========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER
  by Aristides the Philosopher
========================================================================

Writings of Aristides the Philosopher (c. AD 200). Aristides the Philosopher was
an early church father whose writings have been preserved for the edification of
the church.

  Chapters: 9

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    0. Writings of Aristides the Philosopher
    1. The Apology - Appendix- The remains of the original Greek of the Apology of Aristides by J.Armitage Robinson_1891_Extracts
    2. The Apology - Introduction to the 1891 translation
    3. The Apology - Introduction
    4. The Apology - Preface to the online text
    5. The Apology - Prefatory matter to the 1891 translation
    6. The Apology - Selected Notes on the Syriac Version_1891
    7. The Apology - Translation from the Syriac_1891
    8. The Apology - Translation of the Greek and of the Syriac versions in parallel columns

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 0: WRITINGS OF ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER
========================================================================


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: THE APOLOGY - APPENDIX- THE REMAINS OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES BY J.ARMITAGE ROBINSON_1891_EXTRACTS
========================================================================

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 65-99. Appendix: The
Remains of the Original Greek of the Apology of Aristides [Extracts]

[Note to the online edition: much of this appendix is directed to a hypothetical
reconstruction of other documents, with copious citation of the Greek. This has
been almost entirely omitted]

APPENDIX THE REMAINS OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES BY J.
ARMITAGE ROBINSON M.A.

FELLOW AND ASSISTANT TUTOR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF
THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES.

While Mr Harris was passing the preceding pages through the press, he kindly
allowed me to read the proof sheets of his translation of the Syriac. Shortly
afterwards as I was turning over Latin Passionals at Vienna in a fruitless
search for a lost MS. of the Passion of S. Perpetua, I happened to be reading
portions of the Latin Version of the 'Life of Barlaam and Josaphat,' and
presently I stumbled across words which recalled the manner and the thought of
Aristides. Turning back to the beginning of a long speech, I found the words:
'Ego, rex, providentia Dei veni in mundum; et considerans celum et terram, mare
et solem et lunam, et cetera, admiratus sum ornatum eorum.' The Greek text of
'Barlaam and Josaphat ' is printed in Migne's edition of the works of S. John of
Damascus: and it was not long before I was reading the actual words of the
Apologist himself: [Greek] It was with some impatience that I waited for my
return to Cambridge, in order to examine the proof sheets again, and so to
discover by a comparison of the Syriac Version how much of our author was really
in our hands in the original tongue. To what extent then does the Greek speech
in 'Barlaam and Josaphat' correspond to the Syriac Version of the Apology of
Aristides? In other words: How far may we claim to have recovered the original
Apology in the language in which it was written? The circumstances under which
the Greek has been preserved at all demand first a brief notice. 'The Life of
Barlaam and |68 Joasaph (or Josaphat)' is the title of a religious romance,
which, by a tradition dating at the latest from the 11th century, has been
connected with the name of S. John of Damascus. It is true that SS. Barlaam and
Josaphat find a place in the Calendars of both the Eastern and Western Churches:
but it has long been recognised that their 'Life' is a working up of the Indian
legend of Sakya Mouni, or Buddha; and a number of the apologues scattered over
the piece have also been identified as Eastern stories of a very early date. The
popularity of the book has rarely been equalled in the history of literature.
Before the 13th century it had been translated into almost every known language
of the world; an Icelandic Version was made about the year 1200 by the order of
a Norwegian king; and there is an early English rendering in metre.

It has lately been argued, and I think with success, by Zotenberg1, that the
book is much earlier than the time of S. John of Damascus; and that the matter
which it has in common with several of his works is drawn from previous writers
such as Gregory Nazianzen and Nemesius. This being so, it may well go back to
the 6th century, or perhaps earlier still. The outline of the story is as
follows. An Eastern king, named Abenner, persecutes the Christians, and
especially the monks, whom he expels from India. He is childless; but at length
the young prince Josaphat is born, and the astrologers, as in the case of
Buddha, predict for him an extraordinary greatness. They add however that he
will become a Christian. This his father determines to prevent. He encloses him
in a magnificent palace; allows none but young and beautiful attendants to
approach him; and forbids the mention of sorrow, disease and death, and above
all of Christianity. When the prince is grown to man's estate he asks his father
to give him liberty. His entreaties are at length successful, as it seems that
otherwise his life will be saddened, and the first step will have been taken
towards his reception of the forbidden faith. He is allowed to drive out, but
the way is carefully prepared beforehand, and guarded from the |69 intrusion of
sad sights and sounds. At last precaution fails, and he sees one day a lame man
and a blind man, and another day a man wrinkled and tottering with age. He
inquires whether accidents may befal any man, and whether every man must come at
last to miserable old age or death. There is but one answer: and the joy has
fled from his life. A monk of the desert, Barlaam by name, is divinely warned of
the prince's condition; and comes disguised as a merchant, and obtains entrance
to the prince to shew him a most goodly pearl. In a long discourse, into which
Gospel parables and Eastern apologues are skilfully woven, he expounds to him
the vanity of the world and the Christian hope of the life to come. In the end
the prince is baptized, and Barlaam disappears into the desert. The king,
distracted with rage on the one hand and love for his son on the other, casts
about for means to shake his faith. A wily counsellor propounds a plan. An old
man, who closely resembles Barlaam and who is an admirable actor, is to defend
the cause of Christianity in an open debate. He is to make a lame speech, and be
easily refuted by the rhetoricians. The prince, seeing his instructor baffled,
will renounce his newly accepted faith. The day comes, and Nachor, for this is
the old man's name, appears to personate Barlaam. Josaphat addresses him in
vigorous terms, reminding him of the difficulties in which his instructions have
involved him, and promising him a miserable fate if he fails to prove his point.
Nachor is not reassured by this mode of address; but after some preliminary
fencing on the part of the rhetoricians he begins to speak. Such, says our
author, was the providence of God, that like Balaam of old he had come to curse,
but he ended by blessing with manifold blessings. Or, as he says again, lowering
his metaphor; 'He beckoned to the multitude to keep silence, and he opened his
mouth, and like Balaam's ass he spake that which he had not purposed to speak;
and he said to the king: I, O king, by the providence of God came into the
world...' The Apology of Aristides carried the day: and, to cut the long story
short, Nachor himself and finally the king and his people were converted: and at
last Josaphat, who in due course succeeds |70 his father, resigns his kingdom
and retires to spend his days with Barlaam in the desert2.

What modifications then were required to fit the Apology for its new
surroundings? Surprisingly few.

(1) The king is of course addressed throughout: but this is so in the original
piece. Only a short sentence at the end praises the wise choice of the king's
son.

(2) The fourfold division of mankind into Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and
Christians, was out of place in an Indian court. We find in its stead a triple
division----Worshippers of false gods, Jews and Christians: and the first class
is subdivided into Chaldeans, Greeks and Egyptians, as being the ringleaders and
teachers of heathenism to the rest of the world3.

(3) A short passage at the close, in which the Christians are defended from the
foul charges so often brought against them in the first days, was out of date
and consequently has disappeared.

(4) If we add to this that there are traces of compression here and there, and
that the description of the Christians at the close is considerably curtailed,
we have exhausted the list of substantial modifications which can with certainty
be detected. The substance of the Apology then is for the most part faithfully
preserved: but can we say that with the exceptions already named we have the
actual Greek words of Aristides himself? The first and most obvious test to
apply is that of comparative length. The Syriac is, speaking roughly, half as
long again as the Greek: and this difference is not fully accounted for by the
combination in the latter of the preliminary statements about the Jews and the
Christians with the fuller descriptions of them given later on, and by the
omission of nearly two pages at the close. |71 The fact is that the Syriac has a
large number of repetitions and not a few additional details which are absent
from the Greek. Thus at the end of each description of the several gods and
goddesses of the heathen, the Syriac Version points the moral and drives home
the inevitable conclusion: and again such histories as those of Kronos and of
Isis and Osiris are somewhat more elaborately told in this form of the Apology.
Are we then to conclude that the Syriac translator has enlarged upon his
original, and supplemented it here and there from his own resources? Or must we
say that the author of 'Barlaam and Josaphat' found the Apology too long for his
purpose, and pruned away unnecessary details? The second hypothesis has a prima
facie probability, and the general reputation for faithfulness of Syriac
translators might point us in the same direction. On the other side it is to be
observed that, even when read in the light of the Syriac Version, the Greek form
is still felt to be a harmonious and consistent whole: and it certainly does not
convey the impression of serious mutilation. The genius of the author, in so
framing his plot as perfectly to suit the Apology which he intended to
introduce, needs no further praise than is involved in the fact that hitherto no
one has had the remotest suspicion that he did not write the speech of Nachor
himself. If anything could make his genius appear more extraordinary still, it
would be the proof that he had consistently compressed the original document in
almost every alternate sentence without leaving any traces of rough handling:
but such proof is at present not forthcoming. In the absence of further
documents, the question must be decided largely by internal evidence and the
minute investigation of the points of difference. But there are two external
sources from which light may be thrown upon the problem.

(1) In 1855 Cureton published in his Spicilegium Syriacum a treatise bearing the
title: 'Hypomnemata, which Ambrose, a chief man of Greece, wrote;' and
commencing with the words: 'Do not suppose, men and Greeks, that without fit and
just cause is my separation from your customs.' These words are the literal
translation of the opening sentence of the Oratio ad |72 Gentiles traditionally
ascribed to Justin Martyr: [Greek] When we compare the original Greek with the
Syriac Version of this document, we find that in point of length they stand to
one another exactly as do the Greek and Syriac forms of the Apology of
Aristides: that is to say, in either case the Syriac is about half as long again
as the Greek. Moreover, as in the case of our Apology, the variation begins to
shew itself immediately after the first sentence, which I have quoted. For the
Greek continues thus: [Greek]. But the Syriac replaces this by the following, as
Cureton renders it: 'For I have investigated the whole of your wisdom of poetry,
and rhetoric, and philosophy; and when I found not anything right or worthy of
the Deity, I was desirous of investigating the wisdom of the Christians also,
and of learning and seeing who they are, and when, and what is this its recent
and strange production, or on what good things they rely who follow this wisdom,
so as to speak the truth. Men and Greeks, when I had made the enquiry I found
not any folly, as in the famous Homer, who says respecting the wars of the two
rivals, "for the sake of Helen many of the Greeks perished at Troy, far from
their beloved home." For first they say respecting Agamemnon,' &c.

Here then we have a similar problem to that of the Apology of Aristides; and in
this case we are not hampered by the consideration that the Greek may possibly
have been abbreviated to fit it for incorporation into a religious novel. Few
will be disposed to challenge the verdict of Otto4, that the Syriac translator
has so altered and amplified his original as almost to have produced a new work.

We may give one more illustration of the manner in which the translator has
proceeded. We have seen already that he has paraded at the outset his
independent acquaintance with Homer. |73 Where Ulysses is alluded to, later on,
the Greek has a sentence full of satire and liable to be misunderstood. [Greek].
Corresponding to this we find in the Syriac Version: 'But respecting the guile
of Odysseus, son of Laertes, and his murders, who shall tell? For to a hundred
and ten suitors in one day his house was a grave, and was filled with dead
bodies and blood. And he it is that by his wickedness purchased praises, because
by the excellence of his wisdom he was concealed: and he it is that, as ye say,
sailed over the sea, and heard the voice of the Sirens, because he stopped his
ears with wax.' The translator then has first supplemented his author by
introducing fresh details about Ulysses: and then he has totally missed the
meaning of the Greek. He has obviously read it as if it were [Greek], ' through
the excellence of his wisdom he kept himself in the dark.' Then not seeing the
point of [Greek], he simply tells us that ' he stopped his ears with wax.' This
of course" the hero did not do: and the translator has got the Homeric story
wrong: nor shall we mend matters much by inserting with Cureton the word 'not'
after 'and heard.' We see at any rate plainly enough what was this Syrian's
conception of a translator's function when his author seemed obscure. The
parallel between the two Apologies is the more striking, because the line of
argument in these Hypomnemata vividly recalls parts of Aristides, and the same
illustrations of the misdemeanours of the gods frequently reappear in almost the
same language. The satire of the so-called Ambrosius is a much keener weapon
than the simple narrative of Aristides: but there is not the same intensity of
moral earnestness. It is quite credible that the later Apologist had the work of
Aristides before him when he wrote, and endeavoured to reproduce the same
arguments in what he thought was a more telling manner. Thus he says: [Greek]
(cf. infra p. 109, 1. 7). And again: [Greek]. |74 (cf. p. 106, 1. 24). And once
more: [Greek] (cf. p. 105, 1. 18).

Enough then has been said to shew that a Syriac translator, finding an early
Greek Apology and desiring to reproduce it in his own language, might have no
scruple whatever in dealing very freely with his author, in expunging sentences
which he was not able or did not care to translate, and in supplementing the
original here and there out of his own resources. The Syriac translator of the
Oratio ad Gentiles has clearly so treated his unknown author; and this fact
removes any a priori objection to the supposition that the Syriac translator of
Aristides has acted in a similar way.

(2) We are fortunate in having an additional source of evidence in the Armenian
fragment which contains the opening sentences of the Apology. The Armenian
translator has clearly done what we have had some reason to suspect in the case
of the Syriac translator. He has dealt freely with his original, adding words
and even sentences, and introducing the stock phrases of a later theology. .But
this, while it diminishes very considerably the amount of the evidence which can
be produced from his version, does not materially affect its value as far as it
goes. Phrases which are only found in the Armenian, or only found in the Syriac,
may be dismissed as possibly the inventions of the respective translators: but
there remains a considerable quantity of matter common to the two Versions,
which therefore presupposes a Greek original. The question we have to ask is:
What is the relation of this common matter to the Greek text now in our hands 1
A preliminary point however demands attention: Is the Armenian translated from
the Syriac, or is it an independent translation made directly or indirectly from
the Greek itself? A few instances in which the Armenian corresponds with the
Greek against the Syriac will suffice to shew that it cannot come from the
Syriac as we now have it. In the opening sentence we have [Greek] and '
providentia ' (Arm.) against 'goodness' (Syr.). Immediately afterwards [Greek]
and ' luna ' (Arm.), which the Syriac omits. Lower down ' rectorem' |75 three
times corresponds to parts of [Greek], but there is nothing to answer to these
in the Syriac. In the Christological passage near the end of the fragment, ' una
cum Spiritu Sancto ' (Arm.) answers to [Greek]: and here again the Syriac has no
equivalent.

Moreover in the description of the Divine nature the Armenian Version says: ' Ei
neque colores sunt neque forma,' or as Mr Conybeare renders it ' Colour and form
of Him there is not.' This corresponds to the Syriac phrase: ' He has no
likeness, nor composition of members.' The Greek fails us here: but we may
suppose that the -Greek word which has been variously rendered ' colour ' and '
likeness ' was [Greek], as in the passage quoted by Mr Harris from Justin (supra
p. 54): [Greek].

We may conclude then that the Armenian Version is not made from the Syriac
Version in its present form5: and similar arguments could be adduced, if there
were any necessity, to shew that the Syriac Version is independent of the
Armenian.

I have mentioned already almost all the cases in which the Syriac fails to
reproduce in any form matter which is common to the Greek and the Armenian. They
scarcely make up between them more than a dozen words. The additional matter
found only in the Syriac Version is more considerable.

First, there is the second title which introduces the name of Antoninus Pius,
and so conflicts with the first which has the support of the Armenian6.

Then we have the following phrases:

(a) Who is hidden in them and concealed from them: and this is well known,
that... |76 (b) And in saying that He is complete, I mean that there is no
deficiency in Him.

(c) And that which has an end is dissoluble.

(d) From man He asks nothing.

(e) Who begat...from whom was born...who begat.

(f) Of their religion (bis).

(g) And it is said that (in the Christological statement)... and clad Himself
with...and they say that...who are well known.

I have taken no account of the many places in which the two Versions wander far
from each other, and yet seem to have some common basis. Here the Armenian is
obviously the worst offender, and its interpolations are far more numerous.

We now turn to the Greek itself in the passage covered by the Armenian fragment,
in order to see first of all to what extent what we actually have faithfully
represents the Greek words which underlie the Syriac and Armenian Versions.

(1) The first sentence which bears the appearance of compression is the
following: [Greek]. This seems to bring together several more expanded phrases
witnessed to by the two Versions, which however do not agree with one another
sufficiently closely to allow us to make a certain reconstruction.

(2) In the sentence, [Greek], a word, corresponding to ' praefatas ' (Arm.) and
' which we have spoken concerning Him ' (Syr.), has dropped out before [Greek]:
and instead of [Greek] there must have been a verb in the original; ' ab eis
erraverint ' (Arm.), ' have erred therefrom ' (Syr.). The difference is of
course exceedingly slight in itself: but it is important from a critical point
of view, when we are testing the faithfulness with which the author of 'Barlaam
and Josaphat' has preserved to us the original Apology. We may probably trace in
this sentence the influence of an almost identical one, which comes later on,
after the preliminary descriptions of the four races have been given. As the
Greek combines these descriptions with the fuller |77 accounts afterwards given,
it brings the parallel sentences close together.

(3) The division of mankind into three races, and not four, has been already
noticed7.

(4) It is just at this point that the most serious divergence is found: viz.,
the omission of the preliminary descriptions of the races, as noted above. This
was perhaps the result of the change in the method of their division, which
rendered unsuitable the sentences which immediately followed.

Once more, we have to ask how much is there which can be shewn, by the united
testimony of the Versions, to have stood in the original Greek, and which yet
finds no place in the Greek which has survived.

(1) In the first line both Versions have 'into this world,' while the Greek has
[Greek]: but the demonstrative may perhaps only be an attempt to represent the
Greek article. The first real gap is eight lines lower down, where the Versions
are very divergent8, but yet point- to some common original. It is probable that
the Greek text at this point was difficult or corrupt, and so was omitted
altogether by the author of ' Barlaam and Josaphat.' The topic is the difficulty
and uselessness of elaborate investigation concerning the Divine nature: and the
conclusion is drawn ' that one should fear God and not grieve man ' (Syr.), '
utpote unum Deum nos adorare oportet: unumquemque autem nostrum proximum suum
sicut semetipsum diligere ' (Arm.). To this the Greek has nothing to correspond.

(2) For the list of properties of the Divine nature we have in the Greek merely
the compressed sentence, part of which was quoted above. The Versions agree in
telling us more fully that ' God is not begotten, not made '; ' without
beginning, because that which has a beginning has also an end'; 'without name,
because that which has a name belongs to the created'; 'without likeness (Arm. '
colores,' implying [Greek] in the Greek) and composition of members (Arm. '
forma '), for he who possesses this is associated with things created' (Arm.
'mensurabilis est, |78 limitibusque cogitur'); 'neither male nor female' (Arm.
adds 'quia cupiditatibus agitatur qui huic est distinctioni obnoxius '); ' the
heavens do not contain Him: but the heavens and all things visible and invisible
are contained in Him '; ' He has no adversary ' (in the reason for this there is
fresh discrepancy); ' He is altogether wisdom and understanding.' After this the
Greek, as we have it, is again, for the next seven lines, obviously the same as
that which lay before the translators.

(3) Now comes the new division of mankind, and the Greek has omitted the
following: ' Now the Barbarians reckon---- and from Dionysus,' about six lines.

(4) The preliminary accounts of the Jews and the Christians are found in the
Greek later on, where they are amalgamated with the fuller descriptions. The
account of the Jews agrees fairly well with that given in the Versions,
especially in the Armenian. The additions in the Greek will be noticed
presently. It adds at the close: [Greek].

(5) The Christological passage which follows is so important that it will be an
advantage to have the three forms side by side.

[Greek] The Christians then reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesns
Christ, Who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down
from Jieaven, and from a Hebrew virgin toot: and clad Himself with flesh; and
there dwelt in a daughter of man the Son of God.

Christianorum tandem gentil a Domino Jesn Christo oritur. Ipse Dei altissimi est
Filius, et una cum Spiritu Sancto reuelatus est nobis: de coelis descendit, ex
Hebraea uirgine natus, ex uirgine carnem assumpsit, assumpta-qne humana natura
semet-ipsum Dei Filium reuelauit.

Here I have distinguished by spaced type or by italics every word, which having
a double testimony may be referred to the original Greek. As regards omissions,
the Greek omits only the epithet ' Hebrew ', which it replaces by the epithet
agia, and the second reference to 'the Son of God,' where however there is a
discrepancy between the two Versions. The Syriac omits [Greek], |79 The Armenian
has no omission that can be certainly traced. The additions in each case may be
seen at a glance. The Armenian has practically none; though a few lines further
down the epithet corresponding to theotokos is applied to the Virgin. The most
serious change is that in the Syriac, where the word ' God ' is inserted as the
subject of the verbs which follow. The passage is one which was more likely than
any other in the whole piece to tempt later writers to make changes of their
own. It is to be noted that here the Greek in spite of its additions represents
the original Apology much more faithfully than the Syriac does.

(6) In the words which follow next the Versions do not agree either with one
another, or with the Greek, which has displaced the sentence and gives it a
little lower down. But both the Greek and the Syriac appeal to a written Gospel,
which the king might read if he chose.

(7) The repetition of the fourfold division of mankind is of course not found in
the Greek, and with it has disappeared the problematical sentence: ' To God then
ministers wind, and to angels fire; but to demons water, and to men earth.' At
this point the Armenian fragment ends.

What then is the result of our investigation of this opening passage, in which
alone we have a triple testimony to the contents of the original Apology?

(1) There is one serious modification (if, indeed, we have not here the
original) in the Greek, as it is preserved to us; but it was necessitated by the
conditions of its reproduction in its new surroundings.

(2) There is one serious displacement in the Greek; but this was almost
necessitated by the modification just mentioned.

(3) The description of the Divine nature is very much abbreviated in the Greek;
but no word occurs in it which has not the support of the Versions.

(4) In the Christological passage which we examined in detail the Greek was seen
to preserve the original statements, though with the addition of the later
phrase |80

(5) The Syriac Version is often loose and inaccurate: it drops a phrase here and
there; and it makes insertions by way of explanation or of supplement, and
sometimes in such a way as to convey a wholly false conception of the original.

We learn then to expect for the remainder of the Apology that the Greek, as we
have it, will as a rule give us the actual words of Aristides, except in the
very few places in which modification was obviously needed. Where the Syriac
presents us with matter which has no counterpart whatever in the Greek, we shall
hesitate to pronounce that the Greek is defective, unless we are able to suggest
a good reason for the omission, or to authenticate the Syriac from some external
source9. The Greek Text of 'Barlaam and Josaphat.'

It is remarkable that this work, which at one time enjoyed such extraordinary
popularity, should not have found its way into print in its original language
before the present century. The Latin Version wrongly attributed to Georgius
Trapezuntius, but really, as the MSS. of it prove, of a much earlier date, was
printed, together with various works of S. John of Damascus, at Basel in 1539:
but it was reserved to Boissonade to publish the Greek Text for the first time
in the fourth volume of his Anecdota, which appeared at Paris in 1832.

Boissonade apologises for the meagreness of his apparatus criticus on the ground
that an edition was expected almost immediately from Schmidt and Kopitar the
librarian of the Imperial Library at Vienna. This edition, however, never
appeared. Out. of seventeen MSS. preserved in the Library at Paris, Boissonade
used throughout but two, 903 and 1128, which he refers to as A and C. He gives
occasional readings from two others, 904 and 907, which he names B and D. In the
portion of the book which specially concerns us, viz. the speech of Nachor, C is
defective for about 10 of Boissonade's pages, and the testimony of D is
frequently |81 recorded. From time to time readings are also quoted from the
Latin Version. This very inadequate text has been reprinted in Migne's
Patrologia Graeca, tom. 96, in the third volume of the works of S. John of
Damascus: but we have gained nothing by the reproduction except new blunders. In
the Wiener Jahrbücher für Deutsche Literatur (lxxii. 274, lxxiii. 176) Schubart
has given some description of the Vienna MSS., and a list of the principal
variants contained in them.

Lastly, Zotenberg10 has made a useful list of about 60 MSS., and has constructed
a critical text of certain passages of special interest. Nothing however has
been attempted as yet in the way of a genealogical classification of the MSS.; a
work which will involve great labour, but which is essential to the production
of a satisfactory edition. In editing the Remains of the Apology of Aristides I
have used three MSS., which were kindly placed at my disposal in Cambridge. I
have recorded their variants with a greater completeness than is necessary for
my present purpose, in order to aid a future editor of the whole treatise in
assigning them without further trouble to their proper families.

(1) I have to thank Miss Algerina Peckover of Wisbech for kindly sending to the
University Library a MS. in her possession, which apparently belongs to the
beginning of the eleventh century. This Codex is specially interesting for the
pictures which a later hand has drawn in the margin, sometimes in ink and
sometimes in colours. It is unfortunately defective at the beginning and at the
end. It commences with the words [Greek] (Bois. p. 48), and ends with [Greek]
(Bois. p. 357). Unhappily it has been corrected very largely throughout, and it
is frequently impossible to discover the original readings: those which are
obviously by a later hand I have marked as W2.

(2) The authorities of Magdalen College, Oxford, with a like generosity allowed
me to use their codex, Gr. 4, side by side with |82 the Wisbech MS. in our
Library. This bears the date 1064. It contains besides: a Life of S. Basil, a
tract on Images, the Martyrdom of SS. Galaction and Episteme, a tract on
Penalties, and a work of Anastasius Sinaiticus. It has remained for the most
part uncorrected.

(3) In the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge, there is a MS. of the 17th
century, the readings of which are of sufficient interest to be recorded for the
present in spite of its late date; In my apparatus criticvs these MSS. are
referred to by the letters W, M and P respectively. I have now and then recorded
readings from the Vienna MSS. collated by Schubart, using the signs V21, V102,
&c., where the figures correspond with Schubart's numbers. Wherever I have
differed from the text of Boissonade, I have recorded his readings, and
sometimes I have expressly mentioned his MSS., A, C and D. I have given in the
margin of the Greek text the reference to Boissonade's pages. Where it seemed
desirable I have recorded readings of the Latin Version, taking them from the
Basel edition of 1539 mentioned above. The Bearing of the Apology on the Canon.

