Presbyteron Kreitton. Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (review)

Peter Pilhofer's book deals with the Altersbeweis or "argument from Antiquity," which many readers of Patristics will recall was examined in Arthur Droge's Homer or Moses? (1989). However, the present work-which is the author's dissertation submitted to the Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultät of Wilhelms University in Westphalia-is at once more extensive and more ambitious in scope. Whereas most chapters of Droge's fine monograph were organized around a Biblical book (Genesis) or a Christian apologist (from Justin through Eusebius), Pilhofer divides his volume into four main sections, each of which comprises a study in itself. The Introduction sets the stage by emphasizing the context of early Church apologetics, outlining the plan of the book, and clarifying the concept of Altersbeweis. The appeal to Antiquity-which is so prominent in the apologists' work-rests on the widespread assumption that the most ancient traditions are the most authoritative, and the corollary that new religious ideas are less authoritative or even suspect. Pilhofer sums up these twin notions in four pithy maxims (pp. 8-9): (1) "Was alt ist, ist gut." (2) "Was älter ist, ist besser." (3) "Was neu ist, ist schlecht." (4) "Was neuer ist, ist schlechter." Timaios of Locri provided an earlier summary, from which the title of the present work is taken: and are the Doric forms of and , respectively). The existence of such a motivating force explains the apologists' need to demonstrate that Christianity is not a new religion, but embodies more ancient traditions than those of Greece or Rome.

Pilhofer's overriding goal is to produce a prologomenon to the "History of Apologetics" (p. 15)., for which he considers the Altersbeweis in Greek, Roman, Hellenistic-Jewish, and Christian apologetic literature. Accordingly, the four main chapters of his monograph deal with the concept in these four groups of writings. Such a comprehensive treatment is necessary, the author emphasizes, because Christian apologetic is heir to Jewish apologetic, which in turn has appropriated the appeal to Antiquity from Greek literature. While the Roman apologists are later than their Hellenistic Jewish counterparts, Pilhofer includes them in his study because they are more or less contemporaneous with the early Christian apologists, thus offering an interesting parallel development of the Altersbeweis. A brief outline of the four main sections of the book is apposite at this point. Chapter One is well characterized by its title: "The Presupposition (Voraussetzung) of the Apologists' Arguments from Antiquity: Greek Literature." Dealing in turn with Hecataeus of Miletus, Herodotus, Aristophanes, Plato, and later Greek writers, Pilhofer demonstrates the antiquity of the Altersbeweis concept itself. Chapter Two treats the phenomenon in Roman writers, who are roughly contemporaneous with the second-century apologists. Included in this section are Quintus Fabius Pictor, Cato the Elder, the Roman Pythagoreans, Cicero, and Antiochus of Ascalon. Chapter Three examines the argument from Antiquity in Hellenistic Jewish literature, which is more directly related to early Christian apologists such as Justin, who appropriated the concept from Hellenistic Jewish writers. Pilhofer first discusses lesser-known historiographers such as Eupolemus and Artapanus, and then concentrates on more significant writers. The latter include Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, as one would expect (this reviewer is gratified that Philo merits a full 20 pages!), but also Aristobulus and Philo of Byblos. Here Pilhofer must be taken to task for neglecting Berossus and Manetho, each of whom presents the history of a great nation down to the death of Alexander in 323 BC: Berossus the Babylonians (in his Babyloniaca), and Manetho the ancient Egyptians (in his Aegyptiaca). These authors provide an important link between earlier Greek historiography and the Hellenistic world, but their contribution has unfortunately been underestimated by many scholars. Although both are referred to several times in Pilhofer's book (frequently together: pp. 8, 148, 153, 277), a brief section on each would have been appropriate...