- Manduc, IV, 3 [sic].
[Camus does not offer the name of the specific text he is citing, nor does any text by Manduc appear in his bibliography. The reference seems to be to SimilitudeVI, chap. 3 of Hermas’s Shepherd. See The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Roberts and Donaldson (1870; repr.,
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989), 2:7.—Trans.] - Similit. IV, 4 [sic].
[This reference should actually read: Similitude VI, chs. 4 and 5 of Hermas’s Shepherd, ibid., 37–38.—Trans.] - Tixeront, [Histoire des Dogmes,] ch. III, 6.
- Between 180 and 203 CE.
Christianity clung to its origins, and all the more since the fantasies of Gnosticism were not meant to lead the spirit back toward philosophy.
Clement of Alexandria,67 Greek in culture and in spirit, encountered the most lively resistance in his milieu, and all his efforts were to rehabilitate pagan philosophy, then in disrepute, and to accustom Christian spirits to it. But this is of another order. The Stromateis are of interest in that they reveal, through the author’s resentment, that which was soundly hostile within his environment toward all speculation. Those whom Clement calls the simplicioresare indeed really the first Christians, and we find in them the postulates of apostolic preaching: “The multitude are frightened at the Hellenic philosophy, as children are at masks.”68But the vexation makes itself felt: “Some, who think themselves naturally gifted, do not wish to touch either philosophy or logic, nay more, they do not wish to learn natural science.”69Or again: “But to those who object, What use is there in knowing the causes of the manner of the sun’s motion, for example, and the rest of the heavenly bodies, or in having studied the theorems of geometry or logic, and of each of the other branches of study?—for these are of no service in the discharge of duties, and the Hellenic philosophy is human wisdom, for it is incapable of teaching the truth—[the following remarks are to be made].”70
The opinions of the Christian milieu of Alexandria were perfectly clear. Faith suffices for man, and the rest is literature. Compare instead an assertion by Tertullian, a contemporary of Clement, to a text of the
- De Faye, Clément d’Alexandrie, book II, ch. II.
- Stromates, VII, 80 [sic]: “Le vulgaire a peur de la philosophie grecque comme les enfants ont peur d’un épouvantail.”
[Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 7.10, trans. W. L. Alexander, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Roberts and Donaldson (1870; repr., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989), 2:498.—Trans.] - Stromates, I, 43 [sic]: “Certaines gens qui se croient gens d’esprit estiment qu’on ne doit se mêler ni de philosophie, ni de dialectique, ni même s’appliquer à l’étude de l’univers.”
[Stromateis, 1.9, ibid., 309.—Trans.] - Ibid., VI, 93 [sic]: “Il y a des personnes qui font cette objection. A quoi sert de savoir les causes qui expliquent le mouvement du soleil ou des autres astres ou d’avoir étudié la géométrie, la dialectique ou les autres sciences? Ces choses ne sont d’aucune utilité lorsqu’il s’agit de définir les devoirs. La philosophie grecque n’est qu’un produit de l’intelligence humaine: elle n’enseigne pas la vérité.”
[Stromateis, 6.11, ibid., 501. The phrase in square brackets does not appear in Camus’ French translation. It is necessary to add it in order to accommodate the syntax of the English translation.—Trans.]
latter, which confirm one another exactly. “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? . . . Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel.”71 And Clement writes: “I am not oblivious of what is babbled by some, who in their ignorance are frightened at every noise, and say that we ought to occupy ourselves with what is most necessary, and which contains the faith, and that we should pass over what is beyond and superfluous.”72
But these simple people limited themselves to the sacred Book. Saint Paul had put them on guard against “empty deceit.”73 Without charity, one could hope to be only the resounding bronze or the ringing cymbal. This is why in the fourth century, Rutilius Namatianus defined Christianity as the “sect that makes souls mindless.”74 And with that Clement of Alexandria is only vexed; Celsus is indignant.75 This is certain proof of the vivacity of a tradition that he thus seems to us to have now established.
III. The Difficulties and Causes of Evangelical Christianity’s Evolution
If we take a glance back, we must conclude that primitive Christianity is summarized in a few basic but inveterate themes, around which the
- De Prescriptione Haereticorum, VII: “Qu’y a-t-il de commun, dit Tertullien, entre Athènes et Jérusalem, entre l’Académie et l’Eglise? . . . Tant pis pour ceux qui ont mis au jour un Christianisme stoïcien, platonicien, dialecticien. Pour nous, nous n’avons pas de curiosité après Jésus-Christ, ni de recherche après l’Evangile.”
[Tertullian, On Prescription against Heretics, chap. 7, trans. P. Holmes, in The Ante-
Nicene Fathers ed. Roberts and Donaldson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1870), 15:9.—Trans.] - Stromates, I, 8 [sic]: “Je n’ignore pas ce que ressassent certaines gens ignorants qui s’effrayent du moindre bruit à savoir que l’on doit s’en tenir aux choses essentielles, à celles qui se rapportent à la foi, et que l’on doit négliger celles qui viennent du dehors et qui sont superflues.”
[Stromateis, 1.1, trans. Alexander, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 2:303.—Trans.] 73. To the Colossians 2:8. - De Reditu suo I, 389, in Rougier, Celse, p. 112. “sect qui abêtit les âmes.”*
[The reference should actually read: De Reditu suo,I, toward 398, in Rougier, Celse contre les Chretiens, 53.—Trans.] - Discours vrai, III, 37, trans. Rougier.
communities band together, full of these aspirations and attempting to embody them through their example and their preaching. These are the strong and bitter values that this new civilization implemented. Hence the excitement that accompanies its birth and the inner richness that it gives rise to in man.
But on these bases, an evolution is prepared. Already, from Matthew to John, its line of evolution comes to light. The Kingdom of God gives up its place to eternal life.76 God is spirit, and it is in spirit that one must worship him. Christianity is already universalized. The Trinity, still undefined, is partially expressed nevertheless.77 The point is that Christianity has already encountered the Greek world, and before going through some other forms of its evolution, it must check the causes that constantly push it to deepen itself and to spread its doctrines under the Greek mantle. The break with Judaism and entry into the Mediterranean spirit creates for Christianity some obligations: to satisfy the Greeks already accepted into the new religion, to entice the others to them by displaying a less Jewish Christianity and, in a general way, to speak their language, to express itself in understandable formulas and consequently to insert the uncoordinated enthusiasms of a profound faith into the handy forms of Greek thought. These are the necessities that we must clarify.
A. The Adherents
Since this period, in fact, and throughout the second century, Christianity counts among its adherents the most cultivated Greeks:78 Aristides, whose Apology to Antoninius the Pious is placed between 136 and 161 CE; Miltiades (toward 150 CE); Justin, whose first Apology is situated between 150 and 155 CE, the second between 150 and 160 CE, and whose famous Dialogue with Trypho had been published toward 161 CE; Athenagoras, finally (Supplicatio pro christianos 176–178 CE)—so
- John 3:16, 36, and 4:14.
- 5:19, 26.
[The reference should read: John, 5:19, 26.—Trans.] - Puech, Les Apologistes grecs du IIe siècle. In Tixeront, [Histoire des Dogmes,] 1.
[The full title of Puech’s work is Les Apologistes grecs du IIe siècle de notre ère. Camus does not offer a page reference.—Trans.]
many spirits who came to the new religion gave concrete expression to the union of a speculative tradition and a still-new sensibility in the Mediterranean basin.
From that moment on, it is a matter of them reconciling their spirit, which education had made Greek, and their heart, which Christian love had penetrated. Historically, these Fathers are apologists, because their whole effort is effectively to present Christianity as in harmony with Reason. Faith, according to them, completes the findings of Reason, and thus it is not shameful for a Greek spirit to accept it.
It is therefore on philosophical ground that the two civilizations encountered one another.
Justin in particular comes a long way on this path. He relies on the similarities between Christian doctrine and Greek philosophy: the Gospel continues Plato and the Stoics.79 And Justin sees two reasons for this coincidence. First, he accepted the idea, so widespread at the time,80 that the Greek philosophers had knowledge of the Old Testament books and were inspired by them (a meaningless supposition, but one which had enormous popularity). Second, Justin thinks that the Logos itself appears to us in the person of Jesus, but that he existed before the Incarnation and inspired the philosophy of the Greeks.81 This does not prevent our author from deciding in favor of the moral necessity of Revelation, because of the incomplete character of pagan speculation.
At the same time that the Apologists were drawing closer to the Greeks, they distanced themselves further and further from Judaism. The hostility of the Jews toward the new religion was sufficient ground. But it added a reason of political order, and this was the role the Jews had held in the persecutions by their accusations.82 The entire argument of the Dialogue with Trypho is the demonstration of the agreement between the Prophets and the New Testament, from which Justin
