The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist. Jason B. Parnell

Transcription

1 TheTheurgicTurninChristianThought: Iamblichus,Origen,Augustine,andtheEucharist by JasonB.Parnell Adissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfillment oftherequirementsforthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy (ClassicalStudies) intheuniversityofmichigan 2009 DoctoralCommittee: ProfessorSarahL.Ahbel Rappe,Co Chair ProfessorDavidS.Potter,Co Chair ProfessorVictorCaston AssociateProfessorArthurMfwVerhoogt

2 JasonB.Parnell 2009

3 Acknowledgments ThanksbeyondmeasureareduetoProfessorSaraAhbel Rappe,myprincipal advisor,withoutwhosethoughtfulandtimelyinputthisprojectwouldsimplyhave failed.whatcoherenceistobefoundhereislargelyduetoherknowledge,experience andknackfordispensingjusttherightwisdomatjusttherighttime.fortheirvery helpfuladviceonconstructingalargernarrativeaboutintellectualhistory,iam indebtedtoprofessordavidpotterandprofessorvictorcaston astoprofessorarthur Verhoogtforhispapyrologist seyeforerrorandscrutinizingattentiontokeyideasand theirproperexplication.professorh.d.cameronisjustlyacknowledgedaswell,for believingearlyonthattheprojectwasalivewhenitappearedquitemoribund. Morebroadly,ImustexpressmygratitudetotheDepartmentofClassical Studiesasawhole,forpermittingmycompletionofaprojectthatbegan,properly speaking,in1996. Amongmypeersingraduateschool,whohavecontributedsomuchcharmand mayhemtomyyearsatmichigan,imustacknowledgepre eminentlyrajimittal,alex Conison,AlexAngelov,andAlbertusHorsting,whosecapacitiesforconstructive idlenessanddistractionastonishinglydwarfevenmyown.alongwiththem,mike Sampson,RobChenault,NateBethell,SanjayaThakur,KathrynSeidlSteed,JennFinn, ShondaTohm,andthedecidedlyclassicalAlisonByrnes,MFA,werepeerless contributorstotheconvivialityofmanygooddays.ishallneveragainraiseatumbler ofbourbonwithoutrememberingautumnafternoonsspentamongthem,whichisproof againstallretortoftheinsightinwalkerpercy sdeclarationthat bourbondoesforme whatthatpieceofcakedidforproust. ii

4 TableofContents Acknowledgments ii ListofAbbreviations v ChapterI:ChristianThoughtandTheurgy 1 1.TheProblem 1 2.Methodology:Approach,LimitsofStudy,Terminology 6 3.Overview 13 4.SummaryObservation 17 ChapterII:PaganandChristianIntellectualCulture 18 1.TheProblemofComparison:ChristianityandAntiquity 18 2.ChristianityandAntiquity:theModernProblem 21 3.ChristianThinkersintheRomanEmpire:theGreekApologists 30 4.TheCaseofAnatoliusandAlexandrianIntellectualCulture 44 5.AThirdCenturyChristianIntellectual:OrigenofAlexandria 50 ChapterIII:TheIamblicheanSymbolonandtheMetaphysicsofTheurgy 62 1.Introduction:ADisputeoverTheurgyandtheSoul sascent 62 2.Plato,Plotinus,Iamblichus,andTradition:EmbodimentanditsDiscontents 77 3.IamblichusandPlatonicCosmology 85 4.IamblicheanFirstPrinciplesandtheGoodnessofMaterialReality 88 5.MatterasObstacle,MatterasInstrument:DaemonsandDemiurgicSouls 100 iii

5 6.DivineMatterandIamblicheanritual EikonandSymbolasMeansoftheSoul sascent 116 ChapterIV:OrigenandtheAdaptationofPaganCult Introduction:TheLogos,theRationalCreatureandMaterialCult CosmologyandSpiritualAnthropology:CorporealityandRationalBeings TheDefenseofMaterialityonPlatonicGround TheIncarnationoftheLogos:EncounteringGodintheBody ExorcisingtheDaemons:ChristianizingPaganCult 189 ChapterV:TheurgyandEucharisticMediationinAugustine Introduction:AugustineandtheTheurgicInheritance Augustine staxonomyofdaemons TheurgyasDaemonicCult ChristasPerfectEmbodiedMediation EucharistasSign:ASignTheoryofLanguageAppliedtoCult 239 ChapterVI:Conclusion 256 Bibliography 261 iv

6 ListofAbbreviations Abst. Porphyry,deAbstinentia agon. Augustine,Deagonechristiano Ascl. Asclepius C.Cels. Origen,ContraCelsum CMAG Cataloguedesmanuscritsalchimiquesgrecs cod. Photius,BibliothecaeCodices commeph Origen,FragmentaexcommentariisinepistulamadEphesios commjohn Origen,CommentariiinevangeliumJoannis commmatt Origen,CommentariuminevangeliumMatthaei c.faust. Augustine,ContraFaustumManicheum Corp.Herm. CorpusHermeticum DCMS Iamblichus,DeCommuniMathematicaScientiaLiber DM Iamblichus,DeMysteriis Deciv.D. Augustine,DeCivitateDei DeDeoSocrat. Apuleius,DeDeoSocratis Depraescr.haeret. Tertullian,Depraescriptionehaereticorum dial. Origen,dialoguscumHeraclide Diogn. EpistletoDiognetus div.qu. Augustine,Dediversusquaestionibusoctogintatribus EH Eusebius,EcclesiasticalHistory ench. Augustine,Encheiridiondefidespeetcaritate Enn. Plotinus,Enneads exprov Origen,ExpositioinProverbia f.etsym. Augustine,Defideetsymbolo frjohn Origen,FragmentainevangeliumJoannis frmatt Origen,FragmentainevangeliumMatthaei haer. Epiphanius,Panarionseuadversuslxxxhaereses innic. Iamblichus,InNichomachiArithmeticamIntroductionem inph. Simplicius,inAristotelisphysicorumlibrosoctocommentaria inprm. Damascius,inParmenidem inr. Proclus,inPlatonisRempublicanCommentarii inti. Proclus,inPlatonisTimaeumCommentarii Lg. Plato,Leges mag. Augustine,DeMagistro v

7 Marc. Porphyry,AdMarcellam mart. Origen,ExhortatioadMartyrium Phaed. Plato,Phaedo Phaedr. Plato,Phaedrus princ. Origen,DePrincipiis quant. Augustine,Deanimaequantitate selps Origen,SelectainPsalmos Strom. Clement,Stromateis Ti. Plato,Timaeus trin. Augustine,DeTrinitate VP Porphyry,VitaPlotini VS Eunapius,VitaeSophistarum vi

