Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius

Author(s): Robert M. Grant

Source: Vigiliae Christianae , Mar., 1988, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 1-17
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584466

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584466?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae

This content downloaded from

:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), 1-17, E. J. Brill, Leiden

FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS

BY

ROBERT M. GRANT

Five of the eight earliest Christian apologists wrote their w

long after the revolt of Avidius Cassius in the year 175, and
them set forth the Christian hope for accommodation with the
These men were Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Melito of Sardis, and
Athenagoras of Athens. Tatian, perhaps from Antioch, reflects
changed circumstances. Miltiades probably does so too.
Several years before this revolt Roman troops were defending the
northern frontier when lightning struck an enemy military engine and,
later in the year, torrential rains provided water for Roman troops sur-
rounded by the Quadi.' Modern studies of Dio Cassius and the column
of Marcus in the Piazza Colonna suggest that the date was 172.
It was widely believed that some god had defended the Roman army.
Later, on the column of Marcus Aurelius, the rain giver seems to be
Hermes or even the Egyptian Thoth, with rain dripping from his wings.
Dio Cassius says that the miraculous victory was a divine gift to the
emperor and adds the claim of some that "Arnuphis, an Egyptian magi-
cian accompanying Marcus, invoked various deities (daimones),
especially Hermes, god of the air."2 Marta Sordi differentiates the basic
Roman view, that a god aided the pious emperor, from foreign accre-
tions, including mention of Arnuphis as well as the theurge Julian, an
expert in Chaldaean magic.3 These ascriptions clearly had political im-
plications. The Egyptian priest Arnuphis was no rebel but like gods in
the Vatican and British Museums wore Roman battle dress, while the
loyal Chaldaean theurge made up for the Chaldaean Hystaspes who had
foretold the destruction of the Roman empire.4 Justin refers to Roman
distaste for his Apocalypse, proscribed under penalty of death.5

Avidius Cassius

Marcus' continuing campaigns led to crisis in the East during

winter of 174-175 as the empress Faustina, in camp on the frontier

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2 ROBERT M. GRANT

her ailing husband, feared that he was approaching death. A

Commodus, the only heir to the throne, was "adolescent a
simple-minded," she urged Avidius Cassius to seize power.6
rapidly spread from Syria north into Cilicia and south into
Around this time religious fanaticism flourished. By 171-172,
ing to Eusebius, an apocalyptic splinter group had arisen in t
Phrygia. Montanus and two prophetesses urged Christians t
martyrs because wars and anarchy would precede the arrival of
Jerusalem nearby.7 Leaders of nearby churches denounced their
tions. Certainly the Christian apologist Apollinaris attacked M
and probably Miltiades did so.8
After the revolt some who had made predictions "as if inspire
gods" were banished; obviously they had predicted the vic
Cassius. The Augustan Life tells of a man who perhaps earlier
fire from heaven and the end of the world when he fell from a tree and

turned into a stork. He did fall, let a stork emerge from his vest, and
was promptly arrested. The emperor mercifully pardoned him.9 Similar
predictions by Montanists presumably meant trouble for Christians.
Cassius' revolt failed because in Cappadocia another eastern strong
man, Martius Verus, stood fast for the emperor with the two legions XII
Fulminata and XV Apollinaris. After the revolt, Fulminata was award-
ed the epithet certa constans, Apollinaris pia fidelis. 0 Martius Verus
became legate of Syria, then consul for the second time with Commodus
in 179.

Marcus was so clement, says Dio, that after the death of Cassius he
asked the Senate for a universal amnesty and put no rebel to death, or
at least no senator." Ideas about his humanity and clemency are ex-
pressed in the apologies of Melito and Athenagoras. The latter apologist
complained that only Christians failed to benefit from the mildness of
Marcus and Commodus and their peaceful and humane attitudes
toward all, not to mention the ideals of equality before the law and pro-
found peace. 2

The imperial tour of 175-176

A few months after the revolt ended, the emperor and his wife
Faustina took Commodus and their daughters with them on a tour of
the eastern empire. Much of the journey can be confirmed from coins
and inscriptions.'3 Coins of 175-176 point to imperial travel, while at

