The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the Christians

by Aristides of Athens

This, the very first volume of the TEXTS AND STUDIES monograph series which began publication in 1891, is also the editio princeps of the earliest Christian apologia to have survived in its entirety. The Apology of Aristides was written as a defence of the new Christian way of life against its many rivals and opponents, and details some of its leading ethical precepts. Long thought to have been lost, this early second-century work was rediscovered in a Syriac translation in 1889 in a seventh-century manuscript preserved in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. This volume contains not only the standard edition of the Syriac text with critical notes, but also the first English translation, and a study of surviving fragments in Greek, the original language of the apologia, which were subsequently identified in the 'Life of Barlaam and Josaphat' (an early Christian reworking of the life of Buddha). TEXTS AND STUDIES is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions. J. Rendel Harris (1852 - 1941), was a prolific writer on biblical and patristic texts, and a significant collector of ancient manuscripts, whose colourful life took him from Clare College, Cambridge, to Johns Hopkins University, Haverford College, Leiden University, and eventually to the Friends' Settlement at Woodbrooke, Birmingham. J. Armitage Robinson (1859 - 1933), the first editor of Texts and Studies, was a New Testament scholar and a Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. He went on to become Dean of Westminster Abbey and then Wells Cathedral.

Genres: Christian, Church History, Theology, Religion

162 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 125

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aristides' Apology is a remarkable work. Not only is it one of the oldest Christian non-biblical documents we have, it is also succinct and convincing, much easier to get into than many other early Christian works and deeply spiritual.

Aristides immediately starts off with one of the best descriptions of God that I have ever read, and which I think it would be proper to quote fully:

I, O King, by the grace of God came into this world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth and the seas, and had surveyed the sun and the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the world. And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them. And it is manifest that that which causes motion is more powerful than that which is moved. But that I should make search concerning this same mover of all, as to what is his nature (for it seems to me, he is indeed unsearchable in his nature), and that I should argue as to the constancy of his government, so as to grasp it fully — this is a vain effort for me; for it is not possible that a man should fully comprehend it. I say, however, concerning this mover of the world, that he is God of all, who made all things for the sake of mankind. And it seems to me that this is reasonable, that one should fear God and should not oppress man.

I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is "perfect," this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is "without beginning," this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him. Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not, for there is nothing which is able to stand against him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding; and in Him stands fast all that exists. He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of things visible; He requires not anything from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.

Here, we have the divine attributes, mostly described in a negative way, as well as something approaching the cosmological argument, in a form that is not quite fledged out philosophically, but nevertheless spiritually very enriching. As much as I enjoy Edward Feser, his works didn't quite get the spiritual aspect of the cosmological argument across (they didn't purport to, either), so this was a very nice complementary perspective to have.

After that, Aristides describes the four classes of men, Christians, barbarians, Greeks and Jews. Odd categories, but they didn't seem that controversial to him, and they fulfill their purpose. He shows the errors of the three groups of Non-Christians he describes, beginning with the vain worship of stones and other idols that the barbarians indulge in. His arguments are not quite applicable in our modern age, as no one worships empty matter anymore, but for their rigor alone, they are worth reading. He rightly points out that if the idols require guarding, then they must be too weak to take care of themselves, and hence too weak to be of any use to humans. And if the idols were made in honor of the elements, how can they be godly, if the elements themselves can be dissolved and destroyed? Aristides' arguments remind me a lot of Plato.

Then Aristides talks about the elements themselves and why they are not gods. Earth is dug open, filled with dead bodies, and trodden under. Water frequently changes its form, from one aggregate to another, is impurified, and subject to the human will, diverted via aqueducts as it is. Fire, too, both services man and is both kindled and extinguished by him, and it is similar with the wind. Hence, Aristides says, the elements are not themselves gods, but are creatures of God. His arguments, I would say, are very relevant to modern nature worship. Of course they can be evaded, and their conclusions avoid through more or less sound counter-arguments, but I doubt many nature worshippers would do that, as their position is emotional rather than philosophical to begin with. And their apologetical value aside, they are a sound demonstration of metaphysical principles, and they made me at least aware of just how much the world is Gods dominion. He also dismisses the sun as a god because of its movement, and thus its changing nature, and for certain other (meta)physical reasons. The men of old, likewise, were not gods, as they had a beginning and an end and were composed of parts, unlike God, who is imperishable and timeless.

