I’m just getting started, and I’m slow, so don’t think you can’t catch up.
Free preview:
Summary: Book Review: Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics – Apologetics315
I’m not posting any of my thoughts until it is evident that you have actually read the content. If you’re interested in discussing, post your thoughts and we’ll have a conversation.
Track my reading progress here:
Funny coincidence. I just happened to study both things at the same time, and they are interrelated. This is a good background for some of the stuff Justin Martyr is referring to. I was drawn to both, having zero idea they would cover the same material. Some of the recent shorter videos are relevant, but the most relevant stuff is in the earlier videos (lessons 1.1-2.4… maybe others as well, but that’s where I left off last night).
Still Greeking out on Delphic Philosophy’s YouTube channel as we (well…. I…) head into Athenagoras. Some screenshots from 4.1:
This is an interesting and related video regarding the logos apologists:
From Kant’s grounding for the metaphysics of morals preface:
Justin Martyr:
Also relevant: AristotlePlatoGodNousGood.pdf - Google Drive
Have a comment on the first author mentioned: Justin Martyr’s apologetics have been subject to various disputes, both in antiquity and in modern scholarship. His reliance on prophecy, his concept of the Logos spermatikos (the idea that traces of divine truth are found in pre-Christian philosophy), and his portrayal of Christianity’s relationship to Judaism and paganism have all been points of contention. Some key areas of dispute include:
While Justin Martyr remains a significant figure in early Christian apologetics, his methods and arguments are not universally accepted, and his legacy continues to be reassessed in theological and historical studies.
Justin Martyr (100-167) contended that Christians were innocent of certain charges against them. He also contended for the truth of Christianity. He makes strong appeals to prophecy to show the truth of Christianity. Much of the writing of the early apologists was to counteract the accusations and persecutions they were facing from pagan authorities. But are his apologetics not disputed?
Athenagoras (c. 133–190) was heavily influenced by Platonic and Stoic philosophy. Some scholars argue that he presents Christianity more as a refined philosophical system than as a distinct religious faith, making his approach different from other apologists like Justin Martyr. Unlike Justin and other apologists, Athenagoras rarely quotes Scripture explicitly. This has led some to question whether his arguments are truly rooted in Christian theology or if they are merely an attempt to make Christianity palatable to a Greco-Roman audience.
Additionally, because Athenagoras does not mention his conversion or provide personal details about his faith journey, some scholars have even speculated whether he was a Christian or simply a philosopher defending Christians on philosophical grounds. His description of God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit is considered relatively undeveloped compared to later Trinitarian formulations. Some theologians have debated whether his theology aligns fully with Nicene Christianity.
Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130–202) has been both influential and controversial, particularly regarding his portrayal of so-called heresies in his major work, Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses). He provides one of the earliest and most detailed critiques of Gnostic sects, but many scholars believe he misrepresented their beliefs. Since we now have original Gnostic texts (e.g., the Nag Hammadi library), it is clear that some of his descriptions were exaggerated or oversimplified. His account tends to frame all Gnosticism as a singular, unified movement, whereas in reality, it was highly diverse.
Also, Irenaeus wrote from a polemical stance, portraying “heretics” as corrupt and dangerous. His approach has been criticized as unfairly demonizing alternative Christian traditions, especially those that were later suppressed. His theological positions, particularly his view of apostolic succession and the authority of the Church, have been debated. Some argue that his emphasis on hierarchical authority contributed to later rigid structures in Christianity and suggest that he created a false dichotomy between “orthodox” Christianity and “heretical” movements when early Christian thought was far more fluid.
Tertullian (c. 155–235) is often accused of exaggeration, particularly in his Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), where he critiques Marcion of Sinope, an early Christian thinker who promoted a strict dualism between the “vengeful” God of the Old Testament and the “merciful” God revealed by Christ. He presents Marcion’s theology in an extreme and simplistic way, portraying him as entirely anti-Jewish and irrational. Modern scholars, especially with access to reconstructed fragments of Marcion’s Antitheses, argue that Tertullian exaggerated or even distorted Marcion’s views to make them seem more absurd.
Tertullian doesn’t just critique Marcion’s theology but also attacks his character, accusing him of being motivated by pride and wealth. He even claims that Marcion’s followers were immoral, an accusation often made against so-called heretics without solid evidence. And Tertullian’s claim that Marcion single-handedly corrupted Christian doctrine probably overstates his impact, because some scholars argue that Marcion was responding to theological debates that already existed rather than inventing an entirely new system.
Origen (c. 185–253) relied heavily on Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, particularly when discussing historical events related to Judaism and early Christianity. However, Josephus’ reliability has been a subject of long-standing debate, especially regarding his motivations and biases. One of the most famous passages in his Antiquities (Book 18) appears to reference Jesus, but scholars widely debate its authenticity. Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew (Book 10), mentions that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ, implying that he had access to a different version of the Testimonium Flavianum. So, it appears that later Christian scribes may have altered this passage, making Josephus seem more favourable to Jesus than he originally was and bringing doubt on his record.
While Origen found Josephus useful for historical context, he also indicated at the historian’s limitations. Scholars continue to debate how much of Josephus’ work, particularly passages concerning Jesus and early Christianity, can be taken at face value. Josephus was, after all, a Jewish historian writing under Roman patronage, particularly for Emperor Vespasian and his successors.
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) is seen as a towering figure in early Christianity, known for his staunch defence of Nicene orthodoxy against Arianism. However, his career and writings are not without controversy, both in his personal conduct and in the way he engaged in theological disputes. He was accused of violence and corruption, including the alleged murder of a rival bishop (Arsenius, who was later found alive). His enemies used these charges to have him exiled multiple times. While he presented himself as a victim of heretical conspiracies, his own tactics were often aggressive.
On the Incarnation, and his anti-Arian polemics were foundational for Nicene theology. However, his portrayal of Arius and Arianism is often seen as distorted. He presents Arius as teaching a crude subordinationism that many scholars argue is a caricature. He describes Arians as “madmen,” “heretics,” and “enemies of Christ”, making little effort to understand their views beyond refuting them. This kind of rhetoric shaped later Christian attitudes toward heresy.
Athanasius was a strong supporter of monasticism, particularly the Desert Fathers like Anthony of Egypt. However, his promotion of monastic ideals also led to tensions. Some sources suggest that monks loyal to Athanasius acted as enforcers, intimidating his opponents in Alexandria. While revered as a Church Father, his legacy is not without disputes regarding his tactics and theological polemics.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) is one of the most influential figures in Christian theology, but he remains highly controversial for several reasons. His intense self-criticism and rigid theological stance have led many to view him as a man compensating for his earlier life. But some scholars argue that his self-condemnation was exaggerated and possibly served a rhetorical purpose. Remember, even before converting to Christianity, Augustine was a skilled orator and teacher of rhetoric, seeking fame and fortune.
Early on, he was a follower of Manichaeism, a dualistic religion that saw the world as a battleground between good (spirit) and evil (matter), but later, he became one of its fiercest critics. Some wonder if his deep attachment to strict dogma carried over into his Christian theology, which was deeply shaped by his personal struggles, particularly his belief in original sin and predestination, which is excessively pessimistic about human nature. His lamenting his past lusts, including his long-term relationship with a concubine, with whom he had a son, may be the source of his intense guilt about sex, which influenced his later views on original sin and celibacy.
Early apologists seem to be rather taken to bullying it seems.
See John 1.
See the martyrdom of Pythagorus, Socrates, and Jesus after they challenged their days’ idolatries (ref: Jesus clearing the temple of profiteers, calling his day’s sophists a brood of vipers). They made waves, but good ones that needed to be made.
This has been so much fun for me!
Indeed it is through the identification of Christ with the Logos who is the Light of the world, that Christianity can be seen as a path toward universal nondual consciousness. This in no way conflicts with the ethical path of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, or the devotional path of worshipping Him as the divine Incarnation, or the contemplative path, of discovering “Christ within the hope of glory”(Colossians 1:27)
The logos becoming flesh is a direct contradiction of gnosticism, though. See my other threads on that. This conversation always attracts you two.
…as interpreted by orthodox trinitarian catholic theology which you agree with.That’s not how I see it. Neither Jesus nor Paul nor the author of the fourth gospel were Trinitarians.
I’m so sorry but words do not become flesh normally. They just stay words until somebody doesn’t say them.
If you’d like to know why you would say such a ridiculous thing i could direct you to the relevant material written by your comrade Rosa.
I am willing to discuss the Trinity as pertains to the selected texts of the book under study, and any biblical references therein.
…once you show you have read the material.
Prom… I trust you still have both of your eyeballs?
As you are aware, Bob, virtually everything we have of early Christianity has been “hellenized” beginning with the fact that it is written in ancient koine Greek—even the sayings of Jesus, although there are smatterings of Aramaic sayings. Thus, the aim of historical Jesus scholars is to uncover the original Jesus movement under the Hellenized layer.
Ichthus, I appreciate the significance you lay on the story of Jesus cleansing the temple. One theory that cannot be dismissed sees the temple cleansing as evidence that Jesus was a zealot who sought to incite violent insurrection against the Jewish leadership who collaborated with Rome. According to that theory, the New Testament, written after the failed Jewish revolt of AD 66-74, presents a version of Jesus sanitized of violent revolutionary zeal to make the Christian movement palatable to their Roman overlords.
Man. It’s like herding Bobkats 
You must’ve missed where I posted this up above.
Justin Martyr considered the martyred Greeks (Socrates, at least, heh) to be Judaized (is that the right word?). ;^) It sounds like the Mediterranean was quite the melting pot.
And what do you think about this bit from Athenagoras regarding Pythagoras, Plato, and the dissolution/resurrection of the elements?
I think some people miss the humor/snark in Plato when reducing to absurdity the contradictory ridiculousness of the gods, or those who propped them up.
Multiculturalism is a path to the transcultural, innit? When they all got together and realized they were trying to explain things in a similar way (assigning gods to the roles/functions), but also unique (in a way that cancels out) in some ways… when they started trying to syncretize, or harmonize, with each other, and realized that they can consolidate some processes, or that some other processes needed to be further distinguished from each other… that was the beginning of demythologizing. …or getting at the true explanation. Science and philosophy/religion were married then, and always will be (a theory does not merely describe) though we like to say we have bracketed out our biases, rather than aligning with the true explanation.
They were called atheists for it, but they were theists, the lot of them. Some acknowledged that the gods (if they existed) were created to serve functions just like humans (some rejecting them, just like some humans) and that there is only one true God.
There is something very threatening to the fragmented (disordered) about accepting wholeness (order). They know something they have aligned with has to die in order for a greater alignment to live in them. Their disorder points back to order they are missing. In order to choose right/great order, you have to let go of what you thought was order. This tectonic shift is very unsettling. The higher up you are in your delusional chain of command/control (the very ones who assert there is no free will, responsibility, accountability… for them), the more unsettling the shift.
Historically, who influenced who is debated. Philo thought Moses influenced Plato. But, it may be the other way around. Of course, according to Exodus, Moses lived long before Plato. But the evidence for an historical Moses is virtually nonexistent. The idea that Moses wrote the Torah is a legend that cannot be or at least has not been confirmed. It’s rather absurd because in it, his own death is reported.
This another example of a tangentially related topic that could be its own thread. You’re not discussing the book. Can you please discuss the book, or perhaps start a new thread? You’re bringing up topics that are common and well known and can be researched elsewhere. Whereas I’m trying to study something I have been meaning to study for a long time. If you would also like to do that, this is the place to do that. If you’ve already done it, why are you changing the subject, and why can’t you stay on topic?
I’m done. Carry on.
Hold up. You weren’t just talking about the multisource theory for Torah/Pentateuch, which is what I was referring to with my last comment.
But then I realized… you also said “who influenced who” is debated. Most folks I’m familiar with date the Pentateuch much earlier, but… the multisource folks have it put together during the Persian period (539–333 B.C.). Plato wrote the Republic about 375 or 380 B.C.
So … are you being serious? Do you think Plato could influence the writing of the Torah with just about 50 years to play with? Not just the Torah… the SHEMA (staying on topic with this thread’s book discussion… well… I added mention of the Shema with The Republic, but we’re still talking Deuteronomy)‽
Please. Level with me. Stop joshin me around, man.
Honestly? Do you think you’re hilarious?
The latest archaeological and historical critical scholarship is challenging earlier assumptions about when the Torah was written, and when the practice of Judaism began. But this research isn’t in the book you’re reading so I already agreed to stand down. Carry on.