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 3

some point a port officer at Ostia dedicated an altar to Isi

"for the health and safe return of the emperor Antoninu
Faustina Augusta, and their children." An Alexandrian co
emperor riding on horseback, and a dedication by a tribun
at Nicopolis in Egypt also commemorates his arrival. He insist
legion had been, or now was, loyal to the emperor.'4
After crossing from the base at Sirmium to the village
Cappadocia, Faustina suddenly died of blood poisoning or
A late Victorian author from Boston could judge her mot
face, as it has come down to us on coins and in busts, is itself
alike of her beauty and her insincerity."'6 All we know is
asked the Senate to provide rebels with amnesty and deify
whom he erected a temple in the village, renamed Colonia
or Faustinopolis.'7 Presumably he wintered there, for sno
Cilician Gates until mid-April,18 then passed south and east t
He avoided Antioch, Cassius' former stronghold, and pro
birthplace at Cyrrhus, perhaps crossing the northeastern Med
by ship. After a visit to Alexandria he proceeded back int
provinces.20 Astarita takes him by ship from Egypt to Lycia,
gest) western Cilicia.
It is likely that inscriptions referring to the cult of Faustina
to Marcus' westward journey, for later her cult was not espec
inent. One of them may point toward his route in Asia Mi
priestess of the goddess Augusta Faustina" comes from lotape in
Cilicia, just east of Side and Perge.22 In addition, Marcus found a guide
to the northwest at Termessus in Pisidia, where a priest is named on
stone as "sent out as guide to the supreme emperor Caesar Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus, victor over Armenians Parthians Medes [Dacians]
Germans."23 The inscription may show that the emperor was taking the
mountain road, where officials and troops had remained loyal and sum-
mer heat might be less burdensome.
Eventually he reached Smyrna, where he was greeted at a special
festival called Theoxenia and heard speeches by the orator Aelius
Aristides.24 To get from Termessus to Smyrna he would almost certainly
have passed through Laodicea, with a possible sidetrip to Hierapolis.25

Hierapolis
Hierapolis (now Pamukkale) in Phrygia owed its prosperity to its
close commercial ties with Rome. One local merchant undertook 72

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4 ROBERT M. GRANT

voyages to Italy.26 A significant group of Roman citizens li

city and formed a synedrion or conventus.27

The address of Apollinaris

The Christian bishop Apollinaris of Hierapolis became fam

the address he wrote around 176 to claim for Christians t
rainstorm on the Danube.28 He shows that he, like a Christ
was devoted to the emperor and the Roman cause. In addition, the
bishop led the Asian attack on the subversive Montanist movement and
observed Easter ceremonies with the Roman church, not Asians.
Apollinaris christianized the pagan theme and ascribed the storm to
the prayers of the Christian Twelfth Legion from Melitene in Cap-
padocia, awarded the epithet fulminata because of the lightning. His
statement that the title was first given on this occasion is false. Con-
ceivably there was a popular notion that it deserved to be called
fulminatrix, but it was called certa constans instead. The whole Twelfth
cannot have been at the Danube or manned by Christians. It had been
called fulminata since the reign of Augustus and after losing its eagle
standard in the Jewish war had been stationed in Melitene since the year
70.29 Presumably a unit or two fought on the Danube in 172 and Chris-
tian legionary soldiers from Melitene were in service at the time.
Apollinaris was proud of Christian soldiers and eager to tell how the
true God, answering their prayers, had defended the empire and the
emperor. He was also using some traditional topics of rhetoric.30 It is
the emperor who saves his subjects from barbarian enemies. In addi-
tion, because of his virtue the rains come in due season-and
presumably at special times as well.
Finally, Apollinaris was answering widespread criticisms to be fou
in Celsus' attack on the Christians. If everyone refused military service
as the Christians did, the emperor would be left isolated and "earth
affairs would come into the power of the most lawless and savage b
barians." And even if the Romans were to call upon the god of th
Christians, he would not come down and fight for them.3' Apollina
answers both complaints. Christians do serve in the army and God d
hear their prayers. Two decades later, Tertullian still spoke of the r
miracle achieved "by the prayers of Christian soldiers." He may ev
have reflected Apollinaris' work when he stated that no Christians
joined the revolt of Avidius Cassius.32

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 5

Presumably the apology was addressed to Marcus Aurelius as

emperor during his eastern tour in mid-176, when political cir-
cumstances encouraged Christians to insist on the loyalty, ratified by
God, of the Christian soldiers from Melitene. We suggest that he intend-
ed it for Marcus at Hierapolis or nearby Laodicea. It remains doubtful
that the emperor saw it.

Sardis

From Laodicea Marcus probably went on to Smyrna through either

Ephesus or Sardis. A monument at Ephesus to the deified Faustina and
at least two of her daughters may point to a visit there,33 though he may
have visited Sardis, where as at Pergamum there is a dedication to the
deified Faustina.34
At Sardis as elsewhere loyalty to the emperor was expressed on stone.
A second-century inscription refers to a "priest of the Augusti and
<hierophant> of the mysteries."35 Somewhat later Sardis itself is des-
cribed as "keeper of the two koinon temples of the Augusti."36 Such
loyalty brought rewards. The proconsul of Asia considered it "most
just" that the attitude of certain citizens "should receive the recognition
of a subsidy toward their loyalty toward the Augusti (eusebeian ton
Sebaston)."37 Justice involved reciprocity.

