Why Tatian Never "Apologized" To The Greeks

Michael McGehee

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 1, Number 2, Summer 1993, pp. 143-158 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/earl.0.0102

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v001/1.2.mcgehee.html

Access provided by username 'treederwright' (23 Oct 2013 02:17 GMT)

Why Tatian Never "Apologized

To The Greeks
MICHAEL MCGEHEE

33

Tatian's "To the Greeks" (Pros Hellenas) has usually been classified as either an apology or a harangue. Yet neither of these genres can explain the work's vituperative style, denigration of Tatian's rivals, frequent digressions, and intent. If we classify the work as a protrepticus, however, we can see it as an integrated whole which was given with the intent of attracting people to study the "barbarian philosophy" with Tatian. The use of this genre implies that Tatian understood Christianity to be a philosophy and himself to be an independent teacher who could work without ecclesiastical oversight.

Although Tatian's work "To the Greeks" {Pros Hellenas) is usually entitled an "oration,"1 this essay will argue that Pros Hellenas is better understood as a protrepticus. It will then demonstrate how this literary classification
allows us to reconcile what have often been considered self-contradictions

within the work. The essay will conclude by presenting several implications about early Christian teachers, their authority, and their teaching which are suggested by this literary category.

Discovering the proper genre of an ancient text is of far more than

taxonomic value. If research into ancient literature degenerates into mere labeling, scholarly effort in the field is of little consequence. But if research

into literary classification goes beyond label-making into illuminating the

thought of ancient authors, we will be better able to understand both texts
and social movements.

1. A modern edition is Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments, edited and translated by Molly Whittaker (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). All Greek and English quotations of Pros Hellenas are from Whittaker.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 1:2 143-158 1993 The Johns Hopkins University Press.

144

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

Although the genre of protrepticus has not been ignored, it has not been fully appreciated in the study of early Christianity.2 Protreptic speeches
appear to have developed in the fifth century B.C.E. by Sophists who used them as recruiting speeches to interest potential students in instruction. In this early period the speaker pointed out to his potential students the

deficiencies of their current way of life, the superiority of his pedagogy

compared to other teachers, and then explained how his teaching would benefit the prospective students. By the late fourth century B.CE., however, protreptic compositions (which usually appear as either speeches intended for public declamation or letters of private correspondence) were no longer limited to the individu-

alistic Sophists. Philosophers of the major traditions were also producing

protreptic works. Although the literary form could vary, the function of a protrepticus remained the same. The protrepticus was intended to attract students to philosophical instruction. Still further changes had occurred by the time of the Empire: the term

had taken on the more general meaning of an exhortation to almost any

particular behavior, whether philosophical or not. Yet even into the first Christian centuries, the term continued to be used with the earlier, more specific meaning related to philosophical instruction, as well as in the more general sense.

To be sure, any discussion of the protreptic genre is hampered by the

limited number of protreptic pieces which have survived. Complete works, however, do exist from Epicurus {To Menoeceus), Isocrates (To Nicocles), Pseudo-Isocrates {To Demonicus), Pseudo-Justin {To the Greeks), and

Clement of Alexandria {Protrepticus). Works from which only fragments

survive include Aristotle's Protrepticus and Cicero's Hortensius.

A brief discussion of protreptic discourse can be found in Epictetus

3.23.3338. Epictetus sees the protrepticus as a type of speech parallel to

display {epideiktikos), teaching {didaskalikos) and refutation (elegktikos)

speeches, whose function is to demonstrate "to the individual, as well as to

the crowd, the warring inconsistency in which they are floundering about,
2. The following comments are meant only as a very general summary. For a more detailed introduction to this body of literature, cf. K. Gaiser, Protreptik und Paraenese bei Platon (Tubingen Beitr. 40; Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 1959); H. I. Marrou, Histoire de l'ducation d'antiquit (Paris: Seuil, 1956); Werner Jaeger, Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948); P. Hartlich, Deexhortationem a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia etindole, Leipziger Studien zu Classischen Philologie 11 (1889). Also relevant is the section on protreptic letters in Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 112-125.

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

145

and how they are paying attention to anything rather than what they truly want. For they want the things that lead to happiness, but they are looking
for them in the wrong place."3
TATIAN'S PROS HELLENAS

Modern scholars have applied a variety of literary classifications to Pros Hellenas but have seldom made productive use of such classifications in their analyses of the text, probably because understanding the work as either an "apology" or a "harangue" (the most common classifications) leads into several interpretive problems with portions of the text. By classifying Pros Hellenas as a protrepticus, however, one is able to resolve these
difficulties.

