Saint Aristide
Philosophe à Athènes (IIe siècle)
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : https://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1766/Saint-Aristide.html
SAINT ARISTIDE
Aristide, certes un prénom peu donné en Europe, mais
encore fréquemment porté en Afrique et en Amérique centrale : il signifie
(d’après le grec) "le meilleur". Philosophe grec à Athènes, au IIème
siècle, Aristide s’est converti, au péril de sa vie à la religion chrétienne.
Il a le courage d’intervenir en faveur des chrétiens persécutés, près de
l’empereur Hadrien : il lui a dédié une Apologie du Christianisme. La
tonalité de sincérité joyeuse de ce témoignage montre combien Aristide
expérimentait "le bonheur d’être chrétien". Par son influence et ses
interventions, il réussira à obtenir une accalmie des persécutions, mais il
mourra lui-même martyr sous l’empereur Antonin, vers l’année 150.
SOURCE : https://www.lejourduseigneur.com/saint/saint-aristide/
Aristide
d'Athènes, Apologie, Paris, Cerf, « Sources chrétiennes », no470, 2003, 456
p.
Résumé de l'œuvre :
A voir pour la reprise de Biblindex : éd. J. GEFFCKEN, Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Kommentare zu
griechischen und römischen Schriften........., p. 1-96
L'Apologie d'ARISTIDE, un philosophe athénien,
contemporain de l'empereur Hadrien, selon Eusèbe de Césarée, est la plus
ancienne des apologies de la religion chrétienne aujourd'hui conservée. D'où
l'importance et l'intérêt de ce texte, en dépit d'un contenu au premier regard
assez pauvre et très scolaire, que ne vient relever et faire valoir aucune
véritable recherche rhétorique. De fait, si l'influence de l'Apologie
d'Aristide, dont Eusèbe déclare que les Athéniens la tenaient en grand honneur,
ne peut guère se vérifier de façon certaine sur les apologètes de la seconde
génération - Justin, Tatien, Athénagore et Théophile -, dont les œuvres sont
éditées dans « Sources Chrétiennes » ou en préparation, sa postérité littéraire
et sa diffusion, dans des ères linguistiques et géographiques différentes, sont
beaucoup plus nettes à partir du IVe siècle. C'est du reste la raison pour
laquelle nous pouvons, en confrontant les diverses traditions qui nous l'ont
transmise, reconstituer avec un degré de certitude suffisant l'œuvre d'Aristide
dans son « intégralité originelle ».
Jusqu'à la fin du XIXe siècle, en effet, on ne
connaissait d'Aristide que ce qu'en disent Eusèbe, Jérôme et leurs
continuateurs, c'est-à-dire fort peu de choses. Eusèbe, dont dépend presque
toute l'information postérieure, ne cite en effet aucun extrait de l'Apologie
qu'Aristide aurait adressée à l'empereur Hadrien, et se contente de noter que
l'ouvrage a connu une large diffusion. De Quadratus, le plus ancien des
apologètes connus, il donne au moins un court extrait. Aristide restait donc un
nom, jusqu'au jour où les pères
SOURCE : https://www.sources-chretiennes.mom.fr/index.php?pageid=volume_paru&id=408
4. L’Apologie d’Aristide d’Athènes est l’aînée ou
la plus « archaïque » de la série des apologies chrétiennes
conservées du iie siècle. Sa transmission nous est parvenue sous
quatre versions : deux fragments papyrologiques grecs, une version grecque
beaucoup plus ample insérée dans le Roman de Barlaam attribué à Jean
Damascène, une version syriaque et un fragment arménien. L’option de cette
édition a consisté à ne pas chercher à reconstituer un texte originel et
unique, comme l’avaient tenté autrefois Hennecke, Seeberg et Zahn, car le
résultat serait inévitablement artificiel, puisque établi à partir de versions
sensiblement divergentes, mais d’éditer chacune pour elle-même. Le lecteur est
ainsi à même de participer au débat concernant leur valeur respective. Quatre
chercheurs se sont répartis la tâche pour offrir une étude quasi exhaustive de
ces quatre textes savamment établis, traduits et commentés, selon le stemma fort
complexe qui les relie.
B.
Pouderon, auteur de l’introduction générale, reprend à neuf la discussion sur
la valeur respective de ces versions. Après avoir exposé longuement les
diverses positions de la recherche, les parentés respectives des différents
textes entre eux, l’hypothèse de rédactions successives ou de prototypes
communs aux versions actuelles, il reconstitue l’histoire du texte en Égypte,
dans la péninsule balkanique et en Orient. Sa conclusion privilégie le texte et
la structure de la version syriaque. « C’est la traduction [syriaque] qui
offre le reflet le plus fidèle et le plus suggestif de ce que pouvait être l’Apologie originelle »
(p. 171).
Aristide,
« philosophe » athénien contemporain d’Adrien, nous est connu par
divers témoignages anciens, en particulier ceux d’Eusèbe et de Jérôme. B.
Pouderon estime devoir garder la datation de l’Apologie fournie par
Eusèbe, soit 124-125 : il s’agit d’un discours adressé à Hadrien, même si
l’hypothèse de R. Grant d’une seconde édition au temps d’Antonin ne peut pas
être totalement exclue. Le genre littéraire est-il déjà celui d’une apologie?
Ce serait plutôt un discours fictif ou une lettre ouverte qui s’adresse en fait
aux trois « races » barbare, grecque et juive, pour leur montrer la
supériorité religieuse de la « race » chrétienne. Le texte passe en
revue le culte des barbares ou des Chaldéens, caractérisé par l’adoration des
éléments cosmiques, le culte des Grecs, avec ses nombreuses généalogies de
dieux divers au mœurs fort humaines, des Égyptiens et de leur zoolâtrie, des
juifs croyants au Dieu unique et à la morale élevée, mais responsables de la
condamnation du Christ, enfin les chrétiens qui représentent la voie de la
vérité. Aristide est le témoin d’une rupture consommée entre chrétiens et
juifs.
Le
contenu de la foi est exprimé de manière très brève. La doctrine d’Aristide se
ramène d’une part à un monothéisme vigoureux, exprimé en termes philosophiques,
et à un exposé bref de l’événement de Jésus, qui évoque le kérygme apostolique.
L’éloge de la vie morale des chrétiens annonce le ton de l’Épitre à Diognète,
La perspective eschatologique est très présente.
Dans
cette excellente étude nous nous permettrons de faire instance sur deux points.
La reconstitution d’un Symbole primitif à partir de l’Apologie d’Aristide
nous paraît aller trop loin et ne pas garder les prudences de Hahn et de
Harris. Le nombre de crochets et de parenthèses (p. 66) nécessaires souligne le
souci de ramener les affirmations d’Aristide à un modèle littéraire de Symbole
trinitaire qui ne pouvait exister à cette époque. Car celui-ci suppose que le
mariage entre les formules trinitaires et christologiques est déjà accompli,
alors que nous le voyons se réaliser progressivement chez Justin et Irénée.
Aristide est bien plutôt le témoin de la séparation de formules encore en
genèse. Il est vrai qu’il confesse, d’une part, un Dieu unique et créateur (Syr.
I,2 ; Barl. XV,1), mais pas dans les formules qui se répandront par
la suite. Il propose, d’autre part, un kérygme christologique (Syr.
II,4 ; Barl. XV,1-2) qui constituera plus tard le deuxième article du
Symbole. Mais il ne relie pas les deux points dans une formule construite. Il
est enfin le témoin, dans la seule version grecque de Barlaam, d’une formule de
type trinitaire (XV,3), mais séparée du kérygme christologique. La
reconstitution d’un symbole à la fois christologique et trinitaire chez lui est
donc prématurée.
