ίη the l'esul'l'ec-
tion. That which is mUl'tal 111Ust put οη illllllol'tality. Hel'e
the Pauline viewpoint is given a lllOl'e pl'ecise significance ίη
terms provided by philosophy and medical tlleory. 1f any-
thing, the emphasis οη the continuity between the earthly
body and its resurrected form is even gΓeater.
The theological point of departure is the emphasis οη
God's power and will ίη creating and recreating (2. Ι-Ι ι. 2).
This is taken up ίη the second part of the treatise ίn a
refined form where we hear about the Creator's providence
and the just judgement that such providence requires (ι 8.
1-23. 6). Here the close relation between providence and
judgement lends to the former concept a peculiarly un-
Hellenic colour.
The mind ofthe Christian theologian is also betrayed ίη the
treatment of the teleological argument. 1t is approached
from two rather different points of view: (α) the reason for
man's creation (12. 1-13. 2) and (b) the end to which he
tends (24. 1-25. 5). The value ofthe two arguments is said
to differ since the first deals with a consideration from 'first
principles' (for whose sake does man exist?) whereas the
second is based οη the theological 'given' that men have the
contemplation of God as their end and are subject to God's
judgement (25. 4-5). Both arguments, however, as our
author recognizes (24. ι), are closely related and presuppose
ascribing to man an end sharply distinguished from that of
other creatures. The latter were brought into being for the
sake of something else wheΓeas man was CΓeated [ΟΓ his own
sake. Logic compells our author to add that man was not
made for God's sake since God needs nothing-though this
is not regarded as incompatible with saying that οη a largeJ'
view God made man for his οννη sake as an eΧΡΓessίοη of his
goodness and wisdom or that man's end is tlle contemplation
of God (12. 5; 25. 4). 1η any event, the other creatures
which come into being [ΟΓ the sake of sometlling else cease to
exist when that [ΟΓ which they were created ceases. But
reason can find nothing [ΟΓ the sake of which man was
8268084 c
χχχίί INTRODUCTION
created. And since nothing is made ίη vain, man must
perdure. When our author says that man was created for his
own sake, he presupposes an understanding of the relation
between God and man largely determined by Greek views of
the divine. Υet the teleology invoked is an external one
distinct from that of Plato and Aristotle who emphasize the
realization of the end of all things that exist. Our author sees
man as the crown of creation to whom all else is subservient;
and this biblical perspective has brought him to select a
teleology which is approached ίη the philosophical tradition
οηlΥ by the Stoics. There is also a tension between what is
said about man phίlosophically (that he was made for his
own sake) and what is said from a religious point ofview (not
οηlΥ that he is destined to contemplate the divine-that
would not be incompatible with his independence as a
rational creature-but also that his creation was a matter of
the direct concern of God and that his destiny is determined
by his deeds for which he stands responsible before the Judge
of all).
Even more distinctive is our author's emphasis οη the
community of experience between body and soul which
requires their continued coexistence (ι 5. 2-7). However
much he longs for immortality, he knows that man's nature
is creaturely and will continue to be determined by the basic
conditions of its earthly existence. However much he desires
permanence, he knows that it must be defined ίη a peculiar
way ίη the case of man ίη accordance with the will of his
Maker (16. 1-17.4). What our author opposes is an exag-
gerated spiritualism ίη the Church-a spiritualism which
seemed to conservatives to bring with it the risk of a Gnostic
deνaluation of creation and the Church itself. Origen's
daring cosmology and his νiew of authority ίη terms of a
'charismatic and spiritual hierarchy'64 were open to precisely
such criticism. His teaching οη the resurrection was simply
one of the most νulnerable points ίη the eyes of theologians
of a more traditional stamp.
64 Jean Danielou, Origene (Paris, Editions de la Table Ronde, 1948),
χχχίίί
INTRODUCTION
Outline ΟΙ the treαtise
Ι. Introduction: the two lnodes of argumentation (ι. 1-5)
11. Arguments 'ση behalf of' the resurrection: God is both
a ble and willing to raise the dead (2. Ι - Ι ι. 2)
(Α) Announcement of the theme: God's power and will
(2. 1-3), with a definition of 'inability' (2. 4-6)
(Β) God's power (3. 1-9. 2)
(ι) God can raise the dead (3. 1-3)
(a) He reunites the elements of decomposed bodies
(3. 1-2)
(b) He reunites parts consumed by different animals
(3· 3)
(2) Restatement of objections (4. 1-4)
(a) Parts of the body united with different animals
(4. 1-2)
(b) The problem of chain-consumption (4· 3-4)
(3) Rebuttal (5· 1-9· 2)
(a) Medical arguments (5· 1-7· 4)
(ί) Α suitable food for each species (5. 1-6. 6)
(ίί) Permanent and impermanent elements ίη
the body (7· 1-3)
(ίίί) Conclusion: (α) men cannot assimilate human
flesh (7. 4); (b) bodies buried ίη the earth can
at most serve as food for other creatures (8. ι)
(b) Moral argument: cannibalism the corollary of
asserting that men can assimilate hun1an flesh
(8. 2-3)
(c) Conclusion: (ί) reduction of all parts to the
elements and their reunion (8. 4); (ίί) ηο need for
fHrther discussion οη these points (8. 5); (ίίί) ηο
need to take seriollsly those who compare God's
ρ. 62. power with that of man (9. 1-2)
χχΧίν INTRODUCTION
(C) God's will (10. Ι-Ι Ι. 2)
(ι) Possible 'injustice' of the resurrection (ι ο. 1-5)
(a) as regards animals (10. 1-4)
(b) as regards men (ι ο. 5)
(2) Possible 'unworthiness' of the resurrection as a
work of God (ι ο. 6)
(3) Conclusion: possible, willed, worthy (ΙΙ. 1-2)
ΙΙΙ. Arguments 'concerning' the truth (ι ι. 3-25. 5)
(Α) Excursus οη the two modes of argumentation (ι ι. 3-6)
(Β) Arguments for the resurrection (ι ι. 7-25. 5)
( ι) Division of topics (ι ι. 7)
(2) Primary arguments-from first principles (12. 1-
13. 2)
(a) Man created for his own sake-that is, for his ονν-η
survival (12. 1-13.2)
(b) The nature ofman (Ι3. 3-17.4)
(ί) Excursus οη the relation between tlIe argu-
ments (13.3-15. ι)
(ίί) Man as a psycho-physical unity (15. 2-7)
(ίίί) Definition of 'permanence' (16. 1-17.4)
(3) Secondary arguments-confirmation fronl God's
providence (18. 1-23. 6) and man's end (24. 1-25. 5)
(a) Reward and punishmen t (ι 8. 1-23. 6)
(ί) The character of this argumen t (ι 8. ι)
(ίί) Concerning just judgenlent (ι 8. 2-23. 6)
(α) Providence and just requital not maintained
ίη this life (18. 2-19. 7), with an eΧCUΓSUS
against Epicureanism (19. 1-3)
(b) Just requital possible οηlΥ if the composite
survives (20. 1-22. 5)
(b) ~1an's end (24. 1-25. 5)
INTRODUCTION χχχν
ΠΙ. ΤΗΕ ΤΕΧΤ
The modern work οη the text of Athenagoras was initiated
by Adolph vοη ΗaΓηack ίη the first volume of Texte und
Untersuchungen (ι 882). Though he was wholly dependent οη
the textual notes of Otto, he was able to make out the im-
portance ofthe Arethas codex and to see that all other manu-
scripts had been derived directly or indirectly from it. 65 νοη
Gebhardt investigated the codex itself and confirmed ίη the
main the results of Harnack's work. 66 The interdependence
of the manuscripts was fully explored by Eduard Schwartz,67
and the results are outlined here: η (codex Mutinensis 111
D 7), Ρ (codex Parisinus 174), and c (codex Parisinus 450)
were derived directly from Α (the Arethas codex); from η
were derived s (Argentoratensis 9) and four other manu-
scripts of lesser importance; from Ρ were derived ten υη­
important manuscripts.
The symbol Α is used ίη this edition to refer to the manu-
script as copied by Baanes, the symbol Αι to corrections
made by Arethas (we ignore the fact that breathings and
accents were also added by Arethas). The present edition is
based οη photographs of the Arethas codex. The conjectures
made by the copyists of latel' manuscripts and by the editors of
the printed editions (Petrus Suffridius, Stephanus, Maranus,
Gesner, Otto, WiIamowitz-Moellendorf, Schwartz, Geffcken,
Ubaldi) have also been studied. Our main sources for this
information l1ave been the editions of Otto, Schwartz, and
(ίη the case of the Pleα) Geffcken. Ιη the apparatus notations
having to do with erasures and c.orrections ίη the hand of
Baanes have usually been passed over ,vhen they reflect ηο
serious uncertainty about the text. Corrections ίη the hand
of Arethas are not indicated if they are obvious. Many are
simply matters of orthography. Ιη 1ine with the purpose of
this series of texts the emphasis is οη the conjectures by
65 Harnack, Ueberlieferιtng, ρρ. ι -89, 175-90.
66 Der Arethαscodex.
67 Athenαgorαe Libellus, iii-xxx.
ΧΧΧνί INTRODUCTION
which successiνe editors haνe sought to elucidate the text.
Ιη general tendency the present text represents an effort to
aνoid the radical solutions of Schwartz. Ιη the case of
BIBLIOGRAPHY
the ΡΙεα it is closer to the text of Geffcken, though ίη some
particulars it is still more conserνatiνe.
(α) Texts αnd studies of the Plea αnd Concerning the Resurrection of the
The system of numbering chapters is the traditional one; Dead
the numbering ofthe sections within the chapters is borrowed
from Ubaldi. GEBHARDT, OSCAR νΟΝ, .ζ,ur hαndschriftlichen Ueberlieferung der griechischen
Apologeten: ι. Der ArethαscodexPαris Gr. 451 (Texte und Untersuchungen,
ί. 3, ρρ. 154-96; Leipzig,]. C. Hinrichs, 1883).

GEFFCKEN, ]OHANNES, .ζ,wei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig, Β. G. Teubner,

1907)·
GRANT, ROBERT Μ., 'Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras', Hαrvαrd
Theologicαl Review, 47 (1954), 121-9·

- - The Eαrly Christiαn Doctrine of God (Charlottesville, The University

Press of Virginia, 1966).
HARNACK, ADOLPH νΟΝ, Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des
zweiten Jαhrhunderts ίιι der αΙΙειι Kirche und im Mittelαlter (Texte und
Untersuchungen, ί. 1/2; Leipzig,]. C. Hinrichs, 1883).
KESELING, Ρ., 'Athenagoras', Reαllexikonfur Antike undChristentum, ί (1950),
881-8.
Οττο, ]. Κ. THEODOR νΟΝ, Corpus Apologetαrum Christiαnorum Sαeculi
Secundi, νοΙ νίί (Jena, F. Mauke, 1858).
PELLEGRINO, MICHELE, Gli αpologeti Greci del ΙΙ secolo (Rome, Anonima
Veritas Editrice, 1947).
- - Studi su l'αnticα αpologeticα (Rome, Edizioni di 'storia e letteratura',
1947)·
POHLENZ, ΜΑΧ, 'Die griechische Philosophie im Dienste der christlichen
Auferstehungslehre', .ζ,eitschrift fur wissenschαftliche Theologie, 47 (Ι 904),
241-50.
PUECH, ΑΙΜέ, Les Apologistes Grecs du IIe siecle de notre ere (Paris, Librairie
Hachette et α θ , 1912).
SCHWARTZ, EDUARD, Athenαgorαe Libellus Pro Christiαnis, Orαtio de Resurre-
ctione Cαdαverum (Texte und Untersuchungen, ίν. 2; Leipzig, ]. C.
Hinrichs, ι 89 ι) .
UBALDI, PAULO, and PELLEGRINO, MICHELE, Atenαgorα: Lα Supplicα per ί
Cristiαni, Dellα risurrezione dei morti (Corona Patrum Salesiana, χν;
Torino, Societa Editrice Internazionale, 1947).
ΧΧχνίίί BIBLIOGRAPHY
(b) Sources referred to in notes and appαrαtus
BONWETSCH, G. NATHANAEL (ed.), Λιfethοdίus (Die griechischen christ-
lichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei J ahrhunderten; Leipzig, J. C.
ΤΕΧΤ AND TRANSLATION
Hinrichs, 191 7).
D1ELS, HERMANN, Doxogrαphi Grαeci (Berlin and Leipzig, Walter de
Gruyter, 1879).
KERN, ΟΤΤΟ, Orphicorum Fragmenta (Berlin, Weidmann, 1922).
ΚϋΗΝ, KARL GOTTLOB, Medicorum Graecoru'fn Opera Quαe Exstant (Leipzig,
Carl Cnobloch, 1821-33).
NAUCK, AUGUST, Trαgicorum Grαecorum Fragmenta (2nd edn., Hildesheim,
Georg Olms, 1964).
ROSE, HERBERT J., Α Hαndbook rif Greek Mythology (New York, Ε. Ρ.
Dutton, 1959).

ABBREVIATIONS

PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graecα.

PWK Pαulys Reαlenzyklopiidie der klαssischen Altertumswissenschαft, ed.
Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, et αΙ.
RAC Reallexikonfur Antilce und CJzrislenlU111, ed. Theodor Klauser.

8268084 Β
ΑΘΗΝΑΓΟΡΟΥ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ Α PLEA FOR CHRISTIANS
ΒΥ ATHENAGORAS ΤΗΕ ΑΤΗΕΝΙΑΝ:
ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΥ ΠΡΕΣΒΕΙΑ ΠΕΡΙ
PHILOSOPHER AND CHRISTIAN
ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ

Το the emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius

ΑύΤΟΚΡ6:rΟΡσιν Μάρκψ Αύρηλίψ Άντωνίνψ Kα~ Λουκίψ Αύρηλίψ Commodus, conquerors of Armenia and Sarmatia, and, above
Κομόδψ Άρμενιακοιςl Σαρματικοις, το δε μέγιστον ΦιλοσόΦοις. all, philosophers.

(,
(Η υμετερα,
1. The inhabitants of your empire, greatest ofkings, follow many
1• μεγα'λοι βασι λ εων,
' , , α"λλος α"λλοις ε"θ εσι
οικουμενη
different customs and laws, and none of them is prevented by law
χρωνται και νομοις, και"δ"
"" " ου εις αυτων νομψ και "'" , Φ ο'βΨ δ'ικης, καν
., or fear of punishment from cherishing his ancestral ways, how-
γελοια ΤΙ' μη στέΡΥειν τα 7Τάτρια είργεται, άλλ' ό μεν Ίλιευς θεον ever ridiculous they may be. The Trojan calls Hector a god and
worships Helen, regarding her as Adrasteia;I the Lacedaemonian
"Εκτορα λέγει Kα~ την (Ελένη ν Άδράστειαν έ7Τιστάμενος 7Τροσκυνει, venerates Agamemnon as Zeus and Phylonoe the daughter of
ό δε Λακεδαιμόνιος Άγαμέμνονα Δία και Φυλονόην την Τυνδάρεω Tyndareus as Enodia;2 the Athenian sacrifices to Erechtheus as
Poseidon; and the Athenians celebrate initiations and mysteries
θυγατέρα Kα~ TeVVTjVOatavt 2 σέβει, ό δε Άθηναιος' Ερεχθει Ποσειδωνι
for Agraulus and Pandrosus who were considered impious for
θ υει 'Λ 'λΨ .11.
' και, .Ι1.γραυ 'Λθηναιοι
~ και'λ'
τε ετας και, μυστηρια
, 'Λθηναιοι
[.11. "'] 3 opening the chest.3 . Ιη a word, the various races Gιnd peoples of
"
αγουσιν και'Πδ'
αν ροσψ, αι'" 'θησαν
ενομισ 'β~
ασε ειν "ξ'
ανοι ασαι την
mankind perform whatever sacrifices and mysteries they wish.
The Egyptians regard even cats, crocodiles, snakes, asps, and
λάρνακα, Kα~ έν~ λόγψ κατα έθνη και δήμους θυσίας κατάγουσιν ας dogs as gods. 2. ΑΙΙ these both you and the laws permit, since
αν θέλωσιν ανθρω7ΤΟΙ Kα~ μυστήρια. οί δε Αίγύ7ΤΤΙΟΙ Kα~ αίλούρους you regard it as impious and irreligious to have ηο belief at all ίη
a god and think it necessary for all men to venerate as gods those
και, κροκο δ ει'λ ους και' ο
"Φ εις και"'δ
ασ7ΤΙ ας και" κυνας θ' ''Ι
εους νομι,=>ουσιν.
whom they wish, that through fear of the divine they may re-
2. Kα~ τούτοις 7Τασιν έ7Τιτρέ7Τετε Kα~ ύμεις Kα~ o~ νόμοι, το μεν οΟν frain from evil. [But ίη our case-and do not you be misled as are
\" , , the majority by hearsay-hatred is shown because of our very
μη δ' Ο"λως θ'
εον ( ,.. θαι ασε
ηγεισ 'β'ες και ανοσιον νομισαντες, το δ'ε οις
l'
name. Υet names are not deserving of hatred; only wrongdoing
εκαστος βούλεται xpfjaBat ώς θεοις άναγκαιον, ίνα τψ 7Τρος το θειον calls for punishment and retribution.]4 For that reason individual
( f
δ ' , , "" 'δ ,..
εει α7Τεχωνται του α ικειν.
[(,.. δ' ,\ θ""
ημιν ε, και μη 7Ταρακρουσ ητε ως οι men, admiring your gentle and mild natures, your peaceableness
and humanity toward all, enjoy equality before the law; the
πoλλo~ έξ άκοfjς. τψ όνόμαη ά7Τεχθάνεται· ού γαρ τα όν6ματα
1. ι Α title of Nemesis. Helen was regarded as the offspring of Zeus and
,
μισους "ξ ια. α'λλα\ το"δ'
α α ικημα δ'ικης και\ ημωριας.
']4 δ'
ΙΟ7Τερ το, Nemesis ίη the Cypriα (Athenaeus, Deipn. 8, 334 b). Mother and Maid apparently
_ t "" ,f, \, \ ~ , , \ Φλ functioned as two aspects of one reality.
πραον υμων και ημερον και το 7Τρος α7Ταντα ειΡηνικον και ι-
2 Α title of Hecate (e.g. Euripides, Hel. 569-70).
άνθρω7Τον θαυμάζοντες οί μεν καθ' ενα ίσονομοΩνται, αί δε 7Τόλεις 3 Athena put the infant Erichthonius into a chest, gave it into the care ofthe
daughters of Cecrops (Agraulus, Herse, and Pandrosus), and commanded them
ι Άρμενιακοίς Α: Γερμανικοίς Mommsen, Schwartz 1. 2 Kat τεννηνοδlαν Α: not to open it. Two of the three could not resist the temptation and consequently
Kat Τέννην ό Τενέδιος Gesner: καθα την 'Ενοδlαν Schwartz: Kat :4ρτεμιν 'OpOplav were driven mad, ending their lives by leaping from the Acropolis (Η. J. Rose,
Α Hαndbook ΟΙ Greek Mythologγ [New York, 1959], ρ. 110).
Geffcken: Kat Τέννην ό δΕ Τενέδιος Jla Scivoletto: fortasse 'Ενοδlαν cum glosse-
mate <Εκάτην 3 Άθηναίοι seclusit Gesner: Άθηνίj. [και τ. Κ. μ. Άθηναίοι
.. Although Athenagoras is not always well organized, he seems incapable of
having written so dislocated a passage.
αγουσιν] Schwartz .. seclusit Schwartz
4 ATHENAGORAS 1.2 2. ι " LEGATIO 5

προς άξίαν της ίσης μετέχουσι τιμης, και ή συμπασα οίκουμένη cities haνe an equal share ίη honour according to their merit;
. . υμετ€pq,
'ί[J " 'β α θ'
συνεσει 'λ'
ειας ειρηνης απο αυουσιν. " 3. rιμεις
t ... δ\
ε οι ( and the whole empire enjoys a profound peace through your
λεγ6μενοι ΧρισΤιανοί, όΤι μη προνεν6ησθε καΙ ήμων, συγχωρειτε wisdom.
δε μηδεν άδικουντας, άλλα και πάντων, ώς προϊ6ντος του λ6γου 3. Το us, howeνer, who are called Christians, you haνe not
giνen the same consideration, but allow us to be driνen to and
δ ειχ θrισεTαι,
' 'β'
ευσε εστατα δ ιακειμενους
' και\ δ' , τε το\
ικαιοτατα προς

θ ειον και την υμετεραν ασι ειαν, ε αυνεσ αι και ερεσ θ αι και\
... \ \ β λ' 'λ' θt \ φ' , fro and persecuted, though we haνe done ηο wrong; ίη point of
διώκεσθαι, έπι μ6νψ όν6μαΤι προσπολεμουντων ήμιν των πολλων, fact-as will be shown ίη what follows-we are the most pious
..
μrινυσαι τα κα θ' \ (
εαυτους \ ,ετολ'
μrισαμεν '
(δ ι δ αχ θrισεσ θε δ ε \ υπο
• \ του .. and righteous of all men ίn matters that concern both the diνine
λ6γου ατερ δίκrις και παρα πάντα ν6μον και λ6γον πάσχοντας and your kingdom; for the crowd is hostile toward us οηlΥ
• . . ) και\
ημας
δ' θ
εομε α
ι....
υμων και
\ \.....
περι rιμων Τι
,,ι, θ
σκεψασ αι,
.,
οπως
because of our name. For these reasons we haνe dared to set
, θ'
παυσωμε α ποτε υπο των συκο
t \.... φ....
αντων σ
φ'
αττομενοι. 4. ου
'δ \ε γαρ
\ forth an account of our position-you will learn from it how
εΙς χρ-ήματα ή παρα των διωκ6ντων ζrιμία ούδε εΙς έΠΙΤιμίαν ή unjustly and against all law and reason we suffer-and we ask
,
αισχυνη η
, .\ ..
'''λλ ο τι των μειονων 5 rιt βλα'β rι
εις α
, ( '
τουτων γαρ
\ κατα-
you to show some concern also for us that there may be an end to
φρονουμεν, καν τοις πολλοις δοκυ σπουδαια, δέροντα ού μ6νον our slaughter at the hands of lying informers. 4. For the penalty
ούκ άνΤιπαίειν6 ούδε μην δικάζεσθαι τοις αγουσιν και άρπάζουσιν our persecutors exact does not affect only our goods, nor does the
ήμαςα μεμαθηκ6τες, άλλα τοις μέν, καν κατα κ6pprι ς πpOπrιλακί- disgrace they bring upon us affect only our ciνic standing, nor
r \ \., , , .... φ λ....' ... δ'ε, ει,
~ωσιν, και το ετερον παιειν παρεχειν Trι ς κε α rι ς μερος, τοις
does the harm they cause us haνe to do with some other equally
τον
\ χιτωνα
.. α
'φ αιΡοιντο, επι..
'δ ι δ οναι και το ' \ \. ' ) b α'λλ' εις
ιμαΤιον,
, τα\ triνial matter. These things we despise eνen though they seem

σωματα
, και
\ τας
\ ,ι,
ψυχας,
' . ,οταν απειπωμεν
" Λ' , β
τοις xprιμασιν, επι ου-
matters ofmoment to the crowd. For we haνe been taught not to
λεύουσιν ήμιν κατασκεδάζοντες όχλον έγκλrιμάTων, ά ήμιν μεν
strike back at someone who beats us nor to go to court with those
ούδε μέχρις ύπονοίας, τοις δε άδολεσχουσιν καΙ '7"(1) έκείνων πρ6σεσΤι
who rob and plunder us. Not οηlΥ that: we haνe eνen been taught
to turn our head and offer the other side when men ίΙΙ use us and
γένει.
strike us οη the jaw and to giνe also our cloak should they snatch
our tunic. Νο, when our pl'operty is gone, their plots against us
2. Και εΙ μέν Τις ήμας έλέγχειν εχει 1} μικρον 1} μειζον άδικουντας,
affect our νery bodies and souls. They spread a host of charges, of
κολάζεσθαι ού παραιτουμεθα, άλλα και ήΤις πικροτάτη και άνηλεης
which there is not the slightest suggestion that we are guilty but
Τιμωρία, ύπέχειν άξιουμεν' εΙ δε μέχρις όν6ματος ή κατηγορία
which are typical of those babblers and their kind.
(είς γουν την σ-ήμερον ήμέραν ά π€pι ήμων λογοποιουσιν ήΙ κοινη
και
\ ακριτος
" των
....,αν θ'
ρωπων
φ ,
rιμη, και
\ ου
'δ \
εις α
'δ ..
ικων
Χ
ρισΤιανος
\ 2. Now if a man can conνict us of any eνil, great or small, we do
ε'λ'λ
rι εγκται ), t ....
υμων "δ"
rι ι
η εργον των μεγιστων και\φλ ..
ι αν θρωποτατων
'2
not ask to be let off. Οη the contrary we consider it right that our
και
\ φλ θ
ι ομα εστατων
' β ασι λ"
εων αποσκευασαι
, ι....
ημων
,
νομψ
\
Trι ν punishment be seνere and merciless. But if the charge stops short
έπ-ήρειαν, ίν' ώσπερ ή συμπασα ταις παρ' ύμων εύεργεσίαις 3 και at our name-and to this day what is said about us amounts to
καθ' ενα KεKOινώνrικε και κατα π6λεις, και ήμεις εχωμεν ύμιν οηlΥ the low and untested rumour of the populace, and ηο

1. α Cf. ι Cor. 6: 7 b Cf. Matt. 5: 39-40; Luke 6: 29

Christian has yet been conνicted of eνil-then it is your task as
mighty, humane, and learned kings to bring to an end by law
1. 5 μειζ6νων Α:
corr. Schwartz 6 το άντιπα/ειν Α: corr. Schwartz the abuse we suffer, that just as all the world has enjoyed your
2. ι ~
seclusit Stephanus 2 Φιλανων Α: corr. Stephanus 3 ταίς ..•
benefactions both as indiνiduals and as cities, we too may haνe
εύεργεσ/αις Α: της . .. εύεργεσ/ας (curn atticissare soleat Athenagoras) Geffcken:
lacunarn ίn vicern post κεκοινώνηκε indicavit Schwartz reason to offer our solemn thanks to you that there has been an
6 ATHENAGORAS 2Ό ι 2.6 LEGATIO 7
Ι
χαριν Ί.fΙ
σεμνυνομενοι 'θα συκοψαντουμενοι. 2. και γαρ ου
οΤι πεπαυμε ,/..' '" end to the laying of false ίnfόrmatίοn against us. 2. For it does
προς
, ...., ι
της
t' ,
υμεΤεΡας
"!Ι\ \ ,ι λ β ι
οικαιοσυνης τους μεν αΝ\ους αιηαν α οντας not become your reputation for justice that, whereas others found
't'
αοικηματων
Ι "
μη προτερον η
"'λ θΑ λ lγ θ''/'"
ε εγχ ηναι κο α~εσ αι, εψ
t
ημων οε
... ~, guilty of crimes are not punished until convicted, ίη our case the
μειζον ισχύειν 'Τ() όνομα των έπι Tfj δίκυ έλέγχων, ούκ ει ήδίκησέν mere name plays a larger role than legal tests. Our judges do not
η ό κρινόμενος των δικαζόντων έπιζητούντων, άλλ' εις 'Τ() όνομα ώς inquire whether the defendant is guilty of any crime; they simply
"~Ι , ,Ω γι ,~, ~,>I ',/..' t ... ,~, , heap abuse οη our name as though that were a crime. But ηο
εις αOΙKΎJμα ενVjJρι~οντων. ουοεν οε ονομα εψ εαυτου και οι αυτου
name is considered good or bad ίη and of itself. Names appear
ού πονηρον ούδε ΧΡηστον νομίζεται, δια δε τας ύποκειμένας αύτοις
praiseworthy or disgraceful only because ofthe good or bad deeds
7j πονηρας 7j άγαθας 7j φλαυρα 7j άγαθα δοκεΙ. 3. ύμεις δε ταυτα
.Ι , /..' t ' απΌ , ''/''λ'/''Ι \ δ ι ,
which are implied by them. 3. ΑΙΙ this you know very well; for you
ιστε ψανερωτερον, ωσανει ΨΙ οσοψιας και παι ειας πασης
make philosophy and profound learning, as it were, the ground
όρμώμενοι. δια τουτο και οί παρ' ύμιν κρινόμενοι, καν έπι μεγίστοις of your actions. That is why even those who are defendants
,/..
ι
ψευγωσι, θ αρρουσιν, ... < και ')4 ει'δ οτες
ι .,
οη ε'ξ'
ετασετε αυτων τον βι
ιον ,..., before you do not lose heart though accused ofthe greatest crimes;
και ούτε τοις όνόμασι προσθήσεσθε, αν ύ κενά, ούτε ταις άπο των and since they know that you will examine their conduct and
ι 5 ' ι , .1. δ'" l' ,.ι Ιξ' δ' γ not pay attention to meaningless labels or to false charges from
κατηγορων αιηαις, ει ψευ εις ειεν, εν ισυ τα ει την κατα ΙKα~oυσαν
.. , λ ' δ ' .Ι....,/.. \ Ι the prosecution, they are equal1y disposed to grant the justice of
της απο υουσης εχονται ψηψον. 4. το τοινυν προς απαντας
,., " \
ισον και

ήμεις άξιουμεν, μη όη Χρισηανοι λεγόμεθα μισεισθαι και κολά- a favourable or unfavourable decision.
γ
~εσ αι
θ (Ι , ι...
η γαρ ημιν το ονομα προς κακιαν τε
,>ι , ι λ "')
ει; ,α
'λλ \
α κρινεσ αι
ι θ 4. We too, then, ask to enjoy the equity you show to all that we
',/..'"οτψ αν
εψ " και"θ'
ευ υνυ ης, και\ η
" ',/..ι
αψιεσ θ αι ' λ'
απο υομενους τας , may not be hated and punished simply because we are Christians
-for how could our name make us wicked ?-but to be judged οη
κατηγορίας 7j κολάζεσθαι τΟ'υς άλισκομένους πονηρούς, μη έπι Τψ
, , (,t', \ Χ \ πονηρος, ει μη υποκρινεται τον
Ι, \, Ι ,
the basis of our conduct, whatever it may be that men may wish
ονομαη ουοεις γαρ ρισηανος
to examine, and either to be let go when we show the groundless-
' ) , επι
λ ογον , \ οε
t' \ ...
Τψ α
'δ '
ικημαη.
.,
5. ουτω \ , . \ ,/.. λ ,/.. ι
και τους απο ΨΙ οσοψιας ness of the charges or to be punished if we are found guilty-not
κρινομένους όρωμεν' ούδεις αύτων προ κρίσεως δια την έπιστήμην guilty merely because of our name (for ηο Christian is evil unless
7j τέχνην άγαθος 7j πονηρος Τψ δικαστfj εΙναι δοκει, άλλα δόξας his profession is a pretence), but because of some crime. 5. Such
,
μεν l'
ειναι "δ ικος
α κο λα~εTαι,
γ ' ου'δ'
εν Λ,/..
'Τ7} ψι λ οσοψιCf ,/.. , .1. '
προστριψαμενος
is what we observe ίη the case of defendants who pursue philo-
"λ ('''' \ , f ' f ι '/"λ ,/..... f δ'
sophy. None ofthem appears good or bad to thejudge before the
εγκ ημα εκεινος γαρ πονηρος ο μη ως νομος ΨΙ οσοψων, η ε
trial because of his knowledge or skill. Only when he is shown to
, ,
επιστημη • ι
αναιηος ) απο
' λ'
υσαμενος , δ'
ε \
τας δ ιαβ ο λ'
ας ',/..ι
αψιεται. 'Ι
εστω
be guilty is he punished. He brings οη himself ηο accusation
δ η' '.Ι
το ισον και εψ
\ ',/..' ι... , ..
ημων' ο των κρινομενων ε
"ξ εTα~εσ
γ, θω βι 'δ'
ιος, το ε because of his philosophy-for only the philosopher who breaks
,ι
ονομα παντος ''/'' ι θω εγκλ'
, αψεισ ηματος. ' 6 ' ..
. αναγκαιον δ'
ε μοι αρχομενψ • , the law is evil; knowledge itself is not to blame-and when he
άπολογεισθαι ύπερ του λόγου δεηθηναι ύμων, μέγιστοι αύτο­ rebuts the slanders against him, he is released. Let equity prevail
also ίη our case. Let the conduct of the defendants be investi-
κράτορες, ίσους ήμιν άκροατας γενέσθαι και μη Tfj KOινfj και άλόγψ
gated. Let ηο mere name be subject to accusation.
,/..,,!..
ψι/μυ ΣVναπενεX
θ'
εντας προκατασχε ηναι,
θΛ '
επιτρεψαι
'.1. ~"...
οε υμων το
,
6. As Ι begin the defence ofourteaching,I mustaskyou,greatest
,/..
ψΙ λ ομα θ'
ες και, ,/..
ψΙ λ αΙλη θ ες και'Λ
Τψ κα θ"'"
ημας λ'
ογψ. ι...
υμεις ,
τε γαρ emperors, to be fair as you listen and not to be carried away and
ού προς άγνοίας έξαμαρτήσετε και ήμεις τα άπο της άκρίτου των prejudiced by low and irrational rumour, but to direct your love
of learning and truth also to the following account concerning
πολλων φήμης άπολυσάμενοι 6 παυσόμεθα πολεμούμενοι.
ourselves. Thus you will not go wrong through ignorance, and we
shall rid ourselves of the hostility against us by showing how un-
2. 4 και add. Stephanus: lacunam ίη vicem post εΤεν indicavit Schwartz founded are the accusations arising from the uncritical gossip of
S κατηγοριών Α: corr. Wilamowitz 6 άποδυσάμενοι Α: corr. Maranus the crowd.
8 ATHENAGORAS 3. ι
4. 1 LEGATIO 9
3• r Φημι~oυσιν
'Υ . Α λημaTα, ' '
~θεοτητα, Θ ' ~. They bring three charges against us: atheism, Thyestean
.1 p '
ρια t
επι ημιν
t t
εγκ α Η υεστεια
banquets, and Oedipean unions. 1 If tllese are true, spare ηο class
δειπνα, ΟΙδιποδείους μίξεις. άλλα εί μεν άληθη ταυτα, μηδενος among us, prosecute our crimes, destroy us root and branch,
,
γενους Φ'
εισησ θ ε, t '\θ ετε
'
επε~εl\ δ'ε Α α'δ'
τοις ικημασι, συν γυναι ξ"ι
, και including women and children-if indeed αny human being
could be found living like wild animals ίη that way! Even animals,
παισι προρρίζους ήμας άποκτείνατε, εί γέ ης άνθρώπων l "fj δίκην however, do not eat members oftheir own kind; and they mate ίη
θηρίων' καίτοι γε και τα θηρία των όμογενων Ovx απτεται και accordance with the law of na ture and at the one season a ppointed
'Φ'
νομψ υσεως και"~
προς ενα καιΡον τον της τεκνοποιιας, \, '" " ουκ επ" for the begetting of offspring-not for any licentious purpose;
and they also know by whom they are benefited. 2 lf then there be
α'δ ειας,
" μιγνυται, 'Υ δ'ε
γνωpι~ει και"Φ'
υ Τ ω'Φ ελ ειται.
ων Α ει.Ι τις ουν
l' και,
a man more savage than the beasts, what punishment does he
των θηρίων άνημερώτερος, τίνα οδτος προς τα τηλικαυτα ύποσχων not deserve to suffer for such enormities?
δίκην [και)2 προς άξίαν κεκολάσθαι νομισθήσεται; 2. εΙ δε λογο- 2. Butifthesechargesarefabricationsand emptyslanders owing

, - ' , ,., '\' \ ,., their existence to the fact that by a natural principle evil opposes
ποιιαι ταυτα και'δ ιαβ ολ αι κεναι, Φυσικψ λ'
ογφ προς την αρετην της
virtue and that by divine law opposites war against each other,
κακίας άνηκειμένης και πολεμούντων άλλήλοις των έναντίων θείψ and if you yourselves are our witnesses that we are not guilty of
νόμψ, και του μηδεν τούτων άδικειν ύμείς 3 μάρτυρες, κελεύοντες μη any of these crimes since you merely command us not to confess,
then it is only right that you examine our conduct, our teachings,
ομο λογειν,
• Α 4 προς
' t υμων
,., λοιπον
"ε~εTασιν
t' 'θαι
ποιησασ β'ιου, δ ογματων,
' and our zeal and obedience to you, your house, and the empire. Ιη
" \."
της προς υμας και τον υμετερον οικον ι<aι την
" . , 'Ι' \ \ β ασι λ' δ"
ειαν σπου ης so doing, you will at length grant us a favour equal to that enjoyed
και ύπακοης, και ούτω ποτε σvγxωpησαι ήμίν Ovaev πλέον (.η)5 τοίς by our persecutors. We shall surely overcome them, ready as we
are to give up even our lives for the truth without flinching.
διώκουσιν ήμας. νικήσομεν γαρ αvτοuς ύπερ άληθείας άόκνως και
,
τας ψυχας επι
.1. \ , δ δ'
ι οντες. 4. Ι shall now meet each charge separately. lt is so obvious that
we are not atheists that it seems ridiculous even to undertake the
4• "Ο ' l' , , '''θ (προς
, t\ ~, ) Ι -
refutation ofthose who make the claim. It was right for the Athen-
η μεν ουν ουκ εσμεν α εοι εν εκαστον απαντησω των
ians to charge Diagoras I with atheism; for not only did he disclose
, ληματων
εγκ ' ), \
μη και, γε λοιον
Α τι
l' 'λ'
τους εγοντας [ μη'] ι ε'λ'
εγχειν. Orphic doctrine, divulge the mysteries of Eleusis and those of the
Διαγόρq. μεν γαρ είκότως άθεότητα έπεκάλουν Ά.θηναίοι, μη μόνον Cabiri, and chop up the wooden image of Heracles to cook his
, 'ΟΡΦ ικον , " " τα εν turnips, but he bluntly declared that there is ηο god at all. But
τον εις μεσον καταη θ'
ενη λ'
ογον και "ΕΙ\ευσινι
'\ Α και ,

surely it is not rational for them to apply the term atheism to us

,
τα τωνΗα
" ΤΤ βι
ιΡων
δ' , \ , ,., ΙΊ.J λ' ,ι
ημευονη μυστηρια και το του Ωρακ εους ινα τας
\ who distinguish God from matter and show that matter is one
γογγυl\ας '\ εψοι".1. κατακοπτονη ' t '
~ οανον, "
ανηκρυς δ ε' ,
απο Φ αινομενψ , thing and God another and the difference between them immense ;
for the divine is uncreated and eternal and can be contemplated
μηδε όλως εΙναι θεόν' ήμιν δε διαιΡουσιν άπο της ύλης τον θεον και only by thought and reason, whereas matter is created and
δεικνύουσιν έτερον μέν η εΙναι την ύλην άλλο δε τον θεον και το δια perishable.
,
μεσου πο υ
λ ' (το' ,
μεν γαρ
'θ ειον
Α 2 'Ι' , , 'δ
αγενητον ειναι και αι ιον, νψ μονψ
" ,,' 3. ι The same expressions, 'Thyestean banquets and Oedipean unions', occur
ίη the letter from Gaul describing the persecutions of A.D. 177 (Eusebius, Η.Ε.
και, λ'
ογψ θ'
εωρουμενον, ,
την δ'ε υ"λην "
γενητην και Φθ αρτην, ') ,
μη η
5. ι. 14)·
OVK 3 άλόγως το της άθεότητος έπικαλουσιν όνομα,. 2. εΙ μεν γαρ 2 Each of the three clauses describing the natural powers of animals corres-

ponds to one of the charges brought against the Christians. The last of the three
3. ι άνθρώπων (ά;ΩV) Α: ανθρωπος ών Sch\vartz 2 Kα~ seclusit Wilamo-
is least clear; but ηο doubt an animal's recognition of those who tend him
witz 3 ύμείς Α: ήμας ύμείς Schwartz: ήμείς Geffcken 4 όμονοείν Α:
corresponds to man's recognition of God οη whom his life depends.
όμολογείν Lindner: μηνύειν Maranus 5 η add. Maranus
4. ι Diagoras was known to his fifth-century contemporaries primarilyas a man
Wll0 had disclosed the sacred mysteries of Eleusis. It was οηlΥ later that he
4. ι μη seclusit Schwartz 2 άγέννητον Α (quam lectionem defcndit
Ubaldi) : corr. Schwartz 3 ουκ seclusit Wilamowitz became the typical 'atheist"
10 ATHENAGORAS 4.2' 5~3 LBGATIO ΙΙ

'"l.
εψρονουμεν ομοια 7ΊΡ
Λ ., Λ Δ' tayOpq., ..."
τοσαυτα εχοντες προς
'θεοσεfJεΙάν
'R 2. Ifweheld opinions like those ofDiagoras ίη spite ofhaving
"
ενεχυρα, το '"
ευτακτον, ΤΟ'δ\' I"l.
ια παντος συμψωνον, το,ι
μεγε θ ος, \
την
such impressive signs conducive to piety ίη the order, the per-
fect harmony, the magnitude, the colours, the shapes, and the
χροιάν, τό σχ-ημα, την διάθεσιν του κόσμου, εΙκότως αν ήμιν και ή
Λ μη θ εοσεβ ειν
Λ δ ο'ξ α και, η
t τουΛ ε'λ' " ΠΡΟσεΤΡΙtJετΟ' arrangement of the world, then we could not complain of having
του αυνεσ θαι αιηα ' R 'επει\
acquired a reputation for impiety and of having brought οη our-
\

δε ό λόγος ήμων ένα θεό ν άγει τόν τουδε του παντός ποιητήν, αύτόν selνes this harassment. But since we teach that there is one God,
,
μεν ου γενομενον, , ( οη
., το''''ον ου" γινεται, \ , ''')
α'λλα το μη ον ,παντα δ'
ε δ ια , \ the Maker of this universe, and that he is not created (since it is
του παρ' αύτου λόγου πεποιηκότα, έκάΤεΡα άλ6γως πάσχομεν, και not Being that is created, but non-being) whereas all things were
κακως άγορευ6μεθα και διωκ6μεθα.
made!?y the Wordthat issues from him, it is irrational that either
of these ills haνe befallen us. Ι t is wrong that we are defamed and
persecuted.
5. Τ.Τ \ \ \ \ "l. λ ' " l . ,,,'" ξ "θ
Ηαι ποιηται μεν και ψΙ οσοψοι ουκ εοο αν α εοι, επιστησαντες
' ,
5. Poets and philosophers were not regarded as atheists for
\
περι
θ ...
εου.
t
ο
'Ε'
μεν
'δ
υριπι ης
,\
επι
\...
μεν των
\
κατα
,
κοινην
'λ .Ι.
προ ηψιν giνing their attention to matters concerning God. Euripides, ίη
άνεπιστημ6νως ονομαζομένων θεων διαπορων expressing his perplexity concerning those whom common pre-
""l. λ δ' ,ι 1 ,ι " , ... conception ignorantly names gods, says:
ωψει ε ,ειπερ εστ εν ουρανψ,
Zeus ought not, if he dwells ίη heaven,
Ζευς μη τόν αύτόν δυστυχη καθιστάναι· α
Reduce the same man to unhappy straits.
έπι δε του κατ' έπιστήμην νοητου ώς έσην θεό ς 2 δογματίζων And ίη setting out his doctrine of that which may be understood
ι...
Opq.so '.Ι.... τον
, υψου
τον 'δ'"
απειΡον αι'θ'
ερα
of God's existence through rational insight, he says:
και γf}ν πέριξ έχοντα ύγραις έν άγκάλαις; Do you see aloft the boundless ether,
Encircling the earth ίη its damp folds?
τουτον νόμιζε Ζηνα, τόνδ' ήγου eE6v. b This esteem Zeus! This consider God! ι
2. των μεν γαρ ούτε τας ούσίας, αΙς έπικατηγορεισθαι το ονομα 2. He could not discern the substances thought to underlie the
συμtJ
R EtJTJ
'R κεν , t
υποκειμενας εωρα
, t Ι ("Ζ"" \.,
ηνα γαρ οσης εση
,\ Ζ'
ευς, ουκ
, popular gods-substances ofwhich the word god happened to be
"'' '
οιοα πλην '
τα ' " )cουτε
λογψ
\ ονοματα
', " "
κα θ' υποκειμενων κατηγορει- Λ predicated ('for as to Zeus, Ι know not who Zeus is, except by
'(1" ... hearsay') ;2 nor could he grant that their names w.ere predicated of
σ θ αι πραγματων ων γαρ αιt" ουσιαι ουχ,t '
υποκεινται, η'λ"
π εον αυτοις
..., , ) 'δ ε\ απΌ
, , των Λ" ".Ι. 3 Λ 'δ 'λ ... \ underlying ~~~1~ti~~3 (for if the substances of things do not under-
των ονοματων; ,τον εΡγων, οψιν των α η ων νοων τα lie them, is there anything more to them than their names?); but
" l . '
ψαινομενα, t' , 'θ' ...
αερα αι ερος γης. t 4 3. ου ουν τα ποιηματα και υψ ουl'
l' l' \ , , t"l.'
he discerned Another from his works, understanding the things
...
Τψ πνευμαη
, t
ηνιοχειται,
Λ
τουτον
...
κατε
λ R'
αμtJανετο
'"
ειναι
θ'
εον,
d συν- that appear as proνiding a glimpse of things unseen. 3. The one
4δοντος τούτψ και Σοφοκλέους whose works they are and by whose spirit they are guided he took
to be God. Sophocles also agrees with him when he says:
εΙς ταις άληθείαισιν, εΙς έσην θεός, One ίη truth, yea, one is God,
δς ούρανόν τ' έτευξε και γαιαν μακράν/ Who formed heaven and the broad earth. 4
5. ι Frequently quoted by pagans and Christians. Cicero (De Nat. Deor. 2.
5. α Frg. 900 (Nauck2 ) b Frg. 941 (Nauck2 ) C Frg. 480 (Nauck 2 ) d Cf. 25. 65) translated it into Latin.
Rom. 1: 19-20 e Frg. 1025 (Nauck 2 ) 2 Linked with the preceding fragment ίη Lucian, /ου. Trag. 41.

3 Apparently directed against the Stoic effort to provide a rational explana-

ειλε δ' ει tion for divine names (cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 3. 24. 62). See also 6. 4 below,
5. ι ώΦελη δέ ε(περ Α: ώΦειλε δήθεν Nauck: ίη fine supplens κρατών Meineke where a few standard etymologies of divine names are given.
2 εστιν θεo~ Wilamowitz: EKείνO~ Α 3 όψει Α: corr. Fabricius 4 άέρα 4 Α spurious fragment derived from the work of Hellenistic-Jewish propa-
αΙθέρo~ 'Yή~ Α: άέρo~ αΙθέρo~ 'Yή~ Fabricius: έώρa aΙθέρo~ γή~ Maranus: ΕΦώρa gandists who attributed their productions to Hecataeus (cf. Clement, Strom. 5.
[aΙθέρo~ γή~] Schwartz 14. 114),
12 ATHENAGORAS 5·3" 6. 2 LEGA τια 13
,
προς
,
την
..
του
Ο
εου
"5.J..' ... ~\ \ ..."
ψυσιν του ΚαΛl\Oυς του εκεινου 1ΤΙ\ηρουμενην
\ ,
Thus concerning God's nature which fills heaven and earth with
έκάΤιφα, και 11'0;; δει είναι τόν Οεόν και 6η ενα δει είναι, διδάσκων. his beauty he teaches both where God must be and that God must
be one.

6. τΤ'Φλ'λ
ηαι ι ο αος δ'ε ωσ1Τερ
tI
εν -,
'Φpovpq. 1Ταντα υ1ΤΟ του .,
-ο εου 1Τεριει- .. 6. Philolaus too, by saying that God encompasses al1 things as ίη
a prison,I shows that God is one and that J:ιe is above matter. 80
'
λη-Φθαι λ εγων, "., 'i'
και το ενα ειναι και' " ,
το ανωτερω ...
της "λης οεικνυει.
υ ~ , also Lysis and Opsimus: the one defines God as an ineffable
Λ υσις
- δ'ε , "0·1. number, the other as the excess of the greatest number over that
και ψιμος ι'"
ο μεν αρι θμον
'" • 'Υ
αρρητον ορι,=εται 'θ"
τον εον, ~,
ο οε
nearest it. Now if ten is the greatest number according to the
του μεγίστου των άριθμων την 1Ταρα τον έγγυτάτω 2 ύ1Tεpσx~ν. εΙ δε Pythagoreans, since it is the tetrαctys2and includes all the arith-
μέγιστος μεν άριθμος ό δέκα κατα τους Πυθαγορικους ό τετρακτύς metical and harmonic ratios, and if nine is the nearest to it, God
is a unit-that is, one; for by one the greatest number exceeds
τε ων και πάντας τους άριθμηηκους και τους άρμονικους3 περιέχων that nearest it ...
λόγους, τούτψ δε έγγυς παράκειται ό έννέα, μονάς έστιν ό θεός, 2. Plato and Aristotle-and note that it is not as one who
_"Ι "i' ("\ \ t , f Ι "ι t'λ'
intends to give an exact account of the doctrines of the philo-
τουτ εσην εις' ενι γαρ υπερεχει ο μεγιστος τον εγγυτατω. ε α-
sophers that Ι run through what they say concerning God; for
χιστον αυτψ. , -t 2. Πλ' ,
~, και Ά ριστοτε'λης
ατων οε (και, ουχ
, ως
• επι-
, Ι know that you are as much superior to all men ίη an exact
,
δ εικνυων 'δ'
τα -Φλ
ογματα των ι οσο'Φ ων " ,ακριβ'ες, ουτως
επ " <ειΡηκασι
α ", understanding of the whole range of learning as you exceed them
ίη the wisdom and power of your rule, and that you can boast of
- δ ιε'ξ ειμι'
περι'θ εου ΟΙ"'δ'
α γαρ οη
tI οσον
" συνεσει
, και
" ισχυι
, της
- βασι-
having accomplished ίη every branch of learning what not even
'
λ ειας , ., ... δ" , ......
β'"
παντων υπερεχετε, τοσουτον και Τψ πασαν παι ειαν ακρι ουν those who have specialized ίη one can lay claim to; but since it is
impossible to show without mentioning names that we are not
πάντων κρατειτε, ούτω καθ' εκαστον παιδείας μέρος κατορθουντες alone ίη insisting οη the oneness of God, we have turned to the
ώς ούδε οί εν αύτης μόριον άποτεμόμενοι' άλλ' έπειδη άδύνατον Opinions 3-so then, Plato says: '1t is a hard task to find the
δεικνύειν άνευ παραθέσεως όνομά των 6η μη μόνοι εΙς μονάδα τον Maker and Father of this universe, and having found him it is
impossible to declare him to all.' Here he understands the un-
θ εον
' κατακ λ'
ειομεν, επι τας '" δ'ξ' , ) Φησιν
ο ας ετραπομην, , l' ο'Πλ'
ουν ατων' created and eternal God to be one. If he acknowledges other
"τον μεν σΟν ποιητην και πατέρα τουδε του παντος εύρειν τε έργον gods such as sun, moon, and stars, he recognizes that they are
created: 'Gods, offspring of gods,4 whose Creator am Ι, as well as
και εύρόντα εΙς πάντας άδύνατον λέγειν", α ενα τον άγένητον4 και Father of those works which are indestructible except as Ι will;
άίδιον νοων θεόν. εΙ δ' οίδεν και άλλους οΙον ήλιον και σελ~νην all that is bound can be undone.' Now if Plato is ηο atheist when
και άστέρας, άλλ' ώς γενητους οίδεν αύτούς' "θεοι θεων, ών έγω he understands the ~reator of all things to be the one uncre;:ι~ed
δημιουΡγος πατηρ τε έργων ά άλυτα S έμο;; μη θέλοντος, τό μεν ΟΟν 6. ι For this translation see Η. Diels, Die Frαgmente der Vorsokrαtiker (Berlin,
1934), i. 414·
δεθεν παν λυτόν"b εΙ τοίνυν ούκ έσην άθεος Πλάτων, ενα τόν :Ζ 1+2+3+4 = ΙΟ (Aetius, Plαc. 1.3.8).
~ "λων θ' 3 That is, collections of the opinions of philosop11ers, more or less superficial
,...
υ"μιουΡγον των ο ...,'
νοων αγενητον 6 εον, ου'δ" "θ εοι, υ'Φ''''
ε ημεις α... ου
manuals containing summaries and sometimes quotations (Η. Diels, Doxo-
grαphi Grαeci [Berlin, 1879]). The passages from Plato which follow were derived
6. α Tim. 28 c b Tim. 4 ι a from such sources, to judge from their popularity ίn this period (see also Diels,
5. 5 του θεου: του ούρανου Schwartz: του θεου seclusit Ubaldi. Post έκάτερα Ρ·5 68 ).
add. ex. g. όρων Geffcken .. This probably does not represent the original meaning of these words (see
6. ι 'Όψιμο, Meursius: όψει Α :Ζ των Jγγυτάτων Α: τόν JyyJτoaτoov Α ι : F. Μ. Cornford, Plαto's Cosmology [New York, 1937], ρρ. 367-70). Our render-
corr. Gesner 3 άρμονίου, Α: corr. codex Laubanensis, Otto .. άγέν- ing, however, may be ίn line with Athenagoras' understanding of them-
νητον Α 5 δ. άλυτα Plato: άδύνατα Α 6 άγέννητον Α
especial1y if we are justified inregarding Cicero's translation as typical (vos qui
deorum sαtu orti estis, Timαeus ι ι. 40).
 14 ATHENAGORAS 6.2 7·3 LEGATIO 15
λόγιΡ δεδημΙΟVΡγηται και τψ παρ α~Toυ πνεvμαΤι συνέχεται Td. God, neither are we atheists when we acknowledge him by whose
πάντα, τουτον είδότες και κρατύνοντες7 θεόν. 3. ό δ~ J4ριστοτέλης Word all things were created and upheld byhis Spirit and assert
\
και οι απ
ι" , -~, ιι
αυτου ενα αγοντες οιονει ,:>ιΡον συν
ι, r"" ι θ
ετον,
'.1.......
εκ ψυχης και
\ that he is God.
3. Ari s!otle 5 and his school bring before us one God whom they
σώματος συνεστηκότα λέγουσι τον θεόν, σωμα μ~ν α~Toυ το liken to a composite living being and say that he consists of soul
αι'θ' 'Υ
εριον νομι,:>οντες , τε πλ ανωμενους αστερας και την σΦ αιΡαν
τους Α ' " \ \ and body. Trlcy consider his body to be the ether, the planets,
...
των
'λ'"
απ ανων
,
κινουμενα
λ Φ
κυκ ο ΟΡηΤικως,
.. .1. \
ψυχην
δ \
ε τον
\ ,\ TTJ...
επι and the sphere of the fixed stars, all of which have a circular
κινήσει του σώματος λόγον, α~Toν μ~ν o~ κινούμενον, αίτιον δε της motion, and his soul to be the reason that controls the motion of
τούτου κινήσεως γινόμενον. 4. οί δ~ άπο της Στοας, καν ταις
the body-itself unmoved, yet cause of the body's motion.
προσηγοριαις
/ κατα
\ τας
\ παρα
λλ'l;
αsεις
....,λης,
της v δ':ι.
ι ι/ς
Φ ασι το
\ 4. The Stoics, although they multiply names for the divine
being by means of titles corresponding to the permutations of
πνευμα χωρειν του θεου, πληθύνωσι το θειον τοις όνόμασι, Τψ γουν matter through wl1ich they say the Spirit of God moves, ίη reality
εργιΡ8 ένα νομ'ζουσι τον θεόν. εί γαρ ό μ~ν θεος πυρ τεχνικον think of God as one. For if God is aή artisan fire systematically
(δ'"
Ο ιρ
β
α
δ/Υ
ι,:>ον
,\
επι
,
γενεσει
9 /
κοσμου
,
εμπεριει
λ Φ
η ος
\ ,/
απαντας τους
\ proceeding to the production of the world, containing ίη itself all
σπερμαΤικους λόγοvg καθ' ους έκαστα καθ' είμαρμένην γ'γνεται, το
the generative principles by which everything takes place ίn
accord with Destiny, and ifhis Spirit penetrates the whole world,
δ~ πνευμα α~Toυ διήκει δι' όλου του κόσμου, ό θεος είς κατ' α~Toύς,
then it follows from their teaching that God is one, receiving the
Ζευς μ~ν κατα το ζέον της ύλης όνομαζόμενος, "Ήρα δ~ κατα τον name 'Zeus' to correspond to the 'seething' element of matter or
άέρα, και τα λΟΙ7Τα καθ' έκαστον της ύλης μέρος δι' .ης κεχώρηκε 'Hera' to correspond to the 'air', and being given al1 his other
καλούμενος. names to correspond to every part ofmatter, which he pervades.

7. 'Όταν οΟν το μ~ν εΖναι ~ν το θειον ώς Επι το πλειστον, καν μη 7. Seeing, then, that by and large all admit, though reluctantly,
θειιωσι,
'\ Α...
τοις πασι συμ
Φ'" ,\ \ , \
ωνηται ε7ΤΙ τας αρχας των ο
.. .,λ
ων παραγινο- when they get down to the first principles of everything, that the
μένοις, -ήμεις δ~ κρατύνωμεν τον διακοσμήσαντα το παν τουτο, divine being is one, and since we insist that he who ordered our
universe is God, why is it that they enjoy the licence to speak and
τουτον εΙναι τον θεόν, TtS' ~ αίτ'α τοις μ~νl Ε7Τ' άδε'ας Εξειναι και write what they want concerning the divine being, whereas a law
'
λ εγειν και\'Φ
γρα ειν περι του \.... ..
θ εου α
c\ θ'\
ειιουσιν, ε'Φ' t Α
ημιν δε \ Α θαι
κεισ has been imposed upon us who can establish with compelling
νόμον, οΕ έχομεν ό Τι και νοουμεν και όρθως 7Τεπιστεύκαμεν, ένα proofs and arguments the correctness of what we think and
θεον εΖναι, άληθε'ας σημείοις και λόγοις παραστησαι; 2. 7Τοιηται be1ieve-that God is one?
\ \
μεν γαρ και \ '
Φ ι λ οσο Φ οι, t
ως Α"λλ
και\ τοις α "αaλον στοχασΤικως,
οις, επε{J ... 2. For poets and philosophers have gone at this and other
matters by guesswork, each of them moved by his own soul
κινηθέντες μ~ν κατά συμ7Τάθειαν της παρα του θεου 7Τνοης ύπο της
through some affinity with the breath of God to seek, if possible,
α~Toς αύτου ψυχης έκαστος ζητησαι, εί δυνατος εύρειν και νοησαι to find and understand the truth. But they were able to gain
την άλήθειαν, τοσουτον δ~ δυVΗθένTες όσον 7Τερινοησαι, ούχ εύρειν ηο more than a peripheral understanding; they could not find
το σν,2 ού παρα θεου περι θεου άξιώσαντες μαθειν, άλλα παρ' Being since they would not stoop to learn about God from God,
αύτου έκαστος' διο και άλλος άλλως ΕδογμάΤισεν αύτων και περι but each relied upon himself. That is why they al1 came up with
different doctrines concerning God, matter, the forms, and the
θεου και περι ύλης και 7Τερι εΙδων και περι κόσμου. 3. ~μεις δ~
world. 3. We, however, have prophets as witnesses of what we
l'
ων ...
νοουμεν και\ ,
7Τεπιστευκαμεν "
εχομεν προ Φ"
ητας μαρτυρας, οι " think and believe. They have spoken out by a divinely inspired
6. 7 KpaΤOfJVΤE') Α:
corr. Schwartz (cf. 7. 1) 8 το yofJv έργον Α: corr. Α ι
9 γεν/σεις Α: corr. s 6. 5 Possibly derived from Aetius, Plαc. 1. 7. 32; but it is more likely that
7. ι inter τοις μεν et έπ' άδεΙας inseruit Α verba άδοκιμάζουσιν έπειδη οΙ πoλλo~ Athenagoras reflects the early (Platonizing) Aristotle here (G. Lazzati,
κτλ. usque ad κνίστι τε παρατροπώσιν ex 12. 4-13. 4 2 εύρΗVΤo όν Α: corr. LΆrίstοtele perduto e gli αntichi scrittori cristiαni [Milan, 1938], ρρ. 69-72; cf.
Schwartz Aetius, Plac. 5. 20. ι).
16 ATHENAGORAS 7·s· 8'4 LEGATIO 17
, , 'θ ' , J..".'
πνευμαη εν εφ εκπεψ<»νηκασι
"....
και περι του
θ'"
εου
,
και
,...
περι των του
..... Spirit about God and the things of God. You too would admit,
since you surpass others ίη wisdom and reverence for the truly
θεου. εϊποιτε δ' αν και ύμεις συνΙσει και rfi περι το όντως θειον divine, that it would be irrational to abandon be1ief ίη the Spirit
from God which had moved the mouths of the prophets like
,
ευσεβ ει~
Ι τους
" 'αΝ\ους
\ \ προυχοντες
" ως
'" "λ ογον παραλ ιποντας
εσην α ' musical instruments and to pay attention to human opinions.
πιστεύειν τψ παρα του θεου πνεύμαη ώς όργανα κεκινηκόη 3 τα4 nvv
8. Consider, ίη light ofthe following arguments, the teaching that
προ φητων
....'
στοματα,
't::!: 't ) θ ι
προσεχειν oo~αις αν ρωπιναις.
God, the Creator of this universe, is one from the beginning so
that you may also understand the reasoning which supports our
faith: if there were two or more gods from the beginning, either
(α) they would be ίη one and the same category or (b) each of
them would be independent. 2. (α) They could not be ίη one and
8. "Οη τοίνυν ε[ς έξ άρχης ό τουδε του παντος ποιητης θεός, the same category.l [ί] For if they were gods, they would not be
similar; but, because they were uncreated, they would be
, , "ι, θ "'.,
ουτωσι σκεψασ ε, ιν εχητε
Ι ' 'λ
και τον
"........,
ογισμον ημων της πιστεως. dissimilar. For created things are similar to their exemplars,2
whereas uncreated things are dissimilar, deriving their existence
εί δύο έξ άρχης 7} πλείους ήσαν θεοί, ήτοι έν ένι και ταύ τψ 2 ήσαν 7} from ηο one and without reference to models. 3. [ίί] If it is
ίδί~ έκαστος αύτων. 2. έν μεν οΟν ένι και ταύτψ εΙναι ούκ ~δOνανTo.3 suggested that God is one, as ίη the case of one body a hand and
eye and foot are complementary parts forming one being, we reply:
ού γάρ, εΙ θεοί, όμοιοι, άλλ' όη άγlνηToι,4 ούχ όμοιοι· τα μεν γαρ Socrates, since he is created and perishable, is indeed composite
and divisible into parts; but God is uncreated, impassible, and
γενητα όμοια τοις παραδείγμασιν, τα δε άγΙνητα άνόμοια, ούτε άπό indivisible; he does not consist of parts.
4. (b) If οη the other hand each of the two or more gods were
",
ηνος ουτε προς τινα γενομενα.
, 3. ει, οε,
~" , "φθ λ'
ως χειρ και ο α μος και
,
independent, and we assume that the Maker οΓ the world is
above the things created and around what he has made and
πους περι εν σωμά είσιν συμπληρωηκαs μΙρη, ένα έξ αύτων
adorned, where would the other god or the other gods be?3 For
σ1Jμπληρουντες, ό θεος είς· καίτοι ό μεν Σωκράτης, παρο γενητος 8. ι Athenagoras deals with two possibilities ίη this connection: (ί) that the gods
form a community ίη one and the same genus (a suggestion built up ίη Platonic
και'φθ'
αρτος, ,
συγκειμενος και, tοιαιΡουμενος
::!:, '"
εις μερη, ο t::!:'
οε '
θ εος terms); (ίί) that the gods form a community ίη one and the same organism (a
suggestion built up ίη Stoic terms; cf. Sextus Empiricus, ΗΥΡ. 3. 100; Μ.
άγΙνητος6 και άπαθης και άδιαίρετος· ούκ άρα συνεστως έκ μερων. Aurelius 7. 13; 8. 34). For Athenagoras' critique of the latter compare Philo
(Leg. Alleg. 1.66).
4. εί δε ίδί~ έκαστος7 αύτων, οντος του τον κόσμον πεποιηκότος 2 Α reference to the Platonic Ideas.
3 For 'above' and 'around' compare 6. Ι (above); Hermas, Man. ι. ι; Philo,
άνωτΙρω των γεγονότων και περι 8 α έποίησl τε και έκόσμησεν, που Leg. Alleg. 1.44; De Somn. 1.63, 185; De Sobr. 63; De Conf. Ling. 136; Cicero, De
ΝαΙ. Deor. Ι. 37. 103. Even Aristotle's unmoved mover, for whom Aristotle
'"ετερος
ο "'λ
η οι ι
οιποι; ει, γαρ
, ο, μεν "
" κοσμος σφ αιρικος αποτε λ εσ θ'
εις himself as well as the later Platonists used all the predicates of the Platonic
Idea (especially that ofthe Good), could be described as 'encompassing' all the
spheres (Diels, Doxographi Grαeci, ρ. 450; cf. Aristotle, Phys. 267b6-g). 'Το
encompass' and 'to fi11' (for the latter see 8. 6 below) probably mean to be
7. 3 κεκινηκι)τα Α: corr. m. rec. Α 4 τα. om. Α: add. Αι 'infinite' as ίη Hippolytus (Pasch. 3). Athenagoras' God is ίη fact 'jnfinite' or
8. ι εχητε: εχοιτε Α 2 και ταύτψ: και ταύ add. ΑΙ 3 ήδύνατο Α:
'encompassed by none' (10. ι). The spatial terminology may have received
corr. ΑΙ 4 άλλοτ///ια///ενητοι Α: άλλ' ότ///ι άγενητοι τε και γενητοι special impetus ίη Christian circles from the debate with Gnostics (Irenaeus,
Αι 5 συμπληρωnκα. Schwartz: συμπληροϋντες τα. Α 6 άγ'ννητος Adv. Hαeτ. 2. Ι. Ι; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 1.3-11; Adamantius, Diαl. 2.1-2;
Α 7 έκάστου Α: corr. s 8 περι Α: ύπΕρ Wilamowitz,
cf. R. Μ. Grant, ΤΜ ΕατΙΥ Christiαn Doctrine ΟΙ God [Charlottesville, Va., 1966],
Schwartz, Geffcken ρρ. 109-10).
8268084, c
18 ATHENAGORAS 8·'4 9. ι LEGATIO 19

ovpavoG κύκλοις αποκέκλεισται, ό SJ του κ6σμου ποιητης ανωτέρω if the world is spherical ίη shape and is enclosed by the orbits of
the heavenly bodies, and if the Maker of the world is above
των γεγον6των έπέχων aVT6v 9 Tfj τούτων προνοίq" τίς ότου created things and governs the world by exercising his ΡΕ2:,-·Ψ!eΙ!~~
over them, what place is there for the other god or the other gods?
έτέρου θεου ή των λοιπων τ6πος; ούτε yc1p έν τψ κ6σμψ έστίν, όη
[ί] He cannot be (α) ίη the world since that belongs to another;
t J ,1" '" t - ,
ετερου εσην' ουτε περι τον κοσμον, υπερ γαρ τουτον ο του κοσμου
f" ".. nor can he be (b) around the world since it is God the Maker of
the world who is above it. 5. [ίί] Now ifhe is neither ίη the world
ποιητης θε6ς. 5. εί SJ μήτε έν τψ κ6σμψ έστιν μήτε περι τ6ν nor around the world (for everything around the world is con-
, (" '" _ t' Ι
trolled by God its Maker), where is he? Above the world and God;
κοσμον το γαρ περι αυτον παν υπο τουτου κατεχεται
' ) - '
, που εσην;
ίη another world and around it? But (α) ifhe is ίη another world
ανωτέρω του κ6σμου και ΙΟ του θεου, έν έ,τέρψ κ6σμψ και περι and around it, he is ίη ηο way around us (for he does not rule our
world) , nor is he great ίη power (for he is ίη a circumscribed
έτερον; αλλ' εί μέν έσην έν έτέρψ και περι έτερον, ούτε περι ήμας place).4 6. And if (b) he is not ίη another world (for all things are
, "( ,ς-\11 \, ....), 'ουτε
" \ ς-' ,
filled by God the Maker) 5 nor around another (for all things are
εσην εη ουσε γαρ κοσμου κρατει αυτος συναμει μεγας
controlled by God the Maker), he does not exist, since there is ηο
, , ('εν
εσην
\
γαρ περιωρισμενψ
" , ') 6 . ει
τοπψ εσην.
'ς-\ "
σε ουτε
,
εν ετερψ
( , place for him ίη which to be; otherwise what would there be for
him to do, since there is another to whom the world belongs,
κοσμψ
, , \
εσην
(παντα
' \ (\'
γαρ υπο
λ'
τουτου πεπ ηρωται
)"
ουτε περι
\ whereas he himself would be above the Maker of the world yet
., (' \ t\' 1 ), " '1 , would be neither ίη a world nor around a world?6
ετερον παντα γαρ υπο τουτου κατεχεται και ουκ εσην, ουκ
7. Is there anything else that will make it possible for one
JI
οντος
'1"
εν Ψ εσην.
'"
η TL ποιει,
Λ t ,
ετερου μεν
,,,
οντος
l' ,
ου εσην ο κοσμος,
C' ι pitted against Being to find a place to stand? Νο, for God and the
things of God are above him. And what place can there be since
aVT6s; SJ ανωτέρω ων του ποιητου του κ6σμου, OVK ων SJ ούτε έν God fills that which is above the world? 8. Can he then exercise
providence? He cannot even exercise providence, if he has not
κ6σμψ ούτε περι κ6σμον; 7. ιΙλλ' εση τι έτερον ινα που uTfj ό made anything. Ifhe cannot make anything, ifhe cannot exercise
providence over anything, and if there is ηο other place ίη which
γεν6μενος κατα του σντος; ιΙλλ' ύπJΡ αύτ6ν ό θε6ς και τα του θεου.
he can be, God the Maker of the world is from the beginning one
και τίς εσται τ6πος τα ύπερ τ6ν κ6σμον τούτου πεπληρωκ6τος; and alone.