8 ChapterI:ChristianThoughtandTheurgy 1.TheProblem UntilfairlyrecentlyscholarshaveregardedIamblichus defenseoftheurgyas littlemorethanathinapologyforthemagicalmanipulationofgodsanddemons.itwas famouslytermed amanifestoofirrationalism, afoundingcharterforevery superstitionopposedtogenuinephilosophicalreasoning. 1 Thetheurgicturnin Platonismwastobeunderstoodasanaberrationsymptomaticofdeclineanddecadence, afallingawayfromthemoresophisticated,rarefiedphilosophyofplotinusand Porphyry.ThisviewisinkeepingwiththeargumentsofPorphyryhimself,whose uneasewiththeurgypromptedhimtowritehislettertoanebotochallengeit,provoking inturniamblichus responseinhisdemysteriis. 2 Themostrecentscholarshiphas shownthatthatmorecontemptuousevaluationsofiamblichusrepresentinparta misperception,andthathisworkismoreaccuratelyreadasagenuineattemptto vindicatematerialreligiousriteswithintheframeworkofacoherentmetaphysicsand psychology. 3 Becauseofthehistoricallynegativeperceptionoftheurgy,thequestionofits influenceonlaterchristianthinkersbecomesacomplicatedmatter.thelong standing prejudiceagainsttheurgyasdebasedsuperstitioninfectsapproachestochristianwriters 1E.R.Dodds,TheGreeksandtheIrrational(1973) ChapterIII.1 2willconsiderthebackgroundofIamblichus relationshiptohisfellow Neoplatonists. 3Shaw(1999)summarizesthecaseandcatalogstheessentialbibliography:Trouillard(1972); Dillon(1973);Larsen(1972);Lloyd(1967);Steel(1978);Smith(1974);Sheppard(1982);Shaw(1985, 1995);Fowden(1986);Athanassiadi(1993). 1

9 whoseworksbeartheurgy sclearmarkings,andwhoseauthorsareoftenconsidered suspiciously pagan asaresult.ithaslongbeenacknowledgedthattheworksof Pseudo Dionysius 4 openlyadoptsignificantlanguageandcontentfromiamblichus, mediatedthroughthefifthcenturyathenianschoolofneoplatonism.amongsome scholars,thisstateofaffairshasoftengivenrisetothequestionofwhetherdionysius, consideringhisneoplatonistcommitmentsandtheurgicinfluences,canberegardedas legitimatelychristian. 5 SuchscholarsoftenstrivetoimplicateDionysiusinhisown pagan theurgy,therebyquarantininghis Platonism from authentic Christianity. Specifically,Protestantscholarsparticularlyhaveoftenundertakentosanitize Dionysius adoptionofthetheurgicsymbola,readingthemasmeresignsofprinciplesto beintellectuallyapprehended,ratherthanmateriallyefficaciouselementsinreligious rites. 6 Suchapproaches boththosethatsuspecttheurgyitself,andthosethatsuspect Christianauthorsoftheurgic corruption arearguablyrelated,sinceeachseesin theurgyamenacetobecontained,theformerregardingitasathreattolegitimate philosophicaldiscourse,thelattertolegitimatechristianity.insofarasbothapproaches attemptsuchcompartmentalization,theyarealmostcertainlybothdefective.the assignmentoftheurgytothecategoryofthemerelysuperstitioushasnowlongbeen regardedasdeficient;likewise,anxietyovertheurgicinfluenceonthepseudo Dionysius hasbeensomewhatdiminished,orperhapsfinallydeclaredmoot.gregoryshaw,for instance,specificallynotingdionysius adoptionofaiamblicheantriadicorderingof worship,hisadaptationofmaterialsymbola,andhisprescriptionsforadvancementto 4late5 th early6 th century 5SeeespeciallythedisputebetweenKennethPaulWesche, ChristologicalDoctrineand LiturgicalInterpretationinPseudo Dionysius (1989)andAlexanderGolitzin, OntheOther Hand[AReponsetoFr.PaulWesche srecentarticleondionysiusinst.vladimir stheological Quarterly.](1990). 6Rorem, TheUpliftingSpiritualityofPseudo Dionysius (1986)134,isconcernedtoavoid taintingsacraments,asconceivedbydionysius,withanyideaofmaterial,magicalefficacy. Golitzin TheMysticismofDionysiusAreopagita:PlatonistorChristian (1993)iscriticalofthis tendency.ofluibheidandrorem stranslation(1987)ofthepseudo Dionysiancorpus,Shaw (1999)interestinglynotesthatthetranslatorsexcludethetermtheurgiafromtheirtext,despiteits forty sevenoccurrences(includingcognates)inthecorpus(574,andn.1). 2

10 higherlevelsofworship,arguesforthelikelihoodthat Dionysiussimplyadaptedthe principlesandsomeoftheterminologyofiamblichus psychologyandtheurgyto completehishieraticvisionofthechurch. Itisdifficult,hefurtherargues, nottosee Dionysiusasakindof ChristianIamblichus. 7 Asusefulassuchcorrectionshavebeen,theytoosufferfromafundamental problem:thedefectofviewingtherelationshipbetweentheurgyandchristianthought inneatlygenealogicalterms,foundedontheassumptionthatiamblichuscodifiedthe theurgicturninplatonism,basedonhisreceptiontheofthechaldeanoraclesandother influences,andthentransmittedittohisintellectualheirssuchasproclusandthe Athenianschool.Fromthesesources,Dionysiuscouldadopttheurgicprinciplesasthe basisforhismystagogyandhisaccountofchristianliturgy.theproblemwiththis approachisthatitoffersalineoftransmissionthatissimplytooclean,inthatitregards ideasastransmittedlineallyandgenealogicallyratherthanlaterally.butinreality, ideasdonotexistonlyinphilosophicaltexts,butarerathernegotiatedinabroader culturalcontext,aplainfactthatpointstothedangerinassumingthatiamblichean thoughtandlatertheurgyareproductsofanintellectualtraditionthatissomehow neatlyseparablefromtheculturethatshapedmajorthirdandfourthcenturychristian thinkers.itmightseemthatthisinsightshouldbeobvious,andmoreoftenthannotitis atleasttheoreticallyacknowledgedinscholarship;butevengivenitsrecognitionin principle,itisoftennotobservedinpractice,whichresultsinatendencytoassumethat athinker sstandingas pagan or Christian excludesprimafaciehisengagementwith certainideas asifcreedaldifferentiationdictatedcompartmentalizationofthought. Underthisflawedconstruction,whileitmightbegrantedthatChristianthinkerscould adopttherhetoricaltropesandphilosophicalargumentsofhighergreco Romanculture, theyareneverthelesseffectivelyinsulatedfromtheputativelynegativeeffectstheir borrowings mighthaveonthesubstanceoftheirchristianity. Thepresentargumentispremisedonaresistancetotheeasytaxonomyofsucha perspective,arguingratherthatpaganandchristianthinkersnotonlyspeakthesame 7Shaw(1999)

11 language,butthattheyaresubstantivelyco participantsinthesameculture.the argumentthereforestartsfromtheprinciplethattheboundariesdividingthe pagan fromthe Christian beforeandafteriamblichusshouldbeseenaslargelyfictional constructsservingscholarlyconvenience,andgivenillusorystabilitybytherhetorical natureofchristianpolemicbothancientandmodern.bothchristianityandthe traditionalreligioussystemsandphilosophicalschoolsoftheromanempireemerge fromthesameculturalmatrixdefinedbyastoreofsharedideas,practicesand dispositions onethatisalreadycharacterizedbyaconstantinteractionthatdefines bothchristianityandlaterpaganism.itisnotthecasethatonemerely influences the otherinalinealfashion,butthattheyemergefromthesameculturalworld,andquite naturallymanifestanalogoustraits.withintellectualcultureplacedinproper perspective,weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindtheoreticalsimilaritybetweenchristian andpaganthought,toincludethephilosophicaltheorizationofritualpractice. Becausethisperspectiverequiresthatweseeideasasarisingwithinashared culture,weencounteraspecialdifficulty.despiteacontextcommontobothpaganand Christianthinkers,Christianityposesadistinctiveprobleminitsstanceofexclusivity, whichrequireditsadherentstoadoptarhetoricofdifferentiationinordertodistinguish themselvesfromthepagancultsthattheyunderstoodasinadequateandgenerally maleficent.christianthinkerswereforced,inotherwords,toconceallikenessinthe interestsofdefiningandmaintainingidentity.thedifficultiesthatthirdandfourth centurychristianthinkerswouldencounterincarryingoutthisrhetoricalprojectare alreadyevidentinearlierperiods,whenchristianthoughtisfirstassimilatingitself withinitsgreco Roman,neareastern,polytheist,andJewishcontext.Oftentherhetoric employedreflectstheconsciousnessofthesomewhatimperiledplaceofchristianity withinthecultureandpoliticsoftheempire.differentstrategiesmightbeemployedas circumstancesdictated.aphilosopherliketheapologistjustininthesecondcentury couldpraisegreekphilosophy,subordinatingittobiblicalwisdomandtherebytaming itforchristianuse,whilethethirdcenturynorthafricanbishoptertulliancould famouslycallplatohimselfomniumhaereticorumcondimentarius, spice suppliertoall 4