Une
seconde instance concerne le rapport d’Aristide à l’AT et au NT. L’éditeur nous
paraît ici trop affirmatif. Est-il vrai qu’Aristide « évacue quasi
totalement les ouvrages vétéro-testamentaires en tant qu’Écritures
chrétiennes » (p. 72)? On ne peut que constater qu’il n’en parle pas, si
ce n’est indirectement, quand il utilise la formule des « Écritures des
chrétiens » (Barl. XVI,4) pour désigner les textes postérieurs à la venue
du Christ, ce qui les réfère au concept vétéro-testamentaire d’Écritures. Les
exposés d’Aristide sur les autres religions ne lui permettaient guère de
citations. Il est vrai qu’il est très bref sur la religion juive : mais il
mentionne Abraham, Isaac et Jacob et reconnaît le Décalogue. Ce qui est vrai,
c’est qu’Aristide ne met jamais en œuvre la grande argumentation du rapport
entre les deux Testaments, qui sera privilégiée par ses successeurs. Il est
également très bref sur la doctrine chrétienne, préférant s’étendre sur la
moralité exemplaire des chrétiens. Son apologie, archaïque encore une fois,
n’entre pas dans un débat argumenté entre chrétiens et païens ou chrétiens et
juifs. Aristide recommande la lecture des écrits chrétiens, ce qui suppose
qu’il en existe bien à son époque. « Ce sont les livrets évangéliques ou
les manuels chrétiens » (p. 64), nous dit l’éditeur. Il faut sans doute
être ici plus circonspect. Qu’Aristide connaisse une littérature chrétienne est
une chose, qu’il connaisse « les livrets évangéliques » en est une
autre. Il parle bien de « l’Écriture sainte de l’Évangile » (Barl.
XV,1), mais il ne cite aucun verset des récits évangéliques, il se contente
d’une évocation très globale de leur contenu, la vie, la mort et la
résurrection de Jésus. Sous ces expressions il faut entendre la globalité du NT
encore en genèse, dont les éléments les plus fermes sont les épîtres
pauliniennes et dont B. Pouderon reconnaît qu’elles ont exercé une influence
déterminante sur Aristide.
L’étude
des sources et de la postérité de l’Apologie d’Aristide est très
documentée et permet de s’orienter dans l’horizon de la littérature juive et
chrétienne du temps. L’ouvrage s’achève par un long commentaire historique et
doctrinal du texte qui tient compte des diverses versions. Il faut remercier
les quatre auteurs de cet instrument de travail qui est au plan philologique un
modèle.
Bernard
Sesboüé, « I – Le iie siècle : pères apostoliques et
apologètes », Bulletin de théologie patristique grecque Dans Recherches
de Science Religieuse 2005/1
(Tome 93), pages 107 à 160
SOURCE : https://www.cairn.info/revue-recherches-de-science-religieuse-2005-1-page-107.htm
INTRODUCTION
Les documents sur le Christianisme primitif sont assez
peu nombreux, pour que la découverte d’une Apologie puisse être considérée
comme précieuse. On se rappelle le bruit que fit, dans le monde théologique, la
publication du texte de la Didaché et les nombreux articles et
travaux qui parurent à cette occasion. Lorsque la nouvelle de la découverte de
l’Apologie du philosophe Aristide se répandit, on fut porté à en exagérer
l’importance. Sans doute, c’est une chose du plus haut intérêt, que de posséder
la première Apologie chrétienne, pour le fond sinon pour la forme, et on
pouvait espérer y trouver des choses nouvelles. En réalité, l’étude du document
ne fait pas avancer la connaissance du deuxième siècle du christianisme. Pour
l’histoire du dogme, comme pour l’histoire du canon, le texte retrouvé n’a que
peu de valeur. Par contre, la méthode apologétique se recommande par sa
simplicité et sa sûreté. L’apologétique d’Aristide repose sur l’expérience. Le
tableau de la vie des chrétiens, à travers lequel passe un souffle vraiment
évangélique, est la preuve de leur supériorité. Le Christianisme n’est pas
prouvé par les miracles, ni par les prophéties de l’Ancien Testament. Le
Christianisme se prouve par son évidence interne. Aristide s’attache à en
montrer la puissance de régénération et de vie. Par là, l’Apologie se rapproche
de l’épître à Diognète. Pour l’auteur de l’épître à Diognète, le Christianisme
n’est pas non plus un catalogue de vérités démontrables. Le pivot de son
apologétique est aussi l’expérience. C’est là la véritable apologétique. A ce
point de vue, l’Apologie d’Aristide n’a pas seulement un intérêt historique,
mais elle a aussi un intérêt pratique immédiat.
L’Apologie a été conservée dans trois langues
différentes. Nous en possédons une version arménienne (A) et une version
syriaque (S). Le texte grec (G) se trouve dans la légende des saints Barlaam et
Joasaph.
Nous préférons donc nous en tenir au témoignage
d’Eusèbe (Chronique) et maintenir avec la tradition que l’Apologie d’Aristide
fut remise à l’empereur Adrien pendant son premier séjour à Athènes (en 124
après J.-C.).
TRADUCTION DE L’APOLOGIE, TELLE QU’ELLE EST CONSERVÉE DANS LA LÉGENDE DE BARLAAM ET JOASAPH
I. O Roi, je suis entré dans le monde par la
providence de Dieu, et ayant contemplé le ciel, la terre et la mer, le soleil
et la Lune et le reste, je fus étonné de l’arrangement de ces choses. Voyant le
monde se mouvoir nécessairement, je compris que celui qui le fait mouvoir et
qui le maintient est Dieu. Car ce qui fait mouvoir est plus puissant que ce qui
est mû, et ce qui maintient est plus puissant que ce qui est maintenu. Je dis
donc que celui qui a organisé et qui maintient toutes choses est le Dieu sans
commencement ni fin, immortel, sans aucun besoin, élevé au-dessus de toutes les
passions et imperfections telles que la colère, l’oubli, l’ignorance, etc.
Toutes choses ont été créées par lui. Il n’a besoin ni de sacrifice, ni de
libation, ni d’aucune des choses qui existent. Mais tous ont besoin de lui.[1]
II. Après avoir dit ces choses au sujet de Dieu,[2] pour autant que je suis capable[3] de parler de lui, arrivons au genre
humain, afin de voir quels sont ceux des hommes qui ont eu quelque part à la
vérité et quels sont ceux qui ont erré.
Il est notoire pour tous, ô Roi, qu’il y a trois races
d’hommes dans ce monde : les adorateurs de ceux que vous appelez Dieu, les
Juifs et les Chrétiens. Ceux qui adorent plusieurs dieux se divisent encore en
trois races les Chaldéens, les Grecs et les Égyptiens.[4]
Car ils ont été la cause et les initiateurs pour les
autres peuples du culte et de l’adoration des dieux qui ont plusieurs noms.
III. Voyons donc quels sont ceux qui ont eu part à la
vérité et quels sont ceux qui ont erré.[5] Ne connaissant pas Dieu, les
Chaldéens[6] errèrent dans leur culte des
éléments et se mirent à adorer la créature au lieu de celui qui les a créés.
Ils se sont fait des représentations et ils ont rendu un culte à des statues du
ciel, de la terre, de la mer, du soleil et de la lune et des autres éléments ou
astres, et les ayant enfermées dans des temples, ils les adorent en les
appelant dieux et les gardent avec soin, de peur qu’elles ne soient volées par
des brigands.[7] Et ils n’ont pas compris que ce qui
garde est plus grand que ce qui est gardé, et que celui qui fait est plus grand
que ce qui est fait. Si donc leurs dieux sont incapables de se sauver
eux-mêmes, comment sauveraient-ils les autres? Les Chaldéens ont donc
grandement erré en adorant des statues mortes et inutiles. Je m’étonne, ô Roi,
que leurs prétendus philosophes n’aient pas compris que les éléments aussi sont
corruptibles.[8] Si les éléments sont corruptibles et
soumis par nécessité, comment seraient-ce des dieux? Si les éléments ne sont
pas des dieux, comment les statues faites en leur honneur seraient-elles des
dieux?