8. ιΙλλα προνοει;IΊ και μην OVs;. προνοει,13 εί μη πεποίηκεν. εί δε 9. Now if we were satisfied with considerations of this kind, one
could regard our doctrine as man-made. But since the voices of
μη ποιει 14 μήτε προνοει μήτε έστι τ6πος έτερος, έν Ψ έστίν, ε[ς
8. 4i.e. eνen if he exists, he has nothing to do with us and does not concern us.
ογτος έξ dpxfjs; και μ6νος ό ποιητης του κ6σμου θε6ς. Cf. Philo, De Conf. Ling. 136 (see η. 3 aboνe).
5
6 Athenagoras works out the consequences of the supposition that this god
controls ηο world (but is somewhere aboνe the Creator). First the supposition
9. Εί μεν σΟν ταις τοιαύταις έννοίαις ιΙπηρκούμεθα, ιΙνθρωΠΙΚ6ν αν that this god controls ηο world is shown-parenthetically-to be fact: there is
ηο place for such a world; the Creator controls eνerything. (This is already
ης
l'
ειναι τον
\
κα
θ' ( -
ημας
"
ενομι,:>εν
Υ Ι λ'
ογον' επει
,\ ς-\
σε
• Φ ωναι
αι
, - των implicit ίη the preceding remarks: a god who is 'great ίη power' is not 'ίη a
circumscribed place'.) So sweeping is the argument, howeνer, that it all but
suffices to rule out the possibility of any place ίη which this god might exist.
8. 9 έπέχων αυΤι)ν Α: παρέχων αύτόν Schwartz 10 και Schwartz: ή Α ex Neνertheless Athenagoras returns to the bare supposition that this god is
corr., , ,~I ~υδ~ Schw:rtz: O~Tε Α 12 άλλα προνοεί: ~η mg~ ου ΑΙ somewhere aboνe the Creator but controls ηο world. Ιη this connection he
13 και μην οvδεν ει μη προνοTl πεποιηκεν Α: corr. Gesner 14 μη ποιει seclu- argues that if a god controls nothing, he does not exist (see also 8. 8). For the
sit Wilamowitz: μήτε ποιεί Bauer presupposition inνolνed see Tertullian (Adv. Hermog. 3) and Origen (De Princ.
9. ι έν6μισεν Α: corr. Wilamowitz 1.2. 10; 3. 5· 3)·
 20 ATHENAGORAS 9. ι 10.2 LEGATIO 21

προιΡητων πιστουσιν ημων Toύ~ λoγισμoύ~ (νομίζω (SJ)2 και the prophets affirm our arguments-and Ι expect that you who
• ..
υμα~ Φλ
ι ομα θ' \,
εσTαTOυ~ και επιστημOνεσTαTOυ~ oνTα~ ουκ ανοητους 3 ,." " are so eager for knowledge and so learned are not without under-
standing of the teachings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jere-
γεγονlναι ούτε των ΜωσΙως ούτε των ' Haatov κα~ 'ΙεΡεμίου και miah and the rest of the prophets who ίη the ecstasy of their
των λοιπων προιΡητων, οί κατ' ;κστασιν των έν αύTOΙ~ λογισμων, thoughts, as the diνine Spirit moνed them, uttered what they had
, " , . . θ ειου
' πνευματος,
, 'ι:. Φ ,
κινησαντος αυτους του α ενηΡγουντο εςε ωνησαν,
<\ , ....
been inspired to say, the Spirit making use of them as a flautist
, , . . , . , ' 'λ \ 'λ \ , ')
συγχρησαμενου του πνευματος, ως ει και αυ ητης αυ ον εμΠJ)ευσαι
might blow into a fluteI-what, then, do they say? 2. 'The Lord
is our God; ηο other shall be reckoned ίη addition to him.' And
--(ί οδν οΟτοι; 2. "κύριος ό θεος ήμων' ού λογισθήσεται ΕΤεΡος
again: 'Ι am God, first and last; and except for me there is ηο
προς αύτόν." α και πάλιν' "έγω θεος πρωτος Kα~ μετα ταυτα, και God.' Similarly: 'There was ηο other God before me and there
πλην έμου ούκ έση θεός."b όμοίως·4 ";μπροσθεν έμου 013K έγΙνετο will be none after me; Ι am God and there is none beside me.'
άλλος θεος και μετ' έμε ούκ ;σται' έγω ό θεος5 και ούκ ;ση παρες And concerning his greatness: 'Heaνen is my throne and the
έμΟυ".C και περι του μεγΙθους· "ό ούρανός μοι θρονός, ή δε γη ύπο­ earth my footstoo1. What house will you build for me, or what
πόδιον των ποδων μου. ποιον olKov οίκοδομήσετl μοι, ~ τίς τόπος
place for me to rest?' 3. Ι leaνe it to you to apply yourselνes to
these νery books and to examine more carefully these men's
της καταπαύσεώς μου;" d 3. καταλείπω δε ύμιν έπ' αύτων των prophecies, that you may with fitting discernment bring to an
'
β ιβλ ιων "β'
γενομενοις ' "εκεινων ε~'ι:.'
ακρι εστερον τας ετασαι προ Φ'
ητειας, end the abuse with which we are treated.
όπως μετα του προσήκοντος λογισμου την καθ' ήμας έπήρειαν
άποσκευάσησθε. 10. We haνe brought before you a God who is uncreated,
eternal, inνisible, impassible, incomprehensible, and infinite,
who can be apprehended by mind and reason alone, who is en-
10. ΤΟ μεν οδν άθεοι μη elvaL, ένα τον! άγΙνητον 2 και άίδιον και compassed by light, beauty, spirit, and indescribable power, and
άόρατον και άπαθη και άκατάληπτον και άχώρητον, νψ μ6νιΡ who created, adorned, and now rules the uniνerse through the
και \ λ'
ογιΡ κατα λ αμβ'
ανομενον, Φ'
ωη \
και κα'λλ ει και \ ,
πνευμαη και \ Word that issues from him. Ι haνe giνen sufficient evidence that
~, , ~,
ουναμει ανεκοιηγητιΡ περιεχομενον,
, υ
'Φ' ""
ου γεγενηται το παν οια
\,.. "" we are not atheists οη the basis of arguments presenting this God
(του παρ') αύτου 3 λόγου και διακεκόσμηται και συγκρατειται,
as one. I
2. For we think there is also a Son of God. Now let ηο one
θεον άγοντες, ίκανως μοι δΙδεικται. 4 2. νοουμεν γαρ και υίον του think that this talk of God haνing a Son is ridiculous. For we haνe
θεου. και μή μοι γελοι6ν ης νομίστι το υίον εlναι τψ θεψ. ού γαρ not come to our νiews οη either God the Father or his Son as do
ως ποιηται'θ'"
• μυ οποιουσιν ουοεν ''''' β εληους
' των....,αν θ' '"
ρωπων οεικνυντες, the poets, who create myths ίη which they present the gods as ηο
\
τους
θ ''''
εους, η περι
\ ..
του
θ . . \ \ '" \ ,.. .....
εου και πατρος η περι του υιου πε ρονη-
Φ , better than men. Οη the contrary, the Son ofGod is the Word of
the Father ίη Ideal Form and Energizing Power;2 fo1- iri-hls like-
καμεν, άλλ' έστιν ό υίος του θεου λόγος του πατρος έν lSlq. και
ness and ~hrough him all things came into existence, which
lvepγelq.· προς αύτου γαρ και δι' αύτου πάντα έγΙνετο, α ένος όντος presupposes that the Father and the Son are one. Now since the
του πατρος και του υίου. όντος SJ του υίου έν πατρι και πατρος έν Son is ίη the Father and the Father ίη the Son by a powerful
vicp b ένότηη και δυνάμει πνεύματος, νους και λόγος του πατρος ό 9. ι For the imagery see Plutarch (De Def. Orαc. 436 f) and Philo (Quis Rer.
Div. Heres 259).
9. α Baruch 3: 36 b Isa. 44: 6 C Isa. 43: 10-1 Ι d Isa. 66: Ι 10. ι The implication is that arguments οη other grounds are also possible.
10. α Cf.John Ι: 3 b Cf. John 10: 38 These Athenagoras proceeds to elaborate. This interpretation of the text fits ίη
well with what is said below ίη 10. 5.
9. 2 δε add. Gesner 3 άνοήτους Α: άνηκ60υς Schwartz: άμύ1]'Τους 2 It appears that a Platonic term (Form, Idea) is linked with one that is

Geffcken 4 όμοιος Α: corr. Otto 5 σώζ(ων) ίη mg. add. ΑΙ Aristotelian (Energizing Power, Act). The phrase as a whole, however, is
10. ι τόν ρ: τό Α 2 άγένVΗTOν Α 3 διαυτου Α: δια. 'Του αύτου Αι: corr. probably modelled οη the Stoic-Philonic distinction between the (cosmic)
Schwartz (cf. 4. 2) 4 post δέδεικται lacunam indicavit Schwartz: νοουμεν logos endiαthetos (containing all the Forms) and the logos prophorikos (as agent ίη
δε Gesner creation). Cf. Theophilus, Ad Autol. 2. 10,22.
22 ATHENAGORAS 10.2 11.2 LEGATIO 23
υιος
f \
του
,.. θ "" 3. ει,
εου.
δ ι
ε
δ"
ι VTTEptJo \ συνεσεως
,Q λ
ην
Ι Α
σκοπειν υμιν Uni ty of spiri t, the SQn of God iS the mind and reason of the
"
επεισιν, ο'Α
παις ΤιΙ βου'λ εται, ' "" δ ιαι β'
ερω ""
ραχεων' πρωτον ι
γεννημα Father.
εΖναι τφ πατρί, ούχ ώς γεν6μενον (έξ άρχης γαρ ό θε6ς, νους 3. If ίη your great wisdom you would like to know what 'Son'
,
αι'δ ιος ων, ειχεν
l' " Ι εν
αυτος
, "
εαυτ<ρ
"" ι
τον λ'
ογον, ,
αι δ ιως
ι λογικος "ων
' ), 'α λλ' means, Ι will tell you ίη a few brief words: it means that he is the
, ""
ως των υ'λ ικων ,.. ,
ξυμπαντων "
αποιου ,
Φ υσεως c καιι t ""
γης οχιας t5 '
υπο- first begotten ofthe Father. The term is used not because he came
κειμένων δίκην, μεμιγμένων των παχυμερεστέρων προς τα κου- into existence (for God, who is eternal mind, had ίη himself his
, d
Φ οτερα, "
επ
,
αυτοις ι
Α 'δ' ι, Ι l'
εα και ενεργεια ειναι, προε
λθ ων. ' 4. avvq,'δ ει Word or Reason from the beginning, since he was eternally
δ ι
ε
,..
τιρ
λ
'
ογιρ
Ι
και
Ι
το προ
Φ
ηηκον
\ ,.
πνευμα'
6'"
κυριος γαρ,
,,, Φ
ησιν,
, rational) but because he came forth to serνe as Ideal Form and
"εκησέν με άρχην όδων αύτου εις εργα αύτου."e καίτοι και αύτο Energizing Power for eνerything material which like an entity
το ένεργουν τοις έκΦωνουσι προΦηηκως αγιον πνευμα άπ6ρροιαν ! without qualities and ... underlies things ίη a state characterized
είναί Φαμεν του θεου, άπορρέον και έπαναΦερ6μενον ώς άκτινα by the mixture of heaνier and lighter elements.
'λ '
η ιου. 5. Τιςι ουν
7' , .,' Ι 1)7"
ουκ αν απopησα~ τους αγοντας
8 θεον
ι ,
πατερα
< 4. Tlle prophetic Spirit also agrees with this account. 'For the
και υίον θεον και πνευμα αγιον, δεικνύντας αύτων 9 και την έν Tfj Lord', it says, 'made me the beginning of his ways for his works.'
ένώσει δύναμιν και την έν Tfj τάξει δια{ρεσιι', άκούσαςΙΟ άθέους Further, this same holy Spirit, which is actiνe ίη those who speak
καλουμένους ,. και ούδ'lΙ έπι τούτοις το θεολογικον ~μων ισταται prophetically, we regard as an effluence of God which flows
μερος,, α'λλ α
ι καιι πλη
""θ ος "λ ων
αγγε καιι λ ειτουργων ,.. Φ αμεν, ους .,' ο forth from him and returns like a ray of the sun.
ποιητης και δημιουργος κ6σμου θεος δια του παρ' αύτου λ6γου 5. Who then would not-be amazed if he heard of men cal1ed
διένειμε και διέταξεν περί τε τα στοιχεια είναι και. τους ούρανσυς atheists who bring forward God the Father, God the Son, and
και τον κ6σμον και τα έν αύτφ και την τούτων εύταξίαν. the Holy Spirit and who proclaim both their power ίη their unity
and their diνersity ίη rank. Nor does our teaching concerning the
11 • ΕΙ' δ ει'
ακριβ""
ως δ ιε~ειμι
't τον κα θ"'"
' ημας λ'
ογον, ι
μη '
θαυμασητε' <,
ινα
Godhead stop there, but we also say that there is a host of angels
γαρ μη Tfj KOLvfj και άλ6γιρ συναποΦέρησθε γνώμrι, εχητε δε and ministers whom God, the Maker and Artificel' of the world,
' ει'δ εναι,
τα'λ η θ ες Ι 'βο λογουμαι' επει
ακρι ,Ι καιι "" δ'
ι '''''
αυτων των ,.. '
δ ογματων set ίη their places through the Word thatis~~e8_ from him and
'Ι'
οις ,
προσεχομεν, "
ουκ αν θρωπικοις
Λ 7'
ουσιν 'λλαι
α θ εο Φ'
ατοις καιι θ εο- whom he commanded to be concerned with the elements, the
heaνens, and the world with all that is ίη it and the good order of
διδάκτοις, πεισαι ύμας μη ώς περι άθέων έχειν δυνάμεθα. 2. τίνες
7'
ουν ημων οι
''''' '
'λ ογοι, οις
1" Φ 'θ
εντρε ομε α;
"λ εγω
ι • Λ Ι
υμιν' αγαπατε τους
, ,..
all that is ίη it.
έχθρους ύμων, εύλογειτε τους καταρωμένους, προσεύχεσθε ύπερ των
διωκ6ντων ύμας, όπως γένησθε υίοι του πατρος του έν τοις ούρανοις, 11. Do not be surprised that Ι go through our teaching ίn detail.
c\
ος τον
'f'A
TJ ιον αυτου "
, - ,ανατε'λλει επι ,\, θ ι
πονηρους και αγα ους και
ι β
ρεχ ει
, Ι am making my points carefully to preνent you from being
carried away by low and irrational ορίnίοη and to put you ίη a
10. C Cf. Plato, Tim. 50 C-5I b d Cf. Plato, Tim. 53 a-b e Prov. 8: 22 position to know the truth. For we can persuade you that you are
f Cf. Wisd. 7: 25 not dealing with atheists precisely through the doctrines which we
hold-doctrines not man-made but ordained anJ taught by
10. 5 γη!) οχια!> Α: γη!) άχρεΙα!> Maranus: άργη!> συστοιχΙα!> Schwartz: μεγάλη!>
God.
aut πολλη!> άψυxΙαs Geffcken: fortasse ύποδ6χη!> 6 :;n Α: corr. n Ρ
7 του!) add. Wilamowitz 8 αγοντα!> Schwartz: Ι Ι Ιγοντα!) Α: λέγοντα!)
2. What then are the teachings οη which we are brought up?
Αι 9 αύτόν Α: COl'r. m. rec. 10 άκουσασα Α: corr. Αι 1I ούδ' Ί say to you, loνe your enemies, bless them who curse you, pray
Wilamowitz: ούκ Α for them who persecute you, thatyou may be sons of your Father
24 ATHENAGORAS 11.2 12.2 LEGATIO 25
~
επι δ' \
ικαιους και \ α'δ'
ικους. "α 3. ~ 1.1.
επιτρεψατε Ι ~ "ο α
ενταυ του " λ ογου
ι ίη heaven who makes his sun rise upon the evil and the good, and

έξακούστου μετα πολλης Kpαvγfjς γεγονότος έπι παρρησΕαν sends rain οη the just and the unjust.'
Λ t ,
αναγαγειν, ως επι
, \ β λ ι
ασι εων
Φ ι λ οσο'Φ ων απο
'λ' ογουμενον. -τινες γαρ η
,\" 3. 8ince this teaching has made itself heard with a loud cry,
,.
των 'λλ
τους συ ογισμους '
\ ,αναλυοντων \"
και τας αμ Φ ιβ ο λ'
ιας δ ια λ υοντων
ι allow me here to proceed with full liberty of speech as one who
και τας
\ " ετυμο
λ' Φ Υ' "'" \, Ι \ ,
ογιας σα ηνι,:>οντων η των τα ομωνυμα και συνω-
is making his defence before philosopher kings. For which of
νυμα και Kατηγop~μαTα και άξιώματα και Tl το ύποκεΕμενον και those who solve syllogisms and eliminate ambiguities and trace
Tl το κατηγορούμενονt Ζ εύδαΕμονας άποτελείν δια τούτων και των etymologies or who ... homonyms and synonyms, predicates and
τοιούτων λόγων ύπισχνουνται τους συνόντας, ούτως έκκεκαΟαρ- propositions, what the subject is and what the predicate . . .
μενοι
ι ,\ \ .ι \
εισι τας ψυχας ως αν-τι του μισειν τους εχ
f , \...... "'" \, Ο "
ρους αγαπαν και
- , promise to make their followers happy with these and similar
άντι του, το μετριώτατον, κακως άγορεύειν τους προκατάρξαντας teachings-which ofthose, Ι say, are so pure ίη soul that they love
λοι δ οριας
'
ευ
'λ
ογειν,
Λ
και
" \
υπερ των
,.
επι
, β
ου
λ'
ευοντων
,
εις
\
το
Υ"
,:>ην
rather than hate their enemies, bless (as mo~t befits a man of
προσεύχεσΟαι; οί' τούναντΕον άει διατελουσι κακως τα άπόρρητα moderation) rather than speak evil of those who are prompt with
έαυτους ταυτα μεταλλεύοντες και άεΕ -τι έργάσασΟαι έπιΟυμουντες reproach for them, and pray for those who plot against their life?
κακόν, τ'χνην λόγων και ούκ έπΕδειξιν έργων το πραγμα πεποιη­ Οη the contrary, with ίΙΙ will they constantly dig up just such

μ'νοι. 4. παρα δ' ήμιν εύροιτε αν ίδιώτας και χεΙΡοτ'χνας και abuse against one another and constantly seek to bring off some
γραιοια, ει
.ι.ς,- , λ '
ογφ την ω
\ , Φ ε/\ειαν
1\ '" , 'δ ι , ,,,
παρισταν εισιν α υνατοι την παρα του
wickedness, for they have made the concoction of words their
'
λογου, "
εΡγφ , ' \ . . . . Ι 'Φ 'δ
την απο της προαιΡεσεως ω ε/\ειαν επι εικνυμενους·ι 1\ business rather than the doing of deeds.
ού γαρ λόγους διαμνημονεύουσιν, άλλα πράξεις άγαοας έπιδεικνύ­ 4. Ιη our ranks, however, you could find common men, artisans,
ουσιν, παιόμενοι μη άντιτύπτειν και άρπαζόμενοι μη δικάζεσΟαι, and old women who, if they cannot establish by reasoned dis-
τοις αίτουσιν διδόναι και τους πλησΕον άγαπαν ώς έαυτούς. b course the usefulness of their teaching, show by deed the useful-
ness of the exercise of their will. For they do not rehearse words
but show forth good deeds: when struck they do not strike back;
12 . 1'Λ
rtpa τοινυν,
, '\
ει μη ε
~Φ ι
εστηκεναι
Ο \
εον τφ των
'" .. 'ο'
αν ρωπων γενει
ι
when robbed they do not prosecute; they give to those who ask;
ένομΕζομεν, ούτως αν έαυτους έξεκαΟαΕρομεν; ούκ έστιν είπειν,
and they love their neighbours as themselves.
'λλ'
α ~,
επει 'Οα
πεπεισμε 'Φ ε~ειν
υ 'Ι: \
παντος ""
του "'Οα
ενταυ β'ιου λ'
ογον τφ '"
πεποιηκοτι
, και ημας
,t '" και
\ \ τον
,
κοσμον
θ....
εφ, τον
\ μετριον
, και
\ Φλ
ι-
12. 80 then, if we did not think that God presided over the
,
αν Ορωπον και " ευκατα Φ'
pOVΗTOν β'ιον αιΡουμε Ο α,
t, 'δ'εν
ου τη λ ικουτον '"
'Ο αι \ 'ενταυ"'ο α 'Υ .... ι human race, would we remain so pure? Certainly not! But since
πεισεσ κακον νομι,:>οντες " . .της
καν .. ./.
ψυχης t,.
ημας α'Φ αι-

"" l' ~ Λ 'Ο 2 του

ρωνται -τινες, ων εκει κομιουμε α
.... πραου
, και
\ Φλ Ο
ι αν ρωπου και
' \ we are convinced that we shall render an account of all our life
, '"
επιεικους ' 'του
β'ιου παρα ' ' μεγα'λου δ ικαστου. .. 2. '
Πλατων α μεν
' ουν
l' here below to the God who made both us and the world, we
ΊtK'
.ιγ.ιινω και\ 'Ρα δ'
αμαν ΟVV δ'
ικασειν και'λ '
κο ασειν τους πονηρους ε \ \ "4>η, choose the way of life that is moderate, that shows affection for
men, and that is thoughtlessly despised. We do not think that we
11. α Matt. 5: 44-5 (cf. Luk:e 6: 27-8) b Cf. Matt. 5: 39-40; Luke 6: 29- shall suffer so great an evil here below, even ifthey Γοb us of our
30; Matt. 22: 39 12. α Gorg. 523 c-524 a lives, that it may be compared to what we shall gain beyond from
11. ι έπιστρ'ψατε Α: corr. n 2 post καΤΤΙΥΟΡΟQμενΟν lacuna esse videtur:
the greatJudge ίη return for a way oflife thatis gentle, affectionate,
διδασκόντων add. Gesner and kind. 2. Plato said that Minos and Rhadamanthys would
12. ι της ψυχης Α: την ψυχην Schwartz: τας ψυχας Geffcken 2 ών έκει

ΚΟμ'ΟQμιθα fortasse ηοη sanum: οΙον έκιι ΚΟμ'ΟVμεθα μ,σθόν Wilamowitz

judge and punish evil men; we say that ηο one, not a Minos
26 ATHENAGORAS 12.2 13.2 LEGATIO 27
ήμε'ίς o~ καν ΜΕνως Τις καν (Ραδάμανθυς ύ καν ό τούτων πατήρ, or a Rhadamanthys or the father of them both, ι will escape the
,~, ,.., 3 Φαμεν σια
ουσε τουτον
~ Φ ευ~εσ ' κρισιν
't θαι την , ,.. θ'"
του εου. 3. ει"'θ' οι( judgement of God.
,
μεν τον 'Υ ,..
'β'ιον τουτον νομι,:>οντες "Φ'
αγωμεν "
και πιωμεν, αυριον γαρ " , 3. And yet are those to be credited with piety who think that
απο θ'
, ντισκομεν "b"
και τον θ' ανατον β α θ'"υν υπνον και, λη'θ ην Τι θ εμενοι-
' the way to live is this, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die',
" υπνος
" και, θανατος
' ~ δ υμαονε
οι ' ' ' 4'C--πιστευονται
' θ εοσεβ ειν'
Λ αν θρωποι .,
and claim that death is a deep sleep and a forgetting ('sleep and
Ο ε" τον μεν
" ενταυ"'θ α ο'λ'ιγου και, μικρου,.. Τινος α~ιoν
"t β'ιον λελογισμενοι,
' death are twin brothers')? And are we at the same time to be con-
ύπο μόνου δε παραπεμπόμενοι TOV τον 5 σντως 6 θεον και τον παρ' sidered irreligious despite the fact that to escape condemnation
αύτοv λόγον εΙο'ναι, τΕς ή TOV παιοος προς τον πατ'ρα ένότης, τΕς our behaviour and our way of life are of so different a character?
(' - \ \ ,Ι\ " , _ Ι Ι _
η του πατρος προς τον υιον κοινωνια, Τι το πνευμα, Τις η των For we are men who consider life here below ofvery little worth.
τοσούτων ένωσις και οιαΕρεσις ένουμ'νων, TOV πνεύματος, TOV \Ve are attended only by the knowledge of him who is truly God
παιδός, TOV πατρός, πολυ o~ και κρεΕττον' η εΙπε'ίν λόγψ τον έκ- and of the ννord that issues fIorn him-a knowledge as to what is
~,
σεχομενον 7 β'ιον ει'ο'
οτες, "
εαν κα θ'"
αροι οντες "
απΌ παντος , παρα- the unity of the Son with the Father, what is the communion of
πεμ '"
Φθωμεν 'ο'
α ~,
ικηματος, μεχρι τοσουτου οε , , '
Φ ι λ αν θρωποτατοι "
ωστε tlle FatheI with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of
μη " , 'Φ'λ
μονον στεργειν τους ι ους (""εαν , ,
γαρ αγαπατε, ,.." ' " τους
Φησι, , these poweIs-the Spirit, the Son, and the Father-and their
άγαπωντας και οανεΕζητε 8 το'ίς οανεΕζουσιν ύμ'ίν, τΕνα μισθον diversity when thus united. We know that the life we await is far
"t
E~εTε;
") , d τοιουτοι
,.. ~,ι Λ" " ,..
σε ημεις οντες και τον τοιουτον
β'"
ιουντες
β'
ιον better than words can tell if we are brought there pure from all
ίνα KPLefjvaL διαΦύγωμΕν, άπιστούμεθα θεοσεβε'ίν; blame. We sho"v such affection for men that we love not only our
4. TaVTa μεν οΟν μικρα άπο μεγάλων και όλΕγα άπο πολλων, ίνα friends; 'for', it says, 'if you love them who love you and lend to
μη έπι πλε'ίον ύμιν ένοχλοΕημεν' και γαρ το μ'λι και τον όρον ΟΟΚΙ­ them who lend to you, what reward will you have?'
μάζοντες μικρψ μ'ρει TOV παντος το παν εΙ καλον Οοκιμάζουσιν.9. 10 4. These points, then, represent a few small matters from among
many important ones-few and small that we may not further
13. 'Επει 0~1 οί πολλοι των έπικαλούντων ήμιν την άθεότητα ούο' burden you; for those who test the quality of honey and whey
όναρ Tl έσΤι θεον 2 έγνωκότες, άμαθε'ίς και άθεώρητοι όντες TOV can tell if the whole is good by tasting one small sample.
Φ υσικου,..,,..
και του
,.. λογου,
θ εο λ ογικου ' "'" ~R
μετρουντες την EvaEj'JELav
,..
θ υσιων

νόμψ, έπικαλοvσιν το μη και τους αύτους ταις πόλεσι θεους αγειν, 13. Since the majority of those accusing us of atheism-though
'./.
σΚΕψασ ε
' θ
μοι,
, , '"
αυτοκρατορες, ωοε
~ ,(,
περι εκατερων,
,,.. ,
και πρωτον γε
they have not even the foggiest notion of the nature of God, are
περι TOV μη θύειν. 2. ό TOVOE TOV παντος ΟημιουΡγος και πατηρ ού
ignorarit of scientific or theological doctl'ine and have ηο ac-
οε'ίται αίματος oύo~ κνΕσης ούδε τfjς άπο των άνθων και θυμια­ quaintance with them, and measure piety ίη terms of sacrifices-
μάτων εύωοΕας, αύτος ών ή τελεΕα εύωοΕα, άνενοεης και άπροσΟεής·
since they accuse us of not recognizing the same gods as do the
cities, Ι ask you to take the following into account, my sovereigns,
12. b Isa. 22: 13; ι Cor. 15: 32 C Homer, Iliαd 16. 672 d Matt. 5: 46; ίη dealing with both issues. First, concerning our refusal to sacri-
Luke 6: 32,34
fice.
12. 3 τουτων Α: corr. Αι .. ύπνφ και θανάτφ διδυμάονε Α: corr. 2. The Artificer and Father of this universe needs ηο blood,
Wilamowitz 5 του τόν Maranus: τουτον Α: τούτου Αι 6 όντωι;
fat, or the fragrance of flowers and incense. He himself is the
Schwar~z: ον ί~ωι; Α 7 εKδ;xoμέν~ν Α: c?rr. ~I , ,8 δανεtζε:ε Α:
corr. WllamowItz 9 αδοκιμαζουσιν επειδη οι πο'\'\οι . . . Kνισrι τε perfect fragrance and is ίη need of nothing from wj·thin or with-
παρατροπωσιν (13. 4): ea quae supra (vide 7. ι) addidit Α siglo a indicavi out. The best sacrifice to him is for us to know who stretched out
10 άδοκιμάζουσιν a
13. ι έπειδη a 2 Tt εσnν ό θεόι; a 12. ι Zeus.
 28 ATHENAGORAS 13.2 14. ι LEGATIO 29
άλλα θυσtα αύτψ μεγtστη, αν γινώσκωμεν τtς έξ€Tεινε και συνε- the heavens and gave them their spherical form and established
σΦ αιρωσεν
ι
τους
\,
ουρανους
\
και
\ \
την γην κεντρου
... ι δΙ"δ
ικην η ρασε, ης
Ι the earth as a centre, who brought together water into seas and
,
συνηγαγεν το
'''δ'
υ ωρ εις
θ α λ'
ασσας και
δ ιεκρινεν
Ι ,
,,/..,':'.',
το ~ς απο του
..... divided the light from the darkness, who adorned the sky with
stars and caused the earth to make every seed spring up, who made
σκότους, Ttso έκόσμησεν αστροις τον αΙθέρα και έποtησεν παν
animals and formed man. 3. So then, when we regard the
Ι
σπερμα την
' ' γην
"'' αναβ α'λλ ειν, ' "εποιησεν
ης Υ.....'"
~ψα και αν θΡωπον Artificer as a God who conserνes and governs all things with the
α
έπλασεν. 3. όταν <οον)3 έχοντες τον δημιουΡγον θεον συνέχοντα knowledge and skill by which he guides them and we raise up
και έποπτεύοντα4 έπιστ-ήμυ και τέχνυ καθ' -ην άγει τα πάντα, holy hands to him, what further need does he have of any
"
επαιρωμεν οσιους χειρας
~, ... bαυτψ,
'''' ι"
ποιας εη χρειαν εκατομ
'~'β"
ης εχει,.
hecatomb?
4. And men ίη their petitions, when one sins and errs,
4. και TOVS' μJν θυσtTJσι και ευχωλΏς dyavfjaL Turn some of them I aside with sacrifices
λοιβTJ.....'
τε κνισυ τε παρατρωπωσ
. . . , αν
"θ
ρωποι, And pleasing votive gifts, with libation and with fat.
λ ' ., ,Q' , Ι
ισσομενοι, οτε κεν τις V7TεpfJaLTJ και αμαρττι.
C• 'f
But what have Ι to do with whole burnt offerings which God does
not need? And what have Ι to do with sacrificing, since what is
η , δ ε'5 μοι '
ο(λ οκαυτωσεων, 1"
ων μη δ""
ειται ο '
θ εος,. και'6 προσΦ ερειν,
Ι required is to offer up our l'ational worship as an unbloody
δέον άναtμακτον evatav7 την λογικην προσάγειν AaTpElav,.d sacrifice?

14. What they have to say about our not coming forward and
recognizing the same gods as the cities is very sil1y. Even those
14. '0 SJ ΠεΡι του μηι προσιέναι και τοvς atJTOVS' ταις πόλεσιν who accuse us of atheism for not acknowledging the same gods
θεοvς αγειν πάνυ αύτοις εύήθης λόγος· άλλ' otJSJ οί ήμιν έπικα- they know do not agree with each other about the gods: the
...
λουντες 'θ'
α ,\'" 'Υ
εοτητα, επει μη τους αυτους οις ισασι νoμι~oμεν, σΦ'
ισιν \ ... " Athenians set up Celeus and Metaneira I as gods; the Lacedae-
αύτοις συμΦwνoυσιν περι θεων [μάτην],2 άλλ' Άθηναιοι 3 μJν Κ"ελεον monians, Menelaus (to whom they sacrifice and celebrate
και Μετάνειραν ίδρυνται θεούς, Λακεδαιμόνιοι δΕ Μενέλεων και festivals); the Trojans (who do not eνen want to hear the name
of Menelaus) bring forward Hector; the Chians, Aristaeus 2
θύουσιν αύτψ και έορτάζουσιν, Ίλιεις SJ otJSJ το όνομα άκούοντες
(acknowledging him as both Zeus and Αρο110); the Thasians,
"Εκτορα Φ ερουσιν,
Ι Τ.Τ'"
ι\.ειοι
4 'Λ
.ι-1ρισταιον,
... 5 τον
' ,\
αυτον και
\ Δ'
ια
\
και Theagenes (who eνen committed murder at the Olympian
'Λ 'λλω 6 νoμι~oνTες,
.ι-1ΠΟ 'Υ Θ Ι
Η ασιοι Θ ι
Η εαγενην, υ'Φ' ου 'Φ ονος
l ' και Ι 'Ολυμ- games);3 the Samians, Lysander 4 for so much slaughter and
,
7Τιασιν
, ,
εγενετο,
ΣΙ
αμιοι
Λ' δ
υσαν ρον ε7ΤΙ
" τοσαυταις
, ,/..".....
σψu-γαις
\
και destruction; the Cilicians, ... ; the Sicilians, Philip the son of
τοσούτοις κακοις, tΆλκμαν και Ήσtοδος Μ-ήδειαν η Νιόβηνt Butacides; the Amathusians, Onesilaus; the Carthaginians,
Hamilcar. 5 Α day would not suffice for me to complete the
Κίλικες, Σικελοι φtλΙ7Τπον τον BOVTaKtsOV, 'OyηalAaov Άμαθούσιοι,
catalogue.
'Λ '\
.ι-1μιl\καν Τ.Τ
ηαρχη δ' 'λ ειψει με ηf ημερα
ονιοι' ε7ΤΙ f Ι το\ π λ'"'θ'.1.
η ος κατα λ'
εγοντα.
13. ι i.e. some of the gods.
14. ι King and queen at Eleusis at the time of Demeter's visit. Evidence for
13. α Cf. Gen. 1 b Cf. ι Tim. 2: 8 c Homer, Iliad 9. 499-501 (cf. Plato, divine honours paid to the pair is at best obscure (cf. Pausanias 1. 39. 2).
Rep. 364 d) d Cf. Rom. 12: 1 :Ζ Son of Αροllο and Cyrene ofThessaly. Α rustic deity known as the inventor
of bee-keeping, olive-growing, and some kinds of hunting (Rose, Handbook,
ρ. 144)·
13. 3 ογν
add. Maranus 4 lacunam post έποπτεύοντα indicavit Schwartz 3 There is some confusion here since the athlete's statue alone seems to have
5 τΙ δε Α: τί δεί
Schwartz 6 και Α: κα{τοι Αι: lacunam indicavit been charged with murder (Pausanias 6. 1 ι). Ubaldi suggests that accounts con-
Schwartz 7 post θυσ{αν add. και Α ι
cerning Theagenes and a certain Cleomedes became mixed (cf. Pausanias 6.9).
14. ι μη περι τοϋ Α: corr. Gesner :Ζ μάτην seclusit Maranus 4 For this famous case see Plutarch (Lys. 18).
3 Ά.θήναισι Α 4 Κείοι Otto: και χι οι Α 5 άριστέων Α: corr. Ρ 5 The last three names appear to be derived from Herodotus (5. 47; 5. ~°4-
6 Ά. πάλλω: πολλψ Α
14; 7. 167)·
30 ATHENAGORAS 14.2 15.4 LEGATIO 31

2. rι 'r ,\tΑς:.φ
οταν ουν αυτοι αυτοις οια
- ,-
ωνωσιν 7Τερι των κατ
"'θ-
αυτους εων, τι
, 2. Since they themselνes are ίη disagreement about their own
t
ημιν μη
Α ,
συμ
Φ , ,
εΡομενοις ε7Τικα ουσιν;
λ - το
, ς:.,
οε κατ
, Α' , ,
ιγυ7ΤΤιους μη gods, why do they accuse us of not conforming? Ι cannot help
Kat γελοίΌν ύ' τύ7Ττονται ydp έν τοις ίεΡοις Td στήθη KaTd TdS" thinking that what goes οη among the Egyptians is ridiculous.
For οη their festiνals they go to the temples and beat their breasts
7Τανηγύρεις ώς J7Tt τετελευτηκ6σιν Kat θύουσιν ώς θεοΙς. Kat ούδεν as though lamenting the dead, and yet they sacrifice to them as
θαυμαστ6ν' ot γε και Td eTJpla θεους αγουσιν και ξυρωνται J7TEt though to gods! And ηο wonder, considering the fact that they
ά7Τοθνύσκουσιν, και θά7Ττουσιν έν ίεΡοις Kat δημοτελεις ΚΟ7Τετους regard animals as gods, shaνe themselνes \vhen the creatures die,
, ι
εγειΡουσιν.
Ι,... ι/
3. αν τοινυν ημ€ις, ΟΤΙ μη κοινως εκεινοις εοσε ουμεν,
"1\' , -" θ β_
bury them ίη temples, and initiate public laments. 3. If we are
'β-
ασε ωμεν, -
7Τασαι "λ
μεν '
7ΤΟ εις, 7Ταντα ~'''θ
οε 'β'"
ε νη ασε " γαρ τους
ουσιν' ου, \ irreligious because our religiosity has nothing ίη common with
theirs, all cities and all nations are irreligious; for all men do not
αύτους 7Τάντες αγουσι θεούς.
recognize the same gods.

15. Ά.λλ' εστωσαν τους αύτους αγοντες. Tl οδν; έ7Τει οί 7Τολλοt 15. But suppose that they all did recognize the same ones. What
then? Since the crowd, ίη its inability to distinguish what is
διακριναι ού δυνάμενοι, TL μεν ύλη, Tl δε θε6ς, 7Τ6σον δε το SLd matter, what is god, and what a gulf there is between them,
μέσου αύτων, 7Tpoalaat τοις ά7ΤΟ της ύλης είδώλοις, δι' lKElvovςo Kat reνerently approaches material images, are we" οη their account
ήμεις οί διακρlνοντες και ΧωρlζΟντες το άγένητον Ι και το γενητ6ν, also to draw near and worship statues-we who do distinguish
το ον και το ούκ ον, το νοητον και το αίσθητ6ν, και €KάσTφ αύτων το and diνide the uncreated from ~he creat~d, being from non-being,
7Τροσηκον ονομα ά7Τοδιδ6ντες, 7Τροσελευσ6μεθα και 7Τροσκυνήσομεν
the intelligible from the perceptible, and who giνe each of them
ί ts proper name?
Td άγάλματα; 2. ει μεν ydp ταύτον ύλη και θε6ς, δύο όν6ματα καθ' 2. Το be sure, ifmatter and God are the same-two names for
€νOς 7Τράγματος, τους λlθoυς και τα ξύλα, τον χρυσον και τον one thing-then we are irreligious if we do not regard stones and
"
αργυρον ου"Υ
νOμΙ~OνTες θ"
εους ασεβ ουμεν' ει οε - ,
S: \ δ ιεστασι 7Ταμ7ΤΟ λ υ ... , wood, gold and silνer, as gods. But if there is a νast difference
ά7Τ' άλλήλων και τοσουτον όσον TExvlTTJS" Kat ή 7Τρος την τέχνην between them, as much as there is between the artisan and the
αύτου 7Ταρασκευή, Tl έγκαλούμεθα; ώς Ydp ό κεραμευς και ό materials proνided for his craft, why are we accused? As with
7Τηλ6ς, ύλη μεν ό 7Τηλ6ς, TExvlTTJS" δε ό κεραμεύς, και ό θεος2 the potter and the clay, the clay is the matter and the potter the
δημιουργ6ς, ύ7Τακούουσα δε αύτψ ή ύλη 7Τρος την τέχνην. άλλ' ώς artisan, so God is the artificer and matter is subserνient to him
ό 7Τηλος καθ' €αυTOν σκεύη γενέσθαι χωρις τέχνης άδύνατος, και for the exercise of his craft. As the clay by itself cannot turn into
νessels without a man's craft, so also matter, which is receptiνe to
ή 7Τανδεχης ύλη άνευ του θεου του δημιουΡγου διάκρισιν και
... " "λ' β δ' , \ , all modifications, did not receiνe articulation, form, and order
σχημα και κοσμον ουκε αμ ανεν. 3. ως
t
ε ου τον κεραμον
, - , ,~\, ,
Φ ια'λας και "" ' without God the artificer. 3. Now we do not regard the pottery
7ΤΡΟΤιμοτερον του εργασαμενου αυτον εχομεν ουοε τας
as worth more honour than its maker nor the cups and gold
χρυσίδας του χαλκεύσαντος, άλλ' Et Τι 7Τερι JKElvar; δεξιον KaTd την
, , , , '" ,..,." t \', ....
νessels as worth more honour than the smith; but we praise the
τεχνην, τον τεχνιτην ε7Ταινουμεν και ουτος εσΤιν ο την ε7ΤΙ τοις
craftsman if there is something fine about his craftsmanship, and
σκεύεσι δ6ξαν καΡ7Τούμενος, και έ7ΤΙ της ύλης και του θεου της he is the one who gains a reputation for his νessels. Similarly, ίη
διαθέσεως των κεκοσμημένων ούχ 3 ή4 ύλη την δ6ξαν και την τιμην the case of matter and God, not matter but God its artificer
δικαίαν εχει, άλλ' ό δημιουΡγος αύτης θε6ς. 4. ώστε,S ει Td EtST} justly receiνes the praise and honour for the arrangement and
της ύλης αγοιμεν θεούς, άναισθητειν του όντως θεου δ6ξομεν, Td good order of things.
λυτα' και\ Φθ αρτα' τφ
-,αισιφ
~, 'i: -
ες ισουντες. 4. Consequently, if we should recognize material forms as
gods, it will be seen that we are blind to him who is truly God by
15. ι άΥ'νvητοv Α :2 post θεδς lacunam indicavit Wilamowitz 3 ovx equating perishable and corruptible things with that which is
add. Αι .. ή add. Schwartz 5 ώς Α: corr. Gesner eternal.
32 ATHENAGORAS 16. ι 16.5 LEGATIO 33'

16. Καλος μ~ν γαρ ό κ6σμος Kα~ τψ μεγlθει TTEpLlxwv Kα~ ήj 16. The world, to be sure, is beautiful and excels ίη its size, ίn its
διαθlσει των τε έν τψ λοξψ κύκλψ Kα~ των πεp~ την αρκτον Kα~ τψ arrangement of the things ίn the ecliptic and about the pole, and
σχημαη , σ Φ αιΡΙΚΨ """
ονη' 'λλ"
α ου τουτον, " \ \
'λλ α τον τεχνιτην
α Ι αυτου
''''' ίn its spherical shape. Not the world, however, but its Maker
προσκυνητεον.
ι ,<;.' \
2. ουοε γαρ οι προς υμας α ικνουμενοι υπηκοοι \ Ι , t "" 'Φ , " ought to be worshipped. 2. Your subjects who come to you do
παραλιπ6ντες ύμας τοvς αρχοντας Kα~ δεσπότας θεραπεύειν παρ' not neglect waiting upon you, their rulers and masters, and run
~ν αν, <d}v)I δέοιντο, Kα~ τύχοιεν, έπ~ το σεμνον της KαTαγωγf]ς for help to the splendour of your lodging (for it is from you that
t .... Φ
υμων κατα ευγουσιν,
2 , ~ \ \ \
αιv\α την μεν
, \ β
ασι
λ ' Ι
ικην εσηαν,
Ι ,"\\
την αιv\ως
they would receive their requests); they casually admire the
έντυχόντες αύτυ, θαυμάζουσι καλως ήσκημlνην, ύμας δ~ πάντα έν
imperial residence for its beautiful appointments when they reach
it, but it is you whom they honour as all ίn all. 3. Now you as
πασιν αγουσι Tfj δόξυ.3. και ύμείς μεν οί βασιλείς έαυτοίς άσκείτε
, 'β λ '
t <;.'\ Ι ,t ~, ""θ "" emperors adorn imperial lodgings for yourselves; but the world
τας καταγωγας ασι ικας, ο οε κοσμος ουχ ως οεομενου του εου
,
γεγονεν'
,
παντα
,ι
γαρ ο
θ ι,
εος εσην
,\
αυτος
Ι"
αυτψ,
Φ""
ως
'Ι
απροσιτον,
α did not come into being because God needed it. For God is him-
self all things to himself: inaccessible light, a complete world,
κόσμος τlλειος, πνευμα, δύναμις, λόγος. εί τοίνυν έμμελες ό κόσμος
spirit, power, reason. Thus if the world is a harmonious instru-
ΟΡγανον κινούμενον έν ρυθμψ, τον άρμοσάμενον και πλήσσοντα τοvς
ment rhythmically moved, Ι worship not the instrument but the
'
Φθογγους ",
και το συμΦ ωνον "~
ETTq.OOVTa '\
μεl\ος, ου το ""οργανον προ σ-
one who tuned and strikes the strings and sings to its accompani-
κυνω· ούδε γαρ έπι των άγωνιστων παραλιπόντες οί άθλοθlται
τους
, κι
θ αριστας, ' τας
'θ'
κι αρας στε
Φ"
ανουσιν
,....
αυτων'
.,
ειτε,
3 ι
ως ο
t
ment the melodious strain. Judges do not neglect the players ίn a
"" ,... \ " contest and crown their lyres instead! Η, as Plato says, the world
Πλατων
ι b"L".. ι,
ψ,ρι, τεχνη
"" θ εου, θαυμα'ζων
του αυτου το κα
'λλ ος Τψ
is God's craftsmanship, though Ι admire its beauty, Ι reverently
TEXvlTΊJC πρόσειμι' είτε ούσία και σωμα, ώς οί άπο του Περιπάτου,
draw near to the craftsman. If it is substance and body as the
ού παραλιπόντες προσκυνείν τον αίηον της κινήσεως του σώματος
Peripatetics say,I we do not neglect worshipping God, the cause
θεον έπι τα πτωχα και άσθενη aTOLXELad καταπίπτομεν, Τψ άπαθεί
of bodily motion, and fall back upon the beggarly and weak
dlpL κατ' αύτοvς την παθητην ύλην προσκυνουντες' είτε δυνάμεις
elements, worshipping passible matter because of the air which
του θεου τα μlΡη του κόσμου νοεί ης, ού τας δυνάμεις προσι6ντες
they regard as impassible. 2 Ifa man regards the parts ofthe world
θεραπεύομεν, άλλα τον ποιητην αύτων και δεσπ6την. 4. ούκ αίτω
as powers of God, we will not draw near and serve these powers,
την ύλην ά μ~ έχει, oύδ~ παραλιπων τον θεον τα στοιχεία θεραπεύω,
but their Maker and Ruler.
ο[ς μηδεν πλlον η4 όσον έκελεύσθησαν έξεσην' εί γαρ Kα~ καλα
4. Ι do not ask of matter what it does not have; nor do Ι
ίδείν Tfj του δημιουργου TlXvn, άλλα λυΤ<15 Tfj της ύλης Φύσει.
neglect God to serνe the elements which can do ηο more than what
μαρτυρεί δε τψ λόγψ τούτψ Kα~ Πλάτων' "δν" γαρ 'Όύραν6ν" ,
Φησι,Ι" και" κοσμον ,
επωνομακαμεν, πολλ"" ,
ων μεν μετεσχηκε <
και ')6
they have been commanded. For though they are beautiful to
see because of the Artificer's craftsmanship, they are perishable
μακαριων
ι
παρα
\"
του πατρος,
" ,
αταρ ουν
l' ~
U'I κεκοινωνηκε
, <
και
')6
because of the very nature of matter. Plato too supports this
,
σωματος'
"θ'
ο εν αυτψ
... μεταJ-lΟ ης
Q λ" ,ι
αμοιΡΨ τυγχανειν
,,~ ,
αουνατον.
"e
teaching: 'For', he says, 'that which we call heaven and the
5. εί τοίνυν θαυμάζων τον ούρανον Kα~ τα στοιχεία της τlχνης ού
world has received many blessed qualities from the Father; but
then too it has a share ίn bodily nature; consequently it cannot be
16. α Cf. ι Tim. 6: 16 b Cf. Tim. 33 c C Cf. Wisd. 13: ι; Rom. ι: 25 free from change.' 5. Ifthen Ι admire the sky and the clements as
d Cf. Gal. 4: 9 e Politic. 269 d
16. ι Possibly an echo of the early Aristotle (Lazzati, LΆristοtele perduto,
16. ι ιlίν
add. Wilamowitz :: ΦεύΥουσιν Α: κατα superscr. Αι 3 ε{τε ρρ. 70-2; cf. Aetius, Plαc. 5. 20. Ι).
Ρ ίn mg.: έστε Α .. 11 add. ίn mg. m. rec. Α 5 άλλα λυτa Schwartz: :: Aristotle is said to have taught that the 'aether' was 'impassible' (Aetius,
άλλ' αύτα Α 6 και bis add. Schwartz Plαc. 2. 7. 5); but some manuscripts read 'air' instead of 'aether'.
8268084, D
34 ATHENAGORAS 16·5 17·4 LEGATIO 35
'Προσκυνω αυτα ώς θεοvς εΙδως τον έ'Π' αύτοις της λvσεως λ6γον, products of his craftsmanship and yet do not worship them as
ών οΙδα άνθρώ'Πους δημΙΟVΡγοvς, 'Πως ταυτα 'Προσεί7Τω θεοvς; gods, since Ι know the law of dissolution which governs them,
how can Ι call things gods which Ι know were made by men?
17. Σκέψασθε δέ μοι δια βραχέων (άνάγκη δε ά7Τολογοvμενον
'R'
αΚΡΙjJεστεροvς
,
7Ταρεχειν τους
\ \ \ ... , ,
ογισμους και 7Τερι των ονοματων,
\λ
17. Ι ask you to examine them briefly. For it is necessary ίη
ση νεώτερα, και 7Τερι των εΙκόνων, ση χθες και 7Τρψην γεγ6νασιν defending my cause to make precise obserνations both about
ώς λόγψΙ εΙ7Τειν' ίστε δε και ύμεις ταυτα άξιολογώτερον ώς αν έν their names, showing that they are very recent, and about their
...
7Τασιν και
\~\,
V7TEp
7Ταντας τοις
.. 7Τ
aλ
αιοις
.. συγγιγνομενοι
'),.L",.\
' ψι/μι l'
ουν images, showing that they were made, so to speak, οηlΥ yesterday
'Ο Φ'
Ρ εα και
\ "0 μηρον και
\ t U , δ l' \ \, \ , ,
Ωσιο ον ειναι τους και γενη και ονοματα or the day before. You yourselves know these things better than Ι,
δ6ντας 2 τοις ύπ' αύτων λεγομένοις θεοις, 2, μαρτυρει δε και since you are deeply versed beyond all others ίη the ancients.
ΙΗρόδοτος' "ΙΗσίοδον γαρ και 'Όμηρον ήλικίην τετρακοσίοισι Ι say, then, that it was Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod who gave
"
ετεσι 3 δ'
οκεω 7Τρεσβ'
υτερους εμου γενεσ ,...
'θ αι, και ου 7Τλ' 'f'
ειοσι' ουτοι \, δ'
ε genealogies and names to those they called gods, 2. Herodotus
εΙσιν οί 7Τοιήσαντες θεογονίην rιEλλησι και τοισι θεοισι τας έ7Τωνυ­ also provides proof of this: 'For Ι think that Hesiod and Homer
μίας δ6ντες και ημάς τε και τέχνας διελ6ντες και ε ϊδεα αύτων preceded me by four hundred years, and not more. They are the
σημηναντες,
, " α
3, αι
Ι δ' " ,
λ ,
Φ
εικονες μεχρι μη7Τω 'Π ασηκη και γρα ικη
\ \ \ ones who provided the 9E~~S. with a genealogy of the gods, gave
και άνδριανΤΟ7Τοιηηκη ήσαν, ούδε ένομίζοντο' Σαυρίου δε του names to the gods, distributed to them their honours and crafts,
Σαμίου και Κράτωνος του Σικυωνίου και Κλεάνθους του Κορινθίου and described their appearances.'
και ΚΟΡης
\, .n.OpLV
U θ" , \ Φ' \ ~ θ'
ιας ε7Τιγενομενων και σκιαγρα ιας μεν ευρε εισης 3. Images were not ίη use before the discovery of moulding,
V7TO\
~ ~
""αυριου
, , ,Ι7Τ7Τον εν'Ιλ'
η ιψ
'./.
7Τεριγραψαντος,
Φ . . δ ε\ υ7ΤΟ
γρα ικης
t \ painting, and sculpture. Then came Saurius of Samos, Crato of
Κράτωνος έν 'Πίνακι λελευκωμένψ σκιας άνδρος και γυναικος Sicyon, Cleanthes of Corinth, and the Corinthian maid. Tracing
,
ενα
'./. ' \ \...
λ ειψαντος ,-α7ΤΟ δ ε τψ; κορης η~ κορο7Τ λα θ ικη , ~ 'θη
\4 ευρε ('ερωηκως
... out shadows was discovered by Saurius, who drew the outline of
γαρ
, ηνος
"
εχουσα
' . / . ' ...
7ΤεΡιεγραψεν αυτου
' "
κοιμωμενου εν τοιχψ την
\ a horse standing ίη the sun. Painting was discovered by Crato, who
σκιάν, εΙθ' ό 'Πατηρ ήσθεις ά7TαpaλλάKTψ ούσTl Tfj όμοιότηη­ coloured ίη the outlines of the shadows of a man and woman οη
κέραμον δε εlΡγάζετο-άναγλvψας T~ν 7ΤεριγραΦΤιν 'Πηλψ 'ΠΡΟ σ- a whitened tablet. Relief modelling was discovered by the Corin-
\ ... , U , θ ) ,
ανε7Τληρωσεν' ο τυ7Τος εη και νυν εν .n..OPLV Ψ σψ~εTαι ,-τουτοις
' Ι," 'Υ
thian maid: she fell ίη love with someone and traced the outline
δε έ7Τιγεν6μενοι Δαίδαλος, Θεόδωρος, Σμιλ ις 5 άνδpιανT07ToιηηK~ν of his shadow οη the wall as he slept; then her father, a potter,
και 'Πλαση~ν 7Τροσεξευρον, 4. ό μεν δ~ χρ6νος όλίγος τοσουτος
delighted with so precise a likeness, made a relief of the outline
ταις εΙκόσι και
Tfj 7Τερι τα είδωλα 7Τραγματείq., ώς έχειν εΙ7Τειν τον
Ι , 'θ'" \ \ \ , 'Ε',/..' 'Α 'δ .. \ and filled it with clay; the relief is preserved to this very day ίη
εκαστου τεχνιτην εου, το μεν γαρ εν ψεσψ της nΡτεμι ος και
Corinth. After these there came Daedalus, Theodore, and Smilis,
το της Άθηνας (μαλλον δε Άθηλας' tάθήλη6 γαρ ώς οί μυσηκώτερον
ουτω
., γαρ
\ t) το
\ α7ΤΟ
, \ της
... 'λ ι
ε αιας το
\
7Τα
λ \
αιον και
\ \
την
U
.nα
θ '
ημενην
who went further and discovered sculpture and moulding .
4. So short, then, is the time since the introduction of images
17. α Herod. 2. 53 and the making of statues that it is possible to name the crafts-
17. ι λόγος Α:
corr. Ducaeus, Stephanus 2 τους και γένη και όνόματα man of each God. Endoios, a disciple of Daedalus, made the
δόντας infra post πλΕ{οσι coll. Α: corr. Otto 3 'ΤΕτρακοσΙΕΤΕσι Α: 'ΤΕΤΡ α- statue of Artemis ίη Ephesus and the ancient olive statue of
κοσ{οις έΤΕσι Α ι : ΤΕτρακοσ{οισι έΤΕσι Herodotus 4 κοροπαλθικη Α:
corr, Ρ 5 Σμίλις Schwartz: ό μιλ{σιος Α 6 άθήλη Wilamowitz: Athene (or rather of Athela; for she is Athela, the unsuckled, as
άθηλα. Α those ... the more mystical sense ... ) and the Seated Athena.
36 ATHENAGORAS 17·4 18·3 LEGATIO 37
'Ένδοιος7 είΡγάσατο μαθητης Δαιδάλου, ό δ~ Πύθιος έργον Θεο­ The Pythian ΑροlΙο is the work of Theodore and Telecles. The
δώρου και Τηλεκλέους και ό Δήλιος και ή :Άρτεμις Τεκταίου 8 και Delian ΑροlΙο and the Artemis are the craftsmanship of Tectaeus
Ά.γγελίωνος τέχνη, ή δ~ έν Σάμψ 'Ήρα και έν :Άργει Σμίλιδος and Angelio. The Hera ίη Samos and ίη Argos are the works of
χειρες και tΦειδίου τα λοιπα είδωλαt 9 ή Ά.φροδίτη έν Κνίδψ Smilis ... The Aphrodite ίη Cnidus is another work of Praxiteles.
έτέρα Πραξιτέλους τέχνη, ό έν Έπιδαύρψ ΆσκληΠΙ6ς έργον The Asclepius ίη Epidaurus is the work of Phidias.
Φ ει δ ιου.
' '
5. συνε λοντα Φ αναι, ου'δ εν ,
' αυτων
'~δ ιαπε'Φ ευγεν το μη υπ " ,, 5. Το put it ίη a word, not one of their images eludes identi-
ανθρώπου γεγονέναι. εί τοίνυν θεοί, τί ούκ ήσαν έξ αρχης; τί fication as the work of a man. If, then, they are gods, why were
δέ είσιν νεώτεροι των πεποιηκότων; τί δ~ έδει αύτοιςΙΟ πρ6ς τ6 they not so from the beginning? Why are they more recent than
γενέσθαι ανθρώπων και τέχνης; γfj ταυτα και λίθοι και ύλη και those who haνe made them? Why did they need human craftsman-
περίεργος τέχνη. ship for their existence? They are earth, stones, matter, and futile
craftsmanship.
18 . 'Επει' ,
τοινυν Φ'
ασι " ,';'ι
τινες εικονας μεν ειναι ταυτας, θ'
εους δ'
ε ε'Φ'

