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

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

72

PERENDY LÁSZLÓ

and satisfactory. But the manner in which the fall of the angels took place, according to Athenagoras, is fantastic and inconsistent with his teaching on the order in the universe. His account is gleaned from a work which he thought to be part of the Scriptures; he adds an explanatory insertion that the witnesses to the truth of his writings are the prophets. His source is, however, undoubtedly the pseudepigraph, The Book of Enoch, in which is contained the description of the fall of the angels as it is set down by Athenagoras.16 17

This remark about the inconsistency of the apologist is really a remarkable one: there is order and harmony everywhere in the universe, except at the source of evil. But Athenagoras asserts order and purpose in the present state of the universe. Like Aristotle, he tries to hnd definite tendencies in created beings, but, unlike Aristotle, he does regard matter itself as an obstacle preventing the perfect achievement of the purpose of creation.18 In my opinion the purpose of the efforts of Athenagoras is clear: he wants to avoid any kind of dualism when trying to find the source of evil in created spiritual beings, in angels. On the basis of Lucks’ remarks, however, this is not a perfect solution.

Despite of Athenagoras’ shortcomings, Lucks grieves over the fact that the apologist was almost completely ignored by history and his writings exerted no influence on later philosophical and theological development.19

In the introduction to his translation of the Supplicatio {Legatio), discussing Athenagoras’ doctrine, Gustave Bardy gives statistics about the use of áyéwr|- toç applied to God.20 There are nine instances in the Supplicatio where this word is used, and it always refers to the God of the Christians. The word ayevrjTOt is used only in Chapter 8, where it refers to gods in general, whose existence is accepted only hypothetically for the sake of the train of thought to deny their existence. Bardy cannot accept the “corrections” of some editors who replace àyéwr|Toç with àyévr|xoç.21

Bardy notes that Athenagoras does not explain what he means by creation. His explanation of God’s providence does not seem to be satisfactory, either. He tries to distinguish between providence in general and providence in particular:

16 Lucks, H. A., The Philosophy of Athenagoras, 44-49.

17 Lucks, H. A., The Philosophy of Athenagoras, 54.

18 Lucks, H. A., The Philosophy of Athenagoras, 55.

19 Lucks, H. A., The Philosophy of Athenagoras, 85.

20 See also: Lebreton, L, ATENNHTOZ dans la tradition philosophique et dans la littérature chrétienne du Ile siècle, in Recherches de science religieuse 16 (1926) 431-443. Daniélou, J., Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux IT et HT siècles, Tournai 1961, passim.

21 Bardy, G., Athénagore: Supplique au sujet des chrétiens, 48.