IV. Arrivons donc, ô Roi, aux éléments eux-mêmes, afin
de démontrer qu’ils ne sont pas des dieux, mais qu’ils sont corruptibles et altérables,
tirés du néant par le commandement du vrai Dieu qui est incorruptible, immuable
et invisible. Il voit tout et, selon sa volonté, change et transforme tout. Que
dirai-je donc des éléments? Ceux qui pensent que le ciel est Dieu su trompent,
car nous le voyons tourner et se mouvoir par nécessité et composé de beaucoup
de parties. C’est pourquoi il est appelé cosmos. Le cosmos est l’oeuvre de
quelque artisan. Or, ce qui est composé a un commencement et une fin. Le ciel
se meut nécessairement, et avec lui ses étoiles. Les constellations selon leur
ordre et avec leur intervalle passent de signe en signe;[9] parmi les étoiles les unes se
couchent, les autres se lèvent et accomplissent leur course dans leurs temps,
produisant l’été et l’hiver, selon l’ordre de Dieu, sans dépasser leurs propres
limites, suivant la loi immuable de la nature, qui régit le monde céleste. D’où
il résulte que le ciel n’est pas Dieu, mais oeuvre de Dieu.
Ceux qui pensent que la terre est Dieu se sont
trompés; nous voyons, en effet, qu’elle est soumise et dominée par les hommes,
qu’elle est creusée, souillée et qu’elle devient inutile. Si on la cuit elle
meurt il ne pousse rien dans la terre cuite. Si elle est trop mouillée, elle se
corrompt avec ses fruits. Elle est foulée par les hommes et les autres êtres
vivants et souillée par le sang de ceux qui sont tués. On la creuse et on la
remplit de morts : elle devient un dépôt de cadavres. Puisqu’il en est ainsi,
la terre ne peut être Dieu. Elle est une oeuvre de Dieu à l’usage des hommes.
V. Ceux qui pensent que l’eau est Dieu se sont
trompés. Elle aussi est créée pour l’usage des hommes, qui dominent sur elle.
Elle est souillée et corrompue et altérée par la cuisson et le mélange avec des
couleurs, congelée par le froid, teinte par le sang et sert au lavage de toutes
les impuretés. C’est pourquoi il est impossible que l’eau soit Dieu : elle est
oeuvre de Dieu.
Ceux qui pensent que le feu est Dieu se trompent. Le
feu est destiné à l’usage de l’homme et lui est soumis. On le transporte de
lieu en lieu pour faire bouillir ou rôtir toutes sortes de viandes, même pour
brûler des cadavres. Il est corrompu de bien des manières et éteint par les
hommes. C’est pourquoi le feu ne peut pas être Dieu, mais il est une oeuvre de
Dieu.
Ceux qui pensent que le souffle des vents est Dieu se
trompent. Car il est évident qu’il sert un autre et que pour l’usage des hommes
Dieu le prépare au transport des navires, à l’importation des blés et à
d’autres usages. Il augmente ou diminue suivant le commandement de Dieu. C’est
pourquoi on ne peut croire que le souffle des vents soit un Dieu, il est oeuvre
de Dieu.
VI. Ceux qui pensent que le soleil est Dieu se
trompent: car nous le voyons se mouvoir par nécessité et tourner, passant de
signe en signe, se couchant et se levant pour chauffer les plantes et les
bourgeons pour l’usage des hommes, étant en relation avec les astres et étant
beaucoup plus petit que le ciel, s’éclipsant et n’ayant aucun pouvoir. C’est
pourquoi on ne saurait penser que le soleil est Dieu; il est oeuvre de Dieu.
Ceux qui pensent que la lune[10] est Dieu se trompent, car nous la
voyons se mouvoir nécessairement et tourner, passant de signe en signe, se
couchant et se lovant pour l’usage des hommes, étant plus petite que le soleil,
croissant et diminuant et ayant des éclipses. C’est pourquoi on ne peut croire
que la lune soit Dieu, elle est oeuvre de Dieu.
VII. Ceux qui pensent que l’homme[11] est Dieu se trompent. Car nous le
voyons se mouvoir par nécessité, se nourrir, vieillir malgré lui. Tantôt il est
dans la joie, tantôt dans la tristesse, ayant besoin de nourriture, de boisson
et de vêtement. Il est irascible, jaloux, envieux et troublé; il a beaucoup de
défauts. Les éléments et les animaux lui sont nuisibles de bien des manières,
et la mort le menace. L’homme ne peut donc être Dieu; il est oeuvre de Dieu.
Les Chaldéens ont donc grandement erré en suivant
leurs désirs. Ils adorent les éléments corruptibles et les statues mortes. Et
ils ne comprennent pas les choses qu’ils divinisent.
VIII. Arrivons aux Grecs, afin de voir s’ils ont bien
pensé au sujet de Dieu. Les Grecs donc, se disant sages, ont été plus fous que
les Chaldéens en prétendant qu’il y a eu beaucoup de dieux, les uns mâles, les
autres femelles, livrés à toutes les passions et capables de toutes les
iniquités. Ils les ont montrés adultères, meurtriers, irascibles, envieux,
colères, parricides, fratricides, voleurs, avides, boiteux, estropiés,
sorciers, insensés. Les uns meurent, d’autres sont foudroyés, d’autres asservis
aux hommes, d’autres fugitifs, se lamentant, ou se métamorphosant en animaux
pour accomplir des choses honteuses et mauvaises. Les Grecs ont donc prétendu
des choses ridicules, folles et impies, ô Roi, saluant des dieux qui n’en sont
pas, suivant leurs mauvais désirs, afin que, les ayant comme défenseurs de
leurs vices, ils puissent commettre des adultères, dérober, tuer et faire les
choses les plus odieuses. Si leurs dieux font ces choses, pourquoi eux aussi ne
les feraient-ils pas? Par suite de cet égarement dans les moeurs, les hommes
ont eu de nombreuses guerres, et il y a eu des meurtres et de dures captivités.
IX. Mais si nous examinons leurs dieux un à un, tu
verras leur grande absurdité. Ils vénèrent tout d’abord comme dieu, Cronos, à
qui ils sacrifient leurs enfants. Cronos eut beaucoup d’enfants de Rhéa; mais
il devint fou et mangea ses propres enfants. On dit que Zeus lui coupa les
parties et les jeta dans la mer, d’où l’on raconte que naquit Aphrodite. Ayant
ainsi lié son propre père, Zeus le jeta dans le Tartare. Tu vois l’erreur et
l’obscénité dans laquelle ils tombent au sujet de leur dieu : un Dieu peut-il
être lié et châtré? Quel égarement! Quels hommes sensés le prétendraient?
Deuxièmement, ils adorent Zeus. On dit de lui qu’il
est Roi des dieux eux-mêmes et qu’il s’est changé en animaux afin de commettre
adultère avec des femmes mortelles. On le représente comme se changeant en
taureau à cause d’Europe, en or à cause de Danaé, en cygne à cause de Léda, en
satyre pour Antiope, et en éclair pour Semelé. Il eut d’elles beaucoup
d’enfants, Dionusos, Zethos, Amphion, Héraclès, Apollon, Artémis, Persée, Castor,
Hélène, Pollux, Minos, Rhadamante et Sarpédon, ainsi que les neuf filles
appelées Muses. Ils racontent ainsi ensuite l’histoire de Ganymède. Les hommes
ont imité toutes ces choses, ô Roi, et sont devenus adultères et pédérastes et
se sont rendus coupables d’autres choses mauvaises à l’incitation de leur Dieu.
Comment est-il possible qu’un Dieu soit adultère, pédéraste ou parricide?
X. Avec lui, ils adorent comme dieu un certain
Hephaestus, un boiteux qui manie le marteau et la tenaille et qui forge peur
gagner son pain. Il est donc nécessiteux? C’est pourquoi un boiteux qui a
besoin des hommes ne peut être Dieu. Ensuite, ils adorent comme Dieu Hermès,
qui est envieux, voleur, cupide, sorcier, estropié, interprète. Il ne peut donc
être un Dieu. Ils disent qu’Asclepius est Dieu il est médecin, il prépare des
médicaments et compose des emplâtres pour gagner son pain. Car il était
nécessiteux. Ensuite, il fut foudroyé par Jupiter à cause du fils du
Lacédémonien Tyndare et il mourut. Si Asclepius, quoique Dieu, a été foudroyé
et n’a pu se secourir lui-même, comment viendrait-il en aide aux autres?
