|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Critical Review, December 26, 2003
In this work, Schneweis looks at the angelology and demonology of Lactantius' thought. Although Lactantius did not devote any single treatise to the existence of angels, references to them are scattered throughout his works. He did not need to spend time arguing for the existence of angels because everyone presupposed their existence in his time. Indeed, Lactantius rarely references biblical literature to describe them or express their attributes and instead uses pagan works. Most of the ancients referenced by Lactantius, such as Plato, Socrates, and Hesiod held vague beliefs that all angels were generally benevolent messengers from heaven. Lactantius claimed that all the pagan angels were actually evil spirits. Schneweis observes that Lactantius equivocates the Judeo-Christian tradition of angels with the pagan. This fallacy of equivocation was used with great effect: rather than clarifying terms between his audience and himself, Lactantius simply argued for the Christian perspective. For Lactantius, angels were created before eternity to serve God and prevent Him from being lonely. Innumerable and winged, they lived mainly in heaven, and existed in a state of holiness. They worshipped God with fear and trembling, and were ministers of divine providence. For example, they opened the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites. Their actions revealed that they had personality, and indeed, they originated from God's breath. Lactantius' Christology is closely related to his angelology. According to him, Christ, like the angels, came from God's breath, but was also God's spoken Word. Lactantius believed in a form of Subordinationism, but clearly distinguished between angels and Christ. Angels were also ministers and guardians of humankind. They helped men against evil and bettered their condition. They were endowed with vast knowledge, which came from God, but could not be examples or fully teach men. Lactantius was careful to deny any cultus of the angels. However, because they were friends of God and guardians of men, they should be treated with respect and even some reverence. Lactantius presents his demonology in more general terms. As in his angelology, he used Christian terminology-and, consequentially, the fallacy of equivocation-to refute pagan demonology. Classical thought held three distinctions for demons: when a god would punish people or send something seemingly out of character for a theos, he was known as a demon; positive intermediaries between God and men; and souls of the departed. Lactantius simply stated that they were all evil, and the counterpoints of angels. In this way, he not only could ridicule pagan religions, but also could link Christianity to his (and their) demonology. Lactantius had three classifications of demons: Satan, who was the chief; earthly demons; and demons that were somewhat related to humans (cf. Genesis 6). Enoch, although not explicitly referenced, was an important work for Lactantius. He believed that their angelic nature was corrupted and diminished by their fall from heaven. This fall came because they lusted after women, and were thus unfaithful from their task as guardians of men. Demons were always, finite beings, dependent on those more powerful than themselves: Satan and God. Although Satan was always a creature dependent on God, Satan's envy of Christ caused his fall. In fact, the emphasis of Satan against Christ in Lactantius' works creates a cosmic dualism. At the end of their millennium, which will likely begin around 500 AD, they will be tortured in the sight of the good angels. Lactantius' demonology regarding anthropology centered on pagan's religion and worship, especially because of his work as an apologist. Demons successfully influenced men towards evil. They would cause trouble and remove it for the purpose of deceiving humans into worshipping them. Men may have had accompanying demons throughout their lives. Lactantius accepted various theophanies and miracles in the classical past, such as the appearance of Castor and Pollox. However, he attributed them to demons, who imitated the divine in order to capture men's souls. Demons did have a relationship with Christians regarding persecution and temptation. Persecution was too unreasonable and terrible to be created by humans and was actually designed by demons. Pagans were merely instruments of demons, although this does not excuse them from guilt. However, martyrdom and persecution helped Christianity expand. Regarding to temptation, demons helped Christians, because virtues were developed through trials. Exorcisms were effectively done in the name of Christ and with the sign of the cross. Christians fought demons with God's power. Schneweis' book is well organized. He first focuses on Lactantius' beliefs regarding angelology: the reality or existence of angels, their nature and attributes, and their activities. Next he concentrates on Lactantius' beliefs about demonology: their existence, nature, and activities. A bonus for scholars: his footnotes from primary sources are left untranslated.This work is also reasonably well written and difficult terms are clarified. Schneweis focuses on a narrow aspect of historical theology and covers it well. His organization scheme covers nearly all questions that scholars could ask regarding the development of angelology. Although Schneweis points out aspects of Lactantius' theological thought that were later rejected by orthodoxy, he also seems as objective as one can be, and reserves condemnation. The work provides not only a clear understanding of Lactantius' angelology and demonology, but also the basics of pagan thought regarding angels and demons. The narrow focus of this dissertation is also its weakness. Schneweis gives almost no background of Lactantius, and this work lacks basic elements as a biography, dates (even birth/death!), or his published works. There are, at least, brief references to Greco-Roman philosophy and religious life. Readers acquainted with the church fathers will come to a better understanding of Lactantius' thought, but those who are looking any historical information about Lactantius outside of angelology and demonology, and a little about his Christology, should look elsewhere.
|