The petition of Melito

Probably in the late summer of 176 Melito, bishop of Sardis,

prepared a biblidion or "petition" for the emperor,38 in which he
argued that since Christianity originated around the same time as the
Roman empire and was somehow responsible for the empire's success,
the emperors ought to protect it to protect themselves.
The occasion of the petition is what Melito calls "new decrees
throughout Asia" or "this new ordinance, not fit to be employed even
against barbarian enemies." It was common at this time to refer to
enemies of Christianity as barbarians. The Acts of the Gallican Martyrs
insisted that the devil was stirring up "wild and barbarous tribes" in
Gaul.39 The author, perhaps Irenaeus, knows that barbarians live at
Lyons; Irenaeus himself definitely states that he lives among Celts and
usually speaks a barbarian language.40 Melito's complaint also again
answers the appeal to help the emperor against barbarian enemies. He

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 ROBERT M. GRANT

replies that Christians themselves are being treated like b

enemies. Just so, the Gallican martyrs were being treated like w
enemies and, as in Asia, informers were trying to seize the pro
Christians.4"

Melito wonders if "this new decree" can come from the just emperor,
especially since informers are relying on it. Hadrian, he points out, had
forbidden "innovation" or novelty in attacks on Christians.42 What is
the "new decree" or "ordinances"? Apparently some important change
is taking place, and the older prohibition of search or popular denuncia-
tion of Christians (Trajan, Hadrian) is being abandoned. Thus in Gaul
mob action ran or was to run unchecked, with a real search for Chris-
tians.43 Indeed, the Christian recorder writes that "not only were we ex-
cluded from houses and baths and market-place, but they even forbade
any of us to be seen at all in any place whatsoever."44 The anti-Christian
Celsus says that Christians are hunted down under penalty of death.45
A few years later the Acts of Apollonius states that the Senate decreed
that "Christians are not to exist."46
This hunt for Christians came after, and perhaps because of, the
revolt of Avidius Cassius. It is worth noting that Dio insists upon the
mildness and benevolence of Marcus Aurelius toward the conspirators
and their families. In Gaul, however, the same emperor was to confirm
the death penalty against Roman citizens arrested as Christians.47 In
176, when coins bore the inscription CLEMENTIA AUGUSTI, Christians still
hoped for a conciliatory response. Within a year or so they did not.
Like other Christians in his time, Melito expresses firm loyalty to the
emperor and his successor. This is a rhetorical topic. Aelius Aristides
ends his Roman Oration of 143 thus: "Let all the gods and children of
the gods be invoked to grant that this empire and this city flourish
forever ... and that the great governor and his sons be preserved and ob-
tain blessings for all." The great governor is Antoninus Pius and the
sons are Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.48 Menander urges the
orator to "say a prayer requesting God that his kingdom should con-
tinue for a very long time, be given in succession to his sons, and handed
on to his family."
In Melito's time there was a special reason for emphasizing the suc-
cession. He notes that Marcus Aurelius has "become the successor
whom men desired" and expresses the hope that such he "will contin
to be, along with the boy."49 The boy must be Commodus, and
presumably Melito has in mind the revolt of Avidius Cassius. Both

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 7

Melito and Athenagoras refer to Marcus Aurelius and his one he

while a little later Athenagoras explicitly addresses the two rulers i
plural, Melito writes to Marcus alone and speaks of his son's f
reign with him. The mention of future joint rule thus points to
after the revolt of Avidius Cassius but before November 27, 176
Commodus became co-emperor.
Melito approaches the succession by emphasizing history, an
too is a theme of rhetoric. Menander commends discussion of the
emperor's family and its achievements (370, 11-28). Melito praises all
the legitimate emperors and regards them as related by family ties. Thus
he speaks to Marcus of "your forefather Augustus" and notes that
"from that time Roman power grew into something great and
brilliant." The correlation impressed later theologians including Hip-
polytus, Origen, and Eusebius.
Melito's argument is a modification of the common Roman view that
Roman piety had led to Roman power.50 He boldly claims for Chris-
tianity what others claimed for pagan religion. Though this "philoso-
phy at first flourished among barbarians," it entered the Roman world
in the time of Augustus and flourished along with the empire. The
emperors honored Christianity, "as they did the other religions," and
"since the principate of Augustus ... all things have been splendid and
glorious in accordance with the prayers of all." There may be an allu-
sion to the prayers of the Christian legion, but Melito is generalizing
with lavish use of rhetoric.
Melito knows that Nero and Domitian were persecutors, but he
blames their "evil advisers," not the emperors themselves. In this
respect he is less critical, or more tactful, than Marcus Aurelius
himself.51 His praise of "your grandfather Hadrian" and "your father"
(Antoninus Pius) shows that the emperor and his whole (adoptive) fami-
ly deserve the praise he is glad to provide. The inscriptions of Marcus
Aurelius often trace his ancestry back to Nerva.