There are but few references to the Books of Scripture in the Apology of
Aristides, which thus stands in striking contrast with the works of Justin. On
two occasions the Emperor is referred to Christian writings. In the first case a
written Gospel is distinctly implied, as the matter in hand is the outline of
our Lord's Life; the words in the Greek are 11: [Greek] (p. 110, 1. 21). The
second reference is more general, and possibly includes Books outside the Canon:
[Greek] (p. 111, l. 24; cf. Syr. supra p. 50 fin.). There are no direct
quotations from the New Testament, although the Apologist's diction is
undoubtedly coloured at times by the language of the Apostolic writers.

(1) The opening sentence recalls the words of 2 Macc. vii. 28: [Greek] |83 (2)
p. 100, l. 11. [Greek]. Cf. Col. i. 17, [Greek] (cf. [Greek] in i. 16).

(3) p. 101, l. 6. [Greek]. This is clearly based on Rom. i, 25: [Greek]. The
addition of [Greek] is interesting. The Syriac translator renders: ' and they
began to serve created things instead of the Creator of them'; he is probably
led to make the change by the recollection of the Syriac Version (Pesh.) in this
passage, where the word ' Creator ' has the suffix of the fem. plural.

(4) p. 104, l. 2. [Greek]. Cf. Rom. i. 22: [Greek].

(5) p. 107, l. 12. [Greek]. These words are a kind of echo, although in a
different sense, of Rom. vii. 8: [Greek].

(6) p. 109, l. 12. [Greek]. Hère again we seem to feel the influence of the same
chapter; Rom. vii. 12, 16, [Greek] (cf. 1 Tim. i. 8).

(7) p. 109, l. 26. [Greek]. The first part of this sentence has affinities with
Heb. xi. 8, 9, [Greek]. And the whole may be compared with Acts xiii. 17,
[Greek]. The second part of the phrase however is not attested by the Syr. and
Arm. Versions, and may possibly have been introduced by the author of 'Barlaam
and Josaph.it' from Ps. cxxxvi. 11, 12.

(8) p. 110, l. 2. [Greek]. This is a combination of words found in S. Matt.
xiii. 17, [Greek], and S. Matt, xxiii. |84 37 (cf. S. Luke xiii. 34) [Greek].
But here again we cannot be sure that we have the words of Aristides himself.
This last remark applies also to the phrase, [Greek] (p. 110, 1. 9), which comes
from Rom. x. 2.

(9) p. 110, l. 19. [Greek] clearly comes from Heb. ii. 9; but the Syr. simply
has 'He died,' and the Arm. has nothing at all to correspond. Hence we cannot be
certain that these are the words of Aristides. They probably have replaced the
statement preserved in the Syr. ' He was pierced by the Jews.' Throughout this
great Christological passage it is worth noting how the actual phrases of the N.
T. are not introduced.

(10) p. 111, l. 30. [Greek]. With this we may perhaps compare 1 Thess. ii. 13,
[Greek] The Apology and the Didaché. A source from which our author has drawn
part of his description of the life and conduct of the Christians is the Two
Ways, though it may well be doubted whether he knew it in the form preserved to
us in the Didaché. [...] |85 When we turn to the Epistle of Barnabas we find
there the same parallels which have been quoted from the Didaché, [...] |86

It is possible then that here we have a witness to the earlier Two Ways, which
has been variously embodied in the Didaché and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Some support may be given to this view when we observe that the wording of the
negative form of the Golden Rule in our Apology has a greater affinity to the.
famous interpolations in Codex Bczae than to the clause in the Didaché. This
appears partly from the position of the first negative, and partly from the use
of [Greek] rather than [Greek].

Let us bring the various texts together: [...]

It is hardly possible therefore to believe that Aristides can have drawn this
precept directly from the Didaché in the form in which we know it. The Apology
and the Preaching of Peter. At the close of the Apology Aristides challenges the
Emperor 'to examine the writings of the Christians, from which he declares that
the materials for his defence are drawn: p. 111, l. 23: [Greek]: or, as it is
more fully said in the Syriac Version: ' Take now their writings and read in
them, and lo ! ye will find that not of myself have I brought these things
forward nor as their advocate have I said them, but as I have read in their
writings, these things I firmly believe,' &c.

We have seen already that he refers to a written Gospel for his statements as to
the life and work of our Lord. We have also seen that he has drawn part of his
description of the conduct of the Christians from the ' Two Ways.' Moreover the
Book of |87 Wisdom seems to have influenced his method and his language, in
several parts of his work. The following investigation will tend to shew that he
owes a still greater debt to a work now lost, which exercised a considerable
influence upon the writings of the second century. The Preaching of Peter (
[Greek]) is classed by Eusebius (H . E. in. 3) together with his Acts, his
Gospel and his Apocalypse as outside the Canon of writings accepted by the
universal Church ( [Greek]). He goes on to say of these four books that none of
the early writers or of his contemporaries used quotations from them. This
statement is however incorrect: for Clement of Alexandria again and again quotes
from both the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as authoritative works. The
Preaching of Peter then was one of those books which, like the Didaché, the
Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hennas, at one time claimed a place in
the Canon; though its claim was disallowed, even more emphatically perhaps than
the claims of these other competitors.

We must in the first instance gather together all the fragments which can be
assigned with certainty to this work12. For the sake of clearness I have
arranged them in the order in which it will be most easy to compare them with
our Apology.

Clem. Al. Strom. VI. 39 ff. [Greek] |88 |89

Ibid. 48.

Ibid. 43.

Ibid. 128. |90

I have given above in full (with one exception; Clem. Strom. i. 182, [Greek])
all the indisputable fragments of the Preaching of Peter1: and the parallels
adduced from the Apology of Aristides shew that there is an intimate connexion
between the two documents.

Before going further into the interesting problem of the reconstruction of the
Preaching, let us inquire what light these parallels throw upon the relation of
the Syriac Version to the Greek text of the Apology.

(1) Several passages of the Syriac Version, quoted above in the notes, which are
wanting in the Greek as we now have it, are authenticated by their similarity to
portions of the Preaching. Of these the most important are: (a) the worship of
angels attributed to the Jews; (b) the description of the Christians as a ' new
people '; (c) the confession of the converted heathen; (d) the attribution of
our Lord's sufferings to the Jews, Especially valuable are (a) and (c), as
giving us ground for believing that the great closing section of the Syriac
Version, which is so curtailed in the Greek, is substantially the writing of
Aristides himself.

(2) On the other hand, the division into three races, which we find in the
Greek, has the support of the famous [Greek] of the Preaching. The fourfold
division of the Syriac and Armenian Versions (Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and
Christians) comes therefore under grave suspicion: and the more we examine it,
the less primitive it appears. For to the Greek mind the Jews were themselves
Barbarians: see, for example, Clem. Strom, vi. 44, [Greek]: and Orig. c. Cels.
i. 2, [Greek]. Moreover there seems to be no parallel to this fourfold
classification of races in early Christian literature. The Preaching of Peter is
quoted by Heracleon (Orig. Comm. in Joan. xiii. 17), and we shall see that
possibly it was used by |91 Celsus. It seems also to have been in the hands of
the unknown writer of the Epistle to Diognetus. Moreover in the Sibylline
Oracles we have several passages which seem to be based on it. Some of these are
especially interesting, as shewing coincidences with our Apology, though not
with the existing fragments of the Preaching 13.

Now if three or four extant works can be shewn to have drawn materials from a
document, which is known to us now only by a few fragments, there is obviously a
possibility that the lost document may be to some extent critically
reconstructed by a consideration of common matter found in any two of the works,
which may accordingly have been taken from the document in question. To attempt
to do this fully for the Preaching of Peter would be beyond our present scope:
but we may fairly consider here what contributions to such a reconstruction are
afforded by our Apology, which has apparently made so free a use of it.

Let us begin with those passages which either the Preaching or the Apology have
in common with the Sibylline Oracles. I shall not attempt a. discrimination
between the various writings which are gathered under the name of the Sibyl, but
shall simply give references to Alexandre 's edition of 1869. Prooem. 7 ff.
[...] |92 |93 |94 |95 With regard to the second passage, there is a still more
striking parallel in c. xvii., preserved to us only in the Syriac Version. ' The
Greeks then, O king, because they practise foul things in sleeping with males,
and with mother and sister and daughter, turn the ridicule of their foulness
upon the Christians; but the Christians are honest and pious,' etc.

These coincidences are worth noting even if we are not prepared, with our
present knowledge, to suppose that they send us back for their explanation to
the Preaching of Peter.

Next let us turn to the Epistle to Diognetus. As soon as the Armenian fragment
of Aristides was discovered, it was observed that it had points in common with
this anonymous Epistle. The coincidences have multiplied greatly with our larger
knowledge of the Apology. Several of them have been quoted by Mr Harris in his
notes, but it is necessary for our present purpose to bring them together again
under one view. I shall do this in the briefest possible form, giving in the
footnotes references to such parallels in the Apology as have not already been
quoted above. [...] |96 |97

We cannot account for these parallels by merely supposing that Aristides had the
Epistle to Diognetus before him: for there are many points in common between
Aristides and the Preaching of Peter, such as the worship of angels ascribed to
the Jews, which do not appear in the Epistle. Nor will the converse hypothesis
hold good. For, to take one instance out of several, the phrase in the Epistle
[Greek] is directly parallel to [Greek] in the Preaching; but it has no
counterpart in form in the Apology.

Here again then we are guided to the hypothesis that the Preaching lies behind
both of these works. Can we gain anything further in the way of its
reconstruction? [...] |98

Mr Harris has collected (pp. 23 ff.) several instances of contact between the
Apology of Aristides and the True Word of Celsus; and he has suggested that
Celsus may have had the Apology in his hands when he wrote his attack upon
Christianity. We are now in a position to see that most of the coincidences
which have been pointed out would be accounted for by the supposition that it
was the Preaching of Peter itself, and not our Apology, which, like ' Jason and
Papiscus ' and other apocryphal writings, supplied the materials of his attack.

It will be more satisfactory to present the evidence in full as we have done in
the previous cases, even at the risk of some repetition. I shall follow the
order of Origen's reply. [...] |99

It is not easy on the evidence here collected to say whether it was the
Preaching of Peter or the Apology of Aristides which lay before Celsus, but we
can hardly doubt that it must have been one or the other. The statement that the
world was made for the sake of man does not find a place in the recognised
fragments of the Preaching; but we have given good reasons for believing that it
was contained in it. On the other hand, the Apology gives no starting point for
the attack of Celsus on Jewish prophecies about the Messiah, whereas the
Preaching laid great stress on this point (see above, p. 89).

[...] [Footnotes moved to end and renumbered]

1. 1 Notice sur le livre de Barlaam et Joasaph, Paris, 1886. A useful summary of
the literature on 'B. and J.' is given by Krumbacher in Iwan von Müller's
Handbuch der alt. Wissensch. vol. 9, pt. 1, p. 469,

2. 1 A small fragment (below, p. 104), which is omitted from its proper place in
Nachor's speech, is embodied in an early part of the book (Bois. p. 49). We thus
see that the writer had the Apology before him at the outset of his work, and
designed his plot with the definite intention of introducing it.

3. 2 See, however, below, p. 90; where reasons are given which tend to shew that
the Greek has preserved the original triple division, as against the Syriac and
the Armenian.

4. 1 Justini Opera, tom. 2, p. xxix.

5. 1 See however p. 90, where the fourfold division of mankind, common to Syr.
and Arm., is further criticised.

6. 2 Mr Harris inclines to accept this second title of the Syriac Version as the
true one: see above, pp. 7 ff. But the course of the present argument tends to
shew that the Syriac translator has introduced many arbitrary changes on his own
account: and this makes me the more unwilling to accept his testimony against
that of the Armenian Version, which has moreover the explicit statement of
Eusebius to support it. The circumstances under which the Greek has been
preserved to us necessitated the omission of the title altogether; so that no
direct evidence on the point reaches us from that quarter.

7. 1 See above, p. 70; and further remarks on p. 90.

8. 2 The Syriac is untranslateable as it stands.

9. 1 Cf. infra, p. 90.

10. 1 Notice sur le livre de B. et J., pp. 3-5.

11. 1 For the Syriac see above, p. 36 fin. 'This is taught from that Gospel,'
&c.

12. 1 Hilgenfeld (N. T. extra Can. pp. 56 ff.), to whose work I need scarcely
acknowledge my indebtedness, has brought together under the head of [Greek],
various fragments of the Didascalia Petri, &c. The fact that these find no
parallels in Aristides will give a new reason for keeping them separate.

13. 1 The Gnostic Acts of Thomas are frequently indebted to the Preaching of
Peter, as may be seen by the following passages: c. 1, [Greek]: C. 15, [Greek]:
c. 28, [Greek]: C. 36, [Greek]: C. 38, [Greek]: C. 55, [Greek]: c. 56, [Greek]
(see too the argument from prophecy in the same chapter). This text was
transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public
domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: THE APOLOGY - INTRODUCTION TO THE 1891 TRANSLATION
========================================================================

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 1-34. Introduction.

INTRODUCTION. THE present volume contains one of the earliest of the Apologies
made to the Roman Emperors on behalf of the Christians, that, namely, which was
said to have been presented to the Emperor Hadrian by an Athenian philosopher of
the name of Aristides. Our information concerning this Apology has hitherto been
of the scantiest kind, depending chiefly upon certain allusions of Eusebius in
his Ecclesiastical History and in his Chronicon; as Eusebius did not, however,
preserve any extracts from the book and presents only a most obscure figure in a
philosopher's garb as its author, while subsequent writers have added little or
nothing to what they found in Eusebius, it must be admitted that our ideas as to
the character and scope of one of the earliest apologetic treatises on
Christianity were about as vague as it was possible for them to be. It is true
that there was a suspicion abroad which came from Jerome that the lost work. of
Aristides had been imitated by Justin in his Apology, and Jerome had also
ventured the opinion that the Apology was woven out of materials derived from
the philosophers: but it was almost impossible to put any faith in Jerome's
statements, which are usually mere editorial expansions and colourings of what
he found in the pages of Eusebius. Not that there was any à priori improbability
in the opinion that one Christian Apologist had imitated another, for almost all
the Apologies that are known to us are painfully alike, and it would not be
difficult to maintain of any two of them selected at random that one of them had
borrowed from or imitated the other. The difficulty lay in the want of literary
faith in statements made by Jerome; but even if |2 this confidence had not been
wanting, we should not have been very much the wiser. In the case of a companion
Apology to that of Aristides, we were more happily placed for forming an
opinion; since Eusebius not only describes an Apology presented to the Emperor
Hadrian by a certain Quadratus, at the time of one of the imperial visits to
Athens, but gives us also some striking and powerful sentences, just enough to
convince one that the document was marked by argumentative force and spiritual
insight, and could not have been a mere conventional tirade against paganism.
Until recent times, then, all that could be said on the subject of these lost
Apologies was that we had Eusebian tradition for their existence, Eusebian
authority for their date, and a Eusebian extract from one of them as a specimen
of sub-apostolic defence, a mere brick from a vanished house. The mist, however,
lifted some time ago, when the learned Armenians of the Lazarist monastery at
Venice added to the obligations under which they have so often laid the
scholarly and Christian world, by publishing an Armenian translation of the
opening chapters of the lost Apology of Aristides; and although their document
was received in some quarters 1 with incredulity, it will be seen; by what we
have presently to bring forward, that the fragment which they printed was
rightly entitled, and that they had at least made the way for a satisfactory
conception of |3 the dogmatics which underlay the apologetics. This was a great
gain. Moreover their published fragment shewed traces of an interesting
originality of method in the classification of the religious beliefs of the
time. Our contribution to the subject consists of a Syriac translation of the
whole, or substantially the whole, of the missing Apology. We were so happy as
to discover this text in a volume of Syriac extracts preserved in the library of
the convent of St Catharine, upon Mount Sinai, during a delightful visit which
we paid to those majestic solitudes and silences in the spring of 1889. Our copy
has suffered somewhat in the course of time from successive transcriptions, and
needs occasionally the hand of the critical corrector. The language and thought
of the writer are, however, so simple and straightforward that the limits of
error are much narrower than they would be in a document where the structure was
more highly complicated; the unintelligible sentences which accumulate in a
translation so much more rapidly than in the copying of an original document,
are almost entirely absent. In fact the writer is more of a child than a
philosopher, a child well-trained in creed and well-practised in ethics, rather
than either a dogmatist defending a new system or an iconoclast destroying an
old one: but this simplicity of treatment, so far from being a weakness, adds
often greatly to the natural impressiveness of the subject and gives the work a
place by the side of the best Christian writing of his age. But, before going
further, it will be best to describe a little more closely the volume from which
our text is taken.

Description of the MS. The MS. from which we have copied is numbered 16 amongst
the Syriac MSS. of the Sinaitic convent. The MS. may be |4 referred to the 7th
century, and is written in two columns to the page. The book is made up of a
number of separate treatises and extracts, almost all of which are ethical in
character. Thus on fol. 1 b we have [Syriac] or, the history of the Lives of the
Fathers, translated from Greek into Syriac. On fol. 2b [syriac]

Apparently we have here the Liber Paradisi or Lives of the Holy Fathers of the
Desert, of which many copies exist in Greek, though it may be doubted whether
there is any critical edition. Some portions of this Syriac version were
published at Upsala by Tullberg and his disciples, in 1851, from MSS. in the
Vatican and in the British Museum. In our MS. the current heading of the pages
is [syriac]

or, History of the Egyptian Hermits.

After fol. 86 b two leaves appear to have been cut away. Fol. 87 b bears the
heading [syriac]

Of the holy Nilus the Solitary.

At the foot of fol. 93 a begins the Apology of Aristides. On fol. 105 a begins
[syriac]

or, A discourse of Plutarch on the subject of a man's being assisted by his
enemy.

At the foot of fol. 112 a [syriac]

or, A second discourse of the same Plutarch peri\ a)skh&sewj.

Apparently this is the tract published by Lagarde in his Analecta, pp. 177-186,
and translated by Gildemeister and Bücheler. |5 On fol. 121 b [syriac]

A discourse of Pythagoras,

probably the same as is published in Lagarde's Analecta, pp. 195 -201. On fol.
126 a [syriac]

A discourse of Plutarch, on Anger,

for which see Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, pp. 186-195. On fol. 132 b [syriac]

A discourse of Lucius (Lucianus), that we should not receive slander against our
friends: peri\ tou~ mh_ r(a|di/wj pisteu&ein diabolh~|.

Apparently the same as is given in Sachau, Inedita, pp. 1-16. On fol. 140 a
[syriac]

A discourse made by a philosopher, De Anima:

probably the same as is given in Sachau, Inedita, as Philosophorum de anima
sententiae. On fol. 143 a, [syriac]

or, the Counsel of Theano, a female philosopher of the school of Pythagoras:

see Sachau, Inedita, pp. 70-75, as Theano: Sententiae 2. On fol. 145 b a
collection of Sayings of the Philosophers, beginning with [Syriac] (Plato the
Wise said). On fol. 151 6 [Syriac] A first discourse in explanation of
Ecclesiastes, made by Mar John the Solitary for the blessed Theognis. See
Wright's Cat. of the Syr. MSS. in the Brit Mus. p. 996. |6 And from fol. 214a
onward the volume is occupied with translations from the Homilies of Chrysostom
on Matthew. The above description will shew something of the value of the MS. It
will also suggest that it was the ethical character of the Apology of Aristides
that secured its incorporation with the volume. Let us now pass on to discuss
the effect which this recovered document has upon our estimate of the Eusebian
statements concerning the earliest Church Apologists.

Aristides and Eusebius.

According to the Chronicon of Eusebius we have the following date for the
Apologies of Quadratus and Aristides:

1. The Armenian version of the Chronicon gives under the year 124 A.D. as
follows:

Ol. A. Abr. Imp. Rom. d226 2140 8c d Adrianus Eleusinarum rerum gnarus fuit
multaque (dona) Atheniensium largitus est. c Romanorum ecclesiae episcopatum
excepit septimus Telesphorus annis xi.

Codratus apostolorum auditor et Aristides nostri dogmatis (nostrae rei)
philosophus Atheniensis Adriano supplicationes dedere apologeticas (apologiae,
responsionis) ob mandatum. Acceperat tamen et a Serennio (s. Serenno) splendido
praeside (iudice) scriptum de Christianis, quod nempe iniquum sit occidere cos
solo rumore sine inquisitione, neque ulla accusatione. Scribit Armonicus Fundius
(Phundius) proconsuli Asianorum ut sine ullo damno et incusatione non
damnarentur; et exemplar edicti eius hucusque circumfertur.

One of the Armenian MSS. (Cod. N) transfers this notice about the Apologists to
the following year, and it is believed that this represents more exactly the
time of Hadrian's first visit to Athens (125-126 A.D.). With this agrees the
dating of the Latin version of Jerome. We may say then that it is the intention
of Eusebius to refer the presentation of both these |7 Apologies to the time
when Hadrian was spending his first winter in Athens; and to make them the
reason for the Imperial rescript to Minucius Fundanus which we find attached to
the first Apology of Justin Martyr. And since Minucius Fundanus and his
predecessor Granianus were consuls suffect in the years 106 and 107, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that they held the Asian pro-consulate in the years A.D.
123 and 124, or 124 and 125. If then Aristides and Quadratus presented apologies
to Hadrian, it is reasonable to connect these Apologies with his first Athenian
winter and not with the second (A.D. 129-130). But here we begin to meet with
difficulties; for, in the first place, much doubt has been thrown on the
genuineness of the rescript of the emperor to Minucius Fundanus; in the second
place there is a suspicious resemblance between Quadratus the Apologist and
another Quadratus who was bishop of Athens in the reign of Antoninus Pius,
succeeding to Publius whom Jerome affirms to have been martyred; and in the
third place our newly-recovered document cannot by any possibility be referred
to the period suggested by Eusebius, and there is only the barest possibility of
its having been presented to the Emperor Hadrian at all. Let us examine this
last point carefully, in order to answer, as far as our means will permit, the
question as to the time of presentation of the Apology of Aristides and the
person or persons to whom it was addressed. The Armenian fragment is headed as
follows: To the Emperor Hadrian Caesar, from Aristides, philosopher of Athens.

There is nothing, at first sight, to lead us to believe that this is the
original heading; such a summary merely reflects the Eusebian tradition and
might be immediately derived from it. When we turn to the Syriac Version, we
find a somewhat similar preface, to the following effect.

Apology made by Aristides the Philosopher before Hadrianus the King, concerning
the worship of Almighty God. But this, which seems to be a mere literary
heading, proper, shall we say, for one out of a collection of apologies, is
immediately |8 followed by another introduction which cannot be anything else
than a part of the primitive apology. It runs as follows:

...Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, Worshipful and Clement, from Marcianus
Aristides, philosopher of Athens. The additional information which we derive
from this sentence is a sufficient guarantee of its genuineness; we have the
first name of the philosopher given, as Marcianus; and we have the name of the
emperor addressed given at length. To our astonishment this is not Hadrian, but
his successor Antoninus Pius, who bears the name of Hadrian by adoption from
Publius Aelius Hadrianus. Unless therefore we can shew that there is an error or
a deficiency in the opening sentence of the Apology we shall be obliged to refer
it to the time of the emperor Antoninus Pius, and to say that Eusebius has made
a mistake in reading the title of the Apology, or has followed some one who had
made the mistake before him. And it seems tolerably clear that if an error exist
at all in such a precise statement as ours, it must be of the nature of an
omission. Let us see what can be urged in favour of this theory. We will imagine
that the original title contained the names both of Hadrian and of Antoninus
Pius, his adviser and companion, much in the same way as Justin opens his first
Apology with" the words, "to the Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius
Augustus Caesar and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the
Philosopher, natural son of Caesar and adopted son of Pius....I Justin...have
written the following appeal and supplication." In support of this theory we
might urge the apparent dislocation of the opening sentence of our Apology. The
Syriac version is clearly wrong in its punctuation, for example, since it
transfers the expression [Syriac] (Almighty) to Caesar, by placing a colon after
the word [Syriac] (God). This is clearly impossible, for that the writer did not
attempt to translate, say, au)tokra&twr as if it were pantokra&twr will be
evident from his correct use of the Divine attribute later on in his work. But
even if the translator had been guilty of such a mistake, the case would not
have been bettered, because Antonine would now have been styled Emperor as well
as Caesar. But let us imagine if we please that the term Caesar or |9 Emperor
Caesar belongs to a previous name which has dropped out and supply the
connective necessary, so as to read, "To the Emperor Aelius Hadrianus Augustus
Caesar and to Titus Hadrianus Antoninus." In support of this we may urge that
the adjectives which follow are marked in the Syriac with the sign of the
plural, as if the writer imagined himself to be addressing more persons than
one. Supposing then that this is the case we should still have to face the
question as to the name given to Antonine; if he is called Hadrian, this must
mean that the Apology is presented at some time subsequent to his adoption,
which is generally understood to have taken place in the year A.D. 138, only a
little while before Hadrian's death. So that in any case we should be prohibited
by our document from dating the Apology in question either in the first visit of
Hadrian to Athens or in the second visit, and we should only have the barest
possibility that it was presented to Hadrian at all. It would have, so to speak,
to be read to him on his death-bed at Baiae. Seeing then the extreme difficulty
of maintaining the Hadrianic or Eusebian hypothesis, we are driven to refer the
Apology to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and to affirm that Eusebius made a
mistake in reading or quoting the title of the book, in which mistake he has
been followed by a host of other and later writers. If he followed a text which
had the heading as in the Syriac, he has misunderstood the person spoken of as
Hadrian the king; and if on the other hand he takes the opening sentences as his
guide, he has made a superficial reference, which a closer reading would have
corrected. All that is necessary to make the Syriac MS. intelligible is the
introduction of a simple prepositional prefix before the imperial name, and the
deletion of the ribbui points in the adjectives. Nor is this all; for there can
be no doubt that the two adjectives in question ([Syriac]) are intended to
represent two of the final titles of Antoninus: [Syriac] standing for the Greek
Sebasto&j, which again is the equivalent of the Latin Augustus; and [Syriac]
being the equivalent of the title Pius which the Roman Senate gave to Antoninus
shortly after his accession and which the Greeks render by eu)sebh&j. And it is
precisely in this order that the titles are usually found, |10 viz. Augustus
Pius, which the Syriac has treated as adjectives, and connected by a
conjunction. Moreover this translation of eu)sebh&j on the part of the Syriac
interpreter shews that the meaning of the title is 'clement' or 'compassionate,'
rather than that of mere filial duty, which agrees with what we find in a letter
of Marcus Aurelius to Faustina; "haec (clementia) patrem tuum imprimis Pii
nomine ornavit 3."