Arès, le guerrier ambitieux et voleur de troupeaux,
est vénéré comme Dieu. Ensuite, commettant adultère avec Aphrodite, on dit
qu’il fut lié par l’enfant Eros et par Hephaestus. Comment un Dieu peut-il
convoiter, être guerrier, lié ou adultère?
Ils prétendent que Dionysus est Dieu, lui qui se livre
à des orgies nocturnes et à l’ivrognerie, qui enlève les femmes d’autrui; il
est devenu insensé et s’est enfui. Il fut ensuite tué par les Titans. Si donc
Dionysus tué ne put se venir en aide, lui qui était insensé, ivrogne et
fugitif, comment serait-il Dieu?
Ils disent qu’Héraclès étant ivre et fou, tua ses
propres enfants, puis fut détruit par le feu et mourut. Comment un ivrogne,
meurtrier d’enfants et brûlé serait-il Dieu? Comment viendrait-il en aide aux
autres, lui qui n’a pu se secourir lui-même?
XI. Ils adorent comme Dieu, Apollon l’ambitieux qui
porte l’arc et le carquois, ou la lyre et la pectis, et qui vend aux hommes des
oracles contre salaire. Est-il donc dans le besoin? Ne peut être dieu quiconque
est nécessiteux, ambitieux et joueur de lyre.
Ils ajoutent qu’Artémis est sa soeur, la chasseresse
qui a un arc avec carquois. Elle court seule dans les montagnes avec des chiens
à la poursuite du cerf et du sanglier. Comment cette chasseresse, qui court
avec des chiens, serait-elle Dieu?
Ils prétendent qu’Aphrodite l’adultère est une déesse.
Tantôt elle a comme amant Arès, tantôt Anchise, tantôt Adonis dont elle pleure
la mort en le cherchant. On raconte qu’elle est descendue dans l’Hadès afin de
racheter Adonis à Perséphone. As-tu vu, ô Roi, une démence plus grande que
celle-là? Faire une déesse d’une adultère qui se lamente et qui pleure!
Ils adorent Adonis[12] le chasseur comme Dieu, lui qui
mourut violemment tué par un sanglier et ne put se secourir dans son infortune.
Comment un adultère, chasseur, mort violemment, se soucierait-il des hommes?[13]
Toutes ces choses et beaucoup de semblables,
infiniment plus honteuses et mauvaises, les Grecs les racontent de leurs dieux;
il n’est pas permis de les dire, ni même d’en faire mention. Les hommes ayant
donc pris exemple sur leurs dieux ont commis toute injustice, débauche et
impiété, souillant la terre et l’air de leurs horribles actions.
Les Égyptiens, plus imbéciles et insensés que ces
derniers, se sont trompés plus que tous les peuples. Ils ne se sont pas
contentés des objets de vénération des Chaldéens et des Grecs, mais ils ont
adoré comme dieux des animaux privés de raison, terrestres ou aquatiques, des
plantes et des bourgeons, et ils se sont souillés par toute leur folie et leur
débauche plus que tous les autres peuples de la terre.
Dès l’antiquité ils adorent Isis, ayant comme frère et
mari Osiris, qui fut tué par son propre frère Typhon. C’est pourquoi Isis
s’enfuit avec son fils Oros à Biblos de Syrie, cherchant Osiris, se lamentant
amèrement jusqu’à ce que Oros ait grandi et ait tué Typhon. Ainsi donc Isis ne
put secourir son propre frère et mari; Osiris tué par Typhon ne put se sauver
lui-même. Typhon, le fratricide, tué par Oros et Isis ne put se délivrer
de la mort. Quoique connus par de tels crimes, ils ont été admis comme dieux
par les Egyptiens. Ceux-ci, non contents de ces dieux ni des objets de culte
des autres peuples, vénèrent, aussi comme dieux des animaux. Quelques-uns d’entre
eux ont adoré le mouton, quelques-uns le bouc, d’autres le veau et le porc,
d’autres le corbeau, l’épervier, le vautour et l’aigle, d’autres le crocodile;
quelques-uns le chat et le chien, le loup et le singe, le serpent, l’aspic,
d’autres l’oignon, l’ail, les épines et les autres créatures. Et les malheureux
ne comprennent pas que toutes ces choses n’ont aucune puissance. Voyant leurs
dieux mangés par d’autres hommes, brûlés et tués, puis pourrir, ils n’ont pas
saisi que ce ne sont pas des dieux.
XIII. Les Égyptiens, les Chaldéens et les Grecs ont
donc grandement erré en adorant ces dieux, en faisant leurs statues et en
divinisant des idoles sourdes et privées de sens. Et je m’étonne que, voyant
leurs dieux sciés et taillés par des ouvriers,[14] se briser et tomber en ruine par le
temps, se décomposer et se fondre, ils n’aient pas compris que ce ne sont pas
des dieux. Puisqu’ils ne peuvent rien pour leur propre salut, comment
auraient-ils souci des hommes? Mais leurs poètes et leurs philosophes, ceux des
Chaldéens, des Grecs et des Égyptiens, voulant glorifier leurs dieux dans leurs
poèmes et dans leurs ouvrages, ont bien davantage étalé et mis à nu leur honte
devant nous. Si donc le corps de l’homme, étant composé de plusieurs parties,
ne rejette aucun de ses propres membres, mais, ayant dans tous ses membres une
unité indissoluble, est d’accord avec lui-même, comment y aurait-il dans la
nature divine pareil combat et discorde? Si la nature divine est une, un dieu
ne doit pas en persécuter un autre, ni le tuer, ni lui faire du mal. Si donc
les dieux sont persécutés, tués; volés ou foudroyés par des dieux, il n’y s
plus une nature, mais des pensées partagées et toutes malfaisantes, de sorte
qu’aucun d’eux n’est dieu. Il est donc évident, ô Roi, qu’il y a une grande
erreur dans cette explication des dieux.
Comment les sages et les savants d’entre les Grecs
n’ont-ils pas compris que ceux qui font des lois sont jugés par leurs propres
lois? Si donc les lois sont justes, leurs dieux sont tout à fait injustes en
les transgressant, en commettant des meurtres, des sortilèges, des adultères,
des vols, des crimes contre nature. Si au contraire ils ont ainsi bien agi,
alors les lois sont injustes et en opposition avec les dieux. Or, les lois
sont, bonnes et justes, louant la vertu et réprouvant le vice; les actions de
leurs dieux en sont la transgression. Leurs dieux sont donc transgresseurs, et
ceux qui ont adoré de tels dieux sont tous dignes de mort et impies. Si les
récits qui les concernent sont fabuleux, ce ne sont que des mots; s’ils sont
réels, ceux qui ont fait et souffert ces choses ne sont pas des dieux. Si ces
histoires sont allégoriques, ce sont des fables et rien d’autre.
XIV. Il est maintenant évident, ô Roi, que tous ces
objets de culte polythéiste sont des oeuvres d’erreur et de perdition. On ne
peut appeler dieux ceux qu’on voit, mais qui ne voient pas. Mais il faut adorer
le Dieu invisible qui voit toutes choses et qui a tout créé.
Arrivons donc, ô Roi, aux Juifs, afin de voir ce
qu’ils pensent, eux aussi, de Dieu. Descendant d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob,
ils vinrent habiter l’Egypte. Dieu les en fit sortir de sa main forte et de son
bras tout puissant, par le moyen de Moïse, leur législateur, et il leur
manifesta sa puissance par beaucoup de signes et de miracles. Mais, dans leur
injustice et dans leur ingratitude, ils adorèrent souvent les idoles des païens
et ils tuèrent les prophètes et les justes qui leur étaient envoyés.