Athens

From Asia the emperor and his children went on to Athens, where
like Hadrian (and Lucius Verus)52 he was initiated into the Eleusinian
mysteries by the priest L. Memmius and the hierophant Eisidote and
also established endowed chairs for philosophers and rhetoricians.53

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 ROBERT M. GRANT

The embassy of Athenagoras

At this time another Christian, Athenagoras, apparently

presbeia or "embassy" to him and Commodus.54 In the A
script of the year 914 he is described as "an Athenian Christ
pher." His work is addressed to "the emperors (autokrato
Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Com< m > odus,
the Armenians and the Sarmatians, and, above all, philo
Egyptian papyri of the years 176/7, 177/8, and 178/9 re
emperors as victors over "Armenians, Medes, Parthians, G
Sarmatians." Presumably a later scribe, not Athenagoras h
ted the three middle epithets.55 Father and son are reign
and presumably the son will succeed the father.56 Since they
called "Augusti," it is quite possible, as Barnes suggested
"embassy" was meant for the emperors at Athens in the e
of 176, before Commodus was called Augustus and even b
ficially received the imperium.
Athenagoras is an extremely loyal subject of the emper
his adulation goes beyond Melito's when he addresses them
of emperors" and says that "all things have been subjec
father and son who have received your kingdom from above
19:12) and compares their reign with that of God and hi
Logos-Son. He prays "that the succession to the kingdom
from father to son, as is most just, and that your reign may
increase as all become subject to you."57 Such statements
seen, are typical of patriotic oratory. Conceivably Athen
that he was competing for the emperors' attention with Aeli
who had already spoken before them at Smyrna. In an addre
year Aristides called the two emperors "greatest of kin
pared petition to "the most divine rulers" with prayer to
Menander helps us understand such discussions when he des
logos presbeutikos or "ambassador's speech," which shou
the topic of the emperor's humanity, saying that he is m
pities those who make petition to him, and that God sent
earth because he knew that he was merciful and a benefactor of
mankind." The emperor should restore a fallen city (or a persecu
community) in response to "the children and the women, the adult men
and the aged," who "pour forth their tears and plead with you to
compassionate." Finally the rhetor should "ask him (axioseis) to n

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 9

his head (neusai) to receive the decree" (423, 6-424, 1). Just so,
Athenagoras refers to petitioners before the emperors and finally asks
them to "nod your royal heads in assent" (epineusate).59
The fulsome praise may not be due to rhetorical convention alone.
Menander certainly recommends treating them as lovers of learning and
philosophers, but mere convention may not explain Athenagoras six
references to imperial intelligence (synesis) and two to their devotion to
scholarship (philomathestatoi). Perhaps he recalls that even Faustina
expressed doubts about Commodus' wit-though he has enough sense
not to discuss her recent deification, and with similar discretion tactfully
explains the deification of Hadrian's favorite Antinous as due to "the
humane affection (philanthropia) shown by your ancestors to their
subjects."60
He says he is writing a defence of Christian teaching against three
charges: atheism, Thyestean feasts, and Oedipodean intercourse,61
charges levied against the Gallican martyrs around this time.62 Pliny had
heard of something like the Thyestean feasts and Oedipodean inter-
course,63 while the rhetorician and consul Fronto had heard of the
Christians' immoral convivium, but not infanticide.64
More to the point, Athenagoras insists that slaves belonging to Chris-
tians have never accused them of such crimes,65 even though Justin said
they had done so.66 Clear evidence seemed to emerge when slaves ac-
cused the Gallican martyrs precisely of "Thyestean suppers and Oedipo-
dean intercourse."67 Presumably Athenagoras did not know the letter
about the martyrs and therefore wrote before 177 or 178, that is, late
in 176.
This was the last of three such works occasioned by the imperial visit
to the East. As the emperor passed through Asia to Athens, Christians
seem to have presented petitions at Hierapolis and Sardis or perhaps at
Ephesus or Smyrna, as well as at Athens itself.68

The Gallican Martyrs and the Emperor's response

Within a year or two, mob violence at Vienne and Lyons in Gaul kept
Christians off the streets until a military tribune took them into protec-
tive custody while he waited for the imperial legate. A general search
followed, contrary to the rule stated by Trajan, and under torture some
household slaves stated that their Christian masters practised can-
nibalism and incest, thus driving even the more moderate citizens of