ο[ς αί είκόνες, και τας προσόδους ας ταύταις Ι προσίασιν και τας 18. Now some say that these are only images but that there are
'
θυσιας " "εκεινους
επ 'Φ'
ανα ""
ερεσ θ αι και εις εκεινους γινεσ
'θαι μη ειναι ,';', gods for whose sake the images exist. They say that their pro-
τε έτερον τρόπον τοις θεοις ~ τουτον προσελθειν ("χαλεποι δ~ θεοι cessions to the images and their sacrifices are offered ιιρ to the
'
Φ αινεσ θ' Α
αι εναργεις ") α και' ~
του ~θ'"''
ταυ ουτως εχειν τεκμηρια παρ- , gods and celebrated for them because there is ηο way other than
,
εχουσιν "
τας ,
ενιων ει'δ ω'λων ' ,
ενεργειας, Φ'
ερε ε'ξ'
ετασωμεν την " ε1ΤΙ , this to approach them ('dangerous are the gods when they appear
τοις όνόμασι δύναμιν αύτων. 2. δεήσομαι δ~ ύμων, μέγιστοι αύτο­ νisibly'). As eνidence that this is so they refer to the actiνities
κρατόρων, πρ6 του λόγου αληθεις παρεχομένψ τους λογισμους associated with certain statues. With this ίη mind let us inνestigate
συγγνωναι' ού γαρ προκείμενόν μοι έλέγχειν τα είδωλα, αλλα the power of the diνine names.
,
απο
λ υομενος
ι 'δ ιαβ ο λ'
τας ας
λ ογισμον \ της
~ ,
προαιΡεσεως ημων
• ~
2. Ι shall request you, greatest of soνereigns, before beginning
,
παρεχω. 2"
εχοιτε 3 'Φ"
α ~
εαυτων και \" την ,
επουρανιον β ασι λ'
ειαν 4 my examination, to excuse me if Ι bring forward my arguments
έξετάζειν' ώς γαρ ύμιν πατρι και υίψ πάντα κεχείρωται ανωθεν την polemical1y to establish their truth. Certainly Ι do not consider
βασι λ ειαν
' ει'λη Φ'
οσιν ("β ασι λ' '.1
εως γαρ , " εν χειΡΙ'θ~"
ψυχη εου , b Av"..
ψ'ΡΙ\ το\ it my task to condemn images; but ίn dismissing the slanders
προΦητικον πνευμα), ούτως ένι τψ θεψ και τψ παρ' αύτου λόγψ against llS Ι must proνide the reason for the decision that we haνe
υίψ νοουμένψ αμερίστψ πάντα ύποτέτακται. 3. έκεινο τοίνυν made. lvIay you find it possible to examine by your own efforts
'.1.
σκεψασ θ'
ε μοι προ \ ~
των "λλων.
α "ξ'
ουκ ε ~
αρχης, ως
tI Φ ασιν, ησαν
'j' οι• also the heaνenly kingdom; for as all things haνe been subjected
θεοί, αλλ' ούτως γέγονεν αύτων έκαστος ώς γιγνόμεθα ήμεΙς· και to you, a father and a son, who haνe receiνed your kingdom from
τουτο πασιν αύτοις ξυμΦωνειται,S Όμήρου μ~ν [γαρ]6 λέγοντος aboνe ('for the king's life is ίn God's hand', as the prophetic
Ώκεανόν τε, θεων γένεσιν, και μητέρα Τηθύν/ spirit says) , so all things are subordinated to the one God and the
Word that issues from him whom we consider his inseparable
18. α Homer, Iliαd 20. 131 b Prov. 21: Ι c ΙΖίαά 14.201, 302 Son.
17. 7 'Ένδυος Α: corr. Otto 8 T€ΚTα{Oυ Otto: ίδ€KTα{Oυ Α και 3. Ι ask you then to examine the fol1owing point before all
Φ€ιδ{oυ τα λΟΙ7Τα €ίδωλα: haec verba infra post έργον Φ€ιδ{oυ coll. Botti else. The gods, so they say, were not ίn existence fΓοm the begin-
10 αύ-roυς Α
ning, but each of them came into being as we do. And this is
18. ι ταύταις Otto: τούτοις Α 2 7Ταρέχων Α 3 έχοιn δ' αν
Schwartz: αύτοι δ' αν έXOΙT€ Wilamowitz 4 post βασιλ€{αν ins. €ίλrιΦόσιν
agreed to by them all: Homer speaks of 'Ocean, the origin of the
(ν. infra) Α S ξυμΦωνει Α: corr. Schwartz 6 γαρ seclusit Schwartz gods, and Tethys their mother'. Orpheus (who was the first to
38 ATHENAGORAS 18.3 19. ι LEGATI0 S9
'ΟΡΦ'
εως δ'
ε, ος
fi\ και
" τα
" ονοματα αυτων
''''' πρωτος
"" ε 'ξηυρεν
'" και " τας inνent their names, to describe their births, and to recount the
γεν'σεις διεξηλθεν και όσα έκάστοις π'πρακται εΙπεν και πεπί­ deeds of each, who is generally belieνed by them to treat of the
στευται7 παρ' αυτοις άληθ'στερον θεολογειν, Ψ και "Ομηρος 7"(1. gods with great accuracy, and who for the most part is followed
πολλα και περι θεων μάλιστα έπεται, και αυτου την πρώτην γ'νεσιν
eνen by Homer, especially ίη his treatment of the gods) affirms
αυτων έξ ύδατος συνιστάντος
their ultimate origin from water-'Ocean, ίη whom is to be
'Ωκεαν6ς, όσπερ γ'νεσις πάντεσσι τ'τυκται. d
found the origin of all'. 4. For according to him water was the
4. ην γαρ ύδωρ άρχη κατ' aiJ7"(JV τοις όλοις, άπο δε του ύδατος ίλυς
, 'δ , .εκατερων
, , 'θ r '" δ' Φ Α
beginning of eνerything. From water came slime. From both an
κατεστη, εκ ε εγεννη η ,:>ψον ρακων προσπε υκυιαν

" " animal was born-a serpent with the head of a Ιίοη attached, and
εχων κε Φ α λ'
ην λ' ~,
εοντος, 8 οια ,
μεσου ~" αυτων
οε "" θ""
εου προσωπον, ονομα

Ήρακλης και Χρ6νος. 5. ογτος ό Ήρακλης έγ'ννησεν ύπερμ'γεθες between them the face of a god. Ι ts name was Heracles and
ψον, ο συμπλ'
"'" ηρουμενον υπο t ' β'ιας '" "
του γεγεννηκοτος εκ παρατριβ'"
ης Chronos. 5. This Heracles generated a huge egg which, when
,
εις
~I
ουο
"
ερραγη.
"1"
το μεν ουν
,
κατα
,.J..,J..'
κορυψ,ιν αυτου
- Ο'
υρανος
, l'
ειναι filled by the power of him who generated it, broke into two
έτελ'σθη, το δε κάτω ένεχθεν9 Γη· προηλθε δε και θεΌς tyη δι­ through friction. The upper part of it was fashioned into
σώματος.10 6. ουρανΌς δε Γυ μιχθεις YEVVq, θηλείας μεν Κλωθώ,
Heaνen; the part which descended became Earth; a sort of two-
Λάχεσιν, Άτροπον,ΙΙ άνδρας δε 12 Έκατ6γχειΡας Κ6ττον,Ι3 Γύγην,14
Βριάρεων και Κύκλωπας, IS Βρ6ντην 16 και Στερ6πην και Άργην· 17 Ot)so
bodied god came forth. 6. Heaνen ίη union with Earth begot
και δήσας κατεταρτάρωσεν, έκπεσεισθαι αυτΌν ύπΌ των παίδων της female offspring-Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropus-and the male
άρχης μαθών. διΌ και όργισθεισα Τι Γη τους τιτανας έγ'ννησεν' Hundred-handsI-Cottus, Gyges, Briareus-and the Round-
Κούρους δ' ουρανίωνας έγείνατο π6τνια Γαια, eyes 2-Brontes, Steropes, and Arges. Heaνen bound and cast
ot)S" δη και τιτηνας έπίκλησιν καλ'ουσιν, them into Tartarus when he learned that he would be depriνed
ούνεκα ησάσθην 18 μ'γαν ουρανΌν άστερ6εντα. ε of his rule by his offspring. Consequently Earth ίη her anger
brought forth the Titans:
19. Αύτη άpxiι γεν'σεως περι τους κατ' αυτους θεούς τε και τψ
παντί. tJKELVO τοίνυν έκαστον γαρ των τεθεολογημ'νων ώς την Our mistress the Earth brought forth children of Heaνen
άρχήν ονειναι t. 1 εί γαρ γεγ6νασιν ουκ σντες, ώς οί περι αυτων Το whom men also giνe the name of 'Titans'

18. d Iliad 14. 246 e Frg. 57 (Kern) Because they 'took νengeance'3 οη the starry expanse of
18. 7 post πεπ{στευται ins. βασιλε{αν έξετάζειν ώι; παρ' ύμίν πρι Kα~ υίψ πάντα Heaνen.
κεχε{ρωται άνωθεν (ν. supra) Α 8 post λέοντοι> add. e Damascio (frg. 54
Kern) Kα~ άλλη ν ταύρου Zoega: sed textus sanus videtur secundum Norden
collato scholio ίη Gregor. Nazianz. Or. 31. 16 9 κάτω κατενεχθεν Α:
19. This is their νersion of the beginning of the generation of the
corr. Schwartz 10 γη (yfj ΑΙ) δια σώματοι> Α: τιι; δισώματοι> Lobeck gods and the uniνerse. Take this then into consideration: each of
II άτραπον Α 12 δε: τε Α 13 κόττυν Α 14 γυνη Α: γύνην ΑΙ
IS KύKλ~παι> Α " / 16 κρότην Α: corr. ΑΙ 17 άργον Α 18 ουνεκα the beings diνinized by them, since it has a beginning, must also
τιτιμωρησωσιν η τιμησωσινσασθην Α be perishable. For if they came into being from nothing, as those
19 ι 'Α /, Α ,ΟΙ 'Α θ λ ' t , , ,
". Α το π~ν. -,:ι :κεινο τοινυν; εκαστον Αγαρ τι:ι ν ;ε Αεο oγ~μενων, ωι; Tη~ αρχην
ον, νοειται Α(ον δει ειναι ~tto) ~Iar~ll~S: ~ιp παντι., εκεινο τοινυν σK~ψασθε, εK~σ:oν
παντων των τεθεολΟΥημενων, ωι; την αρχην, γεγονεναι Schwartz: Τψ παντι. εκεινο 18. ι Hecatoncheires.
το{νυν σκ'ψασθε' έκαστον γαρ τών τεθεολογημ'νων. ώι; την άρχην έχει. ούτωι; 2 Cyclopes.
δεί Kα~ Φθαρτόν εΤναι (ώι; την άρχην έχον, Φθαρτόν εΤναι δει Ubaldi) Geffcken 3 Α play οη words (Τitan-tinό). Cf. Hesiod, Theog. 207-1 ι.
40 ATHENAGORAS 19. ι 20.2 LEGATIO 41
θεOλOγOυνTε~ λΙγουσιν, ούκ είσίν· η γαρ άγΙνητ6ν 2 η, Kα~ έσην who theologize about them say, then they do not exist; for
, ,~"
αιοιον, η γενητον,
'3 και
\ Φθαρτον " εσην. 2. \ , '\
και ουκ εγω μεν oυTω~,
\ " either they are something uncreated and so eternal; or they are
t,
εTεpω~ ~,ι
οε οι Φ ι λοσο
ι Φ οι. '" ", '\ "
η το ον αει γενεσιν τε ουκ εχον, η η το '" "" created and so perishable.
γεν6μενον μΙν, ον δε ούδΙποτε;" ά πεp~ νοητου Kα~ αίσθητου δια­ 2. Οη this point there is ηο disagreement between myself and
λεγ6μενo~ ό Πλάτων το μεν άε~ ον, το νοητ6ν, άγένητον 4 εΙναι the philosophers. 'What is that which always is and does not
διδάσκει, το δε ούκ ον, το αίσθητ6ν, yeyηT6v,S άρχ6μενον εΖναι καΙ come to be, or what is that which comes to be but never is?'
παυ6μενον. 3. τούτψ τψ λ6γψ και οί άπο Tη~ ΣToα~6 έκπυρω- Plato ίη his dialogues οη the intelligible and perceptible teaches
ι
θησεσ θ
αι
\παντα
τα
, και
\ 'λ
πα ιν
., θ' Φ
εσεσ αι ασιν,
.,
ετεραν
'\
αρχην του
.. that that which always is, the intelligible, is uncreated, whereas
,
κοσμου
λβ'
α oνTO~.
,~"
ει οε, καιτοι
~ ... ,'
οισσου αιηου κατ
" \"
αυToυ~ oνTO~,
that which is not, the perceptible, is created, having a beginning
του μεν δραστηρίου και καταρχομένου, καθο ή πρ6νοια, του δε to its existence and an end.
,
πασχοντος και \ ,
τρεπομενου, κα θ ο η \ • ,
"λ η, αουνατον
υ ,~ [~']7
οε '
εστιν και \ 3. For this same reason the Stoics say that there will be a cosmic
προνοούμενον έπι ταύτου μειναι τον κ6σμον γεν6μενον, πως ή conflagrationand that all will be restored as the world begins
ι
τουτων μενει συσTασι~, ου
ι ι '"
, Φ υσει οντων α'λλ α γενομενων; ' , , ~ \ ,. .
η οε Tη~
again. According to them there are two causes, one active and
efficacious ίη so far as it is Providence, the other passive and
ύλης κρείττους οί θεοι την σύστασιν έξ ύδατος έχοντες; 4. άλλ' οϋτε 8
, , \,,~ Α... , '( , \ 9 • λ'" \ ~ ... mutable ίη so far as it is matter; if it is impossible for the world
κατ αυτους υοωρ τοις πασιν αρχη· εκ γαρ απ ων και μονοειοων
which is subject to becoming to remain unaltered even though
στοιχείων τί αν ΣVσTηναι δύναιτο; δει δε και Tfj ύλυ τεχνίτου 10
guided by Providence, how can these gods avoid dissolution,
και ύλης Τψ τεχνίτυ' η πως αν γΙνοιτο τα έΚΤυπώματα χωρις της
since they do not exist by nature but come into being? How can
υ "...
"λης η του τεχνιτου; , ). "
ουτε πρεσβ'
υτεραν λ'
ογον "
εχει ειναι
l' την
\ "λην
υ
the gods be superior to matter when they derive their substance
του θεου· το γαρ ποιηηκον αίηον προκατάρχειν των γιγνομένων
from water? 4. But neither οη their view can it be said that water
άνάγκη.
is the beginning of all things. For what could arise fr01n simple and
uniform elements? Matter needs a craftsman and the craftsman
20• Ει' \
μεν
1"
ουν μεχρι του
... "Ι.,.::
ψ,ραι γεγονεναι
, \
Toυ~
θ
εoυ~
\ και
\ ε
'ξ
needs matter. Or how could there be shapes without matter or
ύδατος την σύστασιν έχειν το άπίθανον .ην αύτοις της θεολογίας, a craftsman? Nor does it make sense to say that matter is more
έπιδεδειχως όη ούδεν γενητον 1 δ ού και διαλυτ6ν, έπι τα λοιπα αν ancient than God, for the active cause necessarily precedes those
παρεγεν6μην των έγκλημά των . 2. έπει δε τουτο μεν διατεθείκασιν things that come into being.
αύτων τα σώματα, τον μεν Ήρακλέα, όη θεo~ δράκων EλΙKT6~,
τσυς δε Έκατ6γχειΡας είπ6νTε~, και την θυγατέρα του Δι6ς, -ην 20. Now if the absurdity of their theology extended οηlΥ to their
έκ της μητρος 'Ρέας tKat. Δήμητρος η δημήTOPO~ τον αύτη~t2 saying that the gods came into being and have their substance
~
επαιοοποιησατο,
, , ~ Ι μεν
ουο \
κατα
\ Φ'
υσιν [1'
ειπον] 3 "
εχειν ο'Φθ α λμους και \ \ from water, Ι would simply show that there is nothing created
which is not also subject to dissolution and would pass οη to the
19. α Tim. 27 d other charges. 2. They go οη, however, to give a description of
19. 2 άγένVΗTόν Α 3 γσVΗTόν Α 4 άγέννητον Α 5 γ€ννητόν Α: the bodies of their gods. They say that Heracles is a coiled serpent-
del. Wίlamowitz, Schwartz, Geffcken 6 τουτψ ι<αι οΙ άπό της Στοάς Τψ god and the others Hundred-handed. They say that the daughter
λόγψ Α: corr. Schwartz 7 δ~ del. Dechair, Lindner 8 άλλ' Oϋδ€ Α:
of Zeus, whom he fathered by his mother Rhea, also called
corr. Schwartz 9 έι< γαρ Schwartz: έι< τε Α 10 μονοειδων τί αν
συστηναι στοιχε{ων Α: σTOΙX€{ων del. Wilamowitz, Schwartz: σTOΙX€{ων post DemeterI • • • had two eyes ίη the natural place and two more οη
μονοειδων coll. Geffcken
20. 1 γεννητόν Α 2 η Δήμητρος αύτης Otto: ι<αι Δήμητρος ήδη προσ- 20. 1 Rhea, according to tlle Orphics, became known as Demeter after she
αγOP€υθείσης Sc;;hwart~ 3 €Τπoν seclusit Schwart:ι; had giνen birth to Zeus (Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, ρρ. 188-9, no. 145)·
42 ATHENAGORAS 20.2 20.5 LEGATIO 43
έπ~ τψ μετώπψ δύο Kα~ προτομην κατα. Το όπισθεν τΟ'υ τραχήλου her forehead and the face of an animal οη the back of her neck
,
μερος, εχειν
" δ\ \,
ε και κερατα,
δ \
ιο και την
\ ~ tp'εαν Φ Q θ " ,~
οι-ιη εισαν το της and that she had horns. Consequently Rhea ίη a fright abandoned
παι δ ος
' τερας , Φ υγειν " ουκ
, ε'Φ" ,~\
εισαν αυΤΏ την θηλ' "θ εν
ην, εν ~
μυσηκως
the monstrous child and did not offer her the breast. That is why
, 'Λθ λ ~ ~ δ' Φ ,/..,,(
Τ.Τ' , λ , ,t, , she is called by the initiates Athela, but commonly Persephone
μεν .t:1 η α κοινως ε εpσεΨVνη και .n.ορη κεκ ηται, ουχ η αυτη
and Core [Maid]; though she is not the same as Athena, who is
οΟσα 7fj Άθηνfj, τυ άπο της κ6ρψ; λεγομένΏ' 3. τουτο δέ τα. also named from the fact that she is a 'maid'.2
πραχ θ εντα
' αυτοις επ , , , ' " ακρι13\,..4
ε~· ως
t"οιονται δ ιε ξελη λυ'θασιν, Κρονος
' 3. They also go οη to recount, accurately as they suppose, the
, t 'ξ , "δ"
μεν ως ε ετεμεν τα αι οια του πατρος και κατερριψεν αυτον απο του
~ , , '.1. "" ~ deeds performed by the gods: that Cronus cut off the genitals of
αρματος και ώς έτεκνοκτόνει καταπίνων των παίδων τΟ'υς άρσενας, his father and threw him down from his chariot and that he
slew his children by devouring his male offspring; that Zeus
Ζευς δέ όη τον μέν πατέρα δήσας KaTETapnipwaev, καθα Kα~ τους bound his father and cast him into Tartarus (just as Heaven had
υίεις ό Ούραν6ς, και προς Τιτανας περι της άρχης έπολέμησεν και done with his sons) and fought with the Titans for sovereignty;
όη την μητέρα ΙΡέαν άπαγορεύουσαν αύτου τον γάμον έδίωκε, and that he pursued his mother Rhea when she resisted marriage
'
δρακαινης δ' ,
,~ γενομενης και αυτος εις
αυτης \", '
δρακοντα μεταβ αλ'
ων with him; that when she became a serpent, he likewise turned
συν δ ησας
' "~
αυτην Τψ κ aλ ουμενψ ' .πρακ λ ειωηκψ
tu ~ .,
αμμαη εμιγη " (του~ himself into a serpent, entangled her ίη the so-called knot of
Heracles, and had intercourse with her (the rod of Hermes is
σχηματος της μΕξεως σύμβολον ή του ΙΕρμου ράβδος), εΖθ' όη
a symbol of that kind of union); then that he had intercourse
'
ΦερσεΦ ονυ T'[J~ θ υγατρι' εμιγη
" β'
ιασαμενος και'ταυτην
" εν δρακοντος
' with his daughter Persephone, violating her also ίη the form of
σχήμαη, έξ .ης παις Διόνυσος αύτψ' 4. άνάγκη καν τοσουτον a serpent, and so having his son Dionysus by her.
είπειν' Τ[ το σεμνον η χρηστον της τοιαύτης ίσΤΟΡlας, {να πιστεύ­ 4. Since this is their teaching, this much at least must be said:
σωμεν θεους εΖναι τον Κρόνον, τον Δία, την Κόρην, τους λοιπούς; what nobility or value is there ίη such an account for us to believe
that Cronus, Zeus, Core, and the rest are gods? The forms of their
αί διαθέσεις των σωμάτων; και τίς αν άνθρωπος κεκριμένοςS
bodies?! And what man of discernment habituated to reflection
και έν θεωΡlq. γεγονως ύπο θεου γεννηθηναι πιστεύσαι έχιδναν­ would believe that a viper was the offspring of a god? Thus
ΌρΦεύς· Orpheus:
αν δέ Φάνης άλλην γενεην τεκνώσατο δεινήν Phanes brought forth yet another fearful child
νηδύος έξ ίερης, προσιδειν Φοβερωπον 'Έχιδναν, From his sacred belly: the Viper, terrible to look upon.
:J:
'ις "
χαιται '"
μεν 'aλ'
απο κρατος κ ον τε προσωπον , Hair indeed streamed from its head, and beautiful to see
l'
ην ,
εσι δ" 'δ ε
ειν, τα \ λοιπα' ,
μερη Φοι-ιεροιο
,Q "δ'ρακοντος
Was its face; but what remained below its neck
αύχένος έξ άκρου- α
Were the parts of a fearful serpent.

,\
η " 'Φανητα δ ε~αΙTO,
αυτον τον 't. θ'" ,
εον οντα πρωτογονον ' (ουτος
1" ,
γαρ
Or could he allow that this νery Phanes, the first-born of the
gods (for he was the one who emerged from the egg), had the
έσην ό έκ του ψου προχυθείς), η η σχημα έχειν δράκοντος η σωμα 6 body or form of a serpent or was deνoured by Zeus so that Zeus
καταποθηναι ύπο του Διός, όπως ό Ζευς άχώΡητος γένοιτο; 5. εΙ could become infinite? 5. For iftheir gods differ ίη ηο way from
γαρ μηδέν διενενηνόχασιν των Φαυλοτάτων θηρίων (δηλον γαρ the vilest beasts (for it is clear that the diνine must differ somewhat
όη ύποδιαλλάσσειν δει των yηtvwv και των άπο της ύλης from earthly things and things derived from matter!), theyare
,
αποκρινομενων , το , θ")
ειον, ουκ , "θ'
εισιν εοι. τι'δ'
ε , ,
και προσιμεν
not gods. Why indeed do we reνerently draw near to them who

20. α Frg. 58 (Kern) 20. 2 Core-'daughter', 'maid'-was a name regularly used for Persephone,
daughter of Demeter. But the name Pallas, regularly given to Athena, is also
20. 4 έπ' άκριβες αύτοί'ς Α: corr. Schwartz 5 κεκριμένος dubitanter plausibly associated with terms for 'virgin' and 'maid'. Apparently Athenagoras
retineo: νουν κεκτημένος Schwartz 6 η σώμα del. Wilamowitz, Schwartz, had this ίη mind; and especially since Athena was also known as Athela (cf.
Geffcken 17.4; SchQl. Hes. ορ. 76), he was probably anxious to avoid confusion.
44 ATHENAGORAS 20·5 21·3 LEGATIO 45
Λ
αυτοις,
, l'
ων ~'δ'"
κτηνων μεν fγενεσις,
ικην εχει η ' "δ'θ'
αυτοι ε ηριομορ Φ οι are born like dumb beasts and who themselves look like animals
και δυσειδεις; and are ugly ίη form?

21. Καlτοι εί σαρκοειδεις μ6νον ελεγον αύτους και αίμα εχειν και 21. Yet if all they said was that their gods were corporeal and
σπέρμα ι και πάθη όpγf]ς και έπιθvμlας, και τ6τε εδει ληρον και had blood, semen, and the passions of anger and lust, even then
γέλωτα 2 λ6γους τούτους νομlζειν· ούτε γαρ όργη ούτε έπιθvμlα one would be bound to consider these doctrines laughable ηοη­
και όρεξις ούδε παιδοποιον σπέρμα έν Τψ θεΨ. 2. εστωσαν Tolνυv
sense; for ίn God there is neither anger nor lust and desire nor yet
σαρκοειδεις, άλλα KpelTTOVS' μεν θυμου και όργης, {να μη Άθηνα
'βλ' "Υ'
semen for producing offspring.
μεν επηται σκυ'::,ομενη Δ'
ιι "λ
πατρι, χο ος δ'
ε μιν "
αγριος τιρει
tI "3α "
'Ήρα δε θεωρηται "tlHpTl δ' ούκ εχαδε στηθος χ6λον, άλλα προ σ­ 2. Well then, let us suppose that they are corporeal yet superior

ηύδα" ,b KpelTTOVS' δε λύπης, to wrath and anger, so that Athena will not be seen 'jncensed with
ω
"" ποποι, η
l' Φ'λ "δρα δ'
ι ον αν ιωκομενον 'Λ
περι τειχος
Zeus her father, as fierce anger seized her', and Hera will not be
όΦθαλμοισιν όρωμαι' έμον δ' όλοΦύρεται ητορ.C described as follows: 'Hera's heart could not contain her anger,
but she cried out.' And let them be superior to grief like this:
έγι1 μεν γαρ και άνθρώπους άμαθεις και σκαιους λέγω τους όργfj
και λύπτι είκοντας' όταν δε ό "πατηρ άνδρων τε θεων τε" όδύρηται Alas, Ι see pursued about the wall
μεν τον υίον Α man Ι cherish; and my heart grieves.

αι" αι'" εγων, rι

, 4 οτε μοι ~αpπη
'" δ'
ονα Φ'λ
ι τατον αν δρων
' ~
For my part Ι regard even men who yield to anger and grief
μοιρ'5 ύπο Πατρ6κλοιο Μενοιηάδαο δαμηναι, d
as ignorant and foolish; but when the 'Father of men and gods'
άδvνατfj δε όδυρ6μενος του κινδύνου έξαρπάσαι bewails his son-
Σαρπηδι1ν Διος υί6ς, ό δ' ούδ' Φ παιδι άμύνει,ε
Woe is me, when Fate decrees that by Patroclus, Menoetius'
ης
,
ουκ αν
' ' ' '
τους
' "
επι Λ
τοις τοιουτοις
,
μυ'θ οις Φ Ιλο θ'
εους, ~\ \
μαιv\Oν δ'ε son,
'θ'
α εους,
~,
τψ;
θ'
αμα ιας καταμεμψαιτο;
, .1. 6 3. "
εστωσαν σαρκοει
δ εις,
Λ
Sarpedon, dearest of men to me, is now to be subdued-
α'λλ"
α μη ητρωσκεσ θ ω μη δ'
ε , ΆΦρο δ ιτη
ι f'
υπο Δ'δ
ιομη ους το,~
σωμα,

'Όδτά με Τυδέος υίος ύπέρθυμος Διομήδης",ι η ύπο Άρεως την and when for al1 his grief he cannot rescue him from danger-
ψυχήν, Sarpedon is son of Zeus, yet Zeus saves not his own child-
ως
f εμε
" χω λ"
ον εοντα , Δ' '
ιος θ υγατηρ ΆΦ'ΡΟ δ ιτη
ι
", ,r
αιεν αημα'::,ει,
'
Φ ι λ εει δ".ι.~ λ >(,1
αιοη ον .Ι1.ρηα.
g who would not condemn the foolishness of those who are ardent
theists, or rather atheists, οη the basis of such myths?
21. α Homer, Iliαd 4. 23 b Iliαd 4. 24 C Iliαd 22. 168-9 d Iliαd 16. 433-4 3. Let us suppose that they are corporeal, but let us not have
, Iliαd 16. 522 f Iliαd 5. 376 g Odyssey 8. 308-g
Aphrodite's body wounded by Diomedes-'Diomedes, proud son
21. ι και σπέρμα: σπέρμα Α: και add. Α ι vel m. rec. : σπέρμα seclusit Wilamowitz
of Tydeus, has wounded me'-or her soul by Ares:
2 γέλωτοι; Α: corr. Schwartz 3 aίpεί Α: ύρει Homerus 4 αϊ αϊ λέγων
Aphrodite, daughter of Zeus, always dishonours me
Α: ά'Jμoι έγών Homerus: αϊ αϊ έγών Platon (Resp. 388 c) 5 μοίραι Α
6 καταμέμψοιτο Α: καταμέμΦοιτο Schwartz: καταμέμψαιτο Geffcken Because Ι am lame; and she loves destructive Ares.
46 ATHENAGORAS 21·3 21·5 LEGATIO 47

.7 "δ ια' δ'ε ι

χροα κ aλ' "δ αψεν
ον ε ,
.1. "h οf "
δ εινος εν 71'0 λ εμοις,
ι οfσυμ-
, 'Fair flesh he tore asunder'I-the mighty one ίη battle, ally of
,
μαχος κατα η1 Ι
.ι. ιτανων -
του Δ ιος,
ι 'θ ενεστερος
ασ ι Δ'δ
ιομη ους Φ αινεται.
ι Zeus against the Titans, shows himself weaker than Diomedes!
"μα{νετο δ' ώς οτ' Ά.ρης εγχέσπαλος"ί-σιώπησον, 'Όμηρε, θεος 'He raged as when Ares with his spear'-be silent, Homer, a god
,Ι
ου μαινεται' , δΙ
συ ε μοι και'Φ' 'R
μιαι ονον και ' ""'Α
JJPOTO λοιγον, .r.ι.pες,
does not rage! Yet you tell me of a god who is bloodthirsty and
Ά.ρες βροτολοιγέ, μιαιΦόνε" ,j διηγfj τον θεον και την μοιχε{αν a bane ofmen-'Ares, Ares bane ofmen, bloodthirstyone'-and
αύτου διέξει και T<l δεσμά' you tell a story of his adultery and bonds:
, δ' , δ εμνια
ι ,
βαντε I~ θ ον, αμ
'Φ'ι δ'
They went to bed and slept together; but there fell about them
τω ες κατεορα ε δ εσμοιι

, " Bonds cunningly contrived by the skilled Hephaestus,

τεχνηεντες εχυντο 71'0 λ'Φ
υ ρονος ιπφ Ι
Ι1.1 αιστοιο,
Not a limb could they move.
ούδέ τι κινησαι μελέων ην. k
4. Do they not reject this mass of impious nonsense concerning
4. ού καταβάλλουσι τον πολυν τουτον άσεβη ληρον περ'ι των θεων; the gods? Heaven is castrated; Cronus is bound and cast down
Ούρανος εκτέμνεται, δειται και καταταρταρουται Κρόνος, επαν­ into Tartarus; the Titans revolt; the Styx dies ίη battle (already
{στανται Τιτανες, Στυξ άπoθvι}σKει κατ<l την μάχην-ηδη και this shows that they regard them as mortal); they fall ίη love with
θνητους αύτους δεικνύουσιν-έρωσιν αλλήλων, ερωσιν ανθρώπων' each other; they fall ίη love with human beings-
Α ινειας,
' ι ' f ' .r.ι.γXισυ
τον υπ 'Λ' 'δΑ'
τεκε 'ΛΦρο δ'ιτη,
ι .r.ι.
Aeneas, whom fair Aphrodite bore to Anchises,
"Ιδης έν κνημοισι θεα βροτψ εύνηθεΙσα. 1 Α goddess who slept with a mortal οη the slopes of mount Ida.

They do not fall ίη love. They experience ηο passion. For either

ουκ
, ερωσιν,
"
ου πασχουσιν'
"'8
η
'
γαρ
θ'
εοι και
, ουχ
, ",Ι.
αψεται αυτων
they are gods and lust does not touch them ... Υet if a god assumes
,
επι θ'
υμια . ..9καν
" ,
σαρκα θ'
εος ,
κατα θ'
ειαν , 'λ'β
οικονομιαν α TJ, "δ η
η
flesh by divine dispensation, is he forthwith a slave of lust?Z
δουλός εστιν έπιθυμ{ας;
5. F or never did love for goddess or woman
5. ού γαρ πώποτέ μ' ώδε θεας έροςlΟ ούδε γυναικός Poured out ίη my breast so overcome my heart,
θυμον ενι στήθεσσι περιπροχυθεις εδάμασσεν, Not when Ι loved the wife of ΙΧίοη,
ούδ' όπότ' ~pασάμην Ίξιον{ηςΙΙ άλόχοιο, Nor when Ι loved Danae, fair daughter of Acrisius,
ου "
'δ' οτε περ Δ αναης
ι κα λλ ισΦ υpOυ.r.ι.Kpισιωνης,
ι 'Λ ι Nor the daughter of far-famed Phoenix,
ούδ' οτε Φο{νικος κούρης τηλεκλειτοιο, Ν or Semele, or Alcmene ίη Thebes,
" '\
ου'δ' οτε περ Σεμειιης, ου'δ' .r.ι.
'Λλ κμηνης
ι , , Θ
ενι ~R
HΎIjJTJ, Nor the fair queen Demeter,
ούδ' οτε Δήμητρος καλλιπλοκάμσιο άνάσσης, Nor famed Leto, nor thyself.
ούδ' οτε περ Λητους ερικυδέος, ούδε σευ αύTijς.m
21. ι This line comes from a part of Homer widely separated from the pre-
ceding lines. Ιη Homer it is Diomedes who wounds Ares and tears his flesh. Ιη
21. h 1liαd 5. 858 ί 1lίαά 15. 605 j 1liαd 5. 31 k Odyssf)' 8.296-8 Ι 11iαd Athenagoras the quotation was possibly preceded by a few simple words such as
2. 820-1 m 1liαd 14. 315-27 (omitting lines 318, 320, 322, 324, 325) 'And the same Ares' (Geffcken, Ubaldi) grammatically related to what follows
the quotation ('the mighty one ίη battle').
2 Athenagoras anticipates objections which could be directed οη the same

21. post Άρηa lacuna dimidiae lineae ίη Α

7 8 η Α: εΙ Ubaldi 9 post
grounds against the Christian 'dispensation'-a term by now virtual1y technical
έπιθυμίa lacunam indicavit Schwartz 10 ante ούδε ins. άμΦεκάλυψεν Α:
for 'jncarnation'. (Compare the similar treatment of a related issue ίη 10. 2-3.)
punctis superpositis seclusit Α vel ΑΙ: fortasse ex 11. 14.343 (ve13. 442) Grant Probably this concern explains Athenagoras' willingness to grant the corporeal
11 έξηιονίης Α
nature of the gods and to go οη from there ίη his criticism of them.
 48 ATHENAGORAS 21. 5 22.2 LEGATIO 49
ι,
γενητος εσην, φθαρτος
ι,εσην, ου'δ εν
\." - α'λλ α' και, θητευουσιν
εχων θ εου. ' He is created, he is perishable, with nothing of a god about him.
άνθρώποις· They eνen serνe men-
JJ δώματ' Ά.δμήτεια, έν οίς ετλην έγώ Ο halls of Admetus, ίη which Ι, though a god,
θησσαν τράπεζαν αίνέσαι θε6ς περ wv,n Brought myself to praise menial fare-
Kα~ βουκολουσιν' and they tend cattle-
\ δ" ες αιαν
ε'λθ ων l' Ι δ' EfJOV
την ~Q φ' OpfJOVV
,Q Cι
ςενψ, 12
Ι came to this land and herded cattle for a stranger
Kα~ τ6νδ' έσψζον olKOV.O And preserνed this house.
,-
ουκουν "1,1δ
κρειττων ..t:1 μητος -
του -
θ εου. 6. ω
1" Ι
μανη και'Φ
σο ε \ και , Admetus then is superior to the god! 6. Wise seer, you who fore-
προειδως τοίς άλλοις Τι], έσ6μενα, ούκ έμαντεύσω του έρωμένου τ6ν know what will befall others, you did not foresee the murder of
'
Φ ονον, α'λλ'
α και\" , \ Φ"ΙΛον'
,τον
εκτεινας αυτοχειρι your darling, but killed your friend with your own hand!3
,
καγω το
\ 'Q \13 Φ
OLfJOV θ Α '.1. δ' ,
ειον αψευ ες στομα Ι deemed Apollo's diνine mouth to be unerring,
ηλπιζον elvaL, μανηκυ βρύον Tέxνrι, Welling up with prophetic lore-
ως
f
ψευ δ ομανην
.1. ι 'Υ'
κακι,:>ει 'Α 'λλω οf
τον ..t:1ΠΟ Α'ισχυ'λος,
thus Aeschylus reproaches ΑροlΙο as a false seer-
ό δ' αύΤ6ς ύμνων, αύΤ6ς έν θO{νrι παρών, But he himself who sung the hymn, was present at the feast,
αύΤ6ς τάδ' είπών, αύτ6ς έσην ό κτανών
And spoke these words, he it is who slew
Τ6ν παίδα τ6ν έμ6ν. Ρ
ΜΥ son.

'Αλλ'
22 ...t:1 α - '.Ι
ταυτα μεν ισως πλ ανη
' 'Φ'
ποιηηκη, υσικος 1 δ'
ε ης , ,
επ
22. But perhaps all this is the deceit of poets, and there is a
Α και, τοιουτος
αυτοις
, - '
λογος' "Ζ"
ευς ι" ,ως
αργης rι φησιν 'Εμπε δ οκλ'"
ης,
scientific explanation concerning the gods along lines such as
""ΗΡη τε 2 φερέσβιος ~δ' Ά.ϊδωνεύς
this:
- 'θ' ,η
Νησηι; 3 c\ δ ακρυοιι;
ι Ι
τεγγει '4
κρουνωμα β'
ΡΟΤι:ιον. α"
Shining Zeus [as Empedocles says] and life-giνing
Hera with
2. εί το{νυν Ζεvς μεν τ6 πυρ, 'Ήρα δε Τι γη και ό άηρ Ά.ϊδωνεVι; Kα~ Aidoneus
τ6 ύδωρ Νησηι;, στοιχεία δε ταυτα, τ6 πυρ, Τ6 ύδωρ, ό άήρ,S oύδε~ς And Nestis who with her tears fills the springs of mortals.
αύτων θε6ι;, ούτε Ζεύς, ούτε 'Ήρα, ούτε Ά.ϊδωνεύς· άΠ6 ycLp τηι;
2. If then Zeus represents fire, Hera earth, Aidoneus air, and
ύλης διακριθε{σης ύΠ6 του θεου Τι τούτων σύστασ{ς τε και γένεσιι;,
Nestis water, they are elements-fire, water, air-and none of
πυρ Kα~ ύδωρ Kα~ γαία Kα~ ήέρος ηπιον ύψος, them a god, neither Zeus, nor Hera, nor Aidoneus. For they haνe
και , φ λ' ι 'Α
ιη μετα τοισιν. b
their substance and origin from matter which has been giνen its
diνersity by God:
21. n Euripides, Alcest. 1-2 ο Alcest.8-9 Ρ Aeschylus, frg. 350 (Nauck2)
22. α Frg. 6 (Diels) b Frg. 17. 18,20 (Diels) Fire, water, earth, and the calm height of air,
And with them all, Loνe.
21. 12 ξένων Α 13 τό: τοι Α

22. 1 Φυσικως Α 2 ''Ηρη τε: είρψαι Α 3 Ο': τε Α .. τέγγει 21. 3 Hyacinth, beloved of Αροl1ο, was killed accidentally (or through the
κρούνωμα: τ' Επικούρου νωμαι Α 5 τό πυρ τό ύδωρ ό άήρ expunxit Diels jealousy of Zephyrus) by a discus thrown by the god (Rose, Handbook, ρ. 142).
8268084 Ε
 50 ATHENAGORAS 22·3 22.7 LEGATIO 51
<\ , ,~,
... φ λ' , . , '" , ,
3· α xωpι~ τη~ ι ια~ ου ουναται μενειν V7TO του νεικους συγχεομενα, 3. Without Loνe the elements cannot be kept from being thrown
... " 1'" '"
πως αν ουν ειποι η~ ταυτα ειναι'Ι' θ' ,
εους; αρχικον η, . φ ι ια κατα,
λ'
into confusion by Strife. How then could anyone say that they
τόν Έμπεδοκλέα, άρχ6μενα Τι! συγΚΡlματα, τό δε άρχικόν KVpΙOV. are gods? Loνe is the ruling principle according to Empedocles,
ώστε,6 έαν μlαν και την (αυτην)7 το-υ τε άρχομένου και το-υ the composite entities are the ruled, and the ruling principle is
άρχοντος δvναμιν θωμεν, λήσομεν έαυτους Ισόημον την ύλην την their master. If then we attribute one and the same power to
' και, .
φθαρτην , , βλ' Λ' , 8 " .. ~ , , the ruled and the ruling, we shall inadνertently make perishable,
ρευστην και μετα ητην Τψ αγενητψ και αιοιψ και
unstable, and changeable matter equal ίη rank to the uncreated,
~, , φ' Λ θ Λ
οια πανTO~ συμ ωνψ ποιουντες εψ. 4. Ζ' 'Υ' " ,
ευ~ η ,:>εουσα ουσια κατα eternal, and eνer self-same God.
τους Στωϊκοv~, 'Ήρα ό άήρ, και του όν6μαTO~ εΙ αυτό αύτψ 4. 'Zeus' according to the Stoics is the element which 'seethes',
"
επισυναπτοιτο ,J..,..'
συνεKΨUΙνOυμενOυ, ποσειοων
~ Λ" η ποσις. α"λλοι οε
~, 'Hera' the 'air' (if the name is repeated ίη quick succession, both
"λλ
α ω~ φ λ Λ" , , , ~ φ "" 'θ λ
υσιο ογουσιν· οι μεν γαρ αερα οι υη αρσενο η υν τον\ Δ'
ια
terms are actually sounded together),I 'Poseidon' what is 'pot-
able'. Some giνe physical explanations of one kind, some of
λέγουσιν, οί δε καιρόν εΙ~ EiJKpaalav τρέποντα τόν χρ6νον, διό και another. For some say that Zeus is air-dipolar, male-female.
, v' ~ 'Φ
μονος Δρονον οιε υγεν.
,\ \ 5. α
'λλ' επι μεν των
Λ απο της
, \ Λ Στοας
Λ εσην .,

Others say that he is the season that turns time [chronos] and brings
εΙπεΙν· εΙ ένα τόν άνωτdτω θεόν άγένητ6ν9 τε και άίΑδιον νομlζετε, fine weather; consequently he alone escaped Cronus.
συγΚΡlματα δε εΙ~ ά 1Ο ή της ύλης άλλαγή, και τό πνευμα του 5. But ίη the case of the Stoics this can be said: 'If you think
θεου δια Tη~ ύλη~ KεXωpηKό~ κατα τας παΡαλλdξεις αύτης άλλο και that the supreme God is one, both uncreated and eternal, and you
say that there are composite entities resulting from the mutation
άλλο όνομα μεταλαγχdνειν φατέ, σωμα μεν Τι! είδη της ύλης του of matter and that the spirit of God perνading matter ίη its
, '
θ εουΛ γενησεται, φθ ειΡομενων ~'Λ
οε των στοιχειων κατα την εκπυρωσιν
, , \ "

permutations receiνes now one name, now another, then material

,αναγκη
, συμ
φθ"" Λ Α "ο '" , ,
αρηναι ομου TOΙ~ ει εσι τα ονοματα, μονου μενοντος things wil1 be God's body, and when the elements perish at the
Λ'
του πνευματος του
θ Λ
εου.
l' l'
ων ουν σωματων
.., , Φθ ,. '\
αρτη η κατα την cosmic conflagration, such names must perish together with these
ύλην παραλλαγή, Tlso αν ταυτα πιστεύσαι θεούς; 6. πρός δε τους things and the spiri t of God alone remain.' Who then could
belieνe those to be gods whose bodies the permutation of matter
λέγοντας τόν μεν Κρ6νον χρ6νον, την δε 'Ρέαν γην, την μεν συλ- destroys?
λαμβανουσαν
' εκ ' ' Κιρονου
' 'του ' και' " "θ"
αποη κτου σαν , εν εν και μητηρ 6. We haνe a reply to those who say that Cronus is time
πάντων νομlζεται, τόν δε γεννωντα και καταναλίσκοντα, και εΙναι [chronos]; that Rhea is earth; that she conceiνed by Cronus and
την μεν τομην των άναγκαlων όμιλlαν του άρρενος πρό ς τό θηλυ, brought forth and is regarded, therefore, as mother of al1; that he
,
τεμνουσαν και'β'λλ
κατα α ουσαν σπερμα εις μητραν και γεννωσαν'"
Λ , begat and consumed his offspring, and that the seνering of his
'ι θ Λ ,.
θ Ά1> ~ Ι" ' ."\ ~\ νital organs signifies the intercourse of male with female, since it
αν ρωπον εν εαυτψ την επι υμιαν, ο εσην ροοιτη, εχοντα, την οε
\ ,

seνers semen and casts it into the womb and brings forth man
, του.., Κιρονου
μανιαν ' \ καιρουΛ φθ ειΡουσαν
τροπην ' " .1.
εμψυχα ".1. α ,
και\ αψυχ with desire-that is, Aphrodite-within him; that the madness
τα δε δεσμα καί τόν Τάρταρον χρ6νον ύπό καιΡων τρεπόμενον και of Cronus is the change of season that brings destruction upon
'"
α'φ ανη γινομενον,
Ι προς τοινυν τουτους
\ , , φ'"
αμεν· ειτε χρονος εστιν ο , ". animate and inanimate things; that the bonds and Tartarus are
Κιρονος, , τρεπεται,
, " σKOTO~
, η" παγo~
, " time changing with the seasons and passing away. Our reply is
' μεταβ'λλ"
α ει, ειτε καιΡος, ειτε η
this: if Cronus is time, he changes; if he is a season, he alters; if
ουσία ύypd, ουδεν αύτων μένει· τό δε θειον και άθdνατον και he is darkness or frost or moisture, none of these is abiding. The
άκlνητον και άνaλλοlωτον· ούτε άρα ό Κρόνος ούτε τό έπ' αύτψ diνine, howeνer, is immortal, immoνable, and unchangeable; so
είδωλον θεός. 7. περι δε του Διός, εΙ μεν άήρ έση γεγονως έκ then neither Cronus nor any phantom ofhim ίη the mind is a god.
7. As to Zeus, if he, the offspring of Cronus, is air (the male
Κιρονου,
' ου
l ' το
\ μεν
'"αρσεν ο• Ζ' ~\ θ"'λ
ευς, το\ οε η υ "Ηρα (~\
οιο και\,~
αοε λφ'
η
aspect of which is Zeus, the female aspect Hera-and thus she is
22. 6 ώστε Gesner: ώς Α 7 αύτην add. Gesner 8 άγεννήτ<ρ Α
9 άγιfννηTόν Α 10 εΙς ά Schwartz: ίσα Α: όσα Gesner: είδη τής ύλης κατ'
22. ι i.e. both combinations of letters, (Ή)ετa and aeτ (air), are heard if the
άλλαγήν Geffcken former (or the latter) is repeated ίn quick succession: ετaeτaeτaeτ etc. (cf. Cicero,
De Natura Deorum 2. 26. 66).
 52 ATHENAGORAS 22·7 22. 12 LEGATIO 53
\ ')
και γυν'Υ] ,α'λλ "" ,
οιουται, ει δ \ " "δ
ε καιΡος, τρεπεται' ουτε \ β
ε μετα α'λλ ει called both sister and wife), he is subject to change; if he is a
ούτε μεταπίπτει το θεΙον. 8. τί δε ιι <δει ύμιν έπι,) πλέον λέγοντα season, he alters. But the diνine neitller changes ηΟΓ decays.
, λΑ ""
ενοχ ειν, οι αμεινον τα παρ
\ , εκαστοις
Ι, "" φ λ '
των πε υσιο OY'YJKOTWV 8. Why should Ι burden you further with such accounts? Υou
οι"δ ατε, ποια
Α 12 περι\ Τ'Υ]ς
"" φ' ενΟ'Υ]σαν οιΙ συγγραψαμενοι
υσεως 13" ,Ι. ' "14
'Υ] know better than Ι the νarious νiews of all who giνe physical
περι\ Τ'Υ]ς
"" n'Λθ'Υ]νας,
"" 'Υ]ν
(\ 15 ,
φρον'Υ]σιν δ ια\παντων
, δ Ι'Υ]κουσαν
' 'φ ασιν, 'Υ]
"16 explanations: you know what the writers haνe thought con-
περ" της 'Ίσιδος, ήν φύσιν αίωνος, έξ ής πάντες εφυσαν και δι' ής cerning nature 2 ΟΓ concerning Athena, who they say is thought
, " λ εγουσιν,
' ., \ "" 'Ο σιΡΙ
'δ ος, 7' σ φ' ι, perνading all things, ΟΓ concerning Isis, who they say is the
παντες εισιν, 'Υ] περι του ου αγεντος υπο
origin of the world from whom all sprang and through whom all
Τυφωνος του άδελφου tπερι πελώΡουt l7 του υίου ή 'rΊσις ζ'Υ]τουσα
"\ ,ι """ , , " \., ""
φ'Υ]ν, 'Υ] ταφ'Υ] εως νυν 'Ο σιΡιακ'Υ] \ exist, ΟΓ concerning Osiris, who was slain by his brother Typhon
τα μεΛη και ευρουσα ησΚ'Υ]σεν εις τα
and whose limbs Isis with her son Horus sought and found about
καλειται; 9. άνω κάτω γαρ l8 περ'ι τα εϊδη της ύλ'Υ]ς στρεφόμενοι ... which she arranged ίη a tomb that to this day is called the
άποπίπτουσιν του l9 λόγφ θεωρητου θεου, τα δε στοιχεια και τα Tomb of Osiris. 9. They twist and turn themselνes ίη eνery
μόρια αύτων θΕοποιουσιν, άλλοτε άλλα όνόματα αύτοις τιθέμενοι, T~ν direction about material things and miss the God who is contem-
, "",'''Ο σιΡιν
μεν του σιτου σπορ αν (ο"θ εν Φ ασι\ μυστικως
"",επι\ Τ'Π"'" ,
ανευρεσει plated by reason. They diνinize the elements and portionsof
των μελων η των καρπων έπιλεχθηναι Tfj "Ισιδι "εύρήκαμεν, συγ- them, sometimes giνing one name to them, sometimes another:
,
χαιΡομεν " ) ,τον
\ δ ε\ Τ'Υ]ς
"" αμΠΕΛου
"\ '
\ Δ ιονυσον
καρπον ~
20 και\ ",-,εμεΛην
'\ the sowing of grain is Osiris (hence they say that ίη the mysteries,
"
αυΤ'Υ]ν , " λ \ \ \ "" Ιλ'
Τ'Υ]ν αμπε ον και κεραυνον την του 'Υ] ιου φλ'
ογα. 10. καιτοι , when his limbs-that is, the fruits of the earth-are found, this
γε 21 πάντα μαλλον η22 θεολογουσιν οί τους μύθ ους 2 3 • • • • θεο­ acclamation is made to Isis: 'we haνe found, we rejoice together');
ποιουντες, ούκ είδότες ότι οlς άπολογουνται ύπερ των θεων, τους
at the same tirne the fruit of the νine is Dionysus, the νine itself
"" , "" Semele, and the flaming heat of the sun Zeus.
επ
" Α
αυτοις
, λ'
ογους β εβ αιουσιν. Ι Ι. τι ηΙ υρωπ'Υ] και\ οΙ Τιαυρος
Ε" και\ οΙ
10. The fact is that those who diνinize ... the myths do
Κύκνος και ή Λήδα προς γην και άέρα, ίν' ή προς ταύτας 24 μιαρα
anything but treat of God, since they do not realize that what
του Δ ιος μιξις i7 γης και άέρος; 12. άλλα άποπίπτοντες 2 5 του they use to defend the gods confirms the arguments against them.
μεγε'θ ους του
"" θ εου"" και\ υπερκυψαι
Ι '.1. τφ"" λ'ογφ (ου' γαρ
, εχουσιν
" συμ- ι ι. What haνe Europa and the Bull ΟΓ Leda and the Swan to do
πα'θ ειαν εις τον ουρανιον τοπον
,\" ' ) ου
' δ'
υναμενοι, επι τα ει"δ 'Υ] Τ'Υ]ς υ
,\, "" "λης with earth and air so that the repulsiνe union of Zeus with these
συντετήκασιν και καταπίπτοντες τας των στοιχείων τροπας θεο- women would signify a union of earth and air?
""., ,\ ~ λ"" ,
ποιουσιν, ομοιον ει και ναυν τις, εν :1 επ ευσεν, αντι του
" " "" KVtJepV'Y]TOV
,Q , 12. They fail to see the greatness of God and are unable to
άγοι. ώς δε ούδεν πλέον νεώς, καν i7 πασιν ~σKημέν'Y], μ~ έχούσης rise up to it by reason (for they are not attuned to the heaνenly
\
τον ,Q'
κυtJερνηΤ'Υ]ν, ου'δ ε'''''
των στοιχειων , ο"φ ε λ ος δ ιακεκοσμημενων
' realm). They haνe fixed themselνes οη material things and
δίχα της παρα του θεου προνοίας. if τε γαρ ναυς καθ' έαυT~ν ού falling lower and lower diνinize the moνements of the elements.
Ι t is as if a man were to regard the νery ship ίη which he sailed as
πλευσειται τά τε στοιχεια χωρ'ις του δημιουργου ού κινηθήσεται.
performing the work of the pi1ot. Without a pilot it is nothing
22. 1I post τί δε add. δει ύμιν (ύμιν post ένοχλειν add. Otto) έπι Wilamowitz more than a ship eνen though it has been equipped with eνery­
12 ποια Wilamowitz: ή οΤα Α 13 περι της φύσεως Α: περι της τών θεών thing; just so, neither are the elements of any use, ηο matter how
φύσεως Wilamowitz, Geffcken 14 ή Α: ή α Α ι 15 ήν Otto: την Α
beautifully ordered, without the Proνidence of God. For the ship
16 φασιν ή ΑΙ: φασι Α 17 περι πελώρου Α: μετ' "Ωρου Gesner: περι Πηλού­
σων μετ' 'Ώρου Geffcken: περ'ι τα. ;λη μετ' 'Ώρου Ubaldi 18 άνω γαρ κάτω
will not sail of itself, and the elements will not moνe without the
Α: άνω κάτω γα.ρ Wilamowitz 19 του Maranus: τψ Α 20 post
Artificer.
Δι6νυσον lacunam indicavit Wilamowitz 21 καίτοιγε Gesner: και τί γαρ Α
22. 2 There may be a lacuna here ('concerning the nature of the gods'). But
22 ή η: εΙ Α 23 post μύθους lacunam indicavit Wilamowitz supplens problems concerning nature, principles, and elements are not unrelated to the
άλλεγορουντες (άλλεγορουντες και τα. στοιχεια Schwartz) 24 προς Τ\1υτα Α: inteΓpretation of the gods ίη the doxographies. Note that the quotation from
corr. Gesner 25 άποπίπτοντας Α: corr. Ρ m. rec. Empedocles ίη 22.1 is found injust such a context (Aetius, Plac. ι. Ι. 1-1.3.25).
54 ATHENAGORAS 23. ι 23.6 LEGATIO 55

23. Εtποιτε αν οον συν'σει 7Τάντφ; ύπεP'XOνTε~' τ{νι οΟν TlfJ

Ι 23. Now you, who are wiser than all men, may reply: 'Why is it,
' " - €ι'δ ω'λων ενεργει,
' Λ' ,\ θ εοι,' ε'Φ' oι~ ' θα then, that some of the images actually effect things if the gods do
λ ογψ ενια των \ εισιν
€ι μη l' ιΙδρυομε

\ , 'λ ' \ ,\ \ '.1. ' \' / , , θ'

not exist to whom we erect these statues? For it is not likely that
τα αγα ματα; ου γαρ εΙKO~ Tα~ αψυxoυ~ και αKινηToυ~ €ιKOνα~ κα inanimate and motionless images would haνe such power of
~" Ι 'Α.... \ \~ \, \
εαυTα~ ισχυειν xωpι~ του KινoυνTO~. 2. το μεν υ/ι κατα Toπoυ~ και themselνes if nothing were moνing them.' 2. Not eνen we deny
7T6λει~ και lθνη γ{γνεσθα{ ηνα~ έπ' όν6μαη είδώλων ένεpγε{α~ that ίη some places, cities, and nations certain things are brought
ου
'δ' ημει~
t Λ ανη
, '
λ εγομεν' ου μην ει ω ,\,
'Φ ε λη/θ ησαν ηνε~ και αυ ε'λ υπη- / \ '" / about ίη the name of images; but although some haνe been
" \ - \
\ ,/ benefited and others been harmed, we do not think that gods
θησαν ετεροι,
θ εOυ~ νοουμεν Toυ~ ε'Φ' εκατερα
Ι, 'λλ α
ενεpγησανTα~, α
are responsible for what is brought about ίη either case; rather
και Ψ λ6γψ νομ{ζετε ίσχύειν Τι], εtδωλα και T{νε~ οί JVEPYOVVTE~ we haνe made a careful examination both as to the reason why
επι
'β αTευOνTε~ / αυτων
,- TOΙ~
Λ"ονομασιν,
"
- επ ,
ακρι
β ε~ \ 'C '
ε~ ητακαμεν. you think that the images possess power and who they are who
3. άναγκαίΌν δ' μοι μ'λλονη δεικνύειν, T{νε~ οί έπι TOΙ~ είδώλoι~ usurp the names of the images and bring these things about.
JVEPYOVVTE~ και όη μ~ θεο{, προσχρήσασθα{ ησι και των άπό
3. Now that Ι am about to show who they are who bring
- these things about by taking possession of the images and to
Φ ιλοσο Φ ια~
" Θ λ- δ Λ
μαρτυσιν. 4. πpωTO~ Ι-/α η~
t
ιαιΡει, ω~ οι τα εκεινου
t \ , ,
show that tl1.ey are not gods, Ι feel that Ι ought to make use also of
'β-
α/φι oυνTε~
2 /
μνημονευουσιν,
'θ'
ει~ εον,
'δ'
ει~ αιμoνα~,
,t,
ει~ ηpωα~. certain philosophers as my witnesses.
άλλα. "θεόν" μεν "τόν VOVV TOV κ6σμου" αγει, "δα{μoνα~" δε 4. )'hales, as those who know his doctrines well record, was
" , ' " Λ ".1. \ \ t, \ '.1. \" των- the firs't tO' distinguish God, demons, and heroes. He presents God
oυσια~ νοει ψυXΙKα~ και ηpωα~ Tα~ KεXωpισμενα~ ψυxα~
as the mind of the "vorld, but regards demons as psychic sub-
'θ'
αν ρωπων, '" αγα θoυ~
\ \
μεν \
Tα~ ,
αγα θ'
α~, 'δ"
KαKoυ~ ε Tα~ Φ αυ'λ oυ~ "α
. stances and heroes as souls separated from men-good heroes
5. Πλάτων δε τα. άλλα έπ'χων και αύTό~ Etso τε τόν άγ'νητον 3 θεόν being good souls, eνil heroes eνil souls.
5. Eνen Plato himself, who suspended judgement ίη regard to
και τους ύπό TOV άγενήτου 4 εΙς κ6σμον TOV ούρανο;; γεγον6τας, b
all the rest, makes a diνision between, οη the one hand, the un-
τούς τε πλανήτας και τους άπλανεις άστ'ρας, και εΙς δα{μονας created God along with those produced by the uncreated One to
τ'μνει' περι ιLν δαιμ6νων αύτός άπαξιων λ'γειν, τοις περι αύτων beautify the heaνen-the planets and fixed stars-and, οη the
είρηκ6σιν προσ'χειν άξιοι' "περι δε των αλλων δαιμ6νων είπειν και
other hand, the demons. Since he does not think it worth dis-
cussing these demons, he is satisfied to follow those who haνe
γνωναι T~ν γ'νεσιν μειζον η καθ' ήμας, πειστ'ον δε τοις είρηκ6σιν already spoken of them:
"
εμπροσ θ"
εν, εγγονοις μεν -
'θ εων '"
ουσιν, ως ε Ι "Φ ασαν, σα Φ-'
ως γε που τους , Ι t is beyond our powers to tell of the rest of the demons or to
έαυτων πpoγ6νoυ~ είδ6των' άδύνατον οΟν θεων παισιν άπιστειν, know their origin, but we must put our trust ίη those who haνe
κανπερ ανευ εΙκ6των και άναγκα{ων άποδε{ξεων λ'γωσιν, άλλα. ώς told the story before, since they were the offspring of the gods
'ΛΦ' , 'λλ ι, - νομψ
, , (as they said)-gods who clearly know their own ancestors. We
οικεια ασκοντων απαγγε ειν επομενους τψ πιστευτεον.
cannot, then, distrust the offspring of the gods eνen though
6. ούτως οΟν κατ' έκε{νους και ήμιν ή γ'νεσις περι τούτων των they speak without pertinent and necessary proofs: but we
θεων έχ'τω και λεγ'σθω. Γης τε και Ούρανο;; παιδες ΏKεαν6~ τε must follow custom and belieνe them when they claim to be
και Τηθυς έγεννήθησαν, τούτων δε Φ6PKO~ Κρ6νος τε και ΙΡ'α και giνing information about their family history. 6. Οη their