Ensuite, lorsqu’il plut au fils de Dieu de venir sur
la terre, après l’avoir insulté, ils le livrèrent au gouverneur des Romains et
le condamnèrent à être crucifié, sans tenir compte de ses bienfaits et des
innombrables miracles qu’il avait accomplis parmi eux. Ils ont péri par leur
propre iniquité. Ils adorent bien maintenant le Dieu unique et tout-puissant,[15] mais sans intelligence, car ils
renient le Christ, fils de Dieu, et sont presque semblables aux païens,[16] et quoiqu’ils paraissent se
rapprocher de la vérité, ils s’en éloignent. Cela, au sujet des Juifs.
XV. Les Chrétiens descendent[17] du Seigneur Jésus-Christ. On le
reconnaît comme Fils du Dieu Très-Haut descendu du ciel avec le Saint-Esprit,
pour le salut des hommes. Né d’une vierge sainte, il s’est incarné sans sperme
et sans souillure et est apparu aux hommes afin de les faire sortir de l’erreur
du polythéisme. Et ayant achevé son admirable mission, il mourut volontairement
sur la croix, suivant un plan supérieur. Trois jours après, il ressuscita et
monta aux cieux. Tu peux, ô Roi, si tu le désires, apprendre à connaître la
renommée de sa vie dans ce qu’ils appellent le saint Évangile. Il eut douze
disciples qui, après son ascension, se répandirent dans toutes les parties de
la terre, pour y annoncer sa gloire. C’est ainsi que l’un d’entre eux vint dans
nos contrées, prêchant le dogme de la vérité. Ceux qui se soumettent à leur
prédication prennent le nom de Chrétiens.
Ils ont trouvé la vérité et dépassé tous les peuples
de la terre. Car ils connaissent le Dieu créateur de toutes choses en son Fils
unique et le Saint-Esprit, et ils n’adorent pas d’autre Dieu que celui-là. Ils
ont les commandements du Seigneur Jésus-Christ lui-même gravés dans leurs
coeurs el ils les observent[18] dans l’attente de la résurrection
des morts, et de la vie du siècle à venir. Ils ne commettent pas d’adultères[19] ni de fornications;[20] ils ne portent pas de faux témoignage.[21] Ils ne convoitent pas ce qui est à
autrui;[22] ils honorent père et mère; ils
aiment leur prochain[23] et jugent avec équité. Ils ne font
pas à autrui ce qu’ils ne veulent pas qu’on leur fasse.[24] Ils exhortent ceux qui les traitent
injustement et s’en font des amis. Ils s’efforcent de faire du bien à leurs
ennemis.[25] Ils sont doux,[26] modestes, s’abstiennent de toute
union illégitime et de toute impureté. Ils ne méprisent pas les veuves et ne
font pas de tort à l’orphelin. Celui qui est riche donne de bon coeur au
pauvre.[27] Quand ils voient un étranger, ils
le conduisent dans leur demeure et se réjouissent de lui comme d’un véritable
frère. Car ce n’est pas selon la chair qu’ils s’appellent frères, mais selon
l’esprit. Ils sont prêts à donner leur vie pour Christ. Ils observent
strictement ses commandements, vivant saintement et justement, comme le
Seigneur Dieu le leur a ordonné, lui rendant grâce à toute heure pour la
nourriture, la boisson ou les autres biens.
XVI. C’est, en effet, le chemin de la vérité[28] qui conduit ceux qui le suivent au
royaume éternel promis par Christ dans la vie à venir. Et afin que tu saches, ô
Roi, que je ne dis pas ces choses par moi-même, cherche dans les écrits des
Chrétiens, et tu verras que je ne dis rien en dehors de la vérité.
[1] Le
texte S donne ici une longue paraphrase de G. Quoique le paragraphe soit deux fois
plus long, il ne contient rien de plus. Il y a des explications vraiment naïves
et qui sont bien plutôt oeuvre du traducteur que de l’auteur. En voici des
exemples : S et G présentent Dieu comme n’ayant ni commencement ni fin. Le
traducteur syriaque ajoute qu’il entend par là que tout ce qui a un
commencement a aussi une fin et que tout ce qui a une fin est corruptible. Cela
est juste, mais à quoi cela sert-il, puisqu’il est dit que Dieu n’a pas de fin?
Dieu est parfait parce qu’il n’y a en lui aucune imperfection, dit encore G.
Personne n’a jamais songé à le nier.
[2] On
a voulu voir dans les mots τούτων οὔτως εἰρημένων la preuve que l’auteur de la
légende avait écourté le chapitre 1. Il donne dans son ouvrage une grande
quantité de qualificatifs de Dieu (Boiss., p. 118, 211, 239) et aurait abrégé
pour ne pas se répéter. Il ne faut pas oublier que le discours de Nachor est
destiné à affermir le prince dans la foi et que, par conséquent, il doit être
plus affirmatif encore que Barlaam. Or, l’auteur de la légende n’a rien ajouté,
puisque tout ce qu’on lit dans G se trouve aussi dans les textes A et S.
[3] Ep.
ad. Diogn., c. 1.
[4] Cette
division est particulière au texte G. Les textes A et S donnent la quadruple
division suivante : Barbares, Grecs, Juifs et Chrétiens. Malgré ces deux
documents, nous n’hésitons pas à considérer la division du grec comme la
division originale. Ce sont bien les trois religions qui étaient en présence
dans le monde après Jésus-Christ. D’abord, le vieux paganisme sous toutes ses
formes, depuis le panthéisme de l’Inde jusqu’aux mythologies de l’Égypte, de la
Phénicie, de la Grèce et de l’Italie. Ensuite le judaïsme, avec son étroit
exclusivisme, et enfin le christianisme naissant, déjà altéré et compliqué
d’éléments étrangers. Outre cette considération générale, il faut remarquer que
la division en quatre races des textes A et S ne permet pas de développement
sur les Égyptiens. Or, le texte syriaque traite des Égyptiens dans les ch. XII
et XIII. Les Barbares mentionnés par A et S ne peuvent être que les Chaldéens,
tomme nous le montrerons un peu plus loin. Le nom de Belus, qui est resté dans
la version arménienne, est une précieuse indication. D’après le récit de la
création, laissé par Bérose, Bel se coupa la tête, et, de son sang mêlé à la
poussière de la terre, il forma l’homme. Les Grecs appelaient les descendants
de Bel des Chaldéens et non des Barbares. Les Barbares n’ont rien à faire avec
Cronos et Rhéa, parents de Zeus, père d’Helenus, comme le veut S (ch. II). Le
ch. IX, parallèlement avec G (ch. IX), mentionne Cronos comme Dieu des Grecs.
Il y a donc une contradiction dans le texte syriaque. Le traducteur syriaque
n’avait aucune idée bien exacte de toute cette mythologie : le ch. IX mentionne
Dios, qui est appelé Zeus! (A aussi). M. Robinson (Texts and Stud., p.
90) fait remarquer que le rapprochement avec le Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, qui présente
une triple division, est tout à l’avantage de la division de G (voyez Epître
de Diognète, I; Tertullien, Ad Nationes, I, 8, et Contra
gnosticos seorpiace, 10). Enfin, il y a évidemment une altération dans
cette partie des versions arménienne et syriaque. Le nom de Rhéa, surtout, a
été altéré dans l’arménien. Les différents traducteurs lisent Eerra, Eearra, Eer,
Hyera pour Rhéa.
[5] L’ordre
des matières diffère ici de celui des deux versions. Après la première phrase
du chapitre III, les textes S et A passent à l’explication de leur quadruple
division et exposent l’origine des Barbares, des Grecs, des Juifs et des
Chrétiens. Les deux versions répètent ensuite leur division et insèrent un
passage incompréhensible que nous avons reproduit plus haut. C’est seulement
alors que le texte S, qui continue seul, commence la réfutation (III).