12 heretics, theverysourceofalldoctrinalcorruption.thesetwostrategiescouldscarcely bemoredifferent,andyettheyarealikeinthebasicsensethattheyrepresenteffortsat creatingandpreservingachristianidentity,whetherbytherhetoricalplunderingof classicalculture,orbyitsvehementrejection.eventertullian scasedoesnotleavethe questionofchristiandevotiontotherhetoricalandphilosophicalcontentofclassical cultureparticularlyindoubt.suchrhetoricaldissimulationswouldpersistintolater times.inthecaseofbothorigenandaugustine,weshallencounterasimilarrhetoricof differentiationworkingtooccludethephilosophicalkinshipoftheirsacramental thoughttothemagicandtheurgythattheyvocallyreject. Thebasicquestionthatthisstudyisintendedtoraiseconcernstheextentto whichorigenandaugustine sinterrogationsofeucharistareindebtedtothe vocabularyandconceptualapparatusbestexpressediniamblicheantheurgy.thesetwo particularthinkerswouldbynomeansbeconsidered theurgic tothesamedegreeas Pseudo Dionysius,whosewritingsdolittletoconcealtheirsourceintheurgic Neoplatonism.WhereAugustineandOrigendeploytheurgicthought,theydosomore subtly asmustbethecaseespeciallyfororigen,sincehisdeathlongpreceded theurgy siamblicheanarticulation.whatunitesthemisadifferentiatingrhetoricthat veilstheirownadoptionoftheurgicmechanismsofsacramentalmediation adoptions thatoccur,asithappens,intheverymidstoftheirfloridrhetoricalrejectionsofthe magicalandtheurgic.intheargumentsoforigenandaugustinewecanthusdiscern someverypaganprinciplesatwork,maskedineachcasebythesamerhetorical strategies,andreconfiguredintheirmediatingagenciesandexternalritualforms.thus itbecomespossible,evendespiteorigen sdisruptionofaneatchronologicalsequence, tosuggestthatinthematterofeucharist,platonizingchristianthinkersofthethirdand fourthcenturieswerealreadyexperimentingwithafundamentallytheurgicaccountof ritualmediation,longbeforepseudo Dionysiusengagedinhismoreovert appropriations. 5

13 2.Methodology:Approach,LimitsofStudy,Terminology A.Approach Theapproachofthisdissertationstemsfromtheconvictionthattheoreticalideas aboutcultcannotbeseparatedfromtheintellectualculturethatformstheirthinkers. Whenweconcedetheinvolvementofideasinculture,itfollowsthatwemustalwaysbe attentivetotherhetoricalcontextwithinwhichideasareframed,andalerttothewaysin whichsophisticatedchristianthinkersmightsetaboutmaskingtheirassimilationof paganideas.thisisespeciallytrueincaseofthetextsthatarecentraltothepresent study,origen scontracelsumandaugustine sonthecityofgod,sinceineithercasewe confrontvigorouspolemicagainstsomeofchristianity smostlearnedopponents Celsusintheformercase,Porphyryinthelatter.Itfollowsfromthepolemicalnatureof thetextsthatwemustattuneourreadingtocertaindissimulationsthattheauthorsmay bepracticinginthecourseoftheirarguments,inordertounderstandhoworigenand Augustinemaybere deployingmaterialinthecourseofconfiguringtheirown eucharistictheories.wemustlikewiseremainfocusedonthemorestraightforward intellectualcontentoftheargumentsthattheyrejectandadvance.centraltothepresent studyistheconvictionthatbothreadingsarenecessary onethatrecognizesarhetoric ofdifferentiation,andonethatissensitivetotheconceptualframeworkwithinwhich theseearly,experimentalarticulationsofeucharistictheoryaretakingshape. Itfollowsthatacertainportionofthisstudywillbedevotedtoquestionsof culturalidentityandrhetoric,andthatattheveryleastthatsuchconcernswillconstitute asubtextthroughout.muchoftherestofthestudy,whereallthreesignificantthinkers areconcerned,willbefocusedonquestionsofmetaphysicalfirstprinciples,thenature andvirtueofmaterialreality,andcompetinghierarchiesofmediation complemented byquestionsonthenatureofthesoulanditsplacewithinrealitythushierarchically conceived.inallthreecases,theintellectualbackgroundiscomplex;buteachthinker s workisshapedprofoundlybythephilosophicalconcernsofmiddleandneoplatonism, 6

14 afactthatisreflectedintheobviousindebtednessoftheirseveralnarrativesof salvation totheoriginalplatonicstoryofthesoul sfallandtheprospectsforits eventualrepatriation.allthreethinkers,forinstance,mustformulateanaccountof whatitmeanstobeanembodiedsoul,oramaterialrationalcreature,anddevise approachestotheproblemofwhetherthebodyandmaterialrealityconstituteprimarily hindrancesoraidstotheprocessofthesoul srepatriation.allthree,then inamanner thatrequirestherejectionoftoopronouncedadualism endorsetheideathatmaterial realitymediatesaccesstoincorporealprinciplesthatrepresentthesoul sproper template,orthatstandinahealingrelationshiptothesoul sinnerdisorientation,and arewillingtoembracelanguageandformulationsthatcanbeseenasfundamentally theurgicintheiraccountsofritualmediationofthesoul sascent.fororigenand Augustine,thismeansthattheyadoptlanguageandassumptionsemployedwithinthe verysystemsofreligiousmediationthattheyrhetoricallyreject. B.LimitsofStudy AlthoughitisreasonabletoarguethatthestudyofancientChristianitycanmore safelyproceedfromtherecognitionofspecificcommunitiesandtheirvariety, 8 the presentstudywillworkformtheassumptionthatnormativechristianity sengagement withtheintellectualcultureofthelaterromanempireconstitutesasortof locality all itsown.forpurposesofthepresentstudy,ishallarguethatwearejustifiedin triangulatingthethoughtoforigen,iamblichus,andaugustineforanumberofreasons. First,aswehavealreadynoted,therhetoricalapproachestakenbybothOrigenand Augustinetotheproblemofmagicandtheurgy inwhichtheirownsubtle appropriationsaremaskedbyadifferentiatingrhetoric,anddiscussionofeucharistis abruptlyintrudedinthemidstofrejectionsofpaganritesofmediation servetoalign 8AsHansDieterBetzargues: Thedanger[offalselypositingChristianityandAntiquityas separate,stableentities]isonlyremovedwhenantiquechristianityisfirmlyregionalizedand alsoconsideredasconstitutingdifferentgroupswithparticularidentities (1998)8. 7