Now how will this conclusion react upon the companion Apology of Quadratus? We
could, no doubt, maintain that it leaves the question where it found it. The
mistake made by Eusebius need not have been a double error, and the correct
reference to Hadrian for Quadratus's Apology would have furnished a
starting-point for the incorrect reasoning with regard to Aristides. On this
supposition we should simply erase the reference to Aristides from Eusebius and
his imitators. But there is one difficulty to be faced, and that is the fact
that we were in confusion over Quadratus before we reached any conclusion about
Aristides. And our investigation has not helped to any elucidation of the
confusion. Read for example the language in which Eusebius (H. E. IV. 3)
describes the presentation of the Apology,

[Greek] and compare it with the Greek of the Chronicon as preserved by
Syncellus,

[Greek] and we naturally suspect with Harnack4 that the title must have been
something like the following,

[Greek] and we are confirmed in this belief by finding that the Aristides
Apology was also headed a)pologi/a u(pe\r th~j qeosebei/aj?: at least its
literary heading must have been very like this. |11 May we not also infer that
the opening sentences of the Quadratus-Apology must have contained the
dedication Ai0li/w| 9Adrianw~| which we find suggested above? But when we have
made these suppositions the similarity between the two apologies in the titles
is very great, for Aelius Hadrianus is also a part of the adopted name of the
emperor Antoninus. And let us look at the matter from another point of view. One
of our early sources of information about Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, is
found in a passage of a letter of Dionysius of Corinth preserved by Eusebius,
and certainly Dionysius of Corinth ought to be good authority for Athenian
religious history of the time immediately preceding his own. Euscbius does not
actually quote the letter which Dionysius wrote to the church at Athens, but he
tells us its scope and makes it easy to divine its contents: his language is as
follows:

[Greek] From this it would naturally be inferred that the Quadratus mentioned in
the letter was a contemporary of Dionysius of Corinth; for the latter writes to
the Athenians at once convicting them of slackness in the faith, and
congratulating them on their happy revival under the ministration of Quadratus.
And since Dionysius writes letters also to Soter, the bishop of Rome, who
belongs to the early years of Marcus Aurelius, we should probably say that
Quadratus was not very much earlier than this, which would place him in the
reign of Antoninus Pius. And the persecution at Athens which ended in the
martyrdom of Publius must therefore fall in the same reign. Now Jerome (de Virr.
ill. § 19) identifies this Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, with the Apologist
5, and consequently pushes back the persecution into the |12 reign of Hadrian.
We do not indeed attach any especial weight to Jerome's statement as to the time
of the persecution, which is simply a combination made up out of passages from
Eusebius concerning Quadratus and Dionysius with slight amplifications. He can
hardly be right in placing the persecution under the reign of Hadrian, for, as
Lightfoot points out 6, Eusebius, from whom he draws his facts, knows nothing
about it: moreover we have information from Melito 7 that Antoninus Pius did
actually write to Athens to suppress a persecution of the Christians. But, on
the other hand, may he not be right after all in his identification of the
bishop Quadratus with the Apologist, and do not the circumstances of the
persecution suggested by Melito and testified to by Dionysius exactly suit the
presentation of the Apology to the emperor?

While then we would readily admit that, as long as the Apology of Aristides was
held to belong to the time of an Athenian visit of Hadrian, the Apology of
Quadratus naturally remained with it, yet on the other hand when the Hadrian
hypothesis is untenable for Aristides, will not the Quadratus-bishop and
Quadratus-apologist naturally run together, and be one and the same person? Or
is there anything to prevent the identification? The words 'apostolorum
discipulus,' used by Jerome, and the corresponding words of Eusebius,
a0posto&lwn a0kousth&j, can hardly be held to militate seriously against this
hypothesis, for they are evident deductions from the passage which Eusebius
quotes from the Apology of Quadratus about the sick people healed by the Lord,
'some of whom continued down to our times.' Jerome says boldly that Quadratus
had seen very many of the subjects of our Lord's miracles; which is in any case
a gross exaggeration. But if such persons, either many or few, had really lived
into the age of Quadratus, it would be very difficult to place |13 the Apologist
in the reign of Antoninus Pius. Unless, therefore, it can be maintained that the
language quoted by Eusebius from Quadratus is an exaggeration or a
misunderstanding we can hardly identify the bishop with the apologist. This is
the furthest point to which the evidence carries the argument. And now let us
return to Aristides and see whether we can determine anything further concerning
the time and manner of presentation of the Apology. And first of all we may say
that the simplicity of the style of the Apology is in favour of an early date.
The religious ideas and practices are of an antique cast. The ethics shew a
remarkable continuity with Jewish ethics: the care for the stranger and the
friendless, the burial of the dead and the like, are given as characteristic
virtues both of Judaism and of Christianity. Indeed we may say that one of the
surprising things about the Apology is the friendly tone in which the Jews are
spoken of: one certainly would not suspect that the chasm between the Church and
the Synagogue had become as practically impassable as we find it in the middle
of the second century. There is no sign of the hostile tone which we find
towards the Jews in the martyrdom of Polycarp, and nothing like the severity of
contempt which we find in the Epistle to Diognetus. If the Church is not in the
writer's time any longer under the wing of the Synagogue, it has apparently no
objection to taking the Synagogue occasionally under its own wing.

Such a consideration seems to be a mark of antiquity, and one would, therefore,
prefer to believe, if it were possible, that the Apology was earlier than the
Jewish revolt under Bar-Cochab. But since we have shewn that view to be
untenable (and yet how attractive if we could place Aristides in the second
visit of Hadrian to Athens, and Quadratus in the first !) we must content
ourselves with seeking as early a date as is consistent with the
superscriptions.

Another point that seems ancient about our Apology is that it contains traces,
and very interesting traces, of the use of a creed, very similar to the
Apostolic Symbol, but involving certain notable points of difference. We shall
discuss the question more at length by and by; but at present it will be
interesting |14 to notice, especially in view of the obviously friendly attitude
of the writer towards the Jews, that his creed contained a clause to the effect
that 'He was crucified by the Jews,' perhaps without the clause that was current
in later times, 'under Pontius Pilate.' Now I am aware that there are some
persons to whom this will seem an argument for a later date; for example M.
Renan, Origines vi. p. 277, says: "les Chrétiens commençaient à faire retomber
sur l'ensemble de la nation juive un reproche que sûrement ni Pierre ni Jacques
ni l'auteur de l'Apocalypse ne songeaient à lui adresser, celui d'avoir crucifié
Jésus." It would be interesting however to compare this statement of M. Renan
with the language of Peter in Acts ii. 36, "Whom ye crucified;" of James in Ep.
v. 6, "ye murdered the Just;" or with the writer of the Apocalypse where he
describes Jerusalem as the spiritual Sodom and Egypt, "where also our Lord was
crucified." The very same charge is made by Justin in his dialogue with Trypho
8, who uses language very similar to that of the Epistle of James, and in
discussing the miseries which have befallen the Jewish race, says pointedly
"Fairly and justly have these things come upon you; for Ye slew the Just One."
Why should we assume such a sentiment to be a mark of late date?

These references do not, however, suggest that the sentence in question was in
the Creed. To prove that, we should have to go much farther afield, for the
known forms of early creeds do not seem to contain it: if, however, we were to
examine the Apocryphal Christian Literature of the early centuries, we should,
no doubt, find many traces of the lost sentence. For example, it comes over and
over in the Apocryphal Acts of John, a Gnostic document which Wright edited and
translated from the Syriac. Here we find the sentence frequently in the very
connexion which it would have with other Christian dogmatic statements if it had
been incorporated with some actual form of the Symbol of Faith. When we find
that these Acts give us as the staple of Apostolic teaching that |15

"The Jews crucified Him on the tree, And He died And rose after three days, And
He is God, And He ascended to Heaven And is at the right hand of His Father"

we must admit that the sequence of ideas, and probably the very words, are from
a Creed. The same thing is true when we find the Apostle speaking, and saying

"In the name of Jesus the Messiah, God, Whom the Jews crucified and killed in
Jerusalem; And He died and was buried And rose after three days: And lo ! He is
above in Heaven At the right hand of His Father."

At all events we may maintain that there is evidence for the diffusion of the
Creed in early times under a slightly different form to that generally received,
and if so, we may call it a mark of antiquity to have the Apology of Aristides
expressing itself to that effect; for certainly no such sentence in the
generally received Creed existed in later times, however widely the sentiment
against the Jews may have been diffused.

It is interesting also to compare the custom of the early Christians in the
matter of fasting, that they might relieve by their self-denial the necessities
of the poor. This is precisely what we find described so fully in the
Similitudes of Hermas (Sim. v. 3), where the directions are given that on the
day when we fast we are ourselves to eat only bread and water, and calculate the
amount saved thereby and bestow it on the poor. Now very many of the later
fathers teach the same doctrine, that fasting and alms are conjoined in duty and
merit, and that it is proper, under certain circumstances, for the church to
call for such an expression of religion. But what makes for the antiquity of the
Apology is that the whole church fasts, not merely one day, but two or three
days, and that not by direction or rule, but because they are poor and have no
other way of meeting the needs of those who are poorer |16 than themselves. It
is a spontaneous, rather than a commanded charity, dictated at once by love and
necessity. Can such a practice in such a form be other than early? But if the
Apology is early in its doctrines and practices, where shall we place it? Must
it not be at least as early as the first years of the reign of Antoninus Pius?
But here we are in difficulty again, for, if we assume that the Apology was
presented to Antoninus Pius in person, we have no satisfactory evidence that
Antoninus was ever in the East, or in Greece after his accession, and even the
suspicions as to an Eastern visit belong to a later period of his reign, say
A.D. 154. Did Aristides present the Apology at Rome or elsewhere? May we infer
from his calling himself Marcianus Aristides, Philosopher of Athens, that he was
in some city not his own natural dwelling-place? For that he came from Athens is
deducible not only from his own statement but also from the fact to which we
have already alluded that Antoninus wrote to Athens to suppress a persecution of
the Christians. But this almost implies that Antoninus was not in Athens when he
received the Apology, or where would be the need of writing a letter at all? He
must have been out of Greece.

Only two solutions seem to present themselves, (i) that Aristides journeyed to
Rome to present his apology; (ii) that Antoninus made some unrecorded visit to
the East.

Now with regard to the second of these suppositions there is reason, outside of
our argument and its necessities, to believe that some such visit must have
taken place, and that Antoninus held court at Smyrna, some time after his
accession to the throne. In the celebrated letter of Irenaeus to Florinus
(written probably later than A.D. 189) the writer speaks of having seen Florinus
when he lived in lower Asia with Polycarp, when he was at the royal court, and
rising in esteem there; he, Irenaeus, being at that time a boy. Now this seems
to imply some kind of royal residence at Smyrna; but it has always been
difficult to determine what is meant by such a royal residence. The problem is
discussed by Lightfoot in his Ignatius (ed. ii. vol. I. p. 449), It cannot be
Hadrian's visit in A.D. 129, which would be too early; and Lightfoot thinks that
although there is some reason for believing |17 Antoninus Pius to have been in
Syria, and presumably also in Asia Minor, somewhere about A.D. 154, 155, this
date is too late, on account of the mention of Polycarp. Accordingly Lightfoot
frames, with some hesitation, the following hypothesis: "About the year 136 T.
Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia. Within two or three years of his
proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne, and is known as Antoninus
Pius. Even during his proconsulate omens marked him as the future occupant of
the imperial throne. ...Florinus may have belonged to his suite, and Irenaeus in
after years might well call the proconsul's retinue the 'royal Court' by
anticipation, especially if Florinus accompanied him to Rome, &c." This
ingenious hypothesis only fails to meet our requirement on one point, viz. that
the name given to Antoninus in the Apology is the name given him after adoption,
and so is subsequent to Feb. 25, A.D. 138. But suppose we imagine a visit of
Antoninus to Asia Minor some years later than this, we could find then some
support for the theory that Aristides presented his Apology to the Emperor at
Smyrna. For we might say that the name of Marcianus is a conspicuous one in the
Church at Smyrna. When the Church of the Smyrnaeans wrote for the Church of
Philomelium the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, they employed to compose
the narrative a person whom they characterise as our brother Marcianus 9. Now it
is worthy of note that this person must have been conspicuous in the Church of
Smyrna, for he is probably the same person to whom Irenaeus, whose relations
with the Church at Smyrna are so intimate, dedicated one of his treatises 10.
Moreover the relations of the Church to the Emperor through Florinus would have
been favourable for the presentation of the Apology.

Let us then say, in recapitulation, that we have found it difficult to assign
the Apology to any other period than the early years of the reign of Antoninus
Pius; and it is at least conceivable that it may have been presented to the
Emperor, along with other Christian writings, during an unrecorded visit of his
to his ancient seat of government in Smyrna. |18

There are a few later references to Aristides to which we have drawn no
attention hitherto, because it seemed to be impossible to extract any
trustworthy data from them: they are as follows:

(1) A passage in a letter of Jerome to Magnus, "Aristides philosophus, vir
eloquentissimus, eidem principi (Hadriano) Apologeticum pro Christianis obtulit,
contextum philosophorum sententiis, quem imitatus postea Justinus, et ipse
philosophus." This is simply a réchauffé of the Eusebian data, with reflections
thereupon. Justin being a philosopher, his Apology naturally imitates the
philosophical treatise which has preceded his own.

(2) Martyrologium Vetus Romanum11 ad v. Nonas Octobris.

"Athenis Dionysii Areopagitae sub Hadriano diversis tormen-tis passi, ut
Aristides testis est in opere quod de Christiana religione composuit; hoc opus
apud Athénien ses inter antiquorum memorias clarissimum tenetur." Aristides
himself is commemorated on ii. Kal. Septr. and it is said that in his treatise
he maintained "quod Christus Jesus solus esset Deus."

It would be very interesting to determine how the Martyrologies arrived at these
statements. Our Syriac Apology certainly contains no trace of an allusion to
Dionysius the Areopagite; on the other hand it fairly enough teaches the
Divinity of Christ. We would dismiss the statements at once as archaeological
fictions if it had not been that evidence has been produced for the existence of
a Latin version of Aristides. Harnack's attention was drawn by the pastor
Kawerau to the following letter of Witzel to Beatus Rhenanus, dated
Bartholomew's day 1534. "Dedisti nobis Eusebium, praeterea Tertullianum. Restat
ut pari nitore des Justinum Martyrem, Papiam et Ignatium graece excusum. Amabo,
per Bibliothecas oberrare, venaturus si quid scripsit Quadratus, si praeter
epistolam alia Polycarpus, si nonnihil praeter Apologeticon Aristides. Despice,
si quae supersunt Cornelii et tanta bonorum librorum panolethria. Plures sunt
Dionysii scriptores, sed omnes praeter unum Areopagitem desyderamus, qui utinam
sua quoque in lingua extaret. Utinam exorirentur Stromata Clementis, breviter
quicquid est kro&ni+on. Tineae pascuntur libris, quibus |19 homines pasci
debebamus &c." I have given the extract from Harnack's copy 12, not having
access to the original letter.

It seems to me that Witzel's language almost implies that the Apology was
already in print in Latin. Is it conceivable that some portion of the Apology
may have found its way into print before the year 1534 and remained unnoticed in
later times? But even if it existed in manuscript, we must leave it an open
question whether it may not have contained some matter which is wanting in the
Syriac; nevertheless it is à priori extremely improbable that the story about
the martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite can belong here.

Celsus and Aristides.

We have alluded above to a possible connexion between the True Word of Celsus
and the Apology of Aristides, and it may be worth while to follow the matter up
a little closer for the following reasons:

1. Celsus is undoubtedly very nearly contemporary with Aristides; although it is
difficult to determine his date exactly (and even Origen was doubtful as to his
identity), we may probably say with a good assurance of safety that he was at
the zenith of his influence and fame under the reign of Antoninus Pius.

2. It is peculiarly difficult to determine what Christian books had come into
the hands of Celsus, whether gospels or other literature. We know however for
certain that he had read the dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, a work of
Aristo of Pella, written not long after the close of the Jewish war under
Hadrian, and so at a period very near to the one in which we are interested. Now
if he were reading contemporary Christian literature he could hardly miss
Aristides.

3. And since we find more and closer parallels between the fragments preserved
by Origen from the great work of Celsus and our Apology than between most of the
other books of the century, it is at least a fair question whether Aristides was
not one of the persons to whom Celsus undertook to reply. |20

One of the leading beliefs in Aristides is that God made all things for the sake
of man. This doctrine he repeats in various forms, shewing that the separate
elements, the earth, the air, the fire, and the water together with the sun,
moon and stars, are his ministers. Now Celsus seems to have been particularly
opposed to this doctrine and to have discussed it at length: it was one of the
points of contact between the Stoic philosophy and the Jewish and Christian
faiths, and Celsus was, no doubt, well prepared to be diffuse on the subject by
many previous philosophical encounters.

He draws ridiculous pictures of the philosophy of the frogs in the swamp, of the ants in their ant-hill, and of bevies of bats, discussing the to them obvious proposition that the world has been made solely for their benefit. Accordingly Origen remarks, [Greek] 13. In which sentence he has pretty well covered the argument from Providence as stated by Aristides. Were the elements and the stars, says he, made for the self-congratulation and self-exaltation of the bat, the frog, or----the man? But he carries out the argument in detail: a providence over man is as reasonable as a providence over beasts and vegetables, which can be proved from the same data. [Greek] 14. Indeed, according to Celsus, Providence is more apparent in the case of ants and bees and the like, which obtain their food without labour or with much less labour than happens in the case of man. He will not hear of such a statement as that the sun and stars serve man, much less what Aristides affirms, that the sun was created to serve the multiplicity of human need. Do not, says he, quote me verses from Euripides about sunshine and shade serving man; how do they serve him any more than the ants or the flies, which sleep |21 and wake much as we do? [Greek] 15;

Now of course we do not mean to suggest that Aristides invented the argument from Providence or that Celsus was the first to heap easy scorn upon it. The argument and the reply are commonplaces. Celsus's question as to whether the world was created for the sake of vegetables will be found discussed in Cicero, de Natura Deorum II. 133. "Cuiusnam causa tantarum rerum molitio sit? Arborumne et herbarum? quae quamquam sine sensu sunt, tarnen a natura sustinentur. At id quidem absurdum est. An bestiarum? Nihilo probabilius, deos mutorum et nihil intelligentium causa tantum laborasse----Ita fit credibile deorum et hominum causa factum esse mundum, quaeque in eo sint omnia."

It is easy to see how both the Jewish and Christian teachers, starting from the
same text, the first verse in the book of Genesis, and formulating the same
statement of faith, that the Almighty was 'Maker of Heaven and Earth,' found
themselves fighting in the ranks with the Stoics against the Epicureans, and so
exposed from time to time to the infinite raillery which seemed to the latter
school to be proper to the situation. As we have said, Aristides does not stand
alone in the statement. Justin Martyr takes the same ground and implies that it
is a part of the regular Christian teaching. "We are taught," says he, "that God
in His goodness created all things in the beginning from formless matter, for
the sake of man16;" and the unknown writer of the Epistle to Diognetus affirms
that "God loved men, for whom He made the world, to whom He subjected all things
that are in the earth17."

It is however worthy of notice that in Aristides the argument is repeated over
and over, and that Celsus answers it, as Origen thought, at unnecessary length.
It is not therefore inconceivable that Aristides may have drawn the Epicurean
fire upon himself (and in this matter we may certainly count Celsus with the
Epicureans) by the stress which he laid on the point in his Apology.

Let us pass on to another point upon which Aristides is |22 somewhat original,
viz. the doctrine of the races of the world and of their origin.

Aristides divides the world into four races, the Barbarian, the Greek, the Jew,
the Christian. The last two races are curiously described; the Jews derive their
origin from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: they went down from Syria into Egypt; they
came back from Egypt into Syria. As for the Christians, the new race, they
derive their origin from Jesus the Messiah, and He is called the Son of God Most
High.

Now in the first book against Celsus, Origen remarks as follows: "Celsus
promises that he will speak on the subject of the Jews later on, and he begins
his discourse concerning our Saviour, as being the leader of our generation in
so far as we are Christians 18, and he goes on to say that he was the leader of
this teaching, a few years ago, being regarded by the Christians as the Son of
God."

Now it is worthy of note that if Celsus is handling any written document, that
document proceeded from the discussion of the Jews to the Christians, affirmed
Christ to be the head of the new race, and declared that His followers regarded
Him as the Son of God. The agreement at this point with Aristides is certainly
striking. When moreover we come to the discussion of the Jews, Celsus breaks out
that the 'Jews were mere Egyptian runaways, and that this darling people of God
had never done anything worth remembering19,' just as if he had passed over the
names of the Patriarchs and fastened on the admission that the Jews had come out
of Egypt. Accordingly Origen replies that it is universally agreed that the Jews
reckon their genealogy from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; [Greek]. When Aristides
deals with the beliefs of the Jews he expresses the remarkable opinion that the
Jewish ritual is rather an adoration of angels than a worship of God. The
expression is the more remarkable, because Aristides affects to reason
throughout as the |23 philosopher rather than the Christian, arid he forgets
himself and introduces the angels without even an explanation to the emperor, as
to what beings are intended. What shall we say then when we find Celsus
affirming that the Jews worship angels 20? [Greek] And Origen is so puzzled as
to ask 'where in the world did Celsus find in the Mosaic writings instruction in
the worship of angels?' It is certainly curious that we find the missing link
supplied by the Apology of Aristides. No doubt further analogies might be
traced; for example, Celsus is especially irate with the Christians for their
ridicule of Egyptian superstitions21, they see nothing except ephemeral animals,
instead of grasping eternal ideas. Now there is no doubt that it is a very
common subject of Christian merriment, but perhaps no one of the early Christian
Writers has laughed so much in detail about it as Aristides. We will not however
press the matter further: there are always numerous points of contact and
necessary collisions between the attack and the defence of given religions:
suffice it to say that we have shewn it to be by no means an inconceivable
proposition that Celsus had read the Apology of Aristides before he penned his
'Alhqh_j lo&goj. The Symbol of the Faith in the time of Aristides.

Aristides the Philosopher is a Christian who has preserved the philosophic
manner, and probably the philosophic dress, with a view to future service in the
gospel. It seems to have been the practice of not a few of the famous
second-century Christians to attract an audience in this way. Justin certainly
did so, and almost as surely Tatian; and if these why not Aristides? But as we
have already said, the professedly dispassionate presentation of the Christian
case, the endeavour to talk reasonably on all sides successively, soon breaks
down; the man throws off his disguise and gives the note of challenge:
Christianus sum; nihil Christianum alienum a me puto. He talks of angels as
though all men knew them, dashes through the dogmatic statements of the Church
as though they were perfectly familiar, and without a |24 word of preliminary
explanation of terms, makes a peroration of the impending judgment-day. And so
the philosopher with an imperial audience turns out to be another illustration
of the Christian city that is set on a hill and cannot be hid.

It is especially interesting to observe that in the time of Aristides the Church
already had a Symbol of the Faith: and we may reconstruct a good many of its
sentences. Of course in such matters we proceed from the things that are
practically certain to those which are less demonstrable; we should not start by
saying that the words "Maker of heaven and earth" were proof of the existence of
an approximately fixed symbol. But if we can establish other sentences with good
confidence, there is no reason to omit these words from the reconstructed
formula. The certain passage from which we proceed is in the words:

"He was pierced (crucified) by the Jews;

"He died and was buried;"

" and they say that after three days He rose, and ascended into Heaven."

It may be taken for granted that these words represent a part of the Symbolum
Fidei as known to Aristides.

What else may we say was contained in his creed? We may add words which must
have stood respectively at the beginning and ending of the Creed: viz. that God
was the Maker of Heaven and Earth; and that Jesus Christ was to come to judge
the world.

Whether we can go further is a more difficult question: but there is at least a
strong suspicion that the creed contained the clause "He was born of the Virgin
Mary;" for in Aristides' statement the language about the 'Hebrew virgin'
precedes the account of the Crucifixion; moreover, here also, we find Aristides
is most pronounced in the enunciation of the doctrine, and Celsus is
emphatically scornful in the rejection of it. Accordingly Celsus brings forward
the story of the infidelity of Mary, affirming that the father of Jesus was in
reality a soldier whose name was Panthera 22. The same story appears in the
Talmud under the name Pandera, which is a transliteration of the foregoing. |25

Indeed it has been generally held that the legend was invented by the Jews,
through the difficulty of accounting for our Lord's birth; apparently,
therefore, the Jews were in search of a more tenable hypothesis than the
paternity of Joseph; and it is not unreasonable to refer to an early Jewish
scandal the story which we find in the Talmud and in Celsus. But if the story be
Jewish in origin, it was certainly Greek in manufacture. Some persons have tried
to explain the Greek name Panthera by regarding it as a symbol of violent and
unrestrained lust. They are, however, mistaken: the name is simply a Greek
anagram on the word 'Parthenos,' by which the Blessed Virgin was commonly known.
Those who are familiar with the literary tricks of that time, its anagrams,
acrostics, isopsephics, and the like, will have not the least difficulty in
seeing that this is the true solution. The inventor has only changed the order
of the letters and slightly altered the ending of the word. Everything that we
know of the dogmatics of the early part of the second century agrees with the
belief that at that period the Virginity of Mary was a part of the formulated
Christian belief. Nor need we hesitate, in view of the antiquity of the
Panthera-fable, to give the doctrine a place in the creed of Aristides.

We restore the fragments of Aristides' creed, then, as follows:

We believe in one God, Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth: And in Jesus Christ
His Son

* * * * Born of the Virgin Mary:

* * * * He was pierced by the Jews:

He died and was buried: The third day He rose again:

He ascended into Heaven:

* * * * He is about to come to judge.

* * * * |26

The Armenian Fragment of the Apology.

We give, later on, the Latin translation of the Armenian fragment, as published
by the Venetian editors. The passage has also been translated into German by von
Himpel 23, and this translation will be found in Harnack's Griechische
Apologeten, pp. 110-112. Von Himpel rightly affirms the Armenian text to have
been made from the Greek: it will be observed, however, that the Armenian text
has the same lacuna as the Syriac in the discourse on the four elements and the
powers to which they are respectively subject. This lacuna would seem to be an
early feature of the Greek text.

