CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3
The Apologists The apologists are a group of early writers who wrote apologies, or a justification of the faith to those outside the Church. An apology is not to express regret for something, but to give a rationale for it, in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15. Most of the apologists were philosophers who had converted to Christianity and then taught Christianity as a philosophy. Their writings were meant to try to explain Christianity and its value to the very people who persecuted the Church, but because they were writing to non-Christians, they preferred to make their case fromphilosophical arguments rather than from scripture. It is not that they never referred to scripture; rather, they recognized that scripture was not authoritative for their primary audience, so an appeal to scripture would not be convincing.' In addition, there was still no universal consensus about which of the early documents should be included in the Christian Bible. On the other hand, the apologists did quote extensively from the Old
Testament when they were writing for a Jewish audience.
For the sake of clarity, the writings of the apologists can be contrasted with the writings of the theologians, who will be the subject of a later chapter. The audience of the apologists is nonChristians, those outside the Church. Since the apologists are converts from philosophy and still consider themselves philosophers, they believe in the value of philosophy for demonstrating the truth of the Christian faith. This is partly based on an assumed optimism about the capacity for human reason to grasp ultimate truth. In contrast, the theologians will be skeptical of philosophy, believing human reason to be so flawed as only to lead one down the wrong path. For them, philosophy is the root of all heresy. What is needed is revelation, and human reason must be subject to it. Also, the focus of the theologians will shift from an external audience to an
Reading the Early Church Fathers internal audience. The theologians were writing for fellow
Christians, to warn them of the dangers of heresy and to teach correct doctrine. Therefore, they will claim that they do not rely on philosophy, although to a certain extent they still do; rather, they will intentionally support every argument with scripture. The last of the apologists was Clement of Alexandria, and the first of the theologians was Irenaeus of Lyons, so even though they were contemporaries, we will have to wait until later to meet Irenaeus.
The writings of the apologists have much in common with one another, as they used many of the same arguments to try to convince their readers of the validity of the Christian faith. These arguments fall into two types, or themes, based on philosophical categories: Christianity is truth, and Christianity is virtue.
To show that Christianity is truth, the apologists often denigrate Greco-Roman religion by comparison. To the modern sensibility, it doesn't seem like a good idea to try to convince someone of the truth of your religion by telling them that their religion is ridiculous, and yet this is what they did. The apologists write extensively about how the traditional mythologies of Greece and Rome are silly superstition. They argued that the idols the Romans worship could not be real gods for three reasons: (1) The idols were made by humans, while the real God made humans; (2) the idols require sacrifices from humans, while the real God gives to humans what they need;' and (3) the idols made of gold and silver need to be guarded by humans, to prevent them from being stolen, but the real God guards (protects) humans.' The apologists would also point out that if you were to climb Mt. Olympus, you would find it deserted.* Therefore, the gods of Rome are not gods at all, but are either completely fictitious or are mere humans who have been proclaimed to be gods after their death.'
Another tactic the apologists used to show that Christianity is truth was to argue that Christianity was older than Greek philosophy. In a world where the more ancient teaching is often assumed to be the better one, the apologists showed that the Hebrew prophets predate the philosophers, and then demonstrated the continuity between the prophets and the Church.' In fact, they claimed that anything good that the philosophers said was actually plagiarized from the prophets.' Therefore, the apologists reasoned that
The Apologists Christianity is the best philosophy, the most rational, and the logical conclusion of all good philosophy. It is superior to Greek philosophy because it combines the best of both worlds, revelation from God and human reason.
To show that Christianity is virtue, the apologists argued that Christian morality is a higher standard than that of Roman society, and is in fact the best way to achieve the good life. In spite of the rumors, Christians do not practice incest and cannibalism.' In fact, they do not even practice the immoralities that the Romans indulge in. As I have indicated, the Church saw itself as countercultural in its morality, especially since in times of persecution it could not afford to give its neighbors any more reasons to be suspicious of it.
This may have worked against the Church, however, since the claim of superior morality was of course a critique of Roman society, and the refusal to participate in accepted Roman activities (including entertainment) could be seen as antisocial.' For example, the patronclient system was used by wealthy men to entice boys into sexual relationships. In his list of the Ten Commandments, Clement of Alexandria actually has eleven, because he inserted the phrase,
"Thou shalt not seduce boys" into the Decalogue."" We have also already noted how the Church criticized the culture for allowing abortion and child exposure. The apologists went on to argue that even the stories of the gods recount how they committed acts of murder and adultery, so not only do the Christians behave better than the Romans, they even behave better than the gods of the Romans!
Finally, sometimes the apologists felt the need to claim superiority to Judaism as well. In 135 CE, the last of the Jewish rebellions resulted in the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem, which left some Romans believing that Jews were rebellious and violent by nature. The apologists wanted to assure their Roman rulers that the Church was not a threat to the empire. To do that, they made a point to show that Christianity was separate from Judaism.
Unfortunately, in the attempt to distance Christianity from Judaism and show that the Church was not treasonous, some of the apologists laid the foundation for later anti-Semitism. Wanting to make the case that Romans and Christians were on the same
"peace-loving" page, the apologists downplayed the role of the
Reading the Early Church Fathers Romans in Jesus' death and laid all the blame at the feet of his
Jewish enemies.
The point that the apologists wanted to emphasize to the Romans was that Christianity, far from being a danger to the empire, was actually good for it. Christians do not kill, they do not steal, they are faithful to their marriages, and they pray for the empire and its leaders.
"THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES
Aristides was an Athenian philosopher who converted to Christianity. He wrote an apology to be given to the emperor
Hadrian, who was traveling in Greece in 125 or 126 CE." Aristides argues that Christianity is better than the traditional Roman religion because it is historical, while Greco-Roman religion is mythological. He also has an interesting version of an "intelligent design" argument, saying that creation implies a Creator.' According to tradition, he actually received a response from the emperor. A letter from Hadrian is preserved in Eusebtus's Ecclesiastical History; however, the letter may not be authentic."
'THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS
The author of this letter is unknown." It is written to a Roman official named Diognetus, who had apparently asked for more information about the Christian faith. The reply is the standard apologetic fare, including pointing out how ridiculous the mythological gods are, as well as an assurance that the Christians are not like the Jews. Unlike the Jews, who have a different diet from the Romans, the only thing that sets Christians apart from Roman society is better morals. If the need to show the difference between Christians and Jews comes from a context of recent Jewish rebellion, that could place the writing of the document shortly after 135 CE. 'The atonement of Christ is explained as a "sweet exchange," in which he took the punishment of humanity, and humanity in turn received his immortality (Gal 13:13-14).'° The author con-
The Apologists cludes that the truth (and divine origin) of Christianity should be sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that the martyrs are willing to dietorit
JUSTIN MARTYR
Born somewhere between 110 and 114 CE, Justin was a Greek philosopher from Samaria, living in Ephesus. As one might guess, "Martyr" was not his last name; it describes his fate. At a time when philosophers were becoming more and more accepting of various forms of monotheism, he began a personal quest of exploring different philosophical systems to determine which one was the best. He was impressed with the way Christians interpreted
Christ as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy, and with the high moral standards of the Church. His conversion to Christianity, however, came by the testimony of the martyrs."
Some time between 130 and 132 CE, Justin joined the Church and became its greatest advocate since the apostles. Like the other apologists, he understood Christ according to the philosophical concept of the Logos, the Word of God (following John
1:1). He moved to Rome, where he taught Christian philosophy.
The teachers of other systems of philosophy in Rome were envious of his abilities and his success, however, and they conspired against him. He was martyred in 165 CE.
First Apology Justin's First Apology (1 Apology) was written in the 150s CE and addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius.'* Interestingly,
Justin takes an antagonistic attitude with the emperor, saying in effect, You can kill us, but you can't hurt us (cf. Matt 10:28).'' He even threatens the emperor with eternal punishment if he should continue harassing the Church." In contrast, Justin says a good emperor would not persecute the Church, since that's what the Jews did in the early days, so the Romans should not do such a "Jewish" thing as persecute Christians.''
A good emperor would recognize that the Church is good for the empire, and would want af
Reading the Early Church Fathers more people to be like the Christians." A good emperor would recognize the truth in what people are willing to die for, since no one would die for a myth."
Probably the most interesting aspect of Justin's First Apology is toward the end, where he explains to the emperor what Christians do in their meetings." Here, from little more than a century after Christ, we have an order of worship that looks remarkably similar to liturgy today. All the major liturgical elements are there, including the reading of the gospels, a homily, prayers of intercession, the eucharistic prayer, the sacrament of the Eucharist (with the elements taken out to those who could not be there), and an offering, all of which shows that the basic structure of Christian worship has not changed much in almost two thousand years."
Second Apology The Second Apology (2 Apology) was written to Marcus Aurelius, the son of Antoninus Pius and the emperor who would have Justin executed. It is relatively short and even sounds a bit desperate, with its claims that no man should be honored above the truth" and that anyone who persecutes Christians must be possessed by demons."'
Dialogue with Trypho 'Trypho is probably a fictional character invented for the purpose of the Dialogue. He is presented as a sincere but misguided
Jew who meets the philosopher Justin and enters into a debate over the proper interpretation of the Old Testament. The Dialogue is apparently meant as an apology for a Jewish audience, hoping to convince them that Jesus was in fact their Messiah. Most of its readers, however, were probably actually Christians who either hoped to use the contents as ammunition in debate with Jews, or who simply read it for the encouragement of their own faith. It is full of quotations from the Old Testament, as one would expect, and also, as one would expect, the philosopher wins the debate by producing the more convincing arguments. It can be a bit confusing, however, since it actually begins with a narrative about another dialogue that led to the philosopher's own conversion to Christianity.
The Apologists On the Resurrection Though this document no longer exists in its entirety, there is enough available to get the sense of Justin's teaching on the resurrection of the body. Justin is arguing for the Pauline understanding of the future resurrection (1 Cor 15), as opposed to a Greek philosophical view of the afterlife. Against such a view, Justin argues that we are not destined to be disembodied spirits, but that at the resurrection our bodies will be reunited with our spirits."* Salvation, he says, is for the whole human, not the spirit only. Since Jesus was raised and ascended in the flesh, so will we be.
It is clear from the text that Justin had encountered the objection that human bodies will have decayed. Yet he argues from the principle of the conservation of matter that even when decayed all the elements of the body remain, though they may be scattered.
Therefore, like an artist who creates a mosaic from individual tiles, God can put the body back together again, since he is the one who made the body in the first place. While we might not be used to thinking in terms of this much continuity between the present body and the resurrection body, the important concept here is that for Justin the body is part of our humanity, and to be saved into the kingdom without it would be to lose part of our humanity.
THE MARTYRDOM OF FUSTIN
Since this martyr document describes the martyrdom of Justin and others in Rome, it was not written by Justin himself, but was written after his death. Like most of the martyr acts, the confessors' dilemma is presented as a choice between following human laws and following the law of God. When Justin was interrogated, the Roman officer tried to find out where the Christians were meeting, but Justin simply said, We meet wherever we can, since there are too many Christians in Rome to meet all in one place." Justin and his companions refused to make the required sacrifice, and so they were led outside the city walls and beheaded. Some of the Christians were able to take Justin's body and bury it.
Reading the Early Church Fathers "TATIAN Tatian lived from about 110 to 172 CE and was a student of Justin Martyr in Rome. He is often accused of heresy by later writers, though there is not enough of his writings left for us to know with any certainty whether the accusations are true." He did leave
Rome after the death of Justin and seems to have gone back to his hometown in Syria, where he taught an extreme asceticism that advocated celibacy for all Christians.
Address to the Greeks In this apology, Tatian attempted to explain Christ as Logos to a philosophical audience. His explanation is problematic, however, because he imagined that the preincarnate Word of God existed in two phases, the first phase of which made the Logos nothing more than the wisdom of the Father.'' The Logos then went from being the wisdom of the Father to being the Word of the Father, at which point, as he describes it, the Logos became "a work of the Father."
'Tatian used the same language to describe this "work of the Father" that he used to describe creation. In doing so, he made it sound like the Logos was created. For this reason, it can be said that he probably had more influence on future heresy than on future orthodoxy."
Diatessaron 'Tatian is most famous for his Diatessaron, a harmonization of the four gospels, written about 170 CE. Only fragments remain, but we can tell from the fragments that he used the four canonical gospels and based the structure on the chronology of John's
Gospel. Other writers also attempted to write one gospel that collated the information from all four, but the practice didn't catch on, probably because Irenaeus would soon sing the praises of the fourfold canonical gospels.*' The importance of the Diatessaron is in the fact that it demonstrates that only the four canonical gospels were considered authoritative.
The Apologists
MELITO OF SARDIS
Melito was another student of Justin Martyr who became bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor. Like his teacher, he wrote an apology addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius, though only a fragment of it survives." In it, he argued that the empire should not persecute the Church since both empire and Church were "born" at about the same time.
Homily on the Passover Melito is best known for his Homily on the Passover, sometimes known simply as On the Passover. It is actually an Easter homily, preached around 176 CE, which connects the passion of Jesus to the Exodus in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, this is probably the most anti-Semitic of the subapostolic documents. Following the Epistle of Barnabas, Melito believed that the covenant in the Old
Testament was no longer valid. He says that the scriptures and traditions of the Jews now belong to the Church, implying that the Jews no longer deserve them. In his interpretation, the bitter herbs of the Passover represent the bitterness of the Jews who rejected their Messiah, and he claims that Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed because the Jews killed Jesus.
ATHENAGORAS
Athenagoras was an Athenian philosopher who converted to Christianity. His conversion to the faith is said to be the indirect result of the apostle Paul's preaching in Athens (Acts 17),
According to the story, Athenagoras had set out to disprove Christianity. He was especially interested in refuting the Christian understanding of the resurrection of the body, in favor of the philosophical belief in the immortality of disembodied souls. When he read the apostle Paul's letters, however, he was convinced of the truth of Christianity and joined the Church. ail
Reading the Early Church Fathers On the Resurrection of the Dead Athenagoras's attempt to find a way to discredit Christianity had failed, and in the process it had changed him. The result was a treatise that defends the very belief he set out to disprove. It appears to be heavily influenced by Justin Martyr's writing on the same subject.
A Plea for the Christians Sometimes translated as A Supplication for the Christians, this apology was written about 177 CE and addressed to the emperor
Marcus Aurelius and his son (the next emperor) Commodus.
Athenagoras tried to explain the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as similar to the relationship between the emperor and his heir. They rule jointly, and the son carries the father's authority, yet the father is the source of that authority, and in that sense has authority over the son. While the analogy ultimately falls short of adequately describing the Trinity, it was ahead of its time as a way to try to explain both the unity of the Father and Son and the distinction between the persons.
'THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH
Born around 115 CE, Theophilus was bishop of Antioch in Syria from about 168 or 169 CE until his death, though accounts differ as to whether he died in 181 or 188 CE. Antioch was emerging as one of the most influential centers of Christian thought, and Theophilus (as a successor of Ignatius in the same see) contributed to that. Antioch had been the headquarters of the original mission to the Gentiles and was the place where followers of Jesus were first called "Christians." At first it was a derogatory term used by the enemies of the Church to try to insult them, as if to say they were the slaves of an executed man. But Christians liked thinking of Jesus as their master, and so the name stuck. Theophilus refers to this in his writings, saying that the name Christian means more than just a follower of Christ—it means one who is also anointed like Christ.*° "2
The Apologists To Autolycus Theophilus's only remaining work, this document is a compilation of a series of letters written to a pagan friend named
Autolycus. We can date the correspondence to the early 180s CE, since by this time Marcus Aurelius was dead, yet Commodus had not been emperor long enough to escalate persecution. Therefore, we seem to be in a short lull in the persecution, when Theophilus, like Clement of Rome, can say that the emperor rules by God's will.
In trying to convince Autolycus of the truth of Christianity, Theophilus argued that just because the blind cannot see does not mean the sun doesn't shine." He also followed Aristides in arguing for a Creator based on a version of an argument from intelligent design. Since a ship sailing on the sea implies a captain, therefore the universe must also have its pilot, who is God the Creator.*
While the Church has always conceived of God in the divine relationship that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19), the doctrine of the Trinity was only in its infancy at this time. In fact,
Theophilus was the first to attempt to put a name on the Trinity, calling God a "Triad," or Triados in Greek. A generation later,
Tertullian would be the first to use the word Trinity in Latin (Trinitas). Theophilus's theology has its problems, however, since he seems to follow Tatian in dividing the preincarnate existence of the Logos into two phases, based on the analogy of the Word of God with a spoken word. In the first phase, the Word was in the Father (like a thought in the Father's mind), and in the second phase the Word was emitted, or "spoken forth." This is connected to the concept of God creating by speaking, as in Genesis chapter
1. Thus the Logos goes from being in the Father to being with the Father. The problem with this is that even though both phases exist before the creation of the universe, in the first phase the Son of God does not seem to have his own distinct existence, but only exists as the wisdom of the Father. This implies a change in the very being of the Logos (going from internal to external relative to the Father), which would contradict the universally held assumption that divinity is *mmutable—that is, it cannot change (Heb 13:8).
Therefore, Theophilus's way of dividing the preincarnate existence of the Word into two phases did not survive in later theology.
Reading the Early Church Fathers Theophilus should probably not be called a heretic, however, since it would be unfair to hold him to later standards of orthodoxy, but it is likely that his thoughts about the preexistent Logos influenced later heresies, including Arianism (see chapter 8 below)."
One interesting feature of Theophilus is a distinction he made between worship, which is reserved for God alone, and reverence, which can be legitimately directed toward the emperor. In making this distinction, he was attempting to 'clarify why Christians cannot participate in the imperial cult, but he also anticipated the conclusions of a later debate over the proper use of religious icons. Later councils would conclude that it is acceptable to show reverence to icons, but not to worship them.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
With Clement, we come to the last of the apologists. In some ways he is a transitional figure, because he wrote for Christians as well as for non-Christians and he did use scripture to support his arguments. He was a priest but not a bishop, yet we call him Clement
"of Alexandria" to distinguish him from Clement of Rome." Born approximately between 150 and 160 CE, Clement is yet another example of the philosopher who set out to find the best philosophy and ended up a Christian. When he sought out someone who could teach him about Christianity, he found one Pantaenus, who was the leader of the church's catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt.
Clement followed Pantaenus to Alexandria, joined the church there, and eventually succeeded Pantaenus as the head of the school in about 190 CE. As leader of the school in Alexandria, he would be the teacher and predecessor of Origen, whom we will meet later. When persecution came to Alexandria at the beginning of the third century,
Clement left and went to Jerusalem, then Antioch, and eventually Cappadocia in Asia Minor. He died there in about 215 CE.
Exhortation to the Greeks Sometimes known as Exhortation to the Heathen, or by its
Greek name, Protreptikos, this is an apologetic defense of Christianity
The Apologists as a philosophy. Clement says that the philosophers were right to reject the old pagan mythology, but that they were wrong to trade it for atheism. For Clement, superstition is one extreme and atheism is the other. True religion is found in the middle between the extremes.*' He said that Socrates believed in one God, and his disciples would have proclaimed the same if they had not been afraid to share his fate." Clement's explanation of Christian monotheism is in many ways a summary of the Logos Christology of the apologists. While he does not add much to the development of doctrine per se, his Exhortation to the Greeks is an excellent epitome of the state of Christian theology in the age of the apologists.
Finally, in this document, there is an interesting quote of an early Christian hymn. The same hymn (based on Isaiah 52:1-2) is quoted in Ephesians 5:14, though Paul only gives us the first stanza. Clement provides the second verse:*
Verse 1 Awake, Oh sleeper Arise from the dead And Christ will give you light Verse 2 Christ, the sun [sic] of resurrection Who existed before the morning star With his light he gives life The Instructor This is a catechetical manual, often known by its Greek name,
Paidagogos. It must have been written for use in the catechetical school at Alexandria to prepare initiates for baptism. True to the times, catechesis was instruction not in theology but in morality.
Church leaders of the subapostolic age must have assumed the faithful would get their theology in the liturgy after their baptism.
What they needed before joining the Church was to learn how to live as a follower of Jesus. In other words, Christ is our Instructor, and we are his students, though "students" here is meant more in the sense of a young apprentice who learns much more than simply information but, rather, follows the instructor as a disciple, and is formed into a lifestyle. Therefore, catechism had to do with behavior, not belief. It is important to keep in mind that conversion to
Reading the Early Church Fathers Christianity could mean a drastic change from the lifestyle that people were used to, especially for the wealthy.
Clement goes to the extreme, however, and it is difficult to imagine that everything he preached was actually followed. To his credit, he advocates living simply and caring for the poor. But for him, as for Hermas, every luxury is a sin, including gourmet food, imported wine, and colorful clothing. In truth, the very fact that he urges so strongly and goes to such extremes probably tells a story of much more conformity to culture among the Christians than he would like.
We can also see in Clement of Alexandria a very strict approach to sexuality. He strongly promoted the idea that sex, even within marriage, is only for procreation, and here we are already seeing an association of all sexuality with sin.* This will lead to a doctrine of original sin that claimed that human sin and guilt are transmitted through sexual intercourse, and to the belief that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage.** Clement's own student
Origen would demonstrate the unhealthy consequences of his attitudes toward sex, as we will see. But in the second century, the affirmation of apologists like Justin and Athenagoras that the body is part of the whole human, that it is part of God's good creation, and that it will be redeemed along with the soul in the resurrection is at odds with the negative attitudes toward sexuality of writers like
Clement. We can probably blame the extreme hedonism and pedophilia within Roman culture for the fact that the Church would choose to distance itself from society by following Clement's lead.
The Miscellanies As the name suggests, this is not a unified work so much as a collection of thoughts on various subjects, most of which have to do with comparisons of Christianity to the various systems of philosophy and heresies that existed on the fringe of the Church. It is sometimes referred to by its Greek name, Stromateis or Stromata.
The approach is what we might call internal apology, since it was written with an apologetic tone, yet it was intended for a Christian audience. Here Clement famously says that philosophy is to the
The Apologists Greeks what the Old Testament is to the Jews, a "schoolmaster"
(think headmaster, or even truant officer) to bring them to Christ."
Note that older editions of The Instructor and The Miscellanies have some sections that are not translated into English. Nineteenthcentury editors apparently felt that the sections having to do with sexuality were not for the eyes of the layperson, so those sections are only given in Latin. The Fathers of the Church series, however, does have the full English translation.
Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
This is a homily on Jesus' words in Matthew 19:24, "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Clement's interpretation is that spiritual wealth is different from worldly wealth. A person can be poor in the eyes of the world, yet rich in the things of God. In the same way, a person can be rich in the eyes of the world, yet poor in relation to God. In fact, material wealth has the potential to distract one from focusing on God. Yet, it is not the case that no wealthy person can be saved, since if everyone were poor, who would give to the poor? Clement is clearly influenced by Hermas's The Shepherd and its concept of the symbiotic relationship of rich and poor. Therefore, the rich man who will be saved is the one who gives to the poor.