15 thetwothinkerswithinachristiantraditionthatrejectsthemagicalandtheurgicwhile appropriatingtheircategories.putsimply,therhetoricalstrategiesofboththinkersare akin,andineachcasepointdirectlytoanargumentforeucharistthatderivesfroma distinctivelypagancontext. Therearefurtherreasons,relatedtothematterofintellectualculture,toconsider thesethreethinkerstogether.origen,asweshallseeinchapterii,participatedinthe sophisticatedintellectuallifeofalexandria,especiallyasamemberofthephilosophical circleofammoniussaccas.thelatterwasplotinus longsoughtteacher,afactthat placesporphyry,andsubsequentlyiamblichus,withinthesameintellectualtraditionof thesecondcentury sneopythagoreanmiddleplatonism.iamblichus,furthermore,may havebeenastudentofthealexandrianphilosopheranatolius, 9 aswellaslaterof Porphyryhimself.ItisthusthatwecanseeOrigenandIamblichus viewsonfirst principles,materiality,theproblemofthesoul sembodiment,andmaterialmediationof incorporealprinciplesasderivedfromultimatelykindredsources. AnothercuriousparallelarisesfromthefactthatbothOrigenandIamblichusare involvedinapolemicwithotherplatonistthinkerswhoofferaskepticalrejoinderto theirmoremonistmetaphysicalpositions,whereeachisconcernedtodefendthe efficacyofmateriallygroundedcultagainsttheclaimsofmoredualist,noetically orientedphilosophersattemptingtopreservephilosophyforanintellectualelite. WhereIamblichusmustresistPorphyry sskepticismabouttheurgyasalegitimatesetof materialpracticesformediatingthesoul sascent andalsoasatheoreticalbasisfor commonreligion soorigenmustresistcelsus,whoissimilarlyrepulsedby Christianity sembraceofmateriallygroundedincarnationandresurrection,andthe broadappealofitsculttothecommonrunofmen.origenandiamblichus,then,are thinkersemergingfromacommoncultureofideas,andsharingacommonsetof concerns.whatdividesthemisnotprinciple,butratherorigen sneedtodeploya ChristianrhetoricofidentitytosecurehisChristianityagainstexcessiveassociationwith paganpractices. 9Anatolius careerandpossiblerelationtoiamblichusareconsideredinchapterii,pp

16 WhenwecometothematterofAugustine,weconfrontathinkerwhoistosome degreealienatedbytimeanddistance,butwhoisneverthelessavoluntaryparticipantin thethirdcentury sdebates.inhisonthecityofgod,whenheopenlytakesupthe questionoftheurgy,hedirectlyexploitsporphyry sownhesitationsoverthematter, turningthelatter sownambivalenceagainsthiminakindofliterarytorsion. Porphyry ssuspicionsoftheurgy,expressedinhislettertoaneboandelsewhere, promptediamblichus elaboratereplyinitsdefense;andaugustine,fromsomeremove, isdelightedtoadoptporphyry smoreskepticalpositions,simplyaccusinghimoffailure totakethefurtherstepofacknowledgingthesuperiorityofchristianityasasystemof mediation.therelationofthesethinkersmightthusbebestexpressedintermsofa sharedresistancetoapositionontheurgytakenbyporphyry,withorigenand AugustinedistinguishedfromIamblichusprincipallybyadissemblingrhetoricthat enablestheirretentionofcoretheurgicprincipleswhilerejectingparticulartheurgic hierarchiesandrites. BothOrigenandAugustine,then,canbeseenasnotonlymenofeliteeducation andplatonistdisposition,butasdirectparticipantsintheverysamedebate with Porphyry sanxietyovertheurgyservingassomethingofatangiblelinkbetweenthem. WhenweaddtotheseconsiderationsthefactthatAugustine sresponsetotheclaimsof theurgyconspicuouslymirrorsorigen s toincludehisrhetoricalinsinuationof Christianeucharistintheverymidstofhisrejectionofpaganrites itbecomesentirely plausibletoviewthesethreethinkersaspreoccupiedwiththesamebasicproblems,and toseeorigenandaugustineas,insomesense,christiantheurgists. NoconclusionsaboutthedevelopmentofabroaderChristiansacramental discoursefollowfromsuchanassertion,althoughotherchristianpractices,suchas baptismandthevenerationofrelics,mightbemadetoconformtothesame endorsementsofmaterialmediation.suchambitionsexceedthescopeofthisstudy,as theyplainlyliebeyondtheinterestsoforigenandaugustinethemselvesinthecontext oftheirconfrontationwiththemagicalandtheurgicastheyfindthemintheworksof theirintellectualopponents.astheydeveloptheirresponsestopaganritesofmediation 9

17 conceivedtheurgically,theyinvoke instrikinglysimilarways preciselytheeucharist astheuniquesolutiontotheproblemposedbythebroadsystemofdaemonicmediation posedbypagantradition.theyappeartosharearecognitionoftheimplicationsofthe thoughtthattheyconfront,particularlyaninsightintothethreatthatpaganreligion posestothemorenarrowlyconceivedsystemofdivinemediationrepresentedbythe eucharisticpracticeofthenormativechurch thechurch s dailysacrifice, as Augustinedescribesit.ForChristians,thecosmictempleoftheurgyandmagic,wherein myriadsubstancesintheworldareassertedasmediatorsoftranscendence,couldnotbe allowedtostandalongsidetheexclusivesystemofmediationbyanincarnatelogosseen ascontinuouswithmaterialritescelebratedwithinthechristiancommunity.origen andaugustinearethusconfrontingthesameproblem,thoughindifferenttimesand places,andtheyaredoingsowithbymeansofthesamerhetoricalapproach,conceived withintheveryphilosophicaltraditionthatproducestheurgyitself. AlthoughtheattempttotriangulatethethoughtofOrigenandAugustinewith thatofiamblichusmayappearinadequately local andthereforesomewhatarbitrary,it isreallydefinedbythelimitedambitionofpositingarelativesimilaritybetweenthe philosophicalandrhetoricalresponsesoftwochristianparticipantsingreco Roman philosophicalculture.twothinkersofplatonizingtendencyarerespondingto traditionalwaysofdescribingthefunctionalityofreligiousrites waysthatarefinally codified,totheextentthatsuchispossible,inthesystemofthoughtpresentedby Iamblichus.ItisIamblichus thought,then,andthearticulatedversionoftheurgythatit represents,thatenablesustoperceivethatorigenandaugustinearequietly assimilatingthatfromwhichtheydistancethemselvesrhetorically andwhichwould bemoreopenlyadoptedinlatercenturiesbychristianthinkerssuchaspseudo Dionysiusaspartofasystematicexplanationofsacramentalefficacy. C.Terminology 10