There are one or two points in which we may get some authority from the Armenian
for the original text. For instance in c. ii. where the Syriac reads that the
origin of the Greeks is to be traced through "Danaus the Egyptian, and through
Kadmus, and through Dionysus." Here the Armenian reads "Danaus the Egyptian and
Kadmus the Sidonian and Dionysus the Theban," and I am disposed to believe the
words added in the Armenian belong there: for instance, we may compare Tatian's
language 24, "Dionysus is absolute sovereign over the Thebans." In a similar
manner something seems to have dropped in the Syriac after the statement that in
God there is no distinction of male or female; for the Armenian text adds the
reason "quia cupiditatibus agitatur qui huic est distinctioni obnoxius." Again
in the opening sentences of the Apology the Armenian text has the words, "Eum
autem qui rector atque creator est omnium, investigare perdifficile est 25." We
recognize at once in these words the ring of the characteristic Christian
quotation from the Timaeus, which is usually employed to shew the superior
illuminating power of Christian grace over philosophic research, but seems here
to be taken in the Platonic sense. The Armenian is perhaps a little nearer to
the Platonic language than the Syriac; both versions however will claim the
passage from the Timaeus as a parallel. |27

Allowing then for the occasional preservation of a passage in greater purity by
the Armenian fragment, we shall find that the Armenian translator has often made
changes, and added glosses, and epitomized sentences. For example, in the
summary of the Christian Faith, he describes the Son as the Logos, His mother as
the Theotokos. When the disciples are sent forth, in order that a certain
oi0konomi/a may be fulfilled, the Armenian translator calls it a dispensation of
illuminating truth; the preaching too is with 'signs following,' 'comitantibus
prodigiis,' which seems to come from Mark xvi. 20 and would be, if genuine, one
of the earliest illustrations of that text. It will be seen how large an element
of paraphrase is found in the Armenian text. The Armenian Fragment (from the
Venice edition).

IMPERATORI CAESARI HADRIANO,

ARISTIDES, PHILOSOPHUS ATHENIENSIS.

Ego, O Rex, Dei providentia creatus, hunc mundum ingressus sum, et caelis, terra
ac mari, sole, luna et stellis, caeterisque omnibus creaturis conspectis, huius
mundi constitutionem admirans miratus sum, atque conscius factus sum mihi,
quoniam omnia quae sunt in mundo necessitate ac vi diriguntur, omnium creatorem
et rectorem esse Deum: quia iis omnibus quae reguntur atque moventur, fortior
est creator et rector.

Eum autem, qui rector atque creator est omnium, investigare perdifficile atque
in immensum pertinens mihi videtur: penitus vero eum et certa ratione
describere, quum inexplicabilis et ineffabilis sit, impossibile et sine ulla
prorsus utilitate. Deus enim naturam habet infinitam, imperscrutabilem et
creaturis omnibus incomprehensibilem. Hoc unum scire necesse est, qui creaturas
universas Providentia sua gubernat, ipsum esse Dominum Deum et creatorem omnium:
quia visibilia omnia creavit bonitate sua, eaque humano generi donavit.
Quapropter Illum solum, utpote unum Deum, nos adorare et glorificare oportet:
unumquemque autem nostrum proximum suum sicut semetipsum diligere. |28

Verumtamen de Deo saltem sciendum est, Eum ab alio factum non fuisse, neque
semetipsum fecisse, atque, a nullo circumscriptum, omnia comprehendere. Ex se
ipsomet est 26. Ipse sapientia immortalis, principio et fine carens, immortalis
atque aeternus, perfectus, nulli necessitati obnoxius, et necessitatibus omnium
satisfaciens, nullo indigens et indigentiis omnium ipse magnificus opitulator.

Ipse est principio carens, quia, qui habet principium, habet et finem. Ipse sine
nomine, quod quicumque nomine appellatur, creatus est factusque ab alio. Ei
neque colores sunt neque forma: quod, quicumque his praeditus est, mensurabilis
est, limitibusque cogitur. Eius naturae nulla inest maris et feminae distinctio,
quia cupiditatibus agitatur qui huic est distinctioni obnoxius. Ipse sub caelis
incomprehensibilis est, quia caelos excedit: nec caeli caelorum Illo maiores
sunt, quia caeli caelorum et creaturae omnes quae sub caelis sunt, ab Illo
comprehenduntur.

Ipsi nemo contrarius neque adversarius: quod si quis Ei contrarias et
adversarius esse posset, eidem compar fieri videretur.

Ipse immobilis est atque praeter quemcumque terminum et circuitum: quia ubi et
unde moveri possit locus deest. Ipse neque mensura comprehendi, neque circumdari
potest, quia Ipse omnia replet, atque est ultra omnes visibiles et invisibiles
creaturas. Ipse neque ira, neque indignatione movetur, quia nulla caecitate
afficitur, quum omnino et absolute sit intellectualis. Propterea hisce omnibus
miraculis variis omnibusque beneficiis Ipse omnia creavit. Sacrificiis,
oblationibus et hostiis Ipse non indiget, neque, ulla in re, visibilibus
creaturis opus habet; quia omnia replet, et omnium egestatibus satisfacit, Ipse
numquam indigens ac semper gloriosus.

De Deo sapienter loqui ab ipso Deo mihi datum est, et pro meis viribus locutus
sum, quin tamen altitudinem imperscrutabilis magnitudinis Ejus comprehendere
possem. Sola fide vero Ilium glorificans adoro.

Nunc igitur ad genus humanum veniamus et quinam praefatas veritates secuti
fuerint videbimus, et quinam ab eis erraverint. Compertum est nobis, o Rex,
quatuor esse humani generis stirpes, quae sunt Barbarorum, Graecorum, Hebraeorum
atque Christianorum. Ethnici et Barbari genus suum ducunt a Belo, Crono et |29
Hiera, aliisque suis Divis pluribus. Graeci vero a Jove, qui Zeus vel Jupiter
dicitur, originem trahunt, per Helenum, Xuthum, aliosque eorum descendentes,
nempe Helladem, Inacum, Phoroneum, ac demum Danaum Aegyptium, Cadmum Sidonium,
ac Dionysium Thebanum. Hebraei autem genus suum ducunt ex Abrahamo, Isaaco,
Jacobo, et duodecim Jacobi filiis, qui e Syria in Aegyptum se receperunt, et a
legislature suo Hebraei nuncupati fuerunt, inde vero terram promissionis
ingressi, Judaei sunt appellati. Christianorum tandem genus a Domino Jesu
Christo oritur.

Ipse Dei altissimi est Filius, et una cum Spiritu Sancto revelatus est nobis: de
caelis descendit ex Hebraea Virgine natus, ex Virgine carnem assumpsit,
assumptaque humana natura, semetipsum Dei filium revelavit. Qui Evangelio suo
vivificante mundum Universum, consolatoria sua bonitate, sibi captivum fecit.

Ipse est Verbum, qui ex progenie Hebraica, secundum carnem, ex Maria virgine
Deipara natus est. Ipse est qui Apostolos duodecim inter suos discipulos elegit,
ut mundum Universum dispensatione. illuminantis Veritatis suae institueret. Ipse
ab Hebraeis crucifixus est: a mortuis resurrexit et ad caelos ascendit: in
mundum Universum discipulos suos mittens, qui divino et admirabili lumine suo,
comitantibus prodigiis, omnes gentes sapientiam docerent. Quorum praedicatio in
hunc usque diem germinat atque fructificat, orbem Universum vocans ad lucem.

Quatuor ergo nationes, O Rex, ostendi tibi: Barbaros, Graecos, Hebraeos atque
Christianos.

* * * * * * * * * * Divinitati spiritualis natura propria est, Angelis ignea,
daemoniis aquosa, generique humano terrestris.

* * * * * * * * * *

We have now reprinted all that is known of the Armenian translation of the
Apology; it is out of our limit and beyond our measure to think of reprinting
the actual Armenian text. For the purpose of comparison we add, however, another
copy of the same Armenian fragment, taken from a MS. at Edschmiazin, and
translated into English by Mr F. C. Conybeare, of Oxford, for whose kindly aid
we are very grateful. According to the information which he has supplied, the
MS. at Edschmiazin was written on paper, and is much worn by age. The date was
certainly not |30 later than the eleventh century. The fragment from the Apology
which it contains was followed by the fragment from the Homily on the Penitent
Thief. Here and there the text was illegible, and in these cases the missing
words have been supplied from the Venice text, as reprinted by Pitra. The two
texts in question are moreover in very close agreement, except for the
occasional addition of a word or two by the Edschmiazin MS. The rendering is
designedly a literal one. The Armenian Fragment (from the Edschmiazin MS.). TO
THE AUTOCRATIC CAESAR ADRIANOS FROM ARISTIDES, ATHENIAN PHILOSOPHER.

I, O Ruler, who was by the providence of God created and fashioned man in the
world, and who have beheld the heaven and the earth and the sea, the sun and the
moon and the stars and all creatures, wondered and was amazed at the eternal 27
order thereof. I also by reflection learned that the world and all that is
therein is by necessity and force guided and moved and of the whole God is
controuler and orderer: for that which controuls is more powerful than that
which is controuled and moved. To enquire about Him who is guardian and
controuls all things seems to me to quite exceed the comprehension and to be
most difficult, and to speak accurately concerning Him is beyond compass of
thought and of speech, and bringeth no advantage; for His nature is infinite and
unsearchable, and imperceptible,28 and inaccessible to all creatures. We can
only know that He who governs by His providence all created things, He is Lord
and God and creator of all, who ordered all things visible in His beneficence,
and graciously bestowed them on the race of man. Now it is meet that we serve
and glorify Him alone as God, and love one another as ourselves. But this much
alone can we know concerning God, |31 that He was not generated from any source,
and did not Himself make Himself, and is not contained by aught, but Himself
contains all. Au)togene\j ei]doj 29 and wisdom immortal, without beginning or
end, not passing away and undying, He is complete and wanteth nothing, while He
fulfilleth all wants. In Himself He wanteth nought, but gives to and fulfils the
needs of all. In Himself He is without beginning, for He is beginning of
everything whatever, and is perfect. In Himself He is nameless, for whatever is
named is fashioned out of something else30 and created. Colour and form of Him
there is not, for that falls under measure and limit, unto whatsoever colour and
form belong. Male and female in that nature there is not, for that is subject to
particular passions, in whatsoever that distinction exists. Within the heavens
He is not contained, for He is beyond31 the heavens; neither are the heavens
greater than He, for the heavens and all creation are contained in Him. Counter
to Him and opposed there is no one: if any one be found counter to Him, it
appears that that one becometh associate with Him. He is unmoved and unmeasured
and ineffable; for there is no place whence or with which He could move; and He
is not, by being measured, contained or environed on any side, for it is Himself
that filleth all, and He transcends all things visible and invisible. Wrath and
anger there is not in Him, for there is not in Him blindness, but He is wholly
and entirely rational, and on that account He established creation with divers
wonders and entire beneficence. Need hath He none of victims and oblations and
sacrifices, and of all that is in the visible creation He wanteth nought. For He
fulfilleth the wants of all and completeth them, and being in need of nothing He
is glorified unto all time.

Now by the grace of God it was given me to speak wisely concerning Him. So far
as I have received the faculty I will speak, yet not according to the measure of
the inscrutability of His greatness shall I be able to do so, but by faith alone
do I glorify and adore Him.

Let us next come to the race of man, and see who are capable |32 of receiving
the truth of these sayings, and who are gone astray. It is manifest32, O Ruler,
for there are four tribes33 of the human race. There are barbarians, and some
are Greeks and others Hebrews, and there are who are Christians. But the
heathens and barbarians count their descent from Baal, and from Cronos, and from
Hera, and from many others of their gods. But the Greeks say Zeus (who is Dios)
is their founder34, and reckon their descent from Helenos and Xuthos, and one
after another from Hellas, Inachos and Phoroneus, and also finally from Danaus
the Egyptian, and from Cadmus the Sidonian, and Dionysius the Theban. But the
Jews reckon their race from Abraham, and Abraham's son they say was Isaac, and
from Isaac Jacob, and from Jacob the twelve who migrated from Assyria into Egypt
and were there named the tribes of the Hebrews by their lawgiver, and having
come into the land of recompence, were named......35 the tribes of the Jews. But
the Christians reckon their race from the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Himself Son
of God on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven,
and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin, and was
manifested in the nature of humanity the Son of God: who sought to win the
entire world to His eternal goodness by His life-giving preaching36. He it is
who was according to the flesh born of the race of the Hebrews, by the
God-bearing37 virgin Miriam. He chose the twelve disciples, and He by his
illuminating truth, dispensing |33 it38 taught, all the world, and was nailed on
the cross by the Jews. Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and sent
forth His disciples into the whole world39, and taught all with divinely
miraculous and profoundly wise wonders. Their preaching until this day blossoms
and bears fruit, and summons all the world to receive the light.

These are the four tribes, whom we set before thee, O Ruler, Barbarians, Greeks,
Jews and Christians. But to the Deity is appointed the spiritual, and to angels
the fiery, and to devils the watery, and to the race of men the earth.

* * * * * * * * * * An additional Armenian Fragment of Aristides.

Over and above the fragments of the lost Apology of Aristides, and the homily de
Latrone, there is a scrap printed by Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense which
professes to come from an epistle of Aristides to all Philosophers. It is, as
far as we can judge, in the form in which we have it presented to us, a
theological product of the time of the Monophysite controversy. But we must bear
in mind what we have learned from the Armenian fragment of the Apology, that an
Armenian translation is made up out of the matter of the original writer plus
the terms and definitions of the translator, as for instance we see to have
happened in the ascription of the term Qeoto&koj to the Blessed Virgin. And the
question is whether under the amplified folds of the theology of this fragment
printed by Pitra there may be hidden the more scanty terms of a theologian of
the second century, and if so, whether the writer be our Aristides, and the work
quoted be the Apology or some other work. In order to test this point, we will
give a rendering of the fragment into Greek, for which again I am indebted to
the kindness of Mr Conybeare. |34 Armenian Fragment.

(Frag. iii. of Pitra.) FROM AN EPISTLE OF ARISTIDES TO ALL PHILOSOPHERS.

[Greek].40 41

Now with reference to the foregoing passage, we may say at once that the concluding terms are not second-century language at all. On the other hand, the reference to the "Hebrew virgin" is precisely the language of the Apology. Further, the opening words of the fragment, with their allusion to a real passion of a real body, are certainly anti-Docetic, and therefore may be taken as second-century theology. We may compare with them the sentiments of the Ignatian epistles, as for example the letter to the Smyrnaeans (c. ii.), where we read:
----

[Greek]

It does not, therefore, seem as if these words in the opening of the fragment
were a translator's invention or addition. They have a second-century ring about
them. If so, then the extract is either a translation of a paragraph of the
Apology, or of some other tract by the same writer, and probably the latter. We
have, however, no means of discriminating further the original form of the
sentence from the later accretions. It is, however, by no means impossible that
the heading may be correct; that Aristides may have written an epistle or
address to Philosophers on the subject of the Christian religion in general, or
of the Incarnation in particular. |35 [Footnotes renumbered and moved to the
end]

1. 1 Especially by M. Renan, who in his Origines de Christianisme, vol. vi. p.
vi., says: "Le présent volume était imprimé quand j'ai eu connaissance d'une
publication des mékhitaristes de Venise contenant en Arménien, avec traduction
Latine, deux morceaux, dont l'un serait l'Apologie adressée par Aristide à
Adrien. L'authenticité de cette pièce ne soutient pas l'examen. C'est une
composition plate, qui répondrait bien mal à ce que Eusèbe et S. Jérôme disent
du talent de l'auteur et surtout à cette particularité que l'ouvrage était
contextum philosophorum sententiis. L'écrit Arménien ne présente pas une seule
citation d'auteur profane. La théologie qu'on y trouve, en ce qui concerne la
Trinité, l'incarnation, la qualité de mère de Dieu attribuée à Marie, est
postérieure au ive siècle. L'érudition historique ou plutôt mythologique est
aussi bien indigne d'un écrivain du ii° siècle. Le second 'sermon' publié par
les mékhitaristes a encore moins de droit à être attribué au philosophe Chrétien
d'Athènes: le manuscrit porte Aristaeus: c'est une homélie insignificable sur le
bon larron."

M. Renan was rightly opposed in this sweeping negation of authenticity by
Doulcet, who pointed out relations between Aristides and the Timaeus as a
justification of the philosophical character of the work. Unfortunately Doulcet
went too far, by trying to identify Aristides with the author of the Epistle to
Diognetus.

Harnack (Theol. LZ. 1879, no. 10, col. 375 f.) was very favourable to the
genuineness of the fragment, and made some excellent points in its defence.

M. Renan will now have the opportunity of verifying for himself that the term
Theotokos, to which he objected so strongly as savouring of the fourth century,
is not in the Syriac text.

2. 1 See Wright's Catalogue, p. 1160. The general contents of this MS. (Brit.
Mus. 987) should be compared with those of the MS. here described: it contains
e.g. the Apology of Melito and the Hypomnemata of Ambrose, and various
Philosophical treatises.

3. 1 Quoted by Eckhel, Doctrina vii. Ft. n. p. 36. This would seem to resolve
the perplexity of Spartianus as to the origin of the name.

4. 2 Die griechischen Apologeten p. 101. I need not say how much I am indebted
to Harnack's investigations. It will be apparent throughout these pages.

5. 1 "Quadratus apostolorum discipulus, Publio Athenarum episcopo ob Christi
fidem martyrio coronato, in locum eius substituitur et ecclesiam grandi terrore
dispersam fide et industria sua congregat. Cumque Hadrianus Athenis exegisset
hiemem, invisens Eleusinam, et omnibus paene Graeciae sacris initiatus dedisset
occasionem his, qui Christianos oderant, absque praecepto imperatoris vexare
credentes, porrexit ei librum &c."

6. 1 Lightfoot, Ignatius, ed. ii. 11. 541.

7. 2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, ex apologia Melitonis, [Greek]. This certainly looks
like an outbreak of persecution in Greece.

8. 1 Dial. 16.

9. 1 Mart. Polyc. 20.

10. 2 Euseb. H. E. v. 26.

11. 1 Migne, Patr. Lat. cxxiii.

12. 1 Die Griechischen Apologeten, p. 107 note. I cannot find it in Briefwechsel
des Beatus Rhenanus by Horawitz and Hartfelder, Leipzig, 1886. I understand,
however, from Prof. Kawerau, that it may be found in Epistolarum G. Wicelii
libri tres, Lipsiae, 1537.

13. 1 Origen c. Celsum, lib. iv. 23.

14. 2 lib. iv. 74.

15. 1 lib. iv. 77.

16. 2 Justin Apol. i. c. 10.

17. 3 Ep. ad Diogn. 10.

18. 1 Orig. c. Cels. i. 26 [Greek] 19. 2 Orig. c. Cels. iv. 32.

20. 1 Orig. c. Cels. i. 26.

21. 2 Orig. c. Cels. iii. 19.

22. 1 Orig. c. Cels. i. 32.

23. 1 Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1877, ii. p. 289, f. 1880, I. p. 109-127.

24. 2 Cohortatio, c. viii.

25. 3 Plato, Timaeus, 28 C, [Greek] 26. 1 Sensus dubius: armeniaca verba idem
sonant ac graeca au)togene\j ei]doj.

27. 1 Here there is a copyist's error in the Edschmiazin text.

28. 2 Here the Edschmiazin text adds a word which means 'not to be observed or
looked at.'

29. 1 au0togene\j (or au)toge/nnhton) ei]doj is the Greek that answers to the
Armenian texts. 'Ex se ipsomet est' does not give the sense. I give the Greek,
for I really hardly know how to render it in English.

30. 2 Or "by another."

31. 3 e0pe/keina.

32. 1 So it stands in the Venice text: but in the Edschmiazin copy, for
'manifest' there is a word which means 'the name' followed by a lacuna of a few
letters, as if the scribe had intended to read 'I will recount the names, O
Ruler,' or something of that kind.

33. 2 The word answers to the Greek fulai/ or dh~moi. In the same sense at the
end of the fragment another word is used, answering rather to ge/nh.

34. 3 These three words are added to make sense, the whole passage being
grammatically much confused.

35. 4 Here the Edschmiazin MS. was unreadable from age. The printed text has no
lacuna and gives no hint of the word whatever it was which was read in the
Edschmiazin text.

36. 5 eu)agge/lion.

37. 6 The word Qeoto&koj is implied.

38. 1 Oi0konomiko&j is here rendered. Perhaps it should be taken as an epithet
of 'truth,' for in the original it precedes the word 'illuminating.' 39. 2
Oi0koume/nhn.

40. 1 The same word is used by the translator to render sw~ma and sa&rc.

41. 2 More exactly e9autou~: an additional word being necessary in the Armenian
in order to give the sense 'conjunxit sibi': but the sense seems to require
e9autw~|. This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this
page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: THE APOLOGY - INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

Introduction.

Introduction. The Church Histories, hitherto in dealing with early Christian
literature, have given Aristides along with Quadratus the first place in the
list of lost apologists. It was known that there had been such early defenders
of the faith, and that Quadratus had seen persons who had been miraculously
healed by Christ; but beyond this little more could be said. To Justin Martyr,
who flourished about A.D. 150, belonged the honour of heading the series of
apologists whose works are extant, viz., Tatian, Melito, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, who all belonged to the
second century and wrote in Greek; and Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and
Lactantius, who wrote in Latin, and Clement and Origen who wrote in Greek,
during the third century. While Christianity was winning its way to recognition
in the Roman empire, these writers tried to disprove the gross calumnies current
about Christians, to enlighten rulers and magistrates as to the real character
and conduct of the adherents of the new religion, and to remove the prejudice
which led to the violent persecutions of the populace. They also endeavoured to
commend Christianity to "the cultured among its despisers," by showing that it
is philosophy as well as revelation, that it can supply the answers sought by
philosophy, and is unlike human wisdom in being certain because divinely
revealed. At the same time they demonstrated the folly of polytheism and pointed
out its disastrous effects on morality. This faithful company of the defenders
of the faith has now regained Aristides as their leader in place of Justin
Martyr. It will be well to recount briefly what was previously known about
Aristides, and to tell how the lost Apology has been found.

Eusebius, in his History of the Church, written during the reign of Constantine,
A.D. 306-387, has a chapter (bk. iv., c. 3) headed "The authors that wrote in
defence of the faith in the reign of Hadrian, A.D. 117-188." After describing
and quoting the Apology of Quadratus, he adds:

"Aristides also, a man faithfully devoted to the religion we profess, like
Quadratus, has left to posterity a defence of the faith, addressed to Hadrian.
This work is also preserved by a great number, even to the present day." The
same Eusebius in his Chronicon states that the Emperor Hadrian visited Athens in
the eighth year of his reign (i.e., A.D. 125 ) and took part in the Eleusinian
mysteries. In the same connection the historian mentions the presentation of
Apologies to the Emperor by Quadratus and Aristides, "an Athenian philosopher;
"and implies that Hadrian was induced by these appeals, coupled with a letter
from Serenius Granianus, proconsul of Asia, to issue an Imperial rescript
forbidding the punishment of Christians without careful investigation and trial.

About a century later Jerome (died A.D. 420) tells us that Aristides was a
philosopher of Athena, that he retained his philosopher's garb after his
conversion to Christianity, and that he presented a defence of the faith to
Hadrian at the same time as Quadratus. This Apology, he says, was extant in his
day, and was largely composed of the opinions of philosophers ("contextum
philosophorum sententiis "), and was afterwards imitated by Justin Martyr. After
this date Aristides passes out of view. In the mediaeval martyrologies there is
a faint reflection of the earlier testimony, as, e.g., the 31st of August is
given as the saint's day "of the blessed Aristides, most renowned for faith and
wisdom, who presented books on the Christian religion to the prince Hadrian, and
most brilliantly proclaimed in the presence of the Emperor himself how that
Christ Jesus is the only God." In the seventeenth century there were rumours
that the missing Apology of Aristides was to be found. in various monastic
libraries in Greece; and Spon, a French traveller, made a fruitless search for
it. The book had apparently disappeared for ever. But in recent times Aristides
has again "swum into our ken." Armenian literature, which has done service to
Christendom by preserving so many of its early documents, supplied also the
first news of the recovery of Aristides. In the Mechitarite convent of b.
Lazarus at Venice there is a body of Armenian monks who study Armenian and other
literature. In 1878 these Armenians surprised the learned world by publishing a
Latin translation of an Armenian fragment (the first two chapters) of the lost
Apology of Aristides. Renan at once set it down as spurious because it contained
theological terms of a later age, e.g., "bearer of God" applied to the Virgin
Mary. These terms were afterwards seen to be due to the translator. At what time
the translation from Greek into Armenian was made is not apparent; but it may
reasonably be connected with the work begun by the famous Armenian patriarch
Mesrobes. This noble Christian invented an alphabet for his country, established
schools, and sent a band of young Armenians to Edessa, Athens, and elsewhere
with instructions to translate into Armenian the best sacred and classical
books. And in spite of Mohammedans and Turks Armenia has remained Christian, and
now restores to the world the treasures committed to its keeping in the early
centuries.

Opinions as to the Armenian fragment of Aristides remained undecided till 1889.
In the spring of that year Professor J. Rendel Harris, of Cambridge, had the
honour of discovering a Syriac version of the whole Apology in the library of
the Convent of St. Catharine, on Mount Sinai. He found the Apology of Aristides
among a collection of Syriac treatises of an ethical character; and he refers
the ms. to the seventh century. Professor Harris has translated the Syriac into
English, and has carefully edited the Syriac text with minute discussions of
every point of interest.1 The recovery of the Syriac version by Professor Harris
placed the genuineness of the Armenian fragment beyond question. It also led to
the strange reappearance of the greater part of the original Greek. Professor J.
A. Robinson, the general editor of the Cambridge Texts and Studies, having read
the translation of the Syriac version, discovered that the Apology of Aristides
is incorporated in the early Christian Romance entitled, The Life of Barlaam and
Josaphat.