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10 ROBERT M. GRANT

Lyons into hostility. Eventually a series of trials began. De

Christians against specific libels were neglected, for the basic ch
simply membership in a generally hated group. When the g
wrote to "Caesar" and asked for instructions, he was told tha
citizens were to be released if they recanted, executed if the
The emperor may have thought this judgment expressed the
shown toward ex-rebels. Non-citizens were killed by wild
strangled, or burned.
The date of the massacre is not as certain as it looks, given its
in the researches of Eusebius,69 but the events probably point t
close to 177. There was intense hostility toward Christians
emperor who from Rome (or Pannonia?) confirmed the death
The imperial response to the three conciliatory apologies h
neutral or negative.

Tatian from Syria

The martyrdoms in Gaul show that relations with Christ

worsened by 177 or 178, probable dates for the Oration of T
work can best be dated from its criticism of philosophers wh
600 aurei annually from the Roman emperor" just for "lett
beards grow long" (c. 19). Presumably Tatian had in view th
of 176 at Athens when Marcus Aurelius established four (or eight)
chairs of philosophy and one of rhetoric, each with a stipend of 10,000
drachmae (= 400 aurei). The event was so memorable that Lucian soon
devoted his Eunuchus to the struggle for appointment, like Tatian men-
tioning not only the claims of some philosophers to despise wealth but
also the long beards intended to inspire the confidence of prospective
pupils. The historian Dio Cassius briefly noticed the episode, and
Philostratus told how the emperor himself chose the "sophist"
Theodotus as the first regius professor of rhetoric, leaving to Herodes
Atticus the choice of philosophers.70 The event was important, especial-
ly for the "Greeks" whom Tatian was addressing and for rhetoricians
like Tatian himself. He therefore probably wrote not long after the end
of 176. We may ascribe his figure of 600 for the aurei to either error
or envy.1
In addition, Tatian criticized poor men who sold themselves to be
murdered and rich men who bought the prospective victims.72 A bronze
tablet from Italica in Spain preserves part of an address given in the

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 11

Roman Senate between 176 and 178 in reference to an imperial speec

and a decree limiting the prices to be paid for gladiators. The topic w
thus under discussion at the time.73 Like Tatian, the senator treats
gladiatorial combats as a dread disease and the taking of human life a
forbidden by divine and human law.'4
Tatian probably wrote, moreover, after the corpses of the Gallican
martyrs had been "burned and reduced to ashes" and "swept down int
the river Rhone... so that not even a trace of them might remain upo
earth." The pagans acted thus "so they may not have even a hope of
a resurrection."75 Others were torn by wild beasts.76 Tatian himself
argues that "even if fire makes my flesh disappear, the universe con
tains its vaporized matter; and if I am consumed in rivers and in sea
or torn apart by wild beasts, I am laid up in the treasuries of a ric
master."77 (Conservation of matter is a Stoic notion, expressed for ex
ample by Marcus Aurelius himself.)78 The challenge and response sug
gest that Tatian wrote after the martyrdoms in Gaul, imprecise though
such a date may be.
Tatian may well be answering Celsus when he writes that "you say
that we talk rubbish at meetings of women and girls and aged women
and you jeer at us," for Celsus had bitingly described successful Chris
tian missions among stupid children and women.79 Possibly he also re
jected Celsus' appeal to Christians "to help the emperor with all (their
power and cooperate with him in what is right and fight for him an
be fellow-soldiers if he presses for this and fellow-generals with him ...
and accept public office in our country if it is necessary to do so t
preserve the laws and piety."80 Like other Christians Tatian claims t
pay taxes and give due honor to the emperor.8' He also insists that h
rejects wealth or military command.
A specific occasion for the Ad Graecos was given by the hostility o
the Cynic "philosopher" Crescens in Rome, who claimed to despise
death but apparently accused both Justin and Tatian of being Christians
in order to get them executed. Tatian insists that one should despis
death, but out of knowledge of God, not seeking it "out of a mad pas
sion for fame."82 Marcus Aurelius thought that Christians did not see
death "after reflection and with dignity."83 Tatian disagrees with him
A decade earlier his teacher Justin had become a martyr.
Apollinaris, Melito, and Athenagoras were conciliators. Tatian was
not, and he addressed "the Greeks" in general, not the emperor. In hi
Oration to the Greeks he attacked many aspects of Graeco-Roman

