Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:07:00.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

William R. Schoedel
William R. Schoedel
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following study on aspects of the form of apologetic literature in the early church and Judaism grows out of a previous analysis of themes in the apologist Athenagoras that reflect the manner of praising kings in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition. My argument was that, although Athenagoras's Legatio is correctly read as apologetic literature, the task of the orator to render the judge well disposed to his cause is carried out by Athenagoras by calling on familiar epideictic strategies known to us primarily from Menander's (or Ps.- Menander's) codification of them in the third century. Meanwhile, Robert M. Grant has reoriented my discussion of Athenagoras by reading it against the background provided by Fergus Millar in the latter's detailed investigation of the activities of the Roman emperors in meeting the appeals and requests of the people of the Roman empire. Here the fact that Athenagoras's apology is entitled “Embassy” is seen as significant in the light of the importance of embassies in presenting appeals and requests to the emperor. It seems natural to look at the kinds of addresses that ambassadors gave in such circumstances for more precise clues to the literary character of the Christian apologies. The following study is intended as a contribution to the inquiry that has been opened up by that suggestion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 55 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schoedel, William R., “In Praise of the King: A Rhetorical Pattern in Athenagoras,” in Winslow, Donald F., ed., Discipline! Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, (Patristic Monograph Series 6; Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979) 69–90.Google Scholar

2 Millar, Fergus, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337) (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977)Google Scholar. Cf. Grant, Robert M., “Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists,” SMSR 52 (1986) 213–26Google Scholar; idem, “Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius,” VC 42 (1988) 1–17.Google Scholar

3 See n. 1. For the text of Menander with translation, introduction, and notes see now Russell, D. A. and Wilson, N. G., Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981).Google Scholar

4 Grant, “Five Apologists,” 8.

5 See Millar, The Emperor, 140–42.

6 Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, 337.

7 See Millar, The Emperor, 423–24 (for the historical setting), and Behr, Charles A., P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works, vol. 2: Orations XVII–LIII (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 10–13 (for translation and notes).Google Scholar

8 Thalheim, , “Klepsydra,” PW, 11/1 (1921) 806–9.Google Scholar

9 Mommsen, Theodor, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1899) 428–29Google Scholar; Kubitschek, Wilhelm, Grundriss der antiken Zeitrechnung (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 1.7; Munich: Beck, 1928) 206.Google Scholar

10 Solmsen, F., “Philostratos,” PW, 20/1 (1941) 141. Solmsen emphasizes the extent to which the speech embodies Philostratus's own view of Apollonius as one who had nothing to do with magic.Google Scholar

11 Musurillo, Herbert A., The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954). The Acta Maximi (if correctly reconstructed) seem to contain a speech (thought not a very long one) of the accuser (33–43, 150–60).Google Scholar

12 Thus W. H. C. Frend compares the apologies to “open letters” addressed to the wider public (The Rise of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 234)Google Scholar, and Robin Lane Fox echoes the reactions of those who find it hard to believe that a second-century emperor would have taken the trouble to read such documents (Pagans and Christians [New York: Knopf, 1987] 305).Google Scholar

13 Millar, The Emperor, 565.

14 Ibid., 210 n. 43. See also Georgius Mihailov, ed., Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae, vol. 4: Inscriptiones in territorio Serdicensi et in vallibus Strymonis Nestique repertae (Academia Litterarum Bulgarica, Institutum Archaeologicum, Series Epigraphica 9; Serdicae: Academia Litterarum Bulgaricae, 1966) 217.Google Scholar

15 Millar, The Emperor, 563.

16 Most conveniently available in OGIS, 2. 169–74, no. 519, and in SIG, 2. 603–9, no. 888. For discussion of these and other libelii, see Millar, The Emperor, 541–44.

17 Millar, The Emperor, 497–98, 561.

18 Wacholder, Ben Zion, Nicolaus of Damascus (University of California Publications in History 75; Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962) 27–29.Google Scholar

19 Laqueur, Richard, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen: Müchow'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920) 223–26Google Scholar; “Nikolaos,” PW, 17/1 (1936) 394–96.Google Scholar

20 The term γραμματεῖον probably refers to a libellus like that submitted by Peregrinus to the emperor to recover from the Parians property that he had given to the city (Lucian Peregr. 16); cf. Millar, The Emperor, 441.