Next, he argues against the errors of the Greeks, listing their gods with their respective vices and weaknesses, to prove that they do not deserve to be called gods. This is a common theme in early Christian literature, and always entertaining to read. I do not understand how anyone could read the ancient Christian authors and still get nostalgic about how we stopped worshipping the oh-so powerful and heroic gods of the ancient Greeks. They were adulterers, murderers, unable to control their wrath and lust, went mad, killed each other, and on and on. As I have already read
Aristides argument against the Egyptians is particularly vicious. It is similar to that against the Greeks, in part, in that he shows how their gods are not worthy of worship or admiration, but he also admonishes their worship of animals:

As the Egyptians, then, were more stupid than the rest of the nations, these and such like gods did not suffice for them. Nay, but they even apply the name of gods to animals in which there is no soul at all. For some of them worship the sheep and others the calf; and some the pig and others the shad fish; and some the crocodile and the hawk and the fish and the ibis and the vulture and the eagle and the raven. Some of them worship the cat, and others the turbotfish, some the dog, some the adder, and some the asp, and others the lion; and others the garlic and onions and thorns, and others the tiger and other such things. And the poor creatures do not see that all these things are nothing, although they daily witness their gods being eaten and consumed by men and also by their fellows; while some of them are cremated, and some die and decay and become dust, without their observing that they perish in many ways. So the Egyptians have not observed that such things which are not equal to their own deliverance, are not gods. And if, forsooth, they are weak in the case of their own deliverance, whence have they power to help in the case of deliverance of their worshippers? Great then is the error into which the Egyptians wandered — greater, indeed, than that of any people which is upon the face of the earth.

He is surprisingly lenient, even admiring of the Jews, completely unlike Justin Martyr, praising their piety, philanthropy, and how close they are to the truth. He does say they are astray and worship Gods angels instead of Himself, but he does not expound on this a lot, which is a bit of a disappointment. I can recommend the history surrounding the recovery of the Apology is very interesting, and you should at least skim it once before or after you pick the main work up. Sadly, as there is so much uncertainty surrounding the original text, it is of questionable value for a historian. What was written on the attributes of God and the cosmological argument, for example, may be a forgery, too, as could some of Aristides' more philosophical arguments. Still, the document we have is fast and entertaining to read, spiritually very enriching, and contains excellent applications of metaphysical principles, and thus has considerable merit in its own right, whether it is historical or not.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 3 out of 5]

L'apologie d'Aristide est un discours apologétique d'Aristide, plus ancien encore que l'apologie de Justin Martyr.

C'est un document relativement court, et très très bien écrit, qui n'a pas perdu sa fraîcheur. Percutant et convaincant, même si bien évidemment le polythéisme antique n'est plus à l'ordre du jour. Un ouvrage facile à lire et gratifiant.

[Duc · Rating 3 out of 5]

A harsh, yet less compassionate criticism of other ancient religions and their worship of false idols, and an uncompromising (relative to its purpose) proclamation of the truth of the Christian religion.

[w gall · Rating 4 out of 5]

2nd Century AD. A courageous defence of monotheism before the Emperor Hadrian against polytheism on the basis of the prime Mover. But it does not touch on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Joshua Lister · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting account from an early Christian apologist. A couple notable observations, first, Aristides argues reductively against other religions, beginning with their gods. This strategy has a long Christian tradition with plenty of case examples from scripture. Second, he highlights the righteousness of the Christians against the wickedness of the pagan Greeks. He seems to do this without fear that the Christians would be charged with hypocrisy. He describes the life of Christians in a way that is rooted in John 13:34-35.

[London]

Very interesting read from a 2nd century Christian apologist.

The general premise is showing how the other “gods” of the Egyptians, Greeks and Jews are false due to deficiencies they have that God doesn’t have.