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 ROBERT M. GRANT

culture and religion.84 Scholars have disagreed about its form

I argued in Studi e Materiali that it cannot be an inaugural ad
Tatian emphasizes exit, farewell, and blame. It looks like a lo
taktikos or "farewell discourse" to the culture of Greece and Rome. He
says "goodbye to all that" in at least two sections of the work, one near
the beginning, the other near the end. "Though highly distinguished in
your wisdom, we said farewell to it" (p. 2, 9). He has witnessed perfor-
mances by actors and boxers and rejects them (p. 24, 18-26, 7); he has
seen all the culture of Greece and Rome and has taken part in mystery
rites (p. 29, 26). "By much traveling I became expert in your studies and
encountered many devices and notions; finally I lived in the city of the
Romans and learned the varieties of statues which they took home with
them from you.... When I said goodbye to the arrogance of the Romans
and the nonsense of the Athenians with their incoherent doctrines, I
sought for the philosophy that you consider barbarian" (p. 36, 25-37,
8). He was leaving Greece and Rome and returning home, where he
would be "a philosopher among the barbarians, born in the land of the
Assyrians" (p. 43, 10). Lucian too called himself an Assyrian in his
Herodotean De dea Syria and knew that the Greeks call Syrians those
who are called Assyrians "by the barbarians."85 Tatian's terminology
is the same.

The rhetorician Menander describes such "leavetaking" addresses.

"The orator should acknowledge his gratitude to the city from which
he is returning, and praise it on whatever grounds the occasion permits"
(430, 30). Tatian, however, is producing an exercise in vituperation
(psogos), not an encomium. A friendly "leavetaking" address would
praise the city "on whatever grounds the occasion permits," including
the beauty of its appearance, statues, festivals, shrines of the Muses,
theatres, and games. "He should also praise the inhabitants, e.g.
priests, torchbearers, hierophants, and also the character of the
people-their civilized manners and hospitality" (431, 1-13). Tatian
does nothing of the sort. He was certainly not following Menander's
counsel to "show grief and tears at the parting"! Menander also ex-
plains that one can praise a city by emphasizing its achievements in
politics, in branches of knowledge such as astrology, geometry, music,
grammar, and philosophy, in arts such as sculpture and painting, and
in such skills as rhetoric and athletics (346, 26-367, 8). Tatian lays em-
phasis on almost exactly the same subjects-in order to denounce them.
(Direct denunciation does not extend throughout the little book.

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 13

There is also a positive, "Christian" content, conspicuous in the

theological sections. These materials deal with subjects different from
those found in the "farewell address" and are properly "protreptic,"
inviting the reader to follow Tatian by becoming a convert.)
Tatian's most striking self-portrait is given in what he thinks others
are saying of him. "Tatian is innovating (kainotomei) with his bar-
barian doctrines, beyond the Greeks and the countless multitude of
philosophers" (c. 35). He thus depicts himself as a new Socrates-the
Socrates of the Cynics not the Platonists. Aristotle criticized such in-
novation, admitting that "all the discourses of Socrates possess
brilliance, cleverness, originality (to kainotomon), and keeness of in-
quiry," but noting that "it is no doubt difficult to be right about
everything."86 Tatian, however, was sure he was right. Lucian held a
similar view of himself and could imagine that people said of his
speeches, "What novelty (kainotes), what marvelous paradoxes! How
inventive he is! One could express nothing fresher than his thought."87
This was Tatian's dream too.

Tatian says he is turning his back on Graeco-Roman culture, though

he uses rhetoric to say goodbye. Such ambivalence was to be shared b
Tertullian but not by all Christians either then or later. It emerged from
Tatian's personality in the historical circumstances of his time, between
177 and 180.

A fifth Apologist: Miltiades

The works of another apologist in this period have been lost. He con-
forms to the pattern we have already seen; like Apollinaris, he wrote
against the Montanists, the Greeks, and the Jews, and "addressed a
defence of his philosophy to the rulers of this world."88 Later he was
clearly regarded as orthodox,89 although in the text of the Church
History confusion has arisen over his name.
The anti-Montanist Anonymous used his work around 193 and
Eusebius set him under Commodus, recently dead. His opposition to
Montanism and the resemblances of his book titles to those of
Apollinaris suggest that he wrote around the same time, probably
a content like that of Apollinaris and Melito. Jerome proposed th
addressed Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, thus between 176 and
(De vir. inlustr. 39). Valesius, cited by Salmon, supposed that he
to the provincial governors, while Salmon himself suggested that

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 ROBERT M. GRANT

cus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were in view.90 This last sugg
wrong because of chronology. Valesius' hypothesis is possible,
ly with the conjecture of T. D. Barnes that by addressing p
governors he prepared the way for Tertullian's apology.9'
His use of kosmikoi archontes when addressing rulers may reca
the devil is called the "ruler of this world" in the Gospel of John
"ruler of this age" in the letters of Ignatius. More significant, h
is 1 Corinthians 2:6-8. "None of the rulers of this age (who ar
away) understood this (secret wisdom of God); for if they ha
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Non-Gnos
Christians interpreted such archontes in Romans as earthly ruler
therefore took the archontes of 1 Corinthians in the same way.93
Miltiades offered the transient rulers-whether provincial or
imperial-his explanation of this divine wisdom. The probable allusion
to 1 Corinthians shows that he was not as "loyalist" as Apollinaris,
Melito and Athenagoras. Perhaps he was more conciliatory than Ta-
tian, but presumably he wrote after the martyrdoms in Gaul.