There are several reasons why the category of "apology" is inadequate.

First is Tatian's vituperative style, a puzzle to many who have seen the work as an apology.4 Tatian, like Justin, identifies the Greco-Roman gods as demons who have misled people into worshipping them (8-10, 19, etc.). He ridicules pagan prophecy, with Apollo's oracle singled out for particular attention, because of its pretensions to know the future (19). But he breaks ranks with Justin by condemning the whole of Greek philosophical thought and its founders (23, 2527). The vituperative tone of Pros Hellenas is not at all what one would

expect in an apology whose function was to rebut false charges made

against the Christians.5 Instead, Tatian seems to go out of his way to insult the religions, philosophies, and morality of the Greco-Roman world. His condemnations and ridicule are not qualified by the polite (or valid) stipu3. Text and translation of Epictetus are from W A. Oldfather's translation in the LCL. For analysis of this passage, cf. E. G. Schmidt, "Die drei Arten des Philosophierens," Pbilologus 106 (1962): 14-28. 4. References to the text being an "apology" may be found throughout the literature. For illustrative examples among those scholars who have studied Tatian in detail, cf. L. W. Barnard, "The Heresy of Tatian- Once Again," )EH 19 (1968): 10; G.F. Hawthorne, "Tatian and His Discourse to the Greeks," HTR 57 (April 1964): 161; Robert M. Grant, "The Date of Tatian's Oration," HTR 46 (1953): 100; Aim Puech, Les Apologistes grecs du IIe sicle de notre re (Paris: Hachette, 1912), 167 et passimand Recherches sur le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien (Paris: Hachette, 1903), 4 et passim. Nevertheless, although the term "apology" is used by many different authors, there is a wide difference of opinion as to what an "apology" is. 5. Tatian does not explicitly identify those who follow "the barbarian philosophy" as Christians, but his listeners would have understood that to be his position. In order to avoid the cumbersome circumlocutions which would be required for absolute accuracy, I shall refer without further comment to those who accept "the barbarian philosophy" as
"Christians."

146

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

lations one would expect in a plea for Christians to receive legal toleration.

For example, he puts forward a blanket denunciation of "the Romans" for their pederasty in which "they try to gather together herds of boys like
herds of grazing horses" (28). Such language in a defense speech, especially in one meant for Roman officials, would seldom have led to an acquittal. Yet despite the two passages (4.1 and 25.3) where Tatian does defend

Christians against popular accusations (as we might expect in an apology),

he does not argue in any systematic way against them. He simply affirms Christian obedience to the laws or declares that the charges are false. Neither section is central to the argument of Pros Hellenas. In 4.1 (a reference to Christians not participating in pagan rituals), Tatian first af-

firms that Christians are good citizens and then discusses at length the
transcendence of God and the necessity of human obedience. In 25.3 he denies the charge of cannibalism and immediately follows up with a counter-charge of cannibalism against the pagan deities, most especially
Zeus.

Tatian's digressive denigration of philosophical rivals (23, 19) is also out of place in an apology. Although such a negative interpretation of his

rivals probably reflects Tatian's mindset, the denigration of these rivals is

beside the point in an apology and might have alienated the audience he

was attempting to persuade. If Tatian is presenting a protrepticus, however,

his audience would have seen his sarcasm and abuse as following the standard technique of highlighting the various weaknesses of one's opponents while presenting one's own superior case. (Clement of Alexandria in Protrepticus 56 provides an example of this almost rambling denigration of rivals.) Most significantly Pros Hellenas does not function as an apology in that

it does not defend the Christians, or any particular Christian, against legal
complaints or charges. If we consider that an apology, at the very least, is a

defense 1.) of somebody (or some group), 2.) in relation to a specific

charge, and 3.) addressed to a particular recipient, we may wonder whom this "apology" defended, what charges were refuted, and who was supposed to be persuaded. Only by redefining the term "apology" can the
work be understood as one.

Nevertheless many commentators have classified Pros Hellenas as an apology. G. F. Hawthorne, for example, concedes that the tone of the work

is "violently hostile; harshly dogmatic."6 Yet he ends his analysis by comparing Tatian's work with Pseudo-Justin's To the Greeks.
6. Hawthorne, "Tatian," 162.

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

147

Neither "Discourse" is an apology in the strict sense of the word. Rather, both could be classed as harangues against the Greeks. Pseudo-Justin at the end, however, makes a warm and sincere appeal to the pagan to become a Christian. Tatian makes no such appeal, but simply presents himself prepared for examination. The style of both is rhetorical.7

Hawthorne's comments on the literary nature of the work provide almost

no help in interpretation. What does he mean by "apology in the strict

sense of the word," "harangue," or the style of both discourses as "rhetorical"? And more importantly, how can a "harangue" in any sense of the word be an "apology"?