όσοι μετα. τούτων, έκ δε Κρ6νου τε και' ΙΡ'ας Ζευς 'Ήρα τε και authority, then, we too are to hold and declare a lίke νiew of
, C\ " , 'δ ε λΦ ους
'λ εγομενους αυτων εη τε τουτων ' , - " , the origin of these gods: Ocean and Tethys were the offspring
παντες, ους ισμεν παντας α
of Earth and Heaνen, and from these came Phorcus, Cronus,
Rhea, and all their company. From Cronus and Rhea came
23. α Aetius, Plαc. Σ. 7.11; 1.8.2 b Cf. Tim. 40 a-b
Zeus, Hera, and all the rest whom we know-all those called
23. ι σ.νσ.νουν Α: corr. Αι 2 ά/(ΡιβουVT€~ Gesner: διαΙPOυντ€~ ά/(PιβOυντ€~ Α
their brothers and sisters as well as others who are their off-
3 άΥ'ννητον Α 4 άy€ννήΤOυ Α spring.
 56 ATHENAGORAS 23.6 24. ι LEGATIO 57
άλλους έκγόνους ."c 7. ap' οον d τον dtδιον ν ψ 5 καΙ λόγφ κατα- 7. Did he then who came to understand the eternal God appre-
λαμβανομενον
, ,
7ΤΕΡινοησας θ'
εον και' " Q β'
τα ε7ΤισυμjJε '~'C
ηκοτα αυτφ ε~-
ι 6 ,,' ,Ι Φ' " θ' , , , "'" ι
hended by mind and reason, who singled out his attributes: true
εΙ7Των, το οντως ον, το μονο υες, το αγα ον α7Τ αυτου α7Τοχεομενον,
,

being, oneness of nature, the good which is truth flowing from

ό7ΤΕΡ έστΙν αλήθεια, καΙ 7ΤερΙ "7Τρώτης δυνάμεως"·7 ... καΙ8 "7ΤερΙ
, " him, and who spoke concerning 'the first power': ... and 'it is ίη
' 97Ταντων
τον ' βασι λ'
εα 7Ταντα εστιν και" , . ,ενεκεν 7Ταντα
εκεινου , και,
έκεινο αϊτιον 7Τάντων" καΙ 7ΤερΙ δευτέρου καΙ τρΖτου ΙΟ "δεύτερον relation to the King of al1 and οη his account that all things exist,
δε 7ΤερΙ τα δεύτερα καΙ τρΖτον 7ΤΕΡΙ τα τρΖτα", d 7ΤερΙ των έκ των and he is the cause of all', and concerning a 'second' and a 'third':
αΙσθητων, γης τε και ούρανου, λεγομένων γεγονέναι μειζον ~ καθ' 'the second has to do with the second class ofthings and the third
έαυτον πΙληθες μαθειν ένόμισεν; ή ούκ εσην εΙ7ΤεΙν. 8. dλλ' έ7Τει with the third class'-did he think it beyond his powers to learn
dδύνατον γενναν και d7Τοκυίσκεσθαι θεους ένόμισεν έ7Τομένων τοις the truth concerning the beings said to haνe come into existence
γιγνομένοις τελων και εη ΙΙ τούτου αδυνατώΤΕΡον μετα7Τεισαι τους from the perceptible realms of earth and heaνen? Surely we
7ΤΟ λλ ους
' αjJασανιστως
'Q' "θ
τους μυ ους 7Ταρα δ'
εχομενους, δ ια' ταυτα
~ cannot say that! 8. But since he thought it impossible for gods to
μειζον ~ καθ' έαυτον γνωναι καΙ εΙ7Τειν εΦrι 7Τερι της των άλλων beget and to be brought forth (for what comes into existence also
δαιμόνων γενέσεως, ούτε μαθειν ούτε έξεΙ7Τειν γεννασθαι θεους comes to an end) and since he thought it still more impossible
δυνάμενος.IΙ 9. και το εΙρημένον αύτψ "δ δ~ μέγας ήγεμων έν
than this to persuade the crowd which accepts the myths without
ούρανψ Ζεύς, έλαύνων 7Ττηνον αρμα, 7Τρωτος 7Τορεύεται διακοσμων
due examination, that is why he said it was beyond his powers to
7Τάντα και έ7Τιμελούμενος, Τψ δε Ε7Τεται στραηα θεων τε καΙ
know and to tel1 of the birth of the rest of the demons: he could
δαιμόνων"e ούκ έ7ΤΙ του α7ΤΟ Κρόνου λεγομένου εχει Διός' εση γαρ
έν τούτφ ονομα Τψ 7Τοιητυ των όλων. 10. δηλοι δε και αύτος neither admit nor say that the gods were born. 9. And this
d Πλάτων' έτέρφ σrιμανηKφ 7ΤροσεΙ7Τειν αύτον ούκ εχ ων , Τψ remark of his, 'Zeus, the great Prince ίη heaνen, driνing his
δ ημω'δ ει ονομαη
" " ως ι'δ ιφ
ουχ ' του~ θ εου,
~ α'λλ" εις σαΦηνειαν, οη μη, '" winged chariot, proceeds first to order all things and to take care
δ υνατον
" εις 7Ταντας
, ,
Φ ερειν τον
'θ εον,
' κατα, δ'υναμιν 13 7Τρ οσε χρησατο,
' of them, and a host of gods and demons follows him', does not
έ7Τικατηγορήσας το "μέγας", ίνα διαστεΖλτι τον ούράνιον d7TO του haνe to do with the Zeus called son of Cronus; for ίη this passage
χαμαθεν, τον dγένητον l4 d7TO του γενητου,15 του νεωτέρου μεν the name refers to the Maker of all things. 10. Plato himself
, ~ και,~
ουρανου 'δ'ε Ηρητων,
γης, νεωτερου τ.τ ~ 'c' λ,',
οιt\ ε~εK "
εψαν αυτον μη, shows this: since he could not address him by using any other
αναιΡεθηναι ύ7ΤΟ του 7Τατρός. designation, he did what he could and employed the popular
name, not because it was proper to God but for the sake of
24. ΤΖ δε δει 7Τρος υμας 7Τάντα λόγον κεκινηκότας ~ 7Τοιητων clarity (since it is not possible to bring God to all men), adding
μνημονεύειν η και έτέρας δόξας έξετάζειν, τοσουτον εΙ7Τειν εχ ονη ' εΙ
the epithet 'great' so that he might separate the heaνenly from
23. c Tim. 40 d-e (cf. Clement, Strom. 5. 13.84; Eusebius, Prαep. 2. 7. ι; 13. ι; the earthly Zeus, the uncreated from the created, the latter more
13· 14· 5) d Ερ. 2, 312 e (cf. Justin, Δροι. 1.60.7; Origen, Cels. 6. 18)
e Phaedr. 246 e recent than heaνen and earth, more recent than the Cretans who
stole him away to preνent him from being destroyed by his
23. 5 νουν Α: corr. Schwartz 6 έξειπειν Α: corr. Gesner 7 post father.
δυνάμεως lacunam indicavit Schwartz 8 και Α: και' ώς Αι 9 τόν ρ:
των Α 10 δευτέρου και' τρ{του Schwartz: δύο και' τΡ{α Α ΙΙ έτι
Gesner: τό Α 12 δυναμένους Α: corr. Gesner 13 κατα. δύναμιν τόν 24. What need is there with you who are wel1 νersed ίη eνery­
θεόν Α: corr. Schwartz 14 άγέννητον Α 15 γεννητου Α
thing either to call to mind poets or to examine still other opinions?
 58 ATHENAGORAS 24. ι 24·5 LEGATIO 59
και" μη ποιηται"Φλ'
και ι οσο Φ"
οι ενα μεν ειναι επεγινωσκον θ εον,
'1' ' περι, " It iS sufficient for me to say this: suppose that the poets and
δ~ τούτων οϊ μεν ώς περι δαιμόνων, οϊ δ~ ώς περι ύλης, οί δ~ ώς philosophers did not recognize that God was one and did not have
'θρωπων
περι, αν ' "Φ
γενομενων Α
ε ρονουν, ημεις
t , [
τε ]1"αν εικοτως
" ε'ξ εν- critical opinions about the other gods, some regarding them as
ηλατούμεθα,2 διαιΡεηκΙΡ λόγψ και περι θεου και ύλης και περι της demons, others regarding them as matter, others regarding them
, ,-, ,
τουτων αυτων ουσιας κεχρημενοι;
, 2. "
ως γαρ
θ'
εον
Φ ,t,
αμεν και υιον as men who once lived, would it make sense to have us banished
τον λόγον αύτου και πνευμα άγιον, ένούμενα μ~ν καηΙ δύναμιν3 because we have a doctrine which distinguishes God and matter
<διαιρούμενα δε κατα τάξιν εΙς) τον πατ'ρα, τον υίόν, το πνευμα, and their respective substances?
ο, νους,
οη - λ'
ογος, σο Φ'
ια οt υιος
" 4 του
- πατρος
, και' "
απορροια ως
t Φ-
ως απο ), 2. We say that there is God and the 80n, his Word, and the
Holy 8pirit, united ίn power yet distinguished ίn rank as the
πυρος το πνευμα, ούτως και έτ'ρας εΙναι δυνάμεις κατειλήμμεθα
Father, the 80n, and the 8pirit, since the 80n is mind, reason
περι T~ν ύλην έχούσας και δι' αύτης, μίαν μεν T~ν άντίθεον, ούχ [word], and wisdom of the Father and the 8pirit an efHuence 1ike
οη , δ ο ξουν
., ανη - η" εση τψ- θεψ- ως
t T'[J- Φ ι λ'Lq, το'Α " τον
νεικος κατα
light from fire. 80 also we have recognized that there are other
'Εμπε δ οκλ εα
' και ΤΊ/ ημερq, νυ'ξ κατα"Φ'
,- " τα αινομενα ("'"
επει καν ει powers which are concerned vvith matter and operate through it.
άνθειστήκει η ΤΙΡ θεΙΡ, έπαύσατ05 του εΙναι, λυθείσης αύτου Tfj του One ofthem is opposed to God, not because there is a counterpart
θεου δυνάμει και Ισχύι της συστάσεως), άλλ' όη ΤΙΡ του θεου to God as Strife is a counterpart to Love ίn Empedocles or as
, θ- "' , ββ" ,-,
αγα ψ, ο κατα συμ ε ηκος εσην αυτψ και συνυπαρχ
, t
ως χροα
,
ον Night is a counterpart to Day ίn the realm of nature (for if any-
ι 'ί'" J/ 'λλ' t ,
σωμαη, ου ανευ ουκ εσην ουχ ως μερους οντος, α ως κατ
,,' (' f , >1
thing had stood opposed to God, it would surely have ceased to
άνάγκην συνόντος παρακολουθήματος, ~νωμ'νoυ και συγκεχρωσ- exist, its constitution dissolved by the power and might of God),
,
μενου 6 ως
t τψ- πυρι'ξ αν θ-
Ψ ειναι
l' - αι'θ'
και,τψ -, )
ερι κυανψ " "εση
ενανηον but because the spirit which is concerned with matter is opposed
το περι T~ν ύλην έχον πνευμα, γενόμενον μεν ύπο του θεου, καθο to God's goodness. This goodness belongs to God as an attribute
<και)7 οί λοιποι ύπ' αύτου γεγόνασιν άγγελοι, και T~ν έπι Tfj ύλΊ/ and is coexistent with him as colour is with corporeal substance;
και τοις της ύλης εrδεσι πεπιστευμ'νον8 διοίκησιν. 3. τούτων 9 γαρ without it he does not exist. It is not as though it were a part of
~ των άγγ'λων σύστασις ΤΙΡ θειρ έπι ΠΡονοlq, γ'γονε τοις ύπ' him but rather an accompanying quality necessarily associated
αύτου διακεκοσμημ'νοις, ίν' -Π ιο την μεν πανTελΙK~ν και γενι~ν ό with him, as united and allied with him as a yel1owish-red is with
θεος <έχων)ΙΙ των όλων πρόνοιαν, την δε έπι μ'ρους οί έπ' αύτοις fire and a deep blue with the sky. The spirit opposed to him was
ταχθ'ντες άγγελοι. 4. ώς δ~ και έπι των άνθρώπων αύθαίρετον και ίn fact created by God just as the rest of the angels were also
.. , , ,\
την αρετην και την κακιαν εχοντων
'" (' \ ,
επει ουκ αν ουτ
't\ "" _
εηματε τους
, created by him, and he was entrusted with the administration of
άγαθους οϋτ' έκολάζετε τους πονηρούς, εΙ μ~ έπ' αύτοις ην και ή matter and material things.
,
κακια και η αρετη 't, ') [ και'] 12 οιtμεν
, σπου δ αιοι
Α περι, α
t\ Ι
πιστευονται υ'Φ'
3. These angels were cal1ed into being by God to exercise
providence over the things set ίn order by him, so that God would
ύμων, οί δε άπιστοι εύρlσκονται, και το κατα τους άγγ'λους έν
have universal and general providence over all things whereas
όμοlψ καθ'στηκεν. 5. οϊ μεν γαρ άλλοι-αύθαlρετΟΙ δη γεγόνασιν
the angels would be set over particular things. ι 4. As ίn the case
24. ι τε αν Α: τε seclusit Geffcken 2 ξενηλατούμεθα Α: corr. Stephanus
of men whose virtue and vice is a matter of choice (for you would
3 διαιρούμενα δ~ κατa τάξιν εΙι; (cf. 10. 5) add. Schwartz 4 υίόι; Α: ό neither honour the good nor punish the evil if virtue and vice
υίόι; s 5 post έπαύσατο add. αν (ex Method. ίη Epiph. 64. 20) Schwartz, were not ίn their hands) some take seriously what has been en-
Geffcken 6 συγκεχρωμένου Α 7 και add. (ex Method.) Wilamowitz
trusted to them by you whereas others are found untrustworthy,
8 πεπιστευμένον (ex Method. ίη Phot. cod. 234) Schwartz: πιστευσάμενον Α
9 τούτων (ex Method. ίη Phot.) Schwartz: τουτο Α 10 ίν' η Α: corr.
so it is ίn the case of the angels. 5. 80me of them-they were,
Wilamowitz ΙΙ έχων add. (ex Method.) Wilamowitz 12 και seclusit
24. ι Reminiscent ofthe teaching ofPlato (Tim. 41 a). Α moreJewish version
Schwartz
of this doctrine is preserved ίη the fragments of Papias (frg. 4).
60 ATHENAGORAS 24·5 25.2 LEGATIO 61

• \
υπΌ του - θ εου-εμειναν
-" ε'Φ''''' \
οις αυτους "
εποιησεν \~'ξ εν ο
και οιετα • remember, created free by God-remained true to the task for
ι
θ εος, ι ~, , ~R \ - Α "f Ι ,_, ......
οι οε EVVjJPLaav και τΠ τηι:; ουσιας υποστασει και τπ αρχπ which God made them and to which he had appointed them.
οδτ6ς τε ό τηι; ϋληι; και των έν αύτfj εΙδων άρχων και έτεροι των Others violated both their own nature and their office. These
περι τ6 πρωτον τουτο στερέωμα (ϊστε δ~ μηδεν ~μαι; αμάρτυρον include the prince over matter and material things and others
'
λ εγειν, α '" προ Φ'
οε τοις
,,<;:-\ 'Φ'
ηταιι; εκπε )α'
ωνηται μηνυειν, εκεινοι μεν εις , '" \, who are of those stationed at the first firmament (do realize that
έπιθυμίαν πεσόντει; παρθένων και 7JTTOVSO σαρΚ6Ι; εύρεθέντει;, οδτος we say nothing unsupported by evidence but that we are ex-
δ~ αμελήσαι; και πονηρ6Ι; περι την των πεπιστευμένων γενόμενος
ponents of what the prophets uttered); the latter are the angels
διοίκησιν. 6. έκ μ~ν οδν των περι Τ<1Ι; παρθένους έχόντων οί
who fell to lusting after maidens and let themselves be conquered
καλούμενοι έγεννήθησαν γίγαντει;· εΙ δέ ηι; έκ μέρουι; εϊρηται περι
των γιγάντων και ποιηταιι; λόγος, μη θαυμάσητε, TijS' κοσμικijς 13
by the fl.esh, the former failed his responsibility and operated
'
••• σο Φ ιας <Ι
οσον α'λη'θ εια πι θ ανου
- οια
<;:- Φ' - και\της
~ λλ αττουσων
ερει οια - wickedly ίη the administration of what had been entrusted to
μεν ούσης έπουρανίου, TijS' δε έπιγείου και κατ<1. τ6ν άρχοντα της him.
ϋλης· 6. Now from those who went after maidens were born the so-
,ι
ισμεν ,1.'~
ψευοεα 17'0λλ α \ λ' "
εγειν ετυμοισιν ομοια. b • '" called giants. Do not be surprised that a partial account of the
giants has been set forth also by poets. Worldly wisdom and
prophetic wisdom differ from one another as truth differs from
25. οδτοι τοίνυν οί άγγελοι οι εκπεσόντες των ούρανων, περι τ6ν probability-the one is heavenly, the other earthly and ίη har-
, ", , , - , Ι , 't Ι t ,,Ι,
mony with the prince of matter:
αερα εχοντες και την γην, ουκεη εις τα υπερουρανια υπερκυψαι
~ , \. - , .1. \. \ \, , \
ουναμενοι, και αι των γιγαντων ψυχαι οι περι τον κοσμον ει σι We l{now how to tell many falsehoods which have the form of
Πλ ανωμενοι
' ~ι
οαιμονες, • Ι
ομοιας κινησεις,
, "'''λβ
οι" μεν αις ε α ον συστασεσιν, , truth.
οί δαίμονες, οί δέ, αίς εσχον έπιθυμίαις, οί άγγελοι, ποιούμενοι.
ό δε της ϋλης άρχων, ώς εσην έξ αύτων των γινομένων Ιδειν, 25. These angels, then, who fel1 from heaven busy themselves
έναντία τψ αγαθψ του θεου έπιτροπεύει και διοικεΙ. about the air and the earth and are ηο longer able to rise to the
πολλάκι μοι πραπίδων διηλθε Φροντίς, realms above the heavens. The souls of the giants are the demons
'ι , ,ι <;:-, , R' 1 ' who wander about the world. Both angels and demons produce
ειτε τυχα ειτε οαιμων τα jJPOTELa κραινει,

παρά τ' έλπίδα και παρα δίκαν movements-demons movements which are akin to the natures
tTOVS' μεν απ' οίκων δ' έναπίπτοντας they received, and angels movements which are akin to the lusts
αταρ θεου,2 τους δ' εύτυχουντας άγει t. α with which they were possessed. The prince ofmatter, as may be
seen from what happens, directs and administers things ίη a
2. <ει')3'
το παρ "λ ι~
ε ΠΙUα ~,
και οικην ,
ευ πραττειν η κακως εν α'Φ aaLq.
, '" ., -,
manner opposed to God's goodness.
Oft into my heart has come this thought:
24. α Cf. Gen. 6: 1-5; Enoch 6: 2 b Hesiod, Theog. 27 25. α Euripides, That either chance or demon rules men's lives.
frg. 901 (Nauck 2 )
Against hope and against justice
Ι t casts some forth from homes
24. 13 post κοσμικης add. και της προΦητικης Schwartz Apart from God, and others it makes prosper.
25. ι βιότια Α: corr. Dechair Ζ τους μεν άπ' οίκων κaτaπίπτοντaς (vel
άποπίπτοντας) aτερ θεού (βίου Grotius) Gesner 3 εΙ add. Gercke 2. Iffaringwell or badly against hope andjustice left Euripides
62 ATHENAGORAS 25.2 25·4 LEGATIO 63

τον ΕVΡιπlδην έποlησεν, τlνος ή TOLaVTη των ,"€pLYElwv διοlκησις, speechless, to whom belongs the administration of earthly affairs
~ ~ " " which is of such a nature that a man could say:
εν [J ειποι Τις αν·

πως οΟν τάδ' εΙσορωντες4 ή θεων γ'νος

How, then, when we see such things, are we to say
There is a race of gods, or follow laws obediently?
εΙναι λ'γωμεν ήS νόμοισι χρώμεθα;b
This is what made Aristotle also say that things below heaven
τουτο κα~ τον Άριστοτ'λη άπρονόητα εΙπειν τα κατωτ'ρω του are not guided by Providence, although the eternal providence
OVpaVOi} έποlησεν, KalTOL της άϊδlου έπ' rσης ήμιν μενοvσης προ­ of God rests equally οη us all:
νοlας του θεου,
The earth by necessity, whether it wills or not,
ή γη δ' άνάγκυ, 6 καν θέλυ καν μη θέλυ, Makes the grass grow and thus fattens my flocks.
'
Φ υουσα ποιαν
ι 7 "
ταμα πιαινει
ι β οτα,
'c
But the particular providence of God which is concerned with
της δ' έπ~ μ'ρους προς άλήθειαν, OV προς δόξαν, χωροvσης έπ~ τους truth and not conjecture extends itself to those who are worthy
άξlους κα~ των λοιπων κατα το κοινον συστάσεως νόμψ λόγου 8 whereas everything else is subject to providence by the law of
προνοουμ'νων. 3. άλλ' έπει αί άπο TOVvaVTlov πνεvματος δαι-
reason as part of a total system.
3. But since the demonic impulses and activities of the hostile
μονικαι " κινησεις και '" ενεΡγειαι τας '" ατακτους ταυτας "Φ'
επι ορας
spirit bring these wild attacks-indeed we see them move men
παρ'χουσιν, ηδη και9 τους άνθρώπους άλλον άλλως, και καθ' ενα κα~ from within and from without, one man one way and another
κατα έθνη, μερικως κα~ κοινως, κατα τον της ύλης λόγον και της man another, some individually and some as nations, one at a
προς τα θεια συμπαθεlας, ένδοθεν και έξωθεν κινουσαι, δια τουτό time and all together, because of our kinship with matter and our
Τινες, ών δόξαι OV μΙΚΡαl, ένόμισαν OV τάξει τινι το παν τουτο
affinity with the divineI-in light of this, some men, whose
reputations are not small, have thought that our universe did not
συνεσταναι, , 'λλ'
α 'λ'
α ογψ τυχυ, "θαι
αγεσ και ' Φ'
ερεσ θ αι, ουκ ' ει'δ οτες
' arise ίη an orderly fashion but is the random product of irrational
όΤι των μεν περι την του παντος κόσμου aVUTaatv οvδεν άτακτον chance. They do not recognize that none of the things of which
οvδε άπημελημ'νον, άλλ' εκαστον aVTWV γεγονος λόγψ, διο οvδε the whole world is composed is disordered and neglected. Each
Την
"
ωρισμενην
,
επ
'" Λ
αυτοις Q ι
,"apajJatVOvat 'i;
ται:,ιν, 4. οt δ' "θρωπος
ε αν
of them is the product of reason, and that is why they do not
,
κατα μεν τον
"
πεποιηκοτα
"
και
"
αυτος
"
ευτακτως εχει
,ι ,~
και τυ κατα
, go beyond their appointed order. 4. Even man himself is a well-
, , Φ , ., , '[' ]' , 10 λ' ,~ , ordered creature to the extent that it depends οη the One who
Την γενεσιν υσει ενα και κοινον ΕΠ Εχουσυ ογον και τυ κατα
made him: his nature ίη its origin has one common reason, his
,λ'
την π ασιν
δ
ια
θ'
εσει ου
, ,"apajJatVOvaTJ
Q , ""
τον επ
~, ,~
αυττι νομον και Τψ bodily form does not go beyond the law set for it, and the end of
του
~ β'
ιου
'\
ΤΕl\ει
,ι
ισφ και
,
κοινφ
~,
μενονΤι, κατα
'δ'
ε
'''δ
τον ι ιον
f
εαυτφ
~
life remains common to all alike. But to the extent that it depends
λόγον και την του έπ'χοντος αρχοντος και των παρακολουθοvντων οη the reason peculiar to each individual and the activity of the
'
δ αιμονων , ,
ΕνεΡγειαν
!'\ \
U/\I\ος
,,\ \
U/\I\ως
Φ ,
ερεται και
'Λ
κινειται, κοινον
, ruling prince and his attendant demons, one man is swept along
one way, another man another way, even though all have the
πάντες τον έν αύτοις έχοντες λογισμόν. same rationality within.

25. b Frg. 99, adesp. (Nauck2 ) c Euripides, Cycl. 332-3 25. ι Geffcken thought that here Athenagoras allowed a pagan doctrine of
demonic activity (more 'neutral' ίη character) to overshadow and contradict
25. ,4 εΙσop~νToς Α:, εΙσορώντα: Αι .. 5 M~oμεν εΙ ι; 6 δl άνάγκ,ΤΙ Α those elements ίη his treatment ofthe subject which he derived fromJewish and
7 Φυουσαν οιαν Α: τικτουσα 'Ποιαν EurιpIdes: Φυουσα. 'Ποιαν Gesner 8 νομου Christian sources. But it is not necessary to link the 'affinity with the divine'
λόγου Schwartz: νόμψ Kα~ λόγψ vel νόμον Kα~ λόγον Geffcken 9 ήδη Kα~ Α : with the demons. lt is more likely, as Puech has noted, that Athenagoras is
textus νίχ sanus secundum Schwartz, Geffcken 10 έ'Πέχουσι Α: έ'Πεχούστι speaking of a conflict between demonic influence (exercised through matter)
Αι: corr. Schwartz and the affinity with the divine which is also proper to man (cf. 7. 2).
64 ATHENAGORAS 26. ι 26·5 LEGATIO 65

26. Kα~ οί μεν πεp~ 'Τ(Ι είδωλα αύτους €λKOνTες οί δαlμονές είσιν οί
26. Ι t is these demons -Who drag men to the images. They engross
themselves ίn the blood from the sacrifices and lick all around
προειρημένο ι, οί προστετηκότες τψ άπο των ίεΡεlων αΖμαη καί them. The gods that satisfy the crowd and give their names to the
ταυτα περιλιχμώμενοι' οί δε τοις πολλοις άρέσκοντες θεοι καί ταις images, as you can learn from their history, were once men.
είκόσιν έπονομαζόμενοι, ώς εσην έκ της κατ' αύτους iaToplaf; 2. The activity associated with each of them is your assurance
είδέναι, άνθρωποι γεγόνασιν. 2. καί τους μεν δαlμονας ElvaL τους that it is the demons who usurp their names. For some-I mean
'β'
επι ατευοντας
Λ"
τοις ονομασιν
,
πισης
tt,
η εκαστου
,~"
αυτων ενεργεια.
the devotees of RheaI-castrate themselves; others-I mean the
devotees of Artemis 2-make incisions and gash their genitals.
οί μεν γαρι άποτέμνουσι τα αίδοια, οί περί T~ν ΙΡέαν, οί δε έγ- (And the Artemis among the Taurians slaughters strangers!)
ι .,\"
κοπτουσιν η εντεμνουσιν, οι περι την r:tρτεμιν.
Ι ",~ (\Ι "",."
και η μεν εν 1. αυροις Ι shall not discuss those who mutilate themselves with knives and

Φ ονευει
, 'C'
τους ~ενoυς.
)'~' 'Λ
εω γαρ τους ταις μαχαιΡαις και τοις αστρα-
, 'Λ' knuckle-bones and what form of demons they have. For it is not
God's doing to incite men to things contrary to nature.
γάλοις αίκιζομένους αύτους λέγειν 2 • • • καί όσα είδη δαιμόνων.
, 'θ εου
~ Λ'" 'Φ' "., When the demon prepares evil for a man,
ου γαρ κινειν επι τα παρα υσιν' οταν οΙδ'
αιμων 'δ'
αν ρι
He first perverts his mind.
πορσυνυ , "~
κακα, τον νουν "Rλ αψε
EfJ .1, ~" ,α
πρωτον ΟΙ δ'ε θ' '
εος τε λειως
But God, who is perfectly good, eternally does what is good.
άγαθος ών άϊδlως άγαθοποιός έσην. 3. του Tolvvv άλλους μεν 3. Troy and Parium provide the best proof that it is others
l'
ειναι ,')
τους -
ενεργουντας, ε'Φ' t,
ετερων δ ε' ανιστασ
" ' εικονας,
θαι τας " who operate through the images than those for whom they were
έκεινο μέγιστον τεκμήριον, Τρωας καί Πάριον' ή μεν ΝεΡυλλlνου 3
erected: Troy has the images of Neryllinus 3 (a man of our own
time) ; Parium has the images of Alexander and Proteus. Both the
είκόνας εχει-ό4 άν~p των καθ' ήμας-το δε Πάριον Άλεςάνδρου grave and the image of Alexander4 are still ίn the market-place.
και
, Π'
ρωτεως' του
~ r:t
'Λλ ε~αν
C' δρου εη επι της
~, " ~ " 'Φ
αγορας και ο τα ος και
,t , Almost all of the statues of Neryllinus serve simply as public
ή είκών. οί μεν οδν άλλοι άνδριάντες του ΝεΡυλλlνου κόσμημά είσι monuments, since that is how a city is beautified. One of them,
however, is thought to give oracles and to heal the sick, and for
δημόσιον, είπερ καί τούτοις κοσμειται πόλις, ε[ς δε αύτων καί this reason the Trojans sacrifice to the statue, overlay it with gold,
ΧΡηματlζειν καί ίασθαι νοσουντας νομlζεται, καί θύουσ' τε δι' αύτα and wreathe it. 4. Then there is the statue of Alexander and that
και , ~
χρυσψ περια λ ειψουσιν
'1 και'Φ ~
στε ανουσιν 5 '
τον 'δ'
αν ριαντα οιι
of Proteus. Υou know about Proteus-the one who threw him-
- ' (τουτον
- self into the fire at 01ympia. s His statue is also said to give
Λ
Τρωα δ εις. 4. οt δ' 'Λλ ε~αν
ε του r:t C' δρου και,ι ~ Πρωτεως
ο του δ'
oracles. Το the statue of Alexander-'ill-starred Paris, ίn form
" Λ • Ι , , '.1.
,- \ \
ουκ αγνοειτε ριψαντα εαυτον εις το πυρ περι την
'Ολ ' ) Ι
υμπιαν , ο μεν
,
most fair, mad for women'6-public sacrifices and festivals are
και αύτος λέγεται ΧΡηματlζειν, Τψ δε του Άλεςάνδροv-"Δύσπαρι, celebrated; it is treated as a god who hears men's prayers.
εlδος άριστε, γυναιμανές"b_δημοτελεις άγονται θυσlαι και έορται
5. Well, then, are Neryllinus, Proteus, and Alexander the
ones who are responsible for these phenomena associated with
ώς έπηκόψ θεΨ. 5. πότερον οδν ό Νερυλλινος και ό Πρωτευς the statues, or is it the nature of the material used for them? The
και ό Άλέςανδρός είσιν οί ταυτα ένεργουντες περι 7(1, άγάλματα η material, however, is bronze, and what can bronze do by itself
της ύλης ή σύστασις; άλλ' ή μεν ύλη χαλκός έσην, Tl δε χαλκος when it is possible to change it into another shape as the Amasis
referred to by Herodotus did with his foot-basin?7 What more can
δύναται καθ' αύτόν, ον μεταποιησαι πάλιν είς €TεpOν σχημα
26. ι Early identified with Cybele (Rose, Hαndbook, ρ. 170).
εςεσην, ώς τον ποδονιπτηρα ό παρα Τψ Ήροδότψ Άμασις;C ό δε
2 Tlle Ephesian Artemis-that is, Cybele.
3 Otherwise unknown.
26. α Frg. 455, adesp. (Nauck2 ) b Homer, Iliαd 3. 39 C Cf. Herod. 2. 172 4 i.e. the infamous Alexander Abonuteichus satirized by Lucian.
5 i.e. the Peregrinus satirized by Lucian ίη his De Morte Peregrini.

ι μ~ν γαρ ΑΙ 6 Homer's Paris was also named Alexander.

26. post add. 2 post λέγεινlacunam indicavit Geffcken
Nεpυλλlνoν Α 4 ό Α: OS ΑΙ 7 Amasis had the basin made into an image as a sort of commentary οη his
3 5 χρυσψ post σrεΦaνoυσιν coll. Wilamo-
witz own rise from humble circumstances to kingship.
8268084 F
66 ATHENAGORAS 26·5 28.2 LEGATIO 67
Νερυλλινος και ό Πρωτευς και ό Άλέξανδρος Tl πλέον τοις Neryllinus, Proteus, and Alexander do for the sick? For what the
νοσουσιν; ά γαρ ή εΖκων λέγεται νυν ένεΡγειν, ένήργει 6 και ζωντος image is said to accomplish now, it did while Neryllinus was alive
και νοσουντος ΝεΡυλλlνου. and ίΙΙ himself !

\,δ 27. What is the solution? First, that the movements of the soul
27 • Τι, ουν;
l' ... \ < '" ./.
πρωτα μεν αι της ψυχης α ογοι και ιν α ματω
..."λ λ 'δ εις
not directed by reason but by fantasy ίη the realm of conjectures
περι τας δ6ξας κινήσεις άλλοτ' άλλα είδωλα τα μεν απο της ύλης derive various images, now one, now another, from matter or
έλκουσι, τα δε αύταις αναπλάττουσιν και κυουσιν. πάσχει δε simply mould them independently and give birth to them. Α soul
τουτο ψυx:fι μάλιστα του ύλικου προσλαβουσα και έπισVΓKpαθεισα experiences this especially when it attaches itself to the spirit of
matter and blends with it, when it does not look up to heavenly
1TVεύματος, ού προς τα ούράνια και τον τούτων ποιητην αλλα κάτω
\ \" βλ' θ λ"" ΑΙ < , l' ,
things and their Maker but down to earthly things, or, ίη general
προς τα επιγεια επουσα, κα ο ικως ειπειν , ως μονον αιμα και
terms, when it becomes mere blood and flesh and is ηο longer
σάρξ, ούκέτι πνεvμα καθαρον γιγνομένη. 2. αί ουν άλογοι αδται pure spiri t.
\ 'δ λ 'δ ... ./.... , 'δ λ Α' ,
και ιν α ματω εις της ψυχης κινησεις ει ω ομανεις αποτικτουσι 2. These movements ofthe soul not directed by reason but by
,
Φ αντασιας' <f
οταν
δ \ < λ
ε απα η
' " ,
και ευαγωγος ψυχη,
./." ,
ανηκοος μεν
\ και
, fantasy give birth to illusory images, which bring with them a
απειΡος λ6γων ερρωμένων, αθεώρητος δε του αληθους, απεριν6ητος mad passion for idols. When the soul is weak and docile, ignorant
and unacquainted with sound teachings, unable to contemplate
δε TOV πατρος και ποιητου των όλων, έναποσΦραγίσηται ψευδεις
the truth, unable to understand who the Fathι~r and Maker of all
περι αύτης δ6ξας, οί περι την ύλην δαίμονες, λίχνοι περι τας things is-when such a soul has impressed upon it false opinions
κνίσας και το των iEpElwv αΙμα οντες, απατηλοι δε ανθρώπων, προσ­ concerning itself, the demons associated with matter, because they
λαβ6ντες τας ψευδοδ6ξους ταύτας των πολλων της ψυχης κινήσεις, are greedy for the savour of fat and the blood of the sacrifices,
,
Φ αντασιας 'Α < , \ ... 'δ 'λ λ' 'β
αυτοις ως απο των ει ω ων και αγα ματων επι ατευον-
\, , and because their business is to delude men, take hold of these
deceitful movements ίη the soul of the many,- and by inνading
τες αύτων τοίς νοήμασιν εΖσρειν παρέχουσιν, και όσα καθ' αύτήν,
their thoughts flood them with illusory images which seem to come
ώς αθάνατος ΟΟσα, λογικως κινείται ΨVXη η προμηνύουσα τα from the idols and statues; and the demons harvest the fame of
μέλλοντα η θεΡαπεύουσα τα ένεστηκ6τα, τούτων την δ6ξαν καρ­ all the remarkable things which the soul, because of its immortal
πουνται οί δαίμονες. nature, brings about ίη a rational way of itself, whether it be
foretelling the future or healing present ills.
28. Άναγκαιον δε ίσως κατα τα προειΡημένα περι των όνομάτων
όλίγα εΖπεΙν. <Ήρ6δοτος μεν ουν και Άλέξανδρος ό l του Φιλlππου
28. After what has been said it is equal1y necessary to make a few
, ... \ \
εν ΤΏ προς την μητερα επιστο λ'"
'[J " «'
εκατεροι δ ε\,
εν ΤΏ,. . <Ηλ ιουπο'λ ει και \ remarks οη their names. Herodotus and Alexander the son of
Philip ίη his letter to his mother I say that they learned from
71Κ' Φ ι δ ι 2 και\
, ιγlΙΞμ
εν Θ
1-/ η'βαις εις '
'λογους Α ιερευσιν
τοις < ... α'ΦΑ '
ιχ θ αι λ εγονται ) Egyptian priests that the gods were once men. Both of them are
Φ ασι\ παρ '"εκεινων 'θ'
αν ρωπους αυτους γενεσ θ αι μα θ ειν.
" Α , 2. <n ' ρο- said to have conversed with the priests ίη Heliopolis, Memphis,
δ οτος' ""δ
η η l'
ων ...
των .εικονες
αι ,' l'
ησαν, "
τοιουτους απε δ εικνυσαν
ι 'Φσ εας and Thebes. 2. Herodotus writes:
' ']3"εοντας,
[αυτους '" δ ε\
θ εων πο λλ ον 'λλ'
\ a1T'YJ αγμενους. το \ δ ε\ προτερον
, They pointed out, then, that those of whom there were images
των ανδρων τούτων θεους εΙναι τους εν ΑΖγύπτψ άρχοντας, οΖκέον­ were of that nature and were far from being gods. Before the
time of these men, indeed, those who ruled ίη Egypt were gods
τας4 άμα τοις ανθρώποισιν, και τούτων αει ένα τον κρατέοντα
who dwelt among men; and one of them had always ruled.
26. 6 ένεργει Α: corr. Maranus
28. ι This was a forged document actually produced by Leon of Pella (1.
27. ι είπειν Wilamowitz: είς γην Α
Geffcken ίn PWK xii/2 [1925], 2012-14). It dealt with the gods of Egypt from
28. ι ό add. ΑΙ 2 ΜέμΦ, Α 3 αύτους seclusit Schwartz a rationalistic point of view (affinities with Hecataeus of Teos and Euhemerus)
4 ούκέοντας Α
and was frequently cited by Christian apologists from Tatian to Augustine.
68 ATHENAGORAS 28.2 28·7 LEGATIO 69
1''' c;:- , ,,.. β
ειναι' υστερον οε αυΤης
λ'"
ασι ευσαι
f'Ώ "Ο'
ρον τον
-ς:-,
σιρεως παιοα, τον
Later, Horus, the son of Osiris, whom the Greeks name Αροl1ο,
'Λ
rJ.TTO'λλωνα "ΕΛΛηνες
'\ \ , ιr
ονομα,:>ουσιν' -
τουτον ,
καταπαυσαντα Τυ Φ""
ωνα
reigned over Egypt. He overthrew Typhon and was the last
,...·'
βασιλ ευσαι υστατον
Α'
ιγυπτου.
, "Ο σιΡις ς:-"
οε εστι
Δ'
ιονυσος κατα
, god to reign over Egypt. Osiris is Dionysus ίη the Greek
ΙΕλλ 'ς:-
ι αοα -
γλ ωσσαν. "α 3. οι., l'
τε ουν "λλ οι και'λ
α Λ
τε ευταιος β ασι λ εις
Λ 5 language.
Αίγύπτου' παρα δε τούτων είς 'Έλληνας ήλθε τα όνόματα των 3. So, then, al1 were kings of Egypt including the last. From
θεων. b Άπόλλων ό Διονύσου και 'Ίσιδος' ό αύτος ΙΗρόδοτος· them the names of the gods came to the Greeks. ΑροlΙο is the son
"Άπόλλωνα δε και Άρτεμιν Διονύσου και 'Ίσιδος λέγουσιν εΙναι of Dionysus and Isis. The same Herodotus says: 'They say that
Λς:-
παιοας, ' οε
Λ ητω ς:- , τρο Φ ον αυτοισ
'Λ ι και , 'θ αι. "c
σωτειΡαν6 γενεσ < ')' Apollo and Artemis are offspring of Dionysus and Isis and that
"
4. ους "
ουρανιους
,
γεγονοτας
,
πρωτους
β λ'
ασι εας
7 .,
εσχον, πτι μεν
, Leto was their nurse and preserver.' 4. These celestials were their
dyvolq. της άληθους περι το θειον εύσεβεΕας, 1TTJ δε χάριτι της άρχης first kings; partly out of ignorance of true piety concerning the
'
θ εους f ,... Λ l'C ' , ,...
ομου ταις γυναΙς ιν αυτων ηγον.
"" θ'
τους μεν νυν κα αρους
β
ους
,. . divine and partly out of thankfulness for their reign they con-
τους έρσενας και τους μόσχους οί πάντες ΑΙγύπτιοι θύουσι, τας δε sidered them 'gods' together with their wives.
θη λ ειας
' "Φ
ου σ ιν εςεστι "c θ' 'λλ'
υειν, α α ιραι
f -"Τ
" εισι της ς:-
l.σιοος· <\ \ -
το γαρ της
ΑΙΙ the Egyptians sacrifice male cattle and calves whicll are
ς:-
"]σιοος )8 "λμα
αγα '\
εον γυναικηιον , β'
ουκερων " εστι, κα θ απερ ' οιf pure; they are not permitted to sacrifice females, for they are
"Ε'\ \
ΛΛηνες "Τ""
την 1.0υν γρα'Φ ουσιν. d " 5. 'ς:-'"
τινες ο αν ""λλ ον
μα ταυτα ,. . sacred to Isis. For the statue of Isis which is ίη the form of a
πιστευθειεν λέγοντες .η οί κατα διαδοχην γένους παις παρα πατρός, woman has the horns of a cow, as the Greeks depict 10.
ώς την ίερωσύνην και την ίστορΕαν διαδεΧόμενΟι;e ού γαρ τους
σεμνοποιουντας ζακόρους τα είδωλα είκος άνθρώπους αύτους 5. When they talk about these things, who should be believed
γενεσ
'θ
αι
./.'C;:- θ
ψευοεσ αι.
6 . ει' , 9 fHροοοτος
τοινυν
'ς:- ,'\
εΛεγεν περι των
\ ,... θ ,. .
εων
more readily than those who have received ίη a natural succession
ώς περι άνθρώπων ίστορείν ΑίγυπτΕους, και λέγοντι Τψ ΙΗροδότψ from father to son the account of these stories along with the
" \,
τα μεν νυν
θ εια
Λ των
,... 'Φ ι 1'" '" 'θ
α ηγηματων, οια ηκουον, ουκ ειμι προ υμος
priesthood? For it is not likely that the personnel of the temple
διηγεισθαι, έξω .ηιο τα όνόματα αύτέων μουνα" f έλάχιστα μηιι who venerate the images are lying when they say that their gods
πιστεύειν ώς μυθοποιψ έδει' έπει δε Άλέξανδρος και ΙΕρμης ό were once men. 6. 1f, then, Herodotus said that the Egyptians
Τρισμέγιστος έπικαλούμενος συνάπτω ν το ίδιον l2 αύτοίς γένος και gave an account of their gods as if they were men, one ought
άλλοι μυρΕοι, {να μη καθ' εκαστον καταλέγοιμι, ούδε λόγος έτι hardly to disbelieve Herodotus as an inventor of fiction even
κατ aλ εΙΠΕται
' βασιλ-" "\
εις οντας αυτους 'θαι θ'
μη νενομισ εους. 7. και \ though he says: 'Ι am not "\villing to relate things concerning
ότι μεν άνθρωποι, δηλουσιν μεν και ΑίγυπτΕων οί λογιώτατοι, οϊ the divine ίη the stories which Ι have heard; Ι will mention
θεους λέγοντες αΙθέρα, γην, ijλιον, σελ~νην, τους άλλους άνθρώπους only their names.' When Alexander and Hermes who is called
'
θ νητους 'Υ
νομι,:>ουσιν και
\
ιερα
f \
τους
\ 'Φ
τα ους
,,...
αυτων'
c;:-
οη
λ Λ
οι
ς:- \
οε και
, Trismegistus 2 link their own family with the gods, and others too
numerous to mention individually do likewise, there is ηο longer
28. α Herod. 2. 144 b Cf. ibid. 2. 50 c Ibid. 2. 156 d Ibid. 2.41 any reason left to doubt that they were regarded as gods because
e Cf. ibid. 2. 143 f Ibid. 2. 3 they were kings. 7. The most learned of the Egyptians show that
these were men; for whereas they call ether, earth, sun, and moon
28. 5 βασιλευς Α: corr. Schwartz 6 αύτοί'ς σριαν Α: αύτοί'σι και σώτειΡαν
gods, they regard all others as mortal men and their tombs as
Herodotus 7 βασιληας Α 8 το γαρ της Ισιδος (ex Herod.) U
temples. Apollodorus ίη his book 'Concerning the Gods' shows
add. Schwartz 9 τοίνυν v\'ilamowitz: τι μεν Α: τι μεν οδν Αι 10 έξω ή
Herodotus: εξ ών Α ΙΙ ελάχιστα μη Α: μη seclusit Schwartz: μηδ' 28. 2 The supposed author of the Corpus Hermeticum. This is the earliest reference
ελάχιστα Geffcken 12 ί'διον Schwartz: άίδιον Α to this more than shadowy figure.
70 ATHENAGORAS 28·7 29.2 LEGATIO 71
Άπολλόδωρος έν τψ πεp~ θεων. 8. (Ηρόδοτος δε και τα παθήματα 13 the same thing. 8. Herodotus also calls their sufferings mysteries:
3

, ~ ιIv....
αυτων ψ,ρι μυστηρια'
,,,, ~'B
εν σε
'
ουσιΡΙ πο
'λ ( "
ει ως αναγουσι
14 ττι~ "Ισι Ι haνe already told how they celebrate the festiνal of Isis ίη the
την έορτήν, είρηται πρότερόν μοι. τvπτονται γαρ δ7] μετα την city ofBusiris. ΑΙΙ the men and women, numbering many many
θυσίην πάντες και πασαι, μυριάδες κάρτα πολλαι ανθρώπων. τόν δε thousands, beat their breasts after the sacrifice. Ι would profane
their rites were Ι to say how they beat their breasts.
τvπτονται τρόπον, οϋ μοι όσιόν έστιν λέγειν."g εΙ θεοί, και αθάνατοι,
εΙ δε τvπτονται και τα πάθη έσT~ν αύτων μυστήρια, ανθρωποι. If they are gods, they are also immortal; if people beat their
9· οt αυτος
, , tHPOOOTOS"
'ι::: " , , ~,
εισι σε και αι τα
,. Φ' , ~ <Ι
αι του ουχ οσιον ποιουμαι
~ breasts for them, and their sufferings are mysteries, they are men.
9. The same Herodotus says:
έπι TOLOVTq> πράγματι έςαγορεvειν τό όνομα, έν Σάι έν Τψ ίερψ της
Άθηναίης, όπισθεν του νηου, ,"aVTdS' της Άθηναίης έχόμενον τοίχου.
At Said ίη the temple of Athena, behind the shrine, attached
to the whole length of the wall of the temple there is the tomb
λίμνη δ' έστιν έχομένη λιθίντι κρηπιδι κεκοσμημένη έν κvκλψ, of one whose narne 4 Ι consider it profane to utter οη such an
μέγεθος, ώς έμοι δοκέει, όση περ έν Δήλψ ή τροχοειδης καλεομένη. occasion. And there is a lake nearby, beautified by a stone
έν δε Tfj λίμντι TaVTTJ τα δείκηλα των παθέων αύτου νυκτός ποιουσι < margin around it. Its size, Ι think, equals the so-called wheel-
τα,>15 καλ' ,
εουσι μυστηρια Α"ιγυπτιοι. ου μονον οt τα'Φ ος
" h 10. και' " shaped lake ίη Delos. Οη this lake they enact by night repro-
~
του 'Ο ,~ ~, 'λλ"
σιΡιοος σεικνυται, α Ι""
α και ταριχεια' επεαν σ Φ ισιν κομισ θ~τι
ductions of his sufferings which the Egyptians call mysteries.
νεκρός, aELKVVaaL τοισι κομίσασι παραδείγματα νεκρων ςvλινα Tfj 10. Moreoνer, not οηlΥ is the burial of Osiris displayed but also
~
γρα Φ τι "και
μεμιμημενα' "την μεν ~,
σπουσαιοτατην "Φ'
αυτεων ασιν his embalming.
l'
ειναι του
-,
ουχ
tI
οσιον ποιουμαι
- ) / ,
ουνομα επι
\ Ι
τοιουτψ
Ι
πραγματι When a body is brought to them, they show to those who haνe
όνομάζειν."ί brought it wooden models of bodies made to look like them by
painting. And they say that the most perfect method of em-
balming was used for him whose name Ι consider it profane
29 • Άλλα' ,
και 'Ε"λ '
1\ ηνων οιt περι" ποιησιν και, ιστοριαν
t , σο Φ'
οι περι μεν " to mention οη such an occasion.
ΉρακλέουS' 1
29. Greek poets and historians who are informed haνe similar
σχέτλιος, ούδε θεων όπιν iιδέσαT' ούδε τράπεζαν νiews.They say of Heracles:
\
την ην οι παρε
,ι ι "
'θ ηκεν' επειτα σε
~\ πε'Φ νε και"ι
αυτον,
α Wretched indeed, who feared not the νengeance of the gods,
Respected not the table he set before him, but after the meal
"ιφ
ιτον. τοιουτος
~"
ων εικοτως μεν
, , ,
εμαινετο,
ι:::'
εικοτως σε αναψας
, './, slew him
πυραν κατέκαυσεν αύrόν. 2. 'Περ Ι δε Άσκληπιου Ήσίοδος μέν' -that is, Ι phitus. Ι t is οηlΥ natural that such an indiνidual
"πατηρ ανδρων τε θεων τε should go mad, οηlΥ natural that he should light a pyre and burn
himself to death. 2. Concerning Asclepius, Hesiod says:
,
χ ωσατ '2"
, απ '
Ο υ'λ υμπου σε
~, βαλ' ./, λ'οεντι κεραυνψ~
ων '1"0
The Father of men and gods
,ι
εκτανε ΛηΤΟΙυ,ιν
.I.~ tΦ ι'λ ον t3 'συν '
θυμον "
ορινων. b
Grew wroth and from Olympus cast his lurid bolt,
Slew Leto's descendant, and so stirred Phoebus to anger. 1
28. g Herod. 2. 61 h Ibid. 2. 170 Ζ Ibid. 2. 86
29. α Homer, Odyssey 21.28-9 b Frg. 125 (Razch 3 ) 28. 3 Produced by the great scholar ίn the second century B.C. Despite the
number of fragments we possess 'it is very difficult to gain a picture as to how
Apollodorus described hellenistic religion' (Ε. Schwartz ίn PJιγK ί [1894],
28. 13 'Παθήματα Otto: μαθήματα Α 14 άνάγωσι Α 15 'Ποιουσι τα
2873). It was possibly the source (indirectly, according to Geffcken, through
(ex Herod.) add. Schwartz a sceptically oriented manual) of materials cal1ed upon by Athenagoras ίn this
29. ι Ήρακλευι; Α 2 τε θεών τε χώσα-,' Dechair: δ' στ' έχ ώσατ ' Α
chapter and elsewhere. 4 Osiris.
3 Φlλον: Φο{βψ Wilamowitz
29. ι Phoebus ΑροlΙο, son of Leto, was Asclepius' progenitor.
72 ATHENAGORAS 29.2 30. ι LEGATIO 73
Πίνδαρος δέ And Pindar says:
άλλα κέρδει και σοΦία δέδεται. But even wisdom is entangled by desire for gain.
"
ετραπε 'Α'
κακεινον ι
αγανορι μισ θφ " εν χερσι, Φ ανεις.
"'4 χρυσος , '\Vhen gold lay ίη his hands, it turned him too with hope of
χερσι'δ'"
αρα Κιρονιων •',1. δ"ι αμΦ οιν
' ριψας Α' \στερνων
αμπνοαν ' κα θ ειΑλ εν rich reward.
,ι
ωκεως, αι"θων δ ε\ κεραυνος"ενεσκηψε
, ,1. μορον.' c Then did the Son of Cronus hurl with both his hands and swiftly
crushed the breath of life from his breast;
3· η τοίνυν θεοι ησαν, και ούτε αύ τοVς 5 πρός χρυσόν εΙχον
The flashing thunderbolt brought doom upon him.
ιL χρυσέ, δεξίωμα6 κάλλιστον βροτοις,
(ώς)7 ούτε μήτηρ ήδονας τοιάσδ'8 έχει, 3. Either they are gods, then, and neither would they yield to
ού παιδεςd gold-
( ανεπι \
'δ εες , Α,
γαρ και κρειττον 'θ'
επι υμιας το , θ ειον
Α )
ουτε
" "θνυ
απε σκον '
Gold! Fairest gift to mortals!
η άνθρωποι γεγον6τες και πονηροι δι' άμαθίαν ησαν και χρημάτων Such pleasures ηο mother provides,
ε'λαττους.
ι 4. Τι, (δ ειΑ)9 με πολλ α\ λ εγειν
ι η Τ7'
" .n.αστορος " Πο λ υ δ ευκους
η ' Ν or children-
,
μνημονευοντα " 'Λ Φ'
η nμ ιαρεω, 10 οι, ως ειπειν r,.
Α λ'
ογφ, Χ θ' , ι
ες και πρφην ,
(for the divine needs nothing and is above all desire), nor would
άνθρωποι έξ άνθρώπων γεγον6τες θεοι ~ιoμίζoνTαι, όπ6τε και ' Ινω they die. Or they are men, and wicked because of their ignorance
μετα την μανίαν και τα έπι της μανίας πάθη θεόν δοξάζουσι and incapable of resisting money.
γεγονέναι
4. What need is there for lne to say very much when Ι remind
π6ντου πλάνητες Λευκοθέαν έπώνυμον e you of a Castor or Polydeuces or Amphiareus, who, though men
και τόν παιδα αύτης
born of men, as one might say, οηlΥ yesterday or the day before,
are considered gods? Or when they think that even Ιηο became
σεμνός Παλαίμων ναυτίλοις κεκλήσεται;1 a goddess after her madness and the sufferings which attended it,
when she is named by
30. εΙ γαρ και ώς άπ6πτυστοι και θεοστυγεις δ6ξαν έσχον ElvaL Wanderers of the sea I...eucothea, 'White Goddess'2-
θεοι και ή θυγάτηρ της Δερκετους Σεμίραμις, λάγνος γυνη και μιαι-
and her son-
Φ ονος,
' ε"δ Os,E
C Συρια
' θ'
εος , δ ια\ την
και \ Δ ερκετω' (τους
" ιχ θ"')1
υς '
και τας \
περιστερας \ δ ια\ 2 την
' ~εμιpαμιν
't"" ('
σε'βουσι \ α'δ υνατον,
το γαρ Σ'
υροι' ,
εις Revered Palaemon \νίΙΙ he be called by sailors.
περιστεραν φ λ·
\ μετεjJα , .ο μυ"'θος παρα\ Κτησιq"
εν η γυνη' ') α Τι'θ αυμαστον
'
30. If, despite their detestable and hateful character, these
29. c Pyth. 3. 54-5, 57-8 d Euripides, frg. 324. 1-3 (Nauck 2 ) e Frg. 100, became famed as gods, and ifthe daughter ofDerceto, Semiramis,
adesp. (Nauck2 ) Ι Frg. 101, adesp. (Nauck2 )
30. α Cf. F. Jacoby, Die Frαgmente der griechischen Historiker, ΠΙ C (Leiden,
a licentious and murderous woman, was regarded as the Syrian
1958),438 goddess and the Syrians venerate fish οη behalf of Derceto and
doves οη behalf of Semiramis (for the impossible is related that
29. 4 αγαν ορμισθωι Α 5 αύτους Α: αύTO~ Αι: α.νθρωπ{νως Wilamowitz: the woman turned into a dove-the myth is found ίη Ctesias),
αύτους Geffcken 6 δεξtαμα Α 7 ώς (ex Euripid.) add. Stephanus
8 τοιάσδε Α: τοιάσδ' Geffcken: TOta,; Euripides 9 δει add. Gesner
10 Ά.μΦιάρεως Α 29. :;: Or 'Runner οη the White [Foam]'. At the end of her desperate career she
30. ι τους [χθυς (ex Ps.-Luc. de deα Syr. 14 et Diod. 2. 4) add. Schwartz jumped from a cliff into the sea. Dionysus (or Aphrodite) transformed her into
:;: δια. Schwartz: και Α a goddess ofthe sea (Rose, Hαndhook, ρ. 151).
74 ATHENAGORAS 30. ι 30·5 LEGATIO 75
τοvς μ~ν έπ~ άρΧ'π Kα~ τυραννίδι ύπό των κατ' αύτοvς κληθηναι what wonder is it that those exercising a despotic rule were called
θεοvς - Σίβυλλα (μ'μηνται δ' αύτης Kα~ Πλάτων)'
gods by their contemporaries? As the Sibyl, whom Plato also
mentions, says:
δη τότε δη δεκάτη γενεη μεΡόπων άνθρώπων, Then was the tenth generation of mortal men
έξ OV δη κατακλυσμός έπ~ ΠΡοτ'ρους γ'νετ' ανδρας, Since the time the flood had come upon men of old.
και
'β '\
ασΙΛευσε
3 V ,
.ηρονος και
,,,,,,Τ
.ι ιταν .Ιαπετος τε,
, And Cronus and Titan and Iapetus ruled,
Mighty offspring of earth and heaven, whom men called
τι'
.ι αιης τεκνα 'Φ'εριστα και 'Ο' -
υρανου, ους "4"λ
εκα εσσαν 5 'Earth' and 'Heaven' when they gave them names,
ανθρωποι Γαιάν τε Kα~ Ούρανόν οϋνομα θ'ντες, Since they were the first of mortal men. I
οϋνεκα οί πρώηστοι €σαν μερόπων άνθρώπων b - Some were called gods because of their strength, such as Heracles
and Perseus; others because of their skill, such as Asclepius.
τοvς δ' έπ' lσχvι, ώς Ήρακλ'α και Περσ'α, τοvς δ' έπι τ'χντι, ώς 2. Either their subjects honoured them as gods of their own
Άσκληπιόν; 2. ο[ς μ~ν σΟν η αύTo~6 οί άρχόμενοι ημης μετε- accord ΟΓ the rulers themselves-some out of fear, others out
ι;:. 'ι;:. .,,' ι" ι , Φ'β ι ι;:.' , 'ι;:. Λ Λ
of a genuine sense of reverence-obtained the title (thus even
οιοοσαν η αυτοι οι αρχοντες, οι μεν ο φ, οι οε και αιοοι μετειχον
Antinous 2 had the good fortune to be thought a god because of
- ονοματος
του , , ( '
και Ά'
νηνους Φλ
ι αν θρωπιq. ' των - ι,
υμετερων προγονων , the humane affection shown by your ancestors to their subjects).
,
προς ,ι
τους '"
υπηκοους ετυχε 'γ
νομι'::,εσ θ αι θ')
εος' οιι ι;:.'
οε μετ ' "
αυτους
But those who came after them accepted the claim without further
examination.
άβασανίστως παρεδ'ξαντο.
3. The Cretans are ever liars! For thy tomb, Ο King,
-
Κρητες "
αει ψευσται' και"'Φ
.1, - Α
γαρ τα ον, ω ανα, σειο "''' Have the Cretans contrived; and yet have you not died!
κρητες έTεKT~νανTO' aV δ' ού θάνες. C Although you believe, Callimachus, in the birth of Zeus, you do
not believe in his tomb. Although you think that you will obscure
πιστεvων, Καλλίμαχε, ταις γοναις του Διός άπιστεις αύτου Τψ the truth, you proclaim him even to the ignorant as one who has
τα
'Φ φ και νομΙf::,ων
'γ' , 'λ θ' Λ' ,
Επισκιασειν τα η ες και τοις αγνοουσι κηρυσσεις
, - , died. Thus if you look upon his cave, you call to mind his birth
,
τον τε
θ ' .,
νηκοτα καν
, '"
μεν το αντρον
7 βλ '
επτις,
,ιρ ,ι
τον εας υπομιμνησκτι
, from Rhea; but if you view his tomb, you cast a shadow over the
one who has died. You do not know that the uncreated God is
τόκον, αν δ~ την σορόν ϊδτις, έπισκοτεις Τψ τεθνηκόη, ούκ εΖδως alone eternal. 4. For either the popular myths about thegods
όη μόνος άt'διος ό άγ'νητος8 θεός. 4. η γαρ απιστοι οί ύπό των recounted by poets are untrustworthy and the piety shown the
gods useless (for they do not exist if the stories about them are
πολλων Kα~ ποιητων λεγόμενοι μυθοι περι των θεων Kα~ περισση Τι
false), ΟΓ if these births, loves, murders, thefts, castrations, and
περι
, ,
αυτους
, "Q
evaejJEιa
('
ου γαρ
, ,\
εισιν
l'
ων
.1, ι;:. Λ
ψευοεις οι
ι λ'
ογοι,
) η" ,
ει thunderbolts aΓe true, then they ηο longer exist, they have ceased
α
'λη θ εις
Λ αι
ι ,
γενησεις, οι
ι"ερωτες, 9 αι
ι μιαι
Φ'
ονιαι, αι
ι κ
'
λ οπαι, ι
αι to be, since from non-existence they came into being.
, ,( " " ) Ι ι l' ,\ \ 5. What reason is there to believe some stories and not to
εκτομαι, οι κεραυνοι, ουκετ εισιν, παυσαμενοι ειναι, επει και
believe others, seeing that the poets have given such lofty accounts
έγ'νοντο ούκ όντες. 5. τίς γαρ τοις μ~ν πιστεvειν λόγος, τοις δ~ of them? For these men who caused the gods to be acknowledged
άπιστειν, έπ~ τό σεμνότερον πεp~ αύτων των ποιητων ίστορηκότων;
30. ι The 'Sibylline Oracles' contain many Jewish and Christian inter-
polations. Geffcken, however, considers this passage to be of pagan origin (cf.
30. b Orac. Sibyll. 3. 108-13 c Callimac11us, Hymn. ίπ /ov. 8-9 Lactantius, Div. /nst. ι. 14).
2 Α favourite of Hadrian ίn whose honour the latter erected a temple ίn
30. 3 βασιλεύς Α 4 Ούρανου ους Maranus: Ούρανους Α 5 €κά- Mantinea and founded the city of Antinoopolis in Egypt. Athenagoras' treat-
λεσεν Α 6 αύτοι ante οί άρχόμενοι del. Schwartz, Geffcken 7 άντρον Ulent of the matter is ίn striking contrast to the virulence of t11e attack of Justin
Ρ corr.: άντλον Α 8 άγέννητο,> Α 9 ερωντες Α: corr. Ρ m. rec. (Αρ. ι. 29. 4) and other apologists.
 ATHENAGORAS 30·5 31·4 LEGATIO 77
76
ού ydp αν δι' ο{)ς ένομ{σθησαν θ€O~ σ€μνOΠOιήσανTας την κατ' by the lofty treatment of the stories about them would not have
, \ Ι , '" \ 'θ \ ,... './.' lied about their weaknesses and affiictions.
αυτους ιστοριαν, ουτοι τα πα η τα αυτων €ψευσανTO.
6. Proof has now been offered to show to the best of my
ability, if not as it deserves, that we are not atheists when '\ve
6. ΙΩς μεν σον ούκ έσμεν άθ€oι θ€Oν άγoνT€ς τον πόιητην TOυδ€
recognize the Maker of the universe and the W ord proceeding
του παντος Kα~ τον παρ' αύτου λ6γον, KaTd δύναμιν την Εμήν, εΙ from him as God.
και μ~ προς αξίαν, Eλήλ€γKTαι.