[6] Le
pays situé entre l’Euphrate et le Tigre, à cause de sa position entre les deux
cours d’eau auxquels il doit sa richesse et sa fécondité, portait le nom de
Mésopotamie. Le sud du pays, d’après sa capitale Babel, porta le nom de
Babylonie, tandis que le nord fut l’Assyrie. Les peuples qui habitèrent ces
contrées sont appelés par les Hébreux et les Grecs, Chaldéens et Assyriens. Ces
noms concordent avec ceux qu’ils se sont donnés eux-mêmes d’après les
Inscriptions. Avant eux les Soumirs et Accads avaient habité le pays.
Astrologues, puis astronomes, surtout mathématiciens, ces derniers sont les inventeurs
de l’écriture dite cunéiforme. Les Chaldéens leur empruntèrent leur science et
une bonne partie de leurs idées religieuses. Dans son livre sur l’Histoire
comparée des anciennes religions de l’Égypte et des peuples sémitiques, le
professeur C. P. Tiele étudie les divinités des Souxnirs et Accads et montre
l’origine des divinités chaldéennes (Livre II, ch. I et Il). Ana (l’élevé) est
le ciel considéré comme être divin; pour les Chaldéens il devient le dieu du
ciel. Les principaux dieux des Chaldéens sont empruntés à ce panthéon très
ancien. L’abîme, l’océan céleste, la mer sont représentés par Hea (maison des
eaux). Il y a aussi un dieu du soleil, de la lune, de certaines étoiles, de la
terre. Le dieu de l’atmosphère donne naissance au vent et à la pluie. Le dieu
du feu jouait un rôle considérable comme dieu protecteur de la maison et de la
famille.
D’après M. Oppert (article Chaldée dans l’Encyclopédie de
M. Lichtenberger), les Chaldéens avaient un cercle de douze dieux,
correspondant presque un à un aux douze mois. Dès les temps les plus
reculés, la Chaldée est un centre de civilisation. Les doctrines chaldéennes se
seraient répandues dans l’empire romain à l’origine du christianisme.
M. H. Zotenberg pense qu’il s’agit ici des croyances
des Perses. Ce qui l’induit en erreur, c’est qu’il met cette description en
relation avec des développements sur le règne du mal (Boissonade, p. 45, 51,
105, 173) et que la réfutation de la divinité de l’homme lui paraît
s’adresser an Roi de Perse. La découverte de M. Robinson détruit cette
explication. (Zotenberg, op. cit., p. 58, 59.)
[7] L’auteur
de l’Épître à Diognète, dans sa réfutation des prétendus dieux des Grecs,
se sert du même argument On lit au ch. II, 2; « Celui-ci n’est-il pas de
bois déjà pourri, cet autre d’argent, qui a besoin d’un homme pour le garder
afin qu’il ne soit pas volé? »
[8] La
science se perpétuait dans les castes, de père en fils, et les différentes
écoles de Babylone, de Borsippa, d’Orchoë, de Sippare eurent de longues
controverses entre elles. Les adhérents de ces écoles prirent le nom de Chaldéens. Ce
nom devint synonyme de savant, d’astrologue, de prophète. Comme tel il apparaît
dans le livre de Daniel (IV, 7-11).
[9] Le
Zodiaque, pour les anciens, soutenait les astres.
[10] La
version arménienne mentionne la lune au commencement de l’Apologie. La version
syriaque ne la mentionne pas et n’en donne aucune description ni réfutation.
[11] M.
H. Zotenberg, dont l’ouvrage a paru en 1886 avant la découverte de M. Robinson,
pense qu’il s’agit ici du Roi de Perse, auquel on attribuait le caractère
divin. Le texte S (VII) a un passage parallèle qui détruit cette hypothèse.
[12] Le
texte S le présente sous son nom chaldéen de Tammuz.
[13] Le
texte S insère à la suite deux paragraphes sur Rhéa et Kore.
[14] Voyez
Épître à Diognète, II, 3,
[15] Ep.
ad Diogn., III, 2.
[16] Ep.
ad Diogn., II.
[17] On
ne savait pas, à cette époque, ce que c’était qu’une religion qui n’était pas
nationale. Les chrétiens se recrutaient partout, chez les païens, chez les
juifs. On les considérait comme un tertium genus et on ne savait d’où
sortait cette race. Aristide les fait descendre de Jésus-Christ. Il s’agit dune
descendance spirituelle; il dira plus loin que les chrétiens sont frères
spirituels (G, XV). Le fragment A exprime la même idée, tandis que la version S
présente simplement Jésus comme fondateur de la religion chrétienne: Le
traducteur syriaque a fait des confusions, comme le montre cette phrase bizarre
du ch. II au sujet des Barbares: Now the Barbarians reckon the head of the
race of their religion. Le texte G donne ici la vraie leçon.
[18] Cf. Did.
IV, 9; Barn. Epist., XIX, 2; XIX, 11.
[19] Cf. Did.
II, 1; Barn. Epist., XIX, 4.
[20] Cf.
II, 1.
[21] Cf.
II, 2.
[22] Cf. Did.
II, 2; Barn. Epist., XIX, 6.
[23] Cf. Did.,
I, 2; II, 7; Barn. Epist., XIX, 5.
[24] Cf. Did.
I, 2.
[25] Cf. Did.
I, 3, 5.
[26] Cf. Did.
III, 6, 7; Barn. Epist., XIX, .
[27] Cf. Did.
IV, 4.
[28] Cf. Barn.
Epist., XIX.
L’Apologie d’Aristide. Thèse pésentée à la Faculté de
théologie protestante de Paris pour obtenir le grade de bachelier en théologie
par Maurice Picard, 1892
SOURCE : http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/eglise/aristide/apologie.htm
L’Apologie d’Aristide d’Athènes
19 avril 2018 David Vincent Français 0
Je continue ma série d’introduction aux Pères de
l’Église avec l’Apologie d’Aristide d’Athènes. Je précise, pour éviter
toute confusion, que cet article est une présentation historique de l’œuvre
d’un auteur, qui ne reflète pas nécessairement mes idées sur les sujets
abordés. Je partage mes propres opinions sur ces questions dans d’autres
articles.
L’Apologie d’Aristide
L’Apologie d’Aristide d’Athènes est la plus
ancienne apologie actuellement conservée, puisqu’elle date probablement des
années 124-125. Elle était connue depuis longtemps, grâce notamment à Eusèbe de
Césarée qui la mentionne dans son Histoire Ecclésiastique, mais le texte
n’a été redécouvert qu’à la fin du 19e siècle. D’abord dans des
traductions orientales avec des fragments arméniens puis un texte complet en
syriaque, et enfin en grec, qui était sa langue d’écriture.
Aristide est un philosophe originaire d’Athènes qui
écrit à l’empereur Hadrien. Toutefois, cette apologie n’est pas une requête,
mais une présentation de la religion chrétienne. L’auteur commence en évoquant
sa conversion, puis présente le plan de son ouvrage (1-2). Il s’intéresse
successivement à la religion des barbares (3-7), des Grecs (8-11), des Égyptiens (12-13) et des juifs (14). Enfin, il termine en revenant aux
chrétiens pour exposer leur mode de vie et réfuter les calomnies qui
circulaient à leur sujet.
Extraits
Pour terminer, je vous propose quatre extraits. Le
premier présente la conversion d’Aristide et sa conception de Dieu, le deuxième
les fondements de la foi chrétienne, le troisième insiste sur les livres
chrétiens et enfin le quatrième évoque le judaïsme.
Conversion d’Aristide et conception de Dieu
« Moi, ô Roi, par la grâce de Dieu, je suis venu
en ce monde. Ayant contemplé le ciel, la terre et les mers, vu le soleil et le
reste de la création, je me suis émerveillé de l’ordonnance du monde. Je perçus
alors que ce monde et tout ce qu’il contient est mû par l’impulsion d’un
autre ; et je compris que celui qui les meut, c’est Dieu, qui est caché en
eux et leur est tenu secret. Or il est évident que celui qui meut est plus
fort que celui qui est mû. Et que m’informer à propos de celui qui est le
moteur du tout, et sur son mode d’existence — car il me paraît certain qu’il
est incompréhensible en sa nature – et refuser la véracité de son économie
ainsi que la comprendre en totalité, cela ne me sert à rien. Personne en effet
ne peut comprendre cela complètement.