18 Despitethegoodreasonsforusingtheterm polytheist ratherthan pagan, I shallusethetermsmoreorlessinterchangeably. 10 Polytheist, asithappens,isnot alwaystheperfectlydistinguishingterm,sinceintheintellectualconflictover Christianityinthe3 rd century,divisionwasnotalwaysseenintermsof polytheism and monotheism. WhenpaganthinkersinclinedtoattackChristianity,itwasnot generallythefirstprinciplesofchristianthinkersthattheytargeted.christiandivine hierarchieshadcomeincreasinglytomirrorthoseoftheplatonismofthattime,which wereinturngivenovertotheirownvariantsofwhatappearedtobetrinitarianism. 11 To theextentthatsuchnomenclatureisrequiredatall anditobviouslyis acertain amountofcarefulattentionforthecontentofthoughtcansurelyexcusethesomewhat casualemploymentoftraditionalterms. Theurgy,andespeciallytheclaimthatmajorthirdandfourthcenturyChristian thinkersarequietlyassimilatingitsideas,isanothermatter.iamblichususesafairly complicatedsetoftermstodenotethematerialobjectsthatmaybeunderstoodto mediateincorporealprinciple.eikondesignatesthevisiblemanifestation,thematerial surfaceofanysuchmediatingelement.symbolonandsynthemasomewhat interchangeablydesignateeithertheinvisibleprincipleorformunderlyingthematerial element,ortheelementitself.symbolonasatermdesignatingsuch form isattestedin thetheurgicchaldeanoracles,thoughiamblichusseemstousetheterminadoubleedgedway,indicatingboththeobjectofcultattentionandtheinvisiblerealitiestowhich itsuppliesalink ausagethatemphasizesthemediatingor bridge functionofthe symbolonincult,andmakingofthesymbolonbothanoutwardsignandaninward mystery.origenappropriatesthisterminthecourseofrejecting magical ritesand defendinghisratherabruptlyintroduceddiscussionofeucharistinthecourseofhis argument. 12 ThatOrigenwouldinvokethisterm,whichwouldlaterbecentralto 10ThereasonsareexplainedbyFowden(2005) SeeFrede(1997) ThatOrigendoesnottroubletodistinguishmagicandtheurgyisnomatter;refusaltodoso wouldhavebeenstandardprocedureforanychristianpolemicist,asaugustine sargumentin 11

19 Iamblichus discussionoftheurgy,isnotinitselfanargumentthatorigenisoperating withinatheurgictradition.whatcompelsattentionisnotamerephilologicalparallel, butrathertheterm srhetoricalcontext.atpreciselythemomentthatorigendeclares theillegitimacyofpaganmagicalpracticesthatinvokeanynumberofobjectsassymbola, employingasharp,dismissiverhetorictodistinguishillicitpaganpracticesfrom acceptablechristianrites,heabruptlyadoptsthetermhimself,arbitrarilytransferringa keypieceofterminologyfromapagantoachristiandiscourse.thus,asihaveargued above,itisnotmerelysubstantiveargument,orinthiscasephilologicalparallel,that shoulddetermineourreadingofachristianthinker srelationtomagicandtheurgy,but rathertherhetoricalcontextofhisargument,inwhichanefforttowarddifferentiation mayconcealfurtiveassimilations. Augustinepresentsacuriouslysimilarcase,andperhapsthemorefascinating one,sinceasalaterthinkerhecouldengagetheurgyasamoredevelopedsystem. Books8 10ofOntheCityofGodarecomposedwiththeaimofrejectingpagansystemsof daemonicmediation,whichaugustineidentifieswiththeurgyandmagic.muchlike Origen,heabruptlyintrudesajustificationofChristianeucharistinthemidstofhis dismissalofmoreancientmediatinghierarchiesandrites.thetheoreticalframework thataugustineappliesinitsdefensecentersonthetermsignum,or sign. Itisnot adequatetoarguethataugustineismerelytranslatingthetheurgicsymbolonintoalatin signum,andtosuggestonthebasisofphilologicalechothathe,likeorigen,isacryptotheurgist;butasinorigen scase,therhetoricalcontext,wheretheprincipalaimis rejectionofdaemonicmediation,suggestsstronglythataugustinemeanstointerpolate hisownsystemwithinapre existingpagantemplate.whenwefurthernotehowhe shiftsthemeaningofthetermsignumoverthecourseofhisargument,movingquietly fromanotionofsacrificeasametaphorical sign oftransformedinnerdisposition,toa notionoftheeucharistic sacrifice asa sign inwhatmustplainlybeadeepersense requiringthatthesignumfunctionasavehiclemanifestingsubstantiveinnerrealitiesto OntheCityofGodmakesplain.EvenIamblichushimselfwouldstruggletomaintainthe distinctionagainstintellectualoppositionlongafterorigen sdeath. 12

20 thevotary thenitbecomesclearthataugustine,too,isinvokingnotionsofmediation thatarecharacteristicofthetheurgicsystemsheattacks.asbefore,rhetoricalcontextis thedecisivefactorinidentifyingthepossibilityofanalogyinthought. 3.Overview TheaimofChapterIIistosuggestwaysofapproachingChristianthinkersinthe secondandthirdcenturiesasparticipantsinaworldofsharedintellectualassumptions aculturemarkedbycommonaccesstointellectualcircles,thesamephilosophicaland rhetorical schools. Whentheintellectualcultureofantiquityissoviewed,itbecomes possibletoseethethoughtofdifferentthinkers,themselvesvariouslypaganor Christian,asindebtedtoacommontradition.Thecrucialpointintheargumentisthat cultureitselfisshared;christiansdonotmerelyengageinmimicry,butrather participateinintellectualculturealongsidetraditionalists,suchthattheyarepredictably absorbedbythesamequestions,andunsurprisinglyworkoutsolutionstoproblems describedwithinthesameconceptualparameters.suchanunderstandingisconducive toaproperapproachtothethoughtofiamblichus,origen,andaugustineinsubsequent chapters.inthecourseofthisargument,weshallconsiderfirstsomeofmodernity s deficientmodelsfordefiningtherelationshipbetween Christianity and Antiquity, manyofwhicharefoundeduponanerroneousideaof origins, thattendedtoposita pure Christianitystandingpriortothe corruptions oflaterperiods.alsounder considerationwillbetherelativebenefitofmakingcomparisonsinanalogicalrather thengenealogicalterms.thenextsectionwillconsiderthewaysinwhichchristian apologistsofthesecondcenturymaybefruitfullyconsideredastheearliestinstancesof arhetoricofdifferentiationthatstrugglestofindwaysofsituatingchristianthought withingreco Romanculture.Theapproachesoftheapologistsdifferwidely,butin eachcase,whethertheirintentionisoppositionorintegration,theapologistsemergeas definitivelygreco Romanfigures,deployingtropesandargumentsthatrevealthemas specimensofclassicalculture,whethercomfortablysoornot.theargumentwillthen 13