21 For what follows see Smallwood, E. Mary, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 251–53Google Scholar. A somewhat different view of matters is taken by F. H. Colson, Philo. LCL.

22 Smallwood, Legatio, 253.

23 Cf. Millar, The Emperor, 242.

24 Smallwood, Legatio, 192.

25 Cf. Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, xi–xxxiv.

26 Cf. Smallwood, Legatio, 158, 162–64.

27 Ibid., 37–43.

28 Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, xiii–xiv (Plato), xv (Xenophon), xx (Aristotle), xxi (Ad Alexandrum), xxii–xxiii (Cicero), xxv (Menander), xxvi (Theon), xxviii (Aphthonius).

29 Cf. Quintilian Inst. 3.7.15: “Praise of character is always fitting, but there is more than one way to accomplish it. For sometimes it has proved more effective to follow the stages of a person's life and the order of his deeds so that his abilities as a child are praised, then his schooling, and finally the succession of his achievements including deeds and words. At other times it has proved more effective to divide praise according to the various virtues—courage, justice, self-control and the rest—and to assign to each the deeds accomplished according to them.”

30 Colson, Philo, 10. 186.

31 As translated by Behr, P. Aelius Aristides, 2. 14.

32 Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, xxii–xxiii.

33 Menander 346,9–23; cf. Quintilian Inst. 3.7.6: “Some arguments will even fall into the realm of defence: for example, if in praise of Hercules the orator will excuse his change of clothes with the queen of Lydia and the tasks imposed on him, as it is told.”

34 Mihailov, Inscriptions Graecae in Bulgaria, 4. 209.

35 Peter Herrmann, Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordostlydien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse 80; Vienna: Böhlaus, 1962) 26–28: no. 19, late second to early third century CE.

36 Parsons, Peter J., “The Grammarian's Complaint,” in Hanson, Ann Ellis, ed., Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie (2 vols.; Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 19–20; Bonn: Habelt, 1976) 2. 409–46.Google Scholar

37 Herrmann, Peter. Neue Inschriften zur historischen Landeskunde von Lydien und angrenzenden Gebieten (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse 77/1; Vienna: Rohrer, 1959) 12.Google Scholar

38 For a rejection of the view that only imperial estates were involved in such instances see Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria, 4. 210–12.

39 Abbott, Frank Frost and Johnson, Allan Chester, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, 1968) 473.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., 480–81 (no. 143 = no. 38, Keil and Premerstein).

41 Keil, Josef and Premerstein, Anton von, Bericht über eine dritte Reise in Lydien (Vienna: Hölder, 1914) 26–27.Google Scholar

42 Keresztes, Paul, “Law and Arbitrariness in the Persecution of the Christians and Justin's First Apology,” VC 18 (1964) 204–14.Google Scholar

43 A reference to the proconsul according to Keil and Premerstein, Bericht über eine dritte Reise, 27.

44 Millar, The Emperor, 208.

45 Ibid.,468.

46 Cf. Schwabe, , “Apuleius,” PW, 2/1 (1895) 251: “Natürlich ist die Rede [i.e., Apuleius's apology] nicht so gehalten, sondern erst nachträglich ausgearbeitet, obwohl der Redner den Schein annimmt, als stände er vor Gericht.”Google Scholar

47 Mihailov, Inscriptions Graecae in Bulgaria, 4. 224 (the ύπέρ represents a restoration—it is apparently correct).

48 Ibid., 4. 222 (lines 6 - 9 of frg. 1).

49 Millar, The Emperor, 562–63.

50 Pellegrino, Michele, Studi su l'antica apologetica (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letterature, 1947) 46–85.Google Scholar

51 In this connection we may compare Apuleius's statements in his apology that he is offering a defense not only of his own person but also of philosophy (Apol. 1.2; 3.4), and we should recall that he no doubt reworked his presentation for publication and intended it to be read by the general public (see n. 46 above).