31. They go οη to charge us, however, with godless banquets

31 • "Ετι \
δ€ και \ ,ι
τροψας \ και \ 't.
μιr:, Εις λ ογοποιουσιν
""θ' α εους κα θ'
and sexual unions. They do so that they may believe their hatred
~μων, ίνα T€ μισ€ιν νOμί'Oι€ν μ€Τd λ6γου και OΙ6μ€νOΙ Τψ δεδίτ- reasonable, and because they think that by frightening people
θ
τεσ αι
,' ... " , 't. Ι ""
η της €νσTασ€ως απαr:,€ιν ημας του
... β'" \ \
ιου η πικρους και they can draw us away from the strictness of our way of life or
απαραιτήτους Tfj των αιτιων ύπεΡβολfj τοvς άρχοντας παpασK€υά- make our rulers harsh and unyielding with their fantastic charges.
σειν, προς
, €ι
'8'οτας 'Υ
παιl:,οντ€ς,
. , ,ανω
οτι
, θ'
εν πως €"θ ος και
\ουκ
, ',ι'
€ψ They are wasting their time with men who know that from time
~μων μ6νον κατά τινα θ€ΙOν ν6μον και λ6γον παpηKOλOύθηK€ immemorial, and not οηlΥ ίη our own day, evil has habitually
ΠPOσΠOλ€μ€ιν T~ν κακίαν Tfj dp€Tfj. 2. ούτω και Πυθαγ6ρας opposed virtue by some divine law or principle. 2. That is why
μεν
\
αμα
<Ι τριακοσιοις
,Ι€TαιpOις
, KαT€ψ
,ιλ' θ
εχ η πυρι,
'
'ΙΗρακλ €ΙTOς δε \ Pythagoras, too, with three hundred companions '\vas burned to
και\ Δ'
ημοκριτος, οι,...
μεν της 'Ε',/,.
ψεσιων πο'λ εως η'λ'
αυνετο, οι δ'
ε της , ... death; Heraclitus and Democritus were driven out, the one from
the city of Ephesus, the other, accused of being mad, from the
Άβδηριτων Επικατηγορούμενος μεμηνέναι, και Σωκράτους Άθηναιοι
city of Abdera; and the Athenians condemned Socrates to death.
θάνατον κατέγνωσαν. αλλ' ώς έκεινοι ούδεν χείρους €Ις αρετης
But just as they were ηο worse ίη the scale of virtue because of
λ6γον SLd T~ν των πολλων δ6ξαν, ούδ' ~μιν ούδεν Επισκοτει προς the ορίnίοη of the crowd, neither does the indiscriminate slander
,
ορ θ'
οτητα β'ιου ηΙ παρα, τινων ακριτος
" βλ'/""'"
ασψ"μια' ευ'δ ο,:>ουμεν
t. ... \
γαρ of a few cast any shadow upon the uprightness of our life. For we
παρd Τψ θεΨ. πλ~ν αλλd και προς ταυτα απαντήσω Td έγκλήματα. have our good reputation with God. Still Ι shall also meet these
3. ύμιν Ι μεν οδν και δι' ών €ίpηKα €δ οΙδα αΠOλ€λoγfjσθαι έμαυτ6ν. complaints.
, \ , ι~,ι'" l'
συνεσει γαρ παντας V1T€tJψpoνoυνT€ς, οις ο
Ι β' ι , 'θ
ιος ως προς στα μην 3. Ι am \vell aware that as far as you are concerned Ι have
τον θεον κανονί'εται, όπως ανυπαίτιος και ανεπίληπτος έκαστος made my case by what Ι have already said. For you, whose
~μων άνθρωπος2 αύτψ γένοιτο,3 ίστε τούτους μηδ' εΙς έννοιάν ποτε wisdom is greater than that of all others, know that men whose
του
""β
ραχυτατου
, 'λ
ε ευσομενους
' Ι,
αμαρτηματος. 4. , ,
€ι μεν γαρ ενα
, f! life is regulated, so to speak, by God as their measure, so that each
, ενταυ
τον , "'θ α β'ιον β'
ιωσεσ θ αι €πεπεισμε θ α, 4 ' , ,\
καν Ι
V1Tοπτευειν
"
ενην
...
one of us may be blameless and faultless before him, have ηο
intention of doing the least wrong. 4. If we were persuaded that
δουλεύοντας σαρκι και αίματι 1] κέρδους 1] Επιθυμίας έλάττους
Α' , ( \ δ' 'J.. Ι ,." - l'
our life here below was the οηlΥ one we would live, there would
γενομενους αμαpT€Lν' €Π€ι ε €ψεσTηKεναι μεν οις €ννOOυμεν, οις
be reason to suspect us of wrong-doing ίη serving flesh and blood
λαλουμεν και νύκτωρ και μεθ' ήμέραν τον θεον οίδαμεν, πάντα δε and yielding to the temptations of gain or lust. But since we are
,ι... "" \ \ , TV... καρδ'Lq. ημων
ψως αυτον οντα και τα εν
ι ... Ι... 'θ
οραν, πεπεισμε α
(δ')5
ε
aware that God knows what we think and say both night and day
... , ""θ '
του ενταυ α απα λλ'
αγεντες β'ιου β'"
ιον ετερον β' θ " "
ιωσ€σ αι αμεινονα η and that he who is totally light sees also what is ίη our hearts; and
KaTd τον Ενθάδε και Επουράνιον, ούκ Επίγειον, ώς αν μ€Τd θεου και since we are persuaded that when we depart this present life we
συν
\ θ
εφ ακ
... 'λ ...
ινεις και απα
\' θ'" \ ./. \
εις την ψυχην ουχ ως σαρκες καν €Xωμεν,
, Ι, "" shalllive another life. better than that here, a heavenly one, not
earthly, so that we may then abide with God and with his help
31. ι ύμεις Α: corr. Stephanus Ζ έκαστο, ~μων ανθρωπο, Gesner: €KάσToυ
remain changeless and impassible ίn soul as though we were not
~μων άνος Α 3 Υ'νοιτε Α: corr. Ρ 4 πεπείσμεθα Α: corr. Schwartz
5 δΕ add. Wilamowitz
body, even ifwe have one, but heavenly spirit; and, alternatively,
78 ATHENAGORAS 31·4 32·5 LEGATIO 79
αλλ' ώς ούράνιον πνευμα μΙνωμεν,6 7j συγκαταπίπτοντες τοις since we are conνinced that, if we fall with the rest of men, we
λοιποις
Λ Ι
χειΡονα και
, ς:- , '("
οια πυρος ου γαρ
"~,
και ημας ως
'β
προ ατα η
., shall liνe another life worse than that here ίη realms of fire (for
, r" God did not create us like sheep or beasts of burden, and it
υπο\:,υγια, παρεργον και"Ι'
ινα απΌ λ οιμε
ι θ α και"φ
α ανισ θ ειημεν,
ι ., λ ασεν
επ
, ') '"
θ εος, επι ΤΟΌτοις ουκ εικος ημας
~ 'θ λ ""
ς:-' αυτους
, , ,.., ~
would not be incidental ifwe were to be destroyed and disappear);
ο ε ε οκακειν ουο Τψ
since all this is so, it is not likely that we should want to do eνil
μεγάλψ παραδιδόναι κολασθησομΙνους δικασrfj. and deliνer ourselνes up to the great Judge to be punished.

32. It is not at all remarkable that they fabricate stories about us

32. τους μεν οδν θαυμαστον ούδεν λογοποιειν περι ~μων ά περι των such as they tell of their own gods. They present the sufferings of
σ '
φ ετερων '
λ εγουσι θ εων
~ '< ' )
(και γαρ Ι '
τα πα'θη '~<1'
αυτων οεικνυουσι
, their deities as mysteries; but if they are about to condemn
promiscuous and licentious unions, then they ought to hate
, ~ ς:-' , , '<1' , "" <1' , "<1' φ'
μυστηρια' χρην ο αυτους, ει οεινον το επ αοειας και αοια ορως
either Zeus, who begot children by his mother Rhea and his
μίγνυσθαι κρίνειν έμελλον, 7j τον Δία μεμισηκΙναι, έκ μητρος μεν daughter Core I and had his own sister to wife, or Orpheus,
'ΡΙας θυγατρος δε Κόρης πεπαιδοποιημΙνον, γυναικι δε Tfj istq- the creator of these stories, because he made Zeus eνen more
'<1' λφ τι
αοε ~2' " τον
χρωμενον, η " ,
τουτων ποιητην 'οΡ φ'"
εα, οη '"
και ανοσιον irreligious and abominable than Thyestes. For it was ίη fulfilment
ύπερ τον ΘυΙστην και μιαρον έποίησεν τον Δ ία' και γαρ οδτος Tfj of an oracle that the latter had intercourse with his daughter,
θυγατρι κατα χρησμον έμίγη, βασιλευσαι θέλων και [ΘυΙστης]3
because he wanted to gain a kingdom and be avenged. 2
2. But we are so far from promiscuity that it is not eνen per-
έκδικηθηναι)' 2. ~μεις δε τοσουτον του)4 αδιάφοροι 5 εΖναι < missible for us to look with lust: for 'he who looks at a woman to
απΙχομεν, ώς μηδε ίδειν ~μιν προς έπιθυμίαν έςεΙναι. "ό" γαρ lust after her', it says, 'has already committed adultery ίη his
"βλ'
επων "φ
, ησι,Ι" γυναικα προς το ΕΠΙ θυμησαι
~ , ~ η"δ η μεμοι-
αυτης ι,. " , heart.' 3. What doubt could there be ofthe chastity ofsuch men?
χευκεν έν Tfj KapSlq- αύτου". α 3. οΙς οδν μηδεν πλΙον έςεσην They are not permitted to look at anything other than that for
,~
οραν η
., 'φ'
ε α
(\ επ
., λ ασεν τους
"φθ
ο
λ
α μους
' 'θ'
ο εος, ημιν
φ ως
~ αυτους
'''' , \ which God has created the eyes, so that these may be a light for
us. For them to look with pleasure is adultery since the eyes were
'\'
ειναι, και\ l'
οις "δ'"
το ι ειν 'δ'
η εως ι
μοιχεια, ε'φ'"
ετερα ~
των ο'φθ αλμων -
created for other purposes; and they will be judged for nothing
γεγονότων, μΙχρις έννοίας κριθησομΙνοις, πως αν οδτοι απιστη- more tangible than a thought!
'"
θ ειεν σω Φ'"
ρονειν; 4. "
γαρ\
ου ,αν θρωπικους
προς " νομους ο, λ'ογος 4. For our teaching is not set forth with a νiew to human laws
Ι
ημιν,
Α
ους
C\"
αν ης γενομενος
,
πονηρος
"
και
(εν
λ 'θ, αρχυ
α
) - οε
οι
~ \ Ι Α
υμιν,
whose surνeillance an eνil man may well escape. At the begin-
' 6 θ εοοιοακτον - λ ογον
' , ' ), ning Ι assured you, my masters, that our doctrine is taught by
δ εσποται, ς:- ις:- l'
ειναι \
τον κα θ" ημας επιστουμην
God. 3 We haνe a law, then, ... which prompts us to consider
αλλ' έσην ~μιν νόμος7 ****ή δικαιοσύνης μέτρον έποίησεν ourselνes and our neighbours the measure for justice. 5. For this
αύτους και τους πΙλας έχειν. b 5. δια τουτο και καθ' ~λικίαν τους reason we regard some, depending οη their age, as our sons and
μεν
\ υιους
,\ και
'θ'
υγατερας
~
νοουμεν, τους
~ δε \ α
'δ ε λφ'"
ους εχομεν και
, daughters, others we consider our brothers and sisters, and to
'δ λφ
α ε ας
\ ,
και
"'Q
τοις
β Ι
πpo~ε ηκοσι την
, -
των πατερων
, ,
και μητερων
, those adνanced ίη ΥeaΓS we giνe the honour due to fathers and
\"
ημην απονεμομεν.
"τ
ους ουν α
'δ ε λφ ους και"δ
α ε
\λφ ας και τα λ οιπα του
~ \ ,\ \ mothers. But we are profoundly concerned that the bodies of
32. ι Cf. 20. 3.
2 The point of this statement depends οη the following information: Thyestes
32. α Matt. 5: 28 b Cf. Matt. 7: 12, 22: 39
had seduced and intrigued with the wife of his elder brother Atreus and was
banished by the latter. Atreus afterwards pretended reconciliation and set
31. 6 μενουμεν Α:
corr. Schwartz before Thyestes the famous banquet ίη which Thyestes' own sons were served up.
32. ι γαρ
add. Wilamowitz 2 γυναικι διαδελφη (fi ΑΙ) Α: corr. Schwartz 'But when Thyestes after learning of the villainy sought revenge, ΑροlΙο replied
3 Θυέστης seclusit Dechair ... post τοσουτον add. του 7Τερι τας μlξεις that it was possible for an avenger of this villainy to be born through another
Wilamowitz: του add. Ubaldi 5 άδιάΦοροι Αι: διάΦοροι Α 6 δεσ7Τ6της crime-that is, if he would sleep with his daughter Pelopia' (Serνius, Comm. in
Α: δεσ7Τ6ται Gesner: seclusit Schwartz 7 post ν6μος lacunam indicavit Αεπ. ι Ι. 262). The offspring was Aegisthus, who carried οη the feud.
Schwartz: και έντολη add. Bardy 3 Cf. ι ι. Ι.
80 ATHENAGORAS 32·5 34. ι LEGATIO 81
,
γενους
..., ,
νοουμεν ονοματα,
\ λλ'"
περι πο
t ,. , {Q \ , ~ 'Φθ
ου 'Υ}μιν aVVtJptaTa και αοια ορα those whom we consider brothers and sisters and who are known
αύτων Τ<1 σώματα μένειν, πάλιν ~μιν λέγοντος του λ6γου' "έάν by al1 the other terms applied to kin remain inνiolate and un-
\;' \ Α , \;" Φ λ' .," 'Α" \ sullied. Again our teaching has it: 'Η anyone kisses twice because
Τις οια τουτο εκ οευτερου κατα ι 'Υ}συ, οτι 'Υ}ρεσεν αυτψ και

, Φ' 8 <Ι 1" β , θ \ ΦΙλ Αλλ \;' \ \ it was pleasurable, . . . ', and it adds: '80 then one must be
επι εροντος ουτως ουν ακρι ωσασ αι το ι 'Υ}μα μα ον οε το
scrupulous about the kiss, or more precisely, the reνerential
προσκvν'Υ}μα δει, ώς, εί που μικρον Tfj BLavotq. παραθολωθεΕ'Υ}, έξω greeting', since it places us outside eternal1ife if our thoughts are
~μας της αΙωνΕου Τιθέντος 'ωης.9 the least bit stirred by it. 4
33. Since we hope for eternallife, we despise the things of this
33 • 'Ε'\ '8
ι\πι α
l'
ουν
r'"
~ω'Y}ς
, Ι"
αιωνιου εχοντες,
...,
των εν τουτψ
ι ... β ιψ
Τψ
ι life, including eνen the pleasures of the soul. Thus each of us
καταΦρονουμεν μέχρι και των της ψυχης ~δέων, γυναικα μεν
thinks of his wife, whom he married according to the laws that
we haνe laid down, with a νiew to nothing more than pro-
έκαστος ~μων .ην ήγάγετο κατα τους ύΦ' ~μων τεθειμένους ν6μους creation. I 2. For as the farmer casts seed into the ground and
νομΕ'ων και TUVT'Y}V μέχρι του παιδoπoι~σασθαι. 2. ώς γαρ ό awaits the harνest without further planting, so also procreation
γεωργος καταβαλων εΙς γην τα σπέρματα άμ'Υ}τον περιμένει ούκ is the limit that we set for the indulgence of our lust. You could
έπισπεΕρων, και ~μιν μέτρον έπιθυμΕας ~ παιδοποιΕα. εϋροις δ' αν find many among us, both men and women, growing old un-
'Πολλους των παρ' ~μιν και άνδρας και γυναικας καταγ'Υ}ράσκοντας
married ίn the hope of being united more closely with God.
3. If to remain a νirgin and abstain from sexual intercourse
άγάμους έλπ{δι του μαλλον συνέσεσθαι Τψ θεΨ. 3. εΙ δε το έν brings us closer to God, and if to allow ourselνes nothing more
παΡθεν{q. και έν εύνουχtq. μειναι μiiλλoν παρ {στ'Υ} σι Τψ θεψ, το tangible than a lustful thought leads us away from God, then,
δε μέχρις έννο{ας και έπιθυμ{ας έλθειν άπάγει, ών τας έννοΕας since we flee the thought, much more wil1 we refuse to commit the
ι
Φ ευγομεν, πο λ\ Ι
υ προτερον τα
\ ,ι
εργα ι
παραιτουμε θ α. 4. ,\
ου γαρ <' > εν deed. 4. We are not concerned with the exercise of eloquence
μελέΤΏI λ6γων άλλ' έπιδε{ξει και SLSaaKaAtq. έργων τα ~μέTεpα2 -Τι
but with the performance and teaching of deeds-either to stay
l' ι " θ 'Φ' '
Ι ~,~ Ι" , t,
/,
ίn the state ίn which a man was born or to remain satisfied with
οιος Τις ετεχ 'Υ} μενειν 'Υ} ε ενι γαμψ' ο γαρ οευτερος ευπρεΠ'Υ}ς εσΤι
ι 3 "ι\" \ ",\ , λ Ι Av.r. ι " \ ,. , ...
one marriage; for a second marriage is gilded adultery. 5. For
μοιχεια. 5. ος γαρ αν απο υσυ
"
,ψ,ρι, Τ'Υ}ν γυlιαικα αυτου 'whoeνer diνorces his wife', it says, 'and marries another, com-
και γαμ~συ άλλ'Υ}ν, μοιχαται", α ούτε άπολvειν έπιτρέπων .ης έπαυσέ mits adultery.' Neither does it allow a man to diνorce a woman
Τις T~ν παρθενΕαν ούτε έπιγαμεΙν. 6. ό γαρ άποστερων έαυτον της ~!ι5?se maidenhead he has taken, nor does it allow him to marry
προτέρας γυναικ6ς, και εΙ τέθν'Υ}κεν, μοιχ6ς έσΤιν παρακεκαλυμ-
again. 6. For he who detaches himself from his preνious wife,
, β"'''' -θ _ι/ ,) _Ιθ\"
eνen if she has died, is a coνert adulterer. He thwarts the hand of
μενος, παρα αινων μεν Τ'Υ}ν χειΡα του εου, οτι εν αρχυ ο εος ενα
God (because ίn the beginning God formed one man and one
άνδρα έπλασεν και μΕαν γυναικα, AVWV δε την tadPKa προς σάρκα woman), and he destroys the communion of flesh with flesh ίn
, ,
κατα Τ'Υ}ν ενωσιν προς μι
~/ \ """ξ ..., ι
ιν του γενους κοινωνιαν.
t the unity characteristic ofthe intercourse ofthe sexes. 2
34. Since we are so oriented (indeed how can Ι eνen recount
34 . n'Αλλ' οι
(Ι τοιουτοι
Α (
ω, Τι
" Ι2'\ ,ι \ "
αν Ειποιμι τα αΠΟΡΡ'Υ}τα;
)"
ακουομεν
such abominations?), Ι there rings ίn our ears the words of the
32. 4 It is uncertain as to how much of this is the 'teaching' and how much
Athenagoras' commentary οη it. Some editors place the lacuna after 'and it
33. α Matt. 19: 9, Mark 10: Ι Ι
adds"
33. ι lη its origin a Stoic teaching and a corollary of Stoic opposition to
32. post ήρεσεν αύT~ lacunam indicaνit Otto: post έπιΦέροντος lacunam
8 the arch-νice 'pleasure' (see C. Musonii Rufi Reliquiαe, ed. Ο. Hense [Leipzig,
indicaνit Schwartz 9 ζωης add. Αι Teubner, 1905], ρρ. 63-81; cf. Justin, Αρ. ι. 29. ι).
33. ι έν μελέττι Gesner: μελέτη Α 2 post τα ήμέτερα lacunam indicaνit 2 This is at best an approximation of the last clause, the text of \Yhich is

Schwartz 3 μοιχεία ι Α corrupt.

34. ι άλλ' οί ΑΙ: άλλου Α 2 ώ. τ{ ΑΙ : ότι Α: Kα~ τ{ Wilamowitz 34. ι See Euripides, Orestes 14, where a similar expression occurs alluding to
8268084 G [Note continued on pαge 83
 82 ATHENAGORAS 34. ι 35·3 LEGATIO 83
, .της
τα
.. παροιμιας
' "ηtπορνη
, ,
την σω
'Φ"
ρονα . 2. οιt ",
γαρ αγοραν proverb, 'The harlot presumes to teach her who is chaste!'2
2. For it is they who have made a business of harlotry and have
στήσαντες πορνε{ας και καταγωγας αθέσμους πεποιημένοι τοις
established immoral houses of every base pleasure for the young.
,
νεοις ,
πασης '~Ιδ'"
αιaXpας η ονης και , '
μη δ ε των ,.. "
αρσενων Φ ει δ'
ομενοι, Nor have they neglected male prostitution. Men work their
αρσενες έν αρσεσι τα δεινα κατεργαζόμενοι, α όσων σεμνότερα καΙ. frightful deeds with men; they violate ίη every way those whose
, δ" t,R 'Υ ,~ " " , bodies are especially noble or comely; thus they dishonour even
ευει εστερα σωματα, παντοιως αυτα υ/"ρι':,οντες, αημουντες και το
the beauty created by God (for there is ηο self-made beauty οη
,
ποιητον
,..
του
θ ,..
εου
λ'
κα ον
(ου' ,
γαρ
, ,
αυτοποιητον επι γης το
",.., κα
'λλ
ος, earth; it comes from the hand and mind of God). They, of all
"') '" people, revile us for vices which they have οη their own consciences
α'λλ α υπο '
t , χειΡος
, και" γνωμης πεμπομενον
, '"
του θ εου, ουτοι δ ε'3 α"
and which they attribute to their own gods, boasting of them as
ι
συνισασιν t . .και
αυτοις . 'τους
, σΦ' '
ετερους λ εγουσι θ""
εους, επ αυτων '" noble deeds and worthy of the gods.
ώς σεμνα και των θεων άξια 4 αύχουντες, ταυτα ήμας λοιδορουνται, 3. These adulterers and pederasts reproach men who abstain
from intercourse or are satisfied with a single marriage, whereas
3· κακ{ζοντες οί μοιχοι και παιδερασται τους εύνούχους και μονο- they themselves live like fish. For they swallow up whoever comes
,
γαμους, οι
t δΙ θ'
ικην ιχ υων
,
b Υ'"
':,ωντες
(" Τ ι ,
και γαρ ουτοι καταπινουσι τον their way, the stronger driving out the weaker. And this is what
it really means to feed οη human flesh: that when laws have been
έμπεσόντα, έλαύνοντες ό ίσχυρότερος τον ασθενέστερον, και τουτό
established which you and your ancestors promulgated to further
έση σαρκων απτεσθαι ανθρωπικων, το κειμένων νόμων, ους ύμεις every form of justice, they violate these very ordinances so that
και οί ύμέτεροι πρόγονοι προς πασαν δικαιοσύνην έξεnι'σαντες the governors of the provinces which you have sent out cannot
' ", , even handle al1 the lawsuits. Yet it is they who reproach us
ε'θ ηκατε, παρα τουτους αυτους
'5 β ια':,εσ
ι Υ θαι, ως
t
μη δ'
ε τους υΙΦ' υμων
t ~
though we are not even premitted to draw back when struck nor
ι
καταπεμπομενους Ι
ηγεμονας
t
των
,..
ε'θ'"
νων ε'ξ αρκειν ταις δΙ
ικαις ... ... )6 l'
οις to refuse to bless when il1 spoken of; for it is not enough to be just
(justice is to return measure for measure); but it is required ofus
ούδε παιομένοις μη παρέχειν έαυτους ούδε κακως ακούουσιν μη
to be good and long-suffering.
ευ'λ ογειν
"'''ξ
ε εσην' ου γαρ απαρκει '" ... δΙικαιον ειναι
l' ('Ι
εση δ'
ε δ ικαιοσυνη
'
""
ισα ισοις αμει/"ειν "R) , α'λλ" αγα θ'"
οις και"ξ'
ανε ικακοις ειναι
l' Ι
προκειται. 35. What reasonable person, then, could say that we who are
so oriented are murderers? Ι t is impossible to devour human
Ι Ι "'"
Φρονων Ι" δ
flesh without having previously killed someone! 2. First, then,
35• Τις αν
" 'i'
ουν ευ
'i'
ειποι τοιουτους οντας
t
ημας
'" ,
αν ρο-
they lie; second, if someone asks them whether they have seen
'
Φ ονους l'
ειναι; ",'
ου ι
γαρ εση πασασ θ""
αι κρεων αν θ"" Ι
ρωπικων μη προ- what they report, none has the hardihood to say that they have.
Ι Ι ,ι 'i' ./, δ Ι 2 '
3. Further, we have slaves, some many, some few, and it is im-
,
τερον αποκτεινασι ηνα. 2. το προτερον ουν ψευ ομενοι ... το
possible to escape their observation. Υet not one of them has ever
δεύτερον, καν μέν ης αύτους ;ρηται,3 εί έωράκασιν ά λέγουσιν, told such monstrous lies about us. ι
ούδε{ς έσην ούτως απηρυθριασμένος ώς είπειν ίδεΙν. 3. κα{τοι και
the story of Atreus and Thyestes. There it reflects the speaker's unhappiness ίn
δουλο{ είσιν ήμιν, τοις μεν κα{ πλε{ους τοις δε έλάττους, ου ς4 ούκ recalling the terrible deeds associated with their names. 'Such abominations',
then, probably refer to both illicit sexual practices and cannibalism (cf. 32. ι).
;ση λαθειν' αλλα καΙ. τούτων ούδείς καθ' ήμων Τι1 τηλικαυτα ούδε The Christian has difficulty even recounting such deeds; but pagans, as the
sequel shows, are guilty both of perverse sexual practices and a sort of canni-
34. α Cf. Rom. ι: 27 b Cf. Hesiod, ορ. 276-8 balism. Hence the proverb.
34. 2 The proverb ίn form and content is much like the famous sus Minervαm.
34. 3 οδτοι δε: δε seclusit Schwartz .. άξια Schwartz: αύτιι Α The inferior ignorantly and impudently take it upon themselves to instruct
5 ToύTOΙ~ αύτους Α: corr. Αι 6 parenthesin indicavit Wilamowitz the superior-that is, pagan pimps with gods to match (see the next lines) cry
35. ι άν ουν Schwartz: αν Α: ουν Αι 2 post ψευδόμενοι lacunam indicavit out against non-existent Christian licentiousness.
Gesner 3 είρηται Α: corr. Αι .. ους Αι: ols Α 35. ι The contrary is indicated by Justin (Αρ. 2. 12.4).
 84 ATHENAGORAS 36.2 LEGATIO 85
35·3
.Ι. '
κατεψευσατο. 4. ους
C\ γαρ
\" ισασιν ου'δ' ι'δ'" "δ ικαιως
ειν καν ι Φ ονευο- , 4. Who can charge people with murder and cannibalism who
μενον ~,
υ1Τομενοντας, ""
τουτων 'Τις αν Ι",
κατε Ι1ΤΟΙ η ανδρο Φ ονιαν
ι η
'" are known not to allow themselνes to be spectators at the slaying
of a man eνen when he has been justly condemned? Who among
αν θpωπo~opιαν;
, .R ι ι
'Τις t'
ουχ '" ,
η~ των περι σ1Του δ'"
ης t5 τας' δ'
ι οπλων
tf
you does not enthusiastically follow the gladiatorial contests or
, ι
αγωνιας και, δ ια' θηριων
ι και"λ '~Φ'
μα ιστα τας υ ~
υμων αγομενας '" , , animal fights especially those which you yourselνes sponsor?
,ι
εχει; 5· α'λλ' ημεις
~ ,. πλησιον
' ειναι
l' το, ι'δ'"
ειν [ το'J6 Φ'
ονευομενον του
"'7 5. But since we regard seeing a man slain as next thing to murder-
ing him, we haνe renounced such spectacles. 2 How, then, can we
άποκτειναι νομlζοντες, dπηγΟΡεvσαμεν τας TOLaVTaS' θέας. 1Τως σον be capable of murder when we will not eνen look at such sights to
οί μηδε όρωντες ίνα μη έαυτοις άγος Kα~ μ{ασμα προστριψα{μεθα, aνoid being polluted and defiled?
, δυναμε
Φ ονευειν ' θα; 6 . και' '
οι 'τας
' τοις,..,αμβλω θρι δ'ιοις χρωμενας
, 6. Again, what sense does it make to think of us as murderers
when we say that women who practice abortion are murderers
άνδροΦονειν τε και λόγον ύΦέξειν της εξαμβλώσεως Τψ θεψ Φαμεν, and will render account to God for abortion?3 The same man
κατα, ποιον
,. αν '" λογον;
'δρο Φ ονουμεν ' ου" "του
γαρ " αυτου'" νΟμΙf:,ειν
''/ μεν' 8 cannot regard that which is ίη the womb as a liνing being and
for that reason an object of God's concern and then murder it
και το κατα γαστρος ζψον είναι και δια τουτο αύτου μέλειν Τψ θεψ,
when it has come into the light. Neither can the same man
και παρελη λυ θ'
, οτα9εις 'R
' τον '
~ιoν Φ' '"
ονευειν, και μη εκη θ' , το,
εναι μεν forbid exposing a child that has been born 4 οη the grounds that
, ως
γεννη θ εν, ~ των , θ'εντων τεκνοκτονουντων,
'" εκη "λ πα ιν δ"ε το τρα Φ'εν those who do so are murderers and then slay one that has been
nourished. Οη the contrary, we rernain the same and unchanging
άναιΡειν' άλλ' εσμεν πάντα 1Τανταχου όμοιοι κα~ ίσοι, δουλεvοντες ίη eνery way at all times: vve are serνants of reason and not its
Τψ λόγψ και ού κρατουντεςΙΟ αύτου. masters.

36 • ,
Τις " 'Ι' αναστασιν
αν ουν "
1Τεπιστευκως
\ ['
επι' ] Ι' ,
σωμασιν αναστη-
36. What man who belieνes ίη a resurrection would offer him-
, ι, , 'Φ ) \ _ ,- " self as a tomb for bodies destined to arise? For it is impossible at
σομενοις εαυτον παρασχοι τα ον; ου γαρ των αυτων και ανα- one and the same time to belieνe that our bodies will arise and
στήσεσθαι ήμων πεπεισθαι τα σώματα και εσθtειν αύτα ώς ούκ then eat them as though they will not arise, or to think that the
earth will yield up its dead and then suppose that those whom
άναστησόμενα, και ά1Τοδώσειν μεν νομ{ζειν την γην τους ίδtους a man had buried within himself will not reclaim their bodies.
νεκρους,
,
ους
C\ δ'
ε 'Τις αυτος εγκατε'θαψεν
.Ι. αυτψ, '"
~,.. μη, 2α1Ταιτησεσ
' , θαι. 3 2. Οη the contrary, the likelihood is that those who would not

2. ι
τουνανηον
,
μεν
, 'Ι'
ουν εικος
"
τους
,
μεν
,
μη, τε 4 λ' 'c. ειν του'"
ογον υ~Φ ει:,
shrink from any outrage are men who think that they will not
render an account of their present life, whether bad or good, and
ενταυθα ή πονηρου ή χρηστου βtου μήτε ανάστασιν είναι οίομένους, that there is ηο resurrection, but who belieνe that the soul also
συναπο'λλυσ θαι δ ε' Τψ
,.., .Ι.' και' 1οιον
σωμαη και" την ψυχην "
ενα1Τοσβ εν- , perishes along with the body and is, so to speak, snuffed out. Οη
the other hand there is ηο reason for those to commit the slightest
νυσθαι λογιζομένους, μηδενος αν αποσχέσθαι τολμήματος· τους δε wrong who belieνe that nothing will remain unexamined ίη the
μηδεν ανεξέταστον εσεσθαι παρα Τψ θεψ, συγκολασθήσεσθαι δε presence of God and that the body too will be punished which
κα~ το ύπουΡγησαν σωμα ταις αλόγοις όρμαις της ψυχης και promotes the irrational impulses and lusts of the soul.
επι θ υμιαις πεπεισμενους,
, "δ'' ου εις λογος
' ,ι
εχει ου'δ ε των
' ,.. βραχυτατων
, 35. 2 For a full discussion see Tertullian, De Spectaculis (cf. Seneca, Ερ. 7. 2;
90. 45)·
35. 5 τ{ς ούχ ύμων περισπούδαστος Gesner 6 το seclusit Schwartz 3 Α Jewish and Christian point of view (Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3. 108-15;
7 του Αι: το Α 8 μεν del. Wilamowitz, Schwartz, Geffcken 9 τα Josephus, C. Αρ. 2. 202; Didache 2. 2; Barnabas 19.5; Clement, Paed. 2. 96. Ι;
παΡεληλυθότα Wilamowitz, Schwartz, Geffcken 10 κρατουντες ρ: καρτες cf. J. Η. Waszink, 'Abtreibung', RAC ί [1950], 55-60).
Α: καταμαρτυρουντες Schwartz
4 See ίn addition to some of the sources cited ίn the previous note J ustin, Αρ.
36. ι έπι seclusit Wilamowitz 2 μη Schwartz: μήτε Α 3 &.πaιτηθή- 1.27. ι; 1.29. ι; Ad Diog. 5.6. Α rare pagan sentiment (C. Musonii Ru.fi Reliquiαe,
σεσθαι Αι 4 μεν μήτε: μεν Α: μη Αι ed. Ο. Hense, ρρ. 77-81).
86 ATHENAGORAS 36.2 37·3 LEGATIO 87
Τι άμαρτεΙν. 3. εΙ δ' τψ ληρος πολυς δοκει το σαπεν Kα~ διαλυθεν 3. Ifit seems the height offolly to anyone that the body should
και"Φ
α ανισ θ'
εν σωμα συστηναι πα'λ ιν, κακιας μεν ουκ αν εικοτως
- - '" ,,' " be reconstituted after it has rotted, decayed, and disappeared,
δ o~αν
't ' Φ εροιμε θα δ'
απο ια , "
τους ου ,
πιστευοντας, α'λλ" ευη θ ειας'
' οις
l' γαρ
, then we may reasonably be regarded not as evil but as foolish by
those who do not believe it; for we harm ηο man with the
απατωμεν εαυτους λόγοις αδικουμεν ούδ'να' όΤι μ'ντοι ού καθ' doctrines by which we delude ourselves. Το show that ίη fact it is
ήμας μόνον αναστήσεται τα σώματα, αλλα και κατα πολλους των not only we who teach that bodieswill arise but also many of the
Φ ι λ οσο'Φων, ,
"~
περιεργον επι του παροντος δ εικνυειν, , ' " "ί::
ινα μη ε~αγω- philosophers is superfluous for the present; it is beside the point
νίους τοις προκειμ'νοις έπεισάγειν δοκωμεν λόγους, ~ πεp~ νοητων to try to counter the impression that we bring forward views
Kα~ αΙσθητων Kα~ της τοιούτων συστάσεως λ'γοντες ~ όΤι πρεσ- irrelevant to our present argument,I either when we talk about
, \, Ι _ , , \ \ Ι _ intelligible and perceptible things and their structure, or when we
β υτερα τα ασωματα των σωματων και τα νοητα προαγει των
observe that incorporeal things are more important than corporeal
αΙσθητων καν πρώτοις ΠεΡιπίπτωμεν τοις αΙσθητοις, συνισταμ'νων things and that intelligible things excel perceptible things (even
έκ μεν των ασωμάτων κατα την έπισύνθεσιν των νοητων σωμάτων, though we first encounter perceptible things), seeing that bodies
έκ δε των νοητων <των αΙσθητων>·5 ού γαρ κωλύει κατα τον aΓίse from incorporeal things by the compounding of intelligible
Πυθαγόραν Kα~ τον Πλάτωνα γενομ'νης της διαλύσεως των things 2 and that perceptible things arise from intelligible things.
For nothing ίn the teachings of Pythagoras or Plato stands ίη the
σωμάτων έξ ών τ~ν αpx~ν συν'στη, απο των αύτων αύτα Kα~ πάλιν
way of bodies' being reconstituted fΓοm the same elements once
συστηναι.
their dissolution to that from which they arose has taken place. 3

37. Άλλ' ανακείσθω μεν ό περι της αναστάσεως λόγος. ύμεις δΙ 37. Let our teaching concerning the resurrection be set aside for
ω
'i" παντα εν
, ~
πασι Φ'
υσει ,
και παι δ'
ELq, χρηστοι και μετριοι '" και , Φλ
ι-
the present; but do you, who by nature and learning are ίη every
way good, moderate, humane, and worthy of your royal office,
αν θρωποι και της
, ~ ' βασι λ' "ί::
ειας α~ιoι, δ ιαλ ελ'
υμενψ , "λ'
μεν τα εγκ ηματα
, ' δ ε,., "τας
. 1ψυχ
. 'ας nod your royal heads ίη assent now that Ι have destroyed the
επι δ ε δ ειχοτι οη και'θ εοσεβ εις
Λ και" Λ
επιεικεις και
accusations advanced and have shown that we are godly, mild,
κεκο λ ασμενοι, την
' 'βασι λ'ικην κε Φ α λ'" '"
ην επινευσατε. 2. τινες γαρ και and chastened ίη soul. 2. Who ought more justly to receive
δικαιότεροι ών δ'ονται τυχειν ~ οίηνες πεp~ μεν της αρχης τijς what they request than men like ourselves, who pr~y for your
ύμετ'ρας εύχόμεθα, α ίνα παις μεν παρα πατρος κατα το δικαιότατον reign that the succession to the kingdom may proceed from father
δ ια δ εχησ
' θε 'βασι λ' "ί::ην δ'ε
to son, as is mostjust, and that your reign may grow and increase
την ειαν, αυ~ και"'δ ' " "~
επι οσιν και η αρχη υμων,
'λ β , ~ δ" , , , as all men become subject to you? 3. This is also to our advan-
, t
παντων υποχειΡιων γιγνομενων,
,
αμ ανTl; 3. τουτο εστι και προς
tage that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life and at the same
(' ..... ΙL JI \ Ι Ι
ημων, οπως ηρεμον και ησυχιον
β'
ιον
δ ι α'
ιαγοιμεν, αυτοι
\ δ"ε παντα τα,
time may willingly do all that is commanded.
κεκελευσμ'να προθύμως ύπηρετοΙμεν.
36. ι i.e. about resurrected bodies.
37. α Cf. ι Tim. 2: 2 2 i.e. bodies have as their exemplars Platonic ideas.
3 According to the doxographies (Aetius, Plαc. ι. 17. 4; 1.24· 3) Pythagora:;;
36. 5 των αίσθητων add. Suffridius Petrus Subscriptio: ΆΘΗΝΑΓ6ΡΟΥ and Plato taught that t11e elements could be changed into one another. This
ΠΡΕΣΒΕϊΑ may be the aspect of trleir teaching which Athenagoras had ίn mind.
 ΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ ΕΥ ΤΗΕ
SAME Α UTHOR
ΝΕΚΡΩΝ
CONCERNING ΤΗΕ RESURRECTION
1. ΠανT~ δ6γμαΤι Kα~ λ6γψ της έν τοvτοις αληθείας έχομένψ OF ΤΗΕ DEAD
παρα
, ι .1. "'δ
Φ Φ ,
υεται Τι ψευ ος' παρα υεται
δ" 't· , ι
ε ουκ ε~ υποκειμενης Τινος
'''' 'Φ'
αρχης κατα
t Ι "1\ ..... ','ΙΙ ,\ tl
υσιν ορμωμενον η της κατ αυτο οπερ εσΤιν εκαστον 1. Some falsehood grows up alongside of eνery doctrine and
,ι
αΙΤιας, 'λλ'"
α υπο '"
των ,
την ,ι θ εσμον
εκ σπορ αν' "δ ια Φθ
επι Opq,'" '"
της teaching which abides by the truth that it contains. It grows, not
αληθείας τεΤιμηκ6των σπουδαζ6μενον. 2. τουτο δ' εσην εύρειν
because it springs up naturally from some underlying source or
'" "'" Ιλαι ταις ,
~ περι τουτων ΦρονΤισιν
ι , ,
λ ' cause inherent in the νarious teachings themselνes, but because
πρωτον μεν εκ των πα εσχο ακοτων
\ ..... ,Ι Ι ,t -Ι β' " it is fostered by those who honour the sowing of spurious seed to
και της εκεινων προς τε τους εαυτων πρεσ υτερους και τους the destruction of the truth. 2. This may be gathered first from
όμ οχρ6νους γενομένης διαφορας, OVX i}κιστα δε έξ αύτης της των έν those who long ago concerned themselves with reflections οη
μέσψ στρεΦομένων ταραχης. ουδεν γ(φ των αληθων οί τοιουτοι these matters and the discord which arose between them and their
'\Φ ι , , ,Ι ,
κατεΛιπον ασυκο αντητον, ου την ουσιαν του
'" θ"'" '"
εου, ου την γνωσιν,
predecessors and contemporaries; but also, and by ηο means
, , ,ι ,\ Ι 'Φ t '" θ' ι , ι , \ \ least of all, from the confusion which characterizes the discussion
ου την ενεργειαν, ου τα τουτοις ε ε~ ης κα ειΡμον επομενα και τον
of matters currently debated. Such men haνe left ηο truth free
'"
της 'β ειας
ευσε ι • ~.
ημιν υπογρα'Φ οντα '
λογον' α'λλ' οιι ,Ι
μεν παντΥΙ και , from misrepresentation-not the nature of God, not his know-
καθάπαξ απογινώσκουσιν T~ν Πε.Ρ'ι τοvτων αλ~θειαν, οί δε προς το ledge, not his actiνity, nor all that logically flows from these and
'"
δ οκουν •
~
αυτοις δ ιαστρε'Φ ουσιν, οιΙ δ'ε , '''''
και περι των εμ Φ ανων απορειν
~ "" follows the lines of our religious teaching. Some of them simply
έπιτηδεVουσιν. 3. όθεν οlμαι δειν τοις περ'ι ταυτα πονουμένοις despail' of knowing the truth concerning these things; others are
concerned with what seems likely to themselνes; οtheΓS eχeΓcίse
λ6γων διττων, των μεν ύπερ της αληθείας, των δε περ'ι της αληθείας·
themselves ϊη doubting eνen what is obνious.
κα'ι των μεν ύπερ της αληθείας προς τους απιστουντας η τους 3. Consequently Ι think that those who are occupied ίη these
,
αμ Φ ιβ α'λλ οντας, των '" δ ε' ''''
'λη θ ειας προς τους εVΓνωμOνOυνTας
περι της α ' , " '" matters need to adopt two lines of argument-the one on behαlf of
Kα~ μετ' ευνοίας δεχομένους την αλ~θειαν. α 6Jv ένεκεν xp~ τους περ'ι the truth, the other concerning the truth. That οη behalf of the
τοvτων έξετάζειν έθέλοντας T~ν έκάστοτε προκειμένην χρείαν truth is directed to those who (E~~el~eνe or dispute it. That con-
cerning the truth is directed to those who are well disposed and
σκοπειν και TaVTYJ τους λ6γους μετρειν T~ν τε πε.ρΙ τοvτων τάξιν
receiνe the truth gladly. Those who desire to inνestigate these
μεθαρμ6ζειν προς το δέον και μ~ Τψ δοκειν την αυτην πάντοτε problems ought then to consider what is needed at any particular
Φ υλ αττειν
' ' " αμε λ ειν
αρχην ~ του "" προσηκοντος και, της'" ΕΠΙ
, βαλλουσης
' point, to measure their words accordingly, and as far as necessary
ι/
εκαστψ χωρας.
ι
4. ι," "δ t "Φ
ως μεν γαρ προς απο ει~ιν και την υσικην
, to adapt the usual order of treating such issues; they ought not to
ακολουθίαν, πάντοτε πρωτοστατουσιν οί περι αύτης λ6γοι των neglect the argument that fits the occasion nor the place that is
suitable for each point ίη a desire to adhere to the same basic
ύπερ αύτης, ώς δε προς το χρειωδέστερον, ανεστραμμένως οί ύπερ
method throughout. 4. For just as it is normal ίη offering proof
αύτης των περι αύτης. ούτε γαρ γεωργος δvναιτ' αν προσηκ6ντως and working out logical consequences to reason concerning them
'" YYJ"'"
καταβ α'λλ ειν TYJ t λ'
'πpoε~ε
τα σπερματα, μη ' 'της
ων τα ' ' 'αγριας
ι "λης
υ first and then οη behalf of them, so, when it comes to the more
practical side, the opposite is true-reasoning οη behalf of them
1. α Cf. Luke 8: 13 precedes that concerning them. Thus a farmer could not cast
seeds into the ground with any hope of success if he did not first
1. ι post έαυτων erasa sunt και της lKElvwv προς τους έαυτων Α root up wild growth and anything that damages the cultiνated
90 ATHENAGORAS 1·4 2·3 DE RESURRECTIONE 91
και , < ')2 τα Λ
τοις καταβ α λλ'
ομενοις 7]μεΡοις ., σΠεΡμασιν , λ υμαινομενα, ' strains of seeds that are SOWll. Nor could a physician introduce
""
ουτε ιατρος 'ΛΙ
ενειναι Τι ~.
των ~3Φ'
υγιεινων αρμακων "'δ'
τιμ εομενιμ
health-giving medicines into an ailing body if he did not first
purge the infection already there or prevent it from spreading.
θεραπείας σώμαΤι, μγ) T~ν ένουσαν κακίαν ΠPOKαθ~pας η T~ν
Nor, surely, could the man vvho wishes to teach the truth persuade
έΠιΡρέουσαν έπισχών' ούτε μ~ν ό την αλ~θειαν διδάσκειν έθέλων anyone with his presentation if some false ορίηίοη lurks ίη the
,
περι Τ7]ς α
~ 'λ7] θ ειας
Ι '
λ εγων πεισαι
Λ δ υναιτ ' ,,,αν Τινα ψευ
./. δ ο δ ο ξ ιας
Ι ,
Τινος mind of llis hearers and opposes his teachings.
ύποικουρούσ7]ς Tfj των ακου6ντων διανοίC!- Kat τοις λ6γοις ανΤι- 5. That is why we too, as we look to the more practical side,
ι
στατουσ7]ς. 5. δ'"
ιο προς το χρειω δ εστερον α
'Φ ορωντες
~ και 7]μεις ' , • .. sometimes present arguments οη behalf of the truth befor~ we
προτάσσομεν έσθ' οτε τους ύπερ της αλ7]θείας λ6γους των περt της
present those concerning the truth. It does not seem inappropriate
fol' us also now ίη discussing the resurrection to proceed ίη the
αλ7]θείας· κατα τον αύτον δε τρ6πον ποιησαι και νυν έπι των της same way ίη lig"ht of the present need: for ίη this matter we find
,
αναστασεως
Ι λ'
ογων ουκ
"Λ
αχρειον
Φ Ι
αινεται σκοπουσι
~,
το
δ'
εον. και
, men who simply do not believe it, others who dispute it, and
γαρ έν τούτοις εύρίσκομεν τους μεν απιστουντας πάνττι, Τινας δε others who, although they are among those who accept our basic
,
αμ Φ ιβ α'λλ οντας και,~
των γε τας πρωτας υπΌ θ εσεις , , • ' δ ε ξ'
αμενων \
Τινας
assumptions, are as doubtful as those who dispute it; and the
'Φβ'λλ ~ height οί" absuIdity is that they suffer this delusion without having
" , ισ7]ς
επ ' τοις αμ ..
ι α ουσιν απορουντας' το'δ"
ε παντων παρα λ ογω-
' ι
the least foundation ίη the facts for their disbelief and without
τατον ΟΤι ταυτα πάσχουσιι! ούδ' rινTιναoυν έχοντες έκ των πραγμά- being able to present any plausible reason because of which they
, , 'Φ \ 'δ' αΙΤιαν
των απισΤιας α ορμ7]ν ου
,ι • Ι , .. "\
ευρισκοντες ειπειν ευι\Ογον,
δ '
ι disbelieve or doubt.
ην απιστουσιν η διαπορουσιν.
2. Let us make the following observations. Every attitude of dis-
2. Σκοπωμεν δε ούτωσί. 1 πασα απιστία μ~ προχείρως και κατά belief which men adopt, not ίη a rash spirit or οη some un-
examined grounds, but for a strong reason and out ofthe security
Τινα δ6ξαν ακριτον έγγινομέν7] Τισιν αλλα μετά Τινος αίτίας ίσχυρας provided by the trutll, remains a probable account whenever the
\ ~
και Τ7]ς κατα την α
,\ 'λ 'θ
7] ειαν ασ
' Φ
α
λ Ι
ειας τοτε
Ι 2 ' ,Ι
τον εικοτα σψι"ει
, r λ Ι
ογον, matter which they challenge appears ίη fact unworthy of belief;I
οταν αύτο το πραγμα περι ov απιστουσιν απιστον ElvaL δοκfj' το γάρ but surely not to believe things which have ηο such character is
the mark of men who exercise unsound judgement concerning
τοι τοις ούκ οδσιν απίστοις απιστειν ανθρώπων έργον ούχ ύγιαι­
the truth. 2. That is why those who do not believe ίη the
νούσ'[] κρίσει περι T~ν αλ~θειαν χρωμένων. 2. ούκουν x~ Kat τους resurrection, or have doubts, ought not to bIing forward their
περι T~ς αναστάσεως απιστουντας η διαπορουντας μ~ προς το ορίηίοη οη the issue if it is a matter of what merely seems likely
to themselves, without critical investigation, or what would give
δοκουν αύτοις ακρίτως και το τοις ακολάστοις κεχαρισμένον T~ν
, , , Φ Ι 'λλ'" , , comfort to the immoral; but they should either make the creation
περι ταυΤ7]ς εκ
,
ερειν γνωμ7]ν, α 7] μ7] δ εμιας
~ ,Ι 'ξ
αΙΤιας ε απτειν Τ7]ν
of men dependent οη ηο cause (which can very easily be refuted)
~
των αν '
'θρωπων γενεσιν , ("ο δ'
7] και'λ ιαν ' "
εσΤιν 'ξ 1\
ευε EI\EYKTOV ) "7] '"
Τψ or, if they ascribe the cause of existing things to God, examine
θεψ T~ν των όντων αναΤιθέντας αΙτίαν εΙς T~ν τουδε του δ6γματος closely the presupposition of this doctrine and ίη elaborating its
significance show that the resurrection is not ίη any way a trust-
αποβλέπειν ύπ6θεσιν και δια ταύΤ7]ς δεικνύναι την ανάστασιν worthy doctrine.
ούδαμ6θεν έχουσαν το πιστ6ν. 3. τουτο δε πoι~σoυσιν, έαν δειξαι 3. This they will be able to do if they can show that God either
δ υν7] θωσιν
~ 7]"'δ'
α υνατον ,''''
ον Τψ θ"'''
εψ 7] 'βου'λ7]τον τα νεκρω θ'
α ~
εντα των ' is not able, or is unwilling, to knit together again dead bodies (or
even those entirely decomposed) and restore them so as to con-
σωμάτων η Kat πάντ'[] διαλυθέντα πάλιν ένωσαι Kat συναγαγειν προς
stitute the very men they once were. If they cannot do this, let
την των αύτων ανθρώπων σύστασιν. έαν δε τουτο μ~ δύνωνται,
2. ι For the Platonic phrase 'probable account' ίη discussions not unlike those
1. 2 τα add. Wilamowitz 3 ύγεινων Α which follow here (2. 5) see Plato's Timaeus 57 d and Theophrastus' Opinions
2. ι ούτως εΙ Α: corr. Schwartz 2 post τότε add. γαρ Αι (Diels, Doxographi Grαeci, ρ. 525).
92 ATHENAGORAS 2·3 2.6 DE RESURRECTIONE 93
, θ
7Ταυσασ ωσαν
'"
της
'θ'
α εου
, , ,
ταυτης α7Τιστιας
\
και
'"
του
βλ Α-, ...
ασψ'ιμειν α
<\
them giνe up this godless disbelief and their impious blasphemy.
Ι t will become clear from the following arguments that they do
μη θέμις· ότι γαρ ούτε το άδύνατον λέγοντες άληθεύουσιν ούτε το not haνe the truth when tlley speak of God's inability or un-
α'β'
ου λ ητον, εκ των ρη ''''
(θησομενων γενησεται ' , Φ ανερον. , willingness to do this. 2
4. One knows inability to be what it really is either when there
4. ΤΟ άδύνατόν τινι γινώσκεται κατ' άλ~θειαν τοιουτον η εκ του is a lack of knowledge of what will happen or a lack of sufficient
power effectiνely to accomplish what is determined upon. For he
μη γινώσκειν το γενησόμενον η εκ του δύναμιν άρκουσαν μη έχειν who knows nothing ofwhat is to happen can ίη ηο way undertake
or accomplish what he does not know; and he who kno\vs well
7Τρος το 7Τοιησαι καλως το εγνωσμένον. ό τε γαρ άγνοων τι των
\vhat is to be accomplished-what would giνe rise to it and how it
γενέσθαι δεόντων ούκ αν ούτ' εγχειΡησαι ούτε 7Τοιησαι δυνηθεΕη το would come about-and yet either has ηο power at all, or ίη­
sufficient power, to accomplish it would not undertake the task if
7Ταρά7Ταν ό7Τερ άγνοεί', ό τε γινώσκων καλως το 7Τοιηθησόμενον και he were sober and considered his limitations; ifhe rashly attemp-
ted to do so, he would not accomplish his purpose.
7Τόθεν γένοιτ' αν και 7Τως, δύναμιν δε η μηδ' όλως έχων 7Τρος το
5. It is impossible for God, howeνer, to be ignorant of the
7Τοιησαι το γινωσκόμενον η μη άρκουσαν έχων, ούκ αν εγXειp~σειεν nature of our bodies which are destined to arise; he knows eνery
part and member ίη their entirety. Nor indeed can he be ignorant
, , , ,
την αρχην, ει σω
Φ .. , ,
ρονοι και την ιοιαν ε7Τισκεψαιτο
''>' " '.1. δ '
υναμιν, εγχειΡη-
, , as to where eνerything goes that decomposes and what part of the
appropriate element receiνes what is decomposed and dissolνed
σας δε ά7Τερισκέ7Ττως ούκ αν ε7Τιτελέσειεν το δόξαν. 5. άλλ' ούτε into its own kind. 3 This is the case ίη spite of the fact that men are
, ... 'θ' '>' , '" , , , 'Φ' νery much inclined to think that what has been intimately
αγνοειν τον εον ουνατον των αναστησομενων σωματων την υσιν
reunited with eνerything else ofits kind has become indistinguish-
κατά τε 3 μέρος όλον4 και μόριον ούτε μην ό7ΤΟΙ χωρεί' των λυομένων able from it. Before the particular formation of indiνidual things,
God knew the nature ofthe elements yet to be created from which
εκαστον και 7Τοί'ον του στοιχεΕου μέρος δέδεκται το λυθεν και men's bodies arise; and he knew the parts of the elements from
which he planned to select ίη order to form the human body.
χωρησαν 7Τρος το συγγενές, καν 7Τάνυ 7Ταρ' άνθρώ7Τοις άδιάκριτον
When all has been dissolνed, it is clear that such a God will also
l'
ειναι
'" ""
ΟΟΚΏ τΟ
...
τψ
\
7Ταντι 7Τα
'λ
ιν 7Τροσ
Φ'"
υως
(
ηνωμενον.
, 'F'
Ψ
\
γαρ
,
ουκ know where eνerything has gone-eνerything which he had
selected that he might giνe substance to indiνidual things.
-ήγνόητο 7Τρο της οίκεΕας έκάστου συστάσεως ούτε των γενησομένων 6. Ι t is to be expected ίη reflecting οη the order of circum-
, (Φ' 'ξΤ 'θ' \ ... , "\' stances which now determines our liνes, and ίη considering our
στοιχειων η υσις, ε ων τα των αν ρω7Των σωματα, ουτε τα μερη
judgement as to other possibilities, that fOEeknowledge of what
,
τουτων, ε'ξ ων
'F' "
εμε λλεν '.1. θαι
ληψεσ το ' 00
'" 'ξ \ \
αν 7Τρος την του αν θρω7Τειου "" ' has not yet happened is more highly regarded; it is likewise
to be expected ίη νiew of God's majesty and wisdom that both
σώματος σύστασιν, εύδηλον ώς ούδε μετα το διαλυθηναι το 7Ταν
2. 2 Methodius' Origenist (De Res. ι. 20-2) complained of believers ίn the
'θ' "','F' "λΦ r,
αγνοη ησεται 7Του κεχωΡηκεν εκαστον ων ε ι η εν 7Τρος την εκαστου
, \ t, resurrection of the whole body who retreated to the statements that 'God does
what he wills' and that 'all things are possible with God', without realizing that
συμ7Tλ~pωσιν. 6. όσον μεν γαρ κατα την νυν κρατουσαν 7Ταρ' ήμί'ν they were speaking of things both 'impossible' and 'unworthy of God'.
3 For the language and ideas reflected here see Plato's discussion of the
'"
των
,
7Τραγματων
'ξ
τα ιν και την ε
'Φ' \ \ t , ,
ετερων κρισιν, μει,:>ον το τα μη
... r \ \ \ elements and their dissolution ίn the Timαeus (especially 57 b; cf. 81 a). That
the elements are 'compounds' \vas commonly held (Aetius, Plαc. ι. 1.2). Plato
γενόμενα 7Τρογινώσκειν' όσον δε 7Τρος την άξΕαν του θεου και την himself speaks of the 'parts' of elements which drift about as the result of 'dis-
solution' and which recombine ίn various ways (Tim. 56 d-57 c). Our author
refers to the 'parts of elements' being brought together 'jnto one' shortly
2. 3 ΤΕ seclusit Schwartz 4 όλον seclusit Schwartz (2. 5 below; 3. 2).
94 ATHENAGORAS 2.6 3·3 DE RESURRECTIONE 95
,
τουτου σο
Φ"
ιαν, αμ
Φ'
οτερα κατα
\ Φ' \ .,~
υσιν και pq,OΙOv επ
" .,
ισης Τψ τα μη
- \ \ things-his knowledge of what has been dissolνed as much as his
foreknowledge of what has not yet happened-are natural and
γενόμενα προγινώσκειν το και διαλυθlντα γινώσκειν. easy for him.

3. Και μην και την δ.Jναμιν

.
ως
"
εσην
,-
αρκουσα προς την των
3. As to power, the creation of our bodies shows that God's power
suffices for their resurrection. For if when he first gaνe them
form, he made the bodies of men and their principal constituents
σωμάτων ανάστασιν, δεtκνυσιν ή TO.JTWV αύτων γlνεσις. εΙ γαρ " from nothing, he will just as easily raise them up again after their
dissolution, howeνer it may haνe taken place. For this is equally
μη σντα κατα την πρώτην σ.Jστασιν έποtησεν τα των ανθρώπων
possible for him. 2. And our argument loses none of its force
σώματα και τας TO.JTWV αρχάς, και διαλυθlντα καθ' ον αν TVXTJ whether men suppose that the principal constituents arise from
matter or that human bodies haνe the elements as their basic
τρόπον, ανασT~σει μετα της ίσης εύμαρεtας· έπ' ίσης γαρ αύτψ και ingredients or that they are made up of seeds. I For the power
-~,
τουτο ουνατον. 2. και\ T€p- λ'
ογψ βλ α'β ος ουοεν,
,~\ 't. υ"λης υπο-
καν ε~ .\ • which can giνe shape to substance regarded by these thinkers 2 as
shapeless, can arrange ίn many different patterns that which is
θωντα' ηνες τας πρώτας αρχάς, καν έκ των στοιχεtων ώς πρώτων unstructured and disordered, can gather into one the parts of the
τα σώματα των ανθρώπων, καν έκ σπερμάτων. -ης γάρ έση δυνά­
elements, can diνide seed which is one and simple into many, can
make an articulated organism of that which is undifferentiated,3
μεως και την παρ' αύτοιςl νενομισμlνην αμορΦον ούσtαν 2 μορφωσαι and can giνe life to that which is not aliνe-such a power can also
\ \ "~ \ αοιακοσμητον
, ~, λλ Λ ~ Φ' "δ
unite what has been dissolνed, can raise up what has fallen, can
και την ανειοεον και 170 οις
\
και οια οροις ει εσιν v
,restore the dead to life, and can change the corruptible!!1t~
κοσμησαι και τα μlΡη των στοιχεtων εΙς ~ν συναγαγειν και το incorruption.
3. The same God and the same wisdom and power can also
σπlΡμα ~ν ον και άπλουν εις πολλα διελειν και το αδιάρθρωτον separate out what has been torn apart and deνoured by numerous
animals of eνery kind which are accustomed to attack bodies like
διαρθρωσαι και Τψ μη ζωνη δουναι ζω~ν, της αύτης έσην και το
our own and satisfy their wants with them; and he can reunite
διαλελυμlνον έν(vσαι και το κεtμενον αναστησαι και το τεθνηκος the fragments with their own parts and members whether they
haνe gone into one such animal or into many, or whether they
ζψοποιησαι πάλιν και το Φθαρτον μεταβαλειν εΙς αΦθαρσ{αν. α haνe passed ίn turn from them into others and after decomposition
3. -
του αυτου ο
, - ς:.'''' ), 'Λ ,_
αν ειη και της αυτης ουναμεως και σο
~ Ι \ Φ Ι
ιας και
\

3. ι Athenagoras may be referring to (α) the pre-Socratics (matter), (b) Plato

το διατεθΡυμμlνον <εΙς)3 πλ~θη ζψων παντοδαπων όπόσα τοις and Aristotle (elements), (c) Anaxagoras (seeds). The term 'matter' (ίn the sense
of 'body') was used to describe the first principle of the Milesian philosophers
τοιο.Jτοις σώμασιν έπιτρlχειν είωθεν και τον έκ TO.JTWV dYEtPELV (Aetius, Plαc. 1.9.6). Plato and Aristotle (as well as the Stoics), οη the other
hand, were known to have distinguished 'first principles'-such as 'matter'
κόρον, διακριναι μεν έκεί'θεν, ένωσαι δε πάλιν τοις οΙκεtοις μlΡεσι (Plαc. ι. 3. 2 ι )-from the 'elements' (Plαc. ι. 2. ι; ι. 3. 25); and Plato's theories

και μορ{οις, καν εΙς ~ν4 έξ έκε{νων xωp~στι ζψον, καν εΙς πολλά, would perhaps have been uppermost ίn the minds of those who regarded the
elements as the constituents of physical reality (Tim. 48 e-53 c; cf. Aristotle, De
καν έντευθεν εΙς έτερα, καν αύτοις έκε{νοις συνδιαλυθεν έπι τας Gen. et Corr. 2. ι, 328b25). Tlle doxographies also discuss the homoeomeriαe of
Anaxagoras as first principles (Aetius, Plαc. ι. 3. 5); apparently these were
actually called 'seeds' by Anaxagoras (G. S. Kirk and J. Ε. Raven, The Ρτε­
3. α Cf. ι Cor. 15: 53 socrαtic Philosophers [Cambridge, 1957], ρρ. 378, 387).
2 Particularly Platonists (Plato, Tim. 30 a, 5 ι a; cf. Aetius, Plαc. ι. 9· 4-5;

Wisdom of Solomon ι ι: 17; Justin, Αρ. ι. 10. 2).

3. ι αύτοίς η man. rec.: αύτης Α 2 ούσίαν η man. rec.: οδσαν Α 3 εΙς 3 Biological language having to do with the 'articulation' of the embryo
add. Schwartz (cf. 4. 2) .. καν pro εΙς εν add. Α ι (Aetius, Plαc. 5. 20. 1-2).
96 ATHENAGORAS 3·3 4·4 DE RESURRECTIONE 97
ι
πρωτας αρχας ενεχ
'" θ~ "Φ υσικην εις ταυτας
τι κατα την
ι 'Ιλ t\ δ'
ανα υσιν' ο η
, , been resolνed along with their destroyers into their principal
constituents and so followed the natural course of dissolution
και'Ιλ ι
μα ιστα ταραττειν "δ ο ξ εν
ε ι ηνας και, των
~ επι
" σο Φ'
LCf θ αυμα';,ομενων,
γ ι back into them. This νiew seems to haνe greatly upset some
people eνen among those admired for their wisdom, because for
, ,
Ί'δ'"
ισχυρας ουκ οι
, ι , ,~ •
οπως ηγησαμενων τας παρα των πο
λλ ~
ων
Φ ι
ερομενας some reason which Ι cannot grasp they regarded the doubts
νoiced by the crowd as strong arguments. 4
διαπορήσεις.
4. This ίη any eνent is what they say:I The bodies of many who
die ίη shipwrecks or who drown ίη riνers become food for fish;
and the bodies of many who die ίη wars or who are depriνed of
burial by some other calamity or turn of eνents lie exposed as food
for any animal that happens by. 2. Their first point is that since
.....
4 • Ο υτοι δ ει γε'Φ ασιν πο λλ"
α μεν ι
σωματα ~,
των εν '"
ναυαγιοις η bodies are destroyed ίη this way and the parts and limbs which
make them up are torn apart and deνoured by a large number of
Λ
ποταμοις δ υσ θ'
ανατων ,
ιχ θ υσιν
ι , θαι
γενεσ τρο Φ ην,
Ι πο λλ'
α δ'
ε ~
των animals and ίη being digested are united with the bodies of the
creatures so nourished, any separation of them is impossible. Ιη
έν πολέμοις θvτισκόντων η κατ' άλλην ηνα τραχυτέραν αΙτίαν και addition, howeνer, they bring forward an eνen greater difficulty.
3. For there are creatures 2 which feed οη human bodies but
πραγμάτων περίστασιν ταφης αμΟιΡούντων τοις προστυγχάνουσιν are themselνes also fit nourishment for men. These creatures are
digested by humans and so are united with the bodies of those
γι Λθ β ι ~ 'λ ι ι
';,ψοις προκεισ αι οραν. 2. 'j'''
των ουν ουτως ανα ισκομενων σωματων who haνe eaten them. 1t is ineνitable, then, that the parts of
men that serνed as food for the creatures which deνoured them
και τωιι ταυτα συμπληρούντων μερων και μορίων εΙς πολυ πληθος should pass oνer into other human bodies; for the creatures who
ίη their quest for food serνed as intermediaries haνe transmitted
γ'
';,ψων '
δ ια θρυπτομενων και'δ' ~
ια της ~ τοις
ΤΡΟψ'lς ,,~
των τρε Φ'
ομενων the nourishment deriνed from their νictims to those men whose
food they ίη turn became.
σωμασιν
, t Ι
ενουμενων, πρωτον
- "δ'
μεν την ιακρισιν 'Φ'
τουτων ασιν 4. Our disputants go οη to dramatize their case with reports of
children whose parents dared to deνour them ίη times of famine 3
αδύνατον, πρ6ς δε ταύττι τ6 δεύτερον απορώτερον. 3. των γαρ τα 3. 4 The reference may well be to Origenists who stressed the fact of the dis-
ι ~'θ' ,β θ' γ ι., , Φ'
solution of the body and the difficulty ίη recovering the elements once they have
σωματα των αν ρωπων εκ οσκη εντων ';,ψων, οποσα προς τρο ην
been dispersed (Methodius, De Res. Ι. 20. 4; 2. 26. 2-5).
4. 1 The following remarks are similar to those of Methodius' Origenist (De
ανθρώποις έπιτήδεια, δια της τούτων γαστρ6ς Ιόντων και τοις των Res. Ι. 20. 4-5) and especially those of the (Origenist) opponents of Gregory of
Nyssa as reported ϊη his discussion of the resurrection (De Hom. Opif. 26. Ι).
μετει λη Φ οτων
' ,
σωμασιν
t Ι
ενουμενων,
"
αναγκην
l'
ειναι
-
πα σαν
"
τα μερη Both make a special point of the problem raised by the union of human flesh
witll the body of other men through the eating of animals that had themselves
~ 'θ' .,
των αν ρωπων, οποσα ΤΡΟΨ'Ι γεγονεν τοις μετει
~, Λ λ
η
φ ι γ,
οσι ';,ψοις, προς
, fed οη human flesh. 2 e.g. fish or birds.