21 proceedtotheintellectualcultureofthethirdcentury,citingevidenceforwhatweknow ofchristianparticipationinthesophisticatedphilosophicalcultureofalexandria. Centraltothisstorywillbethecareers somewhatspeculativelyreconstructed ofthe peripateticphilosopherandchristianconvertanatolius,whohimselfmayhavehad connectionstoiamblichusandporphyry,andthatoforigen,whoseparticipationinthe moreeliteintellectualcirclesemergesclearlydespiteeusebius tendentious hagiography.thisculturalpictureshouldinformthewayweconsultthetextsofboth paganandchristianthinkersinourattemptsdefinewhat,intheirseveralviews, accountsfortheefficacyofreligiousritesofmediation. ChapterIIIwillstepawayfromthelivesofChristianthinkers,andfocusrather oniamblicheantheurgy.itwillbeginwithsomebackgroundoniamblichus developmentofaphilosophicallygroundedtheurgyasastudiedresponsetothe deficienciesthatheperceivedintheplatonismofhisday,andasalegitimate philosophicaloutlookfoundedonamorefaithfulreadingoftheplatonictradition.it willspecificallyengageiamblichus conflictwiththeplatonisttraditionofhistime, especiallyhisoppositiontowhatheseesasdistortionsofplatonicthoughtinthework PlotinusandPorphyryonsuchmattersasthe undescended soul,thenproceedto Iamblichus owncosmology,inwhichthematerialcosmosisamanifestationof transcendentreality,sothatthesoul srepatriationmaybeunderstoodasmediatedbya materialworldconceivedintermsofiamblichus fundamentalmonism.iamblichus metaphysicsareneopythagoreaninoriginandaffirmthegoodnessofmaterialrealityas amanifestationofeternalcosmicproportions.hetherebyresolvestheplatonic tradition sambivalenceoverthesoul srelationtomatter,finallyassertingmatterasboth disorientinghindranceandnecessaryinstrument,andassertingthattheproperly repatriatedsoulparticipatesinthedemiurgicorganizationofthematerialcosmos throughcultthatproperlyalignsitwiththedemiurge sdaemonicfunctionaries.since suchanapproachvindicatesmaterialreligiouscult,theargumentwillconsiderfinally theiamblicheantheoryofthesymbolon asexpressedthroughthecomplexofterms symbolon,synthema,andeikon thearcanesignsandimprintsdispersedthrough 14

22 materialnature,servingasthetheurgist sportaltotheinvisibledemiurgicworldofgods anddaemons.iamblichus thoughtonthesesymbolaiscrucialtounderstandingthelinks connectingchristianthinkerswithatheurgicworldview linksthatarestrongly suggestedintheembraceofsuchlanguageandconceptsbychristians,evenwhen rhetoricallydissimulated. InawaythatlooselymirrorstheconsiderationofIamblichusinChapterIII, ChapterIVwillconsiderOrigen scosmologyandspiritualanthropology hisvarianton thetraditionalnarrativeofthefallofthesoul andhischristianresponsetotheissueof embodiment,whichforhim,asforiamblichus,requiresthemediationofmaterialcultas partofaremedy.itwilladvancetheargumentthatorigen,thoughoftenhandledasif hewereafirmdualist,isactuallylesssothanonemightthink,andthathismoremonist metaphysics,andhisembraceofanideaoftheuniversalityofembodiment,preparesthe wayforatheoryoftheincarnatelogoswhomediatesdivinelifeforallrational, embodiedcreatures,andwhoserationaleiscontinuouswiththeoreticaljustificationof materialsacrament.notunlikeiamblichus,origenundertakestodefendembodiment ontraditionalplatonicground,accusinghisinterlocutor(celsus)offailingtograspthe vindicationsofmaterialrealitythattheplatonictraditioncontains.hisviewsof spiritualanthropologyanddivineincarnation,enableorigentoreplacetraditional religiousformsadvocatedbycelsuswithachristianvariant,parallelinits conceptualization,butconceivedasanextensionoftheincarnationofthelogos,whose mediationthoroughlyreplacesthatofgodsanddaemonsinthepaganpantheon.in connectionwiththisdisplacementishallarguethatorigen sexplicitrejectionofmagical andtheurgicactsisactuallyaccompaniedbytheretentionofmuchoftheintellectual frameworkattendingsuchacts,asmarkedespeciallybythelanguageofsymbolon,which heappropriatesexplicitlyfromapaganreligiouscontext. ChapterVisintendedtofunctionastheAugustiniancodatotheargument.It contendsthataugustine,too,mustconfrontthequestionoftheurgyanddaemonically mediatedcult,andthathedoessoinamannerthatcanbemorepreciselyobservedand measuredsincehelivedlongafteriamblichus,inanageinwhichtheclaimsoftheurgy 15

23 hadlongbeenanobjectofseriousintellectualdispute.withoutreconstructing Augustinianfirstprinciplesandcosmology,stilllessanAugustiniantheoryofthesoul, itispossibletomarkthewaythataugustine sargumentinonthecityofgodfollows sometrajectoriessimilartoorigen s.he,too,mustdismisstraditional,pagan hierarchiesofgodsanddaemons,consigningthemtotheemptycategoriesofmagic, witchcraft,andtheurgy,whichconsistentirelyofencosmicmanipulationsthatonly entrapthesoulmoredeeplyinashifting,illusorymaterialworld.hereplacestheurgic/ daemonicmodelsofmediationwithachristianmodelthatisconspicuouslyadaptedto theverytermsoftranscendentmediationcharacteristicofapuleius accountofthe daemonic,andthatispredicatedonthesuperiormediatingcapacitiesoftheincarnate Christ,makingChristthepreciseremedyforthedefectsidentifiedintheApuleian system.augustinelikewisemustovercomehisownpenchantfordualism,eventually clarifyinghisviewofmatterasaneutralsubstrateforthemediationofcontactwitha divineprincipium(theincarnatelogos).whileaugustine sengagementwiththeurgyis moredirect,hisappropriationsofitsthoughtandlanguageissomewhatmoresubtle. Ratherthansimplyappropriatingthelanguageofsymbolon,Augustineapplieshisown sign theoryoflanguageasamodelforexplainingcultmediation,developingtheidea thatatangiblesacramentalsigncanmediateasubstantiveparticipationbybelieversin thesacrificeofchrist.thisargumentisinitiallyobscuredbytherhetoricaldistancingof Christianritesfromtheirpagancounterparts,inwhichthetermsignum,asitappliesto cult,isquarantinedfromassociationwithmagicandtheurgy;however,asaugustine applieshissign theoryoflanguageasananalogytocultefficacy,itbecomesclearthat forhimtheeucharistisavisible sign thatconveysinasubstantialwaythecontentof thechurch sinvisible sacrifice [sacrificium]toparticipatingbelievers.augustine s engagementwiththeurgy,then,maybeobservedtocommencefromapretended dualistrejectionofmatteranddaemonicworship,andtoproceedtoanembraceof materialmediationinwhichpaganritesarefurtivelydisplacedbychristianpractice whosedefiningdifferenceistheagentofmediation,theincarnatelogos,whosehealing efficacyisdescribedintermsofatheoryofsign.augustine sapproachthuspreserves 16

24 anideaofmaterialrealityasamediatoroftranscendentprinciple,whichcreates conceptualspaceforanincarnatewordandmaterialritualswhose signification is coterminouswiththeireffects. 4.SummaryObservation Atthecenterofmyapproachtotheproblemoftherelationshipofthirdand fourthcenturychristianthinkerstotheurgyareseveralbasicgoverningconvictions. First,thatthehistoryofintellectualcultureshowsthatthetransmissionofideasshould notbeunderstoodintermsofstraightforwardlinealdescent.asenseofthepossibilities forlateralcommunicationofideasacrosscreedalboundariesshouldbenormativeinany discussionofchristianthinkers.inarelatedmatter,weshouldbeattunedtotheways inwhichtherhetoricemployedbysophisticatedchristianthinkers orbymodern scholars canactuallyservetoobscureoursenseoflateraltransmission.thus,our graspofthefirstpoint thatpagansandchristianlivewithintheconfinesofshared tradition canbeimpairedbythevigorousrhetoricofexclusionandself definitionthat Christianthinkersoftenapplyintheirpolemics,orbythetermsappliedbymodern scholarshipthatmayisolatechristianthinkersfromtheirpagancontemporaries.the rhetoricofdistinctiveidentitycaneasilybecomeanobstacleinthewayofrecognizing thecriticalappropriationsthatchristianthinkersmake,justasitservestomaskthose associationsfromtheirpaganinterlocutors.intheend,ifwescrutinizetheengagement withwhatisessentiallytheurgicthoughtintheworksoforigenandaugustine,we discernthatboththinkers,insurprisinglysimilarways,constructprovisionalsystemsof Christiansacramentalmediation,shapedbyatheologyoftheincarnateLogos,and conceptuallyparalleltothetheurgicsystemsofhierarchicmediationwhosevalidity theirworkstrivestodeny. 17

