The Treatise of Athenagoras

 Chapter I.—Defence of the Truth Should Precede Discussions Regarding It.

 Chapter II.—A Resurrection is Not Impossible.

 Chapter III.—He Who Could Create, Can Also Raise Up the Dead.

 Chapter IV.—Objection from the Fact that Some Human Bodies Have Become Part of Others.

 Chapter V.—Reference to the Processes of Digestion and Nutrition.

 Chapter VI.—Everything that is Useless or Hurtful is Rejected.

 Chapter VII.—The Resurrection-Body Different from the Present.

 Chapter VIII.—Human Flesh Not the Proper or Natural Food of Men.

 Chapter IX.—Absurdity of Arguing from Man’s Impotency.

 Chapter X.—It Cannot Be Shown that God Does Not Will a Resurrection.

 Chapter XI.—Recapitulation.

 Chapter XII.—Argument for the Resurrection From the Purpose Contemplated in Man’s Creation.

 Chapter XIII.—Continuation of the Argument.

 Chapter XIV.—The Resurrection Does Not Rest Solely on the Fact of a Future Judgment.

 Chapter XV.—Argument for the Resurrection from the Nature of Man.

 Chapter XVI—Analogy of Death and Sleep, and Consequent Argument for the Resurrection.

 Chapter XVII.—The Series of Changes We Can Now Trace in Man Renders a Resurrection Probable.

 Chapter XVIII.—Judgment Must Have Reference Both to Soul and Body: There Will Therefore Be a Resurrection.

 Chapter XIX.—Man Would Be More Unfavourably Situated Than the Beasts If There Were No Resurrection.

 Chapter XX.—Man Must Be Possessed Both of a Body and Soul Hereafter, that the Judgment Passed Upon Him May Be Just.

 Chapter XXI.—Continuation of the Argument.

 Chapter XXII.—Continuation of the Argument.

 Chapter XXIII.—Continuation of the Argument.

 Chapter XXIV.—Argument for the Resurrection from the Chief End of Man.

 Chapter XXV.—Argument Continued and Concluded.

Chapter I.—Defence of the Truth Should Precede Discussions Regarding It.1    [This argument was adapted to the times, and to those to whom it was addressed, with great rhetorical art and concealment of art. Its faults arise from the defective science of the age, and from the habits of thought and of public instruction then in fashion. He does not address himself to believers, but to sceptics, and meets them on their highest levels of speech and of reason.]

By the side of every opinion and doctrine which agrees with the truth of things, there springs up some falsehood; and it does so, not because it takes its rise naturally from some fundamental principle, or from some cause peculiar to the matter in hand, but because it is invented on purpose by men who set a value on the spurious seed, for its tendency to corrupt the truth. This is apparent, in the first place, from those who in former times addicted themselves to such inquiries, and their want of agreement with their predecessors and contemporaries, and then, not least, from the very confusion which marks the discussions that are now going on. For such men have left no truth free from their calumnious attacks—not the being of God, not His knowledge, not His operations, not those books which follow by a regular and strict sequence from these, and delineate for us the doctrines of piety. On the contrary, some of them utterly, and once for all, give up in despair the truth concerning these things, and some distort it to suit their own views, and some of set purpose doubt even of things which are palpably evident. Hence I think that those who bestow attention on such subjects should adopt two lines of argument, one in defence of the truth, another concerning the truth: that in defence of the truth, for disbelievers and doubters; that concerning the truth, for such as are candid and receive the truth with readiness. Accordingly it behoves those who wish to investigate these matters, to keep in view that which the necessity of the case in each instance requires, and to regulate their discussion by this; to accommodate the order of their treatment of these subjects to what is suitable to the occasion, and not for the sake of appearing always to preserve the same method, to disregard fitness and the place which properly belongs to each topic. For, so far as proof and the natural order are concerned, dissertations concerning the truth always take precedence of those in defence of it; but, for the purpose of greater utility, the order must be reversed, and arguments in defence of it precede those concerning it. For the farmer could not properly cast the seed into the ground, unless he first extirpated the wild wood, and whatever would be hurtful to the good seed; nor the physician introduce any wholesome medicines into the body that needed his care, if he did not previously remove the disease within, or stay that which was approaching. Neither surely can he who wishes to teach the truth persuade any one by speaking about it, so long as there is a false opinion lurking in the mind of his hearers, and barring the entrance of his arguments. And, therefore, from regard to greater utility, I myself sometimes place arguments in defence of the truth before those concerning the truth; and on the present occasion it appears to me, looking at the requirements of the case, not without advantage to follow the same method in treating of the resurrection. For in regard to this subject also we find some utterly disbelieving, and some others doubting, and even among those who have accepted the first principles some who are as much at a loss what to believe as those who doubt; the most unaccountable thing of all being, that they are in this state of mind without having any ground whatsoever in the matters themselves for their disbelief, or finding it possible to assign any reasonable cause why they disbelieve or experience any perplexity.

τατον ὅτι ταῦτα πάσχουσιν οὐδ' ἡντιναοῦν ἔχοντες ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀπιστίας ἀφορμὴν οὐδ' αἰτίαν εὑρίσκοντες εἰπεῖν εὔλογον, δι' ἣν ἀπιστοῦσιν ἢ διαποροῦσιν. Σκοπῶμεν δὲ οὑτωσί. πᾶσα ἀπιστία μὴ προχείρως καὶ κατά τινα δόξαν ἄκριτον ἐγγινομένη τισὶν ἀλλὰ μετά τινος αἰτίας ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀσφαλείας τότε τὸν εἰκότα σῴζει λόγον, ὅταν αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα περὶ οὗ ἀπιστοῦσιν ἄπιστον εἶναι δοκῇ· τὸ γάρ τοι τοῖς οὐκ οὖσιν ἀπίστοις ἀπιστεῖν ἀνθρώπων ἔργον οὐχ ὑγιαινούσῃ κρίσει περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν χρωμένων. οὐκοῦν χρὴ καὶ τοὺς περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἀπιστοῦντας ἢ διαποροῦντας μὴ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν αὑτοῖς ἀκρίτως καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἀκολάστοις κεχαρισμένον τὴν περὶ ταύτης ἐκφέρειν γνώμην, ἀλλ' ἢ μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας ἐξάπτειν τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένεσιν (ὃ δὴ καὶ λίαν ἐστὶν εὐεξέλεγκτον) ἢ τῷ θεῷ τὴν τῶν ὄντων ἀνατιθέντας αἰτίαν εἰς τὴν τοῦδε τοῦ δόγματος ἀποβλέπειν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ διὰ ταύτης δεικνύναι τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐδαμόθεν ἔχουσαν τὸ πιστόν. τοῦτο δὲ ποιήσουσιν, ἐὰν δεῖξαι δυνηθῶσιν ἢ ἀδύνατον ὂν τῷ θεῷ ἢ ἀβούλητον τὰ νεκρωθέντα τῶν σωμάτων ἢ καὶ πάντῃ διαλυθέντα πάλιν ἑνῶσαι καὶ συναγαγεῖν πρὸς τὴν τῶν αὐτῶν ἀνθρώπων σύστασιν. ἐὰν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ δύνωνται, παυσάσθωσαν τῆς ἀθέου ταύτης ἀπιστίας καὶ τοῦ βλασφημεῖν ἃ μὴ θέμις· ὅτι γὰρ οὔτε τὸ ἀδύνατον λέγοντες ἀληθεύουσιν οὔτε τὸ ἀβούλητον, ἐκ τῶν ·ηθησομένων γενήσεται φανερόν.