Yet, to go to the opposite extreme, classifying it as a "harangue" does not adequately explain Pros Hellenas either. Although differing in their terminology, many scholars have seen the work as an "attack."8 Typical of this approach is Edgar J. Goodspeed's comment on the work: "It is usually
classed as an apology, but it is just as much a bitter attack upon Greek pretensions in arts and letters."9 Understanding Pros Hellenas as a harangue allows us to make sense of

the vituperative style and the abuse of philosophical rivals, but this only
raises questions about the Sitz im Leben of the work. For example, why does Tatian offer to answer questions (42)? Why would his Greek audience (1, 4, 12, 13, etc.) pay any attention to Tatian's abuse? What would

he hope to accomplish by an attack on the Greeks? Must we assume that, in spite of what he repeatedly says, Tatian really intended Pros Hellenas
for a Christian audience? Or was he merely "getting something off his
chest"? io

Johannes Quasten, although aware of the various classifications which have been applied to the work, appears to follow the line of interpretation
which sees it as an attack: 7. Ibid., 188.

8. References to the text being some kind of polemic may be found throughout the literature. For illustrative examples, and keeping in mind that many of the same authors have also described the work as an apology, cf. Barnard, "Heresy," 1; Hawthorne, "Tatian," 188; Robert M. Grant, "The Heresy of Tatian,"/TS New Series 5 (1954): 63; Puech, Les Apologistes grecs 151. 9. Edgar J. Goodspeed, A History of Early ChristianLiterature, revised and enlarged by Robert M. Grant (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1966), 106. 10. An effort to explain Tatian's vehemence by his personal history or emotional makeup may be found in Whittaker, Tatian, xii-xv; Grant, "The Date," 100; Goodspeed, 106; and Johannes Quasten, Patrology Vol. 1 (Westminster, Maryland: Newman, 1951), 220-221. Such interpretations may be correct, but it is not clear to me how these hypotheses could ever be falsified by research or data.

148

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Some scholars think that the Oration is not an apology intended to defend Christianity or to justify the conversion of the author, but a dedicatory speech, containing an invitation to attend the school of the author. But even if it was delivered as an oration at the opening of a school there is no doubt that

from the beginning it was thought to be an address to the public. It remains

true, however, that the speech is not so much an apology for Christianity as it is a vehement, immoderate, polemic treatise which rejects and belittles the
whole culture of the Greeks.11

Quasten's comment on the work as a "polemic treatise" is most interesting. What does he mean by the term and how may it be contrasted with an apologetic treatise? I suspect he means to contrast not only a polemic with an apology but also a "treatise" with a "speech."12

We can find another specific identification of the work as a polemic

"treatise" but one which also has some discussion of the classification.

Notwithstanding his earlier indentification of the work as a harangue, Hawthorne, in contrasting Pros Hellenas with other pieces, concedes that: "Perhaps the title is also a bit misleading, if one interprets 'Discourse' in the strict sense of Logos, or a public lecture delivered to various audiences encountered on a preaching tour similar to those carried on by the sophists." Hawthorne then suggests that Pros Hellenas is better understood

as a treatise rather than a speech, and specifically as "a syntagma rather

than a logos."13 Even though few have been willing to call Pros Hellenas a treatise, the text is almost always interpreted as if it were an exposition of systematic theology. Part of this interpretive tendency surely results from scholars' traditional interest in theological issues. But Pros Hellenas (like Paul's letters) was never meant as theological exposition. A "theology," no doubt, underlies the work. But, unless we choose to classify the work as a theological treatise, we should not assume that what Tatian presents here was ever

meant to be a systematic presentation of his thought on the Being of God, the nature of Christ, the internal dynamics of the Trinity, and so on.14 In fact, additional evidence such as Origen's Against Celsus 3.50-53, suggests that theological education occurred in private and implies that protreptic discourses would not become too specific about the finer points of Christian thought.
11. Quasten, Patrology, 221.
12. Since it is not clear what difference it makes whether Pros Hellenas was written

for oral delivery or written later after an oral delivery, I will not explore the question of whether the work was originally spoken or written.
13. Hawthorne, "Tatian," 161-162. 14. This is the fundamental flaw of works such as Martin Elze, Tatian und seine

Theologie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960).