25 ChapterII:PaganandChristianIntellectualCulture 1.TheProblemofComparison:ChristianityandAntiquity QuidergoAthenisetHierosylemis. 13 Tertullian squestionremainsanexpressionof thecentralprobleminthestudyofchristianityinitsrelationtotheintellectualand culturalworldofthegreco Romanworld.PerhapsbecauseTertullianwasnotthemere anti intellectualfideistthatsuchrhetoricmightsuggest, 14 neatlysequesteringfaithfrom rationalreflection,hisquestionremainsparticularlyimportantasaspecimenofthe rhetoricalattempttoseparatewhatareassumedtobetheneatlyseparable faithandreason.plainly,though,therhetoricalposturethattertulliandisplayscan scarcelyconcealnow,asitcouldhardlycheckthen,thebroadandsignificantinfluence ofagreco Romanphilosophical,rhetorical,andreligiousinheritanceontheformation ofnormativechristianity.athenshasmoretodowithjerusalemthanwecaneasily measure,orthantertullianmayhavealwaysbeenpreparedtocontemplate.his questionramifiesintoahostofothers,notonlyonhowphilosophyaffectedtheshapeof theologicaldebatesinantiquity,butonhowabroadrangeofcultural,intellectual,and religioushabitscharacteristicofthelateromanempireinfluencedandshapedaspects ofemergentchristianity orperhapsmadechristianity;andinturn,howchristian formsofthoughtandworshipmayhaveexertedinfluenceoftheirown.inshort,the questionraisestheproblemsofinfluence,reception,andcomparison,withallofthe methodologicalproblemsforthestudyofancientreligionthatsuchtermsentail.inthe 13Depraescr.haeret Thisisoftensuggested,basedonhisothernotableapothegm,credibileest,quiaineptumest.See Sider(1980)

26 caseofchristianity,theproblemsofreceptionandcomparisonarecomplicatedeven morebythediffusenatureofthephenomenaatissue.theformsofchristianityin antiquityrepresentmorethansimplecreedandpracticethathappenedtoabsorbthe termsofgreekphilosophy;theyrepresentfirstofallparticularcultsandcommunitiesof considerablevariety,whichsuggeststhatthecategoriesof reception and influence mustbespaciousenoughtoincludearangeofculturalandreligiousassumptionsand practices,andthattheprojectofcomparisonisreallyopen ended.sucharecognition mayevenraisetheprospectofcollapsingthedistinctionbetween polytheist and Christian insomeofitsaspects,assumingthatpolytheistandchristiancultdraw uponasharedculturalstoreofreligiousbeliefs,assumptions,andpractices,sothata trulyfullconsiderationoftherelationshipofathenstojerusalem,of pagan to Christian,wouldentailavirtuallyopensetofculturalfactors,philosophicalcastsof mind,tendenciesinliterarycriticismandexegesis,aswellasavarietyofreligiousand culticassumptions.inshort,whenconsideringthepolytheistandthechristianinthe abstract,thereisvirtuallynospacewithintheintellectualandreligiouslifeofthelate RomanEmpirewherethetwocanbeeasilyextricatedonefromtheanother. Theproblemisdaunting,andperhapsevenmoresowhenwefocusonparticular areaswheresharprhetoricaldifferentiationclearlybenefitschristianapologists,asis decidedlythecasefororigenandaugustine,whodeployalivelyrhetoricofrejectionof magicalandtheurgicpractices,whilequietlyadaptingchristianculttotheirtheoretical norms.thetwocertainlyrealizethatarhetoricofself definitionisalwaysmorepotent whenitassertsboundariesclearly,andperhapsthemorenecessarywhenthose boundariesaremoreapparentthanreal,suchthatrhetoricisdirectedprimarilytoward obscuringactualaffinities.theprojectofcomparison,then,isrenderedmore complicatedbythisrhetoricofdifference. Thepurposeofthepresentchapteristosuggestawayofthinkingabout Christianthinkersinthesecondandthirdcenturiesthatwillenableaproperapproach tothethoughtofiamblichus,origen,andaugustineinsubsequentchapters.ifweview theworldofpagansandchristiansasaculturemarkedbycommonaccessto 19

27 intellectualcircles,withinwhichthinkersofvariouscommitmentscouldresorttothe samephilosophicalandrhetorical schools fortheirformation,thenitbecomespossible toseethethoughtofdifferentthinkers,themselvesvariouslypaganorchristian,as indebtedtoasharedsetofassumptionsandideas.thecrucialpointinthisargumentis thatintellectualcultureisshared.moresophisticatedchristianthinkersdonotmerely mimicclassicalrhetoricalstyle,orliftjargonfromphilosophicalhandbooks;rather,they participateinintellectualculturealongsidetraditionalpolytheists,suchthattheyare predictablyabsorbedbythesamequestions,justastheyunsurprisinglyworkout solutionsdescribedwithinthesameconceptualparameters.aspartofestablishingsuch aviewofchristianityandantiquity,thepresentchapterwillsurvey:(2)thewaysin whichmanymodernthinkers,intheorizingancientchristianity,haveproceededfrom theassumptionofchristianityasanisolatedphenomenoninantiquity,essentialand unique,andsetagainstanentirelyseparate pagan worldwhoseinfluenceson Christianitywereunderstoodtoberesistedateveryturn.Suchanapproachisfinally rootedinanerroneousideaof origins, andderivesmuchofitsinitialenergyfrom Reformationattemptstopositanoriginal, pure Christianitythatstandspriortothe corruptions oflaterperiods whethercharacterizedintermsof mysterycult or RomanCatholicism.Suchanoutlooktendstoseerelationshipsbetweenreligious phenomenaonlyingenealogicalterms,wherechristianityisgenerallyshowntobe resistingtheperniciouseffectsof paganism inthecourseofitsproperorganic development.againstthisapproach,thepresentargumentwillproceedratherfrom analogicalprinciples,assumingthatvariouspaganandchristianphenomenadevelop alongsimilarlinesbecausetheyarepartofasharedculture.section(3)willconsiderthe secondcenturychristianapologistsasearlyattemptstosituatechristianidentitywithin anestablishedgreco Romanculture.Thesethinkersadoptedvariousrhetorical posturesintheirattemptstodefinechristianity sdifferenceortoassertitscapacityfor assimilationintoaromanworld.allsuchcases,whethertherhetoricalobjectiveis oppositionorintegration,pointtotheconclusionthatalltheapologistsarealready definitivelyandconsciouslygreco Roman,astheirphilosophicalandrhetoricaltropes 20