Je dis donc du Moteur du monde qu’il est le Dieu de
tout, qui fit tout pour l’homme ; et il me paraît certain qu’il est
nécessaire que chacun craigne Dieu, et qu’en conséquence il ne fasse souffrir
aucun homme. Je dis donc que Dieu est inengendré, incréé, d’une nature
constante sans commencement ni fin, immortel, parfait et insaisissable ;
or si j’ai dit qu’il est parfait, c’est qu’il n’est en lui aucune déficience et
qu’il n’a besoin de rien, tandis que l’univers a besoin de lui ; et si j’ai
dit qu’il est sans commencement, c’est que tout ce qui a un commencement a
aussi une fin ; et ce qui a une fin est destructible. Il n’a pas de nom,
car ce qui porte un nom appartient au créé. Il est sans figure et dépourvu de
membres en effet, celui qui en possède compte parmi les œuvres façonnées. Il
n’est ni mâle ni femelle ; les cieux ne le contiennent pas, mais il
contient en lui les cieux et tout ce qui est visible et invisible. Il n’est
rien qui aille contre lui, car il n’est personne qui soit plus fort que lui. Il
n’a ni emportement ni colère, car il n’y a rien qui puisse tenir contre lui. Ni
erreur ni oubli en sa nature, car il est tout entier sagesse et
intelligence ; en lui tient tout ce qui tient. Il ne demande ni sacrifice
ni libation, ni aucune de ces choses visibles. Il ne demande rien à personne,
mais tous les êtres lui adressent leurs demandes. » (1)
La foi chrétienne
« Quant aux chrétiens, ils imputent le début de
leur religion à Jésus-Christ. C’est lui que l’on nomme Fils du Dieu Très-Haut.
On dit que Dieu descendit du ciel, et que, d’une vierge des Hébreux, il prit et
revêtit la chair ; que le Fils de Dieu demeura dans une fille d’homme,
c’est ce qui est enseigné dans l’Évangile énoncé chez eux il y a quelque temps
pour être prêché – et dont vous même saisiriez le sens, si vous le lisiez. Or
donc, ce Jésus naquit de la tribu des Hébreux. Puis il eut douze disciples, en
sorte que s’accomplisse quelque sienne économie. C’est lui qui fut transpercé
par les Judéens, mourut et fut enseveli et l’on dit qu’après trois jours il
ressuscita et monta aux cieux. Puis ces douze disciples se rendirent dans les
parties connues du monde, pour y enseigner sa grandeur toute d’humilité et
d’honnêteté. » (2)
On retrouve dans cet énoncé, les fondements de la doctrine
chrétienne. On peut aussi noter qu’Aristide parle de « lire », ce qui
implique que cet enseignement était bien transmis dans des livres clairement
identifiables.
Les livres des chrétiens
Cette insistance sur les Écritures revient d’ailleurs
à plusieurs reprises dans l’Apologie, ainsi en conclusion Aristide termine en
disant :
« Or leurs paroles et leurs commandements, ô Roi,
le prestige de leur culte et leur attente du salaire dont ils seront rétribués,
chacun selon son œuvre propre, dans l’autre monde, tu peux les connaître par
leurs livres. Car il nous suffit d’avoir informé brièvement ta Majesté des
habitudes et de la vérité des chrétiens. En effet, leur enseignement est
vraiment grand et étonnant pour qui veut l’examiner et le comprendre. Et c est
vraiment un nouveau peuple, dans lequel se mêle quelque chose de divin.
Prenez donc leurs livres, lisez-les, et voici :
vous trouverez que ce que j’ai exprimé ne vient pas de moi-même. Et que je ne
l’ai pas exposé en tant qu’avocat. Mais j ai affirmé ce que j’ai lu dans leurs
livres, même ce qui est à venir. C’est ce qui m’a contraint à manifester la
vérité à qui la désirent et qui cherchent le monde à venir. » (3)
Le judaïsme
Enfin, on peut noter que dans son évaluation du
judaïsme, Aristide est beaucoup moins polémique que d’autres apologètes,
puisqu’il n’hésite pas à souligner les aspects positifs de cette religion, sans
pour autant en cacher les limites.
« Venons-en donc aussi, ô roi, à la question des
juifs, et voyons qu’elle est leur conception de Dieu.
Donc les juifs disent qu’il n y a qu’un seul Dieu
créateur de tout et tout-puissant, et qu’il ne convient pas d’adorer quoi que
ce soit d’autre que ce seul Dieu. Et on voit en cela qu’ils sont plus proches
de la vérité que tous les peuples, puisqu’ils préfèrent adorer Dieu plutôt que
ses œuvres. Et ils imitent Dieu, au moyen de cette philanthropie qui est la
leur, pratiquant la miséricorde envers les pauvres, rachetant les captifs,
ensevelissant les morts, et accomplissant d’autres œuvres du même genre, agréées
de Dieu et belles aussi pour les hommes, qu’ils ont reçues de leurs pères
d’autrefois.
Or donc, ils se sont eux aussi écartés de la
connaissance exacte, pensant en conscience rendre un culte à Dieu. Car dans
leur genre de pratiques, c’est aux anges et non à Dieu qu’ils rendent culte,
observant les sabbats et les néoménies, les azymes et le grand jeûne, le jeûne,
la circoncision et la pureté des aliments – toutes choses que d’ailleurs ils
n’observent pas parfaitement. » (4)
Notes
(1) Aristide d’Athènes, Apologie, 1, 1-2.
(2) Aristide d’Athènes, Apologie, 2, 4.
(3) Aristide d’Athènes, Apologie, 16, 3-4.
(4) Aristide d’Athènes, Apologie, 14, 1-4.
Bibliographie
Aristide d’Athènes, Apologie (trad. fr. B.
Pouderon, M.-J. Pierre, B. Outtier & M. Guiorgadzé), Paris, Le Cerf, 2003.
A propos David Vincent
Né en 1993, David Vincent est chrétien évangélique et
doctorant en sciences religieuses à l’École Pratique des Hautes Etudes (#GSRL).
Ses recherches portent sur l’histoire de la théologie chrétienne et de
l’exégèse biblique, les rapports entre théologie et savoirs profanes, et
l’historiographie confessionnelle. Il est membre de l’association
Science&Foi et partage ses travaux sur son blog et sa chaîne Youtube.
SOURCE : http://didascale.com/lapologie-daristide-dathenes/
Also known as
Aristides of Athens
Aristide Marciano
Profile
Early Christian writer and philosopher. Taught philosophy in Athens, Greece.
Presented an explanation of Christianity to
Emperor Hadrian in 133,
a work inspired by the persecution of Christians,
and which led to an imperial decree that paused the imperial anti–Christian policy. Wrote an
account of the Passion of Saint Dionysius
the Areopagite.
Additional Information
Book
of Saints, by the Monks of
Ramsgate
Lives
of Illustrious Men, by Saint Jerome
books
Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints
sitios en español
Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición
sites en français
fonti in italiano
MLA Citation
“Saint Aristides the Philosopher“. CatholicSaints.Info.
11 December 2019. Web. 31 August 2021.
<https://catholicsaints.info/saint-aristides-the-philosopher/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-aristides-the-philosopher/
Aristides
A Christian apologist living
at Athens in
the second century. According to Eusebius, the Emperor Hadrian, during
his stay in Greece (123-127), caused himself to be initiated into the
Eleusinian Mysteries. A persecution of the
local Christians followed,
due probably, to an outburst of pagan zeal, aroused by the
Emperor's act. Two apologies for Christianity were
composed on the occasion, that of Quadratus and that
of Aristides which the author presented to Hadrian, at Athens, in 126 (Eusebius, Church History IV.3.3,
and Chron. II, 166). St.