3 Probably a reference to the grisly story ίη Josephus, B.J. 6. Igg-2Ig-'a

έτερα των ανθρώπων μεταχωρειν σώματα, των μεταξυ τούτοις deed which had been recorded ίη the history neither of the Greeks nor of the
barbarians.' Gregory of Nyssa (De Hom. Opif. 25. 3) treats the account of 'her
τρα
,
Φ εντων γ ,
';,ψων
"ξ.....,
την ε ων ετρα
'Φ
ησαν
~
ΤΡΟψ'lν
δ θ
ιαπορ μευοντων
ι who devoured her child' as fulfilment of Christ's prophecy ίη Luke 23: 27-9;
and he concludes that such confirmation of Christ's authority also permits us to
trust his teaching οη the resurrection. The passage shows that Josephus' tale
, " "θ'
εις εκεινους τους αν ρωπους ων εγενετο τρο Φ'
η. ... " 4. ειτα
'j' ι
τουτοις had become commonplace ίη some Christian circles and that it hovered about
reflections οη the resurrection. The context shows that Gregory had gained his
, ς:-~
επιτραγψοουσιν "λ'"
τας εν ιμοις και μανιαις τολμη θ'
εισας τεκνο Φ' ,
αγ,ας , knowledge of Josephus from Eusebius (Η.Ε. 3. 6. 1-7.6).
8268084 Η
98 ATHENAGORAS 4·4 5.2 DE RESURRECTIONE 99
καιΙ τους
Ι κατ "β
επι ουλην
' 'θ'"
εχ ρων • Ι
V7TO των
... 'ι
γεννησαμενων ε'δ η δ ε- or ίη fits of madness 4 and with stories of others who were eaten by
their progenitors through the plotting of enemies, including the
μένους παιδας Kα~ την Μηδικην τράπεζαν έκείνην Kα~ τα τρα- famous account of the Median feast and the lamentable banquet
of Thyestes; and they gather together a whole series of such
γικα δεΙΠνα Θυέστου Kα~ TOLaVTas; δή τινας έπισυνείρουσι παρ'
horrors perpetrated among Greeks and barbarians. Οη this basis
flE'tιΛησιν
\\ και
ι β ,Q'
aPt'apoLS' καινουΡγη
'
θ εισας συμ Φ ορας
Ι" ,
εκ τε τουτων
they think that they establish the thesis that the resurrection is an
impossibility, for the reason that the same parts cannot rise again
κατασκευάζουσιν, ώς νομίζουσιν, άδvνατον την άνάστασιν, ώς ού ίn both sets of indiνiduals. Either the bodies of the first set could
not be reconstituted, since the parts of which they were made
δυναμένων των αύτων μερων έτέροις τε Kα~ έτέροις συναναστηναι up had passed oνer into the second set; or if these parts were
restored to the first set, the bodies of the second set would be
σιΙψασιν, άλλ' ήτοι τα των προτέρων συστηναι μ~ SvvaaeaL, μετ­ incomplete.
εληλυθ6των των ταυτα συμπληροvντων μερων προς έτέρους, η
5. Those who argue ίη this way seem to me ίη the first place to be
TOVTWV άποδοθέντων τοις προτέροις ένδεως έξειν τα των ύστέρων. ignorant ofthe power and wisdom ofhim who created and guides
the uniνerse. He adapted to the nature and species of each animal
a suitable and appropriate food. I He did not think it right that
eνery species should be united or fused with every kind of body,
5. Έμο"" δ~ δοκουσιν οί τοιουτοι πρωτον μ~ν την του δημιουΡγή- nor is he at a 10ss when it comes to the separation of things that
have been united. Οη the contrary he permits the individual
σαντος καιι δ ιοικουντος το'δ ε τοι παν ... Α δ"
. . .αγνοειν
, υναμιν τε καιΙ σο Φ'
ιαν, species of created beings the active and passive functions which
are natural;2 he prevents anything else, while furthering every-
.,
εκαστου ζ'
ψου Φ'
υσει καιΙ,
γενει Ι
την προσ Φ'"
υη καιι κατα'λλ η λ ον thing that proceeds ίη accordance with his will and purpose or
, _ turning it ίη that direction.
συναρμοσαντος τρο Φ'"
ην και μητε πασαν Φ'
υσιν προς
'tl
ενωσιν η κρασιν
,,'-
Our disputants, moreover, do not seem to me to have con-
παντος σώματος Ιέναι δικαιώσαντος μήτε προς διάκρισιν των sidered the capacity and nature of each of the creatures which
giνe or receiνe nourishment. 2. Otherwise they would have
ενω θ εντων απορως εχοντος, α'λλ α καιι...
• ' ",' ΤΊ7 κα θ'"
ει<αστον ' ,
Φ υσει των .. known that not everything that one of them eats under the
pressure of external necessity becomes suitable food for that
,
γενομενων τοι δ'"
ραν '"
η πασχειν α
tl πε'Φ υκεν "
επιτρεποντος "λλο
α δΙεΙ animal. Οη the contrary some food as soon as it meets the folds of
'
κωλ υοντος και παν ο
Ι ... tΙβ 'λ
ου
Ι
εται και προς ο
\ tιβ 'λ
ου εται σVΓXωPOυνTOς η
... ,ι 4. 4 For some examples from Greek mythology see Apollodorus 2. 2. 2; 3.5.2.
5. ι Analogous ideas are to be found already ίη the pre-Socratics (Aetius,
μεταστρε'Φ οντος, ι
προς δ'ε τοις
Α εΙΡημενοις μη δΙ"
" ,
ε την εκαστου ...
των Plac. ι. 3. 5; 5. 27. ι). But ίη view of the close resemblance between the following
arguments and those of Galen οη digestion, there can be little doubt that these
τρε ,
Φ οντων ,Ι τρεΦ'
η ομενων επεσκε'Φθ αι , δ υναμιν
" τε και\ Φ'
υσιν. 2. η
'i' views are derived from a medical source. See Galen, De Nat. Fac. ι. 10 (Kίihn,
ii. 20): ' ... therefore ίη the first place it is natural that not every animal can
γαρ
\
αν
"'"
εγνωσαν οτι
fI'
μη παν
- ι\
ο προσ Φ'
ερεται , τις •
υπ εν δ'
οσει ...
της gain nourishment from the same food; moreover, not every animal can gain
nourishment immediately from that which it is able to absorb' (cf. Gregory of
"
ε"ξω θ εν αναγκης, 2τουτο
"" ...
γινεται Τψ ,
ζΨΨ "u
TPO'f"J προ σΦ'
υης' α'λλ α τα ' , Nyssa, Or. Catech. 37). Athenagoras, to be sure, applies these doctrines ίη a some-
what special way.
μ~ν αμα Τψ προσομιλησαι τοις περιπτυσσομένοις της κοιλίας μέρεσι 2 The reference to active and passive functions which make combination
possible suggests the influence of Aristotle (De Gen. et Corr. ι. 6-10, 315b2-
328b22). But Galen also uses the same terminology ίη discussing the body's
4. ι γΕνησαμίνων Α reception ofwhat is suitable and its rejection ofwhat is foreign to it (e.g. De Nat.
5. ι άλλΟΤΕ Α: corr. Wilamowitz 2 άν άνάγκηι; Α Fac. 1.2, 1.3, ι. 14,2.8; Ktihn, ίί. 7,8,46, 111).
100 ATHENAGORAS 5.2 6. 1 DE RESURRECTIONE 101

ι
Φθ ειΡεσ θαι ',ι..
'Πεψυκεν '"
εμουμενα τε και, δ ιαχωρουμενα
' "
η3 '
τρο'Πον the belly iS ineνitably spoi1ed and iS eliminated as νomit or
., • excretion or ίη some other form 3 since it cannot eνen for a short
ετερον δ ια Φ'
ορουμενα, ως μη δ' 'R
ε κατα ~pαxυ,ι ,
την 'Πρωτην καιι κατα
ι
time endure the first natural digestiνe process, much less organic
, υτroμειναι
Φυσιν • '.1.
'Πεψιν,
~ 'J'
η 'Που γε την εις το τρε
" \ Φ ,
ομενον συγκρασιν,
, union with the recipient of such food. 3. 80 too not eνen all that
' \ is digested and capable of the first transformation is entirely
3· ωσ'Περ
.,
ουν
'J'
ου'δ ε 'Παν
~
το 'ΠεΦθ εν
ι
και, την
\ ,
'Πρωτην δ t.'
ε~ αμενον assimilated by the organs which are being nourished. 80me of it
μεταβ ολην
' τοις
~ τρε Φ'
ομενοις μοριοις 'Προσ'Πε λα~ει
'Υ' ~ μεν
'Παντως, τινων , \ loses its nourishing power ίη the stomach itself; some of it is
secreted ίη its second transformation-the digestiνe process that
κατ' αύτην την γαστ'ρα της θρε'Πτικης δυνάμεως ά'Ποκρινομ'νων, takes place ίη the liνer-and changes into something else which
~ δΙ ι ι δ' β λ , ., , has 10st the power to nourish. As a matter of fact, eνen the change
των ε κατα την ' και την εν η'Πατι γινομενην
ευΤεΡαν μετα ο ην
Ι Ι
which takes place ίη the liνer is not bound to haνe products all of
'.1.
'Πεψιν
δ ι ,\~,
ιακρινομενων και 'Προς ετερον τι μεταχωρουντων ο την του
Ι Ι ~, ~ which become food for men; rather some of them are naturally
secreted as waste products, and the food that then remains under- \
''ι'' , βΦ δ' Ι, ... """Ι , goes transformation from time to time 4 ίη the parts and members
τρεψειν εκ ε~ηKεν υναμιν, και αυτης γε της εν η'Πατι γινομενης
which are being nourished; this occurs when what predominates
μεταβο λης
"" ου " 'Πασης εις , τρο Φ ην
Ι 'θ'
αν ρω'Ποις "λλ'
χωρουσης, α ,
εις is that which causes growth or increase and whose nature it is
<Ι
somehow to break dσ\<vn or conνert into itself what comes into
α 'Πε'Φ υκεν 'δ ιακρινομενης
'Περιττωματα ' ' ' 'της
' τε καταλ ει Φθ εισης
ι
contact with it. 5
τρο
"'"
Φης ~ ,
εν αυτοις εσ
θ' ~ Φ' " .,
Ι, ι
οτε τοις τρε ομενοις μερεσι και μοριοις 'Προς
,
6. There is, then, a great natural νariety among all the animals.
'Ι' τι μεταβαλλουσης καταΙ",
ετερον 'Υ '
την ε'Πικρατειαν του 'Πλ εoνα~oνToς "
η "" And the same natural food undergoes a transformation corres-
, ' ponding to each species of animal and the body that is being
'Περιττευοντος και'Φθ ειΡειν
ι "
'Πως η ,.
'Προς ,"
εαυτο τρε'Πειν το 'Π λ ησιασαν
nourished. And a threefold purification and secretion attends the
εΙωθότος. nourishing of each animal. I Consequently all food that is so
foreign to an animal that it cannot be assimilated must be en-
tirely spoiled and eνacuated ίη the way one would expect, or it
6. Πολλης οΟν ούσης έν 'Πασι τοις ζφοις ΤΨ; Φυσικης διαφορας must change into something else; so too the property of the body
that proνides nourishment must haνe a natural affinity with the
και αυτης, ''''' γε ~
της κατα , Φ'
υσιν τρο Φ""·
ης εκαστψ , 'Υ'
γενει ~ψων 1 και' properties of the animal receiνing nourishment; and this element
~
Τψ τρε Φ"
ομενψ σωματι t. λλ'
συνε~α αττομενης, τριττης "" δ'ε κατα την " 5. 3 For these other forms of elimination see Galen, De Nat. Fac. 3. 13 (Kuhn, ii.
.,
εκαστου Υ'
~ψoυ τρο Φ'
ην γινομενης κα θ',
αρσεως και'δ'
ιακρισεως, δ ει~ 193), De Aliment. 3. 17 (Kuhn, χν. 320-1); but Galen does not attach the same
significance to these symptoms.
,
'Παντως
Φθ' θ
ειΡεσ αι μεν και
' , δ ~:J;',ι..
ιαχωρειν:ι 'Πεψυκεν η 'Προς ετερον τι
" \., , 4 Not always, since members or organs, according to Galen, like the stomach
itself, have a 'limit Ιο nourishment' required (De Nat.Fac. 3.13, Kίilιη, ίί. 198-9).
μεταβ α
'λλ ειν 'Παν ο'Ποσον α'λλ οτριον
ι "".,
,Ι "" Υ' ~.
εις την του ~ψoυ τροψ,ιν ως
5 The whole section is clearly dependent οη the theory ofGalen that there are
three points at which digestive processes take place-the stomach, the liver, and
συγκρα θ ηναι
"" μη'δ'
υναμενον, συμβ αινουσαν
ι δ"ε και κατα , Φ'
υσιν ειναι
l' the various organs of the body (De Prob. Ρταυ. Aliment. Succ. 5, Kuhn, νί. 786-7;
De Alimerιt. 2. 2, Kuhn, χν. 232-3)-and that waste products may be expected at
την , του "" τρε'Φ οντος ι
σωματος δΙ
υναμιν ~ του
ταις "" τρε Φ'
ομενου Υ'
~ψoυ any of these points. For the important role of the liver ίη digestion see especially
Galen, De Usu Part. Corp. 4. 3 (Kuhn, ίίί. 269), De Symp. Caus. ι. 3 (Kuhn, νίί.
ι
δ υναμεσιν και"'λθ
ταυτην ε ουσαν "" δ'
ι 'Ι'
ων ',ι..
'Πεψυκεν ι
κριτηριων καιι 22 ι), De Aliment. 4. 5 (Kuhn, χν. 385-6). Similar theories are known also to
Gregory of Nyssa (De OPif. Hom. 30. 1-2; cf. Methodius, De Res. 2. 9. 1-3).
6. ι For the 'purification' and 'secretion' ofwaste products see Galen, De Nat.
5. 3 η Wilamowitz: και Α Fac. 2. 8 (Kuhn, ίί. 113-14),3. 13 (Kuhn, ίί. 192-3, cf. 200). This takes place ίη
6. ι ζΦων WilanlOwitz: ζΦου Α the stomach, the liver, and the organs.
102 ATHENAGORAS 6. ι 6.6 DERES URRECTI ΟΝΕ 103

καθαρθεισαν άκριβως τοις φυσικοις καθαρσίοις εΙλικρινεστάτην must also pass through the appropriate channels and be subjected
θ ,
λ .1. ' ,Ι
γενεσ αι προσ ηψιν εις ουσιαν'
' 2. c\ '" \ \, 'λ θ ι ,ι
ην οη και μονην επα η ευων αν
to a rigorous process of natural purifications; only then does it
Λ Ι ,ι ~ t , ,Q Ιλλ 2 ~ contribute additional nourishment of the purest kind to the
Τις τοις πραγμασιν ονομασειεν τροψ,ιν ως αΠΟjJα ουσαν παν

t, 'λλ ι ι βλ β ι , ι ~ φ' γ ι
substance of an animal.
οποσον α οτριον και α ερον εις την του τρε ομενου ι:>ψου
2. This nourishment alone genuinely deserνes the name 'food',
aVaTaaLV και τον πολυν έκεινον σγκον έπεισαχθέντα3 προς την της since it eliminates eνerything foreign and hurtful to the constitu-
γαστρος άποπλήρωσιν και την της όρέξεως θεραπείαν. 3. άλλα tion of the animal wllich is being nourished and frees it from the
ι
ταυτην
4 Ι,"
μεν ουκ αν Τις
'φβ ι
αμ ισ ητησειεν
(~θ
ενουσ αι
~
τψ τρε
φ ι
ομενψ
urge to stuff down the enormous bulk which serνes only to fill the
belly and cater to the appetite.
σώμαΤι συνδιαπλεκομένην τε και περιπλαττομένην πα σι τοις
, ι ,Ι ,~, t Ι " " φ ι
3. Νο one, then, can doubt that such food unites with the body
τουτου μερεσιν και μοριοις' την ο ετερως εχουσαν και παρα υσιν
which is being nourished, as it is interwoνen and intermingled
φθ ειρεσ
ι θ
αι
ι
μεν
ι
ταχεως,
'"
ην
ι
ερρωμενεστερq.
5
συμμιςτι
'c ~ ι
ουναμει, with the body's parts and members. Νο one can doubt that food
ι
φθ ειρειν <;:' Ι
οε συν
\ ,
ευμαρειq.
Ι
την
ι
κρατη
θ
εισαν
Λ
εις
"
τε μοχ
θ
ηρους
ι
of a different sort, contrary to nature, is quickly spoiled if it meets
, 'θ
εκτρεπεσ αι χυμους και
ι ι φ Ι<;:'
αρμακωοεις ποιοτητας ως μηοεν οικειον η
Ι t ~I' Λ ,ι a force more powerful, but that it easily spoils what it oνerpowers
and is turned into harmful humours and poisonous qualities, since
φ LI\OV
1\ ~
τψ τρε
φ
ομενψ σωμαΤι
Ι Ι φ Ι
ερουσαν. 4. Ι
και τουτου τεκμηριον
Ι ι

, ι λλ Λ ~ φ Ι γι , , , λ
it brings nothing fitting or suitable to the body which is being
μεγιστον το πο οις των τρε ομενων ι:>ψων εκ τουτων επακο ου-
nourished.
θειν άλγος ~ κίνδυνον ~ θάνατον, ην ύπο σφοδροτέρας όρέξεως Tfj 4. The greatest proof of this is the fact that pain, illness, or
τρο Φτι
~ ι
καταμεμιγμενον συνε
φ λ ι
ε κυσηται
ι
Τι
φ ~ 'i:'
αρμακωοες και
ι ι
παρα death affiict many animals so nourished if ίη yielding to great
,
φ υσιν' "
ο
'i:' ι
Ι ι
οη και παντως
φθ ''1 " ~ φ Ι ι
αΡΤικον αν ειη του τρε ομενου σωματος,
hunger they swallow something mixed ίη with the food they eat
ει
" γε τρε
'Φ εται μεν
Ι τα
Ι τρε
φι
ομενα τοις
"" οικειοις
Ι και
,
κατα
'φι
υσιν,
which is poisonous and contrary to nature. This would be utterly
ruinous to the body which is being nourished, since organisms
φθ ειρεται
ι 'i:' ι
οε τοις ενανΤιοις.
Λ' Ι
5. "
ειπερ ουν ττι οια
Τ ~ <;:' φ
Opq.~ ~
των ττι
~ φ ι
υσει absorbing food are nourished by things fitting and according to
'i:' φ ι γ Ι
οια εροντων ι:>ψων η
t
ICaTa Ι φ'
υσιν συνυιτιρηται ΤΡΟψ'Ι και ταυτης γε
'" ι ~ Ι ,
nature but destroyed by the opposite.
αύτης ούτε παν όπερ αν προσενέγκηται το 'ψον ούτε το τυχον έκ 5. There are, then, different kinds of natural food corres-
τουτου
,
την
\
προς
Ι
το
Ι
τρε
φ Ι
ομενον σωμα
~ '"
οεχεται
Ι ι
συγκρασιν, α
'λλ' ponding to the νarious kinds of naturally distinct animals; and
, ι ι ι '" Ι ι '.1. θ ι ι β βλ ι eνen of such food neither all, nor any random part, that is set
αυτο μονον το οια πασης πεψεως κεκα αρμενον και μετα ε ηκος
'λ - \ , - - Ι tl \,... φ ι
before the animal admits of fusion with the body which is being
ει ικρινως προς την του ποιου σωματος ενωσιν και τοις τρε ομενοις
nourished, except that which has been purified at eνery stage of
ι , ι >''i:' λ t , 'i:' ι ~ ι Φ' t θ ι
μερεσιν ευαρμοστον, ευοη ον ως ουυεν των παρα υσιν ενω ειη digestion and entirely transformed, with a νiew to its union with
ποτ
''1
αν τουτοις
ι 1''''
οις ουκ εσΤιν τρο
φι
η προσ
φ
υης
Ι
και
\
κατα
Ιλλ λ
η ος, a body of a particular kind, and is well adapted to the parts
άλλ' ήτοι κατ' αύτη ν την κοιλίαν διαχωρει πριν ετερ6ν Τινα γεν- which are being nourished; consequently it is clear that nothing
,.. ι"
νησαι χυμον ωμον και
'6 δ φθ
ιε
ι
αρμενον,
,ι
η
\' \ λ Λ Ι
συσταν επι π ειον Τικτει contrary to nature can eνer be united with anything for which it
Ιθ
πα ος
,ι
η
ι
νοσον
~ ι
ουσιατον, συνοια
<;:' φθ ι
ειρουσαν και
\ ι
την
Ι
κατα
φ ι
υσιν is not a fitting and proper food; either it is eνacuated from the
τρο φ ην η και αυτην την της τρο
ι ,ι ι ,\ , ,.. φ.... 'i:'
ης οεομενην σαρκα.
, ι 6. 'λλ'
α α καν
" belly before it produces some strange raw and rotten humour, or
άπωσθfj ποτε φαρμάκοις Τισιν ~ σιτίοις βελτίοσιν ~ ταις φυσικαις it remains longer and giνes rise to a sickness or disease 11ard
"" νικη θ εν,
ι μετ "'λ 'c to cure, spoiling along with itself the natural food or eνen the
ουναμεσι ουκ ο ιγης ' Ι
ες ερρυη ,..
της βλ αιβης t
ως 'i:' ι
μηοεν
, νery flesh which requires the food. 6. But eνen if it is at length
ι
φ ερον τοις
Λ
κατα
\ φ'
υσιν ειρηνικον
Ι <;:'
υια
\
το
Ι
προς
Ι \
την
φ'
υσιν
'ι
ασυγ-
oνerpowered and dislodged by certain medicines, by better kinds
κρατον.
of food, or by the powers of nature, it is drained off only after
6. 2 άποβαλουσαν Wilamowitz, Schwartz 3 έπεισαχθέντα Αι (σαχθέντα
haνing caused much harm, because it brought nothing suited to
ίη ras.) : έπισαXθΈVTα Αι ίη mg. 4 TαύTηv Αι: ταύτυ Α 5 .έρρωμενεσ- the natural requirements of its host, incapable as it is of fusing
τέρα Α 6 ώμόν η Wilamowitz, Schwartz with its nature.
 104 ATHENAGORAS 7. 1 7·3 DE RESURRECTIONE 105

7• "Ολως δ'ε καν

" συγχωρηστι, ης την " εκ" ~
τουτων εισιουσαν ~ν
τροψ,ι 7. Ιηfact, even if one admits that food from such sources-Iet us
'8 δ' ~ θ
(προσειΡησ ω ε τουτο συνη εστερον ' ) , 'φι
, καιπερ ουσαν παρα υσιν,
l' use the normal term 'food'- , though contrary to nature, is
' θ αι και' μεταβ α'λλ ειν εις,.,εν η των broken up and transformed into one of the substances which are
δ ιακρινεσ ~. Ι C
υγραινοντων η ~ ηραι-
"
wet or dry or hot or cold, ι even so our opponents can gain ηο
,
νοντων η
" θ ερμαινοντων ' ".1.
η
ι
ψυχοντων, ου
'δ'"
ουτως εκ
, ~
των συγ- advantage from such concessions. Bodies which arise are re-
χωρηθένΠύν αύτοις YEvYιaETal η προϋΡγου, των μεν άνισταμένων constituted from their own parts. None of the things to which we
have referred is such a part nor does it possess anything like the
σωμάτων Εκ των οΙκεlων μεΡων πάλιν συνισταμένων, ούδενος δε
nature or function of a part. Moreover it will not remain per-
π)ιν εΙρημένων μέρους όντος ούδε την ώς μέρους Επέχοντος σχ έσιν manently ίη the parts of the body now being nourished nor will it
η " ,c
Tα~ιν, "
ου μην '
ου'δ ε παραμενοντος , ,
παντοτε Λ
τοις τρε Φ'
ομενοις arise with the parts that arise, since ίη that state blood, phlegm,
του σώματος μέρεσιν .η συνανισταμένου τοις άνισταμένοις, ούδεν bile, or breath 2 will make ηο further contribution to life. For t11en
bodies wil1 not need the nourishment they once needed, since the
~
συντε λ ουντος "y~'"
εη προς "
το ,=>ην ουχ αιματος ου , Φλ'
εγματος ου'λ
χ ο ης ..
usefulness of what nourished them will disappear when these
, ι
ου πνευματος.
1 'δ' l' 'δ 'θ Φ ι,
ου ε γαρ ων ε εη η ποτ ε τα τρε ομενα σωματα,
\, , organisms have ηο fUl"ther need of nourishment and have under-
δ εη θησεται
' " ,~~
και τοτε, συνανΏρημενης των τρε Φ' 'δ'
ομενων εν ELq, και TTJ , gone dissolution.
ΦθOpq,~ της
~ 'c l' "Φ , 2. επειτ
E~ ων ετρε ετο χρειας.
.," ει και' 2μεχρι
' ,
σαρκος
2. Moreover, even if one were to grant that transformation
fronl food of that kind will result ίη its being turned into flesh,
Φθάνειν την Εκ της τοιαύτης τροφης μεταβολην ύποθοιτ6 ης, ούδ' stil1 it wil1 not necessarily be the case that the flesh which is so
ούτως άνάγκη ης έσται την νεωστι μσαβληθεισαν Εκ της τοιασδε recent a transformation from such food and which has attached
, ' , itself to the body of another man will again form an essential part
τρο ~'
Φης σαρκα προσπε λ"
ασασαν ετερου "θ
ηνος αν ρωπου σωμαη
of that individual. Neither does the flesh which has received some
πάλιν ώς μέρος εΙς την EKElvov τελειν συμπλήρωσιν, τφ μήτε αύτην addition always retain what it has received, nor is the assimilated
,
την προ σλ αμβ ανουσαν σαρκα παντοτε , , , Φ υ λ'
αττειν ην
tI
προσειl\η
'\ Φ εν, flesh stable and capable of remaining with its recipient. Ι t is
susceptible of profound transformation, and ίη t\vO ways: some-
μήτε την ένωθεισαν ταύτην μόνιμον είναι και παραμένειν Ti προ σ-
times it is dissipated through exertions or preoccupations; at
ετε'θ η, πο λλ'
ην δ'
ε και, την
, "θ'
επι ατερα δ'
εχεσ θ αι μεταβο λ'
ην, ποτε μεν " other times it wastes away through suffering, fatigue, or disease,
, ,
"Φρονησιν δ ια Φ ορουμενην, ΑΙVΙOTε δ'ε λ υπαις
πονοις η ι " καματοις
η , , -"\ \ as well as through the disturbances that affect us because ofheat-
" ι , 3 ' Λ 'c'εγκαυσεως
ι " .1.'c strokes or chills, since the members which receive food and remain
η νοσοις συντηκομενην, και ταις ες η περιψυς εως
what they were do not change along with alterations ίη bulk of
, ,
επιγινομεναις δυσκρασιαις, ' ,
μη συμμεταβλλ'
α ομενων σαρκι " και flesh or fat.
πιμε λ TJ
~ των
~ [δ ημων 4εν
' Τψ Ι
,... μενειν .,
απερ ,. . ]
'"
εση την τρο Φ ην
'δ εχομενων. ' 3. If flesh ίη general is subject to such things, how much more
would this be found true of fiesh that has been nourished with
3· τοιούτων δε γενομένων Επι της 5 σαρκος παθημάτων, πολύ γ' έη unsuitable foods. Sometimes it swells up and grows fat from what
μα
~λλ" ,'~, Φ'
ον ευροι ης αν ταυτα πασχουσαν την ε~ ανοικειων τρε ομενην
, 'c' , it has taken ίη; and then again it rejects such nourishment one
σάρκα, νυν μεν εΙς όγκον προϊουσαν και πιαινομένην Εξ ών ΠΡοσεl- way or the other, and it diminishes ίη bulk for one or more ofthe
reasons mentioned above. Only that flesh stays with our members,
λη Φ εν, l'
ειτα πα
'λ' ι tI"
ιν αποπτυουσαν ον αν τυχτι τροπον και μειουμενην η
Ι Ι , ' "
remaining naturally united with them by bonds of intimacy and
μιii- ηνι των έμπροσθεν ρηθεισων .η πλεlοσιν' μόνην6 δε παραμένειν
Λ'
τοις μερεσιν α συν
tI δ ειν
Λ" Ι "
η στεγειν η
θ α'λπειν πε'Φ υκεν, την υπο της
~ ,. \ 7. ι For the important role that these opposites play ίη Galen's system see his
De Aliment. 1 (Kίihn, xv. 226), De Nat. Fac. 1.5 (Kίihn, ίί. 11-12). They are also
referred to by Methodius (De Res. 2. 10. 2); and arguments somewhat similar
7. ~ ι ού, x?"η~ ού πνς Α ί~ m~.; for!asse ού ςανθης χο"ης, ού xo"~ς με"αίνη~ to what follows are advanced by Methodius ίη this context (De Res. 2. 10-14).
2 επειτ ει και Schwartz: επειθ οη καν Α 3 post συντηκομενην add. η 2 Perhaps we had here originally (see textual apparatus) a reference to the
vVilamowitz, πολλάκις δε Schwartz .. δημων seclusit Wilamowitz four humours: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, black bile (Galen, De Nat. Hom.
5 της: πάσης Wilamowitz, Schwartz 6 μόνην Maranus: μόνα (α ίη ras.) Α 1.18, Kίihn, xv. 59).
 106 ATHENAGORAS 7·3 8·4 DERES URRECTIONE 107
,
Φ υσεως 't λ'
ε~ ει εγμενην
Α \,
και τουτοις
προσπε υκυιαν οις την κατα
Φ ". \ \

familiarity, which has been selected by nature and joined to

Φ t' λησεν ~ωην και τους εν TnΑ ~wnΑ'
,υσιν συνε~επ r \
πονους. α'λλ' \ \ , r 4. those parts along with which it contributes to life according to
( " ουτε γαρ κα
\
θ' <\ <:' Α Α" 't ' "
ο οει κρινομενων των εναγχος ε~ ητασμενων ουτε
, nature and sustains life's labours.
κατα συγχώρησιν παραδεχθέντων των έπ' έκείνοις γεγυμνασμένων 4. Ι t is impossible, then, for our opponents to demonstrate the
\ truth ofwhat they say, either when the points just examined are
α'λη θ ες <:' ,
οεικνυναι <:' \
ουνατον το\ \
προς 'Α
αυτων εγομενον)ουκ
λ' ' 7 ,\
αν
judged οη their own merits, 01' w11en arguments worked out οη
συγκραθείη ποτε τα των άνθρώπων σώματα τοις της αύτης οδσι behalf of our adversaries are granted for the sake of argument;
'
Φ υσεως, "Ι" • λ Α ,ι θ <:' , • , \\
καν υπ αγνοιας ποτε κ απωσι την αισ ησιν οι ετερου Τινος
\
consequently, human bodies can never be fused with others of
μετασχ6ντες τοιούτου σώματος, καν αύτ6θεν ύπ' ένδείας η μανίας the same natU1'e, even if it happens that men eνer eat of such
όμοειδους Τινος μιανθωσιν σώμαΤι' εί γε μη λελήθασιν ~μας a body out of ίgnΟ1'ance, when deprived of an awareness of their
deed by someone else,3 or if of their own accord they become
αν θρωποειοεις
<:' Α Τινες οντες
"θηρες η'\ μικτην Α
, \ ,ι
εχοντες Φ' ' t 'αν θρω-
υσιν ε~ '
defiled with a body ofthe same kind through hunger 01' madness. 4
πων Kat θηρίων, οίους πλάττειν εΙώθασιν οί τολμηρ6τεροι των Ι assume that we have not overlooked certain man-like beasts or
ποιητων. aeatures with natures Ρa1'tΙΥ human and partly bestial, such as
the bolder poets like to fabricate!

8. What need is the1'e to discuss bodies which have not been

8. Τ7 \
Δαι τι οει
ι <:' Λ λ ' \ Α
εγειν περι των μηοενι ~φφ προς τρο
<:' \ r' \ Φ \ ,
ην αποκ ηρω-
λ
dcstined as food [Ο1' any animal but have simply been al10tted
θ εντων
' "<:,\ \ , Α ~, Α Α Φ'
σωματων μονην οε την εις γην ταψ,ιν επι τιμn της υσεως
\
burial ίη the earth as befits the dignity of their ηatU1'e? There at
μεμΟιΡαμένων, όπου γε μηδ' άλλο τι των ζψων τοις έκ ταύτου least the Maker has destined ηο creature, human or other, to
\ απεκ
, ληρωσεν
' serνe as food for its own kind, even though it may naturally
"<:'
ειοους ,
εις τρο Φ ην ο" ποιησας, καν
,\ [']
εν Ι αιvιoις
,Ι" Τισι\
~ γινηται
ι , Φ' '\
1""
become food for other creatures of different species.
των
-
ετερογενων
t -
ΤΡΟΨ'ι κατα υσιν; 2. ει μεν ουν εχουσιν 2. If they 1'eaΙΙΥ can show that human flesh is destined to serνe
οεικνυναι
<:' , σαρκας
, 'θ'
αν 'θ'
ρωπων αν 'βΑ
ρωποις εις ρωσιν αποκληρω θ'
εισας, , as food for humans, then nothing stands ίη the way of saying that
ουοεν
'<:' \ κω λ υσει
' \'λλ
τας α η λο Φ'
αγιας ειναι
l' κατα
\ Φ'
υσιν .,
ωσπερ "λλο Τι
α cannibalism is according to ηatU1'e, like anything else ίη harmony
Α
των
,\
Tn"Φ'υσει συγκεχωρημενων , \ Α"
και τους γε τα τοιαυτα Λεγειν
with nature; and those who dare to say such things can enjoy
themselνes feasting οη the bodies of thei1' ηea1'est and dearest as
τολμωντας τοις των Φιλτάτων έντρυφαν σώμασιν ώς οίκειοτέροις
Ι φι Ι ~\
being more suitable nourishment for them, 01' they can entertain
."
η
, "
και τους ευνουστατους σ ισιν τουτοις αυτοις εστιαν.
''''' f _
3. ,
ει οε
their intimate f1'ίends with the same SΟ1't of fa1'e. 3. But even to
τουτο μεν ούδ'2 είπειν εύαγές, τ6 δε σαρκων άνθρώπων άνθρώπους say such a thing is saailegious. Fo1' men to eat human flesh is
μετασχειν €XθισT6ν Τι Kat παμμΙαρον Kat πάσης έκθέσμου Kat παρα the most hateful and defiling act. 1t is more sacrilegious than the
'
Φ υσιν β'
ρωσεως '\ 't εως εναγεστερον,
η πpα~ " το\ οε
<:' \ παρα
\ Φ'
υσιν '"
ουκ αν eating of any othe1' food 01' the doing of any othe1' deed which is
ποτε χωρησειεν
, ,
εις
Φ\
τρο ην τοις
Λ
ταυτης
, <:"
οεομενοις
,
μεΡεσιν και
\ lawless and cοntra1'Υ to nature. What is unnatural can neνer
, ,~\, -, Φ' , '" ι θ Ι , t\
become food for the parts and members which require it; what
μοριοις, ΤΟ οε μη χωρουν Εις τρο ην ουκ αν ενω ειη τουτοις α
does not become food cannot be assimilated by organisms which
μηοε
<:' \ τρε '4> ειν πε'4>υκεν, ουοε
'<:' \ τα
\ των "
Α αν θρωπων ' 3
σωματα συγκρα θ ειη ,
it was not eνen intended to nourish. If this is so, then neither can
ποτ
", Ι Ι,... Ι ~
αν τοις ομοιοις σωμασιν, οις εσΤιν εις τροψ,ιν παρα
Φ' "
υσιν, καν
." , ,
human bodies cνer become fused with bodies of a similar kind.
πολλάκις δια της τούτων rn γαστρος κατά Τινα πικροτάτην συμ- 1t is cοntra1'Υ to ηatU1'e [Ο1' them to serνe as food ίn this capacity,
'
Φ οραν' 4. ,
αποχωρουντα οε της
Α <:'\ Α θ Α
ρεΠΤικης ουναμεως και σκιο-
<:" \ <:' even though they often pass through the bel1y of like bodies ίη
times of dire distress.
νάμενα προς έKεΙVα πάλιν έξ ών την πρώτην €σX εν σύστασιν, 4. Such Ρa1'ts of the body lose their nourishing power and a1'e
dispersed again to the elements out ofwhich they first arose, and
7. 7 ούκ Schwartz: ούτ' Α
7. 3 As ίn the case of Thyestes.
8. ι έν seclusit Schwartz 2 ουτ' Α aVYKptOflTJ Α: corr. Wilamowitz
3
4 As ίn the cases discussed ίn 4. 4 above.
108 ATHENAGORAS 8·4 9.2 DE RESURRECTIONE 109
ενουται
t -
μεν
,
τουτοις
,
ε'Φ' οσον
f/ ,,~ι
αν ,
εκαστον τυΧΏ ι
χρονον, '''''θ εν δ ε
εκει ' remain united with them for whatever length of time it turns out
δ ιακρι θ εντα
, 'λ φι
πα ιν σο Lq. και
δ' \
Υ , ,,/,.' \
υναμει του πασαν ';,ψου ψυσιν συν
'" '" to be ίη each case. After they have been separated again from the
elements by the wisdom and power ofhim who links every kind of
Λ ,ι δ' ι • '" ,,/,. '" tI
ταις οικειαις υναμεσι συγκριναντος ενουται προσψυως εκαστον animal with its appropriate properties, they reunite intimately,
one part with the other, even though they may be consumed
έκάστψ, καν πυρι καυθΏ, καν ύδαη κατασαπΏ, καν ύπο θηρίων η
by fire, rotted away by water, devoured by wild beasts or any
των έπιτυχόντων ζψων καταδαπανηθΏ, καν του παντος σώματος animal that comes along, or have one part which has been cut off
from the whole body and has decomposed before the others. They
έκκοπεν προδιαλυθΏ των άλλων μερων· ένωθέντα δε πάλιν άλλήλοις
are united again to one another and occupy the same place as
την αυτην ισχει χώραν προς την του αυτου σώματος άρμονίαν τε before so as to restore the harmonious composition ofthe bodyand
effect the resurrection and the life of the body that has died and
και σύστασιν και την του νεκρωθέντος η και πάνΤΏ διαλυθέντος
has totally decomposed.
άνάστασιν και ζωήν. α 5. ταυτα μεν οδν έπι πλείΌν μηκύνειν ουκ 5. This is not the time to dwell οη thes.e things any longer; for
they gain ready assent at least from those who are not half beast.
εύκαιΡον· όμολογουμένην γαρ έχει την έπίκρισιν τοις γε μ~ μιξο­
θήροις.
9. Since there are many points more pertinent to the pI'esent
investigation, Ι do not intend to occupy myself now with those
who take refuge ίη parallels provided by the works of men and
9. Πολλων δε οντων των εΙς T~ν προκειμένην έξέτασιν χρησι- their human creators. Men cannot recreate works of their own
ι
μωτερων, παραιτουμαι
'" δ'
η
'"
νυν
\
τους
, /,. ,
καταψευγοντας
, \τα
επι
, '"
των that have been shattered, worn out by time, or destroyed ίη some
other way. Yet out ()PE~!lents tryto show from the analogy of
άνθρώπων έργα και τους τούτων δημιουργους άνθρώπους, οί τα pott.ers and carpenters-that God woίIld not even want to raise a
'
συντριβ εντα των εργων η χρονψ πα λ αιω θ'
"''' "
εντα η , " και α"λλ ως
\ δ ια- dead body or one already decomposed and that ifhe did want to,
he would not be able. ι They do not reflect that they mock God
φθαρέντα καινουΡγειν άδυνατουσιν, εΖτα έξ όμοίου τοις κεραμευσι
ίη this way as much as the most unprincipled do. They equate the
"
και τεκτοσι δ'
εικνυναι ,
πειΡωμενους το και τον \ \ \ \
θεον μητ ""αν β ουλη- powers of those 2 who are ίη every way dispal'ate, or rather, they
equate the natures ofthose 2 who make use ofthese diverse powers,
θηναι μήτε βουληθέντα δυνηθηναι νεκρωθεν η και διαλυθεν άνα­ setting the contrivances of art οη a level with the products of
στησαι σωμα, και μ~ λογιζομένους όη δια τούτων <έπ' ίσης)Ι τοις nature. 3
, 'ι: ,Q ΙΥ , θ Ι: '
'" "', δ 2. One would deserve censure to take such arguments seriously;
χειΡιστοις ε~ V{JPL';,ovaLV εις εον, συνε~ ισουντες των πανΤΏ ιεστη-
for it would be downright foolish to dispute what is superficial
κότων τας δυνάμεις, μαλλον δε και των ταύταις χρωμένων τας and vain. It is far more plausible and is most ίη harmony with the
,Ι " \ Α,,/,,'" ,,~ ι truth to say: 'What is impossible with men is possible with God.'4
ουσιας και τα τεχνητα τοις ψυσικοις. 2. περι μεν ουν τουτων
If our discussion shows by these very appeals, plausible as they
σπουδάζειν ουκ άνεπιτίμητον· ήλ{θιον γαρ ώς άληθως το τοις έπι­
9. ι Traces of a similar debate (between orthodox and radically Origenist
πολαίοις και ματαίοις άνηλέγειν. μακρψ γε μ~ν ένδοξότερον και thinkers) can be found ίn Gregory ofNyssa (De Hom. Opif. 25. 1,26. ι).
παντων α'λη θ'
, εστατον το ψησαι το παρ "θ'
αν ρωποιςα'δ υνατονπαρα
\ ,,/,. '" \'θ εψ ' '" 2 i.e. God and man.

3 Man's work and God's work are related as art is to nature. The former is
δυνατόν. α εΙ δε δΙ αυτων τούτων ώς ένδόξων και δια πάντων των regarded as haνing to do with what is artificial and deriνed, the latter with
what is uncontriνed and original.
8. α Cf, John ι ι: 25 .. Precisely the language of the Gospels ίn which simple Christians mindlessly
9. α Cf. Luke 18: 27
took refuge according to Methodius' Origenist (De Res. Ι. 2 Ι. ι). Celsus,
howeνer, had already criticized such language (Origen, Contra Celsum 5. 14;
9. ι έπ' ίση!> add. Schwartz cf. R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christiαns [1949], ρρ. 23-37).
 Ι ΙΟ ATHENAGORAS 9.2 10.6 DE RESURRECTIONE ΙΙΙ

μικρψ πρόσθεν έξΎjTασμένων δε{κνυσιν ό λόγος δυνατόν, εύδΎjλOν ώς are, and by all the arguments examined shortly before, that the
ουκ α , '8 υνατον.
' α'λλ α μην ου'δ' α
\ 'βου'λΎjTOν.
\ thing is possible, clearly it is not impossible; then, certainly,
neither is it foreign to the will of God.
10 • 'Τ" \ 'β'λ ~,,~ ~I'
.1 Ο γαρ α ου ΎjTOν Ύj ως αοικον αυτψ
'β'λ .\
f
εσην α ου ητον η ως
, .,
10. What is foreign to the will of God is so because he regards it
ανάξιον. Kat πάλιν το άδικον η περt αύτον θεωρειται τον ανασTΎj­ either as unjust ΟΓ as unworthyI of him. Injustice may ίη turn be
σόμενον η ΠεΡt άλλον ηνα παρ' αύτόν. 2 αλλ' όη μεν ούδεtς αδικειται seen ίη regard to either the one who will arise or some other
των έξωθεν Kat των έν τοις οδσιν αριθμουμένων, πpόδΎjλoν. 2. ούτε being. It is clear, howeνer, that ηο being distinct from man and
γαρ
'f
αι νOΎjTαι
, Φ'
υσεις
, ~ ~ 'θ'
εκ TΎjς των αν ρωπων
,
αναστασεως
, ,~
αOΙΚΎj-
numbered among created things is thereby wronged. 2. The
resurrection of men could not wrong purely rational natures;2
θ ειεν Λ "
αν'
,~,
ουοε γαρ
, , ,~,
εμποοιον η ταυταις προς το ειναι, ου
, "1' , βλ 'β
α ος,
for it surely is ηο impediment, ηο injury, ηο affront to their
'<~R
ουχ ~ αν
υ~pις ηf των 'θ' ~ των α'λ ογων Ύjf
ρωπων αναστασις' ου μΎjν ουοε " '" , - ' existence. And it surely could not wrong those creatures who
Φ υσις
, ,~ , - '.1, '
ουοε των αψυχων' ουοε γαρ εσται μετα TΎjν αναστασιν, περι
,~ , ,., \" , ,
haνe ηο reason ΟΓ soul;3 for they will not exist after the resur-
δε το μ~ ον ούδεν άδικον. 3. εί δε Kat εΙνα{ ης ύποθοιτο δια παντός, recti6n, and there can be ηο injustice ίη the case of that which
does not exist. 3. Eνen if one supposed that they ίη fact exist
ούκ αν αδικηθε{η ταυτα των ανθρωπ{νων σωμάτων ανανεωθέντων'
for eνer, they would not be wronged by therenewal of human
, ,
ει γαρ νυν υπεικοντα ττ/ - f' - Φ'
υσει -,
των αν θ'
ρωπων ['J3
και -
TΎjς τουτων , bodies. For if they are not wronged now, when they are subjected
χρε{ας 4 σντων ένδεων ύπό τε ζυγον ήγμένα και δουλε{αν παντο{αν to mankind (which requires their serνices) and are placed under
~
ουοεν Λ
αοικειται,
, ,
πο λ υ'-λλ
μα ον,
, '" ' \,
α'Φθαρτων και ανενοεων γενομενων '" - , the yoke and endure eνery kind of slaνery, much less will they be
και μΎjκέη δεομένων της τούτων χρε{ας, έλευθεΡωθέντα δε πάσΎjς wronged when they are freed from all slaνery, because mankind
- has become incorruptible and ίη need of nothing and ηο longer
οου λ'
'" ειας, ουκ " θ'ΎjσεTαι. 4.
" ' αOΙΚΎj ουοε ''''' γαρ, , ει'Φ ωνης Λ
μετειχεν,
requires their serνices. 4. Eνen if they had a νoice, then, they
ύηάσατο αν τον δΎjμΙOυpγoν ώς παρα το δ{καιον έλαττούμενα των would not haνe complained to the Creator that it was unjust for
ανθρώπων, όη μ~ της αύτης τούτοις TεTύXΎjκεν αναστάσεως. ~ν them to haνe been made inferior to men by not haνing a share ίη
'fΦ'
γαρ Ύj
Ι ,~, \ 'λ" ,,'
ι~,
υσις ουκ ισΎj, τουτοις ουοε το τε ος ισον ο οικαιος επιμετρει.
, ,. . the resurrection with them. For a just appraiser does n,ot assign
,
χωρις οε τουτων, παρ
~ " , l' ''''' _ ~,
οις ουοεμια του οικαιου κρισις, ουοε μεμψις
, ,~ , , .1, the same destiny to beings whose nature is not the same. Apart
"'~, Λ Φ_ ~ ' f " \ from animals, who cannot discern justice, there are ηο creatures
αοικιας.
'''' ,
5. ου μΎjν ουο εκεινο
,
Ύjσαι ουνατον ως περι αυτον
οη whose behalf a charge of injustice can be brought.
θεωρειτα{ ης αδικ{α τον ανιστάμενον άνθρωπον. έση μεν γαρ 5. And it certainly cannot be said that any injustice is to be
... '.1, - " ,,~ , , .1, ' " , -
ουτος εκ ψυXΎjς και σωματος, ουτε οε εις ψυXΎjν ουτε εις σωμα seen ίη regard to the man himself who is resurrected. For he
~ , "~,
οεχεται την αοικιαν.
"
ουτε
,
γαρ
'.1, '
την ψυXΎjν
,~ Λ θ
αοικεισ αι
Φ
ησει
, ης consists of soul and body, and ηο wrong is inflicted οη either his
σω -
Φρονων' λ'
ΎjσεTαι γαρ '5 '
TaVTTJ συνεκβ'λλ
α ων και TΎjν " παρουσαν - soul or his body. Νο sensible person will say that man's soul is
Υ' , - και\ πα θΎjTψ- κατοικουσα
, - ,-, Φθ wronged, for otherwise he will unwittingly reject also our present
~ωΎjν' ει γαρ νυν Εν σωμαη αρτψ
~, ,~, \ 'Φθ' \ , λ θ Λ \
r- ,
~\
life along with the resurrection; if the soul is not wronged now
μΎjOεν ΎjOΙΚΎjTαι,α πο υ
αρτψ και απα ει συ~ωσα ουκ μαιvιoν
when it dwells ίη a corruptible and passible body, much less will
,αOΙΚΎj
'" θΎjσεTαι.
' α'λλ" '" \ \... , ~ Λ' "
ουοε το σωμα αοικειται η' ει γαρ νυν ... Φθ \
αρτον it be wronged when it liνes with anincorruptible and impassible
α 'Φθ '
αρτψ συνον \ ,~ θ ')
αOΙΚΎj Ύj σεται. 6 6 ' t<\ ,~" Λ Φ'
. ου μΎjν ουο εκεινο αΙΎj ης one. Neither is the body wronged ίη any way; for ifthe corruptible
body has not been wronged now when linked with an incorrup-
10. ι αύτΙΡ η: αύτό Α: seclusit Wilamowitz 2 αύτόν ρ: αύτοίς Α tible soul, much less will tlle incorruptible body be wronged when
3 και seclusit Wilamowitz 4 ταίς τούτων χμίαις Α: corr. Schwartz linked with an incorruptible soul.
5 λήσεται γαρ Schwartz: λήσεται γε Α: όΤι ίη mg. add. Αι 6 συνόν / / / / / / / 6. Moreoνer one cannot say that it is a work unworthy of God
/1/ / /σε~αι Α; oύ~' άfθάΡ:,ω άδι~θή ~Ω ra;-. ,a?d. ~I: τό ό~όκλ:ιp~ν ούτωΓ εί γ~p
νυν Φθαρτψ συνον ουκ αδικειται, δηλον οτι ουδε αΦθαρτψ συνον ουκ αδικηθησεται ΙΩ 10. ι Cf. 2. 3 above.
mg., ad~. ~I: suppleverim ex. gr. μηδεν ήδίΚ7]Ται, πολυ μαλλον άΦθαρτον άΦθάρτψ 2 Such as angels.
συνον ουκ αδικηθη ... 3 Animals.
 112 ATHENAGORAS 10.6 11.5 DE RESURRECTIONE 113
αν ώς ανάξιον Εργον του θεου Τι) διαλυθεν αναστησαι σωμα και to raise up and reconstitute a decomposed body; for if the lesser
~
συναγαγειν' ~
ει" γαρ το\ χειρον "ι t
ουκ avaf:,Lov, - , εση
τουτ " το\ Φθ αρτον \ work-the making of a corruptible and passible body-is not un-
ποιησαι σωμα και παθητόν, πολυ μαλλον Τι) κρειττον ουκ ανάξιον, worthy of God, how much more is the greater work-the making
""Φθ
of an incorruptible and impassible body-not unworthy of God.
οπερ
tI εσην α αρτον και απα θ ες. \' '
11. 1fthen each point ofthe inquiry has been demonstrated from
the first natural principles and what flows from them 10gical1y,
11 • ΕΙ' "" -
δ'ε σια των κατα Φ υσιν
Ι ι \ - Ι , t Ι
πρωτων και των τουτοις επομενων clearly the resurrection ofdec()rnposed bodies isa work that is
δέδεικται των έξητασμένων έκαστον, εύδηλον ση και SvvaTιJV και possible for the Creator,- wil1ed byIiim, and worthy ofhim: For
with these arguments it has been shown that the objections to
βουλητσν
' "'c
και α~ ιον του - δ ημιουΡΥησαντος
ι εργον
" ηt των
- σια
'" λ υ θ εντων
ι
them and the absurd opinions of unbelieνers are false. 2. What
ι
σωματων 'Ι
αναστασις' σια
"'" γαρ Ι
τουτων εσειχ
'''' 'θη ψευσος
.1. -'" το\ ,
τουτοις need, then, is there to speak concerning the relation of each of
ανηκείμενον και Τι) των απιστούντων παράλσγον. 2. τί γαρ δει these points to the other and the intimate connection between
λ εγειν
' ι ,-
περι της εκαστου τουτων
t Ι '2 \ tI
προς εκαστον ανηστρο
, Φ_
ης και
\ them-if indeed one can eνen use the term 'connection', as
-
της \
προς "λλλ
α η α συνα Φ'
ειας, " γε
€ι δ~
ει και\ συναιφ ειαν '~ι
ειπειν ως
though they were marked off from one another by some difference,
rather than simply say that what is 'possible' is 'willed' and what
έτερότητί ηνι κεχωρισμένων, ουχι δε και το δυνατον λέγειν
\ is 'willed' by God is assuredly 'possible' and 'worthy' of the one
β ουλητον
' "~ θ ~β
και το τψ εψ
λ Ι ';' ~ \ , \
ου ητον παντως ειναι συνατον και κατα who willed it?
\
την του - β ουλη θ εντος
ι 't ιαν
af:, ' ; 3. Some attention has been giνen aboνe to the fact that debate
3· Και ση μεν έτερος ό περι της αληθείας λόγος, έτερος δε ό concerning the truth is one thing and debate on behαlf of the truth
ύπερ της αληθείας, ε'ίρηται δια των προλαβόντων μετρίως ο[ς τε another; and we haνe indicated ίη what way the two approaches
differ as well as when and against whom they are useful. I Still
διενήνοχ εν έκάτερος και πότε και προς τίνας Εχει το χρήσιμον'
nothing, Ι think, preνents us from making a fresh start οη the
κω λυει
' "" ισως
σε " ουσεν - τε κοινης
,~, της ,.. ασ
'Φ α λ' <Ι
ειας ενεκεν και της των \,..-
basis of points already made and consequences deriνed from them,
'Ι "λ
ειΡημενων προς τα
ι Φ
ειπομενα συνα ειας απ
/ " ,- ,
αυτων τουτων και των
,- thereby giνing certainty to eνeryone and exploiting the connec-
τούτοις προσηκόντων πάλιν ποιήσασθαι T~ν αρχήν. προσηκεν δε tion between the matters already discussed and what remains to
~ \,
τψ μεν το πρωτευειν κατα
, , Φ Ι
υσιν, τψ
- δ'
ε το σορυ
\ ~ Φ ~ \
ορειν τον πρωτον
- be said. Of the two approaches, one is naturally foremost; the
other naturally stands guard oνer the former, paνes the road for it,
όδοποιειν τε και προανείΡγειν παν όπόσον έμποδων και πρόσαντες.
and remoνes ίη adνance any barrier or obstacle ίη its path.
4· ό μεν γαρ περι της αληθείας λόγος αναγκαισς ών πασιν ανθρώ- 4. pebate concerning the truth has primacy by its nature, rank,
ποις προς ασ
\ 'Φ'λ ,ι ~ \ ~ Φ'
α ειαν και σωτηριαν πρωτοστατει και ΤΤ/ υσει και
, and usefulness since it is necessary for the security and deliνerance
Tfj τάξει και Tfj χρείψ Tfj Φύσει μεν, ώς T~ν των πραγμάτων γνωσιν of all men. 1t has primacy by its nature because it supplies
παρεχόμενος, Tfj τάξει δε, ώς έν τούτοις και αμα τούτοις ύπάρχων knowledge of reality; by its rank because it remains bound up
with the realities of which it is the exponent; by its usefulness
ιLν γίνεται μηνυτής, Tfj XPElq. δε, ώς της ασΦαλείας και της σωτηρίας
because it serνes as patron to proνide security and deliνerance to
τοις γινώσκουσι γινόμενος πρόξενος. 5. ό δ' ύπερ της αληθείας those who know it. 5. Debate οη behalf ofthe truth is inferior by
Φ ι
υσει τε και
\ δ
υναμει
ι
κατα εεστερος,
δ ι "\
εl\αττον γαρ
\,
το το
\ ,Ι. -δ
ψευ ος its nature and function, for it is a less significant thing to refute
έλέγχ ειν τσυ T~ν αλήθειαν κρατύνειν' και τάξει δεύτερος, κατα γαρ falsehood than to confirm truth. And it is second ίη rank since it
- ,Ι. '" ~ t ι
των ψευσοσΟf:,ουντων εχει την ισχυν' ψευσο
., \', .1. '" δ of:,Lq.
t' σε ~, 't επισπορας
ε~
' - exercises its power against adherents to error. Error is an after-
, - ' \ growth produced by a second sowing and an adulteration of the
επε Φ υη
Ι και, παρα Φθ ορας' 'λλ'
α α δη και Ι
τουτων ουτως
tI ,Ι
εχοντων
first. 2 Since this is the situation, the second mode ofargumentation
προτάττεται πολλάκις και γίνεταί ποτ ε χρειωδέστερος ώς αναιΡων is often placed first and is sometimes more useful, because it
destroys and purges away the unbelief which disturbs some men
11. Ι λέγει Α: corr. n 2 τούτων Schwartz: των Α 11. ι Cf. ι. 3-5 above. :Ζ Cf. ι. ι above.
8268084 Ι
114 ATHENAGORAS 11·5 12.2 DE RESURRECTIONE 115

και προδιακαθα/ρων την ένοχλουσάν ησιν άπιστ/αν και τοις άρη and the doubt or error which troubles those who llOW are coming
προσιουσι την αμ 'Φ LjJO ,.
R λ'ιαν η ".1. ,
~ ~ ιαν.
ψευΟΟΟΟf:J . και προς εν μεν c' 6 ' '" , forward. 6. Both modes of argumentation have one goal; for
~ Ι 'Φ Ι 1\ , , , "Ω " " that which refutes falsehood and that which confirms truth have
εκατερος ανα ερεται τειιος' εις γαρ την EvaEfJELav εχει την ανα-
ίη view true piety. Certainly they are not absolutely one and the
Φ ,ο, .I."~ 'λ Ι , ,
'λ 'θ
οραν ο τε το ψευοος ε εγχων και ο την α η ειαν κρατυνων' ου
t , ' ,
same thing. The one is necessary, as Ι said, to all who believe and
, θ' C fI , ,..'-\\'~" Α Α Α
μην και κα απαf:J εν εισιν, αιιιι ο μεν αναγι(αιος, ως εψ'ι ν , πασι τοις
'"'/'''''''

have a concern for the truth and their own deliverance. The
Ι
πιστευουσι και'Α,.
τοις της α'λη θ ειας και,,.,~ 'Φ'
της ισιας σωτηριας ρονη- ' , other is sometimes more useful both for and against certain
ζουσιν ι ό SJ εσην ότε κα/ ησιν και πρός ηνας γ/νεται χρειωδέσ- people.
Α ' 7. This is what we have to say by way of summary, as a re~
τερος. 7. και ταυτα μεν ημιν
,
κεΦ αλαιωοως
,. ~A Ι θω προς
προειρησ
"

minder ofwhat has already been discussed. Now let us proceed to

ύπόμνησιν των ήδη λεχθέντων' ίτέον SJ έπι το προκε/μενον, και the task before us and show the truth of the argument concerning
δεικτέον άληθη τον περι της άναστάσεως λόγον άπό τε της αΙτ/ας the resurrection: (α) by inνestigating the fundamental reason ίη
αύτης, καθ' ήν και δι' ήν ό πρωτος γέγονεν άνθρωπος Or τε μετ' accordance with which and because of which the first man came
,,.. '"
εκεινον ι ει και μη κατα τον ομοιον γεγονασι τροπον, απο τε της
"~, , , " '" into existence and those after him (even though they did not come
'θρωπων
Ι '"" into existence ίη the same way), and (b) by examining the com-
κοινης παντων αν ως
" αν θρωπων
ι Φ υσεως,
ι εη
., ~" απο' 'της
οε " ' του
'"'
mon nature of all men simply as men, and, we may add, (c) by
ποιήσαντος έπι τούτοις κρ/σεως, καθ' όσον έκαστος έζησε χρόνον considering the judgement of their Maker upon them, a judge-
,
και κα θ' ους επο
~ λ ιτευσατο
Ι ι
νομους, "
"ουκ
ην '" , φ ισβ ητησειεν
αν τις αμ ι ment which takes into account the whole time each man lives
εΙναι δικα/αν. and the laws by which he governed himself, a judgement the
justice of which ηο man can doubt.