28 reveal,andthattheirtextsrevealthevariousposturesthatonemighttakeinnegotiating apositionwithingreco Romanintellectualculture,andinassertingwhatisalreadya largelygreekintellectualidentity.section(4)examinesbrieflywhatweknowofthe thirdcenturyperipateticandchristianconvertanatolius,invokinghiscaseasprelude tothinkingaboutthemoreadvancedchristianintellectualcultureofalexandriaatthat time.thecityofalexandria,ishallargueinsection(5),alwaysthevenueofan impressiveintellectualculture,providesaccesstoseriousintellectualformationforboth pagansandchristians.thecareeroforigen,despitethetendentioussuppressionand deferralofinformationcharacterizingtheaccountofeusebius,revealsacultureinwhich pagansandchristiansapparentlyassociatedfreelywithinsomeofthecity smoreelite culturalcircles.thecareeroforigenhimself,aswellasthecareersofhispredecessors andcontemporaries,bearswitnesstoacommonphilosophicalculturethatshapedthe thoughtandidentitiesofpagansandchristiansalike.thisculturalpictureshould informthewayweapproachthetextsofbothpaganandchristianthinkersinour attemptsdefinewhat,intheirseveralviews,accountsfortheefficacyofreligiouscult. 2.ChristianityandAntiquity:theModernProblem Formoderns,anyconsiderationoftheinteractionbetweenChristianthinkers andtheirsurroundingworldofbeliefs,philosophiesandculturalforms,mustbe markedbytheawarenessthatthedominanttendencyonsuchquestionsovertime,with rootsinthereligiouspolemicofearlymodernity,presumedtolocateastable,welldefined Christianity, whose clash or confrontation withasimilarlystablepagan antiquity,couldbemeasuredandevaluated.asjonathanz.smithhasshown,this tendencyhasthereformationasanearlysource,wherethedominantrhetoricalmode soughthistoricalvindicationfora pristine Christianityuntaintedby Platonism or 21

29 Popery. 15 Veryoftensuchthinkersemployed Platonism asafavoredtermof vilification,findinginjustinmartyrtheeasiestearlytargetfortheirdisapproval. 16 To besure,theterm Platonist isalmostinfinitelyplasticinsuchcontexts,shadinginto othercategoriesofinvectivesuchas heathen ;however,assmithnotes,thisearly modernscholarshipmayperhapsbebettertakenas comparingchristianitywithitself,ormoreprecisely,withanidealized versionofitself(the simplegospel ).Anyremainderwasconsidereda corruption forwhichthecoveringtermwas,mostfrequently, Platonism. Platonism, rhetoricallysynonymouswithcorruption,mustbepeeledawaytoreveal thepristinechristianitypresumedtoliebehindit the simple faiththatis straightforwardlypositedbythesescholars.remarkably,theinfluenceofthisapproach doesnotendwiththegradualreductionofovertanti Catholicsentimentovertime.This isamongsmith smoreimportantpoints:thetreasuredideaofa pure early Christianityuntaintedby Platonism, paganism, or popery remainsintactinmuch laterscholarship,withonlythecoveringlanguagealtered.where popery hadearlier functionedasagenericcategoryforcorruptinginfluence,servingtoisolateandinsulate theuntaintedoriginal(protestant) Christianity, now lateantiquereligion woulddo thesame.scholarsshedtheanimus,butretainedtheimpliedmethodandprinciplesof theirmoreferventlyprotestantforbears Smith slecturesindrudgerydivine(1990),particularly OntheOriginofOrigins, economicallytracethegenealogyofthemythofstablechristian origins, sketchinganti Trinitarian,anti Platonic thinkersfromthesixteenthtotheeighteenthcenturies.inparthe summarizeswalterglawe sdiehelenisierungdeschristentums(1912)intracingthislineof thoughtfromheinrichbullinger sassaulton cultic infiltrationsincatholicism( )and MathiasFlaciusIllyricus smagdeburgcenturies,withtheiremphasisonthediabolicalwellsprings of popery, throughmichaelservetus(trinity,1531)andthemoreexplicitlyunitarianthinkers oftheseventeenthcentury,suchasjosephbiddle(confessionoffaithconcerningtheholytrinity, 1648),whointurninfluencedsucheighteenthcenturyanti TrinitariansasJosephPriestley. 16ThisistrueofbothBiddle(1648)andZwicker(1648),andtosomeextent,N.Souverain,Le Platonismevoile:ouEssaitouchantleVerbePlatonicien(Cologne,1700).OnlySouverainseemsto recognizejustin scontext,andtodistinguishbetween Platonism, conventionallyspeaking,and itsadaptationsbychristianthinkers.citedinsmith(1990) Thesamepresuppositions,thesamerhetoricaltactics,indeed,inthemain,theverysamedata exhibitedintheseearlyeffortsunderliemuchofourpresentdayresearch,withoneimportant 22

30 Latermodernscholarshipbearswitnesstothistendency.Theworkofthegreat historianfranzjosephdölger( )implicitlyenvisionsChristianityasasingle, coherententityorphenomenonconfrontingtheelementsofanambientpaganculture: WiththecrossingoftheborderofPalestineChristianityenteredthe areaofantiqueandpaganculture,everywheretherewasevidenceof profaneandreligiouslifewhichhadtobeanalysed. 18 ThelanguagethatDölgeruseshereandelsewheresuggestsconfrontation,even clash betweenchristianityandpolytheistculture,butforhimitisaproductiveengagement, characterizedbyboth rejection and adjustment contributingtochristianity sproper development aprocessinwhich essential Christianitywastobefoundinviolate evenbeneathcenturiesofdogmaticdevelopment. 19 Thispositionrunssharplycounter tothecelebratedviewofadolfvonharnack( )thatapure,originalgospelwas vitiatedbyhellenismfromthesecondcenturyonward,inaprocesscharacterizedby theworkofthespiritofadecadentantiquityonthesoilofthegospel. Catholicism itselfwas,forvonharnack, theproductoftheinnermostfusionofchristianitywith Antiquity. 20 ForDölger,Christianityabsorbs,adapts,butnonethelessresists;forvon Harnack,itiscorrupted.ItisperhapsnoaccidentthatDölgerwasaCatholicandvon HarnackaProtestant.Theirapproachesarethusopposed,butneverthelessshareabasic similarityinoutlook,inwhichnormativechristianityisconstructedasamoreorless stable,separateentitythatcanbequalifiedoverandagainstambientpaganism: HarnackcontrastedanormativelyconstructedChristianityasastatic entitywithapaganworldsurroundingit,withthesurroundingworld alteration,thatthecharacteristicsattributedto Popery, bythereformationandpost Reformationcontroversialists,havebeentransferred,wholesale,tothereligionsofLate Antiquity. Smith(1990)34.Seeespeciallyn.58,whereheannotatesatgreatlengththescholarly tendencytoassignromancatholicterminologytophenomenaobservedinancientmystery religions,whilerefrainingfromdoingsotoearlychristiansacraments. 18F.J.Dölger,ZurEinführung,AuC1(1929),Vf.(V),quotedinMarkschies(2006)whonotes furtherthatfordölger thepagancultureofantiquitydividedintonumerousindividual elementsofevidencewhichastronger,monolithicchristianityhadtoanalyse (19). 19Markschies(2006) A.Harnack,LehrbuchderDogmengeschichtevol1.DieEntstehungdesKirchlichenDogmas, SammlungTheologischerLehrbücherII/I,Tübingen1886,253f.(=1909,346),quotedin Markschies(2006)21. 23