This is part of a series considering the writings of Christians before the Council of Nicaea. More details on what this is all about here, along with a growing table of contents.
Having myself been emboldened in my faith by Christian philosophers and apologists, what better place to start this project of reading the Ante-Nicene fathers than with a short, relatively simple apologetics work by a philosopher.
The Context
Aristides the Philosopher is known mostly by this work of his. He was a Greek Christian living in the early second century. Not too much is known about him. His intended audience was likely the emperor Hadrian, and his purpose is to defend (apologia) the Christian faith, as contrasted to other religions. A bold mission, and a bold man, at the very least.
The Work
My version is broken up into chapters, which is useful for breaking apart the themes. Aristides begins by describing how we can know God exists from nature before he gets to the bulk of the text, where he describes the various sorts of religions in the world, addressing each in turn:
- Barbarian
- Greek
- Jew
- Christian
The barbarians worship created things, in particular the elemental forces, which he identifies as water, earth, fire, and wind. But it’s clear these things are not really gods. The moon and sun and stars aren’t gods. We know this because God isn’t material like this, and because God is not beneath them as the elementals are. If man can turn water to steam, how can water be a god?
The Greeks are more sophisticated, and this makes their errors more severe. They worship gods who are like the worst of mankind, which makes them unworthy of worship. Kronos inspired child sacrifice and Zeus, adultery. Aristides deals with numerous Greek gods and goddesses in turn this way.
There’s a brief tangent into the Egyptians, who he does not list, but sees as a lesser variant of the Greek religion. The Egyptians are not as sophisticated and end up worshiping not primal forces or mannish beings, but animals; animals we can kill.
The failures of Greek religion are many, but it’s the inadequacy of the gods to be gods that he comes back to again and again. They can’t save their own images from decay, so how could they save men? The gods have needs, so how can they provide like gods? The philosophers say the gods are a unity, but they war with each other.
Most damning, the Greeks are a people of law, but their own gods break their laws. This, Aristides points out, leads to a dilemma: either the laws are righteous and the gods are condemned for their myriad vices (adultery, robbing, stealing, homosexuality, incest, etc), or the gods are just and the laws are evil, and should be changed. But this, he says, would make the world go mad.
The Jews come next. They believe in one Creator God, and thus are closest to the truth without quite getting there. They have good customs, but he perceives that they render their service to angels and not to God Himself.
Christians, unsurprisingly in an apology for Christianity, are the ones who get it right, but interestingly Aristides does not rely on evidence for Christianity here directly. He at many points tells his audience to read Christian texts, but his main argument is an appeal to the behavior of Christians. They are just good. He lists the various ways in which they do good and shun evil, and their unique practices like giving thanks in both joy and sorrow, burying their dead, caring for orphans and widows, and visiting believers imprisoned for their faith. I said he was bold above, because these prisoners are prisoners of the government whose ruler is his intended audience.
Thoughts
If modern apologists soften the message to make it more palatable, Aristides lets the good fruits of the faith do the work for him while he tears down the idols of false religions. That he can appeal so boldly to the godly character of Christians is incredible in itself. American Christians – and here I mean church-attending, mostly sincere believers – could not be described this way. The idea of “just a sinner saved by grace still trying to get it right” or “broken but that’s okay” could not conceivably come from this man’s mind. He doesn’t draw attention to himself here. When he describes the godly characteristics of Christians, it’s always “they”. “Those” Christians out there. This is a humble way of pointing to good works. And why shouldn’t he?
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5:16
Homosexuality makes frequent appearances as a sin which condemns the Greeks but not the Jews or Christians, for those who think the arguments of latter day sexual revolutionaries in the church carry any weight. The earliest Christians knew this stuff was grotesque. Even more, Aristides considered that the emperor himself would know it. He makes no argument for it, because he assumes it is already understood.
Regarding method, there’s a lot going on here. He shows the fallacies intrinsic in other religions but does not present a positive logical case for Christianity. He is writing to people who range from polytheists to theists, however, so it is not surprising that no case for God’s existence is present here. This is about proving Christianity as the true religion among the various options. His work was different than a modern apologist’s might be.
That he writes an apology, let alone to an emperor, is especially interesting. Is he trying to convert the emperor here? Possibly. He may simply want to end persecution, and by means of showing the greater virtue of Christians over those who are not persecuted. “If you don’t persecute these people who are consumed with depravity, why persecute these people who are so good?” Whether he intends to convert the emperor or simply protect Christians from persecution, this contradicts head-on the modern tendency to view persecution as something good or to be desired. Aristides certainly didn’t think so.
This is one of the earliest apologetics works in Christian history. If you are interested in apologetics, it’s nice to see where it all began, and to get out of 21st century thinking for a little while.
Interesting Quotations
I found this thinking fascinating:
So then there are, as I said above, four classes of men: Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. Moreover, the wind is obedient to God, and fire to the angels; the waters also to the demons and the earth to the sons of men.
The Christians of the ancient world were not liberal egalitarians:
The Egyptians, moreover, because they are more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth, have themselves erred more than all.
Logical, offensive (i.e. not defensive) apologetics:
And the poor creatures [(Egyptians)] 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.
How the Greeks have fallen:
But it is a marvel, O King, with regard to the Greeks, who surpass all other peoples in their manner of life and reasoning, how they have gone astray after dead idols and lifeless images.
The Jewish failure is quite a bit different:
And in their imagination they conceive that it is God they serve; whereas by their mode of observance it is to the angels and not to God that their service is rendered; as when they celebrate sabbaths and the beginning of the months, and feasts of unleavened bread, and a great fast; and fasting and circumcision and the purification of meats.
Christians, on the other hand:
Wherefore they do not commit adultery nor fornication, nor bear false witness, nor embezzle what is held in pledge, nor covet what is not theirs. They honor father and mother, and show kindness to those near to them; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly.
Antemodernist 