12. "Εση SJ ό μJν άπο της αίτ/ας λόγος, έαν έπισκοπωμεν πότερον 12. The argument which investigates the reason is a considera~
άπλως και μάτην γέγονεν άνθρωπος η ηνος ένεκεν' εΙ δΕ ηνος tion οη our part whether man came into being by chance, and for
ένεκεν, πότερον έπι τψΙ γενόμενον αύτον 2 ζην και διαμένειν καθ' ηο purpose, or with some end ίη view; and if it was with some
"
ην εγενετο
,ι Φ Ι '" ~ , ,
υσιν η οια χρειαν ηνος' ει οε κατα χρειαν, ητοι την
Ι, ~, , , " \ end ίη view, was it that after his creation he should live and
perdure ίη accordance with the nature with which he was
αύτου του ποιήσαντος η άλλου ηνος των αύτψ προσηκόντων και
' , created or should exist for the use of another; and if he was
π:λ ειονος
Φ ,~ C ι " ~, " ...
ρονηοος ηf:Jιωμενων. 2. ο οη και κοινοτερον σκοπουντες created for the use of another, was it for the use of the Maker
Α ευ"'Φρονων και'λογΙΚΏ
ευρισκομεν οη πας
" Α' Α η
κρισει προς το ποιειν
fI '"' "
himself or some other being about whom God is concerned and
κινούμενος ούδΕν ιLν κατα πρόθεσιν ένεΡγει ποιει μάτην, άλλ' ήτοι who is considered worthy of higher regard than men.
'"'
της ,~ , . ,
ισιας Ι
ενεκεν χρησεως "
η ~ , χρειαν
οια '''λλ
α ου ηνος ων πε Φ'
'1'
ρονηκεν
2. When we examine this matter more broadly, we find that
" ~, αυτο το γινομενον,
η οι "" ο'λ ΚTJ
Α ηνι Φ υσΙΚΏ ..., και σΤΟΡγυ προς την ..." ηο one who is ίη his right mind and who is moνed by rational
judgement to make something makes anything ίη vain which he
, '"'3 Ι ι 'Ι'
αυτου γενεσιν κινουμενος' οιον
(λ εγεσ
ι θω γαρ
,~" Ι 't'
οι εικονος ηνος, ινα undertakes with a purpose ίη mind. He is moved by some natural
σα
' ι
Φ ες, , )" θ Α
γενηται το προκειμενον
, l' ~, ,
αν ρωπος ποιει μεν οικον οια την inclination and yearning to produce it either (α) for his own use
,~ ,
ισιαν χρειαν, ποιει οε
, Α ~, β , ,
ουσι και καμη οις η τοις α
'λ ., Α "λλ r Ι
οις ';,ψοις, ων
l'
or (b) for the use of some other being for whom he has regard or
έσην ένδεής, την έκάστψ τούτων άρμόζουσαν σκέπην ούκ Ιδ/ας (c) for the sake ofthe thing itselfwhich he produces. Let us resort to
., , "Φ' analogy to clarify the issue: (α) Α man makes a house for his own
ενεκεν χρησεως κατα το αινομενον, α'λλ α
' κατα" μεν το, τειιος
'\ ~,
οια
... ,~" , ~" , l' Φ' , Ι
use but (b) makes for his cattle and camels or other animals οη
τουτο, κατα οε το προσεχες οια την τουτων ων πε ρονηκεν επιμε-
which he depends the shelter suitable for each. Το all appear-
λειαν' ΠΟΙΕιται SJ και παιδας ούΤΕ δια χρε/αν ίδ/αν ούΤΕ δι' έτερόν η ances he does not make such a shelter for his own use; but ίη
terms ofhis ultimate object it is precisely for that purpose that he
12. ι τώ Schwartz: τ6 Α: TOVTO ΑΙ 2 αύΤ6ν C: αύΤ6 Α: αύΤ6 τ6 Αι does so and οηlΥ secondarily οη behalf of those animals for which
3 αύτου 'Wi1amowitz, Schwartz he shows his regard. He also (c) begets children, not (α) for his
 116 ATHENAGORAS 12.2 12.6 DE RESURRECTIONE 117

των αυτφ προσηκ6ντων, αλλ' έπ~ TijJ4 εΙνα{ τε και διαμΙνειν καθ6σον own use nor (b) for the sake of anything else about which he is
οί6ν τε 5 τους ύπ' αότου γεννωμΙνους, Tfj των πα{δων και των concerned, but (c) that his offspring may continue ίη existence as
έγγ6νων διαδοχfj την έαυτου τελευτην παραμυθούμενος και ταύΤΏ long as possible, thus consoling himself for his own death by a
succession of children and descendants and ίη this vvay thinking
τό θνητόν απαθανατ{ζειν oί6μενo~. 3. αλλα ταυτα μεν ύπό τούτων·
t ι θ' ... ", Ι ,Ι '''θ ,ι φι , to make the mortal immortal. ι
Ο μεντοι εO~ ουτ αν ματην εποιησεν τον αν ρωπον· εστι γαρ σο ος,
3. This is what is done by men. As for God, he did not make
ου'δ εν
' δ ε' σο φ ιας
ι... Ι
εργον ματαιον· ουτε
... δ' ι
ια χρειαν ι'δ ιαν·
ι ,ι
πανTO~ γαρ man ίη vain; for he is wise, and ηο work of wisdom is vain. But
έστιν απροσδεής, Τψ δε μηδενός δεομΙνψ τό παράπαν ούδεν των (α) he did not make man for his own use; for he does not need
ύπ' αύτου γενομΙνων συντελΙσειεν αν εί~ χρε{αν ίδ{αν. αλλ' ούδε anything, and ίη the case of one who has ηο needs at all, nothing
which he has created can contribute anything to him for his own
διά τινα των ύπ' αύτου γενομΙνων έργων έπο{ησεν ανθρωπον. ούδεν
use. But (b) neither did he make man for the sake of any other of
γαρ των λ6γψ και κρ{σει χρωμΙνων OίJTε των μειζ6νων OίJTε των his created works. For (c) none ofthe beings, whether superior or
καταδεεστΙρων γΙγονεν ή γ{νεται πρός έτΙρου χρε{αν, αλλα δια την inferior,2 who are gifted with reason and discernment has been
ίδ{αν αυτων των γενομΙνων ζωήν τε Kα~ διαμονήν. 4. ούδε γαρ ό created or is created for the use of another but οηlΥ for the con-
λ6γo~ εύρ{σκει τινα χρε{αν της των ανθρώπων γενΙσεως αίτ{αν, των tinued survival of such creatures themselves. 4. Indeed reason
μεν αθανάτων ανενδεων οντων και μηδεμιας μηδαμω~ παρ' ανθρώπων can find ηο use which is the cause of the creation of men. The
immortals are ίη need of nothing and require ηο provision at al1
συντελε{ας πρός τό εΙναι δεομΙνων, των δε αλ6γων αρχομΙνων
κατα
, φ Ι " ,<\ I,J,."
υσιν και τας πpo~ ο πεψυκεν εκαστον χρειας αν ρωποις απο-
"θ Ι ,
from men for their existence; irrational creatures are by nature
subordinate and satisfy men's needs ίη whatever way the nature of
Πληρουντων
Ι α'λλ" ουκ αυτων
'~6 ToυTOΙ~
Ι ~ θαι πεφ υκοτων·
χρησ ι θ εμις
Ι
, " '" JI , , ,,, , t _ t Ι , _
each ordains but are not naturally destined themselves to make
γαρ ουτε ην ουτε εστι το αρχον και ηγεμονουν υπαγειν ει~ χρησιν
use of men. For it never was right, nor is it now, that "vhat rules
τοις έλάττοσιν ή τό λογικόν ύποτάττειν7 αλ6γoι~, οδσιν πpό~ τό and leads should be used by lesser beings or that what is rational
αρχ ειν ανεΠΙTηδε{oι~. 5. ούκουν εί μήτε αναΙT{ω~ και μάτην should be subordinated to irrational creatures since the latter are
ι ,ι θ
γεγονεν αν ρωπος
(ου'δ'εν , -
γαρ των υπο
t, θ - Ι Ι
εου γενομενων ματαιον not fit to rule.
κατά γε την του πoιήσανTO~ γνώμη ν ) μήτε χρε{ας ένεκεν αύτου του 5. If man, then, was not created purposelessly ΟΓ ίη vain (for
ποιήσαντος ή8 άλλου τινός των ύπό θεου γενομΙνων ποιημάτων, nothing created by God is vain at least as far as the original
είJδηλoν ότι κατα μεν τόν πρω7'ον Kα~ κοιν6τερον λ6γον δι' έαυτόν intention ofthe creator is concerned), and was not created for the
Kα~ την έπι πάση~ Tη~ δημιουΡγ{ας θεωρουμΙνην αγαθ6τητα Kα~ use of the Maker himself or of any other of God's creations, it is
' \τον
, clear that in-terms of the primary an.d more general reason God
σο φ ιαν
ι ,Ι t θ' "θ δ Ι
εποιησεν ο εος αν ρωπον, κατα ε προσεχεστερον
made man for his own sake and out of the goodness and wisdom
TOΙ~ γενομΙνοις λ6γον διδ. την αύτων των γενομΙνων ζωην, ούκ
, , "i: Ι l' λ β Ι - 6. t ,..
which is reflected throughout creation; but, ίη terms of the
επι μικρον ει:,απτομενην ειτα παντε ω~ σ εννυμενην. εpπεTOΙ~
reason which has more immediate bearing οη those created, God
γαρ, οΙμαι, και πτηνοις και νηKTOΙ~ ή και Koιν6T€poν είπειν πασι made man simply for the survival of such creatures themselves
TOΙ~ αλ6γoι~ την τοιαύτην ζωην απΙνειμεν θε6~, TOΙ~ δε αύτόν έν that they should not be kindled for a short time, then entirely
έαυτοις αγαλματοφορουσι ατόν ποιητην νουν τε συνεπιφεpoμlνoι~ Kα~ extinguished. 6. For God has assigned this fleeting form of life,
λογικης Kp{σεω~ μεμoιpαμlνoι~9 την εί~ αΔ διαμονην απεκλήρωσεν Ι think, to snakes, birds, and fish, or, to speak more generally, to
all irrational creatures; but the Maker has decreed an unending
12. α Cf. Gen. ι: 26
existence to those who bear his image ίη themselves, are gifted
12. 4 τψ Ρ corr. c: τό Α 5 οΙόν τε pc: ο{ονται Α 6 άλλ' ούκ αύτων with intelligence, and share the faculty for rational discernment,
Schwartz: α των Α: άλλ' ού των Αι 7 ύποτάττειν c: ύποτάττο// Α:
ύποτάττον ΑΙ 8 η ρ: ητ' (τ ίη ras.) Α 9 μεμΟιΡαμένηs Α: 12. ι Α clear reflection ofthe sentiment expressed by Plato, Symp. 206 c, 207 e.
corr. pcn 2 Probably angels (cf. the 'immortals' below) and men.
118 ATHENAGORAS 12.6 13. ι DE RESURRECTIONE 119
t , t! Ι , f _ , \ , Ι

ο ποιησας, ινα γινωσκοντες τον εαυτων ποιητην και την τουτου so that they, knowing their Maker and his power and wisdom and
Ι'
δ υναμιν τε και σο
\ Φ" Ι
ιαν νομψ τε συνεπομενοι και
Ι δ' ι
ικυ τουτοις συν- complying with law and justice, might liνe without distress
'Υ
δ ιαιωνι,:>ωσιν "
απονως,
i' Ι λ β Υ \ ,
οις την προ α ουσαν εκρατυναν ,:>ωην καιπερ
- " eternally with the powers by which they goνerned their former
'Φθ
εν
Α
αρτοις και γηινοις οντες σωμασιν.
\ .ι. >Ι Ι
7. .,
οποσα μεν γαρ α
Ι ι "λλ
ου
life, eνen though they were ίη corruptible and earthly bodies.
ι ι ι" 1"~' ι ι 7. Eνerything that is created for the sake of something else
του χαριν γεγονεν, παυσαμενων εκεινων ων ενεκεν γεγονεν, παυ-
may itself reasonably be expected to cease existing when those
σεται εΙκότως Kat αύτα τα γενόμενα του εΙναι Kat ούκ αν διαμ€νOΙ
for whose sake it was created cease existing; it cannot surνiνe
μάτην, ώς αν μηδεμ{αν έν τοις ύπο θεου γενOμ€νOις του ματα{ου
purposelessly, since what is purposeless can haνe ηο place among
χώραν έχοντος· τά γε μην δι' αύτο το εΙναι Kat ζ7}ν καθως the things created by God. As to that which was created simply
',J.. , ., - - " - Φ υσει
ι λ' ι
πεψυκεν γενομενα, ως αυτης τηςαιτιας τυ συνει ημμενης και for the sake of existing and liνing ίη accordance with its own
κατ' αύτο μόνον το εΙναι θεωpoυμ€νης, ούδεμ{αν Oύδ€ΠOTε δ€ςαΙT' nature, there can be ηο reason for it eνer to perish entirely since
,ι ι
αν την το ειναι παντε
Ι 'i' -
λ ως α'Φ ανι,:>ουσαν
'Υ αιτιαν.
" 8. ταυτης
ι δ ει, -
εν τψ the νery reason for its existence is comprehended by its nature and
εΙναι πάντοτε θεωρουμένης, δει σψζεσθαι πάντως Kat το γενόμενον is seen to be simply and solely this-to exist. 8. Since, then, the
Υ-
,:>ψον,
, -
ενεργουν τε και πασχον α πεψυκεν,
Ι, <\ ',J.. .,
εκατερου τουτων ε
, 'ς 'i'
ων reason is seen to be this, to exist for eνer, the liνing being with
ι
γεγονεν τα
,
παρ
"
εαυτου
_
συνεισ
Φ ,
εροντος
, ...
και της μεν ψυχης
\ .1. -
ουσης
,! its natural actiνe and passiνe functions must by all means be
τε και
ι δ
ιαμενουσης ομα
' • λ -
ως εν Η
, , Jγεγονεν
;' Φ ,
υσει και
ι δ
ιαπονουσης α
,., preserνed; each of the two parts of which it consists makes its
',J.. (',J.. δΙ Α - Ι , Α' Α Ι ι contribution: the soul continues to exist undistracted ίη the form
πεψυκεν πεψυκεν ε ταις του σωματος επιστατειν ορμαις και το
ίη which itwas"created, and it works at the tasks which suit its
προσπιπτον άεt τοις προσήκουσι κρ{νειν Kat μετρειν κριτηρ{οις Kat
, ) ,του- δ ει σωματος
, " Φ' <\ ',J.. \ ~ature (which consist ofruling the bodily impulses and ofjudging
μετροις κινουμενου κατα υσιν προς α πεψυκεν
and assessing by proper standards and measures what constantly
ι
και ,
τας ,
αποκληρω θ'
εισας αυτψ ,- δ'
εχομενου μεταβο λ' 'δ ε των
ας, μετα - ' impinges οη a man); the body is moνed by nature to what is
αλλων των κατα τας ~λΙK{ας ~ κατ' εΖδος ~ μ€γεθOς την άνάστασιν. suitable for it and is receptiνe to the changesdecreed for it,
'i'δ' β λ- ,Ι
9. ει ος γαρ τι μετα ο ης και παντων υστατον η αναστασις η τε
tl f , , f!
including, along with the other changes affecting age, appearance,
_ "Α " , " , , ""
των κατ εκεινον τον χρονον περιοντων ετι προς το κρειττον or size, also the resurrection. 9. For the resurrection from the dead
μεταβολή. and the transformation for the better which will affect those still
aliνe at that time constitute a form of change and indeed the last
of all. .
13. Έπt δε τούτοις τεθαρρηκότες ού μειον ~ τοις ηδη γενOμ€νOις
, την
και
, εαυτων
• - ,επισκοπουντες
- Φ' Ι
υσιν, την τε μετ
"δ'
εν ειας και
\ 13. Encouraged by these expectations, ηο less than by the
Φθορας ζωην σT€pγOμεν ώς Τψ παρόντι β{ψ προσήκουσαν Kat την changes which haνe already occurred, and examining our own
,
εν 'Φθ αρσιq.
α 'δ ιαμονην
"λ '1
ε πι,:>ομεν β εβ' <Ι
αιως' ην ου
, "θ'
παρα αν ρωπων nature, we are content with life ίη this needy and corruptible
,
αναπλ αττομεν ' ι
ματην ψευ δ'
.1. εσιν •'βουκολουντες
εαυτους - '
ε'λ πισιν, (orm as suited to our present mode of existence, and we firmly
άπλανεστάτψ δε πεπιστεύκαμεν έχεγγύψ, τυ του δημιουργήσαντος hope for surνiνal ίη an incorruptible form. This is not a delusion
• -
ημας γνωμυ, , κα θ' <Ι
ην εποιησεν
" αν
" θρωπον εκ
'./~."
ψυχης 'θ'
α ανατου και \ which we haνe got from meriby feeding ourselνes νainly οη false
,
σωματος νουν
-
τε συγκατεσκευασεν
ι,
αυτψ
_
και
\ Ι
νομον εμ
" Φ
υτον
,\
επι
hopes; but we haνe put our confidence ίη an infallible security,
σωτηριq. , και ,Φ υλ ακυ "των
" παρ " "
αυτου δ ι δ'
ομενων, "
εμ Φρονι δ ε'ι β'ιψ
the will of our Creator, according to which he made man of an
immortal soul and a body and endowed him with intelligence
Kat ζωυ λογικυ προσηκόντων, εΟ εΙδ6η:ς ώς ούκ αν τοιουτον and an innate law to safeguard and protect the things which he
κατεσκεύασεν ζφον και. πασι τοις προς διαμονην έκόσμησεν, εΙ μη gaνe that are suitable for intelligent beings with a rational life.
We full well know that he would not haνe formed such an aIlimal
13. ι δε Wilamowitz: τΕ Α and adorned him with all that contributes to permanence if he
120 ATHENAGORAS 13. ι 14·3 DE RESURRECTIONE 121

δ ιαμενειν EtJov ι V~ 'λ ,ι

ετο το γενομενον. 2. , ι
ει τοινυν ο του ε
ι "δ ..
του
,
παντος did not want this creature to be permanent. 2. The Creator of our
δημιουργος έποΕησεν ανθρωπον έπι τψ2 ζωης έμφρονος μετασχειν uniνerse made man that he might participate ίη rationallife and,
και γεν6μενον θεωρον της τε μεγαλοπρεπεΕας αύτου και της έπι after contemplating God's majesty and uniνersal wisdom, per-
" 3 σο φ'ιας " ι '
θ ewpLCf συν δ ιαμενειν
ι , , κατα
" "
dure and make them the object of his eternal contemplation, ίη
πασι T'[J τουτων αει την εκεινου
ι 'θ' (\"\ φ ι ι," , , ,
accordance with the diνine will and the nature allotted to him.
γνωμην και κα ην εΙΛηχεν υσιν, η μεν της γενεσεως αΙΤια
The reason then for man's creation guarantees his eternal sur-
πιστουται την εΙς άει διαμονήν, Τι δε διαμονη την άνάστασιν, -ης νiνal, and his surνiνal guarantees his resurrection, without which
χωρις ούκ αν διαμεΕνειεν ανθρωπος. έκ δε T(VV εΖρημ'νων εύδηλον he could not surνiνe αs mαn. From what we haνe said it is clear
ώς Tfj της γεν'σεως alTlCf και Tfj γνώμυ του ποιήσαντος δεΕκνυται that the resurrection is demonstrated by the reason for man's
'ι t' Ι .. -
σαψως η αναστασις.
creation and the will of the Creator.
3. Since such is the reason for which man was brought into this
3· Τοιαύτης δε της αΙτΕας ούσης, καθ' ην εΙς τ6νδε παρηκται τον world, the next logical step would be to examine the argument
κοσμον αν θρωπος, ακο'λ ου θ ον αν ειη τον
, " ' " " ,ι φ'
,
τουτοις κατα " κα θ'
υσιν η which naturally and ineνitably follows these points. Ιη this
ι , ι,
ειρμον επομενον
δ '.1. θ
ιασκεψασ αι
λ ' .,
ογον' επεται
δ' "'ί: '
ε κατα την ε~ ετασιν inquiry the examination of the nature of mortal men follows the
T'[J" μεν
,
aLTLCf
" "
της Ι
γενεσεως ηΙ"
των γεννη θ εντων
' 'θ'
αν ρωπων φι
υσις, T'[J " inνestigation of the reason for their creation; and the discussion

δ ε' φι
υσει
"
των
ι
γενομενων
ι
η
"ι
του ποιησαντος
",
επι τουτοις
δ ικαια ' of the Creator's just judgement upon them and the end of life
which comes upon them all follows the examination of the nature
κρισις , ,
τουτοις τε πασι ' "το
"του
" β'ιου τεΛος.'\ 'ί:ητασμενων
ε~ 'δ'ε ι ""
ημιν
of those created. Since we haνe completed the first part of our
" " , tC" , " 'θ'
ρωπων φ υσιν.
ι
των προτεταγμενων επισκεπτεον ε~ ης την των αν inquiry, let us take the next step and inνestigate the nature of
man.

14. (Η των της άληθεΕας δογμάτων η των όπωσουν εΙς έξ'τασιν 14. Το offer proof of true doctrines or of the νarious arguments
προ '
β αλλ ομενων "δ ει~ις
απο c ' 'λ ανηΛ τοις
την απ Λ λ εγομενοις
' 'φι
επι ερουσα set before us for inνestigation, proof that will proνide unshake-
πΕστιν ούκ έξωθ'ν ποθεν έχει την άρχην ούδ' έκ των τισι δοκούντων able certainty for what is said, one ought not to begin from some
point external to the debate or with opinions and doctrines of
η δεδογμ'νων, άλλ' έκ της κοινης και φυσικης έννοΕας η της προς other men but with the uniνersal and natural axiom I or the logical
ηJ. πρωτα των δευτ'ρων άκολουθΕας. 2. η γαρ περι των πρώτων sequence which links secondary with primary principles. 2. For
"δ'
εση ογματων και'δ"'"
ει μονης υπομνησεως
t , της
'"' 'φ"
την υσικην ανα- either it is a matter of primary doctrines and only a reminder is
ι " " \ _ 'φ' t , ,.., , needed to stir up the natural axiom, or it is a matter of the natural
κινουσης εννοιαν η περι των κατα υσιν επομενων τοις πρωτοις και
consequences deriνed from primary doctrines and of natural
της ",
"φ υσικης ακολου θ'ιας και , δ""" "τουτοις
ει της επι , 'ί:
τα~εως, '
δ εικνυντας
logical sequence and all that is needed is to take the points up ίη
Tl τοις πρώτοις η τοις προτεταγμ'νοις άκολουθει κατ' άλήθειαν, έπι order, showing what actually follows from the primary principles
τψ μήτε της άληθεΕας η της κατ' αύτην άσφαλεΕας άμελειν μήτε τα
or the preceding arguments, so as not to neglect the truth ΟΓ the
sure demonstration of it, nor to confuse the natural order of
"φ'
τυ υσει τεταγμενα και'δ ιωρισμενα σVΓXειν
Λ'" ,
η τον φ υσικον ειρμον
ι , ' , arguments and the distinctions between them, nor to break the
διασπαν. 3. όθεν, οΊμαι, [χρην]Ι δΕκαιον περι των προκειμ'νων naturallogical sequence.
,
εσπου
δ'
ακοτας και
" κρινειν εμ
, φ'
ρονως
θ"
εΛοντας
, ' γινεται
ειτε
, των
Λ 3. Consequently it is right, Ι think, for those who are concerned
with such matters, and who want to judge wisely as to whether
άνθρωπΕνων σωμάτων άνάστασις ειτε μή, πρωτον μεν έπισκοπειν there is a resurrection of human bodies or not, first to take careful
καλως των προς την τουδε δειξιν συντελούντων την δύναμιν και note of the force of the arguments which contribute to the demon-
ποΕαν εκαστον είληχεν χώραν και Tl μεν τούτων πρωτον Tl δε stration of this teaching, to see what place each has been allotted,
and to consider which of them is first, which the second or third, or
13. 2 7ψ pc: 76 Α 3 πασι ρn: πάσυ Α 14. ι The technical Stoic term (SVF ίί. 104, 154, 473) for notions which the
14. ι xpfjv Α: χρηνaι ΑΙ: seclusit Wilamowitz human mind is naturally disposed to have.
 122 ATHENAGORAS 14·3 15.2 DE RESURRECTIONE 123

SEVTEPOV η τρίτον τί δ' έπι TOVTOLS' ύστατον' 4. ταυτα δε δια­ which the last of them all. 4. Those marshal1ing these arguments
ταξαμένους xtΠι πρώτην μεν τάξαι την αΖτίαν της των άνΟρώπων must place ίη the first rank the reason for the creation of men
γενέσεως, τουτ' έσην την του δημιουΡγήσαντος γνώμη ν καθ' ην -that is, the will of the Creator according to which he made
,Ι
εποιησεν
" θ
αν ρωπον,
,~\
ταυΤΏ σε
Φ
προ σ υως
- ,επισυναψαι
'./. την\ των
_ man-and then link with it intimately the examination of the
nature of created men, not because this argument is second ίη
ι
γενομενων 'θ'
αν ρωπων Φ'
υσιν, ουχ ως TrJ ταςει
'C ~ ,
σευτερευουσαν, "
~ \ σε
σια '" \ - rank but because it is impossible to pass judgement οη both at
το\ μη\ συνασ
"" θ"
αι κατα ταυτον 'Φ'
\ αμ οτερων γενεσι θαι την Ι
\ κρισιν, καν
"
the same time, eνen though they are as closely united with each
όη μάλιστα συνυπάρχωσιν άλλήλαις και προς το προκείμενον την other as possible and haνe equal weight for our subject. 5. Once
ίσην παρέχωνται δVναμιν. 5. δια δε TOVTWV, ώς πρώτων και την the resurrection has been clearly demonstrated by these argu-
ments, which are primary and grounded ίη the work of creation,
έκ δημιουργίας έχ6ντων άρχήν, έναργως δεικνυμένης της άνα-
ι ,~\ ηττον 'λ'"
it is possible to gain assurance οη this matter ηο less by reasons
στασεως, ουσεν 'f' c;:. \ των
και, σια - -
της προνοιας ογων εση λ αβ ειν
Α
haνing to do with proνidence-I mean, through a consideration
την περι TaVTTjS' πίσην, λέγω δε δια της έκάστψ των άνθρώπων oftlle reward or punishment owing each man ίη accordance with
'Φ λ ι \ '" Ι Ι ,..." c;:.I \,... \ \
just judgement and the end that befits human life. 6. For there
Ο ει ομενης κατα σικαιαν κρισιν ημης η σικης και του κατα τον
'θ'
αν ρωπινον
β ιον
ι 1\
τε/\ους.
6. πο
\ \ \ -,
λλοι γαρ τον της αναστασεως λ ογον
ι , haνe been many who, ίη treating the doctrine of the resurrection,
c;:. λ β' - Ι Ι \ _ " , ι presented only the third argument to support their reason for it,
σια αμ ανοντες τψ τριτψ μονψ την πασαν επηρεισαν αιηαν,
thinking that the resurrection must take place because of the
νομίσαντες την άνάστασιν 2 γίνεσθαι δια την κρίσιν. τουτο δε judgement. This is clearly shown to be false from the fact that all
περι
-
Φ ανως c;:. ι ./. -ς:.
σεικνυται ψευοος
, -, "Ι θ
εκ του παντας μεν ανιστασ αι τους
\ men who die arise, whereas all who arise are not judged. For if
άποθνύσκοντας άνθρώπους, μη πάντας δε κρίνεσθαι τους άνα­ only justice exercised at the judgement were the cause of the
στάντας' εΖ γαρ μόνον το κατα την κρίσιν δίκαιον της άναστάσεως resurrection, then eνen those guilty of ηο error or incapable of
νirtue-that is, νery young children-would not arise. Since they
-ην αίηον, έχρην δήπου τους μηδεν ήμαρτηκ6τας η κατορθώσαντας
admit, howeνer, that all will arise, including those who died ίη
μηδ' άνίστασθαι, τουτ' έση τους κομιδfj νέους παιδας' έξ ών 3 δε infancy as well as all others, the resurrection does not take place
πάντας άνίστασθαι TOVS' τε άλλους και δη και τους κατα την πρώτην primarily because of the judgement but because of the will of the
ήλικίαν τελευτήσαντας και αυτοι δικαιουσιν, ου δια την κρίσιν ή Creator and the nature of those created.
άνάστασις γίνεται κατα πρωτον λόγον, άλλα. δια. την του δημιουρ-
, ,
~
γησαντος γνωμην και την των σημιουΡγη θ' ,\
εντων Φ'
υσιν. - 15. Although the reason deriνed from a consideration of the
creation of men suffices by itself to demonstrate by a naturalline
of argument that the resurrection follows upon the dissolution of
15. Ά.ΡκοVσης δε και μόνης της έπι Tfj γενέσει των άνθρώπων the body, it is still right, Ι think, to eνade none of the issues raised
'
θ εωρουμενης ,Ι c;:. AC \" \ Φυσικην ακολου θ ιαν
αιηας σειςαι την αναστασιν κατα
ι \, but, pursuing what has been said, to lay out the basic points
έπομένην τοις διαλυθεισι σώμασιν, δίκαιον ίσως προς μηδεν arising from each line of deduction for those who cannot grasp
άποκνησαι των προτεθέντων, άκολοvθως δε τοις εΖρημένοις και them themselνes, and to discuss especially the nature of created
\ 'c f , 'Φ \ - c;:. AC
f A'C ,
τας ες εκαστου των επομενων α ορμας υποσεΙςαι τοις ες αυτων
f f_ men, since an inνestigation of it brings us to the same conclusion
as before and proνides equal confirmation of the resurrection.
συνιδειν μη δυναμένοις και πρό γε των άλλων την των γενομένων 2. For if human nature uniνersally considered is constituted by
'θ'
αν ρωπων Φ'
υσιν, επι , \την
, , \ "αγουσαν εννοιαν
αυτην " και "την"ισην an immortal soul and a body which has been united with it at its
παρέχουσαν περι της άναστάσεως πίσην. 2. εΖ γαρ πασα κοινως ή creation; and if God has not separately assigned a creation and
-
'θ'
των αν ρωπων Φ'
υσις εκ ψυχης α'θ' './.'"
ανατου και του κατα την γενεσιν \ - \ \ , existence and course of life of this kind to the soul as such or to the
aVTfj συναρμοσθέντος σώματος έχει την σvστασιν και μήτε Tfj body but to men who are made up of both, so that they might
spend their life and come to one common end with the parts
14. 2 άνάστασιν Schwartz: αΕτίαν Α 3 έξ ών Schwartz: έξ Ι/ν Α: from which they are created and exist; then it is necessary, since
έξόν Αι
all there is is one liνing being composed of two parts, undergoing
 124 ATHENAGORAS 15.2 15·7 DE RESURRECTIONE 125

φvσει της ψυχης καθ' έαυτην μήτε TV φvσει του σώματος χωρtς all the experiences of soul and body, and actively carrying out
απεκλήρωσεν θεος την τοιάνδε γένεσιν η την ζωην και τον σvμ- whatever requires the judgement of the senses and of reason, that
'
7Ταντα β ιον, α'λλ' Α"
α τοις 'ι αν
εκ τουτων γενομενοις 'θ' ." , ες
ρωποις, ιν 'c. ων
'" the entire concatenation of such phenomena leads to one end so
,2' r ~ δ β , .., , , λ 'c.
γινονται και ~ωσι, ια ιωσαντες εις εν τι και κοινον κατα 'Yjf::,watv that all these things-the creation ofman, the nature ofman, the
'\ δ ει,
τεΛος,
Α' ., >Ι 'c. ',,/..' r' ~"
παντως ενος οντος ες αμψοτερων ~ψoυ του και πασχοντος
., .1, ,t 'θ Α Ι """ Ι , _, ,
existence of man, the deeds and experiences and way of life of
οποσα πα η ψυχης και οποσα του σωματος ενεργουντος τε και
man, and the end which suits his nature-might be fully inte-
πράττοντος όπόσα της αΙσθητικης η της λογικης δείΤαι κρίσεως,
,~, '\' ,..,,ι' θ ' " Ι ι,,,
grated into one harmonious and concordant whole.
7Τρος εν τι τεΛος
ανυ,ψερεσ αι παντα τον εκ τουτων ειΡμον, ινα
3. If there is one harmony and concord of the entire living
πάντα και δια πάντων συντρέΧΏ προς μίαν άρμονίαν και την αύτην
being, including the things that spring from the soul and the
συμπα'θ ειαν, 'θ'
αν ρωπου γενεσις, , 'θ'
αν ρωπου ,,/.. ,
ψυσις, 'θ'
αν ρωπου Υ'
~ωη,
'θρωπου
αν ' 'c. εις
7Tpaf::, και"θ
πα η και ' β'ιος και"~
το ~
ψυσει προσηκονTTJ ,,/..' things that are done by the body, then the end of all tllese pheno-
τέλος. 3. εΙ δε μία τίς έστιν άρμονία του ζψου παντος και συμ- mena must also be one. And the end wil1 truly be one if the same
πα
'θ εια, και
,~. .1. " ' , , / . . ' '~δ'''''
των εκ ψυχης ψυομενων και των ια του σωματος living being whose end it is remains constituted as before. The
έπιτελουμένων, εν ε [ναι δε ι και το έπι πασι τοvτοις τέλος. εν δε living being will be genuinely the same if everything remains the
τέλος έσται κατ' αλήθειαν, του αύτου ζψου κατα την έαυτου aVaTaatv same which serves as its parts. And these will remain the same ίη
όντος, οδπέρ έστιν τέλος το τέλος. το αύτο δε ζφον έσται καθαρως, a union appropriate to them ifwhat has undergone dissolution is
των αύτων όντων πάντων έξ ών ώς μερων το ζφον. τα αύτα δε again united ~o reconstitute the living being. 4. The reconstitu-
κατα την [διάζουσαν ενωσιν έσται, των διαλυθέντων πάλιν ένωθέν­ tion of the same men demonstrates how the resurrection of dead
των προς την του ζψου aVaTaatv. 4. ή δε των αύτων ανθρώπων bodies that have undergone dissolution must logically follow;
σvστασις έξ ανάγκης έπομένην δείκνυσιν την των νεκρωθέντων Kat
for without it the same parts would not be united with one
διαλυθέντων σωμάτων ανάστασιν' ταvτης γαρ χωρtς ούτ' αν ένωθείη
, '" , ,ι' 'λλ 'λ ,",'αν συσταιη
, των
-, """ another ίη a way that conforms with their nature, nor would the
τα αυτα μερη κατα ψυσιν α η οις ουτ αυτων

• ,,/..' same men be reconstituted as they were.

'θ'
αν ρωπων η ψυσις. 5. ει• δ'ε και , ,..
νους και'λ'
ογος δ'δ
ε οται Α
τοις

ανθρώποtς προς διάκρισιν νοητων, ούκ ούσιων μόνον άλλα Kat της 5. If understanding and reason have been given men to
του ,.. δ'
οντος 'θ'
αγα οτητος και ',,/.."
σοψιας και '
δ ικαιοσυνης, "
αναγκη,
discern intelligibles, not οηlΥ substances but also the goodness,
../
διαμενόντων ών ενεκεν ή λογικη δέδοται κρίσις, και αύτην διαμένειν wisdom, and justice of him who endowed men with these gifts,
την έπt τοvτοις δοθεισαν κρίσιν' TaVTTJV δε διαμένειν dSVvaTOV, μη it is necessary that, where the realities because of which rational
της ,.. δ εf::,αμενης
t.' "
αυτην και τα " 3 εν
' 1" εστι
οις δ ιαμενουσης ',,/..'
ψυσεως. 6. ·ο discernment has been given are permanent, the discernment
δ ε' και , νουν ... και, λ'
ογον δ εf::,αμενος
t.' " εστιν >Ι θρωπος,
αν ου '.1.'
ψυχη κα θ' itself which was given to be exercised οη them should also be
•
εαυτην· αν ,
"θρωπον αρα
>Ι δ ειΑ τον ες
, 't.',,/..' "
αμψοτερων οντα '
δ ιαμενειν " αει,,
εις permanent. But it cannot be permanent unless the nature which
τουτον δε διαμένειν dSVvaTOV μη ανιστάμενον. 7. αναστάσεως γαρ received it and the faculties ίη which it resides are permanent.
μη γινομένης, ούκ αν ή των ανθρώπων ώς ανθρώπων διαμένοι 6. Ι t is man-not simply soul-who received understanding and
,,/..'
ψυσις' της
... δ' ,..
'θ' ,,/..'
'δ ιαμενουσης, ματην μεν
ε των αν ρωπων ψυσεως μη
' , , reason. Man, then, who consists of both soul and body must
ή ψυχη συνήρμοσται TV του σώματος JvSElq. Kat τοις TOVTOV survive for ever; but he cannot surνive unless he is raised. 7. For
if there is ηο resurrection, the nature of men as men would not be
15. ι γενομ'νοις C et (ex γενωμ'νοις) n et (ex γΕVνωμ'νOις) s: γεννωμ'νοις Α:
ήνωμ'νοις Wilamowitz, Schwartz 2 γίνονται c et (ex γεννωνται) s: γεν-
permanent. And if the nature of men is ηοΙ permanent, ίη vain
νωνται Α: ήνωνται Wilamowitz, Schwartz 3 τα Wilamowitz: της Α has tile soul been attuned to the needs and feelings ofthe body, ίη
 126 ATHENAGORAS 15·7 16. 5 DE RESURRECTIONE 127

πάθεσιν, μάτην δ~ το σωμα πεπ'δηται προς το τυγχάνειν ιLν vain has the body, ίη obedience to the reins of the soul and
,
ορεγεται,
, Α"
ταις της
.1.
ψυχης
" t,
ηνιαις
t
υΠ€ιKOν
Α
και
\
χα
λ
ιναγωγουμενον,
' guided as by bit and bridle, been shackled to prevent it from
,
ματαιος οε ο νους, ματαια οε
1;:'\ Ι... , 1;:'\ Φ , , ~,
ρονησις και οικαιοσυνης παρατηρησις
, getting whatever it desires, vain is understanding, νain is wisdom
η και πάσης άρετης άσκησις και ν6μων θ'σις και διάταξις και and the obserνance of justice or the exercise of every virtue and
the enactment and codification oflaws-in a word, vain is eνery­
συν6λως ειπειν παν όη περ έν άνθρώποις και δι' άνθρώπους καλ6ν, thing admirable implanted ίη men and effected by men, ΟΓ rather,
Αλλον οε
μα ~\ και αυτη των αν
'θ' , "
t γενεσις
ρωπων η " τε και'Φ'
υσις. ,.. 8. €ι'Ι;:"
οε vain is the νery creation and being ofman. 8. But ifvanity ίη the
πάντων και πανταχ6θεν άπελήλαται των έργων του θεου και των works of God and the gifts granted by him is ruled out entirely,
ύπ' έκείνου διδομ'νων δωρεων το μάταιον, δεί πάντως τίρ της it is absolutely necessary that the body should be permanent ίη a
.1. ... 'λ' Ι;:'
ψυχης ατε ευτητψ συναιαιωνιl:,€ιν την του σωματος αιαμονην κατα
'Υ ' ,.., ~ , , way that conforms with its own nature and should exist eternally
,
την OΙK€ιαν
Φ'
υσιν.
, , with the deathless soul.

16. Νο one should be surprised if we call existence cut short by

16. Ξενιζ'σθω δ~ μηδεις ει την θανάτφ και Φθορ(j. διακοπτομ'νην death and corruption 'permanence'. Reflect οη the fact that there
ζωην όνομάζομεν διαμονήν, λογιζ6μενος ώς ουχ εΊς του προσρήμα­ is ηο single meaning of the term and that there is ηο single
τος ό λ6γος, ουχ εν της διαμονης το μ'τρον, όη μηδ~ των δια- definition of 'permanence', since the nature of the things which are
μενοντων Φ' ,
Ι
υσις μια. 2. €ιπεp
)1
γαρ
\
κατα την οικειαν Φ'
" "
υσιν εκαστον ., permanent is not eνen one. 2. If then each of the t11ings that are
~ ,.. ,
των οιαμενοντων "
εχει 'Ι;:'
την ,
οιαμονην, " ,
ουτ ",..
επι των κα θ'" '
αρως α'Φθ αρ-
permanent has a permanence of a kind that conforms to its
των και άθανάτων εύροι ης αν ίσάζουσαν την διαμονήν, τίρ μηδε nature, one could not expect to find ίη the case of those who are
, " , .των
. , purely incorruptible and immortal a kind of permanence like
τας ουσιας κρειττονων συνε ξ'"
ισουσ θαι Α
ταις κα θ' t ~R
υΠΟjJασιν
Ι;:' Φ' ", επι
" των
,. 'θ' "
' tομaλ'ην εκεινην that of other creatures, since the substances of superior beings are
οια ερουσαις, ουτ αν ρωπων την και'ι
not like inferior substances; nor is it worth while ίη the case of
άμετάβλητον έπιζητείν άξιον, ατε δη των μεν έξ άρχης γενομ'νων men to look for the undisturbed and changeless permanence
άθανάτων και διαμεν6ντων μ6νTl 2 rfj γνώμTl του ποιήσαντος that characterizes superior beings; for the latter were created
'λ'
ατε Ι;:' \ αν
ευτητως, των οε ,..
'θρωπων κατα μεν την .1. ' απΌ
ψυχην " ,
γενεσεως ' '" immortal from the beginning and were made to surνiνe for eνer
, ,
εχοντων
"'Rλ ~
την αμεταjJ ητον ο ιαμονην
, , ,~",.. λ
κατα οε το σωμα προ σ αμ- simply by the will of God, whereas men were created to surνive
β ανοντων
' R λ"
εκ μεταjJΟ ης την α'Φθ' ,
αρσιαν· , ",
3. οπερ οt της
"'" ,
αναστασεως unchanged οηlΥ ίη respect to the soul, but ίη respect to the body
βου'λ εται λ' ,ι\,
ογος· προς ην απΌβλ' ,~
εποντες την τε οια'λυσιν του σωματος ... , to gain inco~J:'uptibility through a transformation. 3. That is
t t
ως επομενην ττι μετ
, ... "~,
ενO€ιας και
'Φθ'"
ορας
r ""
Ι:,ωTl
, "
περιμενομεν και μετα what ourteaching concerning the resurrection means. Setting
ταυτην , την \ μετ "Φθ'
α αρσιας ε'λ πιl:,ομεν
'Υ ~ ,
οιαμονην, "
ουτε Α
ττι Α
των
then the resurrection before our eyes, we await the dissolution of
άλ6γων τελευτfj συνεξισουντες την ήμετ'ραν τελευτην ούτε rfj των the body as a concomitant of a needy and corruptible existence,
and hope for a permanent incorruptibility to follow it. We do not "
άθανάτων διαμονfj την των άνθρώπων διαμονήν, ίνα μη λάθωμεν
, ξ'" ,\ . . . , θ' Φ' , r \ regard our death as the same as the death of irrational creatures,
ταυτTl συνε ισουντες και την των αν ρωπων υσιν και Ι:,ωην
nor do we regard the permanence of men as the same as the
οΊς μη προσηκεν. 4. ου τοίνυν έπι rovrιp δυσχεραίνειν άξιον, εϊ permanence of the immortals, that we may not inadνertently
τις άνωμαλία θεωρείται περι την των άνθρώπων διαμονήν, ουδ' equate the nature and existence of men with beings that are not
έπειδη χωρισμος ψvxης άπα του σώματοςt 3 μερων και μορίων fit objects of comparison.
διάλυσις την συνεχη διακ6πτει ζωήν, δια. τουτ' άΠOγινώσK€ιν χρη 4. One ought not to have qualms about the fact that a certain
την άνάστασιν. 5. ουδε γαρ έπειδη την κατα συναίσθησιν ζωην lack of continuity characterizes the 'permanence' of men, nor
ought one to deny the resurrection just because separation of soul
16. ι κaί Wilamowitz: την Α 2 μ6νυ del. Wilamowitz, Schwartz from the body, dissolution of parts and members, interrupts the
3 post σώματοs lacunam indicavit Schwartz
flow of life. 5. The natural suspension of the senses and the natiνe
128 ATHENAGORAS 17.3 DE RESURRECTIONE 129
16·5
~
οιακοπτειν
Ι ~,..
οοκουσιν αι
t
κατα
\'.,
τον υπνον
Φ
υσικως
.. , ι
εγγινομεναι
faculties ίη sleep also appear to interrupt the conscious life, when
ι .... 'θ'
παρεσεις των αισ ησεων και των
Φ υσικων ουναμεων,
~, ισομετροις
, .. .. " men go to sleep at regular interνals of time and, so to speak,
χρόνου διαστήμασιν ύπνοvντων των ανθρώπων και τρόπον τινα return to life again. Υet we are not unwilling to call it the same
πα'λ ιν ανα
'β ιωσκοντων, την αυτην παραιτουμε θα λ' , Υ'
εγειν '::,ωην· παρ , \, \ , life. That is why, Ι think, some call sleep the 'brother of death',
C\
ην
,
αιτιαν,
ι i'
οιμαι, τινες
\,~ λΦ'
αοε ον
,..
του
θ'
ανατου
\.,
τον
, Ι
υπνον ονομα-
not that they are providing a genealogy for beings descended
r α'
'::,ουσιν, ουχ
t , ,..
ως εκ των αυτων προγονων η πατερων
,,.. 1.\ Ι Φ'
υντας γενεα- from the same ancestors or parents, but because similar passive
λογουντες, αλλ' ώς των όμοΕων παθων τοις τε θανουσι και τοις states affect both the dead and those asleep, at least ίη so far as
ύπνουσιν Εγγινομένων, ένεκα γε της ήρεμΕας4 και του μηδεν6ς they are tranquil and are conscious of nothing that goes οη
Επαισθάνεσθαι των παρόντων η γινομένων, μαλλον δε μηδε του around them or, rather, are not even conscious of their own exist-
είναι και της [δΕας ζωης. 6. είπερ οΟν την των ανθρώπων ζωην ence and life. 6. If then we are not unwilling to call that human
roaavrYJS" γέμουσαν ανωμαλΕας αΠ6 γενέσεως μέχρι aLaAvaEWS" και life the same life which is filled with discontinuity from birth to
διακοπτομένην πασιν οίς προεΕπομεν, ού παραιτοvμεθα την αύτην dissolution and interrupted ίη the ways we have indicated above,
λέγειν ζωήν, ούδε την Επέκεινα της aLaAvaEWS" ζωήν, i}TLS" έαυτfj then neither should we exclude the life which follows dissolution
,
συνεισαγει την αναστασιν, απογινωσκειν ο
\) Ι , Ι 'Φ '\
εΙΛομεν, καν επι ποσον
", \ , and ushers ίη the resurrection with it, even though it has been
διακόπτηται 5 τψ χωρισμψ της ψυχης αΠ6 του σώματος. interrupted for a time by the separation of the soul from the body.

17• ., 'θ'
αυτη γαρ των αν \
ρωπων ηt Φ' ,ι
υσις ανω ,..
θ εν και κατα γνωμην του ' \' ..
17. Since then this human nature has been allotted discontinuity
ποιήσαντος συγκεκληρωμένην έχουσα την ανωμαλΕαν, ανώμαλον
from the outset by the will of the Maker, it has a kind of life and
έχει την ζωην και την διαμονην, ποτε μεν ϋπνψ ποτε δε θανάτψ
~ Λ θ' t , Ιλ' β λ Λ permanence characterized by discontinuity and interrupted
υιακοπτομενην και ταις κα εκαστην η ικιαν μετα ο αις, ουκ
, \ ,

'Φ
εμ
, , -
αινομενων εναργως
"
τοις
, ...
πρωτοις των
ΙΙ
υστερον
,
επιγινομενων.
Ι sometimes by sleep, sometimes by death, and by the changes that
2. η τΕς αν ΕπΕστευσεν μη rfj πεlΡq, δεδιδαγμένος, Εν όμοιομεΡει και take place at each stage of life. And the later conditions do not
αδ ιαπλάστψ ι τψ σπέρματι roaovrwv και rYjALKOVrwv αποκεισθαι exhibit themselves clearly ίη the first stages of its development.
δυνάμεωνt 2 η roaavrYJv 3 Επισυνισταμένων και πηγνυμένων σγκων 2. Who would have believed, if he had not been taught by
~
οια
Φ \ , ,
οραν, οστεων
Φ \ "
ημι και νευρων και χονορων J ετι
\, ~ ,ι δ\ ,..
ε μυων και
\ experience, that ίη undifferentiated and formless semen lay the
σαρκων και σπλάγχνων και των λοιπων του σώματος μερων; ούτε origin of such numerous and vital faculties or of so great a variety
γαρ Εν ύγροις έτι τοις σπέρμασι rovrwv έστιν [δειν ούδεν ούτε μην of substances which could unite and form a solid whole, Ι mean
τοις νηπΕοις έμΦαΕνεταΕ τι των τοις τελεΕοις Επιγινομένων η rfj των bones, nerνes, and gristle as well as muscle, flesh, entrails, and
τελεΕων ijALKlq, τα των παρηβηκότων η rovroLS" τα των γεγηρα­ the other parts of the body? For it is impossible to see any of
κότων. 3. αλλα δη καΕτοι των εΙρημένων τινων μεν ούδ'4 Όλως these things ίη the semen while it is stillliquid; nor do any of the
τινων
.. δ \,
~,.. Φ'
ε αμυορως εμ αινοντων την
Φ λ ,θ
υσικην ακο ου ιαν και τας ΤΏ
\ \, ' ,\ ..
...., , , " ., peculiar features of those who have matured make their appear-
Φυσει'
των αν ρωπων
θ'
επιγινομενας
β λ\"
μετα ο ας, ομως ισασιv οσοι
ance ίη children, or the features of adults ίη those who have just
16. α Homer, Iliαd 14. 231, 16. 672, 682, Odyssey 13. 79-80 matured, or the features ofthe aged ίη adults. 3. But even though
16. 4 ήρεμ'ας Αι: έρημ'ας Α 5 διακ6πτεται Α: corr. pc some of the developments mentioned exhibit not at all, or some
17. ι διαπλάστψ Α: corr. η m. al. 2 post δυνάμεων lacunam indicavit
only faintly, the natural sequence of human growth and the
Schwartz supplens άρχην 3 τοσαύτην Wilamowitz, Schwartz: των ταύτη ν
Α: των ταύτυ Αι 4 ούδ' Rhosus: ούΟ' Α transformations which affect man's nature, still anyone who is not
8268084 Κ
130 ATHENAGORAS 17·3 18.2 DE RESURRECTIONE 131

, '
μη τυ Φλ ωττουσιν υπο κακιας η . , ' " pq,
• θ'
υμιας "
περι την τουτων κρισιν, , , blinded by eνil or indolence ίη assessing these matters knows that
όη δει πραπον μεν γενέσθαι T<VV σπερμάτων καταβολήν, διαρθρω­ first there must be the sowing of the seeds; then, when these are
θέντων δε τούτων καθ' εκαστον μέρος και μ6ριον και προελθ6ν- articulated ίη their νarious parts and members and the embryos
'Φ~ ~ θ' ,Ι \ t \, ι are brought forth into the light, there ensues the g:rQ'Y!~ of the
των εις ως των κυη εντων επιγινεται μεν η κατα την πρωτην
first stage of life and the. maturing wh~ch attends it; then, when
ήλικίαν αύξησις if τε κατ' αύξησιν τελείωσις, τελειωθέντων δε niaturation is complete, there comes a decline ofthe natiνe powers
"Φ ~Φ
υ εσις των
~δ' l' ,~ ,
υσικων υναμεων μεχρι γηρως, ειτα πεπονηκοτων των
, until old age; and when bodies haνe been worn out, their disso-
σωμάτων ή διάλυσις. 4. ώσπερ σΟν έπι τούτων,S ούτε του σπέρ­ lution takes place.
ματος έγγεγραμμένην έχοντος την των ανθρώπων φυην6 η μορφην 4. Ιη these circumstances, when the semen has imprinted οη it
neither the form ΟΓ shape of men nor the dissolution of life into
ούτε της ζωης την είς τας πρώτας αρχας διάλυσιν, ό των Φυσικως
ι t, , " " '" 'c ,_ _ Φ
its basic constituents, the chain of natural eνents proνides con-
γινομενων ειΡμος παρεχει την πισην τοις ουκ ε~ αυτων των αι-
firmation of things unconfirmed by the phenomena themselνes.
,,,
νομενων εχουσι
,
το
,
πιστον,
λ' ~λλ ον ο λ'
πο υ μα
~
ογος εκ της
•
Φ υσικης
~ , Still more so does reason, ίη seeking the truth οη the basis ofwhat
ακολουθίας ανιχνεύων την dλήθειαν πιστουται την ανάστασιν, naturally follows, confirm the resurrection, since it is more trust-
,
ασΦ α λ' "'" ~,
εστερος ων και κρειττων της πειΡας προς πιστωσιν α'λη θ ειας. " ' worthy and more secure than experience ίη proνiding confirma-
tion of truth.

18. Των πρψην ήμιν είς έξέτασιν προτεθέντων λ6γων και την 18. ΑΗ of the arguments preνiously brought forward for our
inνestigation to confirm the resurrection are of the same kind,
ανάστασιν πιστουμένων πάντες μέν είσιν όμογενεις, ώς έκ της
since they spring from the same basic idea; for their principle is
αύτης Φύντες αρχηι:;· αρχη γαρ αύτοις ή των πρώτων ανθρώπων έκ the origin of the first men by creation. Some arguments gain their
δημιουργίας γένεσις· αλλ' οί μεν έξ αύτης κρατύνονται της πρώτης force from the first principle itself out of which they arise; others
αρχης έξ ήσπερ έΦυσαν, οί δε παρεπ6μενοι Tfj τε Φύσει και Τψ βίψ gain confirmation from God's proνidence I οη our behalf, by
των ανθρώπων έκ της του θεου περι ήμας προνοίας λαμβάνουσιν following out the inνestigation of the nature and way of life of
men. For the reason ίη accordance with which and because of
την πίσην· ή μεν γαρ αίτία, καθ' ~ν και δι' ~ν γεγ6νασιν άνθρωποι,
which men were created, when considered along with the inνesti­
συνεζευγμένη Tfj Φύσει των ανθρώπων έκ δημιουργίας έχει την gation of the nature of men, 2 has its force from the fact of creation;
ίσχ ύν , ό δε της δικαιοσύνης λ6γος, καθ' ον κρίνει θεος τοΌς εΟ η the argument from justice, according to which God judges men
~
κα κως ,
β εβ ιωκοτας αν
'θ' ~,
ρωπους, εκ του •
τουτων τεΛους' Ι Φ'
υονται μεν '\ , who haνe liνed well or ίΙΙ, has its force from the inνestigation of
γαρ έκειθεν, ήρτηνται δε μαλλον της προνοίας. 2. δεδειγμένων δε their end; for it is from this inνestigation that such arguments
ήμιν των πρώτων ώς ol6v τε, καλως αν έχοι και δια των ύστέρων
arise, though they depend particularly οη the doctrine of ΡΓΟ­
νidence.
δ ει~αι
AC '
το ,
προκειμενον, '
λ εγω δ'ε δ'
ια ~ ο'Φ ει λ'
της ~
ομενης εκαστψ των .,
2. Now that we haνe brought forward eνidence as well as we
ανθρώπων κατα δικαίαν κρίσιν ημης η δίκης και του κατα τον can for the primary arguments, it would be well to demonstrate
'θ'
αν ρωπινον ,
β ιον '\
τεΛους, '~δ ε
αυτων " τουτων C
ΠPOTα~αι , '
τον ,
κατα our thesis also by the secondary arguments, Ι mean, through a
Φ, " ,~,
υσιν ηγουμενον και πρωτον γε
δ θ ,~
ιασκεψασ αι τον περι της κρισεως
'./. ' , consideration of the reward or punishment due to each man ίη
λ6γον, τοσουτον μ6νον ύπειπ6ντας Φροντίδι της προσηκούσης τοις
accordance with just judgement and of the end that befits human
life;3 and of these arguments it would be well to place ίη the first
προκειμένοις αρχης και τάξεως όη δει τοΌς ποιητην τον θεον τουδε rank the one which naturally precedes and to inνestigate first our
~ δ , ~,
του παντος παρα εςαμενους τυ τουτου
c' σο
Φ'
ι~ και
δ ,
ικαιοσυνυ την
' , teaching concerning the judgement, presupposing οηlΥ this to
~
των ,.,
'θ'
γενομενων απαντων αναη εναι Φλ'
υ ακην τε και προνοιαν, " ει ., clarify the point of departure and order which suit the issues
before us: (α) that those who accept God as Maker of our uni-
17. 5 TOVTW Α: corr. Schwartz 6 Φυην Wilamowitz (cf. 18. 5) : ζωην Α νerse must ascribe to his wisdom and justice a concern to guard
18. ι Tέλo~~ ΑΙ: τε Α 18. ι Cf. 14. 5 above. 2 Cf. 12-17 above. 3 Cf. 14.5 above.
132 ATHENAGORAS 18.2 18·5 DERESURRECTIONE 133

γε ταις Ιδίαις άρχαις παραμένειν έθέλοιεν, ταυτα δε περt τούτων and proνide for all created things-at least if they want to be
φρονουντας μηδεν ~γεισθαι μήτε των κατα yfjv μήτε των κατ consistent with their own first principles-and (b) that those who
ουρανον , ' "ανεπιτροπευτον ~')'
μηο απρονοητον, α'λλ'"
επι παν - 'φ ανες
α \ hold these opinions about these matters must think of nothing
either οη earth or ίη heaνen as unattended to or unproνided for,
Ι ι \ φ Ι Ι \ ΑΥ '" Ι Ι
ομοιως και αινομενον μικρον τε και μει,::>ον οιηκουσαν γινωσκειν
but must recognize that the Maker's care extends to eνerything·,
T~ν παρα του ποιήσαντος έπιμέλειαν. 3. δειται γαρ πάντα τα the inνisible as well as the νisible, the small and the great. 3. For
γεν6μενα Tfjso παρα του ποιήσαντος έπιμελείας, Ιδίως δε έκαστον all created things need the care of their Maker, each one ίη its
κα θ (\ ' ιφ \
ιφ \ (\
,ι
ο πε υκεν και προς ο πε υκεν' αχρειου
2 \ l'
γαρ οιμαι
φ λ ι
ι οημιας
own way, ίη accordance with its own nature and its own end.
\ \ Ι 3 '" Α ~ 4'\ \ 'φ Ι Ι φ ι But Ι think that it would be a task of useless ostentation to pro-
το κατα γενη οιαιΡειν νυν η το προσ ορον εκασττι υσει κατα-
pose now to diνide up the νarious species or draw up a catalogue
λέγειν έθέλειν. 4. ό γε μ~ν άνθρωπος, περt οδ νυν πρ6κειται λέγειν, of what is suitable for each kind.
Ι
ως μεν ενοεης οειται τρο
\, <:' \ '" Α φ~
ης, ως οε
Ι '" \ θ \
νητος οιαοοχης, ως οε
<:' '" ~ Ι <:' \ λ
ογικος
\ 4. Since man, howeνer, the subject of this treatise, is a needy
"'ι
οικης.
''''\
~ ι 'θ Ι , 'φι
ει οε των ειΡημενων εκαστον εσην αν ρωπφ κατα υσιν και
., " \ creature, he requires food; since he is mortal, he requires a
'" Α
οειται μεν
\
τρο φ~
ης '" \ \
οια την Υ ι
,::>ωην, '" Α
οειται οε
'" \ Λ
οιαοοχης
'" '"
οια
'" \
την
\ ~
του
succession of offspring; since he is rational, he requires justice.
Each ofthe things mentioned is natural to man: he needs nourish-
γένους διαμονήν, δειται δε δίκης δια τ0 5 TfjS' τροφfjς Kat TfjS' DtaDoxfjS'
" 'ι '" ι ~ φ~ \ '" '" '" '" ,\ \ ment for the sake of life, and needs a succession of offspring for the
εννομον, αναγκη οηπου, της τρο ης και της οιαοοχης επι το συν-
sake of the permanence of his species, and needs justice for the
αμ φ ι
οτερον
φ
ερομενης,
ι ~
, \ τουτο
επι
6 φι θ
ερεσ αι και την οικην,
λ Ι "'\
εγω οε
\ \ "" lawful regulation of nourishment and the succession of offspring;
συναμ φ οτερον
, \,
τον εκ
.1.
ψυχης
'"
και
\ Ι
σωματος
" θ
αν ρωπον, και
\ τον
\ consequently it is surely necessary, since nourishment and the
ΤΟI.ουτον άνθρωπον γίνεσθαι πάντων των πεπραγμένων ύπ6δικον τήν succession of offspring haνe to do with a composite creature, that
τε έπt τούτοις δ έχεσθαι Tιμ~ν η τιμωρίαν. 5. εΙ δε κατα του
justice also has to do with this creature, Ι mean man, the com-
posite ofsoul and body; and it is necessary that such a man should
συναμ φ οτερου
ι φ Ι \ , \ Α' Ι ",ι Ι '" ,
ερει την επι τοις ειΡγασμενοις σικην η οικαια
be held accountable for all his deeds and receiνe reward and
, \ Ι \ .1. \ ι '" Α , θ \"
κρισις και μητε την ψυχην μονην σει κομισασ αι τα επιχειΡα punishment because of them. 5. Just judgement requites the
των μετα του σdJματος εΙργασμένων (άπpoσπαθ~ς γαρ αύτη καθ' composite creature for his deeds. The soul alone should not
~
εαυτην
\
των
......
περι
\,
τας σωμαηκας
\ ι~
ηοονας
\
η
't'
τρο
φ'
ας και
\ θ
εραπειας
ι receiνe the wages for deeds done ίη conjunction with the body
(for the soul as soul is free from passions and untouched by the
γινομένων πλημμελημάτων) μήτε το σωμα μ6νον (άκριτον γαρ
'" θ' εαυτο
Ι \, \ δ' Ι '" \ , , " θ ) \ faults which arise ίη connection with bodily pleasures or with food
τουτο κα νομου και ικης, ο οε εκ τουτων αν ρωπος την
'φ' t Ι _, , f _ ~, , ,... ~\ ιΙ
and nurture);4 nor should the body alone be requited (for the body
ε εκαστφ των ειΡγασμενων αυτφ οεχεται κρισιν, τουτο οε ουτε as body cannot make assessment of law and justice) ; it is man, the
Ιδ Υ , Ι, β Α
κατα την ε την ,::>ωην ευρισκει συμ αινον ο
Ιλ
'
ογος
\ \ (ου' γαρ
\ σφ,::>εται
'Υ
combination ofboth, who receiνesjudgement for each ofhis deeds.
το
\
κατ
"ξΙ
α ιαν
,~
εν τφ παΡονη
Ι βι
ιφ
'" \
οια
\
το πο
λλ \ \ 'θ Ι
ους μεν α εους και
\ Our inquiry finds that this does not happen ίη our lifetime; for
ίη this present life just requital is not maintained, since many
πασαν άνομίαν Kat κακίαν έπιτηδεύοντας μέχρι τελευτfjς διατελειν
atheists and doers of eνery kind of lawlessness and eνil liνe out
κακων άπειΡάτους Kat τούναντίον τους κατα πασαν άpεT~ν έξητασ- their liνes without suffering any hardship, whereas those who
Ι
μενον τον εαυτων
\ Ι '" β' , '"
ιον επιοει
ξ Ι "'" ,
αμενους εν οουναις ,::>ην, εν επηρειαις, εν
Υ"'" , ,
haνe shown their behaνiour to be an exercise ίη eνery kind of
συκο φ ανηαις,
' ,,
αικιαις τε και παντοιαις κακοπα
\, θ'
ειαις
) ουτε
""'\σε μετα
\ νirtue liνe liνes full of distress, abuse, calumny, suffering, and all
θ ανατονι (''''\
ουοε
\" "\
γαρ εσην εη το συναμ
φι
οτερον χωρι,::>ομενης
Υ ι \
μεν
'"
της
kinds of misery. Nor does it happen after our death; for the com-
.Ι. '" ' \ ~ Ι '" Ι '" \ \ , Λ Λ Ι
ψυχης απο του σωματος, σκεοαννυμενου οε και αυτου του σωματος
posite creature ηο longer exists when the soul is separated from
, 'Α '" \ '" \ "εη the body and when the body itself is again dispersed among the
εις εκεινα παΙλ ιν ε'ξ ων συνε φ ορη'θη και μηοεν Ι
σφ,::>οντος r της '"
elements from which it came and ηο longer preserνes anything
of its preνious form or shape, stillless any memory of its actions.
18. :Ζ dXPftov Stephanus: & χρή' ού Α 3 κατα γένη Schwartz: κaτάγειν Α
4 διαιΡειν νυν: διερινυν Α: διαιΡει νυν Α ι 5 το add. Αι 6 τουτον Α:
corr. Stephanus 18. 4 Cf. 21. 8 below.
134 ATHENAGORAS 18·5 19.4 DE RESURRECTIONE 135

προτ'ρας φυης 7} μοΡφης, η πού γε την μνήμην των πεπραγμ'νων), What follows is clear to everyone: that this corruptible and
εϋδηλον παντι το λειπ6μενον, ση δει κατα τον άπ6στολον το dispersible body must, according to the apostle, put οη incor-
\ τουτο
φθ αρτον .. \ εν
και\ σκε δ αστον 'δ' ' α ινα
υσασ θαι α'φθαρσιαν, tf Υ
':;,ψο- ruptibility, so that, when the dead are revivified through the
ποιηθ'ντων ες άναστάσεως των νεκρωθ'ντων και πάλιν ένωθ'ντων resurrection and what has been separated ΟΓ entirely dissolved is
των κεχωρισμ'νων 7} και πάνη] διαλελυμ'νων, έκαστος κομίσηται reunited, each may receive his just recompense for what he did ίη
δικαίως α δια του σώματος €πpαςεν είτε άγαθα είτε KaKd. b the body, whether good ΟΓ evil.