Achievements of the Apologists

What did these Christian apologists accomplish by their petitions to

the emperor in the years around 176? Politically, very little. Marcus
Aurelius found their claims unimpressive and ordered the execution of
Roman citizens from Lyons and Vienne. Like the emperor, the court
physician Galen opposed the traditionalism of Christians and their lack
of rational proof for doctrines. On the other hand he praised them for
their contempt of death and the way in which both men and women pur-
sued self-discipline, self-control, and justice.94 Walzer claims that Galen
is "the first pagan author who implicitly places Greek philosophy and
the Christian religion on the same footing" and obviously commends
their virtues.95 The apologists too often described Christianity as a phi-
losophy and defended its moral teaching while asking for just treat-
ment.96 Perhaps they even influenced Commodus or his advisers. The
Christians who were martyred early in his reign were provocative, while
later on he granted a request by Marcia on behalf of the Roman bishop.
Apologetic influence within the churches was more important, for
Christian teachers could make use of their approaches to politics,
morality, and culture. Above all, they provided structures for
philosophical theology, especially significant before the rise of the

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 15

Christian school at Alexandria. Their ideas when reflected and cor-

rected by men like Irenaeus passed into the mainstream of Christian
thought.

NOTES

Cf. A Birley, Marcus Aurelius (New Haven, 1987), 171-74.

2 Dio 71.8; Arnuphis a sacred scribe of Egypt, L'annee epigraphique 1934, no. 245.
3 "Le monete di Marco Aurelio con Mercurio," Annali dell' Ist. Ital. di Numismatica
5-6 (1958-1959), 41-55; Suda, nos. 433 and 434, II 641-42 Adler; Claudian, Paneg. de VI
consulat. Honor. 348-50.
4 J. Bidez-F. Cumont, Les mages hellenises (Paris, 1938), II 366-67.
5Apol. 1.44.12.
6 Dio 71.22.3; cf. M. L. Astarita, Avidio Cassio (Rome, 1983).
7Epiph. Haer. 49.1; Tert. Fug. 9.4; Eus. H. E. 5.16.18-19.
8 Ibid. 5.16.1; 17.1.
9 Ulpian in Mos. et Rom. legum coll. 15.2.5; SHA M. Ant. 13.6.
10 Cf. E. Ritterling, "Epigraphische Beitraege," Rhein. Mus. 59 (1904), 196-99.
" Dio 30.1-2; 27.3.2; 28.2-3.
12 Leg. 1.2-3.
'3 Various itineraries in Astarita, op. cit. 155-62.
14 ILS 372.373.

15 Dio 71.29.1; cf. W. G. Spencer, Celsus De Medicina I (London, 1935), 463-65

16 P. B. Watson, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (New York, 1884), 222.
7 CIL 3.12213; cf. SHA Vit. Marc. 26.5.
18 Cf. Cic. Att. 5.21.14, cited by D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), 1154 (n. 36).
19 IGR 4.878.

20 Cf. Birley, op. cit., 192-93.

21 Op. cit., 162.
22 IGR 3.833.
23 IGR 3.449.
24 Cf. Ael. Aristid. Or. 19.1-2, p. 12 Keil.
25 On the roads cf. S. E. Johnson, "Laodicea and its Neighbors," Bibl. Arch. 13 (1950),
12-18; Magie, op. cit., II 786-802.
26 Philostr. Vit. soph. 606; IGR 4.841.
27 IGR 4.819. In general, R. L. Fox, Pagan and Christian (New York, 1986), 233-36.
28 Eus. H. E. 5.5.4.
29 Dio 55.23.5; Suet. Vesp. 4; Jos. Bell. 7.18.
30 Cf. "Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists," Stud. e Mater. di Storia delle
Rel. 52 (1986), 213-26.
31 Orig. Cels. 8.68-69.
32 Apol. 5.6; 35.9.
3 J. T. Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus (London, 1877), App. 3, Inscr. 16, p. 18: to the
divine Faustina and to Fadilla and <Annia> Faustina the emperor's daughters.

