阿泰納戈拉及塔提安－兩種對希羅文化的護教學式進路

Athenagoras and Tatian: Two Apologetic Approaches to Graeco-Roman Culture

賴品超(LAI Pan-chiu)

《道風：基督教文化評論》 19期 (2003/07) Pp. 261-280+312-313

並列摘要

Based on an analysis of the life and work of two apologists of the second century, namely Athenagoras and Tatian, this paper attempts to show that they embodied two divergent approaches to the Graeco-Roman culture. Though not uncritical towards the Graeco-Roman civilization, Athenagora tended to assume its positive value. This attitude was quite similar to that of Justin Martyr, who was regarded as teacher of Tatian. In contrast, Tatian offered a comprehensive and fierce attack on the Graeco-Roman culture. With regard to their attitudes towards the Roman Empire, whereas Athenagors preferred to show a friendly as well as affirmative attitude in order to persuade it to tolerate Christianity, Tatian expressed an antagonistic condemnation. Tatian's divergence from the approach adopted by Justin Martyr and Athenagoras might have been shaped by many factors. Firstly, Tatian identified himself as an Assyrian rather than a Roman and he was attracted to Christianity because he found Christianity as a radically different alternative rather than a fulfillment of Greek culture. The martyrdom of Justin Martyr might have been understood by Tatian as a symbol for the political failure of the apologetic approach attempting to keep a friendly and reasonable relationship with the Greek culture and to urge for being tolerated by the Roman Empire. In short, the divergence between these two approaches were due to several factors, including their respective nationalities / socio-political identity , the difference in their conversion experience, the occasional political event, especially the political regime's persecution of Christianity, etc. Referring the contemporary context of Chinese theology, this paper further suggests that apologetics is vital for the development of Christianity in China and the co-existence of the two approaches exemplified by Athenagoras and Tatian is quite understandable. It is because as the contemporary Chinese contexts are rather pluralistic, Chinese Christians may have different political as well as conversion experiences and thus divergent attitudes towards the Chinese culture.