Folia Theologica et Canonica 1. 23/15 (2012)

SACRA THEOLOGIA - László Perendy, Athenagoras on the Triune God of Christians

78

PERENDY LÁSZLÓ

Abraham J. Malherbe aims at placing Athenagoras in the philosophical context of the Platonism of the early Christian centuries.42 43 Although his method is to compare the structure of Albinus’ Didaskalikos43 with that of the Supplicatio {Legatio), he also refers to several aspects of the doctrine. One of the main charges against Christianity was that of atheism. Athenagoras contrasts Christians with Diagoras, who was regarded as the classic example of atheism in doxographies:

What makes Christians unlike Diagoras is that they distinguish between God and matter, for God is unbegotten and invisible (ayevrytov ... Kai àïSiov), contemplated by mind and reason alone (vcp povco ral Abycp Oecupcmpevov), while matter is subject to generation and corruption (IV p.123, 10-13). God the Creator is unbegotten, for it is not Being that is subject to becoming, but non-being (IV p.123, 18-20).44

In the summary of his article, Malherbe warns us that despite the structural similarities with the Didaskalikos we should not regard the Supplicatio as a complete theological discourse:

From this comparison of Athenagoras’ Supplicatio with Albinus’ Didaskalikos it appears that the apologist intended to present Christian doctrine within the framework provided by a Middle Platonic epitome of Plato’s philosophy. Our findings, however, should beware of overstatement. Athenagoras does not in the Supplicatio develop a Christian philosophy in and for itself. His apologetic and polemical interests are constantly evident. The limitations imposed on him by his apologetic purpose and the literary form he employs should therefore also caution against our viewing the Supplicatio as a full exposition of his theology.45

In connection with Supplicatio 7, Malherbe mentions also in another contribution that the corresponding Middle Platonic division of Theoretics consists of a discussion of the first principles, i.e. 9eôç, î5Àr| and iôéa.46 Despite of the formal similarities, Athenagoras is not a captive of the Middle Platonic system. Malherbe regards it very important that the apologist uses ei'8r| instead of Í5écct when enumerating the first principles. The consequence of applying a term which was always connected with changeable matter cannot be neglected:

42 Malherbe, A. J., The Structure of Athenagoras, “Supplicatio pro Christianis", in Vigiliae Christianae 23 (1969) 1-20.

43 See Witt, R. E., Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, Cambridge 1937.

44 Malherbe, A. J., The Structure of Athenagoras, 10.

45 Malherbe, A. J., The Structure of Athenagoras, 20.

46 Malherbe, A. J., Athenagoras on the Poets and Philosophers, in Granfield, P. - Jungmann, J. A. (eds.), Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten, Münster 1970. 214-225, especially 218.