Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:50:19.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Robert M. Grant
Robert M. Grant
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1936 Henry Lucks could write of Athenagoras' treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead that “it is rather singular that there is no questioning of the authorship of this work, and no hesitancy evident in attributing it to Athenagoras.” On the other hand, in 1950 P. Keseling made the following statement after speaking of Athenagoras' Legatio:

Demselben Verfasser weist eine von der Hand des Erzbischof Arethas selbst herrühende (so Stählin bei Harnack, Lit. 2 1, 317, 4) Eintragung in dem massgebenden Codex Paris, graecus 451 v J. 914 einen Λόγος περὶ ἀναστάεως τῶν νεκρῶν (Oratio de resurrectione mortuorum), also eine Schrift über die Auferstehung der Toten zu, die jedoch, sonst nirgends bezeugt und aus inneren Gründen nicht unverdächtig, hier ausser Betracht geblieben ist.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the reasons for believing that Athenagoras could not have written the treatise De resurrectione.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1954 , pp. 121 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1954

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 Lucks, H. A., The Philosophy of Athenagoras (Washington, 1936), 19Google Scholar.

2 Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum I (1950), 881.

3 von Gebhardt, O., Der Arethascodex (Texte und Untersuchungen I 3, Leipzig, 1888), 183–85Google Scholar.

4 Schwartz, E., Athenagorae libellus pro Christianis. Oratio de resurrectione cadaverum (T. und U. IV 2, Leipzig, 1891), ivGoogle Scholar.

5 Chaudouard, L., Étude sur le περὶ ἁναστάσεως d'Athénagore (Lyons, 1905), 7Google Scholar.

6 Contrast Leg. 36, 2 with Res. 18, 5 and 21, 3.

7 Cf. Pohlenz, M. in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 47 (1904), 241–50Google Scholar; Alfonsi, L. in Vigiliae christianae 7 (1953), 138–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Op. cit., 92.

9 Op. cit., 8.

10 Cf. Ubaldi-M, P.. Pellegrino, Atenagora (Torino, 1947)Google Scholar, 210 n. 1.

11 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5, 13, 4; Clement, Paed. 3, 80, 4; Strom. 1, 59, 4; Tertullian, De res. carnis 49; De ieiun. 17; De monog. 16.

12 Numenius, frag. 5, p. 127, 12 Leemans (Eusebius, P. E. 14, 8, 7); cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 7, 164. 252. 415. 438; Cicero, Acad. 2, 42; De nat. deor. 1, 12.

13 Cf. Albinus, Eisagoge 6, p. 150 Hermann (cited by Schwartz).

14 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Paneg. 93–99, pp. 19–20 Koetschau.

15 Seneca, Ep. 92, 34 (cited by J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten [Leipzig, 1907], 235 n. 9); from Posidonius, A. Schmekel, Die Philosophic der mittleren Stoa (Berlin, 1892), 250.

16 Orat. 6, 2.

17 In Methodius, De res. 1, 20, 4–5.

18 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Paneg. 110–11 (for physics); Eusebius, H. E. 6, 21, 3.

19 In Eusebius, H. E. 6, 19, 5.

20 De princ. 2, 1, 4, p. 109, 17 Koetschau: quodcumque illud est quod per cibum sumpserimus, in corporis nostri substantiam vertitur.

21 References in Chadwick, H., Harv. Theol. Rev. 41 (1948), 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Ibid., 90.

23 In Methodius, De res. 1, 21, 1.

24 Ibid., 1, 22, 1.

25 Chadwick, op. cit., 86–87.

26 Methodius, De res. 2, 12–13 (cf. Daniélou, J. in Vigiliae christianae 7 1953, 168–69)Google Scholar; Dial. Adamant. 5, 16–17.

27 De anima 403 a 16, 403 b 17 (passions); Eth. Nicom. 1178 a 20 (virtues).

28 Cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Paneg. 122.

29 Methodius, De res. 1, 31, 6; Dial. Adamant. 5, 21.

30 Eth. Nicom. 1095 b 20.

31 Contra Celsum 3, 47. 59; 4, 22; cf. De orat. 9, 2; Comm. in Ioh. 19, 15, p. 315, 22 Preuschen.

32 Contra Celsum 3, 56; 6, 61.

33 Strom. 6, 133–48. The author's rejection of pleasure as the goal of life may well be due to Origen's having accused the simpliciores of having this goal; cf. De princ. 2, 11, 2.

34 De res. carnis 14.

35 Text in Holl, K., Fragmente vornicänischer Kirchenväter aus den Sacra Parallela (T. und. U. XX 2, Leipzig, 1899), 36–49Google Scholar; cf. Hitchcock, F. R. M. in Zeitschr. f. die neutest. Wiss. 36 (1937), 41–60Google Scholar.

36 Eusebius, H. E. 8, 11, 1; cf. Baynes, N. H. in Cambridge Ancient History XII (1936), 674Google Scholar.