Some account must be given of this remarkable book in order to show its
connection with the Apology of Aristides. Its author is said to be John of
Damascus, who died about A.D. 760. Whoever wrote it, the book soon became very
popular. In the East it was translated into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and
Hebrew; in the West there are versions of it in nearly a dozen languages,
including an English metrical rendering. As early as 1204 a king of Norway had
it translated into Icelandic. It is now known to be the story of Buddha in a
Christian setting, furnished with fables and parables which have migrated from
the far East and can be traced back to an extreme antiquity. The outline of the
story is as follows: A king in India, Abenner by name, who is an enemy of the
Christians, has an only son Josaphat (or Joasaph). At his birth the astrologers
predict that he will become great, but will embrace the new doctrine. To prevent
this, his father surrounds the prince with young and beautiful attendants, and
takes care that Josaphat shall see nothing of illness, old age, or death. At
length Josaphat desires his freedom, and then follow the excursions as in the
case of Buddha. Josaphat seeing so much misery possible in life is sunk in
despair. In this state he is visited by a Christian hermit-Barlaam by name.
Josaphat is converted to Christianity, and Barlaam withdraws again to the
desert. To undo his son's conversion the king arranges that a public disputation
shall be held; one of the king's sages, Nachor by name, is to personate Barlaam
and to make a very weak statement of the Christian case, and so be easily
refuted by the court orators. When the day comes, the prince Josaphat charges
Nachor, the fictitious monk, to do his best on pain of torture. Thus stimulated,
Nachor begins, and "like Balaam's ass he spake that which he had not purposed to
speak; and he said, `I, O king, in the providence of God, 'etc." He then recites
the Apology of Aristides to such purpose that he converts himself, the king, and
all his people. Josaphat finally relinquishes his kingdom, and retires into the
desert with the genuine Barlaam for prayer and meditation. Not only so, but the
churches of the Middle Ages, forgetting the fabulous character of the story,
raised Barlaam and Josaphat to the rank of saints, with a holy day in the
Christian calendar. Thus the author of Barlaam and Josaphat caused Christianity
unwittingly to do honour to the founder of Buddhism under the name of St.
Josaphat; and also to read the Apology of Aristides in nearly twenty languages
without suspecting what it was. The speech of Nachor in Greek, that is to say,
the greater part of the original Greek of the Apology of Aristides, has been
extracted from this source by Professor Robinson and is published in Texts and
Studies, Vol. I., so that there is now abundant material for making an estimate
of Aristides.

It may be asked whether we have in any of our three sources the actual words of
Aristides. The circumstances under which the Apology was incorporated in The
Life of Barlaam and Josaphat are such as to render it unlikely that the author
of the Romance should copy with the faithfulness of a scribe; but examination
proves that very few modifications have been made. The Greek divides men into
three races (the Syriac and Armenian into four); the introductory accounts of
these races are in the Greek blended with the general discussion; and at the
close the description of early Christian customs is shortened. These few
differences from the Syriac are all explained by the fact that the Apology had
to be adapted to the circumstances of an Indian court in a later age. On the
other hand, when the Syriac is compared with the Greek and Armenian in passages
where these two agree, it is found that explanatory clauses are added; and there
is throughout a cumbrous redundancy of pronouns in the Syriac. In short, the
actual words of Aristides may be restored with tolerable certainty-a task which
has been already accomplished by a German scholar, Lic. Edgar Hennecke.2 In any
case we have the substance of the Apology of Aristides with almost verbal
precision. In regard to the date of Aristides, Eusebius says expressly that the
Apology was presented to Hadrian while he was in Athens about the year A.D. 125.
The only ground for questioning this statement is the second superscription
given in the Syriac version, which implies that the Apology was presented to
Antoninus Pius, A.D. 138-161. This heading is accepted by Professor Harris as
the true one; and he assigns the Apology to "the early years of the reign of
Antoninus Pius; and it is at least conceivable," he adds, "that it may have been
presented to the Emperor along with other Christian writings during an
unrecorded visit of his to his ancient seat of government at Smyrna." But this
requires us to suppose that Eusebius was wrong; that Jerome copied his error;
that the Armenian version curiously fell into the same mistake; and that the
Syriac translator is at this point exceptionally faithful. So perhaps it is
better with Billius, "not to trust more in one's own suspicions, than in
Christian charity which believeth all things," and to rest in the comfortable
hypothesis that Eusebius spoke the truth.

Writing in A.D. 125, or even twenty years later, Aristides becomes an important
witness as to the nature of early Christianity. His Apology contains no express
quotation from Scripture; but the Emperor is referred for information to a
gospel which is written. Various echoes of New Testament expressions will at
once be recognized; and "the language moulding power of Christianity "is
discernible in the new meaning given to various classical words. Some topics are
conspicuous by their absence. Aristides has no trace of ill-feeling to the Jews;
no reference to the Logos doctrine, nor to the distinctive ideas of the Apostle
Paul; he has no gnosticism or heresy to denounce, and he makes no appeal to
miracle and prophecy. Christianity, in his view, is worthy of a philosophic
emperor because it is eminently reasonable, and gives an impulse and power to
live a good life. On the whole, Aristides represents that type of Christian
practice which is found in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; and to this he
adds a simple Christian philosophy which may be compared with that of St. Paul
at Athens. Although the details about the elements and the heathen gods are
discussed with tedious minuteness, still his closing section describing the
lives of the early Christians should always be good reading. The translation of
the Syriac given here is independently made from the Syriac text, edited by
Professor Harris3 . Full advantage has been taken of his notes and apparatus
criticus, but no use has been made of his translation. In obscure passages the
German translation of Dr. Richard Raabe4 has been compared; and the
Text-Rekonstruktion of Hennecke has been consulted on textual points in both
translations. The Greek translation is made from the text edited by Professor
Robinson.5 The translations from the Greek and from the Syriac are arranged side
by side, so that their relation to one another is apparent at a glance. No
attempt has been made to force the same English words from passages which are
evidently meant to be identical in the two languages; but the literal tenour of
each has been allowed to assert itself.

1 Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Edited
by J. A. Robinson, B.D. Vol i., No. 1, the Apology of Aristides, edited and
translated by J. Rendel Harris, MA., with an Appendix by J. A. Robinson, B.D.
(Cambridge University Press.)

2 Die Apologie des Aristides. Recension und Rekonstruktion des Textes, von Lic.
Edgar Hennecke. (Die Griechischen Apologeten: Heft 3.) 3 The Cambridge Texts and
Studies, vol i., No. 1.

4 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur,
Gebhardt und Harnak, IX. Band, Heft 1.

5 The Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i., No. 1.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: THE APOLOGY - PREFACE TO THE ONLINE TEXT
========================================================================

Aristides the Philosopher: Apology. Preface to the online text. In the printed
edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 10 contains a translation in parallel
columns of both the Greek and the Syriac texts of the Apology of Aristides.
However the translation itself is absent from the Christian Classics Ethereal
Library, perhaps because it was found hard to layout. I have scanned this, but I
gather it will not appear soon online. Rather than have this most interesting
text offline, I have departed from the general approach of this collection, and
included it here.

Roger PEARSE 21st November 2003 This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003.
All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: THE APOLOGY - PREFATORY MATTER TO THE 1891 TRANSLATION
========================================================================

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) Prefatory matter.

TEXTS AND STUDIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL. I. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA THE LORD'S PRAYER IN
THE EARLY CHURCH THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1891 [Photograph of manuscript folio] TEXTS
AND STUDIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON M.A.

FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL. I.

No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1891 London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,

AVE MARIA LANE.

[Arms omitted] Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.

Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.

New York: MACMILLAN AND CO. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES ON BEHALF OF THE CHRISTIANS
FROM A SYRIAC MS. PRESERVED ON MOUNT SINAI EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND
TRANSLATION BY J. RENDEL HARRIS M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE AND NOW PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL
LANGUAGES IN HAVERFORD COLLEGE PENNSYLVANIA WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE MAIN
PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT BY J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON M.A.

FELLOW AND ASSISTANT TUTOR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE CAMBRIDGE AT THE
UNIVERSITY PRESS

1891 [All Rights reserved]

Cambridge :

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE. THE first part of this tract contains the Syriac text of the lost
Apology of Aristides, accompanied by such comments and elucidations as I have
been able to give to the subject. It is my first venture in Syriac, and I am
thankful to my learned friends who have from time to time assisted me with
suggestions and criticisms for the elimination of some of the more glaring
errors. Amongst them I may mention especially Professor Bensly, of Cambridge,
and Professor Isaac A. Hall, of New York. In the attempt to give the Armenian
fragments of the Apology, in such a form as may make them accessible for
critical use, I have had the valuable aid of Mr Conybeare, of Oxford, who placed
at my disposal the results of his own work at Edschmiazin. When the pages were
almost through the printer's hands, my friend Mr J. A. Robinson, of Christ's
College, by one of those happy accidents, as we call them, upon which progress
depends, discovered that substantially the whole of the Greek text was extant,
and had been incorporated in that charming half-Greek and half-Oriental story,
the Lives of Barlaam and Joasaph. Of course this means that, for the greater
part of the Apology of Aristides, we have copies and versions in good number
(Greek, Latin, Ethiopic, Arabic, Old French, etc.). This opens quite a new field
before the student of Christian Apologetics. Need I say how gladly I make way
for him in the Appendix, which will really be the text itself; and that I say in
the language of the Acts of St Perpetua : "Hic ordinem totum Apologiae iam hinc
ipse narrabit...manu sua et suo sensu."

J. RENDEL HARRIS.

NOTE. WITH the aid of the photographs taken by Prof. Harris the Syriac text has
been carefully revised by Prof. Bensly, who has taken special pains with the
reproduction of the punctuation of the MS. There seems occasionally to be some
deviation from the ordinary system in the use of the diacritical points : but as
it is impossible to tell from the photographs to what date the punctuation
belongs, it has seemed better to reproduce it without attempting to mend it. The
English translation was in the first instance made by Prof. Harris : but the
discovery of the Greek made it necessary that it should undergo a complete
revision, in order that scholars who do not read Syriac might be able to form a
better estimate of the relation of the Syriac to the Greek, than could be given
by a translation made without any reference to the latter. Moreover in several
places the Greek cast new light upon the Syriac where it was obscure before. The
task of revision would have been entirely beyond my power, but for the kind
patience of Prof. Bensly, who allowed me to read the whole piece through with
him. At his suggestion too I have added, within brackets, a few notes in
addition to those made by Prof. Harris. The Facsimile of a page of the Syriac
MS. has been made from one of Prof. Harris's photographs. It corresponds with
[Syr] 5 — [Syr] 9 of this edition.

J.A. R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION 1-34

Description of the Syriac MS 3 Aristides and Eusebius 6 Celsus and Aristides 19
The Symbol of the Faith in the time of Aristides 23 The Armenian Fragment of the
Apology 26 An additional Armenian Fragment of Aristides 33

TRANSLATION OF THE SYRIAC VERSION 35-51 NOTES ON THE SYRIAC VERSION 52-64

APPENDIX 65-118

The original Greek of the Apology of Aristides 67 The Greek text of 'Barlaam and
Josaphat' 80 The bearing of the Apology on the Canon 82 The Apology and the
Didaché 84 The Apology and the Preaching of Peter 86 The Greek text edited from
three MSS 100 Index of Greek words 113 Index of subject matter 117

THE SYRIAC TEXT OF THE APOLOGY [Syriac]

[Blank page] This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on
this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: THE APOLOGY - SELECTED NOTES ON THE SYRIAC VERSION_1891
========================================================================

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 52-64. Selected Notes
on the Syriac Version NOTES ON THE SYRIAC VERSION.

[Note to the online text: the majority of these notes are concerned with or cite
copious quantities of the Syriac text. This page includes only a selection of
those notes likely to be of use to English-speaking readers] p. 35, 1. 7. The
demonstration of Divine Providence from the contemplation of the heavenly bodies
is common to all forms of Theistic teaching: consequently it occurs freely in
Christian Apologetics. We may compare the following passages:

Melito, Oration to Antoninus Caesar (Cureton, Spic. Syr, p. 46). "He hath set
before thee the heavens, and He has placed in them the stars. He hath set before
thee the sun and the moon, and they every day fulfil their course therein... He
hath set before thee the clouds which by ordinance bring water from above and
satisfy the earth: that from these things thou mightest understand, that He who
moveth these is greater than they all, [Syriac] and that thou mightest accept
the goodness of Him who hath given to thee a mind by which thou mayest
distinguish these things."

Origen, De Principiis, II. 1. 5. "But that we may believe on the authority of
Holy Scripture, that such is the case, hear how in the books of Maccabees, |53
where the mother of the seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this
truth is confirmed: for she says, ' I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven
and earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding them, to know that
God made all these things when they did not exist.'" [2 Macc. vii. 28.]

Id. iv. 1. 7. "The artistic plan of a providential Ruler is not so evident in
matters belonging to the earth, as in the case of the sun, moon and stars." l.
11. Cf. Melito, Oration p. 50. "He made the lights that His works might behold
one another, and lie concealcth Himself in His might from all His works." ll.
14, 15. A comparison with the Armenian suggests that something has fallen out
here. The Syriac cannot be translated as it stands. The Greek unfortunately
fails us at this point.

1. 19 (r^ 19). The early Christian teachers emphasised strongly this belief that
the world was made for the sake of man: consequently we must not assume, if we
find the same statement in Justin Martyr, that the idea was borrowed from
Aristides, for it is a part of the regular second -century teaching. The
following parallels may be quoted:

Justin, Apol. I. 10. [Greek] Dial. 41. [Greek].

Ps. Justin, Ep. ad Diogn. 10. [Greek]. i. 23. Cf. Philo, Fragments, p. 70:
[Greek] Id. de Fortitudine § 3. [Greek] |54 Acta Mar Kardaghi (ed. Abbeloos, p.
30): [Syriac] l. 28. The same philosophical opinion will be found almost in the
same words in Eustathius contra Arianos quoted in John of Damascus, Parallels p.
314, [Greek] l. 30. We may compare the following passages from Justin and from
the Epistle to Diognetus, in view of Jerome's statement that Justin imitated
Aristides, and the modern theory of Doulcet as to the authorship of the
anonymous epistle to Diognctus.

Justin, Apol. I. 9. [Greek] Justin, Apol. II. 6.[Greek] Justin, Dial. 4. [Greek]
Justin, Apol. I. 10. [Greek] Ep. ad Diogn. 3. [Greek] p.36, l. 18. 'The head of
the race of their religion.' This seems to be a conflation of the two phrases
which occur lower down: ' the head of their race,' and ' the beginning of their
religion.' It should be simply ' the head of their race,' as we see from the
Greek.] l. 23. The Armenian has ' Kadmus the Sidonian and Dionysus the Theban.'
Cf. Herod. II. 91 [Greek]. But Kadmus is a Sidonian in Eur. Bacch. 171 and Ovid,
Met. iv. 571.

[l. 27. The statement that the people received the name of ' Hebrews ' from
Moses is peculiar to the Syr. and Arm. translations.] l. 29. The writer not only
deduces the name of the Christians from the title of their founder, but he is
also ready, like Justin and other |55 fathers, to compare the name with the
Greek word xrhsto&j, as we shall see in the closing chapter. The following
parallels may be noted in Justin. Justin, Apol. I. 12. [Greek] ; Dial. 63.
[Greek]; Ibid. 138. [Greek] l. 32. With the closing words of this sentence we
may compare the Syriac Acts of John (ed. Wright), p. 37, [Syriac] where we
should correct the text so as to read "and when formed as a child in the womb He
was. with His Father." l. 34 . The Gospel is clearly a written one, and not the
general message (eu)agge/lion). In c. xvi. we again find Aristides offering the
Emperor the Christian Scriptures. p. 37, l. 1. Another instance of the formula
'He was crucified by the Jews,' beyond those to which we have already drawn
attention, may be found in a fragment of Melito preserved by Anastasius Sinaita;
[Greek] for which the Syriac rendering is given by Cureton, Spic. Syr. In later
times we may expect to find similar language, though the expression itself
disappears from the Creed. In Acta Mar Kardaghi p. 37 we have the following
(loquitur Satanas), [Syriac] and again in p. 74 [Syriac]. The idea of the Jews
being the special agents of Satan in the Crucifixion |56 comes out also in an
unpublished a)ntilogia& between the Devil and Christ, which is preserved in a
MS. at Jerusalem (Cod. 66, S. Sep.), where we read [Greek].

[Compare also the Letter of Pilate in the Acts of Peter and Paul § 42 (Tisch.
Acta Apocr., Lips. 1851, p. 17): [Greek]] l. 20. The injunction to have a care
that your gods be not stolen is not uncommon with the early Christians, and it
is not improbable that they were able to refer to special and notable cases of
violation of temples and mutilation of images. We may refer, at all events, to
the following parallels: Justin, Apol. I. 9. [Greek]; Ep. ad Diogn. 2. [Greek]
l. 26. Compare c. vii. From the "Teaching of the Apostles" (c. vi. 3) onwards,
idolatry is known as a 'worship of dead gods': e.g. Melito, Oration p. 43, "But
I affirm that also the Sibyl has said respecting them, that it is the images of
kings, who are dead, they worship." p. 38, l. 1 (co 19). The writer now proceeds
to discuss the views of those who either sought the First Principle in one of
the elements or imagined it to be located in one of the heavenly bodies. And it
is common for the early Christian writers to demolish the philosophic schools in
detail according as they found them referring the origin of all things to water,
as Thaïes; or air, as Anaximenes; or fire, as Heraclitus; or earth, as
Pherecydes and Xenophanes. We may compare Plutarch De placitis philosophorum i.
3, and then notice how the Christian apologists deal with the matter. The writer
of the Epistle to Diognetus thinks that, if a god is to be found amongst the
elements, one element or created thing is as good as another: Ep. ad Diogn. 8.
[Greek].

Melito deals even more shortly with the matter, and in a rude common-sense
manner says that we may call a creature God without making it to be divine:

Oration, p. 42. "And if, therefore, a man...say that there is another God, it is
found from his own words that he calleth some created thing God. For if a man
call fire God, it is not God, because it is fire; and if a man call the waters
God, they are not God, because they are waters; and if this earth which we tread
upon, and if those heavens which are seen by us, and if the sun, or the moon, or
one of those stars which run their course by |57 ordinance and rest not, nor
proceed by their own will—and if a man call gold and silver gods: are not these
things that we use as we please?"

It will be seen that their treatment of the subject was superficial, no other
treatment being, in fact, necessary. Aristides, however, takes the matter more
seriously and examines each case in detail by the light of his previously stated
axioms concerning the divine nature. p. 39, l. 1 This phrase, 'your majesty,'
does not in any way suggest that more than one person is addressed. l. 25 He is
referring to Apollo, Poseidon and Asklepios: cf. Tertullian, Apol. 14, Hic
Apollinem Admeto regi pascendis pecoribus addicit, ille Nepturii structorias
operas Laomedonti locat. Est et illis de lyricis (Pindarum dico) qui Aescolapium
canit avaritiae merito, quia medicinam nocenter exercebat, fulmine iudicatum.
|58 l. 21. The translator gives the Syriac name for Saturn, [Syriac] . In the
Classical Review for June 1890, p. 259, Prof. Margoliouth reviewing Budge's
Pseudo-Callisthenes remarks as follows, "On p. 9 after the name of each planet
we are told what the Persian for it is: surely this implies that the book which
the translator had before him was in Persian. I will quote one of these, because
Mr Budge has by accident missed the truth. The name of Saturn is omitted from
the list, but instead we read, the colour [Syriac] of a black stone, and the
horoscopus of helani which is called in Persian Farnüg'. Mr Budge would emend
Farnüg', but it is a Persian word signifying Saturn ...... Hence [Syriac]
'colour' must stand for a word signifying Saturn; and this will be the Persian
[Persian] which the translator has read [Persian] 'colour'." It would seem to be
a more direct process simply to emend the Syriac into [Syriac]. p. 42, l. 2. The
amours of the gods are, as might have been expected, the staple of early
Christian apologetics. A few references may be given in illustration of the
scornful summary of Olympic history given by Aristides. Justin, Apol. I. 21.
[Greek]; Justin, Apol. I. 25. [Greek]; Recog. Clément, x. 22. "Antiopen Nyctei
versus in Satyrum corrupit: ex qua nascuntur Amphion et Zethus; Alcmenam,
mutatus in virum eius Amphitryonem; ex qua nascitur Hercules: Aeginam Asopi,
mutatus in aquilam, ex qua nascitur Aeacus. Sed et Ganymedem Dardani mutatus
nihilominus in aquilam stuprat; Mantheam Phoci, mutatus in ursum; ex qua
nascitur Arctos: Danaen Acrisii, mutatus in aurum; ex qua nascitur Perseus:
Europen Phoenicis, mutatus in taurum; ex qua nascitur Minos, et Rhadamanthus
Sarpedonque: Eurymedusam Achelai, mutatus in formicam; |59 ex qua nascitur
Myrmidon: Thaliam Aetnam nympham, mutatus in vulturem; ex qua nascuntur apud
Siciliam Palixi: Imandram Geneani apxid Rhodum, mutatus in imbrem: Cassiopiam,
mutatus in virum eins Phoenicem; ex qua nascitur Anchinos: Ledam Thesti, mutatus
in cycnum; ex qua nascitur Helena: et iterum eandem, mutatus in stellam; ex qua
nascuntur Castor et Pollux: Lamiam, mutatus in upupam: Mnemosynen, mutatus in
pastorem; ex qua nascuntur Musae novem: Nemesin, mutatus in anserem: Semelen
Cadmiam mutatus in ignem; ex qua nascitur Dionysus," etc.

See also Ps. Justin, Oratio ad Gentiles = Ambrose, Hypomnemata (Cureton, Spic.
Syr. pp. 63, 64) for a similar sketch to that of Aristides.

[l. 4. Pasiphae is an erroneous insertion in the Syriac. l. 11. 'Castor and
Polydeuces and Hélène and Paludus.' This last word is a vox nihili; and the
confusion has arisen in the following manner. The Greek has 'Castor and Hélène
and Polydeuces.' The Syriac scribe has written Polydeuces in its more obvious
position immediately after Castor, and then the second Polydeuces has suffered
corruption.] l. 31. For the ornaments made by Hephaestus, and sarcastic
Christian remarks thereon, we may cite: Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, c.
viii.[Greek] |60 p.44, l. 31. [The paragraph on Rhea and the following one on
Proserpine are not in the Greek.] The Fathers not infrequently allude to the
myth of Rhea and Atys. [Cf. Tatian, ad Gfraecos, 8, [Greek]] The story is
apparently Phrygian in origin, though very similar in its details to forms from
the further East. Lucian (De dea Syra, 33) describing the three images in the
temple at Hierapolis says that the first two are Zeus and Hera, and the third
[Greek]. Baethgen (Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesckichte) p. 73 most
ingeniously conjectures this to be a misunderstanding of Lucian's; [Greek] which
last stands for Atti or Atys: the name appearing in a variety of forms,
sometimes alone, sometimes combined with other deities, and sometimes as a
factor in proper names: o.g. in Bardesanes De Fato we are told that the men of
Edessa down to the time of Abgar used to sacrifice their foreskins to Tharatha:
this seems to be a late form [Hebrew]; or Istar + Atta. As to the establishment
of dances in honour of Atys, these are a characteristic feature of Semitic
orgiastic worship. One of the best illustrations is the temple of Baal-Marcod,
which stands on a spur of the Lebanon above Beyrout, and where there are many
inscriptions from the ancient temple built into the walls of a modern convent.
The name implies Lord of Dances and in one inscription given by Waddington
(Inscr. Syr. No. 1855) is directly paraphrased as koi/rane kw&mwn. p. 45, l. 22.
According to our apologist Isis fled to Byblos in Syria; and this agrees with
Plutarch De Iside et Osiride, that Byblos was a sanctuary of Isis; now we know
from Lucian De Dea Syra c. 6 that the great sanctuary at Byblos was a sanctuary
of Aphrodite Bubli/n (cf. Strabo xvi. 2, p. 362). We should therefore have to
assume that |61 Byblos was the centre at once of an Isis-cult and an
Aphrodite-cult which is the same thing as an Astarte-cult, for our apologist
tells us to equate the Greek Aphrodite to the Syrian Astera. We must then assume
either that the two forms of worship existed side by side, or that there had
been a fusion of the two cults, the latter hypothesis being favoured by the
similarity between the case of Aphrodite weeping for Tammuz and Isis lamenting
Osiris. Moreover the confusion extends to the personalities of Osiris and
Adonis: and Movers quotes from Stephanus of Byzantium as follows: [Greek]

Whether, then, we pay attention to the dead gods or the wailing goddesses, there
is a great similarity in the matter of the two religions. And we have suggested
that in the sanctuary at Byblos the two cults may have been carried on side by
side. One other question suggests itself, viz. whether they may not both be
modifications of some earlier worship. We have some reason for believing that
the original Byblos-worship was that of the Assyrian Baaltis, for Philo Byblius
says that this city was the gift of Cronos to Baaltis. Now this Baaltis, the
Assyrian mother of the gods, appears in the west in a Greek form, first under
the name of Mylitta by a common change in the pronunciation of b and m. But this
Mylitta is affirmed by Herodotus to be capable of equation with Aphrodite (i.
131 [Greek]) and this would lead us to recognize in the sanctuary at Byblos an
original sanctuary of Mylitta. p.46, l. 3. The local variation in the Egyptian
worship appears in Herodotus and is alluded to by the Christian fathers: Herod.
II. 69. [Greek]; Justin, Apol. I. 24.[Greek]; Recog. Clement, v. 20. " Nam alii
eorum bovem qui Apis dicitur colendum tradidere, alii hircum; alii gattas;
nonnulli ibin; quidam serpentera; piscem quoque, et caepas et cloacas, crepitus
ventris, pro numinibus habendos esse docuerunt: et alia innumerabilia quae pudet
etiam nominare."

[See Mayor's notes to Juv. Sat. xv., for a storehouse of references on this
point.] Of the objects of worship mentioned by Aristides, some are rather
difficult to identify. The first question that arises is with regard to the
animal denoted by [Syriac]. In the Dublin MS. of the Fables of Syntipas, Fable
45, we find [Syriac]. The word therefore stands for a cat. The fable to which we
have referred is |62 No. 40 in Landsberger's Fabeln des Sophos. The Syriac
reference is due to Prof. Bensly. l. 27. Here the language may be illustrated by
a reference to Justin, Apol. I. 9, [Greek]; and Ep. ad Diogn. 2, [Greek] p. 49,
l. 1. The description given of the Christians in this chapter recalls in many
points the " Teaching of the Apostles." To begin with, we have the golden rule
in a negative form, which may be compared with the first chapter of the
Teaching, and with a similar Syriac sentence |63 given as a saying of Menander
in Land, Anecdota i. 69, from Cod. Mus. Britt. 14658, fol. 166 r, as follows:
[Syriac]which is a very different rendering from that of Aristides, and may be
suspected from its ascription to Menander to be a translation of some metrical
form of the golden rule. The version in Aristides, from its setting in the text
of the Apology, between two precepts against idolatry, viz. idols in the form of
man, and meats offered to idols, reminds one of the Codex Bezae which completes
the rule of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 29) by adding the words [Greek].
But whether the sentence stood in this connexion in the primitive Didascalia, we
cannot say.

Other parallels will suggest themselves, as when Aristides describes Christian
practice in words that seem to answer to [Greek] which does not differ much from
c. ii. of the Teaching. The parallelisms, however, are only just sufficient to
suggest an acquaintance with the Teaching on the part of Aristides; and his
whole presentation of Christian ethics is vastly superior to anything in the
Didaché, and can only be paralleled for beauty and spirituality in the pages of
Tertullian. p. 50, l. 37. The belief that the world stands by reason of the
Christians occurs also in the following passages: Justin, Apol. I. 45. [Greek];
Justin, Apol. II. 7. [Greek]; Ep. ad Diogn. 6. [Greek] The extract from the
Epistle to Diognetus is nearer to the idea of Aristides than the passages quoted
from Justin. p. 51, l. 2. The expression [Syriac] which we have rendered "
rolling themselves," occurs again in Melito, Oration (Cureton, Spic. Syr. p.
[Syriac], 25), |64 (" Why rollest thou thyself upon the earth, and offerest
supplication to things which are without perception?") l. 36. The concluding
words may be compared with Justin Dial. 58, [Greek].

It will be seen that we have given especial attention to the illustrations
furnished to the text of our author by the undoubted writings of Justin and by
the Epistle to Diognetus. We have not, however, been able to agree with the
opinion of Doulcet in reference to the latter writing, nor with the tradition of
Jerome in reference to Justin's imitation of Aristides. It may, however, be
taken for granted, from the parallels adduced, that Justin and Aristides are
nearly contemporary. This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All
material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: THE APOLOGY - TRANSLATION FROM THE SYRIAC_1891
========================================================================

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 35-51. Translation from
the Syriac. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES, TRANSLATED FROM THE SYRIAC.

Again, the apology which Aristides the philosopher made before Hadrian the king
concerning the worship of God.

[To the Emperor] Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, from Marcianus
Aristides, a philosopher of Athens.

I. I, O king, by the grace of God came into this world; and having contemplated
the heavens and the earth and the seas, and beheld the sun and the rest of the
orderly creation, I was amazed at the arrangement of the world; and I
comprehended that the world and all that is therein are moved by the impulse of
another, and I understood that he that moveth them is God, who is hidden in them
and concealed from them: and this is well known, that that which moveth is more
powerful than that which is moved. And that I should investigate concerning this
Mover of all, as to how He exists—for this is evident to me, for He is
incomprehensible in His nature—and that I should dispute concerning the
stedfastness of His government, so as to comprehend it fully, is not profitable
for me; for no one is able perfectly to comprehend it. But I say concerning the
Mover of the world, that He is God of all, who made all for the sake of man; and
it is evident to me that this is expedient, that one should fear God, and not
grieve man.

Now I say that God is not begotten, not made; a constant nature, without
beginning and without end; immortal, complete, and incomprehensible: and in
saying that He is complete, I mean this; that there is no deficiency in Him, and
He stands in need of nought, but everything stands in need of Him: and in saying
that He is without beginning, I mean this; that everything which has a beginning
has also an end; and that which has an end is dissoluble. He has no name; for
everything that has a name is associated with the created; He has no likeness,
nor composition of members; for he who possesses this is associated with things
|36 fashioned. He is not male, nor is He female: the heavens do not contain Him;
but the heavens and all things visible and invisible are contained in Him.
Adversary He has none; for there is none that is more powerful than He; anger
and wrath He possesses not, for there is nothing that can stand against Him.
Error and forgetfulness are not in His nature, for He is altogether wisdom and
understanding, and in Him consists all that consists. He asks no sacrifice and
no libation, nor any of the things that are visible; He asks not anything from
anyone; but all ask from Him.

II. Since then it has been spoken to you by us concerning God, as far as our
mind was capable of discoursing concerning Him, let us now come to the race of
men, in order that we may know which of them hold any part of that truth which
we have spoken concerning Him, and which of them are in error therefrom. This is
plain to you, O king, that there are four races of men in this world; Barbarians
and Greeks, Jews and Christians.

Now the Barbarians reckon the head of the race of their religion from Kronos and
from Rhea and the rest of their gods: but the Greeks from Helenus, who is said
to be from Zeus; and from Helenus was born Aeolus and Xythus, and the rest of
the family from Inachus and Phoroneus, and last of all from Danaus the Egyptian
and from Kadmus and from Dionysus.

Moreover the Jews reckon the head of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac,
from whom was born Jacob, who begat twelve sons who removed from Syria and
settled in Egypt, and there were called the race of the Hebrews by their
lawgiver: but at last they were named Jews. The Christians, then, reckon the
beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most
High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin
took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son
of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken
among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend
the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the
Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of
His might be fulfilled. He was |37 pierced by the Jews; and He died and was
buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and
then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and
taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this
account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians,
who are well known. There are then four races of mankind, as I said before,
Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. To God then ministers wind, and to
angels fire; but to demons water, and to men earth.

III. Let us then begin with the Barbarians, and by degrees we will proceed to
the rest of the peoples, in order that we may understand which of them hold the
truth concerning God, and which of them error. The Barbarians then, inasmuch as
they did not comprehend God, erred with the elements; and they began to serve
created things instead of the Creator of them1, and on this account they made
likenesses and they enclosed them in temples; and lo! they worship them and
guard them with great precaution, that their gods may not be stolen by robbers;
and the Barbarians have not understood that whatsoever watches must be greater
than that which is watched; and that whatsoever creates must be greater than
that whatever is created: if so be then that their gods are too weak for their
own salvation, how will they furnish salvation to mankind? The Barbarians then
have erred with a great error in worshipping dead images which profit them not.
And it comes to me to wonder also, O king, at their philosophers, how they too
have erred and have named gods those likenesses which have been made in honour
of the elements; and the wise men have not understood that these very elements
are corruptible and dissoluble; for if a little part of the element be dissolved
or corrupted, all of it is dissolved and corrupted. If then these elements are
dissolved and corrupted, and compelled to be subject to another harder than
themselves, and are not in their nature gods, how can they call gods those
likenesses which are made in their honour? Great then is the error which their
philosophers have brought upon their followers. |38

IV. Let us turn then, O king, to the elements themselves, in order that we may
shew concerning them that they are not gods, but a creation, corruptible and
changeable, which is in the likeness of man2. But God is incorruptible and
unchangeable and invisible, while seeing, turning and changing all things.

Those therefore who think concerning earth that it is God have already erred,
since it is digged and planted and delved; and since it receives the defilement
of the excrement of men and of beasts and of cattle: and since sometimes it
becomes what is useless; for if it be burned it becomes dead, for from baked
clay there springs nothing: and again, if water be collected on it, it becomes
corrupted along with its fruits: and lo! it is trodden on by men and beasts, and
it receives the impurity of the blood of the slain; and it is digged and filled
with the dead and becomes a repository for bodies: none of which things can that
holy and venerable and blessed and incorruptible nature receive. And from this
we have perceived that the earth is not God but a creature of God.

V. And in like manner again have those erred who have thought concerning water
that it is God. For water was created for the use of man and in many ways it is
made subject to him. For it is changed, and receives defilement, and is
corrupted, and loses its own nature when cooked with many things, and receives
colours which are not its own; being moreover hardened by the cold and mixed and
mingled with the excrement of men and beasts and with the blood of the slain:
and it is compelled by workmen, by means of the compulsion of channels, to flow
and be conducted against its own will, and to come into gardens and other
places, so as to cleanse and carry out all the filth of men, and wash away all
defilement, and supply man's need of itself. Wherefore it is impossible that
water should be God, but it is a work of God and a part of the world. So too
those have erred not a little who thought concerning fire that it is God: for it
too was created for the need of men: and in many ways it is made subject to
them, in the service of food and in the preparation of ornaments and the other
things of |39 which your majesty is aware: whilst in many ways it is
extinguished and destroyed. And again those who have thought concerning the
blast of winds that it is God, these also have erred: and this is evident to us,
that these winds are subject to another, since sometimes their blast is
increased and sometimes it is diminished and ceases, according to the
commandment of Him who subjects them. Since for the sake of man they were
created by God, in order that they might fulfil the needs of trees and fruits
and seeds, and that they might transport ships upon the sea; those ships which
bring to men their necessary things, from a place where they are found to a
place where they are not found; and furnish the different parts of the world.
Since then this wind is sometimes increased and sometimes diminished, there is
one place in which it does good and another where it does harm, according to the
nod of Him who rules it: and even men are able by means of well-known
instruments to catch and coerce it that it may fulfil for them the necessities
which they demand of it: and over itself it has no power at all; wherefore it is
not possible that winds should be called gods, but a work of God.

VI. So too those have erred who have thought concerning the sun that he is God.
For lo! we see him, that by the necessity of another he is moved and turned and
runs his course; and he proceeds from degree to degree, rising and setting every
day, in order that he may warm the shoots of plants and shrubs, and may bring
forth in the air which is mingled with him every herb which is on the earth. And
in calculation the sun has a part with the rest of the stars in his course, and
although he is one in his nature, he is mixed with many parts, according to the
advantage of the needs of men: and that not according to his own will, but
according to the will of Him that ruleth him. Wherefore it is not possible that
the sun should be God, but a work of God; and in like manner also the moon and
stars.

VII. But those who have thought concerning men of old, that some of them are
gods, these have greatly erred: as thou, even thou, O king, art aware, that man
consists of the four elements and of soul and spirit, and therefore is he even
called World, and apart from any one of these parts he does not exist. He has
|40 beginning and end, and he is born and also suffers corruption. But God, as I
have said, has none of this in His nature, but He is unmade and incorruptible.
On this account, then, it is impossible that we should represent him as God who
is man by nature, one to whom sometimes, when he looketh for joy, grief happens;
and for laughter, and weeping befals him; one that is passionate and jealous,
envious and regretful, along with the rest of the other defects: and in many
ways more corrupted than the elements or even than the beasts. And thence, O
king, it is right for us to understand the error of the Barbarians, that,
whereas they have not investigated concerning the true God, they have fallen
away from the truth and have gone after the desire of their own mind, in serving
elements subject to dissolution, and dead images: and on account of their error
they do not perceive who is the true God.

VIII. Let us return now to the Greeks in order that we may know what opinion
they have concerning the true God. The Greeks then because they are wiser than
the Barbarians have erred even more than the Barbarians, in that they have
introduced many gods that are made; and some of them they have represented as
male and some of them as female; and in such a way that some of their gods were
found to be adulterers and murderers, and jealous and envious, and angry and
passionate, and murderers of fathers, and thieves and plunderers. And they say
that some of them were lame and maimed; and some of them wizards, and some of
them utterly mad; and some of them played on harps; and some of them wandered on
mountains: and some of them died outright; and some were struck by lightning,
and some were made subject to men, and some went off in flight, and some were
stolen by men; and lo! some of them were wept and bewailed by men; and some,
they say, went down to Hades; and some were sorely wounded, and some were
changed into the likeness of beasts in order that they might commit adultery
with the race of mortal women; and some of them have been reviled for sleeping
with males: and some of them, they say, were in wedlock with their mothers and
sisters and daughters; and they say of their gods that they committed adultery
with the daughters of men, and from them was born a certain race which was also
|41 mortal. And of some of their goddesses they say that they contended about
beauty and came for judgment before men. The Greeks, then, O king, have brought
forward what is wicked, ridiculous and foolish concerning their gods and
themselves; in that they called such like persons gods, who are no gods: and
hence men have taken occasion to commit adultery and fornication, and to plunder
and do everything that is wicked and hateful and abominable. For if those who
are called their gods have done all those things that are written above, how
much more shall men do them who believe in those who have done these things! and
from the wickedness of this error, lo! there have happened to men frequent wars
and mighty famines, and bitter captivity and deprivation of all things: and lo!
they endure them, and all these things befal them from this cause alone: and
when they endure them they do not perceive in their conscience that because of
their error these things happen to them.

IX. Now let us come to the history of these their gods in order that we may
prove accurately concerning all those things which we have said above.

Before everything else the Greeks introduce as a god Kronos, which is
interpreted Chiun; and the worshippers of this deity sacrifice to him their
children: and some of them they burn while yet living. Concerning him they say
that he took him Rhea to wife; and from her he begat many sons; from whom he
begat also Dios, who is called Zeus; and at the last he went mad and, for fear
of an oracle which was told him, began to eat his children. And from him Zeus
was stolen away, and he did not perceive it: and at the last Zeus bound him and
cut off his genitals and cast them in the sea: whence, as they say in the fable,
was born Aphrodite, who is called Astera: and he cast Kronos bound into
darkness. Great then is the error and scorn which the Greeks have introduced
concerning the head of their gods, in that they have said all these things about
him, O king. It is not possible that God should be bound or amputated; otherwise
it is a great misfortune. And after Kronos they introduce another god, Zeus; and
they say concerning this one, that he received the headship and became king of
all the gods; and they say concerning him that he was changed into cattle and
everything else, in order that he might |42 commit adultery with mortal women,
and might raise up to himself children from them. Since at one time they say he
was changed into a bull on account of his passion for Europa and for Pasiphae;
and again he was changed into the likeness of gold on account of his passion for
Danae: and into a swan, through his passion for Lcda; and into a man through his
passion for Antiope; and into lightning on account of his passion for the Moon:
so that from these he begat many children: for they say that from Antiope he
begat Zethus and Amphion; and from the Moon, Dionysus; from Alkmena, Herakles;
and from Leto, Apollo and Artemis; and from Danae, Perseus; and from Leda,
Castor and Polydeuces and Helene; and from Mnemosyne he begat nine daughters,
those whom he called the Muses; and from Europa, Minos and Rhadamanthus and
Sarpedon. But last of all he was changed into the likeness of an eagle on
account of his passion for Ganymede the shepherd.

Because of these stories, O king, much evil has befallen the race of men who are
at this present day, since they imitate their gods, and commit adultery, and are
defiled with their mothers and sisters, and in sleeping with males: and some of
them have dared to kill even their fathers. For if he, who is said to be the
head and king of their gods, has done these things, how much more shall his
worshippers imitate him! And great is the madness which the Greeks have
introduced into their history concerning him: for it is not possible that a god
should commit adultery or fornication, or should approach to sleep with males,
or that he should be a parricide; otherwise he is much worse than a destructive
demon.

X. And again they introduce another god, Hephaestus; and they say of him that he
is lame and wearing a cap on his head, and holding in his hand tongs and hammer;
and working in brass in order that therefrom he may find his needed sustenance.
Is then this god so much in need? Whereas it is impossible for a god to be needy
or lame: otherwise he is very weak. And again they introduce another god and
call him Hermes; and they say that he is a thief, loving avarice and coveting
gains, and a magician and maimed and an athlete and an interpreter of words:
whereas it is impossible for a god to be a magician, or |43 avaricious, or
maimed, or coveting anything that is not his, or an athlete: and if it be found
to be otherwise, he is of no use. And after him they introduce another god,
Asclepius; and they say that he is a physician and prepares medicines and
bandages in order that he may satisfy his need of sustenance. Is then this god
in need? And he at last was struck by lightning by Zeus, on account of Tyndareus
the Lacedemonian; and so he died. If then Asclepius was a god, and when struck
by lightning was unable to help himself, how is it that he was able to help
others? Whereas it is an impossible thing that the divine nature should be in
need, or that it should be struck by lightning. And again they introduce another
god and call him Ares, and they say that he is a warrior and jealous, and covets
sheep and things which do not belong to him, and acquires possessions through
his weapons; and of him they say that at last he committed adultery with
Aphrodite and was bound by a tiny boy Eros, and by Hephaestus the husband of
Aphrodite: whereas it is impossible that a god should be a warrior or a prisoner
or an adulterer. And again they say of Dionysus that he too is a god, who
celebrates festivals by night and teaches drunkenness, and carries off women
that do not belong to him: and at the last they say that he went mad and left
his female attendants and tied to the wilderness; and in this madness of his he
ate serpents; and at the last he was killed by Titan. If then Dionysus was a
god, and when slain was not able to help himself; how is it that he was able to
help others?

Herakles, too, they introduce, and they say of him that he is a god, a hater of
things hateful, a tyrant and a warrior, and a slayer of the wicked: and of him
they say that at the last he went mad and slew his children and cast himself
into the fire and died. If therefore Herakles be a god and in all these evils
was unable to stand up for himself, how was it that others were asking help from
him? Whereas it is impossible that a god should be mad or drunken or a slayer of
his children, or destroyed by fire.

XI. And after him they introduce another god and call him Apollo: and they say
of him that he is jealous and. changeable; and |44 sometimes he holds a bow and
a quiver, and sometimes a lyre and a plectrum; and he gives oracles to men, in
order that he may receive a reward from them. Is then this god in need of
reward? Whereas it is disgraceful that all these things should be found in a
god. And after him they introduce Artemis a goddess, the sister of Apollo; and
they say that she was a huntress; and she carried a bow and arrows, and went
about on mountains leading dogs, either to hunt the deer or the wild boars.
Whereas it is disgraceful that a maid should go about by herself on mountains
and follow the chase of beasts. And therefore it is not possible that Artemis
should be a goddess.

Again they say of Aphrodite that she forsooth is a goddess; and sometimes
forsooth she dwells with their gods, and sometimes she commits adultery with
men; and sometimes she has Ares for her lover and sometimes Adonis, who is
Tammuz: and sometimes forsooth Aphrodite is wailing and weeping for the death of
Tammuz: and they say that she went down to Hades in order that she might ransom
Adonis from Persephone, who was the daughter of Hades. If then Aphrodite be a
goddess and was unable to help her lover in his death, how is she able to help
others? And this is a thing impossible to be listened to, that the divine nature
should come to weeping and wailing and adultery. And again they say of Tammuz
that he is a god; and he is forsooth a hunter and an adulterer; and they say
that he was killed by a blow from a wild boar, and was not able to help himself,
And if he was not able to help himself, how is he able to take care of the human
race? And this is impossible, that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or
that he should have died by violence. And again they say of Rhea that she
forsooth is the mother of their gods; and they say of her that she had at one
time a lover Atys, and she was rejoicing in corruptible men; and at the last she
established lamentations, and was bewailing her lover Atys. If then the mother
of their gods was not able to help her lover and rescue him from death, how is
it possible that she should help others? It is disgraceful then that a goddess
should lament and weep, and that she should have joy over corruptible beings.
|45

Again they bring forward Kore; and they say that she was a goddess and that she
was carried off by Pluto and was not able to help herself. If then she is a
goddess and was not able to help herself, how is she able to help others? For a
goddess who is carried off is extremely weak.

All these things, then, O king, the Greeks have introduced forward about their
gods, and have invented and said concerning them: whence all men have taken
occasion to do all wicked and impure things: and thereby the whole earth has
been corrupted.

XII. Now the Egyptians, because they arc more evil and ignorant than all peoples
upon the earth, have erred more than all men. For the worship of the Barbarians
and the Greeks did not suffice them, but they introduced also the nature of
beasts, and said concerning it that they were gods: and also of the creeping
things which are found on the dry land and in the waters, and of the plants and
herbs they have said that some of them are gods, and they have become corrupt in
all madness and impurity more than all peoples that are upon the earth. For of
old time they worshipped Isis; and they say that she forsooth is a goddess, who
had forsooth a husband Osiris, her brother; but when forsooth Osiris was killed
by his brother Typhon, Isis fled with her son Horus to Byblos in Syria and was
there for a certain time until that her son was grown: and he contended with his
uncle Typhon and killed him, and thereupon Isis returned and went about with her
son Horus, and was seeking for the body of Osiris her lord, and bitterly
bewailing his death. If therefore Isis be a goddess, and was not able to help
Osiris her brother and lord, how is it possible that she should help others?
Whereas it is impossible that the divine nature should be afraid and flee, or
weep and wail. Otherwise it is a great misfortune. But of Osiris they say that
he is a god, a beneficent one; and he was killed by Typhon and could not help
himself; and it is evident that this cannot be said of Deity. And again they say
of Typhon, his brother, that he is a god, a fratricide, and slain by his
brother's son and wife since he was unable to help himself. And how can one who
does not help himself be a god?

Now because the Egyptians are more ignorant than the rest of |46 the peoples,
these and the like gods did not suffice them, but they also put the name of gods
on the beasts which are merely soulless. For some men among them worship the
sheep, and others the calf; and some of them the pig, and others the shadfish;
and some of them the crocodile, and the hawk, and the cormorant, and the kite,
and the vulture, and the eagle, and the crow; some of them worship the cat, and
others the fish Shibbuta; some of them the dog, and some of them the serpent,
and some the asp, and others the lion, and others garlic, and onions, and
thorns, and others the leopard, and the like. And the poor wretches do not
perceive with regard to all these things that they are nought; while every day
they look upon their gods, who are eaten and destroyed by men, yea even by their
own fellows; and some of them being burned, and some of them dying and
putrifying and becoming refuse; and they do not understand that they are
destroyed in many ways. And accordingly the Egyptians have not understood that
the like of these are not gods, since their salvation is not within their own
power; and if they are too weak for their own salvation, then as regards the
salvation of their worshippers pray whence will they have the power to help
them?

XIII. The Egyptians then have erred with a great error, above all peoples that
are upon the face of the earth. But it is a matter of wonder, O king, concerning
the Greeks, whereas they excel all the rest of the peoples in their manners and
in their reason, how thus they have gone astray after dead idols and senseless
images: while they see their gods sawn and polished by their makers, and
curtailed and cut and burnt and shaped and transformed into every shape by them.
And when they are grown old and fail by the length of time, and are melted and
broken in pieces, how is it that they do not understand concerning them that
they are not gods? And those who have not ability for their own preservation,
how will they be able to take care of men? But even the poets and philosophers
among them being in error have introduced concerning them that they are gods,
things like these which are made for the honour of God Almighty; and being in
error they seek to make them like to God as to whom no man has ever seen to whom
He is like; nor is |47 he able to see Him3; and together with these things they
introduce concerning Deity as if it were that deficiency were found with it; in
that they say that He accepts sacrifice and asks for burnt-offering and libation
and murders of men and temples. But God is not needy, and none of these things
is sought for by Him: and it is clear that men are in error in those things that
they imagine. But their poets and philosophers introduce and say, that the
nature of all their gods is one; but they have not understood of God our Lord,
that while He is one, He is yet in all. They, then, are in error; for if, while
the body of man is many in its parts, no member is afraid of its fellow, but
whilst it is a composite body, all is on an equality with all: so also God who
is one in His nature has a single essence proper to Him, and He is equal in His
nature and His essence, nor is He afraid of Himself. If therefore the nature of
the gods is one, it is not proper that a god should persecute a god, nor kill
nor do him that which is evil.

If then gods were persecuted and transfixed by gods, and some of them were
carried off and some were struck by lightning; it is clear that the nature of
their gods is not one, and hence it is clear, O king, that that is an error
which they speculate about the nature of their gods, and that they reduce them
to one nature. If then it is proper that we should admire a god who is visible
and does not see, how much more is this worthy of admiration that a man should
believe in a nature which is invisible and all-seeing! and if again it is right
that a man should investigate the works of an artificer, how much more is it
right that he should praise the Maker of the artificer! For behold! while the
Greeks have established laws, they have not understood that by their laws they
were condemning their gods; for if their laws are just, their gods are unjust,
who have committed transgression in killing one another and practising sorcery,
committing adultery, plundering, stealing and sleeping with males, along with
the rest of their other doings. But if their gods excellently and as they
describe have done all these things, then the laws of the Greeks are unjust; and
they are not laid down according to the will of the gods; and in this the whole
world has erred. |48 For as for the histories of their gods, some of them are
myths, some of them physical, and some hymns and songs: the hymns and songs,
then, are empty words and sound; and as to the physical, if they were done as
they say, then they are not gods, since they have done these things and suffered
and endured these things: and these myths arc flimsy words, altogether devoid of
force.

XIV. Let us come now, O king, also to the history of the Jews and let us see
what sort of opinion they have concerning God. The Jews then say that God is
one, Creator of all and almighty: and that it is not proper for us that anything
else should be worshipped, but this God only: and in this they appear to be much
nearer to the truth than all the peoples, in that they worship God more
exceedingly and not His works; and they imitate God by reason of the love which
they have for man; for they have compassion on the poor and ransom the captive
and bury the dead, and do things of a similar nature to these: things which are
acceptable to God and are well-pleasing also to men, things which they have
received from their fathers of old. Nevertheless they too have gone astray from
accurate knowledge, and they suppose in their minds that they are serving God,
but in the methods of their actions their service is to angels and not to God,
in that they observe sabbaths and new moons and the passover and the great fast,
and the fast, and circumcision, and cleanness of meats: which things not even
thus have they perfectly observed.