Jerome, in his work Illustrious Men 20,
calls him philosophus eloquentissimus, and, in his letter to Magnus (no.
LXX), says of the "Apologeticum" that it was contextum
philosophorum sententiis, and was later imitated by St. Justin Martyr. He
says, further (De vir ill., loc. cit.), that the "Apology" was extant
in his time, and highly thought of. Eusebius (loc.
cit.), in the fourth century, states that it had a wide circulation among Christians. It is
referred to, in the ninth century, by Ado, Archbishop of
Vienne, and Usuard, monk of
St. Germain. It was then lost sight of for a thousand years, until in 1878, the
Mechitarite monks of
San Lazzaro, at Venice,
published a Latin translation of an Armenian fragment
of the "Apology" and an Armenian homily, under the title:
"S. Aristidis philosophi Atheniensis sermones duo." In 1889,
Professor J. R. Harris of Cambridge discovered a Syriac version of the whole
"Apology" in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and
translated it into English (Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1891, I, i).
Professor J. A. Robinson found that the "Apology" is contained in
the "Life of
Barlaam and Josaphat", ascribed to St. John Damascene.
Attempts have also been made to restore the actual words of Aristides.
As to the date and occasion of the "Apology"
there are opinion of opinion. While some critics hold, with Eusebius, that it was
presented to Hadrian,
others maintain that it was written during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).
The aim of the "Apology" is to show that Christians only
have the true conception
of God. Having
affirmed that God is
"the selfsame being who first established and now controls the
universe", Aristides points out the errors of the
Chaldeans, Greeks, Egyptians,
and Jews concerning
the Deity, gives a brief summary of Christian belief, and emphasizes
the righteousness of Christian life
in contrast with the corrupt practices of paganism. The tone
throughout is elevated and calm, and the reasonableness of Christianity is
shown rather by an appeal to facts than by subtle argumentation. It is
interesting to note that during the Middle Ages the "Life of Barlaam and
Josaphat" had been translated into some twenty languages, English
included, so that what was in reality the story of Buddha became the
vehicle of Christian truth in many
nations.
Pace, Edward. "Aristides." The
Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1907. 31 Aug.
2021 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01712d.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for
New Advent by Tomas Hancil.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March
1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal
Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Copyright © 2020 by Kevin Knight.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Aristides a most eloquent Athenian philosopher, and a
disciple of Christ while yet retaining his philosopher’s garb, presented a work
to Hadrian at the same time that Quadratus presented his. The work contained a
systematic statement of our doctrine, that is, an Apology for the Christians,
which is still extant and is regarded by philologians as a monument to his
genius.
MLA Citation
Saint Jerome.
“Aristides the philosopher”. Lives of Illustrious
Men, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. CatholicSaints.Info. 29
July 2012.
Web. 31 August 2021.
<http://catholicsaints.info/lives-of-illustrious-men-aristides-the-philosopher/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/lives-of-illustrious-men-aristides-the-philosopher/
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.
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.
THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK AND FROM THE SYRIAC VERSION IN PARALLEL COLUMNS BY D. M. KAY, B.Sc., B.D., ASSISTANT TO THE PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
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.
The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891)
pp. 35-51. Translation 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.
SOURCE : https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Aristides
Answer of Aristides to the ambassadors of Mardonius, Vorzeit
und Gegenwart", Augsbourg, 1832
Sant' Aristide Marciano Apologista
Etimologia: Aristide = il migliore (degli
uomini), ottimo, dal greco
Martirologio Romano: Ad Atene, sant’Aristide
filosofo, che, insigne per fede e sapienza, indirizzò all’imperatore Adriano
degli scritti sulla religione cristiana.
L'Apologia di Aristide ebbe una singolare vicenda. Fu
conosciuta da Eusebio e da Gerolamo e fu ricordata da quegli scrittori che
dipesero da tali fonti. Essa non fu citata da nessuno scrittore cristiano
antico. Il Ceillier secondo cui alcuni monaci si vantaváno di avere ancora tale
Apologia nella Biblioteca del monastero di Medelli a dieci miglia da Atene. Nel
1878 i Mechitaristi di Venezia scoprirono un frammento armeno dell'Apologia,
seguiti poi nel ritrovamento dello stesso testo, sempre in armeno, dal Conybeare
e dall'Eemin. Una scoperta più fortunata toccò a J. Rendell Harris che nel 1889
rinvenne nella Biblioteca del monastero di S. Caterina del Sinai un codice
siriaco contenente la traduzione dell'Apologia. In base a questo documento, J.
A. Robinson individuò il testo greco inserito, con adattamenti, nel romanzo
greco di Barlaam e Ioasaph, attribuito a s. Giovanni Damasceno. Infine nel 1922
e nel 1923 furono scoperti dei frammenti greci su papiri, notevoli per la
conoscenza del testo primitivo dell'opera.
L'Apologia è stata divisa in 17 brevi capitoli. Dopo un proemio sulla conoscenza, esistenza, natura ed attributi divini (cap. 1), vi è l'esposizione dell'origine delle quattro principali religioni (cap. 2) che sono trattate nei capitoli seguenti: la religione dei barbari (caldei, secondo il testo greco) capp. 3-7; quella dei greci (ed egiziani), capp. 8-12 (13); quella dei giudei, cap. 14, e quella dei cristiani, capp. 15-17. In realtà, la trattazione è l'esposizione del contrasto che vi è tra la religione dei greci e la religione dei cristiani; e quindi si comprende facilmente l'intonazione morale che viene data all'opera. Interessante è soprattutto l'esposizione della primitiva vita cristiana, che si svolge nell'esercizio dei precetti del Signore, che i fedeli portano scolpiti nei loro cuori. E' messa in evidenza l'assiduità nella preghiera per gli amici e per i nemici, per i vivi e per i defunti; la carità verso tutti, I'opera di assistenza per i viandanti e per i condannati per il nome di Cristo; la cura per la conversione dei pagani; la santità della vita domestica; la purezza dei costumi. Questi argomenti sono trattati con devota mestizia, che non toglie la gioia del cuore nell'attesa della seconda venuta di Cristo, ehe, secondo i meriti, premierà i buoni e punirà i cattivi. Notevoli sono pure due brevi accenni, che possono riferirsi al battesimo ed alla penitenza. Questa è l'unica opera completa che sia pervenuta degli scritti di A. Si conservano brevi frammenti di discorsi, editi dai Mechitaristi. Null'altro si conosce sugli scritti o sulla persona dell'apologeta. La tradizione vuole che egli morisse martire. Di ciò si conserva me moria in vari martirologi. Il Vetus Romarrum e i martirologi di Beda, Usuardo e Baronio, ne celebrano la memoria al 31 ag.; il Vetus Romanum, Adone e Usuardo lo ricordano anche al 3 ottobre.
Autore: Costantino Vona
SOURCE : http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/68400
Apologie
d'Aristide le philosophe : http://samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/PDFs/ApologiedAristide.pdf
Bernard Pouderon, Marie-Joseph Pierre Bernard Outtier, « A propos de
l'Apologie d'Aristide. Recherches sur un prototype commun aux versions syriaque
et arménienne », Revue
des sciences religieuses Année 2000 74-2 pp.
173-193 : https://www.persee.fr/doc/rscir_0035-2217_2000_num_74_2_3529
Prieur Jean-Marc, « Aristide, Apologie. Introduction, textes critiques, traductions et commentaire par Bernard Pouderon et Marie-Joseph Pierre, avec la collaboration de Bernard Outtier et Marina Guiorgadzé, Paris, Cerf, 2003 (Sources chrétiennes 470) », Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses Année 2004 84-3 pp. 340-342 : https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhpr_0035-2403_2004_num_84_3_1090_t6_0340_0000_2
Bernard Pouderon. « La première apologétique chrétienne : définitions, thèmes et visées », Kentron. Revue plurisiciplinaire du monde antique, 24 | 2008, L’imaginaire utopique, de ses sources dans le monde grec à la Renaissance, Varia, p. 227-251 : https://doi.org/10.4000/kentron.1715