19. With those who recognize providence and accept the same
19. Προς μεν σΟν τσυς όμολογουντας την πρ6νοιαν και τας αύτας first principles as we do, and then for some strange reason repudiate
ήμιν παραδεςαμ'νους άρχάς, ElTa των οΙκείων ύποθ'σεων ούκ οlδ' their own presuppositions, a man could use arguments such as
όπως εκπίπτοντας, τοιούτοις χρήσαιτ' αν ης λ6γοις και πολλψ these and enlarge οη them should he desire to amplify what
πλείοσι τούτων, εί γε πλατύνειν εθ'λοι τα συντ6μως και κατ' has been said here ίη a brief and summary form. 2. With those
επιδρομην εΙρημ'να. 2. προς δ' γε τσυς περι των πρώτων δια- who disagree οη the fundamentals perhaps it would be well to
φ ερομενους ισως αν ,
εχοι κα λως
'1\" "
. . ετεραν
" t
υπΌ εσ θ αι προ\
θ' '
τουτων "
αρχην, lay down another principle anterior to them, by raising doubts
συνδιαπορουντας αύτοις περι ών δοςάζουσιν και τοιαυτα συνδια­ about their opinions and examining along with them such
σκεπτομ'νους' αρά γε πάνη] καθάπας ή των άνθρώπων παρωπται questions as these: Is then human existence and all of life of ηο
Υ'
':;,ωη "
και συμπας οt β'ιος, Υ 'φ ος
':;,0 δ'
ε ης βα θ'
υς κατακεχυται, ..
της account whatsoever? Has deep darkness been poured out upon
γης άγνοίq. και σιγfj κρύπτων αύτούς τε τους άνθρώπους και τας the earth, covering both men and their deeds ίη ignorance and
,
τουτων πρα'ς εις, η πο λ υ τουτων ασ
'φαλ''"
εστερον το ' , , δ ο ς' Υ
α':;,ειν οη
tf
τοις
.... silence? Or is it not much sounder to think that the Maker stands
f
εαυτου
_ Ι
ποιημασιν
'φι
ε εστηκεν
~,
ο ποιησας,
,
παντων των
_ t
οπωσουν
-
over his creatures as a guardian over all that is or will be and a
"
οντων "ι
η '
γινομενων " , , 1 . . "εργων
εψορος, τε και'β ου λ'
ευματων ,
κριτης. judge ofboth our deeds and schemes. 3. For ifthere is never to be
3. ει μεν γαρ μηδεμία μηδαμσυ των άνθρώποις πεπραγμ'νων ajudgement upon the deeds ofmen, then men will have ηο higher
γίνοιτο κρίσις, ούδεν έςουσι πλειον των άλ6γων ανθρωποι' μαλλον destiny than that ofirrational beasts; or rather, they will fare more
δε κάκείνων πράςουσιν άθλιώτερον οί τα πάθη δουλαγωγουντες miserably than these ίη subordinating the passions and having
και
,φ 'Υ
ρονη':;,οντες ευσε
,
'β ειας και δ ικαιοσυνης ,
'"...."λλ'....
η της α ης αρετης, ο
t a concern for piety, justice, and every other virtue. Then the life
δ ε' κτηνω'δ"
ης η θ ηριω
'δ ης β'" "
ιος αριστος, αρετη δ'ε ανοητος,
" δ'ικης δ'ε of beasts and wild animals is best, virtue is silly, the threat of
άπειλη γ'λως πλατύς, το δε πασαν θεραπεύειν ήδoVΗν άγαθων το
judgement a huge joke, the cherishing of every pleasure the greatest
μ'γιστον, δ6γμα δε κοινον τούτων άπάντων και ν6μος εΙς το τοις
good, and the common doctrine and single law of all such men
, ' , λ'αγνοις φ ι'λ ον "φ αγωμεν [δ ε'] 2 και" πιωμεν, αυριον
will be that dear to the licentious and abandoned: 'Let us eat and
ακο λ αστοις και ι "
, , θ' "α....' , β' '\ 'δ' 'δ' , drink, for tomorrow we die.' F ΟΓ the end of such a way of life
γαρ απΌ νησκομεν . του γαρ τοιουτου ιου τεΛος ου ε η ονη κατα
according to some is not even pleasure I but complete insensibility.2
ηνας, άλλ' άναισθησία παντελής. 4. εΙ δε έση ης τψ ποιήσανη
, 'θ ' .. 'δ' , φ , , 'Υ' .... 4. If the Maker of men has any concern for his own creatures,
τους αν ρωπους των ι ιων ποιηματων ροντις και σψ':;,εται που των
l' β β
., t δ .... 3" " , , ' , and ifjustjudgement ofthose who have lived well ΟΓ ίΙΙ is upheld,
ευ η κακως ε ιωμενων η ικαια κρισις, ητοι κατα τον παροντα
either this will be so ίη our present life when we are still alive and

18. α Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 53 b Cf. 2 Cor. 5: 10 19. ι

The teaching of Epicurus (Ερ. 3. 128).
19. α 1 Cor. 15: 32 (cf. Isa. 22: 13) 2 Αreference to Hegesias who regarded death-that is, insensibility (cf.
Epicurus, Ερ. 1. 8 Ι )-as more desirable than life for the wise man (Diogenes
19. ι η add. ΑΙ 2 δΕ Α: om. c. 3 δικaΙa KpΙσ,~ Schwartz (cf. 19· 5) : Laertius, 2. 86, 93-5; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1. 83-4; Epiphanius, Ραπ. 3. 2. 9)
δ,άKp,σ,~ Α since pain is bound to outweigh pleasure.
136 ATHENAGORAS 19. 4 20·3 DE RESURRECTIONE 137
β ι
ιον
4 γ ι
':,ων'Των
εη 'Των κα'Τ αρετην η
" - '" '1\ Ι
κακιαν
β β
ε ιωκο'Των
, .,
η
,
με'Τα follow νirtue or eνil or else after death when we are ίη a state of
θάνα'Τον έν χωρισμψ και διαλvσει 'TVΎxαν6ν'Tων. αλλα κα'Τ 5. separation and dissolution. 5. But it is impossible to find just
ούδ''ΤΕρον 'Των είρημ'νων εύρειν δυνα'Τ()ν σψζομ'νην 'Την δικαΕαν judgement upheld ίη either of the cases mentioned. For neither
ι
κρισιν' ου'Τε γαρ οι σπου
,ι " δ αιοι
~ " γ'
κα'Τα 'Την παρουσαν ':,ωην
Φ' -
ερον'Ται τα
, do earnest men gain the rewards of νirtue ίη this present life nor
-, -, ι
της αρετης επιχειΡα
'"
ουτε μην οι
'Φ
αυ
-λ
οι
, -
τα 'Της κακιας.
ι 6. παριημι
ι wicked men the wages of νice. 6. Ι pass oνer discussion of the
γαρ λ'γειν οη σψζομ'νης τfjς Φύσεως έν
, "
nνυν έσμ'ν, ούδ' Τι θνητη
,
fact that while the nature which we now haνe endures, mankind
cannot eνen bear a judgement inflicted for misdeeds which would
Φ υσις
' ~.Ι
ενεγκειν οια τε την συμμετρον
δΙ λ" "β
ικην π ειονων η αρυ'Τερων
" be proportionate to their great number and seriousness. 7. For
Φ ερομενην π ημμε ηματων. 7. ο 'Τε γαρ μυριους επι μυριοις
Ι 5 λ λ' 'Ι, Ι Ι

the pirate, prince, or tyrant who unjustly slays thousands οη

ανελων αδΕκως λπστης 7} δυνάστης 7} τύραννος ούκ αν ένι θανάτψ
thousands could not by his one death serνe sentence for his
λύσει εν την έπι τούτοις δΕκην ο τε μηδεν περι θεου δοξάζων αληθ'ς,
"βρει δ'ε Ι
crimes. And he who has ηο true νiew of God but spends his life
υ πασπ και'βλ ασ Φ ημιq,
Ι γ-'
συ':,ων και -"
παρορων μεν τα θ εια,
~
' δ" 'βρισας
Ι δ' Λδ ας ~
indulging eνery kind of wantonness and blasphemy, pays ηο
κατα λ υων ε νομους, υ ε παι ομου
t - ,
και γυναικας, κατα-

'.1. δ' 'λ 'δ Ι , , δ' ,ι ,-"

attention to religion, breaks laws, νiolates boys as well as women,
σκαψας ε πο εις α ικως, εμπρησας ε οικους μετα των ενοικουντων
unjustly destroys cities, and burns houses with their dwellers,
'δ'
και πωσας χωραν και τουτοις συνα Φ ανισας
Ι , " δ'
ημους και'λ'
αους η
'1\ και,
deνastates land, and destroys ίη the process inhabitants, peoples,
σύμπαν εθνος, πως αν έν Φθαρτψ τψ σώμαη προς 'Την τούτοις
or eνen a whole race-how could he offer sufficient recompense
,
συμμετρον
"δΙικην, προλ αμβ'
αρκεσειεν ανοντος του
θ'
ανατου το κατ
- , ,
ίη this corruptible body to serνe a sentence which would fit his
αξΕαν και μηδε προς εν 'Τι των είργασμ'νων τfjς θνητfjς έξαρκούσης crimes? Death would preνent sufficient expiation, and his mortal
'
Φ υσεως; ουτ '" 'i'
ουν " την παρουσαν
κατα - γ" η κατ "ξΙ
':,ωην α ιαν δ εικνυται
Ι
nature would not suffice to blot out eνen one single crime. Α
κρΕσις ούτε μετα θάνατον. judgement adequate to what is merited cannot be found either ίη
this present life or after death.
20 • "Ητοι γαρ παντε λης " εση σβ εσις , της .. γ ....
':,ωης '
ο'θ ανατος συν-

διαλυομ'νης τψ σώμαη τfjς ψυχfjς και συνδιαΦθειΡομ'νης, 7} μ'νει 20. For either death is a complete extinction oflife, with the soul
μεν η ψυχη κα θ"
, '.1. ' '''λ
εαυτην "δ αστος α'δ ια'Φθ ορος,
α υτος ασκε Φθ ειΡεται
Ι undergoing dissolution and decay along with the body, or the
δε και διαλύεται 'Το σωμα, ούδεμΕαν έη σψζον οϋτε μνήμην των soul as such remains indissoluble, undissipated, and incorruptible,
,
ειΡγασμενων
,
ου'Τ
'" ,ι θ...."
αισ ησιν 'Των επ
,....
αυτΥΙ πα
θ'
ηματων. 2. β
σ εν-
whereas the body undergoes decay and dissolution, with ηο
νυμ'νης μεν γαρ παντελως τfjς των ανθρώπων ζωfjς, ούδεμΕα
further memory of what it has done or consciousness of what it
Φ ανησεται
' των αν θ'.. , 'γ'
ρωπων ου ':,ωντων Φρονης,
Ι ,....
ου των κατ " αρετην
'"
η
has experienced because of the soul. 2. If human life is entirely
Ι β εβ ιωκο'Των , [η'] 1 κρισις,
ι, ,- extinguished, there will be ηο account taken of men who are not
κακιαν επεισκυκλη θ'
ησεται δ'
ε πα'λ ιν τα 'Της
aliνe, ηο judgement passed οη those who haνe liνed νirtuously or
αν6μου ζωfjς και των ταύτΥΙ συνεπομ'νων ατ6πων 'Το σμfjνος τ6 'Τε
νiciously. There will pile up again the practices of a lawless life,
-, Ι
της ανομιας ταυτης κε Φ α'λ αιον, α'θ'
εο'Της. 2 , 3. ει' δ'
ε Φθ ειροιτο
Ι " το
μεν
the swarm of ills that follow such a life, and the summit of such
σωμα και χωροΕη προς το συγγενες 'Των λελυμ'νων εκαστον, μ'νοι
, ως "{: χωραν
, , lawlessness-a tlleism.
δ Ε' η'.1. ' κα θ" εαυτην
ψυχη '''Φθ
α αρτος, ου'δ'"
ουτως ε~ει η
3. If the body decays and each part which undergoes dis-
κατ' αύτfjς κρΕσις, μη προσοvσης δικαιοσύνης· έπει μηδε θεμιτον
solution returns to its appropriate element, whereas the soul as
,
υπΌ
λ
αμ
β'
ανειν εκ
'θ....
εου και
, παρα
'θ
εου
- Ι
γινεσ
θ
αι
Ι
ηνα
Ι
κρισιν,
~,
:1 μη
such remains incorruptible, not eνen then will a judgement upon
19. 4 post βίον
lacunam indicaνit Wilamowitz supplens ex. gr. εσται
the soul take place, sincejustice would be absent; for it is not right
5 Φερομένων Α: corr. Wilamowitz to assume that any judgement will be exercised by God or issue
20. ι ή seclusit Schwartz 2 άθε6Τ1)Τος Α: corr. pc from God if justice is absent; and justice is absent if the doer of
 138 ATHENAGORAS 20·3 21·4 DE RESURRECTIONE 139
πρόσεση T<~ otKaιov. ού πρόσεση οε Tfj KptaEL το OtKaLOV μη righteousness or unrighteousness does not perdure; and the one
σψζομένου του οιαπραξαμένου την οικαιοσvνην η την dνομtαν' ό who ίη his lifetime did each of the deeds that are judged was man
\
γαρ ~ t"
οιαπρα",αμενος εκαστον
tI
των
-
κατα
\,
τον β'ιον ε'Φ' οις
'Ι' ηt κρισις,
, -not soul as such. Ιn short, this doctrine is worth nothing for the
>Ι θ
αν ρωπος ην, ου ψυχη κα
1" .1. ' θ' εαυτην.
t Ι ~"
το οε συμπαν ειπειν, ο
, '~ι λ ογος
ι maintenance of justice.
l' "'~, Φ λ't, ,~,
ουτος επ ουοενος v α", ει το οικαιον.
21. Ιn the rewarding of virtuous acts the body will clearly be
wronged if it participates with the soul in the labours of its
21. Κατορθωμάτων τε γαρ τιμωμένων, dοικηθήσεται το σωμα
earnest striving but does not participate in the reward for such
σαφως Εκ του κοινωνησαι μεν Tfj ιpvxfj των Επι τοις σπουοαζομένοις
acts; it will be wronged if the soul has frequently gained forgive-
πόνων, μη κοινωνησαι οε της Επι τοις κατορθωθεισι ημης, και ness for some of its misdeeds in consideration of the body's need
, ,
συγγνωμης μεν τυχχανειν 170λλ ακις την ψυχην επι ηνων π λ ημ- , ' '.1.'"
and want, but the body itself is deprived of participation in the
μελημάτων οια την του σώματος €νOειάν τε και xPEtav, Εκπtπτειν reward for virtuous acts for the sake of which it endured the
οε αύτο το σωμα της Επι τοις κατορθωθεισι κοινωνtας, ύπερ dJv labours of this life.
τους Εν Tfj {wfj συνοιήνεγκεν πόνους. 2. και μην και πλημμελη- 2. Moreover, when misdeeds are judged, justice is not upheld
, " ,r - .1. - ,~ .,
ματων κρινομενων ου σψ~εTαι TTJ ψυχτι το οικαιον, ει γε μονη
,
in the case of the soul if it alone pays the penalty for the misdeeds
TtVOL OtKYjV ύπερ dJv Ενοχλουντος του σώματος και προς τας οίκεtας it committed when the body a:ffiicted it and drew it into the orbit
όρέξεις η κινήσεις ελκοντος Επλημμέλησεν ποτε μεν κατα συν- of its own desires and impulses, sometimes carrying it off by
αρπαγην και'λ' \~, κατα ηνα β ιαιοτεραν ο'λ'
κ οπην, ποτε οε κην, ΑΙVΙOTε , , , -"\ \ surprise and deceit, sometimes dragging it along by force, and at
οε κατα συνορομην Εν χάριτος μέρει και θεραπεtας της TOVTOV other times finding it a compliant attendant, indulging and pam-
συστασεως. , 3. η., -
'>I~
πως ουκ ι κρινεσ
αοικον την ψυχην 'θαι κα θ' εαυτην
t , '.1. pering the body's frame. 3. Or how can the charge of injustice be
ι
υπερ ων ουο
, 1" ,~, ι
ηνηνουν εχει
-" "t -
κατα την εαυτης
φ' ,,'
υσιν ουκ ορε", ιν ου
i: ' avoided if the soul as soul is judged for things to which its nature
ι
κινησιν ,.
ουχ Ι
ορμην, 'Ι'
οιον 1.,η β'ιας η'" πλ εονε",t" ιας ['~
λ αγνειας 1]1 και'
αοικιας
does not at all impel, move, or drive it, such as lust, violence, or
των Επι τοvτοις dοικημάτων; 4. εί γαρ τα πλειστα των τοιοvτων greed, and the evils that attend them? 4. The majority of such
γtνεται κακων E/-C του μη κατακρατειν τους dνθΡώποvς των Εν­ evils arise from men not restraining the passions that a:ffiict them;
and such a:ffiictions arise from the need and want ofthe body and
οχλοvντων παθων, Ενοχλουνται οε ύπο της του σώματος Ενδεtας
, ι ,~ ,~ ~~, θ ' (τουτων
Ι \ the care and concern exercised οη its behalf; for it is because of
και χρειας και της περι τουτο σπουοης και εραπειας γαρ
this that all possessions are acquired and, more importantly, are
ενεκεν πασα Τι κτησις και προ ταvτης Τι χρησις, €η οε γάμος και όσαι
\ Ι β' ,t, ''Ι' , , CI θ ~ ι λ λι used; for this reason, moreover, there is marriage and all of life's
κατα τον ιον πρα",εις, εν οις και περι α εωρειται το τε π ημμε ες
, Ι, -) ~ ~, '1' θ ~ ,~ , activities. Ιη these areas and in the circumstances connected with
και το μη τοιουτον , που οικαιον εν οις πρωτοπα ει το σωμα και
them \vhat is blameworthy or not comes to light. Where then is
, ψυχην
την .1. '''λ
ε κει προς συμπα'θ ειαν και κοινωνιαν
'~'φ'
των ε ' ~
α κινειται 2 ' " justice if the soul alone is judged, when it is the body which first
πράξεων, αύτην KptVEaOat μόνην, και τας μεν όρέξεις και τας experiences passions and then draws the soul to participate ίη
t ~ Ι
ηοονας, εη
., ~ \ Φ'β
οε ο ους και λ'
υπας, ε'Φ' ων
l' -
παν το, μη\μετριον
' "
υπο- ,
them and share the deeds to which the body is driven? Where is
Οικον, dπο του σώματος €Xειν την KtVYjaLV, τας οε Εκ TOVTWV justice if the desires and pleasures, as well as the fears and griefs,
ι ι "',.... Ι " \ \ ,ι, \
αμαρηας και τας επι τοις ημαρτημενοις ημωριας επι την ψυχην
f
ίη which all that is immoderate deserves blame, arise from the
φ ερεσ
ι θ ' \ , ~, , Ι" ι
αι μονην την μητε οεομενην τοιουτου ηνος μητε ορεγομενην body, and yet the sins which result and the punishments that
μητε
, φβ Ι .,'
ο ουμενην η πασχουσαν η τοιουτον κα
, ~ θ'.' l'
εαυτην οιον πασχειν
,
follow are visited upon the soul alone, which as such needs or
21. ι άδικ{α> Α: η άδικ{α> Αι: seclusit Wilamowitz 2 κινΕίται Schwartz: desires none of these things and fears or is affected by nothing of
δΕίται Α the kind that affects man as man?
 140 ATHENAGORAS 21·4 22.5 DE RESURRECTIONE 141

πεψυκεν αν θρωπος; 5. α'λλ α\ καν

'''/'' '" μη\μονου
JI , ....,
του '
'θρωπου
σωματος, αν 5. Even if we grant that the passions characterize not simply
~ \ θ.... 'θ λ ' , θ.... ~ \ \ , 'ξ'
οε ωμεν ειναι τα πα η, εγοντες ορ ως οια το μιαν ε αμ οτερων
l' \ Φ , the body, but man as such, and are right ίη saying so because
ElvaL τ,ην τούτου ζωήν, ού δήπου γε και Tfj ΨVxυ ταυτα προσήκειν man's life is a unity comprised of soul and body, nevertheless we
,,/.....!. t ,
Ψ,lσομεν, οποταν κα αρως την ιοιαν αυτης επισκοπωμεν
θ....
υσιν.
\ ,~ , ,...., .. Φ , shall not say that the passions belong to the soul as soul when we
6 '
. ει γαρ πασης κα θ' ξ \,
Φ...., ,~, θ'
απα τρο ης εστιν ανενοεης, ουκ αν ορεχ ειη
,,\, examine its own proper nature with clarity. 6. For if it requires
ηο food at all, it could never reach out for what it does not need
ΠOT~ τούτων 6JIJ ούδαμως δειται προς το εΙναι, ούδ'3 αν όρμήσειεν
επι
" τι τουτων
, οις ~, οtιλως χρησ θαι πεψυκεν· α'λλ"~'
l' μηο .. ''/'' ουο αν λ υπη θ'
,\
ειη
to exist, nor could it go ίη search of anything which it was never
meant to use; neither, moreover, could it grieve for lack ofmoney
δι' άπορίαν χρημάτων η κτημάτων ώς oύδ~ν αύτυ προσηκόντων.
,~ \ Φ β - , , or possessions, since they have nothing to do with it. 7. Because it
7· ει, οε
~ \
και
\ Φθορας
....,εστι κρειττων,
, ουοεν ο ειται το παραπαν ως
t

transcends corruption, it fears nothing at all as capable of effect-

,t.... , \ δ'~ , λ
Φθ αρτικον εαυτης· ου γαρ εοοικεν ου ιμον ου νοσον ου ΠΎJpωσιν ου,
' " "
ing its destruction. 1t has ηο fear of hunger, disease, mutilation,
λ ω'βην ου,.... ,,~ "δ \ θ -, ,
πυρ ου σιοηρον, επει μη ε πα ειν εκ τουτων ουναται τι
~ , ,
disfigurement, fire, or sword because it can experience nothing
βλαβ ερον'
μηο
~'4 'λ ' , ( , ,....,
α γεινον, ουχ απτομενων αυτης το παραπαν ουτε
, JI
harmful or painful from tltese things, since nei ther bodies nor
σωμάτων ούτε σωματικων δυνάμεων. 8. εί δ~ το τα πάθη ταις bodily properties affect it at all. 8. Ifthen it is out ofthe question
.1. - 'δ Υ,
ψυχ αις ι ια",οντως προσαπτειν ατοπον, το τας εκ τουτων αμαρτιας
'" '\" ( , for the passions to affect souls as such, then it is surely unjust and
\ , , \ , Ι, \ Ι Φ Ι ''fJ/,' t
unworthy of divine judgement to visit upon souls alone the sins
και τας επι ταυταις τιμωριας επι μονας ερειν τας ψυχας υπερ-
'
βαλλοντως ,,~ θ \........ "ξ ....,
αοικον και της του εου κρισεως ανα ιον. that arise from the passions and the punishments that follow.

22. Again, it is impossible to think of virtue and vice as applic-

22. Προς δ~ τοις είρημ'νοις πως ούκ ατοπον την μ~ν άρετην και την able to the soul as a separate entity; for we know that virtues are
κακίαν μηδ~ νοηθηναι δύνασθαι χωρις έπι της ψυχης (άνθρώπου γαρ the virtues of man just as we also know that the vice which
, '-r , \" tI 1" \, ,
αρετας ειναι γινωσκομεν τας αρετας, ωσπερ ουν και την ταυταις
opposes them does not belong to the soul separated from the body
, , ".1..... , . . . . , 'θ'
αντικειμενην κακιαν ου ψυχης κεχωρισμενης του σωματος και κα
and existing ίη isolation. Is it not absurd, then, tllat reward or
t \ JI ) , ~, " , ,,\ Ι, \ , punishment for these things is to be visited upon tlle soul alone?
εαυτην ουσης , την οε επι τουτοις τιμην η τιμωριαν επι μονης
2. How could a man attribute to the soul alone courage or
Φ ερεσ
' θ αι ..
της .1."
ψυχης; 2. η" .πως
..."
αν τις και" νοησειεν επι ./~. "
, \ ψυχης
constancy, when it has ηο fear of death, wounds, mutilation,
, 'δ'"
μονης αν ρειαν η καρτεριαν, , ουκ εχουσης ου'θ'
'" ανατου Φ'β
ο ον ου , harm, injury, and the sufferings that attend these evils or the
τραύματος ού πηρώσεως ού ζημίας ούκ αίκίας ού των έπι τούτοις distress that arises from them? 3. How could a man attribute to
άλγημάτων η της έκ τούτων κακοπαθείας; 3. πως δ~ έγκράτειαν the soul alone self-control and restraint, when there is ηο impulse
και\ σω Φ' ροσυνην, ου'δ" εμιας ε(λ' ,\,
κουσης αυτην ΕΠΙ θ'
υμιας προς \
, τρο Φην which draws it to food or sexual intercourse or the other pleasures
,\ μι-ξ ιν η" τας
η \ α"λλας η'δ' ονας τε και\τερψεις
, .1. ,~, α"λλ ου ΤινΌς
ουο '" ουτ , and delights and when nothing else troubles it from witllin or
" θ ειι ενοχ
εσω ' λ....
ουντος ουτ "t. θεν ερε
" , ε~ω 'θ'Υ
ι ",οντος ; 4. πως ,
. . δ'ε Φρονησιν, disturbs it from without? 4. How could a man attribute to the
ούχ ύποκειμ'νων αύτυ πρακτ'ων και μη πρακτ'ων ούδ' ι αίρετων και soul alone prudence when it does not have before it the require-
Φ ευκτων,. . μα....λλον δ\ε μη δ εμιας. . ενουσης
" ,...., \
αυτ'[} κινησεως το παραπαν
, ment of doing or not doing certain things or of choosing or
η Φυσικης όρμης έπί τι των πρακτ'ων; 5. που δ~ όλως ψυχαις ή avoiding certain things, but rather has ηο natural movement or
\ α'λλη'λας οικαιοσυνη
προς ~ , προσΦ υης \"η προς\ α"λλο τι των '" ομογενων
( ",,\η impulse at all implanted ίn it for the accomplishment ofsomething
required?
των έτερογενων, ούκ έχούσαις ούτε πόθεν ούτε δι' ών ούτε πως 5. Is there any way at all ίη which justice can be a natural
property of souls, either ίn their relations with each other or with
21. 3 ούδ' Schwartz: ού'Τ' Α 4 μηδ' Wilamowitz: ού'Τ' Α some other being like them or unlike them? They do not have the
22. ι ούδ' Schwartz: ού'Τ' Α: ούθ' Αι resources, the means, or the way to distribute that which is equal
142 ATHENAGORAS 22·5 23·5 DE RESURRECTIONE 143
απονεlμωσι τό κατ' αξlαν η κατ' αναλογlαν ίσον έξTJρημένης της εΙς according to desert or that which is proportionally equal,1
θεό ν τιμης, ουδ' άλλως έχούσαις όpμ~ν η κlνησιν πρός χρησιν except for the honour they giνe to God. Moreoνer they haνe ηο
' ., \ \, "" impulse or moνement toward the use of things suitable to them or
ι'δ ιων η προς αποχην
"λλ'
α Ι
οτριων, της μεν χρησεως -
των ,
κατα Φ'
υσιν
abstention from things alien to them. The use of things naturally
και της αποχης έπι των χρησθαι πεΦυκότων θεωρουμένης, της δε suitable or abstention from the contrary characterize οηlΥ those
ψυχης μήτε δεομένης τινός μήτε χρησθαι τισιν η τινι πεΦυκυlας και creatures whose nature it is to make use of things; but the soul
δια τουτο μηδε 2 της λεγομένης ΙδΙΟΠΡαγlας των μερων έπι της needs nothing, and it does not naturally use this or that thing,
ούτως έχούσης ψυχi]ς εύρεθηναι δυναμένης; and for that reason the indiνidual actiνity of which one speaks ίη
the case of bodily members cannot be found ίη the soul as it is
constituted.
23. Και μ~ν κακεινο πάντων παραλογώτατον, τό τους μεν θεσ-
πισ θ εντας
' ,
νομους επ , , 'θ'
αν ρωπους Φ'
ερειν, ~
των δ'
ε νομιμως η , " παρα-
23. Furthermore there is another incongruity, the most irrational
, " δ' ,\ Ι , '~/, ι , of all: to impose οη men the laws which haνe been decreed and
νομως πεπραγμενων την ικην επι μονας τρεπειν τας ψυχας. 2. ει
then to pass judgement for deeds lawfully or lawlessly done οη
γαρ ό τους νόμους δεξάμενος αυτός Ι δέξαιτ' αν δικαlως και της souls alone. 2. For if the one who receiνed the laws ought; if
,
'δ'ικην, ε'δ ε'ξατο
παρανομιας την δ ε' "
τους νομους αν θρωπος, ου ψυχη" './,' justice be done, to receiνe also the punishment for lawlessness,
καθ' εαυτήν, άνθρωπον δει και τ~ν ύπερ των ~μαpτημένων ύποσχ ειν and if it was man and not soula8 such that receiνed the laws,
'
δ ι'<ην, './,
ου ,
ψυχην κα θ" εαυτην· , "
επει μη ',/, ~
ψυχαις '
ε'θ εσπισεν θ εος' then man and not soul as such must also submit to punishment for
" θ αι ~ 2 '
'δ εν αυταις
~, l' 'Φ ονου , , sins committed. For God did not hand down his decree to souls to
απεχεσ των ου προσηκοντων, οιον μοιχειας
abstain from things which haνe nothing to do with them, such
κλοπης άρπαγης της κατα των γεννησάντων ατιμlας πάσης τε as adultery, murder, theft, robgery, dishonour of parents, and
~
κοινως ~ επ
της " , LKLg.
α δ' και , βλ α'βTJ των
~ '\
πεΛας γινομενης επι θ υμιας. " ' ίη general all coνetousness which arises to injure or harm our
3. "
ουτε ,
γαρ το' ' 'τιμα
' την μηΤεΡα "α ψυχαις
" πατερα σου και' "
τον ./, ~ neighbours.
μόνον ευάρμοστον, ου προσηκόντων αυταις των τοιούτων όνομά των· 3. The commandment, 'Honour your father and mother', is
not appropriate for souls alone, since such terms do not apply to
ου γαρ ψυχαι ψυχας3 γεννωσαι τ~ν του πατρός η της μητρός
them; for souls do not beget souls and thus earn the title of father
οίκειουνται προσηγΟΡlαν, αλλ' ανθρώπους άνθρωποι· 4. ούτε σΟν or mother; οηlΥ ίη the case of human beings who beget human
το
\ " ου, μοιχευσεις
' \ ,ι,
' " b επι ~
ψυχων
λ εχ θ'
ειη ποτ
,,,,\
αν η νοη
θ'
ειη
δ εοντως, ' beings are such terms ίη order. 4. Nor could the commandment,
, ., , ,
ουκ ουσης εν αυταις της κατα το αρσεν και
~ ~ ,\ " 'θ~λ
η υ
δ
ια
Φ
ορας ου
~ 'δ'
ε προς
\ 'Υou shall not commit adultery', eνer properly be expressed or ;
μιξιν τινός έπιτηδειόΤΡιτος η πρός ταύτη ν όρέξεως. όρέξεως δε imagined ίη reference to souls, since there is ηο difference among
them between male and female nor any aptitude or desire for
τοιαύτης ουκ ούσης, ούδε μιξιν εΖναι δυνατόν· παρ' ο[ς δε μιξις
sexual intercourse. Since there is ηο such desire, neither can there
ολως ουκ εστιν, ουδε ενθεσμος μιξις, οπερ έστιν γάμος· έννόμου δε be any sexual intercourse. Among those who haνe ηο intercourse
μlξεως ούκ ούσης, ούδε την παράνομον και τ~ν έπ' αλλΟΤΡlg. at all neither is there that legitimate intercourse which we call
γυναικι γινομένη ν ορεξιν η μιξιν εΙναι δυνατόν, τουτο γάρ έστι marriage. If there is ηο lawful intercourse, neither can there
JLoLX Ela . 5. αλλ' ουδε τό κλοτην απαγορεύειν η τ~ν του πλεlονος be that lawless desire or intercourse which takes place with
, ' \ , ' ''i another man's wife-precisely that which constitutes 'adultery'.
επι θ υμιαν ,ι, ~
ψυχαις προσΦ'
υες· 'δ ε
ου γαρ δ εονται τουτων ων' οι
'
5. Neither is it natural to forbid souls to steal or to coνet greater
'
δ εομενοι δ'
ια Φ υσικην \ "δ εν ειαν .\
η χρειαν , κ λ'
επτειν ,
'θ ασιν
ειω και ' possessions. For they do not require the things which men need,
because of a natural lack or want, and consequently are ac-
23. α Exod. 20: 12 b Exod. 20: 14 customed to steal and carry off, such as gold, silνer, liνestock, or
22. ι The two types of equality named here are derived from Aristotle (Ρο!.
22. 2 μηδε Rhosus: μήn: Α 130 Ι a26, Ι 30 ι b3 ι) and may be regarded as virtually identical: the 'desert' of
23. ι αύΤ6ς Wilamowitz: οδτος Α 2 των add. Αι 3 ψυχαι ψυκαις Α: the person determines the 'proportion' of the advantages conferred (cf. W. L.
corr. Αι Newman, The Politics oJ Aristotle, ίv [Oxford, 1902], 283, 290).
144 ATHENAGORAS 23·5 24·4 DE RESURRECTIONE 145

λτιστεύειν, ο[ον χρυσον η άργυρον η ζψον η άλλο η των προς anything else suitable for their nourishment, shelter, or use. For
eνerything that is sought after as useful by those who need it is of
Tpoφ~ν η σκέπην η χρησιν έπιτηδεΕων' άχρειον γαρ άθανάτψ φύσει
ηο use to an immortal nature. -
παν όπόσον τοις ένδεέσιν όρεκτον ώς χΡΥισιμον. 6. άλλ' ό μεν 6. We may leaνe a fuller discussion of these things to those
, '
εντε λ εστερος " τουτων λογος
περι ' , θω τοις- σπουδ'
'φ εισ
α αιοτερον desiring to examine each point more carefully or to take issue
.,εκαστον σκοπειν - βουλ' "
ομενοις η φ '
ι οημοτερον δ ιαγωνι,:>εσ
λ 'Υ '
θ αι προς with their adνersaries with greater zest. We are satisfied with the
τους, δ φ , •
ια ερομενους, ημιν- ε αρκουντων των αρηως ειΡημενων και\
δ'" . . . . . " " considerations just brought forward and the arguments which ίη
~
των συμ
φι ι " Ι
ωνως τουτοις την αναστασιν πιστουμενων το τοις αυτοις
Ι, ,.. , ..... agreement with them confirm the resurrection; consequently any
" - , further lingering oνer the same matters would be untimely. For
επι πλ ειον εν δ ιαTpι~ειν
'ι:? ",.,\
ουκετ αν "
εχοι "ου"
καιΡον' γαρ το μη δ'
εν
we haνe not made it our goal to leaνe nothing οη the subject
παρα
Λ ~
λ ιπειν των ενοντων ειπειν πεποιημε α σκοπον, α
" φ
, -
κε α-
, θ "λλ '
α
,
το unsaid but to show ίη summary form to those assembled what
λαιωδως ύποδειςαι τοις συνελθουσιν &. x~ περ'ι της άναστάσεως one ought to think about the resurrection and to adapt to the
φρονειν κα'ι Tfj δυνάμει των παρόντων συμμετρησαι τας έπ'ι τουτο capacity of those present the arguments leading to this truth. I
φ ερουσας , α
'φ
ορμας.
,
24. Now that the issues haνe been to some extent examined,
24. 'Εςητασμένων δε ποσως των προτεθέντων ύπόλοιπον αν εϊη there remains the task of inνestigating also the argument from the
και
, ,
τον
"
απο του
~ τεΛους'\ δ ιασκεψασ
'.Ι, θ αι λ' "δ
ογον, η η μεν τοις ειΡη-
' - , final cause. This has already appeared ίη what we haνe said, Ι and
,
μενοις
'φ'
εμ αινομενον, τοσαυτης
, δ'
ε μονον
, ,
επιστασιας
, και
, προσ- needs further attention only to the extent that it will not seem as
θήκης δεόμενον, ώς μ~ δοκειν η l των μικρψ <πρόσθεν) είρημένων 2 though Ι haνe forgotten any of the points mentioned shortly
"
αμνημονευτον κατα λ ιποντα
'3 παραβλ αψαι
'.Ι, '
την "θ εσιν
υπο η," την '!:
ε~
before 2 and damaged the proposal or the diνision of topics which
Ι made at the beginning. 3 2. Το aνoid these consequences, then,
άρχης γενομένην διαΕρεσιν. 2. τούτων τε σΟν ένεκεν κα'ι των έπ'ι and to forestall the criticisms that would follow, it may be well to
τούτοις έγκληθησομένων 4 καλως αν έχοι τοσουτον έπισημήνασθαι add only this obserνation: that eνery natural thing and eνery
,
μονον
., δ'" \ . . . , φι
οη ει και
ι,
των
- ,
εκ υσεως συνισταμενων και των κατα artefact must haνe an end that suits it. Α uniνersal axiom shared
τέχνην γινομένων οίκειον έκάστου τέλος εΙναι, TOVTO που και της by all men teaches us this, and what takes place before our eyes
~,
κοινης παντων '"
εννοιας εκ δ ι δ ασκουσης ' ~•
ημας ,~,
και των εν ο'φθ α λμοις - confirms it. 3. Do we not see that there is one end for farmers and
... , another for physicians, that there is one end for the things that
στρε φ ομενων επιμαρτυρουντων.
" ι l' , 'θ ~,
3. η γαρ ου εωρουμεν ετερον η
grow from the earth and another for the animals which gain
τοις γεωργουσιν, εΤΕρον δε τοις ίατρεύουσιν ύποκεΕμενον τέλος, nourishment from the earth and are procreated ίη accordance
και , πα'λ ιν "λλ'
α ο μεν η ~,~
των εκ γης φ υομενων, , "λλ ο
α δ'
ε ~
των επ " with a natural chain of eνents?
,~
αυτης τρε
φ'
ομενων
γι
,:>ψων και
\
κατα
Ι
ηνα
φ
υσικον
, . ,
ειΡμον γεννω-
4. If this is clear, and it is absolutely necessary for a natural
,
μενων; 4. ει
'δ'
ε τουτ
~" "
εσην εναργες και
, , δ ει-παντως
, ταις
- φ
υσκαις η
- '1\
end to be associated with the powers of nature or of craftsman-
- δ' , . . . εκ
" , , \ , φι
ship and the actiνities to which they giνe rise, then mankind's end
τεχνικαις υναμεσι και ταις τουτων ενεργειαις το κατα υσιν
must surely be distinguished from that common to other creatures,
επεσθαι τέλος, άνάγκη πασα κα'ι το των άνθρώπων τέλος ώς since it has to do with a distinctiνe nature. Certainly it is not
ι'δ ια,:>ουσης
Υ' ον
'1\ φ'
υσεως '!: ~ θ αι
ε!:,τιρησ ~
της ~
των "λλ ων
α κοινοτητος' ' επει" right to argue for the same end both for creatures who haνe ηο
μηδε s θεμιτον ταύτον ύποθέσθαι τέλος των τε λογικης κρΕσεως share ίη rational discrimination and for those who act ίη accor-
, ,
αμΟιΡουντων και των κατα τον εμ
,..... \,,' φ
υτον νομον και
, 'λ"
ογον ενεργουντων
, dance with an innate rationallaw and can exercise prudence and
justice.
24. ι Τι add. c 2 μικρψ πρόσθεν είρημένων Schwartz (cf. Plato, Leg.
~6~ b),: μι~poν 111111,1 Illpημένω~ Α,: Ι:ΙK~oν ~fLV είρημένων Αι: sU'pra 1111 23. ι Cf. 1.3 aboνe.
ημιν ειΡημενων add. προσθεν s: μικρως ημιν ειΡημενων c 3 καταλιποντα 24. ιCf. 13. 3, 14. 5, 15. 2-3, and 18. 1-2 aboνe
Wilamowitz: καταλιπε'ίν Α: καταλιπε'ίν και Α ι 4 έγκληθησομένων Schwartz: 2 Cf. 18. 2 aboνe.
έγκεισομένων Α 5 μηδ~ ρ: μη Α 3 Cf. 13. 3 aboνe.
8268084 L
146 ATHENAGORAS 24·4 25·4 DE RESURRECTIONE 147
"Φρονι τε ':,ωτι
εμ , ,
Υ '" και\ δ'ικτι χρωμενων. ", ουν
5.0υτ '" το\"λ 'Α
α υ7Τον οικειον 5. Nor could the end proper to men be freedom from pain, for
this it would share even with things entirely devoid of sensation;
τούτοις αν ε'ίη τέλος, μετείη γαρ αν6
τούτου και τοις 7Ταντελως
nor yet could their end be the enjoyment and abundance of what
,
αναισ θητουσιν'
'" ) \ \' ου'δ ε\ των
αι\ι\ '" το' 'σωμα
'' τρεφ' " τεΡ7Τοντων
οντων η , feeds the body and gives it pleasure. Otherwise the animal side of
ά7Τόλαυσις και 7Τληθος ήδονων' 7J 7Τρωτεύειν άν&.γκη τον κτηνώδη life must take precedence and the virtuous life be directed to ηο
βίον, άτελη δ' elvat τον κατ' άpεT~ν. κτηνων γαρ οlμαι και βοσ­ end. For such an end is proper, ίη my estimation, to animals and
κημ&.των OlKELOV ToiJTO τέλος, ούκ άνθρώ7Των άθαν&.τφ ΙPvxfj και beasts, not to men who are gifted with an immortal soul and
rational discernment.
AOYLKfj κρίσει χρωμένων.
25. Nor indeed is there happiness for the soul ίη a state of separa-
tion from the body. For we were considering the life or end, not of
25 • ' \ '8 \
' . 1ψυχης
ου μην ου ε μακαριοτης , '" κεχωρισμενης
" σωματος' ου'δ ε \
one of the parts which constitute man, but of the creature made
γαρ την θατέρου τούτων έξ ών συνέστηκεν άνθρω7Τος έσΚΟ7Τουμεν up ofboth parts. For such is the nature of every man allotted this
ζω ην 7J τέλος, άλλα του συνεστωτος έξ άμΦοιν' τοιουτος γαρ 7Τας ό life of ours, and there must be some end which is proper to this
'8 'β'ιον
τον ε τον λ αχων "θρω7Τος και\ δ ειΛ της τουτου ':,ωης
\ αν Υ '" ειναι
'Ι' , Τι - ,
form of existence. 2. If the end has to do with the composite,
'\
τε/ιος 'Λιον.
οικε 2. ει, δ ε\
συναμΦ'
οτερου το τε/ιος, τουτο δ ε\ ουτε
'"
του " "\ '" and if this cannot be discovered either while men are still alive
Υ ,
':,ωντων , " ' 'εΤι
αυτων ' , 8ε τον
κατα\τον 'β'ιον ευρε
• θ'"ηναι 8υνατον
\ δ ια\ τας
\ here below, for the reasons so often spoken of already, nor yet
7Τολλ&.κις ij8η ρηθείσας αιτίας ούτε μην έν χωρισμφ τυγχανούσης when the soul iS ίη a state of separation I (for man as such cannot
της ψυχης, τφ μη8ε συνεστ&.ναι τον τοιουτον άνθρω7Τον διαλυ- be said to exist when the body has undergone dissolution or been
completely dispersed, even though the soul as such iS permanent),
θ εντος
' " και\7Τανττι
η , σκε 8ασ θ εντος
' του"" σωματος καν \ 8ιαμεντι
'\ η•.ψυχη
1, '
then the end ofmen must certainly be seen ίη some other state of
κα '· θ
εαυτην,"αναγκη
, '" κατ, αΝ\ην
7Τασα ~"\ \ Τινα\ του
'" συναμΦ'
οτερου και του \ '"
Υ " '\ ' the same composite creature.
αυτου
, '" ':,φου συστασιν το, ,
των αν θ'
,,, ρω7Των Φ'"ανηναι τεl\ος. τουτου 3· 3. Since this is the necessary consequence, there must surely be
δ' έξ άν&.γκης έ7Τομένου, δει 7Τ&.ντως γενέσθαι των νεκρωθέντων a resurrection of bodies that have died or even undergone com-
7J και 7Τ&.νττι διαλυθέντων σωμ&.των άν&.στασιν και τους αύτους plete dissolution, ~nd the sapιe men must rise again. Because the
άνθρώ7Τους συστηναι 7Τ&'λιν' έ7Tει8~ γε το μεν τέλος ούχ ά7Τλως law of nature does not appoint an end indiscriminately for men
ου'8 ε\ των
"" ε7Τιτυχοντων
, , θ'
αν ρω7Των ο• της ,
'" Φ υσεως Τι'θ εται νομος,
' taken ίη the abstract, but for the same ones who lived previous
α'λλ' αυτων
'''' εκεινων
" \ 7Τρολ αβουσαν ':,ωην
'" κατα\ την
των Υ \ '" β εβ ιωκοτων,
, lives, it is impossible for the same men to be reconstituted unless
τους δ' αύτους άνθρώ7Τους συστηναι 7Τ&.λιν άμ~xανoν, μη των αύτων the same bodies are united with the same souls. The same body
Λ'
σωματων ταις αυταις ψυχαις α7ΤΟ ο εντων. το
, Λ .1, .... ,
αυτο σωμα
δ θ' \ δ' ,\ '" cannot receive the same soul ίn any other way than by resurrec-
\ αυτην
την , \ ψυχην
.1, \ α7ΤΟ
, λ αβ ειν
Λ αΝ\ως
>1\ \ \'8'
μεν α υνατον, κατα\μονην
, δ ε\ tion. When this takes place, the end that suits human nature is
\ αναστασιν
την " 8 ' ταυτης
υνατον' , \ γενομενης
γαρ Ι και\ το
,
TTJ-Φ'
υσει
the result.
'" αν
των 'θ' , Φορον ε7Τακο λου θ ειΛ τεl\ος.
ρω7Των 7Τροσ , '\
4. τεl\ος
'\ 8ε\ Υ ....
':,ωης
4. Α man would not be wrong ίη saying that the end of a life
" Φ
εμ ρονος και
\ λ Λ Ι
ογικης κρισεως ουκ αν αμαρτοι τις εΙ7Των το τουτοις
,.,\ ( , " , ι capable of prudence and rational discernment is to live eternally
\ without being torn away from those things which natural reason
, ,
α7Τερισ7Ταστως 'Υ
συν 8ιαιωνι':,ειν οις
l'
μα'λ ιστα και\ ,
7Τρωτως ο• Φ υσικος
has found first and foremost ίη harmony with itself, and to rejoice
συν~pμoσTαι λόγος, Tfj τε θεωρίq, του δόντος και των έκείνφ 8ε80γ­ unceasingly ίη the contemplation of their Giver and his decrees,
μένων ά7Ταύστως έ7Ταγ&.λλεσθαι· καν οί 7Τολλοι των άνθρώ7Των even though it is true that the majority of men live their lives
'θ'εστερον και\ σΦ ο δροτερον
εμ7Τα ' Λ TTJ"'8 ε 7Τροσ7Τε7Τον θ'οτες αστοχοι
τοις >Ι without reaching this goal, because they have been strongly and

24. 6 αν add. Ρ corr. 25. ι Cf. 19.4-7 above.

148 ATHENAGORAS 25·4
TOVTOV διατελωσιν. 5. ου γαρ άκυροι την KOιVΗν ά1TOKλ~pωσιν τ6
1Τληθος των ά1ΤΟ1ΤΙ1Ττόντων του 1Tpoσ~KoνToς αυτοις τέλους, ίδια­
ζοvσης της έ1ΤΙ τοvτοις έξετάσεως και της έκάστψ συμμετρου­
μένης ύ1Τερ των εδ η κακως βεβιωμένων ημης η δίκης.
Subscriptio: Ά.ΘΗΝΑΓόΡΟΥ ΠΕρί Ά.ΝΑΣΤ ΑΣΕΩΣ
25.5 DE RESURRECTIONE 149
profoundly affected with desire for the things of this life. 5. For
the great number of those who fail to reach their appointed end
does not invalidate their common destiny. Each man will be
examined ίn these matters individually, and reward or punish-
ment will be distributed ίn proportion to each for lives lived well
or badly.
 INDEXES
Ι. ΤΗΕ PLEA
(ι) NAMES

Abdera, 3 Ι. 2 Callimachus, 30. 3

Acrisius, 2 Σ. 5 Carthaginians, ι 4. ι
Admetus, 2 Ι. 5 Castor, 29· 4
Adrasteia, ι. ι Celeus, 14. Σ
Aeneas, 2 ι. 4 Chians, Σ 4. Σ
Agamemnon, ι. ι Christians, Σ. 3; 2. ι, 4
Agraulos, ι. ι Chronos, 18. 4
Aidoneus, 22. ι, 2 Cilicians, ι 4. Σ
Alcmene, 2 Ι. 5 Cleanthes, 17· 3
Alexander, the false prophet, 26. 3, Clotho, Σ8. 5
4,5 Cnidus, 17· 4
Alexander, son of Philip, 28. ι, 6 Commodus, Lucius Aurelius, Intro.
Amasis, 26. 5 Core, 20. 2, 4; 32. Σ
Amathusians, 14. Σ Corinth, 17· 3
Amphiareus, 29· 4 Corinthian maid, 17. 3
Anchises, 2 ι. 4 Cottus, 18. 5
Angelio, 17· 4 Crato, 17· 3
Antinous, 30. 2 Cretans, 23. 10; 30. 3
Aphrodite, 17. 4; 21. 3, 4; 22. 6 Cronus, 20. 3, 4; 21. 4; 22. 4, 6, 7;
Apollo, 14. ι; 21. 6; 28. 2, 3; cf. 17· 4 23. 6, 9; 30. Σ
Apollodorus, 28. 7 Ctesias, 30. Ι
Ares, 21. 3
Arges, 18.5 Daedalus, 17. 3
Argos, 17· 4 Danae, 21. 5
Aristaeus, 14. ι Delian Apollo, 17· 4
Aristotle, 6. 2, 3; 25. 2 Delos, 28. 9
Armenia, Intro. Demeter, 20. 2; 21. 5
Artemis, 17. 4; 26. 2; 28. 3 Democritus, 31. 2
Asclepius, 17. 4; 29. 2; 30. ι Derceto, 30. ι
Athela, 17.4; 20. 2 Diagoras, 4. Σ, 2
Athena, 17. 4; 20. 2; 21. 2; 22. 8; Diomedes, 2 Ι. 3
28. 9 Dionysus, 20. 3; 22. 9; 28. 2, 3
Athenians, ι. Ι; 4. ι; 14. ι; 31. 2
Atropus, 18. 5 Egypt, 28. 2, 3
Egyptians, Ι. Ι; 14. 2; 28. 4,6, 7, 9
Briareus, 18. 5 Eleusis, 4. ι
Brontes, 18. 5 Empedocles, 22. Σ, 3; 24. 2
Busiris, 28. 8 Endoios, 17. 4
Enodia, ι. ι
Cabiri,4. ι Ephesians, 31. 2
 152 INDEXES INDEXES 153
Ephesus, ι 7· 4 Memphis, 28. Ι Said, 28. 9 Tethys, 18. 3; 23. 6
Epidaurus, 17. 4 Menelaus, ι 4. ι Samians, ι 4. ι Thales, 23· 4
Erechtheus, ι. ι Menoetius, 2 ι. 2 Samos, 17· 3,4 Thasians, ι 4. ι
Euripides, 5. Ι; 25. 2 Metaneira, 14. Sarmatia, Intro. Theagenes, ι 4. ι
Europa, 22. ι ι Minos, 12. 2 Sarpedon, 2 Ι. 2 Thebes (ίn Egypt), 28. ι
MoseS,9. ι Saurius, 17· 3 Thebes (ίn Greece), 21. 5
Greeks, 17.2; 28. 2, 3,4 Semele, 21. 5; 22. 9 Theodore, Ι 7. 3, 4
Gyges, 18.5 Neryllinus, 26. 3, 5 Semiramis, 30. ι Thyestes, 32. ι
Nestis, 22. Ι, 2 Sibyl,30. ι Titan,30. ι
Hamilcar, 14. ι Sicilians, ι 4. ι Titans, 18. 5; 20. 3; 21. 4
Hector, ι. ι; 14. ι Olympia, 14. ι; 26. 3 Sicyon, 17. 3 Trojans, 26. 3
Helen, ι. ι Olympus, 29. 2 Smilis, 17. 3, 4 Trojans (I1ians), ι. ι; 14. ι
Heliopolis, 28. ι Onesilaus, 14. ι Socrates, 8. 3; 3 Ι. 2 Troy, 26. 3
Hephaestus, 2 ι. 3 Opsimus, 6. ι Sophocles, 5. 2 Tydeus, 2 Ι. 3
Hera, 6. 4; 17· 4; 21. 2; 22. 1,2,4,7; Orpheus, 17. Ι; 18. 3; 20. 4; 32. Ι Steropes, 18. 5 Tyndareus, ι. ι
23·6 Orphic, 4. ι Stoics, 6. 4; 19· 3; 22. 4, 5 Typhon, 22.8; 28.2
Heracles,4· ι; 18.4,5; 20. 2, 3; 29. ι; Osiris, 22. 8, 9; 28. 2, 10 Styx, 21. 4
30. ι Syrians, 30. ι Viper (Echidna), 20. 4
Heraclitus, 31. 2 Palaemon, 29. 4
Hermes, 20. 3 Pandrosus, ι. ι Tartarus, 22. 6; cf. 18.6; 20. 3; 21. 4 Zeus, Ι. Ι; 5. 1,2; 6. 4; 14. Ι; 20. 2,
Hermes Trismegistus, 28. 6 Paris, 26.4 Taurians, 26. 2 3,4; 21. 2, 3; 22. 1,2,4,7,9,11;
Herodotus, 17.2; 26. 5; 28. 1,2,3,6, Parium, 26. 3 Tectaeus, 17· 4 23.6,9, 10; 30. 3; 32. Ι; cf. 29. 2
8,9 Patroclus, 21. 2 Telecles, 17· 4
Hesiod, 17. ι, 2; 29. 2 Peripatetics, 16. 3
Homer, 17. ι, 2; 18.3; 21. 3 Persephone, 20. 2, 3
Horus, 22. 8; 28. 2 Perseus, 30. ι (2) TERMS
Hundred-hands (Hecatoncheires), 18. Phanes, 20. 4 abortion, 35. 6 law (that evil opposes virtue), 3. 2;
6 Phidias, 17. 4 adultery, 21. 3; 32. 2, 3; 33. 4, 5, 6; 31. ι
Philip, son of Butacides, 14. ι 34· 2, 3 matter,4 Ι; 6. 1,4; 7. 2; 15. 1,2,3;
Iapetus, 30. ι Philolaus, 6. ι angels, 10. 5; 24. 2, 3, 4, 5; 25. ι 16·3,4; 17· 5; 19,3,4; 20. 5; 22.
Ida, 21. 4 Phoebus, 21. 6; 29. 2 atheism, atheists, 3. ι ; 4. ι ; 5. ι ; 6. 2; 2, 3,5,9, 12; 24· 1,2,5; 25· Ι, 3;
Ιnο, 29. 4 Phoenix, 2 ι. 5 ι Ο. Ι, 5; 11. 1; 13. 1; 14. 7; 21. 2; 26. 5; 27. 1,2
10,28·4 Phorcus, 23. 6 30.6; cf. 31. ι murder, murderers, 35. ι, 6
Ι phitus, 29. ι Phylonoe, ι. ι cities, 1.2; 2. Ι; 13. 1; 14. 1,2; 23. 2 name (ofChristian), 1.2,3; 2. 1,2,4,
Isaiah, 9. ι Pindar, 29. 2 demons, 23. 4, 5, 8, 9; 24· ι; 25· 1,4; 5
Isis, 22. 8, 9; 28. 3, 4, 8 Plato, 6.2; 12.2; 16.3,4; 19.2; 23. 26. 1,2; 27. 2 names (ofgods), 5. 2; 6.4; 17. Ι; 18.
Ixion, 21. 5 5, 10; 30. Ι; 36. 3 dispensation (economy), 25. 4 Ι; 22. 5, 9; 26. Ι; 28. 1,3
Polydeuces, 29. 4 emperors (cf. empire, kings), Intro.; Oedipean unions, 3. Ι (cf. 3 ι. ι)
J eremiah, 9. ι Poseidon, ι. Ι; 22.4 2.6; 13. Ι; 18. 2 prince (of matter; cf. spirit), 24. 5;
Praxiteles, 17. 4 empire, 1.3; 3. 2; 6. Ι; 18.2; 37. 1,2 25· 1,4
Lacedaemonians, Ι. Ι; ι 4. ι Proteus, 26. 3, 4, 5 images, 15. Ι; 17. 1,3,4,5; 18. 1,2; procreation, 33. ι, 2 (cf. 3. ι)
Lachesis, 18. 5 Pythagoras, 3 Ι. 2; 36. 3 23. 1,2,3; 26. 1,3,5; 27. 2; 28. 2 prophets, prophetic, 7. 3; 9. Ι; 10. 4;
Leda, 22. Ι ι Pythagoreans, 6. ι kings (cf. emperors, empire), ι. Ι ; 2. Ι; 18.2; 24. 5,6
Leto, 21. 5; 28. 3 Pythian Apollo, 17. 4 11.3; 16.3; 18.2 providence, 8. 4, 8; 19. 3; 22. 12;
Leucothea, 29. 4 kiss, 32. 5 24·3;25·2
Lysander, 14. ι Rhadamanthys, 12.2 law,laws, ι. 1,2,3; 2. 1,5; 7. Ι; 25.2; resurrection,36. 1,2; 37. ι (cf. 31. 4)
Lysis, 6. ι Rhea, 20. 2,3; 22. 6; 23. 6; 26. 2; 30. 32. 4; 33· ι; 34· 3 second maπίage, 33· 4
3; 32. ι law of nature, 3. ι slaves, 35· 3
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Intro. Round-eyes (Cyclopes), 18.6 law (providential), 25. 2, 4 (cf. 16. 5) spectacles, 35· 5
154 INDEXES INDEXES 155
Spirit (ofGod), 5.3; 6. 2, 4; 7. 3; 9. Ι; Thyestean banquets, 3. ι (cf. 31. 1) Herodotus 8·3 08-<J 21. 3
10.2,4,5; 12.3; 18.2; 24. 2 Word (ofGod), 4.2; 6.2; 10. 1,2,3, 2. 143 28. 5 21.28-9 29. ι
spirit (hostile to God; cf. prince), 24. 5; 12·3; 18.2; 24. 2; 30. 6 2.144 28. 2 Orpl1ic }<'ragnιcnts
2; 25. 3; 27. ι 2.156 28. 3 Frg. 57 (Kern) 18. 3-6
2. 170 28. 9 Frg. 58 (Kern) 20. 2-4
2. 172 26. 5 Pindar
(3) BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS AND ALLUSIONS
Pythian Odes, 3. 54-8 29. 2
Hesiod
Genesis 22: 39 11·4; 32. 4 Theogony, 27 24·6 Plato
Ι 13. 2 Mark Works and Days, 276-8 34· 3 Epistles, 2, 3 ι 2 e 23· 7
6: 1-5 24·5 10: Ι ι Frg. 125 (Rzach3) 29. 2 Gorgias, 523 c-524 a 12.2
33· 5
Proverbs Luke Homer Phaedrus, 246 e 23·9
8:3 10·4 6: 27-8 ι ι.2 Iliad Politicus, 269 d 16·4
2 ι: Ι 18.2 6: 29-30 1·4; ΙΙ. 4 2.820-1 21·4 Timαeus
Isaiah 6: 32,34 12. 3 26·4 27 d 19. 2
3· 39
22: 13 12. 3 John 21.2 28 c 6.2
4· 23
43: 10-1 ι 9. 2 Ι: 3 10. 2 4· 24 21. 2 33 c 16·3
44: 6 9. 2 10: 38 10.2 5· 31 21. 3 40a- b 23· 5
66: ι 9. 2 Romans 21. 3 40d- e 23· 5-6
5· 376
Baruch Ι: 19-20 5. 858 21. 3 41 a 6. 2
5· 3
3: 36 9·2 Ι: 25 16·3 9·499-501 13· 4 Sibylline Oraclcs, 3. 108-13 30. ι
Wisdom Ι: 27 14. 201, 302 18·3 Sophocles (spurious)
34. 2
7: 25 10·4 12: Ι 13· 4 14. 246 18·3 Frg. 1025 (Nauck2 ) 5·3
13: ι 16·3 ι Corinthians 14· 315-27 21·5 Thales
Enoch 6:7 15. 605 21. 3 Aetii Placitα, Ι. 7. Ι 1; Ι. 8. 2
1·4
6:2 24·5 15: 32 12·3 16. 433-4 21. 2 23·4
Matthew Galatians 16. 522 21. 2 Unknown Tragedians
5:28 32.2 4:9 16·3 16.672 12. 3 Frg. 99 (Nauck2 ) 25. 2
5: 39-40 1·4;11·4 ι Timothy 20. 737 18. ι Frg. 100 (Nauck2 ) 29· 4
5: 44-5 ι 1.2 2: 2 37. 2 22. 168-9 21.2 Frg. 101 (Nauck2) 29·4
5: 46 12·3 2:8 13· 3 Odyssey Frg. 455 (Nauck 2 ) 26. 2
7: 12 32·4 6: 16 16·3 8. 296-8 21. 3
19: 9 33· 5
ΙΙ. CONCERNING ΤΗΕ RESURRECTION OF ΤΗΕ DEAD
(4) CLASSICAL QUOTATIONS AND ALLUSIONS
Aeschylus ι) NAMES
Cyclops, 332-3 25. 2
Frg. 350 (Nauck 2 ) 21. 5 Frg·3 24· 1-3 (Nauck 2 ) Greeks, 4· 4 Thyestes, 4· 4
29·3
Alexander the Great (spurious) Frg. 480 (Nauck2 ) 5. 2 Median feast, 4· 4
28. 1,6 Frg. 900 (Nauck2 ) 5· Ι
Apol1odorus 28. 7 Frg. 901 (Nauck2 ) 25. ι (2) TERMS
Callimachus Frg. 941 (Nauck2 ) 5. ι apostle, 18. 5 elements, 2. 5; 3. 2
Hymn to Zeus, 8-9 30·3 Hermes Trismegistus 28. 6 atheism, atheist, 18. 5; 20. 2; cf. end (Epicurean), 19· 3
Ctesias 30. ι Herodotus end (ofman; cf. reason), 13· 3; 14· 5;
2. 3
Empedocles 2·3 28. 6 axiom (universal and natural), 14. ι, 15. 2,3; 18. Ι, 2; 24. Ι, 2, 3, 4, 5;
Frg. 6 (Diels) 22. Ι 2·41 2; 24. 2 25. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
28·4
Frg. 17. 18,20 (Diels) 22.2 2·50 28. 3 cannibalism, 8. 2 image (of God), 12.6
Euripides 2. 53 composite, 18. 4, 5; 25. 2 insensibility, 19. 3 (cf. 24· 5)
17. 2
Alcestis, 1-2 21·5 2.61 28.8 digestion, 5. 2, 3; 6. 5 judgement (krisis), 11. 7; 14.5.6; 18.
Alcestis, 8-9 21·5 2.86 28.10 discontinuity, 16.6; 17. ι 2,5; 19· 3, 4, 5, 7; 20. 2; 21. 8
156 INDEXES
law,laws, 11.7; 12.6; 15.7; 18.5; reason (for man's existence; cf. end)
19· 7; 23. 1.2 11·7; 12. 1,4,7,8; 13· 2, 3; 14· 4,
law (innate), 13. Ι; 24· 4 15. Ι; 18. ι
law of nature, 25· 3 semen, 17. 2, 3, 4
logical consequences (αkolouthiα), ι. 4; sleep, 16.5; 17. ι
14· 1,2; 15. Ι; 17.4 (cf. 17.3) transformation (physiological), 5. 3;
passions (relation to body), 21. 4, 5, 8 7· 2; 17. 1,3
pleasure, pleasures, 19.3; 22. 3; 24· 5 transformation (to incorruption), 12.
providence, 14. 5; 18. Ι, 2; ι 9. ι 9; 16.2
purification (of food), 6. ι

(3) Q.UOTATIONS AND ALLUSIONS

Homer Luke
Iliαd 14.231; 16.672,682; 8: 13 ι. 3
Odyssf)' 13. 79-80 16·5 18:27 9. 2
Genesis John
Ι: 26 12.6 ι ι: 25 8·4
Exodus ι Corinthians
20: 12 23·3 15: 32 19· 3
20: 13 23·4 15: 53 3·2; 18.5
Luke 2 Corinthians
8: 13 ι. 3 5: 10 18·5