XV. Now the Christians, O king, by going about and seeking have found the truth,
and as we have comprehended from their writings they are nearer to the truth and
to exact knowledge than the rest of the peoples. For they know and believe in
God, the Maker of heaven and earth, in whom are all things and from whom are all
things: He who has no other god as His fellow: from whom they have received
those commandments which they have engraved on their minds, which they keep in
the hope and expectation of the world to come; so that on this account they do
not commit adultery nor fornication, they do not bear false witness, they do not
deny a deposit, nor covet what is not theirs: they honour father and mother;
they do good to those who are their neighbours, and when they are judges they
judge uprightly; and they do not worship idols in the form of man; and whatever
they do not |49 wish that others should do to them, they do not practise towards
any one4, and they do not eat of the meats of idol sacrifices, for they are
undefiled: and those who grieve them they comfort, and make them their friends;
and they do good to their enemies: and their wives, O king, are pure as virgins,
and their daughters modest: and their men abstain from all unlawful wedlock and
from all impurity, in the hope of the recompense that is to come in another
world: but as for their servants or handmaids, or their children if any of them
have any, they persuade them to become Christians for the love that they have
towards them; and when they have become so, they call them without distinction
brethren: they do not worship strange gods: and they walk in all humility and
kindness, and falsehood is not found among them, and they love one another: and
from the widows they do not turn away their countenance: and they rescue the
orphan from him who does him violence: and he who has gives to him who has not,
without grudging; and when they see the stranger they bring him to their
dwellings, and rejoice over him as over a true brother; for they do not call
brothers those who are after the flesh, but those who are in the spirit and in
God: but when one of their poor passes away from the world, and any of them sees
him, then he provides for his burial according to his ability; and if they hear
that any of their number is imprisoned or oppressed for the name of their
Messiah, all of them provide for his needs, and if it is possible that he may be
delivered, they deliver him. And if there is among them a man that is poor or
needy, and they have not an abundance of necessaries, they fast two or three
days that they may supply the needy with their necessary food. And they observe
scrupulously the commandments of their Messiah: they live honestly and soberly,
as the Lord their God commanded them: every morning and at all hours on account
of the goodnesses of God toward them they praise and laud Him: and over their
food and over their drink they render Him thanks. And if any righteous person of
their number passes away from the world they rejoice and give thanks to God, and
they follow his body, as if he were moving from one place to another: and when a
child is born to any one of them, they praise God, and if again |50 it chance to
die in its infancy, they praise God mightily, as for one who has passed through
the world without sins. And if again they see that one of their number has died
in his iniquity or in his sins, over this one they weep bitterly and sigh, as
over one who is about to go to punishment: such is the ordinance of the law of
the Christians, O king, and such their conduct.

XVI. As men who know God, they ask from Him petitions which are proper for Him
to give and for them to receive: and thus they accomplish the course of their
lives. And because they acknowledge the goodnesses of God towards them, lo! on
account of them there flows forth the beauty that is in the world. And truly
they are of the number of those that have found the truth by going about and
seeking it, and as far as we have comprehended, we have understood that they
only are near to the knowledge of the truth. But the good deeds which they do,
they do not proclaim in the ears of the multitude, and they take care that no
one shall perceive them, and hide their gift, as he who has found a treasure and
hides it5. And they labour to become righteous as those that expect to see their
Messiah and receive from Him the promises made to them with great glory. But
their sayings and their ordinances, O king, and the glory of their service, and
the expectation of their recompense of reward, according to the doing of each
one of them, which they expect in another world, thou art able to know from
their writings. It sufficeth for us that we have briefly made known to your
majesty concerning the conversation and the truth of the Christians. For truly
great and wonderful is their teaching to him that is willing to examine and
understand it. And truly this people is a new people, and there is something
divine mingled with it. Take now their writings and read in them, and lo! ye
will find that not of myself have I brought these things forward nor as their
advocate have I said them, but as I have read in their writings, these things I
firmly believe, and those things also that are to come. And therefore I was
constrained to set forth the truth to them that take pleasure therein and seek
after the world to come. And I have no doubt that the world stands by reason of
|51 the intercession of Christians. But the rest of the peoples are deceived and
deceivers, rolling themselves before the elements of the world, according as the
sight of their understanding is unwilling to pass by them; and they grope as if
in the dark, because they are unwilling to know the truth, and like drunken men
they stagger and thrust one another and fall down.

XVII. Thus far, O king, it is I that have spoken. For as to what remains, as was
said above, there are found in their other writings words which are difficult to
speak, or that one should repeat them; things which are not only said, but
actually done. The Greeks, then, O king, because they practise foul things in
sleeping with males, and with mother and sister and daughter, turn the ridicule
of their foulness upon the Christians; but the Christians are honest and pious,
and the truth is set before their eyes, and they are long-suffering; and
therefore while they know their error and are buffeted by them, they endure and
suffer them: and more exceedingly do they pity them as men who are destitute of
knowledge: and in their behalf they offer up prayers that they may turn from
their error. And when it chances that one of them turns, he is ashamed before
the Christians of the deeds that are done by him: and he confesses to God,
saying, In ignorance I did these things: and he cleanses his heart, and his sins
are forgiven him, because he did them in ignorance in former time, when he was
blaspheming and reviling the true knowledge of the Christians. And truly blessed
is the race of the Christians, more than all men that are upon the face of the
earth.

Let the tongues of those now be silenced who talk vanity, and who oppress the
Christians, and let them now speak the truth. For it is better that they should
worship the true God rather than that they should worship a sound without
intelligence; and truly divine is that which is spoken by the mouth of the
Christians, and their teaching is the gateway of light. Let all those then
approach thereunto who do not know God, and let them receive incorruptible
words, those which are so always and from eternity: let them, therefore,
anticipate the dread judgment which is to come by Jesus the Messiah upon the
whole race of men. The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher is ended.

[Footnotes renumbered and moved to the end] 1. 1 Rom. i. 25.

2. 1 Rom. i. 23.

3. 1 1 Tim. vi. 10.

4. 1 Cf. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, cc. 1-4.

5. 1 Matt. xiii. 44. This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All
material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: THE APOLOGY - TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK AND OF THE SYRIAC VERSIONS IN PARALLEL COLUMNS
========================================================================

The Apology of Aristides THE APOLOGY OF

ARISTIDES AS IT IS PRESERVED IN THE HISTORY OF BARLAAM AND JOSAPHAT.

Translated from the Greek.

I. I, O King in the providence of God came into the world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth, the sun and the moon and the rest, I marvelled at their orderly arrangement. And when I saw that the universe and all that is therein is moved by necessity, I perceived that the mover and controller is God. For everything which causes motion is stronger than that which is moved, and that which controls is stronger than that which is controlled. The self-same being, then, who first established and now controls the universe----him do I affirm to be God who is without beginning and without end, immortal and self-sufficing, above all passions and infirmities, above anger and forgetfulness and ignorance and the rest.

Through Him too all things consist.

He requires not sacrifice and libation nor any one of the things that appear to
sense; but all men stand in need of Him. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES THE
PHILOSOPHER.

Translated from the Syriac.

ARISTIDES.

Here follows the defence which Aristides the philosopher made before Hadrian the
King on behalf of reverence for God.

. . . All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, venerable and merciful, from Marcianus Aristides, an Athenian philosopher. 1 I. 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.5 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 aught from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.

II. Having thus spoken concerning God, so far as it was possible for me to speak
of Him,2 let us next proceed to the human race, that we may see which of them
participate in the truth and which of them in error. For it is clear to us, O
King,3 that there are three4 classes of men in this world; these being the
worshippers of the gods acknowledged among you, and Jews, and Christians.

Further they who pay homage to many gods are themselves divided into three
classes, Chaldaeans namely, and Greeks, and Egyptians; for these have been
guides and preceptors to the rest of the nations in the service and worship of
these many-titled deities.

II. Since, then, we have addressed you concerning God, so far as our discourse can bear upon him, let us now come to the race of men, that we may know which of them participate in the truth of which we have spoken, and which of them go astray from it. This is clear to you, O King, that there are four classes of men in this world:----Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. The Barbarians, indeed, trace the origin of their kind of religion from Kronos and from Rhea and their other gods; the Greeks, however, from Helenos, who is said to be sprung from Zeus. And by Helenos there were born Aiolos and Xuthos; and there were others descended from Inachos and Phoroneus, and lastly from the Egyptian Danaos and from Kadmos and from Dionysos. The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews. The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation 6 might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous. 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.7 III. Let us see then which of them
participate in truth and which of them in error. The Chaldaeans, then, not
knowing God went astray after the elements and began to worship the creation
more than their Creator. And of these they formed certain shapes and styled them
a representation of the heaven and the earth and the sea, of the sun too and the
moon and the other primal bodies or luminaries. And they shut them up together
in shrines, and worship them, calling them gods, even though they have to guard
them securely for fear they should be stolen by robbers. And they did not
perceive that anything which acts as guard is greater than that which is
guarded, and that he who makes is greater than that which is made. For if their
gods are unfit to look after their own safety, how shall they bestow protection
upon others?

Great then is the error into which the Chaldaeans wandered in adoring lifeless
and good-for-nothing images. And it occurs to me as surprising, O King, how it
is that their so-called philosophers have quite failed to observe that the
elements themselves are perishable. And if the elements are perishable and
subject to necessity, how are they gods? And if the elements are not gods, how
do the images made in their honour come to be gods?

III. Let us begin, then, with the Barbarians, and go on to the rest of the
nations one after another, that we may see which of them hold the truth as to
God and which of them hold error. The Barbarians, then, as they did not
apprehend God, went astray among the elements, and began to worship things
created instead of their Creator;8 and for this end they made images and shut
them up in shrines, and lo! they worship them, guarding them the while with much
care, lest their gods be stolen by robbers. And the Barbarians did not observe
that that which acts as guard is greater than that which is guarded, and that
every one who creates is greater than that which is created. If it be, then,
that their gods are too feeble to see to their own safety, how will they take
thought for the safety of men? Great then is the error into which the Barbarians
wandered in worshipping lifeless images which can do nothing to help them. And I
am led to wonder, O King, at their philosophers, how that even they went astray,
and gave the name of gods to images which were made in honour of the elements;
and that their sages did not perceive that the elements also are dissoluble and
perishable. For if a small part of an element is dissolved or destroyed, the
whole of it may be dissolved and destroyed.

If then the elements themselves are dissolved and destroyed and forced to be
subject to another that is more stubborn than they, and if they are not in their
nature gods, why, forsooth, do they call the images which are made in their
honour, God?

Great, then, is the error which the philosophers among them have brought upon
their followers.

IV. Let us proceed then, O King, to the elements themselves that we may show in
regard to them that they are not gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out
of that which did not exist at the command of the true God, who is
indestructible and immutable and invisible; yet He sees all things and as He
wills, modifies and changes things.

What then shall I say concerning the elements?

They err who believe that the sky is a god. For we see that it revolves and
moves by necessity and is compacted of many parts, being thence called the
ordered universe (Kosmos). Now the universe is the construction of some
designer; and that which has been constructed has a beginning and an end. And
the sky with its luminaries moves by necessity. For the stars are carried along
in array at fixed intervals from sign to sign, and, some setting, others rising,
they traverse their courses in due season so as to mark off summers and winters,
as it has been appointed for them by God; and obeying the inevitable necessity
of their nature they transgress not their proper limits, keeping company with
the heavenly order. Whence it is plain that the sky is not a god but rather a
work of God.

IV. Let us turn now, O King, to the elements in themselves, that we may make
clear in regard to them, that they are not gods, but a created thing, liable to
ruin and change, which is of the same nature as man; whereas God is imperishable
and unvarying, and invisible, while yet He sees, and overrules, and transforms
all things.

They erred also who believed the earth to be a goddess. For we see that it is
despitefully used and tyrannized over by men, and is furrowed and kneaded and
becomes of no account. For if it be burned with fire, it becomes devoid of life;
for nothing will grow from the ashes. Besides if there fall upon it an excess of
rain it dissolves away, both it and its fruits. Moreover it is trodden under
foot of men and the other creatures; it is dyed with the blood of the murdered;
it is dug open and filled with dead bodies and becomes a tomb for corpses. In
face of all this, it is inadmissible that the earth is a goddess but rather it
is a work of God for the use of men.

Those then who believe concerning the earth that it is a god have hitherto
deceived themselves, since it is furrowed and set with plants and trenched; and
it takes in the filthy refuse of men and beasts and cattle. And at times it
becomes unfruitful, for if it be burnt to ashes it becomes devoid of life, for
nothing germinates from an earthen jar. And besides if water be collected upon
it, it is dissolved together with its products. And lo! it is trodden under foot
of men and beast, and receives the bloodstains of the slain; and it is dug open,
and filled with the dead, and becomes a tomb for corpses. But it is impossible
that a nature, which is holy and worthy and blessed and immortal, should allow
of any one of these things. And hence it appears to us that the earth is not a
god but a creation of God.

V. They also erred who believed the water to be a god. For it, too, has been
made for the use of men, and is controlled by them; it is defiled and destroyed
and suffers change on being boiled and dyed with colours; and it is congealed by
the frost, and polluted with blood, and is introduced for the washing of all
unclean things. Wherefore it is impossible that water should be a god, but it is
a work of God.

They also err who believe that fire is a god. For fire was made for the use of
men, and it is controlled by them, being carried about from place to place for
boiling and roasting all kinds of meat, and even for (the burning of) dead
bodies. Moreover it is extinguished in many ways, being quenched through man's
agency. So it cannot be allowed that fire is a god, but it is a work of God.

They also err who think the blowing of the winds is a goddess. For it is clear
that it is under the dominion of another; and for the sake of man it has been
designed by God for the transport of ships and the conveyance of grain and for
man's other wants. It rises too and falls at the bidding of God, whence it is
concluded that the blowing of the winds is not a goddess but only a work of God.

V. In the same way, again, those erred who believed the waters to be gods. For the waters were created for the use of man, and are put under his rule in many ways. For they suffer change and admit impurity, and are destroyed and lose their nature while they are boiled into many substances. And they take colours which do not belong to them; they are also congealed by frost and are mingled and permeated with the filth of men and beasts, and with the blood of the slain. And being checked by skilled workmen through the restraint of aqueducts, they flow and are diverted against their inclination, and come into gardens and other places in order that they may be collected and issue forth as a means of fertility for man, and that they may cleanse away every impurity and fulfil the service man requires from them. Wherefore it is impossible that the waters should be a god, but they are a work of God and a part of the world. In like manner also they who believed that fire is a god erred to no slight extent. For it, too, was created for the service of men, and is subject to them in many ways:----in the preparation of meats, and as a means of casting metals, and for other ends whereof your Majesty is aware. At the same time it is quenched and extinguished in many ways.

Again they also erred who believed the motion of the winds to be a god. For it
is well known to us that those winds are under the dominion of another, at times
their motion increases, and at times it fails and ceases at the command of him
who controls them. For they were created by God for the sake of men, in order to
supply the necessity of trees and fruits and seeds; and to bring over the sea
ships which convey for men necessaries and goods from places where they are
found to places where they are not found; and to govern the quarters of the
world. And as for itself, at times it increases and again abates; and in one
place brings help and in another causes disaster at the bidding of him who rules
it. And mankind too are able by known means to confine and keep it in check in
order that it may fulfil for them the service they require from it. And of
itself it has not any authority at all. And hence it is impossible that the
winds should be called gods, but rather a thing made by God.

VI. They also err who believe the sun to be a god. For we see that it moves by
necessity and revolves and passes from sign to sign, setting and rising so as to
give warmth to plants and tender shoots for the use of man.

Besides it has its part in common with the rest of the stars, and is much
smaller than the sky; it suffers eclipse of its light and is not the subject of
its own laws. Wherefore it is concluded that the sun is not a god, but only a
work of God. They also err who believe that the moon is a goddess. For we see
that it moves by necessity and revolves and passes from sign to sign, setting
and rising for the benefit of men; and it is less than the sun and waxes and
wanes and has eclipses. Wherefore it is concluded that the moon is not a goddess
but a work of God.

VI. So also they erred who believed that the sun is a god. For we see that it is
moved by the compulsion of another, and revolves and makes its journey, and
proceeds from sign to sign, rising and setting every day, so as to give warmth
for the growth of plants and trees, and to bring forth into the air wherewith it
(sunlight) is mingled every growing thing which is upon the earth. And to it
there belongs by comparison a part in common with the rest of the stars in its
course; and though it is one in its nature it is associated with many parts for
the supply of the needs of men; and that not according to its own will but
rather according to the will of him who rules it. And hence it is impossible
that the sun should be a god, but the work of God; and in like manner also the
moon and the stars.

VII. They also err who believe that man 9 is a god. For we see that he is moved
by necessity, and is made to grow up, and becomes old even though he would not.
And at one time he is joyous, at another he is grieved when he lacks food and
drink and clothing. And we see that he is subject to anger and jealousy and
desire and change of purpose and has many infirmities. He is destroyed too in
many ways by means of the elements and animals, and by ever-assailing death. It
cannot be admitted, then, that man is a god, but only a work of God.

Great therefore is the error into which the Chaldaeans wandered, following after
their own desires. For they reverence the perishable elements and lifeless
images, and do not perceive that they themselves make these things to be gods.

VII. And those who believed of the men of the past, that some of them were gods,
they too were much mistaken. For as you yourself allow, O King, man is
constituted of the four elements and of a soul and a spirit (and hence he is
called a microcosm),10 and without any one of these parts he could not consist.

He has a beginning and an end, and he is born and dies. But God, as I said, has none of these things in his nature, but is uncreated and imperishable. And hence it is not possible that we should set up man to be of the nature of God:----man, to whom at times when he looks for joy, there comes trouble, and when he looks for laughter there comes to him weeping,----who is wrathful and covetous and envious, with other defects as well. And he is destroyed in many ways by the elements and also by the animals. And hence, O King, we are bound to recognize the error of the Barbarians, that thereby, since they did not find traces of the true God, they fell aside from the truth, and went after the desire of their imagination, serving the perishable elements and lifeless images, and through their error not apprehending what the true God is.

VIII. Let us proceed then to the Greeks, that we may see whether they have any
discernment concerning God. The Greeks, indeed, though they call themselves wise
proved more deluded than the Chaldaeans in alleging that many gods have come
into being, some of them male, some female, practised masters in every passion
and every variety of folly. [And the Greeks themselves represented them to be
adulterers and murderers, wrathful and envious and passionate, slayers of
fathers and brothers, thieves and robbers, crippled and limping, workers in
magic, and victims of frenzy. Some of them died (as their account goes), and
some were struck by thunderbolts, and became slaves to men, and were fugitives,
and they mourned and lamented, and changed themselves into animals for wicked
and shameful ends.] 11 Wherefore, O King, they are ridiculous and absurd and
impious tales that the Greeks have introduced, giving the name of gods to those
who are not gods, to suit their unholy desires, in order that, having them as
patrons of vice, they might commit adultery and robbery and do murder and other
shocking deeds. For if their gods did such deeds why should not they also do
them? So that from these misguided practices it has been the lot of mankind to
have frequent wars and slaughters and bitter captivities.

VIII. Let us turn further to the Greeks also, that we may know what opinion they hold as to the true God. The Greeks, then, because they are more subtle than the Barbarians, have gone further astray than the Barbarians; inasmuch as they have introduced many fictitious gods, and have set up some of them as males and some as females; and in that some of their gods were found who were adulterers, and did murder, and were deluded, and envious, and wrathful and passionate, and parricides, and thieves, and robbers. And some of them, they say, were crippled and limped, and some were sorcerers, and some actually went mad, and some played on lyres, and some were given to roaming on the hills, and some even died, and some were struck dead by lightning, and some were made servants even to men, and some escaped by flight, and some were kidnapped by men, and some, indeed, were lamented and deplored by men. And some, they say, went down to Sheol, and some were grievously wounded, and some transformed themselves into the likeness of animals to seduce the race of mortal women, and some polluted themselves 12 by lying with males. And some, they say, were wedded to their mothers and their sisters and their daughters. And they say of their gods that they committed adultery with the daughters of men; and of these there was born a certain race which also was mortal. And they say that some of the females disputed about beauty, and appeared before men for judgment. Thus, O King, have the Greeks put forward foulness, and absurdity, and folly about their gods and about themselves, in that they have called those that are of such a nature gods, who are no gods. And hence mankind have received incitements to commit adultery and fornication, and to steal and to practise all that is offensive and hated and abhorred. For if they who are called their gods practised all these things which are written above, how much more should men practise them----men, who believe that their gods themselves practised them. And owing to the foulness of this error there have happened to mankind harassing wars, and great famines, and bitter captivity, and complete desolation. And lo! it was by reason of this alone that they suffered and that all these things came upon them; and while they endured those things they did not perceive in their mind that for their error those things came upon them.

IX. But, further, if we be minded to discuss their gods individually, you will
see how great is the absurdity; for instance, how Kronos is brought forward by
them as a god above all, and they sacrifice their own children to him. And he
had many sons by Rhea, and in his madness devoured his own offspring. And they
say that Zeus cut off his members and cast them into the sea, whence Aphrodite
is said in fable to be engendered. Zeus, then, having bound his own father, cast
him into Tartaros. You see the error and brutality which they advance against
their god? Is it possible, then, that a god should be manacled and mutilated?
What absurdity! Who with any wit would ever say so?

Next Zeus is introduced, and they say that he was king of their gods, and that
he changed himself into animals that he might debauch mortal women. For they
allege that he transformed himself into a bull for Europe, and into gold for
Danae, and into a swan for Leda, and into a satyr for Antiope, and into a
thunderbolt for Semele. Then by these there were many children, Dionysos and
Zethus and Amphion and Herakles and Apollo and Artemis and Perseus, Kastor and
Helenes and Polydeukes and Minos and Rhadamanthys and Sarpedon, and the nine
daughters whom they called the Muses. Then too they bring forward statements
about the matter of

Ganymedes.

Hence it happened, O King, to mankind to imitate all these things and to become
adulterous men and lascivious women, and to be workers of other terrible
iniquities, through the imitation of their god. Now how is it possible that a
god should be an adulterer or an obscene person or a parricide?

IX. Let us proceed further to their account of their gods that we may carefully
demonstrate all that is said above. First of all, the Greeks bring forward as a
god Kronos, that is to say Chiun 13 (Saturn). And his worshippers sacrifice
their children to him, and they burn some of them alive in his honour. And they
say that he took to him among his wives Rhea, and begat many children by her. By
her too he begat Dios, who is called Zeus. And at length he (Kronos) went mad,
and through fear of an oracle that had been made known to him, he began to
devour his sons. And from him Zeus was stolen away without his knowledge; and at
length Zeus bound him, and mutilated the signs of his manhood, and flung them
into the sea. And hence, as they say in fable, there was engendered Aphrodite,
who is called Astarte. And he (Zeus) cast out Kronos fettered into darkness.
Great then is the error and ignominy which the Greeks have brought forward about
the first of their gods, in that they have said all this about him, O King. It
is impossible that a god should be bound or mutilated; and if it be otherwise,
he is indeed miserable. And after Kronos they bring forward another god Zeus.
And they say of him that he assumed the sovereignty, and was king over all the
gods. And they say that he changed himself into a beast and other shapes in
order to seduce mortal women, and to raise up by them children for himself.
Once, they say, he changed himself into a bull through love of Europe and
Pasiphae.14 And again he changed himself into the likeness of gold through love
of Danae, and to a swan through love of Leda, and to a man through love of
Antiope, and to lightning through love of Luna,15 and so by these he begat many
children. For by Antiope, they say, that he begat Zethus and Amphion, and by
Luna Dionysos, by Alcmena Hercules, and by Leto, Apollo and Artemis, and by
Danae, Perseus, and by Leda, Castor and Polydeuces, and Helene and Paludus,16
and by Mnemosyne he begat nine daughters whom they styled the Muses, and by
Europe, Minos and Rhadamanthos and Sarpedon. And lastly he changed himself into
the likeness of an eagle through his passion for Ganydemos (Ganymede) the
shepherd. By reason of these tales, O King, much evil has arisen among men, who
to this day are imitators of their gods, and practise adultery and defile them-
selves with their mothers and their sisters, and by lying with males, and some
make bold to slay even their parents. For if he who, is said to be the chief and
king of their gods do these things how much more should his worshippers imitate
him? And great is the folly which the Greeks have brought forward in their
narrative concerning him. For it is impossible that a god should practise
adultery or fornication or come near to lie with males, or kill his parents; and
if it be otherwise, he is much worse than a destructive demon.

X. Along with him, too, they bring forward one Hephaistos as a god, and they say
that he is lame and wields a hammer and tongs, working as a smith for his
living. Is he then badly off? But it cannot be admitted that a god should be a
cripple, and besides be dependent on mankind.

Then they bring forward Hermes as a god, representing him to be lustful, and a
thief, and covetous, and a magician (and maimed) and an interpreter of language.
But it cannot be admitted that such an one is a god.

They also bring forward Asklepios as a god who is a doctor and prepares drugs
and compounds plasters for the sake of a living. For he was badly off. And
afterwards he was struck, they say, with a thunderbolt by Zeus on account of
Tyndareos, son of Lacedaimon; and so was killed. Now if Asklepios in spite of
his divinity could not help himself when struck by lightning, how will he come
to the rescue of others?

Again Ares is represented as a god, fond of strife and given to jealousy, and a
lover of animals and other such things. And at last while corrupting Aphrodite,
he was bound by the youthful Eros and by Hephaistos.

How then was he a god who was subject to desire, and a warrior, and a prisoner
and an adulterer?

They allege that Dionysos also is a god who holds nightly revels and teaches
drunkenness, and carries off the neighbours' wives, and goes mad and takes to
flight. And at last he was put to death by the Titans. If then Dionysos could
not save himself when he was being killed, and besides used to be mad, and drunk
with wine, and a fugitive, how should he be a god?

They allege also that Herakles got drunk and went mad and cut the throats of his
own children, then he was consumed by fire and so died.

Now how should he be a god, who was drunk and a slayer of children and burned to
death? or how will he come to the help of others, when he was unable to help
himself?

X. Again they bring forward as another god Hephaistos. And they say of him, that
he is lame, and a cap is set on his head, and he holds in his hands firetongs
and a hammer; and he follows the craft of iron working, that thereby he may
procure the necessaries of his livelihood. Is then this god so very needy? But
it cannot be that a god should be needy or lame, else he is very worthless. And
further they bring in another god and call him Hermes. And they say that he is a
thief,17 a lover of avarice, and greedy for gain, and a magician and mutilated
and an athlete, and an interpreter of language. But it is impossible that a god
should be a magician or avaricious, or maimed, or craving for what is not his,
or an athlete. And if it be otherwise, he is found to be useless. And after him
they bring forward as another god Asklepios. And they say that he is a physician
and prepares drugs and plaster that he may supply the necessaries of his
livelihood. Is then this god in want? And at length he was struck with lightning
by Dios on account of Tyndareos of Lacedaemon, and so he died. If then Asklepios
were a god, and, when he was struck with lightning, was unable to help himself,
how should he be able to give help to others? But that a divine nature should be
in want or be destroyed by lightning is impossible. And again they bring forward
another as a god, and they call him Ares. And they say that he is a warrior, and
jealous, and covets sheep and things which are not his. And he makes gain by his
arms. And they say that at length he committed adultery with Aphrodite, and was
caught by the little boy Eros and by Hephaistos the husband of Aphrodite. But it
is impossible that a god should be a warrior or bound or an adulterer. And again
they say of Dionysos that he forsooth! is a god, who arranges carousals by
night, and teaches drunkenness, and carries off women who do not belong to him.
And at length, they say, he went mad and dismissed his handmaidens and fled into
the desert; and during his madness he ate serpents. And at last he was killed by
Titanos. If then Dionysos were a god, and when he was being killed was unable to
help himself, how is it possible that he should help others?