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 ROBERT M. GRANT

34IGR 4.1507; 361 and 460.

3 Sardis VII (ed. W. H. Buckler-D. M. Robinson, Leiden, 1932), No. 62.
36 No. 63.
7 No. 15.

38S. G. Hall, Melito of Sardis On Pascha (Oxford, 1979), Frag. 1; H. E. 4.26.

39Ibid. 5.1.4, 7, 9, 14, 27, 57.
40 Haer. 1. pr. 3.
41Eus. H. E. 5.1.7 (diarpagal), 17.
42Ibid. 4.26.5-6, 10.
43Ibid. 5.1.7-8, 17; 13-14.
44Ibid. 5.1.5, en hopoioi depote topoi.
45Orig. Cels. 8.69.
46 Act. Apoll. 23.
47Eus. H. E. 5.1.47.

48Or. 26.109 Keil; J. H. Oliver, The Ruling Power (TAPA 43.4, 1953), 887.
49Eus. H. E. 4.26.7.

50References in A. S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum Libri III II (Cam-

bridge, Mass., 1958), 566-67, on Cicero, Nat. deor. 2.8.
51Nero in Medit. 3.16.1 (cf. Epictet. 3.22.30); both in Herodian 1.3.4 (cf. SHA Marc.
28.10; also Comm. 19.2).
52IG2 2.3620 = Syll. ed. 3, 872, cf. 869.
53Philostr. Vit. soph. 563, 566.
54T. D. Barnes, "The Embassy of Athenagoras," JTS 26 (1975), 111-14.
5 Ibid. 112; only "German and Sarmatian" in Syll. ed. 3, 872.
56Leg. 37.2; cf. 18.2.
57Ibid. 18.2; 37.2.
58Or. 19, pp. 12-16 Keil (pp. 12, 4; 13, 29).
59Leg. 16.2; 37.1.
60Ibid. 30.2.
6 Ibid. 2.6-3.1.
62Eus. H. E. 5.1.60 and 14.

63Ep. 10.96.7; cf. Justin, Apol. 1.26.7.

64Min. Fel. Oct. 9.6-7.

65Leg. 35.3.
66 Apol. 2.12.4.
67Eus. H. E. 5.1.14.

68Cf. M. Sordi, II Cristianesimo e Roma (Bologna, 1965), 171-97; 465-67,

cle "The Chronology of the Greek Apologists," VC 9 (1955), 25-33.
69Cf. T. D. Barnes, "Eusebius and the Date of the Martyrdoms," Les Ma
(177) (Paris, 1978), 137-41.
70 Luc. Eun. 3, 8; Dio 71.31.3; Philostr. Soph. 566.
71"The Date of Tatian's Oration," HTR 46 (1953), 99-101; G. W. Clarke, "The date
of the Oration of Tatian," HTR 60 (1967), 122-26.
72 Or. 23, p. 25, 23.
73Text in ILS 5163; FIRA ed. 2, I 49; cf. ILS 9340; J. H. Oliver and R. E. A. Palmer,
"Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate," Hesperia 24 (1955), 320; cf. F. Millar, op.
cit., 195.

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIVE APOLOGISTS AND MARCUS AURELIUS 17

74 Lines 1-4 of the speech.

75Eus. H. E. 5.1.62-63.
76Ibid. 37.
77Or. 6.2, p. 6, 31-7, 2.
78 Medit. 8.18.
79Ibid. 33, p. 34, 3; Cels. 3.55-57.
80 Cels. 8.73, 75.
81 Or. 4, p. 4, 23-26.
82Ibid. 19, p. 21, 8; cf. Just. Apol. 2.12.1.
83 Medit. 11.3.
84 Citations by page of Schwartz, reprinted by Whittaker.
85Herod. 7.63; cf. the Syrian Elagabalus' nickname "the Assyrian," Dio 79.11.2.
86Pol. 2.3, 1265 a 12.
87 Zeux. 1.

88Eus. H. E. 5.17.1, 5.
89 Ibid. 5.28.4; cf. Tert. Val. 5.1.
90 DCB III (1882), 916.
9 Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), 104.
92Mart. Polyc. 10.2; Tat. Or. 4, p. 4.23-26; Theoph. Autol. 1.11; 3.14; Iren. Haer.
5.24.1.

93Cf. Acts 13:27-29; Tert. Marc. 5.6.8.

94 Cf. R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford, 1949), 13-16.
95Ibid., 43-44, 68-69.
96 See further my note on "Paul, Galen, and Origen," JTS 34 (1983), 533-36.

5728 Harper Avenue, Chicago IL 60637

This content downloaded from

142.112.191.231 on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:34:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms