Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Egyptians, Taurians, and Greeks: Athenagoras of Athens combats charges of eating human flesh and incest against Jesus adherents (ca. 176-180 CE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified September 23, 2026, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=23324.

Ancient authors: Athenagoras of Athens (175-178 CE), Embassy for the Christians, with some omissions (link; link to Greek); Anonymous authors, Letter of the Assemblies of Vienne and Lugdunum to the Assemblies of Asia and Phrygia, as cited by Eusebios, Ecclesiatical History 1.14-15 (link).

Comments: Among the real or imaginative judicial petitions to Roman authorities that have come down to us from highly educated Jesus adherents, Athenagoras of Athens’ defence (ca. 175-177 CE) is the most direct and sustained attempt to refute rumours of horrendous crimes against this minority population. Once again, this evidence points to segments of the Greek and Roman populace targeting an internal group within their own societies by characterizing them as criminals and, at least on occasion, bringing these accusations before Roman authorities for trial. They do so by attributing to this entire community the most savage practices of “barbarian” peoples. So Jesus adherents end up being the barbarians within.

Although there are many digressions, Athenagoras’ entire defence is structured around refuting claims that Jesus adherents are atheists and that they engage in eating human flesh (human sacrifice is thereby implied) and in incestuous sexual perversion. Athenagoras is the earliest author to refer to the fact that the populace at times creatively expressed these criminal activities in terms of Greek and Roman theatrical analogues: Thyestan feasts (eating human flesh) and Oedipean sexual unions (incest). The same theatrical expressions are found in the roughly contemporary letter regarding the trial of Jesus adherents at Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, and I have included that passage at the bottom of this post. That letter directly states that these were circulating rumours within the populace there (“these stories went around and all the people raged against us”), rather than merely literary elaborations of the charges by an elite author.

Some context for the two analogues is in order: In Seneca’s first century reworking of the lost fifth century BCE play by Euripides, several brothers struggle over acquiring their father’s kingship and, to make a long story short, one brother (Atreus) gets revenge against another (Thyestes) by secretly but literally feeding the flesh of his own sons to Thyestes. Thyestes’ response to this tragedy spells this out as a most horrendous crime (scelus; Thyestes 1035-1051), comparable to the crimes of the Heniochian people west of the Black Sea (on which compare Aristotle’s talk of their eating human flesh at this link). In Sophokles’ tragic play Oedipus the King of Thebes (also retold in Latin by Seneca in the first century), despite great efforts to avoid fulfilling the god Apollo’s oracle that Oedipus would have sex with his mother (after killing his father), Oedipus accidentally does so. Oedipus plucks his own eyes out as self-punishment and becomes a symbol of the crime of incest.

Athenagoras, like Justin before him (link), engages in retorsion to counter accusations of crimes to some degree. He does so by stating that it is not Jesus adherents who are criminal populations; rather, peoples like the Taurians engage in human sacrifice, peoples like the Egyptians engage in impiety just as bad as atheism by worshiping savage animals, and even Greeks themselves believe that their gods (like Zeus) engage in incest. Athenagoras also shares in common the notion that lower spirits (daimones) play some role in leading peoples astray to worship gods that are no gods with horrendous rites.

Moreso than Justin, Athenagoras expressly frames his plea for justice and for the freedom of Jesus adherents to pursue their customs by positively characterizing the Roman imperial system. Athenagoras paints a picture of Roman authorities ensuring that all peoples of their empire are free to pursue their own specific ancestral customs. This then leads him to supply numerous ethnographic examples that illustrate the range of customs practiced in the lands under Roman domination. Athenagoras also buys the idea (at least for the purposes of a petition) that Roman hegemony and justice bring about “profound peace.”

Works consulted: T.D. Barnes, “The Embassy of Athenagoras,” Journal of Theological Studies 26 (1975): 111–14 (link).

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Athenagoras

[Introduction to the petition in the context of fair treatment of peoples by the Roman imperial power with respect varying customs]

An embassy for the Christians by Athenagoras the Athenian, philosopher and Christian, to the emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, victors over the Armenians and Sarmatians, and more than anything, pursuers of wisdom (philosophoi).

(1) In your empire, greatest of kings, one [people] differs from another in customs (ethē) and laws (nomoi), and no one is hindered by law or fear of punishment from following his ancestral ways (patria), no matter how ridiculous these may be:

A citizen of Ilion calls Hektor a god, and pays divine honours to Helen, taking her for Adrasteia. The Lakedaimonian [Spartan] venerates Agamemnon as Zeus, and Phylonoe the daughter of Tyndaros. The person from Tenedos worships Tennes. The Athenian sacrifices to Erechtheus as Poseidon. The Athenians also perform mysteries in honour of Agraulos and Pandrosos, women who were considered guilty of impiety for opening the box. In short, among every people (ethnos) and community (dēmos), people offer whatever sacrifices and celebrate whatever mysteries they prefer. The Egyptians include among their gods even cats, crocodiles, serpents, asps, and dogs. Both you and the laws give permission for all these peoples to behave in these ways, considering, on the one hand, that to believe in no god at all is impious and wicked, and on the other, that it is necessary for each person to worship the gods he prefers. The purpose is that, through fear of the deity, people may be kept from committing crimes (adikein). But why – for do not be led astray by hearsay like the masses – why do you hate a mere name (onoma) [i.e. the label “Christian”]?

[Crimes rather than labels as the basis for determining justice – So-called “Christians” most pious and just of all peoples]

Names themselves are not deserving of hatred: it is the crime (adikēma) that calls for penalty (dikē) and punishment (timōria). And accordingly, with admiration of your mildness, your gentleness, and your peaceful and benevolent disposition towards every person, individuals live in the possession of equal rights. The cities, according to their rank, share in equal honour. The entire empire, under your intelligent sway, enjoys profound peace.

However, you have not in a similar manner cared for us who are being called “Christians,” even though we commit no crime. To the contrary: as will be shown subsequently in this discourse, more than any other peoples we are most piously and justly disposed towards the deity and towards your empire. You allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, with the masses making war upon us for our name only. We venture, therefore, to present a statement of our case before you – and you will learn from this discourse that we suffer unjustly, and contrary to all law and reason – and we beg you to grant some consideration to us also, so that we may no longer be killed at the instigation of false accusers. For the fine imposed by our persecutors does not aim merely at our property. Nor do their insults aim at our reputation. Nor does the damage they do to us aim at any other of our greater interests. We look down on these things, even though they seem like very important matters to the masses. For not only have we learned to refrain from hitting back and from going to court against those who plunder and rob us; instead, to those who hit us on one cheek, we offer the other cheek, and to those who take away our coat, we give them our cloak as well. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls, pouring upon us wholesale accusations about things we have not even contemplated, but which belong to these babblers themselves, and to the whole tribe (genos) of those who are like them.

[More about the basis of justice: the label vs. crimes]

(2) If, indeed, any one can convict us of crimes, whether small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions. But if the accusation relates merely to our name – and it is undeniable that the stories told about us so far rest on nothing more than common and undiscriminating rumours among the people, nor has any “Christian” been convicted of crimes (adikoi) – it will devolve on you, illustrious, benevolent and most learned kings [i.e. emperors], to remove by law this despiteful treatment, so that, just as both individuals and cities throughout the world share in your love of humanity, we also may feel grateful to you, rejoicing that we are no longer the victims of false accusation. For it does not correspond to your justice that, with others charged with crimes, they are not punished until they are convicted, but that in our case the name we bear [i.e. “Christian”] should have more force than the evidence adduced on the trial.

In our case, instead of inquiring whether the person arraigned has committed any crime, the judges vent their insults on the name, as if the name itself was a crime. But no name in and by itself is considered either good or evil. Names appear evil or good according to the actions underlying them being evil or good. You, however, have yourselves a thorough knowledge of this, since you are well instructed in the pursuit of wisdom (philosophia) and all learning. For this reason, too, those who are brought before you for trial, even though they may be arraigned on the most severe charges, have no fear, because they know that you will inquire respecting their previous life and you will not be influenced by names if they mean nothing, nor by the charges contained in the indictments if they should be false. They accept with equal satisfaction, as regards its fairness, the sentence whether of condemnation or acquittal. What, therefore, is conceded as the common right of all, we claim for ourselves, namely, that we should not be hated and punished because we are called “Christians” (for what has the name to do with being a bad person?), but be tried on any charges which may be brought against us, and either be released on our disproving them, or punished if convicted of crime. We should not be punished for the name – because no Christian is an evil person unless that person falsely professes our teachings – but for the crime which has been done.

[Label “philosophers” compared to the label “Christians”]

Pursuers of wisdom (philosophoi) are judged in this way: None of them is considered by the judge either good or evil on account of his knowledge or skills, but if found guilty of crime he is punished, without thereby affixing any stigma on the pursuit of wisdom (philosophia). For someone is an evil man for not cultivating wisdom in a lawful manner, but knowledge itself is innocent. While if the pursuer of wisdom refutes the false charges, he is acquitted. Let this same justice be done to us, then. Let the life of the accused persons be investigated, but let the name stand free from all imputation.

At the outset of my defence, I must ask you, illustrious emperors, to listen to me impartially. Do not be carried away by common, irrational rumour and prejudge the case. Instead, apply your desire of knowledge and love of truth to the examination of our teaching also. Thus, while you on your part will not make a mistake through ignorance, we also will cease to be assailed by disproving the charges arising out of the undiscerning rumour of the masses.

[Rumours and charges of crimes: atheism, eating human flesh, incestuous sex]

(3) Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestan feasts [e.g. Euripides, Thyestes (lost); Seneca the Younger, Thyestes], Oedipan sex [cf. Sophokles, Oedipus King of Thebes]. But if these charges are true, do not spare any group (genos)! Immediately proceed against our crimes (adikēmata)! Destroy us root and branch, with our wives and children, if any Christian is found to live like wild animals (thēria)! And yet even wild animals do not eat the flesh of their own kind; they have sexual intercourse by a law of nature (nomō physeōs) and only at the regular season, not simply from sexual licence. Wild animals also recognise those from whom they receive benefits [i.e. they are not like atheists who disregard benefits from the gods]. If any one, therefore, is more savage (anēmerōteros) than the wild animals, what punishment that he can endure would be considered adequate to such offences? But, if these things are only fabricated tales and empty slanders, originating in the fact that virtue is opposed by its very nature to vice and that opposites war against one another by a divine law (theios nomos) – and you are yourselves witnesses that no such crimes are committed by us, for you forbid confessions [i.e. perhaps for a Roman official to avoid having to follow through with certain punishments; cf. Tertullian, Apology 2.11] – it remains for you to make inquiry concerning our life, our teachings, our loyalty and obedience to you and your house and empire, and thus overall to grant to us the same rights – we ask nothing more – offered to those who persecute us. For we will then conquer them, unhesitatingly surrendering, as we now do, our very lives for the sake of truth.

[1. Countering charge of atheists]

(4) First of all, I will counter with the allegation that we are atheists (atheoi), for I will counter the charges one by one so that we may not be ridiculed for having no response to give to those who make such charges. There was a reason that the Athenians judged Diagoras [of Melos, fifth century BCE] guilty of atheism. He not only divulged the Orphic doctrine, published the mysteries of Eleusis and of the Kabeiroi gods, and chopped up the wooden statue of Herakles to boil his turnips, but Diagoras openly declared that there was no god at all [cf. Diodoros of Sicily, Library 13.6]. But to us, who distinguish God from matter, and teach that matter is one thing and God another, and that they are separated by a wide interval (for that the deity is uncreated and eternal, to be beheld by the understanding and reason alone, while matter is created and perishable), is it not absurd to apply the name of atheism? If our sentiments were like those of Diagoras, while we have such incentives to piety – in the established order, the universal harmony, the magnitude, the colour, the form, the arrangement of the world – there might be good reason might for a reputation for impiety, as well as a cause for our being harassed this way and being charged. But, since our teaching acknowledges one God, the maker of this universe, who is himself uncreated (for that which is does not come to be, but that which is not) but has made all things by the Word (logos) which is from him, we are treated unreasonably in both respects, in that we are both defamed and persecuted. . . [omitted: (6) numerous examples of Greek poets and philosophers who inquired into the gods but were not considered atheists, including Euripides, Philolaos, Plato, Aristotle; (7) an extensive defence of a notion of the unity of God; (8) a critique of the absurdity of the notion of multiple gods; (9) support for the unity of God from the prophets of the Hebrew Bible; (10) an explanation of Christian notions of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (11) an outline of the actual just teachings of the Christians as opposed to the false accusations of crimes; (12) a reiteration of the absurdity of the charge of being atheists; and, (13) an explanation why Chrisitans do not perform sacrifices for the gods].

[Variations among Greeks and other peoples with regard to the gods worshipped]

(14) Then, as to the other complaint, that we do not pray to and believe in the same gods as the cities, it is an exceedingly silly one. Why, the very men who charge us with atheism for not admitting the same gods as they acknowledge are not agreed among themselves concerning the gods. The Athenians have set up as gods Keleus and Metaneira. The Lakedaimonians [Spartans] have set up Menelaos as a god, and they offer sacrifices and hold festivals to him. On the other hand, people of Ilion cannot endure the very sound of Menelaos’ name, and pay their adoration to Hektor. The Keans [of Keos island] worship Aristaios, considering him to be the same as Zeus and Apollo. The Thasians [of Thasos island] worship Theagenes, a man who committed murder at the Olympic games. The Samians worship Lysander, notwithstanding all the murders and evil deeds perpetrated by him. Alkman and Hesiod [the poets] worship Medea. The Cilicians worship Niobe. The Sicilians worship Philip the son of Boutakides. The Amathousians worship Onesilos. The Carthaginians worship Hamilcar. There is not enough time to enumerate them all. When, therefore, they [these peoples] differ among themselves concerning their gods, why do they bring the charge against us of not agreeing with them?

[Egyptians’ ostensibly ridiculous practices]

Then look at the practices prevailing among the Egyptians. Are they not completely ridiculous? For in the temples at their solemn festivals they beat their breasts as for the dead, and sacrifice to the same beings as gods. And no wonder, since they look upon wild animals as though they are gods, shave themselves when the animals die, and bury the animals in temples, and make public lamentation over the dead animals. If, then, we are guilty of impiety because we do not practise a piety corresponding with Egyptians, then all cities and all peoples (ethnē) are guilty of impiety, for they do not all acknowledge the same gods. . . [omitted: (15) a philosophical discussion of the distinction of god and matter, namely clay, wood and stone from which images of the gods were made; (16) a discussion of the fact that Christians do not worship the universe; (17) a discussion of how the names and images of gods are recent; (18) a discussion of how the Greek poets expressly created the many gods; (19) a discussion of how the philosophers agree with the poets; (20-22); a discussion of the absurdity of representations of the gods, stories about them, and attempts to explain these stories symbolically; (23) a discussion of the opinions of Thales and Plato; (24) a discussion of the origins of angels and giants (alluding to the stories retold in, e.g., 1 Enoch); and, (25) a discussion of how the poets and philosophers deny providence].

[Mention of Taurians and human sacrifice in the context of explaining the origin of images of the gods]

(26) The ones who draw humans to phantoms (eidōla; or: “idols”), then, are the previously mentioned evil lower spirits (daimones) [i.e. the spirits of the giants born from from the fallen angels and the human women, as in interpretations of Genesis 6], who are eager for the blood of the sacrifices and lick them. But the gods that please the masses, and whose names are given to the images, were men, as may be learned from their history [i.e. Athenagoras does an interpretation influenced by Euhemeros]. And that it is the lower spirits who act under their names is proved by the nature of their operations. For some castrate, as does Rhea; others wound and slaughter, as does Artemis; the goddess [Artemis] puts all strangers to death among the Taurians. I pass over those who lacerate with knives and scourges of bones, and shall not attempt to describe every kind of lower spirits; for it is not the part of a god to incite to things against nature. . . [omitted various other examples; (27) a detailed explanation of how lower spirits cause phantoms to emerge that are the basis of the images of the gods; (28-30) a Euhemerian explanation that the gods were merely men at first].

[Countering charges of 2. Thyestan feasts and 3. Oedipan sex]

(31) But they have further also made up stories against us of impious feasts and forbidden sexual intercourse, both because they want to make it seem that they have rational grounds of hatred and because they think either by fear to lead us away from our way of life or to render the rulers harsh and impossible to persuade due to the magnitude of the charges these people bring. . . [omitted digression].

[Retorsion – Greek gods engage in sexual perversion]

(32) It is, however, nothing wonderful that they should make up tales about us like they ones they tell about their own gods, from which incidents they establish mysteries. But if they meant to condemn shameless and promiscuous intercourse, it is necessary for them to hate either Zeus, who had children by his mother Rhea and his daughter Kore and took his own sister to wife, or to hate Orpheus, the inventor of these tales, which made Zeus more unholy and detestable than Thyestes himself. For Zeus defiled his daughter in keeping with an oracle, and when he wanted to obtain the kingdom and avenge himself.

[Sexual customs and self-control among Jesus adherents]

But we [i.e. Jesus adherents] are so far from practising promiscuous sex that it is not lawful among us to even indulge in a lustful look. “For,” he [Jesus] says, “the man who looks at a woman and lusts after her has committed adultery already in his heart” [Matthew 5:28]. Those, then, who are forbidden to look at anything more than that for which God formed the eyes, which were intended to be a light to us, and to whom a promiscuous look is adultery, the eyes being made for other purposes, and who are to be called to account for their very thoughts, how can any one doubt that such persons practise self-control? For our account lies not with human laws, which a bad man can evade (at the outset I proved to you, sovereign lords, that our doctrine is from the teaching of God), but we have a law which makes the measure of proper behaviour to consist in dealing with our neighbour as ourselves. On this account, too, according to age, we recognise some as sons and daughters, others we regard as brothers and sisters, and to the more advanced in life we give the honour due to fathers and mothers. On behalf of those, then, to whom we apply the names of “brothers” and “sisters,” and other designations of relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should remain undefiled and uncorrupted. For the Word (logos} again says to us, “If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure,” he sins. He adds: “Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there is any slight impure thought mixed with it, it excludes us from eternal life.” . . . [omitted (33) discussion on the chastity of Jesus adherents and their respect for marriage and (34) discussion of the different between the morals of Jesus adherents and those who falsely bring charges against them.

[Countering the idea of murders and eating human flesh]

(35) With this as our character, what man of sound mind would then affirm that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh until we have actually killed some one. The former charge, therefore, is false; if any one would ask them whether they have seen what they assert with the second charge [i.e. eating human flesh], not one of them would be so barefaced as to say that he had seen that. And yet we have slaves (some of us have more slaves and some fewer) by whom we could not help but be seen. However, not even one of these slaves has been found to invent such things against us. For when the slaves know that we cannot even bear to see a person put to death, even if justly, who of them can accuse us of murder men (androphonia) or eating humans as food (anthrōpoboria)?

Who does not consider among the activities of great interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we have renounced such spectacles because we think that seing a man put to death is the same as killing a man. How is it, then, that can we put people to death when we cannot even look at such a thing, in case we would contract guilt and pollution? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle would we commit murder? For how would the same person who thinks that what is in the womb is living, and therefore an object of God’s care, still kill it after it has passed into life? How would the same person who would not expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, destroy the infant when it has been raised? But we are in all things always alike and the same, submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over reason.

(36) How would the person who believes in a resurrection make himself into a tomb for bodies that will rise again? For how would the same persons believe that our bodies will rise again and yet eat them as if they would not rise again, or how would they think that the earth will give back the bodies held in it but that those bodies which a man has entombed in himself [i.e. in his stomach] will not be demanded back.

On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose that it is those who think they will have no account to give of the present life, whether poorly or well spent, and it is those who think that there is no resurrection but assume the soul will perish with the body, and that the soul will be quenched in the body, who will refrain from no daring deed. However, as for those who are persuaded that nothing will escape the scrutiny of God, but that even the body which has ministered to the irrational impulses of the soul and to its desires will be punished along with it, it is not likely that they will commit even the smallest sin. But if to any one it appears sheer nonsense that the body which has rotted, dissolved, and been reduced to nothing could be reconstructed, we certainly cannot with any reason be accused of wickedness with reference to those that do not believe that. We can only be accused of folly, because we injure no one with the opinions by which we deceive ourselves. . . [omitted several digressive sentences defending the idea of resurrection in relation to philosophical debates concerning the sensible and the intelligible by Pythagoras and Plato].

[Final appeal for fair judgement on the false charges]

(32) Now do you, who are in every respect – by nature and by education – upright, moderate, benevolent, and worthy of your rule, nod your royal head in approval of the accusations even after I have disposed of several accusations and proved that we are pious, gentle, and temperate in spirit. For who deserves to obtain what they ask for more than those who, like us, pray for your empire, praying that you may, as is most fair, receive the kingdom, passed on to son from father, and that your empire may increase and expand, with all people becoming subject to your sway? And this is also for our advantage, so that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life and may ourselves readily perform all that is commanded us.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Letter of the Assemblies in Gaul to Phrygians

[Accusations of Thyestan feasts and Oedipean sex]

(14-15) Also arrested [at Lugdunum] were some of our household slaves (oiketai) from among the peoples (ethnikoi). For the governor [of Gallia Lugdunensis] had ordered a full scale investigation of us [i.e. Jesus adherents]. The household slaves were ensnared by Satan and terrified by the tortures they witnessed the holy ones suffering. So, at the soldiers’ instigation, the household slaves falsely accused the Christians of Thyestan meals [i.e., eating human flesh], Oedipean sex [i.e., incest], and many other things that it would not be right for us even to think about or discuss. In fact, one doubts whether such things ever happened among human beings. But these stories went around and all the people raged against us. The result was that even those whose attitude had previously been moderate due to their friendship with us now became very angry and gnashed their teeth at us

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Source of translations: G. Reith and B. P. Pratten, The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, Ante-Nicene Christian Library 2 (T&T Clark, 1868), public domain; and, H.A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), adapted by Harland.