Herakles next they bring forward and say that he is a god, who hates detestable
things, a tyrant,18 and warrior and a destroyer of plagues. And of him also they
say that at length he became mad and killed his own children, and cast himself
into a fire and died. If then Herakles is a god, and in all these calamities was
unable to rescue himself, how should others ask help from him? But it is
impossible that a god should be mad, or drunken or a slayer of his children, or
consumed by fire.

XI. They represent Apollo also as a jealous god, and besides as the master of
the bow and quiver, and sometimes of the lyre and flute, and as divining to men
for pay? Can he then be very badly off? But it cannot be admitted that a god
should be in want, and jealous, and a harping minstrel.

They represent Artemis also as his sister, who is a huntress and has a bow with
a quiver; and she roams alone upon the hills with the dogs to hunt the stag or
the wild boar.

How then should such a woman, who hunts and roams with her dogs, be a divine
being?

Even Aphrodite herself they affirm to be a goddess who is adulterous. For at one
time she had Ares as a paramour, and at another time Anchises and again Adonis,
whose death she also laments, feeling the want of her lover. And they say that
she even went down to Hades to purchase back Adonis from Persephone. Did you
ever see, O King, greater folly than this, to bring forward as a goddess one who
is adulterous and given to weeping and wailing? And they represent that Adonis
is a hunter god, who came to a violent end, being wounded by a wild boar and
having no power to help himself in his distress. How then will one who is
adulterous and a hunter and mortal give himself any concern for mankind?

All this and much more of a like nature, and even far more disgraceful and offensive details, have the Greeks narrated, O King, concerning their gods;----details which it is not proper either to state or for a moment to remember. And hence mankind, taking an impulse from their gods, practised all lawlessness and brutality and impiety, polluting both earth and air by their awful deeds.

XI. And after him they bring forward another god and call him Apollon. And they
say that he is jealous and inconstant, and at times he holds the bow and quiver,
and again the lyre and plectron. And he utters oracles for men that he may
receive rewards from them. Is then this god in need of rewards? But it is an
insult that all these things should be found with a god. And after him they
bring forward as a goddess Artemis, the sister of Apollo; and they say that she
was a huntress and that she herself used to carry a bow and bolts, and to roam
about upon the mountains, leading the hounds to hunt stags or wild boars of the
field. But it is disgraceful that a virgin maid should roam alone upon the hills
or hunt in the chase for animals. Wherefore it is impossible that Artemis should
be a goddess.

Again they say of Aphrodite that she indeed is a goddess. And at times she
dwells with their gods, but at other times she is a neighbour to men. And once
she had Ares as a lover, and again Adonis who is Tammuz. Once also, Aphrodite
was wailing and weeping for the death of Tammuz, and they say that she went down
to Sheol that she might redeem Adonis from Persephone, who is the daughter of
Sheol (Hades). If then Aphrodite is a goddess and was unable to help her lover
at his death, how will she find it possible to help others? And this cannot be
listened to, that a divine nature should come to weeping and wailing and
adultery. And again they say of Tammuz that he is a god. And he is, forsooth! a
hunter and an adulterer. And they say that he was killed by a wound from a wild
boar, without being able to help himself. And if he could not help himself, how
can he take thought for the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer or
a hunter or should die by violence is impossible.

Again they say of Rhea that she is the mother of their gods. And they say that
she had once a lover Atys, and that she used to delight in depraved men. And at
last she raised a lamentation and mourned for Atys her lover. If then the mother
of their gods was unable to help her lover and deliver him from death, how can
she help others? So it is disgraceful that a goddess should lament and weep and
take delight in depraved men.

Again they introduce Kore and say that she is a goddess, and she was stolen away
by Pluto, and could not help herself. If then she is a goddess and was unable to
help herself how will she find means to help others? For a god who is stolen
away is very powerless.

All this, then, O King, have the Greeks brought forward concerning their gods,
and they have invented and declared it concerning them. And hence all men
received an impulse to work all profanity and all defilements; and hereby the
whole earth was corrupted.

XII. The Egyptians, again, being more stupid and witless than these have gone
further astray than all the nations. For they were not content with the objects
of worship of the Chaldaeans and the Greeks, but in addition to these brought
forward also brute creatures as gods, both land and water animals, and plants
and herbs; and they were defiled with all madness and brutality more deeply than
all the nations on the earth. For originally they worshipped Isis, who had
Osiris as brother and husband. He was slain by his own brother Typhon; and
therefore Isis with Horos her son fled for refuge to Byblus in Syria, mourning
for Osiris with bitter lamentation, until Horos grew up and slew Typhon. So that
neither had Isis power to help her own brother and husband; nor could Osiris
defend himself when he was being slain by Typhon; nor did Typhon, the slayer of
his brother, when he was perishing at the hands of Horos and Isis, find means to
rescue himself from death. And though they were revealed in their true character
by such mishaps, they were believed to be very gods by the simple Egyptians, who
were not satisfied even with these or the other deities of the nations, but
brought forward also brute creatures as gods. For some of them worshipped the
sheep, and some the goat; another tribe (worshipped) the bull and the pig;
others again, the raven and the hawk, and the vulture and the eagle; and others
the crocodile; and some the cat and the dog, and the wolf and the ape, and the
dragon and the asp; and others the onion and the garlic and thorns and other
created things. And the poor creatures do not perceive about all these that they
are utterly helpless. For though they see their gods eaten by men of other
tribes, and burnt as offerings and slain as victims and mouldering in decay,
they have not perceived that they are not gods.

XII. The Egyptians, moreover, because they are more base and stupid than every
people that is on the earth, have themselves erred more than all. For the
deities (or religion) of the Barbarians and the Greeks did not suffice for them,
but they introduced some also of the nature of the animals, and said thereof
that they were gods, and likewise of creeping things which are found on the dry
land and in the waters. And of plants and herbs they said that some of them were
gods. And they were corrupted by every kind of delusion and defilement more than
every people that is on the earth. For from ancient times they worshipped Isis,
and they say that she is a goddess whose husband was Osiris her brother. And
when Osiris was killed by Typhon his brother, Isis fled with Horos her son to
Byblus in Syria, and was there for a certain time till her son was grown. And he
contended with Typhon his uncle, and killed him. And then Isis returned and went
about with Horos her son and sought for the dead body of Osiris her lord,
bitterly lamenting his death. If then Isis be a goddess, and could not help
Osiris her brother and lord, how can she help another? But it is impossible that
a divine nature should be afraid, and flee for safety, or should weep and wail;
or else it is very miserable. And of Osiris also they say that he is a
serviceable god. And he was killed by Typhon and was unable to help himself. But
it is well known that this cannot be asserted of divinity. And further, they say
of his brother Typhon that he is a god, who killed his brother and was killed by
his brother's son and by his bride, being unable to help himself. And how, pray,
is he a god who does not save himself? 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 turbot- fish, 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.

XIII. So the Egyptians and the Chaldaeans and the Greeks made a great error in
bringing forward such beings as gods, and in making images of them, and in
deifying dumb and senseless idols. And I wonder how they saw their gods sawn out
and hacked and docked by the workmen, and besides aging with time and falling to
pieces, and being cast from metal, and yet did not discern concerning them that
they were not gods. For when they have no power to see to their own safety, how
will they take forethought for men? But further, the poets and philosophers,
alike of the Chaldaeans and the Greeks and the Egyptians, while they desired by
their poems and writings to magnify the gods of their countries, rather revealed
their shame, and laid it bare before all men. For if the body of man while
consisting of many parts does not cast off any of its own members, but
preserving an unbroken unity in all its members, is harmonious with itself, how
shall variance and discord be so great in the nature of God? For if there had
been a unity of nature among the gods, then one god ought not to have pursued or
slain or injured another. And if the gods were pursued by gods, and slain, and
kidnapped and struck with lightning by them, then there is no longer any unity
of nature, but divided counsels, all mischievous. So that not one of them is a
god.

It is clear then, O King, that all their discourse on the nature of the gods is
an error. But how did the wise and erudite men of the Greeks not observe that
inasmuch as they make laws for themselves they are judged by their own laws? For
if the laws are righteous, their gods are altogether unrighteous, as they have
committed transgressions of laws, in slaying one another, and practising
sorceries, and adultery and thefts and intercourse with males. If they were
right in doing these things, then the laws are unrighteous, being framed
contrary to the gods. Whereas in fact, the laws are good and just, commending
what is good and forbidding what is bad. But the deeds of their gods are
contrary to law. Their gods, therefore, are lawbreakers, and all liable to the
punishment of death; and they are impious men who introduce such gods. For if
the stories about them be mythical, the gods are nothing more than mere names;
and if the stories be founded on nature, still they who did and suffered these
things are no longer gods; and if the stories be allegorical, they are myths and
nothing more.

It has been shown then, O King, that all these polytheistic objects of worship
are the works of error and perdition. For it is not right to give the name of
gods to beings which may be seen but cannot see; but one ought to reverence the
invisible and all-seeing and all-creating God.

XIII. 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. And yet they see their gods in the hands
of their artificers being sawn out, and planed and docked, and hacked short, and
charred, and ornamented, and being altered by them in every kind of way. And
when they grow old, and are worn away through lapse of time, and when they are
molten and crushed to powder, how, I wonder, did they not perceive concerning
them, that they are not gods? And as for those who did not find deliverance for
themselves, how can they serve the distress of men? But even the writers and
philosophers among them have wrongly alleged that the gods are such as are made
in honour of God Almighty. And they err in seeking to liken (them) to God whom
man has not at any time seen nor can see unto what He is like.

Herein, too (they err) in asserting of deity that any such thing as deficiency
can be present to it; as when they say that He receives sacrifice and requires
burnt- offering and libation and immolations of men, and temples. But God is not
in need, and none of these things is necessary to Him; and it is clear that men
err in these things they imagine.

Further their writers and their philosophers represent and declare that the nature of all their gods is one. And they have not apprehended God our Lord who while He is one, is in all. They err therefore. For if the body of a man while it is many in its parts is not in dread, one member of another, but, since it is a united body, wholly agrees with itself; even so also God is one in His nature. A single essence is proper to Him, since He is uniform in His nature and His essence; and He is not afraid of Himself. If then the nature of the gods is one, it is not proper that a god should either pursue or slay or harm a god. If, then, gods be pursued and wounded by gods, and some be kidnapped and some struck dead by lightning, it is obvious that the nature of their gods is not one. And hence it is known, O King, that it is a mistake when they reckon and bring the natures of their gods under a single nature. If then it becomes us to admire a god which is seen and does not see, how much more praiseworthy is it that one should believe in a nature which is invisible and all-seeing? And if further it is fitting that one should approve the handiworks of a craftsman, how much more is it fitting that one should glorify the Creator of the craftsman? For behold! when the Greeks made laws they did not perceive that by their laws they condemn their gods. For if their laws are righteous, their gods are unrighteous, since they transgressed the law in killing one another, and practising sorcery, and committing adultery, and in robbing and stealing, and in lying with males, and by their other practises as well. For if their gods were right in doing all these things as they are described, then the laws of the Greeks are unrighteous in not being made according to the will of their gods. And in that case the whole world is gone astray. For the narratives about their gods are some of them myths, and some of them nature-poems (lit: natural----fusikai/), and some of them hymns and elegies. The hymns indeed and elegies are empty words and noise. But these nature-poems, even if they be made as they say, still those are not gods who do such things and suffer and endure such things. And those myths are shallow tales with no depth whatever in them.

XIV. Let us proceed then, O King, to the Jews also, that we may see what truth
there is in their view of God. For they were descendants of Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob, and migrated to Egypt. And thence God brought them forth with a
mighty hand and an uplifted arm through Moses, their lawgiver; and by many
wonders and signs He made known His power to them. But even they proved stubborn
and ungrateful, and often served the idols of the nations, and put to death the
prophets and just men who were sent to them.

Then when the Son of God was pleased to come upon the earth, they received him
with wanton violence and betrayed him into the hands of Pilate the Roman
governor; and paying no respect to his good deeds and the countless miracles he
wrought among them, they demanded a sentence of death by the cross. And they
perished by their own transgression; for to this day they worship the one God
Almighty, but not according to knowledge. For they deny that Christ is the Son
of God; and they are much like to the heathen, even although they may seem to
make some approach to the truth from which they have removed themselves. So much
for the Jews.

XIV. Let us come now, O King, to the history of the Jews also, and see what opinion they have as to God. The Jews then say that God is one, the Creator of all, and omnipotent; and that it is not right that any other should be worshipped except this God alone. And herein they appear to approach the truth more than all the nations, especially in that they worship God and not His works. And they imitate God by the philanthropy which prevails among them; for they have compassion on the poor, and they release the captives, and bury the dead, and do such things as these, which are acceptable before God and well-pleasing also to men,----which (customs) they have received from their forefathers.

Nevertheless they too erred from true knowledge. 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, which things, however, they do not observe perfectly.

XV. Now the Christians19 trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He
is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came
down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin,
unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that
He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods. And having
accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death
on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to
life again and ascended into heaven. And if you would read, O King, you may
judge the glory of His presence from the holy gospel writing, as it is called
among themselves. He had twelve disciples, who after His ascension to heaven
went forth into the provinces of the whole world, and declared His greatness. As
for instance, one of them traversed the countries about us, proclaiming the
doctrine of the truth. From this it is, that they who still observe the
righteousness enjoined by their preaching are called Christians. And these are
they who more than all the nations on the earth have found the truth. For they
know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son
and the Holy Spirit21; and beside Him they worship no other God.

They have the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself graven upon their
hearts; and they observe them, looking forward to the resurrection of the dead
and life in the world to come. They do not commit adultery nor fornication, nor
bear false witness, nor covet the things of others; they honour father and
mother, and love their neighbours; they judge justly, and they never do to
others what they would not wish to happen to themselves; they appeal to those
who injure them, and try to win them as friends; they are eager to do good to
their enemies; they are gentle and easy to be entreated; they abstain from all
unlawful conversation and from all impurity; they despise not the widow, nor
oppress the orphan; and he that has, gives ungrudgingly for the maintenance of
him who has not.

If they see a stranger, they take him under their roof, and rejoice over him as
over a very brother; for they call themselves brethren not after the flesh but
after the spirit. And they are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of
Christ; for they observe His commands without swerving, and live holy and just
lives, as the Lord God enjoined upon them. And they give thanks unto Him every
hour, for all meat and drink and other blessings.

XV. But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search,20 have
found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to
truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. For they know and
trust in God, the Creator of heaven and of earth, in whom and from whom are all
things, to whom there is no other god as companion, from whom they received
commandments which they engraved upon their minds and observe in hope and
expectation of the world which is to come. 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 honour father and mother, and show kindness
to those near to them; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly. They
do not worship idols (made) in the image of man; and whatsoever they would not
that others should do unto them, they do not to others; and of the food which is
consecrated to idols they do not eat, for they are pure. And their oppressors
they appease (lit: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their
enemies; and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and their daughters are
modest; and their men keep themselves from every unlawful union and from all
nncleanness, in the hope of a recompense to come in the other world. Further, if
one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love
towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done
so, they call them brethren without distinction. They do not worship strange
gods, and they go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. Falsehood is not
found among them; and they love one another, and from widows they do not turn
away their esteem; and they deliver the orphan from him who treats him harshly.
And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without boasting. And when they see a
stranger, they take him in to their homes and. rejoice over him as a very
brother; for they do not call them brethren after the flesh, but brethren after
the spirit and in God. And whenever one of their poor passes from the world,
each one of them according to his ability gives heed to him and carefully sees
to his burial. And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or
afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them anxiously
minister to his necessity, and if it is possible to redeem him they set him
free. And if there is among them any that is poor and needy, and if they have no
spare food, they fast two or three days in order to supply to the needy their
lack of food. They observe the precepts of their Messiah with much care, living
justly and soberly as the Lord their God commanded them. Every morning22 and
every hour they give thanks and praise to God for His loving-kindnesses toward
them; and for their food and their drink they offer thanksgiving to Him. And if
any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer
thanks to God; and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place
to another near. And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks
to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God
the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins. And further
if they see that any one of them dies in his ungodliness or in his sins, for him
they grieve bitterly, and sorrow as for one who goes to meet his doom.

XVI. Such, O King, is the commandment of the law of the Christians, and such is their manner of life. As men who know God, they ask from Him petitions which are fitting for Him to grant and for them to receive. And thus they employ their whole lifetime. And since they know the loving-kindnesses of God toward them, behold! for their sake the glorious things which are in the world flow forth to view. And verily, they are those who found the truth when they went about and made search for it; and from what we considered, we learned that they alone come near to a knowledge of the truth. And they do not proclaim in the ears of the multitude the kind deeds they do, but are careful that no one should notice them; and they conceal their giving just as he who finds a treasure and conceals it. And they strive to be righteous as those who expect to behold their Messiah, and to receive from Him with great glory the promises made concerning them. And as for their words and their precepts, O King, and their glorying in their worship, and the hope of earning according to the work of each one of them their recompense which they look for in another world,---- you may learn about these from their writings. It is enough for us to have shortly informed your Majesty concerning the conduct and the truth of the Christians. For great indeed, and wonderful is their doctrine to him who will search into it and reflect upon it. And verily, this is a new people, and there is something divine (lit: a divine admixture) in the midst of them.

XVI. Verily then, this is the way of the truth which leads those who travel
therein to the everlasting kingdom promised through Christ in the life to come.
And that you may know, O King, that in saying these things I do not speak at my
own instance, if you deign to look into the writings of the Christians, you will
find that I state nothing beyond the truth. Rightly then, did thy son23
apprehend, and justly was he taught to serve the living God and to be saved for
the age that is destined to come upon us. For great and wonderful are the
sayings and deeds of the Christians; for they speak not the words of men but
those of God. But the rest of the nations go astray and deceive themselves; for
they walk in darkness and bruise themselves like drunken men.

Take, then, their writings, and read therein, and lo! you will find that I have
not put forth these things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as their
advocate; but since I read in their writings I was fully assured of these things
as also of things which are to come. And for this reason I was constrained to
declare the truth to such as care for it and seek the world to come. And to me
there is no doubt but that the earth abides through the supplication of the
Christians. But the rest of the nations err and cause error in wallowing before
the elements of the world, since beyond these their mental vision will not pass.
And they search about as if in darkness because they will not recognize the
truth; and like drunken men they reel and jostle one another and fall.

XVII. Thus far, O King, extends my discourse to you, which has been dictated in
my mind by the Truth.25 Wherefore let thy foolish sages cease their idle talk
against the Lord; for it is profitable for you to worship God the Creator, and
to give ear to His incorruptible words, that ye may escape from condemnation and
punishment, and be found to be heirs of life everlasting.

XVII. Thus far, O King, I have spoken; for concerning that which remains, as is said above,24 there are found in their other writings things which are hard to utter and difficult for one to narrate,----which are not only spoken in words but also wrought out in deeds.

Now the Greeks, O King, as they follow base practises in intercourse with males,
and a mother and a sister and a daughter, impute their monstrous impurity in
turn to the Christians. But the Christians are just and good, and the truth is
set before their eyes, and their spirit is long-suffering; and, therefore,
though they know the error of these (the Greeks), and are persecuted by them,
they bear and endure it; and for the most part they have compassion on them, as
men who are destitute of knowledge. And on their side, they offer prayer that
these may repent of their error; and when it happens that one of them has
repented, he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which were done by
him; and he makes confession to God, saying, I did these things in ignorance.
And he purifies his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he committed
them in ignorance in the former time, when he used to blaspheme and speak evil
of the true knowledge of the Christians. And assuredly the race of the
Christians is more blessed than all the men who are upon the face of the earth.

Henceforth let the tongues of those who utter vanity and harass the Christians
be silent; and hereafter let them speak the truth. For it is of serious
consequence to them that they should worship the true God rather than worship a
senseless sound. And verily whatever is spoken in the mouth of the Christians is
of God; and their doctrine is the gateway of light. Wherefore let all who are
without the knowledge of God draw near thereto; and they will receive
incorruptible words, which are from all time and from eternity. So shall they
appear before the awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to
come upon the whole human race. The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher is
finished.

1. 1 The superscription seems to be duplicate in the Syriac. It is absent from
the Greek as we have it; the Armenian has " To the Emperor Caesar Hadrian trom
Aristides." Various explanations are offered,

(a) Both emperors, as colleagues, may be meant. In support of this the Syriac
adjectives for "venerable and merciful" are marked plural; the phrase "Your
majesty" occurring later has a plural suffix; and two Imperatives, "Take and
read," are plural. On the other hand "O King" occurs constantly in the singular;
and the emperors were colleagues only for a few months in the year A.D. 138.

(b) The longer heading is the true one----the shorter being due perhaps to
a scribe who had a collection of works to copy. In that case the word "Hadrian"
has been selected from the full title of Antonine, and the two adjectives "venerable
and merciful" are proper names, Augustus Pius. (Harris.)

(c) The shorter heading has the support of Eusebius and the Armenian version;
and the translator into Syriac may have amplified.

[Syriac] Almighty is separated from the word for "God" by a pause, and is not an
attribute which a Christian would care to apply to a Roman emperor. pantokra&twr
may have been confounded with au)tokra&wr. Raabe supplies [Syriac] giving the
sense "qui Imperium (poetatem) habet," as an epithet of Caesar. If ... [Syriac]
="Renewed, or dedicated again to. . . Antoninus Pius," could be read, both
headings might be retained.

2. 1 The Greek might be rendered, "so far as there was room for
me to speak of Him," i.e., the attributes of the Deity are not further
relevant to the discussion----as the translator into Syriac takes it. The Armenian
adopts the other meaning, viz., the theme is beyond
man's power to discuss. As translated by F. C. Conybeare, the Armenian is in
these words: "Now by the grace of God it was given
me to speak wisely concerning Him. So far as I have received the faculty I will
speak, yet not according to the measure of the
inscrutability of His greatness shall I be able to do so, but by faith alone
do I glorify and adore Him."

3. 2 The "King" in the Greek is Abenner, the father of Josaphat; in the Syriac,
as in the Greek originally, he is the Roman Emperor. Hadrian.

4. 3 The Armenian and Syriac agree to giving four races, which was probably the
original division. To a Greek, men were either Greeks or Barbarians: to a Greek
Christian it would seem necessary to add two new peoples, Jews and Christians.
The Greek calls the Barbarians "Chaldaeans." This change of classification is
probably the cause of the omission in the Greek of the preliminary accounts of
the four classes. The Greek blends the summaries with the fuller accounts.

5. 4 The Armenian adds, "For that which is subject to this distinction is moved
by passions."

6. 1 Literally: "a certain dispensation of his." The Greek term oi0konomi/a,
"dispensation," suggests to the translator into Syriac the idea of the
Incarnation, familiar, as it seems, by his time. Professor Sachau reads the
equivalent of qaumasth& instead of [Syriac] (tij). In the translation given
[Syriac] is taken adverbially=aliquamdiu.

7. 2 This irrelevant sentence is found in the Armenian version also, and
therefore was probably in the original Greek. It seems to be an obiter dictum.
Men fall into four groups, and, by the way, so do the elements, air, fire,
earth, and water; and the powers that govern them. One quaternion suggests
others.

8. 3 Cf. Rom. i. 25 and Col. ii. 8.

9. 1 "I do not think it out of place here to mention Antinous of our day [a slave of the Emperor Hadrian], whom all, not- withstanding they knew who and whence he was, yet affected to worship as a god."----Justin Martyr quoted in Eusebius Hist.

Bk. IV., c. 8.

10. 2 Or "and hence the world also gets its name ko&smoj." The Syriac is the
equivalent of the Greek "dio_ kai\ ko&smoj kalei=tai,', which occurs (Chap. IV.)
in discussing the supposed divinity of the sky or heaven.

11. 1 The passage in brackets occurs earlier in "Barlaam and Josaphat," and is
restored to its place by J. A. Robinson.

12. 2 Professor Nöldeke's emendation, [Syriac], in place of [Syriac] ="they were
reviled," is adopted in the translation given.

13. 3 Cf. Amos v. 26, "Chiun, your star god," and Acts vii. 43.

14. 1 Pasiphae's unnatural passion for Taurus is not in the Greek mythology
charged to Zeus.

15. 2 The visit of Zeus to Semele (not Selene) is evidently referred to. Selh&nh
Luna would give the Syriac [Syriac]

16. 3 Professor Rendel Harris pronounces "Paludus" a vox nihili, and explains its presence as due to a corrupt repetition of the pre- ceding Polydeuces. The Syriac word in the text suggests Pollux----the Latin equivalent of Polydeuces. Clytemnestra is the name re- quired.

17. 4 Adopting Professor Harris's emendation [Syriac] = kle/pthj instead of
[Syriac] =vir.

18. 1 Tyrant," [Syriac] seems out of place when connected with Herakles. Perhaps
[Syriac] =ebrius, which occurs at the close of the paragraph, should be read
here. Cf. also the Greek.

19. 1 This, the "Christological" passage, occurs earlier in the Syriac. Chap.
ii.

20. 2 The same two words are used of Isis. The Christians are unlike her in
finding what they sought.

21. 1 The Armenian agrees with the Greek against the Syriac. "Una cum Spiritu
Sancto " Arm.

22. 2 Cf. Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan, A.D. 112, " The Christians are
wont to meet at dawn on an appointed day, and to sing a hymn to Christ as God."

23. 1 The reference is to Josaphat, son of Abenner, who was taught to be a
Christian by the monk Barlaam.

24. 1 The Christian Scriptures are previously referred to as a source of
information, not as containing difficulties. cf 2 Peter iii. 16.

25. 2 Nachor, the fictitious monk who represented Barlaam, intended to make a
weak defence of Christianity, but, according to the story, he was constrained to
speak what he had not intended. It is evidently the author's intention to make
it an instance of "suggestio verborum" or plenary inspiration, in the case of
the fictitious monk.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-aristides-the-philosopher/
========================================================================