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

149

Several commentators have approached Pros Hellenas as if it were a

theological treatise. For example, although Molly Whittaker is right to stress the hortatory nature of the work, she seems to interpret the text as if
Tatian had intended to write a systematic treatise. Tatian's apology is essentially hortatory rather than didactic. His main concern is to urge pagan readers to leave the error of their ways in order that they

may turn to the truth. ... He calls himself "herald of the truth" ... for him
Christianity (a term he never uses) is in itself an educational discipline (paideia), a philosophy superior to anything the Greeks can offer. . . . Tatian's theology is harder to follow because what sets out to be a systematic exposition is continually interrupted by outbursts of polemic. However the following points emerge. [She then gives an outline of his theology.]15

Whittaker's analysis fails in that Tatian does not attempt to give a "sys-

tematic exposition" anymore than he delivered an apology or a harangue.

If that were his purpose, Pros Hellenas is certainly a failure: the many digressions, unexplored ideas, and abusive sections are inappropriate in a

systematic exposition. However, if the speech is understood as a protrepticus, Tatian need not be faulted for digressions since a protrepticus did not have to be systematic. Further, unexplored ideas were common within a

protrepticus since it was expected that a teacher would elaborate on them

once students began studying. And, finally, abuse was a standard technique in protreptic discourse. Tatian's comments in chapter 30 might seem to indicate that he intends

to spell out the details of his philosophy: "... if you want to examine our
tenets I will give you an easily understood and full account." But, after we consider the context of this offer, we can see that the "full account" is on a

specific topic. In this passage Tatian is discussing why there are so many languages in the world: he refers to the tower of Babel and not the literary agenda of Pros Hellenas. Furthermore, since Tatian does not follow up with an explanation for the confusion of tongues, we may infer that he would be
available later for dialogue on that topic (cf. also 42). Some of the scholarly discussion about the literary character of Tatian's work suffers from a lack of clarity and even, at times, self-contradiction.

For example, Barnard's otherwise valuable analysis of Tatian's "heresy" is

not consistent in its description of the literary character of Pros Hellenas. Two different, and seemly contradictory, classifications appear to be com-

bined. Although Barnard labels the speech an "apologetic work" and

regularly refers to Tatian as an apologist,16 he also labels it "a violent
15. Whittaker, Tatian, xv. 16. Barnard, "Heresy," 1 et passim.

150

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

diatribe" and "a violent polemic against Greco-Roman culture."17 He

gives a fuller description when he explains the function of the work:

[Tatian's] work was directed at non-Christians and was not so much a defence of Christian doctrine as an answer to laughers and scoffers who sneered at them. Tatian's weapon is not sweet reason, as with Justin and Athenagoras, but the wielding of a sword. Christian philosophy is carried into the enemy's camp with banners flying.18

In analyzing Barnard's remarks, it is important to understand that an

apology and a polemic are different kinds of literature. The Sitzen im Leben
and purposes are different. (Further, neither is a protrepticus.) Since the purposes of the two types of literature are so different, it is doubtful that anyone would attempt to present an apology while he was in fact delivering a polemic. The genres do not readily admit interchange.19 Aim Peuch, likewise, suffers from the same self-contradiction. He describes Pros Hellenas as an apology, a harangue, "une conference," an apology but "n'est pas une Apologie au sens strict," and even specifically as a protrepticus.20 Given all these classifications, Peuch is able to interpret any passage in the text in terms of one of these types of literature. Of course, he is right to speak of the text as a protrepticus. But because he has neither consistently applied that category nor made use of it in his interpretation of the material, Peuch's analysis did not go as far as it might have. Furthermore, in his construction of Tatian's theology, it is clear that Peuch reads
17. Ibid., 9 and 1. 18. Ibid., 10.

19. An ingenious attempt to deal with this problem is A. E. Osborne, Tatian: A Literary Analysis and Essay in Interpretation (Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1969). Osborne considers Pros Hellenas to be two different works which have been

joined together. Chapters 1-30 and 42 are one unit, a diatribe, "that is, a discourse
delivered for the edification of its hearers" (28), and chapters 31-41 are the other unit.

In addition to the lack of any textual evidence, Osborne's case for the insertion of 31-41 is weakened by several other factors: 1.) Since 42 does not follow smoothly from 30, it appears that we must assume that a section from Part 1 was dropped out when Part 2 was
inserted. 2.) What explains why Part 2 was inserted into Part 1 instead of being added on

at the end? 3.) Although 31 does not follow smoothly from 30, and 42 from 41,

prove textual hanky-panky.) Whittaker's synopsis (Tatian, xviii-xx) clearly illustrates Tatian's disjointed style. It seems extreme to focus on two abrupt transitions while ignoring others. Osborne, however, makes a good point in reference to the work having
similarities with the diatribe. But his comments on the character of the diatribe should be

nevertheless Tatian often digresses and returns to earlier themes. (Digressions do not

considered in light of Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans, SBL Dissertation Series 57 (Ann Arbor: Scholars, 1981). 20. Puech, Les Apologistes grecs, 148-171 passim.

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

151

Pros Hellenas as a straightforward statement of theology, i.e. a systematic

treatise.

Peuch, R. C. Kukula and others have noticed the many indications of

protrepticus within the speech, yet they did not follow up on the implications of such a classification.21 Kukula, in fact, specifically rejects the idea

that the speech is a protrepticus by contending that it is a convocation

lecture (logos eisiterios). "Unsere oratio . . . eine Inaugurationsrede ist,

die wirklich einmal zur Erffnung einer Schule von Tatian gesprochen
worden ist."22

Kukula's hypothesis, however, does not adequately explain Tatian's intention for Pros Hellenas. If he is speaking to his students at the opening of

his school, why does he address "the Greeks" ? Why does he not provide a more systematic introduction to what the students will be learning? Why
bother abusing his audience with such comments as 26.3? ("Because you do not know God you make war among yourselves and kill one another. For this reason you are all nothing; you appropriate words but your conversation is like a blind man with a deaf.") Kukula's hypothesis is simply less convincing than the thesis that the piece is a protrepticus. What internal indications can we see, then, of Tatian's intention for Pros Hellenas} He is not, I contend, presenting philosophical theories or sys-

tematic theology. Rather he asks his listeners to do something. He urges

them to receive instruction in the "barbarian philosophy" of Christianity. His summons in chapter 11 certainly is an invitation: "'Die to the world'

by rejecting its madness; 'live to God' by comprehending him and rejecting

the old birth. We were not born to die, but die through our own fault." And

again, in chapter 18, when arguing that the demons have no power to cure,
21. Richard Cornelius Kukula, Tatian's Sogenannte Apologie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900), passim; B. Ponschab, "Tatians Rede an die Griechen," Programm (Metten,
1895), 8, 22, et passim; Elze, Tatian, 43 et passim.

22. Kukula, Tatian's, 51. In rejecting Kukula, Puech (Recherches, 2-3 et passim) has argued that a public lecture of the sort proposed by Kukula is socially inconceivable in the middle of the second century. Although Kukula's hypothesis may be wrong, Peuch's argument against it has two fundamental flaws. First, Peuch is affirming the consequent. Because he assumes such speeches were inconceivable, he necessarily will deny that any occurred. Further, Peuch does not appreciate the significance of Tatian refering to "the barbarian philosophy" and not Christianity. Roman officials would have seen Tatian as a teacher of philosophy. Finally, Puech's argument is a two-edged sword. If Kukula's "Inaugurationsrede" were impossible, how could a protrepticusa term Puech uses to refer to Pros Hellenashave been delivered either? Puech applies so many different labels to the work and refutes so many of them that it simply is not clear what his
position is.

152

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Tatian urges his listeners to accept a more powerful Lord. "Follow the power of the Word [logou dynamei katakoloutheson]."

Another specific invitation to his audience is found in chapter 19, which

begins with sarcasm but ends with an appeal. Tatian exhorts, "You who have no comprehension of these things should learn from us who have, when you say that you despise death and practise self-sufficiency. ... I can demonstrate how these things are organized [echo deiknuein ten touton oikonomian]; listen, and he who believes will come to know." Furthermore in chapter 32, another section which clearly suggests a protrepticus, Tatian affirms that instruction is not predicated on wealth. " [N]ot only the rich philosophize, but the poor also enjoy teaching without charge, for there is no comparison in exchange value between the truth of God and this world's recompense. Thus we admit all who wish to hear, even if they are old women or youngsters . . . ." Thus Tatian has made it explicit that accepting the "barbarian philosophy" involves a period of instruction.23 Moreover, since he is presenting this protrepticus, he is advertising the fact, both by the form of Pros Hellenas and by its content, that he is available as a teacher of the Christian faith. Finally, the examination (anakrisis) to which Tatian declares himself ready to undergo in chapter 42 supports the contention that the speech was

meant as a protrepticus. Tatian's offer is similar to the tests of wit and logic
in which philosophers so often engaged to prove their intellectual powers. Taken together, these sections fit poorly with understanding the text as an apology, a harangue, or a treatise. The purpose of the speech appears to be an encouragement to accept the barbarian philosophy and to learn of it through the instruction of Tatian. Adopting the classification protrepticus allows for several seemingly problematic elements of the speech to make sense: the vituperative style, the ridicule of other philosophies, the apparently random references to unexplored ideas, and the offer to answer questions. No other classification allows for these four elements to be taken together and then connected
with a definite intention for the work.

Recently Robert M. Grant has proposed a radically new understanding of Pros Hellenas based upon a study of the handbook Menander Rhetor.24 This rhetorical handbook probably dates from the late third or fourth
23. Cf. Justin, Apology and Origen, Against Celsus. 24. Delivered as a lecture at the University of Rome, Grant's "Forms and Occasions of the Greek Apologists" is forthcoming in Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni. I thank Prof. Grant for an advance copy of his manuscript.

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

153

century CE.25 Although affirming that Pros Hellenas contains protreptic elements, Grant suggests "that the Oratio is essentially a logos syntaktikos
or 'farewell discourse' to the culture of Greece and Rome." He argues that sections 1.3, 22-23, 29,35, and 42 indicate that Tatian is saying goodbye to the culture which he has rejected. Even though Grant correctly attempts to classify early Christian literature on the basis of ancient genres, I contend that he has misunderstood both Menander and Tatian in his proposal to treat Pros Hellenas as a logos

syntaktikos. In terms of the types of speeches which Menander does discuss, Pros Hellenas probably comes closest to being a "farewell address." Menander Rhetor, however, is not a complete analysis of the various cate-

gories of speech in the early Christian period, as is made clear in the first paragraph of Book 1 (331.11): "Do not therefore expect to hear about
rhetoric as a whole from the beginning . . . ."The focus of the text is rather

on epideictic rhetoric.26 The protrepticus as a type of speech is not discussed at all, an omission that is understandable in light of Epictetus

3.23.3338 where the protrepticus is considered distinct from epideiktikos. By using the rhetorical categories of Menander Rhetor, Grant limits

the range of possible classifications prematurely.

Further, the citations from Tatian which Grant uses to construct his case for a "farewell address" simply do not support his argument. Sections 1.3, 2223,29, and 35 indeed make mention of leaving or rejecting things, but

the objects to be rejected are schools of wisdom, practices, or ideas. They do not appear to conform to Menander's concept of a "farewell address,"
which says goodbye to a place or a group of people. More importantly, these passages relate to Tatian's past activities, not to his present situation: they provide biographical detail, and not the Sitz im Leben of Pros Hellenas. Grant's implication that chapter 42 indicates Tatian's forthcoming return to his homeland is not supported by the text. For these reasons Grant's proposal that the work is a "farewell address" is not compelling. But in addition, understanding Pros Hellenas as a "farewell address" does not do justice to the work as a whole: Grant himself concedes that the work has sections of "a positive, 'Christian' content" as well as protreptic elements. How these themes belong in a farewell address

are not explained. Taking the work as a protrepticus, however, explains the
25. Menander Rhetor, edited with translation and commentary by Donald Andrew Russell and Nigel Guy Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) xi. 26. Menander Rhetor 3, cf. also xi-xxiv and 226228 for commentary and explanation.

154

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

positive, the negative, and the protreptic elements. It provides the most complete explanation for the parts, as well as the whole, of Pros Hellenas.

The overall effect of the speech conforms to Epictetus' description of the

sort of speech which a philosopher must give in order to attract students
(3.23.28): "I invite you to come and hear that you are in a bad way, and that you are concerned with anything rather than what you should be concerned with, and that you are ignorant of the good and the evil, and are wretched and miser-

able." That's a fine invitation! And yet if the philospher's discourse [logos]
does not produce this effect, it is lifeless and so is the speaker himself.
TATIAN AS TEACHER

What can we infer from Tatian presenting a protrepticus} Although we do not have clear evidence of protreptic speeches being used to proselytize for the traditional Greco-Roman religions, we do find a relative abundance of them associated with philosophies of the period. It seems likely, therefore, that Tatian also understood (or, at the very least, presented) Christianity as a philosophy to which he wished to attract his audience. Whatever Christianity wasbefore the New Testament was collected, before the creeds were formulated, and before the Fathers wrotewould have appeared as a "philosophy" to Tatian's listeners. Further, Tatian himself would have been seen as a philosopher. The title of his lost work On Animals (15) suggests that his interests included the wider world which other philosophers also studied. Tatian's use of the phrase "barbarian philosophy" would have been understood as a reference to his own position. Whether or not other Christians of the second century would have agreed, Tatian's listeners would have understood Christianity, therefore, to be a rival to other Greco-Roman philosophies and not merely as an alternative to the traditional cults.

Even by those who condemned him, Tatian was seen as a teacher.27 Apparently he did not set himself up as a rival bishop or attempt to start a

church. The fact that he is described as a teacher obviously implies that he

had both a "school" and pupils. And, since teachers had to attract students, Tatian either had to rely on others to publicize for him or else follow the common practice of recruiting by his own protreptic speeches. The latter practice is implied by Hippolytus's occasionally misunderstood comment in Heresies 10.14. "And [Tatian] habituates himself to a very cynical mode of life, and almost in nothing differs from Marcion, as
27. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28 and Eusebius, h.e. 4.29.

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

155

appertaining both to his slanders, and the regulations enacted concerning

marriage."28 The editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series explains in a footnote that

the phrase "a very cynical mode of life" refers "to the shamelessness of the Cynics in regard to sexual intercourse." This explanation is totally mistaken.29 While it is true that some of the earliest Cynics favored promis-

cuity in regard to both women and boys, by the Empire this was no longer
true.30 Furthermore, Encratism (the heresy most often associated with

Tatian) and Marcionism were systems which recommended abstinence from sexual relationships, even within marriage. Tatian is explicit in his denunciation of immorality (11): "I hate fornication [porneian]." Since Hippolytus' remark about Tatian's similarity to the Cynics cannot
refer to sexual licentiousness, his comment must be construed differently.

The Cynics during the period from Tatian to Hippolytus were a diverse group. They ranged from the uneducated boors, whom Luc-an had ridiculed, to the most refined "cultured despisers" of pagan life. Most often they were ascetic and were almost always opposed to the excesses of materialism and vanity in their societies.

Is Hippolytus' comment, therefore, meant descriptively or normatively ?

If the comment was meant to be descriptive, Hippolytus may only acknowledge that Tatian was an ascetic who openly condemned society.31 The reference might also include a implication about the similarity be-

tween Encratism and the Cynic virtue of autarkeia. On the other hand, if the comparison is meant as a normative judgment on both Tatian and the Cynics, Hippolytus may have in mind the many rude loafers who wore the Cynic cloak because it furnished an easy way of life. If this is the case,
however, Hippolytus was basing his condemnation on a false stereotype of the Cynics. If Tatian followed the normal procedure in managing his "school," his students would have been expected to pay for their course of study. His statement in chapter 32 that "not only the rich philosophize, but the poor also enjoy teaching without charge" implies that payment for education was the norm, even if something similar to a fee structure based on a sliding-scale allowed the indigent to receive instruction. Tatian almost
28. English translation from ANF 5:146. 29. It is unfortunate that this very accessible set of early Christian literature has such

misleading footnotes that students must be warned not to read them.

30. Donald Dudley, A History of Cynicism (London: Methuen, 1937). For additional discussion and a more recent bibliography, cf. also Abrahman J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBLSBS 12, Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1977).
31. Cf. Hawthorne, "Tatian," 162.

156

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

certainly would have earned his living from the fees his students paid. His

means of support, therefore, would have allowed bishops and others within
a developing hierarchy little leverage over his instruction. In fact, there is no definite implication of outside influence being exerted on Tatian's activities as a teacher. Teachers like Tatian could have been very independent and may, at times, have been difficult for other authorities to work with. In addition, Tatian's speech implies that becoming a Christian involved a process of education. But what sort of education would "the barbarian

philosophy" provide? Tatian is not clear about this point in Pros Hellenas. However, a protreptic speech did not necessarily outline the course of study
which one would be undertaking with a particular teacher, and we should

not expect to find such an exposition within the work; instead the protrepticus concentrated on the negative aspects of the other alternatives. Neither
the method nor the content of Tatian's instruction can be inferred from Pros Hellenas.

Interesting also is Tatian's failure to comment on the Scriptures or on cultic activities among the Christians. He quotes from or alludes to the

Scriptures but seems to make little of their authority.32 Yet certainly they
did matter to him. Tatian, after all, compiled the Diatessaron. Perhaps he did not believe that they would help in his persuasion. Since a pagan audience would have been unfamiliar (and probably unimpressed) with Christian texts, he might have considered that there was no advantage in quoting from them. The situation is more problematic, however, concerning his relative ne-

glect of reference to Christian rituals. It is possible that Tatian deliberately

chose not to mention Christian cultic activities in order not to turn away any potential students, but it is also conceivable that these cultic activities were not important to him. If Tatian understood Christianity primarily as a philosophy and not as a cult, his failure to refer to worship practices is explainable.

This lack of reference to Christian rituals and to the developing hierachy

may account for why Tatian is sometimes understood as a Gnostic. Irenaeus refers to the Valentinian position on the existence of the aeons when he speaks against Tatian (haer. 1.28), and Grant follows Irenaeus when he concludes, "Tatian wrote not in the name of Christianity but as an
individual Gnostic teacher."33

There are two major suppositions implied in Grant's claim which under32. Whittaker, Tatian, xvii and Robert M. Grant, "Tatian and the Bible," SP 1
(1957): 297-306.

33. Robert M. Grant, "The Chronology of the Greek Apologists," VC 9 (1955): 28.

MCGEHEE/WHY TATIAN NEVER "APOLOGIZED"

157

mine its force. First, unless Grant is willing to define what he means by

"Gnostic," he has gone beyond what Tatian says. For Tatian appears to affirm the Incarnation in chapter 21 and even the suffering of Christ (15).
He also argues for the resurrection of the body (6) and seems to contrast

that with the immortality of the soul (13). Finally, Tatian always speaks
highly of Moses and his writings. Given Tatian's references to the works of

Moses and his view of the Logos (5 and 7), Greeks would have certainly
assumed that the "barbarian philosophy" of which Tatian spoke was Christianity. Second, Grant seems to make a distinction between an "individual

Gnostic teacher" and one writing in the name of Christianity. Whether or not such a distinction can now be upheld in the religious climate of the
second century, pagans would surely not have been sensitive to the later

(and assumed!) differences between an orthodox Christianity and a gnostic

Christianity of that time. The Greeks surely would have understood Tatian to be a Christian philosopher.34

How, we might ponder, would Tatian's approach to Christianity have been evaluated by the developing hierarchy? Marcel Simon and Stanley K.
Stowers correctly see that the educational policies which had been customary for teachers in the Hellenistic age implied a challenge to the Christian bishops if the independent Christian teachers followed the example of their

pagan counterparts.35 Local elders and bishops would have had little opportunity to exercise control over the work of teachers such as Tatian who depended upon their students for support.

Since some church leaders were already beginning to claim that apostolic authority guaranteed uniform doctrine, it is possible that the freedom

Christian teachers enjoyed in their own schools caused problems in the churches because the teachers were free to develop new ideas and disagree
among themselves, unhampered by ecclesiastical oversight. The sheer vari-

ety of haireseis common among the philosophers was the very thing that
Irenaeus and so many others saw as a threat to the apostolic tradition.
Likewise absent from Pros Hellenas is a discussion of miracles which we

might expect had the work been either a theological treatise or an apology. This absence seems somewhat unusual since miracles were commonly (and
most effectively) used as a means to convince non-believers of the truth of
34. Cf. Hawthorne, "Tatian," 162-175 and Barnard, "Heresy," passim. 35. Stanley K. Stowers, "Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul's Preaching Activity," 26 NovT (1984): 59-82 and Marcel Simon, "From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy," Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In Honor of Robert M. Grant, edited by W. Schoedel
and R. L. Wilken (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979), 101-134.

158

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the Gospel.36 Tatian's argument for Christianity seems here to be made on

rational rather than supernatural grounds. Although Tatian might have refused to buttress his argument with miracles because he anticipated a skeptical audience, it is possible that he considered "proof through miracles" as no proof at all. A final implication from understanding Pros Hellenas as a protrepticus serves as a warning about attempting to reconstruct Tatian's theology. If
the work is a protrepticus, the details of Tatian's thought would have been

spelled out to his students during his later teaching on the "barbarian philosophy." It is illegitimate (or, at the very least, rash) to explore the intricacies of Tatian's view on the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos if the work is a protrepticus. Even if Tatian was as fully aware of the myriad
implications of those terms as modern patristic scholars are, there is no

reason to assume that he intended the terms in a protrepticus to carry all

the freight with which modern researchers have loaded them.

If Pros Hellenas is a protrepticus, we probably know less about Tatian's

theology than we once thought we knew. Nevertheless, from a better starting point, we can now begin to study Tatian and his work on their own terms. It may turn out that his heresy and the heresies of other second century teachers were more related to the profession of teaching than to anything which was taught.

Michael McGehee is an Adjunct Professor at Howard Payne University,

El Paso, Texas

36. Cf. Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400) (New Haven: Yale, 1984) and Howard Clark Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World
(New Haven: Yale, 1983).